News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 9.3K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.3K     0 

@Reecemartin - I draw the line with transit.

You are passionate about public transportation, clueless about Edmonton.

You trivialize transportation planning & engineering.

You’re playing with crayons while professional planners & engineers are already giving Edmonton a transit makeover.

Transit Service

The City Plan

Mass Transit Planning

Bus-Based Mass Transit for 1.25 Million People

You have no respect & appreciation for Edmontonians & stakeholders who are engaged & have a responsibility to be engaged.

Why should Edmontonians consider & pander to your fantasy vision?

The amount of adulation you receive is nauseating.

300,000 subscribers makes you into an expert that knows what’s best for cities & public transportation?

You’re not Steve Munro. You’re not even Jarett Walker. You’re a career Youtuber with opinions & a track record of misleading, inaccurate claims.

- YEG Bus Rider
 
@Reecemartin - I draw the line with transit.

You are passionate about public transportation, clueless about Edmonton.

You trivialize transportation planning & engineering.

You’re playing with crayons while professional planners & engineers are already giving Edmonton a transit makeover.

Transit Service

The City Plan

Mass Transit Planning

Bus-Based Mass Transit for 1.25 Million People

You have no respect & appreciation for Edmontonians & stakeholders who are engaged & have a responsibility to be engaged.

Why should Edmontonians consider & pander to your fantasy vision?

The amount of adulation you receive is nauseating.

300,000 subscribers makes you into an expert that knows what’s best for cities & public transportation?

You’re not Steve Munro. You’re not even Jarett Walker. You’re a career Youtuber with opinions & a track record of misleading, inaccurate claims.

- YEG Bus Rider

Get over yourself, like truly.

I get you care about transit a lot, I think many of us do. Respectful criticism is one thing, but you're personally attacking him now, and only pushing people away from the conversation with your vindictive attitude. Like it or lump it, RM Transit has brought literally thousands of people into the conversation. He's done more than you, I, or anyone else here has done probably to bring people with these interests together.

I don't like swearing here cause I think it's unnecessary 99% of the time, but how the fuck is RM Transit, a literal public-transit-urban-planning-nerd youtuber, so controversial with some people? Literally manifesting severe issues where there genuinely are none. I just don't get it.

Edit: I'd suggest not tagging him anymore in this conversation even if defending him, guys. I think he's made it clear he's not interested in participating in this.
 
Last edited:
It seems there are some people here threatened by the opinion of individuals from out of town. Personally ideas from other sources can be helpful and enlightening. In the current situation we had an individual who has dedicated a large percentage of his time focusing on rail transit from around the world, who chose to express his opinions on our system here and giving his two cents, whats wrong with that? At no point do I recall him saying that our planning dept and other shareholders was out to lunch or anything like that. He expressed his opinion as to what he would do, haven't many of us done the same thing on this or other forums? Just because he doesn't call Edmonton his current place of residence he isn't allowed to express his opinion?
I swear this toxic Homer style attitude should not be welcome here. If a person is courteous and voices an opinion he or she has the right to do so without receiving attacks on their credentials or their character. So I guess because I don't have a degree in planning, or engineering or architecture I have no right to comment? and because I only live in Edmonton I'm not allowed to comment on anything anywhere other than here?
If someone wants to make a post here they can do so, if someone wants to create a video (which is positive) about this city and post it online it, great. Any positive mentions of this city posted, especially on a popular social media channel, is more than welcome.
 
My thoughts on RMTransit's Crayoning video for Edmonton (A Fair Assessment):

@Reecemartin ,

Thank you so much for covering Edmonton with a rare crayoning video. It's huge that you're exposing your worldwide audience to our city, which half of Canada couldn't even point to on a map, and all the things it's doing to expand transit. Your critiques and suggestions - from someone whose analyzed and ridden many transit systems - for how we can improve our mass transit network are much appreciated. I don't agree with all of your suggestions, but I'm willing to have a respectful and constructive discussion of why I don't agree with some of your suggestions, while shouting out your points which I really liked. I'll be covering your points in the same order that you make them in your video.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overview of Planned Projects:

1. You mispronounced "Misericordia". Just kidding, of course! I don't care, and the people who are attacking you just for this need to pipe down. 🤪

2. THANK YOU for calling out council's delusional plan to water down our high-floor metro-esque LRT with these "urban LRT principles". After finally seeing how slow the Valley Line is and how much it stops, I'm disillusioned by this design philosophy. Car is king here in Edmonton, and people will only switch to transit if it's safe, reliable and FAST. Too little segregation of the trains and level crossings with no gate forces us to slow the trains down, while affecting reliability and safety because half of the drivers in this city are just stupid and will crash into the LRT. Thankfully, the Capital Line extension to Heritage Valley isn't going to fall into this trap, but unfortunately, the city is planning on using this awful design philosophy for the Metro Line extension up to Castle Downs, and further extension of the Capital Line past Heritage Valley. I hope that before these extensions go ahead, we have chances to force Council to design these extensions for speed and separation, especially to ensure that the LRT is the most competitive option for crosstown trips.

3. I don't know the technical details about the Blatchford extension OCS, so I'll let you and @EdwardEdm hash it out. Reece, if you're right, that would be terrible news, and I hope the city can call a mulligan there to boost train speeds to at least 60 km/h (the stops are spaced 1 km apart so it needs to be faster).

4. As others have corrected you, the plan is to extend the Valley Line south on 50th Street. I like it more because it's more central through the existing and future southeastern suburbs. It's also a straight shot to Beaumont, if we ever want to extend the line out there or just connect it with BRT. You raise an interesting point about turning the existing Mill Woods Station into a stub. I never liked how tight and slow that turn into the station is. I think the Valley Line should enter a tunnel portal, stop underground at Mill Woods, and resurface at 50th Steet, with more gradual and faster curves.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What's Next?

5. Once again, I agree with embracing the high-floor lines as a metro-esque system, with more grade-separation and better frequencies. I would add that higher frequencies need to be maintained during more off-peak hours. Right now, the Capital Line runs every 5 minutes from 6-9 and 15-18, when it really should be 6-19.

6. Heritage Valley Station no longer elevated: I think there's too much pessimism both from you and this forum about this. Remember: the extension doesn't cross Ellerslie Road yet, so it's not an issue now, and the city will consider grade separation when extending the line later on, hopefully when it has more money (inflation is hitting our construction projects HARD right now). On top of that, look at how long the elevated guideway had to be in the old renders. Instead, we could trench Ellerslie Road below a much shorter LRT overpass, which will certainly cost less and there's vacant land around the area to facilitate this construction. It'll work out.

7. YES to open gangways! Safety and fare evasion are big issues on the LRT, and these will be huge for better and more efficient law enforcement on transit.

8. The St. Albert Metro Line extension is in the (eventual) cards, but I'm glad you're highlighting it, because it's very under the radar.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2024-07-11 020720.png
    Screenshot 2024-07-11 020720.png
    1.1 MB · Views: 26
  • Screenshot 2024-07-11 022434.png
    Screenshot 2024-07-11 022434.png
    1.1 MB · Views: 33
  • Screenshot 2024-07-11 031337.png
    Screenshot 2024-07-11 031337.png
    1.2 MB · Views: 30
  • Screenshot 2024-07-11 044829.png
    Screenshot 2024-07-11 044829.png
    604.4 KB · Views: 28
  • 1720696650894.png
    1720696650894.png
    986.7 KB · Views: 34
  • 1720696744373.png
    1720696744373.png
    546.7 KB · Views: 24
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At this point in the video, my opinions on how ETS should expand the LRT really diverge from yours. In the spirit of constructive dialogue, I want to explain why I don't see eye-to-eye with you.

High-Floor Network Expansion:

9. Branching on the high-floor lines: I'm not a fan. Train frequency in the interlined downtown tunnel is hard-capped to 2.5 minutes. Hence, the Metro and Capital Lines can individually achieve 5-minute frequencies max. Good enough. However, adding branches to the lines makes the frequency on each branch max out at 10 minutes, which is excruciatingly low, and that's assuming we run on peak-hour frequencies. Pre-pandemic, when the Metro Line still had signalling issues, the northeast leg of the Capital Line ran on a 5-5-10 frequency, and commuters, who were predominantly coming from Clareview, HATED it. And in my experience using the south leg of the Capital Line from Century Park, I hate when the frequencies go below 1 train every five minutes. If we want to entice suburbanites to ditch their cars by making transit more convenient, the frequencies have to be at least 1 train/5 minutes. You said it yourself that the LRT needs to embrace a subway mentality of higher frequency, and I agree. The high-floor LRT should be metro-esque, not an S-bahn with low-frequency branches. The latter will be redundant anyway, since the province wants to invest in regional rail.

10. Your Metro Line branch: I don't think Castle Downs Road/167th Ave is a good route for LRT. It's a sea of single-family homes with no trip-generators nor clusters of high-density (McConachie Plaza being the one exception), and virtually none of the residential and commercial development faces the main road. Plus, there's a big wetland and cemetery standing in the way to Gorman.
Screenshot 2024-07-11 020720.png
I haven't considered the idea of a northside crosstown LRT before (BRT, yes), but if there's anywhere to put it, it should be 137th Ave. It's still fairly low-density but there are a lot more major shopping centers (mostly malls and strip malls) that act as decent trip generators. Plus, the residential and commercial development mostly faces the road, making the alignment more amenable to higher-density infill creeping in over time.
Screenshot 2024-07-11 022434.png
I'd take it one step further and extend this route along St. Albert Trail to Westmount, Telus World of Science and West Edmonton Mall. Take your pick of whether this crosstown line should be high-floor (hence separate alignment to WEM) or low-floor (partial interlining with Valley Line to WEM)
Screenshot 2024-07-11 044829.png

11. Your branch to Sherwood Park: yeah... it's not great. I understand that getting the LRT across Refinery Row poses a major challenge for where to put it, but there are better alternative routes south of the river. Your route poorly serves the neighbourhoods along the Yellowhead within Edmonton city limits. To the north of your routing is the freeway, some industrial areas, the CN Rail ROW and then low-density suburbs - all-in-all, low ridership potential. South of the Yellowhead is Beverly, which is an older neighbourhood ripe for infill, especially along its main street, and already has lots of high-density development on its eastern end (Abbottsfield, which also has a shopping centre). It's prime real estate for the LRT, but by routing it along Yellowhead Trail, it's almost completely separated from the high-density residential, commercial and infill development deeper in the core of the neighbourhood. A stop along the Yellowhead Trail would be so out of the way, that there isn't a point in building any stop on this branch within Edmonton city limits.
Screenshot 2024-07-11 031337.png
And that brings us to the crux of the problem: your route is only useful to Sherwood Park residents. That means Edmonton won't bother to contribute to its construction, but Strathcona County would only want to pay for the portion of the line within its jurisdiction, so this'll never get built. A better alternative would be a subway down Beverly Main Street I guess, but I can't justify the cost of that, and again, it branches off the Capital Line and sacrifices frequency to both Clareview and Sherwood Park, making no one happy. I'll suggest a better alternative later.

12. Urban-style LRT in the suburbs: interesting point to raise, but I have counterpoints. For one, Sherwood Park and St. Albert are massive, and many trips will take place entirely within these communities. Even out in these suburbs, the LRT should still be fast and segregated, or else people will still opt for their car for journeys within town, and if they decide to travel into Edmonton, they'll be more likely to drive to a park'n'ride instead of hopping on the train at their local stop. Plus, they funnel their traffic into a few wide arterial roads that should be grade-separated.

13. Train to Fort Sask: this would be dope. That whole swath of land between Manning Drive and the river is slated for suburban development, and the LRT will incrementally make its way towards Fort Sask as a two-track alignment. But a regional rail route on the CN Rail ROW would be fantastic in the interim!

14. Rapidbus routes as precursors to LRT is a smart idea. We were on the cusp of this, but budget restrictions said otherwise. 🙄 Hopefully, once the coffers have a bit more money, we can bring this back.

15. LRT to YEG: I would die of happiness if this happened. My only criticism is how you draw the route. The farmland between 41st Ave SW and the Airport is also slated for suburban residential and industrial use (it is what it is...), and it makes more sense to run the Capital Line through these neighbourhoods rather than along the highway, since a lot of airport employees will probably live in these new suburbs, and the LRT should act as more of a local service connecting them to their jobs. High-speed rail and regional rail can alongside the QE2 instead, filling the niche of express service from the airport to the core. I also appreciate that routed the LRT to link directly to the terminal, which is something that the airport masterplan has unfortunately dismissed. The Leduc connection is also good, since a lot of YEG employees live there too.

16. Metro Line to Windermere: although it's not what I have in mind for extending the Metro Line past Health Sciences, I will concede that it's still a fantastic idea, and many forum posters love to advocate for this line. I live near Terwillegar Drive, so I'm quite familiar with this area and can tell you that it would be well-served by high-floor LRT. Terwillegar Drive, which acts as a spine through this area, will be a freeway one day, and a centre-running LRT would be fast and fully grade-separated (think NW CTrain in Crowchild Trail median). Fort Edmonton Park and The Currents shopping centre are great trip generators, but moreover, many of the residents here commute to downtown and the university especially. You make a good point about the creek and river isolating this area, and I often witness first-hand how they bottleneck traffic. Plop down a few park'n'rides, and this line would have decent ridership.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Low-Floor Network Expansion:

17. Branch to Tamarack: you know how I feel about branching, but alright, maybe this would be okay. Or leave it up to the Whitemud Drive BRT route you suggest later in the video to service this area (Tamarack to Meadows to Davies to Southgate to WEM)

18. Low-floor LRT on Whyte Ave: There are some major issues with the route you drew. Knowing your opinions on putting low-floor LRT in tunnels, I presume you plan on running the LRT mostly at street-level on Whyte Ave, except at HSJ (I need you to clarify this though). However, this is a TERRIBLE idea. There are pedestrians everywhere (often drunk on weekend nights), who cause huge traffic jams. Hence, surface LRT would be slow, unreliable, and frankly, quite dangerous. The other main issue is that it isn't a one-seat ride from university. The bus routes running along Whyte Ave to/from University Station are some of the busiest in the city because many students use them to commute between home to classes, and those living and studying on campus also go to Whyte for entertainment. We should be maximizing convenience by mitigating the need for a one-stop transfer at HSJ.
So, we need a one-seat ride from University Station, and full grade separation (tunneled ofc - elevated track would never be accepted) along Whyte Ave. But why put 80-meter low-floor trains in a tunnel when you could put 120-meter high-floor trains instead to maximize the capacity of such expensive infrastructure? And remember when I said I had another idea in mind for a route to Sherwood Park, and I didn't quite agree with extending the Metro Line to Windermere? Well, what are your thoughts on this? A one-seat ride from University via the high-floor Metro Line that makes good use of a tunnel on Whyte Ave and serves Sherwood Park, while providing good service within Edmonton along the way.
Screenshot 2024-07-11 051617.pngScreenshot 2024-07-11 051858.png

19. Low-floor route from university area to WEM: oh boy... Reece, I don't think you realize just how notorious those NIMBYs in Laurier Heights and Parkview are. Before extending the Capital Line to Century Park, Edmonton considered building it out to WEM instead, but those NIMBYs were the reason why that never happened. And now that the Valley Line West is coming, I don't think they'll ever let up. While I'd love a more direct connection between University and WEM by rail, some dreams are meant to die... That's alright. BRT in dedicated lanes on Whitemud Drive, Fox Drive, Belgravia Road and 114th Street would mostly fill this void.
 
Other Improvements:

20. Trolley buses: I'll admit, I'm biased against them because I've never liked the look of all those wires, and while battery buses have proven to be a disaster, I think the hydrogen buses have been established for quite some time to work well here, so we should double down on that. But we can agree to disagree.

21. BRT: Solid route suggestions. Aside from other ideas I've suggested earlier, I would also add 97th Street. Henday orbital bus service stands out as one of my favourite suggestions that you brought up in the video. People always talk about how decentralized Edmonton is and how suburb-to-suburb trips dominate, so this is a no-brainer.

22. Station rebuilds: from daily first-hand experience with crowds Century Park, I can say you're damn right about increasing station capacity, particularly stairs and pedways. However, I disagree that pedestrian grade-crossings need to be removed. They all have crossing gates and rarely have safety/capacity issues in my experience, but they're super efficient at moving crowds of people into and out of stations, and they're also better security-wise compared to the old dark underpasses at Stadium and Coliseum.

Alright, there are all my thoughts about your video. Hopefully, it came off as constructive, rather than confrontational. We really need to be reminded that we're on the verge of greatness with our rapid transit if we do things right, and I'm glad you were one of the people to remind us. Thanks for reading.

- Yeggator/King Gator
 
Just on your Hydrogen Busses. There is limited use and only trial right now. 100% hydrogen fuel is an issue because of reduced HP. What is being used right now is a hybrid style. And the ballard power system is still being tested. Edmonton and Strathcona county are sharing a test bus. But its not being used much. All future Bus barns in the area are to be future fuel ready.

Batttery busses are still used but only at peak hours. They cannot run for multiple days like the regular busses. There are also better EV busses than the ones ETS and STAT purchased. Hydrogen may come into play but will be a hybrid system.
 
Just on your Hydrogen Busses. There is limited use and only trial right now. 100% hydrogen fuel is an issue because of reduced HP. What is being used right now is a hybrid style. And the ballard power system is still being tested. Edmonton and Strathcona county are sharing a test bus. But its not being used much. All future Bus barns in the area are to be future fuel ready.
Edmonton and Strathcona have their own buses, 1 each. Yes, they are a hybrid configuration (fuel cell charges batteries, traction motor pulled electricity from battery, recharges battery with regenerative braking). The buses certainly use 100% hydrogen. ETS has a bus coming out with a dual fuel configuration which will use a blend of diesel and hydrogen in an internal combustion engine. Still waiting for that bus to hit the road. Granted, ETS's hydrogen bus hasn't seen service since February, and Strathcona's since December.

Batttery busses are still used but only at peak hours. They cannot run for multiple days like the regular busses. There are also better EV busses than the ones ETS and STAT purchased. Hydrogen may come into play but will be a hybrid system.
Battery buses can be deployed longer than just peak hour runs. Before all of the issues with Proterra and their parts supply popped up, ETS was regularly running electrics on 10+ hour blocks. I believe the longest block we saw was nearly 17 hours. Today, I wouldn't buy a Proterra. At the time, the Proterra best met the requirements ETS set out. New Flyer didn't have the range ETS wanted.
 

Back
Top