Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 299

Thread: Edmonton BRT

  1. #1
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles; Athens
    Posts
    4,399

    Default Edmonton BRT

    http://www.edmontonbrt.ca/

    Interesting. Even with a cute little video saying how great BRT is.

    Hopefully this isn't at the expense of LRT expansion...oh, wait. The West BRT line will do us for the next 40 year, right?

  2. #2
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,432
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MylesC

    Hopefully this isn't at the expense of LRT expansion...oh, wait. The West BRT line will do us for the next 40 year, right?
    I hope not, but my stomach says otherwise.

    [rant mode on]The 87th wLRT route, no matter how much people have tired to spoon feed me that it is the best and most point to point blah blah blah blah blah blah, will be completely delayed by this piecemeal and stopgap solution. Hello Yellowhead/Gateway band-aid hub cap store, stop light ridden solutions...

    With no explanation on why our LRT costs are hyperinflated compared to other cities, and with this desire to shove the LRT down 87th and to placate the residents of Lauirer Heights by tunnelling and further increasing the costs by 10x with boring, this looks more and more like the final "solution". All this does is provide an out for those who balk at the current LRT costs and think that they can avoid doing this until we can "afford" it, as inflation takes over and it becomes no more affordable.

    If it wasn't for WEM (22+ million visitors a year folks), then BRT = maybe. However, the #1 tourist attraction in the province needs to be served with a high volume solution, not some stop-light enhanced uber-bus. If you are going to build dedicated lanes for this, then build the freaking track ROW. Same area, and absorb the costs now. If you are NOT going to build dedicated lanes, then all the stop light priority in the freaking world will not get me there any faster as the cluster f...er...bad drivers on 87th avenue will block, stop, clog and get into accidents, and then your pretty uber-bus is stuck in the same jam that I am in, but I am not squished next to some goof with dragon breath - I'm in my own cocoon listening to my music and enjoying the company of those I chose to sit with. Queuing lanes won’t help this, unless they are planning on making the entire stretch one long queuing lane. Have these planners ever DRIVEN 87th at rush hour?

    Nope, this line will NOT get me out of my car.[/rant mode off]

    This has been my fear ever since this BRT to west ed thing came out...it is a cop out from building what should have been built 20 years ago – the LRT line to WEM. 40 years my a...

    I can see BRT working in other areas, even in the east side of the city. BRT to St Albert, yes. BRT to Sherwood Forest – yes. To Leduc, Airport, and Nisku, sure. BRT to the #1 tourist attraction in the province and also on what I guarantee will become one of the most travelled transit corridors in the city – ARE YOU FREAKING NUTS???????
    Since calm logic doesn't work, I guess it is time to employ sarcasm. ...and before you call me an a-hole...remember, I am a Dick.

  3. #3
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    St. Albert
    Posts
    1,987

    Default

    Richard,
    why don't you quit beating around the bush and tell us what you really think.

  4. #4
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,432
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default



    It makes me laugh as cities with BRT are taking them out now on the high volume routes, and we are planning on putting one in???? Another case of how we think 20 years behind the times in our transportation department. Our forefathers had it right in the 70's, and with some minor improvements, that plan applies today. They weren't stupid.
    Since calm logic doesn't work, I guess it is time to employ sarcasm. ...and before you call me an a-hole...remember, I am a Dick.

  5. #5
    C2E Super Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Saskatchewan
    Posts
    1,329

    Default

    At the start of the video they showed other cities around the world using BRT.

    I didn't count, but I think it was around 10 cities or so that they pointed out??

    What they didn't show was that the rest of the planets' populated and developed cities, hundreds of them, use rail. Heck, even the 10 or so cities they looked at probably have much more developed rail systems than Edmonton.

    It will take me a long time to warm up to something like this.

    Only thing I liked was that at least the buses looked kinda cool

    Chump

  6. #6

    Default

    Bus Rapid Transit pitched to speed long commutes

    Liane Faulder, The Edmonton Journal
    Published: Sunday, September 17, 2006

    EDMONTON - Experts and ordinary Edmontonians alike agree traffic congestion is a growing problem in Edmonton.
    But whether a new, beefed-up bus service will solve the problem is debatable, according to visitors to Saturday's open house on proposed bus-system upgrades in the city's southwest.
    The upgrades are known as Bus Rapid Transit, or BRT. The open house, held at the Saville Sports Centre, focused on the first stage of the proposal -- how to better move transit users from Lewis Estates in the city's far west end to the south LRT, currently under construction in the Belgravia area.
    BRT is designed to move suburban commuters more quickly than cars, using a combination of transit improvements such as expanded bus lanes, new technology to give buses an edge at traffic lights, and bigger, better buses.
    The BRT proposals, due to go before council in the spring, are a way to improve transit service more quickly than waiting for more LRT lines to criss-cross the city, according to Brice Stephenson, the city's manager of transit planning.
    "We are struggling to keep up with growth," Stephenson said.
    "We never expected to be able to build our way out of congestion and it's becoming more important to have good transit systems so people have alternatives."
    Stephenson said BRT will eventually operate in all quadrants of the city, and the key is to make buses more reliable and faster so that people will want to leave their cars at home.
    BRT has more buses with fewer stops than conventional routes and a more efficient way to load passengers. As high-technology buses with global positioning systems approach a given intersection, they will be able to signal the light to stay green for longer, avoiding time-consuming stops at red lights and left-turn lanes.
    Enhanced bus lanes will see buses skirting clogged traffic at key intersections such as 170th St. and 87th Ave.
    Riverbend residents John and Sandy Kulig came to the open house because they are thinking of moving and want to explore transit offerings closer to the city's core. They are tired of fighting traffic and note it takes longer and longer to take their nine-year-old son from their home to the west end soccer centre. The Kuligs, who are in favour of BRT, regularly take transit downtown to avoid traffic and hefty parking fees.
    "We're not a quaint town of 250,000 anymore," John said. "We're a big metropolis and we've got to think creatively."
    Transit consultant Hassan Shaheen told open house visitors that, in the beginning, the $20 million first stage west BRT will shave roughly five minutes off a 30-minute car commute. But he says bus trip times will become more attractive as the congestion in Edmonton increases.
    "Things are not going to get better on the traffic side, but they will get better on the transit side," said Shaheen.
    But Belgravia resident Gwen Berdan questioned whether a five-minute time saving will be enough to encourage more transit use and suggests more park and ride options would be a better idea.
    "I see nothing that will make more people ride this," she said.
    Parkallen dweller Gary Kriviak feels positive about BRT, which would run more frequently than regular buses. He said BRT would make the downtown commute more predictable and thereby encourage transit use.
    "We should have a consistently realistic travel time, whereas it can be variable and uncertain right now," he said.
    Shaheen said BRT should be up and running within five years. [email protected]

    BRT FACT BOX

    - 400 park-and-ride spaces will be built in Lewis Estates.

    - BRT uses low emission technology.

    - Regular buses travel at speeds of 15 to 20 kilometres per hour in the city. With BRT, buses travel 25 to 30 kmh.

    - BRT improvements will see buses using expanded shoulders on the Quesnell bridge to bypass traffic.

    © The Edmonton Journal 2006
    Edmonton first, everything else second.

  7. #7
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    City Of Champions
    Posts
    3,854

    Default

    BRT go away!

  8. #8
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    The Big E
    Posts
    1,205

    Default

    The only reason I see where BRT should be develpoed is when it may become impractical to install LRT tracks, like in SE Edmonton. (though I'm not sure if that's really the case!)

    To WEM, it should be LRT, not BRT. Period. Sheesh.

    While, yes, I see a lot of ranting and howls of anger over the so-called 40 year wait for LRT to WEM - and I'm probably just as mad as Richard about this. IMO, WLRT is most likely to likely come a lot sooner than that, especially if the city keeps growing the way it has for the last few years. Especially after NLRT gets built. I'm talking within 10-15 years, maybe sooner.

    You see, city priorities do change, and also look at rising construction costs. I'm sure it's going to be a lot cheaper to get WLRT done up ASAP rather than put half-assed measure in place and wait 3--40 years to put in a proper LRT line.

    Back in the late 1980s/early 1990s (I know, Edmonton wasn't exactly booming then, LOL!) I remember how people were saying/getting the impression that ANY LRT expansion beyond University Station was likely not until after 2010-2015 or even later. This persisted until around 2000, when the city council voted to get moving with actual plans to get started on SLRT.

  9. #9

    Default

    Only 20m for BRT. I would think the busway bridge over Belgravia would cost that on its own. Oh wait, that is in the LRT budget.

  10. #10
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,385

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS


    It makes me laugh as cities with BRT are taking them out now on the high volume routes, and we are planning on putting one in???? Another case of how we think 20 years behind the times in our transportation department. Our forefathers had it right in the 70's, and with some minor improvements, that plan applies today. They weren't stupid.
    /\ Not quite true. In fact there are many municipalities adopting BRT's as they don't have the funds to build super subway and LRT lines. York Region is one of them.

    BRT has it's place and is a very good means of moving larger volumes of passengers to their destination.

    However, an LRT to WEM via U of A and downtown is something that is needed.....more than most people know.

  11. #11

    Default

    I'm not 100% against the use of something like a bus rapid transit system. We could reconfigure roads make way for a BRT system but there is absolutely NO reason to purchase new busses that try to look like an LRT. Our existing busses (especially the accordion busses) will do the job. Purchase new busses to replace all the old ones.

    An LRT line needs to go from downtown to WEM, BRT can go from WEM to Spruce Grove & Stony Plain. I will be disappointed if we use a BRT from downtown to WEM.
    Edmonton first, everything else second.

  12. #12
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,432
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisD
    /\ Not quite true. In fact there are many municipalities adopting BRT's as they don't have the funds to build super subway and LRT lines. York Region is one of them.

    BRT has it's place and is a very good means of moving larger volumes of passengers to their destination.

    However, an LRT to WEM via U of A and downtown is something that is needed.....more than most people know.
    I know what you are tryint to say here ChrisD, but it is quite true when the "darling" of BRT cited by the city (once again Ottawa rears its transit head) is removing these on the high volume routes and replacing it with LRT. Ottawa is a better Edmonton comparison than York. ...and I didn't say that BRT didn't have a place (along Groat to St. Snobville or Baseline to Sherwood "Robin Hood called and wants his trademark back" Park), but York doesn't have WEM, and if this line is supposed to help WEM to U of A - HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    What did the above article calim - a 5 minute time savings? Yeah, like THAT will get me out of the Avalanche. 5 minute transit savings yet I lose that in getting to the park and ride, finding a spot, waiting for the BRT (already now I've hit 15 minutes), and then dolt crackerjack-box driver gets into an accident on the Quensel and voila - late for work. In the Av, I leave when I want, leave work when I need to, and if there is a jam, I listen to MY radio.

    Nope - zero, zilch, nada, zippo reason for me to give up my car. ...and I AM their target audience. Give me a guaranteed ROW along the ENTIRE way and high volume and high capacity service along this heavily travelled route, then we'll talk.

    Yes, I am in a pissy mood on this one because I am sick and tired of this city and directionless province dilly-dallying around crucial issues in the name of "cost avoidance" - especially when it comes to traffic. The Yellowhead is 20+years behind schedule, Gateway or ANY south entrance is 30+ years late, 97th Street and a north side-DT access is in a similar boat. West end access is another Charlie Foxtrot. Then there is the AHD. The AHD overpass over the Yellowhead all brabd new and such - but lo and behold - TRAFFIC FREAKING LIGHTS. There is the space for free flow access in ALL directions, but we seem to be on a path of AHD = Yellowhead part II. Greaaaaaaaat. How long do we have to wait before we get that changed - 60 years? ...and please don't give me this "when volumes warrant" stuff. The volumes on the Yellowhead and Gateway have warranted this for a long time now. AHD will warrant this in 5 years - especially since the northwest is grwoing leaps and bounds and that part of the world now has fast access to YEG.

    Do it right or don't do it at all. BRT on this route is not stop gap, it is fool hardy and a waste of our money. BRT it to the Park or the 'bert....maybe YEG. Enough of this "partly pregnant" approach.
    Since calm logic doesn't work, I guess it is time to employ sarcasm. ...and before you call me an a-hole...remember, I am a Dick.

  13. #13
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,385

    Default

    Time is one component, however there are a myriad of other factors that will have an influence on who decides to use transit. These other factors include traffic congestion and costs. Costs associated with gas and parking have a big influence on commuters decision-making.

    Just b/c the BRT won't work for you, doesn't mean it wont be a viable option for others. Your perspective does not represent the majority.

  14. #14
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,530

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    I know what you are tryint to say here ChrisD, but it is quite true when the "darling" of BRT cited by the city (once again Ottawa rears its transit head) is removing these on the high volume routes and replacing it with LRT.
    I don't think Ottawa is replacing BRT with LRT because BRT sucks or something like that, but because that was the overall plan: start up the BRT with all of the right-of-ways, exclusive roads, proof-of-payment zones and whatnot, and then lay down the LRT tracks on the BRT routes once the funding is there. I get the impression that Edmonton wants to do likewise.

    I guess it depends on what one thinks BRT is or what it should be: it's either a public bus system on steroids, or it's an LRT that uses buses instead of trains.

  15. #15
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,153

    Default

    I still think taking the lrt under Jasper Ave, across groat road on a lower bridge and connecting museum with a station and then going above ground around 142 st is the ideal solution. It is a large amount of tunnelling, but so is 87th ave and it also eliminates a massive bridge, for a smaller one and avoids the inevitable battle with the residents of Laurier.

  16. #16
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    304

    Default

    I too am against BRT to West Ed. Sadly, according to that website (http://www.edmontonbrt.ca), it appears that the city is convinced that this is the way to go.

  17. #17
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles; Athens
    Posts
    4,399

    Default

    Webpages put up by the Transportation Dept don't necessarily mean the city.

    I suggest that as many people as possible either get in touch with their councilors.

    I personally could be convinced that BRT has a place in the transit hierarchy. It was already suggested that it would ideal for the SE quadrant of the city which would be hard to push an LRT ROW through.

    However, BRT shouldn't be a replacement for LRT. Edmonton transit keeps quoting the example of Ottawa, but Ottawa is currently building their LRT!!!

  18. #18
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThomasH
    Liane Faulder, The Edmonton Journal
    Published: Sunday, September 17, 2006







    BRT FACT BOX

    - 400 park-and-ride spaces will be built in Lewis Estates.

    - BRT uses low emission technology.

    - Regular buses travel at speeds of 15 to 20 kilometres per hour in the city. With BRT, buses travel 25 to 30 kmh.

    - BRT improvements will see buses using expanded shoulders on the Quesnell bridge to bypass traffic.

    © The Edmonton Journal 2006
    How is using low emmission technology part of Bus Rapid Transit? From any defition of BRT that I have ever I could burn moist pig turd and still be brt.

    The 1st stage price tag of 20m cannot include new busses, so are all our old busses "low emmission technology"

    Excellent journalism.

  19. #19

    Default

    After I watched the video on the BRT site I was struck by how often they try to highlight the connection between BRT and LRT. That is, 'BRT is like LRT only cheaper'. While I certainly think there can be comparisons if you have separate ROWs, this seems a bit disingenous given what is proposed for West BRT. The West BRT runs almost entirely in normal traffic lanes along 87ave. They are planning to have bus only lanes on part of fox drive, Belgravia and across the Quesnell (after expansion of the bridge).

    Also, the video mentioned that GPS technology means that BRT stations will have displays counting down the time to the next bus. I like this feature and I think the LRT could do with it.

  20. #20
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,688

    Default

    In the right locations and over a great enough distance BRT can be a good thing. I took a BRT or something like it when I was in Los Angeles a couple years ago. It was efficiant and quick, especially cause from where we caught the bus to downtown LA was quite a distance away. My one memory of it though was a nice bus with not too many people on it flying by traffic jam after traffic jam. They do love their cars in LA.

    Now with all that said. BRT has it's place and as many to most have said, it's place is not to WEM, that's the job of the LRT. BRT I think can be used in places where there isn't enough ridership for an LRT station and for long distances but the city of Edmonton should be placing their primary focus on the proper expansion of the LRT line here in Edmonton.

  21. #21
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,432
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisD

    Just b/c the BRT won't work for you, doesn't mean it wont be a viable option for others. Your perspective does not represent the majority.
    From the feedback I am reading, this opinion does seem to be in the majority. Is there a majority that you can quote that thinks otherwise on this issue? What I see is that people want rapid transit to WEM. They are apathetic on the 87th vs 107th debate, they just want it. But when it comes to investing in this BRT technology only to try to augment it with stop light enhancers and the odd queing lane, there seems to be a bit of "huh???" going on.

    No where in my posts did I say that BRT does NOT work for me, just not on this route. This route is a colossal waste of time for BRT. Five minutes is not going to get me, or many others out of their cars. Students are transit dedicated, and like I mentioned in the 87th ve 107th route thread, will not really care about time as their options are more limited by their budgets. They'd be happy with more express busses - no major re-investment necessary.

    This is like a family knowing they need a minivan, but thinking that they can buy a Toyota Echo and make a couple of trips. They think the Echo can save them some on the initial purchase and then buy the minivan when they need it - when they know that baby 4 is on the way and they need the van 9 months after they drive the Echo off the lot. Unless they are in a huge credit crisis (which this city is not), buy the darn van. For us, we know ridership to WEM warrants LRT (someone here told me it is one of the biggest employment nodes in the city), so why invest one single solitary dime in this BRT trial? Do that to Sherwood Park.
    Since calm logic doesn't work, I guess it is time to employ sarcasm. ...and before you call me an a-hole...remember, I am a Dick.

  22. #22

    Default

    Let me add my voice to the majority. I attended one of their open houses this past weekend at Jasper Place. I was very underwhelmed by what I saw.

    My main complaints:
    We don't need another mode of transport that:
    a) ties into LRT
    b) makes you wait anyway because it only runs half as often as LRT
    c) only saves you "3 to 5 minutes" which means nothing (see point "b")
    d) brags about only going 25 to 35 km an hour and is proud of the fact that it will not go at high speed
    e) costs 21 million to start up and doesn't really accomplish anything except delay the LRT planning process.

    They need to pick one route each for the west end, north end and mill woods, and just run regular busses every 5 minutes. The GPS with realtime info is a nice touch but if they run the busses often enough to be useful, I wouldn't really care if the next one was still a minute away.

    I wrote my city counsellors and told them the same thing. They actually seemed somewhat encouraging in their replies, but if they vote for anything like it, then I will know it is just smoke. I was so disgusted by what I saw on offer, I will be watching how this develops closely.

  23. #23

    Default

    I just had a look at the West BRT plan on edmontonbrt.ca and you may also add me to the group of people disappointed with it. As far as I can tell it is only:
    • Single articulated diesels which we already have causing noise, stench, and cancer.
    • A transit activated traffic signal at 87 St. and 149 Ave.
    • A temporary single lane overpass on fox drive and bus lanes replacing the shoulders on the Quesnel bridge, which is all designed to be abandoned anyway, if it isn't successful in delaying or killing the West LRT.
    • A 21 million dollar price tag.

    I will re-read all of it, because I must have missed something that justifies actually paying money to waste opportunity. (besides a parking lot and diesel fumes.) I'll keep you posted.

    But as we should be constructive here, here's what I think they should do to improve it:
    1. Call a spade a bloody spade already - it's just an express bus from WEM to the SLRT. It doesn't even go to the main campus. (The South Campus - if they want something that won't be ready for 40 years, that's it.) It is insulting not only to the people coming and going between the West End and the university to say that this lame plan in any way is in the same league as an LRT line.
    2. Show us in depth cost accounting for how a temporary single lane bridge over Fox Drive and some paint on the Quesnel Bridge adds up to $21 million. Especially tell us the names of the companies responsible that we can buy stock in, before you place the order.
    3. Electrify all of route 100 and put double articulated trollies (a'la Geneva & Zurich) on it. (We've already got electrification finished out to the Jasper Place bus terminal, it's only another 4km to WEM, and half of that distance could be converted to LRT electrification.) The 80 ft. trollies can carry yet more people (up to 200 at crush load), with real low emission technology, and they don't degrade the city with noise either.
    4. Make sure the electrification can scale up to LRT capability along 87 Ave, because, in case you haven't heard, we really do want to build towards LRT.
    5. Put in the transit activated traffic signals on routes 8,9, 100 (among others) immediately. That's the only good new technology in what they're trying to hock here, and I don't believe for a second that it costs $21million.
    6. Suggest to someone that we do to Meadowlark what's being done to Heritage, because if there is a serious chance of getting LRT there, it would probably outsell Century Park.
    7. Sternly speak to the person that put the question "I have a better understanding of BRT - What it will look like and how it will work: agree/disagree." on the so-called 'Citizen Response Form.' The correct answer is "We don't have a problem understanding it at all, thanks. It will do nothing but waste decades, millions, and momentous opportunity."

  24. #24
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,943

    Default Short-sighted cuts to plans for fast buses

    Short-sighted cuts to plans for fast buses


    The Edmonton Journal


    Wednesday, October 04, 2006


    Portland Oregon, population two million, with an integrated system of buses, light rail transit and street cars -- and very little traffic congestion -- has a motto: The City That Works.

    No chance of Edmonton being so labelled, now that city council has watered down plans for a visionary and forward-thinking component to public transit called Bus Rapid Transit.

    Last week, council quietly cut back its transit budget and effectively scrapped BRT to the congested West End, leaving only the north-south routes in what was once a four-legged system.

    Coun. Karen Leibovici voted against the cuts as another short-sighted move which effectively guts the BRT initiative. BRT should proceed full-speed ahead, rather than piecemeal like LRT, which inched ahead over nearly three decades, says Liebovici.

    "You'd think that we would have learned from the past," she said. "A connected system of high-speed transit initiatives has been missing for 20 years in Edmonton."

    BRT, with dedicated bus lanes, would introduce to Edmonton a system pioneered in Ottawa and Vancouver, using a new generation of comfortable, quiet jumbo buses. BRT would have linked up with LRT and major transit terminals to create a true rapid transit network connecting all quadrants of the city.

    High-speed buses would shave precious minutes off commuter times across the city. Up to 25 per cent of commuters are expected to switch to these user-friendly, less polluting, jumbo buses, according to a city website. The full BRT plan would have created linked the west-end neighbourhoods, Lewis Estates, and the south side and high-traffic destinations like the University of Alberta, downtown, Mill Woods, West Edmonton Mall, all under-served by public transit.

    But that comprehensive plan has been put off for years after city council shifted half of the $100-million BRT spending from its five-year capital agenda until "beyond 2011."

    A couple of north-south routes will still proceed but nothing like the all-encompassing plan envisaged by city council two years ago.

    Leibovici is disappointed that by torpedoing West End and Lewis Estate routes for BRT, council's effectively makes slow commuting even worse in her Ward 1.

    "As a systems-wide approach you can't cut one component and say it's going to work, especially when you see what the traffic problems are, where the pressure points are."

    It's one thing, she says, to walk before you run.

    "But we've moved to a slow crawl. It's short-sighted."

    Shifting people out of cars and into the BRT would take a lot of cars off busy routes such as the of Whitemud Drive, the Quesnell bridge and Fox Drive.

    In 2004, the city was so keen on the potential for BRT it set up citizens advisory committees around at least four major BRT routes. For two years, these groups looked at route options and other issues. Open houses to view the plans were held as late as last month to gauge public reaction.

    How frustrating, after all that work, to see those fine BRT plans for the western half of the city just got put off.

    What does this say about the oft-criticized planning process at the municipal level, when a city nearing one million cannot forge ahead with an integrated approach to transit planning?

    City council does face some budget challenges, given that construction inflation of 20 per cent is eating away at its capital budget. Those dollars don't go as far these days. But just cutting away at programs and projects is not a solution every time the budget roadblock gets in the way. Can Edmonton not anticipate, plan, and pay for anything?

    People are sick and tired of a city that goes low rent and gets further behind. Again.

    "What are we saying, we don't have money, we don't need it? What does that say about the rest of the system," Leibovici asks.

    "Either we've got a system we want to work, an integrated system, or we don't. If we don't, then what are we doing?"

    People deserve better than this start, stop, stall and back-up approach to transportation planning.

    Edmonton once billed itself as a smart city, but there is nothing smart about the way it has handled BRT.

    © The Edmonton Journal 2006
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  25. #25
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    is this prime time to push for wLRT?

  26. #26
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,943

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish
    is this prime time to push for wLRT?
    no, that was 10 yrs ago...but yes...WLRT is 2nd only to 23ave IMO to get traffic working in this damn city.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  27. #27
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,530

    Default Re: Short-sighted cuts to plans for fast buses

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO
    People are sick and tired of a city that goes low rent and gets further behind. Again.
    Someone's been reading our Discountville rants here!

    Even if wLRT is not doable (which is highly preferred), I'd at least want a BRT that operates as an LRT with buses, complete with exclusive roads, ROWs, a tunnel under Laurier Heights and a bridge between 87 Ave and the University. Then lay the tracks later or put in whatever high-speed transportation technology comes up.

    And as others have alluded to, an Auditor General (or a reasonable fascimile) needs to look at the high costs of the sLRT and the 23rd Ave interchange in comparison with similar projects in other cities. There has to be some cost-savings there.

    They're now saying that the Yellowhead-156 St interchange (opens tomorrow) and the Low Level Bridge renos are being completed ahead of time and on budget. Take advantage of that, city eggheads!

  28. #28
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,432
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    The key words for BRT if this is to work anywhere...

    "BRT, with dedicated bus lanes, would introduce to Edmonton a system pioneered in Ottawa and Vancouver, using a new generation of comfortable, quiet jumbo buses."

    Without dedicated bus lanes throughout the BRT route, this will not really help much, and it will be an ABSOLUTE JOKE to West Ed. Remove the route-long dedicated lanes from this, you may as well go pound sand.

    wLRT is the key to the west end, and this is already 20 years too late.
    Since calm logic doesn't work, I guess it is time to employ sarcasm. ...and before you call me an a-hole...remember, I am a Dick.

  29. #29
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,688

    Default

    How bout the city drop the idea of BRT to the west end/WEM and focus on the LRT going that way instead.

    The BRT can still be used and initiated to places like Millwoods that are more likely not to see LRT anytime soon.

    Now I know this may sound like a stupid idea but what about a BRT line from Millwoods to downtown but the key component is that there will be more of a Millwoods commuter bus. It could leave Millwoods, travel north on 91st, have a dedicated lane on argyll to gateway and then north on Gateway into the downtown. The only stops outside of millwoods could be 99st. and argyll and Gateway and 82Ave. Now a route like that could be fast enough to convince more people to take the bus from the southside to whyte and also downtown.

  30. #30

    Default

    Cowboy - the high speed transit master plan calls for BRT to Millwoods. There are 3 potential routes, all utilizing connors rd into and out of downtown.

    Jaybee - that 21mill for BRT doesn't include the one lane busway bridge over belgravia rd. the cost of that bridge (est. 12m) has been buried in the cost of the sLRT extension.

  31. #31
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,688

    Default

    Thanks mick, actually I do recall the plans from Millwoods to a degree. I think what I was suggesting was a route that would be quicker than they suggest.

    Until I go have a look at the routes again as far as I remember they were going to be travelling along sometimes very busy roadways, and no matter how many signals to keep the buses moving along, there will be times that the BRTs from millwoods will be a very slow go.

    The route I was suggesting was one that I know could be designed to bypass traffic as much as possible. I'm just going by my experience of having to find the quickest ways every day from millwoods to downtown for about 5 years.

  32. #32

    Default

    I hope, though I don't know, that the Millwoods BRT plans call for separate row's or at least dedicated bus lanes. However, after what was proposed for wBRT, you're probably right to assume it'll only be light priorities.

  33. #33
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,432
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmcowboy11
    How bout the city drop the idea of BRT to the west end/WEM and focus on the LRT going that way instead.

    .
    ...because that makes too much sense...
    Since calm logic doesn't work, I guess it is time to employ sarcasm. ...and before you call me an a-hole...remember, I am a Dick.

  34. #34
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,688

    Default

    True, and when things make too much sense it must be wrong, right?

  35. #35
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,530

    Default

    What Richard should have said is "...because that makes too much sense and City Hall doesn't work that way"

  36. #36
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,688

    Default

    Just imagine if we had people who only did things when they made sense.

    Hmmm, well let's see, that means we'd have about 6 or 7 LRT lines throughout the city, we'd have BRT lines for the upcoming LRT lines, we'd have no lights on Anthony Henday Drive, Yellowhead and whitemud, we'd have architecturally interesting buildings of national and international renown, we'd...... oops I'm starting to dream too much.

  37. #37
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Ab.
    Posts
    6

    Default

    Dedicated bus lanes and express buses like OC Transpo in Ottawa is exatly what we need here. With the current bus system we have here is a joke. It takes forever to get anywhere.

  38. #38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dym
    Dedicated bus lanes and express buses like OC Transpo in Ottawa is exatly what we need here. With the current bus system we have here is a joke. It takes forever to get anywhere.
    I beg to differ. Dedicated bus lanes are simply no substitute for an LRT. I have used Ottawa's system and it is no surprise they are now trying to get LRT. Build it right; don't build it halfway now and then rip it apart and replace it in 15 years when everyone realizes we should have build LRT in the first place.

    Short of LRT, the biggest thing we could do for minimal cost right away is increase the frequency of service. Every five minutes at peak times on key bus routes.

  39. #39
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,432
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lux

    I beg to differ. Dedicated bus lanes are simply no substitute for an LRT. I have used Ottawa's system and it is no surprise they are now trying to get LRT.
    I agree wholeheartedly. However, the BRT crowd will argue this to the death. I've tried and felt their ire...
    Since calm logic doesn't work, I guess it is time to employ sarcasm. ...and before you call me an a-hole...remember, I am a Dick.

  40. #40
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles; Athens
    Posts
    4,399

    Default

    This article reeks of not understanding just what was being proposed for the BRT system.

    A bunch of blue lines on a map presented at a few town halls is NOT forward visionary thinking

  41. #41

    Default

    I did attend one of those town halls. The BRT that was being proposed did not even aspire to what they have in Ottawa, and what Ottawa has is not good enough to bother with.

    I am glad it got cancelled, and I think it should count against Leibovici for voting in favour of keeping that turkey. But they must do something else.

  42. #42
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lux
    They need to pick one route each for the west end, north end and mill woods, and just run regular busses every 5 minutes.
    Agreed.

    As it stands now, I think that the whole study and debate over BRT and LRT is a colossal waste of time, effort and money.

    Why? Because it fails to look at the whole picture. It attempts to address a transportation problem as a retrofit to correct prior mismanagement and incompetence.

    It considers a trip as originating at a terminal and going to other terminals and/or downtown. It fails to address the needs of most commuters.

    A trip to the mall or downtown or to work does not begin at the terminal. It does not even begin when we leave our residence. It begins at planning meetings where future neighborhoods are mapped. It begins at budget meetings that limit access to transit.

    Away from downtown, the state of transit makes it difficult to reside anywhere in the city without access to a private vehicle. Hypothetically saving five to ten minutes a day won't be enough incentive to make us give up the convenience, security, and advantages of self-dependence.

    Apparently, during the 1950s, post-war Edmonton had excellent transit with nearly all homes located within three-hundred metres from a bus stop and buses running at ten minute intervals during rush hour and fifteen minutes off peak. All routes operated from 5:00AM to 1:00AM. While the BRT itself is proposed to emulate that level of service, it says nothing about the feeders for the terminals.

    No, I'm not advocating that we return to that level of service - at least not immediately - but it does serve to illustrate what is required to break our high dependence on private transport.

    What has happened over the years to reduce transit to its current level? Mismanagement in the form of cost cutting, increased fares, reduced service, transit strikes, poor routing, etc. These all resulted in lost riders and once riders are lost, it's almost impossible to get them back.

    But that's not all! There are other factors too that need to be considered including parkades, underground and heated parking, and automatic car starters that make it unnecessary to be exposed to the weather; and the perceived exposure to crime while on transit.

    Our car is our cocoon. It is an extension of our home where we can eat, smoke, listen to music, sing, belch, fart, and scratch in a relative comfort and privacy not offered on a bus.

    Of course, it's politically unsound to allow near-empty buses to run so service gets cut even more.

    ** Note to City Council: You can not increase usage by cutting service and increasing fares! **

    Poor transit only makes worse transit.

    I recognize that the BRT is an attempt to improve service, but I expect that it will do little to increase ridership. However, it will increase the city's revenues from fines of motorists caught using the bus lanes.

    lux is right. A non-stop express service - terminal to terminal - using regular roads at five to ten minute intervals will do the job just as well at virtually no extra cost with the added advantage of a versatility that is missing from a dedicated, limited access transportation corridor. After all, if improved transit will take so many vehicles off the road, traffic should be much lighter and if it does not live up to expectations, we will have saved many millions of construction dollars.

    Regarding pollution, the new diesel-electric hybrids are extremely quiet, pollution-free and fuel efficient.

  43. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dwells
    What has happened over the years to reduce transit to its current level? Mismanagement in the form of cost cutting, increased fares, reduced service, transit strikes, poor routing, etc. These all resulted in lost riders and once riders are lost, it's almost impossible to get them back.
    You can add a coddled union to that mix. Unions have a habit of resistence to change unless it benefits them.

  44. #44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by murman
    You can add a coddled union to that mix. Unions have a habit of resistence to change unless it benefits them.
    Every company, industry, organisation, political party, contractor etc... also resists change unless it benefits them. Not news I'm afraid...

  45. #45

    Default

    I think I might have posted this in other threads but to recap:

    The biggest difference I have seen between our transit system and cities where lots of people actually prefer using transit for convenience (for example, Paris or London) is the frequency of service.

    People in those places do not have to plan their day around transit. Can I stay an extra two minutes at home or will I then miss my connection and have to wait 20 minutes? 40 minutes? It is outrageous! In this city, it is an everyday inconvenience.

    In cities with effective transit, people just get up and go. BRT will fail if it zooms people across the city, but only every so often. Right now people know that if they find themselves next to an LRT station at peak times, they won't have any hassles starting their journey.

    By running three major bus routes at matching frequencies connecting with LRT, we will vastly expand the network of convenience with three major new axes.

    At first, it would probably not even be necessary to spend anything to consolidate the numerous bus stops into reasonably-spaced stations.

    The frequency of service would ensure that initially some bus stops would be empty on a given trip and could be bypassed. As ridership grows, bus stops could be consolidated to maintain movement and natural "transit nodes" would develop.

    All without spending 21 million on a misguided attempt to zoom people around (without even really zooming them) only to leave them waiting for a connection.

    Well, here's hoping.

  46. #46

    Default

    A downtown free fare zone also encourage people to get in the habit of taking the bus....

  47. #47
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,432
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lux
    (…)

    The biggest difference I have seen between our transit system and cities where lots of people actually prefer using transit for convenience (for example, Paris or London) is the frequency of service.

    .
    That is all folks. You can't make it any plainer than that sentence. BRT w/o dedicated lanes does not give the capacity nor the frequency. 5 minutes of saving in my transit time does not count the amount of time I waste getting to the station, missed connections, or that odd “transit time” issue where they show up at weird times each morning on suburban routes. I’d rather take my car.

    Quote Originally Posted by lux
    In cities with effective transit, people just get up and go.
    Amen.
    Since calm logic doesn't work, I guess it is time to employ sarcasm. ...and before you call me an a-hole...remember, I am a Dick.

  48. #48
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,530

    Default

    Another major factor with cities that have heavily-used public transit systems like London, Paris, New York and Toronto is that due to the huge populations, it is costly to drive and park cars in those cities. Traffic moves at a snail's pace at rush hour or doesn't at all; parking is impossible to obtain or is very expensive. Plus many of these cities have existed long before the invention of the automobile, therefore such cities were not built to accomodate cars. Whereas newer cities like Edmonton, Calgary and Los Angeles have been built with the car in mind.

  49. #49
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,943

    Default

    i know many people who wouldnt even consider mass transit use in Edmonton, but wouldnt even think about it on vacation in say van, tor, nyc, etc.


    it's too funny.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  50. #50
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lux
    Can I stay an extra two minutes at home or will I then miss my connection and have to wait 20 minutes? 40 minutes? It is outrageous! In this city, it is an everyday inconvenience.
    I wish.

    Until last summer my home and work were five km apart on Route 3 but I could not take the bus because dealing with customers often did not conform to bus schedules and sometimes caused me to work past 1:00AM.

    On Sunday evenings buses run at one hour intervals and half hour on weekdays. So, depending on when I could get away, I could wait for up to an hour for the bus, take a cab, or drive five minutes. No contest.

    And that is one of the backbone routes. The irony is that the bus usually went by with no more than four passengers visible and often was completely empty while relatively heavy traffic consisted of private vehicles and taxis.

    Is it possible that in some perverse way the city considers poor service to be good business?

  51. #51

    Default Bus rapid transit to take 10 years, $500M

    Bus rapid transit to take 10 years, $500M

    Wed, June 27, 2007
    By FRANK LANDRY, CITY HALL BUREAU


    Bringing a bus rapid transit system to Edmonton would cost up to $500 million, officials estimate.

    But even if the city goes ahead with the plan, it could be a decade before buses begin shuttling passengers on dedicated transit lanes, said Brice Stephenson, manager of transportation planning.

    "You're looking at a five- to 10-year time period before we have BRT in operation. We're doing the ground work here."

    The total cost to implement full BRT corridors from downtown to north, southeast and west Edmonton - including stations and park and rides - could range from $350 million to $500 million, states a report to council.

    Over the next three years, the city is considering spending up to $100 million on things like acquiring land for transit centres, as well as BRT and LRT corridors.

    The money would also be used to widen some intersections and install more transit priority signals

    Stephenson said the moves would help improve travel times in the short term.

    While a conceptual plan for BRT was approved in 2004, it has not received final approval, nor have any routes been given the final green light.

    A long-term plan on future transit development should be ready early next year.

    "When we're going to spend $350 million ... we should have all the necessary ingredients so we can make an educated decision," said Mayor Stephen Mandel.

    Meanwhile, a committee of council yesterday approved a new transit "family fare."

    A family of four will receive unlimited rides on weekends and holidays this summer with a $7.50 day pass.

    It's estimated the pilot project could cost $200,000 in lost revenue over two months.

    The loss will be offset by a recent increase in ridership, said transit manager Charles Stolte, adding the program will be reviewed at the end of summer to see if it should be implemented year-round.

    --30--

  52. #52

    Default

    how much will LRT cost?

    500 M for a glorified bus route seems... rather expensive.

  53. #53
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    653

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by feepa
    how much will LRT cost?

    500 M for a glorified bus route seems... rather expensive.
    Quote Originally Posted by djgirl
    The total cost to implement full BRT corridors from downtown to north, southeast and west Edmonton - including stations and park and rides - could range from $350 million to $500 million, states a report to council.
    But wait! If you act now you can get two bonus glorified bus routes! That's three glorified bus routes for 10 million easy payments of 50 dollars! Operators are standing by!

    I'd rather see one LRT line than three BRT routes. Fake (BRT is fake enough anyway) the other two lines by playing with route frequencies and stop placement a la Route 100.

  54. #54
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,943

    Default

    5-10 yrs...WHAT THE HELL ARE THESE PEOPLE SMOKING!


    im sorry...but a decade?


    I can understand the cost somewhat...but the timeframe?


    Just drop the BRT and do LRT already.........we have made this mistake far too many times only to realize later that we should have just done LRT in the 1st place.


    jez
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  55. #55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO
    5-10 yrs...WHAT THE HELL ARE THESE PEOPLE SMOKING!


    im sorry...but a decade?


    I can understand the cost somewhat...but the timeframe?


    Just drop the BRT and do LRT already.........we have made this mistake far too many times only to realize later that we should have just done LRT in the 1st place.


    jez
    What he said. Only with more venom and expletives.

  56. #56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by m0nkyman
    Quote Originally Posted by IanO
    5-10 yrs...WHAT THE HELL ARE THESE PEOPLE SMOKING!


    im sorry...but a decade?


    I can understand the cost somewhat...but the timeframe?


    Just drop the BRT and do LRT already.........we have made this mistake far too many times only to realize later that we should have just done LRT in the 1st place.


    jez
    What he said. Only with more venom and expletives.
    Please boys don't hold back...tell us what you really think.

  57. #57
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,943

    Default

    ^i would get banned.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  58. #58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by djgirl
    Quote Originally Posted by m0nkyman
    Quote Originally Posted by IanO
    5-10 yrs...WHAT THE HELL ARE THESE PEOPLE SMOKING!


    im sorry...but a decade?


    I can understand the cost somewhat...but the timeframe?


    Just drop the BRT and do LRT already.........we have made this mistake far too many times only to realize later that we should have just done LRT in the 1st place.


    jez
    What he said. Only with more venom and expletives.
    Please boys don't hold back...tell us what you really think.
    I'm getting fed up with this city. I think I'm going to move to Portland. (A City that Edmonton should look to for transit and other ideas)

  59. #59

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by feepa
    Quote Originally Posted by djgirl
    Quote Originally Posted by m0nkyman
    Quote Originally Posted by IanO
    5-10 yrs...WHAT THE HELL ARE THESE PEOPLE SMOKING!


    im sorry...but a decade?


    I can understand the cost somewhat...but the timeframe?


    Just drop the BRT and do LRT already.........we have made this mistake far too many times only to realize later that we should have just done LRT in the 1st place.


    jez
    What he said. Only with more venom and expletives.
    Please boys don't hold back...tell us what you really think.
    I'm getting fed up with this city. I think I'm going to move to Portland. (A City that Edmonton should look to for transit and other ideas)
    About writing letters...write to the editors of any and every paper and magazine, write to your alderperson, write to the Mayor, write to the head of transportation and streets, write to the City Manager and keep posting to C2E as there are decision makers that do read this forum!

    (But don't leave Edmonton and don't write C2E in ways that will get you banned!)

  60. #60
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Oliver
    Posts
    3,194

    Default

    But the edmontonbrt.ca site says that it will only require $21M in capital.

    Why would a site that does nothing but trumpet all of the supposed benefits of BRT say that? Why would edmontonbrt.ca lie to me?

    The city has been talking about BRT since at least 1997. And it's going to take the another ten years? What is wrong with them?!?

    I've said this before, but 2015 should be WLRT - not a bus stop at Lewis Estates.

  61. #61
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    653

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by newfangled
    Why would a site that does nothing but trumpet all of the supposed benefits of BRT say that? Why would edmontonbrt.ca lie to me?
    Because it's a propaganda website?

  62. #62
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,432
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    ...and they wonder WHY do people like ralph60 question the accounting practices....

    Again, simply...why is there NOT full disclosure on this. We are more interested in why this takes so freaking long!

    As others have said...Edmonton...Ottawa called...they said don't do it.
    Since calm logic doesn't work, I guess it is time to employ sarcasm. ...and before you call me an a-hole...remember, I am a Dick.

  63. #63
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    653

    Default

    The City report; the referenced attachment can be found at: http://www.edmonton.ca/OcctopusDocs/...20Att.%201.pdf
    -----

    1 to 3 Year Transit Improvement Plan

    Recommendation:
    That the April 29, 2007, Transportation Department report 2007TD4111 be received for information.

    Report Summary
    This report outlines capital and operational improvements to selected roadways and transit centres that should be implemented over the next three years. These include property acquisition and construction of new transit centres and park and ride facilities, intersection improvements, operational and signage enhancements, and bus and traffic signal technologies to reduce transit travel times.
    Report
    • The Transportation Department Capital Budget includes two key programs dedicated to continuing improvements to the transit system. Program 66-07-1680 (transit growth) includes primarily funding for new buses and enhancements to new selected transit centres. Program 66-05-1665 Bus Rapid Transit was created in 2005 in an effort to begin the development of Edmonton’s Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) network.
    • In 2006, funding for the BRT Program was reduced by Council from $107 million to $54 million to address more urgent funding requirements within the Transportation Department’s Capital Plan. Subsequent corridor planning work, together with the ongoing construction cost escalation issues, has resulted in the conclusion that full BRT could not be implemented in any sector of the city with the funds available.
    • BRT is intended to have many attributes including unique vehicles, special transit stops/stations, and to utilize enhanced system technologies. However, in order to achieve consistent reliable travel times that will compete with and possibly exceed private vehicle travel time performance, a dedicated travel lane for the bus should be provided along as much of the corridor as possible. In the mature areas of the city these dedicated travel lanes can only be provided through intersection improvements or widening and/or reassignment of auto lanes to transit on the BRT corridor in conjunction with widening parallel roadways for autos.
    • The total cost to implement full BRT corridors from downtown to north, southeast and west Edmonton could range between $350 million and $500 million.
    • Given the above costs, Administration determined that funding for Capital Program 05-66-1665 should be directed to lower cost transit improvements with an emphasis on items that would also complement the future BRT network. Improvements would be targeted as follows:
    a. land for transit centres, LRT corridors, and BRT corridors;
    b. spot intersection enhancements/widening to improve transit travel times and reliability;
    c. traffic signal and signing improvements and corridor studies focused on providing priority to transit; and
    d. expansion of transit Intelligent Transportation Systems.
    • The cost to implement the short term transit improvements over the next three years is estimated to range between $80 million and $100 million; $30 million of these projects have already been included in Program 05-66-1665 leaving a funding shortfall between $50 million and $70 million. Potential solutions for funding this shortfall will be identified as part of the next update of the Transportation Department’s Five Year Capital Priorities Plan.

    Attachments
    1. 1 - 3 Year Transit Capital Improvements by Sector

  64. #64
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    647

    Default

    at the rate they are building the sLRT, I wouldn't expect a line out to the north or west within the next 2 decades. In the mean time, let's build SOMETHING to ease the traffic problems. NOT 10+ years from now, but NOW!!!

    The beauty with BRT is that the dedicated lanes could be used as a LRT right-of-way in the future.

  65. #65
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,432
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    If you think above ground LRT will go down SP road and 102 Ave....well, don't...
    Since calm logic doesn't work, I guess it is time to employ sarcasm. ...and before you call me an a-hole...remember, I am a Dick.

  66. #66
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    282

    Default

    I've had a bad feeling about this BRT situation ever since those wBRT open houses. Sometimes I hate it when I'm right.

    This entire BRT issue looks like a cleverly crafted PR project.
    The open house materials and website are a mix of solid facts (some useful) and misleading, missing or incomplete information.
    And then all of a sudden, less then 2 weeks before the public hearing they release this $500 million price tag.

    I think the reason why they waited till last minute to announce the price tag is so they could say (at the hearing) that the public was previously made aware of this fact and so nobody would go deaf from the outcry that would result. That and so there is little time for potential nay-sayers to hear the information before it's too late.

    It goes to public hearing on July 10.
    Hopefully there will not be any gaping holes in their plans this time.
    It's win-win regardless. If council approves it goes forward. If council defers or postpones they get to study alternatives.
    Of course council could toss the entire BRT idea out the window, not very likely, but if so they'd have to do a study to see if that's the best thing to do.


    Oh yes, feedback based on the facts at hand.
    5-10 years before BRT is ready.
    - Is this because of incompetence, lack of funds, or they have to re-evaluate the study every 6 to 12 months?
    Will improve travel times in the short term.
    - What about the long term? Better, worse, no change? By stating it as they did I get the impression that the plan will be detrimental to travel times in the long term.

    As for the edmontonbrt.ca website in the documents I believe it states $21 million for the first phase. It does not list any other information to my knowledge.


    I was led to believe that "BRT is a cost effective way of quickly providing high quality, rapid transit to areas in the west, north and southeast parts of the city".
    I do not consider $500 million to be cost effective for 3 new super express routes - that's basically what they are.
    Then again I wonder... does that $500 million include operating expenses or is that extra? What am I saying, of course that's extra. How much? We'll probably find out in 5-10 years (minus 2 weeks).

    Anyone in the public feel manipulated? I do.

  67. #67
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    653

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bryguy
    Anyone in the public feel manipulated? I do.
    But the buses are gold plated, are as fast as bullet trains, and I'll finally be able to take my unicorn on board!

    If you're going to do BRT right, you have to go all out Ottawa/Curitiba style, and by doing that you reduce the cost benefits significantly. Edmonton's trying to get both, or perhaps they're trying to appease both the transit riders (it's a train and therefore fast!) and the drivers (it's a bus and therefore cheap!) and failing miserably at both.

    To anyone considering writing a letter, please focus on why we should be building LRT and fixing the bus routes we do have rather than strictly bashing BRT, which is entirely counterproductive. If played right, we might be able to swing this into support for LRT, but if you just bash on the BRT like everyone else we're going to get nothing for a long time.

    Please also note that this is for three legs and includes transit centres and probably a lot of other stuff that hasn't been properly identified in the article. This city tends to like to piggyback road improvements that don't benefit transit onto transit projects.

  68. #68
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,943

    Default

    while BRT can work well.....BRT TO the west end is NOT WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING.

    WLRT down either 87ave, SP, 107ave or 111ave should be...

    mark my words, we will all copy and paste this forum in 10 yrs to the journal and city saying

    "told yah so"
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  69. #69

    Default

    I'm beginning to suspect that this BRT proposal was made with the specific goal of upsetting as many influential people as possible so as to make LRT happen.

    Irritate/enrage all of the commercial entities along 104 Ave/ Stoney Plain, and the entire community of Glenora.

    What do you think the result is going to be in any sane world?

  70. #70
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    i feel like staging a protest at city hall with signs like:

    Say no to wBRT

    wBRT not for Me

    wLRT yes, BRT no

    i am having an off day as far as creativity goes. perhaps other banner suggestions for the participants?

  71. #71
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Oliver
    Posts
    3,194

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by m0nkyman
    I'm beginning to suspect that this BRT proposal was made with the specific goal of upsetting as many influential people as possible so as to make LRT happen.
    You missed the early days of BRT when they were seriously talking about running a bridge through the ultra-rich areas around the valley zoo.

    After that insanity got kiboshed this is what we're left with.

    I don't know how many more iterations it will take to get something bearable.

  72. #72
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    653

    Default

    Two things:

    Don't like the direction the city is taking high speed transit? Want your voice to be heard? Join the Transit Riders' Union of Edmonton (TRUE). Our next meeting is tentatively scheduled for Sunday, July 8th. Reply or PM me if you're interested and I'll keep you updated.

    Secondly, I think some of you will enjoy this graph I compiled when I was doing some research on Ottawa's BRT last year. I think there might be a reason this isn't posted on their website.


    Note. The above data are adapted from personal communication with M. Sanders of OC Transpo, December 1, 2006. Adapted with permission.

  73. #73
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bagould
    I think some of you will enjoy this graph I compiled when I was doing some research on Ottawa's BRT last year.
    Can you overlay fares on this? I'd be curious to see the effect of fare increases on ridership.

  74. #74
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    653

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dwells
    Quote Originally Posted by bagould
    I think some of you will enjoy this graph I compiled when I was doing some research on Ottawa's BRT last year.
    Can you overlay fares on this? I'd be curious to see the effect of fare increases on ridership.
    I was mainly interested in comparing Ottawa's BRT, Edmonton's LRT and Calgary's LRT, so I didn't ask for those. This is somewhat less academic as I threw this together really quickly and gleaned most of it from blogs.

    1995: $1.85
    2000: $2.25
    2004: $2.75
    2007: $3.00 (base fare)

    And this is from lightrailnow.org, not what I would call the most scholarly:
    • 1986-2002 – Ottawa, despite vigorous busway development, has lost over ten percent of its transit system riders despite the $450 million "BRT" investment. Fares initially were raised over $2.00, but have since been reduced in an effort to gain riders – but at the cost of a significant loss of revenue.
    [Source: OC Transpo data; analysis by EL Tennyson, PE]

  75. #75
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    772

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by m0nkyman
    I'm beginning to suspect that this BRT proposal was made with the specific goal of upsetting as many influential people as possible so as to make LRT happen.

    Irritate/enrage all of the commercial entities along 104 Ave/ Stoney Plain, and the entire community of Glenora.

    What do you think the result is going to be in any sane world?
    Sounds plausible.

  76. #76

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bagould
    Two things:

    Don't like the direction the city is taking high speed transit? Want your voice to be heard? Join the Transit Riders' Union of Edmonton (TRUE). Our next meeting is tentatively scheduled for Sunday, July 8th. Reply or PM me if you're interested and I'll keep you updated.

    Secondly, I think some of you will enjoy this graph I compiled when I was doing some research on Ottawa's BRT last year. I think there might be a reason this isn't posted on their website.
    No wonder they didn't post it. In twenty years and untold millions of dollars, ridership only went from 85 million/yr to less than 90 million per year. Thats about a 0.25% growth per year while the city is growing about four times that rate. To me that spells a transit system that is failing, not growing.

    To ETS , Ottawa is the basis for our BRT model. Shall we repeat the mistakes of Ottawa? Maybe they choose Ottawa to make friends with the Feds so they would gladly give us back some of our tax dollars.

    The Transit Planning Branch is going to ruin this city.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  77. #77
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    653

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT
    In twenty years and untold millions of dollars
    $450 million for the three leg transitway system. Initial estimates pegged it at less than $100 million. Sound familiar?

  78. #78
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,870

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bagould
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT
    In twenty years and untold millions of dollars
    $450 million for the three leg transitway system. Initial estimates pegged it at less than $100 million. Sound familiar?
    As familiar as thinking that that money will ultimately have bought anything but a stop-gap measure that will have no legacy value for the money spent, (sort of like doing something up a rope?):

    "TransLink has undertaken several studies regarding the fate of the Coquitlam line, considering a variety of possible options including a diesel multiple unit-based railway, a tram line, a new SkyTrain line, and an express bus service. In September 2002, the 97 B-Line express bus service was implemented. Eventually, in 2004, it was decided that a tram line was the best option, as it would better blend in with the neighbourhood, cost less, better fit the ridership patterns and not cannibalize customers from the existing West Coast Express."

  79. #79

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bagould
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT
    In twenty years and untold millions of dollars
    $450 million for the three leg transitway system. Initial estimates pegged it at less than $100 million. Sound familiar?
    I think that the HST/BRT/LRT master plan will cost $20,000,000,000.86 by the time it's done. Don't believe me well I think that it's better to aim high and come in underbudget than the Transit Planning Branch doubling their estimate every year.

    A) If they don't know how to plan, estimate and budget, they are incompetent and should be canned.

    B) If they know what they are doing and are keeping Council and taxpayers in the dark and only giving us part of the costs they are lying to us and should be canned.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  80. #80

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bagould
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT
    In twenty years and untold millions of dollars
    $450 million for the three leg transitway system. Initial estimates pegged it at less than $100 million. Sound familiar?
    Sorry for my lack of knowledge on the detailed costs, I assume that Transitway is the Ottawa BRT, costing $450M. Boy that is an expensive gold plated bus system.

    Does that include the cost for the LRT line in Ottawa as well?

    In 20 years @ a cost of $450M, 5 million more riders is about 16,600 more per day or 8,300 round trips. That works out to an investment of about $55,000 for each new commuter. If LRT is and added cost I wouldn't be surprised.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  81. #81

    Default Fighting over buses

    Fighting over buses

    Susan Ruttans Blog
    June 29, 2007


    There’s a contest brewing between city transit planners and the prosperous neighbourhood of Glenora.

    The transit planners are looking to build a special bus lane, called bus rapid transit, all the way from Lewis Estates and West Edmonton Mall to the downtown. The logical place for that BRT system is along Stony Plain Road, which turns into 104th Avenue.

    That’s what the planners have recommended.

    Some people in Glenora aren’t thrilled with the idea of rapid transit, even the bus form, going through their neighbourhood.

    And being a well-educated, articulate bunch, they’ll make their opinions known at the council public hearing on the matter July 10th. I’m sure.

    That’s good. That’s how the system works, how inner city neighbourhoods protect their quality of life. If they didn’t, all the people with money would head for Riverbend or an acreage.

    So the residents will push, and the planners will push back, and out of the contest a good decision will, I hope, emerge.

    Another high-end community, Belgravia, went through this in the 1980s when the city was planning an LRT line near their neighbourhood. They fought like heck, won some concessions, but didn’t stop the LRT.

    I have trouble understanding why a BRT route on Stony Plain Road would be so terrible, but I don’t live near Stony Plain Road. Let the people speak; I’ll be listening.

    --30--

  82. #82
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    304

    Default

    I'm tempted to make a www.edmontonlrt.ca website to counter the www.edmontonbrt.ca propoganda site.

  83. #83

    Default BRT myths persist

    BRT myths persist

    The Edmonton Journal
    Published: July 17, 2007 1:51 am


    The city continues to insist on using the ill-defined bus rapid transit moniker for their system of improved bus service, when the core of the system is a semi-express bus route in transit-only lanes. Expensive smoke and mirrors seem to constitute the rest of the system, and appear to be having the opposite effect to that intended.

    Despite the frequently asked questions on the BRT website, a majority of residents still seem to believe that the buses will be moving faster than cars and creating unsafe conditions. Then they complain that travel times do not match these impossible speeds.

    These buses are subject to the speed limit and are driven by trained professionals.

    Reducing Stony Plain Road to one through lane will result in the lead vehicle setting the pace and will further reduce vehicle speeds and volumes. Speed and stunting, not buses, are the enemy of pedestrians and residents. Diesel buses would also be much quieter in bus lanes than in stop-and-go traffic.

    We need to stop mucking around with long-term studies and implement bus lanes and semi-express bus service along the proposed route now.

    All it would take is some spray paint and signs for the bus lanes, reassigning a few buses from nearby routes, and some tinkering with route schedules (which desperately needs to be done regardless).

    Temporary ticket validators would stand in for the city's proposed fancy vending machines.

    In a city where we can close such a high percentage of streets for construction during the summer, surely we can spare a couple lanes for a trial this fall after construction dies down.

    Show the residents that bus lanes will provide traffic calming benefits, rather than destroying their neighbourhood with traffic. Hold off on expropriating any property and building any additional capacity until it is determined whether it is absolutely necessary. Wait until the route is finalized before implementing the bells and whistles.

    Studies simply cannot give the same precision as a trial, in which different configurations can be tested. Jumping straight in to permanent and expensive "stations" and road widenings/realignments afford no such flexibility, and we would never know if the system would have been more successful in a slightly different configuration.

    Now is the time to start implementing immediate and cost-effective transit improvements along the Stony Plain Road corridor, not 10 years from now. The entire transit network desperately needs an overhaul, with routes straightened, quickened, and consolidated so that investment can be made in real rapid transit, not in shiny paint jobs. We can do so much more with the buses we're already running. We can do so much more with bus lanes and LRT than with BRT.

    Brian Gould, Transit Riders' Union of Edmonton

    © The Edmonton Journal 2007

    -30-

  84. #84

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Speedyturtle
    I'm tempted to make a www.edmontonlrt.ca website to counter the www.edmontonbrt.ca propoganda site.

    I did, it's called http://www.edmontonprt.com/.

    A large part of the website is debunking the myths that LRT or BRT will solve all the transportation/transit problems in Edmonton. The NE LRT has been here for nearly 30 years and that region doesn't have a greater percentage in transit ridership than anywhere else in the city.

    I don't care if they never build LRT, BRT or PRT; just make the current system work better before you try some huge project that may not improve service one bit.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  85. #85
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,178

    Default Re: BRT myths persist

    Quote Originally Posted by djgirl
    BRT myths persist

    The Edmonton Journal
    Published: July 17, 2007 1:51 am


    ...

    Brian Gould, Transit Riders' Union of Edmonton

    © The Edmonton Journal 2007

    -30-
    I fully agree. Let's get on with it. A little paint on the roads and the will to go ahead is really all that's needed. No construction is required until such time as it is proven to be necessary - and even then we still have the options of further traffic restrictions or re-routing as alternatives.

    The sooner we start with BRT the less entrenched the need for private commuter traffic will be.

  86. #86
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,178

    Default

    I went back and looked at this report again and was stuck by this portion.

    Quote Originally Posted by bagould
    The City report; the referenced attachment can be found at: http://www.edmonton.ca/OcctopusDocs/...20Att.%201.pdf
    -----

    1 to 3 Year Transit Improvement Plan

    • BRT is intended to have many attributes including unique vehicles, special transit stops/stations, and to utilize enhanced system technologies. However, in order to achieve consistent reliable travel times that will compete with and possibly exceed private vehicle travel time performance, a dedicated travel lane for the bus should be provided along as much of the corridor as possible. In the mature areas of the city these dedicated travel lanes can only be provided through intersection improvements or widening and/or reassignment of auto lanes to transit on the BRT corridor in conjunction with widening parallel roadways for autos.
    It seems to me that transit is trying to have the plan rejected by inflating its cost with items that are not necessary for its implementation.

    Iconic cost items such as unique vehicles, special transit stops/stations, and enhanced system technologies may be desirable and might eventually prove to be important but are not necessary at the start. Right now they seem to be expensive toys intended to give administration the warm fuzzies with tangible assets.

    There is no indication that any road reconstruction is needed at this time since all the proposed routes are superimposed on existing bus routes. Furthermore, road construction is a separate division and is not part of transit operations thus it should be on a separate budget entirely - and then only after the BRT's impact is known.

    $500 million over ten years? We could probably drop an order of magnitude.

  87. #87
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    6 degrees north of you
    Posts
    784

    Default

    Yeah, $500 million is a bit overboard, to say the least.
    Even if they wanted to buy hybrids for an express route,
    at $750,000 each. Run them at 10 minute intervals midday,
    15 minute intervals evenings and Sundays, and 5 minute
    intervals in peak hours. Paint some lines down SPR and
    maybe 100 ave.
    A one-hour round trip, possibly 70 min round trip in peak to
    allow recovery time at the end of the line.
    14 buses needed, so allow 20 buses, to accompany maintenance
    and repairs, and other downtime.
    Add $20,000 in paint and labour for the painting.
    Add another $5000 for upgraded bus stop signs.
    And even being as lenient as I can be, the total would only be:
    $15,025,000.

    And of course add $3000 each year to repaint the lines.
    So over 10 years, even by adding $200,000 for possible
    battery pack replacement on some hybrids, the total now is:
    $15,252,000.

    A far cry from $500 million

  88. #88

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dwells
    It seems to me that transit is trying to have the plan rejected by inflating its cost with items that are not necessary for its implementation.
    Is the Transportation Planning Branch (TPB) trying to do the old bait and switch trick?

    Their original plans was for a $3 Billion LRT network that got rejected. Now they propose an archaic BRT system with bad routes, threats of expropriation and a price tag of $500M. People then get all upset and say, "if you are going to spend that kind of money, let's build LRT". Are they trying to manipulate the public and Council just to get their expensive LRT system they proposed originally?

    Can't they just make an express bus system, modeled after the Route #100? Currently the Route #100 is only on a 15 minute peak schedule and only operates during the day with a 40 ft bus. It takes only 17 minutes from WEM to Jasper at 109th st. If the TPB says that BRT is needed, show us the demand on Route #100. If they can fill the #100 every 7.5 minutes and fill 60 ft bendies then lets put in another express route to the westend. Once a second route is filled, THEN let's talk BRT. As they say "show us the money", before we spend a dime, let alone $500M, then the TPB better "show us the demand!"

    It amazes me that while the TPB is making all these plans, we don't hear any comment from ETS. ETS attends the Council meetings and doesn't say a word. Has ETS been gagged??

    We know there are people watching this forum from ETS and TPB and they know who I am, will anyone from there come out in this forum and speak to this issue?

    I also ask people who currently take the bus daily along the proposed West BRT, Southeast BRT, and North Edmonton BRT as shown on the map: http://www.edmonton.ca/OcctopusDocs/...20Att.%201.pdf to comment if they think that these routes could fill a 60 ft BRT vehicle every 7.5 minutes?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  89. #89
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    682

    Default

    Are they trying to manipulate the public and Council just to get their expensive LRT system they proposed originally?
    I wish they were.

  90. #90

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by travis
    Are they trying to manipulate the public and Council just to get their expensive LRT system they proposed originally?
    I wish they were.
    We don't have the density, concentrated residential areas or major employment centers. In fact compared to Calgary where LRT is working and in high demand, Edmonton hasn't seen a new office tower built downtown in 20 years. Calgary has had dozens and we lost all our oil company head offices to them.

    Don't start the line that Calgary got our Oil HQ's because they have LRT. The HQ's moved their as they started with more and the law of increasing returns as others followed the big players that moved from other cities like Toronto and Texas choose Calgary over Edmonton, not because of LRT but oil executives preferred Calgary with more oil related companies, better airline choices, better weather, closer to Vancouver, Houston, LA and Banff for skiing on the weekends. Oil executives make HQ location choices for the benefit of themselves. Do you think oil executives take LRT? No they take their $100,000 Mercedes. They don't care how the average Dilbert in the cubicle downstairs gets to work.

    Even if we had a LRT line to WEM and Millwoods overnight, it wouldn't have more than 60,000 riders (thats 30,000 round trips) a day. That's about a 25% improvement in transit usage for $2 Billion and would only reduce traffic by about 3%. When traffic grows by about 3% a year we only have set back traffic growth by a year. What would we do next year, build two more lines and spend another $2 Billion??. Two new LRT lines would take 10 years to build, by the time they would be done we wouldn't notice the difference.

    Stop dreaming about LRT and think practical. What can be done to get people out of their cars and into public transit? How can we make our current system better with what we have by making it more efficient?

    Here is some outside the box thinking

    Eliminate fares for anyone boarding a bus within the inner ring road. (bounded by Yellowhead to Whitemud, 75 st to 170 st.) plus major transit centers and LRT stations. Anyone boarding beyond the inner ring (inbound/outbound) will pay a flat $2.00 or use their monthly pass.

    That's a loss of about 2/3rds of the $68M in revenue but that is a lot cheaper than the interest on a $2 Billion expansion of the system.

    To make up some of the shortfall, put a tax levy on long term, paid commuter parking of $3.00/day unpaved surface lots, $2.00/day paved surface lots, elevated and underground parking at $1.00/day (better land use). This will encourage people to use transit.

    I bet if this was done, transit ridership would increase 50% and more people would look at moving into the mature neighbourhoods.

    If it doesn't work after a year then we could put it back the way it was. Not a dime required to buy expensive BRT's or expropriate homes.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  91. #91
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT
    Eliminate fares for anyone boarding a bus within the inner ring road. (bounded by Yellowhead to Whitemud, 75 st to 170 st.) plus major transit centers and LRT stations. Anyone boarding beyond the inner ring (inbound/outbound) will pay a flat $2.00 or use their monthly pass.
    Convince me how this would be good.

  92. #92
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT
    Even if we had a LRT line to WEM and Millwoods overnight, it wouldn't have more than 60,000 riders (thats 30,000 round trips) a day. That's about a 25% improvement in transit usage for $2 Billion and would only reduce traffic by about 3%.
    you need to do some major convincing. It sounds like these numbers were pulled out of a hat (althoug a 25% improvement does sound pretty good actually). So as long we're doing that, I'll play the same game:

    Numbers out of a hat take two:
    Even if we had a LRT line to WEM and Millwoods overnight, it would have at least than 120,000 riders (thats 60,000 round trips--35,000 to WEM and 25,000 to Millwoods) a day or a 50% improvement in transit usage for $2 billion--one great deal!

    Numbers out of a hat take three:
    Even if we had a LRT line to WEM and Millwoods overnight, it would have at least than 240,000 riders (thats 120,000 round trips--75,000 to WEM and 45,000 to Millwoods) a day or a 100% improvement in transit usage for $2 billion--one great deal!


    See, this sounds convincing, doesn't it? My numbers are as realistic as your 60,000. WEM is a major destination in edmonton (like it or not). With easier access, more people will go. Millwoods sends busses upon busses downtown in peak hours. I've taken those--they are uncomfortable and stuffed with people so that if you were to tuck your legs in while standing you wouldn't fall down (reminds me of what I used to do as a kid in Moscow's Metro). Nevertheless people continue taking them as it is convenient to them. With an improved LRT more people will find public transit convenient.

    When traffic grows by about 3% a year we only have set back traffic growth by a year. What would we do next year, build two more lines and spend another $2 Billion??. Two new LRT lines would take 10 years to build, by the time they would be done we wouldn't notice the difference.
    these figures are loaded too. you are making assumptions that trends continue as they have been even though you create other opportunities. Since LRT and traffic are alternatives to the same event--they will affect one another. These relationships aren't linear, they are dynamic processes that affect each other, depend on people's choices, the economy, place of work, costs of car maintenance, property taxes, prices of gasoline etc and therefore require much more sophisticated mathematics.

  93. #93

    Default Approved with no debate: Controversial route along SPR BRT

    Susan Ruttan, The Edmonton Journal
    Published: July 18, 2007 2:35 am


    In other business, council:

    - Approved with no debate a controversial route along Stony Plain Road for a bus rapid transit system. However, council also approved amendments from Coun. Jane Batty calling for more information on alternatives to the Stony Plain Road BRT route, and an examination of the cost of various options.


    [email protected]

    © The Edmonton Journal 2007

    -30-

  94. #94
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,432
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT

    We don't have the density, concentrated residential areas or major employment centers. In fact compared to Calgary where LRT is working and in high demand, Edmonton hasn't seen a new office tower built downtown in 20 years. Calgary has had dozens and we lost all our oil company head offices to them.

    .
    Um...we have great ridership and 3-4 major nodes that an LRT rollout would help. The U of A alone is a major employment node, and the south campus is equally as large. The demand here in the tower I am working in is HUGE, expect Central Station to be crowded once the LRT pushed further south. Many folks like myself are judging our purchasing decisions on the LRT roadmap, as are a lot of the new hires I am bringing in. Things like Century Park are exciting to newcomers due to the TOD. WEM is a HUGE employer and tourist generator. If they built out the LRT, I would think that you'd be amazed at the ridership increases.

    LRT is practical. ...and please stop with this elimination of fares junk. People will GLADLY pay the fare to avoid the $300+ per month in parking. People will GLADLY pay the fare to reduce wear and tear and gas costs. All they are truly demanding is FAST SERVICE.

    ...and get rid of this Calgary = better weather myth. Check out envirocan....30 year numbers have barely a +/- 1 deg c play....we're both north of 49 and winter arrives.
    Since calm logic doesn't work, I guess it is time to employ sarcasm. ...and before you call me an a-hole...remember, I am a Dick.

  95. #95
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles; Athens
    Posts
    4,399

    Default

    The very idea that we don't have the density nor the necessary nodes for an LRT system if utter rubbish.

    WEM is a huge node, pushing the LRT north to NAIT, Kingsway, etc, would be another huge node. Plug regional busses into a highspeed and high frequency LRT.

    BRT is nothing but a pipe dream and I have thought that since attending the very first open houses on the subject where the planners could only tell me how cool the stops would be with latte dispensing machines and the like.

    PUH-LEEZE.

    Build and LRT to the West End and it WILL have the ridership. As Grish pointed out, people are taking packed and slow moving busses already. If transit is all about speed and convenience, then no one in their right mind would take something like the 1 or 106 that stops twice a block.

    I do believe that BRT can have a role in areas where it would be very difficult to punch an LRT line through (Bonnie Doon, etc, etc) but the West End needs an LRT.
    LA today, Athens tomorrow. I miss E-town.

  96. #96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dwells
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT
    Eliminate fares for anyone boarding a bus within the inner ring road. (bounded by Yellowhead to Whitemud, 75 st to 170 st.) plus major transit centers and LRT stations. Anyone boarding beyond the inner ring (inbound/outbound) will pay a flat $2.00 or use their monthly pass.
    Convince me how this would be good.
    Just out of the box thinking. Lets's not be constrained by what's in the planning stages now. There are tremendous avoided cost issues that could have a bigger effect than spending big bucks on a couple of LRT routes. What can be done with by using the buses we have, more effectively? Maybe offering free service to everyone everywhere is cheaper and build more ridership. What is our goal, making ETS pay or gaining ridership and reducing traffic. The BRT plans are to create more dedicated lanes to speed up service and avoid traffic. If you increase the ridership, traffic volume will decrease thereby speeding up bus service.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  97. #97

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT
    Even if we had a LRT line to WEM and Millwoods overnight, it wouldn't have more than 60,000 riders (thats 30,000 round trips) a day. That's about a 25% improvement in transit usage for $2 Billion and would only reduce traffic by about 3%.
    you need to do some major convincing. It sounds like these numbers were pulled out of a hat (althoug a 25% improvement does sound pretty good actually). So as long we're doing that, I'll play the same game:

    Numbers out of a hat take two:
    Even if we had a LRT line to WEM and Millwoods overnight, it would have at least than 120,000 riders (thats 60,000 round trips--35,000 to WEM and 25,000 to Millwoods) a day or a 50% improvement in transit usage for $2 billion--one great deal!

    Numbers out of a hat take three:
    Even if we had a LRT line to WEM and Millwoods overnight, it would have at least than 240,000 riders (thats 120,000 round trips--75,000 to WEM and 45,000 to Millwoods) a day or a 100% improvement in transit usage for $2 billion--one great deal!


    See, this sounds convincing, doesn't it? My numbers are as realistic as your 60,000. WEM is a major destination in edmonton (like it or not). With easier access, more people will go. Millwoods sends busses upon busses downtown in peak hours. I've taken those--they are uncomfortable and stuffed with people so that if you were to tuck your legs in while standing you wouldn't fall down (reminds me of what I used to do as a kid in Moscow's Metro). Nevertheless people continue taking them as it is convenient to them. With an improved LRT more people will find public transit convenient.

    When traffic grows by about 3% a year we only have set back traffic growth by a year. What would we do next year, build two more lines and spend another $2 Billion??. Two new LRT lines would take 10 years to build, by the time they would be done we wouldn't notice the difference.
    these figures are loaded too. you are making assumptions that trends continue as they have been even though you create other opportunities. Since LRT and traffic are alternatives to the same event--they will affect one another. These relationships aren't linear, they are dynamic processes that affect each other, depend on people's choices, the economy, place of work, costs of car maintenance, property taxes, prices of gasoline etc and therefore require much more sophisticated mathematics.
    My ridership numbers are an estimate. After nearly 30 years of LRT in Edmonton, we only peak at 42,000 riders (ETS Website numbers) in September, midweek. The average is daily ridership is about 30,00 averaged over a year, hence my 60,000 for two lines. The current daily trips by all forms of transport from the City's own studies indicate that 78% of trips are by car and only 9% are by transit including LRT. Only 23% of the total trips taken in this city are to get to work or school. The balance are for shopping, visiting, personal business, etc.

    Your numbers are purely grabbed out of the air. Lets be realistic and use facts.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  98. #98

    Default

    Richard S. Wrote
    Things like Century Park are exciting to newcomers due to the TOD
    Studies of Century Park indicate that only an estimated 5% will use the LRT for their commute. That is less than the city average 9% of trips taken by transit. The majority of CP residents are going to work in other directions.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  99. #99
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT
    Studies of Century Park indicate that only an estimated 5% will use the LRT for their commute. That is less than the city average 9% of trips taken by transit. The majority of CP residents are going to work in other directions.
    Does this imply that transit should go in first and that new construction should be reserved for UofA students and people who work near the LRT stations?

  100. #100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MylesC
    The very idea that we don't have the density nor the necessary nodes for an LRT system if utter rubbish.
    Where do you get your facts before you post something?

    Edmonton has one of the lowest densities of any city in North America. We have about 1,067 people per km2. Most recommendations for LRT require a density of 3,900 people per km2. At the very least we should have some high density residential areas. When I lived in Brampton Ontario 20 years ago, the population was 330.,000 but I lived in an apartment that was 26 strories tall and there were 25 similar apartments plus a major shopping mall within an area of one square kilometer . Clearly we are not even close to having the density required.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

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
  •