Vancouver Public Transit [Archive]

hkskyline

May 8th, 2005, 06:15 PM

Carr: megaprojects a waste of money
Glenn Bohn
Vancouver Sun
5 May 2005

Green party leader Adriane Carr said Wednesday the B.C. Liberal government is wasting taxpayers' money on the $1.72 billion Richmond-Airport-Vancouver rapid transit line, just as the last New Democratic Party government did when it sunk almost half a billion dollars into fast ferries.

"I believe they were pushing the RAV line as part of their 2010 Olympic vision," Carr said at a sidewalk news conference near the SkyTrain station at Commercial and Broadway.

"For a 17-day event, it's the wrong way to go and a lot of money misspent."

Carr pointed to a document obtained under the B.C. Freedom of Information Act that she said showed the role the premier's office played in selling the RAV line to Greater Vancouver mayors and councillors.

The document, labelled "PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL," is an Aug. 7, 2002 letter to Ken Dobell, Premier Gordon Campbell's deputy minister.

The letter was written by Stephen Beatty, a Toronto-based managing director with KPMG, a huge consulting company that was advising the B.C. government how to manage RAV. The letter was released by the B.C. government to Don Toffaletto, a founder of an anti-RAV group who is now the B.C. Green Party's communications director.

Beatty urged Dobell -- a city of Vancouver manager when Campbell was mayor and once the top bureaucrat at TransLink -- to create a public sector RAV organization as soon as possible.

"The sooner the public sector sponsors can create the vehicle through which to implement the project, the better," Beatty wrote.

"The specific entity created will evolve as project development proceeds, but the entity's creation will be an important symbol of 'getting on with it' and can be used to begin the process of locking in some of the 'love and trust and pixie dust' aspects of the relationships among the various public sectors in this venture."

The B.C. government subsequently set up RAVCO to oversee the rapid transit line's design and construction, but it wasn't love at first sight for the mayors and councillors on the boards of TransLink and the Greater Vancouver regional district.

The local politicians on the TransLink board turned down the project two times before giving it the green light, and the GVRD board narrowly approved RAV by a one-vote margin.

Carr noted the GVRD had wanted to build the rapid transit line extension into Coquitlam first -- a project she supports.

The Green party wants to cancel RAV and the proposed twinning of the Port Mann bridge. Instead of those mega-projects, the party's 55-page campaign platform says the greens would "reduce dependency on single-occupancy vehicle traffic through tax-shifting measures like tolls, increased parking fees and odometer-based automobile insurance on 'pleasure use' vehicles that reward people who used their cars less." The platform document says greens would take the money saved by cancelling transportation megaprojects and spend it on such things as fast buses, mini-buses, passenger-only ferries and bicycle paths.

Greens have also proposed a five-cents-per-litre "pollution tax" on gasoline as part of its "tax-shifting" philosophy to tax the things that harm the environment.

ssiguy2

May 8th, 2005, 06:40 PM

The RAV line is a huge waste of money. I support the idea idea of the RAV but not at 1.74 billion. Why not LRT for half that price and they could still do the Coquitlam line with the money saved and start on the SkyTrain west ext to Granville where ridership will be much higher and commercial and urban density is higher as well.
Why???........ because its so nice for the politicans to be able to cut a ribbon on a SkyTrain/subway line.
!.74 billion for 80,000 pass a day is highway robbery.

mr.x

May 8th, 2005, 07:10 PM

Vancouver is a city that doesn't have any real highways and rapid transit has to pick up the slack of having incompetent highways. Nobody is going to take transit on something that takes as much time as driving, for example the Coquitlam Line which will be LRT. SkyTrain would take 13 minutes, LRT would take 23 minutes. and how long would LRT take for RAV? 40-45 minutes as suppose to 25 minutes with SkyTrain. Don't forget about that the Vancouver region is smaller and denser than that of Calgary. Also note that SkyTrain is originally planned for the RAV and Coquitlam lines in the GVRD LRS Plan.

Vancouver is a city that thinks ahead 100 years, not 20 years.

and of course, there's always this:
http://www.members.shaw.ca/lrtincalgary/LRTAccident03-27-2002.jpg

If we're to have LRT for RAV, we might as well keep the 98 B-Line instead.

May 9th, 2005, 01:38 AM

The problem with building LRT in Vancouver city limits is that there is no room to put the tracks other than the Arbutus Corridor, because there is no highway system inside Vancouver, people must use regular streets to get around. I don't think there is a single east-west street that can support the elimination of 2 lanes (and I don't think sharing roadway with LRT is feasible). Plus another fact is that half of the area of Vancouver is full of expensive property (full of NIMBYs) and that is the area which rapid transit must go through in order to go to UBC.

queetz@home

May 9th, 2005, 02:43 AM

and of course, there's always this:
http://www.members.shaw.ca/lrtincalgary/LRTAccident03-27-2002.jpg

If we're to have LRT for RAV, we might as well keep the 98 B-Line instead.

By your logic, we should not allow buses and cars in roads as well...:|

http://www.car-accidents.com/pics/1-Car%20Pics-9-2004/12-1-04.jpg

http://www.shafferlawfirm.com/images/accident.jpg

And why do these cities shown in this thread uses trams if they are so dangerous?

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=4072063#post4072063

The RAV line is a huge waste of money. I support the idea idea of the RAV but not at 1.74 billion. Why not LRT for half that price and they could still do the Coquitlam line with the money saved and start on the SkyTrain west ext to Granville where ridership will be much higher and commercial and urban density is higher as well.
Why???........ because its so nice for the politicans to be able to cut a ribbon on a SkyTrain/subway line.
!.74 billion for 80,000 pass a day is highway robbery.

I agree with ssiguy2 and it is highway robbery indeed. Note that the only reason why RAV is expensive is because creme de la creme doesn't want to see a cheaper elevated system (aka Sky-train...a train high up in the sky) at their side of Main Street.

ssiguy2

May 9th, 2005, 03:58 AM

^^^^^^^^
The thing that makes SkyTrain atleat cheaper than a subway and still can handle decent ridership levels is the fact that it is elevated. No land aquisitions and no expensive tunnels. They have completely negated the coost savings by having it underground. Thanks Campbell.......both of you.

hkskyline

May 15th, 2005, 03:12 AM

Vancouver rail line defended: Ravco head stresses importance of line to battle congestion
John Greenwood
13 May 2005
National Post

VANCOUVER - The head of the company set up to watch over construction of Vancouver's $1.8-billion airport rapid transit line played down fears yesterday that the project will hurt local businesses along the route, arguing the project is essential for the economic health of the city.

"This is one of the fastest-growing regions in Canada," said Jane Bird, chief executive of Ravco. "Even if we wanted to, we just don't have the space to add the kind of road capacity that we need. The alternative to building [the line] is to be paralyzed by traffic congestion."

The project -- one of the biggest public-private partnerships (known as P3s) ever undertaken in Canada -- was unveiled in connection with the 2010 Olympics and has received more than $1-billion in government funding.

The 20-kilometre rail line would mostly run underground, connecting Vancouver with the international airport and the suburb of Richmond.

But RAV, as it's known, faces mounting opposition from merchants and homeowners who fear their lives will be disrupted by the line's construction, set to begin in August. They worry businesses along the route will suffer losses and may even be forced to close.

Opposition from the small group has become so intense that some officials close to RAV warn the project could be cancelled.

The rail line is meant to alleviate Vancouver's notorious traffic problems, which are already hurting economic growth.

The north-south corridor between Vancouver and Richmond, not now served by rapid transit, is one of the most densely populated and congested in the Lower Mainland.

Ms. Bird said the project would add transportation capacity equivalent to 10 new road lanes. "Unless we figure out a way to move people through the city we are going to have significant long-term impact on our quality of life."

According to government surveys, more than 80% of city residents are in favour of RAV.

Nevertheless, last month the province announced it was extending the approval process for RAV after a group called Do RAV Right filed a petition in the British Columbia Supreme Court alleging environmental regulations weren't being followed.

The group has warned it is ready to take its battle to federal court if necessary.

Observers say RAV will eventually win the necessary approvals.

The problem is there have already been so many delays that unless construction starts on schedule in August, the line might not be completed in time for the Olympics -- one of the conditions in the contract signed by SNC-Lavalin Group Inc., the leader of the private consortium building the project.

Any more holdups could be "catastrophic," said one source.

The project is being watched closely by companies in the P3 sector. Not only is RAV one of the most ambitious of such projects, it is also one of the first in British Columbia. If it goes well, there will likely be strong interest in further P3s in the province: if poorly, the impact could be felt for years.

The RAV is part of a string of major infrastructure projects -- many of them P3s -- announced by the provincial Liberals when they came to power in 2001.

Public-private partnerships, like RAV, have been fiercely opposed by the labour movement from the beginning.

When the Vancouver transit authority was debating whether to go ahead with RAV last year, the Canadian Union of Public Employees ran ads in B.C. newspapers criticizing the P3 model and accusing the government of wasting money.

ssiguy2

May 15th, 2005, 03:29 AM

I hope they manage to get the whole thing delayed enough so it is cancelled.
If they want the RAV just make it LRT. Have downtown in exclusive ROW....just as fast as a tunnel ie Granville.
Just run it over Cambie Bridge on ROW to Broadway and then a tunnel to KingEd and then atgrade along Cambie which widen enough for its own ROW. All the way to Richmond/Airport.
So simple. I just saved 7km of tunnel which is about 700 to 800 million on a train that will be just as fast on a system that is more user friendly. Also on its own ROW that section is already built saving more m,oney AND it could update and use the existing RailBridge over the Fraser saving yet more millions. I just cut the cost of this lline in half on a system that will be just as quick and carry just as many passengers.

queetz@home

May 15th, 2005, 03:46 AM

I too hope the whole thing is delayed enough so it is cancelled. RAV is such a sham its not even funny. The regional transportation priorities is skewed big time because of this unnecessary subway and it has divided the region so much. And now, it seems RAVCO has lied to the public about the construction method and is now feeling the heat. I feel for those merchants along Cambie St because they supported the project based on a lie and now will pay dearly for it by being bankrupt after all their lifetime of hard work. And why? So that bitch Jane Bird can keep her $1000 per day job? WTF? Why not just elevated it and truly make it a Sky-train, a train high up in the sky, just like what you find in the rest of the Lower Mainland?

Go DO RAV RIGHT GO!!! :naughty:

ssiguy2

May 15th, 2005, 03:52 AM

It will never go above liike reg SkyTrain because it would be an eyesore poor westsiders.
Mid-size cities are no longer building subways..they are LRTing it.
God, we would have a great transit system if we would just follow Calgary's lead.

queetz@home

May 15th, 2005, 04:35 AM

That is true. I moved from the Vancouver area to Portland last year and I am impressed by their surface based LRT systems over here. For the amount of money spent on Skytrain and RAV, one can build a Portland or Calgary style LRT system that can cover all of the Lower Mainland. I don't understand why Vancouver is so reluctant to embrace such a tested and proven system that is popular to so many cities around the world. They aren't exactly as big as New York or Toronto so why spend billions on a subway when a surface LRT system, properly planned, can easily do the same thing? As I said, RAV is such a sham!

rt_0891

May 15th, 2005, 04:38 AM

That is true. I moved from the Vancouver area to Portland last year and I am impressed by their surface based LRT systems over here. I don't understand why Vancouver is so reluctant to embrace such a tested and proven system that is popular to so many cities around the world. They aren't exactly as big as New York or Toronto so why spend billions on a subway when a surface LRT system, properly planned, can easily do the same thing? As I said, RAV is such a sham!

Exactly. LRT has been successful in Melbourne and all these great cities, yet Vancouver dumps cold water over it .. I wonder why? It's not like they're ugly. Maybe the NE Coquitlam line will prove how successful and affordable LRT will be for low density areas of the GVRD.

rise_against

May 15th, 2005, 04:56 AM

im sorr y i dont have time to read the thread but can some one tell me if there is a subway in Van-city or if there are any plans for it in the future?

hkskyline

May 15th, 2005, 05:07 AM

There is no subway in Vancouver. Skytrain runs on elevated rights of way for most of its 2 lines with the exception of a short underground section in downtown Vancouver. The current plan is to build another line to the airport and the southern suburb of Richmond in time for the 2010 Winter Olympics.

ssiguy2

May 15th, 2005, 06:29 AM

8km of the RAV line will be underground.

bs_lover_boy

May 15th, 2005, 09:48 AM

OMG.... Vancouver is different. If LRT is built, then there will be NO MORE LEFT TURNS on those arterial roads which means MORE CONGESTION and LESS ALLEVIATION of traffic. The case for each city is different people!!! Even though Vancouver is a mid-sized city, but the city is currently projecting growth rates at DOUBLE DIGITS. The RAV line is aiming at spurring growth even more. If you want to blame, blame the past. The city has demolished their WHOLE streetcar system for cars. Now, things are just going to get better and I personally do not want this line to be STOPPED AGAIN!!!! The line got 1 billion CAD funding and if it will be cancelled again, that funding will be GONE and then the line will NEVER be considered for at least another 10 years.

P.S. I would not want the Green Party or the NDP to win the provincial election because if that happens, this line will be cancelled yet again. (This line has been proposed ever since the 1970's)

ssiguy2

May 15th, 2005, 06:01 PM

^^^^^^^^
Its not that there is anything wrong with RAV, I greatly support the idea but 1.74billion for 80,000 passengers a day is offensive. They already admit that coming from the airport it will only be 6 minutes faster than the current B-Line on Granville.
Lrt would get the same ridership and a few tunnels could be built.ie Broadway to KingEd and at 41st but that is all that is need. If they did LRT they would be able to upgrade the EXISTINg rail bridge and use it. By doing just that they could save a billion bucks, litterally. That would pay for the SkyTrain extention to Cambie and the Coquitlam line.

HKT

May 15th, 2005, 06:15 PM

"Replace the electric trolley fleet with 228 new, zero-emmission, low-floor trolley buses between 2005 and 2007"

will these be hydrogen fuel cell powered?

Translink is order low floor trackless trolley from New Flyer.

May 15th, 2005, 08:20 PM

1 billion for RAV is nothing when you consider that the feds wasted 1 billion on a gun registry database....

rt_0891

May 16th, 2005, 04:30 AM

1 billion for RAV is nothing when you consider that the feds wasted 1 billion on a gun registry database....

But unlike the federal treasury, $1 billion is a lot for translink and GVRD to afford.

hkskyline

May 16th, 2005, 06:30 AM

RAV line requires blasting: Critics claim popularity of project has plummeted because of cut-and-cover method
William Boei
Vancouver Sun
10 May 2005

VANCOUVER - Construction of the Richmond-Airport-Vancouver rapid transit line will require blasting of volcanic rock where the route curves around Little Mountain, Ravco confirmed Monday.

Ravco, a TransLink subsidiary overseeing development of the RAV line, did not specify in an information bulletin Monday how much blasting might be needed in the vicinity of Little Mountain, which is the remnant of a long-extinct volcano.

The need for blasting had not been confirmed until now, RAV line critic Rand Chatterjee said, but it came as no surprise.

"They did not specify blasting in their noise study, but everyone expected it," Chatterjee said, noting other construction projects as far north as Cambie at 16th Avenue have run into volcanic rock near the surface.

Also Monday, the Do RAV Right Coalition released poll results suggesting support for the RAV line has fallen to under 60 per cent, and that nearly half of Greater Vancouver residents disagree with the proposed use of the controversial "cut and cover" method of tunnel-building.

As well, Gregor Robertson, the NDP candidate in Vancouver-Fairview, called on Ravco and Premier Gordon Campbell to reveal much more information about RAV line costs and contracts so the public can judge whether the cut-and-cover approach is necessary.

Early plans for the RAV line showed it running through a tunnel bored deep underground all the way from downtown Vancouver to Cambie and 37th Avenue. But the environmental approval process revealed earlier this year that surface trench-digging (cut and cover) would be used from Cambie and Second Avenue to 37th.

Merchants and residents along the route have been up in arms ever since, and recently won an extension of a public comment period on the line's environmental impact until May 16, the day before the provincial election.

The Do RAV Right poll found 34.2 per cent of respondents strongly support the RAV line and 23.4 per cent somewhat support it. It found 20.7 per cent were strongly opposed and 14.4 per cent somewhat opposed, for a total of 57.6 per cent for the line and 35.1 per cent opposed.

But 49.2 per cent were either strongly or somewhat opposed to cut-and-cover construction, while only 26.7 per cent supported it.

Strategic Communications asked 300 Greater Vancouver residents for their views, for a margin of error of 5.7 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Chatterjee, who speaks for the coalition, said he has little doubt the RAV line's popularity has plummeted -- it was reported at 70 to 80 per cent several years ago -- because of the controversy over construction methods.

"A sizable plurality of folks are against the RAV line because of the cut-and-cover," he said.

Chatterjee said he thinks the project can be built on time if a second tunnel-boring machine is used south of False Creek, rather than just the one proposed to bore from Granville and Dunsmuir to Cambie and Second.

Robertson said he would like the project to revert to the original deep-tunnel plan, but added the NDP doesn't want budget overruns and "We're not going to rip up contracts like Gordon Campbell has done."

If cost or contracts bind the project to cut-and-cover, the emphasis will have to be on mitigating the impacts, he said, but Ravco has not made enough information public to make that judgment.

"There are a lot of documents still not available to the public, and transparency is what's needed to understand all the costs related to construction," Robertson said.

"If there are privacy issues related to the contracts, then let the attorney-general do a full review of this. But there needs to be scrutiny as to how all the costs were arrived at."

Magnus

May 16th, 2005, 02:07 PM

ssiguy2

May 17th, 2005, 04:40 AM

Vancouver's RAV line will be going under Cambie.........a single family housing road for 70blocks!! Low density, unbeleivable waste of money.

rt_0891

May 17th, 2005, 06:20 PM

Money-losing Millennium Line falls far short of targeted ridership
Numbers up over 2003 but goal still 'years' away: McCallum

Frank Luba

The Province

Monday, May 16, 2005

Ridership on SkyTrain's Millennium Line this year is up 34 per cent over 2003 but is still well below its target and TransLink chairman Doug McCallum says it will be "years" before it gets there.

Weekday boardings in February were 48,100, compared to 35,900 in February 2003.

Add in weekday boardings from Columbia station and the total jumps to 59,100, according to a report going Friday to TransLink's board.

But the target predicted by B.C.'s Rapid Transit Project Office, which oversaw construction of the Millennium Line, was to have 75,000 boardings per day by 2006.

"We won't be hitting those [targets] for a couple of years," McCallum said yesterday.

"I think it will reach its targets once we build light rail out to the northeast sector." The extension will link Coquitlam Town Centre with the Millennium Line.

McCallum also said a number of commercial and residential projects planned for the Millennium Line will also boost ridership.

But they are still in the works and the light-rail connection isn't likely to be completed until "early in 2009."

The older Expo SkyTrain Line, which is crammed like a sardine can at peak hours, covers its operating expenses.

The Millennium Line lost $27 million in 2003 but McCallum isn't sure of current losses.

In 2003, the Millennium Line dropped about $17 million more than it collected in fares and also incurred extra expenses such as borrowing costs, a new works yard, computer changes, bus loops and paying for a portion of a waterfront park in New Westminster.

None of that includes the cost of paying for the $1.172-billion project, which was picked up by the province.

The problems with the Millennium Line ridership do not sway McCallum's support of the $1.72- billion Richmond-Airport-Vancouver rapid transit project, which is expected to have riders going to Richmond at the same time as travellers head into Vancouver.

"The ridership is there and will be even greater when it's finished," said McCallum.

fluba@png.canwest.com
© The Vancouver Province 2005

officedweller

May 17th, 2005, 11:28 PM

Couple of notes:

The Millennium Line is still incomplete. Phase 2 is the Coquitlam extension and Phase 3 is the Broadway extension. Until those are built (or at least until the Coquitlam LRT is built), it will be under projections.

WRT street-running LRT in Vancouver - City Council said NO in a big way to any thought of street level LRT for the RAV line. After the first NO vote at the GVRD, the City of Vancouver reaffirmed its position - which caused some board members to cahnge their votes. The comparison to Portland and Calgary aren't good ones, because they have extensive freeway systems - so fewer cars use the arterial roads the LRT runs on. Vancouver doesn't have freeways - all it has are arterial roads, so clogging them up with LRT would be painful.

As for capacity - these lines are built for the future, not the present. If you build for the present, you'll always be behind. How often do you hear about infrastructure facities that are currently handling much more than its original design specification?

ssiguy2

May 18th, 2005, 09:59 AM

I agree that the Millenium Line will come along as soon as the NE line is done and especially when the Broadway ext is finally done.
The RAV line will never get more than 150k a day. Still low ridership for 1.74 billion. It will takes atleast 30 to reach that number as by 2011 they only expect 80 to 90K a day.
The GVRD is not growing fast enough to quantify this kind of expense. This made worse by Vancouver's legendary poor urban planning which is allowing Surrey and Coq to be the fastest growing. Richmond is only growing at 1.3% a year.
LRT will be fine for atleast 50 years. Remember a lot of the ridership figures are also quite deceptive. They will get those numbers by transferring many routes {like the busy Granville} to cross Cambie . It will actually take longer to get downtown from Marpole with the RAV than just the regular Trolley to say nothing of the BLine.

npinguy

May 19th, 2005, 02:36 AM

hkskyline

May 19th, 2005, 04:23 AM

Burnaby councillors still unhappy with idea of firearms for SkyTrain police
18 May 2005
Vancouver Sun

BURNABY - If TransLink wants to sell Burnaby council on the idea of armed SkyTrain police, they're going to have to try harder. Burnaby has more SkyTrain stations than any other municipalities and councillors raised concerns about the force last month.

In a response, Supt. Carl Schmietenknop of the Burnaby RCMP noted that the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Policing Service will consist of about 90 officers. The service is hiring existing or retiring officers from RCMP and municipal forces.

All will get testing and/or training to ensure they meet policing standards, including firearms and use-of-force training.

Coun. Lee Rankin said it's reassuring that most transit police will be experienced officers. But he wondered whether they will be equipped with non-lethal alternatives to firearms, such as Tasers or bean bag guns.

Coun. Doug Evans said firearms are not needed and the presence of officers would be enough of a deterrent to crime.

mr.x

May 19th, 2005, 08:03 AM

Bean bag guns? What are they thinking?

ssiguy2

May 20th, 2005, 02:22 AM

Having police on the subway is obscene.
Why don't they use those police for where they are needed............the city streets.

hkskyline

May 20th, 2005, 03:36 AM

Constables patrol the Skytrain since it doesn't have gates so some people may not pay to ride. A lot of metro systems around the world have police coverage, including Toronto.

sukh

May 20th, 2005, 08:30 AM

As for capacity - these lines are built for the future, not the present. If you build for the present, you'll always be behind. How often do you hear about infrastructure facities that are currently handling much more than its original design specification?

Yeah, thats what people seem not to understand smaller and less dense cities like Calgary and Portland can sustain at grade less capacity transit systems, whereas Vancouver cant, in the future it will have to rip up and build a more capacity system, so its better now to build it right for much more capacity for the future.

rt_0891

May 20th, 2005, 11:21 PM

Yeah, thats what people seem not to understand smaller and less dense cities like Calgary and Portland can sustain at grade less capacity transit systems, whereas Vancouver cant, in the future it will have to rip up and build a more capacity system, so its better now to build it right for much more capacity for the future.

Huh? Portland's metro population is around the same as Vancouver's...Portland's not smaller. Also, density wise, they're not that far apart.

zonie

May 21st, 2005, 12:03 PM

They definitely should go the "non-lethal" route with weapons, if they're even necessary.

renthefinn

May 21st, 2005, 02:05 PM

^^what's the difference between Portland's and Vancouver's metro areas, and commuting patterns? I've been to Portland several times, and the city always 'feels' slightly smaller than Vancouver, at the same time Seattle metro feels quite a bit bigger than Vancouvers, so I'm curious to know the similar metro numbers.

sukh

May 22nd, 2005, 01:23 PM

Vancouver's metro with Burnaby, Langely, Delta, Coquitlam, Maple Ridge, New Westminister, North Vancouver, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Richmond, Surrey, University of endowment lands, West Vancouver and White Rock = 2.2 million, with Abbotsford, Chilliwack, Mission = 2.4-2.5 million.

Portland Metro area, Beaverton, Gresham, Hillsboro, Milwauki, Salem, Tigard, and Vancouver = 1160362, if someones from Portland, hopefully you can shed the light as to what makes the metro add up to 2 million.... regardless its smaller and density wise lol, its not even close.

Seattle metro area, Arlington, Bainbridge Island, Bellvue, Auburn, Bremerton, bothell, everette, Edmonds, Tacoma, Redmond, etc... too many suburbs lol but its around 3.5-3.7 million.

ssiguy2

May 24th, 2005, 03:34 PM

I don't at all agree with armed police at stations. The rational is that Vancouver has a high crime rate and EXTREMLY high compared to other major Canadian cities like Toronto. Primarily due to Vancouver's drug problems and lower incomes with honour system which makes for a lot of cheating. You don't get crime or as much fare evation In Calgary's CTrain due to its much lower crime rate.

hkskyline

May 26th, 2005, 03:49 AM

SkyTrain glitch between Waterfront and Stadium
Last updated May 24 2005 04:27 PM PDT
CBC News

VANCOUVER – A technical problem between Waterfront and Stadium stations is causing delays for SkyTrain passengers trying to get out of downtown Vancouver on Tuesday afternoon.

One line of the track was shut down after it was discovered officials couldn't communicate with the automated trains.

That means trains won't be going or into the downtown core. Instead, trains on the Expo line will turn around at Stadium station. And shuttles will move passengers to Waterfront.

"There could be some delays getting out of the downtown area depending on how long it takes to rectify the problem," says TransLink spokesperson Ken Hardie.

"If we're still running the shuttle train between Waterfront and Stadium, then it will be pretty busy along Granville, Burrard stations. At the same time, people can make their way directly to Stadium station and they should be able to pick up trains more or less normally."

SkyTrain officials don't know how long it will take to fix the problem.

ssiguy2

May 26th, 2005, 06:31 PM

Things like that happen to all systems but with SkyTrain they are few and far between. I'm more interested in the safety record and the SkyTrain for all its faults has not had one accident in the entire 20 years its been in service.

Roch5220

May 27th, 2005, 01:13 AM

SkyTrain glitch between Waterfront and Stadium

VANCOUVER – A technical problem between Waterfront and Stadium stations is causing delays for SkyTrain passengers trying to get out of downtown Vancouver on Tuesday afternoon.
.

Thats gotta suck for commutters.

ssiguy2

May 30th, 2005, 01:51 AM

Certainly but things happen on all systems from time to time.

EastVanGuy

June 3rd, 2005, 01:12 AM

TransLink awards new transit ad contract to Lamar Advertising

In a deal that could be worth at least $135 million over the next 15 years, TransLink has signed a contract with Lamar Advertising to market advertising on the transit system including buses, SkyTrain, SeaBus and West Coast Express. Lamar, formerly Obie Media, was awarded the last contract in 1998 by BC Transit, which expires at the end of July.

An in-depth analysis rated their proposal best overall of the four received based on the guaranteed payment, current advertising products, new revenue opportunities, potential ad revenue from the 2010 Winter Olympics and other factors. The contract is for ten years and TransLink has an option to extend it by another five years. TransLink will receive 60 per cent of the net advertising revenue after expenses, or a guaranteed amount, whichever is greater.

The guarantee will be $5.5 million in the first year, ramping up to $9.8 million in the tenth year, and $13.1 million by the 15th year if TransLink exercises the option to extend the contract beyond 2015.

“Lamar’s experience in this market and their understanding of what can and cannot be done here really stood out in their proposal,” said TransLink Chair Doug McCallum. “We have great confidence that they will exceed the minimum guarantee, which will be a huge boost to our plans to expand transit services. Every dollar we can generate through advertising is a dollar we don’t need to charge in fares or taxes,” he said.

TransLink offered a longer contract than the one due to expire this year in order to give the successful company more time to develop new, innovative media such as video on transit vehicles and at stations, and to recoup their capital investment. There are thousands of advertising spaces currently available on the system, including inside and outside vehicles and at transit stations. With an annual circulation of over 270 million passengers, TransLink’s transit network represents the biggest single advertising medium in the province.

Chair McCallum said the surging economy and the growth in the transit system, in terms of ridership, hours of service and vehicles, have significantly increased the potential value of the advertising contract. “We’ve bucked the trend in North America, where a number of large systems have actually seen their revenue decline in new contracts. Ours will more than double, from an average of $4 million per year over the last seven years to an average $9 million per year if the new contract runs the fullest possible term.”

ssiguy2

June 3rd, 2005, 04:25 AM

RAV stations...........
I read that the new Vancouver/UBC planning transit plan will include a new 16th Ave bus {thank god} but RAV won't have a 16th Ave station because it doesn'r have a bus transfer. How will this effect RAV stion allighnments?
I hope they get a station, 16 blocks between stations in the city is rediculous and only Translink could do it.

hkskyline

June 9th, 2005, 05:44 PM

RAV construction starts in August: Early jobs are preparatory activities, including utility and road relocation
Maurice Bridge
Vancouver Sun
3 June 2005

VANCOUVER - Preliminary construction on the $1.72-billion Richmond-Airport-Vancouver rapid-transit project is scheduled to begin in August, Ravco CEO Jane Bird said Wednesday.

In a meeting with the editorial board of The Vancouver Sun, Bird said a number of jobs will be started soon.

"The early ones are preparatory activities, including the utility and road relocations to allow for formal construction of the line itself, in particular construction of the bridge over the north arm of the Fraser River that will begin this fall, and the beginning of the cast-concrete facility at the corner of Kent Avenue and Fraser Street," she said.

Bird said Ravco expects federal and provincial decisions this month on its application for an environmental assessment certificate to allow its cut-and-cover construction to proceed.

Cut-and-cover construction, which involves digging a deep trench, is planned along Granville from Hastings Street to the south side of Dunsmuir Street in the downtown core, and from Second Avenue to 37th Avenue south of False Creek along the Cambie Street route.

Ravco will be in B.C. Supreme Court later this month for an estimated three days to answer a petition filed by the Do RAV Right Coalition, which is challenging the process under which the provincial environmental assessment office accepted Ravco's application for a permit.

Controversy arose late last year when it became known the underground portion of the RAV line would be built using cut-and-cover construction, rather than boring a tunnel.

"The matter at hand is whether the process followed by the environmental assessment office in particular, and by RAV as the applicant, was consistent with the Environmental Assessment Act and the requirements of that act," Bird said. "Our position is that it was entirely consistent."

She said Ravco has been holding discussions with residents of the Cambie Street boulevard area, as well as with business owners and operators along the length of the planned route.

While she reiterated Ravco will not compensate business for lost revenue due to construction, she said it will provide funding for a project director to help businesses deal with the disruption, and to provide market research to measure potential disruption.

She would not say how much money RAV will contribute, but added a director should be in place by September.

Jeff Hewitt, Ravco's senior vice-president of engineering, said Ravco is in negotiations with the City of Vancouver to reroute vehicle traffic during construction.

The plan under consideration calls for closing the northbound lanes of Cambie Street along the eastern side of the boulevard from 25th Avenue to 63rd Avenue. Traffic would be redirected to the current southbound lanes on the western side, which would be reconfigured as one northbound lane and two southbound lanes.

Traffic would be kept to three lanes to minimize the need to cut into the existing boulevard and to reduce traffic flow to cut down use of side streets by commuters.

Hewitt said the rerouting would be done in sections, each involving one major intersection at a time and progressing southward.

Bird said financial negotiations with SNC-Lavalin/Serco and InTransitBC, the company it has put together to handle the project, are expected to conclude by the end of June.

ssiguy2

June 10th, 2005, 02:28 AM

So the $1.74bil line for lousy transit begins, yeeha!
What a waste, could be just as fast for half the price and that extra $800mil would but a lot of buses and SkyTrain cars. But LRT doesn't look as pretty when cutting a ribbon.
Highway robbery on the tax payer's highway.
Of course this all could have been avoided if Vancouver had used something known as urban planning 30 years ago.

rt_0891

June 10th, 2005, 02:31 AM

RAV approval worries Cambie businesses

Last updated Jun 9 2005 08:22 AM PDT
CBC News

VANCOUVER – Some Cambie Street business owners are upset over the government's approval Wednesday of the RAV line's environmental assessment.

The study found the so-called cut-and-cover method of tunnelling for the new airport-to-downtown connector to be environmentally sound.

The Cambie Street section of the RAV line was originally slated to have its tunnelling done using an underground boring technique, but that was changed to a cheaper cut-and-cover plan that will involve above-ground construction.

Business owners along the planned rapid transit route maintain that method of construction would kill their business.

But provincial Resource Management Minister George Abbott says the final environmental hurdle for the project has been cleared and the RAV line is a go.

* LINK: TransLink background on RAV line

Abbott says despite claims to the contrary, construction won't hurt businesses along the Cambie route. He says businesses will be affected during a three-month period, but pedestrian access will be maintained.

"We believe that by having the business liaison program (and) having RAVCo work closely with the businesses, that those impacts can be mitigated."

Despite the minister's assurances, many entrepreneurs say they won't be able to stick it out in the neighbourhood.

"I'd like an answer as to how I operate a store for children on a construction site," says Corrie Clark, owner of the Oh Baby store on Cambie Street. "They say they'll mitigate my impact all the time. I'd like to know how they're going to mitigate my impact."

Clark says she will likely go out of business because she can't afford to move. But she says she'll continue to protest the RAV line until work crews are at her front door.

CBC does not endorse and is not responsible for the content of external sites. External links will open in a new window.

Roch5220

June 10th, 2005, 02:32 AM

So the $1.74bil line for lousy transit begins, yeeha!
What a waste, could be just as fast for half the price and that extra $800mil would but a lot of buses and SkyTrain cars. But LRT doesn't look as pretty when cutting a ribbon. .

I quite agree IF they could build proper ROWs which I don't know if they can. I would love to see a downtown tram loop to serve DT Van residents with any savings. You question their urban planning though, one of the best in N.A.? Maybe they are building for the next 30 years, and its cheaper to build it now than later.

EastVanGuy

June 10th, 2005, 03:18 AM

I quite agree IF they could build proper ROWs which I don't know if they can. I would love to see a downtown tram loop to serve DT Van residents with any savings. You question their urban planning though, one of the best in N.A.? Maybe they are building for the next 30 years, and its cheaper to build it now than later.
there is a propsed downtown streetcar for Vancouver
http://city.vancouver.bc.ca/engsvcs/transport/streetcar/index.htm

Roch5220

June 10th, 2005, 03:37 AM

If it goes ahead, I hope they don't use any of those 'modern streetcars'.

ssiguy2

June 10th, 2005, 04:09 AM

You buid for tommorrow but also tommorrows ridership. Point of fact is that Vancouver and Richmond are growing SLOWER than the regional average at about 0.8%/year. Hardly stellar.
Toronto's 6km of new Sheppard subway carries more than the 28kmRAV line is expected to by 2015.
Modern LRT could work well, CTrain is testimate to that and some sections including downtown to 25th could be underground but after that ROW streetlevel.
SkyTrain, despite serving a much larger population and length carries the same number of passengers as CTrain but has cost QUADRUPLE the price. Most cities would have learn't their lesson but obviously not Vancouver.

Roch5220

June 10th, 2005, 04:19 AM

Yes, but it is a hybrid commuter line. You can't compare it to an inner city subway. Compare it to GO, but just a better frequency (even though there is a proposal to drasically improve almost subway like frequencies on the lakeshore GO lines).

ssiguy2

June 10th, 2005, 05:24 AM

Yes but a GO line doesn't cost $1.74bil

Homer J. Simpson

June 10th, 2005, 05:58 AM

Am I the only person here who finds this appalling?

It almost looks as if Vancouver has decided to use the most expenisive form of public transit with the exception of subways.

EdZed

June 10th, 2005, 06:03 AM

queetz@home

June 10th, 2005, 06:12 AM

^ Don't even get me started on appaling. RAV is absolutely despicable and I would like to point out that Translink was practically coerced into accepting this project by the BC Provincial government, namely that childish Minister of Transportation, Kevin Falcon, who threatened Northeast municipalities that they will never get their measely provincial contribution for their LRT and the stall tax for their bridge unless they approve RAV.

Supporters of RAV only do so because they want a toy train to showcase on the Olympics. Its not about planning or doing what is right. And frankly, I don't know how a light metro that goes underground, denying its riders a view of beautiful mansions is "showcasing" the city. Of course, those creme de la creme are the sole reason why RAV does not make sense. Instead of having a homogenous Skytrain - that is a train high above their homes - we have a $1.7 billion white elephant that will SUCK the life out of Greater Vancouver taxpayers for decades to come.

I'm glad I am no longer a taxpayer and resident of the Greater Vancouver Regional District. The politics are a joke and it goes beyond logic and reasoning how decisions are made there. Totally appalling indeed!

Homer J. Simpson

June 10th, 2005, 07:09 AM

Glad to know I'm not alone.

Roch5220

June 10th, 2005, 01:51 PM

Yes but a GO line doesn't cost $1.74bil
If you had to start from scratch, it would be expensive.

Roch5220

June 10th, 2005, 02:04 PM

Sorry, back on topic.

@homer - I don't think is this is entirely a waste of money. What are the alternatives, a slower LRT system thats at street grade?

"Supporters of RAV only do so because they want a toy train to showcase on the Olympics."

But isn't such lines showcase a region's propsperity? Theres an expo line, and now an olympic line. I don't think it will be a toy line in say 30 years.

Would you rather have the line then say the alternative with the money, which would most likely be nothing.

Homer J. Simpson

June 10th, 2005, 07:34 PM

^I agree that an at grade LRT is not the right solution but I'm sure an LRT based solution would be cheaper and just as effective.

Nutterbug

June 10th, 2005, 08:58 PM

Having police on the subway is obscene.
Why don't they use those police for where they are needed............the city streets.
Because without turnstiles, the trains are a very convenient free getaway vehicle for criminals. Most property crimes in the GVRD are committed within a few blocks of Skytrain stations.

Nutterbug

June 10th, 2005, 09:10 PM

^^^
You are not the only one who thinks this is appalling, this is much too expensive and I think that Vancouver/Ricmond should upgrade Cambie and put the RAV in the median, not only would they save a pile of money they would also have a better road.
I totally agree. Cambie south of QE Park has a huge median. There's no excuse for not using some of that space for the RAV Line if it's going in that same direction.

ssiguy2

June 10th, 2005, 09:42 PM

It shoul be an LRT system. It could be underground til KingEd as it is very congested but after that it should be atgrade using the Cambie Boulevard. There is lots of space. The idea of building 70 blocks underground in a low density area is absurd. LRT would be just as fast and could also save money but upgrading the Fraser River Rail Bridge.
If they had planned it should just go down arbutus for a quater of the price and still be near VCH and much closer to UBC and also useful for 4th Kits area residents and FalseCreek and GranvilleIsland.
The 4th and Broadway areas near Arbutus are hi density unlike Cambie. It would also be faster to the airport.

bs_lover_boy

June 11th, 2005, 08:57 AM

ssiguy2

June 11th, 2005, 09:27 PM

Everyone happy?.......not the taxpayers.
Translink and the GVRD had it cooked from the start. They demanded that whatever route it took it must be automated. That cut out any atgrade or LRT system. What other system is driverless except SkyTrain???
The feds had already committedf $350mil as had the province {later to rise to $450} and with the airport funding their spurt line and private sector money then there it was.
Despit Translink stating they were open to all technology and systems by putting down the requirement of a driverless system means it had to be SkyTrain.

mr.x

June 12th, 2005, 01:52 AM

Credits for article, queetz.

You can name new LRT line

By Janis Cleugh
The Tri-City News
Jun 11 2005

Want to ride the Golden Spike Line? How about the Terry Fox Train?

TransLink is looking for a catchy name for the planned Coquitlam-Port Moody rapid transit alignment and is offering prizes to the winner of the naming contest.

Spokesperson Ken Hardie said the regional transportation body is looking for a moniker that would reflect the spirit of the community.

"We need to, as much as possible, build it into the local personality," he said. The purpose of naming the line serves to locate the rapid transit service, just as the Expo line, the Millennium line and the RAV (soon to be "Canada" line) do, Hardie said.

The contest, which is open to Tri-City residents, kicks off Thursday at 10 a.m. at Coquitlam Centre mall.

Coquitlam Mayor Jon Kingsbury said he hasn't got a moniker in mind, but suggests, perhaps, a First Nations-inspired title.
"I think it'll be really interesting to see what kind of response we get from the public," he said.

A TransLink committee will make its decision in August.
Hardie invited the public to attend the kick-off and to see and make comments on the proposed designs for the project. "We want people to look at the new service as though they bought a new house and now they get to chose the colour of the carpet and the kind of countertops, cabinets and faucets," Hardie said. "The decisions that we can make now can make a huge difference in how well it integrates into the community."

The $800-million rapid transit line, from Lougheed Mall through Port Moody to Coquitlam Town Centre, is expected to begin operation in late 2009.

June 12th, 2005, 06:50 AM

ssiguy2

June 12th, 2005, 06:52 PM

I know there are some driverless subways but the RAV is going down a low density road.........single family if you can beleive it.
Translink is throwing good money after bad.
It is expected to carry only 70,000/day and only 30,000 will be new to transit as they are rerouting many of the bus lines to it to help get the numbers up.
The first SkyTrain line has decent ridership numbers but since then its been a waste of money.

Nutterbug

June 12th, 2005, 10:52 PM

They wanted to use the median, but the residents there said that the median is part of the "Historic" Boulevard which must never be touched, then Translink said underground and everyone is happy again (that is other than the cost)
And how much of its pristine "historic" state is going to be preserved if it is cut-and-covered through?

bs_lover_boy

June 13th, 2005, 12:15 AM

And how much of its pristine "historic" state is going to be preserved if it is cut-and-covered through?

Not sure, but that was what the residents of cambie street want, so that is why this line is now gonna go underground.

ssiguy2

June 13th, 2005, 03:47 AM

^^^^^^^^
Premier Campbell also refused it to go down Arbutus becuase its too wealthy and would hurt his constituents.

officedweller

June 13th, 2005, 06:57 AM

A few notes:

RAV is third rail light metro - not Bombardier's Skytrain, but similar.

Automation technology is independent of the propulsion technology. LRT can be automated, but would still have to be in an exclusive Right-of-Way to avoid hitting cars. SNC-Lavalin's alternate proposal proposed a hybrid system that could be manually operated on No. 3 Rd - but was rejected because the cost was too high (the bids were for a "DBOM" contract covering design, build, operate (LRT has drivers!) and maintain).

Cambie was chosen because it has more passenger destinations within the City of Vancouver than Arbutus does. The Arbutus Right-of-Way is owned by the CPR and would need to be purchased. The Arbutus Right-of-Way is also being reserved by the City of Vancouver for an expansion of the False Creek streetcar. The "creme de la creme" caused the Arbutus Right-of-Way to be rezoned by the City of Vancouver to prohibit an elevated rail line along it. Cambie also provides a more direct route to Richmond - remember the line is chiefly the Richmond line - the Airport component is a spur.

After RAV was defeated at the Translink Board, the City of Vancouver made it known that it would not even consider an at-grade down Cambie Street option due to traffic interruption. That caused some board members (who were holding out hope for a cheaper alternative) to change their votes.

The "Cambie Heritage Boulevard" is fiercely protected by heritage advocates in the City of Vancouver (as well as the City of Vancouver itself).

The SNC Lavalin bid for RAV places the tunnel under the northbound roadway - not under the median. There is also a large BC Hydro line under the median that would require costly relocation if an at-grade or trench or cut and cover option were used in the median. The only place where the median will be impacted will be at the 64th Ave portal - but the curb lanes will be removed to create new greenspace to compensate.

Bombardier's rejected bids avoided tunneling south of 49th Ave. since it proposed an open trench in the median (with a bored tunnel north of that). Its bids were higher than SNC-Lavalin's bids, so it was rejected.

By going with SNC-Lavalin's bid, we got more tunnel at lower cost than Bombardier's open trench. That's because SNC-Lavalin lowered costs with the shallower cut and cover construction and with precast tunnel segments.

WRT Millennium Line ridership, here's an excerpt from Translink's May 9, 2005 board report indicating Spring 2005 daily ridership at 59,1000 versus projected 2006 daily ridership of 75,000 (which assumed the Coquitlam line was operational in 2006). Spring 2003 ridership was 43,900-44,900 - a sizable increase over 2 years.
The Millennium Line was built to shape growth, not serve existing growth.

crazyjoeda

June 13th, 2005, 07:08 AM

I know there are some driverless subways but the RAV is going down a low density road.........single family if you can beleive it.
Translink is throwing good money after bad.

May I remind you that expo line was built along a less dense corridor and it has lead to massive development around each station so much so that the Expo line alone now carries close to 1million people a week. Look at the construction along M-Line in just the last few years that it has been running. You can guaranteed that by 2020 several dozen highrises will be built along Cambie, I think Oak Ridge will become like anouther metro town.

mr.x

June 13th, 2005, 08:54 AM

May I remind you that expo line was built along a less dense corridor and it has lead to massive development around each station so much so that the Expo line alone now carries close to 1million people a week. Look at the construction along M-Line in just the last few years that it has been running. You can guaranteed that by 2020 several dozen highrises will be built along Cambie, I think Oak Ridge will become like anouther metro town.

Oakridge will for sure turn into another Metrotown, and hopefully they will tear down the whole Oakridge complex and build something new and spectacular (better than Aberdeen) with a bigger shopping centre, more parking (but only either underground or stacked), a lot of condos, and office towers - note that all of this is in site, not off site).

officedweller

June 13th, 2005, 10:58 AM

I predict mid-rises for Oakridge (10-15 stories max).

The City of Vancouver is (overly) sensitive to neighbourhood concerns regarding densification and I don't see it changing its approach drastically. i.e. Broadway & Commercial is not densely developed for fear of disrupting the neighbourhood. The City of Vancouver has only allowed significant rezoning and densification where industrial lands have been converted to residential (Joyce & Main Street) or high tech office (VCC, Renfrew & Rupert). In any other City, there would be a forest of highrises at a transit node like Broadway & Commercial - in the City of Vancouver they've prevented it - possibly fostering the decline that plagued/plagues the area.

I can also see the rental walk-ups along Cambie between 16th and King Ed replaced by Arbutus Lands type developments - 6-10 storey blocks. I think Olive (and Pacifica before it) are representative of what will be built.

Richmond will densify, and already has some plans for the Bridgeport Station area. There are also a number of developments planned for No. 3 Rd (Acqua, Paloma).

jer4893

June 13th, 2005, 05:32 PM

No one is thinking here. Yes, it it a lot of money, but skytrain is expensive. ssiguy2, you say that Van and Richmond are growing at only 0.8% per year but what, isnt that a current stat? What a stupid thing to bring up! Do you not think that with a city holding the olympics, our population will not grow? Or for another example, our new convention centre will alone be hosting 20,000 more people per week. Or what about the fact that planned expansions of the airport are underway. A direct link to the airport to downtown is VITAL! Would you rather have a freeway down the Cambie corridor? Not going to happen. What about a LRT system that would work well in other cities, but terribly in Vancouver? No, what a waste of money! Or would u rahter stick to what we have now, a unbelievably terrible road system that will just get worse and worse wiith the growth of the city. No one is thinking about Vancouver's future! It is said (and i agree) that van has had terrible planning in the past. Well RAV will relieve that immensly. Stop comparring RAV to millenium. Millenium DOSE NOT have a connection with an airport! Cutting a ribbon in front of a skytrain may look good on a camera, but its ridiculous to think that when we ALREADY HAVE skytrain, we would go and build something totally different. I do not think RAV is perfect. There are many flaws that can and should be changed. For instance, instead of people getting RAV thrown away, how about we do something smart for a change and demand gates in the terminals. Isn't that was DO RAV RIGHT is for?

ssiguy2

June 13th, 2005, 10:31 PM

First, 70,000/passenegers a day by 2012 is AWFUL ridership! Why? because 30,000 oif those passengers will not be new. They are redirectingy all the downtown routes to go via RAV. The heavily used Granville#9 route will be diverted over to the RAV so it will take people in Marpole {the only med-hi density area} LONGER to get downtown than it does now.
Second, they are using it for a Richmond Commuter line not for Vancouverites. If they were they would have a stop at 16th. But no, its a whopping 16 blocks between stations. If you said to anyone in any other city that you were building a $1.8bil line "rapid Transit" and have 16blocks between ststion in the city they would think you were nuts.
Second, Cambie Street has a lot of poplitical power base. The city agreed that no further hi density development would be allowed along the whole stretch. It is NOT like the EXPO line that primarily followed the rail line and could be rezoned. There will not be ANY highrise develpoment along the Vancouver stretch.
Third, $1.8bil for 70,000 passengers?.........Lets say it someday hits 100,000 passengers well that still lousy ridership. Calgary's CTrain has 42km, 220,000passengers/day, {same as SkyTrain} serves a population half the size and has only cost $640mil {that's MILLION not BILLION}. It goes to major employment centres and is BETTER for people in the inner city as it has many more stops.
Fourth, Richmond will never have the same density as Metrotown because of the height restrictions on buildings due to the airport.

RAV is a great idea perse but the cost is ouitrageous for 40,000 passengers a day. Like I said, even if it hits 100,000 that is still lousy ridership.
If they really need something to do with their money it should be ext the Millenium line to Dunbar as it is a high density area.

Translink always gets things ass-backwards. You build rapid transit for the city not the suburbs and then work your way out. SkyTrain is, in many ways, just very frequent commuter rail.

officedweller

June 14th, 2005, 12:28 AM

Couple of things -

There's no station at 16th because it's not technically feasible. The slope is too steep. If you require a station there with a long flat platform, the station at King Edward would have to be a lot deeper to lessen the grade between the stations - that would also make a station at 33rd Ave. too deep and too expensive (since it's solid rock there). The current proposal includes a shallow future station at 33rd Ave., which is slated to get a new bus route to UBC. Besides, with all the complaints of disruption at Cambie and 16th, do you really think the area businesses would tolerate the additional disruption for a cast-in-place station?

As for densification on Cambie, Oakridge is going to be densified - not necessarily in tall highrises, but it will still be denser than it is now. Info is available at this link:

http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/commsvcs/currentplanning/oakridge/index.htm

A link to the broader Oakridge-Langara policy from the late 1990s is also at that link.

49th Ave. station is up in the air for densification. I could see townhouses (there's already a townhouse complex on the SE corner).

ssiguy2

June 14th, 2005, 12:42 AM

On a different note. I understand that SNCLAVALIN got the contract and will NOT be SkyTrain tech. Does anyone have a photo or link of the new rail cars?

jer4893

June 14th, 2005, 01:17 AM

70,000 passengers per day is based on what? That stat is most likely excluding major events that i have already talked about. You continuously use ideas from present day for instance the fact that it would be longer for commuters that take Granville9. RAV wil not be completed over night. It will be in 2009 when those Granville9 busses will be gridlocked in traffic along with every other commuter.

Now you say the fact that RAV isn't for Vancouverites? Many routes will be cancelled and diverted to the Richmond end of RAV. Well, its the same thing on the other side! Plus, the downtown end of RAV is connected to Millenium! People living in Burnaby may use RAV to either get to the airport or Richmond. I did some research and found out the major destinations in Vancouver and Richmond for Airport users. Guess what, RAV goes where ever they want to go and that includes the Cambie corridor. So, the people comming in; using RAV will leave using RAV. Do people in Vancouver not comumute to Richmond and the airport? Hmm i didn't know that was true. Saying that the line is not for people in Vancouver is definately not true.

Cambie will most likely be developed. With a big mall, many businesses and a college, i'm sure it will. Plus, that means even more users of the line.

It is not fair to compare RAV with CTrain. RAV is rapid transit. CTrain is a slow ass slug. Rapid transit is expensive. LRT is cheap. Rapid transit would work excellent in Vancouver, Airport and Richmond. LRT wouldn't do the job and would probably even make matters worse.

Calgary's ridership is not 220,000. It is more around 190,000. CTrain pays out MILLIONS and MILLIONS of dollars per year for operational costs, operational costs that rapid transit dosn't have. Also, CTrain covers a more broader area while both skytrain routes mainly jut out to more specific areas. Do not compare the two, especially when Vancouver, Richmond and the Airport can't handle LRT.

Richmond will get denser. I think many people will agree with me when i say that height is not a requirement when it comes to density. Just look at all of the apartments that are going up there... and there will only be more.

Finally, RAV is not only about Richmond and Vancouver. Greater Vancouver MUST think as a unit if we want to move forward in the future. It will also lead to many other project such as extending the line to other areas that are rapidly growing and possibly even a ferry terminal at the airport since there will be such a good connection there.

jer4893

June 14th, 2005, 01:26 AM

Lavalin had participation in every single skytrain project in the past. What is so different now that they had been awarded the contract?

mr.x

June 14th, 2005, 01:27 AM

On a different note. I understand that SNCLAVALIN got the contract and will NOT be SkyTrain tech. Does anyone have a photo or link of the new rail cars?

They haven't released renderings of the new rail cars.......but here's Manila's automated LRT built by SNC Lavalin in 1998:

http://www.urbanrail.net/as/mani/MRT3_Shaw2.jpg
http://www.urbanrail.net/as/mani/manila-mrt1-2.jpg

and London's automated DLR:
http://www.trampicturebook.de/tram/europ_sw/uk/london/pics_dlr/2004-05-02-06-X350.jpg
http://www.bardaglea.org.uk/bridges/images/dedlrxharb1.jpg

Credits: queetz.

mr.x

June 14th, 2005, 01:29 AM

Lavalin had participation in every single skytrain project in the past. What is so different now that they had been awarded the contract?

They are in charge of building and designing this line 100%. The other two lines in the city were automated linear technology, this time around it's third-rail.

jer4893

June 14th, 2005, 01:32 AM

I cannot picture those in Vancouver. Hopefully it is more like the one in london (DLR).

mr.x

June 14th, 2005, 01:38 AM

I cannot picture those in Vancouver. Hopefully it is more like the one in london (DLR).

But of course, the trains would look a lot better. Definetely a lot more aerodynamic, somewhere along the lines of the Mark II and NYC's Air Train.

jer4893

June 14th, 2005, 01:44 AM

Well, that's not that bad at all.... looks good.
http://www.subwaywebnews.com/Photo%20Archive%20lll/AIRTRAIN.jpg

zivan56

June 14th, 2005, 01:48 AM

mr.x

June 14th, 2005, 01:53 AM

I would think that the design will be close to that of the current MK II skytrains, so as not to differ greatly from the current trains in service. I am personally glad that there wont be a station on 16th, as it will probably bring more crime; unless they install gates.

That's NIMBY thinking. What if everybody around those 18 stations are thinking that too?

I'm dissapointed that there isn't a station at 16th avenue. It would attract more ridership there. It doesn't make sense to have such a huge gap between the Broadway and King Edward Stations.

mr.x

June 14th, 2005, 01:56 AM

Well, that's not that bad at all.... looks good.
http://www.subwaywebnews.com/Photo%20Archive%20lll/AIRTRAIN.jpg

Airtrain
http://ktransit.com/transit/usnymetro/newyork/airtrain/Photos/nyc-airtrain-term4-110104-03.jpg
http://www.hcrq.com/images/Airtrain.jpg
http://www.slagcement.org/download/123321_c_sU128801_s_i2311/Air%20Train%209s%20(low%20res).jpg

Only in difference between the Airtrain would be that there could be a connection between the two trains like the Mark II's we currently have.

Mark II SkyTrain
http://www.urbanrail.net/am/vanc/vanc-skytrain-mk2-1.jpg

EastVanGuy

June 14th, 2005, 02:01 AM

^ I hope we get something simmilar to the middle rendering, it looks similar to the current Mk II

zivan56

June 14th, 2005, 02:03 AM

That's NIMBY thinking. What if everybody around those 18 stations are thinking that too?

I'm dissapointed that there isn't a station at 16th avenue. It would attract more ridership there. It doesn't make sense to have such a huge gap between the Broadway and King Edward Stations.

Do you live around 16th? If so, you would realise crime is now already ridiculously high. I have had my car broken into 2 times last year, and no, I do not keep junk in it, and do leave the trays open. The average break in night consists of a min of 10 cars being broken into in a protected parkade. Furthermore, it is statistically proven that crime is higher near all skytrain stations.
There is a gap, albeit small. It takes less than 10 mins to walk from 16th to Broadway, and about 15 to King Edward. The Cambie bus will still run, and it takes less than 2 mins to get to Broadway...

ssiguy2

June 14th, 2005, 02:07 AM

EastVanGuy

June 14th, 2005, 02:44 AM

Does anyone know when renderings of the trains will come out or when the first trains will arrive in vancouver

ewh1

June 14th, 2005, 03:45 AM

They haven't released renderings of the new rail cars.......but here's Manila's automated LRT built by SNC Lavalin in 1998:

http://www.urbanrail.net/as/mani/MRT3_Shaw2.jpg
http://www.urbanrail.net/as/mani/manila-mrt1-2.jpg

and London's automated DLR:
http://www.trampicturebook.de/tram/europ_sw/uk/london/pics_dlr/2004-05-02-06-X350.jpg
http://www.bardaglea.org.uk/bridges/images/dedlrxharb1.jpg

Credits: queetz.

Those are NOT the Automated Trains in Manila...

This is

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid162/p20eb94d392514c32913f2715cccfba9b/f4b31124.jpg

Also The MRT-3 Wasn't built by SNC Lavalin only LRT-1 was

Nutterbug

June 14th, 2005, 05:00 AM

mr.x

June 14th, 2005, 07:19 AM

They can bore the tunnel and curve it into an 'S' formation to reduce the grade, can't they?

They probably could, but they're on a tight budget.

mr.x

June 14th, 2005, 07:23 AM

Does anyone know when renderings of the trains will come out or when the first trains will arrive in vancouver

The renderings and design should be coming out later this year or at the latest, early next year. Vehicle testing starts in May 2008 and full service testing will begin in September 2009, three months before the line opens for service.

mr.x

June 14th, 2005, 07:27 AM

Do you live around 16th? If so, you would realise crime is now already ridiculously high. I have had my car broken into 2 times last year, and no, I do not keep junk in it, and do leave the trays open. The average break in night consists of a min of 10 cars being broken into in a protected parkade. Furthermore, it is statistically proven that crime is higher near all skytrain stations.
There is a gap, albeit small. It takes less than 10 mins to walk from 16th to Broadway, and about 15 to King Edward. The Cambie bus will still run, and it takes less than 2 mins to get to Broadway...

I'm sorry. Even though I have no idea what it feels like to have your car broke in, twice, this is still NIMBY thinking. Keep in mind that NIMBYs have really stunt growth in our region. No offence, nothing personal towards you. Keep in mind that Translink will have an army of armed transit policemen on the trains soon and that RAV will either have turnstiles when constructed or will be built in a way so turnstiles can be built in in the future.

mr.x

June 14th, 2005, 07:40 AM

Apparently it will NOT be SkyTrain technology.
Although the trains will be smaller it will be more like a standard heavy rail subway technology. They didn't go with Bombardier SkyTrain because, while the cars and trains maybe shorter than say TTC, they will be just as wide.
I talked to someone at RAV project and they said they wanted wider cars due to having so many people airport bound with luggage and they didn't think even the MK11 were appropriate.
It will be similar in tech to Atlanta's Metro, automated but standard heavy rail.

I heard that too. From a RAV report early last year, they said the vehicles would be 3 metres wide. That's huge as we all have to remember that the Mark II's are just over 2 metres. And RAV will have three vehicles trains, each train having a capacity of 170 people. Compare that with the MkII's which can each hold 140 people.

How about something like this, NYC's Airtrains:
http://www.urbantransport-technology.com/projects/airtrain/images/airtrain1.jpg

EDIT: The RAV spur line to YVR is also designed as the airport people mover.

ssiguy2

June 14th, 2005, 05:54 PM

Well, I must admit that's good news.
I wonder how they managed to get federal funding without using their favorite Quebec company, Bombardier.

Nutterbug

June 14th, 2005, 08:32 PM

Well, I must admit that's good news.
I wonder how they managed to get federal funding without using their favorite Quebec company, Bombardier.
1. Chretien's gone.

2. SNC-Lavalin is also based in Quebec.

officedweller

June 14th, 2005, 10:24 PM

The RAV trains won't be very long, so the extra width will definitely help with capacity.

As for a "s" curve (i.e. switchbacks), that would also require additional property acquisition, because it would divert under privately owned land, would increase maintenance costs, reduce speeds and increase travelling time.

The Broadway station platform will really be centred on 10th Ave - so that's not that far from the commercial area - it may even encourage redevelopment of the blocks between 12th and 16th - i.e. there's a strip mall in there. The station will definitely have an entrance to Broadway - to connect with buses, but I'm not sure though whether there will be a south entrance - hopefully there will be. The City also owns the lot north of City Hall, so there will likely be an entrance from the south eventually, if not when the line opens.

ssiguy2

June 15th, 2005, 01:58 AM

They will probably make allowances or build into the system knowing the Millenium line will get there so it will have to be an easy interchange.

crazyjoeda

June 15th, 2005, 02:13 AM

I hope that RAV will have shorter cars with a higher frequency, unlike Toronto which has really long trains but you have to wait 15 miniutes or more for a train sometimes.

Roch5220

June 15th, 2005, 02:23 AM

I hope that RAV will have shorter cars with a higher frequency, unlike Toronto which has really long trains but you have to wait 15 miniutes or more for a train sometimes.

Um, no, GO trains non-peak run every hour. So commutter train wise, RAV takes it. RAV frequencies are more like the TTC subway, where non peak trains run 4-5 minutes (assumming no backloging happens - ie, you'll have to wait for a train, but then they come in droves), which is why RAV is a hybrid commutter/rapid transit line.

ssiguy2

June 15th, 2005, 02:26 AM

GO is more like WCE and SkyTrain is the same as SRT.

Interesting, Mumbai is thinking of develpoing a new mass transit.......SkyBus.

EastVanGuy

June 15th, 2005, 02:31 AM

GO is more like WCE and SkyTrain is the same as SRT.

Interesting, Mumbai is thinking of develpoing a new mass transit.......SkyBus.
where did u find this out?
would it be like skytrain, but only on rubber tires, or actual busses on an elevated guideway?

Roch5220

June 15th, 2005, 02:34 AM

GO is more like WCE and SkyTrain is the same as SRT.
.

I agree, but don't forget that SRT services primarily suburban as well.

I hope they use MKII (simiar in style) as they look very sleek. The airtrain (airport) line in NYC doesn't look like it will age well and are not as attractive of MKII.

mr.x

June 15th, 2005, 03:46 AM

Can the trains on the existing SkyTrain lines be longer than the Mark II's?

ssiguy2

June 15th, 2005, 03:46 AM

The MK11 are not only sleeker looking but brighter, wider, smoother, and quieter.......they are light years ahead of the MK1.

officedweller

June 15th, 2005, 06:58 AM

An intermediate unit (a "C" unit) can be inserted into the middle of the existing MKII ("A+B") married pairs - but I don't think that they can form a long continuous train of (A+C+C+C+C+B) units. Reports I've read on-line refer to combining an (A+C+B) train with an (A+B) pair to form an (A+C+B)-(A+B) train that will fit on existing platforms (maybe with the noses hanging past the platform ends).

Expo Line stations are designed to enable lengthening of the platform to the length of 8 MKI cars (I don't know what that is in MKIIs).

EastVanGuy

June 15th, 2005, 07:26 AM

The MK I cars are 12.3 metres long and the MK II are 17.3 metres long. I'm guessing that the Expo line stations would probally be extendable to 100m because an 8 car MK I is 98.4 metres long. I think it would be a close call for a 6 car MK II becasue that comes out to 103.8 metres long and they could have their noses sticking out.

Roch5220

June 15th, 2005, 03:08 PM

Geez, can you imagine in 40 years, when MKIIII comes out, you'll hope the they will still be building cars that can fit on MKII and are more intergrateable. But I guess by then HRT, and ALRT tech will basically be one with very little, or no distinction between the 2.

crazyjoeda

June 16th, 2005, 12:16 AM

Um, no, GO trains non-peak run every hour. So commutter train wise, RAV takes it. RAV frequencies are more like the TTC subway, where non peak trains run 4-5 minutes (assumming no backloging happens - ie, you'll have to wait for a train, but then they come in droves), which is why RAV is a hybrid commutter/rapid transit line.

Im not talking about go trains, Subway was always very infrequent when I was there, but it was compensated by having long trains. I don't mean this to offend you its the truth. In Vancouver Skytrain is auto and can have trains running every 45seconds (only for events). The TTC has drivers and people make mistakes and also have to be paid so it is safer and cheaper to have longer less frequent trains.

Iv used Toronto's subway during rushhour and I had to wait between 5-15 minutes for a train every time. Compared with Skytrains automatic system where the rush hour wait is pretty consistent at 2min and none peak hour is 5 the most you will ever wait is 8min.

rt_0891

June 16th, 2005, 12:18 AM

^ Sounds like you were stuck in a delay. This happens when people take longer than expected to board the trains, especially since rush hour, where so many people are on the platform. Once one train's late, all the others are slowed down or delayed outright, since there's a lot of trains on the track.

Roch5220

June 16th, 2005, 01:05 AM

^which is exactly what I stated, which is what he even quoted. The non-peak times are 4-5 minutes, except for sheppard which is 5-6 minutes (or even 7). We've all waited long times for backed up subways, but we all have missed one, and then jumped on one was right behind.

"Iv used Toronto's subway during rushhour and I had to wait between 5-15 minutes for a train every time"

Sure you have. Based upon your creditability, you'll say anything to backup your point.

Van really needs the streetcar. There is very little 'rapid transit' as Sissguy2 likes to call it that services downtown. Which is why the system is a hybrid commutter/rapid transit in function. Like the SRT as sisguy pointed out, only that it goes downtown.

"Iv used Toronto's subway during rushhour and I had to wait between 5-15 minutes for a train every time. Compared with Skytrains automatic system where the rush hour wait is pretty consistent at 2min and none peak hour is 5 the most you will ever wait is 8min."

Peak times are 2-3 minutes for the subway. The skytrain does have the better benefit as you mention of automation. Skytrain is 2-4 minutes in peak (http://tripplanning.translink.bc.ca/hiwire?.a=iScheduleLookupSearch&LAN=996&LA=996) however, I do know that sometimes skytrain can be as frequent as 90 seconds. Frequencies are slightly longer in Van that Toronto, but the relaibility of frequncie variences are in skytrains favour. I quite like skytrain teck and hope that GO seriously considers it as they are looking to have subway like frequencies. But I doubt my 'pipe dream' will come true as too expensive.

I wonder what the fastest frequency Skytrain can do. I bet its faster than any automated HRT due to slightly smaller capacity of each cabin car.

rt_0891

June 16th, 2005, 01:11 AM

^ Missed that, sorry. :)

Van really needs the streetcar. There is very little 'rapid transit' as Sissguy2 likes to call it that services downtown. Which is why the system is a hybrid commutter/rapid transit in function. Like the SRT as sisguy pointed out, only that it goes downtown.

Luckily, Vancouver's downtown is small, so it's still able to survive without a streetcar. However, a LRT line would really help enhance travel in the surrounding areas (kits, Cambie, Granville) to Downtown & Downtown itself. Bus services are sufficient at this time, since they're quite frequent.

http://www.translink.bc.ca/files/section_pics/Transp_Serv/SeaBus/map-downtown-big.jpg

Roch5220

June 16th, 2005, 01:17 AM

rt_0891

June 16th, 2005, 01:21 AM

^Thats what I thought originally. But I think the absence of such a network has forced people to drive. Heres why I think so:

Modes of transportation:

Total: 240K
Car/motor: 145K
Car - as passenger - 17K
Public Transit - 45K
Walk/bike - 43K
Other - 3K

http://www12.statcan.ca/english/profil01/Details/details1inc.cfm?SEARCH=BEGINS&PSGC=59&SGC=5915022&A=&LANG=E&Province=All&PlaceName=Vancouver&CSDNAME=Vancouver&CMA=&SEARCH=BEGINS&DataType=1&TypeNameE=City%20%2D%20Cit%E9&ID=11930

This is for the whole city proper though...all the way east to Boundary and South to Fraser. The reason why these neighbourhoods are so dependent on the car is that they're overhelmingly single-family suburban divisions that starts just south of Broadway and stretches all the way to the Fraser. This is the heart of Vancouver's NIMBY community, and the reason why the city has such low density outside of downtown. The only way to bring cost-efficent PT to the area is increasing density. Unfortunately, RAVs going through, but council has yet to increase density (thanks to NIMBYs and heritage boulevards).

Vancouver has nothing that is to the scale of Uptown Toronto.

Roch5220

June 16th, 2005, 01:25 AM

rt_0891

June 16th, 2005, 01:28 AM

^I guess the only way we can break it down is to have the working/living pops downtown. Downtown is about just under half population of entire vancity right? A Vancity Loop could bring many more potential riders to the skytrain network, as well as to their own destinations.

The NIMBYs wouldn't want it though, and it'll take forever pass through. :( I'm really hoping that the streetcar lines will become a reality in the near future. I'm having my fingers crossed and hoping for the best.

The NIMBYs are against anything that would destroy their neighbourhood's "character", even if it's for their own good. Vancouver has too many rich people. :(

Roch5220

June 16th, 2005, 01:29 AM

Its weird. Areas like SF I think streetcars have added to the area. I guess to many proponents, NIMBYs including local merchants and drivers.

rt_0891

June 16th, 2005, 02:11 AM

Its weird. Areas like SF I think streetcars have added to the area. I guess to many proponents, NIMBYs including local merchants and drivers.

To me, it seems that their biggest fear is that there'll be more people in the area thanks to the LRT and their neighbourhoods would no longer be as quiet as they once knew it as. Also, there'll be a bigger push for increasing density (to make the LRTs cost efficient & as downtown's land runs out), and that in turn would also ruin their "utopia". NIMBYs always fear the future. A doubt the majority of these NIMBYs are happy about RAV either, but given that they were able to win a battle and relocate RAV underground, they're bound to be a little less vocal about it.

ssiguy2

June 16th, 2005, 02:25 AM

One good thing about the RAV is atleast it will rid the downtown of all the Richmond/Delta/WhiteRock/Ladner buses. That will be a godsend as there are simply too many suburban routes in the downtown right now.
One thing I will say for Translink is the bus service in the city of Vancouver is quite good. The most you wait on any route is 5 minutes.

ssiguy2

June 16th, 2005, 02:26 AM

Vancouver is poorly planned. No high density south of Broadway and no corridors for transit were made.

crazyjoeda

June 16th, 2005, 02:31 AM

"Iv used Toronto's subway during rushhour and I had to wait between 5-15 minutes for a train every time"

Sure you have. Based upon your creditability, you'll say anything to backup your point.

dude Im not making it up I remember once I waited 15min for a train at 4pm and my over all average was about 6min a train. Im not bashing Toronto's transit system, because that city has an excellent system.

I wonder what the fastest frequency Skytrain can do. I bet its faster than any automated HRT due to slightly smaller capacity of each cabin car.

For the Sun Run (if you dont know its a massive run with over 50,000 people the 2nd biggest in NA) and the Fire Works competition they have them running every 45sec.

ssiguy2

June 16th, 2005, 02:36 AM

BTW........someone wanted to know about SkyBus in Mumbai.
It like an elevated rail but in instead of the cars being on top of the rail they travel below and are attaced to the above rail line. They are not buses but more like coaches. Its a new Indian tech by Konkan Rail. Odd idea and doesn't have the capacity of SkyTrain. I beleive they are shelving it and if anything is to be built it would be SkyTrain not SkyBus.
Its pretty weird really but see for your self....... www.sky-bus-metro.com

EastVanGuy

June 16th, 2005, 02:42 AM

^ interesting, looks just like a hanging maglev

RAV ground testing starts Monday
Jun, 15 2005 - 9:00 AM

VANCOUVER/CKNW(AM980) - The company contracted to build the RAV line will soon begin geotechnical testing along sections of Number 3 Road in Richmond.
The purpose of the testing is to confirm ground conditions along the route.

The testing gets underway Monday and will continue for about five weeks.

Testing will be carried out between ten at night and ten in the morning, seven days a week.

Test holes will be drilled at about 70 metre intervals along the eastern-most northbound lane of Number 3 Road between Saba Road and Bridgeport.

Minimal testing will also take place on Charles Street and on private land

Credit HollywoodNorth on SSP

crazyjoeda

June 16th, 2005, 02:45 AM

^ Missed that, sorry. :)

Luckily, Vancouver's downtown is small, so it's still able to survive without a streetcar. However, a LRT line would really help enhance travel in the surrounding areas (kits, Cambie, Granville) to Downtown & Downtown itself. Bus services are sufficient at this time, since they're quite frequent.

For a city of 2.3million Vancouver has a large downtown, bigger then Seattle and many similar and even larger sized cities. Downtown is definatly not walk able.

Did you not hear there are plans for an LRT/street car in time for the Olympics.
http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/engsvcs/transport/streetcar/images/phasing_map.gif http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/engsvcs/transport/streetcar/images/vision_image1.jpg http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/engsvcs/transport/streetcar/images/dtsLogo.jpg

http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/engsvcs/transport/streetcar/index.htm

rt_0891

June 16th, 2005, 05:37 AM

For a city of 2.3million Vancouver has a large downtown, bigger then Seattle and many similar and even larger sized cities. Downtown is definatly not walk able.

Vancouver's downtown is limited to a peninsula+Stanley Park, so it's expected to be small. I like it small... allows for higher densities and keeps it on a human scale. I walk + rollerblade around downtown all the time. It's easily accessible by foot. Many times, I would either take the little ferries by false creek, or just walk from Yaletown to Downtown to West End. I don't think Vancouver should be in a race to become a big downtown. Instead, market demand & planning policies should dictate how it takes shape in the future at DTES & South of False Creek.

Did you not hear there are plans for an LRT/street car in time for the Olympics.
http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/engsvcs/transport/streetcar/images/phasing_map.gif http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/engsvcs/transport/streetcar/images/vision_image1.jpg http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/engsvcs/transport/streetcar/images/dtsLogo.jpg

http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/engsvcs/transport/streetcar/index.htm

Yes, when does construction start? Please tell me it's not stalled up at council.

hkskyline

June 16th, 2005, 08:16 AM

June 15, 2005
TransLink helps customers travel to Sea Vancouver
Corporate Press Release

Sea Vancouver – a maritime festival that runs from July 6 to 10 – is expected to attract thousands of people. To help ease traffic headaches, TransLink will provide extra transit services for customers travelling to the event.

Customers are advised that since the festival is expected to be well attended, it’s best to plan your transit trip ahead of time and allow for a little extra travel time due to the crowds.

Most of the festivities will take place at two locations: the Creekside site, which encompasses Concord Pacific Place and Creekside Park, and the Maritime Point site at Kitsilano Beach Park and the area around the Maritime Museum.

Here are some of the ways to get to and from the event:

Coast Mountain Bus service
To help customers reach the festival’s Maritime Point site for tall ship viewing, Coast Mountain will offer a #22 Special bus service (http://www.translink.bc.ca/files/news/r22Spec_July05.pdf) to Kitsilano Beach Park and the Maritime Museum via Cornwall Avenue. The #22 Special will provide direct service from SkyTrain’s Waterfront and Burrard stations and from the SeaBus and West Coast Express terminals at Waterfront Station.

This special service will be in addition to the regular #22 bus service. The two routes combined will provide a bus every five to seven minutes throughout the festival. On Thursday, July 7, from 11 a.m. to 2:30 p.m., that frequency will increase to every four to five minutes during the Parade of Sail in English Bay.

In addition, bus routes #s 3, 8 and 19 will provide regular service via Main Street to the Creekside Park festivities, including the Boat Show and Marine Swap Meet.

Connecting with Sea Vancouver shuttles
The festival will operate its own free shuttle buses (yellow school buses) on two routes between the two main festival sites. Customers using the #22 Special will have to walk in and out from Cornwall Avenue. Coast Mountain buses will be equipped with bike racks and Sea Vancouver will offer bike checks during the festival dates.

SeaBus service
SeaBus, which is operated by Coast Mountain Bus Co., will run its usual summer passenger ferry service to and from Waterfront Station. SeaBus departs every 15 minutes during peak periods and every half hour during non-peak periods on weekdays and weekends. From Waterfront Station, passengers can connect to SkyTrain to reach the Edgewater site or board a #22 Special bus to reach the Maritime Point site.

SkyTrain service
SkyTrain service will be augmented at peak times to get customers to and from several sites. People can take SkyTrain to Main Street-Science World Station for easy access to the festival’s Creekside Park activities. In addition, customers can travel to Stadium Station to attend performances at the Edgewater Stage at the Plaza of Nations. To access the Maritime Point site, customers can take SkyTrain to Burrard Station and then board the #22 Special or the regular #22 to Cornwall Avenue.

ssiguy2

June 16th, 2005, 09:20 PM

Why would they have the line end at Stanley Park as opposed to going down Denman to English Bay? This is why Translink gets such low ridership, they use it for point to point travel as opposed to going thru dense areas.

Just to add to wasted money, why would they have that ext down the industrail area when its right beside the SkyTrain? They should have one going straight down Hastings, one of the few dense roads and connecting roads to downtown. They could also having it go down to Hastings and then turn onto Commercial to Broadway station. Commerical is a dence neighbour with VERY high transit ussage.

officedweller

June 17th, 2005, 12:09 AM

The streetcar is a City of Vancouver initative, not a Translink one (so the objective isn't to replace Translink services, but provide alternate services).
The City also has its own pet projects and sensitivities. It's probably sensitive to congestion on Denman with the addition of a streetcar down the middle. The extension down the False Creek Flats is one of the City's pet projects - the newly rezoned Finning Lands will be Vancouver's own suburban style business park (along with similarly rezoned lands at Renfrew and Rupert M-Line stations). That's also why the City requested that the M-Line terminus be north of VCC rather than under Broadway (RTPO agreed since it was also cheaper).

*******************
The Vancouver Sun today has an artilcle about YVR's future plans. It talks about the self service check-ins.

The article says that ALL RAV stations will have self service airport check-ins. I don't know if that was a mistake and they mean all YVR stations or whether it does mean all stations along the line.

EastVanGuy

June 17th, 2005, 12:32 AM

i think that there should be a streetcar line up Main street because there is already good ridership on that corridor

KGB

June 17th, 2005, 01:11 AM

" In Vancouver Skytrain is auto and can have trains running every 45seconds (only for events). Iv used Toronto's subway during rushhour and I had to wait between 5-15 minutes for a train every time. Compared with Skytrains automatic system where the rush hour wait is pretty consistent at 2min and none peak hour is 5 the most you will ever wait is 8min."

That's ridiculous...TTC subways run every 2 minutes during peak times (which is a lot of the time), and 4-5 minutes the rest of the time. If you waited 15 minutes for a train, then there was an emergency, otherwise, there is NO way it could even be possible. The trains are big, because a lot more people ride them....and run very frequently ALL the time, because a lot more people ride them ALL the time.

Yea...the Skytrain runs every 45 seconds...uh huh....given the ridership, that would give every person their own private train. LOL

KGB

Wallbanger

June 17th, 2005, 01:24 AM

I havent been here for very long but I have noticed that you always have something to bitch about.

EastVanGuy

June 17th, 2005, 03:13 AM

June 16, 2005
Upcoming TransLink Board Meeting

Here are some of the newsworthy items and reports on the agenda for the June 22 meeting of the TransLink Board of Directors:

Golden Ears Bridge – Master Agreement
Staff is seeking authorization from the board to enter into a five-party agreement with the Township of Langley, District of Maple Ridge, District of Pitt Meadows, and City of Surrey in relation to the Golden Ears Bridge Project. The agreement would define the scope and standards of the project and establish the responsibilities and obligations of all parties.

Parking Tax Bylaw
The board will be asked to approve a bylaw that is required to enable the creation of a parking site roll. When the parking site roll has been completed, this bylaw and a final determined tax rate will be forwarded to the Greater Vancouver Regional District for ratification. The tax will help finance major transportation improvements approved as part of TransLink’s 2005-2007 Three-Year Plan and 10-Year Outlook.

Recent Trends in Travel Characteristics: Analysis of the 2004 Greater Vancouver Trip Diary Survey
The report summarizes the results of the Trip Diary Survey that was conducted in cooperation with the Ministry of Transportation in 2004. Some of the key findings include:

Total daily trips made by Greater Vancouver Regional District residents grew from 5.5 million in 1999 to 6.4 million in 2004 – a 16.5 per cent increase.

Travel during the midday period (9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.) grew significantly and accounted for 34.6 per cent of daily trips in the 2004 survey.

Trip patterns are more dispersed across the region. The growth in population and employment outside the urban core may account for the increasing complexity of people’s travel.

Transit Capacity Study
A recent Transit Capacity Study confirmed that customers are experiencing extreme levels of crowding on a number of bus routes throughout the region. SkyTrain service at Broadway Station is also at maximum capacity. To meet the demand, staff is proposing to accelerate bus purchases in 2006 and 2007 by advancing the delivery of 50 buses originally slated to arrive in 2008 and 2009. This would allow for additional hours of bus service to be introduced sooner. Staff is also recommending a study to investigate the feasibility of advancing the delivery date of 34 SkyTrain cars to 2008 from 2009.

Minor Fare Zone Amendments: Lions Bay, Annacis Island and Bowen Island
Staff is seeking authorization for minor amendments to the Transit Tariff to address fare-zone boundary anomalies between Lions Bay and West Vancouver; Annacis Island and Delta; Bowen Island and West Vancouver. The proposed changes would lower transit fares and offer some potential for slight increases in local ridership.

2005 Capital Program Projects: Specific Project Approval
The board will be asked to provide Step 2 Specific Project Approval for the following capital projects:

$350,000 for a study to determine the suitability of using automatic passengers counters to measure demand on all modes of transit. The counters are currently being installed on 15 per cent of the bus fleet and the study will assess the benefits of expanding the technology to SkyTrain, SeaBus, West Coast Express and Community Shuttles.

$400,000 for repairs to mitigate problems with soil settlement at Scott Road Station. The money would also go towards developing an ongoing monitoring and maintenance program.

2004 Schedules of Financial Information
Staff will present the 2004 Schedules of Financial Information, which outline the remuneration and expenses paid to or on behalf of TransLink employees and payments to suppliers for goods and services. The public can view the schedules or purchase a copy for $5 once the board has approved them.

First Quarter 2005 Transit System Ridership
Transit ridership increased by 1.5 per cent during the first four months of 2005, matching TransLink’s budget projection. The growth reflected gains in U-Pass ridership, new ridership attracted by bus service improvements, and increased transit use due to higher gas prices, although the January fare change had a temporary dampening effect on the growth.

http://www.translink.bc.ca/About_TransLink/News_Releases/news06160502.asp

KGB

June 17th, 2005, 03:32 AM

vanboyH

June 17th, 2005, 06:13 AM

sukh

June 17th, 2005, 06:34 AM

Vancouvers downtown is not that small in area, its borderline, its pretty large...think about it from lets say B.C. Place stadium to the entrance of Stanley park, from gastown to yaletown, its pretty large, and a street car is a smart idea, not all people want to walk those distances.

About the Inner city transit, Of course Vancouver is going to go into the suburbs, thats where most of the population is(also alot less nimbys), unlike Calgary which doesnt basically have any suburbs, just a city with 900 000 plus, so it makes sense for them in that way...plus if all the suburbs are connected, it makes for a much better transit system and a extensive one as well. You can get anywhere you want fast, and not be stuck in traffic and take so much more time. It takes me 15 minutes to get to metrotown from scott road station in Surrey, and with a car it would take me approximetly 30-45 mins.

That's ridiculous...TTC subways run every 2 minutes during peak times (which is a lot of the time), and 4-5 minutes the rest of the time. If you waited 15 minutes for a train, then there was an emergency, otherwise, there is NO way it could even be possible. The trains are big, because a lot more people ride them....and run very frequently ALL the time, because a lot more people ride them ALL the time.

Yea...the Skytrain runs every 45 seconds...uh huh....given the ridership, that would give every person their own private train. LOL

Someones bitter.

rt_0891

June 17th, 2005, 06:36 AM

rt_0891

June 17th, 2005, 06:38 AM

The only pessimists I see on this thread are those opposing RAV the way it is.

It's either "get-it-done-with-now-before-the-Olympics" or wait until after the Olympics. By then, it might be too late. Why delay it some more?

The RAV Official Rant (http://discovervancouver.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=4293&whichpage=60) on Discover Vancouver's forum is a place where I stated my opinions on the RAV.

I think the biggest problem people are worried about is the costs that will be incurred when ridership falls below expectations, and Translink ends up picking up the slack. If Vancouver city council had enough clout to ignore the NIMBYs and immediately densify the Cambie corridor & surrounding areas, and/or keep RAV as above-grade Skytrain to minimize costs, then no one would really be worried about RAV. One of the success of Skytrain is its ability to create high density neighbourhoods within the immediate vicinity, and if planning does not permit this growth around RAV, then it would be a big loss for the region.

The only effective way I can think of that would weaken the NIMBY's grasp on city council is to merge cities, possibly Vancouver+Burnaby.

Nutterbug

June 17th, 2005, 06:47 AM

Why would they have the line end at Stanley Park as opposed to going down Denman to English Bay? This is why Translink gets such low ridership, they use it for point to point travel as opposed to going thru dense areas.
Maybe it's because Stanley Park is a more famous tourist attraction than English Bay, and Vancouver is a city that's very much geared towards tourists.

Just to add to wasted money, why would they have that ext down the industrail area when its right beside the SkyTrain? They should have one going straight down Hastings, one of the few dense roads and connecting roads to downtown. They could also having it go down to Hastings and then turn onto Commercial to Broadway station. Commerical is a dence neighbour with VERY high transit ussage.
The Hastings corridor is too long for streetcar to be suitable. It is better suited to rapid transit.

Wallbanger

June 17th, 2005, 07:47 AM

"I havent been here for very long but I have noticed that you always have something to bitch about."

If you plan on being here for a longer time, do yourself a favour...focus on the topic...not on unsolicited insults of forumers. Besides...I'm not the one bitching...the person who complained about TTC subways having 15 minute headways was....I just refuted their claims.

KGB
Im not insulting you, If you cant take a little criticism then maybe you shouldnt have brought it on yourself. No one is stepping forward to tell you you need to lighten up, because you seem to have a history of it.

officedweller

June 17th, 2005, 09:30 AM

The streetcar will indeed be geared very much to tourists - it will connect a lot of the tourist destinations - Vanier Park (Vancouver Museum) - Granville Island - Science World - Gastown - Canada Place - Stanley Park, plus BC Place - Yaletown

Since the route is quite circuitous (RAV will be much faster crossing the Creek and ends up at the same place - Canada Place/Waterfront) - commuters would likely use the streetcar to feed into RAV and the Expo Skytrain. Tourists would ride the whole loop all the way around the Creek.

crazyjoeda

June 17th, 2005, 12:28 PM

Yea...the Skytrain runs every 45 seconds...uh huh....given the ridership, that would give every person their own private train. LOL

KGB

Ever been to the Sun Run or the Celebration of Light? Translink has the capability to run trains at 45sec intervals. Of course this is not routinly used and on a normal rush hour there is a 2-3min wait. As I said before in Toronto I usally waited 5-10min for a train and at one point waited 15min, this is not an insulte to the TTC and is due to the fact that the Toronto subway has been in place for along time and is not an automated system.

Roch5220

June 17th, 2005, 01:53 PM

^I don't think anyone here is out to offend you but obviously you are insulted. Take it from the people that ride it ALL the time, and not one off instances. I've waited occasionally 4-5 trains before getting on at Pape st, but thats not the norm. I've had to walk home because their was a jumper, but that definately isn't the norm.

Roch5220

June 17th, 2005, 01:56 PM

Since the route is quite circuitous (RAV will be much faster crossing the Creek and ends up at the same place - Canada Place/Waterfront) - commuters would likely use the streetcar to feed into RAV and the Expo Skytrain. Tourists would ride the whole loop all the way around the Creek.

It would be optimal if they actually were able to bring the streetcar stops into they skytrain stations (ie. within an enclosed area not physically in) to provide for easy transtion/connections. Part of the attractiveness of the streetcar for commutters would be the easy flow. But that would probably add costs (decrease attractiveness) but would be planning properly for the future (ie., once ridership grows and warrants better improvements, this would be difficult and more expensive to realign).

KGB

June 17th, 2005, 02:31 PM

"If you cant take a little criticism then maybe you shouldnt have brought it on yourself."

What excactly is it you are criticising...the fact that I correct someone's innaccurate claims of headways on TTC subways? If you have something against the truth, I suppose you might not like that. LOL

"Translink has the capability to run trains at 45sec intervals."

Yea, but if has no need to run every 45 seconds, except for a few events, then it really doesn't matter. Headways have to be reasonably frequent if people are going to even consider it for mass transit, but 2 minutes is very frequent, and it doesn't matter if there's a driver or not.

The YUS line runs on 2-3 minute headways 6 hours of the day, and 4-5 minute headways the rest of the time...not just for "events". There's no 10 minutes or 15 minute headways, so if you are going to continue to say there is, then you are just wrong.

KGB

officedweller

June 17th, 2005, 08:53 PM

I think the streetcar will primarily run on the street, with typical streetcar platforms. There may even be some sections that are single tracked - not sure. But there are only 4 stations that the streetcar will eventually hit:

RAV 2nd Ave - that could be well integrated because the streetcar ROW is away from the street and land next to the ROW could be consolidated with the station development.

Expo Main Street - unlikely since the streetcar route and Expo Line are at right angles to each other. Probably a walk across the street to connect.

RAV Yaletown - streetcar will be in Pacific Blvd median - and RAV station entrance will be half a block away. Preliminary plans showed a ventilation shaft at the median near the streetcar stop - so potentially there could be a connection from RAV up to the median.

Expo Waterfront - streetcar will probably be in the middle of the street in front of the station - easy connection. It could also be at the curb - since that's at the point where the route will probably transition to 2 one-way couplets through Gastown (eastbound on Cordova, westbound on Water). But I think it would be easier getting to Stanley Park if they staying in the middle of the street (which would also be farther from townhouse front doors further west).

ssiguy2

June 17th, 2005, 09:28 PM

It should NOT go to StanleyPark but EnglishBay. You build transit lines to serve the passengers not the touristy area. That is where you get the ridership and it would also be better for EnglishBay events if want to serve the tourists. Serve the people who use the system not the few who want to get to a park and won't walk 3 blocks.

BTW, KGB.........What's a YUS?

crazyjoeda

June 17th, 2005, 10:12 PM

I heard that the street car will have its own right of way in some places.

BTW did has any one heard the full plans for the NE LRT? Apparently along strech will be under ground(yellow line on below map) and it will be grade seperated most of the way. When it does meet traffic it will automaticly change the lights so the train can go through with out stopping.

http://www.translink.bc.ca/files/section_pics/Plans_Projects/Northeast_Sector/map.jpg

Nutterbug

June 18th, 2005, 12:21 AM

What about the Robson St. corridor? Why has it been neglected in the streetcar plans? It is like the main NW-SE corridor within the downtown peninsula, and connects major points of interest, such as the stadiums, the library, the Yaletown district, the Robson RAV station, the downtown core, Robson Square, the art gallery, the Robsonstrasse shopping district and the West End. Maybe it should have a line that'll bend and head SW along Denman towards the beach.

rt_0891

June 18th, 2005, 12:43 AM

RAV LINE OPEN HOUSES • JUNE 2005

Opportunity for Community Input on Preliminary Design of RAV Line Stations (Richmond and Vancouver)

Public Open Houses are being held to gather community input on preliminary design options for the RAV Line stations in Richmond and Vancouver as well as the Operations and Maintenance Centre. The cities of Vancouver and Richmond will also have materials for public review regarding the areas adjacent to stations.

In addition to RAVCO’s June public consultation program, InTransitBC (the company selected to design, build, operate, maintain and partially finance the Line) will undertake further public consultation in conjunction with the Design Advisory Process, beginning in Fall 2005.

Open House Schedule – June 2005
June 22 6:30-9:30pm Vancouver Open House
Holiday Inn 1110 Howe & Helmcken, Vancouver

June 25 10am-1:00pm Vancouver Open House
Plaza 500 12th & Cambie, Vancouver

June 25 2:00-5:00pm Richmond Open House
Richmond Inn Conference Centre 7551 Westminster Highway, Richmond

June 27 6:30-9:30pm Richmond Open House
Radisson President Hotel 8181 Cambie, Richmond

The RAV Line is a significant element in the Greater Vancouver’s regional transportation network, and will provide additional transportation capacity equivalent to 10 arterial road lanes in a dense corridor where expanding roads and bridges is neither practical nor desirable. This additional capacity will address congestion and make growth in these centres more manageable,
boosting our cities’ livability, sustainability and competitiveness.

The RAV Line will include 17 stations, and provision for three future stations located to serve the dense and growing neighbourhoods along the corridor and will connect with the existing Expo and Millennium rapid transit lines, WestCoast Express and SeaBus at Waterfront Station.

The Governments of Canada and British Columbia, the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority (TransLink), the Vancouver International Airport Authority and InTransitBC are funding this project, which is also endorsed by the Cities of Vancouver and Richmond. RAV Project Management Ltd. (RAVCO) was created specifically to oversee procurement, design, construction and
implementation of the project.

For more information about the RAV Line:
Web: www.ravprapidtransit.com Email: ravpconsultation@ravp.ca
Tel: 604.484-7287 Fax: 604.484-6799

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

June 16, 2005
Upcoming TransLink Board Meeting

Here are some of the newsworthy items and reports on the agenda for the June 22 meeting of the TransLink Board of Directors:

Golden Ears Bridge – Master Agreement
Staff is seeking authorization from the board to enter into a five-party agreement with the Township of Langley, District of Maple Ridge, District of Pitt Meadows, and City of Surrey in relation to the Golden Ears Bridge Project. The agreement would define the scope and standards of the project and establish the responsibilities and obligations of all parties.

Parking Tax Bylaw
The board will be asked to approve a bylaw that is required to enable the creation of a parking site roll. When the parking site roll has been completed, this bylaw and a final determined tax rate will be forwarded to the Greater Vancouver Regional District for ratification. The tax will help finance major transportation improvements approved as part of TransLink’s 2005-2007 Three-Year Plan and 10-Year Outlook.

Recent Trends in Travel Characteristics: Analysis of the 2004 Greater Vancouver Trip Diary Survey
The report summarizes the results of the Trip Diary Survey that was conducted in cooperation with the Ministry of Transportation in 2004. Some of the key findings include:

Total daily trips made by Greater Vancouver Regional District residents grew from 5.5 million in 1999 to 6.4 million in 2004 – a 16.5 per cent increase.

Travel during the midday period (9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.) grew significantly and accounted for 34.6 per cent of daily trips in the 2004 survey.

Trip patterns are more dispersed across the region. The growth in population and employment outside the urban core may account for the increasing complexity of people’s travel.

Transit Capacity Study
A recent Transit Capacity Study confirmed that customers are experiencing extreme levels of crowding on a number of bus routes throughout the region. SkyTrain service at Broadway Station is also at maximum capacity. To meet the demand, staff is proposing to accelerate bus purchases in 2006 and 2007 by advancing the delivery of 50 buses originally slated to arrive in 2008 and 2009. This would allow for additional hours of bus service to be introduced sooner. Staff is also recommending a study to investigate the feasibility of advancing the delivery date of 34 SkyTrain cars to 2008 from 2009.

Minor Fare Zone Amendments: Lions Bay, Annacis Island and Bowen Island
Staff is seeking authorization for minor amendments to the Transit Tariff to address fare-zone boundary anomalies between Lions Bay and West Vancouver; Annacis Island and Delta; Bowen Island and West Vancouver. The proposed changes would lower transit fares and offer some potential for slight increases in local ridership.

2005 Capital Program Projects: Specific Project Approval
The board will be asked to provide Step 2 Specific Project Approval for the following capital projects:

$350,000 for a study to determine the suitability of using automatic passengers counters to measure demand on all modes of transit. The counters are currently being installed on 15 per cent of the bus fleet and the study will assess the benefits of expanding the technology to SkyTrain, SeaBus, West Coast Express and Community Shuttles.

$400,000 for repairs to mitigate problems with soil settlement at Scott Road Station. The money would also go towards developing an ongoing monitoring and maintenance program.

First Quarter 2005 Transit System Ridership
Transit ridership increased by 1.5 per cent during the first four months of 2005, matching TransLink’s budget projection. The growth reflected gains in U-Pass ridership, new ridership attracted by bus service improvements, and increased transit use due to higher gas prices, although the January fare change had a temporary dampening effect on the growth.

The TransLink Board meeting will take place at 9 a.m. on Wednesday, June 22, at the New Westminster Municipal Hall, 511 Royal Ave., New Westminster.

crazyjoeda

June 18th, 2005, 02:29 AM

http://img152.echo.cx/img152/4961/rapid20090jn.jpg

Nutterbug

June 18th, 2005, 02:39 AM

^ I say the branch of the RAV Line going towards Richmond Center should be called the Olympic Line. The one going towards the airport can be called the Canada Line.

If not, then the Olympic name should be given to the NES Line and not left to waste, though it wouldn't be very fitting, since there are no Olympic Venues in that region.

mr.x

June 18th, 2005, 03:35 AM

Is it just me or does KGB somehow always likes to turn things that are positive for Vancouver into negative things.

Nutterbug

June 18th, 2005, 04:15 AM

Does anybody else also think Willingdon Avenue in Burnaby, between Brentwood and Metrotown Malls, with BCIT inbetween, would be another good corridor to run a streetcar along?

KGB

June 18th, 2005, 04:37 AM

"Is it just me or does KGB somehow always likes to turn things that are positive for Vancouver into negative things."

Can you be any more vague???

I'm not trying to "turn" anything. I just corrected some figures. I'm not the one trying to create some vague comparison of Skytrain and TTC subway frequencies, where Skytrains run every 45 seconds, and TTC subways run every 15 minutes. Who's the one making up stories here? Who brought up the anti-Toronto story here? How is correcting figures for TTC being negative about Vancouver?

I mean, I know you don't like it when anybody crashes the usual anti-Toronto parties, but start putting the blame where it belongs.

KGB

queetz@home

June 18th, 2005, 06:00 AM

^ Exactly! Besides, mr X is just a 13 year old kid who does not know what he is talking about. He just bashed Toronto just for the hell of it even though its a far more superior city than Vancouver in terms of a lot of things but especially transit. What is there not to hate about Vancouver Transit, given that it is the single most contentious issue in the region. $1.7 billion on a single subway line under sparsely populated Cambie Corridor when an at grade or elevated system would do....honestly? WTF is that? Let the Westside Vancouver creme de la creme be damned! :down:

sukh

June 18th, 2005, 01:24 PM

^lol you sound like queetz.

ssiguy2

June 18th, 2005, 07:08 PM

I agree with Wally

mr.x

June 19th, 2005, 12:46 AM

mr.x

June 19th, 2005, 12:53 AM

Transit overcrowded: report
PUBLIC TRANSPORT I TransLink urged to spend $50 million overnext three years

William Boei
Vancouver Sun

Saturday, June 18, 2005

http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/media.canada.com/idl/vasn/20050618/87023-28641.jpg
CREDIT: Steve Bosch, Vancouver Sun
Maxing out: TransLink is close to capacity in some key areas

GREATER VANCOUVER I Overcrowding on parts of Greater Vancouver's transit system has hit unacceptable levels and TransLink should spend more than $50 million over the next three years to expand service hours and get new buses on the road faster, says a report to the regional transportation authority.

Ridership has grown by more than 20 per cent over the last three years while the transit fleet grew by only 10 per cent, "resulting in increases in the level of crowding and in the number of customer complaints," the TransLink staff report says.

Key pressure points are SkyTrain between the Main Street and Broadway stations, which is operating at 99-per-cent capacity at peak hours and leaving passengers on the platform, and the often crowded 98 and 99 B-Line bus routes.

"Over-all, there is a growing view that the transit system is at or nearing capacity at some key times and locations," the report says.

"This is most noticeable on SkyTrain and on major bus routes such as the 98 and 99 B-Lines and bus routes serving universities and colleges.

"SkyTrain service between Broadway Station and Main Street Station is at maximum capacity, resulting in passengers experiencing crowded trains or pass-ups."

The report recommends TransLink expand service hours by 83,000 hours next year, another 26,000 hours in 2007 and an additional 48,000 hours in 2008 for a cumulative cost of $27.5 million.

It also suggests TransLink accelerate delivery of 50 new buses, getting them into service over the next two years instead of during 2008-09 as scheduled. That will cost $25.7 million in the next two years, but new-bus costs will be reduced by a similar amount in 2008-09.

The report says TransLink should also find out whether it can have 34 new SkyTrain cars delivered in 2008 instead of 2009 as scheduled.

Transit ridership is at its highest level in history, having recovered and more since the 2001 transit strike, the report says.

A study conducted in 2003 and 2004 found 10 transit corridors, especially those serving Vancouver, Richmond and the two universities, are significantly overcrowded. Another 23 corridors were moderately overcrowded, and 25 corridors marginally overcrowded.

However, SeaBus ridership is down as a result of the 2001 transit strike and reduced tourist traffic following the 9/11 terror attacks. West Coast Express ridership is still growing but the commuter train has no overcrowding problems.

The service-hours expansion, if approved by the TransLink board on Wednesday, will be the third in quick succession. Bus service was expanded by 106,000 hours a year starting this year under a three-year service plan. And in April, the TransLink board okayed another 72,000 hours.

TransLink expects total ridership to increase by 12.1 per cent over 2004 by 2007. It's getting off to a slow start this year with growth at a 1.5-per-cent clip in the firsts four months, but another staff report said that's due to last year' s fare increase.

The fare hike resulted in more people using prepaid tickets and passes to save money. Cash fares are down by 12 per cent from last year, and are now used for only 22 per cent of transit trips. TransLink expects that trend to continue.

-- bboei@png.canwest.com

Maxing out: TransLink is close to capacity in some key areas

Last year, the TransLink system recorded some 275 million boardings, a 26-per-cent rise in ridership over 10 years earlier. Growth is attributed to the U-pass program, the new Millennium SkyTrain line, articulated B-line buses, higher frequency, and higher gasoline prices. SkyTrain riders above were among rush hour crowds Friday afternoon at the busy Commercial and Broadway station.

99%

Capacity utilization on SkyTrain's busiest stretch (Broadway Station to Main Street).

1,226

TransLink buses on the road in 2004. Overcrowding was found on 58 routes or corridors, mainly off peak.

2009

Year a third SeaBus will come into service. Ridership is well down from a peak of 535 boardings per hour in 1996.

1998

Biggest ridership year for the West Coast Express service. In four years out of the six since then, ridership fell.

Bus fleet upgrade: Shown below is number of buses to be added per year under recommended accelerated program, for a total of 220 new units.

2006: 55 (Existing plan: 25)

2007: 75 (55)

2008: 45 (70)

2009: 45 (70)

Source: GVTA planning department

© The Vancouver Sun 2005

KGB

June 19th, 2005, 06:43 PM

That's not a very good position to be in....creating a transit mode and corridor that's over capacity for peak periods, and too little capacity off peak.

KGB

ssiguy2

June 19th, 2005, 07:11 PM

Its still good when it means higher ridership.
It is impressive that the SkyTrain is overcapacity considering that the trains run every 2 minutes in rush hour during those times. It is worth noting however that SkyTrain trains are simply to small.
The new MK11, although far superior to the MK1 only represent the same capacity as 3 MK1 cars.........a pretty small train. Its only equivalent to 2 articulated buses.
The platforms can easily accomodate 2 MK11 trains or 6 MK1s.
The service frequency is excellent its the lack of trains that is the problem.

EdZed

June 19th, 2005, 07:14 PM

What is the capacity of the MKII and MKI trains?

ssiguy2

June 19th, 2005, 07:16 PM

BTW are those ridership number increases rider numbers or actual revenue ridership numbers. I know the UPass has been successful, which is great but they are extremly cheap so they probably make less on those rides then they did before it came in.
Still a good idea thou because it helpss the students and it is proven that the younger the people start using transit the more likely they are to continue ongoing.

Haber

June 19th, 2005, 11:50 PM

I think the fact that the Skytrain and Broadway B-Line buses are overcrowded is more reason to extend the Millenium line at least to Cambie. It would alleviate some of the traffic between Main St. and Broadway. Vancouver also needs some Rapid transit and rail system on the north shore. I think it would make a lot of sense to have a train that goes from Vancouver to Whistler. It could also serve Horshoe Bay and Squamish. Perhaps Vancouver should also consider congestion fees or car user fees like Singapore or London.

rt_0891

June 20th, 2005, 05:12 AM

Contest to name the New NE sector line :D (Now temporarily called Coquitlam Line)

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

http://www.translink.bc.ca/files/section_pics/Plans_Projects/Northeast_Sector/map.jpg

rt_0891

June 20th, 2005, 09:18 PM

RAV-line fight goes to court

Last updated Jun 20 2005 09:44 AM PDT
CBC News

VANCOUVER – A coalition of Vancouver residents and merchants opposed to the construction of the RAV rapid transit line from Richmond to downtown Vancouver is taking its case to B.C. Supreme Court Monday.

Do RAV Right says the planned cut-and-cover method of building the underground line along Cambie Street from 2nd Avenue to 63rd Avenue will destroy numerous businesses.

The group says there would be two to three years of major street closures, reducing vehicular traffic by as much as 50 per cent.

* LINK: Do RAV Right (http://www.doravright.ca/)

The group's lawyer, Joyce Thayer, argues there was no meaningful public consultation on the change from the discussed tunnelling method of construction.

"We say that has to go back to square one, and that the public is entitled to be provided with all of the information about why the change was made, and be able to make submissions as to why it should not be accepted," she says.

* LINK: Letter from Do RAV Right, detailing its objections (pdf) (http://www.eao.gov.bc.ca/epic/output/documents/p208/1109371059551_0c855fadd72c4207ab14882de6dcf01b.pdf)

RAVCO, which is building the line from Richmond will also be in court along with TransLink, to argue why the line should go ahead using cut-and-cover construction.

ssiguy2

June 21st, 2005, 06:10 AM

I hope they stop the RAV, Translink has lied from start to finish.

EdZed

June 21st, 2005, 07:14 AM

This is turning into a big shiraid(sp?), either build it the right way or don't building it at all.

Vancouver_rocks

June 21st, 2005, 07:26 AM

Translink didn't lie. Somehow I knew it was going to be cut-and-cover long ago. It's Do Rav Right that's lied with their stupid "environmental" concerns where they made up that there's contaminated soil. It's been proven that there isn't. Originally they didn't want it down Cambie but down Arbutis, then they didn't want cut-and-cover because of the businesses on Cambie, then they didn't want cut-and-cover because of the "environmental" conerns, and when that was shot down they've gone back to whining about the businesses. They sound like a bunch of the usual whiners to me that are opposed to any progress.

zivan56

June 21st, 2005, 09:09 AM

Considering there is already a corridor in the middle of Arbutus, which will not cause almost any delays during construction; it is a far better choice. You will see the chaos extending from downtown Vancouver up to Cambie due the a huge ditch being dug in the middle of one of the busiest streets in Vancouver. Between 16th and KE, there will always be virtual gridlock due to the narrow nature of the street in that location.

Nutterbug

June 21st, 2005, 10:43 AM

Considering there is already a corridor in the middle of Arbutus, which will not cause almost any delays during construction; it is a far better choice.
It's a bit of a roundabout route to Richmond, and there are hardly any points of interest along the way (eg. hospitals, QE Park, Langara College, City Hall, Oakridge Mall, etc.). Ridership will be lower if built that way.

rt_0891

June 21st, 2005, 06:47 PM

Rush 'hour' now lasts five
Study underscores need to increase transit capacity, TransLink boss says

William Boei
Vancouver Sun

Tuesday, June 21, 2005

Greater Vancouver's afternoon rush "hour" lasts nearly five hours now, almost an hour longer than in 1999, a survey of regional travel patterns has found.

The TransLink trip survey suggests the region's transportation system can't handle more growth in peak traffic loads, and it shows more people are travelling in off-peak periods to try to avoid the rush.

TransLink chairman and Surrey Mayor Doug McCallum said Monday the study underscores a need to increase transit capacity. TransLink will vote Wednesday on a plan to accelerate the purchase of new buses and possibly new SkyTrain cars.

The study produced travel records for more than 11,000 individuals in nearly 5,000 households to paint a picture of regional travel patterns.

"The amount of travel has increased significantly, causing more congestion and delays to commuters," says the report by TransLink strategic planning and policy director Clive Rock.

"The rush hour periods are continuing to spread to other parts of the day.

"The typical p.m. rush hour period has increased by almost one hour from 1999 to 2004 and it now lasts close to five hours."

A graph in the report shows the afternoon rush now gets under way shortly after 1 p.m. and continues past 6 p.m. The morning rush has not spread out nearly as much and lasts from about 7 to 9 a.m.

The report doesn't make recommendations. It says the data should help with assessing the effectiveness of the region's transportation system, identifying emerging issues and helping with long-range planning.

It will be presented Wednesday to TransLink's board of directors with a recommendation to forward it to municipal governments, the regional district and the provincial and federal ministers of transportation.

The TransLink trip survey is conducted every five years.

From 1999 to 2004, the report says, the region's population grew by 5.9 per cent to 2.13 million with much of the growth in the outer suburbs.

The number of private vehicles rose by 12.5 per cent to 1.29 million -- 3.3 new vehicles per hour.

Employment rose by 13.4 per cent, with the growth also concentrated in the outer municipalities.

"With only a minimal increase in road space over the years, increased vehicle ownership together with population and job growth places enormous pressures on the region's transportation system," the report says.

The number of trips people make per day -- walking, cycling, driving and riding transit -- rose by 16.5 per cent over the five years to nearly 6.4 million trips per day.

Half of new office jobs created in the last 10 years have gone into office parks in the outer municipalities, the report says, while only seven per cent have gone into the region's designated growth centres.

"The predominant suburb-to-downtown commuting that some other cities experience no longer exists in this region, and has not for quite some time. Instead, people travel from everywhere to everywhere.

"The dispersed nature of trips is more difficult to serve by transit and will increase traffic congestion."

With total trips up 14.6 per cent to 6.4 million a day, more people are travelling between rush hours, the report says. The survey found 34.6 per cent of trips now occur between 9:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m.

Transit's share of daily trips grew from 10.3 per cent to 10.8 per cent.

While that's only half a percentage point, it represents an increase of 30 million "revenue rides" from 126 million in 1999 to 156 million last year.

"We're seeing huge increases in ridership," McCallum said. "It's certainly the largest [increase] in Canada and one of the largest in major cities in North America.

"We really need to accelerate the purchase of buses and SkyTrain cars."

Walking trips represented 11 per cent of the total and bicycling trips 1.7 per cent.

bboei@png.canwest.com

- - -

In 2004, afternoon rush hour in Greater Vancouver started just past one and didn't end until after six. That's a one-hour increase from five years before and nearly twice the 1994 duration.

Starts: Shortly after 1 p.m. Ends: After 6 p.m.

1999: 4 hours

1994: 2.5 hours

PEAK HOURS CHANGE OVER THE COURSE OF A DECADE:

SITUATION IN 2004

Morning peak 8 a.m. 700,000 trips start per hour

Rush begins: 400,000+ trips start/hr

Afternoon peak 3 p.m. 600,000 trips start per hour

CHANGING SIZE OF P.M. PEAK, '94-'04

Expanded p.m. rush-hour detail at left shows how a decade ago, it took until well past 2 p.m. before afternoon rush hour

started. That is a point reached when more than 400,000-plus start their trips each hour.

SOME SIGNIFICANT NUMBERS FOR THE REGION'S COMMUTERS:

25.9%

Share of all trips made during p.m. peak

3.3

Extra vehicles registered in GVRD per hour, 1999 to 2004

1.29

Vehicles registered in Greater Vancouver region, 2004

600

Vehicles per 1,000 people in 2004

570

Vehicles per 1,000 in 1999 and 1994

Source: GVRD

© The Vancouver Sun 2005

rt_0891

June 22nd, 2005, 01:33 AM

Translink GV Trip Daily Survey: http://www.translink.bc.ca/files/board_files/meet_agenda_min/2005/06_22_05/4.4tripdiary.pdf

vanboyH

June 22nd, 2005, 05:14 AM

rt_0891

June 22nd, 2005, 05:37 AM

It's on TransLink's bill so it's TransLink's show Regional transportation body to spend about $400m on PoMo-Coquitlam line

By Diane Strandberg
The Tri-City News
Jun 18 2005

The new Port Moody-Coquitlam LRT line will be TransLink's baby, say TransLink officials.

This is going to be a traditional public project. TransLink will own it and run it," said Ken Hardie, spokesperson for the regional transportation authority.

Thursday, during a media event to highlight the need for public comment on the new line, Trasolini and Kingsbury said the project was long overdue and the Tri-Cities have waited almost 20 years for a rapid transit line.

It's kind of a milestone for me," Kingsbury said of the first joint press conference on the new LRT line. Kingsbury said he watched Surrey and Burnaby get SkyTrain and wondered when the Tri-Cities would get its own rapid transit system.

Meanwhile, at least one TransLink official is looking forward to the construction of the line from Burnaby to Coquitlam Town Centre through Port Moody. Bob Paddon, who lives in the Tri-Cities, attended the press conference and is TransLink's vice-president of corporate and public affairs. He noted that TransLink is spending more on the Tri-City line than it is on the RAV (the Richmond-Airport-Vancouver) line - $400 million compared to $300 million.

We're the major funder on this," he said. In contrast, RAV is being built with funding from the provincial government, private corporations and the airport.

Cost estimates for Port Moody-Coquitlam LRT range from $750 million to $800 million, with $130 million coming from the province. Paddon said the rest of the money is likely to come from a combination of debt financing from operating costs, federal gas taxes and possibly direct federal funding. He said the final construction costs won't be known until the technical details are worked out, possibly by next spring.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Time key issue for LRT line

By Diane Strandberg
The Tri-City News
Jun 18 2005

The short timeline for building light rapid transit to Coquitlam is one of the project's biggest hurdles, says the woman in charge of technical engineering for the $800,000 LRT line.

Sheri Plewes, vice president of capital management and engineering for TransLink, said she's not worried about the prospect of digging a tunnel under Clarke Road.

It's competent soil," she said. From a tunneling perspective, it's not a technical challenge."

What worries her is the four-year construction time-line. There's a lot of work to do in that short period of time," she said.

TransLink has given itself until 2009 to complete the project to have it running in time for the 2010 Winter Olympics. The other challenge is to get people to buy into the project, which had a controversial beginning, with many critics calling for SkyTrain.

At a kick-off celebration for a contest to name the line at Coquitlam Centre Thursday, TransLink officials and Tri-City mayors sported My Rapid Transit 2009" buttons and asked the public to comment on station design and other details for the project.

During the next several weeks, TransLink's community relations team will visit events and locations in Coquitlam, Port Moody, Burnaby and Anmore to ask people to fill out comment sheets and suggest names for the system. The contest concludes July 31.
Plewes said the community consultation program is a key part of the strategy to build ridership on the line and move people out of their cars. Station access, location and even landscaping are important to make sure LRT is convenient, she said. We really want that input so people will be compelled to use it," she said.

The public information will be compiled along with technical and engineering data to determine the final details and cost of the project, expected by next spring.

Friday, Coquitlam and PoMo mayors and councillors were to visit Portland for a close look at that city's three-line system, which connects to three towns, the airport and the Expo Centre. Bikes are allowed on Portland's MAX system and many of the cars are low-floor and accessible vehicles, like those that will be used for the Tri-City line.

Coquitlam Mayor Jon Kingsbury said the day-long tour will give other councillors a chance to look at the technical and operation requirements of an LRT line. We'll be looking at what's different, what's important and things to watch for," said Kingsbury, who will be accompanied on the tour by councillors Barrie Lynch and Louella Hollington.

For more information on TransLink LRT events and times, go to www.translink.bc.ca/Plans-Projects/Northeast_Sector.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

PoMo puts in station wish list

By Diane Strandberg
The Tri-City News
Jun 18 2005

Port Moody wants to tweak" the location of proposed LRT stations in the city and possibly add a fourth stop in Glenayre so residents will have easier access to the Coquitlam light rail transit line.

PoMo councillors passed a motion Tuesday to appeal to TransLink for the changes after a staff report pointed out the planned LRT line will have three stops in the city while the current 97B bus has six. The report recommended a fourth station at the bottom of Clarke Hill, where the light rail cars emerge from the portal.

But Coun. Meghan Lahti said that wouldn't help Seaview or Glenayre residents, and convinced her colleagues to support a station at Glenayre instead, even though it would be costly to build in a tunnel and lengthen trip times for Coquitlam residents.
Coun. Gerry Nuttall said he was told a Glenayre station would be too far down" and too expensive" at $1.5 million to $2 million. They weren't prepared to consider that," he said.

But Mayor Joe Trasolini said the cost impact would be minimal compared to the total cost of the project.

He later said TransLink has been informed of the proposed changes, which also include moving the Queen Street station closer to the base of Clarke hill, to accommodate Port Moody secondary school students, and moving the Moray street station closer to Ioco Road, to accommodate NewPort Village residents.

But Coquitlam Mayor Jon Kingsbury said addition of the Glenayre stop is unlikely given the late timing of the request and the cost of building a tunnel station.

We have an $800 million project," Kingsbury said. We don't have a nickel more."

crazyjoeda

June 22nd, 2005, 05:49 AM

I hope they stop the RAV, Translink has lied from start to finish.

If RAV doesn't commence construction now, I doubt there will be a link from Richmond-Vancouver until at least 2014.

I don't really expect $400 million from the Feds if they don't build it now and instead delay to until after the Olympics. By then, there will be moaning about the cost of the whole thing along with a LOT more traffic.

:bash:

You’re a moron. RAV is the most important transportation project on the table its essential, inevitable and the cost is only going to go up if we wait. Cut and cover is the cheapest and most efficient way of building it, the businesses along the route that are protesting it can suck it! Once the line is built the property value will be higher and the businesses will get way more customers.

By the way RAV has already been committed for 2009, so it will be built.

ssiguy2

June 22nd, 2005, 05:53 AM

LRT is more affordable and a better option than SkyTrain. they should, however, have the line going the way it is now but then go to Douglas Station first and then end at Coq.Centre. It would be a far easirer expansion into PoCo as it would then be on the rail ROW to downtown PoCo and eventually MapleRidge.

zonie

June 22nd, 2005, 06:35 AM

Will LRT really be a long-term solution for the Coquitlam line? I am thinking capacity could be reached far too quickly.

rt_0891

June 22nd, 2005, 06:58 AM

^ I doubt ridership levels will ever be adaquete for anything other than LRT until Coquitlam's city centre densifies & grows.

ssiguy2

June 22nd, 2005, 07:17 AM

The LRT will be fine. Look at the Millenium Line and what incredible poor ridership levels they are getting.

zonie

June 22nd, 2005, 07:30 AM

Millenium Line is only a few years old, and ridership is growing. Also consider the amount of towers being built up around the line, and I think it'll continue growing strongly. If Coquitlam builds in the same way (I don't know if they plan to), then an LRT might not cut it for much more than a couple decades. I think making it part of the Skytrain backbone of the transit network might be a better choice, and extend with LRT from there.

vanboyH

June 22nd, 2005, 08:16 AM

:bash:

You’re a moron. RAV is the most important transportation project on the table its essential, inevitable and the cost is only going to go up if we wait. Cut and cover is the cheapest and most efficient way of building it, the businesses along the route that are protesting it can suck it! Once the line is built the property value will be higher and the businesses will get way more customers.

By the way RAV has already been committed for 2009, so it will be built.

I'm sorry, are you talking to me? I'm for building the RAV line now, with what's already proposed and approved.

I should have used quotes, I guess I'm more used to italics. I was quoting ssiguy2 with his "I hope they stop the RAV, Translink has lied from start to finish.".

ssiguy2

June 22nd, 2005, 09:37 PM

zonie

June 22nd, 2005, 09:55 PM

M-Line last year was at 48,000 (or 59,000) boardings per weekday depending on how you look at it, up 34% from the 2003.

Perhaps this was revised at some point, but here's the original Skytrain-LRT comparison:

SkyTrain:

* estimated ridership of up to 5,900 riders in peak direction

* estimated 2,600 new riders

* capital costs of up to $840 million ($75 million per kilometre)

* annualized cost of $4.30 per passenger

* travel time 12.7 minutes

* operating speed 51.5 km/h

* perceived drawbacks: negative visual and community impact; cost above available funding

Light Rail:

* estimated ridership of up to 2,600 riders in peak direction

* estimated 2,100 new riders

* capital cost of up to $670 million ($59.5 million per km)

* annualized cost of $6.95 per passenger

* travel time 20.9 minutes (via St. Johns and Barnet)

* operating speed 31.6 km/h

* perceived drawbacks: traffic impacts; cost slightly above currently available funding

* positive contribution to air quality

And this report http://www.translink.bc.ca/files/board_files/meet_agenda_min/2004/10_15_04/4.1attacha.pdf is calling for the following capacity:

5.5 Operating Capacity
The system will deliver a capacity that exceeds the forecasted peak hour demand at
the maximum load point on the line by 15%. The maximum capacity delivered will
be no less than:
2010: 2,500 passenger spaces per hour per direction at the maximum load point
2021: 3,500 passenger spaces per hour per direction at the maximum load point
5.6 Ultimate System Capacity
The system must be designed to be capable of accommodating 9,000 passengers per hour
per direction at the maximum load point on the line in the future.

From those numbers, it looks as if LRT would be at capacity from day 1.

And the capital cost savings don't look very good compared to the operating costs, though I'm guessing these figures aren't too accurate.

zonie

June 22nd, 2005, 10:02 PM

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but CTrain is having more capacity problems.

ssiguy2

June 22nd, 2005, 10:10 PM

Yes, they are having capacity problems which they are addressing with more CTRain car orders. They are also in the process of extending the stations to handle 4 car trains.
Translink SkyTrain is at capacity but that is because the cars are so small. The MK11 are smaller trains as they only are the equivalent of 3 MK1.
3 MK11 cars are approx the length of Toronto's subway trains.
The Millenium Line has cost $1.1 bil and many of those higher ridership numbers are due to transfers onto the SkyTrain not new revenue passengers.
For just 60% of the cost of the Mileenium Line Calgary's CTrain has managed to get ridership numbers 5 TIMES higher.
Looks like a pretty shitty investment to me.

queetz@home

June 23rd, 2005, 04:21 AM

Vancouver simply doesn't have the density for this kind of RT. Sorry but 220,000 passengers a day for $2.4bil is really shitty when comp[ared to Calgary's CTrain with the same ridership, less rail, half the population for only $640.
I shudder to think what Translink could have done with that extra $1.8bil. We wouls have LRT and Commuter Rail all over greater Vancouver and much higher transit ridership as it has the lowest of the 5 largest metro areas in the country per-capita.

Great minds think alike. RAV is a farce and frankly, the most idiotic thing Greater Vancouver and the province of BC has ever embarked on. And the $1.8 billion price tag is solely the fault of those creme de la creme NIMBYs who don't want to see a train high above their homes! And now the Cambie NIMBYs don't even want a cut and cover since its "cheaper". WTF is that all about?

Somebody's gotta get new material, it's getting quite old and outdated................and maybe it's because he actually IS queetz.

I don't know who Queetz is but isn't he the guy you had a hilarious debate over at the old Highrise Canada forum? For all, check out the funny thread I bookmarked... :hilarious

http://s4.invisionfree.com/Highrise_Canada/index.php?showtopic=5

zonie

June 23rd, 2005, 04:30 AM

Well if you're just going by riders/dollar spent, then I think Ottawa's is one of the best transit systems there is, likely beating Calgary. If that's all there is to it, then I guess BRT is the answer?

Long-term capacity is a valid concern in my opinion.

crazyjoeda

June 23rd, 2005, 06:22 AM

The LRT will be fine. Look at the Millenium Line and what incredible poor ridership levels they are getting.

I think M-line was built wrong but it is hardly a complete waste. RAV should have been built first but the Millenium line doesn't get bad ridership levels at all. In fact I heard it gets some where in the neighbourhood of 70,000 riders a day, less then the 125,000 the Expo line gets but ridership is growing and so is development around the stations.

I'm sorry, are you talking to me? I'm for building the RAV line now, with what's already proposed and approved.

I should have used quotes, I guess I'm more used to italics. I was quoting ssiguy2 with his "I hope they stop the RAV, Translink has lied from start to finish.".

Sorry I didn't understand that you were quoting SSIGUY2.

mr.x

June 23rd, 2005, 06:24 AM

Great minds think alike. RAV is a farce and frankly, the most idiotic thing Greater Vancouver and the province of BC has ever embarked on. And the $1.8 billion price tag is solely the fault of those creme de la creme NIMBYs who don't want to see a train high above their homes! And now the Cambie NIMBYs don't even want a cut and cover since its "cheaper". WTF is that all about?

I don't know who Queetz is but isn't he the guy you had a hilarious debate over at the old Highrise Canada forum? For all, check out the funny thread I bookmarked... :hilarious

http://s4.invisionfree.com/Highrise_Canada/index.php?showtopic=5

Hello queetz. :)

npinguy

June 23rd, 2005, 06:35 AM

I think M-line was built wrong but it is hardly a complete waste. RAV should have been built first but the Millenium line doesn't get bad ridership levels at all. In fact I heard it gets some where in the neighbourhood of 70,000 riders a day, less then the 125,000 the Expo line gets but ridership is growing and so is development around the stations.

I agree.

Brentwood/Gilmore has developed into a high-rise neighborhood almost as impressive as Metrotown. And there's dozens more construction projects.

Rupert/Renfrew haven't had much increase in density YET but the lots are there, and the demand is there, and they will.

Once the coquitlam LRT is connected the M-line will be linked with Coquitlam and Poco.

All these things, plus the inevitable extension of M-line to at the very least Cambie makes me think it in no way whatsoever was a waste.

sukh

June 23rd, 2005, 12:16 PM

^ Yeah exactly, they should of finished it when they started building it, and obviously we think many years ahead when building these kinds of transportation projects, that LRT wouldnt cut it here in the future.

rt_0891

June 23rd, 2005, 05:39 PM

TransLink approves parking tax
You'll pay more as businesses pass on costs to customers

Frank Luba
The Province

Thursday, June 23, 2005

TransLink's approval yesterday of a new parking tax means businesses will have to pay more for transportation improvements.

About $20 million will be raised annually by the new tax, with about five per cent being paid annually to the B.C. Assessment Authority to maintain the parking rolls and pay for the appeals process.

Business has never liked the tax but John Winter, president of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, tried to be optimistic yesterday about the tax going toward TransLink's $1.9 billion 2005-2007 spending plans.

"Let's hope we begin to reap some of the benefits of it in the short term rather than the long term," he said.

One of those benefits was approved yesterday.

The purchase of 50 more buses for $25.7 million will be moved up to 2006 and 2007 instead of 2008 and 2009.

Winter is convinced the tax will end up being paid by customers.

"In many cases, perhaps most cases, they will be passed on to the consumer," he said. "It could have an inflationary impact.

"If it's a mall, it will be passed on to the tenant, who in turn will pass it on to the end user."

Board member David Cadman didn't have a lot of sympathy for businesses balking at the tax.

"The retail sector consistently says they are opposed to it but they are consistently in favour of us improving public transit, specifically the RAV project," said Cadman, a Vancouver councillor. "You can't have it both ways.

"You can't say, 'We want improvements, put RAV in, but don't ask us to pay for it, ask the riders to pay for it, ask the homeowner to pay for it.'"

Homeowners are already paying higher taxes to TransLink, and transit fares went up Jan. 1.

The parking tax begins in 2006.

Maple Ridge Mayor Kathy Morse was the only board member to vote against it.

"Mostly it's because I struggled with the equity of charging everybody the same rate," said Morse.

She objected to the way the tax will be imposed, with a shopping centre in an area with limited bus service being charged the same $30 or so per stall as another mall with more frequent bus service and rapid transit.

fluba@png.canwest.com
© The Vancouver Province 2005

mr.x

June 24th, 2005, 02:51 AM

Free-fare zone needed downtown: city report
Last updated Jun 23 2005 03:22 PM PDT
CBC News

CBC NEWS – A report prepared for Vancouver city council has recommended a series of sweeping changes, including the elimination of bus fares in the downtown core.

The Vancouver and UBC Transit Plan also calls for changes to the practice of charging more for short trips across existing transit zone boundaries.

LINK: City transit report (pdf) (Large 234-page file – 11.89 MB)

There's also a call for expanded bus service. The report says TransLink should establish new routes along 33rd Avenue, Cambie Street and Renfrew – from Hastings to McGill.

It also says bus lanes are needed along Broadway.

Vancouver city council will discuss the report at a public hearing next Wednesday, and decide whether the report should be endorsed and forwarded to TransLink.

Bus Riders Union spokesperson Beth Grayer welcome the suggestions of fare reductions, but says the politicians need to take the proposal further.

"While that's great, that we really do need free zones," she says. "What we need more than anything is either a free zone for the entire system or a lower fare that people can actually afford."

Grayer says the fare reductions could easily be paid for if TransLink scrapped the $1.7-billion RAV rapid-transit line between Richmond and Vancouver.

--------------------------------------------------

I think this is a great idea.

rt_0891

June 24th, 2005, 02:56 AM

^ Excellent idea. Portland also has a no-fare zone downtown & it's worked quite well.

ssiguy2

June 24th, 2005, 04:11 AM

The CTrain in downtown Calgary is also free.
Would it only be certain routes? ie Davie/Robson

queetz@home

June 24th, 2005, 04:48 AM

I'm lazy so I'll just repost what I said in the Canada section with regards to the free fare zone.

Portland also does not exactly submit to the whims of the creme de la creme that results in skyrocketing construction costs to our rail lines. Perhaps this is why our MAX LRT is heralded as one of the best in the continent for it is built based on sound planning, not politics. This can be seen in its extensiveness to reach more people, a large impact in rejuvinating run down neighborhoods, and has successfully created transit malls and transit oriented development.

Plus Portland does not exactly demand its suburbs to pay and subsidize transit improvements that only benefits the inner city. Given that Translink is a regional transportation authority, why should Vancouver have a free fare zone while other town centers in the GVRD does not? Perhaps if Vancouver were to form its own transit authority instead of relying on some poor shmoe in Maple Ridge to pay for a subway line that he will never use, then you can have a free fare zone all you like within your city boundaries.

Nutterbug

June 24th, 2005, 06:16 AM

queetz@home

June 24th, 2005, 06:35 AM

Nutterbug

June 24th, 2005, 07:53 AM

^ A large chunk of Tri Met's funding is from payroll tax while the rest are from fares, federal and state grants. I do know that there are actually tax exemptions for building transit oriented developments in the city.
I imagine there would be an extra tax specifically on those who own property in the free transit area, most likely an extra levy slapped onto their property taxes or something.

rt_0891

June 24th, 2005, 08:17 AM

Plus Portland does not exactly demand its suburbs to pay and subsidize transit improvements that only benefits the inner city. Given that Translink is a regional transportation authority, why should Vancouver have a free fare zone while other town centers in the GVRD does not? Perhaps if Vancouver were to form its own transit authority instead of relying on some poor shmoe in Maple Ridge to pay for a subway line that he will never use, then you can have a free fare zone all you like within your city boundaries.

I'm curious, since Tri-Met serves three counties, does each county raise their own funds to subsidize/fund transit improvements that benefit their own area/county?

^ A large chunk of Tri Met's funding is from payroll tax while the rest are from fares, federal and state grants. I do know that there are actually tax exemptions for building transit oriented developments in the city.

This is the missing link in Translink's funding puzzle. Translink needs access to income tax revenue...the feds/province should cut their own income taxes and pass it down to the cities. Also, the level of public transportation grants up here in Canada is way less than the US. This has to change.

queetz@home

June 24th, 2005, 09:19 AM

^ All Tri-Met counties generally have the same level of service and is covered by the main rapid transit system and because of the way the revenue is raised, its a much more equitable solution. And given that a large chunk of revenue are from payroll and most of the employment center in Portland are in the downtown area, its only rightfully so that there is a free zone since the downtown workforce has more than paid for their share of the transit services.

But in the GVRD, it is clear that there are numerous areas are much more disadvantaged than others. For example, half of the expenditure on Translink's $4 billion plan benefits mainly the city of Vancouver and yet most of the GVRD residents don't live with that city. Also, the tax dollars raised are far more from the suburbs, as well as it is there where the growing employment centers are.

North Shore is a good example of this inequity. Because of the high value of their homes, they pay a large proportion of the property tax revenue. And yet that area has so little service improvements. Richmond on the other hand, generally pays less and has had a poor track record on developing transit oriented development and yet they reap a large chunk of the rewards. And let me remind you again that the sole reason why RAV is so expensive is because of demands by a segement of the city of Vancouver's population to tunnel, the creme de la creme, and yet people from Maple Ridge still have to pay for their outrageous demands.

And one more thing I notice in the US is most if not all mega projects go through an actual vote. So whether the project is a cheap useless BRT corridor or a $2 billion monorail system, the fact of the matter is Americans do have a choice and the outcome is purely a result in exercising that choice. In Greater Vancouver, it seems the public's opinion to justify support for RAV is based on a casual survey in a mall. :|

crazyjoeda

June 24th, 2005, 09:45 AM

No fare downtown would be so great! Portland is an excellent example. Downtown residence must pay higher tax for it though.

rt_0891

June 24th, 2005, 07:19 PM

Council to vote on fare-free downtown zone

Jennifer Miller
Vancouver Sun

Friday, June 24, 2005

City council will vote on recommendations for a complete review of transit fares and a fare-free zone for downtown Vancouver after a public hearing at city hall Wednesday evening.

The recommendations, made by city engineers, are over and above proposals in a draft plan for transit in Vancouver over the next five years. A fare review cannot be included in the plan because it would apply to all regions, not just Vancouver.

Called the Vancouver and UBC transit plan, it is a joint effort between the city and TransLink, with input from the Coast Mountain bus company, the University of B.C. and a public advisory committee. Part of the plan is to give buses more priority on city streets, and a pilot project is proposed for the Broadway corridor.

Any fare review or free travel would have to be approved by TransLink, whose officials have "shuddered" at the idea so far, said Coun. Fred Bass, who was on two advisory committees that contributed to the plan.

He said in an interview Thursday that letting riders travel for free downtown would help buses move faster because there would be no delays while people pay their fares.

It would also encourage more people to leave their cars at home instead of fighting for limited parking downtown, he said.

"If you can very efficiently move people short distances and you have a steady flow of people getting in and out of the buses, then in fact the overall payoff to the flow of the city...may be enormous."

The idea comes from other locations that offer free transit. Portland's "Fareless Square" includes most of downtown, and Belgium recently made commuter trains free.

The suggestions for a fare review include changes so people who cross zone boundaries even though they travel short distances wouldn't have to pay so much, said Bass, adding that he would also like to see an end to fare increases every few years.

The transit plan going to council Wednesday includes new strategies to reduce transit travel times for the busiest bus route in the city -- the Broadway corridor. Designated bus lanes, technology that adjusts the length of traffic lights to accommodate buses, and getting people on board faster are part of a proposed pilot project for the congested area.

"The system has become quite inefficient," said John Schnablegger, a city engineer and co-author of the transit plan report. There has been a decline in reliability and travel times, especially on Broadway, he said.

The No. 99 B-line and the No. 9 bus routes carry about 60,000 transit riders along Broadway every day -- and according to city projections, overall B-line boardings are expected to increase by 40 per cent over the next five years.

To help keep the buses moving along the thoroughfair, curb lanes should become designated for buses during rush hour, Schnablegger said. But he said he doesn't know how much this might improve travel times, since those lanes are already used mostly by transit vehicles.

"Between the No. 9 and the B-line service, I mean, they pretty well own those curb lanes," he said.

So far, there is no plan to remove parking in those lanes during off-peak hours, but it might be considered in the future as ridership continues to increase.

"If you're going to have a serious bus system...then you have to give priority to transit vehicles," said Bass. "It's very simple."

To help reduce waiting times at lights, technology on the B-line buses would extend a green light or turn a light green sooner so buses don't have to stop at intersections. This is already being used on Granville Street for the No. 98 B-line, said Schnablegger.

Getting riders on board faster is also expected to speed up travel times. The pilot project includes allowing passengers to get on through all doors, not just the front, and a proposal for new payment technology called smart-cards that would deduct fares electronically without passengers even having to take the card out of their pockets, he said.

All-door boarding is already taking place on the B-line because there are so many riders, but inspectors would be added to check fares and make the practice more formalized.

Parts of the Broadway project, such as keeping lights green for buses, could begin within a matter of weeks and the route is a "test ground" for other areas in the city that need help moving transit along, Schnablegger said. The transit plan identifies Hastings Street, 41st Avenue, Main Street and Burrard Street as other hot spots for delays.

jmiller@png.canwest.com
© The Vancouver Sun 2005

ssiguy2

June 25th, 2005, 12:08 AM

I think that free zones downtown are great, especially considering how high the fares are in Vancouver.
Vancouver says its one zone is cheaper than Toronto's which is true. The reality thouh is that the TTC serves ALL of the city of Toronto. This means the original city plus the inner suburbs {ie NorthYork,Scar, E.York,Eto} while Vancouver's does not.
If Vancouver was to serve the same area it would be the equivalent of Zone 1&2 making it a hell of an expensive system considering its poor service quality compared to the TTC.
Therefore, if the downtowners can get a break then I say great.

Nutterbug

June 25th, 2005, 03:17 AM

To give you a little perspective

http://members.shaw.ca/billk/vanttc.jpg

June 25th, 2005, 07:21 AM

I don't think a fare-less zone is a good idea, downtown has way too many bums/drug dealers/addicts etc.

SkyTrain is already a free ride to spread crime all over the place

What they really need is automated fare gates in SkyTrain stations!!

bs_lover_boy

June 25th, 2005, 09:01 AM

arashi_1987

June 25th, 2005, 08:34 PM

I was actually thinking about this same thing the other day I was in downtown Vancouver...why would I pay a 1zone fare from Waterfront to Granville?? It's simply not worth it. Some stations in other countries have "tunnels" or underground malls that take you quite far from the actual station (for free).

And for those automated gates...I'd love to see them but Translink is gonna have to do A LOT of changes to their ticket systems...For those who buy tickets it's fine but...what about for the majority of the people [i am assuming] who use monthly passes, U-Pass, and other forms of passes...?? How are they supposed to ge through a automated-machine with those ?? Remember there are no staff at work in most stations to "check" those passes.

While I am at it, I think I am going to criticise about Vancouver's transit.

- Infrequent buses [in suburbs]
- FARE BOXES on buses are 'retarded'...can put in only 1 coin at a time?? And still they count wront!!! [one time I was on a community bus and put in $1.50 for 1 zone...and the screen reads: $4.10...wow thanks...I wonder where that can take me to] Please, do something about that!!!
*In Japan the Bus fare boxes lets you put all the coins in into a slot and counts the amount you put in (error free) in 1 second.
- SKYTRAIN 1: if all the announcements say is next station is: ***, then why bother. Add in some interchange informations...like...change here for 99B or...change here for Expo Line to Surrey...
- SKYTRAIN 2: What's the point of having the Millenium Line overlapping the Expo Line from downtown to New West?? Say you are at Lougheed Station and trying to go to Waterfront...One's first instinct must be to board the train to 'Waterfront' and not "Commercial Drive" then change trains, which is actually the quicker way. (My parents still get confused even after a few years the new line came to service)
* By the way, if this is going to remain, please make clearer announcements as to where the train is actually heading: Commercial Drive or King George. Put an electronic sign in front of the train itself...make an announcement BEFORE the train doors actually open (right now the announcements say "Expo Line to...King George" after you have sat down confortably on the trains)

I have one good thing to say though: Sky train is quite efficient, automated and quite fast...

zonie

June 25th, 2005, 09:30 PM

Yes, the fare boxes, which are fairly new, are one of the worst Translink expenditures of recent times.

I don't think they'll be fully replaced anytime soon though. But at least it sounds like they're perhaps considering augmenting the system with automatic passive passes... I guess RF tags? Currently, it slows down boarding a bit too much.

June 26th, 2005, 02:26 AM

* By the way, if this is going to remain, please make clearer announcements as to where the train is actually heading: Commercial Drive or King George. Put an electronic sign in front of the train itself...make an announcement BEFORE the train doors actually open (right now the announcements say "Expo Line to...King George" after you have sat down confortably on the trains)

I have one good thing to say though: Sky train is quite efficient, automated and quite fast...

Regarding the electronic signs, they are TOTALLY STUPID, it should display the time when the next train arrives way in advance of it arriving at the station. Currently all it does is once actually see the train approaching the station (with your own eyes), and it puts a retarded message like "Expo Line Train to...." and it can't even fit all the text on one "window".

SkyTrain is a good system, but its managed and run very poorly by Translink.

rt_0891

June 26th, 2005, 06:55 AM

June 22, 2005
TransLink and four municipalities finalize Golden Ears Bridge agreement

The Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority (TransLink) Board of Directors today authorized TransLink to sign a master municipal agreement with the City of Surrey, Township of Langley, District of Pitt Meadows and District of Maple Ridge.

The five-party agreement, which took several years to negotiate, details the roles and responsibilities of TransLink and each municipality relative to the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the Golden Ears Bridge.

“This agreement reflects the vision and collaborative spirit of each municipality that stands to benefit from the bridge,” said TransLink Chair Doug McCallum. “It is a true example of local governments working together to improve the entire region.”

TransLink Board authorization represents the final step in the master agreement approval process. Negotiations with all four municipalities were completed in May 2005 and each municipal council has approved the agreement. The mayors of all four municipalities and Chair McCallum will sign the agreement on June 24th.

The agreement defines the scope and standards for the Golden Ears Bridge, provides the mechanism for connecting road network improvements, and establishes the responsibilities and obligations of all parties over the life of the project.

“This is an essential milestone that moves us closer to linking the communities on the north and south side of the Fraser River,” said Golden Ears Bridge Project Director Fred Cummings. It is expected the contract to design, build, finance, operate, maintain and rehabilitate the bridge will be awarded this fall.

Scheduled to open in 2008, the Golden Ears Bridge will provide a six-lane toll bridge across the Fraser River, connecting Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge with Surrey and Langley. The new bridge and associated road network will result in improved north-south access to regional centers and major trade routes such as the Trans Canada Highway. It will benefit the entire region by opening up access to employment, markets, services, facilities and recreational opportunities.

TransLink is the region’s transportation authority, committed to working with communities and all levels of government to build an integrated transportation network that will improve the movement of goods and people through the Greater Vancouver region. TransLink supports the regional growth strategy, air quality objectives and economic development of the Greater Vancouver Regional District.

hkskyline

June 26th, 2005, 07:36 AM

TransLink hiring new drivers as service expands: Company directors want early delivery on 34 new SkyTrain cars
William Boei
Vancouver Sun
23 June 2005

GREATER VANCOUVER - TransLink and its subsidiaries will be hiring 1,200 employees -- most of them for new jobs -- over the next three years after the transportation authority's board approved a plan Wednesday to expand service hours and accelerate the purchase of new buses.

Planning vice-president Glen Leicester told the TransLink board the new hirings -- mainly drivers and support staff -- will include replacements for retiring employees, but most will be new jobs to help beef up transit service following reports that some bus routes and SkyTrain segments are seriously overcrowded.

TransLink directors also ordered staff to find out whether it is feasible to get early delivery of 34 new SkyTrain cars that are due in 2009. One of the worst congestion points in the transit system is the Main-Street-to-Broadway SkyTrain segment, which is at 99 per cent of capacity during peak periods.

The TransLink subsidiaries that operate transit services will add 83,000 service hours next year, 26,000 more hours in 2007 and another 48,000 hours in 2008.

Fifty new buses due for delivery in 2008 and 2009 will be re-ordered for 2006-07. They are part of a batch of 220 new buses scheduled for delivery over the next four years.

TransLink will also consider keeping its fleet of 17- and 18-year-old diesel buses on the road longer than planned -- perhaps an average of an extra six months per bus -- as it tries to expand service following three years of rapid ridership growth with little or no new capacity.

The plan will cost TransLink more than $50 million, but Leicester told the board it is finally "in a pretty good position to afford it."

TransLink has been strapped for money since its creation in 1999, when the former NDP government reneged on a promise to bring in a new vehicle levy to finance the region's transportation needs.

But things are looking rosier now, with promised revenue from the federal fuel tax a near-certainty, higher ridership boosting fare income, a new tax on parking starting next year and a recent fare increase.

"Because we have those revenue increases, we can now speed up the purchase of our buses and provide better service than our plan calls for," TransLink chair Doug McCallum said after the meeting.

TransLink directors also approved a bylaw that will allow the B.C. Assessment Authority to create a tax roll for the new parking tax.

As well, they authorized the signing of a master agreement with four municipal governments for the new Golden Ears Bridge.

The bridge will connect Surrey and Langley on the south bank of the Fraser River to Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge in the north. The agreement will cover design, construction, operation and maintenance of the bridge; a contract with a builder-operator is expected to be signed in the fall.

hkskyline

June 26th, 2005, 07:37 AM

Vancouver traffic relief may be on the lines, report says
Canadian Press
24 June 2005

Vancouver -- Greater Vancouver may appear to be losing the battle against traffic congestion and urban sprawl but there is hope the region's two new rapid transit lines will reverse the trend, a report says.

TransLink planning and policy director Clive Rock said the region's afternoon rush hour has expanded to five hours from four.

Mr. Rock's report said 50 per cent of new office jobs are in new office parks scattered on Greater Vancouver's outer edges, where they are difficult to serve by road and impossible by transit.

However, Mr. Rock told TransLink directors on Wednesday that the planned Richmond-Airport-Vancouver rapid transit line and a light-rail extension from the Millennium SkyTrain Line in Burnaby to the designated growth centres could make the difference.

rt_0891

June 27th, 2005, 10:23 PM

Pedestrians trump the 'green wave'

Ed Drass, with files from James Bow
National Post

Monday, June 27, 2005

In over seven years of writing this column, the most frequent concern I hear from readers is traffic signals. Alan Inglis of Vancouver asks what drivers everywhere want to know: "Can you tell me why timed or phased traffic lights are not used more frequently? In this age of advanced wireless electronics, I think it would be an easy task with many benefits. Vancouver uses this system in a limited manner downtown -- on Georgia, Dunsmuir, Howe and maybe two other streets.

"But why don't we make use of it on all major traffic corridors?

"The system can be used to control speed at the limit. Excess speed is punished by a wait at the next light. I think a greater volume of traffic will flow, and drivers will be more relaxed and mild mannered!"

Getting a string of solid greens may be a technological Holy Grail -- it is so easily stymied by either physics (read traffic congestion) -- or philosophy. Patrick Ryan of the City of Vancouver says signal co-ordination, sometimes called green waves, works better on one-way streets.

When "you get into two-way corridors, it gets a lot more complex," he says. "Trying to co-ordinate the different corridors crossing each other [is] starting to get next to impossible. So, at some stage, you have to pick one corridor."

In many North American cities, one-way streets are found primarily downtown. But rec-ently, Vancouver converted some of its single-direction routes to the old-fashioned style. Like other booming burgs across the country, people are moving back to the city core -- and so are merchants.

Shop owners everywhere want parking available near their stores, as well as good auto access. But what they crave is foot traffic. Says the Vancouver engineer, "Our transportation plan, approved by council, really is a lot more pedestrian focused. Our priority is pedestrians, cyclists, transit, goods movement and the private automobile ... in that order. We do have a different approach. We're not into the higher capacity vehicle flows as much as higher people flow."

One of the city's busiest thoroughfares is Granville Street --where Mr. Ryan says half the people moving along it are riding in transit vehicles. Here, the traffic signal system kicks in to keep service flowing. "Any bus that's running late will get an extended green time, wherever it's possible," he says.

Traffic lights are more and more likely to be timed for those crossing the street. Mr. Ryan says, "Across the board, we've tried to reduce pedestrian wait times as much as possible -- that was a policy decision a while back." How does the central city compare to suburban municipalities? He says, "I think more of the other areas look at more vehicle flow. It's a more traditional approach to transportation engineering."

Before you grumble about pedestrians, keep in mind that the most formidable opponent to green waves is traffic going the other way. The modern intersection is also at fault. Junctions with "fully actuated signals" make it easier to turn left and try to account for volume coming from different directions. Wherever intersection lights are triggered by the presence of traffic, it becomes very difficult to co-ordinate signals along an entire corridor.

Larry McCormick, Edmonton's manager of traffic operations, says that his city does have green waves, especially on routes aimed downtown. Signal timing is tougher in areas of Alberta's capital where traffic does not favour one direction. The priority is balancing delay for all drivers, he says, "so that we don't have these wonderful green waves coming into the city, [leaving] everybody at the side street waiting an outrageous amount of time."

© National Post 2005