DenisB you are not selfish, you are just demonstrating how bad transit options are for you!

First, the Arbutus Corridor, is not a streetcar line but an interurban line, which today is known as LRT. The entire Arbutus Corridor and Richmond segement fits perfectly with the LRT definition of a reserved right-of-way which determines the difference between LRT and a streetcar or tramway.

We could build LRT from downtown Vancouver to Steveston, along the former BCE interurban route for about one third to one quater the cost of RAV. Unlike SkyTrain which is a proprietary R.R., vintage trams can operate quite happily on any LRT route.

As for the statement

,
It's nonsense as transit experts, not the hired guns TransLink uses, from outside BC are amazed that we have not built LRT on Arbutus, as it's already there!

Just ask the Siemen's boys who wanted to build LRT on Arbutus and were promptly kicked off the bidding process!

RAV will fail, just like the SkyTrain Millenium and Expo Lines - oh yes SkyTrain has failed, failed to achieve anything close to predicted ridership!

If it wasn't for the Vancouver Sun's and CORUS's love affair with SkyTrain (close connections with these media empires with > Federal Liberals with> close connections with Bombardier Inc. the sole supplier of SkyTrain and no one is bying it today!) the scandal would be fron and centre. Every year the SkyTrain is subsidised to the tune of a FastFerry fiasco!. Add that up for 20 years and that is a tidy sum!

Building and operating Streetcars on Arbutus is defacto building and operating LRT!

Grumpy,

I have no problem with building LRT, or re-introducing the streetcar, to the Arbutus Corridor. In fact, I think both are a wonderful idea.

But... you can't argue with RAV or Skytrain, and what they have done for this region. First off, both have full right-of-way. That is the key, and you can argue with that point until you're blue in the face.

If your vision would come to fruition, we'd all be stuck on light rail cars stuck in traffic. There is a time and a place for light rail, but there is also a need for the kind of heavy rail that RAV and Skytrain represent.

By the way, I haven't heard a compelling reason from public officials why we shouldn't deploy streetcars in the Granville Island-Science World-Gastown corridor, as well as the Lonsdale Avenue corridor in North Vancouver.

Both areas could benefit immensely from this type of transit service; and it would be a boon to commuters and tourists alike.

Observer - SkyTrain has done nothing for the region, except increase taxes. TransLink can't even show a signifcant modal shift to the light metro.

Elsewhere, it has been found that elevated and underground transit systems were poor in attracting new ridership, when compared to LRT. What proof? Only one city bought into the SkyTrain philosophy, Kuala Lumpor and even that was a political decision. So impressed with SkyTrain, that transit officials opted to build with a monorail for their third transit line!
Detroit has a 4 1/2 Km. SkyTrain line, which moves very few people.
Toronto's skyTrain may soon be torn down.
JFK airport's skyTrain connects a subway station with carparks to the terminals and is more of an airport people mover than a RT line.

That's it for SkyTrain. For you information, LRT does not get stuck in traffic, sorry, this is a myth put out by TransLink. Remeber it is not speed that attracts customers to Transit, rather the ambience of the system. SkyTrain strikes out!

From the July 20, 2005 Vancouver Sun reporting on a report to the SkyTrain Board - "paying passengers on SkyTrain dropped by 0.1 per cent to nine million."

This is interesting, 9 million in three months translates to about 36 million a year or put another way, approximately 100,000 riders a day! Less than one half the ridership claimed by TransLink only a short time ago of over 210,000 passengers a day. Oh by the way the Calgary C-Train is carrying (counted boarded) ridership of over 210,000 a day!.

SkyTrain has done little to attract new ridership in 20 years!

Buddy of mine is CN engineer and says he can't believe how many motorists insist on driving into trains in Richmond, despite the fact that the trains are restricted to 15 kph there. You have to be really dedicated to hit a train travelling at that speed. Is this what Grumpy wants for transit in Richmond, instead of RAV? A LRT travelling at 15 kph and a target for braindead motorists? Is this going to attract transit ridership?

Doesn't the line end at Starbucks near Granville Island!!?? I'm pretty sure they paved over the lines there to make the Starbucks and parking lot.... stupid.

...i can almost hear the silent scream of Kerrisdale homeowners as they consider the potential impact on their property value and neighbourhood atmosphere.

The affluent homeowners of Point Grey have been exercising a silent veto on transit innovations servicing UBC for years. They haven't been able to stop all progress of course (UBC is not without clout), but they've certainly been able to apply the breaks from time to time.

Meanwhile we folks at SPEC (Society Promoting Environmental Conservation)have a couple projects going on around the corridor. Last winter we ran a highly successful corridor design contest (see "Arbutus Corridor Design Contest" at our website (spec.bc.ca)and we are in the middle of a corridor cleanup campaign headed up by our amazing volunteer Brandon Normon. The goal is to make the corridor safe and accessible again for cyclists and walkers. On November 12 we had a big crew of volunteers out and work continues. Brandon has already taken over 1000 kg of junk to the dump. CP has refused to help. The City has been great. In the meantime the Supreme Court of Canada on November 9 heard CP's appeal on the corridor case (see our website). Lets keep the corridor issue in the public mind and our fingers crossed. Decision will come out in the spring. Gerry from SPEC.

Really, there is not a govermnent in North America that is serious about tansit and conservation. Canada, America and Australia are the only places on earth where a working stiff could even contemplate owning a car or truck with a six litre V-8. Go to Europe and see what kinds of taxes you would pay on a monstrosity like that. I find it laughable when Buzz Hargove chides Japan for not importing GM junk. Does he for one second know what the road tax on a 3.5 litre car in Japan is? It is about $5000 CDN a year.

I am by no means poor but, believe it or not, I get around the city in a 13 year old car with a 1.5 litre engine because, eventhough I can afford it, I do not need a PRD with a 6 litre V-8. If these pinaccles of waste were taxed as they should be we could have FREE public transit and lies EVERYWHERE!

Heck, half the time I take taxis to my my job sites or make sure I can bum rides in one of my company vehicles, all but one of which IS RENTED!

And, to finish my rant, should anyone actually want a fine big V-8 Car for a road trip, Budget rents them for $75 a day.

WASTE WASTE WASTE!

Thanks for the link, Gerry - Informative website.

Why is it only in Vancouver that idiots drive into trains? Could it be that out laws are too lax? How about a slight amendment to the motor vihicles act that if you drive into a train at a level crossing, you lose your licence for 6 months.

It would be interesting to compare the accident rates at Richmond intersections and with the CN/road intersections.

LRT in Germany is allowed to travel 10 kph over the posted speed limit for cars and there is no wholesale traffic chaos.

Our problem here is that drivers DO NOT KNOW HOW TO DRIVE.

If you want SkyTrain then you pay for it, don't close hospitals and schools to pay for it.

I heard Gordo owns property along Arbutus and will never have an active rail line near his place.

It is attrocious that we scrapped the tram system in the 50's, burning them under the Burrard bridge until none were left.

Many cities such as Manchester have brought back trams and they are highly regarded and much used, we should be doing this also.

Mark. do you have these photos online somewhere ?

Here's my hope
http://amputee-online.com/iangregson/green_screens/science%20world.jpg

In other cities LRT operating in residential areas increases property values.

Check out the Glenelg tramway in Adelaide, 75 year old interurbans, still in daily operation, but not for long.

Gordo doesn't own property along the line per se. IIRC, he has an apartment in a building at the old brewery site around Arbutus and 12th. I believe its in the New Yorker, or some similarly inappropriately named development. I would think he'd be *for* a light rail system because it would ease the traffic that's become so heavy there.

Gee, I hope this discussion doesn't cause any curdling among the Cremes and Cremettes out on LeCreme Drive.

Where would the Arbutus line stop? Broadway has a few shops; 16th has a cinema and a couple of shops; King Edward has a small mall and PW high school; 41st has a couple of schools and Kerrisdale, 49th has a shop and high school; 57th has a few shops and then you have Marpole. Contrast this with the Cambie line: Broadway/City Hall has a small mall, on street shopping and City Hall; King Edward has a few shops; 41st has a major mall and other shopping; 49th has Langara College; 57th has a few shops and a long term care hospital and schools; Marine Drive has a few shops.

The Cambie line passes through more areas that people want to go to: there is nothing on the Arbutus line that compares to Langara College or Oakridge Mall as a destination. More people work along the Cambie route than along the Arbutus route. While it is all well and good that there is a right of way down Arbutus, how relevant is that route to the needs of the future?

I have some concerns about the evolution of the RAV line but the route isn't one of them. Take a simple look at population & destination maps and the Arbutus line doesn't make as much sense as the Cambie route.

The RAV line, I thought, was about a "Richmond/Airport/Vancouver" connection. That means its not for multi-stop use so people can stop off at malls. Most major cities have a vey direct and efficient line from the Airport into the city.

The Arbutus Line goes through a rapidly developing area that is now suffering from more congestion. Consider Granville Island and Fourth. Consider the tourist interest in a line that serves the area. And it can still funtion as an alternate route into Richmond. Note the development just across the Fraser where the old line ran to.

If LRT were to be built along Arbutus, stops would be every 600 to 800 metres as per LRT practice. Even TransLink admitted at one of the RAV meetings that there was greater population density along Arbutus than Cambie St. The real problem with RAV is that it is easier and in most cases, easier to take the car.

If I go shopping, I certainly will not take transit! Studies have shown (the most recent, the Carmen Haas-Klau studies) confirm that the majority of ridership will come from an area about 300 to 350 metres around every station or stop.

For the cost of 2 km. of RAV/subway we can buy the Arbutus Corridor and build LRT from the Granville St. Bridge to Marpole! With more stations/stops on the Arbutus, chances are more people will use it!

What is forgotton in all this, no one line will do much in reducing congestion, we need 2 or 3 North/South Lines (Arbutus, Cambie, & Victoria maybe) to create a network to move people. We can afford it with LRT not SkyTrain/RAV.

Really no one is building light metro's (like SkyTrain/RAV) today and are building with LRT and the first rule of modern LRT, use existing railway rights-of-ways, where possible. The key with today's transit planning is getting the biggest bang for your buck, not building politically prestigious light metros, except of course, if you have sufficient ridership, in excess of 300,000 passengers a day using each line!

Have a look here is modern LRT, could be the Arbutus Corridor!

http://www.lrta.org/photos/fr-grenoble10.html

or

http://www.lrta.org/photos/fr-montp01.html

or

http://www.lrta.org/photos/fr-stras02.html

Modern LRT certainly isn't what Translink and RAVCo. claim it is!

Is it just me, or do the RAV line projected ridership numbers seem like something somebody just made up based on the requirements to recoup the cost of the system, rather than an actual number that's likely of occuring?

Arbutus makes so much more sense. If it's going to come down to one way being ten minutes faster than another to go 15km, then our priorities are out of whack. Personally, I'd like to see streetcars with open roofed platforms for cyclists to board and exit at will.

Also, a 15-25 kph avg speed is plenty fast enough IMO. Once you have traffic lights in the equation that's about as fast as anybody averages in stop and go city traffic anyway.

It's nice to live at that point in time when the wave of cars is breaking and receding.

ride on

Stump, you are right, let us not confuse commercial speed (average speed) with maximum speed. Commercial speed is dependant on the quality of rights-of-way and station spacing. The more stations per route km., the sloer the commercial speed. As SkyTrain has fewer stations (about 1/2 the number) as your average LRT, it has a faster commercial speed >>> at a price. Fewer stations, also attract fewer passengers.

Just a note: the St. Louis LRT has a faster commercial speed than SkyTrain, why? It has fewer stations per route/km. than SkyTrain.

As for the quality of rights-of-ways, it has been found that LRT, operating on reserved R-O-W's, (the Arbutus corridor is a perfect example of a R-O-W) can attain the same commercial speeds of light metros, operatin on grade seperated R-O-W's! The result, there is no market for SkyTrain like light metro's. Only our planners (who never seem to read up to date books on the subject) and politicians (who haven't a clue) prefer politically prestigious SkyTrain like light metro's!

http://www.lrta.org/photos/images/be-antw01.jpg

An example of lawned reserved rights-of-ways in Antwerp. I'll have that over SkyTrain any day!

http://www.lrta.org/photos/images/be-char02.jpg

An example of a reserved rights-of-way on a city street. No different than a bus and the tram can not swerve into traffic!

http://www.lrta.org/photos/images/be-ghent03.jpg

A simple tram/LRT stop in the city. Note how it fits in well with traffic. Also here is a simple station at a fraction of the cost to build and maintain, than our sSkyTrain.

http://www.lrta.org/photos/images/au-adelaide01.jpg

Here is a picture of the Glenelg tramway in Adelaide Australia. The trams (inteurbans) date to the 1920's and our still in daily service! Also note, transit authoriies built O-Bahn style guided bus (super BRT) but if failed to attract new ridership. During the same period ridersip increased on the Glenelg! Now transit authorities are expanding the Glenelg tramway and buying new LRV's and investing no more into guided bus - a system that supposed to replace the trams!

This may be true, but it compares apples to oranges. RAV/subway is rapid regional transit. LRT along the Arbutus line would be mostly for city transit. The most compelling reason for making RAV a priority today, rather than the future is that the feds are giving us a lot of money to construct it. The same happened with the Expo line.

Current ridership numbers undervalue the longer-term impact of skytrain on land uses. Massive regional rapid transit investments like skytrain send a clear signal to the development community by increasing the values of property that is serviced by the new line. Just like the Expo line in Collingwood Village, we can anticipate seeing higher-density uses and higher land values on lands serviced by skytrain. I think this is particularly good for the Millennium & Expo lines. But should development in Richmond be a regional priority? Probably not, given the geology. On the other hand, Richmond has ignored this and encouraged rapid land development that is contrary to the LRSP, so the cat is already out of the bag. If we add to this the immense economic contribution of the YVR (plus a wad of federal $), then RAV starts to look like a less wasteful project.

Building regional rapid transit is visionary. It is much less expensive to build it now than later. Once our region develops even more densely, the cost of a right of way increases. I think this justifies shorter-term low ridership numbers, in the hope that future land use changes will increase ridership over time.

Both areas could benefit immensely from this type of transit service; and it would be a boon to commuters and tourists alike.

Re: False Creek streetcars
Vancouver is planning a streetcar route around False Creek. The route could extend as far north as Stanely Park, and there could be a further extension into the False Creek Flats. At the moment they are using a tourist-oriented service on weekends in the summer, run by volunteers, to test the market & grow the service gradually. I'm not sure what the current status of the project is, but it is in some long-term planning documents.

Re: Lonsdale streetcars
In 2001 I had the pleasure of being involved with a planning team which studied how to re-introduce streetcars onto Lonsdale. There were a few issues which made this difficult:

- the steep grade requires specific technology. It would likely require three braking systems, in case the primary braking system did not work. Streetcars have plunged into the Burrard Inlet in the past from failed brakes.

- Some merchants were concerned about loss of on-street parking. The traffic engineers were concerned about blending the streetcar ROW with other traffic. These issues were not insurmountable, but they did stir up some anxiety.

- Translink didn't support re-introduction of streetcar service. They said it would not replace bus service to Lonsdale Quay, where many trips are generated. If it were to replace some buses, it would likely lengthen the commuter's trip by adding another transfer. Therefore, the streetcar system would be tourist-oriented with lower volumes, with the goal of bringing Seabus/Lonsdale Quay tourists up the hill to other shopping opportunities.

SteveP, What a load of nonsense! Really, you would be laughed out of any 'real' transit meeting, with 'real' experts. LRT also increases property value. The real problem with these high density nodes you champion, they are nothing more than future instant slums!

SkyTrain was never designed as a regional transit system, but as a cheaper alternative to subway construction for dense urban centres and it failed miserably!

Then SkyTrain was tarted up as some sort of exotic light rail system, which it isn't and again it failed miserably.

You SkyTrain guys will go to any leangth with your invented stories ... really. SkyTrain, despite all the hype and hoopla, hasn't generated much new ridership in well over a decade and a half and those annual subsidies make it hugely expensive. Absolutely no vision at all.

This nonsense that building SkyTrain now is cheaper than building it later, again convieniently ignores the huge maintenace costs of the system. Your so called benefits are eaten up by rebuilds and even obsolesence.

LRT can quite happily climb 10% grades, which is sufficient for the North Shore and the old streetcars did it too for decades! In Lisbon, their wee streetcars climb 13.8% grades!

All I can say is God help us if you are involved with transit planning! So typical of the gross ignorance we have with people planning for our transit needs!

Gridlock forever!

Oh by the way, at-grade LRT has a far better chance in carrying more new ridership than grade seperated SkyTrain........sorry guy......them's the facts. Why do you think no one builds with SkyTrain!

Enjoy your fantasy, Grumpy =^)

You go ahead and pray to imaginary secret friends. Maybe it will be good for your heart -- I hear cultivating perpetual frustration and anger is bad for the old ticker. In the meantime, I'll keep researching the facts, working with traffic engineers and decision makers, and consulting with the public.

It is true that the Expo line used tunnels from a failed subway system, but I think the fact that it extends to Burnaby, Surrey and New West debunks your notion about its "intended use".

Firstly, "future instant slums" is an oxymoron.

Secondly, I think you are wrong, and most transit and community planners think you are wrong, too. Why don't you spend some time on the Smart Growth web site or look at Peter Calthorpe's Transit Oriented Development model in his "The Next American Metropolis". The notion that high density must = slums has been so thoroughly debunked in the planning & design literature it isn't worth getting into it here. And regarding design, the devil is in the details.

They did, and some wound up going into the water. Besides, I don't disagree with you here. I didn't say that streetcars on Lonsdale were impossible -- I just said that the grades were an issue which constrained our choice of technology. To be clear, I meant which LRT technology.

And if you read my post more carefully, you would note that I was trying to help an LRT get built, not Skytrain. You are so hysterical about anything to do with Skytrain that you tar everything with the same brush. Get a grip.

If you cite your sources, we could talk about this further.

Yes, Grumpy, Skytrain is expensive, and maybe in an ideal world the RAV wouldn't be our first priority. If we simply wanted to maximize the number of people served by transit we would be buying lots and lots of buses and not worrying about Skytrain or LRT. Moreover, in the case of RAV it seems wasteful to put in a Skytrain after all of the transit priority roads and the highly successful 98 express bus line.

Is Skytrain perfect? No. Is it the end of the world as we know it? No. Will it be a valued and effective spine for our transportation network after construction? Yes!

And no, I don't work for Skytrain -- I think you are overstating the case against it. Then again, maybe you are just living up to your alias.

Oh well, might as well wade into this debate.

Grumpy said:

Experts at the Light Rail Committee have kindy provided details including a cost estimate of LRT from Vancouver to Steveston. This can be found at:
http://westvan.org/reports/20040517b.shtml
(scroll down a bit)

The estimate given is $779 million which seems about right for what it includes.

Unfortunately, this estimate assumes that the swing bridge could be used and does not include stations. I suspect that with a train every three minutes or so, the swing bridge could never be opened to allow ships through. I can't imagine Transport Canada ever approving this.

Adding the required high level bridge would add another $200 million to the estimate. Adding the 30 or so stations at $1.5 million per station would add another $45 million.

Thus the total really is around $1024 million. I expect there are other costs not included but I'm not going to bother to figure them out.

The cost of RAV is around $2.0 billion which includes $300 million for the airport extension. Subtract that and the total for RAV (or RV) is $1.7 million.

Anyway, RAV is more expensive but not 3 or 4 times more expensive.

$500 million of RAV is being "financed" through the estimated $50 million dollars in savings due to elimination of parallel bus routes and increased ridership revenue over in this corridor due to RAV. This is where TransLink is exposed to the most risk in RAV. If ridership estimates are not met, TransLink will be in a financial bind. Many also question forcing people from Delta and South Surrey to transfer at Bridgeport to RAV.

Regarding RAV ridership, I suspect that 100,000 is fairly optimistic but not impossible.
Ridership on the Expo and Millennium lines is 204,000 per day with the Expo Line accounting for around 150,000.

With a major expansion at Oakridge, South East False Creek, a lot of development along Number 3 Road and expansion at the Airport, it is within the realm of possibility that the ridership numbers could be met. Certainly, there is a lot more people working and living along the RAV line than along the Millennium Line which is attracting almost 50,000 riders per day. Some Millennium Line stations such as Lake City are pretty lonely.

One way to ensure ridership along the RAV Line is to reduce the lanes of traffic along north south streets in Vancouver such as Cambie, Granville and Oak. Lanes could also be reallocated on the Cambie and Granville Bridges to improve cycling and pedestrian facilities. This would save the city $20 million dollars. As there will no longer be suburban buses along Seymour and Howe, a lane could be reallocated for bike lanes and wider sidewalks.

Congestion pricing would also be another great way to ensure ridership and cover any short falls in revenue.

Finally, if not for the Expo Line, I expect the freeway and the Port Mann would have been expanded years ago.

For those who think Skytrain is not worth it, try taking a bus from Vancouver to New Westminster or Surrey. It takes hours. Or try biking there. I've done both, and you know what, there are only two ways that make sense commuting distances in an urban area such as Vancouver.

A car, or an uninterrupted transit system such as a subway or a skytrain.

Most major cities in the world use subways, but Vancouver is too hilly for it to be feasible. Light rail works fine if you can place it along a waterbody, river, like the West Coast Express but not if you have to compete with roadways with cars.

RAV has to have multiple stops to make it feasible. A direct airport Vancouver ink would be a real waste, as you couldn't capitalize on cross traffic. Also, the RAV is also used to connect Richmond and the airport with areas east of the vancouver core. And hopefully soon they will actually connect the millenium line up with the RAV.

Another vision: Light rail for Surrey and Langley

It's funny how the anti-LRT crowd invent cost etc, to justify 25 years of bad planning. They are to embarassed to admit that their way of thinking is ignored my most planners around the wold.

SteveP, wants to invest billions in a transit line, in the desperate hope that, one day, just one day, it may attracr sufficient ridership to justify its construction costs. But he convieniently forgets, the hundreds of millions in annual subsidy paid until that time comes!

I do talk to international experts (internet ya know - us peons can use it too!) and they say that transit planning in Vancouver is perverse. We talk big, but when it comes to solving transit problems, we jam out. Vancouver has nothing to offer but bureaucratic baffle-gab.

Yet what is most shocking is that SkyTrain's ridership is so small, even according to TransLink, average daily ridership is 100,000! (July 2005 report to the TransLink Board)

SeaBus ridership fell 1.4 per cent to 575,000 and paying passengers on SkyTrain dropped by 0.1 per cent to nine million.

(This is interesting, 9 million in three months translates to about 36 million a year or put another way, approximately 100,000 riders a day! Less than one half the ridership claimed by TransLink only a short time ago of over 210,000 passengers a day. Oh by the way the Calgary C-Train is carrying (counted boarded) ridership of over 210,000 a day!.)

All SkyTrain has done is give bus riders a faster, yet more inconvienient journey. TransLink has offered no proff that it has achieved a modal shift!

StteveP, if you have read anything on the subject and very few planners have, you would find that LRT, operating at grade, has proven to attract more new passengers than grade seperated systems. I'm sorry this doesn't jive with your preconceived ideas, but then, we do not train anyone here in the finer arts in urban transportation. In Europe, they offer degrees in Urban Transportation!

Ever hear of Professor Carmen Hass-Klau, no? Well you should.

Oh by the way, did you ever talk to suppliers of lrt cars? I think not as mosr modern LRV have 3 braking systems. If a car is designed to climb steep grades, then it must be able to stop safely and start safely on the steepest grade. The English Railway Inspectorate (ever here of them Stevie?) foud the Sheffield cars were safe on 10% grades and that includes stopping too! If the ERI finds its safe, we don't have to worry here!

In Vancouver, we have an arrogant streak in us that we think we are god's gift to the world, sorry we are not. But we will continue to build hugely expensive metro type systems and pretend that they work - until the money runs out.

The real reason that you like SkyTrain, is that it employs so many people to justify it, people who would find it difficult getting a job elsewhere.

rac - LRT stations can cost $1.5 billion, but most cost $10,000 to $250,000 a copy. You do not need these massive concrete eddifaces, that SkyTrain does.

A high level bridge for LRT would cost under $100 million - about as much as the SkyBridge across the Fraser.

Acoording to a 1983 TTC study comparinng SkyTrain (or as it was known then ICTS) found that

RAV like the Expo and Millennium Lines, will be a highly subsidised, lightly used transit line. It will be just faster to use the car.

Grumpy, i think that the real arrogant streak is yours. No one on this board has taken an anti-LRT stance. LRT is a great idea for localized service where stops can be spaced more frequently. For a more regional approach, stops are further spaced. I can't imagine my commute along a rail line that had stops spaced at less than 1km - the standard for LRT that you've suggested. Furthermore, your understanding of urban planning must be questioned. Look up transit villages. Also, your comparisons with the Detroit system is not applicable. Detroit's people mover was built at a time when the city was attempting to revitalized downtown - a project that failed miserably. That failure had nothing to do with the rapid transit technology. The reason why the people mover is a failure is that the routes is a small circular route. For most able bodied people, they can walk faster from one stop to a stop that's only a couple of blocks away by foot but 3-4 people mover stops away. Finally, I question something that you constantly bring up. Your insistance that sky trains just not only doesn't attract ridership (I see crammed skytrains everyday, I'm sure those people would have something to say about that) but that skytrain actually discourages ridership is weak theoretically.

With all that said. I think that we're all actually on the same page. We'd all like to see improvements to the transit system. Is skytrain the best option. Honestly, I don't know, but I believe, as does Steve P., that the long-term gains surely outweigh the costs. And it would cost a lot more in the future grumpy - just based on the concept of the time value of money alone.

Sorry about the poor grammer, fast typing and not proof-reading will do that to ya!

SkyTrain ridership is 204,000. Check out:
http://www.skytrain.info/retail/2003_SkyTrain_System_Monitoring_Program_Summary_Report.pdf

Calgary also has a free zone downtown. How much of the ridership is due to the fact that it is free.

The average station cost in Calgary is $2.1 million.
http://www.calgarytransit.com/html/technical_information.html

Like SkyTrain proponents, some LRT proponents under estimate the costs, over estimate the ridership and overstate the cost and understate the ridership of alternatives. By doing this, they encourage others to appear as it they are more supportive of alternatives than they really are. I expect that LRT is poorly served by such "proponents".

"We talk big, but when it comes to solving transit problems, we jam out."

We can argue about where and how much money should be spent. But the above quote summarizes the entire problem in a few short words.

Thank you Stump.

I never said SkyTrain technology was a failure, it's just too expensive for the job it does. Detroit was the pure application of SkyTrain (ICTS philiosophy of operation). The concept failed, and they changed the name fom ICTS to ALRT, yet no sales. SkyTrain is a marketing failure, akin to the Edsel.

As for Calgary, they have very expensive stations, but the direct costs of the system are under $600 million.

As for SkyTrain's ridership, why did bureaucrats report to the board, in July, that ridership fell by 0.1 % to 9 million in the first 3 months of 2005? 9 million translates to a daily average of 100,000.

Of course it's full in peak hours, all transit systems are, but off peak, I'm surprised how so few use it. As SkyTrain's ridership is not audited, I would question the 200,000+ figure. And I'm not the only one who questions Translink

According to the report presented at the July meeting, revenue passengers for the first quarter of 204 amounted to 8,980,527 or 98, 416per day. Boarded passengers amounted to 16,305,191 or 178,687 per day.

The 204,000 is the weekday average. Weekend ridership is lower and thus the lower average for all days of 178,687.

http://www.translink.bc.ca/files/board_files/meet_agenda_min/2004/07_21_04/4.11attach1.pdf

The drop in SkyTrain ridership you were refering to I believe was attributed to the NHL strike and higher fares.

The boarded passengers includes everybody who boards SkyTrain including those who paid their fare on a bus and those with monthly passes (and likely those that don't pay at all). I beleive the revenue passengers are the ones who pay a cash fare or validate a faresaver at the station. I'm not sure if it includes people with passes.

SkyTrain was designed as a commuter service and the peak hour ridership shows that it is effective at that.

The problem has been the shift in jobs to suburban office parks that can't effeciently served with any form of transit.

Has Calgary seen a shift in transit mode share?

Excuse me how can Translink tell the difference between 'Boarded passenger' and 'revenue passenger'. They can't, their ticketing machines can not do this, it's all bull shit.

Here is the problem, TransLink lies to the media and MUST tell the truth to the TransLink Board for fear of criminal charges. Hence the different ways of counting ridership. Oh yes, how does TransLink count ridership?

I'm sorry for the SkyTrain lobby, they have been sold a bill of goods. I'm sorry for the regional taxpayer, we ave to pay for TransLink's lies!

The only thing I can understand with these figures is that about half of SkyTrain's boarded passengers are not paying fares!

The SkyTrain lobby works overtime to deliberately mislead politicians and the taxpayer - it's time that the RCMP commercial crimes unit investigates!

Well, it is easy for TransLink to count the revenue passengers. They pay at the ticket machines at the stations or they validate their tickets at the station. The other passengers have either paid on the bus or have a pass and yes, a few ride for free.

To count boarded passengers, every few weeks, they must have people at the stations counting or I suppose they count have automatic counters. Probably not very accurate but within 10% I'd guess.If you really want to know, phone them up. If you don't trust their numbers, you could go to a SkyTrain station and count the passengers. I suggest maybe not one that is too busy.

Anyway, if you have proof of wrongdoing, go to the media or police. Otherwise drop it. This does little for your credibily and your cause.

Interesting rac, but a problem, a great number of Skytrain passengers don't use the ticket machines. Annual, monthly and weekly paases are not counted.

As for people counting ridership, I asked Glen Liechester some years ago, when TransLink was BC Transit, why couldn't they count ridership like Calgary. He said it would be impaoosible as they didn't have enough people to do it!

Why is TransLink using two different methods anyways? Simple, they want to add to the confusion because they don't want to know the truth.

Did you ever read the 1993 Ahad report on SkyTrain? There was enogh wrong doing there but no one cared! Hell TransLink lies every day, no one cares and the RAV gravey train continues full speed.

As for credibility, all I use is facts from many sources. if you don't like it ... to bad. I have talked to too many real experts from around the world on our transit issues and guess what, no one gives a damn, because we are small potatos, we influence on one and if we want to spend 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 times more for 'rail' transit so be it, no one cares.

No one has copied Vancouver, no comes here for modern transit, as we are considered a world class joke. Sorry but thems the facts.

JUST TO MUSE OVER:

TransLink,states in their RAV Community Consultation Discussion Guide, "However underground and elevated systems are cheaper to operate, faster, safer, and more reliable than at-street level systems because they don't cross intersections." This statement is false.

Comparing SkyTrain to Calgary's C-Train LRT line, which is carrying over 210,000 passengers a day:
The entire C-Train carries more passengers than just the SkyTrain Expo line at a 40% cheaper cost.
The maximum speed of the C-Train is the same as SkyTrain, the commercial speed is lower because there is twice as many stations on the light rail as compared to just the Expo Line. More stations equals more ridership.
SkyTrain has an annual death rate about twice of that of the C-Train.
LRT has proven more reliable in revenue service than automated guided transit systems such as SkyTrain.
LRT/ road intersections, properly designed and protected by signal priorities, have proven much safer than road/road intersections in the same local and have little or no effect on light rail operation.

Seems that Translink has been caught out, but who cares.

Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes fact!

24 hours later and no reply. Could it be that the TransLink boys can not disprover the previous offering?

But, in the end, no one cares! Until the RAV/ SKYTRAIN/CANADA LINE TAX HITS PROPERTY OWNERS!

We are stuck with the skytrain boondoggle because small-minded politicians out here in the boonies quiver and genuflect when Ottawa offers federal tax dollars to "help" with the costs. What this "help" really does of course is buy the Liberal Party votes in Quebec by propping up Bombardier, who can't sell this crappy system anywhere without subsidy. The RAV line will join the almost seamless list of failed public/private initiatives. The public part of the equation only starts to move into the black when 100,000 riders get on the RAV. At this point, only 43,000 commuters now travel from the south, from as far away as White Rock. Do the math folks. It's a pretty simple equation.

Grumpy, just because people get tired of debating doesn't mean they agree with you. Forums like this are very poor ways of building understanding and resolving issues.

Wallace, I suggest looking at the RAV ridership predictions.
http://www.canadaline.ca/files/uploads/docs/doc254.pdf
page 137 has diagrams of where they predict ridership will come from.

Less than half is commuters from the south. The rest are trips starting and ending in Vancouver, people from Vancouver commuting south and trips to and from the airport. I suspect the 100,000 a day is fairly optimistic but not out of the realm of possibility. Regardless of whether or not you think RAV is a good idea or not, it is worthwhile at least see what they are claiming as far as where the ridership will come from. Anyway, the math is not that simple.

Sorry rac, the math is very simple, 'cause it is BS figuring. Most of the in Vancouver ridership are already on the busses. No, or little net gain there. The folks that do use transit from WR and Delta are going to be some pissed when the formerly one bus trip to Vancouver will dump them in Richmond to transfer. The numbers were phony for the building of the Expo and Mill. lines, and remain phony in reports of ridership on those lines now. The worst of the reporting is that much of the ridership is forced as bus riders are dumped at skytrain stations, meaning that riders likely have to make two changes to get where they are going, rather than one when they could make use of the in-town interchanges points, as they could formerly. It is, and will be no different for the RAV line. There will be negligible modal change. And, why no response to the political boondoggle to support a failed Quebec industry? There is ample evidence in this and other threads, and even occasionally in the corporate press about the "gifts" from the feds for transit. The "gifts" come with the requirement to use skytrain, or no money. Our transit system is being starved to build and operate a dinky toy system.

For Grumpy: If translink is so anti-light rail, then why are they using it for the coquitlam line?

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

light rail and skytrain work for different uses. Light rail wouldn't be nearly as fast getting people from Surrey to downtown as Skytrain is. Even with right of way and intersections, having so many stations and lower operating speed would mean everyone would just drive.

and for Wallace, i live on the 26 route, and if i were to take a direct bus from here to downtown it would take way longer than it takes now to transfer at joyce and take skytrain. So, sometimes transfering makes sense.

Oh yah, Wallace, Bombardier's also not building the trains for the RAV line, a division of Hyundai is, so the whole buying Quebec votes arguement is also flawed.

rac,

You state:

Good point! A comparison of the C-train and the Skytrain is a bit misleading.

And if I don't believe you, just ask you, right?

C'mon, Grumpy -- cite your sources. Otherwise you are just trolling.

You are wrong:

UBC's planning school has a chair in transportation planning:
http://www.scarp.ubc.ca/faculty%20profiles/berechman.htm

Is your other research this good?

Thanks for everyone posting the pics of LRT in various cities. It is truly impressive to see a LRT along a green way. It was also good to see the photo of the old Adelaide -> Glenelg trams, took a ride on those back in 88.

A LRT system addition to Vancouver would truly make our city a world city, not this concrete montrosity we call Skytrain.

No more Skytrain.

Too bad I found this thread so late. All the apologists for Skytrain forget one important fact: in 25 years of trying only Vancouver continues to invest in this kind of rapid transit (besides the one-off Kuala Lumpur line) while over 300 LRT lines have been built or expanded world wide during the same time.
What the h*** is so special about Vancouver? Oh yeah, I forgot, over here it's all about political interference and monument building, not transit.