Editorials

Commentary or just open thoughts related to current events or personal experiences. These opinions are not meant to reflect the standpoint or views of any person, group, company or organization unless stated explicitly otherwise.

Metro Vancouver and Transit

Transit in Metro Vancouver is always a hot button topic. Anything and everything from fares, bus stops, right up to the technology used for transit vehicles. It seems that in the last decade or so, TransLink (the operating company behind Metro Vancouver’s public transportation system) and the government (both municipal and provincial) have proven they are incapable of effectively providing any sort of reliable operation to commuters in the Lower Mainland.

I’ve lived in the Vancouver area all my life and watched SkyTrain grow beyond the New Westminster station to Columbia, then over the Fraser to Scott Road and eventually out to King George, the Millennium Line when it only stopped at Sapperton, when there was no fare gates, and that you had to walk up steps when boarding a bus. Before the turn of the century, everything was branded as BC Transit, in its red, white and blue colour scheme of the Union Jack on our provincial flag. While there have been some major improvements and changes to the way we get around the region, not all of it is positive.

Many of those who live in Vancouver proper, Burnaby, New Westminster and parts of the Tri-Cities (Port Moody, Port Coquitlam and Coquitlam), transit is generally available and reliable. The story changes to the communities south of the Fraser River, where buses are frequently delayed or non-existent, and local governments ignore the advice of the people that elected them into office by offering unpopular methods of transportation.

That unpopular method is LRT (Light Rail Transit). For the last decade or more, the City of Surrey has been doing studies and waffling over the idea of how best to connect its many town centres (Surrey Central, Newton, Guildford) together with the existing SkyTrain network. In the last year or two, the city has made the firm decision to implement LRT going down King George Boulevard to Newton and out east along 104 Avenue to Guildford. I could go on and on about why this is a terrible idea (read my thoughts on this), but once the decision from the provincial and federal governments to issue funding for construction for the LRT, there has been a hard stance from all levels government that LRT is going forward. Their lack of vision and all the computer-generated imagery showcasing a happy community with less cars and more pedestrians is short-sighted. Surrey is a growing city and a decade after LRT is in place, the city and TransLink will again be petitioning the provincial and federal governments for expanded SkyTrain service, thus wasting more of our tax dollars which could have been spent efficiently from the get go. The LRT will eventually be dug up and replaced with an elevated SkyTrain guideway (akin to when the express bus lanes down No. 3 Road in Richmond were built to great fanfare only to be torn up a few years later for the construction of the Canada Line).

Now Vancouver is considering LRT along a major east-west thoroughfare: 41st Avenue. Yes, the 41 bus is always crowded and yes it takes forever to get from Joyce-Collingwood station out to the University of British Columbia. Here we go again. If you drive along 41st Avenue, you’ll notice it’s not very wide and always congested. Lined with single family homes, the city will need to expropriate a large number of properties to make this work, driving up the cost exponentially. While the city is trying to find ways to move people to their destinations with fast and affordable service, LRT, again is not the right idea. You’re basically moving the bus onto rails at additional cost with limited room for increased capacity. And with the Oakridge area undergoing major renovations to include high density residential space, this idea will fall flat on its face. A better solution would be dedicated HOV lanes for transit vehicles and cars with two or more occupants.

Furthermore to TransLink’s and the government’s poor knowledge on building transit is the Canada Line. Completed in 2009 before the 2010 Winter Olympic Games, the Canada Line became too popular for its own good. Listening to the complaints of local business groups in Richmond that two tracks would make their establishments lose money because of an unsightly sterile concrete guideway, the line became single tracked after Lansdowne station (and out at the Vancouver International Airport). But it’s no joke now that the density in the island city is increasing with plans to tear down Lansdowne Mall to replace it with new high-rises and commercial space. But that’s not the worst of it. The Canada Line was crippled from the beginning with short platforms limiting the trains to two cars total. This lack of thought for future capacity has filled station platforms and crowded trains. TransLink has ordered more cars from Hyundai Rotem (the group that manufactured the first trains) to add more to increase service. There was even talk of making the trains into three cars, but that never materialized. Now Vancouver and Richmond are building up density along this rapid transit route which cannot possibly keep pace with that growth. Let’s not forget the clandestine construction which pitted local merchants along Cambie Street against TransLink and the builders over lost sales from lack of customers avoiding said construction (they’re now finally being awarded damages).

Then there was the Compass card debacle. How many transit systems around the world use fare gates/turnstiles and contactless cards for admission? Quite a few, and yet TransLink managed to drop the ball repeatedly because they didn’t redesign the fare structure beforehand. Trying to get proven technology to work with TransLink’s zone-based fare structure was a headache for the company and the public in general as costs spiralled out of control to the tune of $194 million dollars. The fare gates sat open almost four years before they were all closed in July 2016 finally forcing riders to tap in or out and ending nearly 30 years of the honour system.

The only recently positive news coming from TransLink and the levels of government is the extension of the Millennium Line out to Arbutus Street (and hopefully further out to the University of British Columbia). The Millennium Line has long been reviled as the “SkyTrain to nowhere” and its daily passenger counts are far less than the Expo Line, this has the potential to bring longer trains (no more two-car Mark II trains) as it connects with busy Broadway corridor. As long as TransLink plays its cards right and builds stations with longer platforms, this addition to SkyTrain becomes a much needed respite to the crowded 99 B-Line buses.

And to add a cherry on-top of it all, a TransLink bus stop in Pitt Meadows was named the worst in all of North America. Why? Because it’s on the paved shoulder of Lougheed Highway against a jersey barrier. Passengers are forced to endure speeding vehicles if they wait on the shoulder or they have lumber over the cement barrier to board their bus when it arrives. TransLink said they would address this, but why was it built in the first place? How could this ever have been a good idea from the beginning?

While TransLink continues to roll along like a sow in slop, it’s safe to say their executive leadership (along with the assistance of the Mayor’s Council*) will continue to draft up impractical and ill-considered plans to expand and “improve” the future of transit in Metro Vancouver.

*While TransLink is an independent entity, the Mayor’s Council (that’s 21 Metro Vancouver mayors, the Chief of the Tsawwassen First Nation, and the elected representative of Electoral Area “A”) pretty much has final say over the costs of projects, TransLink board appointments, fare increases, and executive compensation plans.

Surrey Light Rail project a terrible idea

Surrey is one of the fastest growing cities in Metro Vancouver. And with that growth comes the need to improve transportation so that residents and visitors can move between home and work and social events. Enter light rail, Surrey’s and TransLink’s silver bullet to making that future a reality.

Unfortunately, that silver bullet is nothing more than a lead weight, heavy with unnecessary spending, ill-advised ideas and a misunderstanding of the community. The first phase is to have street-level light rail transit (LRT) run down the middle of King George Boulevard between Surrey Central station and the Newton Exchange near 72nd Avenue, with another line out east to the Guildford Exchange on 152nd Street.

A map of the proposed Surrey LRT and future expansion to SkyTrain Expo Line. Source: TransLink

It sounds like a good idea considering that these routes are busy on any given day when taking the existing bus service or driving. However, street-level LRT down a major thoroughfare is not the best answer to this problem. Here’s why.

The LRT routes are not grade separated. This means that trains will run down the centre of King George Boulevard and 104th Avenue. This means that these trains will be subject to all existing traffic lights at intersections and traffic. Take into consideration of vehicles making left-hand turns off of King George or 104th and you can easily back a train up. Existing bus service is not subject to this (unless they themselves need to make said turn) as they run in the right/curb lanes. In turn, this is a glorified bus route that is restricted to the rails and can’t go any faster than what traffic dictates.

Then you have to factor in pedestrians. With the platforms for the LRT routes being in the middle of these roads, the potential for jaywalking and pedestrian-related incidents increase as passengers rush to catch a train or seek to cross the roadway after exiting to get to their destination. Watch the video below to see how trams and other LRT vehicles interact with cars and pedestrians.

Capacity is also an issue. Any LRT trains will need to limited to a certain length to prevent them from blocking intersections when stopped or delayed. Trains that are too long and moving too slowly could cause backups for traffic intending to cross when passing through an intersection as lights change or due to other circumstances (e.g collisions, pedestrians, etc). With a bus, you can add and remove vehicles as demand allows — and they can manoeuvre around any issues brought on by traffic, construction, etc.

With LRT sharing the same path as cars, trucks and SUVs, what’s to stop a vehicle from driving into support pillar for the overhead lines, bringing it down and necessitating a halt to transit service? Or if a vehicle collides with a train thus backing up service?

What about the cost? As of June 24th, 2018, the LRT project is projected to cost 1.65 billion CAD. And once the project begins, what’s to stop it from snowballing? That money could be put to better use, like more buses or towards expanding SkyTrain further into Surrey.

These are just a few of the many issues facing this boondoggle of a project. There’s so much wrong with putting a light to medium capacity system in the middle of a continuously growing city — it’s just as hilarious as the idea to limit the Canada Line to two cars per train with short station platforms. It’s not a sustainable vision.

Over the last, local community groups have been calling for extension to the existing Expo Line which terminates at King George. SkyTrain has the added benefit of elevation, meaning it is grade separated keeping it away from vehicle traffic and errant pedestrians. SkyTrain service can also be increased due to demand if necessary, to a max headway of 90 seconds between trains.

The Surrey LRT project is a novelty that might work well in other cities where road traffic is lighter, but it’s not right for Surrey. Surrey council needs to realize that there is demand for SkyTrain and improved bus service, not a dedicated LRT system that has no potential for growth and fuel for commuter’s headaches. You can voice your feedback through any of the community meetings or online.

Despicable

Once again, the downtown core of Vancouver is awash in stupidity as young and drunk idiots using the devastating 4-0 game seven loss between the Vancouver Canucks and Boston Bruins as a reason to cause mayhem.

While I was downtown at Canada Place watching the game, I made a mental note to leave the area before the game ended in the event that things turned sour. With five minutes left in the game, I was boarding a train at Waterfront trying to head east and out of the core. I was oblivious to the jackassery until my phone started going crazy with text messages from friends asking if I was OK and made it out of the downtown core safely. However, I’m happy that the people who gathered at Canada Place left in peace and did not try to riot.

In watching CTV‘s live feed of the senseless destruction, I feel angry that hooligans would use a family-friendly hockey event to commit such stupidity. People jumping over burning cars, smashing windows and fighting others is just unbelievable. Even worse is seeing the images of people in Canucks jerseys running rampant — not all Canucks fans riot after a loss. Granted, I am frustrated with the team’s performance in the Stanley Cup final, but it is no excuse to be stupid.

As the world wakes up, they are going to see a very different Vancouver. Last year, during the 2010 Winter Olympics, there were limited disturbances and they were quickly quelled. One year later, we seemed to forget. This is going to paint a very bad picture for this city. We are better than this and we need to remind ourselves that we should not tolerate such disrespect to our fellow citizens. So many people stood by and watched, photographed, recorded the looting and the torching of vehicles and other personal property.

I’m embarrassed. I’ve always been proud of our city and have always openly welcomed others to see what I call home. It’s a shame that we cannot hold in our emotions after a hockey game. It’s truly a shame. I went home to move on. Why can’t everyone else?

Boston, you proved to be a fierce foe in the final — congratulations on your win. You deserved it so much more.

Editorial: Vancouver is not a bad city

Coal Harbour and Stanley Park

Coal Harbour and Stanley Park

Since the beginning of 2009, there has been a scar ripped across the face of this fair city, and it’s frightened a few people. International news agencies are proclaiming that Vancouver’s recent rash of violence is a turn off for tourism. I’ll say this right now — it’s not. But it’s only worrisome if you’re a gangster.
The shootings that have a lot of people worried are between rival gangs, not random targets. Sure, there haven’t been any innocent victims, but it’s a chance you take with being outside. It’s like walking across the street. You don’t know if someone’s going to run the red light and send you flying through the intersection. Always be aware of your surroundings, just like you would in any city.
I visit Chicago quite a bit, and they have a bad rap for being the home of organized crime with random homicides and attacks. But you know what? Chicago is still an amazing city with great people. So is Vancouver.
And with the US Dollar higher than the Canadian Dollar, it’s still a decent price for US tourists. So come up and visit Vancouver. I guarantee you’ll like it. Good weather, good food, good people. We’d like to see you.

Editorial: Wii is no longer family friendly

According to the Chicago Sun-Times, the National Institute on Media and the Family is claiming that Nintendo has abandoned its family friendly focus on Wii.

The fuss is over Sega’s latest creation, MadWorld, which is gory game where players fight like gladiators using vicious and improvised weapons. Obviously, the game is rated M, but there’s still the problem that video games are still played by young children and that Nintendo’s kiddy image is being tarnished.

Unfortunately, these watch dog groups think that the family is always the happy mother, hardworking father, and young impressionable son and innocent daughter. As time progresses, the son and daughter grow up and move on to different things (like the son will go out and skateboard and the daughter will hang at the mall and discuss the latest purse fads or whatever). The groups want to keep the family together and as young and innocent as possible from all the evils and trends in today’s society. And outside of the family are violent movies, vulgar music, bloody games, and so on which have become main stream in Western culture.

Many parents are uninformed over video games and what they should let their kids play (comes back to my experience where I saw a mom buy a copy of Conkers Bad Fur Day for the Nintendo 64 because it had a cuddly squirrel on the box). But what gets me is that families and watchdog groups start going ballistic when an M rated game is released for a Nintendo system because of the company’s perception of being more family oriented. Well, a DVD player is family oriented as well isn’t it? I don’t see why people are freaking out over this because the son could pop in his father’s copy of 300 into the DVD player and spend all afternoon screaming “Tonight we dine in hell!” instead of watching his educational Barney episodes.

Here’s something: if it doesn’t suit your family values: don’t buy it, don’t play it, and don’t whine about it. There are thousands of other games available if you’re not comfortable with one. Responsible gaming is in the hand of the parent. Read the box first before opening your wallet.

Source: Chicago Sun-Times

Popular Articles

Boruto: Naruto the Movie coming to select Canadian theatres October 2015

Canadian Naruto fans will be able catch Boruto: Naruto the Movie on the big screen. According to Cineplex’s web site, there will be limited showings at select theatres across the country… Read the rest of this article…


Anime Footwear

Most anime series have loads of merchandise featuring images of the main characters or logos and replicas of items used in those series. There’s a lot of apparel from some… Read the rest of this article…


Common Misconceptions About Canada

I have quite a few friends in the United States and a few days ago, one of them asked me if Canadians used different electrical outlets than Americans. Not sure… Read the rest of this article…