From Transit & Urban Tramways – Alstom and Dalkia win five-year, CAD $41.7 million, Luas (Dublin’s LRT) extension

There has been much ‘bumf’ in local blogs that light rail is expensive to maintain, even more expensive to maintain than metro. The following news item from T & UT gives a good example of theAi??Ai??annual operating costs of a modern light rail system. Dublin’s LUAS LRT does operate at a profit, even after paying its debt (bank) servicing charges and the operating authority has signed a five year CAD $41.7 million maintenance contract with Alstom & Dalkia, even though the transit system will expand by almost 13 km. during the course of the contract! $41.17 million over five years means that the annual maintenance costs of Dublin’s LUAS LRT is about $8.23 million a year, far less than any metro system in existence today, including both Vancouver’s RAV/Canada Line and SkyTrain’s Expo and Millennium Lines!

Ai??Ai??Alstom and Dalkia win five-year Luas extension

Ireland’s Railway Procurement Agency has awarded a five-year extension to Alstom and Dalkia’s infrastructure maintenance contract for Dublin’s Luas light rail system.

Alstom and Dalkia have maintained the infrastructure since Luas’ opening in 2004 and the new five-year contract that begins on 1 October is worth EUR30m(CAD $41.17m) Alstom EUR24m (CAD $37.75) and Dalkia EUR6m (CAD $9.45m)Ai??Ai??and has an option for a further five years, depending on performance.

During the course of the contract the Luas system will extend by almost 13km with extensions of the Red Line to Docklands (approx 4km) and Saggart (1.7km) due to open in late 2009 and early 2010 respectively. The Green Line extension to Cherrywood (7.2km) is also due to open in 2010.

Some balance please! An independant view of the RAV/Canada line.

The following Email came Zweisystem’s way today and is certainly contrary to the hype and hoopla of other blogs claiming that the RAV Line is almost at capacity. The author of the item, who wishes to remain anonymous, is a party who worksAi??Ai??in local transit planning. Yes, the RAV/Canada line is up and running, but so is RAV’s debt clock and the ludicrous number of 100,000 passengers a day, claimed by TransLink, for the RAV line to ‘break even’, doesn’t take into account apportioning fares between RAV and bus, discount fares and the U-pass.

Yes the U-Pass, sounds good but it is the taxpayer who will be left with higher taxes and fees to subsidies deep discounted student fares enabling them to use premium priced metros!

Ai??Ai??A complete transportation financial fiasco is just around the corner.

Imagine, not knowing what impacts a project you have been working on for 7 years would have on the other adjoining transit corridors.Ai??Ai?? Despite an administration staff of over 350 people, TransLink and its subsidiaries still can’t run a transit system.

During the last three days I have driven from White Rock to downtown Vancouver, taken the bus/train from White Rock to downtown Vancouver and today took the train to the airport and to Brighouse from the Bridgeport Station.Ai??Ai?? I did this during the am peak period.

My initial observations…it took 6 minutes longer to go from White Rock to Granville or City Centre Station with the bus/train journey (66 minutes).Ai??Ai?? Prior to the summer, I took the 351 from White Rock to Granville and Seymour during the am peak and it took 60 minutes.Ai??Ai?? My car trip on Wednesday took 43 minutes.

I witnessed very little congestion, unlike other Expo Line stations, and found ample room to stand, unlike the Expo Line cars during the am peak.Ai??Ai?? The journey in the tunnel was as expected dull.Ai??Ai?? I was looking for leaks along Cambie Street, but I guess we will have to wait for the real rains to arrive.Ai??Ai?? Most of the people on the train were young and appeared to be students and most of them got off downtown.Ai??Ai?? Very few passengers got off at the 49th ave station and very few got off at City Hall station.Ai??Ai?? Only two people wearing suits were on board and they came on at 12th, City Hall and going downtown.Ai??Ai?? Very few people got on the train in Vancouver.Ai??Ai?? Some at Broadway heading downtown but the train had ample room for them.

The return journey from downtown Vancouver to Bridgeport in Richmond was very comfortable as only 1/4 of the seatsAi??Ai?? were occupied…this is till during the am peak period.Ai??Ai?? Two people had small bags heading to the airport.

Today, I rode into Richmond Centre or Brighouse.Ai??Ai?? The line is single track after the Landsdowne Mall.Ai??Ai?? Most people got off at either Aberdeen or Landsdowne Mall.Ai??Ai?? Returning back to Bridgeport station we waited two minutes after boarding before beginning the journey.Ai??Ai?? The problem with single track guideways.Ai??Ai?? At no time were the cars full or congested and at no time did I see more than a B-Line bus load on any of the Rmd trains.Ai??Ai?? The airport mainly had sightseers who were going on a round trip to and from the airport.Ai??Ai?? Four people on board had luggage.

I began to wonder how Translink is going to find the $70 million it needs to pay for their portion of the debt and for what they need to pay Intransient BC (SNC Lavalin) for operating the line.Ai??Ai?? Each transit user that uses the train will be subsidized a minimum of $2,000 a year based on Translink’s boarding numbers of 77,000 per day!Ai??Ai??

It is still to early to guage the performance of this line.Ai??Ai?? Once the ‘tourist’ user has satisfied their curiosity and people settle into the Fall commuting season, we will see what is happening.

I have sent an email to two Vancouver councillors asking whether or not the City is going to do trip counts on all its southern entry points, Knight Street-Oak-Arthur Laing Bridges, to see if traffic is less or more than what it was in the past.Ai??Ai?? The City usually conducts traffic trip counts in November.Ai??Ai?? It would be good to get that data since number challenged Falcon believes the train will reduce daily vehicle trips by 200,000 or 40% of the entire am peak period vehicles commuting on our region’s roadways.

I have also contacted the taxi association to find out how the line is impacting their business.Ai??Ai?? They will not know until mid October or after the Cruise Ship season.Ai??Ai?? The airport passenger stats show that from January to June of this year, passenger numbers are down by 15% or 1.2 million passengers from last year.Ai??Ai?? All segments, domestic, transborder and international numbers are down.Ai??Ai?? However, the cruise ship numbers are up from last year, increased by 8%, despite less sailings.

When I asked one of the execs with the London Underground just who takes the tube from Heathrow to Piccadilly (London) he answered, the budget traveller.

A friend who recently took the train from YVR to get to his home near Trout Lake in Vancouver was happy that his journey took only 45 minutes.Ai??Ai?? I said that if he had taken a taxi he would have been home in 20 minutes.Ai??Ai?? So perhaps if we are talking about efficiency, we should have more taxis or even vans for multiple passengers taking people to their destinations like they do in a lot of other cities in the world.Ai??Ai?? Perhaps fares for taxis could be subsidized, it would be cheaper.

Just one final note…my car journey into Vancouver was amazingly fast.Ai??Ai?? I don’t know why that is.Ai??Ai?? One thing I did notice…Granville Street was without buses, it was so quiet I thought I might be someplace else.Ai??Ai?? However, the golden rule states, if there is capacity on a roadway, it will be filled.

TransLink hunts for money – From the Georgia Straight.

Ai??Ai??

Charlie Smith continues toAi??Ai??be Vancouver’s leading reporter on local and regional transit issues. Simply, he actually does research on the subject, unlike reporters in Vancouver’s mainstream media who have been reduced to printing well crafted TransLink and/or The Provincial Ministry of Transportation mews releases as facts. WhenAi??Ai?? it comes to a good analysis of transit issues, Smith and the Straight can be regarded as one of the best sources of transit and transportation information one can get!

The issue of TransLink financial dilemma was predictable and has been for a long time. Thirty years ago, when SkyTrain was forced upon the region, transit experts warned that this was leading the Vancouver region into a very expensive era. Local politicians and transportation engineers ignored those warnings and continued to plan for unaffordable metro and even more unaffordable subway. Well the chickens have come home to roost, TransLink is mired in a financial quicksand of a horribly expensiveAi??Ai??transit system that needs an ever growing tax base to support it. With every new metro line that opens, on transit routes that do not have the ridership to support it, the deeper TransLink sinks into a financial abyss, yet because the monies to support TransLink is considered free cash (all taxpayers money is considered free cash), bureaucrats continue to plan for the same, leading TransLinkAi??Ai??on an ever steeperAi??Ai??downward path to financial bankruptcy.

By turning off the money taps, will TransLink be forced to deal with the realities of providing an affordable andAi??Ai??efficient transit service that puts the transit customer first; the question is and always has been, what politicians are not afraid to bell the TransLink cat.

See also:

http://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/2009/09/04/fares-fair-translinks-fares-compared/

TransLink hunts for money

By Charlie Smith

http://www.straight.com/article-255498/translink-hunts-money

More than five years ago, TransLink brought forward a three-year strategy and 10-year outlook. The document included $4-billion worth of capital projects that were to be built by 2013.

On February 27, 2004, the Metro Vancouver board of directors narrowly approved the plan. TransLink documents showed that after spending this money, the percentage of rush-hour trips taken by transit was expected to increase from 11 percent in 2004 to 13 percent in 2013. At the time, some COPE councillors criticized the plan for not substantially increasing transit ridership in the region.

The three-year strategy and 10-year outlook explicitly acknowledged that spending vast sums of money wasnA?ai??i??ai???t going to get many more people out of their cars and on the transit system. Large sums of money were directed toward road and bridge construction and the Canada Line. A previous TransLink plan had called for 1,800 buses by 2006. The 2004 three-year strategy and 10-year outlook scaled that back to 1,600 buses by 2013.

In 2009, according to TransLink spokesperson Ken Hardie, there are 1,694 buses, not counting HandyDart vehicles. Between 11 and 12 percent of trips in the region are taken by transit, which means that little has changed five years later. The number of service hours on the transit system has increased from 5.2 million in 2004 to 6.2 million in 2008, according to TransLinkA?ai??i??ai???s annual report, but ridership as a percentage of trips taken during rush hour has remained stable.

Regional transportation commissioner Martin Crilly identified some of the reasons for this in his August 31 report on TransLinkA?ai??i??ai???s 2010 10-year plan. He wrote that over the last several years, TransLink A?ai??i??Ai??expanded service and invested in capital projects that it knew to be unaffordable under its existing funding constraintsA?ai??i??A?.

A?ai??i??Ai??These investments were made with the hope and expectation that senior governments would agree to bear a large portion of the operating costs, which they have not done,A?ai??i??A? Crilly wrote. A?ai??i??Ai??This expansion of service has reduced the productivity of the bus network, with each increment of service costing more and carrying fewer riders, while fares increase. There is now available capacityA?ai??i??ai???that is empty seatsA?ai??i??ai???on much, but not all, of the bus network which can accommodate future growth in ridership.A?ai??i??A?

He noted that the Expo Line is being constrained by capacity, and called for upgrades to the existing system to take priority over new investments, such as the proposed Evergreen Line to Coquitlam. Crilly allowed TransLink to raise short-term fares by 3 to 3.5 percent per year over a three-year period starting April 1, 2010.

A?ai??i??Ai??TransLinkA?ai??i??ai???s view, judged realistic, is that the slow process of urban densification will not lift ridership much by 2019,A?ai??i??A? he wrote.

The 2010 10-year plan includes three options, with an overall goal, according to Crilly, of increasing the supply of transit service A?ai??i??Ai??at a rapidly escalating incremental (and less affordable) cost for each extra riderA?ai??i??A?. The base plan is called A?ai??i??Ai??Drastic CutsA?ai??i??A?. It would only be implemented if the MayorsA?ai??i??ai??? Council on Regional Transportation doesnA?ai??i??ai???t approve a supplement, and would result in a 40-percent reduction in bus service, no new rapid-transit expansion, and sharp reductions to road-maintenance funding and cycling programs.

A second option, called the A?ai??i??Ai??Funding StabilizationA?ai??i??A? supplement, would generate an additional $130 million per year by increasing the fuel tax by three cents a litre, tripling the parking sales tax to 21 percent, and raising transit fares beyond the inflation rate. It assumes that property taxes would rise by three percent per year.

The third option, called the A?ai??i??Ai??On Track to a Sustainable RegionA?ai??i??A? supplement, would require an additional $450 million per year by 2013 and it would fund the Evergreen Line to Coquitlam. Under the category of A?ai??i??Ai??demand-side managementA?ai??i??A?A?ai??i??ai???which refers to measures to discourage people from drivingA?ai??i??ai???the plan states: A?ai??i??Ai??TransLink will undertake research and technical studies on road pricing, a broad concept in which motorists pay directly for using a road, bridge or tunnel, or for driving in a defined part of a city.A?ai??i??A?

The mayorsA?ai??i??ai??? council includes representatives from each of the regionA?ai??i??ai???s 21 municipalities as well as the Tsawwassen First Nation. ItA?ai??i??ai???s facing an October 31 deadline to respond to TransLinkA?ai??i??ai???s three funding scenarios.

Who has the fairest fares of them all?

> Adult and child cash fares in Calgary: $2.50/$1.75

> Adult and child cash fares in Montreal: $2.75/$1.75

> Adult and child cash fares in Toronto: $2.75/70 cents

> Adult and child cash fares in Vancouver: $3.75/$2.50 (two zone)

> Adult and child cash fares in Vancouver: $2.50/$1.75 (one zone)

> Day and monthly passes in Calgary: $7.50/$83

> Day and monthly passes in Montreal: $9/$68.50

> Day and monthly passes in Toronto: $9/$109

> Day and monthly passes in Vancouver: $9/$99 (two zone)

> Day and monthly passes in Vancouver: $9/$73 (one zone)

Sources: Calgary Transit, SociA?Ai??tA?Ai?? de transport de MontrA?Ai??al, Toronto Transit Commission, TransLink

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.