Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[queetz@home]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

What about the Melbourne metro railway system, include the central-city underground loop? Does that not count?

If you are referring to the suburban Metro Trains, they wouldn't count for comparing against the Surrey LRT. Plus they are huge and quite extensive, comparable to BART, Stockholm commuter trains, or something similar, another discussion in its entirety.

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

Melbourne is also an honorable mention, given its only means of rail transit is trams, but for some reason, despite being a very large Australian city, the density is less than Surrey.

What? Melbourne has a massive heavy rail train network that handles 200+ million trips every year.

[queetz@home]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

What? Melbourne has a massive heavy rail train network that handles 200+ million trips every year.

My typographical mistake then. Should have just said "given its only means of rail transit, not counting the commuter rail network, is trams" to remain with the spirit of the very specific criteria of the discussion.

[bardak]

Originally Posted by nname

North East Sector ATP and Evergreen Line Bus Integration

I was hoping that they would try and make south coquitlam into a high frequency grid. They got some east west lines in there and one north south but there is plenty of duplication in their proposal that could have gone to making some of the routes more frequent.

I was hoping for something more like this



source me

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

Just for my own curiousity, I checked Malcolm's Rail for Valley website and I noticed your name is there. I'm assuming your the same guy and I find it hilarious how he bashed you big time, and how unsupportive he is wrt the Surrey LRT, since its practically want he wanted (his site even quotes Dianne Watts). Goes to show he isn't really for LRT or any form of transit, he just wants to fight some people...

I got slagged too. No attribute to the quote though. Come on

Hey Malcom, I came across this in skyscrapers forum. It really cracked me up LOL

“We could end up with something almost fully grade separated like Seattle’s North Link or Calgary’s West LRT. Alterntively, we could end up with a fancy, slow and useless streetcar like our friend Malcolm proposes. All we know is what the renders look like near Central.”

Zwei replies: Modern trams are anything but slow. It is all about the design of the line, signal priority, and the amount of reserved R-o-W. These guys on the Skyscraper page or nothing but ignorance compounded by arrogance. They wish not learn about anything, yet pretend to be expert on everything.

Barry, did I not just say it depends on the design? I think you did there, Other Barry.

[Rico]

Just for my own curiousity, I checked Malcolm's Rail for Valley website and I noticed your name is there. I'm assuming your the same guy and I find it hilarious how he bashed you big time, and how unsupportive he is wrt the Surrey LRT, since its practically want he wanted (his site even quotes Dianne Watts). Goes to show he isn't really for LRT or any form of transit, he just wants to fight some people...[/QUOTE]

It is me. Periodically I try go and try to fix the worst of his factual errors incase someone wanders onto the site trying to learn something. After a while if I post links to too many sources he stops posting my stuff for a while. It would actually be amusing if it was not so sad that you can post Stats Canada as a source and because it contradicts what he is saying he dismisses it as part of the 'Skytrain lobby.' Of course some unnamed source saying bizzar things about Translink/Skytrain/Vancouver is totally 'unbiased.'

[deasine]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

Melbourne is also an honorable mention, given its only means of rail transit is trams, but for some reason, despite being a very large Australian city, the density is less than Surrey.

Melbourne does have a rail system. Both Sydney and Melbourne have a rail system that falls in between the traditional metro and a commuter rail.

[queetz@home]

@ Alex Mackinnon

Yeah, he is not a happy camper when it comes to this site. He even told Rico

Almost 40 years on the market, and no one wants to buy SkyTrain. Take your drivel elsewhere please, like the SkyScraper Page.

Originally Posted by Rico

It is me. Periodically I try go and try to fix the worst of his factual errors incase someone wanders onto the site trying to learn something. After a while if I post links to too many sources he stops posting my stuff for a while. It would actually be amusing if it was not so sad that you can post Stats Canada as a source and because it contradicts what he is saying he dismisses it as part of the 'Skytrain lobby.' Of course some unnamed source saying bizzar things about Translink/Skytrain/Vancouver is totally 'unbiased.'

Yeah, keep doing that. I do notice that despite his childish personal attacks, you still go to his site head up high, not taking things personally, and just keep on posting information.

Sometimes I do feel that Malcolm has some kind of mental disability of sorts. He goes on some tantrum and starts bashing anyone that disagrees with him. The fact of the matter is, he is not really trying to find solutions, and even if he gets what he wants, like surface LRTs for Surrey, he will not be satisfied.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

The funny thing is, every point you have mentioned clearly displays how skytrain is a superior system.

With fewer kilometers of track skytrain has been able to attract over 3 times the number of riders!

For the record, regarding Surrey, 2 of the proposed branches I am ok being some form of at grade / semi-at grade light rail, but the line out to Langley should be Skytrain. That is my only issue with the 10 year plan.

x2. I feel like they're gonna build one of the LRT lines in Surrey and THEN Langley is gonna kick up a stink and Skytrain will end up getting constructed there.

My other gripe with this 10-year plan is that the millennium line isn't going all the way to UBC. But I am getting the impression that the announcement on this part of the 10-year seems a little bluffy to me.

[Metro-One]

All the way to UBC would be the best, but seeing how it will be the M-line extended underground to Arbutus (and not a surface LRT) I am willing to take that compromise to get all these projects off the ground. Having the M-Line extended to Arbutus will make it even more likely that it will become skytrain all the way to UBC eventually, ended the surface LRT debate.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

What? Melbourne has a massive heavy rail train network that handles 200+ million trips every year.

Originally Posted by trofirhen

What about the Melbourne metro railway system, include the central-city underground loop? Does that not count?

Originally Posted by queetz@home

My typographical mistake then. Should have just said "given its only means of rail transit, not counting the commuter rail network, is trams" to remain with the spirit of the very specific criteria of the discussion.

Originally Posted by deasine

Melbourne does have a rail system. Both Sydney and Melbourne have a rail system that falls in between the traditional metro and a commuter rail.

I think part of the confusions may be semantics.

Precise definitions might be given for different system types:
A tram or tramway would be a non-grade separated system and that must interact with surface vehicular traffic. Houston is such an example.

Commuter rail, as Deasine said, can be variable in density, frequency,and so on. The Westcoast Express is Vancouver's version of it. The Sounder is Seattle's. Systems vary and can increase in size, lines, and number of stations, but this is surface rail, perhaps with an exclusive right-of way, but sometimes not, spelling potential collisions (as near Chicago, time back), though equally going underground, as in the Melbourne downown loop. Heavier rail is usually found on these routes.

"Mature" city rail that is grade separated could be referred to as metro or metro system.
That began in Paris, of course, and is used in Montreal formally as well, but also in Los Angeles, maybe other cities.
The meaning is well understood worldwide.
Grade separated city rail. Usually feeding into core central route points in varying configurations. Again, rolling stock of wide variation; as an example: Canada Line trains vs Seoul Metro trains. Quasi-monstrous is the only way I can say it. But they're both metros, both grade-separated despite the differences in train size.
So, it would seem, despite the size and weight, the central, pivotal question is: grade separated or not for a metro? ;

Just trying to help out a bit.

[Kisai]

(My first time chiming in on this forum, but I've been reading it for years. If there is any misinformation here, let me know, I'm not coming here to argue, I read back to January 2013 before posting.)

My opinion, is that given Metro Vancouver cooperation, the Skytrain (that being Expo and Millennium Lines) should go as far West as possible. The entire "above ground" or "below ground" argument seems to be a sticking point as to if it gets built or not, now or later. Given the the geography of Vancouver the LIM technology makes the most sense when it is above ground (as it's less noisy and can tolerate steeper grades.) Below ground there's diminishing returns as the visual and acoustic properties (and property values) need to be weighed against being able to expand it at a future date. I want to see the Skytrain extended to UBC, but if it gets as least as far as Arbutus, it at least accomplishes completing the circuit with the Canada Line and takes it through the business area, which is more than terminating at VCC-Clark does (which does what... help Shaw Communications and VCC get their employees/students home?)

Surrey on the other hand, I roll my eyes when I read about their desire of a more expensive to operate at-grade LRT over any grade-separated solution like Skytrain or Canada Line. It's like Surrey lacks civil planners or they are ignored frequently (given the car-centric sprawl Surrey already is.) The transit leg that should go to Langley must be built using the existing grade-separated Skytrain LIM technology or not be built at all, because if something else is built instead, we will be stuck with an underutilized, never-expanded/upgraded, transit system for 30+ years. (Look at the Scarborough RT in Toronto, yes it's our Skytrain tech, but the TTC lacks the willingness to operate it properly, and just sat on it. They're tearing it down IIRC because they can't/won't build new cars for it, and are extending the Subway instead.) Also, if the LRT is only 1 minute faster than Bus, that 1 minute is lost by waiting for a transfer at the Skytrain anyway. So the net result is that the LRT is no faster than the Bus.

The Vancouver project makes logical sense, but seems to want to be more expensive on purpose. For that reason maybe the City of Vancouver should pay the difference between it being above ground and underground. Surrey likewise should pay Translink for the operating cost differential if they really want to pursue it, up front, otherwise their LRT lines get mothballed and the Buses come back out. This seems fair considering that it likely costs the same to pay a bus driver, and we have far more of them. What exactly do you think happens when a LRT train driver gets sick? They can't pay drivers to not work just in case someone no-shows.

As for how to pay for all the wishful thinking. I do not own a car, and I rent. So the only time I see transit taxes is on my BC Hydro bill:
Regional transit levy: 28 days @ $0.06240 /day = 1.75
My Hydro bill is less than 30$/mo, so that works out to about 6%, I imagine most of you who own property likely see much larger bills, and this is a much smaller amount by comparison.

I'd rather see congestion charges being levied (Aren't there existing LPR's on the bridges already? Or just the toll bridges?) GPS tracking is never going to work, because ICBC would have to pay Rogers/Bell/Telus 50$/mo per car just to have a data connection to report back. That means you would be paying that cost. More reason to have more wireless competition (OffTopic.) I'm sure some kind of bulk discount is available, but I digress...

The thing is, this transit funding referendum is going to fail. The result will be the voters will reject most/all tax increases, Translink will go "well, no funds to build any of this, TYVM. No LRT for Surrey, No subway for Vancouver" and then the Province will go "The voters have spoken" and then shrug off any responsibility for torpedoing these projects. Then in a few years someone will float doing these projects as P3's and magically the funds for it will appear from the feds and it will be Canada Line inefficiency all over again.

We know it's going to fail because the voter base is always shortsighted when it comes to taxes (Look at the HST Referendum) and the Province is using the referendum as a "get out of expensive mistake free" card.

Anyway, I came here to basically grumble about seeing the same misinformation about the Skytrain LIM tech posted in comments on news sites, but have yet to actually find any actual proof to back up those comments. It seems like all the misinformation is being spouted is/are by people who have an agenda to not have taxes raised, and would be unhappy no matter what gets built.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Kisai

(My first time chiming in on this forum, but I've been reading it for years. If there is any misinformation here, let me know, I'm not coming here to argue, I read back to January 2013 before posting.)

My opinion, is that given Metro Vancouver cooperation, the Skytrain (that being Expo and Millennium Lines) should go as far West as possible. The entire "above ground" or "below ground" argument seems to be a sticking point as to if it gets built or not, now or later. Given the the geography of Vancouver the LIM technology makes the most sense when it is above ground (as it's less noisy and can tolerate steeper grades.) Below ground there's diminishing returns as the visual and acoustic properties (and property values) need to be weighed against being able to expand it at a future date. I want to see the Skytrain extended to UBC, but if it gets as least as far as Arbutus, it at least accomplishes completing the circuit with the Canada Line and takes it through the business area, which is more than terminating at VCC-Clark does (which does what... help Shaw Communications and VCC get their employees/students home?)

Surrey on the other hand, I roll my eyes when I read about their desire of a more expensive to operate at-grade LRT over any grade-separated solution like Skytrain or Canada Line. It's like Surrey lacks civil planners or they are ignored frequently (given the car-centric sprawl Surrey already is.) The transit leg that should go to Langley must be built using the existing grade-separated Skytrain LIM technology or not be built at all, because if something else is built instead, we will be stuck with an underutilized, never-expanded/upgraded, transit system for 30+ years. (Look at the Scarborough RT in Toronto, yes it's our Skytrain tech, but the TTC lacks the willingness to operate it properly, and just sat on it. They're tearing it down IIRC because they can't/won't build new cars for it, and are extending the Subway instead.) Also, if the LRT is only 1 minute faster than Bus, that 1 minute is lost by waiting for a transfer at the Skytrain anyway. So the net result is that the LRT is no faster than the Bus.

The Vancouver project makes logical sense, but seems to want to be more expensive on purpose. For that reason maybe the City of Vancouver should pay the difference between it being above ground and underground. Surrey likewise should pay Translink for the operating cost differential if they really want to pursue it, up front, otherwise their LRT lines get mothballed and the Buses come back out. This seems fair considering that it likely costs the same to pay a bus driver, and we have far more of them. What exactly do you think happens when a LRT train driver gets sick? They can't pay drivers to not work just in case someone no-shows.

As for how to pay for all the wishful thinking. I do not own a car, and I rent. So the only time I see transit taxes is on my BC Hydro bill:
Regional transit levy: 28 days @ $0.06240 /day = 1.75
My Hydro bill is less than 30$/mo, so that works out to about 6%, I imagine most of you who own property likely see much larger bills, and this is a much smaller amount by comparison.

I'd rather see congestion charges being levied (Aren't there existing LPR's on the bridges already? Or just the toll bridges?) GPS tracking is never going to work, because ICBC would have to pay Rogers/Bell/Telus 50$/mo per car just to have a data connection to report back. That means you would be paying that cost. More reason to have more wireless competition (OffTopic.) I'm sure some kind of bulk discount is available, but I digress...

The thing is, this transit funding referendum is going to fail. The result will be the voters will reject most/all tax increases, Translink will go "well, no funds to build any of this, TYVM. No LRT for Surrey, No subway for Vancouver" and then the Province will go "The voters have spoken" and then shrug off any responsibility for torpedoing these projects. Then in a few years someone will float doing these projects as P3's and magically the funds for it will appear from the feds and it will be Canada Line inefficiency all over again.

We know it's going to fail because the voter base is always shortsighted when it comes to taxes (Look at the HST Referendum) and the Province is using the referendum as a "get out of expensive mistake free" card.

Anyway, I came here to basically grumble about seeing the same misinformation about the Skytrain LIM tech posted in comments on news sites, but have yet to actually find any actual proof to back up those comments. It seems like all the misinformation is being spouted is/are by people who have an agenda to not have taxes raised, and would be unhappy no matter what gets built.

Great post, I agree with everything you said. Welcome!

[xd_1771]

Surrey on the other hand, I roll my eyes when I read about their desire of a more expensive to operate at-grade LRT over any grade-separated solution like Skytrain or Canada Line. It's like Surrey lacks civil planners or they are ignored frequently (given the car-centric sprawl Surrey already is.)

Honestly, I'm tempted to tell you to not even worry about this. The problems with Surrey's city planning department are not exclusive to transportation networks, but extend to the general community and development planning as well. I'm not just talking about me or any of the SSP folks here who happen to swing in my direction - everyone is noticing that they're digging a hole for themselves. Grandview Heights is growing at such an uncontrolled going to be a gong show, mimicking Clayton which is already a gong-show with a double constraint of parking and transit. Newton is turning into the next DTES when 5 years ago we were talking about revitalizing that community. I've been talking to people in community meetings and I just can't get enough of the serious agitation over the ignorance. Having left Surrey for Burnaby last September and making another move this September out of the Lower Mainland altogether, I find it to be more than slightly entertaining.

Throwing practicality and cost-benefit analysis out the window in favour of preference and/or some sort of politically motivated vision has already happened once with City Hall. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that some people got fired if we get a mostly new Council slate this coming November.

[GlassCity]

Transit referendum date must be set by next month
Metro Vancouver mayors given a July 15th deadline

VANCOUVER (NEWS1130) – Transportation Todd Stone is telling Metro Vancouver mayors they must provide a date for the transit referendum by July 15.

Stone also has repeated provincial carbon tax revenue will not be used to fund the plan, but says he is open to the idea of a regional carbon tax to help fund Lower Mainland transit projects.

That’s one of the proposals Metro Vancouver mayors laid out last week.

Stone is also skeptical about the numbers in the plan, pointing out the mayors are banking on $1.5 billion in federal funding, when Ottawa has only pledged a billion.

“That said, I’ll be very clear. The province of British Columbia believes there is more work required on some of the funding assumptions to ensure there is an accurate and realistic plan for paying for this vision,” he explains.

The minister says he also wants to hear more about so-called “mobility pricing,” which would charge drivers based on the distances covered.

http://www.news1130.com/2014/06/24/transit-referendum-date-must-be-set-by-next-month/

I'm still not behind mobility pricing, but other than that this plan sounds like it has a better chance of going ahead than I thought. Hopefully we could convince the feds to kick in another $500 million.

Does anybody know what he means about a regional carbon tax?

[st7860]

Nobody should complain about the referendum because if a majority wanted those funding increases, then the referendum will pass.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by st7860

Nobody should complain about the referendum because if a majority wanted those funding increases, then the referendum will pass.

The majority don't want to pay tax, period. If we had a vote on every item that tax pays for then we'd go through the tough period that California experienced when the voters were turning down tax initiatives left and right and nearly ended up bankrupting the state.

[spm2013]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

The majority don't want to pay tax, period. If we had a vote on every item that tax pays for then we'd go through the tough period that California experienced when the voters were turning down tax initiatives left and right and nearly ended up bankrupting the state.

Talk about your overly-simplistic analysis of history. You forgot to mention the whole bit of the referendums to also increase spending while cutting taxes at the same time

[st7860]

Originally Posted by spm2013

Talk about your overly-simplistic analysis of history. You forgot to mention the whole bit of the referendums to also increase spending while cutting taxes at the same time

Well this isn't Asia where they build subways and stuff left right and centre. Here people (hopefully) get to vote on it this autumn!

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by spm2013

Talk about your overly-simplistic analysis of history. You forgot to mention the whole bit of the referendums to also increase spending while cutting taxes at the same time

The HST debacle is the only history I need to know that BC voters don't vote intelligently when taxes are on the ballot.