Page 1

SD LIBRARY

. 3018

II III II

T074/9004/1978

• SOUTH CORRIDOR EDMONTON.-TRANSPORTA

00EVEL EMIIIJDOU

LoLade QLLL

VuaLnAie

.-4 ,,,Ir-, - --- • •

----.

-- ....,...",,,•-••,,-:

-'.--

_

-...-- • -

• _--_. •-z---A...-,--- --....----=_ - -fr---2.7 -.-• . -,' , ;.;-..... , • ...., -^" ••:„ ,_ C .„ie. ..rzae.r.n. - r < .. - '^".--..."'",... -.' -i: • ,..,,i4c--'0'5'.- '''''f0.2:7:5.)-;'-:' '4.i -• -ns•-s'*•,:n.' ;A:C7'•-• -."..t.'s ,---v.. Z. ' -fi'l. f'''''' :C•Z7-f.4%.:."'ni:Rfal''7'ig --"" -

IMPACT STUDY VOLUME I: COMMUNITY PROFILE TECHNICAL APPENDIX TRANSPORT TION SYSTEMS DESIGN DEPARIMERVir

....' --"N--1C?:•:-J-4.4'..?-1-:


0.03:133ing DOPOStra001

RY. LIBRA Ili* COI a Ed01130h011

SOUTH CORRIDOR LRT STUDY IMPACT STUDY VOLUME I: COMMUNITY PROFILES TECHNICAL APPENDIX

Prepared by: Transportation Planning December, 1978


PREFACE

On October 11, 1977, City Council approved a study to examine the feasibility of a southern extension of the Light Rail Transit System. The terms of reference for the South Light Rail Transit Corridor Study, as reviewed by City Council April 25, 1978, include the provision of a community impact assessment. The established procedure for an impact assessment within the City of Edmonton is a two-phase process:

Phase I - Corresponding to a function planning level:

1.

Documenting the social and physical structures of communities along the proposed LRT corridor

2.

Identifying the general impacts of an LRT system

3.

Identifying locations where the potential for impacts exist

4.

Suggesting alternatives to minimize negative impacts.

Phase II - Corresponding to a detailed design level:

1.

To formulate planning guidelines which respond to both the introduction of the transit system, as well as existing transportation and land use problems present at the corridor-wide scale.

2.

To formulate detailed land use plans and urban design guidelines in each station area which can be used as a basis for future redevelopment;

3.

To involve concerned citizens, businessmen, land owners, city departments, and other interested groups in the process of formulating land use recommendations.

(1) Northeast Light Rail Transit Corridor Study City of Edmonton and du Toit Associates; Earl Berger Ltd. March, 1978, p.l.

-1-


The Phase T SLRT Impact Study is organized in the following manner:

Volume I. Community Profiles

A.

Identifying communities affected by the proposal; and

B.

Profiling the existing social and physical characteristics of communities along the proposed LRT corridor.

Volume II. Preliminary Impact Analysis

A.

Identifying impacts of LRT regardless of location,

B.

Identifying locations along the South Corridor where the potential for impact exists; and

C.

Suggesting alternatives to minimize negative impacts.

This report was compiled by Miss M. Anderson with guidance with Mr. R. Daviss, Mr. G. Latham and Mr. J. Tofflemire. Acknowledgement goes to Mr. L. Gordichuk, Mr. F. Zaprawa and Mr. S. Wilks for their assistance in completing the study. Demographic data was supplied by Mr. Greg Sinclair from the Alberta Bureau of Statistics. Graphics were prepared by Mrs. Susan McGillivray.

Thanks also go to the Community Planning Branch, City of Edmonton Planning Department for their input throughout the Study.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page PREFACE 1.1 Definitions 1.2 Community Profiles Introduction 1.2.1 Downtown 1.2.2 Oliver 1.2.3 Garneau 1.2.4 University 1.2.5 McKernan 1.2.6 Belgravia 1.2.7 Parkallen 1.2.8 Strathcona 1.2.9 Queen Alexandra 1.2.10 Coronet Industrial Area 1.2.11 Ritchie 1.2.12 Allendale 1.2.13 Hazeldean 1.2.14 Pleasantview 1.2.15 Duggan 1.2.16 Strathcona Industrial Park 1.3 Conclusions

iv 1 3 11 19 27 35 43 51 59 67 75 83 91 99 107 115 123 131


1.1 DEFINITIONS

Population Characteristics

The male-female population figures were obtained from 1976 statistics. These figures were applied to formulate age/sex population pyramids. Similarly, the marital status information was obtained from 1976 data. The catagories used (le. single, married, divorced, widowed and separated) are self-explanatory.

"Mother tongue" statistics were obtained from 1976 data. It is important to note, that for the city as a whole, mother tongue is broken down only into "English", "French", and "other". This was not satisfactory for comparative purposes. According to Statistics Canada, "mother tongue" is the language first learned and which is still understood. For this report, the variable was used to identify ethnic origin.

Households and Housing

Households by type were obtained from 1976 data. "A household consists of a person or group of persons occupying one dwelling."* "A census family consists of a husband and/or wife including single children (regardless of age) living in the same dwelling. A family may consist, also, of a man or woman living with a guardianship child or ward under 21 years for whom no pay was received."*

Housing Types are defined as:

Dwelling For census purposes, a dwelling is defined as a structurally separate set of living quarters, with a private entrance

*Statistics Canada: Census Tract Bulletin, 1971, series A.


either from outside or from a common hall stairway inside the building. The entrance must not be through anyone else's living quarters. The principal types of dwellings are:

Single Detached

This type is commonly called a "single house". It contains only one dwelling unit which is completely separated on all sides from any other dwelling or structure. Single Attached

This category includes dwelling units separated by a common wall extending from ground to roof. Single attached dwellings in structures consisting of only two dwelling units are classified as single attached (double). All other single attached dwellings whether in rows of three or more dwellings, or simply a unity adjoining a store or other non-residential structure are classified as single attached (other). Condominium - Row House Apartment or Flat

These dwellings are also subdivided into two categories. Apartment, flat (duplex) refers to each dwelling in a structure originally designed, or structurally converted, to provide two dwelling units, one above the other and adjoining no other structure. Apartment, flat (other) includes all dwellings of the apartment, flat-type other than duplex-type.

Mobile

Refers to any dwelling designed for movement and actually

- v_


movable, such as a trailer, railway car, or boat, if occupied by persons with no other usual residence at the census date. Tenure

A dwelling is classified as "owned" (even though mortgaged) if it belongs to some member of the household; otherwise, it is classified as "rented", whether or not a specified rent is paid.* Education and Economic Characteristics

The "level of schooling" and "labour force by occupation" statistics were obtained from 1971 data. The labour force variables provided by the Alberta Bureau of Statistics were further refined to conform to the four types, as listed in this report. These include the following:

a)

Technical, Professional: Managerial, Administration and Related; Teaching and related; Medical and Health; Technical, Art, Social, Religious; Farming, Horticulture, Animal Husbandry.

b)

Clerical, Sales: Clerical and related; sales; service.

c)

Trades: Machining, Fabrication, Assembly, and Repairing; Construct Trades, Transport Equipment Operating; Other.

d)

Other, not stated: other primary, not stated, processing.

The employment status and household income statistics were obtained from 1971 data. The figures used in the calculation of "average *Statistics Canada: Census Tract Bulletin, 1971, series A. - vi -


community household income" were aggregate incomes (thus accounting for total households and average incomes for the desired enumeration areas). It is important to note that the household income information is for the 1970 calendar year in 1970 dollars.


1.2 COMMUNITY PROFILES

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this report is to provide a demographic description of the communities bordering the South Light Rail Transit Corridor. Community populations can be characterized through the analysis of such variables as age - sex distributions, marital status and household type.

Nineteen communities have been identified (Figure 1.2.A & 1.2.B) each with common characteristics within their specific boundaries.

Demographic data for Blue Quill, Ermineskin and Lakewood was unavailable as these areas were under development at the time of the 1971 Census. Thus, a profile is not included for these three areas, however, land use and zoning information is provided.

This report is comprised of a series of profiles: No attempt was made to cite demographic trends occurring within the study area. Although this may pose limitations on an analysis of past community developments, this preliminary report will provide a valuable reference point for a comparision with developments of the early 1970's.

The collection, tabulation and description of the data posed certain problems and limitations; particularly concerning the reliability and availability of the desired information.

Data for all variables was obtained from Alberta Bureau of Statistics for 1976, except for; 1)

Labour Force by occupation,

2)

Household income

3)

Education


which were obtained from the 1971 Census. Due to different data collection criteria, 1971 statistics were adjusted (by value judgement) to correspond with 1976 data.


COMMUNITY BOUNDARIES COMMUNITY

SOUTH

NORTH

WEST

EAST

Downtown

CN Line

97 Avenue

109 Street

101 Street

Oliver

CN Line

Riverbank

116 Street

109 Street (CP Line)

Garneau

Saskatchewan Drive 86th Avenue

University Avenue

111-112 Street

109-107 Street

University

Riverbank

University Avenue

111-112 Street

116-117 Street

McKernan

University Avenue

72 Avenue

114 Street

109 Street

Belgravia

University Avenue

71 Avenue

Saskatchewan Dr. West

114 Street

Parkallen

72 Avenue

61 Avenue

99 Street

91 Street

Strathcona

Saskatachewan Drive

82 Avenue

CP Line - 107 Street

Mill Creek

Queen Alexandra

80 Avenue University Avenue

70 Avenue

109 Street

104 Street

Coronet Industrial Area

Whyte (82) Avenue

Whitemud Freeway

104-111 Street

99-91 Street

Ritchie

82 Avenue

68 Avenue

99 Street

Mill Creek

Allendale

70 Avenue

61 Avenue

109 Street

104 Street

Hazeldean

68 Avenue

61 Avenue

99 Street

91 Street

Pleasantview

61 Avenue

51 Avenue

111 Street

104 Street

Duggan

Whitemud Freeway

34 Avenue

111 Street

CP Line (Calgary Trail)

Strathcona Industrial Park

Whitemud Freeway

23 Avenue

CP Line - 107 Street

Mill Creek

Ermine skin

34 Avenue

23 Avenue

111 Street

CP Line (Calgary Trail)

Blue Quill

34 Avenue

23 Avenue

119 Street

111 Street

Lakewood

34 Avenue

23 Avenue

91 Street

66 Street

FIGURE 1.2.A


Community Profile Index Map

kirja I,

L1JI L-15 L{34"

=DO

joith,..ML oryjr-juL11,,,,, %

RDE:1

D EL7n-i

,

i•

d

11.3..p„i

,IL.V1,

3 1121Kr

-

oo•

I

It 71 34 ,J

1.3 r343-11-3; .•33OoOom

11

° , 11.

mom moor

.°°'`'°

Art

1 Downtown

,

4•••••••'' ",• 3

-

2 Oliver 3 Garneau 4 University

:mg

'-'-'--'

- P7'1--"t--,c --71'-=-

414-1111

134.4L ''..

5 McKernan 6 Belgravia

DMA 71314 -7211241

7 Parkallen Ai"

IiLI

''4"

24n

2240

3,o3t7

'1 3 :"

8 Strathcona 9 Queen Alexandra 10 Coronet Industrial 11 Ritchie

•••

• o•-e•,3.

12 Allendale 13 Hazeldean

Omnis

14 Pleasantview

441.

15 Duggan 16 Strathcona Industrial 17 Ermineskin 18 Blue Quill 19 Lakewood

13 TP 63 D74 111 4.4

1

7•43042 1/471125712142

3o oi o wr mot

3., TV 41 1424 W

33 111.51

TP 53 11 24 W 4M

ItMO OOOOO D W.4M

Fig 1.2.6


Downtown •

I

!

!

I

'to._ ..•

'•,,,..

tik '.

411111

110.4,

*.ek

.411.

11, •dik

MI I MIll I Mil III IIIN II MI II MI II MI I MIN II MI II I= II MI I NMI I MIN II EMI I 11.11 II Ilk • ,,

I 1 11 III ! ! ! 1.

I

S

I

I • I wi

I

1 11

1111111111111111111•11i11111111MNIMIONIMMIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIM11111111111111•11111111111•111111111111111


Downtown

104

AVE

103

AVE

102

AVE

1 101

AVE

Li

98

melummaimmi

Community Boundary


1.2.1 DOWNTOWN

Population Characteristics The Downtown area population (4,640) has an even distribution of males to females, which is similar to the City average (50.5% males, 49.5% females). The area has a major percentage in the 20 29 age group in comparison to City average (41.1% compared to 22.9% for males, 38.8% compared to 22.0% for females). There are fewer persons in the under 20 age group than compared to the City average (10.6% compared to 34.5% for males; 15.2% compared to 34.2% for females). Marital status figures show that the majority of the population is single (50.1%) which is only slightly higher than the City average (47.2%). The Downtown area has a lower proportion of married persons in comparison to the City average (31.5% compared to 44.5%) and a higher number of divorced, widowed or separated persons compared to City averages (18.4% compared to 8.4%). The ethnic composition of the Downtown community is primarily English (75.8%) which is almost identical to the City average. The mother tongue of the remaining population includes German (3.2%) Ukrainian (3.1%) and French (4.0%). Households and Housing The Downtown area is characterized by apartments (96.7%) forming the majority of the available housing stock. Statistics for tenure and household type indicate that the Downtown area is primarily comprised of a tenant-oriented population of young working individuals. Over 96.1% of the occupied dwellings are rented and 74.0% are non family households.

Education and Economic Characteristics

Level of schooling statistics for the Downtown area are similar to - 3 -


City averages with the following exceptions; fewer individuals have less than a grade 10 education in comparison to City averages (21.8% compared to 32.1% for males; 20.3% compared to 33.1% for females). A large proportion of the population have university training in comparison to the City average (35.1% compared to 23.8% for males, 24.3% compared to 17.3% for females). A higher proportion of males are in technical or professional occupations (21.7% compared to the City average of 17.1%). Of the majority of the employed female population (70.0%) are in clerical or sales occupations. Unemployment figures for both sexes are similar to City figures, although at the time of the Census there were slightly more females unemployed than the City average (6.8% compared to 4.9%). Household income figures for the Downtown area ($6,267) were lower than the City average ($10,153).


Downtown

///..

OW

WI WI

WI Wel

FZIo50,5•A f

gli• AIWA

'IA07 KO%

?WV," AgOS:prZA folf#1 rez,

/V 5•4•# MAWI ezz. We:00M Fee, ow. AVIV; OFACAWAOS ; reYd.e eee Wi I AIZAr we zee #I WI VW/0 eVez

were"' zzee pf/Awe: eere;

' 7 a

;KA owed f# w, e &Wow. ,710 loW•vere, • ..e.re.

• "owe KrowAre /10w4 drez•

CAVA IrIVI PjrC2

eze• rezo wilog we...tee wovem Are,,r eve. r • eezze Arereez

I WI d

Amy Vir 77z ,• dr," WI

eyeire. r 'dr •

Xr•tow..: r•reeez, r 4,/

Kw • ee.e.•4* re ,

V.A.V.edr, 5, 47

PrO0 JIM

•4•.•• e AZ A • • r • frer.'ree• reiwere ez•:reze Arr"dove' '0517., ArAA0 /ewer,. • oe' • •Wei • Are,i MA% WI.WI WI,,,,.. fAri re' egg ofWI e e, z o

44,0

/V

1•;:;,,, rx; „ „,4,,, „ ,„3, „.„„„, eireveze, Areirze.

.4044

r' f9;r,

rr:A

AV E

MENESE MEIER' MEW E MENNEN EMMEN MENEM. EMCEE.

Single Family (R-1) Low Density (RC-1, R-2, R-2A) Multi Family (R-3, R-4...) •

Commercial Parks

Land Use

111111.4111

Institutional

'I'll"

Industrial Hospital

Fig 1.2.1.A


Downtown

An-

M-3

103

AVE

10

AVE

LI

c-

1=1

96

AVE

[Ti ri

Zoning

Fig 1.2.1.13


AGE-SEX STRUCTURE FOR DOWNTOWN AREA

MALE

FEMALE

AGE 70+ 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 0-4

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

PERCENTAGE

TOTAL: Male

2355

Female 2280

0

COMMUNITY CITY


COMMUNITY: DOWNTOWN POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS

TABLE 1: MALE-FEMALE POPULATION (1976)

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Male

2345

50.5%

49.9%

Female

2295

49.5%

50.1%

Total:

4640

100%

100%

TABLE 2:

MARITAL STATUS (1976)

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Single

2330

50.1%

47.2%

Married

1465

31.5%

44.4%

Divorced

335

7.2%

2.5%

Widowed

290

6.2%

4.1%

Separated

230

5.0%

1.8%

4650

100%

100%

Total:


TABLE 3:

MOTHER TONGUE (MALES) (1976)

Number

Community Percentage

1795

76.7%

French

70

3.0%

German

95

4.1%

Indian & Inuit

10

.4%

Italian

5

.2%

Polish

20

.9%

Ukrainian

50

2.1%

295

12.6%

2340

100%

Number

Community Percentage

1725

75.0%

French

115

5.0%

German

60

2.6%

Indian & Inuit

35

1.5%

Italian

5

.2%

Polish

20

.9%

Ukrainian

95

4.1%

245

10.6%

2300

100%

English

Other

Total:

TABLE 4:

MOTHER TONGUE (FEMALES)

English

Other

Total:

6


HOUSEHOLDS AND HOUSING

TABLE 1: HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE (1976)

Number One-Family Households

Community Percentage

City Percentage

775

25.8%

71.1%

5

0.2%

0.8%

Non-Family Households

2220

74.0%

28.1%

Total Number of Households:

3000

100%

100%

Multi-Family Households

TABLE 2: DWELLING BY TYPE (1976) Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Single Detached

75

2.5%

51.6%

Single Attached

25

0.8%

14.0%

2860

96.7%

33.9%

Apartments Mobile Homes Total Dwellings:

S.5% 2960

100%

100%

TABLE 3: DWELLING BY TENURE (1976) Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Owned

115

3.9%

51.5%

Rented

2845

96.1%

48.9%

Total Dwellings:

2960

100%

100%


EDUCATION AND ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

TABLE 1:

LEVEL OF SCHOOLING* (MALES)

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Under grade 10

495

21.8%

32.1%

Secondary School: Certificate Without Certificate

250 345

11.0% 15.2%

9.4% 16.6%

Post-Secondary: Diploma Without Diploma

185 200

8.1% 8.8%

9.2% 8.9%

University: Degree Without Degree

475 325

20.9% 14.2%

13.4% 10.4%

2275

100%

100%

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Total:

TABLE 2:

LEVEL OF SCHOOLING* (FEMALES)

Number Under grade 10

435

20.3%

33.1%

Secondary School: Certificate Without Certificate

295 335

13.8% 15.7%

12.4% 18.1%

Post-Secondary: Diploma Without Diploma

300 255

14.0% 11.9%

10.7% 8.4%

University: Degree Without Degree

300 220

14.0% 10.3%

9.0% 8.3%

2140

100%

100%

Total:

*Population 15 years and over.

- 8 -


TABLE 3:

LABOUR FORCE BY OCCUPATIONS (MALES)

Number

Community Percentale

City Percentage

Technical, Professional

315

21.7%

17.1%

Clerical, Sales

515

35.5%

38.0%

Trades

360

24.8%

32.9%

Other, Not Stated

260

18.0%

12.0%

1450

100%

100%

Total:

TABLE 4:

LABOUR FORCE BY OCCUPATIONS (FEMALES)

Community Percentage

City Percentage

255

16.7%

20.7%

1070

70.0%

64.1%

25

1.6%

4.7%

180

11.7%

10.5%

1530

100%

100%

Number Technical, Professional Clerical, Sales Trades Other, Not Stated

Total:

9


TABLE 5: EMPLOYMENT* (MALES) (1976)

Employed

Number

Community Percentage

1720

94.5%

95.5%

100

5.5%

4.5%

1820

100%

100%

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

1300

93.2%

95.1%

95

6.8%

4.9%

1395

100%

100%

Unemployed

Total:

City Percag2-t.

TABLE 6: EMPLOYMENT* (FEMALES) (1976)

Employed Unemployed

Total:

TABLE 7: HOUSEHOLD INCOME

Total Number Households 2760

(1971)

Average Coluntunity Household Income â&#x20AC;¢ $6,267.16

*Population aged 15+ by labour activity type.

Average City Household Income $10,153


Oliver

â&#x20AC;˘

nommeormsiniummi


Oliver

lassionsionnimmasammairimmanalmilillimm.11

• •

104

AVE

J

AVE

102

771

JASPER

AVENUE

b=1 PF1 PF1(

ff]t ,00

AVE

AVE

tll

es I • gimi II aim m aim

Community Boundary

-; ..r:°' a I in EMI Mei


1.2.2 OLIVER

Population Characteristics

The Oliver population (7,255) has a higher percentage of females (56.5%) in comparison to the City average (50.1%). The greatest proportion of the population is in the 20 - 29 year age group (40.3% compared to the City average of 22.9% for males; 35.7% compared to the City average of 22.0% for females). The total Oliver population under the age of 19 (12.3%) is lower than the City (34.8%). The marital status figures are similar to the overall City averages with slightly lower percentages for married persons (38.6% compared to the City average 44.4%). A higher percentage of divorced, widowed and separated persons (17.2%) live in Oliver than is the average for the City (8.4%). The ethnic composition of Oliver is indicated by over 75% of the population having English as a mother tongue. This is similar to the City average (76.7%). Households and Housing Oliver is characterized by the large proportion of non-family households (64.1%) in comparison to City average (28.1%). The remaining 35.9% are one-family households, less than the average for the City (71.1%). Correspondingly, 94.0% of the community housing stock is apartments (City average 33.9%) and 91.8% of the total dwellings are rented (City average 48.9%). Education and Economic Characteristics

Only 20.7% of Oliver residents have less than a grade 10 education,


which lower than the City average (32.1%). A greater proportion of the Oliver population has had some university education in comparison to the City average (36.7% compared to 23.8% for males; 24.5% compared to 17.3% for females).

Oliver has a greater percentage of its labour force employed in technical, professional occupations than is the average for the City (26.0% compared to 17.1% for males; 31.2% compared to 20.7% for females). Unemployment figures for Oliver are similar to the City average (4.3% for males; 4.5% for females).

The average household income for Oliver ($8,662) is lower than the City average household income ($10,153).


Oliver

104

ery. Ayr, worr orrz r/4%., 103

•ZZO CAC/

II

AVE

r.r."

• ve, zerw.r. row; • rer• gee. •YZI ✓ d'rrzd r Alex/. Kre. wrzszzr; rerzere. • ••••••'/ • AVE

102

rex. r r cerierrr ,geroyfy: F:rr: err. WI i:VA OW/ ✓ for

cow

rag% JASPER

o

'ffira AVENUE

•••• eenleem Neeeee Meeeell SWIM UMW elle Mel MUM Men Mem

-o w e 00

Single Family (R-1) Low Density (RC-1, R-2, R-2A)

111 Land Use

Parks Mee MIME'

U.. .'

Institutional

Multi Family (R-3,R-4....)

Industrial

Commercial

Hospital

Fig 1.2.2.A


Oliver

R-7

M-3

RE A

AP

1.

C-Alt 10

AVE

JASPER

oo

A AVE

Zoning

C-6

Fig 1.2.2.13


AGE-SEX STRUCTURE FOR OLIVER

FEMALE

MALE

AGE 70 + 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 0-4

1 50

1 45

1 35

1 40

30

25

1 20

15

10

5

0

5

1 10

115

1 20

1 25

1 30

I 35

I 40

1 45

1 50

PERCENTAGE

7! Ca IN)

TOTAL: Male

3170

Female 4140 0

COMMUNITY CITY


COMMUNITY: OLIVER POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS

TABLE 1: MALE-FEMALE POPULATION

Number

Community Percentage

City 1 Percentage

Male

3155

43.5%

49.9%

Female

4100

56.5%

50.1%

Total:

7255

100%

100%

TABLE 2: MARITAL STATUS

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Single

3195

44.2%

47.2%

Married

2790

38.6%

44.4%

Divorced

375

5.2%

2.5%

Widowed

565

7.8%

4.1%

Separated

305

4.2%

1.8%

Total:

7230

100%

100%


TABLE 3:

MOTHER TONGUE (MALES)

Number English

Community Percentage

2380

75.27

French

150

4.7%

German

70

2.2%

Italian

15

0.4%

Polish

15

0.4%

Ukrainian

70

2.2%

465

14.7%

3165

100%

Indian & Inuit

Other

Total:

TABLE 4:

MOTHER TONGUE (FEMALES)

Number English

Community Percentage

3055

74.1%

French

325

7.9%

German

105

2.5%

5

0.1%

Italian

10

0.2%

Polish

20

0.5%

Ukrainian

115

2.8%

Other

490

11.9%

Total:

4125

100%

Indian & Inuit


HOUSEHOLDS AND HOUSING

TABLE 1: HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE

Number One-Family Households

1495

Community Percentage

City Percentage

35.9%

71.1%

Multi-Family Households

0.8%

Non-Family Households

2675

64.1%

28.1%

Total Number of Households:

4170

100%

100%

TABLE 2: DWELLING BY TYPE

Number

Community Percentag

City Percentage

Single Detached

145

3.5%

51.6%

Single Attached

105

2.5%

14.0%

3910

94.0%

33.9%

Apartments Mobile Homes

Total Dwellings:

0.5% 4160

100%

100%

Community Percentage

City Percentage

TABLE 3: DWELLING BY TENURE Number Owned

340

8.2%

51.1%

Rented

3820

91.8%

48.9%

Total Dwellings:

4160

100%

100%


EDUCATION AND ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS TABLE 1:

LEVEL OF SCHOOLING* (MALES)

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Under grade 10

670

20.0%

32.1Z

Secondary School: Certificate Without Certificate

330 485

9.8% 14.4%

9.4% 16.6%

Post-Secondary: Diploma Without Diploma

345 300

10.2% 8.9%

9.2% 8.9%

University: Degree Without Degree

750 490

22.3% 14.4%

13.4% 10.4%

3370

100%

100%

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Under grade 10

980

21.5%

33.1%

Secondary School: Certificate Without Certificate

555 765

12.2% 16.8%

12.4% 18.1%

Post-Secondary: Diploma Without Diploma

730 410

16.0% 9.0%

10.7% 8.4%

University: Degree Without Degree

610 515

13.4% 11.1%

9.0% 8.3%

4565

100%

100%

Total:

TABLE 2:

LEVEL OF SCHOOLING* (FEMALES)

Total:

*Population 15 years and over.


TABLE 3:

LABOUR FORCE BY OCCUPATIONS (MALES) (1971 - Alberta Bareau of Statistics) Number

Community Percentag:t

City Percentage

Technical, Professional

660

26.0%

17.1%

Clerical, Sales

890

35.0%

38.0%

Trades

650

25.6%

32.9%

Other, Not Stated

340

13.4%

12.0%

2540

100%

100%

Total:

TABLE 4:

LABOUR FORCE BY OCCUPATIONS (FEMALES)

Number Technical, Professional Clerical, Sales Trades Other, Not Stated

Total:

Community Percentage

City Percentage

745

31.2%

20.7%

1385

58.1%

64.1%

40

1.7%

4.7%

215

9.0%

10.5%

2385

100%

100%


TABLE 5: EMPLOYMENT* (MALES)

Employed

Number

Community Percentage

City . Percentage

2225

95.7%

95.5%

100

4.3%

4.5%

100%

100%

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

2325

95.5%

95.1%

110

4.5%

4.9%

2435

100%

100%

Unemployed

2325

Total:

TABLE 6: EMPLOYMENT* (FEMALES)

Employed Unemployed

Total:

TABLE 7:

HOUSEHOLD INCOME

Total Number Households 3740

Average Community Household Income $8,662.13

*Population aged 15+ by labour activity type.

- 18-

Average City Household Income $ 10,153


- 1111111111111.111•111111•111•11•11111111111111•=1111111111M111111111111=0=1111111M

liummisimemommusiminmointimemoincime

1


Garneau

89

lIIIIIllhIIIIIlI in 011 110 H

87

AVE

86

MEM AVE

i MNIMINIffill MEM= 89

83

VIE AVENUE

82

AVE

EMMEN MEMO EM111111ifi NMI= 11111111° vE

1146

1

Community Boundary

Al

80

MEM 78


1.2.3 GARNEAU

Population Characteristics

The Garneau population (9,060) depicts an even male - female distribution which is similar to that of the City.

The majority of the population is between the ages of 20 and 29 (48.0% compared to City average 22.9% for males; 46.4% compared to City average 22.0% for females). Garneau also has a higher proportion in the over-70 age group in comparison with the City average (7.2% compared to City average 5.3%).

English is the predominant mother tongue for both sexes (as high as 79.3% for females) which is consistent with the City average (76.6% English). Households and Housing Housing consists primarily of apartments (70.8% compared to 33.9% City average). 84.2% of all housing stock is rented compared to the City average of 48.9%. Accordingly, Garneau has a higher proportion of non-family households (61.4% compared to City average 28.1%). Education and Economic Characteristics A higher proportion of both males and females have University training in comparison to the City average (55.0% compared to 23.8% for males; 46.0% compared to 17.3% for females). The majority of the labour force is employed in technical or professional occupations (38.6% compared to 17.1% for males; 42.6% compared to 20.7% for females). Employment figures show a higher level of unemployment


for both sexes in comparison to the City average (6.8% compared to 4.5% for males; 6.0% compared to 4.9% for females). The Garneau average household income is lower than the City average for household income ($8,292 compared to $10,153).


Garneau

111,11326._ :fa

1111$1 A

111111111W

AVE

87

AVE

•111u11 .IIIII 22 BUNINN a— mums. SUMO 4112112.2 • 112m1 mum am AVE

• 11 PO;"ef

85

gltiglI1M1

84

ERNI

.460 o940'.

AVE

liP440450" 4 81

OHMS% **3i:: ::::•. MEER- '

.. . • MIME

Cl V ". • e) BO

'mime

ffigfaga

MEM

tom

E151

Ei

=12111111211211 uNIIINIMMI1411

Low Density (RC-1, R-2, R-2A)

111 Multi Family (R-3, R-4...)

Land Use

Parks

Single Family (RA)

Commercial

NUMMI 11211111

Institutional

11111

Industrial

H

Hospital

Fig 1.2.3.A


Garneau

11111111

1111114111111111

mmimmum

n C-3

AV

MIME MINIM

AP

EMPIM

11111111111911 11 1111111111111 11

111 1111111

6ii , L -

Zoning

Fig Fig t2.3.B


AGE-SEX STRUCTURE FOR GARNEAU

FEMALE

MALE

AGE 70+ 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 0-4

1 35

1 40

50

1 30

25

20

1 15

1 10

5

0

1 5

10

1

15

20

25

1 30

35

1 40

I 45

1 50

PERCENTAGE

Co TOTAL: Male Female

4490 4570

COMMUNITY CITY


COMMUNITY: GARNEAU POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS

TABLE 1: MALE-FEMALE POPULATION

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Male

4490

49.5%

49.9%

Female

4570

50.5%

50.1%

Total:

9060

100%

100%

TABLE 2: MARITAL STATUS

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Single

4575

51.4%

47.2%

Married

3215

36.1%

44.4%

Divorced

355

4.0%

2.5%

Widowed

540

6.1%

4.1%

Separated

220

2.4%

1.8%

8910

100%

100%

Total:


TABLE 3:

MOTHER TONGUE (MALES)

Number English

3375

76.5%

French

105

2.3%

German

170

4.4%

Indian & Inuit

10

0.3%

Italian

30

0.6%

Polish

20

0.5%

Ukrainian

105

2.5%

Other

595

12.9%

4410

100%

Total:

TABLE 4:

Community Percentage

MOTHER TONGUE (FEMALES)

Number

Community Percentage

3580

79.3%

French

90

2.0%

German

145

3.2%

Indian & Inuit

20

0.5%

Italian

20

0.5%

Polish

20

0.5%

Ukrainian

120

2.6%

Other

515

10.2%

4510

100%

English

Total:


HOUSEHOLDS AND HOUSING

TABLE 1: HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE

Number One-Family Households

Community Percentage

City Percentage

1710

38.5%

71.1%

10

0.1%

0.8%

Non-Family Households

2590

61.4%

28.1%

Total Number of Households:

4310

100%

100%

Multi-Family Households

TABLE 2: DWELLING BY TYPE

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Single Detached

945

22.1%

51.6%

Single Attached

305

7.1%

14.0%

3035

70.8%

33.9%

Apartments

0.5%

Mobile Homes Total Dwellings:

4285

100%

100%

TABLE 3: DWELLING BY TENURE

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Owned

740

15.8%

51.1%

Rented

3570

84.2%

48.9%

Total Dwellings:

4310

100%

100%


EDUCATION AND ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

TABLE 1:

LEVEL OF SCHOOLING* (MALES) Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Under grade 10

755

14.9%

32.1%

Secondary School: Certificate Without Certificate

335 530

6.6% 10.5%

9.4% 16.6%

Post-Secondary: Diploma Without Diploma

340 320

6.7% 6.3%

9.2% 8.9%

University: Degree Without Degree

1860 930

36.7% 18.3%

13.4% 10.4%

Total:

5070

100%

100%

Community Percentage

City Percentage

TABLE 2:

LEVEL OF SCHOOLING* (FEMALES)

Number Under grade 10

870

16.4%

33.1%

Secondary School: Certificate Without Certificate

435 520

8.2% 9.8%

12.4% 18.1%

Post-Secondary: Diploma Without Diploma

645 390

12.2% 7.4%

10.7% 8.4%

University: Degree Without Degree

1470 965

27.8% 18.2%

9.0% 8.3%

Total:

5295

100%

100%

*Population 15 years and over.


TABLE 3:

LABOUR FORCE BY OCCUPATIONS (MALES)

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

1190

38.6%

17.1%

Clerical, Sales

695

22.5%

38.0%

Trades

845

27.4%

32.9%

Other, Not Stated

355

11.5%

12.0%

3085

100%

100%

Technical, Professional

Total:

TABLE 4:

-FEMALES) LABOUR FORCE BY OCCUPATIONS (

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Technical, Professional

1245

42.6%

20.7%

Clerical, Sales

1320

45.2%

64.1%

70

2.4%

4.7%

285

9.8%

10.5%

2920

100%

100%

Trades Other, Not Stated

Total:


TABLE 5: EMPLOYMENT* (MALES)

Employed

Number

Community Percentage

2955

93.2%

95.5%

210

6.8%

4.5%

3165

100%

100%

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentag

2565

94.0%

95.1%

145

6.0%

4.9%

2710

100%

100%

Unemployed

Total:

City Percentac=e

TABLE 6: EMPLOYMENT* (FEMALES)

Employed Unemployed

Total:

TABLE 7: HOUSEHOLD INCOME

Total Number Households

Average Community Household Income

Average City Household Income

4160

$8292.31

$10,153.

*Population aged 15+ by labour activity type. -26 -


University 11•., a I U I a IIIa

'we/

4 I Iisti. "10 •sec .

NI.

4,40..


University

111111101M1111 FAIMMION

Community Boundary Boundary


1.2.4 UNIVERSITY Population Characteristics

The University population (700) is primarily comprised of males (67.8%), 23.1% of whom are over the age of 70. Half of the total female population is between the ages of 20 and 24, which is higher than the average for the City (12.8%). The University marital status figures indicate a greater percentage of single persons (64.5%) compared to the City average (47.2%). Married persons comprise only 18.8% of the University population, which is lower than the City figure (44.1%). The statistics for mother tongue indicate a higher proportion of "other" languages (65.7% for males; 38.7% for females). This group is comprised largely of Chinese and Japanese speaking people. Households and Housing The University area is characteristically composed of a higher percentage of non-family households (85.4% compared to 28.1% for the City average), and 98.0% of the housing stock is apartments. All of the University dwellings are rented. Education and Economic Characteristics The majority of the community population has had some university training (57.9% compared to the City average 23.8% for males; 71.0% compared to 17.3% for females). Labour force by occupation figures indicate that the majority of the employed males have technical, professional positions (62.5% compared to 17.1% for the City). It is important to note the small


size of the male labour force within the community (80 persons). The female labour force is primarily involved in "other" occupations (78.9% compared to 10.5% in this category for the City).

The University area has a higher proportion of unemployed than does the City (14.0% compared to 4.5% for males; 12.5% compared to 4.9% for females). This is consistent considering the high student population. The average household income is higher for the University ($22,900) in comparison to the City average ($10,153).


University Ant-

AVE

MORINO 67

AVE

83

AVE

Commercial

Single Family (R-1)

Parks

Low Density (RC-1, R-2, R-2A)

111111 Land Use

Multi Family (R-3, R-4...)

-111111111 8.1111111 111110â&#x20AC;¢6

Institutional

1111111

Industrial

H

Hospital

Fig 1.2.4.A


University

UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA

RC -1 1 A VE

PROVINCIAL CROWN LAND

U of A --11 P-2

7

k./ PROVINCIAL CROWN LAND

U of A

AP

Zoning

Fig 1.2.4.B


AGE - SEX STRUCTURE FOR UNIVERSITY AREA

FEMALE

MALE

AGE 70+ 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24

1

1 45

50

1 40

1 35

1 30

1 25

1 20

15-19

=V Elik. Irr', U 1 15

1 10

10-14

IMMII IN

5-9 0-4

5

0

1 10

1 15

1 20

1 25

1 30

1 35

1 40

1 45

1 50

PERCENTAGE

(0 76' TOTAL: Male

475

Female 210

0

COMMUNITY CITY


COMMUNITY: UNIVERSITY POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS

TABLE I: MALE-FEMALE POPULATION

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Male

475

67.8%

49.9%

Female

225

32.2%

50.1%

Total:

700

100%

100%

Community Percentage

City Percentage

TABLE 2: MARITAL STATUS

Number

Single

445

64.5%

47.2%

Married

130

18.8%

44.4%

Divorced

30

4.3%

2.5%

Widowed

60

8.7%

4.1%

Separated

25

3.7%

1.8%

690

100%

100%

Total:


TABLE 3: MOTHER TONGUE (MALES)

Number

Community Percentage

145

31.2%

French

5

1.0%

German

10

2.1%

Other*

305

65.7%

Total:

465

100%

English

Indian & Inuit Italian Polish Ukrainian

*It is important to note that "Other" includes 140 Chinese and Japanese: 30.1% of the (male) community population. TABLE 4: MOTHER TONGUE (FEMALES)

Number

Community Percentage

125

56.8%

10

4.5%

Other*

85

38.7%

Total:

220

100%

English French German Indian & Inuit Italian Polish Ukrainian

*65 Chinese & Japanese: 29.5% of (female) community population.

- 30 -


HOUSEHOLDS AND HOUSING

TABLE 1: HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE

Number One-Family Households

35

Community Percentag 14.6%

Multi-Family Households

City Percentage 71.1% 0.8%

Non-Family Households

205

85.4%

28.1%

Total Number of Households:

240

100%

100%

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

2.0%

51.6%

TABLE 2: DWELLING BY TYPE

Single Detached

5

Single Attached Apartments

14.0% 245

98.0%

Mobile Homes

Total Dwellings:

33.9% 0.5%

250

100%

100%

TABLE 3: DWELLING BY TENURE

Number

Community Percentage

Owned

City Percentage 51 7 1%

Rented

250

100%

48.9%

Total Dwellings:

250

100%

100%


EDUCATION AND ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS TABLE 1:

LEVEL OF SCHOOLING* (MALES)

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

140

30.1%

32.1/

Secondary School: Certificate Without Certificate

10 25

2.2% 5.4%

9.4% 16.6%

Post-Secondary: Diploma Without Diploma

10 10

2.2% 2.2%

9.2% 8.9%

University: Degree Without Degree

150 120

32.3% 25.6%

13.4% 10.4%

Total:

465

100%

100%

Under grade 10

TABLE 2:

LEVEL OF SCHOOLING* (FEMALES)

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Under grade 10

30

13.3%

33.1%

Secondary School: Certificate Without Certificate

10

4.5%

12.4% 18.1%

Post-Secondary: Diploma Without Diploma

15 10

6.7% 4.5%

10.7% 8.4%

University: Degree Without Degree

75 85

33.3% 37.7%

9.0% 8.3%

225

100%

100%

Total:

*Population 15 years and over.

- 32 -


TABLE 3:

LABOUR FORCE BY OCCUPATIONS (MALES)

Number

Community Percentage

50

62.5%

17.1%

5

6.2%

38.0%

Trades

10

12.5%

32.9%

Other, Not Stated

15

18.8%

12.0%

Total:

80

100%

100%

Technical, Professional Clerical, Sales

TABLE 4:

City i Percentage

LABOUR FORCE BY OCCUPATIONS (FEMALES)

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Technical, Professional

30

15.8%

20.7%

Clerical, Sales

10

5.3%

64.1% 4.7%

Trades Other, Not Stated

150

78.9%

10.5%

Total:

190

100%

100%


TABLE 5: EMPLOYMENT* (MALES)

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

185

86.0%

95.5%

30

14.0%

4.5%

215

100%

100%

Employed Unemployed

Total:

TABLE 6: EMPLOYMENT* (FEMALES)

Number

Community Percentage

140

87.5%

95.1%

20

12.5%

4.9%

160

100%

100%

Employed Unemployed

Total:

City Percentage

TABLE 7: HOUSEHOLD INCOME

Total Number Households 195

Average Community Household Income $22,903.54

*Population aged 15+ by labour activity type.

- 34 -

Average City Household Income $10,153


McKernan

ii

emaimiumminsausurnalmaim

likimemo1_asersareciareanumemâ&#x20AC;˘until011


McKernan

OMNI AV

AVE

n

AVE

77

AVE

N01111 01111

Minim \I

Community Boundary

111

MEM


1.2.5 McKERNAN

Population Characteristics

The population of McKernan (2,075) has an even distribution of males to females (49.4% males, 50.6% females) which is consistent with the City average. The population pyramid (Figure 1.2.5.C) indicates that the majority of the population are within the 20 29 year age group (28.7% compared to the 22.9% City average for males and 26.2% compared to 22.0% for females).

Marital status figures (45.3% married; 44.9% single) are similar to City percentages.

Over 80% of the community population have English as a mother tongue (compared to 76.6% for the City). Of the remaining community population 7.7% have either German or Ukrainian as a mother tongue. Households and Housing

Community percentages for household type are similar to City figures with a slightly lower percentage of one-family households (68.6%) than the City average (71.1%). Dwellings are predominantly single detached houses (79.1%) with very little apartment development in comparison to the City as a whole (4.6% compared to the 33.9% City average). Home ownership in McKernan is 68.6%, higher than the City average of 51.1%. Education and Economic Characteristics Level of schooling figures show a higher percentage of both sexes having university experience in comparison to City average (44.3% compared to 23.8% for males; 35.8% compared to 17.3% for females).


Labour force by occupation statistics indicate that a greater proportion of the McKernan population have technical, professional occupations in comparison to City averages (30.0% compared to 17.1% for males; 31.9% compared to 20.7% for females). Over 57% of females in McKernan are employed in clerical and sales positions which is lower than the City figure of 64.1%).

Unemployment figures for both sexes are slightly higher than City percentages (6.4% compared to 4.5% for males; 6.0% compared to 4.9% for females). The average community household income (1971 Census data) is lower than the average City household income ($9,588 compared to $10,153).


McKernan

AVE

MEW

MEM

MOM :*] 78

AV

.......... AVE

77

AVE

EINEM MR:1

fcct: a

10

A

8 r2 .1,1:

-a

Vfin

Lt1.7.

:00 0°

!'cl"1,11

Single Family (R-1) Low Density (RC-1, R-2, R-2A) Multi Family (R-3, R-4...) Commercial Parks Institutional Industrial

Land Use

Hospital

Fig 1.2.5.A


McKernan -k-

N

Zoning

Fig 1.2.5.6


AGE-SEX STRUCTURE FOR McKERNAN

FEMALE

MALE

AGE 70 + 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 0-4

45

50

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

5

10

115

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

PERCENTAGE

-n (0 —.L TOTAL: Male

01

1025

Female 1050

F

COMMUNITY • CITY


COMMUNITY: McKERNAN POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS

TABLE 1: MALE-FEMALE POPULATION

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentaae

Male

1025

49.4%

49.9%

Female

1050

50.6%

50.1%

Total:

2075

100%

100%

TABLE 2: MARITAL STATUS

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Single

935

44.9%

47-2%

Married

945

45.3%

44.4%

Divorced

50

2.4%

2.5%

Widowed

125

6.0%

4.1%

30

1.4%

1.8%

Separated Total:

2085

100%

100%


TABLE 3:

MOTHER TONGUE (MALES)

Number

Community Percentage

English

820

80.8%

French

25

2.4%

German

40

3.9%

Indian & Inuit

0

0.0%

Italian

5

0.5%

Polish

5

0.5%

Ukrainian

35

3.5%

Other

85

8.4%

Total:

TABLE 4:

1015

100%

MOTHER TONGUE (FEMALES)

Number

Community Percentage

English

865

82.4%

French

25

2.4%

German

50

4.8%

Indian & Inuit

0

0.0%

Italian

5

0.5%

Polish

10

1.0%

Ukrainian

35

3.3%

Other

60

5.6%

Total:

1050

100%


HOUSEHOLDS AND HOUSING

TABLE 1: HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE

Number

Community Percentage

525

68.6%

71.1%

5

.7%

0.8%

Non-Family Households

235

30-7%

28.1%

Total Number of Households:

765

One-Family Households Multi-Family Households

100%

City Percentage

100%

TABLE 2: DWELLING BY TYPE

Number

Community Percentage

Single Detached

605

79.1%

51-6%

Single Attached

125

16.3%

14.0%

35

4.6%

33.9%

Apartments

0

Mobile Homes Total Dwellings:

765

0

100%

City Percentage

0.5%

100%

TABLE 3: DWELLING BY TENURE

Number

Community Percentage

Owned

525

68.6%

51.1%

Rented

240

31.4%

48.9%

Total Dwellings:

765

100%

City Percentage

100%


EDUCATION AND ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS TABLE 1:

LEVEL OF SCHOOLING* (MALES)

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

175

20.5%

32.1%

Secondary School: Certificate Without Certificate

75 85

8.8%

10.0%

9.4% 16.6%

Post-Secondary: Diploma Without Diploma

65 75

7.6% 8.8%

9.2% 8.9%

University: Degree Without Degree

240 140

28.1% 16.2%

13.4% 10.4%

Total:

855

Under grade 10

TABLE 2:

100%

100%

LEVEL OF SCHOOLING* (FEMALES)

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Under grade 10

220

25.4%

33.1%

Secondary School: Certificate Without Certificate

95 115

11.0% 13.3%

12.4% 18.1%

Post-Secondary: Diploma Without Diploma

90 35

10.4% 4.1%

10.7% 8.4%

University: Degree Without Degree

200 110

23.1% 12.7%

9.0% 8.3%

Total:

865

*Population 15 years and over.

- 40 -

100%

100%


TABLE 3:

LABOUR FORCE BY OCCUPATIONS (MALES)

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentau_

Technical, Professional

255

30.0%

17.1%

Clerical, Sales

225

26.5%

38.0%

Trades

280

32.9%

32.9%

90

10.6%

12.0%

Other, Not Stated

850

Total:

TABLE 4:

100%

100%

LABOUR FORCE BY OCCUPATIONS (FEMALES)

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Technical, Professional

180

31.9%

20.7%

Clerical, Sales

325

57.5%

64.1%

Trades

20

3.5%

4.7%

Other, Not Stated

40

7.1%

10.5%

Total:

565

100%

100%


TABLE 5: EMPLOYMENT* (MALES)

Community Percentage

Number Employed Unemployed

590

93.6%

95.5%

40

6.4%

4.5%

630

Total:

City Percentage

100%

100%

TABLE 6: EMPLOYMENT* (FEMALES)

Community Percentage

Number Employed Unemployed

385

94-0%

95.1%

25

6.0%

4.9%

410

Total:

City Percentage

100%

100%

TABLE 7: HOUSEHOLD INCOME

Total Number Households 890

Average Community Household Income

Average City Household Income

$9,588.31

$10,153.

*Population aged 15+ by labour activity type.

- 42 -


Belgravia


Belgravia

its Isl. ft/mg,ar. eiftsi„ hi. Iftiftirtna I um IL sa. Sam ME !If,

i

78

AVE

1

I

ILI II

H i

11'.1 I

AVE

11111111111/

SIIHI 76

AVE

IIH AVE

75

; I E

111 , AVE

IIr , 74

Ii

AVE

011M , al

1

••."

10.

Community Boundary

am aweIn

0 1 1 .0 • 00

011 M61 Al •lge


1.2.6 BELGRAVIA

Population Characteristics

The population of Belgravia (2,220) has a similar male - female distribution (49.3% males, 50.7% females) in comparison to the City average. Marital status figures and age/sex composition are also very similar to the City averages (47.1% married, 44.9% single). The majority (85.2%) of the community have English as a mother tongue, compared to 76.6% for the City. Households and Housing

The household composition of Belgravia is similar to the City; one family households make up 69.2% of the community compared to 71.7% for the City. Single detached dwellings are characteristic of the housing stock (70.8% compared to City average 51.6%). A greater percentage of the dwellings in Belgravia are owned (65.2%) in comparison to the City average (51.1%). Education and Economic Characteristics

A higher percentage of the Belgravia population has had university training. Of the male population, 62.1% has had university exposure compared to 23.8% for the City average. The female community population exhibits similar trends; 49.4% have been to university compared to 17.3% for the City average. The portion of the community labour force employed in a technical and professional capacity is greater than that of the City (49.7% compared to 17.1% for males; 35.7% compared to 20.7% for females).

Male unemployment statistics are similar to City figures, (4.6% compared to 4.5%) while female unemployment is higher in Belgravia (10.7%) compared the City (4.0%).

- 43 -


Belgravia's average household income of $15,168 is greater than the average for the City ($10,153).


Belgravia

AVE

*in Malt& COMM MEM 1146/111.1113

3

AVE

,r51% V! • 7

flax, Awl 6

AVE

WINNE EIDECON

*cowl

AVE

IIMPFMNE* 11201111. firiffial

AVE

som *1-1; MENSIBMI AVE

IMMO witgal 1329B19145

SEEM Ellieldatt 74

AVE

73 AVE

ONSESSENNR0 SINACCIMO/ WORN Crifftti.

000 *

Single Family (R-1) Low Density (RC-1, R-2, R-2A) Multi Family (R-3, R-4...) Commercial Parks

19111••1 NMI 0111.1111

Institutional Industrial

Land Use

Hospital

Fig 1.2.6.A


Belgravia An"

AP

77

II

AVE

I I I I I 0\

n

II

AVE

I'll

11 1 111

ii

.siar.

111 SIM IuuII â&#x20AC;¢ r15,

AVE

FEA VE

75

II

MOM I

AVE

RC-1

= UMW 73

V

0111111111111Wri3

mow ons to ammo sumo Outs

Zoning

Fig 1.2.6.B


AGE-SEX STRUCTURE FOR BELGRAVIA

FEMALE

MALE

AGE 70+ 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 0-4

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

5

1

10

1

15

I 20

1 25

I 30

I 35

I 40

1 45

50

PERCENTAGE

--t â&#x2013;ª

TOTAL: Male

1095

Female 1125

COMMUNITY CITY


COMMUNITY: BELGRAVIA POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS

TABLE 1: MALE-FEMALE POPULATION

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentaa

Male

1095

49.3%

49.9%

Female

1125

50.7%

50.1%

Total:

2220

100%

100%

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

TABLE 2: MARITAL STATUS

Single

980

44.9%

47.2%

Married

1030

47.1%

44.4%

Divorced

45

2.1%

2.5%

Widowed

105

4.8%

4.1%

25

1.1%

1.8%

2185

100%

100%

Separated Total:


TABLE 3:

MOTHER TONGUE (MALES)

Number

Community Percentage

915

84.4%

French

20

1.9%

German

35

3.2%

Indian & Inuit

0

0%

Italian

0

0%

Polish

10

0.9%

Ukrainian

40

3.7%

Other

60

5.6%

1080

100%

Number

Community Percentage

940

86.2%

French

30

2.7%

German

20

1.8%

Indian & Inuit

0

0%

Italian

5

0.5%

Polish

5

0.5%

Ukrainian

40

3.7%

Other

50

4.6%

1090

100%

English

Total:

TABLE 4:

MOTHER TONGUE (FEMALES)

English

Total:


HOUSEHOLDS AND HOUSING

TABLE 1: HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE

Number

Community Percentage

550

69.2%

One-Family Households Multi-Family Households

City Percentage 71.1% 0.8%

Non-Family Households

245

30.8%

28.1%

Total Number of Households:

795

100%

100%

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Single Detached

570

70.8%

51.6%

Single Attached

95

11.8%

14.0%

140

17.4%

33.9%

TABLE 2: DWELLING BY TYPE

Apartments Mobile Homes Total Dwellings:

0.5% 805

100%

100%

TABLE 3: DWELLING BY TENURE

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Owned

525

65.2%

51.1%

Rented

280

34.8%

48.9%

Total Dwellings:

805

100%

100%


EDUCATION AND ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

TABLE 1:

LEVEL OF SCHOOLING* (MALES)

Number

Community Percentage

110

12.2%

32.f%

Secondary School: Certificate Without Certificate

50 70

5.6% 7.8%

9.4% 16.6%

Post-Secondary: Diploma Without Diploma

70 40

7.8% 4.5%

9.2% 8.9%

University: Degree Without Degree

410 150

45.6% 16.5%

13.4% 10.4%

Total:

900

100%

100%

Under grade 10

TABLE 2:

City Percentage

LEVEL OF SCHOOLING* (FEMALES)

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Under grade 10

120

12.9%

33.1%

Secondary School: Certificate Without Certificate

60 110

6.5% 11.8%

12.4% 18.1%

Post-Secondary: Diploma Without Diploma

130 50

14.0% 5.4%

10.7% 8.4%

University: Degree Without Degree

305 155

32.8% 16.6%

9.0% 8.3%

Total:

930

100%

100%

*Population 15 years and over.

- 48 -


TABLE 3:

LABOUR FORCE BY OCCUPATIONS (MALES)

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Technical, Professional

420

49.7%

17.1%

Clerical, Sales

225

26.6%

38.0%

Trades

135

16.0%

32.9%

65

7.7%

12.0%

845

100%

100%

Other, Not Stated

Total:

TABLE 4:

LABOUR FORCE BY OCCUPATIONS (FEMALES)

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Technical, Professional

180

35.7%

20.7%

Clerical, Sales

260

51.5%

64.1%

Trades

10

1.9%

4.7%

Other, Not Stated

55

10.9%

10.5%

505

100%

100%

Total:


TABLE 5: EMPLOYMENT* (MALES)

Number Employed Unemployed

Total:

Community Percentage

City Percentage

660

95.4%

95.5%

25

4.6%

4.5%

685

100%

100%

TABLE 6: EMPLOYMENT* (FEMALES)

Number Employed Unemployed

Total:

TABLE 7:

Community Percentage

City Percentage

415

89.3%

95.1%

50

10.7%

4.9%

465

100%

100%

HOUSEHOLD INCOME

Total Number Households 930

Average Community Household Income $ 15,168.32

*Population aged 15+ by labour activity type.

- 50 -

Average City Household Income $ 10,153


. .I I . .I .I I .

.I .I Is I

NM U MS SW U IIIN I Ell II INN R SKS SS I Ell IUU 1.111 II MN I IIIIII I NS

I . .I I . I . .I .II . I s

I s . I im I 0 MINS111/1111â&#x20AC;¢1111111MISSIMISIIMOSSONIMIIIMIONIII1MIIIIIIIISSININ IN 0$ I ,0. a 40 -


Parkalien An&-

I in I NE I No Iam • NE

Nis •

UP! I ••••

II 68

7

AVE

AVE

Lle 111111111111 INN NUM new NEN

=1.1

65 AVE

I]

ii

NMI

LEHI

EvE -

imlia P/1111111111M mummori 63

62 AVE

A

62 AVE

hlhhhhh

11""1 ?'

imm

um NEI on s mi am • on s as a au. maim s

Community Boundary


/01

" 211 -

1.2.7 PARKALLEN

Population Characteristics

The population of Parkallen (2,160) has a higher proportion of females in comparison to the City average (52.1% compared to 50.1%).

Marital status figures shows a higher percentage of the community to be married (46.8% compared to 44.4%) than the City average.

Over 81% of the Parkallen community has English as a mother tongue which is higher than City average (76.6%). Of the remainder, approximately 9% have either German or Ukrainian as a mother tongue.

Households and Housing

Percentages for household type within the community are very similar to those of the City, which indicate a high proportion of onefamily households (70.0%). Parkallen is characterized by a high percentage of single-family detached dwellings (62.4% compared to 51.6% for the City) with the majority of the housing stock owned rather than rented (60.6% compared to 51.1% City average).

Education and Economic Characteristics

Level of schooling figures show that a higher proportion of the community population have had university training in comparison to the City average (34.7% compared to 23.8% for males; 31.0% compared to 17.3% for females).

A higher percentage of both sexes are involved in technical and professional occupations in comparison to the City average (26.2% compared to 17.1% for males; 24.9% compared to 20.7% for females). Over 62% of the female labour force is involved in clerical and sales positions, which is similar to City average (64.1%). -51 -


Unemployment figures for the male labour force are similar to City averages. However the female labour force in the community has a higher rate of unemployment than the City as a whole (7.3% compared to 4.9%).

The average household income for Parkallen ($10,230) is similar to the average City income ($10,153).


Parkalien

AVE 220261:1011111120iti : ? ° . ! VilliNefflifillil

AVE

tionavolsk \ ,,trionatterwmati l, . ic a. 171. P. ,.. w. C4 ° .. .._

\ .

70 AVE

c

IMO ITEM

I M

ma gm

eile

-4 2z

fAVE11611;10 ilr' 'ENDEIGHNIIH 65 AVE IMECIEMOD it.;

;

lEid1Z 'Nita ZitgAV 21/EISI= aOWEN.

MPS

I

iv IN N

' E li D 121 Mai

3

rel I7E0 1 lOWN ‘P.

%MUM 10256

1E5"%'

?`,

0

Vagsmarinasenam 62 AVF

62 AVE

gliaratig 4

Single Family (R-1) Low Density (RC-1, R-2, R-2A) Multi Family (R-3, R-4...) '7 ,

Commercial Parks

MIME MEMO; EMI 1

Institutional Industrial

Land Use

H

Hospital

Fig 1.2.7.A


Parkalien

r. au s s § rAdi 70

AVE

lIiI

OM IOM OMS MN EMI

I I I I I I I I I 11 I I I I I I I I 11

AVE

AP

11 =m1 VfIIIUU °IMMO

RC-1

66

AVE

1 62 AVE

62

AVE

c.1

Zoning

Fig 1.2.7.6


AGE-SEX STRUCTURE FOR PARKALLEN

MALE

FEMALE

AGE 70+ 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 0-4

50

45

35

40

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

PERCENTAGE

-n 76'

TOTAL: Male

1035

Female 1125 0

COMMUNITY CITY


COMMUNITY: PARKALLEN POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS

TABLE 1: MALE-FEMALE POPULATION

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Male

1035

47-9%

49.9%

Female

1125

52.1%

50.1%

Total:

2160

100%

Number

Community Percentage

100%

TABLE 2: MARITAL STATUS

City Percentage

Single

980

44.7%

47.2%

Married

1025

46.8%

44.4%

Divorced

50

2.3%

2.5%

Widowed

105

4.8%

4.1%

30

1.4%

1.8%

Separated Total:

2190

100%

100%


TABLE 3:

MOTHER TONGUE (MALES)

English

Community Percentage

875

81.8%

French

30

2.8% â&#x20AC;¢

German

50

4.7%

Indian & Inuit

0

0.0%

Italian

0

0.0%

Polish

5

0.5%

Ukrainian

40

3.7%

Other

70

6.5%

Total:

TABLE 4:

Number

1070

100%

MOTHER TONGUE (FEMALES)

Number

Community Percentage

English

910

81.2%

French

25

2.2%

German

65

5.8%

Indian & Inuit

0

0.0%

Italian

0

0.0%

Polish

0

0.0%

Ukrainian

35

3.1%

Other

85

7.7%

Total:

1120

100%


HOUSEHOLDS AND HOUSING

TABLE 1: HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentaae

560

70.0%

71.1%

5

0.6%

0.8%

Non-Family Households

235

29.4%

28.1%

Total Number of Households:

800

One-Family Households Multi-Family Households

100%

100%

TABLE 2: DWELLING BY TYPE

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Single Detached

515

62.4%

51.6%

Single Attached

100

12.1%

14.0%

Apartments

210

â&#x20AC;¢ 25.5%

33.9% 0.5%

Mobile Homes Total Dwellings:

825

100%

100%

TABLE 3: DWELLING BY TENURE Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Owned

485

60.6%

51.1%

Rented

315

39.4%

48.9%

Total Dwellings:

800

100%

100%


TABLE 3:

LABOUR FORCE BY OCCUPATIONS (MALES)

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Technical, Professional

275

26.2%

17.1%

Clerical, Sales

245

23.3%

38.0%

Trades

395

37.6%

32.9%

Other, Not Stated

135

12.9%

12.0%

1050

Total:

TABLE 4:

100%

100%

LABOUR FORCE BY OCCUPATIONS (FEMALES)

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Technical, Professional

175

24.8%

20.7%

Clerical, Sales

440

62.4%

64.1%

Trades

35

5.0%

4,7%

Other, Not Stated

55

7.8%

10.5%

Total:

705

100%

100%


EDUCATION AND ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

TABLE 1:

LEVEL OF SCHOOLING* (MALES)

Number

Community Percentag.

City Percentage

Under grade 10

215

25.7%

32.1%

Secondary School: Certificate Without Certificate

65 120

7.8% 14-4%

9.4% 16.6%

Post-Secondary: Diploma Without Diploma

75 70

9.0% 8.4%

9_2% 8.9%

University: Degree Without Degree

195 95

23.4% 11.3%

13 4% 10.4%

Total:

835

TABLE 2:

100%

100%

LEVEL OF SCHOOLING* (FEMALES)

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Under grade 10

260

27.8%

33.1%

Secondary School: Certificate Without Certificate

100 135

10.7% 14.4%

12.4% 18.1%

Post-Secondary: Diploma Without Diploma

65 85

7.0% 9.1%

10 7% 8.4%

University: Degree Without Degree

175 115

18.7% 12.3%

Total:

935

*Population 15 years and over.

100%

9.0% 8.3% 100%


TABLE 5: EMPLOYMENT* (MALES)

Number

Community Percentage

620

96.1%

95.5%

25

3.9%

4.5%

Employed Unemployed

645

Total:

City Percentage

100%

100%

TABLE 6: EMPLOYMENT* (FEMALES)

Number

Community Percentage

445

92.7%

95.1%

35

7.3%

4.9%

Employed Unemployed

480

Total:

City Percentage

100%

100%

TABLE 7: HOUSEHOLD INCOME

Total Number Households 975

Average Community Household Income $10,230.88

*Population aged 15+ by labour activity type.

Average City Household Income $10.153.


I

I • I •

I

I •

1111 O MI 111 MN II 11E1 II Mil • MI II MI II NMI 0 MI 111 • • 11 • i

Ow ism I lin •

I •

I •

I • I • I • 11611111111111•11111111101111111

El

I

l —_ Oleo I 111111 al I all "II ilal I airs11111 • a al. ....arlorniora

00's*

io* .,00o* 4.0*

• Mil I MIMI 0 NMI MN •

I • I • I •

I

i *

! .1!

imocommommeromenimenandi V 0 Ca

I li

1! . t I,.

.1.1

It 4

S 0-

8. So

C 0 (11) MC

wead

T. 146

s •

4 s. 8.

IMP

Vi


Strathcona <1Z

iiiiuiiii iumii

Community Boundary


1.2.8 STRATHCONA

Population Characteristics

The Strathcona population (9,780) has a even distribution of males (48.7%) and females (51.3%) which is similar to the City average. A larger percentage of the population is between the ages of 20 and 29, in comparison to the City (44.8% compared to 22.9% for males; 39.9% compared to 22.0% for females).

The martial status figures for the Community are very similar to those of the City (42.0% married, 45.6% single). The majority (78.5% of the community population has English as a mother tongue; this is similar to the City average (76.6%). Approximately 10% of the remaining population have German as a mother tongue. Households and Housing Strathcona has more non-family households than is average in comparison to the City (55.4% compared to 28.1%) 71.0% of the community's housing stock are apartments compared to 33.9% for the City average. The non-family character of this area is also reflected in the tenure statistics where 82.0% of all dwellings are rented compared to the City average of 48.9%. Education and Economic Characteristics Strathcona has a lower proportion of its population with under grade 10 education than is average for the City (24.2% compared to 32.1% for males; 24.5% compared to 33.1% for females). However, a greater percentage of the Strathcona population has university training in comparison to the City (36.5% compared to 23.8% for males; 28.1% compared to 17.3% for females).


In Strathcona, a higher proportion of males are involved in trade occupations (40.9%) in comparison to the City average (32.9%). Percentages for male and female labour force indicate that more of Strathcona's population is involved in technical, professional occupations than the City average (22.2% compared to 17.1% for males; 26.4% compared to 20.7% for females). Clerical and sales occupations comprise a lower percentage of Strathcona's male working force (24.1%) than the City average (38.0%).

Unemployment figures for Strathcona indicate more unemployed males in the community than is average for the City (7.2% compared to 4.5%). The unemployment statistics for females in Strathcona are indentical to those for the City (4.9%).

Strathcona's average household income of $7,957 is less than the average City figure of $10,153.


Strathcona 4(1Z

co

us.. 91;Nr ".

II _ =

2.121!=

M.L• MEM MSC INN=

E 21:11.

iv! iUIiU

=I=

Single Family (R-1)

EFEE pig

Low Density (RC-1, R-2, R-2A)mF Multi Family (R-3, R-4...) Commercial Parks 111•=1 =SW

Institutional

1111111

Industrial

H

Hospital

Land Use

Fig 1.2.8.A


Strathcona

(Lfl Z

UMW 111111 rIVE

Zoning

Fig 1.2.8.B


AGE-SEX STRUCTURE FOR STRATHCONA

FEMALE

MALE

AGE 70 + 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 0-4

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1 45

50

PERCENTAGE

-n co .71 TOTAL: Male 93 0

4756

Female 5025

MENA= COMMUNITY CITY


COMMUNITY: STRATHCONA POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS

TABLE 1: MALE-FEMALE POPULATION

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Male

4765

48.7%

49.9%

Female

5025

51.3%

50.1%

Total:

9780

100%

100%

TABLE 2: MARITAL STATUS

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Single

4480

45.6%

47.2%

Married

4135

42.0%

44.4%

Divorced

420

4.3%

2.5%

Widowed

500

5.0%

4.1%

Separated

305

3.1%

1.8%

9840

100%

100%

Total:


TABLE 3:

MOTHER TONGUE (MALES)

Number

Community Percentage

English

3715

78.7%

French

115

2.5%

German

390

8.2% 0.0%

Indian & Inuit

TABLE 4:

Italian

20

0.4%

Polish

15

0.3%

Ukrainian

135

2.9%

Other

330

7.0%

Total:

4720

100%

Number

Community Percentage

MOTHER TONGUE (FEMALES)

English

3940

78.4%

French

150

3.0%

German

450

8.9%.

Indian & Inuit

15

0.3%

Italian

10

0.2%

Polish

25

0.5%

Ukrainian

150

3.0%

Other

285

5.7%

5025

100%

Total:


HOUSEHOLDS AND HOUSING

TABLE 1: HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE

Number One-Family Households

Community Percentage

City Percentage

2240

44.3%

71.1%

15

0.3%

0.8%

Non-Family Households

2800

55.4%

28.1%

Total Number of Households:

5055

100%

100%

Multi-Family Households

TABLE 2: DWELLING BY TYPE

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Single Detached

1005

20.0%

51.6%

Single Attached

455

9.0%

14.0%

3575

71.0%

33.9%

Apartments Mobile Homes

Total Dwellings:

0.5% 5035

100%

100%

TABLE 3: DWELLING BY TENURE Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Owned

905

18.0%

51.1%

Rented

4150

82.0%

48.9%

Total Dwellings:

5055

100%

100%


EDUCATION AND ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS TABLE 1:

LEVEL OF SCHOOLING* (MALES)

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentaa

Under grade 10

815

24.2%

32.1%

Secondary School: Certificate Without Certificate

345 410

10.2% 12.2%

9.4% 16.6%

Post-Secondary: Diploma Without Diploma

300 270

8.9% 8.0%

9.2% 8.9%

University: Degree Without Degree

595 635

17.7% 18.8%

13.4% 10.4%

3370

Total:

TABLE 2:

100%

100%

LEVEL OF SCHOOLING* (FEMALES)

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentag

Under grade 10

895

24.5%

33.1%

Secondary School: Certificate Without Certificate

465 460

12.7% 12.5%

12 4% 18.1%

Post-Secondary: Diploma Without Diploma

540 275

14.7% 7.5%

10.7% 8.4%

University: Degree Without Degree

540 500

14.7% 13.4%

9.0% 8.3%

Total:

*Population 15 years and over.

3675

100%

100%


TABLE 3:

LABOUR FORCE BY OCCUPATIONS (NALES)

Number

Community Percentag

City Percentage

Technical, Professional

475

22.2%

17.1%

Clerical, Sales

515

24.1%

38.0%

Trades

875

40.9%

32.9%

Other, Not Stated

275

12.8%

12.0%

Total:

TABLE 4:

2140

100%

LABOUR FORCE BY OCCUPATIONS (FEMALES)

Technical, Professional Clerical, Sales Trades Other, Not Stated

Total:

100%

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

430

26.4%

20.7%

1025

63.0%

64.1%

50

3.0%

4.7%

125

7.6%

10.5%

1630

100%

100%


TABLE 5: EMPLOYMENT* (MALES)

Number Employed Unemployed

Total:

TABLE 6:

Community Percentage

City Percentage 95.5% '

3120

92.8%

260

7.2%

4.5%

3380

100%

100%

EMPLOYMENT* (FEMALES)

Number Employed Unemployed

Total:

Community Percentage

City Pereenta

2785

95.1%

95.1%

165

4.9%

4.9%

2950

100%

100%

TABLE 7: HOUSEHOLD INCOME

Total Number Households 2925

Average Community Household Income $7,957.62

*Population aged 15+ by labour activity type.

- 66 -

Average City Household Income $10,153


Quer n Alexandra

III OM

I II NM II MIN II NM II IMO II OBI II NMI II MI III Mil II MIN U IIIN â&#x20AC;¢INII MIME MI Il 1.1 ONE

III II Mill NMI III

Air

IS NM III IIII1 11111111111M1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111.11


Queen Alexandra

MINIMS IIIIIIIlIuhlIII

-777 79

AVE

7

MOM 75

AVE

74

AVE

73

AVE

Community Boundary


1.2.9 QUEEN ALEXANDRA

Population Characteristics The Queen Alexandra population (2,815) has an even distrubtion of males to females, which is similar to the City average (49.2% males, 50.8% females). The community has a higher percentage of its population within the 20 - 29 year age group in comparison to the City average (31.8% compared to 22.9% for males; 24.7% compared to 22.0% for females). The over-70 population is also higher than City average (10.1% compared to 3.9% for males; 13.5% compared to 5.3% for females). Marital status figures indicate that 44.5% of the community population is single compared to City average of 47.2%. The percentage of widowed, divorced and separated persons is also higher than City average (13.6% compared to 8.4%). The ethnic composition of Queen Alexandra is primarily English (74.7% compared to 76.6% for the City). The mother tongue of the remaining population includes German (5.8%) and Ukrainian (6.8%).

Households and Housing One-family households make up 55.6% of the community, which is lower than the City average of 71.1%. In comparison, non-family households make up a higher percentage than the average for the City (44.4% compared to 28.1%). Queen Alexandra is primarily characterized by single detached homes (52.3%) which is similar to the City average (51.6%). Single attached dwellings make up 20.2% of the available housing compared to 14.0% for the City. An additional 17.5% of the housing is apartments, which is lower than City average (33.9%). Tenure statistics are similar to City figures where 46.9% of the Queen Alexandra residents own their homes while the City average of 51.1% is only slightly higher.


Education and Economic Characteristics

Levels of schooling statistics indicate a slightly higher proportion of the community residents have under grade 10 education in comparison to City figures (35.5% compared to 32.1% for males; 40.4% compared to 33.1% for females). A lower proportion have had post-secondary schooling in comparison to the City average (14.2% compared to 18.1% for males; 13.7% compared to 19.1% for females). The majority of the male labour force have trades as occupations (43.0% compared to 32.9% for the City). The majority of the female community work force is employed in clerical and sales occupations (71.4%) which is higher than City average (64.1%). Unemployment figures for males are slightly higher in comparison to City average (7.0% compared to 4.5%). The unemployment rate for females is similar to the City average (4.2% compared to 4.9%). Household income for Queen Alexandra is slightly lower in comparison to the City average ($7,826 compared to $10,153).


Queen Alexandra

ppropipw 4.0

W/404111 dd./119,4Z

;411 1e.o;

IMENEN1 MOM MN= • NNERN MEM

.2

Single Family (R-1) Low Density (RC-1, R-2, R-2A) Multi Family (R-3, R-4...)

,

Commercial Parks

1111111•11 111111111111.11

1111111

Land Use

Institutional Industrial Hospital

Fig 1.2.9.A


Queen Alexandra

Cn-7-7

C-A

A f`t C

A cc

AVE

C —2A '

Ifr

C-3

AP

P— 3 AV

IIIliiii

-2

75

74

AP AVE

R-5 A

111111111Ti4l: 111111111111111111 AVE

AP

R-4

Zoning

Fig 1.2.9.E3


AGE - SEX STRUCTURE FOR QUEEN ALEXANDRA

MALE

FEMALE

AGE 70 + 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 0-4

45

50

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

PERCENTAGE

-Ti

h% 71 TOTAL:

Male

1375

r' Female 1420 0

COMMUNITY CITY


COMMUNITY: QUEEN ALEX

POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS

TABLE 1: MALE-FEMALE POPULATION

Number

Community Percentag.

City Percentage

Male

1375

49.2%

49.9%

Female

1420

50.8%

50.1%

Total:

2795

100%

100%

TABLE 2: MARITAL STATUS

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Single

1260

44.5%

47.2%

Married

1185

41.9%

44.4%

Divorced

105

3.7%

2.5%

Widowed

220

7.8%

4.1%

60

2.1%

1.8%

2830

100%

100%

Separated Total:


TABLE 3:

MOTHER TONGUE (MALES)

Number English

1080

75.3%

French

35

2.4%

German

80

5.6%

Indian & Inuit

10

0.7%

Italian

15

0.1%

Polish

0

0.0%

85

5.9%

130

9.3%

1435

100%

Number

Community Percentage

Ukrainian Other

Total:

TABLE 4:

Community Percentage

MOTHER TONGUE (FEMALES)

English

1065

74.7%

French

40

2.8%

German

85

6.0%

Indian & Inuit

10

0.8%

Italian

0

0.0%

Polish

20

1.4%

110

7.7%

95

6.6%

1425

100%

Ukrainian Other

Total:


HOUSEHOLDS AND HOUSING

TABLE 1: HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE

Number One-Family Households

675

Community Percentage 55.6%

Multi-Family Households

71.1% 0.8%

Non-Family Households

Total Number of Households:

City Percentage

540

44.4%

28.1%

1215

100%

100%

TABLE 2: DWELLING BY TYPE

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Single Detached

635

52.3%

51.6%

Single Attached

245

20.2%

14.0%

Apartments

335

27.5%

33.9%

Mobile Homes Total Dwellings:

0.5% 1215

100%

100%

TABLE 3: DWELLING BY TENURE Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Owned

570

46.9%

51.1%

Rented

645

53.1%

48.9%

1215

100%

100%

Total Dwellings:


EDUCATION AND ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

TABLE 1:

LEVEL OF SCHOOLING* (MALES)

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Under grade 10

325

35.5%

32.17

Secondary School: Certificate Without Certificate

80 130

8.7% 14.2%

9.4% 16.6%

Post-Secondary: Diploma Without Diploma

80 50

8.7% 5.5%

9.2% 8.9%

University: Degree Without Degree

105 145

11.5% 15.9%

13.4% 10.4%

Total:

915

100%

100%

TABLE 2:

LEVEL OF SCHOOLING* (FEMALES)

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Under grade 10

370

40.4%

33.1%

Secondary School: Certificate Without Certificate

95 150

10.4% 16.4%

12.4% 18.1%

Post-Secondary: Diploma Without Diploma

50 75

5.5% 8.2%

10.7% 8.4%

University: Degree Without Degree

85 90

9.3% 9.8%

9.0% 8.3%

915

100%

100%

Total:

*Population 15 years and over.


TABLE 3:

LABOUR FORCE BY OCCUPATIONS (MALES)

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

70

15.1%

17.1%

Clerical, Sales

145

31.2%

38.0%

Trades

200

43.0%

32.9%

50

10.7%

12.0%

465

100%

100%

Technical, Professional

Other, Not Stated

Total:

TABLE 4:

LABOUR FORCE BY OCCUPATIONS (FEMALES)

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

60

19.2%

20.7%

225

71.4%

64.1%

Trades

15

4.7%

4.7%

Other, Not Stated

15

4.7%

10.5%

315

100%

100%

Technical, Professional Clerical, Sales

Total:


TABLE 5: EMPLOYMENT* (MALES)

Number Employed

Community Percentage

City Percentage

725

93.0%

95.5%

55

7.0%

4.5%

780

100%

100%

Unemployed

Total:

TABLE 6: EMPLOYMENT* (FEMALES)

Number Employed Unemployed

Total:

Community Percentage

City Percentage

565

95.8%

95.1%

25

4.2%

4.9%

590

100%

100%

TABLE 7: HOUSEHOLD INCOME

Total Number Households

Average Community Household Income

Average City Household Income

650

$7,826.24

$10,153

*Population aged 15+ by labour activity type.

- 74 -


Coronet Industrial II Mill GI • A

ME O

so • MIN MIRU .1111 I MEI • OM 111 11111 I NM • On • I

lii

SIN ISO I Mt .1111.

ess *aft/

ON •ammo wawa

aloe." ow ma • —


1.2.10 CORONET INDUSTRIAL AREA

Population Characteristics

The population of Coronet Industrial Area (5,995) has an even distribution of males to females (50.9% males, 49.1% females) which is similar to City average. The population pyramid indicates a higher proportion of both males and females in the under 14 age groups in comparison to the overall City distribution 30.3% compared to 23.2% for females, 31.0% compared to 24.6% for males). There are also slightly fewer persons in the over-50 age category in Coronet in comparison with the City (13.1% compared to 20.8% for females; 13.3% compared to 18.3% for the males).

Marital status figures for Coronet conform closely to City average (46.2% married, 47.8% single).

The ethnic composition of Coronet is predominantly English (83.3% of the community population) compared to 76.6% for the City.

Households and Housing

Coronet has a higher percentage of one-family households than the City average (81.5% compared to 71.1%). The residential areas of the community are characterized by the majority of the housing stock being single-attached dwellings (44.1% compared to 14.0% for the City). Single-detached homes constitute 30.0% of housing (compared to 51.6% for the City) and mobile homes make up a small proportion of the total housing (8.7% compared to 0.5% for City average). Much of the total occupied housing is rented (60.4%, which is higher than the City average 48.9%).

Education and Economic Characteristics

Levels of schooling in the Coronet Area conform closely to City percentages with 31.1% having below grade 10 education. Labour

- 75 -


force figures indicate that the majority of the male work force is employed in trades (46.6% compared to 32.9% for the City), while clerical and sales occupations account for 28.1% of the community male work force (City average is 38.0%). A higher percentage of the female work force is involved in clerical, sales positions (69.5%) than the City average of 64.1%. A lower proportion of females in the area have technical, professional position (17.2%) in comparison to the City average (21.7%). Unemployment within Coronet is lower for both males and females in comparison to the City (4.3% compared to 4.0% for males; 1.7% compared to 4.9% for females). The average household income in Coronet ($9,486) is lower than the average City household income ($10,153).


Coronet Industrial An*.

mm • EMI • ME II IIIIN • I= II MN •

IN,* NM

III

I ijiiiiii 11111•1111011 •Liiii

suarms-mataiummorsmiame*

Community Boundary


Coronet Industrial

Single Family (R-1) Low Density (RC-1, R-2, R-2A) Multi Family (R-3, R-4...) "III'

Commercial Parks

1111

II

I

NMI

Institutional

III

Industrial

1111111 1111111

Hospital

111111ki

11111111111111111111111

F

DUD

1111

pp

"91111111111B * Allendale Trailer Court

Land Use

Fig 1.2.10.A


R- 4

Coronet Industrial

-

M-1

IVI

P-3

-2 R-3

Zoning

Fig 1.2.10.B


AGE - SEX STRUCTURE FOR CORONET INDUSTRIAL AREA

FEMALE

MALE

AGE 70+ 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 0-4

I 50

I 45

I 40

I 35

I 30

I 25

I 20

I 15

I 10

5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

PERCENTAGE

7 co .." iv '...L 0

0

TOTAL: Male

3055

Female 2940

COMMUNITY CITY


COMMUNITY: CORONET INDUSTRIAL AREA POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS

TABLE 1: MALE-FEMALE POPULATION

Number

Community Percentagf_

City Percentage

Male

3055

50.9%

49.9%

Female

2940

49.1%

50.1%

Total:

5995

100%

100%

TABLE 2: MARITAL STATUS

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Single

2225

47.8%

47.2%

Married

2155

46.2%

44.4%

Divorced

125

2.7%

2-5%

Widowed

80

1.7%

4.1%

Separated

75

1.6%

1.8%

Total:

4660

100%

100% â&#x20AC;¢


TABLE 3:

MOTHER TONGUE (MALES)

Number

Community Percentage

2025

83.8%

French

45

2.0%

German

135

5.6%

5

0.2%

Italian

10

0.4%

Polish

10.

0.4%

Ukrainian

50

2.0%

Other

135

5.6%

Total:

2415

English

Indian & Inuit

TABLE 4:

100%

MOTHER TONGUE (FEMALES)

Number

Community Percentage

1905

82.8%

French

40

1.7%

German

140

6.1%

English

0.0%

Indian & Inuit Italian

10

0.4%

Polish

10

0.4%

Ukrainian

70

3.2%

125

5.4%

Other

Total:

2300

100%


HOUSEHOLDS AND HOUSING

TABLE 1: HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE

Number One-Family Households

City Percentage

1185

81.5%

71.1%

10

0.7%

0.8%

260

17.8%

28.1%

Multi-Family households Non-Family Households

Total Number of Households:

Community Percentage

1455

100%

100%

TABLE 2: DWELLING BY TYPE

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Single Detached

435

30-0%

51.6%

Single Attached

640

44.1%

14.0%

Apartments

250

17.2%

33.9%

Mobile Homes

125

8.7%

0.5%

Total Dwellings:

1450

100%

100%

TABLE 3: DWELLING BY TENURE Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Owned

575

39.6%

51.1%

Rented

875

60.4%

48.9%

Total Dwellings:

1450

- 79 -

100%

100%


EDUCATION AND ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS TABLE 1:

LEVEL OF SCHOOLING* (MALES)

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Under grade 10

485

30.0%

32.1%

Secondary School: Certificate Without Certificate

150 235

9.2% 14.5%

9.4% 16.6%

Post-Secondary: Diploma Without Diploma

175 165

10.8% 10.2%

9.2% 8.9%

University: Degree Without Degree

240 170 â&#x20AC;¢

14.8% 10.5%

13.4% 10.4%

1620

Total:

TABLE 2:

100%

100%

LEVEL OF SCHOOLING* (FEMALES)

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentao-e

Under grade 10

540

32.2%

33.1%

Secondary School: Certificate Without Certificate

190 320

11.4% 19.1%

12.4% 18.1%

Post-Secondary: Diploma Without Diploma

205 150

12.2% 9.0%

10.7% 8.4%

University: Degree Without Degree

115 155

6.9% 9.2%

9.0% 8.3%

Total:

1675

*Population 15 years and over.

100%

100%


TABLE 3:

LABOUR FORCE BY OCCUPATIONS (MALES)

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Technical, Professional

160

14.5%

17.1%

Clerical, Sales

310

28-1%

38.0%

Trades

515

46.6%

32.9%

Other, Not Stated

120

10-8%

12.0%

1105

Total:

TABLE 4:

100%

100%

LABOUR FORCE BY OCCUPATIONS (FEMALES)

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Technical, Professional

110

17.2%

20.7%

Clerical, Sales

445

69.5%

64.1%

Trades

20

3.1%

4.7%

Other, Not Stated

65

10.2%

10.5%

Total:

640

100%

100%


TABLE 5: EMPLOYMENT* (MALES)

Employed

Number

Community Percentage

1335

95.7%

95.5%

60

4.3%

4.5%

Unemployed

1395

Total:

City Percentage

100%

100%

TABLE 6: EMPLOYMENT* (FEMALES)

Number Employed Unemployed

TABLE 7:

City Percentage

865

98-3%

95.1%

15

1.7%

4.9%

880

Total:

Community Percentage

100%

100%

HOUSEHOLD INCW4E

Total Number Households

Average Community Household Income

Average City Household Income

1160

$9486.53

$10,153.00

*Population aged 15+ by labour activity type. -82 -

,


:1111 11 MR SIMI I MIEN MIN

II Id I =NM II MI II INN II MI II IMO

.0* o•

Naafi

111 IIIII II =I MI EMS II

goo°

I

Milt

CD

Mma mums

0

rolo

2)1• ••••


Ritchie

77, 71117 iminel 1an' 4DI 67

AVf

so

AVE

s,

—J =NMI 1111111.

• AV1

78

AVE

7

AVE

76

AVE

75

AVE

1111111114 AVE

73

72

AVE

AVE

lilF1 71

AVE

70

AVE

69

AVE

I 1 IIII III I I

Community Boundary


1.2.11 RITCHIE

Population Characteristics

The total population of Ritchie (6,995) has a similar distribution of males to females (49.5% males, 50.5% females) in comparison to the City. According to the population pyramid (Figure 1.2.11.0 ), Ritchie has a larger over - 55 population in comparison to the City distribution (17.0% compared to 13.3% for males; 21.6% compared to 15.6% for females).

The marital status figures are similar to the City average (44.7% married, 44.8% single).

Ritchie's population is predominantly English-speaking (74.2% for males, 72.5% for females). The balance of the residents have mother tongues of German or Ukrainian (14.8% males, 16.4% females). Households and Housing

Household type figures for Ritchie illustrate the single family residential character of the neighbourhood (72.5% one-family households compared to City average 71.1%; 69.0% single-detached homes compared to 51.6% for the City). Accordingly, ownership is higher than the City average (60.1% compared to 51.1%).

Education and Economic Characteristics

A higher percentage of the Ritchie residents have less than grade 10 education in comparison to the City average (41.2% compared to 32.1% for males; 47.6% compared to 33.1% for females). A lower proportion of the Ritchie population have university training in comparison to City average (5.2% compared to 23.8% for males; 12.4% compared to 17.3% for females).


A higher percentage of males are involved in trade occupations (5.6% in comparison to the City average 32.9%). Technical, professional and clerical, sales occupations for males are both lower in comparison to City averages (13.5% compared to 17.1% in technical, professional occupations; 27.8% compared to 38.0% for clerical sales occupations). Female occupation figures are similar to City average with the greatest number of females employed in clerical, sales positions (68.7% compared to the City average 64.1%).

Unemployment figures for both sexes were similar to City average at the time of the 1971 Census (3.8% for males, 4.5% for females).

The average household income in Ritchie ($9,171) is slightly lower than the average City household income ($10,153).


Ritchie

.4).440..A

0;

3 AVE

Mingling INIMENNO MEMO =MIR 80

emmumnimimmum

ilmiiiumilii MOMMUMMEMMME " 79

AVE

NM=

g

glin

IMEMINE

WWI RR IMMO

133

AVE

1.1711114f141f) AVE

=MN MEM MEM MERigngl NM= MINN MOM Ignanlan AVE

IMMO!

•?

AVE

Wenn

IIMMENINNI

111111ft

111M111111 AVE

LOME 10111=111M MOM= AV

32.

MENNEM pe,2 ...... ' . •

',. AVE

Th

i*1

71

3.14M3I 3".3333.3I

NM= 011=113

AVE

] ---II.-•:i

3I AVE

RIONIOR

ISHOMM 11$8BillOOM AVE

11WRIA i MOW

MEER

MIMS

MMIMMIIILLM MMOIMMMMIPIPMWW. 4-

r

Single Family (R-1)

Land Use

Lai Parks

CI Low Density (RC-1, R-2, R -2A)

MMUS

Institutional

IN Multi Family (R-3, R-4....)

I'll"

Industrial

COM1114KCla!

H Hospital Fig 1.2.11.A


Ritchie

8

2A

ao

79

1117211111P1

Ammo AVE

1

MOWN MIMI morromi 111111111111111111111 111,2 111111111 111111111111111111

74

AVE

73

AVE

Ii!IP!!hlIIIh 1111011111111

111111111ill

1[111111[

11

72

AVE

71

AVE

70

AVE

11[17111711

111111111H

111111HIHJ A

Zoning

Fig 1.2.11.6


AGE-SEX STRUCTURE FOR RITCHIE

FEMALE

MALE

AGE 70 + 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 0-4

45

50

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

PERCENTAGE

11

1â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;) TOTAL: Male

3445

Female 3540 0

COMMUNITY CITY


COMMUNITY: RITCHIE POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS

TABLE 1: MALE-FEMALE POPULATION

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Male

3460

49.5%

49.9%

Female

3535

50.5%

50.1%

Total:

6995

100%

100%

TABLE 2: MARITAL STATUS

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Single

3130

44.8%

47.2%

Married

3125

44.7%

44.4%

Divorced

175

2.5%

2.5%

Widowed

455

6.5%

4.1%

Separated

105

1.5%

1.8%

Total:

6990

100%

100%


TABLE 3:

MOTHER TONGUE (MALES)

Number

Community Percentage

2560

74-2%

French

75

2.2%

German

390

11.3%

10

0.3%

Italian

5

0.1%

Polish

50

1.5%

Ukrainian

120

3-5%

Other

240

6.9%

English

Indian & Inuit

Total:

TABLE 4:

3450

100%

MOTHER TONGUE (FEMALES)

Number

Community Percentage

2575

72-7%

French

85

2.4%

German

435

12.3%

English

Indian & Inuit

0.0%

Italian

0.0% 50

1.4%

Ukrainian

145

4.1%

Other

250

7.1%

Total:

3540

Polish

100%


HOUSEHOLDS AND HOUSING

TABLE 1:

HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE

One-Family Households •

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

1675

72.5%

711%

10

0.4%

0.8%

625

27.1%

28,1%

Multi-Family Households Non-Family Households

Total Number of Households:

2310

100%

100%

TABLE 2: DWELLING BY TYPE

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Single Detached

1600

69.0%

51.6%

Single Attached

310

13.4%

14.0%

Apartments

410

17.6%

33.9%

Mobile Homes Total Dwellings:

0.5% 2320

100%

100%

TABLE 3: DWELLING BY TENURE Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Owned

1395

60.1%

51,1%

Rented

925

39.9%

48.9%

Total Dwellings:

2320

100%

100%


EDUCATION AND ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

TABLE 1:

LEVEL OF SCHOOLING* (MALES)

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentagf2

Under grade 10

900

41.2%

32.1%

Secondary School: Certificate. Without Certificate

210 290

9.6% 13.3%

9.4% 166%

Post-Secondary: Diploma Without Diploma

190 265

8.7% 12.1%

9.2% 8.9%

University: Degree Without Degree

160 170

7.4% 7.8%

13.4% 10.4%

2185

Total:

TABLE 2:

100%

100%

LEVEL OF SCHOOLING* (FEMALES)

Number

Community Percentage

1125

47.6%

33.1%

Secondary School: Certificate Without Certificate

250 345

10.6% 14-6%

12.4% 18.1%

Post-Secondary: Diploma Without Diploma

215 135

9.1% 5.7%

10.7% 8.4%

University: Degree Without Degree

115 180

4.9% 7.5%

9.0% ___ 8.3%

Under grade 10

Total:

*Population 15 years and over.

2365

100%

City Percentag_e_

100%


TABLE 3:

LABOUR FORCE BY OCCUPATIONS (MALES)

Number

Community Percentag_e_

City Percentag_e_

Technical, Professional

250

13.5%

17.1%

Clerical, Sales

515

27.8%

38.0%

Trades

845

45.6%

32.9%

Other, Not Stated

245

13.1%

_ 12.0%

1855

Total:

TABLE 4:

100%

100%

LABOUR FORCE BY OCCUPATIONS (FEMALES)

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Technical, Professional

165

15.6%

20.7%

Clerical, Sales

725

68.7%

64.1%

40

3.8%

4 7%

125

11.9%

10.5%

Trades Other, Not Stated

Total:

1055

100%

100%


TABLE 5: EMPLOYMENT* (MALES)

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

1920

96.2%

95.5%

75

3.8%

4.5%

Employed Unemployed

1995

Total:

100%

100%

TABLE 6: EMPLOYMENT* (FEMALES)

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

1260

95.5%

95.1%

60

4.5%

4.9%

Employed Unemployed

Total:

1320

100%

100%

TABLE 7: HOUSEHOLD INCOME

Total Number Households 1890

Average Community Household Income

Average City Household Income

$9171.19

$10,153.

*Population aged 15+ by labour activity type.

- 90 -


Allendale BIM 5 MN III MI II In I

MN II MI •

sill MN II MA ONO 5 MINI II IIIIII II Mil U NM II

I NM 5

tie

ina an


11111[111

I MN 111 Mg II MI NM BUM II an nos I ai1111•11111111111I Ns I am eau

il

^

Community Boundary


1.2.12 ALLENDALE

Population Characteristics

The Allendale population (2,260) has a higher percentage of males than the City average (52.4% compared to 49.9% respectively). The population pyramid indicates the community population is proportioned similar to the City with emphasis on the 20 to 29 age group (22.4% compared to the City average 22.0% for females; 25.0% compared to the City average 22.9% for males).

Marital status figures for Allendale (46.5% married; 45.8% single) are similar to the City averages.

Approximately 76% of the community population have English as a mother tongue, which is similar to the City average (76.6%).

The

remainder of the community population have mother tongues of Ukrainian (6.0%) or German (8.0%).

Households and Housing

Household type figures are similar to the City average; single detached homes constitute 57.7% of the housing stock (City average 51.6%). Unlike the City, single attached homes comprise 31.4% of housing (compared to 14.0% of the total City housing). Apartments make up only 10.9% of the Allendale housing stock compared to 33.9% for the City. There is a greater percentage of owned residences in Allendale than in the City (64.1% compared to 51.1%).

Education and Economic Characteristics

At the time of the 1971 census, community and City percentages for level of schooling were very similar. Trends toward lower levels of education for males (18.1% for post-secondary exposure) and a


higher proportion of trades as occupations for males (41.4% compared to 32.9% City averages) are indicated by the labour force figures for Allendale. The female labour force is primarily employed in clerical and sales occupations (67.0% compared to 64.1% for the City). Unemployment figures indicate a higher level of unemployment in the community for males. At the time of the Census, unemployment was 5.5% compared to 4.5% City average. Unemployment for females was lower than the City average (4.2% compared to 4.9% City average).

The average community household income of $9,282 is less than the City average income of $10,153.


Allendale

MWt

ININN

:1*

latattit fsgesentE 68

AVE

RINZIEIM ERE K188E3E88E18 118118.5m

69 .E

#1,1

AVE

1E_ Ma11 NOM= MOM ammers-_MBE MEM RIM INNERS anal IONNIN EINIUMBEIR

myl

68 AVE

AVE

67 AVE

AVE

MUNN

QQQccccc AVE

MEM

rimm3' EMMEN 13151 66

001 991 SOO

r

109

CCM

•:E:

ssa xx

• () t

liN

NNW -

63

V 63

AVE

LAIM Elffigan

AVE

Wd,I

IRROgnat orirwo,

62 AVE

:

d

Single Family (R-1) Low Density (RC-1, R-2, R-2A) Multi Family (R-3, R-4...) Commercial Parks

Land Use

IIII•111 NMI UMW

Institutional

1111111

Industrial

H

Hospital

Fig 1.2.12.A


Allendale

1111111111111 UNIIIMME AVE

67

AVE

66

AVE

ORM lillUlIhIll 1

65

AVE

64

AVE

63

AVE

MIME a 1

11

Zoning

Fig Fig 1.2.12.B


AGE - SEX STRUCTURE FOR ALLENDALE

FEMALE

MALE

AGE 70 + 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 0-4

I

I

45

50

I

I

35

40

I

30

I

25

I

20

I

15

I

10

I

5

0

i

5

I 10

I 15

I 20

I 25

1 30

i 35

I 40

I 45

i 50

PERCENTAGE

-n ca 1\3 i..â&#x20AC;&#x2DC; N.) C-)

TOTAL: Male

1185

Female 1075

COMMUNITY CITY


COMMUNITY: ALL ENDALE POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS

TABLE 1: MALE-FEMALE POPULATION

Number

Community Percentag_e_

City Percentaa_e_

Male

1185

52.4%

49.9%

Female

1075

47.6%

50.1%

Total:

2260

100%

100%

TABLE 2: MARITAL STATUS

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Single

1030

45.8%

47.2%

Married

1045

46.5%

44.4%

Divorced

35

1.6%

2.5%

Widowed

100

4.4%

4.1%

40

1.7%

1.8%

2250

100%

100%

Separated Total:


TABLE 3:

MOTHER TONGUE (MALES)

Number English

910

77.8%

French

20

1.7%

German

90

7.7%

Indian & Inuit

0

0%

Italian

5

.4%

Polish

5

.4%

Ukrainian

70

6.0%

Other

70

6.0%

1170

100%

Total:

TABLE 4:

Community Percentage

MOTHER TONGUE (FEMALES)

English

Number

Community Percentage

815

75.8% -

French

30

2.8%

German

90

8.4%

Indian & Inuit

0

0%

Italian

5

.5%

Polish

15

1.4%

Ukrainian

65

6.0%

Other

55

5.1%

1075

100%

Total:


HOUSEHOLDS AND HOUSING

TABLE 1: HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE

Number One-Family Households

Community Percentage

City Percentage

545

70.8%

71.1%

10

1.3%

0.8%

Non-Family Households

215

27.9%

28.1%

Total Number of Households:

770

100%

100%

Multi-Family Households

TABLE 2: DWELLING BY TYPE

Number

Community Percentage

Single Detached

450

57.7% -

51.6%

Single Attached

245

31.4%

14.0%

85

10.9%

33.9%

Apartments

0.5%

Mobile Homes

Total Dwellings:

City Percentage

780

100%

100%

TABLE 3: DWELLING BY TENURE Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Owned

500

64.1%

51.1%

Rented

230

35.9%

48.9%

Total Dwellings:

780

100%

100%


EDUCATION AND ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS TABLE 1:

LEVEL OF SCHOOLING* (MALES)

Number

Community Percentage

Under grade 10

420

35.3%

32.1%

Secondary School: Certificate Without Certificate

145 195

12.2% 16.4%

9.4% 16.6%

Post-Secondary: Diploma Without Diploma

105 110

8.8% 9.3%

9.2% 8.9%

University: Degree Without Degree

100 115

8.4% 9.6%

13.4% 10.4%

1190

100%

100%

Total:

TABLE 2:

City Percentag,e

LEVEL OF SCHOOLING* (FEMALES)

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Under grade 10

295

32.8%

33.1%

Secondary School: Certificate Without Certificate

125 130

13.9% 14.4%

12.4% 18.1%

Post-Secondary: Diploma Without Diploma

95 85

10.6% 9.4%

10.7% 8.4%

University: Degree Without Degree

105 65

11.7% 7.2%

9.0% 8.3%

Total:

900

.100%

100%

*Population 15 years and over.


TABLE 3:

LABOUR FORCE BY OCCUPATIONS (MALES)

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Technical, Professional

140

19.3%

17.1%

Clerical, Sales

230

31.7%

38.0%

Trades

300

41.4%

32.9%

55

7.6%

12.0%

725

100%

100%

Other, Not Stated

Total:

TABLE 4:

LABOUR FORCE BY OCCUPATIONS (FEMALES)

Number

Community Percentage

Technical, Professional

105

22.3%

20.7%

Clerical, Sales

315

67.0%

64.1%

5

1.1%

4.7%

45

9.6%

10.5%

470

100%

100%

Trades Other, Not Stated

Total:

City Percentage


TABLE 5: EMPLOYMENT* (MALES)

Number 685

Employed Unemployed

Total:

Community Percentage

City Percentage

94.5% -

95.5%

40

5.5%

4.5%

725

100%

100%

TABLE 6: EMPLOYMENT* (FEMALES)

Number Employed Unemployed

Total:

Community Percentage

450

95.8%

20

4.2%

470

100%

City Percentage 95.1%

100%

TABLE 7: HOUSEHOLD INCOME

Total Number Households 785

Average Community Household Income $ 9,282.70

*Population aged 15+ by labour activity type.

Average City Household Income $ 10,153.


I EN • En IIIU um III m • se a imi • an s No wm-forwmfa No 2 Ms w

I

I

I •

i

I

I •

I •

I •

I

I or

I

a or

I

I

or

I

I

in

I is

I •

I •

I

a

I •

I di

I •

I

a

I

11

I

• smi•Essimannaimmuo•ossimsmimas•minimmillma

ueepiezeH


Haze!dean

se • on

gni • am • mu um in No s

gni a i me • In p

68 AVE

67

67 AVE

AVE

66

AVE

65

AVE

61

AVE

Li

AVE

diff11111111M1

MIN

62

AVE

. jmnsamiumuumunissmosessmaok•ssilisaimemsmounemosumin

Community Boundary


1.2.13 HAZELDEAN

Population Characteristics

The majority of the population of Hazeldean (3,775) is composed of males (53.3%) which is higher than the City average (49.9%). The population distribution by age and sex is similar to that of the City, as are statistics for marital status (47.8% married, 47.9% single).

The majority of the population has English as a mother tongue (over 80%), which is slightly higher than is average for the City (76.6%). Households and Housing

Hazeldean is characterized by a high percentage of one-family households (86.7% compared to City average 71.1%) and singledetached dwellings comprise 70.6% of the housing stock compared to the City average 51.6%.

A high percentage of these homes are owned rather than rented (69.2% compared to the City average 51.5%). Education and Economic Characteristics

The level of schooling figures for the community are very similar in all categories to the City figures. The percentage of those having had university training is less than the average for the City (17.0% compared to 23.8% for males; 12.2% compared to 17.3% for females). The male labour force for the community is primarily occupied in trade positions (46.6% compared to 32.9% for the City). Fewer females are involved in technical or professional occupations in


comparison to the City (10.8% compared to 20.7% respectively). A greater number of women have clerical and sales positions (74.3%) compared to the City (64.1%). Hazeldean has a'low female umemployment rate (2.6%) compared to that the City (4.9%), while for males unemployment in Hazeldean is higher than City average (5.8% compared to 4.5%).

The average community household income of $9,291 is less than the average City household income $10,153.


Hazeldean

I

AV

67

68 AVE

114301015111

67 AVE

AVE

a oi o

a

r

CEP

a

00

rm.

OIL aillgiiVABISINIS

4" 91

260/11111112MINOP

1.0

° AV

6 •

r‘42

AVE

,

6.

AVE

mciminanettio 6

. 0.

ED -c,

AVE

Single Family (R-1) Low Density (RC-1, R-2, R-2A) Multi Family (R-3, R-4...) Commercial Parks 111161111, AIMS ion••1

Land Use

Institutional

1111111

Industrial

H

Hospital

Fig 1.2.13.A


Haze!dean

L, â&#x20AC;¢

R-2A 11111011111111111

-1 AV

AP r-^

Li

Zoning

M -1

Fig 1.2.13.B


AGE-SEX STRUCTURE FOR HAZELDEAN

FEMALE

MALE

AGE 70+ 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 0-4

45

50

35

40

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

PERCENTAGE

,71 TOTAL: Male

2010

Female 1765

COMMUNITY CITY


COMMUNITY: HAZELDEAN POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS

TABLE 1: MALE-FEMALE POPULATION

Number

Community Percentage

Male

2010

53.3%

49.9%

Female

1765

46.7%

50.1%

Total:

3775

100%

City Percentage

100%

TABLE 2: MARITAL STATUS

Number

Community Percentage

Single

1800

47.9%

47-2%

Married

1795

47.8%

44.4%

Divorced

55

1.5%

2.5%

Widowed

65

1.7%

4.1%

Separated

40

1.1%

1-8%

Total:

3755

100%

City Percentage

100%


TABLE 3:

MOTHER TONGUE (MALES)

Number

Community Percentage

1640

82 0%

French

30

1.5%

German

160

8.0%

0

0.0%

Italian

10

0.5%

Polish

15

0.8%

Ukrainian

70

3.5%

Other

75

3.7%

English

Indian & Inuit

Total:

TABLE 4:

2000

100%

MOTHER TONGUE (FEMALES)

Number

Community Percentage

English

1440 â&#x20AC;¢

80.6%

French

45

2.5%

German

155

8.7%

Indian & Inuit

5

0.3%

Italian

0

0.0%

Polish

20

1.2%

Ukrainian

50

2.8%

Other

70

3.9%

Total:

1785

100%


HOUSEHOLDS AND HOUSING

TABLE 1: HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE

Number One-Family Households

Total Number of Households:

City Percentage

945

86.7%

71.1%

5

0.5%

0.8%

140

12.8%

28.1%

Multi-Family Households Non-Family Households

Community Percentage

1090

100%

100%

TABLE 2: DWELLING BY TYPE

Number

Community Percentag_e_

City Percentage

Single Detached

755

70.6%

51.6%

Single Attached

295

27.6%

14.0%

20

1.8%

33.9%

-

-

0.5%

Apartments Mobile Homes Total Dwellings:

1070

100%

100%

TABLE 3: DWELLING BY TENURE Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Owned

740

69,2%

51.1%

Rented

330

30.8%

48.9%

Total Dwellings:

1070

100%

100%


EDUCATION AND ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

TABLE 1:

LEVEL OF SCHOOLING* (MALES)

Number

Community Percentage

Under grade 10

325

34.6%

32.1%

Secondary School: Certificate Without Certificate

105 175

11.2% 18.6%

9.4% 16.6%

Post-Secondary: Diploma Without Diploma

95 80

10.1% 8.5%

9.2% 8.9%

University: Degree Without Degree

75 85

8 0% 9.0%

13.4% 10.4%

940

Total:

TABLE 2:

100%

City Percentage

100%

LEVEL OF SCHOOLING* (FEMALES)

Number

Community Percentag

Under grade 10

320

37.2%

33.1%

Secondary School: Certificate Without Certificate

165 145

19.2% 16.9%

12.4% 18.1%

Post-Secondary: Diploma Without Diploma

75 50

8.7% 5.8%

10.7% 8.4%

University: Degree Without Degree

35 70

4.1% 8-1%

9.0% 8.3%

Total:

*Population 15 years and over.

860

100%

City Percentag

100%


TABLE 3:

LABOUR FORCE BY OCCUPATIONS (MALES)

Number

Community Percentage

Technical, Professional

135

15.3%

17.1%

Clerical, Sales

220

25.0%

38.0%

Trades

410

46.6%

32.9%

Other, Not Stated

115

13.1%

12.0%

Total:

880

TABLE 4:

100%

City Percentage

100%

LABOUR FORCE BY OCCUPATIONS (FEMALES)

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

40

10.8%

20.7%

275

74.3%

64.1%

Trades

25

6.7%

4.7%

Other, Not Stated

30

8.2%

10.5%

Technical, Professional Clerical, Sales

Total:

370

- 105-

100%

100%


TABLE 5: EMPLOYMENT* (MALES)

Community Percentage

Number Employed Unemployed

725

94.2%

95.5%

45

5.8%

4.5%

770

Total:

City Percentage

100%

100%

TABLE 6: EMPLOYMENT* (FEMALES)

Community Percentage

Number Employed Unemployed

375

97.4%

95.1%

10

2.6%

4.9%

385

Total:

City Percentage

100%

100%

TABLE 7: HOUSEHOLD INCOME

Total Number Households 750

Average Community Household Income $9291.38

*Population aged 15+ by labour activity type.

- 106 -

Average City Household Income $10,153.


11=11 IMIN • IIIII • INN II

11•111•111111•111111111 MIL111111 11111111 II MIN MI SIM II INII NM • IIIIII6

1.!

111 •

1111

sa

• • • • • • •

II II 11 MN la --`11,1111•1 MI II MIMI! M111111•111112 111111111111111111111111B VIM

mayqueseard

INI


Pleasantview

1111 SP IMP was •

I

II

nisi= 1•;:k ilia! no Ill 11111111111111

NM

a IMO a NM I atio

IL MN•

3 :4 ==

•• s tati rnrn 60 A

III 57 AVE

orte

56

AVE

:VA.* AVE

55 AVE

LPL 111.

runt arsoo vow -Eh di

AVE

53 AVE

L, I

IP NMI 1111

Illimo

L

1 II

52 AVE

'CPI

I/

II III It M. 111111111111111 /Ili MI 111

Community Boundary

53 AVE

Li 52 AVE

II1 =I II MIN II OM MINI II IIIIII•MI ISM II

MIMI II


1.2.14 PLEASANTVIEW

Population Characteristics

The Pleasantview Community has an even distribution of males to females (50.5% males, 49.5% females) which conforms to the City average. The population pyramid (Figure ) indicates that the community has slightly more of its population in the 20 - 24 age group than is the average for the City (15.4% compared to 12.8% for males; 13.6% compared to 12.8% for females). Pleasantview also has a higher proportion of its population in the over 50 age group than is average for the City (21.6% compared to 18.3% for males; 25.8% compared to 20.8% for females). The marital status figures for Pleasantview (46.5% married, 44.0% single) are similar to the overall City statistics.

The ethnic composition of the community is indicated by the majority of the Pleasantview population (over 78%) having English as a mother tongue compared to 76.6% for the City. German is the mother tongue of approximately 8% of the community population. Households and Housing

Community figures indicate a majority of one family households (7.25% compared to City average 71.0%) and housing is primarily composed of single-detached dwellings (44.7% compared to the City average 51.6%). Apartments comprise 34.8% of the total housing (33.9% City Average) and over 52% of the total dwellings are rented (compared to 48.9% for the City average). Education and Economic Characteristics

Levels of schooling for the Pleasantview population conform closely to the City percentages for each category; males have a slightly


higher level of post-secondary education in comparison to the City figures (23.3% compared to 18.1% for the City) while 32.1% of the females population over 15 years of age has less than grade 10 education.

Labour force figures show the majority of the male working force is involved in trades as occupations (42.0% compared to the City average 32.9%). Figures for technical and professional occupations for the Pleasantview male labour force are higher (23.8%) in comparison to the City percentage (17.1%). Figures for the female labour force indicate that the majority of females (67.2%) are working in clerical or sales occupations, this is similar to the City percentage (64.1%).

Community unemployment figures comply closely to the City percentages for males (4.3% compared to 4.5%). The unemployment rate for females in Plesantview is higher than the City average (6.3% compared to 4.9%).

Average household income is higher in Pleasantview in comparison to the City average ($11,027 compared to $10,153 respectively).


Pleasantview

An

MOM INWPARIMPIN Tr—

174pfoltalfdirqg AVE

an

, A:IN •.4. ,7440 4: WA"

'.41s wag AISI CON ;crud 1301611 liCr. 'row horAGI •• • RCM AVE111 Web

roi

P 0

4.4 Vad

!a_o 60 AV

AZ

Offitil MAI

MCI iia larSai rill MAKI m 411R71 ni Farm

reit' NEN

(9 4

sub.

NMI IRMA Will k#, r

01%0

paw wimp Ohm 4:4*, Irwin °11111t4V AVE

esregt

WAR

0

°1.c.

*

0.

co kg ENUIPPla 0 BUXOM 53 AVE

Num

F.1". Slit192111N alrow3 6920i fRIV°

,w.•EliNnnatqffin •-

54 AVE

AUL LPS

1m.4 %

SIA

63 AV

ENIRKINACEi AVE

to7,1> :1 7

t1-107)

Single Family (R-1) Low Density (RC-1, R-2, R-2A) Multi Family (R-3, R-4...) Commercial Parks NUM NMI

Institutional Industrial

Land Use

H

Hospital

Fig 1.2.14.A


Pleasantview

1111111'111111111

Zoning

Fig 1.2.14.B


AGE - SEX STRUCTURE FOR PLEASANT VIEW

FEMALE

MALE

AGE 70 + 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 0-4

I

I

45

50

I

40

I

35

I

30

I

25

I

20

I

15

I

10

I

5

0

5

1 10

1 15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

PERCENTAGE

7 co N 2370 :-.1. TOTAL: Male .1=6 Female 2320 .0

iiiii..... COMMUNITY CITY


COMMUNITY: PLEASANTVIEW POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS

TABLE 1: MALE-FEMALE POPULATION

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Male

2370

50.5%

49.9%

Female

2320

49.5%

50.1%

Total:

4690

100%

100%

Community Percentage

City Percentage

TABLE 2: MARITAL STATUS

Number

Single

2070

44.0%

47.2%

Married

2190

46.5%

44.4%

Divorced

105

2.2%

2.5%

Widowed

280

6.0%

4.1%

60

1.3%

1.8%

4705

100%

100%

Separated Total:


TABLE 3:

MOTHER TONGUE (MALES)

Number. 1865

78.2%

French

65

2.7%

German

195

8.2%

Indian & Inuit

5

0.2%

Italian

0

0%

Polish

5

0.2%

65

2.7%

185

7.8%

2385

100%

English

Ukrainian Other

Total:

TABLE 4:

Community Percentage

MOTHER TONGUE (FEMALES)

Number

Community Percentage

1855

78.8%

French

45

2.0%

German

185

7.7%

Indian & Inuit

5

0.2%

Italian

5

0.2%

Polish

0'

English

0%

Ukrainian

100

4.3%

Other

160

6.8%

2355

100%

Total:


HOUSEHOLDS AND HOUSING

TABLE 1: HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

1135

75.2%

71.1%

5

0.3%

0.8%

370

24.5%

28.1%

1510

100%

100%

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

One-Family Households Multi-Family Households Non-Family Households

Total Number of Households:

TABLE 2: DWELLING BY TYPE

Single Detached

675

44.7%

51.6%

Single Attached

310

20.5%

14.0%

Apartments

525

34.8%

33.9%

Mobile Homes Total Dwellings:

0.5% 1510

100%

100%

TABLE 3: DWELLING BY TENURE Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Owned

715

47.3%

51.1%

Rented

795

52.7%

48.9%

1510,

100%

100%

Total Dwellings:


EDUCATION AND ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

TABLE 1:

LEVEL OF SCHOOLING* (MALES)

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Under grade 10

500

28.0%

32.1.%

Secondary School: Certificate Without Certificate

195 305

10.9% 17.1%

9.4% 16.6%

Post-Secondary: Diploma Without Diploma

235 180

13.2% 10.1%

9.2% 8.9%

University: Degree Without Degree

205 165

11.5% 9.2%

13.4% 10.4%

1785

100%

100%

Total:

TABLE 2:

LEVEL OF SCHOOLING* (FEMALES)

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Under grade 10

580

32.1%

33.1%

Secondary School: Certificate Without Certificate

230 280

12.7% 15.5%

12.4% 18.1%

Post-Secondary: Diploma Without Diploma

240 185

13.3% 10.3%

10.7% 8.4%

University: Degree Without Degree

150 140

8.3% 7.8%

9.0% 8.3%

1805

100%

100%

Total:

*Population 15 years and over.


TABLE 3:

LABOUR FORCE BY OCCUPATIONS (MALES)

Number

Community Percentaa

City Percentau_

Technical, Professional

320

23.8%

17.1%

Clerical, Sales

345

25.6%

38.0%

Trades

565

42.0%

32.9%

Other, Not Stated

115

8.6%

12.0%

1345

100%

100%

Total:

TABLE 4:

LABOUR FORCE BY OCCUPATIONS (FEMALES)

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Technical, Professional

165

21.0%

20.7%

Clerical, Sales

530

67.2%

64.1%

Trades

30

3.8%

4.7%

Other, Not Stated

60

8.0%

10.5%

785

100%

100%

Total:

- 113-


TABLE 5: EMPLOYMENT* (MALES)

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

1345

95.7%

95.5%

60

4.3%

4.5%

1405

100%

100%

Employed Unemployed

Total:

TABLE 6: EMPLOYMENT* (FEMALES)

Number Employed Unemployed

Total:

TABLE 7:

Community Percentage

City Percentage

885

93.7%

95.1%

60

6.3%

4.9%

945

100%

100%

HOUSEHOLD INCOME

Total Number Households 1320

Average Community Household Income $11,027.84

*Population aged 15+ by labour activity type.

Average City Household Income $ 10,153.


Duggan II tralita amp eft a I

awe

ours s ime 1101eies

!

sairs

!

ibilalilitilia 111 lei INS IMO' nalliallia

!

aft N--11m •nagen nail

! I si

!

I -

I

I . .

I .

I. .

I II. me

a I

I

i II

air ! I ! !

I

.I I . .I .I

I. II. I. III. ! !

.I .I I

! I i

.i .I ossem•almulamimmum I mosimmoniusimicin saim•

i

#. *11111.111.111 .11

ii * -v.--


Duggan 1 F

arnexa„ 4,1,

asier

/1/

sari awe

U

ilia all

Cresialas

_

11110/ ales

alliresiaailitessissetsiftswitunsiamrsitassall1

l

A 111

MINN /IW NUN W MIMI im

isk

i

MI" imn

L

lOA

IMO

AVE

MO

MI1E111111

fik

gonI 11111 II MIN loom menanopi =I._ r.name 39

A

AVE

38A AVE

AVE

11

emim

36 AVE

40,

_zss•

37 AVE

I MOM

36A AVE

36A

AVE

11 RIM VA all.

NMI NMI

Ii

III

&imam

AVE

MEM En=

NM EIN

111111 II

35A ILO=

sum MIN

11 1

MIMI=

mom

--rumor smot* • AVE

51111111111111= Boni r.

35 AVE

I • MI IIIIIII NM MII NW III.

‘A1

-

-

'

-

rL; ! •‘,

Community Boundary

11111111111111M1


1.2.15 DUGGAN

Population Characteristics

The Duggan population (7,995) has a male - female distribution (48.9% males, 51.1% females) and martial status figures (46.0% married, 46.6% single) similar to the City averages. The age/sex pyramid for Duggan indicates that the 15 - 34 age group comprises approximately one-third of the total population of Duggan which is similar to the City distribution.

Ethnic composition figures indicate a higher percentage of the community population has English as a mother tongue (82.9%) in comparison to City average (76.6%).

Households and Housing One-family households are characteristic of Duggan, comprising over 78.3% of the total households for the community the City average is 71.1%. Of the total housing stock in Duggan however, 51.9% are apartments compared to the City average of 33.9%. Single- detached dwellings comprise 41.0% of the available housing stock in the community compared to the 51.6% City average. A greater percentage of dwellings are rented in Duggan (58.4%) compared to the City average (48.9%).

Education and Economic Characteristics Level of schooling statistics for Duggan indicate a higher percentage of persons with post-secondary education in comparison to the City. A greater proportion of the male population have postsecondary and university training (53.2%) compared to the City (41.9%). Of the female population, 41.4% have had post-secondary and university education compared to 36.4% for the City.


Of the total male labour force in Duggan 37.4% have technical or professional occupations compared to the 17.1% City average. The same trend is indicated by figures for the female labour force, as 24.5% have technical or professional occupations compared to the City average of 20.7%. The greater part of the female labour force is involved in clerical and sales occupations (58.0%), which is slightly lower than City average (64.1%). Unemployment figures were unavailable for the female labour force in Duggan. At the time of the 1971 Census, only a 2.9% unemployment rate existed for males in the community. Duggan's average community household income of $13,927 is higher than the City average household income of $10,153.


Duggan

.

0 A;

figigh*?

*Wow* omoveso...

AliikakV4 44fritti

eVe• 0Ni • . ovrek.40 mix; titti .Bogel 4;7%4. . katiLi et; tifsige ft*

mmmimm IMMO

o .

IrSIBINDIlitiF gf:

c41 e iwkiauo3 4 1aillar, gi_ itt 1... .... graliCCO' ` fr,. . In-IVO' 38A AV

fr

It* VP;lifigniat i 14 0

ag sitsieStvi" o,m rp Oilifi IMMO .0 SOCCO CedfitliS 0

r AbiadlEilit

AV

SIRCANC

0 ioN •• 00, ot v6%0

nrieggivieeme WW1 A an ma WM , RIZ-"egra %A IA mid 113 MIA's VITIRS1 td.e. a

14,

1 nge

11 .(11 amy

Commercial

,,-„-_

_ _-AlensitY \(ttc -1, R2, 41 -2A) _

Multi Farnily (R-3,11-4 )

Land Use

Parks WWI UMBER

Institutional

1111111

Industrial

H

Hospital

Fig 1.2.15.A


Duggan ,

CD-1

C-8

AG- U

R-3 Iii VE

umm5

.1,1mabo r.P11111116 \

C 8 37

AVE

38A

11

35A AVE

35

AVE

AVE 51111111M1112 70* 11111111111110

E

AG - U

Sei

vasso000#â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;*

, ,

Zoning

Fig 1.2.15.13


AGE-SEX STRUCTURE FOR DUGGAN

FEMALE

MALE

AGE 70 + 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 0-4

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

PERCENTAGE

11 (C1 7" N/ TOTAL: Male 3905 .....a Ul Female 4090 0

COMMUNITY CITY


COMMUNITY: DUGGAN POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS

TABLE 1: MALE-FEMALE POPULATION

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Male

3905

48.9%

49.9%

Female

4090

51.1%

50.1%

Total:

7995

100%

100%

TABLE 2: MARITAL STATUS

Number

Community Percentage

City. Percentage

Single

3735

46.6%

47.2%

Married

3685

46.0%

44.4%

Divorced

180

2:2%

2.5%

Widowed

275

3.4%

4.1%

Separated

135

1.8%

1.8%

Total:

8010

100%

100%


TABLE 3:

MOTHER TONGUE (MALES)

Number

Community Percentage

3185

81 4%

French

50

1 3%

German

200

5.1%

Indian & Inuit

0

0.0%

Italian

5

0.1%

Polish

20

0.5%

Ukrainian

110

2.8%

Other

345

8.8%

Total:

3915

English

TABLE 4:

100%

MOTHER TONGUE (FEMALES)

Number English

Community Percentage

3375

82.9%

French

55

1.4%

German

250

6.1%

Indian & Inuit

5

0.1%

Italian

0

0.0%

Polish

10

0.3%

Ukrainian

100

2.5%

Other

275

6.7%

Total:

4070

100%


HOUSEHOLDS AND HOUSING

TABLE 1: HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE

Number One-Family Households

City Percentag.e_

2000

78-3%

71:1%

15

0.6%

Q.8%

540

21.1%

28.1%

Multi-Family Households Non-Family Households Total Number of Households:

Community Percentage

2555

100%

100%

TABLE 2: DWELLING BY TYPE

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Single Detached

1045

41.0%

51.6%

Single Attached

180

7.1%

14.0%

1325

51.9%

33.9%

Apartments Mobile Homes

Total Dwellings:

0.5% 2550

100%

100%

TABLE 3: DWELLING BY TENURE

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Owned

1060

41.6%

51.1%

Rented

1490

58.4%

48.9%

Total Dwellings:

2550

100%

100%


EDUCATION AND ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

TABLE 1:

LEVEL OF SCHOOLING* (MALES)

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentac,e

Under grade 10

610

21.6%

32.1%

Secondary School: Certificate Without Certificate

270 445

9.5% 15.7%

9.4% 16.6%

Post-Secondary: Diploma Without Diploma

305 255

10-8% 9.0%

9.2% 8.9%

University: Degree Without Degree

545 400

19.3% 14.1%

13.4% 10.4%

2830

Total:

TABLE 2:

100%

100%

LEVEL OF SCHOOLING* (FEMALES)

Number

Conununity Percentage

City Percentage

Under grade 10

890

28.6%

33.1%

Secondary School: Certificate Without Certificate

420 515

13.5% 16,5%

12.4% 18.1%

Post-Secondary: Diploma Without Diploma

415 240

13.3% 7.7%

10.7% 8.4%

University: Degree Without Degree

365 270

11.7% 8.7%

9-0% 8.3%

Total:

*Population 15 years and over.

3115

100%

100%


TABLE 3:

LABOUR FORCE BY OCCUPATIONS (MALES)

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Technical, Professional

215

37.4%

17.1%

Clerical, Sales

185

32.2%

38.0%

Trades

140

24.4%

32.9%

35

6.0%

12.0%

Other, Not Stated

575

Total:

TABLE 4:

100%

100%

LABOUR FORCE BY OCCUPATIONS (FEMALES)

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

70

24-5%

- 20.7%

165

58.0%

64.1%

Trades

10

3.5%

4.7%

Other, Not Stated

40

14.0%

10.5%

Technical, Professional Clerical, Sales

Total:

285

100%

100%


TABLE 5: EMPLOYMENT* (MALES)

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

2180

97.1%

95.5%

65

2.9%

4.5%

Employed Unemployed

2245

Total:

100%

100%

TABLE 6: EMPLOYMENT* (FEMALES)

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage 95.1%

**Employed

4.9%

**Unemployed

100%

Total:

TABLE 7: HOUSEHOLD INCOME

Total Number Households 555

Average Community Household Income $13,927.48

** Statistics Not Available.

*Population aged 15+ by labour activity type.

- 122 -

Average City Household Income $10,153.


Strathcona Industrial sox .01...1010.•• .

s 1111.1"1.1111111111•11111imis"'"•°6-6-

i


Strathcona Industrial

1111

11 ____---.

\

a , „

ion

Community Boundary

ame I mu ma


1.2.16 STRATHCONA INDUSTRIAL PARK

Population Characteristics

The population of this area (205) is comprised of 51.2% males compared to City average of 49.9%. The population pyramid (Figure 1.2.16.C) indicates the majority of the male population is between the ages of 20 and 34 (36% compared to 22% City average) and the majority of the female population is between newborn and four years of age. The marital status figures are similar to City averages (42.8% married, 47.6% single). The majority of the community population has English as a mother tongue (90.0% compared to 76.6% for the City).

Households and Housing Housing figures for the community indicate a majority of one-family households (61.5%), but it is still lower than the City average (71.1%). Non-family households in Strathcona Industrial Park constitute 38.5% of the total which is higher than the City average of 28.1%. The housing stock is dominated by mobile homes (64.6% compared to City average of 0.5%) with the remaining three dwelling types (single detached, single attached and apartments) each making up 11.8% of the total. Over 76% of the dwellings in the community are owned compared to 51.1% for the City average. Education and Economic Characteristics

Levels of schooling statistics for this community indicate an overall lower level of education: 43.0% of males have less than a

- 123-


grade 10 education (compared to 32.1% City average) while over 58% of females have a similar level (compared to 33.1% City average). Conversely, at the time of the 1971 census, a higher percentage of males were employed in technical, professional capacities (25% compared to the City percentage of 17.1%). Trades employed 40.6% of the male population (32.9% City average), while 64.7% of the female labour force in the community is concentrated in clerical and sales occupations (compared to 64.1% city average). An additional 29.4% of the female labour force is involved in technical, professional jobs (compared to the 20.7% City average). At the time of the 1971 census, the total working population of the community was employed. Strathcona Industrial Park has an average community household income of $14,563 which is higher than the average city household income of $10,153.


:

00

Strathcona Industrial Single Family (RA)

Anb-

Low Density (RC-1, R-2, R-2A) Multi Family (R-3, R-4...) Commercial Parks swam •••■• Irmo

Institutional

MOD

Industrial

H

Hospital

.<•••"'" iwt

11111110

imm11111111"11111111

H 1111111111111111 11111 seh.

! 11

tl

f14 .

—2]

,c L'r.?

L

Land Use

Fig 1.2.16.A


Strathcona Industrial Anb-

11•••

Ar[

not

AP

2

=MN

131

AG

rti

NM,

1

Zoning

Fig 1.2.16.B


AGE - SEX STRUCTURE FOR STRATHCONA INDUSTRIAL PARK

MALE

FEMALE

AGE 70 4. 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 0-4

I

I

45

50

1

I

40

35

I

30

1

25

I

20

I

15

I

I

10

5

0

5

i

10

I

15

1

20

I

25

I

30

i

35

i

40

i

45

1 50

PERCENTAGE

-n co â&#x20AC;&#x201D;L N) TOTAL: Male

:... C) C")

100

Female 100

COMMUNITY CITY


COMMUNITY: STRATHCONA INDUSTRIAL PARK POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS

TABLE 1: MALE-FEMALE POPULATION

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentag

Male

105

51.2%

49.9%

Female

100

48-8%

50.1%

Total:

205

100%

100%

TABLE 2: MARITAL STATUS

Number

Community Percentage

Single

100

47.6%

47.2%

Married

90

42.8%

44.4%

Divorced

10

4.8%

2.5%

Widowed

5

2.4%

4.1%

Separated

5

2.4%

1.8%

Total:

210

100%

City Percentage

100%


TABLE 3:

MOTHER TONGUE (MALES)

Number

Community Percentage

English

80

72.8%

French

0

German

10

9.1%

Indian & Inuit

0

0

Italian

5

4.5%

Polish

0

0

Ukrainian Other

Total:

TABLE 4:

0

10

9.1%

5

4.5%

110

100%

MOTHER TONGUE (FEMALES)

Number

Community Percentage

English

90

90-0%

French

0

0

German

5

5.0%

Indian & Inuit

0

0

Italian

0

0

Polish

0

0

Ukrainian

5

5.0%

Other

0

0

Total:

100

100%


HOUSEHOLDS AND HOUSING

TABLE 1: HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE

Number 40_

One-Family Households

0

Multi-Family Households Non-Family Households

25

Total Number of Households:

65

Community Percentage

City Percentage

61.5%

71.1%

0 38.5% 100%

0.8% 28.1% 100%

TABLE 2: DWELLING BY TYPE Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Single Detached

10

11-8%

51.6%

Single Attached

10

11-8%

14.0%

Apartments

10

11.8%

33.9%

Mobile Homes

55

64.6%

0.5%

Total Dwellings:

85

100%

100%

TABLE 3: DWELLING BY TENURE Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Owned

65

76.5%

51.1%

Rented

20

23.5%

48.9%

Total Dwellings:

85

100%

100%


EDUCATION AND ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

TABLE 1:

LEVEL OF SCHOOLING* (MALES)

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentac-e

Under grade 10

30

43.0%

32.1%

Secondary School: Certificate Without Certificate

15 5

21.4% 7.1%

9-4% 16.6%

Post-Secondary: Diploma Without Diploma

10 5

14.3% 7.1%

9.2%

University: Degree Without Degree

0 7.1%

13.4%

5 70

Total:

TABLE 2:

100%

10.4% 100%

LEVEL OF SCHOOLING* (FEMALES)

Number

Community Percentage

City Percentage

Under grade 10

35

58.3%

33.1%

Secondary School: Certificate Without Certificate

10 10

16.7% 16.7%

12.4% 18.1%

Post-Secondary: Diploma Without Diploma

0 0

0 0

University: Degree Without Degree

0 5

0 8.3%

60

Total:

*Population 15 years and over.

- 128-

100%

10.7% 8.4% 9.0% 8.3%

100%


TABLE 3:

LABOUR FORCE BY OCCUPATIONS (MALES)

Number

Community Percentage

Technical, Professional

40

25.0%

17.1%

Clerical, Sales

45

28.1%

38-0%

Trades

65

40.6%

32.9%

Other, Not Stated

10

6.3%

12.0%

160

Total:

TABLE 4:

100%

City Percentage

100%

LABOUR FORCE BY OCCUPATIONS (FEMALES)

Number

Community Percentage

Technical, Professional

25

29,4%

20.7%

Clerical, Sales

55

64.7%

64,1%

Trades

0

0

Other, Not Stated

5-

5.9%

Total:

85

100%

City Percentage

â&#x20AC;¢4.7% 10.5% 100%


Ermineskin • *"*"

sis*

.0111

fto*

• sans= sommuum m in imam ono cm mems

•Ieesaussounnammionnumua It vs t ma t


Ermineskin

,

,

woo MINNIIIMIONNIIIIINIM1111111.111111111111131131111111131111111111111133 7 33

A

II*

Av

I

•\

10 I I ts * ft a• iv

m. mr,.. ..,

... a.

%11 - wow

01011`

00011

111111J .1 1 ‘11111111111 V[111111111 31A AV

000 i tiMMINEMI vp, 110111111MEI tAbiumnuoun vii sommomummt

32

31A

40 .

31

8

MN NM MB

Fr

1111

4 1

moo

I

Ell $ OM

AVE

AVE

AVE ^

33 AVE IMP

AVE

II

SADDLEBACK 414 41111p11111111111111111W r 0•A

WIN AVE

I 20AVE

4%

•4ss04 **I

••

H-

.

Imante,„

••

AM: Via Ilk

isp

AVE

UM

6 AVE

0 /33/4

IN% amb rIN ad Mum a• MI MIN IN MO Elm no am IN 11•• as imil• MI

10 -

MU

4

24

VE

0111110 23

AVE LI 1.11111111111111111:11113.111MICIEMEM113111111 •11. 11111113 1111111103 •111 111111111111111111111311111111111111113111113131111111111111MIIMINIIIIIIMMINI•

Community Boundary


Ermineskin

4604" ^v. SU/WPM 40;1sIN 1,?,51:1113RMarin 419,416413PMPHRIA VISEIVENOECM

â&#x20AC;&#x17E;

261

Single Family (R-1)

El

Low Density (RC-1, R-2, R-2A)

Commercial Parks WWI

Multi Family (R-3. R-4...)

Land Use

-EMU

Institutional

1111111

Industrial Hospital

Fig 1.2.17.A


Ermineskin

g

-7

L

J

C-2

========

â&#x20AC;&#x17E;

Zoning

Fig 1.2.17.B


TABLE 5: EMPLOYMENT* (MALES)

Number Employed

Community Percentage

60

Unemployed

Total:

City Percentage

100%

0

0

60

100%

95.5% 4.5% 100%

TABLE 6: EMPLOYMENT* (FEMALES)

Number

Community Percentage

30

Employed

100%

0

Unemployed

95.1%

0

30

Total:

City Percentage

4.9%

100%

100%

TABLE 7: HOUSEHOLD INCOME

Total Number Households 350

Average Community Household Income $ 14,563.80

*Population aged 15+ by labour activity type.

- 130-

Average City Household Income $10,153.


Blue um • ma ins

.ill

um MN INO /

asi ale lear

1111/ Nuase

amia

IHug sa il a I s

• •

• • •

• no um ma s ••• Ewa um I num am im s Emma • my Nam IN an • mei on


Blue Quill

, , _,,,,--, ,,...-,4...„,„:„„,_„ ,..,, ,, ,,. ._,. e,„. ._H ..__...,„ ---,,,--,_---,_:,=-_-_;-,,_„-

--h --- r-=-=, -- ------.--i•-;-----1---, Hr 1

i

7-1(—)

_,

lam imuuni omuumil ma

-•'

memingrowl1111111111111 111111r--—.sr a Nei w— OW Ea MIMI Air allIlt I 14., ono 4. IIIII sc.

'riot, .. or 0.4111111 mitie im

...

Am

0111111111 OW,. 1 mairtAIPAP $ Im

I I I I10

Us av allin is am go 33

.... Now

MN NM MO NM

# IV AIM=

r e % Vi

31 AVE

I I

A

AVE

= p

tik

mom mai 411 ZIE 4 Elia won S vaI 32*

v

A

V

I

A

1

AVE

*tin

is sso

28 AVE

431E

1i

••

eak.

0

• •\

p

27 AVE

AVE

&.

24A AVE

40 --•

23 AVE 230 AVE

11111111M 1011111.111

23 1 A 2: VE

! _f =

.1

r711111WIIIIINLIMISMOININ11111111111111111111111111M1111111111MISZNISM1111111111111M11111112.1111

Community Boundary .


Blue Quill

•,

__J

1 F. '

ediork *Iry 60, tc. tot & *4

;

J

.

I

.

musm tip ay. % top pas

teeiMin Rthelirto

a Iowan Mg§ oilgtriaMeit• ih.41.

al ittithati isitatrAto es

OM

1111111M--

.*Api wiriammummaliV

gjor)

-ATIAttp Rid

%Ai

nal%

it&

1 4 :1! ealat **OD Bin VI , 54 ti

orningtp Ati

IlRIUSII 1111111111111•11111•1111111111M 11:11:1 1:221::: NM 111111111111111111111111111111

41mA%

t. • 40 tv

A ei

i .441

NuIIUIi

terCiottor e Fr ot a ti 01 1 4 * At*" toztei -A<roi dkce

ma" gni )ç

0 00 0 00 00 0 00 00 0

faliFIRIZPOM IQ gam 0.11s4 xi L I P Eik rs crittakil

„„ swami” 1111

B4 •1 j23 0 sz

§51

Low Density (RC-1, R-2, R -2A) IIII Multi Family (R-3, R-4...)

Land Use

Parks

Single Family (R-1)

Commercial

11111111101 11111•1111

Institutional

1111111 Industrial H

Hospital

Fig 1.2.18.A


Blue Quin

1

. • •

_

-

I

r

"

r

•,•

R-

34

117.111T4111111161.mir. ,wi lin . — v 0.tia = 0...s4 ii'dmare E ta 1 tO A l miligt - A, ft 0 ikvidi u. 2 op lin

*

3

ai

I IIII

lir

4

110

V

VI

s1 it

i

•<---

# II 04111111111-s L. 4 \_

R 2A

N •

AG-U R- 2 A

G-U A AVt

AG UR R-3

-3A 20 AV

2/ AV

AG -U AG P -3

24 AVE

R -2 A

R-3

R-

23

AVE3 AVE

II I 11 2 3 All as

IR -2A

23A A

-1

Zoning

11 oak

R- 2

Fig 1.2.18.6


as a11101°. um I mu Ii I

tio

11111101111111111111011M111111111111111111111111.

all

I In I mum UN Ali

11111111111IL figi II on 0111111111111

s we s so WOO * 111 Oil II

gamin

0

0.)


II I I

1,1

*We

r t ' knik

...-

Lr-

IMMO IIIMEM

1111111,

IIIlIIi

1111111ft

PAII mmin 'muumuu

= W

mom =

MI

mi ."

•111111111111M

44111110AM

Tammumig I

I

Whitt „

VIA

'MWOW-

strit: t ugnttok 40. m i i i i nt

p

E

.4; Immo.. ow 46

onimmumuy

....-:\ , \ , .....,,, •:.•\'',. • • nr1 AI

r- - -.., ,L ,,,:,,,,

we

0105.41 in Otani.

krimy row

II

L.,

7 ._, / ,, :,._.J 1 1, , • A -----.;.

'

i t

,

, iiiii-misimassistio I No e'

-,,.',-.,--', '.7-,.- I i ./,/

L

4C.

NUM

,

*ON s as ow so irommonnow•um • •

ROA t•

ma

IIIIIMMIEP VI ty11111111/4 ammo' 1rMIon=Ial=.1. VIsi II '''.. '21 Wain 47 11. a = lc ainn . . swim — 14 I....Rein 1 01 8 = iaasissi-, = E =v. :If 47. memo 00111111fr == 6 000011 m .0 .. •VI 41: 1 4000 AI 01 lb 44 am visn ' AO 6

i- iiiii 1)0

1 , , -_7_-.,,y-rt,,4-ji- - • , II

..,-

, >r


Single Family (R-1)

Lakewood

Low Density (RC-1, R-2, R-2A) Multi Family (13-3, R-4...) Commercial fl

MMUS sew

-7.51•1 ".--- -7" "-

Parks ) Institutional Indisstriaei , Hospjtal

•• •

)7;;5

_ItAp t16: -ure111,2 IC/WV 1.1 : ::R.I.i:Pl eralePt

'tap& S, l

I

-46 mai 4ortil 111111111111 iikVIT,Willi IHMMI NI111111 9°

I

INN. MOM / NIL % ..., '.•:• MOM SNOW i til COMELFrk , Iiiiii rex 12.4 .... uusio• Ivo C.•

Pft

LL.

;

440;

.., Itieile., • 1.0. i'PI N1,4704 /61, 0 ZIPILTO ALa :1;:gt 40 ;of . ,7riliqinTAT. ,06,4.0. 21V IN. tri 41

...-. reirforsil 'Er: 2.. ••_• F010"111W lioe

itS ri

MII Ai

Wf ./1 Lt1L letrASA 411•I /91012 14, _,•. .gct •IP irtei _ an rig 411 ;at A" ej

voeuriadoatwiiirwiliv vimicurrasil outozioliges4.--‘ 4•-•"1

,

Land Use

Fig 1.2.19.A


Lakewood <41Z 4

rl rai

ge

ii. Or

WI /0 alIP , mn& e a fun -0 Erma _raymi wrq. asis\tate. me.. SS SIN = —

V. bi,% *

IMMO latib Oal I: r.,at

danonneatloannumn, n

Zoning

; 48

I.

\41

It‘le la 95Agran 33 I h-= '4 LIHIIIUHJHJjJ 65 5

Aimmommiktli F4 minimum.

Bl

Fig 1.2.19.B


1.3 CONCLUSIONS:

From a review of the information provided in this report, significant neighbourhood characteristics are revealed as worthy of consideration in preparation of the Phase II Impact Study. Groups of communities show similar characteristics: Oliver and Downtown are similar to central, inner-city neighbourhoods. Both of these communities display a high proportion of rental and apartment accomodation, along with a predominance of non-family households consisting primarily of young working adults.

In almost all of the communities along the study corridor, household income was below the average City household income. Belgravia is characterized not only by a higher average income, but also by a higher average level of schooling and hence, occupations are primarily within technical and professional classification. This is also evident in the University community profile. Another exception to the lower-than-average income, which is generally true of the study area, is the Strathcona Industrial Park. This community evinced a higher than average income, but a lower than average level of schooling, with a high proportion of trades as occupations. The communities in close proximity to the University area consist primarily of a younger, non-family, student population, oriented around the functions of the university. The areas of Garneau, University and Strathcona display significant characteristics that are found within inner-city neighbourhoods, such as:

- high proportion of rental accomodation - high percentage of non-family households - predominantly a young adult population

The central, inner-city neighbourhoods have characteristics which align them closely to the core area, while the communities along


the corridor on the south side of the river tend to be more singlefamily residential. The south side communities abutting the proposed SLRT alignment share several common characteristics: - low proportion of non-family households - higher percentage of home ownership - predominantly single-family housing

These particular similarities indicate a vested interest by community residents, and hence, an active interest in future community development through initiation of SLRT operations. Hazeldean, Ritchie, McKernan, Pleasantview, Allendale, Parkallen and Queen Alexandra all display similar characteristics as regards household income, education and occupation figures, which compare closely to city averages. These communities are well-established as residential areas. This suburban characteristic intensifies southward along the corridor.

The nineteen communities directly involved by the development of the SLRT must be considered in terms of their individual uniqueness and character. Some of the effects of the SLRT will be quantitative while other impacts will be of a qualitative nature, hence more difficult to identify and analyze. Difficulties arise owing to the qualitative nature of social impacts and the unknown factor of the neighbourhood residents and interest groups. Depending upon how these impacts are perceived, and whether or not they are significant, depends solely upon the interest, discretion and subjectivity of the individuals within each community. This report provides the necessary statistical data base for the subsequent impact studies for each of the communities, and as such presents a major contribution to developing a detailed discussion of the benefits and consequences of SLRT.


SD LIBRARY

T0741900111 979

3025 SOUTH CORRIDOR, EDMONTON -TRANSPORTA

City of Edraottion

el:EVIL] LEOULADOU Cdnionton

LIELV LLL

leuauav

IMPACT STUDY VOLUME IMPACT ANALYSIS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DESIGN DEPARTMENT

4403.1a .E3 :5H4 1979b v.2


SOUTH LRT STUDY: IMPACT STUDY VOLUME II: IMPACT ANALYSIS

Prepared by: Transportation Planning September, 1979


PREFACE

On October 11, 1977, City Council approved a study to examine the feasibility of a southern extension of the Light Rail Transit System. The terms of reference for the South Light Rail Transit Corridor Study, as reviewed by City Council April 25, 1978, include the provision of a community impact assessment. The established procedure for an impact assessment within the City of Edmonton is a two-phase process:

Phase I - Corresponding to a functional planning level:

1.

Documenting the social and physical structures of communities along the proposed LRT corridor

2.

Identifying the general impacts of an LRT system

3.

Identifying locations where the potential for impacts exist

4.

Suggesting alternatives to minimize negative impacts.

Phase II - Corresponding to a detailed design level:

1.

To formulate planning guidelines which respond to both the introduction of the transit system, as well as existing transportation and land use problems present at the corridor-wide scale.

2.

To formulate detailed land use plans and urban design guidelines in each station area which can be used as a basis for future redevelopment;

3.

To involve concerned citizens, businessmen, land owners, city departments, and other interested groups in the process of formulating land use recommendations.


The Phase I SLRT Impact Study is organized in the following manner:

Volume I. Community Profiles

A.

Identifying communities affected by the proposal; and

B.

Profiling the existing social and physical characteristics of communities along the proposed LRT corridor.

Volume II. Preliminary Impact Analysis

A.

Identifying impacts of LRT regardless of location,

B.

Identifying locations along the South Corridor where the potential for impact exists; and

C.

Suggesting alternatives to minimize negative impacts.

This report was compiled by Miss M. Anderson with guidance with Mr. R. Daviss, Mr. G. Latham and Mr. J. Tofflemire. Acknowledgement goes to Mr. L. Gordichuk, Mr. F. Zaprawa and Mr. S. Wilks for their assistance in completing the study. Demographic data was supplied by Mr. Greg Sinclair from the Alberta Bureau of Statistics. Graphics were prepared by Mrs. Susan McGillivrAy.

Thanks also go to the Community Planning Branch, City of Edmonton Planning Department for their input throughout the Study.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

PREFACE INTRODUCTION 2.1 Light Rail Transit Impacts

1 2

2.1.1 Environmental Impacts - Air Quality - Noise - Vibration

3

2.1.2 Socio-Economic Impacts - Property Acquisition - Development Pressures - Visual Intrusion - Security

6

2.1.3 Circulation and Local Access - Local Traffic Circulation - Bus Route Changes and Bus Volumes - Parking - Safety/School Conflicts

9

2.2 South Light Rail Transit Impacts

11

2.2.1 Garneau - Study Area and Demographic Data - Light Rail Transit Alternatives - Impacts with the At-Grade Alternative - Impacts with the Tunnel Alternative

12

2.2.2 Strathcona - Study Area and Demographic Data - Light Rail Transit Alternatives - Impacts with CPR Remaining - Impacts with CPR Relocated

21

2.2.3 McKernan - Belgravia - Study Area and Demographic Data - Light Rail Transit Alternatives - Impacts with the At-Grade Alternative - Impacts wth the Tunnel Alternative

31


Page

2.2.4 Central (Coronet Industrial) - Study Area and Demographic Data - Light Rail Transit Alternatives - Impacts of Alignment

40

2.2.5 Duggan-Strathcona Industrial Park - Study Area and Demographic Data - Light Rail Transit Alternatives - Impacts of Alignment

45

2.2.6 Millwoods - Kaskitayo - Study Area and Demographic Data - Light Rail Transit Alternatives - Impacts of Alighment

49

2.3 Conclusions and Recommendations

54

ENCLOSURE A.

Public Participation Program for the SLRT Corridor Study.

63


INTRODUCTION

Environmental and social impact analysis has only recently been included in the feasibility studies for new transportation facilities. The implementation of a light rail transit facility may directly and indirectly cause changes in the environmental, physical and social composition of neighbourhoods in the vicinity of a proposed alignment.

This volume is organized in three sections:

2.1 Light Rail Transit Impacts

The first section of this chapter discusses impacts associated with LRT regardless of location. This section also includes basic assumptions and techniques for analysis.

2.2 South Light Rail Transit Impacts

The second section discusses LRT impacts in view of the local community situation and the magnitude of change involved.

2.3 Conclusions and Recommendations

The third section presents conclusions and recommendations which, if adopted, could minimize the negative impacts of the proposed SLRT system.

Information obtained from the general public through suveys administered at two sets of information exchanges are generally addressed in Section 2.2 of this Chapter. A separate report discussing the process for the public involvement for the study is included as Enclosure A.


2.1

LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT IMPACTS

The primary impacts of Light Rail Transit have been divided into three categories:

2.1.1

Environmental

2.1.2

Socio-Economic

2.1.3

Circulation and Local Access

Environmental Impacts include: Air Quality Noise Vibration

Socio-Economic Impacts include: Property Acquisition Development Pressures Visual Intrusion Security

Circulation and Local Access Impacts include: Local Traffic Circulation Bus Route Changes and Bus Volumes Parking Safety/School Conflicts


2.1.1

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Air Quality

The introduction of an LRT System will indirectly improve the air quality through a reduction in the volume of diesel and gasoline-powered vehicles.

According to the Pollution Control Division of Alberta Environment, levels of nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxides are greatly influenced by motor vehicle volumes. Diesel and gasoline-powered motor vehicles are responsible for approximately half of the total oxides of nitrogen emission for the Edmonton area (49.7%). Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is an "orange-brown gas with a characteristic pungent odour. Because of its colouration, it reduces atmospheric visibility and is responsible for a portion of the brownish discolouration of air masses near urban areas. Its' significance to air pollution cannot be overemphasized, because it can affect human health, suppress growth of vegetation, and cause corrosion of metals)

Industry is the main source of carbon monoxide (CO) (59.3%), while motor vehicles are responsible for 40.5% of CO emission in the Edmonton area. The effects of CO at high concentrations can be lethal, but the effects of lower concentrations, such as those found in urban environments, are not documented and would not be significantly affected by LRT.

The reduction of diesel and gasoline-powered traffic due to LRT cannot be accurately projected.

However, the LRT offers an alternative to the

private auto, and therefore has the potential to increase air quality on a system-wide basis.

On a local basis, air quality may deteriorate at suburban transit stations incorporating park and ride facilities. Major bus terminals may also have a marginal effect on local air quality during peak hours, however, the effect should not be noticeable to the residents of the area.

1.

Alberta Environment 1977 Air Monitoring Annual Report, City of Edmonton p. 8. - 3 -


OUTDOOR NOISE LEVELS

INDOOR NOISE LEVEES (d BA) â&#x20AC;¢-. 110 Rock Band

Jet Flyover at 100 ft. 100 Inside Subway Train (New York)

Gas Lawn Mower at 3 ft. 90 Diesel Truck at 50 ft.

Food Blender at 3 ft.

Noisy Urban Daytime

80 Garbage Disposal at 3 ft. Shout at 3 ft.

Gas Lawn Mower at 100 ft.

70 Vacuum Cleaner at 3 ft. Normal Speech at 3 ft.

Commercial Area 60 Large Business Office Quiet Urban Daytime

SO Dishwasher Next Room

Quiet Urban Nighttime Quiet Suburban Nighttime

40 Small Theatre, Large Conference Room (Background) Library 30 Bedroom at night Concert Hall (Background)

Quiet Rural Nighttime

20 Broadcast and Recording Studio

10 Threshold of Hearing

0

COMMON INDOOR & OUTDOOR NOISE LEVELS

Source: Alberta Transportation

FIGURE 2.1.A


Noise

Documentation of noise generated by LRT vehicles is necessary to assess conflicts between LRT corridors and adjacent land uses.

Noise is assessed in decibels (dB). A decibel is a unit to measure loudness, in much the same way as degrees are a measure of temperature. The human ear can detect a change in loudness of approximately three decibels, but generally a change of at least five decibels is considered significant. A change of 10 decibels is a 2:1 change in loudness, independent of the initial noise level.

Since human hearing is sensitive only to sounds within a certain range of pitch, noise cannot be solely expressed in decibels.

The dBA weighted scale is used to approximate the human range of hearing. The letter "A" indicates how the pitch character is treated. The "A" weighting de-emphasizes both the low-pitched and the high-pitched components of the noise spectrum, which is similar to human hearing. For this reason, noise levels measured in dBA correlate well with individual perceptions of loudness. (Figure 2.1.A) Noise levels in dBA represent the loudness at a certain location for the specific instant the noise is measured. This method is most appropriate for measuring pass-by noise generated by the LRT vehicle.

Some representative pass-by noise levels are:

Source

Distance

Speed

Noise Level

4

At-grade LRT

15m

50 km/h

69 dBA

Auto

15m

50 km/h

60 dBA S

Bus

15m

50 km/h

Train

15m

50 km/h

82 dBA i 87 dBA â&#x20AC;˘

Diesel Truck

15m

90 dBA

I


FIGURE 2.1.B AVERAGE NOISE LEVELS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT

Average Noise Level Equipment Type

at 15 m (dBA)

Air Compressor

81

Backhoe

85

Concrete Mixer

85

Concrete Pump

82

Concrete Vibrator

76

Crane, Derrick

88

Crane, Mobile

83

Dozer

87

Generator

78

Grader

85

Jackhammer

88

Loader

84

Paver

89

Pile Driver

101

Pneumatic Tool

85

Pump

76

Rock Drill

98

Roller

80

Saw

78

Scraper

88

Shovel

82

Truck

88

NOTE: BOLT BERANEK AND NEWMAN, Pg. 48.


Testing of the LRT vehicle By Bolt Beranek, and Newman, Inc. in August of 1978, revealed noise levels in excess of background noise levels at speeds greater than 20 km/h within 15 metres of the alignment.

The sensitivity of the location is also a factor. Residential or institutional land uses are expected to be more sensitive to noise than industrial areas. Therefore, noise attenuation is considered only through sensitive residential or institutional areas where LRT is planned to go at-grade. Noise is not considered a significant factor through industrial areas.

Noise during construction depends greatly upon the method of construction, the amount of equipment operating time and the distance from the site to residential areas. Figure 2.1.B provides representative noise levels of typical construction equipment.

Vibration

Vibration caused by the LRT vehicle can be measured in relation to the threshold of human perception.

The vibration is caused by irregularities at the wheel/rail interface, causing clatter which is transferred to the ground through the tie and ballast. Both surface and body energy waves are subsequently transferred to building foundations through the soil. The type of soil, and whether or not it is frozen, affects the transference of vibration from the source to the structure. Higher levels of vibration can be expected in frozen-ground transmission, "due to decreased energy dissipation in the more rigid medium"2.

Because of the significant relationship between vibration levels and the soil type and state, no reliable methods exist for adequately measuring the transmission of vibrational energy to a structure. It is assumed by Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Inc., that vibration is transferred to a structure without alteration.

2.

Bolt, Beranek and Newman, p. 42. Note: Testing of the Edmonton vehicle took place in August, 1978 and again in December, 1978.


The vibration generated by the Northeast LRT was tested for 3 distances (7.5m, 15m, 30m) and 4 speeds (20, 30, 40, 50 km/h). Testing results indicate that the level of vibration increases with an increase in 3 speed . (Figure 2.1.C).

Test results indicate that at a distance of 7.5 metres, and at speeds greater than 20 km/h, vibration is perceptable. At greater distances vibration is below the threshold of human perception.

In conclusion, vibration is a relatively insignificant problem in regards to human well-being. However, vibration generated by the LRT may register on delicate monitoring systems utilized by hospitals or research laboratories.

Vibration of the LRT has so far been discussed in terms of an at-grade system. Vibration from tunnel sections of the alignment, while below the level of human perception, may also register on sensitive equipment. It has been reported that levels for the circular tunnel alternative 4 (mole) will be higher than levels for the twin box cut and cover method . (Figure 2.1.D). Ground vibration from construction is not readily measurable, consequently, data is not available.

2.1.2

SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS

Property Acquisition

Problems associated with land acquisition along an LRT alignment include: the property acquisition process, resident relocation, and change in open recreation space.

Each of the above problems involve social impacts which are best assessed by the individual communities involved. The public reaction to possible community intrusion and fragmentation through construction of transporta-

3. 4.

Bolt Beranek and Newman, p. 33. Bolt Beranek and Newman, p. 44.


HUMAN THRESHOLD OF PERCEPTION (AFTER M P,NA )

O CTAV E BAND R

-60 —

-80

2

4

8

16

50 km/h :50 km/h 40 km/h 20 km/h 31.5

63

125

250

OCTAVE BAND CENTER FREQUENCIES IN Hz

I:DMONTON TRANSIT PASSBY VERTICAL GROUND-VIBRATION LEVELS, MEASURED AT 7.5 M.

FIGURE 2.1.0 (i) SOURCE: BOLT BERANEK AND NEWMAN


-40

1 _HUMAN THRESHOLD OF PERCEPTION

(AFTER i'21\WA)

/A\ „/ *-\\\ -/:

\\ N — 30 km/h 50 km/h — 40 km/h 20 hrn/h I -100i 2

i

J

I

I

1

t

4

8

16

31.5

63

125

OCTAVE BAND CENTER FREQUENCIES IN

250

H7

EDMONTON TRANSIT PASSBY VERTICAL GROUND-VIBM\TION LEVELS, MEASURED AT 15 M.

FIGURE 2.1.0 (ii) SOURCE: BOLT BERANEK AND NEWI1AN


40

-- HUMAN THRESHOLD (MiWA)

-50 (7,

C)

VP-

-60

.> LU

0

- 70

17-

ct:

• Lti LEJ o -80 Cl')

< -90

(•) '0

50 km/h - 30 km/h 40 km/h - 20 km/h

-100

-'110' 2*

4

8

1G

31.5

63

125

250

OCTAVE BAND CENTER FREQUENCIES IN Hz EDMONTON TRANSIT PASSBY VERTICAL GROUD -VIBRATION LEVELS, MEASURED AT 30 M. FIGURE 2.1.0(iii) SOURCE: BOLT BERANEK AND NEW1vM


-46

-1

I ESTIMATED DURING LRT PASSEIY FOR CIRCULAR TUNNEL ALTERNATIVE ESTI MATED DUR'i NC LRT PASSf3Y FOR "iVi;N13,2;.; CUT AND COVER ALTERNATIVE

Li _60 >

Lti

HUMAN THRESHOLD OF PERCEPTION -TO VETICAL WHOLE-BODY VIBRATION (AFTER

/-*

Ili 0 .co cc -80

Li NOTE: ASSUMES RAIL FASTENERS WITH A STIFFNESS OF APPROX. 100,000 lb/in

-90 —

100 2

•1 •

4

8

16

31.5

63

125

250

OCTAVE BAND CENTER FREQUENCIES IN Hz . . ESTIMATED LRT VERTICAL GROUND-VIBRATION LEVELS, AT 30 M FROM TUNNEL WITH RESILIENT TRACK FASTENERS.

FIGURE 2 . 1 . D

SOURCE: BOLT BERANEK AND NEWMAN


tion corridors, disruption of recognized land marks and established social ties are difficult to measure, and can vary greatly from community to community.

Due to the difficulty of assessing social costs, the potential impacts are best identified through a physical inventory of community facilities. Public feedback obtained by questionnaires at the Information Exchange Centres was used to assess the impact of property acquisition in each community.

Development Pressures

Experience with other LRT systems indicates an increase in development pressure with added accessibility. However, redevelopment of mature, well-established residential and commercial areas, or increased density by high-rise housing may not be desirable for residents who wish to maintain the character of their community. Older, inner-City neighbourhoods are most susceptible to redevelopment pressures and usually suffer most in terms of stress on community facilities.

Public feedback obtained by surveys was utilized in assessing the importance of this factor.

Visual Intrusion

Visual impact of the LRT is assessed in terms of the community's reaction to the presence of overhead cables, elevated sections, portals and safety fencing, each of which has the potential to create a negative visual impact.

Public feedback through questionnaires from the Information Exchange Centres was used to assess this factor.

Security

Security factors, such as vandalism, have been monitored for the Northeast (NE) LRT line for the past year. Security problems with the NE LRT system have been negligible, and in one year's operation constitute little more than basic maintenance. For example, seat upholstry has - 7 -


been repaired and one window replaced. Edmonton Transit (LRT Division) revealed that much of the potential vandalism and/or violence on or about the stations and vehicles is discouraged by monitoring systems and security personnel

Both visual and public address systems are in effect at all stations and are monitored at timed intervals, 24 hours a day. Operators of the vehicles are also alert to potential problems and have a public address system in the cab. All stations, both underground and surface, have these security facilities.

No problems with the park and ride parking lots have been encountered since the line went into operation in April, 1978.


2.1.3

CIRCULATION AND LOCAL ACCESS

Local Traffic Circulation

An assessment of local traffic circulation is discussed in terms of changes to the local street pattern with the implementation of LRT. Various features associated with LRT systems include portal sections, road closures and at-grade crossings, each of which can have an effect upon local and system-wide traffic flow. The community input required to assess the impact of traffic changes on each community was obtained by questionnaire.

"Project Uni", which utilizes a Transportation Management strategy to improve the capacity of existing roadways, will have a separate impact on local traffic circulation. By utilizing a one-way system, traffic will be diverted around, rather than through, residential neighbourhoods. In general this change in local traffic circulation compliments LRT requirements for altering the traffic flow pattern.

Bus Route Changes and Bus Volumes

Changes in bus routes and bus volumes can impact certain areas. For example, an area presently not on a bus route would experience problems in adjusting to the additional noise, vibration, fumes or overhead wires which may accompany better transit service.

The residents' response to proposed changes in local bus route traffic and volumes is documented by the questionnaire results for each community.

Parking

Potential problems with parking near stations has been documented in a parking survey completed for the NE LRT Evaluation Study. Of the existing three stations, Belvedere Station realized the greatest problem in terms of a significant increase in on-street parking. This increase was


significant within approximately a two-block radius of the Station. Outside of this radius, potential auto users are not prepared to walk to reach the station. Belvedere station, being the temporary terminus of the line, creates more demand for parking than would either Coliseum or Stadium Stations.

Park and ride demand can be accommodated at suburban LRT stations, encouraging the use of public transit throughout the system. An increase in the on-street parking demand within two blocks of the LRT stations could be accommodated by a "resident only" parking ban. Response to the potential problem of resident parking is documented in the survey results by community.

Safety/School Conflicts

Based upon experience with the NE LRT, problems with pedestrian safety at the crossings and the stations have been negligible.

At points along the NE line where the proximity of elementary schools indicated a potential crossing problem, a special lecture series was arranged. A joint program sponsored by the Edmonton Safety Council, the school involved, and Edmonton Transit proved very effective in cautioning children of the potential safety hazards. No problems have yet been encountered at the crossings involving the LRT. Crosswalk Commissionaires and school Safety Patrol also direct pedestrian traffic across the tracks. Special pedestrian crosswalks are planned for the station areas in the near future.

Problems indicated by the local residents are addressed by community. Questionnaire results also indicate the reaction to safety fencing and pedestrian access across the LRT line for each community.


2.2

SOUTH LT IMPACTS

This section of the report is organized geographically according to community. In some cases, the communities which are similar in character (or which experience minimal impact because of the proposed alignment) have been aggregated in order to avoid duplication. (Figure 2.2.0)

In the case of the Downtown-Oliver area, LRT related impacts have been regarded as minimal due to the underground alignment. Development pressure is expected to increase around the LRT stations due to the added accessibility. However, as these are well established commercial retail areas, site changes to the area will be consistant with traditional and future land use plans. (Figure 2.2.1)

The areas include:

2.2.1

Garneau

2.2.2

Strathcona

2.2.3

McKernan - Belgravia

2.2.4

Central (Coronet Industrial Area)

2.2.5

Duggan - Strathcona Industrial Park

2.2.6

Millwoods - Kaskitayo

The impacts presented for each of the above areas were determined in view of community boundaries, social and physical structure of the communities and the LRT alternatives.


Community impact Study Units

1 ,

:

11 71

LI

ILI1 1

,L

1

1[

I„

IL "

•,,e

I 71'; ;i• '

...:2,

'...t . ° 1i

i

.0.'•.0; •.„ „.,. L., ."....:".:74, ,I,L, J 1.),Lrmirt.

.4 •

•1.1614A

V1.1,

LAYItin• vasia

_ 7e'LL

1 Downtown - Oliver 2 University

I i[ ifELoWil

j7='\C- cLL-'"''`p

3 McKernan- Belgravia 4 Garneau - Strathcona 5 Coronet Industrial

_

.,,,,. L...,

m--- - -

,4_1, .:,.„ J[ .. k., 21____ A; L"';`%-3-.:. . L,,,*..'iLL

-- -----, ----

6 Duggan - Strathcona Industrial 7 Mill Woods - Kaskitayo

Ln I,C- t.•• _ i: • 7;(.-"6.-,'

14-

TP 52 11.24 W.411/

To Kt ftl

dae

TP.31 11.24

*Aar

TP.21 11.24

TP.111 1,11.2.• PC4Y1.

Fig 2.2.0


Downtown - Oliver

102

^

^

103

ST

108

ST

105

ST

fcâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC; 5'

106

ST

107

ST

108

ST

109

ST

INNW

I 1

M 80

0 MINN 111111111N1

-1-

I=C-EL

110

11

111

112

112

113

113

LL

1

0-7 1,1

ST

[1= 77-1 115

Sr

PAIN

vta

r"

1111F:111111 1

1

11111111111

111_1 i=fll

FlHI

El Proposed Station Location mi=m Proposed Alignment

Fig 2.2.1


GARNEAU

2.2.1

Study Area and Demographic Data For the purpose of this study, Garneau is geographically bounded by 107 Street, Saskatchewan Drive, 112 Street and University Avenue (Figure 2.2.2)

Originally a single-family residential area, Garneau has undergone highdensity redevelopment because of its proximity to the University and the downtown. The Garneau community has within it a very vocal and organized community planning committee and a well-established community league. The primary concern of the community is preservation of the remaining single-family dwellings and overall mature character of Garneau.

Demographic data indicate the population of the Garneau area to be young (48% between the ages of 20 and 29 while City average is 22.4%). Over half (51%) are single and 83% rent their accommodation, indicating the attractiveness of this area for University students. The area contains 935 single detached homes, comprising 22% of the total housing. Apartments make up approximately 70% of the remainder.

LRT Alternatives 5 Two design alternatives are being considered for LRT through Garneau . A third 'do-nothing', alternative is also possible.

89 Avenue Alternative (At-Grade) This route involves a 'cut and cover' tunnel section from the High Level Bridge, coming up to grade on 89 Avenue immediately west of 110 Street

5.

Use of 90, 89 or 88 Avenues have been rejected as alternatives for underground alignment due to higher costs, lower operating standards, or major conflicts with other traffic. - 12 -


eau - Strathcona Z

El Proposed Station Location maiiErt5: Proposed Alignment


to a station at 114 Street, near the University Administration Building. (This alternative is only possible with the relocation of the CPR).

87 Avenue Alternative (Tunnel)

This alternative includes a 'mpled i tunnel section from the High Level Bridge in an arc to 87 Avenue then west, to a station at the Education Complex at 114 Street. (This alternative is possible with or without the relocation of the CPR). IMPACTS WITH THE AT-GRADE ALTERNATIVE Environmental Impacts

Air Quality

Air quality will not be significantly affected, in that there are no plans for a station within Garneau.

Noise Noise levels within 30 meters of the LRT alignment will be greater than 6 70dBA, at 10 minute intervals, which is higher than existing levels . This affects approximately 16 residential lots abutting the line, between 110 and 111 Streets, during the hours of 5:20 a.m. and 1:30 a.m.

Of the overall response from the questionnaire, 46.3% (82 people) indicated that noise would have no effect on them. An additional 41.8% (74 people) felt that the additional noise would have a bad or very bad effect on them. Vibration

Vibration will be perceptible to residents within 7.5 metres of the LRT alignment, only at speeds greater than 20km/h. At this point in the 6. Bolt Beranek and Newman recommend a 1-metre noise barrier adjacent to track to muffle wheel/rail clatter through land use areas associated with sleep or relaxation, such as single family residential. - 13 -


alignment, the velocity of the car will be very low, and the noise and vibration generated will be minimal. Vibration will not be noticeable to those residents abutting the line.

Socio-Economic Impacts

Property Acquisition

The 89 Avenue Alternative requires the acquisition of 8 properties (4 owner occupied, 4 tenant occupied) on the north side of 89 Avenue, between 109 and 110 Streets (Figure 2.2.A). None of these houses are designated for consideration as historic sites, but are in good condition and are architectually significant in their own right as typical of the period. Studies and community plans recommend the preservation 7 of as many historic resources in the area as possible .

The resident group in Garneau is also "requesting the preservation of as much of the remaining single family housing as possible8." As a result the acquisition of these properties for construction the LRT is considered a significant negative impact for this alternative. Acquisition depletes the stock of older, single detached homes and does not comply with the desires of the community planning committee.

In view of: the goals of community planning committee, the history of the area, and the nature of the properties required, it is the view of Transportation Planning that this represents a significant social impact on the community as a whole.

From the questionnaire distributed at the Information Exchanges, 76.8% (33 people) from Garneau felt that property acquisition had a bad or very bad impact on their area. (A total of 46 Garneau residents responded to this question on the questionnaire.) An additional 14.0% (6 people) felt this would not affect them.

7. "Oliver and Garneau an Historical Overview", p. 8. "Garneau Area Redevelopment Plan Progress Report", p. ii-iii.


Fig 2.2.A


Development Pressures

Although portions of Garneau are still occupied by single family homes, the redevelopment pressures, combined with increasing absentee ownership, could mean that the area is susceptible to further high density residential development. Many of the residents at the information centre voiced concerns about the development of high rise residential projects and indicated that community facilities were presently over9 utilized due to the high population of the area . Whether or not this is true, the general feeling of the community was that higher density was directly related to deterioration of their neighbourbood, and they did not wish to see higher density. Over 82.0% of Garneau residents who attended the Information Exchange (41 people) indicated that they felt high density residential redevelopment was bad or very bad. An additional 10.6% (5 people) indicated it would have no impact on their area. Redevelopment potential on the 8 lots affected by the tunnel alignment is constrained due to the lack of clearance over the tunnel.

Visual Intrusion The removal of the boulevards and mature trees on both side of 89 Avenue results in a severe change to the existing environment. Overhead cables and safety fencing may also prove visually detractive to the residents, as well as the concrete portal section planned between 110 and 111 Streets. Of the Garneau residents who answered the survey in this regard, 63.8% (30 people) indicated that portal sections would have no effect on them. The visual intrusion of fencing was considered a negative effect for 44.4% (20 people) and to an additional 42.2% (19 people) it had no effect.

9.

The Older Neighbourhoods Study indicates that Garneau is a high priority area for additional parks space.


Security

Based on experience with the NE LRT, no problems with security are anticipated through Garneau.

Circulation and Local Access

Local Traffic Circulation

Changes to the local traffic patterns with the 89 Avenue at-grade alternative may result from closure of 89 Avenue between 109 and 111 Streets. Access along 89 Avenue would be limited to one lane due to the portal section between 110 and 111 Streets.

Short term resident parking or

emergency vehicle access only would be permitted.

Closure of 89 Avenue requires residences abutting 89 Avenue to be restricted to auto access via the rear service lane only.

The portal section will block pedestrian traffic between 110 and 111 Streets, with the LRT surfacing at 111 Street for an at-grade intersection.

Community response from the questionnaire indicated that 46.7% (21 people) felt that road closures would not affect them. An additional 31.1% (14 people) felt that road closures were good or very good.

The surface LRT alternative conflicts directly with Project UNI, which encourages use of 111 Street and 89 Avenue by diversions forcing traffic north on 111 at 86 Avenue. Without Project Uni, a 30-second conflict of the LRT and University-bound vehicles at 10-minute peak frequencies, should not conflict with area traffic flows. Results from the questionnaire indicate that Garneau residents are in favour of reduced auto traffic through their neighbourhood: 78.7% (37 people) felt this was good or very good.

Bus Route Changes

No changes are planned for bus routes in the Garneau area, as bus/LRT connections would occur within the University area. Bus connections - 16 -


will be maintained to accommodate existing transit linkages.

Parking

Parking along 89 Avenue would be banned due to the lack of available space on either side of the LRT. No parking will be provided at the stations, possibly increasing the existing parking problem for local residents (due to the close proximity to the University).

Safety/School Conflicts

Pedestrian safety in relation to the LRT is important when dealing with small elementary school-age children. At-grade crossings of the Northeast line have been monitored by school patrols and commissionaires since the inception of the line.

Access to Garneau School by elementary school-age children may be a potential hazard at the level crossing at 111 Street and 89 Avenue. Fencing, crossing attendants and school patrols, in addition to the safety program sponsored by Edmonton Transit and the Safety Council, have ensured the safety of children crossing the NE LRT line. From experience with the NE LRT, the safety of school-age children is not threatened by the at-grade system.

IMPACTS WITH TUNNEL ALTERNATIVES

Environmental Impacts

Air Quality

Similar to the at-grade alternative, the underground system encourages the use of clean-running electric transit rather than gasoline or diesel powered vehicles. The LRT does not directly affect air quality.

Noise

Noise is not viewed as a problem for the tunnel alternative.

- 17 -


Vibration

Vibration caused by construction and operation of the LRT is considered as an unknown quantity which could affect properties abutting the west side of 109 Street between 89 and 87 Avenues. Vibration levels for the circular moled tunnel design are also more perceptible than levels for 10 the 'twin box', cut and cover design .

Socio-Economic Impacts

Property Acquisition

The City is proposing to obtain easements for the properties over the tunnel section. However, if an easement is not feasible due to the potential problems of settlement or vibration, particularly during construction, property acquisition may be necessary. Resale of these homes is possible with the addition of a caveat on the property, resulting in no responsibility on the part of the City of Edmonton for annoyance and/or structural damage caused through construction or operation of the LRT. Acquisition does not imply removal of the homes, and does not indicate a planned change in the aspect of the neighbourhood.

Development Pressures

Redevelopment pressure in Garneau is currently high because of the close proximity to the University Campus. As a result, it is not expected that the close proximity to the station will cause any significant increase in redevelopment pressure. Of greatest impact to the neighbourhood will be the station to be located in front of the Education Complex at 114 Street and 87 Avenue.

The concerns of the resident group for the halt of redevelopment into high rise and high density developments are well documented by survey results. Over 82.0% (41 people) of those Garneau residents who resonded

10. Bolt Beranek and Newman, p. 4.

- 18 -


to the questionnaire indicated that residential redevelopment was a negative impact for their area. Visual Intrusion

Visual impact of the underground line is insignificant.

Security

No problems with security on the underground line are anticipated, based on experience with the NE LRT. Circulation and Local Access

Local Traffic Circulation

Local traffic circulation and access will not be affected by an underground line.

Bus Route Changes and Bus Volumes

Bus service in the Garneau area will not be altered, as the LRT station incorporates existing transit centers within the University. For this alternative, an underground station and transit terminal are planned for the Education complex.

Parking

The parking capacity in the area, would not be further depleted by an underground line.

Changes in the parking situation in the Garneau community were viewed as positive, in that many residents feel that the present situation could not be worse. No park and ride facilities are planned from any station in the vicinity of the University. Use of public transit is encouraged throughout.

- 19 -


Safety/School Conflicts

No conflicts are anticipated between LRT and pedestrian or vehicular traffic with the underground system.


2.2.2

STRATHCONA

Study Area and Demographic Data The Strathcona area defined for this study is bounded by Saskatchewan Drive, Mill Creek, 82 Avenue and 109 Street (Figure 2.2.2). Strathcona is one of Edmonton's oldest inner-City communities. It was the terminus of the railroad until 1902, when the railroad was extended to connect the rural towns of Edmonton and Strathcona. The Town of Strathcona enjoyed a period of progressive prosperity and attained City status in 1907. Amalgamation with the City of Edmonton came in 1911, and Strathcona's identity was gradually assimilated into that of Edmonton. Attention and development was diverted from the original South Side commercial area to the new Edmonton downtown. This development trend continued until the post-World War II building boom. The Old Strathcona Foundation, which includes residents and businessmen of the area, is primarily interested in preserving the heritage of the original settlement. A portion of Old Strathcona is now designated as a Conservation District (zoned Pl) and new developments are considered or rejected on the basis of suitability and impact on the old town area. Old buildings assume new market value when a propective buyer realizes that the character of a site provides a suitable setting for a contem11 . (Figure 2.2.3) porary function Demographic data indicate the population of the Strathcona community to be young; 45% of the total population are between the ages of 20 and 29 (City average is 22.4%). Approximately 45% are single, and 55% of the total number of households are non-family (compared to 28.1% for the

11. Examples of this are the Old Princess Theatre which still operates at the original site, and the 'Keg and Cleaver' Restuarant located on the main floor of the Old Scona Apartments. "Strathcona, An Asset of Heritage, A Plan for the Future", p. 41.


Strathcona Historical Sites MIN

= Illiffib & 1 2 NMI i A

MONO MIN= IMMO 4111111111111

All 11111 /11111111111111 41111111111111111111P •

AV

h

AVE

I * I= AVE

111111111111 IIIIIIIIIII

AVE

111

it411111111.w Illk

87

%.7

411111.1.11111

AVE

Al

AVE

AVE

•AVE

SA

ha..

AVE

2

83

1111111111111111 VE

83

AVE

11111111111

81

"AVE

I

82

81

79

AVE

79

7F1

AvF

7A

AVE

111111111111111 MENNE

WHYTE

EMMEN 111111111111M

AVE

OMNI.

11110 111E111111111

1111111111111111r

A VE

AVE

ET

=7:1, 77

1 Knox United Church 2 Strathcona Library 3 No. 6 Fire Hall 4 Richards Block 5 Dominion Hotel 6 Strathcona Hotel 7 Ross Block 8 Klondike Cinema 9 Chapman Bros. 10 McKenzie Residence 11 CPR Station Other Sites

7

H16-

M11111111111111 1111111111111111 1111E111MM 11101111111111 1111111111111E AVE

-7

I

- M11111101111111011111111111H 82

11111111111i

=1111111 1 11111111H1111111

'11111111111 11111111111i

8.

II

AVE

--",1111111•51 85

111111 IMO

I

111111111111111111

1>I 11111 NkAlliii

IllIlIllIll 85

0°1i

1111111115 IN111111101111.1111 1111111110

1414

Di

(

AVE

‘Li

AVE

AVE

72 AVPIE

III 71 AVE

A

11111 7

V

Fig 2.2.3


City average). This data indicates the attractiveness of the inner-city location for younger, single working adults.

Of the housing stock in Strathcona, 1005 units are single detached houses (20%) and over 70% of the remaining units are apartments. Approximately 80% of the housing is tenant-occupied, which is an indication of the community's mobile population. LRT Alternatives

Two alignment alternatives for the LET have been designed for Strathcona. The alternatives were developed with respect to whether or not CPR relocates.

If the CPR remains on its present right-of-way in Strathcona, the LRT must be constructed alongside (to the south of) the existing tracks. A "twin box cut-and-cover" tunnel section is planned from the south end of the High Level Bridge, under 109 Street and south of the existing Strathcona House Apartment Complex, resurfacing near 108 Street for a surface station near 107 Street. The alignment then follows the existing CPR right-of-way south to 104th Street, where the line tunnels to an underground station at Whyte Avenue.

With the relocation of the CPR, the Strathcona House tunnel becomes available for the northbound line of the LRT. The southbound line will require a cut-and-cover tunnel section south of the Strathcona House tunnel. Both lines can converge for a single station near 107 Street, or may designed as a major underground station, having a separate platform for each line. IMPACTS WITH CPR REMAINING Environmental Impacts Air Quality

No change in local air quality is anticipated with the implementation of - 22 -


12 the LRT through Strathcona .

Noise

Pass-by noise levels at residences within 15 metres of the LRT alignment will be approximately 69 dBA. No houses are within 15 metres, however, this noise factor will affect 9 houses and 1 walk-up apartment, which are within 30 metres of the alignment.

If the CPR stays, it is required that both northbound and southbound lines be built adjacent to the CPR track, resulting in the alignment being closer to the residential area. Therefore, the noise generated by the LRT has the potential of affecting three additional residences.

Although the LRT trains emit less noise than CP rail traffic, the LRT noise will cause more frequent annoyance for those residents abutting the line than the existing CP freight traffic. Questionnaire results indicate that of the Strathcona residents who responded to the question, 4 people said that noise would not affect them, whereas, 5 people felt that noise would be bad or very bad. Results of the questionnaire for the Strathcona were disappointingly low, and analysis for this community cannot be termed representative.

Vibration

Vibration will be perceptible to residents within 7.5 metres of the LRT alignment at speeds greater than 20km/h (unfrozen ground conditions)13 In the vicinity of the 108 Street Station, vehicle speeds will be low and vibration and noise problems minimal. Vibration is not expected to

12. If a major bus terminal is designed for the 108 Street station, air quality will be degraded at the station site due to idling diesel buses. However, this should not effect residents of the area. 13. Bolt Beranek and Newman, p. 42.

- 23 -


be a problem for the residential properties in this area. Vibration will be a factor when considering redevelopment of lots over the tunnel section, as clearance directly above the tunnel is very shallow. Socio-Economic Impacts

Property Acquisition

All but 4 residential lots affected by this alignment are presently owned by the City of Edmonton. The properties which could be affected by the construction of a major station include 9 single-family homes, a corner lot presently zoned for park space, a walk-up apartment and a vacant lot south of Strathcona House Apartments. Without the major station, property requirements are lessened.

The loss of single family residential land and park space is a negative impact on Strathcona, as the redevelopment potential over the tunnel may be restricted. Strathcona, similar to most inner-city neighbourhoods, is already deficient in park space, and the high cost of R-4 zoned land makes it economically difficult to replace the park space. Property acquisition in Strathcona was viewed as bad or very bad by 88.9% (8 people) of those residents who responded to the question. Again, questionnaire results are not considered significant for Strathcona as response was so low.

Development Pressure The Old Strathcona Foundation is in favour of the incorporation of the areas' historical resources into a revitalization program for the district. The major concern of the group is the original site of the commercial old town surrounding Whyte (82) Avenue, which is not implicated in the actual alignment plans for the SLRT. However, the presence of an undergound station at Whyte (82) Avenue would potentially increase development pressure in the surrounding area.

The 108 Street/87 Avenue Station may cause similar pressures to redevelop single family dwellings into high rise and commercial uses. The neighbour-24-


hood is presently under-utilized in its current R4 zoning, and could be redeveloped into higher density housing such as is characteristic of developments along Saskatchewan Drive. The Area Planning Section is requesting the maintenance of existing areas of single family dwellings. Questionnaire response was not high enough to obtain a representative sample from the community. Visual Intrusion

Overall questionnaire response regarding the visual impact of the portal section were: 69.4% (129 people) that this would not affect them while 14.0% (26 people) felt that this would have a negative impact on them. The additional visual intrusion of safety fencing is also felt to be insignificant according to overall questionnaire returns. Approximately half or 54.3% (101 people) felt that they would not be affected, while another 34.9% (65 people) felt that the visual impact would be bad or very bad.

Security

No problems with security of the stations are anticipated based on experience with NE LRT. Circulation and Local Access Local Traffic Circulation

Local traffic circulation will be affected by a road closure planned for 106A Street, which presently provides access to Forthill Road. This plan to close 106A Street augments the concepts of Project Uni, which is to discourage short-cutting through neighbourhoods. The Forthill Road is currently a popular route as a short cut to/from downtown and also provides access to Queen Elizabeth Park. Overall response to the questionnaire indicated that 58.4% (106 people) felt that road closures in their


hood is presently under-utilized in its current R4 zoning, and could be redeveloped into higher density housing such as is characteristic of developments along Saskatchewan Drive. The Area Planning Section is requesting the maintenance of existing areas of single family dwellings. Questionnaire response was not high enough to obtain a representative sample from the community. Visual Intrusion Overall questionnaire response regarding the visual impact of the portal section were: 69.4% (129 people) that this would not affect them while 14.0% (26 people) felt that this would have a negative impact on them.

The additional visual intrusion of safety fencing is also felt to be insignificant according to overall questionnaire returns. Approximately half or 54.3% (101 people) felt that they would not be affected, while another 34.9% (65 people) felt that the visual impact would be bad or very bad.

Security No problems with security of the stations are anticipated based on experience with NE LRT. Circulation and Local Access Local Traffic Circulation Local traffic circulation will be affected by a road closure planned for 106A Street, which presently provides access to Forthill Road. This plan to close 106A Street augments the concepts of Project Uni, which is to discourage short-cutting through neighbourhoods. The Forthill Road is currently a popular route as a short cut to/from downtown and also provides access to Queen Elizabeth Park. Overall response to the questionnaire indicated that 58.4% (106 people felt that road closures in their


community would not affect them, whereas, 24.7% (45 people) felt road closures would be bad or very bad. However, 70.0% (133 people) of the overall questionnaire response indicated a positive reaction to reduced auto traffic through individual neighbourhoods. With implementation of Project Uni, Walterdale Hill will be northbound only and Fort Hill Road will be restricted to Parks and Recreation vehicles.

Bus Route Changes With the minor station, no local bus route changes are planned for the Strathcona area. Present transit linkages will be maintained at 109 14 Street and at Whyte Avenue .

Overall questionnaire returns indicate that 59.1% (104 people) felt that change in bus routes would not affect them.

Parking

Strathcona is presently deficient in on-street parking space, and the â&#x20AC;˘ construction of LRT stations at 108 Street and at Whyte (82) Avenue could potentially create further problems for residents and for the Whyte Avenue merchants. The potential for parking problem is increased in that no parking will be provided at the stations, in order to encourage the use of public transit or other modes of transport rather than the private auto. A resident-only parking scheme similar to the one presently operating on the NE LRT line could be implemented to alleviate the situation. Response from Strathcona residents to changes in on-street parking could not be treated as a significant sample size.

14. If the 108 Street Station is designed as a major terminal, roadway modifications including the terminal will involve added local impact.

- 26 -


Safety/School Conflicts At-grade crossings of the NE LRT have been monitored since the inception of the system. Fencing, crossing attendants and school patrols are supplemented by an educational program jointly sponsored by Edmonton Transit, the schools involved, and the Edmonton Safety Council. From experience with the NE LRT line, the safety of informed school age children is not threatened by the LRT line. No school catchments conflict with the proposed LRT line in the Strathcona area, as the CPR line presently provides the boundary between school districts. However, the possibility of pre-school and elementary school age children crossing the line does exist. While parents were very concerned about children playing close to the line, survey results for Strathcona indicated that fencing of the line was considered unfavourable by the neighbourhood residents, however, the response was too low to assume this as an accurate representation of the community. IMPACTS WITH CPR RELOCATED

Environmental Impacts

Air Quality No change to the local air quality is anticipated with implementation of the LRT system through Strathcona. Noise The noise factor is similar for both of the alternatives being discussed. Noise may be a problem within 30 metres of the at-grade portions, between 106 Street and 104 Streets. However, with CPR relocated, the narrow tunnel and portal section potentially affects approximately 6 residences.


Vibration Vibration is not considered a problem for either alternative. With the CPR relocated, vibration is somewhat less due to the fact that only a single tunnel need be constructed. Vibration under Strathcona House for both alternatives is insignificant.

The area bordering 108 Street will also not incur any adverse effects through possible vibration. However, redevelopment of the lots over the cut and cover tunnel section will be restricted due to the shallow overburden on top of the finished tunnel. Socio-Economic Impacts

Property Acquisition The City of Edmonton owns all but two of the properties required for construction of the single tunnel alternative. These two properties 15 required include a walkup apartment and one single detached dwelling . Construction upheaval and operational noise and vibration affect the same properties for both alternatives including 9 single family homes, a corner lot presently zoned for park space, a walkup apartment, and a parking lot.

Development Pressures Development pressure in Stathcona is expected to increase with the implementation of the stations, regardless of the site alternatives. Proximity to the 108 Street and the Whyte (82) Avenue stations will increase development pressure in Old Strathcona. Any redevelopment near the stations will be restricted by the tunnel section of the system, and the special rezoning applied to the heritage district of Old Strathcona.

15. If the University of Alberta spur line is not approved, property acquisition will involve additional lots for the shuttle bus turnaround at the 108 Street Station.

- 28 -


Visual Intrusion

The visual impact of the portal sections and fencing of the line is anticipated to have only slight impact on the community. Overall survey returns indicate that 69.4% (129 people) felt that the portal sections would not affect them. When questioned about the visual impact of fencing, 54.3% (101 people) felt that this would have no effect on them.

Security From experience with the NE LRT line, no problems with security at the stations or on the vehicles are anticipated.

Circulation and Local Access

Local Traffic Circulation Local traffic circulation is affected regardless of alternative. Both designs involve the closure of 106A Street, and the implementation of at-grade crossings at 104, 105, 106 and 107 Streets. No significant problems are anticipated with the at-grade crossings and the closure of 106A Street augments Project Uni by discouraging short-cutting through the neighbourhood. If a major bus terminal is implemented at 108 Street, an additional road closure would be required at 107 Street.

Bus Route Changes No changes to local bus routes are planned if the 108 Street station is 16 built to provide local walk-in service only .

16. If the University line is not implemented, the 108 Street station will also accommodate a major bus terminal. Shuttle buses will service the University from the station. Additional properties for the bus bays and the roadway modifications must be acquired for this alternative. This is a viewed as a negative impact on the community, as this area presently has no bus traffic, and it involves additional property acquisition. - 29 -


Parking Parking for residents and merchants at both the Whyte Avenue and the 108 Street stations is anticipated to be a problem within two blocks of the stations. No parking will be provided at either the 108 Street or at the Whyte (82) Avenue stations, to encourage use of public transit.

Safety/School Conflicts No school catchments cross the CPR line, rather, the line presently serves as a boundary for the school districts. From experience with the NE line, no problems are anticipated with the crossing.


2.2.3

McKERNAN-BELGRAVIA

Study Area and Demographic Date

These two neighbourhoods are bounded by Saskatchewan Drive, University Avenue, 109 Street and 72 Avenue - Belgravia Road. The boundary shared by the two communities is 114 Street. (Figures 2.2.4 and 2.2.5)

McKernan was originally developed during the post World War II building boom and is primarily zoned for single-family residential land use. Belgravia is similar to McKernan in its single-family residential character, and is presently occupied primarily by mature families, retired people, and University-oriented professional people.

These two neighbourhoods have been studied jointly, due to their similarity in character and the shared problems associated with the 114 Street proposal. These neighbourhoods have been exposed to increasing traffic volumes on peripheral roads, with 114 Street, Belgravia Road and University Avenue collecting the majority of all University-bound traffic. Project Uni has been implemented to try to allievate specific traffic constraints in the area.

The single family residential character of McKernan is revealed by the demographic data. The population pyramid displays an even distribution of age groups, with a slightly greater percentage of individuals in the 20 - 29 age group. Of the McKernan population, 24.5% is in the 20 - 29 year age group. Approximately 63% of households are single family, and 79% of dwellings are single detached.

Of the working force in the community, 30% of males and 32% of females have technical or professional occupations (city average approximately 18%).

Belgravia is very similar to McKernan by statistical analysis in regards to age-sex population distribution and single family household characteristics.


AVE

I

AVE

11

1 111 AVE

liii

ME MUM EMI= liiiiiiii I El

AVE

111 AVE

1

=LE 11

EZ[1111

AVE

AVE

4441

I t,,,, TE AVENUE

ANOMIE ThINIM11111 IMMUNE MEE IMMORMI MOM

lb

¶IIIIIh "hl.

Igo

&

"wq

AVE

bomb.

IN.

AVE

AVE

s, IIIIIIIIIlh.'

us1011ifi mo ql

78

AVE

III

O

Proposed Station Location

=wan Proposed Alignment

Fig 2.2.4


McKernan - Belgravia

UU

M 110

ST

Âą11 111

113

opm

1

ST

ST

Nh

1111

# commo. ftls larever,

El Proposed Station Location mom Proposed Alignment

Fig 2.2.5


University training is also characteristic of the Belgravia population, and 50% of males and 36% of females are employed in technical or professional capacities. LRT Alternatives

The LRT alternatives along 114 Street are either surface or tunnel.

114 Street (Surface) The surface alternative is an at-grade alignment from the University Avenue traffic circle to the terminal at the University Farm. Both north and southbound lines will be in the center median, between four lanes of traffic. This alignment involves roadway modifications to accommodate both the LRT lines and two lanes of traffic on either side of the line. Surface stations within the McKernan-Belgravia area are planned for 76 Avenue - 114 Street and the terminus at the NE corner of the University Jibs Farm.

(A station servicing the Jubilee Auditorium and the Hospital

Mectirty

will also be implemented within the University with an at-grade align-

Le/s Lc

ment along 114 Street.) Parking will not be provided at any of the stations, in order to encourage use of public transit. A similar alternative involves at-grade sections along 114 Street, with tunnel sections underneath the traffic circles at University Avenue and at Belgravia Road (72 Avenue). This design avoids conflicts with other traffic at the circles, and is less costly than a tunnel the entire length of 114 Street.

114 Street (Tunnel) This alignment proposal includes a tunnel section from the University traffic circle along 114 Street to the University Farm. Fewer stations - 32 -


are planned, due to the higher cost of an underground station. These include an underground station at the Education Complex, and the atgrade terminus at the University Farm. No roadway modifications are planned for the underground alignment No parking will be provided at the University Farm station, in order to encourage use of public transit to the stations.

Impacts With the At-Grade Alternative

Environmental Impacts Air Quality The replacement of high volumes of diesel bus traffic by the LRT will upgrade the existing air quality on 114 Street especially during morning and evening peak hours from September to May, when the University is in full session. Air quality may be slightly lower at the University Farm station, due to idling diesel buses. However, no residences will be affected.

Noise Within 30 metres of the at-grade alignment noise levels will be high for 17. However, the noise levels for the surface line a residential area are anticipated to be lower than present levels on 114 Street, due to the existing high volumes of bus and auto traffic. Replacement of bus traffic by LRT should improve the existing noise levels. Fifty-two percent (13 people) of those McKernan-Belgravia residents who responded felt that LRT-generated noise was a bad or very bad impact on the area. An additional 36.0% (9 people) felt it would have no effect.

17. Due to roadway widening, properties on the west side of 114 Street will be exposed to traffic, whereas before, houses buffered the noise. - 33-


Vibration

No problems are anticipated with vibration through McKernan Belgravia, as the LRT is situated on the surface between four lanes of traffic. Compared to the existing levels, the effect of vibration will be minimal to houses abutting the roadway.

Socio-Economic Impacts

Property Acquisition For the surface alignment, 12 properties on the west side of 114 Street are required. This implies a negative impact on Belgravia through the loss of good quality single family housing, and the loss of a dozen families to the community.

The properties required are along the boundaries of the community, consequently the structure of the community will not be disrupted.

Relocation of residents is difficult, particularly those who have lived in the area for many years, and who have established social ties and contacts. Property acquisition is considered bad by 50.0% (12 people) while 29.2%, (7 people) felt it would not affect them. Acquisition of property along the northeast corner of the University Farm is also necessary for the SLRT terminal. Development Pressures Station locations will be subject to some redevelopment pressures. By maintaining the present R-1 zoning the community can resist rapid change. In this way, the area will experience a gradual transition as it ages, rather than as it redevelops.

Maintenance of community integrity is important to residents of McKernanBelgravia, as the results of the survey indicate. In response to the


possibility of high density residential redevelopment in the area, 84.6% ( 22 people) felt that this would have a bad or very bad effect on their community. Medium density residential was also viewed as bad as or very bad by 66.7% (16 people) of the community. In addition, 84.6% (22 people) felt that commercial redevelopment would have a bad or very bad impact on the area. (56.5% of area residents felt that changes in property value would have no effect on them.)

The University Farm will experience increasing pressure to develop, but this is within the jurisdication of the University.

Visual Intrusion

The visual intrusion of the overhead cables and a possible portal section could be a negative impact to residents of McKernan-Belgravia. However, returns from the questionnaire indicated that 60.0% (15 people) of the area residents surveyed did not regard the portal sections as a problem. However, 52.0% (13 people) felt that safety fencing would have a bad or very bad visual Impact along the line, while 44.0% (11 people) felt that this would not affect them.

This particular at-grade alternative will include a surface station at 76 Avenue. Of those area residents surveyed, 36.0% (9 people) felt that this would have a bad effect on their neighbourhood. Another 20.0% (5 people) felt that this would not affect them, while 44.0% (11 people) felt this was a positive aspect of the proposal.

Security No problems are anticipated with regards to crime or vandalism at the stations or on the vehicles, based upon experience with the NE line.

Circulation and Local Access

Local Traffic Circulation The at-grade alternative involves conflicts with other modes of traffic at intersections along 114 Street. -35 -


The left-turn ban along 114 Street will affect access for local residents to a small degree.

With Project Uni, left turn bans along 114 Street will improve traffic flow on 114 Street and discourage shortcutting through neighbourhoods. Of the area residents who responded to the question, 88.0% (22 people) favoured reduced auto through-traffic in their neighbourhood.

Modifications to the roadway with the at-grade alternative involves realigning the two traffic lanes on either side of the LRT alignment.

Bus Route Changes Changes to the local bus routes will be minimal with regards to the level of service. Bus traffic will decrease substantially along 114 Street, removing as many as 66 buses per hour (both directions) during the morning peak September to May with completion of the University Farm terminal. There are potential benefits to the communities abutting 114 Street, as the decrease in diesel bus traffic will upgrade air quality, noise and vibration levels and provide a better level of service by LRT. All bus traffic, except for one local bus route, will be replaced by the LRT line along 114 Street.

Parking Parking problems within a two-block radius of each of the stations are anticipated, particularly around the University Farm station. It is estimated that facilities (such as a 'park and ride' lot) for about 200 cars would be utilized if built at the University Farm Station. Plans for the terminal do not include a 'park and ride' lot in order to encourage transit ridership to the station. However, such a facility could be easily incorporated, especially in conjuction with any development in this area.


Local on-street parking on residential streets nearest the stations may be banned to non-residents, similar to the non-resident parking ban on the NE line.

Problems with parking were anticipated by 56.0% (14 people) of McKernanBelgravia residents who responded to the survey. Twenty-eight percent (7 people) felt that this would not effect them.

Safety/School Conflicts Safety precautions for school-age children crossing the LRT line are necessary as the at-grade line is directly adjacent to two elementaryjunior high schools and a park. Approximately 50 students utilize the 18 signalized crosswalk at 78 Avenue between 7:45 and 8:45 a.m. . Of the McKernan-Belgravia residents who responded to the survey, 28.0% (7 people) felt that safety fencing was a good idea.

An additional 32.0%

(8 people) felt that this would not affect them, 40.0% (10 people) thought fencing would have a bad effect on them.

Impacts with the Underground Alternative

Environmental

Air Quality The replacement of the present high volumesof diesel bus traffic by the LRT will slightly upgrade the existing air quality along 114 Street. The effect of upgrading existing air quality is the same regardless of which alternative is selected.

Noise Noise from the underground operation of the LRT is insignificant. Existing traffic noise levels for 114 Street will improve due to the 18. Crosswalk counts carried out in Spring, 1977. - 37 -


reduction of bus traffic volumes. The underground alignment is also below the roadway, rather than beneath more sensitive residential lots.

Vibration Although levels of vibration are higher for a circular moled tunnel, than for a surface alternative, levels are expected to be better than those presently incurred by the high traffic volumes.

Socio-Economic Impacts

Property Acquisition No properties are required for the underground alternative along 114 Street. The Northeast corner of the University Farm will be required for the terminus regardless of alternative. Of the McKernan-Belgravia residents who responded to the questionnaires 50.0% (12 people) felt that acquisition was bad or very bad; another 29.2% (7 people) felt it would not affect them. Development Pressures Development pressures around the stations will increase, regardless of alternative. With the underground alignment, fewer stations are planned along 114 Street, due to the higher cost. The development pressures anticipated for the station areas can be controlled through maintaining existing zoning bylaws in the adjacent neighbourhoods.

Visual Intrusion Visual intrusion is insignificant with an underground alignment.


Security

No problems are anticipated with security in the underground stations, due to experience with. the NE line.

Circulation and Local Access

Local Traffic Circulation

No conflicts between existing traffic and the underground LRT system are anticipated.

Bus Route Changes Changes to existing bus routes and volumes remain the same regardless of alternative.

Parking Problems with on-street parking are anticipated within a two-block radius of the terminal, regardless of alternative.

Safety/School Conflicts ,,, No problems are anticipated with the underground alignment.

/)\


2.2.4 .

CENTRAL (cOgONET INDUSTRIAL AREA)

Study Area and Demographic Data

The Coronet Industrial Area, for the purposes of this study, includes the area bounded by Whyte (82) Avenue to the north, 99 and 104 Streets to the east and west. The southern portion of the area extends east to 91 Street and west to 111 Street, and north - south from 51 to 43 Avenue. This district has traditionally been an industrial sector, (zoned M2-3) the primary owner-user being the CPR. Much of this area is presently utilized as a service yard for the railroad. East-west access across the yards is limited to Whyte (82) Avenue, 63 Avenue, and 51 Avenue. Rail access to the yards is possible at 63 Avenue, 61 Avenue and for CN at approximately 55 Avenue. (Figure 2.2.6)

If the relocation of the CP rail yard is implemented, rail traffic will be diverted to the east into the Clover Bar Industrial Area, bypassing South Edmonton. Demographic data indicate that the area residents (5995 total) are primarily young families (higher proportion under 14 and lower proportion over 50, compared to City average). This is also reflected by 81.5% of the population being one-family households, compared to 71% City average. The majority of the housing is single attached, and much of the housing stock is rented (60% compared to 51% City average.) A small portion of the housing stock in the community (8.7%) is a trailer park. A high percentage of the male labour force is employed in trades (47%) and 70% of the female labour force is occupied in clerical and sales occupations. LRT Alternatives

The two alignment alternatives designed for this area are both at-grade.


J P1'77:111 7

Coronet industrial

•••••Tivista

I L-J

' r--

C--••

1

Lt

so 2011111111

sifts on II EN

ern

ed Stati n Location ment

11


Both alternatives utilize the present CP right-of-way from the Whyte (82) Avenue station to 51 Avenue. The position of the actual track, however, depends upon the relocation of the CPR. It is possible to build the line adjacent to the existing rails, or to utilize the entire right-of-way, if CP relocates. An underground station is planned for Whyte (82) Avenue with a surface station and transit terminal at 51 Avenue and 104 Street. A possible surface station is planned for 76 Avenue, but depends upon relocation of CPR and redevelopment of the Strathcona rail yards. Regardless of whether or not the CP relocates the impacts of either alternative are very similar, and to avoid duplication, are treated together.

Impacts

Environmental Impacts

Air Quality The implementation of the LRT through Coronet will not effect local air quality. The transit center at the 51 Avenue station may slightly lower the local air quality during the morning peak hours, however, it is considered insignificant.

Noise Noise levels generated by the LRT are not considered significant through an industrial area.

Vibration

Levels of vibration generated by the operation of the LRT are not considered significant through this industrial area.


Socio-Economic Impacts

Property Acquisition

Negotiations are underway with the CPR for an easement alongside the existing track if the CPR remains. Three properties (presently a lumber yard) will be required for the bus terminal at the 51 Avenue Station.

Development Pressures

Development pressures are expected to increase around the stations. The Whyte (82) Avenue station area will experience more redevelopment due to the added accessibility and attractiveness of this traditionally commercial area. The 51 Avenue station area will also experience redevelopment in terms of a change from existing land use (zoned M2 and M3) to one more suitable as a service/convenience centre. Medium to high density residential developments are also considered appropriate for an area which has a high level of accessibility for downtown and the University.

With the relocation of the CPR, the area presently utilized by the railyards will be available for redevelopment. An intermediate station between 82 and 62 Avenues is possible with the relocation of the CPR. Office/retail and commercial uses are possible, as well as some residential. Uses suitable for a young mobile population are suggested, providing a buffer from the line to the existing areas of single family dwellings. Visual Intrusion Visual intrusion is insignificant through this light industrial area.


Security

No problems are anticipated near the stations, or on the vehicles, based on experience with. the NE line.

Circulation and Local Access

Local Traffic Circulation No problems are anticipated with the Whyte (82) Avenue station area. Access is not impeded by the underground line. The alignment returns to grade at approximately 76 Avenue. The existing steet pattern does not provide access at this point, however, with the relocation of the CP, the barrier to roadway construction is removed. At-grade crossings, assuming the existing street patterns, are not considered a problem in this area as the 51 Avenue interchange is planned for eventual grade separation.

Bus Route Changes The Whyte (82) Avenue transit linkages presently servicing the Old Strathcona CP station area will be maintained. An additional shuttle bus may be implemented during peak hours from a terminal beside the Strathcona Hotel, to service the University. Changes to the transit service along 51 Avenue will involve construction of a major bus terminal at the proposed station site.

Parking Parking will not be supplied at the Whyte (82) Avenue station, in order to discourage cars in the inner-city area. A commuter park and ride lot may be established at the 51 Avenue Station,


however, use of the bus is to be encouraged throughout the system.

Safety/School Conflicts

School catchment areas are not directly involved, although pedestrian crosswalks and safety fencing may be implemented where a potential hazard is identified at the level crossings. The Whyte (82) Avenue underground station is not a problem for pedestrians, and the 51 Avenue station design incorporates elevated walkways for direct pedestrian access. No problems with pedestrian safety are anticipated, based on experience with the NE line.


2.2.5

DUGGAN - STRATHCONA INDUSTRIAL PARK

Study Area Description and Demographic Data Although these two areas are disparate in regards to land use and overall character, both are affected similarily by the proposed LRT alignment. (Figure 2.2.7) The Duggan community is primarily residential, and the majority of the area is zoned R-1. The area abutting the alignment is zoned as "highway commercial" (C-8) which is appropriate for the development on the east side of the Calgary Trail. Strathcona Industrial Park is primarily a warehousing and light industrial district characterized by low-profile buildings. This area is zoned primarily for industrial land use (41, M2). Demographic data for Duggan indicates a high percentage (78%) of one family households. Housing stock is comprised jointly of apartments (52%) and single detached dwellings (41%). Level of tenancy is 58.4% compared to the City average of 51.6%. A high proportion of the employed community population have technical or professionsal occupations (37.4% for males, 24.5% for female.) Strathcona Industrial Park has a much different demographic profile, expressing the industrial nature of the area and the highly mobile population. For example, there are 205 community residents. Of these, a majority are one-family households (61.5%), while non-family households constitute 38.5% (City average for non-family households is 28.1%). Trade occupations employ 40% of the male working population, while another 25% are employed in technical or professional positions.

LRT Alternatives The proposed LRT alignment proceeds at-grade along the existing CPR


Dug

)_

!!!!!!!1/7-

` 2 Ttill\'';7 `v

MIENIOL-1111L71111E3IMINIIIIIIIMMI5MINIIIMIIMINE55= 3151151=1111131511111136211111.1=111531.511111111113311133311

1

,L4ARY TPA,

• li t • 71' t

I ,

111111111111111111111111111111,

.11111111 fi"I

1111101111111M11111111

flu

/Num

MIN=

• MIR

INN II all II EMI MINI II 1E3 ,4 No I

as • um ti

mem Proposed Alignment

1Irmo n

In

Fig 2.2.7


right-of-way, which divides the two communities. This portion can be implemented regardless of the relocation of the CPR. An at-grade station is planned for 34 Avenue and will incorporate a bus terminal, as well as a park and ride lot. At this station the line splits: one continues in an elevated section to an at-grade station at 92 Street and 28 Avenue. The spur line into Kaskitayo parallels the CPR right-of-way until north of 23 Avenue, where the grade separated line crosses the Calgary Trail.

Impacts

Environmental Impacts

Air Quality No change in air quality is expected with the implementation of the LRT. Air quality at station locations may be slightly lower during the morning peak hour, however no residences will be affected.

Noise

Noise generated by the LRT through an industrial/commercial district is not considered significant. No residential development is within close proximity to the line. Vibration No problems with LRT-generated vibration are anticipated through an industrial area. No residential development is within close proximity to the line. Socio-Economic Impacts

Property Acquisition

No properties are required for the LRT Alignment through this area. The


LRT will operate adjacent to the existing CE line, or should the CE relocate, utilize, the old right-of-way.

Development Pressures

No increase in development pressures are anticipated. These stations are in traditionally industrial areas, and existing zoning and land use are expected to remain.

Visual Intrusion

This factor is not considered significant for an industrial area.

Security

No problems with secruity on the trains or near the stations are anticipated, based on experience with the NE line. Security at the 'park and ride' car lots is not considered a problem based on experience with the NE LRT.

Circulation and Local Access Local Traffic Circulation Local traffic patterns will not be directly changed by the LRT alignment. A grade-separated interchange is planned for 51 Avenue, although no timing has been established for implementation. Temporary at-grade crossings at 45 and 35 Avenues will be replaced with grade-separated crossings, possibly within the time frame of construction of that porâ&#x20AC;˘ tion of the LRT. Conflicts with other traffic will be avoided through Strathcona Industrial Park, as the LRT proceeds in an elevated arc section from 34 Avenue to 91 Street.


Bus Route Changes

Local buses from the suburban areas of Millwoods and Kaskitayo will service the transit centers at the 34 Avenue and the 91 Street Stations.

Parking

Parking will be provided at both 34 Avenue and at 91 Street stations. No problems with local parking are anticipated.

Safety/School Conflicts No problems with safety are anticipated. Where such concerns are identified, crosswalk attendants and safety fencing will be implemented. No school catchment areas cross the line, as the CP right-of-way presently acts as a boundary for the school districts.


2.2.6

MILLWOODS - KASKITAYO

Study Area and Demographic Data Millwoods and Kaskitayo are very similar in character and composition. These two communities share the same benefits and impacts of the LRT alignment. The Lakewood district is the area of Millwoods which is directly affected by the LRT alignment, and is bounded to the north by 34 Avenue, to the south by 23 Avenue, 91 Street to the east, and 66 Street to the west. (Figure 2.2.8) Blue Quill and Ermineskin are the areas in Kaskitayo directly serviced and impacted by the SLRT alignment. Boundaries for these communities extend north-south from 34 Avenue to 23 Avenue, and east-west from 119 Street to 103 Street. (Figure 2.2.9) These two suburban communities, Millwoods and Kaskitayo, have developed within the last five years in response to the high demand for housing in the City. Much of the housing stock is medium density, multiple-family residential. A unique feature of the two communities is the curvelinear roadway design, rather than the more conventional British military-grid system. Millwoods is primarily zoned R2, R2A and R3, which reflects the medium density residential character of the neighbourhood. The community has three elementary-junior high schools, in addition to the extended campus of the Grant MacEwan College. Lakewood community contains the Millwoods Town Centre, which includes a retail mall and associated commercial and office space. Kaskitayo is very similar to Millwoods as regards zoning and residential development. The Town Centre is planned for 111 Street and 23 Avenue, with similar commercial/retail development as the Millwoods Town Centre, although smaller in scale. Multiple family housing is also planned


lit

mommum elloomm ip AVE

I

33

IM

/4"111"m Atilt lHlI

gm

o, 11 711111

i,rs .

ss

114.11.1.11.1.61.11110

me

AVE

MIMED -11/*

b! WAS

Ir. "cp, WacEllap a fhb!, 0 °V .414 . "111111 ONS M ,1 'A*11111111111 mosinesosmikemissusawsmasosossmisesst P

AVE

89

i° lk• m inMOW a

33

E. _

ROAD

NOR

AVE

11201 111 32

lip

1111. MIN

1 11 1 1 1

00

LLU-J--

11111

$041

iIig

Lanz

"1!1111145 : 11111181ri

.... sin i .... EV400

EVA

0

i

rn111111111111% 010 010 A E

11 1 01 I

VON to ft10000 olls I. 0 31A

01 1 /

/ I, // // // /1

0100 •

' 0

AVE

\AI

II Ad 11 10111

Imo I

2 AVE

26 AVE

ST

, IS MIME so=

LA EWOOD

ROAD

I was

st • 28

u 10

v

52 AVE

somomiltausuissous 011 2

mm

L

iz Vairr

im: no a ma am s Ems m I 110ril ;um !

78

2

20

AVE

AVE

S

Ito


I 1

1

I

i

1—--I

a ME Bea. -.,7771asvar-Trx

. askitayo

CALGARY 'MAIL

///// <4]

4"/

MI mum ga stlellal: iif -1 cia ... m Ed

... --mu .., .. -... ..., ..... a il 1 •Ta ..1: a" mii -,_ At .„. .. ...1,. Algail 00IF

1•411 41"11 Ep• BB Ma= 050

06

or E. a me gm.

Icon*

I 11111

41b.411r • # r• • •

Men I 1 0 '*0

flu

MIMI

Z

4

4 WS

s 14 all, 14. mum simmo

violin ... 04 \ tin , •A. • 0 „.••1111 .• 00 • .k ., .1. ... AU • $4 ..

t

1

1111 11111

1

1, - , 7rTniill, aw "ups yI annum /4100: r — 01

, • I•

INN

rum, lit,. 1. wo

Atotwar... .

IL

112 IS

6 .1II pump mrs'etai wie• l

12

son • :1N ilme. 10 1, wismo WM*

wir

7

••

• 41111W 22

illS

111M1

HUM

Vr# Proposed Alignment "1"I'm Womietall

a

2.9


adjacent to the Kaskitayo Town Centre and is expected to be completed before construction of the station begins.

Demographic data for Millwoods and Kaskitayo was unavailable, as these areas were under development at the time of the 1971 Census.

LRT Alternatives

The LRT into Millwoods is on an established separate right-of-way whether or not the CPR relocates. The line to Millwoods continues in an elevated section from the Calgary Trail (34 Avenue) station until approximately 92 Street and 28 Avenue. At this point, the line returns to grade for a surface station. The at-grade line extends into Lakewood on north side of 28 Avenue on a separate right-of-way. Stations are planned at 99 Street, at the Grant MacEwan Campus at approximately Millwoods Road and 28 Avenue, at the Town Centre at 66 Street, and a terminal at about 34 Street and 28 Avenue. The alignment into Kaskitayo must cross the Calgary Trail on a gradeseparated right of way, from the CP alignment onto 23 Avenue. The LRT proceeds into Ermineskin and Blue Quill on a separate right-of-way on the north side of 23 Avenue. The only station site established to date is at the Town Centre at 111 Street and 23 Avenue. Parking areas will be provided at both Town Centre Stations, and at the 34 Avenue/Calgary Trail Station. Impacts Environmental Impacts

Air Quality

No change in local air quality is anticipated with the implementation of the LRT.


Air quality may be slightly degraded at transit centres during the peak morning hours, however this will not affect local residents. Noise

Noise will not be a factor for those residents living near the line, due to buffering provided in the roadway design of 23 Avenue. Results from the questionnaire indicate that 71.4% (30 people) from Millwoods-Kaskitayo felt that noise generated by LRT would not affect them. An additional 19.1% (8 people) felt this will be a bad or very bad effect of the LRT. Vibration

No problems are expected with LRT generated vibration through Millwoods or Kaskitayo. Residences within 7.5 metres could possibly be affected at speeds exceeding 20 Km/h, however, the average distance is approximately 15 metres, and vibration will be inperceptible at speeds under 50 km/h.

Socio-Economic Impacts Property Acquisition

No properties are required in either Millwoods or Kaskitayo. Both subdivisions have been planned with an additional roadway allowance specifically for LRT.

Two sections of the easement through the Parsons Industrial Area are necessary, but are not envisioned to be problematical. Development Pressures

No additional development pressures are anticipated for these two areas. Both subdivisions were planned with LRT potential.


Visual Intrusion

The LRT through both areas will involve the addition of overhead cables and possibly fencing. Results of the questionnaire indicate that 64.3% (27 people) of Millwoods-Kaskitayo residents felt that this would not affect them. Another 21.4% 0 people) felt that this would be a bad or very bad aspect of the proposal.

Security No problems are anticipated on the vehicles, at the stations, or at the 'park and ride' lots, based on experience with the NE line.

Circulation and Local Access

Local Traffic Circulation The LRT proposal through Millwoods and Kaskitayo series of at-grade crossings, which will conflict with other traffic at approximately 10minute intervals. In Millwoods, these crossings are at 91 Street, at Lakewood Road West, Millwoods Road and at 66 Street. The line to Kaskitayo will cross the Calgary Trail in an elevated section so as to avoid conflict with highway traffic . Potential problems exist with the atgrade crossings at 105, 109, 111, Saddleback Road and 119 Streets in Kaskitayo.

Bus Route Changes Local bus routes will service all LRT stations, and all will incorporate park and ride lots. Benefits of the system are greatest for Millwoods and Kaskitayo in regards to an appreciable increase in transit service. Travel times to downtown will decrease by approximately 15 minutes from the suburban transit centres.


Parking

Parking will be provided at three of the suburban stations, namely Millwoods Town Centre, Kaskitayo Town Centre, and 34 Avenue/Calgary Trail. No problems with parking are anticipated, as these districts are at a stage in development which precludes land use conflict or constraints.

Safety/School Conflicts

Pedestrian traffic will be a consideration around the Millwoods campus area and for those stations at both Town Centre shopping malls. Safety precautions at the crossings will be implemented for elementary school age children. Based on experience with the NE line, no problems are anticipated.


2.3

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction

The implementation of new transportation facilities can directly and indirectly cause changes in the environmental, physical, and social composition of adjacent communities. As a result, social and environmental impact analysis is now included in the feasibility studies for transportation facilities. The potential impacts of the South Light Rail Transit (SLRT) Corridor which were examinied in this report have been grouped into three catagories: environmental, socio-economic, and circulation and local access.

The communities located along the proposed SLRT Corridor were first profiled, and then assessed in view of the alternative alignments that the SLRT system could take. Input from the communities was obtained at two sets of information exchanges and through informal discussions held during the course of the study.

The communities of Garneau, Strathcona, and McKernan-Belgravia were determined to be the communities which could be most affected by the implementation and operation of an SLRT line. The potential impacts for all the communities are summarized according to alignment alternatives within each community.

Garneau

Two alignment alternatives through Garneau were examined: at-grade and tunnel.

The at-grade alternative through Garneau inflicts the greatest negative impact of the proposed SLRT system. The Impacts of property acquisition and local traffic access in Garneau are considered the highest in the study area. Although property acquisition and modifications to the local traffic access constitute negative impacts elsewhere in the system, Garneau is particularly sensitve because of the recent history of high


density development overruning the originally single family residential community. Noise, development pressures, and the safety factor are regarded as moderate impacts for the surface alternative. A noise attenuation facility along 89 Avenue is recommended as the line is within 15 meters of the residential properties along 89 Avenue. Development pressure is regarded as moderate in terms of the change in existing pressures on the area; redevelopment pressure is presently high and is likely to remain so due to the close proximity to the University Campus. Safety is recognized as a concern due to one level crossing in the area. The design of the crossing can be developed in conjunction with the local residents in order to ensure that their needs are met. Visual intrusion is substantial to residents abutting the line in terms of loss of large trees and placement of overload cables, however, it may be possible to reduce the impact through careful design of the noise attenuation facilities. Impact of the LRT on local air quality and vibration are regarded as low. In comparision to the at-grade proposal, the impacts of the tunnel alternative are neglibible. Vibration may be a factor for properties directly above the tunnel, depending upon the alignment details. Vibration is not a factor for the tunnel alternative which is underneath the commercial strip on 109 Street. The commercial properties could be acquired by the City in order to avoid potential problems.

Development pressure on the neighbourhood remains constant regardless of whether the alignment is tunnelled or at-grade. Potential problems with noise, visual intrusion, local traffic conflicts and safety are all avoided with the tunnel alternative.


Strathcona

Two alignment alternativeg through Strathcona (CPR relocated or CPR remaining) were examined. Both incur similar impacts to the community. Development pressures are expected to cause the greatest impact on the area, in that Strathcona is not developed to existing zoning bylaw capacity. Redevelopment pressure within close walking distance of the station is expected increase due to the improved accessibility via LRT. Few residential properties are required by the City for either alternative, although the loss of some good quality housing and the relocation of residents constitutes a negative effect on the neighbourhood. Noise attenuation is recommended for the portion of the surface line where the residential properties are within 15 metres of the line. Visual impact, in the form of portal sections and overhead cables, may require special landscaping considerations to soften the affect. Safety fencing is also recommended, however, community opinion regarding a chain link style of fencing was negative. Local traffic patterns in the area of the 108 Street Station will be modified, as the portal section requires one road closure. Level crossings at four intersections may also create conflicts with local pedestrian and vehicular traffic. A non-residential parking ban should be considered within a two block radius of the 108 Street/87 Avenue station to avoid further problems with the existing parking shortage. McKernan -Belgravia

Two alternatives for the LRT through McKernan-Belgraiva were considered: surface or tunnel. Property acquisition for the surface line along 114 Street creates the greatest impact on the area. Road widening, to accommodate the LRT, requires 12 residential lots along 114 Street, between 72 and University Avenues. This causes considerable impact on the area in terms of the loss of families and good condition housing. Development pressure around the stations is expected to increase, however, this can be controlled by maintaining current zoning.

- 56 -


Parking and local traffic access are potential problems with the surface alignment. Left turn bans and parking restrictions will change the existing situation for local residents. Parking will not be provided at the station nearest the University Farm, consequently a non-resident parking ban is suggested. Pedestrian crossings of 114 Street should be given special attention in view of the two schools and the park located in this area.

Visual intrusion of the at-grade line will include cables and portal sections (impact can be softened through the use of special landscaping considerations). Noise levels will be moderate, buffered by two lanes of vehicular traffic on either side of the LRT line. In fact, an improvement in noise levels may occur because of the reduction in diesel bus volumes. No significant change is expected in local air quality.

Impact caused by the tunnel alignment will be negligible in terms of environmental concerns and local traffic access. Development pressures and parking problems are anticipated around the stations as is the case with the at-grade alternative. Central (Coronet Industrial Area)

The impacts for this industrial area are insignificant. Light industrial areas are not particularly sensitive to LRT generated noise or vibration. Impacts regarding changes in air quality, visual intrusion, property acquisition, local traffic and safety conflicts are also negligible.

The property requirement for the LRT allowance are being negotiated with the CPR, and will not involve any other agency. It is anticipated that the railyards may undergo redevelopment into a commercial-office-retail area if the CPR does relocate.

-57_


Parking within a two block radius of the stations may be a problem, however, improved bus service and parking bans may be sufficient to encourage the use of public transit to the stations. Duggan-Strathcona Industrial Park

As is the case with the Central Coronet Industrial Area, development pressures comprise the greatest impact to the area (if changes to the current land use around the LRT stations is permitted). Environmental impacts are negligible, as are impacts regarding property acquisition, visual intrusion and traffic circulation. Millwoods-Kaskitayo

The impact of LRT to recently developed subdivisions is less than for established communites. Local traffic access will be modified in order to accomodate the LRT right-of-way on the north side of 23 Avenue (Kaskitayo) and the north side of 28 Avenue (Millwoods). Parking demand at these suburban stations will be served by park and ride lots at the stations. Level crossings conflict with traffic at frequent intervals, therefore, special attention to pedestrian crosswalks and control is recommended.

Environmental impacts are negligible in this area, as noise and vibration generated by automobile traffic is more noticeable than that from the LRT.

Property acquisition and addtional development pressures are insignificant, as these areas were planned for LRT access. Visual intrusion of cables and fencing, can be softened through the use of special landscaping techniques.


Recommendations

In view of the negative impacts which may occur to communities along the proposed SLRT corridor, it is suggested that those communities involved be given the opportunity to participate in the more detailed design, specifically with regards to analysis of different techinques of minimizing impacts.

Below are recommendations designed to ameliorate possbile negative impacts. The use of citizen involvement throughout the implementation of these recommendations is seen as a requirement of further design.

Recommendations for environmental impacts are as follows:

1.

That noise attenuation be considered for all areas where the LRT is within 15 meters of residential property lines.

Justification: Single or multi-family residences closer than 15 meters from the LRT line are subjected to an unreasonable noise environment. This has been documented by Bolt Beranek and Newman, noise consultants for the "Calgary LRT Noise and Vibration Assessment".

2.

The University of Alberta must be consulted regarding the sensitivity of any equipment which could be affected by LRT vibration.

Justification: Although structure or ground-bourne vibration levels transmitted via the LRT track are not noticeable for typical land uses, there may be an impact upon sensitive equipment used in the Medical Sciences Complex.

Recommendations for socio-economic impacts are as follows:

1. That some technique other than fencing be used in residential areas to prevent pedestrians from crossing the LRT line.


Justification: The appearance of chain link fence in a residential area especially in Garneau-Strathcona, is visually unattractive. It may be possible to combine pedestrian control with noise abatement facilities and landscaping in residential areas. 2.

Properties in Garneau and Strathcona with redevelopment potential, which are to be acquired for the construction of the LRT facility, should be developed as single family residential (R1) or as park space (AP). All new development proposals should be scrutinized by the Community Planning Branch in order to insure conformity with area goals. Justification: Higher density redevelopment is considered by many residents to be the major impact of the LRT. Any low cost measures that can be implemented to minimize impact should be employed.

3.

That the exisiting zoning of the McKernan-Belgravia area be maintained in order to discourage transition to a higher density residential or commercial district.

Justification: Higher density and land use changes are associated with the added redevelopment pressures around LRT stations. Whether or not this is actually the case, residents of the adjoining communities have indicated a desire to maintain the single family aspect of the area. 4.

That alternatives to standard safety signals for at-grade rail crossings located in residential areas be considered.

Justification: Level crossings of LRT can be signalized with standard traffic lights, thereby avoiding the noise and flashing lights associated with standard rail crossings. Otherwise, safety lights and warning bells will be a source of annoyance in a residential area, particularly as the LRT will be scheduled to conflict with local traffic at 10 minute intervals.


The recommendation regarding local traffic and circulation impacts is: 1. A residential parking restriction should be considered in the McKernan-Belgravia and Strathcona communities for a two-block radius around the station locations. Justification: The Northeast Light Rail Transit Evaluation Study indicates that areas within a two-block radius of the LRT stations are used to some extent by LRT patrons for a park 'n ride facility.

The recommendation regarding the on-going process of citizen involvement is as follows: 1. That the Planning Department keep Garneau, Strathcona, McKernan and Belgravia informed of the status of the study. Justification: The measures taken by the City to minimize the negative impacts should be developed jointly with the communities. The communities must be aware of the study status at all times in order to provide meaningful input towards the final design alternative.


BIBLIOGRAPHY: Alberta Bureau of Statistics: Bolt Beranek and Newman

1971 and 1976 Census Calgary LRT Noise and Vibration Assessment

(Computer Print-Outs)

Draft November, 1978

McVey, Jr. W. W.

Edmonton and Calgary: A Demographic Profile, Chapter IV, Edmonton Profiles 1966 and Change

April, 1971

Planning Department, City of Edmonton

Community Demographic Profiles; Northeast Rapid Transit Corridor Study

March, 1977

"Oliver and Garneau: an Historical Overview"

December, 1977

Ritchie: Neighbourhood Improvement Plan (Preliminary Plan)

July, 1978

Garneau Area Redevelopment Plan: Progress Report

July, 1978

Social and Community Baseline Data Report

January, 1977

Older Neighbourhoods, Community Profile; Volume II, revised edition

Adopted by City Council: March 23, 1977

Rapid Transit Extension Study

January, 1977

Statistics Canada

Census Tract Bulletin Series A and B

1971

Strathcona Historical Group

Strathcona: The Asset of Hertiage: A Plan for the Future

1973


V x!pueddy


PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM FOR THE SLRT CORRIDOR STUDY

1.

The Introductory Information Exchanges

The purpose of the initial set of information exchanges was to inform the public that the SLRT Corridor Study was underway and to establish some communication lines with the communities along the corridor (See Figure A for sequence of events). In addition, a questionnaire was administered to solicit some general reactions to peoples views of the LRT extension and community Impact (see Sample Questionnaire 1).

A casual "drop-in" information exchange format was used in order to facilitate the best possible exchange of ideas. Seven Project Team members were in attendance to discuss the project and the displays with members of the public.

The displays included:

- Statement of Objectives - Study Schedule - City maps showing existing and potential routes - City maps showing alternatives - Tentative Cost Figures - Potential Bus Route Changes - Statement on Environmental and Social Impact Variables - Model of LRT Car - Slide presentation of Rail Transit in Edmonton, and some examples of European LRT System.

Five information exchange centres were held over a two-week period at different locations along the SLRT Corridor:

Wednesday, 1978 05 31 King Edward Elementary & Junior High School 8530 - 101 Street 3:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.


PLANNING FOR LRT IN SOUTH EDMONTON SEQUENCE OF EVENTS FORMULATION OF CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PROGRAM APPROVAL BY CITY COUNCIL TO COMMENCE CONSTRUCTION OF NORTH EAST LRT.

MARCH, 1978 INFORMATION STATUS REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER, 1978

AUGUST, 1973 NORTHEAST LRT OPENS FOR SERVICE RAPID TRANSIT EXTENSION STUDY INITIATED BY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING

APRIL, 1978 SECOND SET OF PUBLIC INFORMATION EXCHANGE CENTRES FEBRUARY, 1979

DECEMBER, 1974 SELECTION OF CONSULTANT FOR FUNCTIONAL DESIGN AND TRANSIT SURVEYS RAPID TRANSIT EXTENSION STUDY COMPLETED

V

APRIL, 1978 COMPLETION OF TECHNICAL WORK JUNE, 1979

JANUARY, 1977

ON BOARD TRANSIT SURVEYS LONG RANGE LRT PLAN APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL SOUTH CORRIDOR LRT STUDY AUTHORIZED

V

MAY, 1978 COMPLETION OF FINAL REPORT AUGUST, 1979

OCTOBER, 1977 FIRST SET OF PUBLIC INFORMATION EXCHANGE CENTRES

V'

MAY - JUNE, 1978 SOUTH LRT STUDY TERMS OF REFERENCE COMPLETED JANUARY, 1978

SUBMISSION TO CITY COUNCIL FALL, 1979


Thursday, 1078 06 01 Garneau Elementary School 10927 - 87 Avenue 3:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.

Monday, 1978 06 05 Mount Pleasant Elementary & Junior High School 10540 - 60A Avenue 3:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. Tuesday, 1978 06 06 Steinhauer Elementary School 10717 - 32 Avenue 3:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.

Thursday, 1978 06 08 Grant MacEwan Community College, Mill Woods Campus 7319 - 29 Avenue 3:00 p.m. - 9L00 p.m. In that the South LRT Extension Study was a new project, it was assumed that the general public would have little or no knowledge that the study was underway. As a result, advertising for the upcoming information exchanges was determined to be the key element required to promote interest. The advertising was to take place from two directions:

1.

Newspaper advertising - Arrangement had been made by Transportation Planning in early May with the Public Relations Department for the placement of advertisements in the Edmonton Journal, Edmonton Sun and Community Newspapers.

2.

Distribution of brochures - To supplement newspaper advertising, brochures were delivered to the residences adjacent to the proposed corridor. The brochure provided information regarding: - the objectives of the Study.


- time frame of the Study. - purpose and importance of public input. - date, location and time of Information Exchange Centres.

In addition, brochures were distributed at: - City Hall Information desk. - Planning Department information desk. - Transportation Planning Branch counter. - Central and Branch libraries. - University of Alberta. - Schools. - Community Leagues. The newspaper advertisements were intended to reach the total study area, as blanket coverage of brochures was unrealistic in terms of cost, manpower and time constraints. The newspaper advertisements were intended to preceed the distribution of brochures. Unfortunately, the advertisements were not placed in the newspapers, thus, the brochures were the sole means of advertising.

The information exchange centres were not well attended.

The

number of people who attended each centre are as follows: King Edward Park

11

Garneau

73

Mount Pleasant

15

Steinhauer

11

Mill Woods

15

Total

125

The reason for the low attendance is due to lack of advertising. The relatively high turnout at Garneau resulted from a well-organized telephone campaign on the part of the Garneau Community League. The objective of the information centre was to create an open feeling between the general public and the City. However, the


lack of advertising resulted in creating an atmosphere of mistrust on the part of the communities, particularly Garneau, towards the City representatives. The importance of adequate advertising, therefore, cannot be over-emphasized. Further, in view of the greater number of persons who attended the Garneau centre following the telephone campaign, it is suggested that intensive advertising at the community level (eg. community newspapers) may be a good means of informing the public.

Regarding the format of the information centres, the display material and staffing appeared adequate. Also, the concept of approaching the public at the beginning of the project was beneficial both for the public and for the administration. The public had the opportunity to express their views both verbally and in writing before all the decisions were reached. These views, although not incorporated into the study directly, were reviewed by the Study Team and, as a result, formed part of the frame of reference for the project.

The general reaction from the public concerning the LRT extension to South Edmonton was favourable. When asked, how they felt in general about a South side LRT, people gave one of five responses:

55.0% (44 people)

said they are strongly in favour of a southside LRT.

15.8% (15 people)

said they are in favour IF neighbourhoods are not disturbed.

15.0% (12 people)

said they are in favour, but have special concerns about where the line should go or whether it should be on the surface or in a tunnel.

6.2% (5 people)

said they are in favour, but have reservations about how the LRT should be operated (eg. where stations should be located).

3.7% (3 people)

said they do not want a southside LRT at all.


1.3% (1 person)

100%

was uncommitted.

(80 people)

(A sample questionnaire and a summary of results are included).

2.

Second Information Exchanges After a series of alternatives were designed by the Functional Planning personnel, a second set of Public Information Exchanges was developed. Public feedback was required at this point in the study to assess the alternatives in terms of identifying community impacts. The information exchange format was chosen for this second phase, as this encouraged open discussion between the public and members of the Study Team. Advance publicity for the February, 1979 Information Exchanges was established through: - informal contact with community groups, including the Garneau Planning Committee, the UAATS Citizen Advisory Committee, the University of Alberta Gateway staff, the South Edmonton Businessmen's Association and the Old Strathcona Foundation.

Newspaper ads were arranged in one of the major daily papers but, unfortunately, were run only two out of the three days. Articles were also sun in The Gateway, the Folio, the South Edmonton Times, and in the Millwoods, Garneau Duggan, Scona, Empire Park, Oliver and McKernan Community newsletters. A radio interview was also arranged on the Open Line program and covered on a television news report. The brochure outlined the four alternatives available after the detailed design process was completed. It also stressed the importance of public input, and listed dates, time, and locations of the second set of Public Information Exchanges.


A total of 5,000 brochures were distributed to: - two southside shopping malls (Southgate and Millbourne) - all houses along the proposed routes in Garneau, McKernan and Belgravia the University of Alberta Students Union Building, Central Academic Building - three radio stations and one television station - all community leagues on the South Side - southside libraries (Southgate and Strathcona Public) - all businesses on Whyte Avenue west of the Old Strathcona Train Station An information kiosk was established in Southgate shopping centre and manned for one week prior to the Information Exchange to provide information about the system and to distribute brochures. Overall reaction by the public to the display and the information provided at the mall was positive. Costing information was not available at this point and this was viewed as a critical item in regards to the different alternatives. It was felt that the low attendance at the second set of Information Exchanges indicated that people had asked their questions of the staff at the shopping mall and deemed further technical information unnecessary. Dates and locations of the second set of Information Exchange Centres were as follows:

Monday, 1979 02 19 Saint Hilda Separate School Gym Across from the Town Centre 7630 - 38 Avenue 6:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m.

Thursday, 1979 02 20 Garneau Elementary School Gym 10927 - 87 Avenue 6:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m.

- 68 -


Thursday, 1979 02 22 Mount Pleasant Elementary & Junior High School Gym 10540 - 60A Avenue 6:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m.

Attendance at the second set of Public Information Exchanges was better than the first, in that 249 people registered compared to 125 at the intial exchanges. The number of people who attended each of the exchanges is as follows: Although attendance was not as high as expected, a respectable sample size for the questionnaire (199 responses) was obtained. (See sample questionnaire II attached as well as detailed response for each question). Overall response indicated that most were in favour of a South LRT. However, some expressed reservation concerning the possible impacts of alternatives on well established communities (ie. Garneau).

When asked which considerations people felt were most important in building the SLRT, 96.5% felt that costs were not the most important factor. Of the people who responded to the questionnaire, 53.8% felt that the preservation of houses and communities was not more important than higher costs. However, the remaining 46.2% felt that houses and communities should be preserved even if costs increased. The best transit system was most important to 57.3% of those who responded, while 42.7% felt that better transit should not be implemented at the expense of communities or at higher overall costs. Many felt (70.5%) that the worst alternative would be no southside LRT at all.

When asked if the information presented at the second Information Exchange was adequate, 73.4% (146 people) said it was adequate 17.1% ( 34 people) said it was not sufficient 9.5% ( 19 people) did not complete question

100%

(199 people)


The most important items of information that people (16.1%) felt should have been presented were cost estimates. Many felt that without such information, an intelligent choice could not be made between the alternatives displayed. In general, people seemed to feel satisifed with the display material and the information they received from discussions with the planners.

Many, however, also indicated that they wished to be involved at other points in the planning process.

To determine what people viewed as an adequate level of participation respondents were asked how if at all, they would like to be further involved in the planning of the SLRT. A total of 77 people (38.7%) said: 1.

that they were uncertain how the public could be further involved, or

2.

they did not fill in the question which suggests that they had no opinion.

On the other hand, 8.5% (17 people) felt that the public should not be involved in further planning; that further decision-making be left to City planners; and that the present level of involvement was adequate. Of the 52.7% respondents who indicated that there should be further citizen involvement; 23.1%

indicated that public meetings should be held throughout the planning process.

6.5%

felt public opinion should be assessed via a questionnaire survey.

6.0%

indicated that further information via brochures and the media should be published throughout the planning process.

5.0%

felt that information on cost estimates and impacts should be presented.

4.5%

said that the Community Leagues should be involved.


4.5%

indicated that there should have been more advertising for the present Information Exchanges and for any future exchanges.

3.0%

said that public meetings should be held when a preferred plan is developed and ready to go to Council.

The fact that the majority of respondents not only felt that the public should be involved, but could suggest 'specific ways of doing so, indicates that the residents are concerned and want to be involved in planning the SLRT. While the two sets of Information Exchanges may have met the needs of many (including those who did not attend), there exists a major segment of the public who wishes to be involved. Particularly they want continued information reports and possibly public meetings once a preferred plan has been developed and cost estimates are available.


SAMPLE QUESTIONNAIRE #1 QUESTIONNAIRE SOUTH CORRIDOR LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT EXTENSION STUDY

This is the first of two sets of inforMation exchange centres held in conjunction with this study. Please complete this form after yt,..). have reviewed the material on displa-27. You may return it to one of the members of the study team, or mail it before June 16, 1978 to: South LRT Study Transportation Planning Branch 10th Floor, Century Place 9803 - 102 A Avenue Edmonton, Albr,rta T5K 3A3

1.

ADDRESS

2.

AGE GROUP 0 - 18

3.

HOW TJDNC HAVE YOU T.TVPT) T 1-ITIR DT).17cP7P ADT\P7:-:7c

4.

WHAT TYPE OF DWELLING DO YOU LIVE IN?

19 - 40

41 - 59

single family house duplex condominium/town house walk-up apartment high-rise apartment

5.

DO YOU RENT OR OWN YOUR PRESENT ACCOMMODATION? rent own

6.

IN GENERAL, HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT?

60+


7. PLEASE INDICATE YOUR FEELINGS TOWARDS THE POSSIBLE BENEFITS WHICH YOU OR YOUR COMUNITY MAY RECEIVE AS A RESULT OF AN LRT SYSTEM IN YOUR AREA? PLEASE RANK YOUR CHOICES FROM 1 TO 6 ACCORDING TO PRIORITY (ie. 1 - MOST IMPORTANT; 6 - LEAST IMPORTANT). Improved Public Transit Service Decreased Auto Traffic Redevelopment Lower Community Noise Levels Increased Community Identity Increased Property Values Other (Please Specify):

S. PLEASE INDICATE 'JOUR 1T,ELINCS TOWARDS THE FOSSIhL: WHICH YOU OR YOUR COMMUNITY MAY EXPERIENCE AS A RESULT OF AN LRT SYSTEM IN YOUR AREA? PLEASE I, 'â&#x20AC;&#x17E;ANK YOUR CHOICES FROM 1 TO 6 ACCORDING TO PRIORITY (ie. 1 - MOST SERIOUS IMPACT: 6 - LEAST SERIOUS IMPACT). Decreased Property Values Decreased Community Identity Higher Community Noise Levels Redevelopment Costs (e.g. increased iaxes) Lower level of Safety/Securit Increased Commuter Parking Other (Please Specify):

9. DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS ABOUT THE ALIGNMENT, THE BUS ROUTING, THE STATION LOCATIONS, PARK AND RIDE FACILITIES, OR ANY OTHER RELATED TOPIC?

THANK YOU: IF YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR IF YOU WOULD LIKE MORE D.FORMATION, PLEASE CALL 428 - 5941.


SAMPLE QUESTIONNAIRE #2

IDEAS ABOUT SOUTH SIDE LRT

This questionnaire is your opportunity to express your opinions about south side LRT. The answers will be used to make recommendations about south side LRT to City Council. Your identity and responses, however, will remain strictly anonymous.

1.

What community do you live in?

2.

How long have you lived in this community?

3.

What is the nearest intersection to your home?

i.

Do you live directly fronting onto one of the proposed routes? 0 YES 0 NO

5. Do you own or rent your present place of residence? 0OWN 0 RENT 5.

In general, how do you feel about a south side LRT? Please check one: E] INDIFFERENT 0 IN FAVOR OF SOUTH SIDE LRT E] OPPOSED TO SOUTH SIDE LRT 0 IN FAVOR IF CERTAIN CONDITIONS ARE NET. THESE CONDITIONS ARE

7.

If the City were to build a south side LRT, what should be considered in deciding exactly where the line should go? Please check one or more: ['KEEP COSTS DOWN, NO MATTER WHAT OPRESERVE HOUSES/COMMUNITIES, EVEN IF COSTS . HIGHER 0 PROVIDE BEST TRANSIT TO ALL PARTS OF CITY, . EVEN IF COSTS HIGHER OR SOME IMPACTS OCCUR 00THER (Please Specify)


8.

The list below describes several different ways that the LRT could be extended to the south side (plus the alternative of no south side LRT at all). a.

Please write "BEST" beside the one alternative you prefer the most. Please write "WORST" beside the one alternative you prefer the least. FULL SCALE LRT (WITH TUNNEL TO UNIVERSITY) FULL SCALE LRT (WITH SURFACE LINE TO UNIVERSITY) LRT SOUTH TO 51 AVENUE WITH TUNNEL BRANCH TO UNIVERSITY LRT SOUTH TO 51 AVENUE WITH SURFACE BRANCH TO UNIVERSITY LRT SOUTH TO 51 AVENUE WITH NO BRANCH TO UNIVERSITY LRT TO UNIVERSITY ONLY (TUNNEL) .LRT TO UNIVERSITY ONLY (SURFACE LINE) NO LRT TO SOUTH SIDE OTHER (Please Specify)

9.

b.

Why do you prefer the alternative you marked "BEST"?

c.

Why do you not prefer the alternative you marked 'WORST"?

If the LRT were extended to your area, how do you think this would affect your everyday activities?


the box which indicates how you 10. Below is a list of impacts which may possibly occur with LRT. Please check personally feel about each of the possible effects. For those effects that you checked as "BAD" or "VERY BAD", please give your suggestions about what, if anything, should be done to make them less serious for you. EFFECT

FEELINGS ABOUT EFFECT 0 0 very 0 no good good effect

Residential property acquisitions in your community

0 very bad

Residential property acquisition outside your community

very bad

Noise from LRT cars

0 0 0 0 0 very no good very bad effect good bad

Decreased public transit travel time

DO very bad bad

Visual effect of tunnel entrances

0 0 0 E.] 0 very bad no good very effect good bad

Road closures in your community

0 ac 0 0 very 0 very no good effect good bad

High density residential redevelopment (hi-rises) in your area

00 no good very very bad effect good bad

Commercial redevelopment in your area

Changes in bus routes

0 bad

OD

D no good very effect good

0 0 0 no good very effect good

D

OD

ODOD

very bad no good effect bad

0 very good

DD 0 0 0 very bad no good very good effect bad

WHAT SHOULD BE DONE


DL

D

Changes in on-street parking in your community

very bad bad

Visual effect of fencing along LRT line

0 0 0 no good very very bad good bad effect

Changes in value of your property

0 0 0 0 very bad no good very bad effect good

Limiting pedestrian access across LRT line (fencing)

DO very bad no good very bad effect good

Possible increases in property taxes

D O 0 DO very bad no good very good bad effect

Reduced auto through-traffic in your area

D O DO 0 very bad no good very bad effect good

Medium density residential redevelopment in your area

O 0 0 0 0 very bad no good very bad effect godd

Improved transit access to downtown

DO very bad bad

Station site near your home

Other (Specify)

no good very good effect

0

0 0 0

0 0 0 no good very effect good

0 E 0 no1:1 good

very bac bad

effect

very good

0 0 0 0 0

very bad no good very bad effect good


11. Do you presently use public transi? Please check one: OREGULARLY ['OCCASIONALLY ['ALMOST NEVER 12. Do you have a car? O YES 0 NO 13. Have you ever ridden the North East LRT? Please check one: 0 FREQUENTLY 0 A FEW TIMES 0 NEVER

14. Would you use LRT if it were extended to your area? Please check one: 0 REGULARLY 0 OCCASIONALLY 0 PROBABLY NEVER 15. Do you think that the information you saw tonight is adequate? YES NO Please indicate if important information is missing.


16. HOW do you think the public, in general, should be further involved in planning for south side LRT?

Would you, as a member of your community, like to be further involved in planning for south side LRT? YES NO MAYBE 17. Please add any further comments which you may wish to bring to the attention of the planners.

IF YOU DO NOT HAVE TIME TO FINISH THIS QUESTIONNAIRE NOW, PLEASE COMPLETE IT AT HOME AND MAIL IT TO: City of Edmonton Transportation Planning Land Use and Development 10th Floor Century Place 9803 - 102 A Avenue Edmonton, Alberta T5J 3A3

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

Edmonton (Alta.) - 1978 - South corridor light rail transit impact study (1978-12)  
Edmonton (Alta.) - 1978 - South corridor light rail transit impact study (1978-12)  
Advertisement