My guess is that when (if) evergreen ever gets built, the line VCC-Clark to Coquitlam will become the Evergreen Line, and the Millennium line from Waterfront will terminate at Lougheed. Operationally it would be too difficult to schedule the Millennium to fit between trains on two separate lines (Expo and Evergreen) without delays. So the operation would look like this:
1. Expo - Waterfront to King George
2. Millennium - Waterfront to Lougheed
3. Evergreen - VVC-Clark to Douglas College
That's my feeling on how it will work too. Then once Broadway is built, the trains on it would be Evergreen line trains (UBC - Douglas College).
I think from an operational standpoint you really need to have Evergreen line built. By having 2 functionally independent lines, you can run trains on independent frequencies as required by demand.
IE: you could have trains run from Waterfront to Surrey every 90 seconds (with a M-Line train thrown in ever 3 or 4 trains) and from VCC (or UBC) to Douglas every 90 seconds (which you might need for the Broadway Portion) without there being a scheduling bottle neck anywhere. You can have trains group in peak direction without having almost empty trains running the reverse as is the case now to get trains on/off the Millennium line.
That's my feeling on how it will work too. Then once Broadway is built, the trains on it would be Evergreen line trains (UBC - Douglas College).
I think from an operational standpoint you really need to have Evergreen line built. By having 2 functionally independent lines, you can run trains on independent frequencies as required by demand.
IE: you could have trains run from Waterfront to Surrey every 90 seconds (with a M-Line train thrown in ever 3 or 4 trains) and from VCC (or UBC) to Douglas every 90 seconds (which you might need for the Broadway Portion) without there being a scheduling bottle neck anywhere. You can have trains group in peak direction without having almost empty trains running the reverse as is the case now to get trains on/off the Millennium line.
Totally agree. It is better to have trains running without any branches because it maximises the capacity all along the line. It also is cheaper because you don't have to maintain points for switching trains all day. For example, if you have trains branching (alternating) at some point, the switch has to move for every train. With a 3 minute frequency, the points would have to move 20 times an hour, or about 400 movements every day - that's a lot of wear and tear. finally, without interlining the routes, if one line is delayed or fails, it has no effect on the other lines.
Announcement expected today on long-awaited Evergreen Line
BY KELLY SINOSKI, VANCOUVER SUN JULY 6, 2011
Quote:
Metro Vancouver mayors are expected to announce this afternoon how they plan to fund the long-awaited Evergreen Line linking Burnaby and Coquitlam.
The regional mayors' council on transportation met this morning to hammer out funding options for both short and long-term projects, including the Evergreen Line as well as other rapid transit lines for Surrey and the Broadway corridor to the University of B.C.
...
It's a good way for them to deflect blame away from themselves, at least. When people think about the high cost at the pump, they get mad at the oil companies when in BC we're rapidly approaching 50% of the cost in taxes alone. This will put us at 41.06c/L in tax (provincial portion, carbon, federal excise) before the GST portion of the HST according to http://www.myhusky.ca/fuel/for_you/bc_fuel_tax_rates.html .
I will begrudgingly support this gas tax to get the Evergreen Line moving.
I just angers me that they have decided upon a flat tax that hits the lower income / working poor harder than the wealthy, unlike the proposed property tax which hits the wealthy more than the lower income.
Yay. I had to buy a car because the transit service in North Van is god-awful (I gave being car-free an honest five years) and now I get to subsidize a train line to distant suburbs with sparse population.
They don't give a damn about helping people get around. It's all about property tax revenue.
Where's the gas tax to support the meager cost of operation for the third seabus? It was the only reason I moved to the CNV! Oh that's right, it doesn't need one since the seabus is profitable.
I love being punished for choosing a small condo near work over a big new house in the middle of nowhere. Livable, green city my —.
I just angers me that they have decided upon a flat tax that hits the lower income / working poor harder than the wealthy, unlike the proposed property tax which hits the wealthy more than the lower income.
Well except the poor's propensity to consume gasoline is much lower than that of the rich. The poor are more likely to take transit or drive smaller more fuel efficent cars.
Gas taxes are looking more and more like a luxury tax
Yay. I had to buy a car because the transit service in North Van is god-awful (I gave being car-free an honest five years) and now I get to subsidize a train line to distant suburbs with sparse population.
Bus service in the Tri-Cities area is just as awful as North Van... In fact, I just counted my service hour data, and the Tri-Cities got a mere 5% more service for 40% higher population... (Routes 28, 130, 255, 701, and 791 were excluded from the calculation)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinion
Where's the gas tax to support the meager cost of operation for the third seabus? It was the only reason I moved to the CNV! Oh that's right, it doesn't need one since the seabus is profitable.
SeaBus's cost recovery is 85%. But if they add a third SeaBus, it would drop the recovery to ~60% unless the ridership is much much higher.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinion
I love being punished for choosing a small condo near work over a big new house in the middle of nowhere. Livable, green city my —.
I guess you haven't come to Coquitlam in at least 10 years....
I'd like to see the math on this. 2c/L is really not too bad, but how is an ongoing income source turned into a capital project cost. What is the amortization period for this?
Oh well, at least it's done.
Plenty of whining on that Vancouver Sun article. I'm a downtown resident who still uses his car and motorcycle to get around. I will hardly ever use the Evergreen Line, yet I support it.
jesus, can't believe it took them all that time to come up with this one. something tells me it was a matter of clark having replaced gordo that finally unfastened the door on this one. damn.
Yay. I had to buy a car because the transit service in North Van is god-awful (I gave being car-free an honest five years) and now I get to subsidize a train line to distant suburbs with sparse population.
2006:
Coquitlam - 114,565
Port Coquitlam - 52,687
Port Moody - 27,512
North Vancouver (district) - 82,562
North Vancouver (city) - 45,165
Yay. I had to buy a car because the transit service in North Van is god-awful (I gave being car-free an honest five years) and now I get to subsidize a train line to distant suburbs with sparse population.
You don't seem to understand the concept here. Translink raises money from the entire region - it doesn't matter whether they collect it from property taxes or from gas taxes - either way you're going to pay. Even if you rent the property tax increase on rental properties is eventually going to end up being paid by the tenants.
You live in Greater Vancouver, expect to pay for Greater Vancouver services. Surrey residents paid for that third Seabus just as much as you did.
great news! more suprising is the lack of acrimony in today's announcement. I'm glad my predictions are wrong, for now.
The other proposals contingent will likely cause more strife politacally later, but get those shovels in the ground!
Quote:
Goldsmith-Jones said mayors also expect to approve an annual vehicle levy that could vary – possibly based on a vehicle's carbon footprint – between $10 and $40 per vehicle per year.
The two-cent gas tax, vehicle levy (called a Transportation Improvement Fee) and a potential small property tax hike need to generated a combined $70 million a year to cover TransLink's planned spending supplement.
It includes not just the 11-kilometre Evergreen Line SkyTrain extension but also a broader package of upgrades intended to give something to all parts of the region.
It includes:
- RapidBus improvements south of the Fraser to create a new B-Line express from Surrey's SkyTrain hub to Guildford and to White Rock via King George Boulevard and Highway 1 RapidBus improvements from Langley to Lougheed Station.
- More frequent SeaBus sailings of every 15 minutes all day, plus three-vessel service allowing sailings every 10 minutes for special events
- SkyTrain and SeaBus station upgrades to key transit hubs such as Main Street, Metrotown, Surrey Central, New Westminster and Lonsdale Quay.
- $20 million a year for road work and $6 million a year for cycling projects.
- Other conventional bus improvements adding new routes, more frequent service and more capacity, including a promised new route from White Rock to Langley via Grandview Heights. The extra service would address congestion and accomodate population growth and the expanded U-Pass system.
Prev
Again when the M-Line is extended down Broadway they should build a third platform at Columbia at the same time.
Linear Mode
