Results 1 to 60 of 60

Thread: Show Transit Some Love

  1. #1

    Default Show Transit Some Love

    http://www.seemagazine.com/Issues/2007/0405/cover.htm

    Show Transit Some Love
    Five ways to shape up Edmontonís public transportation system
    Whenever I tell someone I donít own a car, they look at me as if I just pulled off a mask and revealed my true alien form. Oh, and my buddies are about to land on earth and reverse the whole course of modern western civilization.
    James Paull knows that look. The 31-year-old public servant and transit buff rides public transit religiously. He even rented an ETS bus instead of a limo for his wedding.

    Heís the For him, taking the trolley bus and LRT instead of driving means he can read a book on the way into his downtown office instead of fighting traffic. Environmentally conscious, he feels good about reducing his contribution to our carbon emissions.

    Vice-chair of the Citizens for Better Transit Society, Paull is definitely in the minority in our auto-centric town, but the poor manís chariot could become the next transportation mode of choice, regardless of personal income bracket. And the flip may come sooner rather than later.

    Both Grant MacEwan and University of Alberta students voted for the U-Pass, which means more bums in seats on the LRT and buses. The expanding population, with a million people in the region and more on their way, also bodes well for mass transit.

    "The demand for public transit is destined to grow. Transit has to be in a position to meet that demand," says Kevin Brown, a long time member of the Citizens for Better Transit Society.

    ETS has finally begun re-evaluating their long-term plans and are changing the cityís transit priorities for the first time in 10 years. New priorities will affect transportation in the city until 2041.

    If we fail to properly plan public transit, a whole generation of Edmontonians will suffer the consequences. For every bus the city doesnít provide, thereíll be 40 more cars on the road.

    With the help of local transit advocates and planners, SEE Magazine suggests five ways Edmonton can ditch the auto and become a transit-town.

    1. Show me the money

    The essential ingredients for attracting and maintaining transit riders ainít cheap. Keeping people out of cars requires frequent, quick and dependable service.

    "We have to be able to commit the bucks up front. We have to see it as a valuable investment and follow though," says Brown. Last year, transit ridership went up 5 per cent but funding only increased by 2.5 per cent.

    Funding for ETS represents and investment in the city, not just an expense. Public transit provides a service, no different than snow-clearing, fire fighters, or street lights.

    Ward 1 councillor Karen Leibovici, a member of the cityís transportation and public works committee, argues that investing in public transit can save money on roads and even police. Neighbourhoods connected to public transit are more walkable, which makes them safer because there are more people on the street. Walkable neighbourhoods encourage shops within the community, which reduces travel across the city.

    Proper funding includes cash for improved service and long-term investments in the LRT, says Brown. He wants a much more extensive light rail network, with many community stops.

    Heís also quick to point out that ETS should get more bang for the taxpayerís buck. He insists the city build only surface LRT lines with simple stations. LRT should cost about $17 million a kilometer, but the south LRT is currently running at about $75 million a kilometer, he says.

    Wayne Mandryk, manager of transportation projects cautions that Edmonton simply doesnít have the population density to support frequent LRT stops. City council could expand the network, and then add community stops once more large apartment buildings are built near the LRT line, he suggests.

    "Thatís one of the beauties of the LRT. Youíre not completely stuck once itís in place. You can add stations later."

    2. Main line bus routes instead of transit centres

    Edmontonís current system focuses on transit hubs. You take a bus into the West Edmonton Mall, from which you can transfer onto five or six other buses. The system also aims for what Brown calls "a one seat ride," which means riders donít have to transfer, but end up spending a long time on buses that meander though communities. Itís a system that works for small or mid-sized cities, but doesnít suit Edmonton anymore.

    "We need to really revisit the way we look at transit service. We need to be looking at it from a big city perspective," says Brown.

    Brown recommends rapid, frequent service on main routes going north-south and east-west though the city, similar to systems in Regina and Vancouver.

    Leibovici agrees.

    "Our transit system is stuck in the past. For a small or mid-sized city the hub system works well. But we are now a large city and we need to start thinking about the needs of the region. We need to think big and more futuristic."

    Sheís never been a fan of the hub system, she says, citing overlapping routes and longer trips that still leave people waiting 20 minutes for a bus.

    But, according to Mandryk, ditching the entire system doesnít make sense either. Besides the huge amounts of taxpayer dollars already invested in the system, Edmontonís sprawling neighborhoods simply donít allow for the pure-big city approach. He recommends keeping some hubs, like the one planned for Millwoods.

    "We may end up with a modified hub system," he says. "We are very spread out in terms of our work locations and our activity centres. Compare that to Calgary where they have a very concentrated downtown and not a lot of industry around the periphery of the city or satellite communities."

    No one system works for every city he says, and Edmonton must find the right mix of core routes and transit centres to serve the current conditions.

    3. Tame Sprawl

    ETS needs the support of the planning department as well as transportation and city council if we are going to see major improvements. Drastically reducing sprawl is the first order of business.

    Edmonton does have a smart growth plan, aimed at encouraging town houses and high-rise development, especially in core areas and near public transit. Greg Barker, the lead planner on smart growth, will ask council to restrict building on undeveloped land to a maximum of 70 per cent of new growth. (Currently, 97 per cent of new developments in Edmonton occur on the edges of town.)

    Sprawling developments mean public transit must go further and further in search of riders. Ken Korospeski, Edmonton transitís director of service development, points out that the city currently has 19 new neighbourhoods planned. "What we are concentrating on is how we are going to serve that," he says.

    Heather Rock, a 24-year-old member of the Sierra Club, recently bought a condo downtown instead of owning a car and living on the outskirts of town. Like Paull, sheís made public transit a lifestyle choice.

    "I donít think the public makes the connection between urban sprawl and the expense," she says. "Transit is a big expense and only a small amount of people use transit. Urban sprawl plays a part in that because ETS must constantly expand the system. Then weíre not really getting the return we need."

    Only nine per cent of daily trips in Edmonton are taken on public transit.

    4. Give public transit priority treatment

    From top to bottom, the city sees cars as the most important aspect of our transportation system. The car is the un-contested king of the road, which means public transit doesnít operate as efficiently as it could, Brown says.

    Simple changes like positioning bus stops at corners would speed-up transit. The bus would stop at the light, pick up people and continue on. Currently, with stops before or after the lights, the bus must stop twice ó once for the pickup and again at the light.

    Brown adds that if the city also installs bus priority signals, which read radio tags on the bus and turn green faster, then the right hand lane would open up for cars making right-hand turns.

    These simple changes, with little cost involved, could even increase ridership, says Brown.

    "When they see that the bus getting from A to B faster than they are in their car, they will get out of that car and get on the bus," he says.

    The cityís planned bus rapid transit routes are a step in the right direction, he says, but heíd go further by removing on street parking and putting in bus lanes on all major routes.

    5. Keep the trolley system

    Of the nine cities with trolley systems in North America, only Edmonton is currently considering trashing the electricity-fueled system. Other trolley-cities are expanding their systems, including Vancouver, which just ordered 250 more trolley buses. City council will make a decision on whether to keep the system sometime next year.

    Leibovici isnít convinced the new hybrid buses are better. She would prefer improving the system with dedicated rights-of-way.

    Paull, the transit buff who rented a bus as his wedding chariot, says updating the 25-year-old buses will make a vast improvement. The infrastructure for the system alone is worth $80 to $90 million, an investment worth preserving.

    Not to mention that moving to non-trolley busses would ruin his peaceful ride to work each morning.

  2. #2
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Oliver
    Posts
    3,194

    Default Re: Show Transit Some Love

    Quote Originally Posted by feepa
    Not to mention that moving to non-trolley busses would ruin his peaceful ride to work each morning.
    Do you know what ruins my peaceful walk to work each morning? It's looking up and seeing a sky that is full of all the cabling that is required to serve those trolley busses.

    102ave by the RAM should be a lovely tree-lined boulevard, but instead it's enclosed by hideous cabling.

    And as inviting as Stoney Plain road is with all of it's pawnshops and cashstores, it's made all the more pleasant at intersections like 156st where it looks as if some giant mutant spider has taken over.

    I hate trolley busses so very, very much.

    And I'm not really a fan of the bus side of ETS at all, having spent 15 years suffering through hourlong hub-and-spoke bus trips that could have been done in 10 minutes by car. Today I would rather walk 30 minutes to work at -30C than spend the 27 minutes it takes me to get there by bus.

    So no, Transit, I won't show you love until you show me that you deserve it. And the reason that only 9% of trips in Edmonton are taken on public transit is because most Edmontonians agree with me.

    (sorry, but I've never vented on the transit forum before, and I thought the cloyingness of this article was a perfect opportunity )

  3. #3
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles; Athens
    Posts
    4,399

    Default

    I had a big conversation about transit in this city last night with some buddies.

    We came to the conclusion that there are some really messed up things and the system could use a complete overdesign. Specifically we wondered why there is a necessity for "Super" Expresses. Shouldn't there be a single kind of Express that connects major collector points?

    There should essentially be an overall hub and spoke theory going on. Collectors pull to transit node and expresses connect nodes. This can be supplemented with cross town 'locals' such as the existing 1 and 9, for example. At this point, since there isn't BRT and the LRT is only in certain areas, traditional busses would need to be used for service but that's fine. The kind of bus really has nothing to do with a route being express or not. It's the stops.

    The other thing we talked about was how many stops there couple with multiple bus routes stoping at every stop. Take Whyte, for example. There are multiple routes that go down the avenue and each of them stops at every single bus stop (which occurs around every block). Why not interval them or in some cases elimate some stops to speed up the route?

  4. #4
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    373

    Default

    The system needs a redesign bu the hub approach will still be needed.

    Most transit centres are no longer suburban becasue ther esidential areas have grown way beyond were they were - 30 years a go a 10 minute ride to Southgate from Westbrook to connect to downtown was fine but Westbrook was the edge of town.

    Now, we're past Ellerslie Rd. So new hubs further out need to collect people from these new areas and put them on expresses that run direct to downtown or WEM, and other employment centres.

    Until there is better control on the approval process for new subdivisions, ETS will also be a costly service to operate. Ergo, Council needs to get on board

  5. #5
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,178

    Default you have to know it's broken before you can start to fix it

    Quote Originally Posted by MylesC
    ...We came to the conclusion that there are some really messed up things and the system could use a complete overdesign...
    Myles,

    I posted in the "Monthly transit fares could jump $15" thread about a community league meeting I attended earlier this week. There were two very senior ETS representatives at that meeting.

    One of the questions that was asked - and I will have to paraphrase here - was "What is ETS doing that is new and innovative regarding the delivery of transit service within Edmonton relative to what is happening elsewhere in the country?"

    The answer - and again I will have to paraphrase - was "We are in contact with every other transit provider across the country and none of them are initiating or utilizing anything new and innovative regarding the delivery of transit service either."

    I'm afraid we might not be able to fix this because those that might be able to don't think it's broken.

  6. #6
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,642

    Default

    I agree with all points in the SEE article, but iffy about the trolley bus thing. I see its merit but needs to be more reliable because almost everyday I see those buses jump off their lines.

  7. #7
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,178

    Default Re: you have to know it's broken before you can start to fix

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor
    There were two very senior ETS representatives at that meeting.
    ...
    I'm afraid we might not be able to fix this because those that might be able to don't think it's broken.
    Perhaps if their salaries were replaced with commissions based on passenger miles....

  8. #8
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,178

    Default Re: Show Transit Some Love

    Quote Originally Posted by feepa
    Show Transit Some Love
    Five ways to shape up Edmontonís public transportation system
    What a bunch of garbage.

    This article is nothing more than socialist propaganda that tries to punish the very people who bring wealth to our city. It naturally tries to appeal to transit riders because they are the majority of SEE readers.

    1. Show me the money - I'll show you mine if you show me yours. First, I want to see a plan that I find acceptable.

    2. Main line bus routes instead of transit centres - It's not an either/or ultimatum.

    3. Tame Sprawl - Only if we can find a way to turn off the boom or prevent families.

    4. Give public transit priority treatment - But not at the cost of safety or arbitrary obstacle to other traffic.

    5. Keep the trolley system - Unsightly, expensive, unreliable. Diesel hybrids will be the best choice in the near future.

  9. #9

    Default Re: you have to know it's broken before you can start to fix

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor
    ....The answer - and again I will have to paraphrase - was "We are in contact with every other transit provider across the country and none of them are initiating or utilizing anything new and innovative regarding the delivery of transit service either."

    I'm afraid we might not be able to fix this because those that might be able to don't think it's broken.
    ...I think you've found a problem here which is greater than any debate about the fares...Transit at the highest levels is just sort of shuffling along doing a study and a community engagement process out of a can.

    Simple things can be done.
    Want a BRT? Don't hire a consultant, or go nuts paving (and I am not against careful planning here, but only pointing out that "studying" does not equal "doing anything")...anyhoo...don't hire a consultant, just pick a busy route and increase the frequency of service to match the LRT. One bus every five minutes in peak times.

    Why? It is hella cheap, can be done in an instant. A stroke of a pen.
    Why else? It is simple, and it will work.

    The biggest reasons why transit is offering a poor user experience:
    1 - wait times - if you show up a minute late for your garage, you don't have to wait another half hour for your car to show up.
    2 - excessive stopping - busses will literally stop, turn the corner and stop again, all within a bus-length of said corner, due to excessive stops
    3 - crowding and unpleasant riffraff on the bus - a symptom of too-infrequent service, and a mentality that transit is a social program rather than a civic service, and a lack of enforcement.

    An ultra-frequent route addresses wait times directly. With more frequent service, excessive stopping and overcrowding are addressed in the short term, even without streamlining the route. As demand grows on the ultra-frequent route, bus stops can be consolidated into stations, with feeder routes branching from there. The unpleasant riffraff will find less use for transit as they are displaced by more confident and civilised riders who can comport themselves without swearing, spitting, fighting, vandalising while on a transit vehicle. (and of course not just frequency of service but enforcement is important there).

    This approach is organic, incremental, flexible and adjustable, and cheap.

    OH! and innovative. So Transit as it is would never support it...

  10. #10

    Default

    I'm all in favour of keeping the trolleys. Not even because I like them though, the current vehicles especially are nothing but trouble. But because the only realistic alternative we're going to be given is diesel, and the problems with diesel are worse than the problems of modern trolleys. (Primarily health and noise, but also running costs, maintenance, and stupid garages to keep diesels warm overnight so they can start in the mornings.)

    Furthermore, if we ditch the trolley system now, it probably wouldn't be 20 years before we end up rebuilding it anyway. Demand for oil is going nowhere but up, and supply is just not going to keep up. Recall the states saying that they hoped oil sands production could be quintupled. This bodes well for us as sellers of petroleum, but not as buyers. Electricity prices will almost always be more reliable, as it can be generated in any number of ways.

    I know I've said this before somewhere, but it bears repeating because there are a lot of new members on C2E: the problem is the current fleet, not the basic technological option.

    As a technology, modern trolleys simply:

    1. are better for the health of all people who breathe

    2. cost less per km over a vehicle life if heavily utilised even at today's costs

    3. are less prone to price spikes and price trend increases both

    4. are less likely to wake people up, disturb outdoor events, or cause general irritation due to noise

    5. are less likely to lose grip on icy roads, particularly going up out of the river valley

    6. are quieter to ride in

    7. cause less road wear per passenger

    and
    8. can be practical in longer versions

    ...than any other bus (except in some cases fuel cells, but before I get into that, are there any serious believers that the current generation of fuel cells are ready to replace trolleys?)

    And compared to electric rail transit (streetcars, LRT, metros, heavy gauge rail), modern trolleys:

    1. Require no land other than that already allocated to the general vehicular stream.

    2. don't specifically require grade separations such as tunnels and overpasses (actually the LRT doesn't either, but I think generally it mixes less well with cars than modern trolleys would.)

    3. can take detours at any time, for any reason. (with battery packs)

    4. can operate during blackouts (with diesel generators)

    Merely for those reasons, I support the system over any alternative, but the keys for me are health and low noise. I urge you all to consider the merits of the basic technology. We have a system in place that Beijing for one is just now building from scratch. It is a potential advantage. All we need is to renew the fleet.

  11. #11

    Default

    lux, edmowl, and MylesC:

    I agree with all your thoughts about the greater transit system.

    Sonic Death Monkey:

    You're right. I think we should respond to the problems with the trolleys by fixing them though, not by throwing out the whole system. There are some parts of the wires that are less well designed than they should be, and the fleet are basically museum pieces unfit for display. Therefore?

    newfangled:

    I actually agree that the cables look cluttered. I just feel that the problems with diesel in particular are worse. I hope we can paint the poles nicely at least.

    Re: your other concerns with ETS, I'm all for efficient service delivery too.

  12. #12
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee
    But because the only realistic alternative we're going to be given is diesel, and the problems with diesel are worse than the problems of modern trolleys. (Primarily health and noise, but also running costs, maintenance, ...
    For the most part this would be true IF the only realistic alternative we're going to be given is diesel.

    However, the most realistic alternative we're going to be given is NOT diesel.

    The best option is what is commonly, and incorrectly, referred to as diesel-hybrid. The proper term is diesel-electric.

    As with the trolleys, in a diesel-electric the entire drive train is electric. Because the diesel is used only to top up the batteries, it is operated at a single speed regardless of acceleration, and because it is not subject to extreme variations in torque, all its parameters can be tuned to minimize noise and exhaust pollution. Some diesel-electric buses are claimed to save 75% in fuel and make less engine noise than passenger cars.

    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee
    ... stupid garages to keep diesels warm overnight so they can start in the mornings.)
    So why do the trolleys sit inside? We'd certainly hear from the passengers if they had to climb into a bus with seats at -30C.

  13. #13
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    6 degrees north of you
    Posts
    784

    Default

    When Horizon 2000 was implemented in 1997, it was done without any thoughts about trolleys. 1997 was the year trolley service began its decline to being phased out in Edmonton.
    Routes were designed so less trolleys were used, which then gave ETS less incentive to maintain the overhead, which then gave them another reason to scrap the trolleys.
    I'd like to see trolleys remain, especially on routes from Southgate
    to Northgate, and from West Edmonton Mall to Abbottsfield.
    Back in the 90s, they twinned the trolley lines on 102 ave from
    128 St to 147 St. The plan was to have an express trolley service to West Edmonton Mall. Nice plan too, but never implemented. Was a costly plan too, because stringing trolley wires isn't cheap. Horizon 2000 killed the express trolley plan.
    It's also always up to city council to decide, so the debate happens at least every 4 years. Do we keep trolleys? Do we give better bus service? Do we expand the LRT? Do we implement BRT? I wonder what our next city council will come up with

  14. #14
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles; Athens
    Posts
    4,399

    Default Re: you have to know it's broken before you can start to fix

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor
    The answer - and again I will have to paraphrase - was "We are in contact with every other transit provider across the country and none of them are initiating or utilizing anything new and innovative regarding the delivery of transit service either."
    I agree that they may not realize/think it's broken, but fixing it as I was suggesting involves nothing new or innovative. It involves pulling some stops out and looking at the current scheduling, which is more like a bureaucratic heavy mess than a transit system.

    On a note as moderator

    There is already a thread for a trolley vs. normal bus debate:

    http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum...opic.php?t=150[/b]

  15. #15

    Default

    The main problem I have with our bus system is that some routes will take 20 minutes to advance 5 blocks. This is because they don't take the direct route. They wind through all the neighbourhoods to try to pick up as many passengers as possible.

    What we need is more routes that follow the main roads up and down without deviating through residential neighbourhoods. Take 137th Ave for example. How hard is it for one bus to drive from east to west and back again all day long? Then have other routes intersect 137th Ave where people can transfer.

    I believe its called the grid system and they use it in Toronto where I found transit to be extremely convenient.

    Another advantage of this system is that you don't need to study the route maps before you leave your house in the morning. You'll be able to assume with a reasonable amount of accuracy that if this bus is driving west on this street, it will continue to drive west until the point where I need to get off.

    We could still have neighbourhood busses (using those little van type busses) to collect people in the neighbourhoods and bring them out to the main routes. These little busses can drive around in circles all day, intersecting the main routes at various points.

    How simple is that?

  16. #16

    Default

    MylesC: I'm not trying to inspire the wrath of the mods by repeating things, it's just that that old thread has a lot to slog through, and was written a long time ago C2E wise.

    IKAN104: Agreed. Transit is one area (of very few) I think we can actually look up to Toronto (except that they ditched their trolleys, of course... )

    Quote Originally Posted by dwells
    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee
    But because the only realistic alternative we're going to be given is diesel, and the problems with diesel are worse than the problems of modern trolleys. (Primarily health and noise, but also running costs, maintenance, ...
    For the most part this would be true IF the only realistic alternative we're going to be given is diesel.

    However, the most realistic alternative we're going to be given is NOT diesel.

    The best option is what is commonly, and incorrectly, referred to as diesel-hybrid. The proper term is diesel-electric.

    As with the trolleys, in a diesel-electric the entire drive train is electric. Because the diesel is used only to top up the batteries, it is operated at a single speed regardless of acceleration, and because it is not subject to extreme variations in torque, all its parameters can be tuned to minimize noise and exhaust pollution. Some diesel-electric buses are claimed to save 75% in fuel and make less engine noise than passenger cars.
    Fair enough, and I hope to see a bunch of them in Edmonton (on lighter density routes). But no matter how good diesel electric get, applying the same standard of technology to both diesel-electrics and trolleys will see the same basic outcome:

    Diesel-electrics will always be heavier, less healthy, require more maintenance, and cost more to buy.

    Both can do regenerative braking, both can store energy in batteries, both can do detours, both can accelerate on the electric motor. It's all better than pure diesel. But the diesel-electrics by the nature of depending completely on diesel fuel will require much heavier fuel tanks, generators and engines, and possibly much heavier transmisions as well.

    Not only is the additional equipment heavier than a couple pantograph poles, it costs more money and requires more on-bus space. All of this is just governed by laws of physics. Heavier means more road wear, more brake wear, and more fuel consumption, all of which cost money (granted we could also consider losses in electrical transmission, but you will still find it practically impossible for hybrids to beat trolleys on fuel consumption, as long as you hold both to the same tech specs.)

    Space used by the additional equipment either means losing space for passengers (i.e., low floors get higher and stairs or inclines get put in with safety concerns.) or increasing the size of the vehicle exterior (which again adds weight, plus a marginal amount of wind resistance, and marginal maneouvering impediment.) Additionally, it's easy to see that adding a daily use diesel system to an electrical system is going to add to maintenance costs as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by dwells
    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee
    ... stupid garages to keep diesels warm overnight so they can start in the mornings.)
    So why do the trolleys sit inside? We'd certainly hear from the passengers if they had to climb into a bus with seats at -30C.
    I'm not an expert in bus maintenance, so I will defer to anyone who is, but I would guess it is mostly related to corrosion concerns. Busses are expected to stay on the road 5 to 7 times as long as cars. Heating up the interior from -30 shouldn't take long. The heaters have to cope with the two sets of doors being opened and shut every other minute anyway.

    I'll concede though, that trolleys may also require garages. It's a good point, but I still suspect they wouldn't need to be kept as warm.

  17. #17
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,178

    Default

    JarBee,

    If health and pollution concerns are going to be raised as a supporting point for trolleys, you will have to factor in the similar costs imposed by the generating plants. I am not a trolley "fan" primarily because of the "visual pollution" and lack of route flexibility but would be quite prepared to see them as an integrated supported part of an efficient overall system.

    On the noise side, some of the most intrusive noise generated is actually the hydraulics operating the doors at the stops regardless of bus size and type.

    As to the need for garages, regardless of bus size it is likely more effecient to have them all in an "indoor" space for cleaning and maintenance and minor repairs than it would be to do try and do those outside or by shuffling them all back and forth through the night. I'm sure it's also a more comfortable and flexible working environment for the employees that have to complete that work not to be doing so in gloves and parkas and ski pants...

  18. #18
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    EDMONTON, AB
    Posts
    557

    Default

    1 thing i find intersting where I am in Germany, is how there are very few poles supporting the cambles for the streetcars. the wires are connected directly to the buildings lining the streets. I know this wouldnt work in a lot of areas of Edmonton because the buildings are set too far back.. but perhaps in Downtown?

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor
    JarBee,
    Uh...
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor
    If health and pollution concerns are going to be raised as a supporting point for trolleys, you will have to factor in the similar costs imposed by the generating plants. I am not a trolley "fan" primarily because of the "visual pollution" and lack of route flexibility but would be quite prepared to see them as an integrated supported part of an efficient overall system.
    Agreed on the last point. We really need to use them strategically to get the maximum bang for the buck. Like using them on high density routes such as WEM, Northgate, and Millwoods, at first until we can get LRT there, and then redeploying onto whatever future "junior trunk" routes we come up with. (TODs both East and West of Coronation Park for example.)

    About the first point, that was well discussed in the thread that MylesC pointed out, but the upshot was something like this:

    1. Trolleys frankly are responsible for a miniscule proportion of the electricity generated around Wabamun and Genesee. Losing the trolleys would have near zero effect on the pollution coming from power plants.

    2. Genesee puts out far less NOx and SOx than oil based generators do per kWh, and by extension, probably diesel busses as well.

    3. Genesee puts out a tiny fraction of the carcinogens that diesel exhaust does. (a study by the U.S. EPA claimed that diesel fuel emissions were responsible for perhaps 90% of cancer cases in San Francisco caused by air pollution. This being despite the fact that diesel is used for less than 20% of combustion power used around the Bay Area.)

    4. Who's to say the power isn't coming from Cloverbar, which is fueled with natural gas and thus leagues cleaner than Genesee anyway?

    and the ringer:
    5. Pollution outside the city is less harmful to large mamals (including humans obviously) than pollution right in the streets.

    With regards to visual pollution, it was pointed out previously that they're good enough for Geneva, Zurich, and Vancouver, who perenially comprise the top 3 cities in the world for livability, apparently. If they can get away with it, why couldn't we?

    Finally, for route flexibility, I presume you're refering to temporary detours due to road construction or car accidents or the like. Modern trolleys, unlike our current antiques, have battery packs, charged by regenerative braking, which can power the busses for "several blocks". (actually it's just as much up to the transit authority as anything how many batteries they specify). That takes care of most route flexibility. For long term route changes, I think it's fairly easy to see they're more flexible than LRTs, but that doesn't stop us from building them.

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor
    On the noise side, some of the most intrusive noise generated is actually the hydraulics operating the doors at the stops regardless of bus size and type.

    As to the need for garages, regardless of bus size it is likely more effecient to have them all in an "indoor" space for cleaning and maintenance and minor repairs than it would be to do try and do those outside or by shuffling them all back and forth through the night. I'm sure it's also a more comfortable and flexible working environment for the employees that have to complete that work not to be doing so in gloves and parkas and ski pants...
    Yeah, good points there too. I admit I don't know, but being able to tolerate lower temperatures all else being equal at very least implies greater flexibility with trolleys.



    Modern trolleys in Zurich.

  20. #20
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles; Athens
    Posts
    4,399

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee
    MylesC: I'm not trying to inspire the wrath of the mods by repeating things, it's just that that old thread has a lot to slog through, and was written a long time ago C2E wise.
    There are other aspects to the beginning topic of this thread and essentially we've gotten an old fashion thread jack going on now.

    There are many other aspects to transit in this city other than trolley vs regular (such as IKAN's above post show). Let's use this thread to explore those.

    I'm going to ask that trolley specific material be kept to the thread I pointed out (which will magically rise to the top again when you post in it!) or one could start a new thread as well.

  21. #21

    Default

    MylesC,

    Of course I'll comply, but just before that I'll answer your logic with mine and a couple questions: Trolleys were mentioned as a key point in the lead article, and in the subsequent few messages trolleys were singled out from the lead article for (valid) criticism. I in turn responded to that, as that's one of the most important aspects of the greater issue as a whole to me. Subsequent to that, I responded to people who responded directly to me. How can that be considered a threadjack?

    How can we speak to the greater issue if we can't speak to the details?

    And why, when the original, pure trolley thread digressed into talking about K-Cars (R.I.P.) weren't the posters then told to stop their threadjacking? Surely trolleys have more to do with this thread than K-Cars had to do with that one. (I'm not even criticising the posts I'm bringing up, I'm just using them for incredibly obvious illustration of contrast.)

    I think that threads move in their own ways. It's often the case that people will focus on only one sentence in a lead article, and pay less attention to all the rest. Further there are often threads where there are two or more aspects being debated in parallel.

    I'll now move along, as you're asking.

  22. #22
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee
    ...How can we speak to the greater issue if we can't speak to the details?...

    ...I think that threads move in their own ways. It's often the case that people will focus on only one sentence in a lead article, and pay less attention to all the rest. Further there are often threads where there are two or more aspects being debated in parallel...
    MylesC,

    On this one I have to agree with JayBee - no typo this time

    It is not uncommon for threads to carry on more than one related topic or theme in their discussions and that is not necessarily a bad thing if we are not to get too hung up in the details and miss the overriding issues or causes as a result of keeping the focus too narrow.

    In addressing this from a site management perspective, there seems to be a number of current/active transit discussions at this point in time in more than one forum and in more than one section of the site, never mind in more than one thread. There is also quite a bit of overlap in some of those discussions. That does not "take away" from any of them insomuch as it illustrates the broadbased importance of the issue and the broadbased acceptance of it being an issue coming to the fore.

    Perhaps the individual forum monitors or administration could identify these common topics and open a new forum for them and relocate them accordingly? That way, someone interested in transit or trolleys - or both - could follow one forum to catch most related threads instead of jumping between rants, raves, politics, infrastructure and transportation etc. (and trying to remember them all and in which one something in particular was said) and because it is a single forum you might find less duplication between threads.

    Ken

  23. #23

    Default

    Myles is right on here. Thread derailment is common, but there is a lot of good information in here that will be missed because the topic doesn't reflect what is actually in the thread. A new thread with links to the roots of the thread to give it context will make things easier for everyone in the future.

    As to having multiple threads about transportation all being put into one forum, it can be dangerous especially for "Rants" because usually a person's tone is different when "Ranting". It usually isn't appropriate in a a more calm and rational forum. Obviously we try and keep on top of things, but there is a lot of gray area.
    Time to grow up.

  24. #24
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles; Athens
    Posts
    4,399

    Default

    To Jay and kcantor:

    I wouldn't object to some side information. However, the entire discussion completely changed to trolley vs. traditional bus. We have a thread for it and I provided the link

    As Ceres pointed out, if people are doing a thread title search for trolleys, they won't find the information here which would be a sham as there is good stuff in the points.

    We've had mega threads over on SSP and I'd be hesitant to do that here as it can effectively kill discussion. Everyone posts in one giant mega thread and a lot of information is lost, people rant, etc.

  25. #25
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    EDMONTON, AB
    Posts
    557

    Default

    I was talking to some poeple from the town im staying in in germany about why there were rails half covered with asphalt in the middle of some of their streets, and they said it was because in the 70s busses seemed the way to go, so they got rid of a chunk of their trolley network. I was wondering if Edmonton actually took up the rails of its old streetcar system, or if they are still lying under asphalt and concrete, perhaps waiting to be used?

  26. #26
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    330

    Default Re: Show Transit Some Love

    I don't hear much bitching about these lines fouling up the view in: Vancouver, Seattle, San Francisco....

    Quote Originally Posted by newfangled
    Do you know what ruins my peaceful walk to work each morning? It's looking up and seeing a sky that is full of all the cabling that is required to serve those trolley busses.

    102ave by the RAM should be a lovely tree-lined boulevard, but instead it's enclosed by hideous cabling.

    And as inviting as Stoney Plain road is with all of it's pawnshops and cashstores, it's made all the more pleasant at intersections like 156st where it looks as if some giant mutant spider has taken over.

    I hate trolley busses so very, very much.

  27. #27
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles; Athens
    Posts
    4,399

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ike9126
    I was wondering if Edmonton actually took up the rails of its old streetcar system, or if they are still lying under asphalt and concrete, perhaps waiting to be used?
    They were removed during the LRT construction along Jasper.

  28. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MylesC
    Quote Originally Posted by ike9126
    I was wondering if Edmonton actually took up the rails of its old streetcar system, or if they are still lying under asphalt and concrete, perhaps waiting to be used?
    They were removed during the LRT construction along Jasper.
    When they were repaving Kingsway Avenue last year they remade the center median strips. The old streetcar ties were still there. My father told me that they made the line out to the Northwest but when the city grew in other directions they never ran streetcars down the line.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  29. #29
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    6 degrees north of you
    Posts
    784

    Default

    They could've still used the tracks on Kingsway for Calder
    and North Edmonton, but didn't. They used 124 St instead..

    Municipality authorized 1893 (NWT) to construct and/or operate tramways. Authorized 1908 (Alta) to operate tramways in Edmonton and for 80 miles (128 km) in any direction. This included operation to St. Paul, St. Albert, Morinville, Lacombe, Namao, Athabasca Landing, Fort Saskatchewan, and Daysland. (None of this was ever done). Acquired 26 August 1908 the Strathcona Radial Tramway Company Limited (incorporated 08 October 1904, NWT) which held, from 30 September 1907, an exclusive franchise to operate tramways in the City of Strathcona. In addition to the cities of Edmonton and Strathcona, service was also extended to the villages of North Edmonton and Calder. ERR name changed to ETS 1946.

  30. #30

    Default LRT cars have no more room for passengers

    LRT cars have no more room for passengers

    Wed, April 18, 2007
    By FRANK LANDRY


    It's a first for Edmonton - LRT cars so full, there's no room for any more passengers.

    Dave Geake, director of light rail transit, said that during peak hours trains are doing "pass-ups" at LRT stations.

    "The trains stop at all the stops, but what happens is we don't have enough capacity for everyone to get on," Geake told Sun Media.

    "That's a first. We haven't had pass-ups typically on Edmonton's system for regular service until this year."

    It's a trend that was first spotted in September 2006, according to a city report.

    "This has not occurred in previous years and is a reflection of the increase in ridership over the past couple of years," states the document.

    The city, which operates 37 LRT cars, has another 26 on order to coincide with the southern expansion of the line.

    They'll be arriving between May 2008 and July 2009.

    The LRT line will run as far south as Century Park by the end of 2009.

    Transit officials are asking council to buy another 11 - at a cost of $4.4 million each - so the system can handle more riders and avoid pass-ups.

    Geake said riders tend not to get on a car when it's filled up to 72% of its "crush-load" - which means about 160 people are already onboard.

    The cars seat 64 riders.

    "There are so many people they don't want to get on," Geake said. Train cars are now operating, on average, between 69% and 85% capacity.

    Ridership on the existing LRT line increased 3% in 2005 and another 8% in 2006, according to city figures. That growth trend is expected to continue.

    Transit manager Charles Stolte said he believes transit ridership is going up because the city is growing and because the cost of operating a vehicle has increased significantly.

    "The cost savings for riding public transportation speak for themselves," Stolte said.

    The matter is expected to go before council next week.

    --30--

  31. #31
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles; Athens
    Posts
    4,399

    Default

    Well, add to this the fact that many people in Edmonton can't figure out what the heck to do with a busy train.

    I can't believe the amount of people that just merrily stand in the doorway instead of pushing into the aisles, etc, etc.

    BUT, the seats really don't help. I much prefer a system such as London's which has seating only along the edges of the car or Paris which is very similar to ours only the seats flip up to allow more standing room at peak hours.

    And for heaven's sake...if it seems full...SQUEEZE!!

  32. #32
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    City Of Champions
    Posts
    3,854

    Default

    great to see.

  33. #33

    Default Show Transit Some Love

    Some of the statements in Angela's article are not factual.

    1. Show me the money
    For example, Kevin Brown states "We have to be able to commit the bucks up front. We have to see it as a valuable investment and follow though," says Brown. Last year, transit ridership went up 5 per cent but funding only increased by 2.5 per cent."

    According to the Office of the City Auditor, operating costs are rising at an ever increasing rate, averaging 9.2%/year and the Tax Levy is increasing 10.5%/year! The Auditor also states that shared services add another 25% to those total costs. On capital costs, the costs have risen some 22%/year (from $46.2M in 2001 to $126.2M in 2006) Combined operating and capital costs for 2007 are $382.6 million which is 24.8% higher than the 2006 budget of $306.6M.

    Clearly these costs are not sustainable and serious changes must be made to improve service and contain costs. ETS is sucking so much funds, there are not enough money left for more police officers, ambulances, snow removal, pothole repair, street cleaning, neighbourhood infrastructure rebuilding and many other services.

    Another quote:
    "Thatís one of the beauties of the LRT. Youíre not completely stuck once itís in place. You can add stations later."
    This statement has not proven to be true. In 30 years, ETS has not added one intermediate station on the system. They wouldn't even put in a station at Harry Ainley.

    2. Main line bus routes instead of transit centres
    There have been many calls for a revamped system based upon arterial roads rather than the slower neighbourhood collector system and hubs that are currently in use. We need public discussion on these points.

    3. Tame Sprawl
    Can't disagree with these principles. We should have limited growth to within the ring road when we had a chance

    4. Give public transit priority treatment
    Some things are doable, Some of the high tech systems are questionable on their value and return on investment

    5. Keep the trolley system
    Trolley systems are more urban friendly, quiet and are economical to run. Let's keep supporting trolleys and encourage system growth instead of buying expensive hybrids.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  34. #34
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,642

    Default Re: Show Transit Some Love

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT
    "Thatís one of the beauties of the LRT. Youíre not completely stuck once itís in place. You can add stations later."
    This statement has not proven to be true. In 30 years, ETS has not added one intermediate station on the system. They wouldn't even put in a station at Harry Ainley.
    Nice try, but Harry Ainley is kitty-corner from the Southgate Mall transit centre so why do they need their own?

  35. #35

    Default Re: Show Transit Some Love

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT
    "Thatís one of the beauties of the LRT. Youíre not completely stuck once itís in place. You can add stations later."
    This statement has not proven to be true. In 30 years, ETS has not added one intermediate station on the system. They wouldn't even put in a station at Harry Ainley.
    Nice try, but Harry Ainley is kitty-corner from the Southgate Mall transit centre so why do they need their own?
    ^ The "poor" students at Ainley make their way over to Southgate at lunch and their spares in droves with no problems...

  36. #36

    Default Re: Show Transit Some Love

    The "poor" students at Ainley make their way over to Southgate at lunch and their spares in droves with no problems
    Read again, you both missed the point. ETS has not added one intermediate station on the system in 30 years. Stations on the South LRT line are up to 3 kilometers apart. This makes it difficult to walk to a station that is so far away even if the tracks go by your home. Linehaul systems like LRT cannot put stations close together otherwise the whole system slows down. Edmonton's LRT runs at an average of only 32 kph.

    The other point made was that costs are rising far faster than inflation.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  37. #37

    Default Re: Show Transit Some Love

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT
    The "poor" students at Ainley make their way over to Southgate at lunch and their spares in droves with no problems
    Read again, you both missed the point. ETS has not added one intermediate station on the system in 30 years. Stations on the South LRT line are up to 3 kilometers apart. This makes it difficult to walk to a station that is so far away even if the tracks go by your home. Linehaul systems like LRT cannot put stations close together otherwise the whole system slows down. Edmonton's LRT runs at an average of only 32 kph.

    The other point made was that costs are rising far faster than inflation.
    LRT - rapid station to station
    Bus - local feeder.
    Where would/why do we need another station on the current line

  38. #38

    Default Re: Show Transit Some Love

    LRT - rapid station to station
    Bus - local feeder.
    Where would/why do we need another station on the current line
    If we follow your line of thinking, LRT stations should be far apart, are you suggesting only 2 or three stations for an entire region like the HST study suggests for the entire west end?



    The further the stations are apart the less user friendly it is. Your suggestion is to wait for a bus and then transfer to LRT. Once near their destination, they get off LRT and have to transfer to another bus. This increases trip times and missing one transfer or the LRT can mean 10 -15 minutes more travel time and being late for work. If you don't believe me just watch how many people run from the bus every day to catch the LRT before it leaves. To avoid Bus-LRT-Bus and take one bus all the way to the destination, may or may not be as fast but much less stressful. If LRT stations are closer together then you can avoid waiting at cold bus stops.



    In transportation jargon this is called the "first mile" and the "last mile" problem. How to get people to the linehaul mass transit system.
    Many people will drive and park their car at a LRT station rather than take a bus which means bigger parking lots (remember the Southgate fight) and once in a car they find the park'n'ride lot full and just continue to drive to work. If you don't belive me then why is the transportation department widening Fort Road that runs right by the Belvedere Station???

    Wouldnít be nice if public transit waited for you, rather than you waiting for public transit?


    In Edmonton we have been told there are only two solutions to fix transit, more buses or more LRT. There is a third option called PRT (Personal Rapid Transit)

    Check out the new web site call Edmontonians for PRT
    http://www.edmontonprt.com/index.htm




    www.atsltd.co.uk


    www.atsltd.co.uk



    www.taxi2000.com
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  39. #39
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,178

    Default back to "show transit some love"...

    Quote Originally Posted by MylesC
    To Jay and kcantor:

    I wouldn't object to some side information. However, the entire discussion completely changed to trolley vs. traditional bus. We have a thread for it and I provided the link

    As Ceres pointed out, if people are doing a thread title search for trolleys, they won't find the information here which would be a sham as there is good stuff in the points.

    We've had mega threads over on SSP and I'd be hesitant to do that here as it can effectively kill discussion. Everyone posts in one giant mega thread and a lot of information is lost, people rant, etc.
    MylesC,

    To get right back to the opening "topic" for this thread, I would be prepared to "Show Transit Some Love" when transit is prepared to provide some respect for the money they spend and some effort to provide the city with some value for it.

    From a note forwarded earlier this afternoon to Charles Stolte, Manager of Edmonton Transit:

    "Charles,

    Further to your [following] e-mail of last week, I had arranged with a number of Riverdalians to attend a meeting with you. I am still waiting to hear from your offices.

    Earlier today however, I did have the attached letter from you forwarded to me from someone who still has access to information posted on the Riverdale website.

    I guess all I can do at this time is to quote others:

    "According to the Office of the City Auditor, operating costs are rising at an ever increasing rate, averaging 9.2%/year and the Tax Levy is increasing 10.5%/year! The Auditor also states that shared services add another 25% to those total costs. On capital costs, the costs have risen some 22%/year (from $46.2M in 2001 to $126.2M in 2006) Combined operating and capital costs for 2007 are $382.6 million which is 24.8% higher than the 2006 budget of $306.6M."

    [photo of more than two dozen runners on street pavement]

    If the city can extend bus routes through residential neighborhoods and take up roadways like the one in this picture where the actual pavement is shared with community services as part of our river valley bike and walking trail system;

    If the city can extend those bus routes and incur the added cost to provide snow clearing and salting and sanding on nine city blocks of top of bank roads (the ones most likely to leach into the river itself);

    If the city can extend bus routes along streets that do not want it and past homes that will not use it;

    If the city can incur the added cost of running two small buses along an entire bus route when it is currently adequately served by one large bus providing the same seating capacity (plus standing room capacity which the small buses do not have);

    If the city can add no parking restrictions on streets that already suffer from restricted parking;

    If the city wants to extend transit service through a community like this and still avoid one of the largest potential beneficiaries (Riverdale School);

    If the city can take parking away from residences that require it not just for their use but who have business licenses issued by the city based on being able to provide on street client parking;

    If the city can provide relaxations to on site parking requirements for new developments such as the NetZero duplex partly based on the limited existing on street parking and then take away large portions of that already restricted parking;

    If the city can do all of this in order to change one single ďbus stopĒ that is already serviced by DATS to add buses that are not capable of serving those DATS users (by their own written acknowledgement) who now use that stop;

    If the city is prepared to do all of this with absolutely no indication of any actual potential whatsoever for increased ridership;

    If this is indicative of how the city manages its overall transit system, no wonder my property tax news today is what it is... and its no damn wonder you still can't make it work.

    Ken Cantor"


    If anyone would like a copy of the referenced "attached letter" and the included photo or any other background on this issue (and there is lots), I would be pleased to forward same on request.

  40. #40
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Red Deer
    Posts
    2,561

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT

    When they were repaving Kingsway Avenue last year they remade the center median strips. The old streetcar ties were still there. My father told me that they made the line out to the Northwest but when the city grew in other directions they never ran streetcars down the line.
    I was looking around the Edmonton archive photos and came across these photos of the original paving of Portage (Kingsway) Avenue around 1912. I believe they were taken closer to the southeast end, near Vic. Not sure if those are rails in the median in the second photo.








  41. #41
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Red Deer
    Posts
    2,561

    Default

    One thing I should point out is that if it was a potential streetcar route, the rails would've been on both sides of a central sets of power poles (as per all the photos I saw from the archives). If it was one sets of ties, then it may not have been a route, and I don't think it would've been a rail line as there were no plans that I've seen using Portage as a right-of-way.

    Edit: Now that I looked at the photos again after typing this, they do look like 2 sets of rails on either side of the center (second photo).

  42. #42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TerryH
    I was looking around the Edmonton archive photos and came across these photos of the original paving of Portage (Kingsway) Avenue around 1912. I believe they were taken closer to the southeast end, near Vic. Not sure if those are rails in the median in the second photo.
    They had better vision of transit then, than 100 years later
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  43. #43
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    6 degrees north of you
    Posts
    784

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TerryH
    One thing I should point out is that if it was a potential streetcar route, the rails would've been on both sides of a central sets of power poles (as per all the photos I saw from the archives). If it was one sets of ties, then it may not have been a route, and I don't think it would've been a rail line as there were no plans that I've seen using Portage as a right-of-way.

    Edit: Now that I looked at the photos again after typing this, they do look like 2 sets of rails on either side of the center (second photo).

    Kingsway Ave, or Portage Ave as it was known by a 100 yrs ago,
    was a potential streetcar route. They laid the rails, but never
    connected them to other rails anywhere. So it never became
    a streetcar route.
    The same as the grand junction at 109 st/Jasper ave. It was
    installed so a streetcar going any direction could turn left,
    turn right, or go straight. So it had a branch to go north on
    109 st too. Again, the northbound part was never used.

  44. #44
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton - Blue Quill
    Posts
    3,061

    Default

    I wonder if any of the rails are still in place, having been paved over several times since the streetcars system was shut down. I seem to recall seeing that happen.
    Fly Edmonton first. Support EIA

  45. #45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 24karat
    I wonder if any of the rails are still in place, having been paved over several times since the streetcars system was shut down. I seem to recall seeing that happen.
    Rails were gone decades ago and sold for scrap. The last of the ties were ripped up two summers ago when they fixed Kingsway.

    The route is not high density as it was originally intended to be because the airport grew during WWII.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  46. #46
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Red Deer
    Posts
    2,561

    Default

    There probably wasn't the need for the line up Kingsway as there was more density down Jasper and up 124th to 118th Ave (as shown by the photos).

    There was a major subdivision plan that would've made the streetcar route very useful but much of it wasn't built (1/4 of it became the airport).

  47. #47
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Red Deer
    Posts
    2,561

    Default

    Right now, I'm going through the Edmonton Bulletin to find any info on the streetcar routes and why Kingsway was abandoned. May take a while, though.

  48. #48
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton - Blue Quill
    Posts
    3,061

    Default

    Good - I'm looking forward to your report.
    Fly Edmonton first. Support EIA

  49. #49
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    6 degrees north of you
    Posts
    784

    Default

    I think that issue is discussed in the book "Edmonton's
    Electric Transit". I have a copy somewhere, but in my last
    move, I think it got put into our storage unit.
    The library carries it though, so if anyone visits the library
    sometime soon, maybe they can find the book and look it up

  50. #50
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Red Deer
    Posts
    2,561

    Default

    Without any access to the archives, it's hard to find any info. I tried looking up "Edmonton Radial Railway" but, for the most part, there's only links to the society (which only has its own history). Anything beyond that only brings up a basic history of the system itself.

  51. #51
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles; Athens
    Posts
    4,399

    Default

    You can always try phoning the archives and see what kind of remote help they can give you.
    LA today, Athens tomorrow. I miss E-town.

  52. #52
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Red Deer
    Posts
    2,561

    Default

    I'm only looking just for the heck it (I enjoy a challenge). Considering all that went on to get to that point, it's also interesting to see the process, the politics and how it affected the city.

    So far, after getting up to March, 1907, I've come across the original announcement of the streetcar routes (March 8th). The same day that the announcement was published a full page real estate ad was also published with the caption: "Street Cars to Bellevue". It also touted "Electric Light, Telephones, Water Works, Sewer and Street Cars" along with a $15,000 residence to be built that summer and "Many prosperous business men will build this season."

  53. #53
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Red Deer
    Posts
    2,561

    Default

    I'm probably sure that the earliest the rails were put down on Kingsway was the spring/summer of 1913. That's because the Hudson's Bay Co. still had ownership of a large chunk of their reserve. It wasn't until somewhere in 1912 that they decided to release some land, which was surveyed and registered in January of 1913. I also doubt that they were put down in 1914 as that's when the paving took place (not 1912 as I stated previously).

    I'm guessing the reason is that World War I started somewhere in 1914 and the boom that was hitting the city ceased as able men went off to war. I'm going to assume that it became cheaper to pave than to put up the poles and wires and bring in new streetcars.

    As an aside, if anyone wants to see what the subdivision of what was 1st St. to 21st St. and Churchill Ave. to Alberta Ave. was to look like, send me a PM and I can e-mail the legal plans (7450 AH and 7451 AH).

  54. #54
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Millwoods
    Posts
    65

    Default Map

    Here is one map that does show some routes within Edmonton and going to St Albert

    Edmonton Interurban Railway

    http://railways-atlas.tapor.ualberta...s/Maps-12-9-4/
    Ronald Palmer

  55. #55

    Default

    Expanding on this thread’s 10 yr old last post with info compiled 7 yrs later in 2014:

    Edmonton Interurban Railway
    | #LostYEG: Lost Edmonton


    Terminus: 124 Street & 132 Ave
    124 Street & 137 Ave
    131 Street & 137 Ave
    131 Street & 145 Ave
    127 Street
    St. Albert Trail crossing
    170 Street & 145 Avenue
    Grandin Road
    St. Anne Street (formerly St. Jean Baptiste Street) & St. Thomas Street
    Edmonton Street & St. Thomas Street (note: Edmonton Street no longer exists)
    Edmonton Street & St. Michael Street
    Piron/Perron Street & St. Michael Street
    Terminus: Piron/Perron Street & St. Anne Street

    https://lostyeg.wordpress.com/2014/0...urban-railway/
    Last edited by KC; 24-12-2017 at 08:42 PM.

  56. #56
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,485

    Default







    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  57. #57
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,415

    Default

    Rode the 6006 bus today. It's brand new, reminds me of a bus I rode in Toronto years ago. Not sure if it's electric or what but I don't think it's diesel

  58. #58

    Default

    Bus looks oddly small.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  59. #59

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GenWhy? View Post
    Bus looks oddly small.
    It's a small bus to run on community routes, not regular or express routes.
    Giving less of a damn than everÖ Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  60. #60

    Default

    ^ wow, you must be one of those rocket scientists I hear people talking about.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •