The Light Rail Revolution in France
The one country that has spurred on the “light rail revolution” is France, yetAi??in the late 70’s and early 80’s French politicians and planners were going the light-metro route with the French VAL rubber tire mini-metro system.
MATRA, the massive French Arms consortium, were the owners of the VAL proprietary light-metro system and the French government was very generous to cities that built with theAi??VAL light-metro. French politicians as well as MATRA executives, wanted to see almost every sizable French city operate a VAL mini-metro because; “it would showcase French technology, especially for weapons export.” Cities not building with VAL would be considered unpatriotic.
Sounds familiar doesn’t it.
Despite generous subsidies provided by the French government, the good burghers of of the small French towns of RoubaixAi??and TourcoingAi?? found it was much cheaper to completelyAi??refurbishAi??the localAi??worn out tramway, locally known as the ‘Mongy‘, than build with VAL. With the local taxpayers very much in mind, politicians in both cities rejected the very much more expensive VAL and went ahead modernizing the 22 km. Roubaix and Tourcoing tramway.
InAi??Ai??Saint-Ai??tienne, politicians again Ai??found it much cheaper to refurbish an existing tramway than build a new VAL mini-metro despite heavy inducements by the French government.
It is Nantes, where the real light rail revolution started and has been the blueprint for 21st century French public transit philosophy.
The first tramway in Nantes opened in 1879 and closed in 1958 due to bombing damage during World War II, city planners wanted to reintroduce a “rail” transit system to aleviate ever increasing traffic gridlock in the city. Again, a VAL system was proposed, but due to its extremely high construction and operating costs only a small line could be built and this after substantial subsidiy by the French government. Planners felt that extending the initial line would be cost prohibited. Instead, planners in 19981 opted for classicAi??light rail, complete with new three section articulated tramcars (with a capacity of 253 persons per car – 58 seating, 285 standing) with a low-floor centre section.
Success of the new tramway was instant and today, the 42 km./83 station Nantes tramway carries almost 300,000 persons a day.
It became apparent, to the chagrin of French national politicians that modern light rail, not only proved to be much cheaper to build than light-metro, but it was also cheaper to operate. All important was the fact that modern LRT was able to attract the motorist from the car! Even the BRT/GLT types have been not very successful in using bus based technology for regional transit as LRT can be built for just a few Euro’s more and provide a much bigger bang forAi??ones Euro.
Today there are twenty cities, including Paris, that operate light rail lines and the VAL light-metro has been relegated to a ‘niche‘ transit mode.
France provides the lessons learned about modern LRT but in BC, Canada, and the USA, most transit planners remain deaf about the LRT revolution and design LRT as a sort-of ‘poorman’s‘ light metro at great expense, a laai???, Seattle. Sadly in North America, dated transit planning and a grand ignorance of successful modern public transit philosophy reigns supreme, as the transit Ludites (especially the SkyTrain Lobby in BC)Ai??are still in operator’s seat.
TransLink Just Doesn’t Get It – Increasing Fares Via The Park & Rides
In one of TransLink’s moreAi??daft ideas, a strict cash grab by bureaucrats, TransLink is going to charge at the park & rides that service the transit system.Ai??For many, this amounts to a 20% fare hike for 3-zone transit customers, which in the end will just provideAi??an incentive for transit customers to go back commuting by car.
This price gouge shows is how desperate the mandarins running TransLink are in trying toAi??squeeze more dollars from transit customers who already pay top dollar for inferior transit service.
Park and rides are generally built to service areas which have poor or nonexistent transit services to entice car drivers to transit and making them a cash cow will just deter transit customers in the long run.
Oh by the way, has TransLink cancelled the generous car allowances and other perks for the well paid staff?
No? Thought so.
Sadly, TransLink just can’t seem to trim its own staff, nor plan for an adequate public transit and both regional and provincial politicians must decide, whether it is time to pull the plug on TransLink and start anew.
Bus users balk at park-and-ride fees
By Dan Ferguson – Peace Arch News Ai??Published: September 19, 2012
The planned end to free parking at the South Surrey TransLink park-and-ride lot and a proposed shift to a $2-a-day minimum fee has local commuters unhappy, but resigned.
ai???Thatai??i??s ridiculous,ai??? said White Rock resident Virginia Tomkow, a flight attendant who relies on the King George lot to get to work at Vancouver International Airport.
ai???We pay enough for that (already),ai??? Tomkow told Peace Arch News Tuesday.
The only positive, she said, was the parking fee might reduce congestion at the often-overcrowded lot.
Tomkow said she will pay the fee, because she has no practical alternative.
ai???Itai??i??s essential,ai??i?? she said. ai???I work (late) shifts and I canai??i??t get a bus in the evening in White Rock.ai???
Crescent Beach resident Bob Semaniuk, who was waiting in his car for a parking spot to come open, said TransLink is ai???nickel and dimingai??? riders who are trying to save money.
ai???I donai??i??t think that would be fair,ai??? Semaniuk said of the parking fee.
ai???People are already strapped.ai???
Commuter Kim Ross was dismayed to hear a parking charge was being contemplated.
ai???That sucks,ai??? Ross said.
The former White Rock resident, who returned by bus Tuesday to visit relatives, predicted the additional expense will deter people from using the transit system.
ai???It just adds up,ai??? Ross said. ai???Thatai??i??s (another) $10 a week, $40 a month.ai???
Another regular rider, Kelly Craik, agreed.
ai???It adds up,ai??? Craik said. ai???Thatai??i??s not right.ai???
Among the half-a-dozen commuters whom agreed to be interviewed by Peace Arch News, only one person, a visitor from Vancouver Island who didnai??i??t give her name, supported the notion.
ai???Itai??i??s user pay,ai??? she said. ai???Someone has to pay for it (transit).ai???
The planned minimum parking fee of $2 a day was revealed in TransLinkai??i??s new draft 2013 plan unveiled Monday (see page 8).
ai???Prices will vary depending on the local markets,ai??? TransLink vice-president Bob Paddon said Monday. ai???It will bring us much needed revenues.ai???
TransLink projects it will raise $2.2 million by charging at the free lots and raising the prices at some of the pay lots.
The South Surrey park-and-ride is already heavily overcrowded, which led TransLink this year to start towing incorrectly parked vehicles.
Paddon said imposing pay parking should give motorists much better odds of finding a space at crowded lots in the future.
The hope is that more drivers who use park and rides will simply leave their cars at home and catch feeder buses nearby to avoid the parking fees.
TransLink plans to develop more park-and-rides in the future, including ones to serve the Evergreen Line in Port Moody and Coquitlam.
About 3,500 of the 4,300 park-and-ride spaces TransLink controls are already pay parking.
– with files from Jeff Nagel
Memo To TransLink – The Regional Mayors Did Not Blink – Well At Least For The Moment.
It seems TransLink’s game of chicken has failed at the regional level; well for the time being.
The real problem why TransLink is on a financial precipice, is the SkyTrain light-metro system and light-metro systems, especially driverless light-metro systems, cost a lot to build and operate. Like many who work for TransLink, regional mayors have been lulled into a SkyTrain ennui and believe, golly gee whiz, that because it has no drivers, it costs very little to operate and hip, hip, hooray, it is a world-class transit system. That very few citiesAi??(a total of seven counting Vancouver) operateAi??SkyTrain, despite it being on the market for over 33 years isAi??a strongAi??indication that SkyTrain is not aAi??good transit system nor is it world class, Ai??is quietly ignored.
The fact of the matter is rather simple, SkyTrain not only costs a lot more to build than light rail (up to 15 times more per route/km.), it costs a lot to operate because by not having drivers, you have to have an expensive small army of technicians and attendants (250 full time attendants at last count) to ensure smooth operation, which translates into having much higher operating costs. In fact, SkyTrain costs about 40% more to operate when an ‘apples to apples’ comparison is made with LRT. This goes a long way to explain why SkyTrain has been almost universally rejected by transit planners around the world.
Here is the kicker, the provincial government quietly subsidizes SkyTrain and the Canada Line by well over $250 million annually and helps explain why the province is not so forthcoming with extra cash for the somewhat bloated bureaucracy.
Building a SkyTrain Evergreen line will only exacerbate TransLink’s dire financial chaos, but then all this was predicted back in the 1980’s, but no one listened. Even when the Canada Line light-metro was being planned, overseas consultants were amazed by Vancouver’s SkyTrain/light-metro voodoo planningAi??and let one company’s consultant, John Jordan to comment; “Certainly I can imagine that the powers that be in Vancouver cannot begin to imagine the daft reputation they have managed to generate in the wider transport community around the world.”
Mayors put off axing of property-tax rise for TransLink
By FRANK LUBA, The Province September 19, 2012
Itai??i??s looking increasingly as if mayors in the Lower Mainland will reject more property tax for TransLinkai??i??s latest three-year plan.
Richmond Mayor Malcolm Brodie was ready Wednesday to axe the tax, which would be an average of $23 per home.
But his motion to drop the property tax at Wednesdayai??i??s meeting of the regional Mayorsai??i?? Council on Transportation was tabled until the councilai??i??s next meeting Oct. 18 because some municipal leaders wanted more time to consult with their councils and residents.
ai???I want to cut it right now so itai??i??s not used for the next two years,ai??? said Brodie.
ai???Iai??i??m guessing the vote will ultimately be similar to the one we had in April,ai??? he said of the Mayorsai??i?? Councilai??i??s initial rejection of the idea of giving TransLink more property tax.
ai???Will it be a death blow?ai??? said Brodie. ai???No, it will mean more adjustments have to be made.ai???
Even Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts, whose community would benefit from a proposed B-Line bus service on King George Boulevard that is part of TransLinkai??i??s draft base plan, agreed property tax is not the answer.
ai???The system doesnai??i??t work,ai??? said Watts. ai???The legislated options given by the province are unsustainable and at the tipping point.
ai???We have to start having a different conversation.ai???
Watts wants to have that conversation with the provincial government.
If Victoria chooses not to talk, the mayors can ask TransLink for a supplemental plan without the $30 million property tax in 2013 and 2014.
TransLink has already found what it called ai???efficienciesai??? of $98 million annually in 2013-2015 to deal with a projected shortfall of $472 million during that period.
But another option for operating without the $30 million from property tax is service cuts.
The $30 million represents about 10 per cent of the five million bus service hours that cost the transportation authority $300 million in 2011.
The Surrey B-Line bus and the Highway 1 Rapid Bus from Langley over the new Port Mann Bridge envisioned for 2013 would cost about $2 million each to operate.
TransLink Is Playing “Financial Chicken” With The Taxpayer.
TransLink is a one trick pony and Bob Paddon, TransLink’sAi??executive vice-president of strategic planning is the ringleader, trundling out the same old tired routine to con the public for more money.
One tires of TransLink’s brinkmanship, but throwing more tax money at this ponderous bureaucracy will do nothing to alleviate the problem and the problem is major. Like an alcoholic, TransLink just cannot deal with the transit problem until it admits what the real problem is and that is simple – SkyTrain. This massively expensive, but now obsolete proprietary mini-metro costs at least three times more than very successful light rail to build and cost more to operate. The result: the taxpayer is anting up farAi??more tax money to subsidize a truncated regional rail system and there is not enough money left over to operate the buses.
Added to the problem is that buses are very poor in attracting the all important motorist from the car, thus a transit system, that is based on buses to be successful, will not perform to its promoters expectations. TransLink’s much ballyhooed “Rapidbus” will be mainly used by the poor, the elderly and students. And on the topic of students, the now almost universal U-Pass, with over 100,000 thousand of these $1.00 a day, ride at will post secondary student passes have flooded TransLink’s services to the point that for many potential transit customers, taking the car is just a better option!
There are so many problems with TransLink, including an almost clueless TransLink board; inept bus scheduling; unrealistic planning, that before the taxpayer is asked to ante up more money, a through and complete housecleaning is in order; but I don’t see that happening as TransLink is the epitome of the “Peter Principle“.
The Peter Principle is a belief that in an organization where promotion is based on achievement, success, and merit, that organization’s members will eventually be promoted beyond their level of ability. The principle is commonly phrased, “employees tend to rise to their level of incompetence.”
TransLinkAi??is playing a game of “Financial Chicken” with regional politicians and it is time for the public to say; “no more games, no more moneyAi??until TransLink is reformed or abolished!”
Ai??
TransLink’s funding plan hinges on raising taxes
TransLink’s newly announced base plan to send a rapid bus over the new Port Mann Bridge and add an express B-Line bus service in Surrey hinges on persuading the region’s mayors to raise property taxes.
By Kelly Sinoski, Vancouver SunSeptember 18, 2012
Bob Paddon, executive vice-president of strategic planning, said Monday TransLink has found $98 million in annual efficiencies over the next three years, which would help fund those projects, as well as the new Evergreen Line, while adding 109,000 new hours of transit service, and upgrading seven SkyTrain stations.
But the plan also depends on using $124 million from TransLink reserves as well as the $30 million annually that TransLink would reap from a two-year, time-limited property tax increase approved by Metro Vancouver mayors last year.
Simon Fraser University political science professor Lindsay Meredith said it appears the players in the transit issue are gearing up to play hardball.
ai???TransLink is saying weai??i??ve got nowhere to go; this is the only card we have left to play and the provincial government have made us do it,ai??? he said. ai???Thereai??i??s a lot of posturing going on. This is not unusual; you see this happen all the time. All sides up the ante.ai???
Mayors voted earlier this year to nix the two-year increase, equivalent to about $23 per homeowner, saying it was only a stopgap measure while they negotiated with the province on potential new funding sources. Discussions are still ongoing.
The mayors voted against the increase because carbon taxes and a vehicle levy were rejected as funding sources.
ai???We went ahead and entered into discussions in good faith and two of those sources of revenue were dismissed outright (by the province),ai??? said Richard Walton, chairman of the mayorsai??i?? council on regional transportation. ai???We werenai??i??t overly thrilled. Weai??i??re not going to continually have property taxes be the fallback position.
ai???We understand additional transportation will cost more money. But weai??i??re saying the meaningful discussion has still not taken place with the province.ai???
The mayors are scheduled to meet with TransLink this week to discuss the base plan, which aims to save $47 million per year and boost revenue by $60 million by shifting bus resources to routes with higher demand, leveraging real estate assets, and increasing or introducing parking rates at TransLink-run park and ride lots. The plan will go to public consultation before being finalized in November.
Walton wouldnai??i??t speculate on whether he thought the mayors would change their minds about a property tax. ai???Obviously itai??i??s a political hot potato,ai??? he said, ai???(especially) for communities south of the Fraser where thereai??i??s a strong need for transit.ai???
TransLink said if mayors continue to balk at the tax increase, a supplementary plan would have to be drawn up later this fall, and service cuts are possible. As it is, Paddon said, TransLink canai??i??t fulfil all of its earlier promises.
The express B-Line bus service in Surrey, for instance, would run on King George Boulevard and 104th Avenue but wonai??i??t extend to White Rock as promised, while the rapid bus service from Langley to New Westminster over Port Mann Bridge, will run every 10 minutes during peak hours and 30 minutes during off-peak hours. It was promised that the service would run every 10 minutes off peak.
ai???There is a gap; we canai??i??t deliver everything we promised,ai??? Paddon said, adding: ai???This is going to have an impact on our customers.ai???
Walton, mayor of North Vancouver District, said he will take the base plan back to his council, noting a promised expanded SeaBus service, which would have provided 15-minute service on Sundays and holidays in fall, winter and spring, isnai??i??t part of the proposed base plan.
Other projects put on hold include a plan to increase bus service by a further 306,000 hours, and restoring original funding promised for cycling programs and the major road network.
Meredith expects lines will be drawn in the sand, especially among mayors south of the Fraser and the more transit-rich cities.
Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts and Langley City Mayor Peter Fassbender insist the mayors should honour the tax commitment they made a year ago.
The two were among seven Metro Vancouver mayors who voted in favour of TransLinkai??i??s 2040 strategic plan last year that called for a two-cents-a-litre boost in the gas tax and the potential interim property tax to pay for the Evergreen Line and regional transit projects.
Mayors in Burnaby and Richmond have never supported the property tax increase.
ai???You canai??i??t all of a sudden pull the plug out when a lot of different municipalities supported [transit] infrastructure going elsewhere,ai??? Watts said. ai???Having a rapid bus across the Port Mann and a B-Line in place along King George is something we want to move forward with.ai???
TransLink chairwoman Nancy Olewiler said the mayors or TransLink werenai??i??t aware of the substantial drop in fuel tax revenue when they voted to nix the tax increase. TransLink said it faces an estimated $30-million drop this year in its gas tax revenue, which is expected to be $145 million less in 2014 than the $380.3 million forecast.
This is blamed on drivers filling up south of the border or in the eastern Fraser Valley, as well as an increase in the number of hybrids and electric vehicles.
ai???None of us knew the magnitude of the fuel tax revenue decline,ai??? she said. ai???The world has evolved. Weai??i??re in close contact with the mayors and weai??i??ll see what unfolds.ai???
The transportation authority was also told earlier by TransLink Commissioner Martin Crilly it could only raise transit fares by 10 per cent next year, rather than the 12 per cent it had proposed.
Meanwhile, TransLink said $30 million in cost savings have already been found by reducing 90 management and professional positions, cutting overtime and labour costs and using more fuel-efficient vehicles.
More savings are expected from the provincial TransLink audit currently underway.
Paddon said less-used bus routes may see reduced service, such as hourly instead of half-hour schedules, with buses reallocated to high-demand areas, while SkyTrain service will be trimmed during non-peak hours. TransLink will also trim its ai???bufferai??? fleet, which means fewer spare buses on standby, and will cut ai???slackai??? time, which had given drivers extra time to make connections if they were caught in traffic, and use smaller, cheaper buses where possible.
Subway Blunders in Europe – Can TransLink Learn From Other’s Mistakes?
More from the LRPPro.
Herr K. is a German transit specialist from Germany and gives wonderful insight to the pitfalls of building new subways for the sake of building new subways. The following post shows theAi??problems and counter productiveAi??resultsAi??of building subways and metros, where ordinary trams would do just fine. There are lessons to be learned, but I’m afraid TransLink is an “old” dog that just can’t be taught new tricks!
Ai??
Nuremberg has both a driverless metro and trams (streetcars).
> We must build lots of light rail, cheap, as cheaply as possible to
> reach those so called transit hostile areas. They seem to be able to
> do it in Europe – pity! MMuenchen and Nuernberg show pretty well how Europeans fail at transit
system design, too. >;-> and X-(In Muenchen, at the beginning of the 60s, experts had recommended to
extend the existing streetcar system out to the periphery on new lines
built on separated row, even with grade-free road crossings where
possible at low expense. Work on this had already been started in the
50s and got pretty far. The result was an excellent, extensive and
dense network, attractive for both passengers and the operator.There are some photographs of some of those extension lines in operation
and after decomissioning onhttp://www.tram-muenchen.de/geschichte/gh-has_hah.html
http://www.tram-muenchen.de/geschichte/gh-suedwest.htmlText in german without translation, sorry. But the images speak for
themselves, I think.Especially these photos imho illustrate the standard to which these
lines were built:http://www.tram-muenchen.de/geschichte/fotos/2448-1993-10-03-rue_750px.jpg
http://www.tram-muenchen.de/geschichte/fotos/2007-1993-09-rue_kef_750px.jpg
http://www.tram-muenchen.de/geschichte/fotos/2032-1986-03-18-obh_750px.jpg
http://www.tram-muenchen.de/geschichte/fotos/2007-1993-09-obh_750px.jpg
http://www.tram-muenchen.de/geschichte/fotos/2044-1993-09-obh_750px.jpg
http://www.tram-muenchen.de/geschichte/fotos/2043-1984-07-due_750px.jpg
http://www.tram-muenchen.de/geschichte/fotos/3021-1983-08-has_750px.jpg
http://www.tram-muenchen.de/geschichte/fotos/2610-1991-02-17-zue_750px.jpg
http://www.tram-muenchen.de/geschichte/fotos/2606-1991-02-17-nrs_750px.jpgFor the city center, the experts had recommended building a few tunnels
under the main choke points and especially under the entire area which
is today pedestrian zone. After municipal authorities had taken over
planning of these tunnels, however, they got more and more extensive,
eventually creeping into a plan to replace the entire streetcar network
by a full-blown subway. This plan was decided nearly 50 years ago.Today, after “investing” a few billion EUR, the subway network does not
cover a larger area than the streetcar network around 1965-1975 and it
doesn’t allow to travel significantly faster, if travel time is mesured
from door to door. In fact on lots of (especially tangent) relations
where the streetcar network offered a direct connection, today you are
forced to make detours and change trains, losing time.Another issue is that the dense surface network was replaced by just
three trunk lines (which are split up into branch lines towards the
ends), which resulted in hopeless overcrowding of some stretches during
rush hours and especially of the connecting stations. Besides, the
subway network offers less stations, so walking distances have been
significantly increased for the passengers. When living in Muenchen, I
almost always preferred to go by bicycle because it was faster than the
subway.In the end, the streetcar network has never been entirely replaced,
some lines that had been closed, but without replacement by subway,
even had to be reopened because busses were inefficient in handling the
volume of passengers who stubbornly refused to take a detour
underground.Today, the streetcar network is slowly being revived and new lines are
being planned. One streetcar extension line that had been planned in the
early 60s and for which the row had already been reserved, eventually
got opened in 2011. One streetcar line that was closed without
replacement by subway in 1983 got reopened the next year after protests
by the citizens flooded the town hall, closed again in 1993 and might
be reopened again in the near future.For the north and the southwest of the city, there are now plans for
the construction of entire new streetcar subnetworks, including some
stretches of extension lines built in the 50s/early 60s which were
closed in the 80s/90s.One important short tangent connection, which was planned as part of a
loop line around the entire city before WW1, never got built due to
WW1, depression and then WW2, and it was the only segment of that loop
line that was never completed. Today, the only thing that prevents it
from finally being built is the county government whose opposition to
the city council’s decision is nominally based on the false pretension
that the streetcar line would wreak havoc to park it has to pass
through. On a row where currently diesel busses operate, the tarmac
would be replaced with grassed tracks. A few hundred meters north of
this row, a six lane “highway” passes through the same park. The real
reason of course is just that the county government is in the hands of a
different political party than the city council and is has been like
this for decades now.The “tunnel mania” of the subway planners gave some “interesting”
results. For example, when the technical university of Muenchen moved
some of the engineering faculties to a new campus outside the city in
the middle of nowhere, it took roughly a decade to built a subway line
there. This line passes underneath a place named Garching, essentially
a tiny village, they have a maypole on their village square with a
subway station underneath. Next to this village, the tunnel passes even
below a potato field (or is it a cow paddock?) before reaching the
campus.During the decades of subway tunnel construction, suburbanisation has
progressed further outward, creating more traffic. With the result that
the suburban commmuter network (“S-Bahn”) got overloaded, especially on
its main trunk line which passes in a tunnel under the city. Plans for
adding two separate tracks for commuter trains and connecting stations
with the urban network to an existing surface bypass line south of the
immediate city center have been put aside by the politicians. They
could have been implemented by now, at comparatively low cost.Instead, a new tunnel parallel to the existing one was planned, with
connection to the existing urban network at stations which are already
hopelessly overcrowded. The cost for the tunnel, as usual, rose during
the planning stage and in the end financing could not be warranted so
the project is stalled.So while a foreigner coming to Muenchen might think this city has an
excellent transit network, as someone who has lived there for a few
years I beg to differ. After decades of tunnel contruction with >10
billion EUR wasted, large areas of the city still have no decent
connection while the subway and the commuter network are overcrowded
and unable to handle more traffic. Besides the fact that tangent
connections are missing and busses (not only on these relations) are
stuck in gridlock during rush hours.In Nuernberg, which mostly imitated the system at Muenchen, they built
a single-track (!) subway tunnel to the airport, which before was
served by 12m busses every hour or so. Right before arriving at the
airport, the tunnel passes underneath paddocks, community gardens and a
small forest.The Nuernberg system is really a “nice” example how to screw up an
outrageously expensive transit system. One false pretense for building
the subway was, among others, that it would provide a higher capacity
than the streetcar. But actually, the subway was built with stations
only for 75m trainsets, very narrow platforms at some stations and few
and narrow staircases.As it happens, one of the most cramped stations is the one that has to
handle the most passengers, during the annual christmas market, which is
*the* touristic event in this city.Sincerely,
W.
New Port Mann Bridge toll for cars is $1.50 – A Pre-election Goody?
In a deliberate attempt to pander for votes in next spring’s election the BC Liberal government has offered a ‘pre full toll special’ for a few months and if you register for a decal, you get a full year at the discounted price – yippee!
Zwei is not against tolling, but the new Port Mann Bridge is all about politics; a new bridge replacing a recently refurbished Port Mann Bridge (why not build a smaller and cheaper bridge, use bothAi??and charge less toll?), which will be torn down. This smells like a political deal to force drivers to pay tolls for forty years to a company that is in bed with the BC Liberals andAi??smacks of crass cronyism and politcal pandering, but then that is the hallmark of the BC Liberal Party.
I also laugh at the proposed express bus service from Langley to the closest SkyTrain station, is being called ‘Rapid Bus’ as transit customers will find the service not so rapid as they first thought, when one considers a forced transfer to SkyTrain and many more transfers later to complete ones journey. The proposed express bus service is definitely not rapid bus or BRT, but that doesn’t stop Langley mayor Fassbender to embarrass himself by talking of ‘transit things’ that he knows little about and one wonders if he is not taking his cue from Victoria?
And finally, former Vancouver NPA councillor Gordon Price, local “legend in his mind“, who has found a comfortable sinecure at SFU, who constantly cheers any new tax on car drivers, yet offers very little else as an alternative, except for walking and cycling. Hey “Trains are toys for boys” Price, how about supportingAi??the affordable and shovel ready RftV/Leewood Vancouver to Chilliwack TramTrain?
No, I thought not, there is not much political or academic mileage to be made on simple and effective transit solutions.
As I have said before, the Port Mann Bridge is BC blacktop politics at its best.
New Port Mann Bridge toll for cars is $1.50
If you register for decal before March, you’ll get a full year discount
Dan BurrittSep 12, 2012
SURREY (NEWS1130) – If you plan to drive a car over the new Port Mann Bridge when eight lanes open in December, you will pay $1.50 per crossing, down from $3.00.
And drivers who register for a free online tolling account and decal by February 28th, 2013 will receive the discounted toll for a full year.
Transportation Minister Mary Polak says drivers won’t see the full benefit from the new span until other work on Highway 1 and the South Fraser Perimeter Road is finished.
“Drivers shouldn’t have to pay the full toll until we provide the full-time savings,” Polak says.
“When this project is complete, drivers will see their commute times reduced by up to 50 percent,” she notes, adding it took her nearly two hours to drive from her home in Langley over the existing Port Mann bridge to Downtown Vancouver today.
Light trucks and cars pulling trailers will be charged $4.50 to cross the new span, $1.00 for motorcycles and $9.00 for semi trailers and large trucks, although that fee is cut in half if truckers cross between 9 p.m. and 5 a.m.
“Currently, the time [semi truck drivers] spend in traffic is time that costs them money, so this already is a significant advantage for them and the opportunity to travel at night and have a 50 percent discount is certainly significant,” Polak contends. “We anticipate and, in fact, have heard support from the trucking industry for the framework that we’ve put in place.”
Polak and Transportation Investment Corporation (TI Corp) — the Crown agency overseeing the new Port Mann project — is encouraging as many drivers as possible to sign up for the free online tolling account and decal.
Drivers who get the new decal can use it across the tolled Golden Ears Bridge as well. Drivers with the Golden Ears Quickpass transponder can use the new Port Mann but won’t receive a discount, so the website suggests you return the transponder after December 1st and sign up for the Treo decal.
Polak says their plan to pay off the bridge is still on track despite the discount. “Tolls will still come off the bridge at 2050 and it will still be paid off then.”
She also expects rapid bus service to travel over the new bridge come December, despite TransLink’s funding challenges.
Langley City Mayor Peter Fassbender is also confident the rapid buses will run and plans to be on board the first coach to cross the bridge
“It may mean reallocating of some resources,” he says. “I don’t have the answers until TransLink brings it forward but I have the commitment from the minister and the government.”
NDP Transportation Critic Harry Bains calls the bridge tolls punishing, but wouldn’t say specifically if his party would raise them if they won power. “Chances are [the] tolls could go up if they are not on target as far bringing in sufficient revenue on tollings,” Bains says.
Short term gain for long term pain?
There are suggestions that the immediate discount on the bridge could mean short term gain for long term pain.
It will take decades to pay this off regardless, but North Vancouver District Mayor Richard Walton say shortening the cost to you on the front end will just extend it further on the back.
“The question is where are those funds going to come from?” he asks. “They have to come from users at some point. Market-force is at play when you are pricing public transportation as well. So you have to take a look at trying to get the optimum amount of revenue and making sure traffic keeps flowing over the bridge.”
Meanwhile, Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts figures people will be pleased to get to test out the bridge for less than they had expected.
Truckers won’t see reduced rates
There’s no toll discount for truckers who want to use the new Port Mann bridge in the day. This has the BC Trucking Association encouraging semi drivers to pass the $9.00 toll onto customers.
President Louise Yako doesn’t want that burden on her members.
“If you look at a $9.00 toll, it doesn’t seem to be very much, but if you add on a series of incremental costs then obviously, it will affect the total cost of transportation,” notes Yako.
The half price overnight rate remains in place, but she doubts a lot of truckers will take advantage of it.
Drivers will keep using the Port Mann Bridge
The head of the City Program at SFU expects drivers will keep using the Port Mann and Highway 1.
“Well, I’m signing up. I’m going to take the deal, it’s actually pretty good,” says Gordon Price. “I think they’ve done a good job with what you call a loss-leader. Get us all signed up, registered, and then we are on our way to not just bridge tolling.”
“I think you’re going to be seeing this rolling out so that all kinds of roads, bridges, gosh-you-name-it, are going to be part of a comprehensive road-pricing system in the future,” he adds.
The City Program studies issues like urban planning, transportation, and development. Price expects the reduced toll for crossing the bridge should be enough of an incentive that drivers will “try it out.”
“[Drivers] will make their trade-offs, I think some will,” he says. “But basically the appeal of Highway 1 and the bridge, I have to say it’s a pretty attractive option.”
Price says his biggest criticism of the Port Mann project is that new transit options for communities south of the Fraser River are not in place for the opening of the new lanes on the bridge.
http://www.news1130.com/news/local/article/400840–new-port-mann-bridge-toll-for-cars-is-1-50
Another View on the High Cost of Expensive Grade Separated Infrastructure
The following post comes from the LRPPro Transit blog and the comments from Herr Wolfgang are extremely pertinent to the situation evolving with Metro Vancouver’s light metro network. Simply, no one; not oneAi??politicianAi??or current transit planner has factored in the high cost of maintenance that will be needed in the coming years for SkyTrain’s and the Canada Line’s deteriorating grade-separated infrastructure.
Subways are extremely expensive to maintain as water seepage does great damage over time and the scouring effect of the dust and debris inside a subway are propelled piston like with each passing train through the tunnelAi??which acts as a sandblaster requiringAi??regular costlyAi??maintenance.
SkyTrain’s cement viaductsAi??are alsoAi??showingAi?? their age with signs of flaking, which in time will lead to more serious problems in the near future, especiallyAi??with the corrosive coastal atmosphere.
There are persistent rumours that over $1 billion dollars must be spent to upgrade justAi??the SkyTrain viaducts in the next 20 years and experience from overseas shows that the subway tunnels will also need expensive renovations, much sooner rather than later.
What all this means is that TransLink must find the money, not just to keep the transit system in operation, but must find more money to keep the present infrastructure in good repair.
What all this indicates is that the SkyTrain and the Canada line are ticking financial time-bombs, which regional taxpayers must ante up more and more tax money to keep TransLink’s financial fiasco from exploding.
Me thinks the South of the Fraser municipalities should seriously think of saying adiA?s to TransLink and go it alone, with much cheaper to build and much cheaper to maintain light rail. TransLink’s financial time bomb is tickingAi??louder andAi??louder!
> Most light-metro systems today were designed in the late 60’s and
> 70’s, to fill a gap between what a non articulated tram or streetcar
> could carry and that of a heavy-rail metro. To add extra panache,
> most new light metro systems were driverless, so the claim of cheaper
> operating costs could help sales. Then the light rail Renaissance
> happened, with new designed articulated LRV’s and the concept of the
> reserved rights-of-way, which meant that at-grade LRT could provide
> the same quality of service as a much more expensive grade-separated
> light-metro at a far cheaper cost. Revenue operation of light metro
> also demonstrated that automated transit systems also cost more to
> operate than LRT. Modern light-rail, with its cheaper construction
> costs and cheaper operating costs, made light-metro obsolete.One thing that struck me with public infrastructure projects is that
the overbloated cost of certain projects is often even exploited for
image promotion by political careerists:“Look at all the good we are doing: We are investing ($XYZ) monies into
public transportation in the next (N) years!”In a book about the construction of the subway in Munich, the director
(long retired, probably deceased by now) of the municipal agency which
was specifically set up for this project openly cited the extreme cost
of tunnels as an actual *benefit* (!) of the project for political
decision makers and as *the* reason to chose a “heavy rail” subway.Cheaper solutions, such as the building of short tunnels on selected
“choke points” of the streetcar network, as recommended by technical
experts at that time, would have offered less opportunities for the
politicsters to make their mark. And since something like 90% of the
construction cost was financed with federal and state subsidies
anyway, they had no reason to care for cost efficiency.< prayer wheel>
The point that everyone deliberately chose to ignore back then was that
all that shining, brandnew infrastructure needs to be maintained, even
though initially it came nearly for free for the municipality. To
camouflage this in the accounts, the infrastructure was symbolically
evaluated at just 1 DM. Result: No asset depreciation had to be “put
aside” from the revenue, faking better cost recovery. But obviously,
asset depreciation originally was made legally mandatory not without a
reason. To cater for maintenance cost. Which cannot be financed now.
Which would have been obvious from the start, if it had not been
deliberately camouflaged by accounting fraud. Oops. Remind me, what were
rules meant to be good for?< /prayer wheel>
> Sadly the LRT Renaissance has not reached the USA as many new LRT
> lines (Seattle) are nothing more than very expensive mini-metros in
> drag. I feel, many new so-called LRT lines in the USA are both badly
> planned and heavily gold plated. Thus for many transit projects the
> cost for LRT is almost the same as a light metro! This ‘metro’ creep
> planning has made LRT almost unsellable and has given rise to BRT! A
> simple 17 km streetcar/LRT line in Victoria BC, is said to cost
> almost $950 million! This is utterly ridiculous, but the outfit hired
> to cost out LRT for Victoria, used costs from Seattle and other
> gold-plated American schemes. “Metro’ creep has affected the ability
> to build LRT across the boarder in Canada! It is safe to say that in
> the USA transit planning is 25 years behind Europe and instead from
> learning from success overseas, many planners are blundering ahead
> with extremely dated and very expensive light rail plans which in
> reality resemble light metro, especially with the costs. I know all
> the excuses on this side of the pond about modern LRT, but things
> have changed and if the effort was made to introduce real European
> LRT/tramway, I think we will win the transit wars; but if we continue
> to build hugely expensive hybrid metro type systems, the door will be
> wide open to all sorts of gadgetbanen and bus based transit systems
> that will do little in reducing traffic congestion and gridlock, but
> are wonderful in increasing taxesI remember reading an article a long time ago about a comparison between
the LRT systems at Edmonton and Calgary. The article concluded that
since Edmonton chose to build their system with complete grade
separation which required lots of tunneling, cost became prohibitive
and the whole “system” essentially remained a torso. Whereas in Calgary,
infrastructure cost was kept much lower by building lines without
complete grade separation, which allowed implementation of a more
extensive network, yielding much higher ridership and better cost
recovery.Judging from Wikipedia, it seems that Calgary has now switched to
planning expensive tunnels as well, at least partially… 🙁Sincerely,
W…….
Is the aging SkyTrain a ticking financial time-bomb?
Eric Chris’s letter to New Transportation Minister, Mary Pollack
Dear Mary Polak, Langley MLA,
Congratulations on being appointed to Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure ai??i?? first order of business ai??i?? a moratorium on any further B-line (rapid bus transit) and SkyTrain expansions along with the sacking of everyone associated with the current SkyTrain and B-Lines not only at the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure but also at TransLink ai??i?? followed by the elimination of the 99 B-line service in Vancouver.Ai?? You might be wondering, who is this person?Ai?? Iai??i??m a chemical engineer living in Vancouver, am quite serious about it and would be happy to discuss it further.Ai?? You will likely agree after reading and considering the following:
Relative to transit use, the rate of vehicle use has exploded since TransLink started on its relentless expansion of B-Line and SkyTrain transit in 1999 (refer to attached chart showing the trends in population, vehicle registrations and transit use).Ai?? For increased density to succeed in the reduction of the number of cars on the roads, it must lead to more people living closer to work and school.Ai?? In other words, it must pull in residents from satellite communities around downtown Vancouver to make the geographical area where people live smaller in size, to reduce commuting distances.Ai?? Transit by TransLink based on B-Lines and SkyTrains has done the opposite of this.
TransLink has targeted long distance commuters interested in taking B-Lines and SkyTrains having distantly spaced stops.Ai?? However, long distance commuters are only a small segment of commuters, and the median distance traveled by commuters in Metro Vancouver is about seven kilometres.Ai?? You were the director of a research-polling firm and surely understand statistics well.Ai?? The statistical distribution for transit is not a normal distribution and is skewed.Ai?? That is, 50% of commuters travel about seven kilometres or less in distance one-way with three-quarters of the commuters travel under 15 kilometres in distance one-way.Ai?? Only one-quarter of the commuters travel over 15 kilometres in distance, one-way.Ai?? Only about 25% of commuters are good candidates for SkyTrain or B-Line transit, yet, TransLink has based its entire transit network on B-Lines and SkyTrains costing twice as much as conventional light rail and tram lines as well as electric bus (trolley or wireless) routes having closely spaced stops and suited for 75% of the commuters.Ai?? This has been a huge and crippling blunder by TransLink.
TransLink by focusing on long distance commuters has alienated most driving commuters and has put more cars on the roads.Ai?? TransLink has teamed up with greedy developers who appear to be the impetus for SkyTrain (you only have to pick up the ai???New Condo Guideai??? to see the over the top advertising of how life near the future Evergreen Line will be better than good, even though few potential condo owners want to use SkyTrain and most potential condo owners just see SkyTrain as a way to increase their property value).Ai?? Perhaps developers building condos along SkyTrain lines have ties to organized crime and are building condos to launder drug money through condo construction in the Lower Mainland.Ai?? Maybe developers are using SkyTrain expansions to obtain permits from municipalities to rezone single family residential areas into high density housing developments along SkyTrain routes.Ai?? Something is amiss because SkyTrain expansion is being paid for by taxpayers and isnai??i??t having the desired effect of reduced traffic on the roads; however, developers seem to be benefiting from access to land development opportunities that wouldnai??i??t normally exist.
While the condo developments along SkyTrain routes are in the microscopic context increasing density, they are in the macroscopic context reducing overall density in the Lower Mainland by connecting far flung municipalities into one mega region to create urban sprawl.Ai?? Because most commuters only travel a short distance, most commuters moving into the new condo developments along SkyTrain routes choose to drive and traffic congestion has ironically worsened as spending by TransLink on B-Line and SkyTrain has escalated.Ai?? Even if the apparent modal share for transit has increased slightly, the sheer magnitude of cars on the roads has increased sharply, and the number of roads and bridges being built cannot meet the demand for the added cars on the roads.Ai?? TransLink with B-Lines (rapid bus transit) and SkyTrains has put Metro Vancouver taxpayers paying for exorbitantly priced transit by TransLink into a tail spin.Ai?? To reverse it, the focus of transit must shift to satisfy the majority of commuters traveling short distances of less than 15 kilometres and to do this requires a switch to economical and community based tram, light rail and electric bus routes.Ai?? More money spent on SkyTrains and B-Lines would be a disaster.
Therefore, the Evergreen Line for Coquitlam must be cancelled and the planned rapid bus transit for Langley must be shelved.Ai?? Furthermore, the current 99 B-Line service in Vancouver has to be ended due to the health impacts to residents who are being exposed to elevated sound pressure and particulate matter levels described in the attachment.Ai?? It will take courage and integrity to do it.Ai?? Mary, your mission if you choose to accept it, is to save transit; this email will self destruct on May 14, 2013.
cease and desist 99 b-line august 28-2012
Regards,
Eric Chris
Dijon tram network opens six months early
From France, the new Dijon tram (LRT) network has opened 6 months early.
If TransLink was really serious in building LRT in Surrey, the city could see its first tram/LRT line up and running in as little as three years. The foot dragging on designing affordable and efficient LRT for Surrey speaks volumes about TransLink and affordable transit planning.
Dijon tram network opens six months early
03 September 2012
FRANCE: The first line of a two-route tram network opened in Dijon on September 1 with a weekend of celebrations and inaugural rides, before full commercial services started on September 3.
The 8Ai??5 km starter line runs on an east-west alignment from the cityai??i??s main line railway station to the eastern suburb of Quetigny, serving 17 stops. The route passes through the city centre, and other stops are located close to the university of Dijon, the main hospital campus and the football stadium.
According to project manager Egis Rail, the first line has opened ai???within budget and six months earlier than scheduledai??i??. A second line covering 12 km from Valmy to ChenA?ve is due to open on December 8. A fleet of 33 Alstom Citadis low floor trams has been delivered as part of a joint procurement totalling 55 cars with Brest, which opened its starter line in June. The Dijon municipality claims the joint procurement has delivered economies of scale of 25%.
Dijonai??i??s tramway is operated by Keolis, which already runs local bus services under the Divia brand. The company says that 100 000 people have signed up to a contactless smart card ticketing system which is being rolled out across the Divia network.
http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/dijon-tram-network-opens-six-months-early.html
SkyTrain on the Fritz Again – So What Else Is New (Updated)
Well once again the automatic SkyTrain underwhelms.
The current trouble must be bad because Translink has made a radio announcement about the trouble.
Interesting to think, that if we had the ‘full build’ RftV/Leewood TramTrain option, with direct service to downtown Vancouver, transit customers would have another option for travel into town. But hey, just remember Translink’s transit policy; “You must use SkyTrain whether you like it or not“.
Skytrain trouble
VANCOUVER/CKNW AM980
Gord MacdonaldTrouble on Skytrain and Translink is telling Surrey commuters to get to the stations early.
Due to a mechanical issue, Skytrain is running reduced service – running single-track, alternating directions, between 22nd St Station and Metrotown.
The Millennium Line is running separately, between VCC-Clark and Columbia and turning back.
Additional trains will be put in service between Commercial-Broadway and Waterfront.
Customers — particularly those using Surrey stations — should expect major delays and should plan on leaving early.
Translink isn’t sure when technicians will get the problem fixed.
http://www.cknw.com/news/vancouver/story.aspx?ID=1767966
Cracked rail blamed for massive Skytrain delays
METRO VANCOUVER/CKNWWe now know the cause of big delays on Skytrain early this morning.
Skytrain spokesperson Jennifer Siddon says you can blame a cracked rail, just east of Metrotown station.
Technicians spotted it during routine maintenance overnight.
“Unfortunately, we weren’t able to finish the work before start of service. So we did have some single tracking in alternating directions.”
Siddon adds cracked rails are a rare problem.
“We had an incident about 10 years ago, and prior to that in 1989. Certainly, it underscores the importance of our crews performing nightly maintenance and inspections on the system.”
Recent Comments