We’ve Moved To A New Site!

Our new site!

As promised, our second edition of UBC SkyTrain is now complete! The new site is designed to simplify information about the Broadway Rapid Transit Corridor, as well as related information. Along with our site redesign, we also have a new URL. See our full post at http://www.ubcskytrain.co.cc/

Site Upgrade

If you are wondering where we have been in 2010, the answer is really quite simple. We are in the process of making a dramatic upgrade to our existing website. 2010 is actually quite an important year as we move into the second phase of the Broadway corridor study, where a choice in the technology for the UBC line will be made.

Also new to the group is our twitter account. At the moment, you can only follow us on http://www.twitter.com/ubcskytrain, but we hope to expand these interactive services through widgets on our new website. Stay tuned.

Canada Line Delivers A Smooth Ride (and attracts many on transit)

The Globe and Mail reports that the “Canada Line daily ridership breaks 100,000 occasionally, average at 92,852 including weekends!” Just some background information, the 100 000 ridership mark was “a unreasonable projection” from many critics, but they have been obviously proven wrong. This shows how successful frequent and quick rail rapid transit is in Vancouver.

Currently, the Broadway corridor has at least 80 000 passengers just on buses. This doesn’t count the many people who would commute to UBC via 84, 25, 41/43, and 49 routes to avoid the over crowded 99 B-Line. Confidently, the Millennium Line extension can easily achieve a ridership of 120 000 passengers if it is in service today, let alone in 2020.

The Broadway Corridor needs real rail rapid transit to quickly move passengers across Vancouver.   Skeptics were wrong about the Canada Line and will be wrong with the UBC Line.  Like the Canada Line, the UBC Line will connect major destinations and attractions including UBC, South Granville, Cambie Village (connecting with the Canada Line at Broadway-City Hall Station), Mt. Pleasant, not including with the present Millennium Line destinations.

Let’s replicate the Canada Line success with the UBC Line as SkyTrain.

Canada Line delivers a smooth ride

A Canada Line rapid transit train crosses over the Fraser River from Vancouver to Richmond, B.C., as Grouse Mountain is seen in the distance. Darryl Dyck/The Canadian Press

//

Vancouver’s new transit line, which connects downtown to the airport and beyond, is already moving up to 100,000 passengers a day

The Canada Line earned Ryan Campbell’s affection by sparing him the daily ordeal of taking four buses and walking two kilometres to get to his job in Richmond.

Much of that grind for the 20-year-old West Vancouver resident has been erased by the $2-billion system, which began running last August and is the first in Canada to link a downtown to its airport.

But it’s the line past the airport to central Richmond that cheers Mr. Campbell.

On a chill, blustery December night, Mr. Campbell is far from the airport, disembarking from Richmond-Brighouse – the southernmost station – for a quick walk to his customer service job at a London Drugs outlet.

“It’s perfect,” Mr. Campbell said when asked about his views of the Line. “If [the Canada Line] wasn’t around, I couldn’t make it to this place I’m working at so easily.”

Because of stops through Richmond and at such Vancouver-area fixtures as the airport, City Hall, the burgeoning Olympic Village neighbourhood, Yaletown and the downtown SeaBus terminal, the Canada Line has picked up considerable support.

Daily Canada Line ridership has occasionally topped 100,000, which is the break-even threshold for the system covering its operating costs. That level comes about three years ahead of schedule.

Including weekends, the Canada Line is averaging 92,852 riders a day, said Steve Crombie, spokesman for InTransitBC, builder and operator of the system.

“The trend is increasing. We’ve been seeing weekly increases since the line started,” he said.

Critics focus on the fact that the Canada Line came before the much-needed Evergreen Line to the northeast, the devastating impact of street-gouging construction on businesses in the Cambie Village area of central Vancouver, and that some bus routes were trimmed or eliminated as a result of its opening.

But the line is crowded with its fans.

They include Steven Nelson, a 34-year-old Bell Canada technician who is in the Lower Mainland from Toronto these days for work related to the 2010 Olympics.

Mr. Nelson, also disembarking at Richmond-Brighouse, said that without the line he would have been relying on buses to get to work, which he suggested was not an enticing prospect.

“Overall, I think the service is great.”

Gordon Price, a six-term Vancouver city councillor who is now director of the city program at Simon Fraser University, said things appear to be going “pretty damn well” for the system.

He said he has been struck by the number of passengers toting and pushing their luggage. Mr. Price said he was skeptical business travellers would be interested in taking a system that compelled them to take their luggage to and from the stations.

“What I hadn’t taken into account was the downsizing of luggage to carry-on and wheels. You can sure see it, pretty dramatic,” he said. “It brought a class of people, who normally didn’t take transit into their thinking and got them aboard … both literally and enthusiastically.”

Mr. Price has been using the line to get from his home in Vancouver’s West End to the downtown campus of SFU, taking a bus to the Vancouver-City Centre stop for the line.

“It’s kind of an enjoyable trip in the sense that I get to see that transit culture in action, which I kind of enjoy.”

He also uses it to get to Vancouver City Hall, the airport, and has used it to go for dim sum at the critically acclaimed Chinese restaurants in Richmond.

His one big criticism: No station in the midst of the shops, restaurants and other businesses of bustling Cambie Village.

“Particularly after the hardship they went through, it would have made sense,” he said.

Via Globe and Mail

ALRT Extension

Kuala Lumpur is again, considering the extension of their Kelana Jaya LRT Line, which uses SkyTrain ALRT technology as well as the extension of the Ampang Line, another LRT line which is quite similar to the Canada Line with a higher capacity.  Clearly, light metros are popular in other parts of the world.

LRT plan gets the nod as residents feel it will ease traffic
By THO XIN YI Thursday December 17, 2009

A FEW residents associations and organisations in Subang Jaya and USJ have given the thumbs up to the LRT extension plan.

They feel that the LRT would be a convenient alternative for residents who have had enough of traffic congestion and poor bus services in the townships.

Subang Jaya Senior Citizens Club president Yeong Teik Boon believed that the extension would shorten the travelling time between Subang Jaya and the city centre.

“Buses here are not punctual and the Komuter station is not easily accessible by all,” he said.

Jamaludin Ibrahim of the USJ 5 residents association welcomed the LRT extension as it would help the people save money and time, while Subang Jaya Consumers’ Association secretary Gan Meng Foo believed that it would alleviate traffic congestion.

However, they hoped that the feeder bus services would be well-planned.

Persatuan Poh Toh Subang Jaya chairman Koay Teng Koon added that the car park facilities must be sufficient to encourage car owners to use the LRT to get to their destinations.

The Subang Jaya Coffee Merchants, Bars and Restaurants Association, meanwhile, urged the authorities to look into the environmental and health aspects when implementing the extension.

Kelana Jaya MCA chairman Ong Chong Swen, who is also the USJ 5 residents association deputy president, is hoping that the LRT extension would change the people’s travelling habits.

“They can take the trains to work and use their own cars for leisure on the weekends,” she said.

Ong added that she was informed by Prasarana that it had received 92% positive feedback on the project.

JKP Zone 4 deputy chairman Shafiee Shariff Abdullah also hoped that construction work would commence as soon as possible.

Subang Jaya resident M. Vivekananda, on the other hand, was concerned about the efficiency of the LRT in solving the traffic problem in the Klang Valley.

“Using the proposed LRT extensions can result in having to travel in a rather circuitous route.

“Additionally, if the existing LRT lines have not solved the transport problem in Kuala Lumpur, how can they be expected to solve the transportation problems in the other areas such as Subang Jaya and USJ?” he asked.

He suggested the authorities look into transport woes in a holistic manner to overhaul the traffic management system.

“By extending the LRT, Prasarana cannot bring about a magical transformation to end the transportation woes. A colossal amount of taxpayers money is involved in this project.

“The authorities need to make a judicious decision in the name of progress and sustainable development,” he said.

Another Subang Jaya resident G. H. Goh suggested that an independent loop be formed along the Damansara-Puchong Expressway for travellers heading to Petaling Jaya to save the time of LRT users who are heading to Kuala Lumpur.

Citing narzey of SSC

Earth to “Rail For Valley”

The “Rail For Valley” group has recently suggested to build a “light-rail line” from Chilliwack to Vancouver. Light rail is in quotations since their plan is more of a commuter rail line than an actual light-rail line.

Much of the route of this “light-rail” line duplicates existing rapid transit investments, which makes very little sense (The Millennium Line has been built, it makes no sense…why are they ignoring the Millennium Line? It’s delusional. Get over it: SkyTrain was built.)

This light-rail supporters also assumes that such a line would be able to use the existing right-of-way (ROW) rail corridor. The thing is, Translink must negotiate with the different rail operators to be able run such a line. Depending on the situation, transit service schedules must be planned around the schedule of the rail operators, which isn’t as easy a task as it sounds, especially for busy rail corridors like the ones used by Vancouver’s Amtrak and Via Rail. In recent years, the City of Vancouver and CP Rail have gone to court, fighting over the Arbutus ROW’s usage. (Keep mind that there will be more rail freight service as Vancouver grows as an Asian-Pacific Gateway, making it more difficult for transit planning).

The plan also assumes that Broadway is a wide boulevard that can handle centre medians when light-rail is built (thus, the absurd low estimates on the construction costs they have for LRT). Unfortunately, that is not the case, which is what UBC SkyTrain Group has been stating all along. Broadway will be restricted to one to two general lanes of traffic per direction, with kilometres of parking restrictions. Referring to previous engineering plans conducted in the 1999 technical study, there will be little room for centre median stations and almost no room for station expansions.

Service frequencies for such a line will also be low and will be more akin to a commuter rail line rather than a proper frequent light-rail line.

Rapid transit has many modes, and light-rail is just one of many modes: it is not the solution for every corridor and to every situation. It’s about time that light-rail supporters grasp that concept and figure out what they really want.

Not just for UBC

It’s astounding how the UBC SkyTrain is portrayed by some as the SkyTrain to UBC, and nothing else but UBC in between.  Right?  Wrong…terribly wrong. 

Let’s focus on potential station areas.  This is why the term “Millennium Line West Extension” should perhaps be used instead.

1. Finning Station – There are many plans in redeveloping False Creek Flats area.  Initially part of False Creek, the area was filled in for industrial use early in the 1900’s.  Today’s, it’s still largely industrial but it is also the home to Great Northern Way Campus (a technology post-secondary campus formed by UBC, SFU, Emily Carr, and BCIT).  The campus is slated for a massive overhaul, which will be designed and planned largely around the station built in the middle of campus as part of the Millennium Line extension.
2. City Hall Station – Linking up with the Canada Line, the City Hall area is already bustling commercial and residential area.  It is the Central Broadway Business District, an extension of the Downtown Vancouver core.
3. South Granville Station – The South Granville area is one of the largest outdoor retail areas outside of the Downtown core.  The corner of Granville and Broadway is still busy area even when the transfer point for Richmond/suburbs bound passengers has been moved to Cambie/City Hall area. It is part of the Central Broadway Business District.

Of course, there are many more in between, but these areas are growing, have plans to grow, and will continue to grow.  The Millennium Line extension simply acts as a catalyst for increasing development.  Is this a line just for the students of UBC?  Sure, they can use it, but it’s not just for them. 

A full list of Millennium Line West Extension stations from the existing VCC-Clark Station:
– Finning
– Main Street/Kingsway
– Cambie (connects with Canada Line)
– Oak Street/Vancouver General Hospital
– Granville Street
– Arbutus Street
– Macdonald Street
– Alma Street
– Sasamat Street
– and finally, UBC

Notice how the proposed Millennium Line West Extension station locations parallels the stops on the existing 99 B-Line bus service, which carries more than 60,000 passengers per day. 99 B-Line bus stops:
– Commercial/Broadway
– Clark
– Main
– Cambie
– Willow/Vancouver General Hospital
– Granville
– Macdonald
– Alma
– Sasamat
– Allison (UBC Village)
– UBC Loop (UBC Terminus)

One Pass Now

It’s been a while since we haven’t updated the blog, but there have been many developments in transit infrastructure in Metro Vancouver.  One of which is One Pass Now, a campaign for $25/month for all post secondary institutions.  UBC and SFU have been pretty spoiled with the U-Pass, but we too believe that all students attending post secondary should have access to this.  If you have a minute, check the site out by clicking the image above or by going to http://www.onepassnow.ca.

We at the UBC SkyTrain Group, are fully supporting One Pass Now.  It’s also important to note, as this pass will encourage more students to be using transit, the need for a SkyTrain to UBC will grow.  You might be thinking: UBC already has a U-Pass.  Not VCC.  VCC already has a SkyTrain on the south side, but passengers coming from the west do not have direct access to the college unless they are taking the local routes.  The missing Broadway SkyTrain connection will allow passengers from the west side to VCC-Clark, making the current terminus busier and safer.

Canada Line seen as an early success

Canada Line riders fill coffers with cash

VANCOUVER – The Canada Line could reach its ridership goals sometime next year rather than in 2013 as forecast, TransLink spokesman Ken Hardie said Friday.

That would likely save TransLink — and taxpayers — millions in subsidies to the Canada Line’s private operator.

Hardie made the optimistic assessment after the line averaged 80,000 trips per day in its first five days of operations.

It had been forecast to reach 100,000 trips a day in 2013, and TransLink is required to subsidize the operator until that point is reached.

“The 100,000 ridership represents the point when the line generates enough revenue, with bus service savings to cover payment to the concessionaire,” Hardie said.

He said the steady passenger loads this week have been good news for the Canada Line.

Between 7 a.m. on Wednesday and 7 a.m. Thursday, the line recorded more than $45,000 in ticket sales, with $37,000 of that in cash and fare-saver tickets, $5,700 in credit and $2,900 in debit.

The number of cash sales, he said, likely means people are testing the system ahead of Sept. 7, when TransLink cancels or diverts several of its long-haul bus routes to Bridgeport Station to encourage passengers to ride the Canada Line.

“What that means is there’s a higher level of sampling going on now,” Hardie said, adding, “Things have got off to an excellent start on the Canada Line.”

The biggest peak in ridership has been in the afternoons, coinciding with the arrivals and departures of most international flights.

“There’s an incredibly steady flow of passengers,” said airport spokeswoman Rebecca Catley. “We’re seeing a lot more people coming off with bags. People have embraced it quickly.”

The airport has added extra staff on the floor to guide travellers to their departure lounges or help them find the train once they arrive in Vancouver.

August is typically the airport’s busiest month, with the third weekend usually recording the highest number of passengers coming through.

But Catley said it’s not just travellers using the Canada Line: More people are coming to the airport to watch planes land and take off from the airport’s new observation deck.

“It’s just surprising. That area has always been very quiet and now it’s teeming with people,” she said. “Everything has gone very smoothly; the people are very excited.”

Jason Chan, spokesman for Canada Line operator ProTrans BC, said other busy stations are Waterfront in downtown Vancouver and Richmond’s Bridgeport, the only station where TransLink has a park-and-ride facility at the nearby River Rock Casino.

Just before 4 p.m. Friday, swarms of people were pouring in and out of Waterfront as packed trains headed out toward Richmond-Brighouse and the airport.

Kathleen Lapointe, who lives in Richmond, took the train into Vancouver for a course and said she’s “planning to use it all the time now.”

“I’m very happy,” she said. “I’m so glad it’s here.”

ksinoski@vancouversun.com

Source: Vancouver Sun

Now to be fair, there are still many passengers taking the Canada Line for their own personal enjoyment, but much of it is now everyday commuters as well as passengers to the airport.   On average, there are at least three passengers on board each train car with luggage, presumably going to the Airport or Sea Island Centre, Air Canada Operations.  It’s safe to say that the Canada Line has been more successful then previously anticipated.  In fact, ProTrans BC, the private company operating the Canada Line, feels slightly under staffed and is continually hiring station attendants.  Station attendants not only help passengers with the Canada Line and related transit connections, but also do fare checks, something the SkyTrain attendants do not  usually do.  Personally, I received more fare checks on the Canada Line than I have on the SkyTrain system for more than two years.

70,000 board the Canada Line on first day of revenue operations

Impressive numbers.

The numbers do include people touring the Canada Line and the novelty will eventually wear off, but it will only result in a marginal dip in ridership over the next few weeks. The Canada Line’s initial ridership success is a good sign for things to come, and bus integration hasn’t even occurred. We are well in our way into achieving 100,000 boardings per day.

The Irony

One finds it interesting how the SkyTrain lobby warps the truth to suit it’s own ends. What the SkyTrain lobby is really saying is that; “We completely discount over one hundred and fifty years of rail/light rail/metro development, to support a unconventional, proprietary railway.” That only seven such systems have been built (actually there are two types of SkyTrain systems, the old UTDC ICTS/ALRT system and Bombardier’s updated ART system), with two of the systems, Vancouver’s SkyTrain and Toronto’s Scarborough Line, being forced upon the operating authority by senior governments, is testament of the non-popularity of the light metro. The SkyTrain version that has managed a few sales is Bombardier’s ART light-metro system, which has been sold as a “prestigious” airport people movers or fun-fair transit system and only Kuala Lumpur operates a ART system as a regional metro system, along side both conventional light-metro and monorail.

The UBC SkyTrain boys and girls take umbrage with RFV posting of a letter sent to various news papers, so let’s have a look what they say.

As mentioned previously, there are only seven cities that have built with the SkyTrain ICTS/ALRT/ART system, over a 30 year span.

SkyTrain can cost up to ten times more to install (TTC ARTS Study) than light rail. When compared to other North American Light Rail systems, SkyTrain cost 2 to 5 times more to install and operating costs for ALRT/ART are higher than comparable LRT systems.

This is Honolulu’s second attempt to build with SkyTrain as the first attempt collapsed due to massive cost of the light-metro. One doubts that SkyTrain will be built in Honolulu, especially when politicians have just found that the costs quoted in Vancouver for SkyTrain were direct costs only, not total costs which is the norm in the USA. The same issue sunk the Seattle Monorail project. It also must be remembered that Honolulu’s planners want an elevated system, yet their projected ridership numbers do not warrant such an expense.

It is true that SkyTrain, or ART, is more expensive, but one must not compare ART with LRT.  ART is a fully segregated system and most LRT’s built today are not fully segregated.  Of course LRT costs less if it can be built integrated with traffic.  However, if LRT was built using similar construction methods as ART, the costs will be quite close (as shown with the Evergreen Line, requiring similar amounts of tunneling and elevated guideways as the SkyTrain option).  

Due to the heavy congestion on Honolulu’s Interstate and artery roads, planners and politicians are a greater need for rapid transit.  In fact, it was those same politicians that have voted for a higher capacity, faster fully segregated metro system.  Projected ridership numbers are higher than that of the Canada Line, at 116 000 passengers per day.  At bare minimum, forecast numbers show 90 000 passengers per day.

The projected ridership for the Canada line is pure ‘pixie dust’, as it assumes that almost three times more people from Richmond, South Delta & Surrey will use transit to Vancouver than presently do and is not based on scientific assessment, rather it is a political guesstimate.

Using 2007 numbers, which are much lower than the ridership on the 98 B-Line today, the 98 B-Line moved over 27 500 passengers.  This number is over 30 000 passengers.  Adding that to the ridership on Suburban buses, plus local buses such as the 10-Granville and 15-Cambie,  this number is well over one third of the projected ridership of the Canada Line.

In addition, many developments are just about to be complete around Richmond-Brighouse Stn.  Richmond plans to fully develop around the Canada Line, expecting 80 000 more residents.  Of special mention, Pinnacle and Concord Pacific owns a plot of land at the future Capstan Way Stn, expected to be developed over the next few years.  Furthermore, the City of Vancouver council is supporting a rezoning application by a development off of Marine Drive Stn by PCI and Busby Perkins+Will.   The City of Vancouver has also transformed Cambie between Olympic Village Stn and Broadway-City Hall Stn, with a mix of big-box retail, dense residential, and office complexes.  The Vancouver Airport Authority also has plans in building offices around Templeton Station.

Yet when the 98-B Line bus was instituted in Richmond, ridership dropped from what the old 403, 402, and 401 bus routes with direct services to Vancouver, carried. Again the SkyTrain lobby ignores the singular fact that forced transfers deters ridership.

This is quite a different comparison.  In addition to cutting off the Vancouver portion, TransLink also reduced services for the 401, 402, and 403 buses.  In our case right now, the frequency of  thee buses  increase.  It is also different because the 98 B-Line was not faster than the original bus service as opposed to the Canada Line, which is at least 20 minutes faster than the current bus service.

More importantly, above all, it was the four-month transit strike that really affected the ridership for these routes (and for that matter, all bus routes in the region). The strike occurred before the implementation of the 98 B-Line, and a deep service cut occurred one month after.

This comment is absolutely silly, if the author took time to investigate; in North America, rapid transit systems that connect to the airport, including Chicago and San Fransisco, see little ridership.

Tell that to London and the DLR and Hong Kong’s Airport Express.  Daily ridership on the entire BART is also 346 504 passengers; I can’t see how that is “little ridership.”  It is also important to note that BART also has a fare surcharge of $5.00 to the airport from downtown, more than the $2.50 AddFare TransLink is proposing.

Again, the author discounts the great cost differences for LRT and SkyTrain. Sorry, taking the car will be faster and more convenient as studies have shown that for residents in South Delta and South Surrey, being forced to take RAV will increase average journey time, especially off-peak, which is hardly a good selling point. Again, I must remind the SkyTrain lobby it is not the speed of the ‘rapid transit’ that attracts customers but the speed and ease of the entire journey; RAV. with forced transfers which will not be an attractive alternative.

Unless buses feeding RAV run on the same frequencies as RAV, they will not be competitive with the car. Your numbers are misleading as your 5 minute transfer time is not realistic. Most car drivers would spend another 15 minutes in their car rather than take a bus, transfer to RAV and transfer again to another bus. RAV is just not a competitive alternative to the car.

Clearly, one hasn’t read any of the explanations the UBC SkyTrain Group has mentioned in the last post.   A 5 minute transfer time is in no way unrealistic: the transfer is from the bus up two escalators to the platform.   In fact, a normal commuter will take less than that.  This isn’t a transfer from Bridgeport Street and Oak Street Bridge to Bridgeport Station, this is a transfer from a bus loop directly under Station, to the platform.  It is also important to note that there is a Park & Ride that will attracting potential Canada Line commuters that do not want to be stuck in traffic on Oak Street Bridge and beyond.  Park and Rides are pretty much what makes LRT systems successful in North America.

It is ironic that one is lecturing us about a transfer.  Zweisystem wants LRT to be built for the Broadway Corridor even though it creates an extra transfer at Commercial Drive Station.  The UBC SkyTrain Group, on the other hand, wants an extension of the Millennium Line SkyTrain to reduce a transfer.  Oh the irony…

The UBC SKyTrain Group supports a transfer at Bridgeport Station because it saves time for commuters using transit.  While it does create a little bit of a hassle, the benefits such as the time savings and increase of frequency to the suburban buses are worth the transfer.  TransLink has said that the buses will come at least every 15 minutes, upgrading buses to Frequent Transit Network requirements.

Actually it’s not false but very accurate that a subway needs 400,000 to 500,000 passengers a day to justify the investment. The figure comes from UBC Professor Condon but it is also illustrated by the fact that subways are avoided at all costs due to high costs. You can build a subway with less ridership potential, but be expected to pay higher subsidies to support it. Finally your comment is illogical, for if a subway was viable for ridership flows of 100,000 a day, more cities would be burrowing underground.

The Expo Line today has paid off its construction costs and is also fully recovering its operational expenses from fares.  Ridership of 100,000/day is the magic number for breaking even on Canada Line operational expenses, and that number is quite realistic in the very near future as evident with the numbers we’ve seen these past few days.

And if we had built with LRT instead, we could have had it in operation two years ago, your argument is without foundation.

Yes, but the Arbutus corridor was a slower route and would’ve provided only marginally faster travel times to Richmond Centre than the current 98 B-Line.  More importantly, employment and residential densities around Arbutus are simply insufficient to support such a line.

Passengers in subways do not see surface stores and restaurants and do not get off trains to patronize them. The opposite is true for light rail, where merchants adjacent to the LRT line see about a 10% increase in business once the line opens. Your comments are disingenuous.

Businesses benefit because passengers are provided with a fast connection to the key business areas, and these areas see growth.  At the end of the day, the transportation element is the most vital part: it is not a stop-and-go taxi that brings businesses right to their door.

In fact, with that logic, we should be building streetcars so that passengers get a slower view at the stores.

The point of building SkyTrain and Metros is to first build regional transportation infrastructure and then have light rail and streetcars act as a regional connection and feeder system from the higher capacity systems.  This is what is done in Europe: the London Light Rail systems feed off of the London Underground.  Hong Kong’s Light Rail in New Territories feed off of the MTR.  San Francisco’s MUNI is located above the BART system acting as a feeder to San Francisco communities as well as acting as the higher capacity system.

The costs soared because the costs for subway construction were deliberately misleading from the start! The switch from SkyTrain to a generic metro was done to save the cost of over 40 km. of the expensive reaction rail needed for the Linear Induction Motors.

No, there wasn’t a switch from SkyTrain to Conventional Rail.  There were three bids made on the Canada Line project: one from Bombardier proposing ART of course, one from SNC-Lavalin and ROTEM proposing conventional rail, and others from a collaboration of companies including the MTRC proposing conventional rail.   In the end, SNC-Lavalin’s bid won.  There was no switch from the beginning.  Clearly, there is a lack of knowledge of the Canada Line project on your part.

Actually the capacity of a Canada Line car is 163 passengers, using the industry standard of all seat occupied and standees @ 4 persons per m/2; the figure of 200 per car is derived at crush loading, all seats occupied and standees @ 6 persons m/2. Do the math, even with the third car, the RAV Line barely match LRT’s capacity of over 20,000 persons per hour per direction.

Yes, but the travel times are much shorter using the conventional rail over LRT.  The LRT option did not meet Transport Canada minimum time requirements for funding.

You are dead wrong here. Light rail can operate at 30 second headways, and do it day in and day out on scores of LRT operations around the world. Actually LRT can operate at a faster commercial speed than metro if it is designed to. RAV faster commercial speeds come from sacrificing stations along the line. By your logic, having no intermediate stations and an extremely fast metro line would attract hundreds of thousands of riders – NOT! Obviously you haven’t done any research on transit and your lack of knowledge on the subject is telling.

If LRT was designed to do that, it means it is fully segregated or built to light metro standards, making it much more expensive.  That obviously won’t be the case for Broadway, nor is there a pre-existing right of way we could use. Light rail cannot reach a frequency of every 30-secs on a street like Broadway, with all the traffic, traffic lights, intersections, and pedestrian crossings. Trains will simply bunch up, as they do with the 99 B-Line buses during peak hours. This has been debunked thoroughly by UBC SkyTrain in previous articles and posts in our blog.

You overstate the employment centres as hospitals, with nurses and staff working odd shifts and 12 hour days are not good transit revenue generators. The real question about employment centre is how many people working at those employment centre, live near RAV to use it?

The Arbutus route had the higher density and the many shops spread along it’s route would have also been good revenue generators, a fact ignored by RAVCo. & Co. Again you confuse commercial speed with journey speed; a slightly longer trip, serving more destinations, may have attracted more customers.

Like mentioned earlier, the City of Richmond already has plans for increasing density around the Canada Line stations, expecting 80 000 more to live around the No. 3 Rd corridor and Olympic Oval area in the decades to come.

The Arbutus route has density in just one main area: Kerrisdale. And maybe at Central Broadway, although it is only the western tip of it.

Actually the HST has a lot to do with the RAV and Evergreen Lines as the provincial government needs the extra revenue to pay for their hugely expensive transportation projects, your ignorance of this is nothing short than appalling.

HST puts BC in a competitive economic position.  Eventually, provinces will move to the HST model and that is known: the question is when.  The Province has finally decided to heavily invest in public transit infrastructure, ones that were needed a decade ago.   All of these transit plans we’re seeing were previously proposed in the 1996 Greater Vancouver Regional District Livability Plan.

What foolish nonsense which smacks of ‘penis envy’. Vancouver doesn’t have the population as Tokyo, hong Kong and San Fransisco to support a metro, let alone a metro connection to the airport. did you know that BART line to San Francisco’s airport carries a mere 10,000 a day?

Vancouver doesn’t, but will no doubt be home to many more people in the future.  Investing in rail infrastructure requires long term planning.  We need a public transit system that is able to carry more people and investing in faster, higher capacity systems is the way to go to attract general commuters to transit instead off driving.

I’ve no desire to get drawn into the Vancouver transit wars, and, anyway, most of the rest of the world has moved on. To be fair, there are clear advantages in keeping with one kind of rail technology, and in through-routing service at Lougheed. But, eventually, Vancouver will need to adopt lower-cost LRT in its lesser corridors, or else limit the extent of its rail system. And that seems to make some TransLink people very nervous.

It is interesting how TransLink has used this cunning method of manipulating analysis to justify SkyTrain in corridor after corridor, and has thus succeeded in keeping its proprietary rail system expanding. In the US, all new transit projects that seek federal support are now subjected to scrutiny by a panel of transit peers, selected and monitored by the federal government, to ensure that projects are analyzed honestly, and the taxpayers’ interests are protected. No SkyTrain project has ever passed this scrutiny in the US.”

It is true that Vancouver will need to adopt lower-cost LRT in its lesser corridors.  This is a fact.  This is why, for instance, LRT was built in Hong Kong for the New Territories.  But the problem is the Richmond-Airport-Vancouver corridor is a major corridor, along with the Broadway corridor. Both corridors require competent and quick transit modes.

To clarify again, the UBC SkyTrain group only supports SkyTrain in particular cases.  We do not choose a technology for a route without prior research and local experience for that particular corridor.  In fact, we believe it is necessary for LRT to be built in the South of Fraser areas, particularly along King George Hwy, and in the Fraser Valley. SkyTrain is simply the region’s backbone transit connector.  Like with all rail infrastructure projects we’ve seen in the past in this region, BRT should be introduced to guarantee ridership before investing into LRT/ART.