Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[CLC]

The credibility of David Cockle himself is very doubtful. Check out his pointless post that Zwei posted on behalf of him last month:
http://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/2010/08/20/city-populations-with-light-rail/

[lightrail]

The people in the valley must be smoking what they grow if they think that a light rail line running on an ancient interurban alignment through mainly agricultural fields and competing with a freeway is actually going to be viable. This has got to be the biggest pipe dream in transit planning. It makes absolutely no sense. Buses could get people from Abbotsford and Chilliwack to Skytrain much quicker. The fact there isn't a bus doing this is either political or there is simply no demand.

LRT from Skytrain to say Langley would make sense, but beyond that, you need 1920s economics to make it viable.

[squeezied]

I just visited RFTV site and I'm surprised there are hardly any comments. Did Zwei delete them all or something? I imagine comments would be pretty critical.

[mezzanine]

^I used to post there to counter some of his claims, but most of the blogosphere (and the MSM as well) are aware of him now and his 'unique' viewpoints. I don't think anyone's opinion on RFTV change. Sometimes I post on other blogs to encourage dialogue, but the dialogue quickly devolves on RFTV. I have better things to do with my energy...

[Robert in Calgary]

Originally Posted by squeezied

......I'm surprised there are hardly any comments. Did Zwei delete them all or something? I imagine comments would be pretty critical.

I tried having a discussion with him early in the summer. After my second post I was tossed in with the "Skytrain Lobby"

What's the point of posting there? As he showed recently on "The Transport Politic", he's unable to have a discussion with anyone who disagrees with him without being abusive and creating conspiracies. RFTV gives him the platform to be abusive with impunity.

[Whalleyboy]

every time i see him post in the surrey leader website i just bash his facts. He just stops posting. I guess its since he can't delete my post on there and prove me wrong.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by jlousa

I think the ideas bounced off here are much better then their proposal. Extend WCE across into Abby, it's doable and relatively cheap. Upgrade the other line from Surrey to Langley and maybe even Aldergrove. I just do not see the need for a line all the way out to Chilliwack today or in the immediate future. Building it would only encourage sprawl just like highway expansion will. Here we would be better off providing better service to existing population in a concentrated area instead of reduced service over a much larger area.

I've been told that WCE to Abby could be done tomorrow, but CN/CP won't let passenger trains cross the Fraser River using the rail bridge at Mission. Apparently they are quite sensitive to the impacts if a passenger train fails on the bridge & freight traffic crossing the Fraser has to use the other rail bridges upstream or downstream while the Mission bridge is out of service.

I find this argument somewhat specious, since WCE trains are being run by CPR crews on CPR rails, and the WCE equipment is being maintained by Via Rail (ex-CPR) personnel. If something happens to put the Mission bridge out of service, I think it would more likely to be an issue of improper maintenance of the bridge, not the maintenance of a train using it. If this was such a sensitive traffic bottleneck, I would think CN/CP would do everything necessary to ensure this bridge is always operational.

With the bridge properly maintained and WCE trains being properly maintained, there are few arguments left for not running WCE to Abby.


Perhaps this is on the agenda for the next round of negotiations between WCE and CN/CP when the current agreement comes up for renewal.

[SpongeG]

i saw that at noon - it seemed like a useless report - maybe the dinner hour report will have more info

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by usog

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbi...surrey-chilliwack-light-rail-report.html

Looks like it's getting picked up by quite a few places, what a pity. I wonder if that rail for the valley has some nice media connections for an otherwise non-story? Surely the all-powerful skytrain lobby can top that

I'm guessing the story has been put on the news wire, so the rest of the news services are using it as filler. Just because it shows up on the local CBC website, doesn't mean it will be a story on the local newscast.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by usog

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbi...surrey-chilliwack-light-rail-report.html

Looks like it's getting picked up by quite a few places, what a pity. I wonder if that rail for the valley has some nice media connections for an otherwise non-story? Surely the all-powerful skytrain lobby can top that

I'm still waiting for my pay cheque for being a part of the skytrain lobby

Originally Posted by mezzanine

^I used to post there to counter some of his claims, but most of the blogosphere (and the MSM as well) are aware of him now and his 'unique' viewpoints. I don't think anyone's opinion on RFTV change. Sometimes I post on other blogs to encourage dialogue, but the dialogue quickly devolves on RFTV. I have better things to do with my energy...

I used to post on his site as well. Then I noticed that I could predict is come back even before he posted it. There were times that I was so seething mad at my end that I wanted to jump through my computer screen and strangle the guy. Commenting to him it like commenting to a brick wall. Except a brick wall actually does bend a bit.


Best time ever was when he started to comment on Jarrett Walkers Human transit blog. It might have been the one about Broadway or the grid system or skytrain. Of course zwei makes a classic zwei comment. Then at least 1 or 2 people who don't even live here told him to basically shut up. As he has no clue what he is talking about.

I'm still trying to fathom how he would build any system where everyone can use it without transfering.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

Apparently they are quite sensitive to the impacts if a passenger train fails on the bridge...

Interestingly enough, the Mission rail bridge co-existed as a heavily used single-lane vehicular bridge controlled by traffic light signals until the new Mission Bridge was opened up in 1973.

I'm sure that during the pre-1973 decades, vehicles may have had a flat tire/ran out of gas/broken down or even had an accident on the rail bridge deck. Certainly an infrequent passenger rail service across same would be less susceptible to break downs on the bridge deck. The precedent has already been set.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by cabotp

Of course zwei makes a classic zwei comment.

Is this the 'zwei' that you are referring to (and others here as well)? If that's the case, he just posted this comment on some nutbar site:

Malcolm Johnston said...

First, kudos for hard work must go to John Buker and John Vissers and Leewood Projects in the UK for their dedicated hard work on the Rail for the Valley Report.

For my part, I just did research and provided a target for the barbs thrown by a very dedicated SkyTrain Lobby. The way they can construe the truth would make even Joesph Goebbels blush!

We have had excellent media coverage by the Black press and the former CanWest regional papers in the Valley, the North Shore News and all three TV stations.

We were mentioned in the province and will be tomorrow in the Sun.

As of yet, no mention in the Globe and Mail.

We have not had good coverage on the local radio, including the talk shows.

TransLink's response was to announce a SFU 'Gondola' ride, which was a rehash of a proposal last year. It is not a serious proposal and has raised eyebrows across the Atlantic!

I received this quote from a transit expert in Europe regarding today's announcement by TransLink: "All I can say is, the mind-set of TransLink beggars belief, what other profligate schemes can this organization devise?"

The world is watching and the world is laughing at us!

Let me put his in perspective; for the cost of the Evergreen line we can build a "full build" Vancouver/Richmond to Rosedale TramTrain and have enough money left over for a Vancouver to Maple Ridge TramTrain.

For the cost of the $2.5 billion+ RAV/Canada Line we could have the RftV "full build" + Van to M.R. TramTrain, plus a Vancouver to Steveston/YVR LRT line connecting with the RftV TramTrain, with through service, plus a new Fraser River multi track lift bridge!

For the cost of the proposed $3 billion to $4 billion Broadway/UBC subway, we could have a "full build" RftV TramTrain; a BCIT to UBC/Stanley Park LRT; a Vancouver to Maple Ridge TramTrain; a new multi track Fraser River lift bridge; TramTrain to Whiterock and 20 km. of LRT in surrey; 10 km. of LRT in Langley, a a LRT line to YXX!

Vancouver and Gordon Campbell desperately want one more metro line to Vancouver for posterity (rumour had it that the Broadway Subway is to be called the "Legacy Line"), but the Fraser Valley taxpayer is now waking up to the fact that they are subsidizing Vancouver's transit frills.

Let us hope that the Valley politicos demand affordable transit from bond and Campbell, if not, it would be better for the South Fraser municipalities to secede from TransLink and the GVRD!

September 22, 2010 6:39 PM

[TransitJack]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

I've been told that WCE to Abby could be done tomorrow, but CN/CP won't let passenger trains cross the Fraser River using the rail bridge at Mission. Apparently they are quite sensitive to the impacts if a passenger train fails on the bridge & freight traffic crossing the Fraser has to use the other rail bridges upstream or downstream while the Mission bridge is out of service.

I find this argument somewhat specious, since WCE trains are being run by CPR crews on CPR rails, and the WCE equipment is being maintained by Via Rail (ex-CPR) personnel. If something happens to put the Mission bridge out of service, I think it would more likely to be an issue of improper maintenance of the bridge, not the maintenance of a train using it. If this was such a sensitive traffic bottleneck, I would think CN/CP would do everything necessary to ensure this bridge is always operational.

With the bridge properly maintained and WCE trains being properly maintained, there are few arguments left for not running WCE to Abby.


Perhaps this is on the agenda for the next round of negotiations between WCE and CN/CP when the current agreement comes up for renewal.

This is not true, the Via rail train crosses this bridge every time it leave Vancouver headed east. CN and CP have a shared agreement where ALL trains comes west down the Fraser Canyon on CN tracks and all eastbound trains go up the Canyon on CP tracks. This includes the Via train that uses the CN/BN tracks ex Pacific Central, the New West bridge to connect with the CNR, then crossing at Mission to access the CP tracks going east to the Fraser Canyon.

The bridge at Mission is critical to rail activities within Vancouver. It has to be maintained to high standards to not jeopardize CP's operations. If a 14000t train can traverse, then a 5-10 car WCE is of no consequence.

[SpikePhanta]

Originally Posted by TransitJack

This is not true, the Via rail train crosses this bridge every time it leave Vancouver headed east. CN and CP have a shared agreement where ALL trains comes west down the Fraser Canyon on CN tracks and all eastbound trains go up the Canyon on CP tracks. This includes the Via train that uses the CN/BN tracks ex Pacific Central, the New West bridge to connect with the CNR, then crossing at Mission to access the CP tracks going east to the Fraser Canyon.

The bridge at Mission is critical to rail activities within Vancouver. It has to be maintained to high standards to not jeopardize CP's operations. If a 14000t train can traverse, then a 5-10 car WCE is of no consequence.

Yup this is true.


Anyways say if a new Rail bridge at patullo was created would it be viable to have a new WCE line that would either start at Waterfront, or Pacific Central and then use the BN/CN tracks, then across the fraser and down to Abby, Langley, Chilliwack ect?

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by SpikePhanta

Yup this is true.


Anyways say if a new Rail bridge at patullo was created would it be viable to have a new WCE line that would either start at Waterfront, or Pacific Central and then use the BN/CN tracks, then across the fraser and down to Abby, Langley, Chilliwack ect?

I don't think that will ever be viable. As we discussed, Abby is ideally located to be added to the existing WCE line, and if Chilliwack actually has enough ridership, then it would be a logical extension from there. Because of this, we can be quite confident that Langley will never get its own express service to Vancouver, but it will one day be connected to Surrey Central by some kind of transit line, since it will be recognized as a suburb of Surrey rather than Vancouver (as with North Delta and White Rock - i.e. Greater Surrey, if you will).

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Is this the 'zwei' that you are referring to (and others here as well)? If that's the case, he just posted this comment on some nutbar site:

Heh, skytrain lobby just won the arguement. I call Godwin's law on that one.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Is this the 'zwei' that you are referring to (and others here as well)? If that's the case, he just posted this comment on some nutbar site:

Well assuming that isn't an imposter sounding like zwei that is zwei. Has it has the classic zwei comments.

1st. He always says that an expert told him that what we are doing is funny. Yet if you ever ask him who that expert is. He never tells you. Not once has he ever named an "expert" that he as talked about.

2nd. Then he makes the classic comment about how if instead of building the Canada Line or instead of building the Broadway Line or if they had built and LRT system. That the money could have been used to build his Rail for the Valley. Yet there is no proof at all that just because you spend less on one project that another project will start sooner. It would be like saying that if they only built a 8 lane Port Mann Bridge, instead of a 10 lane one. That the extra money could be spent on expanding a road in White rock as an example. Of course it does not work that way.

3rd. I realize people in the Valley feel they get shafted on this one. And it is one he tries to get a response from. But the typical Vancouver always gets the improvements so lets not take it anymore and protest about it. This to me is really putting blame where really no blame is warranted. You can't blame Vancouver for getting a good majority of the transit upgrades. When most of the busiest routes are in Vancouver. It would be like people who drive hwy 99 complaining that hwy 1 always gets the upgrades. Yet hwy 1 is deals with far more traffic.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Is this the 'zwei' that you are referring to (and others here as well)? If that's the case, he just posted this comment on some nutbar site:

I've been thinking Malcolm is zwei for quite some time. The simple fact that both use frequent quotation marks "pointlessly", use very out of place words in an attempt to make it sound smarter, and make often comparisons to Nazis sells it. What really annoys me is that several times Zwei has quoted editorials in local papers written by Malcolm and talk about them like they are the common opinion of the man on the street. At the very least they are very close friends and share the same opinions and goals.

[Robert in Calgary]

Donald Malcolm Johnston is Zwei and Evil Eye and who knows how many others.

[Metro-One]

OK, we all know that Zwei is against skytrain, but now he has beef with the possible gondola project?????

Any particular reason why besides the fact it is not being built in the valley?

Honestly, the guy is so transparent to anyone with half a brain. (The problem being that most people in the world don't have half a brain).