My Thoughts

I have no idea whether this "Translink 2.0" will work. What I do know is Translink, status quo, needed to be changed. The Canada Line fiasco proved that.

Let's save the debate on its merits for a later date. However, surveys indicated that the vast majority of GVRD residents approved of this mega-project. Most mayors and councillors did too. Much of the funding was contingent and was received from the federal government and private interests.

This project, good or bad, was nearly derailed by 4-5 far, far left-wing city councillors from COPE and Mr. Corrigan - who were simply opposed to P3s and anything the Liberal government proposed. I've never seen local citizens held hostage by a bunch of ideological bafoons.

Even Larry Campbell and "cope light" chastized this group. The proof was in the pudding, the moment Mr. Campbell decline to run, nearly every bit of the Canada Line supporters was turfed in the next election.

Mr. Corrigan had his vision for Burnaby. Burnaby, is in the middle of the GVRD. I grew up there. When you are performing long term transportation planning, you must have regional representation with a long term perspective. Translink didn't have that.

I'm not sure this is the answer. This Tyee article is sure slanted to tell us it isn't. I'll sit on the sidelines and let time provide the answer.

Dog's breakfast: Dysfunctional any way you slice the baloney

I attended a meeting on a new Official Community Plan ( OCP ).

Transit, of course, is a major sub-issue. In a GVRD perspective, apparently Vancouver has stated it will not entertain added capacity, ie bridges and major roads to enter and exit the City.

Given Vancouver is the Epi - Center of the BC Universe, what does this mean ? Vancouver will combine densification concurrent with a gated community attitude. Creme de la creme -itis will spread throughout Vancouver.

Pressure will be placed on outlying areas. Surrey's population is predicted to surpass Vancouver's population by 2020. These areas will also be forced to invest in massive public infrastructure.

The irony is Vancouver citizens will pay for many of these infrastructure improvements elsewhere via the various fees and levies,ie Translink , yet gain the least, given the major infrastructure will be invested elsewhere.

Finally, Vancouver appears to be headed towards an increasingly residential base, as opposed to mixed use, with much of its jobs base being displaced. Back to the gated community and more properly planned mixed use growth absorbed at the periphery.

OMG - Where to begin!

The main problem with TransLink Mk. 2 is that the public are not even being consulted, which is fatal to any public transit system. It's all top down decisions based more on political and bureaucratic prestige, rather than good public transport policy.

We build metro's (SkyTrain & RAV/Canada Line) instead of much cheaper LRT, with the result we pay far more annual subsidies than cities with light rail, yet we have a much smaller network, which fails to attract customers!

Customers, this is the key point, transit users are customers and in the 21st century, public transit is seen as a product and if potential customers see public transit as a bad product, they will not buy, which means ride the system. As TransLink cannot show any modal shift and ridership increase match population increases, one ca safely say the public do not like the product.

WE DO NOT HAVE EXPERTS IN THE SCIENCE OF PUBLIC TRANSIT, instead we have a bunch of starry eyed university types pushing their own agenda. They see everything with rose coloured glasses and will not admit they could be wrong. Modern LRT is the only transit mode that is close to sustainable, yet our planning guru's treat it like the plague and continue with hugely expensive transit projects that contradict modern public transport practice.

As anyone read Prof. of Public Transport Systems (University of Wuppertal)Carmen Hass-Klau's and member of the prestigious Brighton Group for transit planning, international studies on bus and light rail? There are four of them! Because if you have not, then really you are out of the loop!

A Lecturer in public transport in Europe once wrote to me and expressed his opinion thus, "Vancouver is unique, as it is following a very expensive metro style 'rail' transit and not using much cheaper light rail. It is contrary to what every major North American or European city is doing. I hope your taxpayers understand this."

Cappy, just a note: Corrigan is the only mayor with public transit knowledge as he once was the head of BC Transit and Clark kicked him out because of Millennium Line politics.

My prediction TransLink Mk. 2 will crash and burn by 2015!

Cappy no, no, no

RAV was nearly derailed by politicians who cared enough to see through the BS and saw RAV for what it was, a Liberal ponsie scheme, where a massive amount of the publics money were diverted (quite legally) to friends of the government, by building a transit scheme that cost about four times more than it should!

Strange coincidence that Vancouver's former mayor, forgot his promises about RAV's costs and viola, he is now a Senator.

Campbell and Falcon's goal was to;
1) Not build much cheaper light rail on Arbutus (a natural).
2) Give Vancouver and Puil a world class style subway (subways have proven not to attract much new ridership)
3) Reward companies (friends of the government) with a windfall of taxpayers money (about 4 times more than if LRT was built)
4) Make a show-case P-3 for the media and public (RAV is anything but a P-3 as the private banks refused to loan money and Campbell had to raid the public sector pension plans to fund this lemon.)

Grumpy

Appreciate the comments. I respect many left wing politicians including Ms. James, Corky and to a degree Jack Layton. I don't agree with them most the time, but I respect their honesty and integrity.

I will say that Corrigan is probably the most disgusting politician i've ever encountered. He's arrogant, he surly and he is selfish. He was all too happy to spend a billion on the Millenium line because it serviced Burnaby.

In fact, if it doesn't benefit Burnaby, he doesn't want anything to do with it. That's fine. That is why he is the mayor of Burnaby. However, to have this guy, who is clearly self interested and motivated making regional transportation decisions doesn't not make sense. The NDP created Translink because they wanted to remove the NIMBYism that existed in the GVRD.

I think the Liberals should have used their 3 seats at the Translink board. For whatever reason, politics I'm sure, they didn't. Had they appointed to Libs and one pragmatic NDP MLA, we'd probably be ok.

Only time will tell. This appears as if though it fits the Libs mold and I like it. It looks as if though much will get done. I like to see results. We need results. The GVRD is growing incredibly and we must be proactive in dealing with these issues. If the NDP and old COPE had it their way, we'd still be sitting around debating the merits of the Iraq war.

There has to real input.

What has the North Shore got with Translink? They keep throwing out crazy ideas like small passenger ferries from deep cove to downtown while North Shore homeowners put more than their fair share into projects they will see very little benefit from. Any North Shore councillor that even dares to mention a third crossing just gets laughed at. Bus service just continues to get worse and worse, forcing commuters back into cars. I took the bus everyday to and from work until four years ago when I couldn't take the poor service anymore.

It seems to me that Tanslink isn't interested in the North Shore and they don't want me to take the bus.

Why didn't they extend the bus pass agreement with UBC and SFU to the local colleges? Their stated reason was simply because it would increase ridership too much. What is their goal anyway?

Things won't change for commuters on the North Shore with this new governance model. We will keep paying for pitiful service while watching the megaprojects being built anywhere but the North Shore.

Grump

We've been through this before. Arbutus corridor is not a natural. It is residential. There is far more commercial activity down Cambie. LRT is also less express. You'll have commuters from all over town using RAV. Though, let's agree to disagree on this one.

Can you show me how the public is so far out of pocket on this? Of course this isn't a profitable venture. Banks don't touch anything that doesn't make them a lot of money!! Have you seen their recent quarterly results??

Show me - I'm willing to listen.

Chris H

I live on the North Shore and disagree. I believe our needs are met just fine - except for this 3rd crossing which we desparately need.

Truth be told, this could have been resolved by expanding the Lions Gate Bridge to 6 lanes. What a behemoth waste. The NDP caved in to the special interest groups on that one!!

Even if we didn't want to pull out a little bit of Stanley Park, why did we even build the colossol waste. It is STILL A 3 LANE BRIDGE!!! With huge sidewalks and bike paths that BARELY ANYBODY USES!!!!

We should build a crossing from North Van to the site adjacent to the Port. I'm not sure if there will be space there, or not.

RAV riders

So very, very doubtful. Skytrain isn't meeting ridership projections and it passes through Surrey, New West, and Burnaby on its way to Vancouver. The RAV (Canada Line if you must) goes from the airport to downtown. You have to transfer from a bus (where are the buses anyway? Oh yeah, on hold while we pay for the Canada line) to get to it from most anywhere.

RAV or something like it will be a great idea in a couple of decades. Right now we just need a lot more buses.

bikes on the bridge

I don't think I've ever crossed the bridge and NOT seen a cyclist or pedestrian.

We won't need all those lanes once we have a decent transit system, because people will choose to be chauffeured in comfort over sitting in traffic chained to the single task of operating a motor vehicle.

You'll See

You'll see a handful of cyclists and pedestrians, many of whom are tourists. Compare it to the number of cars on the bridge. You'll 100x the number of cars as you'll see pedestrians.

That's besides the point. Its not that I disagree with the expanded sidewalks. They rebuilt a bridge, spent $1B+, created intense congestion and bridge closures for 2-3 years - for a bike lane????

C'Mon Grumpy! There will continue to be more cars as years go on. Vancouver is a growing Urban area. The % of transit riders may increase, but the sheer volume of cars, whether commuters, commercial, etc. will only increase - alongside the city.

Capitalism

"The NDP caved in to the special interest groups on that one!!"

Sorry, it was the BC Liberals that made the final decision on that one. It was purely a financial one at that. It was far too expensive to make the bridge even four lanes according to Gary Collins at the time. If you want to give the NDP all the credit for that decision then make sure you thank Glen Clark when the Olympics come.

How many times have you taken the bus off the North Shore in the past 10 years? I did for years, and after being on overcrowded buses, buses going by me because they were already full, and sitting at bus stops waiting for buses that were late or never came, I gave up.
Perhaps if I lived on lower lonsdale amd could walk to the seabus, I'd have a different opinion. The bus, for me, was not reliable.

Cappy sorry you are very wrong

Cappy, Arbutus is a natural for light rail and cheap to, for we could have got the route for, under Canadian Law, scrap! Look at the population around the Arbutus, far more than on Cambie St.

Cappy, ridership from a transit line comes from about a 300 metre radius from every station and/or stop.

Your mistake Cappy, of course more cars will be used because our current transit system is dysfunctional, it is not a good product. Ever wonder why an Engineering firm won the P-3 and not companies with experience with public transit? Too many inconvenient truths are being ignored!

Did you know Cappy that modern LRT is the only transit mode with a proven record in attracting new ridership, including the all important motorist from the car? That's why banks will fund a LRT P-3 like in Nottingham and Dublin, and not a metro P-3 like Vancouver! Banks like to make profits with little risk.

Chris H

Not many. I'll take your word for it though.

That is not true. The decision was made in the 90s. They started replacing the bridge in 2000. I remember, I was irate. There may have been a last ditch effort to scrap the project in progress. By then, it was too late. The biggest taxpayer waste in decades.

I've never not given Mr. Clark and the NDP partial credit. The started the process, Campbell brought it home. Clearly, Campbell has enjoyed all the photo ops and probably will enjoy more when they actually come in 2010. He should coast to a 3rd straight victory (fingers crossed)...

They both deserve credit. The NDP for facilitating it and the Liberals for putting the right program and funding in place to bring it home. A lot of work went into procuring those games - enjoy the party!

Oh hell - the whole enchilada - BC Mary knows!

Inconvenient Transit.

When it comes to public transit, there are many inconvenient truths that local politicians and planners choose to ignore. For all of our investment in the regional transit system, including a now $5 billion spent on the SkyTrain metro system, ridership has stagnated at 12% to 13% of the population for over a decade and a half. There has been no noticeable modal shift from car to public transit, as ridership increases follow the rate of population increase.

What has gone wrong?

An important inconvenient truth is that buses have proven not to attract much new ridership and not the motorist from the car. This has been ignored by many, especially those advocating more buses and bus routes.

Greatly ignored is the inconvenient truth that our metro system is just too expensive to build and operate for the ridership it carries. For less than one half the cost to build and over 40% less to operate, Calgary’s LRT system carries far more passengers (222,000 per day) than SkyTrain! The result of the large construction costs of metro, local bureaucrats and politicians say "there is not enough density for rapid transit in the Fraser Valley." Yet in Karlsruhe Germany, the transit authority operates over 400 km. of LRT in an area roughly the same size and density as the Fraser Valley!

Another inconvenient truth is that modern light rail or LRT is the most built ‘rail’ transit mode in the world. Since the SkyTrain proprietary metro system was first marketed in the late 1970’s, only five have been built, during the same period over 100 new LRT systems have been built, with over 475 light rail systems in operation.

In the 21st century public transit is seen as a product and if the product is not user friendly, no one will buy. It seems very few, except the poor, the elderly and students are buying TransLink’s current product, yet they plan and build more of the same!

In the new world of ‘Green’ and ‘Green’ transportation; to greatly reduce CO2 discharge in the lower mainland, one must design a transit system to attract the motorist from the car. To do so, the region needs a minimum of 300 km. of ‘rail’ transit, to create a viable network, to offer an attractive product. The province is already planning to spend $4.5 billion on the ‘Gateway’ highways project, which is definitely not ‘Green’, but could the same amount of investment create an affordable ‘light rail’ network?

Using the over $125 million/km. RAV/Canada Line as a template, 300 km. would cost over $37.5 billion! Much too expensive!

Using the $90 million/km. Evergreen hybrid LRT/metro line as a template, 300 km. would cost $27 million! Again, much too expensive to build.

Using the average cost of $25 million/km. of recently built US LRT lines as a template, 300 km. would cost $7.5 billion. Expensive but affordable.

Using Karlsruhe’s (Germany) famous and award winning zwei-system LRT as a template, at cost of about $15 million/km., which include track sharing with regular railways, 300 km. would cost about $4.5 billion or about the same cost of the Gateway project. Here we have an example, proven in revenue service since 1993, that we can service the GVRD and Fraser Valley with affordable light rail transit!

Karlsruhe’s zwei system (two system) LRT won the "Most user friendly product" award from the prestigious German business magazine DM, and why not, where ridership increased a whopping 475% on the system after only few months of operation on the new zwei system LRT!

300 km. of rail network for the region is possible if we use the right example. Instead of our politicians talking ‘Green’ and parading around in very expensive hybrid cars or cutting ribbons in front of very expensive metro systems pretending they are ‘Green’, they should walk the ‘Green’ walk and start supporting affordable and efficient regional urban rail service. Around the world politicians and planners have seen the ‘Green’ light and are rapidly expanding their light rail systems to create the affordable product that will attract customers, not so in Vancouver’s metroland where ‘Green’ transit is still at Amber and rapidly turning to Red.

falsehoods

The bridge didn't undergo those changes just for bike lanes. Are you deliberately lying or just mis-informed?

good analysis grumpy

i have to add that people complain about the actual transit fare more than they should. as an owner of several vancouver rental properties, i will be passing any increase in property tax to pay for transit directly to my tenants. these are part of the many hidden costs of transit that people do not think about often.

vancouver is becoming an increasingly expensive city to live in due to excessive spending on politically motivated projects like the olympics, social housing construction, expensive rav lines, sustainability up the yin yang that increases costs of construction, trolly busses that do not work. the list is endless.

Stump

I am overstating it obviously. I drive on that thing everyday. The lanes are wider and it is a slightly easier drive.

However, it is still a 3 lane bridge.

Thanks flattax

Thanks!

I been doing the transit gig since 1986 and it astounds me that in an age of instant communication, Falcon, et el, continue this metro nonsense. The long item is an Editorial I have sent out today, to various news organizations and with luck, maybe one or two will print it.

The real problem is that we do not have a transit savvy population or media and the politicians have gotten away with murder.

If you want to get people out of their cars, you must provide the product. In Vancouver we have not done so despite paying over $5 billion for a metro. Our politicos and bureaucrats will not admit they have made a mistake and will tax us to an inch of our lives to prove so!

What scares me more than anything is a Liberal definition of a transit expert. We got none and we do not train them. Most what I see and hear from politicians, bureaucrats, planners, and engineers is 1950's metro stuff, not 21st century LRT stuff. In Europe they give degrees in Urban Transport, here maybe one or two lectures!

I laugh at the bus-boys and the want of buses, we have ample buses but they are used so inefficiently that the demand for more buses is acute. Buses drives up costs tremendously, but TransLink and Falcon don't see this.

Metro is breaking the backbone of our public transit system as the huge annual operating subsidies are ham-stringing the rest of the transit system.

Does Falcon care? Not one iota. Will the new and improved TransLink change things? Don't count on it.

if we want change we must first find out where we have gone wrong. The answers are there but no one has the stomach to admit it and on and on the metro game is being played!

Thanks flattax

Thanks!

I been doing the transit gig since 1986 and it astounds me that in an age of instant communication, Falcon, et el, continue this metro nonsense. The long item is an Editorial I have sent out today, to various news organizations and with luck, maybe one or two will print it.

The real problem is that we do not have a transit savvy population or media and the politicians have gotten away with murder.

If you want to get people out of their cars, you must provide the product. In Vancouver we have not done so despite paying over $5 billion for a metro. Our politicos and bureaucrats will not admit they have made a mistake and will tax us to an inch of our lives to prove so!

What scares me more than anything is a Liberal definition of a transit expert. We got none and we do not train them. Most what I see and hear from politicians, bureaucrats, planners, and engineers is 1950's metro stuff, not 21st century LRT stuff. In Europe they give degrees in Urban Transport, here maybe one or two lectures!

I laugh at the bus-boys and the want of buses, we have ample buses but they are used so inefficiently that the demand for more buses is acute. Buses drives up costs tremendously, but TransLink and Falcon don't see this.

Metro is breaking the backbone of our public transit system as the huge annual operating subsidies are ham-stringing the rest of the transit system.

Does Falcon care? Not one iota. Will the new and improved TransLink change things? Don't count on it.

if we want change we must first find out where we have gone wrong. The answers are there but no one has the stomach to admit it and on and on the metro game is being played!

Well I didn't post it twice!

Nope, I didn't post it twice! by the way Cappy, the three lane bridge was retained to prevent gridlock in Vancouver, which would have happened with a four lane bridge. This is called passive traffic calming.

Chris H

The North Shore types are a mutant species originally derived from the Arbutus Corridor "Creme de la cremes ". Eons ago, a breeding pair was able to survive the swim across the Burrard Inlet.

Much like the Galapagos, they have evolved into a separate and distinct species.

They worship the gods of "NIMBY-ism -Property Value", and do not wish to mingle with the masses, hence they want to maintain restricted access to and from their communities in perpetuity.

I say fill in Burrard Inlet...

Oh Capitalism!

Where did Cappy get this from

"That's besides the point. Its not that I disagree with the expanded sidewalks. They rebuilt a bridge, spent $1B+, created intense congestion and bridge closures for 2-3 years - for a bike lane????"

What nonsense! The cost of the Lions Gate Bridge Rehabilitation was $63.4 million. It was intended to widen the three traffic lanes and provide bike lanes. Where in all that is holy could you get a "$1B+" out of this unless you just plain lie about it?

Is this an example of the facts behind capitalist thinking?

Value of surveys re:RAV line

It depends on the question. A survey commissioned by the RAV project office and released in April 2003 showed that only 2 to 4% of the people surveyed thought that the RAV line was the most important transit issue in the region.

Transit, not freeways

Last Saturday's Vancouver Sun published charts showing that 68% of the trips in the European city of Vienna are by public transit, walking or cycling, while in the U.S. city of Phoenix, 94% of the trips are by private car. One goal of the very expensive Gateway program proposed by the Provincial government is to reduce traffic congestion. But in Phoenix, transportation officials are considering widening a section of freeway to 24 lanes in order to relieve the congestion on the existing 12 lane freeway, itself built to reduce congestion. Proof that freeways do not reduce congestion.
It is estimated that 750,000 people will move to the Vancouver metropolitan area over the next few decades, and this has been used as justification for building new roads and freeways.
The European model suggests that the increased number of trips that would result from this population increase could be entirely accommodated by an improved public transit system, without even coming close to the level of transit utilization of the Europeans.

grumpy, let's talk

Grumpy I was intrigued by your numbers-based case for rail. I'm currently writing a story on bus rapid transit, which has been fantastically succesful in Bogota. I'd be interested to see the source of your numbers, and compare the costs to rapid bus. If you want to talk more about this in the coming weeks, feel free to email me. You can reach me by sending an email to

. The eds will pass on your note.

Otherwise I'll look for more of your comments here.

Charles

TransLink surveys not worth their Ipsos Ried!

Independent surveys showed that that over 60% of the population rejected RAV! As said before, it depends on the questions asked.

One question that is never asked:

Do you want LRT from Downtown to Richmond at $800 million.
or
Do want a metro/subway at $2.4 billion.

Robbins Research Poll

Vancouver RAV-more coyote ugly politics in BC
May 13, 2004

A random sample of 405 Vancouverites on May 14, 2004, It features a margin or error of 4.2%, 18 times out of 20, @97% competency.

Question #1
Recently, the Board of Directors of Translink voted down RAV, with the opposing votes claiming that it was too costly, and that it may ultimately overburden taxpayers. Do you agree with THIS opposition to RAV?
Yes 72.6 %
No 27.4 %
Question #2
Would you regularly use light rapid transit between Vancouver-Richmond and/or the Vancouver Airport?
Yes 35.3 %
No 64.7 %
Question #3
How likely would you be to EVER use a light rapid transit means of transportation between Vancouver/Richmond and/or the Vancouver Airport?
Very Likely 33.6 %
Likely 10.7 %
Not very likely at all 55.8 %
Question #4
The Vancouver Board of Trade, The BC Business Council, Premier Gordon Campbell, and Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon are all demanding that the Translink Board reconsider their vote on RAV. Mayor Larry Campbell voted for RAV, Vancouver City Councilors David Cadman and Raymond Louie voted against the proposed RAV. Whose position do you agree with?
Vancouver Mayor Larry Campbell 31.4 %
Vancouver Councilors David Cadman and Raymond Louie 68.7 %
Question #5
In your opinion, what direction should Translink now take with respect to light rapid transit between Vancouver-Richmond and the Vancouver Airport?
Scrap the whole concept, we don’t really need it and its all too expensive 14.9 %
We should construct light rapid transit between Vancouver Richmond and the Airport for under 1 billion dollars with NO cost overruns to be born by the taxpayer 81.8 %
We should construct the original RAV line for between 1.5 billion and 2 billion dollars just as was planned 3.5 %
Commentary
Commentary-No matter how you choose to look at the light rapid transit issue between Vancouver Richmond and the Airport, it is clear that the original ‘Cadillac’ RAV must be kept off the table for ever. Its too expensive, and taxpayers do not want to be exposed to additional taxes owing to cost overruns.
It is obvious there is a need to light rapid transit to the airport; however it remains interesting how many respondents who said they would use RAV want to know what they would do with their luggage. This is the same question which was raised by Airport workers in a previous poll of Richmond residents.
Media coverage of last week’s ‘losers’ on the RAV vote, including Surrey Mayor and Translink Chair Doug McCallum, Vancouver Board of Trade and BC Business Council representatives, Rezac and Lampert, Premier Gordon Campbell and Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon, complaining about the outcome is becoming very offensive to right thinking British Columbians. It is abundantly clear that these individuals are not thinking in the interests of the citizens they purport to represent, or in the case of the two special interest representatives, ANY voting citizens.
Why do the media persist in speaking to special interest groups on subjects that those groups or organizations have no democratic interest in? I put the same criticism on the Canadian Taxpayers Association debating with H.E.U. members. This RAV debate if not modified to a dialogue that makes sense to the voter, and the consumer, runs the risk of further turning this province into a political Ozark. Mr. Falcon’s comments that 80% of the public want RAV are dishonest.

A Link to robbins research poll on Falcon & TransLink

Here is a Link to Robbins Research's recent poll on Falcon's take over of TransLink

http://www.robbinssceresearch.com/polls/poll_315.html

Slanted Article?

Cappy said:
"When you are performing long term transportation planning, you must have regional representation with a long term perspective. Translink didn't have that.
I'm not sure this is the answer. This Tyee article is sure slanted to tell us it isn't."

Having representatives from each municipal council in the GVRD sure sounds like regional representation to me. The Province had three seats on the Translink board they could have filled. Why didn't they, Cappy?

As for long-term perspective, how did Translink not have that? You only need to go to their Web site and the GVRD's to see the plans that were developed for regional transportation and land use.

However, when you look at being able to effectively accomplish your mandate, it's a bit difficult when you are reliant on senior governments for your funding, yet they starve you relative to your budgetary needs, particularly when the region's population growth has already outstripped capacity and marches on. This results in numerous short-term crises that tend to dominate your attention.

I see a lot of problems with what Falcon has come out with for the Translink 2.0. and I think this article makes them clear.

I was at the Anthony Downs talk where he he described a model that "would look something like the Greater Vancouver Regional District, but with directly elected members and much more power to compel local municipalities to follow collective plans." That made sense to me because it is politically accountable and is comprised of people familiar with their local needs so that regional solutions can take those into account, rather than a one-size-fits-all approach that results in waste. A reliable source of transit funding must be supplied for this to work.

I guess this article is slanted in that it doesn't shoe shine Freeway Falcon. Rather, you get a realistic look at the issues.

Robbins Research

Thanks for the links Grumpy to the Robbins Research. I'll be checking in regularly to read the BC polls. Lots of information there that Canwest will never print.

P3s and the lack of accountability they provide is a crux issue on Vancouver's transportation questions, and for anything and everything that involves Kevin Falcon.

"http://www.robbinssceresearch.com/polls/poll_278.html"
Shows that initial poll questions have P3s approved by 50%. Support for 3 P’s falls to slightly more than one in five when a fundamental flaw of public private partnerships is expressed to them (a lack of accountability). Once again, the failure of the mass media to inform the public enables the theft of the commons.

Chris H

Translink didn't extend the U-PASS agreement to the other schools because they don't have enough capacity to meet the demand. With UBC and SFU alone, PASS-U is a common experience on the routes serving the two schools. It's happened to me often enough and I'm not a student.

Is there going to be any relief soon in this respect? Don't count on it. With the bundle blown (and counting) on the RAV Line (which TransLink should have pitched the third strike to in favour of LRT) and Falcon's upcoming spend-a-thons, where's the money going to come from?

As for transportation solutions for the North Shore, I'd like to hear what Grumpy's take is.

Lions Gate Way Over Budget

The Lions Gate Bridge Project was a big fiasco. It went way over budget. Originally pegged at $78 million, it ended up costing almost double. The BC Liberals allowed the construction company to get away with this incredible cost overrun. At the time, many urged the BC Liberals to delay the project and expand its scope. However, after cutting $2 Billion in taxes and putting themselves in a deficit, the North Shore was no longer a priority. Should the NDP have originally made the project better? Of course! But the NDP has a record of putting money only into areas that actually elect NDP MLAs (see the Vancouver Island Highway). You'd think the North Shore MLAs would be better advocates now that they are in government, but we have a group of quiet backbenchers that the cabinet makes fun of.

and Grumpy: "the three lane bridge was retained to prevent gridlock in Vancouver, which would have happened with a four lane bridge. This is called passive traffic calming."

If that is so, where are the HOV lanes? Where is the transit off the North Shore? I can bike to work faster than taking the bus, and I am a pitifully slow (biking over the Second Narrows is far too hard). Translink hasn't been very interested in improving transit on the North Shore. Instead we get these massive megaprojects. Incredibly, they can't seem to muster up the funds for even a third seabus.

and Maestro: "They worship the gods of "NIMBY-ism -Property Value", and do not wish to mingle with the masses, hence they want to maintain restricted access to and from their communities in perpetuity."

Hmm. You are suggesting that the North Shore residents don't want a third crossing? That is laughable. North Vancouver District has implemented some slow growth policy, but I don't think you can say that of the City or West Van.

Hey, I want to leave my car at home and take public transit! We need some principle of equity. We are paying a massive amount into the coffers of Translink without seeing much back. I tried to be a responsible commuter, but translink did there best to convince me it wasn't a good idea.

This new governance model will simply continue on the same path. No local voices, just a regional, unjust strategy.

Romeogolf

I couldn't agree with you more. Translink is not interested in expanding their capacity. If there is a demand, shouldn't they try to meet it? Don't we want more people out of their cars? Why are will building these megaprojects when in some cases we simply need more buses? The goal should be to get as many people taking transit as possible. Too bad that isn't Translink's goal.

Wrong again Chris H!

It came in at $5 million over. You can find it all on the site http://www.construction.com/NewsCenter/Headlin
es/ENR/20020128b.asp
Sometimes the truth is not what you want it to be.

RAV

"The Province had three seats on the Translink board they could have filled. Why didn't they, Cappy?"

That is a might fine question, isn't it. I presume it was politics. The BC Libs didn't want to appear as if though they were overriding the GVRDs decision. In the end, they did what was right. The problem was the board composition at the time. You had people really ticked off at Philip Owen being turfed and COPE elected in a landslide. COPE represented (around) 4 of the 10 on that board and were very rigid, unlike Ladner/Campbell/Stevenson. This board voted "No" more than any other counsel ever has.

In the end, the people wanted it and they got it!!!

When I get a little more time, i'll form an opinion on Translink 2.0. The Tyee raises a few good questions, though, can I ask - could anything be worse that v1.0??

Transit Ridership 800m Around Station

Wrong again Grumps.

From the link below:
"Pedestrians walk farther to access light rail stations than commonly assumed, with a mean distance of about a half-mile rather than the prevailing notion of a quarter to a third of a mile." A half a mile is 800 metres. This is why SkyTrain has such good ridership and why the Canada Line probably will as well.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=64226

I don't think YOU get it.

Do you know how to read a poll? Did you read the one posted above? It show quite clearly that your comment above is, to be charitable.. erroneous.

'The people' want transit that works, not white elephant lines that won't reach capacity for decades, if ever.

Do you honestly think if you spread misinformation long enough it will somehow transmute from lies to truth?

If you can't debate the facts, or at least bring a rational p.o.v. to the discussion, please don't muddy the waters with mis-information and un-truths.

Re: grumpy, let's talk

Speaking of cost, isn't it interesting how Falcon quibbles over the extra cost of building a tunnel under Eagleridge Bluffs and yet has no problem choosing Skytrain technology to build RAV at far greater cost differential, especially when you factor in natural capital.

So compare what Grumpy's prescription of LRT throughout the Valley will give us to Falcon's Gateway and Evergreen schemes. Remember, Anthony Downs, a traffic expert, said widening #1 and twinning the Port Mann will not reduce congestion except briefly. A triple convergence of traffic will see that it returns to the same situation in 2-3 years.

No, it was the NDP

>>The NDP caved in to the special interest groups on that one!!"

> Sorry, it was the BC Liberals that made the final decision on that one. It was purely a financial one at that

Um, no, it wasn't the BC Liberals. The BC Liberals did not take power until May 2001, the Lion's Gate bridge deck replacement was already well underway by that time!

skytrain ridership

Wondering how you would characterize 'good ridership'. Unless I've been mis-informed, my understanding is that Skytrain ridership is far below original forecasts.

Please, no percentage increases. Real numbers if you have them. Those numbers compared to total capacity would be positively peachy. Are we running the equivalent of a Cadillac Escalade with one passenger while downtown buses increasingly resemble the jam-packed clown car at the circus? That to me, is a very real issue that gets lost in the techno-hard-on displayed for rail.

Or, please point me to a place where I can find the data for myself if you don't want to do the work for me (not at all an unreasonable position).

What are the projections?

> Skytrain isn't meeting ridership projections and it passes through Surrey, New West, and Burnaby on its way to Vancouver

Exactly what are those projections?

As anyone who comutes via SkyTrain knows, the Expo Line runs pretty much ram-jam full between Broadway and downtown during rush "hour"...

Re: Rav

Stumpy, no need to get hot under the collar. Just point out Cappy's error and that is effective enough.

I think the main problem we have with transit in the Lower Mainland is that the Province gave Translink the authority but held the purse strings. Under Falcon it became an "either dance to my tune or you won't get any money" proposition. So yes, Cappy, under that formula Translink 1.0 was definitely not going to work. Politics? Absolutely. Translink the problem? Only in that they didn't act like the People's Consultative Conference and rubber stamp Falcon's plans. Therefore, he starved them of funds.

I'm expecting Translink 2.0 will be worse for the reasons clearly explained above. With Falcon's track record, how is he going to meet the greenhouse gas emissions targets Campbell has committed us to? It will require a lot more transit, yet that is not on the books, nor is Falcon even talking about it. Gateway full steam ahead (into a melting iceberg).

RAC wrong again

The Hass-Klau LRT/bus studies (2001-2 & 3) found that the vast majority of ridership for both modes came from about 300 metre radius around each station or stop. That's why urban light rail systems stop every 500 to 700 metres. The study you quote is a walkability study from San Jose, where it seldom rains and ridership on their LRT isn't spectacular!

SkyTrain peak hour ridership is about 60% less than was predicted for the year 2000! Using the Same formula, RAV ridership may only be about 44,000 by 2030!

SkyTrain is jammed because of not enough trains being available. This is the trick, TransLink puts a full complement of trains for the peak hours and stables 3 or 4 on sidings so they can say we had all the train in service, yet they don't!

The Expo Line was supposed to be carrying over 20,000 pphpd in the peak hour (GVRD in 1980) by the year 2000, but peak hour ridership today is about 8,000 pphpd. and that's if all the trains are operational.

Romeogolf - I was told by a chap who worked for Siemens in 1999, that they could put in a first class regional light railway (using diesel powered light rail vehicles) from downtown Vancouver to Chilliwack via the old interurban line. It included a new rail bridge across the Fraser at New West; 1 hour service from Chilliwack; 20 minute service from Abbotsford; 10 minute service from Langley to downtown Vancouver, plus a rail service to Abbotsford airport.

With the $2.3 billion RAV we get a 7 1/2 minute service from the airport or Richmond to Vancouver. Go figure.

SkyTrain Ridership

Total ridership on SkyTrain is around 220,000 which is about the same as Calgary's LRT although Calgary has 3 lines as opposed to Vancouver's 1.5. Calgary also has a fare-free zone Downtown.

The Millenium Line ridership was way below projections when it first opened but it has rapidly increased over the last few years. It is now somewhere between 60-70,000 per day. It was projected to be 75,000 by 2006 due to the Coquitlam extension (now Evergreen Line) which has not been built yet. If the Evergreen Line was finished now, the projections would have been met.

Ridership, especially on the Expo Line will be significantly higher once the 34 new cars arrive in 2009.

SkyTrain has higher ridership than all LRT systems in North America with the exception of Toronto. Calgary's may be a few thousand higher but that is not certain.

Not sure what the projections for the Expo Line were but whatever they were, it is the lack of cars that is limiting ridership here as well as in Calgary.

You can look for yourself here:

http://www.answers.com/topic/millennium-line
http://www.answers.com/topic/skytrain-vancouver
http://www.answers.com/topic/light-rail-in-north-america

Forget the individual players

The die is cast and the seeds are sown.

After Education and Health care...the next worst political hornets nest has been Public Transit.

All parties use it to foster their agendas...on the motherhood theme etc. Falcon et al are just bit-players in the bigger scam...NEXT!!!

Much as the RAV is using Pork -barrelish fuelled Made -in -Canada technology, the latest new bus fiasco was involving New Flyer buses, which are manufactured in Winnipeg.

This is another Pork Barrel subsidy to other "outside BC" Canadian transit interests.

Nobody rides Skytrain, it's too crowded

So to paraphrase Yogi Bera, nobody rides Skytrain, it's too crowded :)

Apparently the Expo line runs at "99% capacity" between Main and Broadway, which isn't hard to believe.

I can vouch for the increase in traffic on the Millennium Line you mention, it used to be easy to get a seat, on some days now it's just as packed as the Expo Line (trains only run every 5 minutes, though). May be all those new high-rises clustered around Gilmore, and it's only going to get worse when the new development east of Brentwood is completed

Perhaps we should get Drew Snider to sign in here

Drew Snider
Media Relations -- Transit Operations,
TransLink
604-453-3054 (w)
604-803-3199 (c)

As I recall he comes from a media background with CFAX 1070 in Victoria.

He's probably good at reading press releases.

I think I'll stay with Grumpy's take

so thats what it is..passive traffic calming

quote from grumpy:

"the three lane bridge was retained to prevent gridlock in Vancouver, which would have happened with a four lane bridge. This is called passive traffic calming."

I always wondered why they are putting bump out curbs in locations where a side road meets a busy road. eg along small roads intersecting kingsway and main. Since the bump outs prevent people from turing right when someone who is going straight through is stopped in front of them at a stop sign or a light. it actually keeps people on the side road at the intersection longer and is a form of passive traffic calming.

the city sells it as "greening" but it actually results in someone who is turing right spending longer at an intersection. Seems like a cheap fix to me, or maybe not so cheap if you factor in construction costs these days.

Skywalker

Check the governments figures instead. as of 2002/2003 the project had already cost $124 million. I'm sure the contractor came within $5 million of the revised budget the asked for! Way to manipulate the facts though Skywalker!

see:
http://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/Annual_Reports/2002_2003/trans/trans_resources.htm

>the three lane bridge was

>the three lane bridge was retained to prevent gridlock in Vancouver, which would have happened with a four lane bridge.

How would a four lane bridge dump any more commuter traffic into Vancouver? It would still be 2 lanes inbound in the morning, same as it is now!

If anything, a four lane bridge would *decrease* the gridlock we see daily on W/B Georgia street, as there would no longer be two lanes squeezing into one.

Good point re: " greening " (?)

Good point:

How can you " green " anything whose growth projections show continued population growth?

Human growth is "UNnatural/Impacts nature" does it not?

Every new person has attached to them greater demands for M-O-R-E Food, Heating, Health Care, Education, more blessed bureaucracy etc, and all the other assorted Private and Public infrastructure that goes with it.

This "greening" is just Roman Circus- Mind Candy.

Figures lie and Liars figure.

We'll see percentages (%'s) manipulated to hide the more IN - BULK increased realities, most of them on the down-side of the growth equation.

Too many problems!!!

I firmly believe that Translink 1.0 did rather well with what they were given, which wasn't all that much. Many of the issues resided from lack of regional power, provincial intervention, lack of funding, and politics of the board.

Some of the issues are addressed in 2.0, and some aren't. It is frighteningly apparent that the province is demanding more control over it all, but we've yet to see whether that will be good or not. Just because they are doing Gateway now, doesn't necessarily mean terrible transit. But I'm obviously not holding my breath.

I do agree with the board of professionals. It's exactly what was missing during the important decisions in the past. However, the only thing worrying me here is how they'll get chosen, which goes back to the provincial power issue. In any case, Translink 2.0 seems like it's coming whether we like it or not, and we'll all have to see how it plays out.

NOW. As for what's wrong with transit. Many issues have been raised so far and hopefully I'll get through them all.

SkyTrain technology: It's completely true that Vancouver has been going about building the system all wrong. We should never have built any more of these fancy, proprietary trains after the Expo line was done.

The ML should've been LRT, but that's the provincial NDP fault there. This has just fed into the desire that if any area is to get rapid transit, it has to be SkyTrain, which is obviously completely wrong. The ML hasn't fulfilled it's ridership projections, and as far as I can remember, is loading about half what the Expo line carries each day.

Expo line itself is doing alright. It's at least running with a tiny surplus. However, as has been mentioned, capacity is full many times during the day. Even over the weekend at around 4 last Sunday, all the seats were filled, and there were quite a few standees. Translink took way too long to buy those new trains.

But, what are you going to do when those trains fill up a few years down the line? This is exactly the point Downs was making in his talk. That no matter what, there is going to be congestion, certainly at specific times during the day, and there's not much you can do to alleviate it. It's all about providing options to people: whether that's thru cars, transit, walking, or cycling. But eventually, all these routes and modes of transport will fill up as more and more people live in the area.

Now, as for RAV. The Canada Line is the stupidest name I've ever heard, first of all. Secondly, I seriously doubt that travellers from the airport are even going to use it. Nobody's coming here to ride a subway downtown. That's if they even know it exists. Now, I agree that LRT should've been used. I disagree with Arbutus, as it is a residential area, and Cambie is much more suited as a mixed-use area and closer to areas of interest such as City Hall or whatnot. The problem with Cambie was the NIMBYs and the "historics". If it had been elevated, the project wouldn't nearly be as expensive. Or, they could've had sleek, comfy LRT run right down the boulevard, while keeping any old trees. That seems to me to be the best option.

One problem RAV is already facing is construction costs. The private company is held accountable for costs, and is cutting corners already. The station designs have proven to be quite bland and cheap in many cases, and the platforms have been shortened to 40-50m, not expandable because it's underground. Considering that RAV is supposed to carry almost as many people as Expo, and that line is already filling up with 80m platforms, how are we supposed to add capacity? Sure, plop on some more trains, but eventually that will force slow downs as well. They aren't thinking. And as RAV fills up, it's back to cars.

Frankly, the one thing that is both good and bad with Translink 1.0 is they've made a pretty good transit system in Vancouver. The problem is they've completely disregarded the Valley. Surrey's population is estimated to run past Vancouver's in the coming years, and we've got basically nothing in terms of transit. Sure, blame Doug McCallum and poor planning, but the fact is that Translink has a mandate to provide the WHOLE region with transit, not just Vancouver.

I disagree with Grumpy here, in that buses do provide a service. I agree, most people hate buses and they are rundown, ugly, not comfortable, etc. But, they don't have to be. Also, buses provide the feeding service into rapid transit. We can't just delete the bus routes and put LRT everywhere. Buses exist because they are very economical and mobile, and that isn't going to change.

The fact of the matter is it takes twice as long to get to Van on transit from Langley then it does even with traffic on the highway. This is what it comes down to. Transit service is a choice and option that has to be made available to the public, with service competitive to cars, for affordable prices. By going the SkyTrain or nothing route, and by refusing to add more buses to the system, Translink 1.0 has failed it's mandate.

I hope you enjoyed my scatter-brained thoughts ;)

RAC you will believe anything!

Until TransLink publishes just how they count ridership, then I'll believe them. Two years ago, ridership averaged 100,000 passengers a day for a three month period. Now, as you state, they carry 220,000 is nothing more than a joke.

Calgary offers about 30% more capacity than the Expo Line during peak hours, yet SkyTrain jammed packed is carrying only a few less, nonsense! As well TransLink's claimed ridership for SkyTrain is about 30% more than than revenue collected, so either there is major fare evasion or they are over stating ridership.

Trouble is RAC, no one else believe in what TransLink claims ans no one has copied how we operate our transit system. Oh by the way Calgary counts boardings three times a year, full counts mind you nor an hour here and a hour there like TransLink! If we had turnstiles the ridership argument would be mute has turnstiles are very good counting ridership!

TransLink can claim all they want, but until there is a regular independent auditing of ridership (which is common on most public transit systems) they can claim what ever they want. For as long as i can remember SkyTrain claimed ridership was always a few thousand behind Calgary's LRT, I guess it is a cheap way of counting ridership!

hot under the collar

Two falsehoods in one thread. Capitalism is not gonna get any slack from me I'm afraid. Spreading misinformation is a classic propaganda ploy.

RAC:

I didn't ask about the Millennium Line. That was a reasonably smart place to put LRT. Also, Answers.com isn't what I would consider a good source as it's too easy for anyone to fudge the numbers. Those links you posted sounded as though they were ripped right off of Bombardier/Skytrain promo materials.

Sites like Answers and Wikipedia sometimes have good info, but for controversial topics, the 'facts' definitely need to be taken with a grain of salt. I'll stick with Grumpy's numbers... I believe them to be more accurate.

Dave2:

Building more infrastructure to cope with two rush hours a day is the same approach that results in building more freeways that sit practically empty except for peak periods. What's needed are transit resources that can be moved around to meet demand. For me that means buses and similar passenger vehicles... that can utilized where there's demand rather than building rail stations and hoping people will find a way to get there.

Not to mention one malfunction, suicide attempt, or direct action on the Skytrain system shuts it all down. Much harder to do that to the bus system.

A note on buses

Compare the two O-Bahn style guided buses that were built in Germany, and in Australia and the Ottawa busways with newly built LRT and one sees that the LRT lines fared far better.

The O-Bahn in Germany will be converted back to LRT when the buses become life expired; Ottawa rejected further busways in favour of LRT which the conservative government killed; and in Adelaide, O-bahn's ridership never met expectations and the city is renewing and enlarging a 80 year old interurban network.

Show me where new buses have been a success!

Chris H

You are talking about something else. The project was completed long before then and you r one line entry in a 2002/2003 budget is other work. It doesn't even go by the same description. Nice try though.

Stump, when you look at the

Stump, when you look at the hundreds of passengers on each Skytrain train, it's hard to imagine how the same number of people could be transported by buses along the Kingsway corridor.

(And our aged freeway hardly sits empty 'except for peak periods', unless you define 'peak period' as 16 hours a day)

buses

I think there's a place for buses in the transit system. I'd hate to see the bus system beggared to pay for other modes. As Charles Montgomery mentioned, they are having some success in Bogota.

Other than that, I'm working from personal experience. I can use the bus system to get to a lot of places in the GVRD, esp. if it (the bus) has a bike rack. I regularly use the bus to make a multi-modal trip to West Van that I doubt will ever be possible by rail. That kind of flexibility doesn't seem to be as easy to create with light rail, but since I don't have any light rail experience to speak of, I can't compare the two.

No Brainer:

The dedicated /elevated RAV line has a maximum capacity.

A point is reached with mostly FULL trains.

No more room for any more trains.

No new track in place to accomodate future growth.

Any easements left to accomodate new growth? Maybe light rail will win in the end.

Otherwise, Back to same old.

Kingsway

Actually, I think it would be quite possible with more buses and a dedicated lane. I'd suggest a combination of express buses and the regular variety such as that utilized on Broadway (#99-B and #9). Best of all you aren't stuck having to get off at just a few stops. I used to travel to Metrotown from the Cedar Cottage neighbourhood daily. When I didn't ride my bike, I used either the #19 bus or Skytrain. One mode wasn't significantly faster (a matter of a few minutes) than the other, simply because the #19 bus stopped a block from my house, while to take Skytrain I had to catch a bus either to Broadway or Nanaimo stations.

freeways

I'd urge you to take a second look at the roads you travel on and just how much unused space is required for cars to travel safely. Freeways are so inefficient it boggles the mind. Couple that with cars with only a driver (25% capacity) and you have reams and reams of unused capacity. You can run a bus in roughly the same space as required for a car... and carry dozens more people.

We're probably measuring capacity by two very different standards.

More Money is Needed

Anyway, it is silly agruing about systems that are already built or are being built. It is not going to change things or get better transit.

More money is needed for LRT, buses and the Millenium Line extension and the feds and the province need to step up to the plate. Stop the $3 billion Gateway Program and there would be plenty of money left for all kinds of transit.

Capitalism: Quote:I have no

Capitalism:

It won't.

True. I agree fully with the article that Translink and the GVRD should be given far more power than they've had so far.

Wrong.

Wrong again. The RAV line was voted down twice because it was clear it was such an awful idea.

Much of the funding was contingent and was received from the federal government and private interests.

I can't speak for Mr. Corrigans motives, but the RAV line was an incredibly foolish waste of money. That's as good a reason as any I can think of not to support it. As for your statement about "ideological buffoons", if that's not hypocrisy I don't what is.

Buses, LRT, metro - the why and where

A rule of thumb for transit mode is:

Number of passengers per hour per transit route:

up to 2,000 passenger per hour per direction - buses.

up to about 20,000 pphpd - LRT

about 15,000 to 20,000+ pphpd - metro

A set of 4 Mk.1 cars have a max. capacity of 300 persons, which could be accommodated by 4 trolley buses. Ok here is some quick numbers:

To move 6,000 persons per hour:

80 trolley bus trips.
60 articulated bus trips.
28 SkyTrain trips (Mk. car, married pair with a capacity of 110 per car.)
14 Skytrain trips (Mk.2 car - 4 car train)
20 SkyTrain trips (4 car Mk.1 - 2 married pairs)
15 LRT trips (2 car train, 200 cap. per car)
10 LRT trips (3 car trains, 200 cap. per car)

RAC- another god awful waste of money

The Millennium Line extension is another god awful waste of money. No one gets it - we do not have enough money for transit because the SkyTrain metro system has eaten it all up, building more just exacerbates the situation.

The only reason Falcon mentions the Millennium Line is to give his property pimps massive profits by overriding city zoning and build mega towers at proposed stations. It's all about greed money and flim flam.

Capitalism: Quote:This

Capitalism:

There will be results alright. Billions of dollars wasted will be the result. That certainly will fit the Liberal mould.

Not all of it. But anyway, isn't that the point?

I'd be amazed if it breaks 100,000 riders per day within 5 years of opening.

Grumpy: Does the skytrain

Grumpy:

Does the skytrain use standard gauge rails? Just out of curiosity, would it be possible for a tram/lrt vehicle to use the skytrain/RAV tracks (with suitable small adjustments)?

Transit Services should be centrally managed and run.

The failure of the Translink system in the lower mainland can be directly linked to the bickering between municipal politicians.

Transit should be managed like it was before at one time as a central agency that can do planning, administration, and supply services on a provincial basis.

Regionalization in my opinion is duplicative and is not economical.

Jimmy_l

SkyTrain does operate on standard gauge and in theory light rail vehicles can use the guideway. The one problem I see is the station platform height as most modern LRT vehicles are low floor, the problem is one of engineering and can be overcome.

Many years ago I hypothesized about a hybrid LRT vehicle that could operate as a tram, on-street and as a metro on the SkyTrain guideway (Amsterdam operates a similar style service) based on a modular body with every-other module having a low floor or high floor door. I'm afraid that the vehicle would be custom designed for Vancouver and be quite expensive, but it could be done. A modular would be cheaper.

Here is the problem in Toronto, the streetcars are broad gauge, the rails are an inch wider than standard gauge.

Let people judge themselves

From the governments own website:

Lions Gate Bridge

Objectives:

Replace the aging bridge deck to reduce maintenance costs and eliminate the possibility of deck failure.
Create a safer and more efficient route for motor vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians.

Costs:

The project budget was $125 million. Expenditures to March 31, 2003 are $124 million. The project was completed during 2002/03.

Benefits:

Increased safety and extended useful life of the bridge.

Risks:

Risks became negligible with project completion.

Does that sound like the Lions Gate Bridge Project to you? A little more expensive than the $78 million originally budgeted.

Aggravation

Where to begin. The existent public transportation system in the Lower Mainland region today is fast becoming an utter and absolute disaster, with all projections appeared headed for even greater catastropic results. Then again, if one considers current metropolis centres like LA okay, it might not be the end of the world. Most likely though, with the delusional Falcon now firmly at the helm with his latest Translink manoevreing, I, frankly, fear nothing but the worst ahead.

The RAV-line is indeed, a complete misallocation of public spending. And, considering its current record as the largest public capital project ever to be built in the region, that's a fearsome proposition. The train that goes nowhere. The existing B-Line bus route, built a mere 5+ years ago was working fine, albeit it needed a whole wack more buses on the route. The problem no longer lay with getting from town to the airport and on to Richmond - it lies, where it has probably always lay, with what to do once once gets OUT to Richmond. The RAV-line does absolutely zero to aid in that regard. One will continue to be deposited at the current B-line terminus at Richmond Centre Mall on No. 3 Road, and there one will wait. The Arbutus Corridor line, with its rail bed already in existence, and the ability to take or eventually take the line all the way on to Steveston, White Rock, etc. was the natural choice. CP Rail could have been paid its $100M, as they currently want for their land along the line, a light-rail built and we still would have had millions remaining to purchase more buses to add to the current road system, including a more extensive arterial route within Richmond proper, itself. It will be the crime of the century if that line is never developed - in spite of the RAV line going ahead.

In discussion in this thread pertinent to the current situation as it exists on the north shore today. Having been a resident (and transit rider) of North Vancouver myself for over ten years, I can agree with Chris H et al and attest with the best of them that public transit is, indeed, still going nowhere over there. Furthermore, it is getting worse. Buses are full, buses are breaking down much more frequently, and in over ten years, there is still no new service being added or being projected to be added. Moreover, not sure if anyone has also thought to consider this: on the north side of the Ironworkers Memorial Bridge, in very short due time, the Burrard Band is slated to commence work on their Tildford Mall size mall development at that junction. In addition, the North Vancouver District is in the middle of approvals for a huge new residential development there as well, on the west side of Hwy 1 off the Fern Street exit. I predict total gridlock there within a very short time of those two projects being built. To think a second or third Indian Arm/Burrard Inlet Seabus crossing, or better yet, some sort of lightrail service and crossing there is not even remotely in the works is even more harrowing to consider. So, to all who think the Lions Gate Bridge is still bad now subsequent to its own makeover several years ago - count yourself lucky you will not have to deal with the Second Narrows crossing in future.

I'll try to wind down this rant for the night. But I would add, it's sheer madness we are not even considering at this point in time, reinstating rail service all the way out to Hope - NOW. If the old inter-urban lines are not viable or accessible, we have the centre median of the # 1 which just begs to have a rail system built on it. It would immediately negate any further discussion of the 1950s era dinosaur of a project that is Gateway.

At this late date in the game, on all counts, I, myself, can only hope I am long gone from this region in the coming years as its transportation and air pollution woes continue to escalate at what appears an unstoppable rate.

Gateway to where?

In other words, when the province wants to beef up infrastructure to move cargo, residents of the Lower Mainland will be footing the bill.

A gateway in modern economic terms is supposed to mean "a portal, where two or more economies meet and through which societies are enriched."

I paraphrase I suppose.

However, as i have posted on environmental threads about three weeks ago, the residents of the lowermainland will pay for the Gateway Project lock stock and two smoking guns.

This is all about getting product into Future Shop and Walmarts in central Canada and the eastern United States faster and cheaper than it is even today.

The only thing standing between ever cheaper consumer goods and eastern North America is our regional sustainability and those damn transportation workers.

To Chris H

There were two separate phases. The replacement sections that were part of the project at the beginning which was the $63.4 Million and then there is all the rest the rest that the Liberals handled. In any event I was responding to someone who claimed it was $1B+. Assuming your 124 million, it is a far, far, far cry from the 1 Billion plus that one of your people posted. I note also that your calculation is based on information put out by Gary Collins of the Basi/Virk vintage so no doubt padded to include a lot of other stuff to make any predecessor look bad . Then too let me remind you of the Coquihalla from the Socreds now Liberals. You remember that, with a half billion overrun on a project that was suppose to cost $500 million and most of that has been redone since because it was such poor construction.

On the right track

Aurora, you are on the right track. If our politicians were really smart, they could have got the Arbutus for scrap value. But no, they wanted a subway, because no city is world class without one!

For the 98-B Line, it's ridership was dropping, though hard to believe, the 98-B's ridership has yet to match the previous 401, 402, and 403 services!

The big problem with TransLink and the big problem for TransLink Mk. 2 is the lack of public consultation. those in charge do not want to hear from the public who use transit!

What are they afraid of?

My two cents

I agree 100% that a major problem with Translink is the lack of public consultation. Politicians who are appointed to Translink couldn't manage their way out of a wet paper bag. They know sfa about running a transit system and it seems all they are good for is coming up with inane ways of getting money out of our pockets, which they subsequently throw at pie in the sky pet projects. Just once I would like to see a representative of the public (a bus rider) and one or two transit drivers with 25 or 30 years experience on the Translink board. Then again, that would make too much sense and whose nest would they feather anyway?

Though I can afford a car, I have been taking bus and skytrain daily for 12 years and I can tell you a few stories. As for Translink 2, the whole issue is moot, as far as I see it. It will not be the "council of Mayors" that make the decisions, but the board of "professionals" (who I bet have never seen the inside of a bus). They will be puppets who will take their marching orders from Campbell and Falcon. The edict from the top, to the Board, to the Mayors will be P3, P3 and more P3's.

As far as the RAV line goes, I am with Grumpy and others in that it is a complete waste of time and money in my opinion. The most interesting part will be in seeing just who happens to have bought up the land around the future stations which, I bet, was done before any construction was remotely started. Can you say "thanks for the contribution, here's a hot tip"?

Intended Consequence

The inconvenient truth of Falcon's Translink 2 proposal will be the further dillution of Democracy into the intended consequence of what will be called a, "MEGA-CITY.'

Skywalker

Sure looked like you were responding to me. No one can take Capitalism and his $1 Billion seriously. The Lions Gate Project went over budget. The whole project was supposed to cost $78 million with a private company being paid some of that to do the bridge work. There were assessments and other work that had to be done to make a project like this work. Collins let the private company off the hook eventhough they had a firm contract that included penalties if the work wasn't done on time, and it wasn't. That company promised not to go one penny over budget. Would you hire them now? I don't like the BC Liberals very much, but I am not going to say that they have committed fraud and falsified budget documents like you are infering. In the end, we paid a heck of a lot of money for not much improvement. You can blame the NDP for it if you want, or the BC Liberals for allowing the project to get out of hand during construction.

In any event, my community has never been well served by Translink. They like our money, but don't care if we get or use any public transit services.

What ARE they afraid of ?

...as Grumpy said?

This is a huge topic, and not simply the monopoly of issues such as Public Transit.

Perhaps it is best summarized when one of our Politicians once stated " YOU elected US to make these types of decisions " . (aka the deadly words " You elected us, thus you must Trust Us " )

Interpreted further...this Politician/ Constituent relationship once involved trust and goodwill. However, the blank-cheque mentality now reigns.

All one has to do is listen to the news and see things like BC Mayors charged with offences, or the shallow one -trick- pony babble coming out of the mouths of many Councillors. One can just barely see the invisible puppet strings attached...and in my view many of them make a joke of the elected office they hold and the fiduciary duty to work in our best interests that goes with it.

These politicians make numerous decisions that are irresponsible and yet are most often not held accountable. RAV is a major example of spinelessness. They obligate us in quasi-perpetuity to Public Projects etc. that have every indication even early on to be major White Elephants yet if the General Public were given the true facts and figures, we more than likely would have voted NO.

SUMMARY: Its becoming anarchy by default at the ELECTED OFFICE level ..." power groupies" in a deer -in -the- headlights mode. Terminally Clueless with signing authority.

Why are we not given any access to the due process and ultimately given the deciding vote? Referendums are most certainly allowed. Why not?

THUS:

What are they afraid of ?

Answer = US, the Citizen/Constituent/ Voters.....or to paraphrase POGO:

"THEY ( our elected representatives ) have found the Enemy, and the Enemy is US, the very people who elected them on the basis of trust, goodwill and to serve in the Public's best interests etc." .

The problem

Further to Maestro's post, I think the problems with local politics started with the GVRD as local politicians all sit on the board.

Instead of being elected to worry over such demanding problems as by-law enforcement, etc. Local councilors, became more, but without public scrutiny. The bureaucrats started running the local shows as councilors time was spent not just on local issues, but regional issues. The result politicians have become dependent on bureaucrats for all issues and as they haven't a clue, spending all their time being everything to everyone.

TransLink just exacerbated the situation.

TransLink's board were afraid of public consultation because of people like me and a few others, who new the issue of transit and were asking very important questions. No public consultation, no embarrassing questions.

The result is a bureaucratic transit system that in theory should be wonderful, but in practice dreadful. Currently in South Delta & Ladner, we have a fleet of shuttle buses, roaming the streets, almost empty. It would be cheaper to hire a taxi to run the routes! But no TransLink's officials firmly believe in buses and will continue to plan for and operate marginal routes until the very last taxpayer's dime!

What would happen?

Grumpy: "But no TransLink's officials firmly believe in buses and will continue to plan for and operate marginal routes until the very last taxpayer's dime!"

What would happen if they didn't run those routes? You think those taxpayers would continue to pay happily into Translink's coffers for zero service?

Good one Grumpy:

I recall that old comment about use of TAXIS on certain routes would be a much cheaper means of Public Transit than the current near-empty bus method on many routes. Perhaps give people TAXI vouchers?

What if TAXIS were found to be the most practical cost effective method???...then we have another group's OX gored...ie the Bus Driver's union.

The current local Transit model is based on lifestyles in the past decades, when people had those " Jobs for Life ". They could literally use the route for 30 plus years and punch the same clock till they retire.

Now its TRANSIT meets TRANSIENT(ridership).
Society is now in an UNcertain and ever- shifting ridership -need dynamic.

Our Local Gov't is performing a contradiction already. They are looking at a major new OCP that will encourage a densification model that will turn city blocks into quasi Village -Clusters. (Portland ,Oregon was mentioned, apparently a grid system of city blocks 1/2 the size of ours).

This model is meant to encourage a " City within a City" and be more internally self - sufficient ...so that local services will be provided within walking distance ie dry cleaner, grocery store, insurance , etc. etc.

Question: Then W-H-Y have SkyTrain ?

We are taking people TO where(?)...FROM where(?)... and WHY ?

Also , local studies have shown that many of the low income groups tend to reside within the City Cores. Is it a stretch to say that perhaps these low -income groups cannot afford Transit, and that they avail themselves of various services within walking distance?

The more one looks at it...not only does the SkyTrain issue NOT make sense, it makes less and less sense as one looks at more and more of the " devil in the details ". If it is a bad idea at the interim, it creates a bad foundation to all periperal issues that are attached to it, it's much like a virus.

Transit - what happened.

As I have been in the transit game for over 20 years and the many people who were far more knowledgeable than me on the subject, I have come to many conclusions.

Of course those who been doing Tyee for many years will know my opinion on the issue.

But here are two important conclusions:

1) The Planners and politicians do not listen to what the public wants and continue to pursue what they want. Failing to listen to the public means our transit system doesn't serve the publics needs.

2) The failure to plan for affordable transit. The result is that hugely expensive transit projects (mostly political or bureaucratic 'pet' projects)are sucking the tax dollars from other areas which need better transit service.

We have made public transit a 'social service' and not a consumer product, we throw money at transit because it is good politically, not that it is practical and that's why TransLink has failed to show a modal shift.

Chris, transit is not a social service

If no one is using the bus service mentioned above, then one must assume there was no demand. Running buses on 'no-demand' bus routes means that it is heavily subsidized. Heavily subsidized bus routes mean higher taxes.

As a taxpayer, I don't give a damn about not having bus service, as long as my taxes does not increase.

I believe those in Vancouver should pay 3 or 4 times more for taxes for their premium transit services!

Overbuilt, overspent, poorly planned

Overbuilt, overspent, poorly planned. There is much to complain about of the previous management. What often passes for public consultation may be a sham and can be manipulated to favour contractors or others - particularly when NIMBYism raises its ugly head.

Do I serve the needs of the public and the environment first, or those of the politicians, Bombadier Inc., and other contractors? What can the public purse bear?

So many have fed off this bloated, ill-serving bureaucracy, that I think I could live with an ethically-driven, benign dictator. A well functioning brain would, of course, be a necessity.

2010: Countdown to Brown Stinky Fan blades

Grumpy:

I think that our local "punch drinking" "Elected Reprehensibles"...err "Elected Reprobates" ...errr " Elected Representatives " ....will likely get a self - adjudicated quasi "stay -of -proceedings" and quasi day -passes right through the next Civic Elections in 2008 and thus "immunity" past the 2010 Olympics. Ie many of them will want to bask in the 5 Olympic Ring Circus glow. aka NO "bad news" at a-ny- cost.

I say this because the next CIVIC ELECTIONS are due NEXT YEAR, in 2008 ,( my ,how time flies and concurrently sneaks up).

Now, this means that pretty soon all sort of feel- good BS will be shovelled our way...which to me implies massive COVER-UPS-..given most of these mega project taxpayer -circuses are already reeking in various ways to high heaven.

So, these UNdemocratic backroom decisions will have the consquences ultimately and inevitably see the light of day ie the sh!te WILL hit the fan.

" Which D-A-Y " ? though.

Problem with these scams is now the aisle that sells Political/Bureaucratic Duct Tape will likley soon be bare and back-ordered. This implies mega -doses of creative accounting, more backroom chicanery etc. etc.

However, like all Ponzi schemes, the house of cards will collapse and the fans' blades go brown and stink.

So, my prediction is about the end of 2010, when Local Gov'ts draft budgets and will ratchet up the fees , taxes and other cash grabs etc. etc.

......OR perhaps AFTER Nov. 2011, when the next Civic Elections are done and gone .Always do the ass- covering dirty work in the 1st year of the 3 year mandate , then re-load.

PS Enjoy the lead -up till Brown and Stinky Fan Blade day!

Grumpy

I somewhat agree. I don't think you should be paying any money to Translink if your community isn't getting any service. I'm just pointing out that if they stopped service to Deep Cove, for example, because there was little demand, the residents there would surely protest whether or not they needed or used the service. All transit is subsidized and will continue to be so. I just want a transit system that is equitable and actually encourages ridership instead of the reverse.

Chris H

It's cool!

Use it or loose it

I think that the old transit phrase "Use it or loose it", should be told to people who want expensive transit services in marginal routes.

Maestro, et el, I think the transit charade will collapse like a house of cards by 2015. The Olympic bills will start piling up by 2012 and RAV will flounder for about 5 years before anyone will admit that it is a lemon; a Liberal Fast-Ferry.

What then for 2016?

?

?

Grumpy

Do you have any objections to free public transport? It seems to me that if you want to increase ridership it can be done a lot cheaper and service more areas than any fixed route system if you use more smaller buses to feed major routes.

I've mentioned this before that with modern technology it is possible to run flex schedules and routes to meet variable service demands. A fixed route system just seems a bit archaic no matter how much or how little it costs. The free system could be pro-active in that people could actually call in advance to get added to a route or have a schedule modified.

Translink is already using smaller buses in certain areas. I'm sure that if free flexible service was available that these buses might actually fill up.

Of course nothing is really free but at least we wouldn't be subsidizing monuments to stupidity.

Free Public Transport?

My guess is industry and government would consider subsidies for such a notion. If you get cars off the roads it leaves more room on the roads and air-shed for trains, planes and trucks that provide the linear warehouse that drives the economy. Or in other words, people make the necessary accomodations to provide the breathing room necessary in further facilitation of increasing commerce.

Come on folks, think bigger.

maestro said. "This is a

maestro said. "This is a huge topic, and not simply the monopoly of issues such as Public Transit.
Perhaps it is best summarized when one of our Politicians once stated " YOU elected US to make these types of decisions " . (aka the deadly words " You elected us, thus you must Trust Us " )
Interpreted further...this Politician/ Constituent relationship once involved trust and goodwill. However, the blank-cheque mentality now reigns."
Just think what will happen when Bill 6 passes the BC Legislature. If there is a public inquiry into the Olympics, BC Rail or transit in the lower mainland, the government can keep it or parts if the inquiry hidden from the public. This will mean no more public scrutiny of the government.

Been there done that

Snert, the idea of free public transit has been tried elsewhere but failed, it did not attract new riders! I have read several papers over the years about free transit and they came almost to the same conclusion - it doesn't work.

If it did, I would think we would see many transit systems around the world that are free.

Been there done that

Snert, the idea of free public transit has been tried elsewhere but failed, it did not attract new riders! I have read several papers over the years about free transit and they came almost to the same conclusion - it doesn't work.

If it did, I would think we would see many transit systems around the world that are free.

Free LRT in Downtown Calgary

Free transit seems to work just fine in Downtown Calgary. It is free to board and ride in Downtown. If you head out of Downtown, you must pay. This is most likely the reason the ridership in Calgary is similar to Vancouver.

The advantage of fixed routes, LRT or SkyTrain is that they are far more likely to encourage compact development along the routes. Joyce and Metrotown are good examples of this. Brentwood and Gilmore are really growing as well. Not only does this encourage transit use, it also encourages walking and cycling.

Another Great Opportunity to Write the Premier

If you don't like the new TransLink structure or the lack of funding, this is another good opportunity to write or phone the premier and your MLA

Premier Campbell

premier@gov.bc.ca
http://www.leg.bc.ca/mla/38thParl/campbell.htm

BC MLA's can be found here:
http://www.leg.bc.ca/mla/3-1-1.htm

Grumpy

I'm curious about why buses are such a bad idea for mass transit? The best example I saw was the video of Curitiba transit that Phil LeGood and Fred Bass were once promoting where buses running on dedicated rights-of-way (read: bus lanes given preference over other traffic with control over traffic lights etc.) and mass loading (read: subway loading from a paid-zone passenger tube at the roadside) essentially ran as a cheap version of subway or LRT at a fraction of the capital cost and only marginally more operating cost.

The transit books I read all focussed on putting appropriate resources to the traffic routes - you used buses on routes serving up to 20,000 pax per hour, LRT on routes serving 15-50,000 pax per hour and heavy rail (subway) on routes over 50,000 pax per hour. And you only traded up when necessary, so building Skytrain for 8,000 pax per hour at a (nearly) heavy-rail cost is the biggest waste of all.

Transit routes need to be flexible until we iron out all the difficulties we have made for ourselves with 15 municipalities each with its own zoning intentions. Until the GVRD's Livable Region Strategy has teeth to enforce zoning strategy and density, we cannot afford any kind of investment in transit beyond buses, at least to my way of thinking. We're simply too spread-out - every city in western North America is.

Thoughts?

Free buses? Not a chance.

Travelled by train, bus and rail (this time) in Europe this past year. Never saw free transit anywhere - you always had to pay a minimum of one Euro for what was generally excellent transit, even in formerly-Communist Montenegro.

I asked friends and relatives there that same question - why? Those who had an answer said that free transit merely encourages those with nothing to do to ride the rails all day, taking up space/resources needed to transport those how need transit to go somewhere.

...made sense at the time...

Yer right, Rac

I fired off an email to Leonard Krog, MLA to give my support in his fight against Bill 6. I also emailed my own MLA, Dan Jarvis and am sending one to Campbell. It is not enough to simply talk and do nothing at all. If everyone sent an email, maybe someone might stand up and take notice.

Unfortunately, I won't hold my breath as this government doesn't seem to pay much attention to anything except the smell of money.

Free Transit:

Yes, this has been discussed before.

However,personally speaking, as the saying goes, "I am not sure I would ride it even if they paid me to". That's a reducto ad absurdum type of argument.

That wouldn't be out of spite or protest, it's more a hit you between the eyes " reality check " that Public Transit doesn't fit into one's daily schedule and one simply can't relate to it.

What makes Public Transit a better option than one's personal vehicle in a cost versus benefit analysis ?

I am going to sit at a bus stop and wait say 5-10 muinutes to go grocery shopping, whereas I will be there in 5 minutes or less after I turn the key ?

SkyTrain...ridden it twice , 20 years apart, more for novelty ,much like Disneyland.

Free or pay me to ride, still irrelevant to us.

As population grows, you will increase ridership but you will also proportionally increase cars...hence gridlock the roads, and even max out Skytrain capacity.

The Machiavellian bureaucrats can, in theory, do such things as eliminate ie BAN the vehicular parking in the high density developments surrounding SkyTrain, ie subtely force people to use Public Transit...then what? Expose the Public Transit farce even more.?..that the current model doesn't work?

This higher density will attract more cars as more people who buy into the High Density developments will also bring their cars along as part of the high density package. What is happening is SkyTrain will flatline given its inherent limits, but it will have seeded the high density development monster.

Also, cars and parking are much like cigarettes...they will never ban them...they(Gov't) will "double dip", make political hay and demonize them and give the "perception" they will eliminate it with these options which are really non options, , but in reality Gov'ts are not willing to kill the cash cow, simply milk it more and more.

Is there any relationship to the limit of high density along the Skytrain route? Shouldn't there be? I see no limit to the High Density being proposed.

Don't the SkyTrain " experts " have some sort of mathematical model that attributes "X" ridership per high density development...then add them all up and get some magic flatlining maximum version of SkyTrain's own gridlock number?

Or have they already done this and that magic set of numbers is locked up somewhere with armed guards 24/7/365 ?

The whole thing is bass ackwards and a disaster in both the planning and the making.

option 3

You also could get off your ass and walk or bike if the supermarket is truly five minutes door to door.

So selfish... zero regard for the future.

Curitiba - give me a break!

The great Vancouver poster child for bus transit, Curitiba, is a wet squib.

The claimed ridership was greatly exaggerated, something that was quietly ignored. The world bank will happily fund 8 lane highways in 3rd world countries, but not rail based transportation. What was never shown in Curitiba was the 8 lane expressways.

The cost of running a Curitiba style BRT system here would be out of sight, as a bus driver in Curitiba, gets about $20 a day, while here it's more like $40 an hour!

Most light rail systems do offer a free zone in city centres, but please do not compare it with free transit system wide.

but here we come to the main reason LRT is built, something that TransLink forgets; LRT is built because it is more cost effective to operate than buses when ridership exceeds about 2,000 pphpd on a transit route. The reason - 1 tram (1 tram driver) is as efficient as 6 to 8 buses (6 to 8 bus drivers) and for every tram or bus operated one needs to hire at least 4 people to drive, maintain and manage them.

Example:

1 transit route, 4000 persons per hour per diection (trip time 1 way including layover 1 hour) needs:
54 bus trips (standard bus)
37 bus trips (artic. bus)
20 LRT trips (LRV capacity 200)
14 SkyTrain trips (4 car Mk.1 rake)
10 LRT trips (2 car train)

You see a two car LRT rake would need only 10 drivers versus 54 drivers for buses. Calculate the operational savings with LRT versus buses. SkyTrain must be omitted from these calculations as though the automated system has no drivers, it has far more technicians, attendants, and security police than a light rail system.

DJT

"I also emailed my own MLA, Dan Jarvis"

Good luck. He has to be one of the worse MLAs ever. He's such a nonfactor in the legislature that even his own colleagues ridicule him. I sincerely hope he doesn't run again.

Zalm

Zalm said, "The transit books I read all focussed on putting appropriate resources to the traffic routes - you used buses on routes serving up to 20,000 pax per hour, LRT on routes serving 15-50,000 pax per hour and heavy rail (subway) on routes over 50,000 pax per hour."

I do not know what books you read but the figures you given are way off.

Buses are good up to about 5,000 pphpd.
LRT (including streetcars) 2,000 to 20,000 pphpd.
Metro 14,000+ pphpd.

For the best info, try the Light Rail Transit Associations excellent web site at
www.lrta.org

drivers

The flip side of that though, is a big capital expense vs employing a bunch of taxpayers. Safe to say more money flows through the local economy when we choose the latter?

Frankly, I wish buses had conductors too, to make change and keep rowdies in line.

Stump: Mucho Graciass

Thanks:

Now I KNOW you are 100% CERTIFIED GRADE A terminally clueless...

I was overly generous re the Bus Wait time, probably by the time the NEAREST bus comes, picks one up...follows its own PLANNED route , including transfers, and comes close to OUR planned destination...VERY optimistic is 1/2 hour ONE way.

Drink some more punch.

BTW: While you mix up the next batch for G West etc. Remember: Bottled water is probably a major contributor to Greenhouse gases and Climate Change...if you T-H-I-N-K -sky about it.

Otherwise...Keep on Truckin'

Chris H.

I know Jarvis is useless, but I emailed him anyway (among others).

BTW- I sure as hell didn't vote for Jarvis, though I must admit I kinda liked the way he stood up to his own government when the ferry contracts were awarded to a German company. At least he wasn't a puppet (on that one, anyway).

Internal vs External Costs

The cost of running a Curitiba style BRT system here would be out of sight, as a bus driver in Curitiba, gets about $20 a day, while here it's more like $40 an hour!

Damn, with wages that high they should advertise a little bit more, perhaps give training supplements to upgrade all those taxi drivers and pizza delivery people. At six times the training wage this is a pretty good salary.

It would be nice to see economics worked out that takes an account of internal and external spending. Money that goes into the local economy, such as wages, gets circulated and multiplied. Money that goes towards some multinational corporation is moved out of the area for the most part; perhaps a bit of labor cost for mega-project construction stays here but the bulk of the money is withdrawn from local circulation.

Anybody read any studies on the economic aspects of combining infrastructure maintenance with job creation programs?

Mail

A hand written letter is considered to represent between 500 and 1000 voters. E-mails take little time or effort, especially if they are script generated, and as a result don't mean much. A hand written letter on the other hand shows somebody that is willing to take action.

Mail to federal politicians doesn't even need a stamp. Provincial and city do require a stamp. I wonder how come our local guys don't want to hear from us.

say what?

you give out incorrect information to which I respond, but I'm clueless? Sorry, I can't tell when you full of sh*t and when you're serious. Try using accurate information for a change.

Translation for Leftie

Translation for Leftie Dummies

If I can go from Point A to Point B in less time than it takes a bus by ACTUALLY taking a vehicle instead , why the hell would I take a bus ?

However, conversely , if you want to waste your own time by making a political statement with your mode of transportation, you have my ever- valued blessing and I defend your right to do so.

PS: Oops watch out for that bus while you are cycling...

Th -th -th -the -that's all folks.

Good reasons to ride the bus

- To avoid having to buy a depreciating asset

- Because when you factor in the time and money required to have a car, the bus may not only be cheaper, but faster in terms of time invested

- Because you care about the future and wish to set an example for your children of responsible stewardship and citizenship

- Because you can sit and enjoy a good book/catch up on paperwork/read the paper instead of having to drive thereby multi-tasking and being efficient... instead of being a brainwashed money source for automakers who've failed to make significant advances in their product for nearly a hundred years, thereby rewarding companies that don't innovate.

I've been a driver, a cyclist, a transit user. Only the first activity is a genuine waste of time IMO, except for a small subset of circumstances such as long distance travel and rural travel.

Can you say you've given all three modes a fair shake?

Taking a bus will always take more time

It will always take more time to take a bus from point A to Point B. That is given except when the car traffic is so clogged in gridlock and the bus lanes are not. Or when your parking spot is ten blocks from where you want to go. But it will always be cheaper and less of a headache. So what is your clueless point maestro?

Special for grumpy, here's a

Special for grumpy, here's a story about a Metro system done right, well within budget (with private investors from offshore, Japan to be exact), three years ahead of schedule, and so successful the senior citizen/civil servant in charge has been contracted to build more.

In New Delhi, of all places.

http://www.subways.net/india/newdelhi.htm

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_12/b4026009.htm?chan=rss_topStories_ssi_5

Random SkyTrain Thoughts

>It will always take more time to take a bus from point A to Point B. That is given except when the car traffic is so clogged in gridlock and the bus lanes are not.

What I like about Skytrain, it now takes me less time to get from Burrrard Station to Burnaby than it did to get from Burrard Station to Kits, even by "express" bus (the 44), and even though i have to tranfer at Broadway/Commercial. Plus, I don't have to worry about being at the bus stop by 5:16, (and wait for up to 10 minutes for the late bus to arrive), i just walk to the platform, and if there isn't a train waiting there, another one will be along within 2 minutes. And arguments re grade separation or not, there is a certain satisfaction riding high above the gridlocked traffic on Terminal Ave, or Lougheeed Highway. In fact, if i was on the "board of experts" or whatever they're called, I'd send the boring machine northward from Waterfront all the way to Lonsdale Key. Imagine if the Seabus crossing time was cut from 13 minutes to 3 minutes... The Beaver and Otter are 30 years old now, perhaps it's time to replace them with (A)LRT

>I'd urge you to take a

>I'd urge you to take a second look at the roads you travel on and just how much unused space is required for cars to travel safely. Freeways are so inefficient it boggles the mind. Couple that with cars with only a driver (25% capacity) and you have reams and reams of unused capacity. You can run a bus in roughly the same space as required for a car... and carry dozens more people.

Oh, I don't disagree, and I haven't commuted by car for at least 3 years now...triple-digit downtown parking rates took care of that) I was thinking of a buddy of mine, who trucks food to Pemberton 3 times a week... many times he tells me of being stuck in the traffic on 2 lane (per direction) Hwy 1 on the North Shore... in the opposite direction of "rush hour"!... Ie, being stuck in a lineup for the Ironworkers Memorial Second Narrows Croossing that's backed up southbound all the way to Westview at 3:30 PM in the afternoon.

Grumpy

Your figures are usually good, but I think these are better. Once again, the LRB website posts wages for Coast Mountain drivers - now making $25.94, or about $33/hr with benefits. Agreed that's still a far cry from $20 a day in Brazil, but can you show that figure is accurate?

The Volvo B9 articulated chassis can be arranged to seat 126 passengers and who knows how many more standing. Would you care to put that into your chart of transit comparables? Curitiba seems to have had built some that ostensibly carry 270 passengers. That's greater capacity than even heavy rail cars. No comment on whether "Tokyo packers" are used.

Agreed there are still freeways in Curitiba - it grew first by car, and then as the car became less practical, by transit. Chiselling some lanes out of that 8-lane freeway for bus-only use only makes sense - you've already built the damn thing. May as well use it to move as many people as you can.

Also, what comments have you regarding mass loading? LRT doesn't mention that, and European transit systems that I've been on don't use it either, (unless you call front and rear doors "mass loading"). The result is that many people "ride black", (don't pay) except when well-publicized crackdowns occur. Any attempt to enforce collection of fares results in drastic slowing of the loading process and resultant delays in schedules.

I recognize your axe is well-ground and sharp, but transit is multi-purpose, and therefore ought to be multi-modal. That doesn't come across well in your posts. Perhaps you could rectify this oversight.

Maestro

I hear you - if you're going from Tsawwassen to White Rock, take your car.

If you're going from your parents' condo at Brentwood Mall to UBC, and we dedicated one lane of one of the many roads going there to uninterrupted bus travel, I think you'd see a race. And when you consider what it cost you to park at UBC, plus $4 a day for insurance, $2 a day for maintenance, and $6 a day for depreciation on your 2002 Corolla, plus a few more shekels besides for gas, not to mention the bent nerves from doing battle with thousands of other lemmings on the road....

...isn't properly-designed transit starting to look a little better?

To THE TYEE Editor :

Sir :

As I suggested , you CAN get blood from a stone with respect to certain distinct groups:

Further clarifying a basic comment for Lefties results in many more column inches, the lifeblood of the media.

Please submit payment as per our agreement..and also remember the negotiated BONUS kicked in as well.

Also, many of the responses are classic, indicative of the V-E-R-Y SOUL of Leftie-ism yet now finally exposed, and I will now be auctioning them off on E - Bay. (US Funds only)

Quote:I was thinking of a

I think we need to really consider moving freight and other goods during off-peak hours. It would free up road space and also make roads safer, as big trucks and small cars would be less likely to be colliding. My understanding is that this mix of large commercial vehicles and passenger cars is a dangerous combination (I'll pass along the stats if you like... and if I can remember where I recently saw them).

Further, in the particular instance you've outlined above, better rail service along the Sea to Sky corridor for freight (and people) would do wonders for road congestion, although perhaps not so much for the North Shore roads.

mass loading on bus rapid transit

Grumpy, you wrote that you hadn't seen mass loading on bus rapid transit, and that with mass loading: The result is that many people "ride black", (don't pay) except when well-publicized crackdowns occur. Any attempt to enforce collection of fares results in drastic slowing of the loading process and resultant delays in schedules.

Well, the bus rapid transit system in Bogota loads as quickly as a metro train. You have to pay to get into the station, which is elevated to the height of the bus floor. When the bus stops, at least three different, wide door portals open, and the people pour in and out without worrying about payment or steps. Doors shut and we're off within seconds, since the driver is watching people movement through rear-view window. Easy and fast.

Charles

That was me, not Grumpy. I'm asking Grumpy what's wrong with mass loading, and we're obviously both waiting for the answer.

You might have misunderstood my question - in Heidelberg, Strasbourg, Regensburg, Munich, Salzburg and Vienna, there was no mass loading. People entered by either the front or rear doors of the LRT, but only those who entered by the front made any attempt at all to pay or show a pass. Quizzing our friends, it was apparent that "riding black" was common among younger adults, with various figures, some as high as 30%, given.

Fare-paid zones seem to be the greatest need in Europe, and the Curitiba example is instructive, although it has heavy policing, so I'm told, and such heavy policing would not be practical in 1st world countries. For comparison, one has only to look at the abomination of a B-line loading one at a time for more than two minutes at any transfer point on its route during rush hour.

The way they do it in Blighty

On my one and only trip to England, I was astonished in London to see the process there involves getting on the bus, sitting down, and having a person in a official-looking hat come around and ask you where you were going, charge you a price based on the distance to be travelled, and make appropriate change if necessary. How quaint. How old-fashioned. How efficient and service-oriented.

I don't know if that's still the case (the trip was in the mid-90s) but it struck me at the time as a good way to speed up the process of paying for your bus ride.

Kevin Falcon's classic move to manipulate the news

TransLink Legislation Missing

In a classic move to manipulate the news, Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon gave embargoed interviews on March 7th prior to the release of the TransLink Governance Review Panel Report on March 8th.

The evening before the release, Global TV's Keith Baldrey was able to report on the key details of the about to be released report, and the Vancouver Sun was able to echo that coverage.

When Falcon finally issued a news release on Thursday, one major item was missing. Enabling legislation was not introduced in the Legislature, no date was given when it would be tabled and the questions it would answer could not be answered by Falcon.

A "backgrounder" to Falcon's news release, is notable for what it does not contain, namely the obligations of the provincial government.

More: www.strategicthoughts.com/ - David Schreck