US, UK, French & Australian Light Rail & transport news
Plans for New Eco-Trams In Bristol
Ai??
Wednesday, May 4th 2011 13:17
Ai??
An artistai??i??s impression of a tram in Bristol
Ai??
A consortium has put forward plans for a new eco-tram system in Bristol that would run between Ashton Meadows and Temple Ai??Meads station.
If it is given the go ahead, the route would originate at a new park and ride site that would be built on a brownfield site in Ashton Meadows and go along Cumberland Road and along the Harbourside past the M-Shed museum and terminate at Temple Meads Rail Station.
The scheme is being headed up by the Sustraco Tram Consortium, and it is claimed the system would be a pioneer for the transport.Ai??The plan is that itAi??would run on biomethane gas as opposed to electric lines.
The plans are not approved yet and the West of England Partnership needs top decide whether or not to put this proposal forward for government funding, or the bendy-bus scheme – that would use a similar route. But those backing the tram system say as well as its greener benefits, it would be cheaper to run as the route is based on existing tram and rail track lines.
Residents along the route are also said to be in favour of the tram. Pip Sheard is the spokesperson for residents group Trams For Bristol, she told us people in Bristol have wanted trams for a number of years: “The previous Labour government told us we could not have trams because they’re too expensive. But that’s because a conventional, electrified tram would cost around A?12-15million per kilometre, we think this whole route will cost A?12million.
“It is not just a tram route, it’s a tram route, a park and ride and two transport interchanges, because that’s what people involved thought we needed.”Ai??Ai??
also:
http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/NEW-TRAM-VISION-FUTURE/article-3517420-detail/article.htmlAi??
Sydney’s $180 million light rail planAi??
The Daily Telegraph May 6th 2011
Vikki Campion
Ai??
Ai??
Artist’s impression Sydney City Council’s vision for the light rail. Source: The Daily Telegraph
SYDNEY Council has put its money where its mouth is with a $180 million investment to run light rail down the city’s spine and clear cars out for good.
Draft budget plans reveal the council will make its single biggest investment in a decade to give George St to the people and run trams down the city heart.
Its bold plan is to pedestrianise up to 1km of George St from Bathurst St, near Town Hall, to Hunter St, near Wynyard Station.
Lord Mayor Clover Moore yesterday promised the changes would make it easier for motorists who had to drive through the city.
“Many international cities have pedestrianised roads in their city centre and these cities continue to thrive – we only have to look at New York’s Broadway, London’s new West End and our own Pitt St Mall to see evidence of how it works well,” Ms Moore said. “George St will flourish if we remove the traffic congestion currently choking it. We want to open up a network of vibrant lanes and small plazas that encourage shops, bars and other small
The cash will be on condition the State Government runs light rail down George St, transporting up to 8000 people an hour. “Light rail is the solution to the gridlock in the city,” Ms Moore said. “Our investment is dependent on the State Government building light rail down George St, which all our research shows is the optimal route into the city centre.”
The council’s investment will be spent on streetscaping, signs, laneways, landscaping and traffic management works to redirect vehicles around George St.
“This is about making it easier for people who need to drive to be able to do so,” she said.
“While we are looking at pedestrianising a part of George St if light rail is introduced, other easier routes will be found for motorists and buses.”
Ms Moore said bold changes were urgently needed to stop the gridlock gripping Sydney, which costs $3.5 billion a year.
“Congestion is crippling our city and it’s not going to get any better unless we radically rethink the way our city works and how people move around,” she said.
“Congestion costs are expected to more than double to $7.8 billion by 2020 if we do nothing.”
The $180 million will be set aside in the new long-term financial plan to be discussed next week.
Gold Coast transit
GoldLinQ win Rapid Transit bid
Sue Lappeman Ai??Goldcoast.co.auAi??Ai??May 6th, 2011
Ai??
http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2011/05/06/312931_gold-coast-news.html
Ai??
CONSTRUCTION of the Gold Coast Rapid Transit system will begin in earnest later this year with the long-awaited appointment of a consortium to construct and operate the $1 billion service from the new University Hospital to Broadbeach.
Premier Anna Bligh will this morning announce GoldLinQ, which includes companies Keolis, Downer EDI, McConnell Dowell, Bombardier and Plenary, is the successful bidder for the first public passenger transport project to be delivered through a public-private partnership.
Ms Bligh said each of the companies in the consortium, chosen from a short list of three, had a proven track record of transport construction within Australia and overseas. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTfO-ddjXVw
Gold Coast light rail builder announced
http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2011/05/06/3210208.htm
America’s transport infrastructure
Life in the slow lane
Ai??
Americans are gloomy about their economyai??i??s ability to produce. Are they right to be? We look at two areas of concern, transport infrastructure and innovation
Ai??
The Economist Apr 28th 2011
http://www.economist.com/node/18620944?story_id=18620944&fsrc=rss
Ai??
ON FRIDAY afternoons, residents of Washington, DC, often find a clear route out of the city as elusive as a deal to cut the deficit. Ribbons of red rear-lights stretch off into the distance along the highways that radiate from the cityai??i??s centre. Occasionally, adventurous southbound travellers experiment with Amtrak, Americaai??i??s national rail company. The distance from Washington to Raleigh, North Carolina (a metropolitan area about the size of Brussels) is roughly the same as from Londonai??i??s St Pancras Station to the Gare du Nord in Paris. But this is no Eurostar journey.
Trains creep out of Washingtonai??i??s Union Station and pause at intervals, inexplicably, as they travel through the northern Virginia suburbs. In the summer, high temperatures threaten to kink the steel tracks, forcing trains to slow down even more. Riders may find themselves inching along behind a lumbering freight train for miles at a time, until the route reaches a side track on which the Amtrak train can pass. The trip takes six hours, well over twice as long as the London-Paris journey, if there are no delays. And there often are.
America, despite its wealth and strength, often seems to be falling apart. American cities have suffered a rash of recent infrastructure calamities, from the failure of the New Orleans levees to the collapse of a highway bridge in Minneapolis, to a fatal crash on Washington, DCai??i??s (generally impressive) metro system. But just as striking are the common shortcomings. Americaai??i??s civil engineers routinely give its transport structures poor marks, rating roads, rails and bridges as deficient or functionally obsolete. And according to a World Economic Forum study Americaai??i??s infrastructure has got worse, by comparison with other countries, over the past decade. In the WEF 2010 league table America now ranks 23rd for overall infrastructure quality, between Spain and Chile. Its roads, railways, ports and air-transport infrastructure are all judged mediocre against networks in northern Europe.America is known for its huge highways, but with few exceptions (London among them) American traffic congestion is worse than western Europeai??i??s. Average delays in Americaai??i??s largest cities exceed those in cities like Berlin and Copenhagen. Americans spend considerably more time commuting than most Europeans; only Hungarians and Romanians take longer to get to work (see chart 1). More time on lower quality roads also makes for a deadlier transport network. With some 15 deaths a year for every 100,000 people, the road fatality rate in America is 60% above the OECD average; 33,000 Americans were killed on roads in 2010.
There is little relief for the weary traveller on Americaai??i??s rail system. The absence of true high-speed rail is a continuing embarrassment to the nationai??i??s rail enthusiasts. Americaai??i??s fastest and most reliable line, the north-eastern corridorai??i??s Acela, averages a sluggish 70 miles per hour between Washington and Boston. The French TGV from Paris to Lyon, by contrast, runs at an average speed of 140mph. Americaai??i??s trains arenai??i??t just slow; they are late. Where European passenger service is punctual around 90% of the time, American short-haul service achieves just a 77% punctuality rating. Long-distance trains are even less reliable.
The Amtrak alternative
Air travel is no relief. Airport delays at hubs like Chicago and Atlanta are as bad as any in Europe. Air travel still relies on a ground-based tracking system from the 1950s, which forces planes to use inefficient routes in order to stay in contact with controllers. The systemai??i??s imprecision obliges controllers to keep more distance between air traffic, reducing the number of planes that can fly in the available space. And this is not the systemai??i??s only bottleneck. Overbooked airports frequently lead to runway congestion, forcing travellers to spend long hours stranded on the tarmac while they wait to take off or disembark. Meanwhile, security and immigration procedures in American airports drive travellers to the brink of rebellion.
And worse looms. The countryai??i??s already stressed infrastructure must handle a growing load in decades to come, thanks to Americaai??i??s distinctly non-European demographics. The Census Bureau expects the population to grow by 40% over the next four decades, equivalent to the entire population of Japan.
All this is puzzling. Americaai??i??s economy remains the worldai??i??s largest; its citizens are among the worldai??i??s richest. The government is not constitutionally opposed to grand public works. The country stitched its continental expanse together through two centuries of ambitious earthmoving. Almost from the beginning of the republic the federal government encouraged the building of critical canals and roadways. In the 19th century Congress provided funding for a transcontinental railway linking the east and west coasts. And between 1956 and 1992 America constructed the interstate system, among the largest public-works projects in history, which criss-crossed the continent with nearly 50,000 miles of motorways.
But modern America is stingier. Total public spending on transport and water infrastructure has fallen steadily since the 1960s and now stands at 2.4% of GDP. Europe, by contrast, invests 5% of GDP in its infrastructure, while China is racing into the future at 9%. Americaai??i??s spending as a share of GDP has not come close to European levels for over 50 years. Over that time funds for both capital investments and operations and maintenance have steadily dropped (see chart 2).
Although America still builds roads with enthusiasm, according to the OECDai??i??s International Transport Forum, it spends considerably less than Europe on maintaining them. In 2006 America spent more than twice as much per person as Britain on new construction; but Britain spent 23% more per person maintaining its roads.
Americaai??i??s dependence on its cars is reinforced by a shortage of alternative forms of transport. Europeai??i??s large economies and Japan routinely spend more than America on rail investments, in absolute not just relative terms, despite much smaller populations and land areas. America spends more building airports than Europe but its underdeveloped rail network shunts more short-haul traffic onto planes, leaving many of its airports perpetually overburdened. Plans to upgrade air-traffic-control technology to a modern satellite-guided system have faced repeated delays. The current plan is now threatened by proposed cuts to the budget of the Federal Aviation Administration.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that America needs to spend $20 billion more a year just to maintain its infrastructure at the present, inadequate, levels. Up to $80 billion a year in additional spending could be spent on projects which would show positive economic returns. Other reports go further. In 2005 Congress established the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission. In 2008 the commission reckoned that America needed at least $255 billion per year in transport spending over the next half-century to keep the system in good repair and make the needed upgrades. Current spending falls 60% short of that amount.Ai??
How trams could save us from the ai???tyranny of the carai??i??
Robert Williams 26th April, 2011
The Ecologogist
Ai??
Back in 2000 John Prescott mooted 25 different tram projects across the UK, but a decade later where has that dream gone? Robert Williams laments how we have lost a solution to cutting cars and reclaiming our urban streets
Transport has been the Cinderella department of almost every British government since the Second World War. Successive ministers, both Labour and Conservative, have failed to address the challenges of growing mobility, the funding and provision of public transport and the increase in cars on the road.
Over the last 30 years, most British cities have suffered from increasing traffic congestion, so that in many cases streets are at, or near, gridlock. Average traffic speeds in London, at 11mph, are slower than they were a century ago. Pollution, noise and stress for drivers and pedestrians have increased dramatically and the quality of life in urban centres has suffered. Even the most enthusiastic members of the road lobby would admit that motorists are being driven slowly, so very slowly, round the bend.
Many cities have been abandoned to what has been described as the ai???tyranny of the carai??i??. Buses were deregulated by the Conservative government of the 1990ai??i??s, everywhere except in London, and passenger numbers fell precipitously, everywhere except in London.
Labour’s big tram plans
When Labour came to power in 1997, it promised an integrated transport policy. But transport policy was one of Labourai??i??s greatest domestic failures, and nowhere was the short term, unimaginative, bean-counting failure more evident than in the failure to invest in trams (or Light Rail) schemes.
In 2000 the then transport minister John Prescott promised that there would be ai???up to 25 new light rail lines in major cities and conurbationsai??i??. In fact, there are currently eight tramway/light rail systems in the UKai??i??in Croydon, London’s docklands, Birmingham, Manchester, Sheffield, Newcastle, Nottingham and Blackpool. In Edinburgh a new tram network is currenlty under construction. Systems were also proposed in Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool and Portsmouth, although funding was refused by the government, and they remain unlikely to proceed.
Letting tram schemes hit the buffers was a terrible error. Trams are flexible modes of transport that fit between the bus and the underground systems or conventional railway. Tram routes are certainly more expensive to construct than the bus based alternative but, in the long term, trams are cheaper to operate for a given capacity, have lower whole-life costs, offer higher commercial speeds, reduce pollution, and are more successful in attracting motorists to public transport.
In busy cities, trams can carry significantly more passengers than conventional bus networks, including the higher quality bus-based alternatives such as guided busways. Trams can carry flows of up to 20,000 passengers per hour per direction which is about four times more than conventional buses and twice that of the largest, tram-like bus alternatives.
Bus usage would have to increase in the order of 500-900 per cent just to keep the level of traffic congestion standing still, so to speak, in any case, where there is high demand (at least 2,500 passengers/ hour/direction) trams are cheaper than buses. Large numbers of buses are needed to provide equivalent capacity, leading to high staffing and vehicle costs, and roads becoming congested with (empty) buses, as anyone who has travelled along Oxford Street in London will recognise.
If we want to attract motorists away from their cars, alternative forms of public transport must be put in place first. All the evidence shows that people will not switch to public transport unless it is reliable, frequent, efficient, safe and clean, with affordable fares. Tram systems meet these criteria.
Trams cut car use
A study for the Passenger Transport Executive Group (PTEG) found that light rail has generated levels of modal shift from road that bus upgrade schemes rarely match. Typically about 20 per cent of peak hour passengers using British tram systems previously travelled by car. At weekends up to 50 per cent of British tram passengers used to travel by car. Overall light rail takes around 22 million car trips off the roads every year in Britain, and there is evidence, particularly in Manchester and Croydon, of reduced road traffic levels following their opening.
Ai??Ai??Reims Tramway
http://www.urbanrail.net/eu/fr/reims/reims.htm
Vancouver considers higher-density housing plans for Cambie Street corridor – Have we given land developers a $2.5 billion subsidy?
From the ‘Well I told you so department’.
In Vancouver, expensive subways are built not to move people, but toAi??subsidize land development.
Readers of the Rail for the Valley blog know that this announcement was predicted and why there much hype and hoopla in the mainstream media with the recently opened Canada line metro; the Canada Line must be seen to be successful for leverage to build the Broadway – UBC subwayAi??in Vancouver toAi??subsidize more high density development along the route.
Sorry folks in Coquitlam and Port Moody,Ai??you have won second prize again, as you have already had your land boom and high density development,Ai??no need to build a metro there anymore!
This announcement will have all the Transportation oriented Development crew in ecstasy, but there is a drawback and a very big one.
We have spent our ‘rail’ transit money on a few prestigious light-metro lines, while leaving the rest of the transit system to stagnate, we have no transit network, let alone aAi??‘rail’ network that would provide a realistic alternative to the car. If the people moving into the new high density housing in ‘ high rise towers’ along Cambie Street, do not work along the Canada Line, they will take a car to their work instead. TOD may very well exacerbate traffic congestion and gridlock in Vancouver! This is not a foolish statement, rather it is an observation of what will happen if we do not invest in a realistic transit network that will provide an attractive alternative to the car. With subways costing $200 million or more a kilometre to build and the lack of tax revenue or political willAi??to build such a subway system, SkyTrain/TOD transportation philosophy will turn out to be a fiasco for future generations.
It is sad to think, that if modern LRT ran along Cambie St., it would have provided more capacity than the truncated Canada Line subway, at about one tenth the cost and no need to massively densify Cambie Street.
http://www.railforthevalley.com/latest-news/the-sunday-supplement-essay/
Ai??
The Canada Line is not a SkyTrain at all, as it is not propelled by Linear Induction Motors or LIMs, rather
it is a standard heavy rail metro. The $2.5 billion Canada Line has a mere 100,000 boardings a day and needs
three or four times this amount to justify its construction. Thus the need to densify Cambie St.
Vancouver considers higher-density housing plans for Cambie Street corridor
Vancouver is considering a comprehensive land use plan for five neighborhoods along the Cambie corridor and Canada Line that will fundamentally alter the way the area looks and develops.
From 16th Avenue to Marine Drive, postwar bungalows, ranchers and modest single-family homes have long occupied most of the frontage of Cambie’s wide heritage boulevard. But under a proposal now before council, over the next 30 years the corridor would transform into a series of denser “transit-oriented” neighbourhoods with multiple-unit condos ranging from four stories in the north to 12 stories at Oakridge to 36 storeys at Marine Drive.
The plan, which could see as many as 14,000 new residents in the corridor by 2040, would capitalize on the new Canada Line and result in taller buildings lining the corridor. It is being supported by developers and hailed as visionary planning by some of the city’s leading architects.
Planning director Brent Toderian described it to council as “the largest and most complex area planning exercise in the city’s history.” It covers the Riley Park, Oakridge, Langara, Marpole and South Cambie neighbourhoods.
But it’s also raising concerns of some longtime residents who worry the dramatic changes being proposed will wreck their quiet neighbourhoods.
Todd Constant was the second of 125 speakers signed up to give council their thoughts. He’s lived around Cambie and King Edward all his life and watched with consternation as five years of construction for the Canada Line caused his neighbours hardship.
“Now you tell me that because of that (line) you’re going to double the density of the neighbourhood?” he told council Thursday. “From my point you’re destroying the neighbourhood and the community where we live. And you don’t have to.”
He said under the plan his home would be surrounded by four-storey buildings that would eliminate his privacy.
But further down Cambie Bill Konnert had a different view. He’s lived in the Langara Gardens area for half a century. He remembers when Oakridge and the Langara towers were first proposed and his neighbours set their hair on fire thinking the developments would destroy the area.
“Many of my neighbours signed petition after petition against the Langara highrises, and now they live in them,” he said.
“I and many of my neighbours welcome this plan. Not only do we want it, but we need it.”
The proposal, which is the second phase of a planning exercise the city started in 2009, has some controversial elements. The city is insisting that 20 per cent of all new housing to be rental, although several councillors questioned how effective that can be when the city has been unable to achieve more than 12 per cent in False Creek. The city also wants to take a high proportion of any potential rezoning profits ai??i?? as much as 75 per cent ai??i?? from developers in the form of “community amenity contributions” to pay for daycare services, seniors centres, parks and other public services.
Despite those concerns, groups like the Urban Development Institute and the Marpole Business Improvement Area believe the proposed plan would be good for the city.
In the first video recorded address to council ever, architect Peter Busby said the city needs to densify the corridor to take advantage of the $2 billion invested in the Canada Line.
“The transit nodes represent fantastic opportunities to create mixed-use communities within walking distance of those transit access points,” he said. “There are many other people in Vancouver who will thank you for supporting the Cambie corridor plan. It’s the right thing to do.”
Council expected to hear from only about half of the speakers by Thursday night. It will continue the discussion at a later date.
jefflee@vancouversun.com
Twitter.com/sunciviclee
Blog: www.vancouversun.com/jefflee
LIGHT RAIL FOR SURREY – The Whalley – King George – White Rock (WKW) Line
Surrey wants light rail, but where will the first LRT line go and what line would attract the most customers to the new light rail line?
If the goal of the new light rail line is to serve customer needs and offer the ability to provide an attractive alternative to the car, it must serve a multitude of destinations, as well service where people live. Those planning for LRT, presently have not much expertise and tend to treat the mode as a poor man's SkyTrain. Building LRT as an extension of the SkyTrain light-metro system will fail to meet expectations as LRT will not be designed to its best advantage. It is not 'rocket science' to design a transit line to be an attractive alternative to the car and the following plan may prove useful.
The Light Rail Line
The 23 kilometer Whalley – King George – Rail for the Valley – White Rock line (WKW Line for short) may be just the trick in laying a foundation for an attractive light rail system in Surrey. The light rail would be a classic LRT, operating on a 'reserved rights-of-way (RoW) in the median of the road. The route of the WKW Line would start at Gateway SkyTrain station at 108th Ave & 134th St. and continue a short distance east (500 m) to the King George Highway, From the KGV Hwy and 108th St, the KWK Line would travel South (7.5 km) to the Southern RR of BC (formerly the BC Hydro railway, running in the median of the KGV highway. This portion of the route would service the Central City shopping district; Surrey Memorial Hospital; Queen Elizabeth Secondary School; Bear Creek Park; and the Newton shopping district.
The WKW Line would then network south-east along the former BCE interurban and proposed Valley Rail Vancouver to Chilliwack TramTrain route to 152nd (4 km). Traveling mainly through industrial lands, which would provide the ideal location for the Light Rail storage and maintenance yards. The 4 km. of track involved would be double tracked and adequately signaled for safe freight/Interurban/tram operation.
Included on this line, is the possible joint operation with the RftV/Leewood interurban, enabling South Surrey and White Rock transit customers to continue on the Scott Station or even into downtown Vancouver, if the "full build" Interurban project is built.
From 152nd Street, the KWK Line would go straight south to White Rock (11 km) crossing the Nicomekl /Serpentine River Valley. Along here the line must be raised above flood plain and three new bridges across the Superport Railway Line, and the Serpentine and Nicomekl rivers must be built. It is this portion of line that will be the most expensive. Rising out of the small river valley the KWK Line continues south along 152nd Ave. terminating in downtown White Rock.
Map of South Surrey & the City of White Rock
In the summer, the White Rock the light rail line would bring congestion relief by providing a quality transit alternative for the many thousands of people who come in cars to the popular beaches. Also close to the KWK Line is the South Surrey Athletic fields, which many fields and arenas are constantly busy with hockey, baseball, soccer, rugby, and football games, twelve months of the year. The KWK Line would also provide an excellent transportation access for the burgeoning housing estates in South Surrey and White Rock.
The Cost
The the total cost of the KWK Line, including bridges and/or viaducts should cost no more than $690 million, based on an average of $30 million/km to build. The high cost of major engineering in the Nicomekl/Serpentine valley, would be mitigated by simple on-street construction on 152nd and the King George Highway and track sharing for 4 km on the Southern Railway of BC Line bisecting Surrey .
It is interesting to note that the total cost for the 98 km RftV/Leewood Chilliwack to Scott Road Interurban using Diesel LRT and the 23 km KWK Line would be under $1.2 billion or put another way we could build 121 km of modern LRT lines in the Fraser Valley for $200 million cheaper than the 11 km Evergreen Line!
Unlike present light rail planning, where development is encouraged to take place along a LRT/SkyTrain route, the KWK Line can pass through sensitive agriculture and ecological areas, without the need to densify along its entire route. By building the KWK Line a potential capacity of 20,000 persons per hour per direction is available to handle future passenger loads, yet still can be built much cheaper than its Skytrain/light-metro competitors. The cost for a SkyTrain along the KWK Line? About $2.3 billion at a conservative cost of $100 million per km to build!
A modern LRT Line in Madrid, Spain – A template for the WKW Line?
The WKW Line will provide a high capacity light rail line with a potential of carrying over 20,000 persons per hour per direction, without increasing road space. Using low-floor trams, with convenient stops, ensures an obstacle free journey for all transit customers, including the mobility impaired, without the need of expensive stations and equally expensive to maintain elevators and escalators.
The KWK Line can provide traffic calming where needed, yet still supply ample capacity for future transit needs. By providing a regular and efficient transit service from White Rock to Surrey Central and servicing many destinations along its route, would attract ample ridership, including the all important motorist from the car, to the new light rail line. The KWK Line would also easily integrate with the RftV TramTrain interurban service from Vancouver to Chilliwack and could provide in the not too distant future a direct White Rock to Vancouver TramTrain service, faster than the present bus and Canada line service.
The WKW Line would bring 21st century transit solutions to Surrey, transit solutions that are too long overdo.
Election – VOTE VOTE VOTE! – quotes from candidates on RAIL
VOTING TIME! Monday May 2.
VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE
Of course, there are many factors to consider in deciding how to vote this federal election.
On the issue of Rail for the Valley, the federal government plays a supporting role, with the provincial government providing specific direction. Still, federal politics matter - just ask those who were involved in getting the West Coast Express up and running 20 years ago.
-Your vote matters. Even if you're in a riding where you don't think your vote will make a difference, it makes a difference, because, first of all, you might be wrong. And second of all, when all the votes across the country are all added up, your vote will still be seen as a part of that total, regardless of whether or not your local candidate gets in.
Here are some last quotes to consider when you go to vote tomorrow. Thank you to all candidates who stuck their neck out and actively spoke up on the campaign trail, for passenger rail service for the Fraser Valley.
Some quotes from Candidates (west to east)
"In the current federal general election transportation is the most important local issue for Cloverdale residents. I believe citizens specifically want (they deserve) delivery of an economically feasible public transit alternative to fossil fuel-devouring cars. It's about time we elected a federal MP who advocates for a better transportation option involving a sustainable way to feed into the Lower Mainland transit system. I favour investigating using the old Interurban right-of-way in Cloverdale." -Hardy Staub, Liberal Candidate, Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale
(On Transportation) "I think the best option right now is to look at a light rail system [as proposed by Rail for the Valley] south of the Fraser River, and we hook into it [via the Golden Ears Bridge]. That would be the most immediate, feasible solution at this point." -Peter Tam, Green Party Candidate, Pitt Meadows-Maple Ridge-Mission
"From a purely economic perspective light rail for the valley on existing right of ways is an excellent deal. I think from a federal perspective investing through a three tiered system of fed, prov, and regional governments with some private partnership would make this the most cost efficient system available to move large amounts of people within the valley. I believe the intent of this system should not be to create a "commuter" system that would ferry people out to Vancouver but rather a regional network built to service the south fraser valley region. This line would open up development opportunities along the route especially focused around the stations which currently are mostly in areas that have little or relatively older commercial and residential activity. Currently, the development in the South Fraser region, especially in the east is along the Number 1 hwy corridor and is directed to auto- mobile individuals. By having light rail an entire different set of commercial opportunities will appear for a completely different type of entrepreneur. This would be another way to strengthen the economic ties between these communities. The huge financial return on this small investment is too good to ignore any longer and I haven't even begun on the social and ecological benefits of the light rail system. We need this now!" -Daniel Bryce, Green Party Candidate, Abbotsford
"With all the government spending that is wasted, 1 billion dollars would be a fantastic deal, "Rail for the Valley"- Chilliwack to Vancouver. Getting people out of their cars, helping the environment, creating sustainable communities around each stop along the way. Jobs that the Rail for the Valley would create, not only the building of the infrastructure of the line itself but the spin-off it would have in jobs in the future would far exceed any start up costs of this endeavour. If elected in Ottawa, I would make this a priority in getting this important project started. Currently their are 700,000 people living in the Valley on this side of the Port Mann, by 2040 their will be a projected 1.5 million." -David Murray, NDP Candidate, Abbotsford
"I've read the study and I do feel that rail for the valley is viable. Support Rail For The Valley." -Gwen O'Mahony, NDP, Chilliwack-Fraser Canyon
"If there's one thing I know about Greens, is that we're for public transportation and everybody I know is right behind this. We actually have a plan right now pushing for high-speed public transportation in heavy community corridors like the Fraser Valley so this is one of the areas where we'd like to see high-speed rail, not just for students, but for workers as well. I see workers every single day at work who are driving into Vancouver to work, that's time away from family, that's time away from their kids, that's time sitting in cars eating junky food half the time and wasting gasoline. So, high-speed rail, rail for the valley is definitely something that we're pushing for and definitely supporting the Rail for the Valley organization." -Jamie Hoskins, Green Party, Chilliwack-Fraser Canyon
IS IT TIME TO HAVE A ROYAL COMMISSION ON URBAN TRANSPORTATION?
Recent angst and confusion in local and national blogs concerning bus, light rail, metro, and commuter train makes Zwei wonder if a Royal Commission on Urban Transportation is needed. There are no national standards that readily defines transit mode and one is needed, so the average Canadian (read Canadian taxpayer) can engage in honest debate on urban transportation. To date, most transit modes are defined by those promoting particular transit projects and the mode chosen for that project. There is no national definition for light rail, metro and bus and confusion is endemic in the mainstream media, the political arena, as well in academic circles.
A good example of this confusion is BRT or Bus Rapid Transit. Outside of BC, BRT is a an express bus system that is either guided by rail like the GLT (Guided Light Transit) bus systems; a bus system guided by a raised curb, like the German O-bahn; or a bus system that has the exclusive use of busways, such as used in Ottawa. In BC, BRT is merely a limited stop express bus service, such as the B-Line express buses, which is not BRT at all.
Light rail also needs a standard definition as there are many different definitions given to modern LRT. Example: in BC, TransLink claims that modern LRT can not carry more than 10,000 persons per hour per direction, yet in Europe many LRT type installations carry more than double this number in daily revenue service!
The North American variant of LRT, the streetcar also needs a standard definition. In Europe there is no distinction between a tram operated as a streetcar or a tram operated as LRT, the only difference between the two is that one operates in mixed traffic, while the other operates on a reserved rights-of-ways. One tram line in Europe can operate as a streetcar and LRT combined.
The newest variant of LRT, the TramTrain also needs a new definition and a completely new understanding of the application of light rail in alleviating traffic congestion and pollution. TramTrain has created a new dynamic to urban transportation planners in Europe, as TramTrain can operate as a streetcar, LRT and a passenger/commuter train. Operating TramTrains in Canada will require a overhaul of the Canadian Transportation Act, which governs how our railways operate.
What constitutes a metro also needs to be discussed as there are several variations including light metro and monorail. In BC, our automatic proprietary light-metro (SkyTrain) system is sometimes called advanced light rail and not a metro. As the SkyTrain system is driverless, it can't operate in mixed traffic and definitely not of the light rail family. Also the terms rapid rail and rapid transit are used to describe transit projects, yet there is no official definition what rapid rail or rapid transit is.
"Why do we build public transit?" and "What do we wish to achieve with new transit installations", are questions that are mostly ignored by the powers that be, as most politicians regard transit projects, mega-projects built to secure photo-ops for the next election.
Do we build public transit to shape growth, as the TOD transit philosophy dictates, or do we build transit to move people, with a customer comes first policy, as what is evolving in Europe?
Should a transit project achieve a minimum modal change from car to transit? If there is to be a modal shift, what numbers should we be aiming for? And what would be the consequences if a planned new transit line failed to achieve minimum standards of operation?
The lame statement that the Canada Line would take 200,000 car trips off the road each day, may never be achieved in the foreseeable future and the claim probably would not have been made if their were guidelines for transit mode and implementation.
The question should be asked, "Should metro or light-metro be built on routes with passenger loads that can be easily handled by LRT?" Presently the Vancouver Metro area is spending four or five or more times more money for a transit line that could have been built with a much cheaper, but just as effective alternative. TransLink has spent at least six times more for two SkyTrain metro lines, yet the two lines carry about the same ridership as Calgary's three line LRT system. Another question that needs to be answered, "Is tunneling necessarily good for LRT projects or do they turn affordable LRT into unaffordable metro?"
What we are lacking in Canada is a national standard for building enhanced transit projects, with many being built strictly for political whim, like TransLink's Canada Line. To rectify the the current situation a Royal Commission on urban transportation may just be the ticket for a more affordable and more customer friendly urban transportation for more urban and suburban customers.
B.C. government willing to talk about light rail to Langford – From the Victoria Times Colonist
Good news from Victoria!
Though I find the proposed cost of $950 million rather steep ( the full build 136 km. Rail for the Valley Leewood TramTrain report cost less than $50 million more to build), that the provincial government is actually talking LRT is ground breaking. Victoria’s geography may play a part in this as acquiring land for new highways may cost more than acquiringAi??lands needed for rail, in fact by using light rail existing rail corridors/railway tracks can be utilized.
As for the E & N railway, if the provincial government can’t ante up $7.5 million to maintain the tracks is just shameful, considering that they subsidized the SkyTrain light-metro system by over $250 million annually and just the Hwy 17/Gateway HwyAi??interchange in South Delta must cost well over $500 million alone.
Le Mans, France, recently opened a newAi??15.4 km.Ai??light rail system in November 2007 and it is interesting to note that the city of Le mans has a population of 150,000, yet can afford a quality public transportation service. The cost of Le Mans new tramway (streetcar) ai??i?? 302, or a little over $425 million! By using TramTrain and streetcar operation in downtown Victoria, the cost for LRT in Victoria should be considerably less than $950 million.
Has anyone dared to ask; “How cheaply can we build light rail in Victoria?”
An Alstom Citadis 302Ai??Le Mans Tram
B.C. government willing to talk about light rail to Langford
By Rob Shaw and Bill Cleverley, timescolonist.com
Port Moody mayor calls for public pressure on TransLink to build Evergreen Line – From the Vancouver Province
From the “Bin there, done that department“.
I think Port Moody mayor Joe Trasolini now understands that the Evergreen (locally called the Nevergreen) is probably not going to be built, in his tenure in office. There are now three strikes against the Evergreen line; not enough money to fund the metro; Vancouver wants a SkyTrain subway under Broadway; and Surrey mayor, Diane Watts, demanding much cheaper LRT be built in her city – NOW.
Like a long running Greek Tragedy, the proposed Evergreen Line has driven high density development in the Tri-Cities, but this dream of TOD, has been lost on the realities of metro construction and Balkanized civic politics.
The truth of the matter is that South of the Fraser municipalities are demanding a fair share of tax monies be spent on their turf and not funding someone else’s exotic transit line. As more and more South Fraser mayors demand equal billing for TransLink’s planning follies, there is a growing realization that belonging to TransLink is nothing more than being joined with a financial parasite, forever sucking the lifeblood from South Fraser taxpayers.
For a comparison, the $1.4 billion (now probably $1.5 billion or more) 11 km. Evergreen Line could build at leastAi?? 56 km of modern LRT/streetcar in Surrey!
56 km of new LRT/streetcar in Surrey would go a long way to attracting the all important motorist from the car, while a 11 km. The Evergreen SkyTrain, probably will not do much in attracting the motorist from the car, as it just mirrors the existing BRT route.
With TransLink’s propaganda department going full tilt, extolling the virtues of the Canada Line, while hiding the fact that a great portion of the ridership consists of former bus customers, now forced to transfer onto the metro and YVR employees who drive toAi??and park in the vast employee parking lots on Sea island and ride the Canada line for free to their work place.
The desperation in Mayor Trasolini message is clear, he is in panic mode as he now realizing that the Evergreen Line will not be built in the near future or not ever as a SkyTrain, as funding allocated for the metro will be spent elsewhere. He also knows that if Stephen Harper is elected with a majority government, funding for all public transit projects will dry up.
The Evergreen Line, an election promise for two decades, will still make a good election promise for a few decades to come.
Ai??
Port Moody mayor calls for public pressure on TransLink to build Evergreen Line
Is a Customer First Transit Policy Foolish?
In addition to Cardinal Fang’s most excellent postAi??last Sunday, one has to reflect on the question; “Should a customer first policy take priority over transit oriented development or TOD?” Certainly TOD has become the great philosopher’s stone for transit planners in METRO Vancouver, where most lands around SkyTrain stations and along the SkyTrain route have been redeveloped into higher densities. Along the Canada Line, there are large moans from land developers that it is now too late to assemble lands for redevelopment as homeowners now want a lot more money for their properties; in layman’s terms, homeowners want a piece of the action!
Despite the hype and hoopla that the Canada Line has over 100,000 boardings a day, bus patronage South of the Fraser is lagging, so much so, that many of the extra bus services added by TransLink for South Delta, were quietly canceled at the New Year. It seems that the predicted thousands of new customers to transit did not materialize as expected. Now the transit customers, who formerly had a no-transfer service to Vancouver, now must transfer onto the metro at Richmond adding time to their commute. Transfers and longer commute times are not user friendly and deter ridership.
WhenAi??Mrs. Zwei works late in Vancouver, with her evening commute home, I have to drive toAi??Landsdown Station (Bridgeport Station is designed to take the transit customer into the casino and is not amenable for customer pick-up, again customer unfriendly)Ai??to pick her up as there is no convenient bus services to the suburbs; in fact I now just drive into Vancouver to pick her up at night because it is cheaper, faster and safer for her. A hell of a way to operate a transit system. Of course this makes the regional transit system grossly user-unfriendly for many would be patrons and taking the car becomes the only option.
Has anyone noticed that no one is chortling that the predicted 200,000 car trips taken of the road each day has not happened?
To be successful a transit system must take a transit customer, from where he lives to where he wants to go, quickly, safely, efficiently, and affordably. If a transit system does not provide the service demanded by the customer, he or she will seek an alternative which in most cases is the car. Metro systems like SkyTrain seldom provide such a service as theyAi??so expensive to build, that they only operate on a ‘trunk‘ line with the transit customer forced to transfer between bus and metro two orAi??more times per journey. Again, not very customer friendly.
As for Transit Oriented Development or TOD,Ai?? that train has already left the station as massive developments are happening everywhere in the lower mainland and there is little or no public transit to be seen. It is now the other way around, we now have Development Oriented Transit, where development takes place and transit follows sometime in the future – maybe – well they promised. Those who still cling to TOD areAi??yesterday’s men and women,Ai??as we have lots of destinations for transit customers, yet little or no transit. This is not a foolish statement, rather it is a fact and until our transit planners stop wasting the taxpayers money shuffling paper and actually do the job of designing a viable public transit strategy for the future, we will never get the customer friendly transit system that will attract the motorist from the car.
In the 21st century, to be successful, transit must be able to provide a quality alternative to driving; transit must be ableAi??to attract the motorist from the car. To date, TransLink has failed in achieving this and planning more pricey metro lines to be built ten, twenty, and thirty years in the future is just not working.
The City of Surrey wants to break this cycle of building metro lines to suit the fancy of Vancouver oriented planners pursuing their TOD dreams and isAi??planning for much cheaper LRT to service more destinations and providing a more customer friendly and cheaper alternative than SkyTrain. Sadly, many local transit planners, bureaucrats, andAi??academics are afraid of providing customer friendly transit and want to stay firmly in the comfortable 20th century way of doing things.
In METRO Vancouver, large bureaucracies, shuffling paper and enriching land developers takes precedent over the foolish needs of theAi??transit customer.
A very customer friendly tram stop in Strasbourg, France.
MLA says TransLink priorities are wrong
From the Oh what a suprise Department
Look after south of Fraser before considering UBC
http://www.langleyadvance.com/news/says+TransLink+priorities+wrong/4646857/story.html
Ai??
The Delta Optimist April 20, 2011
Ai??
TransLink better get its priorities straight and look at improving services south of the Fraser River before looking for money to build a SkyTrain line to UBC.
Ai??
Delta South MLA Vicki Huntington wasn’t impressed to hear about the transportation authority’s latest plan exploring the possibility of rapid transit to the UBC, even though it still doesn’t have the money to pay for the Evergreen Line to Coquitlam.
Wrapping up its latest public consultation period this week, TransLink recently released several potential designs for expanded transit to the university, ranging from more buses to rapid transit. The most expensive would be rapid transit at $3.2 billion, but would have the capacity to carry the greatest number of passengers.
“As far as TransLink building out to UBC, TransLink and the province owe the Lower Mainland the Evergreen Line, that should come first, and then they should turn their attention to south of the Fraser,” Huntington told the Optimist.
“Our bus system is below standard. We’re being forced to pay for the Canada Line by shipping us all in there and taking away our own decent transportation systems, and they need to start looking at some kind of rapid transit out in the lower Fraser. None of this expensive stuff, but let’s get some light rail going,” she said.
Saying TransLink is failing to pay attention to where the growth is occurring in the region, Huntington is a supporter of the concept of light rail, which she believes should be a high priority project.
However, the Evergreen Line has to be dealt with once and for all, said the independent MLA.
“I can see why they look at UBC. You’ve got something like 80,000 people and you can see where they’d think it’s a cash cow and would help in the movement of people. But sorry folks, the Evergreen Line has been promised for years and it’s time they got on with it. Then look south of the Fraser. Put more buses to UBC if you have to,” Huntington said.
Ai??
TransLink, meanwhile, is still looking for options to fund its $400-million share of the $1.4-billion Evergreen Line, linking Burnaby, Coquitlam and Port Moody. The regional mayors’ council on transportation rejected TransLink’s proposal to increase property taxes. They mayors are meeting with the province to discuss various alternatives, ranging from road tolls to vehicle levies.
Huntington said any attempt to impose tolls on existing roads and bridges would penalize residents living south of the Fraser and would be met by an overwhelmingly angry response.
Ai??
Earlier this year, Delta council talked about a scenario in which communities south of the Fraser split from TransLink to form their own transit authority.
That suggestion came up during council’s discussion on TransLink’s funding proposals, which drew the ire of local politicians and bureaucrats.
who complained they provide nothing for the community, other than taking even more money out of taxpayers’ pockets.
“This isn’t a plan, it’s a way to finance major construction projects, and bear in mind there’s no improvements for south of the Fraser,” CAO George Harvie told council.
“There is no hope on the horizon for TransLink to improve our bus service and it’s very sad.”
According to Delta staff, TransLink introduced a couple of different transit expansion plans that would provide little, if any, benefit for local transit users, but hit taxpayers’ nonetheless. One plan would see the average local property tax bill increase by $36 per year, while another more deluxe plan would see Delta property taxes go up by $62.
Much longer delay on Evergreen Line start feared – From the Black Press
Much longer delay on Evergreen Line start feared
The long-promised Evergreen Line may remain on ice for much of this year because TransLink has so far not even begun to prepare a financial supplement to fund its share.
So says Port Moody Mayor Joe Trasolini, who takes it as a bad sign that more delays are likely on a $1.4-billion SkyTrain extension that was supposed to be under construction by now.
The only missing piece of the puzzle is TransLink's $400-million contribution.
Metro Vancouver mayors are in talks with the provincial government on possible new mechanisms to raise money, potentially including an annual vehicle levy or road pricing.
Trasolini said transportation minister Blair Lekstrom told mayors in a meeting this week the project will not proceed until TransLink's share is delivered.
But he said he's hopeful because Lekstrom recommitted to an accord signed last year by predecessor Shirley Bond and former premier Gordon Campbell pledging to negotiate new sustainable funding sources for regional transportation.
The problem, he said, is that talks are now focused on finding an over-arching solution on long-term funding to pay for a variety of TransLink capital projects, including new rapid transit lines to Surrey and UBC.
That may mean a simpler Evergreen Line-only funding solution will be parked longer, he said.
"It's troubling to me that there is no supplemental plan specific to the Evergreen Line," Trasolini said, referring to TransLink's process of proposing expansion projects with tax or fee increases for the mayors' approval.
"There's no other plan that's been prepared nor is there anything in the works so far as I know."
Federal and provincial funding for the line through Port Moody to Coquitlam is in place, environmental approvals are complete and design work is done.
The transportation ministry is now selecting a contractor and the project website says construction is slated to begin in late 2011, and be finished four years later.
"I object to the northeast sector being the sacrificial lamb when everything is done," Trasolini said. "The only thing missing is the TransLink $400-million and that is not happening."
Coquitlam Mayor Richard Stewart said he, too, doubts TransLink will table a funding solution for the mayors to vote on anytime soon.
But he said the meeting with Lekstrom was "quite fruitful" and he remains upbeat a short-term agreement on the Evergreen Line can be reached soon, followed by a comprehensive long-term funding deal.
"I think the province wants to break this logjam," Stewart said. "I'm fully confident we can find a solution in the course of months. Not weeks, but not years either." It's critical, he said, to solve TransLink's financial impasse before new councils are elected in each city this November.
Stewart said he also believes the provincial government will want to celebrate an agreement securing major transit upgrades for the future – not face continued discord – going into a provincial election some expect could come this fall.
He said the province is already paying its third of the Evergreen Line and Metro cities understand they can't expect Victoria to pay their third as well.
"We have a project here that everyone agrees is our highest priority," he said. "Let's work with the province, identify the tools and move on."
Lekstrom said in an interview Thursday he's also hopeful a deal can be reached with Metro mayors soon. "I'm an optimist here," he said. "The public really wants the service."
He wouldn't discuss what funding sources he favours – many the mayors have talked about would effectively tax motorists – but he said there are only a few that could reasonably work. A long-term answer is important, he said.
"Every time a new project comes forward, I don't think the mayors council or anybody wants to be back in the siutation of saying 'How do we raise the money,'" Lekstrom said "Let's find a long-term solution to this and we're committed to work with them on that."
TransLink recently hired four academics to advise the mayors council on potential new funding sources.
TransLink spokesman Ken Hardie said the TransLink board can't prepare a supplement without a source of extra money the mayors and the province can support. "Right now, one does not exist," he said.
Besides new rapid transit lines, TransLink's expansion wish list also includes running three SeaBuses and adding more buses, SkyTrain and West Coast Express cars.Mayors last fall refused to approve a property tax increase TransLink tabled to cover the Evergreen Line, instead opting to pursue talks on new mechanisms.
http://www.bclocalnews.com/richmond_southdelta/southdeltaleader/news/120394434.html#
Recent Comments