Surrey Leader – DonA?ai??i??ai???t dismiss South-of-Fraser transit
DonA?ai??i??ai???t dismiss South-of-Fraser transit
Surrey Leader
Published: November 04, 2010 12:00 PM
The recent announcement by TransLink, concerning the Surrey Rapid Transit Study, dismissed the Interurban corridor as having no role to play in solving the regionA?ai??i??ai???s transit problems.
During the workshops held in Surrey, participants found it difficult to understand why such a wonderful public asset and low-cost option was so easily cast aside.
TransLink staff seemed to be struggling to find a reason too. So much so, that in the closing summary, the very person who spoke to the media, dismissing the Interurban corridor, was suggesting that a sober second look be in order. A sober second look is exactly what is needed.
Premier CampbellA?ai??i??ai???s preferred option of a SkyTrain extension to Langley City will cost over $2 billion or about $125 million per kilometre in todayA?ai??i??ai???s dollars.
He appears to be a lone voice advocating this Cadillac option. SurreyA?ai??i??ai???s Mayor Watts, Langley Township Mayor Green and many others were certainly not taken in by this shameless ploy to insert a 20-year delay clause into creating A?ai??i??Ai??beyond the busA?ai??i??A? transit options for South of Fraser taxpayers.
With an additional 650,000 residents already starting to flow into the South of Fraser region, the need to influence future land use, by modifying community plans and implementing critically needed transit improvements, is now.
TransLinkA?ai??i??ai???s previous attempts to hoist a transit master plan on the South of Fraser have fallen far short of what is needed for a region scheduled to grow from todayA?ai??i??ai???s 850,000 to over 1.5 million by 2040.
With no master plan we are being forced to make risky decisions, or are we?
If there are options available that involve minimal cost, little disruption to current traffic flow, and speedy delivery, are these not worth exploring first?
This is what many local rail advocacy groups are pleading for.
The recent, very credible, report commissioned by Rail for the Valley from UK transport consultants clearly comes to the conclusion that the publicly owned interurban rail corridor is exactly this low risk option. Langley TownshipA?ai??i??ai???s Mayor Green and his South Fraser Community Rail Task Force of elected representatives have a similar view promoting a passenger rail demonstration project for the line.
Rail based solutions can be a vital part of future South-of-Fraser transit options and they donA?ai??i??ai???t need to cost billions or spend any time on the shelf. The time for action is now.
Peter Holt
Valley Transportation Advisory Committee
via Surrey Leader – DonA?ai??i??ai???t dismiss South-of-Fraser transit.
Dont dismiss South-of-Fraser transit as VALTAC Supports Rail for the Valley!
The following letter, printed in the Surrey Leader,Ai??Ai??from Mr. Holt from the Valley Transportation Advisory Committee is most welcome and shows the growing support for the RftV/Leewood Report for a TramTrain service in the Fraser Valley, using existing railway infrastructure.
DonA?ai??i??ai???t dismiss South-of-Fraser transit
The recent announcement by TransLink, concerning the Surrey Rapid Transit Study, dismissed the Interurban corridor as having no role to play in solving the regionA?ai??i??ai???s transit problems.
During the workshops held in Surrey, participants found it difficult to understand why such a wonderful public asset and low-cost option was so easily cast aside.
TransLink staff seemed to be struggling to find a reason too. So much so, that in the closing summary, the very person who spoke to the media, dismissing the Interurban corridor, was suggesting that a sober second look be in order. A sober second look is exactly what is needed.
Premier CampbellA?ai??i??ai???s preferred option of a SkyTrain extension to Langley City will cost over $2 billion or about $125 million per kilometre in todayA?ai??i??ai???s dollars.
He appears to be a lone voice advocating this Cadillac option. SurreyA?ai??i??ai???s Mayor Watts, Langley Township Mayor Green and many others were certainly not taken in by this shameless ploy to insert a 20-year delay clause into creating A?ai??i??Ai??beyond the busA?ai??i??A? transit options for South of Fraser taxpayers.
With an additional 650,000 residents already starting to flow into the South of Fraser region, the need to influence future land use, by modifying community plans and implementing critically needed transit improvements, is now.
TransLinkA?ai??i??ai???s previous attempts to hoist a transit master plan on the South of Fraser have fallen far short of what is needed for a region scheduled to grow from todayA?ai??i??ai???s 850,000 to over 1.5 million by 2040.
With no master plan we are being forced to make risky decisions, or are we?
If there are options available that involve minimal cost, little disruption to current traffic flow, and speedy delivery, are these not worth exploring first?
This is what many local rail advocacy groups are pleading for.
The recent, very credible, report commissioned by Rail for the Valley from UK transport consultants clearly comes to the conclusion that the publicly owned interurban rail corridor is exactly this low risk option. Langley TownshipA?ai??i??ai???s Mayor Green and his South Fraser Community Rail Task Force of elected representatives have a similar view promoting a passenger rail demonstration project for the line.
Rail based solutions can be a vital part of future South-of-Fraser transit options and they donA?ai??i??ai???t need to cost billions or spend any time on the shelf. The time for action is now.
Ai??Ai??Peter Holt
Valley Transportation Advisory Committee
http://www.bclocalnews.com/surrey_area/surreyleader/opinion/letters/106710283.html
DonA?ai??i??ai???t dismiss South-of-Fraser transit A?ai??i??ai??? VALTAC Supports Rail for the Valley!
The following letter, printed in the Surrey Leader,Ai??Ai??from Mr. Holt from the Valley Transportation Advisory Committee is most welcome and shows the growing support for the RftV/Leewood Report for a TramTrain service in the Fraser Valley, using existing railway infrastructure.
DonA?ai??i??ai???t dismiss South-of-Fraser transit
The recent announcement by TransLink, concerning the Surrey Rapid Transit Study, dismissed the Interurban corridor as having no role to play in solving the regionA?ai??i??ai???s transit problems.
During the workshops held in Surrey, participants found it difficult to understand why such a wonderful public asset and low-cost option was so easily cast aside.
TransLink staff seemed to be struggling to find a reason too. So much so, that in the closing summary, the very person who spoke to the media, dismissing the Interurban corridor, was suggesting that a sober second look be in order. A sober second look is exactly what is needed.
Premier CampbellA?ai??i??ai???s preferred option of a SkyTrain extension to Langley City will cost over $2 billion or about $125 million per kilometre in todayA?ai??i??ai???s dollars.
He appears to be a lone voice advocating this Cadillac option. SurreyA?ai??i??ai???s Mayor Watts, Langley Township Mayor Green and many others were certainly not taken in by this shameless ploy to insert a 20-year delay clause into creating A?ai??i??Ai??beyond the busA?ai??i??A? transit options for South of Fraser taxpayers.
With an additional 650,000 residents already starting to flow into the South of Fraser region, the need to influence future land use, by modifying community plans and implementing critically needed transit improvements, is now.
TransLinkA?ai??i??ai???s previous attempts to hoist a transit master plan on the South of Fraser have fallen far short of what is needed for a region scheduled to grow from todayA?ai??i??ai???s 850,000 to over 1.5 million by 2040.
With no master plan we are being forced to make risky decisions, or are we?
If there are options available that involve minimal cost, little disruption to current traffic flow, and speedy delivery, are these not worth exploring first?
This is what many local rail advocacy groups are pleading for.
The recent, very credible, report commissioned by Rail for the Valley from UK transport consultants clearly comes to the conclusion that the publicly owned interurban rail corridor is exactly this low risk option. Langley TownshipA?ai??i??ai???s Mayor Green and his South Fraser Community Rail Task Force of elected representatives have a similar view promoting a passenger rail demonstration project for the line.
Rail based solutions can be a vital part of future South-of-Fraser transit options and they donA?ai??i??ai???t need to cost billions or spend any time on the shelf. The time for action is now.
Ai??Ai??Peter Holt
Valley Transportation Advisory Committee
http://www.bclocalnews.com/surrey_area/surreyleader/opinion/letters/106710283.html
Stephanie Ryan: Surrey should hold referendum on light rail transit in 2011 | Vancouver, Canada | Straight.com
Stephanie Ryan: Surrey should hold referendum on light rail transit in 2011
By Stephanie Ryan, November 5, 2010
Surrey residents were invited to ai???be part of the planai??? as TransLink held public consultation sessions on various technology options for future rapid-transit service.
The four technology options proposed at the meetings were rapid rail (SkyTrain), light rail, rapid bus transit, and what TransLink calls ai???best busai??? service, where all dollars are funnelled into expanding bus service to a much higher capacity, without any capital investment in rapid-transit infrastructure.
At this point in the planning process there is no plan for where the dollars for these transit service expansions will come from.
But what was most obvious at the meetings was the omission of an option that has been advocated for some time south of the Fraserai??i??reviving light-rail transit along the Interurban corridor.
Once upon a time, before the time of the automobile, the Fraser Valley was served by convenient streetcar service. From Chilliwack to Surrey, residents, farmers, and businesspeople alike, could hop on the Interurban streetcar in the valley and ride it all the way into Vancouver.
For many years now, residents in Surrey and the Fraser Valley, and numerous stakeholder groups, have been advocating for a revival of such a service, along this same corridor, which continues to be publicly owned. There have been public campaigns involving letter-writing, social media, meetings, and other events to rally support for such an option. Even Surreyai??i??s mayor and council have acknowledged the merits of such an option.
At-grade, light-rail transit is far less expensive in terms of capital costs, per kilometre, than an elevated option like SkyTrain, and the public already owns the rights to use the rail along the Interurban corridor.
Such a service could connect residents from Langley, Cloverdale, Sullivan, Newton, and Kennedy and link up with SkyTrain at Scott Road. A spur line could also link the Newton Station with SkyTrain in Whalley, one of the light-rail options TransLink is already looking at. Eventually, the line could be extended as far east as Abbotsford and Chilliwack.
While no one is suggesting that such a line would be the panacea to solve all of Surreyai??i??s many transit woes, many feel that running light-rail service along this corridor could immediately relieve congestion on Fraser Highway for those bus riders currently riding the 395 or 502 from Cloverdale to Whalley, and that it would also provide better connectivity between some town centres.
Residents in Surrey realize the potential value of such an option. There is widespread grassroots support for studying such an option in Surrey, yet light rail on the Interurban corridor was not of the four technology options considered by TransLink. This indicates a pretty significant disconnect.
The lack of an Interurban option in TransLinkai??i??s shortlist is worrisome because it speaks to a lack of consultation about public transit.
Surrey has never received its fair share of dollars for public transit, and regardless of which rapid-transit options are chosen for the future, bus service in the city must be dramatically expanded immediately.
We continue to play catch-up when it comes to transit, and this is while we continue to be among the fastest-growing cities in Metro Vancouver. Service is absolutely dismal, with infrequent bus service, a lack of bus shelters, unsafe SkyTrain stations, insufficient bus routes, and high rates of pass-ups on the most popular routes, like Fraser Highway.
And while TransLink should focus on improving service, it also must ensure that its consultation process responds to public feedback.
There is plenty of support for the Interurban option, but it probably wonai??i??t be heard within the current framework.
Mayor Dianne Watts has encouraged voters to attend these meetings to voice their opinion. But she should go a step further. She should call a referendum, to coincide with the 2011 civic election, and ask the public whether or not they favour light-rail service on the Interurban corridor as one of the options for future transit service in Surrey.
I predict Surrey would support this option and could send a strong message to TransLink, and to all levels of government.
Surrey residents deserve better transit now and should have a voice in planning future improvements.
An inch of democracy could provide miles of light-rail transit.
Stephanie Ryan is the president of the Surrey Civic Coalition.
Canada Line Puzzle A?ai??i??ai??? What’s The problem?
Subways & metros cost a lot of money to build and operate.
The cost of the Canada Line is now understood to be over $2.5 billion, with some estimates as high as $2.8 billion. The article illustrates the problems with automatic (driverless) transit systems is that when problems arise, service suffers. When metro stems stops it greatly inconveniences customers, many of whom have to make transfers to buses to complete there journey.
It is inexcusable that such a problems is plaguing the Canada Line and when a transit systems operates erratically, customers look elsewhere for their transportation needs.
Read, they will take the car instead.
Canada Line’s woes have people asking questions
By MATT KIELTYKA, QMI AGENCY
The Canada LineA?ai??i??ai???s operators are trying to get to the bottom of an issue thatA?ai??i??ai???s plagued the $2.1-billion system this week.
Commuters at the rapid transit lineA?ai??i??ai???s Richmond stops were left frustrated during Wednesday and ThursdayA?ai??i??ai???s morning rush hour, and again on Sunday evening when trains unexpectedly stopped between the Aberdeen and Lansdowne stations.
PROTRANS BCA?ai??i??ai???s Jason Chan said sensors on the car are detecting a loss of traction but engineers havenA?ai??i??ai???t been able to determine whether the problem is mechanical or simply an electronic glitch.
Whatever the cause, the issue has forced trains to run on a single track instead of the usual two.
ThatA?ai??i??ai???s meant delays for people looking to get in and out of Richmond.
A?ai??i??Ai??There is no definitive conclusion to this,A?ai??i??A? Chan said. A?ai??i??Ai??WeA?ai??i??ai???re trying to find out exactly what is going on and resolve the issue.A?ai??i??A?
Chan also dismissed the notion that the year-old system was experience teething issues.
A?ai??i??Ai??It ran all last year, and during the Olympics, with no problem,A?ai??i??A? he said.
Scheduled maintenance track work was completed on the same section of the line last weekend during the night when service levels are low, but Chan said the service disruptions this week are unrelated
Canada Line Puzzle A?ai??i??ai??? What’s The problem?
Subways & metros cost a lot of money to build and operate.
The cost of the Canada Line is now understood to be over $2.5 billion, with some estimates as high as $2.8 billion. The article illustrates the problems with automatic (driverless) transit systems is that when problems arise, service suffers. When metro stems stops it greatly inconveniences customers, many of whom have to make transfers to buses to complete there journey.
It is inexcusable that such a problems is plaguing the Canada Line and when a transit systems operates erratically, customers look elsewhere for their transportation needs.
Read, they will take the car instead.
Canada Line’s woes have people asking questions
By MATT KIELTYKA, QMI AGENCY
The Canada LineA?ai??i??ai???s operators are trying to get to the bottom of an issue thatA?ai??i??ai???s plagued the $2.1-billion system this week.
Commuters at the rapid transit lineA?ai??i??ai???s Richmond stops were left frustrated during Wednesday and ThursdayA?ai??i??ai???s morning rush hour, and again on Sunday evening when trains unexpectedly stopped between the Aberdeen and Lansdowne stations.
PROTRANS BCA?ai??i??ai???s Jason Chan said sensors on the car are detecting a loss of traction but engineers havenA?ai??i??ai???t been able to determine whether the problem is mechanical or simply an electronic glitch.
Whatever the cause, the issue has forced trains to run on a single track instead of the usual two.
ThatA?ai??i??ai???s meant delays for people looking to get in and out of Richmond.
A?ai??i??Ai??There is no definitive conclusion to this,A?ai??i??A? Chan said. A?ai??i??Ai??WeA?ai??i??ai???re trying to find out exactly what is going on and resolve the issue.A?ai??i??A?
Chan also dismissed the notion that the year-old system was experience teething issues.
A?ai??i??Ai??It ran all last year, and during the Olympics, with no problem,A?ai??i??A? he said.
Scheduled maintenance track work was completed on the same section of the line last weekend during the night when service levels are low, but Chan said the service disruptions this week are unrelated
Ottawa’s troubled tram.
The light rail saga in Ottawa continues with the realization that monies spent on a politcally prestigious subway tunnel comes from extending the transit line to servcie transit customers.
Zweisystem is in complete agreement with the following and I have posed about Ottawa’s LRT escapades earlier.
Ottawa transit authorities had need not look any further than Vancouver, where TransLink hat the behest of the City of Vancouver and the former provincial premier (a former Vancouver mayor) forced a light-metro subway for the RAV/Canada Line. As the costs for the politically prestigious subway climbed, the scale of the project was reduced to a point where Vancouver is the only city in the world that has a $2.5 billion truncated subway designed to have less capacity than if a $1.5 billion cheaper and much longer LRT line were to have been built instead!
This foolhardy notion that subways somehow are better at attracting new customers to transit than a surface system is a hangover from the 1950’s transit bumf that is taught in Canadian and American universities.
Ottawa taxpayers will learn soon enough a subway’s ability to gobble up precious taxpayer’s dollars earmarked for public transit!
Nix the tunnel! (There, I’ve said it)
By Ken Gray, Ottawa Citizen
Ottawa’s new rail plan is too long, too short and ineffective.
It’s too long because the project has taken far too much time to build. Calgary’s C-Train started operation in 1981, almost 30 years ago, on the surface and through downtown. And many critics say the C-Train is the most successful light-rail system in North America. By the time the light rail-tunnel project is completed, Ottawa will have light rail almost four decades after Calgary. Anybody want to bet it will be a half-century?
Yet the line is too short because it just does not travel far enough. It stretches from Tunney’s Pasture to Blair Road. Know anyone who is travelling from Tunney’s Pasture to Blair Road? Anyone? Just one.
I don’t have any scientific evidence but I bet most of the commuters coming by Transitway to the huge federal employment complex at Tunney’s are coming from the west, rendering the light-rail line useless.
I could be wrong, but years of taking the Transitway to the Citizen’s downtown bureau led me to believe that. The standing-room only bus at morning rush hour became much easier to ride once it passed Tunney’s.
Because of the new plan’s short nature, Tunney’s and Blair will be enormous transfer points from buses to trains. That adds a transfer to everyone’s trip downtown … unless OC Transpo continues to run buses along the Albert and Slater corridor. That causes one of two problems. If buses run down Slater and Albert, will the rails be without riders? And if buses don’t run downtown, imagine the transfer delays and mess at Tunney’s and Blair stations. They weren’t built to handle that kind of traffic.
So there you have it. The new rail plan is too long, too short and a hindrance to fast travel. Other than that, it’s fine. All this for $2.1 billion (or $2.6 billion giving the city’s public servants the wiggle room they said they needed) while the north-southwest route cancelled wrongly by council stretched from Barrhaven to the University of Ottawa was a bargain $884 million with a fixed top-end cost guaranteed by the Siemens consortium. Now that was a real transit line. Anyone want to put money down on a possible overrun on the rail-tunnel project for which the city is on the hook?
The really smart move would be to can the tunnel because it takes too long to build, and convince Siemens to construct the original project. The original plan would be running now if council had not been so shortsighted and killed it. My guess is that building the north-south route is politically unpalatable but would be faster than constructing the current plan. North-south is right transit-wise, but wrong politically. Politics will win.
Because the new project is too long, too short and ineffective, we need real transit in this city — certainly before the end of this decade. And that’s because of intensification. The municipality has built an urban boundary beyond which development cannot cross. Accordingly, downtown areas are filling up with condos and cars. Highways 417 and 174 are parking lots at rush hour, while regular intersections are failing. Buses aren’t the answer because they are trapped in the same traffic jams as cars.
So what to do? Our auto traffic is increasingly unmanageable with no relief in sight. The current rail plan has lines to Orleans and Barrhaven in 2031. Will much of the boomer generation be alive then? Certainly almost all of them won’t be commuting.
I’d recommend what I’d call the Scramble System because we need to scramble to serve current transit needs. Until Ottawans can construct a great light-rail system, we need to take advantage of the infrastructure already in place. It’s an adaptation of the plan Alex Munter offered in the 2006 campaign. Temporarily use rail lines in place now for transit until the municipality can build a real light-rail system. Take advantage of wide streets where demand might exist for bus-only lanes. We’ve already begun a Scramble System with the “demonstration project” O Train that looks increasingly permanent. There is a huge opportunity with the old Prince of Wales Bridge at Bayview for cross-river transit. Might some of our old rail lines be converted to commuter rail? Should shuttle buses be instituted between the Transitway and major work nodes?
None of this is perfect. A uniform light-rail system should still be the ultimate goal (it reduces maintenance costs because there’s one set of very durable rail cars) but the Scramble System might help us move in the short term in our newly intensified city.
But this is what happens when your major transit project is too short, too long and ineffective.
Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/tunnel+There+said/3769507/story.html#ixzz14Gl6hdLB
Ottawa’s troubled tram.
The light rail saga in Ottawa continues with the realization that monies spent on a politcally prestigious subway tunnel comes from extending the transit line to servcie transit customers.
Zweisystem is in complete agreement with the following and I have posed about Ottawa’s LRT escapades earlier.
Ottawa transit authorities had need not look any further than Vancouver, where TransLink hat the behest of the City of Vancouver and the former provincial premier (a former Vancouver mayor) forced a light-metro subway for the RAV/Canada Line. As the costs for the politically prestigious subway climbed, the scale of the project was reduced to a point where Vancouver is the only city in the world that has a $2.5 billion truncated subway designed to have less capacity than if a $1.5 billion cheaper and much longer LRT line were to have been built instead!
This foolhardy notion that subways somehow are better at attracting new customers to transit than a surface system is a hangover from the 1950’s transit bumf that is taught in Canadian and American universities.
Ottawa taxpayers will learn soon enough a subway’s ability to gobble up precious taxpayer’s dollars earmarked for public transit!
Nix the tunnel! (There, I’ve said it)
By Ken Gray, Ottawa Citizen
Ottawa’s new rail plan is too long, too short and ineffective.
It’s too long because the project has taken far too much time to build. Calgary’s C-Train started operation in 1981, almost 30 years ago, on the surface and through downtown. And many critics say the C-Train is the most successful light-rail system in North America. By the time the light rail-tunnel project is completed, Ottawa will have light rail almost four decades after Calgary. Anybody want to bet it will be a half-century?
Yet the line is too short because it just does not travel far enough. It stretches from Tunney’s Pasture to Blair Road. Know anyone who is travelling from Tunney’s Pasture to Blair Road? Anyone? Just one.
I don’t have any scientific evidence but I bet most of the commuters coming by Transitway to the huge federal employment complex at Tunney’s are coming from the west, rendering the light-rail line useless.
I could be wrong, but years of taking the Transitway to the Citizen’s downtown bureau led me to believe that. The standing-room only bus at morning rush hour became much easier to ride once it passed Tunney’s.
Because of the new plan’s short nature, Tunney’s and Blair will be enormous transfer points from buses to trains. That adds a transfer to everyone’s trip downtown … unless OC Transpo continues to run buses along the Albert and Slater corridor. That causes one of two problems. If buses run down Slater and Albert, will the rails be without riders? And if buses don’t run downtown, imagine the transfer delays and mess at Tunney’s and Blair stations. They weren’t built to handle that kind of traffic.
So there you have it. The new rail plan is too long, too short and a hindrance to fast travel. Other than that, it’s fine. All this for $2.1 billion (or $2.6 billion giving the city’s public servants the wiggle room they said they needed) while the north-southwest route cancelled wrongly by council stretched from Barrhaven to the University of Ottawa was a bargain $884 million with a fixed top-end cost guaranteed by the Siemens consortium. Now that was a real transit line. Anyone want to put money down on a possible overrun on the rail-tunnel project for which the city is on the hook?
The really smart move would be to can the tunnel because it takes too long to build, and convince Siemens to construct the original project. The original plan would be running now if council had not been so shortsighted and killed it. My guess is that building the north-south route is politically unpalatable but would be faster than constructing the current plan. North-south is right transit-wise, but wrong politically. Politics will win.
Because the new project is too long, too short and ineffective, we need real transit in this city — certainly before the end of this decade. And that’s because of intensification. The municipality has built an urban boundary beyond which development cannot cross. Accordingly, downtown areas are filling up with condos and cars. Highways 417 and 174 are parking lots at rush hour, while regular intersections are failing. Buses aren’t the answer because they are trapped in the same traffic jams as cars.
So what to do? Our auto traffic is increasingly unmanageable with no relief in sight. The current rail plan has lines to Orleans and Barrhaven in 2031. Will much of the boomer generation be alive then? Certainly almost all of them won’t be commuting.
I’d recommend what I’d call the Scramble System because we need to scramble to serve current transit needs. Until Ottawans can construct a great light-rail system, we need to take advantage of the infrastructure already in place. It’s an adaptation of the plan Alex Munter offered in the 2006 campaign. Temporarily use rail lines in place now for transit until the municipality can build a real light-rail system. Take advantage of wide streets where demand might exist for bus-only lanes. We’ve already begun a Scramble System with the “demonstration project” O Train that looks increasingly permanent. There is a huge opportunity with the old Prince of Wales Bridge at Bayview for cross-river transit. Might some of our old rail lines be converted to commuter rail? Should shuttle buses be instituted between the Transitway and major work nodes?
None of this is perfect. A uniform light-rail system should still be the ultimate goal (it reduces maintenance costs because there’s one set of very durable rail cars) but the Scramble System might help us move in the short term in our newly intensified city.
But this is what happens when your major transit project is too short, too long and ineffective.
Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/tunnel+There+said/3769507/story.html#ixzz14Gl6hdLB
Ottawa’s troubled tram.
The light rail saga in Ottawa continues with the realization that monies spent on a politcally prestigious subway tunnel comes from extending the transit line to servcie transit customers.
Zweisystem is in complete agreement with the following and I have posed about Ottawa's LRT escapades earlier.
Ottawa transit authorities had need not look any further than Vancouver, where TransLink hat the behest of the City of Vancouver and the former provincial premier (a former Vancouver mayor) forced a light-metro subway for the RAV/Canada Line. As the costs for the politically prestigious subway climbed, the scale of the project was reduced to a point where Vancouver is the only city in the world that has a $2.5 billion truncated subway designed to have less capacity than if a $1.5 billion cheaper and much longer LRT line were to have been built instead!
This foolhardy notion that subways somehow are better at attracting new customers to transit than a surface system is a hangover from the 1950's transit bumf that is taught in Canadian and American universities.
Ottawa taxpayers will learn soon enough a subway's ability to gobble up precious taxpayer's dollars earmarked for public transit!
Nix the tunnel! (There, I've said it)
By Ken Gray, Ottawa Citizen
Ottawa's new rail plan is too long, too short and ineffective.
It's too long because the project has taken far too much time to build. Calgary's C-Train started operation in 1981, almost 30 years ago, on the surface and through downtown. And many critics say the C-Train is the most successful light-rail system in North America. By the time the light rail-tunnel project is completed, Ottawa will have light rail almost four decades after Calgary. Anybody want to bet it will be a half-century?
Yet the line is too short because it just does not travel far enough. It stretches from Tunney's Pasture to Blair Road. Know anyone who is travelling from Tunney's Pasture to Blair Road? Anyone? Just one.
I don't have any scientific evidence but I bet most of the commuters coming by Transitway to the huge federal employment complex at Tunney's are coming from the west, rendering the light-rail line useless.
I could be wrong, but years of taking the Transitway to the Citizen's downtown bureau led me to believe that. The standing-room only bus at morning rush hour became much easier to ride once it passed Tunney's.
Because of the new plan's short nature, Tunney's and Blair will be enormous transfer points from buses to trains. That adds a transfer to everyone's trip downtown … unless OC Transpo continues to run buses along the Albert and Slater corridor. That causes one of two problems. If buses run down Slater and Albert, will the rails be without riders? And if buses don't run downtown, imagine the transfer delays and mess at Tunney's and Blair stations. They weren't built to handle that kind of traffic.
So there you have it. The new rail plan is too long, too short and a hindrance to fast travel. Other than that, it's fine. All this for $2.1 billion (or $2.6 billion giving the city's public servants the wiggle room they said they needed) while the north-southwest route cancelled wrongly by council stretched from Barrhaven to the University of Ottawa was a bargain $884 million with a fixed top-end cost guaranteed by the Siemens consortium. Now that was a real transit line. Anyone want to put money down on a possible overrun on the rail-tunnel project for which the city is on the hook?
The really smart move would be to can the tunnel because it takes too long to build, and convince Siemens to construct the original project. The original plan would be running now if council had not been so shortsighted and killed it. My guess is that building the north-south route is politically unpalatable but would be faster than constructing the current plan. North-south is right transit-wise, but wrong politically. Politics will win.
Because the new project is too long, too short and ineffective, we need real transit in this city — certainly before the end of this decade. And that's because of intensification. The municipality has built an urban boundary beyond which development cannot cross. Accordingly, downtown areas are filling up with condos and cars. Highways 417 and 174 are parking lots at rush hour, while regular intersections are failing. Buses aren't the answer because they are trapped in the same traffic jams as cars.
So what to do? Our auto traffic is increasingly unmanageable with no relief in sight. The current rail plan has lines to Orleans and Barrhaven in 2031. Will much of the boomer generation be alive then? Certainly almost all of them won't be commuting.
I'd recommend what I'd call the Scramble System because we need to scramble to serve current transit needs. Until Ottawans can construct a great light-rail system, we need to take advantage of the infrastructure already in place. It's an adaptation of the plan Alex Munter offered in the 2006 campaign. Temporarily use rail lines in place now for transit until the municipality can build a real light-rail system. Take advantage of wide streets where demand might exist for bus-only lanes. We've already begun a Scramble System with the "demonstration project" O Train that looks increasingly permanent. There is a huge opportunity with the old Prince of Wales Bridge at Bayview for cross-river transit. Might some of our old rail lines be converted to commuter rail? Should shuttle buses be instituted between the Transitway and major work nodes?
None of this is perfect. A uniform light-rail system should still be the ultimate goal (it reduces maintenance costs because there's one set of very durable rail cars) but the Scramble System might help us move in the short term in our newly intensified city.
But this is what happens when your major transit project is too short, too long and ineffective.
Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/tunnel+There+said/3769507/story.html#ixzz14Gl6hdLB
Rail for the Valley in the news – November 3, 2010
The Common Sense Canadian
Bringing Back the Interurban Line: Key to our Transportation Future Lies in the Past
http://thecanadian.org/k2/item/325-interurban-2
Aldergrove Star
Rail for the Valley not giving up
http://www.bclocalnews.com/surrey_area/aldergrovestar/opinion/letters/105375358.html
Chilliwack Times
Careful what you wish for
http://www.chilliwacktimes.com/opinion/editorials/Careful+what+wish/3745937/story.html
Langley Times
TransLink has become a virus
http://www.bclocalnews.com/surrey_area/langleytimes/opinion/letters/106150418.html
Surrey Leader
Tax on tax is not enough for TransLink
http://www.bclocalnews.com/surrey_area/surreyleader/opinion/letters/105793958.html
International Transit News
Phoenix
Rail Life
Metro light rail ridership numbers – September 2010
http://raillife.com/blog/2010/10/10/metro-light-rail-ridership-numbers-september-2010/
Birmingham, England
BBC
Spending Review backs Midland Metro and New Street plan
Recent Comments