The Moonbeam Line

The Moonbeam Line is an apt name for the for Vancouver Mayor, Gregor Robinson’s pet Broadway subway project, as the subway planning has a foundation of stuff and nonsense.

This hokumAi?? that a subway would be of “national significance”, is pure hoopla, from a mayor eager to spend vast sums of other people’s money for his city to satisfy his land developer friends needs for profits; especially if those profits need to be subsidized by the regional taxpayer.

As always, transit planning in the metro Vancouver region is all about politics and rewarding political friends and the transit customer and the taxpayer be damned.

This also begs the question; “Do we really want regional mayors running the transit system?”

Alison Bailey February 28, 2014 News Radio 1130

Robertsonai??i??s subway pitch is about prestige: LRT advocate Mayor of Vancouver says Broadway corridor subway would have national impact

LOWER MAINLAND (NEWS1130) ai??i?? Itai??i??s all about political prestige; thatai??i??s what people pushing for a rail connection between Vancouver and Chilliwack say about claims from the mayor of Vancouver that a subway line along the Broadway corridor would have a ai???nationalai??? impact.

ai???The ridership on Broadway just does not need a subway,ai??? says Malcolm Johnston with Rail for the Valley. ai???Subways need large passenger flows to justify the construction costs.ai???

The group would rather see bus service improved.

Johnston says while the B-Line service along Broadway is full, the trolley bus service is not. He argues excess capacity isnai??i??t being utilized.

ai???We could modernize our trolley bus fleet, bring it up to a modern standard and have stops maybe every 400 metres apart instead of every 200 metres apart; that speeds up the service.ai???

Johnston adds light rail should go in for higher capacity.

Mayor Gregor Robertson says a subway would help make Vancouver a global research hub, linking UBC to health science facilities. Heai??i??s hoping to get $4 billion thatai??i??s earmarked for projects of ai???national significance.ai???

http://www.news1130.com/2014/02/28/robertsons-subway-pitch-is-about-prestige-lrt-advocate/

Ottawa’s Transit system project

 

ai???The Transitwayai??i??, in Ottawa, is one of the most successful Bus Rapid Transit Systems in North America. However with the increase of traffic and demand the Council has decided to develop the Bus Rapid Transit System into to a Light Rail Transit one. This 20 year plus expansion will start its first phase with the Confederation Line. A $2.1 billion investment which will have a 13 station LRT running over 12.5 km. By making it a P3 project it has reduced the tax payers cost benefits. This project should help the local economy, community and create thousands of new jobs.

This $2.1 billion transportation project, supported by the federal, provincial and municipal governments, is the largest single project ever undertaken by the City of Ottawa in regards to scope, size and complexity. The project, which is the first stage in Ottawaai??i??s planned 40 km light rail network, will see the construction of a 12.5 km LRT system including 3 km of tunnel under the downtown, and 13 stations, three of which will be in the tunnel portion.Ai?? Implementation of the new system will include converting portions of the existing Bus Rapid Transit to light rail (one of the first such undertakings in North America). It is being carried out under a Design-Build-Finance-Maintain delivery model.

Project Cost:Ai??Ai??$2.1 billionAi?? Project Size:Ai??Ai??13.5 kmAi??Ai?? Project Duration:Ai??Ai?? 7 years

Project Challenge: One of the biggest challenges of this project is to convert an existing Bus Rapid Transit route and tunneling through the downtown core of Ottawa to a new light rail system. There are many private properties, environmental, heritage and utility coordination issues.

Ottawaai??i??s Light Rail Transit (OLRT) project, will enhance that cityai??i??s connectivity and create a greener downtown with a vastly improved streetscape.Ai?? This $2.1 billion transportation project, supported by the federal, provincial and municipal governments, is the largest single project ever undertaken by the City of Ottawa in regards to scope, size and complexity.Ai?? The OLRT system will take portions of the Bus Rapid Transit and convert them to Light Rail Transport (one of the first such undertakings in North America). ai??i??

This project is the first stage in Ottawaai??i??s planned 40 km light rail network.Ai?? In 2011, Morrison Hershfield together with three (3) other firms making up Capital Transit Partners (CTP), a joint venture, was awarded the Preliminary Design and Project Management mandate by the City of Ottawa in support of the development of a 12.5 km (7.8 mile) Light Rail Transit (LRT) system to the city. It includes a 3.2 km (1.9 mile) tunnel under the downtown and conversion of the existing exclusive Bus Transitway from Blair Road in the East toTunneyai??i??s Pasture in the West, to LRT.Ai??The OLRTAi??projectAi??includes 13 stations, withAi??three in the mined tunnel portion, one in cut and cover and the remaining at grade within the existing transit corridor. The project also includes a maintenance and storage facility to accommodate the new fleet of LRT vehicles.

The Plan:

The Confederation Line will be a significant part of OC Transpoai??i??s integrated transit network. It will connect to the existing Bus Rapid Transitway at Tunneyai??i??s Pasture Station in the west and Blair Road in the east, and to the O-Train at Bayview Station. Together with a 2.5km downtown tunnel, this light rail system will move Ottawa faster and in more comfort than ever before.

http://www.confederationline.ca/en/the-plan/what/

Why light rail transit?

http://www.confederationline.ca/en/the-plan/why/

Hutzpa!

OTTAWA ai??i?? The Harper government needs to be convinced that the proposed $3-billion Broadway subway line to the University of B.C. is a project of ai???national significance,ai??? Mayor Gregor Robertson said Wednesday.

Robertson, who was chairing a meeting of big-city mayors here, said a $14-billion, 10-year fund being promoted by the Conservative government is ai???woefully inadequateai??? to meet Canadaai??i??s infrastructure needs.

That program has only set aside $9 billion specifically for big cities, with $1 billion earmarked for smaller and typically more Tory-friendly municipalities.

Another $4 billion is targeted for projects of national strategic significance.

Asked if there is enough federal money on the table to get the Broadway project off the ground, Robertson replied: ai???That depends on whether the additional $4 billion of national infrastructure money is on the table.ai???

Cities, provincial governments and Ottawa typically cost-share major infrastructure projects.

Robertson said Vancouver will make the case to Ottawa that all Canadians would benefit from the subway.

Linking UBC to major health sciences institutions along the corridor, including the Vancouver General Hospital and the BC Centre for Disease Control, would advance Vancouverai??i??s ability to become a global research hub.

ai???We will see companies from all over the world coming to Vancouver if thereai??i??s good connectivity,ai??? he said in an interview. ai???The cities we compete with globally in technology are well-connected and are invested in rapid transit, and we need to keep pace. So it will have a nationally significant economic impact.ai???

A 2013 KPMG report commissioned by UBC and the city said the current bus system along the route is operating over capacity.

It also said there is little chance given constrains on the road to expand bus service to deal with an anticipated doubling of the population along the corridor over the next 30 years.

Cities like Toronto and New York have a ai???clear competitive advantage over Vancouver: they have a public transportation network that provides rail rapid transit between their major employment centres and their academic research facilities,ai??? the report noted.

Robertsonai??i??s comments came after one of the more controversial gatherings of big-city mayors because it included, for the first time, Toronto Mayor Rob Ford.

Ford, who has in the past dismissed the Federation of Canadian Municipalities as an organization of left-leaning politicians who waste tax dollars, arrived in Ottawa to push for Torontoai??i??s ai???fair shareai??? of transit funding.

Montreal Mayor Denis Coderre sneered at Fordai??i??s decision to attend, saying it would create a ai???circusai??? atmosphere. But Robertson said Ford, who spoke publicly to reporters Wednesday about his boozing and crack-smoking past, was a welcome addition to the lobby group.

ai???Itai??i??s important to have Toronto at the table,ai??? he said. ai???Itai??i??s been a distraction for some outside the room, but between mayors weai??i??re very focused on our priorities on housing and transit.ai???

poneil@postmedia.com

Light Rail & Tram ridership

Have received the following statistics from an Aussie mate, who is resident in Europe.

1	St Petersburg: tram 476 mill pax p.a., 205 route km.	Ai??2	Budapest: tram 393 mill pax p.a., 156 route km.
3	Prague: tram 324 mill pax p.a., 141 route km.	Ai??4	Warsaw: tram 270 mill pax p.a., 120 route km.
5	Moscow: tram 251 mill pax p.a., 163 route km.	Ai??6	Hong Kong: tram and light rail 245 mill pax p.a.
7	Vienna: tram and light rail 240 mill pax p.a., 240 route km.	Ai??8	Zagreb: tram 214 mill pax p.a., 148 route km.
9	Zurich: tram 202 mill pax p.a., 126 route km.Ai??	10	Melbourne: tram 191 mill pax p.a., 250 route km.
11	Brno: tram 188 mill pax p.a., 139 route km.	Ai??12	Yekaterinburg: tram 180 mill pax p.a., 180 route km.
13	Berlin: tram 173 mill pax p.a., 192 route km.	Ai??14	Stuttgart: tram/light rail 170 mill pax p.a., 192 route km.
15	Dresden: tram 145 mill pax p.a., 134 route km.	Ai??16	Istanbul: tram 140 mill pax p.a. 22 route km
17	Gothenburg: tram 140 mill pax p.a., 144 route km.	Ai??18	Leipzig: tram 134 mill pax p.a., 148 route km.
19	Amsterdam: tram 130 mill pax p.a., 138 route km.	20	Bordeaux: 127 mill pax p.a.; 44 route km
21	Brussels: tram 124 mill pax p.a.; 139 route km	22	Paris: tram 114 mill pax p.a., 75 route km.
23	Strasbourg: 110 mill pax p.a.; 55 route km	24	Toronto: tram 105 mill pax p.a., 150 route km.
25	Munich: tram 104 mill pax p.a., 79 route km.	26	London: Docklands Light Railway 100 mill pax p.a. 400 route km
27	Montpellier: 100 mill pax p.a.; 63 route km	28	Nantes: 97 mill pax p.a.; 42 route km
29	Lyons: 91 mill pax p.a.; 78 route km	30	Marseilles: 33 mill pax p.a.; 12 route km
31	London:Ai?? [Croydon] Tramlink tram 34 mill pax p.a.; 28 route km;	32	Manchester: tram 32 mill pax p.a. 77 route km

5 light rail projects to watch this year

Which light rail Ai??projects should we be watching this year? Here are just 5 of the many projects developing around the world.

They are at different stages and may have different reasons you should keep an eye on them, for example, to find out who will land major contracts or what will happen when it comes to construction and land development.

http://tinyurl.com/nsy7vms

Total Rail – Investment & Development in Rail for operators, investors & developers

www.totalrail.org

Traffic Flows -What The Broadway Subway Boys & Girls Do No Want Us To Know

Mr. Havecow is a transit professional from Eastern Canada, who has studied our transit system and of course SkyTrain. His findings certainly point to the fact that the public have been inundated with porkies, big and small, from TransLink , The City of Vancouver, and other retread politicians and academics who are clinging to the SkyTrain subway dream. Until there is both honesty and clarity by TransLink and the city of Vancouver, we must assume that claims that would support a SkyTrain subway are dubious in the extreme.

“Remember, these big numbers for passenger flows that are being in my opinion, carelessly bandied about by people who want a subway are boardings not trips.”

Over to you Mr. Haveacow.

Many thanks to those whom answered my questions. Using the 2012 ridership for the bus routes that were provided to be by Translink then converting their boardings numbers into actually trips, as well as using the basic Logit Toronto B model for the calculation of flows and the CUTA Model for the calculation of various bits of info used in figuring out transit capacities, various job distributions and weightings, I came up with the following numbers about the Broadway Corridor.

Keeping in mind that, numbers from any mathematical model must be verified with on sight observations and the formula ranges adjusted and recalculated over a period of years to be considered fully true. Also that, I donai??i??t live in Vancouver so, observations and recalculations to match observed views has to be done by Translink, they have the staff and time, plus no one was paying me to do this for them so the week it took to crunch these numbers is my time lost (however anyone wishing to throw a donation my way should know that it will be gladly accepted by me and the bank that holds my mortgage).

The Broadway Corridor averages 56652-64153 trips per week day. The maximum daily trips number given with all of the variable inputs favoring transit was 75710 trips per day. Using the mean trips per day range, 27.8% of all trips in the corridor come from passengers transferring from surface routes. 65.2% of all trips are generated from transfers from either the Canada or Expo Rapid Transit Lines and roughly 7% comes from within the corridor.

Most likely because of the University, the PM peak period has a 2-10% greater travel flow than the AM flow. This is usually reversed for most North American cities. Remember that this is just for this corridor not the whole Vancouver Area so the normal transit trip distribution could still be true.

The distribution of trip origins and destinations is very muddled in this corridor due to the distribution of large trip generators like City Hall, Rapid Transit Lines, VCC, UBC, Vancouver General Hospital Campus (including the cancer centre), the density and distribution of commercial properties and the residential properties. Again I would like to thank Doug from Translink for his data sets in this regard.

Overall as was observed by Rico, a range of 28-42% of trip origins and destinations were west of Arbutus with a median value around 34.3% mainly due to the university campus. The information provided by Translink also showed that, the seat/standing room turnover rate peaks east of Arbutus, then sharply declines the closer you get to UBC. This means that the majority of pass ups by buses should peak the closer you get to UBC because fewer people are giving up their seat or standing room on the buses.

The data from Translink also showed an interesting thing about the functional capacity of the bus routes. I have argued before that anyone can with enough info, calculate the maximum capacity of a transit vehicle. Whatai??i??s really needed is how close does the service get to its capacity before the majority of passengers refuse to get on, look for other transport alternatives or delay their trip in some way to avoid peak travel times. I have been working on a model with primarily one other person that, given some standard imputs will predict this activity. What is shocking to me that income had very little effect on this as well as age. We seem to like are consistent travel patterns and are very reluctant to change them once we find something we are comfortable with. What is interesting about this corridor is that, on average once transit vehicle occupancy gets to about 75-83% of stated capacity, people traveling in this corridor start to find other choices. For an area like Vancouver that relative to other cities has an average range of 82-88% of capacity tolerance, which is high, this is very low level of crowding. It maybe due to the large amount of bags and packs that university students tend to have to carry on a daily basis but, that is a only a guess.

The amount of service in the peak periods varies in this corridor from 15 to 22 transit vehicles per hour per direction due mainly to the Trolley Bus network running buses on part of the corridor then going in other directions at various points. Due to that last fact the maximum passengers per hour per direction flow has a wide variance. As mentioned before the flows are slightly higher in the PM peak period (which is unusual) but still close. When transfers from other surface routes are considered the median range across the corridor varies from 1935-3705 trips per direction per hour. The maximum peaks were 4539 trips/hour/direction in the PM peak from Arbutus to Granville and 4705 between Main and Fraser during the PM peak hour. At no point did the flow exceed 5000 trips/hour/directions, on a standard work day. I thank all the people who helped me in this endeavor, there were many.

Oh yes, the flow diagrams showed that bunching of vehicles is quite common in this corridor which can give the impression of a greater number of vehicles in service than is actually true. Plus the nature of trolley buses being tied to their lines and having only a limited ability to by pass other vehicles contributes to the bunching. However, I have seen them move around smaller vehicles in heavy traffic in Vancouver as well as Edmonton and Toronto (when they had them). It all depends on operator confidence and pole length used.

Followed by this little nugget…….

One also must be careful about using future demand numbers as a reason for rail rapid transit. What my modelling showed was that the peak hour numbers are manageable by BRT or LRT lines and that a below grade light subway/metro is currently overkill. What needs to be addressed IMHO is the non peak crowding which can be handled by either more standard bus services or a conversion to a real BRT/LRT system on this corridor. Remember, these big numbers for passenger flows that are being in my opinion, carelessly bandied about by people who want a subway are boardings not trips. When you convert them into actual passenger trips the numbers become up to 40% smaller. I have seen people on this website and others claim that Broadway will garner up to 200,000 passenger trips a day by 2030, this is a ridiculous claim considering that, right now the entire system only gets 723,547 passenger trips a day (1,176,500 boardings a day). If Broadway currently accounts for less than 10% of the systems daily total then they are predicting a huge increase for the entire system by 2030. Now it is a busy corridor there is no denying it, but certainly not really ready for a very expensive below grade light subway/metro line. Even the Evergreen Line is only predicted to have 55194 boardings a day (17,000,000 a year) by 2021, thatai??i??s about 35,000 passenger trips a day. Considering the financial pressure both capital and operating expenses, that Translink is currently under, aAi?? 2-3 billion dollar line on a corridor that even when everything favors transit at most gets 75,000 passenger trips a day, but averages 56-64,000 a day is at best, not advisable at the moment. Perhaps a lower cost system like LRT or a real BRT line (not the current BRT lite system) is what is really needed in this corridor.

Tracks to the Cities

Light Rail for Liveable Cities

A UITP POSITION PAPER

http://www.uitp.org/sites/default/files/cck-focus-papers-files/01%20LIGHT%20RAIL%20FOR%20LIVEABLE%20CITIES.pdf

In countries where tramways had survived the massive closures of the 50ai??i??s and 60ai??i??s,

e.g. Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, many remaining systems have been modernised

and upgraded and may now be called ai???light rail systemsai???.

In many other countries, where tramways had disappeared from the streets,

completely new systems have been developed since the mid-70ai??i??s. This was the case

in North America, in the Asia-Pacific area and in a few European countries such as

the United Kingdom and France.

As a result, light rail systems can now be found on all continents. There are now over

400 light rail transit and tramway systems, in 50 countries. In addition, over 100 light

rail systems are being planned worldwide.

Economic Benefits for the Wellington Region

http://www.wellingtonlightrail.org.nz/index.php/economic-benefits

A successful city is one that works well for its citizens, businesses and visitors. That means having excellent public transport as the preferred means of getting into and across the central city. For the Wellington region, using light rail in the tram-train mode is the way to provide an integrated high quality public transport network.

Cities and regions that have adopted light rail have gained economic benefits. Typically, the international experience has been that following the introduction of light rail there was a significant positive economic impact on jobs and business revenues. In addition, efficient public transportation is a recognised method of improving productivity and enhancing access to employment opportunities.

Modern light rail systems now operate in hundreds of cities worldwide and have generally proved to be a catalyst for improving local public transport networks. Light rail has proven that it can encourage development growth in areas better serviced by public transport and compliment land use and tourism policies.

For this reason, internationally, it is often the business community that is at the forefront of encouraging the adoption of light rail. Overseas experience indicates that properties that benefit from improved access because of proximity to a light rail system increase in value.

Positive benefit-cost ratio to adopting Light Rail

The major impediment to adopting light rail is the initial capital investment butAi?? if Wellington were to adopt light rail there would be a positive benefitai??i??cost ratio. The principal economic returns from adopting light rail would be:

• Reduced congestions costs. Road congestion now imposes huge costs. These costs are faced by motorists directly but also by taxpayers who bear the cost of funding ever more roading infrastructure.Ai?? By relieving congestion pressures and eliminating the need for roading projects, such as the Basin Reserve Flyover, light rail would effectively fund itself!

• Maximising the effectiveness of the existing rail network. Tram-trains would allow the full potential of the investment already made in the suburban rail network to be realised. This investment amounts to many hundreds of millions of dollars. The electrification and double tracking to Waikanae and the new Matangi Units would be even more valuable if greater rail use were encouraged by extending the reach of the rail network through tram-trains.

• Reduced numbers of buses. Typically, a light rail is the equivalent of 4-5 buses

Light Rail Transit in Hamilton: Health, Environmental and Economic Impact Analysis

http://www.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/62464D50-B62B-49A7-974B-71679B69FC06/0/RR2E_A7_HealthEnvironandEconImpactAnalysis.pdf

Hamiltonai??i??s historical roots as an electric, industrial and transportation-oriented city provide it with a high potential for rapid transit, especially when combined with its growing population, developing economy, redeveloping downtown core and its plans for sustainable growth. This paper explores the health, environmental, social and economic impacts of light rail transit, a component of the City of Hamiltonai??i??s rapid transit initiative. It performs a comparative analysis with other major North American cities that have successfully implemented this form of mass transit. The analysis concentrates on three main areas: urban development and land values, health and environmental impact and socioeconomic factors. The results of the research on light rail transit (LRT) and its possible benefits indicate overwhelming support for the economic, health, environmental and social benefits of LRT, especially when compared to other forms of transit, including rapid bus and local transit schemes. According to the results, LRT in a medium sized, growing city such as Hamilton should be considered a viable and desirable transit option; a catalyst for transit oriented, high density, mixed use development; an economically sound investment opportunity, providing a return on investment to property owners, businesses and the municipality; and a catalyst for social change, improving the health, environment and connectivity of the community.

Light rail achieves local and national objectives

http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/files/Light-rail-inquiry-Oct09.pdf

In Delivering A Sustainable Transport System, the Department for Transport explains that it aims to be modally neutral and to encourage policy which focuses on achieving the Governmentai??i??s objectives; supporting economic growth; tackling climate change; contributing to better safety, security and health, promoting equality of opportunity and improving quality of life. It is clear that light rail could play a vital role in achieving these objectives, for the following reasons:

ai??? Trams improve the image of a city and contribute to economic regeneration.Ai??A new tram is a visible, permanent way of showing that an area is being invested in for the future. It attracts businesses and tourists, and helps people access jobs and services. When KPMG was advising GMPTE on the Greater Manchester funding package, they ranked schemes against regeneration and jobs, and on this basis high density public transport such as Metrolink extensions came out best

ai??? Trams reduce congestion in city centres by providing people with a quick, reliable, high-quality alternative to the car. They can reduce road traffic by up to 14%

ai??? Trams help tackle climate change. Travelling by tram produces only a third of the CO2 produced from travelling by car

ai??? Trams improve local air quality because they run on electricity so donai??i??t produce any pollution at the point of use. They are very safe and quiet, and they make cities nicer places to be

ai??? Trams are very popular and encourage people to leave their cars behind. The number of people using trams has increased by 52% since 1999. On average, one in five peak hour passengers on UK trams previously travelled by car. At the weekends, half of the tram passengers used to travel by car. At least 22 million car journeys a year no longer occur in the UK because of trams. This means that trams are an effective way of cutting carbon emissions and congestion

Subway cost per mile nearly 9 times higher than for light rail, says study

Recent study results of subway-LRT investment costs posted on the Light Rail Now (LRN) site provide a sobering reality check on the cost issue.

http://austinrailnow.wordpress.com/2014/02/15/subway-cost-per-mile-nearly-9-times-higher-than-for-light-rail-says-study/

Projects examined were an assortment of “recent urban rail projects (all from the 2000s), either completed or well under construction and fully budgeted.” The report lists 24 subway and 13 LRT projects included in the analysis (in the USA and worldwide).
LRN’s study found median investment cost to be nearly 9 times higher for subway construction projects than for in-street LRT.

“Basically, for a given amount of available funding, you can construct 7 to 9 times as much surface LRT as subway. Put another way: For available resources, you can have a far more comprehensive
rail system with surface LRT, many times the size of a system relying on subway construction.”

For years, Austinai??i??s civic leaders and official urban rail planners have been trying to figure out how to raise more than $500 million in local and federal funding for a new-start surface urban rail project ai??i?? 5-6 miles of light rail transit (LRT) running in relatively lower-cost surface alignments. Suddenly, at least some official interest has turned to ai??i??.building a subway instead?

This seems to be influenced mainly by two factors:

ai??? An aversion or reluctance to shift urban public thoroughfare space away from apparently precious motor vehicle traffic and re-allocate it to public transit (rail in this case), and

ai??? Insistent claims by several subway proponents (disputed by professionals and advocates of LRT) that subway construction costs are nearly the same as, or only slightly more than, surface LRT.

Projects examined were an assortment of ai???recent urban rail projects (all from the 2000s), either completed or well under construction and fully budgeted.ai??? The report lists 24 subway and 13 LRT projects included in the analysis.

ai??? Only ai???full subway projects (entirely or nearly totally underground)ai??? were examined in the study, including subway portions of LRT projects.

ai??? Only surface LRT projects exclusively, or nearly totally, in street alignments were included (ai???to compare the most difficult, highest-cost type of surface construction with subway constructionai???).

Summarizing the study results, LRN underscores the huge cost disparity between subway and in-street LRT construction, and the implications for a long-term rail expansion policy:

ai??i??for recent U.S. projects, subway construction has a median cost nearly seven times that of in-street LRT construction. Worldwide, the differential is nearly 9:1. And thats only comparing in-street LRT construction, not accounting for the possibility of, say, transitioning into an available railway alignment outside the city center, with far lower installation cost.

What this means is that, even if your community can somehow afford the initial financial commitment (even with federal assistance), expansion of your system will be severely attenuated. Basically, for a given amount of available funding, you can construct 7 to 9 times as much surface LRT as subway. Put another way: For available resources, you can have a far more comprehensive rail system with surface LRT, many times the size of a system relying on subway construction.

The Affordable Tram, a Template for Surrey?

A few posts back, Zwei looked at the affordable tram for Vancouver connecting UBC with BCIT, so now let us see how the affordable streetcar would do in Surrey.

What should be of extreme interest is the low cost for the proposed Dundee tram compared to the sky high costs for light rail from TransLink!

The example of the 13.5 km Portland streetcar is of great interest as the costs break down as thus:

• Rail, electrical and street workAi?? …….. USD$35.1m – CAD$38.94m
• Maintenance facility …………………… USD$4m – CAD$4.43
• Trams (5 +s pares) ……………………… USD$11.3m – CAD$12.53
• Utility works (only in swept path) …. USD$3.8m – CAD$4.21
• MiscellaneousAi?? ………………………….. USD$0.4m – CAD$0.44

Total………………………………………………….USD$54.6m – CAD$60.5(approximate)

LR Dundee Circulator Dec 13 v 28 (2)

If we look at a 28.5Ai?? km Surrey Centre to Guilford and to the Number 1 Hwy; Surrey Centre to Newton; and Surrey Centre to Langley Centre, tram or streetcar, we could build an economy tram/streetcar line far cheaper than what TransLink proposes. As with all transit projects, the simpler the better.

The following are adjusted costs for an economy LRT operation from Surrey Centre to Guilford and to the Number 1 Hwy; Surrey Centre to Newton; and Surrey Centre to Langley Centre. Total distance for the three lines 28.5 km.

Unlike Vancouver, there is no existing infrastructure from former streetcar service and would be ‘greenfields’ construction, which means more expensive. Median operation on all routes, with a major viaduct (shared with road traffic?) over the Langley By-Pass and the Superport Railway

Signalling: Line of sight, except for for a block signal system from 164th to 188th Streets.

Start up capacity: 5 minute headways (12 trips per hour) – approx. 3,000 pphpd. Capacity can be increased by adding by using longer trams or adding more trams.

• Rail, electrical and street work: Approximately CAD$450m
• Maintenance facility (2): Approximately $35million, based on fleet size.
• Trams: 35 modular trams and spares with a design capacity of 250 persons: Appropriately $150m
• Utility works (only in swept path): $30m
• Bridge or combined overpass $75 million
• Miscellaneous: $110m

Total cost ………………………………………………………… CAD$850 million.

Not only is $850 million for the economy LRT far cheaper than what TransLink proposes ($2.1 billion), there is enough money from the Surrey LRT budget left over to build the ‘full build’ Rail for the Valley/Leewood TramTrain, enabling direct service from the Surrey light rail network to go to downtown Vancouver and or Abbotsford and Chilliwack, still at a cheaper cost than what Translink proposes for three LRT lines in Surrey!

LRT South of the Fraser

A pleasant surprise in the Delta Optimist, Zwei’s home town paper, a light rail friendly article. Though I hate the term Light Rapid Transit, because I believe it is used deliberately to misinform people.

The comment by Delta-Richmond East MP Kerry-Lynne Findlay, the minister of national revenue; “the fund is aimed at projects that have regional as well as national significance, and in many cases would encourage greater involvement of the private sector through P3 partnerships.” is interesting as it could mean the Leewood/RftV TramTrain from Vancouver to Chilliwack could get federal support as it certainly have regional significance and the project could be very P-3 friendly, especially when the Southern Railway of BC will have to be very closely consulted with for the project.

What is important is that LRT is now included in the lexicon of South Fraser politics and politicians and that is a very big leap forward.

 

http://tinyurl.com/mpkvuue
“Light rapid transit not just a dreamMunicipal officials see a future that includes light rail

Sandor Gyarmati
Delta Optimist February 14, 2014

Light rapid transit to Delta remains nothing more than wishful thinking, but that doesn’t mean federal money won’t eventually be made available for such a project.

The Conservative government this week tabled its latest federal budget, which contains some specific transportation infrastructure projects, works mainly earmarked for Eastern Canada.

A bigger pot of money for transportation infrastructure was announced a year ago, however that funding requires agreements and further details.

It’s all part of the Economic Action Plan 2013, which pledges major dollars for public transportation infrastructure, including the $53 billion New Building Canada Plan.

That plan would see the building of roads, bridges, subways, commuter rail and other public infrastructure in cooperation with provinces, territories and municipalities over 10 years.

Delta-Richmond East MP Kerry-Lynne Findlay, the minister of national revenue, told the Optimist the fund is aimed at projects that have regional as well as national significance, and in many cases would encourage greater involvement of the private sector through P3 partnerships.

Surrey has sought federal funding for light rapid transit, but it’s competing with Vancouver’s bid for a subway along the Broadway corridor. Both projects would cost billions.

Another project that could end up competing for the same dollars is the bridge to replace the George Massey Tunnel.

Should ground-level rail transportation come to Surrey, it wouldn’t be a stretch to have a connection into North Delta.

Delta engineering director Stephen Lan said during the North Delta Area Plan process the future of Scott Road was examined.

A cross-section was identified that could provide sufficient width for a rapid transit lane, possibly light rail.

A vocal advocate for light rail south of the Fraser River, Coun. Bruce McDonald believes extending it from Surrey to North Delta makes sense.

As far as bringing light rail into South Delta, McDonald said that’s also feasible. It’s also something that will make even more sense as many more people will live and work south of the Fraser.

“Surrey is talking about running a light rail transit right out the King George Boulevard, so we’re not talking about long distances here. Let’s talk about how we could connect.

“The bottom line is once you get the spine put in place, then you work on getting the ribs,” he said. “South Delta would likely be one of the ribs.”

McDonald said it also makes sense to also have light rapid transit added to the future George Massey Tunnel replacement bridge, where it would stop in Ladner with connections elsewhere.