Category Archives: Rants

Here comes the tolling backlash

Posted on by
4

It was reported today that if drivers cross the new Port Mann Bridge without a transponder, the toll rate will rise from the previously announced “around $3″ pricetag to $5.15 – one way. Apparently, the increase is a result of a “video-processing” fee to cover the cost of the elaborate overhead licence plate scanning system that will capture the information of all vehicles crossing the River. It’s not a particularly surprising move by the provincial goverment and is in fact a great incentive to encourage drivers to buy or rent a transponder, which will speeds things up for everyone. The 2009 Golden Ears Bridge has a similar system of flexible payment options with variable tolling rates. That said, there’s two elements to this story that I find rather interesting.

The first is the little detail hidden in the CBC’s coverage that states tolls will increase 2.5% each year. As far as I can recall, this has never been mentioned before and will catch a lot of people off guard. A toll is a tough pill to swallow as it is, and although the annual rate increase is minimal (it will take 13 years to go up by a dollar), if reported widely enough, it will be seen as another tax grab at the expense of the working class.

Secondly, I’m delighted to see how outraged people seem to be at the toll! I’ve long held the belief that Metro Vancouverites, when finally confronted with the monthly tolling bill, will balk at the expense and claim the sky is falling. We British Columbians like being drama queens. Although, truth be told, $3 one-way is a significant burden to bear. For a daily commuter between Surrey and Coqutilam (of which there are many I might add), they will be paying an extra $120 a month to get to work. This is on top of the perceived high insurance rates, high gas tax, carbon tax, expensive gas prices, and an undesirable commute.

I couldn’t find the direct quote, but when Kevin Falcon was Minister of Transportation, he once said something to the effect that commuters would gladly pay the toll in exchange for a smooth, traffic free drive. It is a simple proposition of opportunity costs. You either pay through delays and traffic or you pay through your wallet. Falcon bet that people’s time was worth paying for.

And I’m sure for many it is. There are most definitely people out there that have the money to pay their way out of inconveniences. These are the same people that hire Molly Maids to clean their houses or take taxis around downtown instead of walking. There’s nothing wrong with that. I just happen to believe that the majority of people, who are used to paying through congestion, are not going to take a toll lightly.

Commuters have adapted for years to traffic. It’s what humans do best – adapt to our circumstances. Maybe that means leaving home an extra 15 minutes to beat the traffic; maybe it means carpooling with another co-worker to hit the HOV lane; maybe it means hopping onto transit to avoid the gridlock.

Back in the mid 2000′s, commuters were fed up with the lineups along the Port Mann and were delighted to hear that, toll or not, the government was finally going to address one of their biggest needs and ease the bridge congestion. Taxpayers in the Valley were emotionally ecstatic, not taking the time to logically think about the tradeoffs. $3 billion dollars was being spent to speed up a 10-20 minute delay. It was going to be charging tolls both ways. There was no money being invested in viable transit alternatives in the meantime. For those who took pause, it was easy to see that this was not the panacea people assumed it to be.

For some, it will take the bridge’s completion and their first drive across for the reality to hit. For many others, it will come when the first bill arrives in the mail. Then I suspect people take a moment to reflect and have second thoughts about the entire project.

Just look at the Golden Ears Bridge. Long been planned by the region to meet projected demands, and pushed forward by former Surrey Mayor and TransLink Chair Doug McCallum, we spent $800 million on this crossing. Early statistics are showing demand is not meeting the projections, and TransLink is now trying to figure out ways to encourage more people to drive! Meanwhile, the Canada Line is bursting at the seams due to unwise contractual obligations and funding schemes inherent in the poorly worded public-private partnership signed with operator ProTransBC.

Could it be that we are more ready than we think to adopt rapid transit and ditch our cars? Could we be tired of the escalating costs, in both time and money, of the daily commute? Are we too locked into a pattern of inertia to ask ourselves these questions before we spend billions of dollars on megaprojects?

In December 2012, the new Port Mann Bridge will open and the tolls will begin. While its hard to comment on whether or not driving rates will increase, remain steady, or decrease, I do think that major cultural changes will reverberate through Metro Vancouver. I suspect that people will quickly become frustrated at the toll and will seek alternative forms of transport. I suspect that communities north and south of the Fraser will densify and become more self-sufficient as a market response to the increased costs of crossing the river. I suspect that commuters will not opt to take the rickety old Pattullo bridge as their untolled option. I suspect Valley taxpayers will demand regional tolling equity, forcing the government and TransLink to devise a new tolling policy. I suspect people will lament the boring cable-stayed design, the likes of which will make all the bridges along the Fraser look the same.

But of course, nobody can predict the future. If the early response is any indication though, it seems as though Falcon may have made the wrong bet.

The Liberal Democrats: it’s doable, so let’s do it

Posted on by
4

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KsFyUHkLcg[/youtube]

Compromise and cooperation: two words heard far too rarely from the House of Commons.

In 2008, spurred on by a literal financial death sentence by the Conservatives, the Liberals and the NDP, supported by the Bloc Québecois and the Greens, quickly mobilized to form a progressive alternative government to the Tories. Their working plan for Parliament emphasized strategic economic stimulus in the form of investments in infrastructure, social services, education, and green energy. Yet, within the course of one week, thanks to the brilliant spinning of the Conservative war room, Canadians soon equated the word “coalition” with “the socialists and the separatists”. Parties and MPs working together to accomplish the goals of the majority of Canadians died.

And yet, here again, an opportunity has resurfaced. The circumstances are just as political as before. The Liberals, even despite dumping the leader they never quite supported, are now polling at numbers even lower than when Mr. Dion was at the helm! Realizing that the downward spiral of the Liberal party may very well be a long term trend, influential members from its left-wing faction are mobilizing their supporters to push a coalition, or even a possible merger, with the NDP.

And why not? Regardless of the self-concerning reasons driving this new backroom push, all progressive Canadians should be supportive of this effort. We represent 60% of the population, yet do not retain anywhere close to a majority within Parliament. This is due, in part, to the lack of a proportional voting system, but also a result of having four left wing parties splitting the vote.

The right once had similar problems. Brian Mulroney’s wide alliance of regional conservative factions in Canada began to splinter following the failure of the Charlottetown and Meech Lake Accords. Quebec nationalists who had supported the Progressive Conservatives in an attempt to gain major concessions in Quebec’s designed entry into the Constitution suffered a major blow when Meech Lake died. Meanwhile, westerners were increasingly fed up with the federal government’s wooing of Quebec, feeling their demands and needs were being neglected in return. The Quebecers, now more riled than ever to separate from Canada, formed the Bloc Québecois. The westerners, led by Preston Manning, formed the Reform Party under the tagline, “The West Wants In”.

In the election of 1993, suffering from the split of their party, as well as significant backlash from the economic recession and the newly introduced GST, the Progressive Conservatives, now led by a recently-installed Kim Campbell, was reduced from 211 to 2 seats in the House of Commons. The party never recovered.

In the following elections of 1997 and 2000, the right suffered from the splitting of their vote. It has been argued that the Liberals gained their support base of Ontario due to the vote splitting between the Progressive Conservatives and the Alliance (formerly Reform) – the province typically voted Conservative in provincial elections. When Stephen Harper won the leadership of the Alliance, he quickly moved to unite the right, and in 2003 the Conservative Party of Canada was formed.

The new alliance between blue tories from the Alliance (social and economic conservatives) and red tories from the PCs (social progressives and economic conservatives) was, and remains, tense. Many former PCs moved to the Liberals, contributing in part to that party’s shift to the right. Harper’s a magnificent tactician and this explains why he runs his party primarily from the centre-right, but every now and again implements or proposes some radically right-wing policy, such as the abortion exemption from third world maternal healthcare initiatives, to appease his former Alliance faction.

The Liberals are also a party of factions, going right back to their historic roots as a joint effort between the reformers of Lower and Upper Canada. This alliance between French and English Canada is the primary source of conflict within the Liberals. It has been remarked that there is a political hot potato between leaders emerging from either Toronto or Montreal. Pearson – Trudeau – Turner – Chretien – Martin – Dion – Ignatieff; it goes back and forth. If you look at the historic trends, it seems as if the Liberals succeeded the most when led by a Quebecer and failed the most when led by a Toronto elitist.

From the perspective of a British Columbian, the inherent elitism of the Toronto faction is quite apparent. I once attended a couple Liberal events and they were filled primarily by old white men, the kind I imagine rule the backrooms of the party in Ontario. Toronto has a historic reputation for being the centre of the universe, a sentiment well replicated within the Liberal party. The Toronto elitists are hard-headed, full of pride and resentment, arrogant to the max, and believe quite ardently that the Liberals are the natural governing party of Canada. They are the ones who have pushed for neo-liberal economic policies of the 90′s, for better or for worse.

Meanwhile, the Quebec faction is culturally quite different. I think it stems from the historic identity of Quebecers. Quebec, as the colony of New France, was never a significant economic or political force. It was one of the smallest settlements in the New World and relied heavily on support and trade with the First Nations. Quickly, colonial ideals fell by the wayside and years of mere subsistence led to greater integration with the Aboriginals. The coureurs de bois who lived among the First Nations would eventually lead to the Métis people. Once Quebec was taken over by Britain, it remained a small, neglected cultural enclave surrounded by the increasing influence and of Upper Canada. Quebecers were never one to tout amongst their neighbours or to seek significant riches, and were willing to work with others to ensure the continuation of their unique way of life.

Currently, the forces of the Liberal party that are initiating these discussions with the NDP are from the Quebec faction. Compromise and cooperation to retain their identity and ideals – sounds right up their alley eh? The major opponents are the Toronto elites, proclaiming a betrayal to the history of the party.

To that I would argue that one needs to put one’s country before one’s party. I understand that there are many vested interests in both parties and with any change, some will win while others will lose. Right now though, it’s Canada that’s losing. We have suffered six years of inaction and setbacks thanks to Harper’s Conservatives.

Where’s the progress on climate change? Where’s the progress on a national housing strategy or a national transit strategy? Where’s the progress on universal child care or the future sustainability of our healthcare and pension systems? What about post-secondary education, green energy, or the arts and culture sector? What about the ongoing inequities of Aboriginals, both on and off-reserve? What about trade expansion with the growing BRIC countries – Brazil, Russia, India, and China – or Mexico or South Africa?

Harper has been coasting off the record of progress from previous administrations. With a renewed sense of ourselves and our place in the world following the Vancouver 2010 Olympics, I believe Canadians are ready and poised to take an even greater leadership position on the world stage. We have great success stories to share with the world, but we cannot become complacent. There are far too many ongoing national issues to confront before we start proclaiming Canada to be the “Best Place on Earth”. We’ve going something good going here, but there’s still much work to be done – work that will only be undertaken by a progressive federal government.

Perhaps it’s because I’m still relatively young and optimistic that I believe politicians should work together to achieve common goals. When over 40% of the population doesn’t vote in an election, I think it’s a tell tale sign that the status quo isn’t working out too well. I know many people from my generation that believe that by working collaboratively we can change the world for the better. The lack of this philosophy being reflected in our federal political system could very well explain the disinterest young Canadians feel towards Parliament. A bold, renewed left is just what the doctor ordered to cure this malaise.

Progressives in Canada have a unique opportunity in front of them, the type of which only comes around once in a blue, or reddish orange, moon. We have a chance for progressives, regardless of historical affiliations or personal partiality, to work together to regain an element of influence over the course of this country’s future. By working in unison, rather than in competition, Stephen Harper will no longer be able to pit us against one another and continue his slow transformation of Canada and its place in the world. Will there be disagreements along the way? Of course there will, but at every disagreement, there’s also a chance for compromise and debate. Consensus may not always be built, but in doing so, we fabricate a better understanding of the challenges facing us and the solutions that are on the table.

This is a chance to make history. Let us seize it. Bring on the Green Liberal Democrats!

How do Canadians get to work? [stats]

Posted on by
4

Inspired by this little ditty on Infrastructurist…

… I decided to make a Canadian version. All the data is from the Stats Can 2006 Census.

What I found particularly interesting is how consistent the commuting trends are across the entire country. The comparison to America is fascinating, where New York, San Francisco, and Washington D.C. all pulled in amazing transit numbers, while cities like Atlanta, L.A., and Houston were car dominated cities. There are no such fluctuations in Canada’s six largest cities.

Toronto leads the pack in transit ridership – amazing, considering how old and poorly maintained their subway system is. Ottawa pulls in huge numbers as well, especially as the backbone of its network is bus rapid transit. I was quite surprised that Calgary doesn’t have a better transit percentage, as it is consistently rated as one of the best light rail systems in North America. Edmonton had the highest driving percentage, which is understandable though as their transit system hasn’t really expanded since it was first built in the 80′s.

What the numbers really reveal to me though is the untapped potential of our cities and the need for a coordinated, national “Big City” strategy.

We are an urban nation and will continue to be increasingly so. Our cities have become a beacon to the world, symbolizing our national commitment to peaceful diversity and long term livability. In these concrete jungles, people from around the world mix and mingle over work, school, and yes, hockey. It is through interaction that ideas are shared, businesses are created, and our collective human bonds are strengthened. Undoubtedly, cities are the economic engines of this country and have enormous potential to lead us into a profoundly prosperous future. For these reasons alone, we should be investing far more as a nation in our cities.

However, there is yet another argument to be made for our cities. Livable, compact, and green urban centres are one of the most significant solutions to climate change. Cities preserve land from sprawl, they are the most efficient means of living, and enable people to thrive car-free. Overwhelmingly, the majority of Metro Vancouver’s emissions come from transportation and buildings. All other greenhouse gases are just a tiny fraction of the equation. Solve our cities’ emissions, and we’ve solved half the climate crisis.

It’s actually quite simple to do. Transportation infrastructure shapes the urban form. Build roads and freeways, you get suburban strip malls, parking lots, and single-family homes. Build streetcars, you get Main Streets, apartments, and small bustling communities. Build subways, you get towering skyscrapers of concrete and glass, unparalleled diversity of people and shops, and a world where the pedestrian rules the road.

In Vancouver, our SkyTrain network has stimulated development across its spine, creating car-free urban villages at nearly every stop. However, the network is only half complete, and until the rest of the suburbs receive rail connections to that system, the car dominated lifestyle will continue. This case scenario can be replicated across the country.

What Canada needs is a strong understanding that our national future is tied to the wellbeing of our cities, and that we must make a solid commitment to financially reinvest in their economic, social, and environmental potential.

If I were the Prime Minister, or the leader of any federal party, I would make a commitment to partner with the provinces and big cities to collaboratively invest billions to build out the rapid transit networks of Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Calgary, and Edmonton – all within the next 10 years. Tied to that money, I would ensure there was a regional growth framework to encourage private investment along these networks. Within that growth framework, there would be a national commitment to aggressive green building standards to ensure that all new construction is efficient and sustainable in the long term. Additionally, I would ensure that affordable housing units – subsidized housing at various rates for various types of people and families – were built at major stops along these new routes.

In doing so, our cities would see remarkable economic stimulation as long term infrastructure investments are made to carry them forward into the future. Moreover, greenhouse gas emissions would be slashed by more than 50%, new affordable housing options would be available to help combat the increasing inequities that are limiting the human capital potential of our cities, more people from different backgrounds would interact as they move about in trains instead of cars, and there would be an absolute explosion in the creative and knowledge-based economic industries.

In short, it would revolutionize Canada into one of the greenest, most diverse and prosperous countries in the world.

I think that is certainly a goal worth striving for. And it all starts with rapid transit.

SkyTrain to UBC would cut travel time by over 50%!

Posted on by
24

The Great Broadway Debate is capturing the attention of the populace, as citizens and transit riders discuss whether the rapid transit extension to UBC should be SkyTrain or Light Rail. What I’m genuinely excited about is how mature and informed most of the conversation is. We’ve moved so far beyond the arguments of light rail on Arbutus versus subway for Cambie for RAV. Back then, everyone was bitching about their own needs and taking very ideological positions on the matter. Not anymore though, as a greater awareness and understanding has emerged in Metro Vancouverites about transit. We’re not even talking anymore about whether or not the line is important – we’re so far beyond that – but actively discussing different technologies, the various impacts each technology will have on the corridor, the long term benefits of each option, how the choices fit into the regional network, and so on. It’s a very exciting time for transit advocates in the region, that’s for sure.

As I wrote earlier, because Light Rail would not be as frequent, reliable, or fast as we’ve come to expect of rapid transit in this region, I support SkyTrain for this section (and only this section) of the network. This is due primarily to the short blocks along Broadway which, with pedestrians, cyclists, and cars crossing at intersections, would slow down any at-grade train, just as buses currently experience. This means that Light Rail would not be appreciably faster than the current 99 B-Line, which on average takes about 35 minutes to travel from Commercial-Broadway to UBC.

I’ve done some calculations about the speed and travel time of our existing and planned SkyTrain routes, and used these numbers to parlay into an estimated travel time for a UBC SkyTrain extension.

  • Expo Line: 30km @ 39 mins = 1.3min/km with 20 stations
  • Millennium Line (Columbia to VCC): 20km @ 27 mins = 1.35min/km with 13 stations
  • Canada Line (Richmond branch): 14.3km @ 25 mins = 1.74min/km with 14 stations
  • Evergreen Line (Lougheed to Douglas): 11.3km @ 13 mins = 1.15min/km with 6 stations

Obviously, the number of stations has an impact on travel time, as well as the general speed of the train.

That said, if we calculate that the UBC Line, from VCC to UBC, traveled at 1.3min/km, the route would take 16 mins to travel! That cuts travel time down by 54%! Comparatively, Light Rail would continue to take approximatively 35 minutes to reach the University campus.

Travel from Coquitlam Centre, with the Evergreen Line built, would take 47 mins, instead of the current 83 mins using the 97 B-Line, the Millennium Line, and the 99 B-Line.

Compared to using the Canada Line and 99-B Line, which takes 47 mins, travel from Richmond-Brighouse would instead be only 31 mins!

Travel from Surrey Central would take 44 mins, down from 63!

And get this! Currently, the fastest one can travel to UBC from Lonsdale Quay is just over 60 mins. This is using the SeaBus and the 44 express bus. With SeaBus, Canada Line, and UBC SkyTrain, the trip would decrease to only 32  mins!

Travel time is a critical factor for a transit line’s success and has much wider reaching effects on regional land use and the psyche of the populace. Studies have shown that a travel time of 40 minutes one way is about the limit to which most people can handle before they begin to change other patterns to bring themselves closer to their school or job, such as switching modes (for example, if a car gets there faster) or moving from their homes.

The existing trip to UBC from Richmond is pushing that psychological 40 minute limit, while Surrey and the North Shore are well into the plus-one-hour range. Coquitlam is almost an hour and a half! This means that many workers and students likely need to live within the Vancouver/Burnaby area to sustain a reasonable travel time average, limiting their housing options. People from the suburbs meanwhile are more likely to travel via car because it simply takes too long on transit.

With a UBC SkyTrain, these factors change dramatically. Looking at the estimates above, trips from Coquitlam and Surrey would both be just around the 40 minute max, while Richmond and the North Shore are around 30 minutes! This completely opens up access to housing options in these more affordable areas of the region, providing greater opportunities for employment and education for more people, as they will no longer have to spend more money to live in Vancouver/Burnaby or travel in from the suburbs via car.

Speed on transit has far reaching implications. This is not just about moving faster than cars. This is about greater access to affordable lifestyles for more people across the region. It’s about providing citizens with choices of where they want to live without having to sacrifice mobility. Light Rail is not at all competitive with SkyTrain on this speed factor, and for that alone we should not be choosing it for Broadway.

Why Light Rail is not appropriate for Broadway

Posted on by
14

The past couple years, there has been an increasingly vocal group of transit advocates pushing for Light Rail, or LRT, to be built along Broadway. Generally speaking, these individuals cite cheaper costs (in comparison to SkyTrain), as well as a more appropriate human scale, as advantages of that system. I have been a proponent of LRT in Surrey and the South Fraser region for exactly those same reasons. However, the nature of the urban landscape along Broadway is drastically different from the eastern suburbs – a factor that I believe should preclude LRT from being an appropriate rapid transit option for the corridor.

SkyTrain set the bar high

To begin, any form of rapid transit expansion in the region must be compared to our existing SkyTrain system. All things considered, it has proven to be a remarkable people mover and sets the bar high for all other mid-sized city transit systems. To Metro Vancouverites, SkyTrain is synonymous with frequency, reliability and speed.

Due in part to its automated nature, SkyTrain is operated at consistently high frequencies throughout the day, allowing customers to ditch the schedule one expects with a bus. Customers know, and can expect, that a train will arrive within no later than five minutes – anytime of the day. Additionally, SkyTrain control can easily add more trains (or remove them), allowing for great flexibility to deal with crowds during rush hour or hockey games (or the Olympics!).

Thanks to its dedicated guideway, SkyTrain is also highly reliable. Sure, sometimes someone or something falls on the tracks and triggers the emergency stop, putting the system on hold. And people get annoyed and bitchy. But that is primarily because SkyTrain is so damn reliable we are used to not having to slow down or stop along the route. This reliability factor enables people to schedule their travel literally right down to the minute – certainly not something one expects from buses.

Also due to its separated route above and below ground, SkyTrain has the ability to reach very high speeds. There’s nothing more exciting for a regular transit rider, or a young kid on their first ever ride, to see the train zooming past cars on Stewardson Way or Terminal Ave. During rush hour, SkyTrain is usually faster than cars at reaching certain destinations in the region.

Those three factors – frequency, reliability, and speed – are the barometers to which we must measure other rapid transit extensions’ success. As I said before, SkyTrain has set the bar high, and anything less will be decried as a failure. With that in mind, let’s take a closer look at LRT on Broadway.

Light Rail on Broadway?

Broadway is the second-largest employment centre in the province, with as many workers as the entire population of Richmond, and is one of the busiest streets in the region. Its right-of-way cannot be expanded and has a capacity of six lanes. Typically, light rail systems feature their own dedicated lane along streets. This would mean the removal of two lanes from its current capacity. Translation: Broadway is left either with only one through lane in each direction (not acceptable due to required emergency vehicle access), or no street parking. Removal of the street parking would never happen because Broadway merchants would be up in arms as soon as it was proposed, and the City would lose a valuable source of revenue generating income.

Like most Vancouver roadways, Broadway features a compact street grid, with blocks every 170 metres – a source of frequent go-go-stop as pedestrians and cyclists halt traffic to cross the street. This is a major problem for LRT. Just as cars are slowed down due to an unsynchronized signal system in constant interruption from pedestrians, so too will Light Rail. Translation: there will be minimal, if any, improvement in speed along the route. And if it’s not moving appreciably faster than a bus, how can it even be called “rapid transit”?

In some cities, LRT runs in a dedicated railway route, much like SkyTrain does. In others, LRT runs down the middle or the side of roadways. With the dedicated route option, LRT can achieve higher speeds and is much more reliable. As LRT becomes more mixed with traffic and the street, speeds decrease, as does reliability. I’ve experienced this in both Calgary and Portland on their respective Light Rail systems. Outside the core, the train whisks alongside traffic, but as soon as it reaches the downtown, everything slows to a crawl and it feels like forever to move just three blocks. This is one reason why Calgary is now exploring the construction of a downtown transit tunnel, to give its system a dedicated space where it doesn’t have to interface with traffic lights, pedestrians, cyclists, or cars. On Broadway, LRT would be running along a street the entire way, and be forced to run both slowly and unreliably for most of the route (expect perhaps once the Endowment Lands were hit).

In terms of frequency, very few North American rail systems arrive as often as the 99 B-Line currently does. That route runs more often than the Millennium Line at times, and for good reason – there’s very high demand! However, as has been reported in the past, the frequencies of the B-Line have gotten to the point where adding any more buses would actually slow down the route! Light Rail cannot appreciably improve the frequencies along Broadway, and while SkyTrain would be able to, it wouldn’t be by too much.

In conclusion

Today, we currently have a B-Line that is frequent, fairly reliable, but has reached its capacity and is far too slow. LRT along Broadway wouldn’t be anymore frequent, just as slow, not much more reliable, but would have a slightly higher capacity. Which is a great short term upgrade, but unfortunately, Light Rail is actually quite expensive in comparison to buses. Building Light Rail along Broadway would cost at least 2/3 the price of SkyTrain, and would hit a pricetag in the billions. For all that money, the route’s only improvement would be a slightly higher capacity. Seems like a foolish use of our tax dollars to me.

If we are going to shell out billions of dollars to build rapid transit along Broadway, we may as well do it right, and gain appreciable improvements to the route. A SkyTrain extension would maintain or improve upon the already high frequencies, would carry far more people (with an easy long term capacity upgrading mechanism called more trains), would cut travel time in half, remove the existing transfer at Commercial-Broadway and provide a seamless ride from UBC to Coquitlam City Centre, as well as provide a secondary option for transit riders to access downtown (the Canada Line, in addition to the Expo Line, which would relieve congestion at Commercial-Broadway station).

Light Rail is a great transit option for many areas, such as the suburbs or in smaller cities with less demand. However, it’s time to quit joking ourselves and face the facts – SkyTrain is the only real answer for rapid transit on Broadway.