Those Who Do Not Read Transit History…………….

A more grist for the mill.

There is a belief in North America that subways are the great panacea for urban transit.

This poses a question, what is exactly meant as a subway in North America?

Generally, the term subway is used to denote heavy or light metro traveling in a tunnel under the city, with stops every km or so apart.

This is both very expensive and not user-friendly.

Today, in Europe, subways are only considered if traffic flows on a transit (tram) route exceed 20,000 persons per hour per direction. It is the last resort in catering to transit customers.

Last resort?

Yes, because Europe had a post war subway craze, especially in Germany, where it was though subways were the answer to congestion and provide bomb shelters in case of war.

Problems arose, including the high costs of subway construction, which meant smaller transit networks and studies showed that a subway would become a vast “charnel house” in a nuclear war.

Then the mid life rehabs happened, bankrupting many local transit authorities that opted for subways, which in turn degrade transit services.

Metro Vancouver taxpayers are being kept in the dark with the Expo and millennium Line’s mid life rehabs as the signalling, electrical and track rehabs will cost over $4 billion. Not to mention the replacement of the ALRT cars with ART/MALM cars costing $717.5 million.

Added to the $2.7 billion subway under Broadway and the $4.1 billion Expo Line extension to Langley (and let us not forget the $500 to $1 billion Operations and Maintenance Centre #5) the real cost to the taxpayer to extend the SkyTrain Light Metro line a mere 21.7 km is a staggering $12 billion+!

Why does America have such terrible transit?

Simple answer is, the politicians what gold plated transit systems costing billions of dollars more to build than cheaper, yet more effected transit options. The result: it is too expensive to build a full network, making the very expensive ‘rapid transit’ line to cumbersome to use.

Soon, politicians and planners on this side of the pond will soon discover the lessons of bloated, over built transit projects, that were taught to  their European counterparts 40 years ago.

Those who do not read transit history are doomed to repeat the very same expensive mistakes.

A new book looks back at the mass transit histories of 23 major cities in both the US and Canada, detailing the routes to where we are today

Veronica Esposito

Tue 14 Nov 2023

Last modified on Tue 14 Nov 2023 18.01 GMT

“North America really is unique in the world in the lack of good public transit,” the author Jake Berman told me while discussing his new book, The Lost Subways of North America. The oversize, map-laden volume is a slickly designed deep dive into the mass transit stories of 23 major cities in the US and Canada. Packed with fascinating histories and tons of absorbing information – ever wonder why elevated trains went out of style, or why monorails just don’t work? – the book is a lively and compelling examination of how mass transit has succeeded and failed across the continent.

The last stop: what happens when a US city’s subway starts to die?

“European cities never decided to build the kind of copy-and-paste suburbs that we built in North America,” said Berman, explaining why transit has fared so much better across the Atlantic. “The other part of that is, American cities do not make particularly good use of the land near their transit systems. For instance, many stops on [the Bay Area’s Bay Area Rapid Transit] Bart is surrounded mostly by strip malls, or single-family homes or gigantic parking lots.”

While talking with Berman, the misuse of land around transit hubs was a recurrent topic, a common pitfall that undermined the design of subways, light rail and streetcars in many major cities. In one of multiple examples, Berman shared that Dallas’s many miles of light rail doesn’t necessary equal a valuable transit system. “It’s crazy to think that Dallas has about as many miles of rail as Barcelona,” he told me. “The difference is, there’s not a whole lot near Dallas’s rail stations, whereas in Barcelona there’s apartments, there’s stores, there’s businesses, there’s churches – basically everything that you need for daily life.”

Surprising winners emerged from Berman’s research for Lost Subways of North America. While Dallas may conform to stereotypes about gas-guzzling Texans and their lack of good mass transit, the neighboring city of Houston proved to be one of the locations that is doing transit right. As Berman explains, Houston’s light rail within the city’s core took advantage of reforms in laws reducing mandatory parking lots and increasing housing density – the result is that transit in the city’s core functions far better than similar light rail in places like Dallas and Los Angeles, which don’t give access to major infrastructure and employment hubs, and which don’t supply adequate housing.

 

In addition to commenting on contemporary situations, Berman’s book is also a rewarding look into the history that informs our contemporary transit mess. For instance, he does an apt job of retelling the oft-told defeat of Los Angeles’s streetcar system by freeway – including a strange moment in which an LA monorail almost took hold. This retelling makes for the perfect prologue to Berman’s discussion of LA’s decades-long pursuit of a viable light rail system, which continues to this day. The idea of such a venture took hold because of a rivalry with San Francisco’s Bart in the 1960s. “It really is an interesting thing seeing how municipal rivalries played out in the transit space,” he said. “LA put a subway system on the ballot in 68 because the Bay Area had approved Bart six years prior.”

LA’s light rail would remain a dream for decades, but eventually that city did come to develop about 110 miles of track (favorably comparing to the Bart’s current 131 miles). Unfortunately, Berman laments that all those Southland metro miles are for naught, as the city still conceives of itself as “a horizontal city, not a vertical one”. With the failure of LA to pursue high-rise housing developments around metro hubs, Berman argues the city’s mass transit system will remain unsuccessful.

While LA is widely talked about as a mass transit hard case, lesser known is Berman’s treatment of Rochester, New York, at 211,000 inhabitants the “smallest city to ever build a subway” and “the only city in the world to build and operate a full-blown subway system, then abandon it entirely”. Completed in 1927, the problem with Rochester’s subway was that, in the words of a city newspaper, “it starts nowhere and goes nowhere”. After some successful years, the system fell into insolvency after the second world war, eventually entering a ridership death spiral that saw it shut down in 1956, making way for freeways.

Whether it’s Rochester or Los Angeles, Berman argues that making a successful mass transit system isn’t overly complicated, as most successful systems are so for the same reasons. “There’s that line from Anna Karenina,” he said, “all happy families are alike, and every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way. And the adage definitely applies to transit. There are a whole lot of things that cities with good transit systems do correctly, and most of those things need to come into place for the system to work.” That would include building apartments and businesses around stations, as well as other kinds of amenities that people would be willing to ride transit to reach. “There’s been a sort of forgetting that transit doesn’t exist in a vacuum,” he said.

San Francisco Muni Metro trains sit parked at the Curtis E Green Light Rail Center.

Photograph: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

If there are common factors in mass transit success, there is also at least one common factor in mass transit fails – bureaucracy, which often prevents the creation of transit routes, as well as the creation of the necessary amenities to make said routes thrive. Berman writes that in San Francisco, along the major transit corridor Geary Street, “it took from 2000 to 2011 to replace the bankrupt Coronet Theater with rent-controlled senior apartments … All the while, San Francisco keeps adding more jobs.” Berman argues that the continued creation of jobs throughout the Bay Area – without a similar rise in housing stock – is one of the key drivers of the homelessness crisis.

He contrasts the current failure to create housing in a timely manner to the can-do attitude that originally made San Francisco’s Muni bus system develop many key routes quickly and efficiently. “A lot of what I talk about in the book is related to very deep questions about transit planning and why cities can’t build infrastructure quickly,” Berman said. “The Geary Boulevard subway in San Francisco has been planned since the 1930s. It’s very hard to get things done these days like they could in the old days. When Muni built the Geary Boulevard streetcar in 1912, it took six months to do it. There is a lot to be talked about regarding making the perfect the enemy of the good.”

Although Berman sees much to critique in contemporary transit, he remains hopeful that a book demonstrating everything that was once done right – and those things that still are being done correctly – might inspire a transit turnaround. One of the reasons he wrote Lost Subways of North America is to share his belief that it’s not too late for cities across this continent to get with the program. “I would hope that people have a certain sense of optimism that we were able to do this once and we can do it again. Back in the day it was normal for people to build apartment buildings near train stations. We can do this. Providing perspective of the past is what I hope to give to the reader.”

• The Lost Subways of North America is out now

The mayor’s Council on Transit – Lotus land’s Ship of fools

Like children playing with their Christmas morning train sets, the Mayors council on transit blunders on wanting more and more, without any care as to the cost.

Not one of the mayors has any knowledge about public transit, nor seems to care about the onerous tax burden TransLink’s user-unfriendly service has become.

If any of the mayors had any moral fibre they would ask for a fully independent review of TransLink to see if the taxpayer is getting good value for their money.

I would wish that the mayors would contact the Baltimore MTA about their former and now TransLink’s CEO. I did and here is what I received in a Email.

you are about to get a new CEO of Translink in the person of Kevin Quinn.  this is a good news/bad news situation.   good news is we are rid of him, bad news you are getting him.

Mr Quinn may be the nicest yes man you will ever meet.  he is very personable and friendly but have yet to actually see him in 6yrs have an opinion of his own.   and if he has any use for light rail he has kept it well hidden.

hopefully you will have better luck than Baltimore, ridership is off (before pandemic) 2% year over year since he took over.

Hardly reassuring!

Like most Canadian politicians, the regional mayors think the taxpayer has deep pockets and will keep on paying for mediocre planning and even more mediocre transit service.

The lesson of the 2015 transit plebiscite, which showed that 61.7% of the regional population rejected TransLink’s transit planning and tax increases, has been ignored.

With the next round of civic elections  in 2026, just in time for new taxes being loaded on the already over taxed taxpayer, the Mayor’s Council on Transit, “Lotus Land’s Ship of Fools”, may find themselves clinging to a sinking ship, with their politcal fortunes sinking with them.

Addendum: Trying to find out what the Mayor’s council on transit get paid for attending meetings. After 15 minutes of perusing Google, no can find.

In my book it is money poorly spent.

By Hana Mae Nassar and Negin Nia

Posted November 23, 2023

Edomonton’s Valley Line Southeast LRT Officially Opens

News from Edmonton.

The $1.8 billion and delivered on budget,  Valley Line is a low-floor urban light rail line in Edmonton, Alberta. The 13.1-kilometre (8.1 mi) line runs southeast from downtown at 102 Street stop to Mill Woods Town Centre at Mill Woods stop, and connecting to the Capital and Metro lines at Churchill station in downtown.

Even with inflation applied to the LRT cost which included the yard and LRV’s, this line is half the cost of the Langley Extension. This is just using the $4.1 Billion cost without, the new cars  (5 – 5 car trains) needed or the OMC #5 and without the expected cost increase due to post Covid & Ukraine war inflation.

Oh yes, LRT operates in snow as it has done in Edmonton since 1978, something our balky MALM system has a problem with.

Long-awaited Valley Line Southeast LRT officially opens to passengers

City officials, excited residents gathered to witness the inaugural ride

Listen To The Experts

Mr. Havacow is, what I call, a transit expert. He has worked in the field for decades and has a wealth of knowledge on all forms of transit.

Cutting through the hype and hoopla of politcal and bureaucratic promises, claims, and what can be best called, propaganda, Mr.Cow calls it as it is.

Why is he anonymous?

Simple, in Canada and the USA, telling the truth can get one or one’s company blacklisted, thus if one wants the truth to be known, they post under pseudonym. Mr. Cow, the Major, Cardinal Fang and a few more can comment without fear of retribution from provincial, federal or corporate entities.

The following is in answer to a chap who uses the moniker of Legoman, which by his posts, is associated with TransLink.

The following comment by Mr. Cow, deserves a post of its own because of the vast amount of misinformation presented by politicians and bureaucrats, who, quite frankly, don’t give a damn about transit, and only invest in transit to win elections.

@Legoman0320 in North America you are never going to see fully enclosed BRT stations anymore, they are just too expensive unless you have winters like Ottawa. The same for off board fare payment, this means expensive fare gate devices in each station, most likely unmanned stations (absolute waste of time). You do that in China, or South America with their truly gigantic passenger numbers. In a European or North American context, that’s just too much like a light metro (Skytrain) or a heavy metro (Toronto subway, Montreal Metro). Remember, politicians build real BRT to try and save capital and operating costs, compared to rail based operating technologies.

Lastly Bi-articulated buses still aren’t road legal in North America (Canada,USA). Ottawa tried in the 1990’s and Transport Canada & MTO (Ministry of Transportation Ontario) were forcing O.C.Transpo to jump through multiple hoops to allow them. This is a transit agency with the most extensive heavy BRT system in North America and by far the most experience in running BRT and still they were forcing limitations on them that would have made even basic operations with Bi-articulated buses difficult.

Bi-articulated buses are difficult to maneuver in anything but absolutely clear roads, Ottawa’s Transitways were very busy making maneuvering difficult. Like standard articulated buses, they are easily humbled by moderate amounts of snow or ice. Most models still have hill climbing issues on wet or icy roads.

Bi-articulated buses are twice as expensive as standard articulated buses, currently no North American companies produce a model, this means foreign suppliers with wickedly expensive part packages. Even Nova Bus, the Quebec based but mostly Volvo owned company, uses GM parts for its North American vehicles, due to the fact that even their own European Volvo parts are far more expensive than GM and GM look alike parts. Bi-articulated buses have far more non standard parts and components, like their entire engine and drive train system, braking systems and transmission. Non standard systems and components means higher maintenance and training costs. They also don’t last any longer than standard articulated buses, sometimes appreciably less than standard buses, although that is design dependant.

Even Ottawa is moving away from articulated buses and switching to the newer North American friendly double decked buses. They hold more passengers, more stable on hills, they are not humbled by just 10-12 cm of snow, their easier to maintain and most important, they won’t spontaneously fish tail like articulated buses can.

Although double-deckers have their own serious issues it seems the industry has turned away from articulated buses in general lately, we will see. Ultimately though, the main issue with BRT is still its perceived savings in operations vs. actual savings in operations. BRT works as long as passenger numbers are below a certain level. That level changes with each new system and it’s own operating and physical characteristics. Generally, at what level does adding another bus to carry more passengers stops saving money and starts costing extra money to operate. BRT has some interesting issues:

1. At some level of passenger demand the BRT infrastructure needed to handle greater passenger demand, more and larger buses, forces said infrastructure to be more robust and or physically larger, thus more expensive, than the infrastructure needed to move the same number of passengers with rail based technology. At their core, buses don’t always make great rapid transit vehicles compared to rail based ones.

2.BRT works best in environments where people costs are low and infrastructure costs are high. This limits their effectiveness in first world countries. At higher passenger levels, the operating costs of BRT get higher than rail because you can’t connect the vehicles together into a train, all with one operator. Buses also require more mechanical equipment and staff for maintenance, than rail based vehicles.

3. BRT is not like a rail line with buses. If your so called experts spout this more than once, run for the hills. BRT and Rail operations are fundamentally different. Good BRT design can do things that rail just can’t or more precisely, shouldn’t do and or even attempt to do. Many things that BRT supporters claim that BRT can do as well as rail technology end up as spoiled opportunities because buses can’t generally operate in the same way, especially economically efficiently, as a train.

I could go for days on this last point, entire volumes of books have been written on this issue. You will just have to trust me on this. 30 years of working in this industry and 30 years as a BRT passenger in Ottawa teaches you a few things. I would suspect that, many long time Ottawa transit passengers know and understand a lot more about the advantages and disadvantages of BRT operations than many of your B.C. based experts do.

TransLink’s Hype and Hoopla About BRT Is Just Another Wet Squibb!

When is Bus Rapid Transit just a an express bus route? When TransLink claims an express bus route is BRT

Real BRT operates on a fully dedicated Rights-of-Ways, with priority signalling at intersections, offering headway’s in the 2 minute to 5 minute ranges.

What TransLink is palming off onto the public is a tarted up bus service like the Broadway B-99, with some HOV lanes to create the illusion and with our extremely gullible media, will be an easy sell to the public.

Here is the core issue, TransLink just cannot tell the truth; it cannot be straight with the public.

But what would one expect when the CEO is an American spin doctor selling snake oil to the rubes!

The real insult to both the transit customer and the taxpayer is that the real cost of real BRT, is only slightly less s than at-grade light rail, which has a far bigger bang for the taxpayers buck.

The following graph from Ontario’s MetroLink tells the tale of the real costs involved.

Sad to say, TransLink and the Mayors council on Transit are again deceiving the public with fake news about the regional transit system and it seems the premier and the provincial NDP government are in full agreement with this.

Shame on TransLink. Shame on The Mayors Council. Shame on Premier Eby!

By Hana Mae Nassar and Negin Nia and Dean Recksiedler

Posted November 16, 2023

Provincial Election In 2024!

SkyTrain has always been used at a photo-op for provincial elections.

And the David Eby NDP government is no different. Announcing SkyTrain extensions win votes. Whether spending huge sums of money actually does anything to improve transit is another question.

Contrary to the claim in the news article; “The project is estimated to cost $4.01 billion.“, the cost to extend the Expo Line to Langley will cost more, much more.

In excess of $6 billion for the 16 km line, metro politicians are being quietly told!

Not included include in the cost:

1. Operations and maintenance centre #5, estimated to cost $500 million to $1 billion.
2. A complete electrical rehab of the Expo and Millennium lines, estimated to be around $2 billion.
3. The resignalling of the Expo and Millennium Lines to permit higher capacity, contract let to Thales, $1.47 billion.
4. The extra cars needed to operate on the 16 km line, estimated at six to seven 5-car train-sets, cost unknown.
5. The replacement of all switches on the Expo line with higher speed switches to permit an increase in capacity, (this means expensive structural work on the guideway), cost unknown.
6. Station expansion and rehab, cost unknown .

All this for a 16 km line that according to TransLink will carry fewer customers than the Broadway B-Line.

In BC, at election time, photo-ops cutting ribbons for SkyTrain makes good politics, that is, until the bills start coming in!

Single Track Operation? More common Than You Think!

 

OK folks, the following is a small list of the many European regional railways, operating on single tracks or which route operates on portions of single track.

Why am I posting this, you say?

Last week I received an angry phone call from a gentleman who claimed had done some work for Metro Vancouver on the subject of reinstating a passenger service on the former BC Electric interurban line to Chilliwack.

He wanted me to: “…….cease publishing blog posts on reinstating the former interurban passenger service and refrain from sending mail referring to reinstating an interurban to the various Metro Vancouver Councils!”

He further said; “I was wasting his time because he had to debunk what have stated in various mail and he was tired of dealing with the issue.”

I stated that; “I was not an expert, nor claimed to be  but an informed taxpayer who has a interest in local transit and transportation affairs“, or something like that anyways. I further added, “that what had been stated in recent mailings and the RftV blog, was information from credible media sources and from real experts in Canada, the USA, the UK and Europe, which I wished to share with those who are making the decisions on transit and transportation.”

I did manage to pry what offended him the most and that was the concept of single track operation as; “according to TransLink, no viable passenger service could be operated on single track!”

Really? Doesn’t the Canada Line have 600 metres of single track operation in Richmond Centre and almost 700 metres of single track at YVR? (of course this was an after thought and i wished I was speedier with the repartee!)

He then warned that “some sort of legal action would be taken against me if I continued“…………. click! Less than two minutes and from a private number as well.

To be honest, I was very slow on the uptake, didn’t quite get his name or who he worked for, or was he just a member of the SkyTrain Lobby who is in denial.

Well I heard that threat before and all I can say is bring it on!

The following are videos from YouTube showing single track operation on all or portions of the line. There are a lot more “Driver’s view” videos and I would recommend watching them, if only to have a scenic train trip, through delightful countryside holiday in the quiet of your home.

 

 Please cut and paste to view or open on a new tab.

Austria

Germany

Norway

Switzerland

 

Montreal’s REM Goes Kaput

The problem with automatic (driverless) light metros is that when the system fails, the entire system fails. Regular customers of Vancouver’s SkyTrain light-metro can attest to this.

There are many issues that a automatic transit system must deal with, including computer issues and maintenance. Poor maintenance leads to computer issues and maintenance is expensive. Automatic light metro’s need a rigorous program of preventive maintenance to operate problem free, far more than systems with drivers. Vancouver’s SkyTrain system requires more maintenance than conventional systems with drivers, costing around 60% more to operate than a conventional system.

This is why automatic light metro’s age very badly because as maintenance is cut to reduce operating costs, due to higher operating costs as the system ages, leading to more “down” time. It is a viscous downward financial spiral.

Of course I am being polite, because Montreal transit customers, particularly REM customers will soon find out how automatic light metros operate in the snow.

They don’t!

 

A train is seen stopped at a station during a media tour of the the Reseau express metropolitain (REM) in Brossard, Que. on Thursday, June 10, 2021. The automated light train network will have 26 stations and 67 km of tracks across Greater Montreal. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Paul Chiasson

Surprise, Surprise, Rail For The Valley had it right all Along.

TransLink has now admitted that they are $4.7 billion in the hole and Rail for The Valley has told you so, many times in the past.

The $11 billion to extend the Expo and Millennium Lines has now landed, like the financial time bomb it is, onto the Mayor’s Council’s lap.

RftV has warned for over a decade that building a hugely expensive, yet obsolete light metro system instead as just as effective light rail, would haunt taxpayers and like a bad Halloween joke gone awry and now it has come true. TransLink’s inept planning and operation has plunged the region and its taxpayers into a $4.7 billion nightmare on East Columbia St.

Excuses and more excuses is all the taxpayer gets from TransLink’s well paid bureaucrats, which the word economy is not in their lexicon.

RftV has been chastised over and over again for asking “Show me the money.” Well, it now seems there was no money to show!

The Provincial government is also to blame because all this debt has been created by the premier’s Office using transit as a sort of pre-election photo-op gimmick to win votes.

Zwei sent a letter to now unelected Premier Eby (never has been elected as Premier) asking for a judicial inquiry on Transit and Transit planning, with all facts all based on published accounts by Canadian newspapers of note and all I got for my troubles is that all further correspondence must go through a provincial barrister.

Eby knows that this $4.7 billion financial hole is a politcal time bomb and he will hide behind the Mayor’s Council’s skirts like the politcal coward he is, even though the provincial NDP approved the spending of $11 billion (but never approved how to raise the funds) to extend the Expo and Millennium Lines, as reported here.

With financial restraint, now the politcal keyword in both the the next provincial and federal elections and the taxpayer getting more and more restless with proliferate spending by politicians and their bureaucrat masters on dubious projects. With more and more  people are living on the streets, ever longer lineups at food banks and fewer coins in one’s purse, $4.7 more billion for gold-plated transit schemes may just tip the balance at the ballot box.

TransLink facing $4.7B cash crunch, report to Mayors’ Council says

By Charlie Carey City News

Posted October 25, 2023 7:09 am.

Last Updated October 25, 2023 9:24 am.

Helsinki’s New Jokeri LRT Opens Early And $19 Million Under Budget

Europe’s newest light rail line just opened and our local tax hungry politicians and bureaucrats should take note!

Broadway subway – $2.7 billion for 5.7 km. (not including vehicles, electrical/signalling upgrades)

Proposed Expo line Extension to Langley – Almost $5 billion for 16 km. (not including vehicles,  electrical/signalling upgrades)

Helsinki’s Jokeri Line, including vehicles – $819 million for 25 km!

The Jokeri LRT ot Helsinki’s route 15, is a 25-kilometre (16 mi), 34 station light rail line connecting Keilaniemi in Espoo and Itäkeskus in Helsinki, Finland. The line started operating in October 2023, about 10 months ahead of the original schedule. The line will eventually replace trunk bus line 550, the busiest bus service on the Helsinki Regional Transport Authority public transport network.

The 25 km line cost €562 million or CAD $819 million and came in €13 million or CAD $19 million under budget and opened ten months early!

As Translink pleads poverty to any and all who would listen, a comment from American Transportation Engineer who worked on many pioneering US light rail projects, in 2008, when he shredded the Evergreen lines business case.

But, eventually, Vancouver will need to adopt lower-cost LRT in its lesser corridors, or else limit the extent of its rail system. And that seems to make some TransLink people very nervous.

 

23 October 2023

FINLAND: Helsinki Regional Transport opened its 25 km orbital light rail line serving the Helsinki-Espoo conurbation for revenue service on October 21, almost a year ahead of schedule.

Running from Itäkeskus in eastern Helsinki to Keilaniemi in neighbouring Espoo to the west, the line is branded Jokeri as an abbreviation of JOukkolikkenteen KEhämäinen Raide Investointi (mass transport ring rail investment).

It runs in an arc around the capital, which is located on a pear-shaped peninsular connected by three radial highways. Around 16 km of the route is located in Helsinki and 9 km in Espoo.

Being promoted as an ‘express tram’, the Jokeri LRT is intended to replace bus Route 550, which since being launched in August 2003 has become HSL’s busiest with 40 000 passengers/day on weekdays. The end-to-end journey time of 65 min, an average speed of 25 km/h, is similar to the bus timetable, but the trams will not be subject to delay by traffic jams. The bus service is expected to cease running at the end of the year.

Planning and construction

The light rail line was first mooted around 1990, but it was not until June 2008 that the city of Helsinki commissioned a detailed plan, which was presented in May 2009.

The scheme was finally approved in 2016, and construction began in June 2019.

Tracklaying was completed in August 2022, and test running finished in September. The route was originally expected to open in summer 2024, but the target date was brought forward to January and then to October 2023.

The line has been developed by the Jokeri Rail Alliance, set up by the two cities to bring the promoters, designers and contractors into a single umbrella organisation. The double-track line has been built to 1 000 mm gauge for compatibility with HKL’s legacy tram network. It serves 34 stops at an average spacing of approximately 800 m. Three of these provide interchange to the metro stations at Itäkeskus, Aalto University and Keilaniemi and three to suburban railway stations at Oulunkylä, Huopalahti and Leppävaara. Construction of the line required four new bridges over the radial highways and one of the city’s ring roads, plus a 300 m tunnel at Patterinmäki.

Civil works were budgeted at €382m with another €108m for the rolling stock plus €70m for the dedicated depot at Roihupelto bringing the total to €562m.

The cost of the project has been split three ways. The national government contributed €84m, and the remainder has been divided between the municipal administrations in Helsinki (65%) and Espoo (35%). According to HSL, the line has been completed around €13m below budget.

Vehicles and services

The line will be operated by a fleet of 29 ForCity Smart Artic X54 supplied by Škoda Transtech. These are a longer version of the Smart Artic cars previously supplied to HKL and similar to those in operation in Tampere.

The five-section low-floor cars are 34 m long, with provision to incorporate an extra 10 m section if demand increases in the future. Each car can carry up to 214 passengers, including 78 seats and four spaces for wheelchairs or prams, and can run at speeds up to 70 km/h. The trams are finished in a white and petrol blue livery which like the interior was developed by Finland’s Idis Design.

Tram services operate from 04.30 to 01.15 each weekday, starting an hour later at weekends. As only 15 trams have so far been delivered the initial headway is 10 to 12 min, but the frequency will increase to a tram every 6 min when all 29 are available, allowing the bus route to be withdrawn. Zonal fares are charged, with a flat fare of €2·80 for travel in either Helsinki or Espoo and €3·10 for both zones, all valid for 80 min.