[FS1992EG]

Mayors want mobility tax on drivers to fund $7.5B transit expansion | CTV Vancouver News (http://bc.ctvnews.ca/mayors-want-mobility-tax-on-drivers-to-fund-7-5b-transit-expansion-1.1865809)

So I'm going to give my two cents on this "PLAN"

I believe the government should not be in the transportation planning business.
Their plan is to reduce cars from high volume traffic areas and penalizing them for working the 9 to 5 grind.

That's obvious not fair, we do have a carbon tax and it apparently is not enough to fund their new expansion. So where is all the money going? I educated guess would be they are funneling it to other account for political extra curriculars.

So the guess the carbon tax is a bust, plan b would be this new plan to tax drivers driving habits in the name of reducing pollution and congested streets in Metro-Vancouver. I don't buy it!

Does anyone see the flaws in all these plans?

If you guessed Government... your right.

Time and time again the government has been unable to appropriately predict future population growth. Taxes revenues and fail to balance budgets. It seems they have a reactive stances towards everything they "PLAN", instead of a proactive approach.

Can you believe these people are our leaders! GTFO!

My plan would be to farm out the GVRD Public transportation designs to a private company and they will invest in the Capital for infrastructure needed to meet and needs of the GVRD. They most talented people work for private companies while the least intelligent work for the government.

Anyone else would like to contribute to this discussion?

[tonyzoomzoom]

Yeah, the carbon tax just goes into general revenue...

As for the mayors, they can go to hell :swear:

[SoulCrusher]

The crooks that run TransLink are probably thinking of pay increases. Maybe the Province should consider bringing in a competent group to manage and run the system.

[bartone]

Soon our cars will have mandatory compass tap in and out systems installed to charge us for how far we drive

[Lomac]

You realize what happens if you privatize alternative forms of transportation, right? The low volume routes get downsized, if not outright slashed, and prices can skyrocket due to a lack of competition. Sure, it might be all fine and dandy if you only have to use buses around the Downtown Core, but the further reaches of the GVRD would be greatly affected. It's like BC Ferries - certain routes operate at a constant loss merely because service needs to be given to those areas. If a fully private company were to run it, you can bet those would be the first ones to go in order to balance the budget.

Public transportation is one of those areas where I have absolutely no qualms with the government running.

[Lomac]

By the way, the Carbon Tax is revenue neutral... meaning the government doesn't actually make any money from it.

[Tapioca]

Mayors want mobility tax on drivers to fund $7.5B transit expansion | CTV Vancouver News (http://bc.ctvnews.ca/mayors-want-mobility-tax-on-drivers-to-fund-7-5b-transit-expansion-1.1865809)
I believe the government should not be in the transportation planning business.
Their plan is to reduce cars from high volume traffic areas and penalizing them for working the 9 to 5 grind.

The government has to be involved in the transportation planning business. Even if there was absolutely no public transit, it would still need to design and maintain the road network.


That's obvious not fair, we do have a carbon tax and it apparently is not enough to fund their new expansion. So where is all the money going? I educated guess would be they are funneling it to other account for political extra curriculars.

That's a pretty baseless statement. Maybe it goes toward paying for your health care because you don't pay enough taxes (such as income taxes, and sales taxes) to sustain the health care system.


Does anyone see the flaws in all these plans?

If you guessed Government... your right.

Time and time again the government has been unable to appropriately predict future population growth. Taxes revenues and fail to balance budgets. It seems they have a reactive stances towards everything they "PLAN", instead of a proactive approach.

So, what's your plan then? Keep in mind that the province has no say in telling people to stay away given things like the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the fact that immigration is controlled by the federal government.


My plan would be to farm out the GVRD Public transportation designs to a private company and they will invest in the Capital for infrastructure needed to meet and needs of the GVRD. They most talented people work for private companies while the least intelligent work for the government.

Anyone else would like to contribute to this discussion?

You're trolling pretty hard. Private companies don't give a shit about the transportation needs of the region - they care about making a profit. Therefore, only regions dense enough to generate a profit would get service while other areas, like any suburb outside of Burnaby would get nothing.

I'm glad that people like you don't work for the government.

[iEatClams]

Mayors want mobility tax on drivers to fund $7.5B transit expansion | CTV Vancouver News (http://bc.ctvnews.ca/mayors-want-mobility-tax-on-drivers-to-fund-7-5b-transit-expansion-1.1865809)


My plan would be to farm out the GVRD Public transportation designs to a private company and they will invest in the Capital for infrastructure needed to meet and needs of the GVRD. They most talented people work for private companies while the least intelligent work for the government.

Anyone else would like to contribute to this discussion?

this has got to be the most dumbest thing i've heard in awhile. soo much ignorance I dont even know where to begin. It drives me nuts that there are people like you who just go on ranting about this and that but have no damn clue on how it actually works. your plan should be to jump off a cliff because you're an idiot. I honestly think you need to step into the real world and see how it actually works.



private companies will only make it worst as all they care about is profit. even the most basic econ 101 class has taught us that public goods or services like infrastructure should be best handled by government organizations.

that's why a lot of times government hire consultants - the so called "experts or smart" people, instead of actually privatizing transportation.




problem with transportation is there are many interest groups. people in Vancouver don't want to pay for something that people in surrey will use etc etc. and everybody thinks they have a PhD in planning or can be an armchair quarterback when it comes to voicing their "plan"

[bobbinka]

I think it should be a requirement that you must read all previous Translink/Public Transportation threads before you're allowed to post a new thread so that:
1). we don't keep repeating the same arguments
2). people might learn a thing or two
3). we don't have ignorant posts like this

So where is all the money going? I educated guess would be they are funneling it to other account for political extra curriculars.

http://wpmedia.o.canada.com/2013/07/rob_ford_vice.jpg?w=642&h=330&crop=1

[noclue]

hmm mobility tax might be pushing it, what if I want to do a road trip to Kelowna?

I don't mind if they toll every bridge in the lower mainland and entry into downtown like many US cities. I'm still dreaming of the day they turn oak/granville/hasting street into a highway.

[68style]

Yah... force everyone out to the suburbs with ridiculous housing prices... and then charge them money for the privilege of commuting to their jobs in horrible traffic every day. Sounds legit.

[Mr.HappySilp]

The gov have to keep in mind that a lot of people are force to live far far away form their work place due to housing cost. So now they are punishing people who don't make enough to live close to work by taxing them? The reason they move is coz they can't afford so I don't see the logic behind it............

Increasing public transit is a must but I think each city should pay for the appropriate %. Example if the whole plan cost 100Billion and we are spending 40billion on City of Vancouver then City of Vancouver is on the foot for 40billion because the increase service is in City of Vancouver. That way cities who gain little to no increase in public transit don't have to pay as much.

[tiger_handheld]

I think the better way would be a public/private partnership similar to Canada Line. From what i've heard CL is doing fairly well with higher than projected ridership.

Maybe we need to look at that for bus services as well.

[Tapioca]

Yah... force everyone out to the suburbs with ridiculous housing prices... and then charge them money for the privilege of commuting to their jobs in horrible traffic every day. Sounds legit.

Commuting sucks, but what can municipal governments do? The only tool they have is property taxes. The popular idea is to raise property taxes for foreigners, but municipal governments probably don't want to bite the hand that feeds them (i.e. developers and construction companies). Besides, most municipal governments don't have the capacity to verify the residency of property owners.

[jing]

By the way, the Carbon Tax is revenue neutral... meaning the government doesn't actually make any money from it.

Revenue neutral.... Just like aircare? :lol

[Ludepower]

We get taxed on taxed. You cant win.

[Timpo]

yea don't charge fee for people who don't even use bridges..

just use ETC, problem solved

Electronic toll collection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Timpo]

Anyways, Canada makes one of the best trains in the world.
I don't know why they had to purchase Skytrain fleets from Hyundai. Maybe they gave cheaper pricing?

Just stick to Bombardier
Bombardier Transportation - Rail Vehicles and Transportation Systems (http://www.bombardier.com/en/transportation.html)

I'm a full supporter of better public transit. Less cars on the road, less ICBC claims, less traffic tickets, etc.

[multicartual]

Driving is a luxury :)


Transit is for the unwashed masses :(

[Timpo]

Driving is a luxury :)


Transit is for the unwashed masses :(

If you work 9-5, you'll get stuck in a traffic jam. There's nothing luxurious about that. I'd rather take a train and get home fast.

Rich people will tell you flying a private jet is a luxury, taking a flight on B787 with hundreds of people squished in is for the unwashed masses.

[CharlesInCharge]

No one truly knows who owns or controls what in Canada... short of protesting its better to look for solutions that are actually conceivable... and no, voting wont work as there wont be a political party to fit peoples needs.

Possible solutions;
Car pooling groups (even with multiple switch over cars to bypass zone fees)
Aesthetically converting ones car to look new yet pay lower insurance
RS group buy of mini buses

[multicartual]

If you work 9-5


:failed:

[Timpo]

Japan Rail is trying to sell this fleet, maybe BC Transit should buy it. It is almost 20 years old but still better than anything we have in BC.

1995 Kawasaki/Hitachi JR500 Nozomi

http://frontroll.com/foto_berita/80linda30.jpg
http://www63.tok2.com/home2/tuccy/images/jr500/jr500-019.jpg
http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/95709980.jpg

[bobbinka]

Japan Rail is trying to sell this fleet, maybe BC Transit should buy it. It is almost 20 years old but still better than anything we have in BC.

so you can get from surrey to DT in 10 minutes vs the 45 minutes it currently takes on the skytrain?

we could just spend all that money on GTRs for RS instead

[Timpo]

If they don't want to buy Kawasaki, they can just keep it Canadian and go for Bombardier.

Here's a brand spanking new Bombardier Zefiro.

http://www.railwaypro.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/zefiro.jpg
http://img.welt.de/img/wirtschaft/crop102058667/7160716520-ci3x2l-w580-aoriginal-h386-l0/hochgeschwindigkeitszuege-zefiro-DW-Wirtschaft-bombadier.jpg

[Hehe]

I'm ok with government planning for public transportation. But they also need to be financially responsible for its people.

Translink current model is not working. They have an area too big to cover to make financial sense with their current planning.

Translink is basically getting used to asking money from taxpayers for whatever project it needs; regardless whether the project makes any sense at all. This is not how it should operate. They should at least be revenue neutral. If they can't figure a way out how such an expansion would ultimately bring enough revenue to cover itself (so it makes sense to invest now), then something is wrong with the planning. They should go back to the drawing board and start again.

I'm ok paying taxes to fund public projects, but I am not ok for them to spend on whatever they want without thinking it through first.

[Dennis R]

Wouldn't be surprised if this guy becomes the head of translink one day.

http://wpmedia.o.canada.com/2013/07/rob_ford_vice.jpg?w=642&h=330&crop=1

[Tapioca]

I'm ok with government planning for public transportation. But they also need to be financially responsible for its people.

Translink current model is not working. They have an area too big to cover to make financial sense with their current planning.

Translink is basically getting used to asking money from taxpayers for whatever project it needs; regardless whether the project makes any sense at all. This is not how it should operate. They should at least be revenue neutral. If they can't figure a way out how such an expansion would ultimately bring enough revenue to cover itself (so it makes sense to invest now), then something is wrong with the planning. They should go back to the drawing board and start again.



I think Translink needs to get into real estate, or somehow be able to work with municipal governments to collect a share of the property tax revenue where high-density developing is taking place to fund transit expansions.

[CharlesInCharge]

Try tracking down the share holders/owners of Translink...

They consist of families like the Oppenheimer's that already have billion dollar enterprises in Canada in places like poverty stricken Attawapiskat First Nation traditional lands in which they extract diamonds.


"The Crown Corporation holds the title to world wide Crown land in Crown colonies like Canada, Australia and New Zealand."

"The Rothschild family, the Warburg family, the Oppenheimer family and the Schiff family. These families and their descendants run the Crown Corporation of London."The Jesuit Vatican New World Order (http://vaticannewworldorder.blogspot.ca/2012/02/vatican-rules-over-approximately-2.html)

[MarkyMark]

It must be nice to just hold your hand out whenever you need more money, especially when the people you're taking it from are already hurting enough.

[tonyzoomzoom]

they could care less that folks are hurting. Property owners are captive; drivers are largely captive. Life is good at Translink.

[melloman]

Honestly, I love this new "Mayors Council" having more power.

Lots of new people posting must not remember Translink proposing much less then this new plan, and asking for over 3 times more. (TransLink wants $23 billion to expand transit system | News1130 (http://www.news1130.com/2013/06/19/translink-wants-23-billion-to-expand-transit-system/))

The only thing I hate about this plan is mobility taxing drivers. I would settle on a 25/50c toll on EVERY BRIDGE in the GVRD. Fuck this $5 for Portmann, most likely $5 on the new Patullo, and another $5 when they make the new bridge to replace the Massey Tunnel.

Everyone can easily afford 25 or 50cents, and the volume of money that will come in from this will be exorbitant. Yet our mayors are all asking to get voted out, if they try to force a mobility tax on us.

[Gunsmokez]

Main reason for public transportation is for people who can not afford luxury methods of transportation. This was the main fundamentals of it from the very beginning. Of course, it has veered of this ideology a bit.

So, if you want to take transportation and privatize it. Now, what do you think will have to people who REALLY need that ride/free to work. Think Privatize corporations give a rats ass about people who can not pay fare?

Like others have said, privatization of transportation means huge cuts. Do you think companies want to run bus/skytrains during off peak times 9pm to 3am? Forgot which city but, was told of by someone where they were from buses stop running at 7pm!!! Because no money to be made after that! What about the people who RELY on buses to get them to work that second job at night in downtown, and they have to bus back to surrey cause they can not afford to live in Vancouver? How do they survive?

[Tone Loc]

Like others have said, privatization of transportation means huge cuts. Do you think companies want to run bus/skytrains during off peak times 9pm to 3am? Forgot which city but, was told of by someone where they were from buses stop running at 7pm!!! Because no money to be made after that! What about the people who RELY on buses to get them to work that second job at night in downtown, and they have to bus back to surrey cause they can not afford to live in Vancouver? How do they survive?

Exactly this. While I agree with OP, that taxing motorists MORE than they already are being taxed is not fair, the privatization of public (keyword: public) transit would result in a bunch of routes/times being slashed.

IMO, gov't should be looking at the cyclists in this case... funny how I don't see the cost of bicycles taxed or even "insurance" for cyclists being pushed for in order to build bike lanes, yet Translink fares are being jacked up to screw over commuters as is the cost of gasoline for cars. It's kinda pathetic how our "Vision Vancouver" gov't is so in love with an idea of transport that is immensely impractical for a 9-5 person who has to wear a suit/tie/business attire to work as well as live in a city where it rains 6 months out of the year.... just my $0.02

[FS1992EG]

Why Tokyo's Privately Owned Rail Systems Work So Well - CityLab (http://www.citylab.com/commute/2011/10/why-tokyos-privately-owned-rail-systems-work-so-well/389/)

[Lomac]

Why Tokyo's Privately Owned Rail Systems Work So Well - CityLab (http://www.citylab.com/commute/2011/10/why-tokyos-privately-owned-rail-systems-work-so-well/389/)

Japan also has nearly 32x the population density as British Columbia, and is roughly 1/3 the size of this province as well. Private companies can work well and be competitive with one another in Japan because there's a much higher chance of a positive return with that sort of combination. In the GVRD, however... not so much.

[Lomac]

A couple of other thoughts...

There's been a giant uproar about the proposed mobility tax, but nowhere have I seen anything about what it involves or any other sort of information relevant to whether it's a good idea or not. Even taking a look through the Mayor's Council website yielded no information.

I think what should have been done when building all the new skytrain stations over the past few years was to create extra space that can be rented out to various companies (you can bet places like Starbucks or snack shops would make a killing) as a source of extra revenue. It wouldn't have even needed to be a big walk in store... just a small walk-up counter to order a coffee and slice of pizza, and you're done. Hell, I'm sure there are a few existing stations that can be easily retrofitted to allow for something like this.

[Nlkko]

You can search mobility pricing. There are lots of local dialogues happened/happening.

The so-called proposed "mobility tax" is a full on mobility pricing scheme (pay per distance travel/ road infrastructure usage). I think it would be a long time before such scheme can go live considering the massive public uproar that would go with it.

However, other scheme such as corridor pricing (taxing all bridges/connectors) to the GVRD or even a congestion charge for the City of Vancouver similar to London's can be expected in the near future. I said Vancouver because Vancouver's future transportation plan relies heavily on public transit, cycling and walking. I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot less personal vehicle traffic in the city by 2020.

[melloman]

When they mentioned road tolls, they mentioned routes such as; Marine Way, Hastings St., HWY91.

I find this ridiculous, just for the fact that if they toll the bridges, you will legit pay a toll on the Alex Fraser, then pay more to travel along HWY91. Back to back tolling could be a real possibility.

Honestly I don't understand why tolling every bridge in the GVRD is so hard. I would only fear then, tolls increasing because Translink and the gov't get way too greedy, way too often.

[Everymans]

How would they even enforce road tolling? Will they track my car? or take a picture of my license plate when I go past a certain light? Seems like a great idea if you want to make this city more difficult to survive in. My car just broke down so I decided to start biking work. biking from richmond to downtown vancouver without transit is a friggen nightmare. 30 blocks of uphill. I miss carly already.

[yray]

^spend a few million installing cameras :lol

[Mr.C]

I'd pay a Road Tax if Vancouver had an, oh, London-level of mass transit.

Otherwise, fuck off. I pay enough taxes as is.

[Timpo]

I'd pay a Road Tax if Vancouver had an, oh, London-level of mass transit.

Otherwise, fuck off. I pay enough taxes as is.

yeah Vancouver's public transit absolutely sucks compare to real cities around the world.

[iEatClams]

I was at a planning conference one year and one of the speakers did mention that the bridges going into the City and the traffic that comes from all the bridges act as a barrier to entry into Vancouver. Without the bridges, there would be numerous more cars in Vancouver and traffic would be even worst. Not sure if planners want it to be like that or just happened by chance. My guess would be the latter.

[Yodamaster]

"The council wants the plan to be paid for through region-wide tolls and something it’s calling mobility pricing – a plan to charge motorists based on how far they drive."


No.

[Mr.HappySilp]

PST hike of 0.5% proposed for Metro Vancouver transit referendum - British Columbia - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/pst-hike-of-0-5-proposed-for-metro-vancouver-transit-referendum-1.2870043)

Metro Vancouver residents could be asked to vote on a 0.5 per cent hike in B.C.'s Provincial Sales Tax to fund new transit projects, during a referendum next year.

The proposal was approved by the majority of Metro Vancouver mayors, who considered it the most affordable solution for the majority of residents, at a meeting in New Westminster on Thursday morning.

It passed by a count of 109 to 19, under the weighted voting system of the Metro Vancouver Mayors' Council. It was opposed by the mayors of Burnaby, West Vancouver and Maple Ridge.

Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan said the referendum is the wrong way to go, because it leaves many questions unanswered.

"How are we going to decide which line goes first?" he asked. "Will it be Vancouver with the new tunnel down Broadway or will it be a light rail line into Surrey? We never made that decision."
Alternative is 'traffic congestion, pollution'

Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson, who voted in support, said the alternative would be detrimental economically.

"There will be a lot more traffic congestion, pollution, sitting in traffic ... it's a costly thing for our economy," he said.

The proposed sales tax increase would apply only in Metro Vancouver and would cost the average household about $125 per year, officials estimate. The poorest families would pay an estimated $50 per year.

It is estimated the tax increase would raise $250 million per year to fund the mayors' plan to spend $7.5 billion on regional transit improvements over the next 10 years.

Among the projects under consideration are a new subway line along Broadway in Vancouver, a light rail line in Surrey, a new Pattullo Bridge and improved bus and SeaBus services.

The full question to be posed to residents will be: Do you support a one half percentage point increase to the Provincial Sales Tax in Metro Vancouver dedicated to the Mayors' Transportation and Transit plan, with independent audits and public reporting? Yes or No.

The question still requires the approval of the provincial government before it will officially go ahead to a referendum.

It would then go out to residents on a mail-in ballot in late March 2015, with a final voting deadline sometime in mid-April.

Take the poll: Do you support this proposed tax hike?
Do you support a 0.5% increase to the provincial sales tax to fund transit in Metro Vancouver?
I don't careYesNoI don't know
VoteView ResultsPolldaddy.com

TransLink's 'executive perks' criticized

The proposal was immediately criticized by Jordan Bateman of the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation, who said TransLink should instead focus on cutting wasteful spending.

"TransLink already takes 17 cents per litre on gas, five cents per litre of the federal government’s gas tax, ever-increasing property taxes, a 21 per cent parking tax and a levy on BC Hydro bills. Then they waste it on over-budget projects, executive perks, and dozens of other bad decisions," said Bateman.

"We’d all be better off if TransLink spent as much time and effort looking to save money and cut waste as it did dreaming up new tax grabs."

Bateman also called on the provincial government to prevent TransLink from spending taxpayers' money on any campaign to support the referendum.

"No taxpayer money should go to either side of the debate, and TransLink’s spending and advertising during the campaign should be vetted by the auditor general for local government for fairness."

Meanwhile Iain Black, CEO of the Vancouver Board of Trade, voiced his support for the proposed tax increase.

"Business people understand that there is a return when you make an investment and they will see this as an investment worth making," he said.

I rather translink cut some of their projects. We don't need a new railway system in Vancouver. What we need is to provide better service to the current service map and upgrade the current Skytrain system. After the 3 major outages we had this year, it wave reveal that we are still using floppy drives for the back system for the Skytrain.

An increase in tax will only force people to spend less, shop at the states. Just look at the carbon tax, the revenue for the carbon tax is on decline because more and more people are getting their gas down the states or decided to drive out less.

[freakshow]

i would be ok with the the tax increase if they updated our main sky train lines to support a convenient card/swipe system... oh.. wait..

[Tapioca]

If Translink could make cuts that wouldn't impact existing service levels, then the provincial audit would have identified them. The fact of the matter is that the provincial audit didn't find much that Translink could cut given existing service levels.

Sure, you could cut a few managers and maybe save a couple of million a year. Maybe you could bust the unionized drivers, get taken to court, and then lobby the government to amend the Labour code. And then what? To pay drivers a few bucks less per hour? Get rid of overtime? Or maybe Translink could fire their technical staff, and hire fresh grads for half the cost and assume that a steady stream of fresh grads are available to hire-fire for the next 10 years.

So, we should go ahead and vote down the half-percent increase so we can ask Translink to tighten its belt because after all, it's not that hard to do the above, right?

[belaud]

The transit in Japan & Hong Kong are far superior to Vancouver's, I actually enjoyed riding it when I was in Asia.

But you also must realize that those two cities had the subway's integrated into the city long before it became a necessity.

I think what should have been done when building all the new skytrain stations over the past few years was to create extra space that can be rented out to various companies (you can bet places like Starbucks or snack shops would make a killing) as a source of extra revenue. It wouldn't have even needed to be a big walk in store... just a small walk-up counter to order a coffee and slice of pizza, and you're done. Hell, I'm sure there are a few existing stations that can be easily retrofitted to allow for something like this.

This was why I enjoyed riding public transit in those countries, every stop had something in it for you to enjoy, be it a starbucks, 7-11, or a bakery, and multiple exits so you can get to your destination easier.
Our transit system is more of an after thought, just look at the sky train line going down No.3 Road, the bus lane in the middle lane took years to build, it stood for a year, and quickly got torn down for the sky train. We waste money like it's no tomorrow.

Another prime example is the compass system, it's so glitched out now they can't even roll it out, it seems to me they hired some incompetent integrators is all. The two aforementioned countries up top has 0 problems with their card system, tap in -> tap out, how hard can it get?

I'd pay a Road Tax if Vancouver had an, oh, London-level of mass transit.

Otherwise, fuck off. I pay enough taxes as is.

I would be all down for paying road fee's if they were properly maintained, but our roads are hard to drive in the rain, and my STI trams left/right like no tomorrow on the high way from the semi's indenting the asphalt.

I just don't understand why the people that use the transit system the least are the ones that get to pay the most.

just my two cents rant

[Hondaracer]

Add a fucking dollar to all the fares and take it from the people who actually use transit.

Translink is so incompetent there's no way in hell people are going to vote yes. It's not gonna be a vote for the tax, it's going to be a vote for translink in people's mind.

[Tapioca]

Translink controls some of the bridges and roads. Everyone benefits directly or indirectly from better transit, so it makes sense that everyone should pay for it (unless you take the trouble of living off the grid and not buying any goods from local shops).

[Y2K_o__o]

couldn't agree more with belaud

It all comes to proactive urban planning and think ahead for transportation & transit system as a whole.

[Tapioca]

Comparing transit systems in Asia to those in North America is an apples-to-orange comparison.

There lot's of blame to go around - politicians, Translink, and us being the car-culture-suburban-loving public. To get integrated urban planning will take decades and will require a culture shift in the like that no other jurisdiction in North America has experienced, save for New York City. People here don't want to live in shoeboxes and they hate any attempt at social engineering such as bike lanes.

At the end of the day, 0.5% is not a lot considering the other alternatives such as vehicle levy, property tax increase, etc. Of course, service cuts is an option, but people complain about the poor service right now.

[tool001]

^ right

stop comparing asia and north america,

cause tokyo (that has amazing transit system) has population of 13.million mainly relies on its subway system , where as BC population of 4.4 million doesnt (vancouver is far less)

i prefer paying .5 more on pst , rather than it being added just to gas tax..

[Mr.HappySilp]

^^ how about we increase property tax since it seems more ppl on RS don't even own a house (according to the Real estate thread). That way it won't affect anyone on RS.

[tonyzoomzoom]

hikes in property taxes will mean hikes in rents (unless you're living with parents), so you'll get hit one way or another.

I don't mind paying more for a better transportation system; but Translink needs to be way more accountable for the way it spends money. The Compass fuck up is a classic example.

Translink needs more than just having regular audits; they need to be regulated like BCHydro, Fortis Gas, etc.

[bobbinka]

i think we need an official translink thread cause we're just repeating ourselves


http://www.revscene.net/forums/680147-official-2013-great-translink-ragedebate-thread.html

http://www.revscene.net/forums/687282-skytrain-wont-take-bus-transfers-new-compass-card-system.html

[G-spec]

We all know this is about more money in their pockets, think I heard on the radio yesterday local government makes about 10 billion in taxes per year..... but let me humor this for a minute and pretend it really is about getting people out of cars decongesting the streets a little

Translink has done a lot in the last 10+ years, adding new lines mostly, I don't think we need more, they've really been annoying last few years with all this money pandering..
As a guy who has to drive for work (construction) when I do want to travel for leisure, quite often I'd like to Skytrain and just drop off my car in the parking lot to avoid traffic hassle. But the inability to park my car anywhere near most Skytrain stations is what prevents that.

People who have been driving for years, you're not gonna get them into buses because fuck buses, but you have a very good chance getting then into Skytrains however... So one thing that could get more drivers into Skytrains, if Translink made more parking spaces available around their Stations, most people I know have no problem leaving their car at Skytrain and taking train to avoid traffic. And I understand not every station can have the giant parking lot Scott Road does, but most stations are either around un-parkable residential areas (like Joyce) or have tiny ass time sensitive parking lots (Edmonds)




Now what my main issue is the traffic in this city has come to almost standstill levels, when I first got my license back in 99, you could drive around town anywhere without really having to consider traffic and rush hours, I mean it was there, but nowhere near as bad as it is today... I mean car population seems like it's tripled in the last 15 years.... and from my understanding the city streets are based on 1970 or 80 ish population and car levels...
We got a new bridge, and widened Highway 1, great thank you it helped noticeably.... but it's just nowhere near enough....

I don't know what could be done immediately aside from banning cars parking on the curbside lane 6am to 10pm on the big streets like Kingsway, Knight, etc....etc.... I think that would have an immediate impact and probably the least costly and makes most sense

[nabs]

i prefer paying .5 more on pst , rather than it being added just to gas tax..

This is how the government wants you thinking, throwing out 2 separate things, making the second one look worse than the first therefore making the first more desirable, then you get settled on the lesser of the two thinking you got the better hand.

When in reality, I think the amount of taxes we pay should suffice, and they need to manage the current incoming tax money more efficiently. I don't want to pay either the .5 on pst or this.

[Anjew]

As a guy who has to drive for work (construction) when I do want to travel for leisure, quite often I'd like to Skytrain and just drop off my car in the parking lot to avoid traffic hassle. But the inability to park my car anywhere near most Skytrain stations is what prevents that.

People who have been driving for years, you're not gonna get them into buses because fuck buses, but you have a very good chance getting then into Skytrains however... So one thing that could get more drivers into Skytrains, if Translink made more parking spaces available around their Stations, most people I know have no problem leaving their car at Skytrain and taking train to avoid traffic. And I understand not every station can have the giant parking lot Scott Road does, but most stations are either around un-parkable residential areas (like Joyce) or have tiny ass time sensitive parking lots (Edmonds)

I agree, There absolutely needs to be more parking spots near the skytrain stations. That would be a much greener venture than any bike lanes in Vancouver.

[Soundy]

We got a new bridge, and widened Highway 1, great thank you it helped noticeably.... but it's just nowhere near enough....
This has always been the core of traffic problems here, though (and probably most places): upgrades aren't done under an all-encompassing master design, they're done piecemeal to fix one small problem, which only shifts the problem a little bit.

In the last 20 years before the whole PMH1 project, for example, I've seen two major re-designs of the Cape Horn interchange... each one fixed one problem while making another worse, or simply moved the problem a little further down the road. Doing the whole thing right required what they're doing now: new bridge, wider highway, somewhere to put all that traffic once you've got it organized, and creating and tying in alternate routes like the SFPR and the Lougheed Hwy upgrades (new Pitt River Bridge, etc.)

Even now there's still a problem that wasn't addressed: you've got all this traffic flowing smoothly all the way from the Valley right into East Van... and yet a major portion of that traffic is still heading downtown, and that means funneling onto surface streets. And you've got all that traffic leaving again in the evening, still via surface streets. But of course, the Vancouver eco-weenies couldn't allow any sort of improvement to happen to aid that flow, they just repeat the mantra, "if you build it, they will come".... well guess what, fuckwit, if you build it, they can also leave.

Which just points to the other root problem: everyone being so resistant to change. They'd been talking about upgrading or replacing the Port Mann for 30 years, but the NIMBYs shut it down time and time again, and meantime the NEED for the capacity just kept growing and growing. And with it, costs kept going up and up at an exponential rate. So when a government finally had the balls to say "fuck you, this is getting DONE", it ended up costing ten times what it should have to do it right in the first place. And once again, in between you spend a shit-ton on stop-gap measures, like moving the old Port Mann's sidewalks to free up space to add a single outgoing HOV lane... :fulloffuck:

[iEatClams]

but let me humor this for a minute and pretend it really is about getting people out of cars decongesting the streets a little

Translink has done a lot in the last 10+ years, adding new lines mostly, I don't think we need more, they've really been annoying last few years with all this money pandering..
As a guy who has to drive for work (construction) when I do want to travel for leisure, quite often I'd like to Skytrain and just drop off my car in the parking lot to avoid traffic hassle. But the inability to park my car anywhere near most Skytrain stations is what prevents that.

People who have been driving for years, you're not gonna get them into buses because fuck buses, but you have a very good chance getting then into Skytrains however... So one thing that could get more drivers into Skytrains, if Translink made more parking spaces available around their Stations, most people I know have no problem leaving their car at Skytrain and taking train to avoid traffic. And I understand not every station can have the giant parking lot Scott Road does, but most stations are either around un-parkable residential areas (like Joyce) or have tiny ass time sensitive parking lots (Edmonds)




Now what my main issue is the traffic in this city has come to almost standstill levels, when I first got my license back in 99, you could drive around town anywhere without really having to consider traffic and rush hours, I mean it was there, but nowhere near as bad as it is today... I mean car population seems like it's tripled in the last 15 years.... and from my understanding the city streets are based on 1970 or 80 ish population and car levels...
We got a new bridge, and widened Highway 1, great thank you it helped noticeably.... but it's just nowhere near enough....

I don't know what could be done immediately aside from banning cars parking on the curbside lane 6am to 10pm on the big streets like Kingsway, Knight, etc....etc.... I think that would have an immediate impact and probably the least costly and makes most sense


+ 1 to building parking lots near skytrains. We cant have it at all skytrains, but maybe a few major ones, like how king george station has it. we need skytrain parking between major zones or cities. for example, we could have one in richmond for people crossing bridges.

I do like how the canada line has eased traffic and removed a lot of cars on the road in that area, especially a line to the airport. you can go downtown to the airport just on the skytrain.

but we need to have that broadway corridor. soo much traffic along broadway / west 4th / 12th avenue its a damn standstill.

speaking of zones, when are the compass cards suppose to kick in? The Zone thing is a huge pet peeve of mine. ride one skytrain station between two zones and you have to pay more (from $91 to $124 a month). soo stupid.

I think translink is fucking up big time on planning and execution. which is where a lot of money is being wasted on. Compass card? over budget and over schedule. How long does it take to upgrade Main st. station? but who know's?, I'm just armchair quarterbacking it with my elementary school education and maybe theres a legit reason for some of this.

[iEatClams]

the other thing is, vision is just giving land and tax money away to developers. They need to negotiate better to have developers pay for some of the infrastructure. When it comes to real estate in Vancouver, the city should be in the position of power, not the developers. When property values are rising and land is in demand, the city should have all the power. This isn't Detroit where we need to attract developers. Right now developers are just raking in $ up the ass.

All they need to do is just force the developers to give more money to have some of the prime real estate developed (properties close to skytrain for example). Want to build a 12 story instead of 8 stories? help us fund some of the infrastructure. yet it seems like the opposite is happening.

[Soundy]

I think translink is fucking up big time on planning and execution. which is where a lot of money is being wasted on. Compass card? over budget and over schedule. How long does it take to upgrade Main st. station? but who know's?, I'm just armchair quarterbacking it with my elementary school education and maybe theres a legit reason for some of this.

This has the same roots as the other infrastructure issues: too much pandering to the vocal minorities, not enough just doing what needs to be done. Granted, some sort of turnstile system should have been used right from the start, but too late to dwell on that... people and pundits have been crying for years for this TYPE of system and getting rid of the zones, but rather than either say "fuck you, it stays the way it is" or "fine, we'll do it, but it's going to take time and cost a bundle", they go for half-assed measures to save time and money and calm the whiners... who of course, just whine louder when things don't work as expected.

Of course, one of the core problems with TransLink is that its board is made up of civic politicians, each with their own agenda, each wanting to pander to their own community. You can have the mayors of Surrey, Delta and New West pushing a new Patullo Bridge, while the mayors of Burnaby and Coquitlam have other priorities, and an eco-Nazi mayor in Burnaby who would probably be just as happy to see the freeways turned into green spaces.

It's hard to get anything done on a regional basis when everyone involved in decision-making is more concerned about keeping their own voters happy.

[Gunsmokez]

I don't mind paying the 0.5% increase to PST.

We all gotta pay in the end! It will happen.

[tiger_handheld]

If the PST increase goes through, can I make a referendum to retract the carbon tax?

[Tone Loc]

If you work 9-5, you'll get stuck in a traffic jam. There's nothing luxurious about that. I'd rather take a train and get home fast.

Rich people will tell you flying a private jet is a luxury, taking a flight on B787 with hundreds of people squished in is for the unwashed masses.

This. As much as I'm financially against this tax increase, I can't deny it's an overall GOOD thing... as long as there is transparency involved and the greedy executives running Translink don't get pay raise that suspiciously increase with the revenue.

You cannot deny that GVRD public transit sucks and is sorely lacking compared to most other "big" cities. Transit - including light rail if need be - is the only real viable solution, not bike lanes that can only be used half the year. Vancouver's population is increasing rapidly, and we need to find a way to de-congest the roads and facilitate transportation for everybody.

And let's be real here, as said above if you work 9-5 you WILL get stuck in traffic. At that point I'd rather take transit and let someone else do the driving, I can just chill with my iPod and take a nap instead of plotting ways to viciously murder the BMW driver who just cut me off.

[Mr.HappySilp]

This. As much as I'm financially against this tax increase, I can't deny it's an overall GOOD thing... as long as there is transparency involved and the greedy executives running Translink don't get pay raise that suspiciously increase with the revenue.

You cannot deny that GVRD public transit sucks and is sorely lacking compared to most other "big" cities. Transit - including light rail if need be - is the only real viable solution, not bike lanes that can only be used half the year. Vancouver's population is increasing rapidly, and we need to find a way to de-congest the roads and facilitate transportation for everybody.

And let's be real here, as said above if you work 9-5 you WILL get stuck in traffic. At that point I'd rather take transit and let someone else do the driving, I can just chill with my iPod and take a nap instead of plotting ways to viciously murder the BMW driver who just cut me off.

Do what some of the cities do set 2 types of insurance Type 1 allows you to drive Mon, Wed Fri and Sun and Type 2 allows you to drive Tue Thurs Sat and Sun. It might not fix the issue 100% but it does help with traffic jam. Possibly leading ppl to car pool more often. Bejing does this I think.

Honestly I would no simply because I don't feel Vancouver needs another light rail system. They light Rail system will eventually connect to UBC but what other universities? If UBC gets a light rail from Boardway to UBC then there should be one going from Porduction way to SFU and one from Metrotown to BCIT etc etc..... why should we waste billions on it. Is mostly to please the developers that's all. Build a light rail system and let the developers buy the land near the station for dirt cheap.

What needs to happen is to provide better and faster service to the current public transit system first. More buses for popular routes, more skytrains during rush hour. The reason we need more skytrains is because when the Ever green line is up and running it will bring a ton of people onto the skytrain system. The current capacity is already running over the maximum capacity during rush hour. Also please add washrooms to some major skystain station. It sucks when you need to use the washroom and there isn't any.

[StylinRed]

municipalities and nations all around the world issue bonds to pay for infrastructure projects either partially or fully....yet here, all we do is increase taxes or charge tolls

-_-

[hchang]

Translink controls some of the bridges and roads. Everyone benefits directly or indirectly from better transit, so it makes sense that everyone should pay for it (unless you take the trouble of living off the grid and not buying any goods from local shops).


OR.... Charge the people who actually use it.

I know, what a concept right!?

[Tone Loc]

Do what some of the cities do set 2 types of insurance Type 1 allows you to drive Mon, Wed Fri and Sun and Type 2 allows you to drive Tue Thurs Sat and Sun. It might not fix the issue 100% but it does help with traffic jam. Possibly leading ppl to car pool more often. Bejing does this I think.

Honestly I would no simply because I don't feel Vancouver needs another light rail system. They light Rail system will eventually connect to UBC but what other universities? If UBC gets a light rail from Boardway to UBC then there should be one going from Porduction way to SFU and one from Metrotown to BCIT etc etc..... why should we waste billions on it. Is mostly to please the developers that's all. Build a light rail system and let the developers buy the land near the station for dirt cheap.



Yes, but see... Beijing has a very good public transit system, at least compared to Vancouver. In order to get people out of cars, you have to provide them with a BETTER alternative. This means what? Make transit look MORE APPEALING to the everyday commuter. Everybody hates traffic, that's a given. So capitalize on that with better, more frequent service, covered bus shelters (this goes a long way in an area that rains 6 months/year), etc.

And I meant the GVRD needs a light rail system in the suburban areas of Surrey etc., where public transit is very bad and a majority of people who live there commute to Vancouver for work. Something similar to the West Coast Express for Surrey residents, or at least an expansion of the Expo Line past King George would help loads.

[Gunsmokez]

Need to get people out of their cars . Kinda odd saying this in a car enthusiast forum. But, it is the truth. Too many single occupancy drivers during peak hours.

Adding more buses will not help that situation. They just get stuck by all the rest of the cars. Sky trains however I do see it helping more but at such a HUGE cost.

Perhaps making that skytrain down the Broadway corridor will help, no on really knows. All we do know is that, that area is CRAZY busy!!! 99's have 4 mins service and are PACKED to the windshield. 9's are 5 mins apart as well for local traffic and still fucking busy.

[Mr.HappySilp]

And I meant the GVRD needs a light rail system in the suburban areas of Surrey etc., where public transit is very bad and a majority of people who live there commute to Vancouver for work. Something similar to the West Coast Express for Surrey residents, or at least an expansion of the Expo Line past King George would help loads.


They are talking building 2 Light rail system. One from King George(Surrey) and the other from Boardway station down to arbutus street. Is the one from Boardway station down to arbutus street I have issue with. There is no need to build that line.

I don't buy the whole excuse that they will eventually connect it to UBC. I just there is enough buses going to UBC already is just ppl don't know there are other routes other than the 99 UBC bus. If ppl get off at VCC station there is the 84 that goes to UBC and everytime I took that bus to work there isn't any major line up. There is also the bus 25 starts off Brentwood mall that goes to UBC. Then there is another one at Joyce. Ppl just loves to take the 99 for some reason. The sole purpose of building a light rail system in the city of Vancouver (Not Surrey) is to fill more money in developers' pocket.

[Tone Loc]

I don't buy the whole excuse that they will eventually connect it to UBC. I just there is enough buses going to UBC already is just ppl don't know there are other routes other than the 99 UBC bus. If ppl get off at VCC station there is the 84 that goes to UBC and everytime I took that bus to work there isn't any major line up. There is also the bus 25 starts off Brentwood mall that goes to UBC. Then there is another one at Joyce. Ppl just loves to take the 99 for some reason. The sole purpose of building a light rail system in the city of Vancouver (Not Surrey) is to fill more money in developers' pocket.

I take the 99 every day, and I've tried the 84... but the traffic on W 4th in the morning is crazy busy. Not to mention the 84 stops a lot more frequently than the 99 making the overall commute longer.

The reason a train system is needed from Broadway-Commercial to the UBC area is because the Broadway "corridor" at any given time of normal business hours is complete gridlock. Especially from Cambie to around Oak, and even Granville at times. Lots of people take the 99 to get from Broadway-Commercial to the Canada Line.

I understand you have different opinions but to me it's ridiculous that a bus that (theoretically) holds about 200 people and comes every 2-3 minutes during rush hour is STILL so packed that the average person has to wait for 4-5 buses before getting on. The reason the SFU equivalent (the 135 bus) is not AS packed is because it doesn't connect two major transit hubs (Canada + Millennium/Expo Lines) together, most people using it are students.

And even then you're still packed like a sardine. One of the many reasons I just sell my U Pass and park at SW Marine down by the beach....

[Mr.HappySilp]

waiting 4 to 5 buses is nothing. When I visited HK during rush hour I have to wait 8+ buses before I can get on. So 2 to 3 mins per bus and you have to wait 4 to 5 bus that's only 8min to 15mins. Is nothing I took the 123 bus every morning and it comes every 20mins. You have it lucky to only wait 15mins.

So there are other options but ppl just refuse to use it because is slower, therefore we need a light rail system so we could get to UBC in 30mins instead of 40mins. And to achieve that we have to spend billions and billions of dollars.

[4444]

in recent times I have been able to travel a lot, including the following countries: Spain, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, UK, Japan, Korea, Thailand, Vietnam, Singapore, and I've noticed something, the major cities (and even less major cities in some cases) have amazing public transit.

so, what's wrong with vancouver? a number of things, but the ones that are obvious are:
1) lack of half decent city planning. mass transit is an afterthought. decent roads are an afterthought. what is the forethought for city planners?

2) geography. Vancouver is a small city not close to anywhere else. I would think the best solution for vancouver would be a hub and spoke transit system, moderate speed trains from north shore to vancouver, burnaby, richmond, surrey, with a localized tram system in each district. the problem here is that the train infrastructure is too costly given it can only be used locally, it's not like you're going on the train to calgary vs. in europe you use the trains as a part of a europe wide system - the capital cost is worth it.

skytrains are not the answer, they're too expensive, yet we have no clear vision as to what will be the best plan, and that's the problem - no clear driver for BC's transit mandate - this is why i would not welcome an additional 0.5% consumption tax. as was rightfully said, most sane places issue bonds to cover capital expenditure for infrastructure, why can't BC?

BC has had it too good for too long with respects to having Vancouver be a small town whereby being car dependent has been ok. nowadays, vancouver is getting too small for the number of ppl, or more importantly, the infrastructure is not keeping pace - with continued immigration in, one needs mass transit as the roads truly cannot accommodate the extra cars. but as with all things, the government are about 20 years behind the times, 20 years too late with their infrastructure plans.

the people of BC deserve better, but if they're not willing to stand up and say "enough is enough" then it will turn into a case of "you get what you ask for"

[Soundy]

so, what's wrong with vancouver? a number of things, but the ones that are obvious are:
1) lack of half decent city planning. mass transit is an afterthought. decent roads are an afterthought. what is the forethought for city planners?
More bike lanes!

The other piece of this is, as I already mentioned, much of this planning is being left to a group of the mayors of the various cities... and while I'm sure most of them do have the bigger picture in mind, they also have their own voters in mind, and a project that would mainly benefit North Vancouver won't be as important to the mayors of Surrey and Delta, especially if it means choosing between that, and a project in their own back yards.

Your question itself is indicative of this issue: "what's wrong with Vancouver?" Well unless Vancouver is going to have its own bus system that stops and turns around at Boundary Rd. and never crosses a bridge... mass transit is not a Vancouver issue, it's a regional issue. It's not Vancouver's problem to address.

2) geography. Vancouver is a small city not close to anywhere else. I would think the best solution for vancouver would be a hub and spoke transit system, moderate speed trains from north shore to vancouver, burnaby, richmond, surrey, with a localized tram system in each district. the problem here is that the train infrastructure is too costly given it can only be used locally, it's not like you're going on the train to calgary vs. in europe you use the trains as a part of a europe wide system - the capital cost is worth it.
Here we see another problem: Vancouver's transit needs are regularly compared to other places like Calgary, Toronto, etc., for example: talking about how we could use a light rail system like Calgary has...conveniently ignoring the fact that compared to the GVRD, Calgary is flat as a board. They same technology isn't feasible here. Toronto has far more people to spread the cost around, and is also flat. Most parts of Europe are also relatively flat, AND have a far higher density of people.

These are just not valid or fair comparisons. If you want to compare topologies, San Francisco may be closer. Seattle. Portland.

the people of BC deserve better, but if they're not willing to stand up and say "enough is enough" then it will turn into a case of "you get what you ask for"
I think it's just as important to have governments who are willing to stand up, say "enough is enough", stop pandering to the vocal minority, and say, "fuck you, this is getting done, because it's been put off too long and it's needed now more than ever." :accepted:

[Tapioca]

Transit planning is a complex issue in Metro Van.

1. Build park and rides.
Can't do it because there's not much vacant land, especially in areas that are close to Vancouver. Even if there was, does it make sense for Translink to pay the costs to acquire and to keep that land vacant for parking lots? Not really, unless it becomes a real estate developer and builds condos to pay the costs of acquiring and holding the land.

2. Higher density should be encouraged in order to ensure higher ridership and profitability for future transit expansion.
Most municipalities in Metro are doing this, but there are lots of angry and vocal minorities who oppose change. Considering that only 30% of residents vote in municipal elections, mayors don't want to do too much and will only focus on rezoning industrial and commercial zones.

3. Increase fares for users.
It's an appealing option on the surface, but if you increase fares too much, then it will hurt low-income people who actually need public transit and you'll discourage middle-income earners from using it. The more you discourage people from using it, the more congestion we'll have on the roads which will accelerate wear and tear on existing infrastructure. And no one wants more congestion, I think.

4. Better urban planning.
It's easy to criticize the lack of urban planning, but there's really no point because in the end, you have to try to move forward and get better results. If money won't be spent and if no vision is created, we'll get poor results.

5. Hub and spoke model.
If you really look at the system, it's actually a hub-and-spoke model. However, the reality is that most people in Metro travel from region to region in no set patterns. Lots of people live in suburbs and commute to other suburbs. So, how does one build a system to accommodate random commuting patterns? Density and the town centre model helps, but people here eventually tire of the condo lifestyle and want more space.

I think the real problem is governance. Too many mayors and an organization that is hamstrung with poor leadership.

[Soundy]

5. Hub and spoke model.
If you really look at the system, it's actually a hub-and-spoke model. However, the reality is that most people in Metro travel from region to region in no set patterns. Lots of people live in suburbs and commute to other suburbs. So, how does one build a system to accommodate random commuting patterns? Density and the town centre model helps, but people here eventually tire of the condo lifestyle and want more space.
Of course, this kind of plan is great if you build it that way from the start... problem is, things are repeatedly just cobbled together, a little bit at a time, with no thought given to a larger regional plan like this. Each of SkyTrain's stages was done this way - oh, we need to serve this area, how are we going to connect it this time? - instead of, well we could put a new line here, but that's not going to meet up with anything else we might want to do in the future... why don't we run it this other way, and later down the road when we need to expand it, we'll be ready.

I think the real problem is governance. Too many mayors and an organization that is hamstrung with poor leadership.
Yep. As I said, everyone involved has their little fifedoms to be concerned about, instead of JUST the big picture.

Don't get me wrong, having the various mayors on the TransLink board is crucial... but they need a single APPOINTED official who has the final say over what gets done when, and where the money goes.

[Hehe]

I have said it many times when it comes to transit related threads and I'm going to say it again... GVR simply doesn't have the population to support our public transportation system. And the fact the translink operates the longest distance service in NA make it worse.

If Translink doesn't get this, residents in the GVR would always be subsidizing the transportation system. And seriously, by the amount of money they are spending on expansion, they might as well fund housing programs so that low-income people (those who really need the public transportation) can afford to live close by.

This won't make us any good. I know it takes planning and all, but GVR simply won't grow into a city like NYC or Taipei or Tokyo so that the pop. density can support such a complex system. At least not in a foreseeable future. Spending money now to expand Translink doesn't make any sense, period.

We need better city planning... not transportation.

[iEatClams]

Sometimes translink just needs to grow some balls and realize that they cant please everyone.

Take the Patullo bridge for example. earlier this year the mayors council agreed on building a 4 lane bridge that can be expandable to 6 lanes with modern size widths and barriers and pedestrian and cycling as well.

But the city of new west bitched and moaned about traffic and not wanting to increase/expand their feeder roads and now nothing is done. Translink just needs to say sorry everyone else has agreed including surrey so we are building it so go fuck off.

So now the bridge is like as old as when dinosaurs walked the earth and could fall down any moment, especially if there is an earthquake. and they are spending $100 million or so on repairs that would keep it up to "operate-able" shape for another 3-5 years. Why not save ourselves the $100 million and begin building the new bridge already. if we are going to build a new bridge after the 3-5 years, just save ourselves the money now.

The bridge is super narrow and unsafe, one earthquake and you better have your swimming vests on. Like it's almost a necessity to replace it as it is old as fuck.

we've wasted countless money on all the studies and such.

think of the economical impact this has on trucks and shipping goods idling and sitting in traffic. We need to eliminate some obvious bottlenecks imo.

PS. the mayors should have went 6 lanes from the start instead of 4 lanes.

[iEatClams]

^ while we're on the topic of new west, i want to rant about how their city and municipality is the worst in the lower mainland. holy fuck are these guys fucking morons.

1. they dont want truck traffic because they say it doesn't benefit the city. hello?? you guys are in the middle geographically. we need trucks and goods to pass through efficiently to support our economy? the economy supports you. how do you think your groceries got to the store for you to buy it? it just magically appeared??

2. the city also wanted to limit rail and freight by the fraser river because it disturbed the newly build condos residences? umm wtf? the fraser river was there before they got there. as well as the railway tracks. should we just limit rail traffic because you guys dont like it? lets slow down the shipment of rail goods of everyone else in the province just for you guys.

I could go on and on . . . ..

[Mr.HappySilp]

Simple solution to New West. Told every single bridge. The reason why there is so much traffic is because Patullo is free and ppl want to save a few dollars especially truck.

Build a new one and put a toll on it. Instead of going for the free options people will just take the bridge which is closest.

[Soundy]

Sometimes translink just needs to grow some balls and realize that they cant please everyone.
Like I said, the only time shit gets done RIGHT is when someone steps up and says, "Fuck you, this is getting done the way it NEEDS to."

But the city of new west bitched and moaned about traffic and not wanting to increase/expand their feeder roads and now nothing is done.
Was the same thing with the Braid St. Bailey bridge. Coquitlam built a nice wide four-lane United Way right up to it... and New West put a gate across their side because they didn't want all that traffic. Coquitlam finally got the gate removed by declaring it a safety hazard that would impede the movement of emergency vehicles... but nothing was done to improve traffic except to add a light for flow control.

And then engineers decided the bridge was falling apart and needed to be replaced, so it was closed, and will (last I heard) FINALLY be getting a new two-lane bridge... which is what should have just been done in the first place, instead of repeatedly wasting money on a gate, and a light, etc. etc.


2. the city also wanted to limit rail and freight by the fraser river because it disturbed the newly build condos residences? umm wtf? the fraser river was there before they got there. as well as the railway tracks. should we just limit rail traffic because you guys dont like it? lets slow down the shipment of rail goods of everyone else in the province just for you guys.
Hahahah, I remember someone ranting here, just about the time the first segment of the SFPR opened, about it disturbing the Fraser shoreline and what not... apparently oblivious to the fact there are existing rail yards and industrial lands between it and the Fraser, things that have been there for DECADES.

*sigh*

[hotjoint]

Toll every single bridge

I've always said this exact same thing. Tolls could be dirt cheap like $1.00 if every bridge was tolled, people wouldn't avoid certain bridges because it would be affordable for everyone and traffic would be spread out. Translink would get their damn money in the end. I wonder if anyone with half a brain even thought about this at translink.

[Great68]

^ while we're on the topic of new west, i want to rant about how their city and municipality is the worst in the lower mainland. holy fuck are these guys fucking morons.

1. they dont want truck traffic because they say it doesn't benefit the city. hello?? you guys are in the middle geographically. we need trucks and goods to pass through efficiently to support our economy? the economy supports you. how do you think your groceries got to the store for you to buy it? it just magically appeared??

2. the city also wanted to limit rail and freight by the fraser river because it disturbed the newly build condos residences? umm wtf? the fraser river was there before they got there. as well as the railway tracks. should we just limit rail traffic because you guys dont like it? lets slow down the shipment of rail goods of everyone else in the province just for you guys.

I could go on and on . . . ..

To be devil's advocate...

Yeah, these things are easy to say when you don't actually live in the city and wouldn't be directly impacted.

The problem with New West is the physical geography and existing development that there's not much space to build new bigger roads on.

So you build a 6-lane bridge to patullo, where's that traffic going to go? You going to take make Kill a bunch of Queen's Park to make McBride bigger so traffic can just get jammed up 10th? Just tear down a few hundred houses to make 10th 6 lanes right?

You going to rip down all of front street and associated buildings to build a new highway there? How about ripping down the buildings on Columbia street instead!

[iEatClams]

To be devil's advocate...

Yeah, these things are easy to say when you don't actually live in the city and wouldn't be directly impacted.

The problem with New West is the physical geography and existing development that there's not much space to build new bigger roads on.

So you build a 6-lane bridge to patullo, where's that traffic going to go? You going to take make Kill a bunch of Queen's Park to make McBride bigger so traffic can just get jammed up 10th? Just tear down a few hundred houses to make 10th 6 lanes right?

You going to rip down all of front street and associated buildings to build a new highway there? How about ripping down the buildings on Columbia street instead!

no one said anything about a highway. for sure there will be increased traffic, but the expansion of the roads is not an issue, if you read the report and plans that the mayors have all agreed too (even New west agreed too before they flip flopped), they have maps of all the road expansions. its feasible. lots of empty areas that roads can be expanded to. hell just google map the Mcbride area and you can see theres green space all around.

[Soundy]

To be devil's advocate...

Yeah, these things are easy to say when you don't actually live in the city and wouldn't be directly impacted.

The problem with New West is the physical geography and existing development that there's not much space to build new bigger roads on.

So you build a 6-lane bridge to patullo, where's that traffic going to go? You going to take make Kill a bunch of Queen's Park to make McBride bigger so traffic can just get jammed up 10th? Just tear down a few hundred houses to make 10th 6 lanes right?

You going to rip down all of front street and associated buildings to build a new highway there? How about ripping down the buildings on Columbia street instead!

The thing people forget though, is that while if you build it, they may come... they can also go. Go sit in traffic on McBride for half an hour just to get from 8th Ave. to the Patullo, and tell me a straighter, wider, faster bridge wouldn't be a massive improvement.

[Tone Loc]

^ while we're on the topic of new west, i want to rant about how their city and municipality is the worst in the lower mainland. holy fuck are these guys fucking morons.

1. they dont want truck traffic because they say it doesn't benefit the city. hello?? you guys are in the middle geographically. we need trucks and goods to pass through efficiently to support our economy? the economy supports you. how do you think your groceries got to the store for you to buy it? it just magically appeared??

2. the city also wanted to limit rail and freight by the fraser river because it disturbed the newly build condos residences? umm wtf? the fraser river was there before they got there. as well as the railway tracks. should we just limit rail traffic because you guys dont like it? lets slow down the shipment of rail goods of everyone else in the province just for you guys.

I could go on and on . . . ..

New Westminster is a classic example of a bygone town living on past glories that is desperately trying to stay relevant. Yes, we get it.. you were the capital of BC once upon a time in a galaxy far, far away but it's time to get with the program and recognize your role as a major transportation hub that a significant portion of commuting and industrial traffic has to pass through.

Really, any time between 4-6PM on a weekday it's faster for me to drive from my workplace at YVR, up SW Marine and then Boundary to HWY 1 to get to my GF's house in Port Coquitlam than it is to simply take Marine Way, go through New West, and take Lougheed in. About 50% of that commute is spent idling in New West's crappy traffic... there are a few roads they could expand and lights they could remove, such as the expansion that perimeter road (forget the name) running right by the water. It would alleviate traffic by a ton, but nope.. let's stick to trying to be a small town within a big city. Bunch of fucking morons.

[Soundy]

Really, any time between 4-6PM on a weekday it's faster for me to drive from my workplace at YVR, up SW Marine and then Boundary to HWY 1 to get to my GF's house in Port Coquitlam than it is to simply take Marine Way, go through New West, and take Lougheed in. About 50% of that commute is spent idling in New West's crappy traffic... there are a few roads they could expand and lights they could remove, such as the expansion that perimeter road (forget the name) running right by the water. It would alleviate traffic by a ton, but nope.. let's stick to trying to be a small town within a big city. Bunch of fucking morons.
Front St. is a LOT better now that the SFPR is taking a lot of port traffic that would have previously cut through New West. It's also not so easy to "just expand" it - that whole parking structure would have to go, and you'd still be limited to a single lane each way going under the bridges.

[melloman]

no one said anything about a highway. for sure there will be increased traffic, but the expansion of the roads is not an issue, if you read the report and plans that the mayors have all agreed too (even New west agreed too before they flip flopped), they have maps of all the road expansions. its feasible. lots of empty areas that roads can be expanded to. hell just google map the Mcbride area and you can see theres green space all around.

I must be dumb, can you link me the plans for how they will deal with the increased traffic? I don't see where it's laid out how the roads will be re-routed. I see a shitty little map that says the traffic will go along Stewardson Way..

That would be great if that wasn't a shitshow to begin with aswell. They can't really deal with the choke point at Queensborough as I doubt they will want to rebuild the bridge to allow 2 lanes to go underneath and continue onto Marine.

10th Ave, and Canada Way cannot be expanded, thus wasting money on a McBride expansion is futile.. Stewardson has houses and skytrain pillars.. again futile. And WTF is the point in expanding Brunette just to bring traffic back to Portmann? I understand we need to upgrade and shit, but I don't think it's a BIGGER BRIDGES issue... it's a MOAR BRIDGES issue. I'd like to see a bridge put in between Queensborough and Knight. Maybe between Byrne and Boundary.

[iEatClams]

I must be dumb, can you link me the plans for how they will deal with the increased traffic? I don't see where it's laid out how the roads will be re-routed. I see a shitty little map that says the traffic will go along Stewardson Way..

That would be great if that wasn't a shitshow to begin with aswell. They can't really deal with the choke point at Queensborough as I doubt they will want to rebuild the bridge to allow 2 lanes to go underneath and continue onto Marine.

10th Ave, and Canada Way cannot be expanded, thus wasting money on a McBride expansion is futile.. Stewardson has houses and skytrain pillars.. again futile. And WTF is the point in expanding Brunette just to bring traffic back to Portmann? I understand we need to upgrade and shit, but I don't think it's a BIGGER BRIDGES issue... it's a MOAR BRIDGES issue. I'd like to see a bridge put in between Queensborough and Knight. Maybe between Byrne and Boundary.

I must be dumber, because I cant find them anymore. there were basic maps that showed which streets were to be expanded depending on where you put the bridge. but cant seem to find them anymore.


the problem with the pattullo is that its old and is essentially a safety hazard. either we tear it down, or waste money trying to keep it operable, which is just way too costly.

or we can replace it, either at its location or another location.

As someone who doesnt take it, i really dont care.

But to add onto the new west bashing, the city is known for being slow and inefficient in terms of getting permits, planning, technology, building development etc etc.

[Soundy]

the problem with the pattullo is that its old and is essentially a safety hazard. either we tear it down, or waste money trying to keep it operable, which is just way too costly.
It's also a terrible design - the lanes are narrower than current standards, and the sharp turn at the north end is tricky at best for cars, and downright dangerous for big rigs. They CAN'T put a barricade down the middle because it would take too much room and the lanes would be too narrow for trucks to fit AT ALL - that's how narrow it is. Even a new properly-designed four-lane bridge would be a massive improvement just by virtue of being wider and straighter (or at least have wider-radius curves).

[v_tec]

https://twitter.com/robinleung/status/546434677486002176/photo/1

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B5VTcJXCYAADk7p.jpg

[pastarocket]

Somebody posted a video of an electrical fire on one of the trains on the Canada Line.
No. 3 road traffic is really backed up now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FN7r7Vny8tI

[kross9]

Traffic was shit balls in richmond today.

[toyota86]

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this but I believe at some point in the late 60's the government proposed to build a 8-10 lane freeway all the way from the second narrow to the downtown core and a new bridge up towards north Van connecting back to the trans Canada. I think it was called Project 200. There were talks of ring roads and more freeways connecting to other municipalities among other things. Nothing materialized because the majority of citizens opposed the upgrades. The government did forsee the need for infrastructure upgrades. Too bad it never happened. I believe GVRD would be overall better off today if the infrastructure was built then. My guess is that it would have delayed the emergence of the current congestion and transit problems by at least a few more decades. On the flip side, negatives such as urban sprawl and increased reliance on cars could occur.

[4444]

increased reliance on cars could occur.

most people rely on cars in Vancouver, don't kid yourself.

only select small neighborhoods can realistically live sans car.

[Mr.HappySilp]

^^ depends where you live and your lifestyle. That's why you see apartments being being next to shopping centers that's connected to a a major skytrain station. Some apartments don't even offer parking stalls for studio units or units below a certain floor.

For some ppl (myself included) this works out great. It makes more sense for me to take the skytrain to work (literally my work is 5min away from a skytrain station). So is faster than driving.

[4444]

^^ depends where you live and your lifestyle. That's why you see apartments being being next to shopping centers that's connected to a a major skytrain station. Some apartments don't even offer parking stalls for studio units or units below a certain floor.

For some ppl (myself included) this works out great. It makes more sense for me to take the skytrain to work (literally my work is 5min away from a skytrain station). So is faster than driving.

i worked downtown, lived downtown, 20 min walk to work.

still had a car, in fact, both me and the mrs had a car each, it just didn't work otherwise, seeing family would have been too cumbersome without, not to mention all the other things that would have been too difficult to do without a car in van.

and this is not bc i'm a transit snob, not at all. where i live now i only have a car bc my company gives me one (one car between the two of us), for personal travel i use transit 95% of the time.

[GLOW]

don't forget the bike lanes. tons of bikes on those all day err day :toot:

[68style]

Everything that happens (at least in Vancouver) makes more sense once you accept the fact that Vancouver's city planning mens rea is to make driving so expensive and such a piss off that you're forced out of your car. I'm not making it up, I know civil engineers that have worked for the city and that end goal has been in place as long as 10 years ago when they were there and it's not going to stop. Car drivers are never ever going to get another break.

[4444]

Everything that happens (at least in Vancouver) makes more sense once you accept the fact that Vancouver's city planning mens rea is to make driving so expensive and such a piss off that you're forced out of your car. I'm not making it up, I know civil engineers that have worked for the city and that end goal has been in place as long as 10 years ago when they were there and it's not going to stop. Car drivers are never ever going to get another break.
you say that, yet i live in a place where petrol is well over $2 per litre, parking is >$6 per hour (ok, similar to van), etc.

you know what gets ppl out of their cars - better options, not expense. the only ppl that get hurt when you make it more expensive to drive your car places are poor ppl as they usually live in the suburbs and rely on their chevy cavelier to get to work - you rise costs of driving, that's who you hurt, not the twenty something that lives at home, or middle income driver - they can take the hit.

driving isn't exactly expensive in vancovuer (it is relative to the US, but that's the US)

CoV are retards, they just don't get it!

[Traum]

4444,

Given how you no longer live in Vancouver, your view of how everyone needs a car (of their own) is outdated. In addition to what others have said, car sharing / hourly rental companies have become far more popular than they have been in the past. I know a number of people where their primary transportation method is public transit. And them for the rest of the time, some bike, some rent (zip car, modo) etc. With the ones that rent / does car sharing, they all tell me that their annual transportation costs run at leave several hundred dollars cheaper a year than if they owned a car themselves. As a matter of fact, one of them said the savings is over $1k a year, not including maintenance / servicing cost. They still see friends and family.

Car ownership is still the most common way for Vancouverites to get around. But for some people, they can definitely make it work quite well without (owning) a car.

[Mr.HappySilp]

Everything that happens (at least in Vancouver) makes more sense once you accept the fact that Vancouver's city planning mens rea is to make driving so expensive and such a piss off that you're forced out of your car. I'm not making it up, I know civil engineers that have worked for the city and that end goal has been in place as long as 10 years ago when they were there and it's not going to stop. Car drivers are never ever going to get another break.

Is such a bullshit planning. There are ppl who lives outside of Vancouver that needs to work in Vancouver. All this does is add more traffic jams lowers people spending power. Try telling someone who lives in south surrey or Detla not to drive to work.

[Y2K_o__o]

4444,

Given how you no longer live in Vancouver, your view of how everyone needs a car (of their own) is outdated. In addition to what others have said, car sharing / hourly rental companies have become far more popular than they have been in the past. I know a number of people where their primary transportation method is public transit. And them for the rest of the time, some bike, some rent (zip car, modo) etc. With the ones that rent / does car sharing, they all tell me that their annual transportation costs run at leave several hundred dollars cheaper a year than if they owned a car themselves. As a matter of fact, one of them said the savings is over $1k a year, not including maintenance / servicing cost. They still see friends and family.

Car ownership is still the most common way for Vancouverites to get around. But for some people, they can definitely make it work quite well without (owning) a car.

If car ownership is still the most common way for Vancouverites, it is NOT outdated. Your point of view is assuming everyone works near skytrain / bus station. Do your friends completely sold the car or still keeping his / her spouse car ?

I personally tried to commute by public transit, but end up insuring my car back because I had spent alot of time waiting / connecting bus. Park and ride is not an alternate solution either, I end up paying $5 at Holdom skytrain station for a day ( x 20 for a month) + $124 bus pass per month. In addition to this, I have to sacrifice my weekend grocery shopping time.

Perhaps you would say "find another job where you live closer to work", but this doesn't apply to everyone as some may have owned property, and some may have certain jobs that are only available in certain areas (heavy industries in Delta / Mitchell island / Annacis Island)


Everyone

[Soundy]

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this but I believe at some point in the late 60's the government proposed to build a 8-10 lane freeway all the way from the second narrow to the downtown core and a new bridge up towards north Van connecting back to the trans Canada. I think it was called Project 200. There were talks of ring roads and more freeways connecting to other municipalities among other things. Nothing materialized because the majority of citizens opposed the upgrades. The government did forsee the need for infrastructure upgrades. Too bad it never happened. I believe GVRD would be overall better off today if the infrastructure was built then. My guess is that it would have delayed the emergence of the current congestion and transit problems by at least a few more decades. On the flip side, negatives such as urban sprawl and increased reliance on cars could occur.

And of course, this wouldn't be possible anymore, between the way the city has grown, and the way costs of everything have skyrocketed - some materials like metals have gone up way beyond the rate of inflation.

[quasi]

most people rely on cars in Vancouver, don't kid yourself.

only select small neighborhoods can realistically live sans car.

I totally agree for most families having a car or two is non negotiable. My wife has a skytrain station right next to her office and it's still to inconvenient for her to bus/train it from where we live. I think once you have kids and have to deal with there schedules and extra curricular stuff it makes having no vehicle very difficult.

I'm trying to picture me and my 8 year old son waiting at the bus stop after his football practice at 8:30 on a school night in November so I can get him home, feed him dinner, get him in the shower and do reading with him all before 11pm..... LOL. Public transit will NEVER be an option for my family.

[Traum]

I most certainly don't assume everyone works near public transit stations. Even if they do, it doesn't necessarily mean public transit is a viable option for them. The moment you factor in transfer time (esp waiting for buses), public transit's viability drops very quickly.

Some of my friends operate on a single car within the family. Others have completely given up their cars in exchange for a bus pass and modo / zip car membership.

What I am saying is:

1) Car ownership is still the dominant form of how people get around the city.

2) For some people (and this is more than just a niche segment of the population), opting out of the car ownership game is definitely viable.

3) With some of the people I know, option #2 is allowing them to save a noticeable amount of money. But the majority of my friends are still car owners that regularly commute to work in their own cars.

If car ownership is still the most common way for Vancouverites, it is NOT outdated. Your point of view is assuming everyone works near skytrain / bus station. Do your friends completely sold the car or still keeping his / her spouse car ?

I personally tried to commute by public transit, but end up insuring my car back because I had spent alot of time waiting / connecting bus. Park and ride is not an alternate solution either, I end up paying $5 at Holdom skytrain station for a day ( x 20 for a month) + $124 bus pass per month. In addition to this, I have to sacrifice my weekend grocery shopping time.

Perhaps you would say "find another job where you live closer to work", but this doesn't apply to everyone as some may have owned property, and some may have certain jobs that are only available in certain areas (heavy industries in Delta / Mitchell island / Annacis Island)


Everyone

[4444]

4444,

Given how you no longer live in Vancouver, your view of how everyone needs a car (of their own) is outdated. In addition to what others have said, car sharing / hourly rental companies have become far more popular than they have been in the past. I know a number of people where their primary transportation method is public transit. And them for the rest of the time, some bike, some rent (zip car, modo) etc. With the ones that rent / does car sharing, they all tell me that their annual transportation costs run at leave several hundred dollars cheaper a year than if they owned a car themselves. As a matter of fact, one of them said the savings is over $1k a year, not including maintenance / servicing cost. They still see friends and family.

Car ownership is still the most common way for Vancouverites to get around. But for some people, they can definitely make it work quite well without (owning) a car.
<1 year away, back every quarter.

don't talk for me, please.

[4444]

not saying you can't manage life without a car, i could manage, i just want a higher level of quality of life, thus, we need a car or two.