Millennium Line - Evergreen Extension | Completed - Page 89

DKaz · #**1761** Posted **Sep 18, 2009, 3:51 PM**

$130 mil or so would allow Translink to maintain current service levels.
$270 mil or so would allow Translink to do some light to buy more buses and skytrain to expand capacity.
$450 mil would allow Translink to move on with major projects like the Evergreen Line.

I heard a rumour that the BC Government would try to help out by tolling ALL bridges under provincial jurisdiction in Metro Vancouver and giving it to Translink.

deasine · #**1762** Posted **Sep 18, 2009, 4:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DKaz

I heard a rumour that the BC Government would try to help out by tolling ALL bridges under provincial jurisdiction in Metro Vancouver and giving it to Translink.

What you heard was not good and I really hope it doesn't come true.

lightrail · #**1763** Posted **Sep 18, 2009, 4:56 PM**

Don't get too excited. Given the track record of late, I wouldn't believe anything this government says.

Mininari · #**1764** Posted **Sep 18, 2009, 4:59 PM**

Given the track record of the governments since the mid-80's on the Coquitlam Skytrain line extension, I wouldn't believe what ANY government says about it.
Was it not supposed to be PHASE 2 of some project called "Sky train" back in the 80's???

metroXpress · #**1765** Posted **Sep 18, 2009, 5:00 PM**

^

still happy though~

lightrail · #**1766** Posted **Sep 18, 2009, 5:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by deasine

What you heard was not good and I really hope it doesn't come true.

Why not? If you want to get serious about funding transit, the money has to come from somewhere. If you want to get people out of cars, then you need to make it less convenient or more expensive to drive.

Tolls on bridges is artificial; better would be some sort of tolling system that catches all of the main routes.

Many cites have road pricing systems. In Santiago Chile, all cars using the autopistas must have a transponder and they pay for for each use of the road. London has congestion charging paid when you enter the zone.

The most effective method of controlling and reducing car dependency is some sort of transportation demand management, such as road pricing, tolls, and conversion of SOV lanes to HOV or bus or rapid transit.

Don't keep looking to the BC Government to pay for it out of general revenue. A proportion is fine, but a lot should be funded within the region in some way; why should somebody in Fort St. John pay for a big portion of the daily operation of the Metro Vancouver transit system?

The BC Government and Translink should look at:
- real estate division - buy land near rapid transit, develop and sell for a profit

- parking tax on all commercial parking stalls coupled with encouragements to reduce parking stalls in exchange for employee transit pass, or proximity to transit or partial funding of shuttle bus to SkyTrain

- property tax - while a lot of people don't like it, Metro Vancouver's property tax for transit is the lowest in Canada - in other cities the City runs the transit so must cover the full amount of the service beyond fare box recovery

- road pricing - electronic road pricing either at key locations (bridges, tunnels, major routes), or via ICBC and distance travelled or vehicle levy by type of vehicle (which migh tfit with the climate change action plan too)

- conversion of SOV lanes to bus or rapid transit or truck only lanes - reduce single occupant car lanes capacity to increase congestion when using SOV, making transit or HOV a much more attractive alternative

- revamp the fare structure - the current fare system makes no sense - distance based smart cards would be much better

- land use - we really need to keep increasing density near SKyTrain and get away form building tracts of single family housing. Metro Vancouver is not as bad in this regard to other areas (such as Calgary)

- finally - Victoria needs to stop meddling in Translink - need to stop giving Translink powers then saying no; it's time to let Metro make it's own decisions on what it needs and Victoria then needs to be a supportive player. The current situation is a disaster.

Canadian Mind · #**1767** Posted **Sep 18, 2009, 5:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mooks28

And here is the project description report: http://www.evergreenline.gov.bc.ca/documents/Review/090504_Project_Description.pdf

It's definitely Skytrain!

Doesn't look like they plan on running the line from VCC/Clark to PoMo as one continuous route. How disappointing.

Metro-One · #**1768** Posted **Sep 18, 2009, 5:37 PM**

I support tolls on every major bridge in Metro-Van if they are reasonable, 50 cents or a dollar per crossing. Anythin higher then that then you will start damaging the economy and limiting economic options to those with lower incomes. Not everyone can aford to live close to downtown and not everyone has the same job or works in the same spot all the time, and many people live close to work but far from school, or far from work but close to school etc...

This would be cost effective for it is relatively cheep to set up electronic tolls and with computer automation takes few people to collect and manage the system, especially given the constant high volume crossing the bridges.

I just fear for areas such as Richmond and Pitt Meadows/Maple Ridge, these communities will be far more punished in a bridge toll then say Coquitlam to Vancouver. Also Maple Ridge and Pitt meadows are part of the regional growth plan and it does not make sense to punish people moving there when the region wants people to move there.

In most major cities they only toll the freeways (distance based) This makes sense for there are still slower local roads and bridges that are free, but if one wants to travel faster (and live further away with ease) then they pay to be on the freeway.

mrjauk · #**1769** Posted **Sep 18, 2009, 5:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

Doesn't look like they plan on running the line from VCC/Clark to PoMo as one continuous route. How disappointing.

What the hell is wrong with these people?!? Are they not planning ahead? How much money are the actually saving by not doing this? Is the plan to keep running the M-Line as it is with the E-line as a spur to the Coquitlam/Port Moody area? Where the hell did these Translink planners get their education from? Can I write a whole post without a single declarative sentence? No.

Canadian Mind · #**1770** Posted **Sep 18, 2009, 5:48 PM**

I've suggested tolling the whole highway before, but people really don't seem too keen on the idea. Maybe the lack of funds will convince them otherwise.

metroXpress · #**1771** Posted **Sep 18, 2009, 5:50 PM**

^ that document was from May 2009?

metroXpress · #**1772** Posted **Sep 18, 2009, 5:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrjauk

What the hell is wrong with these people?!? Are they not planning ahead? How much money are the actually saving by not doing this? Is the plan to keep running the M-Line as it is with the E-line as a spur to the Coquitlam/Port Moody area? Where the hell did these Translink planners get their education from? Can I write a whole post without a single declarative sentence? No.

They should starting reading all the threads in SSP Vancouver

Gordon · #**1773** Posted **Sep 18, 2009, 5:52 PM**

The report does say that The Evergreen line will be fully integrated the current skytrain allowing seeemles conections.

i would suspect the service plan will be totally up to Translink.

Canadian Mind · #**1774** Posted **Sep 18, 2009, 5:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allen

They should starting reading all the threads in SSP Vancouver

I thought they did.

mr.x · #**1775** Posted **Sep 18, 2009, 5:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gordon

The report does say that The Evergreen line will be fully integrated the current skytrain allowing seeemles conections.

i would suspect the service plan will be totally up to Translink.

It also says there would be a seamless connection to other services like the Expo Line and SeaBus...which doesn't exactly make sense, they don't know what seamless means.

officedweller · #**1776** Posted **Sep 18, 2009, 6:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gordon

The report does say that The Evergreen line will be fully integrated the current skytrain allowing seeemles conections.

i would suspect the service plan will be totally up to Translink.

They probably phrased it that way because there wouldn't be a one-seat ride to Columbia (while there would be a one-seat ride to VCC-Clark).

Stingray2004 · #**1777** Posted **Sep 18, 2009, 6:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allen

^ that document was from May 2009?

Yeah, the revised September, 2009 document is here:

https://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/epic/apps_dat...696a59195336e1f54115f69ddc958ae44d2f.pdf

And it expressly states therein:

Quote:

Fully integrated into the existing Millennium Line system at Lougheed Town Centre Station

Canadian Mind · #**1778** Posted **Sep 18, 2009, 6:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Yeah, the revised September, 2009 document is here:

https://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/epic/apps_dat...696a59195336e1f54115f69ddc958ae44d2f.pdf

And it expressly states therein:

Yea, but are they saying it is integrated as in it is a no-transfer ride from VCC-Clark to PoMo, or is it integrated as in Millennium Line and Expo line pull into the same station at Columbia and thusly VCC-Clark to King George is a "seemless" ride?

cabotp · #**1779** Posted **Sep 18, 2009, 6:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

Yea, but are they saying it is integrated as in it is a no-transfer ride from VCC-Clark to PoMo, or is it integrated as in Millennium Line and Expo line pull into the same station at Columbia and thusly VCC-Clark to King George is a "seemless" ride?

I think that it will be a one seat ride from PoMo to VCC-Clark and trains going from VCC-Clark will either go the PoMo or towards columbia like they do now. It would be the best option as it would mean basically you'd have the Expo Line from King George to Waterfront. And the Evergreen Line would basically go from PoMo to VCC clark. Both would have a certain Frequency. They can then run some trains from Water front to VCC-Clark. To get the higher frequency from Waterfront to Columbia and from Lougheed to VCC-Clark. It would just have lest frequency at Saperton and Braid.

On another note.

I'd support a toll of about $1 on all bridges in both directions. But also have it tied with inflation so the price goes up over time.

As for property tax while I'm not against the idea I do think they need to look at other funding sources first ie fuel tax and tolls.

lightrail · #**1780** Posted **Sep 18, 2009, 8:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrjauk

What the hell is wrong with these people?!? Are they not planning ahead? How much money are the actually saving by not doing this? Is the plan to keep running the M-Line as it is with the E-line as a spur to the Coquitlam/Port Moody area? Where the hell did these Translink planners get their education from? Can I write a whole post without a single declarative sentence? No.

I don't think it precludes running trains through to VCC-Clark. Afterall, it states in 4.9 that the OMC will be an upgraded Edmonds - so trains will have to run deadhead on the Millennium and Expo to reach the OMC.