Go West, Young LRT (Eventually)
Council will take another stab at LRT routes tomorrow. Hopefully we can make some decisions, though it remains to be seen whether we can get to a final decision on the West route.
Yellow is 107; Red are the SPR variants; Blue is 87 Ave; Pink are Redevelopment Opportunities.
My guess is there are at least seven votes for the proposed Southeast LRT alignment to Millwoods via Connors Road as presented by city administration. I like the stop in the Quarters; I’m glad for the station in the valley at the Muttart Conservatory; I’m pleased it will connect with the proposed Strathearn Apartments redevelopment; I’m glad it will connect with Bonnie Doon and W.P. Wagner High School. Of the alternatives I think the case has been made that it’s the best. There are still questions about how to negotiate some of the tight spots around Connors Road and the Argyll Road crossing, but that comes at the next level of design refinement and will be reported to council and subject to extensive consultation with the public.
Little known fact that there’s a small change to the NAIT line to turn the train off of 106 St north of Kingsway Garden Mall and cross onto the airport lands. I suspect there are a majority of votes for this, but it will not be unanimous.
I do not have a sense of where inclinations lie on the West alignment. I think there may be a handfull of votes for each of 87 Ave, Stony Plain Road (SPR), 107 Ave, and SPR but via 100th Ave between 156 St and 149 St, so there could be no consensus. However, I think there will be a clear majority supporting the northerly low-floor options versus the 87 Ave high-floor option. Administration has requested guidance in the cover report here:
At a minimum, it is recommended that Council provide direction relative to the criteria of Land Use and Promoting Compact Urban Form. In the case of West LRT line, the southerly lines score considerably less on this criteria and removal of the southern options from further evaluation will be beneficial.
I can be counted among those supporting the northerly option, which is a shift since I had spoken in support of 87 Ave when it was first recommended. I can assure you that no-one has ‘gotten to me’. We’ve simply learned quite a bit and made some decisions that change the LRT landscape since that initial proposal.
So what’s changed? I’ve written about the ‘urban’ shift previously here, but as far as it applies to West LRT initially 87 Ave was a single leg, not part of a whole network vision, which was considered and approved around a year ago. Similarly, shifting to the low-floor curb-loading style of train was not on the horizon when we were previously evaluating routes. With that comes a further shift away from distant station separations and a ‘commuter’ or ‘suburban’ style system (think of Calgary’s LRT) to an ‘urban’ style with more frequent stops serving more people centrally – making the LRT relevant in established areas rather than just rushing through them. We also shifted the importance of stimulating potential redevelopment to the top of the list. This last change is about a lot more than ‘if you build it they will come [and redevelop],’ for me this is about ‘it’s probably not worth building at all if they don’t come [and redevelop].‘ So that’s why the Northerly, low-floor options appeal to me.
But I’m not ready to support SPR yet.
I do accept the planners’ arguments that when it’s all done the LRT could be a powerful revitalizing force on SPR, and further that the rest of the traffic system could take up the traffic displaced by the loss of the lane of traffic (you only lose one lane from the dominant flow during rush hour). However, my worry is about the in-between.
I think construction disruption will be very difficult for all along any LRT line, speaking from experience with South LRT, but businesses fronting onto the construction may find their access impaired during construction, which will be particularly difficult for them. Given this, I do worry that the spectre of that disruption could well stall investment in those properties and businesses, which could be very hard on the street. In other words, if we were ready to dig tomorrow I could hold my nose and know that it’s for the best, but since it’s some time off I think the decision could do more harm than good in the interim.
On the other hand, the 107 Ave option is listed at $250 million less than SPR, mainly because less property is required, the roadway changes are less severe, and the crossing of Groat Road is much more straightforward. This ought to count for something.
The other thing to bear in mind is that the greatest redevelopment potential of the Northerly alignments is actually the Downtown North Edge and Oliver between 121 Street and 105 Street via 104 Ave.
The opportunities between 156 St and 121 Street are different with 107 and SPR, granted. You miss 149 and 142 St intersections, but there are smaller opportunities along 107 at 156, 149 and 142 St, as well as additional opportunity at 124 St. and 107 as compared to 124 St. and SPR. Also, one still does reach and positively impact SPR with by crossing it at 156 St with 107 Ave.
But if Council wants to seriously look at 107 Ave we’ll need to do some further consultation with those neighbourhoods and hold another public hearing in the new year. I would like to explore it further but Council will decide tomorrow.
Hey Don,
Thanks for posting your thoughts. I’m not as “up to speed” as I would like to be but I hope that travel times are seriously considered when you are selecting routes. The growth in the cities far west represents a large ridership base if you can get them downtown quickly, but I’m concerned the 107th route won’t be quick enough to get those folks out of their cars. Just a thought.
I heard a great comment that with the changes to fox drive, Bus service from WEM to the UofA is going to be decreased by 10 minutes. If BRT is going to be that rapid, it certainly takes some wind out of the sails for the 87th ave case.
Destinations do matter, but there might be more efficient ways in moving the West end to the core.
I’d support the 107th route but that’s just because it would pass within a few blocks of my house and I’d love to have an LRT route close by. However some of neighbours think otherwise.
That said, pick the best route for the job.
Don,
Thanks for your thoughts.
The problem with 107th is exactly what you identified as your rejection for the 87th street alignment. Sure it isn’t the fastest route, but the curb-side opportunity for redevelopment you identify isn’t there. What is there is a major arterial road, fronted by the rear lane ways of mid-century residential developments. I would actually argue that a 107th street option takes the worst of both SPR and 87th, and combines them into a nice, low-political disruption, inexpensive route, which would take the longest route possible ironically. Granted, you do mentioned the largest opportunity being North Edge, but I think that is something that will develop – given time – with or without LRT access for proximity sake alone. That being said, if you believe in the frequent stop concept of low-floor LRT for the sake of redevelopment, then SPR is the route that fits.
I’m still behind a high-floor 87th route because I believe the ridership draw is housed in the potential hubs of Lewis Estates, WEM, and Medowlark, while offering redevelopment opportunities across from the Miz, at Medowlark and a community station (similar to Belgravia) around 145th. While giving quick access to the large catchment areas of the University and downtown. I think the selling feature here – and potential for the west route – is speed, not coffee shops on retail-fronted streets, which could be better served by a streetcar system then that of an LRT. But just my 2 cents.
Thanks for your transparency through this blog and your twitter updates. It’s refreshing and welcomed to saying the least.
Thanks for the update on the process,
I’m not very familiar with the low-floor trains. Are they a certainty for the SPR route, or only a new option? While I understand the benefits of more frequent stops and simpler loading zones vs stations, do they pose greater or lesser issues with traffic integration? Also, would they substantially increase the travel times?
I disagree with Dave’s argument that a fast train serving Lewis Estates and other far-flung communities is the best option. Doing what’s best for the suburbs instead of established parts of the city does not address the sprawl problem.
I do, however, share his concerns about the limited benefits of putting LRT on 107th Avenue. It creates a huge gap between 156th and 124th Streets where few redevelopment opportunities exist.
Instead of worrying LRT will create impacts, we should be trying to make transit as impactful as possible. Stony Plain Road bisects my community, and I’ll be grumpy during construction, but the status quo isn’t working. Use 107th Avenue, where few people live, for cars, and put LRT in the heart where redevelopment opportunities abound.
I’d also like to applaud Dave’s comments about your accessibility and dedication to transparent decision-making processes. Even politicians deserve the occasional pat on the back! :)
The 87th route isn’t about serving the suburbs and causing sprawl Christopher, it’s about speed from catchment hubs (yes, Lewis Estates is a future bus catchment hub, but so is WEM, Meadowlark, the Miz, etc.) to destination that already have a demand (downtown, university, etc.) Every route has Lewis Estates as the terminus, the thing thing that differs is the speed and route to get there, and what happens in between.
It ultimately comes down to what you are using transportation for. If you want it to be a tool that will hopefully spur redevelopment along commercial arterial roads, then SPR works. But at the cost of speed and timesaving. What you loose with this model is an effective mode of transportation that connects supply/demand locations, as well as the generic commuter (suburban or established neighbourhood).
Like I said, the redevelopment opportunities still exist along the 87th street route (Meadowlark, across from the Miz, etc.), and you gain the advantage of a speedy and competitive service.
I like the theory of the SPR route, but I really don’t think the demand is there based on the absorption rates of infill land in Edmonton, and the huge supply and target areas we have: (Downtown, warehouse district, oliver, the quarters, north edge, Strathern redevelopment, City Centre Airport Lands, etc.) I want to believe it can be a catalyst of sorts for the SPR areas, but I think we loose something valuable by not choosing the 87th route. Hey, who knows, 50 years from now they both might be built based on the demand?
My single greatest hope for the new LRT (high or low floor) lines in Edmonton is that they do not turn into ‘buses on tracks’ that stop every single block, similar to our current transit method. While I realize that the weather in Edmonton can be treacherous and walking 10 blocks is unreasonable (I use public transit daily myself), there needs to be appropriate amount of spacing between stops so that this new form of transit actually moves people around our city. All other cities with ‘urban’ models of rail-transit space out the stops in order to serve all citizens in a timely manner.
I do not have a preference for the above mentioned routes as I think that all of them have equivalent positives & negatives.
I’m going to have to agree with Christopher, and disagree with Dave. 87 Avenue is only right for LRT if we stipulate the purpose of WLRT is to move people from Lewis Estates to the UofA and downtown as fast as possible. I don’t think this is so, nor should it be. The WLRT should serve all residents of all neighbourhoods it travels through. SPR is the way to go!
That said, for all the grumbling and naysaying from the nimbys there, perhaps WLRT should be put on the shelf and SELRT brought to the forefront. I have an inkling those folks may appreciate it more…
I’d agree with Caley. Low floor lines have the tendancy to stop every block.
In a city the size of Edmonton this would mean it could take longer to take a train from the west end then it would to drive a car in rush hour.
Please keep this in mind when decided where the trains should stop (whether they’re high or low floor).