Millennium Line - Evergreen Extension | Completed

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by mr.x

^ would be interesting to see a TVM attempt to bore a tunnel!

It should be able to do it okay. Just remember to take it out of the ground when you hear a click and the light turns orange.

[Waders]

http://www.theprovince.com/Fare+hike+Evergreen+Line+Report/1960290/story.html
Unfortunately it looks like all the rapid transit expansion plans won't be able to proceed for a few years.

[Metro-One]

I must say, this is becoming beyond ridiculous. I thought the provincial and federal government were "doing everything they can" the get this "shovel ready" project going during the recession.

In my mind, 20% of this can be blamed on translink, but the lions share (80%) really does go to the provincial government. It really is another brocken promise.

[lightrail]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I must say, this is becoming beyond ridiculous. I thought the provincial and federal government were "doing everything they can" the get this "shovel ready" project going during the recession.

In my mind, 20% of this can be blamed on translink, but the lions share (80%) really does go to the provincial government. It really is another brocken promise.

Crilly is only looking at the heath of translink, just like he does with BC Ferries. It's a terrible model the idiot liberal government had set up, totally unaccountable. Who is Crilly to dictate what we do in the lower mainland. Oh for the days when Politicians ran things instead of appointed commisioners.

I'm so disillusioned with the mess the Liberals have created I almost want to leave the Province. This place is a disaster right now.

And what do you expect from a Minister with a name like Bond - I have images of her driving around in a Austin Martin or a BMW Z4. Tell me I'm wrong

[Metro-One]

Thats what i said, translink has very little to work with, the provincial government has now broken so many election promises it is not funny. If this is not started by summer 2010 all i can do is shake my head.

It really is the never green line.

What is next, another flip flop to light rail or mono rail?

Then another flip flop back to skytrain while the next economic boom puts material prices through the roof?

[Stingray2004]

Since its inception, the Evergreen Line has never had any financial commitments from senior levels of guvmint.

As of today we have the provincial and federal governments with committed funding in the amount of $827 million to construct the Evergreen Line.

That financial commitment represents a huge difference.

Now it comes down to Translink finding a source for future metro transit funding, and Martin Crilley's separate findings for its future viability in terms of operating as well as capital requirements.

Damn, I wish that the hub price for natural gas was back to at least $8 Cdn/gigajoule. Then the province would start to roll in cash.

Nevertheless I'm still quite optimistic due to that continued $827 million financial commitment from senior guvmint levels.

[mr.x]

Translink has its own commission now? Ugh.


Well, at least Criley is only giving his opinion to the Mayors council....unfortunately, they will be influenced by that. To what extent? We won't know.

Iunno if the $450-million federal commitment from the feds will stay, it'll be years until we might be able to see concrete being poured for this project.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by lightrail

Who is Crilly to dictate what we do in the lower mainland. Oh for the days when Politicians ran things instead of appointed commisioners.

Hmmmm.... BC Ferries has been a helluva lot better business model and operation from the consumer's perspective IMHO, akin to that of YVR, after the politicians made a mess of same and were removed.

http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/Fairl...enty+room+improvement/1943607/story.html

[lightrail]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Hmmmm.... BC Ferries has been a helluva lot better business model and operation from the consumer's perspective IMHO, akin to that of YVR, after the politicians made a mess of same and were removed.

http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/Fairl...enty+room+improvement/1943607/story.html

Depends on how you look at it. It used to be a ferry for $4.50 walk-on subsidised, yes, but no more than the road network. Now it is $13 walk-on and more like a cruise ship and run for a profit (a monopoly of course). The islands are hurting because of the massive increase in fares (well over 100% increase since privatisation of BC Ferries). BC Government won't put more money into the ferries, so it's pay as you go and ships are expensive to run. Mind you, before the Liberals were elected way back, they said they would never privatise BC Ferries. Guess us idiot voters never learn.

The new ships running between Vancouver and the Island actually burn more fuel then the existing ships they're replacing. The new ships are heavier, designed for North Sea operations, not our placid strait. On the Swartz Bay run, the new ships is tied up most of the time because it is cheaper to run the older ships (built in BC).

[CBeats]

Originally Posted by lightrail

On the Swartz Bay run, the new ships is tied up most of the time because it is cheaper to run the older ships (built in BC).

Really? I always wondered why that ferry just sat there so often, not being used. I felt kind of cheated, because here is this brand new ferry sitting idle at Swartz Bay while I walk on to a crappy Old Slow Ferry next to it, bound for Tswassen - but I pay the same price.

Not sure that the price increases are hurting the islands...the main runs are always busy.

[The_Henry_Man]

A very good article on the need for Translink to reflect upon themselves. BTW, what exactly is competitive tendering?

Maureen Bader: Inefficient TransLink needs to tender-out transit services
By Maureen Bader

Ever wondered why airline fares have fallen dramatically over the past few decades but public transit fares have gone nowhere but up? It’s because the airline industry has gone through dramatic reforms while public transit providers, such as the Lower Mainland’s TransLink, have not. Until TransLink is reformed, transit riders and taxpayers can expect to continue to pay more for less.

As a June report by the Conference Board of Canada shows, growth in airline industry productivity (a measure of how well resources are used to create goods and services) was faster than growth in productivity of the economy as a whole. Airline industry reforms transformed the sector into a strong contributor to economic growth in Canada. Public transit, on the other hand, has seen its productivity fall, acting as a drag on economic growth.

Three reforms boosted airline industry productivity: ownership change, price deregulation, and competition. Air Canada was privatized, fare decisions no longer required government approval, and the Canada-U.S. open skies agreement brought more competition to the sector. However, the biggest source of improvement—increased competition—helped bring down fares for consumers. Falling airline fares meant airlines had to bring down costs, which improved productivity—they got more from less.

TransLink has no such cost discipline. This means management caves in to any excess salary demand because any cost increase is just passed along to bus riders as higher fares or to taxpayers as higher taxes. Productivity falls because we get the same or less for more.

TransLink’s management needs to figure out how to reform the public transit system. Still, today, many people defend the TransLink status quo because they believe public transit has social and environmental benefits. But those benefits, whether real or imagined, are no excuse to run a bloated, wasteful government system.

As the Conference Board report concluded, higher productivity growth brings lower airline fares, while falling productivity in public transit has translated into higher public transit fares. If TransLink does not improve public transit productivity, its demand for tax and fare hikes will continue and any social or environmental benefit it might be delivering will erode further.

But is the airline industry special? Can the same reforms happen with public transit? Reforms in Europe show how public transit can be improved for the benefit of both taxpayers and transit riders.

Public transit in Europe faces the same challenges we do—declining urban density. Governments there, faced with ever higher and more unaffordable subsidies, looked for alternatives. One alternative was to competitively tender-out the right to operate a transit route to a company for a period of time.

In England, the City of London tendered-out the operation of its bus service. Between 1984 and 1999 productivity of the bus service increased by 3.7 percent—meaning it cost less to transport passengers for every dollar of capital and operating expense. Competitive tendering also brought an 11.7 percent increase in ridership during the same period. Thanks to this success, London continues to tender-out bus services.

TransLink could learn a thing or two from the London experience.

For TransLink, between 2005 and 2008 productivity has declined, as the cost to transport one passenger one kilometre increased by 19.1 percent. TransLink’s own 10-year plan shows operating expenses and debt servicing cost will rise by 20 percent between 2009 and 2011 alone, while ridership is estimated to increase by only 2.3 percent per year to 2012 and 1.5 percent annually thereafter. There is no indication that TransLink’s share of Lower Mainland trips will increase beyond its historic share of approximately 11 percent.

TransLink wants another $450 million per year to continue expanding its expensive, heavily subsidized system. Taxpayers are expected to pay more and more for a very small, if any, improvement in ridership.

When the premier says TransLink needs to reduce costs before it gets more tax dollars, he is right. As both the Canadian airline industry the European transit experience show, transportation is a service that can achieve higher productivity with the right type of reform. Instead of continuing to be a high cost supplier of transit services, TransLink needs to tender competitively to reduce both its costs and its fares to boost unsubsidized ridership. Until real reform occurs, it’s TransLink that needs to take a hike.

Maureen Bader is the B.C. director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

Article from this link: http://www.straight.com/article-246874/m...anslink-needs-tenderout-transit-services

[Metro-One]

Not sure that the price increases are hurting the islands...the main runs are always busy.

The price increases are hurting the smaller islands (the Gulf Islands).

Ever wondered why airline fares have fallen dramatically over the past few decades but public transit fares have gone nowhere but up? It’s because the airline industry has gone through dramatic reforms while public transit providers, such as the Lower Mainland’s TransLink, have not. Until TransLink is reformed, transit riders and taxpayers can expect to continue to pay more for less.

You know this article is 🞵🞵🞵🞵 from the get go. How are we paying for less, is the transit system not expanded over the last 10 years? 2 new metro lines? New bus routes? Countless new buses? etc...

The problem is Translink is currently trying to expand the existing lines (more trains, remodeled/larger stations) and build 1 new line and 2 large extensions of skytrain over the next 15 years. Not to mention buses! That takes a lot of money.

The government cant simply say to Translink, here, we want you to fit 4 liters of water into one 2 liter bottle, without giving them another bottle. And that is essentially what they are doing, telling them to run better, more frequent and extremely expanded services with only token help. It can't happen, period.

And who the hell wants our trains to run like the airline industry? Is it just me or is the airline industry not known as one of the largest boondoggles in the world! They are always being subsidized and taking government handouts while offering minimal (and usually bad) service.

[GeeCee]

Originally Posted by The_Henry_Man

A very good article on the need for Translink to reflect upon themselves. BTW, what exactly is competitive tendering?

The bus system in London is a friggin disaster, with different companies running various routes without allowing transfers between different companies, not to mention the congestion charges around downtown London. That is exactly what we don't need.

http://www.citytransport.info/Buses01.htm#Con

[deasine]

Originally Posted by GeeCee

The bus system in London is a friggin disaster, with different companies running various routes without allowing transfers between different companies, not to mention the congestion charges around downtown London. That is exactly what we don't need.

http://www.citytransport.info/Buses01.htm#Con

From what I know, people in London uses Oyster.

[GeeCee]

I don't think the Oyster card works for the buses - just the metro system.

edit: my mistake, according to Wikipedia it works on buses in the Greater London area as well.

And looking at how inadequate the Canada Line is showing itself to be already, I think we should hold off on another P3 for now.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by GeeCee

I don't think the Oyster card works for the buses - just the metro system.

edit: my mistake, according to Wikipedia it works on buses in the Greater London area as well.

And looking at how inadequate the Canada Line is showing itself to be already, I think we should hold off on another P3 for now.

Bus systems aren't P3, they are 100% privately owned. There are many pros and cons: for sure, don't expect private companies to deliver decent transit service to areas where there is little demand for buses. This is where the public transportation agency, TransLink, needs to pick up the slack. But if different private bus companies actually work together, you can expect a great bus network, as seen in Hong Kong.

And there is nothing wrong with P3 and I don't see any problems with the Canada Line P3 system either. Yes, expansion on the system is a little harder and TransLink is expected to pay 100%, but if we didn't have a P3 system, TransLink has to pay 100% either way. Service with P3s are also better since TransLink pays them according to customer service. There is quite a bit of risk associated with P3s. London had many issues with the London Underground and Overground. They learned from their lesson and has a successful P3 project with the London DLR system.

Personally, I would prefer if the transit agency owns and operates the line but I don't have confidence with TransLink. TransLink really needs to change their operating style and needs to improve a lot. Already, in customer service, TransLink fails in comparison to ProTrans BC.

[windscar]

What does the London Congestion Charge have to to with anything, aside from the fact that it made London's Transit system more popular. And the comments in the link you posted

does not apply to London, Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man. In London bus operations were split into a multitude of SMALLer local business units (cost centres) and then privatised (with some management figures becoming very wealthy in the process) but after much public protest full deregulation was delayed and then cancelled. Instead the bus companies must now compete for the exclusive franchise to operate pre-set routes as defined by a London wide transport planning authority. (Transport for London). Whilst this system may also have some flaws (especially over allegations that the centralized transport planners hold in contempt the views of suburban Londoners regarding some aspects of local bus operations) it has not resulted in the very significant decline in bus patronage such as occurred elsewhere in Britain.

London's bus system seems mostly fine to me, heck a similar system could easily work for TransLink

[Gordon]

The new coastal class Ferries were built as spec'd by B.C. Ferries. One reason that they are heavier is that Transport Canada required some extra equipment be a added which added to the weight. These ships are also longer and if they had the same Main car deck layout (extra ramp) the could take around 430 vehicles.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by Gordon

The new coastal class Ferries were built as spec'd by B.C. Ferries. One reason that they are heavier is that Transport Canada required some extra equipment be a added which added to the weight. These ships are also longer and if they had the same Main car deck layout (extra ramp) the could take around 430 vehicles.

Is that a possibility to be added?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by lightrail

Crilly is only looking at the heath of translink, just like he does with BC Ferries. It's a terrible model the idiot liberal government had set up, totally unaccountable. Who is Crilly to dictate what we do in the lower mainland. Oh for the days when Politicians ran things instead of appointed commisioners.

When I went to the website where that report is contained, I noticed all of the contact #s were 250 area codes. I think that says it all right there. It's a lot like our friend Malcolm and other ivory tower eggheads criticizing things they don't even use.

This waffling on Evergreen and BC Place is a friggin' joke in this recession, and the talk of shovel-ready projects, etc. What exactly is the government doing these days?