Wednesday, October 18, 2017

Jane Thornthwaite, Champion of Transit!

The North Shore News reports that MLA Jane Thornthwaite is now a proponent of a Skytrain line to and across the North Shore.  She has even come up with a map.
It would have been nice if our MLA had championed this level of transit improvement when her party was in power. As far as I know Thornthwaite never so much as made a peep while the Liberals underfunded transit in favour of bridges.


Anonymous said...

Ya cuz a skytrain line doesn't need a bridge over water or diesel buses on roads to link up to.
We actually don't need roads, only skytrains and bike paths.

Right on Jane!

Anonymous said...

Connecting to Gilmour may be slightly closer but it is not on the mainline. Connecting to Broadway may be further but it means no additional switching.


Make the middle two lanes to the Ironworkers counter-flow controlled.
Drop the Seabus.
Turn one lane of the Lions Gate into a Skytrain track that curves down to Park Royal and then loops back to Pemberton @ Marine, Kings Mill, then
Option 1 Lower Route Lonsdale Quay, Park & Tilford, Phibbs, and CapU.
Option 2 Upper Route Lonsdale @ 15th (Hospital), Lynn Valley Centre,(Bridge over Upper Lynn Creek) CapU, and Phibbs.

The Upper route is more invasive, but gives way better access to the largest populations centres on the North Shore.


Manage population growth, build for the populations that are commuting here for work, accept that we will be largely a bedroom community with limited services going forward.

Anonymous said...

I get that a back-bench government MLA doesn't get to speak out much on these kinds of things without losing influence, so I understand why she would have been mum on this up until now. What doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever, is how this would be the priority for an area that doesn't want the densities that are needed to support skytrain stations.

Anonymous said...

Cates park skytrain station... Are you nuts? Who would want that? The population density of that are is classed as rural and they are quite frankly, affluent enough that they are not dependent on transit and also not generally the target market for effectively expanding transit ridership.

Anonymous said...

The V7G postal code around Cates has a density of 700 people/sqkm which is awfully low for a multi-million dollar mass transit facility. For comparison the two Lynn Valley postal codes bisected by Lynn Valley Road have a population density of 3,600 people/sqkm but they don't get a station under this design. Food for thought.

Anonymous said...

I don't think the real intent would be for skytrain running east-west, just across the inlet. I think it would make more sense for light rail on the surface to run east-west. Then it makes more sense for stops from Horseshoe Bay and out to Deep Cove. A suspect a spur could easily be run to Lynn Valley Road and Mountain Highway centre. Another spur up Lonsdale might also be possible.

Anonymous said...

These routes should not be 'spurs'. If you are going to put in trains, they should be cog trains and run all the way to the top of the mountains they are built on.
Imagine a cog train up Mountain highway from Seylynn to the peak of Mt. Fromme.
There should be Viennise style wine gardens at Lynn Valley centre where the bike-ists and commmuters can stop off on the way down for a glass or two while soaking up the mountain views. This will require an immediate stop to the desecration of the views by the contined construction of high rise density, but that is all to the good.

I'm likin' this public transit stuff. Cog trains and accordion music YEA!!!

Anonymous said...

Improved (and additional) transit = higher taxes. A couple of years ago, the majority of the voters defeated the Regional Mayor's attempt to introduce a Transit Tax. We told our elected officials that we don't want to pay more tax.

Today's paper blithely tells us that the Mayor's have struck the Road Pricing (Tax) Committee to discover how to introduce Road Tax to pay for improved transit.

Road tax = transit tax that we have already rejected yet it is going ahead.

That doesn't surprise me as much as the absolute lack of pushback from the voters and pushback from the media that had such strong coverage of the rejection of transit taxes.

The new Transit (road pricing) Tax just seems to be meandering along as a Mayor's initiative fait accompli. No vote, no method to halt the new tax, just an unapproved eventuality. The fleecing of the lambs continues.

Barry Rueger said...

Improved (and additional) transit = higher taxes.

Unlike ten lane bridges, which are free?

Anonymous said...

At the same time Barry...

Additional ( ineffective ) transit = higher taxes
Additional ( possibly effective ) transit = ridiculous tax increases

Anonymous said...

Bring back the tolls and/or implement mobility pricing. Sitting in a car alone, causing congestion is expensive. Better transit (read frequent and reliable) and road pricing gets us reduced congestion for those who have no choice but drive. And if you're one of those helicopter parents who chauffeurs their kid to and from school every morning and afternoon, give your heads a shake and make them walk or ride their bikes.

Anonymous said...

Yes, Barry. Apparently the new Pt. Mann is "free" - no tolls at all. Higher expenditures and lower revenue - isn't life great! The NDP free ride is shifting into high gear.

Whoa - storm clouds on the horizon - road pricing - yikes - you mean we still have to pay the piper??!! You call yourselves socialists!

Anonymous said...

Pay the piper? Well yes indeed .. I mean not so much the people who benefit from the Port Mann ( read those on the cheaper side of the bridge) whose mortgages are smaller. The trade was smaller mortgage for a longer commute and now it is pretty much a free bridge to work paid for mostly by those that don't use it. Hopefully those that don't use it will wake up and realize that gas would be 17.5 cents per litre cheaper without Translink's gas levy.

But it was ever thus with social engineering projects. Punish those that don't comply and fleece everyone 'for the good of us all' eh?

The war on cars ( ie. mobility ) continues.

Anonymous said...

Simply stated- Jane Thornthwaite was whipped. Sure, she could champion things like saving doggies from puppy mills into legislation. Has it stopped the problem. Nope!

Now she can talk about pipe dreams all she wants. And when the Liberals come back into power she will become silent once again. Career politicians. A dime a dozen.

Anonymous said...

Can’t win. Traffic sucks, fix it! Hey, OK, let’s improve transit. Boo! That won’t fix my problem of not being able to drive fast, alone in a metal box that seats 6! Fix it!

Anonymous said...

Hmm.. that's not a metal box that seats 6, it's a metal box that pays for transit at the rate of 17c per litre. War them off the road at your hobby horse's peril dear zealot.

Anonymous said...

Jane Thornthwaite's transportation suggestions for the north shore are nothing more than what West Vancouver MLA Ralph Sultan promised after having found himself sitting on the Opposition backbenches. Sultan implied that he was incapable of speaking up when his party was in government to now having the freedom to speak up on West Vancouver residents behalf.

He would have better served his community by being an Independent

North Shore News

“For Ralph the backbencher this isn’t exactly a new situation,” he said.

Sultan said while that means he’ll have less access to ministers to advocate for his constituents, he will also have more leeway in Opposition to “speak more freely and candidly” on North Shore issues.

Chief among those will be advocating for transportation improvements, he said. ...."

Anonymous said...

BTW .... West Vancouver MLA has been recorded in Hansard, today, speaking out on


R. Sultan: Aging with dignity. I don't know why they (BC Liberals Temp Opposition Leader Rich Coleman) pick on me for this topic, but I'll do my best.

And not one word on the trials and tribulations of seniors transportation....

Anonymous said...

Well, 11:35am, I pay that same 17cents/litre that you do and I'd like to see more going to frequent and reliable transit. I'd like to see transit so frequent and easy that it becomes more efficient than driving and gets people out of their cars to free up road space for those who have no choice but drive. No zealotry on my part. Can you claim the same?

Anonymous said...

Sorry 1:33 but you'll have to tell me how you'd be paying this 17c per litre if you had your 'frequent and reliable' transitopia machines. I'd be assuming that you would certainly be riding on them rather than continuing to pay the 17c by buying fuel you won't be needing any more. Of course, you will smugly 'free up road space' whilst decreasing available bus passenger space, which will eventually require the addition of a near empty bus to maintain the 'frequent and reliable' part. Hope the bill comes to you and the other riders. What you and they seem not to realize is that public transit requires public fuel, public mechanical maintenance, public cleaning, public vehicle purchase and public financing whereas private car drivers come with all that bundled voluntarily at zero cost to the public. Pretty hard to beat that deal when a diesel bus is pushing half a million and has a heavy maintenance schedule and can't be driven by passengers. Oh. And it requires roads.

Perhaps what you meant was that you'd be voluntarily paying much higher fares on the needed frequently near empty buses that will be whizzing around reliably spewing diesel in order to service far flung and rarely used bus stops and to replace your missing 17c per litre which is currently needed to keep the present unreliable and infrequent service (your implied description) running at present service levels.

But to your question.. yes I am a zealot. I am a zealot dedicated to keeping utopian hands out of my pockets but I have no objection to their voluntarily emptying their own to fund their social engineering projects.

Anonymous said...

What I mean is I'm happy to pay my share, fully realizing that as a car driver my mode of transport is heavily subsidized. I know I don't pay my share of the true cost of road infrastructure. If I can get reliable, frequent transit, yes, I'd gladly help pay for it and hopefully not be so dependent on my car. Nothing utopian about effective transportation accessible to all.

Anonymous said...

Hey Anonymous,

Sultan was responding to a non-partisan NDP Private member's statement on, 'Aging with Dignity'...he didn't set the topic, NDP MLA Anne Kang did...get your facts straight!

Anonymous said...

Perhaps one telling isn't enough so...
as I said...
'What you and they seem not to realize is that public transit requires public fuel, public mechanical maintenance, public cleaning, public vehicle purchase and public financing whereas private car drivers come with all that bundled voluntarily at zero cost to the public. Pretty hard to beat that deal when a diesel bus is pushing half a million and has a heavy maintenance schedule and can't be driven by passengers. Oh. And it requires roads.'

Please note that last 4 words. It's what is known in the transportation business as INFRASTRUCTURE.

And you didn't answer my question about the 17cents which by any account is called a subsidy.

The 'infrastructure' you are loading onto car drivers is required infrastructure for public transit. ie ROADS.

Now calling ROADS a subsidy is fine, but you pretty much have to call it the same for bus transportation, except that ROADS are used for so many other things than bike transportation, such as the delivery of your FOOD, your FURNITURE, your MEDICAL SERVICES and DRUGS, your CLOTHING... need I go on?

Now you didn't actually answer any of my questions...

Anonymous said...

Probably because your questions are deliberately obtuse. Improve transit to reduce the number of single occupant cars and free up road space for use by those who need to use them. Buses, transport trucks, contractors, etc. We all pay for the roads, not just the car drivers.

Anonymous said...

Too obtuse. My bad I guess. ok....

How about this then.

1. When your 'improved' transit works as you imagine and reduces the number of single occupant cars on roads, what replaces the 17c per litre revenue from those cars ?
Recall that it is presently handed over directly to Translink?

2. With some of the car revenue missing because of 'improved transit', while at the same time the fuel, operator, maintenance, bus / skytrain expansion cost and infrastructure financing costs, all increase as your 'reliable, frequent transit' clause kicks in, I wonder where you think we find the missing and increased monies?

Less obtuse.

Anonymous said...

Rider fares. As well as tolls and mobility pricing for those who still drive. Tolls and mobility pricing will be inevitable as people move to electric vehicles as there will be a loss of that 17 cents/litre charge. Congestion pricing is coming whether we like it or not.

Anonymous said...

What will be interesting is if they are willing to cut the gas tax to move to an equitable mobility tax.

Metro Vancouver has never been the significant player in roads. They manage utilities and some regional programming and regulation. Translink has had a role in roads, but the lions share has been local municipalities and the Province of BC. Are we adding a fourth player to the roads debate or are they just taking a solid for Translink who lost the transit referendum?

Anonymous said...

"Rider fares. As well as tolls and mobility pricing for those who still drive. Tolls and mobility pricing will be inevitable as people move to electric vehicles as there will be a loss of that 17 cents/litre charge. Congestion pricing is coming whether we like it or not."

At LAST. An honest answer from the zealot crowd. will increase fares, you will reinstate tolls, you will charge for driving the roads (mobility pricing...formerly known as road pricing and on roads I have already paid to build for my use), you will charge for NOT driving the roads ( Parking ... which Translink already sucks off of). And.. you will NOT see a reduction in your 17c per litre Translink levy.. but you will see an increase in Carbon Tax which Translink will attempt to capture.

WHY? Because dominant mode public transit is not economically viable on its own, anywhere and nowhere in the world. It is not the cheapest or best option. It is massively expensive.
It is also unable to save the world on the greenhouse gas front either

We need another bridge that goes to another road. And we need thinking that goes beyond the New York subway which , by the way, was initiated by private enterprise to sell real estate, somewhat like the Lions Gate Bridge.

WHere is the study that says that using electronics to mitigate traffic is a great government investment? My job could certainly have been done from home at least 3 days a week and it would have been done better for lack of interruptions.
Why did I drive in every day? Well perhaps it would be a LOT cheaper to reorganize a bit and offer incentives to business to reduce( not eliminate) that commute to the office. Bikes are mostly stupid but computers are not. They work well to bridge communication nodes in real time. That's what a lot of people go to the office for.

My take on it.

Anonymous said...

Gas price an hour ago in Vancouver ...$1.459

Gas price in Edmonton an hour ago ...$1.089

How come Edmonton gas prices are 37c per litre less than here? The war on cars continues.

Anonymous said...

So move to Edmonton.

Anonymous said...

Your best response to an inconvenient question? Too obtuse for you?
I take that to mean that you have no real answer you'd like us all too know.

Maybe someone else?

Gas price in Edmonton an hour ago ...$1.089

How come Edmonton gas prices are 37c per litre less than here?

Anonymous said...

You know how to use Google, right? Do your own research if you want the answer.

Anonymous said...

How about just being honest?

The actual price of a litre of gas is about the same.

We are being fleeced by politicians at all levels adding their taxes to the base cost. And they want to continue to feed from the trough by adding "mobility (road) pricing" which is just a fancy way of saying they want to ignore the outcome of the transit tax referendum that they lost and jack up the cost of driving even higher.

Anonymous said...

Then stop whining and do something about it. I could care less about the price of gas, as I rarely fill up more than once every couple of months.

Anonymous said...

I guess I thought I did do something about it.
I voted in the referendum on the subject.

Now I demand a referendum on road pricing.

Anonymous said...

There should have never been a referendum. Politicians abdicated their responsibility and now we’re all paying for it. You demand? Good luck with that.

Anonymous said...

Referenda are irresponsible? What was their responsibility then?

We are all paying for it you say. It seems to me that car drivers and property owners certainly ARE paying and a good deal more than those who don't drive or don't pay property taxes.

A referendum is exactly what is needed.

Anonymous said...

Car drivers don't pay for municipal roads any more than any other tax payer. Those roads are paid by property taxes which everyone who lives in a municipality pay whether they be property owners or renters. The highway is federal jurisdiction which, again, we all pay for through various modes of taxation. The notion that drivers pay more than their share of road costs is a myth and a few minutes on Google will bring up hours of reading for you to learn why.

A referendum is a waste of tax dollars. The provincial election is the referendum. Let the politicians get to work without interference from unelected persons who think they know better.

Anonymous said...

Wow - you are pretty definite.

All drivers (pleasure, business, commercial) subsidize the cost of roads through fuel tax.

The street budget found within the municipal budget is funded by a combination of property taxation and provincial transfer. Property taxation alone does not cover the cost of road construction and maintenance.

The Federal government, through transfer payments to the Province, indirectly funds a portion of highway construction and maintenance. The administration and decision to expend funding (or not) is a Provincial - not Federal - responsibility.

Referendum. Some people like hands-on direct democracy and having a bigger say in government expenditures of our money. For them, referendum it important and worth the expenditure. Others like to sit back and let big brother look after it. For them referendum is a waste of time and money. Find yourself.

Anonymous said...

And, 6:49, let us not forget that public transit requires these roads, and are a direct beneficiary of 17cents per litre of gas TRANSLINK tax subsidy which those that ride the diesel behemoths do not pay. Instead they hop on a bus for a small deeply subsidized fare that does not cover the cost of the trip in terms of fuel, mechanical maintenance, depreciation, financing costs, insurance and operator's wages and benefits while the car driver voluntarily pays all these things without resort to any kind of tax ( except to pay it).

The real myth is that public transit is free when in fact it is completely insolvent except on very special runs during a very few hours per day. And that is everywhere in the world.

Anonymous said...

Good points Anon 11:16. It worries me that some folks have strongly held opinions bolstered by "facts" are are completely inaccurate and, in fact, mistaken. These misinformed protest, vote and generally act upon their world view which has no basis in reality.

What they "think" it is and what they "wish" it is becomes, for them, what it actually is. Scary.

Anonymous said...

Who has said public transit is free? I don't think anyone is saying that.

Anonymous said...

You are right Anon 12:30. Nobody is saying it is free. My mistake.

They just aren't saying it isn't free.

Anonymous said...

No they aren't. In fact a previous poster recognized there will likely be an additional cost and is prepared to pay it.

Anonymous said...

"What I mean is I'm happy to pay my share, fully realizing that as a car driver my mode of transport is heavily subsidized. I know I don't pay my share of the true cost of road infrastructure."

Ok... so if you who drive but would rather bus don't pay the true cost of road infrastructure, and those who don't drive but use public transit don't pay the true cost of road infrastructure... then who is paying the true cost of road infrastructure? Who is left to pay?