Heavy Rail, Commuter Rail, & Intercity Transportation

[Migrant_Coconut]

We'll agree to disagree. 0.7 megatons of CO2 is 1% off BC's yearly emissions and 5% off Vancouver's; that's with one line.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

We'll agree to disagree. 0.7 megatons of CO2 is 1% off BC's yearly emissions and 5% off Vancouver's; that's with one line.

1% is a rounding error with lowering GHG emissions.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Yup. No one single train line (or even a combination of several) is going to solve pollution in BC.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Yup. No one single train line (or even a combination of several) is going to solve pollution in BC.

True, but that does not mean a diesel powered bus is the answer either.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

True, but that does not mean a diesel powered bus is the answer either.

Translink and BC Transit are both adopting battery electric buses.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Translink and BC Transit are both adopting battery electric buses.

That is a good start.

[KincLosddy]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

As our newest poster observed, the buses suck because the routes are weird and infrequent. So add more buses for more frequency, straighten out the lines to increase speed and convenience, and introduce express service for people who want to go faster, and that in itself creates more transit usage within Abbotsford itself, where most local commuters actually want to go. Come on, this is Transit 101.

That's what I am getting at. Everyone I talk to young and old, no matter the distance needed or the shopping or the chores says the same thing. They are tired of dealing with traffic, they are having trouble affording gas, but they can't rely on the busses and the system as is, even with improvements, is so inherently unusable that it's self-defeating to receive the numbers to "justify" anything more substantial.

Unless a major change is undertaken, the system will never have the ridership no matter the population because it is broken and unrealistic to use.

[Migrant_Coconut]

No kidding - this needs a whole lot of rethinking if Abby wants to switch away from cars. What the heck.

[KincLosddy]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

No kidding - this needs a whole lot of rethinking if Abby wants to switch away from cars. What the heck.

It's been like that for 20 plus years, and all of the redesign plans for the system are just variations on the theme of strange meandering octopus routes.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Won't put a dent in the carbon footprint.

No one thing will fix the problem, we need to work on as many things as we can. Whatever gets us the most bang for the buck.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

No kidding - this needs a whole lot of rethinking if Abby wants to switch away from cars. What the heck.

Very true.

I almost feel like it just needs to be simplified with a renewed local transit master plan. Abbotsford may need to start from scratch with basic North-South, East-West lines aiming for more frequent transit, and then develop subsidiary lines from there.

I am sure that residents would throw a stink if their windey suburban routes directly into Abbotsford Center get kiboshed but the trade-off could be that those new North-South Routes can run at an increased frequency and connect with an East-West line that also runs more frequently as well. This could help develop a spine of transit for Abbotsford ?

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

What I find impressive, and sad is the fact that back then, with much less people, we had better transit and better intercity transportation. For instance, many of Montral's commuter lines have existed since the 1800s. What happened to much of our rail transportation was it was let to rot into irrelevance where a bus was "good enough". Good enough was, and still is BS!

Actually, busses would be good enough for most of our transportation needs if they didn't get stuck in traffic. What consequential change was not the switch to busses, but the migration of all those commuter rail riders to personal vehicles.

Originally Posted by KincLosddy

That's what I am getting at. Everyone I talk to young and old, no matter the distance needed or the shopping or the chores says the same thing. They are tired of dealing with traffic, they are having trouble affording gas, but they can't rely on the busses and the system as is, even with improvements, is so inherently unusable that it's self-defeating to receive the numbers to "justify" anything more substantial.

Unless a major change is undertaken, the system will never have the ridership no matter the population because it is broken and unrealistic to use.

I know not everyone can do this, but the reason my wife and I moved from Saskatoon and Kamloops to Metrotown and now the West End was so that we don't have to use a car or rely on unreliable public transit. Now that we have lived where we do, we vowed to never again live in a neighborhood where we can't take transit to work and walk to the grocery store.

Even the most car-orientated cities have residents with a strong appetite for good public transit, but the most influential tax payers all throw a fit when a bus lane is put in or the transit authority's deficit grows. To get a majority of residents to change their mode of transportation riding a bus or train has to be cheaper and only marginally slower than driving a car. But making that a reality is not a political priority in cities such as Abbotsford or Saskatoon.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by KincLosddy

Although I understand the thought process behind this, the reality out here in the Fraser Valley is a bit more nuanced. BC Transit pushes heavily for busses and talks a lot about the big changes on the horizon when it comes to a better and more usable transit network, but the last 30 years, and the plans they have so far released show that the effort past, present and future will not result in the expansion of use as outlined in their own 2013 25 year plan. It is nothing more than a doubling down with minor adjustments of the existing system which fails to attract ridership due to it’s dubiously planned failings.


We can’t rely on transit in our cities, we can’t rely on transit to get between our cities. The highways are at a standstill, and busses will be stuck on them if that’s the only solution. Population not big enough for rail transit? Well of course, that is always the go-to, but it seems to work in other countries. Go figure.

Funny enough, the population of the Fraser Valley now is nearly as many people as the entirety of the province of British Columbia when the Electric Railway was built through the valley.

...and some here have wished Metro Van would go back to having BC Transit in charge instead of TransLink. My beef with the old BC Transit days here were that the bus routes were designed to get people into and out of downtown Van and pretty much nothing else.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Looks like it. From the Daily Hive article - "there are no specifics at the moment on the timeline, routing, technology, and cost, as such a project is certainly in its planning infancy."

If it is under planning stage even at the beginning or feasibility study stage, it isn't fantasy. Money is spent on it, and not something you dream up when you take your afternoon baths in the tub.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

If it is under planning stage even at the beginning or feasibility study stage, it isn't fantasy. Money is spent on it, and not something you dream up when you take your afternoon baths in the tub.

Great - if it's in the planning stage, can you share a link to it? (Daily Hive speculation doesn't count).

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by Vin

If it is under planning stage even at the beginning or feasibility study stage, it isn't fantasy. Money is spent on it, and not something you dream up when you take your afternoon baths in the tub.

Money has been spent on the Vancouver - Seattle - Portland HSR project too; do you think that project will have shovels in the ground anytime in the next few decades?

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

No one thing will fix the problem, we need to work on as many things as we can. Whatever gets us the most bang for the buck.

Something that could help would be changing the punishment for violating emissions regulations from something they can afford to something that will hurt them and leave scars, in a business way that is.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

Money has been spent on the Vancouver - Seattle - Portland HSR project too; do you think that project will have shovels in the ground anytime in the next few decades?

I would expect that if we see construction on part of it, it will be the section between Portland and Seattle. If that happens, then construction north of Seattle could be expected. That is unless they decide to build it all in one shot.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

For the record, many laneway homes are surprisingly nice.

They're also surprisingly expensive to rent. I'm divided when it comes to laneway homes.

One the one hand, I HATE what they stand for... the resistance to proper middle-of-the-market housing (row housing/townhomes/duplexes/ACTUAL SFHs/etc)

On the other hand, they're an opportunity to see uniqueness away from the bland Vancouver Specials (old style and new style).

I don't hate the laneway homes themselves... but they're really an excuse not to change zoning. They make owning a detached house more lucrative while still being able to live in them. MOST (if not all) new builds have one legal suite in the basement/ground level, one illegal suite (you're only allowed one in Vancouver) AND a laneway.

They effectively turn a SFH into a mini-apartment... which in some ways is great for density but it means the idea of raising a family means either a basement suite or a condo.

If you go out to greenfield developments in Cloverdale or Langley, they're building on 25–30' lots... skinnier houses with almost no chance of putting two suites in them. Small parcels of land (much smaller than the typical Vancouver 33–40' lot).

However, there are positive developments as well. Now that you can build a duplex anywhere, I'm seeing more and more of those pop up. Those are REALLY good options for a family that wants to own a SFH. Also, I believe SOME laneways are sellable now. I'd like to see ALL laneways homes sellable, personally.

Or cut the red tape on mini-multi-family dwellings. If you own two adjacent lots totalling 70' or more, you're allowed to easily subdivide and build up to 6 units (3 street facing, 3 alley facing). And you aren't required to have a large setback up front. If you're within n meters of a rapid transit station, no dedicated parking spots are required.

Can you imagine any developer not wanting to turn two 1.5M adjacent parcels into 6 x 700–800k units?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Laneways are far from ideal, but they help the transition away from RS-1 zoning, and they're much better than basement suites. Council recently passed the Making Home initiative which allows fourplexes and sixplexes - that should help.