Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion II

[madog222]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Someone needs a raise whoever worked on this project.

His link to the K routing links to the J routing map..

Yeah, a few posts down someone has all the maps in post.

[waves]

There are so many good things in this package, particularly for Phibbs and the North Shore which was probably not even the biggest focus of the project. Route K and J plus the decoupling of the 210's from the bridge should make a huge difference.

Route K in particular has been a big gap in the system for a long time. It's great that it is finally being addressed.

[swan_ch]

Funny to see how the plan is literally giving the finger to Burnaby Mountain and said nothing would be improved until the gondola, which is in limbo for nearly 16 years (and just in paper!), is finished and the only thing they can promise is possibly transforming 145 from "mountain climber" into "mountain rounder" once the gondola is open to public. SMH

[whatnext]

Details of the Fund to Re-elect Jonathan Wilkinson and Any Remaining Federal Liberals announced today:

Ottawa to contribute $663-million for Metro Vancouver transit infrastructure over 10 years
North Vancouver, BC
The Canadian Press
Published 9 minutes ago

The federal government says it’s kicking in more than $663-million in funding for Metro Vancouver transit infrastructure over the next decade, beginning next year.

Energy and Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson says in a statement the funding is coming from the federal government’s Canada Public Transit Fund, which was announced in 2024.

Wilkinson was to announce the funding in North Vancouver with members of the TransLink Mayor’s Council and TransLink’s chief executive officer, Kevin Quinn.

A statement from regional transit operator TransLink and the federal government says the money will be handed out from 2026 through 2036, targeting “key improvements” to public transit in the face of “rapid population growth.”...

...TransLink said in July that it was facing a operational funding gap of about $600-million per year to maintain services at current levels, and that without it being addressed all transit services would face “significant cuts.”

Four months earlier, the B.C. government had given TransLink an injection of $479-million in provincial funding to maintain services and fares.

Wilkinson was representing Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Nathaniel Erskine-Smith at Monday’s announcement.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/b...663-million-for-metro-vancouver-transit/

[GenWhy?]

I think the announcement would of happened regardless.

"The Canada Public Transit Fund is a historic investment that will support transit in communities of all sizes across Canada. Announced in 2024, the Fund will provide $3 billion per year for public transit and active transportation infrastructure, beginning in 2026-27."

[Metro-One]

Wait, so out of 3 billion a year, Vancouver only gets 63 million?? Wow, that’s pitiful.

And how about continuation of twinning highway 1 through the federal parks? You know, maybe better facilitating inter provincial trade??

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

And how about continuation of twinning highway 1 through the federal parks? You know, maybe better facilitating inter provincial trade??

That's not in Metro Vancouver, and it isn't transit infrastructure.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Changing City

That's not in Metro Vancouver, and it isn't transit infrastructure.

No, but it’s yet another example of how underfunded BC / western Canada is / has been from the Liberal government. (And it is within the realm of transit)

[chowhou]

-del-

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

No, but it’s yet another example of how underfunded BC / western Canada is / has been from the Liberal government. (And it is within the realm of transit)

Ontario and Quebec being "have-not" provinces in the equalization math wasn't enough of a dead giveaway?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Ontario and Quebec being "have-not" provinces in the equalization math wasn't enough of a dead giveaway?

This is just an initial announcement of 'baseline funding', and probably pushed out quickly because of the looming likelihood of an election. If there's a future Liberal government to make good on their promise of $3bn annual transit funding, much of it will no doubt be project specific funds for projects like the North Shore BRT, or UBCx.

TransLink's $663 of infrastructure funding from 2026 to 2036 is predicated on a signed detailed plan. Ottawa got $180m of baseline funding over 10 years. No doubt the other Canadian transit agencies will have similar announcements.

[jollyburger]

This funding, which will be delivered over 10 years from 2026 until 2036, will help Metro Vancouver advance key improvements to its public transit system and help respond to critical transit needs caused by rapid population growth. Providing long-term, predictable funding will help TransLink plan, upgrade, replace, or modernize existing public transit and active transportation infrastructure.

These investments, beginning in 2026 until 2036, will help increase the housing supply and affordability as part of complete, transit-oriented communities, while helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the impacts of climate change.

TransLink will receive up to $663,670,150 over ten years from 2026 to 2036. Baseline funding is conditional on TransLink submitting a capital plan, and the subsequent signing of a funding agreement.

They can also apply for

Metro-Region Agreements will support the long-term development of public transit infrastructure in large urban areas. Through these agreements, the federal government will allocate funding and work with our partners to support the planning and construction of a broad range of projects, including major expansion.

and

Targeted Funding will provide flexible, call-specific funding to address federal priorities that meet local needs. Funding will cover areas such as rural transit, active transportation and zero emission solutions.

They received baseline funding in this announcement

Baseline Funding will provide predictable, long-term funding to communities with existing transit systems to support routine investments, with an expected focus on public transit and active transportation system expansions, improvements, and state of good repair.

https://www.canada.ca/en/housing-infrast...ough-the-canada-public-transit-fund.html

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

I think the announcement would of happened regardless.

"The Canada Public Transit Fund is a historic investment that will support transit in communities of all sizes across Canada. Announced in 2024, the Fund will provide $3 billion per year for public transit and active transportation infrastructure, beginning in 2026-27."

Isn’t $600 million what Translink estimates its budget shortfalll to be for just ONE year?

https://www.translink.ca/news/2024/july/...%20cut%20without%20new%20funding%20model

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Isn’t $600 million what Translink estimates its budget shortfalll to be for just ONE year?

https://www.translink.ca/news/2024/july/...%20cut%20without%20new%20funding%20model

This money is to fund infrastructure - either new or replacement facilities for example. The Feds help fund infrastructure, not operations. TransLink's projected $600m annual operating shortfall is a separate issue for the province and mayors council to sort out

"TransLink CEO Kevin Quinn said at the announcement at North Vancouver's SeaBus terminal that the infrastructure funding would help keep the current system in "good condition," but other funding woes remain.

"While the capital funding announced today is crucial and needed, I also want to make it clear that it supports already committed projects and it does not solve our operating funding shortfall," Quinn said.

He said the regional transit operator is still facing an annual operational shortfall of $600 million starting next year, and an agreement to address it is still in the works. TransLink said last July that without the funding gap being addressed, all transit services would face "significant cuts."

"I remain hopeful that we can find a way forward to create a sustainable funding solution," Quinn said Monday." Source

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Changing City

This money is to fund infrastructure - either new or replacement facilities for example. The Feds help fund infrastructure, not operations. TransLink's projected $600m annual operating shortfall is a separate issue for the province and mayors council to sort out

"TransLink CEO Kevin Quinn said at the announcement at North Vancouver's SeaBus terminal that the infrastructure funding would help keep the current system in "good condition," but other funding woes remain.

"While the capital funding announced today is crucial and needed, I also want to make it clear that it supports already committed projects and it does not solve our operating funding shortfall," Quinn said.

He said the regional transit operator is still facing an annual operational shortfall of $600 million starting next year, and an agreement to address it is still in the works. TransLink said last July that without the funding gap being addressed, all transit services would face "significant cuts."

"I remain hopeful that we can find a way forward to create a sustainable funding solution," Quinn said Monday." Source

So, couldn't additional infrastructure actually exacerbate the operating deficit? The more stuff you have to maintain and staff...

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by whatnext

So, couldn't additional infrastructure actually exacerbate the operating deficit? The more stuff you have to maintain and staff...

I assume renovating old infrastructure will federal money could help the operation costs

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by whatnext

So, couldn't additional infrastructure actually exacerbate the operating deficit? The more stuff you have to maintain and staff...

Skytrain costs less to operate per passenger than busses because there's actually less to maintain (no diesel, no tires, no diesel engines, no collisions) and less to staff (no drivers).

Not to mention that improved transit infrastructure drives additional transit ridership which means more transit fares.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by whatnext

So, couldn't additional infrastructure actually exacerbate the operating deficit? The more stuff you have to maintain and staff...

I'm sure you could point to evidence that shows a lack of capital investment in a transit system increases performance while driving down operating costs and not the opposite, right?

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Skytrain costs less to operate per passenger than busses because there's actually less to maintain (no diesel, no tires, no diesel engines, no collisions) and less to staff (no drivers).

Not to mention that improved transit infrastructure drives additional transit ridership which means more transit fares.

Sure, if it's Skytrain expansion replacing bus routes (hello UBC extension). But if it is to launch new routes they're just adding to the structural deficit. And if you lose money on each rider then more riders = more losses.

They need a plan to deal with that structural deficit. Gas tax revenue will just keep going down.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by mcj

I'm sure you could point to evidence that shows a lack of capital investment in a transit system increases performance while driving down operating costs and not the opposite, right?

If by "performance" you mean "financial performance" then sure, I can see a scenario for a transit system that becomes stretched and overloaded because no additional routes or service are added - and when that happens the operating costs per se may not go down but the revenue per service mile goes up and the system as a whole either loses less money or perhaps even makes more money.

All of which should underscore the fact that financial performance isn't the only metric by which a transit system should be measured.