Portland and Vancouver

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

The money collected by the city via property tax is not affected by the real estate market. The city gets the amount it budgets regardless of whether house prices rise or fall. The only impact that real estate prices have is on WHO pays what portion of the budgeted amount. The revenue to be collected is pro-rated across all the properties by their assessed values, so those who own more expensive properties pay a larger share.

There's a common misconception that you pay more money if your house price goes up. That's not really true. You pay more money if (a) the city budget increases, and/or (b) the price of your house rises more than (or falls less than) the average change in house prices within the city.

Yes and because the real estate market is more stable they can actually pro-rate. That was my point, wasn't trying to get into the technicalities. The end game is that funding is _supposed_ to come from a predictable source wherever possible. Property tax is such a funding source thus why cities use it.

Gas tax = one of the worse to rely on.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

As much as it would seem impractical to have one thing paying for another, there's a big advantage that separating the agencies will remove: better coordination in aligning investments so as to create and encourage sustainable transportation choices, and their respective benefits.

You'd think so but that really hasn't happened has it? I work in what actually happens versus what conceptually happens because concept rarely becomes reality unfortunately. I do agree that in concept you are right that better coordination should be the staple of a single company but a major negative is shifting and split priorities.

Think of it as a general practitioner. A general practitioner can be a good doctor but not a great doctor. They still need to send you to specialists for a lot of things. A specialist on the other hand while it may be more difficult to coordinate with others outside their specialty (or see things unrelated to their specialty) have the benefit of being experts in their field and being focused.

So while there would be a negative, I just think the benefits outweight the negatives.

At the same time I don't actually think Translink is the main problem. The Provincial government and our infrastructure funding is. That needs to be solved first anyway.

Getting people out of their cars improves their health. It's an indisputable effect that has been recently discussed in a UBC study, actually. And then, there are other benefits. TransLink's current setup actually makes it possible for that to happen. With Portland's TriMet, not so much.

Meh. Studies about improving health are a bit flavor of the day along with studies on sustainability, green energy, and social tolerance. They make great speaking points, give academics a sense superiority over 'the regular Joe', and in concept are can illustrate good ideas, but there are certain realities again that make the discussion far more complicated. Sorry if I don't throw all faith behind studies.

As the saying goes, "those that can, do; those that can't, teach." Don't take every study as being the authority on what should be done. There were studies done in the 60s that "proved" we were headed for a new ice age. I like how that turned out.

The reality is, Canada is tied for 4th among all countries on the planet for life expectancy. Argue the definition of "healthy" left or right, I don't think getting out of cars is going to really affect the majority of Canadian's health enough to be an argument.

Convenience, saving money, and enjoying life are far more important.

Portland's transit authority (TriMet) can control transit and transit funding, but not roads. As such, this may be contributing to slower progress in terms of transit. Already, investments are smaller (i.e. mostly at-grade rail) and so transit ridership is lower and service levels are much more vulnerable to random financial troubles (the recent cuts may be something to look at); but, with no control of roads and no ability to perform TDM (transportation demand management), there's no way to create a balance so that the smaller investments can be more worthwhile.

Good point. If they did split the authority then there would need to be some legislated deal between the two. How about this as a modified suggestion:

1 agency still Translink, but 2 divisions and their funding sources and accounting are different. Think like a city. A city is 1 "agency" but Engineering has a completely different budget than Community Planning. It isn't an entirely accurate analogy because for cities all departments do get funding from a single source, single bank account, but the funding source is budgeted and divided up specifically for each department's needs.

There are just ideas and by no means the only option.

It's good that there are reasonably good systems in place there in case natural TDM (i.e. high gas prices) occurs, but until then, there's not really any way of keeping transit alive now until that disaster happens. As free actors in a free society, if Portlanders choose to drive their cars, TriMet can do nothinge about it and the transit system will face decline in revenues and service in a short-term downward spiral. That's exactly what has happened in the past few years. If you relied on transit in Portland right now and made that choice a long time ago, your life probably really sucks by now. Service levels are almost lower than they were in the 1980s on many routes.

I guess this is where you're missing my original point. My question was why would TriMet or the authority want to "do something about" people that want to drive their cars. My entire point is that we need to get away from this adversarial stance. This, transit is better than cars so everyone should give up their cars.

I'm trying to say that other cities aren't building both transit and road infrastructure because they are "losing the war on cars" as you seem to be making it out to be, but rather because they actually recognize that cars aren't going away and will never go away. Technologically, cars will be non polluting modes of transportation far before any major North American city reduces their use to anywhere near less than 50% making the whole health/environment argument moot. Let's face it, if you wiped Vancouver off the face of the earth and our emissions went from today to 0%, not just reduced, GONE, all the pollution removed from the environment over the next 10 years is made up by the top 10 cities in China increasing their emissions by 1% for 1 year.

In the grand scheme of global warming, Vancouver is actually quite meaningless though those of us living in Metro Vancouver like to think our city is actually important.

It isn't. Just like our star is not important. And our galaxy is not important. We're just average at best.

I just think we need to remove the Ford vs GM debate between transit and cars and recognize both have their uses and merits. Are their negatives for cars? Sure absolutely. Right now they pollute more per capita and in many cases actually cost people more per month to use/maintain. But they have extremely high benefits to a lot of people everywhere. Even those living in walking distance from everywhere can have big benefits from a car.

Give you 1 example from my Portland trip. We went shopping in downtown and left our car at the hotel a great distance away. There was a big negative to that though in that we had to 1) carry a lot of what we purchased around for hours on foot which was far less healthy for our feet and backs and 2) had to make 3 trips back to the hotel to drop stuff off so we could continue shopping.

Even though I liked the idea of taking transit, there were times where we both though "If we actually drove we'd have a central location to drop items off and make walking around easier."

Same goes for my friends living in Vancouver that go shopping and don't own cars. They have to go to the grocery store almost every day to buy food, some squeeze out 2 days. Why? Can only carry so much on foot and on a bus. I on the other hand stop by the Superstore on my way back from work in my car, do all the shopping for the entire week, and that's it. So from a convenience standpoint, I'm happy with my car for that reason alone every week. It saves me many hours.

So like I said in my first post, I just think the debate needs to drop and we need to focus on the fact that roads ARE needed and aren't the arch nemesis of transit. Hell 90% of our transit uses roads! Busses.

TriMet isn't like TransLink: it may be investing in somewhat high quality public transportation and basing some of those investment choices on what benefits there are to reap, but it isn't setting transportation modal-shift goals and orienting investments around those goals.

Very good point. Just building it doesn't make them come. I agree you do need to focus on investing around giving people options. I don't think it should be forced though and if people want to continue to drive, they should be able to. So I think "setting transportation modal-shift goals" should _not_ include not investing in road infrastructure in order to frustrate people into leaving their cars at home. That's what Translink seems to try to do or at the very least a lot of people that get into the discussion about transit in Metro Vancouver.

Because TransLink integrates management of all transportation elements in our lower mainland, there is better coordination from the simplicity of exchanging data and there can be alignments in funding (i.e. road pricing) that - no matter how heinous - are just trying to get people to make better choices and ultimately result in a better world.

Again, drop the word better. That's part of the big problem. Transit is not better period. Transit is better in some situations. Cars are better in others. I can name as many reasons for many people out there that cars are vastly superior that transit.

I'll give you 1 from my life. Takes me 25 minutes to drive to work every single day. That's about 1 hour give or take commute per day. Takes 1 1/2 hours 1 way for me to take transit to work. That's 3 hours every day.

That's 2 hours savings every single day I commute, or 10 hours every week. So I basically save an entire day of life per week driving.

My car is better than transit. That's not true for everyone though like my wife. She saves a lot of time taking SkyTrain every day downtown to work and saves on needing to pay gas or parking. I get free parking where I work and my gas is minimal since it is nearly all highway.

So for her transit is better for commuting. For me a car is better. I think both should be open to us. I don't think someone should decide "No cars are bad no matter what so we should only invest in improving transit and hope to get you out of your car."

Leave my car alone and focus on transit where it WILL be better, like UBC or out to Langley. Or Hastings, or whatever. And where it doesn't make sense right now, expand roads if they fill up.

But we have to drop this "transit is better than all" notion. It's categorically false because better is such a subjective unscientific term.

It could also be that we're just doing transit planning better here in Vancouver. The sad thing is that Portland wasn't necessarily spending less; they were spending more in some cases, and were still getting less. Transit mode-shares in Vancouver were Increasing between 1996 and 2006; in that period, I believe our largest transit-oriented investment was the $1.1b Millennium Line. In that period there also definitely wasn't as much TDM in Vancouver as there is now and there will be in the future (the methods were still being discussed in 2002). In the same period, Portland spent $2b on LRT and streetcars (plus more on any development subsidies). But, transit mode-share there remained largely the same over 10 years.

Again I wasn't really talking about transit. I was more talking about how other "transit" cities have good road infrastructure and continue to invest. And how those cities seem to shy away from this "TRANSIT BETTER THAN CARS" argument that absolutely paralyzes everything.

Why do I think it is so bad? Because we have less doing and more talking.

Translink says "we want to replace a bridge or expand a road" and you have half the city crying "NO WE WANT MORE TRANSIT! NO MORE ROADS." and cities against cities and it drags out 5-10 years.

Translink then says "we want to build a new subway down Broadway because the transit demand was there 5 years ago and we absolutely need it" and you have half the city crying "But what about here? And what about the traffic congestion on the Patullo and Massey Tunnel?? Vancouver has enough transit!"

Then you start getting into these Surrey vs Vancouver, Burnaby vs The World, New West vs Coquitlam arguments and nothing gets done. But it all starts with the transit vs road argument every time.

[Hot Rod]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I don't know the source of the funding, but for the Seattle LRT, the public approved the billions in funding as ballot measures. It's like asking people here if we should spend ~$3B on the UBC line. You'll get lots of support.

If you turn around and say it will mean gas tax up 10% and property tax up 10%, you'll get a much lower result.

In the end there's only one taxpayer though, whether it's property, gas, income, carbon, sales, etc tax.

Just to shed some light, in Seattle area we have a RTA tax that is applied to every vehicle registration in King, Pierce, Snohomish county resident in the Seattle/Everett and Tacoma metropolitan areas. The idea is that if you live in the urbanized area then you are 'served' by Sound Transit and therefore subjected to the tax at the benefit of 'improved' access to transit in the areas. I believe it is 0.3% of original sticker price per year; here is the official scoop. I honestly wasn't aware of the sales tax component of ST but there you go.


I think Vancouver metro could/should do the same thing and call it done. ..

Build them subways!! and LRT in the suburbs!!! and streetcars!!!!

[xd_1771]

Of course the car is going to have a continued role in our society, and of course its downsides are going to disappear as technology improves them over time. However, keeping transit excellent means keeping the amount of cars on our roads in check (what do you think our buses use), and some trips are certainly unnecessary and controllable through TDM.

I think you need to take a look at where planners and some of us here are coming from when we say better choices involve transit, cycling and walking and not cars. Being for these choices and for TDM isn't about eliminating cars or making them intolerable to the point of unusable in this region. It's just that when you look at what are the dominating problems our transportation systems here are facing, a lot of them revolve around the fact that cars are still dominant in our society. In our region, perhaps not so much in Portland, population is growing fast - and problems can grow with it.

In fact, using TDM is all about your three points on what really matters: convenience, saving money, and enjoying life. You do need to keep in mind that investing in better roads is the far more expensive alternative for everyone compared to TDM. If we have more cars in this region, we'll need more and better roads. And, we'll need more money. We'd be doing far more arguing over far more needed tax dollars just to keep people and goods moving in this region.

I was pointing out that the Portland region isn't even set up well for this. If you haven't noticed, there's been a lot of conflict over big investments there - esp. roads vs. transit. Arguments go on over things like the Columbia River Crossing, the southeast Light Rail extension, and funding measures. I don't know if the lack of sustainability-oriented transportation goals is a bad thing in Portland (transportation systems of now should not become a growing pain without the pressure), but in case any significant growth is happening and does put more pressure on the transportation systems down there, they won't be better off.

Again, drop the word better. That's part of the big problem. Transit is not better period. Transit is better in some situations. Cars are better in others. I can name as many reasons for many people out there that cars are vastly superior that transit.

I think you misinterpreted what I meant by "better choices". I again think you really need to consider it from a planner's perspective. By using TDM (i.e. road pricing and distance-based transit pricing) to encourage the rearrangement of trips that can be done another time or would otherwise be unnecessary, it creates efficiency. Rush hour buses and trains can be used by more commuters and less people making random trips because he/she felt like it that day. With road pricing deterring unnecessary trips during rush hour, commuters can get around faster because less people are using the road for a non-commute reason. Having more people on transit can have a regional effect: better transit in Vancouver means less cars on Broadway from Vancouver, leaving more space for longer-distance commuters who can only drive and use Broadway. But, if more longer distance commuters are on acceptable transit options because of improvements in their home/outer communities, that also creates benefits throughout - in Vancouver and there. In both cases, we would also not need to invest as much in roads (helping to curb the transit vs. roads argument) and in transportation altogether.

Same goes for my friends living in Vancouver that go shopping and don't own cars. They have to go to the grocery store almost every day to buy food, some squeeze out 2 days. Why? Can only carry so much on foot and on a bus.

Ouch, well, sucks to be them. But, I think that's really just one example here. On the other hand, if that grocery store were at a SkyTrain station on the way home or near my home... or I could orient my life around a shorter commute (isn't that one of the main goals of TDM) leaving spare time for that task, it might be more tolerable. I think there are multiple examples to go around here. The scenario I described is probably very common in Japan, where most every rail station in an urban area is complemented with several businesses of several types, and grocery stores are common.

To begin with, I don't even know how this should be a complaining point. If people need to go out for groceries and use their car for the convenience, TDM funding options like road pricing don't necessarily eliminate that option - they just encourage you to do it when it's less busy. So, you might pay a toll to do it at 5 in the afternoon but not at 9. At the same time, you benefit from the faster car commute to/from at that time.

In the grand scheme of global warming, Vancouver is actually quite meaningless though those of us living in Metro Vancouver like to think our city is actually important.

It isn't. Just like our star is not important. And our galaxy is not important. We're just average at best.

On sustainability, I personally like the idea of maintaining a high standard when it comes to keeping emissions low and establishing sustainable practices, because although we may not create a big impact by our direct actions, we can create one by being an example. I think there would be global benefits if we continue to shape Vancouver to become one of the world's most sustainable cities, and push the region forward with it to create a large-scale example that will get more attention from other cities, esp. bigger ones. Perhaps, some cities in China.

It is important that some other cities at least have a model of sorts to follow. As I had said, I feel this way about Portland. Although Portland is by other standards a very poor example of transportation investment choices, I believe its common use as an example does hold some benefits in the United States, because the United States needs some sort of example. I just think that it's not really appropriate to be referring to Portland in other contexts. Hence, I like to question the relevancy of Vancouver vs. Portland discussions and this thread - Portland has much more to learn from Metro Van than Metro Van has to learn from Portland.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

Because TransLink integrates management of all transportation elements in our lower mainland...

...until the provincial government comes along and dumps several billion into freeway upgrades with no funding whatsoever for the improved transit service they promised along with it.

[SpongeG]

i skipped ahead so maybe it was pointed out - the street cars do not run by the convention centre - those trains are the portland max, the street cars are much smaller and currently only run downtown portland, an extension to the streetcar system is underway in portland

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

i skipped ahead so maybe it was pointed out - the street cars do not run by the convention centre - those trains are the portland max, the street cars are much smaller and currently only run downtown portland, an extension to the streetcar system is underway in portland

Interesting expansion plans, when it's a full loop that will be a great system. Streetcars are better sized to share the roads with cars than a full LRT like the Max. They can also make creative routes due to the size as well. The part of the Portland streetcar that goes through the university campus is really cool.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

Of course the car is going to have a continued role in our society, and of course its downsides are going to disappear as technology improves them over time. However, keeping transit excellent means keeping the amount of cars on our roads in check (what do you think our buses use), and some trips are certainly unnecessary and controllable through TDM.

I think you need to take a look at where planners and some of us here are coming from when we say better choices involve transit, cycling and walking and not cars. Being for these choices and for TDM isn't about eliminating cars or making them intolerable to the point of unusable in this region. It's just that when you look at what are the dominating problems our transportation systems here are facing, a lot of them revolve around the fact that cars are still dominant in our society. In our region, perhaps not so much in Portland, population is growing fast - and problems can grow with it.

In fact, using TDM is all about your three points on what really matters: convenience, saving money, and enjoying life. You do need to keep in mind that investing in better roads is the far more expensive alternative for everyone compared to TDM. If we have more cars in this region, we'll need more and better roads. And, we'll need more money. We'd be doing far more arguing over far more needed tax dollars just to keep people and goods moving in this region.

I was pointing out that the Portland region isn't even set up well for this. If you haven't noticed, there's been a lot of conflict over big investments there - esp. roads vs. transit. Arguments go on over things like the Columbia River Crossing, the southeast Light Rail extension, and funding measures. I don't know if the lack of sustainability-oriented transportation goals is a bad thing in Portland (transportation systems of now should not become a growing pain without the pressure), but in case any significant growth is happening and does put more pressure on the transportation systems down there, they won't be better off.

Good points. I just really dislike the transit vs car adversarial take by some local governments and a portion of the population. Things like "No highways in Vancouver." or "No road expansion in New West" without looking at the facts make it difficult to actually hold a conversation.

Same happens for transit too when Translink basically says something like "Only SkyTrain down X or Y" and doesn't consider alternatives. I just dislike when studies pre-determin an outcome based largely on biases.

I do agree, we need transit options and adjustments. I just think we spend far too much time arguing as a region and not actually getting anything major done.

How long was Evergreen on the books for example? 10-15 years before construction even started.

How long have they been talking about Expo line extension and platform lengthening? Also on the books for over a decade.

How long as UBC line been talked about? At least 5+ years and we're still talking about it and "studying."

How long will the Massey Tunnel expansion? They were talking about tunnel expansion 15 years ago.

Patullo replacement? Been a decade already and we're still 5 years away.

3 laning out to Abbotsford? Been a while now and probably another 10-15 years before they do it and it is needed now, should have arguably been done with Gateway.

Lights at 72nd and 91? Still not done.

Overpasses over roberts bank rail line? Finally being done now after 15 or so years of talk.

I just think there is too much talk in the region. We need agencies and governments that make decisions. Studies are fine, and I know you need them for big infrasructure. But let's look at the Port Mann replacement and Canada Line. When big government steps in and the Province finally say "ok we're doing this.", it happens.

And part of that getting bogged down is everyone having say and the argument of transit vs roads and where funding should go kicking up almost every time.

I think you misinterpreted what I meant by "better choices". I again think you really need to consider it from a planner's perspective. By using TDM (i.e. road pricing and distance-based transit pricing) to encourage the rearrangement of trips that can be done another time or would otherwise be unnecessary, it creates efficiency. Rush hour buses and trains can be used by more commuters and less people making random trips because he/she felt like it that day. With road pricing deterring unnecessary trips during rush hour, commuters can get around faster because less people are using the road for a non-commute reason. Having more people on transit can have a regional effect: better transit in Vancouver means less cars on Broadway from Vancouver, leaving more space for longer-distance commuters who can only drive and use Broadway. But, if more longer distance commuters are on acceptable transit options because of improvements in their home/outer communities, that also creates benefits throughout - in Vancouver and there. In both cases, we would also not need to invest as much in roads (helping to curb the transit vs. roads argument) and in transportation altogether.

I talk to planner nearly every day and they all say while transit is important, where business and services are located with respect to residents is actually the most important part.

The general public seems to have a notion that "Build public transit first then the city will densify." but that's simply not true. It is the other way around. You need to start densifying and locating business and services closer to the residents and that in turn will drive up demand for moving away from car use. So from a planning standpoint, most city plans focus on what is being built from a building and service perspective then move onto transportation, not the other way around.

Ouch, well, sucks to be them. But, I think that's really just one example here. On the other hand, if that grocery store were at a SkyTrain station on the way home or near my home... or I could orient my life around a shorter commute (isn't that one of the main goals of TDM) leaving spare time for that task, it might be more tolerable. I think there are multiple examples to go around here. The scenario I described is probably very common in Japan, where most every rail station in an urban area is complemented with several businesses of several types, and grocery stores are common.

I don't disagree. New Westminster is a great example of providing such an option. Since the new station retail has been construction, my wife is more and more stopping at the Safeway on the way home to "pick up a few things." It doesn't remove the difficulty for a family with children that simply need more groceries than can be packed effectively on a SkyTrain or Bus, but it has removed the need for me making extra jaunts out to the SuperStore or T&T to buy just some milk or some chicken for dinner because we forgot to pull something out of the freezer.

I do absolutely agree with you on this front. It's about providing options to people not forcing everyone to conform to some ideal someone or some study has dreamed up. I say it a lot on these forums, a single male 20 year old going to SFU or UBC has a very different life than a 40 year old couple with 2 children. There are so many different types of families and people out there that it just irks me when a study comes out from say a UBC or SFU or somewhere else in the country that says "EVERYONE SHOULD TAKE TRANSIT! CARS ARE BAD!" or even "EVERYONE SHOULD LIVE IN HIGH RISE TOWERS! SPRAWL IS BAD!"

To begin with, I don't even know how this should be a complaining point. If people need to go out for groceries and use their car for the convenience, TDM funding options like road pricing don't necessarily eliminate that option - they just encourage you to do it when it's less busy. So, you might pay a toll to do it at 5 in the afternoon but not at 9. At the same time, you benefit from the faster car commute to/from at that time.

Good points. I think where the issue comes up and the argument is when you start pricing roads out in Surrey which has a higher per-capita of drivers, then take all that funding and give it to Vancouver for a UBC line. I don't know if those fears are founded, but regionally that's where a lot of the debate starts to happen.

Honestly though I'm not sure how you get over that fear. People unfortunately don't think outside their lives and while I can regognize as a Surrey resident myself that helping to fund a UBC line for example will indirectly benefit me so is still a good thing I am willing to do, I have also found myself wondering why certain decisions by Translink and the Province seem to just stick it to some.

Case and point, rapid bus over the Port Mann. Everyone blames everyone else for why that didn't happen. It is the Province's fault according to Surrey, it is Surrey's fault and/or the developer's fault accoriding to the Province.

But at the end, there is no rapid bus so the argument really doesn't accomplish anything other than piss people off. As a resident I just want them to shut up and fix it or do it. Less talk. I don't care who is to blame.

On sustainability, I personally like the idea of maintaining a high standard when it comes to keeping emissions low and establishing sustainable practices, because although we may not create a big impact by our direct actions, we can create one by being an example. I think there would be global benefits if we continue to shape Vancouver to become one of the world's most sustainable cities, and push the region forward with it to create a large-scale example that will get more attention from other cities, esp. bigger ones. Perhaps, some cities in China.

I don't disagree either. I would just temper our progression towards sustainability with the ability to continue to enjoy life. Like anything, when views become too extreme like you are starting to see with Mayor & Council in Vancouver itself, things start to fall off the rail and you lose a big chunk of people's support over time.

It is admirable to want to be sustainable, but at the end of the day we still need to go to work, make money, buy food and clothes, and enjoy vacations from time to time. I don't want to spend my working life getting up in the morning, going to work, getting home, making dinner, then going to bed 5 days a way every week for the next 25 years just to live a fully sustainable life and wear a medal of honor.

And the truth is, we're not truely sustainable unless we live off the land and give up all technology. So if we choose technology in our lives, there will be an unsustainable aspect to everything we do. It's like the argument for extending the sea wall to Jerico beach being poo-pooed by those living in mansions along the water front because they say it will destroy the "natural beauty" of the area. Truth is, the "natural" beauty was destroyed when the forests that were there for 100,000 years before were cut down to make way for their mansions.

It's all about perspective and while I turn off my lights when I don't need them, have my heaters off year round, wash with cold water, and throw a towel in my dryer to speed up the drying cycle, I have no issue driving in my car "just to feel the wind in my air" on nice days, or have a really long hot shower because I want to.

It is important that some other cities at least have a model of sorts to follow. As I had said, I feel this way about Portland. Although Portland is by other standards a very poor example of transportation investment choices, I believe its common use as an example does hold some benefits in the United States, because the United States needs some sort of example. I just think that it's not really appropriate to be referring to Portland in other contexts. Hence, I like to question the relevancy of Vancouver vs. Portland discussions and this thread - Portland has much more to learn from Metro Van than Metro Van has to learn from Portland.

I agree. You can't grow if you don't learn from the bad and the good at the same time right?

You've made good points.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

i skipped ahead so maybe it was pointed out - the street cars do not run by the convention centre - those trains are the portland max, the street cars are much smaller and currently only run downtown portland, an extension to the streetcar system is underway in portland

Yes that fact was pointed out to me at some stage. Sorry for the mix up, I _was_ refering to the LRTs (Max) actually. I hadn't seen the streetcar system, would have been interesting to see it or try it out. We never did get to that area where they were if they aren't right downtown. If they were right downtown then they were easy to miss because we didn't see them and walked around a lot.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

i skipped ahead so maybe it was pointed out - the street cars do not run by the convention centre - those trains are the portland max, the street cars are much smaller and currently only run downtown portland, an extension to the streetcar system is underway in portland

That expansion was finished around September I believe. The streetcars currently run over the Broadway Bridge and around the Convention center and down the east side of Portland to the OMSI. In a few years when the new bridge is finished it will form a loop around the river.

[Steveston]

Even if we build the world's greatest RRT system, and full integrate it with LRT, high frequency buses, SeaBuses and the SFU Gondola, we're still going to have to replace and maintain our bridge & road infrastructure, because no matter how good the transit system is, it can't carry cargo!

Vancouver is a port city -- that's why it is where it is, why it grew, and it will always be one. And as a port city, we need to be able to move stuff in and out, and around the city. Yes, rail does and will continue to handle a lot of the bulk stuff, and like it or not, there will be an expansion of pipeline capacity, but there has to be good road connections from the port facilities to warehouse/industrial areas, and to Hwys 1/99/I-5. The Port Mann/Gateway/SFPR are as much (more?) for trucks as they are for cars.

That's why it should never be an either/or choice between roads & transit.