The Official Transit Thread

[ronthecivil]

loll, we'll be forced to buy it anyway. This means the Mark II won't be in production anymore.

Well, we could just not buy any more trains. My point is that expanding the fleet would be a good decision (very good cost-benefit).

[Weber's Playoff Beard]

According to Translink, their priorities are...

1. Maintain current services and keep current fleet in good condition

2. Upgrades and Expansion.

However, long-term, expanding rapid transit is definitely the way to go. Better earlier than later. Inflation will always affect us. Why not make it more convenient now rather than waiting 10 years for the UBC line to start being built. Though first, they need to start on the promised Evergreen Line. That plan has been stalled for god knows how long.

After the UBC Line is built, the number of buses going to UBC can be rerouted to other routes.. making the system more efficient. Long-term, it's great.. but OF COURSE, NO FUNDING.

Hopefully this will change with the next provincial election.

[ronthecivil]

According to Translink, their priorities are...

1. Maintain current services and keep current fleet in good condition

2. Upgrades and Expansion.

However, long-term, expanding rapid transit is definitely the way to go. Better earlier than later. Inflation will always affect us. Why not make it more convenient now rather than waiting 10 years for the UBC line to start being built. Though first, they need to start on the promised Evergreen Line. That plan has been stalled for god knows how long.

After the UBC Line is built, the number of buses going to UBC can be rerouted to other routes.. making the system more efficient. Long-term, it's great.. but OF COURSE, NO FUNDING.

Hopefully this will change with the next provincial election.

How do you propose to pay for this stuff. Like, serioiusly.

[inane]

How do you propose to pay for this stuff. Like, serioiusly.

We're paying for a brand new highway, several major highway expansions, new bridges, etc... I don't see what the issue is.

[ronthecivil]

We're paying for a brand new highway, several major highway expansions, new bridges, etc... I don't see what the issue is.

You figure the province should give translink a big fat subsidy then? I don't think that would go over very well.

[inane]

You figure the province should give translink a big fat subsidy then? I don't think that would go over very well.

I just don't buy this argument that there is somehow no money available for transit when we dump billions into roads. Sorry, it doesn't wash.

[ronthecivil]

I just don't buy this argument that there is somehow no money available for transit when we dump billions into roads. Sorry, it doesn't wash.

Right or wrong, the taxpayers of this province (as has been demonstrated many times) feel they already pump enough tax dollars into transit.

I don't understand why we have to pump tens of billions a year into healthcare when other places do it better and cheaper. Unfortunately, any attempts to even tweak the beloved public system result in small scale rioting. That's the unfortunate reality of the political landscape.

So if you feel that the province should be subsidising translink (that would be how your plan would have to be implemented) so be it but I suspect that you would be very lonely at the rally to support that cause.

[inane]

Right or wrong, the taxpayers of this province (as has been demonstrated many times) feel they already pump enough tax dollars into transit.

I don't understand why we have to pump tens of billions a year into healthcare when other places do it better and cheaper. Unfortunately, any attempts to even tweak the beloved public system result in small scale rioting. That's the unfortunate reality of the political landscape.

So if you feel that the province should be subsidising translink (that would be how your plan would have to be implemented) so be it but I suspect that you would be very lonely at the rally to support that cause.

Perhaps, but perhaps there needs to be greater awareness to the tune at which we subsidize roads and automobiles, the single most inefficient method of transportation in existence.

[ronthecivil]

Perhaps, but perhaps there needs to be greater awareness to the tune at which we subsidize roads and automobiles, the single most inefficient method of transportation in existence.

Spending money on roads is political gravy. Campaign against gateway and don't get elected. Promise to remove the toll and win in a landslide. Most people actually use the roads so it has a direct payback. Politicians aren't stupid.

That said, how much would translink need a year to go with the cadillac option of doing everything? It might turn out that in perspective it's not that big a deal (just compare anything to the healthcare budget to make it look small) and if it turns out people are feelling they are getting bang for buck it might not be bad. An aging population will increasingly move into the smaller places and actually need to rely on transit even in small communities so it might win but it would have to be done smartly.

[aGENT]

Perhaps, but perhaps there needs to be greater awareness to the tune at which we subsidize roads and automobiles, the single most inefficient method of transportation in existence.

Yes there does. What do you propose?

[inane]

Spending money on roads is political gravy. Campaign against gateway and don't get elected. Promise to remove the toll and win in a landslide. Most people actually use the roads so it has a direct payback. Politicians aren't stupid.

That said, how much would translink need a year to go with the cadillac option of doing everything? It might turn out that in perspective it's not that big a deal (just compare anything to the healthcare budget to make it look small) and if it turns out people are feelling they are getting bang for buck it might not be bad. An aging population will increasingly move into the smaller places and actually need to rely on transit even in small communities so it might win but it would have to be done smartly.

Several things are 'political gravy', that doesn't mean they are good policy. And yes, it should be done intelligently. Which is why I refer to educating people with regards to the true cost of driving and related infrastructure. But that takes leadership, and as we've most clearly seen, the current leadership isn't interested in educating people until forced to.

[aGENT]

Several things are 'political gravy', that doesn't mean they are good policy. And yes, it should be done intelligently. Which is why I refer to educating people with regards to the true cost of driving and related infrastructure. But that takes leadership, and as we've most clearly seen, the current leadership isn't interested in educating people until forced to.

How do you propose they or someone do it then?

[lateralus]

Perhaps, but perhaps there needs to be greater awareness to the tune at which we subsidize roads and automobiles, the single most inefficient method of transportation in existence.

There seems to be this thought that everyone should give up cars and use transit and or bikes to get around.

Many people, including myself, need to drive a car for work, what do you suggest I do?

There is a big difference between wanting to drive and needing to drive, I hope you can recognize this.

[inane]

There seems to be this thought that everyone should give up cars and use transit and or bikes to get around.

Many people, including myself, need to drive a car for work, what do you suggest I do?

There is a big difference between wanting to drive and needing to drive, I hope you can recognize this.

There seems to be this thought that more transit and bikes means everyone should give up cars.

I have no idea why that is.

[ronthecivil]

Costs of running the West Coast Express have gone down appreciably after 15 years and 30 million riders, but the commuter train still costs TransLink more to operate than any other service.

There are five trains in the morning from Mission to downtown Vancouver and five trains doing the return trip in the afternoon, with special "train-bus" service emulating the route for people who miss the train or have to leave later.

The operating cost per boarded passenger was $6.70 in 2009, according to TransLink.

The total compares to $1.17 cost per boarded passenger on SkyTrain, the $1.64 on SeaBus or $2.37 on conventional bus.

But, in 1996, the cost was $24, when the capital budget was higher than expected and ridership was lower than projected.

The West Coast Express was a creation of B.C. Transit under the previous NDP provincial government. Train costs were reduced when debt-servicing costs were picked up by the province in 1999 with the creation of TransLink.

TransLink vice-president Doug Kelsey said Thursday that another big piece of cost reduction came about when the contract to rent track space from Canadian Pacific was renegotiated downward in 2002.

Kelsey also pointed to cost cutting by West Coast Express.

Despite its hefty tab, Kelsey defended a service that only recovered 37 per cent of its operating cost in 2002.

"Now our operating-cost recovery is almost up to 90 per cent," he said.

"On a commuter rail system you probably get about 50 to 60 per cent [cost recovery] on a mature system like this.

"We're doing very, very well." Passengers certainly like what they get. Ravinder Rhakra, who won a yearlong

transit pass this past week as the 30-millionth rider on the train, has been taking the West Coast Express for 14 years.

"I love riding the train," said Rhakra, who uses the trip to nap or catch up on her email to and from her home in Maple Ridge.

She said she would "never" return to driving into town regularly.

"Make sure we never lose this train," she said. fluba@theprovince.com

Read more: http://www.theprovince.com/Train+costs+drop+still+pricey/3781353/story.html#ixzz14QkmzOYH

No kidding she doesn't want it gone. If I could get the taxpayers to toss in a big chunk of my commute costs I would.

Given that it's taken 15 years to get the subsidy down to bad from rediculous, why on earth would we want to have MORE commuter rail systems when the local service has proven to be very VERY expensive compared to other options?

[inane]

No kidding she doesn't want it gone. If I could get the taxpayers to toss in a big chunk of my commute costs I would.

Given that it's taken 15 years to get the subsidy down to bad from rediculous, why on earth would we want to have MORE commuter rail systems when the local service has proven to be very VERY expensive compared to other options?

Again, you completely ignore the savings. Everyone who takes the train potentially: isn't driving, isn't contributing to the costs of roads, isn't being in crashes, are lowering health care costs, reducing sprawl, etc...

It's easy as pie to look at that basic number and make blanket statements, unfortunately it's just flat out wrong.

[ronthecivil]

Again, you completely ignore the savings. Everyone who takes the train potentially: isn't driving, isn't contributing to the costs of roads, isn't being in crashes, are lowering health care costs, reducing sprawl, etc...

It's easy as pie to look at that basic number and make blanket statements, unfortunately it's just flat out wrong.

Well, you could do the same thing putting them on an express bus for lower cost.

And by taking up space on the rail line were lowering frieght capacity/effecientcy on the rail line which makes for the trucking industry to have an advantage, and they really add to costs on the road.

Uttering "reducing sprawl" for people commuting to downtown from MISSION is laughable!

But most importantly, transit dollars should be used in the most effecient ways possible, as it allows you to provide more transit per unit funding, which will of course do all the things you claim transit does but even better.

Nice try though. Ineffecient spending is ineffecient.

[inane]

Well, you could do the same thing putting them on an express bus for lower cost.

And by taking up space on the rail line were lowering frieght capacity/effecientcy on the rail line which makes for the trucking industry to have an advantage, and they really add to costs on the road.

Uttering "reducing sprawl" for people commuting to downtown from MISSION is laughable!

But most importantly, transit dollars should be used in the most effecient ways possible, as it allows you to provide more transit per unit funding, which will of course do all the things you claim transit does but even better.

Nice try though. Ineffecient spending is ineffecient.

You could, and that would be a different conversation. The discussion was regarding the train.

All dollars should be used in the most efficient way possible. That's no big revelation. But unlike you, people see the economic and related benefits to transit even though they might not be blatantly overt and easy to calculate.

[inane]

Interesting article.

Face the future: downtown Vancouver bikes lanes are proliferating and cars are not going to be part of the city’s growth.

Jerry Dobrovolny has a message for the irate business owners protesting Vancouver’s latest bike lane plan for Hornby Street: welcome to the future. As the city’s director of transportation, Dobrovolny spends a lot of time thinking about how people get around Vancouver and, more pointedly, how they will get around in the future. Road capacity serving downtown is at its limit, he says, and the only way the city could make way for more cars would be to rip up sidewalks and bulldoze buildings, which isn’t going to happen.


“The only way we are going to be able to grow the economy and increase the population in Vancouver is to grow walking, cycling and transit,” he says. 


Dobrovolny says Vancouver has already made great strides to this end: over the last 15 years, the city has been able to accommodate steady population and employment growth thanks to a spike in transit use (up 50 per cent, including the Canada Line), walking (up 44 per cent) and cycling (up 180 per cent). (At the most recent count – pre-Canada Line – transit, walking and cycling accounted for 60 per cent of all trips to and from the downtown peninsula.) The challenge over the next two decades is to create the conditions where these three transportation modes can absorb the projected increase of people required to spur growth.


Hornby bike lane

And that’s where the Hornby-Dunsmuir bike corridor comes in, along with a whole host of other measures designed to make getting out of a car possible. Another major piece is to limit the availability of parking, which has been capped at about 35,000 commercial spaces – a number that will not increase for the next 25 years. In addition to reducing parking requirements for commercial buildings, the most in-demand meter parking locations now cost the most (the highest meter rate is $6 an hour).


While conventional thinking has long assumed that parking disincentives are bad for business, new research is turning that notion on its ear. A Transport Canada issue paper published this year notes that eliminating or reducing parking spaces can increase tax revenues for municipalities, lower construction costs for developers, make roads safer and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. “Parking lots and parking spaces often do little to enhance economic activity, encourage active and sustainable transportation, or provide additional tax revenues to local governments,” concludes the report. “Rather . . . businesses can benefit by supporting better infrastructure for pedestrians, cyclists and transit users.” 


Transportation alternatives

Vancouver is not alone in its attempts to encourage such transportation alternatives. Calgary provides only enough parking for about half of its downtown workers, making its CTrain light rail system the primary mode for getting to work. The city makes it easy for suburban commuters to use the system by building parking lots at strategic locations. (“It’s easier to park and then walk or take the LRT than circle the block,” says a local city planner.) A downtown portion of the CTrain route is also fare-free.


Then there is Copenhagen, which has reduced parking spaces by two per cent every year for the last 30 years, enabling the creation of new bike lanes and vibrant pedestrian spaces packed with thriving businesses.


Vancouver must take this latter approach if it is to prosper in the future, says Anthony Perl, director of SFU’s urban studies program. In particular, he is critical of Vancouver’s plan to maintain the current amount of parking over the next 25 years: “The only sensible approach is to reduce it.” Perl predicts that in 25 years, soaring energy costs will force more people to live, work, shop and play within walking distance from where they live; meanwhile, car-dependent communities in the Lower Mainland and across North America will lose value and population.


“When it costs more to fill your pick-up truck with gas than you earn in a day, it just won’t be affordable to live out in Chilliwack and have a job somewhere else.”


And the radical publication suggesting this? Business in Vancouver.

http://www.bcbusinessonline.ca/bcb/business-sense/2010/11/03/bike-lanes-and-downtown-vancouver

[ronthecivil]

You could, and that would be a different conversation. The discussion was regarding the train.

All dollars should be used in the most efficient way possible. That's no big revelation. But unlike you, people see the economic and related benefits to transit even though they might not be blatantly overt and easy to calculate.

I didn't say don't spend the WCE money on road, I am saying that it's a bad use of transit money. You could spend it on say additional skytrain cars or buses on the busiest routes and have all those fancy benefits you like even more!

But my objective is that the next time someone chimes in about how good an idea MORE of this would be that perhaps we should look at the costing lesson of the WCE, which shows that spending the transit money on just about ANYTHING else would get you more bang for your transit buck.