Broadway Rapid Transit Corridor Discussion | Proposed

[nname]

Originally Posted by DKaz

If Skytrain ever got extended into Maple Ridge, that campus (which has very few classes but it's still there) will also be connected.

Maybe they'll make it zone 4 to help pay for it

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by DEASINE

UBC makes quite a load of money off of parking, to a point where it's scary how much money you have to pay to park at UBC... $1.75 per half hour to a maximum of $13. I wouldn't put road tolls, but instead, just hike up the parking rate even more and do so at those early bird day lots.

What early bird lots? All the B lots are gone now.

[DKaz]

Originally Posted by nname

Maybe they'll make it zone 4 to help pay for it

Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge is already Zone 4 according to West Coast Express. Which is why they pay more ($195) than Tri-Cities in Zone 3 ($161).

[AlexYVR]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

What early bird lots? All the B lots are gone now.

In addition, UBC institutes a price hike to keep parking pegged to a % of transit fare cost every time Translink updates the cost for a transfer. As transit becomes more expensive, so does the cost of parking on campus.

[deasine]

Nope... early bird lots are still in and around UBC. It' mainly on the south side around Macmillan and Agronomy: $5 a day.

[GeeCee]

Originally Posted by DKaz

Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge is already Zone 4 according to West Coast Express. Which is why they pay more ($195) than Tri-Cities in Zone 3 ($161).

That's the extra 'you get to sit down' fee.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by deasine

Nope... early bird lots are still in and around UBC. It' mainly on the south side around Macmillan and Agronomy: $5 a day.

Ah, didn't know those ones counted. Sorry.

[DKaz]

Originally Posted by GeeCee

That's the extra 'you get to sit down' fee.

Then I suppose $269 from Mission includes the 'you get to ride alone for 20 minutes' fee with the free 'you get first dibs at muffins, scones, and donuts' bonus, offer subject to change without notice.

[Rusty Gull]

Originally Posted by AlexYVR

In addition, UBC institutes a price hike to keep parking pegged to a % of transit fare cost every time Translink updates the cost for a transfer. As transit becomes more expensive, so does the cost of parking on campus.

That's just insanity. UBC students could care less about price hikes, since the U-Pass defies all laws of economics - it's a bloody giveaway.

So the only people who get screwed by the double-whammy transit/parking hike are staff, who already have to contend with pay parking and sub-par transit to Point Grey.

[twoNeurons]

Come on people. The U-Pass was originally supposed to be revenue neutral. It's relatively simple to renegotiate based on current ridership... but let's be honest, there would be resistance. After all, some ridership is there BECAUSE of the U-Pass.

If the U-Pass disappeared, how much ridership would go with it? That's the question you have to ask. You take that number and the increased number, and somewhere in the middle is where you should price it.

Having UBC as Zone 2 would be too much work to enforce, is what I meant. It would also catch a relatively small number of users. You can't base U-Pass on 2-zones, that's silly. ALL FULL-TIME students in ALL post-secondary schools are 1-Zone fares with the FastTrax Stickers. U-Pass will ALWAYS be based on Fare revenue lost from 1-Zone FareCards.

Remember, the deal was that all UBC students would be forced to pay. With that loss of choice, however, Translink would increase service to deal with the increased load. It's not meant to cover ALL current users, Translink knows that. It was provide a steady revenue stream and make it easier to plan demand.

The program has succeeded beyond what Translink imagined.

I'd hazard a guess it has to do with perceptions of invisible costs, more than anything. People don't see the cost and so it's essentially free. It's the same with driving. People don't stop driving when gas goes up even though they know transit is cheaper ( than owning a car and running it) but a small toll will cause people to change when there's a cheaper alternative.

[Zassk]

As long as the cost continues to be "hidden" in student fees, it won't really matter how large that cost actually is, it will encourage people to use transit all the same. Transit use will only worsen if the AMS drops the U-Pass completely, thus "un-hiding" the transit cost.

[CLC]

Found a long article , read it if you have too much time

Costly SkyTrain technology choices baffle
http://www2.canada.com/northshorenew...14407e66a3&p=1

[racc]

Originally Posted by CLC

Found a long article , read it if you have too much time

Costly SkyTrain technology choices baffle
http://www2.canada.com/northshorenew...14407e66a3&p=1

Or suffering from low blood pressure.

[lightrail]

Originally Posted by CLC

Found a long article , read it if you have too much time

Costly SkyTrain technology choices baffle
http://www2.canada.com/northshorenew...14407e66a3&p=1

What are they smoking? Comparing the cost to build a light rail line on an existing right-of-way through farmland with the cost of building a subway in a congested built up area. You've got to be joking.

And where do they get $10 million per kilometre from? Edmonton is bulding an LRT line at $300 million per kilometer (yes, that's a light rail line). Calgary is costing in the $150 million per kilometer range.

Has there been a light rail system built for $10 million per kilometre in North Amercia - and not in a depressed market depreciating , but in a robust growing vibrant market like Vancouver.

So again, what are they smoking?

[tybuilding]

The article doesn't suggest that the Broadway line will cost $10 million per km but a rail line to Chilliwack might or one using the existing tracks in North and West Vancouver. The Rail for the Valley proposal is to put the tram train on the existing train line. If that line stays at a single track line as it is now maybe you could have that sort of train line for that much. If it is to be double tracked it would likely cost more per km. Afterall the street car line only cost $8 million to upgrade for 1.8 km.

It also suggest using the train bridge to Vancouver, but the train bridge goes underground to Burnaby.

[mezzanine]

Be cool, elizabeth james is not jane q. public, she has written other articles against skytrain with a definite bias. regrettably, this article was filed under 'news', and not 'op/ed'.

In fact, someone named 'elizabeth james' appeared before translink:

Elizabeth James, Coalition for Accountability in Government
Enterprises
Ms. James stated her opposition to the RAV project and expressed
concerns that critical information has been withheld from the public. Ms.
James advocated a referendum be held to decide whether to proceed with
the RAV line. A copy of Ms. James’ presentation is on file with the
Corporate Secretary.

http://web.mac.com/rchat//rav/price_...%20Minutes.pdf

[The_Henry_Man]

Originally Posted by mezzanine

Be cool, elizabeth james is not jane q. public, she has written other articles against skytrain with a definite bias. regrettably, this article was filed under 'news', and not 'op/ed'.

In fact, someone named 'elizabeth james' appeared before translink:



http://web.mac.com/rchat//rav/price_...%20Minutes.pdf

I'm pretty sure Elizabeth James has shut up after the tremendous success the C-Line is today. I'm pretty sure when the M-Line extension to UBC is completed and see the same success as the C-Line, she'll shut up too.

She needs to disappear from public view, ASAP.

[huenthar]

Dumb article... a North Shore/Vancouver/Fraser Valley Tram-train would be great... but it is not the #1, #2 or even #3 regional priority for rail rapit transit projects. She asks why such proposals have been shelved in favor of Millennium/Canada line projects? Because it follows directly from the regional growth strategy that those lines were much bigger rapid transit priorities than an interurban line.

If she's arguing against the prioritisation of the lines that were built over interurban tram-trains, then she's arguing against the goals of the regional growth strategy - so either she's explicitly pro-suburbia, or, more likely, can't fathom the connection between infrastructure and development - and thus simply doesn't understand what kind of Metro we're trying to build.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by huenthar

Dumb article... a North Shore/Vancouver/Fraser Valley Tram-train would be great... but it is not the #1, #2 or even #3 regional priority for rail rapit transit projects. She asks why such proposals have been shelved in favor of Millennium/Canada line projects? Because it follows directly from the regional growth strategy that those lines were much bigger rapid transit priorities than an interurban line.

If she's arguing against the prioritisation of the lines that were built over interurban tram-trains, then she's arguing against the goals of the regional growth strategy - so either she's explicitly pro-suburbia, or, more likely, can't fathom the connection between infrastructure and development - and thus simply doesn't understand what kind of Metro we're trying to build.

What her and idiots like her don't realize is the skytrain network once completed with the Evergreen and UBC extensions. Was part of the livable regional plan brought out in the early 90's. The vision back then was to have rapid transit between the 5 major city centres. Basically Vancouver, Burnaby, Surrey, Richmond and Tri-Cities.

If anything she should be wondering why we have been so slow to build these lines. We are a good 10-15 years behind the times.

[deasine]

To be honest, I don't understand the article. One moment, she talks about SkyTrain and it's expensive costs on Broadway, the next minute, she talks about LRT on the northshore. Okay... so what is it she is proposing? Drop SkyTrain for the Broadway Corridor to build LRT on the Northshore? Or drop the plans for a SkyTrain on the northshore to build LRT for the northshore (which never existed)?

I don't get it. It doesn't relate at all.