Alexandria Mitchell: The BC Transit Future

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTCw9hmwQD8

Well said!

London Tramlink seeks bids for additional trams

from the Railway Gazette, 31 January 2011

 

Delta Politicians Mull Leaving TransLink

Upset they've become a funding source for projects elsewhere, south of Fraser officials could form own entity

By Sandor Gyarmati, The Delta Optimist

January 29, 2011

It might be time for the communities south of the Fraser River to consider splitting from TransLink and forming their own transit authority.

That suggestion came up during Delta council's discussion this week on TransLink's funding proposals, which have drawn the ire of local politicians and bureaucrats who say 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," said CAO George Harvie.

"There is no hope on the horizon for TransLink to improve our bus service and it's very sad."

Harvie pointed out that in the last couple of months service hours in Delta and other communities south of the Fraser were trimmed.

Metro Vancouver's board of directors last December was to have voted on TransLink's request to raise property taxes to fund the $1.4-billion SkyTrain line into Coquitlam, but provincial Transportation Minister Shirley Bond granted an extension.

The Evergreen Line is part of two options TransLink put forward for the regional district to consider, but both rely on increasing property taxes, which drew an immediate negative response from mayors.

"The mayors' committee has not approved any money from property taxes. There must be a better formula," said Mayor Lois Jackson, who chairs the Metro board.

Her council colleague Robert Campbell said he finds it astounding TransLink doesn't seem to bother exploring transit financing models around the world that appear to be successful.

According to Delta staff, one of the TransLink packages would result in an average property tax increase of $36, while the second would see an increase of $62. Neither is acceptable to council, which voted not to support TransLink's supplemental plans.

"It's obvious to the other city administrators the south of the Fraser is being used to finance the debt of the north," said Harvie.

He said communities in the south might have enough in place to start their own transit system, which could be integrated to TransLink.

Jackson agreed, saying TransLink could then focus on its own territory in the north.

Harvie said it's especially frustrating that TransLink immediately dismisses the notion of light rail south of the Fraser River.

Coun. Bruce McDonald, who sits on the South Fraser Community Rail Task Force, said it doesn't make sense why the transportation authority doesn't want to even look at reusing the old interurban line, which was discontinued for passengers in the early 1950s, even though no costly property expropriations would be required.

"In my view, the TransLink board is so Vancouver and Burnaby/New Westminster-centric that everything they do is focused there. Surrey is actually putting the interurban line in their official community plan but they (TransLink) are ignoring it," he said.

Coun. Anne Peterson received concurrence for her suggestion governments in the south need to band together for a coordinated voice on transit issues.

In a letter to the mayors last November, TransLink board chair Dale Parker noted the recommended funding option for a supplemental increase would add over 425,000 hours of annual transit service to bus routes. Parker stated the South of the Fraser region would receive half of the additional bus service hours.

A Delta staff report, though, found TransLink is not planning any major changes to transit networks in Delta as it expects minimal future development.

The Light Rail Committee Sends a Message

The Light Rail Committee sent the following letter to all municipal governments in the lower mainland, to inform municipal politicians about upcoming transit funding discussions by the mayors council, with Transportation Minister Shirley Bond for the Evergreen Line. One wishes that Mayor Walton tell Minister Bond to "take a powder", and "if the provincial government wants more SkyTrain construction, let the provincial government pay for it!"

 

---

Mayor and Council;
 
In late January, the regional mayors council chair Richard Walton will meet transportation minister Shirley Bond in late January to try to determine how Metro Vancouver's should pay their share of the Evergreen Line and broader transit expansion. It is now time to rethink how we plan transit and what kind of transit should be built.
 
The Evergreen Line is a $1.4 billion plus, 11 kilometre extension to the Millennium Line, that has more than funding problems, the entire plan for the Millennium Line is nothing more than a sham as TransLink has deliberately skewed planning to favour the dated SkyTrain light-metro system. Vancouver is the only city in North America and Europe uses the proprietary SkyTrain light-metro system for regional transportation, while at the same time rejecting LRT, which is the transit mode of choice by international transit experts.
 
In 2008, noted American transit expert Gerald Fox in a letter to a Victoria transportation group, shredded TransLink's Evergreen Line business case, stating; "I found several instances where the analysis had made assumptions that were inaccurate, or had been manipulated to make the case for SkyTrain. If the underlying assumptions are inaccurate, the conclusions may be so too."  Fox later said; It is interesting how TransLink has used this cunning method of manipulating analysis to justify SkyTrain in corridor after corridor, and has thus succeeded in keeping its proprietary rail system expanding. In the US, all new transit projects that seek federal support are now subjected to scrutiny by a panel of transit peers, selected and monitored by the federal government, to ensure that projects are analyzed honestly, and the taxpayers’ interests are protected. No SkyTrain project has ever passed this scrutiny in the US."
 
This is hardly reassuring for the taxpayer who will be soon asked to ante up more money for the Evergreen Line.
 
The following is a brief and internationally accepted descriptions of transit mode:
 
 

1. Light-metro – A small metro system, mostly automated (driverless), and operating on segregated rights-of-ways that found flavour with transit planners in the 1970's and early 80's. Largely made obsolete by modern light rail; light metro was supposed to bridge the gap from what old streetcars could carry and that of a heavy-rail metro.
2. Streetcar or tram – A steel wheel on steel rail vehicle that operates on-street, in mixed traffic with little or no priority signaling at intersections. Somewhat faster than a bus, a modern tram or streetcar has vehicle capacities as large as 350 persons per car and can easily handle passenger traffic flows up to 20,000 persons per hour per direction.
3. Light Rail or LRT – Is a streetcar or tram, that operates articulated vehicles on a reserved rights-of-ways or routes that are for the exclusive use for the tram. Modern LRT has a practical capacity of between 2,000 persons per hour per direction and 20,000 pphpd, thus at a stroke made light-metro obsolete by providing the same quality of service at a far lower costs. The adaptability of LRT is such that some European tram/LRT operations now carry over 30,000 pphpd on selected routes including simple streetcar routes!
4. TramTrain – A streetcar or tram that is able to operate safely on mainline railway tracks, track-sharing with regular trains.
5. BRT or bus rapid transit – A limited stop express bus service, that is guided by rail or curb or has the exclusive use of a busway.

 
It is clear that regional politicians and the public have been mislead by TransLink about the capabilities of modern light rail as regional transit bureaucrats continually plan for much more expensive SkyTrain light-metro, while at the same time deliberately planning LRT to be inferior to SkyTrain. This is tantamount to professional misconduct on the part of TransLink and the TransLink Board!
 
In 2009, the Rail for the Valley group, engaged Leewood Projects from the UK, for an unbiased report for a TramTrain operation on the BC Electric (now Southern Railway of BC) old interurban route, which carries two to three freight trains a day. TramTrain was selected because the geometry of the track was designed for short wheelbase interurbans and not longer and more unstable (on curves) commuter train cars such as the West Coast Express.
 
The result of the RftV/Leewood report were several options in providing TramTrain service to the Fraser Valley.
 

 

• Option 1: Diesel LRT from Scott Road to Chilliwack – $491,819, 424.00 or $5.02 million/km.
   
• Option 2: Electrification of Scott Road to Chilliwack – $114, 700,000.00 or  $6.2 million/km.
   
• Option 3: Richmond/Vancouver to Rosedale – $998,519, 424.00 or $7.2 million/km.
   

It must be noted that the cost of a 'full build', 138 km. Vancouver/Richmond to Rosedale TramTrain costs $400 million less than the proposed $1.4 billion, 11 km., Evergreen Line. Thus it can be said for the cost of the $1.4 billion Evergreen Line, the region could build a Vancouver/Richmond to Rosedale TramTrain service, plus a Vancouver to Maple ridge TramTrain service that would include the Port Moody and the two Coquitlams.

It is strange indeed that TransLink strictly adheres to the SkyTrain and light-metro operating philosophies, despite the fact that to date, modern LRT in its various forms is cheaper to build than SkyTrain; cheaper to operate than SkyTrain; safer to operate than SkyTrain; can carry more customers than SkyTrain.
 
I strongly urge council members to reject forcing the taxpayer to spend any more money on TransLink's pie in the sky metro planning and compel TransLink to plan for proven and affordable transit for the 21st century, as citizens have grown weary paying ever escalating taxes for politically prestigious transit mega-projects that have done little to reduce auto congestion, pollution and/or provide an adequate transportation alternative to the car.
 
Who is not afraid to bell the cat?

Addendum
 
Light Rail Transit Association
 
www.lrta.org
 
RftV/Leewood Study
 
http://www.railforthevalley.com/studies/

The Gerald fox Letter
 
http://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/2008/12/26/can-translinks-business-cases-be-trusted/

Light rail that works

CALGARYai??i?? From Saturday’s Globe and Mail

by Marcus Gee

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/marcus-gee/light-rail-that-works/article1887237/

Mayor Rob Ford has left no confusion about how he feels about light-rail transit. One of his first acts as mayor was to declare the death of Transit City, a multibillion-dollar plan for a network of above-ground transit lines.

Listening to Mr. Ford, you might get the impression that LRT is a crazy scheme cooked up by his predecessor, David Miller, to frustrate motorists. In fact, light-rail systems operate in dozens of cities, from Portland and Phoenix to Salzburg and Toulouse. One of the more successful is right here in Canada.

Calgaryai??i??s C-Train, which celebrates its 30th anniversary this year, is the second busiest LRT in North America, outdone only by a system in Monterrey, Mexico. It carries 270,000 people on the average weekday, half of all Calgary transit riders.

Since the first line opened in May, 1981, it has grown to three lines with 38 stations. A fourth line heading west from downtown is under construction, and two more are planned for the future. The expansion would eventually add 45 stations, creating a network of six spokes from the downtown hub. The annual number of riders has more than doubled over the past decade to 75.8 million, far outpacing the growth in the cityai??i??s population. The C-Train is so heavily used that the city is rebuilding stations to accommodate longer trains.

To get the most track for the money in hand, Calgary built a no-frills system with simple station platforms, cheap cars, no air-conditioning and station-arrival announcements recorded on cassette tape. Without the cost of tunnelling and building underground stations, the city managed to reach far into the cityai??i??s south, northeast and northwest.

Even the relatively extravagant West Line, which will include elevated track and the cityai??i??s first subway station, is projected to cost $1-billion for eight kilometres of track. By comparison, Mr. Fordai??i??s plan to extend Torontoai??i??s Sheppard subway eight kilometres to Scarborough is projected at $3.6-billion, not including $500-million for a new train yard.

ai???Our experience out here in Calgary is that it actually works very, very well,ai??? says Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi when asked about Mr. Fordai??i??s plan to kill LRT. ai???I think sometimes people are a bit scared of it because they think itai??i??s like streetcars running in traffic. But if itai??i??s done well it can work brilliantly at a fraction of the cost of going underground.ai???

Critics such as Mr. Ford like to say that in a cold winter like Torontoai??i??s, underground rail makes much more sense than LRT lines exposed to the snow and cold. Calgary has snow and cold. The LRT still runs. So does the LRT in still-colder Edmonton.

Critics also say itai??i??s folly to build rail lines on low-density suburban routes like Sheppard, Finch and Eglinton, as envisioned in the Transit City plan. Calgaryai??i??s C-train goes through even less-dense terrain, passing sprawling subdivisions and malls. People take the bus or drive their cars to LRT stations, then ride it to jobs in downtown office towers. Nearly half of all downtown workers arrive by C-Train.Ai??

To be fair, Calgaryai??i??s LRT differs from what was planned under Transit City. Unlike Toronto, with its scandalously haphazard, stop-and-start approach to transit expansion, Calgary planned its LRT rollout years, even decades, in advance. It restricted the number of parking spots downtown, driving up parking rates and encouraging people to take transit. It reserved segregated corridors for LRT lines so they could be kept apart from traffic. C-train routes follow railway rights-of-way or broad highway medians, with trains given priority whenever road and track intersect. Toronto would have to carve out new medians on streets such as Sheppard, leaving less space for traffic.

Mr. Nenshi himself says that LRT is not the be all and end all. In some parts of Calgary, he argues, it might make more sense to put in segregated bus ways than to lay down expensive LRT track. In the same way, though, in some parts of Toronto it might be better to put in light rail than to spend a fortune on underground subway track.

It depends on the situation. What is wrong is to dismiss any mode of transit out of hand without considering how it actually works elsewhere. Before the mayor buries Torontoai??i??s light-rail plans and splurges on a subway, he might want to look at Calgaryai??i??s C-Train success story.

Proposal for Light Rail in Copenhagen

The Danish Minister of Transport Hans Christian Schmidt will promote a light rail system using the bypass road Ring 3 west to Copenhagen:Ai??Ai??

http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2011/01/20/220647.htm

Ai??

The Light Rail line will pass through ten municipalities, and is estimated to cost DEK 1,5Ai??billion [CAD$273 million]. From Lundtofte, south to IshA?j by the coast and then via Kgs, Lyngby, Buddinge, Gladsaxe and Glostrup.

Detailed proposals:-

http://www.letbaner.dk/docs/Radiallinie-folder3.3-uk.pdf

and

http://orbit.dtu.dk/getResource?recordId=190793&objectId=1&versionId=1

virtual tram ride

http://www.cowi.com/menu/specialfeatures/specialfeaturesarchive/3dvisualisation/avirtualtrainride/Pages/avirtualtrainride.aspx

Grand plan to bring tram system to Chester

ChesterFirstAi??

Hybrid tram goes live in US city

http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/hybrid-tram-goes-live-in-us-city-2191448.html

The world has hybrid cars, hybrid buses and even hybrid boats – and now it has a hybrid tram (streetcar), unveiled this week in a US city.

The patriotically-named “ameriTRAM” was actually built by a subsidiary of Japanese firm The Kinki Sharyo Co and began trundling along the streets of Charlotte, North Carolina January 20, powered by electricity and a rechargeable lithium-ion battery.Ai??

It’s the first prototype of a design that Kinkisharyo International believes could help widen the appeal of electric trams, which normally need overhead power (known as “catenary”) cables constructed along the route to power them.Ai??

Thanks to its lithium-ion batteries and regenerative braking, the ameriTRAM can manage around eight kilometres of catenary-free operation before it needs to be charged again, making it suitable for areas where cables would be unsightly or unpopular.

Kinkisharyo estimates that authorities can save themselves $1 – $2 million for every mile of cabling avoided, as well as the associated savings gained through reducing energy usage.Ai??

Finding a green way to power trams without adding the “visual pollution” of powerlines has proved tricky for local authorities and transportation manufacturers, both keen to reduce dependence on fossil fuels.

In 2009, transportation firm Bombardier unveiled its first catenary-free tram, which used inducted energy (similar to that used in electric toothbrushes) to power trams wirelessly.Ai??

The German city of Augsburg was selected host a pilot project last year, with 0.8 km of track being fitted with the new system.

http://www.kinkisharyo.com

TRAMTRAIN: THE 2ND GENERATION

NEW CRITERIA FOR THE 'IDEAL TRAMTRAIN CITY'

http://www.lightrail.nl/TramTrain/tramtrain.htm

 

 

Irish Light Rail [LUAS] update

Luas Citywest Construction Update No.6

Work Progress

http://www.rpa.ie/en/projects/luas_citywest/construction/Pages/default.aspx

Luas Citywest (Luas A1) Extension

http://www.rpa.ie/en/projects/luas_citywest/Pages/default.aspx

Luas Cherrywood (Luas B1) Extension

http://www.rpa.ie/en/projects/luas_cherrywood/Pages/default.aspx