Building our LRT network
Policy in brief
LRT expansion is a major priority for Edmontonians. Council must continue to drive significant development of the full network, but it needs to be paced well and engineered in a way that allows for traffic to continue to flow. By 2017, we will have secured funding and begun construction on the Southeast to West line, bringing LRT to new areas of the city.
What we’ll do in the short term
Begin to plan for a full build-out of the network by 2030, focusing next on the SE line to Mill Woods line. Edmonton should not be paying more than 1/3 of the costs of our network, given how economically important it is for not only us, but the province and federal government as well. When building the line, we must think carefully about where we can put underpasses and overpasses to ensure we do not adversely interrupt the flow of vehicle traffic. Where possible, we should examine development of air rights to help offset the costs of those overpasses and underpasses. To ensure we have sustained funding to build our LRT, we will coordinate our approach to the province with our regional neighbours and Calgary to make the case for sustained LRT infrastructure investment.
Where we need to be a generation from now
LRT network is fully built out and we’ve got a high-speed rail to the airport. It will reduce traffic congestion for drivers, and help catalyze transit-oriented residential and commercial development in the city.
More thoughts from Don
This is an advertisement we’ve been running on the LRT that has received very positive feedback. I think it taps into what Edmontonians aspire to for our city. This isn’t the official City of Edmonton map, there’s some artistic license here.
Edmontonians need convenient and accessible transportation choices to get to work, school, shopping, recreation and service centres. Particularly in the last six years, there has been significant excitement around the growth of our LRT system and the plans we have for it. If elected mayor, steadily expanding Edmonton’s LRT network will be a major transportation focus for me, right alongside getting our roadway infrastructure fixed. Finding a way to steadily build LRT will also be one of the major challenges that face this new council and many that come after it.
Building out the LRT is likely the most transformative thing we can do in this city over the long term. A well-built LRT network moves as many people as an eight-lane road, opens up significant affordable housing choices around the city and provides commuters with reliable routes into downtown and other key economic centres. With a complete LRT network, we can provide our downtown with a major advantage and make it more desirable to for businesses to locate there.
Timeline
I’d like to see Edmonton’s whole LRT network built out by 2030. I see it developing like this: completing the SE line from Mill Woods to Downtown by 2019; by 2021, I’d like to see the line out to West Edmonton Mall finished, and the NW line heading up to Griesbach at 137 Ave and pushing further Northwest into Castle Downs. After that, further extensions south and northeast should finish off the network.
However, LRT build out should not be an “at-all-costs” priority for council. Like any other major infrastructure project the city takes on, pace and caution are key. So is an appropriate funding model. Entire LRT lines are not good candidates for significant debt financing – the city should not hold that much debt for a single project at one time and given the multi-decade nature of the build-out, we’re likely to hit periods where higher interest rates make borrowing for a whole new line cost-prohibitive. Edmonton simply cannot pay for its LRT network without the partnership of the provincial and federal governments.
For instance, building the next leg of our LRT network — the Valley Line between downtown and Mill Woods — will cost around $1.8 billion. City Council has already committed to borrowing up to $800 million. As mayor, I would insist that Edmonton pays no more than 1/3 the cost of our LRT. This isn’t a matter of just not wanting to pay; the economic growth and additional investment Edmonton can attract as a result of higher-density neighbourhoods around LRT, improved viability for business growth in the downtown, and other key areas will benefit the province and the federal government through income-tax revenue and other benefits of economic growth in Edmonton.
Ensuring cars and trains can co-exist
From a practical standpoint, as mayor I’ll make sure that our LRT build-out reflects the valuable lessons of our recent expansion. We know from our South LRT experience that trains moving through intersections on major roadways can significantly disrupt traffic flow. As mayor, I’ll ensure that as we build more LRT that we have a stronger understanding of how traffic will be impacted and where it makes sense to build overpasses or underpasses at those locations (such as 137 Ave/113 Street, or Stony Plain Road/149 Street) to keep all travellers in our city moving. I don’t want to see Edmontonians adding significant time to their daily commute because they’re stuck waiting for peak-hour trains to pass. This is where the local knowledge of each ward councillor will come in handy. Personally, my priority will be pushing to find locations where we can install an underpass and underground station, with sufficient building density right above the underground station to help offset the costs of the underpass construction.
This concept is often called ‘air rights’ in other cities, and it’s high time we explored finding win-wins like this in Edmonton. As mayor, I’ll work to explore this option with adjacent cooperating land-owners to build better Transit Oriented Developments with integrated stations, while ensuring the continued flow of goods and commuters on our roads.
Paying for it
So, how do we pay for this? This isn’t a matter of filling out a grant application. Most of our regional partners are keen to see LRT built for the benefit of their commuters, who access it by bus or with park-and-ride. Meanwhile, Calgary is steadily building out their C-Train network. Together, we will need to develop a solid case around the significant economic benefit of investing in such significant urban infrastructure — we need to show the provincial and federal governments that this is an important priority for Alberta’s big cities. As mayor, I will work from day one, using my existing relationships, to build a coalition within our region and with Calgary to make a stand for a long-term commitment to completing our transit networks.
Delivering LRT is a long, complex process. It has to work with our transportation network rather than complicate it, and it needs a set of solid partnerships and solid buy-in from the region, Calgary, the Legislature, and Ottawa to make it a reality. We can get it done, with a clear mandate from Edmonton electors.
32 thoughts on “Building our LRT network”
Comments are closed.
What is your stance on the PM’s insistence on P3?
Sorry, Don. I just don’t buy this “We’ll make sure the Feds and the Province know LRT is important.” Do they not already know this? I think council has made it clear. And if they haven’t, what have you been doing all this time?
This is a plan that has so many question marks and unrealistic timelines. We just came from the arena deal (which I supported), which stretched our regional resources to the max – with no money from the province or feds, despite telling them how important it was (and the region said that by committing their funding as well). The SE LRT line is on hold because the Feds and the Province haven’t committed funding.
So, what’s your plan if they don’t commit funding or if they take longer to decide if it’s appropriate or feasible? And how does that plan fit in with your timeline of 2030? As June Carter Cash said, Time’s A Wastin’.
I agree, Edmonton should no longer be seen as Calgary’s abandoned little neighbor, we have been selling ourselves short for far too long. We are the capital city of Alberta. We are an amazing world class city, and we need to plan and strive (responsibly and patiently as Don is saying) to build the infrastructure and design to show this and support this. Our downtown should not look like an abandoned cold war era soviet town after 6 pm. Our beautiful river valley should be fully used and shown off during the summer, with things to do there, while ensuring it’s protected. There is far too much red tape, zoning rules ect. which have been terribly stifling this city’s growth and business owners for far too long, and we need someone with a fresh and forward looking perspective to allow our city to grow and flourish as it should. We have to get beyond west Edmonton mall. I think Don balances this forward proper growth perspective with caution and fiscal responsibility.
Don, I’m glad that along with expanding upon the LRT, you recognize that existing intersections still need to exist and function properly. The nightmare that is 111 Street has resulted in many people abandoning this as a viable route through the south side, which has put more pressure on parallel routes (Cgy Trail/Gateway, 99 and 106 St). I am certainly concerned about how the design on the Millwoods route will impact exiting traffic flow. Not everyone is able to use transit on a daily basis, especially how collector routes are planned out. In fact, I would love to be able to use it to get to work, but the limited or non-existent park n’ rides on the south side discourage it. It takes me 20 minutes to drive to work but approximately 50 minutes if I take Transit. There needs to be more incentive (shorter/quicker collector routes for one) so more people will be inclined to use it.
I would like Edmonton to be a rocket ship.
A 500 million loan was taken on to pay for an arena.
SE LRT is 500 million short.
What are your priorities, Don?
Adding grade separations to a dysfunctional LRT system as shown on the map above will do little to improve it. More like throwing good money after bad.
The proposed network shown on the map above has too many stations, excessive track length, constrained right of ways, street level orientation, and slow travel speeds. Together these features are what is characterized as “urban style” LRT. Based on the track records of similar systems elsewhere in North America, this is a recipe for low ridership.
The LRT Network map above makes little sense as a practical and efficient light rail system. Notice the overlapping of the low floor lines everywhere (the sections where two lines share the same set of tracks and catenary). The entire low floor network is shown as being interlined in combinations of 2 lines in the 3 line network. Well-designed rapid transit systems use interlining to increase service frequency and capacity in the parts of the system such as the urban core where ridership is highest. A local example of this is the interlining between Churchill and Health Sciences Stations once the NAIT line is completed. Due to the rather odd 3 line configuration, the map above shows interlining in all parts of the system even at the less busy ends of the lines in suburban locations.
Instead of running in relatively straight lines, the proposed lines take circuitous and confusing routes requiring frequent transfers. An instance of this is the Yellow Line shown on the map above. The Yellow Line starts at Sherwood Park as a west-bound line, turns north at Holyrood, continues through Downtown, crosses the river in the vicinity of 107 Street, turns east-bound down Whyte Avenue, then turns south-bound at Bonnie Doon to the Ellerslie terminus.
Check out the map here for a much superior alternative LRT network design: http://www.rapidtransitforedmonton.org/?page_id=129
I’d like to know how you feel about P3s?
I fully support the push towards LRT expansion and actually would like to see the city adopt something similar to what the Vancouver Regional District has done to secure the funding: an 8 cent surtax on every liter of gasoline sold within the district that is dedicated to LRT expansion. If the surrounding municipalities (St. Albert, Sherwood Park, etc.) want lines out to their regions, then they have to collect the tax as well. That will keep everyone on a level playing field.
I love the City’s low floor urban concept proposal and just rode on a similar line in Bilboa, Spain this spring and in Amsterdam a few years ago. It WILL transform the more mature neighborhoods into having a higher level of mixed density developments that better integrate residential and business use. These neighborhoods will be more beautiful, sustainable and livable than much of what our current planning allows for.
As per John’s comments, speed is the wrong thing to aim for in LRT in the short term. We will need fast suburban lines in the future, but that is not where Edmonton is at yet. In fact, the last thing we need is further incentives for urban sprawl with 93% of our growth already there! Lets focus on the urban / mature core, secure the resources, and build it right. Thanks for putting your name forward Don! You have my vote without hesitation.
I live in Millwoods and work in the West End. It’s not likely that I will ever, ever trade my 20 minute one-way commute on the Whitemud in my own vehicle for a circuitous and dysfunctional multi-stop route through downtown which, depending on what map a person is looking at, may or may not require a transfer between trains and will take an hour or more one-way, based on an estimated travel time of 40 minutes between Millwoods and Downtown.
To date I have yet to hear a proposed LRT expansion plan that is going to draw enough ridership numbers to make the project worth the financial cost and the frustration of those affected by first the construction and then the operation of such routes. I don’t believe provincial or federal governments have bought in to the benefits of LRT expansion for Edmonton’s economic growth, especially consider that the taxpayers of Edmonton are still not convinced.
what will you do about the rising cost of transit tickets and bus passes, aside from trying to get the province etc. to carry some of the cost for the lrt?
Hi Don I have read got thoughts on housing and it seems like a good plan, but as my previous top pick for mayor I am disappointed with your dedication to the LRT. I believe that the LRT is a necessity and should be pushed forward. This will get people moving that have to vehicle. Today to get to my job, by car it takes 7min. The same ride by bus takes 1h and a half to 2 and a half hours. And I live in the city and work in the city.
While I am in favour of expanding the LRT as I believe the dependence on vehicles is a major contribution to all the problems of the city, I am concerned at the increasing prices of LRT use and the decreasing services. Its understandable that any major system such as the LRT will have its difficulties, but the lack of communication to the public remains a huge difficulty. In a day of social media, why do commuters still have to find out at the last moment on their way to or from work that trains are not running or are not stopping at specific stations or that there will definitely be a delay getting to their destination? I don’t really want to pay MORE for being herded around like cattle. Those of us who USE the services to save on the amount of pollution should be treated like valued clients.
Your expansion ideas are wonderful but I’m paying enough right now.
I would like to know if you have taken a look at the proposal for the west leg of the LRT. Do you not realize that this plan includes already overtaxed roads that are not equipped for the LRT such as Stony Plain Road and 156 Street? It also runs extremely close to residential areas and businesses, unlike the current south LRT. How can you possibly push for this? When public consultation was done on this the opinion of those affected was ignored. If the constituents in these areas disagree with it, how will you handle it? Will you expect the transportation department to finally do their job, like they should have in the first place, and come up with a more logical plan? I don’t doubt that this is some of the reason the provincial and federal governments are not on board with helping fund this.
Calgary has a much more functional and non-intrusive system. Maybe we should have their experts come down here and show our departments how to do it!!
Crossing the LRT on 111 for either left turns or crossing is a guessing game. The lights linked to LRT may allow a crossing or not. May allow left turns or cross traffic or simply reset. 4 or possibly 5 vehicles can cross at Whitemud during rush hour on a dry pavement day. Now 40th has been reduced permanently to 1 lane. How can I get to work or trust an ambulance will get a timely crossing with the current “control” pattern. How can a better balance for driving Taxpayers be worked out…. The LRT does not go where I work.
What are your thoughts on the proposed route of the SE LRT line through the Muttart grounds and across an environmentally sensitive river bank area? Are you supportive of this route along with the multi year removal of the only pedestrian bridge for these neighborhoods?
As important as the LRT is, what about buses? Am I crazy or is there nothing here on buses? I’m so sick of them not running on weekends, running every hour, or they stop running at 6:00pm or some crazy early time. The transit in this city is embarrassing and is a big concern of mine in this election.
I really like all of your other policies Don but this is important to myself and a lot of other people I know…
Whats the point in expanding the LRT when it is too expensive to travel on them?
The only LRT that makes immediate sense is from downtown West (to West Edmonton Mall), aka The Valley Line.
@ Don & Christine: So far our P3 experience has been challenging. For instance, accessing the P3 fund limits further funding from the Federal Government to a maximum of 25%. If other funding comes together and we do not need the P3 grants, that would be preferable, but I am open to exploring a P3 model as a last resort. I was open to using a P3 model for leasing the Light Rail Vehicles (LRVs) that would include contractor maintenance for LRVs; that sort of risk transfer makes sense, and Council submitted the first application for P3 funds on that basis. The Federal government, after having told us that that would be sufficient to access the P3 fund, then told us we needed to also contract out the running of the LRVs on the tracks, in the city’s right of way, connected with our traffic network and signal system. I do have concerns about that change.
@ Everyone who asked about how we fund transit:
You’re right, there are questions about funding, but I am optimistic about the opportunities that exist. I’ve been working with our regional partners on a 30-year vision for transit in our region – something that was supported unanimously, and endorses the LRT as its backbone fed by regional park and rides (e.g. near the Henday) and by bus service like that which exists today from Ft. Sask and Leduc/Leduc County. Plus, St. Albert wants it eventually and is planning for it now. They also chipped in on the planning work for our NW LRT route study.
In addition to local partners, we need to engage the federal and provincial governments — and precedent exists on funding for rapid transit. Together, we can build an efficient transit system for our city.
@John K: I disagree. The City identified these options after an extensive review. The advantage of the urban style, low-floor LRT is that you begin to develop corridors of density, where the density is spread more evenly along the LRT, rather than in isolated nodes.
The tradeoff is that travel long distances on the LRT takes a bit longer, but if our end goal is to build the core, not encourage more suburbs, then urban style is the way to go.
If Edmontonians want to be among our countries forward thinking Cities the many issues surrounding our transit system must be addressed. When I see the hoard of BY LAW officers board the LRT I cringe and it’s not because I don’t have my pass . I cringe because I mentally add up the expenses compared to the return . I don’t often use the train as I work on the west end and live on the east, ironically in condos right beside the Clareview station ! I would love to be able to give up my car and daily commute in favor of a fast train ride . It puzzles me every time I have used the train that a group of 3 to 6 By Law Officers charge on to the LRT demanding passes and if “they” are lucky will catch 1- 3 people riding “free.” Well done Edmonton , if the “law breakers” couldn’t pay the $2.75 ticket how will they pay for the fine ? This also opens up a host of other issues I have regarding our transit system. It needs to be keep ultra affordable so that those with less means can afford it and get to school or work or wherever they need to go without threat of fines and hopefully by going to their work and going to their schools will one day achieve more wealth and will contriubute to the cities coffers by way of other taxes ….. TRANSIT needs to be efficient , SMART and affordable. I urge council and anyone interested to look at BANGKOK’s SKY or SUBWAY train system. I have used both while travelling and that city has got TRANSIT dialed in ! They have officers too …. 1 to two stationed stratigically every so many kilometers away along the dedicated sky walk pass , or in the underground tunnels but the riders purchase smart pass “tokens” that work like a key fob. If you haven’t paid the fee the door is not opening – simple. No one rides for free and it also costs about $1.25 . I am passionate about seeing transit improve in this city .I am sure I will be stuck driving my car East to WEST for the rest of employable time in my life but I sure as heck would like to go the art festival at Churchill without being acosted by 6 wanna be cops who surely if they used common sense would find a real crime to stop , rather than kick some single Mom off the train taking her kid to day care or a student who barely can afford going to school.
Dear Mayor of Edmonton,
In order to reduce cost for the Southeast LRT but get it built at the same time, wouldn’t it make sense to construct stations at existing transit nodes first but leave space available after construction to build stations that some may feel that there isn’t much potential for ridership? What I’m trying to say that when first building the SE LRT line, we should build stations at the current spacing of the existing NE-S LRT at places like Millwoods Transit, Wagner, Bonnie Doon, Stratearn, and Muttart but leave space for other neighborhood stations like Holyrood or Grey Nuns to be built? That way we can reduce the initial cost of the LRT, see where ridership demand is needed and build the stations that we left space for if needed, and at the same time get financial return on our investment once it is built? To me this seems like a great idea to improve the constructability and fiscal responsibility we put into our LRT Network
I’m sorry but I think the expansion of the LRT line through Strathearn, Bonnie Doon and Holyrood is absolutely ridiculous. I understand that Connors Rd is a major vein into downtown for people, but I have lived in all three of these areas for upwards of 15 years, and I know many people in these neighbourhoods who have been here longer than I. Do you really think that the people on 95Ave will be pleased having an LRT and LRT station right in front of their house? This has been a safe family neighbourhood for many many years, you bring that LRT through here and this neighbourhood will no longer have the same value or safe streets it used to. You’ll be putting everyone who lives near that LRT track at risk of much more crime than there needs to be. And what about the Assisted Living building just off 95ave? I swear there’s an ambulance going there every other day (as unfortunate as it is), is it really a smart idea having an ambulance wait at that intersection for the LRT to pass so it may finally approach the building. This city is already so ridiculous with unnecessary constant road construction, constant (and current) LRT construction/maintenance, don’t you think you should fix the current issues in this city before creating more?!
Edmonton’s South LRT line could have been designed and built a lot more efficiently and for a lot less money.
And I am going to prove it right here:
Since the LRT’s opening of the South Extension, traffic congestion has plagued the University/Belgravia area. The flaw was placing the LRT tracks on the west side of the 114 Street corridor. By placing it on the west side, the LRT essentially choked off access to the Belgravia neighbourhood by causing ridiculous traffic congestion on University Ave and 76 Ave and 114 Street. The fact that these main arteries and collector road do not freely move prevents residents from leaving or entering the neighbourhood. It also blocks the fire trucks from the “76 Ave/113Street Fire Department” from getting onto 114 Street and it also blocks ambulances and police from using these routes to get to neighbourhoods and other main artery roads like Fox Drive. This is people’s lives at stake due to bad design.
If the corridor had been designed with the LRT on the east side of 114 Street, then the LRT could have crossed 114 Street from west side to east side at grade just south of Health Sciences Station (or north of 82 Ave).
If the corridor had been designed with the LRT on the east side of 114 Street, then NB to WB left turns and EB to SB right turns at University Ave/114 Street intersection would not have been affected at all. Those two turning movements are the highest at the intersection. (Note: Most people making these turns are primarily going from Belgravia Road to Groat Road, so using University Ave is the only viable option. The LRT route serves people going to the University and downtown, so it can never act as an alternative option for people to get out of their cars who have to cross the river and drive up Groat Road.) The simple act of switching which side of the corridor the LRT was to go on would not have cost any more money and would have saved commute times, resulted in less greenhouse gases from idling cars, resulted in less traffic noise, and would have prevented blocked access.
The underpass under Belgravia Road is great, but had the LRT been on the east side of 114 Street, the underpass could have went under the entire intersection on a diagonal at about the same length of cut and cover.
Even better for some more money but could have prevented all the problems above would have been to keep the LRT in a tunnel to where it daylights out just south of Belgravia Road. This would have meant that the Health Sciences Station would have been underground with a direct access to the Hospital/Stollery. The McKernan station would also have been a cut and cover type or simply not needed due to its low use.
Onto the 111 Street Corridor: (Here is where my ideas would have saved $$millions$$ of tax money):
Again, running the LRT down the middle of the roadway was a huge disaster. The designers traffic analysis software would have shown that. The models must have either been grossly inadequate, were fudged and were ultimately ignored. Running it down the middle affects every single left turn in all directions. Left turns on roads are always the bottleneck factors that are hard to manage because you have to store the vehicles in left turn lanes. The LRT should have been constructed on the east side of 111 Street all the way from 62 Ave to 23 Ave. This would have prevented problems with timings for 2 of the conflicting left turn movements such as NB to WB and EB to NB left turns as they would not have to cross the tracks. Also, 111 Street itself would not have been so wide and therefore all the intersections would be narrower and quicker to cross for both vehicles and pedestrians. The millions of dollars in tax savings would have come from the fact that the elevated pedestrian bridges, stairways, escalators and elevators would not have been needed if the trains were on the same side of the road as the ETS bus terminals at both Southgate Station and Century Place Station. A simple platform like the one at Health Sciences could have been built for much less money and much less local impact. The escalators and elevators are mechanical systems and always need repair and maintenance so those costs will never end.
How much simpler it could have been to simply exit the train and walk over to a waiting bus or taxi or just get into the mall. Instead, the way it is built now, you exit the train, then have to go up the stairs/escalators/elevator, then cross a massive bridge, and then go all the way back down to get to the bus/taxi/mall etc.
The City keeps talking about integrating LRT into neighbourhoods and surrounding businesses, but then spends millions$$ on unnecessary infrastructure. That money could have been used to build a much better underground University Health Sciences Station and even tunnelled the section from the University to Belgravia Road.
If this is the record that we have for Edmonton’s LRT expansion, then what kind of garbage designs and construction do we face in the future? Why can’t we design and build LRT like Calgary? Everyone in Edmonton wants to see faster high quality LRT that also has park and rides and also works with our roads! LRT has to be fast. LRT has to complement the City’s transportation system and not impede or be counter-productive with the roadway network. There is no incentive to take a train if it goes slow because there are too many stops and 90 degree bends to slow down for.
People are also sick and tired of special interest groups like, neighbourhood NIMBY groups; groups that want a station every 4 blocks; and certain politicians with their own personal agendas or visions’ when politicians are not even qualified to make decisions on specific mass transit issues. Mass transit should be left up to the Transportation Department and civil engineers who actually know how to move the most people with the best design. There are too many people telling the transportation experts what to do. You don’t see politicians and individual laymen citizens telling a physician how to do a life saving surgery on a patient do you? No. That’s because they are not qualified or know better than the physician. The same goes with engineering. Politicians and the public do not know how to design transportation networks, hence the reason engineers are hired to do the job. But engineers are always hampered by the special interest groups, NIMBY’s and political pressure. It’s time to let the engineers do the job of engineering for which they do best without tying their hands behind their backs.
I bring this up because the 87 Avenue corridor remained the recommended option for West LRT until 2008. (http://www.rapidtransitforedmonton.org/?p=322) That alignment ran the West LRT down 87 Ave, then entered a tunnel just west of 149 Street and would daylight out at the river bank, cross the river than enter another tunnel portal on the east side of the river. The LRT would have then been in a tunnel underneath University Ave and connect with the South LRT extension at Health Sciences Station.
The reason this route was the number one recommended option based on the original engineering study was because it is the straightest and most direct route which is important for any train network. It also meant that if you want to go from south Edmonton to west Edmonton, that you don’t have to go to downtown first which would be pointless, which would actually take cars off the Whitemud Drive/Quesnell Bridge! The engineering study also showed it would be overall less time to get to the university and downtown; most importantly it showed the “highest ridership numbers of all routes” which is what mass transit is all about. It also means less property acquisition; limited traffic disruption; limited utility disruption; 5.5km less track length than Stony Plain Road route meaning less cost to build and service.
This great west-east route got shot down by local NIMBY’s and former mayor Mandel who personally wanted it to run down Stony Plain Road. Meanwhile many people who live along or near Stony Plain Road were in high objection. People along Stony Plain Road are opposed because of traffic disruption; utility disruption; noise; access closures; property acquisitions and property values. The Stony Plain Road option also means that extra lanes will have to be added to 107 Avenue which is a hidden part of the problem of the Stony Plain Road route. To compensate for the 2 lanes taken from Stony Plain Road, 2 lanes are to be added to 107 Avenue to make it a 6-lane arterial road. This shifts the traffic and property acquisition burdens farther north into those neighbourhoods. It is not a simple LRT anymore. It has now become a massive roadway network engineering project on top of the cost of the LRT. The 87 Ave to University Ave LRT route did not have those extra problems.
Folks it is not too late to tell the City “NO” to the Stony Plain Road route. No track has been laid yet. Only preliminary concept plans have been done for the west end. The City made too many devastating mistakes on the South LRT Extension. Don’t let them make even worse mistakes regarding the West LRT.
Don I love your vision for LRT in Edmonton. As I understand the city currently subsidizes both bus and LRT trips but LRT is subsidized less than that of a bus trip?
I believe Edmonton should push to build these ASAP even with borrowed funds or a P3 partnership. In my mind doing so will benefit the city in many ways, namely: We can realize savings through replacing bus routes with LRT, we can create a fully functional LRT system in Edmonton where it is possible to reach all ends of the city efficiently (rivalling vehicle traffic in rush hour even) and we can start to receive repayment for the construction of these lines right away and avoid costly increases in project cost due to inflation.
I also believe that once an effective LRT system is built there is an opportunity for a cultural shift in Edmonton to occur, where people who currently might not consider taking public transit would once they see that it is an effective mode of transport in our city. This is one aspect city planners do not account for in my mind, as future ridership is based of census and survey data of those in neighbourhoods where LRT is being considered. It is highly likely that if the network were fully built the amount of responses indicating that people would use public transit would be significantly higher.
And last but not least we have the opportunity to be a model north american city that has managed to break the public transit stigma as our citizens embrace it’s benefits. We have a great example of LRT in our neighbour to the south Calgary and I think the master plan put forward by the city is capable of surpassing even their network in terms of ridership potential.
My question and challenge to you mr. mayor is what is holding us back currently from pushing ahead with this now (even with borrowed funds/P3)? Would not the increased ridership and decreased public transit subsidization along with savings from avoiding future inflation make a strong economic case for the lines to be pushed forward ASAP?
Thanks, Stephen!
You are correct – as a general rule LRT recovers about 60% of its operating cost at the farebox, while bus is closer to 40%. There are many other transformative economic and social benefits that come with LRT, some of which can be monetized (like savings on buses replaced by trains, and some deferred or avoided road widenings). However, those would not necessarily be sufficient to pay back the debt on building out the whole system. Like the freeways we would need otherwise, transit is built as a public good, which requires public investment. At this point we have fully tapped the Province’s available Green Trip fund with the SE LRT funding commitments they’ve made, and we’ve accessed as much as we think we can from the Federal P3 and Building Canada funds, plus committed to borrow $800 million. We are moving closer to our municipal credit limit, and though we still have some distance from it (and though there is public support to borrow for LRT) our borrowing capacity is limited – which is one constraint. The more significant constraint is that we need a line of sight to future provincial and federal grants to be able to move into the next phases of building out the LRT system. One other constraint is industry capacity, i.e. what level of spending the construction industry can accommodate without triggering construction cost inflation.
So that’s the lay of the land. Please let your MLA and MP know how important having all three orders of government committed to *predictable, sustained, substantial* investment in mass transit in our large cities. We’re ready to partner.
Great comments, Eli!
No response from Mayor Iveson. How can we still stop the Stony Plain Road LRT route? do we contact the city? Mayor Iveson’s office? Ward 6 Councillor McKeen?
Besides, the city did not listen to Glenora & Westmount objections, and Mayor Mandel did what he wanted. I thought 107 Ave. was a shoe-in and was shocked by the final announcement.
What is the current time line for shovels in the ground on Stony Plain Road?
There was a comment by Mayor Iveson that he wanted the route to WEM done by 2021. That does not seem at all possible and now funding is drying up with oil prices in the tank (pun intended). Heck, the city can’t even get the NAIT line into production and it’s already 2015.
How can existing plans be protested AND can we as local citizens, in reality, still get LRT future route changes to be made by the City of Edmonton?