Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by 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.



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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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!

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]

Originally Posted by mr.x

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]

Originally Posted by 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!

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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/20...e-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]

Originally Posted by mr.x

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:

Originally Posted by DKaz

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]

Originally Posted by mr.x

. 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.

Originally Posted by mr.x

. 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.