2 Comments so far

1. Tim Louman-Gardiner on January 15, 2008 6:32 am

   I’m a bit out of the loop on this, but I can’t help but notice that there’s an item on Council’s agenda for Wednesday titled “U-Pass Pricing Options.” And Geoff Atkins, AVP Land and Building Services (the guy in charge of Translink relations) is coming to present.

   I have no idea what that means, but if I were a betting mas I’d guess it means price hikes. Anybody have more info?

2. Fire Hydrant on January 15, 2008 9:38 am

   So many questions, so little sleep. Time for some crystal ball gazing.

   First, note that of $14G, ~$11G is new ($2G is the RAV/Canada line), ~$10G is in the lower mainland, and $4.75G is provincial money (i.e. exists).

   The underground bus loop is designed to be jam-packed by the time this arrives, so taking the 99 out will save it. The ridership and bus estimates used for the terminal are low-ball figures, which is perhaps not how one ought to do it.

   It would make sense to have SkyTrain end very close to the bus terminal. That would let people get off SkyTrain and take another bus to other parts of campus, such as the museum or hospital. I believe that’s always been the intention, even if SkyTrain hasn’t been planned for.

   Whether buses can make it to 2020 may depend on what transit priority measures get installed, what you consider “enough”, and to what extent large trenches in the road impede traffic.

   “UBC” = Unending Building Construction. Didn’t you know that?

   The base U-Pass and fares shouldn’t change much, other than by inflation. TransLink now has the power to rezone land near stations and split the profits with developers, which should be especially lucrative here. Metrotown at Alma, here we come!

   With the line in place, expect the 99 to vanish, only one trolley route to come to campus, only one of the 84 and 4 to survive (and to end at Sasamat/Blanca station), and possibly the 44 to tie in with the line around Arbutus or Macdonald instead of going to UBC. There may be reduced service on other routes that connect with SkyTrain.

   Safety issues? Stations don’t often feel safe, but they’re likely safer than standing at a bus stop in the dark. The bus terminal will have security on site at all times, a connecting SkyTrain station would benefit from that as well.

   Sustainability? Not enough of an expert.

   The line is in preliminary phases of study (routing, technology, above vs below vs at grade). Which makes me wonder where the $2.8G number came from. I guess it’s a guess.

   Geoff Atkins has a scheme whereby the AMS could choose to ask for an add-on to the U-Pass, ramping it up $2/month each year to about $30/month over five years then pinning it to the cost of a one-zone fare. The extra, continued for ~30 years, would allow the AMS to more than pay for the bus terminal (contingent on BC and federal matches), possibly giving us some say over the design. It would free up $3/month from Parking, which would be repurposed (I can’t recall to what or how), and funding the terminal would free up ~$30M in IICs plus $5M in GMSL — IICs could then be used to fund a massive childcare expansion or SUB Renew (the AMS could reasonably expect a say in how this is repurposed). If using IICs to bury regional transit can be justified, either of those certainly can (Vancouver uses its DCCs (DCLs?) for childcare). The financial side works out, but it’s a fair bit of money, relies to some extent on leveraging matching funds, and may impact other questions on the ballot. If I were king, I’d probably have a separate question on Geoff’s add-on fee.