Abbotsford Today Doesn’t Like the Rail for the Valley/Leewood Report
A new valley magazine and web site, Abbotsford Today doesn’t like the RftV/Leewood report and one wonders why? What do they want, more new highways or a SkyTrain that will never come?
Issues: Costs Still Make Light Rail A Pipe Dream
http://www.abbotsfordtoday.ca/?p=46791
AsAi??Ai??stated before, the report was a feasibility study for the implantation of a TramTrain service using the old BC Electric (now Southern Railway of BC), route. Using existing railway rights-of-ways, greatly reduces the cost of providing rail transit for a region. Unlike the West Coast Express, which must purchase pathways from the CPR at onerous costs, the valley TramTrain has a statutory rightAi??Ai??to providing passenger rail service on the existing route.
It is hard to take the article seriously, when the author compares the report with the “………feasibility of an underground subway to Whistler……..”.
The issues of fares is important, butAi??Ai??I don’t think the $25, quoted is correct;Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??one way fares on a full build (Vancouver/Richmond to Rosedale) should be in the $5.00 to $10.00 range depending on distance traveled.Ai??Ai??
A comparison with the $2.5 billion Canada line is in order.
The standard fare on the Canada line is $2.50 forAi??Ai??one zone and $3.75 for two zones; there is a $5.00 supplement for customers leaving from YVR, but the numbers using the $8.75 fare leaving YVR is very small. About 80% of the fares are also apportioned between RAV/Canada line, the SkyTrain line, Seabus and the buses and many customers are using the heavily subsidized U-Pass,Ai??Ai??thus the real revenue for the Canada line is much less than the actual fares paid.
TransLink was/is singing hosannas about how theAi??Ai??Canada Line’s ridership was near 100,000 boarding a day and soon the metro was to be able to pay its operating costs; so lets compare fares and ridership on the Canada Line with the prosed RftV TramTrain.
The full build, 138 km. Ai??Ai??RftV/Leewood TramTrainAi??Ai??is saidAi??Ai??cost about $1 billion or aboutAi??Ai??$1.5 billionAi??Ai??less than the 19.2 km., $2.5 billionAi??Ai??Canada line, meaning that the RftV TramTrain wouldAi??Ai??only less thanAi??Ai??40,000 boardings (remember those apportioned TransLink fares & deep discounted U-Pass), charging the same fares as the Canada LineAi??Ai??a day to obtain the same ratio ofAi??Ai??incomeAi??Ai??that TransLink is presently cheeringAi??Ai??about onAi??Ai??the Canada Line. If the TramTrain aims for only 20,000 boardings a day, then fares should be in the $5.00 to $10 dollar range, depending on the distance traveled, a far cry from the $25.00 quoted in the article.
It also should be noted that a new Vancouver to Chilliwack rail service will open the door to a host of new tourist and travel opportunities, where people who would not otherwise travel via car would take the train.
Yes there is a lot of questions remaining about the RftV/Leewood report, yet on the basis of the report, the taxpayer will get more than 10 times more rail transit per km.Ai??Ai??compared with SkyTrain, providing ample new travel opportunities for potential transit customers at affordable costsAi??Ai??and maybe even be the catalyst for improvement of local bus services in Chilliwack and Abbotsford.
Vancouver Commuting Habits
Ai??Ai??
The following information from the Out-of-home Marketing Research Association of Canada or OMAC is certainly contrary to the SkyTrain lobby claims that SkyTrain takes a large share of Vancouver’s commuters. But Zwei knew that already as if any claims made by Translink about SkyTrain being a wunder system are quickly dispelled by the lack of overseas recognition of any claims made about SkyTrain. The statistics also backs up Zwei’s claim that despite being in operation in the Vancouver area for over 25 years and over $8 billion invested,Ai??Ai??SkyTrain has failed to show a modal shift from car to transit.
The question is: “Why does Translink continually force SkyTrain planning on the region, when it has failed miserably to alleviate auto congestion and gridlock?”
The answer my friends is blowing in the windsAi??Ai??around thoseAi??Ai??the Ivory Towers on Kingsway.
Commuting Habits
Mode of Transportation to Work
Driving to work is the dominant mode of transportation.
Driver or passenger in Vehicle A?ai??i??ai??? 79.2%
Public Transportation A?ai??i??ai??? 11.5%
Walk A?ai??i??ai??? 6.5%
Bicycle A?ai??i??ai??? 1.9%Length of Commute to Work
There has been a consistent growth in vehicle kilometers travelled on a typical weekday in Vancouver. The population growth, the increased size of the city and the improving economic conditions all contribute to the growth in vehicle kilometers travelled.
41% of Vancouver workers commuted between 5 km. and 15 km. Only 8% commuted more than 25 km.
Ai??Ai?? 34.8% travel < 5 kms.
Ai??Ai?? 41.2% travel 5 A?ai??i??ai??? 14.9kms.
Ai??Ai?? 16.2% travel 15 A?ai??i??ai??? 24.9 kms.
Ai??Ai?? 7.7% travel 25 kms. +Time Spent By Car Commuting To Work
Vancouverites spend a average of 70 minutes traveling by car to work. This has increased from 58 minutes in 1986.
Source: Stats Can 2001 Census: Where Canadians Work and How They Get There
Transit News From Here and There
A former 4 lane arterial road with lawned
Chilliwack Times
http://www.chilliwacktimes.com/Uninformed+about+transit/3693739/story.html
Nick Wimpney Ai??Ai??open letter to Sharon Gaetz in the Times needs following up
North Shore News
http://www.burnabynow.com/story.html?id=3699636
Hamilton
Most Candidates Support LRT, Mayoral Candidates Split
http://www.raisethehammer.org/article/1207/most_candidates_support_lrt_mayoral_candidates_split
Winnipeg
Bus rapid transit has edge in poll
Winnipeg Free Press
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/bus-rapid-transit-has-edge-in-poll-105418328.html
Cambridge, Ontario
Light rail transit dominates regional debate
Cambridge Times
http://www.cambridgetimes.ca/news/local/article/891078–light-rail-transit-dominates-regional-debate
Los Angeles – Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor light-rail project
L.A. Metro lands TIFIA loan for Crenshaw/LAX light-rail project
Progressive Railroading
http://www.progressiverailroading.com/news/article.asp?id=24827
Engineering to begin on Crenshaw/LAX light rail
South California Public Radio
http://www.scpr.org/news/2010/10/20/engineering-begin-crenshawlax-light-rail/
Premier’s transit pitch hard to swallow
Premier’s transit pitch hard to swallow
By Brian Lewis, The Province October 7, 2010 Comments (6)
A mother shoving cod liver oil down her child’s throat in the belief it’s a good health remedy A?ai??i??ai??? even though it tastes bad A?ai??i??ai??? is one thing, but unilaterally shoving public transit policy down taxpayer throats is positively unpalatable.
That’s precisely what Premier Gordon Campbell did last week at the Union of B.C. Municipalities convention in Whistler when he announced Victoria’s intention to extend SkyTrain through Surrey to Langley. The tasteless tactic was repeated in the same speech when he proclaimed that Rapid Bus service would link Chilliwack with the rest of the Fraser Valley.
On both counts reaction throughout the transit-challenged region was predictable: “Oh, really?”
Regarding the SkyTrain extension, TransLink, the region’s mayors and all other stakeholders are a long, long way from agreeing on what type of rapid transit technology should be used in building the 17-kilometre link between SkyTrain’s current terminus in north Surrey and Langley district. By far the most expensive option is SkyTrain’s elevated guideway, which in current dollars is estimated to cost a whopping $2.5 billion, or more.
Campbell’s announcement took mayors such as Dianne Watts of Surrey by total surprise. As she has said many times, a ground-level system between Surrey and Langley makes more sense because it’s far cheaper, easier and quicker to build.
Langley Township Mayor Rick Green’s response was blunt : “SkyTrain to Langley is simply pie-in-the-sky,” he tells me.
“There’s no question the premier is jumping the gun here.”
Green notes that TransLink, its Mayor’s Council and the B.C. government only several weeks ago signed a Memorandum of Understanding to conduct long-term transit planning throughout the region.
Yet, here comes Campbell with an announcement that the extension to Langley will be the SkyTrain technology. “He does this even though the ink on the MOU isn’t even dry,” Green adds.
As for establishing a Rapid Bus system to serve as far east as Chilliwack, those advocating that the old Inter Urban rail line be utilized to re-establish light rail transit from Chilliwack to Surrey are more than a little miffed.
Green, who also heads the South of the Fraser Community Rail Task Force, points out that unlike Vancouver, Richmond or Burnaby, population densities in the valley tend to form in pockets, which makes an Inter Urban light rail system much more efficient and cost-effective than SkyTrain, which works best in areas where high density is uniform.
The premier announcing that Rapid Bus is the choice for service to Chilliwack also reinforces suspicions that a $400,000 study of transit options for the valley, undertaken by Victoria almost two years ago, which still hasn’t been released, will kill the Inter Urban light rail option.
Despite Campbell’s announcements, Langley City Mayor Peter Fassbender says all transit options for the region will remain on the table.
He also chairs the Mayor’s Council and acknowledges that this places him in a consensus-building role to keep peace between the region and Victoria and to move the issue forward.
“We all have to work together for the south of Fraser solutions,” Fassbender says.
But a premier dispensing policy like spoonfuls of cod liver oil makes that job tougher.
blewis@theprovince.com
Ai??Ai?? Copyright (c) The Province
via Premier’s transit pitch hard to swallow.
Foot-dragging feds slow train service to Seattle
Foot-dragging feds slow train service to Seattle
By Jon Ferry, The Province October 18, 2010 Comments (6)
The news that Ottawa has finally approved the operation of a second daily train between Vancouver and Seattle for another year is a relief to all those who love trains — and jobs.
Now we need to push for four trains a day, so we can have a proper rail service between the two metro regions, which have a combined population of about seven million. It should have been in place years ago.
The fact is, however, that we — including train lovers and all those who appreciate the economic and environmental benefits of rail travel — will have our work cut out persuading the feds to support such a progressive move.
Until now, the supposedly probusiness Harper government has been busy putting up nothing but roadblocks. It threatened, in fact, to withdraw customs clearance for the second Amtrak train.
And it was only because of a full-court press by high-profile worthies on both sides of the border, including Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson, that the Canada Border Services Agency was given the extra $800,000 it claimed it needed to do the job.
Even last week, in announcing the supposed breakthrough, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews stated Ottawa would only extend the customs clearance for the second train until next October. That’s hardly a ringing endorsement of a rail service bringing in millions to Vancouver’s tourism industry.
It’s all too typical of Ottawa’s attitude toward British Columbia. I mean, can you imagine this petty customs snarl-up even being an issue if the extra train were being added between, say, Montreal and New York?
As Vancouver Coun. Geoff Meggs pointed out, the same day Canadian politicians were holding duelling news conferences over the aforementioned $800,000, the Swiss were completing a $10-billion, high-speed rail tunnel through the Alps. That’s how much more seriously the Europeans take all this.
It’s not as if Canadian taxpayers have to put up big bucks for track improvements for the Vancouver-Seattle service. The Americans are doing virtually all the spending, with the line between Blaine, Wash., and downtown Vancouver being basically an add-on.
Indeed, much of the credit for improving this scenic coastal rail service over the years goes to the Discovery Institute’s Cascadia Centre, based in Seattle.
On Friday, centre policy director Bruce Agnew hailed the resolution of the customs issue as “a great victory” because, if it hadn’t been settled, the political momentum for higher-speed trains would have been lost.
Agnew told me the Cascadia Centre would now strive to help the CBSA reduce its inspection costs. It would also press for the multimillion-dollar investment needed to double the rail service from two to four trains a day.
He added, moreover, that eventually there could be high-speed rail between the two cities, possibly via Abbotsford rather than White Rock.
Let’s hope it doesn’t take too long. Travelling by train tends to be far more pleasurable than taking a plane or automobile. And we clearly need more trains in the Lower Mainland to get people out of their cars, especially in the mushrooming Fraser Valley.
The question I have is not whether we can afford to have such trains, but whether we can afford not to.
jferry@theprovince.com
via Foot-dragging feds slow train service to Seattle.
BCLocalNews.com – TramTrain a better investment
TramTrain a better investment
Published: October 18, 2010 4:00 PM
Updated: October 18, 2010 4:10 PM
Re: If they build it , will we ride? (Chilliwack Progress, Oct. 15). Mr. Blacklock raises some interesting points about the proposed Rail for the Valley TramTrain.
The scope of the study was technical, to see the feasibility of reinstating the previous interurban operation with modern TramTrain and the result was, the reinstating a TramTrain service was an affordable option.
Let us compare the Canada Line with the RftV basic Diesel LRT (TramTrain) option.
The Canada Line cost over $2.5 billion to date and has 90,000 boardings daily, which translates roughly to 40,000 to 45,000 actual people taking the new metro – but 35,000 or more were previous bus users now forced to transfer onto the Canada Line. Actual new ridership on the metro is less than 10,000 people.
The Rail for the Valley/Leewood Report cost for a basic Diesel/hybrid option, Scott Road to Chilliwack at $500 million or one fifth the cost of the Canada Line metro. If TransLink thinks that under 10,000 new passengers on a $2.5 billion metro is successful, as recently reported in local papers, then logic dictates that a TramTrain operation costing $500 million or one fifth the cost of the Canada Line would need under new 2,000 passengers a day to be deemed equally as successful!
All passengers on the TramTrain would be new!
As the RftV TramTrain would service several city centres and universities and colleges along its route, initial ridership is anticipated to be triple or quadruple, the 2,000 new passengers a day figure.
As for bus rapid transit or BRT, the question is, where has it worked? To be truly rapid, BRT must have expensive exclusive rights-of-ways to operate, thus driving up the costs considerably.
Ottawa is a good example. After building BRT instead of LRT in the mid-80A?ai??i??ai???s, which cost more than originally planned for light rail, ridership on the BRT and regular bus lines fell 15.7% from 1986 to 1999!
Today, Ottawa operate a TramTrain line and instead of investing in further BRT, the city is now building with modern light rail!
Malcolm Johnston
Light Rail Committee
Rail for the Valley
via BCLocalNews.com – TramTrain a better investment.
BCLocalNews.com – Anti-LRT rhetoric comes to Surrey
Anti-LRT rhetoric comes to Surrey
Published: October 19, 2010 3:00 PM
Updated: October 19, 2010 3:11 PM
Editor: I see that TransLink is taking its well-honed dog and pony transit show to Surrey, and I hope residents watch out for the snake-oil that passes as transit planning.
TransLink doesnA?ai??i??ai???t care for modern light rail, and prefers to build with its expensive old standby, the bureaucratic and politically prestigious SkyTrain light-metro system.
To this end, TransLink pulls out all the stops to make LRT seem inferior to SkyTrain, which has worked well with the rubes on the north side of the river. One hopes Surrey folks and politicians can see through TransLinkA?ai??i??ai???s hype and hoopla and see the slick-willies for what they are.
Despite TransLinkA?ai??i??ai???s claims that modern LRT canA?ai??i??ai???t carry much more than 10,000 persons per hour per direction, in the real world (beyond the GVRD) modern LRT is defined as mode A?ai??i??Ai??that can deal economically with traffic flows of between 2,000 and 20,000 passengers per hour per direction, thus effectively bridging the gap between the maximum flow that can be dealt with using buses and the minimum that justifies a metro.A?ai??i??A?
LRT, with its inherent high passenger carrying capacities, combined with economic construction costs made the SkyTrain metro system obsolete decades ago, but TransLink lives in the world of A?ai??i??Ai??pixie-dustA?ai??i??A? planning, where facts are contrived to continue building with SkyTrain.
Sadly, TransLinkA?ai??i??ai???s current transit plans are A?ai??i??Ai??fruits of the poisonous treeA?ai??i??A? and not worth the paper itA?ai??i??ai???s printed on.
Noted American transit specialist, Gerald Fox, in a letter to a Victoria, B.C. transit group, summed up TransLinkA?ai??i??ai???s mania for SkyTrain on the Evergreen line: A?ai??i??Ai??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 taxpayersA?ai??i??ai??? interests are protected. No SkyTrain project has ever passed this scrutiny in the US.A?ai??i??A?
TransLink, embarrassed by the Rail for the Valley/Leewood TramTrain report, is hoping once again to bamboozle Surrey residents with their anti-LRT rhetoric, that has worked so well for them in the past.
Malcolm Johnston
Light Rail Committee
Rail for the Valley
via BCLocalNews.com – Anti-LRT rhetoric comes to Surrey.
Time to seriously look at rail
Time to seriously look at rail
The Times October 8, 2010
On Oct. 3, 1910, the first Interurban train rolled down the track from New Westminster to Chilliwack.
Over the next four decades, it was the main transportation link for people in the new rural communities. The service rattled back and forth across the Fraser Valley several times a day, taking rural residents to the urban centre and delivering their produce and meats to urban markets.
The commuter service was discontinued in 1950, but the track, owned by B.C. Hydro, is in working condition and in use by Southern Railway. Now, a century later, Fraser Valley commuters stuck on freeways due to accidents or congestion are again looking longingly at the train.
The Rail for the Valley group argues that the rail service should be a key part of B.C.’s transportation plan. In 2008, the province agreed to do a feasibility study for light rail as part of its ambitious $3-billion-plus Gateway plan. When the rail proponents tired of waiting for the transportation ministry to complete its study, they hired their own consultant. Leewood Projects Ltd., of London, England, made a detailed study, determining the endeavour would cost B.C. taxpayers about $500 million for a 98-kilometre route. (The Canada Line cost $100 million per km).
Public transit is generally not a money-making venture, but the West Coast Express has a remarkable record. According to Translink, the WCE recovers more than 90 per cent of its operating costs, even though it pays hefty fees to Canadian Pacific Rail for the use of its track. Rail proponents argue that since B.C. Hydro owns the track, there would be no lease fee. They note the population served by the Interurban line is three times that served by the WCE, which just added seven cars due to increasing demand.
Surely there is enough merit in the rail study for Transportation Minister Shirley Bond to stop ignoring this option and to take an honest look at reinstating light rail in the Fraser Valley.
All the pieces seem to be there–all that’s missing is the political will.
Ai??Ai?? Copyright (c) Chilliwack Times
via Time to seriously look at rail.
Chilliwack Progress – RapidBus coming to Chilliwack, says Premier
RapidBus coming to Chilliwack, says Premier
By Robert Freeman – Chilliwack Progress
Published: October 05, 2010 7:00 AM
Premier Gordon CampbellA?ai??i??ai???s promise at last weekA?ai??i??ai???s UBCM convention to extend RapidBus service to Chilliwack is welcome A?ai??i??ai??? if perplexing A?ai??i??ai??? news to city officials and light-rail advocates.
Chilliwack Coun. Diane Janzen, who chairs the cityA?ai??i??ai???s transportation advisory committee, said the announcement is a A?ai??i??Ai??very positiveA?ai??i??A? sign the need for A?ai??i??Ai??enhanced public transportation out to ChilliwackA?ai??i??A? is on the governmentA?ai??i??ai???s radar.
But the announcement A?ai??i??ai??? which came without any details like cost or hours of service A?ai??i??ai??? was made before the release of a $400,000 study of transportation options in the Fraser Valley that began nearly two years ago in November, 2008.
Janzen said the city has sent a letter to the transportation minister emphasizing how A?ai??i??Ai??incredibly importantA?ai??i??A? the study, which would include a A?ai??i??Ai??comparative analysisA?ai??i??A? of bus and light rapid transit, is for both regional and local transit planning.
A?ai??i??Ai??WeA?ai??i??ai???re unclear right now as to where (the study) stands,A?ai??i??A? she said.
A ministry spokesman was unable to clarify by MondayA?ai??i??ai???s deadline the PremierA?ai??i??ai???s announcement in light of the unreleased study.
Light-rail advocate John Vissers said it appears the Premier tipped the governmentA?ai??i??ai???s plan for transportation in the Fraser Valley with the RapidBus announcement.
The promise to bring A?ai??i??Ai??a couple of busesA?ai??i??A? out to Chilliwack, which would likely require passengers to transfer to local transit instead of arriving at a central location in each community, suggested to Vissers that the Fraser Valley is A?ai??i??Ai??not a significant concernA?ai??i??A? for the B.C. government.
But more important, he added, is the A?ai??i??Ai??missed opportunityA?ai??i??A? to invest in a light-rail system while costs are low, and to build a A?ai??i??Ai??sustainableA?ai??i??A? community with fewer cars on the road, less pollution, and much-needed commercial developments popping up all along the rail line, particularly near stations.
He said light rail does two things for Chilliwack – A?ai??i??Ai??it gives people an attractive alternative to driving their cars … and development along the rail corridor, particularly near stations.A?ai??i??A?
A?ai??i??Ai??RapidBus does neither of those,A?ai??i??A? he said.
A recent study commissioned by the Rail For The Valley lobby group said a light rail line could whisk passengers from Chilliwack to Skytrain stations in Surrey in 90 minutes, with diesel-electric trains running every 20 to 30 minutes using existing tracks.
rfreeman@theprogress.com
via Chilliwack Progress – RapidBus coming to Chilliwack, says Premier.
Abbotsford News – Too soon to pick SkyTrain over light rail: Watts
Too soon to pick SkyTrain over light rail: Watts
* Light rail delivers more bang for the buck
By Jeff Nagel – BC Local News
Published: October 04, 2010 5:00 PM
Updated: October 04, 2010 5:45 PM
Premier Gordon Campbell pledged to deliver “SkyTrain to Langley” on Friday but Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts says the option of using at-grade light rail technology should not be ruled out.
“I’d be surprised if he’s excluding any technology,” Watts said, adding she took the reference as intended to mean a rapid transit line will run to Langley, with the exact system and route to be determined by TransLink, Surrey and Langley.
Officials in the Premier’s Office, however, confirmed Campbell did intend to specify SkyTrain when he addressed the Union of B.C. Municipalities.
“The community prefers light rail for a number of reasons,” Watts said. “You can have double the tracks for the same price as SkyTrain.”
Surrey’s land mass is almost as large as Vancouver, Burnaby and Richmond combined, she said, and SkyTrain technology that might work well in those cities is less suited to the Surrey-Langley extension.
“When you’re looking at putting rapid transit across those kinds of kilometres, you need to be looking at all options,” Watts said.
TransLink will soon launch a new round of public consultations on the routes and technologies for Surrey-area rapid transit extensions.
Surrey council is also set to visit Portland, Oregon this month to study that city’s light-rail system.
In January, 2008, Campbell unveiled the Provincial Transit Plan, which indicated a rapid transit extension to Guildford and then southeast to roughly 168 Street and Fraser Highway, after which a RapidBus system would run to Langley City.
Campbell’s UBCM speech pledging SkyTrain to Langley and then RapidBus to Chilliwack is being taken as a commitment to take rapid transit further than previously discussed.
“I was surprised to hear SkyTrain was going to come to Langley City,” said Langley City Mayor Peter Fassbender and the chair of the TransLink mayors’ council.
“It reflects our vision for our downtown and the fact we’ve already increased density,” he said.
But Fassbender cautioned there’s much work to be done examining the rapid transit options and stressed TransLink and the mayors who control funding must consider the broad needs of the entire region.
The province has spelled out no timeline, cost estimate or method of paying for the extension, except to indicate Partnerships BC will lead work to cost it out and develop a plan.
“There are no details of how to pay for it,” NDP transportation critic Harry Bains said. “And the key issue here is funding.”
The province and mayors’ council last month agreed to redouble efforts to determine what new taxes or revenue sources will fund TransLink expansion, particularly the money needed to start construction of the Evergreen Line to Coquitlam next year.
“There’s a third SeaBus sitting rusting right now because they don’t have the operating money,” Bains said, adding the province’s promises are meaningless without reliable long-term funding.
The 2008 pledge also committed to a RapidBus network by 2020 with bus rapid transit lines running down King George Highway to White Rock, from South Surrey through Delta to the Canada Line in Richmond, from Lougheed Station in Burnaby across the Port Mann Bridge to north Langley and then over the Golden Ears Bridge to Maple Ridge and then on to Coquitlam.
The premier’s now-stated preference for SkyTrain irks light rail advocates, who say it would preclude the use of the existing rail tracks on the old interurban corridor, which they say could launch light rail service at a modest cost.
“Promising SkyTrain to Langley is not realistic,” said Rail For the Valley spokesman John Vissers. “Does anybody in the Fraser Valley believe that’s going to happen in their lifetime?”
He said elevated or underground SkyTrain is “monolithic” with stations that are entrenched, while at-grade light rail stops are easy to create anywhere and can even be relocated from one spot to a different one if ridership patterns change.
Vissers said he’s disappointed the premier hasn’t looked more closely at the group’s proposal to restart a modern light rail system on the existing tracks, which he argues would attract more riders.
“We’ve heard about SkyTrain and we’ve heard about rapid buses and neither of those are the future that people in the Fraser Valley have been looking for.”
The premier’s speech also committed to a line along Broadway to UBC but used the words “rapid transit” not SkyTrain, leaving open the potential for light rail or bus rapid transit there.
via Abbotsford News – Too soon to pick SkyTrain over light rail: Watts.
Recent Comments