222 replies to this topic

[ressen]

The route that runs from Goldstream to uvic via Esquimalt harbour probably encompasses the largest possible ridership; making it likely the most viable in terms of capacity.

[G-Man]

Can't it be a non heritage line?

[Caramia]

I think if we are going to do a heritage line it should be Art Deco. That was the best time for trains anyhow, and I really love the aesthetic and don't think there is enough of it around.

Actually, one of the things I liked about the portland example on the power point was how many different train styles there are, I love the idea that every area gets to have their own. Langford could be super modern, Old Town vintage trolley, etc etc.

I have no problem with the "yee olde britain" heritage look until it starts getting applied to the entire City. It is very nice in Old Town.

[G-Man]

^ I agree. I think the main reason they are proposing any "heritage" component is because they think that will be the selling point for those funding it. A downtown loop has a lot of advantages. BC Transit could start a downtown loop tomorrow morning and it would be a big seller. I wonder how get your ideas out there is it better to go to the Transit Committee or to BC transit. Or just to start your own lobby group...

[Holden West]

I really dislike [url=http://www.worldofstock.com/closeups/TAC1476.php:51548]phony-looking[/url:51548] "heritage" trolley busses but I like San Francisco's genuine [url=http://www.worldofstock.com/search_pages/trolley.php:51548]antique trolleys[/url:51548], painted in the old colour schemes of America's great transit companies.

[renthefinn]

I don't think the idea that we shouldn't build it cause we're too small or not dense enough is justified. We are one of the densist city's in Canada for our population range, and most travel is concentrated on 2 routes. It's not very ethical to expect bus ridership to reach traditional rail transit ridership numbers before thinking about a rail based option. Busses are not even close to rails!

[Mike K.]

We're certainly big enough, but not big enough for a line between downtown and Langford to make economic sense.

This is copied from my post in the other thread:

The problem with LRT and catchment areas is that there are few stations to "catch" riders (at least with buses people can walk the 100 meters to the nearest stop). What we have now and what we'll have for several decades, at least, is a node in downtown Victoria and a much smaller node in downtown Langford. Between those two you have 15 kilometers of low-density suburban development patterns that are unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.

Talking about prestige, big-city feel and the pizazz of a light rail transit is one thing and talking economics is another. And lets face it, rapid growth in the Capital Region equates to very little in terms of real numbers. With the entire sprawled West Shore sitting at 60,000 with another 50,000 estimated by 2030, we're not exactly growing at a rate that will make a $500 million speeding bullet to the west viable. In Portland or Vancouver, both of which have metro pops over 2 million, the growth of their suburbs in one month can beat our regional yearly growth (and so the "build-it-they-will-come" principle can actually apply).

As for comparing smaller European cities with LRT to Victoria, look at their lines. They're all within high-density urbanized areas. There are few if any lines dead-heading to suburban communities, hence their success. And if we were to compare those cities with Victoria then we'd be looking at building rail between Vic West and Jubilee and not low-density burbs.

[aastra]

Okay, so what exactly would the benefits be of putting an LRT in the city? How is it better than a bus network? It seems to me that visions of an urban LRT are all about "prestige, big-city feel and pizzazz" whereas an LRT link to the suburbs is all about doing something practical.

To my thinking, the only way LRT makes sense in Victoria is if you take advantage of the incredibly convenient existing rail right-of-way. I mean, what a fluke of luck. The western suburbs are where Greater Victoria's growth is happening, and -- as luck would have it -- a connection is already in place.

You say it's a problem that there are large distances between the nodes on that right-of-way? I say it's a key selling point that would help guarantee the success of the first phase of this LRT project. My gosh, it's a ready-made quick link between the city and the suburbs that starts where we want it to start (Langford) and ends where we want it to end (downtown), and also hits two of our nodes (CFB Esquimalt and Admirals Walk in View Royal) just because it does.

From there it takes no imagination at all to envision a second phase consisting of a crosstown route from Vic General to UVic. That route can't miss Tillicum and University Heights, and it would be easy to also hit Town & Country.

I can't imagine a more ideal situation than the one in which Victoria finds itself now. No visionary was responsible for this state of affairs. It's just fallen into our collective lap. And there's no reason it should be particularly expensive, especially during the first phase. Exploiting this right-of-way for the purposes of LRT would be the smartest way to facilitate smart growth in the western suburbs.

[Mike K.]

Okay, so what exactly would the benefits be of putting an LRT in the city? How is it better than a bus network? It seems to me that visions of an urban LRT are all about "prestige, big-city feel and pizzazz" whereas an LRT link to the suburbs is all about doing something practical.

Doing something practical begins with building high-density housing -- not sprawling neighbourhoods on mountaintops. Once people start rolling down their hills in their vehicles they're unlikely to stop at park and rides. In Surrey you see people stalled in bumper to bumper traffic grinding along King George as a six-car skytrain zooms above them every 3 to 4 minutes. I used to sit in that crawl and felt like a fool every time the train went by, but I required a vehicle for my job.

To my thinking, the only way LRT makes sense in Victoria is if you take advantage of the incredibly convenient existing rail right-of-way. I mean, what a fluke of luck. The western suburbs are where Greater Victoria's growth is happening, and -- as luck would have it -- a connection is already in place.

All you need in urbanized areas are tracks and roads. We already have roads, so lets build some tracks to accommodate streetcars. A tram with three our four cars gets three of four buses off the road with only one driver. Run a tram from downtown to UVic and all of a sudden you get rid of about a dozen buses every hour during peak times. Think Toronto's tram system all over Victoria-proper.

You say it's a problem that there are large distances between the nodes on that right-of-way? I say it's a key selling point that would help guarantee the success of the first phase of this LRT project. My gosh, it's a ready-made quick link between the city and the suburbs that starts where we want it to start (Langford) and ends where we want it to end (downtown), and also hits two of our nodes (CFB Esquimalt and Admirals Walk in View Royal) just because it does. Only a slight diversion is required to hit another node (Vic General).

If light rail/trams are considered in low-density west burbs, why can't they be considered high-density urbanized areas? I can see a connection between CFB Esq and the west, but the bus ride between the two is fairly short to begin with. Transit even started a route about two years ago between park and rides in the west and CFB. The route was dumped because it was under-used.

Anyways, the density sprouting up in Langford is negligible. The Fort Street corridor between Cook Street and Richmond is significantly more populated than all of Langford's core and would benefit from a high-frequency high-capacity transit option (people are often passed by buses along that area because the transit use is so high). Instead that option will go to Langford because too many people refuse to use transit and are clogging their own highway.

[Mike K.]

Look at that map above and concentrate on the choke point. This will be a problem for decades to come regardless of transit because it's the only route in and out of our fastest growing communities. The foolishness of concentrating our growth behind a choke point is unreal, but we're doing it and we're ready to fork over hundreds of millions to bandage a problem with LRT.

The real solution to the infrastructure woes out west is to make our core municipalities realize that pushing growth to the west will keep snowballing infrastructure problems.

Once we build LRT, will we demand a bridge across Esquimalt harbour? Perhaps a second bridge once the first reaches capacity? We probably will, all the while those living in the urban core will keep getting passed up by over-capacity buses.

Just my thoughts...

[aastra]

The foolishness of concentrating our growth behind a choke point is unreal, but we're doing it and we're ready to fork over hundreds of millions to bandage a problem with LRT.

Indeed it's foolish, but we're doing it in a big way. So what are we going to do about it? Advocate high density nodes in Oak Bay and Saanich as an alternative? Let me know how that goes, I'll check in with you in the year 2350.

The key point: the link is already there. The only reason you'd put LRT on the existing right-of-way would be to provide a cheap and attractive (that is, fast) alternative for commuters who would otherwise be putting their cars on the highway.

If we're to believe Scaper and CHEK TV and this guy in the TC, the highway link is already proving to be inadequate to the task of effectively moving people between the city and the suburbs. Commutes have turned into crawls again (and much sooner than anybody expected, I'm sure).

Meanwhile we've got amibitious visions of high density developments in numerous locations in Colwood and Langford. Will they happen anytime soon? Who cares? They'll happen soon enough.

Anybody wishing for a development cap in the western suburbs is dreaming. Thus, you either plan for a wider highway (since additional routes would seem to be impossible) or you plan for alternative modes of transportation.

In Victoria's case I believe the notion of exploiting transit in order to produce high density urban nodes is absolutely inappropriate. There's not enough growth to make that model work and Victorians wouldn't go for it even if there was. I'd be willing to bet a bunch of money that there will never be flocks of highrises at University Heights or Jubilee Hospital or Hillside Mall or any other existing node that you can think of. Heck, if a midrise residential building is built at Hillside Mall in my lifetime I'll buy you a box of donuts. Love to see it, but the odds are almost zero.

Victoria's situation is all about issues of geography and a rapidly increasing east-west traffic flow that has put tremendous pressure on conventional crosstown transportation links. How do we alleviate the pressure as cheaply as possible? By being innovative.

LRT in the city is a lame duck simply because there's no need for it. Wouldn't it be cool? Wouldn't it look great? Wouldn't it be just as fast as taking the bus?

I'm talking about moving people in and out of the city as effectively as possible, and doing it in a way that takes some of the focus off of the highway.

All you need in urbanized areas are tracks and roads. We already have roads...

I've got you beat. The right-of-way already has tracks.

[Mike K.]

[quote][quote:10969]The foolishness of concentrating our growth behind a choke point is unreal, but we're doing it and we're ready to fork over hundreds of millions to bandage a problem with LRT.[/quote]

Indeed it's foolish, but we're doing it in a big way. So what are we going to do about it? Advocate high density nodes in Oak Bay and Saanich as an alternative? Let me know how that goes, I'll check in with you in the year 2350.[/quote:10969]

The simplest solution is not to do anything at all. We naturally follow convenience. Inconvenience us significantly enough and we'll change our habits. Right now Langford is building "parkways" all over the place so suburbanites can zoom in and out of retail centres like there's no tomorrow. They're far from being inconvenienced in their own backyards, but the fun stops once they recognize that

a) they made a choice to move to a municipality behind a choke point
b) they live 18 kilometers from downtown

If a suburbanite complains that his 18 kilometer commute takes 50 minutes, what should someone sitting on a bus in Victoria traveling 8 kilometers say about his 40 minute commute (I'm using myself as an example here)?

I'm not saying don't build LRT out west, I'm just saying we shouldn't lay down a $500 million LRT system as proposed by that railway organization and BCT before we have the density to make it viable.

The commuter rail plan I'm not opposed to, either, but that's an alternative to the LRT plans that are the reason for this discussion.

[quote][quote:10969]All you need in urbanized areas are tracks and roads. We already have roads...[/quote]

I've got you beat. The right-of-way already has tracks.[/quote:10969]

One track that requires upgrades, new stations and safer crossings isn't a done deal. And on one track alone frequency will be lower than ideal unless the track is doubled.

[G-Man]

Great arguments you two.

I think that I am tending to side with Derf on most of what he says.

I think that we would be stupid not to utilize the E&N right of way for commuter rail to the West Comms. but that does still need a lot of work and upgrades on heavy rail are lot more expensive than laying light rail still I am sure you could get a decent service going for 100 million or so.

But Aastra I am surprised that you are saying that an urban system is a waste of money. If tomorrow you had one line to Langford and one to UVic the one to UVic would have 3 times the ridership based on transit usage numbers. It would seem your opposition to an urban network is that we are surviving now so we should not improve it. I am not sure if you have bused to UVic in the last few years on the 14 or 4 at say 10 after 8am but those buses are packed solid and sometimes still pass people by especially at the beginning of the semester. The number 14 route alone is running close to 12 thousand riders a day.

The top 5 routes are all urban routes 14, 26/27, 30/31, 6 & 26. These five routes account for 51 percent of all ridership of the system.

So if we invested say the planned 350 million dollars that is the Langford to Downtown Route not along the E&N and instead used the E&N. We could have the benefit of rail service to the West Comms but then used the rest of the money to run one line between Downtown and UVic I think then we would have one amazing system. I also think it would most likely be worth the money too.

[m0nkyman]

We have precisely one shot at doing the rapid transit along the existing right of way. Once it's upgraded, it will be impossible to take offline to upgrade a second time.

I can't think of a single instance of a city regretting overbuilding their transit system. I can think of many where they regret underbuilding.

[Caramia]

If the highways are congested now, imagine after we turn Rock Bay into mixed use residential and move the agregate producers out of town. 60 ton barges full of material will be trucked in daily instead. If we are determined to go ahead with this idea (Council seems devoted to this path) then we better start figuring out some way to expand the highway capacity, be that widening the highway or building an alternative for commuter traffic.

[G-Man]

I think the current Rock Bay plan is to keep the aggregate producers there. They need access to barges. I guess you could produce it somewhere else and then barge it but unless you have the factory at a quarry you would be moving rock twice by truck.

[aastra]

I am not sure if you have bused to UVic in the last few years on the 14 or 4 at say 10 after 8am but those buses are packed solid and sometimes still pass people by especially at the beginning of the semester.

I sure haven't been on those buses recently but the situation was pretty much exactly as you describe back in 1989-1993.

It was good preparation for my transit experience in Vancouver.

[aastra]

I think that I am tending to side with Derf on most of what he says.

G-Man sides with Derf. Big surprise. I've been reading your posts for the past nine years and you always side with Derf. What's up with that? I'm beginning to think you and Derf are the same guy.

[G-Man]

I sure haven't been on those buses recently but the situation was pretty much exactly as you describe back in 1989-1993.

It was good preparation for my transit experience in Vancouver.

Yet sevice in that time has vastly increased.

Watch the comments about me and Derf you will make my wife jealous

[aastra]

Routes have changed, too. The bus used to turn right off of Richmond and then go up a little side street to make a funny left turn onto Foul Bay before heading up to the University.

You guys leave me no choice. Now I have to waste my evening drawing urban LRT routes.

Although I'm still not understanding why urban LRT would be so much better than buses. The LRT can't go fast on city streets. Does it make infrequent stops? If not, how is it any different than trolley buses?