The letter confirms that communications problems on April 13, 14 and 16, 2012 were related incidents. Troubleshooting was initially hampered by the sporadic nature of the loss of communications with the Operations Centre. Some equipment was replaced but this did not permanently correct the problem.

Eventually, a physical inspection of communications cables in the guideways found premature cable wear between Olympic Village and Yaletown stations, i.e. the section under False Creek. The cable was replaced and communications was successfully restored.

Unfortunately, the letter does not state why the cable experienced premature wear – the Canada Line had not even been in service for 3 years at the time. The letter hinted that performance penalties were applied for this major service disruption but did not explicitly state they had.

The letter also did not deal with the ongoing evening maintenance and resulting service disruptions that Transport Action BC raised in its original letter. These disruptions were still being reported in Nov 2012.

The construction of the Highway 1 bypass, the Yellowhead highway, related interchanges and the freeway upgrades with the opening of the Coquihalla highway led to the current “dog’s breakfast” of ramps and retaining walls. Even with a separated pedestrian and bicycle route, I am sure walking and riding through the area is not pleasant.

One question though, how has the pedestrian/bike route been constructed from the north side of the highway to Valleyview Drive on the south side? What kind of crossing is made over the westbound exit ramp from Highway 1 to Battle Street?

What I said is cycling in a society that puts emphasis on roads (and joint use of these roads) certainly is.

I reproduced a document that I use around here to summarize what we should be striving for – hoping that it could be useful to others

In order for cycling to be fully embraced as a functional means of transportation, communities need to provide “Bikeways”. I have produced the following list of “Attributes” that “Bikeways” should have. These are…

The 12 Attributes of Bikeway Networks, by Paul-André Larose, Oshawa, Ontario, Canada (Version 2010/04/07 – Rev. 2012/04/12)

Cycling can be either of a Competitive, Recreational or Functional nature; as a result, there are three types of Cycling. This document deals with one of these, namely “Functional Cycling”; this is a form of Active Transportation, intra-urban in nature, that is known as “Cyclo-Mobility”.

For cycling to be widely accepted, it must be made safe – presently, it is NOT, as a result of a lack of proper infrastructures. In particular, city streets must be viewed and designed in a way that is not “Auto-Centric”; in fact, the purpose of transportation should be to move people and goods, not cars. A key element towards this is the provision of Bikeways in the streetscape.

In the same manner that motorized vehicles depend on maintained (and plowed) roads, similarly Bikeways require a basic level of maintenance. They should not be seen as suitable only for mild-weather months. Moreover, they should not be confused with Bike Trails, as these are recreational and generally go where the topography permits, not where the functional needs really are.

Bikeways can have different levels of sophistication (and costs) depending on the type of intra-urban road conditions and traffic; these need not be a drain on municipal resources. Whenever possible, low-traffic non-arterial roadways can be used successfully in this manner. The essential requirement however is that there has to be a “Political Will” to address the issue.

A Bikeway does not exist in isolation, but rather it is part of a Bikeway Network. In addition, it has the following Twelve Attributes:
1. Functional: Providing corridors linking ”Need To Go” places
2. Safe: Free of moving/parked vehicles and pedestrians
3. Secure: No isolated, unlit or inaccessible areas
4. Quasi-Direct: Minimal increase in travel distance
5. Gap-Free: Continuous interconnection of routings
6. Conflict-Free: Smart intersection designs and protocols
7. Extensive: City-wide coverage within a 0.5 km grid
8. Unrestricted: Usable at any time, in any season, 24/365
9. All-Weather: No splashing and timely snow removal
10. Integrative: Ties-in with parking, buildings and transit
11. Beautifying: Adds to streetscape and neighborhoods
12. Cost-Effective: For users, taxpayers and businesses

Major street-rebuilding projects, whether financed by Municipal or Regional Authorities, provide opportunities to introduce bikeways at minimal cost within the urban streetscape.

People are invited to contact Municipal Council to express support for the Bikeway Concept. In so doing, please stress the need for “Bikeways”, not “Bike Lanes”, not “Bike Trails”.

The Robson / Davie / Downtown route is one where significant recovery time is likely justifiable because of its relatively short length, frequent service, heavy traffic congestion and no feasible short turn capability. However, on more-suburban routes, operating on free-flowing, arterial streets, how much recovery time is really required – particularly in off-peak hours? Examples of multiple vehicles at terminals on 10, 15 or 20 minute headway routes are not difficult to find (e.g. Dunbar Loop).

Rick