Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by WBC

The reason why you cannot demand higher benefits in private sector through work stoppage is that there is this thing called competition. You don't want to work - well somebody else will, or somebody else's company will get the job done.

You've got that completely backwards. With some organization and some confidence, the minimum wage workers could hold giant companies hostage. You think there's a lineup of people dying to work at McDonalds?!

See this recent article on restaurant workers:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-restaurants-staff-shortage-1.3539294

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by ShuttleMan

You make good points in your whole post but highlighted a particular bit and I want to ask a question and I'm not trying to be combatative at all... my question: Do you use transit on a regular basis?

The reason I ask is because working conditions are a huge part of the concerns right now. Lack of time in a scheduled run to do basic things like have a washroom break, a quick bite to eat or even a short walk after sitting in a seat for one or two hours (or more) at a stretch is a major concern health-wise for many people. Unfortunately, taking time to do any of this then puts the operator further under the gun as now the bus is late. People love to remind the drivers of that at every stop. And I mentioned before that being spit at is generally not what one would call an ideal working condition. Try any bus leaving downtown on a Friday or Saturday night to see the best and worst of what happens in a day in the life...

I don't remember seeing too many Wal-Mart or Safeway employees getting punched and washrooms are only a few steps away, and I agree that part-time employees ARE a loophole-ish (and shady)way for some companies to avoid paying benefits, but one can hardly argue that the working conditions are the same.

And a living wage is the minimum amount required to cover BASIC expenses: food, rent, transportation, healthcare and so on. It does not include things like savings, vacations, and more. Again, one can argue that a family may be able to "get by" on that but only if they never want a nice vacation or to one day buy a house or send their kids to school.

One needs to differentiate between "people are entitled jerks" and "people just had a bad day"

In the case of grocery stores, compare the experience of shopping at Real Canadian Superstore versus Walmart. Employees don't even smile at Superstore, and that largely has to do with a culture of being berated by both supervisory staff and customers. That attitude might change the day that retail management wakes up and realizes that people are shopping elsewhere because they don't like the experience of shopping at their store. (I personally prefer the Safeway as their employees seem less miserable.)

In the case of Transit, to draw the same analogy, Bus drivers have to deal with the exact same entitled customers, and it should not be their responsibility to throw someone off a bus, but if you're going to call the transit cops every hour or so to pull someone behaving badly off the bus, that becomes expensive for the transit service and lowers your productivity.

And that's always the dilemma. Do you lower your productivity and do things by the book, or do you just ignore anything short of someone putting a knife to your throat?

As for the bathroom issue, this is something that should be the responsibility of Translink, as there are no bathrooms on the Skytrain except for that one at Main street as far as I know. Every bus loop should have public-accessible bathrooms.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by ShuttleMan

Based on your examples, it is clearly not something that is exclusive to Vancouver drivers.

It is also not unusual for Sunday work or any extra hours (or special jobs) to be incentivised; and not just in unions. For example, one of my previous employers (non-union) paid us in Keg gift cards to "volunteer" to work the auto show for a few hours a day.

Also, you mention mandatory overtime. It is not. The Sunday shifts are shorter (generally) so the cost is the same as a regular shift. Any ACTUAL overtime that may come up as a result of uncovered shifts or sickness, etc. is volunteer basis. The only time there is no choice is if there is a delay during a regular shift and the operator cannot get back for his/her finish time.

I do hear the arguments and accept that there is a lot of concern over funding but I also submit that there are many, many nuances and moving parts to this whole situation. Sunday premium is a part for sure, but one among many. It's definitely not as simple as the media tends to make it out.

It's a relic that harks back to a time when almost nothing was open on Sundays and the vast majority of Canadians attended church on Sunday. Neither is the case anymore.

I'm sure there are plenty of non-Christian new immigrants who would be happy to go through operator training and receive regular pay for working Sundays. It's not like Translink/Coast Mountain is miserly with pay or benefits. If airline employees don't get paid extra for Sundays, why would another transportation provider expect it?

[WBC]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

You've got that completely backwards. With some organization and some confidence, the minimum wage workers could hold giant companies hostage. You think there's a lineup of people dying to work at McDonalds?!

See this recent article on restaurant workers:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-restaurants-staff-shortage-1.3539294

So how come they haven't? Because aside from their employer nobody would care as general public has options...According to that logic there should be no minimum wage jobs as employees could always unionize and get better salary. And historically that has never been the case - for no skills job you get minimum wage - because your options as a worker are limited (unless government intervenes on your behalf by making your employer a monopoly for whatever crazy reason - see Liquor store)

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by whatnext

It's a relic that harks back to a time when almost nothing was open on Sundays and the vast majority of Canadians attended church on Sunday.

I remember when pharmacies first got leave to open on Sundays here in Vancouver on the premise that they were a kind of "essential service". That led London Drugs to open on Sunday, which they were able to do by roping off the aisles that contained "non-health" goods.

It wasn't long after that that the logjam broke and everything was thrown wide open for Sunday shopping.

I can understand the principle of the employer having to pay more to compensate employees for having to work undesirable hours. But I think weekend work has become so standard now that it doesn't deserve special treatment, as long as the drivers get a couple of days off, hopefully concurrently sometime during the week.

I would imagine that the split shifts that newer drivers have to work (because the drivers with seniority avoid them) would be a lot worse than having to work Sundays. I have no idea if split shifts get any special compensation.

[Kisai]

So on GlobalBC today they had Bill Vander Zalm on. He takes credit for the picking the Skytrain. I don't see the clip up on Global's site so I'm going to link an earlier video from April 27th on BIV, but it's almost exactly the same points.

"The mayor of Vancouver, who was Mr.Harcourt at the time, wanted desparately to have a regular tram line, but that meant a lot of crossings, a lot of gates, a lot of lights. I was the minister of Municipal Affairs at the time when all that was being considered, and after looking at it, and getting the various options available to us, I recommended to the premier, that we go with an elevated system of transit, so that we wouldn't interfere with the existing road traffic. And so we decided on Skytrain, and it was a good move, and I can actually say that the Expo was the deciding factor, we perhaps might have delayed if it hadn't been for Expo, cause it was a major commitment."

• Video Link

[xd_1771]

The wave of Expo 86/SkyTrain articles has brought the anti-SkyTrain crowd out full force. And so far, they're doing a pretty horrible job trying to smear the SkyTrain-positive press.

Take a look at this contention by the Straight's Charlie Smith...
http://www.straight.com/news/690226/gridlock-real-expo-86-legacy-metro-vancouver

Pretty much every single number he brings up to try and put a check on our SkyTrain decisions is a myriad of misinterpretations, misquotations and information that is perhaps outright false and made-up. We already know that SkyTrain never actually held us back and we expanded our rapid transit system faster than every other Canadian city. But the sheer extent to which the stats presented are out of line is just amazing. Mind-boggling. I don't understand how it could get this bad.

Take, for example, his suggestion that SkyTrain prevented a region-wide expansion in bus service...

...A Crown corporation secretariat 1992-93 annual report showed that over the previous nine-year period, B.C. Transit's bus service hours only increased by 3.5 percent...

If these numbers are correct, that means the measurements began in 1984, 2 years before the start of any SkyTrain service - a time when numerous 351-style suburban express buses operated down Kingsway, Hastings and Highway 1, and other corridors to connect the communities serviced in lieu of the Expo Line today. You can pretty much verify the existence of each of these routes by looking at the pre-Skytrain route changes in the historical Buzzer archives.

These routes were effectively replaced by the SkyTrain, and SkyTrain resulted in a whole bunch of other transit network reorganizations (such as in Burnaby), so the natural outcome is a reduction of bus service hours (replaced with rail service hours, and a significantly higher quality overall rail service) in 1986. That the overall bus service hours saw a net increase at all at the end of those 9 years suggests that SkyTrain did exactly what it was meant to do: increase ridership and demonstrate need to continue expansion of the regional transit system. In short, to suggest that the expansion of SkyTrain prevented expansion of the bus system is a complete misinterpretation of these statistics.

the Toronto Transit Commission was generating 69 percent of its operating expenses through the farebox, compared to just 49 percent for B.C. Transit.

Moving on, he now suggests that because we had SkyTrain, it drained our transit system from collecting fare revenues. I've discussed this at length in blog posts from before, but it's really convenient how Toronto's laid out to have a TTC servicing the well-used routes inside the actual city, and other transit systems servicing the routes in the suburbs, with the TTC itself operating none of those services. You can't really compare the TTC and the Metro Vancouver transit system, which has operated under a single operator for decades. Of course our farebox recoveries would be lower. The TTC operates few if any suburban/highway routes that service legitimate transit needs but drain cash. Even today we have *tons* of those routes to operate.

Even the title of the write-up is pretty hilarious...

Is gridlock the real Expo 86 legacy for Metro Vancouver?

It is brutally, brutally hilarious how he's actually suggesting that by investing in transit, we've caused any gridlock. As if to ignore the fact that growth is a natural pressure that affects all major Canadian cities. And the fact that SkyTrain is kind of *the* end result of a major campaign throughout the 1960s-1970s to stop a plan to cover the entirety of the Lower Mainland with massively expensive, Los Angeles-style freeways.

It's hilarious the lengths that people in the anti-SkyTrain crowd will go to try and paint different pictures of SkyTrain using claims and statistics that are either completely wrong or don't exist. When virtually all of the statistics you're throwing out in your own contention prove exactly the opposite of what you're trying to suggest, you really need to stop.

Just needed to post a really angry rant about this...

[urbancanadian]

Ok so this is super random but I noticed while I was editing a map that there is a 6-car Mk I train and a 4-car Mk II train at exactly the same distance from Sapperton Station. Anyway, just thought it was an interesting overhead shot comparing the two in length. And they are right outside the station so you can make easy comparisons to the length of the station (platform lengths).

[officedweller]

Interesting.
Based on the pic, an 8 car MKI and a 6 car MKII would be about the same length.
(if platforms were to be lengthened)

[Mac Write]

Mark I trains are heading for scrapping in 9-12 years.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by urbancanadian

Ok so this is super random but I noticed while I was editing a map that there is a 6-car Mk I train and a 4-car Mk II train at exactly the same distance from Sapperton Station. Anyway, just thought it was an interesting overhead shot comparing the two in length. And they are right outside the station so you can make easy comparisons to the length of the station (platform lengths).

The last mk1 car is in two exposures. It's stretched.

[MIPS]

There's a MK III that's been loitering on one of the side tracks at OMC for a few days now.



It must be one of the new arrivals as there's still plywood on the ends. Also, all of the windows in comparison to the MK II are massive.

[WarrenC12]

The lower windows along the passenger seats should be interesting, I like the new look.

[MIPS]

It's not so much a transit related thing but while I was over there I could not help but notice that all of the old rail line has been pulled up. It's actually quite nice to walk along now.



Images courtesy of MIPS

[officedweller]

Thanks for the pic - nice side-by-side comparison.

The front window really makes the whole carriage seem bigger
- the lower windows will probably do the same from a passenger perspective.
i.e. less rinky-dink toy train... definitely compared to MKIs

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by MIPS

There's a MK III that's been loitering on one of the side tracks at OMC for a few days now.



It must be one of the new arrivals as there's still plywood on the ends. Also, all of the windows in comparison to the MK II are massive.

The big windows in the new Evergreen Line trains will do justice to the name. Once out the tneel going east, people will pass a lot of groves of trees,
and apartment clusters and the view will be fantastic.
Stockholm is rather like that in parts.

[sweetnhappy]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

The big windows in the new Evergreen Line trains will do justice to the name. Once out the tneel going east, people will pass a lot of groves of trees,
and apartment clusters and the view will be fantastic.
Stockholm is rather like that in parts.

The only problem is these trains will be used on the Expo Line, not the Millennium Line (with Evergreen Extension). Since they're in 4 car saloon (articulated) configuration (not the same as the Mark 2s and 2.5s), they cannot be used for the 2 car configuration expected for the Millennium Line (discussed here and/or in other threads). Which really is a shame because those views would indeed be fantastic.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by sweetnhappy

The only problem is these trains will be used on the Expo Line, not the Millennium Line (with Evergreen Extension). Since they're in 4 car saloon (articulated) configuration (not the same as the Mark 2s and 2.5s), they cannot be used for the 2 car configuration expected for the Millennium Line (discussed here and/or in other threads). Which really is a shame because those views would indeed be fantastic.

this is mass transit, not the Rocky Mountaineer. its not about the views, its about moving as many people as fast as possible. these new trains have the highest capacity and should be used on the busiest line.

[sweetnhappy]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

this is mass transit, not the Rocky Mountaineer. its not about the views, its about moving as many people as fast as possible. these new trains have the highest capacity and should be used on the busiest line.

I don't disagree with you. I was just saying that the design and size of the windows on the Mark 3s lends itself to more scenic views.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by sweetnhappy

I don't disagree with you. I was just saying that the design and size of the windows on the Mark 3s lends itself to more scenic views.

Sure, and when Lougheed and the Tri-Cities get the same ridership as Surrey, TransLink will most assuredly send some Threes their way.