Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[Reecemartin]

Agreed, Gondolas aren't the most practical for commuter transit and I think there are limited places where could be useful, SFU is a good example.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by s211

Sweet Jeebuz, people. There's a transit fantasy thread; use the bloody thing.

It seems that every transit related thread has more or less become a hypothetical fantasy thread. We should have a special bell / highlight function when someone actually posts a real update with new information regarding the projects (or at least grounded criticism / debate concerning the design elements)

[Migrant_Coconut]

It's probably because people get a New Big Idea that they have to share with everybody as soon as possible instead of looking for a buried thread, and so they click on whichever transport-related thread shows up on the "active threads" list and post it there.

Putting a Sticky on Transit Fantasies might help with that. Asking them to move their NBI to said thread instead of replying and starting a new conversation (which I think we're all guilty of) would too.

[officedweller]

Good read from the Globe and Mail regarding transit planning and politicians -

What has gone wrong since the ‘golden age’ of Toronto transit

Stephen Wickens

Special to The Globe and Mail

Published Thursday, Mar. 16, 2017 2:15PM EDT
Last updated Thursday, Mar. 16, 2017 3:41PM EDT

...

Are bureaucrats shirking their responsibility to speak truth to power?
...

The difference is, he says, “back then politicians listened, even if they didn’t always take our advice. They respected facts. Now they only want confirmation of their preconceived ideas, and too many people [bureaucrats and private-sector consultants], who should be providing objective professional advice are playing along with the game.”

“On Scarborough,” Mr. Levy says, “you won’t find a single independent transit professional who can support this, but they won’t say so publicly. The three of us can say this stuff without recrimination; we’re retired.”

“The minute the politicians speak,” Mr. Crowley says, “the civil service and the consulting community are happy to say, ‘Oh, that’s a great idea. Yes, let’s study that.’ I started to see this trend in the 1980s at the TTC. I’d raised serious, fact-based concerns about Sheppard-subway ridership forecasts and the role of the project. It upset people. I was told, ‘You’re never supposed to do that – you have to play along.’ “That’s when I knew it was time to get out,” says Mr. Crowley, who went on to a career with international private-sector firms. “This Scarborough boondoggle, if we were talking about gas plants, it could bring down a government, but transit is ‘special’ for reasons I don’t understand.”
...

“It’s always been political – always will be – but we need to get smarter about where politicians join the process,” Dr. Soberman says. “If you don’t generate good ideas, you’re guaranteed bad results. If you generate good ideas and they’re ignored, you won’t do any better. Current politicians are comfortable ignoring the people most likely to generate the best ideas. And the media, you guys, haven’t always helped. This subway-versus-LRT debate was simplistic and maddening. Scarborough deserves better transit, but the best options aren’t even being considered.” (Dr. Soberman would simply buy new rolling stock for the SRT and rebuild a bend to accommodate new vehicles.)

“Maybe we’re part of the problem,” Mr. Crowley says. “If the professionals had done a better job diagnosing problems, identifying prescriptions and educating politicians and the public on issues and options, politicians wouldn’t have moved into the vacuum.”

Getting in the last word, Mr. Soberman says, “too many people in positions of power don’t seem to know what they don’t know. Whether it’s at the province and Metrolinx or at the city and TTC, if we don’t figure out new governance models, we’ll never regain the public trust and Toronto will suffer for generations.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toro...-age-of-toronto-transit/article34321708/

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Good read from the Globe and Mail regarding transit planning and politicians -


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toro...-age-of-toronto-transit/article34321708/

Surprising nobody over here. The TTC, since it's inception, has been building transit lines that were at the whim of the politicians.

Like Doug Ford may have been right about it better to build a Subway, but it was also phenomenally stupid to keep canceling the previous Mayor's transit pet project as it keeps wasting money.

It's like, in Metro Vancouver with the Evergreen extension, It kept switching between Skytrain and LRT options. If we had the incompetence of of Toronto, they'd build one LRT stop and then demolish it to build the Skytrain two more more stops, and never get anywhere.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Kisai

It's like, in Metro Vancouver with the Evergreen extension, It kept switching between Skytrain and LRT options. If we had the incompetence of of Toronto, they'd build one LRT stop and then demolish it to build the Skytrain two more more stops, and never get anywhere.

and this is why a regional body controlled by the province, if needed, is a good way to do it. no local politics getting in the way. sure it may not be super effective with the mayors council, but at least we don't get what the TTC has.

[Reecemartin]

I mentioned this in the Surrey thread but it's certainly worth considering in a general expanded sense. While the numerous Skytrain expansions over the next 15 years or so are impressive alone, it's actually interesting to consider how significantly we will need to expand the fleet over the next 15 years or so to meet new demand.

For new rolling stock consider this:

-I believe we are doubling the number of Canada Line Trains, and we will probably need C cars too
-Broadway extension will require quite a few more trainsets
-New traffic from Broadway Extension and new developments probably will necessitate 4 car service which will require a doubling of rolling stock currently running on the line
-Expo Line expansion to Langley will very likely necessitate 5 car Mark 3 trains
-Expo Line expansion also will require a lot more train sets

So over the entire system we will probably see a massive number of new trainsets over the next 15 years, hopefully with some advocation we will see features such as Wifi, and TV style displays on newer trains as well.

[dpogue]

We have 7 more 4-car Mark III trains (28 vehicles) coming for SkyTrain in the next 2 years, but reality is that those will most likely be used to swap out other trains for maintenance and not provide all that much in the way of capacity increases.

The Broadway extension contract should have its own purchase of new trains. I would guess we're probably looking at 7 to 10 trains there (28 to 40 Mark III vehicles).

The goal was to start replacing the Mark I trains some time in the mid/late-2020s. We currently have 150 Mark I vehicles, typically operating as 25 6-car trains. For the same number of trains as 4-car Mark III vehicles would be 100 new vehicles.

[Mac Write]

I hope they do a car for car replacement for Mark III's with Mark I's then it would be 152 cars (38 4-car Mark III's) which would give us a nice capacity increase of 13 trains.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

will they order 5-car MKIII ever? 5-car ones would fit on the 80m platforms and since they aren't pairs of 2, that gets rid of the current issue of not being able to use 5. i don't really see why they cant, but i could be missing something.

[nname]

Originally Posted by dpogue

The Broadway extension contract should have its own purchase of new trains. I would guess we're probably looking at 7 to 10 trains there (28 to 40 Mark III vehicles).

The plan is to purchase 86 vehicles

[CanSpice]

The provincial government has announced that it won't match the extra funding from the federal government. I don't know what this actually means though, if the funding announced in yesterday's budget is on top of the 40% or if that is the 40%.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

The provincial government has announced that it won't match the extra funding from the federal government. I don't know what this actually means though, if the funding announced in yesterday's budget is on top of the 40% or if that is the 40%.

There's an opportunity for the NDP to differentiate themselves here... if they think it will get them the votes they need.

[Metro-One]

I dont understand why they dont just match the 40% It is such an easy way to earn brownie points before the election, and only involves covering a further 7% than already committed.

That said, even if the province did match the feds, the cities would still have to cover 20%

NDP says they will match the feds at 40% and Greens say they would start at 33% (same as the Libs) but could potentially increase to 40% when more details are released about a project.

So no Ontario style Liberals in this race it seems so far.

[WarrenC12]

40/40/20 is much more reasonable given the various levels of government and their ability to raise taxation revenue.

I did not know the NDP had already come out at 40%, thanks.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by dpogue

The goal was to start replacing the Mark I trains some time in the mid/late-2020s. We currently have 150 Mark I vehicles, typically operating as 25 6-car trains. For the same number of trains as 4-car Mark III vehicles would be 100 new vehicles.

If the in-service date of 2027 is accurate, that would be right in the time frame for the replacement to start happening. So it might make sense to buy enough rolling stock to replace the original 118 Mark I cars as part of the Broadway project.

[Hooknose]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

40/40/20 is much more reasonable given the various levels of government and their ability to raise taxation revenue.

I did not know the NDP had already come out at 40%, thanks.

Dear old Christi seems to have a thing against RR transit... except, of course, when it is in a riding that voted for her. So Coquitlam is okay but Vancouver is not.
in the meantime, she really wants a new "Port Mann" at Deas Island that will cost 3.5 billion and counting.
What does it take to teach her that "cars are not the answer".
PS neither is the party that proposed to replace her in 2 months even if they have this one issue right.

[teriyaki]

Originally Posted by Hooknose

Dear old Christi seems to have a thing against RR transit... except, of course, when it is in a riding that voted for her. So Coquitlam is okay but Vancouver is not.
in the meantime, she really wants a new "Port Mann" at Deas Island that will cost 3.5 billion and counting.
What does it take to teach her that "cars are not the answer".
PS neither is the party that proposed to replace her in 2 months even if they have this one issue right.

So what about that underdog third party.With the name being Green, they must have some agenda that supports expansion of public transit and building a more sustainable infrastructure?

[Orcair]

Originally Posted by teriyaki

So what about that underdog third party.With the name being Green, they must have some agenda that supports expansion of public transit and building a more sustainable infrastructure?

They've promised 33%. Said they are willing to negotiate higher - although no specifics on their top contribution.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

The provincial government has announced that it won't match the extra funding from the federal government. I don't know what this actually means though, if the funding announced in yesterday's budget is on top of the 40% or if that is the 40%.

My reading of this is Ottawa: 40%; Victoria: 33%; leaving Translink & metro cities to come up with the remaining 27%

The re-announced 40% from Ottawa (up from 33%) means that Translink & metro cities have a smaller slice of the pie they need to fund (27% - down from 33%), which may be easier for them to do.

If the $2.2 Billion from Ottawa is 40% of the total, then the entire pot of money can be estimated to be $5.5 Billion. Victoria's 1/3 portion of the pot would be around $1.815 Billion, so Translink & metro cities need to find the remaining $1.485 Billion.