French Delights – Paris’s Tramway line 1 & Line 2
In 1992 trams (LRT)Ai??Ai??returned toAi??Ai??Paris, afterAi??Ai??their abandonmentAi??Ai??in 1938. The new tramAi??Ai??line,Ai??Ai??Line T1Ai??Ai?? ran fromAi??Ai??La Courneuve to Bobigny and was extendedAi??Ai??few months later to Gare St. Denis. So successful was line T-1, that it tripled theAi??Ai??ridershipAi??Ai??of the bus route it replaced. In 1997, after the success of the new tramway, Line T2 opened, running fromAi??Ai??Issy Val de Seine-La Defense andAi??Ai??runs on theAi??Ai??former track of a local regional electric railway, with electric hauled passenger cars replaced by trams.
Ai??Ai??In 2003 T1 (which routeAi??Ai??lies in the north-eastern part of the city)Ai??Ai??was extended 3 km east to Noisy-le-SecAi??Ai??. LineAi??Ai??T1 interchanges with local railways (RER) at Gare St. Denis, Noisy-le-Sec, and with 3 metro lines at Bobigny, Corneuve and Basilique St. Denis. Further extensions are planned: a western extension from Saint Denis to AsniA?A?res and Gennevilliers, southern extension from Noisy-le-Sec to Montreuil and Val de Fontenay RER station.
Ai??Ai??Line T2 (which route runs south-west) interchanges with local railways at Issy Val de Seine and La Defense, and with one of the metro lines at La Defense. Two extensions are in advanced planning phase: eastern extension from Issy Val de Seine to Porte de Versailles (transfer point to and from metro L12, tram T3), northern extension from La Defense to Bezons.Ai??
What is interesting is that both lines that they cost about CAD $16 million per km. to build and combined,Ai??Ai??carry over 50 million passengers annually.
| Country | France |
| Line | T1 |
| Inhabitants | City 2.150.000, District 11.175.000 |
| Date opening | 1992 |
| Future development: | western extension (2011) from Saint Denis to AsniA?A?res, Gennevilliers and Ile-Saint-Denis; eastern extension (2013) from Noisy-le-Sec to Montreuil and Val de Fontenay RER station |
| Length (km) | 11 |
| Track sections | ground level mostly in reserved lanes |
| Stops | 26, average distance m 450 |
| Platforms | heigth 35 cm |
| Platform doors | — |
| General characteristics | — |
| n. of vehicles | 35 |
| n. of cars per vehicle | 3 |
| Type | steel wheels, bi-directional |
| Vehicle dimensions (m) | length 29.4; width 2.30 |
| Vehicle capacity (pax) | 178 (52 seated) |
| Frequency | 5’/8′ |
| Current/Voltage | 750 V DC overhead |
| Type of guide/gauge | standard gauge rails (1435 mm) |
| Speed Km/h | Comm 24, Max — |
| Accel./Decel. (m/sec2) | Ai?? |
| System capacity | — |
| Ridership | 30 millions pax/year |
| Total cost | 10 M Euro/km |
| Staff | — |
| System builder | ALSTOM |
| Model | TFS |
| NOTE | construction phases: Gras St. Denis-Bobigny Picasso (1992); Bobigny-Noisy-le-Sec (2003) |
Line T2
| Country | France |
| Line | T2 |
| Inhabitants | City 2.150.000, District 11.175.000 |
| Date opening | 1997 |
| Future development: | eastern extension (2009) Issy Val de Seine-Porte de Versailles (transfer point to and from metro L12, tram T3); northern extension (2011) La Defense-Bezons |
| Length (km) | 11.3 |
| Track sections | ground level mostly in reserved lanes |
| Stops | 13, average distance m 950 |
| Platforms | heigth 35 cm |
| Platform doors | — |
| General characteristics | — |
| n. of vehicles | 26 |
| n. of cars per vehicle | 5 |
| Type | steel wheels, bi-directional |
| Vehicle dimensions (m) | length 32.2; width 2.40 |
| Vehicle capacity (pax) | 231 (48 seated) |
| Frequency | 5’/8′ |
| Current/Voltage | 750 V DC overhead |
| Type of guide/gauge | standard gauge rails (1435 mm) |
| Speed Km/h | Comm 24, Max — |
| Accel./Decel. (m/sec2) | Ai?? |
| System capacity | — |
| Ridership | 20 millions pax/year |
| Total cost | 10 M Euro/km |
| Staff | — |
| System builder | ALSTOM |
| Model | Citadis |
| NOTE | further 34 Alstom Citadis trams for the future extensions (16 for Issy Val de Seine-Porte de Versailles, 18 for La Defen |
From the Georgia Straight – TransLink’s Broadway transit gambit condemned
It seems Vancouver’s politicians are not satisfied with one hugely expensive subway, they want a almost $4 billion subway under Broadway to UBC. Indeed, as Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan points out, Vancouver’s politicians are blinkered to the real costs involved with subway construction, especially when the provincial and region taxpayers anted up for the almost $3 billion RAV/Canada Line, which is route woefully short of ridership to support the mode.
Do not Mayor Robertson and the Vision Council understand the ramifications of building expensive metro systems on routes that do not have the ridership to support them? Do they not realize if a subway doesn’t cater to 400,000 passengers a day or more then massive subsidies must be paid to support the subway? Ai??Ai??Apparently not as Vancouver and the SkyTrain/light-metro lobby bang the drum for more expensive subways, which the rest of the region, must prostrate themselves to the wishes of Vancouver. It seems, when the premier of the province who was once a mayor of VancouverAi??Ai??and supported by other premiers who were once Vancouver mayors, hugely expensive subwaysAi??Ai??will always beAi??Ai??on the menu for Vancouver.
It is certainly enough evidence to support the end of TransLink as we know it and form two transit agencies: 1) For communities with SkyTrain or RAV and 2) those communities without SkyTrain or RAV. Only when the the taxpayers residing in the communities with SkyTrain and RAV light metro feel the full cost of the mode, no rational decision on transit will ever be made in the region.
By Matthew Burrows
October 1,Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??2009
Burnaby mayor Derek Corrigan believes the possible development of rapid transit along Broadway has blinkered Vancouver politicians to the funding constraints facing a regional transit authority he calls A?ai??i??Ai??bankruptA?ai??i??A?.
A?ai??i??Ai??I think that Vancouver very much has seized on the idea that somehow they are going to get a Broadway line out of this and that there is a campaign issue for them [Vision Vancouver],A?ai??i??A? Corrigan told the Georgia Straight by phone.
Because TransLink is in such a financial crunch, its TransLink 2010 10-Year Plan has laid out a A?ai??i??Ai??base planA?ai??i??A? along with two supplementary funding options, each with a varying price tag to get out of the hole.
A third option, called A?ai??i??Ai??On Track to a Sustainable RegionA?ai??i??A?, would piggyback on the supplementary plan titled A?ai??i??Ai??Maintain and UpgradeA?ai??i??A? and abandon the base plan. It is also the most expensive version. Vision VancouverA?ai??i??ai???representatives of which occupy all of VancouverA?ai??i??ai???s six spots on the Metro Vancouver boardA?ai??i??ai???has come out in favour of A?ai??i??Ai??On TrackA?ai??i??A?, which would require an additional $450 million in annual funding above current levels and would dramatically expand the borrowing limit, to $6.5 billion.
A?ai??i??Ai??I think one of the things that happens very clearly is that unless you go to the $450 million [option], there is no discussion of expansion of any rapid transit in Vancouver,A?ai??i??A? Corrigan said.
He added that he favours a position of A?ai??i??Ai??no supplementA?ai??i??A?, which is the base-plan option. This would require A?ai??i??Ai??drastic cutsA?ai??i??A?, according to TransLink documents. (The remaining option, called A?ai??i??Ai??Funding StabilizationA?ai??i??A?, requires an additional $130 million a year above current levels.)
Provincial legislation requires that TransLinkA?ai??i??ai???s mayorsA?ai??i??ai??? councilA?ai??i??ai???consisting of the regionA?ai??i??ai???s 21 mayors as well as Tsawwassen First Nation Chief Kim BairdA?ai??i??ai???respond to the funding scenarios by October 31. TransLink spokesperson Judy Rudin told the Straight that the mayorsA?ai??i??ai??? council will vote October 23.
Neither Vancouver mayor Gregor Robertson nor Dianne Watts, Surrey mayor and chair of the mayorsA?ai??i??ai??? council, responded to messages by the Straight‘s deadline.
On August 26, Metro senior regional planner Raymond Kan sent a list of recommendations to the regional planning committee. The On Track option presented A?ai??i??Ai??the highest level of consistency and support for the Livable Region Strategic PlanA?ai??i??A?, Kan said. The regional planning committee approved KanA?ai??i??ai???s list and sent it to the Metro Vancouver board meeting of September 25, where Robertson moved the initial motion before giving an impassioned speech pushing for more funding.
A?ai??i??Ai??I think itA?ai??i??ai???s critical that Metro Vancouver directors remain united on the $450 million and that we donA?ai??i??ai???t fold our tents now,A?ai??i??A? Robertson said at the time, having just stated: A?ai??i??Ai??The other [funding] levels are totally inadequate and inappropriate to be suggesting.A?ai??i??A?
Baird and Corrigan both missed the Metro vote, and Burnaby city councillor Sav Dhaliwal was the only dissenter as the motion passed. Corrigan countered later that Vancouver politicians are pushing for the $450 million because they want to A?ai??i??Ai??get back in the queueA?ai??i??A?.
A?ai??i??Ai??And they are desperate to get back in the queue, because, in essence, past councils have completely messed up any opportunity for the line to go along Broadway,A?ai??i??A? he said. A?ai??i??Ai??So they are really the authors of their own misfortune. IA?ai??i??ai???m not blaming Gregor. He wasnA?ai??i??ai???t on council. He inherits a series of decisions from [former Vancouver mayors] Philip Owen through Larry Campbell through Sam Sullivan that have militated against any expansion of the transit system down Broadway.A?ai??i??A?
The mayorsA?ai??i??ai??? council has A?ai??i??Ai??no appetiteA?ai??i??A? for approving the $450-million option, Corrigan claimed, partly because TransLink commissioner Martin CrillyA?ai??i??ai???s August 31 report on TransLinkA?ai??i??ai???s 2010 10-Year Plan states that this option has a A?ai??i??Ai??gap of $175 million [per year] in identified fundingA?ai??i??A?.
A?ai??i??Ai??This means that the scenario has no status as a Supplement to be approved or rejected under the Act,A?ai??i??A? Crilly wrote.
Speaking at the September 25 Metro meeting, Surrey councillor Linda Hepner also expressed concern over the changes to TransLink governance initiated in 2007 under thenA?ai??i??ai???B.C. transportation minister Kevin Falcon. Hepner called it a A?ai??i??Ai??dogA?ai??i??ai???s breakfastA?ai??i??A?, which resonated with Corrigan, who has claimed both at the Metro board and to the Straight that a private, unelected board equates to A?ai??i??Ai??taxation without representationA?ai??i??A?.
And Now, Something Completely Different – The Portland Zoo Train, a trip worthwhile
The Washington Park and Zoo Railway is a 30-inch (762Ai??Ai??mm) narrow gauge recreational railroad in Portland, Oregon’s Washington Park. It provides transportation between the Oregon Zoo, Hoyt Arboretum, International Rose Test Garden, and the World Forestry Center. The extended line is about 2Ai??Ai??miles (3.2Ai??Ai??km) long. There is also a 1-mile (1.6Ai??Ai??km) loop within the zoo grounds.
The 35-40 minute Washington Park trip runs daily Memorial Day weekend through Labor Day weekend. This run goes through the woods of Washington Park and the grounds of the Oregon Zoo. (Few animals are seen from the train.) The zoo station is near the zoo entrance. The Rose Garden station is a short walk from the International Rose Test Garden.
The 10-12 minute Zoo Loop trip runs in the off season, weather and business permitting, in the fall and spring. This run goes through the Oregon Zoo grounds only.
As of 2007, Washington Park and Zoo Railway has three trains in normal operation: Zooliner, 4-4-0 #1 Oregon and Oregon Express. Two of them (Zooliner and 4-4-0 #1 Oregon) are scale replicas of real trains.
Zooliner
Zooliner is a scale replica of the diesel-powered train Aerotrain, which is famous for its unusual shape that was influenced by automobile design. Zooliner was built in 1958. Zooliner is powered by 165Ai??Ai??horsepower (123Ai??Ai??kW) diesel engine with hydraulic transmission. The brakes are pneumatic, like on the real train.
4-4-0 #1 Oregon
4-4-0 #1 Oregon is a scale replica of a classical American 4-4-0 steam locomotive of the 19th century. It was built in 1959. It is a scale copy of 4-4-0 Reno locomotive of Nevada’s Virginia & Truckee Railroad. Unlike the original, #1 Oregon uses oil as a power source, but it is still a real steam locomotive (not a diesel that is made to look like a steam locomotive).
Oregon Express
This train is the only one that is not a copy of a real train. Originally (it was built in 1959), it was a diesel locomotive that was made to look like a steam train. It received a new look after being rebuilt in 1991. Now Oregon Express looks like a small diesel locomotive.
It carries U.S. mail and is the first recreational railroad to have its own postmark, as well as the last railroad in the United States of America to continually hand cancel and process mail. The locomotive of the Zooliner has a postal mail slot on the side of the cab, and mail boxes are located at the Zoo and Washington Park stations.
What Rail for the Valley should take note of:
The Portland zoo railway runs an intensive passenger service on a single track route, which is accomplished by the simplist of signaling and strategically placed passing loops. The Zoo Railway also carries the mails and RFV should include with their presentations, the prospect of the interurban once again, carrying mail up and down the valley.
A news release from Rail for the Valley – Light rail groups renew call to scrap SkyTrain expansion
September 29, 2009
Media Release (for immediate release)
Rail For The Valley and the Light Rail Committee today joined forces in calling on provincial and federal governments, and Translink, to respect the wishes of local governments in the region, and start work on a modified Evergreen line.
John Buker, a spokesman with Rail For The Valley, pointed out that no new taxes would be required to be collected by Translink, if only senior levels of government would listen to the communities affected and build using at-grade light rail instead of Skytrain. Said Buker: “With Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts wanting at-grade light rail for Surrey as well, the potential now exists to rapidly and relatively inexpensively build up a large light rail network in the region, using a mixture of track-sharing with existing railroads and newly constructed light rail.”
Translink’s original proposal for the Evergreen line, supported by area mayors at the time, was as a light rail line. It would have saved about $400 million in construction costs compared to Skytrain. However, Light Rail Committee spokesman Malcolm Johnston points out that we could do much better than even that.
“The Light Rail Committee had years ago proposed a plan for light-rail in the Tri-City area, which would cost a fraction of the cost of Translink’s,” said Johnston. “The plan, which takes into account the advice of several transit consultants, would use use diesel and diesel-electric light-rail vehicles, combining track sharing with existing railways and the use of on-street operation where practical.”
Johnston explained the route of the proposed line: “The plan consisted of on-street operation from Port Moody to Coquitlam Centre, with a spur line using the Ioco freight branch to the Esso refinery line to 1st Ave. in Ioco. The line would then travel South along Lougheed highway till it connected to theAi??Ai?? CPR rail line paralleling the Lougheed highway, connecting to the BNSF/CN mainline until it reached Pacific Central Station in Vancouver. This would give very fast journeys for people living in the Tri-Cities to Vancouver and visa versa. The Light Rail Committee estimated that the cost of this line would have been in the neighbourhood of $400 million to $600 million and giving a superior and direct service to downtown Vancouver. For a fraction the cost of SkyTrain or TransLinkA?ai??i??ai???s grossly over engineered light-rail plans, we could get a much larger usable A?ai??i??E?railA?ai??i??ai??? network that would be available to far more transit customers than a truncated light-metro line.”
Questions have been raised as to why the provincial and federal governments, in such trying economic times, would continue to go against the wishes of municipalities who are themselves asking for a cheaper alternative. Many have speculated that the federal government’s interest in finding Bombardier a market for it’s Skytrain vehicles is skewing local transit plans.
Said Johnston: “It’s further proof that the regions rapid transit plans are geared for Eastern Canadian politicians using local taxpayers money to subsidize jobs in both Ontario and Quebec.”
For further inquiries, please contact
Light Rail Committee spokesman Malcolm Johnston
dmjohnston@imag.net
604-889-4484
John Buker
Rail For The Valley
http://www.railforthevalley.com
railforthevalley@gmail.com
867-668-3736
News1130 piece on Rail for the Valley
Rail for the Valley made it onto News1130 Radio tonight. Here is the online article:
Light rail groups renew call to scrap SkyTrain expansion
Groups say light rail is a less expensive option
TRI-CITIES (NEWS1130) A?ai??i??ai??? Two community action groups are calling on senior governments to scrap plans for SkyTrain expansion and concentrate on at-grade light rail, which they say is a less expensive option.
The request comes from the community action groups A?ai??i??E?Rail for the ValleyA?ai??i??ai??? and the A?ai??i??E?Light Rail CommitteeA?ai??i??ai??? who are calling for an at-grade light rail system for both Surrey and the Tri-Cities area. They say local mayors, like SurreyA?ai??i??ai???s Dianne Watts, already understand the potential exists to rapidly expand the light rail network using a mixture of track-sharing.
The Light Rail Committee also says the proposed Evergreen expansion is not the wisest choice. The group says the Tri-Cities area would be better off with diesel-electric light rail vehicles, which is something the Committee proposed years ago.
http://www.news1130.com/news/local/more.jsp?content=20090929_220852_2196
News1130 piece on Rail for the Valley
Rail For The Valley made it onto News1130 Radio tonight. Here is the online article:
Light rail groups renew call to scrap SkyTrain expansion
Groups say light rail is a less expensive option
TRI-CITIES (NEWS1130) – Two community action groups are calling on senior governments to scrap plans for SkyTrain expansion and concentrate on at-grade light rail, which they say is a less expensive option.
The request comes from the community action groups A?ai??i??E?Rail for the ValleyA?ai??i??ai??? and the A?ai??i??E?Light Rail CommitteeA?ai??i??ai??? who are calling for an at-grade light rail system for both Surrey and the Tri-Cities area. They say local mayors, like Surrey’s Dianne Watts, already understand the potential exists to rapidly expand the light rail network using a mixture of track-sharing.
The Light Rail Committee also says the proposed Evergreen expansion is not the wisest choice. The group says the Tri-Cities area would be better off with diesel-electric light rail vehicles, which is something the Committee proposed years ago.
http://www.news1130.com/news/local/more.jsp?content=20090929_220852_2196
Is it time to replan the Evergreen Line? Could diesel LRT be the answer for the Tri-Cities?
Both the provincial and federal government want TransLink to build SkyTrain on the Evergreen Line and it is clearly evident that the decision to build with SkyTrain is purely political to keep Ontario and Quebec jobs secure in Bombardier owned plants.Ai??Ai??With theAi??Ai??ongoingAi??Ai??propagandaAi??Ai??campaign of the SkyTrain lobby, combined withAi??Ai??the complete ignorance of Transportation Ministers, both provincial and federal on the subject of regional transit, TransLink persists in planning for unworkable and unfordable light-metro. Despite clear indications that after the huge investment in SkyTrain and RAV light-metro (SkyTrain was too expensive for the Canada Line) TransLink’s ridership share has only risen with population increase. There has not been a modal shift from car to transit. Yet, TransLink and provincial and federal governments stillAi??Ai??want to squander billions of dollars more on SkyTrain and light-metro, in the vain hope they will get different results on the next metroAi??Ai??line they build.
They won’t. Then the question should be asked: “should there beAi??Ai??complete rethink on both mode (light-rail & light-metro) and TransLink’s role in transit planning in the region that is free of political interference.”
Regional Mayors want light-rail to be built on the Evergreen Line at a supposedly $400 million cheaper cost, but theAi??Ai??provincial Transportation Minister and her federal counterpart will hear none of it. It’s SkyTrain or nothing.
Why?
Simple, to keep jobsAi??Ai??in Ontario and Quebec. Further proof that the regions rapid transit plans are geared for Eastern Canadian politiciansAi??Ai??usingAi??Ai??local taxpayers subsidize jobs in both Ontario and Quebec.
This further gives credence for the call for TransLink to get out of transit planning altogether and shed the ponderous bureaucracy thatAi??Ai??is fixated on SkyTrain and light-metro and rejects light-rail out of hand.Ai??Ai??By rejecting light-rail,Ai??Ai??TransLink’s planners rejects modern public transit philosophy based on almost forty years of proven and affordableAi??Ai??light-rail, in revenueAi??Ai??operation in over 600 cities around the world.
One must remember American transit expert, Gerald Fox’s comments on the TransLink’s Evergreen Line business case:
“I found several instances where the analysis had made assumptions that were inaccurate, or had been manipulated to make the case for SkyTrain. If the underlying assumptions are inaccurate, the conclusions may be so too.”
Fox sums up with:
“It is interesting how TransLink has used this cunning method of manipulating analysis to justify SkyTrain in corridor after corridor, and has thus succeeded in keeping its proprietary rail system expanding. In the US, all new transit projects that seek federal support are now subjected to scrutiny by a panel of transit peers, selected and monitored by the federal government, to ensure that projects are analysed honestly, and the taxpayersA?ai??i??ai??? interests are protected. No SkyTrain project has ever passed this scrutiny in the US.”
A different plan for the Evergreen Line
The Light Rail Committee proposed a different plan for light-rail in the Tri-City area whichAi??Ai??is basedAi??Ai??on modern light-rail philosophy that has proven so effective elsewhere in the world.
The planAi??Ai??also takes into account the advice of several transit consultants, would useAi??Ai??use diesel and diesel-electric light-rail vehicles, combining track sharing with existing railways and the use of on-street operation where practical. The plan consisted of on-street operation from Port Moody to Coquitlam Centre, with a spur line using the Ioco freight branch to the Esso refineryAi??Ai??line to 1st Ave. in Ioco. The line would then travel South along Lougheed highway till it connected to theAi??Ai?? CPR rail line paralleling the Lougheed highway, connecting to the BNSF/CNAi??Ai??mainline until it reached Pacific Central Station in Vancouver.
This would give very fast journeys for people living in the Tri-Cities to Vancouver and visa versa. The Light Rail Committee estimated that the cost of this line would have been in the neighbourhood of $400 million to $600 million and giving a superior and direct service to downtown Vancouver. ForAi??Ai??a fractionAi??Ai??the cost of SkyTrain or TransLink’s grossly over engineered light-rail plans, we could get a much larger usable ‘rail’Ai??Ai??network that would be available to far more transit customers than aAi??Ai??truncated light-metro line.
TransLink officials quickly shot down the plan because: “We had just built a $1.2 billion metro line and we had get get as many passengers onAi??Ai??the new rapid transit lineAi??Ai??as we can.”
MaybeAi??Ai??the time has comeAi??Ai??for TransLink to get out of the business of transit planning and hireAi??Ai??independentAi??Ai??consultants to compete to provide plans forAi??Ai??the best and most affordable transit solutions for our endemic regional transportation chaos. The taxpayer can no longerAi??Ai??afford TransLink’s grandiose gold-plated rapid transit lines that, in the past,Ai??Ai??have not attracted the motorist from the car and at best, gives the bus rider aAi??Ai??questionably faster, yet more inconvenient journey.
Ai??Ai??
Ai??Ai??
From the Delta Optimist: Commute now 20 minutes longer thanks to the train
More evidence that all is not well in “Lotus Land“. Despite some ‘good news’ stories provided by TransLink’s spin doctors this weekend on local radio stations, the new, almost $3 billion RAV/Canada Line light metro system has increased journey times for South of the Fraser commuters, especially if they have to make two or more transfers. What is also interesting is that any savings in journey times for bus riders from South Delta/Surrey, is not the Canada line, but the newly installed HOV lane on the highway 99 from Number 5 Road interchange to St.Edwards Drive, near the Oak Street Bridge, which now buses can avoid about 2 km. of congestion.
The question must be asked: “Why the need for an almost $3 billion metro system, when what was needed to decrease journey bus journey times was a $50 million HOV lane?
Which again begs the question: “Why didn’t TransLink invest in HOV lanes on Hwy 99 in the first place?” Seems to be a lot cheaper solution than a very expensive metro system.
No wonder TransLink isAi??Ai??verging onAi??Ai??bankruptcy as it seems we have idiots running the show.
Published:Ai??Ai??Saturday, September 26, 2009
Editor:
Re: Sky didn’t fall as riders make switch to Canada Line, Community Comment, Sept. 19
I disagree with Nathalie Heiberg-Harrison’s conclusions about the train’s usefulness. Furthermore, her “Chicken Little” characterization was off the mark because nobody predicted the world would end.
The travelling public did predict that commuting times would be negatively impacted (I thought it would add 10 minutes to my ride) despite TransLink’s predictions that travel from Ladner to UBC would be quicker.
After trying every reasonable combination of bus-to-train-to-bus connection I could find over the last two weeks, I have found that both predictions were wrong.
My prediction of a 10-minute increase was out by a factor of two — my commute time has actually increased by 20 minutes each way when riding the train.
So, by that measure, I think that predictions of worse transit service from South Delta have been proven correct. No, the world hasn’t ended, but the train has not lived up to its intended purpose of improving the public transit experience.
Judging by conversations with other bus passengers, I am not alone.
Minimizing commuting time on public transit is all about minimizing transfer time; fast vehicles alone are not enough. Rides such as Bridgeport to 41st Avenue are simply too short to compensate for the longer transfer times built into the new system.
It’s easy to squander all the benefit of a high-speed train run with a lengthy transfer. It’s a shame that TransLink was not upfront about this reality during its planning and open houses.
Remember the Fast Cat ferries? Same effect is at play with the train.
The comment about the new bus lane south of the Oak Street Bridge is a red herring because its only linkage with the train is political expediency. It could have been built long before the train was conceived. If TransLink was serious about eliminating bottlenecks for buses, it could build a southbound “fast bus lane” on Highway 99 at Westminster Highway.
There is no doubt the train has degraded the commuting from Ladner to UBC. Perhaps other routes have been improved, but it’s hard to judge the overall balance. TransLink has never provided an unbiased assessment of who benefits and who pays, but it’s my suspicion that overall commuting from South Delta has also been degraded.
In conclusion, I will use the 601-480, just as I did before the train was built. I’ve tried the train in all sorts of route combinations, but nothing works well.
But I guess the train will move lots of well-heeled Olympic fans, and that was the main reason for its construction, wasn’t it?
http://www2.canada.com/deltaoptimist/news/letters/story.html?id=7b0689a9-6e92-4e0d-8386-8ee31aff7859
From the Georgia Straight – Metro Vancouver board pushes for $450 million a year increase in TransLink funding
Is TransLink like the Titanic, sailing full steam ahead into a "financial" iceberg?
If one really wanted any more evidence that our regional politicians are completely outAi??Ai??of touchAi??Ai??on regional transit issues, this item from the Georgia Straight should putAi??Ai??that to rest.
The financialAi??Ai??problems with TransLinkAi??Ai??are simple:
1) It operates light-metro (an obsolete transit mode) on routes that do not have the ridership to support it. Result – high annual subsidies must be paid to sustain the light-metro.
2) Operates buses on routes that have little or no ridership, while ignoring bus routes with endemic overcrowding. Result – bus service is diverted from high demand areas to areas of low demand.Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??High subsidies must be paid to sustain less than marginal bus operations, while at the same time limiting revenues from high demand bus services.
3) Offers deep discounted fares while at the same time providing a veryAi??Ai??expensiveAi??Ai??’premium’ transit service with light metro. Result – Over crowding of high demand services and limiting much needed revenue from full fare paying customers andAi??Ai??again demandingAi??Ai??large subsidies needed to sustain the premium transit service.
Huge annual subsidies forAi??Ai??SkyTrain and RAV/Canada Line,Ai??Ai??in excess of $200 million annually and a growing deficit as scarce transit monies are poured into unworkable transit solutionsAi??Ai??has created a burgeoning deficit.Ai??Ai??TransLink has run into a financial iceberg.
And regional politicians want more of this hocus-pocus planning?
Regional politicos suffer from completeAi??Ai??‘transit denial’ in the region, where the SkyTrain myth reigns supreme andAi??Ai??combined withAi??Ai??a complete lack of accountability by TransLink to the taxpayer, has left us in a regional hubris. Despite over $8 billion spent on light metro to date, forAi??Ai??three metro lines of which one is incompatible in operation with the other two, has not created the all important modal shift from car to transit.
And regional politicians what more of this?Ai??
Do they notAi??Ai??Ai??Ai??realize that with the impending HST and other downloaded provincial taxes onto regional taxpayers, there is no money left for this “pixie dust’ TransLink planning.
What should worry advocates for the return of the interurban is that regional politicians want to continue TransLink’s extremely expensive, yet grossly inept transit planning and not wanting to pursue more affordable transit solutions. To be blunt, by voting to fund TransLink,Ai??Ai??regional politiciansAi??Ai??have voted to leave South of Fraser residents out of the mix, while gladly tappingAi??Ai??theirAi??Ai??wallets to pay for dated transit plans that have proven unworkable.
Man the lifeboats!
Metro Vancouver board pushes for $450 million a year increase in TransLink funding
By Matthew Burrows
Metro Vancouver directorsAi??Ai??voted today (September 25) to push for the best-case TransLink funding scenario.
Burnaby councilor Sav DhaliwalAi??Ai??was the only politician who voted againstAi??Ai??Vancouver mayor and director Gregor Robertson’s motion.
Now the board will send the message to TransLink’s private board of directors and its mayors’ council that it should implement $450 million in annual funding above current levelsA?ai??i??ai???theAi??Ai??most generousAi??Ai??of the three options presented in TransLink’s 2010 10-Year Plan to address funding constraints at the regional transportation authority.
The Metro motion originated through its regional planning committee earlier this month. At the latest meeting at Metro headquarters in Burnaby, directors also expressed concerns over the first business-as-usual A?ai??i??Ai??base planA?ai??i??A? funding scenario proposed, which would lead to A?ai??i??Ai??drastic cutsA?ai??i??A?, according to TransLink.
TransLink CEO Tom Prendergast was at the meeting, and said he wanted to avoid the potential A?ai??i??Ai??chaosA?ai??i??A? the base plan would unleash on transit riders across the region.
Robertson said at the meeting that significant consultation had taken place to get to the Metro consensus. He said it was important that directors A?ai??i??Ai??don’t fold tents nowA?ai??i??A? and A?ai??i??Ai??remain unitedA?ai??i??A?. In response,
Corrigan said he understood why people would want to avoid cuts, but said the $450 million had to come from somewhere. The former B.C. Transit chair also cautioned that A?ai??i??Ai??there is a limit to what the taxpayer can expectA?ai??i??A?.
He said that, like with the discussions around the previous 10-year plan in 2004, there is a temptation to be overly optimistic on the accounting side. A?ai??i??Ai??We keep on supporting things; then we don’t know how to pay for them.A?ai??i??A?
Surrey councillor and director Linda Hepner moved an amendment, which passed, thatA?ai??i??ai???in the event funding is constrainedA?ai??i??ai???priority be given to the northeast sector and areas south of the Fraser.
Corrigan added his own amendment, which stated: A?ai??i??Ai??Without additional funding any 10-year plan cannot be successfully implemented.A?ai??i??A? Corrigan’s motion passed ahead of the main motion.
Ai??
Will the regional taxpayer go down with the 'TransLink' ship? Will politicians and bureaucrats get to the 'financial' lifeboats first?
The propaganda campaign for the UBC subway has begun. Here comes the Campbell Line!
OnAi??Ai??September 8, theAi??Ai??first day of regular commuting, after the summer break,Ai??Ai??in the region, the Vancouver Sun had a “Canada Line” Live chat where a poll question pops up “Should SkyTrain continue to UBC” and not surprisingly 59% have voted, “Yes get on with it”. Here we have the the firstAi??Ai??push ofAi??Ai??a massiveAi??Ai??propaganda campaign to win public approval for building Vancouver’s UBC subway. Certainly the mainstream media, both print and electronic, loudly banged the drum for RAV/Canada line and now banging on the drum forAi??Ai??the UBC subway.
Not only should a UBC subway worry residents in the Tri-Cities as they see their long promised Evergreen Line dismally fade away, it should worry residents in the Fraser Valley, that once again Vancouver is getting a politically prestigious subway at the expense of regional and provincial taxpayers. The promoters of the a UBC subway and the SkyTrain Lobby will delight at the fact that once again taxpayers who live outside of Vancouver, with no say onAi??Ai??how transit is providedAi??Ai??inside Vancouver will seeAi??Ai??massive taxAi??Ai??and user fee increasesAi??Ai??to fund a subway to UBC that they will seldom, if ever use.
It will take about one year before the hoopla of the RAV/Canada Line dies down andAi??Ai??aAi??Ai??meaningful statistical analysis can be made. Many questions must be answered, including:
- How many RAV Line customers first took a bus to the metro?
- Is TransLink apportioning fares between bus and metro?
- What percentage of RAV Line customers use deep discounted U-Pass?
- What is the real daily ridership?
- Is there an independent audit of RAV service?
Before we invest any more money on a very expensive subway, we first must have solid evidence that the RAV/Canada Line has indeed attracted new customers and that it has created a discernible modal shift from car to transit, in the neighbourhood of at least 30%. If not, then a subway, under Broadway, will be a colossal waste of taxpayers money.
Just what sort of ridership justifies subway construction? About 400,000 to 500,000 passengers a day, far less that what the Broadway buses carry on Broadway today. TransLink and SkyTrain/metro lobby are again, selling ‘pixie dust’ planning as real the real thing, with faux arguments supporting a SkyTrain subway! Ai??Ai??One must stop and pauseAi??Ai??for a moment to reflect,Ai??Ai??that despite now investing over $8 billion of taxpayers money on light-metro, TransLink share of regional ridership is still a dismal 11% to 12%, a number thatAi??Ai??has remained almost unchanged for almost two decades!
Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, is TransLink’s modus operandi!
Gordon Campbell, with full support of Liberal ‘West side types’, Vancouver politicians, UBC academics, and the mainstream media will champion a nearly $4 billion subway because Vancouver is a ‘world-class city’ and as everyone knows ‘world-class cities’ all have subways; whether the subway will actually attract the motorist from the car is a different matter.
Premier Gordon Campbell, with a disastrous start to his third term as Premier and withAi??Ai??the CN Rail-gateAi??Ai??trial beginning to stink like three day old fish, is looking for a legacy or two before he departs for more leisurely pursuits in Maui. Could it be that the new replaced Port Mann Bridge will be called the Gordon Campbell Bridge and the new UBC subway will be called the Campbell Line?
One thing is for certain, if theAi??Ai??Campbell LineAi??Ai??subway is built, watch for TransLink to implode, as Fraser Valley politicians shunAi??Ai??the transit authorityAi??Ai??like a leper, and call for a new South Fraser Transit Authority. If that happens, then wait for shrill screams of Vancouver’s taxpayers as they have to pay the real cost of a very expensive, yetAi??Ai??needless politically prestigious subway.
Recent Comments