PDA

View Full Version : Transit Service to EIA | Planning/Discussion



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6

53latitude
02-02-2007, 10:53 AM
Leduc eyes bus service to capital
By MICHELLE MARK, SUN MEDIA


Public transit service between Edmonton and Leduc - with stops at the international airport - could soon be a reality if the numbers add up, say officials in Leduc.

Leduc County Reeve John Whaley and City of Leduc Mayor Greg Krischke said yesterday a meeting is slated for next week to crunch numbers on the idea.

CRUNCH NUMBERS

"We're trying to get all the final numbers put together and see what makes sense," Whaley said.

"We're talking with (ETS) transportation to see about leasing buses. We've gotten a lot of our figures from working with the transportation system in Edmonton."



Whaley said he wants to see bus service between Leduc and Edmonton.

"There's obviously a wish or demand for it. As local authorities, we're trying to see if we can make this happen for the people."

If all the numbers add up, a one-year pilot project would be introduced.

In a Sun editorial board meeting yesterday, Edmonton Mayor Stephen Mandel said he would be all for such a service, but that there's nothing he can do unless Leduc County officials approach him with a plan.

"We can't just all of a sudden decide we're going to deliver bus service in another county.

"We're willing to do it, but we can only do so much."

Mandel also said issues such as where the bus would run from and to would have to be addressed.

"The problem is, buses go from many places. Would everybody go from one spot?

INTEGRATION

"There's ways to do that effectively and it means integrating it and I would think we'd be better off going not just to the airport, but businesses in Leduc could use bus transit, too. But that's up to them to come to the city of Edmonton to negotiate that."

Edmonton city council approved a plan this week to purchase 203 new diesel buses over the next two years.

RichardS
02-02-2007, 11:10 AM
Funny, Parkland and Spruce Grove have this...what's taking so long? Politics? I think so.

MylesC
02-02-2007, 11:53 AM
Regional Mass Transit Authority.....

Brentk
02-02-2007, 11:58 AM
It would be perfect timing to talk about regional tranist. Strathcona is going to contact talks with there provider and are worried about rising cost. They just raised there fares again. Still not bad, but 73 bucks a month.

LO 044
02-02-2007, 12:24 PM
I've been told by many people in Sherwood Park that their service is not very good. I'm assuming that most of their traffic is from shuttling people to and from Edmonton.

As for Edmonton, i believe our service is good, in fact too good in some areas. I remember reading about ETS looking for smaller buses to use in the evenings. Where are these buses? You can basically see empty buses running in the evening in many neighbourhoods. I think they could save a lot of money by buying some smaller buses. I imagine that when the LRT gets extended to Century Park, there will also be less buses required to go from the southside to downtown.

grish
02-02-2007, 01:28 PM
I've been told by many people in Sherwood Park that their service is not very good. I'm assuming that most of their traffic is from shuttling people to and from Edmonton.

As for Edmonton, i believe our service is good, in fact too good in some areas. I remember reading about ETS looking for smaller buses to use in the evenings. Where are these buses? You can basically see empty buses running in the evening in many neighbourhoods. I think they could save a lot of money by buying some smaller buses. I imagine that when the LRT gets extended to Century Park, there will also be less buses required to go from the southside to downtown.

there are some routes already in place that uses smaller ford busses.

SP--stop buying laz-boys on wheels! Get two human busses for the price of one you use.

Brentk
02-02-2007, 01:31 PM
I've been told by many people in Sherwood Park that their service is not very good. I'm assuming that most of their traffic is from shuttling people to and from Edmonton.


I use the service it is actually pretty good. The shuttle service though is really good.

Glenco
02-02-2007, 04:16 PM
The point being Mandel's approach to regional cooperation seems to be working. The other municipalities are changing their attitudes one by one. The Sun's editorial today "About this bus" is quite timely, however I don't think Mandel needs luck. I think he has the right approach.

LO 044
02-02-2007, 04:29 PM
there are some routes already in place that uses smaller ford busses.

SP--stop buying laz-boys on wheels! Get two human busses for the price of one you use.
Those buses i know of but they were looking at regular buses that were maybe 2/3 the size of the new blue ones we have. These small buses exist all over Europe but it has more to do with small roads than with passenger volumes over there.

Glenco
02-02-2007, 05:03 PM
there are some routes already in place that uses smaller ford busses.

SP--stop buying laz-boys on wheels! Get two human busses for the price of one you use.
Those buses i know of but they were looking at regular buses that were maybe 2/3 the size of the new blue ones we have. These small buses exist all over Europe but it has more to do with small roads than with passenger volumes over there.
And it has everything to do with the union collective agreement in Edmonton. They use them extensively in Calgary.

grish
02-02-2007, 05:30 PM
there are some routes already in place that uses smaller ford busses.

SP--stop buying laz-boys on wheels! Get two human busses for the price of one you use.
Those buses i know of but they were looking at regular buses that were maybe 2/3 the size of the new blue ones we have. These small buses exist all over Europe but it has more to do with small roads than with passenger volumes over there.
And it has everything to do with the union collective agreement in Edmonton. They use them extensively in Calgary.

i think they are the same size as in Edmonton. they looked the same to me.

RichardS
02-02-2007, 08:03 PM
Some are a bit smaller...and the agreements with the ATU do influence purchasing decisions.

microbus
02-02-2007, 09:49 PM
There is a very minimal cost difference between running
the 40-foot low floor buses, and the Elf (para) buses.
The Elf buses have a 5 year life span, the big buses
have a minimum 18 year life span.
Fuel consumption difference is very little actually.
Driver's pay difference isn't as much as it was last year.
But public perception plays the major role in ETS choosing
Elf buses, because the public thinks they cost way less to operate.

What I would like to see is some 30-foot buses for local service
to suburban areas like Ellerslie, Terwillegar, even Castledowns
and parts of Mill Woods.

ED1
02-02-2007, 11:45 PM
there are some routes already in place that uses smaller ford busses.

SP--stop buying laz-boys on wheels! Get two human busses for the price of one you use.
Those buses i know of but they were looking at regular buses that were maybe 2/3 the size of the new blue ones we have. These small buses exist all over Europe but it has more to do with small roads than with passenger volumes over there.
And it has everything to do with the union collective agreement in Edmonton. They use them extensively in Calgary.

That's what caused the last transit strike in Calgary... CT wanted to use the smaller buses to save $$$ and the union wasn't in favour cuz the jr. guys drive the smaller buses.

JayBee
03-02-2007, 01:50 PM
Back to Leduc for a second, WOW, this is more like it.

A few more positive statements from the county, and I might even get my hopes up for a meeting or something. Who knows what might happen after that? Perhaps they'd put together a working group that will study the number of centimetres the bus will travel in either jurisdiction, and how much air the passengers who don't get off in Leduc require, before issuing a white paper. And after that makes the rounds do you think we might see an open bidding process that invites transit services from around the globe to be sure nobody gets taken for a ride? (Meaning that the price has to be right, of course.) If, and I mean if, things get that far, they might just be willing to have another meeting, you know. From whence they could always issue another statement. The possibilities are endless!

Nice to see Leduc get the old binoculars out to scout the horizon. Honestly here, please keep it going this time. It would have been welcomed 40 years ago.

My vote is that the service goes to wherever the southern terminus of the LRT happens to be, thus currently the University.

24karat
03-02-2007, 02:02 PM
And after that makes the rounds do you think we might see an open bidding process that invites transit services from around the globe to be sure nobody gets taken for a ride? .

I hope that pun was intended, because it was quite good, actually.

Titanium48
05-02-2007, 01:01 PM
The solution seems pretty simple - ETS adds a route to the airport from southgate and/or heritage and Leduc also starts running busses to YEG to connect with them. Some kind of fare sharing agreement would be nice, but the service would be workable even if ETS and Leduc transit charged fares independantly.

RichardS
05-02-2007, 01:14 PM
Leduc won't start up a transit system IMO.

Glenco
05-02-2007, 03:25 PM
Leduc won't start up a transit system IMO.
I am in two minds as to whether the county/city of Leduc should help provide bus service to the airport. If they don't it would provide the city of Edmonton with the justification to annex the airport. If these people are unable/unwilling to provide the services it needs I am sure the city of Edmonton would.

RichardS
05-02-2007, 04:20 PM
That card has been played...to little success.

What can you do when the province has you on ignore?

LO 044
05-02-2007, 06:10 PM
What can you do when the province has you on ignore?
You cry and whine about it and have the news media overplay the story. Maybe name some Edmonton politicians who aren't doing their job. This is what Calgary does and they generally get what they want. I envy their tenacity and cringe at our apathy.

Brentk
05-02-2007, 06:12 PM
That hasn't worked in the past, but then again we have a different guy in the drivers sit now...let's hope Stelmach understands that regional differences in Edmonton have to stop now.

IanO
05-02-2007, 06:45 PM
That hasn't worked in the past, but then again we have a different guy in the drivers sit now...let's hope Stelmach understands that regional differences in Edmonton have to stop now.


bingo

RichardS
05-02-2007, 07:52 PM
You cry and whine about it and have the news media overplay the story.
That's been going on for years. The diff, Calgary had the ear of Klein and Lougheed...

CSR
05-02-2007, 09:59 PM
Leduc wants transit. To get workers in. To get University students and others out.

Edmonton wants to provide transit to the Airport.

Leduc has the money.

Edmonton has the equipment and the personnel.

If they can't come to some sort of arrangement under those conditions we may as well just become the northern most suburb of Calgary and be done with it.

RichardS
05-02-2007, 11:09 PM
Remove a few egos and dilusions of sovereignty, and we'd have a deal...

actually, from what I hear this is pretty close...

DebraW
31-03-2007, 12:34 PM
City eyes bus service to international airport
Cost-sharing with Leduc county and city needs resolution

Duncan Thorne, The Edmonton Journal
Published: Saturday, March 31, 2007

The city is pressing ahead with plans for bus service to the Edmonton International Airport but has yet to resolve cost-sharing, Mayor Stephen Mandel says.

Mandel's idea of the bus service -- one costing "several millions of dollars" -- is richer than the one a County of Leduc official has in mind.

"We weren't thinking in terms of millions," county manager Doug Wright said. "It's unfortunate we're hearing it through the press, very unfortunate."

But Mike Slade, chairman of the Leduc-Nisku Economic Development Authority, isn't surprised at the cost range. Slade welcomed Edmonton's eagerness to start the bus service.

Greg Krischke, City of Leduc mayor, said his preliminary estimates don't put the cost at "several millions" but he can see it topping $1 million.

Leduc county and city are pushing for bus service from Edmonton so workers can commute to Leduc and Nisku. The route would also carry workers to the airport, along with airline passengers.

Mandel in an interview mentioned the cost range, while withholding details. He said the city has worked out the probable amounts, including who should pay what. The mayor said one reason the service will cost so much is that Edmonton Transit must buy special highway buses.

"As soon as we sit down with the (Edmonton) airport authority and Leduc County and Leduc City, and see what they say, then we can move down the line." He said those talks could happen within the next 10 days.

"We'd like to move ahead as quick as possible. But there's always a cost and people have to be willing to share the cost."

Concerns about access to the International increased earlier this week when Edmonton Airports warned that all its parking lots were full. The authority said Friday the crunch has now eased, but it still wants people to find other ways of getting to the airport if possible.

In the absence of municipal transit, passengers' choices are to park at lots across Highway 2 from the airport, take taxis or the Sky Shuttle buses that serve hotels, or have others drop them off.

Despite the shortage of parking at the International, only Toronto and Montreal have more stalls at their main airports, spokesman Jim Rudolph said. Edmonton has about 6,200 spots, although that includes 500 that are out of use because of the spring flooding and 300 reserved for rental cars.

Edmonton Airports officials checked with other airports and found that Toronto is adding a parking garage that will eventually hold 13,000 vehicles. Montreal's airport has about 8,325 stalls, which, like Edmonton, were not enough to handle all of the demand during the recent spring break.

The Leduc-Nisku Economic Development Authority sent a questionnaire to about 1,000 businesses in its region last year to gauge opinion on starting a bus service from Edmonton to attract employees.

Just 145 filled in the survey but 89 of those -- 61 per cent -- said their workers would use buses running between Edmonton, Nisku Business Park, the airport and possibly Leduc. Another 46 said their staff would not, while 10 gave no opinion.

The challenge, Mandel said, will be to reach a long-term cost-sharing agreement because city taxpayers already cover about half the expense of existing routes.

He said it's probable about a quarter of the riders on the proposed service will be airline passengers. Most others will be people working at the airport or in Leduc and Nisku.

Calgary has bus service to its airport but the route serves other areas of the city as well. It connects with two LRT stations, the closest being about eight kilometres from the airport.

Tony McCallum, with Calgary Transit, said the service started as a way to serve staff in the airport's maintenance area. It later added a stop at the terminal.

"Some people board with luggage at the terminal but most of the passengers are airport employees," McCallum said. The main advantage for passengers is the fare, just $2.25 to downtown.

At the peak of this week's parking squeeze at Edmonton International, staff were directing drivers to park along service roads. Even the independent Park'N Fly lot, across Highway 2 from the airport, had no empty stalls.

The lesser-known Airways Airport Parking lot, east of Highway 2 at the Nisku overpass, had spare weekly and monthly spots through the worst of the crisis, owner Clarence Shields said.

Airways and Park'N Fly each have shuttle service to the airport.

[email protected]
© The Edmonton Journal 2007

--30--

IanO
31-03-2007, 02:52 PM
let's hope a solution isnt too far off...

now how about those lights all the way from city limits to YEG

edmowl
31-03-2007, 03:00 PM
what lights do you mean. street lights?

If so, damn right :smt038

IanO
31-03-2007, 03:09 PM
should have been done a long time ago...


HWY 2 from city limits to YEG should be LIT...simple as that...safety, feel, look, and it will make it seem more "in the city"

dwells
31-03-2007, 05:34 PM
should have been done a long time ago...


HWY 2 from city limits to YEG should be LIT...simple as that...safety, feel, look, and it will make it seem more "in the city"
So who's responsible for this? City, county, province or EIA?

Brentk
31-03-2007, 07:31 PM
Province and the county of Leduc.

JayBee
31-03-2007, 11:31 PM
What kind of outdated and embarrassing equipment could Leduc be contemplating in order to save millions of dollars here? Does it have a fleet of 50 year old school busses rusting in some politically friendly farmers backlot?

And yeah, it is unfortunate that you have to read about this in the press, isn't it, Doug Wright? Really, it is very unfortunate your posse didn't hear about it at the bargaining table after they ran away from it for the umpteenth time.

I think if the city goes ahead with transit service, without the full participation of Leduc, it will be kindof akin to Edmonton taking over responsibility for the airport. That could set a legal claim to collect the tax revenue from YEG and Airlinks, with a connecting corridor that might as well include Nisku. I don't think it's a bad idea from Edmonton's perspective, as that is the single most important piece of area infrastructure that absolutely needs such service immediately (only moreso with the current parking crunch.) But does Leduc realise that by forfeiting their part of the bargain they'll be paving the way for YEG annexation by Edmonton?

It is time, Leduc, to either play or be sidelined.

travis
31-03-2007, 11:38 PM
"We weren't thinking in terms of millions," county manager Doug Wright said. "It's unfortunate we're hearing it through the press, very unfortunate."

What the heck were they thinking in then? Thousands? Hundreds? Nickels and Dimes? :roll:

chupa
01-04-2007, 12:03 AM
As was mentioned at the EAA meeting this is embarrasing...This airport is not gonna stop going crazy,the traffic is here now and will continue to grow like crazy for the next few years.EAA dont make the mistakes of ''not seeing the boom'' that the old group made.It was agreed at the last meeting that there were plenty of signs it was going to happen...We surely dont want to be the busiest little airport in the west.

ike9126
01-04-2007, 05:05 AM
a lot of the freeways in LA arent lit, but it sure felt like we were in the city driving down them

Brentk
01-04-2007, 10:15 AM
That's because you are in the middle of LA not Leduc county ;-)

ike9126
01-04-2007, 02:59 PM
true
i just think cars have headlights for a reason, and putting streetlights all the way out to YEG would be a waste of energy

Brentk
01-04-2007, 03:29 PM
That is where I disagree. Lights to YEG would not be for looks only, but for safety. That is one of the businest section of the QEII.

Headlights do not highlight the shoulders of the roads fully. On busy sections of highways this important. I am 100% for placing lighting on this section of QEII if just for safety alone.

EdmTrekker
02-04-2007, 12:31 PM
true
i just think cars have headlights for a reason, and putting streetlights all the way out to YEG would be a waste of energy

Really?????? Are suggesting we take them out of the city as well??? Off the freeways as well???????? Not bloody likely. The Province should be working to improve saefty on the highway - end of story.

Rocket252
02-04-2007, 12:36 PM
Perception is everything.

Besides the safety factor having lights gives the impression that the airport is part of Edmonton.

It needs that connection

highlander
02-04-2007, 12:56 PM
I'm normally all for preserving energy and darkness (I like to see stars) but I agree that this stretch needs to be lighted. 3 lanes in darkness with snow and people in a hurry because this is the home stretch all add up to a hairy drive, sometimes. The fact that nisku and other businesses light their yards makes it worse when the headlight glow in front of you is nowhere near the brightest thing in your field of vision.

LindseyT
02-04-2007, 03:43 PM
I think if the city goes ahead with transit service, without the full participation of Leduc, it will be kindof akin to Edmonton taking over responsibility for the airport. That could set a legal claim to collect the tax revenue from YEG and Airlinks, with a connecting corridor that might as well include Nisku. I don't think it's a bad idea from Edmonton's perspective, as that is the single most important piece of area infrastructure that absolutely needs such service immediately (only moreso with the current parking crunch.) But does Leduc realise that by forfeiting their part of the bargain they'll be paving the way for YEG annexation by Edmonton?

Agree.

It would be really interesting to see the chain reaction such a bold move would set off.

SteveB
02-04-2007, 04:14 PM
I'm normally all for preserving energy and darkness (I like to see stars) but I agree that this stretch needs to be lighted. 3 lanes in darkness with snow and people in a hurry because this is the home stretch all add up to a hairy drive, sometimes. The fact that nisku and other businesses light their yards makes it worse when the headlight glow in front of you is nowhere near the brightest thing in your field of vision.

Couldn't agree more - drove there in a snow storm and it was fine until it all went "dark" then I could see nothing apart from blowing snow caused by ***** truck drivers still doing 110km/h.

Titanium48
02-04-2007, 04:58 PM
I'm normally all for preserving energy and darkness (I like to see stars) but I agree that this stretch needs to be lighted. 3 lanes in darkness with snow and people in a hurry because this is the home stretch all add up to a hairy drive, sometimes. The fact that nisku and other businesses light their yards makes it worse when the headlight glow in front of you is nowhere near the brightest thing in your field of vision.

Couldn't agree more - drove there in a snow storm and it was fine until it all went "dark" then I could see nothing apart from blowing snow caused by ***** truck drivers still doing 110km/h.

I agree as well. The businesses in north Leduc (especially the car dealerships) are a hazard and should be forced to shield their lights. Adding to the problem is the alternate lit and unlit sections. Driving northbound at night one is almost blinded by the bright streetlights in south Leduc. My eyes finally adapt to the light level at around the highway 39 overpass at which point the lights stop and the darkness resumes, with my night vision gone and the aforementioned obnoxious car dealership glare. I'd like to see the whole section from south Leduc to 23 Av lit with low pressure sodium lamps (the long skinny deep orange ones). They are more energy efficient than the normal high pressure sodium lamps and much more friendly to dark adapted eyes.

Titanium48
02-04-2007, 05:05 PM
... The mayor said one reason the service will cost so much is that Edmonton Transit must buy special highway buses....

Why? ETS runs the regular New Flyer city busses on Whitemud. Calgary transit runs the same busses on Deerfoot. Why can't they spend 10 minutes at 100 km/h in the slow lane of highway 2?

LindseyT
02-04-2007, 05:31 PM
... The mayor said one reason the service will cost so much is that Edmonton Transit must buy special highway buses....

Why? ETS runs the regular New Flyer city busses on Whitemud. Calgary transit runs the same busses on Deerfoot. Why can't they spend 10 minutes at 100 km/h in the slow lane of highway 2?

It starts to take exponential amounts of energy to move these things at higher speed. 80 might not be a problem, they might do 90 with the peddle down going downhill and wind at their back...I don't know. These things are also geared for city driving, I suppose that could be changed fairly easy. Anything less than 110 should not be allowed on Highway 2, ten below the traffic flow is not safe.

You might also have insurance issues. Those Newflyers are essentially pop cans on wheels. Just a thought.

m0nkyman
02-04-2007, 06:39 PM
/me imagines a packed NewFlyer doing 120 and getting in an accident. No seatbelts, some people standing....

I'm thinking this falls into the bad idea category...

travis
02-04-2007, 06:52 PM
/me imagines a packed NewFlyer doing 120 and getting in an accident. No seatbelts, some people standing....

I'm thinking this falls into the bad idea category...


Mandel in an interview mentioned the cost range, while withholding details. He said the city has worked out the probable amounts, including who should pay what. The mayor said one reason the service will cost so much is that Edmonton Transit must buy special highway buses.

MikeK
02-04-2007, 07:12 PM
You know those big coach buses made by Prevost that Strathcona County Transit uses? I wonder if that's what Mandel had in mind.

travis
02-04-2007, 07:34 PM
http://www.prevostcar.com/DB/gallery/2007X3456_1l.jpg

http://www.prevostcar.com/DB/news/2005_X3-45_Prevost.jpg

http://www.prevostcar.com/DB/markets/market_linehaul_3high.jpg

lightrail
06-04-2007, 01:33 PM
Here are the current transit services to airports of Canada's major cities, starting with the largest metro area and working down. First and last are weekdays, will be different on weekends and holidays:

Toronto Pearson International Airport.
Note: Pearson Airport is in Mississauga and outside the Toronto Transit Commission service area.

Toronto Transit Commission 58A (local service)
- Terminals 1, 2 and 3 to Lawrence West Subway Station, first bus to airport at 5:00am, last bus from airport at 1:50am. Frequency, approx. every 20-30 minutes.

Toronto Transit Commission 192 (express service)
- Terminals 1, 2, and 3 to Kippling Subway Station, first bus to airport at 5:20am, last bus from airport at 1:42am, buses run every 15-20 minutes.

Toronto Transit Commission 300A (Night Bus)
- Terminals 1 2 and 3 to downtown Toronto via Bloor, from approx. 1:00am to 5:00am. Buses run every 30 minutes

Toronto Transit Commission 307 (Night Bus)
- Terminals 1 2 and 3 to Eglington Subway Station from approx. 1:00am to 5:00am. Buses run every 30 minutes.

Mississauga Transit Route 7 (local Service)
- Terminal 1 to Mississauga City Centre (Square One), fist bus to airport at 5:50am, lat bus from airport at 12:26am. Buses run every 25-30 minutes.

Go Transit Brampton Service (express)
- Terminal 1 to York Mills Go Bus Station (Toronto Subway), first bus to airport at 5:35am, last bus from airport at 1:04am . Bus run every 60 minutes.

- Terminal 1 to Brampton, first bus to Airport at 5:15am, last bus from airport at 1:37am. Buses run every 60 minutes.

Montreal Pierre Elliot Trudeau International Airport

STM Route 204 (Local)
- Terminal to Gare Dorval, where connection is made to express bus 212 to downtown Montreal. Buses run every 30 minutes from 6:00am to midnight.

STM Route 356 (express Night Bus)
- Terminal to Atwater (downtown Montreal) from 1:00am to 5:00am. Buses run every 60 minutes.

Vancouver International Airport

Translink Route 424 (shuttle)
- Terminal to Airport Station, where connections are made to the 98 B-line rapid bus (BRT) to downtown Vancouver and Richmond, and connections to the 620 highway express to Tsawaassen Ferry Terminal for the Gulf Islands and Victoria. First 424 to the airport leaves airport station at 5:20am, last bus leaves the airport at 12:19am. The 424 runs every 7/8 minutes daytime, every 15 minutes in the evening.

Translink Route N10 (Night Bus)
- Terminal to Downtown Vancouver and Richmond City Centre. Buses run after 1:00am. First bus from downtown Vancouver to the airport is at 2:10am, last bus to Vancouver from the airport is at 2:30am. First bus from Richmond to the airport is at 1:12am and the last bus to Richmond is at 3:40am. Buses run every 30 minutes.

Planned Service
Canada Line (skytrain). This line is currently under construction and when it opens in 2009 will connect the Vancouver International Airport with downtown Vancouver using automated trains. Trains will run every 6 minutes in the daytime and every 8 miutes in the late evenings.

Calgary International Airport

Calgary Transit Route 57 (Local Service)
- Terminal to Whitehorn Station. First bus to the airport at 5:30am, last bus from the airport at 12:20am. Buses run every 20-30 minutes.

Winnipeg International Airport

Winnipeg Transit Route 15
- Terminal to downtown, first bus to airport at 5:30, last bus from airport at 11:50pm. Buses run every 15-20 minutes.

Victoria International Airport

BC Transit Route 70 (local and express)
- provides limited service between the terminal and downtown Victoria, Sidney and the Swartz Bay ferry terminal. Certain trips during the day Monday to Sunday divert to serve the airport. There are approximately 5 trips per day in each direction provided. Peak trips are provided express to and from Victoria.

BC Transit Route 83 (local)
- terminal to Sidney and Brentwood Bay. Six trips per day provided in both directions.

Proposed Service
Starting in September 2007, Route 75 will be extended from its current terminus in Saanichton to the airport, providing vast increases in frequency and providing new connecitons to Saanichton, Brentwood Bay, Butchart Gardens, Royal Oak and Victoria.

Saskatoon Airport

Saskatoon Transit Route 11
- temrinal to downtown Saskatoon, first bus to the airport at 5:30am, last bus from the airport at 12:30am. buses run every 30 minutes.

So I've probably missed some. There are osme smaller communities in BC that provide limited transit service to their local airports (e.g. Powell River). Anyboduy want to add to this?

lightrail
06-04-2007, 01:45 PM
/me imagines a packed NewFlyer doing 120 and getting in an accident. No seatbelts, some people standing....

I'm thinking this falls into the bad idea category...

Should they be doing 120km/h - I thought the speed limit was 1110km/h on Highway 2

I take buses on the highway all the time - New Flyer, GM Classic, Orion and the Trident Double-deckers - packed front to back at times and we're doing 90km/h on the Pat Bay Highway. You regularly see packed double-deckers (120 people) in Greater Victoria running at highway speeds.

Vancouver's 620 to the ferry terminal uses new flyer articulated running ont he highway at 100km/h. And Vancouver use single door, high-backed seated Orion buses on the 351 Vancouver White-Rock and 601, 602, 603, 604 Vancouver South Delta services. West Vancouver Blue Bus run New Flyer articulated and 40 ft buses on the Upper Levels Highway between Vancouver and Horseshoe Bay at speeds up to 100 km/h.

With the exception of a crash in the HOV lane in rush hour on Highway 99 in 1990s (caused by a car that used the HOV lane as an emergency shoulder and a bus doing 90 km/h passing stopped traffic and not seeing the stalled car until it was too late), we've had no problems.

Oh, and a bus turning onto Highway 17 on Route 70 north of Victoria was hit by a speeding car around midnight, again in the 1990s.

DebraW
06-04-2007, 04:44 PM
/me imagines a packed NewFlyer doing 120 and getting in an accident. No seatbelts, some people standing....

I'm thinking this falls into the bad idea category...

Should they be doing 120km/h - I thought the speed limit was 1110km/h on Highway 2

I take buses on the highway all the time - New Flyer, GM Classic, Orion and the Trident Double-deckers - packed front to back at times and we're doing 90km/h on the Pat Bay Highway. You regularly see packed double-deckers (120 people) in Greater Victoria running at highway speeds.

Vancouver's 620 to the ferry terminal uses new flyer articulated running ont he highway at 100km/h. And Vancouver use single door, high-backed seated Orion buses on the 351 Vancouver White-Rock and 601, 602, 603, 604 Vancouver South Delta services. West Vancouver Blue Bus run New Flyer articulated and 40 ft buses on the Upper Levels Highway between Vancouver and Horseshoe Bay at speeds up to 100 km/h.

With the exception of a crash in the HOV lane in rush hour on Highway 99 in 1990s (caused by a car that used the HOV lane as an emergency shoulder and a bus doing 90 km/h passing stopped traffic and not seeing the stalled car until it was too late), we've had no problems.

Oh, and a bus turning onto Highway 17 on Route 70 north of Victoria was hit by a speeding car around midnight, again in the 1990s.

Thanks for the info and welcome to C2E!

RichardS
06-04-2007, 09:47 PM
People forget that the 50's era GMC busses are no longer the staple of the ETS fleet - thank God.

The Flyers hold their own...

Brentk
06-04-2007, 10:56 PM
Nova makes a good bus as well. Wish we used both.

When I was in Paris during the riots two years ago, I rode the bus to the airport instead of the train (since it shutdown while I was on it due to the riots), they used charter bus like the one above. Worked great!

Titanium48
10-04-2007, 07:43 PM
...
So I've probably missed some. There are osme smaller communities in BC that provide limited transit service to their local airports (e.g. Powell River). Anyboduy want to add to this?

Ottawa International Airport

OCtranspo Route 97 (BRT)
- Terminal to downtown. First bus in 04:50 am. Last bus out 02:29 am. Busses every 10-12 minutes in peak hours, 15 minutes midday and evening and 30 minutes late night.

JayBee
11-04-2007, 08:40 PM
Here are the current transit services to airports of Canada's major cities, starting with the largest metro area and working down. First and last are weekdays, will be different on weekends and holidays:

...


Thank you so much for compiling this.

I think it really shows Edmonton for the major exception it is. Not a unique aspect that I'm proud of.

grish
11-04-2007, 08:47 PM
I think the common understanding of the bus service to the airport is the bus would make a stop in Leduc on the way to the airport (if there is an agreement and the sharing of the funds).

This need not be. The airport could be the middle stop:

Edmonton-Leduc via Airport:
Bus leaves edmonton, arrives at the airport to drop off passengers, continues on to Leduc. If need be, it may even to a small run through Leduc.

Leduc-Edmonton via Airport:
Bus leaves Leduc Arrives at the Airport and the continues on to Edmonton.

For the passengers, it is a strictly airport service. But it also allows transport of airport staff to and from leduc as well as edmonton.

lightrail
11-04-2007, 10:54 PM
I think the common understanding of the bus service to the airport is the bus would make a stop in Leduc on the way to the airport (if there is an agreement and the sharing of the funds).

This need not be. The airport could be the middle stop:

Edmonton-Leduc via Airport:
Bus leaves edmonton, arrives at the airport to drop off passengers, continues on to Leduc. If need be, it may even to a small run through Leduc.

Leduc-Edmonton via Airport:
Bus leaves Leduc Arrives at the Airport and the continues on to Edmonton.

For the passengers, it is a strictly airport service. But it also allows transport of airport staff to and from leduc as well as edmonton.

I've been thinking about this too and playing with it in Google Earth. I like the Leduc - Edmonton Airport - Southgate (to connect with the LRT starting in 2010). Nisku is a problem as I tihnk it needs a peak hour service to both Leduc and Southgate.

The issue is more jurisdictional than cost. The distance from downtown Edmonton to the Airport is 26km. Victoria's airport is 28 km and Victoria has bus service to it's airport. Multi-jurisidicitonal service is possible (Toronto airport is an example) and in Great Vancouver, West Coast Express and a new bus link between Abbotsford and Greater Vancouver via Aldergrove).

Cost wise, some sort of fare sharing/funding agreements are needed. The airport should pony up too, but I think they won't as they have to protect the taxis and airporter bus services that pay a lot to serve the airport.

What Edmonton (and Calgary) needs is a regional transit authority and this is where the Alberta Government needs to step in, folllow the BC Transit model and establish regional transit systems with a fare sharing formula.

For those who don't know, BC Transit is a Crown corporation that partners with municipalities and regional districts. BC Transit has a unified fleet of buses, does research and recommends routes, provides bus stops and vehicles and cost shares, usually around 40% of the service cost. The municipality or regional transit commission (or regional district as the case may be) sets the fare and service levels and gets to keep any money from the fare box - the reminder of the cost is covered by the municipality in any way it sees fit (usually taxes). Under this program most communities in BC, no matter how small, have some sort of transit service.

Still, with that great big fast freeway between Leduc and the airport, I can see why it's hard to get people out of their cars :-D

m0nkyman
11-04-2007, 11:29 PM
Still, with that great big fast freeway between Leduc and the airport, I can see why it's hard to get people out of their cars :-D

Pat Bay highway is faster. ;)

I do both trips. A lot.

JayBee
12-04-2007, 05:55 PM
...

Still, with that great big fast freeway between Leduc and the airport, I can see why it's hard to get people out of their cars :-D

True, but there's always the parking issue.

Titanium48
13-04-2007, 10:53 AM
Yes, parking at the airport is expensive, but right now it's the cheapest option for short trips and even for week long trips if there is more than one person going. Reasonably priced bus service could change that.

RichardS
13-04-2007, 11:59 AM
...is anyone else saddened by the fact that this is still just being TALKED about... :(

lightrail
14-04-2007, 12:18 PM
Thanks - how could I forget about our nation's capital?

I also missed Whitehorse, Yukon which has bus service to its airport from downtown Whitehorse.

Some others from British Columbia:

Kelowna Airport
BC Transit (Kelowna Regional Transit System)
Route 23 Lake Country proivdes service roughly hourly throughout the day to and from Lake Country and from Orchard Park Exchange in Kelowna.

Kamloops Airport
BC Transit (Kamloops Transit System)
Route 1 provides peak hour service deom the airport to downtown Kamloops.

Powell River Airport
BC Transit (Powell River Regional Transit System)
Route 3 provides service hourly during the day from the airport to downtown Powell River

Comox Airport
BC Transit (Comox Valley Regional Transit System)
Route 11 Little River provides service from Comox Airport to downtown Courtenay with five trips per day

Chilliwack Airport
BC Transit (Chilliwack/Agassi-Harrison Transit System)
Route 3 provides service hourly from the airport to downtown Chilliwack

Vernon Airport
BC Transit (Vernon Regional Transit System)
Route 7 Okangan Landing provides hourly service from the airport to downtown Vernon.

Boundary Bay Airport
Translink
Route C76 provides limited service 7 days a week from the airport to Scottsdale Exchange to the east and Ladner Exchange in the west (for connections to Vancouver express buses).

Note: Effective April 23rd, C76 provides hourly service to the airport.


If it looks like I'm trying to embarrass Edmonton for lack of action on getting service to its airport, I am. Come on Edmonton, get with it!

lightrail
14-04-2007, 01:13 PM
Here's my route in Google Earth.

This is a fantasy route of course. The 501 runs from Century Park to Leduc via the Airport. In the peak hours, some trips route via Nisku Industrial. I supposed non-stop express trips from Leduc to Century Park could be provided if there was demand, but the routing via the airport is not that indirect. The route minimizes running on Highway 2 and could provide additional service to south Edmonton too.

I haven't worked out a schedule, but my guess is a return trip would take about 110 minutes via the airport and a little longer via Nisku (via Nisku would not go to the airport). Given a 110 return (this includes recovery time at the airport and at Leduc town centre), two buses could provide hourly service, or one could provide bi-hourly service.

Return trip Century Park to the Airport only would take 50 minutes including recovery. So if service to the Airport on Sunday was desirable but not to Leduc, or if service to Leduc was only in the peak, one bus could provide hourly service Century Park to the airport.

Make sure you have Google Earth 4 installed, then click on this link and select "open in Google Earth).

Here's the link. Click on it, and
http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/download.php?Number=864604

If the link doesn't work, try here
http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/dosearch.php
Copy into your browser url.

If you want to keep it, just right click the file under Temporary Places and select Move to My Places.

grish
14-04-2007, 01:30 PM
that's actually something I had in mind too. I really like this plan. it is a great starting point.

24karat
07-08-2007, 04:35 PM
I started out at Century Park bus terminal, then drove to the
Southern outskirts of the city, continued to the Northern boundary of YEG and finally to the terminal building.

The distances:

Century Park to Southern boundary 2.71 miles

Century Park to YEG terminal . . . . . 8.6 miles
Conclusion: - an 8.6 mile extension of the LRT will allow passengers
to go to and from YEG.

The Southern boundary of the city is already South of Gateway Park, as there is a lot of new house and condo development underway. How many years before the city reaches a mile or two from the airport?

RichardS
07-08-2007, 04:38 PM
Not long.

What route did you drive? If you went to Gateway/QEII, it adds a bit of distance as you go about a mile east and then swing back west. The LRT won't follow that route.

24karat
07-08-2007, 04:41 PM
Not long.

What route did you drive? If you went to Gateway/QEII, it adds a bit of distance as you go about a mile east and then swing back west. The LRT won't follow that route.

I took QE2, but it doesn't matter which route I took, because I measured waypoint to waypoint, rather than track distance.

RichardS
07-08-2007, 04:49 PM
OK, crow flies then...

The point being though that the distance is realitvely short, dispelling the myth that an LRT extension would be 2,000,000,000 miles of track and an additional 10 hours of a drive....which is awesome.

24karat
07-08-2007, 04:58 PM
OK, crow flies then...

The point being though that the distance is realitvely short...

Exactly, plus the route would be on surface with only one small bridge, I think.

RichardS
07-08-2007, 05:00 PM
Correct, to go over that small runoff creek.

lux
07-08-2007, 05:05 PM
That's 17 kilometres for those of us who have no idea how far a mile is.

(according to google earth)

Not exactly doubling the current system, but at least no stations en-route.

bdejong
07-08-2007, 05:05 PM
Nice work 24karat. It shows the distance is really not that far. I'd suggest converting those distance to km's as well, since that might mean more to people (or perhaps not, depending on one's age)

24karat
07-08-2007, 05:24 PM
That's 17 kilometres for those of us who have no idea how far a mile is.

(according to google earth)

Not exactly doubling the current system, but at least no stations en-route.

Actually 13.8 kilometers.

lux
07-08-2007, 05:35 PM
That's 17 kilometres for those of us who have no idea how far a mile is.

(according to google earth)

Not exactly doubling the current system, but at least no stations en-route.

Actually 13.8 kilometers.

from terminal to century park,as the crow flies, and thus going through quite a few people's yards in twin brooks...longer than the currently-built line.

24karat
07-08-2007, 05:59 PM
That's why it would be a good idea to secure a ROW from the Southern outskirts to the airport, before developers build houses and commercial buildings there.

DanC
07-08-2007, 06:09 PM
That's why it would be a good idea to secure a ROW from the Southern outskirts to the airport, before developers build houses and commercial buildings there.
This is being done already isn't it?

Medwards
07-08-2007, 07:15 PM
That's why it would be a good idea to secure a ROW from the Southern outskirts to the airport, before developers build houses and commercial buildings there.
This is being done already isn't it?

a ROW is already planned and secured all the way to the cities boundary and further. Look through some of the ARP's for the neighbourhoods south of AHD, and you'll clearly see the ROW.

I'm pretty sure theres an ROW all the way to the airport

MylesC
07-08-2007, 08:30 PM
Given our City administrations the RoW will be sold off in five years :roll:

bdejong
07-08-2007, 08:37 PM
That's why it would be a good idea to secure a ROW from the Southern outskirts to the airport, before developers build houses and commercial buildings there.
This is being done already isn't it?

a ROW is already planned and secured all the way to the cities boundary and further. Look through some of the ARP's for the neighbourhoods south of AHD, and you'll clearly see the ROW.

I'm pretty sure theres an ROW all the way to the airport
Are you sure? I haven't found anything, maybe you could share where you see these r/w's

RichardS
07-08-2007, 08:55 PM
There is nothing online, but many of the long term plans I've seen from sources in the engineering/planning firms I know all show an allowance for the ROW for LRT. It is not purchased, but any developments in the area must allow for it.

Medwards
07-08-2007, 10:21 PM
There is nothing online, but many of the long term plans I've seen from sources in the engineering/planning firms I know all show an allowance for the ROW for LRT. It is not purchased, but any developments in the area must allow for it.

Below Taken from: (Heritage Valley ARP)

http://www.edmonton.ca/InfraPlan/Consolidations/PDF%20Consolidations/Heritage%20Valley%20Neighbourhood%206%20NASP%20Con solidation.pdf

http://img464.imageshack.us/img464/2817/lrtarphw2.jpg

Medwards
07-08-2007, 10:26 PM
This one taken for the Rutherford plan...

http://www.edmonton.ca/infraplan/consolidations/pdf%20consolidations/Rutherford%20NASP%20Consolidation.pdf

http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/730/rutherfordnz1.jpg

Carbon-14
07-08-2007, 10:49 PM
Also in the Heritage Valley SCDB they show a transit corridor all the way to 41st SW
http://www.edmonton.ca/InfraPlan/Consolidations/PDF%20Consolidations/Heritage%20Valley%20SCDB%20Consolidation.pdf

I'm glad at least someone had the foresight to include a corridor that far south

bagould
08-08-2007, 06:13 PM
Yes, thankfully the LRT right of way shows up on the city's ASPs and whatnot; that doesn't get around the fact that it's just plain not transit supportive despite their claims to the contrary in the name of transit lip service. A policy that doesn't allow bus stops in front of schools isn't transit friendly. Running the LRT between two high speed arterial streets isn't transit friendly. Every time I have to look at the city's plans with their "Smart Choices" I want to run around screaming and gouge my eyes out. Generally this is why I avoid looking at them at work.

Oh, and who else absolutely loves that every single road has that stupid curve in it to mirror Highway II? Gotta love that 111 St turns into 127 St, but 127 St turns into 141 St...all the way along. 75 into 66 is one thing, but numbering completely different major streets identically is ludicrous without even talking about what a huge mistake all these angled roads are.

Also a note to city council: STOP RUNNING LRT DOWN ARTERIAL RIGHTS OF WAY! It slows down traffic, costs more, takes more space, creates barriers to pedestrians and generally treats transit riders as lepers. Who enjoys having to use a pedway just to cross two lanes of traffic, then having to trudge across the vast tracts of empty parking, and then if you're lucky catching a bus because you sure as hell can't walk home in any of these places.

Just designate a 10m corridor somewhere else on an alignment that makes sense to catch all the stops and then place the density accordingly. Is that really so hard?

Anything in an ASP purporting to be transit friendly is an outright lie and you'd thing council could see that.

ChrisD
08-08-2007, 10:54 PM
Yes, thankfully the LRT right of way shows up on the city's ASPs and whatnot; that doesn't get around the fact that it's just plain not transit supportive despite their claims to the contrary in the name of transit lip service. A policy that doesn't allow bus stops in front of schools isn't transit friendly. Running the LRT between two high speed arterial streets isn't transit friendly. Every time I have to look at the city's plans with their "Smart Choices" I want to run around screaming and gouge my eyes out. Generally this is why I avoid looking at them at work.

Oh, and who else absolutely loves that every single road has that stupid curve in it to mirror Highway II? Gotta love that 111 St turns into 127 St, but 127 St turns into 141 St...all the way along. 75 into 66 is one thing, but numbering completely different major streets identically is ludicrous without even talking about what a huge mistake all these angled roads are.

Also a note to city council: STOP RUNNING LRT DOWN ARTERIAL RIGHTS OF WAY! It slows down traffic, costs more, takes more space, creates barriers to pedestrians and generally treats transit riders as lepers. Who enjoys having to use a pedway just to cross two lanes of traffic, then having to trudge across the vast tracts of empty parking, and then if you're lucky catching a bus because you sure as hell can't walk home in any of these places.

Just designate a 10m corridor somewhere else on an alignment that makes sense to catch all the stops and then place the density accordingly. Is that really so hard?

Anything in an ASP purporting to be transit friendly is an outright lie and you'd thing council could see that.
Now here is where you are wrong. Fact is that many of the newer Neighbourhood Structure Plans (NSP's) are proposing higher density housing around future transit / LRT stations. In fact, Heritage Valley Neighbourhood 5 (The town centre) is comprised primarily of medium and high density housing. This is slated to be one of Edmonton's highest density suburban neighbourhoods.

From a transportation perspective, it actually makes sense to dedicate LRT ROW within the roadway ROW's. It's worked very well in many other cities and there are very little conflicts with vehicles and overall traffic movements.

Wrecker
09-08-2007, 09:30 AM
That's 17 kilometres for those of us who have no idea how far a mile is.

(according to google earth)

Not exactly doubling the current system, but at least no stations en-route.

Perhaps you should learn so then

bagould
09-08-2007, 09:37 AM
Now here is where you are wrong. Fact is that many of the newer Neighbourhood Structure Plans (NSP's) are proposing higher density housing around future transit / LRT stations. In fact, Heritage Valley Neighbourhood 5 (The town centre) is comprised primarily of medium and high density housing. This is slated to be one of Edmonton's highest density suburban neighbourhoods.
Literally the first words in the SCDB's Town Centre (5.2) Section:

The proposed Town Centre is located at the confluence of three arterial roadways, approximately 1 km west of Highway 2 and adjacent to Blackmud Creek.
Aren't arterial roads for driving? Where's the mention of the LRT in that blurb? Oh, "transit-friendly" in the last paragraph. That's lip service, not concrete plans.

The realigned 111 and 127 Streets squeeze in on the town centre and are only five blocks apart (rather than the 16 they are numerically) as they pass. It's additionally bordered by what the major E-W road will be. Basically, this walls in the high density. After you get off the train, walk up two stories, down two stories, and another five blocks to get to the middle of the town centre, that's probably going to be okay if everything you need is in this centre (which I doubt based on the city's ineptitude with combining commercial and residential. Look at how Millwoods Town Centre turned out, etc.), but let's get real, everything on that map that isn't labeled "mixed office/commercial/residential" (and again, who knows how that's actually going to turn out) isn't in the centre. If you want to get to a school, or anything else in Heritage Valley, you'll have to cross one of those roads. The pedestrians are going to say "hey, why don't I drive," and then the city will scratch their heads as to why ridership is so low.

Again from the SCDB:

Fire hydrants, bus stops and other municipal services that limit onstreet parking should be located away from the front of the school building envelope.

I will continue to regard these plans as mere lip service until they are fully developed, at which time I will criticize them in more detail.


From a transportation perspective, it actually makes sense to dedicate LRT ROW within the roadway ROW's. It's worked very well in many other cities and there are very little conflicts with vehicles and overall traffic movements.
In Calgary (my counter example of it not working), the median stations all have single pedway crossings of the roads. That's two stories up, two stories down, and you can't come off at either end of the platform (potentially 200m+ in walking savings) because there's only one pedway. Then you have to trudge through the transit transfer centre (if there is one), a wide swath of road right of way, and a Superstore parking lot (always with the Superstores).

Since the parking lots are oriented to the roads, not the actual stores, if you run the LRT down the road all you get are parking lots. Sure this can be changed, but would you rather take a long pedway across a road or just walk off the end of the platform into a walkable area?

It's easier to build an LRT when you don't have to realign all the intersections. It's also easier to build a grade separation when you don't have to cross all the intersection flares (Which can potentially double the length of tunnel). Note that there isn't a single CN or CP or whatever track running down the middle of a road.

Whether or not it actually affects the traffic, there is a perception that it will. There's constant whining about adding grade separations for freight trains; how do you think they'll feel about LRT? I frankly don't care that much if it hurts traffic slightly, but I do care if that's the perception and I do care if it slows down the train.

ChrisD
10-08-2007, 05:22 PM
Now here is where you are wrong. Fact is that many of the newer Neighbourhood Structure Plans (NSP's) are proposing higher density housing around future transit / LRT stations. In fact, Heritage Valley Neighbourhood 5 (The town centre) is comprised primarily of medium and high density housing. This is slated to be one of Edmonton's highest density suburban neighbourhoods.
Literally the first words in the SCDB's Town Centre (5.2) Section:

The proposed Town Centre is located at the confluence of three arterial roadways, approximately 1 km west of Highway 2 and adjacent to Blackmud Creek.
Aren't arterial roads for driving? Where's the mention of the LRT in that blurb? Oh, "transit-friendly" in the last paragraph. That's lip service, not concrete plans.

The realigned 111 and 127 Streets squeeze in on the town centre and are only five blocks apart (rather than the 16 they are numerically) as they pass. It's additionally bordered by what the major E-W road will be. Basically, this walls in the high density. After you get off the train, walk up two stories, down two stories, and another five blocks to get to the middle of the town centre, that's probably going to be okay if everything you need is in this centre (which I doubt based on the city's ineptitude with combining commercial and residential. Look at how Millwoods Town Centre turned out, etc.), but let's get real, everything on that map that isn't labeled "mixed office/commercial/residential" (and again, who knows how that's actually going to turn out) isn't in the centre. If you want to get to a school, or anything else in Heritage Valley, you'll have to cross one of those roads. The pedestrians are going to say "hey, why don't I drive," and then the city will scratch their heads as to why ridership is so low.

Again from the SCDB:

Fire hydrants, bus stops and other municipal services that limit onstreet parking should be located away from the front of the school building envelope.

I will continue to regard these plans as mere lip service until they are fully developed, at which time I will criticize them in more detail.


From a transportation perspective, it actually makes sense to dedicate LRT ROW within the roadway ROW's. It's worked very well in many other cities and there are very little conflicts with vehicles and overall traffic movements.
In Calgary (my counter example of it not working), the median stations all have single pedway crossings of the roads. That's two stories up, two stories down, and you can't come off at either end of the platform (potentially 200m+ in walking savings) because there's only one pedway. Then you have to trudge through the transit transfer centre (if there is one), a wide swath of road right of way, and a Superstore parking lot (always with the Superstores).

Since the parking lots are oriented to the roads, not the actual stores, if you run the LRT down the road all you get are parking lots. Sure this can be changed, but would you rather take a long pedway across a road or just walk off the end of the platform into a walkable area?

It's easier to build an LRT when you don't have to realign all the intersections. It's also easier to build a grade separation when you don't have to cross all the intersection flares (Which can potentially double the length of tunnel). Note that there isn't a single CN or CP or whatever track running down the middle of a road.

Whether or not it actually affects the traffic, there is a perception that it will. There's constant whining about adding grade separations for freight trains; how do you think they'll feel about LRT? I frankly don't care that much if it hurts traffic slightly, but I do care if that's the perception and I do care if it slows down the train.
You can read the SCDB all you want, but there is a Neighbourhood Area Structure Plan currently underway for the Town Centre. The SCDB sets that stage, the actors and details are in the NASP. LRT and park n' ride are a part of this.

Wait a couple of months and you'll understand where I am coming from.

Of course CN / CP tracks don't run within the median, they are much, much longer, larger and use a heavier guage of rail. Not a good example.

bagould
10-08-2007, 07:58 PM
You can read the SCDB all you want, but there is a Neighbourhood Area Structure Plan currently underway for the Town Centre. The SCDB sets that stage, the actors and details are in the NASP. LRT and park n' ride are a part of this.
Any possibility of a preview? I'd love to change my opinion. I don't want to hate it, I'd rather take on the developments that don't even claim to be transit friendly, but the last thing I want is something done poorly getting shown as an example of transit not working.

I am somewhat worried about the park and ride, but I suppose the one thing having the station off to the side would let you do is keep the park and ride seperate from the high density.


Of course CN / CP tracks don't run within the median, they are much, much longer, larger and use a heavier guage of rail. Not a good example.
I realize that it's a crappy example, but at the same time they don't run as frequently either. I get that it's easier to retro-fit, and I get that it might be easier to design the neighbourhood around it when you do that new, but I don't see any advantages for transit riders other than possibly cost and bus connections, and I don't think even that has to be true.

ChrisD
11-08-2007, 02:54 PM
Any possibility of a preview? I'd love to change my opinion. I don't want to hate it, I'd rather take on the developments that don't even claim to be transit friendly, but the last thing I want is something done poorly getting shown as an example of transit not working.

I am somewhat worried about the park and ride, but I suppose the one thing having the station off to the side would let you do is keep the park and ride seperate from the high density.
I can't disclose anything yet, but there have been ongoing meetings between the developers and City administration over the past couple of months.

As it stands, the Town Centre park n' ride is separated from the high density nodes.

DebraW
31-10-2007, 09:57 PM
LRT should run to international airport: Mandel
Wants regional partners to pony up for it, too

Wed, October 31, 2007
By FRANK LANDRY, CITY HALL BUREAU

Article link:
http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Edmonton/2007/10/31/4620868.html



Getting to the international airport or St. Albert could one day be as easy as hopping on the LRT.

Mayor Stephen Mandel today floated the idea of extending the line both north and south of the city – essentially linking St. Albert to the airport.

But he suggested it would require a significant cash injection from regional partners.

“Ultimately this needs to be a regional system – to reach the airport, for example – but this will not happen under our current structure where only Edmonton pays,” Mandel told a Chamber of Commerce luncheon in a speech that focused heavily on his so-called 90-day plan.

St. Albert Mayor Nolan Crouse said his city hasn’t taken an official position on the LRT yet, but it is being considered.

“Yes, we are interested in the concept,” Crouse told Sun Media. “We have not done much work on it politically and we do plan to.

“Administratively, they’ve begun discussions with the City of Edmonton.”

Crouse said money may be set aside as early as next year to begin the planning process.

Jim Rudolph, a spokesman for Edmonton Airports, said getting mass public transportation to the airport is critical, especially because more people are using the gateway. There is no bus service to the international airport.

“We’re willing to support those kinds of talks and seeing what can be done on a regional basis,” Rudolph said.

Mandel said within the next 90 days, council will get a look at preliminary plans to build a new LRT line from downtown to MacEwan College, the Royal Alexandra hospital and the main NAIT campus. It’s that same line that could one day extend to St. Albert.

Mandel told reporters that after the NAIT line, his vision is to expand the existing LRT line further northeast past Clareview, and later southeast into Mill Woods. The plan is to bring bus rapid transit to the west end before an LRT line.

As part of his 90-day vision, Mandel said the city will shortly hire a chief financial officer to advise officials on ways to use money “more effectively.”

As well, early in the new year, the report on a downtown arena will be completed and released, he said.

“Once we have both the Rexall renovation option and the new arena proposal in front of us, we can finally begin to have a real discussion about how a new project could work.”

Around that time a proposal for a new downtown bridge is also expected to come out.

Before Christmas, Mandel said council will get an updated budget on the southwest recreation centre, but warned construction costs have doubled to about $120 million. The city is now looking at alternative ways to fund the facility.

And next week, Mandel said council will get its first look at next year’s draft budget.

“Council hasn’t seen it yet, but we already understand that the pressure on our operating costs will continue this year,” he said.

Earlier this year, Mandel said the document could propose a tax hike of 10%.

[email protected]

-30-

RichardS
31-10-2007, 09:59 PM
Transit to YEG is a no brainer. So, WHAT IS THE ISSUE ANYMORE????????

moahunter
01-11-2007, 12:41 PM
Transit to YEG is a no brainer. So, WHAT IS THE ISSUE ANYMORE????????

The LRT is slow, and there is no proof anyone would use it anyway, given most people drive to Airport at the moment. Why would I park at an LRT station rather than Airport? Agree that a bus makes sense though. If it is very popular, then maybe LRT could work.

Rather see the LRT focus on being an inner city commuter train first, benefiting neighborhoods in Edmonton. Not an inter-city train for Leduc/Nisku, St Albert, etc. We don't need to encourage even more people to commute from our Sattelite cities.

Why live in Edmonton, when you can buy a cheaper house in Nisku, or a fancy exclusive one in St Albert, yet still get benefit of LRT commute? Do we really want to encourage more sprawl further out from the core?

MylesC
01-11-2007, 12:50 PM
The LRT is slow, and there is no proof anyone would use it anyway, given most people drive to Airport at the moment. Why would I park at an LRT station rather than Airport? Agree that a bus makes sense though. If it is very popular, then maybe LRT could work.

An LRT line would be faster than putting up with traffic and rush-hour delays to the core. It would be extremely useful for people who don't live in Edmonton and don't have a car available here.

moahunter
01-11-2007, 12:52 PM
An LRT line would be faster than putting up with traffic and rush-hour delays to the core. It would be extremely useful for people who don't live in Edmonton and don't have a car available here.

70km/hr (current LRT system top speed) is very fast isn't it.

PS. Why should Edmotnon be prioritising helping those who don't live in Edmonton, when most Edmonton neighborhoods (including Milwoods, and West End) have been paying for LRT through taxes, yet still don't have service? :roll:

RichardS
01-11-2007, 12:56 PM
Transit to YEG is a no brainer. So, WHAT IS THE ISSUE ANYMORE????????

The LRT is slow, and there is no proof anyone would use it anyway, given most people drive to Airport at the moment. (...)

Ever been to Chicago? Atlanta? Portland? San Fran?

Portland has the MAX running out to their field...;) It is well used, even by business travellers like little ol' me!

Given that Gateway is not ever going to be free flowing, and the time advantages/frequency advantages over this small distance given your other options are a cab ride or a rental car, travellers will use it. Add employees and even a good smattering of locals and it will get used.

The bus option is mainly for employees of the airport and the odd traveller.

mick
01-11-2007, 12:57 PM
I believe the new LRT cars arriving starting next year have a top speed of 105km/h. Making the trip from CP to YEG approx. 10mins at 100km/h.

moahunter
01-11-2007, 12:57 PM
You have not answered why this is more important than servicing Edmonton neighborhoods who are paying for LRT right now (unlike Leduc), but receiving no service.

RichardS
01-11-2007, 01:02 PM
70km/hr (current LRT system top speed) is very fast isn't it.

PS. Why should Edmotnon be prioritising helping those who don't live in Edmonton, when most Edmonton neighborhoods (including Milwoods, and West End) have been paying for LRT through taxes, yet still don't have service? :roll:

I thought it was a little faster, 80, with the ability to reach 100 if properly equipped.

The reality is that a constant 80 with a couple 10 seond stops over that distance is still faster than a tract of 110 km/h which swings quite a way East before turning North, then being stopped by 34, 51, 60, 63, 71, 75, 82, Sask Drive, the hell switchback, and 105. If poorly timed, you can be at lights for 10+ minutes. Add renting the car, driving it back, filling it up, etc etc etc, and it could be advantageous.

This vs HSR, give me this. At least the money is going into the immediate region and for our service. Plus, as Mandel states, this is a NO GO without regional funding and support.

newfangled
01-11-2007, 01:02 PM
You have not answered why this is more important than servicing Edmonton neighborhoods who are paying for LRT right now (unlike Leduc), but receiving no service.

I totally agree. I don't know why we'd want to make it easier to live in Leduc or Nisku than in Callingwood or Millwoods.

Blueline
01-11-2007, 01:03 PM
One of the major issues is to convince our Provincial gov't. to repair pave and maintain their portion of this roadway. This is a huge embarrasment and disservice to the entire region. It is in my opinion one of the worst sections of roadway in Alberta.
We can illuminate after
Tiatnium
Just from impractical experience, the slow lane is apparently the centre and left lanes

moahunter
01-11-2007, 01:04 PM
I thought it was a little faster, 80, with the ability to reach 100 if properly equipped.


My understanding is that the current system (which is different from train speed), is limited to 70. Maybe it can be upgraded? I don't know.

Yes, maybe if province fully funded it then. But, we have to understand, we are providing a competetive advantage to a competing city. Not sure that's very smart.

53latitude
01-11-2007, 01:05 PM
I work in the core. If the LRT went to airport I could take it from my office instead of a cab, or parking at the airport and spending tonnes of money on parking.

Blueline
01-11-2007, 01:06 PM
Sorry, I forgot to add
Bring on the Buses!

moahunter
01-11-2007, 01:07 PM
I work in the core. If the LRT went to airport I could take it from my office instead of a cab, or parking at the airport and spending tonnes of money on parking.

Why wouldn't you take an express bus then?

I work in the core and I would not take it to the Airport, having to cart my luggage to my downtown parking. I bet there are more like me than you, but that's for someone to prove one way or the other.

RichardS
01-11-2007, 01:07 PM
I totally agree. I don't know why we'd want to make it easier to live in Leduc or Nisku than in Callingwood or Millwoods.

From the article that started this thread...

Mandel in an interview mentioned the cost range, while withholding details. He said the city has worked out the probable amounts, including who should pay what. The mayor said one reason the service will cost so much is that Edmonton Transit must buy special highway buses.

"As soon as we sit down with the (Edmonton) airport authority and Leduc County and Leduc City, and see what they say, then we can move down the line." He said those talks could happen within the next 10 days.

"We'd like to move ahead as quick as possible. But there's always a cost and people have to be willing to share the cost."


..do I need to grab similar Mandel quotes from the gaggle of recent "we must share" speeches?

bagould
01-11-2007, 01:09 PM
The LRT is slow, and there is no proof anyone would use it anyway, given most people drive to Airport at the moment. Why would I park at an LRT station rather than Airport? Agree that a bus makes sense though. If it is very popular, then maybe LRT could work.
What proof was there that anyone would use AHD? Or, since you'll call that unfair, what proof was there that anyone would use the original LRT alignment?

The whole point of transit to the airport is not that you'd be parking at an LRT station, which would most likely be illegal, it's that you could get to the airport via transit. Shocking, I know.

moahunter
01-11-2007, 01:10 PM
It will just be an incentive to sell my house and move to Leduc, or another surounding city, to flight away from the bad dangerous city. :roll: Maybe that's what some want?

Odd that we want to share with LRT but not with HST (which actually would move fast to airport).

RichardS
01-11-2007, 01:12 PM
It will be an incentive to sell my house and move to Leduc.
:roll:
Real smart. Odd that we want to share with LRT but not with HST (which actually would move fast to airport).

So, then move. OK. Fine. In 10 years, it is Edmonton anyway...;)

HST, yeah right. You wouldn't get ANY FASTER as you are in the urban area, it takes time to get to speed unless we are now talking MAGLEV, and once in the city limits HST will be 80 km/h anyway. Those limits are what, 3 miles from YEG?

So, if anything here deserves a few :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: it is HST to YEG from downtown alone.

newfangled
01-11-2007, 01:12 PM
Another thought:

LRT + bus service to the airport primarily benefits people who are travelling to the airport.

LRT service directly to the airport benefits people who are trying to get to the airport, and it also provides immense benefits to communters in the bedroom communities.

Do we want to give people the option of taking transit to YEG? LRT to Century Park and a 20 minute bus ride provides that.

Do we want exurbs springing up all along highway 2? Then put in LRT.

moahunter
01-11-2007, 01:14 PM
I think both ideas (HST and LRT) to airport are pretty silly, when we have urgent transit / commuter needs within the city.

RichardS
01-11-2007, 01:15 PM
OR

We can through planning have these exurbs NOT spring up?

Face it folks, the urban boundaries of Edmonton WILL expand, and more than likely south. 41st ave SW is not that far from YEG, and there are more than enough firm plans to build that way.

RichardS
01-11-2007, 01:16 PM
I think both ideas (HST and LRT) to airport are pretty silly, when we have urgent transit / commuter needs within the city.

but who said that LRT to YEG was mutually EXCLUSIVE of the nLRT, or the nwLRT, or wLRT?

murman
01-11-2007, 01:16 PM
One of the major issues is to convince our Provincial gov't. to repair pave and maintain their portion of this roadway. This is a huge embarrasment and disservice to the entire region. It is in my opinion one of the worst sections of roadway in Alberta.

I had to laugh when I read this. Wanna be in the back of the bus when it goes over that rolling section of the road near Blackmud Creek?

moahunter
01-11-2007, 01:16 PM
OR
We can through planning have these exurbs NOT spring up?


25 years worth already approved in Edmonton. But this is even worse, at it pushes people to competitng towns, taking away tax base.

RichardS
01-11-2007, 01:16 PM
Sure, as I launch into the roof....

EDIT - this was re murman's comment..

RichardS
01-11-2007, 01:17 PM
OR
We can through planning have these exurbs NOT spring up?

(...) at it pushes people to competitng towns, taking away tax base.

I guarantee that in 10 years, you won't care as this will be a non issue.

moahunter
01-11-2007, 01:19 PM
If Leduc Nisku really want, let them join Edmonton and start paying taxes here. Until then, lets have ETS service Edmonton neighborhoods that are not being serviced, rather than encouraging growth outside Edmonton.

bagould
01-11-2007, 01:44 PM
How about this: annex a few kilometres on either side of the line. Don't put any stations in immediately. When you do, built them as dependent on the LRT as today's suburbs are on the car.

There's going to be growth for a while. Growth around transit in a linear corridor is much better than haphasard growth. This isn't something to fight in the name of sprawl, it's something to embrace.

From an anti-sprawl perspective: If we are going to allow ANY additional growth, this is what it should be. If we can't build this, we shouldn't be building anything.

newfangled
01-11-2007, 01:46 PM
but who said that LRT to YEG was mutually EXCLUSIVE of the nLRT, or the nwLRT, or wLRT?

If the capital for this comes from a magical regional pot that doesn't take away from EdmontonLRT builds then maybe. But the very mention of WBRT means that this is a zero-sum game.

Compared to LRT running bus service to YEG would take essentially no capital and could be done the day after tomorrow. It would be crazy to not at least get the bus service going as a pilot program.

bagould
01-11-2007, 01:53 PM
^We need bus service yesterday.

LRT won't be a priority for a while, but it's something we should plan for (and I mean literally just for the LRT, not to merely accomodate it like now). Buses should be running now.

moahunter
01-11-2007, 01:56 PM
From an anti-sprawl perspective: If we are going to allow ANY additional growth, this is what it should be. If we can't build this, we shouldn't be building anything.

I guess we view this differently. My view is that you reduce traffic within Edmonton by providing LRT transit to existing Edmonton neighborhoods. Get people out of their cars. These neighborhoods will become more attractive, those who pay taxes, will be serviced. People have been waiting long enough.

Your view (and obviously, the view of those who want to promote more development in the South of the City, and in neighboring cities) is that you reduce traffic in Edmonton by building LRT to where we expect the new neighborhoods to be. My fear is that this simply provides more impetuts for more sprawl, especially in the South. IMO this impetus is not needed, as these neighborhoods are coming anyway, we don't need to give this more of a kickstart. If they want LRT, let the developers / new home owners pay for their own system, not those patiently waiting for LRT.

Edmonton transit has no business promoting growth beyond Edmonton until existing Edmonton neighborhoods are serviced with the same growth opportunity.

IanO
01-11-2007, 02:40 PM
anyone ever think more people might live more centrally if they can use transit to get out to where they need to as well...

currently i have to drive to the airport, drive to wem, drive to many things i dont need to...sure there is the bus, but the LRT is very different.

moahunter
01-11-2007, 03:00 PM
LRT has very little use right now if it does not connect your neighborhood to downtown. So our neighborhoods should be first - Milwoods, WEM are pretty key.

Aside from business travelors, I don't see the average SUV driving Edmontonian, using the LRT to go to the airport. It's just another step to haul your families luggage through. But we can test this pretty easily with a good (every 10 minutes or so) express bus service to find out if there is some demand. Montreal has a popular service like this, that works very well.

mick
01-11-2007, 03:57 PM
First of all MH, stop asserting that this conclusion that LRT to the airport encourages growth in surrounding muni's is true and then asserting that others that may support LRT to the airport therefore support your conclusion. It's fallacious. There are many reasons one may support it that do not equal your conclusion.

So in addition to proactive planning for growth nodes, have we forgotten about visitors to Edmonton. While Edmontonians may be reluctant to leave their cars at home (evidence?), what about those arriving at the airport? Would you rather pay 50$ for a cab or $5/10 for the train.

moahunter
01-11-2007, 04:11 PM
Why won't an express bus to downtown work for visitors? It works in Montreal.

murman
01-11-2007, 04:11 PM
So in addition to proactive planning for growth nodes, have we forgotten about visitors to Edmonton. While Edmontonians may be reluctant to leave their cars at home (evidence?), what about those arriving at the airport? Would you rather pay 50$ for a cab or $5/10 for the train.

In Boston, I took the subway, transferred to the Silver Line BRT right to the airport doors for about $2 all-in. One year ago, that same ticket cost only $1.25, but daddy had to pay for that fancy new ticketing system somehow...

It was a total no-brainer, especially foregoing a $20 cab ride in one of Boston's notorious cabs.

IanO
01-11-2007, 04:24 PM
^my father took the transit system in washington DC over a cab just for fun and it was $3.75 versus $70USD (9.35 cdn):>

moahunter
01-11-2007, 04:30 PM
I took an express shuttel bus from Montreal Airport to downtown. One goes every 20 minutes. It costs $13 dollars. A lot less than an a billion (just guessing) dollar LRT extension :roll:

newfangled
01-11-2007, 04:41 PM
In Boston, I took the subway, transferred to the Silver Line BRT right to the airport doors for about $2 all-in. One year ago, that same ticket cost only $1.25, but daddy had to pay for that fancy new ticketing system somehow...

It was a total no-brainer, especially foregoing a $20 cab ride in one of Boston's notorious cabs.

If Boston - the king of crazy infrastructure projects - is okay with a bus out to the airport, I would think Edmonton should be too. :)

RichardS
01-11-2007, 04:42 PM
you're guessing high....reallly high.

No tunnels

a small creek (aka a culvert and a gravel bed to cross)

Flat land

Rail, wire and 1 station, yeg.

MAYBE an over/underpass on hwy 19 - depending on the future road alignment.

...and we are taking a what, 6 mile extension at ~ 5 million a mile for track from the already planned line and one station?

moahunter
01-11-2007, 04:47 PM
How much track wear, train wear, cost to electrify that distance, upgrading power source for higher speed, snow maintenance, extra trains to fill that extra distance, etc.? Compare that to an express bus service.

DanC
01-11-2007, 05:11 PM
you're guessing high....reallly high.

No tunnels

a small creek (aka a culvert and a gravel bed to cross)

Flat land

Rail, wire and 1 station, yeg.

MAYBE an over/underpass on hwy 19 - depending on the future road alignment.

...and we are taking a what, 6 mile extension at ~ 5 million a mile for track from the already planned line and one station?
considering the ROW cost from southgate to century park came in at 86 million bucks, I'd say 5million a mile is really really low.
Add in the numerous power substations you would need...this might be a 200 million dollar extension.

murman
01-11-2007, 05:15 PM
In Boston, I took the subway, transferred to the Silver Line BRT right to the airport doors for about $2 all-in. One year ago, that same ticket cost only $1.25, but daddy had to pay for that fancy new ticketing system somehow...

It was a total no-brainer, especially foregoing a $20 cab ride in one of Boston's notorious cabs.

If Boston - the king of crazy infrastructure projects - is okay with a bus out to the airport, I would think Edmonton should be too. :)

More than a bus, though...

Actually, it's a BRT system, hybrid, that is part "on the road" and part underground, linking up with the Red Line. Boston's Blue Line subway also skirts the edge of the airport, and has a transfer shuttle.

http://www.mbta.com/schedules_and_maps/subway/

Medwards
01-11-2007, 05:32 PM
If moahunter moves to Leduc, he'll finally be in the far flung suburb he thinks Glenora and Grovessor is... LOL

RichardS
01-11-2007, 08:30 PM
How much track wear, train wear, cost to electrify that distance, upgrading power source for higher speed, snow maintenance, extra trains to fill that extra distance, etc.? Compare that to an express bus service.

Shall we bring in the trolley people now? ;)

RichardS
01-11-2007, 08:31 PM
considering the ROW cost from southgate to century park came in at 86 million bucks, I'd say 5million a mile is really really low.
Add in the numerous power substations you would need...this might be a 200 million dollar extension.

I said just track ;) I don't have good figures for the wiring, etc. What I found on the lower end of the LRT scale is 4-5 mill per mile for unobstructed track, signals, gravel, cement ties, etc....

Remember that after the already planned extensions, you have no houses, paved roads, offices, interchanges, etc in your way. Only raw farmland and probably 1-2 pieces of raw land for "future stations" where the track can be moved when needed in 2020.

The main point, if we even dare to think throwing money at HSR and its disparate technology is even remotely a good idea, why not LRT to each airport instead giving BOTH Alberta cities rapid transit access from their airports to their downtowns...Nah, that would be fair...

Medwards
01-11-2007, 09:14 PM
Over the next 10 years, I'd really like to see the city complete a line to NAIT and WEM, while building 1-2 more stations on the NE line N of Clairview.
The next step should be to build an extension from the heritage along 23 ave/28 ave to millwoods, and an extension south to the airport from heritage.
After that, lets build the line thats at NAIT north to Northgate, and also NW to St Albert.

MylesC
01-11-2007, 09:25 PM
Whether it be LRT or bus, for the time being we definitely need *something* out to the airport.

Athens had just the bus for many years, but it was great when the metro finally got built out to the airport.

m0nkyman
01-11-2007, 10:06 PM
but who said that LRT to YEG was mutually EXCLUSIVE of the nLRT, or the nwLRT, or wLRT?

Not mutually exclusive, but this city seems incapable of working on more than one transit project at a time.

The backwardness of planning LRT to the airport and BRT to WEM is breathtaking. :shock:

Sonic Death Monkey
01-11-2007, 10:33 PM
I took an express shuttel bus from Montreal Airport to downtown. One goes every 20 minutes. It costs $13 dollars. A lot less than an a billion (just guessing) dollar LRT extension :roll:
What does the cost of a $13 bus ride have to do with the cost of an LRT extension? What a ridiculous statement.

The_Cat
02-11-2007, 12:36 AM
I think, for starters, that Edmonton Transit should implement bus service to the airport. We could do this from downtown, Southgate/Century Park LRT, WEM, and Sherwood Park and St. Albert could also provide their service.

While the LRT is a great idea, I think we should first measure the success of the bus service to the Airport first. If the airport averages 20,000 passengers per day, we should see how many take the bus.

In the meantime, I think the city and Leduc County could collaborate on purchasing and zoning land for the LRT right-of-way.

moahunter
02-11-2007, 09:13 AM
What does the cost of a $13 bus ride have to do with the cost of an LRT extension? What a ridiculous statement.

I know it gives you an ego boost to name the views of others as ridiculous Sonic, all credit to you for that, glad it makes you feel good about yourself. :wink: Makes your statement that much stronger. :roll:

Read the thread. The point is that a number of posters had given examples of how Airport trains in other cities are very cheap. My point is that Airport express busses are cheap to ride on too, and more than adequate for Airport service (try Montreal's if you don't believe me). An express bus would cost next to nothing to set up (it could even be contracted to third parties), versus a huge cost for LRT (which will also help competing cities grow). Shame I couldn't make it simple enough for you to understand :?

Once we have LRT providing growth throughout Edmonton, lets think about helping Leduc, St Albert (which is mentioned above) and Sherwood Park grow. Otherwise, if we provide growth to them first, it will be at the expense of existing Edmonton neighborhoods IMO (just another reason to not need to live in Edmonton). Millwoods, WEM, Callingwood, Castledowns and other neighborhoods have waited long enough.

It will be interesting to see where this LRT idea goes.

mick
02-11-2007, 11:20 AM
MH, you have no evidence to back up your statement that YEG LRT would help regional cities grow. The southern border of Edmonton is what 3-4km from the airport? There would be no need to have a stop between our southern borders and the airport.

Mr.D
02-11-2007, 11:30 AM
I think the focus right now should be getting bus service to the airport. If it is reasonably fast and affordable people will use it. Once the popularity of the bus service increases then there will be increased incentive to build LRT or some sort of rail transit to the airport. But bus service should be implemented now.

moahunter
02-11-2007, 12:00 PM
MH, you have no evidence to back up your statement that YEG LRT would help regional cities grow.
You don't think LRT access would not make living in Leduc / Nisku and comuting to Edmonton more attractive? Maybe not for you, but it would appeal more to me, and I am sure others too. Century Park is a good example of growth tied to LRT access.

I agree we need a good express bus service now though. Let's find out how that works first, I don't see any downside.

Elastoboy
02-11-2007, 01:43 PM
There is no question that as our city grows and expands, Leduc, Sherwood Park etc are becoming part of the Greater Edmonton Area. Ultimately the geographical boundrys will initially grey, then disappear (say 15 years). The Airport is our "gateway" for the rest of the world to come to us.
We should support and encourage every effort that eases the hassle of people visiting the Greater Edmonton Area from the airport. Initially multiple bus links should be established. I agree that the LRT should head East-West and North before heading further South to YEG, but let us plan now and think strategically how corridors can be designated and "reserved" for future LRT expansion.
I am encouraged that some are thinking with a wide perspective and long term vision and not worrying about how to get elected at the next vote. On the other hand we all know that there are many important and pressing immediate issues that must be addressed, so this is a balancing act and should be treated accordingly

SteveB
02-11-2007, 01:51 PM
Add in the numerous power substations you would need...this might be a 200 million dollar extension.

So less than one junction in the city!

Think of the polution that would be saved instead of having buses running backwards and forwards.

mick
02-11-2007, 01:56 PM
MH, I certainly think LRT to Leduc would make it more palatable to live there. However, we are talking about LRT to the airport, not Leduc town centre. I don't think many would be willing to drive from Leduc, pay airport rates for parking, then take a $5-10 LRT ride to Edmonton.

moahunter
02-11-2007, 02:11 PM
Mick - if it is only to the airport, I think we should try an express bus first.

I can't imagine that Nisku / Leduc would not pay for their own station / park and ride. Given this would increase ridership on LRT, it would be pretty hard to say no once the line is built.

If the bus is a huge success (it might be), then lets look at LRT to Airport then. Hopefully by then we will have more Edmonton neighborhood access to LRT too.

MylesC
02-11-2007, 03:02 PM
You don't think LRT access would not make living in Leduc / Nisku and comuting to Edmonton more attractive? Maybe not for you, but it would appeal more to me, and I am sure others too. Century Park is a good example of growth tied to LRT access.

Where is all this LRT to airport is fueling sprawl coming from? The route would be to service the airport and plug it into the system. While it would be good, it's not like an airport line should come at the cost of stopping expansion in the city.

The Airport wouldn't want commuters parking at the airport to train to work from Leduc - their parking is already completely full.

This is about creating quick and easy access to the airport from any part of the city via the transit system. Such an amenity would be a huge advantage for visitors and travellers coming to the city.

mick
02-11-2007, 04:17 PM
^ Exactly. This should not be at the expense of expansion elsewhere in the city. Although, an observation: the political opposition in certain west-end neighbourhoods makes expansion to YEG a much more palatable proposition than wLRT for some politicians. Just because one may see other lines as a priority in no way makes YEG LRT any less of a good idea and potentially excellent asset to the city.

We all complain about the lack of forsight in planning, yet when there's an opportunity to do it, we say we don't need it yet. Would it not be a good and less expensive idea to build an ROW before we have things like utilities to move and busy intersections to tunnel under? Would it not be a good idea to run this line to valuable city attraction for minimcal cost now, while planning future SW expansion around future station hubs. Would that not make living in Edmonton proper more attractive than Leduc or Nisku?

MH, you make so many unstated assumptions, I find it difficult to keep up. Leduc may want to pay for an extension but with the exception of the province stepping in and legislating over the city, there is nothing saying the city has to agree to let them do it. Before the city builds any regional stations, I would have to see a plan where said communities contribute to the sunk costs of LRT infrastructure above and beyond paying for the portion of line and stations in their jurisdiction.

moahunter
02-11-2007, 09:08 PM
I don't have a problem with long term planning, perhaps creating right of ways for this option. But not to be built right now, which I fear may happen (given the existing Southern expansion) without fully considering all potential consequnces. This includes whether this expansion will promote new, maybe not yet existing sprawl suburbs, and whether or not this is actually in the best interests of the city as a whole.

However, if the goal is just to service the airport (which I accept, many may want, and is the primary motivation of many on this thread), no-one has explained why tourists could not be adequately serviced at the moment by an express bus to downtown. This works in other cities, and should be tried first IMO.

mick
03-11-2007, 01:24 PM
As opposed to encouraging southern sprawl, this has the potential to dictate high density growth around mass transit hubs. That is not typical suburban spawl.

I really don't see how this would be a bad thing for the city as a whole. The only question is where it fits in the priority list. I agree wLRT and even LRT to mill woods have a stronger case for LRT now. However, no one is saying that southern expansion should be at the expense of those things. Only that it is a good idea and doing it sooner rather than later may save money. To be honest, given the opposition our inner city western suburbs have to anything going through their neighbourhoods, I would build this rather than have a 10 year court battle about where an ROW will go.

moahunter
03-11-2007, 03:07 PM
I really don't see how this would be a bad thing for the city as a whole.

How do we know this, if it hasn't been properly reviewed? This is a major bug-bear of mine. We spend a small fortune preparing future growth and line plans for LRT expansion, then all of a sudden, a Hotch Potch idea comes along and gets higher priority.

Yes, I realize many residents of Leduc, and owners of Southern land (that could be developed faster and more profitably with LRT access) are having wet dreams over this one, but lets take it one step at a time. And the first step, is an Airport express bus for tourists and business travelors.

mick
03-11-2007, 09:42 PM
We obviously don't know for sure. I was expressing my opinion based on observations/experiences of other municipalities with metro service to the airport. This is not a hotch potch idea. The city has secured and/or identified LRT ROW south of Henday.

You keep mentioning Leduc yet you fail to explain how they would get a stop. Land owners are irrelevant. They are not driving this any more than North Eastern land owners are pushing a potential expansion beyond Clairview. Any LRT expansion is going to be potentially profitable for landowners near station sites.

moahunter
03-11-2007, 09:56 PM
I will have a break - my views are above. I hope we try a bus first. Even if we do the LRT to airport, there is no reason why a good express bus could not be running now.

mick
04-11-2007, 09:54 AM
True, express bus service is long overdue.

DebraW
04-11-2007, 10:18 AM
What's the holdup on the airport bus?

Hicks on Six
Sun, November 4, 2007

Article Link:
http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Columnists/Hicks_Graham/2007/11/04/4630000-sun.html

WHERE'S THE BUS TO THE AIRPORT?

It's good to hear the mayor and council want to charge ahead on multiple fronts as Steve Mandel laid out in his "90-Day Speech" at the Chamber of Commerce this past Wednesday.

But you have to wonder how many dreams will be sucked up and dissolved in the morass that is the city hall bureaucracy.

Here's one symbolic issue that, to my mind, sums it all up: Mandel's great rallying call has been for regional integration and regional planning but he hasn't delivered on a most easily solved, symbolic piece of the regional puzzle.

Edmonton, the International Airport, Nisku and Leduc have long agreed: scheduled public bus service connecting the four centres would be just fine and dandy.

Tens of thousands of us drive those home-to-work routes every day, for lack of public transport. Has anything happened?

Not yet. Be patient. Keep waiting.

I saw airport authority president Reg Milley at that chamber luncheon and asked him about the bus route.

He shook his head in frustration. "We've agreed on a funding formula, on a bus route. It's now sitting in (Edmonton) city hall, waiting for who knows what," he said.

If you want to be seen as a man of action, Mayor Steve, go kick some bureaucratic butt.

-30-

jackieliem2007
26-12-2007, 10:06 PM
You guys are wrong !
The ETS U2 LRT Maximum Speed is 80km/h,
but the ETS limit its speed by 70km/h,
I hope the new train would be faster.

Most delays in rush hour is cause by all self-fish Edmontonian who is NOT let the door close, because of waiting those friend or other people!

~JRailfan www.youtube.com/jackieliem2007 ~

MikeK
27-12-2007, 11:30 AM
You guys are wrong !
The ETS U2 LRT Maximum Speed is 80km/h,
but the ETS limit its speed by 70km/h,
I hope the new train would be faster.

Most delays in rush hour is cause by all self-fish Edmontonian who is NOT let the door close, because of waiting those friend or other people!

~JRailfan www.youtube.com/jackieliem2007 ~

I think you mean to 70 km/h, otherwise that's saying those LRVs won't go faster than 10 km/h!

Anyhow, if you try holding the door open too long, the operator's likely going to come out and threaten to either fine you or kick you off the LRV for doing this. I've seen this happen a few times.

Jasper
05-01-2008, 11:54 AM
with all of this talk about opening the muni and killing the city, why doesnt another council do a press conference to announce his or her vision of an LRT to the International?

Medwards
05-01-2008, 12:16 PM
There isn't much talk, just one bone headed councillor sticking his neck out, when he shouldn't.

Denizen
02-11-2008, 07:18 PM
Read something recently about Ottawa having buses that run to the airport. Since we do not have the LRT running out there and you either have to drive or take a cab, what do people think about ETS running buses from downtown? I think it would be a great idea and now that everyone is talking about the environment and carbon footprints etc., it would be an enviromnmentally sound option. Now of course city buses are not equipped for luggage but they could use other buses such as those used by Red Arrow or Diversified. What do you think?

Rocket252
02-11-2008, 07:41 PM
Your preaching to the converted buddy.

We have been waiting for this to happen for a while.

Solaris
02-11-2008, 07:48 PM
if they even just ran one from heritage TC every hr or 2 that would be cool. The lrt is going to heritage so, a bus from there to the airport is all we really need.

grish
02-11-2008, 07:56 PM
lets merge this with the other transit to airport threads.

Jasper
02-11-2008, 08:46 PM
Ive said this before and Ill say it again...... How can we have regional cooperation if the Capital Region's municipalities can't even work out running a bus to the airport.

Titanium48
02-11-2008, 11:51 PM
Why do any other municipalities matter in this? A bus to the airport would travel from the City of Edmonton to the airport using a provincial highway. No stopping in Leduc county. No driving on roads maintained by Leduc county. Nothing for them to worry their pretty little heads about.

edmonton daily photo
03-11-2008, 06:40 AM
You guys never mention the Air Porter..

This system is currently in place and does not cost the tax payers any money.

$30 sum Dollars return is extremely reasonable and it can be caught at every major hotel in the city.

Support and grow this system.

I took the airporter in Chicago, my bags were loaded for me and then the driver took me on a scenic tour of Miracle Mile. It was very nice and I was transported on a new, A/C coach, not some little 10 person van or some hot sweaty LRT train. Well worth the almost 50 dollar round trip, half the price of a cab and way faster than Chicago's slow moving L train.

In fact riding the L train with my luggage was an eye opening experience. During the trip to DT i had to constantly fight with my bags to ensure people could get on and off the train. The cars will ill equipped with not enough large open spaces to accommodate travelers.

For service added reasons and all over customer satisfaction..I stand behind the airporter service.

grish
03-11-2008, 06:44 AM
You guys never mention the Air Porter..

This system is currently in place and does not cost the tax payers any money.

$30 sum Dollars return is extremely reasonable and it can be caught at every major hotel in the city.

Support and grow this system.

I took the airporter in Chicago, my bags were loaded for me and then the driver took me on a scenic tour of Miracle Mile. It was very nice and I was transported on a new, A/C coach, not some little 10 person van or some hot sweaty LRT train. Well worth the almost 50 dollar round trip, half the price of a cab and way faster than Chicago's slow moving L train.

In fact riding the L train with my luggage was an eye opening experience. During the trip to DT i had to constantly fight with my bags to ensure people could get on and off the train. The cars will ill equipped with not enough large open spaces to accommodate travelers.

For service added reasons and all over customer satisfaction..I stand behind the airporter service.

we need public transit there as much for the people working at the airport as for the passengers. at $30, the shuttle service is not for daily commute. we need public transit there.

24karat
03-11-2008, 09:24 AM
Airporter isn't an option for me. I'd have to take a cab to a hotel ($15 or $20) then the Airporter ($30) = $45 or $50. May as well take a cab from the house to the airport.

Titanium48
03-11-2008, 10:01 AM
24karat and grish have done a nice job pointing out the inadequacies of the Sky Shuttle. It's perfect if you're a tourist with a bunch of luggage heading to one of those major hotels. If you live here, the chances of having a stop within walking distance of your house are small so you need to take a cab anyways. If you travel light, crowded busses and trains aren't such a problem and are a lot cheaper. If you work at the airport, $30/day for transportation is way out of line. Our airport is a bit further out of the way than Ottawa's, but an airport bus would still be a decent deal for airport workers and light travelers even if it didn't accept regular passes or transfers and you had to pay a second $2.50 fare or buy a $120/month city + airport pass.

lightrail
04-11-2008, 10:41 PM
Read something recently about Ottawa having buses that run to the airport. Since we do not have the LRT running out there and you either have to drive or take a cab, what do people think about ETS running buses from downtown? I think it would be a great idea and now that everyone is talking about the environment and carbon footprints etc., it would be an enviromnmentally sound option. Now of course city buses are not equipped for luggage but they could use other buses such as those used by Red Arrow or Diversified. What do you think?

Edmonton is one of the few major cities in canada with no transit service to the airport. The fact the airport is outside the jurisidiction of Edmonton shouldn't matter - it doesn't in other cities:

Starting on the west coast:

British Columbia
Victoria - limited service - outside city limits - regional transit system
Vancouver - frequent service - outside city limits - service operates until 3:30am - regional transit system
Kelowna - hourly service - outside city limits - regional transit system
Kamloops - limited service - inside city limits - city transit system

Alberta
Calgary - 20-30 minute frequency- inside city limits - city transit system

Manitoba
Winnipeg - 10-15 min frequency - inside city limits - city transit system

Ontario
Toronto - frequent service on several routes, - 24 hour service - city transit systems and regional transit systems
Ottawa - frequent service on busway routes - regional transit system

Quebec
Montreal - outside city limits (I think) 30-60 minute service, 24 hours service - regional transit system

There must be others.

Sonic Death Monkey
04-11-2008, 10:50 PM
^ Note the phrase REGIONAL transit system in most cases. No such animal in the metro Edmonton area where there are like 3 separate transit systems.

Blueline
05-11-2008, 07:34 AM
What about car or van pools? I believe the EIA assists in organizing this for staff

grish
05-11-2008, 07:46 AM
What about car or van pools? I believe the EIA assists in organizing this for staff

I think a public bus is the best kind of car-pooling.

etownboarder
05-12-2008, 09:26 AM
Mayor urges halt to airport LRT line planning
Report estimates Mill Woods route may carry $1B to $2B price tag
By Gordon KentDecember 5, 2008

EDMONTON - Planning underway for an LRT line to the Edmonton International Airport is "ludicrous" because construction isn't likely to happen for decades, Mayor Stephen Mandel said Thursday.

The transportation department is working with Edmonton Airports and Leduc County to recommend a route south by next spring, but Mandel said they're focusing on the issue far too early.

"Ludicrous, isn't it? Why don't we plan when we have got close to doing work rather than putting it on the shelf until it's no longer relevant?" he asked.

"Our administration, for the most part, doesn't know how to say stop, and neither do many councillors. We spend money on this planning stuff and 20 years later it comes back and people say, 'That doesn't make sense, let's do it again.' "

Full Story: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/todays-paper/Mayor+urges+halt+airport+line+planning/1035173/story.html

etownboarder
05-12-2008, 09:31 AM
Hmmm, our lack of planning in the past has sure served us well.

etownboarder
05-12-2008, 09:33 AM
Not to mention waiting decades for LRT to the airport is completely unacceptable.

deedub35
05-12-2008, 09:49 AM
Planning underway for an LRT line to the Edmonton International Airport is "ludicrous" because construction isn't likely to happen for decades, Mayor Stephen Mandel said Thursday.

From this article it is clear that his royal highness does not understand the concept of reserving right of ways for the future!

grish
05-12-2008, 09:49 AM
well, if there is only two guys capable of planning and we need to be planning something more urgent such as west line (urgent or not, I am not sure. just an example), then maybe he has a point. there is, however, something to be said about being ready for when some federal or provincial support comes along we are prepared. and also with advance planning perhaps other choices will be made from an informed point of view.

so, i agree if we are limited in the planning department and disagree if not.

grish
05-12-2008, 09:50 AM
Planning underway for an LRT line to the Edmonton International Airport is "ludicrous" because construction isn't likely to happen for decades, Mayor Stephen Mandel said Thursday.

From this article it is clear that his royal highness does not understand the concept of reserving right of ways for the future!

well, not so obvious. I am not sure if they don't already have a ROW in mind and the planning is of more technical and specific nature. the article isn't clear on that.

deedub35
05-12-2008, 09:53 AM
well, not so obvious. I am not sure if they don't already have a ROW in mind and the planning is of more technical and specific nature. the article isn't clear on that.


"When the county is doing land-use planning and trying to find out how that area would eventually develop, what kind of employment areas, what kind of industrial area ... the question of how you are going to serve them with transit comes up," he said.

"It sets the framework so if a developer wants to build a big warehouse when we're ready to come in, we don't have a bunch of buildings in our way."

Wrecker
05-12-2008, 09:56 AM
Planning makes sense! Thats why we had transportation corridors around Edmonton & Calgary 30 years before roads were built in them. Then again, Edmonton's planning has always had issues, but usually more with actually implementing the plans (Freeways).

SteveB
05-12-2008, 10:32 AM
If planning so far in advance doesn't make sense why is so much time and money being wasted on the plan showing future areas for housing?

DebraW
05-12-2008, 10:48 AM
The mayor has only one vote. Also, if you think that this YEG LRT planning must be continued let the CoE know.

Call the citizen action line, or the mayor or your councillors or all of them and make your opinions known.

Office of the Mayor and Councillors 780-496-8100
Citizen Action Centre 780-496-8200

BTW, the Edmonton Sun's poll as of 10:30 December 05 results are:
http://www.edmontonsun.com/Images/Headers/section_news.gif

Should the LRT be expanded to the international airport?
Yeshttp://www.torontosun.com/Images/percentbar.gif 78%
Nohttp://www.torontosun.com/Images/percentbar.gif 22%
Total Votes for this Question: 1248

etownboarder
05-12-2008, 10:50 AM
Wow, I'm surprised at the response to the poll. That's unusual for SUN readers.

Wrecker
05-12-2008, 10:50 AM
If this keeps up, we just might see a coalition of councillors try & take over the mayors office.

sundance
05-12-2008, 11:13 AM
One can plan and allocate corridors while its still farm land fairly cheaply, it makes sense IF the municipal airport is closed to plan an LRT corridor there are well. If its not going to be closed then maybe you route the LRT either on the west side of NAIT on 109th St or down 106/107th Streets

How much would it have saved when the CN moved out of downtown the city made an LRT corridor along 104th Ave and 124th street? You could have had the LRT to Oliver Square very economically and perhaps extended it west on Stony Plain Road.

But then his royal nimbyness the mayor might feel the LRT is way to close to his house and attract undesirable people like voters near his house.

RobW
05-12-2008, 11:44 AM
I love this kind of survey results. They show that we really do have something going for us in Edmonton, and it's not ALL to do with oil.

Edmonton City Council and residents must not forget that we see these results here because of a wide variety of conditions and initiatives. In these uncertain financial times it's more important than ever to continue with growth plans, infrastructure and new community investments. Keep thinking long-term without getting stuck in current crisis. Focus on the Edmonton VISION.

Some other good news from the Fraser Institute yesterday is all related: "Alberta is still ranked No. 1 for investors". Let's keep the momentum going!

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/newsandevents/news/6372.aspx#

I posted the above quote in the "Alberta Bucks National Employment Trend" topic, but it seems as appropriate here too.

I've always believed that much of the financial "crises" like the current one takes place in the head. Panic selling spreads to other markets, people become uncertain of financial future stop buying and investing, or wait until markets "hit bottom". These actions contribute to the "boom and bust cycle".

These crises are always temporary. Capital project planning, design and implementation stages typically take years to complete. I cannot remember a financial crisis that lasted as long as a typical civic project.

I believe much more can be gained if more communities (and people) stuck with their "vision" and long-term planning processes no matter the economic climate of the day. That is the way to win in the long run. Just ask Warren Buffett.

JayBee
05-12-2008, 11:55 AM
I'm telling you guys, Mandel doesn't know transportation. It's by far his weakest point. Not only trolleys, not only NLRT, not only 23rd Ave...

In his defense his second weakest point does pale in comparison, but transportation may be starting to outweigh his strengths.

I hope council finds it in them to disagree.

Bill
05-12-2008, 11:58 AM
Planning underway for an LRT line to the Edmonton International Airport is "ludicrous" because construction isn't likely to happen for decades, Mayor Stephen Mandel said Thursday.

From this article it is clear that his royal highness does not understand the concept of reserving right of ways for the future!


Mandel is a true visionary.

etownboarder
05-12-2008, 11:59 AM
I agree JayBee... Transportation is definitely Mandels weak point in politics. He seems pretty clueless when discussing most things transportation related.

DTrobotnik
05-12-2008, 12:07 PM
I disagree. Mandel is the first mayor to dig the train out of the ground and actually begin expansion. without reading the article, i would assume that we want an appropriate planning and development system for our biggest municipal transportation needs - like, some of you will agree, slrt, nlrt, and wlrt. he is basically recognizing that we need to save money bcuz the worst (poo) to hit the fan these days is still coming, and the current projects - slrt, nlrt - deserve all possible resources. personally, i believe that the airport lrt concept can be shelved until the other lines are in some stage of final planning, early construction. patience is a .......

Escondido
05-12-2008, 12:11 PM
Without a vision, we won't make plans. Without plans, we won't get anything done. Sounds like my vision of LRT to the airport in the next decade or two doesn't match Mandel's vision, or else he'd be approving those plans. I think LRT to the airport is one of the things I would most like to see this city accomplish in the next decade. Yes, I don't know how much it would cost. But I'd like to know the cost. And, perhaps the city/province/feds could build the line then focus growth along that line... But imagine... asking someone for a ride to the airport and they gladly drive you the 10 minutes it takes to get to the nearest LRT station... nice!

I'd go so far to suggest that they should close the muni and use the extra money gained through better use of that land to pay for LRT to the International. If LRT went to YEG then it would not be so inconvenient to get there compared to YXD (the muni).

Another consideration is: Is LRT best for going to the airport? Perhaps a higher speed train or another mode is better? And, in the interim, I think we need to at least look into having scheduled ETS service from Century Park LRT to the Airport. The airport is far away from the city. The city can either make that a big con for the city or mitigate the distance factor by improving transportation infrastructure to there.

deedub35
05-12-2008, 12:14 PM
I disagree. Mandel is the first mayor to dig the train out of the ground and actually begin expansion.

Are you sure about this? The approval to bring the LRT to the surface happened before Mandel took office. I believe it was during Bill Smith's reign.

DTrobotnik
05-12-2008, 12:18 PM
it would be a bigger accomplishment of actually providing edmontonians witha good transportation system, and complete major line works in the city. council just wants to accomplish something.... the thing is, the airport lrt doesnt require the study any other line would because there's a lesser factor for local traffic, and housing and business effects. it's actually easier to plan and build this than let's say the wlrt or nlrt, that's why it's favoured to get done.

deedub35
05-12-2008, 12:19 PM
personally, i believe that the airport lrt concept can be shelved until the other lines are in some stage of final planning, early construction.

Long term vision with some degree of planning is important.

The RDA (restricted development area) and TUC (transportation utility corridor) around Edmonton and Calgary were set aside decades ago and have only recently been developed.

Alberta Transportation is now looking at setting aside land for a future regional ring road for development decades from now.

Having a corridor reserved for a future LRT line to the airport should be no different.

DTrobotnik
05-12-2008, 12:20 PM
I disagree. Mandel is the first mayor to dig the train out of the ground and actually begin expansion.

Are you sure about this? The approval for bring the LRT to the surface happened before Mandel took office. I believe it was during Bill Smith's reign.

but didn't Bill Smith say Edmonton is a city for drivers? that, aside, Bill Smith didn't have the vision we now have for the other lines

grish
05-12-2008, 12:21 PM
Mandel didn't dig the train out. plans and money were in place under Bill Smith.

In light of the SUN poll I am starting to think that Mandel has a significant portion of the city of edmonton figured out (the one which reads and write for the sun). He knows they automatically disagree with everything he does, so he takes stupid positions in order for the sun readers to react and vote for what he actually wants. that way, the people start thinking that they are the ones making decisions. :)

DTrobotnik
05-12-2008, 12:24 PM
i understand the importance of planning decades in advance - just trying to remind some that we're in a difficult financial time and if it came down to it, i would rather have money go to current and local projects.

DTrobotnik
05-12-2008, 12:27 PM
i dont care about smith. mandel is the now, and the current council is responsible for all new line development so..... weigh in, you want nlrt and wlrt, or airport lrt?

RobW
05-12-2008, 12:28 PM
Mayor urges halt to airport LRT line planning
Report estimates Mill Woods route may carry $1B to $2B price tag


This is a lot of dollars. However, Edmonton should look at more than just the cost. There must be some study somewhere that shows the correlation between light-rail transit investment and economic benefits to a community. Has anyone seen anything like that?

And let's not forget what can happen if you delay a project for a few years that could have been done cheaper if completed the first time it was planned (ie: 23 Ave & Calgary Trail).

DTrobotnik
05-12-2008, 12:30 PM
interesting read

http://www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/article.cfm?id=2145

http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2000/10/17/lrtex001017.html#skip300x250

everyone has to go against the current once in a while. but yes, he did bring it out of the ground if anyone still cares

moahunter
05-12-2008, 12:41 PM
Well, I owe the Mayor an apology - I thought his goal was to push LRT to the airport ahead of LRT to suburbs that need it more urgently (like Millwoods, NAIT and WEM). I agree with him, its pointless doing airport planning now, its like looking at 30 year old plans of Edmonton. One step at a time. For all we know, by that time the Province may already have build HRT (like it or not).

JayBee
05-12-2008, 12:45 PM
i dont care about smith. mandel is the now, and the current council is responsible for all new line development so..... weigh in, you want nlrt and wlrt, or airport lrt?

Honestly from a cost/benefit perspective?

Assuming it costs exponentially less to build track over open prairie than crossing the river or buldozing through houses/businesses, and...

...Believing YEG LRT would

Enable the drastic reduction of YXD threat
Enable the enticement of a hub to evolve at YEG (Better transport for crew, maintenance and construction workers, less threat from YXD, more attractive to passengers (especially incoming passengers).
Help enable Port Alberta
Assist the Nisku Business Park.
Deflect the threat of HSR skipping YEG.


I'm like, duh, uh perhaps we should maybe not stop planning it.

A healthy airport multiplies every other part of the local economy.

Doug
05-12-2008, 12:47 PM
I was a big supporter of Mandel up until the last week. He has shown that he lacks vision and the backbone to follow through with his ideas. No more than a 3.7% tax hike, is he joking? This city needs to continue to move foward and not take a step back. For the last several years we have brought forward many ideas that will move us forward however he has certainly changed his tune. We should be planning for the future when it comes to our transportation and the future LRT lines is vitally important to the growth of this city. Mandel has been a big disappointment in the last several days. It looks like its back to the Bill Smith era of all talk and no action. We need long term planning to become the city we strive to be.

DTrobotnik
05-12-2008, 01:01 PM
i dont care about smith. mandel is the now, and the current council is responsible for all new line development so..... weigh in, you want nlrt and wlrt, or airport lrt?

Honestly from a cost/benefit perspective?


considering that slrt, nlrt in the works, and considerable planning of wlrt,
we should keep going with what we have. i was only arguing that it makes sense to be tight with money at this time, and focus on the tasks at hand. i know of the economic benefits of the airport line, dont worry, but those business assurances might not be there next week.
alas, if we have the ability to go ahead with all current projects AND continue the airport plan, we most definitely should. but why is mandel fearful in the end? money and current canadian economy. there's a time to be bold, but im not going to diss mandel completely just because he's showing caution. it's just good business sense in turbulent times.
also, council just shot him down on borrowing $350mil for repairs anyway, so we still need some money for that.

JayBee
05-12-2008, 01:12 PM
I really feel strongly that long term diversified economic infrastructure should not be placed behind suburban commuting wants. We can afford to densify (we should anyways) to defer suburban commuting growth, but we all need YEG and Port Alberta to entrench ASAP.

sundance
05-12-2008, 01:19 PM
Actually another thing to consider when the economy is in the tank you can build infrastructure for cheaper then when it's booming. A year ago the city was in some cases only getting 1 bid for a project that was enormously high, now in some projects they are getting 9 bids that are more reasonably priced.

Plus when the economy is in the tank is when you need to employ people to help level off the situation.

JayBee
05-12-2008, 01:23 PM
^ Very good points.

DTrobotnik
05-12-2008, 01:25 PM
suburban commuting wants? wtf? we can agree to disagree, but aren't the lrt plans part of the "vision" to bring more people downtown/make downtown more public friendly? i think these are two very valid visions clashing, but im sticking with core public needs vs. business expansion wants.

DTrobotnik
05-12-2008, 01:27 PM
and yes we all agree on building infrastructure.... but the argument is, which will pay off better in the future as we can't seem to finance everything at once.

JayBee
05-12-2008, 01:29 PM
i think these are two very valid visions clashing, but im sticking with core public needs vs. business expansion wantsNo, you're going beyond that and saying we stop planning one of them entirely.

DTrobotnik
05-12-2008, 01:43 PM
Right, that's what this whole this is all about. that's my stance, i agree with mandel. we can put it on hold, there are other things to think about, we only have so much cash.
i'm still choked that you belittle the lrt expansion as suburban commuting wants. low blow. plus i never said i was against it, keep that in mind.
"alas, if we have the ability to go ahead with all current projects AND continue the airport plan, we most definitely should."

moahunter
05-12-2008, 02:16 PM
I have always felt that SLRT expansion south to YEG is more about creating new sprawl suburbs than it is about serving an existing or even growing need. If we put in place a good non-stop express bus to YEG and it proves itself viable and popular, then sure, maybe. But right now, there will be more riders on Millwoods and WEM (as there is already proven comuter ridership) - those are bigger priorities, and should be finished first. By the time that's done, we will know more about whether or not HSR is going to happen too.

JayBee
05-12-2008, 03:23 PM
Right, that's what this whole this is all about. that's my stance, i agree with mandel. we can put it on hold, there are other things to think about, we only have so much cash.

I'll only maintain that that's short sighted when we have a strategic option that very likely will cost much less.


i'm still choked that you belittle the lrt expansion as suburban commuting wants. low blow. plus i never said i was against it, keep that in mind.

:smt017

You can take it however you want, but I assure you, even if your name is Stephen Mandel, it wasn't intended as personal.

But regardless, the fact is building it out to the suburbs is more facillitating suburban growth than downtown growth, and does nothing for the city strategically. If we instead focus on building more highrise condos downtown and around NELRT and SLRT lines we can have a much more sustainable effect on traffic problems on major arteries.


"alas, if we have the ability to go ahead with all current projects AND continue the airport plan, we most definitely should."

If we cut one of YEGLRT, NLRT, MLRT, or WLRT, I maintain that due to the much lower cost and the massive strategic value, we're nuts to axe YEGLRT. Enabling both Port Alberta and a YEG hub while disabling both the threats of CANNA at YXD and HSR are anything but small potatoes.

richardW
05-12-2008, 03:58 PM
all this time i thought our problem was too much planning and not enough action. how many plans do you guys think will be made and remade over the years before the line starts getting built?

JayBee
05-12-2008, 04:11 PM
Actually I've said before somewhere or other that I'd favour taking LRT down to YEG concurrent with the Century Park extension and only paying Laidlaw or Greyhound to operate the airport shuttle for ETS in the meantime. Besides as said above, planning implies leaving rights of way for the future. That's why it's so easy for us to get from Whitemud Freeway down to Century Park. The LRT was always in the plan there.

lightrail
05-12-2008, 05:00 PM
Mayor urges halt to airport LRT line planning
Report estimates Mill Woods route may carry $1B to $2B price tag
By Gordon KentDecember 5, 2008

EDMONTON - Planning underway for an LRT line to the Edmonton International Airport is "ludicrous" because construction isn't likely to happen for decades, Mayor Stephen Mandel said Thursday.

The transportation department is working with Edmonton Airports and Leduc County to recommend a route south by next spring, but Mandel said they're focusing on the issue far too early.

"Ludicrous, isn't it? Why don't we plan when we have got close to doing work rather than putting it on the shelf until it's no longer relevant?" he asked.

"Our administration, for the most part, doesn't know how to say stop, and neither do many councillors. We spend money on this planning stuff and 20 years later it comes back and people say, 'That doesn't make sense, let's do it again.' "

Full Story: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/todays-paper/Mayor+urges+halt+airport+line+planning/1035173/story.html

Mr. Mandel, definiiton of "Planning" is to look at options and begin preparing for the best option. SO what if it's decades away, at least it's in the plans and a right-of-way and future devepment can be designed to support it.

What does he want, wait until it's all built up so we can buy expensive land, aka NAIT line.

Not much of a visionary is our Mr. Mandel.

RTA
05-12-2008, 06:29 PM
^ In all fairness, the areas between downtown and NAIT were developed neighborhoods before LRT was even imagined for Edmonton.

But I agree, continue planning to ensure ROWs are there when they are needed. Worry about the details later.

Edmonton PRT
05-12-2008, 10:03 PM
I have always felt that SLRT expansion south to YEG is more about creating new sprawl suburbs than it is about serving an existing or even growing need. If we put in place a good non-stop express bus to YEG and it proves itself viable and popular, then sure, maybe. But right now, there will be more riders on Millwoods and WEM (as there is already proven comuter ridership) - those are bigger priorities, and should be finished first. By the time that's done, we will know more about whether or not HSR is going to happen too.

I agree with moahunter on this one. Test the demand before you build. I have said that about all the proposed LRT routes. BUT they do not want to do the test because it would be poorly utilized and would demonstrate that there really isn't a huge demand for YEGLRT.

What I want to know is how would YEGLRT work?

With flights leaving at all hours are you going to run YEGLRT 24/7? And if you run YEGLRT around the clock, wouldn't you need to run all the other LRT routes as well? Then do you provide bus service for the whole city 24 hours a day? That gets real expensive to run trains and buses at 2am.

Lets look at a typical flight for a young couple off to Florida for two weeks. Their flight leaves Monday morning at 7am They have to be at the airport at 5am and therefore go in their SUV to the Belvedere LRT station and park it there at 4am to catch the LRT. They leave the SUV for 2 weeks, parking for free and avoiding airport parking costs. Commuters cannot use that parking space for the entire time. That young couple returns at 1am on a Sunday night and after clearing Customs they board the 2am YEGLRT to Belvedere.

Is this what the YEGLRT is for?

Esoko
06-12-2008, 12:04 AM
One of the best examples of transit to an airport that I've witnessed is in San Francisco. Where a single car train awaits passengers, inside there are no seats just standing room, this single car does not go through the same route as the main transit sytems, it only goes back and forth picking up travelors. There are a couple of stops along the way, so there's a stop for international and domestic flights. The final stop of this single car is connected to the bay area's transit sytem,
so most travelors heading downtown simply get off here and connect on the main transit sytem.
The ride from the airport to the main transit is free, but once on the bay area transit sytem you must pay. Perhaps it's something that might work here?

JayBee
06-12-2008, 12:17 AM
Esoko: I wouldn't say no, and it would certainly boost ridership heavily, thus remove a lot of strain on roads.

PRT:

Although airport passengers are only some of the users I'd expect, you know, they can just stop running at 1:00 A.M. and let people get taxis after hours. Lots of cities operate that way. They don't need to rejig any of ETS's hours if demand doesn't justify it.

I still say look at it though because it's clearly not going to cost the 2 billion that the other lines would cost. If we justify that kind of outlay with ridership numbers, we might only need a tenth of them to justify this. :lol: I'd guess it would be maybe 10,000 riders per day if they started tomorrow, but again, the reasons for doing this are more for future growth not of residential, but industrial and transport.

If it costs 250 million, I say go now. If it costs 500 or more, I say reserve the right of way and move on. But killing it without even looking? Isn't the reason we now have to jog around MacEwan because we gave up hope of ever getting there?

The_Cat
06-12-2008, 01:00 AM
I think that the city and Leduc County could decide a right-of-way for the airport and work on land acquisition, but I think that Mill Woods and West LRT routes should be higher priority.

Edmonton PRT
06-12-2008, 01:01 AM
^^ Jaybee, I just wonder how much money these studies are costing us? We don't know what Mandel knows and I hazard to guess that millions are being spent in time, money and consultants to look at the NE extension, WLRT, NLRT to NAIT, to St. Albert, SLRT Heritage Valley & YEG and SELRT. That is 3 new LRT lines and 4 extensions and do cost estimates. That is a whole heap of complex and expensive work especially if they are looking at several alternative routes such as four SE bridge crossing scenarios plus still haven't figured out the WLT alignment.

Those who suggest that we just should start building are looking at LRT construction in a overly simplistic manner and do not understand the long term cost implications.

moahunter
06-12-2008, 09:46 AM
Studies aren't just a financial cost either - they are a time cost. There are only so many people at City hall. I'd rather they get working at completing NAIT LRT, WLRT and Millwoods LRT. There is more than enough work there - no need to delay those lines even longer by puting resources into YEG or elsewhere.

ChrisD
06-12-2008, 11:27 AM
Relax, the new Capital Region Plan includes provisions for future the extensions of transit (LRT) lines from Edmonton to YEG and other surrounding municipalities. No, the lines aren'ty drawn in the sand, but once the new Capital Region Plan is approved by the Province (2009), any future ASP's or land use plans will have to respect this. So in essence, the planning is already underway to a certain degree.

lightrail
06-12-2008, 02:36 PM
I have always felt that SLRT expansion south to YEG is more about creating new sprawl suburbs than it is about serving an existing or even growing need. If we put in place a good non-stop express bus to YEG and it proves itself viable and popular, then sure, maybe. But right now, there will be more riders on Millwoods and WEM (as there is already proven comuter ridership) - those are bigger priorities, and should be finished first. By the time that's done, we will know more about whether or not HSR is going to happen too.

I agree with moahunter on this one. Test the demand before you build. I have said that about all the proposed LRT routes. BUT they do not want to do the test because it would be poorly utilized and would demonstrate that there really isn't a huge demand for YEGLRT.

What I want to know is how would YEGLRT work?

With flights leaving at all hours are you going to run YEGLRT 24/7? And if you run YEGLRT around the clock, wouldn't you need to run all the other LRT routes as well? Then do you provide bus service for the whole city 24 hours a day? That gets real expensive to run trains and buses at 2am.

Lets look at a typical flight for a young couple off to Florida for two weeks. Their flight leaves Monday morning at 7am They have to be at the airport at 5am and therefore go in their SUV to the Belvedere LRT station and park it there at 4am to catch the LRT. They leave the SUV for 2 weeks, parking for free and avoiding airport parking costs. Commuters cannot use that parking space for the entire time. That young couple returns at 1am on a Sunday night and after clearing Customs they board the 2am YEGLRT to Belvedere.

Is this what the YEGLRT is for?

Not 24/7, but the trains would have to leave early enough to arrive at YEG in time for the early morning US departures.

In Vancouver the Skytrain to the airport will run from an early arrival at the airport around 5:00am, with the last departure from the airport around 1:00am. Later service is provided by the night buses with the last departure from the airport to Vancouver at 2:30am and the last bus to Richmond at 3:40am and the last bus from Vancouver to the airport at 3:10am.

YVR will operate a downtown check-in so people can check-in then take the train to the airport.

For the Edmonton LRT to YEG to work for air travellers, it will need to be supported by a bus service at times when it makes no sense to run the trains and by downtown check-in facilities to encourage use of the trains.

armin
06-12-2008, 03:16 PM
How many people would actually use an extention going out there?
Mandel is right that we need to set this silly idea on the backburner. I'm still embarrassed by the fact we have no LRT to WEM and can't find a decent route to go through. Priorities. Set a corridor aside for future development and get back on the projects that deserve to be made. Making a trainrail out to Nisku is costly and dumb. Besides, a HRT to Calgary would be much smarter and riders to the airport can just get off there.

JayBee
06-12-2008, 04:23 PM
I repeat, YEGLRT is in all likelihood not an equal cost proposition. You couldn't delay it and therefore pay for WLRT. Not even close.

Edmonton PRT
06-12-2008, 07:08 PM
Anybody gonna address the hundreds of cars that may plug the free park'n'ride locations while people are away on holiday.

If you begin charging them for staying overnight they will just decide to avoid the YEG LRT all together and drive to the airport.

kubchaser
06-12-2008, 11:51 PM
This is beyond me. Why is the council even entertaining on the thought of extending LRT to airport?

How is that even CLOSE to the importance of extending LRT to WEM and Millwods???

Like I said before, DO NOT TRY TO CREATE A DEMAND! How many people would be using LRT all the way to the airport on the regular basis? LRT will be so much more profitable when regular Edmontonians use LRT Monday to Friday. The city will generate much more income from fares and advertising.

I can't believe they are planning the airport extension before west and Millwood extensions. Ridiculous.

Edmonton PRT
07-12-2008, 12:00 AM
I repeat, YEGLRT is in all likelihood not an equal cost proposition. You couldn't delay it and therefore pay for WLRT. Not even close.

Jaybee, I have to disagree with you there. If we are going to support electric public transit then it should maximize the ridership and benefit urban dwellers who choose to live and work in denser neighbourhoods and use public transit often. Running a relative few vacationers and business people to the airport and encouraging sprawling developments on the outreaches of the city like in SE Edmonton, Lewis Estates or St. Albert are just benefiting real estate developers.

Electric transit of all forms including electric trolleys, LRT, Streetcars and even PRT have higher ridership and create better more walkable cities when they are applied to denser established neighbourhoods and revitalized brownfield sites than in greenfield developments.

http://www.perrygeo.net/img/co2-map-chi-med.gif


http://frumin.net/img/winkelman-sf-co2-percapita.png


http://frumin.net/img/winkelman-sprawl-vs-urban.png

JayBee
07-12-2008, 03:19 AM
I'm not arguing against suburban LRT at all, but I do believe YEGLRT will cost less per rider straight up, and far less per ridden kilometer, and thus if you will, reduce more CO2 per dollar as well. Even in absolute terms, 10,000 people daily substituting 25 kilometers of electric rail for private motor vehicle versus 40,000 people going only 7 km. would be competitive.

As for suburban growth in Leduc County, I still say we simply create regional, provincial and national strategies against sprawl. I don't mind however, industrial growth away from the city (as opposed to near the city) and this would be a way to enable that..

moahunter
07-12-2008, 08:56 AM
I think the 7km / 25km argument is very simplistic, because QEII to YEG is freeflow, and even Gateway flows quite well. There are very few stops, so I expect very little CO2 compared to being stuck on a traffic jam on SPR or similar. LRT isn't just about CO2 reduction though, its about providing transit to people who need it, and right now, people near Millwoods and WEM have been waiting long enough. It is just not right to instead prioritise "future" residents who will live in sprawl suburbs between Leduc and Edmonton, and I'm very pleased Mandel recognizes that.

A non stop express bus from YEG to downtown is well overdue though - its an embarrassment and failure of leadership that it didn't happen long ago. An interesting alternative might be a non-stop bus from YEG to Century place - a little more complex / inconvenient for tourists though.

Edmonton PRT
07-12-2008, 10:41 AM
(snip) It is just not right to instead prioritise "future" residents who will live in sprawl suburbs between Leduc and Edmonton, and I'm very pleased Mandel recognizes that.

Especially since our economic boom has fizzled since March as now housing starts are at a ten year low.

JayBee
07-12-2008, 03:42 PM
PRT: By the by, am I correct to understand the issue you have is with enabling sprawl further South, and you don't necessarily disagree with getting the 6000 Nisku workers, 1500 airport and airline workers, 3,000 odd incoming airport passengers and existing Leduc commuters off the roads? I can see the legitimacy of that kind of concern, and I don't mind if we discuss within that framework, but I hope you see my point that this could do other things that could really help diversify the economy away from energy for a relatively minor outlay of cash. (Compared to the costs of WLRT, MLRT or even a full 7km of NLRT.)

moahunter: I understand you're against this, but you have a long way to go in convincing me that the reasons you post are in fact key in any way to your opposition, and not just support for whatever your chief motivation may happen to be. I say this due to obvious incompatibility with other things you've posted in other threads. You needn't bother posting here if you think I'm taking any of it seriously.

Edmonton PRT
07-12-2008, 04:55 PM
PRT: By the by, am I correct to understand the issue you have is with enabling sprawl further South, and you don't necessarily disagree with getting the 6000 Nisku workers, 1500 airport and airline workers, 3,000 odd incoming airport passengers and existing Leduc commuters off the roads? I can see the legitimacy of that kind of concern, and I don't mind if we discuss within that framework, but I hope you see my point that this could do other things that could really help diversify the economy away from energy for a relatively minor outlay of cash. (Compared to the costs of WLRT, MLRT or even a full 7km of NLRT.)


Building a LRT line just because it can be built cheaply is not a reason to construct it. Most plans I have seen for YEGLRT go nowhere near Nisku. Nisku is very low density compared to other industrial parks elsewhere. There are no sidewalks to facilitate walking to work and the late shifts and travel habits of your target group are not a good match for LRT. Many workers in Nisku come from Devon, Leduc, Beaumont, Millwoods, even as far away as Fort Saskatchewan (via hwy 21) so you would be lucky to get 5% of the 6,000 workers. Of those 3,000 airport travellers and 1,500 workers, what percentage are actually from Edmonton. I know several people who work at the airport and many are again from Devon, Leduc, Beaumont, Millwoods and the airport services travellers from Ponoka, Red Deer, Fort Mac, Edson and dozens of towns in Northern Alberta who drive to the airport. About 70% of people do not use public transit who only go to the airport a few times a year will only be confused with the prospect of using LRT to get to the airport in the rush to get to their plane and will opt out and use their car. This was demonstrated to me at the Las Vegas monorail which had several people at each station to show people how to use the ticket machines. Management told the staff this would be a temporary measure for the first few weeks. When I talked to the staff they thought that management was crazy as every day new tourists arrive to Vegas and they would have to teach everyone forever. It is not like they were dealing with daily commuters who would learn by repetition. Same goes with the YEGLRT.

A place like WEM has far greater density of workers, more staff that work there who live in Edmonton, multiple usage of shopping, entertainment, work, tourists, a transit hub for students and commuters. I still think that $1.6 Billion for WLRT is way too much for a maximum of 1,250 passengers per hour. Lets improve our express bus service first.

JayBee
07-12-2008, 05:00 PM
Er, so is that a yes that your main concern is facillitating sprawl Southward? I can flesh out my guestimates but I want to know what we're discussing first.

Edmonton PRT
08-12-2008, 12:36 AM
Sprawl is secondary because it will continue with or without LRT. The high cost of LRT construction and the poor ridership due to Edmonton's low density are my chief concerns. We are talking about billions of dollars here like it was available as easy as putting it on the City of Edmonton's Master Card. :smt119

I do not think that YEGLRT should even be on the table except allotting a zoning restriction as we did with the outer ring road decades ago. Planning a LRT line to EIA to a place we don't even have bus service; including doing cost estimates at this time are a waste of taxpayers money when they should spend time correcting our issues that affect us today like improving bus transit service and routes.

moahunter
08-12-2008, 06:55 AM
moahunter: I understand you're against this, but you have a long way to go in convincing me that the reasons you post are in fact key in any way to your opposition, and not just support for whatever your chief motivation may happen to be. I say this due to obvious incompatibility with other things you've posted in other threads. You needn't bother posting here if you think I'm taking any of it seriously.
Do you want to elaborate Jaybe? We all have different opinions on different things, and I have been opposed to LRT to YEG from the outset. I stated another thread that IMO the city should stop expanding the borders, that would be my primary objection - this would feed sprawl. I'm also opposed to the NELRT expansion beyond Clareview - we need to build LRT for Edmonton residents first. I do think LRT is best when it is straight and fast, but we need to link the places people commute to every day first. Once that is done, YEG is on the table, but it is a long way off - WLRT, Millwoods LRT and NAIT LRT by whatever routes (even ones I don't like) are greater priorities.

JBear
08-12-2008, 10:15 AM
I think the YEG would be better served by a HSR straight from Downtown and Red Deer, not a LRT.

HSR would not be constrained with the time restrictions put on by ETS.

grish
08-12-2008, 10:23 AM
/\ ETS would provide a 30 min interval service or similar while HSR when and if it is built and if it serves the airport will be only about 4-5 times a day at most.

I like the point of getting red deer connected to the airport better, but I don't think this is a conversation starter.

kubchaser
08-12-2008, 10:36 AM
[quote=JayBee;150830]

Do you want to elaborate Jaybe? We all have different opinions on different things, and I have been opposed to LRT to YEG from the outset. I stated another thread that IMO the city should stop expanding the borders, that would be my primary objection - this would feed sprawl. I'm also opposed to the NELRT expansion beyond Clareview - we need to build LRT for Edmonton residents first. I do think LRT is best when it is straight and fast, but we need to link the places people commute to every day first. Once that is done, YEG is on the table, but it is a long way off - WLRT, Millwoods LRT and NAIT LRT by whatever routes (even ones I don't like) are greater priorities.

I couldn't agree more with Moahunter. NELRT expansion beyond Clareview is not a priority right now, so is YEGLRT. The priority is to figure out how to increase everyday use by serving the existing neighbourhoods where population DENSITY is much higher. ie. West End, Millwoods.. etc. Once the everyday folks can access the LRT, then expanding further to the suburbs will make sense. More everyday people use LRT means more income generated from fares and advertising.. and other source of revenue. Then we are not just talking about 'cost', but also "opportunity".

grish
08-12-2008, 10:42 AM
i think it is all a part of building one complete system. the issue here is planning and the plan should be to have all--service to mature neighbourhoods with high density as well as giving people access to places such as the airport. It all becomes one issue--overall usability and convenience.

Politically, this isn't as straight forward. If the city is well connected by LRT, then it is easier to make a case for provincial and city funding to build access to the airport. On the other hand, given the way the province treats edmonton and the surrounding communities, it may be more advantageous to push for YEG line now to force the province to deal with regional (mis)planning.

Lets not forget that we are talking about political as well as practical choices. They don't have to have the same logic or common sense as decisions one would make, say, in their home.