The Official Transit Thread

[nitronuts]

A lot of people have always supported it but the funding is sadly not there.

http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/TransLink+looks+rapid+transit+options+Broadway+corridor/2941570/story.html

Interesting in this article, someone says that it takes around 4 weeks to construct the rails for a light rail. I wonder if their is truth to that. 4 weeks would be pretty amazing.

Keep in mind that the extension probably won't start for at least another 7 years. They are starting planning now so that when funding is available they can get the shovels in the dirt quickly.

They can also do the project in phases (e.g. VCC-Clarke Station to Arbutus as SkyTrain; and the B-Line from Arbutus to UBC...and we can contemplate the extension to UBC later on).

SkyTrain is the only option here, the LRT proposals don't make any sense. For instance, one of the many issues: why would you start the LRT at Main Street Station? That's a terrible location for a major interchange considering the volumes on the Expo Line between Stadium and Broadway.

And NO, it does NOT take just 4 weeks to build light rail. That's a total myth, she must be smoking something. Broadway businesses have been sold false information about LRT, they are supporting the most disruptive mode of rapid transit for their corridor. LRT construction on Broadway will most likely take at least 3-years...it's a lot more complex than just laying tracks.

We can't even do major road projects in 3 weeks. Note that the Granville Street makeover in Downtown took 6-months.

This LRT project in Toronto took 4-years to build, businesses were greatly impacted (very much like Cambie) and have filed for a major $100-million lawsuit:

In addition, for LRT to reach the needed capacity the corridor demands of it, it would need high frequencies. These frequencies will likely be limited to 3-minutes, and would require the closure of most small streets along all of Broadway. That effectively creates a giant permanent wall in the city...all side streets closed, you have to get through to the other side using the arteries (e.g. Main, Cambie, Granville, Oak, Arbutus, etc.).

Edited April 24, 2010 by nitronuts

[nitronuts]

Lawsuit targets St. Clair streetcar route

Action alleges troubled project was a plot to gentrify the area

Published On Thu Mar 25 2010

Toronto Star

In building the controversial St. Clair Ave. W. right-of-way, Toronto was secretly following a policy of “blockbusting,” or gentrification, that would harm existing businesses, claims a $100 million lawsuit against the City of Toronto.

Documents filed Thursday in Superior Court allege the city was “secretly expecting’’ that the new line, and the financial harm done to the neighbourhood while it was built, would lead to “stronger’’ businesses taking over the section of the street stretching from Bathurst St. to Old Weston Rd.

The suit, filed by business owner Annamaria Buttinelli on behalf of other struggling businesses on St. Clair, is seeking certification as a class action. It claims that about 200 businesses failed as a result of the protracted construction and many others are in “financial peril.’’

The strategy allegedly used by the city is “especially sinister because it unlawfully targets the weak, including many recent immigrants whose commercial interests are thinly financed and precarious at the best of times,’’ the suit claims.

None of the allegations have been proven in court.

The St. Clair project was meant to improve TTC service along the busy midtown corridor, but has been slammed for interminable delays and ballooning costs. The original price of $48 million soared past $106 million. A report by a consultant for the TTC found numerous faults with the project, among them a lack of centralized project management.

But the lawsuit, which also names the province and TTC, goes deeper, suggesting a conspiracy to drive out less well-established businesses through construction delays and disruption, with the goal of establishing a stronger tax base.

According to the claim, the first section, from Yonge St. to Bathurst, was completed in a “timely manner’’ without excessive cost overruns. That area is home to Forest Hill, a community “inhabited by commercial and residential interests that are largely wealthy and powerful,’’ the lawsuit notes.

But the section from Bathurst to Old Weston, the westernmost portion yet to be completed, features ethnic restaurants, dollar stores, used-clothing shops and other family-owned businesses, the suit notes.

That area does not and can’t support property and business taxes as well as other retail areas in the city on main streets; losing such businesses means new ones could come in that are able to pay higher rents and taxes, the suit claims.

Plaintiff Buttinelli, owner of the Curactive and Tulip salon, rents space near St. Clair W. and Oakwood. She says the new line deprived the area of the little street parking available to her customers.

“We have no parking meters. The parking enforcement officers come and give tickets left, right and centre. Customers get upset. They come in for $30 (appointments) and come out to $40 and $60 parking tickets.’’

And in the protracted work, “We lost a lot of customers. Not just me but everybody on this block,’’ Buttinelli said, adding that, “over the five years of construction, they killed us.’’

University of Toronto law professor Ed Morgan said the claimants will need to prove there was negligence in implementing the streetcar project. It will be a challenge trying to tie lost revenues to the project, given the economic downturn, he said. But he believes the businesses “have been made to suffer inordinately for the benefit of the rest of the city.’’

“I think that somehow or other the courts should intervene to give them some sort of compensation,’’ he added. “Somebody has to do something for these people. There’s a lot of sympathy for them.”

Stephen Edell, a lawyer for Buttinelli, declined comment Thursday. A city spokesperson said the city is still considering its next step, and there would be no comment given that the matter is before the courts.

[Common sense]

I wonder if these articles were brought up at the various public consultation meetings re: Broadway.

Certainty makes for some sort of argument against LRT, if not for Skytrain or BRT.

[Mithril]

The rich and powerful that live near UBC will never allow a rail to go through their neighbourhood. While it would be very beneficial if there was a rail connecting UBC, it won't happen.

[The Situation]

What sucks is that I will have long graduated after all this is done.

[Buggernut]

What sucks is that I will have long graduated after all this is done.

Cue Grandpa's "Back in my day, I had to walk 8 miles to school and back..." story.

[ronthecivil]

The rich and powerful that live near UBC will never allow a rail to go through their neighbourhood. While it would be very beneficial if there was a rail connecting UBC, it won't happen.

That's a myth. In fact, if it turns out you need to do property takes, it's better going through rich guy land. They tend to have larger properties with the houses being further offset from the property line.

If your not touching their property, then it doesn't matter.

The only thing they would have going for them is the fact that rich guy land tends to be much less dense.

It should be noted that if I lived there I would personally accept the annoyance of skytrain being built (if underground) to get rid of the very noisy and very frequent 99 bline.

[ronthecivil]

Do you live in fantasy land? Sim City?

SkyTrain down Broadway (or 10th) to UBC is the most logical option...and it's great to see the masses finally coming out to support it.

It's the same corridor. Certainly a more feasible option than some of the official options. Nothing wrong with thinking outside the box or trying to figure out ways to fund it, since without funding, my option is no less fantasy than anything else!

[ronthecivil]

Lawsuit targets St. Clair streetcar route

Action alleges troubled project was a plot to gentrify the area

Published On Thu Mar 25 2010

Toronto Star

In building the controversial St. Clair Ave. W. right-of-way, Toronto was secretly following a policy of “blockbusting,” or gentrification, that would harm existing businesses, claims a $100 million lawsuit against the City of Toronto.

Documents filed Thursday in Superior Court allege the city was “secretly expecting’’ that the new line, and the financial harm done to the neighbourhood while it was built, would lead to “stronger’’ businesses taking over the section of the street stretching from Bathurst St. to Old Weston Rd.

The suit, filed by business owner Annamaria Buttinelli on behalf of other struggling businesses on St. Clair, is seeking certification as a class action. It claims that about 200 businesses failed as a result of the protracted construction and many others are in “financial peril.’’

The strategy allegedly used by the city is “especially sinister because it unlawfully targets the weak, including many recent immigrants whose commercial interests are thinly financed and precarious at the best of times,’’ the suit claims.

None of the allegations have been proven in court.

The St. Clair project was meant to improve TTC service along the busy midtown corridor, but has been slammed for interminable delays and ballooning costs. The original price of $48 million soared past $106 million. A report by a consultant for the TTC found numerous faults with the project, among them a lack of centralized project management.

But the lawsuit, which also names the province and TTC, goes deeper, suggesting a conspiracy to drive out less well-established businesses through construction delays and disruption, with the goal of establishing a stronger tax base.

According to the claim, the first section, from Yonge St. to Bathurst, was completed in a “timely manner’’ without excessive cost overruns. That area is home to Forest Hill, a community “inhabited by commercial and residential interests that are largely wealthy and powerful,’’ the lawsuit notes.

But the section from Bathurst to Old Weston, the westernmost portion yet to be completed, features ethnic restaurants, dollar stores, used-clothing shops and other family-owned businesses, the suit notes.

That area does not and can’t support property and business taxes as well as other retail areas in the city on main streets; losing such businesses means new ones could come in that are able to pay higher rents and taxes, the suit claims.

Plaintiff Buttinelli, owner of the Curactive and Tulip salon, rents space near St. Clair W. and Oakwood. She says the new line deprived the area of the little street parking available to her customers.

“We have no parking meters. The parking enforcement officers come and give tickets left, right and centre. Customers get upset. They come in for $30 (appointments) and come out to $40 and $60 parking tickets.’’

And in the protracted work, “We lost a lot of customers. Not just me but everybody on this block,’’ Buttinelli said, adding that, “over the five years of construction, they killed us.’’

University of Toronto law professor Ed Morgan said the claimants will need to prove there was negligence in implementing the streetcar project. It will be a challenge trying to tie lost revenues to the project, given the economic downturn, he said. But he believes the businesses “have been made to suffer inordinately for the benefit of the rest of the city.’’

“I think that somehow or other the courts should intervene to give them some sort of compensation,’’ he added. “Somebody has to do something for these people. There’s a lot of sympathy for them.”

Stephen Edell, a lawyer for Buttinelli, declined comment Thursday. A city spokesperson said the city is still considering its next step, and there would be no comment given that the matter is before the courts.

I bet they loose the case although it does demonstrate that light rail can be very disruptive (and it's stays disruptive) despite what some of it's proponants would have people think.

[The Situation]

I have a question: why can't they build the above ground sort of Skytrain running across most of the Expo instead of the cut and cover like on Cambie St?

[inane]

I have a question: why can't they build the above ground sort of Skytrain running across most of the Expo instead of the cut and cover like on Cambie St?

Where, out to UBC? How would that work between Main and say Dunbar? Besides that's where the creme de la creme live, you can't even get a street car on arbutus where there's already the tracks much less elevated skytrain where there's nothing now!

[The Situation]

Where, out to UBC? How would that work between Main and say Dunbar? Besides that's where the creme de la creme live, you can't even get a street car on arbutus where there's already the tracks much less elevated skytrain where there's nothing now!

So the creme de la creme won't allow above ground but the people living in East Vancouver, Burnaby and Surrey will?

[inane]

So the creme de la creme won't allow above ground but the people living in East Vancouver, Burnaby and Surrey will?

Yep, well that and the people in charge don't care if the people in East Van, Burnaby and Surrey want it or not.

[ronthecivil]

Where, out to UBC? How would that work between Main and say Dunbar? Besides that's where the creme de la creme live, you can't even get a street car on arbutus where there's already the tracks much less elevated skytrain where there's nothing now!

Now now, you know that's not at all true. The reason you can't run at grade transit has nothing to do with the creme de la creme. In fact, the rail complany could use it as train storage as long as they didn't block any intersections for more than five minutes at a time. That would still leave a lot of time to make some very noisy very disruptive train operations.

They also have the right to prosecute people tresspassing on their land.

Stop spreading misconceptions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[inane]

haha who gave me a -1 for that bland statement of mine? geez some people are so sensitive!

You think it's a misconception that the creme de la creme would fight tooth and nail against elevated skytrain whereas the burbs wouldn't?

[ronthecivil]

haha who gave me a -1 for that bland statement of mine? geez some people are so sensitive!

You think it's a misconception that the creme de la creme would fight tooth and nail against elevated skytrain whereas the burbs wouldn't?

It's a misconception that even if the creme de la creme cheered an lrt line down the arbutus corridor that it would be happening even if the province ponied up 100% of construction and operation costs and enviromental approval was in place. There's a giant obsticle....

IT'S NOT PUBLIC LAND!!!!!!

And it should be added, neither the city or the province has the ability to take it away. Gotta get the feds on board, and they are loathe to step on the feet of the struggling railways!

[inane]

hmmm how many -1's can i get in one thread. keep em coming!

Who is talking about the arbutus corridor? He said a line out to UBC.

GET YOUR TOPICS STRAIGHT!!!!!

[ronthecivil]

hmmm how many -1's can i get in one thread. keep em coming!

Who is talking about the arbutus corridor? He said a line out to UBC.

GET YOUR TOPICS STRAIGHT!!!!!

You said...

Besides that's where the creme de la creme live, you can't even get a street car on arbutus where there's already the tracks much less elevated skytrain where there's nothing now!

You alude to the creme de la creme keeping transit off of arbutus when in fact it's not owned by the public or the creme it's owned by the railway and THEY decide what does and doesn't go down the corridor.

It's like your the Georgia Straight which also decided to ignore that fact every time they got into the old RAV line debate.

Stop spreading propaganda that the arbutus corridor is anything more than private property who's use is for freight trains that the creme de la creme or any east west commuter should count their lucky stars they don't feel like using at the moment.

[inane]

You said...

You alude to the creme de la creme keeping transit off of arbutus when in fact it's not owned by the public or the creme it's owned by the railway and THEY decide what does and doesn't go down the corridor.

It's like your the Georgia Straight which also decided to ignore that fact every time they got into the old RAV line debate.

Stop spreading propaganda that the arbutus corridor is anything more than private property who's use is for freight trains that the creme de la creme or any east west commuter should count their lucky stars they don't feel like using at the moment.

propaganda? it was a reference in joke regarding the attitude the west side of vancouver. my point was regarding the ubc line. jeez, wake up on the wrong side this morning?

[ronthecivil]

propaganda? it was a reference in joke regarding the attitude the west side of vancouver. my point was regarding the ubc line. jeez, wake up on the wrong side this morning?

you can't even get a street car on arbutus where there's already the tracks much less elevated skytrain where there's nothing now!

Not saying that have a good attitude, but that statement is VERY misleading. Like I said, the west side residents could form a benevolence society that paid for streetcars on the corridor (as in they could not only fictionally be nice but fictionally pay for it, aka ideal conditions) but there would still not be streetcars.

My point is that the attitude of people on the west side regarding the use of the arbutus corridor is completely irrelevant. In fact, to put pressure on the city of Van re my application to rezone, if I was the railway, I would start prosecuting tresspassers on my property. You know, for fun and all. Guess what good it would do for the creme to protest their dog walking trail being taken away!

I am perfectly happy today thanks, but I won't just ignore you being deliberately misleading.

So again, for the record, it makes zero difference what the creme, the city, or the province has to say about whether or not skytrain, or streetcars, or even so much as a bike path can be constructed in the arbutus corridor. It drives me nuts that ideas like that show up to this day in the media, and did for years during the RAV line debates back in the day. You can't build anything on land you don't own!!!!!!