Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by cornholio

If it gets to that say hello to one crappy quality of life. You are talking about crippled mobility and flexibility, half our time, money and resources would be spent on duplicating services and just waste as a result of this. Only 3rd world countries can achieve these numbers. There is no prosperous region in the world that functions like this, there may be large cities within densely populated regions where people that are not familiar with the area may get the illusion, but it is nothing but a illusion and not reality when looking at these regions as a whole.

Why cant they continue to invest in to things that will make our lives better, increase our mobility, actually increase our quality of life for once? Why are we so hell bent on destroying what we have built and running our western society in to a brick wall?

Having said that yeah, I want transit as well, I want pedestrian friendly streets, all this, I want a balance. I don't want biased policies, I want policies focused on what they are supposed to be focused on, making our livs better and our cities better.

What makes you think driving is going to get much more expensive?

Right now the high prices are caused by taxes, stupidly high ICBC rates and oil costs. Depending on priorities we can circumvent both these problems. If anything I'd bet it will get less expensive as electric vehicles mature and this ridiculous real estate bubble bursts. Gas prices right now are pushing us over the threshold of developing new technologies to circumvent the high prices we're currently facing.

Electric cars are going to be within a few thousand dollars of most gas cars within the next couple decades. Unless for some reason metal prices skyrocket or electricity prices jump then these shouldn't be much if any more expensive than they are now unless our incomes don't follow inflation. Battery and charging infrastructure has a huge way to come, but at $.06/ kWh this city will be electric in no time. This all adds up to maybe $5K per car, not that much.

Self driving cars are also likely to take off within the next 2 decades, likely massively decreasing insurance costs.

Last but not least infrastructure costs. This is a biggie, but almost all the money that goes into infrastructure stays within the region. Another $20-25B in big capital projects and Vancouver will have both a very mature road system and transit system. With ~3.5M people in the region in 2040 thats about $5,000-8,000 per person spread over a long while. Also not much.

None of this is a game changer unless we use car drivers to massively subsidize other parts of the gov't. Say ICBC's $500M dividends to the gov't, or very large transit subsidies.

[trofirhen]

http://www.blogencommun.fr/blog/wp-content/uploads/plan-metro-grand-paris-arc-express.jpg


Although a lot bigger than Vancouver (Metro population - Ile de France: 9m, Paris Intramuros 2.4m) this is an example of transit planning on a colossal scale. One can see the actual city of Paris in the middle, and how these giant loops will tie the whole city and suburbs together, including both major airports.

Not suggesting this as necessary for Vancouver, but it shows what necessity combined with political will can do. At least, the plans for it are well underway.

(... and it leaves London standing ...)

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by squeezied

I'm not sure I understand. You're saying no prosperous regions around the world can achieve 33/66 mode share? Hong Kong, New York, London, Tokyo? The quality of life might not be as nice as ours but that's what happens when you have a big city.

Greater London is around 30% and is a region of over 14million in a densely populated part of the country, not a good comparison regardless and its not exactly chugging along smoothly. New York is even less then that, and again a region of over 20mill. I will give you that Tokyo is close to 60% but it is a unique scenario that you cant compare to, its a city of 33mill in a extremely densely populated region of Japan, but then again it has been more then struggling, a high quality of life is not what it offers...unless you consider working excessively long hours and living in cramped conditions something we should strive for...and this just to get by. Last of all we have Hong Kong, a tiny micro state of 8mill at the heart of a region of some 40mill. Hong Kong once again is a unique situation that cant be compared to.

Vancouver on the other hand a region of 2.4 mill, in barely populated region of our planet and one of the least densely populated countries around....You want us to be able to compete? Well then we better be able to use our size to our advantage and focus on mobility and efficiency as a result of flexibility, because that's what we have that these megapolisis dont.

Mobility and quality of life go hand in hand. We cant think of these examples as existing in a vacuum as they do not.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

What makes you think driving is going to get much more expensive?

Right now the high prices are caused by taxes, stupidly high ICBC rates and oil costs. Depending on priorities we can circumvent both these problems. If anything I'd bet it will get less expensive as electric vehicles mature and this ridiculous real estate bubble bursts. Gas prices right now are pushing us over the threshold of developing new technologies to circumvent the high prices we're currently facing.

Electric cars are going to be within a few thousand dollars of most gas cars within the next couple decades. Unless for some reason metal prices skyrocket or electricity prices jump then these shouldn't be much if any more expensive than they are now unless our incomes don't follow inflation. Battery and charging infrastructure has a huge way to come, but at $.06/ kWh this city will be electric in no time. This all adds up to maybe $5K per car, not that much.

Self driving cars are also likely to take off within the next 2 decades, likely massively decreasing insurance costs.

Last but not least infrastructure costs. This is a biggie, but almost all the money that goes into infrastructure stays within the region. Another $20-25B in big capital projects and Vancouver will have both a very mature road system and transit system. With ~3.5M people in the region in 2040 thats about $5,000-8,000 per person spread over a long while. Also not much.

None of this is a game changer unless we use car drivers to massively subsidize other parts of the gov't. Say ICBC's $500M dividends to the gov't, or very large transit subsidies.

I agree with you that cars arent going anywhere. It ludicrous to think humanity will be taking a step back as far as mobility goes. Like all things there are ups and downs, right now we are down as far as mobility goes since technology has not kept pace with population growth and demand. This like all things will not last for ever and technology will begin to close the gap again. Like you say eventually electric vehicles, cheaper vehicles, smaller vehicles, smart vehicles, etc. will turn the tide once again. Lets just hope a city like Vancouver will be able to accommodate them.

I am all for transit as well, like I said im just tired of biased policies that will hurt us.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by Echowinds

Plenty of non-developing cities in the world already around 66/33 or better.

http://ltaacademy.gov.sg/doc/J11Nov-p60PassengerTransportModeSHares.pdf

I dont have the time to go through all this and there is no point, once again all the statistics are ignoring the region as a whole and cherry picking their cores and ignoring half their metros, and completely ignoring the regions their in. You will find that if you look at Berlin or Barcelona or any prosperous city in their size class that cars are king for most trips, transit will be in the 20-30% range max. When you look at megapolisis or microstates it gets a bit more complicated in regards to how they function and what they bring to the table.

[twoNeurons]

I disagree with the view of Tokyo. The cost of living there isn't that expensive, since the bubble collapsed some 15 years ago. People don't work long hours to "get by", people (mostly just the man) work long hours for cultural reasons and for good income.

You could make the argument in Vancouver that most households are double-income and scraping by. I'm pretty sure Vancouver's cost of living is close to most Japanese cities if not exceeding them. In most of Japan, most households are single income, and have considerable amounts of disposable income. The standard of living is very good and although typically houses inside cities are smaller, they are more bearable as they use space more efficiently and live a lifestyle that fits that.

80% of Japan is mountains and hills, remember... so although you may live in the city, you're generally not too far from the countryside and wilderness... It's not like Canada, but not many countries are this young.

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by cornholio

...once again all the statistics are ignoring the region as a whole and cherry picking their cores and ignoring half their metros, and completely ignoring the regions their in. You will find that if you look at Berlin or Barcelona or any prosperous city in their size class that cars are king for most trips, transit will be in the 20-30% range max.

The city and state of Berlin actually covers most of the metropolitan area and some 80% of the population lives inside Berlin's city/state border. That makes Berlin one of the most populous cities in Europe within its own city limits, although metropolitan area wise it's not among the biggest.

You are wrong with the public transportation popularity. From Wikipedia:

"With 358 cars per 1000 residents in 2008 (570/1000 in Germany), Berlin as a German state and as a major European city has one of the lowest numbers of cars per capita."

I can't find any statistics on the transit rate in the city, but considering how extensive the public transportation in city is, how many hundreds of millions of trips are annually done and how limited the freeway network inside the city limits is, I would imagine rate being much higher than you suggest.

Having lived five years in Berlin, I think I can't be badly off here. It's definitely not a car-centric city.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by Klazu

The city and state of Berlin actually covers most of the metropolitan area and some 80% of the population lives inside Berlin's city/state border. That makes Berlin one of the most populous cities in Europe within its own city limits, although metropolitan area wise it's not among the biggest.

You are wrong with the public transportation popularity. From Wikipedia:

"With 358 cars per 1000 residents in 2008 (570/1000 in Germany), Berlin as a German state and as a major European city has one of the lowest numbers of cars per capita."

I can't find any statistics on the transit rate in the city, but considering how extensive the public transportation in city is, how many hundreds of millions of trips are annually done and how limited the freeway network inside the city limits is, I would imagine rate being much higher than you suggest.

Having lived five years in Berlin, I think I can't be badly off here. It's definitely not a car-centric city.

I have spent lots of time in Berlin as well, have direct family there, its a 3 hour drive from Prague which is my "#2" home. Berlin has nearly 6 million people within its metro, not 3.5. Inner Berlin has great transit and its used, yes, but its viable because of the rest of Berlin pushing the economy along and unless your a student, poor, or elderly your driving in those parts. Germany as a whole is less urbanized then Canada, plus only 7% live in cities larger then 1mill while in Canada its nearly 50%. The cores people like to highlight are supported by a densely populated car centric country, and vice versa.

Lets look at Prague...1.1mill, the metro has 2.5 mill and its very connected and functions as one. Again ridiculous to cherry pick, in the core of Prague transit is key, yes, and its dam good too, but the rest of the city and region everyone drives. Its the rim of Prague where all the industry and most jobs are.

I dont want to sound anti transit, as I am not, like I said I am tired of cherry picking stats and implementing biased policies that only hurt us and our city and region.

[Echowinds]

Vancouver is the core of Metro Vancouver, and it is not ludicrous to think that walking+transit+biking = 66%. Going from 50% cars and 50% everything else to 33% cars and 66% everything else isn't an impossible goal, and it fits the position that Vancouver is the centre of Metro Vancouver which can obviously maintain greater transit/walking/biking share due to its higher density and matured infrastructure. This is in addition to greater transit connections to the job areas within the suburbs, which will obviously reduce car ownership. Vancouver as a city will gain a couple hundred thousands in population and the metro will have swelled to 3.5 million by 2040. You can have greater transit/walking/biking oriented policies within the core city and you can have more auto-oriented policy in the outer suburbs.

Tokyo is not the workaholic slump that you made it out to be. It's still a thriving metropolis with plenty of public amenity and a place with plenty of opportunities. There are certainly less crowded smaller Japanese cities with high transit share. Some suburbs of Tokyo are certainly not as dense as the core city, but they still have plenty of transit options - in particular their immense rail network.

Germany's urban build form revolves less around concentrated major cities but rather a inter-connected web of smaller cities, but that doesn't necessary mean those smaller cities are really less urban. If you only go by cities over 1m, then there's only 4: Berlin, Hamburg, Munich, and Cologne. These 4 adds together to be around ~7.5m, which is a little less than 10% of Germany's population. In reality, the urban population around the smaller core cities is far greater than that. For instance, Frankfurt's urban area is 2.5m, even though it is mere listed as 670000 in its city. If you go by the municipality method of calculating, a mere 16% of people live in 1m+ cities in Canada: Toronto, Montreal and Calgary. You don't have to emulate the European or Asian cities completely, but you can certainly take the goods and place it in a Vancouver viewpoint.

There's no reason why Vancouver, with its already lacking road infrastructure with no really cheap way to improve it, should try in any way to grow auto-oriented culture when instead they can improve transit, biking, and walking. Just because the city is concentrated on these things doesn't mean the people that absolutely needs to drive can't. It's more of allowing people that have a choice to choose transit/walking/biking instead of a car. By improving those things you are also improving conditions for drivers too.

[dreambrother808]

CTV British Columbia
Published Friday, Nov. 2, 2012 3:01PM PDT
Last Updated Friday, Nov. 2, 2012 3:20PM PDT
Authorities are investigating a suspicious, and potentially explosive package that was found on the SkyTrain tracks in Surrey Friday afternoon.
Mounties say what appear to be a number of propane cylinders strapped together were found at around 2:15 p.m. just east of the Scott Road Station.


Read more: http://bc.ctvnews.ca/possible-explosives-found-on-skytrain-tracks-1.1022574#ixzz2B6iFf4Un

[Robert in Calgary]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Considering that at least I doubt many people can afford driving a car in 2040....

I see little realistic chance of this coming true.


Going back to the city report -
http://former.vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20121030/documents/rr1.pdf

I'm surprised no one has commented on the funding section, page 46 of the pdf -

Actions
T 6.1.1. Continue working with funding partners to expand stable, equitable funding sources to meet transit
demand and achieve ridership goals. Potential sources include (but are not limited to):

a. increased fuel taxes;
b. a regional carbon tax;
c. vehicle registration fees; and
d. regional road pricing.
-------

They want stable funding and they want to expand the amounts raised. The four favourite methods all revolve around people owning vehicles and driving them.

[WaxItYourself]

There were actually 2 bombs. One was between Gateway and Scott Road Skytrain station and the other was found near Metrotown Station

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/11/02/...etrotown-surrey-translink_n_2068632.html

[Mac Write]

Leaving Edmonds tonight our train slowed and as my gut was right we "Detoured" into the middle "Storage Track" through the OMC and then returned to the outbound track at the end of the yard. Wish I could have filmed it.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by WaxItYourself

There were actually 2 bombs. One was between Gateway and Scott Road Skytrain station and the other was found near Metrotown Station

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/11/02/...etrotown-surrey-translink_n_2068632.html

Update in that article:
Investigators confirmed Friday night that the second suspicious package was not an explosive device.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

I thought someone said that Vision "killed" the streetcar idea? .

No, Vision just slagged it to score cheap political points. Now that they can breathe for a couple years, they like it.

[nname]

Proposed Service Optimization for mid to late-2013:

#2 - Discontinued
#22 - Improvement from the #2 trips, extend some trips to Knight & Kingsway
#101 - Route change
#154 - Route change
#153 - Reroute via Schoolhouse (omit Maillardville?)
#159, #177 - Combined (route #159 to United and discontinue #177 and Riverview?)
#179 - Discontinued
#188 - New route serving Bruke Mountain via David, Coast Meridian
#189 - Discontinued
#211 - Discontinue Fairway portion
#227 - New community shuttle route (Arborlynn?)
#229 - Discontinue service past Lynn Valley
#251, #252 - Two-way service and connect to #250 (discontinue downtown portion?)
#312 - Remove Scottsdale Mall detour
#314 - Discontinue River Road segment
#332 - Discontinued
#335 - Reroute via 72nd to Newton
#502 - Discontinue segiment past Langley Centre
#503 - New express service to Aldergrove
#C1, #C2 - Combine route and extend to Kensington
#C21 - Extend to Stanley Park
#C23 - Extend to Thermal Ave
#C24 - Reroute to Foster, Robinson
#C29 - Reroute near Coquitlam Centre area (going straight down Johnson?)
#C30 - Reroute near Coquitlam Centre area (going straight down pipeline??)
#C38 - Reroute near Coquitlam Centre area (remove the Coquitlam "loop"?)
#C41 - Two way service and frequency reduction
#C48 - Discontinue low ridership segment, connect with WCE
#C49 - Discontinue low ridership segment
#C98 - Reroute in Queensborough Landing
#C99 - Discontinued
#N24 - Extend to Lynn Valley


Note, the comments within () are just my speculation, while the text outside of () are official.

I'm surprised that Richmond actually survive this round of optimizations cuts... Unless the new #188 is all-day service, seems like Tri-Cities is getting the big axe again...

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by nname

#335 - Reroute via 72nd to Newton

That is going to make a HUGE difference for Fleetwood travellers
I actually saw this coming. Some TransLink planners were at my SFU course a few weeks ago and hinted at big changes to the 335. This would be it.
I'm curious what's going to happen to late night service though... i.e. 332 runs. And what's this going to do for the whole 335 route. i.e. eastbound frequencies from Gateway Station (which were every 15 minutes on the 332 in the PM Peak, I'm guessing the 335 is going to get this all the way to Fleetwood?)

#503 - New express service to Aldergrove

I'm thinking this would benefit Metro to Abbotsford travellers, but I don't see how it would make any more sense than doing a partnership with B.C. Transit to have a BC Transit operated RapidBus connecting to the TransLink-operated one at Carvolth exchange? Or have the Highway 1 RapidBus extended along 200th St in Langley to better facilitate faster connections for Aldergrove travellers into Surrey/beyond as well as other passengers, in case that's one of the necessities here. I don't see how it would benefit Aldergrove travellers that much if it were introduced with only a limited daily frequency or limited hour service (at least that's what I see coming out of it).
EDIT: Noticed that 502 will be discontinued past Langley Ctr

[nname]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

That is going to make a HUGE difference for Fleetwood travellers
I actually saw this coming. Some TransLink planners were at my SFU course a few weeks ago and hinted at big changes to the 335. This would be it.
I'm curious what's going to happen to late night service though... i.e. 332 runs. And what's this going to do for the whole 335 route. i.e. eastbound frequencies from Gateway Station (which were every 15 minutes on the 332 in the PM Peak, I'm guessing the 335 is going to get this all the way to Fleetwood?)

It might just become a short-turned #335...

Actually, in the list, it just says "combine #332 and #335 and reroute to Newton via 72nd". The only logical way I see from this is to discontinue the #335 since the other way around doesn't make sense.. Or, they can discontinue both and make it a #339? But they'll at least mention the "new" route in this case, like the other ones.

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by nname

It might just become a short-turned #335...

Actually, in the list, it just says "combine #332 and #335 and reroute to Newton via 72nd". The only logical way I see from this is to discontinue the #335 since the other way around doesn't make sense.. Or, they can discontinue both and make it a #339? But they'll at least mention the "new" route in this case, like the other ones.

I think they mean the discontinuation of the 332 (which is basically the 108th Ave segment of 335 with additional peak hour and late-night service) and then the reroute of the 335 to continue and parallel the 341 into Newton at 148th & 84th (and I don't see much need for a change in route number). Then the 335 would just be signed "335 Newton", "335 Surrey Central" or maybe "335 Newton via Fleetwood". Then it'd be much like the 32X series routes that tackle Newton-Surrey Central via the different roads, except taking a longer route. I honestly think that the connection heading back up to Fleetwood from 148/84 is not very useful anyway - at least now that there is a defined FTN in place on Fraser Highway.

Is there anything in there about frequency increases or decreases? i.e. anything new to the FTN

[nname]

Or.. it can go down the 152nd from 84th and then turn on the 72nd? This would actually bring new service to the intersection of 72nd and 148th.

Detail for the changes would be posted on Nov. 19.