Poor planning aside, comparisons of Vancouver transit and commuting to other cities often seems to leave out one fact: the terrain here is also not very conducive to transportation. We have an inordinate number of large waterways to get across (Fraser River main stream, then north and south arms; Pitt River; Burrard Inlet; False Creek) and cities crowding up against a solid wall of mountains to the north, then expanding out into an ever-narrowing funnel toward the valley.

Yet our transportation is regularly compared to places where the terrain is flat, open, and with minimal water crossings needed, if any - Toronto, Calgary, even LA. New York has lots of water crossings, but no mountains to limit growth. The only REALLY close comparison would be Seattle.

Also, we are the only city in North America without a freeway/highway that goes downtown.

Ah, but lets not limit growth. Lets build condos, and jam 15 townhouses onto lots that once only held one house. You get more taxes from high-density developments, who cares if there isn't enough 'room' for the people to get around!

...or to the airport. That still boggles my mind.

Can't put bike lanes on the highway, that's why.

This happens to be what some cities are trying to do as well - SF got rid of the Embarcadero after the earthquake (some other city in Korea got rid of a major highway too). Seattle is doing a dig to hide the 99 (though that is a bigger boondoggle than anything that BC has experienced) and Boston did a big dig to hide their major routes.

In the last case the dig did no good - congestion is just as bad as before (Braess's Paradox in action).

What I find interesting is that a lot of the YES side people are also the same people who decided to stick it to the government and voted against the HST, even though it was economically beneficial for us.

Now, they want us to hold our noses and vote for the YES side because it's the "right" decision. HST was the "right" decision but it still got turned down. I don't see this one passing, but BC Politics always seem to surprise.

Yes but look at a map and you'll see that even if Seattle's 99 were to collapse into the Puget Sound tomorrow there's still I-5 which carries the majority of traffic in and out of downtown. Same as SF, which has the 101 and I-80 skirting their financial district.

I agree that freeways that go right through downtown are an urban blight that should be dug underground or moved, but seeing as how this city decided to not even bother with building a decent arterial road system in and out of our downtown core was not only short-sighted but idiotic. This line of thinking that persists to this day's council that wants to demolish the viaducts so that the land can be used to build more condos FailFish

Funny enough, it's the opposite for me. The same people who I know voted against HST (even though they knew it was beneficial) to stick it to the gov't, are now voting no to referendum (even though they know it will be beneficial) to stick it to Translink.

Poor City Planning, Transit Planning, and Road Planning.
15 Years from now Vancouver is going to be hell, because it already is. More money will not make it better, we need better solutions to our shit transit. Even our roads are shit.

HWY 17 - there are already multiple spots where the hwy has sunk in, shit outsourced construction. Regarding the toll bridge payments, they will make us pay no matter what our vote is so who cares.

Stop saying this, cause its the most generic statement ever made.

I voted to keep the HST. It was easy to see the benefits; however, for many people it was tough to get past the perceived dishonesty of the way it was brought into effect. Now me and Soundy have differing or atleast contentious views on whether or not that perceived view of how the government lied about bringing in the HST, but we both have an unwavering belief that overall the HST was a good thing.

BUT I am voting no on the translink referendum because I have watched them systematically fuck up year after year on everything they do, and I'm tired of funding a system of trial and error. This is our provinces fucking infrastructure. It's the god damn backbone of this city and beyond. Gambling with it is not the path forward I want.

I've said this for the past 10 pages, THEY NEED TO PUT A FUCKING PLAN TOGETHER.

This plan needs to have a budget, it needs to be scrutinized, it needs to be audited. This plan needs to be developed with full transparency.

Once they have that plan, we will revisit this discussion about funding. Until then, don't ask me for another fucking penny, because I am tired of funding incompetence.

If I worked in any company with a failure rate of even 1/2 of translink I would be working as a fucking janitor in no time. I can't believe the lenience these public heads get after their cock-ups.

Hai good luck when moonbean in mayor of Vancouver. All he cares is more bike lanes.

I still don't see why Translink is in charge of roads AND public transit, obviously they are too disorganized to handle both.

just got a automated call from city mayor, shortly after 8pm.
I do not appreciate automated, non-personal, telemarketing type calls while i'm having dinner with family.:rukidding:

The viaduct is a blight on our city - created for a highway that never showed up (thank god). The split it creates in that area is the same problem that highway 99 in Seattle and the Embarcadero created in their areas. Leaving it in place doesn't address any transportation problem.

If you go to more "traditional" cities (E.g. Not North American) they do just fine with the same type of road system that we have - they just heavily invest in transit in many forms so the road system isn't as burdened. Of the ones I've been to (London, Dusseldorf, Helsinki, Edinburgh, Amsterdam and Paris) only Paris has roads similar to ours, the rest have fewer lanes and fewer roads with little to no highways in the urban areas.

https://darylvsworld.wordpress.com/2...-inefficiency/

Lots of charts so I'm not going to quote it here but if you've got questions about whether Translink is efficient or not here's one built around service hours and operating costs. This article has been quoted in a number of places and so far no one's been able to challenge its accuracy.

Question comes to my mind when it comes to these reports and I am not discrediting them.

But why do these reports always compare translink to weaker examples and not stronger ones in Asia or across the world? I would think if we want the best and invest to be the best then we should compare ourselves with the best for lessons learned? Places like Hong Kong comes to mind since their geographical landscape has many waterways. Yeah, their population is higher which in itself has the critical mass to sustain their operating model but why can't we look to them to see how they got there?

If we only compare ourselves with weaker samples of data then of course we will look good from a comparative stand point

Oh man the indignity!!! RIOT!!!


http://s4.postimg.org/8ttaouof1/toppled_recycle_bin.jpg


Your comment is so passive-aggressive and a perfect example of the ever-increasing "desire to be offended" that Vancouverites seem to develop as a way of socializing. You'll hear more people talk about what offends them and bothers them than anything else!


Seriously, it was a phone call! A magic robot used a thin line of copper to send you a quick message and this inconvenienced you enough to complain about it on an electronic message board. What sort of reality am I living in that such a minor wonder of the modern age leads you to be offended.


:fulloffuck:

As far as how the HK MTR gets it's funding, it is very dependent on the massive density in the area that they serve. The HK MTR is a gov't run private entity, that gets it's funding from property development fees on the land it owns, sometimes gets a profit from the malls and plazas that it provides services to and/or actually owns the building itself and collects rent from the tenants (all the retail outlets within the station are leased out by the MTR. Many of the office towers around it's stations are owned by the MTR.

In essense, it's a vertically integrated company in that it not only controls how citizens get to places, but the actual places that the users go to after their trip ends.

HK's scale (and London and Tokyo) are several orders of magnitude larger than Vancouver's and one that doesn't yield any relevant comparison. Vancouver wouldn't see that kind of density, investment or business model for another 100 years. HK is mostly self funded due to the system owning all the land around the stations (something we should let Translink do BTW) - they control where users shop. London's system costs about twice as much to use (user pay - $4.50 a ride) and gets significant funding to support it otherwise.

In North America there are no comparable examples because everyone else's system sucks. I've tried Seattle, Portland, SF, New York, Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto and LA - none of them are as good (well run, efficient for customers) as Translink.

Note that opponents of Translink never do comparisons of Translink to other systems - everything negative they say about Translink is in isolation (too much fare evasion!, overpaid execs! Compass is a mess!). Little of it holds up when compared to similar systems - fare evasion is on the low end, we have less execs than other systems, faregates take many (many) years to implement. (Eg. Perception of fare evasion is 10-15 times higher than reality - of course you'll get worked up if you think that)

There are models that we should consider though - Edinburgh seemed like a good system when I was there and it's similarly sized. I hear Melbourne and Sydney are both solid systems that are similar in size and geography. Same for Auckland (smaller). Notably, all of these systems get significant funding via either gov't funds or user pay.

Melbourne: Transport in Melbourne - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (note the fares)
Sydney: Public transport in Sydney - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (they implemented a card system in 2 years)

Mayors' transit plan to cost $200 million more | Vancouver 24 hrs

Mayors' transit plan to cost $200 million more
The multi-billion-dollar transportation improvement plan will actually cost $200 million more in capital expenditures than initially announced, according to the Mayors’ Council.

The regional authority confirmed the full 15-year budget as $7.7 billion on Monday after regional politicians gathered in New Westminster to announce the beginning of the mail-in congestion tax vote.

Until this point, the Mayors’ Council has always pitched the plan as $7.5 billion.

“Based on technical analysis completed by TransLink and external engineering contractors, the plan assumes a combined capital cost of $7.7 billion (in 2015 dollars),” reads a report, released Friday, from the Mayors’ Council, TransLink, local government and KPMG.

“No additional capital costs are assumed beyond the 15-year period, while ongoing operating costs and revenue would continue thereafter.”

In an emailed statement, the mayors’ media relations desk said the additional $200 million encompassed “the full span of capital expenditures.”

“As described in the mayors’ plan, all identified new services would be rolled out within the first 10 years with the exception of one project that will be completed in 12 years $$$— those expenditures in years 11 and 12 result in the difference between $7.5B and $7.7B,” the statement said.

That longer-term project is the Surrey light rail transit line that would run along Fraser Highway connecting Surrey City Centre and the City of Langley, which is expected to “start construction in year 8 and go into service by year 12.”

While the public hadn’t been earlier told of the full capital cost, it seemed regional politicians were also kept in the dark.

Four mayors and a councillor present at the New Westminster announcement were approached by 24 hours on Monday about the capital budget - none were aware of the changes, nor had they seen the report.

Jack Froese, Township of Langley mayor, said two-thirds of the transportation plan will be funded by the federal and provincial governments, and pointed to that as a possible factor to the difference.

Mike Clay, Port Moody mayor, said the differences might be a result of rounding numbers, or the difference between 2014 and 2015 dollar estimates.

“The numbers, some of them are estimates and they’re pretty solid estimates, they won’t change a month ago to today,” Clay said.

Coun. Geoff Meggs of Vancouver said he’s confident there will be savings found as projects proceed.

“I thought it was $7.5 (billion) as well,” he said. “We want (spending) to fluctuate down if we possibly can ... It’s a 10-year plan, the implementation is for 15 years, I think that’s why the numbers are a little larger.”

Looks like when they do the budget they didn't factor in inflation. My guess when this is all over could be $10 billion or more.

You don't know what you're talking about

Melbourne and Sydney are not comparable to Vancouver. Their metros are 4 and 4.5 million respectively (compared to 2.5M for YVR).

I lived in Sydney and you'd get a scoff from the commuters if you think CityRail (aka "shittyrail") is superior in terms of service standards. It's prohibitively expensive (almost $4 per fare for a short hop the last time I was there) and the line coverage, while extensive, doesn't really operate as a "metro" system. More like a long distance commuter rail that has several lines converge into the CBD. The trains are old and break down constantly. Lines are shut down all the time for maintenance and you can wait nearly 15-20 minutes for the next train if you miss one on the weekends. Not to mention that suburban stations don't have fare gates at all! I don't think Skytrain is all that bad, but what we really need (I mean priority ONE) is an efficient limited access road network to get goods and services in and out of our Downtown. Bury the viaducts if it so offends your pretty little eyes. :smug:

The examples you gave about European cities doesn't apply to North America because their Business Districts are outside of the historic core. Here in Vancouver they are one and the same. Look at the highway access that those European business cores like La Defense and Canary Wharf have. They're much more extensive than what we have to deal with here.

Many people don't know what they're talking about, and that's the real problem.

I'm not sure if you're trying to make my case or not (That Translink is actually well run) by saying that Melbourne/Sydney have crappy transit (despite the investment).

As I said, I "heard" that Sydney and Melbourne have solid systems - the hearsay was from people who lived there (I know a lot of folks who live in those two cities - I used to work for eBay Australia from out of here). At 4 and 4.5M citizens they might be the closest comparables we have (newer city, modern-isn infrastructure, 1st world economy) since I was responding to someone saying that the comparisons to smaller systems was unfair and made Translink look better than it should.

For North America here's an older report from Seattle that compares their system to other systems including Translink: http://www.seattle.gov/transportatio...r%20Review.pdf

Translink comes off looking pretty solid in the report.

You must be the type of person who gloats about how good you are after beating a paraplegic at basketball.

Too bad you're still dumber than Rodman.