Quote:
Quick tip on style. If your goal is to combat hysteria, it’s important to avoid sounding hysterical or enraged yourself. This post will fan hysteria, not combat it.
Mode choice tradeoffs are about a complex mix of variables and impacts. They are extremely hard decisions even when everyone involved is being rational.
For example, the problem with LRT mixing with intense pedestrian spaces is not that it’s unsafe (though that objection needs to be dealt with) but that to be safe it has to be very, very slow. So it all depends on what kind of travel times you want to achieve.
Many people in your region really like the speed and reliability offered by the current SkyTrain product, and are willing to go into elevated or underground stations to get that product. No solution that mixes with pedestrians will deliver SkyTrain reliability, frequency, or travel time. If you’re arguing that this is OK, then fine, make that argument.
But hysterical accusations of hysteria do not lead to good decisions, regardless of the merits of your case.
|
That's a very good point people overlook; Skytrain is like a product people consume. If you want people to consume transit, you have to provide transit people want.
So you have to look at what the overall goal is. Is it:
1) Offer a cost effective (maybe profitable) affordable transportation alternative to driving. IE make it possible for people to get around without having to own a car.
OR 2) Build a system with the goal of attracting as many riders as possible away from the car. Build an effective system for the greater public good.
The advantage with going with option 1 is that you are building transit for people who NEED it. In option 1, the people on Transit have to be on it because they don't want to, or can't afford (car+gas+insurance+parking), an automobile. You have a captured audience, so you can build cheap networks. It doesn't matter if a trip takes thrice as long as a car trip, the riders have no alternative.
The advantage of going with option 2 is that you are providing an attractive form of transport. You are encouraging people to choose transit. The majority of people out there will always be able to afford a car, so you have to attract them away from it. And you do that by offering something competitive and fast, which usually means expensive. So yes it will cost more per Km, but you get more riders per Km too.
So if your goal is to attract as many riders to transit as possible, you have to spend money on something people WANT to consume.
Especially in a city like Vancouver, where traffic isn't as bad as it is in other cities. You need to offer a fast alternative. If a transit trip is hugely longer than driving, most people will chose time over money.
So, LRT on Broadway is like option 1. You are building a system mostly for the people who need it. It probably won't attract that many more people, and you're building is as a more cost effective alternative to running the current number of buses. Rail will draw some out of the woodwork, but if most people avoid the bus because driving is faster to get to work on Broadway, then they will keep driving.
Skytrain on Broadway is like option 2. You are building a system as an alternative to driving. People who currently drive would like the speed advantage of Skytrain, and are more likely to switch. We have seen this with the Expo Line, and are seeing it happen already on the Canada Line, and WCE is expensive, but runs at capacity.
If you're happy with current ridership statistics on the Broadway corridor (and the entire system), then LRT is a logical choice. It won't drive away any riders (unless it's actually slower than the B line) and it's cost effective, and will grow with the ridership growth of the rest of the system.
If you want to massively increase ridership on the Broadway Corridor, then Skytrain is the logical choice. It's fast, and there are many people who drive to work in the area that would like the speed of Skytrain. As well, it will integrate better with the existing system. The advantage of riding all the way from Coquitlam Center to UBC on a single vehicule, or making a single transfer at Commercial or Cambie, is hard to ignore. Not only would Skytrain increase ridership on the Broadway Corridor, it would increase Ridership on the rest of the Network (getting to the Broadway Corridor).
And it's been shown that people in Vancouver like to ride Skytrain. The only thing holding back the Millennium line has been the fact that when it was built, it didn't go near any homes or offices. But even considering that, the Millennium line has been a success as it offers a very fast trip from Lougheed to Downtown. If it was any slower, due to level crossings or more stations, it would have been an unmitigated disaster. Noone would have taken a Millennium line LRT as Lougheed is a very fast way to get into the city by car.
Prev
Linear Mode
