Expo Line - Surrey Langley Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

If you mean light rail, bear in mind that it's supposed to run at B-Line frequencies - no savings whatsoever.

I am referring to any form of rail transit (Metro, LRT, Tram, Commuter rail). Basically the more people they can fit on a single vehicle, the better.

And less frequency = less usefulness = less ridership.

Once again you are thinking about things from a user's perspective. From a transit agency's perspective it is:

lower frequency = lower cost
fewer riders = fewer buses = lower cost

It all comes down to money

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Once again you are thinking about things from a user's perspective. From a transit agency's perspective it is:

lower frequency = lower cost
fewer riders = fewer buses = lower cost

It all comes down to money

Then the whole thing becomes a catch-22. That’s why we have a B-Line coming up next year on Fraser Hwy to see if demand calls for SkyTrain, rather than sticking with the status quo, but I’d rather have that than go full retard by putting an LRT on Fraser Hwy.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Once again you are thinking about things from a user's perspective. From a transit agency's perspective it is:

lower frequency = lower cost
fewer riders = fewer buses = lower cost

It all comes down to money

If minimizing cost was the only focus, we'd never have anything more than half-hourly buses, like in the States.

More frequency = more ridership = more fares = more revenue, which helps to offset increased expense; that's why the 99 is currently the most "profitable" line per km, despite running every 3-5 minutes. Of course you're bound to get increasingly diminishing returns with smaller and smaller headways, but the point is that cost is only part of the equation; what the transit agency does (usually) is figure out just how many vehicles/hour will maximize cost/benefit.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

If minimizing cost was the only focus, we'd never have anything more than half-hourly buses, like in the States.

If cost were the only consideration then we wouldn't have a transit system, period.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

If cost were the only consideration then we wouldn't have a transit system, period.

Only consideration? No. But you would be surprised how much of a consideration it plays. There are constant pressures to do more for less.

[GlassCity]

Point is, at the moment there is more demand than there is service, which is why you get overcrowded buses, pass-ups, etc. In these conditions, it's only logical for any transit agency to add service to over-crowded routes, and not to half-capacity routes in the attempt of increasing ridership. Existing demand needs to be covered before accommodating future demand.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Point is, at the moment there is more demand than there is service, which is why you get overcrowded buses, pass-ups, etc. In these conditions, it's only logical for any transit agency to add service to over-crowded routes, and not to half-capacity routes in the attempt of increasing ridership. Existing demand needs to be covered before accommodating future demand.

I agree with you, but transit agencies are also subject to political influence, and sometimes what politicians want is different from what demand warrants.

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I agree with you, but transit agencies are also subject to political influence, and sometimes what politicians want is different from what demand warrants.

Which is why it often ends badly if it's cheaped out for photo-ops or built in less than a politician's term limit.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Only consideration? No. But you would be surprised how much of a consideration it plays. There are constant pressures to do more for less.

There are few things in life that are free from those considerations...

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I agree with you, but transit agencies are also subject to political influence, and sometimes what politicians want is different from what demand warrants.

No doubt, hence why Surrey is in line for 27 km of rail transit despite demand not being close to warranting it

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

No doubt, hence why Surrey is in line for 27 km of rail transit despite demand not being close to warranting it

Or more appropriately, why the Mayors' Council fought tooth and nail against the RAV (Canada) Line, making up stories about how no one would use it and when proven wrong, they came up with lame excuses about how it isn't as well used as it actually is.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Or more appropriately, why the Mayors' Council fought tooth and nail against the RAV (Canada) Line, making up stories about how no one would use it and when proven wrong, they came up with lame excuses about how it isn't as well used as it actually is.

Yeah, if we're being serious, it obviously happens all the time. The Broadway subway is another prime example.

I think with regards to buses though, it's a little less so. If I may be cynical, I don't really think politicians care about transit as much as they care about the development and connectivity that rapid transit brings. You're not gonna hear Linda Hepner complain about frequencies on the 364 or whatever, so I think (local) bus service does much more closely match with actual demand.

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Yeah, if we're being serious, it obviously happens all the time. The Broadway subway is another prime example.

I think with regards to buses though, it's a little less so. If I may be cynical, I don't really think politicians care about transit as much as they care about the development and connectivity that rapid transit brings. You're not gonna hear Linda Hepner complain about frequencies on the 364 or whatever, so I think (local) bus service does much more closely match with actual demand.

Most of these politicians—especially the suburban ones—don't take transit to their city halls on a daily basis, so that's why they're apathetic about local bus routes. They use rail transit as a way to leave their legacy on their city and put on their resume. If it's done purely for costs and "transforming" communities, it always leaves undesirable consequences. Look at Edmonton and the planned western part of the Valley Line that goes to West Ed Mall. Some Edmonton councillors are disagreeing about the proposal because of its flawed design. At least they are aware of it; Surrey is completely oblivious about its own flaws.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I think with regards to buses though, it's a little less so. If I may be cynical, I don't really think politicians care about transit as much as they care about the development and connectivity that rapid transit brings. You're not gonna hear Linda Hepner complain about frequencies on the 364 or whatever, so I think (local) bus service does much more closely match with actual demand.

I tend to agree. Buses can create political interest when the constituents want it to, but for the most part it is more about major infrastructure projects.

Having said that, things are probably a bit different here in Ottawa than they are in Greater Vancouver as we are now one, amalgamated city, so the entire transit budget is under the control of one, municipal government, so the counsellors seem more interested in how transit is working in their constituency.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I tend to agree. Buses can create political interest when the constituents want it to, but for the most part it is more about major infrastructure projects.

Having said that, things are probably a bit different here in Ottawa than they are in Greater Vancouver as we are now one, amalgamated city, so the entire transit budget is under the control of one, municipal government, so the counsellors seem more interested in how transit is working in their constituency.

Yeah I used to dream of a mass amalgamation of Vancouver to stop the fighting between municipalities for transit projects and have them distributed in an apolitical way, but yeah I learned pretty quick that that's not possible. There will always be ways to fight for geographical interests.

[Firebrand]

Here's a tweet from TransLink two days ago. They have a picture of what 104 Ave will look like once it's built.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Firebrand

Here's a tweet from TransLink two days ago. They have a picture of what 104 Ave will look like once it's built.

Nothing new - they basically took the 2017 one and moved stuff around.

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Nothing new - they basically took the 2017 one and moved stuff around.

And they still make an unrealistic display of what the streetscape will actually look like. Then again, it'll kill the point of making this "brand new tech" more attractive rather than a nuisance.

[scryer]

They've started construction on what they are calling is preliminary work on 104tha and 148th. I'm not sure what they are doing but I have walked by it a couple of times. Does anyone have any insights?

[jsbertram]

lifted from Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

nothing is as bad as this:

• Video Link

are you ready for surrey's meathead drivers?