trevorhayden
Active Member
Because it's Edmonton and this is what happens when you sprawl indefinitely. You must serve these areas with high quality infrastructure.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
Gronk!
Senior Member
Major streets set to change to give buses priority
The city is set to install a dedicated bus lane along parts of 101 Street downtown, one of eight streets that will see changes to give buses priority over other vehicles.
edmonton.taproot.news
The_Cat
Senior Member
There was also something with Transit Traffic Priority on Global News last night. Work is supposed to work on 97 Street (bus lanes, 107-118 Avenue) is supposed to begin this spring.
Last edited:
BrettB
Active Member
I'm still trying to figure out how that will work, esp. between 111 and 118 where all the trees are. I guess they'll do away with parking during rush hour? Is there space for three lanes through there?
EdwardEdm
Active Member
No bus lanes on 97 Street. Just parking restrictions, intersection and/ or lane modifications, and signal timing, at least for now.
The only location getting bus lanes is 101 St from Jasper Ave to Kingsway. I guess more could come, especially for BRT.
thommyjo
Senior Member
If anyone wants to add some anger to your life, Lorne just dropped a new article lol.
edmontonjournal.com
Lorne Gunter: 'War on cars': Get set for city's move to one-lane roadways to make way for buses
The city's hope is that dedicated lanes will make transit trips faster and “foster positive transit user experience and enable growth.”
edmontonjournal.com
supplanter
Active Member
Forgive my crassness, but he’s such a douchebag
If anyone wants to add some anger to your life, Lorne just dropped a new article lol.
Lorne Gunter: 'War on cars': Get set for city's move to one-lane roadways to make way for buses
The city's hope is that dedicated lanes will make transit trips faster and “foster positive transit user experience and enable growth.”
David A
Senior Member
Is this just some sort of echo chamber where we make ourselves feel better by childish name calling, or can you challenge his arguments?
Because if it is the former, Lorne wins
Because if it is the former, Lorne wins
degrandprix
Active Member
It's actually a rather poor argument he's making. His main talking point is that transit use is declining, and therefore we shouldn't do anything that improves transit, because it's only helping a small portion of the population. Even though transit improvements are exactly what need to be done to reverse declining ridership.
He then goes on to say that improving safety would be more effective. So he's established that he does think the city should try to increase ridership, but he doesn't think they should improve the service which would... increase ridership?
Then at the end he brings up the completely unrelated topics of bike lanes, closures of parking lots, etc, in a last-ditch attempt to get people riled up, because really this isn't as controversial as he wants it to be and he's not able to make a good counterpoint against bus lanes on their own.
He then goes on to say that improving safety would be more effective. So he's established that he does think the city should try to increase ridership, but he doesn't think they should improve the service which would... increase ridership?
Then at the end he brings up the completely unrelated topics of bike lanes, closures of parking lots, etc, in a last-ditch attempt to get people riled up, because really this isn't as controversial as he wants it to be and he's not able to make a good counterpoint against bus lanes on their own.
The_Cat
Senior Member
Gunter fails to show any leadership with his criticism.
David A
Senior Member
I'm not sure where his comment about the dedicated bus lanes on the 9 busiest streets is coming from, is that accurate?
The percentage decline from 2016 may be accurate, but given much of our population growth was in suburban areas with less transit available, it may not be fair to say people are not choosing transit.
Also, in making that point he also sort of assumes no further growth or recovery in transit use as more people return to work in the office or for other reasons, which also may not be correct.
The percentage decline from 2016 may be accurate, but given much of our population growth was in suburban areas with less transit available, it may not be fair to say people are not choosing transit.
Also, in making that point he also sort of assumes no further growth or recovery in transit use as more people return to work in the office or for other reasons, which also may not be correct.
thommyjo
Senior Member
So much of his writing is purposefully inflammatory, misleading, full of red herrings, and half truths.
Like others have pointed out, why has transit use proportionally declined? Sure, safety is part of it.
But, what percentage of the population lives outside the henday vs before 2019? Transit ridership in many new suburbs is below 5% of neighbourhoods, yet above 15% in more central areas.
As well, many people used to justify paying for a transit pass due to 5 day a week commutes. With more WFH/hybrid setups, many chose to simply drive 2 days a week and pay for parking.
He also pins his whole equity argument on proportional use at a city wide level, instead of exploring users per lane meter or other metrics that show how wasteful cars can be, especially along busy/congested routes.
On and on he whines. As if our most congested streets aren’t fully car dependent without any transit or bike lanes in sight… (terwillegar) (HWY16/winterburn)
Like others have pointed out, why has transit use proportionally declined? Sure, safety is part of it.
But, what percentage of the population lives outside the henday vs before 2019? Transit ridership in many new suburbs is below 5% of neighbourhoods, yet above 15% in more central areas.
As well, many people used to justify paying for a transit pass due to 5 day a week commutes. With more WFH/hybrid setups, many chose to simply drive 2 days a week and pay for parking.
He also pins his whole equity argument on proportional use at a city wide level, instead of exploring users per lane meter or other metrics that show how wasteful cars can be, especially along busy/congested routes.
On and on he whines. As if our most congested streets aren’t fully car dependent without any transit or bike lanes in sight… (terwillegar) (HWY16/winterburn)
supplanter
Active Member
It is the latter. His arguments are consistently disingenuous and in bad faith. Luckily others have made the arguments, but I’m happy to challenge them for the next “war on cars” rant.
YEG Bus Rider
Active Member
BrettB
Active Member
Good find! The most glaring problem/opportunity to my eye is getting buses into and out of Clareview, but it doesn't appear to have made the shortlist this year.
Clareview Transit Centre
(East and West approaches)
53, 54, 107, 113, 114, 117, 118, 119, 104,
108, 116, 121
Clareview Transit Centre
(East and West approaches)
53, 54, 107, 113, 114, 117, 118, 119, 104,
108, 116, 121