ETS Bus and General Transit Improvements

[The_Cat]

Transit Priority Measures | City of Edmonton

Planning and design to implement new transit priority measures are underway for seven key corridors in Edmonton.

www.edmonton.ca

I think this would be a great band-aid measure. Strathcona and Downtown are the busiest traffic areas.

 

[CplKlinger]

PSA - ETS fare adjustments take effect February 1

Email from City of Edmonton   ETS fare adjustments take effect February 1 January 15, 2025 On February 1, transit fare adjustments take effect for most fare groups. As the city grows, fare adjustments

myemail.constantcontact.com

 

[degrandprix]

PSA - ETS fare adjustments take effect February 1

Email from City of Edmonton   ETS fare adjustments take effect February 1 January 15, 2025 On February 1, transit fare adjustments take effect for most fare groups. As the city grows, fare adjustments

myemail.constantcontact.com

the youth fare age eligibility will adjust to 18 years and under. This means riders aged 19-24 years, who were previously eligible for the youth fare category, will now be in the standard adult fare category

I think that's a bad move, we should be keeping transit fares as low as possible for young people to increase the odds that they keep the habit of using transit, instead of buying a car as soon as they can afford it.

 

[CplKlinger]

I don't think it will help us much. Often the places we want to go: Climbing Gym, Friends Houses, River Valley, Superstore, etc are not on a train line. Only draws for us on VLW are West Ed (which we go to maybe twice a year) and 124th (maybe every other month). We loved living carfree in Vancouver (best part of a horrible city) and being next to the LRT has let us remain a 1 car family (which is a huge savings!) but car is still king in Edmonton.

The answer would be different for everyone, but I'm really curious what would make a better difference for you and your family? Is it something the city has in the works, like the three BRT lines or the transit priority measures, or is it something else altogether—whether it be transit related, density related, etc.?

 

[SarcasticMarmot]

The answer would be different for everyone, but I'm really curious what would make a better difference for you and your family? Is it something the city has in the works, like the three BRT lines or the transit priority measures, or is it something else altogether—whether it be transit related, density related, etc.?

There is nothing in the City's power that would be able to make us give up our car completely. Things like BRT, more LRT will definitely reduce our car usage but many businesses will still be disconnected. Using the climbing gym as an example, the best rope gym is in the industrial area on the far west side of town, bus frequency on the weekend is hourly. And even if you time everything right a 20 minute drive is an hour and a half by bus. So going climbing is 40 minutes of driving vs 3 hours on a bus. The business is located there because its the part of the city that a large warehouse space is cheap enough to make the business model work. Along the same lines until our friends and family stop buying suburban homes we will need to have 1 car. My parents for example just moved to the ass end of Sherwood Park and they are our primary respite child care. Visiting them in an evening after work is completely untenable.

I think we need to refocus our goals from car free lifestyles to car reduced lifestyles. New developments will still need parking, but significantly less. If a family of 3 can get by with one car instead of two it saves a lot of money, reduces traffic, and carbon emissions. But expecting new developments to have no parking is unreasonable. Everyone in our building except the two folks on AISH and the post-secondary students own a car but only one family owns multiple cars.

 

[CplKlinger]

There is nothing in the City's power that would be able to make us give up our car completely. Things like BRT, more LRT will definitely reduce our car usage but many businesses will still be disconnected. Using the climbing gym as an example, the best rope gym is in the industrial area on the far west side of town, bus frequency on the weekend is hourly. And even if you time everything right a 20 minute drive is an hour and a half by bus. So going climbing is 40 minutes of driving vs 3 hours on a bus. The business is located there because its the part of the city that a large warehouse space is cheap enough to make the business model work. Along the same lines until our friends and family stop buying suburban homes we will need to have 1 car. My parents for example just moved to the ass end of Sherwood Park and they are our primary respite child care. Visiting them in an evening after work is completely untenable.

That all makes a lot of sense. I had to sell my car a while ago while I was in school, since the mechanical issues started to add up. I've had to use Uber far more than I'd care to. And as someone with family in Fort Sask, I completely get what you mean about those regional connections too. Thanks for taking the time to share your own situation a bit more.

expecting new developments to have no parking is unreasonable.

Oh for sure, I agree. I think there's the odd unicorn that might make it work (i.e., the group of two buildings going up by McKernan station that'll have 0 parking, but will have a cargo bike for residents to use), but I wouldn't expect that to be a large trend. Even having one-car households would go a long way, as you said. At the very least, it'll generate more support for balanced transportation infrastructure that's safe, functional, and enjoyable for all users.

 

[TAS]

There is nothing in the City's power that would be able to make us give up our car completely. Things like BRT, more LRT will definitely reduce our car usage but many businesses will still be disconnected. Using the climbing gym as an example, the best rope gym is in the industrial area on the far west side of town, bus frequency on the weekend is hourly. And even if you time everything right a 20 minute drive is an hour and a half by bus. So going climbing is 40 minutes of driving vs 3 hours on a bus. The business is located there because its the part of the city that a large warehouse space is cheap enough to make the business model work. Along the same lines until our friends and family stop buying suburban homes we will need to have 1 car. My parents for example just moved to the ass end of Sherwood Park and they are our primary respite child care. Visiting them in an evening after work is completely untenable.

I think we need to refocus our goals from car free lifestyles to car reduced lifestyles. New developments will still need parking, but significantly less. If a family of 3 can get by with one car instead of two it saves a lot of money, reduces traffic, and carbon emissions. But expecting new developments to have no parking is unreasonable. Everyone in our building except the two folks on AISH and the post-secondary students own a car but only one family owns multiple cars.

And active transportation advocates are definitely not looking to eliminate vehicle usage and car ownership. As per the City Plan, they are advocating for 'viable' alternatives to driving to reduce car trips, especially on shorter trips as well as keeping the pedal to metal on infill where transportation options are better supported. That's also the only sustainable way to reduce congestion (which benefits drivers and everyone else) as our city continues to grow to 2+ million in the not too distant future.

But piecemeal planning of a bike network here and there without it fully connected is not viable and a public transportation system where it takes 3 hours vs. a 25 minute car trip is not viable as an alternative.

 

[SarcasticMarmot]

And active transportation advocates are definitely not looking to eliminate vehicle usage and car ownership. As per the City Plan, they are advocating for 'viable' alternatives to driving to reduce car trips, especially on shorter trips as well as keeping the pedal to metal on infill where transportation options are better supported. That's also the only sustainable way to reduce congestion (which benefits drivers and everyone else) as our city continues to grow to 2+ million in the not too distant future.

But piecemeal planning of a bike network here and there without it fully connected is not viable and a public transportation system where it takes 3 hours vs. a 25 minute car trip is not viable as an alternative.

I agree that most transit advocates aren't suggesting eliminating vehicle usage. My comment was pointed at the fuss some posters were making about an LRT adjacent TOD still having parking. The conversation came up because I live in a condo adjacent to an LRT stop and view our parking lot as vital to the viability of our home.

 

[BrettB]

StatsCan released its November transit usage data for November and Edmonton is showing the largest year-over-year increase in ridership in Canada.

In November, the number of Edmonton Transit riders went from 4,994,000 in 2023 to 6,376,000 in November 2024 - an increase of 27%. Revenue (excluding subsidies) rose more modestly, from 9,417,000 (2023) to 9,979,000 (2024).

The next-fastest growing transit usage is shown in Calgary, where the service rose from 8,367,000 (2023) to 9,398,000 (2024).

Most other large transit systems showed either small increases, no gain, or even decreases.

 

[Kosy123]

We've had a significant increase in population which probably contributes to it, but we have a lot of things going for us on top of that

• LRT ridership increasing due to the Valley Line opening.
• Downtown recovery going full tilt in 2024 contributing to both LRT and bus ridership in the core.
• Expansion in post-secondary student enrollment contributing to LRT and bus ridership.
• Bus service hours expansion.
• Probably some other reason I forgot to add

All in all, good news. Anybody who takes public transit can see how busy it's been in comparison to 2023. I'm not sure if the expansion in ridership is concentrated in peak time ridership or off-peak, but that would be interesting information to know.

 

[thommyjo]

StatsCan released its November transit usage data for November and Edmonton is showing the largest year-over-year increase in ridership in Canada.

In November, the number of Edmonton Transit riders went from 4,994,000 in 2023 to 6,376,000 in November 2024 - an increase of 27%. Revenue (excluding subsidies) rose more modestly, from 9,417,000 (2023) to 9,979,000 (2024).

The next-fastest growing transit usage is shown in Calgary, where the service rose from 8,367,000 (2023) to 9,398,000 (2024).

Most other large transit systems showed either small increases, no gain, or even decreases.

Would a large increase in trips, but not revenue point to higher usage by existing riders, but not as many new riders then? Or growth primarily being subsidized passes? Or just a ton of fare evading/tech issues?