[IanO]

^It will have it on 104 Avenue which will nicely serve about half of it, the bus routes on Jasper manage the rest reasonably well.

Pretty sure the UG west of 109st ship has sailed.

 

[ChazYEG]

^It will have it on 104 Avenue which will nicely serve about half of it, the bus routes on Jasper manage the rest reasonably well.

VLW will not serve anyone south of Jasper, for example and, as long as we don't have dedicated bus lanes, decent bus shelters and actually clean, comfortable busses, the bus routes will make do, but serve well is not the way I'd define it.

 

[IanO]

Bus routes can serve neighbourhoods well and I would say that Jasper from 109-124st is served very well.

 

[Airboy]

There is a transit centre just to the east by the mall.

 

[ChazYEG]

Bus routes can serve neighbourhoods well and I would say that Jasper from 109-124st is served very well.

I happen to live here and disagree with you on a very fundamental level. Just having the bus routes is not enough to serve ANYWHERE well. When you add up the fact that this is one of the densest residential areas in the city (if not THE densest), it becomes even more evident that the current level of service we get on Jasper and south of it is subpar.
Not to mention the overall QUALITY of the busses and shelters. I sometimes feel like I could be in 1990s Detroit getting in some of the busses, and the shelters are borderline ridiculous. If we're not gonna serve more of the city with rail (even in areas where it would make A LOT of sense, we should at least take on TTC's example and have more articulated/bi-articulated busses in major routes, newer, cleaner and better equipped vehicles, etc... it is not just an issue of having the routes, but enticing people to use them.

 

[IanO]

I regularly use transit along there to and fro 124st and while I agree that the shelters are pretty terrible, the service and current fleet have never been an issue for me. I too would love LRT, but that ship has sailed for this area.

Ideally we would have made 102ave from Manulife to 142st a multi-modal and avoided 104 Avenue all together, reached more of the existing customer base/density and killed a few birds with one stone. But we choose another direction and so let's make the bus option as good as for can be for as many people as possible.

Connecting Westmount and this new facility to Downtown is important and needs to be integrated into the new West Valley Line in the most effective way possible.

 

[ChazYEG]

I regularly use transit along there to and fro 124st and while I agree that the shelters are pretty terrible, the service and current fleet have never been an issue for me. I too would love LRT, but that ship has sailed for this area.

I use it daily, especially now that our new office is open on Bell Tower, and while you can get lucky and find one of the newer, electric vehicles, a significant portion of the fleet is mostly very run down, always looks old and dirty to me.
Frankly, if the bus fleet of a relatively por mid-sized city in a 3rd world country is more modern, cleaner and just overall better than the one in a rich, 1M+ city in a developed country, that IS an issue.

Ideally we would have made 102ave from Manulife to 142st a multi-modal and avoided 104 Avenue all together, reached more of the existing customer base/density and killed a few birds with one stone. But we choose another direction and so let's make the bus option as good as for can be for as many people as possible.

For me, the multimodal should have been Jasper, no 102 av. If San Francisco could make Market Street a multimodal, car free street, Edmonton shouldn't have nearly as many problems.

Connecting Westmount and this new facility to Downtown is important and needs to be integrated into the new West Valley Line in the most effective way possible.

For once, we agree. We could have express services, connecting the Westmount transit center/Coronation/TWOS to the VLW. I'd have it going down 142 st. with stops at 107 ave, 102 ave (connect to VLW), 130 st., 125 st and then whatever stops make sense on Jasper Avenue (which I maintain, should have dedicated bus lanes and only run articulated/bi-articulated busses).

 

[quit]

I use it daily, especially now that our new office is open on Bell Tower, and while you can get lucky and find one of the newer, electric vehicles, a significant portion of the fleet is mostly very run down, always looks old and dirty to me.
Frankly, if the bus fleet of a relatively por mid-sized city in a 3rd world country is more modern, cleaner and just overall better than the one in a rich, 1M+ city in a developed country, that IS an issue.


For me, the multimodal should have been Jasper, no 102 av. If San Francisco could make Market Street a multimodal, car free street, Edmonton shouldn't have nearly as many problems.


For once, we agree. We could have express services, connecting the Westmount transit center/Coronation/TWOS to the VLW. I'd have it going down 142 st. with stops at 107 ave, 102 ave (connect to VLW), 130 st., 125 st and then whatever stops make sense on Jasper Avenue (which I maintain, should have dedicated bus lanes and only run articulated/bi-articulated busses).

I mean, if the buses run... modern buses could look dirty too if they don't get cleaned properly.

The argument should be around service levels; not so much how new and modern the fleet is, unless buses are breaking down on a regular basis. I haven't seen that complaint though. There are plenty of places in the world that have good transit systems with an older fleet of busses. Modern doesn't equal good. Look at some of the LRT projects in eastern Canada...

 

[Kaizen]

What thread are we in, lol
The "bus" has veered away from the Coronation Rec Centre thread to LRT expansion planning or something. Good discussion though.

 

[ChazYEG]

I mean, if the buses run... modern buses could look dirty too if they don't get cleaned properly.

The argument should be around service levels; not so much how new and modern the fleet is, unless buses are breaking down on a regular basis. I haven't seen that complaint though. There are plenty of places in the world that have good transit systems with an older fleet of busses. Modern doesn't equal good. Look at some of the LRT projects in eastern Canada...

The issue is that our busses are not cleaned properly AND are old/run down.

Ideally, you should be looking at both, if our plan is to make them attractive to people who will be choosing between them and a car. Especially in a city (and a country, overall) with the mindset we have, as a people.

I, for once, sometimes consider making use of our parking stall in the DT and driving to the office, just to avoid smelly, dirty busses. And everyone here know how much of a transit buff I am... now imagine people who already don't like transit having the same kind of internal debate. Level of service is not enough to change our culture and move people to busses.

Transit-converts will come for shiny, pretty things, like trains and fancy busses, more than anything. They need to feel like they're not going through as much "downgrade" when leaving their cars at home, especially considering that, in a city like Edmonton, using transit will already have a few visible downsides such as waiting for transit in poor weather, longer commute times, etc... Even if we were able to have bus headways as short as 2 minutes in some parts of town (which is absolutely insane), cars will still be faster and more comfortable, for the most part, so most people need to get the nice amenities and some "wow factor" to make the change.

Don't overlook the importance of look and feel, for things like this. If we actually stop to think, this is probably one of the biggest problems with our downtown, for example. It doesn't look or feel safe, clean and inviting, even though it is not significantly more dangerous than Calgary's for example.

 

[quit]

The issue is that our busses are not cleaned properly AND are old/run down.

Ideally, you should be looking at both, if our plan is to make them attractive to people who will be choosing between them and a car. Especially in a city (and a country, overall) with the mindset we have, as a people.

I, for once, sometimes consider making use of our parking stall in the DT and driving to the office, just to avoid smelly, dirty busses. And everyone here know how much of a transit buff I am... now imagine people who already don't like transit having the same kind of internal debate. Level of service is not enough to change our culture and move people to busses.

Transit-converts will come for shiny, pretty things, like trains and fancy busses, more than anything. They need to feel like they're not going through as much "downgrade" when leaving their cars at home, especially considering that, in a city like Edmonton, using transit will already have a few visible downsides such as waiting for transit in poor weather, longer commute times, etc... Even if we were able to have bus headways as short as 2 minutes in some parts of town (which is absolutely insane), cars will still be faster and more comfortable, for the most part, so most people need to get the nice amenities and some "wow factor" to make the change.

Don't overlook the importance of look and feel, for things like this. If we actually stop to think, this is probably one of the biggest problems with our downtown, for example. It doesn't look or feel safe, clean and inviting, even though it is not significantly more dangerous than Calgary's for example.

The people I know that aren't using transit aren't using it for other reasons than busses being dirty and/or old.

Most are not using it because the service levels suck, especially with the new redesign, or, they don't feel safe riding transit or both. People don't like waiting around for a bus that adds 20-30 minutes to their commute because of poor connections. Easier to just drive and pay the extra for parking. A transit pass is over $100/month in Edmonton. You can find downtown parking on surface lots for less than $200. If you already have a car, it is easier to just switch to driving. Time is money for a lot of people - who wants to spend an extra 45 minutes waiting/walking to/from transit on top of the 30 minutes you spend on transit when you could do the same commute in 30 minutes total in a car. That is a lot of wasted time over a lifetime - 60 minutes a day give or take.

Don't overlook proper service levels that reduce the time people spend commuting.

Hopefully, they add the LRT connection to the rec centre - the LRT at least has somewhat guaranteed service levels relative to busses.

 

[ChazYEG]

The people I know that aren't using transit aren't using it for other reasons than busses being dirty and/or old.

Most are not using it because the service levels suck, especially with the new redesign, or, they don't feel safe riding transit or both. People don't like waiting around for a bus that adds 20-30 minutes to their commute because of poor connections. Easier to just drive and pay the extra for parking. A transit pass is over $100/month in Edmonton. You can find downtown parking on surface lots for less than $200. If you already have a car, it is easier to just switch to driving. Time is money for a lot of people - who wants to spend an extra 45 minutes waiting/walking to/from transit on top of the 30 minutes you spend on transit when you could do the same commute in 30 minutes total in a car. That is a lot of wasted time over a lifetime - 60 minutes a day give or take.

Don't overlook proper service levels that reduce the time people spend commuting.

Hopefully, they add the LRT connection to the rec centre - the LRT at least has somewhat guaranteed service levels relative to busses.

I don't disagree with you. But it depends a lot on where we're seeing the problem. My point, up there, was regarding a place like West Oliver, which already sees high frequencies and several bus routes, connecting to Downtown (and to the LRT in several points). If we assume that the chances of an underground LRT extension west of 109 st are zero (which. sadly, is reasonable), but we want the people who don't use bus service to do so, in our densest residential neighborhood, we need to improve in the quality of the ride, considering that frequencies are high, travel times as shorter than most bus commutes and because they mostly run on Jasper Ave and other DT main roads, reliability is less of an issue, even in the winter.

If we are talking about suburban transit users, or even people from mature, central residential neighborhoods that have a lackluster bus service on all fronts, then yes, level of service is the top priority.

And I agree, connecting the Rec Center and TWoS to the LRT will be a very good thing.

 

[CplKlinger]

The sustainable transit funding report has finally been released, and will come to the Executive Committee on April 13.

 

[CplKlinger]

Quick update, after engaging with Paquette on Reddit. This is what he said about the motion (to create the report) itself:

"Here is some insight into why the motion was constructed the way it was:

'That Administration provide a report to Committee with recommendations outlining a predictable, sustainable funding formula that sees incremental but impactful increases to the transit system going forward and an outline of current capacity for service growth.'

Enough Councillors in past Council (in my PERSONAL opinion) weren’t incredibly keen on enough meaningful dollars going toward transit that it stalled meaningful and much needed changes. This is why one of the requirements of the Bus Network Redesign was that it all had to be done within the existing Transit Budget. That Budget hadn’t seen a meaningful increase in years, and still hasn’t.

It’s also why the “solution” to Transit Safety was centered not around more Peace Officers but Transit Security. It still meant more eyes and ears, but as many have noted, wasn’t proactively effective at enforcing rules or laws.

It also meant continual attempts to raise fares even though nothing was offered that would better the transit system in exchange for higher user fees.

So, to get the motion at least passed I had to use terms that were palatable to enough Councillors - and so terms like ‘funding formula’ because it was a phrase that would be accepted as being safe enough to not rock the boat or imply that we desperately needed a more appropriate Budget allocation for transit. Then there is the word ‘incremental’. Again - very safe, no sudden movements.

And the kicker: ‘outline of of current capacity for service growth.’ It was a way to address the fact that when the deciding Council chose to replace the old bus garage with the new one off of Fort Road and Yellowhead … THEY DIDN’T INCREASE CAPACITY. Seriously. An entirely new mega million dollar garage that wasn’t built with growth in mind. Let that sink in for a moment.

So my hope is that people will read this report and demand better from this current Council.

Transit should be safe, clean, accessible, and quick. That is not too much to ask.

Transit provides a 3:1 return on investment in economic benefit to our City.

I’ll stop before I start preaching the Book of Transit.

There is a light at the end of the tunnel and it starts with your support and with the decisions Council makes as a result of this report."

I asked him if council would consider raising ETS's operational budget to meet the increase in population/demand that prompted him to make that motion in the first place, since the funding model likely won't be ready until after the fall budget deliberations. He simply responded: "I hope so."

 

[quit]

Anyone know the source of the 3:1 return on investment remark? Would be interested in reading that given the heavy subsidization of transit.