A recent spike: Canada’s abandoned railway lines given second life by search for cheaper transport

An interesting article from the National Post. Of course, Rail for the Valley has been advocating for this for the past four years!

A recent spike: Canada’s abandoned railway lines given second life by search for cheaper transport

Tristin Hopper Apr 27, 2012

One hundred and 26 years after Sir John A. Macdonald drove its last spike, Vancouver Island is bringing the E&N Railway back from the dead.

Laid down as one of the final links in Macdonald’s transcontinental lifeline, the railway initially provided a critical link to the coal mines and logging operations of the mid-Island. By the 1990s, though, the antique track had been upstaged by new highways and was left carrying an occasional slow-moving propane car or a rusty single-car “dayliner” shuttling tourists over the mountains to Courtenay. Last year, VIA Rail even pulled the dayliner out of service, saying that “significant infrastructure improvement will be required before passenger rail service can resume.”

But now, led by the non-profit Island Corridor Foundation, which picked up the rail line for $1 in 2006, a campaign is underway to use the antique railway – one of the oldest pieces of infrastructure in the region – as a foundation of the island’s future growth.

E&N tracks pass through Langford, a community that was little more than forest when the railway was first built – but is now one of the fastest-growing communities in Canada. By 2013, after the completion of a $15-million upgrade using federal and provincial funds, Langford residents will be able to make the trip to Victoria by commuter train. Soon, say planners, the tracks will be rumbling with trainloads of rock and gravel for the construction sector, loads of paper from island mills and even train cars of coal bound for Asian freighters.

“When you’re looking at the growth of the [Victoria region], it only makes sense to look at this corridor, which you already own,” said Graham Bruce, executive director of the foundation.

Canada is cloaked in abandoned rail. Trains settled the Prairies and united the coasts, but of late, almost every Canadian community is home to at least a few kilometers of abandoned or neglected rail line – that is, if it has not already been ripped up to make way for cycling trails. But increasingly, as booming industries and cash-strapped governments cope with gridlocked highways and skyrocketing transport costs, many are discovering that the cure may be rusting away just over the back fence.

Before Eugene Hretzay came to Alaska, there were few who saw the White Pass and Yukon Route as anything more than a tourist attraction. Completed in 1900, the 177-kilometre railroad was hammered into hills that only months before had seen thousands of stampeders — famed author Jack London among them — dodging con men and enduring the elements in a desperate bid to reach the Klondike Gold Fields.

Until the Alaska Highway was pushed through B.C. during the Second World War, the railroad was a key link between ocean liners from San Francisco and the paddlewheelers of the Yukon River. After being completely decommissioned in the 1980s, a small portion of the railway now operates seasonally, using vintage cars to carry the thousands of passengers that flood into Skagway every summer.

But when Mr. Hretzay became the railway’s president two years ago, he quickly turned his attention to the “cornucopia” of new mines opening in the Yukon — and shipping their ore into the Skagway port by truck. With about $50-million in upgrades, he figured his railroad could do it cheaper.

“We estimate that the ton per kilometre is about 50% lower than that by truck,” said Mr. Hretzay. With the backing of town officials, state representatives, unions and the resource sector, he figures it is only a matter of time before ore cars are once again rolling through White Pass. “There’s a physical imperative; One hundred years ago, it was the shortest way to the Lower 48 and the Far East and it still is,” said Mr. Hretzay.

Developments in the oil patch have already breathed life back into the aging railroads of Northern Alberta. In 1995, a newly privatized Canadian National Railway was only happy to sell off its Athabascan holdings. Less than nine years later, however, CN — now the most efficient railroad in North America — returned.

“They bought the whole shebang back,” said Herb Dixon, president of the Alberta Pioneer Railway Association.

In one year, the railroad snapped up the Mackenzie Northern Railway, the Lakeland & Waterways Railway, Savage Alberta Railway, Inc., and the Athabasca Northern Railway – and immediately sent in crews to outfit the old lines for fast, heavy freight trains, at a cost of $400-million.

“They’re increasing the number of cars to Fort McMurray, they’re even talking about a pipeline by rail,” said Mr. Dixon.

Of course, by CN terms, the northern Alberta railways were still “very small transactions,” according to spokesman Mark Hallman. Following up on a 10-year, $8-billion buying spree, CN is similarly sprucing up hundreds of kilometres of track throughout Quebec, British Columbia and Illinois.

In Prince Rupert, B.C., the CN-funded track may be new, but developers are still working from a very old blueprint, first drawn up by a man who died 100 years ago on the Titanic.

In 1910, rail baron Charles Hays, president of the Grand Trunk Railroad, had pegged the tiny B.C. community as his Western terminus. It was 800 kilometers closer to Asia than any other Canadian or American port and Hays aimed to make it into a city that, in the words of Prime Minister Wilfred Laurier, would be “one of the great cities of North America.”

When Hays froze to death in the North Atlantic on April 15, 1912, soon after sending off his wife, daughter and maid in a lifeboat, his vision for Prince Rupert died with him. A century later, the city has just finished a $170-million upgrade to its port facilities, complete with $25 million of new CN infrastructure. Four hundred ships a year pull into Prince Rupert, knowing that a container dropped off in the remote island city can be shuttled to Chicago 1.5 days faster than cargo unloaded in Vancouver or San Francisco.

“We are entering a very exciting period of time and it’s all thanks to the foresight of an individual named Charles Hays,” port boss Don Krusel told Postmedia last week.

From the 1950s onward, railroaders had to watch as governments spent millions on paved, well-maintained roadways — clearing the way for trucks and passengers to surge into the marketplace.

Austere government, coupled with high fuel prices, are the windfall they have been waiting for. “The times are not so bullish anymore,” said Bruce Burroughs, a vice president with the Railway Association of Canada. “Governments are not so flush with money that they can afford to slap down asphalt and suck traffic off the rail system.”

It is why, when Mr. Burroughs meets with provincial or municipal representatives, he usually encourages them to “bank” their rusting rail lines for future use.

In Ottawa, officials have mulled using an abandoned rail bridge across the Ottawa River to open a commuter rail line to Gatineau, Quebec. In Peterborough, Ont., local MP Dean Del Mastro has been pushing to retrofit existing CP Rail freight lines to carry high-speed commuter trains into Toronto. One hundred years ago, when Vancouver was a logging port with barely 100,000 people, a Vancouverite could step aboard an electric tram near the city’s downtown and get off 90 minutes later in Chilliwack, a farming community nearly 100 kilometres from the coast. With the 1950s completion of Highway 1, however, the rail line’s fate was sealed.

“Let’s face it; who would want to sit on a rickety old train for an hour and a half when you could do it in less than an hour in your car — when cars were cheap and fuel was inexpensive?” said John Vissers with Rail for the Valley, a group looking to resurrect the old commuter line.

Sixty years — and several million new residents later — getting to Vancouver in rush hour traffic can take upwards of 90 minutes, all fuelled by some of the most expensive gasoline in Canada.

For Mr. Vissers and others, the conditions are perfect for bringing back a service most Vancouverites never even knew existed.

“We could have this entire system up and running, serving a quarter million people, for approximately the same cost as two kilometres of SkyTrain,” said Mr. Vissers. “We’ve got a little train that could.”

National Post
thopper@nationalpost.com

Canucks Don’t Do Light Rapid Transit

 

Certainly, Canada doesn’t do urban, interurban & regional rail based LRT,

It used to be that the US was the most intransigent, obdurate & reactionary nation in the western world as far as transit, but the past ten years have seen a massive expansion of Light Rail, LRT, Tramways & Streetcar systems in America

From the Light Rail Transit Association – LRTA http://www.lrta.org/index.html

and the US Light Rail Now http://www.lightrailnow.org/index.htm

Tampa (currently heritage streetcar; modern LRT planned)

 

Heritage Trolley Systems
Colorado Springs
Ft. Collins
Ft. Smith
Seattle
Tucson

 US – 74No New Rail Transit Systems Proposed, Planned, or in Development

from Light Rail Now http://www.lightrailnow.org/success2.htm

Edmonton, Calgary, Toronto, Waterloo; not counting Vancouver cos’ Skytrain is not LRT

Could do a lot, lot better Canada but probably will not because its not politically  expedient.

 

TramTrain – A lesson in Urban, Interurban and regional transportation implementation

Quality integrated public transportation planning & implementation is an eminence which is in short supply in Vancouver, the Fraser Valley And BC as a whole, due in part to the narrow vision of Translink & the BC government.

Translink & their advocates, exhibit a worrying arrogance;

• Vancouver-centric planning

• Blind determination to continue the expansion of Skytrain, further into Metro Vancouver and Surrey

• Discriminatory treatment of the lower Fraser Valley’s residents, with a promise of merely an updated bus service.

Vancouver & Translink refuses to see or listen to contemporary developments in Europe & the US, so it seems relevant to promote the concept of European Tram Train operations on this Blog.

Regrettably Vancouver & specifically Translink planners, would appear not to recognise what constitute economic transport planning even if it bit them on the arse and continue to parrot the mantra:

Density and Speed

as if that’s all that matters:

From the mid-nineties there has been a real boom period regarding TramTrain feasibility studies. Many cities and regions with a regional railway network, with or without an urban tramway and of similar size as Karlsruhe have been asking if the concept is transferable to their situation. Most of these projects have not proceeded or at least been heavily delayed and not given high priority.

The reasons differ, but we question whether asking the right basic questions early enough would have avoided big studies which went straight into the archives.

Despite the flexible and context sensitive nature of TramTrain our aim is to identify at least some generic TramTrain characteristics, since we feel that a clear view of these will enable promoters to recognise a new set of (potential) applications or to revise earlier schemes which may have been reviewed before under narrower conditions.

While in the early days of TramTrain one spoke of the “Karlsruhe model”, “track sharing” or “joint running” it is necessary today to distinct between different groups.

1. Classic light-rail/tramway operation

2. Conversion

3. Single-Mode Track-sharing

4. TramTrain-operation

5. Dual-Mode Electric/Electric

6. Dual-Mode Diesel/Electric

7. TrainTram-operation

8. Existing tramway network

9. No existing tramway network

Conversion projects are schemes, which make use of former railway infrastructure converted for light rail for a considerable part of the network. There is no mix between tramway and railway operation. Infrastructure is taken over usually, so no track access charges apply.

Single mode (electrification 600/750V) track sharing schemes also involve the use of railway infrastructure, but in track-sharing mode with freight trains or other non-electric trains (thus the railway is still used by other railway traffic). This is how Karlsruhe started with the Albtalbahn. In most cases infrastructure is also owned by the light rail operator and track access charges do not apply.

TramTrain-operation involves both track-sharing light rail/heavy rail and dual- or multi-mode operation (Heavy rail voltage / Light rail voltage). The track-sharing sections may also include main line heavy rail infrastructure. Usually infrastructure (tracks and stations) is owned by the railway infrastructure owners (DB Netz, RFF, Prorail, Network Rail etc.) and track access and station use charges apply for the light rail operator.

TrainTram-operation is reversing the tram-train idea; direct access from the region to city centres is not achieved by bringing the tramway out onto the railway, but by bringing heavy rail vehicles onto the urban tramway or onto a tramway-like alignment. The heavy rail vehicles being used under urban conditions follow tramway regulations. Usually TrainTram will not involve a through-running of railway vehicles from one end of a city to the other, but access the city centre from one side only.

 Karlsruhe:

The name “Karlsruhe” all around the world is used as a synonym for success. However, the scheme demonstrates a number of features which are difficult to sell elsewhere!

The Karlsruhe compromise of running high- and medium floor light rail vehicles through an urban “low-floor” network has to be seen as a killer argument for TramTrain in France and likely in all other countries, where the full accessibility of public transport is an absolute requirement. Therefore level access for TramTrain in all sections of a planned network is of high importance.

Karlsruhe is certainly a good example of a railway (main) station at a distance to the city centre where through-running TramTrains result in a considerable gain in attractiveness. With a regional scheme however, involving several TramTrain-lines operating through the city centre, often in coupled units and with relatively heavy rolling stock, Karlsruhe is virtually witnessing the “return of the railway station” into the city centre after having moved it before WWI to the southern edge. At the moment it is planned to solve this new problem by an underground section of the network which would also mean taking out the “normal” surface trams from the pedestrian zone.

Nevertheless Karlsruhe’s passenger number increases have proven the usefulness of through running in the case of medium-sized cities owning a remote railway (main) station or the benefits of a centrally located railway station.

 http://connectedcities.eu/downloads/conferences/paris_tram_train_karlsruhe.pdf

 Kassel:

http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/kasseltramtrains/

 Ile-de-France:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%8Ele-de-France_tramway_Line_4

 Mulhouse:

http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/mullhouse/

 RandstadRail:

http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/randstadrail/

and

http://connectedcities.eu/showcases/randstadrail.html

 TramTrain projects are complicated and therefore they need a strong and high quality regulation. Almost all of these projects cover regional corridors, so some regional government or body, or at least a sustainable form of regional co-operation and tough political support is an absolute necessity for success.

• Powerful regional and local government

• Existing regional and local support

• Planning processes associated with creating transport infrastructure are complicated without exception, for TramTrain even more. For this reason success is almost synonymous with a streamlined planning process. Moreover, justification of many TramTrain proposals is strongly interconnected with considerations of urban planning and land use. Therefore integration of urban planning generally and land-use particularly is highly recommendable.

• Approach to planning process

• Degree of integration of land use and urban planning

• Step by step implementation

• Complementary to existing/adapted public transport network

• Quality and capability of public transport authority, both formally and functionally, to integrate responsibility for the entire network

• Distribution of responsibilities

  • Generally construction and operation of public transport infrastructure are financed from various sources. The money needed to build and operate TramTrain infrastructure should be balanced as much as possible on the local and regional level, as this type of public transport is important locally and regionally. In this respect local and regional funding sources are of great importance and state government contributions should not be decisive

  • Methods to cover construction and operating costs Local/regional financial balance and sources

  • TramTrain utilisation presupposes the use of heavy rail infrastructure. The responsibilities for railways are usually under national authority as legal powers are. In many countries the National Railways are very powerful. Therefore success of a TramTrain project is highly dependent on the degree in which national legal and functional competences are used efficiently for local and regional purposes or delegated to local/regional agencies. TramTrain projects become more transparent and easy-going when heavy railway infrastructure is used which is under the control or even better owned by the local/regional authority. Another option is a private control and ownership of the railway. Germany for instance has an ongoing private railway tradition.

 TRAMTRAIN: THE 2ND GENERATION   NEW CRITERIA FOR THE ‘IDEAL TRAMTRAIN CITY’  

http://www.lightrail.nl/TramTrain/tramtrain.htm#Summary

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_75ulzq5YU&feature=autoplay&list=PL7CA6D96931798C88&playnext=2

 

Myth: Viable public transport requires high population densities

Common Urban Myths About Transport

This is probably the most widely believed myth about public transport, and therefore the most dangerous. It’s an old story that, like current transport policy, originates in the first major American freeway study:

The conditions of land use and density….are the major determinants of the travel market. If demand is constrained by these factors, it is unlikely that changes in supply will have any great impact on the number of users.
—Chicago Area Transportation Study 1956

Public Transport Users Association

http://www.ptua.org.au/myths/density.shtml

There was no alternative to freeways in Chicago, the road planners said, because the city was too spread out and low-density. The road lobby and its supporters have been using the ‘spread-out city’ as an excuse for freeway building ever since. The story has been repeated so often in Melbourne that many urban planners, commentators, and even some environmentalists believe it.

In the 2000s the density myth became the centrepiece of the Bracks/Brumby Government’s Melbourne 2030 planning strategy. Apparently, in order to encourage public transport, vast tracts of inner Melbourne would have to be rebuilt at higher densities. As The Age put it:

The deal implicit in urban consolidation is that people forgo private space, backyards and cars for a more compact lifestyle…. [instead] Melburnians are opting for ever bigger, more energy-consuming homes. They need to spare a thought for the environment in which their children will be brought up…. The compact city vision is also under pressure from knee-jerk resident groups and councils in established suburbs…. Unreasonable opposition to higher-density housing in existing streets only adds to the pressure for car-dependent fringe estates.
—The Age (editorial), 5 January 2007

The implication was that we must give open slather to developers to build high-rise towers throughout the inner suburbs because, we were told, this is the only way to achieve higher rates of public transport use. The problem, of course (apart from the fact that public transport use doubled of its own accord between 2005 and 2010), is that although many Melburnians are open to the idea of forgoing at least some car use, the idea of forgoing private space and backyards is much less popular.

Pretexts and Fabrications

Many of the contemporary supporters of higher densities are perfectly well-meaning, and speak from genuine concern with the sustainability of Melbourne’s urban form. But not everyone’s motives are so benign. It’s always been the case that many Australian transport planners and economists, and their allies in the media, want to convince us that Melbourne is the most decentralised, low-density city in the world because they have an implacable ideological hostility to public transport (especially rail) and a love affair with roads (especially motorways). No-one sums up this attitude better than the neo-liberal Institute of Public Affairs, who to their credit have held to this position consistently for three decades:

In spite of public transport benefiting from massive subsidies, the coverage of its ability to carry people to their destinations quickly is highly restricted…. It can only operate effectively in urban conditions and only really effectively in urban areas with high densities and concentrated origin and destination points. A rule of thumb is that, to be commercially viable, rail-based systems require [400 people per hectare] and express bus systems [250]. Melbourne has an average density of [15]….
For the main part….cities should adapt to the car and the truck. Road systems are far and away more important than fixed track systems, and buses can make good use of them…. It is therefore vital that the road system be upgraded to keep pace with the demand for car transportation.
—Alan Moran, “The Public Transport Myth”, Institute of Public Affairs, October 2006

Density, shmensity: it’s all about service

Despite not sharing in Melbourne’s extensive rail infrastructure and supportive urban form, even low-density North American cities have, or are planning, viable alternatives to the car. In Toronto, for example, where the average citizen makes more than twice as many public transport trips as in Melbourne, the official transport plan has long aimed to

enhance the attractiveness of travel by transit in the Greater Toronto Area for a variety of trip purposes including, but not limited to, journey to work, and decrease reliance on the private automobile.
—Transit 2020, Toronto, 1993

Vancouver, where public transport use per capita is 37% higher than in Melbourne, is on target to triple patronage by 2021 from its 1991 level. As in Toronto, this is being done by providing fast, frequent, integrated, safe and cheap public transport.

Both Toronto and Vancouver are spread-out cities, but are not using that fact as an excuse for car-dominated transport policies.

	Melbourne	Toronto	Vancouver
Population density in 1991 (per hectare)	16.8	24.1	14.0
Share of total jobs in Central area	25%	23%	21%
Share of office space in Central area	78%	47%	63%
Share of retail sales in Central area	11%	10%	n/a
Annual public transport trips (per capita)	94	240	129

Low-density Vancouver also gives the lie to the assertion that public transport in spread-out cities comes only at high cost. Its entire budget for roads and public transport corresponds to just $180 per resident, compared with $430 per resident in Melbourne.

Unfortunately, many transport planners have completely failed to make the link between quality of service and patronage. The connection is obvious to anyone who checks the statistics, and holds true in low-density cities as much as in high-density cities. As a result, low patronage on public transport is too frequently excused as being residents’ fault for wanting big backyards, rather than a fairly obvious result of lousy service provision. So when Portland (a US city with modest public transport use, though fairly good by US standards) was forced to cut some low-patronage services in the 2008-09 recession, one prominent transport planner wrote:

Four routes are to be eliminated completely, and three of these (27, 154, and 157) are outer-suburban feeders…. All serve relatively low density areas but not especially affluent ones, a reminder that density determines ridership much more than wealth does. There’s not much of an alternative for residents of the areas served…. but if good transit service were really important to you, you wouldn’t live there.
—Gareth Jarrett, Human Transit, 11 February 2010

As Jarrett well knows, residents of these Portland suburbs do have an alternative – private cars. And their decision to use them in preference to the cited bus routes was, it turns out, entirely rational. Of the three routes he named, two were ‘commuter’ routes that ran five trips a day on weekdays, while the third operated once an hour with the last bus at about 6:30pm. None of them ran on weekends. In short, they were equivalent to some of the worst Melbourne suburban bus routes. Blaming density merely serves to excuse poor design and false economies, and lets the planners off the hook when poor service fails.

If density were the key to use of sustainable transport, then of course you wouldn’t live in Portland at all – you’d live in high-density New York, which rates highest in the US for public transport use. But you might just as well consider living in Los Angeles, Miami or Las Vegas: all cities with much higher urban density than Portland. Los Angeles even has a higher density than New York when entire urban areas are compared – a fact not widely known or believed until very recently. The problem is these cities, all ‘high density’ as they are, all have lower mode shares for public transport than even Portland does!

The table below gives the overall urban density and the public transport mode share for journeys to work in a selection of US and Australian cities. There is some relationship evident between density and public transport use, but it is weak and unconvincing, to say the least. Some other factor must be at work to explain why Brisbane, for example, has three times the rate of public transport use as LA despite being just one-third the density. That factor is good-quality service, which is present in Brisbane (at least in peak hour) but virtually absent in LA. Although we haven’t included Canadian cities, they do even better: Ottawa with 17.2 people per urban hectare has almost the same density as Miami, but differs from Miami in having one of the highest-quality bus systems in the world. Its 21.2% of journeys to work by public transport exceeds that in Miami more than fivefold!

City	Overall density (/ha)	Travel to work by public transport (%)
Los Angeles	27.3	4.7
New York	20.5	24.8
Las Vegas	17.7	4.1
Miami	17.0	3.9
Denver	15.4	4.4
Chicago	15.1	11.5
Sacramento	14.6	2.7
Phoenix	14.0	1.9
San Diego	13.2	3.4
Washington DC	13.1	9.4
Portland	12.9	6.0
Boston	8.9	9.0
Sydney	20.4	21.2
Melbourne	15.7	13.9
Adelaide	13.8	9.9
Perth	12.1	10.4
Canberra	10.6	7.9
Hobart	10.3	6.4
Brisbane	9.2	13.8

Source: Extracted from Mees, Transport For Suburbia (2010), Table 4.1

This does not mean, of course, that sensitively applied encouragement of medium density housing is not worthwhile. Vancouver certainly introduced more ‘medium density’ housing under its Liveable Region strategy – but by this they meant the one-sixth-acre blocks that have been traditional in Melbourne for over a century. (What our developers have called ‘medium density’ would be recognised as ‘high density’ overseas.)

So carefully targeted land-use measures will help, albeit marginally. But the real challenge lies elsewhere.

Some Facts To Counter The Myths About Higher Density

http://reconnectingamerica.org/

A 2005 report “Some Facts To Counter The Myths About Higher Density,” authored by the Urban Land Institute along with the National Multi Housing Council, Sierra Club and the American Institute of Architects, has been added to the Resource Center best practices database.

The authors of the report explain: “The purpose of this publication is to dispel the many myths surrounding higher-density development and to create a new understanding of density that goes beyond simplistic negative connotations that overestimate its impact and under­estimate its value.”

The report takes on these myths:

1. Higher-density development overburdens public schools and other public services and requires more infrastructure support systems.

2. Higher-density developments lower property values in surrounding areas.

3. Higher-density development creates more regional traffic congestion and parking problems than low-density development.

4. Higher-density development leads to higher crime rates.

5. Higher-density development is environmentally more destructive than lower-density development.

6. Higher-density development is unattractive and does not fit in a low-density community.

7. No one in suburban areas wants higher-density development.

8. Higher-density housing is only for lower-income households

 

Transit corridor will be easily reached by walkers and cyclists, planner says

Not for the first time, the Cardinal has had to question the decisions of  provincial transit planners; BC & now Ontario.

In the Record.com http://www.therecord.com/

David Fields, a transit-planning  consultant with Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, told a daylong workshop in Kitchener Tuesday the experience with other light rail lines clearly demonstrates that people are willing to walk for five or 10 minutes, or ride a bicycle for four or five kilometres, to get to a station. I’m sorry Mr Fields but your going to have to do better than that, experience shows that especially in North America the public will baulk at walking more than two blocks to a transit stop and will grab their car keys.

It is imperative that a new train, Tram/LRT, bus or BRT transit
is designed to serve all key trip generators and residential centres reducing walking & cycling durations and times to as little as possible.

http://www.therecord.com/news/local/article/711621–transit-corridor-will-be-easily-reached-by-walkers-and-cyclists-planner-says

WATERLOO REGION — The $818-million rapid transit system that will run along the urban spine of three local cities can be quickly accessed by the overwhelming majority of people in the region by walking or cycling, says a New York City transit planner.

David Fields, a transit-planning consultant with Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, told a daylong workshop in Kitchener Tuesday the experience with other light rail lines clearly demonstrates that people are willing to walk for five or 10 minutes, or ride a bicycle for four or five kilometres, to get to a station.

“We can just about get everybody to the corridor if we think in those terms,” Fields said.

Fields’ firm has helped prepare strategies for community building around major investments of public transit in Portland, Seattle, San Francisco and New York City. Nelson\Nygaard is among a trio of consulting firms the region has hired to develop a strategy for the local light rail project.

Fields and other transit planners find residents’ willingness to walk and bike exciting because it means the central transit corridor is not just for people living just a few blocks away. With better infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists, the majority of people living in Waterloo, Kitchener and Cambridge will be able to access the stations.

“The best cities are the ones where people don’t think about their transportation,” Fields said.

Sidewalks need to be installed in some areas leading to and from stations. The streets must be well lit at night, pleasing to look at and take the most direct route, Fields said.

On-road bike lanes, off-road bike trails, secure storage areas, air pumps, water fountains and smooth ramps beside stairs for rolling bikes up are good ideas too, Fields said.

The bus system needs to change from doing loops through suburban areas, to a grid system that includes several high-frequency corridors that cross the rail corridor.

Other connections are needed as well, the workshop heard. Daisy Arseneault is a strong supporter of light rail transit but she wants to see connections between the Walter Bean Grand River Trail and the central transit corridor before trains start rolling in 2017.

“A big criticism of the LRT coming in is that it does not connect us to these beautiful trails,” Arseneault said at Tuesday’s workshop on how the new transit system can improve mobility in the region.

For the planners and transit supporters at the workshop, mobility is all about freely using several ways of getting around — walking, cycling, riding transit or driving a car.

Arseneault, a Waterloo mother of three young children, would like the light rail line connected to the riverside trails by buses, bike lanes, bike trails or pedestrian walkways.

She was among the more than 25 participants, including planners, cyclists, transit supporters and residents who talked about what needs to be done to help people walk, cycle, ride buses or drive to one of the 23 stations that will dot the 36-kilometre long corridor.

Arseneault also noted RIM Park, the biggest recreation complex in the region, is isolated from the transit corridor.

The workshops continue Wednesday with invited stakeholders, but on Thursday members of the public can drop into the storefront office set up at 220 King St. W. in front of Kitchener City Hall from 3 to 7 p.m. to share ideas.

There are six stations that will need special attention, because multiple modes of travel converge there, including Conestoga Mall, Fairview Park mall, Sportsworld and the central station at King and Victoria streets.

By 2017 the region plans to have light trains running from Conestoga Mall to Fairview Park mall. Rapid buses will run from Fairview Park mall into Cambridge. The system will cost an estimated $818 million, and the mobility workshops are part of planning how to use that investment to strengthen the communities along the central transit corridor.

Melanie Hare, an urban planner leading the development of the community building strategy, said there are some important questions all residents can think about — and then share their answers — by going online to the centraltransitcorridor.ca in the coming months.

Those questions include: What destinations are important to you? How do you get there now? Is there traffic congestion, disconnected trails or no bus service? What are the key routes? What are the opportunities?

“We want to enhance downtown Hespeler, the Cambridge Business Park and Conestoga College with mobility options connected to light rail transit,” Hare said. “This is really about how do we make communities healthy, walkable.”

Some of the biggest challenges are at key points long the corridor — Conestoga Mall, Fairview Park mall, Sportsworld and the power centre on Hespeler Road.

The owners must be persuaded to put in place infrastructure to support cyclists and pedestrians getting to and from the stations, said Alain Pinnard, head of planning at the City of Kitchener.

Jason Schreiber, a transit consultant with Nelson\Nygaard, said those properties will see tremendous increases in value as a result of the transit plan and that should be incentive enough for them to make improvements. If not, the region may have to consider other incentives or land swaps, Schreiber said.

The business parks that will be serviced by the transit corridor currently have little or no infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists. That will have to change if workers are expected to ride the light trains and buses to the Sportsworld station, and then walk or cycle into the Cambridge Business Park.

4 light rail lines expected to be running by 2020

Metrolinx favours provincial body taking control of projects

posted: Apr 24, 2012 1:23 PM ET

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/04/24/toronto-light-rail659.html

Four new light-rail lines could be up and running in Toronto by 2020, as a modified version of the Transit City plan that Mayor Rob Ford has vigourously campaigned against comes to fruition.

The provincial agency, Metrolinx, revealed the details in a report released Tuesday. The Metrolinx board will vote on the report’s recommendations Wednesday.

The agency has outlined a number of target dates for construction and completion of the four lines:

• Construction on the the Sheppard East LRT line, which will run from Don Mills subway station to east of Morningside Avenue, is slated to begin in 2014. That was when it was supposed to be completed under the old Transit City plan championed by Ford’s predecessor, David Miller. The line is expected to be in service by 2018.
• Construction on the Finch West LRT line, which will run from the still-to-be-completed Toronto-York-Spadina subway extension to Humber College, will commence in 2015. The line is expected to be up and running by 2019.
• Construction on the Scarborough RT line replacement is to begin in 2014, with the line in service by 2019.
• Construction on the Eglinton Crosstown LRT line, which will run from Keele Street to Kennedy Road on Eglinton Avenue, has already commenced. The line will be in service by 2020. HOV lanes will be removed to accomodate the line.

Coun. Joe Mihevc, a staunch supporter of Transit City, said the Metrolinx plan “great news.”

Provincial body Infrastructure Ontario, and not the Toronto Transit Commission, would be responsible for delivery of the project, Metrolinx has recommended.

Infrastructure Ontario will also try and secure federal money from a public-private partnership fund to build the projects. The bill for construction of all the light rail lines is expected to total $8.4 billion.

Political uncertainty looms

None of the construction — with the exception of the Eglinton Crosstown line and a storage facility for light-rail vehicles —will begin before 2014, when the next municipal election is scheduled. And the minority Liberal government, which survived a confidence vote earlier Tuesday, could fall before construction on any of the new lines.

Ford has repeatedly argued against the construction of the lines, saying that Torontonians want subways, not light rail. But he lost a number of key transit votes in council after refusing to budge on his commitment to bury the Eglinton line. Under the current plan, only the central portion of the line will be underground.

Led by TTC Chair Karen Stintz, a majority of councillors rejected Ford’s call for a buried Eglinton line and a Sheppard subway extension and coalesced around the plan that Metrolinx is now moving ahead with.

Stintz says Metrolinx is moving in the right direction.

“Yeah, I think the timelines are aggressive and I’m pleased that Metrolinx is moving as quickly as it is to bring this transit to areas of the city that most need it,” Stintz said.

Under Ford’s plan, the entire Eglinton line would be buried. He struck a deal with the Ontario government that would have sent $8.4 billion in provincial funds to bury the line. Any leftover funds would have been allocated to a proposed eastward subway extension on Sheppard Avenue East.

However, that agreement was contingent on securing council support. Ford was not able to woo his opponents on council, with many of them criticizing Ford for not having a plan to fully fund the Sheppard subway extension.

Eric Chris on Bi-Articulated Buses For The 99-B

A bi-articulated bus or double-articulated bus is a higher-capacity type of articulated bus. It is an extension of a conventional or single-articulated bus, in that it has three passenger compartment sections instead of two. This also involves the addition of an extra axle and a second articulation joint. Due to the extended length, bi-articulated buses tend to be used on high-frequency core routes or bus rapid transit schemes rather than conventional bus routes.

One of their main advantages is that they reduce the number of drivers needed to run a service for a specific number of people — i.e., it is usually much more cost-efficient to run a bi-articulated bus with one driver, than, for example, to run two smaller rigid buses providing the same total number of seats.

Disadvantages include difficulties in traffic, the need to have bus stops catering to the extended length, and the fact that two buses with the same capacity can be used more flexibly, such as having one bus arrive every five minutes, instead of one of the larger articulated buses every ten minutes (as an example providing the same service capacity, but different frequencies).

An electric bi-articulated trolleybus in Zurich, Switzerland. Please note tram tracks, as the city also operates trams.

A very interesting letter from Eric Chris about a proposal to use bi-articulated buses on the 99-B to increase capacity on the route.

Bi-articulated buses are mainly designed for guided-bus lines or for routes with busways and if bi-articulated buses are to be used on Broadway, then some very expensive work must take place before their operation. Bus stops must be lengthened and roads must be rebuilt and strengthened to accommodate the heavier and award bi-articulated buses.

The ride of bi-articulated buses are not as smooth as regular buses and this may lead to ridership drift, where transit riders will change from the Broadway/99 route to other bus routes that do not operate bi-articulated buses.

The real answer to Broadways transit problems is the reinstatement of the streetcar, only upgraded to light rail practice with at least 40% of its route operating on a “reserved rights-of-ways” or R-o-W’s reserved for the exclusive use of the tram. Reinstating a Broadway streetcar/LRT could be as cheap as $10 million a km for pre-fab track (the supports and span-wires are already in place); $30 million to $50 million for shops and a car barn; and $4 million to $5 million per car, depending on the size of the vehicle.

A Vancouver/UBC/BCIT streetcar/LRT network could be had for under $600 million and would offer a viable transit solution for the next 40 to 50 years at an operating cost much less than buses. Less than 20 modern trams could do the work of all the buses being used on Broadway. Of course light rail or streetcar is not in the lexicon of TransLink or the City of Vancouver (COV), who rather use fancy bi-articulated buse upgrades or subways, especially if taxpayers South of the Fraser are paying the tab.

The letter………

Councillors George Affleck and Geoff Meggs,

Are we able to discuss the proposed bi-articulated buses (25 metre long) over the telephone or perhaps in person in Point Grey near Tolmie Street on the 99 B-Line route?  I read the article in The Vancouver Courier about the proposal by the COV to increase capacity on the 99 B-Line route.  It is a fantastic idea provided that the 25 metre articulated buses are “electric” bi-articulated trolley buses (see attached picture) or possibly streetcars to replace the diesel and hybrid-diesel buses operating on the 99 B-Line route:

 

http://www.vancourier.com/City+hall+longs+longer+buses+Vancouver/6481007/story.html

 

http://www.tbus.org.uk/health.htm

 

Many residents in Point Grey (four out of five) favour the removal of the 99 B-Line diesel buses operating on the #9 trolley bus route (2007 WPG Community Visions Choices Survey).  In Vancouver, the 99 B-Line service impairs the health of individuals due to the high concentration of particulate matter emitted by the 99 B-Line diesel buses and is an an extreme nuisance to residents due to the incredible noise levels and vibrations produced by the 99 B-Line diesel buses.

 

For the COV to establish a transit division and to operate 25 metre articulated trolley buses, the capital cost would be expected to be $112 million for 55 bi-articulated trolley buses with five of the bi-articulated trolley buses as spare to allow for break downs and maintenance ($100 million for the 55 bi-articulated trolley buses, $10 million for 10 kilometres of dedicated trolley lines from downtown Vancouver to UBC and $2 million for the rectifier sub-station).  Operating and maintenance costs would be expected to be approximately $17.9 million annually ($0.5 million for power, $4.3 million for maintenance and $13.1 million for drivers).  Storage and maintenance of the 25 metre articulated trolley buses could be done at existing COV facilities with minor upgrades costing little.

 

Daily, it would only require 12,300 riders making two trips and paying a convenient toonie or $2 per trip for the COV transit division to recoup the “entire” operating and maintenance costs for the fleet of 25 metre articulated trolley buses traveling from downtown Vancouver to Point Grey and Kitsilano.  The $2 COV transit fare is much less than the pending $2.75 single zone fare by TransLink and would appeal to budget conscious riders who are looking for affordable transit to downtown Vancouver.  Financing the COV transit would not even require charging students traveling to UBC.  Students would only pay what TransLink already charges and would ride the 25 metre articulated trolley buses operated by COV transit for free.

 

How would the COV afford $112 million for the fleet of 25 metre articulated trolley buses?  Easily, taxpayers provide TransLink $690 million annually to move about 300,000 transit users, and COV transit would rightfully be entitled to $28 million annually from taxpayers for absorbing 4% or 12,300 of TransLink’s riders who would travel independently on COV transit from Point Grey and Kitsilano to downtown Vancouver (4% * $690 million = $28 million).  Riders transferring from the TransLink network and wanting to go to UBC would either have the choice of staying on the TransLink network to take any one of the 10 or more bus routes traveling to UBC or paying to use the 25 metre articulated trolley bus operated by COV transit (excluding UBC students traveling for free on COV transit).

 

Zero emission and non-polluting 25 metre articulated trolley buses operated by COV transit would be replacing the polluting 99 B-Line diesel buses costing TransLink about $15 million in operating and maintenance expenses annually and would be saving many transit users money to ride transit.  So, it would be very difficult for TransLink to object to the COV taking over transit to UBC in order to replace the over crowded and much despised 99 B-Line diesel buses operated by TransLink.  The City of Edmonton runs transit very well.  The City of Vancouver can run transit, too, and the COV has many talented engineers who can do a much better job of running transit than TransLink – obviously.

 

I’ve been a professional chemical engineer for 22 years.  I’ve not only designed and modeled gas, slurry, and water pipeline networks, which are very analogous to transit networks operated by TransLink, but also refinery, power and mining facilities.  My masters thesis is in air dispersion modeling.  I’ve lived in Point Grey near UBC and on the 99 B-Line route for 13 years.  I’ve had the opportunity to observe transit to UBC and know just about as much as anyone when it comes to fixing the “over crowding” on the 99 B-Line route.  So, as I’m at this moment being unnerved by the wailing 99 B-Line diesel bus as it rumbles down West 10th Avenue at night without a single passenger on board, here are my thoughts on transit to UBC – by TransLink.

 

 

B-Line Crowding

TransLink has botched transit service to UBC.  TransLink can’t fix the over crowding on the 99 B-Line because TransLink is causing it either wittingly or unwittingly.

 

To illustrate: at 7 am, there is a 10 minute wait to catch the #9 trolley bus taking 38 minutes to reach UBC, for a 48 minute possible trip duration, while there is only a two minute wait to catch the 99 B-Line taking 32 minutes to reach UBC, for a possible 34 minute trip duration. Of course, few students want to take an extra 14 minutes to get to UBC, and many #9 trolley buses have few riders, as a result. The same can be said for most other bus routes to UBC.

 

If there were only a two minute wait time for the #9 trolley bus, the possible trip duration on the #9 trolley bus would only be 40 minutes and if there were a 10 minute wait for the 99 B-Line, the possible trip duration on the 99 B-Line would be 42 minutes. This would eliminate the artificial advantage in trip duration created by TransLink for the 99 B-Line route (at the expense of ridership on other routes to UBC).  If TransLink ensured about the same trip duration for all bus routes to UBC, over crowding on the 99 B-Line route would disappear and transit demand to UBC would be uniform amongst all bus routes to UBC.

 

 

B-Line Route

TransLink intentionally created the 99 B-Line route to build up ridership for an east to west expansion of the SkyTrain from Commercial Drive to UBC.  Unfortunately, the whole east to west 99 B-Line route-concept which by-passes downtown Vancouver is flawed by design.  It goes against good engineering practice and defies traditional transit wisdom.

 

Transit demand in Point Grey and Kitsilano is predominately to and from downtown Vancouver.  In the morning in particular, few residents in Point Grey and Kitsilano wish to travel east 10 kilometres or more on the 99 B-Line to board jam packed SkyTrain cars at Cambie Street or Commercial Drive and then to continue their journey north into downtown Vancouver.  Consequently, what you see in the morning are some stuffed 99 B-Line diesel buses and some not so stuffed 99 B-Line diesel buses traveling from east to west (destined to UBC) with almost 100% of the 99 B-Line diesel buses empty or out of service traveling from west to east (destined to Commercial Drive).

 

This is not efficient and it isn’t smart.  It is typical and foolish transit by TransLink.

 

Instead of 99 B-Line transit by TransLink, bi-articulated trolley buses or streetcars from UBC through Point Grey and Kitsilano to downtown Vancouver would be well used -  workers and others from Point Grey and Kitsilano would ride the bi-articulated trolley buses or streetcars downtown and students would return to UBC in Point Grey on the bi-articulated trolley buses or streetcars.

 

While the 99 B-Line diesel buses have occasional periods of over crowding, there are over 10 bus routes traveling to UBC and three-quarters of the seats on all buses including the 99 B-Line buses are empty.  Over crowding on the 99 B-Line is due to poor transit scheduling by TransLink and not due to a lack of buses.  This might be shocking to some; it isn’t if you live in Point Grey where absolutely empty or nearly empty #9 trolley buses are the norm.

 

 

B-Line Time

For anyone who is on a limited income and who relies on transit, affordable transit is more of a consideration than saving a few seconds or minutes on the express 99 B-Line service to UBC.  In any case, time saved with the express service on the 99 B-Line route is a red herring. Time saved on any bus route is primarily determined by the frequency of service which is wholly within the control of TransLink doing the scheduling of the buses.

 

Along Broadway, there are traffic lights every few blocks and the 99 B-Line is forced to stop almost as often as the #9 trolley bus.  The express component of the 99 B-Line saves very little time over regular trolley bus service and is simply an excuse for TransLink to operate diesel buses which TransLink prefers to operate at the detriment of residents whose health and peace of mind suffers in Vancouver (lung cancer and noise stress).

 

The 99 B-Line is operating entirely along the #9 trolley bus route. Therefore, the #9 trolley bus route could be converted into an articulated trolley bus route and the existing 99 B-Line route could easily be eliminated.  Currently, TransLink is forcing transit users off the #9 trolley buses by cancelling the #9 trolley bus service on weekends and at night and by making the wait time for the #9 trolley bus much longer than the wait time for the 99 B-Line.

 

 

Final Thoughts

Unless the COV steps in to take over transit to UBC, nothing will improve and the 99 B-Lines will be in operation for another decade, at least.  Without spending billions of dollars on a very expensive and inefficient SkyTrain extension to UBC, the masterminds with borderline down syndrome at TransLink do not have the wherewithal to solve the overcrowding on the 99 B-Line route.

 

Inept executives at TransLink are not ethical and competent “engineers” and do not have the requisite understanding to properly “design” an efficient and affordable transit service to UBC.  TransLink is purely a politically motivated organization with little merit.  Bureaucrats at TransLink are bumbling along to provide mediocre transit to UBC.  With the COV operating transit to UBC, engineers at the COV can make transit to UBC, exceptional.

 

Ultimately, the 99 B-Line service is not only destroying the environment and increasing carbon emissions but also increasing health care costs as diesel exhaust leads to higher rates of cancer and asthma for residents in Vancouver.  TransLink does not have to operate 99 B-Line diesel buses on the #9 trolley bus route at all if it means impairing the health of residents with high particulate matter concentrations and if means harassing residents with horrendous noise levels.

 

Engineers have duty of care to protect the public, and surely Peter Judd (Chief City of Vancouver Engineer) copied agrees – the 99 B-Line diesel buses harming residents and harassing residents have outlived their welcome and have to go, now, even if the COV has to eject TransLink from Point Grey and Kitsilano to run streetcars or 25 metre articulated trolley buses to protect the public.  Moreover, councillors at the COV have a moral obligation to end the harmful and unethical use of 99 B-Line diesel buses operated by TransLink on the #9 trolley bus route.

 

TransLink is truly an abomination.  The City of Vancouver can operate 25 metre articulated trolley buses (quiet and zero emission electric) in a much more economical and sustainable manner than TransLink can operate cheap, noisy, polluting and noxious 99 B-Line diesel buses.

 

The efficiency review by the TransLink Commission last month recommends less frequent transit service to increase the utilization of buses and to reduce transit costs.  Completely disregarding this recommendation, TransLink starting on Monday April 23rd, 2012 is inexplicably increasing the frequency of the 99 B-Line service from midnight to 2 am (every 15 minutes from every 30 minutes) just when UBC is out for the summer.  Hopefully the COV does not allow the spectacle of unnecessary 99 B-Line diesel buses on the #9 trolley bus route to continue any longer.

 

What would transit users prefer in Vancouver, paying $2 to ride in an air-conditioned and spacious 25 metre articulated trolley bus operated by COV transit or paying $2.75 to ride in a crappy and crowded 99 B-Line diesel bus operated by TransLink?  I’m looking forward to your early reply.

 

ec

A Canuck expat in Geneva on the virtues of light rail

from Now Toronto

http://www.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=186287

In the flap over Toronto’s transit future, we have to recognize that few have had any kind of exposure to light rail. For most of us, subways are our only experience of public transportation that works well and doesn’t get bogged down in traffic.

I can see why there’d be a tendency to associate light rail with old-fashioned, slow and unpredictable streetcars. But believe me, light rail is nothing like that. 

 

As a Canadian expatriate living in Geneva, Switzerland, I’ve experienced first hand the wonders of a light-rail-based system that’s fast, efficient and dependable. In fact, I take a light rail “tram” to work every morning. 

When I arrive at the stop where I change connections, a convenient automated screen shows when the next tram is coming and where it’s going. When the vehicle arrives, the doors open only briefly. You hurry on and they automatically lock behind you. This results in some dramatic scenes of frustrated people rushing to the tram, banging on the doors and making hysterical gestures, but it definitely speeds things up. 

There’s no turnstile at the front; instead, you buy a ticket or a monthly pass. “Controllers” make random checks and impose hefty fines on those who can’t produce a ticket. Once you board, your tram flies past cars; it’s in its own lane.

Everybody from young families to bankers, middle-class professionals and visiting diplomats takes the tram. If you live downtown, it’s much easier and faster than driving. 

In Geneva, public transit isn’t something you use only if you can’t afford a car or want to make a green political statement. It’s a practical way to get from A to B. Everybody does it. People depend on it, and they don’t accept bad service. It has to work well, and it does.

Waiting more than five minutes for a tram feels like an eternity, and people complain loudly to the city when this happens. This winter, unseasonable cold caused a water main break and a two-day transit meltdown. People were incensed. It was front-page news locally; waiting 10 minutes was simply unacceptable. I can’t imagine what this population would make of the TTC.

Of course, this is Switzerland, the gold standard for transit. But it proves that a workable system is out there. Perhaps Torontonians have been living so long with transit mediocrity that they simply can’t imagine anything better. 

Trust me, it exists, and Toronto deserves it.

TransLink eliminates planning VP – The Sacrificial Lamb

It seems that transit planning is/was not a TransLink forte, in fact the move to remove the VP of Planning certainly indicates that the Premier’s office is in full control of Metro Vancouver transportation planning and no encumbrances from the TransLink bureaucracy is needed. TransLink’s VP of planning has been determined to be the sacrificial lamb with the Premier’s sideshow audit of TransLink!

Transit planning was never a TransLink strong point, rather TransLink’s planners played lick-spittle with provincial politicians with their own transit diktats. What this move proves is that TransLink is nothing more than an arm of the provincial government with its wants and wishes. If there was any more credible evidence for South Fraser municipalities to withdraw from TransLink the time is now, the province has shown its hand and it is time to act.

It is also suspicious that the then Minister of Transportation, a one Kevin Falcon, is now the Minister responsible for the Ministry of Finance, the very same ministry undertaking the audit of TransLink! The fear that BC’s Auditor General would audit TransLink is so great; that he would uncover many politically unpleasant things, such as ill-found Liberal government inspired P-3 transit projects prior to the next election, the Premier had to have her people undertake the audit so she and her government could control the outcome.

Adiós TransLink, your time has come.

TransLink eliminates planning VP as part of restructuring

TransLink has shuffled its many departments and eliminated its executive vice-president of policy and planning.

By Mike Hager, Vancouver Sun April 20, 2012

TransLink has shuffled its many departments and eliminated its executive vice-president of policy and planning.

In a memo to employees sent yesterday, CEO Ian Jarvis announced the company was permanently eliminating Michael Shiffer, who left a teaching job in Chicago to come to TransLink three years ago, and his planning position.

The move is part of a wider restructuring of departments, by folding them into one another TransLink hopes to save more money after a $20-million fare hike proposal was denied by commissioner Martin Crilly.

“I recognize this restructuring is significant in scope, and there will be many questions from team members as we adjust,” wrote Jarvis in the memo. “I am confident that the changes will help us respond to the current environment and realize our commitment to delivering quality service for the millions of rides on our network each day in the most cost-effective and efficient way possible.”

TransLink on Tuesday announced it will postpone its scheduled transit expansion plans, including a B-Line bus service along King George Boulevard and a rapid bus on Highway 1 over the Port Mann Bridge, until it can find alternative funding sources to pay for them.

Jarvis said the decision was made after the mayors’ council on regional transportation announced that it would not increase property taxes next year for the planned transit services. A temporary property tax had been promised in TransLink’s supplementary funding plan as a backup plan for 2013-14 to generate $30 million annually if the province and mayors couldn’t come up with alternative funding sources.

But the mayors last week voted to scrap the temporary property tax after the provincial government rejected its proposed revenue sources, which included a vehicle levy and regional carbon tax. The province instead said it would look for cost-saving measures within the organization.