And another:

http://www.livableregion.ca/

The twinning of the Port Mann will be a VERY expensive short term [5-10 years]solution.Every time free driving capacity is expanded,more drivers are enticed to use it.This is a proven fact in virtually every large North American city.The focus of solving Port Mann congestion needs to be on moving PEOPLE and GOODS,not SINGLE OCCUPANT private automobiles.We must not further encourage car based sprawling developement.The fact that twinning the Port Mann is even being considered is a testament to the power of our ADDICTION to the automobile.When we provide "free" taxpayer supported new roads or bridges we are actually giving a subsidy to one form of goods movement over others. Privately funded rail and water transportation systems are at a distinct competitive disadvantage.Solving the Port Mann congestion will not happen with one magic silver bullet,but by considering a creative array of options.There are a number of these options on livableregion.ca

Almost 100 years of proof that road expansion geared towards moving vehicles and NOT people is still ignored. Ironic isn't it, that McCallum is the chair of translink that, while responsible for roads, is responsible for public transit as well. His promotion of the twinning of the port mann is truely the "old thinking" - not the other way around. it reminds me of how GM, once upon a time, bought up public transport systems to ensure that the automobile remained transportation system #1.

Their was a study done in 14 major US cities called induced congestion, the basic premise is that as this article points out the more road infrastructure the more people will use it. A wider faster hwy will have the
effect of more people choosing to live the burbs, less car pooling, less people on transit etc. Within a year you have filled the extra capacity. Just Google induced congestion for the study.

We know this is the case but still bow down to our god the car, when it comes to health and education and alternatives we penny pinch, when he comes to car culture we issue a blank cheque. The incredible cost and extra pollution and loss of vital land is obscene , we will end up like LA, a 16 lane rolling parking lot. You would think they would only do this as a last resort, they have existing rail links to New West they could use and hook
up with Skytrain , they could expand the Skytrain from King George Station down into the valley have park and rides along the way. And as far as Doug McCallum he is on his way out Nov 17 , have you seen the polls. We have people dieing on the streets and we are considering this 600 mil plus project.

Just like RAV, the goverment wiht media in pocket will try and jam this down our thoughts as the only alternative.

People hate sitting in their cars stuck in bridge traffic, they would love to use an express rail line like the West coast commuter rail. You could use the train bridge and hook up with Braid station or Sapperton , I can guarantee that they will try and toll any new bridges like the one being done in Maple Ridge. Toll bridges and hwys
coming to a province near you.

Twinning the port Mann Bridge is nothing more than a provincial Liberal sop to the Road Builders Association and the Trucking industry, same as RAV, which is federal Liberal sop for SNC/Lavalin and Bombardier.

Certainly the Port mann twinning shows the utter failure of SkyTrain as a regional transit mode! At a basic cost of over $80 million/km. SkyTrain is just too expensive to build. But modern LRT isn't.

Modern LRT has the ability to trackshare with existing railways, which enables it to be built quite cheapely, thus being able to extend to regions with less population density which provides ridership. With costs under $10 million/km., tracksharing LRT has the proven ability to carry large large ridership, effectively.

For about one half the cost of RAV ($1.9+ billion)we could reinstate the Vancouver Chilliwack interurban line (LRT) and provide an hourly service from Chilliwack (about 500 persons per hour per direction - 2 car train); 20 minute service fron Abbotsford (1,500 pphpd 2 car train); and a 10 minute service from Langley (3,000 pphpd - 2 car train), West to downtown Vancouver. Included in the cost would be a new Fraser river rail crossing at new Westminster and a rail link to the Abbotsford Airport!.

Don't believe me? In Karlsruhe, Germany, one can board a streetcar in downtown Karlsruhe and alight in downtown Heilbronn, some 90 km. away, in the same streetcar. The streetcar acted as a streetcar, operating on street, as LRT operating on reserved rights-of-ways, and a commuter train, operating on the mainline! The cost of this service to build- under $10 million/km., which included 5 km. of new on-street track in Heilbronn, & vehicles.

And for you density freaks; the Karlsruhe - Heilbronn line traverses an area with lower density than the lower mainland!

Kalrsruhe has been successfuly tracksharing LRT with the mainline railways for over 14 years on numerous lines and is being widely copied in Europe. Even Bombardier makes LRT vehicles that can trackshare!

The solutions for our gridlock are there, if only our bureaucrats and politicians would see. Their are none so blind that those that will not see.

Don't forget the new sea-to-die highway which is a provincial liberal handout to real estate agents, greedy developers and massive road builing contractors. The ancilliary benefits go to yuppies and the wealthy elite who will have a huge new expanse of urban sprawl for their unsustainable lifestyles at the expense of the environment and the blue collar people who have, are and will be forced to leave.
Guess what though? Once single occupancy land rover/mercedes/bmw gets to taylor way what do you think will happen then? All of the thousands of extra vehicles coming up that highway will have to cross one of the two bridges.
I guess when you have air conditioning, a flip down dvd screen and fuel money to burn waiting in a huge traffic jam isn't so bad.
Then again maybe the hoi-poloi, the creme de la creme will choose to car pool or buy fuel efficient "smart-cars". Yeah right and I9 can clean my oven while I sleep.

p.s.-that oven gag was borrowed from wayne and schuster!! - god bless you guys!

In all the 28 years that I travelled to and from work in Port Moody (I live in Surrey),via Port Mann bridge, I wondered why there was not an express bus service from the south Fraser area to the north side, to various work destinations throughout. It's true that, in my case, and quite a few others, we required our car to transport tools, sales samples, to various places of business. In the main, however, the bulk of the commuters were the light briefcase, brown-baggers, who worked in a fixed situation, whereby they needed the car only to get to work. For these people, the express bus facility (park&ride)would have been (still is)the ideal way to resolve this problem of grid-lock. Yes, we would need lots of buses, and more drivers to run them, but I'm convinced that to go this route would have
eliminated the current parking lot that is known as the Port Mann Highway. Perhaps, if the likes of Vanderzalm et al had the vision, the SkyTrain would have been routed down the current 401 freeway right-of-way, all the way out Langley and even beyond.
As they say, Vancouver has only one way to grow and that's eastward. I don't see the twinning of the bridge, solving the problem of congestion, "build it and they will come".

Asinine. In a few years driving a car will be limited to a cadre of wealthy elites. The automobile is a barometer of our sickness. And the cause. Whistler/Blackcomb will have no snow by 2010; of course Bush and his toady industry-backed scientists will claim it has no relationship to 100,000,000 barrels of oil being burned daily on our planet, while they rejoice at the coming (US-induced) tribulation and wedge faith-based ideology into the schools - Intelligent Design anybody? Would that it existed..

Did Doug MaCallum really refer to
Surrey as a "cosmopolitan" city?

The only people who will benefit from an expanded Port Mann bridge are the inevitable developers who will build, build and build in Surrey and elsewhere until gridlock is once again the norm.

Hey, I'm just someone who lives northeast of Hope so, other than anticipating I will have to help pay for this ongoing problem in the Lower Mainland, I want to know if there are any plans to ensure developers pay at least a portion of those costs?

And I'm not talking about political contributions to McCallums' re-election campaigns.

That's why I am getting up there this weekend. Blackcomb is opening and it looks like fantastic early season conditions. Hopefully this year will make up for last!

allan,

I agree with your comment regarding the benefit for developers. The BC Liberal government has recently weakened the Agricultural Land Reserve. The effect of this move coupled with increased highway infrastructure is powerful incentive for development of low density housing at the edge of the GVRD. Construction of housing at low densities makes mass transit infeasible, no matter what the transit system is.

To answer a simple question about express buses, etc., buses have proven not to attract much new ridership.

The 99-B Broadway buses are full because the trolley buses along broadway have way to many stops. In Europe buses stop every 500 to 800 metres, here every 200 metres. More stops = slower comercial speed. TransLink offers more than twice as many bustops per route km. than normal.

The 98-B line buses just had former express buses routes casaded into one service. For many commute time went up and ridership dropped.

Oh yes David Cadman and COPE take note Buses do not attract ridership but drive up operating costs because for every bus operated one must hire 3 to 5 people to drive, service, and manage them!

OOPs - pleasse read cascaded in my previous posting, damn typos!

Just a note Mr. Laroux, there are about 40 cities around the world with populations of about 300,000 that have LRT systems. Density of the lower mainland is not the problem, it's ridership, two very different items! Cities with low population and density can sustain LRT systems if ridership is available. Translation: if you want good transit, build it smart, from where people live to where they want to go! We just have not done that, just look at RAV!

Grumpy,

You state:

"... there are about 40 cities around the world with populations of about 300,000 that have LRT systems."

I was not talking about total population, I was talking about density.

You state:

"Density of the lower mainland is not the problem, it's ridership, two very different items! Cities with low population and density can sustain LRT systems if ridership is available."

Well, the GVRD, SmartGrowthBC, Patrick Condon at UBC, off the top of my head, would disagree with you. As densities drop below 12 people per acre, providing sustainable transit is generally not possible. Low densities ensure that the ridership you speak of is not available.

Reasonably high densities are necessary for cost effective mass transit, though not sufficient. The situation is more complicated than just the density. Street layout, where services are provided, etc. are other considerations. And of course, as you point out, the transit system itself.

I find McCallum's statement "People have to understand that less than 20 percent of the traffic on Highway 1 ever goes to Vancouver" something of a red herring. The issue that McCallum should be addressing is the impact of increased traffic throughout the Burrard penninsula and North Surrey, not the impact in Vancouver alone. This bridge (and the associated highway widening also proposed) will impact the municipalities of New Westminster, Burnaby, and Coquitlam most of all.

His statement that "You have to recognize there are other cities outside Vancouver that use it" is downright hilarious. I wonder who would be using a bridge crossing the Fraser between Surrey and Coquitlam? McCallum deserves a Nobel prize for this epiphany.

Two problems with the density debate:
1) Density itself, there is an urban myth that we need massive density for mass transit. Not true because>>>>
2)Transit mode, what is mass transit anyways? Light Rail, light-metro, and heavyrail metro itself are different transit modes, built for different reasons. LRT is built because it becomes more cost effective to operate than buses on a transit route when ridership exceeds 2,000 persons per hour per direction. Light and heavy metro are built to cater to an already mass of ridership over about 15,000 pphpd!

TransLink and GVRD planners have utterly failed to understand the nuances of 'rail' transport and lump everything together under the term Mass ot Rapid transit. This has led to the transit fiasco we now have. Rather admitting that planning bureaucrats have failed, politico's just invent excuses, which have grown to the nonsense spouted today by TransLink, GVRD and the provincial government.

Modern LRT is 21st century public transit philosophy, like it or not. SkyTrain is just a yesterdays transit experiment that has gone horribly wrong and has led us to the debacle we now face.

Grumpy,

I assume your last post was addressed to me. You state:

I don't see how your second statement has anything to do with your first statement. You say that "massive density" is not need to support mass transit and then go on to state the thresholds at which LRT operates more effectively than buses.

You state:

"LRT is built because it becomes more cost effective to operate than buses on a transit route when ridership exceeds 2,000 persons per hour per direction. Light and heavy metro are built to cater to an already mass of ridership over about 15,000 pphpd!"

No doubt. And I don't disagree with your numbers. But this is all beside the point. With low density (less than 12 people per acre), this ridership does not materialise. I should emphasise again, though, that density is a rough metric.

You state (or at least I think you do, it's hard to tell) that there is an "urban myth that we need massive density for mass transit," and that this is not true (though you don't state why). This last statement of yours is false.

The density metric is more than just an empirical observation, it's just plain logic.

Don't get too hung up on density or blacktop heaven is all you are all going to get. Certainly you must have enough population to justify transit, but route is also very important.

This density nonsense is based on TransLink's assumption, echoed by Kevin Falcon, that the GVRD doesn't have the density for rapid transit. But this is based on SkyTrain light-metro costs, not LRT. Modern LRT costs about 1/2 to 1/4 the cost of SkyTrain to build, thus logic dictates that one needs 1/2 to 1/4 the density to support LRT.

Route also is important, where does transit serve, does it service near where people live and able to deliver them where they want to go.

Certainly you need a certain population to support a rail alternative, but modern LRT needs a whole lot less than what the powers that be are telling us!

We have the population and density to support modern LRT, we do not have the ridership to justify SkyTrain.

Grumpy,

I think we agree on several points. You state that in addition to population, the "route is also very important." I agree completely.

You state:

"This density nonsense is based on TransLink's assumption, echoed by Kevin Falcon, that the GVRD doesn't have the density for rapid transit."

First, as I stated above, the importance of density is not nonsense. I trust the researchers at, for example, the faculty of Land and Food systems at UBC far, far more than I trust your bald and unsupported (and as I pointed out above, illogical) assertion.

Second, I have no idea what Kevin Falcon says about density, or even if he knows the meaning of the word.

You state that we "have the population and density to support modern LRT, we do not have the ridership to justify SkyTrain." You may very well be right. But I'm not talking about that. The infrastructure proposals Falcon has made will encourage lower density housing development. If these developments at the edge of Surrey and Langley follow the pattern they have so far, they will support neither LRT, nor SkyTrain, nor anything else.

I wouldn't trust anything that comes out of UBC about transportation, sorry. My information comes from studies done by Professor Carmen Hass-Klau, Proffessor of Public Transport in the faculty of Civil Engineering at the University of Wuppertal, Germany. Her 4 international studies are a must for people commenting on public transport.

We have the density, right now, to support LRT all the way to Chilliwack. The trick is, you have to build it smart!

SkyTrain was supposed to promote density along its line and it has but......according to a July 20 2005 report in the Vancouver Sun "paying passengers on SkyTrain dropped by 0.1 per cent to nine million. (This is interesting, 9 million in three months translates to about 36 million a year or put another way, approximately 100,000 riders a day! Less than one half the ridership claimed by TransLink only a short time ago of over 210,000 passengers a day. Oh by the way the Calgary C-Train is carrying (counted boarded) ridership of over 220,000 a day!.)

The massive densification along the SkyTrain Line has not translated into ridership. Why? The people buying the new housing obviously did not work where SkyTrain went and take the car instead!

The is nothing illogical in what I'm saying and until we been to accept modern LRT as an independant and successful transit mode, in its own right and not a poorman's SkyTrain, that can opperate affordably in areas of smaller populations, it will be a road builder's dream in the GVRD!

Oh by the way and this is the truth, I swear, a UBC Professor told me at a public meeting some years ago that the Arbutus Corridor could not be used for modern LRT because it was metre guage and we could not fit two standard guage track on the rights-of-way!

Truth is the Arbutus Corridor was standard gauge and twin tracked from Marpole to the Kits Bridge!

Thats when I started questioning the so-called experts at UBC!

I think we should build a wall between Vancouver and the rest of the lower mainland.

Grumpy wrote:

Grumpy, we are on the same page for mass transit. However, I do have to take issue with your continual SkyTrain bashing. Bash the freeway system instead!

The benefits of SkyTrain are not just in ridership alone. An elevated line also does not block automobile traffic. SkyTrain is far less prone to costly accidents and shutdowns than LRT. And it does not require a ton of manpower to run.

It is an expensive system, but it has been reliable and has fostered development along its line. It was also built by a Canadian company that has sold the technology to other countries around the world.

Sorry, SkyTrain is the centre of our transit woes. To expensive to build a viable network, SkyTrain has scewed planning to suit the mode, bureaucrats, and politicians. As well, SkyTrain has sucked out a minimum of $160 million out of taxpayer's pockets annualy to subsidise it.

Now for this nonsense that SkyTrain has less shutdowns than LRT; nonsense because TransLink doesn't count shutdowns less than 5 minutes. The fact is SkyTrain is less reliable than LRT, if you want to split hairs.

Elevated transit costs up to 10 times of that of LRT to build; is ugly; and has proven not to attract much new ridership. Only if ridership demands, do you have to grade seperate transit.

Calgary's LRT system, which carries 220,000 passengers a day costs 60% less to operate than just the Expo Line. SkyTrain is just to damn expensive to operate, that's why no one buys it!.

Please do not use the old saw that LRT blocks traffic, it just aint so! This is just another deliberate bit of missinformation by TransLink, as they cannot produce any study that shows this is so!

Want to trace the history of our transit chaos, just go back to 1980 when the Social Credit party made a political deal with the then conservative Ontario government to purchase their unsellable SkyTrain system!

Just to further ruin your day SkyTrain's technology is really rejected German technology of the early 1970's!

Grumpy,

I'm tired and am not going to bore everyone with my whole SkyTrain spiel again, but I disagree with much that has been written regarding the system.

Had the system not been overbuilt, and had it been built to first serve the riders, much more of the grid could have been in place financing itself.

Elevated is most suitable and has undoubtedly saved lives and reduced vehicle insurance costs. Potentially, by taking a 4ft median or, where not possible, straddling the road, one is able to acquire an elevated, dual, dedicated "highway".

I'll take ugliness over breathable air, but do not agree that the system is ugly. Many will because they've heard it repeated. Viewed from many areas, its curving sweeps has a functional beauty - but that is to my eyes.

To some, granaries and wind farms are ugly but artists seem to like to record them.

Do not be put off by the (to me) massive boondoggle that the RAV extension represents. This should be a major election issue - as should who and what the TransLink Board represents.

Correction.

Told you I was tired.

Of course, I will take breathable air over ugliness.

Sorry to disapoint you but studies have shown that elevated transit systems are all not what they are cracked up to be, that's why very few cities build with them. Costly and poor in attracting new ridership, elevated systems have been the great philosopher's stone of public transit. skyTrain is a peerfect example: expensive to build; expensive to operate, elevated systems just haven't proven not to do the job.

I know the SkyTrain types hate this, but them thar the facts.

Grumpy, while i agree with you that skytrain systems are very (read: too) expensive to build i find that you are really stretching some of your points. Your typical transit rider doesn't sit there and say "I'm not going to ride that elevated train, but if it were at grade, that'd be a different story". LRT and skytrain are classified as similar modes of transit: they are both considered light rail. Light rail wouldn't work out to chiliwack, but heavy rail would. But that's really neither here nor there, i'm just arguing semantics.

Skytrain doesn't attract ridership you say while insinuating that it discourages ridership. what attracts ridership are good routes. the millennium line is not the best route, for example. It contains less trip generating points than it really should to be considered viable; therefore, numbers are down. cambie is a better corridor for rapid transit than the arbutus corridor - that's a fact based on the fact that it goes through more trip generating areas and has the proper demographic. it's just too bad that cambie doesn't have the right of way to put in a light rail system.

Ah the hornets nest. LRT and SkyTrain, which is a light-metro not light rail, are not similiar modes of transportation, they are built for two very different reasons. Until we understand this singular fact, it is pointless to carry on the discussion.

Over 40 years of study comparing various 'rail' modes have created a wealth of data; unfortunately TransLink and its planners want to reinvent the wheel, on the taxpayer's dime.

The lack of stations does discourage ridership and is one reason why the light-metro mode fails unless there is an already sufficient ridership in place. SkyTrain has about 1/2 the number of stations of a comparable LRT line. Fewer staions deter ridership.

The comparison between Arbutus and Cambie is nonsense; if Cambie has more trip generating points, why is offered bus capacity along Cambie St. only about 200 pphpd more than Arbutus in the peak hour. The fact is, most of the trip generating points are figments of TransLink's imagination to sell RAV. The already implace Arbutus R-O-W is a great advantage over going greenfields construction under and/or over Cambie St. The cost savings by building along Arbutus far outweigh the little extra ridership demand on Cambie.

As for studies, RAVCo. refused any independent study of Arbutus for transit and forbade any mention of it during the so called PPP bidding! What were they afraid of? Much cheaper LRT travelling down Arbutus! Oh by the way TransLink even admitted there was a greater population density along Arbutus, than Cambie St.
And yes Cabie does has the space for LRT, but that is an argument for another day!

Grumpy,

You state that "We have the density, right now, to support LRT all the way to Chilliwack."

Wow. I suppose that depends on what your definition of "support" is. If you mean "support without hemorrhaging money", then your statement is false. You really should propose an LRT system to the Chilliwack city planners. Or West Vancouver, for that matter. I wonder what they would say.

Regarding the density issue, let me give an extreme example. Suppose that you were to set up an LRT system in rural Saskatchewan (though any mode would suit). You would not get much ridership, no matter how great LRT is. Now, according to the people at the GVRD, SmartGrowthBC, Patrick Condon at UBC (and many others) the situation is the same of typical auto-centered suburban development (as I stated before).

But it seems that no matter who I quote, if you disagree with the message, you’ll just say that they part of some sort of conspiracy or that UBC professors are stupid (and then provide some laughable anecdotal evidence of this).

Pshaw! Check your facts! JFK opened the AirTrain in 2003 using the same technology that Skytrain uses. There was an unfortunate accident during testing, but overall the system proves to be safer than other modes of transportation.

LRT does work, but SkyTrain is faster and has a smaller footprint. You can walk under it, as it does not need to be fenced off like LRT.

Another piece of misinformation. Have you driven through Calgary? The LRT does block traffic, especially if there is a problem on the line.

But let’s not fight! Can we not have both? Can we not have LRT flying down the median of the freeway out to the suburbs, and then have SkyTrain in our busy urban centers?

The problem with UBC, is that there is no specific dicipline concerned with transit. They just don't teach anything about modern transit, especially in the past 15 years. Everything is 30 years out of date and woe be the professor who tries to teach about modern LRT, they are censored!

I'll wager I know more about modern LRT than Condon, this not to say that I'm smarter, I'm certainly not, but they don't teach modern public transportation at UBC! Diesel LRT; Zwei system LRT; modular low floor cars; reserved rights-of-way, no they just don't teach it. Just rapid transit, what ever that is?

If they can operate LRT successfully in Europe, in areas of the same density as the lower mainland, we can too. As I said before, built ir smart, build it cheap! We aint doin that!

There is none that are so blind, that those who will not see.

Now about skyTrain itself. On sale since the late 1970's only 5 such systems sold.
1) Detroit ICTS 4 1/2 km. single track loop line, locally called the mugger mover.
2) Scarbourgh ICTS - forced upon the TTC by the Bill Davis government - maybe torn down because Bombardier Inc. will not produce Mk.1 cars and Mk.2 cars cannot operate on the system.
3) Vancouver ALRT (renmaed from ICTS) forced upon the GVRD by the provincial government. Commonly called SkyTrain.
4) Kuala Lumpur ART (renamed from ICTS) the second of 3 transit modes, elevated LRT and monorail. Only automatic metro systems were allowed to compete.
5) JFK ART, called Airtrain, built by a private contract with no public input, financed by low interest Canadian loans and a $7 departure fee.

[B]Duing the same period, almost 90 new LRT systems were built and about 70 more in various stages of planning.[B]

Hey SkyTrain stops too, when someone, all to commonly, jumps in front of it. Twice as many people die on Skytrain per year than Calgary's LRT. Sure it may block traffic time from time, so do stop lights. Hey lets improve traffic flows, let's get rid of stoplights at intersections because they block traffic!

No transit system is a panacea, but with LRT one gets a lot more transit, at a cheaper price than an elevated system. More LRT = more ridership. Simple ecconomics.

A mjor study in the USA, in 1990, comparing Automated Guided Transit (including Skytrain) and LRT, using hard data, found that LRT was cheaper to operated than AGT, if they both operated on the same quality of rights-of-ways.

In a city built on the car, where the automobile is God, any form of public transit in the City will be dumped on.

What an acontextual, piece meal mess we've made of Regional Transportation "planning."
One of the most dispiriting conversations I've ever had regarding various forms of public transportation as we now conceive it was with the labour economist and demographer David Foot (Boom, bust, echo, etc.).
David's critique of fixed public transportation systems is simply devastating in as much as the capital investments in fixed transit systems are horrible, horrible, horrible, from a cost-utility and cost effectiveness perspective.
His bottom line: no "fixed" systems are inherently worth the public investment because they have nothing to do with user's ACTUAL transportation NEEDS. (Look at the demographic pyramid and figure it out for yourself -- not a panacea -- but does give real insight on the demand side of transportation equation.) To get people on to transportation systems we need flexibility predicated on how people need to use transportation on a day-to-day basis. At the very least, this analysis dictates a mixed systems of different types and scales in order to be more flexible regarding real world, actual user needs. There is no unified field theory transportation system, especially fixed, that will address all potential user's needs. But to simply concentrate on single systems is patent nonsense if the goal is to reduce carbon emissions. We have to be more imaginative than we have been in hitting potential users WHERE AND HOW THEY ACTUALLY LIVE on a day-to-day basis: hockey games for there children, shopping, all the various non-rational characteristics of the incessantly mobile family. I understand the economies of scale inherent in cream-skimming Urbanites onto "mass" systems, but it's not enough and doesn't work ecomonically short or long term when we extend the analysis beyond this cohort of users.
We need context specific, flexible mixed systems based on how people want to access public transit and "just in time" systems.
Twinning the PM bridge so screamingly lacks imagination that it's painful. This is symptomatic of small politics to the max.
We moved back here after a thirteen year absence and the lack of progress on this front is absolutely SHOCKING.
We need to get the "swing" voters onto transportation and it won't happen until we rethink toward addressing their needs. Never.
A BC friend who has followed all the debates over the years said: "Yeah, welcome back to Louisiana -- with roads!" :)

Grumpy,

You state that "woe be the professor who tries to teach about modern LRT, they are censored!" That's a pretty serious accusation, that a university is censoring its faculty. Do you have any proof?

You state:

"If they can operate LRT successfully in Europe, in areas of the same density as the lower mainland, we can too."

Well, let's have an example, then, of an LRT operating successfully at a density blow the one I have quoted. Density on it's own would not be sufficient, you'd have to show that the pattern of development was the same as a suburb, though.

So your point then, it seems, is that we should twin the Port Mann bridge and then build an LRT to Chilliwack?

moat,

You state:

"But let’s not fight! Can we not have both? Can we not have LRT flying down the median of the freeway out to the suburbs, and then have SkyTrain in our busy urban centers?"

I could not agree more.

re: not fighting

Thanks jimmy_l,

We are on the same side as Grumpy, however, Grumpy is insisting on using misleading figures and exaggerated numbers to support an odd argument.

We can have both in this town. Ultimately, a subway system would be best, but they are so expensive. However, why not look at different configurations?

We won't get anywhere if we are simply going to choose "sides".

Moat,

You are right. The thing about this whole argument of Skytrain vs. LRT is just how staggeringly not relevant it is to the topic of the article. I am not saying we should not build LRT. Nowhere did I state that in any of my posts. My point is that if you'rew trying to coax people out of their cars and provide cost-effective transit (of any kind), doubling the volume of the main highway through the city isn't going to help (to put it mildly), and neither is encouraging low-density housing (which is the inevitable result of new highway infrastructure and weakened control of rural land use).

I'd like to part with a quote:

“If you invest in highways at the same time as you invest in public transit, the car will win out every time. The car may win, but people with cars will lose, because as studies have
shown, traffic congestion returns and increases after the construction of more or wider roads.”

Jacques Fortin, Director- General (1997-2002) of STM, Montreal’s transit agency

I do know a professor who was censored for supporting LRT, I will not post his name publicly, but will tell privetly. He was forced to sit through a Bombardier sponsored 'SkyTrain' is great seminar!

As for misleading figures, I plead not guilty, hell TransLink has tried to sue me for libel two times! Actually libel chill is the phrase! Trouble is, in court one must speak the truth!

There is an evolving science with public transport, but it isn't happening here. We just throw money at the problem and when a billion or so is apent, then we think the problem is solves! Nada.

Modern LRT has proven more effective than SkyTrain in attracting new ridership at a much lower cost per km. Cheaper transit means more transit!

We will soon see the problems with the Cambie St. subway and I'm afraid that our very expensive, wee light-metro network will convince politicians to build highways instead of investing in a 'rail' option.

Ridership is so weak on SkyTrain that TransLink is forcing everyone on the Main St. bus route to transfer onto SkyTrain at Main St. Science World, if they want to go into the downtown core!

I would suggest reading about the German Karlsruhe Zwei system LRT, or Grenoble's LRT, or even Portland's & Calgary's light rail. All very successful systems and they don't post misleading figures and their transit planners do not lie to the public, unlike TransLink!

As one English transportation expert who worked on the RAV PPP told me in an email about our transit planning, "Understand the X-Files were filmed in your part of the world, maybe that explains ir".

Grumpy,

You state that a professor was "was censored for supporting LRT." By whom? Why can't you write his name? You've not given any proof as it stands.

Ok Grumpy, you asked for it…

As for misleading figures, I plead not guilty

Now, here is what you said…

Then later, when you are called on your misinformation, you state:

So, no one buys it? The JFK system was completed in 2003!

SkyTrain is really not that bad. And remember, we are all fighting against freeway expansion here! SkyTrain is not the enemy! It works. Freeways don’t. Lastly, SKYTRAIN (BOMBARDIER) DID NOT WIN THE RAV LINE CONTRACT! SNC/Lavalin did. Bombardier, I guess, aligned themselves too much with the NPD. Who knows?

But remember, Grumpy, we are fighting freeway expansion… so why waste the energy fighting each other?

Out of the 5 SkyTrain systems built only 1, Detroit, was purchsed with anything close to a public tender. Vancouver and Toronto were forced on the operating authority by senior governments. The JFK SkyTrain was a private deal with the Port Authority with little public input. Those Canadian taxpayer subsidised low subsidy loans swung the deal, and in Kuala Lumpor, LRT was not allowed to compete, because Senior government wanted a 'prestige' automated ystem (They would not even let an automated LRT compete!). Fact is SkyTrain has never been allowed to compete directly against LRT, for obvious reasons, SkyTrain will lose!

It is SkyTrain that is driving our freeway debate because all transit costs are based on SkyTrain light-metro not much cheaper and more versitile LRT. It is you, who is perverting the truth, with man in straw arguments' to support SkyTrain and your love of the system will be the basis of new highway construction around the lower mainland.

How do you plan to deal with the traffic if there is no affordable transit alternative for the lower mainland? As it stands now, freeway construction is the only alternative. If modern LRT was in the mix, well then maybe we can avoid highway expansion.

As it standsm your support of SkyTrain (a proprietary transit system owned by Bombardier) and/or light-metro, supports more highways! you can not escape that!

Grumpy,

You state:

"It is SkyTrain that is driving our freeway debate because all transit costs are based on SkyTrain light-metro not much cheaper and more versitile LRT."

Well, no. I wonder if you’ve even read the article, or anything about this highway project. I don't know of anyone who is seriously proposing extending the Skytrain through Surrey as an alternative to expanding the highway. But anyway, a mass transit alternative is precisely what I support.

You state:

“How do you plan to deal with the traffic if there is no affordable transit alternative for the lower mainland? As it stands now, freeway construction is the only alternative. If modern LRT was in the mix, well then maybe we can avoid highway expansion.”

I think LRT would be a great system to investigate, especially for an area like Surrey. This is the odd thing about all of your posts. No one said that it shouldn’t be considered.

You state:

“As it standsm your support of SkyTrain (a proprietary transit system owned by Bombardier) and/or light-metro, supports more highways! you can not escape that!”

Once again, do you have any knowledge of a Translink proposal to extend the Skytrain through Surrey in place of building light rail? I have not heard anything about this.

Jummy Jimmy, all through the Gateway debate, we have been told that"we don't have the density for rapid transit" that is TransLink speak for SkyTrain. "Rail' transit has never been an option because costs start @ $80 million/km. for SkyTrain. Highway & bridge construction is $15 miil./km. to $20 mil./km. km.. But what if we can cuild LRT @ $15 mil./km. to $20 mil./km.? You bet LRT would be on the table!

You must understand that SkyTrain and/or light-metro is built for completely different reasons than LRT. What has happened in the GVRD is that LRT has been completely written off!

Look I have been hauled on the carpet by the GVRD for a string of scathing letters about inept transit planning. I left shocked at the utter ignorance of the planner. Oh he was nice and swoerd nice videos, but his overall knowledge of modern public transport was slim.

I stopped at my 'local' and got drunk, why? For I knew 2 years ago massive highway planning was all the GVRD and TransLink were going to do for the Fraser Valley.

I sounded alarm bells two years ago. Nobody listened!

I just wish all you Lower Mainlanders would show a little grief for the poor Interior residents who have to cross the Arrow Lakes at Needles on a regular basis.

Convinced during the past provincial election that a bridge was not too far-fetched an alternative to the Needles ferry, thousands of locals marked an X beside the name of the Liberal candidate last May.

In fact, the Libeals played on the proposal so well many residents took it as a project that had been approved.

I mean, why not? New infrastructure that promised to cut half an hour of delays and slow crossing on each trip is, no doubt, quite inticing.

That's about the time it takes to get across the Port Mann bridge from New Westminster on a busy afternoon.

Of course, the Needles drivers get to shut off their engines and watch the bridge (ferry), sail toward them, which beats trying to squeeze into the next land on Highway One as fellow drivers treat you like a very dangerous person.

Anyway, it seems Transpo minister Kevin Falkin has solved a problem for the silly Liberal MLA who promoted the bridge concept.

He has publicly said cost estimates are simply too great given that only some 300 cars a day use the crossing.

It certainly points to the big ticket type of economic development this and past Social Credit-style regimes have used to buy votes.

I would suggest the minister will begin saying the same thing about the Sea-to-Sky highway project as well, but not until road contractors have gotten fat, speculative land developers who invested in the BC Liberal Party have sold off their new housing and estate developments along the route and the entire world, including the odd Liberal, realize the 2010 Olympics will be a financial disaster.

Hey I think you guys in the 'hurt' lands are being screwed. Did you know that just the SkyTrain system is subisidised by over $200 million anually? That could buy a lot of bridges!

Grumpy,

You state:

"all through the Gateway debate, we have been told that"we don't have the density for rapid transit" that is TransLink speak for SkyTrain."

First of all, where did Translink state this. Second, I asked you in my previous post if Translink was considering building/extend Skytrain through Surrey. If they are not, then all these comparisons between LRT and Skytrain are irrelevant to the debate.

You state:

"You must understand that SkyTrain and/or light-metro is built for completely different reasons than LRT."

Gee. That's not obvious. Oh wait, no, it's incredibly obvious.

Grumpy,

OK, now you finally admit that other cities have purchased the SkyTrain technology.

You also seem to have a strong dislike for Bombardier. While Bombardier has done some stupid stuff in the past, it does produce some excellent product.

Bombardier does not make money from freeway construction. The company would love to sell any of its transit systems. Maybe if Bombardier had a little more support, maybe those like Jeb Bush would less likely be able to kill mass transit project. Jeb Bush put out misleading figures to kill the project. You are doing the same.

Don't get me wrong, Bombardier has been feeding from the trough, but they still can produce some Canadian made solutions.

Your passion is great, don't waste it fighting the wrong battles.

oops, a few types in the about post...tired

Jeb Bush killed a project in Florida in favor of Freeway expansion.

Jimmy & Moat, I see that you are booth new to the game. Translink has always planned for light-metro (a.k.a SkyTrain) for all rail planning. The same thing is happening to the so-called North East project; TransLink calls it LRT, but in reality it's light-metro (SkyTrain). As I stated before, LRT and light-metro are two different transit modes, built for two different reasons. We don't have the ridership on any transit route to justify a light-metro.

Actually there are two SkyTrain expansion schemes in Surrey, but there isn't enough money to fund them. TransLink has never planned for LRT and in fact hasn't a real clue to what LRT is, except it is a poorman's LRT.

Gee Jimmy if you have read a book on the subject you might comprehend the problems we face.

Moat, I only admit to 1 city's transit authority actually buying a SkyTrain type system, Detroit. Vancouver and Toronto have had SkyTrain forced upon them with little debate. Kuala Lukpur, already having an elevated LRT system, Senior government politicians wanted a futuristic 'automated' system and opted for SkyTrain, so surprised that the system looked liked elevated LRT, they opted for a monorail for their third line, with LRT and SkyTrain not being allowed to bid on the project!. New York's Port Authority bought into the SkyTrain system, not city transit planners, who wanted an extension of the subway to service the airport.

SkyTrain was first built by the Ontario government owned UTDC, which used rejected German techonolgy (from the Krauss Maffie maglev), to build ICTS. There was little interest in ICTS, that the name was changed to ALRT. Again little interes,t as the system was terribley expansive and not very well designed. The UTDC was sold to Lavalin, who went bankrupt trying to sell SkyTrain to Bangkok and Bombardier bought the remenants of the UTDC and contiue to market (unsuccessfuly) SkyTrain. Bombardier does build good transit vehicles through their subsidiaries, but SktTrain is somewhat of a lemon.

Trouble with the two of you, you know little of modern public transport philosophy and continue the fatal Canadian habit of 'lets just throw more money at it till it works, or if that fails, just increase taxes'!

You want to build with light-metro (SkyTrain), so be it, but be prepared for the consequences, massive freeway construction, because light-metro (SkyTrain) is just too expensive to build a comprehensive network that will attract the motorist from the car!

Grumpy,

You state:

"light-metro (a.k.a SkyTrain) for all rail planning. The same thing is happening to the so-called North East project; TransLink calls it LRT, but in reality it's light-metro (SkyTrain). As I stated before, LRT and light-metro are two different transit modes, built for two different reasons."

Translink calls the NE sector line "Light Rail Rapid Transit" and says that the technology it uses is "a proven technology with over 400 applications worldwide, including Portland, Calgary and Edmonton." I can't think of what this description could mean other than LRT. It doesn't sound like Skytrain to me.

You state:

"Actually there are two SkyTrain expansion schemes in Surrey, but there isn't enough money to fund them."

It would be great if you provided some evidence of this, as I asked you to previously.

You state:

"TransLink has never planned for LRT and in fact hasn't a real clue to what LRT is..."

Clearly that is not true, as they are building LRT in the NE sector. If you think that we should build LRT in Surrey rather than expand the highway, then great. I certainly think some alternative should be found, and LRT seems like it could be a viable solution. I've stated that in two previous posts, and I've made the point (repeatedly) that the issue is not Skytrain vs. LRT, but rather highway vs. a suitable mass transit system for Surrey. This system could very well be LRT.

You state *again* that:

"You want to build with light-metro (SkyTrain), so be it, but be prepared for the consequences..."

And *again* I say that no one is, certainly not me.

I've tried to use Hanlon's razor in my posts. That is

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

I assumed that you simply did not understand what my points were. After all, you rarely responded to any of them directly. But I'm beginning to think that you were purposely arguing against a point of view that I did not advocate (and stated so *repeatedly*) because you had an axe to grind.

So rather than adding to the discussion about twinning the Port Mann (which is a decision yet to be made), you've insisted on debating Skytrain vs. LRT (despite that Skytrain has already been chosen for RAV and no new lines are under consideration).

Grumpy,

You state:

"Gee Jimmy if you have read a book on the subject you might comprehend the problems we face."

To what subject are you refering? It's not clear from what you've written.

You state:

"Trouble with the two of you, you know little of modern public transport philosophy and continue the fatal Canadian habit of 'lets just throw more money at it till it works, or if that fails, just increase taxes'!"

Ouch!

jimmy_laroux

It was not SkyTrain that was chosen, but rather something that will be built by SNC-Lavlin. I am unsure of the relationship between the two companies. They have worked together in the past, but it appears that they competed for the RAV line.

I am not sure why we are not going for a compatable system.

I don't get his "axe" either. I understand that there are probably better systems out there, however, SkyTrain is a quick, reliable,and relatively clean system. He may claim that numbers of riders are low, but he needs to start riding during rush hour.

Moat,

You state:

"It was not SkyTrain that was chosen, but rather something that will be built by SNC-Lavlin."

Quite right. Skytrain is Bombardier. But frequently people use the term "Skytrain" to indicate RAV.

Incidentally, I just googled 'LRT RAV' and the name 'Malcolm Johnston' kept coming up. He seems to be a vociferous supporter of LRT in Vancouver. I am fairly certain now that my soapbox conjecture was correct, and 'Grumpy' = 'Malcolm Johnston'.

Jimmy_laroux stated

I do not understand why he does not acknowledge any of the benefeits of SkyTrain. Yes, it is expensive. Yes, SkyTrain is probably too expensive. However, it does attract riders, and it does encourage compact urban growth. It is also fast and reliable.

To link SkyTrain to freeway expansion is utter crap. Bombardier makes no money if the Port Mann is twinned.

As well, he is backpeddling after stating that no one buys the SkyTrain technology.

I encourage Grumpy to ride the SkyTrain and visit a few stations in particular. Main Street, Joyce, Metrotown, Gilmore, Brentwood, Edmonds, Surrey Central, and King George. Then he can see the impact that these stations are having.

I also encourage him to get on the SkyTrain before and after a Canucks, Lions, or other major downtown event.

The system takes people off the road. And that is what it was designed to do.

It is not the best system, but it does work.

There are no crossings to worry about, and it will never interfere with autmobile traffic, unlike LRT.

Grumpy also does not understand that we are not disagreeing with him completely. LRT would an excellent option instead of twinning the bridge. Why not have LRT going down the center of the freeway?

Squabbling over LRT vs. SkyTrain is counter-productive.

I would take that the pair of you work for TransLink and/or the GVRD. You never anser questions, rather chase man of straw arguments, supporting your love affair with SkyTrain. So be it, BUT NOT EVER, EVER COMPLAIN AGAIN ABOUT HIGHWAY EXPANSION!

It was predicted by many in 1980, when skyTRrain was forced onto the region, that skyTrain, because of it's huge costs, would compel massive highway construction in the future, as it would be cheaper to build than SkyTrain.

I told you so!

Moat, you live in a world of rose coloured glasses and denial.

What has SkyTrain done, you say?

Well:
1) Proved to cost about 3 times as much to build per km. than LRT. Translation, you get far less transit 'bang' for your buck and a small 'rail' network.
2) Has not proven to attract any more ridership than your despised LRT.
3) Has contributed to urban sprawl up the valley, leading to the demand for new highway con struction.
4) Has a death rate about double of that of comparable LRT lines.
5) Ties us in to one supplier - Bombardier Inc.
6) Despite major densification along the line (mostly on derelict industrial land), has not proven to attract much new residents to the system.
7) SkyTrain hasn't taken people off the road, as the percentage of people per capita, has not changed greatly, since SkyTrain was first built. All SkyTrain has done is to give current bus riders a briefly, faster trip, but no great change to their overall commute time.
8) The huge annual subsidy (now over $200 million) has sucked money from the rest of the transit system.
9) Has become a conveyor belt for crime.
10) Has made Greater Vancouver a laughing stock in the eyes of international transit types.

Sure it works, but at a tremendous expense.

So called squabbling over LRT/SkyTrain is neccessary, as SkyTrain is leading us straight into highway hell!

Why? We need a transit network of over 300 km. to be effective in the region, we can not afford it with SkyTrain, we can with LRT. Vancouver and the GVRD are no different than other major cities, yet we pretend we are different.

As I said before, you want SkyTrain, fine, but do not complain about highway expansion and the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge.

Mr. Johnston,

You state:

"You never anser questions, rather chase man of straw arguments, supporting your love affair with SkyTrain."

This is a lie. In fact, the article this thread was supposed to be about was highway expansion, but you kept steering the discussion away from that topic to the Skytrain vs. LRT debate. As I've stated in at least four posts, I am not advocating Skytrain instead of highway expansion. But you've continually ignored this. I certainly have not made any straw man arguments. I dare you to provide some proof of this accusation.

In *two* previous post I asked to provided some evidence that Translink is planning to extend Skytrain through Surrey. You have simply ignored these requests.

You state:

"So called squabbling over LRT/SkyTrain is neccessary, as SkyTrain is leading us straight into highway hell!"

Well, no. The decision to build the RAV, Millenium, and Expo lines has been made. It is not relevant to this discussion. As I've explained before, if the issue was whether to build new Skytrain infrastructure vs. expand the highway, then perhaps some of the points you've made throughout this post might be relevant. As it stands, this is not the case.

You state:

"As I said before, you want SkyTrain, fine, but do not complain about highway expansion and the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge."

And as I've stated before, you are falsely attributing this position to me.

You are using this thread as a soapbox to voice your anger over the decision to build RAV, a decision which has already been made and will not be changed. I find this extremely dishonest.

Mr. Johnston,

You state that Skytrain has "contributed to urban sprawl up the valley, leading to the demand for new highway con struction."

Could you please provide some proof of this?

Mr. Johnston,

You state:

"You never anser questions, rather chase man of straw arguments..."

I actually laughed out loud when I read this. It turns the truth on it's head. It is rather you who have constantly made irrelevant arguments and refused to address the points which I have brought up throughout this thread.

J.L. unfortunately your arguments are emotional, not logical. All through my posts I have stated facts about transit and transit mode.

The Port Mann twinning debate and transit are entwined. Just how are you going to handel the mass of traffic on the # 1 route?

There are two options:
1) Expand the regional highway system and Twinn the Port Mann Bridge, as well as build further bridges and highways.
2) provide a public transit alternative.
a) experss buses
b) Commuter rail
c) LRT
d) SkyTrain/light-metro

Let's explore a,b,c,& d.

A) Buses are very poor in attracting ridership and tend to be expensive to operate on high capacity routes. Buses also demand more road space to operate. But buses are able to penetrate affordably to where people live.
B) Commuter Rail is also expensive and the major railways would not give the pathways neccessary for commuter rail to be an effective all day service.
C) LRT has the ability to operate on various right's-of-ways, enabling it to be built quite cheaply. Because of this, it is able to penetrate into urban areas where commuter trains and SkyTrain cannot. Construction costs can be as low as $10 million/km.
D)SkyTrain/light-metro being grade seperated is very expensive to build(at least $80 million/km.). It depends on buses, which themselves are very poor in attracting ridership, to feed the system.

So what will it be, new highways & bridges or transit? To say no to twining the Port Mann is nonsense unless you a plan that will deal with the traffic.

I was told several years ago by a European transit specialist that the lower mainland needs about 300 km. of 'rail transit' to be effective. So let's see 300 km at a base cost of $80 million/km for SkyTrain is a lot of money, but with LRT, with costs as low as $10 million/km., one gets a whole lot more transit a lot cheaper. Remember, new highway construction will be about $20 million/km., including bridges and looks a whole lot cheaper than $80 million/km.

This is the realities of the post - transit or highways/bridges. Your emotional attachment to the status quo is sad and all to common. Like RAV, the twinning of the Port Mann will happen, simply because our planners know no better! We are about 30 years behind the rest of the world with our blinkered thinking.

For SkyTrain xpansion in Surrey, just go to TransLink's web site and the info should be there. Again huge per/km. costs will deter expansion through modestly populated areas.

Mr. Johnston,

You state:

"All through my posts I have stated facts about transit and transit mode."

I am not disputing that you've stated information about transit. Though not all of what you've stated is fact.

You state:

"The Port Mann twinning debate and transit are entwined."

Rather obvious, and I've stated this repeatedly throughout my posts.

You state:

"So what will it be, new highways & bridges or transit? To say no to twining the Port Mann is nonsense unless you a plan that will deal with the traffic."

I've stated this *repeatedly* in my posts. So why are you telling me this? This is another remakably obvious statement. And I've stated (again, *repeatedly* stated) that transit should be pursued.

You state:

"Your emotional attachment to the status quo is sad and all to common."

Now this is lie! Read any of my posts. I've not advocated building Skytrain instead of LRT in Surrey. I've stated so repeatedly, and yet you continue to misrepresent my point of view.

Mr. Johnston,

You state:

"Like RAV, the twinning of the Port Mann will happen, simply because our planners know no better!"

Twinning the Port Mann is a Provincial Gov't decision. On the contrary, the GVRD seems to be quite concerned about the proposed Port Mann/ Highway 1 expansion. The GVRD passed a motion on April 1, 2005, stating that

"Evidence in other cities shows that adding road capacity does not solve congestion expect in the short term.

The highways widening will have a direct impact on traffic volumes along the east-west arterials in the City of Vancouver."

The information can be found at

http://cche.vcn.bc.ca/gvrdmotion

You state:

"For SkyTrain xpansion in Surrey, just go to TransLink's web site and the info should be there."

I searched for "Skytrain expansion Surrey" on the Translink website and could find no mention of this. Could you please provide a link to this proposed expansion?

JL, you seem to want to attack me more than engaging in meaninful debate. This just how the Liberals will get their way with highway expansion. I bet your orders come from Liberal party headquarters!

You seem not to want to answer the most important question: What alternative is there for alleviating traffic on the # 1 highway and the Port Mann?

Grumpy,

While I do respect your general ideas, you are missing the bigger picture. You also are not willing to get over this Skytrain/Translink feud. All three of us would not like to see massive freeway projects. All three of us would like to see some light rail.

As for saying that jimmy_laroux is letting emotion cloud his judgement… here is what you wrote….

And then you go on to write….

You must be joking, is Skytrain really leading us into highway hell? With that logic, there must be a lot of Skytrains running around Los Angeles!

Although the expense of Skytain is used to justify road expansion, it is just a red-herring.

And I will not follow it.

Moat, i'm sorry - you just don't get it. You are blined to cost and cost is a big driver for transit projects.

Do you drive a Rolls Royce? No? (Hell maybe you do) Why? Maybe it's just to expensive to operate. Same is true with SkyTrain, its just too expensive.

Part of the problem is that politicians and bureaucrats never allowed a LRT/SkyTrain debate to take place, as what happened in the 1980's. The result is one of the most expensive transit systems, for what it does, built today.

Your ignorance of modern public transit philosophy and practice is breath-taking as cost means nothing to you. Just wait and see, my predictions about transit is batting 100.

http://sanfrancisco.about.com/cs/gettingaround/a/barttosfo.htm

I took the BART when I had to get to the SFO from where I was staying outside of San Francisco. I have no idea of the cost of this system, but it was a pleasant enough ride.

Bart is very expensive. If transit is able to take you from where you are, to where you want to go, then its good.

Oh yes, just a note. The population of California is about the same as Canada! There is the tax base and population to invest in large metro projects.

The current transit debate in San Fransico is allowing (after 55+ years) the return of LRT on the 'Bay' Bridge. The current Bart extension to the airport has had little ridership (I think from memory its 8,000 passengers a day). Ah, with gas prices soaring may see this number increase.

Grumpy,

You state:

"I bet your orders come from Liberal party headquarters!"

To quote one of your posts above, "unfortunately your arguments are emotional, not logical."

You state:

"You seem not to want to answer the most important question: What alternative is there for alleviating traffic on the # 1 highway and the Port Mann?"

Well, in fact, if you'd read my posts, you might have come across the following (in a post from 4 days ago):

"But anyway, a mass transit alternative is precisely what I support."

and this:

"I think LRT would be a great system to investigate, especially for an area like Surrey."

and this:

"I am not saying we should not build LRT. Nowhere did I state that in any of my posts. My point is that if you'rew trying to coax people out of their cars and provide cost-effective transit (of any kind), doubling the volume of the main highway through the city isn't going to help (to put it mildly), and neither is encouraging low-density housing (which is the inevitable result of new highway infrastructure and weakened control of rural land use)."

Grumpy,

You state that I "seem to want to attack [you] more than engaging in meaninful debate." And you then go on to state, in the very same paragraph no less, that you "bet [my] orders come from Liberal party headquarters!" Hmmm...

So anyway, any luck with finding that information on the proposed Skytrain expansion into Surrey?

jimmy_l,

Start using that little "quote" button on the the top right hand side of the "post comment" dialogue box. It looks like a cartoon dialogue balloon. You put one before the text you have cut and pasted, and then one immediately following your selected text.

Then you can really have some fun with Grumpy's inconsistencies.

Moat,

I always wondered how the quote box worked.

Malcolm Johnston says:

jimmy_laroux points to the following link:

http://www.translink.bc.ca/Plans_Projects/Coquitlam_Line/

I love it!

Moat, Laroux, Grumpy: Ken Hardie, TransLink's own Communications guy, points out that the transportation system and municipal development should either be built to satisfy the Liveable Region Strategic Plan (LRSP), or the Plan should be shelved or reworked because none of that is happening.

Next, TransLink SAYS SkyTrain should be built because the car is causing pollution and congestion. Well, first of all SkyTrain can't do the job and has done NOTHING to reduce either problem.

Next, if you want to reduce pollution and congestion, why would you decide to build a transit technology that is so expensive, you have to keep people buying gas for cars, just to pay for the thing?

Next, Grumpy's right about SkyTrain vs Light Rail sales, and if anyone does not believe him or her, go count them!

Next, the issue of choosing SNC-Lavalin instead of Bombardier....anyone who says that needs to go do a search on the corporate boards. What one doesn't get by way of a contract, the other one does. And anyone think to check where RAV's cars are to be made and by whom? TransLink/RAVCO "short list" was nothing but a red herring...don't believe me? Go ask Siemens what it thought about being on the list just to make things look good.

Next, it was SNC-Lavalin/Serco who won the Best and Final Offer deal. So why has SERCO pulled out, anyone know?

Next, back to SkyTrain cars....why does TransLink have cars listed in its 3year plan? Those things were supposed to last 30-40 years. The Expo line went into service in 1986 - that counts to 20 years on my fingers. So what's the betting TransLink is hiding some of the costs of RAV in the 3-year plan? Either that, or taxpayers were spun a line on the shelf-life.

Last, we thought we'd heard the worst of politics with the Federal Liberals? They ain't got nothing on BC and its boondoggles. Everyone is complaining that their property taxes are too high - how about they go check to see how much of the tax bill is generated by TransLink?

To clarify one comment - Bombardier is SNC-Lavalin and vice versa, they are corporately intertwined - and they include in there a company called Pacific Liaicon (Sp?) which produced a scathing report on Bombardier some years back - so the Bombardier/SNC group bought up the company.

By the way, where are two other local past players - Eric Denhoff and Lecia Stewart - these days? Isn't it time for their seats on the merry-go-round to come around in Vancouver again?

Hey Isabella,

Check out jimmy_laroux's link..... or were you simply too quick on the "post message" button.

Ah, must be another Translink, Skytrain, Jean Chretien, French-Canadian Company (Bombardier), conspiracy...

Wait..... immy_laroux sounds French-Canadian....

I see sponsorship scandal, which is ultimately leading to hellish freeways.

And we are all taking SkyTrain to get there!

Bah!

Moat,

I think the NE sector LRT is evidence that Grumpy (aka Malcolm Johnston of the Delta Light Rail Committee) and Translink are more like-minded than he would rather admit. ;)

jimmy_l,

I know, and the hate that they have on SkyTrain is irrational. If SkyTrain was a person, it would get ugly....

SkyTrain does many things right, and some just cannot acknowledge this.

Instead of looking for ways to reduce the cost of building SkyTrain, they insist on trashing the whole system. I have ridden many systems in North America, and after the subway systems (which are expensive), SkyTrain is one of the more pleasant experiences. However, during the rush hours, the chance of getting a seat on SkyTrain is unlikely.

There are so many hiddden savings associated with the system. How many millions dollars has ICBC saved over the years by having a transit system that avoids automobile and pedestrian traffic?

BTW, when is the last time SkyTrain has been held up due to construction delays?

I do wonder about its durability in a severe during a severe earthquake, but I am sure that we can say that about a lot of our infrastructure.

Hey, but was not the original story about a bridge or something?

Moat, you still don't get it - you can not reduce the cost of SkyTrain, because of it being automated, must be built on a segregated rights-of-way. $80 million/km. is the base price for viaduct construction! Operating costs are also much higher for automated systems as well. SkyTrain fails on a pure business decision. Sadly you mistake fact for hate.

J.L. The NE Corridor project is not LRT, it's just another very expensive SkyTrain (a.k.a Millennium Line) light metro with long tunnels and much grade seperation. It will fail, like RAV. It is not the vehicle that defines LRT and light metro, but the quality of rights-of-way. TransLink's planners have had no experience planning for LRT and instead plan for a light metro and call it LRT.

You seem to hate this Johnston fella, why? Knows more of the subject than you?

The hidden savings mentioned for skyTrain are also true of LRT, only more so! SkyTrain as well has been down 3 times in the past week, as well advertised on NW radio. God help us if it snows as well, SkyTrain stops! So daon't go there, period.

Moat,

I too seem to remember something about a bridge...

On Monday, May 13th, 2002, Malcolm Johnston of the Delta Light Rail Committee gave the following presentation:

http://www.richmond.ca/__shared/assets/051302_pg2502200.pdf

The arguments Grumpy has made on this thread are a subset of the arguments made in the above presentation, and they are made in exactly the same way.

There are many similarities in writing style, the most salient being how Malcolm Johnston peppers his presentation with exclamation marks in a manner uncannily similar to Grumpy.

Oops, forgot to mention that the above presentation was to Richmond City Council.

Grumpy/Johnston,

You state:

According to Translink's final report on the NE corridor, available here

http://www.translink.bc.ca/files/pdf/plan_proj/area_plans/northeast_sector/final_technical_report.pdf

there is a 12% drop along Clarke road. They state that as a result a tunnel "is required beneath Clarke hill, as Clarke Road is too steep for the light rail transit vehicles."

They do not, to my knowledge, state explicitly how much of the line is grade-separated, but eyeballing the diagram of the proposed alignment, I'd say less than 20%.

You state:

Translink also states that the line will be "primarily at street level with light rail vehicles operating in their own traffic lanes with priority at signalized intersections." However, "some elevated guideways may be necessary to avoid traffic and pedestrian impacts and to ensure travel times and convenient transfers."

My resource:

http://www.translink.bc.ca/Plans_Projects/Coquitlam_Line/about_the_line.asp

Mr. Johnston,

You state:

I don't hate you, but I do find it frustrating how you've co-opted this thread in order to drag up an old debate rather than focus on a current one (an issue that just happens to be the subject of this article).

Just because you are incapable of honest debate, you conspire to slander anyone who dares say anything that you dissagree with. Relying on TransLink for information about LRT is like buying Bre-X shares - caveat emptor.

Let's see now, are you Glen Liecester or Tom Parkinson or any one of the many people who work at Translink, you sound like them anyways! Should I be calling you Mr. Liecester or Mr. Parkinson from now on?

Here is what is going to happen and my crystal ball has been seldom wrong.

The bridge will be twinned > leading to more traffic > leading to calls for more highways > leading to more highway & bridge construction > leading to even more traffic and gridlock > leading to more calls for more highways > etc. and so one. This all happening because the region could not afford a Skytrain metro system for a transit network in the lower mainland. Chilling isn't it! For the 3 of us who are reading these posts, this will be my last.

Mr. Johnston,

I do not work for, nor have I ever worked for, Translink, the GVRD, or the provincial government. I am not a civil servant or a politician of any sort. I am simply, like you, a citizen worried over this region's future.

You state:

I did not lie in any of my posts. I have not slandered you either (other than perhaps pointing out how you use too many exclamation marks). I do, however, stand by my remark about you using this thread to vent about the RAV line (and the like). The unfortunate thing is that you *could* have used this thread to discuss an LRT alternative to the the proposed highway expansion. If you do choose to post again, I hope that it might be about LRT in Surrey (potential routes, technology, expected ridership, etc.).

Grumpy,

Yes, there are ways to bring down the construction costs. Like anything else, the more you build the cheaper it gets. I have never stated that SkyTrain is the “perfect” system. However, I did say that it does many things right. It also does many things better than LRT.

SkyTrain is expensive, too expensive. But to blame it for increased freeway construction is bizarre. However, you have finally acknowledged that there are some hidden savings in a transit system like SkyTrain.

But the main advantage of SkyTrain is that is does not interfere with automobile traffic. LRT can never boast this. There are view accidents with the system.

You have given me a new perspective regarding the LRT, however, sometimes you have relied on exaggerated facts.

Remember, we are all on the same side against freeway expansion. Dividing us into SkyTrain vs. LRT only weakens our resolve and limits discussion.

What about running up the Fraser Highway from Langley to 152 St., then North to 104 Ave and across to the Skytrain Station? That's about 13 km. How much would such a project cost?

jimmy_l,

Do you mean using SkyTrain technology? According to Grumpy's figures, about 1.40 billion. And for once, he is right, if you base your calculations on Millenium line construction costs.

But LRT would be the better option for an area of lesser density.

13 miles of monorail in Seattle was going to cost $11 billion after the final debt service payment was made some 50 years down the road.

You can't have $1.5 billion worth of transit investment in SkyTrain and only 33 buses added to the fleet when 400,000 additional people arrive in the GVRD! What prevented the transit authority from adding more buses? Think carefully as this situation has occurred everywhere where rail transit has been built.

The idea that rail can lessen the number of cars operating on the road is plain silly. Even in Portland where they have numerous rail lines operating at less than capacity the growth in automobile use has greatly increased. When one can walk faster than Portland's streetcars it gives little incentive to citizens but great incentives to suppliers of this rail junk.

Enough of the bumpf about rail. We have seriouis problems not only with transportation but also with land use and councils willing to increase density where transit is difficult to service but also productive jobs are being created in areas far removed from residential and population densities.

The main purpose of the Fraser Crossing Bridge as I had learned was for the regions municipalities east and somewhat south of the Fraser could now go forth and develop economic strategies that don't require the infrastructure of the region's core to be impacted. By twinning the Port Mann one would be defeating the reason to invest $1 billion in a privately operated, publicly financed bridge bridging Maple Ridge etc with Surrey Langley and Abbotsford.

Doug the Slug in Surrey comments that even buses are in gridlock. Gee Doug, could this have something to do with design? Why doesn't Vancouver and other communities reserve their curb lanes for buses during the rush periods? Or for that matter why doesn't the region's traffic planners install devices that allow buses to go through controlled intersections with priority as most large cities in the US now have. The technology has been available since the early 80's and is always mentioned in transportation plans but never instituted.

There are many ways to improve mobility and access without spending lots of money. Restricting truck traffic during peak periods has been very effective in other jurisdications that have realized that money for roads and rail is just becoming much too expensive for the results that occur.

As mentioned by another reader, the $2.2 billion going into building the RAV Line with only 36 rail cars and 6800 riders/hour could purchase 3500 buses with an hourly carrying capacity of 175,000! So wake up folks. For whose benefit do we build rail. Wasn't the original SkyTrain and the Millenium Line suppose to take people out of their cars? So far they are good at taking people off of buses.

Um, like I just have to respond to the previous nonsense from Ocean 44.

Sure, for the cost of RAV you can buy 3,500 buses, but you forget for every new bus bought you must hire 3 to 5 people to drive, maintain and manage them. That means you must hire 10,500 to 17,500 new people to operate them! That works out to at least $420 million to $700 million annually to operate the buses (based on a average annual wage, including benefits of $40,000)! The reason LRT is built is that it becomes cheaper to operate than buses on transit routes where ridership exceeds 2000 persons per hour per direction.

Oceans, just where has buses actualy attracted the motorist from the car? Buses are just precieved as loser cruisers by many; a bus, is a bus, is a bus!

The total cost of RAV, after 50 years will be over $5 billion. The project is now rated to cost $2.2 billin (See DoRAVright.com). Not bad, as 5 years ago Jane Bird was stating RAV was going to cost $1.2 billion!

And MAOT, LRT doesn't interfere with auto traffic any more than a stop light. Sorry that's the truth!

Moat,

Using LRT or something of that sort.

Grumpy,

In order to have a dedicated right-of-way for the train, do you not have to remove two lanes of traffic? Don't the Portland MAX trains run in mostly in their own righ-of-way? That's a sizeable reduction in traffic capacity.

ocean44,

I agree. Land use and density are central issues to the transit debate.

With any luck Doug McCallum will soon be the ex-mayor of Surrey. Cross your fingers, folks.

First off, Ocean44, welcome to our fun filled discussion.

Now, down to business...

Ocean44 stated:

Buses, are you crazy? People do not like buses. They are slow and erratic. I did not enjoy my year of communting by bus. I fact, I used to stand there (while on the bus) and think about "why have they not put SkyTrain on this route yet?" (the Broadway/Arbutus corridor).

Remember the bus strike? At first there was panic. Everyone thought that there would gridlock as commuters would flock to cars.

Guess what? The movement of traffic was not affected all. In fact, some people saw a decrease in their commutes as buses were no longer blocking lanes.

Now Grumpy,

We knew that you could not stay away. You are too passionate (or obessive) about your LRT.

Not quite. LRT needs rights of ways, and think of the NUMBER OF STOPLIGHTS needed to allow LRT to get through. And are these going to be gated stoplights?

This issue is where SkyTrain (or a Subway) has LRT beat handsdown.

jimmy_l

I think we all agree here.