City has bitten off more than it can chew with LRT plans
Transit-related development idea is moot if it causes traffic congestion by cutting lanes
We need LRT to run from the downtown to West Edmonton Mall. There’s no serious debate about that. Almost everyone agrees on this goal; certainly, everyone on city council and almost everyone who spoke at a public hearing Wednesday about the proposed LRT line down Stony Plain Road.
What has become increasingly clear, though, is that nine years ago when the city abandoned the fastest, shortest route to the west end, one that would have had the most passengers and caused the least disruption to traffic, it made a huge mistake. The proposed Stony Plain Road route will likely create the mother of all traffic disruptions both for area residents and commuters.
Instead of running LRT from the University of Alberta across a bridge to the west end, then along 87 Avenue to the mall, a route that would have had 30 per cent more riders than any other option, city council chose the Stony Plain Road route. Why? Council hoped to get more transit-oriented development along the new route.
There was also a feeling that car commuters should no longer be the sole focus of transportation. As then-councillor Don Iveson put it in 2010: “We’re trying to make a transition away from 1950s social engineering around the car to something that is more walkable, more bikeable and more transit friendly. There will still be room for cars, but the car is no longer king.”
But at Wednesday’s public hearing it became clear many citizens have lost confidence in the city’s LRT plan. They fear it will hopelessly tie up traffic by taking out existing lanes, harm the surrounding neighbourhoods with traffic tie-ups and short-cutting, and damage existing businesses, either by limiting car access to them or by demolishing them.
Glenora resident Rick Lutz told council about reading a 40-page report on which LRT line to West Edmonton Mall the city should pick, but finding just a few paragraphs dedicated to traffic impacts. “Not only that, they (council) chose the route that had the worst impact on traffic ... People are complaining because we’re trying to work around a bad plan from the start.”
There’s a bottleneck for traffic from the southwest and west end on Stony Plain Road, Lutz said. That same key commuter route will lose two lanes of traffic for the new LRT and will also have the train crossing it and slowing traffic at major intersections.
“You are going to be creating a major, major traffic catastrophe,” Lutz said.
Just as damning was Susan Maw, a Glenora resident and regular transit user, who ripped the project’s negative impact on west-end communities.
Heritage homes, trees and business will all be demolished to make way for the train, Maw said: “You, the council, are proposing to spend $2.24 billion on a train that will carve a path of destruction through our communities, including mine in Glenora ... All this for a glorified bus on rails.”
Residents understand there’s a better route for this LRT leg, even if council does not, Maw said: “I know this is the dream of this council to connect west Edmonton to the LRT network. But in its current format, it’s our nightmare.”
The train won’t even move people in rapid fashion, Maw said.
“Do the people of Lewis Farm want a slow streetcar-style to get them to work every morning ?”
I wish we could all assure Maw and Lutz that they’re just catastrophizing and everything will be OK. I love LRT and I also love the dream of transit-oriented development. It’s a lofty, hugely beneficial goal. But it’s hard to see how taking out two lanes of traffic on a busy commuter road for a slower-moving LRT will end in anything but ugly traffic jams and bitter recriminations.
Getting LRT right is a complex, difficult problem. Because of that, we needed to keep it simple, keeping our focus on moving the most people as fast and as economically as we can with as little disruption to traffic as possible.
In 2009, however, we split our focus by embracing LRT as a driver of transit-oriented development. We added another layer of massive complexity to an already fantastically difficult and costly project. In doing so, council bit off far more than this city can chew.
Of course, we’re hearty and we’ll adapt, but what a mess council has made of this.
You, the council, are proposing to spend $2.24 billion on a train that will carve a path of destruction through our communities.