Comments on: Regional Transportation Commissioner weighs in on our 10-Year Plan

By: The Buzzer blog » Mayors’ Council meets and decides on TransLink’s 2010 plan and funding on Friday, Oct. 23

Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:38:50 +0000

[...] process, the independent Regional Transportation Commissioner has reviewed all these plans — this post has more on that — and the Friday Mayors’ Council meeting is to determine their [...]

Like 0

By: JJ

JJ — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 05:27:19 +0000

If the decision is made to keep the line out of auto traffic, to either put it above or below….then automation is a no brainer. If you want the trains to mix in traffic, then you need a traditional signaling system with human operators. Yes, traditional signaling systems with human operators can be quite efficient. If you are already deciding to spend money on grade separation for the entire route, then automation costs the same a a conventional signaling system and offers more safety and similar to better reliability for a lower operating cost and greater flexibility. If an automated system does not have sufficient capacity, it is due to the trains being too small rather than being too infrequent. The size of the trains is more related to the decision to go with grade separation vs mixed use as opposed to anything to do with automation itself.

Like 0

By: Jay

Jay — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 06:36:58 +0000

Also systems like Canada line are fabulous. This is not only because they are efficient but also for the fact that there is always room for expansion. Increases in frequency is another positive. The fact that there is no people operating such a systems makes it more safe. The fact that a operator isn’t required to drive the system makes it better then the one in Calgary. A issue as they are having problems finding people to operate there LRT Line cars. The Canada Line has cut my own commute by half and made it more comfortable, reliable, and there is never a concern of a full bus as the trains are always spacious and hav much higher head counts.

Like 0

By: Jay

Jay — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 06:29:37 +0000

There are a number of ways to increase funding. I have always been a fan of creating a charge that meant that everyone would have to pay like medicare and that this would give everyone a transit pass that they could choose to or choose not to use. This could even be region specific so that all funds would be directed towards the region said person lived in. This would be a steady form of funding.

Like 0

By: Cliff

Cliff — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 05:19:22 +0000

Offer subsidized bus passes to anyone with car insurance with ICBC. Said bus passes would be like a U-Pass and nontransferable.

Make specific local routes free. Do so by targetting westside users. People more likely to have cars and be less receptive to transit. The 17 (Downtown to Marpole only), 10 (West-side portion to Marpole only), 7, 32. The only problem with this suggestion is that east side users and the disadvantaged will scream unfairness and rightfully so.

Another thing that could be done is a full blown London-like congestion charge for Downtown. The problem is the possible tolling gantry locations in the Downtown eastide under this proposal and their susceptibility to vandalism.

There is no easy blanket solution, but that micro-tolling isn’t so bad regardless.

Like 0

By: ;-)

;-) — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 03:44:05 +0000

@Cliff: the streets you identified can be tolled as well. While toll booths would be impractical with limited space, the electronic tolling technology from Golden Ears can also be used here at anything that feeds into the centre.

What I’m highlighting here is that your bridge proposal targets suburban commuters and travellors, but not people in a transit option rich core. That just doesn’t sound fair.

Like 0

By: Cliff

Cliff — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 03:40:12 +0000

Another problem with an LRT system in Vancouver is how drivers will interact with it. Let’s just say Vancouver isn’t known as a bastion of good drivers in North America. Throwing an LRT into a rush hour commute will spell trouble.

People cutting LRTs off at crossings, people turning right and not yielding to a train. Seattle and Calgary have had problems like this, but here in Vancouver, the problems would be magnified.

At grade crossings may work out towards Chilliwack and Abbotsford, but not in Greater Vancouver.

Like 0

By: Cliff

Cliff — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 03:23:18 +0000

@;-)

If the Burrard, Granville, and Cambie bridges are tolled, then people will attempt to use Main and Quebec Streets to get into the city core.

Also, am I the only person who thinks that not finishing the viaducts out to the Trans Canada was one of Vancouver’s biggest failures?

Like 0

By: ;-)

;-) — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 23:57:14 +0000

Elevated construction is more expensive than at grade. Tunnels cost more than elevated. However retrofitting mass transit into neighborhoods means grade separation to minimize impact, especially after implementation. In addition, with resistance to widening existing roads, limited support for Bus Only lanes to preserve parking and residents demanding suburban bus reduction usage on arterials, planners were left with few options but grade separation in Vancouver and Richmond to meeting growing demands for better transportation.

Efficiency can be measured in many ways.
-the Canada Line can go from Richmond Centre to Waterfront in nearly half the time it takes for the 98.
-the frequency and capacity of the train means I’m not left behind, like I frequenty do with the 98.
-not waiting 15 minutes for the next train that you just missed.

Without stopping for red lights, crossing pedestrians, turning cars, or car accidents…. the Canada Line is far more reliable than an at grade LRT. I don’t think a surface LRT is much of improvement over the 98 BLine.

In Hong Kong, the grade separated subway can get from one end of the island to the other much quicker than the surface double decker streetcars stuck in traffic. Many passengers are willing to pay a premium to use the grade separated service.

If we want to attract riders from their cars, there is a need for “efficient” options. Canada Line & Skytrain was a premuim solution, but badly needed in a congested area with limited agreeable surface options. Remember Canada Line is not exclusive to one group. Anyone can use it rich or poor. For that, Canada Line is a worthy investment for the future.

Like 0

By: Dave2

Dave2 — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 23:29:03 +0000

Sure, at grade systems interfere with traffic, but remember that traffic also interferes with at-grade systems, a not too insignificant concern given that our roadway system is almost entirely at grade unlike pretty much every other North American city of our size.

Like 0