Edmonton Public Transit

[Mikemike]

So it sure looks as though LRT planning and leadership in this city remains about property development and ribbon-cuttings, not about transit service or efficiency or emissions, and that’s not OK.

[B.ike]

I've said this many times, if the objective was to increase ridership and removing cars off the road, they'd focus on extending the SLRT to Heritage.

You have the most dense neighbhourhoods outside of Oliver down there.

Build a station at the future hospital site. Run some dedicated buses along Ellerslie road which would capture residents from Summerside and Ambleside. watch the ridership go up 50%.

But nope, west end is due for an LRT. Let's run this thing through the least dense neighbourhoods of Edmonton. Honestly, due to the lack of river crossings, the commute from west end to DT was never that bad.

[Coldrsx]

Ridership or usability?

City-wide is more important for many of us.

[Mikemike]

I disagree that south to ellerslie would attract more ridership. The south leg is already full at the service levels that in-street can handle.

That doesn’t mean it’s not a good idea.

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by Harrison

What do you think the better alternative would have been (keeping in mind costs)? BRT? Shorter route but more grade separations? Different route altogether (i.e. U of A - WEM via new bridge and 87 Ave)?

It's tough to know for sure.

The Millwoods Route is fine. The technology however is a bit lacking, given that it will be no faster than buses. South LRT is fantastic because the LRT will get you to downtown faster than using a car.

[canucklehead2]

Originally Posted by Xelebes

The Millwoods Route is fine. The technology however is a bit lacking, given that it will be no faster than buses. South LRT is fantastic because the LRT will get you to downtown faster than using a car.

I'd have been happy if they just went ahead and built a spur line from Mill Woods to Century Park. That would have been way cheaper and faster and in fact was the original backup plan... But like others have said, the LRT has been more about helping reward developers in the inner city than actually getting a useful city-wide mass transit network...

[feepa]

The Century Park line wouldn't be able to handle all the traffic from Millwoods and a southern extension - at least in its current build. Too many level crossings.

[canucklehead2]

Originally Posted by feepa

The Century Park line wouldn't be able to handle all the traffic from Millwoods and a southern extension - at least in its current build. Too many level crossings.

When has that ever stopped the city before!?!

[feepa]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Ridership or usability?

City-wide is more important for many of us.

Ridership is a key part of usability no? If there little to no ridership, its not very usable. A slow city wide backbone to the transit system that crawls across the city won't attract ridership, and therefore not be very usable, and therefore not help create the modal shift Edmonton so badly needs... But yes, lets focus on keeping transit for the people that absolutely have to use it, while offering no redeeming qualities that would attract ridership away from the SOV. Lets keep transit usage below 8%...

Slow clap for the guy who pretends he knows urban planning and exposes his opinions far far too often.

[Coldrsx]

Is it a conveyance from point A-B as fast as possible or should it be seen as a viable option for regular trips about town?

City-wide is far more important than trying to create a spur just to get a far flung neighbourhood connected.

[Landlocked]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Is it a conveyance from point A-B as fast as possible or should it be seen as a viable option for regular trips about town?

City-wide is far more important than trying to create a spur just to get a far flung neighbourhood connected.

Isn't the mayor a Trekkie? Why aren't they working on a teleporter? No cars, no busses, no trains. So there's the odd scramble accident... not like my foot doesn't end up in my mouth most of the time anyways, why not just make it an official location change.

[Mikemike]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Is it a conveyance from point A-B as fast as possible or should it be seen as a viable option for regular trips about town?

City-wide is far more important than trying to create a spur just to get a far flung neighbourhood connected.

We will only ever get citywide transit coverage if you include the bus network, and design the whole thing to have easy transfers. The arbitrary goal of LRT to “all 4? 5? 6? Quadrants of the city” is meaningless and counterproductive if it leads us to an LRT system not designed for transfers

[mcc16]

It is extremely tiring that the speed of the system is consistently brought up. No fucking kidding we'd all want grade separated elevated or buried systems if the billions extra wasn't an issue. But in reality, any city planning for 2 million has to think to the future areas of growth not ONLY current areas of density. It's funny that "tram" keeps being brought up as this awful thing. Have you guys been to Toronto, Dublin, Lisbon, Zagreb, Frankfurt, Portland, berlin, Milan, Budapest, Prague, Stuttgart, Zurich....and obviously others that I haven't experienced? Because from my experience, these "trams" are pretty damn awesome. A "tram" provides a reliable consistent route with decent capacity. So please for the love of god can the dinosaurs that have never been on public transit unless it's a hop on hop off in Palm Springs or Honolulu please SIT DOWN.

[mcc16]

... Forgot Minneapolis has a "tram" from the airport to downtown AND the mall of America. Two places I never would have considered visiting in an 8 hour layover if it were on a bus... And another sure to be awful "tram" will be Amsterdam on a 10 hour layover coming up. Only awful awful cities have light rail at grade.

[thatyegguy]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Is it a conveyance from point A-B as fast as possible or should it be seen as a viable option for regular trips about town?

City-wide is far more important than trying to create a spur just to get a far flung neighbourhood connected.

the statement doesn't make any sense. unless, i'm going for a sunday drive/ walk/ cycle, i want to get to where i'm going as fast as possible. and unless it's fast, the tram will likely not induce people who drive to get out of their vehicles. and frustrating drivers into taking the tram will not change their behaviour. in fact, it will mean less of a desire to use public transit; it's a psychological thing. i know of several people who have to use the metro line for school purposes. they are not fans and look forward to the day when they don't have to use it anymore.

[thatyegguy]

Originally Posted by mcc16

It is extremely tiring that the speed of the system is consistently brought up. No fucking kidding we'd all want grade separated elevated or buried systems if the billions extra wasn't an issue. But in reality, any city planning for 2 million has to think to the future areas of growth not ONLY current areas of density. It's funny that "tram" keeps being brought up as this awful thing. Have you guys been to Toronto, Dublin, Lisbon, Zagreb, Frankfurt, Portland, berlin, Milan, Budapest, Prague, Stuttgart, Zurich....and obviously others that I haven't experienced? Because from my experience, these "trams" are pretty damn awesome. A "tram" provides a reliable consistent route with decent capacity. So please for the love of god can the dinosaurs that have never been on public transit unless it's a hop on hop off in Palm Springs or Honolulu please SIT DOWN.

the problem is for the majority of the cities you listed, the trams, in fact, are supplements/ augments to the larger system. in edmonton, planners want the valley line to be both a commuter service and a milk run. it's a recipe for disaster.

toronto: the streetcars are central/ neighbourhood focused

dublin: the luas is popular, leading to severe capacity/ overcrowding issues. it can't be expanded because of the constraints of the low floor design. read the articles related to that and the comments, with people clamouring for a metro-style system instead.

lisbon, Frankfurt, berlin, Milan, Budapest, Prague, Stuttgart, Zurich all have rapid metro systems with the trams as supplements. and the built form of those european cities is much different from edmonton.

Portland: i love how urban hipsters use this example as one to copy. but in reality, the portland system hasn't resulted in a surge in transit uptake. max light rail, in honesty, is a failure compared to say vancouver. this article spells it out: https://www.wweek.com/news/2019/02/13/trimets-general-manager-is-fighting-to-speed-up-max-trains/

it's too late to turn the clock but the valley line, aside from making some urban planners happy, will leave the majority upset, including transit users left to wonder why the train is so slow and/ or, perhaps, too full and not able to take on more capacity.

water flows down the path of least resistance. commuters want to get to where they are going asap, it doesn't matter the form, or how far/ not far. i just don't understand why an hour travel time from mill woods to wem is considered acceptable. if i lived in se edm and had to go to the mall, i'm not taking transit. and even 15 mins from bonnie doon to dt??? no thanks, i'll take my car to rogers place and for the same price, a couple can park in a nice heated underground parkade and get there quicker.

but what do i know!

[Slide]

Originally Posted by thatyegguy

the statement doesn't make any sense. unless, i'm going for a sunday drive/ walk/ cycle, i want to get to where i'm going as fast as possible. and unless it's fast, the tram will likely not induce people who drive to get out of their vehicles. and frustrating drivers into taking the tram will not change their behaviour. in fact, it will mean less of a desire to use public transit; it's a psychological thing. i know of several people who have to use the metro line for school purposes. they are not fans and look forward to the day when they don't have to use it anymore.

I can vouch for this. I used to take the capital line twice a day for many years to get to work. This is the generally grade separated "best" line of the whole system, and it felt like it would have a delay/issue at least once a week. It was very unreliable. It made me late for work many times, and worst, made me miss my low frequency bus transfers home even more. I started accommodating for all of its screw ups, leaving 15 minutes earlier to account for issues or leaving work a bit earlier so I wouldn't have to sprint out of the train to catch my bus. After a year or so of doing that, I realized it wasn't worth the headache.

I finally decided to buy a car and I now use that to commute to work. Yes, of course it costs more, but it is certainly worth it.

The CoE (and some posters here) underestimate how important reliability, frequency, and speed are to transit users. Building a transit line as an urban renewal project achieves none of those important factors.

[Black Star]

Originally Posted by Slide

I can vouch for this. I used to take the capital line twice a day for many years to get to work. This is the generally grade separated "best" line of the whole system, and it felt like it would have a delay/issue at least once a week. It was very unreliable. It made me late for work many times, and worst, made me miss my low frequency bus transfers home even more. I started accommodating for all of its screw ups, leaving 15 minutes earlier to account for issues or leaving work a bit earlier so I wouldn't have to sprint out of the train to catch my bus. After a year or so of doing that, I realized it wasn't worth the headache.

I finally decided to buy a car and I now use that to commute to work. Yes, of course it costs more, but it is certainly worth it.

The CoE (and some posters here) underestimate how important reliability, frequency, and speed are to transit users. Building a transit line as an urban renewal project achieves none of those important factors.

Bingo........

The way our Tram/LRT is being built and designed is disastrous. A drunk 10 year old girl with a ball of string could do better.

[CMD UW]

Originally Posted by B.ike

But nope, west end is due for an LRT. Let's run this thing through the least dense neighbourhoods of Edmonton. Honestly, due to the lack of river crossings, the commute from west end to DT was never that bad.

Yeah, I mean who needs to connect our downtown to one of our most popular shopping/entertainment/employment/tourist hubs

[s211]

Originally Posted by Slide

I can vouch for this. I used to take the capital line twice a day for many years to get to work. This is the generally grade separated "best" line of the whole system, and it felt like it would have a delay/issue at least once a week. It was very unreliable. It made me late for work many times, and worst, made me miss my low frequency bus transfers home even more. I started accommodating for all of its screw ups, leaving 15 minutes earlier to account for issues or leaving work a bit earlier so I wouldn't have to sprint out of the train to catch my bus. After a year or so of doing that, I realized it wasn't worth the headache.

I finally decided to buy a car and I now use that to commute to work. Yes, of course it costs more, but it is certainly worth it.

The CoE (and some posters here) underestimate how important reliability, frequency, and speed are to transit users. Building a transit line as an urban renewal project achieves none of those important factors.

Urban renewal project? More like social engineering project, unfortunately.