Edmonton Public Transit

[westendjack]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

They built a street car in addition to the Link? The system looks really low scale for their new LRT.

Commonly referred to as, I kid you not, the S.L.U.T. (complete with t-shirts). Popular local slogan: "I rode the S.L.U.T."

Stands for South Lake Union Trolley and there's some debate as to whether that was ever an official name during planning, but now its known as the South Lake Union Streetcar officially.

Wikipedia's Entry

[Shodan]

Council makes capital move on $1.8B southeast LRT project

Sarah O'Donnell
Edmonton Journal

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

The push to build the southeast LRT line received a nudge forward Tuesday as a council committee wrestled with the $1.8-billion question surrounding the project: How to foot the bill for the 13-kilometre route?

To officially launch that quest for money, council's transportation and infrastructure committee asked staff to create a "capital pro-file" for the line. If approved, that document detailing the project would make the south-eastern line an official part of the city's capital plan, said chief financial officer Lorna Rosen. It would also describe potential methods of paying for the route...

[email protected]
© Edmonton Journal 2012

Copyright © 2012 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.
CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.

http://www2.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=5e861496-bb68-49c9-9f66-c4b8044922bf&sponsor=

[Coldrsx]

Very very good news. We need to continue our LRT expansion immediately following NLRT.

[MalcolmTucker]

To proceed further, however, the provincial and federal governments need to pick up about $1 billion of the costs, councillors said Tuesday. That would leave the city to find $800 million through methods such as borrowing, tax in-creases or other funding already provided by the province and federal government.

Important in this statement is that the federal government counts all federal money as part of the federal contribution, it cannot be counted as part of the city contribution. Also, to use P3 Canada money, Government of Canada funding cannot total more than 25% of the project cost (both capital payments and P3 ongoing payments).

[rapid_business]

/\ SO on $1.8 Bil, the max fed contribution, including that from P3 funding, would be $400M.

[MalcolmTucker]

No. From grants, $600 million stretched over a very long time. From P3 Canada / grants, $450 million, but the program has been over subscribed, so I doubt a big chunk would go to one project such as this.

[Jasper and one o nin]

I still think 1.8 Billion is way too much. The rule of thumb is $100 million per km for traditional light rail transit (like our existing LRT). This style of LRT is meant to be considerably cheaper because it uses existing road ROWs and basic platforms as opposed to full stations. Now the $100 is based on an average of varying conditions, including bridges, underpasses, property aquisitions. For example, LRT construction within the Airport Lands would be much less. But even to use the $100/km - that would only come to 1.3 Billion.

[Coldrsx]

^but if I recall, do we not design to a different standard than many cities ie. longer anticipated lifespan/maintenance cycle? I recall that being one of the reasons the SLRT was quite costly no?

[SHOFEAR]

Plus I believe the city included the cost of trains and adjacent street upgrades in the total price.

[MalcolmTucker]

The project cost is high because the operation and maintenance centre has to be built out in the first phase - lots of the expansion during later phases won't be as expensive, since you only need so many pits and gantries for heavy maintenance until your fleet gets really big, but you always need one.

If you take out the o&m centre, and property acquisition, I'd bet you get to the $100m/km mark.

[rapid_business]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

No. From grants, $600 million stretched over a very long time.

Right. Where did my math come from?

[oiler-dude]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

The project cost is high because the operation and maintenance centre has to be built out in the first phase - lots of the expansion during later phases won't be as expensive, since you only need so many pits and gantries for heavy maintenance until your fleet gets really big, but you always need one.

If you take out the o&m centre, and property acquisition, I'd bet you get to the $100m/km mark.

Plus this portion of the line has all three of: tunneling, a brand new river crossing and an elevated section, not to mention I believe 2 transit centre relocations. Adds up quick.

[Coldrsx]

Hello,
Thank you for your continued involvement in the Southeast to West LRT Preliminary Design project. With Council approval of the Downtown LRT Concept Plan on February 15, 2012, preliminary design and public engagement on the entire alignment can now begin. Through our Stage 1 activities, which engaged key stakeholders to confirm our public engagement approach and where information gaps may be, we are ready to begin Stage 2 of our process with interested members of the public via Community Conversations. Summaries of what we learned in Stage 1 will be available on the project website in the coming weeks.

All members of the public are invited to join a Community Conversation about Preliminary Design for the Southeast to West (SE to W) LRT line. The public involvement process for the Preliminary Design phase will involve a wide range of stakeholders and interested members of the public. Based on the diverse, unique needs across the study area, the Public Involvement team has created 6 consultation areas. Click here to find out which consultation area you fit into. The team will conduct a variety of activities in 5 consultation stages over the next 2 years, detailed in the attached PIP Highlights document.

Meeting Schedule

All meetings will be from 6 to 9pm, with presentation beginning at 6:30pm. The meetings will include information sharing stations as well as table discussions about how the SE to W LRT will integrate with your communities.

Area 3 – Argyll Road to Strathearn
Tuesday, March 20, 2012

St. James School, 7814 - 83 Street
Area 1 – Mill Woods Town Centre to Whitemud Drive
Thursday, March 22, 2012

South Edmonton Alliance Church, 6508 - 31 Avenue
Area 2 – Whitemud Drive to Argyll Road
Tuesday, April 3, 2012

Wagner School Cafeteria, 6310 Wagner Road
Area 4 – Strathearn to City Centre West
Wednesday, April 11, 2012

Old Timers Cabin, 9430 - 99 Street
Area 5 – City Centre West to 149 Street
Tuesday, April 24, 2012

St. Vincent School, 10530 - 138 Street
Area 6 –149 Street to Lewis Farms Transit Centre
Thursday, April 26, 2012

Annunciation School, 9325 - 165 Street

I encourage you to share this information with your communities, and look forward to seeing you at these events if you wish to attend. We'll be sending this information to our database of interested members of the public in the coming days.

Please be in touch anytime throughout the course of the project.

Sincerely,

Elicia Elliott, BA
Public Involvement Advisor, SE to W LRT
d: 780.496.1093
e: [email protected]
www.edmonton.ca/LRTprojects

[Jasper and one o nin]

I would be all for a $0.01 to $0.03 gas tax to pay for LRT. But I think the way to structure it is that all gas stations in the Capital Region contribute. LRT Plans developed have to be approved by the CRB, and include extensions to satellite communities. Which opens up another debate - I am not a fan of low-floor - b/c IMO it is an expensive bus system. Low floor cannot be integrated as part of a regional system. Low-floor LRT is not "rapid" transit. Having conventional LRT can be expanded to be built upon to eventually link places like the airport, St. Albert, and Sherwood Park. I would rather see funding go to conventional rather than low-floor. Millwoods can be linked into the existing SLRT. The West End can link into the Health Sciences - and upgrades will be needed to the existing system. Fewer stops, more park and ride, and TOD planning.
My opinion.
But a gas tax would probably provide about 20 million dollars a year - an incremental property tax increase would add another 6 million cumulative for each increment (in 5 years becomes 30 million/yr)- can allow continuous and incremental LRT construction on the NW line/Sherwood Park line, and West end lines

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Jasper and one o nin

I would be all for a $0.01 to $0.03 gas tax to pay for LRT. But I think the way to structure it is that all gas stations in the Capital Region contribute. LRT Plans developed have to be approved by the CRB, and include extensions to satellite communities. Which opens up another debate - I am not a fan of low-floor - b/c IMO it is an expensive bus system. Low floor cannot be integrated as part of a regional system. Low-floor LRT is not "rapid" transit. Having conventional LRT can be expanded to be built upon to eventually link places like the airport, St. Albert, and Sherwood Park. I would rather see funding go to conventional rather than low-floor. Millwoods can be linked into the existing SLRT. The West End can link into the Health Sciences - and upgrades will be needed to the existing system. Fewer stops, more park and ride, and TOD planning.
My opinion.
But a gas tax would probably provide about 20 million dollars a year - an incremental property tax increase would add another 6 million cumulative for each increment (in 5 years becomes 30 million/yr)- can allow continuous and incremental LRT construction on the NW line/Sherwood Park line, and West end lines

5 cent gas tax transfer from the province raises ~$100 million a year for the city of Edmonton currently. So $20 million a cent is a safe bet.

As for linking Millwoods to the SLRT, there isn't enough capacity due to design constraints - same reason Calgary is planning their SE LRT instead of the originally planned spur.

[ue]

Originally Posted by Jasper and one o nin

I would be all for a $0.01 to $0.03 gas tax to pay for LRT. But I think the way to structure it is that all gas stations in the Capital Region contribute. LRT Plans developed have to be approved by the CRB, and include extensions to satellite communities. Which opens up another debate - I am not a fan of low-floor - b/c IMO it is an expensive bus system. Low floor cannot be integrated as part of a regional system. Low-floor LRT is not "rapid" transit. Having conventional LRT can be expanded to be built upon to eventually link places like the airport, St. Albert, and Sherwood Park. I would rather see funding go to conventional rather than low-floor. Millwoods can be linked into the existing SLRT. The West End can link into the Health Sciences - and upgrades will be needed to the existing system. Fewer stops, more park and ride, and TOD planning.
My opinion.
But a gas tax would probably provide about 20 million dollars a year - an incremental property tax increase would add another 6 million cumulative for each increment (in 5 years becomes 30 million/yr)- can allow continuous and incremental LRT construction on the NW line/Sherwood Park line, and West end lines

How exactly is low floor LRT not rapid transit and essentially an expensive bus service? Technically, the only thing different from the current high floor system is the platform not being raised. It can have the same distance between stations, reach the same speeds, have its own ROW, etc. Why does this continually have to be explained? If you want glorified bus, that would be a streetcar/tram, which tends to not have its own ROW, though streetcars still have advantages over buses (otherwise there'd be no streetcars).

Don't get me wrong though, I'm not the biggest fan of the current low floor alignment, either. While I have no problem with low floor per se (works well in Portland, Salt Lake City, LA, and Manchester) but we've already built a high floor system. We should keep things consistent. It's not like they couldn't do high floor down Stony Plain Road or in Mill Woods or down 102nd Avenue, just make the station design less gargantuan and more pedestrian friendly. Also, while I'm a firm believer that places like Oliver, Westmount, and Jasper Place need something more than just bus service (especially Oliver), I still would've liked 87 ave alignment (which could've extended down Whyte through Old Strathcona, connect at Bonnie Doon with MWLRT, and head to Refinery Row and S. Park) for now and maybe work something out for Oliver and West Central Edmonton (maybe continue tunnel down Jasper to 121 or 124 St?). Mill Woods alignment I have no issues with.

[mick]

^Well said, the rolling stock technology (i.e., low floor v. high floor), in this case, has nothing to do with the speed or capacity of the system. Check out the specs on Siemens' low and high floor LRT vehicles, and you'll see that the low-floor vehicles have the same (I actually believe greater but can't be bothered to confirm) or greater capacities and top speed. The speed and capacity of the wLRT-seLRT is entirely based upon on alignment, station frequency, and ROW design. Quite frankly, other than the portion from 156st to the Quarters, the alignment and ROW design is extremely similar to that followed for the current high-floor line.

Even on the 156st to Quarters section, the only portions that I see real potential for snags are the intersections at 149st, 142st, and 109st. I think 142 and 149 can probably be mitigated by running the trains on the north side of the intersections (i.e., not interfering with w-s left turns), but 109st, and perhaps the turn onto 107st, may need to be grade separated.

[MalcolmTucker]

you'll see that the low-floor vehicles have the same (I actually believe greater but can't be bothered to confirm) or greater capacities and top speed.

The greater capacity comes from greater length, but the capacity per rolling stock meter is usually smaller (of course, that can be adjusted by using different widths of rolling stock).

If, and it is a big if, there isn't room for expansion due to block lengths in the core from 2 to 3 LRV trains if you use high floor, and you could've avoided that by buying different rolling stock, you've made a big mistake. But that doesn't mean you can't just order shorter low floor LRVs, so that 3 LRVs would more closely match the physical maximum station length.

It is a pretty easy mistake to make however, ordering off the shelf LRV lengths that don't account for long term capacity issues. Last thing you want is frequency needing to be so high that it negates the ability to operate across streets without significantly reducing road capacity, while increasing operating costs.

[rapid_business]

Originally Posted by mick

^Well said, the rolling stock technology (i.e., low floor v. high floor), in this case, has nothing to do with the speed or capacity of the system. Check out the specs on Siemens' low and high floor LRT vehicles, and you'll see that the low-floor vehicles have the same (I actually believe greater but can't be bothered to confirm) or greater capacities and top speed.

You are correct.

The speed and capacity of the wLRT-seLRT is entirely based upon on alignment, station frequency, and ROW design.

Exactly.

[feepa]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

It is a pretty easy mistake to make however, ordering off the shelf LRV lengths that don't account for long term capacity issues. Last thing you want is frequency needing to be so high that it negates the ability to operate across streets without significantly reducing road capacity, while increasing operating costs.

This right here is my biggest fear with the proposed alignment.