Good News Story
Croydon residents praise Tramlink heroes for keeping service running through snow
Croydon Guardian http://www.croydonguardian.co.uk/news/8721876.Residents_praise_Tramlink_/
As trains were cancelled throughout last week and buses struggled to get around due to icy roads, Croydonai??i??s Tramlink managed to run a regular service.
A heroic effort from the Tramlink team mean the service was, at times, the only reliable public transport operating in the borough. The trams usually carry an average of 89,000 people a day, during the worst of the snow fall, this rose to 108,000 residents.
Dedicated staff put in hours of overtime, managers and admin staff trekked to Croydon from Central London and set to work shovelling snow off platforms and gritting them to keep them ice free, as well as clearing fallen tree branches and snow from the tracks.
Tramlink ran ghost trams throughout the night to keep the rails clear and when tram drivers were unable to get to work, their colleagues worked overtime and ticket inspectors – who are also trained drivers – volunteered to help.
Has The “War On The Car” Gone To Far?
There is a growing problem concerning public and regional transportation that has become very worrisome and that is the so called "war on the car". This simple phrase has been used with great effect in Toronto, where anti-transit politicians have been elected in the Toronto metro region, whose sole goal is to dismantle Toronto's public transit system. The slogan used was to "end the war on the car" and voters agreed.
In the Vancouver Metro region, there has been great debate between TransLink and regional mayors on how to close the $400 million TransLink funding gap for the SkyTrain Evergreen Line project. The regional mayors, quite rightly, are rejecting increasing property taxes and instead advocating new sources of revenue which include auto levies and road pricing to increase transit funding and in effect, creating a war on the car to fund expensive metro projects.
In Vancouver, the Vision dominated city council has already been at war with the car, by implementing cumbersome new bike lanes and restrictive car parking measures in the city.
Now gas prices are rising, with the price of gas reaching $1.20 a litre this weekend; the car driver feels taxed out.
A transportation expert, some years ago, once told Zwei; "For road pricing to work, the region with road pricing must have an attractive alternative to the car in order for the motorist to favourably comply with the new tax, if not, there will be repercussions at the next civic elections." "And, oh by the way, buses are not seen by the motorist as a viable alternative to driving."
The war on the car is a two way street and may become the war on transit, as we have recently witnessed in Toronto. Could it be that onerous new car taxes that well paid politicians and bureaucrats so glibly propose, could spawn a HST style tax revolt against everyone connected to implementing new restrictive car taxes and rules?
Could it be that TransLink, in order to provide good public transit, must start providing economic public transit solutions which must include much less costly light rail instead of very expensive SkyTrain mini-metro and operate the buses cost effectively which means stop operating politically inspired bus servcies on routes with very little custom (South Delta has three bus routes that operate a hourly or better schedule, yet carry fewer than 20 people a day!) and are heavily subsidized.
When politicians and bureaucrats begin to think that the taxpayer is nothing more than a rube that can be constantly 'shaken down' for more taxes, then I think the seeds for war on the car have been sown and as the Bible states; "As yea sows, so shall yea reap!"
Transit News From Around The World – December 3rd 2010
Light rail train derails in Seattle
Komonews
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/70237837.html
Business leaders: Build light-rail leg to Tampa airport
Tampa Bay Online
Manchester passengers consulted over closure of Metrolink stop
Rail Technology Magazine
Light Rail news
Rail Technology Magazine Pages 46 – 53 inclusive; Manchester, Sheffield,
Edinburgh, Tyne & Wear and Liepaja
Fraser Valley Interurban Tram-Train
Railway Strategies
The Tram, French Tramways
French Property.com
http://www.french-property.com/reference/french_transport/tramways/
and
http://www.beyond.fr/villages/nice-tramway-provence-france.html
Tramways in France – born again for urbanism
http://connectedcities.eu/downloads/magazines/nt_2007_feb_eivp.pdf
http://www.trams-in-france.net/reload.htm?lyon.htm
Tram-trains Citadis Dualis and Regio Citadis
Combining the best of trains and tramways
What Fools We Mortals Be – Toronto’s New mayor, Rob Ford.
American style Tea Party politician andAi??Toronto’s new mayor Rob Ford, is taking the TTC back 50 years or more by forcing the TTC to build new subways, instead of much cheaper light rail. Ford is just mimicking the same bleat that AmericanAi??politicos use, the “war on the car” andAi??has used itAi??with great effectiveness, but what Mr. Ford has done, is toAi??declare warAi??on the taxpayer, with massive new taxes and probably new car taxes, levies and feesAi??needed to pay for hugely expensive new subway construction.
Rob Ford has all the traits of a political buffoonAi??who has rode the wave of public discontent, combinedAi??with generous financial help,Ai??into public office. It is apparent thatAi??Ford’s financial backers are rubber on asphalt types who do not want affordable public transit, especially when said transit competes directly with the car. Modern light rail, when built right,Ai??has a proven ability in providing an affordable alternative to the car, something that much more expensive subways do not. With LRT a much larger transit network can be created, providing the customer easier access. With subways and metros in general, longer spacing between stations and limited routes, tend to deter new ridership. Subways or elevated metros are only built if ridership on a transit route warrants such a costly expenditure.
Enter Rob Ford, who believes he is a transit expert, as all politicians seem to doAi??and proclaims that no LRT for Toronto and promises the abandonment of the famous Toronto streetcar system and for what reason for his politicalAi??castration of public transport?
ai???War on the car is overai??i??: Ford moves transit underground
December 01, 2010
Paul Moloney
The $8 billion Transit City light rail plan championed by the former mayor David Miller ai??i?? years in the making and with construction underway ai??i?? is ai???overai???, Mayor Rob Ford declared on his first morning on the job.
Ford made the remarks while being mobbed by reporters Wednesday morning as he emerged from his new office to go downstairs to the cafeteria.
Ford said he met at around 7 a.m. with Toronto Transit Commission chief general manager Gary Webster to emphasize that subways are preferable to the 120-kilometres of streetcar routes laid out by Miller.
ai???We just had a meeting about subways,ai??? Ford said regarding his chat with Webster.
ai???I just wanted to make it quite clear that he understood that Transit Cityai??i??s over and the war on the car is over, and all new subway expansion is going underground. And thatai??i??s pretty well it,ai??? Ford said.
ai???I just told him that everything moving forward is underground. And he accepted that. And I look forward to working with him.ai???
Ford, who wants to build a subway to the Scarborough Town Centre, said he didnai??i??t specifically insist that ongoing work on the new Sheppard light rail line be stopped.
ai???No, I just told him whatever weai??i??re doing is going underground, so weai??i??re going to build subways. I was elected on that mandate, and Iai??i??m going to deliver my promises to the taxpayers that subways will be built in the city.ai???
Ford said he has yet to speak to Premier Dalton McGuinty, whose provincial government has put up most of the money for Transit City.
The new mayor did indicate he would like to see light rail money diverted underground.
ai???I look forward to meeting with Mr. McGuinty about the funding with respect to subways,ai??? he said. ai???Again, Iai??i??m going to talk to Mr. McGuinty and weai??i??ll take it from there. Iai??i??m trying to set something up as soon as possible.
Ford was non-committal when asked who will be responsible for the money already spent if the light rail plan is scrapped. The Ontario government says it has so far spent about $130 million and signed contracts worth $1.3 billion.
Ottawa is contributing $330 million for the Sheppard line, about one-third of its cost. The province has said it will cover the rest of Transit Cityai??i??s $8.15 billion bill ai??i?? for Sheppard, a Finch light rail line, an Eglinton crosstown route, and conversion of Scarboroughai??i??s aging rapid transit line to light rail.
ai???Again, Iai??i??m going to deal with the province with respect to that and take it from there,ai??? Ford said.
The mayorai??i??s power to act unilaterally was, however, quickly questioned. City council as a whole approved Transit City and council as a whole would have to agree to kill it.
ai???I think itai??i??s premature,ai??? rookie Councillor Josh Matlow said of Fordai??i??s pronouncement. ai???I believe that council should have an opportunity for discussion about public transit in this city ai??i?? transit affects everyone in every corner of the city and there are millions of tax dollars at stake.ai??? There are several council meetings scheduled for next week but traditionally they are just ceremonial. It is not clear if any motions will be introduced.
Matlow (Ward 22, St. Paulai??i??s) acknowledged Ford was elected with a large mandate promising a subway plan, rather than Transit City, and wants to people to know ai???thereai??i??s a new sheriff in town.
ai???But many councillors were elected with large mandates supporting Transit City ai??i?? letai??i??s not invalidate those elections. We need a responsible, thoughtful discussion.ai???
Webster, after emerging from his early-morning meeting with Ford, told reporters: ai???The plan we have in place was put together with a lot of thought and we supported it and we do support the plan as a good transportation plan.
ai???The mayor is saying ai???Fine, but Iai??i??m looking at a new plan.ai??i??ai???
Webster said provincially funded work by the TTC will continue on a Sheppard Ave. underpass at the Agincourt GO Station, noting it would happen whether a subway or light rail line goes there.
Webster said he was directed to go back to Ford with a new plan, which could take up to six weeks.
At noon in Nathan Phillips Square, a few dozen protesters from groups including the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty huddled in cold drizzle in front of a banner stating: ai???Rob Fordai??i??s gravy train will just feed the pigs.ai???
Lisa Schofield of OCAP said the protesters are demanding changes to the way welfare is administered, the elimination of the waiting list for subsidized housing and better public transit for the poor.
ai???As (Ford) is cutting Transit City, heai??i??s also going to be cutting services to poor and working-class people,ai??? Schofield told reporters.
ai???Our biggest fear is a (former premier Mike) Harris-style era in this city, which we can all be terrified of, quite frankly.ai???
From the Vancouver Province – TransLink looks to crack down on fare evasion. Are Turnstiles Really Needed?
The following article gives good reason for not installing turnstiles or using smartcards. First, turnstiles and smartcards do not deter fare evasion; secondly, the estimated $5 million revenue loss due to fare evasion is less than the estimated $12 million to $15 million annual operating costs of the turnstile/smartcard operation.
Paying $15 million annually to recover $5 million in evaded faresAi??is just plain stupid!
If anyone needs see why TransLink is in continual Ai??economic chaos, it is the government forced $180 million implementation of turnstiles and smartcards on the SkyTrain/RAV mini-metro system – an expensive ticketing system that TransLink can not afford nor needs.
It is also interesting to note that there is a push by metro operators to do away with turnstiles altogether, as they are seen as a hindrance to transit customers.
ThereAi??could beAi??another reason for TransLink’s 8% estimated loss in revenue: phantom riders or transit customers that never were. TransLink’s method of calculating ridership is an alchemist’s mixture of spot boarding counts, spot loading counts, ticket sales, and more. TransLink’s ridership is based on a computer model, which doesn’t take into account multiple trips per fare paid, like what is happening with the extensive U-Pass program, or monthly passes. Real ridership could be off by as much as 5% to 10%!
Yes, there is fare evasion on our metro transit system, but until TransLink uses meticulous boarding counts and have annual independent audits of ridership, there can be no real claim of massive fare evasion. If there is no massive fare evasion to counter, then there is no need of a $180 million farecard/turnstile system for the metro and the money being better spent on more buses or even, for heavens sake, a Fraser Valley TramTrain service.
TransLink looks to crack down on fare evasion
Bus Rapid Transit Vs. Light Rail
Too often theAi??Bus versus Light Rail debate omits to mention the operational costs associated with public transport.Ai?? This is the great weakness of the bus when there are significant numbers of passengers to be carried.
Official American cost comparisons show that the cost of carrying a passenger on light rail is approximately 2/3rds that of carrying a passenger by bus.Ai?? Large numbers of passengers means substantially higher operating costs if buses are the only available mode.Ai?? At the upper bands of passenger numbers heavy rail is the cheapest.
The higher cost of bus operation is due to driver wages.Ai?? Compare the capacity of a bus with that of a modern LRV and then further consider that these LRVs are often operated in multiple units with only one operator.Ai?? Now work out the productivity of the bus driver compared with the LRV operator!Ai?? And remember “platform costs” of public transport comprise some 80% of total operating costs.
Considerations such as these are of course usually lost on theAi??financial bean counters of the English speaking countries who fixate on Capital Costs rather than Lifetime Costs of a service.
Brisbane, Australia (BRT) Bus Rapid Transit
If there could be any doubt, of the cost effectiveness and the capability to relieve urban congestion of Bus Rapid Transit [BRT], study the following image of Brisbaneai??i??s system.
http://www.translink.com.au/about-translink/what-we-do/infrastructure-projects/busways
TransLink in BC are actively promoting BRT as the answer for transit in the Fraser Valley, they & the City mayors & councillors who are being pushed into accepting BRT as the only available option would be as well to study Professor Graham Currieai??i??s (Monash University) report:
Bus Rapid Transit in Australasia: Performance, Lessons Learned and Futures
http://www.nctr.usf.edu/jpt/pdf/JPT%209-3S%20Currie.pdf Ai??
The Silence of TransLink Speaks Volumes
Since Rail for the Valley released the RftV/Leewood TramTrain report in September, there has been a silence from TransLink and the government's two favoured media outlets, the Vancouver Sun and CKNW radio on the valley rail project. All the TV stations did reports, as did all the regional (semi)weekly newspapers, which is credit to their profession; but from TransLink – silence.
This was not unexpected as RftV has done what TransLink cannot or will not do, which is to produce a modern transportation plan based on light rail. It is no secret that TransLink treats LRT as a 'poorman's' SkyTrain and all the light rail planning done by TransLink has made LRT look inferior to SkyTrain, both in service and ability. TransLink's well paid mandarins just can't accept the fact that modern LRT had made SkyTrain obsolete before the first ALRT train operated on the Expo Line. The evidence is plain as one's face; no one builds with SkyTrain – well virtually no one as there are only seven such systems operating around the world (soon to be six when Toronto's Scarbough Line is dismantled and replaced by light rail).
Since SkyTrain was first marketed in the late 1970's, over 150 mew light rail lines have been built or are under construction, with many more in various stages of planning, yet listen to TransLink or BC's various Minister's of Transportation, one would think the opposite was true!
TransLink still claims and advises the Minister of Transportation and Metro Vancouver Board, that LRT can't carry more than 10,000 persons per hour per direction, yet in the real world, modern LRT can carry more, over double the capacity claimed by TransLink. This alone should bring charges of professional misconduct against TransLink's planning bureaucrats and managers, yet the mainstream media, because of a lack of transit savvy reporters, ignores TransLink's grand economies of the truth. If TransLink is fibbing about light rail's potential capacity, one wonders what else they are fibbing about.
Of course, this why TransLink is silent on the RftV/Leewood report, for if they admitted what is stated in the report about light rail was true, then they would have to admit that their claims about modern light rail are not true and it seems that TransLink's planning mandarins would rather collect six figure annual salaries and generous car allowances, rather than admit that their transit planning was based on a foundation of misinformation and pixie dust.
In BC and especially the Metro Vancouver region, misinformation and pixie dust planning are the hallmark of regional 'rail' transit planning.
Mayors face tax dilemma
More thoughts on the TransLink/regional mayors funding debate.
What I do not see is any hint of fiscal responsibility from TransLink, just demands for more money with dire threats on what will happen if funding doesn't come through.
In South Delta, three bus routes, the C-84, C-89 and the 609, which operate at 60 minute headways or better, during the weekday, carry fewer than 25 passengers a day between them! One must ask the question; "How many bus routes are carrying fewer than 25 passengers a day?" Is this the example of TransLink's definition of an economic service? if so, maybe we can do without TransLink's extravagance with our tax monies.
Public transit is not a social service, though many transit advocates and politicians believe that it is, with the result of a very expensive transit service that in the end, does not provide the service levels that would provide an attractive alternative to the car.
What TransLink wants funding for is a dated metro system, which its passengers are supplied (in many cases by a forced transfer) from an unattractive (from the customers view) bus service. Pre loading ridership with students with U-Passes and various other concession fares has made the regional transit service appealing only to the poor, the elderly and students; a sure sign that the transit system is not just broke financially, but broken completely.
Regional mayors should put an end to TransLink's misery and let the provincial government take it back so the Premier and MLA's can once again play trains on their own.
A Letter From Jacob de Raadt
There is a growing realization from Fraser Valley taxpayers that the South Fraser region should secede from TransLink and even the GVRD. For far too long, the North Fraser cities have used the South Fraser as a 'Milch cow' for taxes to fund politically prestigious light-metro projects such as SkyTrain.
Valley taxpayers are waking up to the fact that there is no money for 'rail' transit South of the Fraser and no one at TransLink seems to be capable to plan for affordable light rail solutions for the region. The Rail for the Valley/Leewood report has shown TransLink's Achilles heel with their Vancouver to Chilliwack TramTrain plan. The RftV/Leewood report shows that light rail can be built for about $6 million/km, versus over $125 million/km for SkyTrain.
Fraser Valley civic politicians had better test the wind, so to speak, with local voters and taxpayers before next years elections, who are growing far more educated on regional transit issues than the bureaucrats in their expensive ivory towers on Kingsway would like. In fact, for South Fraser politicians, voting in favour of increasing or adding new taxes to fund the Evergreen Line might be treated like the soon to be former Premier, Gordon Campbell, with the HST debacle!
The only way that the region will get modern light rail is to secede from TransLink and go it on their own.
Dear Editor, Langley Advance,
The phrase “Moving Forward plan” was mentioned in your article “TransLink tax appears doomed” (Langley Advance, November 19). I believe that in order to be “Moving Forward”, one needs to “go back” a little bit, to see where one has been. With your indulgence, I would like to do this in some pre-TransLink time frames of 21 years each, gong back to 1947 – 1968 – 1989 and then 2010.
In 1947, oil was discovered at Leduc, Alberta. The huge impact of that gusher (and those that followed) on Western Canada was likely the main reason for the short-sighted decision to abandon passenger services on the BC Electric Railway in the Fraser Valley in 1950. The Trans-Canada Highway Act was promulgated in 1948, and the system was in the planning stages. Diesel fuel was going to be abundant and dirt cheap, eh? This passenger service abandonment followed the provisions of the 1907 Langley Rail, Power and Light Bylaw – the “charter” of this railway line – and soon after that, it was forgotten, also when the City of Langley separated from the Township of 1955. We heard last year (2009) that the 1907 Bylaw is still valid in the Township. Was the City of Langley ever advised of its existence, and that it may also still be valid there? This affects the construction costs of railway crossings, likely also the one that is now being proposed at 196th Street. Perhaps both municipalities should pay nothing for it. And the similar Bylaw that the City of Surrey has, might suggest that they pay nothing.
In 1968, a substantial part of the BC Electric Railway was relocated through the District of Surrey, City of Langley and Township of Langley. To my knowledge, it was only Mayor Poppy of the Township of Langley who had the foresight to schedule a meeting with BC Hydro, in which a promise was obtained for a railway overpass at the Langley Bypass (although that was located within the City of Langley) “to be built whenever traffic would warrant”. I guess that as only a few trains per day were envisaged, vehicular traffic was meant. To date, after 42 years, nothing has come of this promise. Methinks traffic warrants it.
I am not sure if those Township Council minutes are still enforceable on BC Hydro, in terms of the 1907 Bylaw. I can only guess that if the City of Langley had known about that promise, and had been aware of the 1907 Bylaw, they would also have been able to solicit a similar promise for a railway overpass on 200th Street. That would have been their obvious “due diligence” for the long term view and good of the City. Perhaps at that time, the City fathers still had post-partum depression, or they were still navel gazing about streetlights……
In 1989, the Socred provincial government of the day launched the “Freedom to Move” program, with many colourful glossy brochures. The promise of lots of work for consulting engineers in fact brought my family to BC from Yukon that summer. Under the Hon. Rita Johnstone, Minister of Transportation, this was to solve future traffic congestion in the Lower Mainland, continuing the Flying Phil Gagliardi highway building booms that were so typical of that party.
Under the “Freedom to Move” program, the Surrey-Langley Transportation Study was launched. It recommended quite a number of highway improvements, including a railway overpass on the Langley Bypass. Instead of a railway overpass on 200th Street, (not possible due to the short-sighted build-up around it, which was acknowledged), one was proposed on 196th Street, with the complete closure of the Fraser Highway railway crossing. We all remember that the Socreds imploded soon thereafter, and that the second NDP regime started a decade of general decline in construction activity, except for some vibrating aluminium hulls. Also, the Greater Vancouver Regional District was handed down various transportation responsibilities that the provincial government did not want to have any more, hence GVTA / TransLink. And of course, the BC Transportation Financing Authority, a para-government agency that handled Design-Build-Develop projects that e.g. sold off the highway right-of-way of Highway 1 to a developer called Grosvenor International, to build a “fiasco”. (The BC Liberals, when they came into office in June 2001, and the Township of Langley, both had a chance to stop it, but did not.)
Now, in 2010, we have new new buzz word – the “Moving Forward plan”. TransLink now acts, through its CEO, as if it calls all the shots, while the Ministry that is now known as MOTI (instead of MOTH) – Highways has now become Infrastructure – is not even mentioned in your article, as if there are no provincial highways through our municipalities. You may remember that at one time in the early 1990’s, the Township of Langley almost seceded from the GVRD (now called Metro) and thought about joining the regional district comprised of Abbotsford and others to the east. Only “water” kept the Township in the GVRD. It is surely no wonder that all mayors south of the Fraser River are now baulking at the request for more tax or fees or tolls into a gaping sinkhole, with a stated purpose to build a “Nevergreen Line” with outdated technology, way over there in Coquitlam and Port Moody, on the other side of the Fraser River, where many of us never go or want to go.
Someone else called TransLink a virus the other day on your pages. Because TransLink remains to be an unelected body, while the Provincial Government with all its shortcomings still remains to be one, I would like to give that virus a name – the North Fraser Virus. What medicines are helpful to combat viruses? Isolation is perhaps one of them. Perhaps the GVRD (now called Metro) should split in two, so that those of us on the south side of the Fraser River could pursue out own transportation future.
The South of the Fraser Rail Task Force has already brought these municipal councillors closer to each other. I guess they now have a better and broader view of each other’s real needs, which are different from what the North Fraser Virus dishes up. I would therefore encourage all of them, from Delta, White Rock, Surrey and the two Langleys) to stand together more, and to think seriously about such a split – and to make it a reality in 2011. Now, there’s an early New Years Resolution! This split would be more logical than the Langley split of 1955, which in my view, should be undone. We all have streetlights.
Jacob de Raadt, Langley City
Recent Comments