July 29, 2008
Core Routes Denied Increases
The fall schedules are now available online, if you use route schedule search, and use a September date. Looking over them quickly, it appears that once again most of the money will be wasted on suburban routes while the core routes get little or no service increases. The 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9 and 150 are all running overcrowded in rush hour, and weekday midday. However, instead of boosting these routes to frequencies beyond 15 minutes in rush hour, they are left alone so that new midday service can be added to Blackburn, Miller, Britnell, and Terwilleger Towne and Rutherford can get late night service. This is a disturbing trend, where the routes that carry the majority of the systems passengers get denied increases. While it is important to ensure geographic coverage of the city by transit, there have to be priorities, and providing service to suburbanites who will view it only as an "emergency service" to use when the car breaks down should not priority over providing service to those who will actually use it, and deserve better than an overcrowded bus showing up 10 minutes late.
July 19, 2008
EDDIE
Paula Simons wrote a column in today's Journal about the EDDIE bus, and its lack of riders. I agree with some of her points, mainly on the fact that some of Edmonton's premier attractions (most notably Fort Edmonton Park and the Valley Zoo) are under served by transit. However, I disagree that EDDIE is the best way to serve these attractions. For someone on 124 St heading downtown, would they rather wait up to an hour for an EDDIE bus that costs $15, or pay $2.50 and hop on the first 5 or 135, which have a combined 7 minute service, that shows up?
We need to provide better public transit to our major attractions, but not with a winding, circuitous route that costs 6 times as much as a regular bus. In its current form, EDDIE is more of a publicity stunt than an effective part of our transit system.
Here are some things that can be done to provide the same service goals as EDDIE, but in a more efficient manner:
1) Expand the 596. The current service only runs Sundays and once an hour. Make it a 7 day a week service from Bonnie Doon to West Edmonton Mall, serving Whyte Ave, University (where it could connect with the LRT), Fort Edmonton, the Zoo and WEM. Increase frequency to every 30 minutes, and alterante low floors with historic buses on this route.
2) Promote existing services. Have the 124 St area promote the 5 and 135 to their area, include information on how to get to the attractions via transit in brochures.
3) Provide a series of shorter shuttles, similar to the existing 596 (University to FEP) and 599 (Southgate to Snow Valley). Some potential routes include 598 (Westmount to Space and Science Centre er Telus World of Science), 597 (Kingsway to Aerospace Museum) and 594 (Downtown to Muttart). Running these short shuttles would provide a more frequent service to these attractions, and provide a better connectivity to the transit network. To get on EDDIE right now, you pretty much have to get it Downtown or at the University, as most of the stops are located only at the major attractions, with the buses zooming by express along the rest of the route.
The other point made in the article was that EDDIE is an excellent way to see the sights of Edmonton. If you want to see the sights of Edmonton from a bus, I'd recommend taking the ETS historic tours, which also allow you the chance to ride on an historic bus, and provide live commentary on the history of Edmonton.
Or ride the High Level Bridge Streetcar, which offers an unparalled view from the top of the world's highest streetcar river crossing.
We need to provide better public transit to our major attractions, but not with a winding, circuitous route that costs 6 times as much as a regular bus. In its current form, EDDIE is more of a publicity stunt than an effective part of our transit system.
Here are some things that can be done to provide the same service goals as EDDIE, but in a more efficient manner:
1) Expand the 596. The current service only runs Sundays and once an hour. Make it a 7 day a week service from Bonnie Doon to West Edmonton Mall, serving Whyte Ave, University (where it could connect with the LRT), Fort Edmonton, the Zoo and WEM. Increase frequency to every 30 minutes, and alterante low floors with historic buses on this route.
2) Promote existing services. Have the 124 St area promote the 5 and 135 to their area, include information on how to get to the attractions via transit in brochures.
3) Provide a series of shorter shuttles, similar to the existing 596 (University to FEP) and 599 (Southgate to Snow Valley). Some potential routes include 598 (Westmount to Space and Science Centre er Telus World of Science), 597 (Kingsway to Aerospace Museum) and 594 (Downtown to Muttart). Running these short shuttles would provide a more frequent service to these attractions, and provide a better connectivity to the transit network. To get on EDDIE right now, you pretty much have to get it Downtown or at the University, as most of the stops are located only at the major attractions, with the buses zooming by express along the rest of the route.
The other point made in the article was that EDDIE is an excellent way to see the sights of Edmonton. If you want to see the sights of Edmonton from a bus, I'd recommend taking the ETS historic tours, which also allow you the chance to ride on an historic bus, and provide live commentary on the history of Edmonton.
Or ride the High Level Bridge Streetcar, which offers an unparalled view from the top of the world's highest streetcar river crossing.
July 15, 2008
Regional Rail "Go Transit" for Edmonton?
A potential future map of Regional Rail lines in Edmonton
There was a bit of an interesting article in yesterday's Journal about expanded regional transit, and the possibility of a commuter rail system for the Edmonton area. Leaving aside the media's confusion between the seperate modes of Light Rail and Commuter Rail, it was good to see that there is some genuine interest in improving regional transportation in the capital region. While there are rail corridors out to Spruce Grove, Fort Saskatchewan, St Albert/Morinville, Leduc/Nisku/Westaskiwin that could be used for commuter rail lines, there is one major problem that has to be overcome before any commuter rail system can be constructed in Edmonton; namely the fact that there are no longer any rail lines into downtown Edmonton.
Toronto, as cited in the example, still has a large amount of rail lines running right into their
downtown, and Calgary has a rail line right on the south side of their downtown core.
For Edmonton, it wouldn't take much to build a heavy rail line for commuter rail right into downtown, paralleling the existing LRT right of way from the north east. From the north west, a line could be built down the old CNR right of way paralleling 120 St, though it would have issues when it reaches Oliver, where condos, a power centre and MacEwan college stand in the way. The line here could be tunneled, and could surface after 104 St.
The southside lines would be sent to downtown via the existing right of way used for the High Level Bridge streetcar, and across the High Level Bridge. The existing summertime streetcar could still be accommodated on the right of way along this portion, and over the bridge. North of the bridge, the line could terminated at Grandin LRT station, or could continue, either elevated or tunneled, under 109 St to MacEwan where it could be hooked up to the other lines. If all the lines were fed into the corridor north of 104 Ave, Edmonton could build its own "Union Station" at the CN Tower, with a connection to the LRT at Churchill Station, as well as pedway links to City Hall, Edmonton City Centre, the Art Gallery, the new EPCOR tower, and the new arena (it's going to be built there and we know it).
This project has the potential to greatly improve transit service in the Edmonton region, and to improve the integration of the region as
a whole.
As long as the project is done right, and doesn't get bogged down by the bickering egos of the politicians of the various communities it could be a great thing. Hopefully, we will see some real action on this soon.
The text of the Journal Article:
GO trains touted for capital region
LRT links to Spruce Grove, Leduc would offer sustainable, affordable lifestyles, says expert
Trish Audette
The Edmonton Journal with files from the Calgary Herald
Monday, July 14, 2008
EDMONTON - Tentative plans to speed up transportation between Alberta's major cities and their bedroom communities -- perhaps by stretching light rail train tracks to places like Spruce Grove or Leduc -- are key to striking a balance between sustainable lifestyles and affordable ones, a Toronto-based expert says.
"If you do commuter transit like GO Transit, you can have the best of both worlds," said Baher Abdulhai, the Canada Research Chair in Intelligent Transportation Systems.
GO trains wind through an 8,000-square kilometre area and move more than five million people every day between Toronto's downtown core and nearby cities such as Hamilton, Guelph and Oshawa.
On Tuesday, Premier Ed Stelmach announced $2 billion will go to the province's transit systems as part of the government's bid to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The goal, he said, is to take the equivalent of one million cars off the road.
Since then, the premier has made clear a Calgary-Edmonton rail link is "further down the road." The priority is moving people around the two metro areas with more ease.
"Without developing a good transit system within the areas of Calgary and Edmonton, the commuter rail between the two communities won't be as successful," he said. "Our focus will be co-operation. I want to see communities working with each other so that we can reach out to the growth areas."
Stelmach said he plans to see commuter train service expand beyond Calgary, for sure. "It will work because we will make it work."
Edmonton politicians expect the new transportation funding to be shared equitably.
"I don't think we need to make it more sexy, more innovative," Mayor Stephen Mandel said earlier this week. "We shouldn't need to be worried about what Calgary does."
But Jim Lightbody, an University of Alberta professor and expert in urban politics, called plans to expand light rail transit in the Edmonton area infeasible.
"The reality is very simple. Light rail transit requires passenger volume," he said Thursday.
"The wisest option would not be to reinvent public transit. We do not need grandiose blue-sky dreaming."
Instead of light rail, Lightbody said, the city needs better bus routes between Edmonton and its bedroom communities. "What you have in the Toronto metropolitan area is people who are happy to live in Mississauga," and work in the downtown core's financial area, he said.
The mayor of Leduc, however, said his community would provide those commuters. The international airport is expected to be a hub for LRT service at some point. "We have quite a bit of trouble getting workers out to the airport specifically," Mayor Greg Krischke said. "Light rail eventually might be an option (although) I think it might be a little premature." In the next few years, though, Krischke anticipates more and more people will want to leave their vehicles behind.
Edmonton city councillor Don Iveson said Thursday he anticipates Edmonton's transit system will look different than Toronto's. Rather than an express system taking people from outlying areas into the centre and back again, he sees a system that looks like a "spider web" and connects smaller communities, too.
with files from the Calgary Herald
taudette@thejournal.canwest.com
© The Edmonton Journal 2008
July 13, 2008
Sensible Move on NLRT
At a recent meeting, the Transportation Public Works Committee voted to have administration look to look other options for the LRT line to NAIT. The option that was presented recommended knocking down several blocks of apartment houses by going down an alley behind 105 St. The committee directed administration to look at sending the line straight up 105
St, thus sparing the apartment blocks. I fully support this idea. The whole notion of sending the LRT up an alley, and destroying housing just to preserve some space for cars on 105 St was nothing short of perverse. We should not demolish homes for LRT when not absolutely necessary. LRT should be serving communities, not destroying them. And if that means LRT has go down a major artery, and take space away from cars, then so be it. We need to have a shift in thinking in this city, away from one dominated by cars to one dominated by transit. Transit needs to be made a more viable and attractive option than cars if this city is to prosper and flourish.
St, thus sparing the apartment blocks. I fully support this idea. The whole notion of sending the LRT up an alley, and destroying housing just to preserve some space for cars on 105 St was nothing short of perverse. We should not demolish homes for LRT when not absolutely necessary. LRT should be serving communities, not destroying them. And if that means LRT has go down a major artery, and take space away from cars, then so be it. We need to have a shift in thinking in this city, away from one dominated by cars to one dominated by transit. Transit needs to be made a more viable and attractive option than cars if this city is to prosper and flourish.
Trolley Buses
On June 18, 2008, Edmonton city council voted 7-6 to phase out trolley buses in 2009 and 2010. City administration had recommended this action, and has been pushing to get rid of trolleys for years now. They made the claim that the trolleys would cost $100 million to keep for the next 20 years, with the extra cost being due to the premium of buying trolleys over hybrids or diesels, and due to the need to maintain the overhead wires.
The problems with this are:
1. The cost calculations were on a per-km basis, and it was assumed that only half the scheduled trolley service would ever be operated. With the cost of maintaining the wires being a fixed cost, running fewer trolleys drives up your costs and makes them appear to be prohibitive. ETS has only ever run about half the scheduled trolley service for the past few years, despite repeated directives from city council to maximise trolley usage.
2. To further inflate the cost of trolleys, the replacement of virtually every part of the overhead system was included in the cost calculations.
Most of this replacement would probably be unneeded if trolleys
were to be retained.
3. The reports made the laughable assumption that diesel fuel would stay at $0.80/litre for the next 20 years! Right now, less than a month after the vote, it is now about $1.50/litre.
4. The reports assumed that there would be no increase in trolley service, and that 47 trolleys would be all that is needed to run the system. But, the Strategic Ridership Growth Study recommends 10 minute service on all major routes. Applying this to the trolley routes would require a fleet of 70 trolleys, and reconfiguring routes to make full use of the existing system
(ie restoring trolley service to Highlands and Southgate) would push that even higher.
This would have the effect of reducing the per kilometre cost even more, since there would be even more trolleys operating.
5. The reports only looked at one possible trolley supplier (New Flyer) which charges $1million per bus. Trolleys in Europe sell for about a half to a third of that, and no analysis of the cost of importing trolleys was done. Shipping fees, Transport Canada certification, and import taxes would add to the cost of bringing in those buses, it should still be less than the cost of the $1million New Flyer trolley.
Basically, the assumptions for these reports were designed to be slanted against trolleys from the start, and no attempt at an objective look at the trolleys was done. Just like in Toronto and Hamilton in 1992 and 1993, management wanted the trolleys out the door, and so set them up for failure.
Some members of council thought they could use the money "saved" by eliminating trolleys to fund LRT expansion. However, LRT costs around $100million/km to build. So, even if all the savings were accurate, for the whole amount tossed around, we could build 1km of LRT in 20 years.
Without trolleys, however, Edmonton is now 100% dependant on using diesel fuel for the bus fleet. With the cost of diesel rising, the choice to get rid of trolleys will be regretted in the long run. Moreover, local quality of life will be diminished, as diesel buses will now be roaring along the trolley routes, adding noise and pollution to the street level.
In Inglewood along 114 Ave for instance, trolley buses run every 8
minutes during the day,
every 15 minutes in the evening, and every 30 minutes at night.
Service starts at 5 am and continues to 1 am, with over 400 trolleys
passing by on any given day.
The effects of noise and pollution form that many diesel buses will be immense.
Sadly, local quality of life never entered into the equation.
Some people have tried making the claim that because the trolleys are powered by coal plants, that they are no better environmentally than diesels. This ignores two facts, 1) that power plants are located outside city limits, and aren't spewing exhaust right in our streets and 2) that trolleys can be made 100% emission free by the purchase of green power, just as Calgary has done for their LRT.
It's not too late to get this decision reversed. I urge everyone to write to your city councillor, and let them know your support for trolleys. And visit the website of the Edmonton Trolley Coalition (www.trolleycoalition.org) for more information.
The problems with this are:
1. The cost calculations were on a per-km basis, and it was assumed that only half the scheduled trolley service would ever be operated. With the cost of maintaining the wires being a fixed cost, running fewer trolleys drives up your costs and makes them appear to be prohibitive. ETS has only ever run about half the scheduled trolley service for the past few years, despite repeated directives from city council to maximise trolley usage.
2. To further inflate the cost of trolleys, the replacement of virtually every part of the overhead system was included in the cost calculations.
Most of this replacement would probably be unneeded if trolleys
were to be retained.
3. The reports made the laughable assumption that diesel fuel would stay at $0.80/litre for the next 20 years! Right now, less than a month after the vote, it is now about $1.50/litre.
4. The reports assumed that there would be no increase in trolley service, and that 47 trolleys would be all that is needed to run the system. But, the Strategic Ridership Growth Study recommends 10 minute service on all major routes. Applying this to the trolley routes would require a fleet of 70 trolleys, and reconfiguring routes to make full use of the existing system
(ie restoring trolley service to Highlands and Southgate) would push that even higher.
This would have the effect of reducing the per kilometre cost even more, since there would be even more trolleys operating.
5. The reports only looked at one possible trolley supplier (New Flyer) which charges $1million per bus. Trolleys in Europe sell for about a half to a third of that, and no analysis of the cost of importing trolleys was done. Shipping fees, Transport Canada certification, and import taxes would add to the cost of bringing in those buses, it should still be less than the cost of the $1million New Flyer trolley.
Basically, the assumptions for these reports were designed to be slanted against trolleys from the start, and no attempt at an objective look at the trolleys was done. Just like in Toronto and Hamilton in 1992 and 1993, management wanted the trolleys out the door, and so set them up for failure.
Some members of council thought they could use the money "saved" by eliminating trolleys to fund LRT expansion. However, LRT costs around $100million/km to build. So, even if all the savings were accurate, for the whole amount tossed around, we could build 1km of LRT in 20 years.
Without trolleys, however, Edmonton is now 100% dependant on using diesel fuel for the bus fleet. With the cost of diesel rising, the choice to get rid of trolleys will be regretted in the long run. Moreover, local quality of life will be diminished, as diesel buses will now be roaring along the trolley routes, adding noise and pollution to the street level.
In Inglewood along 114 Ave for instance, trolley buses run every 8
minutes during the day,
every 15 minutes in the evening, and every 30 minutes at night.
Service starts at 5 am and continues to 1 am, with over 400 trolleys
passing by on any given day.
The effects of noise and pollution form that many diesel buses will be immense.
Sadly, local quality of life never entered into the equation.
Some people have tried making the claim that because the trolleys are powered by coal plants, that they are no better environmentally than diesels. This ignores two facts, 1) that power plants are located outside city limits, and aren't spewing exhaust right in our streets and 2) that trolleys can be made 100% emission free by the purchase of green power, just as Calgary has done for their LRT.
It's not too late to get this decision reversed. I urge everyone to write to your city councillor, and let them know your support for trolleys. And visit the website of the Edmonton Trolley Coalition (www.trolleycoalition.org) for more information.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
