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: ____________

Transportation Planning – A North American view

An interesting extract from a commentary comparing currentAi??North AmericanAi??practice with European

`In Vancouver, over a decade ago at the grand opening of the heritage streetcar project, a chap from Bombardier singled me out. What he said after a few niceties, astounded me. To paraphrase, he claimed that:
Vancouver’s SkyTrain greatly retarded sales of Bombardier built LRT in North America. “It was a two edged sword”, he claimed, because;
1) Bombardier Inc. dared not seem to make LRT a better bargain compared with Vancouver’s SkyTrain mini-metro and because of this
2) It was very difficult for Bombardier to counter claims about other manufacturers light rail products, lest they make unfavorable comparisons with SkyTrain.
Example: If SkyTrain mini metro is so good, why are you flogging light rail’

Enter the door to KinkiSharyo, who are designing cars with the U.S. market in mind and it is in their interests to keep streetcars and LRT separate.

All European trams can operate both as LRT or a streetcar,
but KinkiSharyo certainly doesn’t want to invest more money to provide a comparable (modular) product; it is in their financial interest to keep up the current charade. What KinkiSharyo is providing is dated cars, to
suit dated transit planning and the sad part is that the taxpayer is paying far more for what is largely a stale-dated product.

The real problem, of course, is that universities are not training transportation planners in the fine art of modern light rail and the current crop of “rubber on asphalt” lot in charge of transit planning, are using resources that are 20 to 30 years old or more. Imagine planning for a new airline, based on DC-8’s and DC -10’s, when everyone
else is using Boeing 777’s and Boeing 787’s or the Airbus equivalents.*

In an age when a transit authority can pick and choose the LRV it wants by choosing which modules to use to make a custom car design to suit its needs, many people on this side of the pond are incapable of carrying out this determination.

The fictitious war on cars

Why the automobile is not ai??i?? and has never been ai??i?? endangered

Jennifer Good ai??i?? The Brock Press (Brock University)

Canadian University Press

http://cupwire.ca/articles/50669

 

Professor Lewis Lesley and the LR55 tram track – will it usher in a new age of cheaper light rail?

The Lewis LR55 track system has been around for many years now the good Professor himself is advocating its use for the troubled Edinburgh tram project.

The concept is that the weight of the tram is supported by the concrete trough longitudinally along the track, instead of a downward thrust, thus not disrupting the underground utilities that either cross under the track or are adjacent to the tram line.

I wish some transit or research authority undertake to build a proper demonstration line to showcase the LR-55 track and see if it does indeed deliver as advertised. Cheaper construction costs for new LRT/streetcar systems are in everyone one’s interest, except maybe the SkyTrain and metro lobbies around the world.

A professor who is the technical director of the Trampower light rail manufacturing concern says he could build Edinburgh’s full light rail route at the same cost as the truncated version decided on by the City Council. The difference would be the type of rail used, according to a story posted by the “scotsman dot com” site. The city decided to build the line from the airport to St. Andrew Square in the city centre and shelve the extension from the downtown retail district to the Newhaven waterfront redevelopment area. The cost saving proposal by Professor Lewis Lesley is to use LR55 track, described on this Trampower page:
http://www.trampower.co.uk/track.html
And the news story:
http://tinyurl.com/875bfax
“I’ll build full tram route for same cost
Published on Monday 2 January 2012 15:34
A TRANSPORT expert has offered to build Edinburgh’s tram route all the way to Newhaven ai??i?? for the same money.

Professor Lewis Lesley says using a different type of tram track would allow the controversial scheme to reach its original destination within the A?776 million ($1.20 billion USD) budget.

He says the alternative track type would also mean minimum disruption during construction.

Professor Lesley, who is technical director of light rail company Trampower, met city council transport convener Gordon Mackenzie and senior officials to discuss his proposal.

But council chiefs say they believe the existing consortium led by Bilfinger Berger is “best suited” to deliver the project.

Prof Lesley said the LR55 tram track he proposed for Edinburgh had already been proven a success in Sheffield and was being considered by the US Department of Transportation as a US standard.

He said: “It’s a different technique for laying the track, which means only five per cent of the road has to be dug up instead of the whole road.

“It’s much less expensive because you only have to lay what is in effect a large kerb and the track sits in the kerb.”

Professor Lesley said it would require the minimum diversion of underground utilities, “and it’s much quicker too”.

He accepted work was already under way on relaying the faulty tram track on Princes Street, but suggested the LR55 method could be adopted between Haymarket and Princes Street and between Princes Street and Newhaven.

“It would cost around A?10m a mile whereas at the moment it’s about A?60m a mile in Edinburgh. You could build a complete metro for that.

“They are going to have about ten trams they don’t need because they are only going to have half the tramway. What do they do with them? They tried to sell them to Croydon, but they didn’t want them.

“It would be a bonus if they could use them as well instead of leaving them to rust in a siding in Spain.”

Prof Lesley, who is professor of transport science at Liverpool John Moores University, was behind private company NETCo, which a decade ago had a A?35m plan to run trams around north Edinburgh.

He said he had been in dialogue with the council for the past three months.

He said: “The LR55 track system can be constructed with a minimum of utility works and without having to close important streets.

“All this can be achieved by 2014, and help to restore the reputation of the city.”

However, city council transport convener Gordon Mackenzie said the idea would be going no further.

He said: “We are confident that the consortium we have appointed to build Edinburgh’s tram network is the best suited to fulfil our vision of a clean, modern and efficient system.”

Deputy council leader Steve Cardownie, leader of the SNP group, added:”I think it could be far too late in the day now for a new player to arrive on the scene, but now it’s in the public domain councillors will no doubt be briefed as to the nature of these discussions.”

The huge cost of building subways: is TransLink listening?

What was once going to be a much more affordable hybrid light-metro/light rail line, before the election of Toronto’s Ai??Mayor Ford, Ai??is now being replanned as a full scale subway, dramatically increasing costs.

Those wanting to build a subway under Broadway had better get out their calculators because new subway construction in Toronto is getting extremely expensive. For too long the SkyTrain/metro lobby in Vancouver have been singing hosannas about metro and its superiority over LRT, but remain mute about the costs. The proposed preliminary cost ofAi?? $8.2 billion for one subway line in Toronto is roughly the same cost that taxpayers have paid to date forAi?? three mini-metro lines in Vancouver. TransLink, as BC Transit before, have rejected the notion of BC’s Ai??Auditor General checking the books, which leaves me suspicious that the cost for SkyTrain and the Canada Line are much higher than advertised; this especially when the BC Auditor General found $2.2 billion of deferred debt at BC Hydro, which was deliberately hidden from public view.

The cost of new subway construction should send alarm bells ringing with every mayor and council in the Vancouver Metro Region, especially with TransLink actively pursuing a SkyTrain subway under Broadway. This also should put to rest the silly notion espoused by the SkyTrain Lobby and Vancouver politicians that SkyTrain and subways are OK for Vancouver and light rail isAi??OK for the Fraser Valley. In truth, new UBC subway will pauper regional taxpayers and merchants who have stores on Broadway should look at moving to new locations as any subway built under Broadway will involve cut and cover subway construction as cut and cover will help mitigate the high cost of underground subway construction.

One must remember that TransLink destroyed hundreds of businesses along Cambie Street with cut-and-cover subway construction, and they will do the same along Broadway, ten fold and if anyone has any doubts over this, just ask Susan Heyes!

 

TORONTO, Ont. – A national magazine has named the Eglinton Crosstown Light Rail Line the most expensive public infrastructure project in the nation.

The list was compiled by Renew Canada, ranking each project on total cost, including materials and labour.

The magazine cites Mayor Rob Ford’s decision to move the line underground as a major reason the price was increased substantially to $8.2 billion ($8.03 billion USD).

The now cancelled “Transit City” plans were named number four on the magazine’s list last year.

The Globe and Mail reports that oil and gas projects are not including in the list because they’re not considered part of public works.

The Spadina subway expansion is number eight on this year’s list, with an overall cost of $2.6 billion ($2.54 billion USD).

Ottawa tries to avoid the Vanvouver T.O.D. disease.

In Vancouver, metro construction is planned andAi??built toAi??subsidize land development, not to provide better transit for customers. In theory it is to greatly increase ridership for the new metro line, in practice some unpleasant things happen,Ai??such asAi??people moving into the new high rise apartments and condos and driving to work because they work where the metro doesn’t go.

The gurus of density will never be happy until everyone is living in high rise apartments, with shoe-box size living accommodations and work in downtown Vancouver. Mind you the gurus of density, always mindful of their stipends when spreading the gospel of Vancouver styleAi??T.O.D. at public meetings, (who also tend to be developers)Ai??also want to make a ‘quick‘ buck by increasing density and building condo’s and apartments on what was once single family lots.. Good transit planning (transit designed for the transit customer’s satisfaction), just never enters the picture as metro lines are built to where friends of the government owns land, so they can have the excuse to increase density, encouraging the great development ponzi scheme.

If one reads the followingAi??article item correctly, Ottawa doesn’t want to follow Vancouver’s rush to turn areas of single family homes into high-rise ghettos and all I can say is good on them. The Vancouver penchant for ever higher densities is based on the philosophy of unlimited growth in the region. But there is a problem with this, the region presently can’t afford to build more than one metro line a decade, yet the metro population continues to increase, with the result of three heavily overcrowded metro lines, which will find it all but impossible to cater to the increased densities that politicians have allowed to happen in the metro region. The result is easy to see, the car remains the most important transit mode in the region.

Instead of building much cheaper light rail lines, which does not need the proscribed residential densities that SkyTrain/Canada Line metroAi??are supposed to have, for the same amount of investment for our present metro system, the region could have had at least three times theAi??LRT network in the region, offering a far superior transit service than what we have today, while at the same time, protecting residential neighbourhoods from the ravishes of Vancouver style (in reality, an old fashioned land rush, causingAi??a localAi??inflation of property values) T.O.D.

But then, transit planning in Vancouver has always been about moving money, not people.

Plan is to double the density of homes and jobsAi?? around future LRT stations

By DavidAi?? Reevely, The Ottawa Citizen December 30,Ai?? 2011

OTTAWA ai??i?? The city is about toAi?? move into high gear on redevelopment plans for the neighbourhoods around threeAi?? stations in the eastern stretch of the planned light-rail line, with majorAi?? rezonings to come at four more within a couple of years.

The mission is twofold: First, to more thanAi?? double the density of jobs and homes around stations like St. Laurent, CyrvilleAi?? and Train. Like many Transitway stations outside the downtown core, theyai??i??reAi?? surrounded by other roads and low-density stores and light industry, and if thatAi?? doesnai??i??t change, the cityai??i??s $2.1-billion rail project wonai??i??t be as busy as theAi?? city wants. The city wants to more than double the population around thoseAi?? stations in the next 20 years, ideally to make the neighbourhoods even denserAi?? than Centretown outside the core business district.

ai???Our drive is to ensure that to the best of ourAi?? abilities, there will be the people that are going to drive ridership on theAi?? LRT,ai??? says Councillor Peter Hume, who chairs city councilai??i??s planning committee.Ai?? Whatai??i??s going on, he says, is a basic shift in the purpose of public transit,Ai?? from a system thatai??i??s mostly about getting commuters from the suburbs to downtownAi?? and back, to a system that serves distinct neighbourhoods built up around eachAi?? station.

And so, second, the goal is to have a good ideaAi?? what those distinct neighbourhoods will look like and how theyai??i??ll fit into theAi?? neighbourhoods that are already there. With LRT stations due to begin servingAi?? districts of parking lots and highway cloverleafs in 2018, the city doesnai??i??t haveAi?? much time. The goal isnai??i??t to have several million square feet of offices andAi?? condo towers built around the stations in the next seven years, but to beAi?? completely ready with neighbourhood plans for what can go where and cityAi?? infrastructure, from bike paths to water mains, thatai??i??s up to the job.

Hume says ai???transit-oriented developmentai??? hasAi?? been a hot topic around city hall for years (city council approved designAi?? guidelines for it in 2007) but itai??i??s only been executed in a ai???tentative,Ai?? fracturedai??? way. Often, the language in the cityai??i??s development rules isAi?? dangerously vague: Just this week, city councilai??i??s planning committee backed aAi?? pair of residential towers at the north end of Roosevelt Avenue that are to beAi?? twice as tall as the zoning allows, in part because the property is so close toAi?? the Westboro and Dominion stations on the Transitway. The cityai??i??s officialAi?? land-use plan calls for taller buildings close to the Transitway that willAi?? someday be a rail line, but the zoning, providing rules that are finer-grained,Ai?? doesnai??i??t match up. Nearby residents, who are getting 14- and 16-storey buildingsAi?? in their backyards, screamed. But to no avail.

ai???Weai??i??re always responding to someone whoai??i??s sensedAi?? an opportunity,ai??? says Hume, reacting when a developer wants to do one particularAi?? thing on one particular lot. When an application comes in that makes sense underAi?? one set of rules but not the other, ai???people say, ai???Whoa, whoa, whoa, shouldnai??i??t weAi?? do this comprehensively?ai??i?? Well, weai??i??ve learned that lesson.ai???

St. Laurent, Cyrville and Train are first, withAi?? the cityai??i??s planners having just finished mapping the areas they want to look at:Ai?? anything within roughly an 800-metre walk of the stations. In the new year, saysAi?? the cityai??i??s top planning manager John Moser, theyai??i??ll make contact with theAi?? landowners and begin to talk about the possibilities. Around the Train station,Ai?? for instance, the existing density is about 100 people a hectare, roughly 7,000Ai?? people, and just about all the people who count toward that figure are workers.Ai?? The city wants to increase that to 200 to 300 a hectare, and have a mix ofAi?? employment and residential uses. Centretown south of Gloucester Street, forAi?? comparison, has about 200 people a hectare today, with a plan to increase thatAi?? to 250.

ai???We want to have these areas be site-plan andAi?? building-permit ready,ai??? says Moser. ai???And do we have the right pedestrianAi?? patterns to get to [the stations]? Do we have the right cycling routes to get toAi?? it?ai???

The first three plans should be done by the endAi?? of next summer. Over the following two years will come similar plans for Blair,Ai?? Hurdman, Lees and Tunneyai??i??s Pasture stations. Theyai??i??re supposed to governAi?? development around the stations for about 20 years and be nearly impossible toAi?? overturn.

A very similar plan for the northern part of theAi?? O-Train corridor, between Bayview station and Carling Avenue, offers a glimpseAi?? of what all those neighbourhood plans might look like. The area around theAi?? Bayview station includes a lot of unused publicly owned land; most of the restAi?? is light industry or low-density commerce, like the self-storage business thatAi?? took over the former bus barn on City Centre Avenue, and the currency-printingAi?? company that just announced itai??i??ll shut down next year. Theyai??i??re uses that made aAi?? lot more sense when the O-Train line carried freight.

The latest draft of the Bayview plan calls forAi?? the storage place to be replaced with townhouses, new shopping and commercialAi?? towers going in several blocks to the northwest, all linked up via treed plazasAi?? and cunningly connected pathways. It imagines ai???point towersai??? ai??i?? tall buildingsAi?? with small bases ai??i?? along the O-Train track north of Somerset and againAi?? overlooking Dowai??i??s Lake, surrounded by shorter buildings that step down to theAi?? houses and small apartments of Chinatown and Bayswater.

The O-Train corridor is in fairly tightAi?? quarters; the eastern rail stations give the city more room to work with. SouthAi?? of the St. Laurent station, for instance, the federal Public Works department isAi?? planning an office complex on fallow ground once occupied by the provincialAi?? government. The city wants 80 per cent ai??i?? four out of five people! ai??i?? to get toAi?? work there using transit, Hume says.

ai???One thing that has to come out is parking,ai??? heAi?? says. ai???The only way itai??i??s going to work is if thereai??i??s very little parking and soAi?? what parking there is, is expensive. And so people will say, ai???I can pay $400 toAi?? park my car, or I can spend $100 on a transit pass,ai??i?? and theyai??i??ll do the thingAi?? that makes sense.ai??? To make that work, itai??i??ll sure help if people arriving byAi?? transit can live close to stations somewhere else.

In Vancouver, theyai??i??re working on a similarAi?? project with ai???upzoningai??? around stations along the Canada Line ai??i?? the undergroundAi?? extension of the SkyTrain built before the 2010 Olympics to connect theAi?? Vancouver airport to downtown along Cambie Street. Itai??i??s been a major north-southAi?? artery forever, but long stretches of it are lined with single-family homes andAi?? Vancouver wants to replace them with taller mixed-use buildings.

Thatai??i??s created a land rush, crazy even byAi?? Vancouver standards. Houses along Cambie assessed at $1.2 million went for $3.4Ai?? million earlier this fall, once developers realized theyai??i??d eventually be able toAi?? knock them down for taller buildings. Residents are getting tired of agents forAi?? would-be buyers pounding on their doors, but also fretting that if they donai??i??tAi?? sell out, their homes will soon be surrounded by construction sites and then sixAi?? storeys of neighbours peering down on them.

Ottawa intends to avoid that. Almost anywhereAi?? thereai??i??s an existing house, itai??i??s being treated as off-limits.

ai???If I was a homeowner, and I was to look at itAi?? strictly from a value perspective … I would want my land in the area,ai??? HumeAi?? says. But most residents probably donai??i??t want to move and including peopleai??i??sAi?? homes in the redevelopment plans would be extremely disruptive. ai???For those whoAi?? [would] choose to stay, it has the potential to fundamentally change theAi?? character of the community,ai??? he says. And itai??i??d likely mean the planners wouldAi?? spend nearly all their time discussing changes in a relatively small part of theAi?? land that needs redeveloping. So, Hume says, theyai??i??re just staying away unless aAi?? community approaches the city en masse with the intention of selling.

There may be a sticky exception to the hands-offAi?? rule: At Tunneyai??i??s Pasture, single-family houses right across Scott Street fromAi?? the station are just the sort of thing transit-oriented development doesnai??i??t callAi?? for. The redevelopment plan there is barely a gleam in the planning departmentai??i??sAi?? eye right now, somewhere on the to-do list for 2013 or 2014, but the plannersAi?? will have to deal with it. Figuring out what to do there and how to involveAi?? residents will take a star urban designer, like Larry Beasley (credited withAi?? many of the successes of downtown Vancouver) or George Dark (behind the cityai??i??sAi?? downtown urban-design strategy and part of the panel overseeing design work atAi?? Lansdowne Park) to ai???engage the community and make sure that theyai??i??re fullyAi?? represented and fully respected.ai???

Ultimately, the city hopes to solve two problemsAi?? at once, by making it easy for people to build their lives around transit andAi?? dramatically reducing neighbourhood zoning fights, one neighbourhood at aAi?? time.

ai???We want to make it so that communities can knowAi?? that density is going to happen here but itai??i??s not going to happen here,ai??? HumeAi?? says.

dreevely@ottawacitizen.com

ottawacitizen.com/greaterottawa

Toronto’s Mayor “Edsel’s” War On Transit – When idiots makes decisions, don’t be surprised at the results!

Toronto’s Mayor Ford’s (Mayor Edsel is a better name) amateur attempts to improve transit in the Toronto region is fast becoming a fiasco! But what else would one expect from aAi??puffed up American tea-bag style politician who has a hate on for streetcars and LRT because; “they take road space away from cars“. His solutionAi??building $350 million/km subways instead of light rail is doomed for failure. Simplistic and foolish, but what would one expect from a politician who hasn’t a clue about modern public transport.

The sameAi??sort of nonsense isAi??happening in Vancouver, where Vancouver Mayor Moonbeam is advocating a $350 million/km subway under Broadway, because LRT/streetcars don’t have the capacity or some other such excuse.

Such ignorance is all too common with regional politicians in the Vancouver metro region, who use TransLink’s SkyTrain ‘spin‘ as transit fact, without doing any fact checking. If theyAi??take the time and doAi??some research they wouldAi??find that LRT/streetcar has plenty of capacity to handle traffic volumes on Broadway for years to come and that SkyTrain has yet to match the capacity that can be obtained by much cheaperAi??streetcar/LRT.

As in Toronto, Vancouver is opting forAi??screwing theAi??taxpayerAi??for more and more money to fundAi??subway construction on transit routesAi??which much cheaperAi??on-street LRT/streetcar could handle with ease. Never let facts get in the way of metro construction, especially if civic politicians think that a subway will make their city “world class“and that taxpayers are so willing to ante up more tax monies to fund politically prestigious subways.

The Toronto Star, reviewing Mayor Rob Ford’s decisions since taking office, says he’s conducting a war on public transit but motorists can relax because they’ll get benefits under his watch:

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1109029
Ai??”Rob Ford’s war on public transit
(Friday, Dec. 30, 2011)

Bungled and botched policies are hallmarks of the Ford administration, but no file has been more badly mishandled at Toronto City Hall than public transit. The impact of that failure hits riders starting Sunday, when a 10-cent fare increase kicks in. But that marks only the beginning of their woes in the coming year, and beyond, thanks to Mayor Rob Ford.

On taking office last December, Ford forthrightly declared his goal of making life easier for motorists, announcing: “The war on the car is over.” Left unsaid ai??i?? but made clear by subsequent events ai??i?? was that a war on public transit had begun.

The 10-cent fare hike is part of the onslaught. Yes, there have been plenty of fare increases in the past, including under Ford’s predecessor, David Miller. But Miller raised fares while expanding public transit and giving riders more for their money. The Ford administration is doing the opposite ai??i?? burdening commuters with new costs while reducing Toronto Transit Commission service levels. Meanwhile car owners pocket an extra $60 a year thanks to Ford’s elimination of the city’s motor vehicle tax.

The mayor’s favouritism toward drivers goes even beyond that. It was instrumental in his killing of Transit City, a fully funded expansion of TTC service that would have pushed light rail lines into almost every part of Toronto. Ford’s main objection was that cars would have had to share street space with these lines, which he called a “disaster.”

Ford’s alternative was to take Transit City’s funding and use it to bury one of the planned light rail routes, the Eglinton crosstown line, effectively turning it into a subway. To its shame, Queen’s Park went along since granting Ford’s wish wouldn’t cost the province any more money. Even some of the mayor’s supporters now recognize that burying the entire 20-kilometre (12.4-mile) length of the Eglinton line would be a mistake.

The original Transit City plan called for putting about 11 kilometres (6.8 miles) underground, in the most built-up sections of Toronto’s downtown. It was correctly felt that beyond this zone there would be ample space on Eglinton to accommodate both surface light rail and car traffic. But that wasn’t good enough for Ford. His burial plan almost doubles the cost of the Eglinton light rail line, to more than $8 billion, while providing fewer stops for commuters. Riders are shortchanged. But never mind: it’s more convenient for drivers.

Ford’s flawed vision for public transit involves replacing another planned light rail line, the Sheppard East route, with a subway. The problem there is that Toronto doesn’t have an extra $4 billion to build a Sheppard subway. No worries, says Ford; the private sector will cover most of that.

Except it won’t.

Gordon Chong, the man appointed to make this subway happen, wasn’t able to deliver a preliminary report by Christmas as promised. Instead, that’s been put off until February, with Chong saying that working up a full business case will take more time and up to $10 million in new funding for research and analysis. Even with that investment, Chong says it’s already clear that private funding will pay for only 10 to 30 per cent of the Sheppard subway’s cost, leaving Toronto with a multi-billion-dollar bill.

The bottom line: Ford rashly took a comprehensive and provincially funded transit plan and tore it up in favour of building a subway the city doesn’t need (the entirely underground Eglinton line) and a subway it can’t afford (the Sheppard line). Because the switch involved cancelling several already-signed contracts, it’s going to cost an estimated $65 million in penalties. That’s another $65 million that could have been invested in public transit but is instead being thrown away. Outraged? Relax, motorists still get their tax cut.

It’s now clear that Ford’s approach consists of little more than telling people what they want to hear, regardless of the facts. His simplistic and repeated denial of reality is an understandable strategy, given that it got him elected. But reality has a nasty way of making itself felt over the long run. The real pity is that a great deal of damage has already been done. And those in line for future pain are this city’s hard-pressed transit riders.

Trams, Pedestrians & Bicycles + buses & cars in Amsterdam

Trams, bicycles, pedestrians also buses, motorcycles & cars happily co-existing in Amsterdam.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JeWED7Zilo

Just to reassure Ai??theAi??Ai??retardedAi??Ai??dingbats amongst Skyscraper, Ai??Skytrain for Surrey, Translink & Ai??VancouverAi??activistsAi??that it can be done Ai??and that no one was killed or injured during the making of this video

a Happy New Year to one & all….

the toast is `Shiney rails to Surrey, Langley & allAi??stations eastAi??in 2012′