Transit cuts coming to New West

TransLink has been undergoing a “service rationalization” process for the past year. This is part of a complete service review the Provincial government has mandated before any consideration is given to approving other revenue streams for TransLink. Until now, this has been a fairly abstract concept when it came to transit services on the road, however as we are about to learn, “rationalization” means cuts to basic services in New Westminster.

This isn't the first time creeping service cuts have led to the extinction of a New Westminster bus route, does anyone remember the 108 Eighth Ave which slowly was cut into oblivion?
This isn't the first time creeping service cuts have led to the extinction of a New Westminster bus route, does anyone remember the 108 Eighth Ave which slowly was cut into oblivion?

Translink has been undergoing a “service rationalization” process for the past year. This is part of a complete service review the Provincial government has mandated before any consideration is given to approving other revenue streams for Translink.  Until now, this has been a fairly abstract concept when it came to transit services on the road, however as we are about to learn, “rationalization” means cuts to basic services in New Westminster.

On the surface the cuts may look fairly benign: reductions in early morning and evening service levels when buses are nearly empty. However, if one views transit as a holistic system,  these cuts undermine the overall viability of the public transportation system in New Westminster.

The planned “rationalization” will see several local bus routes reduced to 60-minute service in the off hours (101, 154 and 155, as well as smaller cuts to the 123 and Community Shuttle conversion of half the 112). People who rely on transit to actually get places will tell you instead of reducing to once an hour, you might as well save even more money and not run a bus at all, particularly in a city the size of New Westminster where one could walk clear across the city in that amount of time. You’ve instantly eliminated all the casual trips and relegated bus service to only those who can’t afford any other means of transportation, or are physically unable to walk any distance.

Case in point: the shift worker who is coming home from their job in the evening is now faced with a 60-minute wait if they miss their connection by a minute (and heaven forbid if it’s a woman waiting alone at a dark bus stop for an hour). Given this challenge, this worker is far more likely to drive to work, if they can even afford to do so. Transit, for this worker, is no longer an option. You now have a new driver on the road in the afternoon going to their job, adding to congestion and polluting GHGs in to the air.

Or the couple out for dinner with their friends, trying to be responsible by not driving in light of the potential shared a bottle of wine. With a 60-minute wait on their journey home they are much more likely to elect to drive, again contributing to congestion and putting all road users at risk should they misjudge their wine intake over the evening. Every trip home in the evening by a bus rider is a trip taken to somewhere earlier in the day. And let’s be realistic, with the suburban nature of where these “rationalized” routes go, these are going to be riders on their way home from somewhere.

From a transit planning perspective you can see the rationale: 5 people on a bus every 30 minutes, if you make it every 60 minutes that’s 10 people per bus. That logic may work for busy urban routes with short headways; riders will hardly notice a shift from a bus every 8 minutes to a bus every 10 minutes, and they’ll be packed in a little tighter when the bus does arrive. But when you’re talking anything over 30 minutes service it is completely unrealistic to think you’ll maintain all these passengers. Your ridership will decrease at all times of the days because riders won’t be able to depend on the route whenever they need it, the viability of the whole route will be at risk.

The sad part about these cuts is they’re not even the result of overall system cuts. Instead, there is a shift of service hours from one part of the region to another. We’re taking from Peter to pay Paul, while the appetite of both Peter and Paul are increasing. Rather than build strong transit intergrated and reliable system across the whole region, Translink and the Province have mandated we have a set number of service hours that does not increase with our exploding population and transit usage. We are turning a mediocre transit system across Metro Vancouver into a completely unreliable one for most of the region.

At the same time that Translink is diluting our regional transit services by not keeping up with growing demand, they’re committing hundreds of millions of dollars to boondoggle projects such as the United Boulevard Extension (a road expansion that directly competes with existing transit infrastructure, and a project Translink can’t even afford even if it were approved) and the Golden Ears Bridge (which has failed to meet traffic expectations, and will now cost millions in pay-out to guarantee the profit of the private partner, draining much-needed funds from other operations). Meanwhile, the Evergreen Line remains unfunded and unbuilt nearly two decades after it was first planned.

If Translink is serious about meeting it’s mode shift goals and reducing vehicles on our roads, they, the Board, and the Mayors Council must take a serious look at their priorities. The idea of a zero-growth transit system in a region growing by thousands of residents per month while simultaneously funding unneeded and unaffordable road building mega-projects, is a serious misjudgement. Metro Vancouver deserves better and New Westminster deserves better, and we need our mayor and council to send a strong message that any cuts to New Westminster bus services are unacceptable. We need to be growing public transit, not shrinking and diluting it.

Matthew Laird

Matthew Laird is a really valued member of the Tenth to the Fraser community. Interested in joining our pool of writers? Please see these submission guidelines.

40 comments

  1. Agreed – I hate it when Translink argues there's not enough demand (especially a problem South of the Fraser) and therefore they have to make services even more inaccessible. It's a vicious cycle: the less frequently buses run the less convenient they are to take and the more people are forced to drive, decreasing ridership. As someone who takes transit pretty much everywhere, it's definitely a concern that New West buses could become less frequent. Do we know yet what routes are targeted?
    My recent post FFFF- Harper Home Pregnancy Test

  2. How much of this stems from the sprawling breadth of stuff that TransLink is responsible for? Coming from Toronto, I found it unbelievable that this one agency is responsible not only for running the urban public transit system, but the commuter rail system AND the road network. I mean, why don't they give it the airport while they're at it? Public transit is complicated enough as it is.

    1. Could not agree more! Buses and Skytrain fine, but why are they responsible for building bridges…which invariably go counter intuitive to getting people out of their cars.

      1. it makes sense to me that they should be responsible for the roads and bridges with their first priority being making better use of the ones we already have before we even think of building new ones… the link to providing transit services is obvious.

  3. I take the 112 bus. It's the main connector bus for me to downtown New Westminster since we moved to this part of New West last summer. My alternatives are: the 154 or 155 which go to uptown (and for which I need to walk about 4 blocks to get to the closest stop), or walk to the skytrain stations. Braid is closer but is on a giant hill with traffic zipping by – always fun when it's raining – alternatively I can take the "path" that runs along the edge of the property and cuts through Hume Park but it's poorly lit and doesn't feel like a smart and safe move at night. I can walk to Sapperton Station in about 10-15 minutes. So the conversion of the 112 to a Community shuttle in the space between New West and Lougheed will have a direct effect on me. A year ago, I would have been really mad because a year ago I was stroller dependant. But my son is older now, and the stroller gathers dust in the basement. It was poorly used, that route, and outside of the skytrain breaking down once, I don't think I've ever seen more than 5 other people on it, and I've never seen another parent with a strollered kid. What the key here for me is that I will continue to use the route and I will plan my life around service once an hour – I grew up in a town with no bus service at all, and even now they have only managed to secure once a DAY routes – but if that C9 is off schedule in such a way that I regularly miss it, you can bet I'll be infuriated. For me, the community shuttles – especially ones that might only run once an hour – MUST be on time, and actually wait at stops if they're early. Period. For some reason, I don't see that happening given the amount of tweeting I read that indicates they are regularly absent, early, or late. Also? Translink? Would it be too much to ask for bus shelters at every stop on E. Columbia? With cars zipping by at 70-80km / hr, it's pretty dang windy and cold in the winter. Which is good times when you have to plan to be at the stop 10 minutes early in case the bus is early.

    1. Jen, shelters are a City issue, completely outside of Translink's jurisdiction. It's a battle I fought for a few years in the Quayside until they ground me down and I gave up.

      Somewhere I have a copy of the bus shelter contract the City has with Pattison, it basically said Pattison gets to decide where to put new shelters based on economic return from advertising and the City may only request one new "anywhere" shelter per year.

      The story I heard, and I only have one source for this so I can't vouch for it's reliability (though the source is pretty good) is the City was offered a better deal by another bidder about 2 years ago but couldn't be bothered to negotiate a new contract, so they just renewed the Pattison contract. I agree the shelter situation is unacceptable, we only need to look to Vancouver on what a bus shelter rollout could look like. At the same time E Columbia would be a pretty good bet for Pattison, lots of traffic. The other factor might be electricity availability, the contract also said the city was responsible for supplying and paying for electricity to illuminate the shelter, there might not be power near those stops? Dunno.

      The issue with the other Community Shuttles in New Westminster is they're not operated by CMBC, they're operated by Metro Shuttle (Bonnie's Taxi), so a level of professionalism is lost. The fareboxes are more often broken than working, the clocks in the buses are off so they leave early/late, in one case the driver didn't even know the proper schedule, we argued over what the Translink website (and a Translink staffer told me on the phone) and what his schedule printout said. Having said that, the CMBC CS operators, because a lot are casual part timers, I've seen some questionable professionalism before, such as once an operator blaring CFOX as she was driving up North Road with a bus full of passengers. I'm glad I had headphones that night.

      Translink HAS GPS bus tracking software, they can see instantly on a map when a bus is running late or early. What I would like to see is a more active use of that software, when an operator passes a timimg point early that should set off an instant alarm in TCOM and action should be taken. Just last weekend I made it on the 153 to Mallardville before the bus was even suppose to leave Braid Station. Good for me, bad for anyone racing to make the bus.

      1. Thanks Matt for correcting me on the shelters issue. I will pursue it. Like potholes, sidewalks, curb cuts, and crosswalks, nothing is going to get installed if the City doesn't get a request, so I might as well start there. Thanks!

      2. The fact about who runs the Community Shuttles explains a lot. I cannot tell you how many times my mood has gone black waiting for a C3 or C4. Those perpetually late rattletrap things are a good part of the reason I bought a bike.

  4. I take the C3 every morning and it's always a gamble if it's going to be early/late/on time???
    I also take the 154/155 every day.
    I don't have a car so I rely on these 3 buses to go everywhere, work, doctor's appointments, grocery shopping, home from the skytrain at night.
    With New West rapidly growing, it seems that cutting service is the opposite thing that should be happening.

  5. After all the gas you've burned over Translink and the inevitable UBE are you surprised ?

    I would have thought Matt would be really happy, after all, Translink got people out of there cars to take a bus, and now, Translink is going to cancel the bus, so they can walk ! Saves the environment through GHG reductions, and is healthy for the citizens ! Win – Win !

    It's green organic justice !

  6. bus shelter are not provided by TransLink – they are provided by the individual municipalities so you should the City of New Westminster for more bus shelters.

  7. Jeepers Matt!! One minute you are complaining about reducing pollution and the next about lack of bus service. I witness, on 12th Street, huge fuel guzzling busses pulling away from 12th and 7th at peak times with 6-12 riders with smoke bellowing from the exhaust. This is about operating efficiently. Be honest with yourself. The majority of riders do not drive due to cost of owning a vehicle, insurance, fuel, and parking. It will be a long time before they go back to a car due to a reduced service time. If the program to reduce vehicle use was successful, as you advocate for, there would be no need to cut services. Busses would be full and running efficiently. Kudo's to the Liberal government for mandating efficiency. Hopefully they will continue to cut waste out of the overblown Translink budget.

    1. Sorry John, but let me get this straight, because they can't afford a car they're relegated to whatever breadcrumbs we kindly throw at them and should be grateful for what we well-off folks mercifully give them?

      If you head past a Subway restaurant or in to Safeway at 10pm, it might be very quiet and empty, why do they keep them open for 1 or 2 customers an hour? Or 7-11 might have no one come in between 3-4am. They do this because they're setting a standard of service, providing this service that people expect and can rely on when they need it. The bus system, ESPECIALLY for the poor, should be the same. No one should be stranded in the cold and rain coming home from a low paying shift job for an hour because they missed a connection.

      Under the same efficiency logic these large freeway expansions are a waste of resources because asphalt is sitting mainly empty all night. We waste money having police patrol these roads for the one or two incidents that happen a night, shame!

      It's about creating a service so people, particularly those who DO have a choice on if to drive or not, can depend on it when they need it and feel comfortable making that choice because they can depend on it. That's how you grow ridership. Yes those buses had 5-6 people on them, and without it, what would you propose they do? And switching out smaller buses at night, before anyone argues that, is not a winning answer. The time taken to deadhead back to the yard and out again, having to have two sets of aging vehicles (capital cost), having to have a yard large enough to store two sets of vehicles… yeah, not a cost effective solution, it's far more efficient to use the same buses, even in the off hours. But that's the price we pay if we want to create a friendly system that attracts riders rich and poor, it's a choice, $3 billion on a bridge (which we already had one) or putting the network of buses and rapid transit in place to actually give the public a choice.

      1. Matt, 7-11 is a company out to make profit. They have things the employees can do other then sit around waiting for a customer. Same with Safeway, they have re-stockers, and bakers working through the night to ensure the shelves are plum full for the next day.
        TransLink is not a private company out to make profit, they area part of our regional government. Don't forget, it's not only the people who pay for a bus ticket that are keeping the system alive. It is heavily subsidized by the MAJORITY of people who don't use it at all through TAX.

        With your logic, might as well run the buses 24 hours right ? Just for that one (heaven forbid) women waiting at a bus stop in the dark ?

        1. How do you think the stockers and bakers get home after their shift?

          I'm sure that not all of them have cars, especially new Canadians in those late-night jobs who may still be waiting to convert to, or to test for, a Canadian driver's license. Are we going to penalize them because they're not the supposed majority?

          I think the majority idea very much depends on what part of town you live in. In many parts of our city, the majority you're talking about are renters and on a limited budget. If my taxes pay to keep them comfortable and safe to and from work on a transit system that we all can put our trust in, I'm certainly happy to do that, personally.

          1. I think the MAJORITY of stockboys and Bakers get home after their shift by either transit or personal vehicle. They would start when Safeway closes, maybe 10pm, while transit service is still readily available, they would be getting off around 7am, again, while transit service is again available. They are already penalized by our minimum wage supported by our province, who were elected into office by the majority. Except for bakers, they make a bit more.

            "I think the majority idea very much depends on what part of town you live in"
            TransLink isn't exclusive to New West my friend. So who cares what part of town of New West you live in. There certainly are concentrations of low income in New West, and those areas are likely well serviced due to their dependence. I can not speak to TransLinks service in particular, I live in an affluent neighbourhood and I am not ashamed to say I own a vehicle. Local service runs every 15 minutes within a stones throw, and it is a well used route, and runs well past midnight.

            As a taxpayer who pays both at the pump, and in property tax and rarely use the system, I don't want to see buses running empty, wasting fuel for 1 or 2 people, or delivering Matts lady in waiting from a bus stop in the dark (heaven forbid).

            There is a private sector solution, the mobile units are called TAXI.

    2. John, you are out of touch on this issue. I have enough money to own a car and a house, and I rode transit today. Twice. Why? Because I had to go downtown for a meeting, and the reliability of Skytrain makes that choice easier and more convenient that driving downtown and looking for parking. My employer would have paid for my parking and mileage, but I saved my employer (the taxpayer) some money. I was at a meeting full of professionals, PhDs and P.Engs, and many of them also took transit. I walked back to the Granville Station with a R.P.Bio with 25 years of professional experience…

      1. (comment split in two because TTTF won't give me as many words a Matt)

        Honestly, I shake my head when I hear dinosaurs suggest that transit is for moving the poor about, and cars are for moving those who earn the right to drive. Get on Skytrain or a bus some day, you will see people with disposable incomes. This reduces pollution, reduces the need for space for cars, and saves the taxpayer money. That is why Metro Vancouver is working with TransLink towards increasing “sustainable mode” in the Lower Mainland – not because they are hoping that 50% of us cannot afford cars, but because moving people on transit saves us all money and makes a City more livable.

        However, that desirable mode shift will not happen is service is unreliable and shrinking. The Liberal Government is idiotic if it thinks it can improve transit ridership by reducing service.

  8. The City did consult with RA's a few years back regarding locations that residents felt shelters were most needed. Many of those locations have recently been going in.

    1. Thanks Neil! I have found the contact at the City and am in conversation with him to put in my request.

  9. Reducing bus servive to 60 minutes is drastic!
    I've always heard that a 7 minute wait between buses is maximum for that service to be practical and functional for transit users. Any longer and it becomes very inconvenient – if not nearly impossible – to plan your day around transit use.
    Something is really wrong with the system if it can not service a nice compact urban area like New Westminster with good transit ! ! !
    As an aside, it's very disappointing to see the frequent personal attacks on this site. I've always liked the approach: "be hard on issues and be soft on people" as a better way to discuss issues in the public realm.

    1. "As an aside, it's very disappointing to see the frequent personal attacks on this site."

      I haven't seen any personal attacks. I think a personal attack would be like saying So and So is a fat and ugly, or doesn't smell good, or something along those lines.
      It's open season on peoples flawed logic, especially when they suggest they represent a "green ideology" yet end up costing the taxpayers tens of thousands, if not over a hundred thousand now, on "Public planning" consultations. I said it before check the threads, you messed with the plans on the UBE and what do you expect from Translink down the road ?

      They're recouping these expenditures through service cuts. I am not surprised in the LEAST.
      Good work NWEP !

      1. Rick, seriously?!?!? Were you even AT the UBE consultations / Translink presentations? If you think that Matt and Pat and the NWEP were the only ones speaking out against the UBE, you would be egregiously misinformed on that. With the exception of a handful of people, the clear majority were attending those meetings to raise their extreme displeasure with Translink's plans.

        1. You must have seen some of those tremendous domino displays with all those falling domino's that do all sorts of neat things and patterens.
          They all start with a single domino.

          NWEP is focusing SO much attention on TransLink we have to be thankful that there are other citizens like Christopher Bell and Allen Lynch among others who are on top of other environmental issues. You would think with NWEP's "TrashTalker" group, and the recent survey they wanted everyone to do, they would have taken issue with a single stream recycling ? Nope…. not a peep. Instead Matt delegation was about TransLinks service cuts to INCREASE efficiency, GHG reductions and fiscal prudence for the taxpayers.

          Oh, and I was at ONE of the Translink presentation, thank you very much. I also really enjoyed Sany's presentation to council, did you catch it ? Keep up ! It's coming real soon !

          1. Ricky. Glad you have so many creative ideas of what the NWEP should be doing. You should come to our meetings and help out, we need more ideas people…

            For the record, the TrashTalkers have been discussing the relative merits of single stream and blue box recycling programs, and the answers are not clear (certainly not as clear as Mr. Lynch made them seem). We continue to discuss the subject and do research (I had a meeting last week with the Manager of Solid Waste from the City to discuss just this topic, one of the TrashTalkers is actually an Engineer who works in solid waste management – but not for the City of New West, and another has years of experience working in extended product stewardship, yet another member attended and gave a talk at Metro Vancouver’s Zero Waste Conference last month). In the end, it may be a financial issue for the City more than an environmental issue, and the NWEP may not take a position. But unlike some, we choose to do our homework and understand the issue before we opine. If we find a compelling environmental or sustainability reason to take a position on this, you will hear it (and no doubt take the opposite position, as is your wont).

          2. Patty, you know I have absolutely no input on what the NWEP does. I only know what I read, and what both you and Matty preach from your pulpit. I can honestly say I do agree with some initiatives, but why so much effort is going into a TRANSPORTATION battle with TransLink ? After all they are legislated friends of the environment with the buses and so forth. Perhaps you would be better served to start another society, NW Transportation partners perhaps ?

            As for Mr. Lynch, I found his delegation to be TOP NOTCH, he is obviously someone in the know, and perhaps your scholarly TrashTalker P.ENG should take a few notes from a lowly real-world manager.

            "In the end, it may be a financial issue for the City" – You must have not paid much attention to the Lynch's delegation Patty. Thanks goodness our council tabled the motion and are seeking more input. I can't say I'm please with the direction of Kristian's department having received my utilities bill and as an owner of a huge green bin I have never used, and can not return. Who's waste and wages are my tax dollars subsidizing ?

            I believe trash has more to do with the environment then transportation.

        2. C'mon Brigette, you are underestimating Matt's power.

          In Rick’s world, Matt showed up at the infamous “Donnybrook” consultation in no less than 100 separate disguises, and managed to convince Translink to hold further consultation, by making it look like his personal opinion was shared by more than 100 people. At that follow-up community meeting (which Rick, at the time, decided he did not need to attend) Matt brought out yet another 100 ingenious disguises, representing people from across the City (including a fetching Queensborough Housewife outfit!). Not satisfied with pulling the wool over Translink’s eyes, he then single-handedly convinced the entire City Council to vote unanimously to reject Translink’s’ proposed plans. Now, to pay Matt back, the Liberal Government is forcing Translink to “rationalize” its bus services across the City.

          Then Matt grew wings and flew to the moon.

          1. *LOL* @Pat. Ummm…I think that may have been me in that "fetching" QB "housewife" outfit. 😉

          2. So your the one who stood up and made some remark about QB being some "forgotten and ignored" part of New Westminster, to which the crowd scowled ?

            Yah, I was at that one.

          3. Yep, that was me. Except please don't quote words that I didn't actually say. 🙂

            And the crowd didn't scowl. I heard a distinct intake of breath, which clearly indicated to me that a lot of people were astounded that someone would have the balls to say what a lot of people in New West actually feel.

            And if you were at that same meeting, you should remember that the majority of folks that were brave enough to comment out loud – were you one of them? I thought not – were there opposing Translink's UBE plans…ALL of them.

  10. This is an infuriating post to read, not because it isn't well observed and written, or because I don't agree. I certainly do agree. In the 21st Century, when getting people out of their cars is an absolute imperative for a myriad of reasons, things seem to be going in the exact opposite direction.

    Bus services need to keep up with population growth, which in our case is ballooning in the suburbs. Arguing that ridership is low during certain times, so that they must be cut is in fact cutting the throat of the promise of greater ridership parallel to that growth, which isn't exactly a great strategy for 'recouping expenditures' in the long term. When our Transit system can't be relied upon, and the experience of trying to use it becomes uncomfortable for an expanding population in the suburbs, people who choose to use it will stop using it.

    I've lived a car-less lifestyle for two years. But, my ex has moved into an area in the suburbs across the Fraser (where service is comparable to what's being put forward here) with very patchy bus service after 6PM. If I want to see my five year old daughter during the week after work (I work downtown), and have some modicum of control over the nature of that visit and the time I spend managing logistics against the time I spend with her, I now HAVE to buy a car.

    How, in the 21st Century, am I not allowed the choice of not owning a car in a major city in North America? Even though I don't own one (yet – I will soon), I still pay for road tax. Shouldn't I get to choose the way I use that road?I'm buying a car. But, I'd rather spend it on public transit that will meet my needs, the needs of my fellow citizens, and the needs of my daughter when she's old enough to be a taxpayer and responsible citizen herself. Because it's sustainable, and because it empowers people who can't afford a car. Fuel-guzzling buses? Are you kidding?

    As I said, I can afford to buy a car to a greater degree than many people who are also forced to buy one in the suburbs. Some can't afford one at all. What are they meant to do? What about their choice, being stranded, without shelter and in bad weather? To me, it's all about choice, and not having anyone's hand forced, or putting them in uncomfortable or even dangerous situations when they're just trying to get home after an event, a late shift, or just time out with friends; things that every citizen should enjoy without having to worry. When it comes to paying taxes, isn't this what we pay them for? To ensure the quality of life for as many of our neighbours as possible?

    To me, robust public transit that is supported by the citizenry is the mark of a world-class city. It is the mark of civilization. It is not just about convenience. It's about accessibility, affordability, and perhaps most importantly, equality!

    Thanks for the post Matthew.

      1. I considered co-ops, Andrew. And I really think they are a good idea. But, I can't afford any slip ups with users before me not returning the vehicles on time, particularly when I've got to pick up my daughter from school, daycare, etc on a fairly regular basis. Then there's the issue with car seats, and managing them while coming from the office, or managing the extra time it takes to go home, get the seat, bring to the car, put it in, etc.

        1. Yes I agree that if you need a car regularly, then coops are not so viable.

          Its unfortunate that we still live in a region where the transportation and community planning is so poor that so many people continue to be heavily taxed by car ownership.

        2. the car seat issue is why the co-op isn't working out as well as I'd hoped. I still will maintain my co-op membership, but until we are out of car seats (or until there is a co-op car with a car seat installed permanently) it's not that awesome.

          1. Yes I remember that with out kids too. We had to lug the seat to the car (or bring the car home and install the seat before we left). But, sigh, the kids grow out of those things before you know it…

          2. Yes, but meanwhile … 🙂

            I think if the car co-ops get to the point where they can offer parent packages or some such thing, or come up with a way to incorporate car seats into their offering somehow, that will bust open a whole new market.

            BTW, on the weekend I timed the journey in a friends car from my house to where my daughter is. There was not much traffic, being a Sunday morning. But, where I would spend an hour at least getting her to Scott Road in Surrey/Delta at that time, it took us 10 minutes to drive her all the way home. It was an appalling difference.

            I pick up my wheels this week.

  11. I used to take three of those buses (101, 154, 155), but switched to walking to Columbia, as it's just down the hill, and the 15 minute walk was, on average, faster than waiting 10 minutes for a bus, and then sitting there for 10 while it drove you to the station. Making it worse isn't going to attract more riders.

    Getting people out of their cars requires a carrot and a stick. The carrot is efficient public transit, less pollution, saved money, etc. The stick is the high cost of driving (the car, the gas, the parking, the insurance).

    If the carrot is not a viable alternative, it will be tougher to extract people from their vehicles.

    Perhaps smaller, frequent buses are a better alternative to one large and infrequent bus during off-hours.

    I wonder what sort of bus service that ridiculous bridge-twinning project would have paid for… A West Coast Express style train from the valley would have removed a huge number of cars from the road, and avoided the cost of increasing the capacity of the Port Mann.

  12. When we moved back to New West in 1991 or so the #155 was only once an hour in the eve., and this was an increase from ceasing service at 7pm or so! Slowly they have been improving the service. Until now. With the cutbacks at night it is likely more people will have to walk home alone , at late hours. Yet it is also true few people use it. Better than higher fares I guess. No, wait!! They are going to rise anyway, esp.with the silly turnstiles due to be installed..That's another story…. let's just say bus service in New West, at least the Sapperton area , is a good reason to keep one's car insured. But it is nice to be able to walk to Skytrain at least. Which takes one out of town to shop. Can't win with transit around here.

Comments are closed.

Tenth to the Fraser