Hume: The suburbs ask: Whereai??i??s the subway? In Metro Vancouver, the ‘burbs ask: Where is SkyTrain?
Like the Vancouver Metro Region, everyone wants SkyTrain, but there is no money to pay for it. Trouble is, no one has explained this to civic and provincial politicians, who continue to promise multi billion dollar SkyTrain extensions.
In the Fraser Valley mayor Watts of Surrey does get it, with her support for LRT construction, but not TransLink who continue plan for light rail as a poorman’s SkyTrain acting only as a cheap feeder line and nothing more. Other valley mayors don’t really get it and repeat TransLink’s mantra that; “we don’t have the density for rapid transit.”
In the Victoria region, BC Transit continues its long tradition of gold-plating planned LRT to such a point that the cost for proposed light rail is so over-engineered, that it rivals SkyTrain. TramTrain, which would be a natural for the E & N railway (with trams offering through service North to Duncan or even Nanaimo), is willfully ignored, despite a positive track record that greatly surpasses that of the bureaucracy’s Ai??favourite, SkyTrain.
As the deafening crescendo of anti-LRT rhetoric rises to fever pitch on other Vancouver centric blogs, the one question the SkyTrain lobby refuse to ask is; “How are going to pay for it?” Of course ever higher gas taxes are proposed and levied and regional bureaucrats are compelling politicians to impose a car levy or road pricing, which will do more to increase the number of bureaucrats in TransLink’s expensive new digs in New West, than improve transit.
It is not money that is stalling ‘rail‘ transit in the region, it isAi?? blinkered transit planning, which depends on extremely expensive SkyTrain and/or light-metro for regional transit and not much cheaper LRT. We are spending up to fifteen times more for SkyTrain instead of LRT, yet regional and provincial politicians remain mute on this point.
Until we adopt much cheaper LRT for regional transit, money for SkyTrain and light-metro will always be in that pot at the end of the rainbow.
Hume: The suburbs ask: Whereai??i??s the subway?
Published On Fri Dec 09 2011
By Christopher Hume Urban Issues, Architecture
Suddenly, it seems, everyone wants a subway. ButAi?? nobodyai??i??s willing to pay for one.
Fereydoon Darvish is an exception. The presidentAi?? of Markham-based development company Liberty ai??i?? think World on Yonge, RoyalAi?? Garden Condos, Thornhill City Centre ai??i?? insists the suburbs have waited longAi?? enough for decent transit.
Weai??i??ve heard that before, but Darvish goes a stepAi?? further. He suggests that his industry and its customers should help pay forAi?? transit.
That might not sit well with his fellowAi?? builders, many of whom complain bitterly about how much it costs them toAi?? continue to make huge profits, but Darvish remains adamant.
ai???Iai??i??m the only developer who says, ai???Letai??i??s put aAi?? $10,000 levy on new units,ai??i??ai??? he declares, ai???a dedicated fee for transit levied onAi?? all new housing units that would average out to about $10,000 per unit.Ai?? Dependency on the car has to be reduced drastically. The first thing we need isAi?? transit. Without transit, the city will not move any more.ai???
Specifically, Darvish wants the Yonge subwayAi?? extended north from Finch Station to Richmond Hill, just above HighwayAi?? 7.
So does Vaughan Councillor Alan Shefman. ai???Transit is the issue here,ai??? he says. ai???Itai??i??s a street-level peopleai??i??sAi?? issue.ai???
First elected in 2004, Shefman points out that ai???50,000 housing units have been approved but not completed between Finch andAi?? Major Mackenzie.ai???
As he also notes, at various times there haveAi?? been plans to run the subway north. For various reasons, however, they have beenAi?? dropped. And so Shefman finds himself assembling a task force that will ai???developAi?? a funding model for this line.ai???
Its members will come from across the GTA. If theyai??i??re to have any chance of success, they will have to be unusually creative. One of the key points, both Shefman and Darvish argue, is that users should pay. That means residents as well as passengers, fees as well as fares; in other words, donai??i??t look to the province, but to the GTA itself.
Indeed, experience shows that weai??i??re more willingAi?? to shell out if our taxes go to a specific program rather than general revenues.Ai?? That would open up all sorts of possibilities ai??i?? parking levies, a regional gasAi?? tax and even TIFs ai??i?? tax increment financing.
As Shefman explains it, a parking surcharge ofAi?? $1 would raise between $1 billion and $2 billion annually. Then, of course,Ai?? there are road tolls, congestion fees, vehicle registration taxes and theAi?? like.
The secret lies in GTA-wide acceptance, butAi?? donai??i??t hold your breath for that. We talk about the need to act like a region,Ai?? but still havenai??i??t learned to think like one. So far, rising above the pettyAi?? rivalries and traditional hostilities has been impossible. One municipalityAi?? distrusts the other, this one is leery of that one, and everyone hates Toronto
ai???We need to raise the level of discussion,ai??? saysAi?? Shefman. ai???Our official plan is dramatically transit-oriented. Thereai??i??s a hungerAi?? for transit in Vaughan.ai???
ai???Thirty per cent of the people who work atAi?? Markham Centre walk to work,ai??? Darvish claims. ai???The public is ahead of theAi?? politicians.ai???
ai???Iai??i??d stop project-based planning,ai??? Shefman adds. ai???We must build transit continually; otherwise weai??i??re going to choke.ai???
The proposed line would have six stations andAi?? connect with a GO stop in Richmond Hill. As Shefman also notes, theAi?? environmental assessment for the route extension is complete.
The task force will report in June, thoughAi?? getting a commitment ai??i?? political and corporate ai??i?? for these sorts of fundraisingAi?? measures will be tough.
But as Shefman notes, ai???The GTA is the pot ofAi?? gold at the end of the rainbow.ai???
Words of Wisdom
The following comment comes from the LRTA’s chat room and I believe has much relevance here. I have slightly abridged the item as the first part was mainly about British Politics and with the spider web of BC politics to contend with, I thought it best not to reprint it.
Is the proposal Clegg is speaking about, for Councils to be able to borrow locally from an infrastructure fund for transport projects, for Councils to be able to borrow against tax receipts for local transport & infrastructure projects or Councils to be able to raise funds for local transport & infrastructure projects by issuing bonds using tax receipts & debts as collateral?
I do think that this is a good proposal, not quite as revolutionary as a French style `Transport Versement’ but a huge step forward compared to the DfT’s centralised system.
A brief remark on the responses in the Telegraph; am I surprised, no.
Over ten years of advocacy and I’ve read every angry response from Bristol to West London to Croydon to Nottingham, Manchester & Edinburgh.
The 1% would much prefer tax cuts and s** the 99%
If you can’t win by making dubious challenges to the business case, play the ecology/environmental card (read challenges to HS2)
Remember, worse than an NIMBY is a:-
NIABY
Opposition to certain developments as inappropriate anywhere in the world is characterised by the acronym NIABY (Not In Anyone’s Backyard). The building of nuclear power plants, for example, is often subject to NIABY concerns.
NAMBI
NAMBI (Not Against My Business or Industry) is used as a label for any business concern that expresses umbrage with actions or policy that threaten that business, whereby they are believed to be complaining about the principle of the action or policy only for their interests alone and not for all similar business concerns who would equally suffer from the actions or policies. The term serves as a criticism of the kind of outrage that business expresses when disingenuously portraying its protest to be for the benefit of all other businesses. Such a labelling would occur, for example, when opposition expressed by a business involved in urban development is challenged by activists – causing the business to in turn protest and appealing for support from fellow businesses lest they also find themselves challenged where they seek urban development. This term also serves as a rhetorical counter to NIMBY. Seen as an equivalent to NIMBY by those opposing the business or industry in question.
BANANA
BANANA is an acronym for Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything (or Anyone). The term is most often used to criticize the ongoing opposition of certain advocacy groups to land development. The apparent opposition of some activists to every instance of proposed development suggests that they seek a complete absence of new growth. The term is commonly used within the context of planning in the United Kingdom.
PIBBY
PIBBY is the acronym for Put In Blacks’ Back Yard. This principle indicates that the people with social, racial, and economic privileges object to a development in their own back yards, and if the
objectionable item must be built, then it should be built so that its perceived harms disproportionately affect poor, racially disadvantaged people. The environmental justice movement has critiqued Nimbyism as a form of environmental racism. Robert Doyle Bullard, Director of the Environmental Justice Resource Center at Clark Atlanta University, has argued that official responses to NIMBY phenomena have led to the PIBBY (Put In Blacks’ Back Yard) principle.FRUIT
FRUIT is the acronym for Fear of Revitalization Urban-Infill and Towers. The word FRUIT or FRUITs is a play on words in support of the acronym BANANAs. First used in a development industry article in Vancouver to describe irrational local opponents (fruit cakes, fruit loops or just fruits) of well-planned developments.
I have a particular disdain for certain journalists at the moment:
The Gruniad’s Tony Brignull
The Gruniad & Evening Standards Simon Jenkins
The Times Matthew Parris
The Telegraph’s Simon Heffer
Finally my List of forty Most Frequent Questions Asked (FQA):
Critical comments.
Excuses.
Criticism.
Opposition.
And Hostility to Trams
1.Ai??Ai??Ai?? Trams are inflexible.
a.Ai??Ai??Ai?? If the road becomes closed, due to an accident or emergency road or utility repairs, is there any way a tram service can be maintained?
2.Ai??Ai??Ai?? Trams are noisy.
3.Ai??Ai??Ai?? The construction of a tram system, causes disruption to towns & city’s; noise, dust, road closures, utility diversions.
4.Ai??Ai??Ai?? Can I claim compensation for disruption & reduction in earning to my business, during the construction work?
5.Ai??Ai??Ai?? Why do the electricity cables, gas & water mains, have to be dug up & moved to accommodate the building of a tram system?
6.Ai??Ai??Ai?? We have a perfectly good bus system/service, why do we need a tram system?
7.Ai??Ai??Ai?? Will the tram system mean that a number of our existing bus routes will be shut down?
8.Ai??Ai??Ai?? Who will operate a new tram system?
a.Ai??Ai??Ai?? Will the trams run 24/7?
b.Ai??Ai??Ai?? Can trams continue to run if it snows, unlike many buses & trains?
9.Ai??Ai??Ai?? Are tram drivers trained, to the same high level of competence as:
a.Ai??Ai??Ai?? Bus drivers?
b.Ai??Ai??Ai?? Train drivers?
10. Will there be conductors on the trams to collect fares?
11. Will the trams be as safe or safer for vulnerable people travelling on their own late at night than other public transport modes?
12. Can I use my Freedom Pass/Bus Pass/disabled pass/Oyster/Travel Card to travel on the tram?
13. Are trams accessible to disabled people & parents with prams?
14. Do tram systems operate on signals like the main line railways?
15. How is the location of the tram stops decided?
16. How fast do trams travel along the road?
a.Ai??Ai??Ai?? Do trams have to obey the roads speed limit?
17. How long will tram rails last, before the road has to be dug up to repair or replace them?
18. Trams represent an old fashioned & outmoded Victorian form of transport.
a.Ai??Ai??Ai?? Why has the reintroduction of trams to Britain, become fashionable in the last two decades?
b.Ai??Ai??Ai?? There are, only six tram systems in Britain to date, with a seventh being currently built in Edinburgh. If, as I am being told they are successful; then why have more not been built?
19. Who pays for new tram systems, the Government, the City/town council or the local Passenger Transport Authority?
20. Who decides, if a new tram system represents value for public money?
21. Is private investment used to pay for tram systems to be built?
22. Tram systems are expensive.
a.Ai??Ai??Ai?? No British tram system has ever made/run at, a profit.
b.Ai??Ai??Ai?? Constructing a tram system will mean that our Council tax/taxes will have to rise to pay for it.
c.Ai??Ai??Ai?? Every tram system built in the past twenty years in Britain, has overrun it’s construction budget.
23. Will public transport ticket prices rise, to pay for the tram system?
a.Ai??Ai??Ai?? Nobody will use the trams, when they are introduced because the fares will be too expensive.
b.Ai??Ai??Ai?? How is fare evasion controlled on tram systems?
24. A tram system will bring crime & more undesirables into our town/city centers.
a.Ai??Ai??Ai?? Who is responsible for policing tram systems?
25. Trams cause congestion on the roads, to other users; private cars, buses.
26. Trams will cause delays at road junctions for private cars & buses.
a.Ai??Ai??Ai?? How will the designers phase junction traffic lights, to meet the needs of the trams & other road users?
b.Ai??Ai??Ai?? Will trams get priority at road junctions, over other road users?
27. Why don’t they, the council/government, build a metro/underground system instead?
28. The trams should run in tunnels under the town and not down the streets. This will free up more road space for private cars.
29. We need less public transport, not more.
30. Public transport & particularly trams slow down the speed of traffic.
31. Trams are dangerous for:
a.Ai??Ai??Ai?? Pedestrians.
b.Ai??Ai??Ai?? Cyclists.
c.Ai??Ai??Ai?? Car drivers.
32. The overhead electric tram wires & masts are an eyesore.
a.Ai??Ai??Ai?? The tram line will pass through a conservation area, overhead poles & wires will be an aberration.
b.Ai??Ai??Ai?? Is it possible to design trams that can run on rechargeable batteries, so that ugly poles & wires do not have to be installed?
c.Ai??Ai??Ai?? The pre 2nd World war London trams, picked up electrical power from a conduit in the road, rather than from overhead wires; is this practical system in the 21st century?
d.Ai??Ai??Ai?? The overhead poles & wires will spoil the attractiveness of the town/city.
e.Ai??Ai??Ai?? The overhead electricity wires will reduce the value of my house/property.
f.Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? The overhead electrical cables are a cause of cancer in children.
g.Ai??Ai??Ai?? How safe are the overhead power cables? What happens if one breaks and falls down across the road?
h.Ai??Ai??Ai?? How do tram system designers ensure that the return current passing through the tram rails does not corrode buried utilities?
i.Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? How do tram system designers ensure that the current in the overhead wires, does not cause interference with business computer, data & hospital life support equipment?
33. Trams cause accidents in towns & city’s.
34. Government accident statistics prove that trains & trams have a poorer safety record, per passenger miles travelled than other forms of transport.
a.Ai??Ai??Ai?? The statistics prove that more pedestrian accidents are caused by public transport, than by private cars.
b.Ai??Ai??Ai?? Buses have a better safety record than trams.
c.Ai??Ai??Ai?? How quickly, can a tram stop if a child runs out in front of it?
35. A tram line past my house/property will cause the value to fall.
36. My shop/business will suffer if a tram line is built on this street.
a.Ai??Ai??Ai?? Where will my customers park, if they cannot stop outside my shop/business?
b.Ai??Ai??Ai?? Where will my suppliers park, to deliver to my shop/business?
c.Ai??Ai??Ai?? The council will raise my business rate to pay for the tram system.
d.Ai??Ai??Ai?? If a tram line/system is built, all my customers will ride/take the tram to the out of town shopping malls.
37. Trams are a continental form of public transport.
a.Ai??Ai??Ai?? Trams were invented on the continent, so let the continent keep them there.
b.Ai??Ai??Ai?? Why do the French appear to be more successful at introducing new tram systems, in even their smaller cities?
38. Britain’s streets are too narrow for trams.
a.Ai??Ai??Ai?? Will any roads have to be closed for private cars, to allow the tram system to be built?
b.Ai??Ai??Ai?? Will any of these roads, remain permanently closed to suit the operation of the tram system?
c.Ai??Ai??Ai?? What rules exist, for safely running trams through a pedestrian thoroughfare?
d.Ai??Ai??Ai?? Can tram lines be designed to run in their own corridor separated from other road users?
39. Trams are more polluting than private cars or buses.
a.Ai??Ai??Ai?? Tram systems have very large carbon footprints.
b.Ai??Ai??Ai?? It’s a myth, that trams are an ecologically cleaner form of public transport.
c.Ai??Ai??Ai?? Where will the electricity for powering the trams be generated?
d.Ai??Ai??Ai?? Can tram systems be powered by renewable sources of electricity?
e.Ai??Ai??Ai?? How much electricity, does each tram use?
40. Can it be proved that trams are successful in reducing the number of journeys made by private cars, in towns & cities?
Toronto Elected a Ford, But Instead got An Edsel
Toronto mayor, Rob Ford, is an American tea-bag clone or clown (depending if one voted for him or not) who had big transit ideas. No more streetcars, no LRT, but miles and milesAi??(sorry kilometres and kilometres) of new subway construction.
Well, financial reality has hit with a big bang and with Mayor Ford’s unwanted help and inept ideas has now made public transit both expensive and non-user friendly. Affordable transit schemes were thrown outAi?? and instead ‘pie in the sky’ subway plans has turned “Transit City” into the city of perpetual gridlock.
I hope voters in the metro Toronto region get it right in the next civic elections.
Ah yes,Ai??one wishesAi??that the subway lobby in Vancouver are taking notes!
http://www.torontosun.com/2011/09/22/miller-says-fords-transit-plan-off-track
http://us.mg5.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=731juomkm6rn2
Transit News From Eastern Canada
An Artist’s rendering of the Laval aerial tramway
Well, TransLink isn’t the only transit authority toying with the idea of an aerial tramway….
http://lavalnews.ca/article/Laval-PSC-leader-calls-aerial-tram-gimmick-192307
…….and I do believe an aerial tramway is a gimmick. Aerial tramways may prove to provide a transportationAi??solution for a unique transit problem, but they may cause more problems than they solve and areAi??no substitute for modern light rail.
BRT gridlock in Ottawa today
Ottawa transit planners are beginning to learn that if one dumps all their transit money into a politically prestigious subway, that does little to enhance the transit experience, it comes at the expense of a larger user-friendly light rail network. Ottawa has already learned that BRT didn’t really work (that’s why they planned for LRT)Ai??but when precious construction money is spent on needless subways, BRT becomes the only affordable solution for a larger transit network.
http://www.cfra.com/?cat=1&nid=83160
It seems transit planners must relearn the lesson that BRT has not proven to attract new customers, especially the all important motorist from the car.
Proposed monorail for Montreal
The silly season has arrived in Montreal, where the monorail lobby are spinning their tales of cheap transit to any and all who will listen.
Ha, ha, ha!
Just where has this particular monorailAi??been used?
Don’t know?
Well transit planners had better ask some very pointed questions, soon, lest politicians jump on the monorail bandwagon and compel transit planners to plan for gadgetbahnen type transit that may cost the taxpayer a whole lot more than advertised, just like the Vancouver SkyTrain mini-metro.
Believe this and I have some Bre-X shares to sell you!
Le coAi??t du monorail inversAi?? par kilomA?tre
CaractAi??ristiques du projet de monorail
The Scarborough ICTS/ALRT
Meanwhile in Toronto, Mayor Ford has turned into a transitAi??Edsel, with his extremely expensive and half bakedAi??subway onlyAi??plans.
Instead of LRT being built in time for the the phase out of the Scarborough SkyTrain ICTS/ALRT line, transit customers may face four years or longer for a transit replacement for the aging mini-metro.
A Tram Runs Through It!
IAi??couldn’t resist. In Freiburg Germany, trams co-exist with bicycles and buildings, without the doom and gloom and general transportation chaos predicted by the SkyTrain (a.k.a. metro) lobby.
So sad when on this side of the pond, many regional politicians equate modern LRT as an anachronism from years gone by and not as a viable and affordable transit mode in daily use in well over 400 cities around the world. In the Vancouver Metro Region, designing “rail” transit to be customer friendly instead of beingAi??’engineering’ friendly is still at least a generation away.
Light Rail and Streetcar Construction
The following is a series of photos showing tram construction in the French city of Tours.
http://www.lineoz.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=17564&p=345099#p345099
The French city of Tours (population 137,000) tram project is a transit is closely related to modern light rail with most of its route located in aAi??reserved rights-of-way. Work on the new tramway started in 2010, with completion of the line expected by September 2013.
The first tam line is replacing an existing bus serviceAi??which willAi??spearhead a reorganizing of theAi??existing bus network. The project was entrusted to the group which includes the City Tram Company
Facilities Touraine (SET) and the company Transdev. A second tram line is not in the planning stage.
TramTrain Through Town and Country
Here we have a Karlsruhe ‘streetcar’ operating as a Elzug or local passenger train on its way to Heilbronn.
Two video’s that show that the “density question” doesn’t exist with TramTrain and that TramTrain is both user friendly and non-user friendly.
TramTrain through the Black Forest and in a deep snow, something to think about when winter snows isolate Chilliwack and the upper Fraser Valley due to heavy winter snows closing roads and highways.
The second video is a TramTrain going through a town centre and through a cafAi??’s serving area, which gives a new meaning to dine and dash!
Road Pricing Coming To Surrey?
It seems that local bureaucrats are trying to persuade regional politicians to agree to a road-pricing or road toll scheme, to both ensure their incomes and pensions by increasing the transit and planning bureaucracies – OOPS, I meant to sayAi??increase funds for transit.
For road pricing or road tolls to work, the region needs a viable public transit alternative, the region doesn’t and if road pricing forced onto the public, it will mean the end of the political careers of those supporting the scheme.
The current SkyTrain and or light-metro planning needs major cash infusions, but the nature of light-metro means that it can never be built to provide an alternative to the car.
TransLink certainly has read the book on how to gouge the taxpayer for more coin, but it hasn’t read the book on providing good transit. Like a 70 year old on Viagra, TransLink’s bureaucrats crow about ridership on the light metro system, like recent conquests with a 20 year old,Ai??but they fail to mention any figures of modal shift. With 80% of SkyTrain’s ridership coming from buses, points to the fact there has been little or no modal shift at all! Added to the ridership mix is over 100,000Ai??dollar a day U-Passes forciblyAi??sold to students (students are compelled to buy U-Passes) going to universities and colleges in the region and how transit ridership has increased because of multiple trips made by this group.
What I see is an ever increasing spiral of transit costs in the region, with little real benefit to the transit customer. Giving TransLink more money, by implementing a road pricing scheme is like giving a child the keys to a candy store.
Want affordable transit, then we must starve TransLink of cash and force them to plan for affordable alternatives or even, perish the thought, get rid of TransLink and its highly paid yet ponderous bureaucracy altogether and hire consultants to plan for individual transit plans when needed. Come to think of it, this is exactly what Rail for the Valley did with the RftV/Leewood Study.
Report recommends fees on driving, more transit
Surrey should consider backing a Metro Vancouver transportation improvement fee of $65 to $165 per vehicle to support sustainable transportation, according to a report commissioned by the Downtown Surrey Business Improvement Association.By Jeff Nagel – Surrey North Delta Leader
Published: November 23, 2011 9:00 AM
Updated: November 23, 2011 10:01 AMThe City of Surrey is being urged to support a TransLink vehicle levy as one way to fund transit while making driving more expensive.That’s one of the recommendations in a report commissioned by the Downtown Surrey Business Improvement Association, which hired consultant David Hendrickson to analyze Surrey’s transit needs.His report says Surrey should consider backing a Metro Vancouver transportation improvement fee of $65 to $165 per vehicle to support sustainable transportation, provided there are hardship concessions for low-income motorists.It also suggests Surrey push ICBC to allow distance-based insurance, where car owners pay premiums based on how far they drive, encouraging them to use alternatives more often.And Hendrickson says a share of the provincial carbon tax should also go to transit, rather than income tax relief under the current revenue-neutral model.Road pricing could be another more equitable solution compared to continued property tax increases, he found, but noted Canada’s car-oriented culture makes higher fees on cars and drivers “politically charged and contentious.”Hendrickson’s report, Leveling the Playing Field, argues road expansion capital costs tend to be under-scrutinized compared to transit spending, and driving in general enjoys “perverse subsidies” that must be overcome if transit costs and benefits are to be fairly considered.“User fees that help diversify transit funding can include additional fees on single-occupancy vehicles to better reflect full costs of driving.”Elizabeth Model, executive director of the Downtown Surrey BIA (left), said the organization hasn’t taken a position on the vehicle levy or other revenue options, such as more tolls.“They’re only suggestions,” she said, but added the BIA is pleased with the report and agrees improving transit is “hugely” important to Surrey developing an energetic, vibrant and successful downtown core.Hendrickson suggested the city work to “make public transit faster than driving” to increase the use of transit, which has risen from four to six per cent of all local trips but still trails the region.The city should create a network of HOV lanes open only to buses and ride-sharers, his report said.“Low-cost investments in queue-jumping lanes, transit-only lanes and intersection priorities for transit, particularly during rush hour, can significantly reduce transit trip times and generate increased ridership.”Bypass lanes or timing traffic lights to hold at green for approaching buses can help cut travel times five to 15 per cent, he said.Those measures are critical, Hendrickson argued, because adding more buses will yield diminishing benefits if they and all other vehicles become increasingly stuck in congestion.TransLink’s South of Fraser area transit plan calls for an extra 600 buses to be added here.TransLink is also preparing to add a B-Line express bus service on King George Boulevard in the next year.Transit service levels in Surrey remain “considerably lower” than other Metro cities north of the Fraser, the report said.Residents’ dependence on driving and the lack of a viable transit alternative is a big problem, Hendrickson said, because by 2031 one in three Surrey residents won’t be able to drive a vehicle due to age or mobility challenges.Surrey residents contribute $160 million a year to TransLink through gas tax, property tax and transit fares, he found.But TransLink only spends $135 to $146 million on transit service in Surrey, or about 90 to 95 cents out of every dollar it collects here.Hendrickson endorses the city’s push for light rail lines that are more “appropriate” for connecting town centres, potentially on the old Interurban corridor.To serve more local residents, he said, transit needs to better connect neighbourhoods and cities South of the Fraser, not concentrate on taking passengers to Vancouver or elsewhere in the region.He noted 55 per cent of trips from Surrey to downtown Vancouver are already taken on transit.He also notes Surrey’s lower density overall A?ai??i??ai??? sometimes used to justify less transit investment A?ai??i??ai??? is deceptive because much land is in the Agricultural Land Reserve, making Surrey’s non-farmed lands actually denser than the regional average.He suggests rideshare vehicles get preferred parking places or pay parking discounts and more secure bike parking be added near transit, along with improved cycling routes.Hendrickson also outlines a series of tax reform and development strategies that can foster transit-oriented growth that is both more efficient to serve by transit and feeds more riders into the system.Split-rate taxation A?ai??i??ai??? where land is taxed more than a separate rate for buildings A?ai??i??ai??? can be used to encourage densification and discourage speculators from sitting on bare land.
The Ottawa Light Rail Tunnel Questioned
At least someone in the media in Ottawa gets it; building transit tunnels does very little, except reduce the scope of a transit system. Unless a transit line ridership exceeds about 15,000 persons per hour per direction, only then should a tunnel/subway be considered. It is to be remembered that the city of Karlsruhe Germany is relocating its city’s main tram line in a subway because the surface tramway was catering to well over 40,000 pphpd, with coupled sets of trams operating at 45 second headways! Canadian planners and engineers, routinely over-engineer transit projects to the point of unaffordability, with needless tunnels and viaducts, with Vancouver’s SkyTrain mini-metro being a very good example (the driverless mini-metro needs grade separation at all times, thus enforces subway and viaduct construction). To this end they have ill-advised politicians as to the need for tunnels and viaducts, to the point of professional misconduct! Why? The only reason I see is to ensure that taxpayers dollars flow to themselves and associates with deliberate and extremely expensive transit over-engineering. It is time for regional politicians "to bell the cat", so to speak and engage real transit professionals who have a contemporary knowledge of urban and public transit to plan and build regional transit. In a commentary for The Ottawa Citizen, contributor Ken Gray says the city’s mayor should eliminate the light rail tunnel from the $2.1 billion starter LRT project and use the savings to extend surface rail as far as possible:
http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2011/11/23/\ watson-must-dump-the-light-rail-tunnel/ "Watson Must Dump The Light-Rail Tunnel November 23, 2011. 12:01 am Posted by: The Bulldog by Ken Gray So the theory behind the current light-rail plan for Ottawa is the short line between Tunney’s Pasture and Blair Road is just the beginning. That the tunnel will speed transit traffic through downtown eventually all the way to and from the suburbs. Well, and I can’t say this strongly enough, it’s very unlikely that the line will be extended anytime soon. Economist Don Drummond, who runs a commission on public service reform, says health-care costs will devour the provincial budget before two decades are up. That’s because of the huge demographic of aging baby boomers who will demand at our hospitals and ballot boxes they get the best of care. The boomers are unlikely to be happy with not getting enough treatment to keep them from dying. People are like that. Suddenly, projects such as light rail seem insignificant when the grim reaper is staring the boomers in the eye. Already, Premier Dalton McGuinty has dumped any idea of a bullet train between Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto, citing the dicey provincial fiscal situation. So sorry to play this record yet again, but Mayor Jim Watson must dump the downtown tunnel, create a surface rail, bike and pedestrian corridor through the core, and extend the light-rail line as far as it can go because, given the cost of health care, the chances of getting more light-rail money to extend the line beyond Tunney’s and Blair after the current project is completed in 2017 is extremely unlikely. And the current planned line is not long enough and creates too many cumbersome transfers to be of much use at all. It’s big, wasted money with the possibility of huge cost overruns. Surely the mayor understands that.
Light Rail runs in inclement weather
Trams and Streetcars "Stuttering & Crapping out" not a chance brother!
As in the winter of 2010/2011 when Light Rail & Trams continued to run across Europe as well as in Calgary, despite heavy snow falls, when Skytrain ground to an ignominious halt, likewise recent floods in Europe & Australia haven't stopped the Trams!
Montpellier, France
http://dorsetgirlabroad.blogspot.com/
Melbourne, Australia
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1kvQN5jSTA
Budapest, Hungary
Recent Comments