I left this response in the first link in the post above my last post.
I think it is funny that rail for the valley has posted a picture of the Madrid LRT, followed by the caption "why is trans link so afraid of LRT?"
In reality, they are not, the fact is that any decent transit system has layers, consisting of commuter rail, metro/ALRT rail and light rail/tram. Metro-Vancouver has not reached the point where it can focus on LRT feeder lines yet because we still have an incomplete commuter and Metro/ALRT system. With the Evergreen Line and Broadway extension completed as skytrain, then we will be able to focus on LRT rail systems (to be used as feeder/secondary lines.
Going back to the Madrid example why am I not surprised that this blog failed to mention that the base of Madrid's rail system is a 282.58KM long grade separated (92% underground) metro system with 234 stations, and several expansions in the works. While the LRT cited above is only a 28km long feeder system.
The fact is Madrid is at the stage where they can now work on both layers of their system. The same can be seen for almost any major city above 2 million in the developed world (outside of the US). The people on this forum really need to travel to Europe and Asia to see how true rail works. They almost all have grade separated backbone systems! Even the C-train in Calgary runs along its own rail corridor (akin to a CP or CN ROW) for the majority of its length. This is very different compared to what would become of the Broadway Corridor. The new West LRT line in Calgary is estimated now to cost $700 million, far more than the example LRT figures given on this website. It also should be noted that many of the street crossings that the C line makes are grade separated, with underpasses and overpasses. Also, part of the system through downtown Calgary is now planned to be transferred underground when needed to maintain reliable service! Talk about building something twice, that costs a lot more than building something right the first time!
It should also be noted that North America's busiest LRT line, the Monterrey Metro, is fully grade separated, akin to skytrain, and Boston's Green Line is a mix of subway, grade separated, ROW and street grade sections. Therefore for much of its length it is akin to skytrain. Not to mention it is part of a much larger system that uses all forms of rail transit, including commuter rail, metro & LRT. This is similar with Toronto's system where all of the major destinations are serviced by subway and commuter rail, while trams are used for local service (akin to buses).
Also, most systems being expanded in the world are grade separated, just look at all the systems being built in Asia, Europe, Australia, and even Africa! And for the cities that are also now building large LRT systems, the vast majority of them already have expansive existing grade separated Metro systems. Skytrain is just one technology of many grade separated systems that all act as Metro systems. The reason why skytrain may not be present in many cities (Although it is in Bangkok, Thailand, 1 line in Beijing, a possible candidate for Honolulu's new metro system, and several other airport connectors) is because most cities had built their first subway lines before skytrain technology existed, and for continuity reasons have decided to expand their systems relative to the technology they already have (which is another reason why skytrain to UBC only makes more sense, since it would simply be the extension of an existing line, therefore be able to share current rolling stock with our existing system and there would be no need for a useless transfer (for someone traveling to or from the Broadway corridor/UBC from North Burnaby and the tri-cities).
Many US cities, such as Phoenix and Seattle, have been building LRT as their backbone (even the the Seattle LRT has extensive sections of grade separation, despite this, it has already had numerous traffic accidents), but such American cities have never been good examples to follow for mass transit. Even the Portland LRT (which also has expansive sections of CN/CR ROW) has only a daily ridership of 107, 600, using 4 lines and 84.7 km (compared to skytrain's 364 000 daily riders, with 3 lines and 68.7km of rail). Simply put, Vancouver skytrain achieves 3 times the ridership with 1 less line and 16 less km of track.
And one thing should be noted, almost all metro/LRT systems use bus routes for feeders, since it only makes sense to use buses for shorter trips and such train systems for longer trips. Akin to how one would drive their car to a park and ride along the WCE and take the train for the main portion of their trip, and akin to to how metros deed into HSR hubs in Europe and Asia. This is just the nature of good layered transit in the world. Smaller feeds into larger.
If there are any nations we should be following for transit, it is such nations as Japan and the UK, where grade separated rail and heavy rail acts as the back bone to mass transit. While LRTs act as feeder routes, akin to buses.
I 100% support rail to the valley, but i support it in the fashion of a WCE commuter rail service (though, I would like to see such a service run 7 days a week, both directions, and throughout the day at a reduced frequency during non rush hours).
But it is obvious that skytrain is the right choice for Broadway. Also because Broadway itself is a narrow street, and since it is also the main vehicle artery in the area, and the main pedestrian artery in the area, the road would become overwhelmingly congested, especially around stations. Also, the block sizes of the Broadway area would greatly reduce LRT train lengths, reducing capacity, and train frequency would also be reduced (compared to skytrain) due to the fact the trains would be sharing the road with vehicles, bikes and pedestrians, and all these forms would also have to be given their own priority time at intersections.
Also, accidents would likely cause delays for the system. Not just accidents directly involving the trains, but also other accidents (car on car, car on pedestrian, etc...) along the long would also cause delays.
Also, has rail for the valley factored in the costs of rolling stock, operation, and the construction of an OMC along the line. Also, where would this OMC be constructed? Properly values along the Broadway corridor are very expansive and this would add a large chunk to the LRT budget.
This should all be food for thought.
And remember, while Madrid may have 28km of LRT, it also has 282.58 km of Metro (92% subway).
Cheers!
Ian
But can someone here please respond to the second thread posted, about how the C-line was under-built (and even today is no where near its true capacity if we simply ordered more cars!) Also, feel free to use any of my examples above about their cherry picking and the true nature of LRT systems they quote and or reference and how they would be equally, if not more delayed with the Olympic crowd!
Prev
Linear Mode
