NEWS: Broadway – SkyTrain or RAV II?

BTW, I'm not opposed to trams for other areas. I'd even like to see the Olympic line become permanent and extended further west and east as well as replicated throughout the region. But I don't think these trams should take the place of a Broadway Corridor Skytrain, the Evergreen Line or the Expo Line extensions to Fleetwood and Newton.

First, I'm not sure why any Skytrain line along the Broadway corridor would have to be built on or under Broadway. Building the line underneath 10th or 8th Ave's would spare businesses and commuters the nightmare of construction directly on Broadway. Granted building along 10th means that businesses in West Point Grey are still inconvenienced, but that's not nearly as bad (in a numbers sense) as the fiasco that consumed Cambie Street during the construction of the Canada Line. Furthermore, it could still be done in the "cut and cover" method, which would save millions, if not more, as opposed to the "bored tunnel" method, which can still cause a lot of headaches for residents. Secondly, as to the current state of Broadway corridor transit some of you may "feel" as it's adequate, I would suggest that you actually travel the corridor between 8 am and 7 pm to re-access your feelings on that. There isn't any more space for buses and the traffic is at a snails pace during rush hour. Central Broadway has essentially become an extension of Downtown and it's not logical to assume that low-level methods of transportation are adequate anymore. Besides, if we want to encourage more people to use transit, you must build forms of transit that attract people to the service. Third, though Skytrain (specifically the technology used on the Millennium and Expo Lines) is expensive initially, it is the form of technology used as the backbone of our Metro system. It would be illogical to create a mishmash of systems that are incompatible with each other, such as an on street, or even grade separated tram. That, along with the fact that a tram along Broadway, would simply replicate the B-line service without improving on speed or frequency makes me question the use of alternative forms for this area. Besides, trams and buses require drivers, who are expensive. Because translink, like all transit agencies is cashed strapped, this means late night/weekend service is less frequent. With skytrain one doesn’t have to pay for labour, hence one can keep the trains running at a high frequency without having to worry about the vagrencies of a fluctuating economy or lower levels of users. Fourth, though the City of Vancouver "got the last project" (Canada Line) and "didn't jump on the bandwagon" earlier (in pushing for a UBC-oriented Skytrain Line) for mass transit these are irrelevant points to make when it comes to accessing the effectiveness of a future transit system. I realize the politics involved probably make it likely Evergreen will be built first, since those are important political arguments, but I don't think that's wise in a rational sense. Fifth, there are three important things we ought to consider when we use our resources to build expensive capital projects like this. A) how many people will this line convince to get out of their cars and onto transit, b) how many people will use this line now not just how many may use it in the future and c) is it economically sustainable (ie. when will it have enough riders so that it breaks even/makes a profit). Though Vancouver would be "budging in line" should the Broadway corridor get Transit before the Evergreen Line is built, I think it's safe to say that the ingredients for meeting all of those demands are more likely in an urban environment like Vancouver's Broadway corridor than they are in the more suburban oriented Evergreen Line corridor. The Evergreen Line corridor has and will continue to experience densification, but the Broadway corridor is dense now and should Skytrain be built underneath it, it will continue to do so thus supporting and justifying the construction and operating costs. Sixth, this is related to density, destinations and demand. Along the Broadway corridor, I can think of a lot more destinations from a rapid transit line, due to a lot higher density and demand, where people would like to travel. In addition to UBC, there's West Point Grey, the various beaches, Kits, South Granville, the Hospitals, the Canada Line transfer and Main Street/Mount Pleasant. If 80K people already use the B-line and other buses to go to these places per day, I wouldn't be surprised to see that number at least double, in the same way that transit trips from Richmond/South Vancouver to Downtown/Central Broadway went from 40K to about 90K after the Canada Line went in. Compare this to the Evergreen Line, which I'd still like to see built (in case I'm giving the impression otherwise) and its destinations of Lougheed Town Centre, Downtown Port Moody, the transfer to the West Coast Express, Coquitlam Town Centre and Douglas College. I think it's rather obvious that the Broadway Line has a potential to attract more riders and therefore be more economically sustainable.

Transit on the Broadway corridor is adequate at present. I agree that "we should move ahead on the Evergreen Line and other suburban transit. Completion of these routes will get far more cars off the roads and onto transit. If it's a competition, then, since the city of Vancouver got the last line (Canada Line) -- a suburban line should the next priority." I lived in Canary Wharf, London, UK from 2001 to 2004. London has the biggest underground train system and a city road congestion charge system, but the road congestion is still one of the worst in the world. Building trams and underground system will never solve the congestion completely, but it can help. The present Broadway bus service is sufficient for the local residents. The majority of car traffic is people who have to commute in their cars to work or to use the services and business in the Broadway neighbourhood because they live in areas outside Metro Vancouver. The area between Main and Burrard has the largest concentration of medical services in Vancouver – hospitals, doctors’ and therapists’ clinics, opticians, pharmacists, etc. We need the Evergreen Line and other suburban transit built soon because they will certainly help eliminate a lot more cars on Broadway.

I, too, feel that transit on the Broadway corridor is adequate at present. It's true that people are sometimes left waiting at stops but, usually, for no more than a couple of minutes before another B-line comes along. It would be the same with any other type of transit at high-volume times. It is also true that B-line buses zoom one after the other down Broadway half empty at times during the day as I have watched them as I waited for the #9. Far more crucial at this time is moving ahead on the Evergreen Line and other suburban transit. Suburban transit routes really don't have anywhere near the level of service we enjoy(relatively-speaking) in the city. Completion of these routes will get far more people off the roads and onto transit. If it's a competition, then, Vancouver got the last line -- a suburban line should be up next.

Hello, When is the last time you have been on a B line bus? If it was recently, you would know that B line busses don't do the trick. Public transportation that is underground, out of sight, carrying more passengers more quickly, is by far the best option. The Cambie Street line has done nothing negative to the character of the neighbourhoods along Cambie Street, that I am able to observe. Rather, residents are reaping the benefits of less congested road, and faster, more efficient transit services. As far as cut and cover goes, who is suggesting that is the method that should be, or will be, used ? You ?

I will respond to each of the points you have made in the order you have made them. First, on the issue of cost. Public transit is an expensive proposition, no question about that. My tax dollars are used to fund both public transit and roads, although I drive as little as I possibly can. My tax dollars also go to fund elementary, and secondary public schools, although I have no children, and to support the operation of hospitals and other medical facilities, including old age homes, although I very seldom avail myself of the medicare system, and do live in an Old Age Home. There is no way around the reality that my tax dollars, and yours, may be spent on something we don't use. As is often an assumption founding the argument of persons holding your point of view, you like to accuse people in favour of rapid transit of not caring about whether tax revenue collected is wisely spent. Do you assume I pay no taxes ? In fact, my income dictates that I pay the highest rate of income tax there is, and I care very much how my tax dollars are spent, as well the tax dollars of others. How much tax do you pay ? Do you use roads, public school facilities, medical care, and any of the other subsidized services in this Province, including the Ferries ? I am sure you probably do. Second, in respect of revenue generation, as I am sure you aware, not every Government service provided generates revenue. Do the roads you drive on generate revenue ? How about your visits to the Doctor ? To paint this issue as about the waste of tax payer dollars is ill founded.There is no way that this will be a waste of millions of dollars, or a boondoggle, as this line will be heavily used for a long time to come. One need only examine the success of the Cambie line in that regard, and the numbers generated in relation to population density and the level of transit use travel currently along Broadway to reasonably conclude that. With respect to the issue of whether the line will generate any revenue or to any extent pay for itself, I think that it will very likely generate some revenue, and perhaps to some extent pay for itself eventually. Again, as there is a very heavy volume of transit using travellers along the east - west Broadway corridor, and a high density residential population, I think it likely that this line will have very high ridership very shortly after it is completed, as has the new Cambie Street line. The Canada Line is already up to full ridership,although it was projected that it would not be up to full ridership until 2013. Your analogy between the building of a rapid transit line along Broadway and the fast ferry debacle is pure hyperbole. This is not a situation where a transit line will be built, then shelved as useless. With respect to the issue of Green house gas reduction, I urge you to educate yourself more thoroughly on the issue before "sounding off" as you have done here. Reputable climate change studies and scientists separate from the IPCC acknowledge that Green house gas emissions are warming the planet at a rate faster than anyone had earlier predicted, and that very serious consequences are likely. There is ongoing discussion about exactly what those consequences are, directly or indirectly, how the same will manifest themselves in the future, how soon, and what exactly is to be done. As far as the U.S.A. is concerned, under Obama, the U.S.A. has committed to doing far more than we have, which is essentially, not much. Countries and groups that look to others and say they are not going to do anything until others do is simply a means of deflecting personal responsibility for inaction. I have been to all the European cities I have mentioned, some more than once. My point in referencing these cities was to point out that the character of the neighbourhoods to which the transit system extended was not in any way negatively impacted by the presence of these systems are far as I could see. Further, Canadian cities are still in the process of extending their systems: Toronto is still building on to their system, and will complete the latest extension, to the Airport in a few years. The most recent extension, to York University, was completed recently, and well received. A couple of years ago, Montreal committed to extensions of their system. There are still many cars on the road, but at least there are solid alternative options available, which many will, and do, avail themselves of. In respect of the construction method to be employed, I have not suggested, and I am not suggesting, that the Cut and Cover method is the only construction method to use, or the one that should be used. I think most reasonable people would agree that there are lessons which should have been learned from the Cambie Street experience, and that the builders of the Broadway line must incorporate those lessons into the method applied to this building task. The public needs to be involved to ensure that the most efficient, effective building method is employed.

No one is suggesting cut and cover is the best method. I am sure we can find a way to do it that doesnt involve that method

Mr. van der Eeden: Isn't it interesting that the only opinions you seem to believe contribute to a discussion are those who don't drive cars - talk about a narrow-minded, self-centered individual..... While you seem to think that "we" drive for free, don't forget to include the freeloaders who believe that their favourite mode of transportation should be paid for and subsidized by others than than themselves..... I have no problem with an extensive transportation system but pay for it. Don't join the lineup of "freeloaders" suggesting that everyone else pays for your way of life. You use it, you pay for it!..... The fact is that if all drivers parked their vehicles, the Translink system would simply collapse as it wouldn't be able to handle the load of commuters. Your fairy-tale world has obviously overlooked that fact.....As far as looking at Europe, maybe you should. We were in Paris this past summer and the roads were packed with cars. Same in London and Amsterdam. Clearly, a comprehensive transit system, while moving people, doesn't remove cars from their roads. But hey, if you think it's so great in Europe, you might want to check the flight schedules with Air Canada. They have regular departures daily.

I think what we have is just fine. I am against more disruption. B-line busses do the trick. If anything, an above-ground transit line like they have in Amsterdam would be just fine. (Narrow trains - user friendly and street-level embarkation.) The building I live in has no back alley - so, we only have street access for our cars. How is that going to work with major construction going on on the street? Cut and cover would be totally disruptive and quite insane.

Mr. Gretsch, You might have a legitimate contribution to this conversation if you weren't driving a car. The roads in this city are built and maintained out of property taxes. But you don't ask about the "business case" for building roads for you to drive on for free. Motorists often feel a false sense of entitlement and expect the taxpayer to fund roads without a thought. But spend money on transit? No way! Your fuel taxes do put a dent (a small one) in the cost of building and maintaining regional roads and highways. They do not actually contribute to transit because you haven't begun to pay for the roads. The name "transit tax" is a ploy designed by the automobile industries. In an urban setting it makes much more sense to move people on mass transit. Cars are the least efficient, most expensive way to travel. We'd need far less road space (and energy and pollution) to move far more people with transit. Go to Europe today. They are closing roads to motor vehicles all over the place. In their place they are building trams in exclusinve right-of-ways and wonderful pedestrian oriented streets. We don't know how bad we have it. The noise and stench, the sirens and car alarms. The dead pedestrians. There is a better way. Ride the tram, see for yourself.