Has TransLink Ignored SkyTrain Safety by Refusing to Install Sliding Doors at Stations?
The VAL automatic metro in Lille, France has sliding doors at stations to prevent suicides as mandated by EEC rules for automatic metro systems. This begs the question; “Has TransLink ignored this important safety feature to reduce costs for the SkyTrain and Canada line mini-metro systems?”
The sad answer is that TransLink finds it cheaper to deal with suicides than prevent them and if people find this distasteful, don’t shoot the messenger.
Light rail, which has drivers, has a far better record in preventing suicides than automatic metros like SkyTrain, especially when the operating authority refuses to include safety features with station designs.
Chilliwack Event notice – June 22 – PIPE UP Network
This was received from the Pipe Up Network. It seems like a great opportunity for supporters of Rail for the Valley. See below, and check out the link.
The PIPE UP Network is hosting an event that Rail for the Valley supporters may be interested in. Ai??The event is titled “Going Forward, Leading Change: Skills Training for More Effective Community Engagement” and takes place Saturday June 22 12:30-18:30 at the Yarrow Community Centre.
It includes a series of workshops on topics such as Consensus Decision Making, Engaging Political Representatives, Media & Messaging, Participating in Environmental Review Assessments, Online Organizing/Facebook Engagement, and Peaceful Direct Action.
See the links below.
http://pipe-up.net/home-2/events/
https://www.facebook.com/events/517200145009294/
All Roads Lead to Road Pricing
Force TransLink to efficiently and affordably operate the transit system – No.
Force the taxpayer to ante up more money through road pricing (another name for a tax) – Yes.
The following 1983 quote is from Norman Thompson; CBE, FCA, ACMA, English transit consultant and builder of the (then) world’s busiest subway on the decision to build with SkyTrain: “Vancouver is adopting a non-commercial approach………..I hope they have lots of money“, sums up TransLink’s financial ills, the problem is our mini-metro system.
What TransLink hasn’t done is reveal the true cost of the SkyTrain and Canada Line, instead have the SkyTrain lobby and their surrogates continually misinform the public through the media about the mode, its operations, and its failure to provide an alternative to the car. So successful has been the SkyTrain propaganda campaign, that it even fooled BC.”s Auditor General’s Department!
TransLink’s bureaucracy thrives off of big ticket mini-metro planning and construction and by planning for more Skytrain, means more bureaucrats must be hired and friends of the government (including the notorious SNC Lavalin) will join the SkyTrain gravy-train, all on the taxpayer’s dime or dime per kilometre is TransLink has it way.
There is an ever growing evidence that TransLink has not been honest with transit ridership figures and SkyTrain and transit ridership in general is less that advertised. Evidence of this has surfaced with the on going fare evasion debate, as fare evasion is at industry norms, while revenue collection indicated mass fare evasion. Revenue collection may also reveal that transit ridership is much lower than advertised and there is no mass fare evasion and no need for expensive turnstiles at stations, which was a reward for more friends of the government and had little to do with fare evasion.
Zwei leaves the reader with this; “Who builds with SkyTrain today?” No one, as evidenced with the Canada Line.
From the Surrey news Leader.
Road pricing logic may extend to transit too
TransLink is doubling down on the concept of road pricing, arguing it should apply not just to cars to control congestion at the busiest times but also to transit riders to make more efficient use of buses and SkyTrain as well.
A revision of TransLink’s long-range regional transportation strategy is going to public consultation over the next two months and it reinforces the idea of using time-of-use pricing tools to make the most of investments.
The Transportation 2045 plan will argue the number of vehicle trips travelled in the region must climb no higher if Metro Vancouver is to remain a livable region and not end up mired in gridlock.
Capping car travel will be hard.
The overall number of trips taken is projected to climb 50 per cent over the next three decades as a million more Metro Vancouverites arrive, all criss-crossing the region to get to 500,000 more jobs.
So planners say the proportion of trips by transit, cycling and walking must rise at a much faster rate from 27 per cent now to 50 per cent, while the share of trips by car falls.
Building more rapid transit lines is part of the strategy ai??i??Ai??TransLink estimates up to $23 billion is needed to expand the system over 30 years. The first $5 billion would merely maintain what already exists.
But another plank in the document says TransLink should “price roads and transit for fairness, efficiency and revenue.”
TransLink strategic planning vice-president Bob Paddon said road pricing has been in long-range plans for 20 years, but it’s now becoming critical to implement.
Area mayors also want to explore road pricing, where drivers might pay more to drive on major routes depending on the time of day or severity of congestion.
TransLink’s draft document says pricing can cut congestion at peak times while offering users a choice.
“Those who choose to forego a trip, bundle some trips together, travel at a less busy time, use a less busy route or travel by another mode will be rewarded with savings in time and money,” it says.
Paddon said TransLink’s new Compass card system could make it possible to emulate Washington D.C., where subway riders pay based on both the distance travelled and by the time of day.
“The farther you go, the more you pay,” Paddon said. “And if you want to go at the peak of rush hour you pay more.”
He said airlines also make passengers pay more for the last seats as a plane fills up, while offering discounts to sell seats on underused routes or at less popular times.
Drivers will respond to price signals, he suggests, pointing to the success of the #555 bus over the new Port Mann Bridge. Its initial ridership has doubled ai??i??Ai??it now averages 73 per cent full ai??i??Ai??as 1,600 passengers a day ride over the bridge without paying the new toll.
TransLink also wants cities to step up.
Better land use can gradually put more people and their destinations closer to transit routes. With more people able to ride transit, planners reckon, average trip distances can be reduced by one third.
Once the 2045 strategy is approved, TransLink is to develop a 15-year plan of new transportation investments this fall.
The plan is expected to include billions of dollars to build rapid transit lines in Surrey to Guildford, Langley and White Rock, as well as the Broadway line west to UBC.
Once it’s in place, TransLink, mayors and the province will have to draw up a proposal for how to fund the upgrades that would be put to a referendum in the fall of 2014.
The referendum was an election promise of Premier Christy Clark, who also said during the campaign that she opposes making drivers pay to use existing roads or bridges.
Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan said TransLink’s intent to raise up to $23 billion, presumably funded in part through road pricing, is “far too ambitious” even for an aspirational plan.
“There is a point where reality has to set in for all of us,” Corrigan said. “We go out to the public with an unrealistic plan, that raises expectations as to what could be accomplished, when in fact none of that is a reasonable possibility in the near future.”
Belcarra Mayor Ralph Drew said TransLink’s time frame for decisions should be reversed ai??i??Ai??the region should first decide how much more residents can afford to pay and then decide the projects that will be built, not the other way around.
He said the other big bills coming to Metro taxpayers, such as for new sewage treatment plants, must also be weighed.
Licence plate cameras in Stockholm detect and bill drivers as they enter or leave the central city. Overhead signs show the amount currently being charged. Rates range from zero to 20 krona ($3.20) depending on the time of day.
Stockholm’s congestion fee offers lessons for Metro
Stockholm is being held up as one example where road pricing is working to control traffic and steer more drivers to public transit.
Mayors Council chair Richard Walton recently visited the Swedish city and said it offers plenty of lessons for planning towards something similar in Metro Vancouver.
Stockholm’s congestion tax charges motorists higher amounts to enter or leave the city core at peak periods, and less or nothing to travel off-peak.
The maximum they pay is the equivalent of $10 a day.
The system was introduced in 2007 and rush-hour traffic volumes promptly fell 20 to 25 per cent, while transit use rose 13 per cent on trains and 18 per cent on express buses.
The congestion tax was put to a vote of residents, but not until one year after it was already in operation.
Walton said politicians concluded it had no chance of passing until drivers saw how it worked and felt the benefits of freer flowing roads.
They agreed they’d simply scrap the $500-million investment in cameras and detectors if it failed.
The referendum was only binding in central Stockholm, where it passed by 53 per cent. All outer suburbs voted against it by margins of up to 70 per cent.
Walton said a congestion charge system wouldn’t work in Metro Vancouver because of our different geography and travel patterns, but road pricing variants will be examined.
Walton remains a strong supporter of the concept based on the Swedish experience, but is leery about winning over voters in a promised referendum.
“This is a tough, tough sell,” he said.
Port Moody Mayor Mike Clay said road pricing could relieve traffic jams in the northeast sector.
“If we can shift people’s transportation mode as a result of a tolling policy like that, you can stretch your road infrastructure another 50 per cent,” Clay said.
“Maybe instead of worrying about building more roads we should be figuring out how to more effectively use them.”
Another suicide on SkyTrain
A touchy subject but it must be addressed.
A medical emergency is TransLink speak for someone killed by a Skytrain, either by accident or suicide. In most cases some poor soul has decided to end their days by throwing themselves in front of a driverless SkyTrain.
For those contemplating suicide, their twisted thinking is that a driverless train is the perfect killing machine and in Europe, screens and sliding doors are now the norm on major subway systems, to prevent “machine killing” by automatic metros.
Light Rail doesn’t have the same type of problems, because drivers are trained to look for potential suicides and the tram design itself, prevents people being run over, with modern design “lifesavers”.
SkyTrain service restored following medical emergency
A train on the SkyTrain Expo line. The Burrard Street SkyTrain service has been temporarily shut down because of a medical emergency.
Photograph by: Ward Perrin, Vancouver Sun
VANCOUVER – The Burrard Street SkyTrain service has resumed after it was shut down this morning because of a medical emergency.
TransLink says riders should allow some extra travel time as service returns to normal. A shuttle bus had been operating between Main Street and Waterfront stations, but that will end now that the Expo Line is operational.
TransLink has not released any details of the emergency.
Ai?? Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun
TransLink wants $23 billion to expand transit system
From your wildest dreams department: TransLink wants 23 billion dollars over the next three decades to improve transit.
Ha, ha, ha; and this from an organization who has been less than honest about transit since their inception.
Really boys & girls, do you still want the public to believe that subways will attract more new ridership than a modern streetcar? Then show us the proof. Oh, I see, there is no proof and you want more money for this type of bumf?
Starting with the best of intentions, TransLink has devolved into an inept organization, which can’t even run the buses properly and if the bureaucrats spent more time in operating an efficient transit service, instead of spin doctoring for expensive light metros like SkyTrain and the Canada Line, and even more expensive subways for Vancouver maybe the taxpayer would agree to ante up a few more pennies for better transit in the region.
For the cost of a Broadway subway to UBC, is about $4 billion, we could build a BCIT to UBC LRT; a new Fraser River Rail Bridge; a White Rock to Surrey Central and Vancouver LRT; and the full build Vancouver to Chilliwack TramTrain.
As it stands, the regional taxpayer does not want to spend a penny more for transit, mostly spent on prestigious subways in Vancouver and maybe it is time to disband TransLink and start anew.
TransLink wants $23 billion to expand transit system
the money would be delivered over three decades
VANCOUVER (NEWS1130) ai??i?? Itai??i??s a plan some are already calling unrealistic, while others argue it is much needed.
TransLink wants to spend as much as $23 billion over the next three decades to improve and expand the transit system.
The transportation authority is appearing in front of the Mayorai??i??s Council debating the dollar figure.
Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan is not in favour of the request. ai???The idea that the property taxpayer is a bottomless pit of money is over. The reality is that weai??i??re seeing, in every one of our communities, blow back from the public.ai???
Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson is arguing itai??i??s going to take billions of dollars to help people move around and itai??i??s silly to think transit investments arenai??i??t needed.
SkyTrain service disrupted on Millennium Line Monday
No mention of this major disruption Monday in the Sun and Province today and it was the Georgia Straight that printed the news.
The computer glitches are becoming far too common on the SkyTrain and Canada line light metros.
Who said that SkyTrain was more reliable than light rail?
SkyTrain service disrupted on Millennium Line
by Stephen Thomson on Jun 17, 2013
SkyTrain service has been halted on much of the Millennium Line because of a computer problem, TransLink says.
TransLink plans to operate bus bridges between VCC-Clark and Lougheed stations, and between Braid and Lougheed stations.
All SkyTrain stations between VCC-Clark and Lougheed are being closed until the problem is fixed, TransLink says.
The service disruption has not affected the Expo Line or Canada Line.
From a blog post:
Jun 18, 2013 at 12:08 amAlthough there were bus bridges to take passengers, translink didn’t have staffs to guide the passengers to take which bus. It was in a mass and was seen that staffs doing nothing but gathering in the entrance of Braid Station.
The Great Capacity Debate – The USA Versus the World
For the past few weeks, there has been a bare knuckle debate on the LRPPro blog about light rail capacity and it seems in the USA, there is an independent view of capacity.
The industry standard for light rail vehicle capacity is all seats occupied and standees @ 4 persons per metre/2.
Crush load capacity has been put at all seats filled and standees@6 persons per metre/2.
Theoretical maximum loading, to test brakes, etc has been put at all seats taken and standees@8 persons per metre/2.
Thus a transit line with 6 minute headways (10 trains per hour), operating LRV’s with a capacity of 200 persons per car is said to have a hourly capacity ofAi?? 2,000 persons per hour per direction. Capacity can be increased either by decreasing headways or operating LRV’s in coupled sets. For simplicity, capacity is a function of headway.
No so.Ai?? From our American friends, who quote from Prof. Vukan R. Vuchic, a transit guru from South of the boarder,Ai?? has come up some time ago with a unique formula for calculation vehicle capacity.
The USA, has now taken a different path and instead of Offered Capacity (vehicles, seats or places per hour), American planners use Utilized Capacity (passengers per hour) to determineAi?? line capacity and they absolutely will not accept any other calculation for capacity.
Utilized’ capacity’ level for rail transit calculates total capacity as being 4 to 5 passengers per meter of gross vehicle length. As an example, a 14 metre Mk1. SkyTrain carAi?? has 36 seats and room for 44 standees for a total of 80 persons per car. Using the American method, the capacity of the very same car would be 48 to 60 persons. As one well knows, Zwei is not a fan of SkyTrain, but for anyone who travels via SkyTrain during the peak hours, those Mk. 1 cars carry far more than this number.
By using the American or the Vuchic method, capacity drops considerably and this drop in potential capacity is being used by opponents of LRT in the metro Vancouver Region.
By using the industry/world standard for SkyTrain and comparing it with the American/Vuchic standard for light rail, means that the advertised capacity of LRT is greatly reduced, so much so, that even BC’s auditor General’s Department may have been mislead.
In the USA, it is taken as gospel that LRT can’t carry more than 9,000 pphpd, which then puts modern LRT in a very weak position, especially on routes with large traffic flows such as Broadway in Vancouver. By coincidence, Vancouver city Engineers and Translink are saying that LRT can’t cater to, due to low capacity, traffic flows in excess of 9,000 pphpd.
Of course, the SkyTrain boys and girlsAi?? ignore that many LRT systems cater to much higher traffic flows such as Calgary, which offers 12,000 “seats” per direction in peak hours and Karlsruhe, Germany, where the tram route on Kaiserstrasse sees 80 trains per hour per direction in peak hours, offering a conservative capacity of over 33,000 pphpd!
The danger is simple, those wishing to continue building with SkyTrain will cite the international standard for capacity, while at the same time citing the American standard for capacity for LRT. Sadly, the USA has been fertile ground for Bus Rapid Transit and other gadget or gizmobahnen, while the planning and construction of new light rail lines will be hamstrung with questionable statistics from a monolithic advocacy group that has lost all sense of reality and has retreated behind a wall of 1980 vintage transit studies.
The message is clear for Rail for the Valley and other local transit groups, we must be wary of US consultants, who use 1980’s transit studies as a basis for projects in the 21st century.
Addendum:
The following from Wikipedia, gives the capacity of the four variants of TransLink’s mini-metro cars.
ModelAi??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? Seats/carAi??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? Capacity/carAi??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? Cars/trainAi??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? Length/trainAi??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? Capacity/train
ICTS Mark I (1984ai??i??1993)Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? 36Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? 80Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? 4 or 6 carsAi??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? 48 or 72 mAi??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? 320 or 480
ART Mark II (2002)Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? 41Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? 130Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? 2 or 4 carsAi??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? 34 or 68 mAi??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? 260 or 520
ART Mark II (2009/2010)Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? 33Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? 145Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? 2 or 4 carsAi??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? 34 or 68 mAi??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? 290 or 580
Hyundai Rotem EMUAi??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? 44Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? 167Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? 2 carsAi??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? 42 mAi??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? 334
The same capacity using the American method of 4 to 5 passengers per meter of gross vehicle length.
ICTS Mark 1 – max. 120Ai?? persons per married pair – 4 or 6 car train, max capacity 240 to 300 persons.
ART Mk. 2 (2002) – max. 167 persons per married pair – 4 car train, max capacity 334 persons.
ART Mk.2 (2009/10) – max. 167 persons per married pair – 4 car train 334 persons.
Hyundai/ROTEM EMU – max.Ai?? 200 persons per married pair.
The World’s Top 10 Tram Rides
Taken from the National Geographicai??i??s Journeyai??i??s of a Lifetime ai??i?? 500 of the Worldai??i??s Greatest Trips
http://shop.nationalgeographic.com/ngs/browse/productDetail.jsp?productId=6200125&categoryId=A026&addFacet=9004:A026&navAction=jump
Melbourne’s route 96 tram has been named in National Geographic’s “Journeys of a Lifetime” coffee table book as one of the planet’s top 10 “trolley car” rides.
http://www.onlymelbourne.com.au/melbourne_details.php?id=13776
Ai??
Budapestai??i??s Tram Route No 2 is awarded 7th place, being the best European line on the list, beating Lisbon and Amsterdam tram lines:
http://welovebudapest.com/en/n-a/articles/2012/10/15/tram-no-2-among-the-top-10-tram-rides
Ai??
Torontoai??i??s Route 501 is awarded
http://www.citynews.ca/2007/12/29/t-o-streetcar-line-named-one-of-worlds-top-10-trolley-rides/
Ai??
The full list is:
1.Ai??Ai?? Hong Kong
2.Ai??Ai?? Melbourne Tram No 96
3.Ai??Ai?? New Orleansai??i?? St. Charles streetcar tour
4.Ai??Ai?? Budapest Tram No 2
5.Ai??Ai?? Berlin Tram No 68
6.Ai??Ai?? Lisbon Tram No 28
7.Ai??Ai?? Toronto `Queenai??i?? Route 501
8.Ai??Ai?? Amsterdam Tram No 2
9.Ai??Ai?? San Franciscoai??i??s Streetcar F
10. Ai??Seattleai??i??s George Benson waterfront streetcar
Trams & Streetcars make city’s, this is what the National Geograhical magazine award is all about. I can’t quite see a future Surrey Skytrain making the same impact, can you?
Why do some governments see Metros as more prestigious than Light Rail?
A pertinent question posed on one of the Light Rail discussion groups, particularly relevant in relation to Skytrain & the City’s of Surrey and Vancouver.
A selection of answers:
1) Very simple. Because it is more expensive. There is nothing as prestigious as money.
And then there is the tendency of: “The neighbouring community have one. I want one too” The skill is to choose the right system for the right purpose. Metro and Light Rail should not be competitors. They are meant for different purposes.
2) Light & Heavy Metro’s[MRT, MMTS & RTR], Subways & ART LRT systems are built underground or above ground on grade separated alignments. Thus not competing with at-grade road space with the private automobile.
This is seen by the politicians as not only prestigious but a vote winner, specifically with the road lobby. Think Toronto’s Rob Ford; `ending the war on cars’
At-grade Light Rail, LRT, Tramways, Trams & Streetcars compete for road space with other users even if they run on a dedicated tram-bahn alignment.
Factor in population density, planned journey time & projected/actual passenger boardings/loadings and Light Metro whether ART or classic, is more suited to the higher traffic loadings that you get in London, Paris, Moscow and many Asian city’s
3) Like Skyscrapers, Underground is seen as being more prestigious, more of the look at how much money we have.
However in Dublin Ireland the difference between a Metro & a Light Rail Tram System is not simply underground v trams. Dublin currently has 2 Light Rail Tram lines. Dublin also has plans for 2 Metro Projects.
Only one of these Metro Projects is in fact underground this being Metro North, the other one is at grade or grade seperated and called Metro West.
So in Dublin what is the difference between Metro & Light Rail Trams?
Simply the capacity of the system.
4) We have documentation that LRT is almost as fast as Metro in Copenhagen (+/- 1-2 min.) if you count door-to-door and not stop-to-stop.
The fact that LRT generally cost about 1/7 of underground metro systems should only enhance LRT, – but maybe it is other mechanisms at work.
“Mine is more expensive than yours”…
5) Ai??I am still amazed by the knee-jerk ant-LRT reaction in some quarters. One is caught between the proponents of the ‘prestigious’ metro and the ‘bus-can-do-everything-a- LRT can…and a fraction of the price’ headbangers.
There is the fact that a Metro is percieved as something that can be delivered without the political necessity to reallocate road space to walking, cycling and LRT and take it away from the inefficient private motor transport. We all know that this is the way to go, but it is politically difficult to sell the concept to democratic politicians – or the general public.
There is also the political concept that a city has ‘arrived’ when it gets a metro, it has joined the select list of Great World Cities. Indeed under the old, discredited, Soviet system a city with 1m+ inhabitants had to have a metro and the letter instructing you to start the planning process arrived when the population passed 900,000.
I know the arguments about capacity, but given that a full performance LRT only costs about 10% of a metro (except in Edinburgh…) having a metro with double the capacity of an LRT line, rather than having 5+ LRT lines in the conurbation, plus money to spare, would seem to be a better deal.
It all seems to come down do an irrational attitude, proponents of LRT are accused of being ‘blinkered’, whereas the metro, gizmo-bahn and BRT people are ‘rational’. In fact the evidence supports LRT as being the best overall fit in a wide range of circumstances and the data supports this. We need to be far more willing to promote LRT with robust arguments.
Coffee and Trams in Bad Wildbad.
Here we have a Karlsruhe TramTrain at a station or stop in BadAi?? Wildbad in Germany.
It seems the closeness of the tram line, winding through the town doesn’t seem to excite the locals, including the folks have a coffee at the track side cafe!
One wonders, could such an idyllic scene be possible in Surrey?
