Surrey Mayor Watts ups the TransLink ante – ‘We’re redefining Surrey’
Following on from Zweisai??i?? earlier posting of the Vancouver Sunai??i??s reporting of Mayor Dianne Wattsai??i??s state of city address
`Surrey looks to light rail to ease huge growth’
`SkyTrain is too expensive, Mayor Dianne Watts says’
the Surrey Now paperAi?? published the following article on Tuesday:
‘We’re redefining Surrey,’ mayor says at annual State of City address
Ai??
By Ted Colley, Surrey Now April 12, 2011 Ai??
SURREY – “We are building B.C.’s next metropolitan core.”
That was the message delivered by Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts in her State of the City report Tuesday. The message was well-received by the audience of nearly 500 gathered in a Guildford banquet room as the mayor recapped the successes of the past five years and outlined what is still to come.
“We are redefining Surrey and creating B.C.’s next metropolitan core by fostering a strong investment climate and implementing innovative social, economic and community initiatives for our residents and businesses,” Watts said.
She pointed to initiatives such as the city’s economic investment action plan, its sustainability charter, the crime reduction strategy and others as key elements of Surrey’s present, and future, success.
“Creating the right social fabric sets the foundation for a strong economy and makes it possible to effect real and lasting change,” Watts said.
Surrey has the lowest property taxes and the second-lowest business taxes in Metro Vancouver, she said, and has 48 per cent of the region’s industrial land. These factors and the city’s aggressive $2.8-billion Build Surrey construction program combine to attract significant investment to the city and the accompanying jobs.
“We will not be raising taxes to pay for that construction,” Watts promised, citing a list of revenue sources, including infrastructure fees, a new parking authority, new secondary suite fees, gaming revenue and more that will provide the needed funds.
A significant component of the building program is the construction of a new city precinct in City Centre. A new library is well underway and ground has been broken on a new city hall and public plaza to be opened in 2013.
It’s not enough, Watts said, to develop a new downtown core and upgrade Surrey’s other town centres. They must all be connected with useful, efficient rapid transit.
“In order to create healthy communities, we need to provide safe and accessible walking and cycling opportunities. We also need to provide alternatives to vehicle transportation and are actively advocating for TransLink to build light rail rapid transit in Surrey.”
Surrey saw the value of building permits issued in 2010 rise to $1.2 billion, a 41-per-cent increase over the previous year, creating hundreds of construction jobs in the city.
Another boost to Surrey’s economy, Watts said, was the recent India mission to forge links between business here and customers on the sub-continent.
“This is an exciting time for Surrey as we build a city from the ground up,” the mayor said.
“We will continue to be an economic generator for the region, as well as a city where you can get a great education, a great-paying job and raise your family in a strong, vibrant community.”
Ai??
Ai??We’ll see if Translink will listen to Mayor Watts
Tram makers hit curve as markets adjust
Financial Times London
Published: April 8 2011 15:43
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/42c826ec-618a-11e0-a315-00144feab49a.html#axzz1JP9NTSro
By Robert Wright
The segregated track that carries smart Citadis trams alongside the
Aegean in Voula on the outskirts of Athens could scarcely form a more
marked contrast with the tram line that snakes down the narrow, cobbled streets of the St Gilles district in Brussels.
The Athens tram was purpose-built ahead of the 2004 Olympics according
to the needs of the latest tram designs, which have low floors to make
boarding easier but struggle to cope with sharp bends.
The tracks through St Gilles are a legacy of the 19th century, when
tram lines were often built through areas that would be regarded as
entirely unsuitable for them now.
Yet, after years when tram makers’ most lucrative business was
supplying southern European cities with versions of their standard
trams for new, urban light-rail lines, the industry suddenly faces a
far less appealing prospect.
For the foreseeable future, many of the orders likely to come in will
be for the types of rugged, idiosyncratic vehicles needed in places
such as St Gilles, rather than the standard designs suitable for Athens.
The question is whether the tram industry, which has spent years
developing standard platforms for vehicles to cut costs and complexity, can fit the new, more awkward orders into its strict templates while maintaining profitability.
“We have to cope with a global market that has very diverse
requirements,” says Pierre Gosset, platform director for the Citadis,
Alstom Transport’s standard light rail vehicle.
“That requires the industry to have some very reliable products and
some agility to deal with those different performance and technical
requirements.”
The reason for the shift lies in the drying up of the stream of public
funding that enabled many municipalities in Europe to invest in
light-rail systems in the past decade.
The large tram makers were able to supply cities such as Valenciennes
and Nimes in France, Barcelona and Malaga in Spain, Dublin in Ireland
and Porto in Portugal with trams designed to the latest technical
standards and based around standard designs — or platforms — that
barely needed to be changed from system to system.
According to Germar Wacker, president for light rail at Canada’s
Bombardier Transportation, the budget crisis in many eurozone countries — allied with the most financially troubled countries’
disproportionate enthusiasm for ordering light- rail systems — means
that contracts for new systems will be in short supply in the immediate future.
“There’s a higher proportion of the market volume in Europe coming from the more old-established systems, for example the German-speaking
markets,” he says.
The shift means that tram makers that want to win the new orders on
offer will have to be prepared to supply relatively small numbers of
vehicles tailored to meet the eccentricities of systems that have grown up over 130 years. Because most systems were built in isolation, nearly every parameter — from the tightness of curves and the placing of the pantograph to the track gauge and maximum vehicle weight — may vary from order to order.
Yet the change in emphasis is forcing tram operators to change — and
their suppliers too.
Bernard von Wullerstorff, head of railway systems for Unife, the
European railway industry association, says suppliers recognise it
makes no sense to try to rebuild a historic city such as Zagreb, the
Croatian capital. It uses trams with a non-standard track gauge of a
metre, so that vehicles can negotiate the many tight bends and narrow
streets.
But there are circumstances where operators, rather than the
manufacturers, recognise the need for adjustments.
“Sometimes, it does make sense to to change the radius of a curve on an existing system, rather than adapting 50 to 100 trams,” Mr von
Wullerstorff says.
Alain Flausch, chief executive of STIB, the Brussels public transport
company, who is also president of UITP, the international public
transport organisation, illustrates how operator attitudes are changing.
“We told them we wanted something that would meet our needs,” Mr
Flausch says of his initial conversation with suppliers over the
replacement of much of his company’s tram fleet. “They said, ‘If you
want it that way, it will cost more’.”
The chief engineer insisted the specification must not change. But he
left and was replaced by others who realised the nature of the
trade-offs involved.
“The new ones say: ‘If we want to pay only EUR2.5m [$3.5m] for a big
tram, we’re willing to standardise’,” Mr Flausch says.
STIB is now the largest single operator of Bombardier’s Flexity family
of trams, with 250 vehicles.
“I don’t hear a lot of complaints about it from the operating side,” Mr Flausch says.
The process under way is far more complicated than a move away from the standardisation of one-size-fits-all new tram systems back to the
near-chaos of technical non-standardisation, according to Mr von
Wullerstorff.
Different systems will continue to have unique requirements. Many of
the new tram systems likely to be ordered may be in regions such as the Gulf, where vehicles will have to cope with temperatures of more than 400C.
Some of the replacement orders are likely to come from parts of the
former Soviet Union where tracks are in poor condition and temperatures can fall as low as minus 400C.
However, there remains considerable scope to standardise at lease some
parts of light rail systems.
“There are some opportunities for further standardisation,” Mr von
Wullerstorff says. “But it cannot be forced.”
White House Comes Out For Streetcars
Jeff McMahon writes on the Forbes Blog – April 12th
http://blogs.forbes.com/jeffmcmahon/2011/04/12/white-house-comes-out-for-streetcars/
President Obama’s clean-energy campaign hopped onto streetcars this morning with a government-made infomercial and testimonial for United Streetcars, a Portland company, published on the White House and Transportation Department blogs.
The testimonial promises streetcars will help America “win the future.” It was penned by Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, who might have a second career writing ad copy should the country take a turn toward the right in 2012:
[It's] good news for commuters and their families. It’s also good news for American workers because, at United Streetcar, they’re manufacturing the first American streetcars in more than 50 years.
And we mean “American.” The cars rolling out of United Streetcar are entirely Buy America compliant. That means United Streetcar’s innovation is creating an economic ripple effect, providing business for an all-American supply chain of more than 200 different vendors in 20-plus states across the U.S.
United Streetcars, a division of Oregon Ironworks, manufactures streetcars for its home city, for Tucson, and is competing for bids, mostly against European companies, in Washington DC, Cincinatti, and Seattle.
Up to 60 American cities have expressed interest in reviving the mode of transportation that thrived in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Portland has clearly taken the lead. LaHood visited United Streetcar on March 21.
The infomercial, produced by DOT, features a jingle the likes of which will not be unfamiliar to any trade show visitor. It includes carefully worded praise for DOT from United Streetcar President Chandra Brown:
The Department of Transportation has been a true partner as the streetcar industry has developed. Without their assistance, we could not have made the private investment to make this new industry successful.”
And like Barack Obama, the video puts a big emphasis on job creation, connecting Obama’s new-energy economy to green technology.
“We’re talking about 60 cities almost interested in buying these,” says Steve Goodman, a welder fabricator. “That’ll put a lot of people to work. In fact we’ve already started putting people to work. I’m gonna need help.”
Transporting America: United Streetcar
Surrey to push TransLink for light rail, mayor says in state of city address
Welcome to TransLink’s worst nightmare, the mayor of Ai??Surrey (BC, Canada) wants light rail and not SkyTrain for the city. Three decades of deliberate misinformation, misleading studies, and anti-LRT rhetoric is going to come back and haunt TransLink, with this decision. TransLink’s grand economies of the truth about modern light rail, may cause such rancor that the transportation authority may split into two.
The Rail for the Valley/Leewood TramTrain report fits right in with Surrey’s light rail wishes and for a fraction of the cost of a new SkyTrain line, the Fraser Valley could have a viable light rail network servicing downtown Vancouver, Surrey, Langley, Abbotsford, and Chilliwack,Ai??all connecting withAi??a LRT network in Surrey.
What is of interest is that TransLink’s cost estimates of $127 million/km. for the the Evergreen Line and (has TransLink already made the decision for Broadway?) $223 million/km. for the proposed Broadway subway.
$27 million/km. for LRT is right in the middle of cost estimates for recently built light rail lines, but if engineering is kept to a minimum and prefabricated track is use, the cost per km could be a lot less! The long straight roads in Surrey, certainly will make pre-flab track installation a viable option.
Modern Prefabricated track installation, saves time and costs.
Rail for the Valley applauds that modern LRT is finally built in the region, butAi??we will remain somewhat skeptical until we actually see shovels in the ground.
Note to mayor Watts: Don’t trust TransLink one iota.
Surrey to push TransLink for light rail, mayor says in state of city address
By Kelly Sinoski, Vancouver Sun
Watts argued light rail would help connect Surrey’s town centres and boost economic activity, she said. while creating a “vibrancy” in the city, which aims to develop 150 kilometres of new bicycle and pedestrian trails and paths by 2016.
“Transportation is critically important as we shape growth in our town centres. In order to create healthy communities, we need to provide safe and accessible walking and cycling opportunities,” Watt said in her speech.
“At-grade rail is cost-effective and efficient, and would not only create a new transportation option, but also increase economic development and improve quality of life.”
Watts added light rail is considered a key plank in the city’s attempts to boost economic development.
Surrey is continuing to complete significant infrastructure projects in it Surrey Build program, which involves $2.8 billion in construction, including $800 million in new community projects and $2 billion worth of facilities being built in partnership with other levels of government.
The program is being funded through infrastructure fees, secondary suite fees, contributions from the Surrey City Development Corporation, gaming revenue, grant money, leaseholds, parking fee revenues from the City’s new parking authority and reserve money.
“We are re-defining Surrey and creating B.C.’s next metropolitan core by fostering a strong investment climate and implementing innovative social, economic and community initiatives for our residents and businesses,” she said.
Watts noted the city has seen more than $1 billion in construction activity in 2010, the crime rate is at a 10-year low and since 2009 Surrey has helped 356 people get off the street and into permanent housing.
A Tale of Two Letters
Mr. Brussac, a long time man of letters from Coquitlam, understands our current public transit malaise. He is well read on the subject and his letters are worth a read when printed. One may not always agree with his opinions, but his knowledge on transit and public transit issues is very good and is correspondence well demonstrates this.
There's still time to go with LRT
Why then, is LRT one of several viable options for the UBC transit line — especially considering that Broadway and 10th Avenue are used by far more cars and trucks than the Coquitlam and Port Moody roads where the Evergreen SkyTrain will run?
What TransLink staff forgot to mention, at open houses in 2009, is that the posts and beams of the elevated guideway will drastically cut off the view of anyone living on the second and third floors of many apartment buildings along the route.
The Bombardier LRT trial was an eyeopener for many that had previously dismissed LRT sight unseen. Interestingly, last summer I was asked on several occasions by U.S. tourists how to go to the "Olympic streetcar line."
It is not too late for TransLink to resurrect the plans they made for Evergreen LRT, as they still can't find the money needed to complete the Evergreen SkyTrain.
J-L Brussac
Coquitlam
A tram in Athens Greece
Mr. Serle, a man of letter from south of the Fraser is much less read on transit and transportation issues and is one of the most ardent supporters of SkyTrain. Mr. Serle can't seem to understand the concept that SkyTrain costs up to ten times more than LRT to install and that there is only one taxpayer. He also continues the notion that being elevated is better because (in Mr. Serle words); " because it runs above and below the ground, SkyTrain, unlike the proposed non-automated LRT, does not hinder regular, fossil-fuel-powered vehicular movement."
But, if auto movement is not hindered, there is no incentive to use the elevated metro.
The convenient argument is a canard as LRT is more convenient, because operates on the pavement, where the customer wants it, than SkyTrain, where the customer must climb stairs to cold wind swept stations or descend into claustrophobic stations.
One can build all the SkyTrain one wants, but what schools and hospitals must be closed to pay for much more expensive SkyTrain.
We need more SkyTrain
Published: April 07, 2011 11:00 PM
Editor: Malcolm Johnston (The Times, April 6) should not feel at liberty to speak for the entire South Fraser region.
Most important, before it spends public transit funds on such follies as light rail (LRT), TransLink should acknowledge that not only is SkyTrain probably the safest and basically most efficient mode of public transit, but it’s also the most ecologically friendly.
Indeed, I strongly believe, most public transit funding should go towards extending SkyTrain to wherever the potential utilization of its services warrant — such as to UBC.
Such transit is simply too convenient to be denied to regular public transit utilizers. You can often count on the exact minute, if not second, that it will arrive and leave. Furthermore, because it runs above and below the ground, SkyTrain, unlike the proposed non-automated LRT, does not hinder regular, fossil-fuel-powered vehicular movement.
There are plenty of naysayers who complain about the expense of SkyTrain. However, SkyTrain’s benefits far outweigh its expense.
Frank G. Sterle, Jr.,
White Rock
The SkyTrain guideway creates is an urban blight, which despite claims to the contrary, does hinder auto traffic.
Without the right questions, transit plan could fail
Of course in the Vancouver metro region, the right questions about transit have never been asked for fear of getting ‘correct’ answers.
Building Metro Vancouver’s mini-metro system has always been about land development, political prestige and vote getting and not providing the best transit choice or the most affordable transit choice for the transit customer.
The SkyTrain lobby (including most inner regional mayors),Ai??have deluded themselves about high ridership on the mini-metro system, forgetting the fact that the three current metro lines should have about 900,000 boardings a dayAi??opposed to the currentAi??381,000 boardings a day, which would make the system financially viable. With 80% of mini-metro customers forced to transfer from the bus, which means the SkyTrain/Canada line metro system has been poor in attracting the motorist from the car.
A note at this point is necessary. Buses are very poor in attracting the motorist from his/her cars, which make bus based transit modes (BRT/GLT) poor options for regional transit.
Added to the mix is the over 120,000 U-Passes now floating about in the transit system and their effect on transit ridership. Cheap fares may increaseAi??boardings (with multiple use, etc.) butAi?? not increase the number of people actually using the metro system. A persistent rumour is that a mere 30,000 U-pass holders account for almost 75,000 boardings and this before the great U-Pass expansion!
In an age where TransLink and Metro planners consistently “get it wrong“, the followingAi?? are some of theAi??right questions about regional transit that our bureaucrats just do not ask.
- Can we afford this transit option?
- Will this transit option reduce car usage?
- Is the transit option customer friendly – will it attract more ridership, enough to justify construction?
- Will this transit option attract ridership?
- Can we affordably expand this transit option in two to five years?
- Will this transit option negatively effect non-transit users, such as merchants along its route.
- How cheaply can we build this transit option, can we use existing infrastructure, such as existing railway tracks (tracksharing) or use existing street power poles or masts and span wires?
- Is expensive engineering needed or necessary?
- Can we use pre-owned equipment, to reduce cost?
- Can the transit be adaptable for other uses, such as private hire, freight haulage, heritage exhibits?
Modern Light Rail tends to have the right answers for urban transportation.
It seems those in power refrain from asking the ‘right‘ questions for fear of getting the ‘right‘ answers and the “right‘ answers means that SkyTrain and/orAi??light-metro is not the ‘right’ choice for rail transportation in the VancouverAi??Metro region.
Without the right questions, transit plan could fail
April 9, 2011
Regional staff and various others have been trying to answer the question of what people in Waterloo Region think about the proposed rapid transit system. Unfortunately, there are two other questions that arenai??i??t being asked, and if we donai??i??t ask them, we may end up with the worst possible system.
The first question is: Which people do we mean? The real distinction isnai??i??t age. Itai??i??s between three groups: those who use transit, those who donai??i??t currently use transit but might use it, and those who do not use transit and never will. I have met people from all three groups who are supportive of light rail transit. But I have never met anyone who is opposed to light rail transit who is a transit user.
The regional transportation master plan doesnai??i??t expect to get everyone out of their cars. The goal is to increase the percentage of travellers who use transit at peak periods to about 15 per cent by 2031, while 70 per cent will use their cars.
Itai??i??s important that the project meet the needs of current transit users. But since rapid transit is intended to encourage greater transit use and intensification, the system needs to be designed with the potential transit user in mind.
While itai??i??s crucial that all members of the community be involved and engaged in our transportation future, it is not crucial that all members of the community like the system chosen. Most wonai??i??t ride it, and thatai??i??s fine. But by designing a system for current and potential users, everyone benefits, as more transit users means fewer drivers and fewer cars on the road.
So once we identify that there are distinct groups of people whose opinions weai??i??re hearing, we need to ask a second question: What, really, are the members of these groups asking for?
I hear current transit users asking that the system they rely on continue to meet their needs in the long-term. I hear potential users talking about their desire to use a system that meets their needs, and what that system might look like. And, most encouragingly, I hear some of those who will not use transit themselves supporting light rail transit because they want their grandchildren to have real transit options, and because they donai??i??t want a future for the region that includes more sprawl, pollution, and time spent on increasingly packed roads.
But when I hear those who do not use transit, and who are clear that they have no interest in ever using transit, speak against light rail transit, they are not really asking for a rapid transit system. While many of these people say they want bus rapid transit, they often do so because they donai??i??t want light rail transit. They canai??i??t see themselves using it, so they canai??i??t understand how anyone else would want to use it. They donai??i??t want to lose road space that cars could drive on to alternative transportation. And most often, they seem to resent paying for it. Itai??i??s much easier for these people to say that they prefer cheaper buses than it is for them to say they do not support robust transit.
Unfortunately, many of those who are just supporting the cheaper option seem to think that bus rapid transit simply means buying a few more buses. For example, many are not aware that bus rapid transit not only means still losing car lanes, but also means those lanes will be up to 0.5 metres wider than for light rail transit. Bus rapid transit is still an extensive transit system and a huge structural investment, and one that will have significant costs and impacts for our future.
So when we hear people express their preferences for light rail transit or bus rapid transit, we should ask about more than what they think. We should ask whether they do or might use transit. We must also ask what their vision is for the region, and how that influences their choices. If we donai??i??t ask these questions, we may very well end up in the worst of all possible positions: We will choose a bus rapid transit system for those who donai??i??t need or want to use it, and who will be shocked by the effects, instead of choosing for those who want to use it. Itai??i??s an outcome that will make no one happy.
U.S Light Rail & Tram news
Firstly a report from abc 15.com in Phoenix Arizona
http://www.abc15.com/dpp/traffic/record-light-rail-ridership-due-to-gas-price-hikes
Record light rail ridership due to gas price hikes?
Light rail ridership has hit a new record, at the same time as gas prices did the same. But Metro is being careful about drawing conclusions.
Nearly 1.2 million riders used the light rail in March, a month with a string of daily gas price hikes.Ai??
“You can’t even ask a friend to drive you somewhere because around the block costs $5,” says Sonya, a light rail rider.
On a day when some people were pumping gas at $3.67 a gallon, light rail riders were buying all-day passes good for both the rail and buses for only $3.50.
“I haven’t had a car for two years because of (gas prices),” says Rachelle, who was waiting for a light rail train on Central Avenue.
But Metro’s Hillary Foose cautions against drawing a direct connection between last month’s gas price hikes and the record light rail ridership.Ai??
“The rule of thumb for transit is that six months later we really start to see the effect of rising gas prices,” Foose says. “People start to think ‘Okay, yes, this is affecting my pocketbook. I need to figure out another way to get around.'”
Gas prices are expected to peak during the summer, with some analysts predicting they could hit $4.50 a gallon. Summer is when light rail ridership usually drops. We’ll be watching to see if that holds true this year.
to Santa Monica in California, from smmirror.com http://www.smmirror.com/?ajax#mode=single&view=32044
Thereai??i??s something about a trainai??i??
Richie Havens used to sing a little song underneath TV ads for Amtrak years ago, and the repeating chorus idea was ai???Thereai??i??s something about a trainai??i??ai??? which at that time might have engendered the response ai???Yes, itai??i??s slow and itai??i??s late.ai??? Still, compare safely rolling along on the earthai??i??s surface to the experience of suddenly having a hole appear in the roof of your 737 airliner that forces an unpleasant landing in Yuma.
There are other great things about trains, and I hope our city is ready to embrace and appreciate those things as Santa Monica moves closer to having an Expo light rail line. Last week as reported in the Mirror, the board of directors of the Expo Construction Authority approved a pair of agreements and signed off on a design-build contract, all actions moving us closer to having a train to our city.
Letai??i??s get up in the grill of one possible hang-up right now, and that is the notion that a light rail line will in any way solve or cure traffic problems. I can hear people dismissing this from across a busy street; a street jammed with traffic. There will of course be an impact on traffic, but what I think makes light rail imperative is that it works to ameliorate traffic by offering an alternative that makes affordable and practical sense. Government and voters need to embrace light rail at that level because, until they perfect that ai???Beam me up, Scottyai??? technology on ai???Star Trekai???ai??i?? itai??i??s what we have. A possible comparison might be someone saying, ai???No amount of recycling will stop the production of solid waste.ai??? What weai??i??ve done is to inculcate recycling to the point that it has become a cultural value; a good habit. And that matters.
Full disclosure: I like trains. Because of the distance involved in seeing my family, I donai??i??t get to ride them as often as Iai??i??d like. When I was a kid my father and I built model train layouts in the basement. My father drove our entire family from Milwaukee to Chicago one day because I had mentioned never riding on a subway or elevated train of the sort they have in the Windy City. My Dad was big on trains, and thought that our country was blowing it by neglecting its railway tracks because they might be desperately needed one day if America was attacked and needed the logistical help railroads offer. My sister is an advocate of a plan to move snowfall from states that have snow pack to states that suffer droughtsai??i?? by rail. Admittedly, she hasnai??i??t got all the kinks out but it makes for lively dinner conversations.
Trains are public and we are losing our public experiences as the country becomes more divided by economic class. While riding light rail, you can text or compute and not kill someone with your car. You might read a book or have a conversation with a stranger that leads to even a small but significant new understanding. You might look out the window and relax, which then leads to an epiphany that causes you to make up with your boyfriend or girlfriend. You might meet your new boyfriend or girlfriend on a train. You might have your fiancAi?? fall to his knees and present you with a ringai??i?? and then later give birth to the first child of your familyai??i??Okay, you get the idea. Trains are pleasant and good for us as a society.
Then there are the energy aspects, which are significant. Trains roll on steel wheels, and once you get them going they are thrifty on energy. If you drive a truck across the country, you would likely use three times the energy you would use if you loaded the trailer or container in your truck onto a train and sent it to the same destination. Light rail, heavy rail and commuter rail all carry thousands of daily commuters for a fraction of the energy it would take to move those same numbers by automobile. In cities with train transportation, shutting down even a portion of that system would create gridlock throughout the local road system. Or as we were arguing earlier, the building of rail systems at least works to relieve said gridlock.
The building of light rail systems also contributes to something of a public transportation renaissance. The auto industry moved to crush public transit in the late 40s and early 50s so that cars would become the preeminent means of transportation in America. Good for auto makers, tire makers, highway builders, and of course oil. Now that green is good, trains are back.
It always feels like we used to do a greater amount of sensible thinking and planning in our past, and not so much in our present and future. But supporting light rail into Santa Monica will demonstrate that we can look to tomorrow and plan just as we used to. Not that you need me to rub it in, but a greater number of citizens are getting older and they should have a way to get around that doesnai??i??t put bad eyesight and slow reaction times behind the wheel of a two-ton car. Instead of seeking the isolation of our individual autos on a jammed and ironically named ai???freeway,ai??? public transportation can remind us that weai??i??re a democracy that can interact and ride a train together. All aboard, Santa Monica.
Finally to San Diego and the North County Times http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/sdcounty/article_e2e212a9-67c5-55b2-a6e3-8cb64392141c.html
Ridership jumps for local public transit
Gas prices, fares seen as reasons for increase
As local gas prices top the $4 mark, North County’s public transit district is reporting a significant bump in ridership on its trains and buses, though officials say lower fares might be helping to fuel the trend.
Alex Wiggins, a spokesman for the North County Transit District, said Breeze buses tallied 157,336 boardings from March 27 through April 2, a 14 percent increase over the 137,694 boardings during the same week in 2010.
Coaster commuter and Sprinter light rail trains saw similar jumps.
In March, the Coaster had 120,044 boardings compared with only 105,565 in March 2010, a 13.7 percent increase. The Sprinter, which runs between Oceanside and Escondido, jumped from 170,006 in February 2010 to 179,667 in February 2011.
Wiggins said he suspects the jump can be attributed to “higher-than-usual gas prices for this time of year” and to fares that dropped on Jan. 20. Monthly passes for Coaster travel between Oceanside and Solana Beach dropped $34, from $154 to $120. Single-trip fares on local Breeze buses went from $2 to $1.75.
Still, longtime bus rider Brian Slaughter of Oceanside said Thursday that he thinks gas prices have been a bigger motivator in boosting ridership.
Sitting on a bench at the Oceanside Transit Center, Slaughter said he noticed an immediate increase in riders as soon as gas climbed past $4 per gallon. “You can see a direct correlation, absolutely.”
A MiraCosta College student, he said he was due to buy a car Friday, but would be likely to keep riding the bus with gas prices so high.
“I will probably minimize how much I use the car, and I’ll probably keep riding the (Route) 302 over to MiraCosta,” Slaughter said.
Rob Schupp, a spokesman for San Diego’s Metropolitan Transit System, said that San Diego bus boardings jumped 7.6 percent in March, from 4.5 million to 4.86 million.
Schupp noted that it is no surprise that gas prices can serve as a kind of barometer for transit patronage. He noted that most transit systems in California set ridership records when prices spiked in 2008.
Recently, Schupp said, demand has driven MTS to add trips to the express bus service that it operates on Interstate 15. The Route 810 express service will add a 7 a.m. trip starting Monday and two afternoon trips at 3:20 p.m. and 4:50 p.m.
Ai??… Light Rail is good for you; especially when gas prices spike
Friends of Rail For the Valley – AGM This Tuesday in Chilliwack
For those who are not on our mailing list, you may not have received this notice.
The Friends of Rail For the Valley Society will be holding its Annual General Meeting this Tuesday in Chilliwack.
A letter To Rail for the Valley
AdiA?s TransLink? Letters Published in the Postmedia Press
The following letter has appeared in the Postmedia press including the Vancouver Province and the Delta Optimist and should start some lively debate.
A valid question is asked; “Why is TransLink planning for transit on Broadway, when they know it will be decades before anything is done; or, is there already a secret agreement involving Vancouver, the province and TransLink to build a near $4 billion SkyTrain subway under Broadway as per the George Puil GVRD/BC Transit/Provincial Government deal that saw the birth of TransLink.”
If this is so, it is time for South Fraser municipalities to leave TransLink and fast!
Say goodbye to TransLink?
By Malcolm Johnston, The Delta Optimist
Editor:
It seems TransLink is busying itself with the Broadway corridor and one must ask ones self, why? TransLink can’t even source $400 million to complete the funding for the never to be built, Evergreen SkyTrain Line; why then waste time planning for transit options on Broadway when those plans will be stale-dated long before there is any funding for transit improvements on that route.
Transit planning is good for about five years and we build a metro line route every decade, by the time the Broadway project comes around, any planning done now will have to be redone.
What’s TransLink’s game?
The most likely answer is that TransLink’s ponderous bureaucracy must look like it’s actually doing something, lest politicians start asking uncomfortable questions about too many employees, etc.
There is no money for a subway under Broadway and TransLink continues to inflate light rail’s construction costs to the absurd, means nothing will be done to improve transit on Broadway for decades to come.
Politicians south of the Fraser should take note, instead of planning for viable planning solutions for Greater Vancouver and South of the Fraser, TransLink continues its flim-flam planning for Vancouver and should ask themselves; “Would not a South Fraser transit authority do a better job in providing a viable transit system?”
Sadly, TransLink’s planners are little more than bookworms in the library, hiding their ineptitude with dated precedents. They have made the planning process a giant machine, where an ossified central bureaucracy reigns amid mountains of paper, with a result of an expensive and dysfunctional transit system, where despite ever increasing taxes, there is little improvement to the actual transit system.
Is it time to say adiA?s to TransLink?
Malcolm Johnston
Light Rail committee/Rail for the Valley
Recent Comments