Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion - Page 150

WarrenC12 · #**2981** Posted **May 25, 2009, 6:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by b5baxter

A couple of important things to remember abou thte "$14b plan" that the Liberals always talk about.

- It includes the $2 billion for the Canada Line which is almost finished.

- The $14 billion is just a dream budget number. The liberals have not committed that money for transit. In fact they have said they will only supply $4.75 billion of that total. I guess the rest is suppoed to magically appear from somewhere.

- With the government's growing deficit it seems like there may be cuts in spending. This government generally seems to cut or postpone transit projects rather than their illegal highway expansion projects.

My comment was in response to "the government has no transit plan" which is complete BS. I'm aware that the province has not committed the entire $14b, but they have a plan and they are working towards it. Canada Line is coming in, and the Evergreen is was confirmed, now the new PMB is confirmed, and we have 2 new bridges coming online shortly thanks to the Libs. What more do you want, realistically?

twoNeurons · #**2982** Posted **May 25, 2009, 6:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

My comment was in response to "the government has no transit plan" which is complete BS. I'm aware that the province has not committed the entire $14b, but they have a plan and they are working towards it. Canada Line is coming in, and the Evergreen is was confirmed, now the new PMB is confirmed, and we have 2 new bridges coming online shortly thanks to the Libs. What more do you want, realistically?

The number was rather disingenuous, but what do you expect of politicians?

LeftCoaster · #**2983** Posted **May 25, 2009, 6:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by b5baxter

This government generally seems to cut or postpone transit projects rather than their illegal highway expansion projects.

How can you say this? What precedent are you basing this accusation upon?

b5baxter · #**2984** Posted **May 25, 2009, 7:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

How can you say this? What precedent are you basing this accusation upon?

Correct me if I am wrong but...
- Wasn't the Evergreen line supposed to be completed in 2009?
- Didn't the Translink plan call for 1600 buses by 2006 but three years later we are only at 1200?

paradigm4 · #**2985** Posted **May 25, 2009, 7:40 PM**

Pics of the new wayfinding signage being installed at Waterfront, as previously mentioned. These are all mine from yesterday.

racc · #**2986** Posted **May 25, 2009, 7:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by b5baxter

Correct me if I am wrong but...
- Wasn't the Evergreen line supposed to be completed in 2009?
?

Actually, probably more like 2005 or 6 if Campbell had not delayed it in favour of the Canada Line.

LeftCoaster · #**2987** Posted **May 25, 2009, 7:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by b5baxter

Correct me if I am wrong but...
- Wasn't the Evergreen line supposed to be completed in 2009?
- Didn't the Translink plan call for 1600 buses by 2006 but three years later we are only at 1200?

Well yes the Evergreen line was postponed, but it was postponed in favour of another rapid transit line, not a highway project.

I cannot really comment on the status of the buses but I seem to remember a comment in this thread or one of the others discussing the numbers and how we are actually much higher than the 1200 number which has been reported. I'll try and dig it up.

Edit* Here it is:

Quote:

Originally Posted by nname

Maybe I should point out how they can play with the numbers. The plan states that Translink should have the bus fleet size of 1600, but the site says that CMBC currently have 1100 bus on the road during peak hours. Those numbers are very different. Currently, CMBC have a fleet size of around 1380, and when you add West Van and shuttle contractor, you end up with around 1490. This number will grow to around 1630 by the end of this year. So this is certainly much less than 500 buses short. But then I agree, more bus would be nice.

officedweller · #**2988** Posted **May 25, 2009, 8:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by b5baxter

Correct me if I am wrong but...
- Wasn't the Evergreen line supposed to be completed in 2009?
- Didn't the Translink plan call for 1600 buses by 2006 but three years later we are only at 1200?

If the NDP hadn't cancelled the Socred plans for Richmond SkyTrain Line AND the Coquitlam SkyTrain extension when it cam to power in the early 1990s, we would probably be building a line out to Langley by now. The only part of the Socred plan to be built was the Expo Line extension to King George because it was too far along to cancel.

****

Great pics of Waterfront. Good to see cnsistent font being used (i.e. M-Line font).

Question - are the two platforms at Waterfront (each side of the centre platform) now dedicated for each of the M-Line and the Expo Line?
The signage suggests that but I can't quite tell.
i.e. the trains previously reversed to the east of Waterfront Station - however, there are switches to the west of Waterfront Station that could easily be used to direct a train to stop at (and reverse from) a particular platform rather than using the tail track.

Edit - this pic only shows one arrow, so I think the tail track is still being used.

WarrenC12 · #**2989** Posted **May 25, 2009, 8:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by racc

Actually, probably more like 2005 or 6 if Campbell had not delayed it in favour of the Canada Line.

Sure if the NDP was still in power we'd all have $50/hr union jobs and the streets would be paved with cheese right?

The NDPee's record in the 1990s is out there for all to see, and it's why they are riding a 3-term losing streak. We have the Socreds to thank for starting the skytrain. The NDPee helped with the M-line but that was a pretty weak choice for a 2nd line, particulary in the state it ended up being in. The airport line was a priority. Now the libs are trying to hook into the northeast suburbs and the largest university in the area, and somehow that's "wrong"?

b5baxter · #**2990** Posted **May 25, 2009, 8:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Well yes the Evergreen line was postponed, but it was postponed in favour of another rapid transit line, not a highway project.

But in Translink's 2004 plan both the RAV and Evergreen lines were scheduled to be finished in 2009. I don't think the Canada Line could be considered a replacement for the Evergreen line.

In earlier plans I thought both the Northwest route and the UBC extension were considered priorities. So if anything it seems to me the Canada Line is a replacement for the UBC line....

racc · #**2991** Posted **May 25, 2009, 8:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Well yes the Evergreen line was postponed, but it was postponed in favour of another rapid transit line, not a highway project.

Well, the first postponement was due to a rapid transit projects but since then it has been delayed due to the Golden Ears Bridge competing for funding then I suspect the province didn't want it competing with construction capacity for the Highway 1 expansion and the South Fraser Perimeter Road.

LeftCoaster · #**2992** Posted **May 25, 2009, 10:02 PM**

Well just because you suspect that does not make it true. It has been delayed for a myriad of reasons, least of which would be highway 1 funding as I believe the province's funding for evergreen was announced before gateway funding. The real hold up was federal funding which finally came.

Quote:

Originally Posted by b5baxter

But in Translink's 2004 plan both the RAV and Evergreen lines were scheduled to be finished in 2009. I don't think the Canada Line could be considered a replacement for the Evergreen line.

In earlier plans I thought both the Northwest route and the UBC extension were considered priorities. So if anything it seems to me the Canada Line is a replacement for the UBC line....

Trankslink isn't the BC government though, their wish list to have both lines under construction simultaneously does not mean that was the Province's strategy. As we saw it was hard enough to get staggered federal funding for both projects, let alone both at the same time.

And yes the RAV line was pushed ahead, probably for appearances sake regarding the Olympics (which does have some merit from a "marketing Vancouver" standpoint), however this does not mean projects were stalled, priorities were just shifted and the money was still spent.

officedweller · #**2993** Posted **May 25, 2009, 10:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by b5baxter

But in Translink's 2004 plan both the RAV and Evergreen lines were scheduled to be finished in 2009. I don't think the Canada Line could be considered a replacement for the Evergreen line.

In earlier plans I thought both the Northwest route and the UBC extension were considered priorities. So if anything it seems to me the Canada Line is a replacement for the UBC line....

The Port Moody and Vancouver West extensions of the M-Line were Phase II of the NDP's M-Line.

The Liberals cancelled those phases due to belt tightening at the time, then some years later bumped the Canada Line to the top of the heap (i.e. resurrecting the Socred priority to serve Richmond, together with capitalizing on available Federal and YVR funding in light of the Olympics (even if not an official Olympic project). If Canada Line and YVR had not come together, YVR would likely have spent its $300 million on a peoplemover serving only the airport and long term parking lots (like Pearson has in TO) - if that occurred, I'd bet that the Canada Line (i.e. whatever form of Richmond Line) would have stopped at Templeton and forced a transfer to the peoplemover.

Rejection of the Canada Line at the "disfunctional"/"balkanized" TransLink Board of municipal representatives (primarily disgruntled Tri-Cities representatives) forced the inclusion of the Evergreen LRT Line in TransLink plans with a target date similar to the Canada Line (subject to funding, of course). It was clear that this target date was simply included to politically appease the Tri-Cities so they would vote to proceed with the Canada Line.

Now, with their first priority Canada Line complete, we've come full circle with the Liberals pushing for the Evergreen Line as SkyTrain (which is essentially what they cancelled when they took office, but now at a higher price - but note that if the Canada Line had been built second, it too would probably have a higher price).

Note that all of these lines are set out under the Livable Region Strategic Plan - so it's just political shuffling of which line comes first. The Expo Line extension into Surrey and the M-Line extension past Arbutus to UBC diverge from the existing (1996?) Livable Region Strategic Plan (which is in the process of being updated and replaced).

SpongeG · #**2994** Posted **May 25, 2009, 11:33 PM**

evergreen line shouldn't get so much priority - if i was in power i would take that money and put it into the UBC extension or the surrey extension first and make evergreen 3rd on the list of to do

VanHowe · #**2995** Posted **May 25, 2009, 11:57 PM**

If the Evergreen line had been built before, they could have extended it over the new Pitt River Bridge which will be completed this fall. The Golden Ears bridge is really going to open up this area.

racc · #**2996** Posted **May 25, 2009, 11:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

Note that all of these lines are set out under the Livable Region Strategic Plan - so it's just political shuffling of which line comes first. The Expo Line extension into Surrey and the M-Line extension past Arbutus to UBC diverge from the existing (1996?) Livable Region Strategic Plan (which is in the process of being updated and replaced).

These do not really diverge from the plan but are logical extension of the plan that really weren't considered in detail at the time. Note they will (hopefully) be completed by 2020 which I believe was beyond the horizon for the plan back in 1996.

officedweller · #**2997** Posted **May 26, 2009, 12:10 AM**

Yeah, that's true (for Surrey, may also depend on the route selected, since the plan shows route down King George and over to Guildford).

deasine · #**2998** Posted **May 26, 2009, 1:21 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by paradigm4

It's good to see that they have installed better signs, but I'm sorry: that's the cheapest way I've seen them try to install signs... EVER. They could've just mounted boards on the column...

Spork · #**2999** Posted **May 26, 2009, 2:26 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by deasine

It's good to see that they have installed better signs, but I'm sorry: that's the cheapest way I've seen them try to install signs... EVER. They could've just mounted boards on the column...

How would you suggest they do it? The amount of information on that thing is perfect for visitors and i doubt they could fit it all at a reasonable font size hanging from the ceiling or something. I like it better than a blank white column.

SpongeG · #**3000** Posted **May 26, 2009, 4:18 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by deasine

It's good to see that they have installed better signs, but I'm sorry: that's the cheapest way I've seen them try to install signs... EVER. They could've just mounted boards on the column...

aren't those temporary?

if not