TramTrain in action

Probably the best visual that explains TramTrain around!

Steam, passenger, freight, and trams all using the same line.

 

 

Ersingen heavy / light rail contrasts

 

 

Arbutus Corridor Stuff

The following is an “letter to the editor” in Friday’s province and I must give credit to Mr. Chris Cullen for his sensible views.

Zwei says; “Bulls-eye Mr. Cullen”, you have deduced the Arbutus question most logically!

Rail is green

I am amused by all the concern over the Arbutus ai???green wayai??? potentially being reactivated for freight-rail use.

The Canadian Pacific Railwayai??i??s intent with their information letters is almost certainly to bluff and wake up the westside Vancouver ai???crA?me de la crA?meai??? NIMBY police. The resulting cries of protest to spur city hall to come up with the money to buy the corridor is the obvious intent.

Molson was the last shipper on the line and would likely be the reason for its reactivation. In a city that professes to be the ai???greenestai??? in the world, I would assume that there would be at least one person aware that rail is by far the most efficient and ai???greenai??? mode of transport. Such a switch would remove a sizable number of trucks from the roads every day.

So letai??i??s stop with the alarmist garbage about evil, fire-breathing freight train out to destroy everyoneai??i??s quality of life (and property values) along the Arbutus corridor. The trains were there as long as anyone can recall; why has everyone assumed they would never be back?

This is almost certainly a bluff. However, if it turns out not to be, all the better, as far as I am concerned. Did it occur to anyone that having freight in the mix (only once a day) could help the argument and control costs to retain the line for some sort of public transport?

A heritage streetcar or light rail could be accommodated. Itai??i??s done in many places.

Having the tracks torn up and replaced with yet another mountain of condominiums is not in the public interest. Anyone losing sleep or crusading about the issue needs to give their head a shake.

Chris Cullen, North Vancouver

Broadway on the Radio

On News 1130 today.

Light rail advocate argues against Broadway subway option.

A Broadway subway is all about subsidizing Vision(less) backers and supporters, who have invested heavily assembling lands at potential subway stations, not about moving people efficiently or affordably.

Light rail advocate argues against Broadway subway option

The mayor of Vancouver thinks an underground system would be better

VANCOUVER (NEWS1130) ai??i?? The fight for the future of transit service along the Broadway corridor is heating up.

The mayor of Vancouver has spoken out in favour of a subway ai??i?? but one advocate is pushing some NDP MLAs to support light rail instead.

Local light rail advocate Donald Johnston says ridership is only about a third of what it would need to be to justify a subway.

He adds if itai??i??s built, it would need to be subsidized, and would take money away from other projects like schools, hospitals, and transit south of the Fraser.

ai???I think the Metro mayors are naively following goosestep with Gregor Robertsonai??i??s demand for a subway along Broadway. Thereai??i??s no justification for it,ai??? Johnston says.

He argues supports and span wires for LRT are already in place from when streetcars ran along Broadway six decades ago.

Two traffic lanes would be lost if LRT went in.

Johnston says the cost to build LRT could be a tenth of the cost of building a subway ai??i?? and ai??i?? he says capacity would be higher.

He says SkyTrain is at capacity now because the stations are small. ai???If you want to increase capacity for a subway, that means youai??i??re going have to rebuild every SkyTrain station along the route. Thatai??i??s going be several billions of dollars.ai???

Johnston thinks there would be pushback for the loss of two lanes.

ai???Sure, youai??i??re going to lose auto space. But, hasnai??i??t the City of Vancouver done that with bike lanes? The Burrard Bridge? Why are they lighting their hair on fire about light rail on Broadway? Theyai??i??ve already done it for bicycles. Light rail is far more important, better transit along Broadwayai??i??s far more important than a bike lane,ai??? Johnston says.

Heai??i??s sent letters to Vancouver MLA, David Eby, and NDP leader, John Horgan.

Vancouverai??i??s mayor has said a subway is a priority but it isnai??i??t known how it would be funded.

Trams attract more passengers than buses

The following from Ed Tennyson, who is the foremost transit expert and historian in the USA, is a reply to a news story that Seattle suburban residents like the LRT but do not particularly like buses very much.

Buses, for what ever reason, just do not attract much new ridership and BRT, which in most cases refers to a tarted up express bus, suffers from the same malaise. As one transit expert in the UK told Zwei; “A bus is bus, just is a bus.”

THERE Ai??IS SOLID LOGIC BEHIND THE OPPOSITION TO BUSES:

Ai??Ai??First, there is the Transportation Research Board Special Report

# 1221 of 1989 that reported that Light Rail most often attracted 35%

to 43% more riders than buses when conversions were made,

usuallyAi??from rail to bus but occasionally from Bus to rail back then.

Ai??Ai??The TRB Report suggested that reasons included the certain route

confirmed by the tracks. To many modern people all buses look alike,

Router numbers Ai??mean little to most of them and they fear ending up

far from where they intended to go. Rational, maybe not but real.

Ai??Ai??Second, my brother’s best friend Ai??could not Ai??ride buses as the exhaust

madeAi??him sea sick. Ai??Other people could stand the smell but did not like

it.

Ai??Ai?? Thirdly, APTA’s Annual FACT BOOK reported that from1948 to 1975,

asAi??buses replaced most Ai??Street Car lines, bus ridership dropped 72%

The end of gasoline rationing had something to Ai??do with it maybe

half the loss, but from 1953 to 1972, the Light Rail Line in New-

arkAi??grew as Public Service buses lost huge volumes of riders,. Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? .

Ai??Ai??The Street Cars on Market Street in San Francisco lost no riders

after maybe 1953, until 1972 when Market Street was shut down

to build BART. Years later when Street Cars were restored, they

attracted more passengers than ever.

Ai??Ai?? Fourth, they built the downtown Seattle Bus Subway with Breda

all-serviceAi??vehicles that broke down a lot and cost too much .

Ai??Ai?? Fifth, Seattle had too much experience with “good” busAi??service.

The Ai?? 2011 FTA National Transportation Data Base reported Bus

Rapid Transit in Seattle cost 96 cents per passenger-mile to

maintain and operate. Seattle Light Rail that year was new and

cost $ 1.08 per passenger-mile but with full operation in 2012 with

costs well below bus service. Motorists fear BRT will get some of

Seattle’s jammed street space Ai??but at least some Light Rail will get

its own newAi??space.

Ai??Ai?? Sixth, Seattle is strong for Clean Air. Ai??They do not think buses will

help much with that. Light Rail will. Ai??The National Transit Data Base

saysAi??buses get only 32 passenger-miles per gallon Ai??but Light Rail

gets in Ai??between 40 and 50 depending on how high their load factors

are.

Ai??Ai?? Ai??Since Light Rail does not use oil, the textbook conversion rate is

13.5 kilowatt hours Ai??is equal to one gallon of dieselAi??fuel. Ai??That costs

about five cents per passenger-mile by LRT Ai??but 11 cents by diesel

bus

Ai??Ai?? Seventh, back about 1962, I think it was, Seattle bus Ai??management

asked for money to scrap the trolley-buses and replace them with

modernAi??flexible diesels. The Professional Engineers of King County

organized a strong political pitch to keep the faster on hills and least

costly trolleyAi??coaches. Voters went for the cleaner, less costly trolley

buses, butAi??did not expand them much, just renewed them. Ai??Bus

management claimed cost per bus-mile was less than cost per trolley

coach mile which was true, but trolley coaches got the slowest hilly

routes and the shorter routes close to downtown so were slower.

The Professional Engineers showed that Bus drivers are paid by

the hour, not the mile Ai??and make more stops per mile. so hourly

costs,Ai??not mileage cost should be used. That favored trolley

coaches. Ai??They went through that same exercise about two

yearsAi??ago and trolley coaches won again.

Arbutus Corridor Resurrected?

 

It seems the CPR is going to resurrect the Arbutus Line for freight and the wails of “shock and disbelief”, from Vancouver’s creme de la creme are echoing through the halls at city hall.

Get real folks, the CPR did not abandon the railway and the city failed to negotiate a transit solution for the route.

Maybe, the CPR has plans for a local passenger rail service along the line as American railways are finding commuter services workable and even profitable on lightly used freight lines and the Arbutus corridor would be a natural to experiment with. Just maybe the CPR can do, what the city of Vancouver; Metro Vancouver and Victoria could not do, and operate a local passenger line along the Arbutus corridor.

Canadian Pacific Railway crews have been surveying and cutting brush on the line

By JEFF LEE, Vancouver SunMay 9, 2014

VANCOUVER – More than a decade after the last Canadian Pacific Railway train made its way down the Arbutus line, the company is considering putting the spur railway back into service.

On Thursday, CP said it has crews out surveying and cutting brush on the overgrown line that runs 11 kilometres between Kitsilano and the Fraser River.

That activity has sparked concern among residents and gardeners along the line since the railway ai??i?? long considered abandoned ai??i?? has become a popular strip for walks and community gardens. City hall has been flooded with calls from people complaining about the renewed railway activity.

Mayor Gregor Robertson issued a statement Thursday saying his office is against the reactivation of the railway line.

ai???Recently, the Canadian Pacific Railway began preparations to reactivate the Arbutus corridor to run trains. However, the city has very little detail from CP about their plans, other than that they intend to run trains along the route.

ai???The city doesnai??i??t support the reactivation of cargo trains along the corridor and we have expressed this clearly to CP. The corridor is a unique, green route running from False Creek to the Fraser River, crossing several residential neighbourhoods, and our vision for it is to maintain it as greenway for residents of Vancouver until thereai??i??s a viable case for rail transit use,ai??? he stated.

Robertson noted the city has been trying to work with CP Rail for years to convince them of the need for the corridor to remain a community greenway until there is a viable case for passenger rail use. He noted the rail line is not suitable for large-scale development or cargo trains.

ai???I support the Arbutus corridor as a community greenway and future transit corridor, and ask CP to respect the neighbourhoodai??i??s wishes and the Arbutus corridor official development plan.ai???

CP spokesman Ed Greenberg issued a statement following the mayor’s comment:

ai???CP has attempted for many years to reach a deal on this line with the City of Vancouver. Unfortunately, we have failed to reach an agreement, so we are now reconsidering our operational options. In saying that though, CP remains open to continued dialogue and discussion.ai???

In an earlier interview Greenberg said the railway company is clearing out brush along the line as well as surveying its property lines.

ai???We are doing a new survey to ensure we have a current record of our property,ai??? he said. ai???We are continuing to explore operational options for the line, but no decisions have been made at this time.ai???

Greenberg said CP did not formally abandon the line as required under federal legislation, and it ai???remains an active rail line as defined by the Canadian Transportation Act.ai???

However, in a letter CP is issuing to residents along the line, Mike LoVecchio, western director of governmental affairs, said the company is considering putting the line back into operation because it hasnai??i??t been able to resolve long-standing community desires for non-railway use.

In 2006 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled the city had the right to designate the line for transportation and greenway uses. It affirmed the cityai??i??s right to enact its Arbutus corridor official development plan, effectively killing a proposal by CP to sell or develop the land for commercial or residential use. The line has not been used since 2001.

ai???For many years now, CP has been involved in conversations to convert the Arbutus corridor for a number of combined public uses, such as a greenway, public transportation, community gardens and eco-density development. Despite our efforts, the company and other parties have been unable to achieve a plan for the disposition of this valuable asset,ai??? LoVecchio wrote. ai???As a result, the company must look at optimizing the use of this corridor. This includes running CP trains.ai???

He said the track network and adjacent 66-foot-wide right of way is private land owned by CP and people entering the area without authorization are trespassing.

However, in recent years the city and its neighbourhoods have created a number of community gardens along the right of way, in some cases installing water lines. Along some of the commercial strips, people have taken to parking on or next to the tracks. Elsewhere, along the lineai??i??s Kerrisdale and Marpole regions, thick patches of Himalayan blackberry have grown, providing fertile crops for berry pies in summer.

Greenberg said CP is aware there are many community gardens along the right of way and if crews determine they are in conflict with the railwayai??i??s operations, residents will be consulted.

===

A history of the rails

1886 ai??i?? Arbutus corridor given to the Canadian Pacific Railway by the province, just a few months before the City of Vancouver was incorporated.

1902 ai??i?? Vancouver and Lulu Island Railway Company, a CP subsidiary, builds rail line from False Creek to Steveston.

1905-1950s ai??i?? Electric locomotives shuttle passengers and freight along the corridor.

Mid-1950s ai??i?? Passenger service ends.

1995 ai??i?? CP severs connection between Arbutus corridor and Science World by selling a single lot at 1500 W 2nd Ave., which becomes a Starbucks.

1999 ai??i?? CP discontinues the railway apart from service to Molson brewery and starts working on plans for residential and commercial development. Also offers to sell corridor.

2000 ai??i?? City passes an Official Development Plan that restricts development on the corridor. CP sues city for limiting its use of the property to unprofitable rail service. The company claims the bylaw amounted to taking the property without compensation. Also, some Kerrisdale residents oppose use of corridor for rapid transit.

2001 ai??i?? Last train runs.

2002 ai??i?? B.C. Supreme Court judge rules the bylaw was not within the city’s powers. Separately, the B.C. Court of Appeal reverts northernmost 10 acres of the unused corridor to the Squamish Nation.

2004 ai??i?? B.C. Court of Appeal overturns lower court decision, preserving the city’s bylaw.

2006 ai??i?? Supreme Court of Canada unanimously rules that the city is within its rights to make decisions about land use and it does not need to compensate CP for any loss of value, real or perceived.

2007-present ai??i?? Residents plant community gardens along the line and use the space for recreation and transportation.

With a files from Kim Pemberton and Matt Robinson

jefflee@vancouversun.com

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/Trains+again+down+Vancouver+Arbutus+corridor/9821138/story.html#ixzz31EAb7zFK

Who says LRT or streetcars can’t operate at close headways!

There is a reoccurring theme from the SkyTrain trolls at TransLink and the city of Vancouver that LRT can’t operate at close headway’s and one can hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth when they are corrected. “Lies”, they scream in unison, at every correction. It is extremely funny and extremely sad at the same time that the SkyTrain trolls firmly believe their fairytales to be true and those who support modern LRT are some sort of latter day Luddite.

How many SkyTrain systems have been built Daryl? Only seven you say. Pity.

So here we have a contemporary photo from San Fransisco with a tram, a bus and a tram traveling at 3 second headway’s. Hmmm, say it ain’t so!

Gregeor Telling Porkies – Again!

By Kelly Sinoski, Vancouver Sun May 6, 2014

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/Vancouver+mayor+renews+push+Broadway+transit+line/9812110/story.html#ixzz312ZQjQkc

Who Killed Public Transportation in Los Angeles?

Why did the streetcars disappear, there many reasons and this news item may shed a little light from 50 to 60 years ago.

“Who Killed Public Transportation in Los Angeles?

Posted on 03 May 2014
by Craig Fitzgerald

With Elon Muskai??i??s Hyperloop making news in Israel, the story of how Los Angelesai??i??s trolley system disintegrated is once again rising in discussions. The demise of the Red Car trolleys in Los Angeles is the stuff of legend. Itai??i??s such a great narrative that it made its way into the plot of the movie Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, the Chinatown-esque movie that spearheaded the resurgence in American animated films. But, like the story of Preston Tuckerai??i??s quest to outdo the American automotive industry at its own game, thereai??i??s a lot more to the story of the demise of Pacific Electric ai??i?? also known as the Red Car System ai??i?? than meets the eye.

The Conspiracy

Thereai??i??s no doubt that General Motors and many other automotive-centric companies bought up trolley services all over America. According to United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in 1951, ai???Pacific City Lines was organized for the purpose of acquiring local transit companies on the Pacific Coast and commenced doing business in January 1938,ai??? with the backing of investors like Firestone, Standard Oil of California, Phillips Petroleum, General Motors, Mack Trucks and the Federal Engineering Corporation.

National City Lines ai??i?? the parent company of Pacific City Lines ai??i?? bought the Yellow Cars of the Los Angeles Railway, converting most of those lines to bus routes. National City Lines, Pacific City Lines and American City Lines made similar purchases and conversions in over 100 American cities like Oakland, Baltimore and San Diego, and eliminated streetcar service en masse.

In 1949, Firestone Tire, Standard Oil of California, Phillips Petroleum, GM and Mack Trucks were convicted of conspiring to monopolize the sale of buses and related products to local transit companies controlled by NCL and other companies. However, they were acquitted of conspiring to monopolize the ownership of these companies. The verdicts were upheld on appeal in 1951.

The Whistleblowers

In 1946, Edwin J. Quinby had recently retired from the US Navy as a Lieutenant Commander. As a result of the conversion of the Key System trolleys in Oakland, California, Quinby penned a 24-page expose on the owners and investors of the National City Lines. ai???This is an urgent warning to each and every one of you that there is a careful, deliberately planned campaign to swindle you out of your most important and valuable public utilitiesai??i??your Electric Railway System,ai??? Quinby wrote.

Quinby had previously worked for the North Jersey Rapid Transit, which operated in New York and had established the Electric Railroadersai??i?? Association in 1934, which had lobbied on behalf of rail users and the services they used.

Thirty years later, Bradford Snell, a the Senate antitrust attorney, former scholar with the Brookings Institution and attorney with Pillsbury, Madison and Sutro testified before the United States Senate, and provided what would become the document of record that conspiracy theorists would refer back to time and time again when discussing the ai???Great American Streetcar Scandal.ai???

Snell testified: ai???My findings, contained in a study entitled American Ground Transport, are briefly this: the Big Three car companies used their vast economic power to restructure America into a land of big ca=rs and diesel trucksai??i??General Motorsai??i?? destruction of electric transit systems across the county left millions of urban residents without an attractive alternative to automotive travel.ai???

Snell took particular issue with the leniency of the fines levied in the conspiracy cases: ai???The court imposed a sanction of $5,000 on GM. In addition, the jury convicted H.C. Grossman, who was then treasurer of GM. Grossman had played a key role in the motorization campaigns and had served as a director of Pacific City Lines when that company undertook the dismantlement of the $100 million Pacific Electric system. The court fined Grossman the magnanimous sum of $1.ai???

The Mitigating Factors

Whether or not GM, Firestone and Standard Oil were buying up trolley companies and converting them to buses, the fact was that many of those lines were in dire financial shape when they were purchased, due in part to the trust-busting that followed the stock market crash of 1929.

The Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 ai??i?? also known as the Wheeler-Rayburn Act ai??i?? put the kibosh on trolley company profitability. Prior to the Act, streetcar companies like Pacific Electric could provide a public transportation service, as well as producing electricity for sale to other parties. By 1932, eight utility holding companies controlled 73 percent of the private electric industry. Complex legal structures made it very hard for individual states to regulate.

Companies like Pacific Electric were private companies, not public services. They were owned by electric utility holding companies. The electric utility company could sell electricity to the streetcar affiliate company and artificially mark up the price, allowing the utility company to effectively subsidize the streetcars, and then jack up electric rates for other customers.

The Wheeler-Rayburn Act resulted in the divestiture of utility-owned electric streetcar companies, and seriously impinged their ability to run profitably.

The DebunkerAi??

In 1997, in an issue of Transportation Quarterly, Cliff Slater essentially exploded the myth that the demise of trolley cars in America was due solely to the fact that GM and its cohorts were buying them. Slater essentially said that the trolley car systems around the country were able to be purchased because they were going broke.Ai?? As far back as 1920, ridership on streetcars was on the decline. By the time of the stock market crash, 20 percent of cities across the country were already relying solely upon bus service.

In 1915, streetcars were cheaper than buses to operate, according to Slater, but just a few short years later, as soldiers returned home from World War I, that wasnai??i??t necessarily the case. The capital cost of maintaining railways exploded, versus the road maintenance for buses, which was essentially subsidized by road construction specifically for automobiles that were becoming vastly more popular in the 1920s.

Streetcar ridership increased heavily during World War II, which made it a lot easier for conspiracy theorists to point to increased ridership as a suggestion that all was well with the trolley systems. But it was a time of great austerity and gas rationing, artificially inflating ridership during the war years. Immediately following the war, ridership plummeted and never recovered.

ai???GM simply took advantage of an economic trend that was already well along in the process ai??i?? one that was going to continue with or without GMai??i??s help,ai??? concluded Slater.

Films like Who Framed Roger Rabbit? and documentaries like Who Killed the Electric Car? have continued to utilize Snellai??i??s testimony and his writing as the basis for the theory that GM was at fault for cities in the United States not having adequate public transportation. But in an article entitled The Transformation of the Pacific Electric Railway: Bradford Snell, Roger Rabbit, and the Politics of Transportation in Los Angeles,Ai??scholar Sy Adler flatly states that everything Snell suggested about transit in Los Angeles ai???was wrong.ai???

Like the story of Preston Tucker, when you start to look at the actual facts of what happened, it turns out he was just a guy who wasnai??i??t particularly good at paying his bills.

From the Georgia Straight ~ Light rail and B-Line combo better than Broadway SkyTrain?

Zwei doesn’t quite agree, but then in BC everyone seems to to be at least 40 years behind when talking about public transit.

Transit should operate on the surface, to give the transit customer the best options. It is not speed of the transit service,Ai?? rather it is the ambiance and ease of use that attracts customers to transit. The speed issue is dishonest as it is not the speed of transit that is important, but the speed of the overall journey, doorstep to doorstep that is.

One should seriously consider the following, despite over $9 billion spent on three mini-metro lines, the mode share of autos in the region has remained at 57% for the past 20 years! During the same period, the region saw 700,000 new drivers and transit ridership has only grown with the population.

The shrill anti-LRT rhetoric, so often repeated, omits the the singular fact, no one buys SkyTrain anymore, very few cities use light-metro and no one has copied BC Transit and TransLink’s transit planning since the first SkyTrain was forced onto the region in 1980. Yet we continue to follow the dead end transit so loved by politicians.

The problem is simple; the Fraser Valley taxpayer has subsidized Vancouver’s expensive transit regimen and when the Fraser Valley needs good transit to help alleviate growing congestion, Vancouver wants more to build a needless and extremely expensive subway that will not, as it has not in the past, offer an attractive alternative to the car.

Light rail and B-Line combo better than Broadway SkyTrain?

by Stephen Hui on Apr 30, 2014

As Vancouver hurtles toward a civic election in November, Mayor Gregor Robertson is on record as supporting a proposed $3-billion subway line in the Broadway corridor.

ai???Heai??i??s wrong on probably four or five fronts,ai??? Adam Fitch, a planning technician for the Thompson-Nicola Regional District, told the Straight by phone from Kamloops.

Fitch, a former Vancouver resident, has a cheaper, off-Broadway solution to the overcrowding on the 99 B-Line buses. First of all, he suggests extending the Millennium SkyTrain line to the Great Northern Way Campus. From there, a new light-rail line would carry passengers to the University of British Columbia, using existing rail corridors and road medians for 80 percent of the way and tunnels for the rest.

On Saturday and Sunday (May 3 and 4), Fitch will give free bike tours of the proposed route as part of Janeai??i??s Walk, an annual event inspired by the legacy of urbanist Jane Jacobs. He envisions the light-rail line meeting up with the Canada Line at Olympic Village Station, using the Olympic streetcar route and Canadian Pacific Railway corridor, and taking West 16th Avenue to the Point Grey campus.

According to Fitch, compared to a tunneled SkyTrain line, light rail would involve one-quarter the cost and half the construction time, while also not taking away any traffic lanes. With double-decker trains and gated crossings, he believes this solution could offer the same capacity and speed as SkyTrain.

Zwei’s note; No one builds doubledecker trams, nor to road intersections needs gated crossings, which goes to show that Mr. Finch is somewhat out of date. As for capacity, LRT trumps SkyTrain, always had and always will.

ai???I think the reason that the B-Line is so congested is because of people going out to UBC,ai??? Fitch said. ai???They just want to get to UBC as fast and efficiently and pleasantly as possible. They donai??i??t care whether theyai??i??re on Broadway or on 16th. And, if you did what Iai??i??m talking about, then you could keep the B-Line on Broadwayai??i??maybe even improve it.ai???

Vision Vancouver Councillor Geoff Meggs told the Straight the B-Line is at capacity, as predicted by a 1999 study of the Broadway corridor.

ai???This proposal doesnai??i??t offer any benefit to the second-largest business district in the province,ai??? Meggs said by phone from City Hall.

http://www.straight.com/news/636586/light-rail-and-b-line-combo-better-broadway-skytrain?comment_mode=1#add-new-comment

Jane’s Walk Vancouver Series – An Alternative to the Broadway Subway

Dear Rail for the Valley people, I will be leading bike tours on Saturday May 3 and Sunday May 4 as part of the Jane’s Walk Vancouver series – An Alternative to the Broadway Subway.

You are all welcome to come along, if you wish. I would also really appreciate if you would publicize this as widely as possible through RailfortheValley.

Here is a link to the webpage: http://www.janeswalk.org/canada/vancouver/alternative-broadway-subway/

Sincerely, Adam Fitch

Adam Fitch

Planning Technician

Thompson Nicola Regional District

300 – 465 Victoria Street | Kamloops, BC |V2C 2A9 | Office 250 377-8673

Ai??