French Delights – Part 4: Le Mans Trams for small cities.
Le Mans, with a population of 150,000 and an urban population of 300,000Ai??Ai??(with a density of 2,806 per km/2), opened its first tram line on 17 November 2007. The north-southAi??Ai??route, about 15 km long, serves the city center and the railway station, besides other majorAi??Ai??urbanAi??Ai??transit destinations including theAi??Ai??university and the mainAi??Ai??hospital.
An eastern branch-line joins popular residential suburbs and many public structures. The choice for classic ‘tram’ choice (modern rolling stock with steel wheels)Ai??Ai??was made despite stiff opposition from proponents of guided bus, a sort ofAi??Ai??tram-on-tires.
Ridership is now over 50,000 Pass./day, a significantAi??Ai??number considering the small population of Le Mans and shows that a true modal switch from car to tram is possible with LRT, including classic traffic calming measures to reduce congestion in the city center.
Le Mans new light rail operation belies the home grown myth that the Fraser Valley does not have the density to build with LRT. It also belies the myth being perpetuated by TransLink and the Minister of Transportation that light rail cost just a little less than SkyTrain to build! After many years of intensive study, modern LRT has become the predominant transit mode to alleviate traffic congestion and pollution, while at the same time providing a quality public transit service that attracts the all important motorist from the car.
The cost of the Le Mans LRT was about $31.2 million/km. to build, with the higher cost attributed for the French passion of making modern light rail a people/pedestrian friendly linear park, with lawned rights-of-ways, bike paths, trees, shrubbery and art along the route.
| Country | France |
| Line | — |
| Inhabitants | City 150.000, District 530.000 |
| Date opening | 2007 |
| Future development: | Line 2 (Gare Nord-Bellevue) |
| Length (km) | 15 |
| Track sections | — |
| Stops | 29average distance 535 m |
| Platforms | — |
| Platform doors | — |
| general characteristics | — |
| n. of vehicles | 23 |
| n. of cars per vehicle | 5 |
| Type | steel wheels bidirectional |
| Vehicle dimensions (m) | length 32 – width 2.40 |
| Vehicle capacity (pax) | 209 (64 seated) |
| Frequency | — |
| Current/Voltage | 750 V DC overhead |
| Guide/gauge | — |
| Speed Km/h | — |
| Accel./Decel. (m/sec2) | — |
| System capacity | — |
| Ridership | 50,000 pass/day |
| Total cost | 20 M Euro/km |
| Staff | — |
| System builder | ALSTOM |
| Model | Citadis 302 |
French Delights Part 3 – Grenoble
Ai??Ai??
Grenoble France, with a regional population ofAi??Ai??580,000 completed it’s first a modern tramwayAi??Ai??line in the 1987, after aAi??Ai??successful, but hard foughtAi??Ai??civicAi??Ai??referendum and has set the standardAi??Ai??for modern LRT not just in France, but for the EEC. The first tram (streetcar) line, Line A, currently 13 km with 29 stops, opened, followed by Line B , with 9 km with 20 stops in 1990. The two lines share a section of routeAi??Ai??from the railway station to the city center;Ai??Ai??at this point Line B leaves Line A and turns east towards the city hospital and the university campus (5.8 km). In 1996 Line A was extended in south towards Echirolles (3.4 km), two years later (1998) another section was added with the new terminal of Denis Papin (0.4 km).Ai??Ai??The extensions were completed by another branch which traveled west to connect the railway station to Europoles business district; and more tramAi??Ai??extensions are in their final stages of planning or have been just completed: CitA?A? Internationale al Polygone Scientifique (Line B, to be opened in 2009), La Poya-Sassenage (Line A, with works starting in 2013), Denis Papin-Pont-de-Claix Line A, with works starting in 2013).
A third tram line (Line C: 9.6 km, 16 stops) opened in 2006; it runs from Seyssins Le Prisme to Saint-Martin d’Heres Condillac Universites connecting Grenoble to the suburban areas of Seyssins, Seysinnet, St Martin d’Heres and Gieres (which will assume a strategic role thanks to the high speed railways Turin-Lyon). Line D followed in 2007, with a north-south section (2.6 km, 6 stops) from Saint Martin d’Heres to the University District, passing through Gabriel Peri and Renaudie quartiers; and anAi??Ai??extension from Saint Martin d’Heres to Grand Place and Meylan is in the final stages of planning.
A fifth line (Line E) should complete the network for now, replacing (after 2012) a trolley-bus existing line from Fontanil a Cornillon.
Grenoble’s tramway is considered one of France’s best and became the model for Paris’s Renaissance building with LRT and other cities in the country. The introduction of low-floor cars also has set the standard for new light rail vehicles, with modern streetcars or trams,Ai??Ai??with few exceptions, are designed to be low-floor. Not only low-floor LRV’s speed up dwell times (as originally planned), they have proven to be a great boon for the mobility impaired, providing accessible public transit, on the street, ready to use, with out fear of large metro stations with crowded elevators that may or may not be in service. It was the low-floor tram that forced bus makers to provide low-floor buses to complement trams and to compete against streetcars.
| Country | France |
| Line | Line A, Line B, Line C, Line D |
| Inhabitants | City 150.000, District 350.000 |
| Date opening | 1987 Line A, B (with extensions in 1996-1998); Line C: 2006; Line D: 2007 |
| Future development: | Line E (Fontanil-Cornillon); extensions: Line A (La Poya-Sassenage, Denis Papin-Pont-de-Claix), Line B (CitA?A? Internationale-Polygone Scientifique), Line D (Saint Martin d’Heres-Grand Place-Meylan) |
| Length (km) | 34.2 |
| Track sections | Line A: 13 km; Line B: 9 km; Line C: 9.6 km; Line D: 2.6 km |
| Stops | 71, average distance 500 m (Line C) |
| Platforms | — |
| Platform doors | — |
| general characteristics | — |
| n. of vehicles | 88 (TFS: 53; Citadis: 35) |
| n. of cars per vehicle | — |
| Type | steel wheels bidirectional |
| Vehicle dimensions (m) | length TFS: 29.40, Citadis: 43.73; width TFS: 2.30, Citadis: 2.40 |
| Vehicle capacity (pax) | TFS: 178 (52 seated);Citadis: 274 (76 seated) |
| Frequency | — |
| Current/Voltage | 750 V DC overhead |
| Guide/gauge | standard gauge rails (1435 mm) |
| Speed Km/h | Comm. –, Max 70 |
| Accel./Decel. (m/sec2) | — |
| System capacity | — |
| Ridership | 230.000 pas/day |
| Total cost | — |
| Staff | — |
| System builder | ALSTOM |
| Model | Tramway Francais Standard (TFS), Citadis 402 |
| NOTE | TFS trains used in Line A, C, D; Citadis trains used in Line B, C |
French Delights Part 2 – Paris Tramway T-3
Paris’s tram line T3 (tram Marechaux) opened on 16 December 2006, along a 7.9 kmAi??Ai??route from Pont du Garigliano (Bd Victor) to Porte d’Ivry. The new line runs along the southern boulevards, replacing many bus routes andAi??Ai??attaining an higher commercial speeds (about 20 km/h vs. the current bus value of 14.5 km/h). Some of the stopsAi??Ai??have important modal interchange opportunities with RER (Line B, Line C), metro (4, 7, 8, 12, 13) and about 30 bus lines. It’s expected an important extensionAi??Ai??will be openedAi??Ai??by the end of 2012, from Porte d’Ivry to Porte de la Chapelle (14 km, 25 stops).
The cost of Paris’s newest tram-line is somewhat higher due to extensive road rebuilding,Ai??Ai??lawned right-of-ways, shrubbery and other street furniture along the route. The cost of the light-rail line works out to CAD $42.5 million/km. Capacity of the line is 10,000 pphpdCountry France, with 21 vehicles and can be increased with the addition of more light-rail vehicles.
| Country | France |
| Line | T3 (Tram Marechaux) |
| Inhabitants | City 2.150.000, District 11.175.000 |
| Date opening | 2006 |
| Future development: | Porte d’Ivry-Porte de la Chapelle extension (14 km, 25 stops, predicted opening end of 2012) |
| Length (km) | 7.9 |
| Track sections | — |
| Stops | 17, average distance m 500 |
| Platforms | — |
| Platform doors | — |
| General characteristics | height cm 35 |
| n. of vehicles | 21 |
| n. of cars per vehicle | — |
| Type | steel wheels bi-directional |
| Vehicle dimensions (m) | length 45, width 2.65 |
| Vehicle capacity (pax) | 302 (82 seated) |
| Frequency | 4/8 min |
| Current/Voltage | 750 V DC overhead |
| Type of guide/gauge | standard gauge rails (1435 mm) |
| Speed Km/h | Comm. 20 |
| Accel./Decel. (m/sec2) | — |
| System capacity | 10.000 pphpd |
| Ridership | 100.000 pax/day, 28 million pax/year |
| Total cost | 27 M Euro/km |
| Staff | — |
| System builder | ALSTOM |
| Model | Citadis |
| NOTE | — |
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??
Recent Comments