Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
nitronuts

The Official Transit Thread

9,589 posts in this topic

I've noticed the increase in the amount of buses on 49th. Now i don't have to worry about missing a bus

Yeah, but that's because you guys took our buses (from Richmond Transit Centre) to do this. So now the number of Richmond buses that are actually available to operate Richmond routes have decreased.

Almost all 49 buses Mon-Fri are from Richmond now.

TransLink can be so weird sometimes.

Edited by BuckyHermit
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sometimes, you have to leave up to the professionals (a.k.a. urban and transportation planners) to decide what is good for them. It has been proven over and over again that road expansion simply does not work, creates less sustainable and urban cities, encourages sprawl and for people to live farther and farther away and centralize their mode of transport around the car.

A future rapid transit extension would actually likely be an extension of the Expo Line under Gastown then making an abrupt turn north for Lonsdale as that is where the densest part of the North Shore is. If you do some research, that suits well for the North Shore's commuting patterns. From there, have two branch lines going west to Park Royal and the other going east.

Plans are ongoing to redevelop Waterfront Station and the area around it into a massive transit hub for the region. It'll include a new second ferry terminal (the first being for SeaBus), for ferries such as to Bowen Island as you mentioned or the North Shore.

Of course you have have Seabus like ferries going through the Lions Gate.

As for turning the Canada Line towards the West End, the Canada Line is not designed for that and it would cost an incredible amount of money to do that....and really, we have much higher priorities. Having a streetcar going to Stanley Park and maybe through Denman and down Davie would be much more more ideal...or better yet, simply improve the existing bus service. A lot of pedestrian activity you see in the West End is all because the neighbourhood is so walkable.

A) Last I checked, I am transportation proffessional.

B) That said, it's still a democracy , not communist romania, and you have to listen to what the people want, and even if it's unsustainable (in your opinion, you make it sound as though there is consensous on this) if that's what the public wants that what the public gets. The large protests in the 70s were about the ugliness the division to communities freeways through Vancouver would make, not the new religion of never doing anything to improve car flow, whether it be a one way street, left turn lane, removal of a few parking stalls, or even changing signal timing to optimise for traffic flow.

C) I would see your expo line expansion working too but.......

D) No you CAN'T have transit service under the Lion's Gate Bridge. It frequently has windows where crossing (underneath) is restricted due to dangerous cargo requirements and it would severly conflict with any transit service trying to get under the bed. If I was able to read the translink report that went over that very point odds are you can too.

E) Most importantly, even if this was communist Romania, making car traffic congested 24/7 is not the only stick that can be applied to SOV use. You can toll bridges, and have high gas taxes (which would go over much better with the motoring public, aka the majority of voters, if they saw the roads being fixed), and further subsidise transit to the point where it's free if you want to provide incentive.

F) Buses or streetcars that have to fight through the same traffic as the cars are not much of a carrot to using transit. A proper carrot would be for transit to be at least as fast and hopefully cheaper. THAT is the only way you will get people into transit.

G)The current method of operation has been wonderful for getting a large amount of people to live in the downtown core, probably more than any other place outside of manhatten. But just like in manhatten, most developement has occured outside the central core and transit hubs, even with all these measures to discourage urban sprawl in place. Putting your head in the sand and ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away, no matter how right you may be. Perhaps throwing them a bone is a good idea until they revolt.

H)One thing the current method of operation has been absolutely TERRIBLE for, and is probably the largest driving factor of, is the reloction of business from the downtown core to fringe areas where people are forced to take their cars as the locations are incredibily transit unfriendly.

G)In summary, the only thing that has really happened is intead of a model where everyone lives in the suburbs and commutes to a central location, we now instead have people (some at least) living in a central location and commutting to an array of places in the suburbs. Probably doesn't hurt to maybe, just maybe, consider some ultarnatives that deal with what is actually happening rather than the idealised situation. And you will NEVER convince the public to pay for all this pie in the sky transit unless everyone else is seeing a benefit too.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a fan of the Evergreen line being "light rail".

They promised us a skytrain to coquitlam when the RAV line was a twinkle in someone's eye.

To be honest, it doesn't affect me all that much, I live by lougheed station, so I'm fine with taking the millenium line. Still, with the amazing lineups for the 97 B line and the 169 to Coquitlam station it's not hard to see that there is a demand.

I'm a loyal transit rider. Have been for over 10 years. I've never driven and I don't have the desire to start driving until I move to my final destination (nanaimo).

In saying that, I'm also comfortable saying that I miss BC transit.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like last week, there were like buses on Main every like 4 minutes but now you have to wait like 10.. in the morning.

Atleast they're double buses but still.. the waiting part for a long time sucks.

Edited by MichaelGrabner
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty close to leading a revolt against Translink.

I like transit in theory.

But I am sick. SICK of having to endlessly pay for this service over and over (let's see.... gas taxes, parking taxes, income taxes, and there's even a levy on my Hydro bill!!) when I get zero say in what gets done.

Now Translink wants me to pay a toll on 2 of 3 bridges out to the Fraser Valley. So the simple act of going to visit my dad is now going to cost me again, after I've already paid 4 (at least) times for transit service.

Given this, I get pretty tired of the transit hippies who keep forcing increasingly expensive 'solutions' on me.

Taxation without representation (like Translink is currently constituted) is anti-democratic and abhorrent to the principles of good government and fairness.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not a fan of the Evergreen line being "light rail".

They promised us a skytrain to coquitlam when the RAV line was a twinkle in someone's eye.

To be honest, it doesn't affect me all that much, I live by lougheed station, so I'm fine with taking the millenium line. Still, with the amazing lineups for the 97 B line and the 169 to Coquitlam station it's not hard to see that there is a demand.

I'm a loyal transit rider. Have been for over 10 years. I've never driven and I don't have the desire to start driving until I move to my final destination (nanaimo).

In saying that, I'm also comfortable saying that I miss BC transit.

Meh, don't be surprised if what they end up building looks almost exactly the same as what was initially promised. If they did a business case like they said they did it would be clear that the best business decision would be to go with skytrain. Well, not really, dedicated bus lanes with platforms prepaid tickets and all door boarding would be, but I will be shocked and amazed if it turns out to be LRT.

And for nitro, just in case he happens to think there is consesus in the planning community on the terribleness of roads and the awesome beauty of LRT, I found someone just for him that deals more in reality. The public purpose

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm pretty close to leading a revolt against Translink.

I like transit in theory.

But I am sick. SICK of having to endlessly pay for this service over and over (let's see.... gas taxes, parking taxes, income taxes, and there's even a levy on my Hydro bill!!) when I get zero say in what gets done.

Now Translink wants me to pay a toll on 2 of 3 bridges out to the Fraser Valley. So the simple act of going to visit my dad is now going to cost me again, after I've already paid 4 (at least) times for transit service.

Given this, I get pretty tired of the transit hippies who keep forcing increasingly expensive 'solutions' on me.

Taxation without representation (like Translink is currently constituted) is anti-democratic and abhorrent to the principles of good government and fairness.

In good news at least with the toll you should be able to cross the bridge in under an hour.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In good news at least with the toll you should be able to cross the bridge in under an hour.

not an issue. The Pattulo Bridge has never been congested whenever I cross it. Free flow on, free flow off. No backups whatsoever.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
D) No you CAN'T have transit service under the Lion's Gate Bridge. It frequently has windows where crossing (underneath) is restricted due to dangerous cargo requirements and it would severly conflict with any transit service trying to get under the bed. If I was able to read the translink report that went over that very point odds are you can too.

No, i meant a tunnel under the causeway then veering off into a bored tunnel under the inlet with stacked lanes.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not a fan of the Evergreen line being "light rail".

They promised us a skytrain to coquitlam when the RAV line was a twinkle in someone's eye.

To be honest, it doesn't affect me all that much, I live by lougheed station, so I'm fine with taking the millenium line. Still, with the amazing lineups for the 97 B line and the 169 to Coquitlam station it's not hard to see that there is a demand.

I'm a loyal transit rider. Have been for over 10 years. I've never driven and I don't have the desire to start driving until I move to my final destination (nanaimo).

In saying that, I'm also comfortable saying that I miss BC transit.

Actually, light rail for the Evergreen Line has been ditched. The province is going ahead full steam with the Evergreen Line as a SkyTrain extension of the Millennium Line. The difference in cost between LRT and SkyTrain is only about $200-million ($1.2-billion vs. $1.4-billion) but the difference in travel times and speed is significant.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, i meant a tunnel under the causeway then veering off into a bored tunnel under the inlet with stacked lanes.

For the road crossing?

I only suggest the transit connection going in the same direction due to the significantly shorter span at first narrows, and thus much lower cost. If it's an extension of expo then so be it. I don't think you want to put any tunnels underneat the inlet! And no ferries under the Lion's gate, sorry.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
not an issue. The Pattulo Bridge has never been congested whenever I cross it. Free flow on, free flow off. No backups whatsoever.

Well, it will stay that way for a few years at least. At least until they figure out what they want to do.

How would you propose to pay for fixing up the roads and transit? Or are you happy with the congestion?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, it will stay that way for a few years at least. At least until they figure out what they want to do.

How would you propose to pay for fixing up the roads and transit? Or are you happy with the congestion?

You miss my point entirely.

I don't mind public funds going towards transit.

I do, however, mind that I have zero say in what gets done with my money.

Unelected boards that have the power to tax are anti-democratic. That's what Translink currently is, and that is horsesh**

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You miss my point entirely.

I don't mind public funds going towards transit.

I do, however, mind that I have zero say in what gets done with my money.

Unelected boards that have the power to tax are anti-democratic. That's what Translink currently is, and that is horsesh**

They are actually selected by the provincial government. Anything they do or don't do should in fact be on them. Just don't let them pawn it off as a translink decision, just like tranlink did when the buses went on strike calling it a coast mountain issue. (If coast mountain is the problem translink, find a different bus company then.)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, light rail for the Evergreen Line has been ditched. The province is going ahead full steam with the Evergreen Line as a SkyTrain extension of the Millennium Line. The difference in cost between LRT and SkyTrain is only about $200-million ($1.2-billion vs. $1.4-billion) but the difference in travel times and speed is significant.

Wasn't already announced that the Evergreen line would use skytrain technology

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wasn't already announced that the Evergreen line would use skytrain technology

Who's to say they won't change their mind again?

Well, I say they won't, but I could be wrong.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For the road crossing?

I only suggest the transit connection going in the same direction due to the significantly shorter span at first narrows, and thus much lower cost. If it's an extension of expo then so be it. I don't think you want to put any tunnels underneat the inlet! And no ferries under the Lion's gate, sorry.

Why no tunnels under the inlet?

And why no ferries under the Lions Gate Bridge either?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why no tunnels under the inlet?

And why no ferries under the Lions Gate Bridge either?

Tunnels under the inlet would be REDICULOUSLY expensive. You would need 3.5km of tunnel that would only be servicing water vs. no more than 1km of bridge span at Lion's gate. Depending on grades and the depth of the inlet, it might not even be feasible. Keep in mind transit can only go down at 6% max so with the amount of space you spend going down to be deep enough to get suffecient cover under the ocean floor would probably be at least a kilometer on either side on it's own. If your doing that anyways might as well service the west end. Rule number on on crossing location is to cross at the narrowest point, hence the first and second narrows bridges. At least with bored tunnel through downtown you could put in highly HIGHLY desirable stops along the way, the part through Stanley park could be cut and cover, and the other end of end of the Lion's gate isn't exactly nowhere's ville. If it was, I would suggest putting a direct freeway connection from the end of the new road bridge to upper levels.

And you can put a ferry under the Lion's Gate, you just can't put a scheduled ferry under the Lion's gate. It is frequently closed (the water transit portion that is) to allow for dangerous cargo vessel passage. And no, they aren't going to wait for your ferry.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a great topic. I often dig up the old threads just to look at the pictures, videos, etc. Better than what translink provides!

Nitro, a couple of questions seeing as you seem to be in the know:

-) The King Ed. station entrance is on the NW corner? Are there more of the cut-away illustrations similiar to the last one you posted for the other stations?

-) Has there been any decision about the long-proposed underground UBC loop? I was at an open house last year, I asked a bunch of questions to which I didn;t get satisfactory answers (TREK i think). At that time I was told bikes will not be able to board in the underground loop due to space/safety limitations. This made me irate, how many buses will be full by the time the get to the village? Is this suppose to enourage alternative transportation? Also, they had no idea if/how this loop would function within the context of the proposed rapid transit project.

-) How would a tunnel under the inlet connect to the upper levels, this has always been the problem with that proposal ($$)

For the people bitching about the 480/491/496 you should have tried to take the bus to from ubc in the 90s. Whada nightmare.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For the people bitching about the 480/491/496 you should have tried to take the bus to from ubc in the 90s. Whada nightmare.

How big was Vancouver and UBC in the 90s, compared to today?

If 491 and 496 didn't use the 60ft articulates, there'd be so many stranded passengers at 41, 49, and 70th...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.