Foot-dragging feds slow train service to Seattle
Foot-dragging feds slow train service to Seattle
By Jon Ferry, The Province October 18, 2010 Comments (6)
The news that Ottawa has finally approved the operation of a second daily train between Vancouver and Seattle for another year is a relief to all those who love trains — and jobs.
Now we need to push for four trains a day, so we can have a proper rail service between the two metro regions, which have a combined population of about seven million. It should have been in place years ago.
The fact is, however, that we — including train lovers and all those who appreciate the economic and environmental benefits of rail travel — will have our work cut out persuading the feds to support such a progressive move.
Until now, the supposedly probusiness Harper government has been busy putting up nothing but roadblocks. It threatened, in fact, to withdraw customs clearance for the second Amtrak train.
And it was only because of a full-court press by high-profile worthies on both sides of the border, including Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson, that the Canada Border Services Agency was given the extra $800,000 it claimed it needed to do the job.
Even last week, in announcing the supposed breakthrough, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews stated Ottawa would only extend the customs clearance for the second train until next October. That’s hardly a ringing endorsement of a rail service bringing in millions to Vancouver’s tourism industry.
It’s all too typical of Ottawa’s attitude toward British Columbia. I mean, can you imagine this petty customs snarl-up even being an issue if the extra train were being added between, say, Montreal and New York?
As Vancouver Coun. Geoff Meggs pointed out, the same day Canadian politicians were holding duelling news conferences over the aforementioned $800,000, the Swiss were completing a $10-billion, high-speed rail tunnel through the Alps. That’s how much more seriously the Europeans take all this.
It’s not as if Canadian taxpayers have to put up big bucks for track improvements for the Vancouver-Seattle service. The Americans are doing virtually all the spending, with the line between Blaine, Wash., and downtown Vancouver being basically an add-on.
Indeed, much of the credit for improving this scenic coastal rail service over the years goes to the Discovery Institute’s Cascadia Centre, based in Seattle.
On Friday, centre policy director Bruce Agnew hailed the resolution of the customs issue as “a great victory” because, if it hadn’t been settled, the political momentum for higher-speed trains would have been lost.
Agnew told me the Cascadia Centre would now strive to help the CBSA reduce its inspection costs. It would also press for the multimillion-dollar investment needed to double the rail service from two to four trains a day.
He added, moreover, that eventually there could be high-speed rail between the two cities, possibly via Abbotsford rather than White Rock.
Let’s hope it doesn’t take too long. Travelling by train tends to be far more pleasurable than taking a plane or automobile. And we clearly need more trains in the Lower Mainland to get people out of their cars, especially in the mushrooming Fraser Valley.
The question I have is not whether we can afford to have such trains, but whether we can afford not to.
jferry@theprovince.com
via Foot-dragging feds slow train service to Seattle.
BCLocalNews.com – TramTrain a better investment
TramTrain a better investment
Published: October 18, 2010 4:00 PM
Updated: October 18, 2010 4:10 PM
Re: If they build it , will we ride? (Chilliwack Progress, Oct. 15). Mr. Blacklock raises some interesting points about the proposed Rail for the Valley TramTrain.
The scope of the study was technical, to see the feasibility of reinstating the previous interurban operation with modern TramTrain and the result was, the reinstating a TramTrain service was an affordable option.
Let us compare the Canada Line with the RftV basic Diesel LRT (TramTrain) option.
The Canada Line cost over $2.5 billion to date and has 90,000 boardings daily, which translates roughly to 40,000 to 45,000 actual people taking the new metro – but 35,000 or more were previous bus users now forced to transfer onto the Canada Line. Actual new ridership on the metro is less than 10,000 people.
The Rail for the Valley/Leewood Report cost for a basic Diesel/hybrid option, Scott Road to Chilliwack at $500 million or one fifth the cost of the Canada Line metro. If TransLink thinks that under 10,000 new passengers on a $2.5 billion metro is successful, as recently reported in local papers, then logic dictates that a TramTrain operation costing $500 million or one fifth the cost of the Canada Line would need under new 2,000 passengers a day to be deemed equally as successful!
All passengers on the TramTrain would be new!
As the RftV TramTrain would service several city centres and universities and colleges along its route, initial ridership is anticipated to be triple or quadruple, the 2,000 new passengers a day figure.
As for bus rapid transit or BRT, the question is, where has it worked? To be truly rapid, BRT must have expensive exclusive rights-of-ways to operate, thus driving up the costs considerably.
Ottawa is a good example. After building BRT instead of LRT in the mid-80A?ai??i??ai???s, which cost more than originally planned for light rail, ridership on the BRT and regular bus lines fell 15.7% from 1986 to 1999!
Today, Ottawa operate a TramTrain line and instead of investing in further BRT, the city is now building with modern light rail!
Malcolm Johnston
Light Rail Committee
Rail for the Valley
via BCLocalNews.com – TramTrain a better investment.
BCLocalNews.com – Anti-LRT rhetoric comes to Surrey
Anti-LRT rhetoric comes to Surrey
Published: October 19, 2010 3:00 PM
Updated: October 19, 2010 3:11 PM
Editor: I see that TransLink is taking its well-honed dog and pony transit show to Surrey, and I hope residents watch out for the snake-oil that passes as transit planning.
TransLink doesnA?ai??i??ai???t care for modern light rail, and prefers to build with its expensive old standby, the bureaucratic and politically prestigious SkyTrain light-metro system.
To this end, TransLink pulls out all the stops to make LRT seem inferior to SkyTrain, which has worked well with the rubes on the north side of the river. One hopes Surrey folks and politicians can see through TransLinkA?ai??i??ai???s hype and hoopla and see the slick-willies for what they are.
Despite TransLinkA?ai??i??ai???s claims that modern LRT canA?ai??i??ai???t carry much more than 10,000 persons per hour per direction, in the real world (beyond the GVRD) modern LRT is defined as mode A?ai??i??Ai??that can deal economically with traffic flows of between 2,000 and 20,000 passengers per hour per direction, thus effectively bridging the gap between the maximum flow that can be dealt with using buses and the minimum that justifies a metro.A?ai??i??A?
LRT, with its inherent high passenger carrying capacities, combined with economic construction costs made the SkyTrain metro system obsolete decades ago, but TransLink lives in the world of A?ai??i??Ai??pixie-dustA?ai??i??A? planning, where facts are contrived to continue building with SkyTrain.
Sadly, TransLinkA?ai??i??ai???s current transit plans are A?ai??i??Ai??fruits of the poisonous treeA?ai??i??A? and not worth the paper itA?ai??i??ai???s printed on.
Noted American transit specialist, Gerald Fox, in a letter to a Victoria, B.C. transit group, summed up TransLinkA?ai??i??ai???s mania for SkyTrain on the Evergreen line: A?ai??i??Ai??It is interesting how TransLink has used this cunning method of manipulating analysis to justify SkyTrain in corridor after corridor, and has thus succeeded in keeping its proprietary rail system expanding.
In the US, all new transit projects that seek federal support are now subjected to scrutiny by a panel of transit peers, selected and monitored by the federal government, to ensure that projects are analyzed honestly, and the taxpayersA?ai??i??ai??? interests are protected. No SkyTrain project has ever passed this scrutiny in the US.A?ai??i??A?
TransLink, embarrassed by the Rail for the Valley/Leewood TramTrain report, is hoping once again to bamboozle Surrey residents with their anti-LRT rhetoric, that has worked so well for them in the past.
Malcolm Johnston
Light Rail Committee
Rail for the Valley
via BCLocalNews.com – Anti-LRT rhetoric comes to Surrey.
Time to seriously look at rail
Time to seriously look at rail
The Times October 8, 2010
On Oct. 3, 1910, the first Interurban train rolled down the track from New Westminster to Chilliwack.
Over the next four decades, it was the main transportation link for people in the new rural communities. The service rattled back and forth across the Fraser Valley several times a day, taking rural residents to the urban centre and delivering their produce and meats to urban markets.
The commuter service was discontinued in 1950, but the track, owned by B.C. Hydro, is in working condition and in use by Southern Railway. Now, a century later, Fraser Valley commuters stuck on freeways due to accidents or congestion are again looking longingly at the train.
The Rail for the Valley group argues that the rail service should be a key part of B.C.’s transportation plan. In 2008, the province agreed to do a feasibility study for light rail as part of its ambitious $3-billion-plus Gateway plan. When the rail proponents tired of waiting for the transportation ministry to complete its study, they hired their own consultant. Leewood Projects Ltd., of London, England, made a detailed study, determining the endeavour would cost B.C. taxpayers about $500 million for a 98-kilometre route. (The Canada Line cost $100 million per km).
Public transit is generally not a money-making venture, but the West Coast Express has a remarkable record. According to Translink, the WCE recovers more than 90 per cent of its operating costs, even though it pays hefty fees to Canadian Pacific Rail for the use of its track. Rail proponents argue that since B.C. Hydro owns the track, there would be no lease fee. They note the population served by the Interurban line is three times that served by the WCE, which just added seven cars due to increasing demand.
Surely there is enough merit in the rail study for Transportation Minister Shirley Bond to stop ignoring this option and to take an honest look at reinstating light rail in the Fraser Valley.
All the pieces seem to be there–all that’s missing is the political will.
Ai??Ai?? Copyright (c) Chilliwack Times
via Time to seriously look at rail.
Chilliwack Progress – RapidBus coming to Chilliwack, says Premier
RapidBus coming to Chilliwack, says Premier
By Robert Freeman – Chilliwack Progress
Published: October 05, 2010 7:00 AM
Premier Gordon CampbellA?ai??i??ai???s promise at last weekA?ai??i??ai???s UBCM convention to extend RapidBus service to Chilliwack is welcome A?ai??i??ai??? if perplexing A?ai??i??ai??? news to city officials and light-rail advocates.
Chilliwack Coun. Diane Janzen, who chairs the cityA?ai??i??ai???s transportation advisory committee, said the announcement is a A?ai??i??Ai??very positiveA?ai??i??A? sign the need for A?ai??i??Ai??enhanced public transportation out to ChilliwackA?ai??i??A? is on the governmentA?ai??i??ai???s radar.
But the announcement A?ai??i??ai??? which came without any details like cost or hours of service A?ai??i??ai??? was made before the release of a $400,000 study of transportation options in the Fraser Valley that began nearly two years ago in November, 2008.
Janzen said the city has sent a letter to the transportation minister emphasizing how A?ai??i??Ai??incredibly importantA?ai??i??A? the study, which would include a A?ai??i??Ai??comparative analysisA?ai??i??A? of bus and light rapid transit, is for both regional and local transit planning.
A?ai??i??Ai??WeA?ai??i??ai???re unclear right now as to where (the study) stands,A?ai??i??A? she said.
A ministry spokesman was unable to clarify by MondayA?ai??i??ai???s deadline the PremierA?ai??i??ai???s announcement in light of the unreleased study.
Light-rail advocate John Vissers said it appears the Premier tipped the governmentA?ai??i??ai???s plan for transportation in the Fraser Valley with the RapidBus announcement.
The promise to bring A?ai??i??Ai??a couple of busesA?ai??i??A? out to Chilliwack, which would likely require passengers to transfer to local transit instead of arriving at a central location in each community, suggested to Vissers that the Fraser Valley is A?ai??i??Ai??not a significant concernA?ai??i??A? for the B.C. government.
But more important, he added, is the A?ai??i??Ai??missed opportunityA?ai??i??A? to invest in a light-rail system while costs are low, and to build a A?ai??i??Ai??sustainableA?ai??i??A? community with fewer cars on the road, less pollution, and much-needed commercial developments popping up all along the rail line, particularly near stations.
He said light rail does two things for Chilliwack – A?ai??i??Ai??it gives people an attractive alternative to driving their cars … and development along the rail corridor, particularly near stations.A?ai??i??A?
A?ai??i??Ai??RapidBus does neither of those,A?ai??i??A? he said.
A recent study commissioned by the Rail For The Valley lobby group said a light rail line could whisk passengers from Chilliwack to Skytrain stations in Surrey in 90 minutes, with diesel-electric trains running every 20 to 30 minutes using existing tracks.
rfreeman@theprogress.com
via Chilliwack Progress – RapidBus coming to Chilliwack, says Premier.
Abbotsford News – Too soon to pick SkyTrain over light rail: Watts
Too soon to pick SkyTrain over light rail: Watts
* Light rail delivers more bang for the buck
By Jeff Nagel – BC Local News
Published: October 04, 2010 5:00 PM
Updated: October 04, 2010 5:45 PM
Premier Gordon Campbell pledged to deliver “SkyTrain to Langley” on Friday but Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts says the option of using at-grade light rail technology should not be ruled out.
“I’d be surprised if he’s excluding any technology,” Watts said, adding she took the reference as intended to mean a rapid transit line will run to Langley, with the exact system and route to be determined by TransLink, Surrey and Langley.
Officials in the Premier’s Office, however, confirmed Campbell did intend to specify SkyTrain when he addressed the Union of B.C. Municipalities.
“The community prefers light rail for a number of reasons,” Watts said. “You can have double the tracks for the same price as SkyTrain.”
Surrey’s land mass is almost as large as Vancouver, Burnaby and Richmond combined, she said, and SkyTrain technology that might work well in those cities is less suited to the Surrey-Langley extension.
“When you’re looking at putting rapid transit across those kinds of kilometres, you need to be looking at all options,” Watts said.
TransLink will soon launch a new round of public consultations on the routes and technologies for Surrey-area rapid transit extensions.
Surrey council is also set to visit Portland, Oregon this month to study that city’s light-rail system.
In January, 2008, Campbell unveiled the Provincial Transit Plan, which indicated a rapid transit extension to Guildford and then southeast to roughly 168 Street and Fraser Highway, after which a RapidBus system would run to Langley City.
Campbell’s UBCM speech pledging SkyTrain to Langley and then RapidBus to Chilliwack is being taken as a commitment to take rapid transit further than previously discussed.
“I was surprised to hear SkyTrain was going to come to Langley City,” said Langley City Mayor Peter Fassbender and the chair of the TransLink mayors’ council.
“It reflects our vision for our downtown and the fact we’ve already increased density,” he said.
But Fassbender cautioned there’s much work to be done examining the rapid transit options and stressed TransLink and the mayors who control funding must consider the broad needs of the entire region.
The province has spelled out no timeline, cost estimate or method of paying for the extension, except to indicate Partnerships BC will lead work to cost it out and develop a plan.
“There are no details of how to pay for it,” NDP transportation critic Harry Bains said. “And the key issue here is funding.”
The province and mayors’ council last month agreed to redouble efforts to determine what new taxes or revenue sources will fund TransLink expansion, particularly the money needed to start construction of the Evergreen Line to Coquitlam next year.
“There’s a third SeaBus sitting rusting right now because they don’t have the operating money,” Bains said, adding the province’s promises are meaningless without reliable long-term funding.
The 2008 pledge also committed to a RapidBus network by 2020 with bus rapid transit lines running down King George Highway to White Rock, from South Surrey through Delta to the Canada Line in Richmond, from Lougheed Station in Burnaby across the Port Mann Bridge to north Langley and then over the Golden Ears Bridge to Maple Ridge and then on to Coquitlam.
The premier’s now-stated preference for SkyTrain irks light rail advocates, who say it would preclude the use of the existing rail tracks on the old interurban corridor, which they say could launch light rail service at a modest cost.
“Promising SkyTrain to Langley is not realistic,” said Rail For the Valley spokesman John Vissers. “Does anybody in the Fraser Valley believe that’s going to happen in their lifetime?”
He said elevated or underground SkyTrain is “monolithic” with stations that are entrenched, while at-grade light rail stops are easy to create anywhere and can even be relocated from one spot to a different one if ridership patterns change.
Vissers said he’s disappointed the premier hasn’t looked more closely at the group’s proposal to restart a modern light rail system on the existing tracks, which he argues would attract more riders.
“We’ve heard about SkyTrain and we’ve heard about rapid buses and neither of those are the future that people in the Fraser Valley have been looking for.”
The premier’s speech also committed to a line along Broadway to UBC but used the words “rapid transit” not SkyTrain, leaving open the potential for light rail or bus rapid transit there.
via Abbotsford News – Too soon to pick SkyTrain over light rail: Watts.
CBC News – British Columbia – VIDEO: Light rail recommended for Fraser Valley
VIDEO: Light rail recommended for Fraser Valley
Last Updated: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 | 10:45 AM PT Comments32Recommend20
CBC News
A new report says a light rail commuter line with 18 stops from Surrey to Chilliwack, B.C., would be an inexpensive way to beat traffic congestion in the Fraser Valley.
via CBC News – British Columbia – VIDEO: Light rail recommended for Fraser Valley.
Rail for the Valley – Breakfast Television Vancouver – Citytv Video Portal
Video Clip: Rail for the Valley (02:58)
John Vissers from Rail for the Valley joins BT to discuss the possibility of commuter trains going out to Chilliwack.
via Rail for the Valley – Breakfast Television Vancouver – Citytv Video Portal.
Langley Times – Editorial A?ai??i??ai??? Speed up transit decisions
Editorial A?ai??i??ai??? Speed up transit decisions
Published: October 05, 2010 10:00 AM
Updated: October 05, 2010 10:01 AM
Premier Gordon Campbell stated on Friday that SkyTrain will eventually be extended to Langley.
In his speech to the Union of B.C. Municipalities convention, the premier said that the SkyTrain extension will be part of the next phase of a capital program for transportation improvements, which began in 2002.
The premier gave no date as to when SkyTrain will arrive in this community. Earlier announcements on the SkyTrain extension indicated that it would come as far east as 168 Street and Fraser Highway by 2020, and on to Willowbrook by 2030.
While rapid transit would be welcome, 20 years is a long time to wait A?ai??i??ai??? especially if the growth south of the Fraser continues at the frenetic pace of the past decade.
For some reason, the provincial government and TransLink seem to keep shying away from even talking about use of the interurban rail corridor between Chilliwack and Surrey. A recent study showed that for $500 million, equipment could be purchased, 100 kilometres of tracks upgraded and service inaugurated on a 20- to 30-minute headway.
The cost of SkyTrain is far higher than that. The much-delayed Evergreen Line, which still has a funding shortfall, is estimated to cost at least $1.4 billion, and it involves a relatively short (11 kilometre) SkyTrain extension from the Lougheed station to Port Moody and Coquitlam Town Centre.
There is no doubt that SkyTrain reduces the many challenges of roads crossing railway tracks at grade. However, commuter rail using existing tracks works well in cities as varied as New York, Chicago, Toronto, Montreal and Seattle, so there is no reason it canA?ai??i??ai???t work here.
In addition, extending rail service as far east as Chilliwack would recognize the reality that many people travel from throughout the Fraser Valley to the larger urban centres of Langley, Surrey, Coquitlam and Burnaby A?ai??i??ai??? as well as Vancouver and Richmond. It would also provide a vastly-improved internal transit service south of the Fraser, something that is long overdue.
The provincial government is correct to identify the need for much-improved transit services south of the Fraser, the area of B.C. growing at the fastest rate. However, its insistence on use of the SkyTrain technology is consuming a great deal of capital and delaying projects that are needed now.
A?ai??i??ai??? Frank Bucholtz
via Langley Times – Editorial A?ai??i??ai??? Speed up transit decisions.
Study lauds light rail
Study lauds light rail
Light trains can carry South of the Fraser commuters, a new consultant’s report suggests.
By Christina Toth and Heather Colpitts, Postmedia Network Inc. September 24, 2010
One hundred years after the Interurban rail wound its way across the Fraser Valley, light rail proponents in Langley and beyond are optimistic the passenger service can make a comeback, after the release of a feasibility study on Monday.
Rail service could be re-established on about 100 kilometres of the existing BC Hydro-owned line for $500 million, with the main train depot located in Abbotsford, says a report commissioned by the Rail for the Valley group.
“We’re tremendously excited. This is the most comprehensive light rail study ever undertaken in this province, performed by an outfit with expertise in light rail solutions,” said John Buker, a founder of RFTV and a study coordinator.
“This is an independent analysis by a respected company based in Great Britain that has a very solid track record in rail planning, including work on, among other things the Channel Tunnel. This report will, at long last, provide us with an honest accounting of the potential for passenger rail service on the Interurban corridor. This is something that has been sorely lacking in all provincial government-commissioned studies to date,” he said.
The track is currently owned by BC Hydro, and is used for freight by Southern Railway.
Joe Zacharias, co-founder of South Fraser OnTrax rail advocacy group, said the report isn’t comprehensive.
But it’s good to see more expert analysis of Fraser Valley transit needs, the Langley resident commented.
“I think other experts could add to this body of work,” he said.
Langley Township Councillor Jordan Bateman, an advocate of better transit for communities South of the Fraser, said he’s pleased to have another assessment that shows the viability of passenger rail.
“Anything that advances the cause of light rail South of the Fraser is a good thing,” he said.
The author, David Cockle of Leewood Projects of England, reviewed the potential for an affordable and sustainable public light rail service on the existing and publicly owned Interurban rail corridor, which runs 98 kilometres from Surrey to Chilliwack, passing through Langley City and Township.
He proposes two options, one diesel and one electric, plus future links to Richmond, Burnaby, Vancouver and east of Chilliwack.
The report projects capital costs for the diesel/hybrid option for the Chilliwack-Scott Road line at $500 million, or $5 million per kilometre, and $606 million for an electric option, or $6.2 per km. There would be 10 stops along this corridor.
The report proposes three trains per hour on the route during commuter peak times on week days, twice an hour during non-peak times and weekends. Riders could use a microchip smart card that could be prepaid and reloaded for any combination of ride tickets.
Costs to the rider would have to be comparable or cheaper than current bus fares or driving, the author writes.
Travel times are estimated to be 90 minutes from Chilliwack to the Scott Road SkyTrain Station, 45 minutes from Abbotsford to Surrey, and two hours to downtown Vancouver.
The trip from Knight Road in Sardis to Abbotsford would be under 30 minutes, and from Chilliwack to Yarrow, 13.5 minutes.
The track would have to be upgraded to accommodate passenger trains travelling at 80 to 100 kilometres per hour, and switches, spur lines, controls, stations and other infrastructure would have to be considered.
Another potential hitch is that the stretch of tracks in Langley is heavily used by freight trains heading to and from the Deltaport shipping terminal.
The first Interurban line was a forward-looking project. It was opened with much pomp on Oct. 3, 1910, in anticipation of the thousands who would eventually live in New Westminster and Vancouver, and the many others who would settle in the Fraser Valley and grow food and harvest the timber for the urban dwellers.
Cockle’s report includes a quote from 1910 news story on the event, in which a one rural representative said, “you need us and we need you and this line is going to be the connecting link which will bring us together for our mutual advantage.”
The line closed in 1950 when upkeep became costly and more residents increasingly used their own vehicles to get around.
The Rail for the Valley group has waited for a $400,000 provincial study on light rail since 2008, when it was announced, but its scope didn’t include Vancouver, Surrey and Langley. The group concluded that it was doubtful the provincial report will shed much light on the true potential for a light rail service, said Buker.
“Hence our commissioning of the independent analysis by a company with expertise in light rail,” he said.
To view the report go to railforthevalley.wordpress.com, or leewoodprojects.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/chilliwack-to-surrey-interurban-final-reportr.pdf.
Ai??Ai?? Copyright (c) Langley Advance
Recent Comments