News

Get Rolling on Streetcars, Say Gathered Experts

They reduce carbon, promote healthy development, and tourists love them, Translink is told.

By Monte Paulsen, 1 Oct 2010, TheTyee.ca

Streetcar map, proposed

Map of streetcar route proposed by City of Vancouver.

Text size:

Rate this:

Login/Register

Related

Four out of every five people aboard the Olympic Line streetcar last spring were not tourists but Metro Vancouver residents.

And many of those 550,000 passengers -- about a third, during peak transit hours -- rode the 60-day demonstration train not for amusement but as part of a daily commute to work or school.

These results were among the boxcar of data unloaded during a daylong symposium sponsored by the University of British Columbia and entitled, "Streetcars: The Missing Link?"

The presenters argued that the Olympic Line not only proved the existence of significant pent-up demand for new transit options in the downtown core, but also that massive additional investments in regional transit will be necessary in order for the region to meet the carbon-reduction goals set by either the Province of British Columbia or the more ambitious City of Vancouver.

Here are a few highlights from the daylong dialogue.

Streetcars buried in Vancouver's DNA

Gordon Price took the stage following a presentation about Toronto's ambitious streetcar expansion plans. Price is a former city councillor, a former Translink board member, and a current member of the city's Greenest City Action Team.

Price described the invention of the electric streetcar as revolutionary.

"Think of it as the Internet of the late 19th century," he said, noting that early streetcar systems literally defined the pattern by which West Coast cities including Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle and Vancouver would grow.

"The DNA that was laid down by the streetcar lines still exists today," Price said. "We are still walking the same streets, to get to more or less the same services."

Price showed images of both historical and modern Vancouver streets.

"Don't be fooled by the architecture," he said. "We are living in more or less the same densities that would have been found in a late 19th century neighbourhood."

Such neighbourhoods were served remarkably well by streetcars.

"In 1929, 14 out of every 15 residents of Vancouver, Burnaby and New Westminster lived within 400 metres of streetcar or interurban tracks," Price said.

He contrasted that efficiency with the present.

"We have spent trillions of dollars in the 20th century making the car competitive," he said.

"Give me an example of where that has worked," he taunted the audience. "Give me that example."

No one did.

"The only places that really work... is where we have not done that," Price said, citing Vancouver's refusal to build freeways as a pivotal decision.

"The real success of Vancouver," he concluded, "is it remains intact as a streetcar city."

The elephant in the room

TransLink's new vice president of planning followed Price to the stage. Michael Shiffer, who arrived about a year and a half ago, was previously a vice president at the Chicago Transit Authority.

Shiffer described in detail the continuum of transit technologies, from "Bus Rapid Transit" (think B-Line busses on dedicated lanes) through "Light Rail Rapid Transit" (of which streetcars are a subset) and "Rail Rapid Transit" (such as SkyTrain and Canada Line) to "Regional Rail Transit" (such as West Coast Express).

But Shiffer studiously sidestepped directly addressing either the Olympic Line demonstration project or Vancouver's plans for a downtown streetcar.

Likewise Christina DeMarco, a manager at Metro Vancouver who studies the relationships between transit and planning, delivered a warm and thoughtful presentation without directly addressing the call for a Vancouver streetcar.

Both spoke loudly through their silence. TransLink has stubbornly resisted calls for light rail, not only from Vancouver but more forcibly from the Fraser Valley.

TransLink was the elephant in the room throughout the symposium, and the regional transportation authority's apparent fatwa against alternatives to SkyTrain was the meme that dominated a mid-morning coffee break.

"TransLink is the problem" was the conclusion voiced by several longtime local politicos in the crowd, though none were willing to say so on the record. The moderate wing of the centre-right Non-Partisan Association was heavily represented among the audience of 200-plus. One said he hoped that Shiffer's appearance on stage signaled a new opening within TransLink.

'Streetcars are the missing link'

Dale Bracewell, the City of Vancouver manger who put together the Olympic Line demonstration, was unabashed in his support.

"Streetcars are the missing link," he said, arguing that streetcars fill a needed niche between bus and SkyTrain service.

"This is the piece we don't have. When you look at modern cities in Europe, they have all of these modes," he said.

The Olympic Line carried 25,000 riders on its peak day -- with only two trains in operation. Bracewell said streetcars have longer life-spans and lower operating costs than do buses. He said streetcars attract tourists (who subsidize the service for locals) and stimulate development.

"It's not about streetcars versus busses," Bracewell said. "It's about figuring out where is the right place for a streetcar."

The right place, according to the City of Vancouver, is a downtown route that links the city's disjointed transit terminals. (See map, above.) The city's plans for a Downtown Streetcar line are divided into three phases:

Phase Zero would extend the demonstration line from Granville Island to Science World. This mini-line would connect SkyTrain with the Canada Line.

Phase One would extend the Downtown Streetcar line to Waterfront Station via Quebec, Powell and Cordova streets. This line would connect SeaBus, West Coast Express, and nearly all of the city's downtown bus routes (most of which were formerly streetcar lines), as well as providing yet another connection to the Expo, Millennium and Canada lines. Along the way, the streetcar would tie together neighbourhoods including Gastown, Chinatown, the Downtown Eastside, the Olympic Village, Fairview and False Creek South.

A "Stanley Park Extension" would continue the Downtown Streetcar from Waterfront Station to Stanley Park. This addition would connect the West End and Coal Harbour neighbourhoods. In addition, it would tie together the city's most visited tourist destinations: Stanley Park, Granville Island, and the Vancouver Convention and Exhibition Centre.

A "Pacific Boulevard Extension" would run west from Science World along Pacific and Drake to Granville. This spur would connect to BC Place, Rogers Arena (née GM Place) and Yaletown.

Possible future extensions could include a leg through the False Creek Flats to Commercial Drive, and/or a line through Vanier Park and along the existing Arbutus rail corridor linking Broadway, Kerrisdale and Marpole.

"We will continue to seek opportunities to move this project forward," Bracewell concluded. "Broadway is our number one priority right now, but we will continue to pursue a tandem approach."

Locals loved the Olympic Line

UBC graduate student Silas Archambault presented the results of a rider survey that he and fellow students conducted during the Olympic Line's 60-day trial.

The team interviewed 455 of the more than 550,000 people who rode the streetcar. (Though data was collected at different times of day and during different periods, the sample is not proportional to the total ridership.)

The UBC survey found that 82 per cent of the streetcar riders interviewed were residents of Metro Vancouver -- not Olympic tourists -- and that a surprising number used the temporary line as part of a daily commute.

"Of the people who travelled during the weekday peak, more than one third of them were traveling to work or school," Archambault said.

And even though the streetcar was free, 64 per cent of those surveyed held valid fare cards and were using the streetcar to extend the range of the Canada Line or another TransLink route.

"Many people were using transit to connect" to the streetcar, Archambault said.

Moreover, 30 per cent of those predominately local riders said they would not have come into the city if it were not for the streetcar.

"Almost a third of all trips... would not have [been] taken if the streetcar did not exist," Archambault said.

He calculated that more than 27,000 automobile trips were avoided as a result of the 60-day experiment, resulting in a savings of more than 20,000 kilograms of greenhouse gas emissions.

"There is evidence that a dedicated rider base exists, and that many people would support... a streetcar," Archambault concluded.

In the US, a 'nationwide phenomenon'

American streetcar promoter David Goldberg presented a luncheon talk entitled, "A Desire Named Streetcar: America Rediscovers the Trolley."

Goldberg, who works with a coalition of 500 organizations lobbying the U.S. Congress to reform its freeway-driven transportation policy, said the United States is experiencing a streetcar renaissance.

"This is a nationwide phenomenon," he said. "There are 70 places that now have plans in the works."

Goldberg described a handful of the new U.S. systems. Most were launched with short segments of track (3 to 5 kilometres) running through downtown streets and connecting other modes of transit. (In other words, they looked strikingly similar to "Phase One" of the Downtown Streetcar.)

And most were providing stellar returns on investment, according to Goldberg. His figures showed returns of several thousand per cent, mostly in the form of higher real estate values that translate into a larger municipal tax base.

Among the American projects highlighted by Goldberg were new systems in each of the West Coast cities described by Gordon Price at the beginning of the day -- except Vancouver.

Los Angeles is raising funds for a plan, San Francisco is expanding its streetcar network as a compliment to the regional BART system, Seattle is pursuing a rapid expansion of its South Lake Union Streetcar.

"And it was Portland that really got the modern streetcar movement going in the United States," Goldberg said. "This is our future."

Better health for less money

The afternoon presentations continued piling up arguments in favour of transit in general, and streetcars in particular.

Lawerence D. Frank made a case for the health benefits of transit.

Frank is an associate professor at UBC who holds the J. Armand Bombardier Chair in Sustainable Transportation. Frank organized the conference; Bombardier was a sponsor.

"Driving makes you fat," Frank said. And he cited research to prove it.

"A transit trip is an interrupted walking trip," he continued, before citing new research showing a correlation between health and transit use.

"Walking affects our weight. And that affects our chronic disease rate. And chronic diseases are very expensive," Frank said.

UBC Prof. Patrick Condon followed Frank. Condon argued for the affordability of light rail compared to SkyTrain, and his presentation relied on several of the same intriguing comparisons that he's made in The Tyee: Namely, that for the cost of a heavy rail line below Broadway, TransLink could either cover the region with light rail or buy a Prius for every UBC student.

Among the sea of data Condon presented, one that caught the eye of several audience members was a slide that claimed that streetcars generated only 8.3 units of carbon dioxide emissions per passenger mile -- less than half of what Skytrain generates -- which Condon estimated at 17.8 units per mile.

'Transit is what's holding us back'

The day's final presentation was given by Lon LaClaire, who manages transportation planning for the City of Vancouver.

Like his counterparts from TransLink and Metro Vancouver, LaClaire honoured the fatwa against blasphemy. He never addressed the streetcar issue directly.

Nonetheless, he made the most striking argument of the day.

LaClaire described the city's transportation strategy in terms of descending priorities: walking is the most desirable form of movement, bicycling is the second priority, transit is third, trucking fourth, and passenger cars are accorded the lowest priority.

LaClaire summarized the city's progress toward these longstanding priorities as follows:

Walking rose 44 per cent between 1994 and 2004, a period that predates the completion of thousands of downtown homes;

Bicycling rose 180 per cent between 1994 and 2004, long before the recent addition of dedicated bicycle lanes across the downtown core.;

Transit use rose 50 per cent between 1999 and 2009, a decade during which both the Millennium and Canada lines were opened.

And then, just as his boosterish presentation began to sound like the makings of a run for office, LaClaire dropped a bomb.

"But," he said, during that same decade, "transit's share only rose from 11 to 13 per cent in the region."

In other words, despite the multi-billion-dollar investment in the Canada and Millennium lines, TransLink was barely able to eke out a two-point gain in market share.

The province has set regional goals of 17 per cent by 2020 and 22 per cent by 2030. That's five points a decade. Hitting that would require TransLink to more than double its rate of expansion.

"It really depends on a lot happening in order for us to meet those objectives," La Claire said, in comical understatement.

The city has raised its goal from 23 per cent by 2021 to a transit-related target of 50 per cent by 2050.

"That means tripling the transit share," LaClaire said, dryly.

"Transit is what's holding us back," LeClair stated.

"If you are growing the transit system," he advised, "be prepared to grow every corner of it."

Time to 'do it again'

The streetcar symposium ended with an open forum. Much of the discussion involved funding. Several among the crowd were enthusiastic about some form of public-private partnership. Most were upbeat about the prospect of accomplishing the region's ambitious transit goals.

"It behooves us to think really carefully about the next $10 billion dollars of investment the province has to put into transit," Prof. Condon had said earlier in the afternoon.

"Currently, 80 per cent of our trips are in cars. By 2050 -- which is only 40 years from now -- we have to reverse that statistic such that transit, walking and biking needs to be 80 per cent and car trips might be the remaining 20 per cent," he said.

"It sounds hopeless. But I don't think it is. Because we've done this once before," he continued.

"Between 1950 and 1990... we completely reversed the way this region operates. We moved from walking, biking and transit to an almost exclusively auto-oriented region," Condon continued.

"We did it once before," he concluded. "We have just enough time to do it again." [Tyee]

Monte Paulsen writes about carbon shift for The Tyee.

31 Comments:

Login or register to post comments

  • Grumpy

    1 year ago

    What experts?

    The fact is, no one could define what a streetcar was.

    The officials from TransLink were in fine form misleading everyone they could, so they could continue building SkyTrain; the City of Vancouver Bureaucrats were busy patting each other on the backs; and the bombardier minders were there in full force making sure everyone goosed-stepped to their tune!

    The meeting was more of a charade to make sure that Vancouver and/or TransLink would purchase Bombardier streetcars for the new tourist trolley line!

    http://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/2010/09/30/the-streetcar-symposium-translink-doesnt-get-it/

    It seems one one got it at the meeting, including Monte

    What transit planners have known in Europe for generations and that hasn't sunk in with our crop of bureaucrats is that LRT/Tram/Streetcar carries large amounts of customers, affordable and reasonably swiftly.

    Trying to sell the concept of a streetcar in Vancouver is akin in telling Luddites that machines are good for business.

  • Grumpy

    1 year ago

    Oops! Typo!

    It seems one one got it at the meeting, including Monte

    It should read:

    It seems SOME got it at the meeting, including Monte.

  • Mathieu

    1 year ago

    It's not about Skytrain OR Streetcar...

    Rather, about Skytrain AND Streetcar. They both have a place in the future of Vancouver. Like mentioned in the above article, Streetcars are a mode which fills a niche between buses and rapid transit.

    Having grown up in False Creek South, and having parents who still live there, I can tell you that the Olympic Line was greatly loved by everyone in that community. False Creek South is made up of 20,000+ people who are under served by transit and would would gladly use the Olympic Line daily were it still up and running. Just extend the tracks further into Downtown!

  • Chris Keam

    1 year ago

    No Love for the 5-0?

    The number 50 bus leaves from a stop across the street from the Willow 99-B line stop. It goes down the hill to FCS and parallels the Olympic streetcar line from the Olympic Village station to Granville Island, and also runs all the way downtown to Gastown northbound as well as going right past Broadway Canada Line stations south/west bound. During the day it runs every 7-10 minutes IIRC. I've been using it off and on since the early 90s. I've never seen it more than half full and it stops at places the streetcar line doesn't.

    There are plenty of other routes that are either underserved or over capacity. I think those should take priority. I did take the tram while it was available during the Olympics, and it was a smooth, fast quiet ride. But there are more important problems facing Metro commuters that should take priority over adding capacity to a route is currently well-served, esp. by suburban standards.

    In the bigger picture, no doubt there are good places for trams/streetcars or whatever you want to call them. I don't think replicating the Olympic version should be anywhwere near Translink's top ten items on its to-do list.

  • Dr Alexander

    1 year ago

    The header line has provided the wrong reasons for streetcars

    Reducing carbon: after climagegate, who cares
    Promoting healthy development: as opposed to unhealthy development... that is a nonsensical statement
    Tourists love them: Maybe in San Francisco. Transit is transit.

    After having lived in Europe for a number of years, the real reason why streetcars work is that they are practical, hassle-free and relatively cheap to develop and expand.

    Streetcars are a no-brainer.

  • Grumpy

    1 year ago

    @ Mathieu

    Actually no, it is about LRT and SkyTrain. A streetcar is merely LRT operating on street in mixed traffic.

    SkyTrain is a light-metro and light rail made light metro obsolete, that's why SkyTrain has been relegated as a niche transit system used by airports etc., with a total of only 7 SkyTrain like systems being sold since it was first marketed in the late 1970's.

    Light rail or tram in France did the same thing to the VAL light metro as well.

    Only Vancouver uses SkyTrain light-metro exclusively for regional transit and it is SkyTrain that has bankrupted TransLink.

    Building more SkyTrain is just digging ourselves deeper into a public transit crisis.

  • Mathieu

    1 year ago

    @ Grumpy

    In order to build LRT to the standards of a fully grade-separated Light Metro the costs are just as high. If you want to have the versatility, capacity and headways offered by automated light metro but using LRT technology, you're going to have to pay as much for the supporting infrastructure. Tunnels and elevated structures are expensive, but allow for rapid travel.

    Just look at Seattle: 25km of LRT (not even fully grade separated for the entire route, though up to light metro standards for most of its length) cost 2.4 billion. There are occasionally accidents involving turning cars and trains due to the level crossings necessitated by partially at-grade operations. Because of low ridership and the limitations of human drivers, peak headways are 7.5 minutes though 15 minute headways are more common.

    The Canada Line (however underbuilt its stations are) clocks in at 19.2km for 2 billion. Driverless operations mean that peak headways between Bridgeport and Waterfront are less than 4 minutes. And hey Grumpy, it's not even Bombardier's proprietary Skytrain technology!

    I'm not against the consideration of LRT technology in future transit expansion in Vancouver, I just want whatever provides the fastest and most efficient means of travel.

  • Mathieu

    1 year ago

    @ Chris Keam

    When I was living in The Creek, I often found the number 50 to be absent when I needed it. It was almost always faster to catch a bus by walking up the hill to Broadway or to 5th/Granville.

    I agree, however, that there are more pressing regional needs than a Downtown Streetcar. Broadway, Surrey, The Tri-Cities, and the Valley all need the focus more at this point. The Downtown Streetcar seems like a silly pet project at a time when Translink is experiencing financial difficulties.

  • dorothy

    1 year ago

    One of the reasons

    street cars were taken out of commission in Copenhagen was the staggering number of really ugly accidents due to bicycle wheels getting caught in streetcar tracks. So, if we want to grow cyclists, we need to think carefully about how they and streetcar tracks can blend.

    Having said that, I'll admit to being sentimentally attached to streetcars. I can remember my farewell trip on the last 'iconic' line 5 in the kings city, crying all the way into my parka-hood. There is something endearing about those beasts, the stiff way they negotiate curves and the noiseless, gliding way of their progress. You know what? They have class.

  • trylogic

    1 year ago

    Priorities

    Remember expo86 ? It was originally named transpo86 and for it's successful operation two public transport systems were built: The hybrid SkyTrain (Bombardier) and an elegant, economical and light weight monorail. After expo86 the City of Vancouver was offered the adaptable and simple monorail system for a song. It was obvious. The Airport (arbutus corridor!), UBC and the Westend would have been served by the monorail system within a couple of years. Smart Australians bought the monorail and are still operating it successfully in Sidney.
    Of course streetcars are a no-brainer and of course Translink "doesn't get it". Lift the first thin veil and voila, you don't get to build mega concrete structures and dig billion dollar holes for street cars!

  • Grumpy

    1 year ago

    Twited history

    @ Dorothy

    Sorry no, Copenhagen did not take out their trams because of bicycle accidents it was a political decision. In fact due to the staggering high costs of metro, they are planning to reinstate trams.

    @ Mathieu

    A LRT built on expensive segregated guideways becomes light-metro. This is the problem with Seattle's hybrid light/rail/metro system; it taken all the bad things about light-metro without taking any of the good things about LRT.

    According to Susan Heyes and confirmed by several transit experts overseas, the Canada's Line true cost is nearer to $2.8 million and that for a truncated subway that does not have the capacity of a light rail system!

    Here is why made light metro, like SkyTrain obsolete (the Canada Line is not a light metro but functions as one). simple low-floor trams, operating on reserved rights-of-ways were not just cheaper to build and operate than light-metro (including automatic or driverless light-metro), it could obtain the same commercial speeds as light-metro and attract more new customers to the line!

    Of course, transit history has been given the George Orwell treatment where "TransLink & the mainstream media controls the past transit history, thus controls the transit planning future. TransLink with the mainstream media controls the present transit planning, thus controls the past transit history.

    Our whole transit planning to date has been one of deceit and delusion, where planning bureaucrats have invented a planning criteria that will ensure SkyTrain only planning for generations to come.

    Again, what is all the fuss about headways? LRT/streetcar can operate at 30 second headways if need be and do in daily revenue service around the world.

  • zalm

    1 year ago

    Stitistcially...

    Canada Post thinks there are only 7000 households in False Creek South right to Main St. At the national average of 1.7 occupants per urban household, that would general 10,000+ potential residents for transit use, not 20,000+....

  • Yeoman

    1 year ago

    Streetcar vs Bus

    Can someone inform me why streetcars are preferable to busses? Other than slight gains in reduced rolling friction and smoother ride from tracks, why the appeal? Seems like the expense and issues with tracks would make trolley busses a preferable option.

  • Grumpy

    1 year ago

    A modern streetcar.........

    ...............is about 3 times more efficient than a trolley bus. When a streetcar operates as LRT, it becomes about 6 times more efficient than a trolley bus.

    Trolley buses last 15 to 29 years, modern streetcar/tram last 50+.

    When everything is taken into consideration, the streetcar edges out trolley buses on most transit routes and is a reason for the decline in trolley buses and a rise in guided buses.

  • dorothy

    1 year ago

    As in 'we're both right'

    Yes, of course it was a 'political decision'. This does not exclude what I said, that ONE OF the reasons behind it had to do with said accidents. Political decisions as in telling people to stuff it because here comes politics as an independent entity, taking precedent over the desires of the people is not the norm in Denmark, or at least it wasn't. So, the accident issue was one of the reasons why people found the change acceptable and therefore the political decisions was in accord with people's understanding. I think your being bent on dismissing what I had to say, the purpose of which was cautionary, constituted an indulgence in small-time chauvinism and was tangential to the real issue. In other words, I think you behaved like a self-important sourpuss. Which makes me think you can't have very strong Danish connections. Correct me if I'm wrong. I know you will.

  • YCSTS

    1 year ago

    The Battery Electric Bus is FAR SUPERIOR to the Streetcar.

    There is some ambiguity between Streetcar, Tram and LRT. Usually Streetcar refers to a Trolley type bus that rides on rails placed inside a normal city street. The Olympic Line is really an Electric Tram, not a Streetcar. And people like them because they are quiet, not smelly, more spacious, modern design, often with low floor height. This has nothing whatsoever to do with Rail + Overhead Power lines = Streetcar. All the above can be and has been achieved with the Battery Electric Bus.

    Certainly there are highly traveled corridors, which may have adjacent vacant space, or a very wide road that would allow for installing an Electric Tram, which may be practical if HIGHLY traveled, just a light-duty LRT.

    Other than that, it is entirely ILLOGICAL to use Streetcars. They use more energy, are FAR more expensive, have unsightly overhead power lines, are safety hazards and exceedingly vulnerable to snow & ice, have poor traction, do not ride up steep hills, have poor or no regenerative braking and the rails are a serious HAZARD to much more efficient Cyclists. And do not have the flexibility to change routes in response to variation in demand. And cause problems when moving tall equipment through cities. General Utility being FAR LESS, than a Battery Electric Bus means Scale Economies of construction will be Much HIGHER than Mass Produced Battery Electric Buses, which will use the soon-to-be High Volume Electric Vehicle Batteries and Ultra-Capacitors.

    The Streetcar Rail & Power Lines costs $5M per km. Just what purpose does that serve? The Battery Electric Bus is just the Streetcar on Tires with NO OVERHEAD POWER LINES and NO RAIL. There is ZERO Advantage to the Streetcar, but with all the disadvantages listed above. And Chinese Battery Electric Buses are using swappable Battery Packs, that can be changed automatically in minutes, at a Battery Swap Station.

    Another better alternative is the CAPABUS which uses Ultracapacitors to recharge every 5-30 km. They use 40% less electricity than a comparable Streetcar. And recharge is about 2 min, which can be done inductively when the it is at a normal Bus Stop. With full Mobility, far less Maintenance Cost, Longer Life and lower Capital Cost.

    The Proterra Battery Electric Bus travels 80 km on one charge, recharge is 5-20 mins. 15 yr battery life. About 1.3km per kwh. An LRT will only get 0.2 km per kwh or about 50% the efficiency of the Proterra Bus, per passenger-mile. The Streetcar is LESS efficient than the LRT, since it lacks full (or any) Regenerative Braking capability. Rolling resistance is not a significant advantage of Streetcars over Buses.

    Montreal moving to an all Battery Electric Bus Fleet:

    http://green.autoblog.com/2010/05/24/montreals-bus-fleet-of-1-300-plus-going-all-electric-by-2025/

  • dave49

    1 year ago

    Problem is...

    The problem is, street cars will not allow for the magic combination of significant densification and perceived increase in property values for investors and developers (and buyers!) that a subway or Sky Train/Canada Line would do. Therefore, we the public will struggle and strain to fund and build the Cadillac option so the friends of the Campbell government can make their money developing housing.

    There's a reason that savvy developers can become extremely wealthy. They have friends in high places...

  • alive

    1 year ago

    Streetcars are nostalgia!

    Streetcars depend on tracks, and that makes them victims of the traffic-jams and accidents in the area.

    Busses can divert to another lane or change routes as needed, but streetcars just sit there till the mess is cleared away.

    While a streetcar may last longer, the tracks and wiring network requires a lot of manitenance.

    Anyone ever had their bikes frontwheel stuck in a streetcar track, will hope that they never return.

  • Grumpy

    1 year ago

    Answers

    @ Dorothy

    The Netherlands are on of the most bicycle oriented societies in Europe and they have a lot of tram operation. In Denmark, a political decision was made to get rid of the trams and the blame placed on the problems with bicycles and tram tracks. Sort of like the Fast Ferry debate.

    @ YCSTS

    The main problems with buses is that they just do not attract the customers like a streetcar/tram. France has made great study on the tram versus bus debate and it was found that buses just do not stack up against the tram, so a massive investment was and is being made for new tram systems.

    @dave49

    Sadly you are on the right track!

    @ alive

    In fact, the modern LRT/tram is the preferred transit mode in the 21st century. Any excuse is a good excuse to moan against trams it seems and the real issue is that car drivers do not want to give up traffic lanes to trams. That is the real story!

  • YCSTS

    1 year ago

    The StreetCar will always be a Bit Player in the Transport Game.

    Grumpy, the Core of the Author's Plan is to replace most City Transportation with Streetcars. That means Streetcar BUSES, Buses that ride on rails with overhead electric lines. Totally inferior to a Battery Electric Bus. A DUMB IDEA! Large Volume Electric Trams are practical in corridors, but that will always be minor component of Personal & Materials Transport due to the high expense and severely limited coverage area.

    France has had a Highly Successful system of Bicycle Rentals and is going to expand that to include Electric Vehicle Rentals. France is Gung-Ho on developing a full Electric Vehicle Infrastructure by 2011. This is NOT Electric Trams.

    http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2228114/france-electric-car

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128880529

    The Optimal Urban/Suburban Personal Transport system of the 21st Century is Personal Rapid Transit / Ultralight Automated Electric Vehicles. By far the most efficient, by far the most convenient and by far the fasted means of Personal Transport.

    In 20 yrs, it will quite practical to build ultralight electric vehicles, to seat 1/2/4 people and drive themselves. Cost maybe $8k each in mass production. Head on collision between two at full speed will simply deform the flexible composite frame & body and will harmlessly just bounce off of one another. Will find optimal travel route, at optimal speed, no traffic jams, no left turns, no accidents blocking roads for hours. Easily 120 km on a charge, and 10 min recharge, just about anywhere. Call one up anywhere to anywhere via a Cell Phone, Call Box or Personal Pager. Available for personal ownership or a public owned vehicle, that you are automatically charged on your I.D. when you order a trip. Why waste resources and capital on grandiose visions of an Archaic StreetCar/Tram infrastructure when clearly computer tech / neural & quantum processors will enable a vastly more practical system.

    http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/PRT/

    Now that's 21st Century Tech!

  • dorothy

    1 year ago

    Now it gets(almost) intersting...

    "In Denmark, a political decision was made to get rid of the trams and the blame placed on the problems with bicycles and tram tracks."

    Could you tell me what your sources are for this interpretation? While I now consider Canada my beloved homeland by choice, I am not best pleased by having venerable servants of the people in mu old country Denmark slammed as honor-less slime balls who lied about their true agenda. You need to back that up with some proof.

  • alive

    1 year ago

    while you are at it Grumpy

    Your reply to my posting was not in keeping with your usual long-winded posts, but a superficial whitewash responding to none of my remarks.
    We all know that you have a bee in your bonnet about transportation and write about it constantly, however a multitude of words mean nothing if they are slanted to favour your pet ideas.

  • happy

    1 year ago

    36 mil

    In an earlier discussion here before the Canada Line opened, Grumpy was going on (and on) about Gordo's Toy Train to the Airport and how it was the wrong technology and the wrong corridor.
    I pointed out that the new line was actually routed to downtown Richmond, with a spur line to the airport.
    WRONG, said Grumpy. Its going to the airport with a spur line to Richmond and will never meet ridership levels. Never.
    So after the first year in operation its three years ahead of ridership projections with 36 million carried. YVR says about 15% of the 17 million passengers that went through it's doors in that year took the train, or about 2.5 million.
    That means 33.5 million used the Canada Line who didn't go to/from the airport.
    Thats one hell of a spur line Grumpy.

    Yes its a very expensive piece of infrastructure, but unlike the fast ferries, which Grumpy brought up, the public doesn't care because it WORKS.

  • Grumpy

    1 year ago

    Answers Part 2

    @ Dorothy

    Actually, I read an article by a Copenhagen transit specialist on the demise of the their streetcar system and why they are planning the return of the tram to the city. The "problem with tram tracks" was just a political excuse to rid the city of the tram.

    Years later, planning is going ahead to return the tram to the streets of Copenhagen.

    @ YCSTS

    One problem with your auto-centric reply, it is rather "Lucy in the sky with diamonds". The way the world economy is going, in 20 years, your "Popular Mechanics" vision is just that, a vision. While you wee eclectic cars are trundling around, the streetcar will be the workhorse of public transit.

    @Alive

    Oh yes, slanted ideas; ideas that the vast majority of the transportation planners adhere to around the world!

    @36 mil

    If the Canada Line is a success, I have some BRICK shares for you to buy.

    In the real world, subways need 300,000 to 400,000 customers a day to be deemed successful, not so with the Canada Line, where the politically inspired mini-metro reached an artificial benchmark for a puff news story in the mainstream media.

    Less than 100,000 boarding s day (less than 50,000 customers) doesn't make a metro successful.

    The now almost $2.8 million (according to Susan Heyes, who took TransLink to court and won damages) ridership is largely made up of former bus riders, students with $1 a day U-Passes and the elderly going to Richmond to gamble or shop in Asian markets.

    TransLink has kept very quiet about a modal shift from tram to car and a recent trip using the Canada Line during peak hours, confirms my suspicions that he young and old use the metro, but not those who usually take the car.

    In fact, the next time I venture into Vancouver, I will drive, as there are precious little buses serving the metro after peak hours. The Canada Line should be called the Inconvenient Line.

  • alive

    1 year ago

    can we talk about this?

    Let us begin by assuming that the point here is to find a solution to the traffic problems and not about ganging up against Grumpy?

    The poor guy gets it from every angle and is getting a bit snappy in his replies.

    I for one would like a proper response to my view that streetcars are impractical because they are stuck in their tracks and cannot just change lane whenever the traffic gets in the way.
    That may seem a minor point untill you remember that the streetcars behind it also gets stopped, and when they all finally get going again you will see several in a caravan fashion.

    I want statistical facts that streetcars are in fact more economical, when counting in the network of tracks and overhead wires plus the maintenance required?

    I will want to see how they plan to get traction on some of our hills?

    Streetcars stop for passenger in the middle of the street, hardly a great idea to cross lanes of cars to get to the streetcar, even if they decide to take up extra space to have an island for waiting passengers.

    I will be the first to cheer when real trains once again will be used to ship goods, instead of trucks; but trains of whatever kind need to run on designated routes well away from other traffic --- as with the skytrain.

    The Question of how many riders is valid, but as with anything trying to replace the car, it will take time to prove itself and convince people it is a smart alternative to driving.

    It is wishfull thinking that people should be sensible and immediately leave the car at home; convenience is king around here and increasing gas prices is no help when fares also are increased.

  • freebear

    1 year ago

    Wait till there are flying cars!

    No mention of the price of energy, especially oil for one passenger vehicles.

    Untill gasoline is too expensive ($2.00 / litre), nothing will change!

  • Jeannie

    1 year ago

    Guys Simply Like Trains

    Yeoman said:
    S"treetcar vs Bus
    Can someone inform me why streetcars are preferable to busses? Other than slight gains in reduced rolling friction and smoother ride from tracks, why the appeal? Seems like the expense and issues with tracks would make trolley busses a preferable option."

    As the late Warren Gill pointed out, guys like trains. And guys design transit systems for cities. It's tht simple.

  • YCSTS

    1 year ago

    PRT has proven 40% cheaper than Buses

    First-of-a-Kind PRT tech has already proven 40% cheaper to operate than buses @ Heathrow Airport. Scale Economies of this type of Tech, will be Far Greater than Streetcars, Trams or LRTs.

    http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/10/personal-rapid-transportation-and-pod.html

  • dorothy

    1 year ago

    Grumpy

    You know, you may be right about the slimeball thing. I had forgotten that at the time, there was a deputy mayor of transportation, and seeing who that was, he was sopmebody I would have placed under that category. Apparently, it was a higly contentious issue at the time, but not well known about by everybody, as the bitter struggle was kept inside narrow circles. It says in the places where I looked it up, that the director of the streetcar carrier quit, probably over this. So, thank you for making me look. I never would have known who to blame for the demise of no.5!

  • Bobby Peru

    1 year ago

    The Romantics

    Leaving all of your misty eyed nostalgia behind, you'll see how Vancouver's real world streets are totally unsuited for streetcars.

    There's simply not enough road space along our main routes to accommodate streetcars. They would be competing for road space along with numerous buses and cars. People wouldn't leave their cars, rather cars would be forced into the side streets increasing congestion for the sake of a limited number of streetcar passengers.

    Translink has probably determined that the streets cannot bear more buses and streetcars and the only system that can accommodate Vancouver's future growth is an underground subway system.

    Instead, the protagonists keep clinging to yesterday's solution. And that's Vancouver's biggest problem- people who want to go back to the future rather than move forward with solutions that address future growth.

  • Grumpy

    1 year ago

    Rubber on Asphalt.............

    .... is what everyone wants for transit and woe to anyone who wants to use road space for another purpose.

    @Bobby P. One traffic lane for cars carry less than 2,000 pphpd; the same traffic lane used for LRT/streetcar can carry over 20,000 pphpd! In the real world, you replace capacity and traffic calm.

    There is plenty of road-space for LRT/streetcar.

    Also if LRT/streetcar is a yesterdays solution, why are so many being built? It seems that modern LRT is a 21st century solution to try to cure a 20th century problems.

    Sadly, buses do not attract customers, something that modern LRT/streetcar has proven to do.

    For cost effectiveness of modern LRT, the following study gives insight to the bus/LRT/metro question.

    http://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/2010/05/20/the-1986-lrta-study-bus-lrt-metro-comparison/

    • The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.