Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by Dave2

In 1952, a 5 dollar robbery resulted in a 3 year sentence... and 14 lashings. http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=E5R...IBAJ&dq=lagace%20lashes&pg=3273%2C240440

It wasn't just stealing, it involved beating another man. Sentence seems fair...

[nname]

Originally Posted by mr.x

I think the article's 25% was referring to Commercial-Broadway Station's traffic, not the Broadway Corridor. If that's the case, it would be a 25% increase on Commercial-Broadway's 150,000 daily traffic...that's another 37,500.

To put this in perspective, Evergreen's projected ridership for 2020 is 80,000.

Or... the projected 2041 daily ridership for Broadway Line is 322,000, compared to the sum of 2 Surrey LRT lines of 135,000.

[jlousa]

I think a way to get the Broadway line built would be to take advantage of a P3. With the ridership projected it's possible for the line to feasible for the private sector. If a private company (or a pension plan) were to go public on their own and propose putting up 1/3 - 1/2 of the money to build and operate the line it would give justification to bypass the SOF expansion first. Would certainly be interesting to see a company initiate a proposal w/o an RFP being issued.

[GMasterAres]

Again I don't know why these discussions always come back to "either or". I think half the people on these forums spend too much time focusing on the arguing and not at the true problem, long term funding.

I'd rather before the Surrey line AND the Broadway line, that Translink, the Mayors, and the Province (HELLO PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT!!) once and for all fix the underlining issue in every discussion. Long term sustainable funding for Transit.

Once they do that then we don't need to debate these either or issues. Both could be built and both could be built at the same time. I mean it is just ridiculous. Cities don't pave 1 road at a time. They don't build 1 structure at a time. They don't approve 1 business license at a time. Why do we need to always build 1 transit structure at a time?

Case and point SFPR and Gateway are being built in parallel. The more people just constantly debate and discuss which 1 to build first and which 1 to be done instead of the other, it allows the government to go decades longer without actually fixing the real problem.

[officedweller]

Another face-palm - the infographic from this Globe & Mail article (in print form, not on line) showed a Broadway line starting at Broadway & Commercial (and not at VCC-Clark).

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/brit...y-many-still-a-ways-away/article5402856/

Also, was this posted?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/brit...inlands-transit-priority/article4833695/

[Gordon]

Unfortunately the new funding mechanism is taking time to find, and what ever is chosen will take time to implement, the government should allow Translink access to say $40million of Carbon tax revenue derived from the metro area as well as some money from vehicle license renewal fees until the new funding mechanism is in place.

[Spork]

This may be out of the scope of this thread, but what about something like income-based pricing tiers? Keep prices stable for those earning less than the poverty line and/or receiving some sort of income assistance, and raise them for people making more than that? At its current rate, the most somebody would be paying for transit would be $2200/yr. I would bet that willingness to pay is substantially more than that if it is their primary mode of transportation.

[usog]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Again I don't know why these discussions always come back to "either or". I think half the people on these forums spend too much time focusing on the arguing and not at the true problem, long term funding.

I'd rather before the Surrey line AND the Broadway line, that Translink, the Mayors, and the Province (HELLO PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT!!) once and for all fix the underlining issue in every discussion. Long term sustainable funding for Transit.

Take a look at the people currently in power, do you see them coming together with money for all the big projects people here say we want/need? Either/or is just the reality we live in.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Spork

This may be out of the scope of this thread, but what about something like income-based pricing tiers? Keep prices stable for those earning less than the poverty line and/or receiving some sort of income assistance, and raise them for people making more than that? At its current rate, the most somebody would be paying for transit would be $2200/yr. I would bet that willingness to pay is substantially more than that if it is their primary mode of transportation.

I'm pretty sure people on disability and welfare get free bus passes.

[Spork]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I'm pretty sure people on disability and welfare get free bus passes.

Which is good, but perhaps we need to extend this? All I hear is complaints when fares are increased (heck, I complain myself), but in the grand scheme of things, it is a very inexpensive way to travel. If we have lower pricing for students, wouldn't it make sense to have a similar relative advantage for other lower income people?

[quobobo]

Originally Posted by Spork

Which is good, but perhaps we need to extend this? All I hear is complaints when fares are increased (heck, I complain myself), but in the grand scheme of things, it is a very inexpensive way to travel. If we have lower pricing for students, wouldn't it make sense to have a similar relative advantage for other lower income people?

In-kind transfers are significantly less efficient than cash transfers; I recommend searching for those terms if you want to read the econ literature on why that's the case.

These people's problem is that they don't have enough money; with that in mind, giving them discounted bus passes instead of cash is very ineffective welfare policy. It's also quite wasteful at an administrative level; maintaining a discounted transit pass system costs money and time, whereas increasing their income supplements through existing systems has a very low marginal cost.

Long story short, welfare policy isn't Translink's job and it shouldn't be. If you're (probably legitimately) concerned about poverty then there are many parts of government better placed to address poverty than Translink.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by Spork

Which is good, but perhaps we need to extend this? All I hear is complaints when fares are increased (heck, I complain myself), but in the grand scheme of things, it is a very inexpensive way to travel. If we have lower pricing for students, wouldn't it make sense to have a similar relative advantage for other lower income people?

Well there's always the fact that there's lower income taxes, & GST/HST refunds. That's a relative advantage right there.

How much do you want to increase everyone else's fares to subsidize the other ones though? As is, its not much more expensive to drive most places once you have a car.

[Spork]

Originally Posted by quobobo

In-kind transfers are significantly less efficient than cash transfers; I recommend searching for those terms if you want to read the econ literature on why that's the case.

These people's problem is that they don't have enough money; with that in mind, giving them discounted bus passes instead of cash is very ineffective welfare policy. It's also quite wasteful at an administrative level; maintaining a discounted transit pass system costs money and time, whereas increasing their income supplements through existing systems has a very low marginal cost.

Long story short, welfare policy isn't Translink's job and it shouldn't be. If you're (probably legitimately) concerned about poverty then there are many parts of government better placed to address poverty than Translink.

That's not at all what I am talking about. I am saying that fares should be higher, but I understand that for many people, transit is their only option. For these people, fares should be kept low, as in discriminatory pricing. This is the case with children, students, and seniors, but not individuals that are lower income. I am suggesting adding another tier. How it would work, is anyone's guess, but we all know that fares are the most reliable source of funding for Translink (not to mention the thing most within their control), and thus likely to sustain the operations of a Broadway RT solution.

[quobobo]

Originally Posted by Spork

That's not at all what I am talking about. I am saying that fares should be higher, but I understand that for many people, transit is their only option. For these people, fares should be kept low, as in discriminatory pricing.

So again, you want to conduct welfare policy through a transit company when there are well-established mechanisms to give people in need money (which they can then use to buy transit passes if they need to).

Please explain the conditions under which your system is more efficient at helping people in need.

[Dave2]

Originally Posted by Jebby

It wasn't just stealing, it involved beating another man. Sentence seems fair...

{retracted.. off topic }

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by Spork

Which is good, but perhaps we need to extend this? All I hear is complaints when fares are increased (heck, I complain myself), but in the grand scheme of things, it is a very inexpensive way to travel. If we have lower pricing for students, wouldn't it make sense to have a similar relative advantage for other lower income people?

Great, more welfare which ultimately will just be shifted onto the middle class to pay for through more taxes and higher fares on transit.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by quobobo

Long story short, welfare policy isn't Translink's job and it shouldn't be. If you're (probably legitimately) concerned about poverty then there are many parts of government better placed to address poverty than Translink.

If he's interested in addressing poverty he should donate to charity or start a charitable organization to help the poor get transit passes. Using other people's money taken by force by the government isn't charity or honorable.

[city-dweller]

I wonder if anyone has plans to adjust the trip generator model for UBC based on the newly released Musquem plans for 22acre development at Acadia next to the golf course?

I would suggest a realignment of the UBC Allison stop 1 block east for the (inevitable?) rapid transit line.

On a different note, I have often heard the issue with (skytrain/RAV line) past Arbutus is density at McDonald, Alma, and Sasamat. I would point out the density at 29th and Nanaimo on the Expo line do not undermine its viability.

[Spork]

Originally Posted by Jebby

Great, more welfare which ultimately will just be shifted onto the middle class to pay for through more taxes and higher fares on transit.

I look forward to hearing your suggestion about how to address the funding gap. It's easy to criticize blindly, and significantly more difficult to be productive and propose a workable solution.

[DKaz]

It's probably a good thing Nanaimo and 29th Ave are not dense, there would be more passups in the AM.