Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[GeeCee]

Hey, if you had a fetish for slow ding ding trains you'd be posting some pretty crazy stuff too!

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by Zassk

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).

So instead of spending billions sending SkyTrain to Langley & Abby, or a half-billion upgrading the old inter-urban rails to run trams, why not just spend a few million to get WCE running past Mission to Abby (and perhaps another million to get WCE to Chilliwack also).

[waiting for Zwei's head to explode when his cherished Tram/LRT/Trolly system is rejected - again]

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by GeeCee

Hey, if you had a fetish for slow ding ding trains you'd be posting some pretty crazy stuff too!

"Ding Ding Zwei" ?

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by CLC

Probably free. David Cockle, the consultant who made the report, has his family living in Chilliwack, and he is friend of Zwei as well.

I read the report last night.
With all the typos I found, it seems to have been rushed to get finished & released in time for the media whoop-la.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by 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).

I honestly believe his beef has more to do with the fact that every time he hears of a potential project or sees a project being built. That is not a part of his Rail for the Valley (aka that inter urban line.) That he will be against it and post all the trash he can to discredit it.

So he keeps saying we should of built and LRT line for a cheaper price in a case like the Canada Line. Because than the extra money could be used towards his Rail for the Valley project.

Of course he fails to realize that just because you save money on one project does not mean his project or any other project suddenly become closer to reality.

I also feel he has a hatred for transit service in the City of Vancouver. He hates the fact that Vancouver as the better service. So every time he hears of something being done there he will post a comment with miss quoted facts.

[tybuilding]

Can't we extend the fast bus service on Highway 1 to Abbotsford and Chilliwack?

[Justin10000]

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...

You do not help much to improve the dialogue of RFTV. Your methods of discussion involved typing some sort of diatribe, and then posting a link to some article. A lot of the time, you are wrong on the subject. I realized that when you tried to prove a point using the St. Clair road project as an example LRT will always incur cost overruns.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by Justin10000

You do not help much to improve the dialogue of RFTV. Your methods of discussion involved typing some sort of diatribe, and then posting a link to some article. A lot of the time, you are wrong on the subject. I realized that when you tried to prove a point using the St. Clair road project as an example LRT will always incur cost overruns.

The St Clair project is a valid comparison to LRT on Broadway. Both roads share common features and constraints. Both roads are of a similar fixed width, pass through built up business districts, and cross many other major roads. And both projects share similar design goals (segregated but on street operation). It's more valid to compare Broadway to St Claire than some tram project in Europe where it's built on mostly old rail ROW or large grassy medians on wide boulevards or countryside tramtrain.

While it's not a 100% guaranteed outcome, it is one of the most closely matched projects happening in the world to Broadway, and much more valid a comparison than comparing Broadway to the average statistics (or in Zwei's case, comparing it to the BEST case possible statistics).

[Justin10000]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

The St Clair project is a valid comparison to LRT on Broadway. Both roads share common features and constraints. Both roads are of a similar fixed width, pass through built up business districts, and cross many other major roads. And both projects share similar design goals (segregated but on street operation). It's more valid to compare Broadway to St Claire than some tram project in Europe where it's built on mostly old rail ROW or large grassy medians on wide boulevards or countryside tramtrain.

No, it is not a valid comparison. This is exactly why the problem I am talking about. It's obvious you do not know much about the problems that occurred on St. Clair. Unfortunately, the media, and pro-auto groups succeeded in labeling the project an LRT project, when it really was a project to rebuild the road, and the existing streetcar tracks. Before the project, St. Clair Avenue was very wide for a downtown avenue. A ROW used to exist before it was taken out in the late '30s
Not one mention was made of the pro-auto lobby group that succeeded in stopping the project for a year because they wanted parking on the streets(a city decision, not TTC), very little was discussed about the involvement of multiple city agencies with no clear leadership on the project. A poor design process, that lead to construction during the winter. The only similarity that I can see where there will be a debate is road space allocation, but from what I understand there is enough space on Broadway for a ROW. That is where we had the debate on St. Clair, and really had little to do with the ROW. Sadly, the city caved into the demands of auto users on that one, and now there is still allowed on street-parking. The Streetcar zips by slow moving traffic.

None of this has anything to do with the choice of technology. These sort of cock-ups can occur on ANY project, and I know Mezzanie, and you know this. It's unfair to try to say LRT(or Skytrain) will suffer the same problems because one project was a total screw-up. If I was really a jerk, I would compare the skytrain to our Scarborough RT here in Toronto. The line has been a disaster from the start.

While it's not a 100% guaranteed outcome, it is one of the most closely matched projects happening in the world to Broadway, and much more valid a comparison than comparing Broadway to the average statistics (or in Zwei's case, comparing it to the BEST case possible statistics).

The road project has been complete for a while now, and I highly doubt it's that closely watched, unless LRT opponents are using it as a means to sway opinion. The sad thing is, it's not even LRT. It's a streetcar in a simple ROW. The fact is, people are solely focusing on the ROW portion of the project while ignoring the hydro portion, the road rebuilding portion, and the beautification portion.

I do not want to debate the St. Clair project here, I do have to defend Zwei a little bit. He can be abrasive, but he obviously cares about transit, and from what I read, you cannot deny Skytrain technology is pretty damn expensive, and is not really going to help that part of the region. Why not look at other options. Why only look at Skytrain technology, especially when it seems Translink is having trouble getting funds for one line? I read that report, and it's a pretty good assessment of what can be done to bring transit at a reasonable price.

[CLC]

Originally Posted by Justin10000

... I do have to defend Zwei a little bit. He can be abrasive, but he obviously cares about transit

What he really cares about is having tram connected to his place of live (Chilliwack?)

He hates bus. He fiercely denounces BRT (ignores the fact that at least a couple cities's BRT has more than double capacity than any LRT in real world). It is hard to describe anyone who so hates bus and not even want to board on a bus "care about transit":

[usog]

Originally Posted by Justin10000

If I was really a jerk, I would compare the skytrain to our Scarborough RT here in Toronto. The line has been a disaster from the start.

The road project has been complete for a while now, and I highly doubt it's that closely watched, unless LRT opponents are using it as a means to sway opinion. The sad thing is, it's not even LRT. It's a streetcar in a simple ROW. The fact is, people are solely focusing on the ROW portion of the project while ignoring the hydro portion, the road rebuilding portion, and the beautification portion.

I do not want to debate the St. Clair project here, I do have to defend Zwei a little bit. He can be abrasive, but he obviously cares about transit, and from what I read, you cannot deny Skytrain technology is pretty damn expensive, and is not really going to help that part of the region. Why not look at other options. Why only look at Skytrain technology, especially when it seems Translink is having trouble getting funds for one line? I read that report, and it's a pretty good assessment of what can be done to bring transit at a reasonable price.

I'll ignore the portions about Toronto because honestly I don't know much about that project so I can't comment on it. Anyways:

The only thing the Scarborough RT and our Skytrain have in common is the technology. Trying to extrapolate that since the first is a disaster that the second should be as well is quite a laughable comparison.

Also, streetcars and LRT are not mutually exclusive. As far as I know, the upgrades as well as the rolling stock they are looking at for the future brings the ROW portion up to the accepted standards of LRT, so I don't get your point.

Finally, I don't think people really have an issue with zwei's original message of building rail out to the valley, it's more the way he likes to propagate it. That's my view at least. And the reason why broadway should get skytrain is really just cost/outcome. Considering skytrain would connect and give a seamless connection to that corridor and current/projected ridership, I don't see why it isn't worth the extra investment. Not going to comment on the report since it's pretty much all been said.

[Justin10000]

Originally Posted by CLC

What he really cares about is having tram connected to his place of live (Chilliwack?)

And that's a problem? Tram/Train has proven to be fairly cheap to install, and operate. Seems like something that can be implemented. Everyone wants good transit.

He hates bus. He fiercely denounces BRT (ignores the fact that at least a couple cities's BRT has more than double capacity than any LRT in real world). It is hard to describe anyone who so hates bus and not even want to board on a bus "care about transit":

Well, the high capacity BRT's I assume you're talking about are the South American installations, whose design, and construction coincided with massive urban change, and development. It's not likely that sort of BRT system would be accepted in North America. It simply takes up a lot of road space. Even the largest BRT network(Ottawa) in North America carries around 6,000/7,000 pph, which is below the capacity of LRT.

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by Justin10000

You do not help much to improve the dialogue of RFTV. Your methods of discussion involved typing some sort of diatribe, and then posting a link to some article. A lot of the time, you are wrong on the subject. I realized that when you tried to prove a point using the St. Clair road project as an example LRT will always incur cost overruns.

Hi Justin.

Well, maybe you are right, I might be wrong on the subject.

The link you might be referring to might be the one from the TTC, titled "“Getting it Right”
Lessons from the St. Clair Streetcar for the Implementation of Transit City".

http://www3.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Commiss...20_2010/Reports/Transit_City_Impleme.pdf

People are free to read it and form their own opinion.

Personally, I am not sure if LRT will always incur cost overruns. I am sure that LRT/metro/skytrain/BRT may turn out well, or may not turn out well due to a number of factors.

Regardless, I suppose we'll agree to disagree. As I've already said, it sounds like frequenters of RFTV agree that I don't add much to the discussion. I won't be posting as much to RFTV anymore. You and I have better uses for our energy than to rehash the same arguments.

[Justin10000]

Originally Posted by usog

The only thing the Scarborough RT and our Skytrain have in common is the technology. Trying to extrapolate that since the first is a disaster that the second should be as well is quite a laughable comparison.

Exactly why Mezzanie, and BCPhil should not make assumptions that LRT construction on Broadway will be a disaster because of the problems of a project elsewhere. Comparing the St. Clair fiasco to LRT construction on Broadway based on road width, and design goals(which are not even similar, BTW) is laughable.

Also, streetcars and LRT are not mutually exclusive. As far as I know, the upgrades as well as the rolling stock they are looking at for the future brings the ROW portion up to the accepted standards of LRT, so I don't get your point.

In this case, it is exclusive by definition. The stops are legacy stops spaced close to together, no signal priority, single ended non-articulated cars, so the speed will be slower. Point of the matter is, the focus has been totally on the ROW construction, where much of the blame for the delays and cost overruns can be attributed to reconstruction of the road, sidewalk, hydro relocation. The ROW is not totally fault-free. The TTC did have a hand, but the problems are not eclusive to the ROW.

And the reason why broadway should get skytrain is really just cost/outcome. Considering skytrain would connect and give a seamless connection to that corridor and current/projected ridership, I don't see why it isn't worth the extra investment. Not going to comment on the report since it's pretty much all been said.

That's the reason Broadway should get Skytrain. Cost, and outcome. The cost is going to be very high. I read somewhere between $2-$4billion. That is a lot to pay for one line. Sounds cliche, but that really could build a few LRT lines in the region as well as Tram/Train, again I understand where Zwei is coming from, even if he is abrasive about it.
From what I read, Translink is having trouble even finding funds for their share of the Evergreen line. I cannot imagine where $4Billion will come from!
I do not really know the Broadway Corridor. The last time I visited Vancouver, and that corridor, it seemed busy with lots of routes using the corridor, and the VCC station opened up. I'll be honest, I thought Broadway would be a good candidate for Surface LRT. If that street can handle that number of buses, LRT seems like it can work in the corridor.

[CLC]

Originally Posted by Justin10000

Even the largest BRT network(Ottawa) in North America carries around 6,000/7,000 pph, which is below the capacity of LRT.

I would agree with you that North America is not going to see gigantic new- generation BRT.

Still, ultimately, LRT capacity is more limited than BRT. You may not want to experience the MTR light rail (nicknamed "garbage rail") in Hong Kong, to see what kind of crush condition it is.

[Justin10000]

Mezzanie, I was actually referring to this document

http://www.toronto.ca/involved/projects/sheppard_east_lrt/pdf/2010-08-30_project_overview.pdf

(Page 28)

This is the overview of LRT construction in Toronto.

I expect this is the construction methodology that would be used in Vancouver ever decided to build surface LRT.

[Justin10000]

Originally Posted by CLC

I would agree with you that North America is not going to see gigantic new- generation BRT.

Still, ultimately, LRT capacity is more limited than BRT. You may not want to experience the MTR light rail (nicknamed "garbage rail") in Hong Kong, to see what kind of crush condition it is.

Some cities have LRV's that are 54 metres long, and can hold well over 400 passengers. Our new LRV's will hold around 260 at maximum crush, and that is one LRV. An 18 metre bus can hold around 100 passengers. How is LRT capacity more limited than BRT?
Asian, and South American residents are far more accepting of being packed in like sardines than North Americans, and hence why BRT systems in South America have high capacity.

[CLC]

Originally Posted by Justin10000

Some cities have LRV's that are 54 metres long, and can hold well over 400 passengers. Our new LRV's will hold around 260 at maximum crush, and that is one LRV. An 18 metre bus can hold around 100 passengers. How is LRT capacity more limited than BRT?
Asian, and South American residents are far more accepting of being packed in like sardines than North Americans, and hence why BRT systems in South America have high capacity.

Some city utiltizes long LRVs chained together has more characteristics of metro (subway-style) than light rail, need completely grade-separation section to bypass crowded city blocks. Zwei calls them "hybrid system" which is as expensive as Skytrain.

Hong Kong new LRVs holds up to 285, with frequency of 1.3 minutes peak (combined service). Capacity is up to calculate, Zwei claimed Hong Kong LRT capacity is 20000 pphd (whether it is true or not, Hong Kong example is widely regarded as the most heavily-used pure surface light rail).

BRT can be flexible when it utilities four lanes near station, with 200 meters long platform (no blockage of buses to each other). Multiple BRT routes converge potentially provide combined capacity as high as it can be. Guangzhou BRT design capacity is currently at 25000pphd, more than 800000 riders per day.

Lastly, I would mention that Skytrain at times and a few bus routes in Vancouver is as sardines as Asian cities.

[Robert in Calgary]

Originally Posted by Justin10000

......I do have to defend Zwei a little bit. He can be abrasive, but he obviously cares about transit, and from what I read, you cannot deny Skytrain technology is pretty damn expensive,

On Malcolm, it's quite the understatement to say he's just abrasive. I find him to be an intensely dishonest person. The lies, the smears, the abuse and the very, very selective use of information. I see little sign he actually cares about transit. He seems to have some sort of OCD attachment to LRT/Tram and that's it.

I don't object to what's proposed by RFTV as much putting forward the point that it's nowhere near the top of the priority list for Metro Vancouver and into the Fraser Valley.

I've read the report. My initial reaction was that it was poorly written and fluffed up to push up the page count. It states the obvious. You can spend the money to upgrade the route, that's news?

80,000 people in Chilliwack. How many commute into Vancouver five days a week? How many want a 90 minutes tram ride to Scott Road Stn.? What's the demand for travel between Abbotsford and Chilliwack? Wouldn't buying 7 or 8 buses and fundng a frequent service for three years be several orders of magnitude cheaper and would gauge the demand and would in fact be faster than the swerving rail route? Isn't the pressing issue for Chilliwack the fact that they have one of the worst transit systems in Canada? Jenn Bigham has been fighting the good fight for better transit in Chilliwack. Red Deer in 1990 had a better system than Chilliwack has in 2010.

Extend Skytrain to Newton and run frequent service on the Rail ROW to Cloverdale/Langley and TWU/Trans-Canada, (potentially to Abbotsford) - that has such obvious benefit.....Yet, how much push has it gotten in the last 15 years???? Instead the campaign seems to be it MUST be Scott Road all the way to Chilliwack.


As to Skytrain technology, yes it's more expensive. So what actually? Metro Vancouver doesn't have enough easy routes for LRT to handle the unmet demand for rapid transit. Double the density, more than double the demand. Surface, or the Condon approach is a joke.

Metro Vancouver needs more Skytrain. For Metro Vancouver it's the better choice. Is Mass Transit less important than water treatment and sewage treatment for example?

UBC/Douglas College via Broadway and UBC/Langley via Langara College and Metrotown gives you two major east/west routes.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by Justin10000

No, it is not a valid comparison. This is exactly why the problem I am talking about. It's obvious you do not know much about the problems that occurred on St. Clair. Unfortunately, the media, and pro-auto groups succeeded in labeling the project an LRT project, when it really was a project to rebuild the road, and the existing streetcar tracks. Before the project, St. Clair Avenue was very wide for a downtown avenue. A ROW used to exist before it was taken out in the late '30s
Not one mention was made of the pro-auto lobby group that succeeded in stopping the project for a year because they wanted parking on the streets(a city decision, not TTC), very little was discussed about the involvement of multiple city agencies with no clear leadership on the project. A poor design process, that lead to construction during the winter. The only similarity that I can see where there will be a debate is road space allocation, but from what I understand there is enough space on Broadway for a ROW. That is where we had the debate on St. Clair, and really had little to do with the ROW. Sadly, the city caved into the demands of auto users on that one, and now there is still allowed on street-parking. The Streetcar zips by slow moving traffic.

None of this has anything to do with the choice of technology. These sort of cock-ups can occur on ANY project, and I know Mezzanie, and you know this. It's unfair to try to say LRT(or Skytrain) will suffer the same problems because one project was a total screw-up. If I was really a jerk, I would compare the skytrain to our Scarborough RT here in Toronto. The line has been a disaster from the start.




The road project has been complete for a while now, and I highly doubt it's that closely watched, unless LRT opponents are using it as a means to sway opinion. The sad thing is, it's not even LRT. It's a streetcar in a simple ROW. The fact is, people are solely focusing on the ROW portion of the project while ignoring the hydro portion, the road rebuilding portion, and the beautification portion.

I do not want to debate the St. Clair project here, I do have to defend Zwei a little bit. He can be abrasive, but he obviously cares about transit, and from what I read, you cannot deny Skytrain technology is pretty damn expensive, and is not really going to help that part of the region. Why not look at other options. Why only look at Skytrain technology, especially when it seems Translink is having trouble getting funds for one line? I read that report, and it's a pretty good assessment of what can be done to bring transit at a reasonable price.

You do realize it is a two-way street. You claim that we don't know enough about the St. Clair project, I'm pretty sure we can also say the same for you - that you don't know enough about Broadway.

Leave it to the locals.



I'm amazed that you're all still giving zwei/malcolm so much undeserved attention.