Why stop building?

[swimmer_spe]

The major cities have plans for subway, skytrain, LRT, and busway lines. They always have.

If they had been built, all of our major urban areas would have much more, and likely better transit systems.

I feel that once they stop building one line, they should start on another.

The EA should be done as soon as they can.

I know it may boil down to money. Wouldn't having a good transit system increase ridership, and there for increase fare box revenue?

The government always talks about creating jobs. Well, if there was always steady construction of transit lines, there would always be steady jobs in the engineering and construction fields. There would also be a growth in transit operators as well.

Thoughts?

[WhipperSnapper]

Yeah, it boils down to money and lot's of it. Fare box won't even cover operating costs let alone capital expenditures.

[FFX-ME]

The reason our transit systems in North America aren't that good is becase of the streetcar scandal, not because of a lack of effort.

[GlassCity]

Definitely money. It's not easy for cities to secure funding for big rapid transit projects. If it was, then we would as you say never stop building.

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Definitely money. It's not easy for cities to secure funding for big rapid transit projects. If it was, then we would as you say never stop building.

Especially that transit lines are rarely profitable.

[miketoronto]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Definitely money. It's not easy for cities to secure funding for big rapid transit projects. If it was, then we would as you say never stop building.

That is an excuse (not by you, but by the government). If transit is a priority, then the money would be found to build such projects.

Notice there is almost always money for a new highway, and you never see issues with funding for that.

Where there is a will for better transit, the money is flowing. Look at Waterloo Region, where they have committed to transit, and they are raising taxes and getting the required funding in place to make it happen.

But being cheap and wanting to never raise taxes is not going to build much of anything.

We have the money, we just choose to not spend it .

[Steveston]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Definitely money. It's not easy for cities to secure funding for big rapid transit projects. If it was, then we would as you say never stop building.

This is why I think the Plebiscite in Metro Vancouver HAS to be approved. If we can use that $7.5 billion to develop all of the planned projects in the 10-year timeline, it will provide confidence that such a tax can be used to continuously improve the system.

I would hope that, as we approach year 8 or 9 of the program, and people see that the building program is progressing, and having a real impact on people's lives, that further plans can then be developed for years 11 - 20.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

Especially that transit lines are rarely profitable.

Aren't rapid transit lines often profitable? They are here in Vancouver. Both the Expo and Canada Lines make money (although not technically for the Canada Line since it's a P3 project.) The Millennium Line doesn't, but that's because it's a line betweeen nowhere and nowhere. Once the Coquitlam extension is complete, and especially after the Broadway extension gets done someday, it will likely be profitable too. Even some of our bus routes are profitable. I've always looked at rapid transit projects in the way that once it's built, you're saving a lot of money.

Originally Posted by miketoronto

That is an excuse (not by you, but by the government). If transit is a priority, then the money would be found to build such projects.

Notice there is almost always money for a new highway, and you never see issues with funding for that.

Where there is a will for better transit, the money is flowing. Look at Waterloo Region, where they have committed to transit, and they are raising taxes and getting the required funding in place to make it happen.

But being cheap and wanting to never raise taxes is not going to build much of anything.

We have the money, we just choose to not spend it .

Yeah you're right. But unfortunately that's just not how it works right now. Road projects get funding without much issue from the province, while transit has to jump through hoops to find some cash. So while the money is there, from the perspective of a transit agency it doesn't make a difference: you're still not getting any money so you can't fund all the projects you'd like to.

Originally Posted by Steveston

This is why I think the Plebiscite in Metro Vancouver HAS to be approved. If we can use that $7.5 billion to develop all of the planned projects in the 10-year timeline, it will provide confidence that such a tax can be used to continuously improve the system.

I would hope that, as we approach year 8 or 9 of the program, and people see that the building program is progressing, and having a real impact on people's lives, that further plans can then be developed for years 11 - 20.

Yep. I really hope that this will be enough to finally solve our funding woes. Sales taxes seem to be pretty long term, so I dream of this being the last tax we have to implement. If they say this will bring in $250 million a year, this should be enough for the distant future. As major projects like Broadway and Surrey are completed, money will keep coming in for new transit initiatives. Especially since there isn't any pressing need for new lines after those are done (Arbutus or 41st Avenue would be nice, but they're not as crucial as Broadway is for example) I feel that if this passes and the promised projects are built, our transit infrastructure will have finally caught up to demand. We'll have three trunk lines: North-South, Northwest-Southeast and West-East. After that it will really just be about adding extra, more minor connections.

[1overcosc]

I'm pretty sure that in Toronto, the subway system alone runs a profit but the buses run at a loss so the system as a whole runs at a loss, although a pretty slim one (I think it's something like 80% farebox recovery).

Awesome news that Vancouver is potentially lining up for $7.5B over 10 years! That's comparable to what Toronto has lined up from the Wynne government. Hopefully other cities get it too.

[J.OT13]

Ottawa got that message and greatly modified their very conservative long term plan to an ambitious mid term plan.

In 2008, this was the City's 2032 transit vision. Red is LRT and blue is BRT:



In 2013, the City decided to instead build as much rail transit in as little time as possible. Basically the idea was to complete phase 1 (12.5 km, including the downtown tunnel) by 2018 and start construction of the extensions, all 35 km and 19 stations, the next day of phase 1's opening. The so called "Stage 2" is set to be fully built out by 2023. Green is existing and u/c lines, dark blue is LRT extensions and light blue is BRT:



Between the existing O-Train (now the Trillium Line) and the Confederation Line, we will have 55.5 km and 36 stations by 2023. That's on top of the BRT extension to Kanata as shown on the map and the existing South-East and Barrhaven Transitways.

Once this is completed though, the City will be tapped out and likely won't construct anything else for a few decades.

[1overcosc]

Ottawa's 2008 transportation plan was so full of hot air it was somewhat painful. It threw in such a huge number of road & rapid transit projects (many of which were completely unnecessary and thrown in solely for pork barrel pleasing of councillors) that there was no way the city could afford any of it unless it accepted taking 100 years to do it all. Thus everything in it was at risk. The 2013 change scaled things down to reality, so that everything in it can actually happen.

[MolsonExport]

Money, dear Watson, Money.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

Notice there is almost always money for a new highway, and you never see issues with funding for that.

Whatchoo talkin about, Willis?

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Aren't rapid transit lines often profitable? They are here in Vancouver. Both the Expo and Canada Lines make money (although not technically for the Canada Line since it's a P3 project.) The Millennium Line doesn't, but that's because it's a line betweeen nowhere and nowhere. Once the Coquitlam extension is complete, and especially after the Broadway extension gets done someday, it will likely be profitable too. Even some of our bus routes are profitable. I've always looked at rapid transit projects in the way that once it's built, you're saving a lot of money.



Yeah you're right. But unfortunately that's just not how it works right now. Road projects get funding without much issue from the province, while transit has to jump through hoops to find some cash. So while the money is there, from the perspective of a transit agency it doesn't make a difference: you're still not getting any money so you can't fund all the projects you'd like to.



Yep. I really hope that this will be enough to finally solve our funding woes. Sales taxes seem to be pretty long term, so I dream of this being the last tax we have to implement. If they say this will bring in $250 million a year, this should be enough for the distant future. As major projects like Broadway and Surrey are completed, money will keep coming in for new transit initiatives. Especially since there isn't any pressing need for new lines after those are done (Arbutus or 41st Avenue would be nice, but they're not as crucial as Broadway is for example) I feel that if this passes and the promised projects are built, our transit infrastructure will have finally caught up to demand. We'll have three trunk lines: North-South, Northwest-Southeast and West-East. After that it will really just be about adding extra, more minor connections.

I think you are confusing profit with simply covering operating expenses. Most transit lines will never be profitable if you include their capital construction and major maintenance costs. (This actually relates to the false idea that bridge tolls can repay construction costs).

Good rapid transit lines do cover their own operating costs though, which is what is happening in Vancouver.

In the end though one should never look at transit projects (or even highway projects) as infrastructure that can directly pay for themselves They almost never will. What they do instead in return is enable all other economic sectors of a city thrive. It is all the indirect money generated / positive social outcomes that make such projects more than worth their construction and operating costs.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

That is an excuse (not by you, but by the government). If transit is a priority, then the money would be found to build such projects.

Notice there is almost always money for a new highway, and you never see issues with funding for that.

Where there is a will for better transit, the money is flowing. Look at Waterloo Region, where they have committed to transit, and they are raising taxes and getting the required funding in place to make it happen.

But being cheap and wanting to never raise taxes is not going to build much of anything.

We have the money, we just choose to not spend it .

Movement of goods and services has a far greater economic impact than making trips a little more convenient for commuters. Transit is incredibly expensive. Most cities/countries with extensive systems or are in process of building extensive systems aren't indebted or can take advantage of a cheap labour pool. We missed that opportunity decades ago.

[harls]

I was pretty sure this post was spam but WOW. conversation!

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I think you are confusing profit with simply covering operating expenses. Most transit lines will never be profitable if you include their capital construction and major maintenance costs. (This actually relates to the false idea that bridge tolls can repay construction costs).

Good rapid transit lines do cover their own operating costs though, which is what is happening in Vancouver.

In the end though one should never look at transit projects (or even highway projects) as infrastructure that can directly pay for themselves They almost never will. What they do instead in return is enable all other economic sectors of a city thrive. It is all the indirect money generated / positive social outcomes that make such projects more than worth their construction and operating costs.

You're right, that is what I meant. Obviously it would take a very long time for a $3 billion line to pay for itself. But if it covers its own operating costs, it's still self-sustaining and you don't have to worry about it financially, allowing you to focus on other routes. That's what I'm trying to say by saying the more rapid transit you have, the bigger the budget you have too. Because as more and more corridors cover their operating costs, you have more resources to work on areas that aren't quite there yet.

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The major cities have plans for subway, skytrain, LRT, and busway lines. They always have.

If they had been built, all of our major urban areas would have much more, and likely better transit systems.

I feel that once they stop building one line, they should start on another.

The EA should be done as soon as they can.

I know it may boil down to money. Wouldn't having a good transit system increase ridership, and there for increase fare box revenue?

The government always talks about creating jobs. Well, if there was always steady construction of transit lines, there would always be steady jobs in the engineering and construction fields. There would also be a growth in transit operators as well.

Thoughts?

Calgary is just finishing up 15 straight years of LRT expansion. It wasn't easy for the city to get funding for it especially with a provincial government like ours. It's probably going to be a good 10 years or more until we see the next new line get built, but in the mean time we will see a mostly grade separated BRT line built to the southeast of the city.

Transit has a lot to do with bureaucracy, and often not a lot to do with what makes sense. If it had mostly to do with creating jobs and doing what makes sense, the Toronto Downtown Relief Line and Calgary's Eighth Avenue Subway would be nearing completion within the next couple months, not years away from the start of construction.

[Steveston]

This concept of "profitable" or even "covering operating expenses" for infrastructure built in the public good is misguided thinking, in my opinion.

Yes, we want to plan carefully so that we're not throwing money at bad projects, and we want to operate and maintain them efficiently so that we're taking care of assets and using them in the best way possible.

But "profitable"? I can't buy that argument. We build libraries, hospitals, fire halls, sewage treatment plants -- all of which are essential to the operation of a modern city, but we don't expect them to pay for themselves. That's why we pay property taxes, income taxes (because many of these projects also involve funding from senior levels of gov't) and utility charges.

Transit systems are also essential urban/suburban infrastructure that is absolutely necessary for a city-region to function in a sustainable manner. This is how investments such as expanded rapid transit and bus service should be viewed. This does not exempt such investments from full due diligence, but they should not be left to the whims of a populace who can be swayed by bogus arguments by self-aggrandizing, minimum-knowledge fear mongers.

While I strongly believe that we must vote YES in the upcoming Metro Vancouver Plebiscite, I am dismayed that the Provincial Government has abdicated its traditional (and rightful) leadership position in providing infrastructure investments to ensure economic growth, sustainable development and maintenance of a high quality of life.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Steveston

This concept of "profitable" or even "covering operating expenses" for infrastructure built in the public good is misguided thinking, in my opinion.

Yes, we want to plan carefully so that we're not throwing money at bad projects, and we want to operate and maintain them efficiently so that we're taking care of assets and using them in the best way possible.

But "profitable"? I can't buy that argument. We build libraries, hospitals, fire halls, sewage treatment plants -- all of which are essential to the operation of a modern city, but we don't expect them to pay for themselves. That's why we pay property taxes, income taxes (because many of these projects also involve funding from senior levels of gov't) and utility charges.

Transit systems are also essential urban/suburban infrastructure that is absolutely necessary for a city-region to function in a sustainable manner. This is how investments such as expanded rapid transit and bus service should be viewed. This does not exempt such investments from full due diligence, but they should not be left to the whims of a populace who can be swayed by bogus arguments by self-aggrandizing, minimum-knowledge fear mongers.

While I strongly believe that we must vote YES in the upcoming Metro Vancouver Plebiscite, I am dismayed that the Provincial Government has abdicated its traditional (and rightful) leadership position in providing infrastructure investments to ensure economic growth, sustainable development and maintenance of a high quality of life.

I'm not saying that rapid transit lines have to be "profitable" to be considered for building. I'm just saying that it's another big benefit in that they often are.