OldSchooler

Members
  • Content count

    20
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

117 Good

About OldSchooler

  • Rank
    Aces Regular

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  1. To all the future-girls/boys and tomorrow-dreamers: Live in the Now. The strategy to tank the year so you get better picks does not guarantee top picks will pan out for you. Look at Deadmonton. It's a very long wait then and a loser mentality like that has the worst probability in my 30+ years as a fan. You don't suddenly start winning after they make the team and it could be a very long process in which they forget what winning feels like. And how many Hall of Famers were picked outside of first round like Robitaille or even undrafted like Ciccarelli. It's more than just first round players. A team requires chemistry and really some luck like the Kings had. You can't solely engineer or trade your way to the Cup. It's part of it, but there are way too many variables and most of them are intangibles that it comes down to a roll of the dice some times. So stop "thinking" (and when you do think smarter) and Play in the Now. Or for those of us that particpate on couches: Watch in the Now. And enjoy your team win or lose--a real fan would never wish for their team to lose. Ever.
  2. For those who think they can predict games scores or even if the nucks make the playoffs or not, you're forgetting the "bone-head effect" where one brainfart can create a ripple-effect, or ripper-effect if you will, of subsequent unfortunate events. Starts on an innocent stick slash, and then an offensive side penalty. A rookie mistake i've seen veterns make so can't blame Jensen. And there goes the chain reaction where the orbiting pucks align and the gravity of bad luck pulls you in before you know it. It can happen to any struggling team. Every team--every player-- has an "epic" fail in them that comes out once in a while. Even the Oilers dyasty had them once in a while (but they made up for it quickly I should add). So move on...one could be in a worse situation, like face down at the bench requiring cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
  3. That's one idea that is embedded in many plans: living close to work. However, people move more these days than in the past and also change jobs more than in the past. So it makes for a difficult concept to realize for the long-term. Also, moving closer to work may not work for some families that have two or more people in the workforce as the others may work in the other direction. Finally, it is generally assumed that your situation is economically optimized to a degree (as best as people can perceive their own economically optimal situation). In this assumption, people will eventually realize living too far away is costing them in terms of time and money and will weight the value of living too far away with things like benefits of lower housing prices, larger homes/property/lawn, and general lifestyle. One way policy makers can influence people living closer to work is to zone more housing and density with more commercial areas with more transit service, which is what is going on in quite a few places these days and an indirect way of achieving this objective. In a democratic and market-driven environment, you can't force people to do anything like this, but you can setup regulations, incentives, and disincentives to achieve these goals. And when you try to implement such ideas, you need to consider negative or opposing consequences as you are essentially interrupting a form of a sub-optimal socio-economic equilibrium. The goal is to improve that equilibrium (and try to add environmental externalities to that equilibrium is also a larger goal for greater equity), but sometimes tinkering can make things worse.
  4. If Mission people want to go to Burnaby or New West they will drive. I can't see enough of them driving out to WCE, taking the commuter train and then getting off to go on SkyTrain, then get off at one of the stops in Burnaby or New West, and then take a bus to whatever destination they are going to. Sure there are people in Mission without cars who may take such a trip and sure there may be destinations right next to SkyTrain, but it's a very small market in Mission to begin with. And the market for people living within walking distance to the Mission WCE and their destination a walking distance from a SkyTrain station is very tiny in the regional scheme of things. Same goes for any of the locations out east where the cost of such an expensive system isn't justified by the demands. Anyone still willing to take the above trip basically doesn't have a choice so a B-Line or bus from the WCE PoMo station will have to do. Then it's back on to SkyTrain so really another 5 minute additional time over an hour+ trip wouldn't make a difference. Most like these trips would not be common, and if they were, well these people would have a very cheap perspective of time. And then you're encouraging urban sprawl if you build these systems past the urban core, as the opponents for WCE were saying back when it was being planned. I'm not sure I agree or disagree, but with the cost of expensive transit systems I don't see a viable business case for lower density communities out East. They do need help but SkyTrain is not the answer until maybe 50 years, in which case density will not be a problem. Not everyone is going downtown but that is what the system's design is vectored towards. What they need are more buses and services that fit their needs. If you do the math, most rapid transit systems are a very hard sell, but it's politics that takes them over the edge. Don't get me wrong, i'm a big fan of metros and rapid transit and we need more of them, but I don't agree at any cost. Some cities are conducive to efficient high-capacity systems--cities that are narrow and dense. Where we live it's the opposite with lots of water crossings and wide parcels of land. It's a very complex subject as i'm sure you're aware of. I guess there is no perfect solution, but we need a good enough solution that is eventually supported with other transportation and land use measures that can be paid for without breaking the public bank.
  5. The problem/opportunity with this line is that the WCE competes with it for ridership. That's why you need to consider net total ridership increase for the whole corridor. Previous studies show this so connecting to just the WCE would not do much--if you get a bunch of riders on the new line, but loose the same number on WCE, then it would be just a waste of money. The major destination/origin is the Coquitlam city centre so it has to go here. It's better to have a complete line with the quality of a Chevy than an incomplete line with the quality of a Mercedes. There just is not enough demand now and in the next 20-30 years to really make the most out of an expensive high-capacity line in this part of the region. What is needed here is a mid-capacity line that is affordable. Trying to get this perfect will never happen, so they need to put in a "sub-optimal" technology that instead fits "perfectly". But when you grow up having been driven in a Mercedes all your childhood, you feel like you deserve similar when you are older. We have been spoiled with a technology that is not financially sustainable, politically built for a world expo - very expensive for the capacity per km. It's a great system, don't get me wrong, especially when mom and dad government pay for most of it. But they can only dole out so much more $ out west now that we're post-olympics. We need to eventually stand on our own feet and live within our means. Now if you're in the UAE, then it's not such an issue where they have gold-plated highway tunnels...
  6. If you look at the previous planning of the Evergreen Line, there were many viable solutions developed, however the Province wants SkyTrain, for obvious reasons. But given that there is inadequate funding, what needs to be done is reduce the price tag. In other words, forget the Porsche and settle for the Toyota. They will all generate the same number of net increase in riders. Definitely not as 'sexy' but it'll get you from A to B just like a good transportation system is a means to an end.
  7. It is unfortunate that the B-Lines didn't get a chance to be exposed for what they really are: efficient and cost-effective "rapid transit". And to think of the dollars spent on the road improvements in Richmond to accommodate the B-Line. But you can't bait the Olympics without a large lure.... Anyways, one difference is that Surrey is not Vancouver. You have not only high densities and land use that is established, but a downtown core with secondary "economic cores" along the route in Vancouver. It is THE destination. Not so in Surrey, but that's the plan to change it. And it's more than just servicing one travel purpose (work) but other purposes as well. And so when you design these systems, you have to think of the many dimensions of travel demand that ultimately result in sustained ridership over the day.
  8. It's obvious to me: They are all too expensive for the current funding reality. Best to go with the Best Bus (or a version of) for now (can be done sooner and quicker), incubate growth to prove the demand, and when more funding comes you have a better business case to move up to rail systems. You can then reuse the additional buses in other parts of the region. More network coverage will help to increase ridership as much as or better than a few corridors of rail.
  9. Whether you build more roads, transit, or bike lanes, trying to cure congestion in the large picture may be an exercise in futility because congestion is more of a symptom rather than the cause. The cause is at the individual level and societal norms, which feedback between the two towards a vicious cycle of over-consumption, deterred by weak regulations and distorted market forces. If we really can quantify all the significant externalities and allow them to be introduced into the system then this would provide in a less distorted feedback. Unfortunately political will is the barrier to change, with political will like inertia and hard to turn around or move into a different direction (the current "direction" being status quo).
  10. Not nimby so as much as Translink seems to have gotten the cart (Pattullo) before the horse (United Blvd Ext.) and realized this late in their planning. They seemed to have used the community's dislike for any of the options as an excuse to stop the process. Something like this would have never stopped some of their previous projects where expropriation or closure of businesses were "for the common good" so it's strange that this community input solely would derail this so quickly. Very inconsistent with past projects. The process requires input from local councils as well so to just kill it because of "nimbyism" before getting their inputs points to the process going awry.
  11. Agreed. This thread is now official.
  12. St. Louis, April 21, 2009: “Overtime, boys. This is where legends are born.” - Alexandre Burrows to the team entering into OT OT Winner: Burrows http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/Legend+Burrows+growing/1520863/story.html Fastforward - Vancouver, April 26, 2011 "...this is what legends are made of." - Alexandre Burrows to the team entering into OT OT Winner: Burrows http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/Canucks+Burrows+wins+Game+This+what+legends+made/4679449/story.html And then you have the double rainbow: http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/Photos+Double+rainbow+game+time+gives+Canucks+fans+hope/4679310/story.html Signs...prophecy...legendary. If there ever was a curse on the Canucks, the curse has lifted.