“Lightness” of light rail
TransLink, BC Transit, SNC Lavalin, UBC, SFU, and a host of North American Engineering firms, please take note!
ThisAi??”lightness” of light rail – a combination of flexibility, low impact,Ai??modest cost, and environmental softness – is ephemeral. It mustAi??be carefullyAi??guarded. Ignorance orAi??ineptitude during the planning, design, specification writing, engineering, orAi??construction phases of a project can lose the “lightness”. Light rail’s advantages canAi??be diminished orAi??even destroyed with overdesigned overhead; ugly, noisy, orAi??difficult-to-maintain cars; poorly conceived alignments; orAi??simply uneconomicAi??applications.”
Source: Light RailAi??Transit Special Report 221 United States TransportationAi??Research Board NationalAi??Research Council p 92
More on Karlsruhe, new Trams, headway, pedestrians & bicycles
Ai??Germany-based Vossloh has won a ai??i??75m contract from Verkehrsbetriebe Karlsruhe (VBK) and Albtal-Verkehrs-Gesellschaft (AVG) to supply 25 low floor tram trains, with an option for 50 additional trains to be deployed in Karlsruhe, Germany. Under the contract, the company will supply its new tram train, the Citylink NET 2012, equipped with the modern traction system of Vossloh Kiepe. The tram trains are designed to suit the requirements of the city and can carry maximum of 224 passengers. The delivery of the trains will begin in October 2013.
http://www.railway-technology.com/news/newsvossloh-to-deliver-low-floor-trams-to-karlsruhe-city-in-germany/
http://www.tramtrain.org/en/history/history01.html
This comment on the Karlsruhe Tram, Tram-Train system was posted yesterday on the Light Rail Progress Professionals (LRPPro) group forum
KarlsruheAi??is a surface street running railway with 45 second
headway. Whilst the street is pedestrianised , those trams at 45 second
headways are mixing it with quite heavy foot traffic and a considerable number of bicycles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MibCBCsSYAM
Anywhere other than Germany this would probably be considered
extremely dangerous and operations would have been cut back or even suspended.
The ‘TramTrain’ vehicles that run on the mainline are equipped with
DB’s standard inductive automatic train stop technology, but this would be of little use at such close headways, it’s designed to prevent
‘signal passed at danger’ accidents on a ‘block signalled’ railway –
and the tram only vehicles are not fitted with it away.
The Germans seem to have a different slant on ‘safety’ thatAi??we English
speakers do. They seem to assume some degree of common sense in their workers and public – where as we seem to go out of our way to protect idiots from them selves. (And the German system seems to work – they don’t kill hordes of workers or bystanders with their ‘dangerous’ practices!)
In the outer suburbs of Eastern Berlin there are two ‘interurban’ tram
routes (87 and 88) that are one step from rolling museums – but seem to carry a pretty large load of locals anyway. Both are single track with loops. Both have sections of single track running along roads – and not in the middle, but to one side – so that in one direction the trams are running in the opposite direction to the road traffic!. Suggest that anywhere else and all sorts of traffic engineers, urban planners and who knows who else would have a complete hissy fit meltdown at the mere suggestion!
But in these outer suburbs if a motorist sees a tram approaching them they just pull out onto the wrong side of the road to give the tram space. Motor traffic running in the same direction as the tram just holds back or stops to allow the oncoming traffic to get out the way of the tram. I’ve not seen that level of driver courtesy anywhere else in either Canada or the US!.
Ai??http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4ZuIEYcIHY
Eric Chris’s Broadside At TransLink
Transit advovate, Eric Chris, again tackles TransLink on various trolleybus related issues in the City of Vancouver.
Electric buses are quiet, pollution freeAi??and able to tackle steeper grades than diesel buses, are used on many Vancouver transit routes.
Haydn Acheson, President and General Manager, Coast Mountain Bus Company:
Coast Mountain Bus Company (CMBC) under TransLink will no longer operate diesel buses on the designated trolley bus routes in Point Grey.Ai?? I trust that the City of Vancouver Mayor (Gregor Robertson), Point Grey MLA (Christy Clark), Quadra Federal MP (Joyce Murray) and City of Vancouver Chief Engineer (Peter Judd) all agree with the use of trolley buses on the designated trolley bus routes in Point Grey and with the prompt removal of all diesel buses operated by CMBC on the trolley bus routes in Point Grey.
Three roads in the east and west directions are used by CMBC for transit to and from UBC in Point Grey; they are West 4th Avenue, West 10th Avenue and West 16th Avenue.Ai?? Both West 4th Avenue and West 10th Avenue have trolley bus lines installed and are intended to be diesel bus free.Ai?? If any diesel bus service is required to supplement the trolley bus routes in Point Grey, the diesel buses (including the 99 B-Line and N17) to UBC will operate along West 16th Avenue which does not have trolley lines installed.Ai?? Unless, there is a catastrophic event such as the loss of electrical power for the trolley buses – no diesel buses will operate on 4th Avenue or West 10th Avenue.
It is unethical for CMBC to sacrifice not only trolley bus service in Point Grey but also conventional transit service in Surrey, Langley and Delta to spend wildly and foolishly on unconventional SkyTrain such as the proposed Evergreen Line.Ai?? As the attached article on the Edmonton engineers behind LRT shows, engineers in Edmonton choose LRT over BRT (bus rapid transit such as 99 B-Line diesel buses) and SkyTrain (elevated and automated trains, without drivers) to lessen the financial, social and environmental impacts of transit.Ai?? Moreover, as a percentage of the population, Edmonton with LRT which is more user friendly than SkyTrain has more transit users than Metro Vancouver focused on SkyTrain.
Engineers working for the City of Edmonton plan, model and design transit.Ai?? In Edmonton where the climate is harsh resulting in substantial costs for the winterization of transit, it still costs about 33% less for the engineers, running transit in Edmonton, to put someone onto transit than it costs the accountants, economists and others running TransLink (in mild Metro Vancouver) to put someone onto transit (refer to Figure 4-9 on page 27 of the TransLink efficiency review by Shirocca Consulting completed for the TransLink Commissioner, Martin Crilly, in March 2012):
http://translinkcommission.org/TransLink_Efficiency_Review_Mar_21-12_FINAL.pdf
In 2011, TransLink spent approximately $900 million to operate transit, and if engineers were operating LRT, instead, in Metro Vancouver, $300 million would have been saved in 2011.Ai?? Financially, SkyTrain by TransLink is an abysmal failure.
Costing next to nothing, a handful of engineers could easily turn transit around quickly in Metro Vancouver and could accomplish far more than the hundreds of costly administrators at TransLink ever could.Ai??Ai?? Most, if not all, of the existing overhead and administration incurred by TransLink could be done by existing staff of the GVRD under Metro Vancouver to potentially save $300 million annually.Ai?? This would end the financial crisis created by TransLink spending too much to maintain a large group of redundant administrators directed by provincial government to expand SkyTrain.Ai?? Moreover, it would reduce transit expenses sufficiently to make additional taxes (gas or property) unnecessary to fund transit for the foreseeable future:
http://www.metrovancouver.org/about/Pages/default.aspx
Transit would operate smoothly and efficiently if engineers were given the responsibility to plan, model and design transit in Metro Vancouver with the mayors and councillors in Metro Vancouver setting the transit priorities and spending limits of the engineers.Ai?? Councillor Jaimie McEvoy of New Westminster recently alluded to this:
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Councillor+says+TransLink+should+abolished/6554203/story.html
The efficiency review of TransLink, by Shirocca Consulting, for the TransLink Commissioner makes it clear that at grade transit (LRT, trolley bus or streetcar transit) with frequent stops attracts much more ridership for less money than bus rapid transit with infrequent stops and SkyTrain lines with infrequent stops.Ai?? After the efficiency review by Shirocca Consulting, Martin Crilly was not forthcoming about TransLinkai??i??s performance which is the worst of all the transit organizations compared – by a significant margin.
Martin Crilly danced around the real reason for TransLinkai??i??s pitiful performance – TransLink is operating too many extra diesel buses to shuttle passengers between the distantly spaced stops for SkyTrain and BRT, such as the 99 B-Line.Ai?? SkyTrain and BRT are relatively inaccessible due to their stops being kilometres apart and CMBC must operate extra buses in high frequencies to get passengers to 99 B-Line diesel buses and SkyTrain cars.Ai?? This has resulted in the dreadful utilization rates for CMBC buses and is indicated by plummeting passengers per hour on buses and the rising cost per passenger for buses as shown in Figure 5-4 on page 48 of the efficiency review by Shirocca Consulting:
http://translinkcommission.org/TransLink_Efficiency_Review_Mar_21-12_FINAL.pdf
It is specious of TransLink to claim that express 99 B-Line service or SkyTrain service with distantly spaced stops is faster than LRT, streetcar or regular trolley bus service with closely spaced stops.Ai?? SkyTrain or 99 B-Line service requires transfers from CMBC buses and results in longer overall commuting times for most passengers in relation to LRT, streetcar or trolley bus service (doing away with transfers along the route).
Silly UBC Transit
On April 23rd, 2012 TransLink suspended the #9 trolley bus service along West 10th Avenue to UBC and increased the 99 B-Line diesel bus service along West 10th Avenue to UBC (please refer to the timetables attached).Ai?? Typically, articulated diesel buses pass residences every one to three minutes (either east or west direction) along West 10th Avenue.Ai?? Wailing, shrieking, polluting and unwelcome articulated diesel buses operate 22 hours daily (in service or out of service) from 6 am to 4 am along West 10th Avenue.
Presently, there are 13 transit routes to UBC (#4, #14, N17, #25, #33, #41, #43, #44, #49, #84, 99-Line, #258, #480).Ai?? Along West 10th Avenue, there are empty 99 B-Line buses passing empty #14 trolley buses which donai??i??t even belong on West 10th Avenue in Point Grey and are operating on the #9 trolley bus route.Ai??Ai?? Including the 99 B-Line buses, three-quarters of the seats on all the CMBC buses going to UBC are empty and there is far too much transit capacity even though the 99 B-Line is occasionally over crowded.
Over crowding occurs on the 99 B-Line route because CMBC is operating the 99 B-Line buses at exceedingly high frequencies every two to five minutes, generally, while CMBC operates other buses at low frequencies – every 10 minutes to 15 minutes, for the #14 trolley bus route, for instance (see attached bus timetable).Ai?? This forces transit users onto the 99 B-Line and off the other buses going to UBC to make transit use much greater on the 99 B-Line than on the other bus routes.
If TransLink operated all buses to UBC at the same frequency (10 minutes during daytime and 20 minutes after 7 pm) empty 99 B-Line and other buses would not be prevalent.Ai?? Existing buses would be more than adequate for the demand to UBC and over crowding on the 99 B-Line buses to UBC would not be occurring.
TransLink has cancelled desperately required transit service for Surrey, Langley and Delta to maintain 10 unnecessary diesel bus routes to UBC.Ai?? Approximately 100 diesel buses including all the articulated 99 B-Line diesel buses could be freed up for use in Surrey, Langley and Delta if CMBC operated the trolley buses which TransLink is not using or under utilizing on the trolley bus routes in Point Grey.
Politically, the 99 B-Line service is intentionally being made to operate with too many riders for TransLink to make a spectacle of the over crowding on the 99 B-Line buses in order for TransLink to obtain funding to expand SkyTrain to UBC and elsewhere.Ai?? Over crowding on the 99 B-Line route could be fixed easily by simply tweaking the bus routes to UBC to make better use of the available buses.Ai?? Over crowding on the 99 B-Line route would have been resolved long ago if CMBC and TransLink wanted it resolved.
TransLink Gravy Train
Transit by TransLink is set up to benefit the administrators providing transit rather than the transit users riding transit.Ai?? Almost one-third of the revenue ($1,382 million in 2011) collected by TransLink from taxpayers and transit users goes to pay for TransLink administration and TransLink bureaucracy (refer to pages 81 and 82 of the efficiency review by Shirocca Consulting and Appendix 2A on page 60 of the 2012 Supplemental Plan and Outlook by TransLink):
http://translinkcommission.org/TransLink_Efficiency_Review_Mar_21-12_FINAL.pdf
Transit in Metro Vancouver would definitely be much better and less costly if municipal engineers modeled, designed and planned transit to eliminate TransLink, which is a superfluous organization serving no real purpose in the day to day operation of transit.Ai?? Positively, if TransLink were eliminated, municipalities in Metro Vancouver could easily operate transit directly.Ai?? Of course, the elimination of TransLink does not appeal to TransLink.Ai?? Rather, TransLink is raising transit fares by 10% and canceling transit service to Surrey, Langley and Delta.
Youai??i??d expect the CEO of TransLink or the President and GM of CMBC to be highly qualified, maybe holding an electrical or a mechanical engineering degree requiring tons of calculus, statistics and science as well as a second degree in the humanities for good communication.Ai?? This would allow the CEO at TransLink to evaluate transit specifications intelligently and to pick the best transit for the money while it would allow the President and GM of CMBC to evaluate bus specifications intelligently and to pick the best bus for the money and the application.
Unfortunately, the CEO of TransLink, Ian Jarvis is an inept accountant.Ai?? He is making four times his market value and is bent on mucking up transit further in Metro Vancouver with another SkyTrain line to Coquitlam (Evergreen Line).Ai?? Moreover, you as the President and GM of CMBC are ai???not an engineerai??? and lack the qualifications to operate CMBC efficiently and prudently.
Transit in Point Grey
There are only three roads for transit to UBC in Point Grey.Ai?? Rather than operate 13 transit routes on the three roads to UBC with few riders on most of the buses, for most of the day, CMBC can consolidate the 13 routes into three bus routes along the three roads to UBC (West 4th Avenue, West 10th Avenue and West 16th Avenue) in order to free up buses for use where the buses are required in Surrey, Langley or Delta, for instance.
TransLink is currently by-passing downtown Vancouver to operate the 99 B-Line service.Ai?? TransLink will stop this at once.Ai?? TransLink will operate three trolley bus routes from downtown Vancouver to UBC to provide transit where the transit is required and to make better use of exiting buses going to UBC in order to free up diesel buses for Surrey, Langley and Delta.
Surely, no transit company in Canada other than TransLink operates an express ai???articulatedai??? diesel bus service (99 B-Line) every few minutes late at night until 2:23 am followed by an early morning ai???articulatedai??? diesel bus service until 3:36 am to university in the summer on an existing trolley bus route when the university is in recess and there is no demand for it (see attached 99 B-Line and N17 timetables).Ai?? Is everyone at TransLink daft?
Noise and vibration levels from diesel buses are amplified, at residences, by structures along West 10th Avenue and are too intense.Ai?? Particulate matter emissions from the 99 B-Line and N17 soot blowing diesel buses are trapped by elevated structures along West 10th Avenue are too high.Ai?? If CMBC canai??i??t operate trolley buses 100% of the time on existing trolley bus routes in Point Grey, CMBC can stay out of Point Grey -Ai?? the City of Vancouver engineers can operate transit much better for a lot less money.
Residents in Point Grey are being harassed by diesel bus noise and the health of residents in Point Grey is being impaired by diesel bus emissions.Ai?? This will not continue any longer.Ai?? Remove all the diesel buses operating on the West 4th Avenue and West 10th Avenue trolley bus routes, immediately.
ec
City ordered to address railway-crossing safety
It seems the City of Abbotsford can’t deal with a simple rail crossing in the city and is hiring flaggers at a cost of $500 a day to control the railway crossing. This is something reminiscent of 1820’s England where a man on a horse waving a red flag had to precede early trains.
My first question is, who are the flaggers and what are their relationships with Abbotsford City Hall? My second question is, why not install a simple stopAi??light at the intersection?
The Vye Road rail intersectionAi??is a CPR and a Southern R.R. of BC crossing, consisting of just two tracks, just North of a CPR/SRR of BC interchange yard. I understand part of the problem has to do with switching at the yard, as there can’t be many daily rail services along this line.
An overpass, would certainly address the situation and with the ‘Gateway project’ throwing billions of dollars around for railway overpasses along the Supperport railway, maybe some money should be thrown at the Vye Street railway crossing. As for Rail for the Valley’s take on all this, a railway overpass over the former interurban route is just one less rail crossing to worry about for a reinstated interurban service.
In the end, just how many times a day do trains cross Vye St. and does it warrant upgraded, grade crossing protection? I do not know the answer for the first question, but the answer to the second is obviously yes.
City ordered to address railway-crossing safety
By Kevin Mills – Abbotsford News
Published: May 01, 2012Abbotsford will now provide flag people at the Vye Road railway crossing.
The move comes after Transport Canada issued an order to the city to maintain a flagging crew there until public safety can be ensured.
The city received the notice on April 19, which indicated a risk to public safety due to excessive road traffic, ineffective traffic control and traffic ignoring posted stop signs. The order states Abbotsford must either provide traffic safety measures at the crossing through traffic control flagging, Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., or completely close the crossing during the same time period.
City manager Frank Pizzuto said the flagging crew costs the city $500 per day.
ai???Flagging it is a really short-term solution,ai??? he said.
A more cost-effective solution is being sought, including the installation of railway crossing arms which would alleviate many safety concerns.
Pizzuto said there is a cost-sharing program for railway arms which the city has applied for.
The Vye Road crossing has been an ongoing concern for years. A proposed overpass has been on the cityai??i??s priority projects list for years, but funding has never become available.
Pizzuto said another option being discussed for the future is to open up McConnell Road, by Costco, north of Vye Road. Railway arms could be placed on both roads and, potentially, one road could be open if the other was closed.
ai???The railway intersection would have to be reworked.ai???
Adios South Fraser Rapidbus
One has to laugh at the mind games being played by TransLink. First, they call express bus service Rapidbus, then theAi??so called rapid bus isn’t so rapid as one would think as South Fraser transit users will be dumped onto the Skytrain Line, reminiscent of South Delta and South Surrey express bus passengers are dumped onto the Canada Line. Such planning is so outdated it is laughable and it seemsAi??what hasAi??found not to work elsewhere is claimed revolutionary by TransLink.
The birds who call themselves transit planners at TransLink just haven’t a clue what they are doing and the only expertise they have is to squander the taxpayers monies on more obsolete transit infrastructure.
The sad part is that mayor Fassbender is completely out of his league when he discusses transit, as he has been ill advised on the issue. Certainly his provincial Liberal party credentials also are playing a part in this fiasco with his past, all too inept, pandering to TransLink, supporting higher taxes and user fees to pay for the politically inspired Evergreen SkyTrain Line.
As yea sows, so shall yea reap.
Scrapped bus route a sore point for Langley mayors
Ai??The RapidBus project will be running eventually, Langley’s mayors insist
Ai??By Matthew Claxton, Langley AdvanceMay 3, 2012
Langley’s mayors are expected to pull together to try and prevent the Carvolth Park and Ride from becoming a white elephant project.
Township Mayor Jack Froese said he will soon meet with City Mayor Peter Fassbender and both Langley MLAs about the scrapped plans to run RapidBus service from the facility.
“This is our only real link to TransLink,” Froese said this week at the site of the future park and ride, under construction on 86th Avenue east of 200th Street.
The park and ride was envisioned as a new transit hub that would serve both Willoughby and Walnut Grove, as well as providing a key transit service not seen in more than a generation. In 2008, the provincial government announced that Langley would get a RapidBus service, buses that would run from Langley down the widened TransCanada Highway and over the new Port Mann Bridge, connecting to SkyTrain service in Coquitlam. With new bus lanes and a special underpass to allow fast access to the highway, the province promised that the route would take less than half an hour.
The RapidBus service was in TransLink’s plans, but last month the mayors’ council voted not to increase property taxes to pay for that route, among other projects. The Langleys and White Rock voted in favour of the property tax increase, as much of the new service it was to pay for would have come to the under-serviced South of the Fraser region.
“This is vital to Langley,” Froese said. “This is not just a bus route that they’ve taken off.”
Fassbender described the RapidBus as “non-negotiable” and said that the program hasn’t been cancelled, merely put on hold.
Meetings with the minister for transportation and others will be held to talk about the problem, Fassbender said.
He and most other mayors were adamant that the province had a role to play in funding TransLink, but earlier this year the B.C. government ruled out virtually any source of new funding, from tolls to carbon tax transfers.
With the $54 million park and ride to be finished soon, along with an underpass that is being built to connect it to Walnut Grove, the project is too big to let go to waste, Fassbender said.
In addition to its transportation implications, the project was to be a growth generator and was intended to allow for a denser neighbourhood in northern Willoughby.
The Township has planned the area as “transit oriented development” Froese noted.
Without RapidBus and its connection to SkyTrain, a block of housing directly connected to the Park and Ride may not go forward as quickly, and it could even disuade developers from building nearby, Froese worried.
Along with Froese and the mayor of White Rock, Fassbender said there have been a lot of discussions with other mayors about getting the money from somewhere to pay for the project.
The Carvolth Park and Ride will open sometime next year, and is expected to be part of the region’s transit system even without the RapidBus money, according to TransLink spokesperson Drew Snider.
Six bus routes will serve the hub, including the 595 route that heads over the Golden Ears Bridge and connects with the West Coast Express train. The new underpass will allow buses to avoid congestion at the 200th Street highway interchange.
In addition, there will be the 388 to 22nd Street Station, the 595 to Haney Place, and the 501, 509 and 590, all travelling to Surrey Central. The C62 will serve Langley Centre and Fort Langley.
Connected Cities Ai?? Light Rail Transit or LRT
The Cardinal has posted details on the Connected Cities project before.
Connected Cities is a European Union [EU]Ai??investigation into the question of how we can provide unrestricted but sustainable transport and mobility to cities and regions in such a way that it will strengthen their territorial cohesion and improve the quality of life of its citizens.
http://connectedcities.eu/
The link is to the Connected Cities Project showcases index:
http://connectedcities.eu/showcases.html
Light Rail Transit, LRT & Tram-Trains feature highly
The following is an excerpt from theAi??showcase on Tram-Train in France, Germany & the Netherlands,
click on the link at the end of the passage
Tram-train | FranAi??ais
Regiotram | Deutsch
Light Rail | Nederlands
Tram and train used to be two entirely different public transport systems. Tram served shorter (read: urban) distances. Train served longer (read: regional) distances. But the difference between city and region has disappeared in much of Europe. The difference between tram and regional rail is blurring as well. A new generation of light rail transit vehicles can play the role of both tram and train. By doing so LRT offers an important breakthrough in the thinking on sustainable urban and regional mobility.
The Karlsruhe model
Karlsruhe’s Stadtbahn
The German city of Karlsruhe is where it all began. In the early nineties the municipal public transport authority or KVV managed to claim the right to use a number of regional rail lines, owned by the state. The use of these regional lines enabled the rapid expansion of the local light rail network. By that time such a move was unheard of. Transport theory told that tram and train systems were incompatible. Vehicles could not cross over from the one to the other network. It were the users of these systems that had to bridge the gap. But transferring between systems meant walking, waiting and too often loosing connections. The Karlsruhe model showed that technical differences and differences in management could be overcome. It also showed that combining the two networks in one operation leads to a significant increase of its use.
The regional tram
Some have interpreted the ‘Karlsruhe Model‘ mainly as a technical advance since the Karlsruhe Stadtbahn vehicles were adjusted to both low and high voltage systems as it combined both light and heavy rail. Some saw in the Karlsruhe example evidence that an above ground light-rail system could be a preferable alternative over an underground metro or S-Bahn. But its true significance is that Karlsruhe showed there is a regional future for the tram. The ‘Karlsruhe model’ showed that a tram can successfully operate over far greater distances than the 5-10 kilometre that most textbooks considered to be the maximum.
http://connectedcities.eu/showcases/lrt.html
The following URL links to an EU INTERREG report:
Light Rail & Metro Systems in Europe;
Current market, perspectives and researchAi??implications
http://connectedcities.eu/downloads/showcases/lrt_and_metro_in_eu.pdf
Ai??
Karlsruhe – More fuel on the fire
A few weeks back, Zwei created a firestorm of denial by the anti-tram crowd, when I reported that the main tram route in the city was being replaced by a subway; “because of the success of Karlsruhe’sAi??regional tramtrain service, the main tram route through the city was seeing 45 second headways“. All Zwei did was calculate the capacity offered by Karlsruhe’s trams and tramtrain and came up with a figure of over 40,000 persons per hour per direction, with 45 second (90 trips per hour) headways, using coupled stes.
Impossible screamed the SkyTrain crowd; Karlsruhe can’t operate couples sets of trams, claimed a planner from TransLink.
Yet, 45 second headways, with a mix of single cars and coupled sets could give peak hour capacities in Karlsruhe well in excess of 40,000 persons per hour per direction.
Well the following quote from the Light Rail Transit Associations Topic Sheet No 5 – A Question of Capacity tells a different story.
THE CAPACITIES of different modes of
transport are generally quoted as
0-10 000 passengers per hour for bus,
2000-20 000 for light rail, and 15 000
upwards for heavy rail.
It is city centres where several routes combine
that the most capacity is required. A typical
situation could be a pedestrian street with six
routes operating at 10-minute headway giving 36
double coupled trams per hour each with a
capacity of 225. This gives a nominal capacity of
16 200 passengers per hour which can be
increased to 25 200 pph in extremis without extra
vehicles. Light rail is unique in this ability to
operate on the surface with its capacity without
detracting from the amenities which it serves
Note Statistics are based on Karlsruhe, using GT8-l00c/2 cars.
A recent spike: Canadaai??i??s abandoned railway lines given second life by search for cheaper transport
An interesting article from the National Post. Of course, Rail for the Valley has been advocating for this for the past four years!
A recent spike: Canadaai??i??s abandoned railway lines given second life by search for cheaper transport
Tristin Hopper Apr 27, 2012
One hundred and 26 years after Sir John A. Macdonald drove its last spike, Vancouver Island is bringing the E&N Railway back from the dead.
Laid down as one of the final links in Macdonaldai??i??s transcontinental lifeline, the railway initially provided a critical link to the coal mines and logging operations of the mid-Island. By the 1990s, though, the antique track had been upstaged by new highways and was left carrying an occasional slow-moving propane car or a rusty single-car ai???daylinerai??? shuttling tourists over the mountains to Courtenay. Last year, VIA Rail even pulled the dayliner out of service, saying that ai???significant infrastructure improvement will be required before passenger rail service can resume.ai???
But now, led by the non-profit Island Corridor Foundation, which picked up the rail line for $1 in 2006, a campaign is underway to use the antique railway ai??i?? one of the oldest pieces of infrastructure in the region ai??i?? as a foundation of the islandai??i??s future growth.
E&N tracks pass through Langford, a community that was little more than forest when the railway was first built ai??i?? but is now one of the fastest-growing communities in Canada. By 2013, after the completion of a $15-million upgrade using federal and provincial funds, Langford residents will be able to make the trip to Victoria by commuter train. Soon, say planners, the tracks will be rumbling with trainloads of rock and gravel for the construction sector, loads of paper from island mills and even train cars of coal bound for Asian freighters.
ai???When youai??i??re looking at the growth of the [Victoria region], it only makes sense to look at this corridor, which you already own,ai??? said Graham Bruce, executive director of the foundation.
Canada is cloaked in abandoned rail. Trains settled the Prairies and united the coasts, but of late, almost every Canadian community is home to at least a few kilometers of abandoned or neglected rail line ai??i?? that is, if it has not already been ripped up to make way for cycling trails. But increasingly, as booming industries and cash-strapped governments cope with gridlocked highways and skyrocketing transport costs, many are discovering that the cure may be rusting away just over the back fence.
Before Eugene Hretzay came to Alaska, there were few who saw the White Pass and Yukon Route as anything more than a tourist attraction. Completed in 1900, the 177-kilometre railroad was hammered into hills that only months before had seen thousands of stampeders ai??i?? famed author Jack London among them ai??i?? dodging con men and enduring the elements in a desperate bid to reach the Klondike Gold Fields.
Until the Alaska Highway was pushed through B.C. during the Second World War, the railroad was a key link between ocean liners from San Francisco and the paddlewheelers of the Yukon River. After being completely decommissioned in the 1980s, a small portion of the railway now operates seasonally, using vintage cars to carry the thousands of passengers that flood into Skagway every summer.
But when Mr. Hretzay became the railwayai??i??s president two years ago, he quickly turned his attention to the ai???cornucopiaai??? of new mines opening in the Yukon ai??i?? and shipping their ore into the Skagway port by truck. With about $50-million in upgrades, he figured his railroad could do it cheaper.
ai???We estimate that the ton per kilometre is about 50% lower than that by truck,ai??? said Mr. Hretzay. With the backing of town officials, state representatives, unions and the resource sector, he figures it is only a matter of time before ore cars are once again rolling through White Pass. ai???Thereai??i??s a physical imperative; One hundred years ago, it was the shortest way to the Lower 48 and the Far East and it still is,ai??? said Mr. Hretzay.
Developments in the oil patch have already breathed life back into the aging railroads of Northern Alberta. In 1995, a newly privatized Canadian National Railway was only happy to sell off its Athabascan holdings. Less than nine years later, however, CN ai??i?? now the most efficient railroad in North America ai??i?? returned.
ai???They bought the whole shebang back,ai??? said Herb Dixon, president of the Alberta Pioneer Railway Association.
In one year, the railroad snapped up the Mackenzie Northern Railway, the Lakeland & Waterways Railway, Savage Alberta Railway, Inc., and the Athabasca Northern Railway ai??i?? and immediately sent in crews to outfit the old lines for fast, heavy freight trains, at a cost of $400-million.
ai???Theyai??i??re increasing the number of cars to Fort McMurray, theyai??i??re even talking about a pipeline by rail,ai??? said Mr. Dixon.
Of course, by CN terms, the northern Alberta railways were still ai???very small transactions,ai??? according to spokesman Mark Hallman. Following up on a 10-year, $8-billion buying spree, CN is similarly sprucing up hundreds of kilometres of track throughout Quebec, British Columbia and Illinois.
In Prince Rupert, B.C., the CN-funded track may be new, but developers are still working from a very old blueprint, first drawn up by a man who died 100 years ago on the Titanic.
In 1910, rail baron Charles Hays, president of the Grand Trunk Railroad, had pegged the tiny B.C. community as his Western terminus. It was 800 kilometers closer to Asia than any other Canadian or American port and Hays aimed to make it into a city that, in the words of Prime Minister Wilfred Laurier, would be ai???one of the great cities of North America.ai???
When Hays froze to death in the North Atlantic on April 15, 1912, soon after sending off his wife, daughter and maid in a lifeboat, his vision for Prince Rupert died with him. A century later, the city has just finished a $170-million upgrade to its port facilities, complete with $25 million of new CN infrastructure. Four hundred ships a year pull into Prince Rupert, knowing that a container dropped off in the remote island city can be shuttled to Chicago 1.5 days faster than cargo unloaded in Vancouver or San Francisco.
ai???We are entering a very exciting period of time and itai??i??s all thanks to the foresight of an individual named Charles Hays,ai??? port boss Don Krusel told Postmedia last week.
From the 1950s onward, railroaders had to watch as governments spent millions on paved, well-maintained roadways ai??i?? clearing the way for trucks and passengers to surge into the marketplace.
Austere government, coupled with high fuel prices, are the windfall they have been waiting for. ai???The times are not so bullish anymore,ai??? said Bruce Burroughs, a vice president with the Railway Association of Canada. ai???Governments are not so flush with money that they can afford to slap down asphalt and suck traffic off the rail system.ai???
It is why, when Mr. Burroughs meets with provincial or municipal representatives, he usually encourages them to ai???bankai??? their rusting rail lines for future use.
In Ottawa, officials have mulled using an abandoned rail bridge across the Ottawa River to open a commuter rail line to Gatineau, Quebec. In Peterborough, Ont., local MP Dean Del Mastro has been pushing to retrofit existing CP Rail freight lines to carry high-speed commuter trains into Toronto. One hundred years ago, when Vancouver was a logging port with barely 100,000 people, a Vancouverite could step aboard an electric tram near the cityai??i??s downtown and get off 90 minutes later in Chilliwack, a farming community nearly 100 kilometres from the coast. With the 1950s completion of Highway 1, however, the rail lineai??i??s fate was sealed.
ai???Letai??i??s face it; who would want to sit on a rickety old train for an hour and a half when you could do it in less than an hour in your car ai??i?? when cars were cheap and fuel was inexpensive?ai??? said John Vissers with Rail for the Valley, a group looking to resurrect the old commuter line.
Sixty years ai??i?? and several million new residents later ai??i?? getting to Vancouver in rush hour traffic can take upwards of 90 minutes, all fuelled by some of the most expensive gasoline in Canada.
For Mr. Vissers and others, the conditions are perfect for bringing back a service most Vancouverites never even knew existed.
ai???We could have this entire system up and running, serving a quarter million people, for approximately the same cost as two kilometres of SkyTrain,ai??? said Mr. Vissers. ai???Weai??i??ve got a little train that could.ai???
National Post
thopper@nationalpost.com
Canucks Don’t Do Light Rapid Transit
Certainly, Canada doesn’t do urban, interurban & regional rail based LRT,
It used to be that the US was the most intransigent, obdurate & reactionary nation in the western world as far as transit, but the past ten years have seen a massive expansion of Light Rail, LRT, Tramways & Streetcar systems in America
From the Light Rail Transit Association – LRTA http://www.lrta.org/index.html
and the USAi??Light Rail Now http://www.lightrailnow.org/index.htm
Boston (legacy surface electric railway upgraded to modern LRT)
Buffalo (modern semi-metro LRT)
Charlotte (modern interurban LRT, heritage streetcar)
Cleveland (legacy surface electric railway upgraded to modern LRT)
Dallas (modern interurban LRT, heritage streetcar)
Denver (rapid interurban LRT)
Houston (rapid LRT)
Hudson-Bergen (rapid interurban LRT)
Kenosha (heritage streetcar)
Little Rock (heritage streetcar)
Los Angeles (rapid interurban LRT)
Memphis (currently heritage streetcar; modern LRT planned)
Minneapolis (interurban LRT in operation, streetcar proposed)
Newark (legacy surface electric railway upgraded to rapid LRT)
New Orleans (heritage streetcar)
Philadelphia (legacy surface electric railway upgraded to modern LRT, heritage streetcar)
Phoenix (rapid LRT)
Pittsburgh (legacy surface electric railway upgraded to rapid LRT)
Portland (rapid interurban LRT)
Sacramento (rapid interurban LRT in operation, heritage streetcar proposed)
St. Louis (rapid interurban LRT in operation, heritage streetcar proposed)
Salt Lake City (rapid interurban LRT in operation, heritage streetcar proposed)
San Diego (rapid interurban LRT in operation, heritage streetcar proposed)
San Francisco (legacy surface electric railway upgraded to rapid LRT, heritage streetcar)
San Jose (modern interurban LRT, heritage streetcar)
San Pedro (heritage streetcar)
Seattle (modern streetcar, modern semi-metro LRT)
Tacoma (modern LRT streetcar)
Tampa (currently heritage streetcar; modern LRT planned)
5#
Austin (diesel mutliple-unit light railway)
Camden-Trenton (diesel mutliple-unit light railway)
Galveston (fuel-motor-powered heritage streetcar)
Oceanside-Escondido (diesel mutliple-unit light railway)
Savannah (heritage streetcar powered by fuel motor and supercapacitors)
23#
Albuquerque
Atlanta
Baltimore
Boston
Camden
Chicago
Cleveland
Dallas
Ft. Lauderdale
Ft. Worth
Los Angeles
Miami
Minneapolis
Newark
New York City
Oakland
Philadelphia
San Diego
San Francisco/Bay Area
San Jose
Seattle
Trenton
Washington
Heritage Trolley Systems
Colorado Springs
Ft. Collins
Ft. Smith
Seattle
Tucson
US – 74NoAi??New Rail Transit Systems Proposed, Planned, or in Development
Edmonton, Calgary, Toronto, Waterloo; not counting Vancouver cos’ Skytrain is not LRT
Could do a lot, lot better Canada but probably will not because its not politicallyAi?? expedient.
TramTrain – A lesson in Urban, Interurban and regional transportation implementation
Quality integrated public transportation planning & implementation is an eminence which is in short supply in Vancouver, the Fraser Valley And BC as a whole, due in part to the narrow vision of Translink & the BC government.
Translink & their advocates, exhibit a worrying arrogance;
-
Vancouver-centric planning
-
Blind determination to continue the expansion of Skytrain, further into Metro Vancouver and Surrey
-
Discriminatory treatment of the lower Fraser Valleyai??i??s residents, with a promise of merely an updated bus service.
Vancouver & Translink refuses to see or listen to contemporary developments in Europe & the US, so it seems relevant to promote the concept of European Tram Train operations on this Blog.
Regrettably Vancouver & specifically Translink planners, would appear not to recognise what constitute economic transport planning even if it bit them on the arse and continue to parrot the mantra:
Density and Speed
as if thatai??i??s all that matters:
From the mid-nineties there has been a real boom period regarding TramTrain feasibility studies. Many cities and regions with a regional railway network, with or without an urban tramway and of similar size as Karlsruhe have been asking if the concept is transferable to their situation. Most of these projects have not proceeded or at least been heavily delayed and not given high priority.
The reasons differ, but we question whether asking the right basic questions early enough would have avoided big studies which went straight into the archives.
Despite the flexible and context sensitive nature of TramTrain our aim is to identify at least some generic TramTrain characteristics, since we feel that a clear view of these will enable promoters to recognise a new set of (potential) applications or to revise earlier schemes which may have been reviewed before under narrower conditions.
While in the early days of TramTrain one spoke of the “Karlsruhe model”, “track sharing” or “joint running” it is necessary today to distinct between different groups.
-
Classic light-rail/tramway operation
-
Conversion
-
Single-Mode Track-sharing
-
TramTrain-operation
-
Dual-Mode Electric/Electric
-
Dual-Mode Diesel/Electric
-
TrainTram-operation
-
Existing tramway network
-
No existing tramway network
Conversion projects are schemes, which make use of former railway infrastructure converted for light rail for a considerable part of the network. There is no mix between tramway and railway operation. Infrastructure is taken over usually, so no track access charges apply.
Single mode (electrification 600/750V) track sharing schemes also involve the use of railway infrastructure, but in track-sharing mode with freight trains or other non-electric trains (thus the railway is still used by other railway traffic). This is how Karlsruhe started with the Albtalbahn. In most cases infrastructure is also owned by the light rail operator and track access charges do not apply.
TramTrain-operation involves both track-sharing light rail/heavy rail and dual- or multi-mode operation (Heavy rail voltage / Light rail voltage). The track-sharing sections may also include main line heavy rail infrastructure. Usually infrastructure (tracks and stations) is owned by the railway infrastructure owners (DB Netz, RFF, Prorail, Network Rail etc.) and track access and station use charges apply for the light rail operator.
TrainTram-operation is reversing the tram-train idea; direct access from the region to city centres is not achieved by bringing the tramway out onto the railway, but by bringing heavy rail vehicles onto the urban tramway or onto a tramway-like alignment. The heavy rail vehicles being used under urban conditions follow tramway regulations. Usually TrainTram will not involve a through-running of railway vehicles from one end of a city to the other, but access the city centre from one side only.
Ai??Karlsruhe:
The name “Karlsruhe” all around the world is used as a synonym for success. However, the scheme demonstrates a number of features which are difficult to sell elsewhere!
The Karlsruhe compromise of running high- and medium floor light rail vehicles through an urban “low-floor” network has to be seen as a killer argument for TramTrain in France and likely in all other countries, where the full accessibility of public transport is an absolute requirement. Therefore level access for TramTrain in all sections of a planned network is of high importance.
Karlsruhe is certainly a good example of a railway (main) station at a distance to the city centre where through-running TramTrains result in a considerable gain in attractiveness. With a regional scheme however, involving several TramTrain-lines operating through the city centre, often in coupled units and with relatively heavy rolling stock, Karlsruhe is virtually witnessing the “return of the railway station” into the city centre after having moved it before WWI to the southern edge. At the moment it is planned to solve this new problem by an underground section of the network which would also mean taking out the “normal” surface trams from the pedestrian zone.
Nevertheless Karlsruhe’s passenger number increases have proven the usefulness of through running in the case of medium-sized cities owning a remote railway (main) station or the benefits of a centrally located railway station.
Ai??http://connectedcities.eu/downloads/conferences/paris_tram_train_karlsruhe.pdf
Ai??Kassel:
http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/kasseltramtrains/
Ai??Ile-de-France:
Ai??http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%8Ele-de-France_tramway_Line_4
Ai??Mulhouse:
http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/mullhouse/
Ai??RandstadRail:
http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/randstadrail/
and
http://connectedcities.eu/showcases/randstadrail.html
Ai??TramTrain projects are complicated and therefore they need a strong and high quality regulation. Almost all of these projects cover regional corridors, so some regional government or body, or at least a sustainable form of regional co-operation and tough political support is an absolute necessity for success.
-
Powerful regional and local government
-
Existing regional and local support
-
Planning processes associated with creating transport infrastructure are complicated without exception, for TramTrain even more. For this reason success is almost synonymous with a streamlined planning process. Moreover, justification of many TramTrain proposals is strongly interconnected with considerations of urban planning and land use. Therefore integration of urban planning generally and land-use particularly is highly recommendable.
-
Approach to planning process
-
Degree of integration of land use and urban planning
-
Step by step implementation
-
Complementary to existing/adapted public transport network
-
Quality and capability of public transport authority, both formally and functionally, to integrate responsibility for the entire network
-
Distribution of responsibilities
-
Generally construction and operation of public transport infrastructure are financed from various sources. The money needed to build and operate TramTrain infrastructure should be balanced as much as possible on the local and regional level, as this type of public transport is important locally and regionally. In this respect local and regional funding sources are of great importance and state government contributions should not be decisive
-
Methods to cover construction and operating costs Local/regional financial balance and sources
-
TramTrain utilisation presupposes the use of heavy rail infrastructure. The responsibilities for railways are usually under national authority as legal powers are. In many countries the National Railways are very powerful. Therefore success of a TramTrain project is highly dependent on the degree in which national legal and functional competences are used efficiently for local and regional purposes or delegated to local/regional agencies. TramTrain projects become more transparent and easy-going when heavy railway infrastructure is used which is under the control or even better owned by the local/regional authority. Another option is a private control and ownership of the railway. Germany for instance has an ongoing private railway tradition.
-
Ai??TRAMTRAIN: THE 2ND GENERATION Ai??Ai??NEW CRITERIA FOR THE ‘IDEAL TRAMTRAIN CITY’
http://www.lightrail.nl/TramTrain/tramtrain.htm#Summary
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_75ulzq5YU&feature=autoplay&list=PL7CA6D96931798C88&playnext=2
Recent Comments