Better solutions save farms
Better solutions save farms
By Eric J. Bysouth, Langley Advance September 17, 2010
Dear Editor,
Obviously, Councillor Steve Ferguson [New road will benefit farms, Sept. 14 Letters, Langley Advance] did not, when he first voted yes, understand what is needed to resolve the problem at Mufford Crescent and Glover Road, and he still does not.
Further, he has not listened to the public debate on the issue, and has not considered the common sense, positive solutions that have been proposed.
There is no question that the Mufford/Glover intersection needs to be fixed, but it should consider where people, goods, and services need to go. They need to go to and from Mufford, Glover, and the Bypass.
They do not need to travel extra distances through good farmland, when there is already a connecting road between Glover and 64th Avenue.
The proposed new road will give added support to those wanting convert the farmland between the Bypass and Milner to Industrial/Commercial.
Farmers do not want their land divided by a road they will have to cross to get to both sides of their field. Those farmers on 64th Avenue do not want or need it being made a main road, as they use it for moving farm machinery between fields. Where we really need an overpass is to solve the worst problem, and that is over the tracks on the Bypass, just west of the Glover intersection. This handles ten times the traffic, and causes very serious problems when two-mile trains stop traffic.
I suggest Steve do what is right, cost effective, efficient, and solves the problem.
He states that the heavy rail traffic cannot be rerouted. This is not true. There is legislation in place that allows that to happen.
We need light rail up the Fraser Valley, using the existing track. Light rail makes it more efficient and cost effective to put the track on an overpass over the road.
Our main problem is elected officials and people who like to make unnecessary work.
Eric J Bysouth, Langley
Ai??Ai?? Copyright (c) Langley Advance
via Better solutions save farms.
TramTrain should steer us in the right direction
TramTrain should steer us in the right direction
By Malcolm Johnston, The Times September 28, 2010
Editor, the Times:
Last Monday, Rail for the Valley and Leewood Projects (UK) released a historic and revolutionary TramTrain report for Metro Vancouver and the Fraser Valley.
The TramTrain plan is historic, for it is the first time in over 30 years that a transit study, independent of political and bureaucratic influence, has been released to the public, giving an affordable option to TransLink’s expensive SkyTrain light metro planning.
The TramTrain plan is revolutionary because it gives economic 21st-century transit solutions for the region, instead of costly and dated 1950s metro and subway planning.
TramTrain is a reinvention of the Interurban and is part of the large light rail family, which sees over 450 such systems in operation around the world.
First operated in Karlsruhe Germany, in 1993, the new TramTrain proved so successful that ridership on the new TramTrain line (which replaced a commuter train and one transfer) exploded from 533,600 per week to over 2,555,000, (almost 480 per cent increase) in a few months.
Karlsruhe now operates over 410 km of TramTrain, including lines in the environmentally sensitive Black Forest, with the longest route being over 210 km.
As TramTrain is inexpensive to build, TramTrain lines do not need the massive densification needed by SkyTrain and the RAV/Canada Line.
TramTrain can pass through sensitive ALR lands, leaving farm lands as they are and prevent rampant land speculation and development that more expensive transit modes need to sustain them.
The RftV/Leewood plan also gives glimpsed into the future with the initial line expanding to Vancouver, Richmond and Rosedale.
Why build the 11-km., $1.4-billion plus SkyTrain Evergreen Line when we can build a full 138-km. Vancouver/Richmond to Rosedale TramTrain service for under $1 billion, with enough money left over to build a Vancouver to Maple Ridge TramTrain service, as TransLink planned for in the late 1990s?
Today there are 14 cities with TramTrain operation (only seven cities have SkyTrain), with a further 20 TramTrain operations being planned for.
One hopes the regions’ mayors board the TramTrain for better public transit. If not, they will be left behind at the station, waiting for a SkyTrain that will never come.
Malcolm Johnston,
Light Rail Committee
Ai??Ai?? Copyright (c) Abbotsford Times
via TramTrain should steer us in the right direction.
Uninformed about transit
Uninformed about transit
The Times October 19, 2010
Editor:
Each time the light rail issue has been brought up Mayor Sharon Gaetz hasn’t had any more insight than to say rail crossings would cost the city $500,000 each. Upper Prairie Road is shortly getting one of these new crossings and after the government’s contributions the bill to the city is actually $44,000.
I have nothing against Mayor Gaetz, but I also know that Chilliwack council is totally uninformed when it comes to rail.
There are already three studies recommending it. The Rail For the Valley one is just the most recent, and council hasn’t done anything positive. The experts have said to put together a pilot project and Surrey, Langley and Abbotsford are working toward this goal with the South of the Fraser Community Rail Task Force.
Meanwhile, Chilliwack council is ignoring this and we really risk being excluded from the eventual rail network.
Please, Mayor Gaetz, there is now more then enough data that firmly supports light rail. Chilliwack deserves a lot better transportation then you’re giving us.
Nick Wimpney
Chilliwack
Ai??Ai?? Copyright (c) Chilliwack Times
SkyTrain pie in the sky
SkyTrain pie in the sky
The Times October 8, 2010
Editor:
So Premier Gordon Campbell has promised SkyTrain to Langley, but does anyone believe him?
To refresh everyones memory, SkyTrain is a proprietary, automatic railway that is now owned by Bombardier Inc. First marketed in the late 1970s, what we call SkyTrain has gone through at least four official name changes and a complete redesign, yet only seven such transit systems have been built and are now relegated to the niche airport people-mover market. SkyTrain was even too expensive for the truncated Canada Line subway and a generic metro system was used and is incompatible with the proprietary SkyTrain Advanced Rapid Transit or ART.
Only Vancouver has expanded it SkyTrain system and is the only one of four cities in North America having SkyTrain to do so.
Why? The answer is simple economics; SkyTrain costs more to build and operate than comparable light rail systems and despite claims by TransLink, SkyTrain has yet to prove that it has a greater capacity than light rail!
The grade crossing argument used by the SkyTrain lobby, is a man-of-straw argument. Rail/road crossings are more than 10 times safer than a road/road intersections. The proposed TramTrain grade crossings will be protected by lights, bells, and a gate. Compare this to a typical light-controlled traffic intersection or the cheaper four-way stop intersection; the road/rail intersection is much safer. If a car driver disobeys a road/rail crossing and collides with a TramTrain, shouldn’t the car driver’s licence be revoked?
For the Premier’s proposed $2 billion SkyTrain line to Langley, we can build a “full build” (Vancouver/Richmond to Rosedale TramTrain) and a new multi-track Fraser River Rail Bridge and at least two 10-kilometre LRT/streetcar lines in Surrey and Langley.
It seems Premier Campbell is waiting at the station for a SkyTrain that will never come.
Malcolm Johnston,
Light Rail Committee, Rail for the Valley, Delta
Back in the ’40s rail worked well
Back in the ’40s rail worked well
The Times October 5, 2010
Editor:
(Re: Rail for the Valley)
I have been following the progress on this initiative since it was first announced with great interest. In the 1940s we lived in Surrey, and our nearest station for the BC Electric Interurban was at Hunt Road. Many trips were made to New Westminster and Vancouver as it was a primary mode of transportation. I had occasion to travel to Abbotsford and Chilliwack a few times.
I had a Vancouver daily Province paper route and my bundle of papers was dropped off at the Newton Station by the Interurban freight car. Clearly this mode of transportation got the newspaper through to Chilliwack, as well as other freight.
It has now been 60 years since there has been no passenger rail to the valley throughout a period of vast growth. Now with the mounted pressure of resurrecting this facility, I believe that there may be an important component, which is not being explored. The component is rail and tourism for the valley. As an example, think of the great attractions there are from Surrey to Chilliwack. There are museums, the history of various locations. Transportation could be provided to Fort Langley. Tourists could experience the history of Abbotsford and its present form of agriculture, Cultus Lake, historical Chilliwack, sturgeon and salmon fishing, Harrison Hot Springs, just to name a few.
From Chilliwack to Surrey there are many who would visit Vancouver as an alternative form of transportation and not have to fight the traffic or find a parking spot. We are all aware of the vast number of tourists taking cruise ships out of Vancouver. How many of those tourists would consider taking a side trip by rail to the valley and have the opportunity to visit the various areas of interest? At the end of the line in Chilliwack, how many might there be that would like to spend some time at the world-renowned Harrison Hot Springs, while the husband takes a day off for a day of sturgeon fishing?
Jerry Olynyk,
Chilliwack
Ai??Ai?? Copyright (c) Chilliwack Times
via Back in the ’40s rail worked well.
Dream bigger transit dreams
Dream bigger transit dreams
The Times September 28, 2010
Editor:
Re: Mayor remains mum on latest rail system study (Times, Sept. 24).
The report on revival and enhancement of the interurban rail line (Chilliwack to Surrey) by David Cockle of Leewood Projects is greatly appreciated. The benevolent interest in a neglected part of the country by a credentialed company is a lucky strike for the entire Fraser Valley.
The detailed cost-accounting adds a useful backdrop for arguments pro and contra rail travel. (I’m a supporter.) Even the cost ($12.8 M) of the proposed 12-km extension to Rosedale (phase 3) compares favourably to the cost ($48 million) of the Evans Road connector.
Besides the obvious benefit of a resulting better air quality, the rail line would introduce a more romantic flavour to travel in the Fraser Valley. Until you can dream larger than your present habits, what chance of progress?
Don Buker,
Rosedale
Ai??Ai?? Copyright (c) Chilliwack Times
via Dream bigger transit dreams.
Valley transit much cheaper
Valley transit much cheaper
The Times September 28, 2010
Editor:
This also an open letter to the government in Victoria and also to Mayor Gaetz and her people in Chilliwack.
How wonderful to read about the sensible UK-based consultant David Cockle on light rail service for the Fraser Valley. Finally we hear an unbiased view of our transit requirements south of the Fraser River. We have never been told what the so-called Gateway Project costs. It probably runs into the billions. All this will provide is more people taking their cars out of the valley into the rest of Southern BC. What about the real needs for about a million people here? Isn’t the $5 million per kilometre just a fraction of what Victoria is spending on this Gateway Project? Just imagine going to Surrey is just a mere 90 minutes, a bit more than it takes by car, but you can read the morning paper or a book and relax. What a stress-free way to travel.
To put more and more vehicles on our roads we are destroying our environment and are wasting more and more of our hard earned money.
If 10 main stations are provided along the route, with perhaps eight stops, if necessary, and then small, not the big mostly empty ones now on the road, feeder buses to these stations, we will have an efficient transportation system. To be useful to the traveling public the feeder bus service should be at least four per hour. This will provide an attractive alternative to taking the car. Oh, and wait. If the tolls on the gateway to Greater Vancouver are sufficiently high enough to raise the required revenue the provincial coffers will be well-filled and pay for our service here.
Alphonse Litjens,
Chilliwack
Ai??Ai?? Copyright (c) Chilliwack Times
via Valley transit much cheaper.
More vehicles will be driven
More vehicles will be driven
The Times September 24, 2010
Editor:
In my opinion the light rail proposal is long overdue. Anyone who has driven Highway 1 from here to Vancouver realizes that it is almost impossible to find a particular time of day that the traffic is not congested and it becomes even more congested and dangerous from Abbotsford to Vancouver. The construction presently under way, when completed, won’t reduce the congestion much–it will simply attract more vehicles.
Ideally, the commuter rail should also have a stop at Abbotsford to pick up its commuters–and have reasonable fares which commuters find within their budgets.
The cost of the project is easily affordable by the province if taken from the carbon tax fund. After all, that fund is legislated for environmental use only, and what better environmental cause than to drastically reduce vehicle traffic on the highway?
Barry Penner, specifically, and Gordon Campbell should be embracing this project.
In a recent letter I commented on our Immigration Department’s policy of funding new immigrants (a one-time payment of about $1,300 to establish accommodation followed by payments of $710 per month for one year or until employment begins, whichever comes first).
However, there are factors which could alter those figures. For instance, in this last bunch of boat people there is a pregnant, disabled mother with two young children. If she is allowed to remain you can bet Canadian taxpayers will fund her support for quite some time yet she or her family and/or husband initially gave some unsavory character the required $40- to $50,000 to be on the ship bound for generous Canada. You would think that the funding to get her on the ship would finance her support in her own country for quite some time.
Jack Stewart,
Chilliwack
Ai??Ai?? Copyright (c) Chilliwack Times
via More vehicles will be driven.
View obscured from ivory tower
View obscured from ivory tower
The Times July 16, 2010
Editor:
This summer, interesting news will be released that will delight supporters of the Return of the Interurban to the Fraser Valley.
In the Metro region, we have placed all our hopes for rail transit on the very expensive light-metro model and philosophy, that forces all bus riders on a light-metro trunk line to their destinations or next transfer. Indeed TransLink admits that 80 per cent of SkyTrain’s customers, first take the bus to the metro. This is not good transit.
TransLink has been signing hosannas that the newly opened Canada Line is carrying 94,000 people a day and nearing capacity. TransLink forgets to mention that nearly 45,000 former bus customers have been cascaded onto the new metro line which translates to about 90,000 trips a day. Only about two to three thousand new transit customers are using the over $2.5 billion metro system.
The sad fact about the Canada Line is that due to escalating construction costs, the scope of the project was cut back so much that a much larger $1.5 billion cheaper LRT network, with much higher capacity, could have been built instead.
The Light Rail Committee and the Rail For the Valley group, in conjunction with several transportation experts will be offering a much cheaper and proven alternative to hugely expensive light-metro, in the form of TramTrain.
TramTrain is simply a light rail vehicle that can operate on existing railways and on its own tracks, greatly reducing rail transit costs while at the same time providing a much larger light rail network.
As an example; for the cost of a SkyTrain Evergreen Line, we could build a Vancouver to Chilliwack TramTrain and a Vancouver to Maple Ridge TramTrain. A larger rail network. servicing more destinations, at a cheaper cost should be number one TransLink’s planning goals.
Sadly, what I see from the Ivory Towers on Kingsway is more of the same, plans for hugely expensive metro lines, with no realistic way to fund them.
Malcolm Johnston
Light Rail Committee
Ai??Ai?? Copyright (c) Chilliwack Times
via View obscured from ivory tower.
Time to put pressure on officials
Time to put pressure on officials
The Times July 13, 2010
Editor:
Regarding the remarks of Mayor Sharon Gaetz and Coun. Diane Janzen and those of previous mayors and councils about transit:
They are very parochial and short-sighted. They do not see the big valley picture (which includes Abbotsford, Langley and a large portion of Surrey) that has a need of a future light rail service for the south side our Fraser Valley.
Mayor and council could and should show more positives than negatives to the light rail concept for Chilliwack plus the other areas to be involved.
Yes, it’s not part of the city of Chilliwack’s mandate. Yes, Chilliwack doesn’t have money for light transit. Yes, the provincial and federal governments are broke. Yes, demographics indicate that there aren’t the numbers to support a transit system to-day. So what?
All that does not mean that planning for for a light rail system should be ignored or delayed.
Cooperation with all parties involved should agree on the need and the basic system but not get bogged-down with the details for now. It’s too early for that.
Promote the need of a light rail system for the Fraser Valley. Get with it.
Advise the approximately two million souls west of us who and where we are and the need for valley public transportation that doesn’t exist today. Apply pressure on the public and officials to gain their approval to the need and to the system proposed.
On Oct. 3, 1910 the Vancouver to Chilliwack Interurban arrived–one hundred years ago this October. Who is doing anything about that? Do not wait until Oct.1 to wake up.
Fred Lawrence,
Chilliwack
Ai??Ai?? Copyright (c) Chilliwack Times
Recent Comments