Edmonchuk
Active Member
I though the majority of Edmontonians support LRT expansion? Why do the candidates think that if they decide to cancel LRT, it would give them a boost in support? Just mind boggling.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Airboy
- Start date
Platinum107
Senior Member
I've really liked Cheryll Watson throughout this whole election and and still a fan of her downtown business district idea, but this is really making me question if I'd vote for her or not (if i could vote) and imo is letting her lack of experience in the public realm shine bright. Why would she even say this after saying that "transit is needed now, not decades from now"?? It makes no sense because "pausing" (ergo cancelling) the VLW LRT will do nothing but make Edmontonians wait longer for transit that should've been built years ago. Look, I have issues with low-floor LRT myself and I'm not the biggest fan of it being used in a city-wide rapid transit line, but I'd be a FOOL to cancel a project now when it's literally under construction and billions of dollars in funding and contracts have been secured.
If she's still holding 1 on 1 calls I think I'll sign up for one with her just to talk about this.
TAS
Senior Member
Maybe she really believes the huge cost of lrt expansion is not worth it at this particular time - it would be great to hear more from her on this though. Obviously the analytics she is looking at coupled with the future uncertainty brought on by covid and the change in workplace practices and other habits.has caused a change in her position on LRT right now while still advocating for improved bus service overall. Those advocating for a pause still talk about the need for better bus service and bus rapid transit as alternatives.
While on the transit issue, here are Edmonton's transit ridership numbers, costs and revenues for 2017, 2018, 2019, before the 45% drop in ridership in 2020.
Surprisingly to me, despite our population going up every year, 2019 was our worst year of the three year cycle with the lowest ridership, lowest revenues and highest Operating Expenses by $10 million more from previous year.
2019 (bus and lrt)
Annual Ridership 86,715,540
Total Operating Expenses $334,847,345
Total Revenues $130,000,145
2018
Annual Ridership 87,121,534
Total Operating Expenses $325,043,440
Total Revenues $130,920,048
2017
Annual Ridership 86,997,466
Total Operating Expenses $326,194,825
Total Revenues $131,154,338
Edmonchuk
Active Member
^ Honestly I am not going to give her a favour and try guess on what's is going in her mind. She is in the middle of the campaign and made a very clear statement that she would cancel the project that has already been approved and under-construction. She is not fit to be a mayor of 1.5 million city.
In order to increase ridership, you need to build transit first.
HAHA I just found out she drives her Dodge RAM truck to work in downtown. Cute.
In order to increase ridership, you need to build transit first.
HAHA I just found out she drives her Dodge RAM truck to work in downtown. Cute.
Last edited:
itom987
Active Member
Advocating for a pause gave us the Terwillager Drive we see today.
ChazYEG
Senior Member
If I am not mistaken, she's a registered member of this forum. Wonder if she (or someone from her team) ever reads it.
But for all I care, she's just dropped down my list of supportable candidates, right there with Mike Nickel. I am INDESCRIBABLY disappointed that someone with her background seems to have absolutely no knowledge of the concept of induced demand, and how it works for transit.
Sohi is now the only realistically viable candidate and, for anything that counts, I'll be full steam volunteering for his campaign and firmly against every single other candidate, except maybe for Krushell.
And to think I actually considered wasting my time and tarnishing my good name with Watson's campaign.
But for all I care, she's just dropped down my list of supportable candidates, right there with Mike Nickel. I am INDESCRIBABLY disappointed that someone with her background seems to have absolutely no knowledge of the concept of induced demand, and how it works for transit.
Sohi is now the only realistically viable candidate and, for anything that counts, I'll be full steam volunteering for his campaign and firmly against every single other candidate, except maybe for Krushell.
And to think I actually considered wasting my time and tarnishing my good name with Watson's campaign.
jason403
Active Member
To me it seems ridiculous cancelling a project that has already been underway for at least 2 years now (if you include utility reconstruction over the past 2 years). Especially since funding has been attained from 2 other levels of government, and it's not like cancelling the project will allow these funds to be allocated to different areas.
I do think there is a fair point and question to be asked as to whether LRT is the most efficient use of tax dollars, as it is a massively expensive project, and ridership does not seem to be that high. Are these niche projects catering to small but vocal minority of Edmonton citizens, or do these projects need to be viewed in more of a 25 year strategy of what the city is to become in the future, and being proactive about future transit needs. Edmonton seems to have committed $800M to Valley Line South, and an estimated $700M to Valley Line West. If these funds were allocated elsewhere, what could we build or fund in Edmonton?
As a side note, I do fully support LRT expansion, but I think it's important we scrutinize projects more looking at opportunity cost in order to make the best decisions with limited funds.
I do think there is a fair point and question to be asked as to whether LRT is the most efficient use of tax dollars, as it is a massively expensive project, and ridership does not seem to be that high. Are these niche projects catering to small but vocal minority of Edmonton citizens, or do these projects need to be viewed in more of a 25 year strategy of what the city is to become in the future, and being proactive about future transit needs. Edmonton seems to have committed $800M to Valley Line South, and an estimated $700M to Valley Line West. If these funds were allocated elsewhere, what could we build or fund in Edmonton?
As a side note, I do fully support LRT expansion, but I think it's important we scrutinize projects more looking at opportunity cost in order to make the best decisions with limited funds.
TAS
Senior Member
Transit is not just LRT - good bus routes and bus rapid transit that are well planned can also boost ridership. But that's certainly not as sexy as lrt and certainly nowhere near the cost.
But it seems there is less concern here for the city's new bus route system that was designed before the pandemic and implemented during it - it was made to favor routes in and out of downtown to the sacrifice of routes outside the core and as result has reduced service for many people. But hey, we've got $1 billion to extend metro line less than 1km into Blatchford. I can understand why many Edmonton residents and seniors are frustrated.
I'm not even against LRT. I love the idea of trains all over a dense Edmonton city. But I do have some doubts and uncertainties - especially with Canadian government reports like the following:
Working from home: Potential implications for public transit and greenhouse gas emissions
The increase in telework observed in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic shows that far more workers are able to work from home than had been observed prior to the pandemic. The economic costs of the pandemic to this point have been significant and pervasive, both in Canada and other countries...
Two projections from this report:
1. The bad news for transit of all kinds - transition to work from home means less commuting to work. Yes, people use transit for other reasons but not having as many people commuting to work daily will have a negative impact on ridership (buses and lrt)
2. The good news outlined in report - the current and projected future decline in commuting will have positive impact on the environment with reduction in green house gases as less commuting means less vehicular traffic, too!.
bodsbods9090
Active Member
Watson lost my vote. Was considering it but no chance now.
She's also backed by a UCP press secretary so...yeah.
She's also backed by a UCP press secretary so...yeah.
occidentalcapital
Senior Member
Edmonton having a lower amount of transit ridership is a really good signal that the City needs to get its butt in gear and build LRT. Buses ain't cutting it for the vast majority of people!
TAS
Senior Member
ChazYEG
Senior Member
Because by definition, buses are less reliable than rail. They're also less comfortable and are subject to traffic, unless you go out of your way to create dedicated, at least semi grade separated, bus lanes.
Even if you increase the frequency to insane levels (2 or 3 minute headway) it's not realiable enough, in terms of getting on time every time.
They're also A LOT more expensive to run (albeit a smaller capital investment) and ridiculously more pollutant.
We need BOTH to work well together, have the busses feed the LRT, from the places where it's not feasible to have rail transit, make the bus trips short (10, 15 minutes tops) to and from a rail connection, so they become a viable option for people in the suburbs, for example.
If we have rail lines replacing and/or competing with the major car routes, and busses feeding into them, we can make these trips just marginally slower than by car, a lot more comfortable than the busses and extremely reliable.
But for a metro as big (geographically) and as populated as Edmonton's, we CANNOT rely on busses if we want to change the transit culture and increase ridership.
That's not to mention that busses, even big transit centers, DO NOT SUPPORT ToDs well, and it's not anecdotal, it's a proven fact. The city is growing and if we want to curb the sprawl, for quality of life and environmental reasons, rail transit and ToD will be the backbone of this.
I 100% agree that we need to be more efficient with capital investments, etc... But I am 100% against ANYONE talking about scrapping the LRT expansion from Edmonton's future.
thommyjo
Senior Member
The LRT is expensive, 100%, but we have to compare to roads and other modes of moving people. And the hidden costs of new fire stations, residential roads, infrastructure, schools, etc.
Not to mention the private cost of vehicles. (which are essentially a hidden tax often 2-4x more than people's property taxes even). You hear nickel talk about the city raising taxes, but then you realize paying 12k a year for a car is a lot worse than the 3-6k a year most people pay for their houses. So those advocating for sprawl and car dependency are actually bigger "socialists/communists" to use their language because they are enslaving people and reducing personal freedoms/choices.
occidentalcapital
Senior Member
TAS
Senior Member
I don't think anybody is denying that. Yes, building track will add riders. It damn well better. It's just ensuring the investment is worth the amount of ridership it will add is the issue. There must be targets we have set out for increased ridership that have been identified for the investment in valley line - anybody know?
Several candidates this election including some currently on council like Tim Cartmell have advocated the city consider bus rapid transit as well. If key areas or corridors of the city aren't currently being served while the west lrt is being built, why not look at this option?
BRT is in Ottawa, Winnipeg, Calgary and Vancouver I believe. Why aren't we looking at that I wonder?