Though I support the streetcar project, it’s a little like nuking leftovers tossed into the freezer late last century. This is not an annoncement. It’s a re-announcement.

Here is the latest page of many created in the Vancouver Web site over most of the last decade:

http://vancouver.ca/engsvcs/transport/streetcar/phasing.htm

It’s a step in the right direction, but Ms. Anton must do better than reheating old issues. What would her policy direction be on regional transportation, for example?

Mr. Robertson has been awfully quiet with Pit Anton barking at his heels. Perhaps he’s trying to memorize the script?

The plan for the property next to Nanaimo station is interesting. The report shows that the ground is still somewhat contaminated from the previous foundry. That is somewhat dealt with by the call for modular housing which negates having to dig into the soil. The issue is the request is offering a 60yr ground lease for an area that is due to receive a planning study (along with 29th ave). Seems like a bit of a waste, to limit this spot to some modular units for a lifetime when it could’ve be so much more in the very near future.
Hopefully they readjust it to still allow modular housing but with only a 5yr term allowing it to be relocated to another area.

Canada Line is a local example of using private (well at least partially) funds for transit, and it doesn’t require a separate ticket.
Think an overlooked possibility for funding of this line is an area specific DCL. A few dollars psf would go a long way on a streetcar line. The additional cost which would be passed on to purchasers is easily justified by the convenience of the new line. Certainly wouldn’t be easy but it is possible to fund this outside of the capital plan.

Good comparison JJJ, but, CL is part of the TL system. The Streetcar will be operated by the City (maybe TL might decide they’d like to take it on at some point in the process if that was OK with the City).

Part of seeking cooperation of other levels of government presumably will include some sort of fare sharing system with TL, either at par or perhaps you upgrade your ticket 1 zone when transferring. There are many solutions for the many problems which must be resolved in a complex undertaking such as this one. That is what the Task Force is about.

Spartikus, I think TL, CL and the Streetcar will all have greater riderships, not less, simply because the Streetcar will provide a superior service to parts of the downtown which are difficult to get to at present by transit, specifically Chinatown and Gastown. And, once it’s extended to Kerrisdale and Marpole it will service another whole areas of the City with a relatively separated (ie: few street crossings) route.

@Bill McCreery #7:

Is extending the proposed streetcar line to Kerrisdale part of the platform?

Personally I like the idea of the streetcar system. If it is built, I would like to see it come down Pacific Blvd as well.

What are the issues with deciding to build a transit system not under the umbrella of Translink? That is to say, if CoV wanted to run its own partial transit system, what does Translink think of that? I imagine that Translink would be in line for those same federal dollars that Suzanne Anton talks about securing for this independent system, and would push back.

I also wonder about the comment on the Downtown Streetcar Project web page that states that running a bus service could have both lower average capital and operating costs. If the goal is just to move people, it seems that a dedicated bus on the same route would do that more cheaply. The other benefits would need to be quantified.

I was speaking of not requiring people going to those neighbourhoods without going through downtown. One important principle of transportation planing is to disperse volumes rather than concentrating them, particularly in the highest concentration part of the Lower Mainland. Such a route will also be faster.

I’ve never heard of any tenant of public transit being to disperse people, as you actually need a reasonably good volume of people to efficiently provide a frequent service, especially something like SkyTrain. And SkyTrain isn’t bursting at the seems (yet), and neither are the #8, 3, 19, 22, 20, 4, 7, 16 or 14 buses (I think that’s a complete list of buses serving chinatown and gastown). It’s a very well-serviced area of the city, including for travelers coming from south Vancouver and Richmond (Canada Line).

Yes, the streetcar would provide new connections, mostly around False Creek; it would be a useful service especially for non-commuters, and for commuters more so if extended up Arbutus. But I think it has to be integrated with TransLink to work. I don’t mind the city taking the lead on getting it built, though.

It’s not a bad idea at all. I’m warming to it. I just think there needs to be some open acceptance that this is going to cost money, and if the city is serious, it might have to put something more on the table.

Sorry, please goggle web site and see the links under “Anton Will Accelerate Downtown Streetcar” for more information on the work done to date.

I don’t know how it happens but I typed in “NPA web site” in 15 and “NPA” was left out. It’s late, I’ll quit now.

Tessa #4 says….

“I don’t think you can build transit with private money, not without giving away something huge in return….”

Isn’t that what negotiations are all about?

I put together a group of companies to build a $150 million transportation project.

We put up the money. You, the city, agree to pay me back, say equal amounts over 15 years. $150 million plus ?? leads us to the amount to be paid each year.

The ?? is to be negotiated. What’s fair to you?

mezzanine // Sep 22, 2011 at 2:25 pm

BTW what happened to lewis villiegas? he’d have something to say about trams in vancouver…

Word got to me Mezz had his back to the wall, fighting the good fight with one hand tied behind his back… or was it one hand behind his back holding onto a bike lock?

I view P3 with the same caveats Bill McCreery has expressed. However, I find it refreshing to see Frances combining housing and trams in the same post (and bike lanes). That is an important lesson learned.

In urbanism, these things are intrinsically connected.

I did not see in the posts about Portland Mayor Adam’s contention that the tram lines in Portland shape development. He said something like, “developers line up to buy land along our tram corridors.”

Then, there is the connection between BRT and LRT (bike lanes play here as well). Both forms of transit, and bike laning, require that we take away R.O.W. from cars. And, they provide an opportunity to redesign and rebuild our arterials with a view to change them into Livable Streets.

Thus, we need to ask what improvements in service we can gain by changing bus lines to B-Lines, B-Lines to Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), and BRT to LRT (trams on the ground). Not loosing touch with the big picture, we should remember that implementing bikes, BRT and trams can change the ecology of the 6-lane automobile street.

That brings benefits to the neighbourhood as a whole, the residents living behind doors fronting, and the potential for the public realm/street to support social functioning.

Furthermore, it matters very much what building type we are going to plan along the transportation routes. The answer to that question could put a period and paragraph break after questions about both affordable rental housing, and building all the social housing and supports we need to end homelessness. We can turn it over to government, or we can zone for high-density, human-scale, single-lot housing and watch it happen ‘organically’.

I think Patrick Condon got it right many years ago when he proposed that we should rebuild the BC Electric streetcar network. That would precipitate an incredible amount of urban land poised for redevelopment, if we follow Mayor Adam’s formula.

Look at it this way: very little has changed in Vancouver since 1929 if you look at it from the point of view of urbanism. The arterials are still spaced 1/2 mile apart—ideal for transit implementation. And the grain of the platting—the blocks made up of single house lots—has remained more or less intact.

Yes, land assembly has taken place in the apartment zones, shopping malls, and the downtown tower zone. But, overall, the platting is more or less intact.

Thus, thinking about trams and housing at the same time makes a lot of sense. If we can use one to balance the choices in the other, and vice versa, then we will move forward.

@Bill (And Lewis actually)

I’ve read Condon’s work and find it lacking. Condon wants to spend $3 billion to build streetcars where trolley buses already serve. It wouldn’t improve mobility in any way, and actually if built without its own right-of-way could decrease reliability. Any mobility improvement that could come with a streetcar (i.e. a dedicated lane, signal prioritization) could also be done with buses. The real benefit of streetcars is in capacity, really, when a route is heavily used, or in providing non-transit related changes, i.e. gentrification (though that’s not really a good thing, even from a transit perspective). But if we’re going to spend $3 billion, I’d rather improve mobility.