Except on Broadway, which is unique and deserving of the highest quality and frequency of transit service possible.

And a commitment to make Broadway one of the highest quality major arterials in the region … for pedestrians.

MB,

Signal priority is still no guarantee for more than marginal gains in service and fequency considering the sheer density / number of signals and high levels of cross traffic (not just on the eight major arterials that cross Broadway, Main-Alma).

I agree that signal priority is not a panacea, but it would help at a relatively low cost.

Combine this with BRT lines on other arterials like 16th and I think we’re getting some good transit for our buck.

It would be nice to have a subway along Broadway but I think the region has higher priorities, like getting Surrey on a solid footing with their transit system.

Bill M., thanks for your thoughtful comments. We are far off the topic of parking, but here goes anyway.

I respect most of Patrick Condon’s work. One exception is that his view of transit is seen in some quarters as limited and heavily biased toward low floor Eurotrams and their emotional appeal to urbanists. Jarrett Walker posted a very informative piece on this topic on his Human Transit site that articulates my long-held gut feeling that trams would compete with buses specifically on Vancouver arterials, whereas urban passenger rail should in reality compete with the car. He debates with Condon in this piece.

http://www.humantransit.org/2010/04/is-speed-obsolete-.html

There are two important considerations in transit planning: the slow / local service, and the rapid / regional service. The best transit plan is one that focuses on service quality first, then costs, and never substitutes or excludes one type of service for another to suit a bias. Putting transit infrastructure cost at the top of the heap before any other consideration is foolish, especially considering the 21st Century reckoning we’ll experience with the orders-of-magnitude greater cost of auto-centric planning over seven decades on the urban economy.

We can afford a $9,000,000,000 new freeway system (including debt) supposedly justified on commercial uses instead of the political support of suburban car comuters and real estate agent flogging sprawl, and a $3,500,000,000 local annual public subsidy of the private automobile (roads, healthcare, courts, environmental remediation, uncalculatable personal tragedies…), but we can’t afford to complete a decent electricity-based transit system to prepare our cities for yet more inflationary increases in the price of fossil fuels and therein the costs of operating vehicles of all kinds.

Condon makes a serious mistake, in my view, by forcing a competition between “trams” and “SkyTrain” (i.e. between slower neighbourhood transit service and faster regional service), and used unfortunate and unfounded statements like you can build a half-dozen tram lines for the cost of a subway (where is his economic cost-benefit analysis and engineering studies of the corridors in question?), and makes rather silly and mocking analogies, like you could buy every UBC student a Prius for the cost of a Broadway subway.

Many, many cities have complementary metros AND trams AND buses, and that’s because the planners tailored the technology / mode to the need inn specific locales. Condon would benefit from more in depth and less biased analysis.

What will actually happen in his scenario, in my opinion, is that trams will merely replace perfectly legitimate and relatively efficient existing fossil fuel-free electric trolley bus service on several arterials at a great cost, and will likely not offer many gains in ridership and frequency, two of the most important considerations of transit planning.

Instead, we have an urbanist’s forced speculation that Eurotrams are an ideal instrument to leverage good urbanism for a cheap price. This is a case where the conclusion is made prior to the planning, and is thus not a solid foundation to base planning and economic analysis on for Vancouver. The scope needs widening.

1.5 billion for trams that replace legitimate bus service on Broadway with little or no gain, or 3.0 billion for a highly-efficient subway that will no doubt see a major jump in ridership and maintain very high frequencies. One is “cheap”, the other “expensive”. But where does the true value for money rest? Focusing on cost alone is to me a straw man erected to deflect these inconvenient arguments and to protect a bias for trams based mostly on urban design aesthetics instead of detached research.

My view changes on suburban arterials like King George, 200th St, Fraser Hwy. None of these have bus service heavier than Broadway’s, and all would benefit greatly from trams and urbanist vision, not necessarily with high-rises. Broadway is much, much different in terms of long-held and poorly met transit demand, but even here I don’t see that high-rises are automatic. The recent development at Broadway x Cambie proves this. Nonetheless, we need a plethora of transit options throughout the Metro built in the next decade or so.

Regarding signal priority with surface BRT or LRT, all that means to an average pedestrian is that you have to wait a lot longer for your light to change given the much higher transit traffic this corridor will have to generate in future, and that could be problematic. I think the elderly and infirm will have a helluva time crossing the street and could get caught with a pedestrian light changing to red early by an approaching signal prioritized bus or tram while they’re only half ways across.

The feds did not “pay for the Canada Line,” though they did pay 450 million in 2006 dollars, or only about a quarter. The CL was surprisingly successful and popular and seems to have shifted the public’s acceptance of expensive subways toward the positive. However, I would never advocate the cut and cover tunnel methodology in urban areas and think bored twin tubes is more appropriate in CBDs. I believe you’re partially wrong, Bill, on the underground utilities along Cambie. I live near Cambie and noticed they did move a few pipes, but the majority were suspended over the trench and are now accessible just above the tunnel roof. Even the station boxes had utilities suspended above the roof level.

I can’t imagine how a backhoe operator can access a burst pipe under the tracks of a tram system. S/he would have to dig a hole in the road beside the tracks and access the pipe from the side, and bridge the gap trains will have to jump. This is nearly an impossible situation if the ultimately stupid decision was made to build an LRT line vertically parallel to major utilities, as they would be for pretty well the entire length of Kingsway from what I’ve seen with recent utility work. Urban design is a multi-disciplinary profession, and civil engineering will have a very important role to play in any exercise on laying out streetcar lines all over the city. If it doesn’t, then this is one giant leap of faith in the dark.

Cheers. MB

Back to parking — today’s Sun, an editorial:
“Less parking, more transit a winning duo” — echoes some of us and Bula:
http://www.vancouversun.com/Editorial+Less+parking+more+transit+winning/6755064/story.html#ixzz1xKxFom13

MB @ 55.

My apology for not getting back sooner to reply to your refreshing and informed comments, I’ve been very busy. You are one of our mystery guests, for good reasons, but from your comments you are undoubtably well informed with respect to transit matters.

In your comments you have focused on the costs and benefits primarily from the transit perspective. Well and good. However, it is important to identify and prioritize the multi-layered, and sometimes competing, components, at work in creating a healthy urban environment. In this discussion there are two focuses: what kind of transit system does Vancouver need, and what kind of city do we want? These two components are very materially connected.

The Bartholomew Plan, the Interurban and Vancouver’s streetcars were essentially transportation initiatives that have shaped our City’s growth, built form and subsequently created our strong neighbourhood traditions. More recently, we stopped the downtown freeway in the 70’s, and subsequently refocused on improving transit services, most noticeably the three rapid transit lines and the Seabus. These recent initiatives have been well received by the public, and a simple, linear line of thought would suggest just keep doing more of the same.

However, given what we are just starting to see what informed neigbourhood residents understand to be overly dense, out of character impositions on their communities, as well as the equally important red flag of ‘when is too much of a good thing too much?’, it’s time to go back to the basics and to really honestly look at the costs, benefits and our ability to pay for the eventual system.

Part of this equation must be to have a transportation system that is efficient, cost effective and affordable.

The other critical part is the “What kind of City do we want?” question.

In earlier days transportation systems were built (the CPR, Interurban, Vancouver streetcars and the Bartholomew street system), for better or worse, that has made much of Vancouver is today.

However, today we can make another kind of choice. That is: we know that a high capacity transit system will result in a high concentration of nearby development. Alternatively, we also know that a more dispersed system such as a rapid streetcar or bus system will encourage development in a more dispersed manner throughout the entire City.

It is important to recognize in this discussion that we are primarily talking about a City of Vancouver transit system (which can be extended into Burnaby, and, who knows, beyond).

Yes, the Broadway “Free Line” does play an important role in regional connectivities by getting students and staff from all over the Lower Mainland to UBC. However, given the flat student demographics, can such significant expenditures be justified primarily focused on Broadway? Especially when a “Broadway Line” will, in fact, serve less than 2/3’s of Broadway.

It is my belief that today we can make better, more informed decisions as to which system will better serve Vancouver and its neighbourhoods, as well as the region. And, in that regard I am not convinced that an expensive, concentrated underground system is the right answer.

MB, you have raised some important concerns about a surface rail system. Allow me to clarify my position in that regard. And, yes it is all about priorities, staring with cars vs. transit.

I am not tied to streetcars per sae. Like many, I do find them easy to relate to – like the family pet (as experienced recently in Portland and Toronto), and I have seen first hand how well they fit into street activities and life. However, if there are better, more efficient and cost efficient solutions such as signal prioritized rapid buses on a one-way Broadway/10th/12th system, let’s get on with it.

We and the Planet can’t wait until 2027.

My first priority is how to achieve the best quality of life for Vancouverites, and at the same time, creating a sustainable City and neighbourhoods.