ronthecivil Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 If you're talking strictly economics, I seriously doubt that's true. And if we continue to talk economics, more crashes = more money on car repair and more emergency response time/resources and more traffic delays/congestion etc etc I don't doubt it's true. You do realise that there are guidelines for when and when not you should put a barrier anywhere, and in the case of the "putting the barrier in factor" the centreline of an undevided highway is a no brainer. Dead people are expensive. Incidentily, you should love the barriers from a planning position. It makes it a lot less attractive to develope houses on the route as the access is much more difficult. Anything that helps to prevent more Lion's Bay's should be a plus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 'the planners' in the suburbs are no different than any other north american city, except maybe vancouver or nyc where they said no to highways. The solution is more transit, more options. You say sprawl continued while the lineups grew longer. Good. If you CHOOSE to live in Abbotsford and work in Vancouver then don't get your panties in a knot when you find your drive takes a long time. Well, apart from the glaring lack of affordability due to their not being enough supply to live within the city limits that the people living out there would be pointing to, there are other problems. For example, trade is severly slown down. As much as we should use trains as much as possible (much to the chagrin of anyone living near the tracks) we still need trucks to move goods and services. This is a port city and the reason this place exists in the first place. And besides, why should I have to suffer if I live nice and dense and close to work if I want to get out of the city on a weekend because of all the mess out in the valley? And most importantly, as much as you don't care how much the people living out in Abottsford (or Langly, or Surrey) suffer, the evidence shows that they do it anyways. And the pace of it happening hasn't slowed one iota. If anything, their complaints about commuting or more likely to simply have their jobs migrate out to the suburbs with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuckyHermit Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 (edited) http://www.vancouversun.com/TransLink+hopes+raise+FareSavers/2212526/story.html TransLink hopes to raise FareSavers The cost of riding transit could go up next year as TransLink proposes to raise the cost of FareSaver ticket books and monthly fare cards. The transportation authority is also considering tacking on another $2.50 for airport travellers using the Canada Line between Bridgeport and Templeton stations and YVR, starting on Jan. 1. TransLink has applied to the South Coast British Columbia Regional Transportation Commission to increase the cost of FareSaver ticket books by as much as $4, effective April 1, 2010. For example, it wants to increase the price of a packet of one-zone tickets from $19 to $21. Cash fares or single-ticket prices would remain unchanged. TransLink can raise fares by two per cent on its own hook, but needs the commission’s permission for bigger increases. The commission is seeking public input on the proposals. Comments can be e-mailed to comments@translinkcommission.org or mailed to TransLink Commission, PO Box 1497, Comox B.C., V9M 8A2. Deadline for submissions is Nov. 30. If the FareSaver ticket prices are approved, TransLink also plans to increase monthly fare-card prices, with a one-zone card increasing from $73 to $81. For more information on the proposed ticket prices, visit www.translinkcommission.org. ksinoski@vancouversun.com Edited November 12, 2009 by BuckyHermit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuckyHermit Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 http://www.cknw.com/Channels/Reg/NewsLocal/Story.aspx?ID=1164208 Canada Line popular, but a money-loser for now It's popular with riders. But it's going to be a money loser for years to come. That recent report from the comptroller general, which took issue with the operations of Translink and BC Ferries, says the new Canada Line is going to lose anywhere from 14 million to 21 million dollars a year until 2025. The report says the cost of operating the line is expected to exceed the additional revenue it generates until 2025, with costs exceeding incremental revenues by 14 million to 21 million dollars for most years, until that time. Despite that, Translink says it's happy with the ridership on the line, which averages more than 80 thousand people a day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Well, apart from the glaring lack of affordability due to their not being enough supply to live within the city limits that the people living out there would be pointing to, there are other problems. For example, trade is severly slown down. As much as we should use trains as much as possible (much to the chagrin of anyone living near the tracks) we still need trucks to move goods and services. This is a port city and the reason this place exists in the first place. And besides, why should I have to suffer if I live nice and dense and close to work if I want to get out of the city on a weekend because of all the mess out in the valley? And most importantly, as much as you don't care how much the people living out in Abottsford (or Langly, or Surrey) suffer, the evidence shows that they do it anyways. And the pace of it happening hasn't slowed one iota. If anything, their complaints about commuting or more likely to simply have their jobs migrate out to the suburbs with them. I agree about the trucking, which goes back to my earlier point. We have enough roads to get trucks and commercial vehicles around and through the city, we just currently choose to use them so inefficiently with single occupancy vehicles that it feels like we need more. I'll say it again (along with many other experts) more roads = more traffic. But, I mean this argument is moot as I pointed out earlier, my reasoning has already lost out. It's a shame that if you read the OCP of any municipality in the Lower Mainland (go ahead, read them, ANY one of them) they ALL describe how they want to reduce traffic, give more alternatives and options to the car, plan for pedestrians, etc... yet the province and translink shove Hwy 1, Hwy 10, Hwy 15, golden ears, pitt river, port mann, sea to sky, etc etc etc. I'm just waiting with excitement for all our commutes and traffic jams to just up and disappear now that we have built all these new roads! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#1Luongo06 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 (edited) can anybody tell me what time the skytrain stops being packed as hell in the morning? reason being iam gonna take a self paced course to upgrade a course at an education centre downtown and i dont usually take the skytrain but i took it once around 830ish and i couldnt get on a train for awhile Edited November 12, 2009 by #1Luongo06 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 I agree about the trucking, which goes back to my earlier point. We have enough roads to get trucks and commercial vehicles around and through the city, we just currently choose to use them so inefficiently with single occupancy vehicles that it feels like we need more. I'll say it again (along with many other experts) more roads = more traffic. But, I mean this argument is moot as I pointed out earlier, my reasoning has already lost out. It's a shame that if you read the OCP of any municipality in the Lower Mainland (go ahead, read them, ANY one of them) they ALL describe how they want to reduce traffic, give more alternatives and options to the car, plan for pedestrians, etc... yet the province and translink shove Hwy 1, Hwy 10, Hwy 15, golden ears, pitt river, port mann, sea to sky, etc etc etc. I'm just waiting with excitement for all our commutes and traffic jams to just up and disappear now that we have built all these new roads! What they should do in their OCP instead of talking about wanting to reduce traffic and provide options is instead have some principals in their zoning and land developement that might actually make that possible, and then follow through with it. It's fine and dandy to say you don't want to expand the roads and improve transit, but unless the city builds itself in such a way that using walking and transit is a cost and time competive option it's all just empty words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 http://www.cknw.com/Channels/Reg/NewsLocal/Story.aspx?ID=1164208 Canada Line popular, but a money-loser for now It's popular with riders. But it's going to be a money loser for years to come. That recent report from the comptroller general, which took issue with the operations of Translink and BC Ferries, says the new Canada Line is going to lose anywhere from 14 million to 21 million dollars a year until 2025. The report says the cost of operating the line is expected to exceed the additional revenue it generates until 2025, with costs exceeding incremental revenues by 14 million to 21 million dollars for most years, until that time. Despite that, Translink says it's happy with the ridership on the line, which averages more than 80 thousand people a day. Doh! Buy more trains and you will get more riders. The increase in ridership revenue vs. the incremental cost of the extra trains would be a big winner imo and might just fix get it up to profitable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 What they should do in their OCP instead of talking about wanting to reduce traffic and provide options is instead have some principals in their zoning and land developement that might actually make that possible, and then follow through with it. It's fine and dandy to say you don't want to expand the roads and improve transit, but unless the city builds itself in such a way that using walking and transit is a cost and time competive option it's all just empty words. Except that when a city does have more regulations (like Vancouver) you lament the bureacracy for getting in the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Except that when a city does have more regulations (like Vancouver) you lament the bureacracy for getting in the way. I lament Vancouver because in that case the regulations are reducing the amount of dense developement. There is no danger of some new office park or residential cul-de-sac going in, there's no room and where there is the ecomonics of the situation would make a sprawl type devlopement a poor investment. What they do accomplish is the preservation of single family homes in many locations where densification would be ideal (like near skytrain stations, there is at least one station in the city that's still surrounded by single family homes, and it's been 20 years). Where they do allow dense developement in, they add so many regs that it slows down the process and reduces supply, which jacks up prices. Vancouver is a different can of worms altogether. It's an obvious candidate for population and job growth, but doesn't grow, despite an overwhelming obvious demand for both people and jobs to locate there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion/editorials/question+remains+will+expanded+transit/2213749/story.html The big question remains: Who will pay for expanded transit? Vancouver SunNovember 12, 2009 B.C.'s comptroller-general turned up few surprises in her investigation into the operation of TransLink and BC Ferries. The bottom line is that the ferry corporation has overcome major challenges and, while not perfect, is doing fairly well. TransLink, on the other hand, is on a track to financial disaster. It has a $130-million deficit and a dysfunctional management structure that was little improved by the reorganization imposed by the provincial government two years ago. Cheryl Wenezenki-Yolland's appraisal of TransLink closely mirrors many of the findings of Martin Crilly, who in his guise as regional transportation commissioner also urged major changes. The comptroller-general found that the board in place before TransLink was reorganized knew of the impending structural deficits, but continued to invest in expanding the fleet. Under the new management structure, not much has changed. As Crilly pointed out, the if-you-build-it-they-will-come strategy hasn't worked. Ridership has increased sharply over the past several years, but not enough to keep up with increasing expenses. TransLink's debt has tripled since 2005, so more revenue is being sidetracked for interest payments, leaving less money for operating expenses. The comptroller-general said too little has been done to cut those expenses to bring them in line with revenues. While that much has been obvious to anyone who has been following TranLink's financial performance, Wenezenki-Yolland's unequivocal and damning assessment puts the spotlight on the provincial government to act. Although it is managed by municipal politicians, lately through the Mayor's Council that advises the board of directors, TransLink is a creation of the provincial government. It was set up a decade ago to give local elected politicians control and responsibility over transit in the region. But almost from the beginning, a succession of premiers and transportation ministers have been unable to resist an often destructive role as a backseat driver. The province has interfered in the setting of priorities and at least twice thrown up roadblocks to proposed new levies needed to cover costs of expanding the system. Both of those decisions -- a vehicle levy quashed by the New Democrats while they were still in power, and the proposed parking stall tax killed by the Liberals -- met with popular approval. But they also supported the misconception that we can build and operate a major metropolitan transit system without creating a huge hole in taxpayers' pockets. And by many accounts, it seems that Lower Mainlanders are reluctant to pay more and more for transit as they fork over more and more in property taxes and higher utility bills from Metro Vancouver. The management structure of TransLink does need fixing, as the comptroller-general suggests. We need a system that won't get so bogged down in regional squabbling over priorities. We may also be able to reduce administration costs. But those changes alone won't address the major challenge facing TransLink, the need for more general revenue. That means looking for funding from senior levels of government. If that's not forthcoming, it means looking at some measures that won't be popular -- raising fares, higher fuel taxes, more tolls or congestion levies. One surprising finding in the comptroller-general's report is that the transit portion of property and utility taxes collected in Vancouver is the lowest of any of Canada's major cities. But that's counter-balanced by the fact that homeowners in Metro Vancouver carry huge mortgage payments because of relatively high real estate costs. So the implication -- which again won't be popular -- is who is going to pay for expanding transit? As importantly, which brave politician is going to propose a tax hike under these economic conditions? © Copyright © The Vancouver Sun Interesting all the calls for more transit yet no concrete plans to fund it. I guess I am not the only one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 (edited) http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion/editorials/question+remains+will+expanded+transit/2213749/story.html Interesting all the calls for more transit yet no concrete plans to fund it. I guess I am not the only one. Well what's the magic answer? The problem is people (and specifically politicians) want immediate results. Unfortunately things like health care, public transit, education--they don't deliver immediate results. So, they are treated accordingly, as money losers, even if they save uncountable dollars in the long term. You'd think we'd figure our shiate out after all these years... Edited November 13, 2009 by inane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Well what's the magic answer? The problem is people (and specifically politicians) want immediate results. Unfortunately things like health care, public transit, education--they don't deliver immediate results. So, they are treated accordingly, as money losers, even if they save uncountable dollars in the long term. You'd think we'd figure our shiate out after all these years... The magic answer is to figure out how you can give a massive tax increase in a way that the public will actually not spaz about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Common sense Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 ^^ snap. with that post, RTC has tied me for 3rd most posts in this thread. I got a lotta spamming to do here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 The magic answer is to figure out how you can give a massive tax increase in a way that the public will actually not spaz about. The magic answer is just to raise taxes? Then what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuckyHermit Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 ^^ snap. with that post, RTC has tied me for 3rd most posts in this thread. I got a lotta spamming to do here. Maybe talk about how the people who are on TransLink's back about the 491/496/490/488/492 cancellations are now being labeled as whiners by the non-Richmond populace? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 The magic answer is just to raise taxes? Then what? Then what? Depends on where you are. I guess transit where is makes sense, and roads where transit doesn't. One thing is certain though, unless there are dense nodes to travel between, transit will never be feasible in places like the fraser valley, no matter how high you raise taxes. Part of the reason transilink is loosing money is they are trying to service unservicable areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Maybe talk about how the people who are on TransLink's back about the 491/496/490/488/492 cancellations are now being labeled as whiners by the non-Richmond populace? Probably not the wise move for an agency that has to deal with the public. But they are right, they ARE whiners. With all this talk about RAV loosing money, I would bet that they are loosing less than when they had to take all those buses to their end destinations. What's wrong with taking the RAV line in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuckyHermit Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Probably not the wise move for an agency that has to deal with the public. But they are right, they ARE whiners. With all this talk about RAV loosing money, I would bet that they are loosing less than when they had to take all those buses to their end destinations. What's wrong with taking the RAV line in? Well, if you were along one of those routes' corridors like me, you'd see why there's "whining." If I had stayed behind and if I hadn't graduated, my commute would've increased by 30 minutes one way. Even my house to downtown now takes about 20 minutes more than before. This is WITHOUT factoring in the time it takes to transfer. That is unacceptable no matter how you put it. It'd simply encourage people to give up and drive their cars instead. I know for sure that when I get back home next year, I'm driving. Screw this whole mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Well, if you were along one of those routes' corridors like me, you'd see why there's "whining." If I had stayed behind and if I hadn't graduated, my commute would've increased by 30 minutes one way. Even my house to downtown now takes about 20 minutes more than before. This is WITHOUT factoring in the time it takes to transfer. That is unacceptable no matter how you put it. It'd simply encourage people to give up and drive their cars instead. I know for sure that when I get back home next year, I'm driving. Screw this whole mess. I still can't understand why you're posting on this board all the time when you're in Seoul...go explore! Anyway, nice selfish attitude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now