Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion - Page 726

aberdeen5698 · #**14501** Posted **Jan 20, 2016, 6:33 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

i don't understand why TransLink has roads. that should all be BCMoT. TransLink should only be for transit and not roads. it doesn't make much sense to me.

The theory is that one agency responsible for both can make sensible decisions to optimize transportation across both modes. That means things like adding transit capacity where it's appropriate instead of building bigger bridges, or vice versa.

That's the claim, unfortunately the Provincial Government seems to just use Translink as a whipping boy and it still makes its own capricious decisions about what to fund. It keeps control over bridges it wants to upgrade to itself and blames Translink for not having the funding to build transit lines or replace bridges such as the Patullo which were put under its jurisdiction.

Klazu · #**14502** Posted **Jan 20, 2016, 6:37 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Waders

I don't understand how splitting up Translink into multiple entities would improve the current funding shortage situation.

It doesn't, but it allows for hiring more management. More buddies in cigar room, the merrier?

Kisai · #**14503** Posted **Jan 20, 2016, 7:33 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Well, Christy Clark's Liberals have already shown that they're willing to spend $2.5 billion on transportation, so long as it involves a road.

Taking highways and bridges out of the budget saves about $90 million a year, not counting tunnel replacements and new projects. AFAIK, that's a win.

Not really, not in the short term anyway. Translink should be having de-facto authority and funding control for what it controls. If that means sending a bill to each municipality in Metro Vancouver, do it (translink taxes only covering the most efficient routes.) If the city doesn't want to pay for it, then their services get cut to what they are willing to pay for. That would, in theory, quickly get cities with inefficient expensive transit routes to either cut the routes or start getting developers to develop higher density land uses.

But, in the long term, Translink really needs to either have all, or none of the bridges, and as long as Translink is seen as "bad" by anti-tax trolls like Jordan Bateman, PR favors putting the bridges under Metro Vancouver's Regional district jurisdiction, and maybe at some later point putting Translink under the Regional District, but only as a means of coordinating planning and getting the province and Mayors out of the decision making process. Likewise the Transit police shouldn't be part of Translink, they should be part of a Metro police force, because that is essentially what they are.

The problem Metro Vancouver has is that each city operates like they are their own island, and somehow what they do has no ripple effects on the rest of the Metro area.

BCPhil · #**14504** Posted **Jan 21, 2016, 1:25 AM**

I think Translink should be in charge of more more roads.

By being in charge of roads and transit, it allows one organization to better control infrastructure and optimize it for both uses, instead of competing with each other. If they were both separate entities, they would pretty much have the legal obligation to make as much money as possible, even if that means undermining the other.

The problem is Translink isn't in charge of enough roads to make a difference. For example, if Translink was in control of King George Blvd (instead of Surrey) the bus queue jumper lanes at 88 and around 72 would have happened much sooner and much faster. As well, Surrey seems to be planning the road around LRT, even if that is not what Translink has in mind for future plans.

When Translink is in charge of roads, they can optimize them for transit use, by properly building bus bays and exchanges, and queue jumper and dedicated lanes.

Expanding the Fraser Highway should be a translink responsibility so that it can better integrate it into potential rapid tranist. As it is, the 2 organizations could be playing with 2 different play books, with Surrey deliberately building upgrades on Fraser Hwy to undermine Translink's implementation of Skytrain (forcing them into a corner where they have to accept LRT).

Many roads that are not highways are of a regional importance, and it is unfair to burden the communities where those roads are with their exclusive maintenance when a lot of the traffic on the road might be just passing through. It is also dangerous to let communities meddle with things that are important to others because they might be narrowly focused on themselves.

As it is, how much management, planning and construction jobs are duplicated across every municipality? How much overhead could be saved by amalgamating it under Translink?

CanSpice · #**14505** Posted **Jan 21, 2016, 4:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BCPhil

I think Translink should be in charge of more more roads.

By being in charge of roads and transit, it allows one organization to better control infrastructure and optimize it for both uses, instead of competing with each other. If they were both separate entities, they would pretty much have the legal obligation to make as much money as possible, even if that means undermining the other.

The problem is Translink isn't in charge of enough roads to make a difference. For example, if Translink was in control of King George Blvd (instead of Surrey) the bus queue jumper lanes at 88 and around 72 would have happened much sooner and much faster. As well, Surrey seems to be planning the road around LRT, even if that is not what Translink has in mind for future plans.

When Translink is in charge of roads, they can optimize them for transit use, by properly building bus bays and exchanges, and queue jumper and dedicated lanes.

Expanding the Fraser Highway should be a translink responsibility so that it can better integrate it into potential rapid tranist. As it is, the 2 organizations could be playing with 2 different play books, with Surrey deliberately building upgrades on Fraser Hwy to undermine Translink's implementation of Skytrain (forcing them into a corner where they have to accept LRT).

Many roads that are not highways are of a regional importance, and it is unfair to burden the communities where those roads are with their exclusive maintenance when a lot of the traffic on the road might be just passing through. It is also dangerous to let communities meddle with things that are important to others because they might be narrowly focused on themselves.

As it is, how much management, planning and construction jobs are duplicated across every municipality? How much overhead could be saved by amalgamating it under Translink?

King George Boulevard (and Fraser Highway, for that matter) is already part of the Major Road Network. Maybe they could use the MRN to allow TransLink to have greater controls over those roads since they're already partially under TransLink's jurisdiction?

xd_1771 · #**14506** Posted **Jan 25, 2016, 10:08 PM**

To switch topics for a bit,

Does anyone have per-station ridership figures on our SkyTrain system?
I recall that these were posted somewhere but can't seem to track it down.

CanSpice · #**14507** Posted **Jan 25, 2016, 10:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by xd_1771

To switch topics for a bit,

Does anyone have per-station ridership figures on our SkyTrain system?
I recall that these were posted somewhere but can't seem to track it down.

This document has them from 2005, but only for the Expo Line.

WarrenC12 · #**14508** Posted **Jan 25, 2016, 10:36 PM**

On a related note, will Compass data be more timely and posted publicly?

nname · #**14509** Posted **Jan 25, 2016, 11:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by xd_1771

To switch topics for a bit,

Does anyone have per-station ridership figures on our SkyTrain system?
I recall that these were posted somewhere but can't seem to track it down.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=7305066&postcount=7909

WarrenC12 · #**14510** Posted **Jan 28, 2016, 6:17 PM**

More WiFi and charging stations coming to transit:

http://www.surreyleader.com/news/366869371.html

Express691 · #**14511** Posted **Feb 1, 2016, 5:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

More WiFi and charging stations coming to transit:

http://www.surreyleader.com/news/366869371.html

IIRC There are already a set of power plugs on canada line trains. The workers actually dont mind you using it but as long as it doesnt create a tripling hazard.

Theyre under the seat closest to the articulated joint.

Express691 · #**14512** Posted **Feb 1, 2016, 11:24 PM**

STC XDE60 Update:

No 2015 XDE60 out today; despite a bulletin at STC noting to rollout 2 for today.

Looking at a Wednesday release according to drivers at STC.

TransitJack · #**14513** Posted **Feb 2, 2016, 2:32 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Express691

STC XDE60 Update:

No 2015 XDE60 out today; despite a bulletin at STC noting to rollout 2 for today.

Looking at a Wednesday release according to drivers at STC.

This afternoon at Oak and 49th headed SB around 16:45, I passed 3 of the new XDE60s with STC numbering. Shiny and new, displaying Not in Service.

xd_1771 · #**14514** Posted **Feb 2, 2016, 6:00 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Express691

Looking at a Wednesday release according to drivers at STC.

Perfect. I commute the 96 Wednesdays!!!

BCPhil · #**14515** Posted **Feb 2, 2016, 11:34 AM**

From a distance, I saw a six car Mk I train the other day where all the cars were matching in the new dark livery. Usually there are at least 2 white cars thrown in to keep everything looking ghetto. It looks great all in dark, very slimming.