The Official 2013 "Great Translink RageDebate" thread

[trancehead]

it costed lol

[Tapioca]

Originally Posted by melloman

What I'd recommend? Throw road pricing out, and bridge in a system of tolling any bridge, at about $0.50/crossing. Also have a watchdog corporation do all the accounting work for this. I'm tired of having money "slip through the cracks" and not know where its going. (Kind of like the $12.3 billion mentioned above for Vancouver rapid transit strategy).

The End.

I don't have a degree in economics, but I am aware that you need to balance the costs of collecting tolls vs the amount you charge. It's hard predict the elasticity of crossing bridges, but Translink's economists are likely gambling that the demand of bridge use is inelastic enough to charge higher amounts. In other words, people are going to drive over bridges and pay for the tolls up to a reasonable amount (say $5 per trip).

There are transaction costs to collecting tolls. At 50 cents per toll, will you get enough people crossing bridges to make up for those costs? The natural thing is to say yes, but again, it all depends on how much people need to drive over bridges in regular circumstances.

So, more bureaucracy on top of bureaucracy? We already pay for audits and yet, they're not satisfactory because of potential political interference?
Posted via RS Mobile

[Gridlock]

Originally Posted by Tapioca

I don't have a degree in economics, but I am aware that you need to balance the costs of collecting tolls vs the amount you charge. It's hard predict the elasticity of crossing bridges, but Translink's economists are likely gambling that the demand of bridge use is inelastic enough to charge higher amounts. In other words, people are going to drive over bridges and pay for the tolls up to a reasonable amount (say $5 per trip).

There are transaction costs to collecting tolls. At 50 cents per toll, will you get enough people crossing bridges to make up for those costs? The natural thing is to say yes, but again, it all depends on how much people need to drive over bridges in regular circumstances.

So, more bureaucracy on top of bureaucracy? We already pay for audits and yet, they're not satisfactory because of potential political interference?
Posted via RS Mobile

Plus we're going to be paying the watchdog corporation in...cookies? or maybe hugs. They are going to want to get paid for their work. So we're not going to be happy unless they uncover more savings then what they charge.

There are two separate problems.

1. Those that want to build out the system

They get to answer the question of "who pays?" And the answer is always a)the rich guy b) the other guy or c) the other rich guy

2. Those that do not want to build out the system

They get to answer the question of "what happens?" That answer is usually related to limiting growth.

I personally like a little 1 with some more 2. Build it where you need it but realize that you are never going to catch up.

I find it quite bizarre that we can't even decide what the damned goal is.

"We want people on transit and out of cars"

Cool! Nice goal. Question: why did you just build a pretty new highway and 2 new mega-bridges devoted to cars?

Some to deal with truck traffic and the rest? Oh right, we are actually still in love with the car.

The only thing you've done is make it easier to have more people live further out and commute longer distances into Vancouver. That will add traffic and you will still have a gridlock situation when you hit the new capacity.

"We want to build these things but don't know how to pay for it"

Well, you knew how to pay for the SFPR..and that has a direct commercial use, where a toll on its use could be collected and dispersed throughout the community of end users that use it. But that was a funded by taxpayers thing.

And you knew how to pay for the sea-to-sky which has a residential component to it, but a much larger visitor component where once again, you could have something paid for by people that don't even live here.

[Lomac]

I never understood the reasoning behind not tolling the S2S. Unlike the Port Mann, the S2S is mostly used by visitors, not residents. Perhaps throw a toll between Whistler and Squamish and you've now avoided the extra rage from most commuting residents on that road. It's like the Coquihalla... it was a "luxury" bypass (not like the S2S, true), but the fact that it didnt really affect commuting residents living in the area (not that there really were any at the time) meant those being tolled were willing to pay because it was a quicker, safer route and that cost was already tacked onto their total traveling expenses. The same can kind of be said of the SFPR. It's a luxury bypass for the docks and trucking companies. I'm sure most transportation companies would be willing to pay the extra $5 in tolls than have their trucks idling on Hwy99/91 while the drivers are doing nothing.

[Lomac]

I'm going to go back a topic or two and touch on the Skytrain/Light Rail extension for a moment.

Personally I feel that it needs to be expanded further East. Run it along Fraser Highway and either veer it towards Cloverdale at 176th or leave it and drump it into Clayton Heights and along 64th Ave. This way you're ending it on two areas that are developing very quickly and could potentially benefit even more from highspeed transit. Sure, the floodplains are dead zones for riders but there's no getting around that area.

As for the question of who'll pay for it... well, I personally feel there will be a large enough population base in this area (not to mention all of those residents who live along Fraser Highway in Surrey) who would be more than happy to take advantage of the new line. I know I'd certainly be more inclined to take transit/Skytrain if it was closer to my house. As it stands now, it's almost quicker to drive to most of my destinations than to bomb into the middle of Surrey, park, and then hop onto the Skytrain.

[CRS]

Lomac,

Happy 20,000 and 20,001 post!

[Lomac]

Originally Posted by CRS

Lomac,

Happy 20,000 and 20,001 post!

Good god, I need a life.

Or a job that requires more, well... work.

[godwin]

I think a lot of companies and development have already hedging that some kind of mass transit will be built on Fraser Highway.. however with the soil and elevation LRT on the shoulder of Fraser Highway is probably a better option.. besides that will give Bombardier something the contract rather than Hyundai ala Canada line.

Originally Posted by Lomac

I'm going to go back a topic or two and touch on the Skytrain/Light Rail extension for a moment.

Personally I feel that it needs to be expanded further East. Run it along Fraser Highway and either veer it towards Cloverdale at 176th or leave it and drump it into Clayton Heights and along 64th Ave. This way you're ending it on two areas that are developing very quickly and could potentially benefit even more from highspeed transit. Sure, the floodplains are dead zones for riders but there's no getting around that area.

As for the question of who'll pay for it... well, I personally feel there will be a large enough population base in this area (not to mention all of those residents who live along Fraser Highway in Surrey) who would be more than happy to take advantage of the new line. I know I'd certainly be more inclined to take transit/Skytrain if it was closer to my house. As it stands now, it's almost quicker to drive to most of my destinations than to bomb into the middle of Surrey, park, and then hop onto the Skytrain.

[bobbinka]

Originally Posted by Gridlock

Plus we're going to be paying the watchdog corporation in...cookies?

cookies cost money too

[Graeme S]

Originally Posted by melloman

So after about 2 hours of research, I can see Translink has ideas, yet wants money for all of them at once. An interesting strategy demanding $23 billion for upgrades to take place between now and 2040.

This is the problem with government; heads I lose, tails you win.

"Translink asking for $5 billion for the second time this decade!"
vs
"I can't believe translink is asking for $23 billion ALL AT ONCE and for the next THIRTY YEARS"

"They always keep us in the dark and only talk to us when we need money"
vs
"Look at how greedy they are, this is a 30-year plan, why do they need the money right now?"


I'd rather see the $23b plan because at least that way we know that they have a long-term plan, rather than just sort of throwing things together every few years.

[iEatClams]

Originally Posted by AAnthony

You suck at math
Posted via RS Mobile

lol. i swear i meant half a % instead of 1%.

asian genes have failed me

[melloman]

Originally Posted by Graeme S

I'd rather see the $23b plan because at least that way we know that they have a long-term plan, rather than just sort of throwing things together every few years.

Fair enough.. But I had to do all the research myself to find the $23billion plan.. They never just nicely released it, it was some random no-name online paper that gave the 5/18 breakdown, then again I had to hunt for the $18billion breakdown..

It is nice to see they do have plans, yet like I mentioned before, not all of them are online as far as I can find. (Vancouvers rapid transit strategy)

[falcon]

Originally Posted by Lomac

I'm going to go back a topic or two and touch on the Skytrain/Light Rail extension for a moment.

Personally I feel that it needs to be expanded further East. Run it along Fraser Highway and either veer it towards Cloverdale at 176th or leave it and drump it into Clayton Heights and along 64th Ave. This way you're ending it on two areas that are developing very quickly and could potentially benefit even more from highspeed transit. Sure, the floodplains are dead zones for riders but there's no getting around that area.

As for the question of who'll pay for it... well, I personally feel there will be a large enough population base in this area (not to mention all of those residents who live along Fraser Highway in Surrey) who would be more than happy to take advantage of the new line. I know I'd certainly be more inclined to take transit/Skytrain if it was closer to my house. As it stands now, it's almost quicker to drive to most of my destinations than to bomb into the middle of Surrey, park, and then hop onto the Skytrain.

I totally agree. Having the Expo line end where it does just doesn't make sense. It did 20 years ago when Surrey was not what it is, but now it's a huge city and needs more accessibility. I would like to see it continued up 88th onto Fraser Hwy with a stop in Fleetwood, East Fleetwood, Clayton, turn south to Cloverdale, down #10 to Langley City/Willowbrook and end around Langley Hospital around 225th. Then cater the bus systems in those area to centralize around the stations and you fix the problem that currently exists.

There's no pretending that Surrey and Langley don't matter anymore, those days are gone and we need a proper transit system to get into Metro Van.

[falcon]

Originally Posted by Graeme S

I'd rather see the $23b plan because at least that way we know that they have a long-term plan, rather than just sort of throwing things together every few years.

%100. If you just throw in a few bandaids every 10 years, you will continue to outgrow the system. If they sit down and say "where do we want this to be in 30 years" and make a plan and see it through in stages with everything working together, that's how you fix the problem.

I am still a huge advocate to train systems like in Europe. Introduce a system from Whistler to Hope with trains moving people 24/7 and bus systems becoming more localized around those station.

[Tapioca]

^ The big issue is that do you build something that will generate maximum revenue and riders from Day 1 (the UBC extension), or do you build something that will generate large revenues and riders in the medium and long-term (Langley extension)?

I wouldn't be able to make the decision myself if I had to, but I think it's hard to build any infrastructure today that isn't a winner right away.
Posted via RS Mobile

[CRS]

Originally Posted by Tapioca

^ The big issue is that do you build something that will generate maximum revenue and riders from Day 1 (the UBC extension), or do you build something that will generate large revenues and riders in the medium and long-term (Langley extension)?

I wouldn't be able to make the decision myself if I had to, but I think it's hard to build any infrastructure today that isn't a winner right away.
Posted via RS Mobile

Personally, I would go for the former. An extension to UBC just makes so much sense and ridership is all but guaranteed. I would like to see an extension made from VCC Clark to UBC goes along Great Northern Way with a stop at Cambie for easy transfer (maybe 2 blocks) to the Canada line.

We need to have more density before we can realistically expand. So make routes all around Vancouver, Burnaby, Richmond, Surrey, and North Vancouver more accessible before we even think to go further away from the downtown core.

[godwin]

The problem is population density in Europe is much higher, the system was initiated by state subsidies and decades of cheap labours. Canada kept kicking the bottle down the street, and now labour is expensive.. I want flying cars too.

Originally Posted by falcon

I am still a huge advocate to train systems like in Europe. Introduce a system from Whistler to Hope with trains moving people 24/7 and bus systems becoming more localized around those station.

[MindBomber]

Originally Posted by Tapioca

^ The big issue is that do you build something that will generate maximum revenue and riders from Day 1 (the UBC extension), or do you build something that will generate large revenues and riders in the medium and long-term (Langley extension)?

I wouldn't be able to make the decision myself if I had to, but I think it's hard to build any infrastructure today that isn't a winner right away.
Posted via RS Mobile

Intriguing question.

I read it as: good service to great service or poor service to good service.

I agree with CRS, a UBC line is prudent. The current route has high ridership, and it connects a fundamental portion of Vancouver to RR. The point we may differ on is here. The current is service is quite good, and therefore, the ability of a UBC RR line to attract new users is limited. The number of potential users of a UBC line will also not radically expand over time. A UBC RR line is thus somewhat of a luxury, because it doesn't contribute to increasing ridership and in following improve the long-term sustainability of the system.

Increasing ridership, and thereby, the long-term sustainability of the system is where a Langley line would excel. Langley will soon be the only GVRD community without RR, which has caused a large backlog of potential RR users to build. A Langley line expansion would immediately tap into that backlog, and introduce those potential RR users to the system. Langley and its neighboring communities are also growing, so the number of potential RR users will continually expand. The increase in ridership offered by a Langley line would improve the long-term sustainability of the system, and is the better choice of the two options.

I also believe, simply on principle, that every GVRD community should be connected to RR. Langley residents contribute to funding the RR system, but receive nothing in return.

Over the very long-term (20-25 years), I would like to see Mission, Abbotsford, and Chilliwack integrated into the GVRD, and RR expanded to those communities as well (or a rapid bus from Mission to an Abbotsford station). East of the Fraser isn't seriously distinct from West of the Fraser, it's time that it's not treated as such.

Originally Posted by godwin

The problem is population density in Europe is much higher, the system was initiated by state subsidies and decades of cheap labours. Canada kept kicking the bottle down the street, and now labour is expensive.. I want flying cars too.

Europe's density certainly makes transit systems less expensive to construct and operate than North American transit systems, but that doesn't make North American transit systems any less necessary. In fact, I might argue the opposite.

[Lomac]

^^
Mission already has access to the West Coast Express. I'd love to see another line get setup, perhaps running from Chilliwack, Abbotsford/Aldergrove, White Rock, Tswassen and then either terminate near a Richmond Skytrain station or even some how connect with the existing WCE track and stop at Waterfront.

It'll never happen but it would be nice to have the GVRD bracketed by these two train lines and then have all the Skytrain routes running down the middle.

[Tapioca]

Originally Posted by MindBomber

Intriguing question.

I read it as: good service to great service or poor service to good service.

I agree with CRS, a UBC line is prudent. The current route has high ridership, and it connects a fundamental portion of Vancouver to RR. The point we may differ on is here. The current is service is quite good, and therefore, the ability of a UBC RR line to attract new users is limited. The number of potential users of a UBC line will also not radically expand over time. A UBC RR line is thus somewhat of a luxury, because it doesn't contribute to increasing ridership and in following improve the long-term sustainability of the system.

UBC is becoming a municipality unto itself, so I'm sure planning advocates would beg to differ. It could be argued that the value of having a university education will decrease which will eventually force students to consider their education elsewhere, so the trips out to UBC could decrease over time. However, Vancouver General Hospital is not going anywhere and neither is the Canada Line so it's important that the two lines be connected in the near future at minimum.

Originally Posted by MindBomber

Increasing ridership, and thereby, the long-term sustainability of the system is where a Langley line would excel. Langley will soon be the only GVRD community without RR, which has caused a large backlog of potential RR users to build. A Langley line expansion would immediately tap into that backlog, and introduce those potential RR users to the system. Langley and its neighboring communities are also growing, so the number of potential RR users will continually expand. The increase in ridership offered by a Langley line would improve the long-term sustainability of the system, and is the better choice of the two options.

The main issue with expanding transit to Langley and further east is that it encourages sprawl (at least that's what the people in their ivory towers will tell you.) The reality is that housing is cheaper out there, wages haven't kept up, and raising kids in a 1-bedroom apartment with no interaction between neighbours isn't exactly healthy. Unless a housing crash the likes the world has never seen happens, we have to acknowledge the fact that people are going to move where they can afford housing.

One problem is that the GVRD's livable region strategy is now outdated because of rising housing prices. Another problem is that eventually people will be priced out of Metro Vancouver altogether and move to greener pastures will reduce the property tax base to fund future transit projects further.

[Traum]

I am not as convinced as some of you in thinking that people will be priced out of Metro Vancouver. Some will definitely move out, and some already have. But by and large, a lot of people -- probably the majority of people -- will continue to choose to live in Metro Vancouver. The only difference is, they'll give up living in detached houses and move into smaller units, so population density will go up. In many, many ways, this is already happening, and this is why we see so many condos popping up everywhere.

To accommodate the higher density, public transit -- or specifically, mass transit -- will have to improve and be adopted. Unfortunately, I hardly think the bickering idiots at Translink are up to the task of managing our growing public and mass transportation needs.

[MindBomber]

Originally Posted by Traum

I am not as convinced as some of you in thinking that people will be priced out of Metro Vancouver. Some will definitely move out, and some already have. But by and large, a lot of people -- probably the majority of people -- will continue to choose to live in Metro Vancouver. The only difference is, they'll give up living in detached houses and move into smaller units, so population density will go up. In many, many ways, this is already happening, and this is why we see so many condos popping up everywhere.

To accommodate the higher density, public transit -- or specifically, mass transit -- will have to improve and be adopted. Unfortunately, I hardly think the bickering idiots at Translink are up to the task of managing our growing public and mass transportation needs.

The borders of the district of Metro Vancouver extend to Chilliwack.

I'm given the impression you define Metro Vancouver differently, could you clarify?

[godwin]

Official Metro Vancouver ends at Abbotsford.. hence once you pass that there is less tax on gas

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_Vancouver

Originally Posted by MindBomber

The borders of the district of Metro Vancouver extend to Chilliwack.

I'm given the impression you define Metro Vancouver differently, could you clarify?

[godwin]

They tried to be a municipality but they failed the referendum. However they are part of the treaty negotiations with a huge chunk of it going to going to be handed over to one of the local First Nations band, so the effect on how much say they will have is unknown.

Originally Posted by Tapioca

UBC is becoming a municipality unto itself, so I'm sure planning advocates would beg to differ. It could be argued that the value of having a university education will decrease which will eventually force students to consider their education elsewhere, so the trips out to UBC could decrease over time. However, Vancouver General Hospital is not going anywhere and neither is the Canada Line so it's important that the two lines be connected in the near future at minimum.

[MindBomber]

Originally Posted by godwin

Official Metro Vancouver ends at Abbotsford.. hence once you pass that there is less tax on gas

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_Vancouver

Thanks for the correction.