Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by st7860

So if Trudeau wins, I wonder if he really will fund the broadway line out to UBC... hmm

The federal third to fund the Broadway SkyTrain was never in question. Neither was the provincial third. 66% of the money is guaranteed. The other third has to be ponied up by the municipalities, and that's what the whole referendum was about.

The money promised by various parties in the federal election was there all along, and that they're promising the money for projects in Metro Vancouver that they damn well know can't go ahead without the municipal share is really misleading. They're promising money that they know they'll never have to spend so that they can get some votes.

The federal Liberals can pledge eleventy trillion dollars towards transit in Metro Vancouver all they want; it won't get us anywhere closer to where we are today.

[Sheba]

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

The federal third to fund the Broadway SkyTrain was never in question. Neither was the provincial third. 66% of the money is guaranteed. The other third has to be ponied up by the municipalities, and that's what the whole referendum was about.

The money promised by various parties in the federal election was there all along, and that they're promising the money for projects in Metro Vancouver that they damn well know can't go ahead without the municipal share is really misleading. They're promising money that they know they'll never have to spend so that they can get some votes.

The federal Liberals can pledge eleventy trillion dollars towards transit in Metro Vancouver all they want; it won't get us anywhere closer to where we are today.

That's not entirely true. There's nothing theoretically stopping them from funding 2/3rds of the project, or 100% of it.

[st7860]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

The federal third to fund the Broadway SkyTrain was never in question. Neither was the provincial third. 66% of the money is guaranteed. The other third has to be ponied up by the municipalities, and that's what the whole referendum was about.

The money promised by various parties in the federal election was there all along, and that they're promising the money for projects in Metro Vancouver that they damn well know can't go ahead without the municipal share is really misleading. They're promising money that they know they'll never have to spend so that they can get some votes.

The federal Liberals can pledge eleventy trillion dollars towards transit in Metro Vancouver all they want; it won't get us anywhere closer to where we are today.

oops. so you mean the Liberals are taking credit for a preexisting promise?

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by Bdawe

I'm not thinking of moving the port, and I don't really conceive of that happening soon. Perhaps changes in trading patterns, or technology could cause the south side of Burrard to become unnecessary for heavy port operations. As ships have gotten bigger, perhaps more traffic will be routed to the expanding Delta Port, or other similar operations freeing up the CP mainline.

With respect to demand post evergreen line, Translink expects it to grow. I find this quite plausible

For one, it will still be the fastest means of getting from shared stations to Downtown without transfer. It has a better connection to the Canada Line. It's more comfortable, has a coffee shop, more likely to get a seat, tables, and is marginally more reliable.

Furthermore, the Evergreen and the WCE support eachother in some ways. The Evergreen Line increases the effective transitshed of WCE stations. You can take the skytrain from Lafarge Lake, Ioco, or Burquitlam or so forth. It also increases the utility of the WCE for Pitt Meadows, Maple Ridge and Mission riders who can access more employment centers like Metrotown conveniently by transferring at Port Moody to the Skytrain

This is my thinking too.

On one hand, I'm sure there are a lot of riders from the Port Moody and Coquitlam station areas that currently ride the WCE, will now switch to Skytrain to save the money.

On the other, I'm sure there are a lot of people who currently do not ride the WCE because it doesn't fit their needs properly. There are a lot of people along the WCE route that don't work downtown, and now being able to transfer to Skytrain to take you into Burnaby will attract some new riders.

Also, the last train home is pretty early for a lot of workaholics (the 6:20 train is packed full every time I take it). So if you live in Coquitlam, and often work until 6:30, transit is useless to get you home. It is a pain to get to some areas, especially after peak service hours. So, even if WCE can get you to work, you would probably drive anyway, because it would save you an hour on the way home every day vs conventional transit.

But now that Skytrain can save you a lot of time on those late nights, people that currently drive downtown might switch to WCE, using it most days and feel confident that the Evergreen line is a good backup to get home if they work late.

[Bdawe]

With respect to the 6:20, while that train is full, it's also only a four car train, no? The most packed frequencies get up to ten cars IIRC

[Waders]

So the FareSaver ticket shortage isn't a TransLink ploy to get you using the Compass card.

I do wonder why Translink doesn't encourage the switch to Compass card.

[Mac Write]

If Translink is going to get rid of the Faresaver tickets once Compass is fully rolled out (including on HandyDart), what will happen to people paying cash on the bus as Translink has said it won't upgrade the fareboxes to support compass tickets? If i am not mistaken the transfer tickets issued form the fare box, SkyTrain TVM's (soon to be Compass tickets so never mind for TVM's), etc are printed on the same stock used for FareSaver tickets. It doesn't make sense to me to stop Faresaver sales while still using the paper stock to order transfer tickets for the bus.

[Meraki]

Originally Posted by Mac Write

If Translink is going to get rid of the Faresaver tickets once Compass is fully rolled out (including on HandyDart), what will happen to people paying cash on the bus as Translink has said it won't upgrade the fareboxes to support compass tickets? If i am not mistaken the transfer tickets issued form the fare box, SkyTrain TVM's (soon to be Compass tickets so never mind for TVM's), etc are printed on the same stock used for FareSaver tickets. It doesn't make sense to me to stop Faresaver sales while still using the paper stock to order transfer tickets for the bus.

Paper tickets issued on the bus will not be valid for transfer onto SkyTrain. If you pay cash on the bus you will have to pay again to ride SkyTrain.

It's a way to push people onto Compass.

[Mac Write]

I know the bus transfers won't work on SkyTrain, but my point is that they are the same as FaverSavers, (same card with megstrip). so I am wondering as to why they will keep them around since they both are the same. Doesn't make sense. I know Compass Tickets are the replacement.

[TransitFreak]

Originally Posted by Mac Write

I know the bus transfers won't work on SkyTrain, but my point is that they are the same as FaverSavers, (same card with megstrip). so I am wondering as to why they will keep them around since they both are the same. Doesn't make sense. I know Compass Tickets are the replacement.

To allow transfers from bus to bus. That media will be exclusively buses only and they won't incentivize that form of payment with any fare savers. Only discount is to get the compass card.

[Mac Write]

I understand, I am saying the Bus transfers and FareSavers are produced the same way.

It's just ironic.

[logan5]

Every time I get down on Skytrain, I just have a look at LRT projects in other cities. The Orange Line in Portland just opened. At grade, slow as molasses, and long wait times for almost exactly the same price as the Evergreen Line.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by logan5

Every time I get down on Skytrain, I just have a look at LRT projects in other cities. The Orange Line in Portland just opened. At grade, slow as molasses, and long wait times for almost exactly the same price as the Evergreen Line.

This. I've always hated LRT on paper despite having never tried it. This summer I went to Portland and rode every LRT line end to end and it cemented my beliefs. So slow when in an urban environment and so inefficient when travelling alongside a freeway. Truly a mode that I hope will never come to Metro Vancouver.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Truly a mode that I hope will never come to Metro Vancouver.

lets hope future Governments have the same sense that the Province had back in the 1980's. LRT was the original, but thankfully someone had the sense to do ALRT, grade separated, "SkyTrain," capable of 100km/hr+.

[Rico]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

This. I've always hated LRT on paper despite having never tried it. This summer I went to Portland and rode every LRT line end to end and it cemented my beliefs. So slow when in an urban environment and so inefficient when travelling alongside a freeway. Truly a mode that I hope will never come to Metro Vancouver.

I like Skytrain for our denser environments but I have also been on plenty of tram lines in Europe and on Calgary's C train and they work well, the catch is European style street running systems need the political will for exclusive or near exclusive lanes without turn conflicts as well as near absolute signal preemption (something we are unlikely to get in any LRT here). For Calgary type system we needed to reserve suitable right of ways 60 years ago (and we did not so..). LRT can be made as good as you are willing to pay for it, either in expensive grade seperation or political costs by taking away road capacity. In dense environments with enough riders Skytrain/metro type systems are worth it, in places like Surrey it may be a GOOD LRT system will be better value.

[Bdawe]

Originally Posted by Rico

I like Skytrain for our denser environments but I have also been on plenty of tram lines in Europe and on Calgary's C train and they work well, the catch is European style street running systems need the political will for exclusive or near exclusive lanes without turn conflicts as well as near absolute signal preemption (something we are unlikely to get in any LRT here). For Calgary type system we needed to reserve suitable right of ways 60 years ago (and we did not so..). LRT can be made as good as you are willing to pay for it, either in expensive grade seperation or political costs by taking away road capacity. In dense environments with enough riders Skytrain/metro type systems are worth it, in places like Surrey it may be a GOOD LRT system will be better value.

No discussion of the success of Calgary LRT can be complete without reference to Calgary urban planning policies, which not only reserved rights of way, but also strongly discouraged job-sprawl and considerably limited the amount of parking. Calgary has considerably less downtown parking than Vancouver, and the cost of parking is considerably higher

The result is that large numbers of people have no choice but to transit into town, regardless of mode choice. Surrey does not have the will power to clamp down on parking, nor do they have the job-concentration to make the radial system work terribly well

[bardak]

Originally Posted by Bdawe

No discussion of the success of Calgary LRT can be complete without reference to Calgary urban planning policies, which not only reserved rights of way, but also strongly discouraged job-sprawl and considerably limited the amount of parking. Calgary has considerably less downtown parking than Vancouver, and the cost of parking is considerably higher

The result is that large numbers of people have no choice but to transit into town, regardless of mode choice. Surrey does not have the will power to clamp down on parking, nor do they have the job-concentration to make the radial system work terribly well

You could argue that Calgary's downtown has created the same effect as congestion pricing due to the price of parking.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Rico

I like Skytrain for our denser environments but I have also been on plenty of tram lines in Europe and on Calgary's C train and they work well, the catch is European style street running systems need the political will for exclusive or near exclusive lanes without turn conflicts as well as near absolute signal preemption (something we are unlikely to get in any LRT here). For Calgary type system we needed to reserve suitable right of ways 60 years ago (and we did not so..). LRT can be made as good as you are willing to pay for it, either in expensive grade seperation or political costs by taking away road capacity. In dense environments with enough riders Skytrain/metro type systems are worth it, in places like Surrey it may be a GOOD LRT system will be better value.

My big beef with LRT is that if the area doesn't warrant metro service, as you say Surrey doesn't, then I believe that a bus would serve its needs just as well. It's not 🞵🞵🞵🞵, but it can provide very similar results for a fraction of the costs. The argument of a place not supporting a metro assumes that the place will never see growth, which is of course not likely. Even with exclusive lanes the LRT is limited to speed limits and if its given its own right of way, as it is in Calgary, then it has serious urban design issues (such as permanently dividing an area in two and harming access between the two sides), not to mention the inefficiency of building LRT up Crowfoot Trail when a bus could provide the exact same level of service.

As far as better value goes, SkyTrain is hands down the winner. Spending slightly more money (in the case of Surrey) to significantly improve transit makes a lot more sense than spending nearly the same amount to create virtually no improvement over existing bus service, other than public perception.

Public perception is what I find to be the most popular argument people make in favour of rail-based transit. As in "people won't ride buses, but they'll ride a train." My point of view is, then screw those people. But I get that that's just a point of view, and I certainly see the other side as well. For this reason I don't support streetcars either; sure they're prettier but they add virtually nothing to improving your actual service levels. But it's really an argument of what your goal is for your transit agency, one which doesn't have an answer.

[st7860]

Originally Posted by Rico

I like Skytrain for our denser environments but I have also been on plenty of tram lines in Europe and on Calgary's C train and they work well, the catch is European style street running systems need the political will for exclusive or near exclusive lanes without turn conflicts as well as near absolute signal preemption (something we are unlikely to get in any LRT here). For Calgary type system we needed to reserve suitable right of ways 60 years ago (and we did not so..). LRT can be made as good as you are willing to pay for it, either in expensive grade seperation or political costs by taking away road capacity. In dense environments with enough riders Skytrain/metro type systems are worth it, in places like Surrey it may be a GOOD LRT system will be better value.

Also of course the headway's on Skytrain(as little as every minute during rush hour) are unmatched by most systems in the world, big or small.