Want One Port Mann Bridge, or a Light Rail Metropolis?
UBC team says region could be transformed for $3.1 billion cost of span.
Same money would buy this light rail system say Dow and Condon.
Last month British Columbians learned the public-private partnership to finance and build the Port Mann Bridge had fallen through. The provincial government now intends to go it alone, spending $3.1 billion to erect a new 10-lane bridge and widen the road on either end. The government is betting it eventually will recoup the costs by charging tolls starting at $3 per trip and likely to rise.
When the news broke, most of the debate was about whether the deal had been mismanaged. But a team of sustainable community design experts at the University of British Columbia got out their calculators and pursued a different question. They started with the assumption that public money isn't unlimited. They wondered how many citizens would get a real benefit from the finished bridge. And they folded in a goal that B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell espouses: reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
What other transportation infrastructure, they asked, could we instead have for $3.1 billion?
By the time Prof. Patrick Condon and researcher Kari Dow at the UBC Design Centre for Sustainability finished punching in the numbers and mapped their results, they produced a startling alternative vision. For the same money, concluded the team, the government could finance a 200-kilometre light rail network that would place a modern, European-style tram within a 10-minute walk for 80 per cent of all residents in Surrey, White Rock, Langley and the Scott Road district of Delta, while providing a rail connection from Surrey to the new Evergreen line and connecting Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge into the regional rail system.
Big savings on greenhouse emissions
"We were not trying to show a detailed system plan, we just were trying to demonstrate that it seems to be a very lot of money for one bridge when compared to an alternative way of spending the same amount," said Dow.
If half of the roughly 40 million annual trips anticipated for the new bridge were shifted to such a tram system, it would amount to a reduction of the roughly 10,000 metric tons of GHG per year, a reduction equivalent to taking more than 21,000 cars off Lower Mainland roads completely. This amount does not include the likely far greater reductions of car use throughout the south of Fraser region that would result from the light rail network, said Dow.
Compared to the 200 km grid of light rail, the Port Mann Bridge, including approach spans, is a mere 2,093 metres long, though the entire project actually extends 37 km and includes widening Highway 1, adding two lanes each way on the east side of the bridge and an extra lane in both directions on the west side.
Dow and Condon factored in the cost of tearing down the original Port Mann Bridge and erecting a brand new one, as current plans dictate. They based their comparative figures on proven costs per kilometre for building a type of high-speed light rail tram widely used in places like Alicante, Spain; Budapest, Hungary; and Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Changing the commute culture
They point out that while building a bigger Port Mann Bridge reinforced commuting patterns in the region, building a robust light rail network likely would change how development occurs in the region, eventually shortening commutes as businesses elect to locate at various new public transit nodes.
"The Port Mann project is propelled forward by assumptions that are 20 years out of date. Commuting patterns are changing rapidly. The commute from Surrey to downtown Vancouver is relatively rare and getting even rarer each day. Jobs continue to move closer to housing all across the eastern part of the metropolis. What is needed is a system that gets us out of the car and serves our emerging complete communities, not guts them," said Condon.
Original vision changed
The Port Mann bridge deal started with a privately financed plan to twin the existing span to allow traffic to move faster through what's become a commuting choke point. The plan changed, and became more expensive, when the government announced it had decided, with its private partners, to tear down the old bridge and build a much bigger new one. Then on Feb. 26, the project's main private partner, Australian infrastructure firm Macquarie Group, dropped out as its stock price plummeted and credit tightened amidst the global financial downturn.
"We have determined that a traditionally financed arrangement is the better way to proceed at the current time," Falcon said when the deal fell through. "With P3s, every deal has got to stand on its own merits. If we can't make a deal that makes sense for us and for taxpayers, we don't do it."
The province will hire two of the remaining partners -- Peter Kiewit Sons Co. and Flatiron Constructors Canada -- to design and build the bridge at a previously agreed cost of $2.46 billion. Those private contractors will be obligated to absorb any cost overruns. The rest of the $3.1 billion price tag is for financing and maintenance costs.
Billions earmarked for mega-projects
The B.C. government is intending to build a number of other large transportation infrastructure projects, including a $1 billion Perimeter Road truck freeway between Deltaport and Highway 1, the $1.4 billion Evergreen Line extending SkyTrain to Coquitlam, and a $2.8 billion, 15 km SkyTrain spur along Broadway in Vancouver out to the UBC campus.
The expenditures are so huge, notes Condon, that "whatever the merits or demerits of the Port Mann proposal, we feel that the taxpayer only has so much in their pockets and these expenditures are gigantic. A real comparison between reasonable alternatives would enhance our ability to choose wisely. How we deploy the available billions on transportation infrastructure over the next 10 to 15 years will determine how sustainable this region will or won't be 100 years from now. We simply have to get it right."
When the UBC SkyTrain line was announced last spring, Condon and Dow produced a study showing that the same money could build a 175 km lattice of light rail lines restoring Vancouver's former trolley system and extending into bordering locales.
Related Tyee stories:
- A Prius for Every Student
That's what you could do at UBC, for the price of its new Skytrain line. - 2010 Games Traffic Plan a Permanent Roadmap?
Officials hope citizens will embrace public transit beefed up for Olympics. - No Fares! (series)
Time for a free ride on public transit.
![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
frank2
24-03-2009
In their own words, Campbell
In their own words, Campbell and Co are "shovelling our tax money out the back of a truck." What's the NDP position on these extremely wasteful proposals -- and the alternatives?
Curt
24-03-2009
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.
morechatter
24-03-2009
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.
Ian Weniger
24-03-2009
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?
southdeltawalker
24-03-2009
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.
Grumpy
24-03-2009
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.
Grumpy
24-03-2009
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/
Grumpy
24-03-2009
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.
macadavy
24-03-2009
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...
Rod Smelser
24-03-2009
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.
morechatter
24-03-2009
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.
seth
25-03-2009
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.
Grumpy
25-03-2009
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.
Grumpy
25-03-2009
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/
leftofcentre
25-03-2009
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!
cboo44
25-03-2009
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" !!
Rod Smelser
25-03-2009
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?
PNewman
25-03-2009
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.
Van Isle
25-03-2009
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.
Grumpy
25-03-2009
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.
Dan the socialist
25-03-2009
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.
Grumpy
25-03-2009
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!
Vancouver Liz
25-03-2009
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!
Brendan McEwen
25-03-2009
Make Sure Government Knows Your Thoughts
I suggest everyone write Campbell and Falcon with your views on this issue.
premier@gov.bc.ca
Rod Smelser
25-03-2009
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?
rac
25-03-2009
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.
Rod Smelser
25-03-2009
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?
Stump
25-03-2009
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.
Glen Murtz
25-03-2009
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...
edoherty
25-03-2009
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)
Grumpy
25-03-2009
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.
Grumpy
25-03-2009
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
rac
25-03-2009
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.
carfreed
25-03-2009
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.
carfreed
25-03-2009
social costs
social costs include many aspects: coroners, ambulances, police surveillance,etc.
Rod Smelser
25-03-2009
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?
Grumpy
25-03-2009
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!
MichaelT
25-03-2009
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.
rac
25-03-2009
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.
Rod Smelser
25-03-2009
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.
rac
25-03-2009
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.
DJT
25-03-2009
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!
Stump
25-03-2009
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.
Rod Smelser
25-03-2009
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.?
Grumpy
26-03-2009
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?
x4estworker
29-03-2009
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.
Stump
30-03-2009
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.