Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[nname]

The funny thing is, TransLink is not the one who decide the price of U-Pass. I remembered when the program was to be expanded, the price for most other institutions would be around $40-$55, and for UBC and SFU I think TransLink would've got more than $30 after the school and VanCity chipped in. However, the provincial government fixed the price of the program to $30 throughout the province.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by jhausner

I am debating the concept of a student going to UBC paying $35 a month to take transit anywhere vs kids from ages 5 to 19 and the elderly (65+) needing to pay $52 a month for the same services. Why is a select group of people capable of affording to go to a University given such a discount compared to everyone else is all especially given the program LOSES MONEY.

Translink looses money on students and seniors too, should we take away their concession fares?

For every UBC student paying $35 to take the bus, there's another UBC student also paying $35 and not taking the bus, since the pass is mandatory (may not be the exact ratio, but you get the idea). So I doubt that the UBC students are really costing Translink any more per actual rider than other concession fares.

[nname]

TransLink loose money on everything, beside the SkyTrain and probably a few bus lines. The more riders they get, the more money they loose. By this logic, we should eliminate public transit all together.

[Xrayal]

BCRTC has issued a RFP to reconnect the OMC to the old bombardier factory.Link
Some Quotes:
"TransLink and BCRTC lease the OMC2 facility."
"Restoration of the Train Track from BCRTC’s Operation Maintenance Centre 1 (OMC 1) to Operation Maintenance Centre 2 (OMC 2)"
"To improve operating and maintenance efficiencies as well as undertake future projects"

[officedweller]

Nice find!

Note the photos in the Cover Letter and drawings if you click on "Supplier attachments exist" in the upper right corner.

[xd_1771]

I think that building is going to be used for the final assembly of the 2016 Mark III (Innovia METRO) rolling stock, as well as the Mk I refurbishment process. Nice that they're getting it going now.

[jsbertram]

Buried deep in official PDFs:

OMC2 Completion Project
$1,600,000
Modify and upgrade a newly leased facility adjacent to the current BCRTC OMC to accommodate:
• 100 - 400 Series MK I Refurbishment Project
• Exterior Painting of MK I and MK II Vehicles
• Post - Delivery Assembly of MK III Vehicles for the Evergreen Line
• Storage of Additional Train Parts
• SkyTrain Vehicle Off - Loading


source:
2012 Statutory Annual Report - TransLink
http://www.translink.ca/~/media/document...ory_annual_report_%20and_appendices.ashx

[Mac Write]

Someone with a nice 500mm lens needs to get out there and do some before photos. I live 3 blocks alway but due to mobility issues can't get up there . I would love to see a public off-loading of a train-car. Drool.

I have a blurry photo of 147 sitting on the track outside the building when it was awaiting parts.

[Tfreder]

9 articulated buses were transferred to Surrey Transit Centre for the 96 b-line. 2 have been there for a couple of weeks now but the rest are new arrivals.


courtesy of Translink Buses

[MIPS]

Originally Posted by Xrayal

BCRTC has issued a RFP to reconnect the OMC to the old bombardier factory.Link
Some Quotes:
"TransLink and BCRTC lease the OMC2 facility."
"Restoration of the Train Track from BCRTC’s Operation Maintenance Centre 1 (OMC 1) to Operation Maintenance Centre 2 (OMC 2)"
"To improve operating and maintenance efficiencies as well as undertake future projects"

The link says my session is constantly expired but wait, so THAT's what that extra unused bridge over the road was for? IF they're referring to the building across the street that has the large loading door and the tracks embedded in the pavement I've always wondered what that building was and WHY that bridge was built when it had no connections on either side.

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by MIPS

The link says my session is constantly expired but wait, so THAT's what that extra unused bridge over the road was for? IF they're referring to the building across the street that has the large loading door and the tracks embedded in the pavement I've always wondered what that building was and WHY that bridge was built when it had no connections on either side.

the building on the east side of the 1st OMC centre IIRC was built (1999?) for final assembly for the first batch of MkII trains for the M-line. Politicians at the time hoped it would continue on with orders from asia for skytrain, but the demand wasn't there and it was closed and mothballed. IIRC a few years ago it was used as a Mr Jax clothing warehouse.

[Mac Write]

When Bombardier lost the bid for the Canada Line they sold the building. (Now if Canada Line had been built by Bombardier, we would have 80m platforms, more train sets for all line…oh ya and cost less money for the tax payer.

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by mezzanine

the building on the east side of the 1st OMC centre IIRC was built (1999?) for final assembly for the first batch of MkII trains for the M-line. Politicians at the time hoped it would continue on with orders from asia for skytrain, but the demand wasn't there and it was closed and mothballed. IIRC a few years ago it was used as a Mr Jax clothing warehouse.

I don't know who told you that, but there's not really anything we can source as to what happened to that building. However, I can source why it opened (Glen Clark made the BC factory a condition for a deal with Bombardier, on the basis that it would create jobs in BC; Bombardier didn't even want to build it)

My own speculation is that the reason Bombardier sold it has less to do with sales volume, and has more to do with:
1. No more Glen Clark (deal is pretty much void)
2. More than enough facilities in Ontario (think of why Bombardier never wanted to build the Vancouver building - perhaps their Ontario factories had more than enough building capacity)
2. Changes in ART design made the building quite unnecessary (see below)

Look at the Beijing Airport Express Mk II cars. Those weren't even manufactured by Bombardier; Bombardier gave the blueprints to Changchun Railways Co. (CNR) and so they were made in China. They could do this with a number of other companies. It's a decent arrangement, as it can save cost on the stakeholders' end.

The arrangement for putting together newest Bombardier ART design (INNOVIA Metro) by initial + final assembly can also attest to why Bombardier doesn't really need a Vancouver factory. Bombardier's facilities are usually only required for initial assembly, so it's not like there's the need for so much extra factory space. I'm pretty sure this arrangement can be made throughout their product lineup; i.e. with MOVIA metro and others.

Heck, to attest to ART's modularity, some sources seem to indicate that the linear motor parts for Beijing's Mk IIs were apparently taken from a Chinese company called Harbin Electric, who had at the time just pioneered LIM technology. I'm not certain about this, but Harbin Electric did release a photo of their first "test car" for their linear motor - the front end of a Beijing Airport Express Mark II vehicle with a ribbon on it.

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

I don't know who told you that

My source is me riding on skytrain and seeing a "Mr. Jax" sign by the OMC2.


The bigger point was that the OMC2 was definitely not used for skytrain-related activity.

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by Mac Write

When Bombardier lost the bid for the Canada Line they sold the building. (Now if Canada Line had been built by Bombardier, we would have 80m platforms, more train sets for all line…oh ya and cost less money for the tax payer.

This i'd like to source.

[jlousa]

That fact is often misquoted. Yes Bombardier could've come in with a slightly cheaper bid then the one they submitted (unsure if they would've won regardless), but as the lines were not being intertwined it would've been an unfair competitive advantage and the competitors could've tied things up for years and probably win the court case. The way the RFP was issued ensured a fair and transparent process, even if it appears to have cost us some money.

[Mac Write]

I thought Bombardier said they would have given us a discount which would have made there bid lower then the other bid.

[jlousa]

It`s possible but without an actual proposal Bombardier could state anything they`d like. It`s like the story of the shopkeeper.

Client walks into a store to buy a tv, shopkeeper says it`s $600. Client argues that other shop is selling it for $500. Shopkeeper states when then buy it there. Client states he can`t other shop is all out of tvs. Shopkeeper replies well when we`re all out our prices are only $400.

[Mac Write]

It's somewhere deep in the Canada Line thread.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Meh unfortunately I think you're wrong but I don't have the time to counter your points other than saying that all the U-Pass system actually did is increase demand on public transit services by people that don't contribute to the funding of those services and who upon graduation, more often than not will only stick with transit if it is 1) the cheapest and 2) most convenient mode of transportation for them, something they would do anyway and everyone else on this planet does already, without the U-Pass program.

At the end of the day based on Translinks own ridership numbers and the fact in the last 5 years they have seen a decrease in transit uptake and the only "major" increases happened when 1) the Millenium line opened and 2) the Canada Line opened, tells me the U-Pass program could vanish and we wouldn't really notice a thing other than $7-9 million more in translink's pocket books every year. And people wonder why they are headed towards bankruptcy.

If I remember correctly the U-Pass program was put in place as an incentive to get students to use Transit. The idea started down at the University of Washington in Seattle. At the time some students were taking transit, but a lot were driving because the cost of driving was lower. So they brought in the U-Pass program to make transit more affordable for a student. More students on transit equals less students driving. Less students driving equals not having to worry about wear all those vehicles will park.

The other thought was that after post secondary school while some students would probably get back to driving once their u-pass is finished. There might be some that will stick with transit. So then over time that would bring in more potential customers who would be paying full rate as an adult in their working career.

Think of it this way if there was no U-Pass program. Chances are the 99-B would not be as packed as it is. With a less packed 99-B the chances of getting a grade separated rail system along there would probably have been lower.

EDIT

People need to realize one thing. Transit is not in business to make money. Sure some routes will make money due to high demand. But the overall transit will never make money. Transit is a public service that is designed to serve the public not make money. Private transit companies that try and make money end up cutting service to outlying areas so much that it hurts the inner areas. This then forces them to raise prices or cut service even more. And thus the circle continues of worse service and higher prices.