PDA

View Full Version : Update on LRT system planning



NINTman
01-01-2009, 04:15 PM
http://www.edmonton.ca/transportation/RoadsTraffic/2008TD9714.pdf

edmontonenthusiast
01-01-2009, 04:18 PM
cool but i still think whyte needs at least a couple stns.

The_Cat
01-01-2009, 04:52 PM
I could understand that rationale for building the LRT south and NE, as they would probably take only two or three years (with minimal utility relocations and property acquisition). Still, I think it's great to see the City come up with a plan for LRT (in all directions).

newfangled
01-01-2009, 04:57 PM
...and the #1 clue that your "Complete LRT Network System" needs some tweaking:


West LRT (Downtown to Lewis Farms)

Nice to see that they are approaching it as a system, and that they've put some timelines to it. But running LRT to any area that can be described as a "farm" shows that they still don't get it.

Edmonton PRT
01-01-2009, 05:27 PM
But running LRT to any area that can be described as a "farm" shows that they still don't get it.

Totally agree. Sorry to say but I think that the Transportation Department is working in a complete vacuum. Firstly they don't even consider that there is a fiscal crisis and have no funding for their pipe dreams.

Their scatter gun approach to planning is absurd. They are still trying to figure out WLRT routes after 10 years or more of looking at maps and cannot find a solution. Maybe in another 10 years they will come up with a way of putting a square peg in a round hole. This update looks more like bureaucratic butt covering, trying to appease the Councillors and the public without a realistic focus. They will dump everything on Council and allow them to choose and if Council does not choose correctly the bureaucrats will simply blame Council for their wrong decisions. This is like a episode of Yes Minister!

moahunter
01-01-2009, 09:37 PM
Firstly they don't even consider that there is a fiscal crisis and have no funding for their pipe dreams.

I thought the Province was sitting on a large Heritage Fund, and the Federal Government was talking about Fiscal Stimulus (esp. infrastructure). Now is the time to push on, a downturn could be the perfect time to complete the much needed spine of the system to all corners of the City.

Interesting to see all the bridges being considered for the Millwoods line, including high level. As to Council not choosing "correctly", to be honest, I don't think there are any "correct answers", and the sooner people realize that all routes have pros and cons, the better. They key is to get building, not to build the perfect line, or to blame people for not building the perfect line. The blame is not going to happen, because whatever lines get built, most people are going to be happy IMO to have an LRT that goes places, and a bus system that is streamlined into it.

AAAAE
01-01-2009, 10:57 PM
When the federal government goes looking for ways to spend their stimulus package, we can show them all the plans for a complete lrt system in Edmonton, then all they would need to do is fund it.

It is very important to have the plans ready when the money is being doled out.

edmontonenthusiast
01-01-2009, 10:58 PM
agree aaaae.

RTA
02-01-2009, 08:46 AM
...and the #1 clue that your "Complete LRT Network System" needs some tweaking:


West LRT (Downtown to Lewis Farms)Nice to see that they are approaching it as a system, and that they've put some timelines to it. But running LRT to any area that can be described as a "farm" shows that they still don't get it.

I would agree with you except for the fact that this is the direction that development will continue in the west end of the city. As nice as it would be to swing the LRT south from WEM to Callingwood, it doesn't have anywhere to go beyond there.

moahunter
02-01-2009, 09:41 AM
As nice as it would be to swing the LRT south from WEM to Callingwood, it doesn't have anywhere to go beyond there.
There are new developments West of Callingwood as well. Or maybe somehow it can go South from Callingwood through Wedgewood to Terwilliger or similar, possibly even looping back around to SLRT?

IKAN104
02-01-2009, 09:42 AM
Sorry to say but I think that the Transportation Department is working in a complete vacuum. Firstly they don't even consider that there is a fiscal crisis and have no funding for their pipe dreams.

Their scatter gun approach to planning is absurd. They are still trying to figure out WLRT routes after 10 years or more of looking at maps and cannot find a solution. Maybe in another 10 years they will come up with a way of putting a square peg in a round hole. This update looks more like bureaucratic butt covering, trying to appease the Councillors and the public without a realistic focus. They will dump everything on Council and allow them to choose and if Council does not choose correctly the bureaucrats will simply blame Council for their wrong decisions. This is like a episode of Yes Minister!


What do you suggest? Do no planning? Or maybe we should not do any planning until all construction funding is in place. Just tell me, how do you know how much money you need if you haven't done the planning? Planning always comes before funding!!!

This is the way it works. The bureaucrats do the planning, present to city council, city council gives feedback and makes decisions. Or maybe we should let city council do the planning, lest the bureaucrats work in a vacuum?

How about instead of only criticizing you suggest a better way.

RTA
02-01-2009, 10:11 AM
There are new developments West of Callingwood as well. Or maybe somehow it can go South from Callingwood through Wedgewood to Terwilliger or similar, possibly even looping back around to SLRT?

Looking at a map, heading west along 87 Ave. continues roughly along the centre line of the West end residential areas and future development. I'm sure a line that swings west at Callingwood Rd. would actually work pretty well, too, though.

moahunter
02-01-2009, 10:18 AM
There are new developments West of Callingwood as well. Or maybe somehow it can go South from Callingwood through Wedgewood to Terwilliger or similar, possibly even looping back around to SLRT?

Looking at a map, heading west along 87 Ave. continues roughly along the centre line of the West end residential areas and future development. I'm sure a line that swings west at Callingwood Rd. would actually work pretty well, too, though.
How far West can new developments actually go though? I think there is a First Nation here, I don't know how easy it will be to plough LRT through that nation, and what the point would be (given how far Spruce grove is away). Looking at the map as well, if it ran East of AHD through Wedgewood Heights Park, it could come out at the new neighborhoods in Terwilliger. A big Park N Ride there (or on the other side of AHD), could draw all the way from Riverbend, it would be very popular, as long as the route to WEM from downtown is very fast (i.e. not a 107 avenue option). At a later date it could even swing up Terwilliger drive, looping back to SLRT, or through South Terwilliger to link to SLRT around Twin Brooks.

I know a ton of people who live in Terwilliger and Riverbend who work downtown. When you add in students at the UofA, and workers at WEM who live in these new neighborhoods, I think such a loop would work very well.

RTA
02-01-2009, 10:26 AM
How far West can new developments actually go though? I think there is a First Nation here, I don't know how easy it will be to plough LRT through that nation, and what the point would be (given how far Spruce grove is away).

This is true, I had forgotten about the reserve; new developments to the west would be limited to north of Whitemud Dr / 79 Ave. because of that, meaning there really is no where else for the west LRT to go but along 87 Ave.


Looking at the map as well, if it ran East of AHD through Wedgewood Heights Park, it could come out at the new neighborhoods in Terwilliger. A big Park N Ride there (or on the other side of AHD), could draw all the way from Riverbend, it would be very popular, as long as the route to WEM is very fast (i.e. not a 107 avenue option). At a later date it could even swing up Terwilliiger drive, looping back to SLRT.

An interesting idea for the future maybe, but I can't see this line being a viable and fast alternative to driving from the SW neighborhoods.

Sonic Death Monkey
02-01-2009, 10:33 AM
If Enoch is willing to chip in for a wLRT extension, then extending it to Spruce Grove would be doable. I can see some benefits of Enoch wanting LRT stops at River Cree and at Hwy 60 where they have a village.

moahunter
02-01-2009, 10:33 AM
An interesting idea for the future maybe, but I can't see this line being a viable and fast alternative to driving from the SW neighborhoods.
It just has to be a comfortable stress free one I think, it can't be fun commuting to downtown or the UofA from Windermere, I'm sure a station near there would be popular with commuters just like Clareview is. But, just a thought for now.

I don't think Spruce Grove is ever practical. Aside from the First Nation politics, it is just too far away, some other transit may be better (like a diesel commuter train).

highlander
02-01-2009, 11:46 AM
I can't open the document, my computer tells me that the file is damaged. Oh well.

So despite not seeing the basis of this discussion, here are a few problems that I have with Edmonton LRT planning.

- There is no discussion of alternatives. Why is it always just LRT plans with lines on a map that go out to the newest suburbs? we have never had a discussion about whether tram, streetcar, commuter rail, heavy rail, deisel LRT(o-train style), low floor LRT or whatever is best for our city, and it is a discusstion that cannot be separated from routing. There may be possible routes that are suitable for one technology but not for others. We seem to be married to the exact same mode just because that's what was available in 1977. Well, that may make sense as long as we will be funneling all traffic through the downtown tunnel, but it makes no sense when looking far ahead.

-What is the mandate from council?
was administration asked to design a system based on unlimited funds? best value for money? for XX year implimentation? To serve new growth? to best serve existing residents? network connections based on individual line locations or are line #s and directions designed with the ultimate downtown connections in mind? unless there is a real question, then the answer is meaningless and this is being planned in a vacuum

The_Cat
02-01-2009, 03:10 PM
I think that if the city has a vision for the LRT, the better chance it has getting funding for these projects.

highlander
02-01-2009, 03:30 PM
I think that if the city has a vision for the LRT, the better chance it has getting funding for these projects.

True, but some things need to come before drawing lines on a map. If they have happened, great, but I haven't heard about it.

Sonic Death Monkey
02-01-2009, 06:43 PM
What Cat is saying that the Feds and Province will fund LRT expansion if there's an a solid, concrete plan in place. They're not going to throw money at the endless cycle of studying it to death, flip-flopping on routes and restudying it to death.

Edmonton PRT
03-01-2009, 12:07 AM
Sorry to say but I think that the Transportation Department is working in a complete vacuum. Firstly they don't even consider that there is a fiscal crisis and have no funding for their pipe dreams.

Their scatter gun approach to planning is absurd. They are still trying to figure out WLRT routes after 10 years or more of looking at maps and cannot find a solution. Maybe in another 10 years they will come up with a way of putting a square peg in a round hole. This update looks more like bureaucratic butt covering, trying to appease the Councillors and the public without a realistic focus. They will dump everything on Council and allow them to choose and if Council does not choose correctly the bureaucrats will simply blame Council for their wrong decisions. This is like a episode of Yes Minister!


What do you suggest? Do no planning? Or maybe we should not do any planning until all construction funding is in place. Just tell me, how do you know how much money you need if you haven't done the planning? Planning always comes before funding!!!

This is the way it works. The bureaucrats do the planning, present to city council, city council gives feedback and makes decisions. Or maybe we should let city council do the planning, lest the bureaucrats work in a vacuum?

How about instead of only criticizing you suggest a better way.

No, this is not how the system should work. Why should we let the bureaucrats do the planning? That is the whole problem. It should be the transit user and the general public that has the input not some planner who drives to his office from St. Albert everyday.

When have you seen an open public meeting on transit in this city where the public can really discuss better transit???? The ETS conferences are just a show & tell advertisement from ETS with almost no public discussion.

The LRT route selection meetings are often hard to find out about and they are highly organized to contain and dismiss any objections and are solely designed to get approval on predetermined decision. This is one reason the BRT plans were killed by Council and why the WLRT routes selection was thrown back at Transportation Planning because Council got wind of the public backlash of the scripted meetings.

We should look at the basic design of our transit needs and have an open discussion in a public meeting much like what we do here on C2E. This could be more in the format that they had for the planning of Jasper East.

Then they should plan one or two routes at a time rather than working on 8 as the report update details including:

NELRT Extension
SLRT Extension Heritage Valley
SLRT Extension YEG
SELRT Millwoods
WLRT Lewis Estates
NWLRT St. Albert
NLRT NAIT
ELRT towards Sherwood Park
Just as a child who cannot choose between for too many toys he may end up not getting any.
"Planning is where democracy meets engineering. If we are going to get really good at planning transportation, we have to be good at both democracy and engineering, and do them separately. Democracy sets up the parameters and goals and engineering finds the best way to meet all the goals within the parameters. Democracy is general participation; engineering is expert participation. We should not let experts define the problem or let the general public design the solution." Ian Ford, ATRA

IKAN104
03-01-2009, 10:16 AM
I agree that the public should have input and that input should be listened to, valued and if it makes sense also implemented. But the detailed planning still needs to be done by the professionals as it is today. Pretty much the only thing the public can do is provide basic route suggestions/requests/feedback.

moahunter
03-01-2009, 12:34 PM
Pretty much the only thing the public can do is provide basic route suggestions/requests/feedback.
I don't even think the public can provide route suggestions of any meaning, because if you asked 10 different people, you would get 10 different routes. I see the publics role as being to perhaps provide some input on the "look" and "aesthetics" of staions and similar, in their neighborhoods, not on where it goes. Council should people stonewalling (even if it is the Mayor, re WLRT), and make some decisions to put the routes to bed once and for all.

Medwards
03-01-2009, 12:55 PM
so people who have proper studies in planning transportation systems should not be planning our transportation systems because you feel this should be left to the general public?


It should be the transit user and the general public that has the input not some planner who drives to his office from St. Albert everyday.

yes because that makes the most sense. Maybe we should also let the general public design and even operate hospitals and schools.

Maybe you are suggesting the 'general public' doesn't have any input on our transporation planning system. I disagree with that. They certainly aren't going door to door canvassing everyones opinions, and nor should they. I've been able to attend lots of meetings over the years about various plans and even on the TMP as a whole.


We should look at the basic design of our transit needs and have an open discussion in a public meeting much like what we do here on C2E. This could be more in the format that they had for the planning of Jasper East.

Maybe we should just abolish local government and just have town hall meetings. Perhaps important decisions should be made by a count of raised hands?

DanC
03-01-2009, 02:24 PM
so people who have proper studies in planning transportation systems should not be planning our transportation systems because you feel this should be left to the general public?


It should be the transit user and the general public that has the input not some planner who drives to his office from St. Albert everyday.

yes because that makes the most sense. Maybe we should also let the general public design and even operate hospitals and schools.

Maybe you are suggesting the 'general public' doesn't have any input on our transporation planning system. I disagree with that. They certainly aren't going door to door canvassing everyones opinions, and nor should they. I've been able to attend lots of meetings over the years about various plans and even on the TMP as a whole.


We should look at the basic design of our transit needs and have an open discussion in a public meeting much like what we do here on C2E. This could be more in the format that they had for the planning of Jasper East.

Maybe we should just abolish local government and just have town hall meetings. Perhaps important decisions should be made by a count of raised hands?
I think you truly missed the point of his post. Sigh...its like you glazed over the actual message and picked the points that got your blood boiling.

moahunter
03-01-2009, 02:54 PM
The point is hard to see (aside from what we know - which is PRT is opposed to LRT, and no doubt likes the idea of endless town hall meetings / debate / new routes to forever derail it - push for "PRT" as an alternative). As a member of the public my Councilors who I had the opportunity to vote for or not, will make the decision for me. That's democracy meeting engineering - planning.

Time to stop stuffing around - time for Council to have some final votes so the planning is finished for the new lines most have agreed will happen next (NAIT, WEM, Millwoods). Then we can get funding / put out to tender to build. Otherwise we will still be deabting questions to which there is no right answer in 20 years time - like "what the perfect system will look like" and "who LRT should serve". That's not "planning", that's a continuation of what we have had for a long time - "obstruction".

The_Cat
03-01-2009, 03:30 PM
The city makes amendments to LRT and transportation projects as a result of input from the residents (or other parties). No LRT will ever be perfect, but it will be nice to see that the city is going ahead with a vision, based on planning and analysis. Please, don't plan things to death.

lightrail
03-01-2009, 10:17 PM
Thanks for this.

North LRT construction will begin in 2009 "utility relocation and some construction would begin in 2009"

lightrail
03-01-2009, 10:20 PM
Sorry to say but I think that the Transportation Department is working in a complete vacuum. Firstly they don't even consider that there is a fiscal crisis and have no funding for their pipe dreams.

Their scatter gun approach to planning is absurd. They are still trying to figure out WLRT routes after 10 years or more of looking at maps and cannot find a solution. Maybe in another 10 years they will come up with a way of putting a square peg in a round hole. This update looks more like bureaucratic butt covering, trying to appease the Councillors and the public without a realistic focus. They will dump everything on Council and allow them to choose and if Council does not choose correctly the bureaucrats will simply blame Council for their wrong decisions. This is like a episode of Yes Minister!


What do you suggest? Do no planning? Or maybe we should not do any planning until all construction funding is in place. Just tell me, how do you know how much money you need if you haven't done the planning? Planning always comes before funding!!!

This is the way it works. The bureaucrats do the planning, present to city council, city council gives feedback and makes decisions. Or maybe we should let city council do the planning, lest the bureaucrats work in a vacuum?

How about instead of only criticizing you suggest a better way.

No, this is not how the system should work. Why should we let the bureaucrats do the planning? That is the whole problem. It should be the transit user and the general public that has the input not some planner who drives to his office from St. Albert everyday.

When have you seen an open public meeting on transit in this city where the public can really discuss better transit???? The ETS conferences are just a show & tell advertisement from ETS with almost no public discussion.

The LRT route selection meetings are often hard to find out about and they are highly organized to contain and dismiss any objections and are solely designed to get approval on predetermined decision. This is one reason the BRT plans were killed by Council and why the WLRT routes selection was thrown back at Transportation Planning because Council got wind of the public backlash of the scripted meetings.

We should look at the basic design of our transit needs and have an open discussion in a public meeting much like what we do here on C2E. This could be more in the format that they had for the planning of Jasper East.

Then they should plan one or two routes at a time rather than working on 8 as the report update details including:

NELRT Extension
SLRT Extension Heritage Valley
SLRT Extension YEG
SELRT Millwoods
WLRT Lewis Estates
NWLRT St. Albert
NLRT NAIT
ELRT towards Sherwood Park
Just as a child who cannot choose between for too many toys he may end up not getting any.
"Planning is where democracy meets engineering. If we are going to get really good at planning transportation, we have to be good at both democracy and engineering, and do them separately. Democracy sets up the parameters and goals and engineering finds the best way to meet all the goals within the parameters. Democracy is general participation; engineering is expert participation. We should not let experts define the problem or let the general public design the solution." Ian Ford, ATRA

As a planner (not transit planning thankfully), I have to disagree with you. Yes, there should be meaningful consultation. But letting the public plan the route would result in nothing happening - nobody will agree on any route. The planners should provide their professional advice on options, ensure there is full consultation, but the politicians need to be the ones who make the final decision.

The_Cat
03-01-2009, 11:31 PM
While the city can't go ahead with all of the lines, they can probably go ahead with property acquisition and utility relocation once the lines are approved.

Edmonton PRT
03-01-2009, 11:39 PM
Did I say that the public should plan the route? Did I??

What I said was, "We should look at the basic design of our transit needs and have an open discussion in a public meeting much like what we do here on C2E. This could be more in the format that they had for the planning of Jasper East. Then they should plan one or two routes at a time rather than working on 8"

That is "they" as in transit planners.

All things that improve public transit should be on the table.

I will quote from my website (see bottom notes) because I have repeated many of my concerns with a top down transit planning system rather than a user oriented transit system. I have read past polls that indicated that an LRT line was the highest priority among respondents. Now if you look at the LRT Planning Update the WLRT is buried in the pile of studies and looks like it may become last on the list.

DanC got it right. You did miss my point totally and you do not understand that transit paid by the public and transit is to serve the public. Maybe transit users want better bus routes, eliminate timing points, more arterial trunk routes, more express services, later night service, maybe even our trolleys back, I do not know, because we never have a public meeting where these things can be discussed as the are done here with a limited audience on the C2E forum!

If a majority of the public wants LRT in a general area like WEM or Millwoods, then the majority should have their wish. I didn't hear any demand by the public for a $900M LRT line to NAIT but the planners thrust it upon us and therefore may delay LRT to WEM or Millwoods for another decade due to capital restraints. How we get to Millwoods or WEM is the job of planners but even so they must keep the public informed of the route and allow Council to ultimately decide on the proposal that affects everyone.




There has been very little open public input on both what the current transit issues are and what type of transit system users want. The ageing population who expect mobility, DATS users who need consistent service and commuters who need to be there on time have a vested interest as customers of ETS. When City Council and taxpayers are presented only two choices; more buses or more LRT, the clear choice is the more modern LRT system. But when offered more system options like carpooling, public car and bicycle sharing, vanpooling and advanced transit systems, the opinions change dramatically. Furthermore, issues like greenhouse gases, the massive increases in construction and fuel costs since the HST inception have radically altered the economics and sustainability of the proposal. The HST build times are 20 to 30 years and the long infrastructure life of 50+ years are costs that affect future generations and therefore we must be extra diligent to ensure the maximum cost/benefit ratio.

Transit is a key element to Edmonton's future and innovative solutions are being used in many cities like advanced transit and transit oriented developments. A co-ordinated effort to include greater community input in transportation and transit issues is needed. Letís encourage redevelopment in mature neighbourhoods, dual usage of ground level parking lots downtown and reclaim brownfield sites (i.e. Railtown) utilize existing infrastructure that allow people to shop, work and live locally. "Build it and they will come" and live downtown!

A paradigm shift in transit technology is now available that can revitalize downtown business zones and uptown residential villages. Advanced transit solutions allow people to shop, work and live locally while reducing the need for numerous parking lots, all adding to the vibrancy of the community. Federal grants and monies are available for advanced transit systems that could make Edmonton a world leader urban planning and transit oriented design.

What we need is an efficient and accessible transit system that is available 24 hours a day and that is self-sustaining from the farebox revenue. Edmonton should devote a proper budget to investigate an integrated and sustainable transit system that would benefit a far greater percentage of the population by reducing automobile usage, improve neighbourhoods, increase development opportunities and solve public transit funding issues.

moahunter
04-01-2009, 09:03 AM
I do not know, because we never have a public meeting where these things can be discussed as the are done here with a limited audience on the C2E forum!

But public meetings for the purpose of discussing big issues is totally undemocratic and meaningless. We don't have public meetings on what type of hospital care to provide, or the next government budget, or the need or not for a new arena or art gallery, and we don't need them for transport. This is because there is absolutely no assurance that the people at the meeting are the ones who are most important (as if there are such people). Such a meeting will always end up more of an education exercise than a information gathering one. That's why we have experts, be they for hospital care, police services, transport, or whatever. They look at the cities needs, and based on what actually works and does not work in Edmonton, they make recommendations to Council. The public is consulted on these recommendations (and IMO it should be more with a view to providing the public information, not training the public to be experts), and our politicians make the decision. That's planning, endless town hall meetings over whether LRT is "good" or "bad" versus "buses" or "taxis" or "PRT", or over which destination is most important to be built next (Millwoods, NAIT, WEM, YEG, etc.) where the loudest voices win the day, is not planning, its just chaos.

As you say, most of the city want LRT to Millwoods and WEM. I don't know why NAIT was chosen as the one to study first by politicians, but it was, so lets get over that. It wouldn't be fair to NAIT or the communities the LRT will run through to reduce the priority of that now, its just going to put the schedule further back. Where town hall meetings have value is to gain community input / buy in to the little details - what type of station design, what colour the fence should be, the type of pebbles on the track. The meaningless things that make communities feel like they had a voice. The reality is the big decisions, including what to study, and what to build, need to be made by our democratically elected Council - who will have all the information they have requested from our transport experts. If they don't trust, believe or agree with the criteria that the transport experts used, that's Council's call. WLRT is an example of that right now, for better and worse. I'm looking forward to a Council vote to put it to bed soon, hopefully not another cop out to another route study.

IKAN104
04-01-2009, 10:26 AM
agreed 100%.

Edmonton PRT
04-01-2009, 10:51 AM
So transit users are sheep that should absolutely have no say in what transit service they need or want?


This is because there is absolutely no assurance that the people at the meeting are the ones who are most important (as if there are such people). Such a meeting will always end up more of an education exercise than a information gathering one. That's why we have experts, be they for hospital care, police services, transport, or whatever. They look at the cities needs, and based on what actually works and does not work in Edmonton, they make recommendations to Council. The public is consulted on these recommendations (and IMO it should be more with a view to providing the public information, not training the public to be experts), and our politicians make the decision.

And what assurance do we have that the "experts" are not paid consultants who are rubber stamping the pre-determined position that the bureaucracy wants? We saw this in the West BRT study that wanted to emulate the Ottawa BRT project that saw a 25% drop in ridership and massive cost overruns. The study so flawed that even Council could read between the lines that the BRT plan was a sham. Same goes for the trolley debate where "experts" who had no understanding of electric trolley systems (one was even a graduate of General Motors University) recommended not getting new modern low floor trolleys and getting rid of our trolley system altogether when other cities are expanding their fleet. Not one transit expert was brought in from Vancouver or San Francisco to balance the bureaucratic misinformation (read lies) that was presented to Council.

You put way too much faith in experts.

etownboarder
04-01-2009, 01:19 PM
They could do an online poll... I know I've filled one out recently regarding transit.

Edmonton PRT
04-01-2009, 02:18 PM
It is a start from a limited audience but as of 2 pm Sunday, 75% say that service is terrible. This is completely opposite to the survey done in 2006 of 11 transportation staff that gave mostly A's on transportation planning. This dichotomy of what the transportation planning "experts" and what transit users opinions are. The transportation planning staff are in a fog that they will solve all the transit issues in Edmonton if only they have more money. This is the same thinking that the big three automakers have and it will never get better until they start listening to what the public wants and needs.

We don't need a $300m/km high speed transit line if your connection is a bus that you must wait for 15 minutes because he is waiting two stops away at a timing point. What got Ottawa's transit system out of its downward slide was a complete management overhaul done by KPMG that addressed real problems and improved service dramatically.

I am fed up with the transit planning department and I think we need some new ideas and I value the posters on the C2E forum as much more reasonable and progressive than any of them.


In the mid-1990s morale at OC Transpo began to fall, it hit bottom in 1998 and 1999. In response to this both the Union and Management knew that it had to carefully examine ways to turn the workplace around. Management at OC Transpo recommended to Regional Council, and Council approved a study by KPMG that cost in excess of one million dollars.

KPMG recognized the problem, noting in its February 1999 report:

"…[reduced public funding, deteriorating bus fleet, and increasing cost of providing public transit services] contributed to the strife between OC Transpo and its workers, demoralized workforce, resulting in poorer customer service…"

KPMG also noted that both the union and management shared a concern and hoped to work together to improve working conditions. KPMG went on to observe:

"There has been a strong commitment from both the unions and management to recognize the shortcomings of the system and to implement change and improvements as quickly as possible. The level of co-operation, and the commitment to consultation between the unions and management has improved dramatically.”

The KPMG study recommended that management allow the drivers, including their union, to have a greater role to play in the operation of the workplace. KPMG rejected the prevailing attitude in the workplace concluding that “the philosophy that “I put up with it so you have to” has been recognized as inappropriate in today’s environment.”

(snip)
One such improvement was the scheduling system that is presently in dispute.
http://www.ottawatransitstrike.com/history.html

Sonic Death Monkey
04-01-2009, 03:23 PM
You put way too much faith in experts.

I would sooner trust a transportation expert than someone with a vested interest in a specific transportation technology.

Edmonton PRT
04-01-2009, 04:02 PM
You put way too much faith in experts.

I would sooner trust a transportation expert than someone with a vested interest in a specific transportation technology.

I value the posters on the C2E forum as much more reasonable and progressive than any of them, except Sonic Death Monkey.

moahunter
04-01-2009, 04:38 PM
And what assurance do we have that the "experts" are not paid consultants who are rubber stamping the pre-determined position that the bureaucracy wants?
That's why we have a democratically elected Council. It's fine to now say you want to follow a beancounting firms advice for Ottawa a decade ago and instead let employees make more decisions (Trolleys, which have never been popular with ETS workers, would have gone long ago then), but again, I don't think that's right. Decisions are made by Council, and our Council hires transport experts, not beancounters, to advise them. Just because you personally don't think the advice is right, doesn't mean the system is flawed. I mean, BRT is a good example - it was an idea that was investigated, but decided after consultations and similar that it was unsuited. I don't have any problem with that. The stated priority is now LRT - I think the bulk of Edmonton's residents support that and are prepared to pay for it, but if they didn't, there would be nothing to stop them voting for a different Council.

Medwards
04-01-2009, 04:41 PM
now now, keep the personal attacks to yourself Edmonton_PRT, debate the issue at hand

Speaking of the issue at hand, I'll sooner trust and value more the transportation engineers and planners who actually went to college/university, and have done in depth studies upon studies in transporation, and have spend most of their working lives devoted to transportation rather then some hack off the street or on some online forum...

Edmonton PRT
04-01-2009, 09:47 PM
Personal attacks Medwards? You have all people have attacked me more than anyone else. In fact you have inferred in your post that I and others are "some hack".

If you read my posts you would also understand that those "transportation engineers and planners who actually went to college/university" are just like those 'Big Three' automotive engineers and designers who also went to college/university and cannot build the cars that people want and need. They must try to coerce us with flashy adds and slick marketing campaigns to get us to buy a 400 Hp SUV with four wheel drive that gets no more mileage than a Model T of 85 years ago.

Anyone who plans a LRT route to Beaumont as they have done in the HST study, needs to have their head examined. Planning 8 routes at the same time is just nuts. I dare anyone to find another city in North America under 2 million people that is planning 8 extensions and new LRT routes at the same time.

lightrail
04-01-2009, 10:20 PM
Personal attacks Medwards? You have all people have attacked me more than anyone else. In fact you have inferred in your post that I and others are "some hack".

If you read my posts you would also understand that those "transportation engineers and planners who actually went to college/university" are just like those 'Big Three' automotive engineers and designers who also went to college/university and cannot build the cars that people want and need. They must try to coerce us with flashy adds and slick marketing campaigns to get us to buy a 400 Hp SUV with four wheel drive that gets no more mileage than a Model T of 85 years ago.

Anyone who plans a LRT route to Beaumont as they have done in the HST study, needs to have their head examined. Planning 8 routes at the same time is just nuts. I dare anyone to find another city in North America under 2 million people that is planning 8 extensions and new LRT routes at the same time.

You're not making any sense. By it's nature, planning means thinking ahead. Planning 8 routes is good, not bad. The City is looking at the big picture and planning where LRT should go; they're not saying they'll build all 8 at the same time. Why is this any different than master planning the locaiton of major roads in the City. You'd never plan for one road at a time as you need a network to make it useful to people. You'd never plan one bus route at a time, you'd have to look at the rest of the system too to make sure it fits.

Other cities are planning more than one line at a time:
Toronto - is planning at around 6 major LRT lines, in addition to subway extensions.
Vancouver is planning three new SkyTrain lines, expanding capacity on an existing line and has another one under construction (and because this one branches, it could be counted as two lines).

The_Cat
04-01-2009, 10:45 PM
Keep in mind that these LRT routes may not be built for another 20-30 years. At this point, it's nice to have some plan so that the city can consider zoning and development around the LRT. I think Edmonton would have an outstanding LRT if all these lines are built.

Edmonton PRT
05-01-2009, 08:40 AM
Other cities are planning more than one line at a time:
Toronto - is planning at around 6 major LRT lines, in addition to subway extensions.
Vancouver is planning three new SkyTrain lines, expanding capacity on an existing line and has another one under construction (and because this one branches, it could be counted as two lines).

Toronto Density 3,972/km2
6 Lines with urban population of 4.75M = 1 line planned per 792,000 people

Vancouver Density 5,333/km2
6 lines with urban population of 2.29M = 1 line planned per 382,000 people

Edmonton Density 1,099/km2
8 lines with urban population of 0.86M = 1 line planned per 108,000 people

Medwards
05-01-2009, 08:45 AM
What do your density figures have to do with the future? Planning is not for now. Its for the future, when Edmonton becomes more dense.

Edmonton PRT
05-01-2009, 09:11 AM
Because any transportation planner knows that you should have higher density for LRT routes.

Medwards
05-01-2009, 09:39 AM
and whats to say Edmonton wont be getting a lot denser?

Edmonton PRT
05-01-2009, 10:44 AM
It is called urban sprawl. We have the disease and there are no efforts to curb it. We have the lowest density city in North America and possibly the entire world. New low density communities are planned in the SW, NE, and Edmoton is planning another communuty out by Lewis Estates. Strathcona is planning another city north of Sherwood Park.

In Atlanta's case which is also very low density but still 50% denser than Edmonton, their evaluation of LRT recommended either reducing the size of Atlanta to 1/3rd of its present size or increasing the population by a factor of three withing the current boundries. Both were impractical and therefore LRT was not recommended in such a low density city.

Medwards
05-01-2009, 10:49 AM
Read the latest MDP. There is lots of effort to try to curb sprawl.

Atlanta and surrounding communities are not anymore or less dense then Edmonton. Give your head a shake. Houston is much worse then Edmonton, and Phoenix? Please. We are miles denser then them. Still lots of room for improvement, and if we want to try to densify, we need plans in place for LRT, so people can choose to live closer and start to have reason to ditch the car.

Replacement
05-01-2009, 11:22 AM
so people who have proper studies in planning transportation systems should not be planning our transportation systems because you feel this should be left to the general public?


It should be the transit user and the general public that has the input not some planner who drives to his office from St. Albert everyday.

yes because that makes the most sense. Maybe we should also let the general public design and even operate hospitals and schools.

Maybe you are suggesting the 'general public' doesn't have any input on our transporation planning system. I disagree with that. They certainly aren't going door to door canvassing everyones opinions, and nor should they. I've been able to attend lots of meetings over the years about various plans and even on the TMP as a whole.


We should look at the basic design of our transit needs and have an open discussion in a public meeting much like what we do here on C2E. This could be more in the format that they had for the planning of Jasper East.

Maybe we should just abolish local government and just have town hall meetings. Perhaps important decisions should be made by a count of raised hands?
What a dismissive response.

If any one public entity can be democratically illustrated and determined and quite easily it is public transit planning.

Why not just defer to the public users on this?

The simplest thing would be to look at present/ongoing ridership and those areas and routes showing the most promise of properly using LRT.

Yes the public #'s should decide this and are already known. Are they consulted?


Lets be frank. Looking at 8 different routes simultaneously is politically palatable and its being done for that reason. So as to not leave out anybody and even in the far reaches like Beaumont. To avoid any "feeling left out" complaints. Which is silly. Density and ridership has to be high to warrant high cost of LRT lines. When planning starts talking about places like Beaumont is quite clear something is wrong. This is not to be confused with planning as much as the "bullet" approach.

As a resident of Millwoods its actually disconcerting to see the city still trying to plan out 8 different options when a couple like West End and Millwoods are obvious choices. I get the impression that the consideration of 8 choices will bring about a delay in selecting the most obvious choices.
Which could be easily determined on the basis of ridership.

The expert in this case being the public user.

RTA
05-01-2009, 11:36 AM
^ To focus on one or two critical routes is fine, but to ensure that additional lines beyond them can all tie together in some manner, it is prudent to look at further potential lines as well.

Public input has its role, however it is still up to the planners to incorporate this input into their plans, as they have the best view of the "big picture" as well as the education, knowledge, and experience to draw the final lines in a way that benefits the city as a whole or at least the vast majority of the city. The public at large will usually have individual interests ahead of the big picture, and mostly little-to-no knowledge, experience, or education required to understand how to plan LRT.

I don't want the public at large planning LRT any more than I would want the public at large building bridges or designing skyscrapers. We have experts in these fields that can do the job far better.

Replacement
05-01-2009, 11:56 AM
^ To focus on one or two critical routes is fine, but to ensure that additional lines beyond them can all tie together in some manner, it is prudent to look at further potential lines as well.

Public input has its role, however it is still up to the planners to incorporate this input into their plans, as they have the best view of the "big picture" as well as the education, knowledge, and experience to draw the final lines in a way that benefits the city as a whole or at least the vast majority of the city. The public at large will usually have individual interests ahead of the big picture, and mostly little-to-no knowledge, experience, or education required to understand how to plan LRT.

I don't want the public at large planning LRT any more than I would want the public at large building bridges or designing skyscrapers. We have experts in these fields that can do the job far better.Do you agree that ridership #'s should be consulted? This is the user input I am referring to.

The planning in Edmontons LRT never properly looked at ridership #'s from the outset and for instance the initial spur line to Clareview over 3 decades ago.

I'm not convinced Century Park is any better.

Neither is any fantastic user, density, or population, decision.

Medwards
05-01-2009, 11:59 AM
Whats misleading is saying that we are working on 8 different routes.

as stated



NELRT Extension
SLRT Extension Heritage Valley
SLRT Extension YEG
SELRT Millwoods
WLRT Lewis Estates
NWLRT St. Albert
NLRT NAIT
ELRT towards Sherwood Park

We have 3 extensions... 2 of them are small, and not much needed to accomplish. The extension to YEG is the big one
NLRT to NAIT... yes ok Extension on that? NWLRT to St Albert

I've been accused of glossing over the facts, but I gloss over facts when its made from a far biased point of view.

Its good to look at a system as a whole rather then trying to piece meal everything and hope that it all works well together.

Edmonton PRT
05-01-2009, 12:02 PM
Read the latest MDP. There is lots of effort to try to curb sprawl.

Atlanta and surrounding communities are not anymore or less dense then Edmonton. Give your head a shake. Houston is much worse then Edmonton, and Phoenix? Please. We are miles denser then them. Still lots of room for improvement, and if we want to try to densify, we need plans in place for LRT, so people can choose to live closer and start to have reason to ditch the car.

WRONG
Edmonton 1,099.4/km2
Phoenix 1,188.4/km2
Houston 1,471/km2

Medwards
05-01-2009, 12:05 PM
so these figures you so easily have at your leisure... are these metro urban areas? or just city proper?

etownboarder
05-01-2009, 12:07 PM
so these figures you so easily have at your leisure... are these metro urban areas? or just city proper?

No need to get defensive there... any one of us could have just as easily got the same numbers. I just don't care enough to bother...

RTA
05-01-2009, 12:17 PM
Do you agree that ridership #'s should be consulted? This is the user input I am referring to.

The planning in Edmontons LRT never properly looked at ridership #'s from the outset and for instance the initial spur line to Clareview over 3 decades ago.

I'm not convinced Century Park is any better.

Neither is any fantastic user, density, or population, decision.

Do you have some information that no one else has that suggests that ridership numbers have not been estimated or considered? To say nothing of population growth or density being considered?

Don't forget that it wasn't that long ago that the city held a massive transportation survey (which I happily participated in myself), one of the purposes of which was for transit usage estimates and route evaluation and planning.

Edmonton PRT
05-01-2009, 12:28 PM
so these figures you so easily have at your leisure... are these metro urban areas? or just city proper?

Those are urban numbers.

Metro areas are far worse for density 109.9/km2 or about 1/10th that of Edmonton itself.

Medwards
05-01-2009, 12:29 PM
so there in your mind, we shouldn't be planning LRT at all? We shouldn't look at what routes would be best to go ahead with?

highlander
05-01-2009, 12:42 PM
The population density comparison is somewhat decieving as both atlanta and phoenix are core cities that are essentially built out and are bordered with suburban cities on most of their frontiers. All the cited cities are significantly larger (population) than Edmonton, which does provide a natural incentice to density as traffic and travel times increase. But whatever, the point that our density is not high enough to automatically justify LRT stands.

We do need to do some mass transit visioning, citywide.
We need to do some mass transit prioritizing, citywide.
We need to protect ROWs where they now exist, whether road or rail.
We need to do only a little planning, on lines that are less than 10 years away.

Medwards
05-01-2009, 12:45 PM
http://www.edmonton.ca/transportation/RoadsTraffic/2007_24_Hour_Passenger_Volumes.pdf

DTrobotnik
05-01-2009, 10:05 PM
Other cities are planning more than one line at a time:
Toronto - is planning at around 6 major LRT lines, in addition to subway extensions.
Vancouver is planning three new SkyTrain lines, expanding capacity on an existing line and has another one under construction (and because this one branches, it could be counted as two lines).

Toronto Density 3,972/km2
6 Lines with urban population of 4.75M = 1 line planned per 792,000 people

Vancouver Density 5,333/km2
6 lines with urban population of 2.29M = 1 line planned per 382,000 people

Edmonton Density 1,099/km2
8 lines with urban population of 0.86M = 1 line planned per 108,000 people

just means we can have something to be proud of. recently both van and tdot have admitted they are desperatley lagging behind. we dont want to be stuck where they are. we have other problems to deal with

The_Cat
05-01-2009, 11:22 PM
http://www.edmonton.ca/transportation/RoadsTraffic/2007_24_Hour_Passenger_Volumes.pdf

Looking at the map, I think 97 Street, Stony Plain Road and Mill Woods have the greatest need for LRT.

IKAN104
06-01-2009, 07:33 AM
http://www.edmonton.ca/transportation/RoadsTraffic/2007_24_Hour_Passenger_Volumes.pdf

Looking at the map, I think 97 Street, Stony Plain Road and Mill Woods have the greatest need for LRT.

Millwoods I agree with but in the north it looks to me like 82nd street and 127th street use transit the most.

deedub35
06-01-2009, 09:32 AM
Not sure if this was posted but the COE website has been updated with some SLRT videos ...
http://www.edmonton.ca/transportation/ets/lrt-projects.aspx

RTA
06-01-2009, 09:56 AM
Millwoods I agree with but in the north it looks to me like 82nd street and 127th street use transit the most.

82 St. is pretty densely built with 2-3-4 story apartment buildings (and very little commercial south of Yellowhead), but transit usage along this street is actually pretty dismal from what I've seen.

127 St. has marginally better transit usage despite a lower number of multi-family dwellings, but it is not much better.

booster
06-01-2009, 10:08 AM
Not sure if this was posted but the COE website has been updated with some SLRT videos ...
http://www.edmonton.ca/transportation/ets/lrt-projects.aspx

That is so cool!

Replacement
06-01-2009, 12:44 PM
Do you agree that ridership #'s should be consulted? This is the user input I am referring to.

The planning in Edmontons LRT never properly looked at ridership #'s from the outset and for instance the initial spur line to Clareview over 3 decades ago.

I'm not convinced Century Park is any better.

Neither is any fantastic user, density, or population, decision.

Do you have some information that no one else has that suggests that ridership numbers have not been estimated or considered? To say nothing of population growth or density being considered?

Don't forget that it wasn't that long ago that the city held a massive transportation survey (which I happily participated in myself), one of the purposes of which was for transit usage estimates and route evaluation and planning.Take a look at the map Medwards linked(thanks btw Medwards) its some really good information. Theres some pretty amazing rider volume coming from Millwoods and especially when considering how poor the service delivery is. The #'s from Millwoods rival LRT use which is amazing.



http://www.edmonton.ca/transportation/RoadsTraffic/2007_24_Hour_Passenger_Volumes.pdf

Looking at the map, I think 97 Street, Stony Plain Road and Mill Woods have the greatest need for LRT.

I'd also note that Millwoods made more sense as a south terminal initial location than Century Park. The #'s just don't in anyway justify going all the way to Century park. Southgate is fine and warranted.
WEM-> Univ->Downtown is also undoubtedly hot.

RTA
06-01-2009, 02:04 PM
Take a look at the map Medwards linked(thanks btw Medwards) its some really good information. Theres some pretty amazing rider volume coming from Millwoods and especially when considering how poor the service delivery is. The #'s from Millwoods rival LRT use which is amazing.

I'd also note that Millwoods made more sense as a south terminal initial location than Century Park. The #'s just don't in anyway justify going all the way to Century park. Southgate is fine and warranted.
WEM-> Univ->Downtown is also undoubtedly hot.

The numbers we have today aren't necessarily the same numbers that existed when the current LRT line was planned or constructed, and that initial line has dictated the direction of the line's south extension today.

Going to MW from University would involve far more land acquisition and far more disruption to established neighborhoods, adding to the cost as well as the time it would take a MW resident to get downtown. A direct MW line makes far more sense given all this.

As for Century Park, remember that this is a large, high-density residential neighborhood that is still under construction and will add many more riders, and many buses will feed into the line at this location from the south and west. Remember that we're not just serving the present with LRT, but also the future.

highlander
06-01-2009, 03:22 PM
Take a look at the map Medwards linked(thanks btw Medwards) its some really good information. Theres some pretty amazing rider volume coming from Millwoods and especially when considering how poor the service delivery is. The #'s from Millwoods rival LRT use which is amazing.

I'd also note that Millwoods made more sense as a south terminal initial location than Century Park. The #'s just don't in anyway justify going all the way to Century park. Southgate is fine and warranted.
WEM-> Univ->Downtown is also undoubtedly hot.

The numbers we have today aren't necessarily the same numbers that existed when the current LRT line was planned or constructed, and that initial line has dictated the direction of the line's south extension today.

Going to MW from University would involve far more land acquisition and far more disruption to established neighborhoods, adding to the cost as well as the time it would take a MW resident to get downtown. A direct MW line makes far more sense given all this.

As for Century Park, remember that this is a large, high-density residential neighborhood that is still under construction and will add many more riders, and many buses will feed into the line at this location from the south and west. Remember that we're not just serving the present with LRT, but also the future.


I agree. Given century parks location near 23 ave, the only natural x-town bus route I suspect that ridership will be decent. The current numbers for south of there, though, make it look stupid that that extention is planned enough to have a budget price.

Replacement
06-01-2009, 07:39 PM
Take a look at the map Medwards linked(thanks btw Medwards) its some really good information. Theres some pretty amazing rider volume coming from Millwoods and especially when considering how poor the service delivery is. The #'s from Millwoods rival LRT use which is amazing.

I'd also note that Millwoods made more sense as a south terminal initial location than Century Park. The #'s just don't in anyway justify going all the way to Century park. Southgate is fine and warranted.
WEM-> Univ->Downtown is also undoubtedly hot.

The numbers we have today aren't necessarily the same numbers that existed when the current LRT line was planned or constructed, and that initial line has dictated the direction of the line's south extension today.

Going to MW from University would involve far more land acquisition and far more disruption to established neighborhoods, adding to the cost as well as the time it would take a MW resident to get downtown. A direct MW line makes far more sense given all this.

As for Century Park, remember that this is a large, high-density residential neighborhood that is still under construction and will add many more riders, and many buses will feed into the line at this location from the south and west. Remember that we're not just serving the present with LRT, but also the future.But I never understand this. Its based on projection rather than present demand whereas in other locations demand already sits waiting. Plus Millwoods which already has the highest demand is one of the most rapidly expanding part of the city with the prolific meadows expansion.

Basing a terminus on projected growth is the identical mistake Edmonton made bringing the initial line to Clareview as projections had it being a huge future community the #'s of which still haven't been realized 30 yrs later. Meanwhile there's always been huge transit demand from the westend.

The present #'s at Century park are nothing special and I'd question as well that the projected local density occurs. Century Park Development itself has not released any phases lately and may fall well short of the projected 4k in just that development.

In anycase your initial question was regarding current #'s. My stance is vindicated by the present #'s.

RTA
06-01-2009, 08:15 PM
But I never understand this. Its based on projection rather than present demand whereas in other locations demand already sits waiting. Plus Millwoods which already has the highest demand is one of the most rapidly expanding part of the city with the prolific meadows expansion.

Basing a terminus on projected growth is the identical mistake Edmonton made bringing the initial line to Clareview as projections had it being a huge future community the #'s of which still haven't been realized 30 yrs later. Meanwhile there's always been huge transit demand from the westend.

The present #'s at Century park are nothing special and I'd question as well that the projected local density occurs. Century Park Development itself has not released any phases lately and may fall well short of the projected 4k in just that development.

In anycase your initial question was regarding current #'s. My stance is vindicated by the present #'s.

I agree with a lot of your points but a part of the problem I think is that it is difficult to predict where growth will occur despite the best efforts of the the city. I don't know that the city itself can be blamed for the failure of Clareview to develop rapidly despite the LRT station, and while Millwoods would have been under development before LRT plans, I'm not sure anyone predicted how much or how fast it would grow. (Similar things could be said for the S and SW areas now, too, making Century Park seem less ridiculous.)

West Ed. was built well after the first LRT line and it precipitated much of the growth in that area, so I can easily see how it was not included in initial LRT plans. By that time, though, civic politicians seemed to have lost the will to plan or build any further LRT lines.

On the other hand and in more recent history, the city snagged itself a massive, high-quality, high-density development at Century Park by simply continuing the LRT line it had already built. Not much need to predict growth there when it was practically guranteed. The plan never was to see Century Park built out all in one shot; the recession / credit crunch will slow it down like it has everything else, but Centry Park will be completed.

In any case, I agree with you in principle that the west end and MW should have been priorities as soon as it became clear that they would develop successfully, but what's done is done and I'm happy to see that they are on the drawing board together now.

kubchaser
06-01-2009, 09:54 PM
I would love to use LRT to commute to work. But the problem is that it only has a very limited access... it's hard to let go of a vehicle lifestyle when you don't live and work in downtown.

Edmonton PRT
07-01-2009, 12:20 AM
http://www.edmonton.ca/transportation/RoadsTraffic/2007_24_Hour_Passenger_Volumes.pdf

Thanks Medwards, excellent map that proves the point that we need to focus planning on the needs of West Edmonton and Millwoods before budget planning routes to Sherwood Park, St. Albert, Heritage Valley or YEG. It also confirms that even your past comments on other threads were seat of the pants guesses.


I doubt very much so that one line is going to move ~60,000 people that board transit vehicles from WEM bound for either downtown or the UofA.


As far as I see from the map you supplied that there is only about 12,000 people from WEM bound for either downtown or the UofA at peak the peak period of a mid-September weekday. :rolleyes:



My concern still is that LRT expansion is being used as a political tool rather than a transport system to serve the users. For example: why has the NAIT LRT become the priority when WLRT was the next planned route just 18 moths ago?

Was it because the WLRT route became a political liability for Mandel and Councillors in that Ward?
Was it because the planning department blundered with WBRT?
Was it because NAIT, GMCC and powerful corporate land developers of the 105th avenue area lobbied for their interests?
Was it easier to steamroll through the Central McDougall community rather than Old Glenora?
Several posters put all their faith in the transit planners but what are we to believe? According to the transit planners from their HST study they made this planning map.

http://www.edmontonprt.com/HST%20study%20map.jpg

Does this look anything like the map and transit volumes on this document 2007 24 HR Passenger Volumes (2007/24hrPV)?
http://www.edmonton.ca/transportation/RoadsTraffic/2007_24_Hour_Passenger_Volumes.pdf

Just look at Millwoods that has some of the highest volumes travelling N/S on the 2007/24hrPV map but the Projected Long Term Demand (PLTD) map shows less than 10% of current volume and wildly over estimates that the demand from Millwoods will be E/W towards Century Place. It also shows more transit use from south of Millwoods than from Millwoods itself. The Long term demand from the HST report also suggests that there is little demand from Sherwood Park or YEG.

If you also add more information like a traffic flow map
http://www.edmontonprt.com/2003%20traffic%20flow%20map_small1.jpg
http://www.edmonton.ca/transportation/RoadsTraffic/2007_Traffic_Flow_Map.pdf

you will see that the heaviest traffic flows are not to downtown or the UofA but rather circling downtown on the inner ring road of 75th st/Whitemud/170th st/Yellowhead.

It is interesting to note that for example that 65,000 cars travel daily across Wayne Gretzky Bridge but there is only peak hour ETS service on that route that only moves 500 people a day (mostly students) or less than 1% of traffic.

Does this mean that only a few people need to cross Wayne Gretzky Drive? Not if you look at the number driving.
Does ETS force people in NE Edmonton to take the LRT to downtown and then take a bus to east Edmonton via the Low Level Bridge towards Capilano rather than the more direct route? Is this to bump up LRT volumes?
Does this mean that ETS has made no effort in improving north/south transit service in NE Edmonton and East Edmonton especially an express route down the length of 75th street and across WGD to Coliseum Station?

Now it begs the bigger question on LRT System Planning.

What are we to believe?

Are the planners trying to meet the needs of users or are they stirring the LRT route cauldron with 8 possible lines to manipulate Council to pick the one that has the most political spin? This is scary stuff and has happened in other cities which tied LRT lines to development or redevelopment projects to milk the government grants and profit from increased property values of such projects.



If LRT was to be designed by those who use it, the only three potential lines would be to:

West down 102nd Avenue to West Edmonton Mall and then south to Callingwood
SE to Bonniedoon and on the Millwoods Towncentre
North down 101st Street and straight north up 97th street to Northgate and beyond to 153rd Ave.

raz0469
07-01-2009, 08:58 AM
The present #'s at Century park are nothing special and I'd question as well that the projected local density occurs. Century Park Development itself has not released any phases lately and may fall well short of the projected 4k in just that development.

A developer would not go through the amount of work that they did only to walk away, or to build a less dense development which would make less money. I can tell you that every phase of Century Park is planned to go ahead eventually, and that there are site plans for the entire development and that they are proceeding with infrastructure and servicing accordingly. The only reason you haven't seen more phases past the third announced or sold is because of the downturn in the market. I don't know what the sales numbers are for the third phase, but I'm pretty sure they've sold less than half. I don't necessarily blame them for not wanting to cannibalize their own sales by announcing more projects.

Even if only the first, second and third phases go ahead and are completed in the next 1-2 years, that will still be around 550 units or 700-800 people, or roughly 1/6th of the final development (not sure where you heard 4000 units, it's closer to 3000). Considering the project was always anticipated to have a build out of around 10 years, I fail to see any reason for alarm. If it takes 15 years instead, so be it.

I do agree with you, though, that Mill Woods desperately needs LRT service, and probably moreso than the West End does. But the South line was a no-brainer due to the secured rights of way that already existed for most of the line. The same cannot be said for a SE or W line. Let's just hope that work begins on one or both of those in the near future.

moahunter
07-01-2009, 11:21 AM
If LRT was to be designed by those who use it, the only three potential lines would be to:

West down 102nd Avenue to West Edmonton Mall and then south to Callingwood
SE to Bonniedoon and on the Millwoods Towncentre
North down 101st Street and straight north up 97th street to Northgate and beyond to 153rd Ave.

Routes can be debated endlessly, and there are pros and cons to your suggested 1 and 2. But you can't claim that these are the routes that would be designed by people who use it - that's nonsense. For example, I would expect the many people living near WEM who work or study at UofA would prefer 87 avenue than a connection via Corona. But that's an on-going argument - sooner or later a WLRT decision will be made (hopefully sooner, regardless of the route - I can live with anything that actually can be built, WEM and Millwoods are too important to not get built soon).

Your third suggestion though, is just bizarre - I mean, why on earth would the City build a second North East LRT, when North West has not been served, and it would miss NAIT and Grant MacEwan and potential future muni development? The Millwoods and WLRT routes you suggest may make sense, but this makes none whatsover (other than it avoids certain "powerful" corporate land developers you seem to not like).

Edmonton PRT
07-01-2009, 12:07 PM
Your third suggestion though, is just bizarre - I mean, why on earth would the City build a second North East LRT, when North West has not been served, and it would miss NAIT and Grant MacEwan and potential future muni development? The Millwoods and WLRT routes you suggest may make sense, but this makes none whatsover (other than it avoids certain "powerful" corporate land developers you seem to not like).

No, I just based it upon very high ridership numbers down the 97th street corridor from the information that Medwards supplied.

highlander
07-01-2009, 12:21 PM
97st looks good to me too, and No Moa, it's not another NE LRT. 97 st is a centre North as you can get, and inlike a st. albert focused line further east it can be fed well from both sides.

PRT, your assesment that the numbers make a spr WLRT is incorrect. There is very high ridership via Quesnel Bridge & fox drive too, and an in between line is a reasonable option. the fact that noone crosses the river via transit at 87ave obviously due to there not being a route. this map tells us nothing about what we would take if the options were there.

RTA
07-01-2009, 12:27 PM
^ A lot of the NW area is industrial and wouldn't be served well by LRT. A line that is more N-NW and then swings more W-NW would definitely go through more populated areas.

highlander
07-01-2009, 12:44 PM
^ A lot of the NW area is industrial and wouldn't be served well by LRT. A line that is more N-NW and then swings more W-NW would definitely go through more populated areas.

I think that we should just build NLRT north, we can worry about NW after W and Millwoods are taken care of.

highlander
07-01-2009, 12:48 PM
Kingsway mall and NAIT are, in themselves minor destinations that don't really need LRT. A bus ride from 97st of 101st is not a big deal, no worse than a circulator at south campus, and even the walk from 101 st is about the same as the walk from University station to BioSci or ChemE.

RTA
07-01-2009, 01:22 PM
I think that we should just build NLRT north, we can worry about NW after W and Millwoods are taken care of.


Kingsway mall and NAIT are, in themselves minor destinations that don't really need LRT. A bus ride from 97st of 101st is not a big deal, no worse than a circulator at south campus, and even the walk from 101 st is about the same as the walk from University station to BioSci or ChemE.

I would agree, except that the ball is already rolling on NLRT, and I'd rather not see it stall at this point.

On the other hand, there's definitely an appeal to having our most major and prestigious educational institutions accessible and linked by LRT, as well as three of the best malls in the city (Southgate, City Centre, and Kingsway).

Edmonton PRT
07-01-2009, 01:23 PM
PRT, your assesment that the numbers make a spr WLRT is incorrect. There is very high ridership via Quesnel Bridge & fox drive too, and an in between line is a reasonable option. the fact that noone crosses the river via transit at 87ave obviously due to there not being a route. this map tells us nothing about what we would take if the options were there.

Yes there is high ridership on via Quesnel Bridge & Fox Drive (about 8,000 daily) somewhat less than what is shown because some take Fox Drive bus routes from Riverbend and would not have access to a LRT station via the 87th Ave to UofA LRT route. The SPR LRT route has closer to 12,000 daily trips but again some are continuing straight west towards Mayfield and may not use SPR LRT.

But you do bring up the point that if you build LRT people will come. ETS will always maximize LRT numbers by converging bus routes to LRT stations sometimes at the detriment of existing effective direct bus routes. WLRT, Millwoods LRT and Northgate LRT are the only areas with proven ridership density. How we get there is the job of transit planners.

My whole point of my argument is that the planners have far too many questionable routes on the table that confuses Council. Preserve ROW's to other destinations but stop there. Then planners must focus on servicing the needs of the majority of transit users based upon sound information and shelve budgetary plans for expensive nonsense routes to nowhere.

RTA
07-01-2009, 01:43 PM
ETS will always maximize LRT numbers by converging bus routes to LRT stations sometimes at the detriment of existing effective direct bus routes.

Examples?

moahunter
07-01-2009, 02:28 PM
97st looks good to me too, and No Moa, it's not another NE LRT. 97 st is a centre North as you can get, and inlike a st. albert focused line further east it can be fed well from both sides.

But the NAIT line is not really a NW line either - it is a NW central line - just as the Clareview line, IMO is a NE central line. There are plenty of neighborhoods that will benefit from NAIT LRT - and I also think that linking all the major education institutes makes sense given how close we are to that already. For example, a student in Millwoods (or teacher) will have an easy link to the UofA, Grant MacEwan and NAIT - same for other neighborhoods lucky enough to get LRT. While I don't think NAIT should have been chosen ahead of Millwoods or WEM, I think the line direction itself is a very good one, with the ultimate promise of St Albert paying for an addition leg one day (which would help traffic flows enormously). When you toss in all the malls, WEM, Kingsway, Southgate, and downtown, we have every big employment node in the City covered by the system, this is a system more people will want to link too.