Vancouver Public Transit

[hkskyline]

Skytrains operate on an honour fare system. There are no gates at the stations, but officers check for tickets regularly. Here is a ticket machine :
http://files.photojerk.com/hkskyline/vancouver/RIMG0075.jpg

Skytrain
http://files.photojerk.com/hkskyline/RIMG0080.jpg

Waterfront Station
http://files.photojerk.com/hkskyline/RIMG0099.jpg

http://files.photojerk.com/hkskyline/RIMG0277.jpg

A pedestrian bridge links the main railway terminus at Waterfront with the Seabus terminal :
http://www.student.math.uwaterloo.ca/~j3fung/vancouver/DSCN1766.jpg

Granville Station
http://files.photojerk.com/hkskyline/RIMG0256.jpg

Electric trolley buses run throughout downtown :
http://img17.exs.cx/img17/2960/DSCN2241.jpg

[Mr!Kiasu]

are there any plans to upgrade or expand public transport in Vancouver?

[hkskyline]

Over the next 10 years, TransLink will invest $3.9 billion in transit and road improvements to maintain or improve travel times for commuters, goods and service providers, cyclists and the disabled community.

The Richmond-Airport-Vancouver (RAV) rail-based rapid transit line will open in 2009, linking central Richmond, the Vancouver International Airport, and Vancouver along the Cambie corridor to central Broadway, the downtown business district and Waterfront Station.

The line is 19.5 km long with 18 stations, and will improve existing rapid transit service. For example, it will connect with SkyTrain lines that run through the eastern part of the region and the SeaBus serving the North Shore.

http://www.translink.bc.ca/files/section_pics/Plans_Projects/RAV/map-big.gif

Bus Fleet Replacement
* Replace the electric trolley fleet with 228 new, zero-emmission, low-floor trolley buses between 2005 and 2007.
* Replace aging diesel buses.
* Replace older HandyDART vehicles.
* Reintroduce 50 Compressed Natural Gas buses.

Website : http://www.translink.bc.ca/Plans_Projects/default.asp
http://www.translink.bc.ca/files/banners/areatransitplans_panorama.jpg

[Palal]

Let me just say that SkyTrain is AMAZING! Quiet, fast, convenient! And most importantly, it has a railfan's seat :).

[ailiton]

http://www.translink.bc.ca/files/banners/xpressbus_panorama.jpg

Express Coach routes provide direct, limited-stop service from Surrey, White Rock, Tsawwassen, North Delta, Ladner to and from Vancouver. These routes use highway coaches equipped with:

* Wheelchair lifts
* Bicycle racks
* Raised seating
* Fabric, high-backed seats with headrests and footrests
* Air conditioning
* Overhead package racks
* Individual controlled reading lights

These routes operate Express Coach service:

* 311 Scottsdale/Vancouver
* 351 Crescent Beach/Vancouver
* 352 Ocean Park/Vancouver
* 354 White Rock South/Vancouver
* 601 South Delta/Boundary Bay/Vancouver
* 602 Tsawwassen Heights/Vancouver
* 603 Beach Grove/Vancouver
* 604 English Bluff/Vancouver




I am travelling on route 601 almost everyday and I have to say that these bus are really great! (although not so good for standing)

[Mr!Kiasu]

"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?

[VAN-TO]

Hope they will swing a line west on Broadway to UBC someday ....

[en]

light rail just approved from lougheed town centre to coquitlam, translink is just cheap, introducing a new system when there is already a built in train platform for future skytrain expansion to coquitlam. Start construction in 2006 open in 2009.

[bs_lover_boy]

Decisions for the RAV (Richmond-Airport-Vancouver Rapid Transit) will come out in Mid-November, stayed tuned. For more information, go to

http://www.ravprapidtransit.com/
(http://www.ravprapidtransit.com/)

[spsmiler]

"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?

Hi there,


Vancouver experimented with fuel cell - and that is why they are buying electric trolleybuses.

They found that the fuel cell needed refuelling too frequently - it could not even do a full day's work without refuelling. Plus it took so much energy to produce, store etc the hydrogen that for the same energy input they could power 11 regular overhead wire powered trolleybuses.


Then there was the cost - and the problem that hydrogen is potentially very volatile (explosive)

For more information about fuel cell buses and why they are not (yet) a solution follow this weblink http://www.tbus.org.uk/fuelcell.htm

Simon

[hkskyline]

Richmond Airport Vancouver Rapid Transit

http://www.ravprapidtransit.com/en/pics/aerial_map.jpg

http://www.ravprapidtransit.com/en/pics/route.gif

[Palal]

So right now, the line is planned, so as to follow the 98-B line, right?
If that's the case, then the next step is to replace all the other B-lines with SkyTrain.

[ailiton]

So right now, the line is planned, so as to follow the 98-B line, right?
If that's the case, then the next step is to replace all the other B-lines with SkyTrain.

Skytrain will use Cambie instead of Granville.

[samsonyuen]

I'm confused...what parts of Skytrain are underground or HRT?

[ailiton]

underground - from waterfront to at least 49th ave.

[officedweller]

For the RAV line:

Between 49th Ave and Marine Drive, the line will either be at-grade or in a trench (the City of Vancouver has prohibited an elevated line.

The airport authority (YVR) requires the airport segment to be elevated.

Both Fraser River crossings will also be elevated on bridges (as opposed tunnels), as will Bridgeport station.

Richmond's water table is too high for tunneling so the No. 3 Rd. part will either be elevated or at-grade. Richmond City Council wants it at-grade.

Note that RAV may not be Skytrain.

Of the two bids received, one is from Lavalin and the other from Bombardier. According to press releases, Lavalin's is likely a conventional LRT proposal (overhead wires) (with automated and manual operationing segments) while Bombardier's is likely like Skytrain (third rail)(fully automated). This means that if Richmond's wishes for at-grade are followed (and this is not necesarily the case) then the line will not be Skytrain, but LRT on an exclusive right-of-way.

Of the existing Skytrain lines, the only undergound segments are in downtown Vancouver and in downtown New Westminster.

[ailiton]

I don't understand why they want to build a station at Westminster and then one at Richmond Center. They are just too close together.

Moreover, I think Cambie station should be called Aberdeen.

[bs_lover_boy]

They should like call it Cambie/Aberdeen Station, similar to that of Stadium/Chinatown.

[Palal]

For the RAV line:

Between 49th Ave and Marine Drive, the line will either be at-grade or in a trench (the City of Vancouver has prohibited an elevated line.

The airport authority (YVR) requires the airport segment to be elevated.

Both Fraser River crossings will also be elevated on bridges (as opposed tunnels), as will Bridgeport station.

Richmond's water table is too high for tunneling so the No. 3 Rd. part will either be elevated or at-grade. Richmond City Council wants it at-grade.

Note that RAV may not be Skytrain.

Of the two bids received, one is from Lavalin and the other from Bombardier. According to press releases, Lavalin's is likely a conventional LRT proposal (overhead wires) (with automated and manual operationing segments) while Bombardier's is likely like Skytrain (third rail)(fully automated). This means that if Richmond's wishes for at-grade are followed (and this is not necesarily the case) then the line will not be Skytrain, but LRT on an exclusive right-of-way.

Of the existing Skytrain lines, the only undergound segments are in downtown Vancouver and in downtown New Westminster.

It would be REALLY stupid to build a totally different system, which'll require new rolling stock, different maintenance yards, etc.

[en]

Theres no way they can be stupid enough to build it at-grade in Richmond, there are too many cars on No. 3 Road. But this is Translink after all, known for making stupid decisions and flip-flops (RAV line being voted out and voted in 2-3 times by the board)

[Palal]

... Translink after all, known for making stupid decisions and flip-flops

This seems to be a world-wide problem in transportation planning.

[bs_lover_boy]

If they Build at-grade system, there will be LONGER traffic jams in the Alderbridge, No3 road intersection, then we will have a S**T system. On the other hand, if they build the Skytrain, it will be better and WAY MORE efficient. ALso, can anyone tell me what was the system that RAVxpress proposed (the company with Siemens, MTR, Balfour Beatty etc.)?

[npinguy]

actually it wouldn't be too hard to build it at-grade in richmond considering the two central lanes are reserved for the B-line anyway.


having said that though, what happens between waterfront and 49th? Underground? That can't be can it? Too expensive I heard...

[en]

I hope the company that includes MTR wins the contract. The current SkyTrain lines are so badly run. Terrible unsafe stations, old and dirty, no controlled access (fare gates). Currently SkyTrain is know as "CrimeTrain" because it provides "free" and easy access to bums and drug dealers.

[Palal]

I hope the company that includes MTR wins the contract. The current SkyTrain lines are so badly run. Terrible unsafe stations, old and dirty, no controlled access (fare gates). Currently SkyTrain is know as "CrimeTrain" because it provides "free" and easy access to bums and drug dealers.


That's not what I saw when I was there last summer, and I rode at all times of the day.

[Vancouver_rocks]

Bombardier has been recomended over Lavalin. I really hope they go with Bombardier as a trolley system would be impracticle.

[yesheh]

Note that if they went with the Lavilin bid, the new northeast line will follow this technology unfortunatly. The lines would not link up though, but a future line out to UBC might also be LRT. LRT may work extremley well in a city like portland, where it is grade/traffic separated a good 2/3ds of the way, but in vancouver down No. 3 road it would not work. you cannot have a main street be used for an LRT, as it will tie up way too much traffic. I wish that they'd extend the skytrain out to langley, or at least to newton, but there will never be funding...we can always dream.

[officedweller]

The winning bid will be announced tomorrow (Nov 19th).
Global TV News reported rumours that Lavalin has won and that they have bid on the high side ($1.7 Billion) which may require re-examining the scope of the project.
Previous new releases said Lavalin's bid involved automated LRT between YVR and downtown (and manual operation on No. 3 Rd.). So it'll be fast even if it is LRT - most of the line will be underground and automated operation requires an exclusive right-of-way.

WRT Langley, there was mention in the paper some time ago that Translink is studying a light rail connection (possibly diesel light rail) or commuter rail on existing railway tracks from Langley through Surrey to the Scott Road Skytrain Station. Probably a long time off though.

[hkskyline]

http://www.image-bucket.com/images/hkskyline/rimg0078.jpg

http://www.image-bucket.com/images/hkskyline/rimg0079.jpg

http://www.image-bucket.com/images/hkskyline/rimg0080.jpg

http://www.image-bucket.com/images/hkskyline/rimg0254.jpg

http://www.image-bucket.com/images/hkskyline/dscn2388.jpg

http://www.image-bucket.com/images/hkskyline/dscn2394.jpg

http://www.image-bucket.com/images/hkskyline/dscn2395.jpg

Bus @ the Airport Station interchange
http://www.image-bucket.com/images/hkskyline/dscn2409.jpg

[rt_0891]

http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~wtawacko/va00.jpg

Wish RAV could be above grade so it can also enjoy the views.

[ssiguy2]

I think they should go with SkyTrain because all the yards, maintenace are all there.
Anyway you cut it thou SkyTrain is expensive technology especially on the RAV line.
The thing that makes SkyTrain affordable is that it goes over the roads, not underthem so there are no expensive tunneling costs. So much of this line is underground that it negats all those savings.
If you want to see a cost effective, extensive, well used rapid transit system see Calgary's CTrain........LRT.
The service area is just 960,000 but the CTrain carries 225,000 passengers a day. High ridership for a relativly small city.

[hkskyline]

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]

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]

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.

[en]

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]

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]

^^^^^^^^
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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

8km of the RAV line will be underground.

[bs_lover_boy]

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]

^^^^^^^^
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]

"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.

[en]

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

[rt_0891]

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]

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]

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!


Well... New York is New York a massive city, but i am shocked and surprised at the numbers Toronto has for its ridership, over 800 000 daily, wow that is good for a mid sized city. They must be doing everything right there.

[ssiguy2]

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

[rt_0891]

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]

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]

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]

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.

and marpole is the 2nd densest neighborhood outside of downtown in Vancouver (city)


so.........yeah................things aren't perfect to say the least.

[hkskyline]

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]

Bean bag guns? What are they thinking?

[ssiguy2]

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

[hkskyline]

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]

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]

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]

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

[renthefinn]

^^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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[EastVanGuy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[ssiguy2]

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]

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]

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

[Homer J. Simpson]

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]

^^^
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.

[queetz@home]

^ 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]

Glad to know I'm not alone.

[Roch5220]

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

[Roch5220]

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]

^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]

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]

^^^
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]

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]

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.

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)

[ssiguy2]

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]

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.

[en]

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.

I believe that Alstom's Metropolis heavy metro system used in Singapore MRT's Punggol line is fully automated.

[ssiguy2]

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]

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]

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]

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

[officedweller]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[mr.x]

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]

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

[zivan56]

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.

[mr.x]

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]

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]

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

[zivan56]

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]

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.

[EastVanGuy]

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

[ewh1]

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]

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

[mr.x]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

[EastVanGuy]

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]

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]

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

[ssiguy2]

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

[officedweller]

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]

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]

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]

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]

^ 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]

^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]

^ 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]

^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

[rt_0891]

^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]

^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.

[rt_0891]

^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]

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]

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.