SkyTrain Billions Better Spent on Trams: Study

[deasine]

Haha Macolm and Grant seem to be getting beaten up by a few ppl now: they are just repeating the same crap over and over again.

[mr.x]

complete nutcases....especially that grant guy.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by mr.x2

complete nutcases....especially that grant guy.

Whoever they are, I'm glad they aren't working for the TransLink. These people have such a "tunnel vision. I just realized can't even argue properly.

[flight_from_kamakura]

Originally Posted by lightrail

I have to correct you, though I think you're half right. The first use of the word metropolitan referring to a subway was in London. The world's first underground railway was opened in London, England, on January 10, 1863 by the Metropolitan Railway between Farringdon Road and what is now called Paddington Station.

The Paris metro opened after London and probably used a French version of the world Metropolitan.

hah, on the etymology, you got it and i most certainly stand corrected. bad info on my part.

[mr.x]

More from the nutcase:

Malcolm J. said, on July 9th, 2008 at 8:58 pm

It is a fact that car drivers do not leave their cars to board a bus and this has been a conundrum that has plagues transit planners around the world. Even the much vaunted guided-bus has failed to attract the motorist, as Adelaide Australia has so proved.

Here is the main problem in our area, very few people have read a book on the subject or has done any in depth study. Everyone is an expert about transit, but very few people understand the subject.

Contrary to what Translink claims, more people would probably use the Evergreen Line if it was a tram/streetcar line, rather than an elevated Skytrain Line. Translink’s claims that Skytrain will attract more ridership than LRT are unproven; no study has ever shown this. (what???? )

Here is the problem, when SkyTrain was first forced onto the region by the socreds. BC Transit was purged of anyone supporting light rail. Same was /is true of the ministry of transportation and to a lesser extent the planning departments at UBC and SFU.

Only in Vancouver is LRT treated with such contempt; only in Vancouver is $6 billion spent on transit not to move people efficiently and effectively.

This has lead to almost 30 years of planning authorities trying to reinvent the wheel with SkyTrain. Even the mode was proven to be inferior to LRT by the TTC and Gerald Fox’s study (comparing AGT and LRT). The rights of Skytrain now belong to Bombardier Inc. and they will sell the mode to any rube who wants it. Vancouver seems to be a city of rubes.

Oh Skytrain will be built and those bureaucrats and politicians supporting Skytrain will be amply rewarded, but the poor taxpayer and transit user will suffer.

As I said before 2012 to 2014, Translink will implode under the collective weight of debt on a transit system run by a ’ship of fools’.

Sadly the weight of international opinion is on my side and what I say in these blogs is what is being taught in universities in Europe. (but since when does it apply to every urban area? what is being taught in Europe applies quite well to Europe's dense urban form, but not necessarily to how we've built cities here in North America.)

Just a note: The Main St. bus was terminated at M ain St. Science World a few years back and the people who used to enjoy a direct service to downtown Vancouver are now forced to transfer.

Vancouver in the end will have a small metro netork and a large regional highways network because the metro is just too expensive to extend.

[deasine]

Notice the scaling back of bull shit now? Just shows his ignorance and his lack of knowledge. Not rebutting points/returning replies back again... just repeating and cycling the same things over and over.

[mr.x]

Contrary to what Translink claims, more people would probably use the Evergreen Line if it was a tram/streetcar line, rather than an elevated Skytrain Line. Translink’s claims that Skytrain will attract more ridership than LRT are unproven; no study has ever shown this.

The Evergreen LRT plan would literally be the 97 B-Line on steroids and on rails....it would certainly be an improvement from the 97 B-Line, but only marginally. Most importantly, the travel time would remain relatively the same. Speed is a vital factor in ridership levels, how exactly would the Evergreen LRT plan attract more riders than SkyTrain? Not to mention it eliminates one transfer, which he himself claimed that transfers can reduce ridership by 70%.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by mr.x2

The Evergreen LRT plan would literally be the 97 B-Line on steroids and on rails....it would certainly be an improvement from the 97 B-Line, but only marginally. Most importantly, the travel time would remain relatively the same. Speed is a vital factor in ridership levels, how exactly would the Evergreen LRT plan attract more riders than SkyTrain? Not to mention it eliminates one transfer, which he himself claimed that transfers can reduce ridership by 70%.

Go quote him. Join Adrian. =)

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by deasine

Go quote him. Join Adrian. =)

No, it would be like talking to a wall.

Besides, if my test results come back as positive....i probably wouldn't care anymore as the future wouldn't include me.

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by Hong Kongese

May be the SkyTrain should not be called "SkyTrain" anymore in this case. How about call it something like BC Train; V Train or Metro Vancouver Train.

I think you're onto something with this last one.

Metro Vancouver

It's a metro, we're Metro Vancouver, it's a regional rapid transit system. It works on a lot of levels.

[eduardo88]

or we could just leave it as SkyTrain?

[Hong Kongese]

It is just seem weird calling it the Skytrain when half the network is underground. The future UBC line will be subway too, will it not?

[eduardo88]

Originally Posted by Hong Kongese

It is just seem weird calling it the Skytrain when half the network is underground. The future UBC line will be subway too, will it not?

not really, every line will have an elevated portion and skytrain is already a well established and recognizable name in the region

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Hong Kongese

It is just seem weird calling it the Skytrain when half the network is underground. The future UBC line will be subway too, will it not?

Some of the tube in London is above ground/at grade. The "L" in Chicago is ground level for much of its length.

Lets not go randomly changing names, hello BC Transit/Translink/SCBCTA.

[officedweller]

Besides, not everything needs to be literal - the disjuncture adds character....

Like Canadain Tire doesn't just sell tires.

[Dave2]

Heh... Malcom's rant looks like a reply to a short post I made yesterday; I kind of figured that he'd go on and on and on and on without actually adressing my point: His "80% of Skytrain passengers start on a bus, which proves that Skytrain does not attract motorists" claim... it's a complete non sequitur

[Dave2]

Malcolm also claims that speed is not important... he obviously inhabits a different world than most of the commuters in my office.

[Kwik-E-Mart]

Once we lose our brain cells we can't get them back.
On the other hand, these people regenerate from time to time making arguments which we all go beserk on.

Therefore, why bother wasting our brain cells on them?

[jlousa]

I've always prefered the saying, never get into an arguement with morons, they will eventually drag you down to their level, then they will beat you with experience.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Besides, not everything needs to be literal - the disjuncture adds character....

Like Canadain Tire doesn't just sell tires.

And Burger King sells salad.