LRT system

I've always said skytrain is way to expensive. The Port Mann definitely has had its day, but with light rail and rail, the Port Mann wouldn't have to be replaced. It's younger than the Lions Gate. Bring on Rail, and bring on LRT systems to the GVRD. They work everywhere else. Definitely worth the money and move more people in a bigger area. Makes total sense.

Doing it Light

Is the right way to go along with the traditonal means of financing. It would also be advantagous if the trains,and workers were hired locally as it makes for more ride for dollar. I also think its time to reconsider manning the trains with an expensive police force instead offering the ridership for token amounts or based on income or lack of it. As presently the ridership has pretty much stayed consistent at 12% ridership despite the carbon tax and new trains. Obviously we are not in it for the money so lets at least be in it for the ride. So I'm with you doing it lite is doing it right.

Light rail--no-brainer

During Expo 86, someone got a two-car diesel tram kind-of-vehicle onto the rail line that was once the Interurban from New West to Abbotsford. It was amazing. If that infrastructure is still in place--even the right-of-way--then why on earth is Kevin Falcon continuing to attack opponents of the new bridge?

Gateway/Tar sands-they're connected

Stopping the Gateways to the Tar Sands:

Organizing for Sustainable Solutions

When: Saturday March 28 2009 1-4pm

Where: SFU Surrey Campus (at Surrey Central Skytrain Station) Rm. SUR 5140

Cost: Free

Pre-registration is not required.

The Tar Sands megaproject in Alberta has been described as the most environmenatlly destructive project ever built.
But many people don’t know about the pivotal role proposed BC projects could have in facilitating tar sands expansion and fueling demand for tar sands oil.

Join for a short video, presentation and discussion on the ways tar sands plans depend on proposed projects BC.

The presentations will focus on the Tar Sands, the Proposed Enbridge Gateway Pipeline, and the Gateway freeway and port expansion schemes.

Presenters:
Eric Doherty - Livable Region Coalition: The Gateway freeway and port expansion proposals.

Jessie Schwarz - Greenpeace: The environmental and social impacts of the tar sands.

Harjap Grewal - Council of Canadians: The Gateway and tar sands and pipelines.

Presented by: The Council of Canadians, the Wilderness Committee and the Livable Region Coalition.

I told you so!

Here, at last, a UBC type has realized, what most planners in Europe and the USA already know - you can build a whole lot more LRT or tram, than SkyTrain. More LRT route mileage = more ridership.

What is nor emphasized enough is that light rail has made SkyTrain or light-metro obsolete over two decades ago.

It's only the Luddites in BC Transit and TransLink that keep SkyTrain in the loop.

Next embarrassment - the failure of RAV.

It's not just Grumpy that likes LRT.............

....... but every city that has transit routes with traffic flows of 2,000 to 20,000 persons per hour per direction.

The 'Rail for the Valley' blog site has some interesting items about LRT.
Dis anyone know there are over 680 light-rail or tramway systems in operation around the world?

http://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/2009/03/20/world-transit-system-list-as-of-2006-from-the-lrta/

Or maybe why our transit planners like light-metro like SkyTrain?

http://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/2009/03/07/an-europeans-view-of-light-rail-in-north-america-some-questions-answered/

Or how politicians have been manipulated in supporting SkyTrain?

http://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/2009/02/17/tales-of-transit-studies-past-youd-be-amazed-at-the-hundreds-of-politicians-manipulated-over-the-last-30-years/

The SkyTrain myth.

8 SkyTrain myths.

http://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/2009/01/03/skytrain-eight-myths-and-the-facts-oh-what-tangled-webs-we-weave-when-we-first-practice-to-deceive/

Interesting reading and one wonders why we keep building with SkyTrain? Oh really, is that true......SkyTrain is built strictly to increase property values by increasing densities along its route, for large windfall profits for developers and land speculators and it has very little to do about providing an affordable public transit service.

Back to the Future

We had it all: Interurban rail all the way south to Steveston and east to Chilliwack, and we threw it all away to worship the car!
Oh the irony - now we must pay the for the consequences...

The LRT fascination

People in the suburbs can benefit really from two forms of major transportation investment, freeways and heavy rail, that is commuter rail like the West Coast Express.

That's why downtown/UBC types are always pumping LRT solutions that simply won't work there. The game is to deny the suburbs anything that would work for them so that Metro real estate markets remain non-competitive and expensive, and to make sure that the inner municipalities continue do enjoy dominant shares of the industrial and commercial tax base.

People in the Suburbs

Could benefit? From having more buses on the road. Cheap, Cheap, Cheap solution and the light rail is an ideal solution as opposed to the bridge. Nobodies denying the suburbs anything but if you are talking more P3's especially this operation I say its definitely a move in the Wrong direction as Canadian Line is a Canadian Lie and are not to be trusted. Why? How in the world did they come in exactly on budget for everything? Its was impossible as costs escalated and they had major problems with where to dig, merchants and the like. And everyone else came tumbling down. So its a nice story but don't buy its to many lies and no way of checking so take you train of no returns and see if you can sell them to your maker in the sky.

telecommute and 3 day work week

If everybody who could do one or the other did do one or the other, you would eliminate all traffic congestion problems forever and a day.

Save a bunch of tar sands fuel to export to the US, green up BC, and let us breath easier.

Start it up with mandatory public service telecommuting and 3 day work weeks, and expand to the private sector soon after.

It's a no brainer.

Wrong, wrong, wrong Rod

Quote:

"People in the suburbs can benefit really from two forms of major transportation investment, freeways and heavy rail, that is commuter rail like the West Coast Express."

This is 1960's transit philosophy and it is a very poor model for transit. All the West Cost Express has done is spread development up the North Side of the Fraser, to Mission and has probably added more to congestion than help solve!

In Europe, commuter trains like the WCE are being, where possible, converted to LRT. LRT, because of its inherent flexibility, can penetrate to areas, where commuter trains cannot.

Now called TramTrain, LRT, track-sharing with regular railways, has proven extremely successful. In Karlshrue Germany, by converting one commuter train service to TramTrain saw a 423% in weekday ridership in just a few months! Today, Karlshrue has over 400 km. of tram and TramTrain route with the longest run being over 200 km.!

http://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/2009/03/11/can-trams-the-interurban-operate-with-passenger-and-freight-trains-they-can-in-germany/

Commuter trains, I'm afraid, are well past their "best before" date.

Karlshrue Germany

Some interesting stats, about TramTrain in Germany, courtesy of the Rail for the Valley people.

http://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/2009/03/01/why-the-valley-interurban-must-service-vancouver/

Rod is out to lunch

First off, Rod doesn't understand that Surrey isn't a suburb. It's the province's second largest CITY.It has a growing industrial and job base. People don't have a problem getting from Surrey to Vancouver...we have a problem GETTING AROUND SURREY.

Skytrain isn't going to help this. It's finally time that some of our tax dollars stayed south of the Fraser instead of financing cheap fares for Vancouverites. Bring on LRT!

Lower Rainland LRT by UBC

OK, but before I climb on the bandwagon for LRT, am I allowed some skepticism that in one month researchers at UBC were able to come up with a reliable and truthful cost figure? If so, why the hell aren't they contracted to do the project planning for all urban transportation in Canada? Not bashing UBC, but when it comes to urban transportation planning, I've been lied to before...... every damn time there is a "project" !!

Why not start with electric trolleys on KGH?

Skytrain isn't going to help this. It's finally time that some of our tax dollars stayed south of the Fraser instead of financing cheap fares for Vancouverites. Bring on LRT!

Do Surrey's main thoroughfares, such as 152nd, have enough width to put in tram lines down the centre and still have enough lanes left over for vehicles?

Why not put electric trolleys along King George Highway as a start? Indeed, why hasn't the electric trolley system been expanded in any way beyond Vancouver proper?

It's all about the trucks!

Since the trucking industry and the Ports have been lobbying the government for years it's not about the ordinary person who commutes but the truckers industry and a fast passageway.

It doesn't matter what good ideas are proposed this government is not concerned with the little guy getting to work in an environmentally sound way, it's about maximizing profits for their industrial supporters.

For one, people have got to

For one, people have got to get it out of their heads that this government wants to do any construction that is economically resposible. As far as I'm concerned this whole 'gateway' project is tied in with the North American Union network. Just look at all the highway upgrades on Highway #1 around Revelstoke/Golden area. And of course this all ties in with pumping oil (and other by-products)from Fort McMoney to Kitimat and tanker our oil to the far east.

Answers

Quote:

"OK, but before I climb on the bandwagon for LRT, am I allowed some skepticism that in one month researchers at UBC were able to come up with a reliable and truthful cost figure?"

The cost to build LRT is quite established, starting off at about $5 million/km., track and overhead. The cost rises as per the amount of engineering required. Of course track sharing again, further reduces the cost of LRT. Cheaper LRT = able to penetrate further to attract ridership.

http://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/2008/12/23/trams-on-the-cheap/

TransLink's planners are stuck on light-metro and plan for light-metro. TransLink, like BC Transit before have never used consultants with an expertise in LRT for their transit planning. It seems they are afraid of the truth.

Quote:

"Sure. In places like Germany they have different trains running at different speeds on the same track beds, some for more frequent stops, others for longer distances and fewer stops."

Yeah, so? Here is how the Karlshrue model works. I can board a tram, on-street (tramway) in downtown Karlshrue, which then networks on the mainline railways, operating in conjunction with passenger and freight trains, then network off the mainline on an light-rail R-O-W and get off on-street in downtown Heilbronn, some 90 km. later.

The TramTrain uses the existing R-O-W's to penetrate 90 km. away from Karlshrue, to affordably service Heilbronn, something far too costly to do if a separate R-O-W were to be used. This service has come about from years of study and public input.

Rod, train chasers should update themselves about commuter trains and I doubt in reality it has reduced congestion, but added to it. It has been estimated that over 3,000 people have moved up along the WCE route to take advantage of the service. New housing and population increases, put huge demands on roads, schools, etc.

This government is hell bent

This government is hell bent on using SkyTrain and nothing else for some reason. I think only 2-3 other places actually use it on very small lines. I think the big business transport industry is part of the problem.

We should be trying to get people out of cars not more into cars which will happen with this new bridge. The whole transportation set up we have now would be great in the 60's but not now.

I have seen other reports saying more LRT instead of SkyTrain but King Gordo won't do it. Strange...

We will never see any LRT for a long time as the BC Libs probably have the next couple elections sown up. And all they want is SkyTrain period. Very sad.

SkyTrain's annual subsidy.

The $6 billion is based on SkyTrain's true cost to date, including its annual subsidy of over $200 million, the admin. claims it pays for itself!

In the USA, the total cost of a transit project (over a spread of 40 to 60 years) is mostly used and at first glance makes US transit projects look a lot more expensive. To date no BC government (Socred, NDP, or Lib.) has told the taxpayer the true cost of SkyTrain.

When we compare total cost of LRT and SkyTrain over the financial lifespan of the project, light rail is at least one third of the cost. This why SkyTrain has not found a market and can be only sold in private deals, which include Canadian government financing!

If only!

If only our government was serious about lowering greenhouse gases! If only it was serious about transit!
Why is everything I am interested in going down the tubes? Public transit, urban living, the CBC.
Talk about Grumpy!

Make Sure Government Knows Your Thoughts

I suggest everyone write Campbell and Falcon with your views on this issue.

premier@gov.bc.ca

Yeah, so?

Rod, train chasers should update themselves about commuter trains and I doubt in reality it has reduced congestion, but added to it. It has been estimated that over 3,000 people have moved up along the WCE route to take advantage of the service. New housing and population increases, put huge demands on roads, schools, etc.

So there's been further population movements to Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows and Mission. Would that not have occured in any event given prices?

I like your phrase "it has been estimated". By whom? Doherty?

Context

I don't doubt the success of TramTrain but ridership is not a problem with WCE. The problem is lack of track time to run more trains.

Regarding your view that WCE has spread development up the valley, wouldn't TramTrain do the same?

Your one size fits all view of trains and transit is really counterproductive. It is much better to evaluate various options in context rather than just assume because LRT or TramTrain is successful in one context that it is the best option everywhere all the time.

Anyway, great way of hijacking the thread. The ideal of building LRT or trams instead of the highway expansion is something we all seem to agree on. Not sure why you see the need to get off topic. Stop Gateway and you'll get LRT. If it goes ahead, the Valley will be total car dependent and there will be no market for LRT.

rac: Good points

I have to wonder why so many Greater Vancouver transit experts aren't actual transit users.

I briefly scanned the Wiki piece on Karlsruhe, and followed its link to an article on tram-trains. It states that many people in Karlsruhe were angered when their former trains were ended and they were forced to put up with the tram trains, which lacked washrooms and other conveniences that were greatly valued by the longer distance traveller.

On transit and transportation topics, we get way too much colonial BS here, about how the transit traveller should be just as pleased as punch to be sandwiched into a "crush load" carriage, with no conveniences or amenities whatsoever.

That totally idiotic mentality led Translink to sell its first order of minibuses a few years ago. They had ordered them without the standard AC package, because they figured Vancouverites don't need it, so they shouldn't have it! Harrumpf! But without the AC package too much carbon mon was getting into the coach. Either the AC would have to be installed after all, or the fleet disposed of. Translink sold the buses at a loss.

It's all based on the official Metro Vancouverism doctrine that you're not supposed to be making long trips in the first place, you're supposed to live close to work, so what's the problem with stripped down, bare bones train carriages?

What works, what doesn't

The reality is that almost all the solutions mentioned in the comments... more buses, more trains, be they light, heavy, or somewhere in between, telecommuting, and compressed work weeks, can all play a role in improving air quality, decreasing greenhouse emissions, fostering smarter developments and lower house prices. The only one that probably won't is the 'more of the same' approach represented by the Port Mann project.

Which really leaves us with only one question. Why is the provincial government so committed to this clearly foolish and expensive idea? Since Falcon is rarely available for comment, we won't get an answer. And there's the second obscenity in this ugly farce.

LeftofCentre is Out to Lunch

leftofcentre says, "It's finally time that some of our tax dollars stayed south of the Fraser instead of financing cheap fares for Vancouverites..."

Give your head a shake. While the average Vancouverite is standing on a packed bus, your buses roll around with a half dozen people in them. *WE* - that is VANCOUVER riders, subsidize buses that run south of the Fraser, not the other way around.
You folks south of the Fraser are getting transit welfare from us, not us from you.

PS: You're welcome.
Try to be more gracious to your benefactors in the future - imagine the transit service Surrey, or Delta, or Richmond, or Langley would get if they actually had to pay their own way instead of leeching funds from users in metro...

Transit on both sides of the Fraser

leftofcentre wrote "It's finally time that some of our tax dollars stayed south of the Fraser"

Yes, north Surrey now has population densities higher than most of the southern part of Vancouver. Several areas, such as Guildford, now have population densities higher than many of the old streetcar suburbs of Vancouver and are long overdue for decent transit service.

Surrey is ready for a real urban transit network - light rail, bus rapid transit, and frequent conventional bus service. (Maybe some provincial money for more sidewalks and crosswalks too so people can get to transit safely)

But the kind of cost effective transit professor Condon is proposing means that we can have good transit on both sides of the Fraser soon. Remember that Coquitlam is a city too, and is also ready for real urban transit. And maybe some people want to get from Coquitlam to Surrey. Some people might even want to go somewhere in Vancouver other than downtown by transit.

We can have great transit for the whole region, as long as we ditch the multi-billion dollar Gateway Program (and all the other LA-style road expansions the province is wasting our money on) and re-invest the money in cost-effective transit (This means ditching the provincial plan for a $2+ billion dollar subway up Broadway too - light rail or bus rapid transit would do the job well for a small fraction of the cost).

For more on bus rapid transit see
http://www.transitlab.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=60&Itemid=102

Eric (East Vancouver)

Answers Part 2

Quote:

"I like your phrase "it has been estimated". By whom? Doherty?"

No, by various real estate people I have talked to over the past 5 years.

Quote:

"Your one size fits all view of trains and transit is really counterproductive."

Really, how so. Here we have a mode proven to be able to preform as a commuter train, LRT or a tram. This means one vehicle can be used to solve many of out public transit deficiencies.

Commuter Rail is a yesterdays transit mode do to its inherent inflexibility. The higher ridership on the WCE, is in part, the reluctance of businesses to relocate outside the downtown core because their workforce can take a heavily subsidized, but limited rail service.

Quote:

"It states that many people in Karlshrue were angered when their former trains were ended and they were forced to put up with the tram trains, which lacked washrooms and other conveniences that were greatly valued by the longer distance traveler."

Some trams do have toilets, but you loose credibility because a whopping 2,210,000 more rides were made on the route soon after the implementation TramTrain. Referendum after referendum, has been passed supporting investment in TramTrain also supports the success of the operation.

After reading the history about Karlshrue and corresponding with planners who worked on the system, I think Rod, your Wiki piece is slightly self-serving.

Addendum

because a whopping 2,210,000 more rides were made - Should read because a whopping 2,210,000 more rides *PER WEEK* were made

Wasting Money on Roads

The reason why there is a lack of transit south of the Fraser is that the politicians have been spending money on road expansion instead of transit expansion. Until they stop wasting money on roads, there will be little investment in transit.

I can't tolerate all this

I can't tolerate all this traffic. Why are people so ignorant and so stupid to ignore how bad it is. The Noise, the Stress, the Exhaust, the injuries, the absurdity of everyone getting about in these wasteful methods of mobility.
We have been over congested for decades.
Why does Health Canada allow this.?
In 2006, a study was published on the COCIAL costs to use of the automobile. In Ontario it was $18 BILLION.
Estimated cost for all of Canada is now $200 Billion.
Who is doing the math?
Well, some UBC students have finally put forth some proposals.
But I tell you, Canadians with their right to drive wherever and whenever attitude will be the biggest hurdle.

social costs

social costs include many aspects: coroners, ambulances, police surveillance,etc.

Always a million laughs

We can have great transit for the whole region, as long as we ditch the multi-billion dollar Gateway Program (and all the other LA-style road expansions the province is wasting our money on) and re-invest the money in cost-effective transit (This means ditching the provincial plan for a $2+ billion dollar subway up Broadway too - light rail or bus rapid transit would do the job well for a small fraction of the cost).

It's always a million laughs whenever the Vancouverism disciples start to tell people in the suburbs what's good for them. In particular, I enjoy their long-standing habit of invoking the name "Los Angeles" as a bogey man. Why not try to frighten people be mentioning other American cities with Interstate and state freeway systems, such as San Francisco, or Portland, or Boston? The answer is simple. Invoking the names of these cities would not produce the same conditioned response, their names do not have the same propaganda value.

How is it that a tolled Port Mann will suck away dollars for investment in transit? How would a tolled Golden Ears, or a tolled Patullo replacement subtract from the funds available for transit systems? If it's a user pay facility paid for by motorists and truckers, what is the complaint?

As for the West Coast Express, where I have a monthly $180 pass, I am glad there are some new cars on order. But I would like to see it operating more like the main Lakeshore GO train in Ontario, 18 hours a day in both directions. And I would like to see similar heavy rail services installed to the South Fraser, to Richmond-Delta-White Rock and possibly Bellingham, and to the Squamish-Whistler area. Why not a similar service on Vancouver Island, from Parksville to Victoria?

Them's the facts old chap - you just gotta live with it!

Here are the statistics from Karlshrue before tram train and after. These are official numbers from the Albtal-Verkehgellschaft Karlshrue & ABB Henchel.

Total Weekly Ridership on the Karlshrue - Bretton line before tram train - Commuter Rail September 1992

533,6000

Total Weekly Ridership After TramTrain March 1993

2,554,974

Percentage increase

479%

2,554,974
- 533,600
=
2,021,974

Sunday's ridership went from 6,200 to 277,478; a massive 3,669% increase.

The numbers are well known and much has been written about Karlshrue's success in the past 16 years. But the censors on the mainstream media who support SkyTrain certainly did not print any stories.

Rod, how much is that $180 ticket is being subsidized by the taxpayer; which for the vast majority of taxpayers, can't use the WCE!

light rail is anti-urban

anytime tracks are laid down on city streets it just slows everything downb when a train goes downm.

I spent 7 long years in Toronto and when the bloody streetcar canked out it drew traffic to a standstill for blocks on end.

And if you are silly enough to suggest they should not be in cars in the first place, wtf do you think happens to all the other commuters on that street - get stranded for miles in either direction sometimes.

IF you don't like fast-moving cities and you want live in some fantasy slow land, please migrate away. Enough already, the burbs are calling. Please go. now.

All this is about is filling union coffers with fat government jobs for life because the tracks need CONSTANT maintenance creating mini-Cambies every few years on every single line.

Put it in the burns if you like so much just keep the awful slow nonsense off my city streets.

i am lifelong city bicycle rider/commuter.

Reality

Rod

Time to come back to reality. Both the Golden Ears and the Port Mann are way over budget so tolls likely won't cover the whole cost. For example, the Golden Ears required $200 million from TransLink, which initially why they were short of money for the Evergreen Line. The $400 million for the Pitt River Bridge, the $1 billion for the South Fraser Perimeter Road, the $300 million for the Border Infrastructure Fund and other road widening is all taking money that could have been used for transit.

All these new roads will support development that is not cost effective to service by transit. As well, with all the road capacity, people are less likely to use transit meaning less potential ridership revenue to support transit and less frequent transit service. Or, if people do use the transit, that will mean less toll revenue which means the government will have to make up the shortfalls.

Your dream of heavy rail will remain a dream. It is not in the plans because the decision to make the burbs dependent on roads and cars. If you want rail, the only way to get in in the next 20 years is to defeat the highway expansion plans.

rac: Several errors

For example, the Golden Ears required $200 million from TransLink, which initially why they were short of money for the Evergreen Line. The $400 million for the Pitt River Bridge, ...

I don't know what $200 million you're talking about with regards to Golden Ears. The Pitt River Bridge and interchange are a $180 million project, not a P3 AFAIK, and paid 50% by Ottawa.

All these new roads will support development that is not cost effective to service by transit. As well, with all the road capacity, people are less likely to use transit meaning less potential ridership revenue to support transit and less frequent transit service.

This is the usual propaganda, repeated endlessly. It has no real content, and it's not intended to. It's just the kind of psuedo intellectualism that makes up the Vancouverism doctrine.

Your dream of heavy rail will remain a dream. It is not in the plans because the decision to make the burbs dependent on roads and cars. If you want rail, the only way to get in in the next 20 years is to defeat the highway expansion plans.

The suburbs need heavy rail to connect to the inner city, and a freeway system to connect around the outside of Metro to other suburbs.

Welcome to the Real World

Rod

The burbs may need rail but the transportation budget and the demand has been destroyed by road building.

Where are the plans for rail? There are none because the focus has been on roads.

Time to get over this "we can have it all" fantasy. Roads and transit compete with each other for funding, construction resources and customers. This is how the world works. Welcome to it.

I was wrong about the Pitt River Bridge. It came in at $198 million. Still that is $198 million that was not spent on transit.

TransLink had to cough up the $200 million or so to save the project when the private partner balked due to cost increases.

The light rail folks just

The light rail folks just have to financially contribute more to the Libs than the Road Builders Association or the New Car Dealers Association of BC and there ya' have it- bingo- light rail!

Silly misconceptions

MichaelT:

Most traffic congestion is the result of traffic accidents. A stalled streetcar is no worse than the daily accidents that tie up traffic all over town. Not to mention the fact that a inoperative Skytrain pretty much screws up the entire system rather than a few streets. And how many of these incidents are we talking about anyway? So, you're operating under some pretty questionable assumptions with zero facts to back them up. Give us some stats to prove your point.

Regarding jobs... seems to me creating jobs is a good thing. Especially 'union' jobs that pay a living wage and let families afford to live in the city. Sounds to me your argument is based upon your prejudices rather than any real economic sense. Would you rather the money went was paid to Liberal toadies at thousands a day to fellate Bombardier executives and shuffle paper? Take a look around and figure out who actually keeps this city running. It ain't white-collar drones feeding their souls into the system piece by piece.

rac: The real world of Vancouverism?

I was wrong about the Pitt River Bridge. It came in at $198 million. Still that is $198 million that was not spent on transit.

TransLink had to cough up the $200 million or so to save the project when the private partner balked due to cost increases.

I still have no idea what you're talking about as regards the Golden Ears project. What Translink did there that was deplorable was to pay farmers a mere $40,000 per acre for land expropriated. Then, to save even more of your precious funds, they refused to take more land than the bare minimum needed for the ROW, so no landscaping will be done because there's not enough room for that.

These bridges will accommodate buses and even LRT lines. It's unfortunate they won't accommodate heavy rail.

Your idea of what's reality and what's not is predicated on the Vancouverism assumptions that we can do things on the cheap. It's really just a clever excuse to deny the suburbs the transportation services they need, so as to hog all the money for closer-in, more established, and politically better connected municipalities.

It's really just a simple, old-fashioned political game of "heads we win, tails you lose". People in the rest of BC, indeed the rest of Canada, are expected to help pay for Vancouver's gold plated RAV and eventual UBC lines. But when people in the Valley want an expanded freeway system and buses, they are told 'No!' by the Vancouverism experts. Your talk of limited funds is just talk, just excuses.

Finally, what is the source for you final figure of $198 million for the Pitt River Bridge, and the associated three-level interchange, the first such interchange to be built in B.C.?

light rail is anti-urban ????????????????

Really? In fact the opposite is true, light rail protects the urban landscape. LRT makes cities and towns livable by providing a quality transportation mode at a affordable price.

When plan for properly, LRT or trams can traffic calm busy urban centres, without loss public transport capacity. This is the one of the reasons for the Renaissance for on-street trams, they add to urban mobility without loss of urban ambiance.

Note to Rod: The trouble with the LRT naysayers is that they seldom do any research on the subject and limit their harangues to myth and Orwellian untruths.

Karlshrue's tram and TramTrain system has one world recognition and even an award from a prestigious German business magazine. That we haven't heard of Karlshrue or TramTrain, just shows the ignorance of our local transit planners, bureaucrats and politicians.

If you wish not to believe the figures, that's your business, but welcome to the world of dark transit ignorance, you are in good company.

Who builds with SkyTrain? No one!
Who builds with LRT? Just about everyone! There must be a reason why?

Naive about rapid transit

It doesn't matter how you dress up the rapid transit issue, people are not going to get out of their cars. I certainly like mine.

What the mostly inner city advocates (including, of course, Derrick Corrigan) of more transit in the suburbs seem to forget is that transportation technology is headed in the direction of low emmission CARS. Once those are a cost effective reality, there will not be a need for a costly transit system.

But there will be a need for a new Port Mann bridge and associated infrastructure.

Massive transit systems only work in places with the population to support them, like New York, London and Paris. Greater Vancouver isn't even close.

cars and homes

Most of the people I know who ditch their car or reduce their use, rarely go back to their old ways unless they absolutely have to. They like not having a ball and chain that masquerades as wings.

Also, low emission cars are an illusion. It still takes fossil fuels to build them and we need the land to house people and grow food, not house cars and grow pavement.

Arguing big cities need transit, but not Vancouver, and then saying we need to build another freeway because the city is growing actually highlights the biggest flaw in the plan.