[officedweller]

Arguably, that's the nature of transit (and why most families have minivans, station wagons or SUVs)

[twoNeurons]

Can't people just get off the bus at the foot of the Granville bridge and walk two blocks north to Granville Island?

Is it a question of can people, or rather, will people?

[Hot Rod]

Can't people just get off the bus at the foot of the Granville bridge and walk two blocks north to Granville Island?

they aren't now. ...

[Metro-One]

I must say having recently moved to south Van i would love to be able to ride the tram from Olympic Village station to Granville Island any time of the year.

Again, this is only a fraction of the system / debate, but it does urk me that we have a new 2km long stretch of rail and two new platforms / station houses that sit there doing nothing for the majority of the year. The fact that the one platform sits directly at OV station and that the other sits directly at the entrance of Granville Island tells me that it is a no brainer that the we should be running at least 1 or 2 trams on a regular schedule. You know make it a true demonstration line!

[trofirhen]

It's my job to bring the hammer down on evangelizing zealots, and bring reality back into a discussion. Call me un-PC, and I'll wear the badge proudly. :)
:previous::previous::previous:

Make me a badge too, please. The whole PC thing makes me want to gag. :yuck:

[Zassk]

The new tracks just sitting there irk me too, but I am a little bit leery of overstating Granville Island's importance. For $50 million we could probably afford to rebuild and move every business on Granville Island to a new site closer to transit (e.g. across the street from Main St. Station), rather than build a streetcar to the current location just-because.

I think a better question is, would the False Creek residents use the new streetcar for routine travel? Would it get us more riders than spending the same $50-100 million on 2 extra SkyTrain stations? Conceivably it could help fast-track a Millennium Line extension to Cambie if the CoV offered to pay for the two stations in between VCC-Clark and City Hall. This to me would trump any benefits of a Granville Island streetcar.

[SpongeG]

gi is the #1 tourist spot well maybe #2 after the park - a lot of tourists don't know how to use the busses - hell i live here and i have no clue how to get a bus there

[deasine]

gi is the #1 tourist spot well maybe #2 after the park - a lot of tourists don't know how to use the busses - hell i live here and i have no clue how to get a bus there

I agree with this point, but I disagree with the reasoning behind it. Transit agencies (and I think this applies to all over the world, not just in North America) tend to market different modes of transport differently. Streetcars and rail services have its own maps and signage that are intended to make the transit experience effortless and convenient. Buses, on the other hand, aren't marketed this way and the distinction is particularly with TransLink and how it presents SkyTrain and Bus Services differently. I think it's safe to say that if TransLink presents the 50 bus route as if it was a rail route (dedicated branding on maps, signage, and on vehicles, distinctive stops, etc.), then this should negate the point you've presented.

I'd like to bring Condon's findings to the discussion table. Just to clarify, I don't agree with Condon's arguments used for the Broadway Corridor and how we should build a network of streetcars instead of SkyTrain, but I see how his arguments for Streetcars can apply in this scenario. Condon points out that streetcars generally tend to have lower operating costs (operation + maintenance) than buses. These findings are parallel to that of many studies by different transit agencies.

The difference is of course in the capital cost. But in the case of Vancouver's Streetcar system, part of the capital cost was already paid for as part of the Bombardier rail demonstration. And through the redevelopment of Southeast False Creek/Olympic Village along West 1st Avenue, many of the Right of Ways are already set aside for the streetcar (the center median). So already, the capital cost should be cheaper than what it could have been if the improvements weren't made earlier.

I support the development of the streetcar because I believe the streetcar can be used as a tool to accelerate redevelopment in Southeast False Creek/edge of False Creek Flats/Chinatown/Western edge of Downtown East Side. There are projects all over the world where transit rail expansion has done exactly that, the most commonly cited project being the Portland Streetcar in the Pearl District.

[Robert in Calgary]

I support the development of the streetcar.....

This is a streetcar project I support. Granville is an obvious anchor point so I would support getting it as close as possible to the market. Yep, saving folks that two block walk is important enough.

The perennial problem of course is the lack of proper funding streams for TransLink. (and the pettiness of all the various mayors)

If...you can find the right deal or sponsor, innovation and creativity in funding progress would be nice.

I find Condon to be mostly out to lunch, I took a chance and actually bought his book....:(

I also think that much of the credit the Portland Streetcar gets for "spurring" development is completely undeserved.

[Mac Write]

How about having the streetcar actually use the existing Granville Island track and take them right to the door of varies places (Kids Only, The Markent, Hotel, etc). That would really boost traffic on the streetcar and even cause over-crowding. :D

[racc]

How about having the streetcar actually use the existing Granville Island track and take them right to the door of varies places (Kids Only, The Markent, Hotel, etc). That would really boost traffic on the streetcar and even cause over-crowding. :D
A great idea but the cars would have to be removed from the Island which is a great idea too. Otherwise, the streetcar would just be stuck in the big traffic jam in the big parking lot that is GI.

[GeeCee]

The existing rails on Granville Island are not in great shape and would require a lot of work, not to mention the electrification required.

While I support the idea of banning cars from Granville Island in favor of a streetcar, a busy slow moving street is safer for pedestrians than a street which is mostly empty save for the occasional streetcar train which people might not be expecting.

[racc]

The existing rails on Granville Island are not in great shape and would require a lot of work, not to mention the electrification required.

While I support the idea of banning cars from Granville Island in favor of a streetcar, a busy slow moving street is safer for pedestrians than a street which is mostly empty save for the occasional streetcar train which people might not be expecting.
The street car would have to move slow through there. I'm not convinced that a lot of slow moving cars are that safe for pedestrians. Better, of course, than fast moving cars but still not safe.

[aberdeen5698]

While I support the idea of banning cars from Granville Island in favor of a streetcar, a busy slow moving street is safer for pedestrians than a street which is mostly empty save for the occasional streetcar train which people might not be expecting.I thought that's why they always go "ding-ding"! ;)

[racc]

The existing rails on Granville Island are not in great shape and would require a lot of work, not to mention the electrification required.

There are streetcars with batteries so they can be run off the grid for a few minutes. They use these often in historical places where they don't want wires ruining the view. Washington DC for example and I think Seville. Given the slow speed it would have to go at in GI, this would be perfect.

[deasine]

I find Condon to be mostly out to lunch, I took a chance and actually bought his book....:(

I find that his principles discussed in the book do have some value in them, but he seems to make a lot of assumptions and he doesn't seem to take a lot of factors into consideration. I too find that he is stuck too much in the world of academia.

[whatnext]

The existing rails on Granville Island are not in great shape and would require a lot of work, not to mention the electrification required.

While I support the idea of banning cars from Granville Island in favor of a streetcar, a busy slow moving street is safer for pedestrians than a street which is mostly empty save for the occasional streetcar train which people might not be expecting.

Vancouverites seemed to manage getting out of their way in the past:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzjRs3ARo0g&feature=related

[agrant]

I don't see the point in having streetcars going all the way into Granville Island. The fact there are old rails there, from way back when the area was all industrial (from the 1920s I might add), doesn't mean transit will work. The stop they have there now, at the entrance, seems adequate. Only just a 5 minute walk in.

And can you imagine trying to ride the streetcar from say Science World to Arbutus, and having to wait for the streetcar to slug through Granville Island....?

[DKaz]

They didn't know better back then. People expect fast transportation these days.

[racc]

Vancouverites seemed to manage getting out of their way in the past:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzjRs3ARo0g&feature=related
Thanks! Now this is what I'm talking about. It look like the street car is going around 10-15km/h. The cyclist is even going faster. The traffic all around town should be slowed down to this speed so it is safe and easy for pedestrians to cross the street when they liked. It worked back then so it can work now.

[jlousa]

And members wonder why the VACC isn't taken seriously. :shrug:

I agree with Agrant, no need for the trains to go onto the island, the island works well how it is. Have the trains to the doorstep is adequate as observed during the demonstration line.

[Mac Write]

As someone who has extreme difficulty walking distances, the bus and streetcar stop are too far for me to use Granville Island, so I never get to go down there, unless someone drives me.

[s211]

Thanks! Now this is what I'm talking about. It look like the street car is going around 10-15km/h. The cyclist is even going faster. The traffic all around town should be slowed down to this speed so it is safe and easy for pedestrians to cross the street when they liked. It worked back then so it can work now.

Screw that. Give me horses instead, using your logic.

[Zassk]

Yes, nothing makes me more wistful than seeing all of those piles of horse manure sitting in the middle of the road (and even on the rails in a few cases in that video!).

[racc]

Screw that. Give me horses instead, using your logic.
With silly statements like that, looks like you might might want to learn some logic yourself.

Anyway, it is about safety. No one should be killed or seriously injured on our roads. People's lives are much more important that getting someplace a bit quicker. I expect that once the time dealing with all the problems arising from collisions is taken into account, there is no net time savings resulting from higher speeds.

[officedweller]

Yes, but individuals do not value impacts based on averages over all of society.

An individual can go about their daily life without ever encountering an accident that slows them down - so going faster does have benefit to the individual.

That's similar to taxation arguments that people make. Oh, the taxes that would be saved if XYZ were not done (i.e. the Feds giving $400 million to the "wasteful" Evergreen Line) - but that's better from a local standpoint than if that money went to Quebec.

Averaging may be "optimal" from an academic perspective, but in the real world, people and regions etc. are competing against each other. Municipalities may be jockeying and lobbying their pet projects for provinicial and federal funding. Is TransLink going to volunteer to hand back Evergreen Line money because "we" already got lots of funding for the Canada Line, so, maybe, Quebec City should get the money for a new hockey arena? Nope.

On an individual basis - if people weren't concerned about getting places quickly, why do so many cyclists blow through stop signs and traffic lights? Can't they stop? Are they going to miss that doctor's appointment? Restaurant reservation? Need to pick up the kids?

Maybe if you live on a desert island there aren't time constraints - but time is the most valuable resource we have.

[s211]

With silly statements like that, looks like you might might want to learn some logic yourself.

Anyway, it is about safety. No one should be killed or seriously injured on our roads. People's lives are much more important that getting someplace a bit quicker. I expect that once the time dealing with all the problems arising from collisions is taken into account, there is no net time savings resulting from higher speeds.

Commendable, but under your utopia, the world economy would cease to exist.

[racc]

Commendable, but under your utopia, the world economy would cease to exist.
Please everyone take the time to think about it before all the knee jerk reactions. There is a huge negative economic and time impact of automobile collisions. I expect everyone here has been in at least one collision or at least knows someone who has. Just think of all the time wasted dealing with a collision. It can be hundreds of hours for more serious collisions. ICBC, medical treatment, lost time at work, visiting and transporting friends and family who have been injured.

If you are still not convinced, at least listen to the traffic reports. They are full of traffic delays due to collisions.

Yes, from a cold calculating point of view, there "economic advantages" of collisions for those who work repairing cars and people damaged in collisions but to be honest, this is the type of economic activity we could do without.

[s211]

Please everyone take the time to think about it before all the knee jerk reactions. There is a huge negative economic and time impact of automobile collisions. I expect everyone here has been in at least one collision or at least knows someone who has. Just think of all the time wasted dealing with a collision. It can be hundreds of hours for more serious collisions. ICBC, medical treatment, lost time at work, visiting and transporting friends and family who have been injured.

If you are still not convinced, at least listen to the traffic reports. They are full of traffic delays due to collisions.

Yes, from a cold calculating point of view, there "economic advantages" of collisions for those who work repairing cars and people damaged in collisions but to be honest, this is the type of economic activity we could do without.

By your logic, let's stop all vehicles immediately, everywhere. Get a grip.

[deasine]

Alright. This conversation is coming to an end now.

[cornholio]

With silly statements like that, looks like you might might want to learn some logic yourself.

Anyway, it is about safety. No one should be killed or seriously injured on our roads. People's lives are much more important that getting someplace a bit quicker. I expect that once the time dealing with all the problems arising from collisions is taken into account, there is no net time savings resulting from higher speeds.

No their not, there is a risk at any speed. What society strives for is a balance between safety and speed/efficiency. Since speed/efficency is in the discussions means that peoples lives are not more important, they are equally as important.

Keeping all variables constant(car models, culture, road designs, etc.) I would think that as you keep lowering speeds the benefits in safety from that would keep getting exponentially lower while the impact on efficiently moving people and goods would exponentially get larger. The reverse should be true for raising speeds.

So the question is where is the balance between safety and speed/efficiency?

[BCPhil]

Anyway, while the city has been throwing money at the Viaducts study like a drunken sailor, pushing through bike lanes with little or no community consultation, turning backyards into chicken coups and front yards into farmland...

They've completely turned their back on the Downtown Streetcar.

From http://trams.bc.ca/dhr/schedule.html

SERVICE CANCELLED UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE

SERVICE CANCELLATION INFORMATION

Due to financial constraints

The maintenance of the railway and the cars is the responsibility of the City of Vancouver, not the Transit Museum Society which provides volunteer crews each weekend to operate the cars. At this time, the City of Vancouver has not seen fit to allocate funds to permit operation of the DHR to continue. If you wish to express your views over the City's allocation of resources to maintain the DHR, or if you have any other comments on this aspect of the railway, please direct your comments to city council.

We have the time for the parks board to contemplate growing orchards in city parks (which is a horrible idea that anyone who has ever owned a cherry or apple tree can tell you) but supporting a volunteer outfit maintain a piece of Vancouver heritage and giving something for tourists to do, all while promoting green, sustainable and alternative transit, is apparently too much.

You can't just put grass everywhere you see pavement and call Vancouver the greenest city in the world. The label isn't dependent on what colour Vancouver actually looks like from space. We actually have to provide new means to transport people around Vancouver if we are going to reduce road space.

A real shame the city has turned it's back on a hard working group of volunteers and its $10 million investment. If they've abandoned an already spent investment and a volunteer organization what hopes do we have of actually seeing Vision improve transit in Vancouver?

[hollywoodnorth]

great post! :cheers:

on a side note ... DID YOU GET THE PM I SENT YOU?


Anyway, while the city has been throwing money at the Viaducts study like a drunken sailor, pushing through bike lanes with little or no community consultation, turning backyards into chicken coups and front yards into farmland...

They've completely turned their back on the Downtown Streetcar.

From http://trams.bc.ca/dhr/schedule.html



We have the time for the parks board to contemplate growing orchards in city parks (which is a horrible idea that anyone who has ever owned a cherry or apple tree can tell you) but supporting a volunteer outfit maintain a piece of Vancouver heritage and giving something for tourists to do, all while promoting green, sustainable and alternative transit, is apparently too much.

You can't just put grass everywhere you see pavement and call Vancouver the greenest city in the world. The label isn't dependent on what colour Vancouver actually looks like from space. We actually have to provide new means to transport people around Vancouver if we are going to reduce road space.

A real shame the city has turned it's back on a hard working group of volunteers and it's $10 million investment. If they've abandoned an already spent investment and a volunteer organization what hopes do we have of actually seeing Vision improve transit in Vancouver?

[jlousa]

I agree it certainly is a shame, I know the NPA were spearheading the streetcar but that's no reason for Vision to let it die, a good idea is good idea no matter the origins. The street car (even just the heritage line) would provide a significant impact to the Village.

[whatnext]

I agree it certainly is a shame, I know the NPA were spearheading the streetcar but that's no reason for Vision to let it die, a good idea is good idea no matter the origins. The street car (even just the heritage line) would provide a significant impact to the Village.

Vision is nothing if not idealogically blinkered. Vancouver gets the government it deserves.

[trofirhen]

Vision is nothing if not idealogically blinkered. Vancouver gets the government it deserves.
:previous:
If so, Yikes!! What does that say about the people and their mentality?

[aberdeen5698]

:previous:
If so, Yikes!! What does that say about the people and their mentality?It seems to me that it says the people of Vancouver have a somewhat different set of priorities than those that the Vision critics espouse.

[s211]

It seems to me that it says SOME OF the people of Vancouver have a somewhat different set of priorities than those that the Vision critics espouse.

Fixed that for you.

[aberdeen5698]

Fixed that for you.Maybe it should read: "most of" the people (of those who vote, anyway) ... ;)

[mr.x]

I still say amalgamation is a good idea, particularly with progressive Richmond (not so much with the lefties in Burnaby). It'll dilute the crazy/ideology that runs through the veins of Vancouver.

[aberdeen5698]

I still say amalgamation is a good idea, particularly with progressive Richmond (not so much with the lefties in Burnaby). It'll dilute the crazy/ideology that runs through the veins of Vancouver.Speaking as a Vancouver voter, amalgamation would be a disaster. What happened in Toronto should be a stark lesson in what happens when suburbanite voters override city residents to force an idiot like Rob Ford into power.

[SpongeG]

yeah vancouver is 675,000 vs 1.9 million in the surrounding cities...

[andasen]

yeah vancouver is 675,000 vs 1.9 million in the surrounding cities...

Though some other balancing amalgamations might be interesting... Vancouver brand of crazy needs to be preserved inside it but reducing the number of squablers would be a fun experiment at the very least :P

But ya maybe we should take this discussion elsewhere...

[Pinion]

Can we refrain from calling people with differing opinions crazy? There's nothing illogical about vision voters, they just have different priorities.

[andasen]

Can we refrain from calling people with differing opinions crazy? There's nothing illogical about vision voters, they just have different priorities.

Think this was directed at me. Ya could have been a little more clear in my wording but I twas not intending to redicule vision vancouver (actually wasn't directing my comments at vision vancouver specifically at all but at the city of Vancouver itself). I was trying to say that the Vancouver discourse needs to be maintained and not diluted by the suburban viewpoints. But Amalgamtion would be interesting between other municipalities to reduce the number of people with permenant voices but almost no vote at the Metro government level.

On a related note, I like the Vancouver brand of crazy :D

[mr.x]

Speaking as a Vancouver voter, amalgamation would be a disaster. What happened in Toronto should be a stark lesson in what happens when suburbanite voters override city residents to force an idiot like Rob Ford into power.

Note that I only said amalgamation with Richmond, which is just under 200,000 in population -- not the entire GVRD. Just because it didn't work in Toronto (and to a an extent in Montreal) doesn't mean you can't think of an amalgamation plan that might work in the Vancouver context. Adjoining with the Richmondnites, it would give economic progressivism some actual and sensible priority within policies made...

People like Meggs, who run city council, completely ignore the concept of the importance of cars for better or worse (as much as we love transit, and dare I say cycling, not everyone can nor wants to), and the importance of maintaining mobility and efficiency of Downtown transportation routes for the city (and region's) economic future. What he's proposing IS crazy...where is this money coming from? The thing's not broken, it's nowhere near the end of its lifespan, so why are we fiddling around with it? It's a waste of your money, and it's one of the few examples of how inefficient the City of Vancouver currently is both ideologically and with how it runs itself internally. The point is: stiff and uncompromising ideology = crazy. As a politician, you have a mandate to govern and serve all spectrums of the society you're representing - not just one.

[queetz@home]

:previous: So if your wish comes true, will Richmond and Vancouver pay for all the services that only Richmond and Vancouver benefit from and reimburse the rest of the region? Richmond is as parorchial and as selfish as Burnaby after they got their transit line, they aren't exactly the best city to deal with. They are only in that position because of an airport, its like saying a lottery winner is progressive than some working stiff who have to make do with what he earns.

Vancouver could easily afford to maintain the existing streetcar, or expand it all by itself. Instead, it chose to spend its priorities elsewhere.

The NPA was the one that decided to bail a private developer almost a billion dollars for a certain project that shall not be named, but that amount is more than enough for the streetcar, not just in downtown but everywhere. The people voted against them for that, and rightfully so. And when the NPA tried to revive the streetcar that would only serve downtown, the people essentially said nuts to that!

The streetcar at its current form is silly anyway, money and effort can be better spent elsewhere. At least tearing down the viaducts will give people the opportunity to redevelop the land. What will the streetcars do? Service the already well served area of downtown? :rolleyes:

[jlousa]

Guys there is a thread for amalgamation, this is not it.

[mezzanine]

The streetcar at its current form is silly anyway, money and effort can be better spent elsewhere. At least tearing down the viaducts will give people the opportunity to redevelop the land. What will the streetcars do? Service the already well served area of downtown? :rolleyes:

QFT. I can agree with the priorities here with halting what is essentially a summer-only tourist service.

[SpongeG]

i would use it i would definately be going to granville island once a week instead of once or twice a year

[Echowinds]

Personally I think the streetcar's biggest benefit is getting riders that wouldn't normally take buses take transit, while augmenting the current bus/skytrain network.

These lines also aren't a baggage in operating costs in the long run, because they are likely profitable unlike most suburban bus lines.

[splashflash]

Personally I think the streetcar's biggest benefit is getting riders that wouldn't normally take buses take transit, while augmenting the current bus/skytrain network.

These lines also aren't a baggage in operating costs in the long run, because they are likely profitable unlike most suburban bus lines.

If there is pent-up demand for novel transit, why not have Granville Island businesses pay for it? A stand-alone system will cost more for maintenance if run by Translink - Translink doesn't have a garage for steetcars and is even shutting down the North Vancouver bus garage - and the City already has enough on its plate. After riding streetcars in Toronto, the novelty quickly wore off, and electric buses are smoother than streetcars if driven carefully.

I would vote for Vision because they made this decision, rather than go the populist route.

[jsbertram]

QFT. I can agree with the priorities here with halting what is essentially a summer-only tourist service.

With the construction of the Olympic Village causing the loss the tracks that went along 1st Ave to Science World, the vintage trains can only be run on the Olympic Demonstration tracks that run between almost- Cambie St (Olympic Village station) and almost- Granville St. (but not all the way into Granville Island).

If these vintage streetcars actually connected most of the touristy areas together (Stanley Park, Cruise Ship Terminal, Gastown, Chinatown, Science World, Granville Island, MacMillan Space Centre & Vanier Park), they could be well-used by visitors.

Since these are residential and commercial areas too, the locals could use these same streetcars to get around.

Both vintage and modern streetcars can use the same rails to run between Stanley Park and Vanier Park. The vintage streetcars could have special advertising on them geared to tourists. How much would Granville Island pay to have a vintage streetcar shrink-wrapped with a stem-to-stern ad that says "Take Me to Granville Island" ? How much would Stanley Park pay for their own shrink-wrapped car that says "All Aboard for Stanley Park " ?

Locals would likely avoid taking a "tourist trap" vintage streetcar, but the tourists would pile on. Locals would probably wait for a modern streetcar even though every streetcar would make the same stops.

[splashflash]

With the construction of the Olympic Village causing the loss the tracks that went along 1st Ave to Science World, the vintage trains can only be run on the Olympic Demonstration tracks that run between almost- Cambie St (Olympic Village station) and almost- Granville St. (but not all the way into Granville Island).

If these vintage streetcars actually connected most of the touristy areas together (Stanley Park, Cruise Ship Terminal, Gastown, Chinatown, Science World, Granville Island, MacMillan Space Centre & Vanier Park), they could be well-used by visitors.

Since these are residential and commercial areas too, the locals could use these same streetcars to get around.

Both vintage and modern streetcars can use the same rails to run between Stanley Park and Vanier Park. The vintage streetcars could have special advertising on them geared to tourists. How much would Granville Island pay to have a vintage streetcar shrink-wrapped with a stem-to-stern ad that says "Take Me to Granville Island" ? How much would Stanley Park pay for their own shrink-wrapped car that says "All Aboard for Stanley Park " ?

Locals would likely avoid taking a "tourist trap" vintage streetcar, but the tourists would pile on. Locals would probably wait for a modern streetcar even though every streetcar would make the same stops.

The problem with two types of streetcars is that the units are on tracks, so local speedier units are not able to overtake slower vintage ones unless sidings are plentiful or loops are built (more $$$). The fake tourist trolleys work because the units can putter along and make lots of stops without causing too much hassle for other traffic.

The great thing about the cross False Creek ferries is that they are small (low capital cost) and flexible. The same cannot be said for streetcars.

[jlousa]

Pretty sure the old streetcars are more then up to the task of keeping up with the new ones as far as speed goes. These things would be limited to 50km/h for most of the journey and they're capable of that. I agree that the line in it's current form is less then ideal. Perhaps all the money the city is saving by not picking up garbage or cutting the grass is being put aside to build it out to the original vision. :P

[Metro-One]

:previous:ugh, don't get me started, the Cambie Boulevard looks like a complete mess right now, with high grass and plenty of garbage laying throughout it ;)

[BCPhil]

The problem with two types of streetcars is that the units are on tracks, so local speedier units are not able to overtake slower vintage ones unless sidings are plentiful or loops are built (more $$$). The fake tourist trolleys work because the units can putter along and make lots of stops without causing too much hassle for other traffic.

The great thing about the cross False Creek ferries is that they are small (low capital cost) and flexible. The same cannot be said for streetcars.

You obviously never rode on the Heritage Interurban. That thing hauls ass. It doesn't toddle around at 10mph, it can easily sustain 50 or even 70km/h (probably more if they were legally allowed). You do realize these things used to fly out to New Westminster and Steveston without it being a "day trip". Throw in stopping at all the stations, and it could easily keep the exact same schedule downtown as any modern streetcar. Portland used to run their heritage streetcar mixed with the LRT traffic.

If the downtown streetcar system ran trains every 10 minutes, it would be almost impossible for a heritage streetcar to run that much slower than a modern train. And it wouldn't be done all day everyday, but more likely Sundays and special occasions, and maybe only on certain portions of track. And a heritage streetcar running through heritage Gastown and Chinatown would surely draw more summer tourists down to the area to check it out, giving businesses in the area a major boost.

Besides, we already encounter that passing problem today. Many of the less busy trolley buses are held up by other buses at stops downtown. It's not uncommon to see them herd together on Granville street, but we deal with it for the advantages it gives us in other areas. Throw in the occasional disconnected pole, and switching to streetcars with modern single wire pantographs would be a godsend.

And why compare the Ferries to streetcars? The False Creek ferries can't drop you off in Chinatown or Gastown or Waterfront station. If you are going to draw that analogy, why not compare the ferries to the bus network? Maybe we should keep buses out of downtown because the ferries are "small (low capital cost) and flexible. The same cannot be said for [buses]."

If the way things are is so great, they why does everyone drive to Granville Island. Have you ever been there? Seen the traffic that clogs the island? With a streetcar, Granville Island can encourage more parking off the island. Last year, I made several trips to Granville Island either by transit then take the Streetcar, or by driving to the large, empty parking lot at Olympic station and taking the streetcar. It saddens me that I can't do that again this year.

And the streetcar goes beyond just tourism. It provides reliable, predictable, sustainable, and easy to use transportation through one of the most dense and traveled areas of BC.

The proposed route (from Stanley Park to Granville Island) would link many major living, employment, business, shopping, and recreational areas (on one line). Yes, it will be great for tourists arriving on a cruise ship (or from their hotels), and get them to Granville Island. But it will also pick up commuters at Skytrain stations, and others from their homes in and around false creek and Coal Harbor, and take them to major job centers in the core business area and the newer startup offices in Gastown and Chinatown. Afterhours it will take these people home, or they can jump off at many restaurants, pubs, and bars that would line the line. This would increase the profitability of businesses and create more jobs in one of the most hardship stricken neighborhoods in North America.

If you think things can't get any better in Gastown, Chinatown and the DTES, then either you have a bleak, pessimist outlook on life, or you need to get out more so you can see how bad it is there, and how good it could be if we tried to improve the area.

Cities around the world have recently proven that laying streetcar tracks brings business and redevelopment. And we have to look no further than Portland, or even Tacoma for an example.

Tacoma spent $80 million building their short 1.6 mile line, expecting only 2000 daily rides in 2010. They passed the 2000 daily average in their first month, and passed 3500 within a few years. Many businesses have seen improved sales, museums see more tourists, and many in the city attribute strong growth and construction in the area to Link. The streetcar is even free and they encourage employees in the area to park at parkades outside the downtown and shuttle in on the Link, greatly reducing traffic into the core.

In Portland, the streetcar has revitalized entire neighborhoods (Pearl), and given birth to new ones (Waterfront). All for an initial investment of around $50 million, mostly paid by the city (not the feds, not TriMet (their version of Translink)). It is such a success that they are wrapping up construction on the $120 million, 5.3km Eastside track, and it should be online in September.

[Metro-One]

I for one would honestly go to Granville Island much more than I do now if the street car was running on a permanent regular schedule.

The fact that Vision has turned their back on this project does really anger me (along with how they have turned their back on dumpster removals, keeping our cities clean, park funding, etc...) you know, all things one would think a "green" orientated council would support.

[BCPhil]

Vancouver could easily afford to maintain the existing streetcar, or expand it all by itself. Instead, it chose to spend its priorities elsewhere.

The streetcar at its current form is silly anyway, money and effort can be better spent elsewhere. At least tearing down the viaducts will give people the opportunity to redevelop the land. What will the streetcars do? Service the already well served area of downtown? :rolleyes:

Vancouver could easily afford to build out it's streetcar network, independant of Tranlink. The city of Portland paid for theirs with no help from Trimet of the Federal Government. And how can Vancouver focus so much on removing transportation choice (the Viaducts) without providing attractive and sustainable alternatives?

And Really? Money can be better spent somewhere else in Vancouver besides the DTES and the East False Creek area? Where? Those are pretty much the last places in the city (besides along the Fraser) that are ready to be further developed. And the Streetcar would be a catalyst to achieve that. Just like they were a catalyst to improve the Perl district in Portland (their former shithole). In Gastown you might not see any buildings be torn down, but you could see business there become more sustainable all year round and more profitable, thus creating more jobs.

Also, not every place in downtown is well served by transit. How do you get from the OV to anywhere in the downtown core without making at least 1 transfer? (Maybe if transit better served the OV, they wouldn't have so much trouble starting businesses in the Village). The area along Pacific, past Yaletown and BC Place is also horribly served by transit (just an infrequent community shuttle). And most other service in the area takes you on a linear path away from downtown, and doesn't focus on around downtown travel.

QFT. I can agree with the priorities here with halting what is essentially a summer-only tourist service.

By that logic, I assume they MUST close Grandville Island, Science World, every business in Chinatown and Gastown (and offices too) and residents must move out of Woodwards and the OV every winter? Right?

I never knew that downtown business was so seasonal and that our restaurants and shops only did business with rich, summer only tourists.

Crazy!

i would use it i would definately be going to granville island once a week instead of once or twice a year

Just think of all the other people that live along the proposed route, that would have direct access by comforable train to the markets, shops, and entertainment on Granville Island. I have friends who live along the route, and maybe go to Granville island twice a year, but would probably go twice a week to go to the market if they could get there easily.

If there is pent-up demand for novel transit, why not have Granville Island businesses pay for it? A stand-alone system will cost more for maintenance if run by Translink - Translink doesn't have a garage for steetcars and is even shutting down the North Vancouver bus garage - and the City already has enough on its plate. After riding streetcars in Toronto, the novelty quickly wore off, and electric buses are smoother than streetcars if driven carefully.

I would vote for Vision because they made this decision, rather than go the populist route.

The CMCH, which owns and operates Granville Island put up $500,000 for the track upgrades before the Olympics. I would imagine they would contribute more if the line was pernament, and full time. At peak times, Granville Island suffers from having to turn away people because every parking space is full. If they could park off site and streetcar in, GI could see a significant increase in business.

As well, sustainable transportation (especially when we are talking pricetags in the tens of millions and no in the billions) attracts the attention of the federal government. They love contributing money on that scale for infrastructure programs (especially when BC is now considered on the fence by the conservatives).

A garage for streetcars is a pretty simple mater. In Tacoma their streetcar barn is smaller than the Salt Building in the OV. The Portland Facility is under the 405 freeway and takes the space of less than a city block (with another block for just uncovered storage).

Vancouver was proposing to use land under the Viaducts between Quebec and Main for maintenance and storage. There is a lightly used city owned parking lot there now but could be redeveloped into something similar to what they have in Portland.

But even if that disappears due to the Viaducts plan, the current shed for the historical fleet near OV Station is tiny. A much larger facility could easily be built on the land around the Olympic Village station taking up some of the parking lot, or they can even use some of the unused city owned land around Cambie Bridge or False Creek.

And over the long haul, maintaining a streetcar can be cheaper than maintaining the same passenger capacity in buses. It can also be cheaper to operate. A single streetcar can easily carry more people than a single bus, and with the way they are built today, can easily navigate narrow and sharp turning ROWs.

With the construction of the Olympic Village causing the loss the tracks that went along 1st Ave to Science World, the vintage trains can only be run on the Olympic Demonstration tracks that run between almost- Cambie St (Olympic Village station) and almost- Granville St. (but not all the way into Granville Island).

If these vintage streetcars actually connected most of the touristy areas together (Stanley Park, Cruise Ship Terminal, Gastown, Chinatown, Science World, Granville Island, MacMillan Space Centre & Vanier Park), they could be well-used by visitors.

Since these are residential and commercial areas too, the locals could use these same streetcars to get around.

Both vintage and modern streetcars can use the same rails to run between Stanley Park and Vanier Park. The vintage streetcars could have special advertising on them geared to tourists. How much would Granville Island pay to have a vintage streetcar shrink-wrapped with a stem-to-stern ad that says "Take Me to Granville Island" ? How much would Stanley Park pay for their own shrink-wrapped car that says "All Aboard for Stanley Park " ?

Locals would likely avoid taking a "tourist trap" vintage streetcar, but the tourists would pile on. Locals would probably wait for a modern streetcar even though every streetcar would make the same stops.

Couldn't agree more.

In fact, the first, and immediate, step the city should take is laying the track, along the already build median ROW on 1st Ave all the way to Science world. They could then run the Historic Railway in an area with much more passing traffic.

I didn't know about the DHR until a chance drive passed Science World when the streetcar was sitting right there. I immediately swerved across a few lanes of traffic and into the Parking lot to check it out.

As it runs now (or used to), tucked in behind the OV station, it is hard for the passerby to see, especially seeing as the DHR ran on zero advertising. Parked infront of Science world will give it a chance to be noticed, by everyone. The city should also contribute to advertising the service.

After that is done, if the buzz is positive, the city should expand. Either with Translink or on their own. First by buying 2 or three streetcar units to run daily, year round on the SW-GI route. Then expand the tracks through to Waterfront, then Stanley park, then Yaletown.

Once more people start moving into the SEFC area with the completion of many of the many projects currently underway (including social housing: people who NEED transit), demand for transit will rise. A streetcar taking those people to shops and services on GI and giving them a single seat ride into the heart of downtown could not possibly be a failure.

[mezzanine]

By that logic, I assume they MUST close Grandville Island, Science World, every business in Chinatown and Gastown (and offices too) and residents must move out of Woodwards and the OV every winter? Right?

I never knew that downtown business was so seasonal and that our restaurants and shops only did business with rich, summer only tourists.

Crazy!



Required reading, if you frequent SSP....

streetcars: an inconvenient truth
(http://www.humantransit.org/2009/07/streetcars-an-inconvenient-truth.html)

[SpongeG]

i think an advantage of the streetcar vs the bus is you know where it goes - there is a simple map to look at and you can or most people can visualize where it will get them

busses can do the same but you stand at a bus stop and you have to ask the driver will this get me to granville island? or whatever cause its hard to visualize the destination or route when all it says is a name and a number that really feel like stupid waiting for something that may or may not get you where you want

having to ask the driver holds up the whole process - you have to shamedly walk back off the bus with people staring at you thinking what kind of moron are you, i need to get work

[BCPhil]

Required reading, if you frequent SSP....

streetcars: an inconvenient truth
(http://www.humantransit.org/2009/07/streetcars-an-inconvenient-truth.html)

I fail to see how this blog post you reference has any coloration with my quoted sarcastic quip. Elaborate please.

My quote there was in response to your idea a streetcar is only seasonal and thus not worthy of attention because the business locations they service are only seasonal, which for people with blinders on is only Granville island. Even though Vancouver has a huge tourism industry, and tourism is expected to account for 10% of future job growth in BC (with more impact in Vancouver than elsewhere), but I guess Tourism isn't an important industry then? But anyway...

My sarcasim was to point out that Granville Island, and all the other businesses in downtown near the proposed line, is not a seasonal business. They operate all year. So, to me anyway, that means that many locals frequent these "tourist traps" all year round, meaning a streetcar would not be a summer only attraction, but useful for all locals all the time. Heck, it would be MORE useful in the winter when it is raining, because who wants to walk long distances (the seawall) or ride a harbor ferry when it's cold and raining?

The post you refer to does not completely decry streetcar systems either. Far from it seems. In the post he cautions mainly against entirely replacing existing bus routes with streetcars with the only reason being that streetcars are faster.

As it is, the proposed Streetcar does not replicate an entire bus route, but it fills a gap where we have a missing link (something Jarrett seems to promote, especially in regard to Vancouver). There is no line that loops around the East Side of False Creek. Why? Because historically who would want to ride it? But now there is major growth and development in these areas and transit is needed. As well, I don't believe I used the argument that the Vancouver Streetcar should be built because it is faster than all else. It's hard to use that argument because it's hard to compare something to something else that does not exist.

I believe I actually used many of the cases Jarrett touches upon that ARE valid reasons to build streetcar. I think the physical infrastructure will bring business and development to the area (one of the most in need neighborhoods in Canada). I think streetcars will bring not only tourists, but locals to the area to spend money and work, in a way buses never would. And I think the capacity, especially in certain parts, is needed. SEFC (and Soon to be NEFC?) and the Flats are going to explode with population and employment. And not just with upper-class BMW driving elites who go to work twice a week. There is significant social housing in the area. The Main Street buses go through the edges of those neighborhoods full. More capacity and more diverse routes are needed.

In fact, in the article, he uses the Vancouver streetcar as a counter example to show the exception to the rule (pointing out the use of the dedicated ROW in the proposal could be faster than a bus).

To critique Jerretts stance on the issue, I would point out his article goes to great lengths about how bus service is trying to be like rail service. He comments how "a lot of work is going into creating bus services that can do many things that we currently associate only with rail." I read that as maybe one day, if we spend enough money getting it right, it will be as good as rail. Why not save the money on research, and instead implement proven technology? Some of my main concerns about what he raises are...


Buses still weave under a drivers hand, thus their lanes take up more space to account for driver error. I would much rather have a vehicle that doesn't weave in the narrowest ROW possible (like Streetcar) so that I can also build wider sidewalks as part of the project.
It takes a lot of work to get a bus to line up properly with elevated plaforms, so that people in wheelchairs (or the like, like strollers) can safely use the bus without the driver needing to lower a special ramp. Why not save that work and build rail, which takes care of that issue automatically.
Trains have wider doors already, so why work on that with buses?
Streetcars are also quiet as they are, why pour money into bus technology to make them like trains?
Streetcars have more doors already, to allow quick boarding of large crowds.


Again, these are all things Jerrett claims buses are trying to do, one day. If you spent enough money on a bus I'm sure it could fly. Spending more money to make something behave like something more expensive, makes that thing expensive. Instead of spending on research for better buses, we could just build streetcars, which have the added benefits that buses can't bring. He advocates that "the short-term urban-development advantage of streetcars is undeniable, the long-term advantage may be much less? " (those are a lot of guarding terms for such a key premise of his argument) and that "Big capital spending has to make sense for the long term." Which makes sense if you can wait forever to make capital investments. But I would rather not wait until 2050 (when he says the differences between bus and train might be indistinguishable) to improve the DTES and transit in the downtown core. The sooner we move, the better and more impact we can have. The revenue and growth it would generate now would offset the potential savings that we might be able to get if one day buses might be as good as trains are now. Maybe.

Next he'll say we shouldn't build Skytrain because maybe by 2060 we'll have unlimited teleporter technology, and the $$ investment in Rapid Transit will be a waste when we could have had it in a bank waiting to buy transporter pads and hire us a Scotty. We should sit tight and wait. (I know he won't advocate that; I'm being facetious by carrying his thinking through to it's logical conclusion).

So again, what did I do wrong?

Now I shall retort with a link of my own.

http://www.portlandstreetcar.org/pdf/development_200804_report.pdf

Prior to 1997, new projects were built to less than half of the allowable density allowed on a site in the CBD. Since the streetcar alignment was chosen in 1997, new development achieved an average of 90% of the FAR potential within one block of the streetcar line. This percentage steadily drops to 43% at three or more blocks from the alignment.

Prior to 1997, land located within one block of the streetcar alignment captured 19% of all development. Since the streetcar alignment was identified, 55% of all new development within the CBD has occurred within one block of the streetcar.


I challenge you to find similar results around a bus route.

There are still potential properties, many lagging behind in proposed density or completely undeveloped along the proposed route in Vancouver. Imagine what this investment could do for the DTES and Chinatown as well as the remaining dilapidated quasi-industrial properties in SEFC and along Main Street. The worst blocks in the city, on Hastings, are within 1 block of the proposed streetcar.

Ignoring the tourism potential for the line for just a minute, you can't tell me this would not have a positive effect on the area.

[BCPhil]

i think an advantage of the streetcar vs the bus is you know where it goes - there is a simple map to look at and you can or most people can visualize where it will get them

busses can do the same but you stand at a bus stop and you have to ask the driver will this get me to granville island? or whatever cause its hard to visualize the destination or route when all it says is a name and a number that really feel like stupid waiting for something that may or may not get you where you want

having to ask the driver holds up the whole process - you have to shamedly walk back off the bus with people staring at you thinking what kind of moron are you, i need to get work

Have you ever tried to give transit directions to someone on how to get to Granville Island? Not as easy as you think. It happens to me multiple times every summer (I guess I look like a knowledgeable and approachable guy), and usually they don't accept my answer of taking the bus. So now I tell them to take the Canada Line, and then walk. Which starts to get complicated when you try to tell them exactly where the Canada Line station is.

I once had this group of Texans approach me at Jack Poole Plaza and ask how to get to Granville Island on the train. By the time I explained where the entrance to the Canada Line was (and make sure they were on the Canada Line and not the Expo line), and then where to go to get a connecting bus, they were ready to walk the entire way from Cordova. That is until I said they couldn't walk the whole way and had to take a water taxi (and it was far). They tanked me for my time and hailed a cab.

Even for a lot of people who have been here for a long time it's hard to get around. Heck, on the weekend I had dinner with a friend who lives in Burnaby (and around Vancouver too for about 4 years) and told them to meet me at the new Convention Center, and hey said "Where's that?". And I said, by Canada Place, and they said "is that the stadium?" "No, it's the building with the sails." "What the fuck are sails?"

And I usually skip saying walk north and just say things like walk downhill now (eveywhere interesting always seems to be at the end of a hill anyway).

A streetcar wouldn't help in that situation, but telling a tourist to walk down this street until you see tracks then get on the train that says "Granville Island", sure would help in a lot of situations.

[bardak]

The lack of development in the DTES is not because developers are uninterested in it it is because rezoning any property in the DTES is a giant pain in the ass to say the least.

[mezzanine]

So again, what did I do wrong?


for starters, correct me if i am wrong but you seem to think that the current vancouver system of a weekend-only, summer-only service staffed by volunteers, is on the cusp of a frequent network of streetcars going from GI to the DTES to gastown to waterfront station which will be halted if the CoV goes thru with its funding suspension.

It will take a lot more funding, more than what the CoV is currently supplying to do that. I am unclear if you think the CoV can do this on its own, or if higher levels of government are chomping at the bit to give us money for this.

I fail to see how this blog post you reference has any coloration with my quoted sarcastic quip. Elaborate please.


From JW's post:

If you want a streetcar because you think it will make your city a better place, then build it for that reason. If you want a streetcar because of the development it will attract, fine, though this suggests that (as in Portland) the landowners who will benefit when the streetcar raises their property values should probably be one the main sources of the money. But you want a streetcar because it's intrinsically faster and more reliable than a bus -- well, that's just not true.
...
So let's be clear about what we're doing, and why.

[Echowinds]

Correct me if I am wrong, but that article does mention a bus requires significant investment into the route infrastructure just as a streetcar does to achieve similar speed and reliability. And doing all of that will cost almost just as much money and also a lot more political capital, because many regular people will not agree sinking a bunch of money to make a glorified bus route. A streetcar is intrinsically more popular and a lot more acceptable to the regular Joe, which also helps with increasing transit users. It's pretty much to that argument between BRT and LRT, but on a lower scale.

I can also foresee the streetcar being useful in alleviating some of Expo's capacity stress in the future.

Also, halting this current meager seasonal-service does nothing to increase the chance of a full blown streetcar network that BCPhil is advocating about. If this tiny line gets decent ridership, it adds evidence that a larger network is worthwhile.

[s211]

How much would Stanley Park pay for their own shrink-wrapped car that says "All Aboard for Stanley Park " ?

Wait? What? Huh? When did "Stanley Park" suddenly get its own chequing account?

[aberdeen5698]

I don't have an insurmountable problem with the idea of a more permanent streetcar service running from the Olympic Village to Granville Island along the existing tracks - since most of the infrastructure is already in place it would be a relatively cheap thing to implement. I'm very skeptical that it would be a money-maker, but few local transit routes in Vancouver are.

What I am very much against, though, is extending the line around the east end of False Creek and onward to Stanley Park. I really don't see any need to spend the huge amount of money to implement a tram service on that route when it's already well-served by other modes. About as far as I would be willing to go would be to extend the existing line to "connect the grid" to the Science World skytrain station.

But looking at the big picture, on a route like this with very manageable ridership volumes, there really isn't anything that a streetcar can do that a bus can't. Spur investment? Do you really think we need a streetcar to spur investment along False Creek? Have you seen all the condos going up along there?

[mezzanine]

Correct me if I am wrong, but that article does mention a bus requires significant investment into the route infrastructure just as a streetcar does to achieve similar speed and reliability.

except we don't have to make that choice as the false creek #50 bus route is already funded, in place and mirrors the existing streeetcar route on a corridor that does not have severe capacity or travel time constraints.

[twoNeurons]

Wow... no streetcar love here!

By far the BIGGEST benefit of a fixed route is being discoverable.

I don't think I have ever taken a bus to Granville Island. I had taken the DHR once because I had seen it at Science World.

I think the streetcar has to at least go to Main street Skytrain station. After that, it only expands if it's successful. If I'm on the Expo line, how to I get to the #50? I don't know the route.

[xd_1771]

I think it's been awhile since I've been around but I'm interested in providing some new data and a new side to this that might perhaps enlighten the community here. I doubt I will receive any decent "welcome back" given my history on SSP but I guess it's worth a try. So, here goes.

Now I shall retort with a link of my own.

http://www.portlandstreetcar.org/pdf/development_200804_report.pdf

There are still potential properties, many lagging behind in proposed density or completely undeveloped along the proposed route in Vancouver. Imagine what this investment could do for the DTES and Chinatown as well as the remaining dilapidated quasi-industrial properties in SEFC and along Main Street. The worst blocks in the city, on Hastings, are within 1 block of the proposed streetcar.

Ignoring the tourism potential for the line for just a minute, you can't tell me this would not have a positive effect on the area.

I think you will find it noteworthy that much if not all of the development near the streetcar was subsidized additionally so as to occur near the streetcar. It wasn't the streetcar that resulted in its own development, it was those accompanying tax cut subsidies given out by the Portland Development Commission (PDC) [1] (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-596.pdf)[2] (http://www.americandreamcoalition.org/transit/). The PDC could have given the same tax subsidies without the construction of (not to mention, expensive operations & maintenance costs) of that streetcar service. Or, there could have been no subsidies.... and no development.

There are several "streetcars are awesome" references that one could surely make use of, but I like to frown at Portland as an example because, evidently, it is among the worst.

I'm not saying I'm against the downtown streetcar in Vancouver as a future mobility option... I'm convinced that given the routing it would really simplify and enhance downtown wayfinding and movement. I would personally love to see it existing, but I'm not really sure as to whether this is even a feasible choice of spending city or TransLink funds. For one, I really don't see how your data makes any indication that the introduction of the downtown streetcar will immediately spur tons of development or provide any other huge benefit or cash for our community.

We need to consider that people will only even make use of the service if it is competitive and reasonable to use.
except we don't have to make that choice as the false creek #50 bus route is already funded, in place and mirrors the existing streeetcar route on a corridor that does not have severe capacity or travel time constraints.

Firstly, the #50 does exist. There's going to be no use spending on this streetcar right away if it's not going to do much better than the #50; speaking of which, it's also a direct continuation of the #15 Cambie bus service by interlining [3] (http://heyrickie.wordpress.com/2011/04/09/april-2011-transit-service-changes-theyre-massive/). I think that's not very clear in the local community and the route numbers are really the big hold-back. Getting rid of the number 50 altogether and having the two bus routes just simply operate as the 15 might be a wise choice to improve city wayfinding by transit for everyone at no cost... I think I might suggest it sometime. I'm really curious as to how many people on the Broadway corridor are aware of this because the current config allows for a one seat ride from Broadway & Cambie to Granville Island. The transfer to begin with, among other things, will mean that the combination Canada Line (or #15) & streetcar would take longer for local commuters from there; and I think it is exceptionally improper to be advertising or putting preference towards an expensive travel option that will be less convenient for quite a portion of the potential market.

Sure, we'll benefit from tourists, but whether it is enough to justify the cost of capital not to mention the annual operations & maintenance costs is something I seriously doubt. We're not even introducing a new option here because those options to get wherever the streetcar will go already exist as taxi cabs, driving, or route #50/others. Route #50 even has a shorter route from the downtown core via the Granville St Bridge which the streetcar will not have in the short term, going around the long way.

And you have to consider that when you think of the competitiveness: will this improve travel for a number of riders? Assuming no, then success-wise, it's quite a loophole. You could fully (and expensively) subsidize the service to make it free and it would indeed attract riders - or you could charge a cost, but would it even get enough riders to break even? You might be able to walk to where you're going faster than waiting for the streetcar... cycling, for sure... driving, also for sure. A study by the Cascade Policy Institute [4] (http://cascadepolicy.org/pdf/pub/5.2.11HighCapacityTransitStudy.pdf) showed that during a downtown event in Portland, whereas the streetcar was a free service and parking was expensive, people nevertheless chose driving. I didn't find the Portland streetcar impressive when I visited - it has to run more frequently than every 10-12 minutes, and doing that will be challenging for on-street alignments. I'm convinced that a lot of the riders on the Portland streetcar do so because most of the service is currently free, but there's a possibility that soon it will no longer be that way (http://portlandafoot.org/w/2012_TriMet_budget_cuts) - and my guess is that if and when that happens, a lot of its riders will jump ship.

Excluding "streetcar-related growth" as part of the measurement of direct streetcar-related revenues/benefits (since it's likely that, as with Portland, that growth won't actually be streetcar-related), I doubt that we're going to see much revenue if at all with this line. I'm not convinced that it's worth it.

[jlousa]

The #50 doesn't service the same route that the streetcar would though. During Beercraft week I had guests staying with me and tried to get them to by GI for an event and we looked at taking the #50 bus before seeing it would be the slowest way to get us there and be even worse returning home and ending up taking the #22 and walking. I live d/t and rarely go to GI because of the hassle to get there now but I'd love to go weekly if it were convient. Same goes for Stanley Park to an extent. These locations depend on locals first and foremost, tourists are just bonus.
I prefer buses over streetcars in most cases too, due to their flexibility, but this is one route that I feel would be better served by a streetcar. Translink certainly can't justify spending the money on building the line, but they would jump at the chance of running it if the city built it. They'd be able to reshuffle existing routes making the whole network more efficient in the process. Imagine turning the #19 back at the entrance of Chinatown instead of doing it's slow march all the way to Stanley Park and back, you'd be able to run the same service levels with fewer buses and repurpose them elsewhere.
We're talking about an investment of ~$150M w/o a penny from upper governments, an amount that could be financed using area specific CACs allowing those the benefit the most from the line to help pay for it. The city has apparently found money to spend $10s of Millions to renovate the old VPD station on Main St to become a tech incumbator. Love to see the cost/benefit on that investment in a few years. :rolleyes:

[huenthar]

GI would be a lot easier to get to from downtown for if they just made a stair down from the Granville St. bridge (or, after 1400 Howe is built, a lower ped crossing underneath the bridge connecting to the seawall on the north). Right now the quickest way there from downtown is to take a Granville bus like the #4 or #10 and walk from the first stop south of the bridge - not bad, but not very visible.

The streetcar line really has to go at least to Broadway/Arbutus to make sense, though. It'd be nice to somehow hit Vanier/Museum/Kits beach but the geography doesn't work very well...

[mezzanine]

The #50 doesn't service the same route that the streetcar would though.

IIRC, the #50 does service the same route as the existing streetcar route.


During Beercraft week I had guests staying with me and tried to get them to by GI for an event and we looked at taking the #50 bus before seeing it would be the slowest way to get us there and be even worse returning home and ending up taking the #22 and walking.

I don't know if you or your guests considered the aquabus (http://theaquabus.com/Fare_Sheet_12_001.pdf), at additional, relatively minimal cost.


Translink certainly can't justify spending the money on building the line, but they would jump at the chance of running it if the city built it.

And I would hazard a guess that they wouldn't, unless they find oodles of new funding fast, without a peep from the south of fraser mayors. streetcar operators would not be as interchangeable as regular bus drivers. At least trolley bus drivers which I assume need extra training can be easily switched to driving buses. even if the city funded all the infrastructure, TL would still have to fund a novel type of maintenance centre which would decrease overall operational flexibility. And this is for a service which is replicated by the bus-route rich area of central vancouver, and while TL just slashed long-promised BRT on KGH, Hwy 1 to langely and a whole host of other south of fraser improvments.

-----

I'm not against the streecar system, but again I am hearing different arguments for it: " it will increase ridership overall", "it will improve access to granville island", "it will spur development", " no one likes to ride a bus", and different justifications for building it/funding it.

If any CoV administration in the future does want to build a streetcar project without TL or higher levels of govt's help, they'll have their work cut out for them. :)

[Metro-One]

At the minimum, a line should be built / permanently operated from Main Street skytrain station to Granville Island (and from here future extensions could continue down the Arbutus ROW). Given how much of the infrastructure is already in place, such a 'tram" line would operate more as an LRT.

I do love how all the hard lined Vision supporters are now against the tram system, because, you know nothing green about that.....

Hence why I never subscribe to any political party, instead I make my own decisions per issue.

Another wasted opportunity is the abandonment of a cycling / pedestrian only crossing over False Creek. I was actually thinking given Ontario Street's fantastic designation as a cycling route, it would only make sense to have a cycling / pedestrian bridge connecting it to downtown over False Creek.

[mezzanine]

And this was interesting: Even with the olympic line and large crowds riding it, some (most?) businesses on graville island lost money in spite of that due to more restrictive parking regulations.

the ~ 2-4 wks for the olympics is not really a fair trial to see what longer-term trends would be, but you have to watch for all these unintended side effects with the streetcar proposal (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/02/12/bc-granville-island-olympic-business.html).

The Sandbar restaurant is just one popular Granville location that had expected to capitalize on the Games, but the restaurant's manager said new parking rules have caused a slump.

"It has affected us about 10 per cent in terms of sales," said Mike Deas-Dawlish.

As of Feb. 1, free parking on the island became pay parking with a maximum two-hour time limit and Deas-Dawlish said that's driving away customers.

Parking rules were changed to prevent the area from turning into a giant Olympic parking lot, according to a spokesman for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which manages Granville Island.

"We're concerned that with free parking on the island, people will simply use [it] as a parking lot, and go to the live sites and venues downtown," said Lino Siracusa.

Deas-Dawlish said businesses near his have seen sales drop by 35 per cent.

At some retail shops, sales have plunged nearly 60 per cent over this time last year, said Edie Orenstein, owner of Edie Hats.

[jlousa]

Why would I consider the aquabus for our group of 4? 4 translink fares plus 4 aquabus fares is a lot more then cabbing it would be.
Not sure I buy Translink being concerned about having to train drivers for the streetcar, training gondola operators was not on the list for not proceeding with the SFU tram.

[Metro-One]

And this was interesting: Even with the olympic line and large crowds riding it, some (most?) businesses on graville island lost money in spite of that due to more restrictive parking regulations.

the ~ 2-4 wks for the olympics is not really a fair trial to see what longer-term trends would be, but you have to watch for all these unintended side effects with the streetcar proposal (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/02/12/bc-granville-island-olympic-business.html).

And the exact same is true for the viaducts, yet Vision keeps on using the Olympics as an example to how the city can function without them...

[jsbertram]

Wait? What? Huh? When did "Stanley Park" suddenly get its own chequing account?

If he's a good boy, maybe Mrs Park gives him an allowance?

[mezzanine]

Why would I consider the aquabus for our group of 4? 4 translink fares plus 4 aquabus fares is a lot more then cabbing it would be.

But a major argument proponents are making is the (superior) experience of taking a streetcar.

Fair enough, you or your guests might hate boats and not think of it as superior. Maybe it was raining that day. But that would also mean that a bus route that takes you close to granville island should be as convienient.

If the #50 doesn't suit your needs (assuming you live at woodwards) i don't see why you couldn't take a #4. (http://www.translink.ca/~/media/Route_Files/78/routemap/r004.ashx) It would even drop you off at 4th avenue. just about as direct to your door as it could be for transit. but no argument that a cab would be more convenient than a bus or a streetcar.


Not sure I buy Translink being concerned about having to train drivers for the streetcar, training gondola operators was not on the list for not proceeding with the SFU tram.

I'm not sure if that's a fair comparison (http://buzzer.translink.ca/index.php/2012/01/burnaby-mountain-gondola-business-case/).


Like I said, I'm not totally against the streetcar, but if any future council that wants to pursue this will have their work cut out for them. :)

[officedweller]

Why would I consider the aquabus for our group of 4? 4 translink fares plus 4 aquabus fares is a lot more then cabbing it would be.


I suspect that he assumed that you'd take a leisurely stroll along the seawall to the Aquabus - that's what I usually suggest to guests.

[Zassk]

I'd like to know how many people actually travel to/from Granville Island per day? It seems like a poor destination to invest transit money into, to me. Surely a destination like Stanley Park/Denman is a better investment for a streetcar, and would have much greater ridership. But then, I have never really understood the allure of Granville Island. To me, it is just another collection of restaurants and grocers, stuck in permanent gloom.

[jlousa]

I think GI is used to make the point but it would only be one attraction of the line, it would also serve the populations of SWFC/SEFC/OV and provide a connection to the Canada Line and Expo line for those people, that's w/o even extending it to Chinatown/Gastown/Waterfront/NEFC/Yaletown and beyond. Just the spur to Main St would be ~$20M as the ROW exists and a section of the line is already there, we aren't talking major money. If it proves successful Phase 1 and 2 could be looked at. Phase 0 should've been a gimme, imo.

[renthefinn]

Building the streetcar would make way more sense than tearing down the Viaducts, any argument otherwise is pretty ridiculous...

[Dave2]

Building the streetcar would make way more sense than tearing down the Viaducts, any argument otherwise is pretty ridiculous...

In a nutshell:

For most of the 2000s, a weekend summer service that ran from Main St to Granville Island, using heritage rolling stock, on a disused freight line that strictly speaking, wasn't a "street" car.

2009, upgrade the western leg, at a cost of several million dollars, to a higher standard than the heritage service needed so a 'modern' streetcar could run for a few weeks in early 2010. Meanwhile, the eastern connection to Main St was torn up and not replaced.

2011, the heritage service returned, but now terminated at the Canada Line, Expo Line passengers can still connect, via a 20 minute detour via Waterfront.

2012... Heritage streetcar service cancelled .... Multi-million dollar track upgrade lies dormant.

Regardless of who "planned' this, is this what was the intended outcome? An 8 million dollar dormant line west of OV, and a trackless ROW east of OV, and no service? :koko: :hell: :sly::slob:and all the rest!

[whatnext]

Building the streetcar would make way more sense than tearing down the Viaducts, any argument otherwise is pretty ridiculous...

Exactly, and the cost would not be much higher.

[officedweller]

Could it be that the RoW is being ignored so as to "reserve" it for one of the UBC Line SkyTrain LRT Combination alternatives?

[BCPhil]

for starters, correct me if i am wrong but you seem to think that the current vancouver system of a weekend-only, summer-only service staffed by volunteers, is on the cusp of a frequent network of streetcars going from GI to the DTES to gastown to waterfront station which will be halted if the CoV goes thru with its funding suspension.

It will take a lot more funding, more than what the CoV is currently supplying to do that. I am unclear if you think the CoV can do this on its own, or if higher levels of government are chomping at the bit to give us money for this.


Well not exactly.

My first post that got all this started was that I was upset the city could just turn its back on a multi million investment (the tracks they built) and maintaining a piece of our heritage (what happens to the maintenance of the 100 year old interurban cars now?). Yet, they seem to scrap together the money to fund councilors pet projects like chicken coups, wheat farms, and most recently, orchards in city parks. The city can fund sideshows and come up with the money to close down city streets for the summer, but can't contribute anything to the hard working volunteer members of the Transit Museum society. They can fund "street art", but they can't fund a historic piece of Vancouver's Sustainable Legacy.

The cost of keeping an interesting, and historical tourist attraction going pales in comparison to what they have already invested. And with a little bit extra, they could achieve more. The DHR had decent ridership with absolutely know public awareness campaign besides a sandwich board infront of OV station.

But from that simple base argument, I grew another argument on top of it.

If the city can cut the few dollars they spend on DHR, then what hope do we have that they will expand service to a full blow streetcar?

Did they say "we want to phase out the DHR and replace it with a full and sustainable transit network"?

If they can't spend a few dollars to maintain what we have, how can we hope to see them take growing the idea of the streetcar any further?

except we don't have to make that choice as the false creek #50 bus route is already funded, in place and mirrors the existing streeetcar route on a corridor that does not have severe capacity or travel time constraints.

......

IIRC, the #50 does service the same route as the existing streetcar route.

Again, I think you are grouping my 2 arguments together, then ignoring some of the facts present in one, in favor facts of the other that you can attack.

You are right, in that the current #50 does what the current DHR railroad did, but with less flash and passion. If the CURRENT railroad was ONLY a means of transportation, then yes, the #50 is a superior service; it runs every day, all day. However, the CURRENT DHR is more than just transit. It's a living museum. It's a link to our past. It's a functioning display board for sustainable transit. It's what we want to achieve.

The 1207 car was built in 1905, in New Westminster! The 1231 is 100 years old this year. The way the lower mainland is today is a direct result of the BCER. These very trains are the ancestors or our trolley buses and Skytrain network. Is that not in and of itself worth preserving and showing off to the world?

Over 100 years ago these trains provided Vancouver residents with transportation that was greener and more sustainable than what most of us use today. It's a common link between the way things were, and the way we want things to be in the future. It's a living example of how we are coming full circle. And Vision Vancouver could use that to its advantage. It can be a tool for them to motivate change and achieve their goals of the worlds greenest city.

However, if you want to look beyond what we currently have, then no, the current #50 does not do what the proposed (future, not current) streetcar will do. The 50 even falls short if the tracks for the existing DHR are only extended as far as Science World. Explain to me how the 50 would get you from GI to SW?


I don't know if you or your guests considered the aquabus (http://theaquabus.com/Fare_Sheet_12_001.pdf), at additional, relatively minimal cost.


It's still additional cost. 4 transit tickets are already $10 for cash fare. And if you are going into Chinatown/Gastown, I don't know if the Aquabus makes any connection to Bus service into Gastown? You're looking at a lot of walking and/or at least 1 or even 2 transfers and 2 separate fares. Now what if one of those 4 people weren't as young and spry as most of us on this forum probably are. Riding the Aquabus can get tricky if you need a cane, walker, or wheelchair, and making transfers can be a literal pain in the ass. Contrast that to the level boarding platforms and 100% low floors that modern streetcars provide.


And I would hazard a guess that they wouldn't, unless they find oodles of new funding fast, without a peep from the south of fraser mayors. streetcar operators would not be as interchangeable as regular bus drivers. At least trolley bus drivers which I assume need extra training can be easily switched to driving buses. even if the city funded all the infrastructure, TL would still have to fund a novel type of maintenance centre which would decrease overall operational flexibility. And this is for a service which is replicated by the bus-route rich area of central vancouver, and while TL just slashed long-promised BRT on KGH, Hwy 1 to langely and a whole host of other south of fraser improvments.

-----

I'm not against the streecar system, but again I am hearing different arguments for it: " it will increase ridership overall", "it will improve access to granville island", "it will spur development", " no one likes to ride a bus", and different justifications for building it/funding it.

If any CoV administration in the future does want to build a streetcar project without TL or higher levels of govt's help, they'll have their work cut out for them. :)

Why do all translink staff have to be able to do the same job? I don't see Skytrain attendants driving buses. And I don't see the problem with that. There is more than enough work required to hire full time tram drivers; they don't need to moonlight as bus drivers.

And driving modern trams is a pretty simple thing. Can you push buttons and use a lever and keep an eye out for obstructions on the ROW? I bet me and you could become professional tram drivers in a mater of hours. Driving a bus is like rocket science compared to driving a modern tram.

And I don't think any of us here would be in favor of the Downtown Streetcar at the direct expense of the King George B line or other suburban service. However, if it came down to ONLY Vancouver taxpayers paying a direct gift to Surrey to get their B line going, or starting their own streetcar, then I think spending local money on local issues makes the most sense.

But the issue is that there is not enough money in general for increased transit, anywhere. And I think that would be the first thing many of us would try to fix. There should be more money spent on transit, everywhere, and the Streetcar should be one of those projects, even if it is only funded directly by the CoV.

And this was interesting: Even with the olympic line and large crowds riding it, some (most?) businesses on graville island lost money in spite of that due to more restrictive parking regulations.

the ~ 2-4 wks for the olympics is not really a fair trial to see what longer-term trends would be, but you have to watch for all these unintended side effects with the streetcar proposal (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/02/12/bc-granville-island-olympic-business.html).

Ummmm. So losing parking is bad then? Then why fund transit at all if car is king? If losing parking hurts, we should build more parking lots downtown, and the mega freeways we need to get those cars to those parking lots. Obviously transit has been a waste of time....

And in no way did the Olympics temporarily affect the travel and spending habits of locals!

That was sarcasm by the way.

But a major argument proponents are making is the (superior) experience of taking a streetcar.

Fair enough, you or your guests might hate boats and not think of it as superior. Maybe it was raining that day. But that would also mean that a bus route that takes you close to granville island should be as convienient.

If the #50 doesn't suit your needs (assuming you live at woodwards) i don't see why you couldn't take a #4. (http://www.translink.ca/~/media/Route_Files/78/routemap/r004.ashx) It would even drop you off at 4th avenue. just about as direct to your door as it could be for transit. but no argument that a cab would be more convenient than a bus or a streetcar.



I'm not sure if that's a fair comparison (http://buzzer.translink.ca/index.php/2012/01/burnaby-mountain-gondola-business-case/).


Like I said, I'm not totally against the streetcar, but if any future council that wants to pursue this will have their work cut out for them. :)

I don't get it. Are you against the streetcar because there are too many reasons to build it? Do I have to pick just one?

[officedweller]

From News1130:

NPA councillors want streetcar funding restored
The July 10th motion needs Vision support to pass

John Streit
2012/07/05

VANCOUVER(NEWS1130)- Vancouver's two NPA city councillors are calling for the immediate restoration of funds for the cancelled Downtown Historic Railway.

Councillors Elizabeth Ball and George Affleck say they were disappointed to hear funding had been pulled.

"This motion that we're bringing forward is really about restoring what is a really popular tourist and residential attraction," explains Affleck.

He doesn't understand why the city can't find $100,000 for a service that runs all summer.

"We just passed a motion last council for fireworks for Canada Day for $20,000, for ten minutes of fireworks," notes Affleck.

The Downtown Historic Railway issue will be brought up at city council on July 10th but Affleck highly doubts he'll get support from the Vision council majority.

"I would guess they knew this was happening anyways and I can't see them supporting it. I would hope they would, it's the best thing for the City of Vancouver," he says.

In their motion, the councillors say the city has spent millions on the preservation of the railway, including the initial purchase of the land from Canadian Pacific Railway and upgrades prior to the Olympics.

They want city staff to provide short-term and long-term financial and operational options for the railway.

The Downtown Historic Railway has been in seasonal operation on and off since 1998 and has carried over 133,000 passengers over that time.

http://www.news1130.com/news/local/article/379697--npa-councillors-want-streetcar-funding-restored


After an extended shutdown, Seattle may be selling its waterfront streetcars to St. Louis:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2018468517_streetcarsforsale19m.html

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2018461388_streetcars18m.html

[queetz@home]

The Downtown Historic Railway has been in seasonal operation on and off since 1998 and has carried over 133,000 passengers over that time.



133,000 passengers over a 14 year period???? WTF??? No wonder its being shut down, it looks like its not a very popular "tourist attraction" to justify its ongoing costs, even if its purely on and off seasonal.

Typical NPA and their old style nostalgia and village by the sea attitude! That streetcar in its current form is not very practical. If they are serious about having a real streetcar line, they need to advocate that it be done properly. And if it can't be done due to lack of power or public interest, then just let it go!

I recall one time when I went to the Olympic Village area for business and got off the Canada Line station, the streetcar was just sitting there, empty and waiting for passengers that doesn't seem to be coming. So at its current form, its not really as critical as the NPA think it is...

[nname]

133,000 passengers over a 14 year period???? WTF??? No wonder its being shut down, it looks like its not a very popular "tourist attraction" to justify its ongoing costs, even if its purely on and off seasonal.

It only operates on summer weekends, around 28 days per year, with mostly 1 or 2 trains for about 5 hours each day. This gives about average boarding of 45 per hours!

If there isn't enough riders to justify the cost, then the following bus routes should also be cancelled as they are performing much worse:
15, 110, 116, 134, 136, 153, 160, 177-190, 209, 211, 214, 231, 246, 301, 311, 316, 329, 337, 351-354, 388, 394, 404-407, 509, 590, 595, 601-609, 640, 791, All CS except C8, C20, C23, C30, and all NightBus except N17.

[DKaz]

Did it only run on Sunday as well? Or was it Saturday and Sunday?

[mezzanine]

It only operates on summer weekends, around 28 days per year, with mostly 1 or 2 trains for about 5 hours each day. This gives about average boarding of 45 per hours!

If there isn't enough riders to justify the cost, then the following bus routes should also be cancelled as they are performing much worse:
15, 110, 116, 134, 136, 153, 160, 177-190, 209, 211, 214, 231, 246, 301, 311, 316, 329, 337, 351-354, 388, 394, 404-407, 509, 590, 595, 601-609, 640, 791, All CS except C8, C20, C23, C30, and all NightBus except N17.

I don't buy that argument. You are comparing ridership of a tourist attraction to services outside the core to meet the needs of transit-dependent people (http://www.humantransit.org/2009/12/yet-another-transit-isnt-green-because-of-empty-buses-story.html).

[nname]

I don't buy that argument. You are comparing ridership of a tourist attraction to services outside the core to meet the needs of transit-dependent people (http://www.humantransit.org/2009/12/yet-another-transit-isnt-green-because-of-empty-buses-story.html).

I'm just saying that the ridership aren't that low as people think giving the limited operating hours - Its about 340 boardings for a service with around 10 round-trips and 20 stops.

[nname]

Did it only run on Sunday as well? Or was it Saturday and Sunday?

Saturday, Sunday, and Holidays between Victoria Day and Thanksgiving, from 12:30pm to around 5:30pm.

[queetz@home]

I'm just saying that the ridership aren't that low as people think giving the limited operating hours - Its about 340 boardings for a service with around 10 round-trips and 20 stops.

And all the more reason why it should be cancelled. Its limited to begin with, so its essentially no different than a toy train. Unlike vintage streetcars in, say Market St in San Francisco, where it runs all day and pretty much can be used as a normal transit vehicle, not just for tourist. The Vancouver streetcar is almost no different than the Stanley Park train ride, which is also for tourist. So if the CoV wants to get into that, then perhaps they should just build it from scratch. But the current way the existing summer only, time limited volunteer run but still subsidized by the city, vintage streetcar system you see right now, its silly.

No matter how you feel about Gregor Robertson or Vision Vancouver, they were absolutely right to cancel it. The NPA is just making its usual irrational noise for the sake of making noise. And while I truly believe the NPA are totally looney and the devil incarnate when it comes to Vancouver civic parties, even if they are not, it is their job as opposition to make the noise.

If you truly believe a vintage streetcar with limited seasonal service is worth it, you are MORE THAN WELCOME to start it up yourself. Go to banks, venture capitalists, and the city council and make your case heard, and take it over yourself. And if you're right, you can even make a lot of money.

Mezzanine already covered why those bus lines are justified, and he is spot on! One thing a lot of people forget is a public transit agency it NOT a for profit agency. Its universal mandate is to provide a public service, first and foremost, even if some of the public choose not to avail of the services.

[nname]

If that's the case, why would they even bother to spend 8 millions to upgrade the track in the first place? That's 80 years worth of service!

[queetz@home]

If that's the case, why would they even bother to spend 8 millions to upgrade the track in the first place? That's 80 years worth of service!

Why? The answer is simple...because they can.

You may not agree with it, but ultimately, the people who decided on it was placed there by the voters. Politicians of all shapes and stripes make decisions that are not rational, its just the way it is. The good thing though is sometimes, they can make rational decisions as well...

[allan_kuan]

Mezzanine already covered why those bus lines are justified, and he is spot on! One thing a lot of people forget is a public transit agency it NOT a for profit agency. Its universal mandate is to provide a public service, first and foremost, even if some of the public choose not to avail of the services.

Umm... Queetz, the city is not supposed to be for-profit either... and TRAMS is also a not for profit society... so your argument that a private for-profit enterprise is being funded out of city pockets as you imply is therefore invalid.

In addition, Vancouver does like to squander it's money in a few other ways that some people may consider irrational... take for example the city-sponsored viaducts removal campaign. Most of us agree that such a closure may cause gridlock, remove truck routes, and drive up costs for businesses and deliveries. And yet they're willing to fund all of these biased surveys and analyses, despite the fact that all of it costs more than what it takes to run the streetcar for a year. And for what? More park land? (There's already a lot next door, so they're just paying more for extra, really.) A few million in development monies from Concord, perhaps? (I bet you they're doing it mostly for this.) Heck, one could say that's where they're sending all their streetcar money to...

Nonsense being cut to pay for nonsense. Great. Is this what you really wished for in the city government? Because I don't see it as being any more effective as it was before.

[splashflash]

Umm... Queetz, the city is not supposed to be for-profit either... and TRAMS is also a not for profit society... so your argument that a private for-profit enterprise is being funded out of city pockets as you imply is therefore invalid.

In addition, Vancouver does like to squander it's money in a few other ways that some people may consider irrational... take for example the city-sponsored viaducts removal campaign. Most of us agree that such a closure may cause gridlock, remove truck routes, and drive up costs for businesses and deliveries. And yet they're willing to fund all of these biased surveys and analyses, despite the fact that all of it costs more than what it takes to run the streetcar for a year. And for what? More park land? (There's already a lot next door, so they're just paying more for extra, really.) A few million in development monies from Concord, perhaps? (I bet you they're doing it mostly for this.) Heck, one could say that's where they're sending all their streetcar money to...

Nonsense being cut to pay for nonsense. Great. Is this what you really wished for in the city government? Because I don't see it as being any more effective as it was before.

Viaduct removal surveys are managed by staff already employed by the city, incurring minimal extra cost. The streetcar is gimmicky and rightly cut by the City, especially as the buses are available nearby can effectively serve the same customers. I do wish that Langara were redeveloped, especially with the Canada Line nearby.