French Trams Of The Future Could be Surrey’s Too!
I found this Alstom tram of the future quite striking!
Designed by Alex Nadal, the tram is a tramtrain, able to operate both on tram (LRT) lines and on the mainline railways.
A New Patullo Bridge Must include A Fraser River Rail Bridge Replacement.
Though, not combined with an auto bridge, the modern railway lift bridge
at Dordrecht, Netherlands is a good example of a modern railway lift span.
The GVRD in the late 1970’s got it right; the replacement for the Patullo Bridge, must also include a new, multi track rail Fraser River Rail Bridge, replacing the current elderly rail bridge.
The 70’s GVRD’sAi?? rapid transit study for the metro Vancouver region included a high level 6 lane car bridge with two LRT lines and a twin track lift span, replacing both the aged Patullo and Fraser River Rail Bridges.
A flip flop by the then Social Credit government, forcing a Skytrain transit solution on the region, combined with a one seat government majority and a temper tantrum by then Delta Social Credit MLA and House Speaker Walter Davidson, who threatened to resign his seat in the legislature and force an election if the proposed Fraser River crossing was not built in North Delta, sent the Patullo road/rail replacement bridge plans to the shredder. This literally happened and there are very few references today about a combined road/rail bridge replacement!
Crass political decisions of the day forced the abandonment of a Patullo road/rail Bridge replacement for over thirty years as the new Fraser River crossing was built from North Delta, across to Richmond, via Annicis island. Today, a new replacement bridge is being proposed, but not including the replacement of the more important Fraser river Rail Bridge.
With the advent of TramTrain (trams that can operate on the mainline railways) means that light rail can track-share with the mainline railways, without the need of a crossing for its exclusive use, unlike the SkyTrain Sky Bridge which can only accommodate the proprietary SkyTrain light-metro system. A new Fraser river Rail Bridge could provide the impetuous needed for improved public transit across the Fraser River at an affordable cost, especially with the RftV/Leewood, Vancouver to Chilliwack TramTrain and the RftV inspired Whalley, King George, Whiterock LRT.
A three track (one east bound, one west bound and a reverse use track) lift span must be included in any proposed replacement scheme and failure to do so, would only show how short sighted and inept TransLink, its management, and its planners are.
Pattullo Bridge replacement options all come with tolls
By Jeff Nagel – Surrey North Delta Leader
Published: June 03, 2013A new Surrey-Coquitlam bridge bypassing New Westminster is one of six recommended options TransLink has unveiled to replace the aging Pattullo Bridge that could profoundly change traffic patterns.
They were released Monday as part of a new round of public consultation this month.
And no matter which option is chosen, TransLink’s review of them suggests the replacement span will be tolled.
“Costs of $1 billion would be recoverable through user fees,” the report says, while adding a crossing costing more than that would need senior government contributions as well.
The most unusual option studied was a possible new four-lane Tree Island crossing well downstream of the Queensborough Bridge.
It would have offered a more direct Delta-Burnaby connection that would have taken traffic from the Alex Fraser Bridge in a near straight line over the Fraser’s north arm, instead of splitting either left to Richmond or right to Queensborough.
But TransLink’s screening review found it wouldn’t serve the existing Surrey-New Westminster traffic and Burnaby and Richmond fear more agricultural and industrial land would be lost.
It would act more as an alternative to the Queensborough Bridge than the Pattullo, the review said, but most motorists won’t pay the tolls to cover the $825-million cost of a bridge there if the Queensborough is free.
Two of them don’t call for a new bridge at all, but rehabilitating the existing PattulloAi?? for safer three- or four-lane use at a cost of $330 to $400 million, still funded by tolls.
Both would improve seismic and structural safety but risks of head-on crashes would continue as there’d be no median barrier either in the three-lane counterflow or four-lane configuration.
An all-new bridge near the existing one ai??i??Ai??either four, five or six lanes ai??i??Ai??would better resist a moderate quake, river scour or ship collision, all of which could knock the existing 75-year-old span out of service.
Those three options range from $820 million for four lanes to $1.1 billion for six. An eight-lane option was ruled out as attracting too much traffic and running counter to goals to move more people by cycling, walking and transit.
The five- and six-lane options may spur more auto-oriented development than four lanes, it said.
A last option recommended for more study offers a new four-lane Surrey-Coquitlam bridge, while also rehabilitating the old Pattullo for two- or three-lane use.
That would cost an estimated $1.4 to $1.5 billion, running from King George Boulevard through Surrey’s Bridgeview neighbourhood across to Braid Street and Highway 1’s Brunette interchange.
It lets traffic bypass New Westminster, going the farthest to address concern there about worsening congestion.
“Travel times and reliability would improve for most users,” the report said. “Goods movement would likely benefit overall, given more direct connections to Highway 1, United Boulevard and the northeast sector.”
TransLink’s review recommends against simply dismantling the current bridge or converting it to either a two-lane bridge or one for cyclists and pedestrians only. Doing so would cause much heavier truck congestion at other crossings, it said.
Also panned were four-lane tunnel scenarios on the existing route ($2.9 to $4.8 billion) and four or six-lane bridge options at Sapperton Bar ($1.7 billion to $3.1 billion.)
Spokesperson Patricia MacNeil said the issue of tolling isn’t yet settled and TransLink wants public feedback on all studied options, not just the recommended ones, to see if “we are on the right track.”
Public open houses are set for June 6, 11 and 15 in New Westminster and June 8, 12, and 13 in Surrey, with additional small group meetings also scheduled in both cities. For more details see pattullobridgereview.ca.
The Whalley, King George, White Rock Light Rail line Revisited
It has has been two years year since this post was printed and what TransLink has planned for Surrey are three “poorman’s” SkyTrain type designed light rail lines feeding SkyTrain.
TransLink designs new transit lines to increase density; to increase property values for land developers who are generally friends of the government and not to efficiently and affordably move people.
The same is true for LRT/streetcar planning for Surrey. Having TransLink plan for LRT is a major mistake, as the lumbering bureaucracy has no experience with modern light rail, nor has it shown any desire to gain experience, preferring to plan for much more prestigious SkyTrain and/or light metro. TransLink‘s desire to build with SkyTrain is clearly evident with the proposed Broadway subway, in Vancouver, where TransLink’s planners are designing a $4 billion subway to UBC on a route with average traffic flows below 5,000 persons per hour per direction!
What Surrey needs is a bold new vision for modern LRT and I believe the Whalley – King George – Whiterock or KWKAi?? LineAi?? would provide the vision to implement a strategic and affordable light rail network for Surrey and communities south of the Fraser river. Failure to plan and build sustainable light rail and to continue to plan and build with the hugely expensive SkyTrain light-metro, will beggar the region with ever escalating taxes, driving out business and residents alike, leaving Metro Vancouver a ghetto for the wealthy and the poor.
LIGHT RAIL FOR SURREY ai??i?? The Whalley ai??i?? King George ai??i?? White Rock (WKW) Line
First posted by zweisystem on Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Surrey wants light rail, but where will the first LRT line go and what line would attract the most customers to the new light rail line?
If the goal of the new light rail line is to serve customer needs and offer the ability to provide an attractive alternative to the car, it must serve a multitude of destinations. Those presently planning for LRT doAi??not much expertise and tend to treat the mode as a poor manai??i??s SkyTrain. Building LRT as an extension of the SkyTrain light-metro system will fail to meet expectations as LRT will not be designed to its best advantage. It is not ai???rocket scienceai??i?? to design a transit line to be an attractive alternative to the car and the following plan may prove useful.
The Light Rail Line
The 22 kilometer Whalley ai??i?? King George ai??i?? Rail for the Valley ai??i?? White Rock line (WKW Line for short) would be the foundation for an attractive light rail system in Surrey. The proposed light rail would be a classic LRT, operating on a ai???reserved rights-of-wayai??i?? (RoW) in the median of the roads involved.
The route of the WKW Line would start at at 108th Ave. & the King George Hwy., with a future connect along 108th to Guildford. From the terminus at108th St & the KG-V Hwy, the KWK Line would travel South (7.5 km) to the Southern RR of BC (formerly the BC Hydro R.R.), running in the median of the KGV highway. This portion of the route would service the Central City shopping district; Surrey Memorial Hospital; Queen Elizabeth Secondary School; Bear Creek Park; and the Newton shopping district.
The WKW Line would then network south-east along 4 km of the former BCE interurban and proposed Valley Rail Vancouver to Chilliwack TramTrain route to 152nd (4 km). Traveling mainly through industrial lands, which would provide the ideal location for the Light Rail storage and maintenance yards. The 4 km. of track involved would be double tracked and adequately signaled for safe freight/Interurban/tram operation.
There is the possibility of futureAi??joint operation with the RftV/Leewood interurban, enabling South Surrey and White Rock transit customerai??i??s to continue on the Scott Station or even into downtown Vancouver, if the ai???full buildai??? RftV/Leewood Interurban project is built.
From 152nd Street, the KWK Line would go straight south to White Rock (10.5 km) crossing the Nicomakle /Serpentine River valley basin. Along here the line must be raised above flood plain and three new bridges across the Superport Railway Line, and the Serpentine and Nicomakle rivers must be built. It is this portion of line that will be the most expensive.
Rising out of the small river valley the KWK Line would continue south along 152nd Ave., terminating in downtown White Rock.
Map of South Surrey & the City of White Rock
In the summer, the light rail line would bring congestion relief to White Rock by providing a quality transit alternative for the many thousands of people who come in cars to the popular beaches. Also close to the KWK Line is the South Surrey Athletic fields, which many fields and arenas are constantly busy with hockey, baseball, soccer, rugby, and football games, twelve months of the year. The KWK Line would also provide an excellent transportation access for the burgeoning housing estates in South Surrey and White Rock.
The Cost
The the total cost of the KWK Line, including bridges and/or viaducts should cost no more than $770 million, based on an average of $35 million/km to build (updated 2013). The high cost of major engineering in the Nicomakle/Serpentine valley, would be mitigated by simple on-street construction on 152nd and the King George Highway and track sharing for 4 km on the Southern Railway of BC Line bisecting Surrey .
It is interesting to note that the total cost for the 98 km RftV/Leewood Chilliwack to Scott Road Interurban using Diesel LRT and the 23 km KWK Line would be under $1.3 billion or put another way we could build 121 km of modern LRT lines in the Fraser Valley cheaper than the 11 km Evergreen Line!
Unlike present light rail planning, where development is encouraged to take place along a LRT/SkyTrain route, the KWK Line can pass through sensitive agriculture and ecological areas, without the need for land development. Building the KWK Line would provide a potential capacity of 20,000 persons per hour per direction on the route, well able to handle future passenger demands, yet still can be built much cheaper than its Skytrain/light-metro competitors. The cost for a SkyTrain along the KWK Line? About $2.3 billion at a conservative cost of $100 million per km to build!
A modern LRT Line in Madrid, Spain ai??i?? A template for the WKW Line?
Using low-floor trams, with convenient stops, ensures an obstacle free journey for all transit customers including the mobility impaired, without the need of expensive stations and equally expensive to maintain elevators and escalators.
The KWK Line can provide traffic calming where needed, yet still supply ample capacity for future transit needs. By providing a regular and efficient transit service from White Rock to Surrey Central and by servicing many destinations along its route the proposed LRT line would attract ample ridership, including the all important motorist from the car. The KWK Line would also easily integrate with the RftV TramTrain interurban service from Vancouver to Chilliwack and could provide in the not too distant future a direct White Rock to Vancouver TramTrain service, faster than the present bus and Canada line service.
The WKW Line would bring 21st century transit solutions to Surrey, transit solutions that are too long overdo.
Cost Canadian for new light rail construction.
Zwei has always challenged the Skytrain lobby that modern LRT was much cheaper to build than Skytrain, yet the SkyTrain Lobby still tries to make the cost new LRT construction in the Vancouver Metro area much more expensive than is should be. This intentional ‘gold-plating‘ of modern light rail by the City of Vancouver and TransLink has been so successful in that the SkyTrain lobby fooled the auditor General’s Office with the erroneous claims that SkyTrain can provide more capacity than LRT for about the same cost!
Note to AG’s Office – Capacity is a function of headway and not investment in infrastructure.
In Kitchener Ontario the “starter” 11.8 mile (19 km) long light rail line is estimated to cost CAD $536 million. Put another way, the 19 km starter line will cost about CADAi?? $28.2 million/km to build, which falls right into the cost range of $25 mil./km to $35 mil/km of most recent new built light rail line; except those lines which have been deliberately over-engineered, such as Calgary’s recent construction and Seattle’s expanding hybrid light metro/rail system.
The Waterloo regional government voted Tuesday to invite construction proposals for its 11.8-mile starter light rail line in southern Ontario between Waterloo and Kitchener at an estimated cost of $536 million (USD $514.7 million) and it’s to be built under a public-private partnership [3P], according to The Record, a Kitchener-based newspaper:
http://tinyurl.com/q92obpv
“Paige Desmond, Record staff
Tue May 28 2013 16:40:00
Regional council OK’s call for light rail transit proposalsWATERLOO REGION ai??i?? Regional councillors approved issuing a request for proposals to build light rail transit Tuesday ai??i?? but the vote was not unanimous.
Councillors Jean Haalboom and Jane Mitchell voted against.
The request for proposals is the final leap in choosing one of three construction consortia for the estimated $536-million (USD $514.7 million) contract to build light rail in Kitchener and Waterloo.
But Haalboom is still uncomfortable with the region’s decision to pursue a public-private partnership for the project.
“I have always been against the public-private partnership and I’ve seen the reports in London, England, where they get halfway through the projects and private companies walk away from the deal,” Haalboom said.
“Are we the taxpayers in this region left holding the bag to make this up?”
Thomas Schmidt, commissioner of transportation and environmental services, said the deal is set up to protect the region.
Up to 25 per cent of project costs will be held back from the chosen team, to ensure they get the job done.
“If they don’t complete it we will be holding funds back from them,” he said, adding there are provisions built into the contract to protect taxpayers.
Coun. Sean Strickland said while he shares Haalboom’s concerns, he’s confident in the project’s direction and the contract to design, build, finance, operate and maintain light rail that will be awarded.
“I think this is an excellent model,” he said. “I would not question it whatsoever.”
Mitchell has lingering concerns about construction and engineering giant SNC Lavalin being a main partner in one of the consortia.
Two former Lavalin officials are currently facing charges related to bids in North Africa and Montreal.
In April, the company was barred from bidding on Canadian foreign aid projects for a decade. The ban was the result of World Bank sanctions the company agreed to because of the allegations, which have not been proven in court.
Mitchell had previously asked council to have another look at the three consortia because of the SNC controversy.
She said for that reason, she could not support issuing the request for proposals.
“I could not vote for it,” Mitchell said. “I want us to go back to have another look at them but obviously that’s not going to happen.”
The successful construction team will build the 19 kilometres (11.8 miles) of light rail track from Conestoga Mall in Waterloo to Fairview Park mall in Kitchener.
The request for proposals will go out in June.
Unlike the request for qualifications, this document will not be made public until the deal closes sometime next year. It will be censored when it is released.
The region expects it will take about six months to complete the proposal process.
Construction of the light rail system is expected to begin in 2014.
The province has committed $300 million (USD $388.1 million) to help fund the rapid transit project.
The federal government will pay up to $265 million (USD $254.4 million) and the region has budgeted $253 million (USD $242.9 million).
Canada Line Fizzles
The Canada Line is seeing major problems with a “stalled” train on the tracks. Now new EMU’s are not supposed to stall, but in Vancouver problems with the three mini-metro lines are glossed over by the mainstream media and of course LRT causes traffic chaos every day it is operation, if one wishes to believe the SkyTrain Lobby.
Today’s morning commute fiasco, brought to you by TransLinkAi?? is only “the shape of things to come” if we keep on the same transit path by building more automated mini-metro lines.
To add salt to the wound so to speak, a stalled tram can be easily pushed or pulled to the next refuge siding, with little delay in service. But then, TransLink doesn’t do trams and many people are beginning to wonder if TransLink doesn’t to transit at all.
Major Canada Line delays
News1130 Staff May 28, 2013
VANCOUVER (NEWS1130) ai??i?? You could see more cars on the road if you commute in from Richmond and South Vancouver because of problems on the Canada Line.
Northbound trains are being turned around at Marine Drive, southbound trains are stopping at King Edward Station, and a bus bridge has been set up between the two.
ai???[With the] morning rush hour, there are going to be delays on the Canada Line; some pretty significant delays,ai??? advises Derek Zabell is with TransLink.
This is all due to a stalled train between Langara and Oakridge.
Itai??i??s unclear if the problems are going to last all through the morning commute.
“Even your Auditor General seems to have done his sums on the back of envelopes.”
The above quote came from a European transit expert, when I asked him to comment on BC’s Auditor General’s claim that “SkyTrain and not light rail was the best option because of its greater capacity at similar costai??i??.ai???. I apologize for again questioning the AG’s findings, but the AG’s Department is so far off the mark, so wrong that, clarification is essential.
When a blunder is so vast, it must be pointed out and dealt with and quickly.
Capacity is a function of headway and a modern light rail car cost less than a married pair of SkyTrain cars and if LRT can be built at one half, or one third, or one quarter of that of SkyTrain, modern light rail can provide more capacity than SkyTrain, at a cheaper cost!
It is that simple!
British Columbia’s Auditor General’s Department, must readdress this issue because, the AG’s department erroneous calculations and claims about SkyTrain seems to have been done on the back of an envelope.
The Benefits of Light Rail – Canada Style
Ottawa Light Rail
Transforming our Nation’s Capital
http://www.ottawalightrail.ca/media/pdf/The%20Benefits%20of%20Light%20Rail%20-%20Web.pdf
Hamilton, Ontario
TheAi??academics view,
Advantages of Light Rail Transit
http://www.banekonference.dk/sites/default/files/Advantages%20of%20Light%20Rail%20Transit%202012.pdf
Regional Politicos Play Russian Roulette With the Province
The regional cities and municipalities are digging the financial spurs into the province to come up with a new TransLink deal, the problem is, the province may go along with this and let the regional mayors hoist themselves on their own petard and let the regional mayors decide how to pay for major regional transit upgrades.
Until the regional mayors and TransLink come to grips with the real financial drag on transit, the SkyTrain and Canada Line mini-metro’s, financial chaos will follow TransLink.
Zwei doesn’t see any realistic comment from regional politicians on the subject and transit hubris continues; just spend more money and transit will improve…….well maybe………we sort of promise……in the next few years…………hopefully…………..um.
Metro mayors aim to siphon federal gas tax from TransLink
By Jeff Nagel – Surrey North Delta Leader
Published: May 22, 2013Metro Vancouver politicians are vowing to take back direct control of the flow of federal gas tax money that for years has been automatically funnelled to TransLink.
The federal 10-cent-per-litre fuel tax collected by Ottawa ai??i??Ai??different from the 17 cents per litre TransLink levies directly ai??i??Ai??is returned to the region and used by TransLink, with the consent of Metro cities, mainly to buy new buses.
That flow of $120 million per year may now be cut off as a tactic to press the provincial government to agree to major reforms of TransLink.
With the B.C. Liberals back in power in Victoria and less willing than the NDP to bend to demands for reform, some local mayors see the gas tax fund as a lever to apply more pressure.
“It’s the only place where we have any control mechanism,” said Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan, one of the mayors seeking to regain control over the transportation authority and its spending priorities.
The federal gas tax agreement to return and disburse the funds is up for renegotiation and Metro has notified the province it wants direct control back.
When the original gas tax agreement was struck in 2005, TransLink was still run by mayors and councillors appointed through Metro, rather than the unelected board that has ruled TransLink since 2008.
“We should not be giving up one of the few chips we have,” Corrigan said. “We want to be able to control the funds.”
If TransLink was cut off from gas tax transfers, the money could instead go to Metro projects such as new sewage treatment plants, a new waste-to-energy plant or water infrastructure projects.
Those items are expected to cost taxpayers billions of dollars in the coming years.
Corrigan said the regional district’s board could still authorize disbursement of funds to TransLink on a project-by-project basis.
Delta Mayor Lois Jackson said she’s not sure if the money should be left in the hands of Metro Vancouver or TransLink.
“I’d like to keep the money in my own municipality,” Jackson said, voicing support for an alternate scenario of dividing up the gas tax funds between each local city.
Over the past seven years, the gas tax fund has financed the purchase of more than a thousand new buses or SkyTrain cars at a cost of $676 million.
It has also funded two SeaBus replacements and contributed money to the Compass smart card and faregate system as well as Evergreen Line construction and Expo Line SkyTrain station upgrades.
Over the next several years, TransLink proposes to use $768 million from the fund for another 500 conventional buses, 400 community shuttles, 620 HandyDarts, another SeaBus, refurbishment of 114 SkyTrain cars, construction of the new Hamilton transit centre, smart card readers on buses and another Expo Line upgrade.
Denying gas tax money for bus purchases could also put TransLink under more pressure to find new funding sources ai??i??Ai??also the focus of difficult negotiations between area mayors and the province.
TransLink officials say the gas tax transfers are only spent on projects that are part of a supplemental plan that has been proposed by the TransLink board and approved by the region’s mayors’ council. Project specifics must also be approved by the Union of B.C. Municipalities.
Mayors contend the supplemental plans crafted by TransLink’s board are take-it-or-leave-it packages that are difficult for them to reject without crippling the transit system. They want a line-item control over the projects contained in a supplemental plan.
Letters to the Editor: Daryl versus Malcolm
Tit for tat department.
Last Thursday SkyTrain lobbyist Daryl Dela Cruz had the following letter printed in the Surrey Leader.
An elevated metro station, as envisioned by Mr. Dela Cruz. Expensive to build and to maintain
which translates into higher operating costs.
Light railai??i??s downsides
Published: May 15, 2013Re: ai???Letai??i??s not get soaked by poorly planned transit,ai??? Letters, The Leader, May 14.
I think that many advocates like the Light Rail Links coalition are misleading people into supporting them, because they are hiding the downsides to at-grade, on-street light rail transit.
Some of those downsides are:
ai??? Light rail is slower transit; it is limited to at-grade speed limits of 50-60 km/h.
ai??? Light rail can be closed off completely by accidents. Disruptions at high-accident intersections in Surrey like King George Boulevard and 88 Avenue will mean that an LRT line will close down several times a week.
ai??? Less speed and reliability means less ridership. Less ridership means less fare revenue.
ai??? Even with both a light rail system across Surrey and transportation demand management to raise the cost of driving, 65 per cent of commutes will still be by car.
ai??? No Surrey light rail options will meet 2041 transportation modal shift goals from the car set by TransLink.
In my view, light rail is simply not an investment that will be worth the cost. Surrey residents should consider supporting SkyTrain expansion instead. SkyTrain has some downsides like its visual profile, but I support SkyTrain because:
ai??? SkyTrain actually generates more monetary transportation benefits than cost, unlike light rail.
ai??? SkyTrain has worked in Vancouver to increase transit mode-share and reduce motor vehicle use.
ai???Ai??SkyTrainai??i??s lower operating costs per hour can mean more frequent off-peak and weekend transit service compared to light rail.
ai??? SkyTrainai??i??s grade-separated right-of-way means consistent 96 per cent on-time reliability.
ai??? SkyTrain is the best catalyst for transit-oriented urban growth and slum revitalization when compared to other cities around the world.
Daryl Dela Cruz
Campaign Director
Better Surrey Rapid Transit
This, prompted a reply from long time light rail advocate Malcolm Johnston.
We now see that Mr. Dela Cruz, a high school student, is the campaign director for Better Surrey Rapid Transit, which makes Zwei wonder if BS Rapid Transit (just gotta love it) has any professional input at all? Rail for the Valley has the Leewood Report, a professional transit study done by a real consultant, you know, someone who makes a living by planning real transit projects for real customers.
At-grade/on-street LRT has very inexpensive stations, which translates to much cheaper maintenance costs
and being at street level, are far more convenient for the transit customer.
Light rail makes SkyTrain obsolete
Published: May 21, 2013
A letter by a Mr. Daryl Dela Cruz grossly misinforms the public about modern light rail (LRT).
The difference between modern LRT and a streetcar is the concept of the ai???reserved rights-of-wayai??? or a R-o-W for the exclusive use of a streetcar ai??i?? in laymanai??i??s terms, a HOV lane with rails. The reserved R-o-W enables the modern streetcar to operate as fast as and carry as many or more transit customers than an elevated light-metro like SkyTrain, The fact is, modern LRT made SkyTrain obsolete almost two decades ago.
Modern LRT can operate at speed of 80 km/h to 90 km/h at grade on a reserved R-o-W in complete safety and does in hundreds of cities around the world.
Accidents do happen on LRT lines when car drivers disobey signals, but when a rare accident does occur, only a portion of the line affected is closed and in most cases the streetcars can be easily switched to the unaffected line to continue their journey.
At-grade LRT actually is better in attracting new ridership than grade-separated mini-metros like SkyTrain, simply because stations or stops are handier and easier to use. LRT is far more convenient than SkyTrain and convenience attracts customers.
Since TransLink has no experience in planning and building with LRT, I would question any transit plan presented by TransLink, but since modern LRT can handle higher capacities than SkyTrain, future customer demands would be of little problem.
Today, in Karlsruhe Germany, the main tram (streetcar) line on Kaiserstrasse is dealing with peak -hour capacities in excess of 40,000 persons per hour per direction. This is 10,000 persons per hour per direction more than the maximum theoretical capacity of the SkyTrain mini-metro.
SkyTrain does not have lower operating costs than LRT; instead the opposite is true. SkyTrain costs about 40 per cent more to operate when compared to modern LRT.
Since SkyTrain was first marketed in the 1970s, only seven systems have been built and not one was allowed to compete against LRT. During the same period, over 160 new LRT systems have been built, with a further 30 under construction.
It seems knowledgeable transit planners around the world do not support the Dela Cruzai??i??s SkyTrain hype and hoopla.
D. Malcolm Johnston
Rail for the Valley
Delta
A Comparrison Of Operating Costs – SkyTrain & Light Rail
380. Fraud
380. (1) Every one who, by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether or not it is a false pretence within the meaning of this Act, defrauds the public or any person, whether ascertained or not, of any property, money or valuable security or any service,
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding fourteen years, where the subject-matter of the offence is a testamentary instrument or the value of the subject-matter of the offence exceeds five thousand dollars; or
(b) is guilty
(i) of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or
(ii) of an offence punishable on summary conviction,
where the value of the subject-matter of the offence does not exceed five thousand dollars.
COMPARISON OF OPERATING COSTS
The total 1988/89 budget for SkyTrain:
Calgary C-Train 1990 Operating Budget
Recent Comments