Page 1

uLK SD LIBRARY

3051

T074/8845/1977 RAPID-TRANSIT-EXTENSION STUDY, EDMONTON -PLANNING

4403.1a .E3 :5H4 ,1977f

apid Transit 7ixtenskm tuff


@ THE CITY OF t

on

TRANSPORTATION PLAN PART II VOLUME 1 SECTION C CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH JANUARY, 1977


Preface In December of 1974, the Rapid Transit Extension Study was initiated by the Transportation Planning Branch of the former Engineering and Transportation Department. This Study was organized and carried out in accord with the policies and guidelines set out in the City of Edmonton Transportation Plan, Part 1. During the course of the Study, City Council was informed of the Study progress and direction through information reports and an Aldermanic Seminar. The Study was completed in January of 1977. Through the development and detailed analyses of a range of alternative rapid transit route plans, the Study has formulated a sound basis for the City of Edmonton to establish an overall long range rapid transit plan. This report presents a summary of the activities and findings of the Study. Further details of the work are contained in a set of technical appendices presented under separate cover. The Rapid Transit Extension Study was carried out by staff of the Functional Planning Section of the Transportation Planning Branch, under the direction of R. H. David and R. A. Heise. Considerable assistance and co-operation was provided by other agencies and individuals within the City of Edmonton administration, particularly the following: — D. L. MacDonald Rapid Transit Project R. Yacyshyn - S. Broadfoot Edmonton Transit R. Clark - D. Podmore Research & Long Range Planning S. Trogen The firm of Bolter Parish Trimble Ltd., Consulting Engineers, prepared the preliminary functional plans and construction cost estimates for alternative route plans under the direction of a technical committee of City staff.

W. B. O'Brien, P. Eng. Transportation Planning Engineer — Transit (Project Engineer)


Table of Contents Part I Summary

7.0 Transit Cost Analysis

1.0 Introduction 1.1 Study Purpose 1.2 Study Scope

1 1

2.0 Study Findings 2.1 Future Travel Demands 2.2 Alternative Rapid Transit Plans

3 3

3.0 History 5 5 8 8 9

4.0 Study Outline 4.1 Study Objectives 4.2 Study Activities

11 11

5.0 Alternative Plans 5.1 City Growth and Travel Demand Trends 5.2 Applicability of Light Rail Transit 5.3 Potential Rapid Transit Routes 5.4 Development of Alternative Plans

13 14 15 17

6.0 Transit Travel Demand 6.1 Current Transit Travel Demand Patterns 6.2 Land Use Data 6.3 Horizon Year Projections

31 31 32

8.0 Impact of Rapid Transit 8.1 Overview of Impacts 8.2 Service Characteristics 8.3 Community Impacts

27 27 27

9.1 Introduction 9.2 North Area 9.3 South Area 9.4 West Area 9.5 Review of Alternatives

33 33 34

37 37 38 39 39

10.0 Implementation Priorities and Areas for for Further Study 10.1 Introduction 10.2 Rapid Transit Implementation Priorities 10.3 Proposed Staging of Rapid Transit Extensions 10.4 Areas for Further Study

References List of References

45

Appendices (under separate cover)

9.0 Evaluation of Alternative Plans

Part II The Report 3.1 Public Transit in Edmonton 3.2 Previous Transit Planning Studies.... 3.3 Current Transportation Plans 3.4 Northeast Rapid Transit Line 3.5 Study Directives

7.1 Basis of Cost Estimates 7.2 Capital Costs 7.3 Operating Costs

43 43 43 44

I - South Corridor - Rail Rapid Transit, Preliminary Functional Planning Study, Bolter Parish Trimble Ltd., March, 1976. II - North Corridor - Rail Rapid Transit, Preliminary Functional Planning Study, Bolter Parish Trimble Ltd., July, 1976. III - Estimates of Horizon Year Transit Travel Demand. IV - Analysis of Capital Costs V - Analysis of Operating Costs VI - Impact Analysis VII - Evaluation of Alternatives


-


1.0 Introduction 1.1 Study Purpose City Council concurred in the following recommendation at the meeting of February 12, 1974: "That the Commissioners be instructed to undertake the necessary studies that will enable them to bring in an early recommendation to Council to finalize the remaining routes for the Edmonton Rapid Transit System." In the City of Edmonton Transportation Plan Part I, the policy for future rapid transit routes stated that rapid transit service would be given major emphasis. Conceptually, several routes to the south, west and north areas of the City were identified for further study and it was stated that the planning and assessment for these lines would be initiated as the Northeast Line implementation progressed. Transportation Plan Part I was approved by City Council on July 15, 1974. Some problems which the formulation of a rapid transit plan was intended to overcome are as follows: - Lack of designated rapid transit corridors made it difficult to establish and maintain rapid transit right-of-way requirements in newly developing Outline Plan areas and in existing developed areas where redevelopment proposals were under consideration. - Provision for future rapid transit facilities could not be included in many current projects, such as the Northeast Line, railway grade separations and arterial roadway improvements. - Many short-range improvements and modifications to existing bus transit services could not be integrated with future rapid transit lines without a long range plan. - Various transportation related studies such as the University Area Transportation Study, Transportation Plan Part III and the Canadian Pacific Railway Relocation Study require information on future rapid transit facilities. The overall purpose of this Study is to develop a long range plan for rapid transit services in Edmonton. To achieve this goal, several study objectives were established. Initially, the relative cost-effectiveness characteristics of alternative rapid transit routes required investigation. Next, plans

showing the general location of proposed lines and stations needed to be established. Consideration of the supporting bus transit services was also necessary. Finally, the implementation priorities for future rapid transit lines were required.

1.2 Study Scope The Study, which was conducted over a two year period, consisted of detailed analyses and evaluations of a range of alternative light rapid transit plans. Using projections of City population and employment to a horizon year of 2001, estimates of future transit travel demand were prepared and a preliminary functional planning study of the alternative routes in each corridor was carried out to investigate various alignments, establish engineering feasibility and develop estimates of construction costs. From this work, the capital costs, horizon year operating costs, service characteristics and direct community impacts were determined for each of the alternative plans. Finally, evaluation of the alternative routes in each area of the City enabled an overall plan to be identified. Through this planning process, the Study has developed alternate long range plans for rapid transit services, outlined the priorities for future rapid transit extensions and noted the areas where further study will be required. The Study activities and findings are outlined in the following chapters of this report. One issue not considered in this report is the extension of the Northeast Line to the Clareview Town Centre. During the past year a separate analysis of this extension was carried out in response to proposals for capital funding assistance by private developers. A separate report on the Clareview Extension was prepared and submitted to City Council in January, 1977.

1


2.0 Study Findings 2.1 Future Travel Demands Study projections of travel demand by public transit predict that substantial increases over present day levels will occur. Using the available forecasts of City growth, it was estimated that there will be approximately 32,000 peak hour transit trips to the City's central area in 25 years as compared to the existing demand of about 16,000 trips. Detailed estimates of transit ridership were developed for each alternative plan, but there was little variation in total transit demand from one alternative to the next. This was because the overall increase in transit ridership is most directly related to the predicted growth of employment opportunities in the downtown area and rising out-of-pocket costs to automobile users. Reductions in transit travel time to the downtown with the light rapid transit alternatives were not found to significantly affect the level of demand. For the horizon year of 2001, the estimates of peak hour passenger volumes in the main corridors to the central area are as follows: - 6000 passengers/hour from the Northeast - 8800 passengers/hour from the South - 4600 passengers/hour from the West - 2800 passengers/hour from the Northwest - 2400 passengers/hour from North-Central - 2500 passengers/hour from the Southeast

2.2 Alternative Rapid Transit Plans During the study, several long range plans for transit service in Edmonton were developed: - An expanded bus service alternative, which consisted of the Northeast Line and increased bus services in other areas to accommodate the projected travel demand. - Five integrated light rapid transit - bus service alternative plans, which consisted of the Northeast Line and lines serving other areas of the City, along with associated feeder bus services. A summary of the capital and operating costs associated with each of these alternatives is presented in Table 2.1. With the increased capital investment required to develop rapid transit lines to all areas of the City, there was found to be a significant reduction in the annual operating costs of the

transit system. In total, the expanded bus service alternative was estimated to cost 60.95 million dollars (in 1975 dollars) annually as compared to costs ranging from 64.35 to 69.30 million dollars annually for the integrated light rapid transit - bus service alternatives. Service characteristics of the alternative rapid transit plans were reviewed and it was found that a better level of service could be provided than with the expanded bus service alternative. Alternative 5, the plan providing the highest level of service, would achieve a good level of service coverage to most areas and would enable an annual reduction of 500,000 hours of travel time over expanded bus services, for peak period trips to the central area. With this alternative, residents

E.B.S. Alt. Total Capital Cost Annual Capital Cost Horizon Year Operating Cost Total Annual Cost Primary Rapid Transit Population Coverage Peak Hour Travel Time Reduction Over E.B.S. (Hours/Year) Notes:

i) ii) iii) iv)

of outer areas, such as Mill Woods, would realize savings of 10 to 15 minutes per trip, while the overall average reduction would be about 2 minutes per trip. In the evaluation of alternative rapid transit routes in each area, the physical impacts of the lines on adjacent communities are identified and taken into consideration. These are not extensive in most areas and should not create major problems, with the possible exception of the alternative at-grade lines serving the University area. Opposition to these alternatives has been expressed by the University Administration and the adjacent communities. Construction of the line intunnel would overcome some of the problems but the capital costs are significantly higher.

Alt. 1

Alt. 2

Alt. 3

Alt. 4

Alt. 5

122.26 12.43

247.41 22.21

48.52 60.95

42.14 64.35

284.32 25.15 40.05 65.20

286.07 25.32 41.05 66.37

319.76 28.09 41.21 69.30

283.52 25.07 39.78 64.85

96,300

142,000

151,600

169,400

145,000

378,000

459,000

365,000

322,000

496,000

-

E.B.S. means Expanded Bus Service Capital Costs of Northeast Line and Clareview Extension not included Primary Coverage refers to north, west and south lines only Annual Capital Costs estimated with 8% interest rate over expected service life.

TABLE 2.1 Summary of Alternative Plans

(All costs In millions of 1975 dollars)

3


_


3.0 History 3.1 Public Transit in Edmonton

3.2 Previous Transit Planning Studies A number of studies have been carried out during the past 15 to 20 years to develop plans for public transit services. Some of the more significant studies and their findings are reviewed in this section. Metropolitan Edmonton Transportation Study (METS) In 1961, the Metropolitan Edmonton Transportation Study (METS) was undertaken by the Edmonton District Planning Commission and member communities (including the City of Edmonton) in cooperation with the Province of Alberta (2, 3). The purpose of the METS study was to develop a plan for transportation facilities which would accommodate urban travel demands to 1980 and beyond. Analyses of 1961 urban travel demand characteristics

350

300

ANNUALRIDES PER CAPITA

Public transit services within Edmonton were initiated in 1908 with the introduction of electrically-powered streetcars operated by the Edmonton Radial Railway. This service was expanded rapidly during the following six to eight years and then remained at a fairly constant level until the early 1930's. From 1932 to 1947 the transit system was again expanded to accommodate increasing levels of transit travel demand experienced during the War years. With the development of larger, more reliable buses, the streetcars were taken out of service between 1947 and 1951 and, since that time, transit service has been provided entirely by buses operating on City streets. Transit patronage trends in Edmonton since 1945 are illustrated in Figure 3.1. The transit usage (expressed as annual transit rides per capita) declined from a level of about 290 rides per capita at the end of World War II to about 85 rides per capita in the early 1960's. During the last 10 years, (1965 to 1975) patronage has increased to over 110 rides per capita. Comparisons with other Canadian cities indicate parallel trends. The current level of transit patronage in Edmonton is similar to cities such as Vancouver, Ottawa and Winnipeg, but is lower than the large urban areas of Toronto and Montreal.

250

200

150

100

50

0 1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

YEAR Figure 3.1 Transit Patronage Trends in Edmonton

5


were carried out and projections of 1980 travel demand were developed. A system of major roadways was recommended, which consisted of a downtown freeway loop, radial freeways connecting the outlying areas to the downtown and a grid of expressways and arterial roadways to provide cross-town routes. METS proposed that transit service be provided by a system of express buses utilizing the freeways and major arterial street system. It suggested improvements to bus operation in the downtown area, such as bypassing of through traffic, special transit lanes, one-way couplets and elimination of curb parking. The METS plan also suggested that in the longer term, a transit distribution system below or above street level would be needed. Bechtel Rapid Transit Study Canadian Bechtel Ltd. was commissioned by the City of Edmonton in 1962 to conduct a rapid transit study as part of the long range transportation and land use plans being investigated by the City. A conceptual plan was recommended for a rapid transit system to serve Edmonton as it was expected to develop to 1980 and beyond (4). The study determined that "a modern, efficient and compact high performance electrified railway, operating on an exclusive grade- separated right-of-way," would be required to attract a high percentage of peak period travellers. Figure 3.2 illustrates the recommended plan, which consists of six branch lines converging on a twin tube subway through the downtown area. Construction of the proposed 25 mile system was estimated to cost $126.2 million, (in 1963 dollars), exclusive of financing costs, fare collection system, buildings and yards, parking lots, utility relocations and underpinning of foundations. Bakker Report on Public Transportation In Edmonton In 1967, the City of Edmonton retained J. J. Bakker of the University of Alberta to carry out a review of the general transportation situation in Edmonton, particularly with respect to public transit. This study (5) reviewed the earlier METS and Bechtel Studies and concluded that both the public transit and the roadway and parking programs

6

4/0 se. c•i

Southeast Line

ii

w

bant—V -12,7eTrai

Southwest Line

R UN Ali •

Figure 3.2 Recommended Rapid Transit Plan (Bechtel Rapid Transit Study 1963)


were falling short of meeting the steadily increasing requirements of the City. It also concluded that there was considerable duplication of facilities proposed in the earlier studies. A balanced transportation plan, including some of the roadways recommended in the METS study and some of the rapid transit lines suggested in the Bechtel study, was recommended for Edmonton. The recommended rapid transit plan from this study is outlined in Figure 3.3. De Leuw, Gather Ltd. Studies (NorthwestNortheast Line and University Line) De Leuw, Gather Ltd. was retained in 1970 to carry out investigations of the feasibility of the proposed Northwest-Northeast line and a connecting line to the University - Health Sciences Centre on the south side of the river. These studies (6, 7) recommended the implementation of a rapid transit plan, as outlined in Figure 3.4. The NorthwestNortheast line was recommended for construction as the first phase, (for completion in 1974) while the University line was recommended as a subsequent phase of construction (for completion in 1976). Overall costs of this plan were estimated at $85.2 million (in 1970 dollars), with an additional $10.8 million for extensions to the northeast and southwest. The University Practicum in Rapid Transit The University Practicum in Rapid Transit consisted of a class study group formed in 1972 through the Department of Extension of the University of Alberta, in conjunction with public hearings on the City's General Transportation Plan. This group carried out an independent study (8) of the concept of light rail transit and its application in certain European cities. They suggested that, for a small City such as Edmonton, light rail transit was more appropriate than a higher capacity subway system. While no detailed analyses of transit travel demands and alternative plans were carried out, the study did present a proposed route plan, as illustrated in Figure 3.5.

Figure 3.3 Recommended Rapid Transit Plan (Bakker Report on Public Transportation 1968)

7


3.3 Current Transportation Plans On February 25, 1974, City Council approved the preparation of the City's Transportation Plan in the following format: - Part I - General, dealing with an overall view of the plan and specifying directions for the more detailed planning of particular facilities - Part II - Transportation facilities, improvements and a working schedule for their implementation - Part Ill - The System Review Plan, dealing with the methodology of assessing long term transportation requirements, new developments and changes in existing land uses Transportation Plan Part I was subsequently prepared and approved by City Council on July 15, 1974. Prior to preparation of this document, the City's transportation plans were established through the following series of Transportation Bylaws: - Bylaw # 3655 December 23, 1971 - Bylaw # 3853 March 27, 1972 - Bylaw # 4133 (Transportation Chapter of the General Plan) August 27, 1973 These Bylaws embodied the various plans and proposals presented in the earlier transportation studies and reports. In Transportation Plan Part I, a number of alternative rapid transit routes are identified, as shown in Figure 3.6. These alternative routes were based on considerations of the various planning studies carried out prior to 1974.

3.4 Northeast Rapid Transit Line On August 13, 1973, City Council approved the recommendation of the Utilities and Engineering Committee to construct a rapid transit line serving the north-eastern section of the City. The Northeast Line is approximately 4.5 miles in length, with about 1.0 miles in tunnel in the downtown area and about 3.5 miles at grade along the CNR rightof-way. This line will have two underground stations in the downtown area; at Jasper Avenue and 101 Street and at 102 Avenue and 99 Street. On the surface portion of the line, stations will be located in the vicinity of 112 Avenue, 118 Avenue and 129 Avenue. Bus transit services in the northeast area will be

8

= al Ewygosu-AiRciat -mat -12-11--

6

FrynnonlIre i 1•111iiiii

vrirL -N glop-ran iii!:: InhliE

I! lina ?Arai

I.! I r.‘ t dtstiel i ni I lL-511 " i I 'WVLiIL3 % IIe

443/RR usw-3) tvil git;.=-51

-Uw I sal

afitiig - irbitifil

imnripmaralraiumer, Q23 . &IA 11110 [k..c57,14R,t JP110.--7141 461

f

Ei== ,Eimirom will 111, "„ 16%

I.'

a.: IEF.siat—_ —.V -711ftie

Pik

6iiaia La -rimy; Emil fli*40 ip

.0 /II

=d 4131 , MI° rai Mc! mi 1 iro

11

,

,..

Figure 3.4 Recommended Rapid Transit Plan (De Leuw, Cather Studies 1970, 1971)


reorganized to provide feeder service to the line at the three outlying stations. Construction of the Northeast Line was started in 1974 and the line is scheduled to become fully operational early in 1978.

laie.,..1 its.v.121 7..7,11.,,,r mitilt =,..,. winTiffr_ablkouppL, /

3.5 Study Directives At the meeting of City Council on February 12, 1974, the following recommendation was passed: "That the Commissioners be instructed to undertake the necessary studies that will enable them to bring in an early recommendation to Council to finalize the remaining routes for the Edmonton Rapid Transit System." Transportation Plan Part I, prepared in June of 1974, set out the following policy for the further development of rapid transit facilities: "Rapid transit service will be given major emphasis. The Northeast line, which is the initial portion of a system, will be completed by 1978 and will be complemented with other lines where costs and benefits warrant." The rapid transit concept plan, outlined in Transportation Plan Part I, suggested that rapid transit service will be required to all main population centres as the capacities of existing roadways are reached. This plan envisioned a system of mainlines radiating from the downtown area and suggested that planning of lines to the North, South and West would be initiated as the Northeast Line was being constructed. As outlined above, a number of rapid transit studies had been carried out during the period from 1961 to 1972. These studies provided considerable information on the development of rapid transit facilities in Edmonton and formed the basis for the implementation of the Northeast Line but did not, however, provide a sufficient basis for a long term rapid transit plan. One reason for this was a number of changes in the development of the City such as: - the expansion of major new residential areas, such as Mill Woods, on the outskirts of the City - proposed relocation of certain railway facilities and the possible utilization of these rail corridors

-UIImI

In\

11111qValkairie7LV vid'amor=w1"6116.1' liw 1.7(A....77-alzryzir ViiiiVilli'Llime ,rgagirziamilm 1. •, ,iiiiiimronns" • AIN

EV:1:11011.-"Ir

INEPFe,tAtii

moOmat.-11:::

Iii:1; r1161 11 1111 : 11-1: 11 (NAr=4 1rai rj12635 15

U131.91, 3i3Wrili MITA% 4 116p01 „, . titECID.4 = 7 a Cl 111111trl r . I d ia el .1

••

FriI M.11;: 16q3 7) rt. .

1-g

Z ijaIna

EM,EinglinralM.1.... 111111

Figure 3.5 Recommended Rapid Transit Plan (University Practicum in Rapid Transit 1972)

9


In addition, the option of developing light rail transit routes with intermediate levels of capacity and lower capital costs appeared to merit more attention than was the case with the earlier studies. =21111111ut II OMIT S.

ti.. ••lll ":761.4.00 1 -W-Bgra.-NI!

41184

imm ma nom ism yr

Planned Rapid Transit Possible Rapid Transit Rapid Transit Future Consideration Figure 3.6 Alternate Rapid Transit Routes (Transportation Plan Part I, 1974)

10


4.0 Study Outline 4.1 Study Objectives Concurrent with the City Council directive to prepare a rapid transit plan, a number of problems were identified which further emphasized the need for a long range plan. Future rapid transit right-of-way requirements were difficult to determine in new Outline Plan areas and in redeveloping areas, due to the lack of clearly designated rapid transit routes. In addition, provision for future lines could be included in current projects, (such as the Northeast Line, railway grade separations and major roadway improvements) if a long range plan were developed. Regarding the development of bus transit services; it was difficult, without a long range plan, to ensure that ongoing modifications and improvements to existing bus services could eventually be integrated with future rapid transit facilities. Finally, there are various other transportation-related studies underway in the City which require information on rapid transit plans, such as the University Area Transportation Study, Canadian Pacific Railway Relocation Study and Transportation Plan Part III. Four overall objectives for the Study, which reflected its requirements, were identified in the initial phases: 1. to investigate the cost-effectiveness of alternative future rapid transit lines 2. to prepare an overall plan of rapid transit lines and stations 3. to determine the general layout of associated bus transit services 4. to identify implementation priorities for future rapid transit lines These objectives formed the basis for the subsequent organization of the Study methodology and activities.

Estimate of Vehicles Req'd & Operating Cost Horizon Year Demand Forecast Review Service Characteristics Problem Review

Develop Alternative Plans

Review y Commun it Preliminary Design cl. f Alternati ves

I mpact

Estimate o.f

Constructi on costs

4.2 Study Activities Figure 4.1 provides a broad overview of the various Study activities. As in most planning work, the first step was the identification of the problems to be solved. This included a review of the current City transportation plans and policies, an assessment of earlier studies and the identification of the general requirements of the Study. From this, Study objectives were established and an outline of proposed Study activities prepared.

Evaluation of Alternative Plans

Figure 4.1 Summary of Study Activities

ii


Development of alternative plans was the second main step in the Study. Previous studies were useful, but it was also necessary to review overall growth trends and travel patterns in the City and to identify potential routes in each area. These routes were then used to develop alternative network plans for rapid transit lines and feeder bus routes. Further refinements of these alternatives were carried out as the Study progressed. Following the development of the alternative plans, the next phase of the Study was directed towards the analyses of the costs, benefits, and other impacts associated with each alternative. Preliminary functional design plans were prepared to ensure engineering feasibility, provide construction cost estimates and determine alignment characteristics. At the same time, detailed forecasts of horizon year travel demands were prepared, which enabled determination of vehicle requirements and operating costs. Finally, a review of service characteristics of the alternative plans was related to these forecasts. The final activity in the Study was the evaluation of alternative plans, using information and findings of the earlier analyses to select the most appropriate plan. This evaluation was carried out separately for the alternative route plans in three main areas; the south, west and north corridors to the downtown. Through this area-by-area evaluation, a fifth alternative was developed and overall comparisons of the alternative plans were facilitated.

12


5.0 Alternative Plans 5.1 City Growth and Travel Demand Trends In an urban area, the most significant component of person travel activity is the daily trip-making between home and work. Two factors which distinguish Edmonton's work trip patterns are the high concentration of employment opportunities in the central area and the location of residential development in a surrounding ring. This pattern of urban development generates high volumes of work trips from all directions, focusing on the central area. Peak hour work trip volumes, observed in 1971 along the major corridors to the central area, are shown in Figure 5.1. City Planning Department projections (9) of land use development in Edmonton suggest that most future residential growth will occur in the outlying areas of the City. As shown in Figure 5.2, residential growth is expected in areas to the south, southwest, north and northeast. Employment projections show continued growth of employment opportunities in the central area, together with the development of employment opportunities in the Industrial Outline Plan areas of the City. The implications of these urban development trends are as follows: - Increases in work trips along corridors to the central area will occur as a result of the employment increases in the central area and population increases in the outer areas. - Cross-town work trips between outlying areas will increase as a result of peripheral industrial development. Future increases in public transit travel demand are likely to occur in the corridors to the central area, due to limited parking and roadway capacity for private automobiles. Long range land use plans for the areas outside the City of Edmonton were not available for this Study. At the present time, the level of public transit travel demand between the regional satellite communities (such as St. Albert and Sherwood Park) and the Edmonton central area is relatively low. However, future growth in these communities will generate additional travel demands along corridors to the central area.

gill

w 1.1 L.1134

1.

.11111

IllEitillireq‘

,-111/ 16101r1 _

ood m, lusommotfig;

1.7.a)

4"411.1 ran

,;1111.:0

g

Figure 5.1 1971 Peak Hour Work Trips to Central Area

13


V A Existing Residential Area Six broad travel corridors were identified for the development of alternative plans and analysis of travel demands, as shown in Figure 5.1. The northeast corridor will be served by the rapid transit line currently under construction. No major increases in transit travel demand are anticipated in the southeast corridor, since no major residential developments are planned in this area. Corridors where increased transit travel demands are likely to occur are to the south, the west, the north and to the northwest.

A Future Residential Area 1771 Existing Employment Area Future Employment Area

5.2 Applicability of Light Rail Transit Recently, the concept of light rail transit has received increased attention in North America, since it provides an intermediate level of capacity with relatively low capital investments (10, 11). Light rail transit, in contrast with full rail rapid transit, is characterized by partially controlled rights-ofway, with at-grade crossings and street operation in certain sections. Full rail rapid transit systems, on the other hand, operate on exclusive, fully grade separated rights-ofway. The advantage of full rail rapid transit systems, such as the Toronto Subway, is that they provide a higher level of capacity and operate at higher speeds. Light rail transit has the advantages of lower construction costs and greater flexibility in implementation and operation. In addition, light rail transit lines can ultimately be upgraded to full rail rapid transit, if provision is made in the initial planning stages. A typical view of an at-grade light rail transit line utilizing the median of a roadway is shown in Figure 5.3. Construction costs of this type of line are about 2.5 million dollars per mile, excluding stations. Figure 5.4 illustrates a fully grade separated rail rapid transit facility in a cut-and-cover tunnel. This type of line would cost at least 13.0 to 15.0 million dollars per mile to construct, with the additional costs of stations and other facilities considerably higher than with surface lines. Another type of rail rapid transit facility is an elevated line, as illustrated in Figure 5.5. Construction costs of this type of line would be about 10.0 to 11.0 million dollars per mile. Clearly, the capital cost advantages of atgrade light rail transit lines are considerable.

14

Figure 5.2 Existing and Future Development in Edmonton


Anticipated level of passenger demand is a second criteria used in assessing the practicability of light rail transit. With peak passenger volumes of less than 4000 to 5000 passengers per hour, regular bus service is the most economical and the most widely used mode. However, the maximum capacity which can be provided by regular bus service along a City street is about 7000 to 8000 passengers per hour. On the higher end of the scale, full rail rapid transit, such as Toronto's Yonge Street Subway, accommodates peak demands of greater than 40,000 passengers per hour. Between these two extremes, light rail transit provides an economically viable mode for intermediate levels of passenger demand. Reports on light rail transit (12) suggest that passenger volumes as high as 15,000 to 20,000 passengers per hour can be accommodated. Projections of travel demand in Edmonton over the next 25 years indicate that passenger volumes are unlikely to exceed 10,000 passengers per hour in any corridor. Therefore, sufficient capacity can be provided by light rail transit. From these general considerations of economics and capacity requirements it was concluded that light rail transit is indeed applicable to the Edmonton situation. The rapid transit plans outlined herein have been designed as light rail lines. During the Study some routes were designed to full rail standards to facilitate comparisons.

5.3 Potential Rapid Transit Routes In order to minimize capital costs, the proposed rapid transit lines have been continued as at-grade lines outside the downtown area. In areas of major conflicts with roadway or rail traffic, the lines have been grade separated, either in tunnel, as in the downtown area, or on an elevated structure. In these cases, full rail rapid transit geometric standards were adopted to allow for future upgrading. Full rail rapid transit standards were also applied along railway corridors, where provision for future commuter service might be required. On the other surface lines, light rail transit geometric standards were used. These standards are adequate for articulated rail vehicles of the type to be used on the Northeast Line. Future

Figure 5.3 Typical At-Grade Light Rail Line

15


upgrading of these lines to full rail rapid transit standards would involve reconstruction of the facility. A brief review of the potential rapid transit routes in each corridor is given below. Preliminary functional planning work on each of these routes was carried out to review the engineering feasibility and to prepare preliminary alignment plans. The details of this work are outlined in Appendices I and II. South Corridor The potential routes in the south corridor are outlined in Figure 5.6. Essentially, the two main routes are as follows: - South from the downtown area along the CPR right-of-way to the outlying residential areas - South from the downtown area to the University of Alberta complex and then continuing along existing road rights-of-way to serve the outlying residential areas. A direct connection to the downtown from the outer residential areas is provided by the first route, while the second route provides direct rapid transit service to the University of Alberta complex, a major activity centre. Alternative rapid transit plans developed for this corridor include the option of a main line to the south via the CPR right- of-way, with a branch line serving the University. Preliminary functional plans for the South Corridor alternatives are outlined in Appendix I. West Corridor Three potential routes serving the west corridor are shown in Figure 5.7; - West from the downtown along Jasper Avenue, 102 Avenue, Stony Plain Road and 100 Avenue to the Jasper Place area - West from the northwest CNR right-of-way along 107 Avenue and 156 Street to the Jasper Place area - West across the North Saskatchewan River from a south line to south Jasper Place. Alternative alignments for these three routes are indicated in Figure 5.7 and preliminary functional plans are outlined in Appendix II. In the west area of the City, the rapid transit routes could be extended south from the Jasper Place business district on Stony Plain Road via 156 Street, or further

16

Figure 5.4 Typical Tunnel Section


west to the edge of the City along 100 Avenue or Stony Plain Road. North - Northwest Corridors The potential routes serving the north and northwest corridors are shown in Figure 5.8 as follows: - Northwest from the downtown area along the CNR corridor to 125 Avenue. Extensions of this line further north could be along 127 Street or 113A Street - North from the downtown area to serve the NAIT and Kingsway area, then extended north via 97 Street to the outlying residential areas. The CNR corridor provides a readily identifiable right-of-way for the northwest route as far north as 125 Avenue. In other areas alternative alignments which utilize roadway rights-of-way are possible, as outlined in Figure 5.8. Preliminary functional plans for alternative routes in the northnorthwest corridors are outlined in Appendix

5.4 Development of Alternative Plans Given the potential rapid transit routes outlined above, a number of alternative transit network plans were developed, consisting of integrated bus-rapid transit service for the overall City. Initially, four alternative network plans were prepared which contained the Northeast Line and potential future lines to the north, south and west areas. Bus routes were designed around the rapid transit routes in each case. In addition, an expanded bus service alternative was developed which consisted of the North-east Line and increased bus services in the other areas. This alternative was used as a basis for comparisons during the Study. Later in the Study, a fifth rapid transit network plan was developed from the analyses and evaluations of these initial plans. A brief description of the alternative rapid transit network plans follows. Alternative 1 Figure 5.9 illustrates the overall layout of the Alternative 1 plan. This plan includes the following rapid transit routes: - Northeast Line to Clareview - Northwest Line via CNR right-of-way to 125 Avenue

Figure 5.5 Typical Elevated Overpass Structure

17


- South Line along CPR right-of-way to Mill Woods and Kaskitayo - University Line branching off the South Line along 89 Avenue and 114 Street to a terminus at Belgravia Road A general layout of bus services with this alternative would have mainline bus routes direct to the downtown from the Northgate, Capilano and Jasper Place areas. Bus service would be provided from the extreme southwest areas to the University Line terminus and, in the other areas, local bus routes would connect to the various rapid transit stations.

,migigiollun ILI

iiIii1111111111114 11111:: 11M1 lllll 1111111111111/ 1 llllllll 11111111 lllll 11111/ II. lllll 11111111m IhrirlIPION1111111111111111112 mwll 1111.111 1 ql imu 1111111111114111111 lllannum mem lllll 111111111111ln 1111111111111 ;1 1 llllll I lll Sta

41Vir•V

11111111ffirAilf& IM111111Liarayithat_i_:., IUIU

UiiIiiiuuiiidU

arti

STA\ r

• 11111111111=111,% .

llllll imuciron.-mul6

••

• ".U11111 _

.7.

,\0 •1144-4111"1

11E1111 Witkriit um—

irMilrbrarrig • -91111111111 111111111,1.71 111M111111 10•011,4unium ,.

Alternative 2 As outlined in Figure 5.10, Alternative 2 consists of four rapid transit routes: - Northeast Line to Clareview - South Line to Mill Woods and Kaskitayo via the CPR right-of-way - North-central Line to Northgate - West Line to Jasper Place and Meadowlark areas Although not specifically shown in Figure 5.10, the Study considered several possible alignments for some of these routes. This alternative would provide high frequency shuttle service between the University of Alberta area and the South Line, as well as mainline bus service to the downtown from the Capilano area. In the corridors served by rapid transit lines, local bus routes would connect to rapid transit stations.

4151

==

ll del:milli inmin Ac alli,Wiran mum

L

I IIII' 1 , 1111 -i "I "'

I

U91.141TE-Wall

torihrupture.

L E,—:44 ! wea .

IC

le.c.1 = 111;. -z.--ar••14.1,111.1. 1.71.711M411137!..--1.7111Er ....„

i oNNIIMM

":11.11HEIMElitt .",;111:-. L-7-17-Treopk3-P rom 111111

MI= =NB

Alternative 3 Alternative 3, shown in Figure 5.11, includes the following rapid transit routes: - Northeast Line to Clareview - Northwest Line as in Albernative 1 - North-central Line into the Castle Downs area - South Line to Mill Woods and Kaskitayo via the CPR right-of-way - Branch Line to the University of Alberta In this alternative, mainline bus service to the downtown would be provided from the Jasper Place and Capilano areas. Alternative 4 The fourth alternative consists of the following rapid transit routes as shown in Figure 5.12: - Northeast Line to Clareview

18

aloe Ens immE mm•

Figure 5.6 South Corridor — Potential Routes

Potential Route Alternative Alignments


- Northwest Line extended into the Castle Downs area. - West Line to Jasper Place - South Line through the University area and south along the 114 Street - 111 Street corridor to Mill Woods and Kaskitayo - Southwest branch line across the river valley in the area of Fox Drive Mainline bus service would be provided to the downtown from the Northgate and Capilano areas and to the terminus of the Southwest branch line from the West Jasper Place area. Local feeder bus services would be provided to the rapid transit stations in each corridor. Alternative 5 A fifth alternative rapid transit plan developed during the Study is shown in Figure 5.13. This plan features the following rapid transit routes: - Northeast Line to Clareview - South Line via CPR right-of-way to Mill Woods and Kaskitayo - University Line branching off the South Line. - Northwest Line along CNR right-of-way to Castle Downs - West Line branching off the northwest along 107 Avenue to the Jasper Place area The bus services in this plan would provide mainline service to the downtown from the Northgate and Capilano areas with bus routes serving the southern part of West Jasper Place and Riverbend connecting to the terminus of the University branch line. As with the other alternatives, local bus routes would be connected to the rapid transit lines in each corridor.

Figure 5.7 West Corridor — Potential Routes

19


i=1 po Mil7EUffildi lallalq•hm IREASINNIMMEDIA BurOm rareiliviirgqi Oki!. Jrz 111-112 1 11MDZEI dituumi iiL I 1111111 Bug 2.011111FAMILIHr" ii-ri ismoijiwill gm 1•700;0%.1" hi tel **4! I 1.111 .EM kutit-11 IN _ givic:::: .1111 i driti 1 N IwW1 M 12 firaillffitill Ming „Limn""""" idiramm_lipmm• 'Qin= pmilmiwyjki -...0.=:t" 0Vjarj lllllll initmcnr-ms. 1AraphlRomm11111111ilumma\ 11111111•,_ 1:141i. iiilatl eh •1111 -2•WhiiiiiiiiliiirmulgAli'VP8-0. 1111111111111111 iii111111'.. 111111.,m-zimuin." .--okrir.. • imunmemnnui MEER bltu emsfrilir •,11fr- Hifi we l IR •-r 11:1•• f, 2.AL,u INFUesoki Mr Aft vg, I! KIM -. 141.uur OrbillrillifilL`qa ato,re.w JiEw' 7 IIIIIIIhan ire mar.-.,r--; k 1 A:1mm. ioquire. .112 LIEVAMIlliPleckm ___ —mg i --azz gial"... PEI jnomnrzpearo.mrakif vow rollial910•11113Dal c.r..E •---..:TA r===-E211...iimizzat ...._ 1.-='012.7APJ FinIniffigr =ZA a l VIP • ---= VI eV r , h uE .0 lour :2-mart,„

Ihrik

... —arsernimmilble

1

=11r41.1.

Figure 5.8 North-Northwest Corridor — Potential Routes

20

IIIMIMIIM


11t vr,;01NW:,

1 aliellgairtanithimouni,.. ,,,,---, —oriirirRrf!,11711filnpi 411E1111E

i A a 21 ; 111111 11 ,z:1 :1 1 1 z 1 :

• -3os

,

Ell -ii FI

1g1517,Wril

qau :01

r‘.711

.141124 1 11•1=k t - ilr ME i

i

T.-EMAgin

Old ACLIbilit5Tt' -- -smask7-775Fru7r-,--4

gPr

-4411114

r40 41

yid it= ,tj-s, 11•7

1=acraii WAI1119

=am 111111M

Figure 5.9 Alternate 1


11 .+2 1114,1E..0 MEIRRI " - alpSV , 1-.41110ir-• ILLEF14111■1110Falelrailirlirs,w' 101111014611.2.3&mmaiimaii fr iZ ilagELTIFF% alklitillhiramminfiKr 10,11gfig1F41021111" 111=1.$ I . I

ir=1;

1111111111MMIll

mkt"—

INS"lll1111111111111i lllll II

!Kira ' IS lllll i 11

st*.'

" wrTii. 'Mem mik.4,n. fr.vito, llllll •

,

: ik

lllll

u

Oar*

ea ...

n. .T, r

'LIS Ir011us

a

nIP" nuw illEantp _ T....i.

I r g i t til6N1 1 1. 1 4t I L tri,"

P

ril

!dr

Figure 5.10 Alternate 2

22

iii-Illlll 1111

llll

nie lltvic--

ill'

II llllll

4,1n1;

dr llllll marmillprimieir . ...„4:nrieir. 1'IllT321

W QICAJImus.1111111:iming.s: 1111 • * III

lllll l II

0,1 11

.%ireattlielfazi iimittwvr.=m75.T.4.11 11111 j1W1.1111....n. .tailh -.. E11111Wa ..

rIta. magn 4Zili1ENKM

• Vela as: ,c_r $: , .ffEEF.6"-tm/ i

Olmilltie 16111,46 Ism 1w7r7.7pipm!


c.)110

uglu Tiii29111r `PIANE434 1 R401111

1 .16. 171-70CLU F.:74 ,31.7/ /LI mmirmmiiM6ge, • "'o `77741r77-117-1 ral i Vrall aPi I IV o kr_LGUIMiriEirlIV Cs

Iiii111111F0111,110"

1111.111eftegt. raLnIZIRIMEIE

Z.-7 1-Fl anririnie67111n913211

Wa_?-`gl ro ,,c-ram P

-1 1111

!Au,

lllllll atm

i, t•urq

11.1:u

owl gam

'411111111111., Figure 5.11 Alternate 3

23


UI airieficki• EL la!

g

alNAM oniiir/

iaLeSg.,

JRZERTIMIPIOLimurrdalilErbr haurzinimrirmigre,_ . ...217.11"IPWEIN!!" "

Figure 5.12 Alternate 4

24


Guiiipa-A! BIN mil_ alkti

Mani"

maigiumira Nurg-41r77m-P-rtliP:iti° "

r=1

Illr-P6u117' 1171741"

iwilillirmilinffilwamlun'

1111111. =To irj*NUIIII Nizttlibill

—4=91"mbil!iir RANH a

'IA .!, .....,...... AR

.. WI

IIII:=

Zi

III

lllll m „D

MT

I llllll !!Ili 1

II

III

iji I

21"."1r1.11N1111 1 FISIIII".3 ; „,,, ,‘

i;lirn r8.1 .

iri tLi f n:741111111LPLE,14 vstgL 5nrzlimmr:virils,12 1454ii i9 '114117-1 DI"r%l-PA-IPApir Aii Fr;r"1 FT:r2' 1 1111 19 an WM oui

Marra\

Figure 5.13 Alternate 5


6.0 Transit Travel Demand 6.1 Current Transit Travel Demand Patterns For the travel demand analysis, base data was taken from the 1971 Origin-Destination Study (13) by the City of Edmonton Transportation Planning Branch. This study provided information on daily home-to-work trips, by mode of travel, within Edmonton. Some general characteristics of the 1971 work trip patterns in Edmonton are as follows: - 20% of the 167,000 daily home-to-work trips produced in Edmonton used public transit - 29% of the work trips to the overall central area used public transit - 81% of the peak hour home-to-work trips using public transit were destined for the central area. 1971 peak hour volumes of work trips to the central area by all modes and by public transit for the six main study corridors are shown in Figure 6.1. A significant characteristic of transit users in 1971 was that about 65% of the work trips were by transit "captives" (persons who do not have automobiles available for their trips). This data implies that 35% of the work trips on public transit were by persons who chose transit over the automobile.

6.2 Land Use Data Analysis of future travel demands requires data on the planned future development of the City. For this Study, estimates of population and employment were provided by the Planning Department. (9) This data indicated that the City would develop to a population of about 666,000 persons by the horizon year of 2001, a population increase of 53% over the 1971 population of 435,000 persons. The anticipated horizon year population in each study corridor is shown in Figure 6.2. For the analysis of future transit travel demands, the horizon year population of 666,000 persons was used. Estimates of population and employment by traffic districts of the City are outlined in Appendix Ill of the Technical Appendices.

6.3 Horizon Year Projections Using observed travel behaviour from the 1971 Study (13) and horizon year projections of population and employment, the horizon

Figure 6.1 1971 Transit and All Mode Peak Hour Work Trip Corridor Volumes

27


year transit travel demands were estimated. The first step in this process was the determination of daily work trips to the central area from each district. Then the modal choice between transit and other modes was calculated, using mathematical relationships calibrated to the 1971 data. To determine peak hour travel demands, the daily work trips using transit were converted to peak hour, all purpose transit trips and then assigned to the individual bus and rapid transit routes of each alternative plan. Through this process the estimated peak hour passenger volumes on each bus and rapid transit route were determined. More specific information on the methodology and the results are given in Appendix III. Projections of horizon year travel behaviour predict significant increases in travel demand by public transit. With a City population of

666,000 persons, there would be about 264,000 daily home-to-work trips generated, with about 100,000 of these trips destined for the central area. It was estimated that about 51% of the work trips to the central area would use public transit in the horizon year, compared to 29% in 1971. This results in a projection of 32,000 peak hour transit trips to the central area. In 1971 there were less than 16,000 transit trips to the same area. The estimated peak hour transit demand for each of the study corridors in the horizon year is shown in Figure 6.3. This information suggests a major increase in future public transit travel demand in the south corridor. Increased travel demands will also occur in corridors to the northeast, west, northwest and north. Two primary factors which will contribute to this increased transit travel demand are as follows:

- anticipated strong growth of employment opportunities in the central area - significant increases in out-of-pocket costs to automobile users (mainly in the form of parking cost increases) It was also noted that some increases in transit travel would occur because of improved services offered by rapid transit facilities. However, the effect of the service improvements was found to be much less significant than the two primary factors noted above. Estimated passenger volumes on each transit route are given in detail in Appendix III. Table 6.1 shows passenger volumes on the alternative rapid transit routes. Passenger volumes on bus routes were generally somewhat lower and are not shown in this tabulation.

Bus Service Alt.

Alt. 1

5100 pph

5100 pph

South Central Route

N/A

7500 pph (2 lines combined)

West Route

N/A

N/A (3520 pph via SouthWest Route)

3900 pph

N/A

North Central Route

N/A

N/A

4800 pph

3470 pph

N/A

N/A

North-West

N/A

3065 pph

N/A

3080 pph

4030 pph

4030 pph

North East Route

Alt. 2

Alt. 3

Alt. 4

Alt. 5

4900 pph

4900 pph

5100 pph

5100 pph

8400 pph (2 lines combined)

7820 pph (2 lines combined)

7370 pph (2 lines combined)

7500 pph (2 lines combined)

2200 pph 2200 pph (1975 pph (1975 pph via Southvia SouthWest Route) West Route)

Table 6.1 Maximum Rapid Transit Route Loading (Passengers in peak hour)

28


1 North 36000 46000

5900 - 1971 Population 194000 - Horizon Year Population

North East

North West

96000

49000 72000

147000 ?

/470,PD 1,11 II

/4,;,••45111.12.17

1

ANIL

,Atilezorder• 4,61rcictur2 South East

82000

59000

108000

53000

South 68000 194000

Figure 6.2 1971 and Horizon Year Population by Corridor

29


2550

Peak hour all purpose transit trips

Figure 6.3 Horizon Year Corridor Volume to Central Area by Transit

30


7.0 Transit Cost Analysis 7.1 Basis of Cost Estimates The cost of public transit services may be classified (14,15) into two broad categories: - Operating or variable costs - Capital or fixed costs. Operating costs are directly related to the amount of transit service provided. For example, provision of more service on a bus route would require higher expenditures on operating staff, fuel, parts and maintenance. Capital costs, on the other hand, are only indirectly related to the amount of transit service provided. They may be thought of as the initial setup costs of the transit service. If additional service required more peak hour buses, an initial capital expenditure would be necessary to acquire these buses. The classification of capital and operating costs developed for this study is shown in Table 7.1. Capital costs were estimated for an expanded bus service plan, which included the Northeast Rapid Transit Line, and for the five integrated bus - rapid transit alternative plans, as outlined in Chapter 3. These capital costs were based on projected public transit service requirements in the horizon year. Annual operating costs for each of the horizon year alternatives were estimated on a route by route basis and related directly to projected horizon year passenger volumes. All cost estimates were based on current data and are given in present day dollars.

7.2 Capital Costs Estimates of construction costs for the alternative routes were developed from the preliminary design plans for each route outlined in Appendices I and II. Costs of vehicles and vehicle facilities were based on horizon year peak period vehicle requirements. Detailed calculations are included in Appendices III and IV. It was recognized that corridors without rapid transit service in the horizon year would require some roadway improvements for bus operations, therefore estimated costs of these improvements were also included in the analysis. A summary of the capital costs for each of the alternative plans is shown in Table 7.2. These estimates show that capital investment

Operating Costs

Capital Costs

ii) Operator Wages and Benefits ii) Bus and Rail Vehicle Fuel and Power iii) Bus and Rail Vehicle Maintenance, Servicing, and Parts iv) Administration and Management Overhead

i) Rail Line and Station Construction ii) Rail Vehicle Acquisition Ili) Rail Vehicle Storage and Maintenance Facilities iv) Bus Acquisition v) Bus Storage and Maintenance Facility vi) Bus - Related Roadway Improvements

Table 7.1 Public Transit Capital and Operating Costs E.B.S. Alt.

Alt. 1

Alt. 2

Alt. 3

Alt. 4

Alt. 5

19.1

21.5

23.9

30.0

25.4

844

80 571

106 503

102 524

127 490

104 503

93.26

120.31 56.00 63.10

154.54 74.20 55.58

148.76 71.41 57.90

176.71 88.90 54.15

155.14 72.80 55.58

29.00

8.00

122.26 12.43

247.41 22.21

319.76 28.09

283.52 25.07

Rapid Transit Route Miles Peak Hour Rapid Transit Vehicles Peak Period Buses 1. 2. 3. 4.

RT Line Construction RT Vehicle & Facilities Buses & Facilities Major Bus Corridor Improvements

Total Capital Costs Annual Capital Costs NOTES:

8.00 284.32 25.15

286.07 25.32

I)

E.B.S. means Expanded Bus Service

II)

Rapid Transit Route Miles and Vehicles does not include the Northeast Line Costs of extension of Northeast Line to Clareview not included.

iv)

Annual Capital Costs based on amortization at 8% interest rate over the estimated service life.

v)

All costs in 1975 dollars.

Table 7.2 Summary of Capital Cost Estimates (Costs in millions of dollars)

31


required for the horizon year would be 122 million dollars for the expanded bus service alternative, and from 247 to 320 million dollars for the integrated bus-rapid transit alternatives. For the expanded bus service alternative, the major cost is the investment in buses and associated facilities, while the major expense with the rapid transit alternatives is construction of new rapid transit lines. Annual capital costs of each alternative plan are also shown in Table 7.2. These costs were determined by amortizing each element of capital cost over the service life at an 8% interest rate. The annual amount shown, therefore, represents both depreciation and interest on the capital investment. For Alternative 5, Table 7.3 gives a capital cost breakdown by area. The Jasper Avenue tunnel, since it is common to all routes and is a central component of the plan, is shown separately. Capital costs of rapid transit line construction from the downtown tunnel along the CNR corridor to 107 Avenue and 121 Street have been assigned to the North Corridor in this tabulation (approximately 16.0 million dollars).

7.3 Operating Costs Operating costs of each of the alternative plans were estimated for the horizon year service requirements. A detailed methodology outline is given in Appendix Ill. These cost estimates were based on current Edmonton Transit operating costs as well as costs reported for other transit properties. A summary of the annual horizon year operating costs for each alternative plan, outlined in Table 7.4, shows that investment in rapid transit facilities will result in an overall reduction in transit operating costs of 6.4 to 8.7 million dollars annually (in current dollars). This reduction in operating costs through the use of rapid transit facilities is directly related to the reduction in labour required to provide the necessary level of service. Table 7.5 shows the horizon year operating costs by area for Alternative 5.

Jasper Ave. Tunnel

South Corridor

North Corridor

West Corridor

1. Rapid Transit Line Construction 2. Rapid Transit Vehicles 3. Rapid Transit Vehicle Facilities

17.23 -

76.55 34.10 9.30

46.22 16.50 4.50

15.14 6.60 1.80

Total Capital Costs Annual Capital Costs

17.23 1.41

119.95 10.06

67.22 5.63

23.54 1.98

NOTES:

i)

Annual Capital Cost based on amortization at 8% Interest rate over the estimated service life.

ii)

All costs in 1975 dollars.

Table 7.3 Breakdown of Rapid Transit Capital Costs of Alternative 5 (Costs in millions of dollars)

Alternative E.B.S. Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Annual Rapid Transit Operating Costs

Annual Bus Operating Costs

Total Annual Operating Costs

1.97 10.20 12.07 11.79 13.77 12.30

46.55 31.94 27.98 29.26 27.44 27.48

48.52 42.14 40.05 41.05 41.21 39.78

Table 7.4 Summary of Operating Cost Estimates (costs in millions of 1975 dollars)

South Corridor West Corridor North Corridor Other Areas

Annual Rapid Transit Operating Costs

Annual Bus Operating Costs

Total Annual Operating Costs

6.13 0.93 2.81 2.43

13.16 1.69 6.89 5.75

19.29 2.62 9.70 8.18

Table 7.5 Breakdown of Alternative 5 Operating Costs by Area (Costs in millions of 1975 dollars)

32


8.0 impact of Rapid Transit 8.1 Overview of Impacts A rapid transit line affects two groups, the users of the facility and the community-atlarge. Persons who use the rapid transit service are likely to enjoy a service which is more reliable and comfortable than regular bus service. Furthermore, the higher speed and more direct route will usually provide reductions in origin-to-destination travel time, compared to bus service. As far as transit users are concerned, the effect of a rapid transit line will be an improvement in the service provided. However, effects of a future rapid transit line on the community-at-large are more diverse and more difficult to assess. In general, they would fall into the following categories: - property acquisition and removal of existing dwellings and other buildings for provision of necessary rights-of-way - direct effects on the physical environment surrounding the facility, such as noise levels, vibrations and aesthetic considerations - interference with various activities such as pedestrian circulation and vehicular access, due to construction and operation of the facility - the overall social, environmental and land use changes which may eventually occur but are not a direct physical consequence of the rapid transit line. Examples of these changes could be land use development or redevelopment, altered community living standards through changed accessibility to employment opportunities and less disruption of inner city neighbourhoods by automobile traffic.

Walk-In

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

21,100 54,900 84,400 46,000 46,000

The first three categories above may be described as direct, while the fourth covers indirect, community impacts. In this Study an analysis of the following impacts was carried out: - a review of the service characteristics of each alternative rapid transit plan - investigation of each rapid transit line's direct physical effects on adjacent communities. Indirect or secondary effects of alternative rapid transit plans were not considered. It was felt that these could more appropriately be dealt with during the more detailed planning work on future routes.

8.2 Service Characteristics A very general measure of the service effectiveness of a transit route is the size of the coverage area or the number of people in the area served by the route. In Table 8.1, estimates of the horizon year population within the coverage area of each alternative rapid transit plan are shown. Coverage area population is divided into two groups as follows: - primary or walk-in population, which is the population of all zones adjacent to a rapid transit line, representing potential walk-in patrons - secondary or transfer population, which is the population of all zones served by bus routes feeding into a rapid transit line and park-and-ride services. Coverage effectiveness in the north and south corridors is determined primarily by the

North Corridor Transfer 67,800 64,400 64,200 58,300 58,300

location of the alternative routes. Rapid transit routes along arterial roadway rights-ofway have a higher walk-in coverage than rapid transit routes along railway corridors. This is due to the lower level of residential development found adjacent to these railway corridors. On the other hand, primary coverage of alternative routes in the west corridor is approximately proportional to the length of the lines. A second measure of the service effectiveness of a rapid transit route is the total reduction in user travel time, compared to the expanded bus service. This measure reflects both improved service to individual patrons and the total number of users. Estimated reductions in user travel times for each alternative plan are shown in Table 8.2. These quantities represent horizon year peak period travel time savings for transit trips to and from the downtown area. Analyses of alternative plans, with and without a direct rapid transit connection to the University area, were also carried out. It was estimated that provision of a University line would provide about 160,000 hours/year of additional peak period travel ,time savings in the horizon year. From analyses of transit travel times it was found that alternative rapid transit lines would provide faster trips to the central area than expanded bus services. The greatest reductions in travel time occur for residents of the outlying areas. With Alternative 5, travel time reductions would be approximately 10 to 15 minutes for the Mill Woods area, 4 to 7 minutes for Castle Downs

Total

Walk-In

West Corridor Transfer

Total

Walk-In

South Corridor Transfer

Total

89,000 119,000 149,000 104,000 104,000

33,500

39,100 81,700

39,100 115,000

26,700 25,000

88,500 90,000

115,000 115,000

75,200 53,800 67,300 96,700 75,200

128,900 150,400 137,000 91,600 128,900

204,000 204,000 204,000 188,000 204,000

Table 8.1 Horizon Year Coverage Population of Alternative Rapid Transit Plans

33


and 4 to 7 minutes for West Jasper Place. Travel time reductions would be relatively low for residents of the inner City. Overall, the average travel time reduction with Alternative 5 would be approximately 2 minutes per trip. A review of the travel time reductions in the north and south corridors established that the routes along railway rights-of-way provide the greatest travel time effectiveness. This is due to the relatively direct route to downtown along railway corridors, as well as to the limited number of roadway crossings. In the west corridor, the route straight west from downtown (as in Alternative 2) provides the greatest travel time effectiveness.

8.3 Community Impacts Reports on Light Rapid Transit (10) in European situations suggest that the impact would be less than with many other forms of urban transportation. However, the implementation of a new rapid transit facility in an existing community is not likely to pass unnoticed. In this study, areas where each alternative plan would have some significant effects on adjacent communities have been identified. This analysis was based on preliminary functional plans for each alternative route, as shown in Appendices I and II. Additional details of the effects of each line are provided in Appendix VI. The main impacts of the alternative plans are summarized below. South Corridor To the south, a line via the CPR right-ofway (as in Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 5) would have little effect on existing communities adjacent to the route. A branch line at-grade into the University area and extended south along 114 Street to

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

about 71 Avenue, (as in Alternatives 1 and 5) would create the following problems: - at least 4 houses in the North Garneau area would be removed and the remaining residences along 89 Avenue would be subjected to the regular passing of trains as well as to some restrictions on vehicular access - operation of the rapid transit line through the University and Hospital area would likely impose some restrictions pedestrian circulation and service vehicle access - in the Belgravia - McKernan area at least 12 existing houses along 114 Street would probably have to be removed and 20 or more houses would be within 75 feet of the line. The main line to the south through the University area and along the 114 Street - 111 Street corridor, (as in Alternative 4) would have the same community impacts as the University branch line. Further south some minor conflicts with existing development might arise, but generally the community impact would be minimal. Finally, the branch line across the river would cause some disruption to the University Farm and River Valley parkland. North Corridor A line to the northwest via the CNR right-ofway (as in Alternatives 1, 3, 4 and 5) would have a minimal impact on existing communities along the route as far north as 125 Avenue. The extension of this line north into Castle Downs, (as in Alternatives 4 and 5) would create some problems along either the 127 Street alignment or the 113A Street alignment. Along 127 Street considerable property would have to be acquired (about 30 - 35 residences and other buildings.) Alternatively, the alignment north on 113A

North Corridor

West Corridor

South Corridor

Total

16,700 hours/year 1,200 hours/year 51,300 hours/year 74,500 hours/year 74,500 hours/year

43,700 hours/year 168,500 hours/year

318,000 hours/year 289,300 hours/year 313,500 hours/year 119,100 hours/year 318,000 hours/year

378,000 hours/year 459,000 hours/year 365,000 hours/year 322,000 hours/year 496,000 hours/year

128,800 hours/year 104,000 hours/year

Table 8.2 Horizon Year Peak Hour Transit User Travel Time Savings (Compared to Expanded Bus Service Alternative)

34

Street would require the acquisition of properties and buildings along 127 Avenue and 113A Street. The north-central line, via 106 Street, Princess Elizabeth Avenue and 97 Street (as in Alternatives 2 and 3) would be at-grade on existing roadway rights-of-way, with widening as required. Along 106 Street it is unlikely that any existing buildings would have to be removed for construction of the line, but there are about 45 residential and commercial - industrial buildings in this area which would be within 75 feet of the line. Further north along 97 Street, a row of 47 existing houses between 118 and 125 Avenue would have to be removed. Between 127 and 137 Avenue the line would cause significant problems for commercial development on the west side of 97 Street. In this area the expected loss of parking and the access restrictions would impose a hardship on many existing businesses. North of 137 Avenue the line could be accommodated within the existing roadway right-of-way with very little difficulty. West Corridor A rapid transit line to the west along Jasper Avenue, 102 Avenue, Stony Plain Road and 100 Avenue (as in Alternatives 1 and 4) would be largely at-grade on widened roadway rights-of-ways. This would necessitate the removal of several existing buildings in the vicinity of 124 Street and Jasper Avenue, approximately 18 - 20 existing dwellings along Stony Plain Road, and about 6 residential buildings along 100 Avenue. Along 102 Avenue the implementation of the line would require the removal of existing trees and boulevards as well as a structure across the Groat Ravine. Extending this line south along 156 Street would probably not require the


removal of any existing buildings, but 65 - 70 residential buildings would be within 75 feet of the line. An extension of this line to the west, along 100A Avenue and Stony Plain Road, would have about 40 residences within 75 feet of the line, while an alternative route extension utilizing the 100 Avenue corridor would likely have a somewhat lower community impact. The second main alternative for a rapid transit line to the west area utilizes the 107 Avenue right-of-way west of 121 Street (as in Alternative 5). This alternative would result in the removal of several existing buildings in the area of 107 Avenue and 124 Street. Additionally, some right-of-way property widening would be necessary along 156 Street from 107 Avenue to 100 Avenue. About 40 residential buildings would be within 75 feet of the line along 107 Avenue and about 36 residential buildings would be within 75 feet of the line along 156 Street. Further Work In the previous section the main impacts of each route have been summarized. This outline is sufficient to identify the major problems associated with each altern4tive. In the more detailed planning work on individual lines it will be possible to develop a more thorough understanding of the specific community impacts. Also, at that level of planning it will be possible to develop design solutions which can minimize any undesirable consequences of the rapid transit facility.

35


-


9.0 Evaluation of Alternative Plans 9.1 Introduction In the preceding chapters of this report the investigations of alternative rapid transit route plans were outlined. This information was utilized in the evaluation phase of the study to compare the alternative routes for each area. Through this area-by-area evaluation, the fifth alternative rapid transit plan was developed. Summaries of the costs, service characteristics and community impacts for the alternative routes serving each area are given in Tables 9.1, 9.2 and 9.3. The net annual costs shown in these tables for the alternative routes are the estimated increased costs over an expanded bus service alternative. These net annual costs are the increased annual capital cost of the rapid transit facilities, minus the reduction in horizon year operating costs (compared to the expanded bus service alternative). Net annual costs rather than total costs are used, since the alternative rapid transit routes affect different components of the overall transit network in each area.

9.2 North Area A summary of the alternative routes in the north area is given in Table 9.1. Initial comparisons of these alternatives reveal the following: - Alternatives 1 and 4, the lines to the northwest, have a lower net cost than Alternatives 2 and 3(a), the north-central lines. - The direct community impacts of Alternatives 1 and 4 are significantly less than the north-central lines. - Greater improvements in trans[t travel time are realized with the northwest routes, due to fewer conflicts with roadway vehicular traffic. - A lower level of primary coverage is provided by Alternatives 1 and 4 than by the north-central routes. It should be noted that two lines to the north area, as in Alternative 3, have a significantly higher net annual cost than any of the other plans. However, this alternative does provide the highest level of population coverage. The least costly alternative which provides service into the newly developed area of Castle Downs is Alternative 4. With this

alternative, most of the bus routes serving the north area would be reoriented to connect to rapid transit stations, rather than running downtown. Some bus services would be maintained to the central area, via the 97 Street corridor, and mainline service would be provided between NAIT - Kingsway area and the downtown. Overall, this alternative can be well integrated with existing and proposed bus services. In the preliminary functional planning work alternative alignments for this route north of 125 Avenue were investigated: - an at-grade line along 127 Street and 153 Avenue to Castle Downs. - a line in tunnel under the CNR Calder Yards and at-grade along 127 Avenue and 113A Street.

1. Total RT Capital Cost 2. Amortized AT Capital Cost 3. Reduced Amortized Bus Capital Costs (compared to expanded bus alternative). 4. Reduced Horizon Year Operating Costs (compared to expanded bus alternative) 5. Horizon Year Net Annual Cost (compared to expanded bus alternative). 6. Horizon Year Coverage Population (a) Primary (b) Total 7. Horizon Year Travel Time Saving (hours/year) 8. Community Impacts

Table 9.1

The advantage of the second alignment is that it provides a more central and direct route to the downtown. On the other hand, the disadvantage of the 113A Street alignment is that the necessary tunnel under Calder Yards would be both costly and difficult to construct. This alternative alignment, utilizing 113A Street, should be further investigated to establish the feasibility of the tunnel under the Calder Yards. Another factor which should be recognized in reviewing the north side routes is the potential future requirement for a rapid transit connection to St. Albert. With Alternative 4, a number of alignment connections to St. Albert would be possible, whereas with the north-central lines, the possibilities are

ALT. 1

ALT. 2

ALT. 3

ALT. 4

ALT 3(a)

Northwest Line to 125 Avenue

North Central Line to 137 Avenue

Two Lines to the North

Northwest Line to Castle Downs

North Central Line to Castle Downs

39.13 3.28

54.88 4.60

90.22 7.56

67.22 5.63

65.48 5.51

1.37

1.50

2.17

1.80

1.61

0.88

1.44

2.37

1.75

1.18

1.03

1.66

3.02

2.08

2.72

21,000 89,000

55,000 119,000

84,000 150,000

16,700 Low

1,200 Moderate106 St. Area High97 St. Area

51,300 LowNW Area Moderate106 St. Area High97 St. Area

46,000 104,000

65,000 119,000

74,500 39,000 HighModerateCalder Area 106 St. Area High97 St. Area

Comparison of Alternatives for North Corridor (Costs in millions of 1975 dollars)

37


limited. Also a faster, more direct service between the downtown and St. Albert would be provided by the northwest route.

9.3 South Area Table 9.2 provides a summary of the four alternative plans for the south area. The evaluation of these alternatives revealed the following: - Alternatives 1, 2 and 3, using the CPR right-of-way to the south, have a lower net annual cost than Alternative 4 along the 114 Street and 111 Street corridor. This is due to the higher operating costs associated with the lower speeds along the Alternative 4 route. - The improvements in transit time to the downtown are highest with Alternative 1, but Alternative 4 provides the greatest level of primary coverage. - Community impacts are minimal along the CPR right-of-way but Alternatives 1, 3 and 4 may create some problems in the University Area and adjacent communities. The travel time savings shown in Table 9.2 are for downtown trips only. As indicated in Section 8.2, an additional 160,000 hours/year of travel time savings would be realized by University trips with Alternatives 1, 3 and 4. An advantage in utilizing the CPR right-of-way for the main line to the south is that the line could be economically constructed to full rail rapid transit geometric standards for possible future use of larger cars. Also, the faster route to the downtown along the CPR corridor provides better transit service for the newly developing areas on the outskirts of the City. The main disadvantage of Alternative 1 is the community impact of the branch line into the University Area and south to 71 Avenue. During the study, a number of tunnel alignments were investigated as possible solutions to this problem. A comparison of the construction costs is as follows: - Line at-grade along 89 Avenue and 114 Street to terminal (Estimated construction cost = $7.5 Million) - Line in tunnel under 89 Avenue and 114 Street to south of 87 Avenue, then at grade along 114 Street to terminal (Estimated construction cost = $20.3 Million) - Line in tunnel under 87 Avenue and 114 Street to south of University Avenue, then at

38

grade along 114 Street to terminal (Estimated construction cost = $ 27.3 Million) - Line in tunnel under 87 Avenue and 114 Street to terminal south of Belgravia Road (Estimated construction cost = $44.9 Million) Costs presented for Alternative 1 are based on the line being constructed entirely atgrade. With Alternative 1, most bus routes in the south-central area would be rerouted to connect to the mainline along the CPR rightof-way. The terminus of the University branch line would provide a transfer point for bus

5. Horizon Year Net Annual Cost (compared to expanded bus alternative 6. Horizon Year Coverage Population (a) Primary (b) Total 7. Horizon Year Travel Time Savings (hours/year) 8. Community Impacts

9.4 West Area The costs, service characteristics and community impacts of four alternative plans for the west area of the City are summarized in Table 9.3. Evaluations of these four alternatives indicated the following: - A single line to the west, as in Alternatives 2, 2(a) and 4(a) is more economical than two

ALT. 3

ALT. 4

CPR Line

CPR Line and Branch Line to University

Line through University & south via 114St.&111 St. Corridor

107.08 8.99

112.72 9.45

117.03 9.87

3.42

3.19

3.25

3.28

5.31

4.26

4.65

3.80

1.33

1.54

1.55

2.79

7.5,000 243,000

54,000 204,000

67,000 204,000

97,000 188,000

361,000 HighGarneau Area ModerateUniversity Area HighBelgravia McKernan Area

289,000 Low

ALT. 1

1. Total RT Capital Cost 2. Amortized RT Capital Cost 3. Reduced Amortized Bus Capital Costs (compared to expanded bus alternative). 4. Reduced Horizon Year Operating Costs (compared to expanded bus alternative).

routes serving the extreme south-west areas of West Jasper Place and Riverbend. Local bus service would still be required along 109 Street and 99 Street to the downtown.

CPR Line and Branch Line through University to 71 Avenue

119.95 10.06

ALT. 2

119,000 313,000 HighHighGarneau Area Garneau Area ModerateModerateUniversity Area University Area HighBelgravia McKernan Area

Table 9.2 Comparison of Alternatives for South Corridor (Costs in millions of 1975 dollars)


lines serving the west area, as in Alternative 4. - Alternative 2, a line straight west from the downtown tunnel, provides the highest level of transit service to the west area. - The least costly alternative for the west area is a branch line along 107 Avenue from the Northwest Line, as shown by Alternative 2(a). - Direct impacts on adjacent communities are lowest with Alternative 2(a). In these comparisons it should be noted that the capital costs of the rapid transit line from the downtown, along the CNR right-ofway to 121 Street and 107 Avenue, have been assigned to the Northwest Line discussed in Section 9.2. These capital costs are approximately 16.0 Million dollars (in 1975 dollars). However, the costs presented in Table 9.3 demonstrate that Alternative 2(a) is less costly than an expanded bus service in the horizon year, if the northwest link is already provided. If the 16.0 million dollar capital cost of this link were assigned to the west line, it would have a net annual cost slightly higher than the expanded bus service alternative. One disadvantage of Alternative 2(a), when compared to Alternative 2, is the lower reduction in travel time over the expanded bus service. This is a reflection of the less direct route to the downtown via Alternative 2(a) for patrons south of 100 Avenue. However, Alternative 2(a) does provide significantly better service to the central area than does regular bus service. Alternative 2(a) may be well integrated with the existing bus transit routes by establishing the intitial terminus of the line at the Jasper Place bus loop. Bus routes serving the areas south of 79 Avenue may connect to the west line at the Jasper Place terminus, or cross the Quesnell Bridge to connect to the south line. Future extensions of Alternative 2(a) could be provided to the south along 156 Street, or to the west along the 100 Avenue corridor.

9.5 Review of Alternatives Through the area-by-area evaluation of the four initial alternative plans, a fifth alternative was developed, as shown in Figure 9.1. This alternative consists of the Alternative 4 route to the north, the Alternative 1 route to the

south and the Alternative 2(a) route to the Jasper Place terminus. Service is provided to all the major growth areas of the City, in this alternative, by routes which represent a realistic trade-off between the competing objectives of minimizing costs, providing improved service to transit patrons and avoiding unnecessary impacts on existing communities. A summary of the costs and service

ALT 2(a)

ALT. 4

ALT. 4(a)

Line to Meadowlark via 102 Avenue & 156 Street

Line via 107 Avenue &US Street

Line via 102 Avenue & 100 Avenue Corridor with 2nd line crossing river in Southwest

Line via 102 Avenue &100 Avenue Corridor

49.55 4.15

37.80 3.19

64.14 5.34

47.43 3.97

1.68

1.68

1.41

1.54

2.62

2.48

1.85

2.08

Saving 0.15

Saving 0.97

2.08

0.35

34,000 115,000

33,000 114,000

27,000 115,000

24,000 115,000

168,000 Moderate102 Ave. HighStony Plain Road Area High156 St. Area

119,000 Moderate107 Ave. High156 St. Area

129,000 Moderate102 Ave. HighStony Plain Road Area ModerateRiver Valley

128,000 Moderate102 Ave. HighStony Plain Road Area High100 Ave. Area

ALT. 2

1. Total RT Capital Cost 2. Amortized AT Capital Cost 3. Reduced Amortized Bus Capital Costs (compared to expanded bus alternative). 4. Reduced Horizon Year Operating Costs (compared to expanded bus alternative). 5. Horizon Year Net Annual Cost (compared to expanded bus alternative) 6. Horizon Year Coverage Population (a) Primary (b) Total 7. Horizon Year Travel Time Saving (hours/year) 8. Community Impacts

characteristics of the alternative rapid transit plans and the expanded bus service alternative is shown in Table 9.4. Capital costs for an expanded bus service in the horizon year are estimated to be 122 million dollars, whereas the capital costs of the integrated bus light rapid transit alternatives range from 247 to 320 million dollars. With the additional capital investment in rapid transit, there would be a significant

Table 9.3 Comparison of Alternatives for West Corridor (Costs in millions of 1975 dollars)

39


reduction in the overall horizon year transit operating costs. This is demonstrated by the estimated annual operating cost of 49 million dollars for the expanded bus service, versus annual operating costs of 40 to 42 million dollars for the rapid transit alternatives. In terms of transit service, the rapid transit alternatives provide an overall improvement in transit travel time to the central area. Alternative 5, the most effective plan, reduces peak period travel times for transit patrons by about 500,000 hours/year, with the greatest service improvements accruing to residents of the newly developing outer areas of the City. Community impacts of rapid transit have been outlined briefly in the earlier sections of the report. While these are not expected to be a major problem, it should be noted that rapid transit lines utilizing roadway rights-ofway would likely have a greater impact on adjacent communities than rapid transit lines along railway rights-of-way. Primary service coverage of the rapid transit lines along roadway rights-of-way, however, is generally higher.

1. Rapid Transit Capital Cost (Annual Costs) 2. Major Bus Corridor Capital Costs (Annual Costs) 3. Capital Costs of Buses and Facilities (Annual Costs)

Capital Cost - Subtotal 4. Horizon Year Rapid Transit Operating Costs 5. Horizon Year Bus Operating Costs

Horizon Year Operating Costs 6. Total Annual Cost 7. Horizon Year Coverage Population (a) Primary (b) Total 8. Horizon Year Travel Time Saving over Expanded Bus Service Alternative (hours/year)

E.B.S. Alt.

Alt. 1

Alt. 2

Alt. 3

Alt. 4

Alt. 5

-

176.31 (14.75)

228.74 (19.15)

220.17 (18.42)

265.61 22.25)

227.94 (19.07)

-

-

-

29.00 (2.37)

8.00 (0.65)

93.26 (10.06)

63.10 (6.81)

55.58 (6.00)

57.90 (6.25)

54.15 (5.84)

55.58 (6.00)

122.26 (12.43)

247.41 (22.21)

284.32 (25.15)

286.07 (25.32)

319.76 (28.09)

283.52 (25.07)

1.97

10.20

12.07

11.79

13.77

12.30

46.55

31.94

27.98

29.26

27.44

27.48

48.52 60.95

42.14 64.35

40.05 65.20

41.05 66.37

41.21 69.30

64.85

-

96,300 332,000

142,200 439,000

151,600 353,000

169,400 408,000

145,000 422,000

-

378,000

459,000

365,000

322,000

496,000

8.00 (0.65)

Note: I) E.B.S. Indicates Expanded Bus Service.

TABLE 9.4 Summary of Alternatives (Costs in millions of 1975 dollars)

40

39.78


Figure 9.1 Alternative 5

, Rapid Transit Routes Alternative RT Alignment ...... Possible Future Extensions , Main Bus Service 41


0.0 Implementation Priorities and Areas for Further Study 10.1 Introduction One of the main objectives of the Study was to establish the implementation priorities for future lines. In this section of the report the rapid transit lines will be reviewed with a view to determining the next stage of rapid transit development. Specific timing of the implementation of the rapid transit routes has not been discussed in this Study. Implementation timing of future rapid transit routes will be dependent on the following factors: - The outcome of other studies such as Transportation Plan Part III (currently underway) - Resources available for urban transportation in the future - Experience with rapid transit gained from the operation of the Northeast Line and other future lines.

10.2 Rapid Transit Implementation Priorities Projections of expected growth in different areas of the City point out that during the next 25 years, over half of the residential growth in Edmonton will occur on the southern fringes of the City. The other major residential growth area is the North-east, which will be served by the Northeast Line. From the horizon year estimates of transit travel demand, it appears that the peak demand is likely to exceed 5000 passengers per hour in only two corridors. The Northeast Corridor can be expected to have one-way volumes of 5000 to 6000 passengers in the peak hour and the South Corridor can be expected to have one-way peak hour volumes of 8000 to 9000 passengers. These projections of City growth and increased transit demand indicate strongly that the south corridor should receive the highest priority for the next rapid transit line. The general transportation situation in the south area of the City further emphasizes the need for improved transportation in the south corridor. With major residential growth occurring south of the river and the concentration of employment immediately north of the river, the need for additional cross-river capacity is evident.

A second factor to consider is the costbenefit aspect of each route. In Table 10.1, net annual costs and horizon year travel time savings for each corridor are shown. This information demonstrates that the south corridor line provides the highest service benefit for the investment involved. It also establishes that the west corridor rapid transit plan provides a considerably higher benefit cost ratio than the north corridor plan and should therefore be given a higher priority for implementation. In addition to these considerations, the operation of rapid transit trains would be expedited by a continuous route through the downtown to the south side. Operation of any additional trains into the existing dead-end tunnel would be both difficult and costly. Based on this analysis it was concluded that the priorities for the extension of rapid transit facilities should be as follows: 1. -south area 2. -west area 3. -north area It was also recognized that extensions in the west and north areas of the City will be implemented at a much later date and therefore involve a greater degree of uncertainty. Consequently, further reviews of the situation in these areas will probably be required.

South Corridor West Corridor North Corridor Notes:

(i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

10.3 Proposed Staging of Rapid Transit Extensions Table 10.2 outlines a staging plan for rapid transit extensions. This staging plan is based on considerations of the priorities outlined in the preceding section. Completion of the tunnel under Jasper Avenue through the downtown would be the first stage, since it will be necessary for the extension to the south. In the second stage the rapid transit extension would be implemented to the University and/or south along the CPR rightof-way to the 51 Avenue area. With increased transit demand in the west and north corridors, improvements to the regular bus service should be considered. Implementation of the rapid transit line west to Jasper Place, as well as extensions of the south lines, are suggested as the third stage of development. The rapid transit line north to Castle Downs would be implemented during the fourth stage and further extensions in the south and west would be considered at that time.

10.4 Area for Further Study Several areas are identified for further study as follows: - Ongoing long term plan review and updating

Net Annual Cost (Millions of Dollars)

Potential Horizon Year Travel Time Saving (hours/ Year)

Travel Time Saving to Cost Ratio (hours/ Dollar)

1.33 0.43 2.08

361,000 104,000 75,000

0.27 0.24 0.04

Net Annual Cost of West Corridor route includes capital cost of link from 121 Street to downtown (approximately 16.0 million dollars). Potential horizon year travel time savings from south corridor include travel time savings for areas served In the west corridor. Capital Cost of Jasper Avenue tunnel not assigned to any of these corridors (approximately 17.23 million dollars). Costs in 1976 dollars.

Table 10.1 Summary of Costs and User Benefits by Corridor.

43


- Detailed planning of high priority facilities for implementation - Monitoring of operational experiences and facilities for feedback to future planning work. In the alternative rapid transit plans, two areas were noted as requiring further study and resolution. One area is the alignment of the north route from 125 Avenue to Castle Downs. Another is the alignment for a future extension of the west route into the West J.P. Outline Plan Area. Further planning work is required in each of these areas in order to update the route plans. In addition to this type of rapid transit plan review, it will also be necessary to be responsive to other studies, such as the University Area Transportation Study, which may require changes to the City's Rapid Transit Plans. The line to the south is suggested as the highest priority line for implementation. For this route a detailed functional design study should be carried out, which would include the following: - Comprehensive review of community impacts and the development of possible design solutions - Integrated land use - transportation plans for the station areas - Completion of functional design plans for track alignment and stations - Detailed plans for bus route - rapid transit integration - Cost estimates for capital programming - Construction Staging plan. The third area suggested for future work is related to monitoring of operational experiences of facilities, such as the Northeast Line, to ensure that the plans are relevant to the current situation in Edmonton. Specifically, reliable, up-to-date data on the operational characteristics, costs and passenger demand characteristics should be maintained and reviewed periodically. Through this work additional information may be obtained to aid in future planning studies.

Development Stages

South Area

West Area

1.

- Regular Bus Service - Completion of Jasper Avenue Tunnel to 109 Street.

- Regular Bus Service

- Regular Bus Service

2.

- Rapid Transit south to University and/or 51 Avenue Area.

- Improvements to Bus Service

- Improvements to Bus Service

3.

- Rapid Transit Line extensions to Mill Woods, Kaskitayo, and Belgravia Areas.

- Rapid Transit west to Jasper Place Terminal

- Improvements to Bus Service

4.

- Possible Rapid Transit Extension to Riverbend/Terwillegar Area.

- Possible Rapid Transit Line extension to West J.P. Area

- Rapid Transit Line north to Castle Downs Area

Table 10.2 Proposed Staging of Rapid Transit Extensions

44

North Area


eferences 1.

PARKINSON, I.E., "Passenger Transport in Canadian Urban Areas", Canadian Transport Commission, Government of Canada, 1970.

2.

"Metropolitan Edmonton Transportation Study, Volume 1: Requirements", Conducted by the Edmonton District Planning Commission and Member Communities in Co-operation with the Government of the Province of Alberta, 1963.

3.

"Metropolitan Edmonton Transportation Study, Volume 2: Plan and Program", Conducted by the Edmonton District Planning Commission and Member Communities in Co-operation with the Government of the Province of Alberta, 1963.

4.

CANADIAN BECHTEL LTD., "Rapid Transit for the City of Edmonton", 1963.

5.

BAKKER, J.J., "Public Transportation in Edmonton", 1968.

6.

DELEUW, CATHER LTD., "Rapid Transit Feasibility Study: Northwest-Northeast Line", 1970.

7.

DELEUW, CATHER LTD., "Rapid Transit Feasibility Study: University Line", 1971.

8.

THE UNIVERSITY PRACTICUM IN RAPID TRANSIT, "Light Rapid Transit: The Immediate Answer for Edmonton", Department of Extension, University of Alberta, 1972.

9.

"Population and Employment Projections - City of Edmonton 1971 - 2001", Report prepared by Research and Long Range Planning Branch, City Planning Department, April 1976.

10.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (U.S.A.), "State of the Art of Light Rail Transit", Draft Report DOT-UT-50009, January, 1976.

11.

GM TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, "Light Rail Transit Systems", Report prepared by General Motors Technical Centre, Warren, Michigan, August, 1975.

12.

"Light Rail Transit", Special Report 161, Transportation Research Board, June, 1975.

13.

"The 1971 Origin-Destination Study", Report prepared by the City of Edmonton, Transportation Planning Branch, Studies and Research Section, July, 1974.

14.

"Urban Bus Transit: A Planning Guide", Proceedings of a Course on Urban Bus Planning, Edited by J. Shortreed, Transport Group, University of Waterloo, May, 1974.

15.

"Urban Mass Transit Planning", Course notes, Edited by W.S. Homburger, The Institute of Transportation and Traffic Engineering, University of California, 1967.


Designed and illustrated by I nographus Ltd. Printing by Stuart Brendle Printing Services Ltd. Edmonton, Alberta.

Edmonton (Alta.) - 1977 - Rapid transit extension study (1977-01)  
Edmonton (Alta.) - 1977 - Rapid transit extension study (1977-01)  
Advertisement