Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[mezzanine]

That list is misleading as the built form/densities/sizes of the cities and transit systems aren't comparable. (NYC≠dublin≠amsterdam)

FWIW, I was impressed with Tokyo, for the size and density it serves and its orderliness. IIRC I used the 'tourist' transit card, so an expat's experience and cost may be different.

[memememe76]

Is NYC really that expensive? I don't recall it being that expensive. Especially compared to London. Meanwhile, Seattle is a real ripoff.

I really enjoyed the Tube. Thought it was great.

[cganuelas1995]

The west coast express not having regular bidirectional service makes it a gimmick.

Just my two cents.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

The west coast express not having regular bidirectional service makes it a gimmick.

Just my two cents.

It functions as a very typical commuter rail line as found in many North American cities. Nothing gimmicky about it. It just has one particular role to play.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

It functions as a very typical commuter rail line as found in many North American cities. Nothing gimmicky about it. It just has one particular role to play.

Yeah but it could/should have reverse commute options. What if someone in mission works graveyard on Vancouver and can't afford a car? It's a big fuck you to workers. It needs to be overhauled.

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

Yeah but it could/should have reverse commute options. What if someone in mission works graveyard on Vancouver and can't afford a car? It's a big fuck you to workers. It needs to be overhauled.

I agree that it should be expanded to include reverse commute service. This would make it a much more useful component as part of the region's transportation network. Many lines in Montreal and Toronto work this way.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

Yeah but it could/should have reverse commute options. What if someone in mission works graveyard on Vancouver and can't afford a car? It's a big fuck you to workers. It needs to be overhauled.

It would be awesome if it was, all I'm saying is it's not a gimmick as it's a very common form of transit service. I'm sure its service would be expanded if it was viable or even possible with all the freight traffic on the route.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

It would be awesome if it was, all I'm saying is it's not a gimmick as it's a very common form of transit service. I'm sure its service would be expanded if it was viable or even possible with all the freight traffic on the route.

The line itself isn't a gimmick, it's just the really restrictive timetable. They could run it all day, just at hourly for off peak and maybe every half hour for peak, depending on ridership. Or maybe increase the service hours of the 701 to/from Mission.

[Rico]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

The line itself isn't a gimmick, it's just the really restrictive timetable. They could run it all day, just at hourly for off peak and maybe every half hour for peak, depending on ridership. Or maybe increase the service hours of the 701 to/from Mission.

Unfortunately the West Coast Express can't be significantly expanded and maintain the amount of freight it currently serves. I assume a couple of additional trains could be negotiated in the peak direction but the more useful and cheaper reverse commuting options can't happen without extra tracks. That said I wonder how many West Coast Expess users are taking the Evergreen line for one of their directions?

[Bdawe]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

Yeah but it could/should have reverse commute options. What if someone in mission works graveyard on Vancouver and can't afford a car? It's a big fuck you to workers. It needs to be overhauled.

Why do you think first assumed that this was some sort of insult before considering that it might just be a service bound by technical realities?

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

Yeah but it could/should have reverse commute options. What if someone in mission works graveyard on Vancouver and can't afford a car? It's a big fuck you to workers. It needs to be overhauled.

Better to provide service to 80% of the workers than none at all...

It's too expensive to meet the particular needs of each and every last commuter - you have to draw the line somewhere.

[deasine]

Not to bring the thread completely off track but as a London commuter, you'll realize how I miss the small things in SkyTrain that really make a big difference.

[rxp]

Originally Posted by deasine

Not to bring the thread completely off track but as a London commuter, you'll realize how I miss the small things in SkyTrain that really make a big difference.

such as?

I was recently in London and their tube system is actually amazing!

[moosejaw]

Originally Posted by deasine

Not to bring the thread completely off track but as a London commuter, you'll realize how I miss the small things in SkyTrain that really make a big difference.

It is amazing to a visitor or tourist but not so much as a commuter
The transport system is so big that many lines are overcrowded, many lines get cancelled at the last minute, maintenance notices are put up with barely a moments notice. The system works (in addition to the congestion charge) so well at taking Single Occupancy Vehicles off the road that the public transit system is at its wits end. There are only so many bendy buses you can put on the road. There are so many trains you put on tracks. If you live in central london you are pretty much a stones throw away from any docklands, tube, commuter rail train station.

Its much quicker to take the tube to heathrow from the docklands than it is to drive at any time of the day. You wouldnt think of driving in that town unless its to the country.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

Yeah but it could/should have reverse commute options. What if someone in mission works graveyard on Vancouver and can't afford a car? It's a big fuck you to workers. It needs to be overhauled.

no its not a "fuck you" to anyone. TransLink doesn't own any rail tracks and they need to pay and negotiate to us Canadian Pacific's. freight is the #1 priority as that line is the #1 connection to Vantrerm and Centrem for Port of Vancouver.

it isn't some "we don't care and we are dumb to do this" it is a "the rail line is super busy, we don't own it, and freight makes way more money then passenger" thing.

you could always build your own rail line and give it to TransLink if you really want to that way you can fix the problem other then assume they want to fuck over workers.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by rxp

such as?

I was recently in London and their tube system is actually amazing!

Originally Posted by moosejaw

It is amazing to a visitor or tourist but not so much as a commuter
The transport system is so big that many lines are overcrowded, many lines get cancelled at the last minute, maintenance notices are put up with barely a moments notice. The system works (in addition to the congestion charge) so well at taking Single Occupancy Vehicles off the road that the public transit system is at its wits end. There are only so many bendy buses you can put on the road. There are so many trains you put on tracks. If you live in central london you are pretty much a stones throw away from any docklands, tube, commuter rail train station.

Its much quicker to take the tube to heathrow from the docklands than it is to drive at any time of the day. You wouldnt think of driving in that town unless its to the country.

All major cities (with the exception of Tokyo) are going through this very similar problem, which is legacy infrastructure and signaling systems not catching up with today's demands. So when rail signals go down, or there are delays of even 5 minutes, it can actually lead to significant delays and crowding to the system. NYC is recently a state in emergency, DC experienced/still experiencing very similar problems, Paris is catching up now but they had significant problems 7-years back and are finally now benefiting from the investments made by RATP, even Hong Kong has had a lot more over crowding and signal issues not able to cope with the throughput in the last 2-years.

SkyTrain actually has a relatively quick (or potential for a relatively quick) recovery time when there is a problem. If there is an issue, it can be isolated as trains can short turn at many stations. Whereas in London, if there is an issue in the city centre, there is not any way to isolate the problem because all the track switches are outside Zone 1. On top of that, rail signals and rules do not allow necessarily allow for trains to go backwards like they do with SkyTrain.

On top of that, frequencies aren't they are like the SkyTrain - I wait regularly for trains every 10 minutes even during the peak on the Piccadilly. The system is also designed for you to go into the city centre and not much else, if you need to go through the city, it takes a bloody long time as the example going from West-East. New York built in Express rails and for some of the lines, one could argue is necessary in London as well.

The great thing about the Tube along with the suburban rail system is that it is so expansive but keep in mind London has a significantly larger population and demand for public transit. And really for the amount of demand we have, there's actually not enough infrastructure.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by Sheba

What would you pick as the best rapid transit system?

Hong Kong, Shanghai and Tokyo I find to have vastly superior transit systems. I hear Seoul is incredible too but I have never been.

It's not London's fault, they were pioneers but that's caused their system to be quite old and we've seen a lot of advancements in the way we design stations and lay out destinations in the past decades.

[lightrail]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

The line itself isn't a gimmick, it's just the really restrictive timetable. They could run it all day, just at hourly for off peak and maybe every half hour for peak, depending on ridership. Or maybe increase the service hours of the 701 to/from Mission.

The West Coast Express runs on private rails, and as such every trip has to pay an access fee to the rail owners. It also shares track with freight traffic. So there is a huge cost in running the trains. A reverse service is likely not going ot have enough ridership to make it viable. A better option would be to expand the 701 bus service, which provides similar ride times.

Those "gimmiky" trains carry over 10,000 people per day - so it is providing a much needed service. Doubtful that and off-peak direction service would generate enough traffic.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by lightrail

Doubtful that and off-peak direction service would generate enough traffic.

They could make a regular express coach route to supplement it instead of having the limited 701. While it's a nice thought to abolish the trainbus for the 701, they could've done a better job. It would make working/living in Mission and Vancouver more attractive is there were another more regular and more frequent connection between the FVRD and the GVRD for people without cars.

[invisibleairwaves]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

They could make a regular express coach route to supplement it instead of having the limited 701. While it's a nice thought to abolish the trainbus for the 701, they could've done a better job. It would make working/living in Mission and Vancouver more attractive is there were another more regular and more frequent connection between the FVRD and the GVRD for people without cars.

Why would Translink want to make a Mission/Vancouver commute more attractive?