Bringing Back the Interurban Line (by John Vissers and Alexandria Mitchell)
Bringing Back the Interurban Line: Key to our Transportation Future Lies in the Past (By John Vissers and Alexandria Mitchell, for The Common Sense Canadian) [click here to view the full article on The Canadian]
The BC provincial transportation plan is running out of political fuel, dollars and sense. How long can we continue to promote, finance and build 1970A?ai??i??ai???s infrastructure, expecting it to meet the needs of our rapidly changing 21st century communities?
Extravagantly expensive and monolithic elevated rail systems like Skytrain can serve only Metro core areas, while heavily subsidised by taxpayers who can never benefit from them. FAIL
No urban region has ever successfully built its way out of traffic congestion by expanding freeway capacity. This only invites A?ai??i??Ai??induced trafficA?ai??i??A? and encourages car dependent sprawl . EPIC FAIL
Today, our needs and our cities are changing. Density and sustainable, walkable community plans are the norm. Traffic patterns and lifestyles are changing. Fuel costs climb inexorably year after year. Many would happily keep the thousands of dollars they spend each year on car travel. But for almost a million people south of the Fraser, this is not an option. The only viable way of getting to school, to work, or to socialize is by car.
Incredibly, a solution to long term affordable and efficient public transportation has been in place and ready to use for many years, but completely ignored by a BC provincial plan dedicated to road building and mega-project mentalities better suited to the previous century.
Turns out we own a railroad. A really long railroad. One hundred kilometres of track, connecting all the major urban areas south of the Fraser. It starts conveniently, at the Scott Road Skytrain Station. From there it travels through the heart of Surrey, to Cloverdale, then Langley City, on to Abbotsford, and finally Chilliwack. Not only does it connect all the downtown centers, it passes within walking distance of five university/college campuses and through several industrial parks. One hundred years ago an electric tram train travelled daily on this corridor, moving people, freight and farm produce efficiently across the region. It was called the BC Electric Interurban. Fifty years ago the service was abandoned as road systems improved and our North American car culture took hold. With rare foresight, the Provincial government of the day, through BC Hydro, retained the right to re-establish passenger rail when they sold the use of the line to a private freight rail company.
Community groups interested in sustainable public transportation have been petitioning the BC government to consider re-activating the Interurban Train. We already own the line, itA?ai??i??ai???s underused, and for the cost of about four kilometres of Skytrain, we could have a full service connecting all the urban cores, education and employment centres south of the Fraser. How do we know this? A study was recently completed by a professional transit consulting firm from England. They see the Interurban Rail as a diamond in the rough, and are astonished that we have not yet embraced this system as the core of a community rail-based public transportation plan. The 85 page report, commissioned by the rail advocacy group RAIL FOR THE VALLEY, is available on-line at http://rftv.wordpress.com/
Transit News Around The World October 19, 2010
Phoenix
METRO Playing With A Full House
Los Angeles
LAX rail line is early stop in plan to expedite transit work
http://www.dailybreeze.com/opinions/ci_16357591
Tampa Bay
Hillsborough rail plan is still taking shape
Wellington, NZ
Councillors signal light rail battle lines
Norfolk, VA
Light rail may be up & running by Dec.
Ottawa
Transit tops voter issues, poll finds
Taxes, turfing current mayor, also rated important by respondents
Trains get streetwise
The following link from the Professional Engineering Magazine …..
http://www.profeng.com/archive/2010/2311/23110053.htm
….. is well worth the read as it neatly sums up the German city of Karlsruhe’s success in integrating transit.
Karlsruhe, it must be remembered, pioneered the TramTrain concept andAi??Ai??with stunning results. When the firstAi??Ai??TramTrain line (which replaced a commuter train & one transfer) opened in 1993,Ai??Ai??ridership exploded from 533,600 per week to over 2,555,000,Ai??Ai??(almost 480% increase)Ai??Ai??in just a few month! Karlsruhe now operates over 410 km. of TramTrain, including lines in the environmentally sensitive Black Forest, with the longest route being over 210 km.
TransLink and METRO transit planners have singularly ignored Karlsruhe’s continuing success and busily chase their holy grail of densification andAi??Ai??SkyTrain planning. The mandarins in charge of the regions transit planning haven’t even a clue what light rail is, or for that matter, what a metro is and try, like fitting a round peg in a square hole, cobble SkyTrain planning, makingAi??Ai??the metro fit a job far more suitable for modernAi??Ai??light rail. The result is predictable, a disjointed and very extremely expensive ‘rail‘ transit system that is too expensive to extend, while at the same time has failed to provide a viable alternative to the car.
Today there are 14 cities with TramTrain operation (only 7 cities have SkyTrain), with a further 20 TramTrain operations being planned for and no one is planning to build with SkyTrain at this date. This is the message that is being ignored by TransLink, METRO Vancouver and provincial politicians. Remaining blind, deaf and dumb about light rail and TramTrain translates in to ever increasing taxes to pay for questionable transit expansion.
Who is not afraid to bell the SkyTrain cat?
More Transit News A?ai??i??ai??? October 15, 2010
From the Victoria Times Colonist
Ai??Ai??http://www.timescolonist.com/sports/Maclean+Cars+here+stay/3651236/story.html
Ai??Ai??http://www.timescolonist.com/news/Public+input+sought+last+route/3613881/story.html
Ai??Ai??http://www.timescolonist.com/travel/rail+line+along+Johnson+Street/3613919/story.html
Ai??Ai??http://www.timescolonist.com/ahead+interchange/3532824/story.html
Ai??Ai??Vancouver Courier October 13, 2010
http://www.vancourier.com/technology/case+free+transit+downtown+core/3663446/story.html
Ai??Ai??Public transit debate can get messy, murkyAi??
Vancouver Courier Wednesday, November 04, 2009
Vancouver bus routes dwarf Surrey grid
http://www.vancourier.com/life/Public+transit+debate+messy+murky/2900233/story.html
The Tyee
Ai??Ai??Get Rolling on Streetcars, Say Gathered Experts
They reduce carbon, promote healthy development, and tourists love them, Translink is told.
http://thetyee.ca/News/2010/10/01/Streetcars/
Coquitlam NOW
SkyTrain is too expensive
http://www.thenownews.com/SkyTrain+expensive/3631453/story.html
Internationally
Philadelphia – work begins on streetcar casino branch
Historic trolley off track
Philly.com
http://www.philly.com/community/Historic_trolley_off_track.html?viewAll=y
http://www.septa.org/maps/trolley/pdf/015.pdf
Phoenix
Valley Metro
http://www.valleymetro.org/metro_light_rail/future_extensions/tempe/
Tempe-South update
Wellington, New Zealand
Councillors signal Light Rail battle lines
The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree – TransLink’s Regional Transit Planning
Fruit of the poisonous tree is a legal metaphor in the United States used to describe evidence that is obtained illegally.The logic of the terminology is that if the source of the evidence (the “tree”) is tainted, then anything gained from it (the “fruit”) is as well.
TransLink’s planning officials still maintain that modern light Rail has a limited capacity of about 10,000 persons per hour per direction and refuse to entertain the fact that they are wrong. All of TransLink planning, including the RAV/Canada Line, theAi??Ai??Evergreen line, the Broadway/UBC rapid transit line, and Fraser Valley transportation have assumed LRT’s seemingly inferior capacity and despite the fact that modern LRT can carry in excess of 20,000 pphpd, have portrayed LRT as a poorman’s SkyTrain.
The assumption that light rail has only a capacity of 10,000 pphpd is wrong.
The Light Rail Transit Association [ www.lrta.org ], which can trace its history back 63 years, which has continually campaigned for affordable and efficient public transit, defines light rail transit as:
“a steel wheel on steel rail transit mode, 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.”
The following study from the LRTA, shows that even in 1986, it was generally understood that modern LRT could carry 20,000 pphpd.
http://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/2010/05/20/the-1986-lrta-study-bus-lrt-metro-comparison/
More recently, (2006) Calgary Transit LRT Technical Data page claims that the maximum theoretical capacity of the C-Train is 30,700 pphpd!
Maximum THEORETICAL single direction capacity (pass./hr/dir) at 256 pass./car and 2 min. headway:
3-car train 23,040
4-car train 30,720http://www.calgarytransit.com/html/technical_information.html
IfAi??Ai??TransLink’s basic assumption about light rail (including streetcar)Ai??Ai??is wrong, then TransLink’s entire planning history, regarding bus, LRT, and SkyTrain is wrong and is not worth the paper it is printed on. Yet TransLink, without any public scrutiny and very little political oversight, continues to plan for hugely expensive SkyTrain light-metro projects, which supposedAi??Ai??support for, has been heavily biased byAi??Ai??questionable studies andAi??Ai??even more questionable tactics – all fruit from the poisonous tree!
Noted American transportation expert Gerald Fox, summed up his observations on the TransLink business case for the Evergreen line;
“Ai??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.”
Has TransLink’s regional transit planning over the past ten years nothing more than “Fruit of the poisonous tree?”, based on the fact that TransLink’s bureaucrats desired that light rail (LRT) be seenAi??Ai??inferior to SkyTrain, on paper, to ensure further planning and building of their cherished light metro system?
Rail for the Valley would welcome TransLink’s clarification on this issue!
News Round-up – October 12, 2010
It seems Russian tram operators know how to conduct a tram emergency test.Ai??Ai??
The ultimate annual tram emergency exercise:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4OwPSI5eJQ&feature=related
From the Langley Times
http://www.bclocalnews.com/surrey_area/langleytimes/opinion/104350994.html
The Vancouver Province
http://www.theprovince.com/opinion/Premier+transit+pitch+hard+swallow/3635873/story.html
The North Shore News
http://www.nsnews.com/news/Railroading/3643583/story.html
Queensland
First contracts awarded for Gold Coast Light Rail
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/10/07/3032028.htm
Green light for GC rail tenderers
Avignon
The French city of Avignon (Rhone valley) gets a classic tramway; two
lines totalling 29Km, opening by 2016
Phoenix
Chateau On Central Livin’ Large On The Line
http://raillife.com/blog/2010/10/08/chateau-on-central/
Seattle
Portland
Jeddah
Vancouver [Fraser Valley]
Chilliwack Times
Time to seriously look at rail
Langley Times
Editorial – Speed up transit decisions
World Cities – population, population density, transport including Light Rail/Trams – Round 2
The following is a revised account of city population and the type of transit used; metro or light rail.
With Vancouver’s low population density, makes one wonder why the transportation authority and politicians only look at light-metro for transit solutions.
World City Rankings – 2 – Asia – view
The top 31 No Asian cities, population 5 to 33m
Ranking from 1 to 66 in the world
Note:
1.Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? Most population densities exceed 5,000/km 2 Ai??Ai??
2.Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? Most cities have;
Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? a: Ai??Ai??Heavy Rail metros
Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? b:Ai??Ai?? Subways
Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? c:Ai??Ai?? Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) or ART, LRT or RTS
World City RankingAi??Ai??- view 2
- World cities, ranking No 160 to 251, by population
- Population in range 1.78 to 2.75m
- Vancouver is ranked No 173
- Population densities lower with a number of exceptions
- Higher No of LRT/Tramways/Streetcars
- Lower No of Heavy Rail, Grade separated, subways & ART/MRT/RTS metros
I leaveAi??Ai??the readerAi??Ai??to formAi??Ai??his or herAi??Ai??own conclusions, however I concur:-
- Higher population density, Ai??Ai??Heavy Rail, Grade separated, subways & ART/MRT/RTS metros are supportable
- Lower population density, Heavy Rail, Grade separated, subways & ART/MRT/RTS metros are not supported and @grade/street running LRT/Tramways/Streetcars are viable
It isAi??Ai??also to be concluded that, Vancouver politicians see their city in the same league as Seoul, Manila, Shanghai, Jakarta, Beijing, Bangkok, Hong Kong, Singapore & Kuala Lumpur; indeed an Asian city and closer to Asia rather than the rest of Canada, the US & Europe.
From the New York Times Opinion Page – Transit Economics
What is true in New York, is true for Vancouver’s METRO Region.
Very sad!
Transit Economics
Paul Krugman
October 7, 2010
New York times
The usual suspects on the comment board are, inevitably, arguing that rail transit should pay for itself. The obvious response is that road transit doesnA?ai??i??ai???t; why should only public transit have to self-finance, when private vehicles generally drive on free roads built and maintained out of taxes?
But in a way that misses the larger point: urban transportation is an area in which we know that market prices bear very little relationship to true social costs. Even if you ignore environmental impacts and the national security implications of oil imports, the fact is that driving in an urban area, especially in rush hour, imposes huge congestion externalities on other people. And I mean huge: Felix Salmon had a nice piece last year putting the external cost you impose on other people by driving into lower Manhattan at $160 a day. (I canA?ai??i??ai???t find the reference, but Dave Barry once had an A?ai??i??Ai??ask Mr. Question AuthorityA?ai??i??A? about how long it takes to drive across Manhattan during rush hour. The answer was that nobody has ever succeeded in driving across Manhattan during rush hour.)
Now, Econ 101 says that the first-best answer to these externalities is to make people pay these social costs; if we did, New Jersey Transit could charge much higher fares! But since that isnA?ai??i??ai???t going to happen A?ai??i??ai??? at best, we may someday get a modest congestion charge A?ai??i??ai??? weA?ai??i??ai???re into second-best territory.
And rail transit takes people off the roads, thereby yielding a large benefit that doesnA?ai??i??ai???t show in NJTA?ai??i??ai???s books.
So anyone who tries to make this into some kind of issue of principle A?ai??i??ai??? we should never, ever subsidize any form of transit A?ai??i??ai??? is just out of touch both with economic analysis and with the realities
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/07/transit-economics/
If One Build Metro On Routes That Do Not Have The Ridership That Would Justify Contruction……
…..Then One Will Have To Pay Large Subsidies To Build And Operate It!
Large Subsidies Translates Into Higher Taxes!
Of course those high subsidies will have to be borne by the taxpayer, either in gas taxes, car levies, or road pricing (or all three), and or increased property taxes. The current belief by TransLink’s highly paid bureaucrats is that the homeowner in the Metro Region is flush enough to pay more property taxes.
What TransLink isn’t doing is planning for cheaper transit options and the term “affordable transit“, is not in their lexicon. Politicians and bureaucrats in Victoria are the same, as they force the metro region to build more SkyTrain and light metro. The time has come for Metro and Valley politicians to draw a line in the sand with this nonsense. If the politically unaccountable TransLink and Victoria want more SkyTrain in our region, then letAi??Ai??Victoria pay for it, or better yet, take back the financial black-hole TransLink has become, in its entirety.
As previously mentioned, TransLink’s anti-LRT rhetoric has skewed all regional ‘rail‘Ai??Ai??transit planning to favour SkyTrain, despite the fact that no one around the world buys SkyTrain for regional ‘rail’ transit. One now must consider all TransLink’sAi??Ai??regionalAi??Ai??transit planning reported as “fruit of the poisonous tree” and reject it all!
TransLink’s business case for the Evergreen LineAi??Ai??was so plannedAi??Ai??to support only SkyTrain construction, has been shredded by American transit & transportation expert Gerald Fox.
The Rail for the Valley/Leewood report has shown that there is another much cheaper way in providing regional ‘rail‘ transit the light rail or LRT and TramTrain solution.
Thus we come to TransLink’s and the provincial government’s gambit to saddle regional property owners with ever increasingAi??Ai??Ai??Ai??taxes to continue building with the now obsolete proprietary SkyTrain light metro system. Regional mayors should stand fast and reject any further financial demands for ‘rapid transit’ until TransLink does a complete independent financial review of transit options for future ‘rail‘Ai??Ai??transitAi??Ai??construction, including the the contentious Evergreen Line and a complete independentAi??Ai??auditAi??Ai??is doneAi??Ai??on TransLink itself, SkyTrain/RAV-Canada LineAi??Ai??and the bus system.
May Zwei suggest Mr. Gerald Fox or Mr. David Cockle to head such a review?
From the press.
TransLink asked mayors for a $68.5 million handout.
The Vancouver Sun
Ai??Ai??http://www.vancouversun.com/news/TransLink+asks+Metro+mayors+million+handout/3639962/story.html
The Black Press
http://www.bclocalnews.com/surrey_area/surreyleader/news/104509894.html
BRT to Chilliwack & SkyTrain to Langley? Just Business as Usual in BC!
The following article by Brian Lewis should forewarn us that the transit decision for the Fraser Valley has been already made. Like all transit studies done in the region in the past 30 years, the decision on transit mode is made beforehand and thenAi??Ai??a study is commissioned to confirm the decision. This is howAi??Ai??transit planning is done in BC: Politicians make the decision and the bureaucrats make sure the political decisions stand with bogus, yet expensive studies.
One wonders why Trans Link is needed at all!
It is to be certain, Premier Campbell has not read the RftV/Leewood Report, though he is aware of its contentAi??Ai??with the announcement of an Express bus to Chilliwack and SkyTrain to Langley, sometime in the future. The TramTrain study is a radical change how transit is planned for in BC, in which no special party is rewarded, except for those wishing to use ‘rail‘ transit!
In Mr. Campbell’s world, bus based transit means new highways, which will keep the road Builder’s Association happy and building more SkyTrain will keep both Bombardier Inc. and land developers happy. Happy people translates into lucrative political donations to a political party which the happy people belong!
The Premier’s speech to the Union of BC Municipalities, was just telling the party faithful that it is business as usual in BC.
Ai??Ai??
Ai??Ai??
Ai??Ai??
By Brian Lewis, The Province
October 7, 2010
A mother shoving cod liver oil down her child’s throat in the belief it’s a good health remedy — even though it tastes bad — is one thing, but unilaterally shoving public transit policy down taxpayer throats is positively unpalatable.
That’s precisely what Premier Gordon Campbell did last week at the Union of B.C. Municipalities convention in Whistler when he announced Victoria’s intention to extend SkyTrain through Surrey to Langley. The tasteless tactic was repeated in the same speech when he proclaimed that Rapid Bus service would link Chilliwack with the rest of the Fraser Valley.
On both counts reaction throughout the transit-challenged region was predictable: “Oh, really?”
Regarding the SkyTrain extension, TransLink, the region’s mayors and all other stakeholders are a long, long way from agreeing on what type of rapid transit technology should be used in building the 17-kilometre link between SkyTrain’s current terminus in north Surrey and Langley district. By far the most expensive option is SkyTrain’s elevated guideway, which in current dollars is estimated to cost a whopping $2.5 billion, or more.
Campbell’s announcement took mayors such as Dianne Watts of Surrey by total surprise. As she has said many times, a ground-level system between Surrey and Langley makes more sense because it’s far cheaper, easier and quicker to build.
Langley Township Mayor Rick Green’s response was blunt : “SkyTrain to Langley is simply pie-in-the-sky,” he tells me.
“There’s no question the premier is jumping the gun here.”
Green notes that TransLink, its Mayor’s Council and the B.C. government only several weeks ago signed a Memorandum of Understanding to conduct long-term transit planning throughout the region.
Yet, here comes Campbell with an announcement that the extension to Langley will be the SkyTrain technology. “He does this even though the ink on the MOU isn’t even dry,” Green adds.
As for establishing a Rapid Bus system to serve as far east as Chilliwack, those advocating that the old Inter Urban rail line be utilized to re-establish light rail transit from Chilliwack to Surrey are more than a little miffed.
Green, who also heads the South of the Fraser Community Rail Task Force, points out that unlike Vancouver, Richmond or Burnaby, population densities in the valley tend to form in pockets, which makes an Inter Urban light rail system much more efficient and cost-effective than SkyTrain, which works best in areas where high density is uniform.
The premier announcing that Rapid Bus is the choice for service to Chilliwack also reinforces suspicions that a $400,000 study of transit options for the valley, undertaken by Victoria almost two years ago, which still hasn’t been released, will kill the Inter Urban light rail option.
Despite Campbell’s announcements, Langley City Mayor Peter Fassbender says all transit options for the region will remain on the table.
He also chairs the Mayor’s Council and acknowledges that this places him in a consensus-building role to keep peace between the region and Victoria and to move the issue forward.
“We all have to work together for the south of Fraser solutions,” Fassbender says.
But a premier dispensing policy like spoonfuls of cod liver oil makes that job tougher.
blewis@theprovince.com
Recent Comments