News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.4K     0 

Edmcowboy11 said:
I'd say most downtown underground stations, maybe Coliseum
Click to expand...
Those would be the easiest- the original Central-Belvedere Stations were built with fare collectors booths and turnstiles in the first place, later replaced with automatic turnstiles, before Edmonton Transit moved to the barrier free Proof of Payment collection we have today. Bay and Corona I suspect with opened with POP, but were designed around the earlier concepts of having fare control.
The original Clareview was going to have the bus terminal in the fare paid zone, like Toronto, but POP came quickly after it's opening.

Century Park, Southgate, Belvedere, and Clareview could probably be fitted, however, the overpasses can see non-ETS pedestrian use which would make a fare gate set up a bit more difficult, although maybe you just make the decision to prioritize ETS users over pedestrians. Clareview would be a little bit tougher since transit users need to make transfers through the station just between buses.
 
ChazYEG said:
Best news of the day
Click to expand...
"Police Chief Dale McFee said more patrols will be dispatched downtown by next week after a slew of incidents in the past 24 hours, including two suspicious deaths, aggravated assaults and a violent stabbing in Bay LRT station."

I don't think the solutions are sufficient. (1) The Peace Officers with a few more powers is insufficient - they need to be Police Officers and have the power to arrest. (2) Only paid fares should be admitted onto an LRT platform - all of them. (3) Trains should be "shortened" in non peak hours to compress travellers onto 2 or maybe 3 trains to allow management of travellers (only allow first 2 trains to have doors opened and only use 3rd train when demand warrants it. Packed trains offer better sense of security than trains running mostly empty with troublemakers. This approach may also reduce the work effort for ETS security.
 
I'm sorry, but spending millions on fare gates while letting homeless people rove downtown with nowhere to go is a waste of money. FIX THE REAL PROBLEM!
 
Transit funding absolutely should be used to install fare gates. It's 2022, and the fact we still have a honour system in a city of close to a million is a joke (probably over a million now).

Our LRT system should'nt be a homeless shelter, and we need to stop this nonsense that it's cruel or inhumane to keep non-payers from using and ABUSING the system in place

We have programs in place to help those who need cheaper passes and tickets to use the system.
 
Last edited:
tkoe_ said:
Agreed. That's why money for transit shouldn't be used to install fare gates to keep homeless people out of stations. It should be used to improve service and reliability.

Social disorder is the responsibility of the province and the City should continue to ask them to step up.
Click to expand...
Couple of things:

1. The City already gives out free monthly passes under the PATH program for homeless individuals, so fare gates shouldn't prevent most folks legitimately in need from using LRT
2. Fare gates do create a "safe space" or "zone" and will keep out those who are there just to hang out/use drugs or prey on others, including preying on the less fortunate, by demarcating/controlling a fare-paid space - it does make a difference. I think there are lots of homeless people who aren't randomly aggressive, violent, using drugs, and/or in gangs. Some people are just down on their luck. We really need protect those people too, and fare gates would benefit them too.
 
_urbanite said:
Transit funding absolutely should be used to install fare gates. It's 2022, and the fact we still have a honour system in a city of close to a million is a joke (probably over a million now).

Our LRT system should'nt be a homeless shelter, and we need to stop this nonsense that it's cruel or inhumane to keep non-payers from using and ABUSING the system in place

We have programs in place to help those who need cheaper passes and tickets to use the system.
Click to expand...
Since the transit system crosses municipal borders (e.g St Albert transit running into Edmonton) I think it's fair to use the metro population of 1.5 mil - wonder how many other cities of one and a half million maintain an honour system for transit?
 
occidentalcapital said:
Since the transit system crosses municipal borders (e.g St Albert transit running into Edmonton) I think it's fair to use the metro population of 1.5 mil - wonder how many other cities of one and a half million maintain an honour system for transit?
Click to expand...
Lots.
Portland Metro is 2.5 million
Denver Metro is 3.5 million
Salt Lake Metro 2.5 million
Sand Diego 1.4 million, metro 2+ million
Sacramento Metro 2.3 million
Minneapolis Metro 3.6 million

As far as I know all of the above use POP. POP has basically been the standard since Calgary and Sand Diego rolled it out, and Edmonton followed.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top