From Charlie Smith & The Georgia Straight – Canada Line subsidy will be felt for years to come
Charlie Smith of the Georgia Straight is probably the regions best reporter on transit issues as he has researched SkyTrain and all other transit issues for almost two decades and his insight to RAV andAi??Ai??SkyTrain issues clearly demonstrate this. What is not mentioned is that RAV will drain money away from the bus system, simply because TransLink will skim bus fares as RAV fares. In the real world of transit operations, when transit customers transfer from bus to metro or LRT, the fare is apportioned between the modes. Example if a $4.00 fare is paid and the transit customer uses bus then transfers to metro/LRT, the $4.00 fare is apportioned $2.00 for bus and $2.00 for metro/LRT. If the transit customer transfers once again tom a bus the apportioned fare should be $2.66 for buses and $1.34 for metro.
TransLink doesn’t apportion fares but collects fares in one pot and will give RAV the full fare, leaving the buses short. The same trick is used on SkyTrain, where 80% of SkyTrain ridership first take a bus to the metro, andAi??Ai??has hobbled the bus system, creating large deficits, while at the same time TransLink makes the claim that SkyTrain fares are covering operating costs. One wonders how a subsidizedAi??Ai??metro system can claim that itAi??Ai??pays its operating costs, when in fact it is subsidized?
The present SkyTrain system is subsidized by over $200 million annually and no doubt the RAV line will also be subsidized for the lifetime of the metro system.
Canada Line subsidy will be felt for years to come
By Charlie Smith
The 19-kiliometre Canada Line will open with great political fanfare on Monday (August 17).
The public will be allowed to ride for free from 1 p.m. to 9 p.m. on the line, which runs from Waterfront Station to Richmond Centre and to the airport.
But that’s when the free ride will end. TransLink has already acknowledged that it might takeAi??Ai??until 2013Ai??Ai??before the Canada Line generates 100,000 riders per day.
AndAi??Ai??that could beAi??Ai??bad news for taxpayers and transit riders.
InTransit B.C. Limited Partnership, which is the private operator, has signed a 35-year deal with TransLink. And TransLink has guaranteed to subsidize Canada Line ridership shortfalls of less than 100,000 per day.
If TransLink, as a publicly funded body, wants to maintain public trust, it should report this subsidy on a quarterly basis.
TransLink is seeking an additional $450 million per year to enhance the transportation system.Ai??Ai??If it gets its wish, thereAi??Ai??will be new vehicle-registration chargesAi??Ai??as well asAi??Ai??tolls on Metro Vancouver bridges, including those connecting Vancouver to the North Shore.
TransLink had better hope that the peak-oil theorists are wrong. Because if they’re correct, it will hit the transportation authority in three ways:
* Airport traffic will diminish, reducing ridership on the Canada Line.
* Rising fuel prices will cause people to curtail driving, which will reduce the amount of fuel taxes (12 cents a litre) rolling into TransLink’s coffers.
* Fewer people will be driving over tolled bridges including the Golden Ears Bridge. In the latter case, TransLink will have to offset this by providing greater subsidies to the private operator, just like it will do with the Canada Line if airport traffic diminishes.
The Canada Line is a primary reason whyAi??Ai??TransLink is in a financial pinch. I can recall two municipal politicians–Vision Vancouver Coun. Raymond Louie and former North Vancouver City mayor Barbara Sharp–voting in favour of the line in 2004 after a motion passed calling for a $1.35-billion cap on public financing.
The $1.35-billion figure is obviousAi??Ai??fiction after the operating subsidies are included in the equation.
Louie and Sharp cavedAi??Ai??in the face ofAi??Ai??pressure from the Vancouver Board of Trade, the Vancouver Sun editorial board, the Vancouver Airport Authority, and the provincial and federalAi??Ai??governments, which all wanted the line built.
If drivers, homeowners, and transit riders all end up payingAi??Ai??a great deal more in the coming years, they can lay part of the blame on Louie and Sharp.
But they weren’t the only TransLink directors responsible. Senator Larry Campbell, former SurreyAi??Ai??mayor Doug McCallum, Surrey councillor Marvin Hunt, former Langley City mayor Marlene Grinnell, Richmond mayor Malcom Brodie, and former Coquitlam mayor Jon Kingsbury all voted in favour of the Canada Line.Ai??Ai??
It’s worth noting that LarryAi??Ai??Campbell’s friend, SFU criminologist Neil Boyd, cast the deciding vote at the regional board in favour of a $4-billion plan that helped finance TransLink’s contribution. At the time, Boyd represented Bowen Island on the regional board.
If the Bowen Island council had left the then-mayor Lisa Barrett on the board, the transportation plan likely would never have been passed because Barrett was a staunch opponent of building the Canada LineAi??Ai??as a P3 project. Barrett, now a Bowen Island councillor, also didn’t believe the earlyAi??Ai??forecasts that 100,000 people would be riding the Canada Line in 2009.
Because of a seeminglyAi??Ai??insignificant decision–replacing a regional board director in a tinyAi??Ai??island municipality that had one vote at Metro Vancouver–the public might end up paying much higher transportation costs in the future.
http://www.straight.com/article-247732/canada-line-subsidy-will-be-felt-years-come
From the Guardian News Paper – A transport tax would get us moving
The following is from the Guardian.co.uk and is worthy of debate.
A Transport tax would get us moving
We should take a leaf out of France’s book and ask employers to help rehabilitate our ailing transport system
Rob Williams
In many European countries, there is an understanding that transport is important to a modern economy. Here in Britain, transport might occasionally become a key issue when petrol prices shoot up and the government doesn’t reduce fuel duty quickly enough, or when the trains grind to a complete halt A?ai??i??ai??? but that’s not enough.
It’s now two years since one of the two consortiums involved in the public private partnership project to renew the London underground collapsed, leaving Transport for London with a hefty bill and Gordon Brown with egg on his face.
Funding of the rest of the tube upgrade work remains uncertain and there are continuing doubts about the Tories’ commitment to building London’s Crossrail. Although construction started in May, there is still uncertainty about whether this project will ever be completed.
In other parts of the country, notably Leeds, Liverpool and Portsmouth, proposed tram schemes were scrapped by the Labour government, after millions of pounds had been spent developing the plans, in large part because of the uncertainties about costs and funding. If funding was one of the main impediments A?ai??i??ai??? even before the credit crunch A?ai??i??ai??? to providing a public transport system fit for the 21st century, then maybe we should look across the Channel to see why the French have one of the best local transport networks in the world. Those who gain from a good public transport should pay something towards it. As the International Association of Public Transport (UITP) says, “employers and retailers both gain from the provision of public transport services which give them access to a wider labour market and retail market respectively”. The most important source of funding for local public transport projects in France is the versement transport (transport tax), or VT for short.
The tax, which applies only to companies with more than nine employees, takes up to 1% of their payroll. The rate may be increased if the transport authority plans to implement, or has already implemented, a service A?ai??i??ai??? metro, tramway or busway. In those cases, the rate may be raised to 1.75% (and higher in the Ile de France/Paris region) and so is designed to take more from larger employers. Since 1992 all French transport regions with more than 20,000 inhabitants have had the right to introduce the VT. This tax can only be used for public transport investment, and can also help to pay operational costs.
As a report for the Passenger Transport Executive Group said, the amount of locally generated fundingAi??Ai?? can be staggering: “As an example, the local transport authority in Lyon A?ai??i??ai??? a city roughly the size of greater Sheffield A?ai??i??ai??? applied a VT rate of 1.63% in 1999, which generated over Ai??A?105m for investment and operations of public transport in that year alone.”
Most importantly, the VT contributes to long-term stability in public transport funding, which we do not have in the UK. Studies in France have confirmed that the VT does not have a significant effect on labour costs, nor on company location. It has a very limited taxation impact (less than 1% of the overall French tax burden). It is a powerful tool for financing and developing public transport in France, which is why the VT has been introduced in more than 85% of urban areas. Almost 40% of the costs of public transport in France are financed by the VT.
In the UK, governments have consistently failed to grasp the fact that an integrated transport policy is a major element of urban development and regeneration. Few, if any, leading politicians fully understand that good public transport facilities can improve social mobility, enabling people in poorer areas travel to work in more prosperous parts of their region.
Good transport links are also crucial to the prosperity of private companies. In London, the City’s workforce is almost wholly dependent on public transport to get them to and from the office. Growth and international competitiveness are dependent upon good transport infrastructure.
Despite the credit crunch, the UK, and especially London, is awash with money. Companies in the City regularly state that without improvements in public transport, they may be forced to relocate elsewhere.
This is surely an opportunity for Lord Adonis, a transport minister who actually seems to have a vision, to demand that employers around the country put their money into the pot, and make a real contribution to getting our cities moving again.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/aug/16/transport-tax-france-uk
The SkyTrain lobby – "Pixie Dust planning"
One finds it interesting how the SkyTrain lobby warps the truth to suit it’s own ends. What the SkyTrain lobby is really saying is that; “We completely discount over oneAi??Ai??hundred and fifty yearsAi??Ai??of rail/light rail/metro development, to support a unconventional, proprietary railway.” That only seven such systems have been built (actually there are two types of SkyTrain systems, the old UTDC ICTS/ALRT system and Bombardier’s updated ART system), with two of the systems, Vancouver’s SkyTrain and Toronto’s Scarborough Line, being forced upon the operating authority by senior governments, is testament of the non-popularity of the light metro. The SkyTrain version that has managed a few sales is Bombardier’s ART light-metro system, which has been sold as a “prestigious” airport people moversAi??Ai??or fun-fair transit system and only Kuala Lumpur operates a ART system as a regionalAi??Ai??metro system, along side both conventional light-metro and monorail.
The UBC SkyTrain boys and girls take umbrage with RFV posting of a letter sent to various news papers, so let’s have a look what they say.
First of all, once again, there are many cities in the world with A?ai??i??Ai??SkyTrainA?ai??i??A? technology (or A?ai??i??Ai??SkyTrain-likeA?ai??i??A? technology, fully grade separated systems like the Canada Line). Ai??Ai??A full list of the cities can be found on our website. Ai??Ai?? It is known that SkyTrain is marginally more expensive compared to conventional rail and LRT, but there are many benefits with SkyTrain technology. Ai??Ai??In fact, BombardierA?ai??i??ai???s SkyTrain is the front runner for HonoluluA?ai??i??ai???s upcoming metro system. It is heavily based on the SkyTrain system inAi??Ai??Vancouver, due to the lower capital costs.
As mentioned previously, there are only seven cities that have built with theAi??Ai??SkyTrain ICTS/ALRT/ART system, overAi??Ai??a 30 year span.
SkyTrain can cost up to ten times more to install (TTC ARTS Study) than light rail. When compared to other North American Light Rail systems, SkyTrain cost 2 to 5 times more to install and operating costs for ALRT/ART are higher than comparable LRT systems.
This isAi??Ai??Honolulu’s second attempt to build with SkyTrain as the first attempt collapsed due to massive cost of the light-metro. One doubts that SkyTrain will be built in Honolulu, especially when politicians have just found that the costs quoted in Vancouver for SkyTrain were direct costs only, not total costs which is the norm in the USA. The same issue sunk the Seattle Monorail project. It also must be remembered that Honolulu’s planners want an elevated system, yet their projected ridership numbers do not warrant such an expense.
The projected ridership for the Canada Line is 100 000 passengers per day. Ai??Ai??There is a need for a reliable, high capacity, and high frequency rapid transit connection between downtown Vancouver and Richmond City Centre and the ridership on the suburban bus routes along. The ridership on the 98 B-Line, serving the same corridor as the Canada Line (and in which the Canada Line was built to parallel), clearly shows this. There is a reason why the 98 B-Line is one of the busiest bus routes in the region with the second highest ridership levels, second only to the 99 B-Line. Both are express services that rival the speed of other transportation modes along their corridors.
The projected ridership for the Canada line is pure ‘pixie dust’, as it assumes that almost three times more people from Richmond, South Delta & Surrey will use transit to Vancouver than presently do and is not based on scientific assessment, rather it is a political guesstimate.
Yet when the 98-B Line bus was instituted in Richmond, ridership dropped from what the old 403, 402, and 401 bus routes withAi??Ai??directAi??Ai??services to Vancouver, carried. Again the SkyTrain lobby ignores the singular fact that forced transfers deters ridership.
The Canada Line is expensive, but will be worth it in the long run as it puts Vancouver in a competitive economical advantage over most North American cities that donA?ai??i??ai???t have a metro connection to the airport.
This comment is absolutely silly, if the author took time to investigate; in North America, rapid transit systems that connect to the airport, including Chicago and San Fransisco, see little ridership.
The Ministry of Transportation has made it clear that road tolls would not be implemented on existing road infrastructure. Ai??Ai??While TransLink has suggested its implementation, there are no concrete plans. Ai??Ai??It will also be difficult for TransLink to implement these as most of the regionA?ai??i??ai???s roads and bridges are under Ministry of Transportation jurisdiction and not TransLink.
Oh yes and the premier who runs the Ministry of Transport, promised not to sell BC Rail, nor implement the HST. Again, this statement shows the naivetA?Ai?? of the author.
The Canada Line may be costly to extend and expand, but that is with all transit infrastructure. Ai??Ai??Taking a car will not be faster than taking a bus plus the additional transfer at Bridgeport. Ai??Ai??Currently, busing from Richmond to Downtown takes about 45 minutes during most hours of the day. With the bus integration effective on September 7th, the new transfer will take about 5 minutes for an average person to walk from the bus loop up to the platform. Ai??Ai??Assuming one just misses a train at Bridgeport, the next train will arrive in 3 minutes during peak hours. Ai??Ai??It takes 19 minutes to SkyTrain from Bridgeport to Waterfront Stn. Ai??Ai??Total time on transit with the transfer from Richmond takes 27 minutes, 18 minutes faster than bus, not counting the the 10 minute wait for Oak Street Bridge. Ai??Ai??And with a shortened route for south of Fraser express buses, it enabled TransLink to run a higher frequency for these routes with more buses running on a shorter route, and without having to deal with the congestion on the bridges and roads into Vancouver nor the congestion in Downtown.
Again, the author discounts the great cost differences for LRT and SkyTrain. Sorry, taking the car will be faster and more convenient as studies have shown that for residents in South Delta and South Surrey, being forced to take RAV will increase average journey time, especially off-peak,Ai??Ai??which isAi??Ai??hardly a good selling point. Again, I must remind theAi??Ai??SkyTrain lobbyAi??Ai??it is not the speed of the ‘rapid transit’ that attracts customers but the speed and ease of the entire journey; RAV. with forced transfers whichAi??Ai??will not be an attractive alternative.
Unless buses feeding RAV run on the same frequencies as RAV, they will not be competitive with the car. Your numbers are misleading as your 5 minute transfer time is not realistic. Most car drivers would spend another 15 minutes in their car rather than take a bus, transfer to RAV and transfer again to another bus. RAV is just not a competitive alternative to the car.
It is is absolutely false that subways require 400,000 to 500,000 boardings per day to justify its existence. Capacity of subway systems, or rather ALL rail systems, is dependent on the frequency of trains, the size of trains, and most importantly the ultimate platform size of trains. It has NOTHING to do with train infrastructure being built underground. Many underground systems have been built to deal with ridership less than 500,000 boardings per day.
Actually it’s not false but very accurate that a subway needs 400,000 to 500,000 passengers a day to justify the investment. The figure comes from UBC Professor Condon but it is also illustrated by the fact that subways are avoided at all costs due to high costs. You can build a subway with less ridership potential, but be expected to pay higher subsidies to support it. Finally your comment is illogical, for if a subway was viable for ridership flows of 100,000 a day, more cities would be burrowing underground.
Just to remind you, Capacity is a function of headway and the following illustrates the capacity of RAV, SkyTrain and LRT at 90 second headways.
Cap. of 3 Calgary LRV’s (capacity 175 /car)Ai??Ai??- 90 second headways: 23,625
Cap. of 6 Mk.1 ALRT cars (Capacity 75/car) – 90 sec. headways: 20,250
Cap. of 4 ART cars (Capacity 110/car) – 90 sec. headways: 19,800
Cap. of 2Ai??Ai??ROTEM cars (Capacity of 163 per car) – 90 sec. headways: 14,670
Cap. of a 3Ai??Ai??ROTEM carsAi??Ai??(Capacity 163 per car)Ai??Ai??- 90 sec. headways: 22,005
And finally, to suggest that these subways, or our own SkyTrain and Canada Line, are heavily subsidized would be equivalent to saying it did not cost a penny to build them in the first place.
But you refuse to admit that they are subsidized and try to pretend that they are not.
While it was unfortunate that the Canada Line was built using cut-and-cover construction, the actual cost of cut-and-cover and bored tunnel isnA?ai??i??ai???t as significant as it really is: in fact, a bored tunnel is only marginally more expensive. Ai??Ai??Cut-and-cover was used to guarantee the completion of the Canada Line system before the 2010 Winter Olympic Games. Ai??Ai??In the end, we have a rapid transit link that arrived three months ahead of schedule. Ai??Ai??However, TransLink did not switch construction methods. Ai??Ai??It was assumed that the Canada Line would have been built using tunnel boring machines while the construction methodology had always been up to the bidding consortium’s.
And if we had built with LRT instead, we could have had it in operation two years ago, your argument is without foundation.
The lawsuit by Cambie St. merchant, Susan Heyes, was not just against TransLink, but also the private company which will be operating the Canada Line. Ai??Ai?? The cost of the lawsuit is split between the two, meaning less burden on taxpayers. Ai??Ai??The case is being appealed. It is unfortunate that many merchants suffered from construction, but at the same time merchants should remember they will benefit from the Canada Line down the road.
PassengersAi??Ai??in subways do not see surfaceAi??Ai??stores and restaurantsAi??Ai??and do not get off trains to patronize them. The opposite is true for light rail, where merchants adjacent to the LRT line see about a 10% increase in business once the line opens. Your comments are disingenuous.
The cost ofAi??Ai??theAi??Ai??project soared due to inflated materials prices and the cost of labour. The $1.3-billion figure was first pushed around when the project was first proposed in 2002, and surely you wouldA?ai??i??ai???t ignore the fact that there was a wide gap between the date of when the project was proposed and the date of when construction actually started: higher construction costs are to be expected. Ai??Ai??
The costs soared because the costs for subway construction were deliberately misleading from the start! The switch from SkyTrain to a generic metro was done to save the cost of over 40 km. ofAi??Ai??the expensive reaction rail needed for the Linear Induction Motors.
The Canada Line is not half the capacity of the proposed light rail system on Arbutus. Ai??Ai??The ultimate capacity of the Canada Line is 15 000 passengers per hour per direction, which is the capacity of the current Expo Line during peak hours. Ai??Ai?? Yes, the trains on the Canada Line are short, but they are also wide and can carry 400 passengers at crush-load capacity and can handle an addition hundred passengers with a third A?ai??i??Ai??C-carA?ai??i??A?.
Actually the capacity of a Canada Line car is 163 passengers, using the industry standard of all seat occupied and standees @ 4 persons per m/2; the figure of 200 per car is derived at crush loading, all seats occupied and standees @ 6 persons m/2. Do the math, even with the third car, the RAV LineAi??Ai??barely matchAi??Ai??LRT’s capacity of over 20,000 persons per hour per direction.
Ai??Ai??In addition, more trains can be added to the Canada Line; the control system can handle a train every 90 seconds, just like our current SkyTrain. Ai??Ai??LRT cannot do that because itA?ai??i??ai???s not automated. Ai??Ai??Furthermore, LRT cannot be faster than current Canada Line unless it was built with metro standards, being fully segregated from traffic. Ai??Ai??As stated in the City of VancouverAi??Ai??technicalAi??Ai??study completed Ai??Ai??in 1999, SkyTrain, or in our case, the Canada Line, will have an average speed of 35 km/hr, 10 km/hr higher than LRT. Ai??Ai??Just looking at the shorter trains is simply shallow-thinking.
You are dead wrong here. Light rail can operate at 30 second headways, and do it day in and day out on scores of LRT operations around the world. Actually LRT can operate at a faster commercial speed than metro if it is designed to. RAV faster commercial speeds come from sacrificing stations along the line. By your logic, having no intermediate stations and an extremely fast metro line would attract hundreds of thousands of riders – NOT! Obviously you haven’t done any research on transit and your lack of knowledge on the subject is telling.
The Arbutus corridor is also a longer route that would have increased travel times to upwards of 30-minutes. The route also lacks employment centres needed to attain ridership (On Cambie you have: Central Broadway business district, City Hall, VGH and medical campus, future hospital and developments at 33rd Avenue, ChildrenA?ai??i??ai???s Hospital, Oakridge Centre which will be redeveloped, and Langara Colleg. Cambie is also near the centre of the city, unlike Arbutus. Arbutus only the has western tip of Central Broadway and Kerrisdale for employment centres).
You overstate the employment centres as hospitals, with nurses and staff working odd shifts and 12 hour days are not good transit revenue generators. The real question about employment centre is how many people working at those employment centre, live near RAV to use it?
The Arbutus route had the higher density and the many shops spread along it’s route would have also been good revenue generators, a fact ignored by RAVCo. & Co. Again you confuseAi??Ai??commercial speed with journey speed; a slightly longer trip, serving more destinations, may have attracted more customers.
Not so sure how the carbon tax or HST has anything to do with the Canada Line, but now that it is brought up, the carbon tax simply encourages people to consume less, which leads to more public transit users. Ai??Ai??How is that a bad thing? Ai??Ai??The HST has nothing to do with the ridership, cost, or success of the Canada Line.
Actually the HST has a lot to do with the RAV and Evergreen Lines as the provincial government needs the extra revenue to pay for their hugely expensive transportation projects, your ignorance of this is nothing short than appalling.
We believe the Canada Line is a crucial transportation link to Metro Vancouver and puts us in an advantage to many cities. Ai??Ai??World-class cities all have metro links to the airport, namely London, Tokyo, Hong Kong, and San Francisco, not light rail. Ai??Ai??Vancouver would be the first city in Canada to have rail infrastructure to the airport, let alone a metro line instead of LRT, and the second city in the North American west coast with a metro to the airport, behind San Francisco and the successful BART system.
What foolish nonsenseAi??Ai??which smacks of ‘penis envy’. Vancouver doesn’t have the population as Tokyo, hong Kong and San Fransisco to support a metro, let alone a metro connection to the airport. did you know that BART line to San Francisco’s airport carries a mere 10,000 a day?
Just for the record, the Canada Line is designed with the Millennium Line extension in mind, built as SkyTrain, as there are provisions for a future underground Cambie Station for the Millennium Line with connections to the Canada Line station.
Again, more nonsense as RAV and SkyTrain are non-compatible and will not be able to provide direct service, which is proven to attract ridership! Anyone one can build underground stations next to each other if they are willing to spend the money on it.
I will remind the SkyTrain lobby once again Gerald Fox’s (noted U.S. transit expert) comments on the Evergreen SkyTrain Line;
“IA?ai??i??ai???ve no desire to get drawn into the Vancouver transit wars, and, anyway, most of the rest of the world has moved on. To be fair, there are clear advantages in keeping with one kind of rail technology, and in through-routing service at Lougheed. But, eventually, Vancouver will need to adopt lower-cost LRT in its lesser corridors, or else limit the extent of its rail system. And that seems to make some TransLink people very nervous.
Ai??Ai??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 analyzed honestly, and the taxpayersA?ai??i??ai??? interests are protected. No SkyTrain project has ever passed this scrutiny in the US.”
The last of the interurbans #1 – East Troy, Wisconsin: The East Troy Electric Railroad
The following is from Jon Bell’s web site. Jon Bell is anAi??Ai??Associate Professor Department of Physics and Computer ScienceAi??Ai??Presbyterian CollegeAi??Ai??Clinton, South Carolina 29325 USA
AlthoughAi??Ai??the East Troy Electric RailroadAi??Ai??is mainly a museum and excursion operation, the East Troy Electric Railroad is also one of only two common-carrier railroads in the United States that still haul freight using the low-voltage DC electric interurban railway technology of the early 20th century. (The other one is the Iowa Traction Railroad in Mason City, Iowa.) It thereby qualifies as one of the last electric interurban railways in the U.S.
The village of East Troy is about 35 miles southwest of Milwaukee. From 1907 to 1939 it was the terminus of one of the interurban electric railroad lines of the Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Co. (TMER&L). When TMER&L abandoned this line beyond Hales Corners in 1939, the village bought the 6.4-mile section between East Troy and Mukwonago, in order to preserve freight service for local businesses. The village continued freight-only operation, using electric locomotives to haul freight cars between East Troy and a junction with the Soo Line Railroad at Mukwonago.
Beginning in the early 1970s, the Wisconsin Electric Railway Historical Society operated a museum service on the line, but they were forced to close in 1983. In 1985, the Wisconsin Trolley Museum started a new museum operation, under the name East Troy Electric Railroad, and took over operation of the freight service from the village of East Troy. In 1995, the museum bought the line from the village. It still operates freight service on demand, but there haven’t been many freight movements in recent years.
http://web.presby.edu/~jtbell/transit/EastTroy/
A letter to the Editor the Vancouver Sun will not print
The following letter to the Editor of the Vancouver SunAi??Ai??was sent to Zweisystem because the author knows full well that the Can West media Empire will not print it. What this letter shows that the region is bereft of any credible transit and transportation reporters and many important and embarrassing stories are missed by the mainstream media. Isn’t about time that Vancouver’s two dailies stop being cheerleaders for the status quo and start investigating real transit stories.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Today’s editorial praising the RAV/Canada Line was predictable; the Vancouver Sun supported this behemoth since its inception.
Sadly, the paper has done its readers a disservice as the Canada Line metro/subway is the epitome of failed transit philosophy from the 1950’s. Has the Sun’s Editorial Board ever noticed that no one is building with SkyTrain and very few with metro? Ever wonder why?
Metro/subways are never planned for unless projected ridership on the line exceeds 400,000 to 500,000 a day. If a metro line does not carry such numbers it must be heavily subsidized; the fewer the passengers the higher the subsidy! Higher subsidies translates into road tolls and higher property taxes.
But there is more. Subways have proven very poor in attracting new ridership and the Canada Line may very well force more people into cars.
The Canada Line is too costly to be extended and as designed will only offer faster journey times to those who live and work near RAV stations. For many, taking the car will be faster than taking a bus transferring to RAV at Casino Junction and possibly transferring to another bus to complete their journey.
One can lose upwards of 70% of potential ridership per transfer.
A metro system’s speed does not attract ridership itself, rather it is the speed of the overall journey that is important. Studies have shown that RAV will increase journey times for most current bus customers, who will lose their direct ‘Express’ buses and be forced to transfer onto the metro.
According to the group DoRav Right, who did an independent audit of the RAV/Canada Line, the cost was near $2.5 billion, not the $2 billion quoted by the BC Liberal Government.
The Canada Line P-3 was a charade and the consortium which built the subway used cheap foreign labour and a ‘bait & switch’ from bored tunnel to cheaper cut-and-cover subway construction. The recent successful action by Cambie St. merchant, Susan Heyes, against TransLink, may wipe out any cost savings the switch as more merchants are now suing TransLink. At no time did the consortium assume risk on RAV, as the taxpayer will soon find out.
The sad fact about the RAV/Canada Line, as its costs soared above the original estimate of $1.3 billion, the scope of the project was greatly reduced. As built, RAV/Canada Line has roughly half the capacity of a light rail line built down Cambie St. or the dreaded Arbutus Corridor. To bring the RAV metro up to just LRT’s capabilities, one would have to invest at least another billion dollars and do the cut-and-cover thing all over again on Cambie St.!
What the RAV/Canada Line really is, is a hugely expensive, politically prestigious, under built metro system, like a cheap Xmas train-set, that will fail to attract sufficient patronage to justify its construction.
And one wonders why TransLink is in such financial peril and Campbell has forced the phony ‘carbon’ or gas tax and HST onto the public?
Light Rail Committee
Box 105, Delta, BC
V4K 3N5
Kassel, Germany invests in tram train. Will Gordon Campbell’s government do the same for the valley?
Ai??Ai??
What Zweisystem would like readers to note is the the cost of the 122km or 75.8 mile Kassel Tram-Train projectAi??Ai??was CAD $278.55! The same amount of money will roughly buy just over 2 km. of SkyTrain! 75.8 miles is roughly the same distance of the Vancouver to Chilliwack Interurban.
The following is from Railway Technology.com
Key Data
Special Characteristics:
First fleet operation of diesel-electric/electric hybrid vehicles
RegioTrams:
THE PROJECT
To enable better transit between Kassel and its satellite communities, decisions were made in the early 1990s to extend urban services onto lines that had become freight only. The project took on a new dimension following the 1999 study Schiene 21 that was to lead to the connection of DB passenger lines to the Kasseler Verkehrs-Gesellschaft (KVG) tram network.
Prior to the delivery of the RegioTrams ordered in 2001, trials took place on the Kassel-Warburg line using Bombardier-built vehicles leased from SaarbrA?A?cken, another German tram-train operator. In providing frequent services with new stock that allows for more transfer-free journeys, the project is regarded as a key element in the obligation of regional transport authority Nordhessische VerkehrsVerbund (NVV) to the half-million people in its area.
The project cost A?ai??sAi??180m, with an approximate infrastructure/rolling stock proportion of 95/85 shared amongst several partners. Federal and state governments represent the main funding sources (90% of total), with contributions also from local authorities benefiting from the service.
The new mode is designated and marketed as RegioTram, with routes identified RT2 (to Hessich Lichtenau); RT3 (Warburg, Nordrhein-Westfalen); RT4 (Wolfhagen) and RT5 (Melsungen-SA?A?d).
INFRASTRUCTURE
To create what has become a 122km RegioTram network, it was necessary to add new track totalling 10km. Signalling has been modified to account for higher frequencies. The line west from the Hbf carrying RT3 and RT4 and DB regional services, the HarleshA?Ai??user curve, has had stations added to serve the western suburbs of Kassel.
A key project element was creating a physical link between tram and DB tracks. By re-using part of the tram tunnel that originally ran beneath the Hbf frontage as part of a tram loop, three low-level Hbf platforms for RegioTrams have been created on the south side of the DB terminus tracks.
To restore the tram service at the north-west of the city centre lost to the project, new track was added from Scheidemann-Platz (where RegioTrams join the tram system) to Luther-Platz. RegioTram services have restored importance to the Hauptbahnhof, with RT5 increasing the frequency of links between there and Kassel-WilhelmshA?Ai??he.
ROLLING STOCK
The service is entirely worked by three-car, 75% low floor Alstom Regio Citadis vehicles constructed at Salzgitter, Niedersachsen. Delivered 2004A?ai??i??ai???2005, the air-conditioned fleet consists of two types which are visually near identical. Numbers 701A?ai??i??ai???718 are two-system overhead supply electrics for operation on DB routes (15kV ac) and the Kassel tram system (750V dc). Unlike the trams alongside which they operate, the RegioTrams are bi-directional.
To enable operation to Wolfhagen without disproportionately expensive route re-engineering for electrification, different stock was required. Numbers 751A?ai??i??ai???760 represent a world first in tram fleet operation, fitted with roof-mounted diesel engines to maintain the low floor profile, a hybrid (electro-diesel) for use without an external power supply or through the 750V overhead. The hybrids also are also used as required for routes that are fully wired.
Services are formed of single or double sets. Relative to the two-system electrics, hybrid sets have a reduced standing capacity (127 as opposed to 139) caused by body-side space needed for fuel storage. Both types feature luggage racks and two general-purpose areas to facilitate access for the mobility-impaired and carriage of cycles and prams. The centre car features seating more appropriate to longer journeys. Each set has interior decoration and names drawn from the stories of the Brothers Grimm who settled in Kassel.
THE FUTURE
When the Kassel Hbf connection opened, minor works were still required around the station area. The project stages remaining to 2009 relate to stations on the HarleshA?Ai??user curve, signalling modifications and establishment of a basic 30-minute frequency on RT routes.
Rather than replicate services of DB regional trains over the same routes, the latter now call at fewer stations, enabling faster end-to-end times, with the RegioTrams now serving the intermediate stations.
As with Karlsruhe, Kassel’s tram-train operation has attracted interest from other operators wishing to assess the effectiveness of running vehicles seamlessly between street and railway.
http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/kasseltramtrains/
Mulhouse Light Rail and Tram Train, France: A template for the return of the interurban?
Mulhouse, population 112,260 (2006) isAi??Ai??a small French provincial city that has just built two tram lines but now is expanding their tram service further afield by adding Tram-Train and track sharing with mainline railways. Here, again is another example of small city in Europe, building with LRT and then greatly expandingAi??Ai??tram service via Tram-Train, using existing railway infrastructure. One wonders how many examples of Tram-Train one must show toAi??Ai??TransLink and the provincial transportation ministry, until they get their collective heads out of the sand and start planning for Tram-Train for the Fraser Valley?
Ai??Ai??The following is from SITRAM the operating authority.
A tram-train is a tram designed to run both on the tracks of an urban tramway network and on the existing railways. It allows travel in an extended geographical area without “breaking the journey”, i.e. without changing the method of transport. The Mulhouse tram-train will be the first to be commissioned in France.
The tram-train, also known as an interconnection tramway, will eventually serve some fifteen stations between Kruth and Lutterbach and ten stations on the Mulhouse urban network. This project is sponsored by the Alsace Region with the support of RA?Ai??seau FerrA?Ai?? de France, the SNCF, SITRAM and the Haut-Rhin dA?Ai??partement.
The first tram-train phase concerns public transport services between Mulhouse and Thann St Jacques, due to come into service at the end of 2010. The journey will then be mainly covered by tram-train, running every 20 minutes. This 20 km section will include 18 stops including 7 urban tramway stations in Mulhouse.
Principles of the first phase:
The offer will be regular and transparent in both directions from Mulhouse to Kruth
Services will be increased significantly
Connections will be facilitated in Mulhouse station
Most journey times will be reduced. |
Several infrastructure developments are currently under wayBetween the Stricker roundabout and Lutterbach
Between Lutterbach and North Thann
TheAi??Ai??Tram-Train linewill eventually link the centre of Mulhouse to the municipalities of the Thur valley, over a distance of 37 km. Ai??
The rolling stockTwelve Siemens Avanto tram-train cars have been financed for this scheme by the Alsace Region with the support of SITRAM. A comfortable vehicle with a similar design to the tram, it has higher acceleration/deceleration performance than a standard train:
These 3 characteristics of the tram-train allow a better service for the areas covered, with more frequent stops but also a reduction of the journey time by comparison with traditional trains. The definitive livery selected for the future Mulhouse – Thur valley tram-train was designed by the Spanish graphic designer Peret, who also designed the urban tram livery. The artist had to take into account firstly the graphic identity of the SITRAM trams and buses, and secondly the graphic identity of Alsace TER regional trains. |
Ai??
More European Tram-Trains – Rail for the Valley offers a challange to Translink and BC Transportation Minister Shirely Bond
In 1994, the GVRD, in an attempt to include the public in the planning process, held a two hour call-in about regional transit, on local cable channels.Ai??Ai??A panel of experts were on hand to answer the publics questions about transit issues, including rapid transit. Zweisystem phoned in and asked a question: Has BC Transit and/or the GVRD investigated the fledgling Karlsruhe two-system (tram-train), where light rail vehicles or streetcars, were able to network on and operate the mainline railways.
The answer coming from aAi??Ai??GVRD plannerAi??Ai??was disappointing: “We are not interested in European transit solutions because their transit issuesAi??Ai??are different than ours.”Ai??
Vancouver’s and European transit issues are almostAi??Ai??identical; trying to design a transit system to attract the motorist from the car, thus alleviating auto congestion and pollution. The solutions used here and across the pond,Ai??Ai??are very different. Vancouver and regional planners were and still are planning for very expensive SkyTrain light-metro, while European transit planners, after seeing the failure of light-metro, opted to build with much cheaper at-grade/on-street light rail! The dichotomy continues!
Now in 2009, fifteen years later, tram-train is an accepted transit mode that can operate in smaller cites with much smaller populations, as well it can extend a major city’s transit lines hundred’s of kilometres way, cheaply, by track-sharing with regular railways. Karlsruhe’s famous “Zweisystem” or two-system LRT, theAi??Ai??longest tram route is 210 km.!
Rail for the Valley contends that there is the ridership available for a Vancouver to Chillwack tram-train service; a transit service that can be builtAi??Ai??for a fraction of the cost of one SkyTrain light-metro line. Rail for the Valley is also tired of the old clichA?Ai??d excuses for the province not investing in tram-train, such as there isn’t the density for transit, or freight trains can’t operate on passenger rail lines. Rail for the Valley offers this challenge to TransLink and BC Transportation minister Shirley Bond: Hold a competition with the suppliers of tram-train, including Siemens, Bombardier, Alstom, and StadlerAi??Ai??for a Vancouver to Chilliwack interurban service and see what the ‘real‘ experts on tram-train have to say.
European cities introduce
new tram-train technology
By Brian Baker, Senior CorrespondentJune 2009: Interest in deploying the tram-trains concept is growing across Europe during the present period. As all tiers of government grapple with the challenges of beating congestion whilst also cutting carbon emissions this approach, which combines proven technologies, is attractive. By combining heavy rail routes with tramway’s they allow passengers to access key destinations in city centres from suburbs without making a change and attract people who previously used cars thus cutting congestion and emissions.
Germany pioneered the utilisation of combining heavy rail and street running fixed link systems but in the last few years there has also been an upsurge of interest elsewhere. Several schemes are in the construction phase in France and a trial is underway in the UK.
The trial in the UK is being jointly managed by the Ministry of Transport, rail infrastructure owner Network Rail and train operations franchisee Northern Rail. Northern Rail is jointly owned by Serco and NedRail. Northern Rail Chief Executive Heidi Mottram said A?ai??i??Ai?? We at Northern Rail are a can do company and we were keen to take part in this trial because we thought tram trains could provide something new which could add to what we were doing.A?ai??i??A?
A?ai??i??Ai??The trial is being conducted in a way which can provide the learning for planning and delivering reliably on schemes anywhere in the UK,A?ai??i??A? she said.
A?ai??i??Ai??The tram train product has generated a lot of passenger growth in Germany and seems to be able to get people out of their cars. For the crowded UK network, its introduction could also free up scarce capacity at the major stations.A?ai??i??A?Ai??The trial routes are in Yorkshire and are those, which connect Sheffield with Huddersfield and Rotherham. These two lines share tracks between Sheffield and Meadowhall. During phase 2 of the trial services will leave this busy corridor and connect to SheffieldA?ai??i??ai???s street-running tram system. A?ai??i??Ai??We needed a route which includes a passenger only section, sections with some inter-operability and a location where we could get on to the street and operate as a normal tram,A?ai??i??A? said Mottram.
Stadler, Alstom and Siemens vehicles are already on the market so it seems manufacturers are confident of a niche in mainland Europe. With a narrower track gauge on the national rail system, the situation in the UK is more fluid.
Mottram emphasises that the trial is to test and prove costs and technical operability on the UK rail and street environment. Phase 1 is underway and new tram trains are likely to begin running on the Sheffield-Huddersfield line in 2011.
Vehicles can be supplied to operate in dual-mode. Customers can choose between diesel on the heavy rail system with 750DC for street running and the all electric 25KV or 15KV on heavy rail with the 750DC on street.
In the UK the diesel option is likely to be essential on many of the likely locations for a scheme. In France, so far, the all-electric option is being preferred. In Nantes, for example, the project promoters who are led by Pays de Loire Region are electrifying the disused rail corridor north of the city to Chateaubriant. It will connect with the tramways in the city to permit journeys from Chateaubriant and the other towns served to the city centre without a change.
The first phase from the centre of Nantes to Nort-sur-Edre will open in 2010. The complete service, through to Chateaubriant, will begin in 2013. As in other schemes in France, vehicles capable of speeds of 100 kms per hour on the heavy rail sections are to be deployed. Funding has come from the regional council, the national government, the Department of Loire-Atlantique and Nantes Metropole.
In Lyon, tram trains have been chosen for two new routes. One will link the TGV station at Part-Dieu and Lyon St. Exbury airport to the east and another will serve suburbs to the west. Both will run on electric power on both tracks and street and are likely to open before the end of 2010.
The diesel option has been pioneered in Kassel, Germany. The system cost 180 million euros and opened in 2007. It provides a more frequent regional rail service, with additional stations, along three corridors and allows the tram trains to join the cityA?ai??i??ai???s tram network at Schiedemann-Platz using a new tunnel from the Hauptbahnhof (central station.). The ten hybrid diesel electric and 18 dual mode electric vehicles in Kassel are Ai??Ai??manufactured by Alstom and are branded as Regio Citadis Dualis. The funding came from a mix of Federal, Regional and Local Authority shares.
In Braunschweig, Germany, a scheme with an estimated cost of 233 million euros is planned. This will use third rail technology to allow vehicles to run over the standard 1435mm gauge tracks on the rail network and on the cityA?ai??i??ai???s tramway network, which has a 1100mm gauge.
The new services will provide high frequency connections to Salzitter, a town of 100,000 population to the south of Braunschweig, as well as direct journeys on-street from the central station to the city centre for travellers from the south east and northern suburbs. Although the finance was still being finalised in early 2009 work is expected to begin in the same year. Funding is likely to include 60 per cent Federal government and 22.5 per cent Niedersachen Land (Lower Saxony State) contributions.Ai??
Issues likely to determine the extent of spread of this useful addition to the public transport portfolio include cost, safety and environmental efficiency. Perhaps the most exciting opportunity for municipalities is that it makes the creation of projects for short sections of tramway potentially highly viable.
Delegates at this yearA?ai??i??ai???s ACORP (Association of Community Rail Partnerships) event heard that vehicles were likely to cost more than conventional train or tram alternatives as they included a lot of complex parts. Costs could be as high as five million euros for each set. But the benefits could outweigh this as well as providing existing users with higher frequencies and modern environmentA?ai??i??ai???s.
Nils Janis, Deputy Director at TTK, consultants to the Karlsruhe system in Baden Wurttemberg which pioneered this combined technology approach to mobility said A?ai??i??Ai??these are long-term projects and whilst engineers will eventually find solutions to technical issues political support is essential.A?ai??i??A?
He said that the vehicles in Kassel used a lot of fuel and were heavy which impacted on track wear but that in areas where there was not support for electrification of heavy rail routes they were an attractive alternative.
The potential for urban regeneration was considerable. Janis cited the town of Bretten in the Karlsruhe region where in the 16 years since the tram train was introduced rider-ship has increased by 1000 per cent. Journey time was reduced by 15 minutes. A?ai??i??Ai??The townA?ai??i??ai???s population is up 16 per cent and land values are up 300 per cent,A?ai??i??A? he said. A?ai??i??Ai??Registrations at schools served by tram train are up 82 per cent and unemployment in the town reduced from 20 per cent to seven per cent between 1988 and 2004.A?ai??i??A?
In Kassel, the system has opened up several development opportunities along the corridors and in the city and has restored the role of the central station, which had been diminished since the edge of city station Kassel -WilhelmshA?Ai??he opened on the new high speed rail line in the 1990A?ai??i??ai???s.
L.A. Times Columnist: American trains and transit will always suck. – Well if US trains & transit suck, god help Canada’s trains & transit!
The following is from The Infrastructurist
http://www.infrastructurist.com/about/
Ai??
YesterdayA?ai??i??ai???s dispatch from LA Times business writer David Lazarus has a great lede: A?ai??i??Ai??ItA?ai??i??ai???s hard to appreciate how truly pitiful our public transportation system is until you spend some time with a system that works.A?ai??i??A? Many of us know that feeling.
Then he gushes about the consistently reliable, affordable and convenient transit systems in Japan. A?ai??i??Ai??I rode just about every form of public transit imaginable A?ai??i??ai??? bullet trains, express trains, commuter trains, subways, street cars, monorails and buses.A?ai??i??A? All fabulous, of course.
Ai??Ai??Then thereA?ai??i??ai???s that age old question of replicating it here in this place we call America. Lazarus argues that even if you build great transit and high speed rail networks people wonA?ai??i??ai???t use them in sufficient numbers unless you also strongly penalize car travel. Carrot and stick. But how to discourage auto use? Like this:
- Make driving more expensive with higher gas taxes and road fees
- Make parking much pricier and less convenient all over the country
- Redevelop our cities and suburbs to make them denser and more conducive to transit and rail travel
Pretty basic stuff, though Lazarus chooses to characterize this broader process as A?ai??i??Ai??making our cities less comfortableA?ai??i??A? and says he A?ai??i??Ai??simply canA?ai??i??ai???t imagine political leaders at the local, state or federal level telling voters that they support a big increase in gas taxes, sky-high parking fees and high-density neighborhoods.A?ai??i??A?
That fact essentially seals the fate of transit and passenger rail, he argues.
LetA?ai??i??ai???s assume for the sake of argument heA?ai??i??ai???s right that politicians will never act to make driving meaningfully more expensive. Should we abandon hope for transit and passenger rail that doesnA?ai??i??ai???t suck?
No. Potentially for two reasons, in fact.
The first is that real estate values and consumer preferences will do some of the heavy lifting for us. As Brookings scholar Christopher Leinberger has argued very compellingly, we face a long-term shortage of walkable dense housing and a massive overhang (22 million units by one calculation) of large lot exurban housing. When we talked to him, Leinberger put it this way: A?ai??i??Ai??Gen Xers and Millennials want a lifestyle closer to Friends than to Tony Soprano.A?ai??i??A?
The people that move into those Friends-style living arrangements are the people that cities like Charlotte, Phoenix, Denver, Cincinnati, etc. want moving there. They build the tax base and are additive to the local economy. WeA?ai??i??ai???re not big fans of gimmicky labels like the A?ai??i??Ai??creative classA?ai??i??A? or A?ai??i??Ai??knowledge workers,A?ai??i??A? but thatA?ai??i??ai???s essentially who these people are.
The fact is, of course, that thereA?ai??i??ai???s no way to lead the Friends lifestyle without walkable developments and a good transit system. So there will be no shortage of local leaders who want to emulate Portland, Oregon, or Tysons Corner, Virginia. Considerably fewer communities will want to actively emulate the living arrangements of, say, Riverside County (though there probably will be some because there are still plenty of Americans who want the Sopranos life). There will beA?ai??i??ai???and already isA?ai??i??ai???a slow shift of political power towards the interests of the Friends group, which has proven amenable to paying higher taxes for a good transit system and looks very skeptically upon $5 billion projects to widen exurban freeways. But n the real world, even where the popular will exists there will be a lot of obstacles to taxing drivers more heavilyA?ai??i??ai???witness the fact that Bloomberg couldnA?ai??i??ai???t implement congestion pricing in one of the Western worldA?ai??i??ai???s densest cities.
A second reason might prove more abrupt and comprehensive. Oil prices go up and keep going up, in a manner as is now being predicted by International Energy AgencyA?ai??i??ai???s top economist. That is, markets do the dirty work for us of discouraging driving. A workable public transportation system will become indispensable in more and more places A?ai??i??ai??? and will probably involve a generous helping of cheap, improvisational solutions like van pools and ride sharing in addition to fancy new transit.
The move toward a world where we need more alternatives to single-person auto travel is going to happen regardless ofAi??Ai?? US politicians. It would be better if we tried to get ahead of that curve. Lazrus is probably right to be gloomy about thatA?ai??i??ai???but wrong to be gloomy about the long-term prospects of transit and rail
Alstom’s Regio CITADIS – A TramTrain for the Fraser Valley?
Not only does Bombardier make TramTrains, France’s Alstom now has several variants of the Regio Citadis TramTrain operating on several transit systems in Europe. It would be nice for residents in the Fraser Valley to see a demonstration of the Regio Citadis operating from Vancouver to Chilliwack in the near future!
Regio CITADIS, Connecting suburban area and city center.
The challenge
Increasing mobility between suburban areas and the city center is the new challenge of great urban centers that want to improve their traffic management. The Regio CITADIS has been designed to answer the issue of multi-modality.
As a tram-train it allows a fast and direct link from the suburbs to the city-center without discontinuities in load.
The concept
Regio CITADIS connects two existing systems that are usually separated: it runs as a tramway under catenary on the tram network and as a diesel train on the regional train network. So, it is technical trade-off to ensure sustained operation in two completely different worlds: different power supply systems, different railway and urban standards, different infrastructures such as rails and platforms, different speed constraintsA?ai??i??Ai??
As it uses existing networks, the regional tracks do not need to be electrified, saving infrastructure costs for the region. Moreover Regio CITADIS is based on a modular platform with service-proven components. Several variations are possible: hybrid, electrical two-system, single-system traction. All have the same design, only the traction power packs on the roof changes. This saves maintenance costs.
Key figures
- Ai??Ai??Length: 36,762 mm
- Width: 2,659 mm
- Seats: 93
- Standing facilities approx. 130
- Orders: 82 trainsets for German and Dutch operators
- Service: 28 in commercial service
Recent Comments