tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3299108886803608881.post7120961395869453775..comments2024-03-17T06:51:49.341-07:00Comments on The South Fraser Blog: Election Series – Part FourNathan Pachalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17647693133663879821noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3299108886803608881.post-27128151525786094062009-04-28T22:57:00.000-07:002009-04-28T22:57:00.000-07:00While the interurban does run through some ALR, it...While the interurban does run through some ALR, it's an existing right of way meaning it's anywhere from a third (on-street LRT) to one twentieth (SkyTrain) the cost of all other rail alternatives.<br /><br />I do not want to see more ALR compromised for urban uses, but the low cost of putting LRT on the old line means that high density isn't needed to make it financially viable.<br /><br />There's really no need to put a station in a rural location. The model has been around since ancient times. Ox carts, stage coaches, and steam trains all had defined stops in locations that provided passengers, freight and services. In between they ran non-stop through relatively unpopulated territory following the most efficient path. It was rare for the most efficient path to be a straight line because there were so many other variables including terrain, climate, cost of construction and maintenance, and the need to limit disruption to existing land uses.<br /><br />The old interurban line with it's many twists and turns looks circuitous today compared with the straight line of highway 1, but that route has enormous efficiencies for a modern train. Most notably it goes through the middle of all the cities south of the Fraser, unlike Hwy 1 which by-passes many of the people and businesses.<br /><br />At the same time adding additional trains to an existing rail line is both the lowest cost and least disruptive option. How our current batch of provincial politicians can say it needs further study is mind boggling.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com