[Lee_Haber8]

I recently did a design project on a rapid transit project in Montreal comparing LRT with BRT. For the project we did a cost-benefit analysis in order to choose a technology.

What I found when calculating the external benefits is that time-savings holds the greatest value, dwarfing all other pollution and noise reduction benefits. The time-savings were even greater than the fare-revenue generated! The Skytrain will be quite a bit faster and more efficient than LRT, which will translate into higher time-savings and therefore greater external benefits.

[Metro-One]

Thats what i found the funniest. All the LRT supporters are trying to convince the Broadway business association that building and at grade LRT will be less disruptive than a subway! so funny.

[djh]

When I think of trams along Broadway, I think of one stop every two blocks or so.
When I think of Skytrain along Broadway, I think of a stop at the major intersections (Main, Oak, Granville, etc.)

So perhaps clarifying to the public how the Skytrain will be used (as a backbone going between medium-to-long-distance locations; commuting; destination-to-destination) compared to how a tram might be used (for short-to-medium-distance locations, and perhaps long-distance locations) might help set the debate on the right foundations.

[CBeats]

Posted by Mr. X on SSC years ago:

Vancouver Sun, Page A01, 25-May-2006
More city residents legging it to work

By Frances Bula

More people in Vancouver walk to work than anywhere in North America except New York City.

The proportion of people commuting by bicycle has doubled in 10 years.
And the transit system, with triple the number of people using it to go to the University of B.C. since 1997 thanks to U-Pass, has become so popular that it's in danger of losing passengers because of overcrowding.

That's the latest transportation picture for Vancouver, a city that is setting the standard as North America's "greenest" city as it bucks the trend to more cars, roads and traffic that prevails elsewhere.

Vancouver has already exceeded the goals it had for 2021 when it comes to reducing car trips and promoting cycling and walking downtown, a shift that many environmentalists and planners say is vital in order to reduce pollution and create more livable cities.

"Our projection for 2021 was to be at 18 per cent for all biking and walking trips. We're now at 27 to 32 per cent, as of 2004. This does not look very ambitious any more," says Lon LaClaire, Vancouver's strategic transportation planning engineer, the co-author of a report outlining the city's progress on its transportation plan.

That's largely because of the city's hugely successful development of a residential downtown, he said. Having 72,000 people living on the downtown peninsula surrounding the central business district is a major reason for that radical increase in walking and cycling.

"There are two things that affect how people get around -- land use and structure. The bigger piece is probably the land use." The city has also doubled the number of kilometres of cycling routes in the past 10 years and worked on ways to make walking more enjoyable.

But people outside Vancouver's boundaries are also choosing not to bring their cars.

Although trips to the city have increased by 23 per cent between 1995 and 2005, vehicle traffic decreased by 10 per cent across Vancouver boundaries in the same period.

The just-released statistics in the city report come from trip diaries, surveys and 24-hour road counts done mostly in 2004.

All of that is in stark contrast to most of the United States. The U.S. Department of Transportation noted recently that "the private vehicle, especially driven alone to work, is the mode of choice. . . . In every major metro area, workers who drove alone to work increased in numbers and share in the last 40 years."

The one problem area for Vancouver is central Broadway, where drivers in cars still account for 50 per cent of all trips. That's partly because the transit connections between the city's two major office hubs -- Broadway and downtown -- are so bad. It's also because transit along Broadway is at capacity.

"We're hitting the wall," said LaClaire. "There's no more capacity in the system for them to get on."

More than 60,000 people use the Broadway buses every day and passengers are getting left at stops because buses are so crowded, even though they're running at one a minute.

LaClaire said the Broadway/Commercial transit hub is the city's biggest congestion problem, with the result that transit use has dropped off slightly in the past year because some people are giving up.

"It's a really tragic thing for us. Anywhere else, carrying that number of people would be on [light rapid transit]."

The extension of the Millennium SkyTrain line from Vancouver Community College to Granville Street had been a priority for TransLink and was originally scheduled to be done by this year. But it was bumped for the Richmond-to-downtown Canada Line and the proposed light rail line into Coquitlam, Port Moody and Port Coquitlam.

LaClaire said some of the Broadway problems will be relieved by the Canada Line, which will create a fast link from Broadway to downtown. But, LaClaire said, the extension to Granville has to be a priority.


And this was in 2006!
But the article reveals how necessary the Millennium Line extension is, and that a major increase in capacity is needed - to Skytrain, not a tram.

[metroXpress]

^ great find

[amor de cosmos]

sounds like skytrain on broadway is long overdue. what say you, lrt people? :P

[Kwik-E-Mart]

sounds like skytrain on broadway is long overdue. what say you, lrt people? :P

Export jobs closer to people's homes and reduce the times of travel! ;)

[metroXpress]

LRT construction in Norfolk, VA

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3315/3478885570_dbf1a9b6e0.jpg

A nice one in Charlotte

http://www.geocities.com/greg_vassilakos/charlotte_lrt/m_lrv_sta_5.JPG

[mr.x]

Kits Dave Apr 30, 2009 2:52P Skytrain is the wrong system for the City of Vancouver
I believe what Mel Lehan, the coalition and community are correct in their opposition to Skytrain on the West Broadway corridor.Studies shown that Skytrain is the wrong option for the Broadway corridor. A $2.8 dollar, 12km Skytrain extention to UBC makes little sense fically or for providing transit service to the community. For the same $2.8 billion a modern 175km tram system could be implemented throught the Lower Mainland! Studies have also shown that an tram system while being slower than skytrain, has a greater carrying capacity as well as being a "greener and cleaner" alternative to Skytrain expansion. I encourage everyone to read what the alternatives are and make their own decision based on the facts and notPR representatives from the government and Translink. Here are the links to studies by UBC professor Dr. Patrick Condon. http://www.sxd.sala.ubc.ca/8_research/sxd_FRB06_tram.pdf and http://www.sxd.sala.ubc.ca/8_research/sxd_FRB07Cost_Comparisons%20Jan%209.pdf



guru Apr 29, 2009 1:46A Trams are quaint are they?
Further evidence that this author knows not of what he speaks is the this: Montreal-based Bombardier will be building 204 new streetcars for the TTC (Toronto Transit)– a contract worth $1.22 billion. Time for a writer who has an informed opinion!



guru Apr 28, 2009 8:31P Light Rail is better
Skytrain is heavy rail. It takes five times as much money to build and maintain the Skytrain than a light rail system. Skytrain tracks, once built, are ugly and massive, destroying the aesthetics of neighborhoods. The author offers opinions with no rationale to back up his claims: such as light rail shouldn't be used on heavy traffic roads. Why? His bias for heavy rail is showing when he calls the tram system "quaint". Trams are in use throughout Europe and even in Toronto for a very good reason: they work and other traffic can easily adapt to it. The Skytrain is using 18th century technology, so let's call the Skytrain quaint as well, shall we? Light rail is of human scale and fits into it's local environment in a far less intrusive manner. The author talks about our crowded system. With light rail, because it is far cheaper to build, could offer hundreds more cars and 24/7 operation which would accommodate ever increasing the ridership.



Johannes502 Apr 27, 2009 3:24P
I find it rather amusing that the columnist would conclude that a community getting together to have their voices heard in a democratic process would be a bad thing. The town hall from my understanding was about the lack of local input in the decision-making, and the worry about this being another Cambie fiasco. The greatest achievements Vancouver has accomplished in terms of planning were when the public had a hand in the decision-making. Unfortunately, the worst planning decisions have happened in this city when there was a lack of community involvement.



Marlon Anaka Apr 27, 2009 3:10P Have your voice heard
It's great that there's discussion around the issue! TransLink is currently considering several options for the Broadway – UBC corridor, whether it is Skytrain, bus or some other form of transit. They're actually looking for public input on the issue at a series of public consultations, the first of which is happening on June 1. And as more people move to the area, it become even more important to make sure our city remains livable - especially since population is estimated to increase to 3.4 million by 2040. To learn more about these public consultations, go to bepartoftheplan.ca

[Metro-One]

:previous: I hate to say it, but this is why the majority of North American cities have such poor public transit, because of misinformed dribble such as these comments. It is actually amazing that Vancouver was able to implement such a relatively terrific metro system in the first place! We really need to go more public, we have to organize a civic event and start producing flyers with all of our 22 points and our rebuttal to the LRT people's attempt to debunking our points.

Honestly, do these people even do any research, do they even understand the basics of mass transit? There are so many errors in those comments it is beyond belief.

[mr.x]

:previous: I hate to say it, but this is why the majority of North American cities have such poor public transit, because of misinformed dribble such as these comments. It is actually amazing that Vancouver was able to implement such a relatively terrific metro system in the first place! We really need to go more public, we have to organize a civic event and start producing flyers with all of our 22 points and our rebuttal to the LRT people's attempt to debunking our points.

Honestly, do these people even do any research, do they even understand the basics of mass transit? There are so many errors in those comments it is beyond belief.

I agree with you....but:

Where do we get the money for printing flyers? Organizing a civic event? It costs quite a bit.

Personally, I think we really need our own website...or at the very least, perhaps buy a domain name for the blog and upgrade it. That's a starter.

[Metro-One]

We should try and get things more together for the summer.

Anyways, just a side note, this weekend i went downtown friday and saturday nights and i used skytrain to do so because it is fast and frequent. If we did not have skytrain and had a street level LRT running down Kingsway or some other road in its place, i would have driven both nights and almost every other time i go downtown. Why? Becuase i see no advantage (especially during non-rush hour times) to using a street grade LRT over a car.

Again, i use skytrain because it is frequent, fast, clean and reliable. Trust me, there are many transit users such as myself that will not use a street grade LRT over a car for long trips (if it is a km or 2, sure, but anything more, nope). And to those people who think that the entire world can work, play, live, go to school, etc... all within a a square kilometer or so have no idea what the real world is like. For example, what do you do if you live and work in Coquitlam, but your wife works in Richmond, and you son goes to SFU while your daughter goes to UBC and you r family income is already strapped to the point where you can not afford to house your children on campus? Not to mention special work events, family outings or special purchases that will take you to almost any corner of the Metro area, this is called the real world, and this is why all the major regions need fast frequent mass transit connecting them.

[usog]

You should probably start with a blogspot account or something, a central place to put all the arguments and rebuttals as they come up. I'm pretty sure those are free.

[metroXpress]

Perhaps you can create a free forum and get the LRT supporter to join the discussion.


I requested a discussion question on bepartoftheplan.ca and I hope they will start a discussion question soon.

[mr.x]

You should probably start with a blogspot account or something, a central place to put all the arguments and rebuttals as they come up. I'm pretty sure those are free.

We already have.
www.ubcskytrain.wordpress.com

[metroXpress]

I got a link to free forums. They aren't bad...only a few ads =]

http://www.forumotion.com/


I have one question, where do LRT supporters post their counter points?

[mr.x]

Perhaps you can create a free forum and get the LRT supporter to join the discussion.


I requested a discussion question on bepartoftheplan.ca and I hope they will start a discussion question soon.

There's no discussing with the LRT supporters, especially Johnston. They're arrogant, and they would never admit they are wrong....not to mention they seem to have loss all logic and common sense.

Most of us probably wouldn't want to set up a forum, and then only have to debunk their posts every single day.

[metroXpress]

Another question:

Where do LRT supporters, like Johnston, post their arguments?

[mr.x]

http://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/

PriceTags blog

Tyee

The comments section on the ubc skytrain blog too, before we shut down the comments features.

[metroXpress]

^ Thanks! I missed half of the discussion ;)

[mr.x]

NEW DEVELOPMENT



We've opened a comments page on the blog and we've also created a poll on route and construction methodology:
http://ubcskytrain.wordpress.com/yakking/

[metroXpress]

I suggested the poll we have here for SKYTRAIN TO UBC to the Buzzer blog.

Read their reply via: http://buzzer.translink.ca/index.php/2009/05/wanted-questions-for-the-friday-fun-polls/

By Jhenifer Pabillano, May 7, 2009 @ 9:50 am

[Metro-One]

Here is a rendering of a new LRT station to be built in Calgary (a new extension of the C-train). So if the LRT supporters use the C train as an example (which now involves many elevated and underground kilometers in planned and u/c renovations and new construction) we can use this pic as an example. Where in hell would you fit stations this large along broadway with its narrow width and short blocks? This is why the C-train is able to achieve decent ridership levels, because for the most part it has its own ROW and where it is running along a street it has long and large stations.

That is about the width of 4 or 5 traffic lanes. Forget ever trying to widen the sidewalks along broadway or adding any design elements, left turn lanes, parking lanes, etc...

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y54/frinkprof/26thstreet.jpg

[metroXpress]

^ Yes, I saw this in the C-Train thread as well. It will be overly crowded if we were to have something like this on Broadway. Even elevated SkyTrain on Broadway would be terrible.....
http://cdn.wn.com/o25/ph//2008/12/29/bcae899f957584fde6c911af2a6ec3d0-grande.jpg

Calgary's again...

http://www.cdnarchitect.com/common_scripts/xtq_images/141238-97338.jpg



and I came across this:
http://www.sandierpastures.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/dubai-metro-image-2.jpg

[Metro-One]

look at that pic of Japan, putting the greater good over the individual and functionality over what is "pretty." Again, that is why Japan has such great transportation systems, because there you can actually build an elevated heavy rail structure and the majority of people are glad to have it.

Also i find those structures create their own urban beauty among such vibrant cities. In Japan they actually know how to integrate elevated structures in to the city fabric correctly, instead of letting the land beneath them rot and die. I find the Georgia viaducts to be mixed bag. Having the skytrain and the skate park built under them along with a few other surface roads at the easter portion = an interesting and well used city scape, the cesspool in the middle portion of the viaducts = poor use of land and integration, then the portion that goes between GM place and the skytrain station and condo towers with at grade streets below and Costco bellow = excellent city scape and use of land

In fact that one small portion of downtown where there is GM place, BC place, several condo towers, at grade streets, public courtyards at the stadiums, shopping, two elevated road viaducts and the skytrain viaduct with a station all crammed in to such a small space is my favorite part of downtown. It has a true big city feel in which every square inch of land and air it utilized for functionality, and despite what some people would call having all these "ugly" structures, it has remained relatively vibrant with pedestrian activity.

[mr.x]

^ well, with Japan's density and commuter travel times (i believe the average daily commute time is 2 hours!) functionality would certainly take importance over everything else.

[Alex Mackinnon]

That picture of japan may not look pretty, but if you look at it closer it has quite a high zoom to it. I'm sure if you took a picture down main st. between the viaduct and the skytrain it wouldn't look all that much different given the same lens setup.

[Metro-One]

:previous: If you go to Japan those viaducts (road, rail, and pedestrian) criss cross the cities. Some of them are very wide too.

[racc]

:previous: If you go to Japan those viaducts (road, rail, and pedestrian) criss cross the cities. Some of them are very wide too.

Closer to home, Granville Island is a great example of what can be done under elevated structures.

The problem is that we have too many lazy planners and urban designers that are not able or willing to do the work needed to create great public spaces beneath elevated structures.

[frinkprof]

Here is a rendering of a new LRT station to be built in Calgary (a new extension of the C-train). So if the LRT supporters use the C train as an example (which now involves many elevated and underground kilometers in planned and u/c renovations and new construction) we can use this pic as an example. Where in hell would you fit stations this large along broadway with its narrow width and short blocks? This is why the C-train is able to achieve decent ridership levels, because for the most part it has its own ROW and where it is running along a street it has long and large stations.

That is about the width of 4 or 5 traffic lanes. Forget ever trying to widen the sidewalks along broadway or adding any design elements, left turn lanes, parking lanes, etc...

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y54/frinkprof/26thstreet.jpg
It should be noted that the station (26th Street Station) and some of the adjacent right of way pictured here in the median of Bow Trail was actually relocated due to changes made to appease a NIMBY group. It was originally to be on the north side of Bow Trail (left side of the rendering). The change was made because the elevated section to the east was shortened due to NIMBY concerns. These particular NIMBYs were fairly well organized and had their own website, which is still up (www.bestwestlrt.com, I suggest looking at the section Our Research -> How it Will Look for some laughs). Notice as well that access to this station will be from the crosswalk at the intersection near the top of this rendering. I personally think this is a bit of a safety concern, but it is mitigated by the fact that this will be a low-volume station.

At any rate, a lot of C-Train expansion, both currently under construction and proposed, has right-of-way reserved, in many cases years in advance as part of planning new subdivisions. I presume that Broadway does not have right-of-way reserved, so unless the LRT or Trams being proposed will be in-street running in mixed traffic, Broadway would need to be widened to accommodate the line.

[mr.x]

^ LOL....WTF (points at the vandal):
http://www.bestwestlrt.com/Content/Pictures/PictureHandler.ashx?PicId=29979
http://www.bestwestlrt.com/Content/Pictures/PictureHandler.ashx?PicId=31610
From bewtwestlrt.com




Their website is absolutely retarded. Reading it just makes me sick.

It's unfortunate that they won that battle, but lets hope that they won't win future battles in both Calgary and Vancouver.

[frinkprof]

Their website is absolutely retarded. Reading it just makes me sick.

It's unfortunate that they won that battle, but lets hope that they won't win future battles in both Calgary and Vancouver.They didn't fully win. It ended up as kind of a compromise. Oh yeah, and it ended up being $20M more expensive if you can believe it. This group mobilized fairly quickly so it might have made it difficult, but I would like to have seen a counter-group started to debunk some of their arguments, like what you guys are doing here. Anyway, I won't get into specifics so as not to turn this into a discussion about Calgary/C-Train.

Oh yeah, I don't know if it has happened yet or not, but I would be prepared to have one or more people representing their side of the argument to come on SSP to debate the issue. It happened with us, and while it wasn't drawn out, it wasn't pretty either.

[Kodii]

Still no reply from the Rail to the Valley people? Maybe they are unaware of our response?

Or maybe we should reciprocate and claim that they are unable to respond to our arguments and therefore we "win". That is, if we are as arrogant as they were towards their own arguments.

[Metro-One]

In that render why would there be cracks in the structure? I have never seen cracks that numerous or extensive in the expo line structure and it is near 25 years old. What a bunch of garbage that render is. Also why is there graffiti on the houses as well? And why is there no graffiti on the elevated highway structure in the background? hehe.

[metroXpress]

Mr X and I suggested a discussion question on bepartoftheplan.ca....this is what they said:



colleen, http://www.translink.bc.ca replies:
May 8th, 2009 at 2:42 pm

Hi Alain and X:

The UBC Line is an important discussion question, particularly because there are many people who are interested in weighing in on this topic. Unfortunately, it’s a bit too early to include the topic in this forum because we are currently in the early stages of the UBC Rapid Transit Study which is being undertaken with the Ministry of Transportation. As part of the study we are in the the midst of developing our consultation plan and we will be engaging with stakeholders and the public throughout the year. Look for more info about this in the coming months. You can also check out the consultation page on TransLink’s website for updates at http://www.translink.ca/en/Get-Involved/Public-Consultations/UBC-Rapid-Transit.aspx

One thing to keep in mind is that TransLink is facing a substantial funding shortfall, which is one of the key reasons that we are hosting this discussion. With this in mind, if we don’t find the funding for the shortfall we might not be able continue with the UBC project at all.

[DKaz]

The renderrings are completely one sided, the vandals will go after elevated road/freeway structures as well. NIMBYism at its best. Maybe they should focus less on NIMBYing transit projects and more on creating youth groups to prevent them from straying into the wrong path.

^ well, with Japan's density and commuter travel times (i believe the average daily commute time is 2 hours!) functionality would certainly take importance over everything else.

Clarification, 2 hours EACH WAY!

Mine is 1:45 each way.

[Alex Mackinnon]

The renderrings are completely one sided, the vandals will go after elevated road/freeway structures as well. NIMBYism at its best. Maybe they should focus less on NIMBYing transit projects and more on creating youth groups to prevent them from straying into the wrong path.



Clarification, 2 hours EACH WAY!

Mine is 1:45 each way.

And today's lesson is don't live in Mission kids.

[twoNeurons]

The renderrings are completely one sided, the vandals will go after elevated road/freeway structures as well. NIMBYism at its best. Maybe they should focus less on NIMBYing transit projects and more on creating youth groups to prevent them from straying into the wrong path.



Clarification, 2 hours EACH WAY!

Mine is 1:45 each way.

To be fair... this commute time in Japan really primarily applies to the Tokyo area. It's often touted, because I think ~20% of Japan lives in this area.

Other cities are nowhere NEAR as bad.

[DKaz]

And today's lesson is don't live in Mission kids.

Shut up, I was working in Abbotsford before I decided to switch jobs. And in my defense, I get to work for an hour each way on the train so I only have to be in the office for 6 hours so nyeh.

[mr.x]

Mr X and I suggested a discussion question on bepartoftheplan.ca....this is what they said:


Actually no, I didn't suggest that.

[mr.x]

The renderrings are completely one sided, the vandals will go after elevated road/freeway structures as well. NIMBYism at its best. Maybe they should focus less on NIMBYing transit projects and more on creating youth groups to prevent them from straying into the wrong path.



Clarification, 2 hours EACH WAY!

Mine is 1:45 each way.

lol, yea i meant each way....not hard to wonder why they've got the highest suicide rate. What's the hourly workday like?

[mr.x]

Still no reply from the Rail to the Valley people? Maybe they are unaware of our response?

Or maybe we should reciprocate and claim that they are unable to respond to our arguments and therefore we "win". That is, if we are as arrogant as they were towards their own arguments.

Well, in all fairness it did take us quite awhile to respond to their rebuttal....and then, because of that, they said:


"It was brought to Zweisystem’s attention yesterday that a blog site was established by the UBC SkyTrain Lobby, critiquing modern LRT. Zweisystem responded, posting corrections for the many myths, half truths and anti-LRT claptrap so often used by the SkyTrain lobby. The SkyTrain folks removed the comments and by doing so, fully admit that they are afraid of the truth. Zweisystem is not surprised as this is exactly how the SkyTrain lobby operates: repeat a lie so often that it soon becomes a fact. What is lost in the LRT/SkyTrain debate is that LRT has made SkyTrain light-metro obsolete decades ago, something the SkyTrain lobby fails to admit.

Why should Rail for the Valley supporters be concerned with a UBC SkyTrain? Simple, the $4 billion subway (RAV was to cost a mere $1.3 billion and now it’s direct cost may exceed $2.8 billion) will suck money away from all ‘rail’ projects for the Fraser Valley by spending hard earned tax dollars on another needless gold-plated rapid transit project for Vancouver. We must debunk the SkyTrain myth now.

There is no mention who the UBC SkyTrain lobby are and one wonders why they are so afraid of debate?."




----------

edit: they had the brains [or rather lack thereof] to post this the other day:

Trams in tight places
May 8, 2009 by zweisystem

Under the department, a picture is worth a thousand words, trams, streetcars and their kin can operate in very tight places, this funicular in Portugal should dispel any notion that ‘rail’ transit can’t operate in tight locations!

http://railforthevalley.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/trams-in-tight-places1.jpg?w=200&h=321



Apples and oranges. It's like trying to call a smart car a mini-van.

[mrjauk]

...and I was going to fire off a question in the comments section, but didn't have the energy to do so. But I will submit the question here in response. It was going to go something like this.

"Very funny. Am I correct to assume that post is an only somewhat tongue-in-cheek implicit response to those of us who support a true rapid transit system for the Broadway corridor ending at UBC? If I am correct, then your post, like many of your other arguments, is disingenuous at best. Nobody who supports a subway type system along Broadway would argue that trams are not capable of being utilized on steep grades and in tight spaces.

The point that we supporters of skytrain to UBC are trying to make is that there are many trade-offs involved in the building of a rapid transit line to serve UBC. You LRT-for-UBC supporters are cherry-picking the most promising aspects of each of the elements (cost, capacity, obtrusiveness, frequency, etc.) without genuinely discussing the trade-offs that must be made. You know, an LRT from Broadway/Commercial to UBC could be built quite cheaply (relative to Skytrain) but that would necessitate a capacity that would be much lower than Skytrain. Conversely, as desired capacity increases, so do the costs.

So, please set out a couple of scenarios in which you are consistent with your projections of costs/capacity/disruptiveness during building/obtrusiveness to other forms of traffic (bicycle, foot, vehicular). By the way, what is the hourly passenger capacity of that Lisbon line you've pictured?

Signed,
It's time for an honest discussion about the alternatives.

[deasine]

Apples and oranges. It's like trying to call a smart car a mini-van.

Even worse. Cars and Mini Vans are still well cars. A funicular and a LRT are WAY different.

[Metro-One]

Why do they say we are backing down to a debate? I am the first person who wants to debate them at an open house. The LRT group seems very childish to me and has already resorted to throwing mud because they have no clever response (essentially, they know our facts and demand for them to display an actual conceptual design for this magic LRT system of their's that has all the benefits of skytrain with a fraction the cost, has painted them into a corner).

Our responses should be posted on their blogs now.

Also what do they mean they know who the skytrain group is? They know our names! haha. They think we are translink or BC liberal insiders, so funny, when in reality we are the every day citizens that actually use transit! And many of us have actually been to many parts of the world and know how decent transit operates!

[mrjauk]

Why do they say we are backing down to a debate? I am the first person who wants to debate them at an open house. The LRT group seems very childish to me and has already resorted to throwing mud because they have no clever response (essentially, they know our facts and demand for them to display an actual conceptual design for this magic LRT system of their's that has all the benefits of skytrain with a fraction the cost, has painted them into a corner).

Our responses should be posted on their blogs now.

Also what do they mean they know who the skytrain group is? They know our names! haha. They think we are translink or BC liberal insiders, so funny, when in reality we are the every day citizens that actually use transit! And many of us have actually been to many parts of the world and know how decent transit operates!

I can categorically state that apart from deriving the commuter benefits from it, I will in no other way benefit from the choice of a Skytrain versus an LRT component. Moreover, I am sympathetic to the view of the rail to the valley group but also think that they're being extremely childish and not debating in good faith. Finally, I hate the Social Credit government of Mr. Campbell and will be voting Green party in this, my first provincial election since I returned home after having lived 15 years abroad.

[usog]

Might as well just call them out and challenge them to a public debate of the merits of each system. I wonder who would be best to represent Skytrain though since we're just transportation junkies and not a political lobby group.

[Canadian Mind]

only difference between being junkies on something and being lobbiests is the 100 dolars per plate you pay at meetings.

[Rusty Gull]

Might as well just call them out and challenge them to a public debate of the merits of each system. I wonder who would be best to represent Skytrain though since we're just transportation junkies and not a political lobby group.

There actually have been debates of this nature before. I believe Mike Harcourt carried the torch for the pro-SkyTrain side at the last one of this kind...

[Metro-One]

The largest difference between our pro skytrain group vs. this LRT organization is we are looking at the transit system as a whole. We are not against LRT, in fact we support it and would love to see LRT built along many corridors in Greater Vancouver, we simply believe the on this particular route grade separated metro is the appropriate choice. We believe that a good transit system consists of a mix of commuter heavy rail, local trams, grade separated metro (skytrain), LRT feeders/secondary relief routes, buses, rapid buses, ferries, etc... This is what has made transit in Europe and Asia successful. Despite this, it seems the LRT group only wants LRT and nothing else, they seem to be following the American model (which over the last 50 years has not been known for good public transit) that only LRT can solve all. In the end using only LRT will become a band aid solution. Variety is the key, and that is what we support.

Now that message i want posted on or blogs, media releases, etc...

[Xerx]

hey they have "debunked' us again, although seems like they are repeating themselves.

http://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/2009/05/12/debunking-the-skytrain-myth-part-2/

[Metro-One]

These LRT supporters still have not talked about the "broadway" corridor. Again they using such broad references it is sickening. Really, who are these people? They did not answer one of our responses directly. And i love their fudging of numbers, and the best is how they used Hong Kong as an example of LRT ridership numbers (hmm, a little difference between Van and Hong Kong in population). But they fail to mention Hong Kong's metro system, hehe. Also again they seem to think we are only for skytrain, when nothing is further from the truth. Again, why follow a US system? The only reason so many LRTs are being built right now is because the US system is to cheap to build a decent metro and European cities have been building their metros for 50 years or more and now are focussing on the LRT feeders.

Again, pulling hair out! Reading their garbage gives me the same horrible feeling as when i read right wing American news releases, so much misinformation it makes you wonder how people have come this far!

[Spork]

Well, at least the responses are getting shorter. I think that the only response needed from here is: "[citation needed]"

[mr.x]

Sounds like they either don't understand what we're talking about OR they know they've been defeated but aren't willing to admit it, instead choosing to repeat points that we have already debunked.


Anyhow, a rebuttal on every "point" they've made is needed ASAP:

The “Debunking the SkyTrain myth. Rail for the Valley answers the UBC SkyTrain Lobby” , post……..

http://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/2009/04/23/debunking-the-skytrain-myth-rail-for-the-valley-answers-the-ubc-skytrain-lobby/

…….has become the most read and commented one to date, yet no one with the SkyTrain lobby has posted a credible reply. On the various SkyTrain blog sites, the one term used over and over is “cherry-picking” and how the LRT supporters cherry pick the best about modern LRT when they comment about SkyTrain. This argument is pathetic and certainly demonstrates a lack of knowledge about light rail, SkyTrain, and public transit as a whole!

What is forgotten by the various supporters of SkyTrain, is that it is a proprietary light-metro which was made obsolete by light-rail/LRT in the early 90’s. Light-metro had little advantage over LRT and cost a whole lot more to build and operate. As one could build up to ten times more light-rail for the cost of one light-metro line, the writing was on the wall so to speak for the mode. The RAV/Canada line is testament to the fact light-metro is obsolete, RAV being a regular heavy-rail metro was cheaper to build than SkyTrain light-metro! No wonder the mode disappeared into obsolescence. As SkyTrain is a proprietary (not compatible with other transit modes) light-metro, the owner, Bombardier Inc., continue to sell the mode today as a prestigious airport people mover and not an urban transit system. Unless a transit system has routes with traffic flows in excess of 500,000 passengers a day, there is no economic case to build a subway.

Light-rail is a generic transit mode and adheres to the basic operational capabilities obtained by other systems, it all interchangeable. Speed of a light rail vehicle is based on motor size; commercial speed of a LRT line is based on the quality of rights-of-ways and station or stop spacing; capacity of a transit system is a function of headway; the industry standard for LRT climbing grades is 8%, with more powerful vehicles able to climb 10% grades and so on. Light rail operating on a reserved rights-of-ways or routes reserved strictly for trams (the Arbutus Corridor is an excellent example of a reserved rights-of-ways) was found to bring a slightly superior service than light-metro, at a far cheaper cost! Except for Vancouver, no other city in the world uses the existing six SkyTrain installations solely for urban transportation. The SkyTrain lobby would have us think otherwise.

The following are general facts about modern LRT, not cherry-picked, that the SkyTrain lobby, wish the general public not to know.

1. A twined tracked LRT line has the ability to carry over 20,000 persons per hour per direction.
2. A light rail vehicle has a passenger capacity, based on the industry standard of all seat taken and 4 persons per metre/sq., depending on size of vehicle, range from 95 persons to 350 persons, depending on the size of vehicle. (Note: The SkyTrain lobby uses capacity formulas of all seats taken and standing passengers at 6 or 8 persons per metre/sq.!)
3. LRT or streetcar, operating on-street, with no reservation and no preemptive signaling is still about 10% faster than a bus on the same route.
4. One light rail vehicle (1 driver) is as efficient as six to eight buses (6 to 8 bus drivers).
5. On-street LRT (streetcar) can be built for under $10 million/km. (not including vehicles), what drives up prices is needless add-ons, strictly for political or bureaucratic reasons!
6. It is not speed that attracts customers to transit, rather it is the overall ambiance of the system including ease of use, ease of ticketing, vehicle comfort (seating) and the seamless or no transfer journey.
7. Modern light-rail has a proven ability to attract the motorist from the car, where 20% to 30% modal shifts, car to LRT, are common on new systems. SkyTrain’s claimed high ridership is based on Translink management cascading every bus and bus rider it can onto the metro!

It is no great feat that a simple tram line in Hong Kong carries over 260,000 a day, or a modern LRT line in the same city carries over 25,000 pphpd in the peak hours. Yet the SkyTrain lobby bang the drums and shouts great things if SkyTrain achieves anything close to what modern LRT does in every day service. The LRT types do not cherry-pick statistics, rather state operational facts that pertain to light rail.

Quoting Gerald Fox, a well respected American transit expert about SkyTrain, “……anyway, most of the world has moved on.” It’s time the SkyTrain lobby do to!

[Whalleyboy]

6. It is not speed that attracts customers to transit, rather it is the overall ambiance of the system including ease of use, ease of ticketing, vehicle comfort (seating) and the seamless or no transfer journey.

that one right there is just proof enough why skytrain extension would be better. i mean it would be annoying to to people wanting to transfer between skytrain and canada line

[mrjauk]

If you combine

3. LRT or streetcar, operating on-street, with no reservation and no preemptive signaling is still about 10% faster than a bus on the same route.


with

5. On-street LRT (streetcar) can be built for under $10 million/km. (not including vehicles), what drives up prices is needless add-ons, strictly for political or bureaucratic reasons!

Assuming that the $10 million/km is an actual price, and there's absolutely no reason to think that this is even 1/4 of what it would cost to build it down the middle of Broadway, that is about $120 million for a 10% improvement in speed. That's pretty cost effective.

What would be the relative operating costs of a proposed LRT versus the existing B-line?

[usog]

I think the main point you have to make is that a lot of the advantages LRT gives are mutually-exclusive and deny you the other ones on the list. Like, you can either have the cheap per-mile cost they quote, or the high capacity that they give, but not both.

[metroXpress]

Actually no, I didn't suggest that.

interesting...it says X there so I thought it was you

[DKaz]

I wrote this on that blog, just wanted to post it here in case they deleted it:

Sad to see that the Rail for the Valley group which I support is going against the Skytrain to UBC group which I also support. Are you guys going to make me choose? I think DMUs/LRTs are the best mode for the revived Interurban but Skytrain just makes absolutely more sense down this dense, heavily used corridor. I calculated that Skytrain would take 21 minutes to get from Broadway to UBC vs. 28 minutes for LRT vs. 30 minutes for a busway for the 99 B-Line. The 84 bus currently takes 30 minutes to get from VCC-Clark to UBC. Why would we go through the cost of building LRT for minimal improvement to travel times along a corridor that certainly does not have any trouble attracting ridership? If we couldn't go with Skytrain, I would rather see a busway built for the 99 for much less. I don't doubt that LRT will provide double the capacity of buses but the students at UBC want a true, fast metro service that'll get them places as quick as possible. For UBC students living in Coquitlam, Skytrain would mean a transferless ride in 53 minutes vs. 65 minutes by LRT including transfer.

No wonder there's the backclash against Rail For the Valley here. Had I known about their efforts, I would've pulled my support for them earlier. There is NO WAY they can build LRT for $10 million... to build a proper LRT that can achieve 30 minute speeds including proper prioritization, that's close to $100 million a km. Edmonton's ground level SLRT extension from Health Sciences to Century Park is $675 million for the 7.5km route to achieve traffic separation and I heard that the LRT will still be forced to travel at the vehicular speed limit of 60km/h down the median of 111 St.

(The 500m section from University to Health Sciences cost $500million... a lot of technical challenges were involved with that portion)

[Dave2]

. Zweisystem is not surprised as this is exactly how the SkyTrain lobby operates: repeat a lie so often that it soon becomes a fact.





LOL.... D Grumpy Zweisystem is a master at the big lie, he constantly claims that "nobody builds with Skytrain" despite constantly being reminded of systems built in New York and Asia in recent years.

. What is lost in the LRT/SkyTrain debate is that LRT has made SkyTrain light-metro obsolete decades ago, something the SkyTrain lobby fails to admit.


Hey Malcolm, 1995 called, it wants its debating point back. Anyway, it's pointless to debate the sole member of the "South Delta Light Rail Committee"; you'll never win.

[mr.x]

^ well actually, Zweisystem and Malcolm are the same person. :)


LOL, "sole member of the 'South Delta Light Rail Committee'".

[fever]

It may be technically possible to build LRT for $10m/km, and the streetcar demonstration project is a good example of that. That price will buy rails, ties, gravel, and trains. It won't buy an existing railbed, pay for relocating utilities or adding signal prioritization, and it won't include additional grade-separation. That price might be something they could use to promote the Southern railway in Surrey as a bare bones light rail line, and I hope they do even if I would prefer additional grade separation, but it's not realistic on Broadway.

[biketrouble]

I don't get this "skytrain would be better because there would be no transfers" argument. Is the highest goal of the transit system to provide a seamless journey from coquitlam and burnaby to UBC? Is it that important a goal when people travelling on the Expo and RAV lines will have to transfer anyway.

I'm not opposed to Skytrain but I do think there needs to be an informed debate on the alternatives.

I do think that it's telling that Malcolm's first post on this subject has been up for *two weeks* and yet you are still talking about needing rebuttals for all of his points. This is hardly a well-oiled political machine you've got going here - and perhaps you ought to consider the possibility that he is right in some of his arguments.

I also think that the commenter "David" makes a great point in response to (I believe) one of you guys when he points out that some of your arguments in favour of Skytrain are basically about preserving space for cars. This is not a good basis for argument about transit in a built-up urban environment unless you are still living in the 1950s (and it was wrong then too.)

[Canadian Mind]

I don't get this "skytrain would be better because there would be no transfers" argument. Is the highest goal of the transit system to provide a seamless journey from coquitlam and burnaby to UBC? Is it that important a goal when people travelling on the Expo and RAV lines will have to transfer anyway.

It's not the most critical thing in my opinion, but it does make sence seeing as how the line simply stops at VCC clark when it could instead keep on going. the skytrain extension is a natural progression whereas the LRT would be like throwing pepper onto cheesecake. There are better applications for it than here.



I think that what needs to be done to debunk the whle machine is to examine 3-5 LRT systems in other cities and compare them to our current system based off of the following criteria:

1. Current persons per hour
2. Designed maximum persons per hour
3. Persons per square meter
4. Travel times
5. Cost per kilometer overall (in current dollars)
6. Cost per kilometer per catagorised areas (light residential, dense residential, light commercial, dense commercial, agricultural or un-developed areas, special interest areas with many technical difficulties, etc)
7. Development impact on surrounding areas along the route
8. How it impacts area once developed, including how it meshes with the already established cityscape
9. Safety of the route

I think that if we catagorise a couple systems in Canada, the US, and internationally and compare them to what we already have in Skytrain we can develop the best argument in support of Skytrain. And just to be sure to knock the wind out of them, research the very best systems possible so that they have nowhere to turn if skytrain already beats the best they can offer.

If I've missed anything, please let me know. I would also be willing to assist in some of the research if someone givesme a helpful hint as to where to start looking.

[biketrouble]

VCC Clark would be an odd place to have to transfer, especially if you'd already transferred at Broadway/Commercial. But if LRT really is that much cheaper, you could probably rip up the 1km or so of track from Commercial to VCC and replace it using only a fraction of the savings.

[Metro-One]

So many people would find that the most odd and useless transfer ever if coming from the M line, i know i would. Look at all the points we have laid out, it is much more than just a transfer, it is everything from speed, to train/station lengths, the amount of surface disruption, safety, ridership numbers, etc...

[mr.x]

I don't get this "skytrain would be better because there would be no transfers" argument. Is the highest goal of the transit system to provide a seamless journey from coquitlam and burnaby to UBC? Is it that important a goal when people travelling on the Expo and RAV lines will have to transfer anyway.

It certainly isn't the highest goal, the no transfer from the M-Line, but it's one of many goals/reasons. It's an extension of the route, very much unlike the Canada Line in which it was not an extension of an existing route. When you reduce transfers, you reduce travel times and inconveniences and thus it also increases ridership.




I'm not opposed to Skytrain but I do think there needs to be an informed debate on the alternatives.

I do think that it's telling that Malcolm's first post on this subject has been up for *two weeks* and yet you are still talking about needing rebuttals for all of his points. This is hardly a well-oiled political machine you've got going here - and perhaps you ought to consider the possibility that he is right in some of his arguments.

Malcolm's post was debunked more than a week ago.


I also think that the commenter "David" makes a great point in response to (I believe) one of you guys when he points out that some of your arguments in favour of Skytrain are basically about preserving space for cars. This is not a good basis for argument about transit in a built-up urban environment unless you are still living in the 1950s (and it was wrong then too.)

Well, that's the truth. Broadway is a vital cross-city artery, and it's important that we maintain what road space we have. We're not talking about a highway here, we're talking about a 4-6 lane road that in many other major cities would be considered a minor road.

[mr.x]

LRT would likely start at Broadway/Commercial Station....at the intersection of Broadway/Commercial, where the 99 B-Line starts. So, it would really make VCC Station quite pointless.

[Metro-One]

I do think that it's telling that Malcolm's first post on this subject has been up for *two weeks* and yet you are still talking about needing rebuttals for all of his points. This is hardly a well-oiled political machine you've got going here - and perhaps you ought to consider the possibility that he is right in some of his arguments.

Another reason why our responses are a little slow is because we actually research what we are talking about and double, even triple check our points to make sure they are concrete. If you notice the LRT responses often pull facts from various LRT lines ranging widely in technology and never actually comment on a single technology that they believe would be well suited for the broadway corridor. They are skirting the issues at any possible chance. They have even resorted to childish behavior in their last response.

Yes, many of their facts are correct, for other LRT systems, not one that could be put down Broadway. I would love to see this LRT they are talking about that only costs 10 million a KM being built down the middle of a major road artery, is decently fast despite being located within 50/60kmh speed zones with countless traffic lights while also taking on the role of a local bus with countless stops, has a capacity of 20 000 pph, despite the fact the trains would have to be relatively short due to Broadway's short blocks in areas, is able to run frequently, despite all the traffic intersections (that is a lot of signal queuing), and is able to climb steep grades. Until they actually show me a detailed report showing this amazing fantasy system that can be built for 10 mil a km they are simply Cherry Picking!

I for one have never seen that system, have you?

[Spork]

LRT would likely start at Broadway/Commercial Station....at the intersection of Broadway/Commercial, where the 99 B-Line starts. So, it would really make VCC Station quite pointless.

I'm not sure what the construction looks like around there or when it would be needed, but perhaps the station could be demolished and the area be converted into some sort of supplementary OMC?

[DKaz]

zweisystem called us armchair transit enthusiasts!!! *INFURIATED* Who does he think he is?!

[fever]

I think it's important to get expected costs for some typical LRT configurations. Things like induced development and current passenger volumes are too route-specific to compare between routes or cities.

It's a bit ridiculous to expect either technology to win on all counts for any route.

The pieces of information to get are:

For costs:
1) Grade separations/km
2) Fraction:
a. in street
b. elevated
c. in subway
d. on old rail right-of-way
3) Average cost/km

Operating parameters:
1) Average speed
2) Maximum passengers/train
3) Minimum practical headway
(Maximum practical capacity is (2)/(3))
4) Attendants/train
5) Downtime


Calgary has some information like this:
http://www.calgarytransit.com/html/technical_information.html



The points on the transfer at Commercial and the grade west of Alma aren't that important. An M-Line West extension would be the more elegant solution, but if there is to be a switch in technology at some point along the line there or at Arbutus are the best places for that to happen. Vanmap doesn't work for me, but it's really not hard to check if you're on a Windows box. Has someone posted what the grade actually is? If it's >8% at any point it, it's +1 for Skytrain.

[biketrouble]

>Broadway is a vital cross-city artery

It is an important street because of the businesses and amenities along its length - but losing two lanes, when cars also have the 2nd-6th-4th route, 12th (to Macdonald) and 16th a few blocks away, is perhaps not such a big deal.

(But then I am one of those crazy people who is in favour of the Burrard Bridge bike lane trial as well, and I know just how popular that is on this board.)

[Metro-One]

We never said skytrain would win on price, but them throwing in the 10 mill per km figure is out of whack!

[mr.x]

# zweisystem Says:
May 12, 2009 at 8:33 pm

I will repeat this for all you armchair transit enthusiasts, recent studies have shown that the overall ambiance of a transit system, including ease of use, ease of ticketing overshadow speed in attracting ridership. A streetcar operating on a reserved rights-of-ways (in fact LRT) can obtain commercial speeds near or equal to that of a metro at a fraction of the cost of a metro.

What is a high capacity transit line? Any LRT/streetcar line can and does, carry 20,000 persons per hour per direction in peak hours! But here is an important fact you maybe not aware of; as 1 tram or LRV (1 driver) is as efficient as 6 to 8 buses (6 to 8 bus drivers) and for every bus or tram operated, one must hire at least three people to drive, maintain, and manage them. Thus on a transit route that uses 70 buses (210 employees), about 10 or 11 trams (30 to 33 employees) need to be used. Now factor the wage saving over a 25 year period and you see huge cost saving by operating LRT.



# zweisystem Says:
May 12, 2009 at 8:43 pm

The higher commercial speed that you claim for SkyTrain comes from a penalty of fewer stations and fewer stations means fewer transit customers. Again I stress it is not speed that attracts customers to transit but the overall ambiance of the transit system including ease of use that attracts new custom. Studies have shown over and over that the transit customer wants his/hers transit, on the pavement, easy to use, not up in the air or deep in a tunnel. Busways have proven expensive and in Europe the cost for guided bus or busways are only about 30% cheaper than light rail and have proven not very popular with the transit customer. A bus, is a bus, is a bus.

Unless there are traffic flows of over 500,000 passengers a day on a transit route, there is no need for an expensive metro. Building a SkyTrain subway to UBC, will be utter folly and lead to a $5.00 one zone fare by 2015! Already TransLink is feeling the financial pinch of the folly of building metros on routes that do not have the ridership to sustain them. A SkyTrain subway may break the back of TransLink and the collapse of the entire public transit system.



# zweisystem Says:
May 12, 2009 at 9:01 pm

The Seattle hybrid LRT/light-metro has more in common with light-metro systems than LRT systems. True their is some on-street operation, but the majority of the line is on viaduct or in tunnel. Those portions of the line, operating on viaduct or in tunnel are considered light-metro. Seattle’s transit planners wanted heavy-rail metro but was scaled back to LRT to obtain Federal funding.

The Canada Line, like the SkyTrain lines are signaled by a movable block system and have Automatic Train Control (ATC) and (Automatic Train Protection ATP) and Automatic Train Operation (ATO) which is the basis of automatic or driverless operation. As with all driverless train systems there is the ability to revert to manual control if the situation warrants it and if there’s a driver or attendant on board. Driverless trains by their nature do not have drivers.

“The Canada Line would have been able to run at-grade, the Richmond City Counsel suggested it run at-grade, but was rejected.” Sorry to burst your bubble, but SkyTrain operates at grade on portions of its line but is heavily fenced, with 8 foot fencing topped with razor wire. The same would be true of the Canada line operating at grade and in no way would be interface with on-street traffic.

“Sadly, because the RAV/Canada line was scaled down to such a degree to save costs, it actually has about, as built, 60% to 75% the capacity of a simple LRT line, such as if one were to have been built down the Arbutus Corridor!” There have been many reports about how RAV was downscaled to reduce cost. The station platforms in the subway section will only accommodate 3 car trains and to enlarge them would be phenomenally expensive. Also portions of the route is single track in /Richmond, further impairing operational capacity.

Fact: Capacity is a function of headway and grade separation has little to do with capacity. Train lengths and headways are the keys to higher capacity.






Overall ambiance....yea, right.:koko:

[deasine]

Fact: Capacity is a function of headway and grade separation has little to do with capacity. Train lengths and headways are the keys to higher capacity.

Obviously he's loosing it.

[dubsH]

I don't get this "skytrain would be better because there would be no transfers" argument. Is the highest goal of the transit system to provide a seamless journey from coquitlam and burnaby to UBC? Is it that important a goal when people travelling on the Expo and RAV lines will have to transfer anyway.

What is the incentive of taking transit? Two major incentives: ease of use (little to no transfers, etc) and an overall quick journey time.

While it won't be seamless travel for Expo and Canada Lines (people still call it RAV??), the overall journey time for Skytrain will be shorter.

Also, where will the OMC go for an LRT line? You save costs by consolidating operations with one technology (in this case "Skytrain") which may be incorporated with the Evergreen maintenance facility.

I'm not opposed to Skytrain but I do think there needs to be an informed debate on the alternatives.

Er... sorry, other way around. There IS informed debate on the alternatives. I doubt many would disagree that LRT (in general) is a viable option for the Valley.

I do think that it's telling that Malcolm's first post on this subject has been up for *two weeks* and yet you are still talking about needing rebuttals for all of his points. This is hardly a well-oiled political machine you've got going here - and perhaps you ought to consider the possibility that he is right in some of his arguments.

Sorry, using ad hominem and name-calling is hardly a good argument. He's right in some of his arguments because he cherry-picks (yes, cherry-picks) statistics to back up his point. If this Malcolm is under the alias "grumpy", then I've debated with him before and he doesn't really listen to the opposition's argument.

I also think that the commenter "David" makes a great point in response to (I believe) one of you guys when he points out that some of your arguments in favour of Skytrain are basically about preserving space for cars. This is not a good basis for argument about transit in a built-up urban environment unless you are still living in the 1950s (and it was wrong then too.)

Where do you suggest all the traffic that's normally on Broadway go?

Metro Vancouver is still heavily car dependent, and reducing 2+ lanes from a 6-lane MAJOR CORRIDOR immediately is possibly the worst idea a transit enthusiast could support. Where are these cars going to go? They're not going to disappear, they're just going to displace elsewhere onto other streets. If they see how slow LRT runs on Broadway, there'll even be less incentive to take transit.

Offer an alternative to the car first (Skytrain), then slowly remove lanes of roadway if automobile traffic declines.

[Dave2]

some of your arguments in favour of Skytrain are basically about preserving space for cars.

re grade separation... It's not that we don't want rail transit to interfere with traffic....we don't want traffic to interfere with rail transit.

[Dave2]

Er... sorry, other way around. There IS informed debate on the alternatives. I doubt many would disagree that LRT (in general) is a viable option for the Valley.



Agreed. 15 minute LRT service from Haney (us old timers still call it Haney) to Braid or Coquitlam on the Evergreen line would be... um... great

[biketrouble]

Ease of use isn't synonymous with "no transfers". Easy transfers, perhaps. In my experience of transit systems around the world (London - my home town, New York, Paris) I would say the majority of journeys on those systems involve transfers. It's not great, but it's somewhat inevitable.

I'm sorry but saying MAJOR CORRIDOR in caps doesn't make your argument any more compelling. I already pointed out some other streets that could take the traffic upthread.

[deasine]

Ease of use isn't synonymous with "no transfers". Easy transfers, perhaps. In my experience of transit systems around the world (London - my home town, New York, Paris) I would say the majority of journeys on those systems involve transfers. It's not great, but it's somewhat inevitable.

London, New York, and Paris are older metro systems. Newer systems try to eliminate the transfer, which will increase the ridership as shown on a few Metro Vancouver bus routes.

The kind of transfer that would've been used between Commercial Drive to the LRT station would be somewhat of a long walk... similar to the Broadway-Commerical Drive transfer. The transfer used in between Evergreen LRT (if it was LRT) to the SkyTrain network would've been incredibly annoying. Both these transfers aren't seamless nor are they easy. If the transfers are like the MTR, then they would've been more acceptable.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/Poly-cpi.png
From Wikipedia

I'm sorry but saying MAJOR CORRIDOR in caps doesn't make your argument any more compelling. I already pointed out some other streets that could take the traffic upthread.

I don't believe increasing traffic to other corridors that are stretched to the limit as it currently is a solution to the problem.

[biketrouble]

"that are stretched to the limit"

[citation needed]

Regarding transfers, point taken. But if a transfer for this journey were a huge deal breaker, then we would expect 99 B-line ridership to be suffering - which appears to be far from the case. So my argument here is let's not gold plate a system to fix problems that riders already seem to be able to live with.

I would not be pushing this point if I did not believe that many of the people arguing for skytrain on this basis would be perfectly happy to argue exactly the opposite in favour of skytrain when it comes to Malcolm's arguments, as seen frequently on Stephen Rees' blog, against the Canada line because it now forces bus users from south of Richmond to transfer in order to travel to downtown.

[dubsH]

Ease of use isn't synonymous with "no transfers". Easy transfers, perhaps. In my experience of transit systems around the world (London - my home town, New York, Paris) I would say the majority of journeys on those systems involve transfers. It's not great, but it's somewhat inevitable.

Sorry, I don't see where you are disagreeing with me. You asked "why Skytrain" and "why fewest transfers are important". I replied because it cuts down on time because of lack of transfers (for incoming Coquitlam/Burnaby commuters), and that overall, Skytrain will be faster than LRT (for incoming Canada/Expo line commuters). The faster people can get to their destinations, the more they will want to use transit.

What is ease of use then? No fare gates? Few steps to get from a station to a desired location? Easily recognizable? Please, do explain, because whatever you say most likely won't refute my point anyway.

deasine already explained your other point, so:

But if a transfer for this journey were a huge deal breaker, then we would expect 99 B-line ridership to be suffering - which appears to be far from the case. So my argument here is let's not gold plate a system to fix problems that riders already seem to be able to live with.

Riders "seem to be able to live with" the 99 B-Line because THEY HAVE NO CHOICE (capitalized for emphasis). Let's just leave things the way they are, right? That's how you capture more people to ride transit, let them see how bad current conditions are!

In all seriousness though, people take the 99 B-Line because their other option is to drive. UBC is a major destination and where a large portion of the riders end up. If you gave them the option of choosing LRT or 99 B-Line, if LRT is even slower than the 99 B-Line (and at even less frequent intervals), then most of them will choose the 99 B-Line. Same with commuters to other parts of Broadway. The only commuters I can see choosing LRT are those traveling at small distances and would wish to see many LRT stations - but then again, why don't they just take the #9?

I would not be pushing this point if I did not believe that many of the people arguing for skytrain on this basis would be perfectly happy to argue exactly the opposite in favour of skytrain when it comes to Malcolm's arguments, as seen frequently on Stephen Rees' blog, against the Canada line because it now forces bus users from south of Richmond to transfer in order to travel to downtown.

:shrug: That's not really an argument at all. I'm not sure if people knew that the service from South Surrey/White Rock would terminate at Bridgeport before Cambie was chosen as the preferred route alignment. Even then, how would LRT have been any different? If you looked back at previous threads about the Canada Line and the Bridgeport terminus, you would've found quite a few Skytrain supporters disagreeing with the decision wrt Translink terminating bus service from South Surrey/Delta at Bridgeport.

[NetMapel]

London, New York, and Paris are older metro systems. Newer systems try to eliminate the transfer, which will increase the ridership as shown on a few Metro Vancouver bus routes.

The kind of transfer that would've been used between Commercial Drive to the LRT station would be somewhat of a long walk... similar to the Broadway-Commerical Drive transfer. The transfer used in between Evergreen LRT (if it was LRT) to the SkyTrain network would've been incredibly annoying. Both these transfers aren't seamless nor are they easy. If the transfers are like the MTR, then they would've been more acceptable.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/Poly-cpi.png
From Wikipedia



I don't believe increasing traffic to other corridors that are stretched to the limit as it currently is a solution to the problem.

Interesting that you used HK's subway to try to prove your point. Notice that 99% of HK's subway system is GRADE-SEPARATED. Broadway is not big enough to create a ROW at-grade system, and taking driving lanes away from Broadway for a rail line will only create more traffic congestion on that street, it's as simple as that.

[biketrouble]

Actually, what I asked is this: "Is the highest goal of the transit system to provide a seamless journey from coquitlam and burnaby to UBC? Is it that important a goal when people travelling on the Expo and RAV lines will have to transfer anyway." I've not had a good answer to that question.

I am not arguing for leaving things as they are, but the problem with transport along broadway as it stands is that there is not enough capacity, not that (some) people have to to transfer to use it. So I just see the transfer issue as a red herring, so long as capacity is addressed.

[deasine]

Actually, what I asked is this: "Is the highest goal of the transit system to provide a seamless journey from coquitlam and burnaby to UBC? Is it that important a goal when people travelling on the Expo and RAV lines will have to transfer anyway." I've not had a good answer to that question.

I am not arguing for leaving things as they are, but the problem with transport along broadway as it stands is that there is not enough capacity, not that (some) people have to to transfer to use it. So I just see the transfer issue as a red herring, so long as capacity is addressed.

That's not the main goal. However, providing a higher capacity system for an area that has the potential of an extended city centre is important. The Broadway district is already busy as it stands and will continue to get busier as the Canada Line opens. Sure LRT can handle the current ridership: but it won't in the long run. There are many problems with LRT along Broadway. We aren't against LRT... we are against it on Broadway because of the various reasons that I don't want to repeat again.

[Canadian Mind]

With regards to a point Mr. X brought up about the frequency of stops of a LRT line, if the original author of those comments intended the stops to be on every block, then what would be even more appropriate than a LRT would be a tram system going down Broadway, something i could support.

But that still doesn't negate the speed and efficiency of an elevated or underground Skytrain line. while the tram would likely stop every 100 to 200 meters, skytrain would likely have atleast 600 to 1500 meters between stops for more efficient travel. And while Skytrain likely wont drop you off at the doorstep of where you want to go, if you dont want to walk there is currently the option of waiting at th station for a bus to arrive. Should a tram line be built all you would have to wait for is the tram to arrive to take you closer to your specific destination.

[DKaz]

The guy is thinking of providing 20,000 ppphd service with trains that stop every 200m?! Newsflash, 20,000 ppphd will require 110m long at least every 3 minutes. The train will travel no more than twice its length before stopping again and again and again and again. Hey people, LRT maintenance workers will be in demand to change brake pads and rewind motors due to excessive wear and tear!

[biketrouble]

So I've read all the arguments against LRT on broadway, especially with regards to capacity - and it seems to be based on the assumption that 20,000 pphpd is a desirable capacity for the route.

I am wondering where this assumption comes from. I notice that everyone talks about bus capacity in daily ridership, and LRT/trains in terms of people per hour per direction, so let's compare apples to apples. As I understand it, the current capacity of the 99 B-line is about 3600 pphpd (assuming 2 minute headways, which is a stretch.)

Portland appears to get 9,280 pphpd (their numbers) with 3 minute headways using 2 car trains without grade separation *in their downtown*, and even your "debunking myths" post acknowledges that 3-car trains would be feasible. The Portland MAX crosses a street grid with far shorter blocks than Broadway's, BTW.

So any way you split this, it seems like an LRT on broadway could achieve a higher capacity than the current M-line (8000 pphpd) and nearly triple current B-line capacity.

So why is it we need 20K pphpd again?

Also, one last word on cars. I agree that Broadway has the possibility of becoming an extended city centre - but if that happens, I would rather it's main drag was a Robson Street, not a Georgia Street.

[DKaz]

Because he boasts that LRTs can easily achieve 20,000 ppphd while Skytrain can barely achieve 20,000 ppphd. I'd just like for him to put his money where his mouth is, that's all.

Calgary has put a limit at 4-car trains which they're expanding their system to by 2015 which would equal 100m. 4-cars = 110m would still fit in a typical Broadway block (except a few here or there)

[Metro-One]

Ok guys, it seems that biketrouble is repeating himself over and over and i am guessing he is from the LRT lobby. Strange that he appeared from no where and is only posting on this thread. His trick right now is to focus on one point and say "why is that important?" Then we answer that one point which leads him to say "why is that the most important?" We tell him the other points then he choses one again and we go in a circle.

In the end it is when considering ALL points that skytrain makes the most sense. It is also building a system that will handle capacity into the future as well, not a band aid solution. If the Portland Max has such a higher pphpd then why is skytrain's ridership numbers more than double with fewer lines and less kms? has anyone ever noticed that all the best transit systems in the world have extensive grade separated rail?

Seems so pathetic to follow a nation (the US) that essentially has the world's worst transit systems.

[biketrouble]

Oh please - take off that tinfoil hat. Why do BB posters always want to believe that someone who disagrees with them is a sockpuppet.

I have been a member of this board for years and if you look back I am not a frequent commenter but my comments are there for all to read. Most recently I have been active on the Burrard Bike lane thread.

I am *not* a member of the LRT lobby. Actually up until quite recently I really had been advocating Skytrain without really thinking about it. For the most part the other side on this debate (GrumpyMalcolmZwei/Stephen Rees etc) mostly just wind me up.

SSP is one of the greatest sources of info about Vancouver, but recently it seems to have turned into a complete echo chamber and it's this that has made be want to jump in and question the assumptions that a lot of you guys seem to have.

Cheers,

The Trilateral Commission

[DKaz]

You just keep on questioning why why why.

1. A twined tracked LRT line has the ability to carry over 20,000 persons per hour per direction

...

It is no great feat that a simple tram line in Hong Kong carries over 260,000 a day, or a modern LRT line in the same city carries over 25,000 pphpd in the peak hours. Yet the SkyTrain lobby bang the drums and shouts great things if SkyTrain achieves anything close to what modern LRT does in every day service. The LRT types do not cherry-pick statistics, rather state operational facts that pertain to light rail.

That's what he said which is why I stated to push 20,000 ppphd, we would have to so and so long trains running at so and so headways.

It is not speed that attracts customers to transit, rather it is the overall ambiance of the system including ease of use, ease of ticketing, vehicle comfort (seating) and the seamless or no transfer journey.

He himself said that the seamless or no transfer journey is important in attracting ridership, this is another thing you questioned why to another user.

[twoNeurons]

Oh please - take off that tinfoil hat. Why do BB posters always want to believe that someone who disagrees with them is a sockpuppet.

I have been a member of this board for years and if you look back I am not a frequent commenter but my comments are there for all to read. Most recently I have been active on the Burrard Bike lane thread.

I am *not* a member of the LRT lobby. Actually up until quite recently I really had been advocating Skytrain without really thinking about it. For the most part the other side on this debate (GrumpyMalcolmZwei/Stephen Rees etc) mostly just wind me up.

SSP is one of the greatest sources of info about Vancouver, but recently it seems to have turned into a complete echo chamber and it's this that has made be want to jump in and question the assumptions that a lot of you guys seem to have.

Cheers,

The Trilateral Commission

No worries. Some here feel you bring up good questions. Questions are good. They force accountability.

To be completely honest, though I would love fast efficient no-transfer grade-separated transit, there is one thing that appeals to me about LRT. Narrowing the Broadway corridor.

I too would prefer a Robson-street style Broadway corridor and LRT woudl obviously be a better avenue to stimulate this. If we could somehow have both, I would be very happy. I like the traffic calming measures that New West took down Columbia, for example. That's a major thoroughfare, and they've done a good job so far at calming traffic.

Saying that, though, I realize that it's an important artery for cars... so perhaps we'll have to do that to 4th instead with an LRT/streetcar down that route.

As for the 20k, I think Capacities much higher than the 99 B-Line are needed for a few reasons. One of them being if there were a rail connection along this corridor other east-west bus routes like the #33, #41, #25, #16 would see fewer riders as they transferred to the new line (assuming they're coming from the Canada Line).

You would see increased use of North South Bus lines on Cambie, Main, Granville, Oak to get to this artery, even if they were close to an east west bus route.

This would also provide a triangle of service, which is desirable as it makes any trip by rail alone only one transfer. More than anything else, transfers cost the most time.

[MalcolmTucker]

Calgary's in street sections operate at just under 10,000 phd with 3 car (75 m) trains. This is in the section where trains must obey traffic rules, and have no interaction with traffic besides cross streets, and buses (which don't turn left over the other track by route design).

To get anywhere close to 20,000 phd, you would need exclusive lanes, and actual stations (instead of in street boarding like in Toronto). You would also need longer trains, and not just signal priority, but signal control to make sure trains don't get stuck on blocks that are too short for them.

[nname]

Portland appears to get 9,280 pphpd (their numbers) with 3 minute headways using 2 car trains without grade separation *in their downtown*
That appears to be the theoretical number, do they actually running the LRT at that frequency? Last time I checked, they are running at 4-5 min frequency. As far as I know, the higher frequency you run the system, the more priority and grade separation you need to make, which drive up cost. Otherwise, you'll just end up with a bunch of LRV all bunch up together in some stretch of the road. Keep in mind that the Broadway corridor is also much longer than Portland Downtown, that means, more measures are need to run the train efficiently at higher frequency.

Speaking of downtown Portland... Does anyone really wish we build the LRT on Broadway that way? It seems like it take 15-16 to travel 2.6km of Portland Downtown (from Goose Hollow to Chinatown), so if we apply it to Broadway:
15min can get you just past Main street
30min can get you to Granville
45min can get you to somewhere between Macdonald and Alma
1hr is barely enough to reach the boundary of UEL

[DKaz]

Portland's MAX only travels slow in the downtown mall, just like Calgary's C-Train. Along Interstate Ave, the MAX's Yellow Line went about the speed limit -- 35mph I think. If they properly prioritized LRT on Broadway, probably under 30 minutes.

--OK it takes an hour 40 minutes for the Blue Line to travel 53 km including the downtown transit mall. That's an average speed for 31.7km/h. Broadway to UBC is 14.3 km which would be about 27-28 minutes? Skytrain would be 20-21 minutes @ 42.1km/h (Expo Line's operating speed).

MAX's Blue Line runs as frequently as 5 minutes while the Yellow Line is 10 minutes. All their lines are 15 minutes off peak. Broadway LRT would likely need to operate 3 minutes peak, 6 minutes midday, 10-12 minutes all other times. The traffic disruptions at Kingsway/Main, Cambie, and Granville are going to be FUN!

[biketrouble]

The 9,280 number for the Max comes from (sorry!) Malcolm Johnson quoting Gerald Fox here (http://www.rafeonline.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88434&postcount=437). The relevant passage says

"In Portland we operate a frequency of 3 minutes downtown in the peak hour, giving a one way peak hour capacity of 9,280."

BTW, MJ uses quotes from the letter here - actually about Translink's report on Skytrain vs. LRT on the Evergreen Line - in practically every post he writes on the subject of Skytrain. He has totally googlebombed "Gerald Fox skytrain", I had to go through pages of stuff to find anything other than MJ's favourite bits. The full letter is worth a read, as it gives some good examples of the ways reports can be skewed to suit an author's (Translink in this case) biases.

[nname]

Portland's MAX only travels slow in the downtown mall, just like Calgary's C-Train. Along Interstate Ave, the MAX's Yellow Line went about the speed limit -- 35mph I think. If they properly prioritized LRT on Broadway, probably under 30 minutes.

--OK it takes an hour 40 minutes for the Blue Line to travel 53 km including the downtown transit mall. That's an average speed for 31.7km/h. Broadway to UBC is 14.3 km which would be about 27-28 minutes? Skytrain would be 20-21 minutes @ 42.1km/h (Expo Line's operating speed).
MAX LRT only travel on roadway in the downtown. All other time they are travel either off-street or beside a highway which means that they do not need to obey speed limit. An LRT down Broadway will probably have their max speed limited to 50km/h, which means that they will be much much slower than 28 minutes.

And also, you forget the Broadway-Alma-10th intersection. Unless they remove the entire city block or put some sort of grade separation (underground?), the LRT would most likely have to make both turns in 1 go, which means - I can't imagine what the traffic disruption is at that place...

[mr.x]

The only time you can possibly make it from Commercial to UBC in ~25-minutes on the 99 B-Line is at 11pm or later. Several times, i've been on the 99 that late from Commercial to Sasamat...and the bus only had to stop at traffic lights maybe 3 or 4 times. It was nearly continuously green with little pedestrian and car traffic of course. It takes me about 25-minutes to get from Commercial to Sasamat during those times...to continue to UBC would probably take 30-mins, and this is late at night.