News Round-up – October 12, 2010
It seems Russian tram operators know how to conduct a tram emergency test.Ai??Ai??
The ultimate annual tram emergency exercise:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4OwPSI5eJQ&feature=related
From the Langley Times
http://www.bclocalnews.com/surrey_area/langleytimes/opinion/104350994.html
The Vancouver Province
http://www.theprovince.com/opinion/Premier+transit+pitch+hard+swallow/3635873/story.html
The North Shore News
http://www.nsnews.com/news/Railroading/3643583/story.html
Queensland
First contracts awarded for Gold Coast Light Rail
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/10/07/3032028.htm
Green light for GC rail tenderers
Avignon
The French city of Avignon (Rhone valley) gets a classic tramway; two
lines totalling 29Km, opening by 2016
Phoenix
Chateau On Central Livin’ Large On The Line
http://raillife.com/blog/2010/10/08/chateau-on-central/
Seattle
Portland
Jeddah
Vancouver [Fraser Valley]
Chilliwack Times
Time to seriously look at rail
Langley Times
Editorial – Speed up transit decisions
World Cities – population, population density, transport including Light Rail/Trams – Round 2
The following is a revised account of city population and the type of transit used; metro or light rail.
With Vancouver’s low population density, makes one wonder why the transportation authority and politicians only look at light-metro for transit solutions.
World City Rankings – 2 – Asia – view
The top 31 No Asian cities, population 5 to 33m
Ranking from 1 to 66 in the world
Note:
1.Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? Most population densities exceed 5,000/km 2 Ai??Ai??
2.Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? Most cities have;
Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? a: Ai??Ai??Heavy Rail metros
Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? b:Ai??Ai?? Subways
Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? c:Ai??Ai?? Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) or ART, LRT or RTS
World City RankingAi??Ai??- view 2
- World cities, ranking No 160 to 251, by population
- Population in range 1.78 to 2.75m
- Vancouver is ranked No 173
- Population densities lower with a number of exceptions
- Higher No of LRT/Tramways/Streetcars
- Lower No of Heavy Rail, Grade separated, subways & ART/MRT/RTS metros
I leaveAi??Ai??the readerAi??Ai??to formAi??Ai??his or herAi??Ai??own conclusions, however I concur:-
- Higher population density, Ai??Ai??Heavy Rail, Grade separated, subways & ART/MRT/RTS metros are supportable
- Lower population density, Heavy Rail, Grade separated, subways & ART/MRT/RTS metros are not supported and @grade/street running LRT/Tramways/Streetcars are viable
It isAi??Ai??also to be concluded that, Vancouver politicians see their city in the same league as Seoul, Manila, Shanghai, Jakarta, Beijing, Bangkok, Hong Kong, Singapore & Kuala Lumpur; indeed an Asian city and closer to Asia rather than the rest of Canada, the US & Europe.
From the New York Times Opinion Page – Transit Economics
What is true in New York, is true for Vancouver’s METRO Region.
Very sad!
Transit Economics
Paul Krugman
October 7, 2010
New York times
The usual suspects on the comment board are, inevitably, arguing that rail transit should pay for itself. The obvious response is that road transit doesnA?ai??i??ai???t; why should only public transit have to self-finance, when private vehicles generally drive on free roads built and maintained out of taxes?
But in a way that misses the larger point: urban transportation is an area in which we know that market prices bear very little relationship to true social costs. Even if you ignore environmental impacts and the national security implications of oil imports, the fact is that driving in an urban area, especially in rush hour, imposes huge congestion externalities on other people. And I mean huge: Felix Salmon had a nice piece last year putting the external cost you impose on other people by driving into lower Manhattan at $160 a day. (I canA?ai??i??ai???t find the reference, but Dave Barry once had an A?ai??i??Ai??ask Mr. Question AuthorityA?ai??i??A? about how long it takes to drive across Manhattan during rush hour. The answer was that nobody has ever succeeded in driving across Manhattan during rush hour.)
Now, Econ 101 says that the first-best answer to these externalities is to make people pay these social costs; if we did, New Jersey Transit could charge much higher fares! But since that isnA?ai??i??ai???t going to happen A?ai??i??ai??? at best, we may someday get a modest congestion charge A?ai??i??ai??? weA?ai??i??ai???re into second-best territory.
And rail transit takes people off the roads, thereby yielding a large benefit that doesnA?ai??i??ai???t show in NJTA?ai??i??ai???s books.
So anyone who tries to make this into some kind of issue of principle A?ai??i??ai??? we should never, ever subsidize any form of transit A?ai??i??ai??? is just out of touch both with economic analysis and with the realities
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/07/transit-economics/
If One Build Metro On Routes That Do Not Have The Ridership That Would Justify Contruction……
…..Then One Will Have To Pay Large Subsidies To Build And Operate It!
Large Subsidies Translates Into Higher Taxes!
Of course those high subsidies will have to be borne by the taxpayer, either in gas taxes, car levies, or road pricing (or all three), and or increased property taxes. The current belief by TransLink’s highly paid bureaucrats is that the homeowner in the Metro Region is flush enough to pay more property taxes.
What TransLink isn’t doing is planning for cheaper transit options and the term “affordable transit“, is not in their lexicon. Politicians and bureaucrats in Victoria are the same, as they force the metro region to build more SkyTrain and light metro. The time has come for Metro and Valley politicians to draw a line in the sand with this nonsense. If the politically unaccountable TransLink and Victoria want more SkyTrain in our region, then letAi??Ai??Victoria pay for it, or better yet, take back the financial black-hole TransLink has become, in its entirety.
As previously mentioned, TransLink’s anti-LRT rhetoric has skewed all regional ‘rail‘Ai??Ai??transit planning to favour SkyTrain, despite the fact that no one around the world buys SkyTrain for regional ‘rail’ transit. One now must consider all TransLink’sAi??Ai??regionalAi??Ai??transit planning reported as “fruit of the poisonous tree” and reject it all!
TransLink’s business case for the Evergreen LineAi??Ai??was so plannedAi??Ai??to support only SkyTrain construction, has been shredded by American transit & transportation expert Gerald Fox.
The Rail for the Valley/Leewood report has shown that there is another much cheaper way in providing regional ‘rail‘ transit the light rail or LRT and TramTrain solution.
Thus we come to TransLink’s and the provincial government’s gambit to saddle regional property owners with ever increasingAi??Ai??Ai??Ai??taxes to continue building with the now obsolete proprietary SkyTrain light metro system. Regional mayors should stand fast and reject any further financial demands for ‘rapid transit’ until TransLink does a complete independent financial review of transit options for future ‘rail‘Ai??Ai??transitAi??Ai??construction, including the the contentious Evergreen Line and a complete independentAi??Ai??auditAi??Ai??is doneAi??Ai??on TransLink itself, SkyTrain/RAV-Canada LineAi??Ai??and the bus system.
May Zwei suggest Mr. Gerald Fox or Mr. David Cockle to head such a review?
From the press.
TransLink asked mayors for a $68.5 million handout.
The Vancouver Sun
Ai??Ai??http://www.vancouversun.com/news/TransLink+asks+Metro+mayors+million+handout/3639962/story.html
The Black Press
http://www.bclocalnews.com/surrey_area/surreyleader/news/104509894.html
BRT to Chilliwack & SkyTrain to Langley? Just Business as Usual in BC!
The following article by Brian Lewis should forewarn us that the transit decision for the Fraser Valley has been already made. Like all transit studies done in the region in the past 30 years, the decision on transit mode is made beforehand and thenAi??Ai??a study is commissioned to confirm the decision. This is howAi??Ai??transit planning is done in BC: Politicians make the decision and the bureaucrats make sure the political decisions stand with bogus, yet expensive studies.
One wonders why Trans Link is needed at all!
It is to be certain, Premier Campbell has not read the RftV/Leewood Report, though he is aware of its contentAi??Ai??with the announcement of an Express bus to Chilliwack and SkyTrain to Langley, sometime in the future. The TramTrain study is a radical change how transit is planned for in BC, in which no special party is rewarded, except for those wishing to use ‘rail‘ transit!
In Mr. Campbell’s world, bus based transit means new highways, which will keep the road Builder’s Association happy and building more SkyTrain will keep both Bombardier Inc. and land developers happy. Happy people translates into lucrative political donations to a political party which the happy people belong!
The Premier’s speech to the Union of BC Municipalities, was just telling the party faithful that it is business as usual in BC.
Ai??Ai??
Ai??Ai??
Ai??Ai??
By Brian Lewis, The Province
October 7, 2010
A mother shoving cod liver oil down her child’s throat in the belief it’s a good health remedy — even though it tastes bad — 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
The Need for Passenger Rail
The Need for Passenger Rail
by Rail For the Valley
For a pdf version of this article, click here
October 3, 1910 – 2010
The monumental first Interurban train trip from New Westminster to Chilliwack occurred on October 3 1910. 100 years later, Rail For The Valley takes a look at some important current issues, and misconceptions standing in the way of a service today.
The Fraser Valley Regional Study
In early 2008 the Province claimed a major study of light rail would soon be released, but almost three years later the public is still waiting. The Province has hyped this simple FVRD report as an in depth examination of the feasibility of light rail. Unfortunately this is not the case. The study has little to do with rail at all and only encompasses the region between Abbotsford and Chilliwack. As John Buker noted:
“Given the public support for passenger rail, it’s hardly surprising the Province would try and pass off an FVRD report on Abbotsford-Chilliwack traffic projections as a meaningful light rail study. It’s very doubtful that the provincial report, when it is finally released, will shed much light at all on the potential for an Interurban light rail service.” “What kind of study examining the feasibility of light rail in the Fraser Valley excludes Vancouver, Surrey, and Langley?”
Realizing that the public deserved an honest accounting of the potential for light rail service on the Interurban corridor, Rail For the Valley concluded that an independent analysis was essential.
The independent Interurban Study is completed
September 2010
One of the major hindrances to any light rail study to date has been both the lack of light rail expertise, and of a light rail industryAi??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? inAi??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? theAi??Ai??Ai??Ai?? province. Provincial studies have relied on Heavy Rail consultants who are simply not qualified to do a major study of a light rail system. The Interurban report is British Columbia’s first study done by experts in the field of light rail.
A highly esteemed rail consultancy firm Leewood Projects Ltd, was commissioned by Rail For the Valley to undertake what stands as the most comprehensive and detailed light rail implementation study in the history of the Province. Leewood Projects is a professionally respected firm in Great Britain that has been involved in major transit projects such as the London Underground, and Croydon Tramlink.
The Province’s own lackluster ‘feasibility’ studies when contrasted against this groundbreaking report are embarrassingly inadequate. The Province’s inference that they have access to more accurate facts and figures is no longer just a myth, it is a falsehood. The Interurban report once and for all demolishes the argument against passenger rail service in the Fraser Valley. The findings of the report are clear:
‘This report concludes that the conversion to 21st Century Community Rail/Light Rail of the BCER Lower Fraser Valley Interurban, will bring positive benefits to the communities it will serve in; Economic &Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? InwardAi??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? Investment,Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? Tourism, Environment, Health & Social Cohesion. The early implementation of Phase 1, from Chilliwack to Scott Road in Surrey, will be the beginning of the benefits.’ (page 54)
Ridership potential of the Interurban
Light Rail systems around the world are built to attract ridership. These systems are most cost-effective when they are built in areas with less density, before heavy urban development takes place, such as in the case of the Fraser Valley. Failure to build in advance of density results in astronomical construction costs. Recent examples are the Canada Line, costing over $100 million per km, and the planned Evergreen Line, which will cost over $120 million per km. That trend of building late instead of early has cost BC taxpayers billions of dollars.
Led by the city of Surrey, the Fraser Valley is projected to pass Vancouver in population within the next 10 years. This is why it is imperative that this system be built immediately. Opponents in the Provincial Government have been trying to fool the public into believing that ridership might actually be an issue, simply because they would rather spend money elsewhere.
It is a known fact that comparable regions, even regions with less density, have effective light rail systems. We see this in cities such as Calgary and Edmonton. The recent Interurban study was undertaken by a prestigious light rail firm in England, Leewood Projects. It would be absurd for them to even include ridership data in their study. They have shown us that the system is very workable here in B.C. and can be built economically. If they were in the business of planning systems that didn’t work, they would not be the kind of firm that helped build the Channel Tunnel. This shows the hollowness of the Ridership argument.
Costs
According to Translink figures, the West Coast Express commuter service recovers more than 90% of its operating costs. This is despite the fact that as much as half of its budget goes toward a heavy lease fee to CP Rail. The Interurban corridor, on the other hand, does not require any lease fee. The right to operate passenger trains is already owned by the public. The Interurban would serve a population approaching 3 times that of the West Coast Express, and with no lease fee there is little doubt the service would quickly turn an operating profit.
Light Rail systems are one of the most cost effective systems in the world and one of the few modes of public transportation that can pay for themselves. 
Highways and roads on the other hand cost BC taxpayers billions. The Provincial Transit Plan calls for expenditures of $1.6 billion on buses alone over the next few years. Traffic congestion also has tremendous hidden costs: economic costs, health costs, and costs in terms of environmental pollution.
Ultimately, all of the Province’s current transportation proposals for the Fraser Valley will only serve to increase the traffic on our roads. Reducing road traffic reduces all of these costs. It’s estimated that the West Coast Express service is equivalent to taking 4,300 cars off the road and reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 21,502 tonnes a day.
Opponents of the Interurban argue that, with the current Economic hardships, the timing for construction of an Interurban system is poor. In fact, implementing light rail on the existing Interurban Right of Way is incredibly cost-effective ($6 million per km compared to Skytrain $100-140 million per km). A proposed Skytrain extension as far as Langley will further bankrupt the transit system and communities in the Valley have made it clear they prefer more affordable light rail. The system will serve roughly a million people in the Fraser Valley, far more than any multi-billion dollar transit projects under consideration for Vancouver. The alternative to light rail service is to continue pouring millions into expensive government transit projects like Skytrain.
The Future
Today, we still have the opportunity to build a light rail system in the Fraser Valley economically, to all our benefit. The costs of failing to act now are extreme and cannot truly be calculated. A light rail network will help to relieve traffic on our roads, improving our health, our air quality and the environment around us. One day soon this service will connect all the cities of the Fraser Valley and Vancouver in a truly comprehensive transit network. The time to plan that future is today.
The 10,000 PPHPD Question – TransLink is Hoisted on its Own Petard
At the recent streetcar symposium in Vancouver, TransLink officials contend that streetcars have very little capacity, almost less than a busAi??Ai??and that light rail can carry only 10,000 persons per hour per direction. This,Ai??Ai??despite the fact that the Light Rail Transit Association has, since the 1980’s, defined LRT “as a mode that can carry 2,000 to 20,000 pphpd, thus bridging the gap of what can economically be carried by buses and the ridership that would demand a subway“.
Many cities operating LRT or tram, provide capacities of over 20,000 pphpd on portions of their routes during peak hours, including Karlsruhe, Germany; Helsinki, Finland; and Tuen Mun, Hong Kong. Why then does TransLink maintain that LRT can carry only half as much as many LRT operations do in revenue service daily?
The answer lies in the 1994 Broadway – Lougheed CorridorAi??Ai??BC Transit/Delcan study, which has formed the basis for TransLink’s questionable light rail planning since. Instead of involving consultants who have hands-on knowledge about LRT (as RftV did), TransLink continues to refer back toAi??Ai??this questionable study, that was ill prepared and filled with technical error. TransLink wants to keep the door open for SkyTrain and metro construction in the region!
In order to make modern light rail appearAi??Ai??inferior to the much preferred SkyTrain, the B-L Corridor Study used small capacity light rail vehicles, long headways and a small two car station in the middle of the Broadway/Kingsway/Main Street triangle to maintain theAi??Ai??charade LRT comparisons to SkyTrain. The ruse has worked well and TransLink still spews out such dreadful bumf about light rail, that American transit and transportation expert Gerald Fox felt compelled to write a letter condemning the SkyTrain Evergreen Line business case!
If TransLink has been dishonest with LRT planning in the region since its inception, then we must assume that all TransLink planning is dishonest;Ai??Ai?? “the fruitAi??Ai??of theAi??Ai??poisonous tree“.
Regional politicians must now consider that TransLink’s metro planning and their so-called public consultations as a shamAi??Ai??process and must now demand independent studiesAi??Ai??by consultants who have expertise in light rail for regional transit planning. If TransLink’s own vast planning department needs to be reduced to accommodate this, so be it, as the transit planning coming from the ivory towers onAi??Ai??Kingsway are not worth the paper they are printed on.
A primer on modern light railAi??Ai??for Mr. Shiffer and company:
- The difference between LRT and a streetcar is that a streetcar operates-on street in mixed traffic, LRT operates on a reserved rights-of-ways.
- LRT and streetcars can carry 20,000 pphpd, or more,Ai??Ai??if need be.
- LRT can and does operate at 30 second headways.
- LRT is cheaper to operate than SkyTrain.
- Modern light rail has made SkyTrain and the light-metro class of transit obsolete.
It becomesAi??Ai??evident why Vancouver and the Metro region is the only city in North America and Europe that uses SkyTrain and light-metro (Canada Line), exclusively for regional rail transit instead of LRT and its variants.
The taxpayer have grown weary of TransLink and carrying the SkyTrain tax burden.
SkyTrain will be extended to Langley, Premier Campbell announces – Ha, Ha, Ha
SkyTrain is coming to Langley, so says the Premier – Yippee!
I think not.
Premier Campbell is a desperate man, clinging on to his Premiership like a barnacle on a ships hull and this announcement is supposed to rally Liberal forces (and Liberal money) in the Fraser Valley to support the Liberal cause.
Well Mr. Campbell, forgetting the fact that your government can’t find enough money to build the $1.4 billion Evergreen (locally known as the Nevergreen Line), where is the money to come from to fund this almost $2 billion boondoggle?
SkyTrain was never conceived to be a regional railway, rather it was designed to provide cheap inner city transportation by supposedlyAi??Ai??being able to carry more than a (Toronto) streetcar and cheaper to build than a real metro. It has failed at both.
In Vancouver, SkyTrain construction has been strictly political, no other city in North America and Europe builds SkyTrain as a metro; the Detroit ICTS is a mere demonstration Line and the JFK Airport SkyTrain is a niche people airport mover. Toronto’s ICTS Scarborough Line is being dismantled and replaced with either a metro or light rail.
Where SkyTrain goes, property development follows (the density question only applies to SkyTrain) and the Premier announcement probably has more to do telegraphing to property developers that he is open to taking Agriculture land Reserve lands out of the ALR along the SkyTrain route and rezone for high density (read towers) development along its almost $2 billion route.
It is worth noting that for the almost $2 billion 14 km. SkyTrain route to Langley, one can build a a ‘full build’ 136 km. RftV/Leewood TramTrain and a BCIT to UBC/Stanley Park LRT!
SkyTrain will be extended to Langley, Premier Campbell announces
Published: October 01, 2010
SkyTrain is coming to Langley.
Premier Gordon Campbell made the announcement on Friday, while speaking at the Union of B.C. Municipalities conference in Whistler.
In an hour-long address to delegates at the convention, Campbell listed off a series of transportation projects that would be accelerated with the help of unspecified new private investment.
They included extending SkyTrain from Surrey to Langley, RapidBus from Langley to Chilliwack, RapidBus from Kelowna to West Kelowna and also through Greater Victoria.
Langley City Mayor Peter Fassbender said a lot of technical work needs to be done on the Surrey-Langley line before it can proceed.
http://www.bclocalnews.com/surrey_area/langleytimes/news/104186513.html
Transit News – October 3, 2010
Edinburgh
and
http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/City-set-to-rip-up.6562087.jp
Pheonix.
San Jose
Portland
Gold Coast – Queensland
http://www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/t_standard2.aspx?pid=1327
Sydney
Fraser Valley, BC
and
The Streetcar Symposium – TransLink Doesn’t Get it!
Zwei attended the streetcar symposium on Wednesday and came out with a great sinking feeling – TransLink just doesn’t get it. The event itself was very well put together, with ample food and drink, but there was little discussion about streetcars, but a lot of back-slapping by the various agencies and bureaucrats attending. TheAi??Ai??symposium was derailed and for good reason too, I beleive.
What was it all about? To my well practiced eyes the event was an infomercial for Bombardier Inc. (they were well advertised) to sell Flexity trams to Vancouver for their $90 million tourist streetcar line. Why not purchase much cheaper second hand trams from Europe? No one has ever thought of that in a Bombardier town.
The symposium was mostly a tedious event with most speakers dancing around the topic of streetcars with,Ai??Ai??”oh no, they are not light rail“, responses. What is even more worrisome is that TransLink hasn’t a clue about light rail or even streetcars and continue their well honedAi??Ai??mantra that LRT can’t carry more than 10,000 persons per hour per direction and that streetcar’s capacity is even less! of course this TransLink nonsense is to keep the SkyTrain option alive for Vancouver’s Broadway UBC Line.
Lesson for TransLink – Light Rail can carry over 20,000 pphpd! Of course TransLink knows this, but ignores it and continues to squander millions of dollars on pointless transit studies favouring SkyTrain metro or even a $80 million skyride to SFU!
As for Rail to the Valley and our ground breaking report? Nope, never, Nada; never heard of the group nor read the study; haven’t a clue whatAi??Ai??TramTrain is but; “we’ll have a look in Wikipeada……”.
Professor Patrick Condon summed up the days events; “They are talking about stations and land development, they just don’t get it.“
Zweisystem’s advice for the South Fraser Region, secede from TransLink and the sooner the better as TransLink is incapable of planning for affordable LRT and continues to dream in “SkyTrain”.
Update
Stephen Rees also attended the meeting and even though he said he wasn’t going to post to his blog about it, he has. It is worth while to see his view on the day.
http://stephenrees.wordpress.com/2010/09/30/streetcars-the-missing-link/
Recent Comments