TransLink Faregate Fiasco – Mr. Dobell wins again!

Stephen Rees’s blog has a good article on TransLink’s faregate fiasco and is well worth a read. The fare gate issue is not one of safety or making people pay, rather it is one of political influence and meddling. If the cost of implementing and operating faregates is $30 million annually as claimed by TransLink and if they only expect to collect $3 million in fares, means that there will be about a $27 million shortfall in revenue. Again, Mr. Campbell and Friends will stick it to the taxpayer to make up the difference in higher taxes and fares for his questionable decisions.

http://stephenrees.wordpress.com/2009/12/17/the-faregate-fraud/

Also for a refresher on Zweisystem’s most recent post on the issue –

http://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/

AAi??Ai??report prepared by TransLinkA?ai??i??ai???s staff in 2005 predictedAi??Ai??installing fare gates on SkyTrain and the Canada Line would cost more than $30 million a year to install and operate and reduce fare evasion by less than $3 million. WhyAi??Ai??force the cash strapped TransLink to install fare gates? Could it be that Premier Campbell’s formerAi??Ai??deputy ministerAi??Ai??was also a registered lobbyist for Cubic Transportation Systems Inc., purveyors of Faregate and fare card technology. Could it be that whatever Dobell wants – Dobell gets?

For another view on the topic

http://www.straight.com/article-213873/translink-install-fare-gates-skytrain-stations

From the New York Times – Why Is the M.T.A. Always in Trouble?

It seems that TransLink’s former CEOAi??Ai??may haveAi??Ai??jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire, as New York’s Metropolitan Transportation authority (MTA) seems to be in severe financial distress. There has been much positive news here of late about the MTA, but it seems the transit authority faces the same problems as most others – funding. An aging subway system (subways are notorious for expensive maintenance – Canada line take note!) is adding more stress on the MTA’s operating budget.

When it is all said and done, Mr. Prendergast probably will find it easier to deal with New York politico’s and bureaucrats than Mr. Campbell & friends and his short sojourn with TransLink was an eyeopener on how BC shady public transit practices are. As noted in one blog, “He got out of Dodge fast!”.

The following from the New York Times may be of interest.

Why Is the M.T.A. Always in Trouble?

By THE EDITORS – New York Times

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which is struggling to fill a sudden budget gap of $400 million, voted to approve a slate of cuts, including phasing out free student fares, reducing or ending service on dozens of bus lines and eliminating two subway lines, the W and the Z.

The current financial crisis came up quickly as expected revenues plummeted. For riders, the M.T.A. seems to be in perpetual trouble, with threats of fare increases and service cuts even in good times. A 7.5 percent fare increase is already scheduled for 2011. Strong union contracts and an aging infrastructure make cost control challenging. What savings and efficiencies might be achieved immediately, and what cuts need to be done in the out years?
For the rest of the article:

http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/16/why-is-the-mta-always-in-trouble/

Global Warming, Copenhagen, & Light Rail – The Solution That Is Ignored

When one looks past the European street theater of riots, the embarrassment of Canada, the intransigence of the USA, China and Russia, what will Copenhagen climate conference accomplish? Probably very little. The world is not ready for global warming and if a few island nations submerge due to rising sea levels, no one will really care.

Much of CO2 contributing to global warming is coming from burning fossil fuels and much of it comes from gas and diesel motors, yet no one seems to think reducing auto and truck use should be a top priority. Premier Campbell points to the newly completed RAV/Canada Line as an example of taking 200,000 car trips off the road per day, but can’t show any believable statistic to support his claim as the RAV Line has yet to show that a modal shift, from car to transit, Ai??Ai??has taken place.

Unlike the new Karlsruhe tramtrain service which saw an over 423% increase in ridership in a few short weeks, RAV’s new ridership seems to be elderly Asians from Vancouver shopping in Richmond and older gamblers going to the River Rock Casino to be relieved of their savings; there is absolutely no evidence of the all important modal shift from car to transit. Have we spent almost $3 billion to attract people to malls and casinos?

The SkyTrain light-metro system is force-fed 80% of its riders from the bus system and in almost twenty-five years of operation, BC Transit and now TransLink have never claimed any modal shift from car to transit. This is dismal news, as the taxpayer has now invested over $8 billion in a light-metro system that has failed to attract the motorist from the car. Regional transit planners, abetted by politicians, seem to be doing the same thing over and over again, without achieving a different outcome.

Rapid transit does not reduce congestion or pollution.

It is an ongoingAi??Ai??myth that rapid transit reduces traffic congestion and pollution and the clichA?Ai??’ “Build it and they will come”, is now used to masquerade poorly implemented transit schemes, like Seattle’s Link Light Rail. What does reduce auto congestion and pollution, is a transit system that is designed to suit the needs of customers and what customers want is a ‘seamless’ of no transfer journey from home to destination. Modern light-rail, being much cheaper to build, is better able to achieve the all important seamless journey than much more expensive metro and light-metro. Modern LRT can provide the rail network that can achieve the all important modal shift from car to transit, yet it is largely ignored.

Even though the SkyTrain light-metro system carries a largeAi??Ai??volumes of customers every day, most (over 80%) are bus passengers forced onto the metro not former car drivers. This certainly makes for impressive ridership numbers and bureaucrats can pat themselves on the back, but in reality, SkyTrain has achieved very little because it hasn’t provided the transit network that will attract the all importantAi??Ai??motorists. The SkyTrain lobby, of course, continues the myth that the light-metro has reduced congestion and pollution, but ignores that SkyTrain’s ridership has just kept pace with population growth. Too expensive to extend (Langley is said to get SkyTrain by 2030), SkyTrain continues to constrain both public transit policy and public transit development.

With the spectre ofAi??Ai??‘Peak Oil’ and ‘Global Warming’ looming, the METRO region will find it difficult to cope with increasing public transit demand and will be forced, kicking and screaming, Ai??Ai??to consider much cheaper LRT; in fact, in a few short years the SkyTrain light-metro system will be seen as a combined curse of dated technology and operationalAi??Ai??philosophy.Ai??Ai??

Vancouver and theAi??Ai??Fraser Valley needs 300 km to 400 km of ‘rail‘ transit to provide the transportation network that will attract the motorist from the car, thus creating the all important modal shift. The question is do we build with modern LRT, with costs as low as $4 million to $7 million (track sharing) or SkyTrain with starting costs now well over $100 million km. By building with LRT, the region could create a large, user friendly transit network that wouldAi??Ai??go a long way in achieving the all important modal shift. Continuing our present course of only planning for light metro will create financial chaosAi??Ai??resulting inAi??Ai??a very expensive, disjointed and very user unfriendly transit system.

One has little hope for any successful outcome from the Copenhagen conference andAi??Ai??very few peopleAi??Ai??inAi??Ai??the METRO region have the foresight to provide the real solutionsAi??Ai??to mitigate a looming environmentalAi??Ai??catastrophe. Building modern LRT and creating a large light rail network would go a long way in reducing both auto congestion and CO2 pollution which, strangely,Ai??Ai??is something local environmental groups seem afraid in endorsing, as they prefer to jet about pretending they are achieving something.

Sadly in BC, it is business as usual, with planning continuesAi??Ai??for very expensive, politicallyAi??Ai??prestigiousAi??Ai??light metro builtAi??Ai??on routes that do not have the ridership to sustainAi??Ai??them and building highways, in transit starved areasAi??Ai??to cater to the auto.

21st century transit planning has never seemed so far away.

Overseas news From the LRTA – Wuppertal ‘Monorail’ Closed

The following news item shows the problems of not doing proper maintenance on a transit system, especially a ‘grade seperated’ transit system. In the winter, in the least desirable time, the Wuppertal Schwebebahn is closed due to serious safety concerns with the support columns, until they are replaced, sometime near Easter.

The problem with expensive grade separated transit systems is that they need much more expensiveAi??Ai??maintenace than at-grade/on-street light rail. TransLink wants toAi??Ai??spend about $1 billion to retrofit and upgrade the Expo Line and one wonders if this is a smokescreen to hide an expensive maintenace program with the guideway?

Wuppertal ‘monorail’ closed :

After an inspection by an engineering consultant on 14 December the Schwebebahnseparatedmaintenance was declmaintenanceared unsafe to operate from 15 December. The undertaking is predicting that service will resume at Easter 2010. In the meantime a bus replacement service is being provided, and work will start to replace the 110-year old iron supports on those sections where this has not already been done.

15 December 2009

Has SkyTrain become British Columbia’s Greatest Bamboozle?

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. The bamboozle has captured us. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.

Carl Sagan

Is SkyTrain a colossal bamboozle? Does the SkyTrain lobby and TransLink still continue to bamboozle the mainstream media and politicians, with false claims and/or questionable statistics supporting building more SkyTrain?Ai??

WhyAi??Ai??do transit authorities, civic, provincial and even federal politicians continue to support, plan for, and fund a transit mode that costs up to ten times more to construct, almost double to operate than the light rail alternative.Ai??Ai??Why do the powers that be continue to plan and build with a transit mode thatAi??Ai??has failed to achieveAi??Ai??the all importantAi??Ai??modal shift from car to transit?

The mainstream media hasAi??Ai??long been bamboozled and continues to be bamboozled by the Ai??Ai??SkyTrain lobby and its friends; Ai??Ai??twisting and perverting stories to always make the mode look good, especially whenAi??Ai??the modeAi??Ai??is deemed an obsolete by many knowledgeable transit planners around the world.

Part of the great SkyTrainAi??Ai??bamboozle isAi??Ai??the ‘density’ bamboozle.

For years politicians, planners, and assorted pundits have claimed there isn’t enough density for ‘rapid transit’ when light rail is mentioned for a transit route, but neverAi??Ai??state what density is needed for successful ‘rapid transit’.Ai??Ai??IfAi??Ai??”there is not enough density for rapid transit”Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??then there needs to be a publishedAi??Ai??densityAi??Ai??criteria for transit modes such as bus, light rail and SkyTrain and/or light-metro, yet there is none.Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Why then was the Arbutus Corridor, which had a higher published density than the Cambie Corridor, deemed to have not enough ‘density‘ for light rail, yet there was the ‘density‘ on Cambie St. to support a much more expensive light-metro subway?

Point of logic: If one can build light-rail for one half to one quarter the cost of SkyTrain, then does one need on half to one quarter the density to support LRT than SkyTrain?

Is the ‘density‘ questionAi??Ai??just a bamboozle, by the transit charlatansAi??Ai??to support building moreAi??Ai??SkyTrain?

SkyTrain’s supposed higher speed is another bamboozle, oft used by the SkyTrain lobby, while at the same time, failing to mention that the supposed higher speed comes from sacrificing stations, as most LRT lines have twice a s many stations per route km. than SkyTrain. If this is so, then if we design a LRT line with just as many stations as SkyTrain, then LRT will be as fast, if not faster than SkyTrain.

Yet another bamboozle, is the old saw that SkyTrain is cheaper to operate because it has no drivers, yet the SkyTrain lobby fails to mention that automatic transit systems actually have more employees than comparable LRT systems. Funny how politicians, media types and pundits never actually useAi??Ai??hard numbersAi??Ai??to compare the actual number of people working for SkyTrain, rather state: “it’s a driverless system, no drivers and much cheaper to operate”, as well the SkyTrain lobby alwaysAi??Ai??uses the bamboozleAi??Ai??that “with no drivers, SkyTrain can’t be shut down by a strike!” What the pundits politely forget is that if the SkyTrain operators go on strike, the metro effectively shuts down.

With the present provincial government and their transit planning, the art of the bamboozle is fully evident and the mainstream media, being asleep at the switch for over thirty years, have been captured by the SkyTrain bamboozle. Sadly, those who should be doing reporting and investigation have unwittingly beenAi??Ai??a major player in the Great SkyTrain Bamboozle.

The Night of the Blunt Butter Knives – TransLink Fires Three Executives

It looks like TransLink has sacrificed three executives, to give an appearance of “getting their house in order” after two very recent uncomplimentary reports; nothing like firing three top executives (of course leaving with handsome golden handshakes) to give the public confidence that TransLink is cleaning house.

Sorry, no it’s not – not even close.

If TransLink was really concerned how taxpayers money was spent, it would cut non-productive bus routes like the South Delta 609 service, that only carries five to ten passengers a day. How many more 609 like bus routes operate in the region? If TransLink was really interested in revenue protection, they would disband the SkyTrain police (which more and more seem like a sop for retired RCMP officers), with real fare inspectors or conductors and do actual revenue protection duties on the trains. In Europe, it is not turnstiles (which TransLink is being forced to install by the BC Liberals) that ensures fare compliance, but roving conductors checking tickets and issuing on the spot fines for noncompliance.

Why does TransLink have or even need expensiveAi??Ai??spin-doctors, unless they want to continue to deliberatelyAi??Ai??confuse the public. What is TransLink trying to hide?

What is needed is a forensic audit by the Auditor General, to root out the real financial problems with TransLink and the RAV/SkyTrain light-metro system. Only after a complete and thorough audit is done will the public, politicians, and TransLink’s managementAi??Ai??will know where real economies can be made.

TransLink fires three executives

Move linked to ‘finding efficiencies’

By Kelly Sinoski, Vancouver Sun December 12, 2009

Three top senior TransLink executives have been let go, a little more than a month after a comptroller-general’s report criticized the transit authority for its “excessive” number of senior staffers.

But TransLink spokesman Ken Hardie said the departures of the three executives — who held posts in human resources, information technology and capital management — were part of a move by TransLink to “find efficiencies” and not related to the report.

The move started before the provincial government had even asked for the comptroller’s report, he said.

Hardie couldn’t say how much money would be saved by the loss of the three executives, saying TransLink would need some time to work through some of the details with them.

TransLink, under the guidance of then CEO Tom Prendergast, had sought late last year to find efficiencies in the transit system and “get more for less,” Hardie said.

“We went at this looking at the work that needed to be done and the resources needed to do it,” Hardie said.

This included eliminating duplication of services.

The capital management division, for instance, which is involved in vehicle acquisitions and the Vancouver Transit Centre, was doing similar work to that undertaken by Coast Mountain Bus.

As TransLink isn’t currently involved in building large new projects, it’s looking at redesigning its corporate management structure.

The move to find efficiencies came as TransLink was facing a looming cash crunch. The regional mayors’ council has since approved a $130-million supplement to help keep transit services running at existing levels.

Hardie noted TransLink has about 23 vacancies right now and more are anticipated as a result of a hiring freeze.

Trams for the 21st Century – Alstom Citadis

Ai??Ai??

Bombardier and Siemens trams also have stiff competition from France’s Alstom’s Citadis modular tram.

Alstolm’sAi??Ai??Citadis family of modular tramsAi??Ai??includes both partially low-floor and 100% low-floor trams,Ai??Ai??which can be delivered inAi??Ai??three, five, and seven sections, to suit the needs of individual costumers.

The Citadis family of modular tramsAi??Ai??comprises of:

• Citadis 100 – three section, 70% low floor, designed and manufactured in Alstom-Konstal plant in ChorzA?A?w for polish market (Katowice, GdaAi??ai??zsk)
• Citadis 202 – double articulated 100% low floor (Melbourne)
• Citadis 301 – also three section but with 70% low floor (OrlA?Ai??ans and Dublin).
• Citadis 302 – five car-body sections, 100% low floor (Lyon, Bordeaux, Paris T2, Valenciennes, Rotterdam, Buenos Aires, Madrid, Melbourne, Murcia and Barcelona)
• Citadis 402 – seven car-body sections, 100% low floor (Bordeaux, Grenoble, Paris T3)
• Citadis 401 – five sections, 70% low floor (Montpellier and Dublin)
• Citadis 403 – seven sections, with modified end bogie design (Strasbourg)
• Citadis X-04 – three sections, 100% low floor, designed for Central and East Europe and built in Alstom-Konstal plant (Istanbul)
• Regio-Citadis – three sections, 70% low floor (Kassel, Ridderkerk (connected to Zoetermeer and The Hague transportation systems), Salzgitter)
• Citadis-Dualis – derived from the Citadis series and adapted both to tramway lines and regional railway tracks, it will be operated by the SNCF

The 70% low-floor A?ai??i??Ai??Regio-CitadisA?ai??i??A? variant allows for tram-train operation, in which trams run and track-share on mainline railways and is currently used in the German city Kassel, and has been delivered for The Hague in the Netherlands. The Dutch tramtrainAi??Ai??isAi??Ai??exploring usingAi??Ai??of duo-powering (diesel/600 VDC, 600 VDC/1,5 kV 16 Hz or 600 VDC/Bioenergy/diesel).

The Regio-Citadis model has now been superseded by A?ai??i??Ai??Citadis-DualisA?ai??i??A?, redesigned to operate on the same lines as regional trains (on the TER (Transport express rA?Ai??gional) network) and intended for running at up to 100 km/h (62 mph, compared to 70Ai??Ai??km/h (43 mph) for the Citadis tram), and for stop spacings ranging from 0.5Ai??Ai??km to 5Ai??Ai??km (460Ai??Ai??yds to 3.1Ai??Ai??mi). 31 have been ordered (plus 169 on option) by the SNCF at an average cost of A?ai??sAi??3Ai??Ai??2 million per car or CAD $4.95 million.

Like most trams, Citadis vehicles are usually powered by overhead electric wires, but the trams in Bordeaux (and in the future Angers, Reims and Dubai) use the A?ai??i??Ai??ApsA?ai??i??A? (ground-level power supply), a third rail systemAi??Ai??which is only powered while it is completely covered by a tram so that there is no risk of a person or animal coming into contact with a live rail. In outer areas, the trams switch to conventional overhead wires.

.

Trams for the 21st Century – Siemen’s Combino

With Bombardier’s two Flexity Outlook trams arriving in Vancouver, let’s take a look what the other companies have to offer for trams for the 21st century.

Siemen’s Combino modular car

The Combino is a low floor tramAi??Ai??made by Siemens Transportation Systems and firstAi??Ai??model came off the assembly lineAi??Ai??in 1996 at the Duewag works in DA?A?sseldorf, Germany. Because of its modular design using standardized components, resulting reduced costs, the Combino was for a time one of the most successful tram types on the market. They were sold to twelveAi??Ai??transportation operationsAi??Ai??and a further development was sold to two others. In 2007, a new generation of Combinos was sold to Berne. The Combino line of modular tramsAi??Ai??is expected to be superseded by Siemens with new line of trams called Avenio, which have been built on the design technology of Combino.

The tram is largely made out of aluminum, with a welded under-frame to which the body framework is bolted in sections, which means that the Combino can easily be adopted to different lengths, widths and gauges. The length of the trams varies from 19Ai??Ai??metres (62Ai??Ai??ft) (Nordhausen “Duo” and Melbourne D1) to a world record 54Ai??Ai??metres (177Ai??Ai??ft) (Budapest), accommodating between 100 and 350 passengers. All versions are designed to have a 300-millimetre (11.8Ai??Ai??in) floor height and a 10-tonne (11-short-ton) axle load. It can be built as an unidirectional to bidirectional vehicle with driving positions at both ends, and for TramTrain operation orAi??Ai??for operation on unelectrified tracks, the DuoCombino with an additional diesel propulsion system, is offered.

The Combino tram uses (can be adapted for other voltages)Ai??Ai??600V DC overhead power and which convert this to 400V 3-phase AC power for the regenerative low wear motors via 3 IGBT PWM inverters. On board controls, lighting and air conditioning run at 24V DC.

In earlyAi??Ai??2004, Siemens admitted to problems concerning the stability of the car bodies and, as a precautionary measure, instructed all public transportation services to take all Combinos with a serviceAi??Ai??mileage of more than 120,000Ai??Ai??kilometres (74,565Ai??Ai??mi) out of service. Torsion forces generated in S-curves were much higher than anticipated, leading to cracks around the articulations between the car modules. Subsequently, hairline cracks were found in the joints of the aluminum bodies, which could cause the roof to collapse in the case of an accident.

Siemens launched a three stage process of rebuilding the 454 modules affected, which nowAi??Ai??reinforces the modules to give an expected 30-year life. The cost of the rebuild programme was put at A?ai??sAi??400m or CAD $620m.Ai??Ai??

Over 500 Combino’s have been built and Ai??Ai??in operation around the world and theAi??Ai??Combino tramAi??Ai??has now been superseded by the Avenio modular tram.

The Streetcars are coming, The Streetcars are coming – or are they?

There has been some media attention given to the arrival of the the two BombardierAi??Ai??Flexity OutlookAi??Ai??trams from Belgium, for a demonstration operation on a short section of Vancouver’s ‘Downtown Historic Railway’, during the Olympics. I was very disappointed in BCTV News when the commentator described the trams as “old fashioned“, as the Flexity generation of trams are probably the most modern public transit vehicle on the market today.

The Flexity family of modular trams, as with Siemen’s ‘Combino‘ and Alstom’s ‘Citidis‘,Ai??Ai??can be either unidirectional or bidirectional, with two driving positions at either end. Being modular, the Flexity tram can be made to custom suit any operator and shorter cars maybe delivered to starter systems and can be economically lengthened, by adding more modules, when customer demand warrants. Being low-floor means that the Flexity tram can cater easily to the mobility impaired, with no expensive ramps or the need for attendants.

The Flexity comes in a standard length of 2.65 metres, unlike other modular trams whichAi??Ai??designed to cater to metre as well as standard gauge transit systems. Also of note is that trams designed solely for urban or city lines, with stops every 400m to 600mTram The, have smaller (cheaper) motors and lower maximum speeds; Flexity trams designed for suburban routes or tram tram service, with much longer station spacing have higher maximum speeds.

The Flexity family of tramsAi??Ai??

Name	Floor	Ai??Ai??	Top speed	Ai??Ai??	Length
Flexity 2	Ai??Ai?? 100% low-floor	Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??	Ai??Ai??	Ai??Ai??	Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??32.5m
Flexity Classic	65A?ai??i??ai???74% low-floor	Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??	Ai??Ai?? 70A?ai??i??ai???80 km/h	Ai??Ai??	Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??21A?ai??i??ai???45 m
Flexity Outlook	100% low-floor	Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??	Ai??Ai?? 65A?ai??i??ai???80 km/h	Ai??Ai??	Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??27A?ai??i??ai???43.4 m
Flexity Swift	70A?ai??i??ai???76% low-floor or 100% high-floor	Ai??Ai??	Ai??Ai?? 70A?ai??i??ai???100 km/h	Ai??Ai??	Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??25A?ai??i??ai???42 m
Flexity Link	50% low-floor	Ai??Ai??	Ai??Ai??100 km/h	Ai??Ai??	Ai??Ai?? 37 m
Flexity Berlin	100% low-floor	Ai??Ai??	Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? 70 km/h	Ai??Ai??	Ai??Ai??30.8 mA?ai??i??ai???40 m

Ai??Ai??

I also see Vancouver’s Engineering department has relaid a portion of the “Downtown Historic Railway” track, which seems to be built to a much more expensive heavy-rail standard, suitable for TGV operation with cement ties and Pandrol clipped rail, which is overkill for a tram designed to operate on trambahn and/or girder rail. No doubt city engineers are pleased, but this rather expensive track may skew the city’s estimates for the costAi??Ai??future streetcar development. It would be nice to see some sections of trambahn, girder rail and even some L-55 low profile rail to give a realAi??Ai??look of modern tram track.

The ‘Downtown Historic Railway’ operates on a route that never did have streetcar or interurban operation (the line was original a GNR/CPR interchange track) and very few people in Vancouver will have the opportunity to see modern LRT in operation; and modern light rail it is, as the Flexity trams will operate on a fully reserved rights-of-way, with no on-street operation. A streetcar it is not.

There are financial clouds hovering over the Historic Railway, as Vancouver is in a budget crisis and Vision (Visonless by many) Vancouver who now control the reigns of power may cut funding or not even fund the ‘Downtown Historic Railway’ in 2010.

One hopes that the very short operation of the two European trams will spur on development of light rail in this light metro city, but I think the powers that be believe in massive tax and fareAi??Ai??hikes to fund a few more SkyTrain Lines.

Our Campaign Blog – 1 year old today

Today marks the one-year anniversary of the Rail for the Valley Campaign Blog!

Readership (now at 300-400 hits per day) has grown dramatically since last December, when the Campaign Blog was initially launched and the readership was… well, 0.

Here’s the very first blog post, on Dec. 8, 2008: http://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/2008/12/08/rail-for-the-valley-on-ctv/

When I first created this blog, I had in mind a place where I and others could regularly congregate and contributeAi??Ai?? – not necessarily “News” items – but our thoughts and items of interest, a place to communicate and get ideas flowing. In that regard, the blog has so far been a success well beyond my expectations.

At the time, I asked Zweisystem if he would like to be a contributor. I had no idea how quickly he would adapt to blogging, to getting debate going (and certainly not always preaching to the converted!), and how adept he would be at building our readership, both locally and in fact around the world. I know today we have visitors from every place you can imagine – to our international readers, I’m glad you have found this blog and are enjoying it!

Looking to the future of the blog, I want to keep us moving forward, and to really build an online community around our main issue, as well as other related issues. To do this, means more writers and fresh perspectives. (Zweisystem strongly agrees.)

In the new year, you can look forward to an increase in the number of “guest posts” on this blog – and if all goes well, new regular bloggers as well.

In order to achieve this, we are looking for

1) “guest” bloggers who wish to contribute one or more “guest” articles for publication on the blog

You don’t need to be an expert on the Fraser Valley, or on all things light rail. A well-written post from a personal point of view is just as good. We’re looking for both local, as well as international perspectives.

2) regular contributors, whether it be once a week, or more frequently.

If you’d like to contribute, or if you know someone else, please send an email to railforthevalley@gmail.com.

If you have a passion for the issue of Rail for the Valley, and an enthusiasm to write for us, please come forward!