ronthecivil Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 If they plan on running anything other than buses down Fraser hwy in the future there drunk as that should have been done 10 years ago before all the road upgrades were done. Why? All the other skytrain routes have four lane roads that parralell them (Broadway/Laughead/Kingsway) and typically you at least run a feeder bus parallell to the skytrain. But even with the expansion there's still plenty of room for a skytrain that in large stretches could potentially be at grade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 How can you possibly never leave campus?? Okay so I admit that I've only been to UBC campus a couple of times, but is it it's own city or something? Don't you need to leave campus to get groceries at least? Is there enough housing on campus or within walking distance of campus to house the entire UBC student population? I'm guessing not. Even less so if you go to SFU. Why not instead of abolishing the U-PASS just raise the price of it and make it optional so students have to opt in? And obviously take steps to reduce or eliminate U-PASS fraud (like I said, should be pretty simple if they follow the Victoria model of having the student ID and U-PASS be one card.) How not to leave? I lived in res and there was food there. Friday night beer gardens. Saturday night dances. Always lots going on I swear I could count the number of times I went downtown on one hand (since it was so much more expensive to party downtown compared to on campus). Even for the last years when I lived off campus most of the time I bummed a ride to school and didn't take the bus that often, and most of the time I just walked in. Your suggestions to make the UPASS more like an employer pass are reasonable though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Situation Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 How can you possibly never leave campus?? Okay so I admit that I've only been to UBC campus a couple of times, but is it it's own city or something? Don't you need to leave campus to get groceries at least? Is there enough housing on campus or within walking distance of campus to house the entire UBC student population? I'm guessing not. Even less so if you go to SFU. Why not instead of abolishing the U-PASS just raise the price of it and make it optional so students have to opt in? And obviously take steps to reduce or eliminate U-PASS fraud (like I said, should be pretty simple if they follow the Victoria model of having the student ID and U-PASS be one card.) There is a lot of housing stores on campus. All the partying you need and then some is on campus. There is even a Save on Foods and a bunch of stores such as Staples at the University Village. It is pretty much a self contained city. The U-Pass was a huge ripoff for me in the first two years where I lived in a dormitory with dining hall and meal plan. The previous semester where I lived in an on campus town house, I would occasionally go off campus to buy food, it wasn't very far or long so a single one zone ticket would suffice. I agree that they should raise the price a little and allow on campus students to opt out. Keep it mandatory for off campus students beyond the UEL because it would encourage to use public transit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Evergreen+Line+faces+another+year+delay+uncertain+future/4870990/story.html METRO VANCOUVER - The long-awaited Evergreen Line will be delayed another year and could be scrubbed altogether unless Metro Vancouver mayors come up with a plan to pay for it, B.C. Transportation Minister Blair Lekstrom has warned. Lekstrom said this week that the 11-kilometre SkyTrain line linking Burnaby and Coquitlam could not be up and running before late 2015 — at the earliest — because the mayors have not yet proposed alternative funding sources to cover TransLink’s $400-million share of the $1.4-billion project. Former premier Gordon Campbell promised before the 2009 election campaign that the line would be operational by 2014. “The reality is the federal money is there, the provincial money is there, so we are waiting for the mayors’ council to determine how they are going to raise their $400 million,” Lekstrom said Tuesday. “Without that I think the project would be in jeopardy,” he added. “That’s the reality.” The announcement prompted everything from resignation to disappointment and anger among the region’s mayors, who have waited years for the rapid transit line, and signed an agreement with the province last November to look at alternative sources of funding — such as road pricing, congestion charges and vehicle levies — to pay for it. A rift also appears to be developing among regional mayors, many of whom are divided on potential options to fund the transit projects — with some opposed to road pricing or bridge tolls depending on where they live. Others say not everyone is willing to work with the province to get the Evergreen Line built. Coquitlam Mayor Richard Stewart said the mayors have an obligation to pay for a third of the costs of the line, yet some of those in transit-rich cities are “somewhat less supportive” of the project. But Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan argued mayors have just had enough. He said the provincial government scrapped the mayors’ plans for the initial line, which was planned as a light rail project, to build a more costly SkyTrain. Even with the province, feds and TransLink paying a third of the costs, he said, there will be a shortfall of $200 million that will still have to be covered. “The project has been one where the province has interfered and is then pointing fingers and blaming municipalities for the failure,” he said. “I don’t feel any obligation to get on board this train and I don’t think anyone in the region does ... at some point the municipal governments have to stand their ground, at this point the rubber hit the ground with the Evergreen Line. “We’re not going to taxpayers again to pay for a project well over budget and essentially a pet project for the provincial and federal government. We got burned on the Canada Line and we’re not going to do it again.” But North Vancouver Mayor Richard Walton, chairman of the mayors’ council on regional transportation who will meet with Lekstrom on Friday, said he doesn’t see the latest announcement as “a breach of faith.” He noted the negotiations with the province have been slow to progress because of “political distractions in Victoria,” including a new premier and transportation minister — Lekstrom replaced former minister Shirley Bond — but he’s optimistic a deal can be reached in the next few months. Stewart also said he will head to Victoria himself to lobby for the project, noting Coquitlam has built density and a transit-oriented communities along the proposed line. “I’m very disappointed if it gets delayed again ... we should get this one underway so we can start talking about Broadway and about Surrey and Langley. Transit options have to be improved.” Both Richmond Mayor Malcolm Brodie and Vancouver Coun. Geoff Meggs agreed the Evergreen Line is integral to a regional transit plan. Meggs said he was surprised at Lekstrom’s comments, noting it was the province that stuck municipalities with the high cost of the SkyTrain line. Lekstrom said Tuesday he is optimistic the mayors will be able to find a solution to the funding issue, but insisted the delay has nothing to do with the senior levels of government. “That [project] is not delayed by the federal government; it is not delayed by the provincial government. It is delayed as the mayors’ council works through their options.” Premier Christy Clark also said Tuesday she wants the Evergreen Line to be built. Last month, she also said she would be willing to look at using the carbon tax revenue to fund transit projects. Langley City Mayor Peter Fassbender said the mayors were heartened by Clark’s comments, and he expects a decision will likely include a combination of options such as road pricing and tolls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violator Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 Why? All the other skytrain routes have four lane roads that parralell them (Broadway/Laughead/Kingsway) and typically you at least run a feeder bus parallell to the skytrain. But even with the expansion there's still plenty of room for a skytrain that in large stretches could potentially be at grade. Its gonna look like a roller coaster im afraid as well as you will have to sink piles about 35 feet deep in the wetlands around pac highway and Fraser hwy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Study: Building Roads to Cure Congestion Is an Exercise in Futility http://dc.streetsblog.org/2011/05/31/study-building-roads-to-cure-congestion-is-an-exercise-in-futility/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 old news^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 old news^ Then why do we keep doing it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Then why do we keep doing it? Poor planning? Electing spineless turds? The inability for said turds to communicate the benefits of transit/density to the general public? The fact that we do actually need better/more efficient/better designed roads to replace outdated, inefficient, poorly designed routes AS WELL as transit and density?... I'm sure there's more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldSchooler Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 Study: Building Roads to Cure Congestion Is an Exercise in Futility http://dc.streetsblo...se-in-futility/ 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). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldSchooler Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 (edited) Go with a hybrid skytrain to Langley/rapid bus to Whiterock prolly 2.7 billion. Edit: Do LRT4 AND RRT1 for 2.8 billion. Connects all the major centres except for whiterock which could just bus up while maintaining excellent expandability (LRT on both ends and Skytrain further into the valley) and would have very high ridership. The total impacts to Surrey would be excellent and without looking too hard the C/B ratio would no doubt be impressive. 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. Edited June 3, 2011 by OldSchooler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Then why do we keep doing it? Planners keep on making sprawled low density neighbourhoods in the suburbs while allowing the NIMBYs to appose dense developement in the core (won't someone think of the views!) which makes providing alternatives like transit unviable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 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. Going with express buses that replicate the proposed transit lines like the 97,98,99 Blines is a great phase 0.5 project to help build demand and at worst case a bandaid but as the 99 bline will show you it can be much better than that (the 99 blines 100k passengers a day are an envy of light rail lines around the world showing that it's all about how the community is built rather than the transportation mode per se). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 http://www.vancouver...0990/story.html Raise transit fares then if they don't have any money. Why should only road users be asked to pay the full amount? The transit user is getting a lot of subsidy and taxpayers aren't going to subsidise it any more. If this isn't clear to you then there is no hope for you. And no you can't just take money that would be used for gateway as it's being provided by a toll that is only acceptable to the public (and barely) because they at least know the money is going to go towards making their commute better. So for the millionth time what is your suggestion for coming up with the money to pay for all this without having a taxpayer revolt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Raise transit fares then if they don't have any money. Why should only road users be asked to pay the full amount? The transit user is getting a lot of subsidy and taxpayers aren't going to subsidise it any more. If this isn't clear to you then there is no hope for you. And no you can't just take money that would be used for gateway as it's being provided by a toll that is only acceptable to the public (and barely) because they at least know the money is going to go towards making their commute better. So for the millionth time what is your suggestion for coming up with the money to pay for all this without having a taxpayer revolt? Commute better? HAHA! Isn't that what they said when they built the Alex Fraser? The Tunnel? etc...? All I did was post the story, you're making a lot of assumptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Commute better? HAHA! Isn't that what they said when they built the Alex Fraser? The Tunnel? etc...? They did make the commute better but populations don't generally sit at zero growth do they? Can you imagine how bad the commute would be without those projects!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Commute better? HAHA! Isn't that what they said when they built the Alex Fraser? The Tunnel? etc...? All I did was post the story, you're making a lot of assumptions. It's hardly a wild assumption given the conversations of the past. If my assumption is wrong then why did you post the story then? And things did get better when they built the Alex Fraser and the Tunnel. It's just they got worse later when suburban planners figured they needed a lot more single family housing while Vancouver decided that single family housing right next to 20 year old skytrain stations was also acceptable. (What's with planners and their hate of cars and love of density yet all they do is zone for single family housing or if you're lucky low rise construction?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 It's hardly a wild assumption given the conversations of the past. If my assumption is wrong then why did you post the story then? And things did get better when they built the Alex Fraser and the Tunnel. It's just they got worse later when suburban planners figured they needed a lot more single family housing while Vancouver decided that single family housing right next to 20 year old skytrain stations was also acceptable. (What's with planners and their hate of cars and love of density yet all they do is zone for single family housing or if you're lucky low rise construction?) See Ron, your arguments contradict each other. On one hand you blame planners for not planning for or forcing higher density neighbourhoods but on the other hand you claim we can't force transit cause the market won't support it. So which is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 See Ron, your arguments contradict each other. On one hand you blame planners for not planning for or forcing higher density neighbourhoods but on the other hand you claim we can't force transit cause the market won't support it. So which is it? But the market would support density. In fact I think the market is begging for it. 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