South East LRT | Downtown to Millwoods | Planning/Discussion

[Edmcowboy11]

I agree that the WLRT line would be nice to have before SE or NW LRT but since NW is still futher behind in planning and WLRT decisions have continually been delayed because of NIMBY's throughout the westend the SE is the number 1 candidate to getting developed first. Also as mentioned before the maintenance and storage yards need to be built near whitemud.

[East McCauley]

Council's current priority is to build SE LRT first, West LRT second, and then NW LRT. Let me restate my argument for building NW LRT first.

The Administration wants to borrow $161 million to buy property for the West to SE LRT. This borrowed money would be repaid by a 1% dedicated property tax increase for the next 25 years. By 2014, the City would have to come up with another $400 million which is not yet budgeted for (equivalent to a further 2.5% property tax increase), matched by $400 million contributions from both the feds and the province which are also not budgeted for. If any of this funding doesn't materialize, not a single metre of the SE line gets built, and the City is stuck with real estate that currently generates property tax revenue but will stop doing so as soon as it goes into the City land inventory.

The City should instead borrow $161 million to design and then extend the NAIT line into the airport lands so that it can be properly marketed as a transit oriented development when the shovels hit the ground in 2014.

In a worst case scenario of no matching federal or provincial dollars at least the LRT will be built into the airport lands. If - as I suspect - there is some matching dollars available (but less than the $400 million each the City is seeking), the NW line could be extended in phases further north.

By insisting the SE line remain the top LRT priority, the City risks not getting any additional track (beyond NAIT) built for the forseeable future.

[sundance]

Okay but where in the airport lands should it go? We don't even know when or if the 2nd runway will be closed. (Okay its probably WILL happen just not sure precisely when).

Until we know the when on the airport then serious funding can start happening. Right now the NAIT LRT is going within a few hundred feet of the airport lands on the south side of the NAIT campus.

But to get back on the SE topic, if we go with a low floor LRT, and that is pretty much a done deal then you need to either expand DL MacDonald or build a 2nd set of barns. There is some room where the snow dump is, as well as extending the barns over the existing tracks to the south.

BUT, in terms of service it makes more sense to make a 2nd barn because operators wouldn't have to drive the trains from one barn to the starting station, plus it gives operators a choice on picking where to work.

So seeing we need to build barns then where do you put them, the SE line seems to have the only sufficient space where they can build them so making it 1st priority seems to make sense.

[Edmcowboy11]

I haven't see the exact details but yes the new storage and maintenance facility will be somewhere near the future Whitemud station.

[ChrisD]

^Yes, the new maintenance facility will be constructed north of the Whitemud on the east side of 75th.

[Shane Bergdahl]

Originally Posted by East McCauley

Council's current priority is to build SE LRT first, West LRT second, and then NW LRT. Let me restate my argument for building NW LRT first.

I would disagree with your view. When dollars are tight, you need to build where the need currently is.

There are over 150,000 residents in the SE. Currently there is no one living at the City Centre Airport. The City needs to build the LRT where the need is now, not in preparation for that need.

While it is never enjoyable to borrow money, sometimes you need to do it. IMO, building the SE LRT line as a priority makes sense. We don't need to delay it any longer.

[East McCauley]

^That's a bit of a false dichotomy. I favour extending LRT into the airport lands over buying property for the West to SE LRT line.

Beyond the airport lands, there's lots of existing ridership in Calder, Greisbach, Castle Downs and St. Albert, as well as opportunities to cost-share with the latter.

[kkozoriz]

I wouldn't extend the LRT past 127 st/153 ave until St. Albert has a concrete plan and funding set for extension into St. ALbert proper. If we build to the Henday and have a large Park & Ride there's less incentive for St. Albert to commit to LRT through their city.

LRT through the airport lands can't go on until the area plan is set, the location of roads, utilities, parks, etc is set and we know where and how it will cross the Yellowhead and the CN lands as well as having the route and land set north of the tracks.

If it were me I'd do it

1) SE LRT - Whitemud to downtown
2) NW LRT - NAIT to Castle Downs
3) SE LRT - Whitemud to Millwoods


Hopefully in that time all the whining about the route to the west will be done and we can head that direction. Prefeably via 87th ave high floor. The the low floor line can service Oliver/124 st and Westmount/Coronation

[IanO]

Mandel wants to speed work on southeast LRT

Edmonton mayor urges redirecting of funds

BY GORDON KENT, EDMONTONJOURNAL.COM DECEMBER 20, 2011 2:05 PM



STORYPHOTOS ( 1 )



Edmonton LRT
Photograph by: Ryan Jackson, edmontonjournal.com
EDMONTON - The southeast LRT could be completed by the end of the decade using money redirected from other city construction projects, Mayor Stephen Mandel says.

City council has asked staff to report back in 2012 on how to raise $800 million for the new line, which officials last year recommended funding by some combination of tax hikes, extra revenues and shifting money from roadwork.

But Mandel says there should be cash available in the next three-year capital construction and equipment budget, now worth about $800 million annually, that could be used for the LRT.

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...355/story.html

[McBoo]

Long overdue. Hear-hear hizzhonour.

[moahunter]

^just a shame WLRT can't be finshed by the end of the decade as well, I guess that's for the end of the next decade?

[sundance]

I sort of wish they'd drag their feet a bit... my reason is that so the Transportation department realizes that having closely spaced stops out of the downtown core is a bad idea.

On the SE line I do think Millwoods and Grey Nuns should be one stop as well as Strathearn and Holyrood

[moahunter]

Originally Posted by sundance

I sort of wish they'd drag their feet a bit...

Don't worry, they are good at that. Seems to me all the dithering / debating over routes is exactly why Edmoton is so far behind on LRT. For example, this whole line could be P3ed and built now (paid off over the next couple of decades, but at least we have use of it for a couple of decades), but that would require some effort / courage.

[highlander]

^^ I'd like to see this built & up& running quickly for the same reason. I think the route has some flaws but It's generally OK. But it's so different with such an emphasis on small scale stations and neighbourhood friendly design that they went a little too far. Basicaly, I'd rather they build this one and have a couple years experience running Low floor in traffic before making the call on WLRT. The experience on the 83St section will be a good indicator of what WLRT would be like on 156st and Stony plain road. If it's worse then planned then it's back to the 87WLRT route with little loss. If it's reasonably good, then SELRT can be extended west a section at a time as money is available, maybe to MacEwan one year, another couple stops to 124st the next. Yes, it means a longer wait before we have a full west line, but it can help prevent making a big mistake. If the line were already at Jasper place we wouldn't be debating on guesses. We would have hard data on how long the line takes to go that far (the slowest part) and on capacity and operations with a service area of 75,000 without building the whole thing and finding it's too slow from WEM or too small for a service area of 150,000.

[The_Cat]

Building the SE line will traverse two chokepoints:

(1) The river valley - there will be significant time savings during days when Connors Road is congested, and especially during snowy days.
(2) Argyll/WP Wagner - the flyover will mean that commuters won't have to turn onto Whyte Avenue or 75 Street to get to Mill Woods.

[kkozoriz]

I'd like the temporary downtown terminus to be the MacEwan/Norquest station. Good coverage of Downtown. Extend it past here ASAP but at least service the education components.

[CalanTheHobbs]

Originally Posted by highlander

^^ I'd like to see this built & up& running quickly for the same reason. I think the route has some flaws but It's generally OK. But it's so different with such an emphasis on small scale stations and neighbourhood friendly design that they went a little too far. Basicaly, I'd rather they build this one and have a couple years experience running Low floor in traffic before making the call on WLRT. The experience on the 83St section will be a good indicator of what WLRT would be like on 156st and Stony plain road. If it's worse then planned then it's back to the 87WLRT route with little loss. If it's reasonably good, then SELRT can be extended west a section at a time as money is available, maybe to MacEwan one year, another couple stops to 124st the next. Yes, it means a longer wait before we have a full west line, but it can help prevent making a big mistake. If the line were already at Jasper place we wouldn't be debating on guesses. We would have hard data on how long the line takes to go that far (the slowest part) and on capacity and operations with a service area of 75,000 without building the whole thing and finding it's too slow from WEM or too small for a service area of 150,000.

I like that thinking in regards to the WLRT. If it takes more time, then COE should go ahead with extending the line past Century Park, north of Clareview, and of course NWLRT.

I certainly hope the SELRT is a success, and they can speed things along.

[The_Cat]

I think that Edmonton could do well to expand bus service to South Campus to WEM and Callingwood, as a short-term solution for the LRT.

[edmonton daily photo]

^ It's already there.

[moahunter]

Originally Posted by highlander

Basicaly, I'd rather they build this one and have a couple years experience running Low floor in traffic before making the call on WLRT. The experience on the 83St section will be a good indicator of what WLRT would be like on 156st and Stony plain road. If it's worse then planned then it's back to the 87WLRT route with little loss. If it's reasonably good, then SELRT can be extended west a section at a time as money is available, maybe to MacEwan one year, another couple stops to 124st the next.

I think that is a good logic, while I would prefer building the whole line as one (I think it would be cheaper getting a full price from competitive bid today), I can see the advantage of trying it out.

[Edmonton PRT]

From Today`s EJ

LRT expansion sluggish

By J. Roy Johnston, Edmonton JournalDecember 26, 2011

Re: "Full speed ahead for LRT?; Mandel urges redirecting of $800M to complete southeast line quickly," The Journal, Dec. 21.

The Journal has penned the all-time oxy-moron of 2011 in telling us that completion of the southeast link would or could be a reality in another seven or eight years.
Jump now to The Journal of Dec. 22 ("Panama makes way for bigger ships") and learn that the gigantic Panama Canal expansion project that started on Sept. 3, 2007, is scheduled for completion in 2014, or a mere seven years from start to finish.
But then, the canal only has to go from the Atlantic to the Pacific, whereas the LRT has to go all the way to Mill Woods.

J. Roy Johnston, Edmonton
© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal

[lat]

Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT

From Today`s EJ

apple, meet banana...

[McBoo]

Indeed, folks on 83rd street might be upset with explosions down their alleys and and dredging 83rd street.

But I'm no PHD in construction ...

[Edmcowboy11]

Other thing to remember, if you throw enough money at a project it can get done in any time frame that you like.

[The_Cat]

The city made a smart decision with the LRT land purchase and preliminary engineering.

[Medwards]

Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT

From Today`s EJ

and god estimated 7 days to create the world, but got it done in 6 days instead, due to good weather.

[Jasper]

^ and under-budget

[geordieinthecity]

who cares about the local residents. i hate NIMBY so much SOOOO very much!

ITS CALLED PROGRESS
we're in the best economy in canada, and we move around like the flintstones.

[sundance]

Originally Posted by Edmcowboy11

Other thing to remember, if you throw enough money at a project it can get done in any time frame that you like.

Assuming an infinite supply of labor and materials, well best you could do is probably a week or two because you have to wait for the concrete to cure. The Amish or Habitat for Humanity can put up a barn or house in a couple weeks. But imagine the cost if they weren't using volunteer labor?

[geordieinthecity]

who cares about the cost, 25M there, 75M here- 7B over there!!!!

its all made up anyway. let the government figure that out

[Edmcowboy11]

Well I don't know how you can say it's just made up. But more importantly if you let the government figure it out we'll never see anything happen for years and years and years to come.

[geordieinthecity]

gah! thats so terrible .

[richardW]

just get'er done! gimme a shovel and a hammer and i will get this thing rolling!

[Edmcowboy11]

^The day you head out to start work give me a call and I'll be there right along side you!!!

[kkozoriz]

Hopefully someone from the Farmers Market and the DECL will make an apperance to refute this arguement.


http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...167/story.html

EDMONTON - The city’s preferred downtown LRT route would cut through the Saturday 104th Street farmers market, putting the lives of shoppers at risk, says a lawyer hired to represent those opposed to the route.
The intersection where 104th Street connects with 102nd Avenue — the city administration’s preferred downtown connecting route — is normally closed to traffic on Saturdays and filled with children, artists and shoppers, said lawyer Sol Rolingher, speaking after city council referred the issue on Wednesday back to committee.

[Alex.L]

I've always preferred the DT Connector on 103rd ave/102a right in front of city hall, etc. but for different reasons.

They are grasping at straws at this point.

[sundance]

OMG a person will jaywalk and get ran over by the LRT. Geez

To me it seems that this is an applied application of Darwin's theories.

[McBoo]

^And no one would ever jaywalk on 103 ave, which is a block closer to the arena district (read, bars, excited fans).

Oh, wait ...

[JamesL]

"Lives at risk" is over the top, but it will definitely disrupt the flow of the market as it is. The 102nd Ave intersection currently is used as programmable space, which can't continue with LRT right there. Maybe the solution is to move the Market from Jasper-to-103rd Ave to 102nd Ave-to-104 Ave.

[kkozoriz]

Originally Posted by Ander

I've always preferred the DT Connector on 103rd ave/102a right in front of city hall, etc. but for different reasons.

They are grasping at straws at this point.

I'd rather it stay on 102 ave as planned so to better tie together Churchill Square and City Hall. Kind of hard to have a rally with trains running through the middle of it.

[MrOilers]

Originally Posted by JamesL

Maybe the solution is to move the Market from Jasper-to-103rd Ave to 102nd Ave-to-104 Ave.

That would work, or another solution is to just keep things more or less the way they are, and people can simply follow the signals to avoid the train every 10 minutes.

Changing an LRT route for a temporary market that only exists on Saturdays ending at 3:00 pm, and only runs for a few months out of the whole year is silly.

[GreenSPACE]

Just to set the record straight - The City Market, to my knowledge, has never complained about the proposed 102 Ave route. I don't know who this lawyer represents, but it isn't the market. There are some concerns, yes for sure. People will just have to learn to cross safely.

The low-floor LRT won't be much different than waiting to cross the road anywhere else. The market existed just fine before 102 Ave was closed, and the LRT won't be that frequent. In fact, the street will be much improved. New bike lane, trees, benches, generous landscaping...it will be like having a linear pedestrian corridor/park in the middle of the market. The trains will pass every 5-10 minutes, but can slow or even stop for pedestrians. I think this is much fear mongering by this lawyer, and his assumptions are wrong.

It should also be pointed out that the Downtown LRT Corridor is part of the approved new Downtown Plan, which DECL fully supported. Let's get this thing built!

[deedub35]

NIMBYism and fear-mongering. Council decides to move it to the next block those people will start complaining. Not everyone can be satisfied. Make the decision and build it!

[The_Cat]

"People will die!"

Hmmm, where have I heard that before?

[highlander]

I'd have to agree that the middle of a crowded market is no place for an LRT train. But it's great place for a streetcar, and that's what it will be downtown, on weekends. A streetcar.

[thatguy]

the lawyer comments are silly. in europe, across much denser cities, trams and people are side by side. my only concern with the overall plan is the 109 st intersection. please make it an over or underpass. if/ when the city centre lands develop, 109 will be even busier than it is now. my 2 cents.

[richardW]

Originally Posted by highlander

I'd have to agree that the middle of a crowded market is no place for an LRT train. But it's great place for a streetcar, and that's what it will be downtown, on weekends. A streetcar.

this

the limited frequency and most likely smaller train consists on the weekends makes this not that big of an issue.

[Edmcowboy11]

Oh well, as we know there are sooo a many nimby's or wanna be nimby's it's so hard to keep up at times.

Well anyways back to the thread topic of South East LRT where this current discussion is really more about the downtown connector.

So I hope that this defferal of the agenda to January 31 is just a standard procedure which I think it may be. Now if I'm understanding this correctly too we did take a little step forward in way of the bylaw to approve spending for land aquisition on the SE to W line made it through 1st reading.

Another positive when reading the documents is that the time frame (provided things continue being approved) would see construction start on the SE line in 2014 with a projected date of completion in 2017. This is ambitious but I'm going to keep my fingers crossed that we can see this schedule kept.

[kkozoriz]

Instead of complaining that the LRT will run through the market why not see it as having a market that sits between light rail that connects it to three (eventually four) corners of the city?

[The_Cat]

Give that there are stops one block west and two blocks east of the 4th Street Market, they won't interfere a lot.

[GreenSPACE]

It might be worth the time to write Council and express your support for the current plan, so it is not sidetracked. I believe in the end this will happen, just have to creatively find the money. I know people who are working on a funding strategy, so you can be assured the City is looking at how they can fund this sooner rather than later. Downtown unfortunately was identified as the '3rd phase' in the build, so I wouldn't expect any construction on 102 Ave for at least 5-8 years. In the best case scenario, the province/feds kick in money and Council uses that money to fund LRT almost exclusively.

[Sonic Death Monkey]

Speeding work of Mill Woods LRT could involve tax hike, public-private partnership


http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...353/story.html

EDMONTON - Funding the “fast-track” plan to start Mill Woods LRT construction by 2014 could involve a public-private partnership or a 5.4-per-cent tax hike, a new report says.

Councillors voted last November to push ahead with LRT despite tight budgets, asking staff to find ways the city could provide $800 million toward the $1.8-billion line from 2014 to 2018.

They want the federal and provincial governments to kick in the rest of the cash.

A report released Thursday says the city could borrow its entire share of the LRT budget, pushing up property taxes 5.4 per cent over four years, or borrow less by diverting $200 million from other work.

This would only require a four-per-cent tax increase for debt payments, but would reduce the money available for other projects and maintaining existing infrastructure, which is already underfunded.

The third option is to use a public-private partnership, in which a private company would provide part of the financing and design, build and maintain the system, usually for 30 years.

The federal government’s $1.2-billion P3 Canada Fund can pay up to 25 per cent of eligible costs for approved projects, the report says.

A city study has already concluded a P3 could probably provide better value for building the entire line from Lewis Estates to Mill Woods than traditional approaches.

[highlander]

They should buy the trains outright and do a design/build/maintain on the tracks and stations. I bet the ost would be well under budget.

[Edmcowboy11]

Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey

Speeding work of Mill Woods LRT could involve tax hike, public-private partnership


http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...353/story.html

When reading the comments on the Journal page for the article I always find it amazing that the internet has time traveling capabilities. So many people living in the 1950's are able to post comments and those comments get time warped into the future. Boy it's amazing how that happens!!

[thatguy]

^ lol. but i also think planners should look at trench/ tunnel/ overpass options at some key intersections (i'm talk about you, 109st and 104 ave)

[Bill]

I personally don't care so much for the project delivery method, but would like to see the two major LRT legs built within the next 5-7 years, or so

[Alex.L]

I welcome the day when I have trouble driving downtown due to excess LRT construction.

[moahunter]

Originally Posted by highlander

They should buy the trains outright and do a design/build/maintain on the tracks and stations. I bet the ost would be well under budget.

I think the normal P3 model is that the trains are decided by the P3 consortium - i.e. you have bids from groups using different technologies, maybe one with Alstrom, one with Bombairdiar, one with Seimens, one with Japanese trains, one with Korean, etc. The best price with sufficient quality/service (as set by the P3 specifications), for the whole 30 year (or whatever) life, wins.

The article amazes me, in that it gives the choice, between more taxes, or having a P3 (which also will bring more federal funding). I hope the City can get past its socialist / controlling tendancy's and do what Vancouver did, so we can get the whole line built, it really is such a no-brainer.

Interesting the article also says a P3 would work better for the whole line, Lewis Estates to Millwoods, which is also pretty obvious- the bigger the project, the bigger the competition, the bigger the saving to taxpayers. I hope they dont split it up just because scared to comitt / make a decision. Build the line as one, lets get this one going, so can start work on a P3 for the next one (likely, St Albert), then the next one (e.g. Sherwood park), then the next one (I think should be, Winderemere).

[highlander]

By combining all the scopes into one P3 there's a good chance that the best bud won't have the best operations price or the best vehicle price. SE alone would require 40 or so vehicles worth $200m. That's a big enough contract to get the attention of all the big manufacturers, and an option for another 50 or 60 cars for the connector could be tacked on for a contract worth as much as $500m if the options were exercised.

[moahunter]

^whoever supplies the trains, will also supply the parts / maintenance technology. To get a true cost for the operator, it only makes sense that they work in tandem with the supplier to maximize possible synergies. For example, build a better quality train, and maintenance is reduced, versus building a crappier one, with higher maintenance. Those are forumlas / risks that should be undertaken by the tenderor teams, rather than the City, under a P3.

[sundance]

(BM) The Southeast line is going to incorporate low floor cars and the staging of this line is premised on going far enough to the low floor LRT maintenance facility so that opens up the question of whether or not you can handle any of the low floor LRT cars in your current maintenance facility?
DL MacDonald’s capacity is 60 to store and if we fill in every nook and cranny we can fit 84 cars in and with the 20 cars for NAIT are already 10 cars over capacity. Even if we get more high floor cars we are going to have to look for another service and light maintenance facility, probably the old Cromdale site is one possibility. The cars themselves are going to be very different. All the equipment instead of being underneath the floor of the car is now on the roof of the car, so your access for maintenance and repair has to be at all three levels which is a raised gantry level to get at the roof, plus being able to access the car as well as underneath at the running gear. The length of the cars will probably be somewhere in the order of 42 to 45 metres whereas our current cars are 25 metres. So getting a pit and space long enough to being able to access the full length of the car would be a challenge. We have no physical connection between the surface line and DL MacDonald. You may be able to dismount some trucks and use the under floor wheel lathe at DL MacDonald to be able to retrofire the wheels which is not a very effective way to deal with your truck maintenance. It ties up that car for an extended period of time. We really do need that new facility. The plan was to put it in on the north side of Whitemud and east side of 75th across from where the big tanks are. There is a plot of land that would be large enough to put the centre in. It would have to be large enough to handle about 50 to 60 low floorcars to be able to service the full length.

I never realized there would be enough room for it there for that big of a yard... I guess I was wrong.

[Edmcowboy11]

I thought so too until I actually went driving down that way and there is actually a lot of space.

[IanO]

Moving slowly ahead on the southeast LRT, but how to pay for it?


BY SARAH O'DONNELL, EDMONTONJOURNAL.COM FEBRUARY 21, 2012



STORYPHOTOS ( 1 )



Low-floor cars will be used on the proposed downtown LRT line.
Photograph by: Supplied , edmontonjournal.com
EDMONTON - The push to build the southeast LRT line received a nudge forward Tuesday as a council committee wrestled with the $1.8-billion question surrounding the project: How to foot the bill for the 13-kilometre route?

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


http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...607/story.html

[Alex.L]

I think if there was ever a time to do a P3, it's now since it's a new technology on a separate line with a new garage/maintenance facility. Let the highest bidder take care of the headaches/maintenance/etc and run it for us.

[moahunter]

^I agree, such a bid would bring true competition, and a certain cost for the city of all costs over a reasonable life. But I fear there is self interest at play. Despite their horrible track record of brining in LRT at very high expense, or perhaps because of that, some at the COE likely want to run the show again in another piece meal build like prior LRT builds. To be in charge of spending all this money as they see fit / justify promotions / pay rises / new hires, etc.

[edmonton daily photo]

^ huh?

[moahunter]

^something you don't understand? A P3 would outsource much of the sub-contracting selection work, and on-going operations/maintenance, that has been done by COE in the past, to the P3 consortium. If you don't think that's going to upset some public sector unions, and upset some senior management from previous builds, you are kidding yourself (even though, other cities have been able to overcome this type of opposition sucessfully to get LRT build cheaper and quicker - like Vancouver).

[Medwards]

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

From Malcom Tucker on SSP:

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

[edmonton daily photo]

Originally Posted by moahunter

^something you don't understand? A P3 would outsource much of the sub-contracting selection work, and on-going operations/maintenance, that has been done by COE in the past, to the P3 consortium. If you don't think that's going to upset some public sector unions, and upset some senior management from previous builds, you are kidding yourself (even though, other cities have been able to overcome this type of opposition sucessfully to get LRT build cheaper and quicker - like Vancouver).

Much Better...

All I care about is the huge pot of funding that is avl.

[Blueline]

Don't forget one of those private sector companies involved with the current construction has been EPCOR
Also other current participants have been non c of e based private sector co's.

[moahunter]

^under a P3, there would be an opportunity for local companies to be part of the consortium, or, to bid on sub-contracting work from the consortium. The difference is, the whole process is not managed by COE once the bid is awarded. After that, all the politics and lack of accountability that can creep in with government burecrats handing out money / overseeing detailed contract performance, is removed for the length of the P3 (other than ensuring the consortium is delivering quality within the standards of the P3).

If the City goes this route, they should get help from the Province, or perhaps also look at Vancouver (make good job offers to their city staff who were involved), in designing the P3 standards and bid procees - i.e. seek out experience, don't reinvent the wheel.

[Chris83]

I see this project heading in the direction of a P3, especially if they want to achieve their ambitious timeline.

Secure funding for preliminary engineering and land acquisition strengthens the City's position when approaching both levels of gov't for funding.

Environmental and geotechnical investigations are currently underway; everything is lining up nicely so far on the project.

There are a lot of criticisms regarding P3 (a lot of which are accurate); but the number 1 cause of problems with P3s are the initial contract. A solid contract that deals properly with roles, responsibilities and fallout would resolve most issues.

[East McCauley]

Chris83, where you see everything lining up nicely, I see the Administration engaging in its specialty. It goes by various names. Kicking the can down the road, playing for time, or ragging the puck. But it amounts to the same thing.

You don't have to read too carefully between the lines of Transportation's February 21 TPW report to conclude there is practically zero chance of an extra billion in federal or provincial funding to help pay for SE LRT. And any Councillor (with the possible exception of Amarjeet Sohi) who votes for a permanent locked-in 5.4% property increase to pay the City's portion has a high likelihood of losing their job in the next election.

A P3 doesn't significantly alter the above math. Most P3 arrangements still require governments to put up most of the financing. Any capital contributed by the private consortia will need to be repaid at a higher interest rate than the government borrowing rate.

Much better for the Administration to kick the can down the road for a few more months than to report to Council that there is no realistic way to fund the SE LRT project within the 2014 to 2018 timeframe.

[Edmcowboy11]

So I guess we should just put our heads in the sand and realize it's impossible and give up. Yeah I guess that's one way to solve the problem. Wow I feel like I'm living back in the late 80's and early 90's.

[East McCauley]

^Nope. The solution is to recognize that SE LRT is a bridge too far at this point, and focus instead on using a phased approached to completing NW LRT first including cost-sharing with the City of St. Albert.

My criticism of Transportation is that they are not prepared to be forthright with City Council on the feasibility (or lack thereof) of SE LRT. In their defence, Transportation is proceeding with concept planning for NW LRT beyond NAIT and is doing some joint planning with St. Albert. A fall back option perhaps?

[Sonic Death Monkey]

They are proceeding with seLRT first because it is the closest to being shovel-ready, because it will include the new LRT maintenance facility, and because it's a path of least resistance.

nwLRT route beyond NAIT? Not ready yet. The City Centre Airport still needs to close down first, and the redevelopment plans are still being worked on.

wLRT still has a lot of NIMBY contention with the chosen routes, I think.

[Edmcowboy11]

Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey

They are proceeding with seLRT first because it is the closest to being shovel-ready, because it will include the new LRT maintenance facility, and because it's a path of least resistance.

Very true, There has always been the usual little bit of NIMBYism but it has a whole lot less amazingly than other routes. The backbone of the whole low floor system (the maintenance facility will be located just north of the future Whitemud station.

nwLRT route beyond NAIT? Not ready yet. The City Centre Airport still needs to close down first, and the redevelopment plans are still being worked on.

Even though there was a very rough concept presented about the approximate location of the line until the CCA lands have a definite design I don't think the city is too willing to move forward with LRT past NAIT station. When there is a much more precise and detailed plan the city will be ready. Also hopefully by then St.Albert will get fully on board with being ready to bring LRT into their community. Personally I wouldn't mind if they could continue right away further north but for the time being its ok until they have a more definite idea. Actually I would love to see a branch line go out directly north up to Northgate and further all the way to the Garrison.

wLRT still has a lot of NIMBY contention with the chosen routes, I think.

Stony Plain Road area along the business district seems pretty opposed to the city plan as well as just further east the community seemed to be quite NIMBYesque in their approach to LRT planners. I remember quite a few people really critical about the proposed routes at the WLRT meetings. Also too there is enough time that WLRT can come second to SELRT because they need to build the line from the maintenance facility all the way to downtown and then through downtown before even starting to think about building the WLRT line.

[kkozoriz]

The Garrison doesn't have anywhere near the ridership to warrant an LRT line. If there was an extension I'd continue the line up Castle Downs Road and into the Lake District, perhaps as far as 82 st & 167 ave, with a far future connection at Gorman making a north side loop.

[Edmcowboy11]

Ok, maybe not all the way to the Garrison but definitely to Northgate.

[kkozoriz]

Northgate has a direct run straight into downtown. Buses can handle that about as well as LRT could especially when the traffic from Castle Downs gets diverted to the NLRT line.

[knowitall]

How do these threads get hijacked by side discussions like the NAIT line and extensions into Castle Downs?? There are other threads for these topics.

[moahunter]

Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey

They are proceeding with seLRT first because it is the closest to being shovel-ready, because it will include the new LRT maintenance facility, and because it's a path of least resistance.

I think it is also because Millwoods was promised LRT long ago. It is perfect for LRT, with a large student population who go to NAIT or GMAC, and a number of people who work downtown. This LRT will remove a huge number of buses from the roads.

I do hope if its P3, the whole line goes out to tender though through to Lewis Estates, as the second half will need the same operator as the first, this is where there is some complexity with a P3 if the line is split. Keep iin mind a P3 won't require the city to finance the whole cost up front, it spreads it over the useful life, which is then offset to some extent by the revenues from the system. The sooner you get it running, the sooner you get some payback.

[The_Cat]

Even as a P3, the city would see the following benefits:

(1) Increased development along the line, and possibly more in areas like the Quarters, where there there is access to all LRT lines. For example, a nurse living downtown can commute to the Grey Nuns Hospital on LRT. Property values (and tax revenue) would increase along this route.

(2) Less reliance on traffic routes, including 75 Street, 83/86 Street and Connors Road.

A P3 for the LRT is similar to the Community Revitalization Levy proposed for the Downtown/Arena District. If we look at 30 years of growth, even 1.5% annual growth translates to 12,000 per year, or 360,000 more residents by 2045. And that would be a conservative estimate. In 1981, Edmonton's population was 532,000, and it's grown by nearly 300,000 residents since.

[Chris83]

Originally Posted by East McCauley

Much better for the Administration to kick the can down the road for a few more months than to report to Council that there is no realistic way to fund the SE LRT project within the 2014 to 2018 timeframe.

Securing federal and provincial funding typically involves a lot of behind-the-scenes work. Having an alignment undergoing preliminary engineering with money to secure land allocated and the City committing to approx 800 million in funding is essential to securing such funding.

Dropping SELRT and magically shifting priorities to the NW would be the boondoggle of all boondoggles. More is happenning with SELRT than many realize.

[thatguy]

also, mill woods has been promised lrt since the area was built. so, it should be the next priority. and from what i understand the capital region board also supports se lrt as the next phase. (as the board supported the nait line) while phase one is expensive the city should not stop because of that. that kind of thinking leads to stagnation which is what we experienced in past years because some civic politicians were too timid. the phased build out of the line to lewis farms actually have reasonable budgets to them. from my point of view, phase one is the biggest hurdle. once that's done the rest will be easy to build.

[IanO]

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

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

Meeting Schedule

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Annunciation School, 9325 - 165 Street

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

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

Sincerely,

Elicia Elliott, BA
Public Involvement Advisor, SE to W LRT
d: 780.496.1093
e: elicia.elliott@edmonton.ca
www.edmonton.ca/LRTprojects

[East McCauley]

Originally Posted by moahunter

Keep iin mind a P3 won't require the city to finance the whole cost up front, it spreads it over the useful life, which is then offset to some extent by the revenues from the system. The sooner you get it running, the sooner you get some payback.

At present only about 41% of ETS operating costs are covered by system revenue, and none of the capital costs are. Source: http://www.edmonton.ca/city_governme...ing_Budget.pdf

Do you have any evidence to support the claim that system revenues could be used to offset some of the capital cost of SE LRT, or is this just something you made up?

[East McCauley]

Originally Posted by Chris83

Securing federal and provincial funding typically involves a lot of behind-the-scenes work. Having an alignment undergoing preliminary engineering with money to secure land allocated and the City committing to approx 800 million in funding is essential to securing such funding.

Read the February 21 Transportation report to TPW. It's not at all clear that the City can afford its $800 million contribution even if you believe (I don't) that this will cause the feds and the province to cough up $500 million each. $800 million translates into a 5.4% tax increase for the next 25 years. Seems like a recipe for a tax revolt.

Suggestions that funding can be redirected from other planned capital projects many of them still unfunded including the Downtown Arena ($500 million+), a replacement for the Westwood transit garage ($100 million+), and the upfront development costs for the City Centre Airport redevelopment (price unknown) is not very helpful unless the City is prepared to say exactly which projects will have to be sacrificed.

[moahunter]

Originally Posted by East McCauley

Do you have any evidence to support the claim that system revenues could be used to offset some of the capital cost of SE LRT, or is this just something you made up?

That includes various more expensive forms of transit like the bus system. LRT is expensive to build, but once built, it has a very low operating cost, much lower than the buses it would replace, so the sooner its built, the sooner those costs will improve:

A typical C-Train vehicle costs only $163 per hour to operate, and since it averages 600 passengers per operating hour, Calgary Transit estimates that its LRT operating costs are only 27 cents per ride, versus $1.50 per ride on its buses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail

[East McCauley]

^As a high volume and high frequency people mover, LRT can and should have reduced operating costs per passenger. Otherwise, there would be no justification for building LRT due to its significantly higher capital costs compared to buses.

To the best of my knowledge, the City Administration is not claiming that system revenues would be sufficient to offset even a small portion of SE LRT construction costs whether financed conventionally or through a P3. You seemed to be making that claim and that's what I was questioning.

[moahunter]

^To date, City Administration has not pushed a P3 (although it is supposed to be explored). My point is simply, if we are going to build LRT anyway, it makes sense to build it quickly so that the operating saving that will arise as the City grows (compared to expanding the current bus system), and additional revenues (from more people taking transit), can be maximized. The sooner its built, the sooner that happens.

I don't believe its going to get cheaper in the future. I'm tired of the dithering snails pace. IMO, if the City plans to build the entire network over the next 30 years, rather than piece meal that, they could P3 the entire thing now and spread that cost over the 30 years. The big advantage is we get the whole system built quicker which IMO would dramatically impact the future needs for roads / freeways as well. One step at a time though I guess, so start with this line.

[Blueline]

would the city invite or participate with SNC in a P3 as did Vancouver ?
(to what appears to be great success )

[moahunter]

^If the project is big enough (which it should be) SNC may be one of the bidders, I expect there would be a few consortiums, perhaps with some local companies involved as well (e.g. Stantec, PCL, etc.), and a few different LRT makers (Bombardiar, Seimens, Alstrom, Kinki Sharyo, etc.). That's the neat thing about a P3, you end up with some different options, and real competition.

If Vancouver, which I've always thought of as a more "left" leaning city, can have a highly sucessful P3 (which it was, I've talked to an SNC person involved who explained to me how well the targets were hit), I don't see why it can't work just as well, if not better, in Edmonton.

[East McCauley]

^^Transportation's February 21 report suggests that a private consortia would likely only finance 25% to 40% of SE LRT project costs.

SNC-Lavalin only financed about one-third of the cost of the Canada Line, and some of its financing was obtained from the BC equivalent of AIMCO. Two-thirds of Canada Line costs were directly funded by governments. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_...roject_funding

[Marcel Petrin]

But I thought P3's magically create infrastructure governments don't have to pay for!?!

[IanO]

Originally Posted by East McCauley

^^Transportation's February 21 report suggests that a private consortia would likely only finance 25% to 40% of SE LRT project costs.

SNC-Lavalin only financed about one-third of the cost of the Canada Line, and some of its financing was obtained from the BC equivalent of AIMCO. Two-thirds of Canada Line costs were directly funded by governments. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_...roject_funding

An Olympics helps

[moahunter]

Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin

But I thought P3's magically create infrastructure governments don't have to pay for!?!

No, but they spread the full cost (captial, maintenance and operating) over its life, without having as much of the debt on public books. And, the private sector gets a tax deduction on the interest (the rate of which can be excellent as a government backed project), in effect another subsidy from the federal government and province. Add in the absolute certainty on costs (no over-runs that impact the public), and the extra competition due to it being a larger project, and it really is a no-brainer (unless one has a vested interest in the historically expensive, segment by segment, Edmonton approach).

[GreenSPACE]

"SE to W LRT Community Conversations

This email is intended to clarify that registration is not required in order to attend the Southeast to West Community Conversations. We had provided an option to receive free "tickets" for this event in order to estimate attendance and better plan each event, as well as to give people the option to have a printable reminder about the specific meeting they wished to attend.

However, there has been some uncertainty around whether registration is required in order to attend. We apologize for any concerns about this and have removed the link to the event site in order to prevent future uncertainty. All members of the public are welcome and do not have to give pre-notification of attendance.

If you would like to be sent a reminder email or printable "ticket" prior to the Community Conversation you wish to attend, please email lrtprojects@edmonton.ca with your preferred contact email and the area or date of this meeting and we will be happy to do so."

[IHaggis]

Did anyone else see the viaduct bridge image that was included in the latest pdf from the city about the SE extension? it shows it A) starting at the very top of the cliff not out of a tunnel! and B) going all the way over and in front of the Muttart in a giant huge hideous valley long horizontal monolith!! please tell me i have it wrong!

[Jasper]

^do you have a link or anything?