Light rail advocates take aim at province’s transit plan for Fraser Valley

Light rail advocates take aim at province’s transit plan for Fraser Valley

BY FRANK LUBA, THE PROVINCE JANUARY 11, 2011

A citizensA?ai??i??ai??? group from the Fraser Valley believe the provincial government is off track with its plan to provide public transit in the region with a rapid bus model.

Rail for the Valley recently completed a review of the provinceA?ai??i??ai???s analysis of the situation and came out with some stinging criticism Monday.

A?ai??i??Ai??The many errors in the data and conclusions of this report are simply too numerous to list,A?ai??i??A? said a release from the group, which nonetheless listed a few.

The group drew its criticisms from a pro-bono report provided by light rail builders Leewood Projects of Great Britain.

Leewood concluded a light rail service could be implemented from Chilliwack to the Scott Road SkyTrain station using the 98 kilometres of track that already exists.

While the provincial study looked at heavy rail similar to the West Coast Express, consultant David Cockle of Leewood looked at a less-costly light rail service.

Some double-tracking is required but the Leewood study indicated it wasnA?ai??i??ai???t required for the entire route.

The result was that the province estimated the rough cost of a train for the valley to be $18.6 million per kilometre compared to the Leewood total of $5 million per kilometre A?ai??i??ai??? including vehicles.

An earlier study by the city of Surrey pegged the cost at $6 million per kilometre.

Rail for the ValleyA?ai??i??ai???s release is also skeptical of the provinceA?ai??i??ai???s belief a bus service could attract three times the number of riders that would take a train A?ai??i??ai??? even if they were to run at the same frequency.

Group spokesman John Vissers is passionate about getting rail for the 250,000 people that live from Chilliwack to Langley.

A?ai??i??Ai??Light rail can serve far more people for far less money than any other system thatA?ai??i??ai???s been suggested to date,A?ai??i??A? said Vissers.

A?ai??i??Ai??IA?ai??i??ai???m not frustrated, IA?ai??i??ai???m disappointed that our provincial government didnA?ai??i??ai???t try a little bit hard to find out what are the needs and desires of the Fraser Valley,A?ai??i??A? he said.

VissersA?ai??i??ai??? group is going to try to poll Liberal leadership hopefuls for their opinion on the situation.

The full Leewood study is available on the Internet at www.railforthevalley.com.

fluba@theprovince.com

twitter.com/frankluba

Ai??Ai?? Copyright (c) The Province

via Light rail advocates take aim at province’s transit plan for Fraser Valley.

Rail folks find study biased in favour of rapid bus

Rail folks find study biased in favour of rapid bus

BY PAUL J. HENDERSON, THE TIMES JANUARY 11, 2011

The provincial government’s shelving of light rail from Chilliwack to Surrey in the long-awaited Fraser Valley Transit Study (FVTS) is “biased,” “misleading,” and full of “flaws and errors,” according to the Rail for the Valley advocacy group.

Proponents of the inter-urban rail line from Chilliwack to Surrey released an in-depth analysis of the FVTS on Monday. The FVTS was a long-awaited study by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure to plan transit for the Fraser Valley for the next 25.

The FVTS, which was released in December, found that commuter rail services from Chilliwack to Surrey would cost too much to implement and operate and would not have the ridership needed.

Instead, the province has proposed an express bus services between Chilliwack and Abbotsford.

But John Buker, spokesperson for Rail for the Valley, said the FVTS puts projected boardings per day for daily interurban services between Chilliwack and Abbotsford at a maximum of 250 passengers. However, for equivalent express bus services 800 boardings is projected.

“By digging a little under the surface, one discovers shockingly that the report is actually assuming a regional bus service would attract more than triple the number of passengers of an equivalent light rail service,” Buker said.

Rail for the Valley (RFTV) hired a British light rail form, Leewood Projects, which concluded in a September 2010 report that “an Interurban passenger service could be achieved in the Fraser Valley at relatively low cost due to the already existing track, and recommended early implementation.”

The group said the ministry’s calculation of $18.6 million per kilometre for track repairs is based on heavy rail, not light rail, which would be closer to $5 million per kilometre.

“The ministry study is reactive ‘rubber tire’ planning that in fact promotes urban sprawl, while light rail encourages sustainable growth along the corridor and attracts new riders who choose to leave their cars at home or at a station,” RFTV said in a press release.

“The many errors in the data and conclusions of this report are simply too numerous to list. For the most part, the new study is exactly what was always expected, highly polished and designed simply to discredit light rail, and push Victoria’s agenda for rapid bus implementation for the Fraser Valley.”

Ai??Ai?? Copyright (c) Chilliwack Times

via Rail folks find study biased in favour of rapid bus.

Surrey Leader – Bus-boosting study stacked deck against Valley trains: critic

Bus-boosting study stacked deck against Valley trains: critic

Critics with Rail For The Valley say the province’s transit review concentrated on heavy rail service like the West Coast Express, rather than accurately costing out a modern light rail option.

By Jeff Nagel – BC Local News

Published: January 10, 2011 12:00 PM

Updated: January 10, 2011 1:00 PM

Advocates of a modern light rail line connecting the Fraser Valley from Surrey to Chilliwack say the province’s new study recommending expanded bus service never gave trains an honest chance.

Rail For The Valley founder Jon Buker accuses the transportation ministry-led study of “extreme bias” by using “grossly inflated” cost estimates to undermine the case for a light rail service running on the old Interurban corridor.

He said the study is what he expected A?ai??i??ai???Ai??Ai??one “designed simply to discredit light rail and push Victoria’s agenda for rapid bus implementation for the Fraser Valley.”

The Strategic Review of Transit in the Fraser Valley estimated it would cost $112 million a year to launch a 98-kilometre heavy rail commuter line A?ai??i??ai???Ai??Ai??akin to the West Coast Express A?ai??i??ai??? from Surrey to Chilliwack or $176 million annually for a light rail line that could serve more passengers.

It said the region instead needs a $90-million-a-year investment in local and regional buses that would promise frequent service every 15 minutes or less over a wide area and include express buses to haul people longer distances.

That would be a big jump from the $11 million a year currently spent on transit service in the Fraser Valley Regional District.

Buker said a key flaw in the study is it based all its rail costs on a West Coast Express-type heavy rail service, which requires significant double-tracking and other rail infrastructure upgrades, particularly in Surrey.

Consultants extrapolated the higher costs in that area throughout the route, he said, and then also used them in preparing the estimates for light rail, which wouldn’t require nearly as much upgrading.

The review found track upgrading costs would add up to $18.6 million per kilometre.

A study commissioned last year by Rail For The Valley and an earlier consultant’s report for the City of Surrey had both found a light rail service could be launched for much less A?ai??i??ai??? $5 to $6 million per kilometre A?ai??i??ai???Ai??Ai??on the existing tracks that once carried Interurban trams until the 1950s.

“A far more affordable system achieving the same basic level of service can be built,” he said.

Buker also contends the provincial study low-balled the number of passengers who would take trains and predicted three times as many people would use the proposed enhanced bus transit system.

“If the Fraser Valley can support hourly bus service, or even half-hourly bus service, it can also support light rail, whose operating costs over the lifetime of the vehicles tend to actually be lower, when all costs are taken into account,” he said.

Better bus service is a good idea, Buker said, but he noted just one per cent of Valley residents now take buses and improving ridership will require a “light rail backbone” across the region.

Critics of heavier West Coast Express-type trains say they tend to mainly serve commuters going to downtown Vancouver and fail to provide all-day regular service connecting local centres.

That’s an important distinction because 80 per cent of all Valley trips are by residents travelling in their own community, not making long commutes across the Lower Mainland.

Another key to usability is the number of stations on a rail line.

The province’s study analyzing the Interurban corridor assumed nine stations A?ai??i??ai???Ai??Ai??four in Surrey, three in Langley and just one each in Abbotsford and Chilliwack. Making more stops than that would increase trip times and deter passengers, consultants said.

Any improved transit study will need to be funded, it said, suggesting a local gas tax in the Fraser Valley Regional District as one option. Each cent of gas tax levied in the FVRD would generate $4.1 million per year, it said.

Metro Vancouverites pay 12 cents per litre to TransLink as well as a much higher level of property tax.

The FVRD population is projected to climb 70 per cent to more than 450,000 over the next two decades.

The report aims to quadruple Valley transit use from one to 4.1 per cent of trips by 2040.

via Surrey Leader – Bus-boosting study stacked deck against Valley trains: critic.

Why Are North American Engineers So Afraid Of European Transit Developments?

Answer: They can't plan for $1.4 Million a mile rail transit schemes, like what their European friends are doing!

The Valley Rail naysayers abound, but when faced with undisputable facts that light rail and/or its many variants can be built very cheaply indeed; much cheaper than $125 million/km SkyTrain or even $20 million/km highways, they resort to name calling and continue spreading tall tales about LRT.

The failure of regional, provincial, and federal politicians to grasp the fact that rail transit need not be that expensive to build and can be operated quite cheaply when it is built has cost the taxpayer dearly. One tires of their "driverless transit systems are cheaper to operate than LRT" rhetoric espoused by the SkyTrain Lobby and its many adherents, yet to date not one person from the SkyTrain Lobby has offered any comparison between SkyTrain and/or Canada Line operating costs and that of a comparable light rail line.

With the Peak Oil and Global Warming Crisis looming very large, the failure by politicos to invest in inexpensive rail transportation alternatives is nothing short than economic suicide!

 

 "Haller Willem": Rail transit for 1.4 million $ per mile

In addition to a mainline connection, the German cities Bielefeld and Osnabrück are connected by a rural singletrack line, parts of which are quite curvy and steep. Reason for the unfavourable alignment are cost cutting attempts of the 19th century. The line touches the town of Halle, known to tennis fans for the Gerry Weber Open. It is named "Haller Willem", after an operator of team and coach, Wilhelm Struckemeyer, who had his business on this line before inauguration of the railroad in 1886, and was widely known for his humour and ~200 kg weight.

The line was built to lower standards than the mainlines around, and did not receive similar improvements towards higher speed and less labour. Until closure, barriers at level crossings were still cranked mechanically, using technology of the early 20th century. Due to the crewing requirements, the railroad tried to get rid of the line. The number of passenger trains was reduced below usefulness. In 1984, the rest of the passenger traffic was bustituted.

More precisely: one half of the "Haller Willem" was bustituted. Within the former West Germany, the state of Niedersachsen has the worst public transport system off the main routes. The abandonment of one half of the "Haller Willem", the part located in Niedersachsen, followed common traffic policy standards within that state.

 Reopening day at Kloster Oesede station.

The other half of the route, Bielefeld – Dissen/Bad Rothenfelde, located in the state of Nordrhein-Westfalen, limped along with low amounts of traffic, but closure wasn't accepted. Instead, a contract protecting the line was signed by state and railroad, and in the late 1990s, a modernization project improved that part of the route to modern standards. Success followed quickly: While the passenger figure used to be 1500 per day, this changed to 3400 in 2004, and is increasing further.

Looking at the success of the neighbours, even the state of Niedersachsen finally decided in favour of reactivation – at a time, when small trees started to grow in the track. The reactivation project, Dissen/Bad Rothenfelde – Osnabrück, closed the gap between the state border and Osnabrück-Hörne, where this secondary track joins into a mainline. Part of the reactivation was modern, remote controlled or train operated signal and level crossing equipment, bringing the infrastructure operating costs down to modern standards as well.

As it is normal in Germany and several other EU countries, the trains aren't operated by the infrastructure owner. After bidding, and until 2013, the subsidy for operation was contracted to the Nordwestbahn, an operator owned by Connex and the cities of Osnabrück and Oldenburg. Unlike USA practice, the operator gets a fixed amount of money, unless penalized for not fulfilling the contracted quality standards. Subsidized operation does not outrule high profit or bankruptcy – despite the subsidy, success depends on performance.

 

Dissen/Bad Rothenfelde – Osnabrück-Hörne infrastructure project

Length of reactivated track	22.848 km
Line opened	August 15th, 1886
Closed for passenger traffic	June 2nd, 1984
Passenger train average speed, 1983	43 km/h
Trains per direction per day, 1983	4, 3 on weekends1
Passengers per day, 1983
Closed for freight traffic	1991
Track leased by VLO2	January 1st, 2000
Lease timeframe	30 years
Yearly lease	1 DM (€ 0.51)
Total reactivation cost	€ 16.3 million3
Cost/km	€ 0.71 million
State/federal funds	80%
VLO funds, recovered from track access price	20%
New rails + ties, ballast cleaning, some subgrade repairs	€ 9.7 million
Cost/km	€ 0.42 million
Max. axleload	20t4 (44092 lbs)
Level crossings eliminated	8
Pedestrian crossings, set of railings	4
Level crossings upgraded	23
Level crossing improvements	€ 3.4 million
Cost/crossing	€ 148000
Signal system/box, automatic train stop	€ 0.9 million
Stations built, at old or new location	5
Of these, with passing track	1
Platform length	110 m
Platform width	3.5 m
Platform height	76 cm
Average cost per station5	€ 100000
Train timing Dissen – Osnabrück Hbf	31 – 32 minutes
Bus timing Dissen – Osnabrück	50 minutes
Line speed	80 km/h
Average stop distance	4.4 km
Average speed	50 km/h
Weekday memory schedule	Hourly, 18 train pairs
Saturday	17 train pairs
Sunday	11 train pairs
Forecast: Max. ridership with halfhourly traffic	3600 / day
First weeks of operation	800–900 / day
4 months later	1700 / day

¹ The number of trains is best explained as a measure to support line closure. Some years before, it was higher, though there never was an attempt towards memory schedule or similar modern traffic concepts.
² VLO = Verkehrsgesellschaft Landkreis Osnabrück (Osnabrück County Traffic Society, a local public transport company in public ownership).
³ This is the planned figure – not every detail of the project has been finished yet. It is expected, that the final amount will be slightly lower.
⁴ Old bridges still passed the check at this value. The track could support a higher figure.
⁵ Station costs include the platform with access ramp, video and loudspeakers with central control, travel information board, bus stop shelter, seats, (lights ?).

Rail For the Valley completes Analysis of Fraser Valley Transit Study

A stark example of this bias: Projected boardings per day for daily Interurban service betweenAi??Ai??Abbotsford andAi??Ai??Chilliwack is put at a maximum ofAi??Ai??250 passengers. [6800 daily boardings for a hypothetical Chilliwack-Surrey Interurban service, minus 6550 boardings for the same shorter Abbotsford-Surrey service, gives an upper bound on the number of passengers travelling between Abbotsford and Chilliwack, Table 3.17, Foundation Paper #4]

However, when the report looks at the equivalent “Express Bus” service betweenAi??Ai??Abbotsford andAi??Ai??Chilliwack, with the same travel time (30 minutes) and the same frequency of service as the Rail service (30/60 minutes peak/off-peak), a very different number is arrived at:Ai??Ai??800 boardings. [Table 3.6, Foundation Paper #4]

Buker summed up the comparison:Ai??Ai??““By digging a little under the surface, one discovers shockingly that the report is actually assuming a regional bus service would attract more than triple the number of passengers of an equivalent light rail service. That’s more than a little hard to believe given that there are few cases where buses attract equal let alone greater ridership. If the Fraser Valley can support hourly bus service, or even half-hourly bus service, it can also support light rail, whose operating costs over the lifetime of the vehicles tend to actually be lower, when all costs are taken into account.”

While there are positive ideas presented of enhanced local bus service within the study, the hard truth is ridership will not be high enough to sustain these types of services without a light rail backbone,Ai??Ai??particularly in places where just 1% of the population uses bus transit. The Ministry study is reactive “rubber tire” planning that in fact promotes urban sprawl, while light rail encourages sustainable growth along the corridor and attracts new riders who choose to leave their cars at home or at a station.

The many errors in the data and conclusions of this report are simply too numerous to list. For the most part, the new study is exactly what was always expected, highly polished and designed simply to discredit light rail, and push Victoria’s agenda for rapid bus implementation for the Fraser Valley.

How to Spot the Transit Denier?

Transit, LRT, Tram & Public Transport deniers come in many forms; from libertarians, petrol heads & asphalt warriors to right wing neocons.

..the Cardinal has compiled a list of thirty eight most commonly used arguments by opponents to at-grade LRT:-

Excuses Ignorance Criticism Opposition Hostility

1.    Trams are inflexible.

a.    If the road becomes closed, due to an accident or emergency road or utility repairs, is there any way a tram service can be maintained?

2.    Trams are noisy.

3.    The construction of a tram system, causes disruption to towns & city’s; noise, dust, road closures, utility diversions.   

4.    Why do the electricity cables, gas & water mains, have to be dug up & moved to accommodate the building of a tram system?

5.    We have a perfectly good bus system/service, why do we need a tram system?

6.    Will the tram system mean that a number of our existing bus routes will be shut down?

7.    Who will operate a new tram system?

a.    Will the trams run 24/7?

b.    Can trams continue to run if it snows, unlike many buses & trains?

8.    Are tram drivers trained, to the same high level of competence as:

a.    Bus drivers?

b.    Train drivers?

9. Will there be conductors on the trams to collect fares?

10. Will the trams be as safe or safer for vulnerable people travelling on their own late at night than other public transport modes?

11. Are trams accessible to seniors, disabled people & parents with prams?

12. Do tram systems operate on signals like the main line railways?

13. How is the location of the tram stops decided?

14. How fast do trams travel along the road?

a.    Do trams have to obey the roads speed limit?

15. How long will tram rails last, before the road has to be dug up to repair or replace them?

16. Trams represent an old fashioned & outmoded 19th century form of transport.

17. Who pays for new tram systems, the Government, the City/town council or the local Transport Authority?

18. Who decides, if a new tram system represents value for public money?

19. Is private investment used to pay for tram systems to be built?

20. Tram systems are expensive.

21. Will public transport ticket prices rise, to pay for the tram system?

a.    Nobody will use the trams, when they are introduced because the fares will be too expensive.

22. A tram system will bring crime & more undesirables into our town/city centers.

23. Trams cause congestion on the roads, to other users; private cars, buses.

24. Trams will cause delays at road junctions for private cars & buses.

a.    How will the designers phase junction traffic lights, to meet the needs of the trams & other road users?

b.    Will trams get priority at road junctions, over other road users?

25. Why don’t they, the city/government, build a metro/underground system instead?

26. The trams should run in tunnels under the town and not down the streets. This will free up more road space for private cars.

27. We need less public transport, not more.

28. Public transport & particularly trams slow down the speed of traffic.

29. Trams are dangerous for:

a.    Pedestrians.

b.    Cyclists.

c.    Car drivers.

30. The overhead electric tram wires & masts are an eyesore.

a.    The tram line will pass through a conservation area, overhead poles & wires will be an aberration.

d.    The overhead poles & wires will spoil the attractiveness of the town/city.

e.    The overhead electricity wires will reduce the value of my house/property.

f.     The overhead electrical cables are a cause of cancer in children.

h.    How do tram system designers ensure that the return current passing through the tram rails does not corrode buried utilities?

i.      How do tram system designers ensure that the current in the overhead wires, does not cause interference with business computer, data & hospital life support equipment?

31. Trams cause accidents in towns & city’s.

32. Government accident statistics prove that trains & trams have a poorer safety record, per passenger miles travelled than other forms of transport.

a.    The statistics prove that more pedestrian accidents are caused by public transport, than by private cars.

b.    Buses have a better safety record than trams.

c.    How quickly, can a tram stop if a child runs out in front of it?

33. A tram line past my house/property will cause the value to fall.

34. My shop/business will suffer if a tram line is built on this street.

a.    Where will my customers park, if they cannot stop outside my shop/business?

b.    Where will my suppliers park, to deliver to my shop/business?

c.    The city council will raise my taxes to pay for the tram system.

d.    If a tram line/system is built, all my customers will ride/take the tram to the out of town shopping malls.

35. Trams are a European form of public transport.

36. Can it be proved that trams are successful in reducing the number of journeys made by private cars, in towns & cities?

37.At-grade LRT/trams/street cars are only economical in low density European cities.

38. Building the tram system, will mean that lots of houses & shops/businesses will be demolished to make room for it.

a.    The proposed tram system will result in a reduction of open spaces, trees and children’s play areas.

Anymore? the Cardinal will post the monikers of respondents who can come up with any others or those that demonstrate their prejudice.

Fords condemnation of St. Clair streetcar is off-track

TheAi??Globe & Mail article by Marcus Gee;

Ford’s condemnation of St. Clair streetcar is off-track

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/marcus-gee/fords-condemnation-of-st-clair-streetcar-is-off-track/article1859391/

published on January 5th, shows how the successful St. Clair streetcar line speaks against mayor Rob Ford’s plans to cancel Transit City and most LRT projects.

It is depressing to see that the same dunderheaded opposition to light rail in protected lands is advanced in Toronto as in Vancouver, the Fraser Valley in BCAi??andAi??other city’sAi??in English speaking countries. The Globe and Mail article sets out the arguments quite well and shows that a properly laid out street with light rail, works.

It is worth pointing out that a streetcar line with a car every 3 minutes will be offering a capacity of over 4000 passengers per hour, per direction when the new Bombardier low floor cars are delivered, whereas a single automobile lane has a capacity of 1000 – 2000 vehicles per hour, at normal urban loadings of 1.2 passengers per automobile that is 1200 – 2400 passengers. So the streetcar increases lane PASSENGER CARRYING capacity and leaves what appears to be an ’empty’ lane whereas 1000 motor cars an hour is a solid wall of steel……..and then one has to think about where all these automobiles will be parked.

new Bombardier LRV for Toronto

This publication by the Pembina Institute

Making Tracks to Torontonians

examines the costs and benefits of the subway extension proposed by Toronto Mayor Rob Ford in December 2010, compared to the light rail transit plan that is already underway with funding on the table.

The subway extension would provide less service per dollar invested than the existing light rail rapid transit plan for Toronto, and wouldn’t deliver transit service to the communities that need it most.http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/making-tracks-toronto.pdf

 

The War on Cars

Is there really a “war on cars” in Seattle?

Politics Northwest

The Seattle Times political team explores national, state and local politics.

Posted by Jim Brunner

High density urban living, not neccessary for good public transport

Units not crucial for good public transport, study finds

A 2010 retrospective and a happy New Year!

Itai??i??s traditional for the media and bloggers alike to wrap up the retreating year or welcome in the New Year with a retrospective of all that was bad, depressing, frustrating, good, humorous, irritating, scandalous or just plain bizarre in the twelve months that finished on the stroke of midnight on 31^st December.

Stephen Reesai??i??s blog did just that with a 2010 in review post, entitled Crunchy numbers. The review gives the blog statistics and goes on to list the top five referring sites and the yearai??i??s postings that received the most views. At number three with 19 comments was a September 2006 post entitled Group lobbies for SkyTrain rather than lightAi??rail.

The comments from one respondent are interesting to say the least or should I qualify that statement and say depressing; they argue `A functional rapid transit system must co-exist with cars not penalize them, we must deal in reality with the factai??i??

Ai??

Unfortunately unrestricted town & city access for cars, come with traffic jams, congestion and pollution.

Politicians, like Rob Ford in Toronto argue that the `War on cars must be ended’ Transit must be expensively burried underground and surface transport left to the bus.

In Europe as well as Canada & the US, Planners, Engineers and public officials, know that city & town transport must be a balance of modes;Ai??the difference is that the European ones care and invest in transport that attracts riders out of their cars – S-bahn, Metro, LRT, Tram and trolleybus, it does not ignore it and leave it mostly to inefficient, unintegrated bus operations. The FVTS Report published before Christmas offered the Fraser Valley communitiesAi??little more than a bus, the authors would appear to have also learnt very little over the past four years.

As for MrAi??Ford – one must remember that he is a politician – and a modern politician at that – so he is very, very stupid.

A Happy New Year