North American light rail systems

Modern LRT is reasonably cheap to build, when compared with metro type systems, but in NorthAi??America

transit planners have done the impossible, they have planned LRT to be more expensive than a metro to build.Ai??

Such stupidity should be stopped at once!

From the Globe and Mail.

This maybe of some interest, but the cost per km. of various LRT is completely out of whack and I question the source for these costs. Certainly, any LRT line that operates in a tunnel longer than 1 km. must be considered a metroAi?? and many grade separated light rail systems are indeed considered light-metro.

The basic cost for an elevated SkyTrain line is around $100 million/km to build and any costs for LRT that are higher than this benchmark, should be coincided greatly suspect.

The one interesting cost is the $15/km for the Spadina Line LRT, which is much less than TransLink’s cost estimate of over $100 million/km.

I strongly guess that the reporter and the “Globe” were fed exaggerated cost for LRT from the metro lobby and I think our dear Cardinal Fang would have something to say about this.

Infographic

North American light rail systems

Published Sunday, Jan. 22, 2012 8:48PMAi?? EST

Transit Realities In Toronto

Transit realities are coming into the fore in Toronto and Toronto’s mayor Ford is being dragged screaming and kicking into the 21st century; even the Mayor’s political appointees are singing the light rail song!

The Mayor’s anti-LRT stance is based on many factors, including;

• Subways keep traffic lanes open for cars, thus are poor in attracting the all important motorist from the car, but makes the various auto lobbies very happy.
• Subways are very expensive, with lots of money to spread aroundAi??for engineers, planners, contractors, cement manufacturers and alike, mostly friends of the government.
• Subways are cool to cut ribbons in front of, because of the physical size of the project, it gives the taxpayer an impression of money well spent.
• Subways are the great excuse for bad transit planning, when congestion becomes problematic, politicians always rely on the old; “but we built a subway for that, now it’s up to the people to use it!”
• Subways become development and land speculationAi??tools, where cronies of the government buy and sell land along a subway route like a Monopoly game.

Vancouver and TransLink planners should take note with what is happening in Toronto, with their grandiose yet poorly planned SkyTrainAi??subway planning, lest the regional taxpayer demands that they too be dragged kicking and screaming into 21st century transit realities, or beAi??replaced with much more transit savvy experts, who actually know what they are doing.

 

TTC chair fires first salvo at Fordai??i??s LRT plan

From Tuesday’s Globe and Mail

Published Monday, Jan. 23, 2012

 

TTC chair Karen Stintz took a risky butAi?? important step when she questioned plans for the Eglinton-Scarborough CrosstownAi?? transit line. Risky because it puts her at odds with the man to whom she owesAi?? her post, Mayor Rob Ford. Important because it opens a debate on the biggestAi?? transit project in the city.

The $8.2-billion light-rail line is to carryAi?? passengers from Black Creek Drive in the west to the Scarborough City Centre inAi?? the east, linking up with existing subway lines and easing congestion. TheAi?? original plan for the line would have seen it travel through a tunnel in theAi?? centre of the city on either side of Yonge Street, but above ground on lessAi?? dense areas such as the eastern stretch of Eglinton Avenue. When he took officeAi?? in 2010, Mr. Ford ripped up that plan, along with the rest of Transit City, andAi?? said that the whole line must go underground.

That, Ms. Stintz says, makes no sense.Ai?? Light-rail vehicles are designed to travel on the surface, and the broad streetsAi?? of east Eglinton have plenty of room for them. If it is going to be light rail,Ai?? she wants to go back to Plan A and make it a mixed line: part underground, partAi?? above.

It would be much cheaper that way ai??i?? $1-billionAi?? to $1.5-billion cheaper, she says ai??i?? and the money saved could be used to pay forAi?? an extension to the Sheppard subway, Mr. Fordai??i??s favoured project. Changing backAi?? to the original plan could save time, too, because the environmental assessmentsAi?? for Plan A have already been completed and, with less tunnelling required,Ai?? construction would be quicker.

There are two barriers to Ms. Stintzai??i??s excellentAi?? idea: the province and the mayor. Take the province first.

Less than a year ago, Mr. Ford and PremierAi?? Dalton McGuinty struck a deal to have the province build an all-buried EglintonAi?? line and the city build a Sheppard subway. Given all the back-and-forth weai??i??veAi?? seen over transit in recent decades ai??i?? an Eglinton line was started then stoppedAi?? in the 1990s ai??i?? provincial officials would be reluctant to change course yetAi?? again.

But the political winds have changed since Mr.Ai?? McGuinty, facing a tough fight for re-election and trying to avoid a fight withAi?? a popular and newly elected Mr. Ford, signed that memorandum of understanding.Ai?? The wording of the memorandum makes clear that it is a non-binding letter ofAi?? intent, not a binding contract. If city council voted to return to Plan A forAi?? Eglinton and request the leftover money be used for Sheppard, Queenai??i??s Park wouldAi?? at least have to consider it.

Support is growing on city council for just suchAi?? a vote. It comes not only from left-leaning councillors who hope, against theAi?? odds, to revive Transit City, but from moderate and even conservativeAi?? councillors who wonder how much sense it makes to spend hundreds of millions ofAi?? dollars tunnelling under the wide open spaces of Eglinton east with a light-railAi?? line, not to mention the expense of spanning the vast Don Valley.

Conservative-minded Councillor John Parker hasAi?? raised doubts about burying the whole Eglinton line and using LRT technologyAi?? designed mainly for surface travel. Centrist Josh Matlow says he is ai???on the sameAi?? pageai??? as Ms. Stintz about the Eglinton line and urges the mayor to consider herAi?? idea.

Will he? Changing his mind on Eglinton will notAi?? be easy. His dislike of streetcars is well known, and the way he sees it, theAi?? light-rail lines that would go on Eglinton east are just a fancy kind ofAi?? streetcar.

Gordon Chong, a Ford associate who is lookingAi?? into ways of financing a Sheppard subway line, sounds lukewarm on Ms. Stintzai??i??sAi?? proposal. ai???While her suggestion is one way to free up funds,ai??? he told me in anAi?? e-mail, ai???itai??i??s not my preferred choice.ai???

But if the mayor would bend a bit on hisAi?? stubborn opposition to rails on streets, he has much to gain. His SheppardAi?? project is in trouble. Mr. Chong, who will present his report soon, has made itAi?? clear that even if the city can woo private-sector investors to the project, itAi?? will require government money, too. If more is left over from Eglinton byAi?? running it above ground where possible, the mayor could get a bigger downAi?? payment on Sheppard.

In an editorial, The Star says Toronto Transit Commission [TTC] chair Karen Stintz is risking Mayor Rob Ford’s wrath by suggesting the Eglinton light rail line doesn’t need to be totally in a subway:
http://www.thestar.com/article/1120014–ttc-chair-karen-\stintz-speaks-up-risking-the-wrath-of-mayor-rob-ford
“TTC chair Karen Stintz speaks up, risking the wrath of
Mayor Rob Ford.
(Monday, Jan. 23, 2012)

Karen Stintz has finally seen the light on a planned Eglinton light rail line ai??i?? and it’s not at the end of a tunnel. In fact, what she sees isn’t much underground at all. And that’s the point.

As chair of the Toronto Transit Commission, Stintz has finally come to realize that it makes little sense to bury all 18 kilometres (11.1 miles) of the Eglinton line, at a cost of $8.2 billion. And she’s daring to voice that sensible view even though it could put her on a collision course with Mayor Rob Ford.

Stintz, usually a Ford ally, is far from alone in questioning the wisdom of tunneling the entire length of the Eglinton route. Since disclosure of that misguided plan last spring, transit advocates have said burying this light rail line would send costs soaring while providing service inferior to that of a true subway.

Under the original Transit City plan for Eglinton, about 11 kilometres of the line was to go underground, in the most built-up sections of Toronto’s downtown. It was correctly felt that, outside the core, there was ample space on Eglinton for both a surface light rail line and traffic lanes. Ford called that kind of sharing a “disaster” for drivers and ordered the entire line built under the street, out of motorists’ way. Since the switch didn’t cost the province any extra money, Queen’s Park agreed, shamelessly abandoning proper transit priorities.

Now Stintz is pointing out the obvious ai??i?? this is a bad deal for those who ride the transit system and those who pay for it. And she offers some hope that rational planning might yet triumph.

As reported by the Star’s Tess Kalinowski, simply returning to the original Transit City plan for Eglinton likely wouldn’t involve any significant delay. New environmental assessments for an entirely underground route haven’t even begun, Stintz said. So there’s time to switch tracks and avoid Ford’s folly.

High Costs For LRT In Waterloo Ontario Questioned! Is LRT Being Designed as a Money Pit?

Friday, January, 20, 2012 – 10:10:36 AM

 

Experts say there are some cost issues with Waterloo Region’s LRT plans.

Off track

International LRT experts question regionai??i??s per kilometre cost

Ida Chong is afraid to order an audit of TransLink! Those damned skeletons in the closet!

Well, good old ‘Zwei’ has been arguing for this for over a decade, but the BC Liberal government and the Liberal lickspital minister in charge of TransLink, Ida Chong, is afraid to order an audit of TransLink.

Why?

Audits have a strange way of uncovering misspent monies or dubious bookkeeping Ai??practices or evenAi??more sinister wastes of public monies. Ai??BC’s Auditor General, John Doyal,Ai??recently found questionable bookkeeping methods by BC Hydro that have put ratepayers on the hook forAi?? $2.2 billion in public debt ai??i?? with no apparent plan in place to recover theAi??money! I wonder what he would find at TransLink?

It is clearly evident thatAi??Ida Chong is peeing her pants that an audit of TransLink by John Doyle would find more than dubious bookkeeping practices, he may find that the BC Liberal darling project, the Canada Line hasAi??cost the taxpayer a whole lot more than advertised and that would not do for election ready Premier Photo-Op.

Could it be that theAi??BC Auditor General may find that the real cost of BC Transit’s and TransLink’s light-metro program may greatly exceed, Zwei’s estimate of $8 billion, as sources have indicated that the total cost to date of our two SkyTrain proprietary light-metros and the Canada Line may top $10 billion! An audit may also show that TransLink has greatly inflated the costs of proposedAi??LRT in the region, while at the same time misinforming politicians of the abilities of modern LRT, to curry favour to build the Evergreen line?

Most major public transportation agencies are regularly audited to ensure that public monies are well spent, yet the BC Liberals and Ida Chong feel that no audit is not necessary forAi?? TransLink and I just wonder what the BC Liberals are trying to hide? What is Premier Photo-op afraid of?

 

Metro Vancouver mayors renew demand to audit TransLink

TransLink spends more than $1 billion a year to provide
transportation services in Metro Vancouver, including the Canada Line.

By Jeff Nagel – Surrey North Delta LeaderJanuary 18, 2012Ai??
Metro Vancouver mayors are again demanding the provincial government name an auditor to probe TransLink and ensure taxpayers aren’t getting ripped off.

TheAi?? Mayors’ Council on Regional Transportation, which controls tax increases for TransLink, had asked the province last fall to put the transportation
authority under the scrutiny of its new Auditor General for Local Government (AGLG).

But Ida Chong, the minister responsible for municipalities, said in a letter TransLink’s “unique governance structure” makes that difficult, adding she instead wants to get the new AGLG office running and focused on performance audits for cities and regional districts.

That answer didn’t go over well with the mayors council, which voted Wednesday to raise the issue again.

“At the end of the day we just want TransLink audited ai??i?? whatever mechanism they choose,” Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts said.

“We’d like to get a little bit more information about the organization we’re blamed for,” added Coquitlam Mayor Richard Stewart.

Mayors also said it appears Chong doesn’t really understand how TransLinkAi??works and how little the mayors control.

The minister stated in her letter that the mayors council “plays a key oversight role” in reviewing and approving plans approved by TransLink’s unelected board of directors.

But the mayors contend they have no real power to shape or amend plans that the TransLink board passes ai??i?? only to approve or reject the accompanying tax increases.

“She obviously doesn’t have any idea,” Richmond Mayor Malcolm Brodie said of Chong.

“We’re in a situation where TransLink falls between the cracks and nobody seems to realize that,” Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan said.

The mayors are also pressing for major reform of how TransLink is governed, which potentially could mean a return to elected mayors or councillors directly voting on plans and day-to-day spending, rather than the appointed board.

“We want to be in a position where we can actually influence the decisions coming to us in a meaningful way,” Corrigan said.

TransLink Commissioner Ai??Martin Crilly, who independently advises the mayors, said the TransLink board tries to tailor its plans in such a way that most mayors will support them and approve the required taxes.

Eliminating the board and putting mayors back in direct charge could be a dangerous return to more intensive politicking, he suggested.

“You may throw yourself into a situation where you’re forced to horse-trade with each other,” he warned. “I’ll vote for your project if you vote for my project, and we end up with a transportation system that is sub-optimal.”

Corrigan said some horse-trading would be inevitable but noted the Metro Vancouver directors generally succeed in putting aside local differences for the good of the entire region.

“What’s better?” he asked. “Being responsible? Or being manipulated?”

Corrigan said his main concern is that the province skews TransLink’s priorities by dangling offers of grant money tied to the government’s pet projects.

TransLink’s board puts such projects in its base plan and funds them through automatic increases in fare and property tax for inflation over which the mayors have no veto.

If mayors had real control of plans, he said, they might have put money to other uses, rather than provincial priorities like expanding the transit U-Pass system or choosing costlier SkyTrain technology over light rail for the Evergreen Line.

Transportation Minister Blair Lekstrom had indicated last year he was amenable to discussing governance reform, but Watts predicts it will still take a concerted effort to sway Victoria.

“The provincial government is not motivated to change the governance model,” Watts said. “They just want us to continue to raise taxes and take the hit for it and merrily go on doing what they do.”

As for audits, the mayors also say they’d be fine with the province putting TransLink under the auspices of the B.C. Auditor General, which examines provincial government spending, but the government has so far refused.

TransLink’s more than $1-billion annual budget comes mainly from $430 million in transit fares, $325 million in gas taxes and nearly $300 million in property tax, with the average home paying $228 to TransLink.

North Vancouver District Mayor Richard Walton was re-elected the chair of the mayors council Wednesday, defeating Langley City Mayor Peter Fassbender.

Fassbender, who was the previous chair before Walton, was acclaimed as vice-chair.

Walton said the mayors council will aim to quickly decide its vision for governance changes and take that to Victoria ahead of a possible spring session of the Legislature.

He said they’re also working with the province to explore new funding options for TransLink, which could include options like a vehicle levy or more road and bridge tolling.

The mayors and the province must agree on a new revenue source by the end of this year to help fund TransLink’s share of the Evergreen Line or a temporary property tax increase averaging $23 per home kicks in for 2013 and 2014.

That’s in addition to the two-cent gas tax hike that takes effect in April and a 12.5 per cent transit fare increase slated for next January, subject to the commissioner’s approval.

How to pay for Victoria’s proposed over priced light rail….. Don’t!…..Plan for much cheaper TramTrain on the E&N!

BC Transit is an old hand at inflating costs of LRT, so they don’t have to deal with it. In the 90’s, BC Transit increased the cost of the proposed Broadway-LougheedAi??LRT to such an extent, that there was only a 7% difference between the cost for light rail and that of SkyTrain. Sprinkled with political ignorance, back scratching and professional misconduct and viola – LRT is too expensive to build.

BC Transit seems to retreated to its bad old habits and has given a cost estimate of $950 million for aAi??building proposedAi??18 km. LRT on theAi??abandoned CNR rail line rights-of-way,Ai??with some on-street operation in Victoria. It is not expensive “greenfields” construction, rather it is using already existing railway formations.Ai??BC Transit is at it again, inflating costs forAi??LRT because they don’t want to build with light rail.

The RftV folks, greatly tired of TransLink’s, inherited from BC Transit, anti-LRT stance and inAi??association with Leewood Projects of the UK, prepared an independentAi??TramTrain study for the old BC Electric interurban line from Vancouver to Chilliwack. The economy 98 km. diesel LRT line from Scott Road Station (Expo Line) in Surrey to Chilliwack was projected to cost a mere $492 million or $5.02 million/km.!

Looking at the map of the proposed LRT, by using and operating TramTrain on the E&N rail line andAi??extrapolating the RftV/Leewood Study figures the approximately 14 km. Langford to Victoria route could cost as low as $70 million and change using diesel LRT or, about $90 million if the line was electrified!

It is clearly self evident that TransLink and BC Transit refuse to recognize the RftV/Leewood Study, because by acknowledging the study would mean building LRT could be much cheaper than what they propose, WHICH TRANSLINK AND BC TRANSIT JUST DO NOT WANT TO DO!

Why?

Building modern LRT in the Vancouver Region or any city in BC, would expose over 30 years of professional misconduct by transit plannersAi??in BC Transit, TransLink and the provincial government,Ai??with regional rapid transit transit planning and they will pull out all the stops to prevent affordable LRT to be built in BC!

Victoria, the capital city of British Columbia on Vancouver Island, is asking its residents how the local share of a proposed light rail line should be funded, The Times Colonist reports. Here’s a map of a possible LRT route for the $950 million line westward to Langford:
Here’s a rendering of how LRT might appear in Victoria:

http://tinyurl.com/88pjdya
“Residents asked for views on LRT funding
By Derek Spalding
Times Colonist
January 18, 2012

Plans to outline local funding options for light rail transit in Greater Victoria have inched forward with a call for input from residents.

Identifying a range of cash-flow sources is required before a business plan is prepared to send to the federal government, which is expected to fund a large portion of the bill.

Residents can offer their opinions by completing online surveys and participating in focus groups next month, said the local funding task force set up by the Capital Regional District and B.C. Transit.

The deadline for coming up with a local funding plan was pushed back two months to May because municipal elections in November resulted in the retirement of four out of seven members of the Victoria Regional Transit Commission.

B.C. Transportation Minister Blair Lekstrom will appoint the four new members by late February, his office said in a statement Wednesday.

Waiting that long for new appointments after an election is common, but delays this time around are more pronounced without a commission to continue until the appointments are made.

“It’s par for the course because we go through this every three years, but it’s obviously disappointing because you’d like them to get to it,” said Saanich Mayor Frank Leonard.

“And municipal elections are not a surprise.”

The local funding task force is continuing its work. Identifying options will complete the $3.1 million first phase of the LRT proposal.

The second phase will cost about $5 million for a detailed business case, which will include an independent review. Phase three will be construction.

Local funding options for similar transit projects typically require one-third funding with equal contributions from senior levels of government, but details will be considered during negotiations.

A long list of options include a regional sales tax, a carbon tax, a parking levy or a fuel tax.

Anyone wanting to participate in the focus groups must fill out a survey by Feb. 5.

Meetings are scheduled for Feb. 14 to 17.

The online survey can be found at
http://lrtlocalfunding.ca

An interesting thought

An interesting thought:

Has anyone made or care to make a calculation of the annual lives saved; medical costs saved;Ai??Ai??insurance not paid out; etc.,Ai??if the Fraser Valley had a regularly scheduled TramTrain service from Chilliwack to Vancouver? This an especially important question today, with the scores of accidents and injuries, just on Tuesday on the Number 1 highway from Surrey to Chilliwack.

Zwei reckons that TramTrain would save the medical/insurance agencies aloneAi??about $10 million annually, or about two thirds of the operating costs of the proposed Valley TramTrain service.

Is TransLink and the Provincial Government listening? Do they care?

 

Utilities – to divert or to not divert?

The need for utility relocation on LRT schemes has been a major issue for promoters in Canada, the US and Great Britain but less so in continental Europe, where many utilities remain public owned,Ai??for decades.

The Cardinal has received details of the project costs for the Waterloo, Ontario Light Rail project;

http://www.tritag.ca/light-rail/why-light-rail/Ai??and

http://www.wonderfulwaterloo.com/showthread.php?t=219Ai??also

http://rapidtransit.region.waterloo.on.ca/

that demonstrates how utility diversions areAi??driving up the costs of light rail.

For the 19 km scheme, the projected cost is $818 million, giving a route Km cost of $43 m

The figures are:

Hard Costs
Property Acquisition$18 M
Civil Works$106 M
Staging/Enabling Works$69 M
Maintenance Yard$52 M
Parking; Park and Ride Lots$16 M
Structures$38 M
Utility Relocation$86 M
Stations$22 M
Traction Power$22 M
Hydro Supply$3 M
Substation Electrical$17 M
Line Electrical $3 M
Signals$17 M
Communications and Supervisory Control Data and Data Acquisition (SCADA) System$14 M
SUBTOTAL:$483 M
Soft Costs
Engineering Design$48 M
Construction Management$39 M
Design Support (Construction)$9 M
Construction Change Order Contingency $48 M
Agency Costs$29 M
Project Reserve$48 M
Program Management$14 M
SUBTOTAL:$235 M

Vehicle Costs
Capital Vehicle Costs (2016)$100 M

GRAND TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURE:$818 M

Utility relocation is by far the most expensive single item in the budget, almost 1/8 of the total. if this could be addressed in a satisfactory manner it could significantly lower capitalAi??costs.

Croydon Tramlink – new tram is delivered

London Reconnections

http://www.londonreconnections.com/2012/in-pictures-the-new-croydon-tram-units/

Last year TfL tendered for six new trams for the Croydon Tramlink. These are primarily intended to allow services on the Elmers End branch to be increased by 4tph.

The A?16.3m contract was won by Stadler, who committed to produce, test and deliver 6 Variobahns in sufficient time for them to enter service by June.

As a result, several of these trams have been gracing the streets of (and Stadlersai??i?? testing track in) Chemnitz. The first unit has also now been delivered to Therapia Lane Depot, arriving on Monday. The new tram will be inserted into the normal timetable over the next two months, although it will not pick up passengers. It is currently expected to enter passenger service at the end of February. The other new units will shortly begin to arrive as well and will undergo a similar testing regime.

Why transit fares must increase.

Some years ago, I corresponded with a chap in the UKAi??who was (and still is) a respected transit consultant and much what I discuss about in this blog comes from our discussions. One striking comment he made; “Building metros on routes that do not have the ridership to sustain them, only invites higher subsidies and fares.“, resonates today.

It is common sense really and in Vancouver, we have three under performing mini-metro lines; the Expo and Millennium SkyTrain Lines and the truncated Canada Line.

The Expo Line does indeed carry a lot of ridership, but – this is only because TransLink has cascaded every available East – West transit passenger it can on the one metro line. TransLink admits that over 80% of SkyTrain’s passengers first take a bus to the metro, which means SkyTrain is not generating much new revenue, but instead must share its revenue with the buses. All the Expo Line is doing isAi??forcing bus customers to inconveniently transfer from bus to metro.

The same is true of the Canada Line, which cost at least $2.5 billion to build (TransLink gives the construction costs of the Canada Line between $1.9 billion to $2.2 billion, depending who is being interviewed), yet carries a mere 50,000 customers a day, which translates into about 100,000 boardings a day. Of the 50,000 actual customers, 35,000 were previous bus customers and about 10,000 are YVR employees who park near the Templeton Station on Sea island and commute for free (all travel on the Canada Line on Sea Island is free) one station to the airport terminal! Factor in multiple rides by U-Pass holding students and the Canada line has only attracted a few thousand new transit customers, which is a very bad return on a $2.5 billion investment.

The result of very expensive metro systems under performing is simple, higher gas taxes, higher property taxes and higher fares.

The following email was sent to me by a Vancouver transit advocate and certainly point to the reason Translink is floundering in debt, needing huge subsidies to stay afloat.

Subject: Opposed to Fare Increase

Due to Translink’s illegally-singed and inflated P3 contracts, I will not
pay more and am opposed to a fare increase for the general public.

Why is Translink now paying over $110 million dollars per year to the Canada
Line P3 operator, a figure far above that required to operate the line and
recoup its capital investment over 25 years?

The Translink Board of the day never approved funding for this longterm
payment schedule, once termed “Performance Payments” in a Provincial funding
document.Ai?? These payments were to be specifically tied to the P3
contractor’s assumed and unverified cash contributions to the construction,
and based on the claimed $600 million private sector contribution, payments
over $100 million per year for over 25 years are an illegal gouging of the
public purse.Ai?? Again, these payments were never approved and allocated by
Translink in the capital budget of the Line, and payment is thus illegal.

This sickens me, as I watch funding dry up for real transit service.

Randy Chatterjee
Vancouver

Will Transportopia solve transportation problems in Surrey?

IAi??received the following email from the the Surrey Citizens Transportation Initiative (SurreyCiTI) and have spent a few day trying to make sense of it.

Sadly, with many grass-root organizations, they tend to get hijacked by special interest groups and the following has all the appearances of this happening. Carpooling is not a new concept, but Co-op carpooling, except for very small scale operations, has not proven successful. I do not want to be too negative, but I am very much afraid that too many members of SurreyCiTI, were wearing rose coloured glasses when they came to the conclusions that they express here.

Utopian, certainly, but workable, I am afraid not.

TRANSPORTOPIA PROJECT

Surrey Citizens Transportation Initiative (SurreyCiTI) has spent 3 years studying how we move in the City of Surrey. First, with a little team varying with time from 6 to 12 people, we searched how to improve transportation, and organized a few debates that gathered each around 20 people. We produced a dossier that was introduced to the City Hallai??i??s Transportation Committee in September 2010. Finally, in November 2011, we organized 2 debates on our preferred subject during the Municipal Election Campaign which gathered around 50 people each.

The Transportopia Project is the logical outcome of those three years. We came to the conclusion that if we wished our suggestions to be realized we had to start implementing them concretely on our own, with our means. So, the idea to begin with a local, flexible Car-Pooling Co-op was worked on, followed by an extension of it through a phone call service. Then, for not only promoting cars traffic, we had the idea of favouring bicycling through making it secure to park bikes in city centres and offer bike rentals, and that it could be done through the same co-operative way to make renting affordable, but obviously in partnership with malls or city halls of the Surrey area.

The Car Pooling part of the co-op being easier to start, with less means and no obligatory partnership, we could start them in a short future. Bike parking lots demanding partnership can be started when contacts with businesses and city halls come to fruition.

This project could seem either utopian (which it is in a way) or almost the opposite: insignificant, compare to big projects like Street Cars, but it actually could transform the way we move in the Surrey/ Langley/North Delta/White Rock area. Ideally it could even, if successful beyond imagination, make the improvements of public transportation and of new street pavement not necessary.

Imagine a group of cities where people move either through car-pooling or through biking! The extension of sky train, construction of street cars lines or even a rapid buses network wouldnai??i??t be necessary. Less cars driving in the streets would make paving new roads and enlarging existing ones not necessary either. So much tax payer money saved! Therefore, this money, actually much less, could be used for developing separate bike lanes and as subsidies to help the Transportopia Project come to fruition and being implemented in a bigger way than through only non-profit organizations. Nonetheless and through those, it could be a success but would need more time.

Imagine how other cities would envy us and ask us to help them to realize their own Transportopia. The Surrey/Langley/North Delta/White Rock people could be proud of having started
this Transportopia Project. Thinking outside the box is always difficult at the beginning. Then when used to a practice, it seems obvious to have started it. Co-operation between municipalities and the partnership of businesses could be a great asset for this project to come to fruition. See developments and details of this project in the following pages.

Transportopia Main Features:

TRANSPORTOPIA has two options: Regular and Super.

Regular: Car-Pooling ai???Drive or Rideai???

(Regular option is free)

Super extends to: Phone Call Service, Secure Bike Parking and Routes.

(Super Option: $ 10 membership, reimbursed if leaving the co-op, and $ 15 annual fee):

A different way of Car-Pooling, mainly locally (regular option):

Drive: A green flag with a T on membersai??i?? car to show they wish to transport someone;

Ride: A small green T-banner pinned on membersai??i?? clothes to show they wish to be transported;

(Shared cost of rides: 2 to 10 cents/km depending on how many riders and if agreed detours).

Car-Pooling with phone call service (Super option):

Through a co-op phone line, you tell where you are and where you go.

So you are always sure to find car-pooling partners at any time anywhere you are.

Ai??A bicyclistsai??i?? Dream becoming true (Super option):

A safe way of bicycling through calm routes, with maps provided;

Secure, guarded bike parking lots in town centres in co-operation with malls and city halls;

A system of renting scooters and bikes with baskets to move in town centres and in between them;

Ai??Paid members take care of bikes safety and bikes and scooters rental, and register new members.

An innovative Workshop to get eco-friendly vehicles (Super option–second phase–):

To improve car efficiency with the help of car mechanics;

To transform gas engines cars into electric engines cars (mechanics and electricians);

To built a prototype of a solar car.

This second phase will be implemented when the co-op has more financial means.

Ai??Transportopia@yahoo.ca

www.transportopia.?

See videos at ?

Phone # ?

Write
your member # here: ____________