Interesting comment that Surrey is the wild frontier. Indeed, Surrey has grown immensely during the past 20 years as many Vancouverites came out looking for more house for less money. Now in South Surrey we have mega-homes on 1/2 acre lots and tract upon tract of cookie-cutter houses (but still considered higher end). The Surrey council seems to have no vision other than to build laterally and make lots of money in development cost charges. An appalling lack of imagination seems to have crippled the planners ability to demand more from developers. At the very least there should be more small retail contained within these tracts to reduce the number of cars on the road. People now have to drive to some other big-box commercial centre to get a jug of milk or some veggies. There are very few sidewalks on the streets leading out of these tracts (subdivisions), so even if people wanted to walk to these large commercial stores, there is little pedestrian-friendly space to do so.

This article did little to address one of the real growing concerns for all living in the greater Vancouver area and that is the horrific increase in smog as all these suburbanites drive all over the lower mainland trying to get around. Public transit is still designed primarily to bring people into Vancouver, and let's face it, that's not where everyone needs or wants to go all the time!! Telling people to get out of their cars and bike/walk/bus/whatever is fine and dandy, but we have to create the systems and pathways that can make that achievable. Vancouver City is somewhat good at that, but until all these municipalities and cities in the greater Vancouver area can cooperate and possibly get some provincial help, smog will get worse and worse. That brings with it a whole host of other problems, eg., respiratory health issues, stress from traffic which leads to more health and social problems, environmental destruction, and so forth. Let's get going on transit!!!

Vancouver is the city of the Lotus Eaters, where reality morphs to fantasy. Having lived in London and many other European cities, Vancouver offers nothing. Fact is Vancouver is a boring wasteland of self importance.

We lack culture, oh yes we scores of ethnic restaurants and cafes, but that only a part. Once great Stanly Park pales when compared to Portland's Washington's Park & Zoo. Vancouver has few museums and what we have are stale.

Vancouver's transit system suffers from the German disease (used only by the poor elderly & and students) and best be avoided. The SkyTrain metro systems wisks one nowhere, unless you think the Scott Road Park and Ride is considered a tourist destination. it's best if one want to get around quickly is to drive.

Vancouver is a third rate city built in prime prime location and the populace all seem to be born with rose coloured glasses and ignore the filth and depravity that has become the norm in the city.

Vancouver a great city - no!
Vancouver an average city - yes!

So let us not fool ourselves in thinking that anyone can learn anything from Vancouver, unless one wants to learn the drug trade.

Wouldn't want to see the city Swissed. Prefer the texture of postered poles etc. that are constantly warred against.

As important as they are, a city is much more that its buildings, parks and natural environment.

I'm convinced that so many elderly people are gambling away their children's inheritance because they are bored out of their skulls.
Ours is an insular society. I say this having lived in NY City and London England.

I'm with Grumpy. Vancouver is average, a three dressed up as a nine.

I suspect Grumpy is pretty much on target.

I want to just challenge one of the assertions in this article because you see it repeated endlessly. "That’s one of the reasons Vancouver has worked. No freeway" states the article.

There are freeways in the GVRD, TCH 1, Hwy 99 to I5, and Hwy 91 as well. That these freeways don't actually enter the City of Vancouver proper, except a kind of tangential incursion near Second Narrows, does not mean that Vancouver in any meaningful sense, that is metropolitan Vancouver, does not have freeways.

What it does mean is that Vancouver City residents have successfully refused to pay their share of the costs of providing freeways, since within the City boundary, under the unique Vancouver City Charter Act, it's the City which is reponsible for highway expenditures not the Province of BC. That's why it took thirty or more years from the completion of the Second Narrows bridge for the Cassiar Connector to be built, because BC and Vancouver could never agree on a design that Vancouver would approve of, and absent that approval, nothing proceeded.

What Vancouver has settled for instead is for city streest, Hastings, 1st Ave, 12th Ave, Cambie, Granville, and Oak to be used as secondary highways without any special traffic measures, not even left turn bays at many locations. The result is that while the speed limit may be 50kmh, average speeds travelled approach more like 50mph, or 80kmh as drivers determined to go a longer distance simply ignore the speed limit en masse. Residents along these streets, who must put up with considerable noise and general disamenity, are told by all the "smart planners" and Westside environmentalists that the answer is to resist further freeway construction!

Does all this result in a more transit-oriented, "green"-acting population? Of course not. The whole object is to allow residents of Vancouver to pay lower property taxes, while still being able to drive conveniently to work themselves since they are only going fairly short distances.

Consider this quote from a Govt of Canada policy paper, "The Comparative Advantages of Urban Canada", by Richard M. Zavergiu of
Magplane Technology Inc.

"The conventional wisdom is that building freeways increases auto dependence. Very curious and disturbing to this conventional wisdom is the stark comparison between Vancouver and Toronto. Why is it that Vancouver, which eschewed building a freeway network, has half the population density and consequently records 45 percent more auto kilometres travelled per capita than does Metro Toronto?"

It's something the Vancouver boosters and celebrators, who are mostly people involved in developing expensive residential projects, will not think helpful, since their game nothing more than doing everything possible to raise residential land prices, and that involves contriving scarcity in terms of real estate location, which in turn boils down to restricting transportation. Vancouver's big thinkers have not only acted to restrict transportation by refusing to build freeways, and now opposing them in other municipalities (eg Port Mann bridge issue), but by insisting that big transit investments such as the Skytrain be equipped with rolling stock whose top speed is 80kmh. The same speed that is actually being driven on city streets. How is "rapid" transit that is fact no faster than one's car supposed to succeed in "attracting" people out of their automobiles? The answer couldn't be more simple. It's not supposed to succeed in attracting drivers to transit, that's why it was chosen.

...wherever it is, you can bet that Vancouver's finest are guarding it jealously, confiscating liquour from those who attempt to approach it via public transit, and warning everyone away from it on New Year's Eve, fireworks nights, etc.

Good topic David,

As I see it, there are two Vancouvers: Downtown, and Greater Vancouver. The problem you identified with regard to downtown especially - the sameness of architectural design, the limited long-term vision for building usage - dates back to the mid-Eighties decision by the Vander Zalm Socreds (Grace McCarthy, actually) to sell off the entire chunk of Expo lands to Li Ka Shing, who fronts a multi-billion development firm for the Chinese government.

In addition to losing billions of dollars in real estate income that could be realized by breaking up the property into smaller development parcels, the City of Vancouver was forced to deal with these lands as one massive comprehensive development project, rather than developing integrated individual neighbourhoods.

And then there's the quaint (!) west coast tradition of building twenty storey concrete residential bunkers, painting them pink, and placing a green metal 'hat' on top. What the hell is with that?

The issue of Surrey, and urban sprawl in general, is especially troubling. When communities allow their local councils and regional districts to be dominated by used car salesman, realtors and the blinkered self-interests of cerebrally-challenged Rotarians, you end up with a Surrey (Vander Zalm was mayor there, too) - where the "any development is good development" mantra creates massive demands on municipal infrastructure, and the viral growth of auto mall culture as far as the eye can see.

Downtown Vancouver is very dense, and the population sustains a vibrant city culture. But if you live in the 'burbs like me, you shudder at the prospect of having to venture into the choked, labyrinthine tunnel structure of the inner city.

Skytrain affords a single entrance into the city centre for non-auto traffic, which creates a bottleneck getting into or out of downtown. Busses are simply not a credible alternative for the vast majority of people.

Now with Vancouver city council, in their infinite wisdom, allowing 4am (3?) bar openings downtown, drunks and punks stream into the city centre in their street-rods, pretending to be street hoods and packing heat, waiting to off someone who returns their pseudo-hip hop trash talk.

All I can say is, thank the Christ for the North Shore mountains (even though I notice the $ million monster homes creeping up the mountainside), and the ALR - what's left of it. By the time the Olympics come around, this place will be an unbearable place to live (if it isn't now).

If Vancouver is so great, why haven't I been into downtown Vancouver for about 15 years? I've been to London England and Sydney Australia more frequently. I even gave up my season's tickets to Vancouver Opera because I didn't want to get into downtown Vancouver ever again.

And yet, wherever I travel, I'm struck by the gentle beauty of the landscape when my plane lands at YVR again. It's a real Welcome Home. I've stopped wondering about it because there's so much more to enjoy in B.C.

Transit can make or break a city.

The SkyTrain light metro maybe fast (in fact Portland's & Calgary's LRT travel as fast as SkyTrain) but it is unappealing, with a hint of danger. The stations are windswept, cold and with many unpleasent types about, which deters me from using it. As well, many have to take a bus to skyTrain, so why bother, I'll take the car instead.

Vancouver's transit system just doesn't compare with transit systems I have used elsewhere. Portland's LRT takes you to the zoo - that's good planning!

The buses are filthy and ill designed, again making the car a more attractive alternative.

After working in Vancouver for over 20 years, it took me about 60 minutes, on average to commute home, South of the Fraser; the same trip by bus 1 hour 20 minutes! The RAV will add another 10 to 40 minutes to this jorney according to Delta Couuncil! So $1.8 billion latter, I'll take the car.

This just illustrates the blinkered thinking that happens all the time in Vancouver and the GVRD!

I like the quaint ferry ride at Albion. There are several small ferries that cross the Rivers Rhine and Main in Germany. This just makes life interesting!

Try Portland's Washington Park and zoo - wow its so, so fun and a miniature train ride that is unrivaled on the West coast!, Stanly Park - a ho-hum, politcally correct place, where tourists are whisked in, take photo's of totem poles, and wisked out.

Vancouver used to have many interesting nooks and crannies to be explored, but most have been torn down to build high rise condo's - ugly, very computer generated ugly. Gastown is a prime example, except for the steam clock, which breaks down more often than not, the area has turned into a crass tourist trap.

The fact is, Vancouver is self centred, silly little place where the locals vastly overstate their importance, so much so, we have become an international embarrassment.

I like the region, but not what is happenning and the so called Vancouver boosters best watch out lest they are sued for misleading advertising.

There's another significant group besides the poor, the elderly and students. The other standout, of course, is the number of women who use transit, compared to males. (An ex-transit drivers rear view mirror view of his clientele.)
That says something too about our society and Vancouver.

Vancouver saved my economic bacon, twice in my life. For that, I have fond memories of Vancouver. Though when I moved into it, I knew I wanted to hussle my ass out of there, just as quickly as I could. And frankly, I'm glad to be out ouf it.

That's not entirely Vancouver's fault, because, as a type, I just don't fit well in an environment of masses of people, and in the cattle chute urban environment, especially as one of the cattle, but of especially, fucking cars. God, I came to hate them.

It is primarily cars that create that fever pitch tempo and tension of Vancouver, and probably all urban landscapes, and the filthy goddamn air. They fuck up people's heads too, creating sociopaths.

It used to be interesting to watch car drivers screaming at jay walkers and cyclists weaving in and out of traffic, then park their cars and conduct themselve just like the folks they'd been screaming at, moments before. It's a kind of mass schizophrenia that happens to car drivers.

At just this moment, feeling its presence again, I realize now that I hate Big City. I need more space, air, nature around me, handier, more immediately accessible. People are different too, out of it. It's a matter of "scale" thing that happens, like between the corner shop and the mammoth global corporation. Something qualitative changes at a certain point that creates a different level of monster.

(Though Vancouver , at another level, is a reaslly interesting place. I did like its "cosmopolitan" flavour. though I would secretly prefer it stay confined to there, and not invade anywhere else in the province, certainly not my space. It's kind of like being "out of country".)

BC is this country's California, and I fear, given the continuation of the never ending growth scenario, more workers, tax payers and markets, that is one of the drive creations of capitalism, it's changing BC into a kind of equally tacky California. Everybody wants to come here, and in the process it is changing the province, not necessarily for the better. BC is destined to be a victim of its own success, assuming the absence of an economic collapse. (Which is not an unreasonable qualification.)

A big part of the problem is that Vancouver is becoming primarily a city built by and for developers, where we get cookie-cutter high density development because it is very profitable. Public amenities tend to be an after-thought, something given reluctantly in return for density bonuses, re-zoning approvals, etc.

My part of the city (South Vancouver) has so far avoided most of this, due mainly to decades of neglect or downright hostility from city hall. This has created some very interesting, funky and diverse neighbourhoods that have great potential if they are allowed to grow organically.

Unfortunately, however, changes are coming at the whim of those who see South Vancouver as semi-empty space to be filled with Wal Marts, RAV lines (with the requisite pile of condo towers at each station) and squeaky-clean residential redevlopment of industrial waterfront lands along the Fraser.

Some of Vancouver's greatest assets are its unique neighbourhoods, but this doesn't seem to matter much to the developers that have tended to run this city, region and province.

South Van Doug, I agree with you. Fraser Street has always been one of my favourite streets to shop, as one can find almost anything there. Victoria St. is also a quirky street, but now has become a sort of Kingsway South. Kingsway has always been that dreary street that lead into Burnaby, which is dreary anyways.

4th Ave. used to be a funky street, but now is a second rate Robson Strasse, filled with over priced boutiques to cater to Vancouver's nouveau riche, who are too busy keeping up with the Jones, spending their grow-op profits.

If the higher purpose persons think that anyone can learn anything from Vancouver, they are smoking dope. Oh yes, they probably are. Rose coloured glasses are great in ignoring real problems facing Vancouver. The sad fact is Vancouver was, some years ago, a very forward thinking city, now we are retro-ville. Our planners just recycle failed planning theories, for the sake of doing something, anything to satisfy our obtuse politicians.

Vancouver, we love ya, but we hate ya. It's home, but a dysfunctional home and it's not getting any better.

Budd, you state that reducing highways does not "result in a more transit-oriented, "green"-acting population." It instead "allow[s] residents of Vancouver to pay lower property taxes, while still being able to drive conveniently to work themselves since they are only going fairly short distances." So what's wrong with this? How is having people drive less *not* environmentally beneficial? How is doing this as well as lowering taxes a bad thing?

The statement you quote from Zavergiu is either false or misleading, depending how you read it. If by "Vancouver" this statement means the city of Vancouver, then the statement that Vancouver has a lower population density than TO is false. Vancouver City's density is 5,086 inh./km², whereas, Toronto's is 3939.4 inh./km². What is presumably meant by "Vancouver" is the GVRD, and by "Toronto" is the GTA. But then this is really comparing apples and oranges, geographically speaking. The GVRD is roughly one third mountains and forest with virtually no inhabitants. This is not the case for the GTA. So the comparison given will indicate a dramatically lower density in the GVRD. A better metric for density in this case would be to divide the population in all "inhabited" land (maybe leaving out agricultural land) contiguous with the metropolitan area by the total area of this land. As it stands, such a comparison is meaningless.

You also state that the 80 km/h skytrain speed is equivalent to the speed "that is actually being driven on city streets." I imagine that if wait times at traffic lights, braking and acceleration times, congestion, and so forth are considered, the *average* speed of automobiles in rush hour is considerably slower. Since the Skytrain is above-grade, it faces no congestion delays. This is one of the reasons why it is attractive to commuters.

Grumpy, normally I don't respond to trolls because I know it only encourages people like you. But I've read all of your comments and none of them are related to the topic of the article (planning in Vancouver), let alone of any value. All I've learned from your posts is that you have an unhealthy obsession with the animals in the Portland zoo. *Spooky*

HOW many more people are expected to move here in the next 30 yrs?? What a nightmare. I'll be so out of here.

I hate cities. I hate traffic, I hate cars. I HATE the pretension in parts of this (well, every) city. I REALLY hate the growing problem we have here with everyone acting all cool, hanging out at JJ Bean or Starbuck's or Bean Around The World using a freakin' PAPER cup- or two, so as not to scald their hands. Now that's a sign of uncouthness if there ever was one. Europeans must get a kick out of that one.

I love the Vietnamese coffee and sushi, the quick access to mountains and the ocean and my low-key lifestyle amid the characters of Kingsway and Fraser (now THIS is the hood to be in!) But once I've got my nest egg saved I'm packing the Tercel and dog in the car and hightailing to another part of BC. Preferably before the Olympics...ugh.

Coyote- what part of BC do you live in? (Just curious :)

Ho-Hum the politically correct, cardboard cut-out West end type, jimmy_laroux just typifies Vancouver. Been to the Portland zoo - no? Then don't comment, in fact I didn't talk about the animals, rather the miniature railway.

Vancouver is too politcally correct, with the higher purpose persons taking control. This makes Vancouver boring, very boring. The PNE parade downtown was great, but is now gone and the City is trying to get rid of the PNE itself!

Oh by the way, Calgary's at-grade/on-street light rail travels as fast as SkyTrain and carries far more people - 210,000 a day. In fact SkyTrain has done little in reducing congestion, rather it's giving about 12% of the bus riders an expensive train trip!

Again we have the goody two shoes types supporting SkyTrain make completely misleading statements. God, can't anybody tell the truth about SkyTrain? This is just like our planners in Vancouver, planning for myth, rather than for fact.

If it wasn't for the mountains and the ocean, Vancouver would be a below average city. Presently Vancouver is a world class wannabethat has niether the character, the imagination, nor the drive to be one.

My favourite Chinese restaurant anywhere is there on Fraser, just south of Kingsway. The Vong family's restaurant. (I hope it's still there. I'm passing through Van towards the end of June, bound for the Island, as Vong's is a must stop for me.)

Fii: I'm, ohhh, about the equivalent of a two city block walk to the easten shore of the Columbia River, looking right now to the west, up at peaks of the Monashee mountain range, which are within an easy cycling distance from me.

A good day to you, good woman.

The comments on this article make great reading. I fear Vancouver is in danger of becoming too glossy and well groomed, a high-concept, look-but-don’t-touch city conceived by planners. My Vancouver is: streets lined with little post-war bungalows; funky sixties-era low-rise apartment buildings; the PNE; neon signs on East Hastings; greasy spoon cafes and storefront businesses that have anchored their locations for decades. Ordinary people experience the city at street level - you can't always keep your eyes uplifted to the mountains and glass towers.

Grumpy,

In a moment of candour a city(?)councillor once remarked, "There's no planning, just deals."

I think about that as the cut-and-cover, or tunnel-advocates for the RAV Line continue to make their arguments. This argument has so diverted taxpayers that forgotten is, that it is they who should be served, not the contractors, politicians and other deal-makers.

If I have a complaint about SkyTrain (that I use frequently) it is that it doesn't serve the whole Lower Mainland. I don't think it would be so if the system had not been overbuilt. I favor having the whole system elevated, including the RAV Line.

I cycle a lot, and for the street-level-rail advocates rail lines and two-wheeled vehicles do not mix. More importantly. we have many thousands of travellers passing over intersections that, were it not for the elevated transit, would yield increased gridlock, accidents and insurance costs.

Many have declared the system ugly. Viewed from many areas, I see in it a functional beauty. The aesthetics may be considered a trivial matter however, given the environmental considerations.

An interesting article, but hard to join the thread as I am not that familiar with Vancouver, though I have heard and read the promotion.

Of course a lot of it is just that promotion-have you ever seen or heard an ad for a condo or house that is for sale speak of the drawbacks of a particular address.

As a planner and urban designer I am struck by the complete (likely almost complete)lack of attention paid to the future with regards to energy. Planners project population into the future; traffic volumes, etc. but almost no one projects how will cities and settlement of any kind deal with less non-renewable energy, and ever increasing prices of the fossil fuels. Will the electricity needed to power the elevators in those tall, glass condo towers be available?; be too expensive?

Of course urban design deiscussions always refer to European cities, which benefitted tremendously taking shape before the arrival of the automobile (see windshield perspective.

Another problem with planning, especially public transit, cycling and walking is so often the persons undertaking the planning for transit, cycling and walking do not actually make use of those modes of transportation. I call it the "windshield perspective". How can you plan or revamp a transit system if you never have actually rode in a bus, waited at a bus stop, and so on?

I have also noted in general about urban design, primarily in North America, is that we plan and design cities on a machine scale, rather than at a human scale. Just ask someone how far away a destination is and the usual response includes the word "minutes". In other words how long it takes to drive there!

Also why is it that we plan and design cities that result in many of its residents wanting to flee at the earliest opportunity!

I look forward to the coming energy shock, only in so much as to see how we will plan and design the redvelopment of human settlement.

I am sure that a lot of urban space will be re-developed to grow food as the "1000 kilometre tomato" will be a thing of the past.

I would love to hear others' vision of the future of cities.

Cheers,

Good morning to you, jimmy_laroux. I hope you are enjoying this sunny day in self-declared paradise, no doubt sipping away on a stupidly over-priced latte. Do you not think it a bit ironic that Vancouver's stylish addiction to coffee is in fact being controlled by a company from dreaded Seattle, where they have concrete Interstate freeways, the construction of which was ordered by General Eisenhower while he was President?

Refusing to build sufficient capacity in transportation mode B will not induce or even force people to use transportation mode A. People use their cars based on the prices of cars themselves, insurance, fuel, repairs, and parking, and of course their incomes. That is how the demand for auto transport is formed. If transit is available and practical (eg it's not practical for people in sales or the trades who need to be mobile throughout the day, to multiple locations, bringing along tools and materials) and it's more affordably priced, then transit will be chosen.

The Skytrain technology was intended for use over short to medium trips, a kind of bridge betweeen street cars and buses and mainline subways. Here in Vancouver it has been pressed into service as a long haul commuter run, to which its speeds are clearly not suited. The same could be said about the West Coast Express, which travels at 80 kmh as well. In Ontario, this same Bombardier rolling stock is run at speeds of up to 120 kmh. I understand part of the reason is track curvature along Burrard inlet in North Burnaby, but mostly it's just the lack of a dedicated third track and the lack of sufficient overhead crossings in East Vancouver's port district. The point is the same. These transit systems are designed NOT to work. They are installed to impede transportation sufficiently to ensure that residential property prices in preferred locations closer to the city centre will continue to rise exponentially.

"The statement you quote from Zavergiu is either false or misleading, depending how you read it." Jimmy, the quote is sourced, so you can go there if you like. What I have from the 2001 Census is that your figures compare the amalgamated City of Toronto, which used to be the Mun of Metro Toronto, from Etobicoke to Scarborough, which covers some 629 sqkm and has a population of 2.4 million and a density of 3,934 per sqskm to the municipal area City of Vancouver, from Boundary Rd to Point Grey, with an area of 114 sqkm and a population of 546 thousand for a density of 4,759 per sqkm. So your comparison is a bit offside in my opinion.

If we stick to comparables, the Census Metro Areas of Toronto and Vancouver, we get for Toronto an area of 5,902 sqkm, a population of 4.683 million, and a density of per 793 sqkm, and for Vancouver (yes, GVRD) an area of 2,872 sqkm, a population of 1.986 million, and a density of 690 per sqkm. So density in Greater Vancouver is comparable, but slightly below, overall density in Metro Toronto, but I accept your point that mountaintops and Burns Bog will tend to skew this calculation.

I suspect what Zavergiu may have done is get some data for the old City of Toronto and compared it to Vancouver City, but this would have required some special tabulations.

Its quite obvious that Vancouverites enjoy their privileged position within the GVRD, having available most of the tax base and being able to refuse to pay for their share of needed services, such as highways. Highways within Vancouver are a service City residents don't personally need, so they opposed them to keep taxes down, pretending to be concerned about the environment as they drive their cars to work every day. But the majority of the workers from such ridiculed suburbs as Surrey, who are needed to fill Vancouver's workplaces which provide city residents with a generous tax base, do need them because they cannot afford a house in Vancouver. Vancouver residents don't give a damn if someone cannot afford to live in their City, that's their problem if they are second class citizens who have to live in Surrey and must commute increasingly unreasonable times to work, or to social activities as well. However, the businesses that operate in Vancouver are increasingly aware that the present road and highway policy is increasingly non-viable.

It would, I expect, be financially impossible now to build a freeway into Vancouver given current property prices. However, when Mike Harcourt was Mayor he spoke during the opening of the Cambie Street Bridge concerning two "connectors" that the City wanted the BC Govt to consider. The Quebec Street Connector and the Grandview Connector. From the descriptions offered at the time, the obvious intention was to build a dedicated highway separated from the city street grid and without commercial or residential accesses, but perhaps with one or two signal lites that would officially render it not a freeway. I wonder if the City Engineering Dept can produce a map showing what they had in mind at that time?

Yuu're probably right, Budd. I would be financially impossible at this late date to squeeze in a freeway.

Thank God, and the brilliant planners who resisted it in the 70s.

What is it about some people that they insist on making everybody elses biggest mistakes themselves? You don't want to feel left out of the collapse of the city in the twenty-first century? Even in the seventies, freeways were already a nightmare wherever they grew.

Just ask Los Angeles. Or Houston.

Much enjoy th comments, getting especially much from those of Sandra, with whom it sounds like I share a time frame that was more human scale, and Freebear...

Unfortunately, I suspect a lot of what is happening, especially urban, but also rural in only more subtle ways, around forestry most noticeably but also aspects of agriculture, is that insatiable population/consumer and GDP growth instinct and NEED, that is so built into late global corp capitalism. And it is the outcome of that, with its resulting insane population, resource and human exploitation and "concentration levels" that has become what signals that it, the economic system, and we, are spinning increasingly out of control. It is all approaching content and form levels harmful to real "on the street" humans, making us all increasingly a little coo-coo, and more than a little anti-social.

There either has to be a "natural" die-off event occur out there somewhere, with an out of control avian flu epidemic or some such, an energy or other "natural systems" collapse crunch, to return us to sanity, AND/OR, we really do have to get a better social handle on this insane, out of control, greed driven economic system, driving and underpinning it all, and start reigning it, ourselves and our growth in-, and that includes the ruling class especially.

Those in poverty, such as Anne in another thread points to, are already beyond being "reigned in"-, and increasingly so, the broader working class. The main problem and key element lies in quite another social class direction, in my view of phenomenon.

Bailey, I don't think I fully understand your praise for those who resisted doing anything about highways within Vancouver City's boundaries, though I think I can take a guess.

"Thank God, and the brilliant planners who resisted it in the 70s. ... Even in the seventies, freeways were already a nightmare wherever they grew.

Just ask Los Angeles. Or Houston."

People in those cities would not want their freeways removed. Do you think the BC Govt should destroy the TCH 1, Hwy 99 and Hwy 91? Remove the road beds and sell off the right of way for condos and social housing? Do you think that would be a sensible move? If not, then I guess you are saying it's OKay to have freeways in the suburbs and ex-urbs, but not in the City itself.

Can I take a wild guess that you own a home in the City of Vancouver, and that you're tickled pink every time you get a tax notice saying that your non-taxable capital gain has gone up another $50,000?

"you are saying it's OKay to have freeways in the suburbs and ex-urbs, but not in the City itself."

He may not be, but I'm OK with it. The fewer cars that can get into the city, the more parking lots we can take the 'ing lots' out of.

I don't think we should be facilitating peoples' erroneous belief that they're entitled to get around solo in a method that requires far more land than is necessary to achieve the purpose.

Grumpy,

Contrary to what you seem to have assumed in addressing me as a "West end type", I do not live in the West End. I have never been to the Portland zoo. But that's not the point. I was simply pointing out that you constantly bring this zoo up, and I found it bizarre.

In your posts you have proposed no solutions to any of the issues discussed in the article. The ones you bring up are so subjective and silly as to be meaningless. Your posts are full of generalisations and insults. If you've just come to whine about Vancouver, start a blog. This forum is not an appropriate place for whining.

In your last post you state that the Calgary LRT carries more people than the Skytrain. This is false. Skytrain daily ridership is 200000 (according to Translink) whereas LRT ridership is 190000 (according to Calgary Transit). Nonetheless, I find this comparison interesting. But rather than suggesting a reason for this difference, you make vague statements about how the Skytrain is a "myth". It seems to me that there is something to learn from this comparison. A reasonable question based on it might be "How has Calgary planned so as encourage transit ridership?" Or "What is the negative impact of the LRT, which is at-grade, on traffic flow?" I can think of many others. Perhaps answering questions like these might give insight into the strengths and weaknesses of how Calgary has gone about providing transit.

You also state that the intent of the Skytrain is to reduce congestion. I would disagree. Congestion is an inevitable part of living in a densly populated area. Traffic congestion will always increase to meet supply (the phenomenon of induced demand). Any car taken off the road by increased transit usage will be replaced by other vehicles whose drivers would not have commuted by car otherwise.

I agree with Coyote, though I believe (unfortunately!) the required change(s) will only come when the crisis arrives.

Lon-term planning it seems has only a selctive lense. Does anyone really think that the port expansions of Vancouver and Port Rupert will be money well spent when in 10 - 20 years we will have to produce our food and raw materials locally because we can not afford to recieve goods from Asia?

Besides would we still be trading with China if China and the United States are warring over the remaining fossil fuel supply?

Or for that matter, is trans canada highway expansion and so on a "good" rational investment? For those that think it is, or that the coming energy crash is just a figment of chicken little's imagination you are being fooled-or you do know but intend to profit in the short-term.

For me, especially in terms of urban planning and design, there are three key factors of sustainable human settlement:

Distance: The closer the better-food production, energy, work, et.

Scale: As I said earlier design for the human scale rather than the fossil fuel dependent machine scale

Diversity or Mix: Diverse land use, and diverse people

Some questions for the freeway pushers:
Would you like to live next to one?
Have you ever been on a freeway anywhere that's wasn't packed solid with cars at rush hour?
Is it a good thing to wreck neighborhoods near downtown for the convenience of people who live futher away?

Triple the price of gas I say. That would be the best planning devise for all cities, including Vancouver.

I walked under the Gardiner Expressway in Toronto yesterday to get to a meeting in a hotel on the waterfront. Absolutely horrible! The contrast with Vancouver's waterfront is so stark that nobody in their right mind would think a freeway cutting off the city from the water is a good thing. Yet that is what we would have if the freeway pushers had been successful thirty years ago.

Budd,

I drink Tim Horton's large DD.

I fully agree that the choice of whether to commute by car or take transit is complex. And I agree that for some this option is not viable. I still don't see your point about how transit in the GVRD is "meant not to work." Because the top speed of the West Coast Express is 80 km/h? This doesn't make sense. Why not simply not build mass transit infrastructure, then?

It seems to me that you see the only way to address transportation concerns in the GVRD is to build more highway infrastructure. And that more of this infrastructure is "needed." This seems like an interesting topic for debate.

More highway infrastructure!?

You really think that would be a good investment?

How much will highways be used when fuel is $5, $10 per litre? Do you assume you will get a cost of living increase to your salary/wage!

I don’t know if Stump means to compare the width of railroad with freeway rights of way, but it seems that’s what he has in mind. “I don't think we should be facilitating peoples' erroneous belief that they're entitled to get around solo in a method that requires far more land than is necessary to achieve the purpose.”

No one is talking about a right or an entitlement, and it’s kind of strange that Stump would choose to put things in those terms. The issue here is economic rationality, about efficient uses of resources, including land and energy, and also about people’s tastes and preferences, which they have to be willing to pay for, either through direct charges or taxes. There is in fact nothing erroneous about people’s belief that the automobile, given it’s flexibility and carrying capacity, may be the most efficient way of conducting a great deal of urban travel, though hardly all of it. People don’t buy cars because they see no use in them, and most people who advocate transit for everything are not transit users themselves. They just want others on the bus so that their car or motorcycle will face less traffic.

A railroad right of way may be narrower than a highway lane, but I haven’t seen any figures on what the hourly carrying capacities are. Does anyone have this data?

From jimmy_laroux comes this very intriguing observation: “You [Gumpy] also state that the intent of the Skytrain is to reduce congestion. I would disagree. Congestion is an inevitable part of living in a densly populated area. Traffic congestion will always increase to meet supply (the phenomenon of induced demand). Any car taken off the road by increased transit usage will be replaced by other vehicles whose drivers would not have commuted by car otherwise.”

Here for the first time the classic freeway argument, an amateurish and intellectually baseless bit of theorizing, has been boldly extended to include all forms of transit as well as freeways. It’s a kind of urban “smart growth” type extension of Parkinson’s Law, that traffic will expand to fill the capacity available. In the classic freeway argrument, traffic will fill an expanded highway in a few years at most. IOWs, people open the papers and see a photo of the Mayor and the Highways Min doing the ribbon cutting on a new stretch of highway, and they immediately head down to the auto dealership and purchase a third car to add to the two they already have. How two adults are supposed to drive three cars at once is not explained by these amateur theorists.

Now Jimmy is saying the same thing happens with rail transit, that passengers who previously were lonely shut-in suddenly decide they’ve just gotta get out more, and off they go, cramming into stations, fighting over seats, etc. It’s all such a laugh it’s hard to believe that there are actually University professors who peddle this kind of logical fallacy based on erroneous causation and false attribution.

I notice Jimmy has been too busy nursing his latte to respond on the issue of population density, or the core issue in Zavergiu’s observation. Given that Vancouverites, always desiring lower property taxes on their homes more than anything else, have prohibited the construction of any highways, let alone freeways, within the boundaries of the City proper, why is transit usage here lower than in Toronto, where they do have both the Gardiner Expressway and the Don Valley Parkway coming into downtown???

You know Grumpy, I've got to disagree with you about the skytrain and I actually ride the damn thing from Surrey to Vancouver on a regular basis. Unapppealing? The veiws are wonderful night or day. Cold and windswept? Name one part of B.C. that isn't when the monsoons move in. Unpleasant types hanging around? True enough, but name some transit systems that DON'T have them.Grow a backbone, buddy.
While I'm not against the RAV Line I am against the Cambie Street route and the tunnelling. And the cheapass idea of this gov't of LRT for the North East Corridor instead of continuing the Millineum Line as orginally planned.

The best thing for any city's environment is to facilitate all traffic flow - pedestrian, bicycle, public transit, private and commercial vehicles.

A city's NIMBY-ism can be extremely costly, as demonstrated by someone today complaining that six blocks of his route had been changed to over 20 as a result traffic diverters etc.

Many decisions appear to give not a damn for the environment, but cynics will note who benefits in those.

"I don’t know if Stump means to compare the width of railroad with freeway rights of way, but it seems that’s what he has in mind."

Actually, it's the amount of space that cars take up, on the road, when parked (at home or at work) that is the bee in my bonnet.

Further, cars are terribly inefficient, albeit convenient. I don't think access to convenience is enshrined anywhere, but husbanding our resources for the future (a job for which cars are the problem rather than any form of solution) should be.

Stumpposted: 1 Minute Ago

"Actually, it's the amount of space that cars take up, on the road, when parked (at home or at work) that is the bee in my bonnet." No doubt it's considerable, no one questions that. But in fact the width of most city streets today is what is was a hundred years ago, so I don't see a big net increase in the overall land mass devoted to the road network. Granted, superhighways are another matter, since their rights of way are typically a few hundred feet across. But by putting a certain amount of land into this transporation use, the utility of other land increases since the effective use to which it can be put goes up.

I don't agree that cars are terribly inefficient, for if they were, there would be no market for them. Given what they can do, they're satisfying peoples needs even at prices that start at about $15,000 for the basics. But transit might be more efficient on some restricted criteria of passenger kilometres travelled per litre of fuel, but in fact, the passenger kilometres delivered are not the same as those by car because of the convenience issues around personal choice of origin, destination, time of travel, amounts carried, etc.

One can easily make a case that a full bus is more efficient that a car carrying one person, but if there are three of four people in the car it begins to look a lot different.

The IMF says that by the year 2030 oil will still be in the range of $35 to $55 per barrell, and that the world's population of cars will have grown considerably, especially in China. Will BC be exempt from this trend? Will we finally decide that we need to accommodate the demands that our voters are placing on the road system, or will we continue to do the colonial Vancouver thing of pretending that autos are some dreadful American pop culture disaster, along with baseball, hot dogs, apple pie, Sousa marches, Marilyn Monroe, and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Further, cars are terribly inefficient, albeit convenient. I don't think access to convenience is enshrined anywhere, but husbanding our resources for the future (a job for which cars are the problem rather than any form of solution) should be.

Bud Campbell: the Grandview connector was a favorite of planners in the 70's and 80's as a way to take freeway-bound traffic off 1st Ave. It's route would have been through the Grandview Cut. However, the Grandview Cut has been used up now. It's now mostly occupied by the Millenium line of Skytrain, so it's no longer available as an automobile route out of the city.

"but if there are three of four people in the car it begins to look a lot different."

Yeah, there's way fewer cars on the road and no need to build new ones (roads).

I don't live in Vancouver, Budd, but I have. I love that city. I wasn't saying that you should plant cabbages where Oak Street is.

I was saying that some solutions are not solutions. Cars are just no damn good as a way of getting people around in small crowded areas like cities. They're cumbersome, awkward, hard to store and they pollute. Kids get asthma, then the authorities issue stay indoors orders for them. Cars are good for what they're good for, I suppose, and God knows they're fun to play with, but for going twenty blocks or even twenty miles to work they suck.

Make a freeway in a city, and you just get a bigger unworkable solution to fix when it fails.

I won't venture to guess about your hopes for Vancouver's future. I know a lot of people who think that any big project must be good, since they personally stand to make a big pot of money out of it somehow. It would be rude to suggest that your argument is based on personal gain somehow, and I don't want to be rude, Budd.

Of course the IMF is predicting oil prices between 35-55 dollars a barell for 2030-the entire global economy depends on it.

Any talk of syrocketing energy costs will shock the stock market and hastening an economic downturn if not collapse.

Check out peakoil, read the articles, and then tell me what you think!

Baileyposted: 34 Minutes Ago

"Cars are just no damn good as a way of getting people around in small crowded areas like cities. ... Cars are good for what they're good for, ... but for going twenty blocks or even twenty miles to work they suck.

Make a freeway in a city, and you just get a bigger unworkable solution to fix when it fails."

If as you say cars are no good for travelling to work, why is it that so many residents of Vancouver City, I don't mean the wider GVRD, I mean Vancouver City proper, drive their cars to work? Why do they refuse to use the trolleys and Skytrain?

In most cases, I think it's because those trips, from parts of Vancouver to other work locations in the city, are short enough that the drive is not a big burden, so the other convenience attributes of the auto dominate the decision.

It's people from suburban municipalities, without whose labour services Vancouver's industries could not operate, who face the larger burden if they drive to work, and for whom the transit alternatives are so utterly and intentionally pathetic in most cases.

You say "make a freeway in a city ...". Again, I am getting the impression that you are opposed to the last five miles of the freeway system, those that might enter the City of Vancouver, not the existing freeway mileage in Burnaby, Richmond and beyond. But by refusing to build a dedicated highway into the city, you are ensuring that traffic flows on city streets. And that includes traffic originated by Vancouver City residents (ie first class citizens) who are driving outside the city as well as trave by Surrey and Langley residents (ie second and third class citizens) destined for work or leisure inside Vancouver.

"I won't venture to guess about your hopes for Vancouver's future. I know a lot of people who think that any big project must be good, since they personally stand to make a big pot of money out of it somehow."

As you well know, Bailey, the big pot of money to be made is by Vancouver property owners, be it the humble homeowner or the corporate land developer. All of them stand to benefit from inflation in land prices, and they all know that inflation can be accelerated by restricting movement. Restricting movement is accomplished by opposing highway developments and installing transit systems that do not perform adequately. That's the money game here, and when you add that to the cash saved by not paying the taxes to build better transportation infrastructure, you're looking at a win-win proposition for Vancouver City residents. It's just the second and third class citizens elsewhere who are losers, plus the next generation who cannot afford to buy even a studio apartment in the City when prices have been jacked up to $400+ per square foot by an iron combination of transportation chokeholds and sharp-eyed zoning restrictions.

Martin informs me that "the Grandview connector was a favorite of planners in the 70's and 80's as a way to take freeway-bound traffic off 1st Ave. It's route would have been through the Grandview Cut. However, the Grandview Cut has been used up now. It's now mostly occupied by the Millenium line of Skytrain". I kind of thought that was the case, but I wonder if that really closes this option permanently. From Boundary to nearly Nanaimo East 12th is wide enough that an elevated freeway could be built overhead and the local street retained underneath. It could then go downtown along the same route as Skytrain much of the way.

I still cannot understand why residents of East Vancouver would not want traffic taken off their streets and put instead on a dedicated highway of some type. It's a mystery to me, but perhaps that's a result of their being constantly brainwashed by Westside real estate interests disguised as environmentalists and bearing a seductive sounding gospel.

Budd,

First off, do you have any evidence that the phenomenon of induced demand is false? Is that what you are saying when you dismiss the argument that capacity on roads created by removing vehicles from the road by encouraging transit will be used up by other vehicles? It seems to hold pretty well when describing what happens when road infrastructure increases, to the best my (admittedly limited) knowledge of transportation patterns. I'd appreciate an actual argument rather than just hand waving, if you don't mind.

Regarding the Zavergiu and his point about the DVP and the Gardner, what was his conclusion? Is your point that, based on the model of Toronto, we should build a highway downtown to increase transit ridership in Vancouver?

I like the latte remark. Terribly witty.

Budd,

Regarding your comment about others traveling into Vancouver from municipalities, is your argument that public transit infrastructure should increase or that automobile infrastructure should increase? Regarding those commuting downtown to work, precisely the point of encouraging density downtown is so that city streets don't have to deal with as many commuters. If a person who lives downton also works downtown, driving to work is no longer necessary (or desirable).

People who are perfectly sane in every other area of their lives may be made absolute fools of, or display stupiity, when it comes to vehicle choice. That choice may also be extremely anti-social.

This would be less prevalent if we had not suffered a history of auto writers reporting on little more than the superficial.

Today's internal combustion engined-car is a prime example of deliberately withheld technology. The vast majority of alternate technology displayed at auto shows over the past 15 years has been to garner Brownie points.

Over ten years ago, as a member of an electric vehicle association, I rode with others on a hydrogen fuel-celled bus. Where is that technology today?

In my opinion, and from my own research, one of the major players in that "motherhood" technology has been dabbling with a 100-year-old technology supported by massive tax dollars while the main priority has been stock promotion - and any development "trickles" down.

In my opinion, the auto industry has cleverly used the promise of the hydrogen fuel cell to set back development in other alternate power systems such as pure electric battery-driven and even hybrid.

Recalling days in some cities where smog advisories would have many residents remain indoors, the auto industry has very much to answer for.

Why do so many who live in out-lying areas work downtown? Why is the Greater Vancouver area consciousness still so predominantly organized around downtown Vancouver city? Why is every conversation that is about "city council" de facto uunderstood to be about Vancouver City Council? Why is every conversation about "the mayor" understood to be about whoever sits in the chair Larry Campbell currently occupies?

Most of the transportation problems we face would be resolved by examining the live/work distance ratios and making some hard assed collective decisions around decentralizing the region.

Have you ever noticed how many problems we face in the present are malfunctioning solutions from the past?

Budd,

I am constantly amused at your assertion that the sole purpose of preventing highway infrastructure is to keep Vancouver property values high. In fact, the inverse is true. The purpose of promoting highway infrastructure is to increase land values at the edge of the city. People living in suburbs move there because the land is cheap, and then expect that the Province subsidise their transportation costs, by building highway infrastructure, so as to make commuting downtown feasible. The presence of more highway infrastructure has a negative impact on the land values in Vancouver (not to mention the quality of life of its residents).

If everyone who lived close enough to walk or cycle to work did so, we wouldn't have a congestion problem. People are LAZY, and won't walk to work if it's going to take more than 10 minutes. It takes me 35 minutes at a quick pace to walk downtown from my East Van home, most people would rather drive to the gym and work out than just WALK! Lazy, lazy. And what's this received idea that all bad anti-environment types drink lattes? Some of you are a little stuck in the 80's... most of the coffee shops in my neighbourhood are full of greenpeace lovin' hippies as near as I can tell.

"It takes me 35 minutes at a quick pace to walk downtown from my East Van home"

Trust me, Arguing with Budd over the time required and distances covered by means other than a car may be a fruitless battle.

Don't believe the hype. The car is NOT the greatest invention of the twentieth century. Quite the opposite in fact.

Re Walking to Work.

All the good advice about walking to work applies quite nicely to paper pushers, executives (even the Tyee editor),etc. How about plumbers? Carpenters? What about those who work in lawn maintenance? As a photographer I need my car to carry my lighting equipment which is very heavy. And what happens when you are over 60 with arthritis? A brisk walk to work? The same applies to all who say we should cycle to work. How many downtown (be it Surrey or Vancouver) offices have showers for sweaty cyclers?

It's interesting that the one issue that seems to have been identified here as the biggy barely got a mention in the article.

Let's face it, politicians, planners and the buying public sold the city out to the auto manufacturers decades ago.

It has occurred in every city on the globe. When you actually think about it, it's bizarre that we are subsidizing the auto industry by continuing to maintain these highly expensive and dangerous strips of land to prop up the auto industry.

Yes, you can argue it was inevitable given the desire for individualism, but it's a crock.

Had politicians looked beyond their noses early in the 20th century, our cities might look far different today.

But once the industry had its foothold there was no turning back. All it had to do was convince us how great it feels to drive all by ourself, completely independant (or so we think)), of everyone else.

Media of the day fell over themselves selling car ads and when it came time for frank and honest editorial comments, you guessed it, the car was the winner and people who rode the bus were losers.

Some day I would like to see an article on the cost of the auto on cities and how much none drivers are forced to cough up so their gas guzzling neighbours can sleep in a few extra minutes and then spew fumes as they race along the freeway.

I don't live in Vancouver, but when I do visit and especially as I am waiting for a chance to merge onto the Trans Canada on my way east to the Port Mann, I often wonder what will happen when a major calamity hits that overcrowded island and the half dozen or so ways out of the crisis are backed up for kilometres.

"All the good advice about walking to work applies quite nicely to paper pushers, executives (even the Tyee editor),etc. How about plumbers? Carpenters? What about those who work in lawn maintenance?"

Yeah! We should totally ensure that the needs of the few are given priority.

Now, where's my goddamn bike lanes on every street?

Budd,

You stated that you "still cannot understand why residents of East Vancouver would not want traffic taken off their streets and put instead on a dedicated highway of some type." I would be delighted if you could give an example of a neighbourhood in any city which has experienced a drop in traffic volume after a freeway has been built nearby. Actually, downtown Detroit comes to mind, but the drop in traffic volume comes from residents desperately fleeing the area.

You are breaking my heart with tales of "second and third class citizens" forced to make the commute downtown. My heart goes out to the poor and oppressed on the North Shore and South Surrey forced to live on the periphery by the selfish people in East Van.

After reading David Beers essay about Lance Berelowitz’s book and then contrasting it with the bulk of the comments, I almost wonder if we are talking about the same city. Some have pointed out that it is really about downtown Vancouver.

A couple of months before architect Ned Pratt died in 1996, he and I took a walk in my neighborhood and Pratt was candid about what he thought was the relationship between contractors and city hall. At the time Pratt was trying to fix up the garage of his girlfriend’s house on Northwest Marine Drive. He told me he went through hell trying to get the city permit. Then he pointed out at the new houses in my Kerrisdale neighbourhood and told there had to be some sort of under-the-table pay off. I have heard this time and again since then. Whenever a very large and beautiful tree is suddenly cut down (the last one an oak tree on 16th Avenue), City Hall always manages to send an arborist who explains that the tree is diseased.

It is Bing Thom, the pragmatic Vancouver architect, who has been pointing out that too many condos are being built in downtown Vancouver and not enough businesses or office building are being built to balance it all. This means that those who live in the condos will either be retired or driving to the suburbs for work.

And both Bing Thom and Arthur Erickson agree that a tunnel should be built between Main Street in Vancouver and Lonsdale in North Vancouver. They say that it is inevitable that since Vancouver cannot expand beyond the US border, city expansion will be northward. We either prepare for all those millions who will live in the North Shore and towards Squamish or suffer the consequences.

But then Vancouver and the Lower Mainland have their charms.

In December 2004 I visited Buenos Aires. Walking the lovely tree-lined boulevards at night I would stop to try a different flavour ice cream at the terrific ice cream places that seem to be almost on every block. But by around 11pm, in the heat of the Buenos Aires summer, the streets had on overpowering stench of garbage. Why? The thousands of city restaurants would put their garbage on the street (there is no blue box or yellow bag re-cycling program there). Garbage pickers would tear at the bags and take out the bottles and cardboard and leave the rest for the hapless city garbage collectors in the morning. Meanwhile the Argentines I met all complained abut the filthy garbage pickers and the mess they made.

The city has a train (el tren blanco or the white train) that comes into the city late at night and stops at the huge central train station of Retiro. People get off with their carts and go into the city. They collect the cardboard and bottles and other useful garbage and take the train back(around 3 am) to the José León Suarez Station where there is a garbage sorting and re-cycling facility. The city not only provides this train but they also CHARGE the pickers who mostly life in villas miserias.

I did not know that at the time that I was in Buenos Aires so was retired NDP Wunderkind Bob Williams who was visiting the villa miseries of BA. In a chat with Bob Williams a few months later he told me that if the city provided the shanty town dwellers with portable garbage compaction equipment lots of money could be made by the inhabitants of the villas miserias.

"And both Bing Thom and Arthur Erickson agree that a tunnel should be built between Main Street in Vancouver and Lonsdale in North Vancouver."

Despite the cost, burying the freeway appeals to me. Especially if it's a hundred year solution instead of just a couple of decades of buying time.

Alex do you know what the est. time and money requirements are for such a project currently?

Stump. Whenever either Erickson or Thom give a talk (and they did one together some 5 years ago on the tunnel project)I go to listen because I have a deep admiration for both men. I wish we could draft Bing Thom for mayor. No, I don't have the numbers. I am an amateur.

Geez, who's this Budd Campbell?

Nowhere on this planet has expanding roads helped with congestion because as soon as you build a new lane "triple convergence" occurs: those that used another route, those that used another time, and those that used another mode, all switch to the new "free" lane. Add to that those new commuters who will now view this new lane as their personal driveway to their own piece of paradise in the 'burbs, and you've got congestion all over again.

You don't have to go far to find an example, just look at the Alex Fraser bridge, hopelessly plugged within a couple of years of opening.

And as far as "efficiency" of the car goes, as long as you can "externalize" your costs (sorta like the way the city of Victoria externalizes its sewage treatment) you can sure make any operation look pretty damn efficient.

We must understand that these apologists for Exxon and GM going are never going to admit to the true costs of our automobile culture.

When are we going to start looking at the costs of treating lung disorders, the costs of lowered farm productivity in the Valley from air pollution, the cancers from the additives, cancer from the NOX and all the deaths and dismemberments from accidents that occur every year? The police, ambulance and hospital costs of car culture?

When will we start counting the costs of paving and repaving and repairing and replacing roads and bridges? When are we going to factor in higher air conditioning costs due to the heat islands we create with all the pavement? And the falling water tables due to the impervious surfaces? And the damages to our streams and rivers from the storm surges from our sewers laden with oil and other toxic compounds from our roads?

When are we going to count the costs of drilling, piping, refining and transporting all this toxic junk we stuff into our tanks and engines? When are we going to count the costs of dealing with the millions of tons of used tires, batteries and other stuff we throw away?

When are we going to account the costs in lives destroyed all over this planet in order to "secure" reliable petroleum sources.

If we as individuals had to pay the true costs of driving our beloved cars, we'd take 'em out for a quick jaunt around the block then park them for a year in order to save up enough cash to do it again.

Get real already, Budd.

Just a note:

Calgary's LRT is now carrying over 210,000 passengers a day and they do a complete boarding count once a year and a modified one two times a year.

TransLink claims 200,000 boardings a year and keeps secret the method used. SkyTrain's ridership is a guestimate, losely made by counting loadings on trains (as with buses) and a partial boarding counts.

BC Transit used the same method and then added 10% to 20% for political reasons.

Bicycles and LRT can and do coexist happily and do in Amsterdam, Den Haag, and about 100 other European cities.

Elevated transit systems suffer the same problem as with subways - the mode deters ridership, while the opposite happens with at-grade LRT.

Of course Tranlink doesn't mention this with their metro-mania and it is the cost of the SktTrain light metro to build that dooms us to a small network as LRT can cost up to one tenth to build (TTC report).

In the 1980's there was much research into grade seperated and automated systems (AGT)and the vast majority of them concluded that expcept for exceptional circumstances AGT systems cost more to build and operate than at-grade LRT, yet there was no proof of any advantage of the mode with the extra cost. This doomed SkyTrain sales in the USA and except for the JFK airport SkyTrain (The Port Authority, the operator, wanted strictly a prestige system and not a regular subway) no Mk2 (Bombardier built) system has been sold there.

Much of the argument that elevated transit systems are better than at-grade are based on hearsay and emotion and not on fact. Until the provincial government, TransLink, and the GVRD publish SkyTrain's annual subsidy, now well over $200 million annualy, the public will not have a true picture of the cost of the light metro system.

A smaller light metro network means a larger roads network to serve the region, it is a simple as that. Because of the large SkyTrain construction and operating costs, the GVRD needs major roads construction.

Example:

Subway construction - $150 million/km.
Elevated construction - $80 million/km.
At-grade construction - $20 million/km.
Track sharing - $8 million/km.

Skytrain can not track share nor operate on-street, so must be built much more expensively, because of this, it can not serve lightly populated areas. LRT because it can be built much cheaper can penetrate to deeper in the suburbs, thus attracting more ridership.

There is transit lesson #1, with out the emotional hype and hoopla and it is the lack of much more cost effective light rail that is shaping Greater Vancouver away from the GVRD Livable Regions strategy.

This long winded lesson on transit, I think, points on a course that our planners do not want us to take. Sadly, our planners do not understand the difference between LRT and SkyTrain (they lump both under the term rapid transit) and continue to plan for SkyTrain, hoping it to accomplish tasks it was not designed to do. The result: A transit system that doesn't fullfill the regions needs.

Supporting SkyTrain and/or elevated/subway construction, just supports a dysfunctional transit system which leads to a dysfunctional city and region.

The future of Vancouver is bleak indeed.

Peefer:

For me at least you are preaching (stating the obvious) to the converted. As I said earlier, it just doesn't seem to make a difference.

We will just have to wait until the fossil fuel dependent economc system crashes-the sooner the better!

Of course there is an auto-promotion industry-anything to make money.

And those auto reviews! "I give this Chrysler gas guzzler a 4 star rating, while it has plenty of power form its V-8 engine; the cup holder is too small".

That is the kind of examination applied to the auto industry.

People in general, will only admit the error of our planning, design and choice of city when they are choking on exhaust.

For those that talk of Calgary-Its no transit friendly mecca. Sure it has a LRT system bit most Albertans drive-after all without oil do you really think King Ralph would have eliminated the province's debt!?

There is also some thinking in the CofV/Translink planning departments about doing grade level light rail transit along major neighbourhood east-west arteries, like Broadway or 41st. I've been involved in some very large public studies done along those corridors to try and gauge the neighbourhoods appetite for such a thing.

The point of SkyTrain as a people mover, as opposed to LRT, isn't primarily to provide intra-neighbourhood transportation but rather intra-municipality. Grade level LRT will function very well between Marpole and Kitsilano or between East Vancouver and Point Grey. It will serve less efficiently as a mover of the numbers of people that will have to travel between municipalities. Imagine, if you will, a grade level LRT consisting of 4 or 5 units, coming every 10 minutes or so in peak hours, right on street level, traffic lights included, between Richmond Centre and Granville and Georgia.

"How about plumbers? Carpenters? What about those who work in lawn maintenance? As a photographer I need my car to carry my lighting equipment which is very heavy. And what happens when you are over 60 with arthritis?"

I can only assume that these are rhetorical questions. Duh. Go stand out on the street and look at the cars go by. Most of them are cars (not service trucks or contractor trucks, etc.) with one driver, most of which I am pretty sure are able-bodied and not carrying huge loads in the trunk. Don't make excuses for laziness. My mother is post 60 and has arthritis and she walks EVERYWHERE, she says it makes her feel better. Now, I realize some people have crippling arthritis, but that probably keeps them from driving too.

Let me just take a minute or two to reply to a few points. jimmy_laroux had several that were directed my way and I would like to get back to him.

The non-phenomenon of “induced demand” is indeed false, a logical problem of false attribution that would be laughed off in the context of any other public utility. If the schools in an area are full, do we see rallies of so-called outraged taxpayers, led by self-appointed “green” advocates, hollering that we fell into the trap, we built this bloody public school system at great cost, and then irresponsible people who know nothing about externalities had all these damn kids to fill the place up, and now all our well-dressed childless yuppies are being asked to pay for even more expensive schools? Of course not. The induced demand and equally silly “triple convergence” jargon are just pop science marketed by authors trying to make a living. jimmy’s fellow traveler peefer falsely claims that “the Alex Fraser bridge, hopelessly plugged within a couple of years of opening” is an example of the bogus triple convergence/induced demand mumbo jumbo. Just the opposite is true, as peefer well knows. That bridge was built with sufficient capacity that it handles the traffic well.

And as for “hand waving”, no one does it quite like jimmy_laroux! Consider this self-contradictory paragraph:

“I am constantly amused at your assertion that the sole purpose of preventing highway infrastructure is to keep Vancouver property values high. In fact, the inverse is true. ... The presence of more highway infrastructure has a negative impact on the land values in Vancouver (not to mention the quality of life of its residents).” Well, which is it jimmy? Are property prices in Vancouver affected, ... or not?

To answer his question “ is your argument that public transit infrastructure should increase or that automobile infrastructure should increase”, the answer is simple. We need more of both highways and transit and we have to be willing to pay for it. We aren’t willing to do that because Vancouverites are cheap, except when it comes to building expensive Skytrains that are designed to forestall the installation of genuinely rapid transit. jimmy also “would be delighted if you could give an example of a neighbourhood in any city which has experienced a drop in traffic volume after a freeway has been built nearby.” Well, try Burnaby. Were it not for TCH 1, Kingway, Canada Way, Hastings and Lougheed would have to carry all that traffic in addition to the loads they have now.

jimmy didn’t like the cracks about lattes, but gives himself away with this cynical outburst:

“You are breaking my heart with tales of "second and third class citizens" forced to make the commute downtown. My heart goes out to the poor and oppressed on the North Shore and South Surrey forced to live on the periphery by the selfish people in East Van.”

Not too subtle, jimmy, and a perfect example of the need for amalgamation so that political choices about infrastructure are not systematically corrupted by this kind of prejudicial parochialism. I think Banquos ghost was thinking about the same revolting set of smarmy attitudes when he said:

“Why is every conversation that is about "city council" de facto uunderstood to be about Vancouver City Council? Why is every conversation about "the mayor" understood to be about whoever sits in the chair Larry Campbell currently occupies?”

I also appreciated the comments from alexwh, who tried to introduce a note of on the ground realism:

“All the good advice about walking to work applies quite nicely to paper pushers, executives (even the Tyee editor),etc. How about plumbers? Carpenters? What about those who work in lawn maintenance? As a photographer I need my car to carry my lighting equipment which is very heavy. And what happens when you are over 60 with arthritis? A brisk walk to work? The same applies to all who say we should cycle to work. How many downtown (be it Surrey or Vancouver) offices have showers for sweaty cyclers?”

Predictably, he was shot down by stump, who never, ever stops pretending that he can make all his travel on bike or foot. Everyone knows people don’t actually do this, why do they think they are fooling anyone? Excuse me if this sounds unduly harsh, but I am still angry over the time my wife and I went to Granville Island and there, parking right next to us, was one of BC’s best known anti-auto, anti-Port Mann bridge environmentalists emerging from his very fashionable Mercedes Benz. And neither he nor his companions had dressed at the VV boutique, let me tell you! BTW, how does Granville Island, accessible mostly by car not transit, fit into the approved picture of Vancouver urbanism?

If people can afford to live close to work, they may be commuting by bike or foot, and good for them. I would if I could too. But these people get the car out of the garage pretty quickly when they need it, and I don’t blame them one bit, it’s just their deceitful and arrogant attitude I reject.

The fundamental problem with all these arguments about “livable region” and “smart growth” is that they take no account whatsoever of property prices or job market and family realities. Many people who need either a three bedroom apartment or house for their family cannot afford the prices of such properties near their job. Furthermore, job locations are not the same for both partners, and they do change. Do these “smart growth” morons really think people should be forced to move every time they change jobs? If the husband’s job is in North Vancouver, and the wife’s job is in Langley, where do the “livable region” fraudsters figure they should live so that both can walk or bike to work? Don’t waste your time asking stump this question, for as far as he is concerned, it’s no problem biking anywhere, regardless of age or weather or anything else.

"Predictably, he was shot down by stump, who never, ever stops pretending that he can make all his travel on bike or foot. "

I don't say that Budd. I do maintain that(pulls number out of ass) at least half the single occupant trips in this town could be replaced by bike, bus, or walking.

Sure, there's plumbers and carpenters that need their trucks. There's cargo trucks and delivery drivers that gotta drive. But your average healthy adult human has to start choosing something other than a car whenever possible if we are to reverse a destructive trend. I don't see that happpening. It leaves me frustrated, esp. when people such as yourself are dismissive of the very basic mathematics that demonstrate the efficacy of the bicycle for getting solo travellers around.

"BTW, how does Granville Island, accessible mostly by car not transit, fit into the approved picture of Vancouver urbanism?"

Personally, I usually ride my bike along the seawall... past the smoggy cars... and park right in front of the market. Convenient and cheap. One of the benefits of urban living.

"If the husband’s job is in North Vancouver, and the wife’s job is in Langley, where do the “livable region” fraudsters figure they should live so that both can walk or bike to work?"

When four of the husband's nearby neighbours are probably headed in the same direction, why is there no effective way of matching cars and car poolers?

"Don’t waste your time asking stump this question, for as far as he is concerned, it’s no problem biking anywhere, regardless of age or weather or anything else."

Actually, please feel free to ask me any questions you might have about biking. I hope I can be a useful resource for anyone looking to add cycling and/or multi-modal travel to their transportation alternatives.

Stump, I am really impressed that you have gone so far as to acknowledge that some people do need their cars and trucks for work, as alexwh has pointed out. I think it might be nice if one could also admit that those over 50, those with children, etc., cannot practically make as many trips by bike as can someone who is aged say 15 to about 50 or so, and fit, and with no major disability challenges.

As for Granville Island, if you live in East Van, and are not planning on taking home many groceries, I suppose it would be a good idea to simply bike to the Island for a social outing. At least if the rain is not too intense. But what about people who live further afield, say Coquitlam, Surrey, Ridge-Meadows? On the few occaisions per year when they wish to drop in to Granville Island, do you think they should bike there? Do you think that parking should be banned on the Island, or substantially reduced or raised in price significantly (I can't recall what the parking fees are, but they are much less than some other downtown locations like Pacific Centre, and probably less than UBC).

My point remains. Granville Island is often mentioned as one of Vancouver's urban success stories, and yet it is clearly auto-oriented, except for those in the immediate vacinity, the False Creek apartments who prices have now reached stratospheric levels. The businesses on the Island could not function without their additional customers who are arriving by car in most cases. The one bus that goes there is a screwy roundabout route that no one takes, and the little aquabus is an overpriced joke.

Do people really think cars are going to be around forever?

Really?

"As for Granville Island, if you live in East Van, and are not planning on taking home many groceries, I suppose it would be a good idea to simply bike to the Island for a social outing. At least if the rain is not too intense. But what about people who live further afield, say Coquitlam, Surrey, Ridge-Meadows?"

I can carry a week's worth of groceries in a backpack. If I used two panniers and a bike trailer I would guess I could get much more, although since I'm usually shopping for fresh veggies, etc, you only buy a relatively small amount at a time.

Rain. boo hoo. Last I checked human skin doesn't shrink when exposed to moisture. Are you a man or a mouse?

For those farther afield, perhaps they could ride their bike to a Skytrain station, catch the 99-b from Commercial to Granville, and walk (gasp) the eight blocks from Granville and Broadway to Granville Island?

Let me ask you Budd, where do you draw the line between your immediate convenience and the landscape you leave behind? The problems we face can't be fixed by more highways or more technology. It's solved by carefully husbanding what we have, much the same way that many of our energy concerns can be addressed with conservation measures.

"Last I checked human skin doesn't shrink when exposed to moisture"

Tell me about it. People who drive everywhere will make any excuse for it. They don't want to make the effort to adjust their ways, it's that simple... just too much actual physical effort involved.

Budd, are you being kinda thick on purpose just to make your argument?

"what about people who live further afield, say Coquitlam, Surrey, Ridge-Meadows? On the few occaisions per year when they wish to drop in to Granville Island, do you think they should bike there"

If you want to go to a market and you're too far to walk/cycle then go to a closer one: http://www.findfamilyfun.com/farmersmarket.htm

If you live in the burbs and you want to see GI specifically (once or twice a year), then by all means DRIVE! If on any given day all the cars entering GI that were driven by folks who fairly easily could have walked/cycled suddenly disappeared, most of the cars would be gone.

"If you live in the burbs and you want to see GI specifically (once or twice a year), then by all means DRIVE! If on any given day all the cars entering GI that were driven by folks who fairly easily could have walked/cycled suddenly disappeared, most of the cars would be gone."

Exactly! Just because we (alt-trans types) point out there's a better way doesn't mean we're as dogmatic as those who think that cars are the only answer.

Budd,

I'm not sure that your school analogy regarding induced demand works. There are only a fixed number of children at any given time. On the other hand, while the number of people who commute is (roughly) fixed at any given time, the number choosing to drive is not. A person can bike to work one day and then commute the next. So if there is lots of highway capacity and few commuters, some who take mass transit will switch to automobile. And if the capacity is low, people will choose other methods, if feasible. And this is the argument for mass transit, cycle paths, etc. You gave no empirical evidence indicating this phenomenon is false. It does seem to be accepted by many planners, though.

You mention the Loughheed, HW 1, etc. as examples of highway infrastructure meant to relieve congestion. The Loughheed highway was opened in 1941, when the population of what is now the GVRD outside of Vancouver (it's current boundaries) was less than 150000. The King George highway was built before the Second World War. The population of Surrey at this time was 15000. Kingsway opened in 1913 to connect Vancouver and New Westminster. Highway 1 was built in the sixties, while the population of Vancouver was around 500000 and the population of the lower mainland outside of Vancouver was also around 500000.

The point is that in each case these highway were meant to connect (at the time) distant municipalities, not relieve congestion. So the examples you mention do not apply to your argument. Congestion came much later on, after people began moving out of the city to less densely populated areas of the Lower Mainland. The population demographics quite clearly indicate a shift in population to these areas towards the end of the fifties and beyond. The population of Burnaby grew especially quickly *after* this infrastructure was in place.

I'm glad you commented on the statement I make about people on the North Shore and South Surrey. The purpose of that statement was to point out how ridiculous you claim is that it is only “second and third class citizens” commuting into Vancouver where the population is extremely wealthy. There are some exceptionally wealthy neighbourhoods outside of Vancouver (in fact, the wealthiest in Canada is among them), whose workers commute into the city. And similarly there are some less affluent neighbourhoods within Vancouver.

You keep stating that greedy Vancouverites opposed highways to keep land values high. The paragraph in which I made the "inverse is true" comment was not self-contradictory. The point was that highway infrastructure drives up the price of land on the edge of the city while driving down the price of land downtown. There is considerable evidence showing this trend in North American cities. This is the effect. Your comment was about intent, rather than effect. My comment about the “inverse” happening was meant to show that two can play at the baseless assertion game, where we presume to know the deepest desires of a broad cross section of other people. I wanted to make the same type of assertion as you, except about how the evil residents of Langley are intent on driving their land values up and getting others to pay for it.

All that being said, I am glad that we agree on the importance of mass transit. And on the importance of “amalgamation [of] political choices” about planning and transit in the Lower Mainland. I believe that the concentration of decision making (in the for of the GVRD, Translink, etc.) about these issues has worked exceptionally well.

One of the benefits of increasing density is that there is less emphasis on travel by car. The purpose is not too eliminate automobile usage entirely. In no way is it hypocritical for a person advocating denser planning to own a car (or two, or seven). The idea is stop building developments in which cars are the only commuting option.

Grumpy,

My apologies for the abrasive nature of my previous posts. Your previous post is more the level of discussion I was hoping for. You raise many interesting points. Thank you.

My point about the impact of an at-grade system on traffic was more aimed at auto traffic rather than bicycle traffic. This is one of the main reasons that the Skytrain system was chosen over an LRT system for RAV. The impact on auto traffic down Cambie would have been dramatic. This is plainly a huge benefit of the Skytrain system. So that, as Budd posted above, plumbers and carpenters and so forth can more easily get around. Whether or not the increased cost of burying the line outweighs the this impact, I don't know.

I'm not sure what you mean about how above-grade systems “deter[ing] ridership.” I find the view of the city and surroundings while riding on the Skytrain striking. I enjoy the “elevated aspect” of the Skytrain (not to mention the advantages in travel times).

Regarding the TTC report about LRT, Translink has chosen to implement LRT in the Northeast sector, serving Port Moody and Coquitlam. According to their estimates (I am merely quoting them, feel free to take issue with their numbers) the cost of building a Skytrain system would have been 840 million $, whereas the cost of LRT is 670 million $. Much of this cost is due to the necessity of a tunnel. The travel time for the Skytrain was estimated to be a little over half that of the LRT, and the ridership was more than twice that of LRT. The link is at

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

Was LRT the right choice?

You state that “Skytrain can not track share nor operate on-street, so must be built much more expensively, because of this, it can not serve lightly populated areas. LRT because it can be built much cheaper can penetrate to deeper in the suburbs, thus attracting more ridership.” This is an interesting point. A question that Translink must frequently consider when dealing with large projects is “Should we build transit infrastructure to serve existing development, or should we build transit infrastructure and then try to shape development around it.” The Millenium line seems to have been an attempt at shaping, whereas the RAV is meant more to serve existing commercial and residential areas.

I agree that LRT is without a doubt the right choice for lower density neighbourhood s that will remain lower density in the future. But if the area is growing, as are Port Moody and Coquitlam, the best choice may be to “build big” when it comes to transit, and then encourage dense development in those areas.

If dense development is not going to be encouraged, then I see your point about how LRT is the best choice. But as the population of the city grows, (I suppose I should say, “densifies”), I think the Skytrain will become more and more effective.

Well Stump, you must be pretty good at bike travel to carry a week of groceries on your bicycle. Do you live alone or are you shopping for more than one person?

"I can carry a week's worth of groceries in a backpack. If I used two panniers and a bike trailer I would guess I could get much more, although since I'm usually shopping for fresh veggies, etc, you only buy a relatively small amount at a time."

Even with the side packs and trailers, how convenient is this, especially when you've god some fridge/freezer items and it's a bloody hot day, for example? Is this really how you do things? Or do you use the car, get the shopping chore out of the way, and then go for a more pleasant bike ride? That's certainly my preference. And just to make the point again, surely you don't expect the elderly to shop this way?

"Rain. boo hoo. Last I checked human skin doesn't shrink when exposed to moisture. Are you a man or a mouse?"

The last time I checked rain can significantly interfere with your visibility on a bike, but perhaps you have special goggles or something. Certainly rain gear can be worn, but again, if it's warm as well as wet, it's going to make for an especially uncomfortable trip.

I get the sense Budd's a car dealer.

What about people's health and the issue of obesity.

This over-dependence on the auto, especially in North America definitley contributes to health problems, lack of fitness in many of us, including kids.

Also some people are advocating that people who live unhealthy lifestyles should be required to pay for the healthcare required to treat their health problem (lung disease in smokers for instance)(recent survey commissioned by a pharmacetical company).

I would argue that if this would be applied to smokers, than it should also be applied to car owners (obesity, respiratory disease-auto pollution). Or shoyuld the fuwl taxes be applied to auto induced poor health rather than building more "freeways" (remember they are not actually free!)

I find it ironic when peole drive their cars to a gym to then ride a stationary bike!!!!!!

My apologies for my poor tiping skills!

"And just to make the point again, surely you don't expect the elderly to shop this way?"

And just to make the point again. No, I don't. It's been said repeatedly. Not sure why you fixate on the one area where we agree and choose to use it to suggest I'm being rigid and unfeeling. I do however, expect able-bodied grown-ups to do so where ever possible because it's the community-minded thing to do.

If you can't tread lightly fine, but don't look for the rest of us to buy your weak rationalizations.

"The last time I checked rain can significantly interfere with your visibility on a bike, but perhaps you have special goggles or something."

Well, I guess you go faster than me, cuz at around 20kmh on average the rain is a nuisance but I can still see just fine. The only goggles I ever wear when riding are beer goggles. They DO impair vision.

"it's going to make for an especially uncomfortable trip."

And now we get to the root of the issue. Tell me, is comfort an inalienable human right? Is your comfort worth leaving behind a paved-over paradise for the next generation(s)?

"Even with the side packs and trailers, how convenient is this, especially when you've god some fridge/freezer items and it's a bloody hot day, for example?"

Very convenient. I don't have to walk back and forth to my car, so I don't have to lug the groceries very far. As to heat, I'm guessing my panniers and trailer aren't going to be any hotter than the trunk of your cage (car).

Talk about grasping at straws. You're trying to justify ever more roads on the basis of a minority's occasional grocery trip? Be my guest. I'm eager to hear the reasons.

"Do you live alone or are you shopping for more than one person?"

Ah! Not so subtle attempt to undercut Stump by implying he's a lonely single person! Nice try Budd! Just admit you're kind of a lazy guy.

"how convenient is this, especially when you've god some fridge/freezer items and it's a bloody hot day"

We were talking about Granville Island, one doesn't buy frozen foods at the fresh food market. When I need ice-cream I WALK to the IGA which is much closer to my home than Granville Island (no time for melting).

"surely you don't expect the elderly to shop this way?"

Yup. Either get the groceries delivered (this would be one of those trucks on the road that we've spoken about previously, but this way we utilize one vehicle to many homes so this is more acceptable than each person driving their own groceries home), or they use one of those wheely shopping carts that old people use.

Anyway, where the heck do you live? The old people in my neighbourhood don't drive.

Just admit that you're too lazy and stuck in your ways to envision any other way of doing things than your way.

In answer to jimmy_laroux, I can safely say that he is a dedicated adherent to the doctrines of induced demand and triple convergence, and the disinterested holder of the Bombardier Chair in Transportation Studies at UBC would be proud of jimmy’s work:

“... A person can bike to work one day and then commute the next. So if there is lots of highway capacity and few commuters, some who take mass transit will switch to automobile. And if the capacity is low, people will choose other methods, if feasible.” The fallacy here is the notion that a person can afford a car because the government built a highway. They can’t. They need the income first. If the person is commuting, they are probably going to pick a certain method and stick with it, because of savings on monthly passes and the like. For non-commuting trips, which are probably about as numerous, there is more flexibility, but outside the urban core few would be using transit for these trips and won’t be until Greater Vancouver’s densities have increased substantially across the board.

“You gave no empirical evidence indicating this phenomenon is false.” In an earlier posting I did indeed quote a federal government report that made disparaging comments about the Vancouver anti-freeway mythology, but you didn’t accept it. I guess you don’t think Eastern Canadians are capable of intelligent thought, or that they have no business commenting on how Vancouverites run their city?

“You mention the Loughheed, HW 1, etc. as examples of highway infrastructure meant to relieve congestion. The Loughheed highway was opened in 1941, ...” I meant to say, specifically, that were it not for the freeway, that is the Trans Canada Hwy 1, then the other roads through Burnaby, such as city streets like Kingsway, Hastings, and Canada Way, and secondary highways like the Lougheed, which does have some limitations on access but still has intersections not interchanges, would be filled with a huge amount of additional traffic and have no hope of handling it.

“The point is that in each case these highway were meant to connect (at the time) distant municipalities, not relieve congestion. So the examples you mention do not apply to your argument. Congestion came much later on, after people began moving out of the city to less densely populated areas of the Lower Mainland. The population demographics quite clearly indicate a shift in population to these areas towards the end of the fifties and beyond. The population of Burnaby grew especially quickly *after* this infrastructure was in place.”

If this is your fixed world view, fine. People living in Vancouver City are legitimate, people living in suburbs are not. They are probably trying to save on the cost of their house, something you believe they should be massively deterred from doing by imposing a high congestion tax. In my opinion, as the population of the Lower Mainland grew, the capacity of it’s transportation systems, including highways and freeways, should have grown as well. Your distinction between, connecting municipalities and relieving congestion, is more fake planner talk. There is not such distinction except in political circles. A transportation facility has sufficient capacity for the demands place upon it or it doesn’t and that’s a design and pricing policy decision.
“You keep stating that greedy Vancouverites opposed highways to keep land values high.” That’s the game alright. And when you combine it with their insistence on selecting so-called rapid transit that is not rapid, and not comfortable (ever tried riding on Skytrain all the way to King George on the micro-mini seats?), it’s pretty obvious what the intention was. And then you look at how Vancouver and Burnaby have unduly low density zoning, including in many instances near Skytrain stations, and you look at how the Expo lands had the number of housing units cut in half by City Council, and you consider such incredible measures as floor space ratios, which actually reduce the amount of usable interior space that can be built on a given property, and it’s pretty hard to overlook the fact that it all adds up to one thing, restricting the supply of residential units. So at the same time as these inner city councils are increasing the demand for housing close the core, they are simultaneously restricting its supply. No one can seriously suggest that this combination of moves is some kind of spontaneous accident. It’s a deliberate policy game designed to accomplish one purpose, and one purpose alone. Raising residential land prices.

Has it worked? I have seen ads for small apartments whose price is effectively $400 and $500 per square foot. Actual construction costs are probably about $100 per foot, the rest being land prices. Is this your idea of good social policy, making housing this expensive?

Look, Stump, I don't want to be unduly rude, but you're the one being purposely thick here, not me.

"... why you fixate on the one area .... use it to suggest I'm being rigid and unfeeling. I do however, expect able-bodied grown-ups to do so where ever possible because it's the community-minded thing to do."

Able bodied grown-ups. Those are your words, not mine. You really don't see it do you? There's a bit of soft core fascism, the fit shall inherit the earth, that lies behind this little biking religion of your's.

I don't know what kind of bike you have, but I have a Kona and it's fine for recreation. But when I want to get something done, I use the car. And yes, I do drive to the gym for a cycling class, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's a perfectly efficient use of a person's time, which is also a scarce commodity, just as much as land or energy.

"And yes, I do drive to the gym for a cycling class"

Okay, I think we should just drop the walk/cycle vs. drive portion of this discussion. There's no way Budd is ever going to admit that certain uses of the car are completely excessive. You go Budd! You go drive around in your car. Have fun.

"It's a perfectly efficient use of a person's time, which is also a scarce commodity, just as much as land or energy."

Your time is your own to spend as you choose. Land and energy belong to all us, including those unborn. Are you confident you're not taking a little more than the one-six billionth that is your due?

"There's a bit of soft core fascism, the fit shall inherit the earth, that lies behind this little biking religion of your's."

The fit shall inherit the earth. It was ever thus. Not sure why stating the obvious makes me a fascist.

"all of us" sorry for the typo and hasty hitting of the send button.

"ever tried riding on Skytrain all the way to King George on the micro-mini seats?"

Oh my Lord. You ARE soft. Cry me a river big fella. All your arguments are based on comfort. Do you really think the comfort of a few should be the determining criteria for urban design?

Well Stump, this will have to be the last riposte of the day. I hope you enjoy your evening bike ride around the non-suburb of East Vancouver.

“Your time is your own to spend as you choose. Land and energy belong to all us, including those unborn. Are you confident you're not taking a little more than the one-six billionth that is your due?” Somehow this reminds me of a story I once heard about how MacDonald’s interviews various employees whose performance they are reviewing, the ones they are paying the minimum wage. The question was “Have you ever stolen a minute of MacDonald’s time?”

“The fit shall inherit the earth. It was ever thus. Not sure why stating the obvious makes me a fascist.” Because it smacks of eugenics and the Aryan superman, obviously, certainly when you turn from a hobby into a secular religion.

“Oh my Lord. You ARE soft. Cry me a river big fella. All your arguments are based on comfort. Do you really think the comfort of a few should be the determining criteria for urban design?” I do ride my bike, I will be doing so tonite, then dropping it at the bike shop for a bit of a cleanup. But comfort is important, and there is no reason why Skytrain cars need to be so miserable. Along with the pathetic speeds you have to wonder how such junky stuff could have been purchased, except where the motive was to discourage it’s use by all but the poorest.

Anyone ready for original thought?

If one quarter of all the fossil fuel used to propel road vehicles was used to produce elctricity to feed the grid, those vehicles could be converted and ac-powered.

It isn't likely to happen. Electric motors have too few moving parts to endear themselves to the auto industry.

Zero cents a litre Budd, zero cents a litre.

Zero cents a litre, agreed. But fewer kilometres per hour and not always a safe trip, certainly not on city streets during rain or other inclement weather.

I was amazed when we were up in Prince George around New Years and it was -20 and -30 to see one or two people making their rounds on their bicycles. I guess they have taken Stump's admonitions about the need for Spartan avoidance of comfort to heart!

It's quite interesting how discussion around livibility, zoning, land use etc is often dominated by issues of transportation. Having spent a few years on a small municipal council in the late 90's, the issue of transportation/infrastructure is central to municipal planning. To wit:

Current wisdom tends to favour densification in planned 'urban nodes', linked to an integrated transportation system. In exchange for this densification, the public is supposed to receive an added bonus in the form of additional green space and buffer zones between urban and rural land use.

In theory, Skytrain (or any central transit sytstem) should serve this purpose - and does to some degree. With regard to the RAV line, however, the benefits are not as clear. On the one hand, if you've ever been forced to endure the Knight Street bridge during rush hour(s), the need for a rapid transit system into Richmond is obvious.

On the other hand, I've never understood the rationale behind building a Skytrain line to the airport. In theory, the happy travellers should exit the terminal on a moving sidewalk, and be whisked away by Skytrain to the Hyatt Regency downtown.

In reality, however, I can't see the business case for a Skytrain line to the airport. How many travellers are going to squeeze themselves onto a Skytrain car, with all their baggage in tow, and take transit into the city? What happens if their destination is more than a block or two from a Skytrain station?

Simply put, the ridership from the airport portion of the line simply will not materialize, and the line will fall far short of ridership goals - necessitating huge public subsidies.

As for nodal development, it works only when the other pieces of the land use puzzle are in place. Without a strong green-space strategy - which will reclaim under-developed land for public use and greenspace in exchange for density around transportation nodes, the whole 'livability' issue is moot.

By promoting an end-run strategy of twinning the Port Mann, the provincial government will only succeed in fuelling more urban sprawl in land use backwaters like Surrey, and push the population further into agricultural land and green space. Within five years of such a strategy being implemented, traffic gridlock and pollution will worsen, and the issue of 'livibility' will be lost for at least a generation - along with the attendant rise in health-related costs of a vehicle addicted culture.

The answer - enforce existing MPV lane regulations, expand rapid transit and connecting bus routes, expand parking at key transit nodes, and enhance services like the West Coast Express. Make it easy for folks to leave their vehicles in their home communities, and we will all be happier and healthier for it.

Budd,

The purpose of my argument about switching mode was to show that your analogy about school children was incorrect. I see your point that some who take transit will not be able to take a car, for financial reasons. But the reverse is not true. Bringing up the case of those who cannot afford to commute by car anyway does not bear on my argument, as they obviously would not be contributing to highway congestion anyway. So the argument holds.

You mention the DVP and Gardiner to disprove induced demand. This is also beside the point. To show that induced demand is false, give an example of a congested area which experienced steady or decreased auto usage after a nearby highway was built.

As for why Toronto has high transit usage, I can think so some possible reasons. off the top of my head. For example, the high population density in the city of Toronto (as I pointed out in an earlier post, we can't compare Vancouver and Toronto because the data from the jurisdictions is misleading). Also, all of Toronto's highways are on the periphery of it's borders. Different land use patterns on it's periphery may have contributed as well. Toronto is an older city, and much of it's infrastructure (especially in the city) predates the highway building boom after the Second World War, when travelling by car was less prevalent. While we're on the topic of Toronto, has the 407 eliminated congestion on the 401?

You say that “were it not for the freeway, that is the Trans Canada Hwy 1, then the other roads through Burnaby, such as ... would be filled with a huge amount of additional traffic and have no hope of handling it.” I agree. But this is *precisely* the point. This traffic results from the highways you mention. If a large freeway system had not been built first, then the low density neighbourhoods generating this traffic would not be here (and consequently neither would the traffic).

I never said that people in the suburbs don't matter. Please don't put words into my mouth. The issue I have is with how the region is planned (low densities on the edge and so forth) so as to force the use of the automobile. This inevitably has a negative effect on the quality of life of the residents in the city.

You state (again) that “the game” is to prop up real estate prices. I believe I addressed this in one of my previous posts.

You state that Vancouver has built “rapid transit that is not rapid.” 80 k/h seems pretty rapid to me, especially compared with the average speed on the 401 or the Gardner in rush hour, or the average speed along Cambie or Granville moving with the traffic. Just how fast would you suggest we run the Skytrain? As for the “micro-mini seats” on the Skytrain, unless you weigh over 300 pounds, I can't see how this would be an issue. With any reasonable seat size chosen, there always will be someone too big for them. But regardless, altering seat sizes is a feasible modification to the Skytrain.

I agree that there are “Vancouver and Burnaby have unduly low density zoning, including in many instances near Skytrain stations.” This is true, and I heartily agree that this is something that the GVRD should work on improving. On the other hand, there are success stories, such as Joyce Stn. This is a prototype of development the GVRD should be pushing. High density developments are being built near several stations on the Millenium line.

Small floor space ratios in new condos downtown were meant to guarantee a view for all residents. This was also done to prevent a situation like that in New York, where some buildings get very little sunlight. City planners are encouraging development near the core (Coal Harbour, Yaletown, SE False Creek, and others). How is this "restricting development"?

Regarding affordable housing downtown, I do know that a certain fraction of new developments must have non-market housing. It is part of the Vancouver City Plan. I don't know how successful this has been, though if you could inform me I would be glad. The example you gave me is probably not indicative of the average cost of an apartment in Vancouver, however.

Krispy,

I agree with you fully that pushing nodal development "works only when the other pieces of the land use puzzle are in place." Transportation, planning, and regional environmental stewardship are really multiple facets of the same issue. They cannot be dealt with individually.

I also agree on the issue of the Port Mann bridge. It's impact on livability in the GVRD will be uniformly negative.

Budd,

You state that the "distinction between, connecting municipalities and relieving congestion, is more fake planner talk. There is not such distinction except in political circles."

I would Say that the 401 between TO and London is an example of connecting cities (same with Kingsway, Lougheed, and so forth when they were originally built). The 407 is an example of a highway meant to bypass a city to "ease congestion." Darn it if the real planners don't go ahead and use "fake planner talk."

"I guess you don’t think Eastern Canadians are capable of intelligent thought, or that they have no business commenting on how Vancouverites run their city?" I would be the last to make a comment on Easterners' capability for intelligent thought. I thought Zavergiu's point was quite interesting, and said that. Anyway, lets try to ease up on the ad hominems and stick to the facts, yeah?

NotShorterThan3,

You bring up a good when point when you say that the "old people in my neighbourhood don't drive." And probably neither do the highschool kids other than those about to graduate. This underlines the issue providing transportation options. Designing neighbourhoods for the car alone disenfranchises a large cross section of society who cannot drive.

An earlier poster said cities are more than their transporation systems. The article mentioned our ribbon of common ground (the Seawall). I'd never thought of it in those terms (a narrow, contigous public space). In Singapore, the sewall I saw had restaurants and bars galore along its inland edge. I wonder if the idea of a similar set-up in Vancouver would get a lot of opposition?

My crazy Vancouver urban design idea:

Put a lock in the narrows under the Cambie Bridge. Drain the eastern side and rehab the ground underneath to make it fit for marine life. Refill, restock, make it a no motor boat (Aquabus excepted perhaps) zone. Put a wave machine at the Science World end and sand along the shoreline. Instant urban surf spot and marine habitat for scuba fun and species conservation. Young, monied tourists flock here. Add some tidal power turbines just to be eco-geeks and enjoy.

The thread that seems to have gripped this discussion revolves around two distinct viewpoints that are in constant conflict - the struggle between individuality and collectivity.

Conservative thinkers (and quite a few progressives I know) crave the rural, suburban lifestyle for its physical separation from fellow citizens, and the sense of freedom that physical space provides.

Take a look at Calgary as a prime example. This city has no physical boundaries like the coastal mountains, and has grown like Surrey on steroids. Almost the entire city is comprised of four lane highways, auto malls, private liquor outlets, and cookie-cutter sub-divisions. Every neighbourhood looks exactly like another, except every five years the exterior cladding of the houses changes.

Calgary is Surrey on steroids. Remove the Agricultural Land Reserve and the mountains, and you have Calgary - completely economically and municipally unsustainable in the long term. Residents in both these communities will wake up to a brutal awakening in the next decade or two - when the expansive road network, storm sewers, sanitary sewars, water system and policing requirements completely overwhelm the largely single-family residential community's ability to pay.

But that's the Conservative (neo-Liberal) way; maximize immediate sensory gratificaction with not even the least consideration for the legacy we are all leaving for our sons, daughters, cousins, nephews or fellow immigrants.

As a self-confessed progressive, however, I have to say that I also like the sense of freedom and privacy that comes with owning a car. If I had to completely rely on transit, taxis and alternate modes of transportation - as I did in the early 70's here on the Lower Rainland - I'd go mad (hint: I'm in my 'declining' 40's).

Clearly, the answer is a clever compromise in this case. I currently live and work in Burnaby, so I may not be the best example. But if I had the option of taking a reliable enhanced transit system back and forth to work - which didn't require two hours and three transfers between different modes of transportation, sandwiched in between sweaty fellow travellers every day - I'd take that option.

Once again, the answer lies in smart planning - restrict residential development away from major transportation nodes; expand green-space and recreational amenities around dense residential development; concentrate residential development around transportation nodes; and make public transit accessible and affordable for traditional vehicle commuters.

While it may not get us to Jupiter, it's actually a pretty simple concept. If only we could convince the moneyed-gentry that progress is more than a five acre estate property in the middle of the Agricultural Land Reserve.

Krispy,

You wrote:

"How many travellers are going to squeeze themselves onto a Skytrain car, with all their baggage in tow, and take transit into the city?......

....Simply put, the ridership from the airport portion of the line simply will not materialize,....."

Two excellent points. On the first: Some of us do fly only with a bag that fits the overhead rack.

On the second: As great a beneficiary as airport travellers, will be those visiting B.C.'s largest casino - that takes so much from the economy that it should share much of the cost of the extension, in my opinion.

i think that if vancouver illicits that many diverse opinions about the specifics of this particular city that this fact in itself shows how interesting the built environment here is. the author is very right , when he states that the natural beauty was there long before the city went up and that they automatically give a spectacular backdrop to the buildings, to any buildings. But, hey , that is a trick as old , as any construction itself, you use what is there, so you do not have to pay for building a spectacular landscape around a building, you put the building near to a beautiful lake, in front of beautiful mountains. that in itself does not say that for instance ,concord pacific is ugly, and even if it is, there is unique stuff like science world. like the downtown library, like the burrard bridge. in any given city there is always mix of total bla and fascinating, gorgeous "stuff"

i actually would like to make another point and that is about the authors comment that there are a lot of urban designers here, but this does not show up in a very interesting cityscape. in other words, the author seems to state that there is an abundance of talent, but no outlet for that talent, no tangible manifestation of that talent, no mindboggling buildings, that is.
well, the problem lies in this being a city too small to attract the amount of money to be pumped into building like it would be in a city like , say, shanghai

Coyote! I can let you know in a couple of days if Vong's does, indeed, still exist. Fraser and Kingsway is my hood. If it does I'll check it out.

I have to agree with Stump and Not Shorter than 3 (what does that mean?). Budd, I commuted only by bike my first three years in Vancouver. My friend (who was actually thrown off his bike yesterday by a driver who didn't stop), has been commuting, year round, going on 5 yrs. Lots of people do it. Stump wasn't suggesting EVERYONE should do it; I can think of 5 or so friends off the top of my head who could do it but drive instead, and make lame excuses every step of the way... and have gym memberships. Haha... it's so true! I work parttime at a woman's gym and it's INSANE- like today- how beautiful was it for a hike or bike ride this morning? and these women are pulling up in their SUV's to stare blankly at a television and zone out on a treadmill. Bizarre.

I work out about once a week (if that) at the gym and when women ask me how I stay fit I tell them "I just walk a lot and ride everywhere." I've actually had them say "Oh- well, how OLD are you??" and when I respond "34", they have nothing to say. They tend to think I'm in my 20's... NO EXCUSES! People ARE lazy and one can start making postitive changes at any age; When I was in uni (14 yrs ago), I drove to campus... I lived two blocks from campus!! It wasn't until I moved out west that I changed my lifestyle habits drastically. As a result I'm in better shape now than I was as a beer-drinking, packaged-food eating 22 yr old. Frozen food? What is there besides ice-cream??

It's ALL in your mind. The changes don't have to come at once, but when they do you'll never go back.

Not shorter than 3 would have to mean four or longer.

I'm sorry, I can't resist these things.

Some comments on Light Rail Transit:

Through many posts there is an air of misinformation about modern light rail. Let me try to correct some faulty assumptions.

1) LRT does not cause traffic gridlock, when properly planned and integrated onto the street. Studies have found that LRT enhances traffic flows in the directions of LRT travel.

2) To date, SkyTrain has not proven it can carry more passengers than LRT. Capacity is a function of headway and in europe many tram systems operate headways as close as 30 seconds (I have video to prove this) headways during peak hours.

3) Beware of studies done in the GVRD between LRT and SkyTrain as they are slanted to favour SkyTrain. I critiqued BC Transit's 1993 transit studies and found them to be next to useless as most of their information about LRT was 20 years out of date. That was 13 years ago and now modern LRT has proven to out perform Skytrain: that's why no one builds with Skytrain!

[B]4) Becuse stations and/or stops are so much cheaper for LRT there are more of them. The optimum spacing for stops is about 600 to 700 metres, in an urban setting. On another note: TransLink is always shown to have a higher commercial speed as compared to LRT, this is because there is over double the the stops on a LRT line as compared to Skytrain. More stops = more passengers.

5) Modern modlar LRV's can carry as many as 350 passengers as it has been found that longer cars are cheaper to operate than smallers cars in multiple unit.

6) LRT, with low-floor cars is 100% accessible for the mobility impared. SkyTrain is not. There is no elevator at Granville station for wheelchairs!

7) LRT can travel as fast as 100 kph and climb grades as steep as 10%.

8) LRT has proven to increase business on commercial streets by as much as 15%. Therre is no such data for elevated or underground systems. (Hint: this is why merchants in Portland are fighting for a streetcar on their street)

9) Both LRT and SkyTrain are railways and dhere to the same operating principals. Because SkyTrain is automated (driverless) and uses an unconvential motors (LIM's), it [/U]must always operate[U] on segregated rights-of-ways. This just increases costs and to date SkyTrain has proven to be much more expensive, not only to build, but to operate, when compared to modern LRT. LRT can operate on almost any railway.

10) since the late 1970's over 150 new LRT systems have been built, under construction, or in advanced stages of planning; during the same period only 5 SkyTrain systems have been built - 2 (Vancouver and Toronto) were forced upon the operating authority; 1 (Detroit) is a 4 1/2 k. single track people mover; 1 (JFK airport) is a airport people mover, subsidised by a USD $7 departure tax; 1 (Kuala Lumpo) is a light metro, one of 3 (the other 2 are an elevated LRT line operated as a light metro and a monorail) transit lines built in the city. [/B]Only Vancouver ha expanded its SkyTrain line.
[B]11) Recent international studies (Prof. Carmen Haas-Klau, University of Wuppertal) has shown that the ambience of a transit system and not speed, is the prime factor in attracting ridership!

A bit of history: SkyTrain was forced upon the GVRD by the Bill Bennett Social Credit Party, in a crass political deal with Ontario. Bill Bennett got the famed Ontario "Blue Machine" in exchange by purchasing the UTDC's unsellable ICTS system, which was promptly renamed ALRT, which we know today as SkyTrain and the rest is history.

Perhaps you're right, Grumpy but I've always associated SkyTrain with Bill VanderZalm rather than Bill Bennett.

As far as costs are concerned, I don't doubt that the deals with Bombardier have been far too sweet - for Bombardier that is.

Not to repeat what I've alredy stated, an elevated track may be considered an added conflict-less, safe highway.

True, many of the elevated stations are at times freezing wind tunnels. This could be quite cheaply resolved with the addition of wind breaks. Perhaps the TransLink bureaucrats believe that in so doing they may provide the odd homeless person the ability to garner some warmth.

I believe the crime issue with SkyTrain has been exaggerated causing potential users to avoid the system whilst making work for TransLink security personnel. That is my observation as a frequent user.

Grumpy,

It seems to me that in large cities the choice of grade separated systems seems to dominate (regardless of their specific implementation, i.e. LIMs or conventional trains). Rather than build an LRT line along Sheppard Ave. in Toronto, the TTC decided to go underground, I assumed because of concern over the impact on traffic. And Moscow, Boston, London, Paris, New York, Chicago, Washington, Montreal, and many other, all use elevated trains or subways. While an LRT system may improve the traffic in the direction of the rail lines, the train is headed in that direction anyway and so traffic flow in this direction is less important than than traffic cutting across the train route. If we had built an LRT line up Cambie to Waterfront Stn., traffic along Broadway, 4th, Georgia, Robson, and so forth would have all been seriously affected. And the extent to which it would affected would be proportional to the ridership. Thus the number of trains passing in a given time might have to e limited to guarantee sufficient traffic flow through the perpendicular streets.

According to Translink's comparison of rapid transit systems for the NE sector, to the best of my knowledge, all systems had the same number of stops on the two routes examined. And regarding your point about the 100 km/h speed of LRT trains, would you expect this speed to be achieved on any route through Vancouver or Port Moody/Coquitlam? The Skytrain has the advantage that it can travel at whatever speed its stock allows.

While it is regrettable that some Skytrain stations do not have wheelchair access, this is a relatively easy feature to add to any station.

Regarding business improving along streets after transit is in place, I imagine that this would be the case for any system (buses, LRT, subway, Skytrain, etc.). More people are out of their cars, so more people are walking to and from stations or bus stops.

Regarding point 9), segregated rights of way are precisely the advantage of the Skytrain (and subways and other elevated systems). Does the increased cost in the short term outweigh the benefit in terms of traffic volume and decreased rail commute times? I don't know.

Jimmy_Laaroux - a comment:

TTC official now admit that the tunnel under Sheppard Ave was a major and expensive mistake. Fact is, the TTC is now planning a major at-grade LRT network, instead of grade seperated subways.

Lets see your list of cities with grade seperated metros or ligh metros:
- Moscow, large network of at-grade LRT.
- Boston, network of at-grade LRT.
- London, planning for a large network of at-grade LRT to complement the Croydon LRT.
- Paris, building a massive network of at-grade LRT.
- New York, planning a network of at-grade LRT.
- Washington, now planning several at-grade LRT lines.
- Montreal, actively planning 2 at-grade LRT lines.
Transit is route specific and if ridership demand (300,000 + passengers a day) then light metro or metro is planned for. Many cities with extensive metro networks now find that they do not have the ridership to sustain them and now pan for much more cost effective LRT.

Your comment of LRT cutting across traffic is pure nonsense, sorry there is no difference between a red (stop) light at an intersection for road traffic or LRT! Really, if we follow your logic, we must get rid of all light controlled intersections becasue the "red" (stop) light affects traffic!! Really this nonsense about LRT and intersections is pure fabrication by TransLink!

TransLink's comparison of transit modes in the North East corridor is pure fraud, by incompetent planners. Again TransLink offers nonsense as planning, it's stuff like this that gives Vancouver a black eye!

Only LRT has a proven record in increasing business along its route, as grade seperated transit systems have proven not to attract the ridership to support better business - sorry again your arguments have no basis!

To date, grade seperated transit systems have not proven as successful as at-grade systems, this is the main reason of the success of LRT. If this were not so, why then have transit planners around the world rejected SkyTrain? answer is simple, for all the extra expensive whistles and bangs, SkyTrain has proven inferior to LRT. Sorry to ruin your day!

Skeptikool:

Van DerZalm was the point man for skyTrain, the deal was made by Bennett junior.

I think Krispy has made the point I am trying to make about Vancouver's transit sytem:

"But if I had the option of taking a reliable enhanced transit system back and forth to work - which didn't require two hours and three transfers between different modes of transportation, sandwiched in between sweaty fellow travellers every day - I'd take that option."

Vancouver's infrastructure, whether highways or rapid tranist, has been deliberately low-balled. It's been made as inefficient as possible, often at huge expense. The object, as I have said, is to drive up property prices by making transportation difficult, thereby resulting in price premia on preferred locations. As the prices of these properties begin to rise, so later do all other prices, even those which are located further out. That's the Vancouver game.

Grumpy,

I know with absolute certainty that Moscow uses a subway system, and definitely *not* at-grade LRT (and is in fact the world's most used metro system, at around 9 million passengers per weekday, just ahead of Seoul's metro). Boston also has a subway system, with three lines in fact, though it also has a couple of LRT lines (the "Green line" and another, but I can't remember its name).

Regarding the other cities you mention, you may very well be right that they are building new LRT lines.

You state that only "LRT has a proven record in increasing business along its route." Again, I feel that this is probably likely due to the greater number of people moving into or out of stations. Does the study you've read compare the impact of a new LRT system with the impact of new subway/elevated rail system and find that one improve business and the other does not?

I'd be delighted to read the study you mentioned, if you could post a link.

Jimmy_laroux: Best sit down, because according to my Jane's Urban Transport Systems, Moscow has about 494 km. of light rail route (mostly on-street tramways), with about 1400 vehicles. The metro has only about 208 km. of route milage with over 3100 cars.

When in doubt, consult with the real experts!

As for studies comparing at-grade transit with elevated/subway, there are many and most point to that the fact that the ecconomic impact of at-grade transit is greater than subway and/or elevated systems. Simply, with an at-grade system, customers can see businesses and with convienient stops, customers can shop there.

Please remeber, the metro's you mention are carrying 400,000 to 600,000 passengers per route per day; our Skytrain routes are carrying what their LRT lines carry.

Metro or LRT is built to suit the ridership on each line. SkyTrain is a hybrid system, can only carry what LRT can carry, but at the costs of a metro. Our boys planning transit in the GVRD are not taught the science of modern public transport.

The latest study I have is Ecconomic Impact of Light Rail by prof. Carmen Haas-Klau, of the University of Wuppertal.

Any facts about modern LRT is heavily censored by the Asper Press, for the fear that TransLink will withdraw their $400 thousand annual advertising contracts. The Sun and to a lesser extent, the Province, refuse to publish facts about modern LRT, giving their readers a very unbalanced reporting on transit.

Again I ask these questions: why, if SkyTrain is so good, been rejected by transit planners around the world. Why will Bombardier never pit theit SkyTrain ART system against LRT? Why is SkyTrain always sold in back room deals?

I believe LRT would have more benefit to businesses along its route. It seems self-evident.

I think car people like Skytrain because of the perception/reality that it's competitive speed-wise with cars and bus users and cyclists 'get' the idea behind LRT more than car users. I think transit systems with drivers, or at least conductors, are better than robo-trains.

I know most traffic congestion is a result of accidents at peak times rather than a need for more highways. I also know that getting people out of their cars even one day a week is a pretty good interim step. But, unfortunately, some people won't countenance their sweaty brethren a mere 20% of the time.

Grumpy,

Oops, I see your point about Moscow. Although it seems from your previous post that you were implying that Moscow had used only LRT.

You state my "comment of LRT cutting across traffic is pure nonsense..." But in a previous post you state that "LRT does not cause traffic gridlock, when properly planned and integrated onto the street. Studies have found that LRT enhances traffic flows in the directions of LRT travel." It seems you want to have your cake and eat it too. On the one hand, cross traffic is unaffected, and on the other, traffic flow improves in the rail direction (despite the presence of either a dedicated right of way for the train or trains making frequent stops in traffic).

You state that "grade seperated transit systems have not proven as successful as at-grade systems, this is the main reason of the success of LRT." I find this an odd statement. It is simply a matter of using the correct system for a given setting. The fact that so many cities use metros in an urban setting seems to me to indicate that this is were they are best suited.

Grumpy,

By the way, regarding your statements "Sorry to ruin your day!" and so forth, my questions were not meant to be petulant, and that's how I thought I wrote them. But it seems as though, based on the calibre of some of your responses, that's how you've interpreted them. Actually I find your points about light rail quite interesting.

This has been a very interesting discussion! Some points:

Vancouver has in some circles become a poster child for downtown living, and in many ways I am quietly proud of this. (FYI, I don't live in downtown - but do live and work elsewhere in the city). Mixed-use is great, but I wonder how far it can/should go. One thing that really gets my goat about the whole downtown living issue is the impending conflict between downtown condo owners and the entertainment district.

Now, I've no special use for nightclubs myself, but I believe that people need space in the city for yelling and, frankly, being a bit silly. Cities are storehouses of energy and memory for many people, and this capacity will find individual or group expression one way or other.

Seems to me that back when the phrase "no fun city" was being thrown around (a phrase I disagree with, but that's beside the point), this was the same time that condos were going up in the blocks around the nightclubs along Granville.

Now, I am in favour of mixed-use generally, I think to the extent possible it is a wise idea. But having high-end condos close to nightclubs is where I draw the line. People need sleep, but people also need space to party and, well, to be loud, and I feel that both of these uses must be protected. If they are not, those who want to party at night will find other, less harmonious places to do it.

Also, a few points about some previous posts:

Grumpy / Laroux: I believe the figures quoted for Moscow's 'LRT' refer to the city's network of streetcars, and not the Metro. I certainly don't feel that Moscow streetcars can be compared to Calgary's C-Train in terms of urban form. The contexts are just too different, and the time impacts are different also.

On the point made about transit 'in a given setting': I used to live in Calgary, and thought the LRT was a fine technology in its own right. The only problem with it is the lack of grade separation in specific areas. One yahoo runs a red light, and the whole system is down for hours. Also - this is beside the point, but I should also say that the frequency was really crappy.

The definition of LRT is not the vehicle, but the right-of-way. What is considered light rail is what is called in the trade "a reserved right-of-way", which can be as simple as a HOV lane with rails (the Arbutus corridor is a perfect example of a reserved ROW). Studies have show that commercial speeds are comparable with LRT on a reserved ROW; what makes LRT slower than light metro is that there are more stops on a LRT line.

Of course, except in the GVRD, this is old news and certainly the reason for the failure of the light metro mode. Again I restate, "the only reason that one should build a light metro is when ridership greatly exceeds 300,000 passengers a day - per route."

A tramway is a a rail route on a public road and the term dated from the 18th century. Even a simple tramway offers a huge increase in capacity and speed than a bus (up to 20,000 pphpd @ about 5 kph faster). In Karlsruhe Germany, one can catch a tram in the city centre - which then operates as LRT on a reserved ROW - which then operates as a passenger train and get off in Heilbronn some 80 km. away. all in the same vehicle, without transfer.

Of course some idiots drive through red lights and collide with a tram - just go to Houston, as it seems no one stops at red lights! In Europe, jump a red light and hit a tram, kiss good bye to your drivers licence fo one year!

But SkyTrain has its own problems - suicides @ about 10 or more a year. That means that part of the line is closed for 4 to 6 hours as they remove the body parts. There has been many studies comparing driverless and non-driverless systems and found that driverless systems suffered more down time. Automated transit systems become cost effective when ridership exceeds well over 20,000 pphpd.

Calgary's minimum headway is 2 minutes (transit mall)and will be as low as 90 seconds, when some modifications are made. Many tramway (streetcar) systems offer 30 second headways with no signalling at all. (By Comparison we drive at 1.5 to 2 second headways on highways!) Calgary is now carrying over 210,000 passengers a day, you just got to have reasonable headways at that ridership rate. I read that Calgary is buying 30 new light rail vehicles as well.

J_L now you why they call me grumpy! As I type this, another problem with the 99, with the expected results - don't try to commute to Vancouver! RAV would be of no use for residents in South Delta/Surrey, White Rock as the buses would have been stopped in the traffic chaos!

Well, Grumpy, I think we are at least partly on the same page.

"Metro or LRT is built to suit the ridership on each line. SkyTrain is a hybrid system, can only carry what LRT can carry, but at the costs of a metro. Our boys planning transit in the GVRD are not taught the science of modern public transport."

Where we may differ is on the interpretation. I expect you feel this choice reflects poorly on the competence and judgement of transportation planners for Greater Vancouver. I see it a bit more conspiratorially. I believe this choice of an expensive but low performance transit system is intentional, and can be seen as the transit counterpart to the decisions made in the 1950s and 1960s to build bridges and tunnels such as Deas Island, Oak Street and Port Mann as four lane facilities rather than six or eight lanes. The result is predictable. Rather than facilitating movement they have become dreaded bottlenecks, and I personally believe this was the intended effect.

The point is that the various municipal fiefdoms around Vancouver take a parochial viewpoint and are not interested in good transportation, since that would be inimical to their parochial interests in forcing up real estate values and keeping consumer spending in the municipal borders. Provincial governments, looking for political support, have pandered to this attitude.

When they chose Skytrain they made no mistake. The idea was to spend Vancouver's budget on transit for a transit system that would not deliver rapid mass transit, but with the budget spent on a system that will last many decades, the possibility of fixing this mistake is zero. As intended.

I should really write a piece on modern LRT and transit for the Tyee. So much misinformation, so many leaps in logic, the truth is out there. We have been played for fools by TransLink and the bureaucrats who run the operation. The most relaible transit is the simplist and LRT fits the definition.

Oh well one day i will!

Bailey- You should try and resist.
Actually, it would mean three or longer, anyway :)

StatCan has just issued a new report, a free one actually, on commuting patterns in Metro Areas, based on teh 1996 and 2001 Censuses.

http://www.statcan.ca/cgi-bin/downpub/listpub.cgi?catno=89-613-MIE2005007

Then do the clicks as requsted. I have just downloaded it, but not read it yet.