And we thought TransLink had problems – the Ottawa Light Rail Lawsuit.

Plan for light rail – Federal government intrigue – sign contracts – renege on contracts – the result: a massive lawsuit.

Of course what civic, provincial and federal politicians all seem to forget is that there is one taxpayer and the monies awarded to the plaintiffs would go a long way to help build a light rail network in Ottawa.

From the Ottawa Sun

Light rail lawsuit discussion behind closed doors

By DEREK PUDDICOMBE, City Hall Bureau

City council is ready to offer $36.7 million to settle its outstanding $217-million lawsuit stemming from the north-south light rail plan that was cancelled in 2007.

Councillors and the city solicitor remained silent about the deal after a five-hour closed-door briefing ended Wednesday afternoon.

“I can’t discuss a matter before the court”, said city solicitor Rick O’Connor.

Combined with the money the city has already spent on legal bills defending the cancelled light rail transit project the bill could reach about $40 million.

Council may deal with the settlement offer during an emergency council meeting Friday morning.

Siemens and subcontractor St. Lawrence Cement launched the lawsuit over the cancellation of the $1-billion north-south light rail system they had been contracted to build in April of 2006. In a letter sent to city Councillors and staff in February, 2007, Siemens said it was out of pocket about $25 million due to the cancellation.

The settlement would be the equivalent of about an increase of about 4% on property taxes, and one Councillor who did not want to be identified said the money may have to come from taxpayers because the city can’t borrow to pay it. An alternative would be to sell off city assets to pay for the settlement.

“I think there could be a special LRT lawsuit levy on the property tax bill”, said the Councillor.

If accepted, the city may ask if the $36.7 million can be paid in instalments.

The Councillor also suggested that perhaps the money should come from the wards of Councillors who voted against the project two years ago.

Innes Coun. Rainer Bloess was the only Councillor who spoke after the meeting finished but fell short of mentioning any details of the potential settlement.

“We are all looking forward to some settlement”, he said.

When the city council meeting reconvened at about 6 p.m. council refused to discuss any of the details pertaining to the lawsuit, but staff forgot to take the details of the briefing,  including the settlement offer  off the big screen before some reporters noticed the plaintiff’s offer.

“I’m glad it’s over, but we didn’t learn anything from this”, said one city Councillor.

Since the cancellation, city council has voted in favour of a new $5-billion transit plan, which essentially includes the same north-south route, but won’t see light rail anywhere in the city for at least 10 years.

RFTV: Party In The Park

Aug 28th, the last Party in the Park for Chilliwack this year. And though it was the last, it most certainly was not the least. In fact, that may have been the best night Chilliwack has seen in years. It was like an outdoor concert, but instead of teens in a mosh pit, there were kids dancing, elderly couples showing off their moves, young and old singing along to the music that the wonderful musicians played that night. That is a night not to be forgotten.

Amidst all of the energy, RFTV set upAi??Ai?? a booth with a simple setup and a simple message, ” Rail is the Answer!” In reality, the message was so simple that, apparently, it didn’t need to be said. Almost everybody that came by said they strongly agree and of those people, over 170 of them signed a petition that shows support for passenger rail on the Interurban. There are some that believe that not many people will not use the train. It seems to me, that in Chilliwack, which has been said to be the town least interested, is in fact, very interested.

Chilliwack is a great place, as is the rest of the valley. Passenger rail will only make things better. Lets make rail a reality!

The sticks have failed – its time for some carrots.

The following is from the Niche Transports web site which has a wonderful amount of modern transportation information. All common sense stuff here, but it does give pause for thought, in North America transit planners still use the ‘Carrot and Stick’ method of transit planning, which basically means people are forced onto a slightly improved transit system by punitive measures (read taxes, user fees and auto levies). It has been found that there has not been enough ‘carrot‘ (improved transit) and much too much ‘stick’ (onerous taxes)and ‘Carrot and Stick’ fails. In Europe, transit planners use the ‘Push/Pull’ method of transitAi??Ai??with much more success. More on Push/Pull later.

http://www.citytransport.info/Niche.htm

To entice people to use public transport it needs to be:-

• Frequent: For urban areas at least every 10 minutes daytime, 15 minutes evenings and Sundays. And if such frequent services are not commercially viable then – providing the route serves genuine transport needs – some revenue support payments will be appropriate. (Sometimes ‘cross-subsidy’ from a very profitable route could be an alternative to taxpayer’s money).
• Reliable: So passengers can have confidence that the transport does exist and will get them to their destinations without undue delays.
  Reliability also means that whenever there is an ‘incident’ getting services moving again should be the absolute first priority – instead of the desires of the various authorities to take unreasonable time periods ‘investigating’.
• Fixed: Transport that is ‘flexible’ enough to change route daily is also flexible enough to disappear altogether. For people to change their habits and rely on public transport they need confidence it will be serving them long term – fixed infrastructure transports give that confidence because they require upfront investment to serve their transport corridors and therefore are less likely to disappear at the whim of a transport operator. Trains, trams, trolleybuses, monorails, maglevs (etc) require that fixed infrastructure whereas experience with motor buses shows that it is far too easy for them to be here today – gone tomorrow!
• Comfortable: Not everyone expects – or even wants – a seat for every journey but neither do they want to travel as the proverbial sardine in a tin can!
  Comfort also applies to ambiance, quality of ride, temperature, no unpleasant smells, and noise. On all counts electric transports win in this department.
• Full-time: It is no good transport stopping at 6.45pm weekdays and not operating at weekends – especially Sundays & public holidays – as this is useless for people who work late shifts / odd hours and inhibits social activity.
• Direct: Transport needs to go where people want to go!
• Integrated: Cars often offer ‘door to door’ transport, this is not always a realistic possibility for public transport but with integrated systems which offer easy to use, pleasant, sheltered interchange facilities, short waits for the next service and through ‘one purchase’ ticketing passengers should not be seriously inconvenienced by the need to change vehicle to complete their journey.
  To further assist passengers all network maps and timetables should highlight interchange opportunities. (These topics are fully covered on the Transport Integrationpage).
• Safe: Passengers must feel that their personal safety is not being compromised, either by failings in the transport companies’ infrastructure & vehicle maintenance systems or through the actions of fellow passengers. Travelling by car – and bicycle, if sharing a public highway with the general traffic – are some of the most dangerous activities a person can perform, its just that a blind eye is turned to the dangers whereas with public transport danger is perceived even when there isn’t any.
• Well-publicised: Before even considering using public transport potential passengers need to know that the transport actually exists, where it goes, when and for how much. This means good publicity, such as household leaflet distribution, TV, radio and other media advertising, etc.
• Understandable: To give passengers confidence that they are taking the correct vehicle for their destination it is important that there is good sign-posting to and between stops / stations and on the vehicles.
  Understandable also means that all publicity – timetables, fare charts, system maps etc – are laid out in an easy-to-read / comprehend format.
• Affordable: People will not use public transport if the fares are so high that it is cheaper to go by car, this especially applies to groups of 3+ people. Transport is not just for the rich!
  With cars passengers often choose to travel “on spec” – and can make that journey at the same cost as if they had planned it six weeks previously; a significant deterrent to using public transport (especially with longer distance train travel such as London – Manchester) is that they charge premium fares just because a passenger chooses to travel “at the last minute”.

Honest: Passengers are expected to be honest and pay the correct fare before travelling; however it is also important that the transport system gives them a reasonable chance of doing so. As the British Prime Minister’s wife found out [January 2000] it is not enough just to offer to pay your fare at your arrival station as this is a common trick used by habitual fare evaders which explains why, when she travelled from a station where the ticket office was apparently open, she was given a Ai??A?10 ‘penalty’ ticket. (Habitual fare evaders are also prosecuted though the courts – this usually results in them being heavily fined and getting a criminal record.)

From the Georgia Straight – Michael Ignatieff puts a Liberal shine on the Canada Line

If there is any doubt that there was political chicanery involved with the Canada Line, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has put that to rest. SkyTrain, which if one cared to take a look back in history, was carefully planned to have a major extension opening coincide with a Social Credit election window every three and a half years. Glenn Clark was not to be out done and opened the West Coast Express, known at the time as the ‘Re-election Express’ and the SkyTrain vehicle fabrication plant that would supply SkyTrain cars to Asia, prior to NDP election windows.

Everyone is jumping on the Canada Line bandwagon, but if there isn’t a significant modal shift from car to metro of about 30% or more, the project will be a failure. As it stands, the RAV/Canada line is an overbuilt metro, serving a small population base, that will never be extended in our lifetimes andAi??Ai??will suck money away from the rest of the transit system. Despite the hype and hoopla in the mainstream media, which wouldn’t know a PCC from a U-2, the Canada Lines success will not be carrying 100,000 passengers a day, with most taking a bus first, but attracting the motorist from the car. The near $3 billion RAV/Canada Line has sucked huge sums of money from other just as important transit projects into a bloated politically prestigious subway that will do little in providing an attractive alternative to the car. If this is any indication ofAi??Ai?? Michael Ignatieff’s way he will run the Liberal party and the government if elected, he will no different from past Liberal Prime Ministers and their questionable ethics and squander money on expensive, yet needless Liberal political monuments.

Michael Ignatieff puts a Liberal shine on the Canada Line

By Charlie Smith

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff is trying to have his party take credit for construction of the $2-billion Canada Line.

In a YouTube video, Ignatieff suggests that the project was former Liberal prime minister Paul Martin‘s vision.

Ignatieff also praises former Vancouver mayor Larry Campbell, now a Liberal senator, who relentlessly promoted the project. It probably wouldn’t have been approved by the TransLink board if Campbell and his then-COPE colleagues didn’t replace then-councillor Fred Bass on the board with councillor Raymond Louie.

Ignatieff obviously doesn’t know a great deal about the history of the Livable Region Strategic Plan, which was created while he was living abroad. Metro Vancouver regional planners wanted conventional light-rail to form a T connecting Coquitlam, New Westminster, and Vancouver.

It was a good plan and it was affordable. But senior levels of government intruded and insisted on a far more expensive SkyTrain-style Millennium Line and Canada Line. That has contributed to sharp increases in transit fares and property taxes, as well as the regional transportation authority’s grave financial woes.

Don’t expect Ignatieff or any other Liberal to fess up to this during the next federal election campaign.

Full article including U-Tube and comments:

http://www.straight.com/article-255037/michael-ignatieff-puts-liberal-shine-canada-line

New website

Here is our new website.

Hope you enjoy.

All content on the old website is still accessible, by following this link: http://www.sfu.ca/~jwbuker/rail.

All the content will still be online, but the website will not be updated.

Is it time for the Valley to ditch TransLink? Would it lead to better regional transportation?

Martin Crilly’s report on TransLink came as no surprise, TransLink is in deep financial trouble and needs a major infusion of cash to keep it in operation. The question should be asked: “ShouldAi??Ai??the Valley MunicipalitiesAi??Ai??walk away from the transportation agency and let the chips fall where they may?”

TransLink, despite all the revisionist history, was cobbled together by then GVRD Chairman George Puil and the Glen Clark NDP as a last ditch attempt to secure a SkyTrain Millennium Line. The icing on the cake for Mr. Puil was that the province would pay two thirds of SkyTrain only construction West of Commercial Drive. Translation: Puil secured an agreement for expensive subway construction on Vancouver’s West-side at the expense of the region.

Now fast forward to 2009, the RAV/Canada Line, the first of Vancouver’s desired subways has opened; the Evergreen line to the Tri-Cities is in deep jeopardy; and there is ever increasing talk of a $4 billionAi??Ai??UBC subway or the ‘Campbell Line’. TransLink needs vast sums of taxpayer’s money to complete its pie-in-the-sky metro and subway planning, which now may come in the form of road pricing or congestion charges. Again, Greater Vancouver politicians see Fraser ValleyAi??Ai??taxpayers as a ‘milch-cow’,Ai??Ai??or rusticAi??Ai??rubes with deep pockets to pay for Vancouver’s grandiose subway plans.

Vancouver’s politicians and planners are flirting with bridge tolling and road pricing; trouble is, road pricing and/or congestion charging will only success if there is a viable public transit alternative and buses are not a viable public transit alternative, nor are three truncated metro lines. But one doubts that our band of civic politicians will sacrifice their political careers advocating road tolling or bridge tolling and the same can be said for their provincial counterparts, especially when one sees what has happened toAi??Ai??English politico’s who supported road pricing, in the UK.

Projects like Rail for the Valley’s ‘return of the interurban’ need funding, but no funding will be made available for the projects unless the ‘valley‘ ditches TransLink and forms its own tax base to fund its own transit projects. Let Vancouver, Burnaby, New Westminster and Richmond taxpayers fund expensive SkyTrain or RAV Ai??Ai??metro and let the valley taxpayer fund much cheaper light-rail. I would wager that the Tri-Cities would abandon the SkyTrain Evergreen line in a shot, if they were offered (or should I say their taxpayers were offered) much cheaper light rail projects.

The TransLink model for regional transportation planning is broken and TransLink’s planners are stuck in the 1950, planning for more subways and expensive metro systems. Roads must be kept clear for the car and ‘rubber on asphalt’ transportation planning reigns supreme. The provincial government, abetted by the ‘roads lobby’ happily forces new metro construction on regional taxpayers and its time for Fraser Valley mayors to stand up to TransLink and the provincial government and say “Enough is enough, we are leaving TransLink and forming out own Valley Transportation Authority, investing in transit projects that meet our needs.”

Let Vancouver taxpayers pay for expensiveAi??Ai??subway projects forced upon them by ex-Vancouver mayors!

How not to name a new streetcar – Seattle’s S.L.U.T. What were they thinking?

Bizarrely, Seattle’s new 2.1 km. demonstration streetcar line has the unhappy acronym of S.L.U.T. or South Lake Union Trolley and with this unhappy name the tram has had all the pitfalls of a demonstration line that really doesn’t fulfill a transportation need. Unlike the much more successful, sadly now defunctAi??Ai??Waterfront trolley operating vintage Melbourne trams, Seattle’s S.L.U.T. seemed to have been planned by its enemies and was designed to fail!

One hopes that the South Lake Union Trolley will soon be merges with a much larger streetcar network, but with the hybrid light rail/metro lobby and their demands for expensive subways and the monorail lobby working against the construction of realAi??Ai??light-rail in Seattle, hope is fading rapidlyAi??Ai??for Seattle (as is happening in Vancouver) of having an affordableAi??Ai??transit system that will be a viable alternative to the car.

From Wikipedia:

The line was originally envisioned by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen to help improve the South Lake Union neighborhood, in which his venture capital company, Vulcan Inc., is heavily invested.Ai??Ai??Allen’s main supporter from the beginning was Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, but he was not universally supported by the Seattle City Council, which was concerned about the lack of public support for the line and questioned if it should be moved ahead of Seattle’s other transportation needs.

After heavy lobbying by South Lake Union businesses, including Vulcan, the Seattle City Council approved the development of the neighborhood into a biotechnology and bio-medical research center. Included in that plan was funding to investigate a 2.6-mile (4.2Ai??Ai??km), US$45 million streetcar line. The line was approved in 2005 at a cost of $50.5 million, with $25 million paid by property owners along the streetcar’s route and the remainder paid by federal, state, and local funds.Ai??Ai??The majority of property owners along the alignment supported the project, despite being asked to pay increased taxes to fund its construction. Only 12 of 750 affected property owners formally objected to the proposed “Local Improvement District” tax.Ai??Ai??The project was modeled after the Portland Streetcar, a similar modern-streetcar system that had opened in Portland, Oregon, in 2001.Construction began in July 2006.

Service was inaugurated on December 12, 2007, and all rides were free until the end of the month.Streetcars run every fifteen minutes, seven days a week. The line uses three Inekon 12-Trio three-section articulated streetcars: one red, one purple, and another orange.

The system is owned by the City of Seattle, but currently is operated by King County Metro (Metro Transit) under a contract with the city government.

Local residents claim that during construction it was originally known as the South Lake Union Trolley, which abbreviates to S.L.U.T. While there is no evidence that this name was ever used as an official name, the acronym’s popularity has caused it to become an unofficial one.

The streetcar was involved in minor collisions with motor vehicles and experienced several service stoppages when it first began service.

After an initial free ride period, the city predicted 950 riders per day, or only 7.5% of the system’s capacity of about 12,600 per day. On its one year anniversary, the city announced that 507,000 people had ridden the streetcar, or 428,675 after the free ride period. That is 1,283 per day and 10.2% of capacity.

During its inaugural period, December 12, 2007 to December 31, the streetcar was free to ride. The fare was then increased to US$1.50, was later increased to $1.75, and is $2.00 per trip as of June 2009. When the streetcar was free to ride ridership was 78,325, but once a fare was charged, ridership dropped to 12,369 for the first half of January. The streetcar was again free to ride in the latter half of December 2008.

Trouble at Translink – For whom the tax tolls!

Fares Fair – TransLink’s Fares Compared

The following is aAi??Ai??comparison of TransLink’s fares, with other cities in Canada and the USA with LRT/metro and bus systems. Included are cash fares only (as advertised Sept. 4/09) as every city offers weekly, monthly, annual and Tourist passes, all withAi??Ai??varying discounts. Also please note: Ai??Ai??Toronto’s cash fare & 90 minute transfer covers an area roughly the size of Ai??Ai??TransLink’s 3-zones!

San Fransisco’s BART metro fares are calculated from journey distance and a fare card is needed to ride, but there are exceptions.

TransLink (Metro, bus, Seabus)

ZoneAi??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??AdultAi??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Concession

zone 1Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? $2.50Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? $1.75Ai??Ai?? (90 minute transfer)

zone 2Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? $3.75Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??$2.50Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? “

zone 3Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??$5.00Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? $3.50Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??”

CalgaryAi??Ai?? (LRT, bus)

AdultAi??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? Youth

$2.50Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? $1.75Ai??Ai?? (90 minute transfer)

Toronto (Metro streetcar bus)

Transfer for continious trip only

AdultAi??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? Senior/StudentAi??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? Child

$2.75Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? $1.85Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??$0.70

Portland (LRT, bus)

ZoneAi??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??AdultAi??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Honoured CitizenAi??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Child

In Canadian funds

All zoneAi??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? $2.50Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? $1.05Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??$1.65

2 zoneAi??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? $2.18

1 zoneAi??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??$2.18

San Fransico (Metro, streetcar, bus, NOT cable car)

In Canadian funds

AdultAi??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? Discount

$2.20Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? $0.85Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? (90 minute transfer)

Cable Car

$5.45

If you’re transferring from BART to Muni, you can obtain a transfer at an automated machine near the BART exit. This transfer is worth a 25-cent discount on the regular Muni fare.

BART

Fare calculated on distance travelled.Ai??Ai?? Minimum one station trip $3.00; Maximum fare SFO to Pittsburg Bay point $11.90

From the Light Rail Now Folks: Busting "BRT" Mythology – LA’s "Orange Line" Busway A?ai??i??ai??? "Just Like Rail, But Cheaper?"

It seems the media and local politiciansAi??Ai??keep referring to Bus Rapid Transit or BRT as a transportation solutionAi??Ai??for METRO Vancouver’s ‘lesser taxpayers’ in the Fraser Valley, yet very few politicians and media types clearly understand what BRT is, or even how successful it has been in past applications. BRT despite the hype and hoopla, has not had a successful career and its more expensive cousin ‘guided-bus’, has not provided the modalAi??Ai??break-throughAi??Ai??that was anticipated. Yet this is not reported in the media!

Ask the BRTAi??Ai??lobby in the Metro area theseAi??Ai??two questions:

1. “If BRT is so successful, why has Ottawa, after spending hundred’s of millions of dollars on busways for BRT,Ai??Ai??instead has nowAi??Ai??invested inAi??Ai??Diesel LRTAi??Ai??(TramTrain) and now wanting to build with LRT instead?”
2. Why, in Adelaide Australia, after building with expensive O-Bahn guided-bus, no more BRT being planned for and transit officials instead building more O-bahn, refurbished an 80 year old tramway and brought it up to light rail standards?

Busting “BRT” Mythology

Light Rail Now Project Team A?ai??i??ai??? October 2006

With this commentary, Light Rail Now continues a series we’re calling Busting “BRT” Mythology A?ai??i??ai??? a discussion intended to examine claims of so-called “Bus Rapid Transit” by its proponents and to evaluate and contrast these claims with actual experience. This article is the third installment in this series.

Promoters of so-called “Bus Rapid Transit” (“BRT”) have been promulgating a wide range of claims about this mode of bus deployment A?ai??i??ai??? mostly on the theme that it’s “rapid transit on rubber tires” and “just like rail transit, but cheaper”. Typically, “BRT” is promoted as a supposedly superior alternative to light rail transit (LRT).

The hype surrounding a proposed “BRT” system in San Bernardino is typical. A spokeswoman for San Bernardino County’s transit agency, Omnitrans, told the Press-Enterprise (30 January 2006) that “The idea is to use rubber-tired vehicles, but operate them much like a light-rail service.” Thus, “You can become more time competitive with the automobile without the additional cost of light rail.”

Los Angeles’s new “Orange Line” busway is perhaps the premier recent example of “BRT” A?ai??i??ai??? an approximately 14-mile route, almost entirely on an exclusive former railway alignment except for approximately a half-mile loop in mixed traffic on the western end (serving Warner Center). The line, installed at a cost of $330 million, currently serves 13 stations, linking the western part of the San Fernando Valley with the North Hollywood Red Line rail rapid transit (metro) station. (See map below.) in many respects, the route and infrastructure do resemble those of LRT, with well-defined stations with platforms (except in the mixed-traffic segment), ticket vending machines (TVMs), shelters, and other appurtenances and amenities. Thus, the “Orange Line” represents an excellent case study of how well the claims for “BRT” A?ai??i??ai??? especially that it’s “just like rail” A?ai??i??ai??? match the reality.
[Map: Transit Rider website]

So, how does the “Orange Line” actually measure up in comparison to LRT and other rail systems? in our article Rail Transit vs. “Bus Rapid Transit”: Comparative Success and Potential in Attracting Ridership, several aspects of the “Orange Line” busway are contrasted with those of LA’s new Gold Line LRT system serving the Pasadena area east of central LA. As the article notes,

because of electric propulsion, better level crossing protection, and other factors, the Gold Line LRT provides an 18% faster schedule speed than the Orange Line “BRT”.

Furthermore, based on the fact that the “Orange Line” operates in a more mature corridor with far greater density, and serves “at least 40% more major activity centers than does the Gold Line”, our analysis concludes that “the Orange Line busway’s ridership is approximately 24% lower than one would expect from a comparable LRT service in the same corridor.”

However, performance statistics and calculations can reveal only so much A?ai??i??ai??? and certainly, there are even more deficiencies in “BRT” operations than our previous analysis can address. As usual, “a photo is worth a thousand words” … so selected photos A?ai??i??ai??? most of them taken by Light Rail Now Project representatives during a recent visit to LA A?ai??i??ai??? may help to illustrate the “Orange Line” facility and pertinent issues associated with it.

The Light Rail Now Project team emphasize that our criticisms are directed at questioning the contention that “BRT” is “just like rail, but cheaper…” A?ai??i??ai??? a claim which we regard as unsupportable and misleading. On the whole, LA’s “Orange Line” is an excellent higher-quality transit facility, and a vast improvement over the usual types of bus operations that must continuously contend with private motor vehicle traffic. As we indicate in our article cited above,

Certainly, there is no question that the Orange Line “BRT” is a major transit improvement in the corridor it serves (and, given applicable legal restrictions constraining LACMTA, a busway was effectively the agency’s only option for implementing a high-quality, rapid public transport service in the available former railway alignment).

http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_brt_2006-10a.htm