Foolworm
Active Member
A revised RTSC report has been issued, reflecting the updated membership (the counties of Strathcona, Sturgeon and Leduc have opted out). Now it's up to the Province to actually establish the Commission.
|
|
|
Regional Transit
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
Foolworm
Active Member
Morinville drops public transit pilot project
Read the full story and comment on StAlbertToday.ca
www.stalberttoday.ca
On and on it goes...
archited
Senior Member
For those who might be interested, there is a webinar on August 4 entitled "Transit Innovation in the Time of COVID" -- here is the link -- https://www.enotrans.org/event/webinar-transit-innovation-in-the-time-of-covid/
Member Bio
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2015
- Messages
- 10,218
- Reaction score
- 23,061
- Location
- Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
New transit centre opens in St. Albert on Sunday
It won't be open until Sunday, but St. Albert was showing off its newest transit centre on Thursday.
edmonton.ctvnews.ca
Airboy
Senior Member
This was one of my projects, still some minor things to do but ready for the first buses. Nice part is. it is designed for the future LRT expansion.mind you that will be in 20 years.
Edmcowboy11
Senior Member
^I wish there were a way to expand LRT out that way quicker.
Member Bio
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2015
- Messages
- 10,218
- Reaction score
- 23,061
- Location
- Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
via email
From the report addendum:
The_Cat
Senior Member
As a Sherwood Park resident, I hope that Strathcona County Transit (who voted against joining the network) can at least have routes that can complement the ones on the above map. For example, the 404 could have service to the University (running along Whyte Avenue and connecting at Bonnie Doon LRT), and the 411 could continue its service downtown.
cliffapotamus
Active Member
other than to state the obvious that it would be easier to achieve those synergies if the county joined the commission, it would be good to see some routes get redesigned so the networks mesh better. it will be interesting to see what happens to transit centers on the east end once this and the valley line open up. the RTSC report i read implied Sherwood park's sprawling nature and lack of a single major area of employment (not everyone works downtown, but commutes to say Fort Sask, Leduc, etc according to their research) didn't justify much more than the commuter service they run now. This is opposed to St. Albert, which is planning for LRT. I wonder if the way the new network moves people around will create single points of focus for the system, or if the current situation of 'a bunch of cars and buses going everywhere' will continue.
CplKlinger
Senior Member
Fort Saskatchewan's city council is voting tomorrow on whether or not to remain within the regional transit services commission: http://www.sturgeoncreek.ca/ThePost.../2_Fort_to_vote_on_regional_transit_plan.html
I spoke with Councilor Gordon Harris, who represents the Fort on the interim board, and he had some interesting points:
- Local transit services within the region will be amalgamated into the commission; only ETS will remain outside of its scope for now, due to its size. Around five years after its formation, assuming that the commission launches as planned, the board will vote on whether or not to bring the LRT into the fold or if it should remain under Edmonton's control and budget. I assume that also goes for the rest of ETS, but I could be wrong.
- The interim board is currently in the hiring process for a CEO of the commission, and hope to have one by the year's end.
- Local communities will have a certain amount of time, from when the commission is formed to when it begins service, to finalize their routes to "set the tone." After that, route planning for local and regional connections will be under the purview of a board of planning experts working for the commission.
-At the beginning of its operations, the RTSC will contract out services rather than providing services itself. For instance, it could continue to contract local service in Fort Sask to Pacific Western, and contract regional transit between Fort Sask and Edmonton to ETS.
- The commission will be named something along the lines of: the "Edmonton Metropolitan Regional Transit Services Commission". I forget the exact wording, but I think that's it.
I emailed all of the city councilors to voice my support, and a couple of them had some pretty disappointing responses. Councilor Brian Kelly asked me:
" Do you have any authoritative research that conclusively illustrates the economic and environmental benefits that you allude too? Btw I hope you do because my search has yielded nothing. "
While Councilor Deanna Lennox asked me:
" If you could provide some information about your statements like “Fort Saskatchewan has long needed to expand transit” and that the RTSC will be cheaper and more efficient. Do you have some statistics or data that supports those statements?"
While the second question from Lennox is fair I guess, the first one seemed to be in poor faith. I don't think that a private citizen should be expected to provide statistics in order for their opinion, that local transit is lacking, to be considered valid. Apparently, five councilors are thought to support remaining in the commission, while two councilors want the Fort to leave it. From the responses I got, I think it's safe to say that Kelly and Lennox are the ones most opposed to the commission. Hopefully, come the meeting tomorrow, the Fort's city council does not make the shortsighted decision to leave the commission after spending so much time and resources contributing to its formation. This commission will make communities outside of Edmonton much more attractive to newcomers, and leaving it will only isolate the community in my opinion.
I spoke with Councilor Gordon Harris, who represents the Fort on the interim board, and he had some interesting points:
- Local transit services within the region will be amalgamated into the commission; only ETS will remain outside of its scope for now, due to its size. Around five years after its formation, assuming that the commission launches as planned, the board will vote on whether or not to bring the LRT into the fold or if it should remain under Edmonton's control and budget. I assume that also goes for the rest of ETS, but I could be wrong.
- The interim board is currently in the hiring process for a CEO of the commission, and hope to have one by the year's end.
- Local communities will have a certain amount of time, from when the commission is formed to when it begins service, to finalize their routes to "set the tone." After that, route planning for local and regional connections will be under the purview of a board of planning experts working for the commission.
-At the beginning of its operations, the RTSC will contract out services rather than providing services itself. For instance, it could continue to contract local service in Fort Sask to Pacific Western, and contract regional transit between Fort Sask and Edmonton to ETS.
- The commission will be named something along the lines of: the "Edmonton Metropolitan Regional Transit Services Commission". I forget the exact wording, but I think that's it.
I emailed all of the city councilors to voice my support, and a couple of them had some pretty disappointing responses. Councilor Brian Kelly asked me:
" Do you have any authoritative research that conclusively illustrates the economic and environmental benefits that you allude too? Btw I hope you do because my search has yielded nothing. "
While Councilor Deanna Lennox asked me:
" If you could provide some information about your statements like “Fort Saskatchewan has long needed to expand transit” and that the RTSC will be cheaper and more efficient. Do you have some statistics or data that supports those statements?"
While the second question from Lennox is fair I guess, the first one seemed to be in poor faith. I don't think that a private citizen should be expected to provide statistics in order for their opinion, that local transit is lacking, to be considered valid. Apparently, five councilors are thought to support remaining in the commission, while two councilors want the Fort to leave it. From the responses I got, I think it's safe to say that Kelly and Lennox are the ones most opposed to the commission. Hopefully, come the meeting tomorrow, the Fort's city council does not make the shortsighted decision to leave the commission after spending so much time and resources contributing to its formation. This commission will make communities outside of Edmonton much more attractive to newcomers, and leaving it will only isolate the community in my opinion.
Last edited:
CplKlinger
Senior Member
Hopping off my post from yesterday, here is the Fort administration's report on the "Edmonton Metropolitan Regional Transit Services Commission.". It provides a lot of very interesting information regarding the commission. You can find more info about tonight's motion here, under section 12 "new business"
cliffapotamus
Active Member
seeing this question coming up constantly really makes me wonder what kind of long-term plans these municipalities have for their future. how do they plan to grow? do they plan to grow? do they expect some mythical oil boom to come in and send us back into some 1975-era boom era again, negating the need for any strategic planning? What future are these leaders carving out?
I'm getting vague and cynical (and lumping Fort Saskatchewan with Sherwood Park, which is a mean and unfair grouping on my part) but like, serisously, do these councils understand that their employment base, and a lot of their liveability, comes from efficient connectivity with the region, most importantly Edmonton itself. efficient transit is a necessity; so is cooperative planning in general. the Capital Region will fail if we can't work together. we're a big city; by some counts (notably the 2016 federal census) indicate the Edmonton CMA will leapfrog Ottawa and Calgary to be Canada's 4th-biggest CMA by 2021. we need to start actin like a big city so we don't squander this momentum; and that means smaller municipalities need to recognize the full value of cooperation.
sorry for the rant. I hope Ft Sask stays on with the transit commission, i think it will help hugely in the long-term. there's lots of rural towns/cities in alberta that work well with their big neighbours and stay true to their rural roots; like Okotoks and High River. it's not the end of Ft Sask to join up with Edmonton to help growth.
I'm getting vague and cynical (and lumping Fort Saskatchewan with Sherwood Park, which is a mean and unfair grouping on my part) but like, serisously, do these councils understand that their employment base, and a lot of their liveability, comes from efficient connectivity with the region, most importantly Edmonton itself. efficient transit is a necessity; so is cooperative planning in general. the Capital Region will fail if we can't work together. we're a big city; by some counts (notably the 2016 federal census) indicate the Edmonton CMA will leapfrog Ottawa and Calgary to be Canada's 4th-biggest CMA by 2021. we need to start actin like a big city so we don't squander this momentum; and that means smaller municipalities need to recognize the full value of cooperation.
sorry for the rant. I hope Ft Sask stays on with the transit commission, i think it will help hugely in the long-term. there's lots of rural towns/cities in alberta that work well with their big neighbours and stay true to their rural roots; like Okotoks and High River. it's not the end of Ft Sask to join up with Edmonton to help growth.
Member Bio
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2015
- Messages
- 10,218
- Reaction score
- 23,061
- Location
- Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Regional cooperation has always seemed to be a series of on-again, off-again relationships. For most of the time I lived in St. Albert, it's Council would never admit any dependency on Edmonton or the region. While that relationship has at least seemingly turned around in the last 5 or so years, now other players seem to want to assert a misguided sense of independence.
rake
New Member
From my experience, administration usually has a decent grasp of the long-term trends and requirements, but they can be naturally protective of their organizations and have to operate based on the whims of regularly changing Councils. Typically the elected layer is where good plans and ideas fall apart. Councilors are elected, that's it - that's their only qualification. Some are fine, but many start with only a very cursory view of municipal government, municipal finances, and regional/long-term planning. It doesn't help that most of them know they will likely be long gone before most of these plans come to fruition. Smaller centers seem to be particularly susceptible to very uninformed councilors getting in, but they are also much closer to their constituents. I think this sense of being in over their head leads a lot of them to be inclined to shut down plans, focus tightly on local community needs and autonomy, and focus on immediate cost containment over long-term value as a 'safe' approach to governance.
In this interesting case, Strathcona has likely stayed out of the commission because they currently have far higher transit service levels (and way more expensive) than they are likely to receive through the commission. Fort Saskatchewan is basically the opposite and some councilors are undoubtedly concerned about costs escalating from their low current levels, even if it will mean higher service levels.
In any case, I think the commission is a good structure simply because it takes decisions about these regionally critical infrastructures outside of the political cycle, and more in to the administrative realm to deliver a well-balanced, well-planned regional structure. The trade-off is a lower level of individual community autonomy and a reduction of pure 'democracy' (taxation without representation, etc.), and a higher risk of un-scrutinized beaurocracy run amok.
In this interesting case, Strathcona has likely stayed out of the commission because they currently have far higher transit service levels (and way more expensive) than they are likely to receive through the commission. Fort Saskatchewan is basically the opposite and some councilors are undoubtedly concerned about costs escalating from their low current levels, even if it will mean higher service levels.
In any case, I think the commission is a good structure simply because it takes decisions about these regionally critical infrastructures outside of the political cycle, and more in to the administrative realm to deliver a well-balanced, well-planned regional structure. The trade-off is a lower level of individual community autonomy and a reduction of pure 'democracy' (taxation without representation, etc.), and a higher risk of un-scrutinized beaurocracy run amok.
Last edited:
Foolworm
Active Member
Just as an update, Fort Saskatchewan voted 5-2 to stay in, as expected.
I won't comment on regional dynamics except to say the obvious, i.e. that COVID has upset everything and it's anyone's guess as to how the chips may fall.
I won't comment on regional dynamics except to say the obvious, i.e. that COVID has upset everything and it's anyone's guess as to how the chips may fall.