3103 replies to this topic

[Mike K.]

So that is covered in "fares"

That’s right. About 30% is fare revenue and the remainder of fares/advertising is advertising. Advertising revenues are unbelievably low.

[tedward]

BCT did extensive open houses, public surveys, etc when coming up with the new routing.

The online surveys presented several options, including the one that was decided on.

Seems to be that it was favored by most. Did you participate?

Public transit is never going to be as efficient as taking a car, cab, etc. It's going to work well for some, and not as well for others.

 

LOL As a matter of act I did participate and followed up with discussions amongst friends in the area.

What was clear at the sessions was they were not really seeking input, rather they were trying to preempt criticism. They had come up with nonsensical plans and a set of talking points designed and delivered by people who don't rely on transit.

No one I have spoken to was in favour of the new routing before the implementation and no one has said things are better now than they were.

[Nparker]

...What was clear at the sessions was they were not really seeking input, rather they were trying to preempt criticism...

In other words they were employing the City of Victoria Method™.

[Bob Fugger]

Well, clearly the message didn't get out if Bub Fugger wasn't made aware. Now, granted, many folks would never read those publications or watch those newscasts.

I did ride the bus, though: ironically, a bus ad would have caught my attention more than advertising on other dead media.  And who goes to the BC Transit website?  Most people have instant access to Google Maps.

[Mike K.]

Sounds like your experiences with planners mirror my own regarding the 61 bus and it’s dreadful connections.

When I called in to a CFAX segment with transit planners, they did not address my question at all and seemed to have fallen back on talking points. Their response literally had nothing to do with my question.

[Cats4Hire]

LOL As a matter of act I did participate and followed up with discussions amongst friends in the area.

What was clear at the sessions was they were not really seeking input, rather they were trying to preempt criticism. They had come up with nonsensical plans and a set of talking points designed and delivered by people who don't rely on transit.

No one I have spoken to was in favour of the new routing before the implementation and no one has said things are better now than they were.

Looking through the write-up thing it seems there were three options (one kept the 30/31, one used the 2 doing a zig zag and kept the terminus (they also proposed this style useing the 7) and one used the current one with no plans for keeping the 3. (https://bctransit.co...s/1403648422764)

 

I will agree if the Burnside/Tillicum one is any indication these meetings really are pointless though. I went to the one at Royal Oak and I heard no one give positive feedback on that crosstown route from Royal Oak to Uvic via Interurban/Gorge/Hillside/Foul Bay and myself as well as a number of others suggested just boosting service on the 8 if there was that much demand to go from Tillicum to Hillside (what the said is the reason) but they still seem insistent one introducing that route anyway.

 

 

Going back on topic though I really don't see why anyone would ride a train with the rails where they are unless they want to go specifically from Langford nearby a station to Vic West (or reverse). If someone lives in say Westhills no matter where they want to go the train is not the most convenient way. If they want to get to UVic the 39 or maybe 51, Vic General the 65 or 50, Even Dockyard they'd have to take a 46 to the station anyway. 

[Mike K.]

You’re looking at a 25 minute walk to the main area of CFB Esquimalt from the station on Admirals. It’s simply not feasible without a dedicated shuttle.

[Cats4Hire]

There's also getting from a person's house to the station. Why would someone be willing to take a bus or do a long walk or park/ride to get to the train but not to get to the 50? Especially once the bus lanes are completed.

[Mike K.]

That's the thing, right? Connections to the 50 and 61 from residential neighbourhoods are so bad that most people don't even bother.

 

Did we know that transit is responsible for only a 6.5% share of trips in this region? 93.5% of Victorians choose other means to get around. But the link above also says transit is responsible for 100,000 trips per day. How do we reconcile that with only 6.5% of total daily trips?

[Jackerbie]

That's the thing, right? Connections to the 50 and 61 from residential neighbourhoods are so bad that most people don't even bother.

 

Did we know that transit is responsible for only a 6.5% share of trips in this region? 93.5% of Victorians choose other means to get around. But the link above also says transit is responsible for 100,000 trips per day. How do we reconcile that with only 6.5% of total daily trips?

 

Well that's wrong according to BC Transit's own published data, which claims average ridership of 73,424 trips per day (link: https://bctransit.co...t/facts/regional). The 6.5% figure is taken from the CRD mode share survey in 2011, which has a huge scope including part of the Cowichan Valley and Saltspring. That data is here: https://www.crd.bc.c...vrsn=56ce8fc9_0

 

West Shore transit ridership is 3.0%, Core ridership is 7.8%, and Saanich is 2.1%. Important to keep in mind that the definition of "trip" also includes walking, which accounts for 15% of trips in the Core, with 12.8% regionally.

[Jackerbie]

I will add a common refrain among planners: "It is hard to prove the demand for a bridge based on the number of people swimming across the river."

[Mike K.]

The 6.5% figure is BC Transit's own published data, though. As is the 100,000 trips per day figure.

[Jackerbie]

The 6.5% figure is BC Transit's own published data, though. As is the 100,000 trips per day figure.

 

Did they collect their own data for the 6.5%, or just republish the CRD data? It's odd that they would have 100,000 in their presentation, but 26.8 mil annually on their website. Another quote: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." 

[Mike K.]

Ha! No doubt.

 

Yesterday when I was trying to figure out the capacity of the Sooke Lake reservoir I found different capacity data on the CRD's own website. It range from about 90-odd billion litres to well over 100.

[VicHockeyFan]

I see some transit planning thing said they hoped mode share to go from 6.5% to 12%. I'm laughing.  In fairness it had no time horizon.

[Mike K.]

It's probably based off this projection BCT includes in their reports.

 

[Mike K.]

California’s bungled high speed rail project is going under the federal microscope over concerns there may be more going on that meets the eye.

Billions and billions over budget, nearly a decade late and its real-world performance now under question, the public will soon learn where things went wrong and what chance there is to get the thing back on track.

[Linear Thinker]

I see what you did there

...get the thing back on track.

[VicHockeyFan]

 

Les Leyne: Horgan puts brakes on light rail for E&N

 

Premier John Horgan not only dashed the hopes of light-rail transit fans in the capital region on Tuesday, he got a nice round of applause for doing so.

 

 

 

MORE:

 

http://www.timescolo...-e-n-1.23303777

[malahatdrive]

We have an NDP government and a premier that lives in the west shore who has previously encouraged the return of the train, now saying there is no business case for it. This thing is dead.