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]
Trams, Buses & Trolleybuses Can Co-exist
On another blog, a long standing member of the SkyTrain/metro fraternity alluded to the fact that LRT and buses could not co-exist on the Granville Mall. Sorry to disappoint the purveyors of misinformation, but they can and do in many cities.
A photo essay from several citiesAi??Ai??proves the point.
- Milan
Ai??
- Geneva
Ai??
- Essen
- Riga
Ghent
TransLink’s Renumerations. A $270 Regional Transit Tax Well spent??
Ever wanted to know what Translink pays their erstwhile spin-doctor,Ken Hardie? Would you beleive $151,000 a year with $18,500 in expenses in 2008. Why was Better Environmentaly Sound Transportation (BEST) paid $61,886 in 2008? Are you appalled by the fact that Gordon Campbell’s and Keven Falcon’s TransLink Board of Ameutuers, which replaced theAi??Ai??previous board made up ofAi??Ai??regional mayors,Ai??Ai??now costs the taxpayer over $488,000 annually?
The following link gives the complete TransLink renumeration schedule for 2008, read and weep.
Canada Line Metro Reaches Capacity of 100,000 riders a day? Really, that little?
Here we have a classic Vancouver Sun ‘puff story’ about the Canada line, where real questions are not asked and $150 thousand a year man, the classic spin doctor himself, Ken Hardie shows why he is paid such a stipend.
The real question should be; “We just spent $2.5 billion on a metro and its capacity is a mere 100,000 a day, what bloody genius thought that one up?”
It seems only in Vancouver, metro systems pay their operating costs with such little ridership and one wonders why more cities don’t built subways? The answer of course is that they don’t and the entire article is one of stuff an nonsenses, that should have been printed on April 1, not June 1!
What the article does show is that TransLink is desperate for positive spin on the Canada Line and the Sun will print it almost verbatim what the highly paidAi??Ai??TransLink spin-doctors claim.
Certainly Hardie, doesn’t say how many bus riders are funneled onto the Canada Line, norAi??Ai??how TransLink apportions fares, if they even bother toAi??Ai??orAi??Ai??how TransLink factors in the deep discounted U-Pass used by Langara and UBC bound students, very important calculations that must be done before any claims of “paying its operating costs“, can be made. Certainly the claim that SkyTrain pays its operating costs is laughable because the province subsidizes the proprietary metro to a tune of over $230 million annually!
What is not surprising is the weak ridership numbers that go to YVR, which are in line with what other transit systems servicing airports carry.
The quote: “Hardie didn’t have a total count of how many new riders are taking the train……” is TransLink speak for, “The Canada Line is getting over 90% of its ridership from bus riders.” It must be remembered that 80% of SkyTrain’s customers first take a bus to the metro. In effect, we are giving bus riders a $2.5 billion metro ride, which for many, increases travel times.
What this story is all about is TransLink’s desire to build more metro and to fool the public in thinking that metro is doing a wonderful job, so let’s fund the Evergreen Line and the Broadway – UBC subway.
The sad fact is, if LRT were to have been built instead, it would be carrying more passengers to more destinations at a far cheaper cost; but of course no one would ever hear that from TransLink. 100,000 passengers a day is child’s play for LRT, yet it seems a big strain for a very expensive metro costing three times as much!
It is high time for BC Auditor General to audit TransLink and its metro operations to get at the real truth!
Canada Line races toward capacity
The SkyTrain branch nears 100,000 riders per day three years ahead of schedule after Olympics brought the crowds outBy Kelly Sinoski, Vancouver SunJune 1, 2010The new Canada Line is nearing capacity three years ahead of schedule, prompting TransLink to look at “tactical options” to help ease pressure on the 19-km route.The line has been recording an average of 94,000 trips per day A?ai??i??ai??? just shy of its capacity of 100,000 riders, a number TransLink had not expected to reach until 2013. It now anticipates it could reach that number as early as next year.
While immediate options to ease overcrowding include running an extra train from Brighouse during peak periods, passengers won’t see any more trains running regularly between Vancouver and Richmond until the summer of 2011.
TransLink believes passenger numbers are higher than projected due in part to the Olympic need to get drivers off the roads, as well as a push to funnel suburban bus commuters to the new line.
“You make your projections on what you know … years in advance of the project startup,” TransLink spokesman Ken Hardie said. “It’s probably the Olympics that have been the key difference [between] what we were expecting and what we have.”
Ridership on the $2-billion Canada Line has been growing steadily since it began operating last August.
Hardie didn’t have a total count of how many new riders are taking the train, but according to TransLink figures, the number of daily commuters from south Surrey and White Rock using the No. 351 bus was up 38.9 per cent in May from last June.
Weekend traffic also rose by 52.5 per cent on Saturdays and 53.2 per cent on Sundays.
That increase, as well as a rise in commuters from Richmond, Delta and Vancouver, has contributed to passenger crunches along the Canada Line.
The squeeze is particularly severe at Brighouse, the transit hub for all local Richmond buses, and Bridgeport, where buses shuttle long-haul commuters from Delta, south Surrey and White Rock, during rush hour.
For Percy Bond, this means he never gets a seat when he boards the train at Brighouse for his commute into Vancouver. The only way he can do so, he said, is to get off at Bridgeport and take the airport train, which is usually empty, into downtown.
“I like [Canada Line] except for the fact it’s always full,” he said. “What surprises me is they can’t put three cars on … it would be nice to see in the rush hour.”
Hardie said that now, TransLink typically runs 14 of its 20 Canada Line trains, each with two cars, at 3.5-minute intervals, with another two trains added at rush hour.
By August of 2011, the transit authority plans to regularly run 16 trains, which will represent a 12-per-cent lift in service, every 3.33 minutes.
Hardie wouldn’t say how much this would cost.
But he noted that when “we run more transit, we spend more money.”
But that doesn’t mean commuters won’t see any improvements this year, he said, as TransLink has the option to improve service during peak periods to deal with severe overcrowding or pass-ups.
Options include adding extra trains to the Brighouse line during “peak of peak” periods, he said, as well as having buses scheduled for Brighouse shifted to Bridgeport, where commuters can catch a second, nearly empty train, from the airport.
While the airport trains don’t have the same passenger numbers, Hardie said TransLink isn’t considering moving some of those trains to the Brighouse line. He noted a new park and ride facility at Templeton on the YVR line is drawing more transit users and airport traffic is expected to rise. The park and ride is for airport workers and passengers, who are travelling on the Sea Island route.
The YVR line carries an average 9,300 passengers per day, or 10 per cent of the total ridership, compared with 15 per cent on the Richmond line.
Hardie noted the Canada Line has only been running for less than 10 months so it’s still early days and variables such as high fuel costs or parking can have an effect on transit use.
Vancouver commuter Ken Law, who lives at 49th and Cambie, drove downtown regularly until the Olympics. He said transit has proven to be more convenient, faster and cheaper, especially with higher parking prices expected with the HST.
“I find it okay,” he said. “If you can save money and don’t have to drive, there’s less stress.”
Hardie noted he expects ridership to continue to grow, especially as municipalities continue to densify areas around the transit stations.
Richmond has been densifying its city centre since 2000 in anticipation of huge transit use of the Canada Line. “There was a pent-up demand for effective, reliable transit in the Richmond, Vancouver transit corridor,” Mayor Malcolm Brodie said.
Meanwhile, Hardie noted there is another silver lining for TransLink if the Canada Line reaches its capacity by next year.
The rapid transit line was built as a public-private partnership, with TransLink guaranteeing to subsidize ridership shortfalls of less than 100,000 per day. It must also provide operator InTransitBC with some capital, as well as debt-service costs of $38 million to $39 million over the life of the 35-year agreement.
Once it hits an average 100,000 riders, Canada Line will reach the break-even point in covering its own operating costs, similar to the Expo and Millennium lines.
“With a lift in capacity next year, that could move [ridership] pretty darn close,” Hardie said, but added: “All signs still point to TransLink having to hustle to meet up with the demand.”
Texas’s Newest ‘Rail’ Transit line, the Red Line
This article for Mass Transit should prove interesting to supporters of the “return of the interurban“, in the Fraser Valley. What should be of interest is the cost of the 32 mile (51.5 km)Ai??Ai??line is less than $5 million per mile or $3.1 million per km. (CAD $ 3.24 million)!
Let’s see, a Vancouver to Chilliwack interurban line is about 130 km., multiplied by $3.24 million/km. to buildAi??Ai??equals about CAD $421 million; or about the cost of about 2km. of bored tunnel under Broadway! I wonder if anyone at TransLink, especially those who are earning over $100k a year, are listening?
From Mass Transit
By Doug Allen
Interim president and CEO, Capital Metropolitan Transportation AuthorityBeginning this week, commuters in Central Texas have another transportation option from which to choose: the Capital MetroRail Red Line, which began service on Monday, March 22, with a week of free service. First-day boardings exceeded our expectations by nearly 50 percent.
The Capital MetroRail Red Line is a 32-mile system with nine stations using existing trackbed. The commuter line travels between Leander, through northwest, central and east Austin into downtown. Built for less than $5 million per mile, it is one of the most economically built systems in the country for the state-of-the-art features it employs. Given a skeptical community and in the wake of an unsuccessful light rail referendum in 2000, the MetroRail project was, by design, limited in scope. Using an existing rail line with only modest upgrades, limiting the number and length of sidings (or double track sections), constraining station size and budget, and buying a starter fleet of only six trainsets all contributed to the highly cost-effective nature of the project. These characteristics allowed for low cost and relatively quick startup, and may be a winning combination for similarly situated cities nationwide. Of course, these benefits are not without consequences, and it should be acknowledged that the level and quantity of service are constrained at the outset by the modest investment levels in the system. Fortunately the system was designed with expansion in mind and plans for doing so are in the works.
Six diesel multiple unit vehicles manufactured by Stadler Bussnang provide incredible safety features, such as state-of-the-art crash energy management systems and passenger amenities. Tray back tables, luggage racks, free Wi-Fi, plush high-back seats, and bike hooks make for a positive rider experience. The system also includes dynamic message boards at stations and onboard trains, and a new Centralized Traffic Control system. Railroad quiet zones have been established to reduce noise pollution through neighborhoods.
Because the system uses existing tracks that will still be used by freight trains A?ai??i??ai??? 32 miles of our 163-mile short line, the Llano to Giddings railroad A?ai??i??ai??? temporal separation is an important component of the system. As a commuter line, the three northernmost stations accommodate parking for 1,300 cars. At the southern end, two stations incorporate rail connector bus routes designed to be an extension of the train ride to deliver passengers to final destinations downtown and at the University of Texas. These quick bus routes meet the train at the station and drop off passengers at dense employment centers and the university within 10 minutes. Thus far, the rail connector routes are being well-used. More than two-thirds of riders deboarding at the MLK, Jr. Station are using one of two connectors that meet there.
MetroRailA?ai??i??ai???s successful launch was the result of the collaborative efforts of Capital Metro, the Federal Railroad Administration and our rail operations and maintenance partner, Herzog Transit Services, Inc., and their subcrontractors.
The development of MetroRail did experience challenges, however. We delayed the system for nearly a full year to address system components that were not functioning as they were intended. A commitment to cost and schedule very early in the process, before all engineering and planning had been completed, created problems for us early on. The design was enhanced with a Centralized Traffic Control system, but integrating that system with the other signal technologies being employed on the line was more complex than had been anticipated and staffed for. We brought in new expertise and better oversight to the project, and signed on a new MetroRail provider, Herzog Transit Services, Inc. With only a few months until our opening date, Herzog spread across our line like army ants, conducting an intensive analysis of the entire line, and systematically attacking and correcting the remaining problems.
The year-long delay was not without benefit. The Centralized Traffic Control System had been designed to operate in two modes, one for our freight operations, the other for MetroRail operations. Sensing that shifting between modes could be a weakness to the operation, the FRA asked that we consider redesigning the system to eliminate the possibility of human error initiating a shift between modes incorrectly, potentially creating dangerous results. We agreed, and subsequently took the time and effort to redesign and reprogram our entire signal network to put a safer system in place A?ai??i??ai??? one that we are more confident of and one that will reduce the potential of problems as we begin operating both freight and passenger service on the same track.
With the design modifications complete and the right team assembled, the FRA gave us final clearance to begin passenger service. Of course, Capital MetroRail is just the beginning. With full trains and demands for all-day and weekend service even prior to the first day of service, we will continue planning for expansion even before the trains lose their new car luster.
Capital Metro employees and volunteers are staffing all nine stations for the first two weeks to assist new riders and ensure they have a good first experience. Beginning March 29, valid fares will be required, and a one-way fare from end to end is $3. Capital Metro will celebrate its successful launch of commuter rail on March 27 with a commemorative A?ai??i??Ai??Safety TrainA?ai??i??A? ride of community officials and area students who have participated in our rail safety education program and a dedication ceremony at the Downtown Station.
We are savoring this historic moment for our transit agency and our community of bringing the first modern passenger rail system to this area. Our startup is going smoothly and now we are looking ahead to expansion of the service to meet the needs of our growing region.
Come on TransLink, stop doing "TransLink Speak!"
TransLink just can’t help themselves, they just can’t give a straight story without embellishing the truth. Really, if TransLink wishes to improve their public relationship, just tell it as it is, not like a $150,000.00+ a year carney huckster!
The quote from the following story,
A?ai??i??Ai??Anytime you have any debris of any kind, no matter what the source, you donA?ai??i??ai???t know what it might do,A?ai??i??A? he said, noting SkyTrain is already one of the few train systems in North America that has installed intrusion systems in rail tracks at platforms to alert oncoming trains if foreign objects fall onto the tracks.
fails to mention that all automatic (driverless) transit systems have anti intrusion alarms at stations, or better yet, platform gates, which only open when the train arrives at a station, to prevent passenger egress onto the tracks. Of course, light rail systems, which have drivers,Ai??Ai??don’t need such a system andAi??Ai??older subways and metro have suicide pits where the rail is raised from the floor so a train passes over an object. SkyTrain which uses Linear Induction Motor’s for motive power and needs a centre reaction rail which makes it impossible toAi??Ai??install a suicide pit.
SkyTrain’s anti-intrusion system at stations is a non story and has absolutely nothing to do with the main storyAi??Ai??of debris falling off a SkyTrain, fouling the line and derailing the next train to come along.
What has become an almost non-story, except for an eccentric few, has now become one of interest.
SkyTrain safe despite derailment: spokesman
By Cheryl Chan, The Province May 29, 2010
Ai??Ai??
TransLink has quarantined one SkyTrain and moved up inspections on sister units after a dislodged brake from one train caused a second train to jump off the track last week.The derailment, which occurred as the second train was going out of service at King George SkyTrain station, shut down a portion of the Expo Line track for several hours Wednesday afternoon.
No passengers were on board and no one was injured.
Doug Kelsey, president of B.C. Rapid Transit Co., said the company is still investigating what caused a brake caliper to break off from the first train, but that it has put measures in place to ensure passenger safety.
A?ai??i??Ai??We have quarantined the first train and inspected the whole fleet,A?ai??i??A? said Kelsey. A?ai??i??Ai??The rest are all running fine.A?ai??i??A?
All trains are inspected every six weeks, he said, but the inspection schedule of 36 other similar trains in the fleet has been bumped up to every three weeks A?ai??i??Ai??until we get a better read on things.A?ai??i??A?
The quarantined train has been in operation since 1996.
The second train was traveling at about three to five kilometres an hour when it hit the brake caliper.
It is the first derailment of a SkyTrain in 25 years.
Kelsey said debris is always a possibility on train tracks, as it is on roads or marine routes.
A?ai??i??Ai??Anytime you have any debris of any kind, no matter what the source, you donA?ai??i??ai???t know what it might do,A?ai??i??A? he said, noting SkyTrain is already one of the few train systems in North America that has installed intrusion systems in rail tracks at platforms to alert oncoming trains if foreign objects fall onto the tracks.
No such system was in place where the derailment occurred because it was a no-passenger zone.
Kelsey said SkyTrain passengers shouldn’t be worried about their safety on board the trains.
A?ai??i??Ai??The system is absolutely safe,A?ai??i??A? he said. A?ai??i??Ai??We will investigate this and if there is anything that needs to change to make the trains safer, weA?ai??i??ai???ll make sure that happens.A?ai??i??A?
http://www.theprovince.com/news/SkyTrain+safe+despite+derailment+spokesman/3088369/story.html
SkyTrain Derails In Surrey – Is This The Shape Of Things To Come?
TransLink was very lucky that this accident happened at the end of the line in Surrey, with an apparently empty train. A brake caliper fell onto the track and was large enough to derail the next train that passed by. Here lies the Achilles heel of automatic transit systems, they can’t see obstructions on the track andAi??Ai??proceed toAi??Ai??hit them, sometimes with disastrous results.
TransLink is now operating a fleet of 25 year old vehicles and as with most older transit vehicles, if preventive maintenance is not done more frequently, this sort of thing will happen and with increasing regularity.Ai??Ai??This should be a wake up call for TransLink, that yes, SkyTrain is railway and derailments do happen and the older fleet of Mk.1 cars will need a more intensive maintenance schedule, which of course will raise operating costs and that is something the cash strapped TransLink doesn’t wantAi??Ai??.
And now a final niggle at TransLink, if this was LRT and if there was a driver, a piece of scrap metal large enough to derail a SkyTrain car, would have probably have been seen by the driver,Ai??Ai??who would have stopped the tram, preventing a derailment.
TransLink investigates SkyTrain derailment
By Kelly Sinoski, Vancouver Sun
May 28, 2010 3:02 PM
METRO VANCOUVER — TransLink is trying to figure out how one of its SkyTrains lost a piece of its brake on the Expo line tracks Wednesday, leading to the derailment of a second train and the closure of a section of track for five hours.
Doug Kelsey, president of B.C. Rapid Transit Co., said the second train was out of service and pulling into the turnaround section of track A?ai??i??ai??? past the King George SkyTrain station A?ai??i??ai??? on Wednesday morning when it struck a brake caliper lodged in the track. The collision forced one of the train’s axles to jump out of the track and derail.
Ai??Ai??No one was aboard as the train was in the no-passenger zone, Kelsey said, so there was no risk to the public. The train had been travelling between four and eight kilometres an hour.
“This has never happened before, in 25 years,” Kelsey said. “We’re quite perplexed by it.”
Meanwhile, the first train, which had continued on the route, was stopped at either the King George or Surrey Central stations and placed in quarantine, Kelsey said, while the section of track between Gateway and King George stations was closed. A bus bridge set up to ferry passengers to the Surrey Central or King George stations.
The tracks were reopened at 4:05 p.m. just before rush hour.
Kelsey noted the travelling public was never in jeopardy as SkyTrains have a multiple braking system A?ai??i??ai??? including an emergency stop mechanism A?ai??i??ai??? in each car. The brake caliper was one of the original pieces on the SkyTrain, which has been operating since 1995.
All the trains are inspected every six weeks. The quarantined train was due for an inspection in two weeks’ time, Kelsey saidThe whole fleet has since been inspected and Kelsey said as a precaution the checks will now take place every three weeks.The train will remain in quarantine until technical staff figure out what happened. “We won’t be moving it until we determine what caused [the brake piece to fall off],” he said, but added: “The public is absolutely safe out there.”
http://www.vancouversun.com/TransLink+investigates+SkyTrain+derailment/3084244/story.html
Canada’s gridlocked mayors call for multi-level strategy on transit
The following news item shows that the issue of public and regional transit and funding of transit is beginning to creep into the politicians radar. Throwing more money at transit will not solve very much as politicians have a very strange habit of funding their ‘pet‘ projects. The federal government can help by rewriting the ‘Railways Act’ to take into account their almost total monopoly over railway infrastructure, the vast majority of it paid for by the Canadian taxpayer. Small commuter-rail lines and the advent of the TramTrain, means that the national and regional railways must make available (by statute or contract) train pathways for such services on their rails.
RFV makes the following suggestions for Canada’s ‘gridlocked‘ mayors to make of the federal government.
- Mandate by law that railway companies must allow passenger/commuter rail/tramtrain service on their lines.
- Mandate by law that all disused or abandoned rail routes, in urban areas,Ai??Ai??are kept for ‘rail‘ transit use.
- Mandate by law a funding cap of $25 million/km. be placed on all road and rail transit projects; all costs above the funding cap must be approved by local referendum.
- Mandate by law a full and openAi??Ai??independent review of all transit projects, which cost over $100 million.
- A review and implementation of new road and highway safety rules for railway crossings, with the onus placed on the auto driver to obey such rules.
Such laws in place in Canada would help curb the present mania for gold-plated transit projects so favoured by politicians and bureaucrats, as well leave open cheaper options for ‘rail‘ transit projects hitherto ignored in this country. We are nearing the precipice of ‘peak oil’ and ‘global warming’ and there will be a great need to utilize both existing railway lines and abandoned and disused rail lines. To prepare for the future, our politicos must act now.
Canada’s gridlocked mayors call for multi-level strategy on transit
By Mike De Souza, Canwest News ServiceOTTAWA A?ai??i??ai??? Gridlock and lack of federal funding for public transit is jeopardizing Canada’s economic recovery, say mayors from across the country.Heading into an annual conference this week in Toronto, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities is hoping the Harper government addresses some of their transit woes that have left some of the country’s largest urban centres at the bottom of a recent international ranking on traffic gridlock and the daily commute.
“Ultimately, it comes down to sustainable funding for transit because the federal government has been very good, along with the provincial governments across the country and in our region, at building infrastructure,” said Langley, B.C., Mayor Peter Fassbender. “But our challenge is the operating funds to ensure that we will meet the transit needs of the future.”
Fassbender said the three levels of government in Canada need to come up with a long-term plan that addresses not only the movement of passengers, but also the transportation of goods and services.
“That is going to feed into the economic strategy for the country, for the provinces and for each of the municipalities involved,” said Fassbender, also the chair of the mayor’s council for TransLink, Metro Vancouver’s regional transportation authority.
Meanwhile, a 19-city analysis by the Toronto Board of Trade concluded in April that five Canadian cities had some of the longest average commute times to and from work.
While Barcelona was on top with an average daily commute time of 48.4 minutes, Montreal and Toronto were at the bottom with commute times estimated at 76 minutes and 80 minutes respectively. Halifax was 10th in the analysis, with a 65-minute commute, while Calgary and Vancouver took both the 13th and 14th places, each with an average trek of 67 minutes.
The survey showed that Canadians in these cities were facing longer commutes than people in the busy centres of Milan, Los Angeles and Berlin.
Claude Dauphin, the mayor the Montreal borough of Lachine, noted that his region has one of the highest proportions of transit users for its population, but he said that cities across Canada all have enormous needs to upgrade and operate their services and reduce congestion.
He added that Canada is the only G8 country without a national transit strategy.
“Congestion is causing a lot of problems to our economy and that’s not the kind of thing we’ll solve tomorrow morning,” said Dauphin. “All the leaders of the different (federal) political parties will have to address this question, or we will have to ask them this question.”
The mayors, who are expecting to hear from Prime Minister Stephen Harper during their conference on Friday, said a new long-term strategy with funding for transit issues would also address pollution and climate change concerns.
While they acknowledge that federal and provincial governments have started to reinvest in infrastructure after a period of cuts in the 1990s, the municipal politicians say they need a long-term solution for revenues that goes beyond property taxes.
Regina Mayor Pat Fiacco said all forms of infrastructure require more investments in cities, including waste-water systems which are slated to meet new treatment standards that would require billions of dollars in new investments.
“There’s got to be a better way of conducting infrastructure business,” said Fiacco. “We are in the 21st century and we’re still living on a model from 1867, and that’s not right.”
The cities have maintained that they only have eight per cent of total government-tax revenues in Canada to work with, but must deliver more in terms of services and infrastructure investments.
“We (municipalities) have the most limited resources available to us and we need to look at what can be done differently,” said Fiacco. “What is it that we can do differently to ensure that we will not be in an infrastructure crisis? Some would say that we already are.”
Recent Comments