[ssiguy]

As you probably know Toronto put the TransitCity proposal out there to the feeds which included a small subway ext and 120km of new LRT by 2020. Toronto did not allow for huming or hawing but one question.............yes or no.
It put the province on the spot especially in an provincial election year and within 3 months they said and agreed to pay Toronto's share. Torontonians were floored.
It also provided 100% funding of new LRT in Durham, Hamilton, Missisauga and subway exp into York. In total $17billion of transit funding with 900km of new/improved rapid transit all to be built by 2021.

So, why have Edm/Cal brought to the province their own "TransitCity" to be built 100% by the province. If Ontario can do 900km then surely Alberta could do 150km of Lrt by 2020. Cal/Edm could use the MoveOntario comparison as a true leverage.

Toronto realized that pleading for crumbs for a tiny exp is a worthless and time consuming endevadour and the only way to get real money is to have a complete transit plan with funding secured and definite timelimes.
Now that both cities are suffering from true traffic congestion, enviornmental concerns, and 70% of the voting populas in Cal/Edm metro areas coupled with a provincial government gushing with cash there is no better time.

[Coldrsx]

The province should pay 75% for any municipal transit project IMO...

[Distill3d]

The province should pay 75% for any municipal transit project IMO...

though i don't disagree the province should be helping out with transit (ESPECIALLY in Edmonton), but paying 75% for municipal transit projects? maybe 40 - 50% is a more reasonable amount.

at any rate, the province should fund Edmonton's transit system more then Calgary's. and only for the reason that Edmonton is the provincial capital and Calgary is not. Plus Edmonton's seriously needs to catch up with the city's growth a hell of a lot more then Calgary's does.

[Wooster]

at any rate, the province should fund Edmonton's transit system more then Calgary's. and only for the reason that Edmonton is the provincial capital and Calgary is not.

Balls to that. Calgary shouldn't be punished for how Edmonton fucked up its system. :D

As for a big campaign to get big transit investment. I argued the same thing a while ago. Get all three lines built, plus a couple of streetcar lines in strategic locations. Move to 4 car consists right away. If Ontario can do it, we certainly can too. I do think the Federal government has a role to play as well.

[mersar]

Agreed. Hopefully this rumored upcoming announcement from the feds of some major $$$ for transit thats been mentioned a few times will allow that.

Timing wise now would be the time to start pressuring the province to kick some major dough over, since we're looking at a provincial election in the next 6-9 months anyways. If the feds are willing to jumpstart it by handing over some first all the better.

[wild wild west]

though i don't disagree the province should be helping out with transit (ESPECIALLY in Edmonton), but paying 75% for municipal transit projects? maybe 40 - 50% is a more reasonable amount.

at any rate, the province should fund Edmonton's transit system more then Calgary's. and only for the reason that Edmonton is the provincial capital and Calgary is not. Plus Edmonton's seriously needs to catch up with the city's growth a hell of a lot more then Calgary's does.

Why does being the provincial capital mean that a city is entitled to more transit funding, particularly since Edmonton is smaller and has lower transit usage numbers? :koko:

[ExcaliburKid]

^There are roughly 300,000 people that live in the surrounding municipalites that make up the Capitol Region. Most of these people work and play in Edmonton, so why not provide funding for them? We dont even have ETS service to YEG, and we have already cancelled one LRT Park'n'ride at SouthGate, and are about to scrap another at Century Park. Why do you think we have smaller usage #'s? Because we dont have the resources to improve access or interest in ridership. Provincial funding would help that.

[Calgarian]

^There are roughly 300,000 people that live in the surrounding municipalites that make up the Capitol Region. Most of these people work and play in Edmonton, so why not provide funding for them? We dont even have ETS service to YEG, and we have already cancelled one LRT Park'n'ride at SouthGate, and are about to scrap another at Century Park. Why do you think we have smaller usage #'s? Because we dont have the resources to improve access or interest in ridership. Provincial funding would help that.

I don't think anyone is saying that Edmonton's suburbs don't deserve PT, just that the idea that Edmonton deserves more funding because it is the capital is really stupid. Calgary gets about 250 000 rides a day on the c-train, and I pretty much guarantee that is way more than Edmonton.

[ExcaliburKid]

I don't think anyone is saying that Edmonton's suburbs don't deserve PT, just that the idea that Edmonton deserves more funding because it is the capital is really stupid. Calgary gets about 250 000 rides a day on the c-train, and I pretty much guarantee that is way more than Edmonton.

I agree with you guys, we dont deserve it because we are a Provincial Capital, but the state that our transit system is in is downright prehistoric. The park'n'ride about to be scrapped at Century Park will cost 60 mil, or 50,000 per stall. Thats fucking outrageous, and if we lose that, then we might as well build a skyscraper out of popsicle sticks, because having the LRT end at a location where there is nowhere to ditch your car and hop on the train, is just as big a waste of money. All I'm saying is that it would be great if the province helped fund a couple of MAJORLY needed components to help our system out. Like I said already, why do you think Calgary has more riders? BETTER FUCKING SYSTEM. Period.

[feepa]

Balls to that. Calgary shouldn't be punished for how Edmonton fucked up its system. :D

excuse me ? Come again? Calgarys 3 car system is so great?

Maybe if Edmonton had massive injections of cash for its LRT system in for the 88 olympics? Maybe we'd be on the same page. If you Calgary forumers are looking for a fight, you sure have got one. I got write a novel about whats wrong with BOTH systems.

Edmonton doesn't deserve more, it deserves equal. I suppose when you all need that tunnel downtown, you'll all be whining... but Edmonton got one...

Next person to knock Edmonton in this thread is going to get a knuckle sandwich for HardHatDan

[Doug]

Edmonton's existing LRT network cost more than that of Calgary. The fact that it attracts less that 1/4 the ridership is due to the dispersed nature of Edmonton's employment hubs and the much higher cost of building underground.

Ontario has a poor track record on following through with massive infrastructure projects. The Rapid Transit Expansion proposal from the early 90's never happened and neither did the plan to shut down all of the coal fired power plants, so don't get overly excited about TransitCity.

[wild wild west]

^There are roughly 300,000 people that live in the surrounding municipalites that make up the Capitol Region. Most of these people work and play in Edmonton, so why not provide funding for them? We dont even have ETS service to YEG, and we have already cancelled one LRT Park'n'ride at SouthGate, and are about to scrap another at Century Park. Why do you think we have smaller usage #'s? Because we dont have the resources to improve access or interest in ridership. Provincial funding would help that.

My point was that Edmonton should not receive more transit funding than Calgary - rather, Calgary and metro Edmonton should receive a comparable share. While Edmonton clearly needs extensions, I would argue Calgary needs a downtown subway to reduce gridlock in the core and get commuters into and out of downtown faster. Most people I talk to agree that Calgary is still the more congested city.

[wild wild west]

excuse me ? Come again? Calgarys 3 car system is so great?

Maybe if Edmonton had massive injections of cash for its LRT system in for the 88 olympics? Maybe we'd be on the same page. If you Calgary forumers are looking for a fight, you sure have got one. I got write a novel about whats wrong with BOTH systems.

Edmonton doesn't deserve more, it deserves equal. I suppose when you all need that tunnel downtown, you'll all be whining... but Edmonton got one...

Next person to knock Edmonton in this thread is going to get a knuckle sandwich for HardHatDan

We agree, it deserves equal. So why are you getting all wound up about it?

[feepa]

Edmonton's existing LRT network cost more than that of Calgary.
Yes, and because we built our stations underground downtown, we can support up to 5 car consists, a fact many rush hour commuters in Calgary sure wish they had. Oops trains too full, might want to wait for the next few trains.
How much is it going to cost to fix this problem?

The fact that it attracts less that 1/4 the ridership is due to the dispersed nature of Edmonton's employment hubs and the much higher cost of building underground.

Sorry, there wont be much more underground building, we've done that, Calgary on the other hand - when does your downtown tunnel start?

Ontario has a poor track record on following through with massive infrastructure projects. The Rapid Transit Expansion proposal from the early 90's never happened and neither did the plan to shut down all of the coal fired power plants, so don't get overly excited about TransitCity.
[/quote]
Nothing to add on here.

[feepa]

We agree, it deserves equal. So why are you getting all wound up about it?
I'm getting bent out of shape with people calling the LRT in Edmonton a mistake? or that its made mistakes (by going underground downtown and that this costs more?)

[feepa]

My point was that Edmonton should not receive more transit funding than Calgary - rather, Calgary and metro Edmonton should receive a comparable share. While Edmonton clearly needs extensions, I would argue Calgary needs a downtown subway to reduce gridlock in the core and get commuters into and out of downtown faster. Most people I talk to agree that Calgary is still the more congested city.

You're downtown subway is going to cost a sweet penny. Just like it did in Edmonton. Edmonton is going to grow its system out now thats at ground level.
Calgary already has received significantly more funding for its LRT over the years. I think its time for catch up, so if Edmonton does receive a little more funding for LRT over the next few years, it only evening things out

[Doug]

Yes, and because we built our stations underground downtown, we can support up to 5 car consists, a fact many rush hour commuters in Calgary sure wish they had. Oops trains too full, might want to wait for the next few trains.
How much is it going to cost to fix this problem?

Sorry, there wont be much more underground building, we've done that, Calgary on the other hand - when does your downtown tunnel start?


Nothing to add on here.[/QUOTE]

Edmonton would have been better off not supporting 5 car trains and invested the capital in greater coverage.

[feepa]

Nothing to add on here.

Edmonton would have been better off not supporting 5 car trains and invested the capital in greater coverage.

Says you. I like the fact that our LRT line built full out and we dont have to rebuilt all our stations. And thank you for building it right the first time, underground. Now it doesn't clog up our downtown, and we don't have to wait 2-3 trains before boarding. Now that we got the most expensive part of the system built, its time for massive expansion at ground level.

How on earth is it better for Edmonton not to build the system full out the first time? The greater coverage is coming

[Doug]

As Edmonton is more dispersed in terms of employment, it will never achieve ridership at any point along its rapid transit lines to ever require 5 car trains regardless of how much trackage is built.

"Build it right" - please. Underground LRT was a fiasco from the beginning in Edmonton. Faulty construction resulted in Central and Churchill being dug up twice for multimillion dollar repairs. Corona and Bay were massively overbudget and behind schedule and went through one round of repairs due to poor design. The decision to build Health Sciences at grade instead of underground as originally planned resulted in a steep grade out of University that required retrofitting all of the LRV's (the decision to build Health Sciences at grade was due to NIMBYs in McKernan who didn't want to look at a tunnel entrance, rather than by constructions costs).

The short south extension is costing almost as much as the entire West line proposal in Calgary and will attract far fewer riders.

[Champion3]

Yes, and because we built our stations underground downtown, we can support up to 5 car consists, a fact many rush hour commuters in Calgary sure wish they had.
Not all the stations are 5 cars, though. IIRC Health Sciences is 100m (4 cars).

[feepa]

As Edmonton is more dispersed in terms of employment, it will never achieve ridership at any point along its rapid transit lines to ever require 5 car trains regardless of how much trackage is built.

So I guess after football games or hockey games?
I'll agree that Edmontons employment dispersement isn't ideal for LRT in some areas, but that doesn't mean it wont be used, or needed.
Ever been on our LRT at rush hour? The trains are packed, and I would hate to see only 3 cars in use (its usually 4 cars or 5 now)

"Build it right" - please. Underground LRT was a fiasco from the beginning in Edmonton. Faulty construction resulted in Central and Churchill being dug up twice for multimillion dollar repairs. Corona and Bay were massively overbudget and behind schedule and went through one round of repairs due to poor design.

Fair enough, but you don't think there wont be cost over runs and mistakes in the Calgary underground? (When ever that happens?)


The decision to build Health Sciences at grade instead of underground as originally planned resulted in a steep grade out of University that required retrofitting all of the LRV's (the decision to build Health Sciences at grade was due to NIMBYs in McKernan who didn't want to look at a tunnel entrance, rather than by constructions costs).
I agree here - I hate the NIMBYS in Edmonton, they ruin everything.

The short south extension is costing almost as much as the entire West line proposal in Calgary and will attract far fewer riders.

I think its 12.9 km? 5 stations? Should just about double the ridership, and connects both universitys hubs (present and south campus)

[feepa]

Ok, so lets get back on topic, and stop fighting.

I think the original poster of this topic wanted Edmonton and Calgary to join hands and fight/push/claw out a deal with the provincial government for a massive funding plan for BOTH our wonderful respective LRT systems (each with its own respective pros and cons)

[Distill3d]

Ok, so lets get back on topic, and stop fighting.

I think the original poster of this topic wanted Edmonton and Calgary to join hands and fight/push/claw out a deal with the provincial government for a massive funding plan for BOTH our wonderful respective LRT systems (each with its own respective pros and cons)

as much as i don't disagree with you, Calgary and Edmonton joining on a united front over transit isn't going to happen. sad to say, but this is the exact same squabbling thats going to happen even if we do let our politicians handle it. Calgaryians will say Calgary deserves more money and Edmontonians will say Edmonton needs more.

[wild wild west]

as much as i don't disagree with you, Calgary and Edmonton joining on a united front over transit isn't going to happen. sad to say, but this is the exact same squabbling thats going to happen even if we do let our politicians handle it. Calgaryians will say Calgary deserves more money and Edmontonians will say Edmonton needs more.

I disagree. I'm sure the mayors would recognize the benefit of working together to lobby the Province on the assumption that both systems would receive the same amount of funding.

[Mikemike]

As Edmonton is more dispersed in terms of employment, it will never achieve ridership at any point along its rapid transit lines to ever require 5 car trains regardless of how much trackage is built.

"Build it right" - please. ... The decision to build Health Sciences at grade instead of underground as originally planned resulted in a steep grade out of University that required retrofitting all of the LRV's (the decision to build Health Sciences at grade was due to NIMBYs in McKernan who didn't want to look at a tunnel entrance, rather than by constructions costs).

The short south extension is costing almost as much as the entire West line proposal in Calgary and will attract far fewer riders.

BS on the nimby's. The station is above ground because the powers that be opted to avoid doing massive utility relocates. The university has large utilidors crossing under the Route, and relocating them is the costs that forced the train to the surface. I'm not sure that it was the right choice, but that was the reasoning.

Champion3, I understand that the Health Sciences Platform will be extended when The Edmonton Clinic is build next door. The Clinic will incorporate at least one, and up to 3 pedways (+15) from the new Clinic to the Station and across the street to the UofA Hospital. When the pedways are complete the existing ramps between the tracks can be removed, allowing the platform to be extended.

I think that there will be need for 5 car trains in the future. Calgary could use 5 car trains now if they fit. Edmonton's 3 car trains are already at what I would call peak comfortable load during rush hour (100 standees /car).

[Jasper and one o nin]

Province should pay 100% of LRT expansion in both cities. Studies should be done (which I think they have) to assess what needs to be done in each city, and it should be done. Cities cannot afford to pay 25%

[Boris2k7]

Holy transit debate! And I missed most of the early stages?

Fact: municipalities are corporations, not seperate orders of government per se (though we like to call them that). As such, municipal priorities are also provincial priorities, though the province would like to say that it is our responsibility to provide for ourselves.

[Arch26]

Seriously... I don't think the province ever plans to pay for shit. Nothing significant with the current gov't anyway.

Here's an idea: why don't we just put little donation jars at all C-Train stations and bus stops. It may take a while, but I'm starting to think it's the only way. Then maybe Calgary Transit can also become a registered charity so they can save a little that way too.

That was a joke, by the way.

[Riise]

Says you. I like the fact that our LRT line built full out and we dont have to rebuilt all our stations. And thank you for building it right the first time, underground. Now it doesn't clog up our downtown, and we don't have to wait 2-3 trains before boarding. Now that we got the most expensive part of the system built, its time for massive expansion at ground level.

How on earth is it better for Edmonton not to build the system full out the first time? The greater coverage is coming

I for one don't believe that Calgary's decision to initially build the system above-ground was a bad decision. Actually, I believe that to the contrary it was one of the city's better planning decisions. Rather than worrying about future-demands of the system, the city ensured that the system could handle early demands and help dictate the city's job-growth pattern. We were able to build a relatively large radial rail network that acts like a commuter-rail system which has in turn helped the core keep a concentration of the city's jobs. If we built our system underground, yes we would be able to have 5-car trains, but would we need them? Would we have become a polycentric city that would be difficult to serve by LRT?

This leads me to my questions about transit in Edmonton. I'm not too familiar with Edmonton's urban form but I'm under the belief that it's a polycentric city. As such, is LRT the city's best transit option? Might the city be better served by radial and cross-town BRT lines?

In conclusion, to answer Feepa's question, "How on earth is it better for Edmonton not to build the system full out the first time?" Because the system might not be the correct one anymore...

[feepa]

Who's to say what decision is better or worse. Clearly with Edmontons short east-west blocks downtown, it was virtually impossible to even build 3 car stations downtown without closing major north-south roads.
Let's try to focus this discussion more about the future, and what can be done with what is now, rather then wallowing in what has occurred in the past. What benefits do both cities have in focusing attention on the provincial government to start ponying up what every percentage in funding for the damn LRT. It's clear the both cities have, can and will benefit in many forms from the construction of LRT lines. Whether its traffic congestion relief, environmental benefits, Helping intensifying near LRT line communities, or encouraging alternatives to our car centric cities (yes, Calgary, you are still very car centric, even though you have a tremendously successful LRT system). How can our cities unite for the common good on this?

[Wooster]

There definitely is a common need, and certainly two cities working together is a lot stronger than one. What worked in Toronto is putting together a bold proposal and seeing what would happen. They got the timing right and the funding promises followed (whatever the motivations).

We're coming up on election time. It wouldn't hurt if the two mayors went public with visionary plans for transit, and went looking for long term funding arrangements to make it happen. Use the environment as an argument, make alleviation of traffic congestion an argument etc.

Saying this is what we want and why, and then saying how much it will cost and how it can be paid for is the best way to get it done I think.

[feepa]

imagine the things we could get done in the C-E Corridor if just stopped arguing and competing against each other so much

[Hardhatdan]

BS on the nimby's. The station is above ground because the powers that be opted to avoid doing massive utility relocates. The university has large utilidors crossing under the Route, and relocating them is the costs that forced the train to the surface. I'm not sure that it was the right choice, but that was the reasoning.

Champion3, I understand that the Health Sciences Platform will be extended when The Edmonton Clinic is build next door. The Clinic will incorporate at least one, and up to 3 pedways (+15) from the new Clinic to the Station and across the street to the UofA Hospital. When the pedways are complete the existing ramps between the tracks can be removed, allowing the platform to be extended.

I think that there will be need for 5 car trains in the future. Calgary could use 5 car trains now if they fit. Edmonton's 3 car trains are already at what I would call peak comfortable load during rush hour (100 standees /car).

The utilidors had to be worked around even with the tracks going above ground. One had to have a chunk cut out of it and the both had to have large bridging structures built around them.

Expect to see the south side of Health sciences station under construction soon, as the pedestrian bridge will now be going underground to the U of A hospital. Directly under the south ramp area you speak of actually.

[Distill3d]

Province should pay 100% of LRT expansion in both cities. Studies should be done (which I think they have) to assess what needs to be done in each city, and it should be done. Cities cannot afford to pay 25%


100%? what is the likelyhood some tax payer in Sexsmith is going to use the LRT in Calgary on a daily basis? and personally i would be complaining if they did. sure, its great to have the funding behind it, but theres a certain point where the city of Calgary and Edmonton should be footing the bill for their own infrastructure. and 100% would set a dangerous precident for other projects as well. 50% is more then enough to ask for from the province, and maybe 10 - 20% from the feds. calgary and edmonton both make more then enough to concentrate on building their own LRT lines.

[Beltliner]

100%? what is the likelyhood some tax payer in Sexsmith is going to use the LRT in Calgary on a daily basis? and personally i would be complaining if they did.

Conversely, does anyone care to lay odds on a C-Train straphanger tootling down a road in Sexsmith? ;)

Seriously, folks--capital spending on LRT infrastructure in Calgary and Edmonton is a strategic investment that takes single-occupant vehicles off our streets and pays financial, social, and environmental dividends over the long haul. Building these lines takes an enormous sack of loonies to start, which is why our cities in point of fact need provincial and federal funds to bring these projects down from the drawing board. The benefits of public transportation infrastructure to our cities and our citizens, on the other hand, are obvious in Calgary and in Edmonton--and the folly of starving this infrastructure is obvious to any resident of Toronto.

Besides, the moment the good burghers of Sexsmith call for capital investment in their new LRT system, who would we be to deny them? :D

[krazycanuck]

How much would it cost for Calgary and Edmonton's LRT lines to built out to the point they want them to be?

The 3 extra lines in Calgary, extensions to the existing lines and underground section would probably be in the neighbourhood of 2.5-3.5 billion dollars.

Add in some extra money to add BRT service to other regions, extend all platforms to 4-cars, complete the 7th ave refurbishment and the whole process wouldn't cost more than 4 billion dollars and could potentially double ridership.

Far less than the amount the much poorer ontario govenment has pledged to the GTA

[mersar]

I'd put the total for Calgary closer to $4.5-$5B. Considering the SE leg is 3 times the length of the west leg, and involves several dozen bridges and at least 1 river crossing plus a fair bit of property acquisition.

Overall stations themselves are cheap, take into consideration the NW extension, the station itself is budgetted at $8 million IIRC, however the entire extension is closer to $200m. So even at $10m a station to completely redo (and downtown won't be anywhere near that) to redo the 30 some stations should only be a couple hundred million.

[Distill3d]

i'm sure Calgary could raise more money if they started to ask for a commuter tax from the residents of Cochrane, Okotoks, Strathmore and Airdre..but thats a whole other debate...

[KrisYYC]

I'm a bit at odds with the city of Calgary's LRT line plans. A while back I was reading some points on the city's transit plan. It said the city is trying to encourage commercial development all over the city rather than mostly downtown. But then they want a transit system that is entirely tailored for people who work downtown only? I'd rather see more of a "network" type system rather than just a few fingers going into the core.

Kris

[tarapoto]

Good to see the Ontario giving some Canadians there hard-earned tax dollars back in the form of something tangible. Hopefully Alberta follows suit. It sickens me when I see $200 of my $900 paycheque going to the government, and really what do they ever do for me?

[canucklehead2]

A 90/10 split between the province and the cities is how the existing LRT networks were paid for and I think we need to go back to that formula. Having said that I think other than affordable housing, LRT should be the biggest major spending project the province undertakes, since it will help the most amount of people of any major project. I mean a bullet train between Edm and Cgy would be nice, but LRT expansion should be the biggest priority bar none.