Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[paradigm4]

Originally Posted by deasine

We do have one... I just can't find it right now. Paradigm4 would be able to show one to you.

[hollywoodnorth]

Originally Posted by deasine

We do have one... I just can't find it right now. Paradigm4 would be able to show one to you.

awesome! I'm stoked to see it ! good work!

[The_Henry_Man]

Originally Posted by paradigm4

Reference to SkyTrain time map

Boy are we slow in our rapid transit development!!

[agrant]

Wouldn't be nearly as exciting without the bus routes.

[CLC]

MJ wrote another letter, and Translink spokesman refuted him:

The Editor,

TransLink is broke and the reasons are easy to understand.

TransLink operates light metro (in the guise of SkyTrain and the Canada Line) on routes that do not have the ridership to support them. SkyTrain is subsidized by more than $230 million annually and to date more than $8 billion has been spent on light metro in the region, yet TransLink’s regional share of ridership is about 11% to 12% and has not changed in almost two decades.

There has not been a discernible modal shift from car to transit in the region in almost two decades.

TransLink operates buses on routes with little or no ridership for social reasons and squanders vast amounts of money trying to please everyone, yet pleasing no one.

TransLink offers deep discounted fares such as the U-Pass while operating a premium light metro system. This causes much crowding of the transit system in strategic areas, discouraging transit customers who pay full fares while at the same time starves TransLink of much needed revenue.

Yet TransLink wants more taxpayers money to do more of the same; building more light metro, operate more buses on questionable routes and offer more deep discounted fares.

Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results has been defined as madness.

Regional politicians must ignore TransLink’s well-orchestrated propaganda campaign of deceit and deception and see the organization for what it is: a poorly run bloated bureaucracy, achieving very little at great expense and walk away from it and let it die a natural death.

Malcolm Johnston, Delta

The Editor,

The latest missive from oft-published letter writer Malcolm Johnston criticizes TransLink for not contributing much toward improving Metro Vancouver’s transportation system. Leaving aside the hundreds of road improvement projects and new bridges we’ve built, let’s compare public transit expansion in the decade before and after TransLink took over.

From 1990 to 1999, the transit system grew by 145 buses, 36 SkyTrain cars, four SkyTrain stations and 83 HandyDART buses.

In April 1999, TransLink became responsible for the system and, working with senior governments, we’ve added 798 buses, 156 SkyTrain cars 29 SkyTrain stations, nine West Coast Express cars and 128 HandyDART buses since then, replacing the trolley fleet and making the whole system accessible in the process.

To be sure, the share of trips on transit has remained steady at about 12% but that’s in the face of massive growth in Metro Vancouver. In fact, the transit system is providing more trips than ever — an estimated 310 million trips this year alone, nearly 90 million more than in 1999.

While this may not make the grade according to Mr. Johnston, most systems in North America would rate it as a pretty major accomplishment.

According to the people who have made in-depth examinations of our region’s transportation challenges, achieving the big breakthrough in terms of switching more trips to public transit will take three things:

• expanding transit strategically;

• managing growth and development in a way that takes full advantage of the current and expanded transit system; and

• bringing in measures that somehow put a price on the road space we consume so that we make the best possible use of it.

Ken Hardie, TransLink

http://www.bclocalnews.com/opinion/letters/63628542.html

[Metro-One]

I did it, i found a picture of Malcolm Johnston!



I should note that Lyle Lanley is the only man that can out fantasize public transit more than Malcolm, he was able to build an entire monorail for less than 3 million!


honestly the guy is insane, if we did not subsidize our public transit system we would have bus schedules and routes akin to that of many American cities, which are terrible for public transit. The U-pas is a great system to encourage transit usage for youth, and no LRT without complete grade separation of full ROW could handle the same loads as our skytrain system. Not to mention our skytrain system is built not just for now, but also the future.

This guy also contradicts himself so much is is hilarious!

Also that transit expansion map is pretty impressive if you ask me. Do remember we are city of only 2.3 million currently and we have now built 3 major metro lines and a commuter rail in only 23 years. Not bad considering the rapid transit additions in most North American cities.

[hollywoodnorth]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I did it, i found a picture of Malcolm Johnston!



I should note that Lyle Lanley is the only man that can out fantasize public transit more than Malcolm, he was able to build an entire monorail for less than 3 million!


honestly the guy is insane, if we did not subsidize our public transit system we would have bus schedules and routes akin to that of many American cities, which are terrible for public transit. The U-pas is a great system to encourage transit usage for youth, and no LRT without complete grade separation of full ROW could handle the same loads as our skytrain system. Not to mention our skytrain system is built not just for now, but also the future.

This guy also contradicts himself so much is is hilarious!

Also that transit expansion map is pretty impressive if you ask me. Do remember we are city of only 2.3 million currently and we have now built 3 major metro lines and a commuter rail in only 23 years. Not bad considering the rapid transit additions in most North American cities.

HEAR HEAR!

[mr.x]

That man is absolutely irritating and non-productive, and his numbers - as always - are fudged.

Fact is, we have many billions more to spend in order to ever see a "discernible modal shift from car to transit in the region in almost two decades" that he so craves for.

And yet, he wants to cut local heavily subsidized bus services?

The guy is out of the loop when he's also arguing for slower service and longer travel times.

So much i could say, but we've all heard it.



Well, one more thing....in a way, he does have a valid point about the U-Pass, except unlike him i'm supportive of it and i would never want to axe it. But the whole "One Pass" initiative, while it does give this sense of "equality" of one universal fee no matter what school you are at, is a terrible idea. Translink's finances aren't looking good at all, the transit system is stressed from all the demand.....it's just not a good idea.

[geoff's two cents]

Originally Posted by mr.x

Well, one more thing....in a way, he does have a valid point about the U-Pass, except unlike him i'm supportive of it and i would never want to axe it. But the whole "One Pass" initiative, while it does give this sense of "equality" of one universal fee no matter what school you are at, is a terrible idea. Translink's finances aren't looking good at all, the transit system is stressed from all the demand.....it's just not a good idea.

Indeed, as a current U-Pass holder, I would not object to it being at least twice as expensive as it currently is - particularly considering that, given the great transit along most major routes in this city, the U-Pass arguably provides a degree of mobility greatly superior to the automobile.

Then again, as a graduate student with external funding, I'm not languishing away on student loans like some poor undergrads. I'm also personally quite dead set against driving unless absolutely necessary (ie. moving), so I don't really need the added incentive to use transit like some others.

Perhaps the U-Pass should be disbursed at its current rate subject to some sort of means test - ie. those with student loans or lower declared incomes get the pass at its current rate, while the rest pay a little more.

[lightrail]

Originally Posted by geoff's two cents

Perhaps the U-Pass should be disbursed at its current rate subject to some sort of means test - ie. those with student loans or lower declared incomes get the pass at its current rate, while the rest pay a little more.

Then they'd need to rename the pass as it is no longer a Universal Pass but the M-pass (Means Pass)

[The_Henry_Man]

MJ fails BADLY in violating a major rule in statistics: CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION!! In his letter:

"TransLink operates light metro (in the guise of SkyTrain and the Canada Line) on routes that do not have the ridership to support them. SkyTrain is subsidized by more than $230 million annually and to date more than $8 billion has been spent on light metro in the region, yet TransLink’s regional share of ridership is about 11% to 12% and has not changed in almost two decades",

he seems to make the claim that the Skytrain system's costs alone CAUSES the waste of money and does little to improve transit elsewhere. There's so many other factors contributing to his claim, not excluding individual cities' lax policy of rezoning, geography and many other factors.

[NewfBC]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

You are not suppose to eat or drink on Japanese trains as well, but somehow they can handle vending machines on every platform. Usually one buys the drink on their way out of the station or buys the drink for later. But again, I guess you are right, i am expecting to much from Westerners.

just like you can buy cigarettes in a store you cant smoke in there! or even better, just like how you can buy cigarettes at the airport but you cant smoke on the plane!

Vending machines on the platform in Japan to buy your last food or drink before you jump in front of the train maybe?

Ron.

[cabotp]

The problem with owning and using a car versus taking transit comes down to the fact that the cost of using a car is not high enough.

Me personally I pay so much for insurance, hardly any maintenace and no loan payments for it. So my two biggest expenses are my insurance and gas. So I calculated what it costs me in fuel to to to work and back for a week. Then I figured out what it would cost to take transit to work and back for a week.

The problem comes down to the fact that if I want to own a car if it is only for pleasure use insurance. It would still be cheaper for me to gas up every day and drive to work. Then it would be for me to park my car and take transit to work. But use my car for pleasure use on my days off.

Of course if I don't have a car. Then yes transit is cheaper. But now I don't have a car which can be a major pain in the ass at times.

This of course is not considering the fact that a trip by transit to my work would be 30 mins longer. Compared to my typical car trip of 25 mins.

Which is why I feel that cost of using a car should be raised some how. Not the cost of owning a car. If you own a car and never use great. But if you own a car and always use it. You should be paying a lot more than just some fuel.

[nova9]

How expensive do you think taking transit is? More expensive than gas and insurance? Are you kidding me?

[cabotp]

I never said (gas + insurance) is more expense than transit. Transit in that case is cheaper, but it means you can not have a car at all.

But (Pleasure Insurance + Monthly Transit Pass), is more expensive than (Regular Insurance + Gas). So by having a car and insuring it, you are forced to drive it.

This is based on my personal experience. I do realize that someone else based on the insurance they pay and the gas they use etc.. They might have a different outcome to cost differences compared to my personal experience.

[nova9]

I see. But if I had a car but I wanted a transit option, I wouldn't get a pass. Because if you wanted to make a 1-zone pass worth it, you'd have to do a 2 way trip each at least 5 days a week.

[cabotp]

True but I'm assuming that the Monthly transit pass would be used for travel to work and back.

Even then if I don't have a Monthly pass and just pay regular fare. Even one return trip on transit, even if I use a fare saver. Costs me more than if I take my car and pay for the gas. Of course this is assuming I'm paying for at least pleasure insurancein both cases.

The only time it would be cheaper is if I want to go downtown. Of course that is due to the cost of parking. Which is an increase in the cost of using my car.

[SpongeG]

from the straight:

There are alternatives to Broadway SkyTrain

I don’t understand the apparent obsession with building a rapid-transit line directly on or under Broadway when a perfectly good alternative route already exists just a few blocks north of Broadway along the 6th Avenue railway spur [Straight Talk, September 24–October 1].

For the most part, this line is already in a deep trench and would only need to be covered—obviously much cheaper and far less disruptive than either a tunnelling or cut-and-cover operation under Broadway itself. The 2nd Avenue–6th Avenue line could easily be connected with the current Millennium Line terminus at VCC, would tie in to the Canada Line at the Olympic Village Station, and—unlike a line on Broadway—would serve Granville Island, a high-volume and hard-to-park destination. From Granville Island, the line could be extended up the Arbutus rail corridor, and then by means of a cut-and-cover operation under the 16th Avenue centre median, out to UBC, thus making it a true “college” line, connecting Douglas College, SFU, VCC, and UBC.

In a time of limited availability of dollars for transit expansion, an “on Broadway” line is just too expensive to be realistic, and this “off Broadway” alternative is the only feasible and sensible solution that is ever likely to come to fruition.

> Gerry Polman / Vancouver

Comments
Coldman
Thu, 2009-10-01 17:01Rating: +5
7 votes This plan makes way too much sense for it to be approved by politicians. Agree Disagree

Kyle
Thu, 2009-10-01 19:24Rating: +4
4 votes That seems like a pretty good plan. Though I'd be concerned that 16th would be too far away from Broadway for any significant shift to occur from the B-Line. Might 10th or 12th be better? And cut-and-cover is no cheaper than bore tunneling, just quicker. Considering the damage cut-and-cover did to Cambie businesses it makes little sense not to have the line go underground as a Subway wherever it turned off Arbutus. Agree Disagree

Eric Chris
Sat, 2009-10-03 01:34Rating: +3
3 votes Gerry, anything is better than the current 99 B-Line transit service. Politically, a deviation from the Broadway route is going to meet resistance from influential residents who don’t want transit in their backyard. Still, there are many transit alternatives or combination of alternatives, like yours which could be pursued.

All it would take is the City of Vancouver to pass a by-law banning diesel buses along the West 4th Avenue and West 10th Avenue trolley bus routes to get rapid transit moving to UBC. The City of Vancouver doesn’t have the leadership or will to take on TransLink, however. I was hoping for the current group of councillors to be better than the previous ones but they’ve turned out to be a huge disappointment, too.
Agree Disagree

Dwight on 4th
Sat, 2009-10-03 16:47Rating: +1
1 vote Consider yourself lucky if you do not have a transit issue with TransLink in Vancouver. If you complain to transportation in Vancouver, you get someone whose cousin works at TransLink and you are out of luck. I agree with Eric, Vancouver council is the single biggest reason for the transit mess to UBC in this city. Agree Disagree

http://www.straight.com/article-260387/there-are-alternatives-broadway-skytrain

[racc]

Originally Posted by The_Henry_Man

MJ fails BADLY in violating a major rule in statistics: CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION!! In his letter:

"TransLink operates light metro (in the guise of SkyTrain and the Canada Line) on routes that do not have the ridership to support them. SkyTrain is subsidized by more than $230 million annually and to date more than $8 billion has been spent on light metro in the region, yet TransLink’s regional share of ridership is about 11% to 12% and has not changed in almost two decades",

he seems to make the claim that the Skytrain system's costs alone CAUSES the waste of money and does little to improve transit elsewhere. There's so many other factors contributing to his claim, not excluding individual cities' lax policy of rezoning, geography and many other factors.

Ironically, LRT opponents in the states cite lack of increase in regional transit mode shares as a reason not to build more LRT in regions.
I suspect the main reason why transit mode shares have not increased in many cities around the world has been two decades of cheap oil. Now that people are spooked about gas prices, I suspect transit mode shares are starting to rise.

Even more ironic is his this statement, "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results has been defined as madness." He has been pushing LRT and fighting SkyTrain for over twenty years by insulting the very people he needs to convince of his case. You would think he would learn that being respectful is more likely to get results after two decades getting the opposite results to what he wants.

[GeeCee]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

from the straight:

Why do people keep insisting upon the damn Arbutus corridor? Sure, the tracks are there, but there's no other reason to put transit there.