Posted by zweisystem on September 4, 2013 · 1 Comment
Gordon Price has entered the TransLink fray and with gusto, blaming Jordan Bate of having the audacity to ask for “none of the above” on the ballot in the upcoming election. Without a “none of the above” on the ballot means the much ballyhooed TransLink referendum would be nothing more than a wet squib, in effect asking the voter, “death by hanging” or “death by firing squad“.’ the referendum would mean absolutely nothing. A “none of the above” would give the electorate real power in sending TransLink, Metro Vancouver, and the provincial government a real message, if it proved to be in the majority.
One has to remember that Gordon Price was a former Vancouver city Councillor and is now Simon Fraser University professor and he is protecting his turf, for if “none of the above” were to be on the ballot and if the majority voted for “none of the above“, it would change how transit is planned in the region or put another way, his past support for Vancouver centric transit planning would come into question as well as his vision for transit in metro region in the future. A “none of the above” vote my shuffle Price and SFU right out of the regional planning picture.
One can sense the fear and loathing by the TransLink and SkyTrain Lobbies and if they seem to be scared stiff of the “none of the above” option, which makes it a very good option for the public.
A none of the above vote could spell the end of the line
for expensive SkyTrain light-metro planning.
The Bateman Strategy: Killing TransLink and the regional vision
Surrey North Delta Leader
Published: August 29, 2013
By Gordon Price
Not that I want to publicize Jordan Bateman (the local spokesman for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation) even more, since the media do enough of that already (and letai??i??s face it, I get my fair share of coverage too) ai??i?? but in the absence of leadership from local leaders, his strategy regarding the transit referendum may well prevail.
And what strategy is that?Ai?? Why, getting people to vote against their self-interest in order to effectively disable TransLink ai??i?? and with it, the regional vision we have pursued for decades with considerable success.
Not, of course, that Metro citizens will intend to vote against more transit or a more sustainable region.Ai?? But thanks to Jordanai??i??s strategy, thatai??i??s what will happen.
Hereai??i??s how the strategy works.
1. First, discredit government ai??i?? in this case, TransLink, and the collective goods we pay for with taxes.Ai?? Ignore the larger purpose of the organization and concentrate on the ai???bureaucratsai??i??, whom you can dismiss contemptuously.
2. To do that, use small examples, real or manufactured, to tar the entire organization.Ai?? Whether free coffee for staff, bonuses for executives, teething problems for Compass Cards, policing costs (or not enough policing), the installation of fare gates (or not installing fare gates), it doesnai??i??t matter what the examples are ai??i?? so long as there is a steady beat of criticism, amplified for and by the media.
3. Maintain that any new programs can be paid for by eliminating ai???waste, fraud and abuse.ai??i??Ai?? Never give credit for any instances where that actually occurs.Ai?? TransLink has already had three performance reviews and an audit, it has already saved millions in ai???efficienciesai??i?? (often a euphemism for cuts) ai??i?? but never mind.Ai?? Always maintain that spending is ai???out of control.ai??i??
4. Establish the bottom line as ai???No More Taxes.ai??i??Ai?? Do not ever get into a debate about the value and merit of what those taxes purchase.Ai?? Simply repeat, and repeat: NMT.
5. Suggest that voters can ai???send TransLink a messageai??i?? by voting for ai???none of the aboveai??i?? on the transit-funding referendum.Ai?? It matters not that eliminating the entire administration of TransLink (about 4 percent of its budget) would barely pay for a few more bus routes, much less a multi-billion-dollar rapid-transit line.Ai?? Insist that cutting salaries and perks is a necessary condition (though never sufficient) before discussing new revenues.Ai?? At that point, simply assert that weai??i??re taxed out, even if weai??i??re paying less taxes or getting new services.
By aggressively attacking the organization so that those in favour of a new tax will have to defend it before they can argue in favour of its funding, you disarm the proponents before they even begin a ai??i??yesai??i?? campaign.
Meanwhile, time is running out ai??i?? 442 days left til Nov 15 (though itai??i??s possible that the referendum might be held in May or June) ai??i?? and we havenai??i??t even got the wording yet, much less leadership for a yes vote.
One wonders whether the CTF was instrumental in convincing the Premier to go with the referendum idea during the election since it gives them an ideal platform to pursue their agenda.Ai?? Better yet, blame for a No vote can be put on local politicians for their inability to convince the electorate.Ai?? And the subsequent cutbacks on local transit services as other sources of revenue decline thereby justify another round of criticism of TransLink.
It just doesnai??i??t get any better than that.
Posted by zweisystem on September 3, 2013 · 1 Comment
Eric Chris, sent the following to all local newspapers and municipal governments. It seems, TransLink and our regional transit planners may have it all wrong.
To view the study in its entirety, please click on the link below.
Transit in Metro Vancouver, Canada recently won the gold award from APTA (American Public Transportation Association) for environmental sustainability in North America.Ai?? Unfortunately, weai??i??ve reached the point where not having transit is more environmentally sustainable than having transit.Ai??Ai?? Too bad APTA doesnai??i??t give out awards to drivers for sustainable commuting.
Attached are calculations showing that not having transit in Metro Vancouver would most certainly not increase road congestion and would most definitely not result in increased air pollution or carbon emissions.Ai?? These calculations have been verified by third party professional engineers.Ai??
They have been received by the engineering association in the province of British Columbia, Canada (APEGBC) and are not in dispute.Ai??Ai?? If driving is more sustainable than transit in Metro Vancouver, driving also has to be more sustainable than transit in other cities which did not win the award for sustainability in North America.
Transit Paradox
Transit moving people who donai??i??t drive and who really depend upon transit to go about their daily lives in their immediate community provides a valuable public service, and I truly do support it.Ai?? Transit intended to lure drivers onto transit to increase ridership without any regard for its social and environmental effects does society a disservice and is counter productive.
Fast transit such as the 99 B-Line (rapid bus) and the Expo SkyTrain line intended to put drivers onto transit in Metro Vancouver makes road congestion and air pollution worse.Ai?? Research shows that creating more road space increases driving.Ai?? This same research shows that putting drivers onto transit does the same thing.Ai??
In other words, transit frees up road space to attract new drivers or makes existing drivers, drive more (U of T, 2009).Ai?? This paradox has foiled attempts by politicians hoping to use transit to reduce road congestion.Ai?? Fast transit only increases transit costs and income taxes.
Marchetti Effect
Fast transit allows people to live farther from their work, school or destination.Ai?? It subsidizes the cost of living of people moving to the suburbs to raise a family in a spacious home – for them to ride transit long distances from their home.Ai?? It also results in urban sprawl creating more demand for roads, water mainsai??i??. power lines.Ai??
Ambitious individuals seeking personal gain are using transit as the catalyst for the development bonanza arising from the urban sprawl along major transit-trunk lines concentrating transit users along a few major transit corridors but taxpayers end up paying increased personal taxes for the new billion dollar transit lines, in particular, to make it happen.Ai?? It is interesting to note that the fast transit catering to the urban sprawl is not decreasing the requirement for roads and is in effect the impetus for new roads to the many distant developments having garages for the vast majority of people who will not use transit.Ai??
This in fact leads to increased driving as drivers making up the majority of residents in the new developments have to travel farther from the distant developments to the city center or elsewhere.Ai?? Urban sprawl induced through the increase in travel speed is explained by the Marchetti effect:
ai???Marchetti showed that Berlinai??i??s expanse grew according to a simple rule of thumb: the distance reachable by current technologies in thirty minutes or less. As travel speeds increased, so too did the distance traversable and the size of the city.ai???Ai??Ai??Ai??
All in all, transit to make developers money or to subsidize the cost of living of individuals isnai??i??t the goal of transit.Ai?? Perhaps a story on how transit no longer reduces road congestion, improves air quality or reduces carbon emissions might be enlightening to your readers and politicians funding transit under the mistaken notion that it benefits society to put drivers onto transit.
Fast transit expands the city.Ai?? When transit users with cars arenai??i??t taking transit, they are driving greater distances and more often.Ai?? TransLink formed in 1999 in Metro Vancouver is a botched attempt to solve road congestion with transit.Ai?? Fast transit by TransLink has worsened road congestion and air pollution.
After only five years of fast transit by TransLink, trips by drivers exploded to 62% from 57%, an increase of 150,000 drivers.Ai?? TransLink operating transit in Metro Vancouver and in a desperate panic offered late night transit until 3:30 am to UBC, for example, and handed out cheap bus passes (presently $30 monthly cost for unlimited travel by university students compared with $170 monthly cost for unlimited travel by other transit users) to university students to offset the increase in trips by drivers.Ai??
This reduced the percentage of trips by drivers to what it was before fast transit but did not take the cars off the roads.Ai?? In Metro Vancouver, demand for transit is saturated and more fast transit such as sky train or rapid bus transit isnai??i??t going to change the percentage of trips by drivers to any extent.
Regards,
Eric Chris, PE
 |
Ai??Ai?? |
Posted by zweisystem on September 1, 2013 · Leave a Comment
Easy and simple to understand, then why doesn’t TransLink get it? Forget about B-Line buses, which only exacerbates TransLink’s financial woes and build with LRT, replacing heavily used bus services with affordable and efficient light rail.
Despite of cries of doom and gloom about light rail construction, the new First Hill streetcar line in Seattle causes minimal traffic disruption during construction.
Posted by zweisystem on August 30, 2013 · 13 Comments
Debunking the SkyTrain myth. Rail for the Valley answers the UBC SkyTrain Lobby!
With updates.
First posted by zweisystem on Thursday, April 23, 2009
It was brought to Zweisystemai??i??s attention yesterday that a blog site was established by the UBC SkyTrain Lobby, critiquing modern LRT.Ai?? Zweisystem responded,Ai?? posting corrections for the many myths, half truths and anti-LRT claptrap so often used by the SkyTrain lobby. The SkyTrain folks removed the comments from said blog and by doing so, fully admit that they are afraid of the truth. Zweisystem is not surprised as this is exactly how the SkyTrain lobby operates: repeat a lie so often that it soon becomes a fact. What is lost in the LRT/SkyTrain debate is that LRT has made SkyTrain light-metro obsolete decades ago,Ai??Ai??something theAi??Ai??SkyTrain lobby fails to admit.
Why should Rail for the Valley supporters be concerned with a UBC SkyTrain? Simple, the $4 billion subway (RAV was to cost a mere $1.3 billion and now itai??i??s direct costAi??Ai??may exceed $2.8 billion) will suck money away from all ai???railai??i?? projects for the Fraser Valley by spending hard earned tax dollars on another needless gold-plated rapid transit project for Vancouver. We must debunk the SkyTrain myth now.
There is no mention who the UBC SkyTrain lobby are and one wonders why they are so afraid of debate?
(Update – The Broadway SkyTrain Lobby is non other than TransLink, The Vision Vancouver political group, the NDP including Adrian Dix and Geoff Meggs, and the City of Vancouver Engineering Department.)
The following is the website of the UBC SkyTrain lobby.
http://ubcskytrain.wordpress.com/22points/
The following is the 22 myths comment, with Zweisystemai??i??s comments in Italics.
Debunking Myths: Our 22 Points
Twenty-two points created by our organization, debunking myths and inaccuracies:
==============
TIME IS MONEY
==============
LRT SUPPORTERS:
It’s okay to have longer travel times (which is what ground-level LRT will bring) in exchange for a community-friendly systemA?.
Zweisystem responds: What is lost, is that a community friendly transit system attracts ridership, something that an unfriendly transit system does not do. Subways are very user unfriendly. Speed of a transit system itself doesnai??i??t attract ridership (Hass Clau) but the time of the total commute (doorstep to doorstep), the overall ambiance and ease of use of a transit system that has proven to attract ridership, especially the motorist from the car.
FACT:
(1) SkyTrain will have 2-3 times more capacity and more than twice the speed of an ground level LRT line due to its private right-of-way. Speed is an important factor for the daily commuter, as shown by bus ridership statistics for the Broadway corridor: 99 B-Line (60,000 passengers per day); other Broadway bus routes (40,000 per-day) = total Broadway bus ridership is 100,000 passengers per day.
There is a reason why a large majority of Broadway transit commuters take the 99 B-Line: speed and convenience. The 99 B-Line is a rapid bus service, and it is at capacity in terms of the number of buses that can be put into service (according to TransLink, over 120 articulated buses were dedicated to the 99 B-Line in 2006; 10% of the entire TransLink bus fleet). Counting the 99 B-Line’s 60,000 daily riders alone, that is more than the ridership of Toronto’s streetcar lines.
Zweisystem responds: SkyTrain does not have 2 to 3 times more capacity than LRT as SkyTrainai??i??s potential capacity is about the same as modern light rail (Gerald Fox). This myth was created by the discredited Delcan and ND Lea studies of the early 90ai???s, whichAi??Ai??arbitrarily claimed that SkyTrain had more capacity than LRT, without any study backing this assertion. Modern LRT/tram, operating on-street/at-grade, can handle over 20,000 persons per hour per direction (LRTA).
The claim that the B-Line carries more than Torontoai??i??s streetcars is pure bunkum. Maybe on a route by route basis, the Broadway buses carry more riders than on some streetcar lines, but not the network!
(Update – the main tram line on Kiaserstrasse in Karlsruhe Germany was seeing 40 second headways with coupled sets of trams during peak hours. This gave a peak hour ridership of between 35,000 to 40,000 persons per hour per direction.)
(2) The 12-km SkyTrain extension from VCC/Clarke Station to UBC via the Broadway corridor will take between 15-20-minutes travel time from terminus to terminus. Stations will be located at Finning, Main/Kingsway, Cambie (vital interchange station with Canada Line), Oak (hospital precinct), Granville, Arbutus, Macdonald, Alma, Sasamat/West Point Grey Village, and UBC transit interchange. All of these stations parallel the existing 99 B-Line service. A SkyTrain would be mainly tunneled, and with its own private right-of-way would be allowed to reach speeds of 80 km/h.
A ground-level LRT line would begin from Commercial/Broadway Station, and would take a travel time of between 30-45-minutes from terminus to terminus. It would have the same stations as the above mentioned SkyTrain with an additional four to six stations. Its higher travel time, on par with the existing 99 B-Line bus service, is a result of the line running through city streets instead of its own private right-of-way; as it runs in city streets, it must abide local traffic laws and speed limit of 50 kms/h. This will no doubt affect the extension’s reliability as a real alternative to the car: peak-hour traffic, road congestion, traffic accidents, etc.
In addition, commuters will be given a one-train ride with SkyTrain: no transfer will be needed, saving significant time. It also offers higher train frequencies and flexible schedule adjustments. On the contrary, LRT tends to have less frequent schedules due to the expense of having drivers and it would require a time-costly transfer from the region’s main transit network: SkyTrain (as it would simply be an extension of the Millennium Line). Such a pointless transfer would also affect ridership.
Zweisystem responds: A light rail/tram line operating on a reserved rights-of-way, with equal number of stops, would have travel times comparable to a SkyTrain light-metro. In Germany, trams operating in mixed traffic (with autos)Ai??Ai??are allowed to travel 10 kph faster than posted auto speeds and if tram/LRT operates on a reserved rights-way (a rights-of-way used exclusively for a tram), could operate at higher speeds quite safely. The authors of the blog conveniently forget that a transfer would have to be made to the proposed UBC SkyTrain from the Expo Line, thus the transfer argument is moot.
One, also questions the validity of recent light rail studies and asks, ai???were they done by qualified experts in LRTai???. To date not one company with a proven expertise in the construction and operation of modern light rail have ever been allowed into the study process. It is also important to know that the various owners of the proprietary SkyTrain light-metro system have never allowed it to compete against modern LRT!
(3) SkyTrain is the region’s main transit network. Such a network should be high in speed, capacity, reliability, and frequency. Metro Vancouver axed a highway expansion plan in the 1970’s in favour of building a competent transit network: we must build a competent transit backbone that makes up for our lack in road capacity.
Zweisystem responds: Many cities around the world happily operate metro with light rail and the argument is again silly. What is not mentioned is that SkyTrain is a proprietary light metro, a mode long made obsolete by modern light rail. Building with SkyTrain today, is like trying to buy a new Edsel, because ai???I already have oneai???. Who buys SkyTrain?
(Update – The authors seem to conveniently forget that the Canada Line is not SkyTrain and is incompatible in operation with the rest of the SkyTrain mini-metro network.)
(4) For such a costly expense, ground-level LRT will be a minor upgrade from the existing 99 B-Line bus service. The 99 B-Line is overflowing with riders, it needs something far greater than that to take its place. LRT is a short-term solution and will simply be a 99 B-Line with steel wheelsA?. On the other hand, SkyTrain will provide a long-term solution for the corridor’s transit needs.
Zweisystem responds: Light Rail will be more expensive to build than upgrading the B-Line service, about 30% more, but it would be much cheaper to operate than buses. One modern light Rail vehicle, with one driver is as efficient as 6 to 8 busses, with 6 to 8 bus drivers and one needs to hireAi??Ai??three or more people per bus or tram to drive, maintain and manage them. Do the math, cities that operate LRT have done so. Ai??Ai??Even operating in mixed traffic, with no reserved rights-of-ways or signal priority, modern trams are about 10% faster than buses. SkyTrain on the other hand, costs a lot more to operate, almost twice as much as Calgaryai??i??s LRT C-Train, which also carries more customers daily! The higher operating costs of SkyTrain and other proprietary light-metros were well understood by the early 1990ai???s and helped in the demise of the mode.
(5) Frequent trolley service will still exist, given the importance of local service along the Broadway corridor. It will complement the SkyTrain service.
Zweisystem responds: Why, after spending up to $4 billion on a subway, would TransLink want to operate trolley buses as well, driving up operating costs of the route; even on Cambie St., the electric trolley buses are now replaced by diesel buses. Modern LRT is built because it is cheaper to operate than buses on a transit route, when ridership exceeds 2,000 pphpd. With LRT operating on-street, with stops every 500 to 600 metres, there would be no need for buses on Broadway.
(6) A 2000 study by the City of Vancouver concluded that an LRT line, with 16 stations from Commercial to UBC along the Broadway corridor, would rake in 140,000 daily riders. However, a SkyTrain extension from VCC/Clarke to Arbutus combined with a rapid bus service from Arbutus to UBC would bring in 150,000 daily riders.
(Update – the author has mistakenly used ‘boardings” as riders, most riders make two or more boardings a day. 150,000 riders is actually 150,000 boardings, which translates to less than 75,000 actual riders using Broadway a day.)
Zweisystem responds: Based on what figures? Subways are notoriously poor in attracting new ridership and that, combined with high operating and maintenance costs, subways are avoided, unless traffic flows are over 500,000 passengers a day. It was predicted in 1980, that SkyTrain would be carrying over 20,000 pphpd, in the peak hour, by the year 2000; presently it is carrying half this number.
Note that the study was completed before the U-Pass was implemented, before record high gas prices, and before the green shift took priority. Following the 2002 implementation of the U-Pass, transit ridership at UBC increased significantly: in 2002 daily ridership was at 29,700 but by 2004 it was 50,000; a 68% increase in ridership in just two years because of the U-Pass! Transit ridership still increased significantly in the years after.
Zweisystem responds: Funny how a bus route, Broadway, operating at capacity can attract 68% more customers. The argument is moot because a LRT line could easily handle 250,000 or more passengers a day.
The study also does not account for the improved transit services since, especially the new Canada Line that will be opening in September 2009.
Taking account that the study was completed nearly ten years ago, and with all the changes to the region since then, ridership for a SkyTrain extension to UBC could rake in more than 200,000 passengers per day.
(Update – As per before, 200,000 BOARDINGS = less than 100,000 riders a day.)
For comparison’s sake, the Expo Line (29-kms) currently has a daily ridership of 185,000; Millennium Line (20-kms) at 75,000; and the projected daily ridership for the Canada Line (19-kms) and Evergreen Line (11-kms) is at 100,000 and 80,000.
Zweisystem responds: SkyTrain, unlike other transit systems around the world, has never had an independent audit of ridership, so the figures presented are questionable; that being said TransLink admits that 80% of SkyTrainai??i??s ridership first take a bus to the light metro and as buses are poor in attracting new ridership, one questions this 200,000 a day figure. But again the argument is moot, because LRT can easily handle such loads!
As there is no independent audit of SkyTrainai??i??s ridership, the numbers are questionable, also Expo Line riders are double counted on the Millennium Line and visa versa. Ridership projections for the Evergreen line and RAV Canada line are speculative at best.
====================================
ROUTE AND CONSTRUCTION METHODOLOGY: LRT
====================================
LRT SUPPORTERS:
Building light rail is fast and painless, unlike building SkyTrain; light rail won’t require digging up the road, while SkyTrain will. Businesses will not be affected. With light rail, parking spaces will not be lost both during the construction process and after construction is complete. LRT can be built on West 4th Avenue, instead of Broadway. LRT will not require tunneling. LRT will cost only a fraction of what SkyTrain would cost.
FACT:
(7) If light rail were the chosen technology for the extension, a trunk sewer underneath Broadway will require a costly removal and relocation. Thus, it will require digging up the entire street, like a large trench, and will be time consumingA?ai??i??Ai??
Zweisystem responds: The sewer trunk is built in the gutter lane, why? Because the old streetcars operated in the median lanes! The argument is thus lost.
(8) In addition to removing the Broadway trunk sewer, ground level light rail construction will require the closure of several lanes and all on-street parking lanes. Traffic will be reduced to two-lanes, similarly to Cambie Canada Line construction.
Zweisystem responds: Modern LRT construction would require street closures on a block by block basis and only for a short period of time, no different when the city tears up roads for utility maintenance.
(9) All in all, with light rail Broadway merchants will still be significantly affected by construction for about 2 years. In comparison, most of Cambie has been closed for about the same period for Canada Line construction. Light rail construction is far painless as claimed. It should also be noted that the construction timeline for an LRT line in the middle of a road should not be confused with the construction timeline for an LRT or streetcar line with its already existing private right-of-way.
Zweisystem responds: More fear mongering as Broadway would be closed on a block by block basis as track laying progressed. Street construction would be completed in about one years time or less.
(10) As Broadway is a narrow street, a ground-level light rail system would result in the permanent removal of the majority of the on-street parking spaces that Broadway merchants hold onto so dearly. Nearly all of Broadway will also be reduced to a two-lane road (one lane in each direction) due to the massive amount of spacing needed for ground level light-rail; a major east-west road artery in the city will be abolished.
Zweisystem responds: Such nonsense, there will no loss of on-street parking, unless the city of Vancouver wishes it, what will happen is that one traffic lane, in each direction, will have capacity increased from a bout 1,600 pphpd to over 20,000 pphpd, with LRT.Ai?? Traffic on Broadway will be reduced by 1 lane in each direction; this is known as traffic calming.
(11) Any mass transit extension would need to be located along the Broadway corridor. West 4th Avenue would not work as it would skip the main employment hubs along Broadway, thus reducing potential ridership significantly.
The Broadway corridor catches 16th Avenue to 4th Avenue; more people live along the upper corridor rather than 4th Avenue
Zweisystem responds: What is ai???mass transitai???? We are dealing with light-rail and light metro and there are pros and cons about each mode. For the cost of a SkyTrain subway to UBC, one could build a 4th Ave. LRT; a Broadway LRT; 41st Ave. LRT, for a combined capacity of over 60,000 pphpd, plus at least 2 North south LRT lines in Vancouver.
(12) LRT would likely require significant tunneling due to the steep grades on the hill west of Alma Street. LRT trains will be unable to climb the hill on such a steep slope.
Zweisystem responds: Not true. The industry standard for LRT climbing grades is 8%; in Sheffield England the maximum grade is 10% and in Lisbon, their trams climb 13.8% grades. The old streetcars climbed the Alma grades and modern LRT can do the same as well.
(13) It is a myth that $2.8-billion could build you 200-kms of light rail. Such a claim would likely mean the routes for these 200-kms of light rail lines already have pre-existing rail right-of-ways: we know that certainly does not exist in Vancouver, especially not for the Broadway mass transit extension.
Zweisystem responds: In Spain, new LRT is being built for under $8 million/km. and in Helsinki, on-street tram construction, including the electrical overhead was about $5 million/km. The $2.8 billion for 200 km. of LRT is very realistic. What the SkyTrain lobby is scared of is that $2.8 billion will buy you less than 28 km. of elevated SkyTrain or less than 9 km. of subway.
Proponents also falsely advocate this claim by cherry-pickingA? the best features of LRT, all of which come with a high price. The real cost of 200-kms of real LRT in the region would likely be at least $12-billion.
Zweisystem responds: More invention and uninformed assertions, showing a complete ignorance of modern light rail.
=======================================
ROUTE AND CONSTRUCTION METHODOLOGY: SkyTrain
=====================================
LRT SUPPORTERS:
SkyTrain construction along the Broadway corridor will devastate local businesses just like Canada Line construction. SkyTrain is also expensive to build and operate.
FACT:
(14) The SkyTrain extension would likely occur under 10th Avenue (and NOT on Broadway), one block/60-metres south of Broadway. Station entrances will still be located on Broadway.
(15) Such an extension under 10th Avenue, bored or cut and cover, would significantly reduce the impact on local businesses.
(16) With the large $2.8-billion budget, a vital long-term investment into the region’s infrastructure, it is likely that planners are planning for a bored tunnel design rather than cut and cover to avert most of the mistakes on Cambie.
Zweisystem responds: $2.8 billion will not buy much of a subway. If the 19 km. RAV/Canada line 50% subway may cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $2.8 billion a Broadway subway will cost a lot more.
(17) With an underground system, built on 10th Avenue and likely a bored tunnel, businesses will not be as affected (compared to a ground-level LRT line or a Cambie-style cut and cover tunnel).
Zweisystem responds: if a bored tunnel is used, properties adjacent to the subway may settle because the surrounding ground will be disturbed. Without costly pre-engineering work, the true cost of subway construction is a guesstimate at best.
(18) Local businesses stand to benefit significantly from the additional foot traffic within SkyTrain station precincts.
Zweisystem responds: Not so, as subways have proven poor in attracting business to local merchants. Modern LRT has a proven record in increasing business by about 10% along routes where LRT runs. Passengers in subways do not see surface businesses.
(19) SkyTrain may cost billions to build, but this is a long-term investment into our region’s infrastructure: an investment that could last up to a century. On the contrary, LRT with its limited capacity and speed is a short-term investment.
Zweisystem responds: Completely untrue. Subways lack operational flexibility and require most customers to use other transport to get to the subway. To date, SkyTrain has yet to match LRTai??i??s capacity and speeds! Lack of stations may provide a faster service, but at the same time deter ridership. Many LRT lines operate on well maintained infrastructure that is over 100 years old; subway on the other hand require constant and expensive maintenance as Londonai??i??s TUBE and Torontoai??i??s subways have well proven.
(20) SkyTrain, with its driverless automation, is cheaper to operate annually compared to driver systems such as LRT. In addition, there are capital cost savings and efficiencies from using the same maintenance yard/facilities, operations centre, and train rolling stock.
Zweisystem responds: Actually it is the other way around, automated transit systems cost a lot more toAi??Ai??operate than LRT. Calgaryai??i??s C-Train LRT costs less than half per annum to operate than SkyTrain and it carries more passengers as well! in 2006, the cost of wages for drivers was $6 million. SkyTrain doesnai??i??t have drivers, rather attendants and SkyTrain police, which cost more than drivers for Calgaryai??i??s LRT system.
(Update – 1in 2013, Translink admitted they had 170 full time attendants and did not give a number of part time attendants. Also not included are the transit police.)
As SkyTrain light-metro cars cost more to purchase than equivalent LRT cars, the last statement loses much of its validity. Also, with SkyTrain, there is only one supplier ofAi?? one style of car:Ai?? Bombardier Inc.; With LRT there are many suppliers and styles of cars to choose from and all are able to operate in conjunction with each other, something that RAV/Canada line and SkyTrain cars canai??i??t do.
============================
A REGIONAL CORRIDOR
===============================
BUILD NOTHING & LRT SUPPORTERS:
There is not enough ridership to support a rapid transit rail line along the Broadway corridor. Any rapid transit rail line’s real purpose would be to solely serve the University of British Columbia.
FACT:
(21) Central Broadway/Cambie UptownA? is the second largest employment centre in the entire region after Vancouver City Centre. According to a 1996 census, there were 40,000 jobs in the area and half of these people live outside of Vancouver making the district a regional centre. We can only assume that the number of jobs in the area has grown significantly since 13 years ago and will continue to grow. In addition, the Broadway corridor is one of the most densely populated areas outside of Downtown Vancouver.
Zweisystem responds: By building LRT down Broadway, it would protect both residents and businesses from escalating taxes to pay for a gold-plated subway project and the need to massively increase density along the route to feed the metro, while at the same time provide high quality transportation to the area.
Central Broadway is also part of the Metropolitan Core, part of Downtown Vancouver; a focus area for population and employment growth.
All of the above only serves to support ridership. And as mentioned above, there are already 100,000 daily bus riders along the Broadway corridor making it the busiest bus corridor in the entire region.
(22) The University of British Columbia is one of the largest employment centres in the entire region. With over 50,000 students and faculty, it will only continue to grow. In addition, the university is developing plans to build new dense residential neighborhoods ai??i?? this will only serve to support ridership.
As already mentioned above, transit ridership at the university was at 50,000 in 2004 we can only assume it will be much more today. It will only grow with additional and improved services.
Zweisystem responds: LRT would be able to service all of UBC and with the inherent flexibility of the mode, could provide a minor LRT network on campus. Also there is the possibility of LRT carrying freight to UBC, as done in other European cities, taking commercial vehicles off city streets. The ridership forecasts certainly point to a light rail solution for UBC and not an expensive subway.
Posted by zweisystem on August 29, 2013 · Leave a Comment
The letter in the Surrey Leader says it all…………..
Sales tax wonai??i??t resolve transit ills
Published: August 28, 2013
The notion that a $0.5-per-cent sales tax increase will solve TransLinkai??i??s financial ills is naive in the extreme; spending more money on unsustainable transit projects will only exacerbate TransLinkai??i??s money woes.
TransLink faces many problems, including that upper management are career bureaucrats without any knowledge about public transit, and decisions are made that are financially ill-advised, such as a $4-billion SkyTrain subway under Broadway in Vancouver.
TransLink did have a bona fide transit expert CEO, Tom Prendergast, but he lasted barely a year and left, in part blaming the pro-SkyTrain culture at TransLink for his departure.
The driverless SkyTrain was first thought to bring cheaper transit to the region.
Instead it now burdens the taxpayer with a 40- to 60-per-cent operating penalty over much cheaper LRT, but TransLink blunders on planning more metro and even when forced to plan for LRT, as in Surrey, it designs LRT as a poor manai??i??s SkyTrain, both hugely expansive and unworkable.
Despite over $9 billion invested in SkyTrain, there is no evidence that it has reduced congestion or gridlock, and new studies are showing that TransLinkai??i??s current SkyTrain planning is actually increasing congestion and pollution.
TransLink doesnai??i??t need any more financing; rather, TransLinkai??i??s management must be forced to plan for affordable transit by using much cheaper but more efficient light rail instead of the expensive and obsolete SkyTrain.
TransLink must plan for transit that the customer wants and will use.
The terms user-friendly and affordable are just not in the current TransLinkai??i??s managementai??i??s lexicon, where itai??i??s believed the taxpayer has deep pockets to fund costly and ill-advised decisions.
Malcolm Johnston
Delta
http://www.surreyleader.com/opinion/letters/221559061.html
Posted by zweisystem on August 28, 2013 · 1 Comment
A re-post from 2009.
Tom Prendergast, who was briefly CEO at TransLink, left (or was forced out) after just over a year at the post because of the Skytrain lobby. The SkyTrain Lobby still holds great sway with transit planning in Metro Vancouver, which is very bad news for the taxpayer.
Too bad that the powers that be did not listen, for the real reason for TransLink’s continued financial embarrassments is the proprietary SkyTrain light-metro and its bastard child, the Canada line.
Prendergastai??i??s parting words on Rail for the Valley
Posted by John Buker on Tuesday, November 24, 2009 Ai??
A couple weeks ago, it was announced that Translink CEO Tom Prendergast was quitting his position, and accepting a job as president of New York Cityai??i??s Transit Authority. He had only joined Translink in July 2008, and now he has left! I am guessing he didnai??i??t like what he saw.
Prendergast was as positive a force as could be expected in such an organization as Translink, run under the tightest of control of Premier Gordon Campbell.
Hereai??i??s an illuminating excerpt, his parting words on the possibilities of light rail for the valley (Surrey Leader, Nov. 24):
Kwantlen Student Association rep Nathan Griffiths said improved transit is needed to serve campuses in Cloverdale and Langley and asked about the potential to extend passenger light rail to the Fraser Valley.
ai???Thereai??i??s really no impediment,ai??? Prendergast responded. ai???Itai??i??s overcoming the cultural embracement of SkyTrain that has existed to date.ai???
He said TransLink is seeking to cut through the pro-SkyTrain ai???cultural biasai??? as it embarks on a careful examination of rapid transit technologies for line extensions west along Broadway and south of the Fraser.
Prendergast predicted the first light rail line that comes to the Lower Mainland will lead to much greater appreciation of its potential.
Itai??i??s interesting to think about this ai???cultural biasai??? towards Skytrain. Who actually has this bias? It isnai??i??t residents or even politicians in the Fraser Valley: Not a single municipal candidate in Surrey the last election supported Skytrain expansion over light rail. Not a single candidate. Not one!
No, itai??i??s the old-guard politicians of Vancouver, who were around for the previous Skytrain expansions and have the most personal stake in continuing to expand the Skytrain money hole. Itai??i??s Mike Harcourt, itai??i??s Gordon Campbell, and others involved in Vancouverai??i??s transportation decisions of the last 25 years.
To anyone who wonders why the problems with Skytrain often take centre stage on this blog, Prendergast answers the question.
To get light rail for the valley, we absolutely must cut through the pro-SkyTrain ai???cultural biasai??? that exists, not among the populace of the Fraser Valley, but among Vancouverai??i??s political elite, who all-too-often take it upon themselves to make all the decisions for the rest of us.
Posted by zweisystem on August 27, 2013 · 14 Comments
In an obvious headline grabbing event, a near dormant transit group, proposes a 0.5% sales tax to fund TransLink.
Big mistake.
The problem with transit in the Vancouver Metro region is TransLink itself and its firm belief that the more money one spends on transit the better it is. It is a recipe for financial disaster.
I am sorry, if one wants better transit, one must get rid of TransLink and start anew.
The $4.5 billion SkyTrain subway under Broadway is both ill planned and grossly expensive for what it will do and is only being planned for as a tool for mega high rise developments along its route. The hugely expensive Broadway SkyTrain subway is meant to move developer’s money, not people.
Interesting note: Modern LRT has made SkyTrain obsolete almost 20 years ago, no one builds with it anymore.
Question: Why build the obsolete SkyTrain in a subway?
For $4.5 billion we could build a BCIT to UBC/Stanley Park LRT; a new road/rail bridge replacing both the aging Patullo Bridge and the downright decrepit Fraser River Rail Bridge; the full build Leewood/Rail for the Valley Vancouver/Richmond to Chilliwack TramTrain; and over 40 km. of tramway in Surrey!
The $144 million gondola for SFU is nothing more than a joke, pushed by non other than TransLink Chair and Simon Fraser University professor, Nancy Olewiler. I can spell, c o n fAi?? l i c tAi?? o f Ai?? i n t e r e s t. Obviously she can’t.
Memo to the TransLink Chair: “Insist that buses going to SFU have chains on in snowy weather, it is a much cheaper solution than a $144 million gondola“.
For the cost of three rather poorly planned LRT lines in Surrey, with an estimated cost of $2.1 billion, we could build the full build, Vancouver/Richmond to Chilliwack Leewood/Rail for the Valley TramTrain, plus at least 40 km. of light rail in Surrey, which is more than enough to build a light rail line to South Surrey and Whiterock, with direct service to Vancouver via the Leewood/RftV tramtrain.
What On-Trax is advocating is not better transit, but the same old bad TransLink planning that has paupered the transit authority. Expensive to implement, and largely unworkable, it will forever make the south Fraser taxpayer’s ‘milch-cows‘ for the city of Vancouver, paying for politically prestigious and hugely expensive subways.
What needs to happen is the South Fraser cities and municipalities to secede from TransLink and form a new transit authority to deal with South Fraser Transit issues. The proposed transit referendum will be a failure if there is not an opt out choice because to bring real improvement to South Fraser transit, we need a transit authority that puts the South Fraser transit customer first and with TransLink, that will never happen.
Advocates push 0.5 per cent TransLink sales tax
By Jeff Nagel – Surrey North Delta Leader
Published: August 26, 2013
Two South of Fraser transit advocates are pushing for a long wish list of transit expansion projects in Metro Vancouver and they want a new 0.5 per cent regional sales tax to pay for it all.
Surrey’s Paul Hillsdon and Nathan Pachal of the group South Fraser On Trax say the package of upgrades they’ve designed offers something for every part of the region.
Most of the $6.5 billion in capital spending they propose would go to a $2.9-billion SkyTrain extension down Broadway to UBC and for $2.1 billion to build new light-rail lines in Surrey to Guildford, Langley City and Newton, with a B-Line express bus route south to White Rock.
They also want TransLink to build a previously proposed but shelved $144-million transit gondola to SFU atop Burnaby Mountain.
And they propose several additional B-Lines that would extend quasi-rapid transit bus service to Port Coquitlam, Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge on Hwy 7; down the 200 Street spine of Langley; along Marine Drive connecting West Vancouver and North Vancouver; as well as on Hastings Street and 41st Avenue in Vancouver and Burnaby. Existing buses over the Port Mann Bridge on Highway 1 and on Highway 99 from Surrey to Richmond would also be upgraded to B-Lines.
They say a half-point hike in the provincial sales tax levied only in Metro would raise $250 million a year ai??i??Ai??enough to cover the operating costs of the new lines as well as one third of the capital cost, on the assumption Victoria and Ottawa pay the other two thirds.
“We’ve spent 10 years squabbling about what kind of tool can be used to fund the service,” Pachal said, adding the sales tax wouldn’t rile motorists as much as other TransLink sources like tolls or a vehicle levy.
“This is fair and equitable.”
He said a higher regional PST would grow with the economy and pull in money from visitors and tourists, while providing exemptions for basics like groceries to help shield lower-income residents.
B.C. residents have paid higher sales taxes not long ago.
Over the past decade, the federal GST has been cut by two per cent and the provincial PST was trimmed by 0.5 per cent.
“We feel there is wiggle room,” Pachal said.
Metro Vancouver mayors also suggested a small regional sales tax early this year.
But mayors’ council chair Richard Walton said he envisioned something smaller ai??i?? perhaps 0.1 or 0.2 per cent coming from that source ai??i??Ai??as part of a mix of other transit funding tools.
Walton said there’s no doubt sales tax could generate a lot of revenue, but affordability would be a concern.
He said the advocates’ claim a 0.5 per cent regional tax works out to just 35 cents per day per resident still adds up to an extra $42 per month for a family of four.
“It’s not a trivial or insignificant amount,” Walton said. “We’re not advocating that outright at all. We’re advocating an approach that is going to look at a number of different funding sources.”
Walton said a solution must fund not just transit expansion but other transportation projects, like the replacement of aging bridges and tunnels.
The report by Pachal and Hillsdon, dubbed Leap Ahead, is the first major volley of return fire from transit supporters who are dismayed public debate has centred on complaints of waste at TransLink and opposition to any tax hikes.
The document, at leapaheadyvr.com, claims the the number of rapid transit stations in the region would be doubled from 65 to 138 and all the new lines could be operational by 2020, providing a viable transit alternative for motorists who may by then face tolls on a replaced Pattullo Bridge or Massey Tunnel.
It predicts major economic, social and environmental benefits would spring from the transit investment.
It remains unclear what question will be put to voters in a promised referendum, but Walton said he meets Transportation Minister Todd Stone again Sept. 3 to discuss that issue as well as governance reforms for TransLink.
Mayors in the spring opposed going to referendum.
“We’re going forward with an open mind, in a spirit of cooperation,” he said.
But Walton said the “huge questions” outstanding are who will pay for the referendum and who will champion the ‘Yes’ side.
He said the HST referendum had millions in government money and the finance minister behind the pro side but still failed.
“We’re being asked to do something that isn’t in the legislation, without resources and with no time.”
TransLink must also decide by year end what projects would get built if a referendum on new funding sources passes.
Posted by zweisystem on August 22, 2013 · Leave a Comment
Mr. Brussac knows transit. He has lived and traveled in Europe and is well acquainted with transit operation and fare collection and his letters are always worth a read, as one learns something from them.
Comparison to Europeai??i??s system childish
Published: August 20, 2013
The Editor,
One of TransLinkai??i??s talking heads justified the cancellation of free transfers between buses and SkyTrain by pointing out that London and Paris transit systems donai??i??t have them either.
Is he aware that the network of buses and subways in both places are such a dense grid that it is possible to travel all over town with one system only?
He also brags that the Compass card will give us a 14% discount over cash fares.
But the discount is a lot more than 14% in London and Parisai??i?? fares list is simpler than that of the London system, though still extensive.
Tickets with a magnetic strip are used for a single trip on both the Metro and the RER (express suburban train) within Paris itself, and also for buses and tramways.
This ticket doesnai??i??t allow transfers from bus to metro or from tram to metro but allows transfers to other modes within Paris.
Most commuters buy a pass loaded in a transit smart card called Navigo, which is cheaper if bought for the year (paid monthly).
At any rate comparing Metro Vancouverai??i??s transit system to these two giant systems is childish. Both carry over a billion passengers a year on the metro/tube ai??i?? and then there are the buses, trams, commuter trains and more.
We should instead look at towns with a smaller population than Metro Vancouver that do allow free transfer between their various transit modes. Their validators have both a sensor for a transit smart card and a slot for tickets with a magnetic strip.
In addition, transit systems in many European towns are the responsibility of the mayor and councillors, who get an earful whenever something goes wrong and, therefore, have an incentive to make transit a practical, if not always pleasant, experience.
How approachable are TransLink Board members? Do they even use transit regularly?
And why is it that Metro Vancouverai??i??s small transit system needs a $400,000-per-year board chair when the London transit system is only one of the many responsibilities of the mayor of London, Boris Johnson, whose current salary is A?143,911 per year (around $230,000)?
J-L Brussac, Coquitlam
Posted by zweisystem on August 22, 2013 · Leave a Comment
Really, one is almost speechless, watching TransLink imploding under one bad decision after another.
Message to BC Minister of Transportation, Todd Stone; “Quit your hiding in Kamloops and put a stop to TransLink’s ongoing nonsense.” It is time for regime change.
TransLink spending $100K on office space in Surrey
TransLink says itai??i??s having trouble finding a subtenant
Anita Bathe August 21, 2013
URREY (NEWS1130) ai??i?? TransLink is spending more than $100,000 a month on office space locked into a six-year lease in Surrey while it looks for a subtenant.
It comes after it decided to consolidate all of its offices into one building in New Westminster. Jiana Ling with TransLink says theyai??i??re having trouble finding subtenants for a building near Gateway in Surrey. ai???It is the market right now. We are actively looking for a subtenant but the market in Surrey is a high vacancy rate.ai???
The decision has Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan angry. He thinks it will be paying the costly rent for awhile. ai???I havenai??i??t seen a lot of businesses locating into that area in the past year, so I think they are going to find difficulty in getting a tenant.ai???
He questions whether offices should have been consolidated with long-term lease obligations looming.
Corrigan also wanted public consultation and says TransLink did this quietly.
http://www.news1130.com/2013/08/21/translink-spending-100k-on-office-space-in-surrey/
Posted by zweisystem on August 21, 2013 · Leave a Comment
The concept of Tram Train is a vehicle that operates as a tram on the tramway and a train on heavy rail, offering a seamless journey to the passenger into the heart of city centres and relieving capacity from mainline stations while taking the passengers where they want to go. The first Tram Train was in Karlsruhe, Germany, in the early 1990s and has spread successfully to several other European cities ai??i?? but not yet to the UK. Writes Dr Robert Carroll, Major Projects Manager Stagecoach Supertram
The Tyne and Wear extension to Sunderland tackled many of the challenges that arise with the interworking of light and heavy rail but has resulted in operational limitations that reduce track capacity and limit future development of the route.
Pilot project
To demonstrate that the benefits of Tram Train can be realised in the UK without the limitations imposed at Sunderland, the
Tram Train pilot project was set up by the Department for Transport (DfT) with Network Rail, Northern Rail, Stagecoach Supertram and South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive (SYPTE) as partners.
In June 2013, Transport Minister Norman Baker gave the final approval for the contracts between project partners. In 2016, the project will deliver the operation of Tram Trains three times an hour from Cathedral tram stop, in the centre of Sheffield, to a new stop at Parkgate retail park in Rotherham. The vehicle will operate on the tramway to Meadowhall South then utilize a new connection on to Network Rail calling at Rotherham Central station. Stagecoach Supertram will operate the new service on behalf of SYPTE as part of its current concession that runs until 2024.
The challenge set by the DfT is to introduce the pilot service while learning as much as possible about the application of Tram Train on the national rail network, allowing the operation of light rail vehicles to be spread to other locations in the UK. Where necessary this includes challenging current practices and standards after a risk-based analysis to allow safe operation.
The trams (or trains)
To operate the service, seven new vehicles are being procured by SYPTE from Vossloh EspanI?a of Valencia, Spain. That factoryai??i??s previous products for the UK include the class 67s (when the works were part of Alstom) and the class 68s for DRS which are currently being built.
The Tram Train vehicles are part of the Citylink family and are similar to those currently being supplied to Karlsruhe. However, those for Sheffield-Rotherham will be a dual voltage version (750V DC and 25kV AC) to allow for continued operation once future electrification of the Midland Mainline north of Sheffield has been approved and implemented. Three vehicles will be used to operate the Tram Train service every 20 minutes, three vehicles will be used to provide additional capacity on the tramway, and the seventh vehicle will be a maintenance spare. Maintenance will initially be carried out by Vossloh using the current tram maintenance depot at Nunnery which will be modified to accommodate them.
The three-section Citylink vehicles are 37.2 metres long, 2.65 metres wide and are low floor at the doors ai??i?? providing level access ai??i?? with raised seating areas above the four conventional bogies. They are able to accommodate 88 seated and 150 standing passengers with wheel chair spaces provided between the doors. The vehicles will be compliant with Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations (RVAR) 2010 and will be fitted with saloon air conditioning and an integrated passenger counting system.
![IMG_5959 [online]](http://www.therailengineer.com/wp-content/uploads/IMG_5959-online-940x390.jpg)
The tramway in Sheffield presents some challenges not normally encountered on railways including 25-metre radius horizontal curves, 165-metre vertical curves (sag) and gradients of up to 10%. The vehicles are to be equipped for both tramway and railway operations requiring duplication of certain systems such as communication and safety equipment and will include GSM-R, TPWS/ AWS and OTMR as well as tram radio and routing equipment. For safe tramway operation under line of sight rules, magnetic track brakes are fitted to all bogies providing deceleration rates of over 2.2m/s2. Delivery of the first vehicle is expected in mid 2015.
Infrastructure
The infrastructure changes required to accommodate the new service are being led by Network Rail on the national rail network and by SYPTE and Stagecoach Supertram on the tramway. The tramway infrastructure at the Meadowhall South Junction will be installed by Network Rail.
The design for the infrastructure is at the end of GRIP 4, Single Option Development, and will progress to GRIP 5, Detailed Design, later in the year. Carrilion has been awarded early contractor involvement but the actual GRIP 5 contractor is still to be confirmed.
The junction between the two systems is being designed and constructed by Network Rail with support from the other partners.
This will have a double-lead junction from the tramway into an island platform that will be used by Tram Trains only, and then onto a bidirectional line over the river Don that connects with the existing single track line (Engineers Line Reference WME) on the Rotherham side of the M1 Tinsley Viaduct.
The signalling at the interface will be designed to ensure that the changeover between the two systems is safe and requires minimal interaction for the driver and signaller. Network Rail will also be building a turn back siding with a tram stop at Parkgate and low level platform extensions to Rotherham Central station.
The line will be electrified throughout at 750V DC. An assessment of whether some or all of the route should be electrified at 25kV AC in anticipation of Midland Mainline electrification north of Sheffield, which is not yet a committed scheme, revealed that this was not cost effective due to the different systems required. The design is being implemented taking into account the future requirements and delivering synergies where possible.
Although the gauge of both Network Rail and Stagecoach Supertram tracks are 1,435mm, there are key differences which require a wheel profile to be designed that allows safe through running while minimizing the degradation of both wheel and rail on both networks. The initial work by Huddersfield University has demonstrated that the tyre profile of the current Supertram vehicle would present a derailment risk on Network Railai??i??s switch blades, therefore a deeper wheel flange is required that reduces this risk.
As the Supertram system is now 20 years old and the rails have been maintained in accordance with the tram wheel profile, certain locations require rail replacement to accommodate the Tram Train service. However SYPTE and Stagecoach Supertram are just commencing a programme of rail replacement to replace 22km of embedded track over the next five years that includes all areas where the Tram Train will operate. VolkerRail is carrying out phase 1 of the replacement work in 2013. The remainder of phase 1 and rail supply in 2014 is still to be tendered by SYPTE. Phase 2 will start in 2017/18.
The rail profile chosen for replacement is 55G2 which has a wider and deeper groove than the originally installed 35G-TF ensuring future compatibility for the Tram Train.
Following the start of service in 2016, a pilot period will run where the performance of the Tram Train on both Network Rail and the Supertram networks will be monitored. This will be holistic and ensure that data is captured to allow others to learn from the operation. This data will include such things as operational performance, public and staff feedback, maintenance costs, wheel and rail wear. More important will be capturing and sharing lessons learnt from the project as it is set up, ensuring that the wider industry benefits from this experience and learning.
To allow other Tram Train promoters to maximize the benefits of the project, a website will be set up to disseminate what the partners learn from the project.
The Rail Engineer
http://www.therailengineer.com/2013/08/15/next-stop-rotherham-sheffields-new-tram-trains/
Recent Comments