Questions: What density is needed for ‘Rail’ Transit? Does Anyone Really Know?
Simple questions today folks. Over the past few weeks the ugly question of densityAi??Ai??has beenAi??Ai??rearing its ugly head in Vancouver and the Fraser Valley concerning transit. Vancouver council is considering major density increases for Cambie Street because it has the Canada line mini-metro and the same treatment is expected for Broadway if ‘rail‘ transit is built. So here we go; if the powers that be say “we don’t have the density for rapid transit“, then what density is needed to sustain it? One just can’t say “we don’t have enough density, when one doesn’t know what density is needed.”
Also, if modern LRT/streetcar can be built for up to one half to one tenth the cost of a metro, then is the density needed to sustain LRT/streetcar one half to one tenth of that needed for a SkyTrain subway?
Could it be that no one knows the answer and the question of density is an urbanAi??Ai??myth, used bothAi??Ai??by bureaucrats and politicians to stop any chance of building with LRT/streetcar and an excuse to up-zone residential properties, giving windfall profits to a selected few, mainly wealthyAi??Ai??friends of the government?
If we do not know what density is needed to sustain a transit mode, how then can anyone say we don’t have the density for that particular mode?
Would a simple LRT/streetcar line on Broadway, forgo the need for massive densification needed to sustain a metro? Are property deals already being made on Broadway on the basis of a SkyTrain subway?
Light Rail on Broadway – The SkyTrain Lobby Ramps Up The Costs – BARSTA Fights Back
On June 22nd, at St. James Community Square 3214 West 10th Avenue at Trutch, a public meeting will take place concerning the building of ‘rail‘ transit on or under Broadway. What is of no great surprise, Translink has vastly ‘ramped’ up the cost for building modern light rail, with needless over-design. This is the tired old trick that plays so well in the Vancouver region, gold-plate a light rail project with so much needless engineering, that the costs of construction near that of itsAi??Ai??much more expensive cousin, light-metro (RAV & SkyTrain).
Elevating LRT greatly increases construction costs, taking away a major advantage of LRT over light-metro!
http://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/2009/05/20/is-lrt-becoming-the-new-light-metro/
FromAi??Ai??a 2009Ai??Ai??BARSTA (Business and Residents for Sustainable Transit Alternatives) document …….
……. which shows the cost of a VCC/Commercial Drive to UBC, streetcar costing $370.7 million yet LRT built on the same route would cost almost three times as much as $998.7 million or almost $1 billion!
Why?
The difference between LRT and a streetcar is the concept of the reserved rights-of-ways (RRoW) and priority signaling at intersections; then why an almost three-fold cost of construction for LRT?
Simple RRoW in Europe, denoted by colour and small curb.
The answer is simple; gross over-engineering by planners and engineersAi??Ai??to artificially increase the cost of LRT to make it as expensive or more expensive than elevated SkyTrain or subway transit options! In other parts of the world, this is known a professional misconduct, but in Vancouver it is business as usual!
Vancouver already had a demonstration LRT line – it was of course, the temporary Olympic Line, which operated on a full RRoW, using two Bombardier Flexity tram cars, borrowed from a delivery to theAi??Ai??Brussels tram system. It is the RRoW, which can be as simple as a high occupancy lane (HOV) with rails or as elaborate as the Arbutus Corridor, which allows modern light rail unfettered operation, with operational parameters on par with light-metro!
Lawned RRoW and modest LRT/tram station in Europe.
By using the concept of the RRoW, station/tram-stops every 500m to 600m, with priority signaling at intersections and using the current power-poles and span wires now used by the trolleybuses, we could keep the cost of of a VCC/Commercial Drive LRT under $450 million or just slightly more than a basic streetcar line! Or better yet, a UBC/BCIT/Stanley Park LRT, costing under $1 billion,Ai??Ai??which would offer even more convenient destinations for the transit customer and would offer a real alternative to the car!
The powers that be, just do not want modern LRT operating in Vancouver and continue to over-engineer and gold-plate light rail/streetcar projectsAi??Ai??to make them unaffordable and unattractive toAi??Ai??politicians, taxpayers and residents.
Classic lawned RRoW!
The following is a quick primer for those advocating for modern light rail on Broadway.
- Capacity of modern LRT and streetcar/tram can exceed 20,000 persons per hour per direction.
- The capacity of a modern modular tram/LRT car now exceeds 350 persons.
- Modern LRT is 100% accessible for the mobility impaired without the need of expensive stations, elevators and escalators.
- Speed of a transit system is not the prime factor in attracting ridership, rather the overall ambiance, accessibility and ease of use are more important than speed. In fact it the the combination of many factors that attracts ridership to a public transit system.
- Priority signaling does not cause traffic gridlock at intersections. In fact, the light sequence for a tram/auto intersection Ai??Ai??at an intersection is much less than an auto/auto light controlled intersection.
- Modern LRT/streetcar/tram is one of the safest public transit mode in the world.
- Transportation capacity on Broadway will beAi??Ai??increased by about 18,000 pphpd, by using a LRT/tram inAi??Ai??one traffic lane per direction.
- Businesses along a streetcar/LRT route see about a 10% increase in business.
- There will be substantial operating costs savings by using LRT/streetcar instead of buses. One modern tram (1 driver) is as efficient as 6 to 8 buses (6 to 8 drivers).
- Modern LRT is very flexible in operation and could carry freight, as in Dresden, operate vintage trams and streetcars, or be used by specialty operators like a dinner tram.
- There is no truth that by building LRT will take away curb parking for local merchants, this is a decision by Vancouver’s Engineering Department to scare away support for LRT.
- Tram stops would be between 500m to 600m apart as studies have shown that the greatest amount of ridership for a LRT system comes within 300m radius of a tram line.
- Signaling on a Broadway will be ‘line-of-sight’ with local signals for intersections/crosswalks; switches; and areas of limited visibility/ Line-of-sight greatly reduces the cost of installation.
- LRT/streetcar can maintain minimum headways (time between trains) of 30 seconds.
- A ‘peak-hour’ 3 minute LRT/tram service (20 trips per hour), with cars having a capacity of 250 persons, would offer an hourly capacity of 5,000 pphpd. Operating 2-cars in multiple units (no added driver) effectively doubles the capacity to 10,000 pphpd. A 2 minute headway (30 trips per hour), using 2 car sets would offer an hourly capacity of 15,000!
UBC Broadway Transit Community Meeting
“No Cambie Fiasco for Broadway and West 10th”
A meeting for residents & local business representatives from across our city:
- Learn about sustainable alternatives for Broadway
- Review current TransLink and City positions and policies
- Make your voice heard about Broadway transit and the communities along it
7:00PM – 9:00 PM A?ai??i??ai??? Tuesday, June 22, 2010
St. James Community Square 3214 West 10th Avenue at Trutch
E-mail : barstavancouver@gmail.com
Website: www.barsta.ca
Contacts :
Mel Lehan, Director, West Kitsilano Residents Association : mel.lehan22@gmail.com
Donna Dobo, Director, West Broadway Business Association : justimagine@dressups.com
A 54m Budapest 'Caterpillar' with a capacity of 350 persons
Take the Tram – From the AntonNews.com Long Island New York
Take the Tram
By Michael MillerFriday, 11 June 2010Why in 2010 does it often take twice as long to get from the North Shore to the Five Towns than it does to get from Mineola to White Plains? Cars are choking our roads, gas prices are threatening our economic viability. We need alternative ways to move around this county. ItA?ai??i??ai???s time for the trolleys to return.
Modern, supercool versions of streetcars, trolleys and trams are making a welcome comeback in American communities, some of which look very much like Long Island. One major turning point was the opening of the excellent Portland (Oregon) streetcar system in 2001. Then, last year, five communities (Dallas, Detroit, New Orleans, Portland and Tucson) got a total of $178 million in competitive federal stimulus grants to begin building or expanding street lines.
Twenty-two communities in the United States, some as suburban as you can get, are drawing up blueprints for streetcars or are putting rails on the ground. HereA?ai??i??ai???s the list: Arlington (Virginia); Atlanta; Baltimore; Boise; Charlotte; Cincinnati; Columbus (Ohio); Dallas; Fort Lauderdale; Fort Worth; Grand Rapids; Kenosha (Wisconsin); Lake Oswego (Oregon); Little Rock; Los Angeles; New Orleans; Providence; Sacramento; Salt Lake City; San Antonio; Tucson; Washington, D.C.
Arlington and Fairfax counties in Northern Virginia, two of AmericaA?ai??i??ai???s best-known suburbs, plan to split the costs of building a 4.7-mile streetcar line, running every six minutes during rush hour. Lake Oswego, outside of Portland, is one of AmericaA?ai??i??ai???s most affluent suburbs, with a high median household income. If they can visualize something better for residents than crawling along the turnpike smacking their hand against the steering wheel and sighing, then so can Long Islanders.
At least 14 more communities are seriously planning to make plans.
Look at video and photos of Portland, OregonA?ai??i??ai???s trolleys. ThereA?ai??i??ai???s video all over the web. The Portland streetcars are beautiful. TheyA?ai??i??ai???re sleek, modern and colorful. TheyA?ai??i??ai???re even designed to be easily accessible to people with strollers and wheelchairs. Some Long Island governments want to spend federal stimulus money on road projects and parking garages. Portland wants to spend the money on extending the trolleys another 3.3 miles. Dozens of American municipalities are thinking of replicating whatA?ai??i??ai???s been happening in Portland. Zero municipalities are thinking of replicating Long IslandA?ai??i??ai???s transportation model. The future is speaking.
The rap against financially-workable public transportation in the suburbs has usually been the low population density. PortlandA?ai??i??ai???s population density is 4,288 people per square mile, which is less than that of Nassau County (4,652), less than half that of the Village of Mineola, less than a third that of the Village of Hempstead and only slightly higher than that even of the Village of Garden City. This isnA?ai??i??ai???t your grandfatherA?ai??i??ai???s Nassau County.
But just so you donA?ai??i??ai???t think this is all about playing with trains or feeling good about ourselves for being really green, you should know this about Portland. Since the streetcars came, 53 percent of downtown development occurred along the streetcar line. Private investors, knowing a winner when they see it, have put $3.5 billion into the line. Surveys estimate that about 30 percent more people ride in the streetcars than would have ridden buses if that was the only option.
Trams can move people between malls and industrial areas to local downtowns. If done well, they can become a local economic engine that helps maintain this as an area to which people want to move, work and raise families.
In the past, many Long Islanders considered the existence of any kind of public transportation to be a threat to the affluence and autonomy represented by a single-family house in the suburbs. Most Long Islanders and potential Long Islanders my age and younger do not share these fears. There were trolleys on our main roads throughout the first quarter of the last century, when the Long Island suburban dream was born.
There can still be a suburban dream here, but it canA?ai??i??ai???t be the dream of 1960. Not anymore. We need a better, more adaptable dream that will sustain a high quality of living. Trolleys can be part of what comes next.
Michael Miller is a freelance writer, designer and strategic consultant who has worked in state and local government.
http://www.antonnews.com/columns/miller/8442-take-the-tram.html
Sonoma-Marin Rail Transit Project, California, USA
The following article could be of interest for those promoting the “Return of the Interurban“.
From Railway Technology.com
Key Data:
Name – Sonoma-Marin Area Rail ProjectLocation – North Bay corridor, CaliforniaRoute – Cloverdale in Sonoma county to Larkspur in Marin countyLength – 70 milesEstimated Investment – $590mOperator – North Coat Railroad AuthorityConstruction Begins – 2011Scheduled Completion – 2014Speed – 50mph (80 kph)Rolling Stock – 14 DMUs new stock
The Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit District (SMART) is constructing a 70-mile passenger rail road along the existing Northwestern Pacific Railroad (NWP) right-of-way (ROW) in the North Bay corridor of California. The NWP is owned by the North Coast Railroad Authority (NCRA).
The project also includes the construction of a bicycle / pedestrian path parallel to the railway line. The rail line and bicycle / pedestrian path will pass through two counties in 
North Bay, California A?ai??i??ai??? Cloverdale in the north of Sonoma County, and Larkspur in Marin County.The Sonoma-Marin rail transit project aims to provide multi-modal and fuel efficient alternatives to reduce traffic congestion on Highway 101, the only north-south transportation facility in North Bay.
Around 80% of the commercial, educational and residential facilities in North Bay are located on this corridor.
The project is expected to reduce car trips on the highway by 1.3 million and offset greenhouse gases by 124,000lb a day.
“The project is expected to reduce car trips on the highway by 1.3 million.”
The project’s feasibility studies and environmental impact certification were completed in 2006 with the assistance of Louis T. Klauder and Associates Engineering Services (LTK).
The supplemental environmental impact report (EIR) was certified in 2008. The contracts for the design and engineering of the 14 train stations valued at $11.3m were approved in December 2009. The main contractor is Winzler & Kelly.
The SMART project is estimated to cost $590m, which includes $499m for the rail line and $91m for the bicycle / pedestrian path. The annual operating cost will be $19m. The project will be financed through local sales tax revenues, regional bridge toll funding, and state and federal funds.
Sales Tax Measure Q, which is a 0.25% increase in sales tax, will fund 60% of the project. Measure Q was approved by 69.6% of the voters in Marin and Sonoma counties during the elections on 4 November 2008.
The construction of the project is expected to commence in 2011 with train service scheduled to begin in 2014.
Sonoma-Marin rail transit project details
The project is expected to provide a seamless transportation network of buses, ferries, bike paths and side-walks connected to a centralised rail line.
“The project aims to provide multi-modal and fuel efficient alternatives to reduce traffic congestion on Highway 101.”
The project includes the re-laying of the tracks, the construction of a maintenance facility on either of the two stops (Cloverdale or Windsor), the reconstruction of two tunnels, 59 bridges and the operation of 14 stations A?ai??i??ai??? nine in Sonoma County and five in Marin County.
Stations in Sonoma County are Cloverdale, Healdsburg, Windsor, Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa Railroad Square, Corona Road (Petaluma) and Downtown Petaluma. Marin County stations include Novato North, Novato South, Marin Civic Center, Downtown San Rafael and Larkspur.
Two rounds of public workshops were conducted in February and April 2010 to take public opinion on the design and amenities required at the stations. The aim was to cater to all the needs of different communities living along the corridor.
The commuter service trains will operate at a 30-minute interval in the peak hours (morning and evening) during week days, making 14 round trips and a 30-second wait at each station.
According to environmental studies on the SMART project, around 5,300 passengers per day will utilise the commuter service, while the bicycle / pedestrian service will attract another 7,000 to 10,000 people per day. There will be a provision for boarding bicycles on the train.
Rail transit infrastructure
Stations along the corridor will be designed to accommodate existing feeder buses and shuttle services, along with park and ride facilities in a few selected suburban stations. In order to further reduce congestions in Santa Rosa, Pataluma and San Rafael cities in the downtown areas of the North Bay, stations at these places are being designed with no park and ride facilities.
The bicycle-pedestrian pathway will have 54 miles of Class I pathway and 17 miles of Class II pathway improvements. The Class I pathway is a separate and exclusive path for bicycles and pedestrians with minimised cross flow. Class II is a small lane for one-way travel.
“Around 5,300 passengers per day will utilise the commuter service.”
There are two existing tunnels in the project corridor A?ai??i??ai??? Puerto Suello Hill Tunnel at San Rafael and Cal Park Hill Tunnel between San Rafael and Larkspur. These tunnels will be rebuilt to a 1,000ft length with adequate lighting, ventilation and water lines for fire protection.
Most of the 59 bridges are timber open deck or timber ballast decks. These will be replaced with concrete decks.
Sonoma-Marin area rail transit rolling stock
The Sonoma-Marin area rail transit will use heavy diesel multiple unit (DMU) vehicles in this route. DMUs have engines installed under the passenger compartment, which eliminates the need for large locomotives.
SMART is planned to operate with a fleet of 14 DMUs and serve six trains in this corridor.
Proposals were invited in April 2010 for the manufacture of the train. The contracts are expected to be awarded by the end of 2010, with fleet delivery scheduled in 2014.
SMART will be operating one, two or three car-set DMUs. With a proposed speed of 79mph, they are expected to maintain an average speed of 46mph. These sets will have a dual cab facility that will allow the trains to run in reverse direction as well as avoid the need for turnarounds.
Heavy DMUs measure 85ft long, 10ft wide and 15ft high, and have a seating capacity for 150 passengers.
Sonoma-Marin rail transit signalling and communications
Signalling is based on the automatic block signalling concept that allows the train to operate at a speed of 80mph. A block signal has a combination of track switches that are interconnected to avoid conflicting train movements. The automatic signals ensure the safe movement of trains travelling in the same direction.
Ottawa LRT funding approved – Urban Transit News From The Light Rail Transit Association
Ottawa LRT funding approved
The Canadian Federal Transport Minister John Baird has announced CAD600 million in funding for the City of Ottaw’s Light Rail Transit plan. The money would go toward the CAD2.1 billion first phase of the project, which includes 12.5 kilometres of light rail from the Tunney’s Pasture transit station in the west to the Blair station in the east. A 3.2-kilometre tunnel will run between LeBreton Flats and the University of Ottawa, with four underground stations.
It is expected that the plan in cooperation with a redesigned bus system will yield up to CAD100 million in annual operating cost savings, beginning in 2019 and the removal of more than half the buses from the central area causing a reduction of the city’s fuel consumption by 10 million litres annually, and, a net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of 38,000 tonnes per year.
Details can be found at ottawalightrail.ca
Deficit hawkism = gloomy outlook for public transit
An interesting item from the Light Rail Transit Association blog. The same seems to be true for Vancouver, but only with a twist. All levels of government seem to want to only fund (and partially at that) the most expensive forms of rail transit; subways and elevatedAi??Ai??metros instead of much cheaper at-grade/on-street light rail. The result: financial fiasco.
Deficit hawkism = gloomy outlook for public transit
For some time, I’ve been posting articles on the economic “stimulus vs. deficit” battle raging across the globe, and particularly in Washington. Now, unfortunately, it appears that the “deficit hawks” have basically won (see articles below).
So, why should public transport industry professionals and advocates care? This has some very bad implications for public transportation funding, the transit budget crisis, public transit services and ridership, and development of crucial improvements such as new rail starts.
With the 2008 Obama-Biden victory, I naively thought that, while this certainly wouldn’t mean the advent the revolutionary public transport Promised Land that I would like to see, it at least held out the possibility of something like a “New Deal 2” program pumping some real money for improvements into the public transport system while modestly (and temporarily) stimulating the U.S. economy.
That, basically, was not to be. Yes, there was a dribble of funds for public transport from a relatively puny (under-$800 billion) “stimulus” program, but most of the major capital funding was channelled into highway programs and other uses.
Then, I thought, there almost surely would be a “second wave” of more stimulus funding, and maybe public transportation would get more of that – and also, maybe crucial legislative-regulatory changes would be made to “level the playing field” between public transport and highway funding (and the funding of other modes).
Nope – that was not to be, either. Instead, in the face of the most profound economic crisis and downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s, U.S. policy (and global policy, for that matter) has turned much more toward Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, et al. and away from John Maynard Keynes, Paul Krugman, et al. – in other words, Herbert Hoover-style “Hooverville” policies have finally triumphed over FDR’s New Deal.
And, in federal transport policy, Wendell Cox and Randal O’Toole are continuing to trounce Reconnnecting America and the Congress for the New Urbanism (occasional anomalous exceptions notwithstanding).
The consequences for the public transport industry are almost surely dire. I qualify “dire” here because, at least in the USA, there’s an outside chance that Congress may manage to push forward an omnibus transportation bill with some modest dollops for public transit – but the chances are nevertheless slim. This would still make the outlook … not sanguine, but “lousy” instead of “dire”. And it would still be dire for quite a few transit agencies not lined up for the best table-droppings.
The implications for public transit agencies are almost certainly … gloomy. More belt-tightening, more scrambling to try to find scraps of revenue somewhere. (I’ll try to post more on this subsequently…)
Meanwhile, pro-motor vehicle transit adversaries can be counted on to escalate their campaign of agency-bashing, transit-bashing, and their favorite – rail-bashing.
My inclination is to say “hunker down” … but I’m a strong believer that “the best defense is a good offense” – only, I’m not clear on what a “good offense” would be in this case. If I figure that one out, I’ll let y’all know.
Lyndon
U-Pass program offered to more students in Metro Vancouver, across B.C. Will Transit Fares soon increase?
Gordon Campbell is in trouble, the HST fiasco is as close to a ‘pitchfork‘ rebellion as one can get, so to increase his popularity he must buy off voters and in a classic Campbell downloading taxes onto the poor announcementAi??Ai??has declared a universal U-Pass to all post secondary students. The problem is, the region has a $8 billion gold plated metro system that sucks in a vast amount of taxpayers dollars, including an off the top $230 million annual subsidy from the provincial government even before TransLink shells out cash to SkyTrain and RAV, plus a cash starved bus system.
The U-Pass, firstAi??Ai??conceived in Seattle to put student ‘bums‘ on empty bus seats, has now become TransLink’s modus operandi in claiming record ridership on the regional transit system. Trouble is, the U-Pass offers very little money to maintain both the bus and metro systems. A $30 monthly U-Pass, roughly equates to a $1 a day for transit and depending on how the fare is apportioned (if indeed it is apportioned) between SkyTrain, Canada Line, SeaBus and the bus system could be as little as 33Ai??A? a day for the metro system and even less if the U-Pass is used more than twice a day!
Example: A student in Richmond or south Delta, taking transit to UBC must take a bus to RAV, then take another bus to UBC, with each mode being apportioned 33Ai??A? a day for usage. We do not know the funding formula for the RAV Line, but if rumours hold true that TransLink pays the RAV consortium a flat fee of $2 per passenger, then the U-Pass is creating a deficit of $1.67 per student per day of those students using the new metro! What this means is that TransLink will hemorrhage money, which must be made up by increasing fares, student tuitions and the TransLink property tax, thus making transit more expensive to use for those of us so unlucky not to be subsidized by the government!
The students euphoria over the universal U-Pass maybe short lived as already at capacity buses pass up more and more people and the metro lines cutting back services, due to revenue shortfalls. The transit system will continue to be unattractive to the car driver , with overcrowded trains and buses, thus making our regional transit system just one for the poor, the elderly and students, which is a signal that the public transit system is in very serious trouble.
Full trains and busesAi??Ai??means nothing, if the Transit system collapses due to lack of funds!
U-Pass program offered to more students in Metro Vancouver, across B.C.
By Stephen Thomson
Post-secondary students in Metro Vancouver and across B.C. are being offered access to a universal transit pass program already in place at a dozen colleges and universities.
Premier Gordon Campbell announced today (June 9) that the remaining 15 publicly funded institutions in the province that are not already part of a U-Pass program will be able to sign on.
In Metro Vancouver, that gives students the chance to pay $30 a month for system-wide access starting this fall, down from the $81 it would otherwise cost. But students at each school would first have to vote to join the program.
According to the province, the monthly U-Pass rates at Simon Fraser University ($26) and the University of B.C. ($24) will stay the same until at least September 2011. As well, the monthly rates at Langara College ($38) and Capilano University ($32) will both be lowered to $30 in September.
Campbell said the program would make transit use more affordable for 430,000 post-secondary students in the province.
A?ai??i??Ai??I think itA?ai??i??ai???s a significant value for institutions around the Lower Mainland and around the province,A?ai??i??A? Campbell told a crowd gathered for the announcement today at Vancouver Community College, one of the schools that does not yet offer a U-Pass.
The plan also has support from student advocates who have been calling for an expanded program.
Nimmi Takkar, B.C. chair of the Canadian Federation of Students, said the provincewide plan is unique in Canada.
A?ai??i??Ai??A whole new generation of students are about to experience a college and university system where access to affordable transit and supporting sustainability is a part of their daily lives,A?ai??i??A? Takkar said.
Transportation Minister Shirley Bond described the arrangement as a A?ai??i??Ai??student-led initiativeA?ai??i??A?.
The province has committed $20 million over the next three years toward providing the U-Pass in Metro Vancouver, and A?ai??i??Ai??funding as requiredA?ai??i??A? to keep the monthly cost below $30 elsewhere in the province.
Looking for the rest of the ridership story – From The North Shore News
TransLink’s rather tiresome non-news story, singing hosannas about the Canada Line has peaked the interest of the North Shore News. Unlike the reporters, columnists and radio typesAi??Ai??in the mainstream media, Ms. James asks real questions which need real answers. SkyTrain and public transit in general, have been given a freeAi??Ai??pass by the regions mainstream media where any and all investment in public transit is good and those who want important questions answered, are treated as troublesome naysayers, somewhat like those questioning deep-sea oil drilling before the BP/Gulf of Mexico oil disaster.
One tires of TransLink’s highly paid spin-doctors ‘puff’‘ stories about SkyTrain and the RAV/Canada LineAi??Ai??with the mainstream media treating TransLink’s news releases as ‘gospel‘ and not doing any sort of investigated reporting at all.
The public deserve better.
Single track stub stations at YVR and Brighouse will constrain capacity.
Looking for the rest of the ridership story
By Elizabeth James,
North Shore News June 9, 2010
You know already what the news is; but in a minute you’re going to hear . . . the rest of the story.” – ABC Radio Networks broadcaster Paul Harvey AurandtPaul Harvey Aurandt, better known to radio audiences as Paul Harvey, was not above creating himself some of the news stories he aired on ABC Radio for almost 70 years.
Harvey’s career began casually enough at the age of 14, when he sat down at the microphone of ABC’s KVOO affiliate in Tulsa, Okla. Few would have predicted that he would go on to a lifetime of urging his listeners to look beyond the press release or journalistic interpretation of an issue, if they truly wanted to know “the rest of the story.”
The advice is particularly well-taken when it comes to stories about the spending of taxpayer dollars by the governments of British Columbia and their unelected agencies.
Unbidden, thoughts of Harvey have popped into my mind several times recently, and never more so than last Wednesday, when two interesting transportation developments were headlined by local news outlets.
At breakfast-time, came Global-TV coverage of an on-camera interview with TransLink Director of Communications, Ken Hardie. The discussion centred around the fact that, after only 10 months in service, Canada Line ridership had exceeded expectations with a ridership of around 94,000 per day — only 6,000 short of the 100,000 milestone which had not been anticipated to occur until 2013.
The interview then went on to discuss the matter of passenger capacity, not just of the cars but of the line itself.
All in all, it was a good-news beginning to the day — but for the Harvey principle.
With respect to our ability to judge its worth, the TransLink discussion lacked information on several important points:
What was so new about the number that it rated a re-announcement that morning? Had TransLink not given the same number to journalist Frances Bula on Feb. 17, five days into the Olympics (www.francesbula.com)?
Does the newly announced “average” include the February-March ridership surge? If so, it would be no surprise that the “once in a lifetime event” had exerted a significant enough skew on the data as to render them suspect over the short term.
Also, if taxpayers cannot know how many of today’s 94,000 trips are made by riders forced onto the Canada Line because their bus routes were removed, again the numbers have little value, except insofar as they contribute to TransLink’s arbitrary contractual obligations to the concessionaires.
It is not beyond belief that the now-cancelled bus routes were already servicing a majority of the 94,000 trips, albeit not crushed in a shiny new train.
In the absence of the missing details, taxpayers have no way of judging whether the Canada Line was worth even the initial $2.2 billion capital outlay, let alone the long-term debt-servicing.
Details about TransLink’s ability to provide increased capacity on the route are even sketchier and, again, the missing information is essential, if we are to know what financial risk will accrue to taxpayers for necessary capital upgrades.
Come on, Mr. Premier, when do we get to hear . . . the rest of the story?
At present, the line runs two-car train sets. At the combined seated-standing capacity of 200 riders per Rotem car, TransLink’s maximum car-capacity numbers appear closer to the six-passengers per square metre squeeze-formula favoured in Asia, than to the more comfortable North American standard of four square metres or 165 passengers.
No matter which formula is used, however, TransLink’s ability to increase capacity is constrained by two interdependent factors: operational capability of the train-sets and the as-built length of station platforms.
Technical specifications dictate that the Mark I and II cars on the Expo and Millennium lines must run in one of two configurations: either two-car or four-car sets.
However, light-rail advocate Malcolm Johnston believes that Bombardier’s proprietary SkyTrain was already out-of-step with international technological advancements before the Millennium Line project was commenced.
No surprise, then, that TransLink’s online Canada Line Fact Sheet revealed what he had anticipated, namely that the new line is technologically-incompatible with the first two because “Canada Line trains are more modern and run on a different drive system than SkyTrain; the vehicles are wider and longer than existing SkyTrain cars.”
In theory, the Canada Line has more flexibility, in that a 30-40 foot “trailer” section can be connected between the two cars, thus creating more capacity in a three-car train set.
When asked about use of this technique to increase capacity, Johnston again expressed concerns.
“The difficulty becomes one of access — particularly for passengers at subway stations,” he explained.
“Passengers cannot board or depart all cars when the platforms are too short, as is the case on the Canada Line. Industry experience has shown that a ‘selective door-opening’ system doesn’t work well. Passengers in the know crowd into the cars where doors open up first, while those unfamiliar with the procedure often activate the emergency-stop when they can’t exit the train.”
Johnston then added, “And we can’t ignore the fact that capacity is also constrained by the decision to go with single-track “stub” stations at the Brighouse and airport congestion points and the cost to build a double-track would be around $200-300 million.”
When the TransLink board finally sent the project out to proponents for “best and final offer” in June 2004, it was under the public gun with respect to the fast-escalating budget. So were the single-track sections and short platforms chosen for budgetary reasons? If so, how much more expensive will the project prove over the long term?
Beyond all that, though, there was something off-kilter about the flurry of Canada Line headlines last Wednesday, and it seems I was not the only one to have been left with the confused impression that the Canada Line was “racing toward capacity” as one headline put it. So much so that, on June 3, TransLink communications posted an immediate online clarification headlined Addressing Canada Line Capacity Questions (readers will find it at www.translink.ca).
So — when do we learn what the province has in store for the third incarnation?
Journalists and news junkies have become accustomed to the strategies employed by political spin-doctors: the late-Friday bombshells and the bad-news-good-news combo-releases. And so it was that, Harvey-like, I wondered: We’ve heard all about startling “milestones” before; so where’s the bad news they don’t want us to notice?
Was it the news that a reduction in Golden Ears Bridge tolls is being considered as a way to bring vehicle traffic up to snuff? Has TransLink or, more likely, someone in Victoria not bought Mr. Hardie’s claim that a loss of $5 million in toll revenues is “manageable” in a $1.2 billion budget?
Not bad enough news, surely, to require a cover.
Could it have something to do with last year’s report by comptroller-general Wenezenki-Yolland that revealed, “Despite strong ridership, the cost of operating the Canada Line will . . . exceed incremental revenue by $14-21 million until 2025?”
Speaking of Victoria and TransLink in the same breath reminds me. . . .
The semi-elected format for the first under-funded TransLink board proved to be “dysfunctional.”
The second, appointed, incarnation discovered it was still impossible to carry out provincial directives without enough dollars in the kitty.
http://www.nsnews.com/columnists/Looking+rest+ridership+story/3130979/story.html
Are SkyTrain Mk 1 Cars For Sale?
An interesting post in the Toronto Information blog.
For Sale Cheap - Cheaper Than Yesterday
SRT: What To Look Forward To
With the funding deferment pushing back the conversion of the SRT until after 2015, the plan includes buying some used ICTS Mark-I cars from Vancouver.
Want a look at what is in store for us, take a look atAi??Ai??this article which details a recent derailment in Surrey. Of course, with drivers on the SRT, the result would not be the same, but we are still talking about purchasing used equipment that has things like brake calipers falling off of it.
It seems that Trans Link is flogging off some Mk 1 cars to Toronto’s SRT (ICTS) Line. What is interesting is that complaints of overcrowding on the Expo and Millennium Line persist, but TransLink refused to operate 6 car trains, during peak periods, which would provide much needed extra capacity.
This begs the question: “Did TransLink purposely createdAi??Ai??an aura of overcrowding on the two SkyTrain metro Lines in order to persuade regional and provincial politicians to purchase new Mk. 2 metro cars from Bombardier Inc, when in fact overcrowding could have been alleviated by operating 6 – car trains of Mk. 1 stock?”
Obviously the sale of Mk. 1 cars to the TTCAi??Ai??has been kept hush hush, for fear of embarrassing questions thatAi??Ai??be asked.
Cargotrams for Broadway or Chilliwack – LRT can adapt!
On 3 March 2000 the Dresden Public Transport Co. and the Volkswagen Automobile-Manufacture Dresden GmbH signed a contract for the Cargotram for the deliveryAi??Ai??of parts from the logistics center in Dresden FriedrichstadtAi??Ai?? to a new car factory, using a tram running over the cities tram lines. The route from the logistics center to the factory runs straight through the inner city of DresdenAi??Ai??and use of trucks wouldAi??Ai?? increase in truck traffic, increasing diesel exhaust and traffic congestion.
One wonders how much truck traffic could be taken off Vancouver city streets by using a Cargotram style of delivery service on the proposed Broadway ‘rail’ transit project to UBC. Only modern LRT can be adapted by using cargotram not metro, either conventional or SkyTrain, operating elevated or in a subway.
Carogtram could be a natural for light frieght movements from Vancouver to Langley, Abbotsford, YXX, and Chilliwack.
The following is Carogtram in operation and could be a common sight on Broadway or the Fraser Valley, if light rail is built.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jMAeWJ4ubc]
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRKTTC6MYIw]
Recent Comments