I hear the train a comin’

| Commenting on this story is closed.

The news that Mayor Stephen Mandel wants the latest LRT proposals fast-tracked should be welcome to all Edmontonians, especially since it came on the same day as a report from Environment Canada reminding us how much transportation emissions affect our greenhouse gas contributions. But as nice as it would be for the city to have a truly expansive and encompassing rail transit system by 2016, its important that we don't hamstring ourselves by making short-sighted decisions solely for the sake of expediency.
For starters, the city must ensure it undertakes the proper public consultations. Much of the protest that came with the recent approvals of the west and southeast lines—the former to run from Lewis Estates down 87 Avenue and Stony Plain Road to Grant MacEwan, the latter from downtown to Mill Woods down Connors Road and 82 Street—was a result of people feeling as though their opinions were not properly sought by council. It needn't be a drawn-out process, either: a few consultations with community leagues over the course of a few months can be the difference between significant opposition (and lost votes) and the relatively amicable resolution that met the McKernan-Belgravia station.
The bigger issue, of course, is the cost: some $3 billion for those expansions and the line from downtown to NAIT. Though it was hoped the province's Green Trip program could cover some of the cost, the recent slashing of that budget has Mandel bringing up the spectre of public-private partnerships (P3s) to help fund the expansion, with Mandel going so far as to say that he doesn't want "to spend six months arguing whether we should do a P3 or not a P3."
In that much, he's right: city council should not be considering P3s at all. The problems that come with such development are well-documented, and do not simply end with the often increased costs that the city is willing to mention. A failure to fully consider the implications could hamstring the city in the future—perhaps a minor consideration for a mayor looking for a legacy project who will not have to deal with the consequences—and ignores some of the creative (if unpalatable to certain segments of the population) solutions cities have begun to employ, including things like selling naming rights to stations or even simply accepting infrastructure debt as a necessary evil for something that will provide long-term benefits to the city. The news that Mayor Stephen Mandel wants the latest LRT proposals fast-tracked should be welcome to all Edmontonians, especially since it came on the same day as a report from Environment Canada reminding us how much transportation emissions affect our greenhouse gas contributions. But as nice as it would be for the city to have a truly expansive and encompassing rail transit system by 2016, its important that we don't hamstring ourselves by making short-sighted decisions solely for the sake of expediency.
For starters, the city must ensure it undertakes the proper public consultations. Much of the protest that came with the recent approvals of the west and southeast lines—the former to run from Lewis Estates down 87 Avenue and Stony Plain Road to Grant MacEwan, the latter from downtown to Mill Woods down Connors Road and 82 Street—was a result of people feeling as though their opinions were not properly sought by council. It needn't be a drawn-out process, either: a few consultations with community leagues over the course of a few months can be the difference between significant opposition (and lost votes) and the relatively amicable resolution that met the McKernan-Belgravia station.
The bigger issue, of course, is the cost: some $3 billion for those expansions and the line from downtown to NAIT. Though it was hoped the province's Green Trip program could cover some of the cost, the recent slashing of that budget has Mandel bringing up the spectre of public-private partnerships (P3s) to help fund the expansion, with Mandel going so far as to say that he doesn't want "to spend six months arguing whether we should do a P3 or not a P3."
In that much, he's right: city council should not be considering P3s at all. The problems that come with such development are well-documented, and do not simply end with the often increased costs that the city is willing to mention. A failure to fully consider the implications could hamstring the city in the future—perhaps a minor consideration for a mayor looking for a legacy project who will not have to deal with the consequences—and ignores some of the creative (if unpalatable to certain segments of the population) solutions cities have begun to employ, including things like selling naming rights to stations or even simply accepting infrastructure debt as a necessary evil for something that will provide long-term benefits to the city. V

Vuepoint

I hear the train a comin’

Most recent comments