Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[madog222]

Signs up at the seabus terminals, apologies if this has been posted.

Site prep work has already started on the administration building.

20160517_100050_HDR by madog222, on Flickr

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by madog222

Signs up at the seabus terminals, apologies if this has been posted.

Site prep work has already started on the administration building.

20160517_100050_HDR by madog222, on Flickr

Thanks for that. Nothing on the interior though? I've always thought the seabus stations were a horrible introduction to North Van, especially combined with the underground bus loop.

[MIPS]

It didn't seem to look that shabby in comparison to everything else around it at the time.


Image courtesy of ABAM

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by Kisai

The mayors have been against raising taxes. So this is just them pushing that responsibility to the developers. What do you think is going to happen? Every condo owner gets a 100$ annual levy, there's not 20 million units. You're not going to find 2 billion in annual funding, this is a going to be a one-time developer soak, so what might be a 800K condo unit becomes 900k, across 20,000 units. Units near transit in Surrey aren't worth anywhere near as much as units in Vancouver.

Like nice idea, but it's relying on Metro Vancouver to keep having rip-off prices for the next 10 years. What if the price bubble pops this year and developers all pull out?

This can be a tool in the toolbox, but it can't be the only tool.

Annual funding? What are you talking about? Translink doesn't need to more than double their annual budget with another $2 billion a year. They are looking for money to cover Translink's 17% of building the Broadway Subway and Surrey Rapid Transit.

What they are talking about is some kind of development levy, like a permit fee, to build close to Skytrain stations charged to the developers. But it sounds like this fee would come with permission to build increased density, so the cost would be absorbed across more units. It would be like the CAC in Vancouver, but instead of going to a new park, it would go to fund building new Transit lines.

Property near Skytrain already sells for more than identical properties away from Skytrain. 2 units could cost the exact same to build, but the one closer to a station will sell for more. That extra is all margin, and goes straight to the developer. And the only reason he is able to profit that much is because the taxpayer spent billions of dollars worth of transit infrastructure that he is taking advantage of.

By charging the developers a tax for the privileged of benefiting from taxpayer built infrastructure, they predict they could recover $800 million for the Broadway Corridor alone, going forward. That's more than enough to cover Translink's portion of building Skytrain all the way to UBC.

Even if the bubble bursts, Vancouver still expects population growth. So new homes will still be built, and developers can still be charged. The tax will probably be some kind of up front flat fee and not a % of sale price, so a decline in home prices wouldn't affect tax revenue for long. Like usual development would freeze for a year, then pick up when people decide to buy at the new low low prices.

And even then, the over valuation is primarily in the detached house market. Condo prices and sales have been much more steady. A decline in house prices probably won't have a huge impact on condo prices.

And if people really do stop moving here and stop buying houses, well, we probably won't need new transit lines anyway. No reason for a Surrey LRT if people stop moving to Surrey.

[retro_orange]

I took one of the new B-line buses on Broadway the other day and i dunno if the driver didn't know how to use the air conditioning system but it was unbearable. The windows say only open in emergency because of air conditioning but it was too warm with stagnant air but the worst thing was the SMELL! From the nauseating smell of the new plastic to the people smell in the stagnant air it was making me nauseous. I had to get off the bus early and walk the rest of the way.

[ConventionalMan]

Originally Posted by retro_orange

I took one of the new B-line buses on Broadway the other day and i dunno if the driver didn't know how to use the air conditioning system but it was unbearable. The windows say only open in emergency because of air conditioning but it was too warm with stagnant air but the worst thing was the SMELL! From the nauseating smell of the new plastic to the people smell in the stagnant air it was making me nauseous. I had to get off the bus early and walk the rest of the way.

The climate control was probably off. If it was stagnant and no fans were going, I'm guessing that was the case. There is no control over the temperature, only on and off, and it's set for 20.5C. One problem I found when driving it is that there is a pretty strong blast of cold air that circulates and shoots right down my neck. I've seen other operators wearing jackets while driving when it's 25 out because it can get chilly. You can always ask to have the a/c turned on. Unfortunately, we can't tell how the back of the bus is if nobody says so - especially when the back is almost 60 feet away!

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by ShuttleMan

The climate control was probably off. If it was stagnant and no fans were going, I'm guessing that was the case. There is no control over the temperature, only on and off, and it's set for 20.5C. One problem I found when driving it is that there is a pretty strong blast of cold air that circulates and shoots right down my neck. I've seen other operators wearing jackets while driving when it's 25 out because it can get chilly. You can always ask to have the a/c turned on. Unfortunately, we can't tell how the back of the bus is if nobody says so - especially when the back is almost 60 feet away!

Thanks for the response ShuttleMan, much appreciated. I see what you are saying, I was near the front of the bus already and i honestly feel you guys get enough flack from things you have no control over and i wouldn't know what to say, especially if i was already frustrated. If it's crowded it can be almost impossible to get through people on the 99, especially at 60 feet from the driver.
There should be a light that comes on indicating if the cold A/C is on but even then we should be able to open a window for 'zone control' from a particularly smelly person or if you are overheating in the sun. Both happen too often and if the system has only an on/off switch for both air circulation and temperature control then the air system needs serious improvement. (again, out of your hands)

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by retro_orange

Thanks for the response ShuttleMan, much appreciated. I see what you are saying, I was near the front of the bus already and i honestly feel you guys get enough flack from things you have no control over and i wouldn't know what to say, especially if i was already frustrated. If it's crowded it can be almost impossible to get through people on the 99, especially at 60 feet from the driver.
There should be a light that comes on indicating if the cold A/C is on but even then we should be able to open a window for 'zone control' from a particularly smelly person or if you are overheating in the sun. Both happen too often and if the system has only an on/off switch for both air circulation and temperature control then the air system needs serious improvement. (again, out of your hands)

If a window is open, Air Conditioning doesn't work. That's why you're not supposed to open the windows on the bus or MK II Skytrain. A/C works by literately sucking the moisture out of the air.

When something like the above happens, that is because the fan isn't running.

For reference, when you drive, you are supposed to run your fans in "recirculate", not "outside air" if you use the A/C or defrost setting (which uses the A/C to dry the air.) Many people don't realize this and run with outside air on, which makes the A/C have to work harder and consume more fuel.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

Annual funding? What are you talking about? Translink doesn't need to more than double their annual budget with another $2 billion a year. They are looking for money to cover Translink's 17% of building the Broadway Subway and Surrey Rapid Transit.

My point, again, was that Capital costs are not Operational costs. A one-time fee from a developer goes into capital costs. The Federal/Provincial contributions are also one-time things and go into capital costs. This is why it's in the best interests of the tax-payer to not let the city pick the most-expensive to operate, maintain, and staff benefits out on transportation option.

But that isn't even what Surrey has been proposing, the OCP's all show single detached homes or townhouses along 104 and Newton is only going to 2.5 FAR. Literately, horse before the cart. Building the at-grade LRT isn't going to cap FAR at 2.5, it's going to result in developers rezoning for 7.5 FAR 30 years down the road, by which the transit corridor won't be able to support it, and there will be no political will to rip it up.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by Kisai

My point, again, was that Capital costs are not Operational costs. A one-time fee from a developer goes into capital costs. The Federal/Provincial contributions are also one-time things and go into capital costs. This is why it's in the best interests of the tax-payer to not let the city pick the most-expensive to operate, maintain, and staff benefits out on transportation option.

If that's a dig at LRT, then that's open to debate. Most of the studies indicate that a full LRT system is overall still cheaper to build, AND still has a lower Net Present Value of Lifecycle Costs than a RRT/BRT combo.

The advantage of the RRT is that it can provide maximum utility per dollar (as long as you are looking beyond cheapest/most affordable). Per dollar spent it can save more time and attract more riders. You are paying more, but get more benefits. It cost more, but it costs less per rider.

Either way, the true hurdle is getting it built in the first place, in a way that doesn't bog down Translink with debt. As long as there is a source of income that can finance that debt (or pay for it out right), then it frees up a lot of money for operations that is usually tied up in debt servicing.

Originally Posted by Kisai

But that isn't even what Surrey has been proposing, the OCP's all show single detached homes or townhouses along 104 and Newton is only going to 2.5 FAR. Literately, horse before the cart. Building the at-grade LRT isn't going to cap FAR at 2.5, it's going to result in developers rezoning for 7.5 FAR 30 years down the road, by which the transit corridor won't be able to support it, and there will be no political will to rip it up.

First, it's a power point presentation to a breakfast, not exactly the best source for city planning. Second, the document is a few years old, so it's hard to say since the failed plebiscite what's the thinking at city hall.

But I think it really is putting the cart before the horse to build like you have rapid transit, when it still is not a guarantee. The powerpoint even asks, if they build density, will they get rapid transit? Is it a risk worth taking? What happens if they allow a massive city to be built, but rapid transit takes decades?

If taxes were to be collected from around rapid transit lines, then it would encourage the lines to be built so the taxes could be collected. Instead of this chicken and egg game of: you can't build density without rapid transit, and you can't build rapid transit without density; you would get incentives to do both.

Having a funding model in place to fund lines would get lines built. And having an incentive (the density levies that fund rapid transit) to encourage cities to build higher density around lines would make the lines more useful (and generate more revenue to pay for operations). It's that catalyst that gets everything moving.

Hydrogen peroxide will decompose naturally into water and oxygen gas over a long period of time; but put a little potassium permanganate in there and it almost explodes.

[Stingray2004]

Stumbled across this interactive graphic showing how commutes stack up against each other within Metro Vancouver.

More interesting is that the interactive graphic also has a break-down for each neighbourhood within each municipality of the commute share in terms of car/transit/bike/walk. Prima facie, the greatest commute share variation seems to exist within Van City proper itself:

http://www.bcbusiness.ca/lifestyle/inter...ur-commute-stack-up-with-your-neighbours

[Express691]

https://youtu.be/jllUVoN7ORI

Coupling procedure spotted at King George

[MIPS]

What a wimpy little horn.

[Express691]

Translink looks to review its fare system.

http://www.translink.ca/farereview

you should Fill out the survey; it should take less than 5 minutes.

[Waders]

Buzzer blog has a really interesting article on the history of Vancouver's transit fare systems starting from 1958.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Waders

Buzzer blog has a really interesting article on the history of Vancouver's transit fare systems starting from 1958.

I can remember paying 7 cents to board the trolley bus when I was a kid. They had the coin boxes that gave off different sounds for each type of coin so the driver could tell what you paid without having to take his eyes off the road. My fair was always "dink! buzz buzz".

[GeeCee]

Cross your fingers, folks.. funding announcement coming later today.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/translink-funding-fassbender-1.3601019

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by GeeCee

Cross your fingers, folks.. funding announcement coming later today.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/translink-funding-fassbender-1.3601019

It's just the same 33% that has been announced 18 times already. No word yet on the 17% to come from Metro Vancouver municipalities.

[oy1234]

http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/...s-as-province-ponies-up-cash-for-transit

Committing to the 33%

[s211]

Originally Posted by oy1234

http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/...s-as-province-ponies-up-cash-for-transit

Committing to the 33%

Surprise surprise, the easiest lever to pull that, during the transport referendum, the mayors said was not possible. What? There was a Plan B?