Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 201 to 299 of 299

Thread: Edmonton BRT

  1. #201

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bagould
    Parking lots are not transit. If you're basing an LRT line around where there's enough land nobody wants that you can park a thousand cars, you've done something seriously, seriously wrong (unless of course you're leading growth with the train, in which case go ahead, put in temporary surface lots).

    Oh, and there's absolutely zero park and ride planned for the NAIT line.

    You really have to try Calgary's LRT some time....
    City Centre Airport is to the sky as False Creek is to the ocean.

  2. #202
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    653

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lux
    You really have to try Calgary's LRT some time....
    Been there, done that. What was I supposed to have learned from it?

    All I did learn was what not to do (excepting the part where their system is bigger).

  3. #203

    Default

    ^^ you have to remember that in bagould's perfect world, nobody ever drives, and if they do, they car pool. And everyone takes transit everywhere. Refineries, Downtown, WEM.... Namao... everywhere.

    And no, there is no PNR on the Phase I of the NAIT line.

    There may be some up in the further suburbs though. Like say between yellowhead and 137ave..or at northgate. And there will definately be one further north at the new planned transit centre near the henday.

    Having PNR's near major freeways and highways make sense.

    The Car driving public will NEVER disappear, and if we can help them get on the LRT to go places via a PNR... we have a success (not that PNR = success...just better success) I think even bagould would agree that if we can eliminate a few car trips and people drive to an LRT station to go places... we win.

    So bagould, PNR's are important, when properly placed. Might as well face the reality that people will continue to drive... might as well give them a choice to either "drive downtown" or a short drive to the LRT station... cause many people wont grab a bus to the LRT station.

  4. #204
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    653

    Default

    Are we talking about the same CTrain that's so full that when they open a new station with park and ride people start driving further out just so they can get a seat on the train?

    I'm not convinced that park and ride at Century Park would have lead to driving reductions. I'm pretty sure that one at Southgate would have increased driving.

    I'll support park and ride, but it has to be under a number of conditions. It needs to be at least 10km out. It has to be a surface lot to be flipped to a developer later. If the lot fills up, you have to start charging money for it. Otherwise you get people who would have taken a feeder bus now driving, with fewer people in the vehicle than an average car. When the lot fills up, you get people who would have taken a bus, but now can't take transit at all and keep driving downtown.

    It's also a really bad use of land next to a station. Wouldn't it be better to put an apartment building so that there's no driving at all?

    Quote Originally Posted by Select Passages From Draft Versions of My Old Park and Ride Article
    Due to increasing construction costs on the south LRT, the Transportation and Public Works committee has voted to scrap the $60 million park-and-ride at Century Park to try to stay on budget. Sure, all other things equal, less parking will result in lower ridership, and 1200 stalls is a lot of parking.

    Unfortunately that doesn't translate into ridership. Stantec's report on the Southgate park-and-ride states 1.2 transit riders use each stall (lower than the average car at 1.4 occupants), and of those "50% would otherwise use transit." That's only 0.6 new riders per stall.

    Even with the projected 40,000 new riders the LRT will have room for several times that, but a parkade would overflow the day it opened. Not allowing parking at Southgate will make demand at Century Park even more intense.

    Of those who could not find a spot, half would have taken transit and are now driving the whole way. If 200 cars are turned away, 120 riders are lost.

    Surely every bit helps the environment? Even ignoring that more LRT is cheaper, cement production and construction are huge producers of greenhouse gasses, and that encouraging driving is counter-productive, that still leaves perceived driving reductions.

    Century Park is 8km from downtown and an average drive to the station is 4km. Without parking, 720 potential new riders in 515 cars drive 6170km. With parking, 1320 cars drive 6240km. That's a net loss for the environment.

    If park-and-ride hurts the LRT system, the environment, the transit rider, and the tax payer, that leaves only the white-collar office worker to benefit. LRT with parking allows us to jam even more nine-to-fivers downtown in less time, and allows those same workers to suck the life out of downtown as they head home early instead of sticking around and living in a downtown condo. Downtown loses too, and when downtown loses Edmonton loses.

    Park-and-ride lots work in developing suburban areas with plenty of land, not rapidly maturing neighbourhoods. Greater distances by train mean that driving is actually reduced. More land means more parking on much cheaper surface lots, which can then be flipped to a developer as land values increase, funding an LRT extension and parking even further out. A six-storey parkade will always be a parkade.

  5. #205
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    North of Little Italy
    Posts
    770

    Default Re: Bus rapid transit plan dies

    Quote Originally Posted by edmontonjournal.com
    Councillors gave preliminary approval last July to a BRT route from Lewis Estates in the west end to downtown, which could have involved demolishing up to 15 houses and seven businesses on Stony Plain Road between 142nd and 149th streets.
    Too often "an idea" is put forward that has not been well thought out - this is one of those times...

    My dentist friend runs his practice in the former bank building on the corner of 142 Street & Stony Plain Road. When this idea was first approved, he approached the city to find out how it would affect his building. Much to his surprise, his building did not show on the plans so he asked if he was going to be bought out - if so, what was their offer?

    The city did not even know his building existed - they mapped his land as a vacant parkland lot - and had widened the road to the point that buses were going to be a few feet from his non existent dental practice.....
    When in doubt - follow the money trail...

  6. #206
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles; Athens
    Posts
    4,399

    Default

    I had made a post and then realized I was propogating a problem.

    Things are shifting towards LRT (surprise!).

    Let's keep this ontrack of dealing with BRT and it's cancellation. LRT/Parking/etc/etc can be discussed separately on in exsisting LRT threads.

    Thanks!
    LA today, Athens tomorrow. I miss E-town.

  7. #207
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    653

    Default

    Five seconds later and I would have been able to reply to it, but now it's gone.

    I'm willing to take it outside, especially if anyone wants to actually take on my arguments or math instead of talking past me.

  8. #208
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    653

    Default

    But to stay on topic, as I proposed before, if the city just striped bus lanes down SPR or 102 Avenue and ran regular buses on the proposed route, would that be more acceptable to people here?

  9. #209
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles; Athens
    Posts
    4,399

    Default

    I think a first step of tweaking our existing routes and making things like expresses work more logically would be a great first step into making our transit system work better.

    We have too many planning artifacts from policy changes which spanned 20-30 years with no proper complete reworking.

    ...and, oh, if humans responded to simply planning by numbers and math. What a simple world it would be...and anthropologists would be out of a job.
    LA today, Athens tomorrow. I miss E-town.

  10. #210
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT
    Quote Originally Posted by highlander

    But before you dismiss LRT as too expensive, consider that a well designed rail route can break even,like ours does, or even turn a significant profit, like toronto's subways. A busy bus route carrying the same # of passengers will alway operate at a loss, usually 50% fare recovery or less.
    Would you have any proof that our LRT breaks even? I have never seen any studies that are able to demonstrate this claim.

    Firstly, capital costs are never recovered.
    Secondly, buses are a necessary part of feeding LRT and cannot be easily removed from the equation. Because of the use of passes and transfers, it is difficult to determine what portion of the revenue is attributed to the LRT and/or bus portion. Maintenance costs are high for the track, stock and energy consumption. Don't forget the hidden costs pointed out in the City Auditors report that suggested 25% of ETS's costs are hidden like shared services from other departments and depreciation of fleet and other assets.

    Please provide any proof that you may have.
    You're right, capital costs aren't recovered. The "break even" I'm talking about is operating, and is equivalent to 100% Farebox recovery. I thought I read a break even claim either here or somewhere else, but I cant find that info anymore. Here's my best facsimile, From ets' website:

    LRT operating costs,2002- 13.7M 2002 is the most recent year I could find. An additional 14m was spent on capital projects. This is likely the 2002 portion of the health sciences extention, so it's not included. The question now is what is revenue, and does it exceed 13.7m?

    In 2002 (forgive me if I'm off a bit, I researched and read these numbers yesterday, and didn't write anything down) LRT had 36,000 riders per day, and the system as a whole had 44m riders per year. Total farebox revenue was about 52m, so recovery was $1.18/ride. Since $1.18 is well below the trip fare ($2 at the time?) it's fairly safe to assume that the 44m rides is boardings, not linked trips, so we can apply $1.18 directly to those 36,000 riders per day, multiplied by 320 service days (basically counting weekends as part days). From all that, revenue was $13.59million in 2002. Not quite break even, but the cost to the taxpayer was very small.

    I would guess from the increase in boardings and minimal service changes since then that LRT operations are in the black now, although U-pass could have had a negative effect on revenue.

    My point was that virtually all of the taxpayer's cost on ROW rapid transit is up front, capital costs, so it's all very visible to the public. Bus based transit's costs are are ongoing. Even with articulated, rapid busses, fuel and driver costs are so much higher per rider that in the long run LRT can be less expensive than "cheap" busses.

    edit* Checked the sources again, 2002 revenue actualy 56m, so revenue was $1.27/ride, so LRt revenue =14.6 M so a small operating profit, although I'm now unsure whether the revenue/ride is boardings or linked trips.

  11. #211

    Default

    Thought I'd bump this thread. I heard on the radio the other day, that Mandel was recommending that BRT be considered again. Did anyone else hear this, or was it just a dream?

    I've always had mixed feelings on BRT. What do others think? Is BRT dead, or will it be revived, perhaps as a "low cost" WLRT option, like the prior plan?

  12. #212
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    I hope that you were dreaming. I have nothing against all the other feature of BRT like limited stops, all-door boarding or fancy-schmancy vehicles, but but real BRT, like the west end would need (like Ottawa has) requires a ROW and if you're going to do that then you might as well add rails.

  13. #213

    Default

    The plan that the Administration was to copy Ottawa's BRT which was impossible because Ottawa used the railway ROW's that Highlander mentions and the freeway system that comes within 1 kilometer of downtown Ottawa. The Ottawa BRT plan also went way over budget and lost 25% of their ridership.

    BRT can be as simple as putting an "EXPRESS BUS" sigh in the front windsheild and reducing the number of stops. This is basically what we have with the Route 100 Super Express to downtown. Many people on this forum have suggested more direct routes as one solution to the transit problem. The first half is great from WEM to 109th and Jasper. The second half from there to 101st and Jasper in the silly loop around to 97th St. and then to City Hall, stopping at every block takes forever. I would call it a half express service. If they would clean up the downtown loop, reduce stops and double the frequency, it could be the first leg of a BRT system without spending millions of dollars on fancy buses.

    From that starting point, promote the hell out of the service and see if ridership picks up. If it does add more 60ft buses and add more Super Express routes to other areas like Millwoods and start timing signals for bus priority and dedicating lanes. Once you get sustained growth and heavy ridership then look at LRT to these routes. IMHO, this is how you build a transit system rather than build an expensive LRT system to nowhere (Lewis Estates) and then hoping the ridership will come.

  14. #214

    Default

    ^ And ottawa is currently working to replace most of their brt system with... LRT... including a possible downtown tunnel...

  15. #215

    Default

    My fear is that somebody isn't happy with what the preliminary results of the current revised WLRT studies are showing (I can't see how anything other than an 87 alignment will be affordable / competitive), and accordingly, this would be another "red herring" to study / delay / throw up a road block.

  16. #216
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,954

    Default

    BRT had some merrit but I too would much rather see the LRT fast tracked even further. We are getting so close to the completion of the current LRT construction in the south but it's time to continue pushing to get lines like the NLRT line out of the ground and get it to at least NAIT.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  17. #217
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Oliver
    Posts
    3,194

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    My fear is that somebody isn't happy with what the preliminary results of the current revised WLRT studies are showing...
    Considering that those various WLRT studies are a direct result of watching WBRT go round and round in circles since 1995, WBRT had better not be back on the table. "WBRT - celebrating its second decade of all talk format."

  18. #218

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by newfangled View Post
    "WBRT - celebrating its second decade of all talk format."
    hehe - good one...

    I never did understand the economics of BRT. IMHO, half-measures give you a half-a**ed solution... If you have an LRT system, expand it, don't introduce another system to complicate matters further...

  19. #219

    Default

    Well, seems I wasn't dreaming, from the Ask the Mayor thread:

    1. The 87 Avenue alignment is, I believe, too expensive with too few returns. I strongly believe we need to be aligning our transit investment with our overall efforts to transform into a more transit-oriented city, which means more effort to move LRT along high density routes the entire way – not just high density destinations. We are also currently expanding bus lanes along Fox Drive and Quesnell, plus constructing a $30 million overpass from the South Campus LRT, these enhanced connections should make BRT more feasible from South Campus to the West end.
    And...

    3. Would you support Streetcars or trams as an upgraded transit option for areas that do not require the speed and longer distance travel that LRT is best suited for and where streetcars can better integrate into existing neighbourhoods?

    A more cost effective option is BRT - Bus Rapid Transit and improved bus service.
    What do people think? Is it good that this is being revived?

  20. #220
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    I am not sure that the term "BRT" is consistently used to mean the same thing. I have heard BRT being used in reference to a system of express routes etc..

    In reference to the BRT system that Edmonton was planning in the past--dedicated rights of way with elevated stations and special busses--South Campus to W.E is not necessarily a bad idea as long as wLRT still goes ahead.

  21. #221

    Default

    I am also open to BRT as a 2nd best option - it would be better than just existing bus system. The suggestion does seem to be the mayor would like BRT from UofA to WEM, and "eventually" LRT up SPR. If it can be done, fine. I think the reality is though - that the "eventually" will be a very long time for this plan, as the cost will be huge -- so it simply won't happen for a couple more decades at least.

    It will be interesting to see what the city comes back with. I get the impression though, that Mayor mandel would like BRT to WEM and Millwoods, and LRT just put on hold as too expensive. He may get outvoted though.

  22. #222

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish View Post
    I am not sure that the term "BRT" is consistently used to mean the same thing. I have heard BRT being used in reference to a system of express routes etc..
    BRT covers a spectrum of bus rapid transit formats that can be as simple as a $350,000 diesel bus with a special paint job or even just a "EXPRESS BUS" sign in the window to the a $1,600,000 articulated bus with GPS, dedicated lanes, special terminals, Smart Card ticketing and real time bus locations.


    For a informative read see

    Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision Making
    The Federal Transit Administration has released a guide designed to give transit operators, planners, and local decision makers assistance when considering Bus Rapid Transit as an option for local transportation needs. The guide describes the six elements that distinguish BRT from regular bus systems and reviews the potential benefits of operating a BRT system.

    http://www.nbrti.org/media/documents...ion-Making.pdf

  23. #223

    Default

    ^Is everything in transportation written by Booz Allen Hamilton? That one is particularly boring.

    I think what killed BRT last time, was that it was almost as controversial as LRT in terms of impact on communities, but whereas most people can imagine themselves using the LRT, few get excited about a bus in a dedicated lane screaming through their community. I think the "Rapid" in BRT frightens people, because no-body likes being next to a fast moving bus.

    In saying that, I do see the point of BRT on many routes though - the whole idea of a feeder system of busses into something faster, makes sense to me (but only if we get rid of the slow busses on the BRT routes - so people must use the BRT).
    Last edited by moahunter; 08-02-2009 at 10:18 PM.

  24. #224
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    3. Would you support Streetcars or trams as an upgraded transit option for areas that do not require the speed and longer distance travel that LRT is best suited for and where streetcars can better integrate into existing neighbourhoods?

    A more cost effective option is BRT - Bus Rapid Transit and improved bus service.

    While I'll never argue against improving bus service, I think it's pretty clear that BRT(the wannabe LRT version) is not a viable upgrade for areas that need better transit but don't reall need to go far, or fast, just faster and more reliably than existing service. I'm thinking in particular of Oliver here, and maybe if I'd mentioned it the mayor might have understood the context a little better. When you are going from oliver to downtown, you only need to go 20 blocks or so at most so 'rapid' is not required, unles by rapid we mean only 'faster than a vigorous stroll' It's not always as cost effect as the mayor says either. ROW requirement is the same whether it's bus or rail, and whether he likes it or not, rail is a lot more popular with ordinary citizens, as Moa mentions.

    It's also interesting that Mayor Mandel claims that the factor that makes LRT viable is development and TOD, (see SPR vs 87ave) but the same factor is gnored in the Streetcar/bus issue.

  25. #225
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,319

    Default

    Brazil has a lesson for Edmonton Transit expansion
    Bryan Saunders
    FOR METRO EDMONTON
    May 03, 2010 8:00 a.m.

    Last week’s LRT traffic signal hiccups at 111 St. and 51 Ave. — which saw automobile drivers waiting upwards of 20 minutes to make a left-hand turn because of the coming and goings of the trains — got me to thinking about how other cities have avoided similar problems.

    In Calgary’s downtown core, for example, these types of headaches are minimized by having the LRT stop at red lights just like any other vehicle. Drivers still have to wait for the train to clear the intersection before they can turn left, but usually only for a few seconds.

    The Calgary approach isn’t perfect by any means, of course -- obviously, it has the counterproductive effect of dramatically slowing down the LRT. The C-Train’s usual top speed of 80 km/h outside the city core is halved to a top speed of 40 km/h when it’s downtown. Actual speeds, most of the time, are even slower.

    Vancouver’s SkyTrain avoids the traffic snarls altogether. This is possible because the SkyTrain (as the lofty name suggests) is on an elevated track, and thus circumvents interactions with roadway traffic.

    Full Story: http://www.metronews.ca/edmonton/com...nsit-expansion

  26. #226
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,319

    Default

    Is it just me, or did this guy forget to do his research? The City of Edmonton investigated BRT several years ago, and chose, for good reasons, not to pursue BRT. How embarrassing that the author, Bryan Saunders, and his editor didn't bother to look into any local BRT news.

  27. #227

    Default

    ^That's a bit unfair:

    Unexpectedly, Curitiba also has the highest rates of transit ridership rates in Brazil (nearly 85 per cent). It also boasts some of the lowest per capita levels of fuel consumption in its country, and the cleanest air of any major Brazilian city.


    This amazing feat is accomplished via housing development planning that is extremely transit-oriented, along with innovative roadway designs and an enormous fleet of articulated (i.e. accordion) buses.


    Together, these three things allow Curitiba to flexibly and inexpensively deliver a level of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) that rivals even the best subway systems — and without any LRT-induced traffic snarls.


    With talk of further LRT extension in Edmonton rampant; it may well be that effectively planned BRT can be a cheaper and more practical alternative in some cases.
    I think the problem with it is that it is incredibly unpoular with neighborhoods, even more so than LRT. I know the thought of buses roaring past my place at 70km/hr was unappealing (I can live with quieter LRT). That probably doesn't matter in a poverty stricken country like Brazil where most people can't afford cars so are happy to sacrifice for transit.

  28. #228

    Default

    People here are also more willing to give up their car for LRT, but not for buses (even if it were BRT).

  29. #229
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,391

    Default

    This is just weird...
    ---
    Tennessee Passes Mind-Boggling Ban on Bus Rapid Transit
    Tennessee lawmakers overwhelmingly voted in favor a bill that bans the construction of bus rapid transit (BRT) anywhere in the state.
    http://www.wired.com/2014/04/tenness...rapid-transit/

  30. #230
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Westmount
    Posts
    3,290

    Default

    In certain conservative circles in the U.S., there is a pathological obsession against mass/public transit of any kind. Michele Bachmann famously declared light rail to be a left-wing social engineering plot to force Americans to live in transit-accessible "tenements" in the inner cities, to cite but one example:

    "This is their agenda—I know it's hard to believe, it's hard to fathom, but this is 'Mission Accomplished' for them," she said of congressional Democrats. "They want Americans to take transit and move to the inner cities. They want Americans to move to the urban core, live in tenements, [and] take light rail to their government jobs. That's their vision for America."
    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ulbs-agenda-21

  31. #231

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    This is just weird...
    ---
    Tennessee Passes Mind-Boggling Ban on Bus Rapid Transit
    Tennessee lawmakers overwhelmingly voted in favor a bill that bans the construction of bus rapid transit (BRT) anywhere in the state.
    http://www.wired.com/2014/04/tenness...rapid-transit/
    Just look for the sticky fingers of the Koch brothers.

    Billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch are useful villains for the Democratic Party. The brothers spend millions on influencing elections and policy, but they also seek to avoid all scrutiny of their activities, making it easy to paint them as the shadowy men behind the curtain of the Republican Party. Sometimes (their defenders would say often) Democratic attacks on the Kochs go too far. It is easy to misrepresent their agenda and how they work to advance that agenda. They don’t “buy” politicians, in the traditional sense. They instead build and fund organizations that further their goals at just about every level of American politics, from issue advocacy groups to super PACs to think tanks to grass-roots activist organizations.

    Koch defenders will frequently point to some of those organizations that work with some degree of independence or do work on issues that aren’t strictly conservative goals — the Kochs are pro-civil liberties! — but it is a fact that much of the brothers’ political spending is nakedly devoted to protecting their economic interests and shielding their business from regulation and oversight. And their business is a toxic and destructive one that is hastening our planet’s destruction, which, admittedly, is pretty textbook villainous. It doesn’t help when David Koch does something like use his economic influence over a public television affiliate to attempt to bury a documentary that is critical of him. And sometimes, the Kochs do something that just seems like dickish villainy for the hell of it. Like, why is Americans for Prosperity lobbying hard against a mass transit project in Nashville, Tenn.?

    http://www.salon.com/2014/04/01/why_..._in_nashville/

  32. #232
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Red Deer
    Posts
    2,561

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    This is just Iweird...
    ---
    Tennessee Passes Mind-Boggling Ban on Bus Rapid Transit
    Tennessee lawmakers overwhelmingly voted in favor a bill that bans the construction of bus rapid transit (BRT) anywhere in the state.
    http://www.wired.com/2014/04/tenness...rapid-transit/
    Interesting that a couple of comments mentioned that one major thoroughfare in Nashville would be cut from 5 lanes to 2 because of BRT.

    Nashville resident here. The main opposition to the AMP, or at least most of the people I've talked to, is the fact that it will remove three lanes of traffic from one of the busiest streets in Nashville (West End Blvd). While banning BRT in all of Tennessee is clearly an overreaction, the objections to the AMP are still perfectly valid. I don't know any about the Koch brothers connection and frankly don't find it relevant to making the traffic problems of a poorly planned out city worse.
    Spot on. The local, informed viewpoint is that West End is already a heavily traveled, major thoroughfare in the city. The Amp, as proposed by Mayor Dean, was set to remove three lanes of the five lane road. Based on the starting points of the bus service, it was obvious that the system was going to have the opposite effect than what was intended. Further, for the Amp to have had any kind of a major impact on traffic, there would need to be a place for people to park in order to take the Amp further in to town. Unfortunately, there are no infill locations anywhere near the proposed starting point that would serve this purpose. So the proposed solution to massive urban sprawl was an impotent, dedicated lane rapid bus transit system that was going to further choke traffic on a heavily traveled thoroughfare.

    Clearly, the legislative work was an overreaction...but the Mayor and the Amp proponents never had intelligent responses to legitimate criticisms of the proposal's overt design flaws. In an increasingly partisan political landscape that more and more resembles the irrational, blind following of sports teams (my team wants the amp, therefore I support it!), this is what happens when nobody wants to find middle ground.

    Not to mention that buses that currently serve the route are virtually empty as it is...

  33. #233
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,391

    Default

    I guess if one of your primary businesses is oil (Koch Industries, Koch Pipeline, Flint Hills Resources) then you might be opposed to mass transit.
    But still banning BRT in an entire state seems like overkill, I get the fact trains can run quicker and can hold more people, but in some cases it has been helpful in relieving some problems (Winnipeg, Ottawa). In Edmonton's case there might be opportunities for BRT but it does seem "second class" to LRT. The proposal for the west end BRT seemed like they would forgo LRT to the west end for BRT only, which is why I was opposed. Perhaps something more of a stepping stone, build the corridor for BRT but with the long term goal of using the bridges and tunnels for LRT.
    Last edited by sundance; 16-04-2014 at 10:19 AM.

  34. #234

    Default

    Interesting article here, Calgary isn't planning to proceed with any new c train stations until the 2030's (not even a 175m expansion option to the airport), per Nenshi, the focus will be on BRT:

    http://www.calgaryherald.com/Opening...150/story.html

    I think raises interesting definition issue, Calgary has "BRT" now, but per this article, it's not "real" BRT as not in its own lane. Perhaps a BRT "in lane" could somehow be made from NAIT to St Albert (not sure, I guess issue is which lanes can be "sacrificed"), or the future Sherwood Park expansion?
    Last edited by moahunter; 24-08-2014 at 09:26 PM.

  35. #235

    Default

    Calgary is now looking at the cost of two tunnels downtown, one for the low floor SE to N line and another to separate the current lines as the combination of two LRT lines and traffic is causing congestion. Luckily, we came it from the other direction and got the tunnel first and now have the street based line coming up. I'd be concerned about a tunnel (or two) and the possibility of another flood. The said it was 1 in a hundred years but you never know. They're also looking at ~$500 mill to $1 billion for flood prevention measures. That's going to eat up their infrastructure money for a while.

    The downtown section of the route will be located in a subway under 2nd Street SW.

    ---

    Downtown-8th Avenue Subway
    Today, CTrain service on the South and Northwest legs operate as one continuous route (Route 201). The Northeast leg (Route 202) terminates service at the west end of the downtown. In 2012, the Northeast LRT will be linked with the West line when it opens and will operate as a continuous service.
    The 7th Avenue transit mall is restricted to the operation of CTrains, buses and emergency vehicles. Traffic signals are timed to facilitate CTrain operation (not preempted). Existing three-car station platforms in the downtown are currently being replaced and these new stations along with station modifications along the rest of the network will permit the operation of 4 car trains by 2014.
    Early planning of the Calgary LRT network recognized the need to someday separate the combined operation of the South / Northwest and Northeast lines that currently operate jointly along 7th Avenue. Separation of these routes will eliminate delays that occur at the entry point to the downtown where the lines must be switched onto a common piece of track. Provision has been made for construction of a future subway under 8th Avenue S to accommodate the South / Northwest service. The Northeast / West route will remain on 7th Avenue. Building the
    8th Avenue Subway will allow for higher capacity services on both lines. Detailed functional planning for this subway is just starting (2010) and the work will include a design for the subway required for the Southeast line under 2nd Street SW.

    http://www.calgarytransit.com/pdf/ct...twork_plan.pdf
    Last edited by kkozoriz; 24-08-2014 at 09:51 PM.

  36. #236

    Default

    ^did you read the article I posted? All of that is on hold, until at least 2030 (unless some new source of funds, per Nenshi), the focus is going to be on BRT for some time. I expect there will be BRT to the SE for example, very soon. Edmonton "could" perhaps do the same thing with the LRT lines it won't be working on for some years (hence, I suggested, St Albert, and Sherwood park).

  37. #237

    Default

    BRT should be part of long term LRT planning.

    But anyone that knows Edmonton knows we already have BRT in essence between Downtown and Sherwood Park, Fort Sask, Leduc, Spruce Grove, St Albert...

    The Capital Region Board has long term plans for BRT to Redwater and the Alberta Industrial Heartland.

    It's too bad that a certain someone above only knows about whats going on in Calgary, and thinks that we should just mirror what ever the eff Calgary is doing on every single thread on this forum. Its tiring.
    Last edited by Medwards; 25-08-2014 at 11:08 AM.

  38. #238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    But anyone that knows Edmonton knows we already have BRT in essence between Downtown and Sherwood Park, Fort Sask, Leduc, Spruce Grove, St Albert...
    Yeah, all those dedicated lanes that only allow busses, all the way from Leduc, St Albert, etc, I guess you take them all the time? Sorry Medwards, what Edmonton and Calgary have is not BRT (which is also the point the article is making). Ottawa is the leader in BRT:

    So without LRT promises anytime soon, “rapid transit” is officials’ new phrase. Bus rapid transit, busways, transitways — all better than the express-style bus Calgary runs today.

    “We haven’t shown Calgarians what a real BRT is,” transit director Doug Morgan said in an interview, pointing to rapid bus-only routes in the Ottawa area and north of Toronto.

    “You can operate a bus service much like an LRT, separate right-of-ways so there’s no delays, no mixed traffic . . . they can be just as efficient as rail, maybe not carry as many people, a really good solution to urban travel.”
    http://www.calgaryherald.com/Opening...150/story.html
    Last edited by moahunter; 25-08-2014 at 11:13 AM.

  39. #239

    Default

    A lot of Ottawa's BRT runs on the shoulder lane, wouldn't be that hard to convert our regional express buses to true BRT.

    Care you go over your previous posts on BRT circa 2007/2008 - or are you now for BRT? Much flip flopping from you.

    Edmonton proposes to do BRT along stony plain road... Moahunter == BOOOOOOOOO Calgary has LRT, so we should do LRT every where.

    Calgary proposes BRT and a stop on LRT construction.... Moahunter == HEY EDMONTON should do this!!!

  40. #240

    Default

    ^I posted an article in this thread about how BRT is being expanded in Calgary ahead of LRT plans, I thought it might prompt some discussion about whether BRT should be looked at again in Edmonton (I never said anywhere it should proceed) as it has some interesting comments, but heck, it's clearly more important for you to personally attack me. Whatever.
    Last edited by moahunter; 25-08-2014 at 12:21 PM.

  41. #241

    Default

    Sorry if you consider your former posts as a personal attack... I'm sorry that 95% of your posts are Calgary related.

  42. #242

    Default

    ^not true, but regardless, you have "won" Medwards, bully for you, I won't post again in a Mass Transit thread, its not worth your agravation.

  43. #243

    Default

    or maybe you could just make another thread for your Calgary BRT postings, and keep this one about Edmonton BRT.
    I haven't won anything, but I see your back to personal attacks calling me a bully.

  44. #244

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    BRT should be part of long term LRT planning.

    But anyone that knows Edmonton knows we already have BRT in essence between Downtown and Sherwood Park, Fort Sask, Leduc, Spruce Grove, St Albert...
    But if you ask planners at ETS, they have told me that there is no BRT in Edmonton. They wrongly assume that BRT HAS TO BE some big, expensive project.

    This misperception is why people were against big budget BRT plans that were poorly thought out and why we ended up with rehashed slow streetcar plans.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  45. #245

    Default

    BRT definitely doesn't have to be big and expensive. It's something that can easily be built in very small pieces and expanded as required. If you consider our express/super express routes, plus the regional routes to the counties/regional burbs hubs, we already have BRT Phase I. Go from there. We have other features of a BRT system that are hardly used for the purpose, ie: the bus lanes down fox drive or 97st, and priority/advanced bus signaling at certain intersections.

  46. #246

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^did you read the article I posted? All of that is on hold, until at least 2030 (unless some new source of funds, per Nenshi), the focus is going to be on BRT for some time. I expect there will be BRT to the SE for example, very soon. Edmonton "could" perhaps do the same thing with the LRT lines it won't be working on for some years (hence, I suggested, St Albert, and Sherwood park).
    Yes I read it and the point I was making that, in order to add any new lines, they're going to need at least one and eventually two tunnels downtown, an expensive proposition that they can't handle right now. Part of the reason WHY there's won't be new LRT until 2030.

  47. #247

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    BRT definitely doesn't have to be big and expensive. It's something that can easily be built in very small pieces and expanded as required. If you consider our express/super express routes, plus the regional routes to the counties/regional burbs hubs, we already have BRT Phase I. Go from there. We have other features of a BRT system that are hardly used for the purpose, ie: the bus lanes down fox drive or 97st, and priority/advanced bus signaling at certain intersections.
    Correct.

    Adding a bus overpass at 83rd and Argyll to make a more direct transit only route to Millwoods should have been done years ago. 83rd from Whyte to Argyll is never congested but the streetcar plans will make it congested IMHO. Why rip up a perfectly good road to install rails that will be no faster than BRT and would cost far less to build and maintain.

    Adding a bus only lane or lanes down Conners hill and even a new bridge for buses to downtown could be done incrementally. Throw a few dedicated lanes & lights with transit priority down 102nd and you have an equal system that is flexible and instead of a single line to Millwoods with only 3 stops, you can branch out with more BRT routes to several stops, offering better network coverage and more walkable commutes to multiple transit stops.
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 27-08-2014 at 06:34 AM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  48. #248

    Default

    You guys are forgetting the one major problems with BRT:

    It's nearly impossible to fund BRT with a P3 & without a P3 there's no Fed money because there's no way for big business to make a guaranteed profit off the backs of the citizens while providing an essential service like there is with our lovely P3 LRT scheme.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  49. #249
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,391

    Default

    GM managed to make money from scrapping streetcars though. Its possible, just not necessarily the best long term solution for moving the most people.

  50. #250

    Default

    That's because GM was selling diesel buses.

    Now other companies want to sell streetcars and scrap buses. Follow the money...
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  51. #251

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    You guys are forgetting the one major problems with BRT:

    It's nearly impossible to fund BRT with a P3 & without a P3 there's no Fed money because there's no way for big business to make a guaranteed profit off the backs of the citizens while providing an essential service like there is with our lovely P3 LRT scheme.
    BRT can cost next to nothing to implement. You don't need a billion dollar (or more) P3, and BRT can be easily piece-mealed over many years as demand/money is available. Unlike LRT, it doesn't need a large initial and ongoing investments to build up the network.

    A few signal modifications, a few jersey barriers, some paint, and perhaps a lot of signs saying "bus lane only"... a few million maybe for many km's of BRT, for LRT, this would be a shy billion.
    Last edited by Medwards; 27-08-2014 at 11:24 AM.

  52. #252

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    BRT can cost next to nothing to implement. You don't need a billion dollar P3, and BRT can be easily piece-mealed over many years as demand/money is available. Unlike LRT, it doesn't need a large initial and ongoing investments to build up the network.
    That's exactly why we don't get money for it.

    The LRT money from the Feds isn't about transit, it's about the P3 & funelling money to private hands from public coffers.

    I think we're both on the same page here Matt. I concur that we'd get a much better bang-for-buck from a BRT network than the Streetcar LRT we're getting, but wealth transfer from public coffers to private pockets is how things get done in the New Edmonton.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  53. #253
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,391

    Default

    The problem with a cheap BRT is it offers little advantage over regular buses. You need to spend quite a bit building bridges or tunnels that make it advantageous (ex Winnipeg and Ottawa). Then at what point is just building a LRT a better solution.

  54. #254

    Default

    And the problem with the (not so cheap) LRT we are building is it offers little advantage over the bus service that's currently available. You spend quite a bid of money building this LRT, but it will be no faster than an express bus running from Millwoods town center to downtown. There could be advantages in our LRT we are about to build, but since it will still have much interference from the road... its a express bus+billion dollars.
    LRT would be worthy of all the extra cost if it offers something more competitive than an express bus...

  55. #255

    Default

    And only three streetcar stations to serve a catchment area of ~25 km2 with 80,000 people with an additional ~15km2 of residential in the SE that is expanding and needs better transit.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  56. #256
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,922
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  57. #257

    Default

    ^ I respect what Penoloso says about cycling, but on transit he can't simply cut from Buenos Airies (metro 12 million and most can't afford cars) and paste into Edmonton (metro 1/10th the size, and 80% can afford cars.)

    Edmonton is different than Buenos Airies in that single occupant vehicles here actually still work, and are affordable for the large majority of people. In BA, it's just a matter of providing a solution that moves people, but here it's a matter of having people choose it.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  58. #258

  59. #259
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,391

    Default

    Not sure if Ottawa is a good success example. They are moving away from BRT to LRT.
    http://www.railforthevalley.com/late...lrt-in-ottawa/

    Winnipeg has BRT only because the government didn't have the money to fund LRT. I'm not saying no BRT, I'm saying a properly designed LRT system can carry more passengers per hour than a properly designed BRT system. It can also be cheaper to operate as less labor costs for the driver and less energy used compared to busses.

    BRT has it's place where the volume of traffic doesn't warrant LRT lines. As well a properly designed BRT system can be converted to rail in the future if clearances are adequate, curves and slopes are gradual and bridges are strong enough.
    Last edited by sundance; 20-04-2016 at 08:59 AM.

  60. #260

    Default

    BRT has been successful in Ottawa for 40 years, and they are only now moving to LRT because of its success. BRT can be implemented in a fraction of the time it takes to setup LRT, and should be used as a precursor to LRT. BRT should have been to Millwoods since the 70's... but we are Edmonton and do things ***-backwards, or not at all. BRT should be in place before LRT, as you said, and then we can graduate it to LRT as demand warrants it.

    Ottawa has transit ridership that is higher per capita than Edmonton.

    BRT should be used in places where we wont get LRT for a long time, and should have been built to many corners of the city already... but we've been so focused on only LRT... and the progress has been really slow.

    Edmonton doesn't utilize buses very well at all. Ottawa does. Vancouver does, and many others do. Our bus routes often take the long way to a destination. We need high frequency, high speed direct bus routes.
    We could learn a lot from Ottawa and their bus network, which will continue to be great even after LRT is in place. BRT will still be used.

  61. #261

    Default

    IMHO, we don't need to spend a billion dollars in some platinum plated BRT service that is over engineered and under performing.

    SURPRISE! We already have BRT in Edmonton. It is called express bus service. We can do more about making bus service better by adding routes, more direct and linear service, improve and add bus lanes, priority signals, real time bus tracking, better scheduling etc. Even reducing the more than 6,000 bus stops to increase system speed and reduce stops all benefit the system at a reasonable cost and improves service.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  62. #262

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    BRT has it's place where the volume of traffic doesn't warrant LRT lines. As well a properly designed BRT system can be converted to rail in the future if clearances are adequate, curves and slopes are gradual and bridges are strong enough.
    Calgary is trying to do that with 14 street SW. Its deeply unpopular though, just like when Edmonton suggested it as a pre-cursor to WLRT (I know next to nobody in my neighborhood wanted it, but lots of people wanted LRT). People are willing to give up a lane of traffic on their commute if they get an LRT service in return, but not for a bus (which they already have the choice of taking).

  63. #263

    Default

    Fully in favour of the straight-line, high frequency bus system.

    Not a replacement for the six basic transit "spokes" in the wheel though (Clareview, Century Park, St. Albert, Sherwood Park, Millwoods, WEM). As Peneloso himself said, we have to take advantage in Alberta and Ontario of all the governmental stars in alignment before they come unaligned. We don't know when we'd get another chance.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  64. #264

    Default

    People in Alberta's 2 major cities have a stigma about buses, and that's only because buses have been improperly employed.
    If buses were used properly, as they do in Ottawa, people would be as much in favour of using them as they do in Ottawa.
    Instead, bus and their routes crawl through neighbourhoods, as its mandated that every citizen in Edmonton be no further than 400 m for a bus stop, which is why routes take the long way around, are slow, and don't get anywhere fast.

    We simply can't afford to build LRT everywhere in this city, and certainly, there are many areas that deserve premimum transit service, but will never have the density to support LRT and the associate costs. There are some areas of the city that are still decades away from getting LRT. This is where BRT should be.

    BRT should be already in place every where we want LRT to eventually go. Once funding is ready, we can change BRT to LRT.... like Ottawa. If we want more people to use transit, we need to provide them a decent service today, and BRT fills that. It can be quickly and cheaply implemented until we can afford to bring LRT out further.

    Building BRT now doesn't mean we can't do LRT later...

    A real transit city gets this. ... Edmonton and Calgary are a far reach from a real transit city, outside of LRT. This is the change we need to make if we want a real modal shift to occur anytime soon.
    Last edited by Medwards; 20-04-2016 at 10:41 AM.

  65. #265
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    BRT has it's place where the volume of traffic doesn't warrant LRT lines. As well a properly designed BRT system can be converted to rail in the future if clearances are adequate, curves and slopes are gradual and bridges are strong enough.
    Calgary is trying to do that with 14 street SW. Its deeply unpopular though, just like when Edmonton suggested it as a pre-cursor to WLRT (I know next to nobody in my neighborhood wanted it, but lots of people wanted LRT). People are willing to give up a lane of traffic on their commute if they get an LRT service in return, but not for a bus (which they already have the choice of taking).
    Both those cases were infrastructure-heavy bus plans, and in edmonton's case half the resistance was from people who didn't want these extra-fast buses rushing past their houses, thanks to stellar information from the city.

    Better bus routes, better bus stops, bus priority signals... none of that is controversial.

  66. #266

    Default

    We cannot afford to pass up the political opportunity to do rail in one shot.

    A sensible bus system (and we are almost all talking about the same thing) is a separate no-brainer.

    But we cannot afford to pass up the political opportunity to do rail in one shot.

    It will change how our city grows.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  67. #267
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee View Post
    Fully in favour of the straight-line, high frequency bus system.

    Not a replacement for the six basic transit "spokes" in the wheel though (Clareview, Century Park, St. Albert, Sherwood Park, Millwoods, WEM). As Peneloso himself said, we have to take advantage in Alberta and Ontario of all the governmental stars in alignment before they come unaligned. We don't know when we'd get another chance.
    Who decided 6? we went from being a city with 4 obvious quadrants to being a city with 6 apparently self-evident sectors in the course of one "urban style" LRT "consultation" process.

    Sure, build LRT when we get the chance, if the plan is solid. But we could have a bus line identical to the current planned WLRT today, with the same stops and the same priority as the future LRT, for the cost of running a few more buses.

    St. Albert already has express bus routes into the city, with few stops and some priority. That needs to be built on before building a billion dollars worth of LRT just to detour them to a part of CastleDowns where they don't need to go.

    They're planning for LRT on whyte ave, where they can't be bothered to upgrade bus service to the same 5-minute frequency that an LRT would presumably have. Why?

    Cause it looks nice, I guess. It's too bad that EDP-clones have been running transportation planning these last few years.

  68. #268
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee View Post
    We cannot afford to pass up the political opportunity to do rail in one shot.

    A sensible bus system (and we are almost all talking about the same thing) is a separate no-brainer.

    But we cannot afford to pass up the political opportunity to do rail in one shot.

    It will change how our city grows.
    We can't afford to build it wrong.

    IF we screw up too badly, which I think WLRT as-is would be, then it could poison the public's perception of LRT for the next generation. We could have a populace that will never trust anything but 100% grade separation for future lines, and we could end up shutting down major intersections and whole LRT legs again just to fix the problems.

    The cost of delaying a year to make sure the valley line has grade separation where it's needed would be a year and something like $25m per grade separation if done during initial construction.

    The cost of doing it wrong could be compromised operation with lower priority, reliability and speed, public opposition to future lines with crossings even where it DOES make sense, and fixing each of those mistakes would cost closer to $100m each plus either a 2-year LRT shutdown or an even longer period of severely compromised service.

  69. #269

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee View Post
    We cannot afford to pass up the political opportunity to do rail in one shot.
    A sensible bus system (and we are almost all talking about the same thing) is a separate no-brainer.
    But we cannot afford to pass up the political opportunity to do rail in one shot.
    It will change how our city grows.
    Yeah, the political opportunity of the "shovel ready" Metro Line was such a great deal...

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

  70. #270

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee View Post
    Fully in favour of the straight-line, high frequency bus system.

    Not a replacement for the six basic transit "spokes" in the wheel though (Clareview, Century Park, St. Albert, Sherwood Park, Millwoods, WEM). As Peneloso himself said, we have to take advantage in Alberta and Ontario of all the governmental stars in alignment before they come unaligned. We don't know when we'd get another chance.
    Who decided 6? we went from being a city with 4 obvious quadrants to being a city with 6 apparently self-evident sectors in the course of one "urban style" LRT "consultation" process.
    I don't know who decided 6.

    (#6 is Jasper Place).

    You tell me who decided 6.


    Is there something wrong with 6?


    Sure, build LRT when we get the chance, if the plan is solid. But we could have a bus line identical to the current planned WLRT today, with the same stops and the same priority as the future LRT, for the cost of running a few more buses.
    Yeah, and the Route 15 carries 90,000 people per day. What colour technology powers your dreams.

    St. Albert already has express bus routes into the city, with few stops and some priority. That needs to be built on before building a billion dollars worth of LRT just to detour them to a part of CastleDowns where they don't need to go.

    They're planning for LRT on whyte ave, where they can't be bothered to upgrade bus service to the same 5-minute frequency that an LRT would presumably have. Why?
    Are you suggesting that I don't support the high frequency bus model?

    Cause it looks nice, I guess. It's too bad that EDP-clones have been running transportation planning these last few years.
    Good guess, but it's completely wrong.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  71. #271

    Default

    We had a better system in 1938 than we have now....
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  72. #272

    Default

    ^ zero argument there.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  73. #273

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    We had a better system in 1938 than we have now....
    Need Cher to turn back time...

  74. #274
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Westmount
    Posts
    3,290

    Default

    David Staples:

    To BRT or not to BRT? That is the question coming fast to Edmonton city council after an election where voters expressed dissatisfaction with the high cost, operational delays and traffic jams caused by the city’s new Light Rail Transit (LRT) lines.
    Did voters really do that? If so, how? By electing Cartmell? What about the result in the other 11 wards, and mayoral election? Staples doesn't spend a moment explaining how he reached this conclusion. This strikes me as yet another stretch from a writer who has little credibility left.
    “Son, one day this will be an iconic structure shaping Edmonton’s skyline.”

  75. #275
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,684

    Default

    There was a time, long ago and far away that David Staples was a good reporter.

    He's just a fading hack now, pay no attention, move on, when it comes to journalism, nothing there I'm afraid.
    ... gobsmacked

  76. #276
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,391

    Default

    The major reason BRT has support is the screw ups the Transportation Department have done, is doing and looks like they will continue to make building LRT. If Whyte, Southgate, NAIT (and probably Bonnie Doon) level crossings were designed and built properly, LRT would have more support.
    To me any BRT bridges/tunnels should be designed for future conversion to rail.

  77. #277

    Default

    Until they build a transit flyover from Blatchford to Castledowns, what do you guy's think of the following express route?

    I see the stops being at Castledowns Transit Centre, 137th avenue, 127 avenue, Jasper Avenue, and the U of A. I routed west of downtown proper to avoid downtown traffic; there's enough buses down Jasper Avenue people should be able to get to downtown easily enough.

    Last edited by Ustauk; 25-10-2017 at 12:35 PM.

  78. #278

    Default

    Why not just go up groat road up to 118ave then go down till you hit 127th st then head up till you hit 153rd ave then bam hello castledowns

  79. #279

    Default

    ^^
    Looking closer at Google Maps, I'd change the above route to use 129 avenue instead of 127. It'd add an extra minute, but you'd be able to use the existing stops on 129 avenue adjacent to 113 a street.

  80. #280

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Magnus View Post
    Why not just go up groat road up to 118ave then go down till you hit 127th st then head up till you hit 153rd ave then bam hello castledowns
    I wanted to include a stop with direct access to downtown. If you wanted to do a pure University Express, your route would be better.

  81. #281

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by McBoo View Post
    There was a time, long ago and far away that David Staples was a good reporter.

    He's just a fading hack now, pay no attention, move on, when it comes to journalism, nothing there I'm afraid.
    It is a facile argument - first, one councilor does not a trend make. Second, the LRT does not even go through most of his area anyways, so most of the people in his area probably haven't experienced the problems with the LRT referred to first hand. Perhaps they read about it in the Journal. I suppose the newspaper doesn't have the budget any more for more vigorous analysis.

  82. #282

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ustauk View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Magnus View Post
    Why not just go up groat road up to 118ave then go down till you hit 127th st then head up till you hit 153rd ave then bam hello castledowns
    I wanted to include a stop with direct access to downtown. If you wanted to do a pure University Express, your route would be better.
    Isnt that the point of a BRT??

  83. #283

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Magnus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ustauk View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Magnus View Post
    Why not just go up groat road up to 118ave then go down till you hit 127th st then head up till you hit 153rd ave then bam hello castledowns
    I wanted to include a stop with direct access to downtown. If you wanted to do a pure University Express, your route would be better.
    Isnt that the point of a BRT??
    Like with LRT, you have to plan your spots accordingly. Would the city like a direct line from Castledowns to the U of A, and have people ride the LRT downtown? Would they like to have an express route that would include stops at Oliver, giving Downtown access, and the U of A? Would they like two direct routes, one to U of A and one to Downtown proper? I'm sure the City is looking at all these options.

  84. #284

    Default

    Sounds basically like an express version of the 128 http://webdocs.edmonton.ca/transit/r...rent/RT128.pdf which takes 29 minutes to go from Castledowns to the UofA, and is already popular with students.

    Note that the LRT from Millwoods TC to Churchill station is expected to be 30 minutes...

  85. #285

    Default

    Here's an express route between downtown and Castledowns: http://webdocs.edmonton.ca/transit/r...rent/RT016.pdf

    Takes roughly 27 minutes.

  86. #286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Here's an express route between downtown and Castledowns: http://webdocs.edmonton.ca/transit/r...rent/RT016.pdf

    Takes roughly 27 minutes.
    The 16 is an express route to Northgate only. The 16 takes another half hour to get from Northgate to Castledowns Transit Centre via a windy route north of Eaux Claire Transit Centre. The least time trip is getting taking the 16 express from Downtown to Northgate, and then taking the Northgate to Castledowns portion of Route 164. Unfortunately, the route is peak hours Monday to Friday only. As shown below, other routes downtown take around an hour.



    You could give Castledowns Transit Centre express service by making the windy portion of Route 16 between Castledowns, Eaux Claire, and Northgate another route, and running two variants of the 16, one express from Northgate to Castledowns and one Northgate to Eaux Claire.

    As Medwards pointed out, the 128 gives Castledowns transit service to the U of A, though it takes longer then he stated:


    If you made a 128 variant that would go from Castledowns straight to the U of A, with maybe only one or two stops between (137 avenue/127street, maybe Westmount), you'd get even faster service there.

    The two halves of the 16 route illustrate how moving some resources from routes that wind through a neighbourhood to more routes from point to point can make a big difference in trip times. The express portion of the 16 takes as long as its neighbourhood portion. By making more direct routes, we can reap some of the benefits of BRT or LRT without investing in much infrastructure. Hopefully, as the administration has stated, they are going to implement more high traffic, express type routes.
    Last edited by Ustauk; 25-10-2017 at 03:53 PM.

  87. #287
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,502

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    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.
    Brampton is now about 593,000 and will have LRT to Mississauga.
    http://www.metrolinx.com/en/projects...urontario.aspx
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  88. #288

    Default

    "Edmonton has one of the lowest densities of any city in North America. We have about 1,067 people per km2."


    This is disingenuous at best. Sure, the raw data shows that number, but doesn't look at the large parkland we have stretching through the entire city, the large industrial areas, the large agriculture/undeveloped areas. Edmonton has a higher density than that figure represents. We are on par with many other large north american cities.

    And yet, your go to solution requires much higher densities to be palpable, but that doesn't stop you from drawing PRT lines all over the grid.

  89. #289

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jagators63 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    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.
    Brampton is now about 593,000 and will have LRT to Mississauga.
    http://www.metrolinx.com/en/projects...urontario.aspx
    I think you set a C2E record!

    Responding to a post from 2007, one I made 10 years ago about my experience of living in Brampton 20 years before then!

    As it stands, both Mississauga and Brampton have twice the density of Edmonton and are starting their first LRT line 40 years after Edmonton started ours.

    I will still state that "When I lived in Brampton Ontario 20 years ago (mid-1980's), 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"

    Other than Oliver and the downtown area, where is such density in Edmonton?

    As Medwards stated in 2014

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    BRT can cost next to nothing to implement. You don't need a billion dollar (or more) P3, and BRT can be easily piece-mealed over many years as demand/money is available. Unlike LRT, it doesn't need a large initial and ongoing investments to build up the network.

    A few signal modifications, a few jersey barriers, some paint, and perhaps a lot of signs saying "bus lane only"... a few million maybe for many km's of BRT, for LRT, this would be a shy billion.
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    And the problem with the (not so cheap) LRT we are building is it offers little advantage over the bus service that's currently available. You spend quite a bid of money building this LRT, but it will be no faster than an express bus running from Millwoods town center to downtown. There could be advantages in our LRT we are about to build, but since it will still have much interference from the road... its a express bus+billion dollars.
    LRT would be worthy of all the extra cost if it offers something more competitive than an express bus...
    And in 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    BRT has been successful in Ottawa for 40 years, and they are only now moving to LRT because of its success. BRT can be implemented in a fraction of the time it takes to setup LRT, and should be used as a precursor to LRT. BRT should have been to Millwoods since the 70's... but we are Edmonton and do things ***-backwards, or not at all. BRT should be in place before LRT, as you said, and then we can graduate it to LRT as demand warrants it.

    Ottawa has transit ridership that is higher per capita than Edmonton.

    BRT should be used in places where we wont get LRT for a long time, and should have been built to many corners of the city already... but we've been so focused on only LRT... and the progress has been really slow.

    Edmonton doesn't utilize buses very well at all. Ottawa does. Vancouver does, and many others do. Our bus routes often take the long way to a destination. We need high frequency, high speed direct bus routes.
    We could learn a lot from Ottawa and their bus network, which will continue to be great even after LRT is in place. BRT will still be used.

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    People in Alberta's 2 major cities have a stigma about buses, and that's only because buses have been improperly employed.
    If buses were used properly, as they do in Ottawa, people would be as much in favour of using them as they do in Ottawa.
    Instead, bus and their routes crawl through neighbourhoods, as its mandated that every citizen in Edmonton be no further than 400 m for a bus stop, which is why routes take the long way around, are slow, and don't get anywhere fast.


    We simply can't afford to build LRT everywhere in this city, and certainly, there are many areas that deserve premimum transit service, but will never have the density to support LRT and the associate costs. There are some areas of the city that are still decades away from getting LRT. This is where BRT should be.


    BRT should be already in place every where we want LRT to eventually go. Once funding is ready, we can change BRT to LRT.... like Ottawa. If we want more people to use transit, we need to provide them a decent service today, and BRT fills that. It can be quickly and cheaply implemented until we can afford to bring LRT out further.


    Building BRT now doesn't mean we can't do LRT later...


    A real transit city gets this. ... Edmonton and Calgary are a far reach from a real transit city, outside of LRT. This is the change we need to make if we want a real modal shift to occur anytime soon.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  90. #290

    Default

    There's many areas with higher densities. Bonnie Doon/Whyte Ave East. Old Scona, area around southgate. Areas around meadowlark. Clareview town center (if not most of clareview). Century Park/Heritage. Jasper Place (along 156 and 149 streets). Northgate. Millwoods in some areas has some decent densities. You don't need a high rise village to be higher density.

    What really matters is ridership. Will there be enough ridership to support LRT. The answer is Yes in many areas of the city.

    HOWEVER. The city/province/feds don't have endless amount of cash to dole out. We can easily/cheapily implement and improve our BRT in the mean time as a stop gap measure until we have funds for LRT to everywhere.

    I'm still in favour of BRT if LRT isn't going to be built for a decade or more.

  91. #291
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,922

    Default

    I think the city could make some connections exclusively for buses.

    (1) Extend 28 Avenue to 23 Avenue to give buses a link between Mill Woods and Century Park stations.
    (2) Build a bridge at 50 Street to give another North-South connection.
    (3) Give Riverbend Road northbound and southbound bus lanes.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  92. #292

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    "Edmonton has one of the lowest densities of any city in North America. We have about 1,067 people per km2."


    This is disingenuous at best. Sure, the raw data shows that number, but doesn't look at the large parkland we have stretching through the entire city, the large industrial areas, the large agriculture/undeveloped areas. Edmonton has a higher density than that figure represents. We are on par with many other large north american cities.

    And yet, your go to solution requires much higher densities to be palpable, but that doesn't stop you from drawing PRT lines all over the grid.
    Well, I guess someone better hop back into the time machine and tell them back in 1976 or 1996, when the most expensive sections of the LRT were built. I am sure density is a factor, but it is probably not the only factor and it can be misleading if the statistic is not interpreted in context. As pointed out, we have extensive parkland and large industrial areas that some other cities do not. Also large areas of agricultural land were annexed to the city for future growth some time ago, so until they are filled that brings our average density down to.

    Perhaps Brampton should have got LRT sooner, however many parts of the GTA also have Go Trains and other things we don't have, like the Pearson Express which currently goes to Mississauga. I don't know if that is considered similar to LRT or not.

  93. #293
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,922

    Default

    The locations where LRT is being built has heavy bus use.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  94. #294
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,922

    Default

    Looking at BRT, I think some of the best prospects might be crosstown routes like the along #4 or #7 route in South Edmonton, or #9 route in North Edmonton. Start with one route (like the bike paths), and adjust from there.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  95. #295

    Default

    The 100 with an extension direct to Capilano instead of the loop the #1 does in Gold Bar. The 2 from WEM to Downtown via Jasper Place/Highlands/Clareview. The 9 is a no brainer with a start at Castle Downs/Eaux Clares/Northgate straight to downtown and onto Southgate with a stop at 82 ave.

    Basically connect the various Transit Centers with direct, limited stop service.
    Last edited by kkozoriz; 20-01-2018 at 11:02 PM.

  96. #296
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,922

    Default

    I wonder what bus routes have a 15-minute frequency.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  97. #297

    Default

    Many bus routes have 15 minute peak service. The core cross town routes 1-23 usually maintain 15 or 30 minute frequency from 6 am till 10 pm. The other routes are a mix. Some offer 15 minute peak, and then 30-60 minute frequencies off peak. Some routes only operate in peak hours only.

  98. #298

    Default

    As noted before, the #100 acts as a Express Bus from LE and WEM to 109th and Jasper, then slogs along as a regular bus downtown, stopping nearly every block. You can walk faster than it, downtown or transfer to the LRT underground..
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  99. #299
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,391

    Default

    Unfortunately I think ETS will probably follow Alburquerque's example when they design BRT.
    https://www.abqreport.com/single-pos...-a-year-to-fix

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

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
  •