Transit Plan Would Double Fleet in 10 Years

Monday, March 30, 2009 07:52 PM

Prince George, B.C.- The Prince George Draft Transit Business Plan will be rolled out for public scrutiny Tuesday at two open house sessions, but tonight, City Councillors got to look at the plan which has been in development for about a year.

It is aimed at doubling ridership by 2020. Currently, the Prince George Transit System carries nearly 6,000 passengers on an average weekday, with 1,500 of these passengers during the PM peak period. The plan would also see the P.. transit fleet increase from the current 25 to 62 by 2020

The plan outlines four key benefits to transit improvements and expansion:

1. Reduced infrastructure and congestion costs:

Infrastructure costs include land, construction, and maintenance costs for expanded roadways and parking facilities, as well as traffic control and enforcement costs. Congestion costs relate to lost time and productivity which results from longer travel times due to delays.

2. REDUCED ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS

An average transit trip requires less than one quarter of the energy use per person than the same trip made in a single occupancy private vehicle. The transit trip also results in a 65% reduction in greenhouse gases produced, and a 20-90% reduction in other pollutants.

3. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

As transit plays an increasingly important role in the transportation system, it can be a very effective means of shaping community development. For example, transit could play a key role in encouraging the development of walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods in Prince George. By reducing reliance on the automobile, transit can also help the community to develop in a more pedestrian-friendly manner.

4. IMPROVED MOBILITY

For many people who do not have access to other modes of transportation due to age, disability, or income, transit provides mobility and freedom to travel without relying on others.

The Business plan presents three levels of change, Short range (now until 2013) medium range (by 2020) and long term by (2030). The short range plans would cost the City $360,000 on a total cost of $1.196 million in upgrades. The medium range changes peg the city's cost at $1.5 million on $5.3 million dollars worth of upgrades.

The open house discussions are set for City Hall Tuesday, 2nd floor conference room from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. and again from 6 p.m. till 9 p.m.

Public comment will be incorporated into the final report.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Monday, March 30, 2009 07:52 PM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: Mercenary on March 31 2009 5:16 AM

Well more busses on the road means more jobs. A good thing I guess even if it takes 10 years to implement.

Posted by: Eagleone on March 31 2009 9:12 AM

The city isn't planned for mass transit. We need apartment clusters to make mass transit viable and we don't have any urban neighborhoods in PG. PG is one big suburb and this makes mass transit uneconomical other than the basic that we have now.

IMO if we had a large urban neighborhood with 12 story high-rise apartment buildings in close proximity then we could have smart clusters of services including mass transit that could economically provide a competitive service against the personal car. I would locate these kinds of neighborhoods on Cranbrook Hill Crest near UNBC overlooking the city as well as the Edgewood area off Foothills/North Nechako and the PG golf and curling club lands.

Posted by: caranmacil on March 31 2009 10:09 AM

I dont know whether that would work , eagle. Traditionally in this town when the bust periods come by the apartment blocks suffer huge vacancies and have to resort to renting to everyone (with predictable results). Do you think there is a market for privately owned apartments in Prince? I think that would be the only way to do it without risking another neighbourhood buster (a la the macintire area).
Please dont suggest the local govt push people towards buying apartments by limiting housing developements elsewhere. I am NOT in favour of cities telling people where and how they can live, especially when such practices drive up the cost of housing.

Posted by: Harbinger on March 31 2009 8:09 PM

Twice as many empty buses? Go for it. Even if it gets another person off the roads, there is more room for me! Again, get going on this. This ain't a bus town. Pay me to do a study. I dare ya.

Posted by: Eagleone on April 1 2009 6:25 AM

My thinking is that PG is missing out on a market segment that isn't being filled and thus it would be done in part by growing the pie.

The locations I mentioned should be zoned for high density residential for specific reasons. Anyone that is like me and couldn't live like that could still buy a house with a view and a private backyard... PG has lots of land for that still and always will... but I would agree that you won't find it built by a developer flip wise.

Cranbrook Hill Crest should be zoned high density near the university for the reason that the university could grow the more it has synergies with affordable housing in close proximity to the university and sports center. I would think this would mostly be student rental units, academics, support service workers ect that need smaller low cost units. PG, no matter what anyone says, has a huge deficiency in this area, but it isn't addressed because there's no vision and the developers have bigger deals with more profit margins elsewhere.

The PG Golf and Curling Club lands IMO should be designated high density because the proximity to all the consumer services and shopping. I would think this would most appropriately be hotel rooms, elderly, and temporary professionals like health care and government workers looking for a good place to buy close to work without the hassle of owning property.

The Edgewood area has the most service capacity of any area in town and is less then 5-minutes from the downtown with the new bridge operational. Its faster to downtown than even Spruceland... so this is an obvious spot for high density zoning to utilize existing infrastructure capacity with next to nil upgrade costs needed. This area has huge potential for park trails, proximity to the new golf course, and river front trails... it has obvious potential for attracting a new kind of person to PG that is looking for a naturalist lifestyle with high end condo lifestyle... mostly retired folks or people from big cities areas with a lot of money looking for the rural lifestyle with the comforts of a city condo and services. We would have to market that... but when the globe is full of trouble spots there is no shortage of rich people looking for a safe haven. I think lots of young people from PG would consider properties along the river with a view like that as transition properties before buying their first homes, rather than moving to Vancouver for that kind of lifestyle.

As for low income housing I think that needs to be spread everywhere to mitigate its impact on any one area where problems grow with critical mass. I wouldn't locate low income housing where you are trying to build an urban cluster like I described above.

Time Will Tell

Posted by: Eagleone on April 1 2009 6:32 AM

I agree that Crackentire is about the worst example of an urban cluster one could imagine. It would be the example of what not to do when planning an urban cluster....