5.0 Transit - Alberta Municipal Affairs

Transcription

Alberta Infrastructure and Transportation
Capital Region Integrated Growth Management Plan
Final Report on Core Infrastructure
5.0
Transit
5.1
Existing Transit Facilities and Services in the
Capital Region
This section discusses transit services from a regional perspective. Transit services
include regional bus, Light Rail Transit (LRT) and taxi systems as well as mobility
challenged transportation services and connections to trans-regional transportation
services (air, inter-city bus, Via Rail, etc.). The discussion in this section is based on
meetings and telephone conversations with municipal representatives, review of
municipal website information, review of Edmonton’s “2040 High Speed Transit
Network” and on a review of the Alberta Capital Region Alliance’s “Coordinated
Municipal Transit Review – Final Report”, October 2002.
5.1.1
Municipal Transit Services
Three municipalities within the Capital Region operate full fledged transit systems: the
City of Edmonton, the City of St. Albert and Strathcona County. Each of these transit
systems operate within their own jurisdiction, but also provide service to other
municipalities.
The City of Edmonton’s transit system, Edmonton Transit, is the largest and most
diverse in the Capital Region as it provides a wide variety of bus services to nearly all
urbanized areas of Edmonton. Edmonton Transit also operates a 13.1km long LRT line
which currently serves eleven stations from northeast Edmonton through the Downtown
to the University of Alberta Hospital. Three LRT stations have park and ride facilities near
the station; the outer most park and ride facility at the Clareview LRT station attracts
significant numbers of patrons from outside Edmonton’s boundaries. There is also busbased park and ride provided at two southside facilities (Davies and Heritage).
In addition to providing service within Edmonton, Edmonton Transit provides service, on
a contract basis, to the City of Fort Saskatchewan, the Town of Spruce Grove, and to
CFB Edmonton in Sturgeon County. Discussions are also taking place between the City
of Edmonton, the City of Leduc, Leduc County, and the Edmonton Regional Airport
Authority to provide a coordinated transit service connecting these entities. In the past,
Edmonton Transit has also provided service to the Town of Beaumont.
The City of St. Albert provides bus-based transit service to serve local needs within St.
Albert. In addition, commuter service is provided to key destinations in Edmonton such
as Downtown Edmonton (including Grant MacEwan College), NAIT, the University of
Alberta, and West Edmonton Mall. To facilitate connections between commuter and local
bus routes, St. Albert operates two transit centres. The more southerly transit centre
includes a park and ride lot and facilitates connections to Edmonton bound buses. St.
Albert Transit also provides commuter service to the Town of Morinville.
Strathcona County provides bus-based transit service within Sherwood Park with
connections to the City of Edmonton via two transit centres located on the Edmontonside of Sherwood Park. Both transit centres have park and ride facilities. Strathcona
County serves downtown Edmonton and the University area.
November, 2007
Page 58
The highest ridership for all three transit systems occurs in areas where parking is
scarce or expensive, densities are high and at post-secondary institutions – Downtown
Edmonton, the University of Alberta, Grant MacEwan College and NAIT.
While the three transit systems are planned and operated independently, the three
municipalities coordinate the coverage of their systems and have operating agreements
to allow passengers to transfer between the systems, sometimes for a fare increment.
The strongest example of regional co-operation between the three municipalities is the
negotiation of a U-pass revenue sharing agreement to coincide with the implementation
of the U-pass effective September 2007. Exhibit 5-1 shows the extent of existing regional
transit in terms of its broad connectivity between the municipalities in the Region. The
main regional connections are to Edmonton’s Downtown and the University of Alberta,
from transit centers and park and ride lots on the Edmonton-side of both St. Albert and
Sherwood Park. The services are moderately frequent and operate in mixed traffic with
other traffic.
5.1.2
Other Public Transit Services
Two inter-city bus passenger service companies (Greyhound and Red Arrow) and VIA
Rail connect to areas beyond the region. Greyhound provides daily service to many
destinations throughout Alberta and North America, often using more than one bus run
per day. Red Arrow serves Edmonton (two stops), Fort McMurray, Red Deer, and
Calgary with several bus runs per day. VIA Rail serves Edmonton and several larger
town’s along CN’s mainline running east-west through Alberta and western Canada.
VIA’s stops in Edmonton six times per week (three times in each direction) and during
the winter offers a “snow train express” to/from Jasper.
Numerous bus companies provide student and specialty transportation services using
either yellow or coach style buses. Student transportation is very common. Yellow
school buses are sometimes used on large petro-chemical construction/shut-down jobs
to provide short-haul passenger service. On very large petro-chemical construction jobs,
coach style buses have been used for longer haul passenger services.
The region is also home to numerous taxi and limousine services. Licensing of these
services is governed by each municipality. Consequently, these taxi services may not be
able to provide passenger pick up in all of the region’s municipalities.
Mobility-challenged persons have access to a variety of systems for their transportation
needs. Low floor buses and specially adapted LRT doors allow improved accessibility,
but not for all mobility challenged persons. At the basic level municipalities such as
Edmonton, Sherwood Park, and St. Albert provide service using specially equipped
vehicles. Eligibility for service depends on a variety of factors dictated by each
municipality. These factors include age, trip purpose, and destination/origin. Fares are
charged and in some cases, are consistent with fares charged for “regular” transit. There
is no integration of these services between municipalities.
5.2
Basis for Provision of Regional Transit Service
Thresholds for the initiation of transit services are typically based on population. A review
of public transit and accessible transportation practices in communities across Canada
found that most communities above a population of 2,000 provide some kind of
accessible transportation service. Typically it is a Handi-bus/van service, with number of
November, 2007
Page 59
buses/vans increasing with population. British Columbia has a province-wide transit
agency that subsidizes and organizes transit service in cities with populations as low as
10,000. A study of Alberta communities indicates that rudimentary transit systems with
scheduled service can begin to attract viable passenger demand at populations of about
20,000.
In addition to the population threshold, it is necessary for the density of the population to
be reasonably high. Transit is most successful when serving higher density housing and
employment areas, as well as post secondary education institutions. High rise
apartments and office towers can be efficiently served by public transit. In contrast,
residential acreage developments are typically not served by public transit as they are
far too dispersed to be effectively served. Large tracts of single family urban housing
typically are served infrequently due to their relatively low density and their highly
dispersed nature.
The thresholds noted above are guidelines only. In the Edmonton regional context it is
possible to operate scheduled bus services in smaller communities due to their
proximity to adjacent larger centres. For example, Stony Plain and Spruce Grove may be
able to support their own internal transit system given their combined populations. They
also may be able to support a commuter service into Edmonton.
Another criterion for provision of transit service is the presence of larger employment
nodes and educational land uses. High concentrations of workers and students can be
efficiently served by public transit. Examples of such concentrations in the Capital
Region include Downtown Edmonton, the University of Alberta, NAIT, Grant MacEwan
College. An example of such a concentration that may evolve in the future is projected
strong employment and activity node in the vicinity of the Edmonton International
Airport.
In the context of the Edmonton Region, transit service could begin at population levels of
about 10,000 persons, with the following conditions:
¾ The service is oriented to major employment and education nodes in the
Region.
¾ The service is supported by a park and ride facility for cars and bicycles in the
origin community.
¾ The park and ride lot is on the Edmonton side of the community.
¾ The service stops only at the park and ride lot (given the typical low density style
development of the regions communities it is not efficient to serve several
spread out stops with low passenger demand).
As a community’s population grows to near 20,000, additional local transit routes could
serve low density areas of the community and tie into the park and ride lot to feed the
regional transit system.
Bearing in mind the above guidelines and comparing them to population and
employment forecasts for the region, the following municipalities could warrant transit
service at various time frames (Edmonton, Strathcona County and St. Albert already
have well established services and are not included in this list):
November, 2007
Page 60
Municipality
Beaumont
Bon Accord
Gibbons/Redwater
Devon
Ft Saskatchewan
City of Leduc
Leduc County
Morinville
Spruce Grove
Stony Plain
Year for
service
2006
2016
2041
2016
Population
8,961
Employment
1,242
Population
13,257
Employment
1,908
Population
20,687
Employment
3,009
2041
6,369
1,803
10,587
2,408
14,476
3,436
2041
2006
2006
2016
2016
2006
2006
6,256
15,089
17,021
12,734
6,775
19,496
12,518
1,418
7602
6,545
14,774
1,929
5,703
4,475
7,858
30,657
22,062
15,530
10,138
24,489
15,529
2,643
11,273
7,676
30,987
3,335
8,538
7,563
11,389
40,392
33,077
21,852
14,373
35,492
22,507
3,317
13,128
9,698
56,713
4,326
10,229
8,533
Note the following:
1. Bon Accord, Gibbons and Redwater could be reasonably served by one route. The route
could also logically serve CFB Edmonton, thereby giving military employees greater
housing and transportation choice in the region, and generating passenger flow in both
directions between Edmonton’s downtown and CFB Edmonton. The combined
populations of these three municipalities in the 2016 time frame would make regional
transit service feasible. However, the route could be started sooner in order to serve large
construction work forces traveling to the Industrial Heartland in the short to medium time
frame. This strengthens the route as there would be passenger flow in both directions.
The park and ride lots at Gibbons and Redwater could be served with destination-specific
routes serving the industrial Heartland. This would allow some of the large construction
work forces to spread out their parking and traffic demands in the region, minimizing
severe traffic congestion near their work sites. By 2041 it is assumed that these
construction work forces will no longer be needed, but that the three municipal
populations will be large enough to warrant a commuter service.
2. Leduc County is included due to the potentially enormous employment growth
concentrated around the International Airport. Service could start in the near future to the
Edmonton International Airport in conjunction with possible service to Leduc or Nisku. It
is unlikely that the County’s residents could be served due to the low population density.
3. Sturgeon County, Strathcona County (excepting Sherwood Park), Leduc County and the
County of Parkland all have significant populations in the 2041 time frame. However, the
format of the residential developments is typically very low density and therefore is not
reasonable to serve via transit.
Particularly prevalent types of developments in the region that are receiving significantly
more consideration for transit service are the suburban business/industrial areas. These
suburban business/industrial parks have historically not been successfully served by
transit services. Factors that have contributed to this challenge include: the low density
and highly dispersed nature of these developments, the presence of large amounts of
free parking, the high proportion of shift workers, the frequent need for vehicles at work
(due to the nature of the employment), the lack of sidewalks, the lack of good
illumination, and the presence of open ditches that serve as obstacles to pedestrians.
One final consideration in the provision of good transit services is that it can slow the
growth of roadway congestion in outlying suburban areas. The provision of higher speed
transit service (particularly rail) to outlying areas can have the collateral effect of
increasing urban sprawl. To mitigate these effects, it is extremely important to coordinate
the planning of regional transit service to the planning of other regional transportation
facilities and land use plans. The importance of the linkage between transit service
roadway infrastructure and land use cannot be overstated.
November, 2007
Page 61
5.3
Possible Regional Transit Facilities/Services
The types of transit facilities and services that could serve the needs of the Capital
Region in future include some or all of the following:
1. Local Transit Service
2. High Capacity/High Speed
3. Commuter Service
Local Transit service is typically internal to a given municipality. Service typically involves
bus routes that penetrate the municipality at the neighbourhood level and operate on a
combination of local, collector and arterial roadways. Service frequency typically ranges
from once per hour to once every fifteen minutes during peak periods. Bus stops would
typically be relatively closely spaced to keep walking distances within accepted industry
norms (200 to 400m). Good sidewalk connectivity between bus stops and surrounding
land uses would be essential elements of good local transit service.
High Capacity/High Speed Transit services would likely take the form of Bus Rapid
Transit (BRT) or Light Rail Transit (LRT). Both LRT and BRT would typically travel in their
own right of way, or running way (BRT), allowing congestion to be bypassed. Service
frequencies would typically be much higher than local service and could be as high as
once every 5 minutes. Stations would typically be spaced much further apart than local
service and could be equipped with pre-payment systems for faster boarding and
alighting. In the Edmonton area, passengers would typically arrive at LRT (or BRT)
stations by local bus or by car (park and ride). Station access by walking or cycling
could also be a consideration, especially when transit supportive land uses surround the
station and assuming that the appropriate sidewalks and secure bicycle parking facilities
are provided.
Commuter services link specific origins and destinations from outlying communities to
major high activity destinations or employment centres. Service frequencies can be as
low as one or two bus runs per day. Stops can be very limited. Some petro-chemical
construction work forces have relied on this type of service via coach style buses.
Commuter transit services can also be used by smaller municipalities to provide transit
service to large employment nodes within adjacent municipalities. Ideally consideration
should be given to the development of only one or two stops within the smaller
municipality and provision of parking for cars and bicycles to facilitate convenient access
to the commuter serves. It would also be desirable to develop some higher density
housing forms near such stops. The typical commuter route could then proceed directly
to the larger municipality, tying into a major transit centres or activity nodes. The service
would likely be peak-hour only, but service hours could be expanded if and when
demand warrants.
Mobility-challenged persons should be able to access some of these services,
depending on the selected bus style and the degree of mobility impairment.
Finally, regional railway style commuter services were not considered due to the loss of
major rail corridors in the Capital region over the past twenty-five years when both CP
Rail and CN Rail ceased operations in central Edmonton.
November, 2007
Page 62
5.4
Future Regional Transit Services
5.4.1
Suggested Long Term Transit Concept
The development of suggested long term transit concept for the Capital Region followed
a number of principles as follows:
¾ Edmonton’s Downtown together along with the University of Alberta will continue
to be the largest transit markets in the Capital Region. Other locations featuring
high concentrations of employment and post-secondary education could also
evolve as a major transit hubs.
¾ Higher concentrations of population and employment centres should ideally be
connected with higher standard transit facilities such as Bus Rapid Transit or
Light Right Transit.
¾ The provision of Park and Ride facilities near the intersection of BRT/LRT lines
with major roadway facilities should be encouraged. Much of the region’s
population lives in very low density developments that cannot be effectively
served by local or commuter transit. Provision of Park and Ride facilities at
strategic locations in the region would facilitate the connection of outlying, lightly
populated communities with higher quality transit Suggested locations for such
strategically placed Park and Ride facilities include Anthony Henday Drive
corridor, the future Outer Regional Ring Road and the City of Edmonton’s inner
ring loop.
¾ Commuter transit service between smaller regional population centres and
Edmonton should be characterized by direct bus service with very few stops.
Ideally, stops should be strategically located and consideration given to
connections with key transit centres and park and ride facilities. This will provide
regional residents with the opportunity to connect with a much richer choice of
transit services. To encourage use, the regional terminals for such commuter
services should include parking facilities for both cars and bicycles. Walk-up
traffic will likely be small but could be encouraged through good sidewalk
connectivity and higher density residential or commercial development.
¾ Where practical, consideration should be given to stringing several communities
together with a single commuter service. The communities that are served by
common commuter services should be in close proximity to each other and
service back-tracking should be avoided.
¾ Commuter services usually cannot warrant bus lanes, but if possible their routes
should be aligned with bus lanes for BRT or other services.
¾ Vehicles selected to provide service throughout the region should be as
accessible as possible to accommodate the needs of the mobility impaired
population.
In addition to the above principles, the suggested transit concept ought to consider a
number of transit supportive measures, depending on specific circumstances. These
measures can include:
¾ High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes where cars with a minimum specified
number of occupants are allowed use of a special lane that can bypass
congestion.
¾ Bus lanes on arterials or highways – lanes reserved for bus use only. In urban
areas these are typically signed as forced right turn lanes at intersections, which
require cars to turn right but allows buses, taxis and bicycles to continue
through in the lane.
November, 2007
Page 63
¾
¾
¾
Transit queue jumps where buses, usually in a bus lane adjacent to congested
traffic lanes, receive a special signal phase to proceed ahead of other traffic and
bypass congestion in adjacent lanes.
Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) measures on municipal and provincial
roads, such as using real-time GIS to detect oncoming buses and then allow
green times to be extended so the bus can proceed with less delay.
Highway shoulder use by transit vehicles, where buses are allowed to drive on
the shoulder of a highway to bypass congested traffic lanes, provided the buses
do not exceed a set speed limit for shoulder operation; this practice is becoming
common in a number of jurisdictions throughout North America.
Exhibit 5-2 shows a possible long term transit concept for the Region. The concept does
not depict local transit service. This concept is highly conceptual and is offered as a
suggestion for a highly coordinated regional transit framework. Significant additional
study would be required to confirm alignments, locations and configurations of every
component along with the associated costs and benefits.
A Light Rail Transit system forms the backbone of the suggested regional transit
concept. The suggested concept includes LRT lines that extend north to St. Albert, west
to Lewis Estates, south to the International Airport area and northeast to Anthony
Henday Drive. The extension of the northeast LRT line and the development of a west
LRT line are already in Edmonton’s plans. The St. Albert leg of the LRT provides service
to NAIT, Edmonton’s Northwest Industrial area and to St. Albert. The St. Albert LRT
extension has deliberately been chosen over a more northerly line using 97 Street (or
113A Street) as it is judged to be likely more effective LRT leg that will not compete with
the existing northeast LRT line.
The suggested regional transit concept identifies BRT services to serve the large
population centres of Stony Plain/Spruce Grove, and Sherwood Park and Strathcona
County’s Future Urban Node. The Stony Plain BRT could start with a station north of the
CN mainline, then use Highway 16A to serve Spruce Grove and enter the City of
Edmonton. The service could tie into the Lewis Estates LRT Station, allowing transfers to
Edmonton’s west end via buses, as well as the University and the Downtown via LRT.
The Sherwood Park BRT focuses buses from Sherwood Park and the future urban node
onto 98 Avenue into Edmonton’s downtown.
Commuter Services are suggested for smaller population centres in the region. Fort
Saskatchewan could be served with commuter service that ties into the BRT line for
Strathcona County. This is shown on Exhibit 5-2 as the service could help warrant bus
lanes and would not need a transfer. Bon Accord, Gibbons and Redwater could be
served by the same route feeding into CFB Edmonton and to the Downtown via bus
lanes, if available. The Town of Morinville could feed into the St. Albert LRT. Devon and
Beaumont could be served by a common commuter service route, cross connecting
with the LRT near the International Airport. This service is likely to have strong passenger
volumes in both directions due to large employment nodes in south east Edmonton and
near the airport.
All of the regional BRT and commuter services identified in the regional transit concept
should be supported by park and ride facilities at strategic locations. These park and
ride facilities should be located on the Edmonton-side of the municipality being served,
so that park and ride customers do not back track. Regional communities should be
encouraged to pursue transit supportive land uses in close proximity to the park and ride
November, 2007
Page 64
facilities to strengthen the synergies with transit service and to encourage pedestrian
access to the commuter service.
A critical element of a coordinated and efficient regional transit concept is a series of
regional park and ride facilities that would facilitate convenient access to the region’s
LRT/BRT backbone. These facilities would be located as follows:
¾ At the LRT stations at both ends of St. Albert
¾ At the Commuter transit station on 97 Street at Anthony Henday Drive
¾ At the end of the northeast LRT line (Clareview)
¾ At a new LRT station on the northeast LRT line north of Yellowhead Trail
¾ At the intersection of the Sherwood Park BRT with Anthony Henday Drive
¾ At the intersection of the South LRT extension with Anthony Henday Drive
¾ At Lewis Estates near Anthony Henday Drive
¾ In the vicinity of the International Airport.
The new LRT station on the northeast LRT line and the stations near the International
Airport offer excellent opportunities to integrate intensive land uses with the stations to
minimize walking distances for passengers.
The suggested concept also shows two locations for integrated transportation centres.
These are locations where trans-regional transportation services meet and exchange
passengers with regional transportation services. The locations and possible transregional to regional connections are:
¾ Edmonton International Airport – airport services, Greyhound or Red Arrow intercity buses
¾ Fort Road at Yellowhead Trail; new LRT station – Greyhound or Red Arrow intercity buses, as well as VIA Rail meeting with LRT.
5.4.2
Suggested Medium Term Transit Concept
Exhibit 5-3 shows the suggested medium term (2016) transit concept. The concept’s
backbone is the LRT system, with LRT extensions to Anthony Henday Drive in the west
and south. BRT lines are shown to extend to St. Albert and to Sherwood Park. These
would require dedicated bus lanes on roads that are currently in City of Edmonton or
Province of Alberta jurisdiction.
Commuter transit service is shown from Stony Plain and Spruce Grove, from Morinville,
from Redwater, Gibbons and Bon Accord, from Fort Saskatchewan and Sherwood Park,
and from Beaumont and the potential high employment node at the International Airport.
Commuter service to the International Airport allows two directional travel along both the
Edmonton and the Beaumont lines. Two directional travel is also possible along the
Redwater/Gibbons line and the Fort Saskatchewan line, where Alberta Heartland
employers can offer service from these municipalities to their construction sites. The two
directional travel characteristic may warrant transit service sooner than a true onedirectional travel line.
To support and strengthen the suggested commuter services park and ride lots should
be considered at all commuter route stations, as well as at several locations with
excellent car access. These include:
¾ Commuter station at the north end of St. Albert
¾ at the BRT station at the south end of St. Albert
¾ at the commuter station on 97 Street at Anthony Henday Drive
¾ at the end of the northeast line LRT (Clareview)
¾ at the new station on the northeast LRT line north of Yellowhead Trail
November, 2007
Page 65
¾
¾
¾
¾
5.4.3
at the intersection of the Sherwood Park BRT with Anthony Henday Drive
at the intersection of the South LRT line with Anthony Henday Drive
At Lewis Estates near Anthony Henday Drive
In the vicinity of The International Airport.
Other Transportation Services
The issue of licensing of taxis has recently caused problems in the region. Each
municipality can set its licensing requirements for taxis. As a result taxis often deadhead
back to their home municipality after serving a trip to an adjacent municipality. This is
inefficient and requires a regional perspective to resolve.
Transportation services for mobility impaired persons also require better regional
coordination. Although the regional transit system should use vehicles that are friendly to
the mobility impaired, in some cases these vehicles are unsatisfactory and specialty
vehicles must be used. In such cases these vehicles should be able to cross regional
boundaries freely and be dispatched according to a consistent set of rules. Generally
this should include the provision of the same transportation service hours as regular
transit service and of service over a similar geographic region.
High speed rail between Edmonton and Calgary is being planned in a separate study.
Downtown Edmonton will be served via the High Level Bridge.
5.5
Demand Management Strategies
Transportation Demand Management is a method of providing transportation services
by manipulating transportation demand (volume and time of travel) instead of
transportation supply (number and kind of vehicles). This has particular application in
the Industrial Heartland, where very large work forces can be expected to converge on a
specific work site in the Heartland, creating significant car-congestion.
One strategy to reduce the travel demand is to have workers arrive at different times,
usually staggered by 15 to 30 minutes, and to arrive outside of the background traffic
peak hour. This has proven to be very beneficial for a recent project at Petro-Canada’s
Edmonton refinery. In the case of the Industrial Heartland, coordination amongst the
various major industry players is strongly encouraged in order to implement such a
strategy to the benefit of all.
A second strategy for reducing travel demand, particularly on the roadway network, is to
collect workers at strategic parking locations and to provide bussing for the remainder of
their trip. The parking areas would need to be on the Edmonton side of the Industrial
Heartland, but should be somewhat spread out to avoid transferring the same
transportation problem from the Heartland to the parking lots. This strategy requires land
acquisition and management of the parking areas to cater to the needs of all Heartland
industries. The suggested transit network in Exhibit 5.2 shows park and ride lots in
Gibbons, Redwater, and Fort Saskatchewan that could be used for this traffic. The
Redwater lot may be an overflow lot as it is not on the Edmonton-side of the Heartland.
Alternatively, the Bon Accord lot could be used to supplement parking.
A third strategy is to provide higher density housing closer to the industrial sites. The
higher concentration of housing and its proximity to the planned industrial sites could
make direct transit service to the industrial sites a more viable proposition than would
otherwise be the case.
November, 2007
Page 66
Finally, parking could be limited at the industrial sites. This strategy would make driving
less attractive and encourage industry and employees to consider regional transit
services.
5.6
Potential Transit Infrastructure Investment
Needs
Table 5.1 identifies the transit infrastructure needs that the Capital Region is likely to face
over the next 35 years. The identified needs are based on a comparison of existing
transit plans in the Region with the suggested regional transit concepts shown in
Exhibits 5-2 and 5-3. It includes considerations for LRT components (construction, LRT
vehicles (LRV’s), Park and Ride, and Garage), BRT components (construction, BRT bus
purchases, Park and Ride), Commuter Bus components (construction, bus purchases
and Park and Ride), as well as bus garages for BRT and Commuter bus services. There
were no provisions made for land costs. The total cost of all the suggested regional
transit infrastructure is estimated $8,714M.
Table 5.1:
Regional Transit Infrastructure Costs
(in Millions $)
2041
2016
Item
LRT Construction
LRV Purchases
LRT Park and Ride
LRT Garage
Total LRT Costs
$3,320
$304
$30
$150
BRT Construction
BRT Bus Purchases
BRT Park and Ride
Total BRT Costs
$1,000
$15
$10
Commuter Bus Construction
Commuter Bus Purchases
Commuter Bus Park and Ride
Total Commuter Bus Costs
$20
$14
$30
Bus Garages
Total Investment Needs
Total Costs
$2,400
$200
$18
$0
$3,804
$5,720
$504
$48
$150
$2,618
$1,080
$17
$10
$1,025
$6,422
$2,080
$32
$20
$1,107
$10
$4
$3
$2,132
$30
$18
$33
$64
$16
$80
$80
$0
$80
$4,973
$3,741
$8,714
5.7
Gaps, Synergies and Opportunities
5.7.1
Gaps
The review of existing transit services in the Edmonton region coupled with a strategic
assessment of potential future needs, has identified several overriding gaps in the
planning and delivery of transit services in the Capital Region.
November, 2007
Page 67
Gap #1 – Absence of Regional Transit Planning Framework
The key and overarching gap in delivery of transit services in the region is the absence
of a regional transit planning and service delivery framework. While there are diverse
transit service throughout the region and efforts by many committed individuals to
connect these service and facilities, these efforts are hampered by the fact that there is
no common mandate, vision, goal, strategy or standards that can be pursued by the
various players in order to provide the best and most efficient transit for citizens of the
Capital Region. The potential consequences of this gap are numerous and may include
the following:
¾ Lack of regional service integration
¾ Lack of a regional fare policy and any fare consistency
¾ Misaligned priorities and uncoordinated capital expenditures
¾ Potential misallocation of capital and operating resources
¾ Inconsistent and/or incompatible standards and practices
¾ Failure to leverage the full potential of public transit infrastructure
¾ Failure to leverage potential funding opportunities
¾ Significant inconvenience to transit user
¾ Higher costs to transit users
¾ Documented low regional transit mode share.
Gap # 2 –Financial Transit Infrastructure Gap
As has been noted in section 5.6, an estimate of resources needed to develop a regional
transit system that can support the population, employment and related activities in the
region to 2041 has been estimated at $8.64 Billion.
Within the more immediate timeframe of 2016, some $4.97 Billion of transit infrastructure
investment may be required to support regional transit needs.
The bulk of the needs in both the short and long term are due to the expected heavy
investment in capital intensive Light Rail extensions to several quadrants of the region.
To date, the funding of LRT within Edmonton has been provided by the City, the Alberta
Government and the Federal Government, with no contributions from any regional
jurisdiction.
Gap # 3 – Lack of Transportation / Land Use integration
By and large there is little coordination between land use policy and transportation
infrastructure planning and development in the Capital Region. Land use planning is
typically guided by very high level Municipal Development Plans (MDP’s) which set the
tone for lower level land use planning instruments such as area structure plans and land
use bylaws. The MDP’s may or may not reference transit specifically and rarely if ever
provide land use policy direction that is directly aimed at supporting effective and
efficient transit service. The are no planning policies in the region that specifically guide
the development of transit oriented developments (TOD’s). Transit agencies in the
region are typically involved in land use changes at a point where a particular land use
change or concept has been circulated for review, by the municipalities planning
department. They are at that point reacting to an application submitted by a developer
(in most cases) and have very limited ability to influence land use proposals that are
presented.
November, 2007
Page 68
Gap # 4 – Incorporation of Transit Needs within Regional Highway Plans
Significant highway planning, design and construction has and is continuing to occur
within the Capital Region. There has been little or no consideration given during the
development of these highway plans on ways in which regional transit services can be
accommodated within and across highway corridors, and no provisions made for any
exclusive transit running ways or priority measures on county roads or provincial
highways.
As the region grows and the need to expand transit services beyond Edmonton’s
boundaries presents itself, it will be essential to consider how the regional roadway
network can be adapted to accommodate a region that will have to rely more and more
on effective transit service to move its citizens.
5.7.2
Synergies and Opportunities
The review of future transit service requirements for the Capital Region highlighted a
number of gaps that could prevent the realization of effective and integrated transit
service for the Region’s citizens. However, there are a number of opportunities for
synergies that could be exploited to help overcome various barriers to the provision of
better transit facilities and services in the Capital Region.
Opportunity #1: Regionally Focused Transit Planning and Implementation
The municipalities within the Capital Region already communicate with each other and
enter into agreements pertaining to various transit operational matters. Examples of such
cooperation include:
¾ Implementation of the U-pass program and negotiations to share revenues
¾ Agreements to provide commuter services to outlying smaller communities
¾ Agreements to pursue transit priority measures on St. Albert Trail to assist St.
Albert’s transit’s operations on Edmonton streets
¾ Agreements concerning fare policies for operation outside of home jurisdiction
While these initiatives are very positive and speak to the dedication of these
communities to the provision of excellent service, they fall short of the fully coordinated
effort required to implement what is best for the residents of the region.
To that end, ISL suggests that efforts be made to develop a regionally focused
mechanism for developing regional transit plans, implementation priorities and funding
programs. A number of models can be investigated for achieving such a framework.
Whichever framework is selected, it would likely involve the planning, prioritization and
implementation of “high order” regionally significant transit facilities and services.
Regardless of the specific model that is considered, it should satisfy a number of criteria
as follows:
¾ Establish a clear and transparent mandate and role for a new regional transit
planning/implementation framework.
¾ The framework and governance regime should at all times take a regional
perspective to transit service plans and programs; i.e. the region should be
treated as one unified service area and the residents of the entire region as the
customer base to be served.
¾ The framework should take a regional approach to funding of “higher order”
transit services such as Commuter Services, LRT, BRT, Park and Ride facilities,
as well as transit priority measures on regional access roads and highways.
November, 2007
Page 69
¾
¾
Priorities for implementation of higher order transit facilities and services should
be set as the region’s priorities as opposed constituent municipal priorities.
Funding and applications for funding assistance from senior governments for
these higher order transit facilities should be pursued as regional initiatives
rather than by the individual municipalities.
Opportunity # 2: Strategic Park and Ride Facilities within or near the TUC
Park and Ride facilities are extremely important elements of any regionally integrated
transit concept. They serve as the mechanism by which various transit system
components interact with and interconnect with each other. Additionally they allow for
areas in the region that do not warrant extensive transit service to gain access to higher
order high quality transit facilities such as BRT or LRT.
Opportunity # 3: Land Use/Transportation Integration
To address the challenges of properly integrating land use and transportation within the
Capital Region It is suggested that a “corridor management” approach be undertaken to
improvements along a corridor selected for LRT, BRT or Commuter Service. A corridor
management approach would entail the adoption of a multidisciplinary approach to
determining corridor configuration and design that integrates the planning of the
transportation elements and adjoining land use elements, as a single planning unit as
opposed as independently determined pieces that are forced to fit together in a
reactionary manner, as is often the current practice.
Opportunity # 4: Transit Improvements on Regional Highways
Significant investments are being made to expand and upgrade the highway network in
the Capital Region. In recognition of the high demands that will be placed on this
highway network in the future, it would be prudent to consider adaptation of key
highway corridors to multi-modal corridors that include measures to isolate transit
vehicles from vehicular congestion, and to facilitate access to and from strategically
located park and ride facilities as noted above. While these suggested adaptations are
not currently accepted provincial practice, they are commonly and successfully applied
in a number of Canadian jurisdictions, not to mention numerous American and European
applications.
November, 2007
Page 70
²
Legal
Redwater
Bon
Accord
Gibbons
Bruderheim
Lamont
Morinville
Sturgeon County
Lamont County
St. Albert
Fort Saskatchewan
!
!
((
!
(
!
(
Spruce Grove
Wabamun
Core Infrastructure » Existing Regional Transit Network
Transit
(
!!
(
(
!!
(
Strathcona County
Stony Plain
Edmonton
Parkland County
Beaumont
Devon
Leduc
New Sarepta
Calmar
Thorsby
(
!
LRT Station
(
!
Commuter Station
(
!
Park & Ride
LRT Route
Warburg
Leduc County
0
5
10
Commuter Route
20
30
40
50
Kilometers
September 2007 (amended November 2007)
Exhibit
5-1
²
Legal
(
!!
(
Bon
Accord
!
(
Redwater
Gibbons
!
(
!
(
Bruderheim
!
(
Lamont
Morinville (
(
!!
Sturgeon County
Lamont County
St. Albert
(
!!
(
!
(
(
!!
(
Fort Saskatchewan
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!(
(
!!
(
Spruce Grove
Wabamun
!
(
!
(
(
!!
(
(
!!
! (
(
!
(
!!
(
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
(
!!
(
Sherwood Park
Stony Plain
Edmonton
!
((
!
Parkland County
!
((
!
Devon
Strathcona County
(
!!
(
!
(
!
!(
(
!
((
!
Legend
Beaumont
!
!
((
!
(
Leduc
New Sarepta
Calmar
Thorsby
Warburg
Core Infrastructure » Long Term (2041) Regional Transit Concept
Transit
(
!
LRT Station
(
!
BRT Station
(
!
Commuter Station
(
!
Park & Ride
(
!
Integrated Transportation Centre
Possible High Speed Rail
Leduc County
LRT Route
BRT Route
0
5
10
20
30
40
50
Kilometers
Commuter Route
Base mapping compiled from the Provincial Geo-Administrative Digitial Base, Spatial Data Warehouse Ltd., June 2007, as amended by approved Orders in Council.
Other digital data provided by Alberta Infrastructure and Transportation, GeoEdmonton, and Alberta Municipal Affairs and Housing, July & August 2007.
Exhibit
5-2
²
Legal
!!
( Redwater
(
Bon
Accord
!
(
Gibbons
Bruderheim
!
(
!
(
!
(
Lamont
Morinville (
!!
(
Sturgeon County
Lamont County
St. Albert
!
(
(
!!
(
(
!!
(
Fort Saskatchewan
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
Spruce Grove
Wabamun
!
(
!
(
(
!!
(
(
!!
(
(
!!
! (
(
!
(
!!
(
(
!
(
!
(
Sherwood Park
(
!!
(
Stony Plain
Edmonton
!
((
!
!
((
!
Parkland County
Strathcona County
Devon
!
!(
(
!
(
!
((
!
Legend
Beaumont
Leduc
New Sarepta
Calmar
(
!
LRT Station
(
!
BRT Station
(
!
Commuter Station
(
!
Park & Ride
Heartland Employer Service
Thorsby
Warburg
Core Infrastructure » Medium Term (2016) Regional Transit Concept
Transit
LRT Route
Leduc County
BRT Route
Commuter Route
Alberta Industrial Heartland
0
5
10
20
30
40
50
Kilometers
Base mapping compiled from the Provincial Geo-Administrative Digitial Base, Spatial Data Warehouse Ltd., June 2007, as amended by approved Orders in Council.
Other digital data provided by Alberta Infrastructure and Transportation, GeoEdmonton, and Alberta Municipal Affairs and Housing, July & August 2007.
Exhibit
5-3

5.0 Transit - Alberta Municipal Affairs

Transcription

Similar documents

Froggy Drawing handout2 - Mid Mon Valley Transit Authority

Fastfrate Roadfrate SS.indd

june 4 : fado irish pub

public transportation - ETHRA Public Transit

Presentation - Local Government Commission

Pharr District Regional Characteristics and Inventory

WENDY GREUEL

PATransit Port Authority of Allegheny County DR500C Talking Bus

Making Our Transit Dollars Go The Distance

OEQC Publication Form - Environmental Notice