The Official Transit Thread

[cj_coolcat]

Maybe sometime in the next couple centuries!

Haha, I'm taking bets on which will come first, UBC extension ooor....hover cars?

[Columbo]

Haha, I'm taking bets on which will come first, UBC extension ooor....hover cars?

Hmm, tough one.

I don't think hover cars will ever come, because they seem rather impractical, it takes much more energy to make something float against gravity than to just drive on the road. Then again, anything is possible.

On the other hand, for our city to ever do something efficient and practical seems about as unlikely.

I'm going to go with the hover cars.

[trek]

Hovercars would blow! Just imagine all the hongers having to deal the 3rd dimension. They can't even handle 2!

[nitronuts]

September 25, 2009

Metro Vancouver board pushes for $450 million a year increase in TransLink funding

By Matthew Burrows

Metro Vancouver directors voted today (September 25) to push for the best-case TransLink funding scenario.

Burnaby councillor Sav Dhaliwal was the only politician who voted against Vancouver mayor and director Gregor Robertson's motion.

Now the board will send the message to TransLink's private board of directors and its mayors' council that it should implement $450 million in annual funding above current levels—the most generous of the three options presented in TransLink's 2010 10-Year Plan to address funding constraints at the regional transportation authority.

The Metro motion originated through its regional planning committee earlier this month. At the latest meeting at Metro headquarters in Burnaby, directors also expressed concerns over the first business-as-usual “base plan” funding scenario proposed, which would lead to “drastic cuts”, according to TransLink.

TransLink CEO Tom Prendergast was at the meeting, and said he wanted to avoid the potential “chaos” the base plan would unleash on transit riders across the region.

Robertson said at the meeting that significant consultation had taken place to get to the Metro consensus. He said it was important that directors “don't fold tents now” and “remain united”. In response,

Corrigan said he understood why people would want to avoid cuts, but said the $450 million had to come from somewhere. The former B.C. Transit chair also cautioned that “there is a limit to what the taxpayer can expect”.

He said that, like with the discussions around the previous 10-year plan in 2004, there is a temptation to be overly optimistic on the accounting side. “We keep on supporting things; then we don't know how to pay for them.”

Surrey councillor and director Linda Hepner moved an amendment, which passed, that—in the event funding is constrained—priority be given to the northeast sector and areas south of the Fraser.

Corrigan added his own amendment, which stated: “Without additional funding any 10-year plan cannot be successfully implemented.” Corrigan's motion passed ahead of the main motion.

[ronthecivil]

September 25, 2009

Metro Vancouver board pushes for $450 million a year increase in TransLink funding

By Matthew Burrows

Metro Vancouver directors voted today (September 25) to push for the best-case TransLink funding scenario.

Burnaby councillor Sav Dhaliwal was the only politician who voted against Vancouver mayor and director Gregor Robertson's motion.

Now the board will send the message to TransLink's private board of directors and its mayors' council that it should implement $450 million in annual funding above current levels—the most generous of the three options presented in TransLink's 2010 10-Year Plan to address funding constraints at the regional transportation authority.

The Metro motion originated through its regional planning committee earlier this month. At the latest meeting at Metro headquarters in Burnaby, directors also expressed concerns over the first business-as-usual “base plan” funding scenario proposed, which would lead to “drastic cuts”, according to TransLink.

TransLink CEO Tom Prendergast was at the meeting, and said he wanted to avoid the potential “chaos” the base plan would unleash on transit riders across the region.

Robertson said at the meeting that significant consultation had taken place to get to the Metro consensus. He said it was important that directors “don't fold tents now” and “remain united”. In response,

Corrigan said he understood why people would want to avoid cuts, but said the $450 million had to come from somewhere. The former B.C. Transit chair also cautioned that “there is a limit to what the taxpayer can expect”.

He said that, like with the discussions around the previous 10-year plan in 2004, there is a temptation to be overly optimistic on the accounting side. “We keep on supporting things; then we don't know how to pay for them.”

Surrey councillor and director Linda Hepner moved an amendment, which passed, that—in the event funding is constrained—priority be given to the northeast sector and areas south of the Fraser.

Corrigan added his own amendment, which stated: “Without additional funding any 10-year plan cannot be successfully implemented.” Corrigan's motion passed ahead of the main motion.

AKA they got the council of mayors approval to go for the caddilac plan? I wasn't expecting that, although I am not that surprised. I guess the everygreen line will be happening after all. Good timing too, the latest plan you showed finally indicates that are doing it right.

[nitronuts]

More on the New Westminster Station development and renovations:

[ronthecivil]

Any of those pictures show an extended station? Pics are too low a resolution to check when I zoom in.

[nitronuts]

It's from this PDF document:

http://www.translink.ca/~/media/Documents/...0076%20RFP.ashx

Fare gates, zoom in:

[ronthecivil]

It's from this PDF document:

http://www.translink.ca/~/media/Documents/...0076%20RFP.ashx

Fare gates, zoom in:

Ya, it looks like all you need to do to put in longer trains after the developement would be to move the border of the "platform" into the "pedestrian walkway" which should look pretty much exactly the same.

It looks a lot like translink is getting an extended platform, a larger bus route, added rider services for free to go along with some dense developement (aka ridership). They should be jumping all over it.

[ronthecivil]

So just what are those additional funding options going to be? Hello vehicle levy?

[inane]

So just what are those additional funding options going to be? Hello vehicle levy?

hopefully.

if you can afford a car, you can afford another few dollars to help pay for the greater good.

[ronthecivil]

hopefully.

if you can afford a car, you can afford another few dollars to help pay for the greater good.

Only problem is that it charges the same for someone that uses a vehicle once a week to go shopping as someone that commutes in daily from Abbottsford. Do a per kilometre insurance or just add more to gas tax (which would also encourage fuel effecientcy) instead of adding yet another beaurocracy and what will in many cases be an unfair tax.

[inane]

Only problem is that it charges the same for someone that uses a vehicle once a week to go shopping as someone that commutes in daily from Abbottsford. Do a per kilometre insurance or just add more to gas tax (which would also encourage fuel effecientcy) instead of adding yet another beaurocracy and what will in many cases be an unfair tax.

Sure, do one, do 2, do them all. I don't care, but do one of them. My point about owning a car still stands--if you can afford it, you can afford an additional flat rate. Charging per km insurance is tricky--how do you monitor that? More to the gas tax is fine with me...

[tom_1]

Only problem is that it charges the same for someone that uses a vehicle once a week to go shopping as someone that commutes in daily from Abbottsford. Do a per kilometre insurance or just add more to gas tax (which would also encourage fuel effecientcy) instead of adding yet another beaurocracy and what will in many cases be an unfair tax.

yeah except the fact that the person in Abbotsford has/would have no other option but to commute by car. The government sure has done a nice job by replacing a suffient bridge and increasing the highway by two lanes.

What would you rather have:

South Permiter Road, new Port Mann bridge and golden ears $5+ billion

or

UBC skytrain expansion, Evergreen line, Surrey skytrain expansion, Abbotsford-Vancouver Railink $5+ billion.

Edited September 27, 2009 by tom_1

[Buggernut]

yeah except the fact that the person in Abbotsford has/would have no other option but to commute by car. The government sure has done a nice job by replacing a suffient bridge and increasing the highway by two lanes.

What would you rather have:

South Permiter Road, new Port Mann bridge and golden ears $5+ billion

or

UBC skytrain expansion, Evergreen line, Surrey skytrain expansion, Abbotsford-Vancouver Railink $5+ billion.

The first one serves freight traffic. Can't downplay the importance of it.

[ronthecivil]

Sure, do one, do 2, do them all. I don't care, but do one of them. My point about owning a car still stands--if you can afford it, you can afford an additional flat rate. Charging per km insurance is tricky--how do you monitor that? More to the gas tax is fine with me...

The odometer. But hey, even that would require more beaurocracy, just put it all on gas tax, and some on fares.

[ronthecivil]

yeah except the fact that the person in Abbotsford has/would have no other option but to commute by car. The government sure has done a nice job by replacing a suffient bridge and increasing the highway by two lanes.

What would you rather have:

South Permiter Road, new Port Mann bridge and golden ears $5+ billion

or

UBC skytrain expansion, Evergreen line, Surrey skytrain expansion, Abbotsford-Vancouver Railink $5+ billion.

Both.

[inane]

The odometer. But hey, even that would require more beaurocracy, just put it all on gas tax, and some on fares.

No it wouldn't nearly be that easy cause you need to differentiate the people who drive for work and the people who choose to drive to work. This is the stupid thing about cars. Over 95% of a typical day they are parked, yet we spend billions and billions accommodating the 5% of the time they're actually being used. It's lunacy.

[Columbo]

September 25, 2009

Metro Vancouver board pushes for $450 million a year increase in TransLink funding

By Matthew Burrows

Metro Vancouver directors voted today (September 25) to push for the best-case TransLink funding scenario.

Burnaby councillor Sav Dhaliwal was the only politician who voted against Vancouver mayor and director Gregor Robertson's motion.

Now the board will send the message to TransLink's private board of directors and its mayors' council that it should implement $450 million in annual funding above current levels—the most generous of the three options presented in TransLink's 2010 10-Year Plan to address funding constraints at the regional transportation authority.

The Metro motion originated through its regional planning committee earlier this month. At the latest meeting at Metro headquarters in Burnaby, directors also expressed concerns over the first business-as-usual “base plan” funding scenario proposed, which would lead to “drastic cuts”, according to TransLink.

TransLink CEO Tom Prendergast was at the meeting, and said he wanted to avoid the potential “chaos” the base plan would unleash on transit riders across the region.

Robertson said at the meeting that significant consultation had taken place to get to the Metro consensus. He said it was important that directors “don't fold tents now” and “remain united”. In response,

Corrigan said he understood why people would want to avoid cuts, but said the $450 million had to come from somewhere. The former B.C. Transit chair also cautioned that “there is a limit to what the taxpayer can expect”.

He said that, like with the discussions around the previous 10-year plan in 2004, there is a temptation to be overly optimistic on the accounting side. “We keep on supporting things; then we don't know how to pay for them.”

Surrey councillor and director Linda Hepner moved an amendment, which passed, that—in the event funding is constrained—priority be given to the northeast sector and areas south of the Fraser.

Corrigan added his own amendment, which stated: “Without additional funding any 10-year plan cannot be successfully implemented.” Corrigan's motion passed ahead of the main motion.

So what does this actually mean?

[inane]

What it sounds like it means is a bunch of politicians telling translink they still want the expensive plan, but they still don't know where they're gonna get the money from. Then they all gave themselves the little cavaet that if they don't have enough money, the plan they want can't happen.

Sounds like bs to me.