Edmonton Public Transit - Page 378

noodlenoodle · #**7541** Posted **Jun 27, 2016, 6:18 PM**

It's gonna be interesting to see how the City implements "smart" fares. Having to integrate a P3 run separately from the rest of the transit system, combined with our laughable density & lowest-in-Canada recovery of costs through fares (with some of the highest fares in Canada) means it's gonna get a lot more expensive real quick. And that's not even factoring the service improvements required to raise the ridership.

The TTC charges the same fare as Edmonton, recovers ~30% more of the costs & provides a much better system. ETS is indefensible, imho & I can't support further expansion or funding until they've shown they can do a lot more with what they're currently getting.

CMD UW · #**7542** Posted **Jun 27, 2016, 6:40 PM**

We have to be careful when stating our density figures as Edmonton has a SIGNIFICANT area of land within it's corporate limits that is undeveloped. When you include this area and divide it by our population it skews the figure. If we use our 'built-up' urban areas our number increases and is closer in line with other comparable cities - Ottawa, Calgary, etc.

noodlenoodle · #**7543** Posted **Jun 27, 2016, 6:47 PM**

That actually makes ETS look even worse though!

The only thing that even remotely excuses the absolutely terrible transit system in this town is our lack of density, both in employment nodes & overall built form. Even ignoring the undeveloped NE, we've still got a heckuva lotta sprawl in town.

I've only been off the bus for ~3 weeks & I can't imagine ever going back to being a regular transit user.

Hallsy's Toupee · #**7544** Posted **Jun 27, 2016, 8:56 PM**

It would help if there was a regional transit system, not 3 or 4 separate ones.

Mikemike · #**7545** Posted **Jun 27, 2016, 10:10 PM**

Not really.

There are a few places where Stat and — could provide better service to the parts of edmonton that they pass through, but that's minor compared to the generally poor frequency, route design, stop spacing, management..... that's all within ETS.

There's some hope that the current review will eventually improve things if politics don't get in the way, but It looks like it's going to take forever.

feepa · #**7546** Posted **Jun 27, 2016, 10:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CMD UW

We have to be careful when stating our density figures as Edmonton has a SIGNIFICANT area of land within it's corporate limits that is undeveloped. When you include this area and divide it by our population it skews the figure. If we use our 'built-up' urban areas our number increases and is closer in line with other comparable cities - Ottawa, Calgary, etc.

Every city has significant area of land within its limits that's undeveloped. If your going to skew the numbers for Edmonton, you should skew them for all.

Let's not fudge numbers in attempts at making us look better.

CMD UW · #**7547** Posted **Jun 27, 2016, 10:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by feepa

Every city has significant area of land within its limits that's undeveloped. If your going to skew the numbers for Edmonton, you should skew them for all.

Let's not fudge numbers in attempts at making us look better.

I guarantee you not as much as Edmonton has. Many seem to forget that the City was 'forced' to annex the large swath of the lands to the northeast by the Province after their failed attempt to annex Sherwood Park including refinery row and St. Albert.

Noodle - our built form is really no different than Calgary's. A significant portion of our urban areas were developed post 1950's in an era where the suburban form was mainstream.

DKaz · #**7548** Posted **Jun 27, 2016, 10:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by s211

Distance-based fares a basic thing? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Good luck with that. Vancouver spent gazillions trying to do that and gave up.

Incorrect. Vancouver wanted to implement the new fare card first then introduce distance based systems later. Doing both at once would've been disastrous.

MalcolmTucker · #**7549** Posted **Jun 27, 2016, 11:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DKaz

Incorrect. Vancouver wanted to implement the new fare card first then introduce distance based systems later. Doing both at once would've been disastrous.

Nah. They tried to implement distance based in the first place, and it failed, as the tap out function failed in the pilot phase. To move to full implementation they decided to use a limited function set with the intent to fix it later.

It is really hard to implement distance based fares and other dynamic products outside of fixed lines with access controlled stations.

noodlenoodle · #**7550** Posted **Jun 28, 2016, 3:10 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CMD UW

Noodle - our built form is really no different than Calgary's. A significant portion of our urban areas were developed post 1950's in an era where the suburban form was mainstream.

Who brought up Calgary? I couldn't care less about Calgary's built form. Not my circus, not my monkey. What I do care about is Edmonton's unsustainable but unstoppable hunger for greenfield development. We can't really afford to maintain the infrastructure we have at a decent level & yet we're constantly expanding the service areas with shiny new suburbs that simply can't be efficiently served with transit.

GreaterMontréal · #**7551** Posted **Jun 28, 2016, 3:22 AM**

Quote:

What I do care about is Edmonton's unsustainable but unstoppable hunger for greenfield development. We can't really afford to maintain the infrastructure we have at a decent level & yet we're constantly expanding the service areas with shiny new suburbs that simply can't be efficiently served with transit.

the built-up area of Edmonton, 3rd largest in Canada after Toronto and Montréal.

feepa · #**7552** Posted **Jun 28, 2016, 3:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

the built-up area of Edmonton, 3rd largest in Canada after Toronto and Montréal.

source?

MalcolmTucker · #**7553** Posted **Jun 28, 2016, 3:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by feepa

source?

Statscan.

Calgary CMA has a built up urban area of 704 km2 compared to Edmonton's CMA built up urban area of 855 km2.

Coldrsx · #**7554** Posted **Jun 28, 2016, 3:51 PM**

Again, significantly improve transit for the inner ring/central areas, reduce the edge of city routes and make transit excellent for those more inclined to use it. Retain key branches for people to get back out and add in some park and rides to LRT/Bus stations.

noodlenoodle · #**7555** Posted **Jun 28, 2016, 3:53 PM**

Calgary CMA density: 1554 people per square km
Edmonton CMA density: 1122 people per square km

noodlenoodle · #**7556** Posted **Jun 28, 2016, 3:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Again, significantly improve transit for the inner ring/central areas, reduce the edge of city routes and make transit excellent for those more inclined to use it. Retain key branches for people to get back out and add in some park and rides to LRT/Bus stations.

This is a fine recipe for a city with centralized population & employment nodes. Which Edmonton is not, nor will ever be.

Coldrsx · #**7557** Posted **Jun 28, 2016, 3:59 PM**

Again, goes back to route numbers... delete low ridership and add time/routes to central routes and other busier routes, simple as that. Very few cities are 'centralized'.

noodlenoodle · #**7558** Posted **Jun 28, 2016, 4:14 PM**

Ridership isn't a great metric to work with though. People aren't going to take busses that don't go where they need to go, when they want to go there. Killing transit service in an outer area because it's inefficient, poorly planned & therefore poorly used doesn't do anyone any favours, except those who live centrally. I know you've got no issues screwing over the suburbs to make things better for the centre of town, but given that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few it's not really an appropriate use of limited civic resources.

The problem is that we've got a city where it's nigh-impossible to account for which of our many dispersed residential & employment nodes someone may need to travel between. We've simply got too many disparate places to live & work scattered across 800+ square kilometers to have a central hub & spoke/feeder bus route model work well.

Transit in this town is terrible, because we've designed a town where terrible transit is the only fair & equitable option. Even with a change in mandate & a streamlining of routes like what's currently in the works, any efficiencies are hobbled by the way we've chosen to live & work in Edmonton.

I live centrally. I work just outside of the central area, next to a major education node. My commute is under 5km, about 12 minutes door-to-door not counting Metro delays. Bus? 45 minutes, with over a km of walking. I haven't gotten on a bus since the day I got my car & can't ever see me going back to being a carless second-class Edmontonian again.

Coldrsx · #**7559** Posted **Jun 28, 2016, 4:22 PM**

It isn't about 'screwing the burbs' or any area that has good ridership potential, but we need to determine if this is a city service to 'all' or a more efficient and reasonable/viable way to travel for 'most'. If you choose to live way off yonder, should you expect to have some or any transit? Maybe, maybe not... I say not. Again, retain main corridors and people can walk 5 or 10mins to a stop. Efficiently connect that to LRT or major routes and ensure good connections. I use LRT and buses all the time to get around and they work ok as is for me, even to the far SW it is only 45mins door to door, driving is 30. That's very reasonable.

Simply put, we have a system that needs the review that is occurring and make some tough decisions.

EdmTrekker · #**7560** Posted **Jun 28, 2016, 4:24 PM**

That StasCan chart is not CMA. It is single city. Sherwood Park is ignored because it is a country. And the chart skews Edmonton as its HAS mega suburbs whilst Calgary has few suburbs. This chart tells a different story about density of the CMA.

http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recens...-pl/Table-Tableau.cfm?LANG=Eng&T=205&S=3
http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recens...m?LANG=Eng&T=209&CMA=835&S=51&O=A&RPP=25

Population density per square kilometre, 2011: Calgary: 237.9 Edmonton: 123.0

Also all the StatsCan charts miss St. Albert....did it go somewhere?