Get ready, Seattle: You’re about to be a light-rail town – From the Seattle Times
Ai??Ai??Seattle’s LRT line is “four to six times costlier than other light-rail startups in western states“, as planners designed the light rail service as a light-metro, with miles of expensive viaducts and even more expensive subway tunnels. The same sort of nonsense happened with BC Transit’s LRT plans for Broadway and Translink’s light rail plans for the Evergreen Line. By designing LRT to be a light-metro negates most of the economical benefits of light rail operation!
That being said, Seattle is the newest American city to embrace light rail.
By Mike Lindblom – Seattle Times transportation reporter
At last, Seattle is about to become a light-rail town.
On Saturday, the first passengers will board the Sound Transit trains from Westlake Center through Rainier Valley to Tukwila A?ai??i??ai??? putting behind them nearly a century of failed proposals to build a big transit system through Seattle.
The initial $2.3 billion, 14-mile segment took five years to build and was filled with engineering challenges and political suspense.
The project features a unique deep station within the soft soils of Beacon Hill, and the nation’s only tunnel where buses and trains share the same stations A?ai??i??ai??? downtown. Managers coped with toxic soil, sinkholes, street protests seeking more jobs for African Americans and a couple of minor train-car collisions.
One worker died in a supply-train crash during Beacon Hill tunneling. That stretch was so difficult that it left no time to spare in the final construction schedule, and it spooked transit-board members into canceling a deep station they had promised for First Hill.
“Light-rail years are like cat years,” said Ahmad Fazel, director of the stressful light-rail effort.
On the upside, the project provided more than 4,000 short- and long-term jobs. And trains will serve riders every 7 Ai??A? minutes at peak times. Two more miles open later this year to Seattle-Tacoma International Airport.
But the line is four to six times costlier than other light-rail startups in western states. And with an estimated 26,600 average weekday trips predicted next year, the trains often will appear mostly empty, like the South Lake Union streetcar.
Ridership should grow by 2016, when a tunnel to Capitol Hill and Husky Stadium lets students and employees from the south suburbs ride 19 miles from the airport to the University of Washington campus. Eventually, it will connect to north Federal Way, Overlake and Lynnwood in a 53-mile network that Sound Transit says will attract 280,000 daily trips in 2030.
Transit: a history
If you lived in Seattle in 1891, you could ride the new electric streetcars that replaced horse-drawn trains. Cable cars climbed Madison Street and ran down to Lake Washington. A longer train turned into Rainier Valley toward Kent. Trestles in the mud flats supported elevated tracks to West Seattle.
Construction visionaries complained about traffic congestion as long ago as 1911, when engineer Virgil Bogue proposed underground and elevated trains to cope with the city’s tight “hourglass shape,” plus a tunnel beneath Lake Washington. Voters rejected his plan, saying it would cost too much. Again in 1926, a city committee urged fast rail to staunch the loss of customers on Seattle’s declining streetcar routes. Seattle asked the state in vain to put rails into the Interstate 5 express lanes, designed in the late 1950s. After the 1962 World’s Fair, experts studied stretching its one-mile tourist monorail to Shoreline.
Rail measures lost public votes in King County in 1968 and 1970. Federal aid shifted to Atlanta, and buses flourished here. Much later, Seattle voters passed monorail measures four times before canceling a line in 2005, due to a revenue shortage; the unbuilt project cost drivers $124 million in car-tab taxes.
Rails were embedded in the downtown bus tunnel in 1989, a symbolic commitment to try again. (They were installed incorrectly, and Sound Transit would replace them in 2007.)
Another regional transit package, including light rail to Tacoma, reached the ballot in 1995 but lost. A year later, Sound Transit won by offering a shorter line from the University District to SeaTac, and more express buses.
The agency claimed its cost figures were “extremely conservative,” but in fact they were too low by half. After a management shake-up and scolding by federal inspectors, the agency under new chief executive Joni Earl produced realistic, higher numbers by late 2001 A?ai??i??ai??? and those have held up. Sen. Patty Murray and Rep. Norm Dicks lobbied to save a $500 million federal grant.
Two clever moves prevented a collapse. A committee that included former Mayor Charles Royer and Jim Ellis, a leader in earlier pro-rail efforts, advocated breaking ground on a shorter south-end line. They guessed correctly the south line would help whet the public appetite for more. And years earlier, lawyers wrote an escape clause that let the agency shorten its line or extend taxes indefinitely, without a public revote that opponents demanded.
Politicians OK’d big landmark stations, tunnels, spans through Tukwila and a winding route to reach and redevelop Rainier Valley neighborhoods, while calling Link an investment in the next century.
The first line is being finished $100 million below the official federal figure of $2.4 billion, which included a financial cushion.
Light Rail on the ballot
Link has been deemed a “light-metro” hybrid by some transit wonks. In downtown Seattle, the trains go faster than downtown Portland’s surface trains, which move not much faster than a pedestrian. But with 28 street crossings in Rainier Valley, capacity and speed here are less than with a big-city subway.
Millions were spent for oversized 400-foot-long stations A?ai??i??ai??? a nod to the future when four-car trains will be needed if the Greater Seattle population grows 1.2 million as planners warn.
Over the years, a collection of budget hawks, bus supporters, monorailists and road warriors opposed the agency, saying fixed rail reaches too few places and people to justify its prodigious costs here.
But in 2008, Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels cajoled fellow transit-board members to put more rail on the ballot, after a combined roads-and-transit package tanked the year before. The $18 billion measure won decisively, buoyed by younger, pro-Obama voters.
Despite a campaign slogan of “Mass Transit Now,” the full lines are 15 years from completion and taxes will last at least through the 2030s.
To reach Tacoma and Everett, a third ballot plan would need to be approved, continuing this odyssey four decades beyond its 1996 launch.
Bus Raid Transit – A transit Panacea or a money pit?
Phileas woes in Istanbul.
Ai??
Many politicians are calling for Bus Rapid Transit, but reallyAi??Ai??haven’t a clue what they are talking about. Internationally, BRT describes guided buses and/or large busway networks, but in Vancouver, BRT tends to mean B-Line style, limited stop, bus service. What is quietly forgotten is that BRT has not, except in third world countries where there are little affordable alternatives, fared well. Even Ottawa’s famed busways saw over a 14% drop in ridership in the first decade of operation resulting in Ottawa’s transit officials switch from BRT to LRT. The following is from a transit specialist who belongs to the LRTA.
InAi??Ai??’Buses’ magazine, there an article about the Dutch Phileas buses (BRT) on the Istanbul BRT system. These are virtually brand new (not even two years old) 26 metre double-articulated parallel-type diesel hybrid vehicles which feature doors on both sides.
It seems that despite their young age most of the fleet of 50 have already had to be taken out of service with major problems which include difficulties in climbing a steep hill and breakages to the vehicles’ suspension system. The matter is so serious that it has even been discussed in Parliament.
Apparently the hill climbing issue is that the buses are designed to climb a 2.5% gradient at 40km/h, but the people of Istanbul see this as being too slow / want them to do so more quickly. The word on the street is that the buses were designed to run in a flat country (like Holland) and are not suitable for locations where heavily loaded buses are required to climb even gentle hills. Wondering aloud, I’d suggest that this is a question of available power, and that they should trial direct electric traction (trolleybus) as a way to improve their climbing speed – although not knowing the road configuration I cannot know for sure if this would be the whole solution.
The problems with the suspension seem to have been caused by overcrowding. As we know, buses normally have a maximum capacity limit on the number of passengers allowed to travel; these vehicles were designed to carry up to 230 passengers – although at peak times loads of 280 are often carried. As a contrast with steel rail transports (trains, trams, streetcars, etc) it often happens that at the busiest times the sheer numbers of people travelling will see them ‘packed in like sardines in a tin can’. It seems that the same has been happening with the Phileas buses, especially when there are football (soccer) matches at a stadium along the route the buses serve.
In the meantime the fleet of 200 CapaCity and other buses are having to work extra hard to cover for these buses – and plans to buy 50 more Phileas buses have been put on hold.
————–
According to Wikipedia the buses breaking down also caused severe problems because of the single-track nature of their dedicated right of way, blocking it so that other passes could not pass.
Seattle’s monrail versus LRT debate – Same story, different players!
This, from the Seattle Transit blog, is a short history of Seattle’s virulent monorail debate that caused much “wailing and gnashing of teeth” south of the 49th!
March 19, 2008 at 11:20 amA Rehash: What Was Wrong With The Monorail
by Ben Schiendelman
A week ago, while talking about the viaduct, a friend said to me A?ai??i??Ai??If only we had just built the monorailA?ai??i??Ai??A?ai??i??A?
A few days later, when he regained consciousness and they took him out of the ICU (joking! joking!), I had calmed down. I gave him a list of why the monorail would never have worked, was a bad idea in the first place, and would probably have ended up half-built and bankrupt:
First, putting your technology choice in your law is the dumbest thing IA?ai??i??ai???ve ever heard of. Your law should always say something like A?ai??i??Ai??high capacity transitA?ai??i??A? or A?ai??i??Ai??fixed guideway transitA?ai??i??A? A?ai??i??ai??? something flexible A?ai??i??ai??? that way you donA?ai??i??ai???t get backed into a corner. There were very few initial bids for the monorail A?ai??i??ai??? and only one that held up for long. This is not a standardized transportation system A?ai??i??ai??? there are many competing technologies for both trains and guideways. TheyA?ai??i??ai???re generally proprietary A?ai??i??ai??? only one vendor will sell you the trains to go on your tracks. That means single bids, which kind of defeats the purpose of competitive bidding, donA?ai??i??ai???t you think?
Second, donA?ai??i??ai???t claim your fantastical technology will A?ai??i??Ai??pay for itselfA?ai??i??A?. Seriously, that was how this all started A?ai??i??ai??? A?ai??i??Ai??it will be profitableA?ai??i??A?, we were told, A?ai??i??Ai??companies will be falling all over themselves to get the contractA?ai??i??A?. Yeah, and my buddies in Baghdad donA?ai??i??ai???t know where to put all the floral arrangements. The original monorail group started out with that claim, then moved to $18-36 million a mile with operating costs recovered through fares (still no chance in hell), then more like $50-100 million a mileA?ai??i??Ai?? eventually it became clear that it was, actually, a transit system, and that transit systems do, indeed, cost money. Too late: making all those crazy claims killed their credibility.
Third, and maybe even most importantly: This was supposed to be grassroots, bringing people together. Instead, it became an anti-light-rail festival of lies, alienating the support of transit users and people with brains everywhere. A?ai??i??Ai??Light rail canA?ai??i??ai???t climb a gradeA?ai??i??A?, they said, when the stretch weA?ai??i??ai???ve built along SR-518 is as steep as their Hitachi monorail could do. A?ai??i??Ai??Light rail isnA?ai??i??ai???t elevatedA?ai??i??A?, they saidA?ai??i??Ai?? I hope everyone on this blog realizes the humor in that statement. A?ai??i??Ai??Light rail is so expensiveA?ai??i??A?, they said (and IA?ai??i??ai???m leaving out their capital letters and exclamation points) A?ai??i??ai??? but it turns out that the differences in cost between light rail and monorail are negligible. They poked fun at their base supporters, and it cost them.
Fourth, to cut costs, they planned to use single tracking and switches over the West Seattle Bridge (and they eventually cut Ballard from their plan entirely). Switches, for monorail, are huge, cumbersome devices that take many times longer than standard rail switches to actually switch over. The maximum frequency of trains over the bridge would have been choked off by switch actions between every set of trains. Even after making that decision, the monorail agency still advertised three minute headways A?ai??i??ai??? when they would have been physically impossible.
The rose-colored glasses the monorail agency looked through at every issue bit them time and again. They claimed that their real estate costs would be low because they A?ai??i??Ai??only had to pay for posts in the groundA?ai??i??A?, that their columns would be A?ai??i??Ai??thinner than light railA?ai??i??A? (they werenA?ai??i??ai???t), and that they would offer a A?ai??i??Ai??quieter, smoother rideA?ai??i??A? A?ai??i??ai??? they wouldnA?ai??i??ai???t have. IA?ai??i??ai???m not even discussing the financing plan A?ai??i??ai??? it was astounding. Along every step of the way, the agency lied, taking advantage of Sound TransitA?ai??i??ai???s bad position at the time to hit as hard as they could at light rail, rather than collaborating. Oh, yeah, and they spent more on advertising alone than they were bringing in. A?ai??i??Ai??And their projections for car ownership (their funding source was an MVET) were far too high.
IA?ai??i??ai???m glad theyA?ai??i??ai???re gone. There was no opportunity for mass transit there A?ai??i??ai??? they failed so many times in so many arenas that I hope thatA?ai??i??ai???s clear. All they did was confuse the public and spend our money. Yeah, I know, Ballard and West Seattle residents feel cheated A?ai??i??ai??? but itA?ai??i??ai???s like PublishersA?ai??i??ai??? Clearinghouse A?ai??i??ai??? you werenA?ai??i??ai???t actually going to win a million dollars. We donA?ai??i??ai???t have the tax base in Seattle alone, especially not just with an MVET, to build mass transit in that corridor.
We will. Once light rail is built northward to the county line, those will be the next logical places for Sound Transit to build using North King money.
From Seattle – The end of the line, for now: Tukwila is the jewel in the crown of Link – Mike Lindblom – Seattle Times
Though Seattle’s light rail project has more in common with Vancouver’s light-metro system, it does have portions running on city streets. Through the Duwamish River valley, it operates as a light-metro, running on a 8 km. viaduct.
As soon as light-rail trains head south out of Seattle, leaving the streets of Rainier Valley, the ride becomes more exhilarating.
Five miles of nonstop trackway allow speeds of up to 55 mph, next to highways and around banked curves. Blue lights on the Duwamish River bridge trip on, as a work of public art, when the train crosses.
Finally the train climbs to Tukwila International Boulevard Station, where the V-shaped roof creates a landmark. The angular design evokes “airplanes, liftoff, the idea of elevation, the slope and wing of airplanes,” in the words of its architect, David Hewitt, of Seattle.
On a clear day, from the 51-foot-high boarding platform atop a hill, riders can see Mount Baker, then turn toward the control tower of Seattle-Tacoma International Airport.
With this station, Sound Transit aimed to create a beacon, full of sculpture and lit from within. Detractors call it a Taj Mahal. Politicians on the transit board hoped the three-level station and tracks along the freeway, would convince taxpayers the agency could finish the job, after its financial near-meltdown years ago.
Unlike other stations, which rely on walk-ups and feeder buses, this one could lure some motorists off the highways, after the first 14 miles of track open July 18. Until an airport station opens this winter, Tukwila is the southern terminus of the line that starts at Westlake Center.
This stop provides the line’s only park-and-ride lot, with 600 free spaces, a reasonable stopover for commuters from SeaTac, Burien and Des Moines, or sports fans heading to Sodo. Parking is free but limited to 24 hours.
Chances are good the lot will overflow in the near future, as happened to Sounder commuter-rail stations a few miles east. Transit-board members don’t have a strategy yet, though some have hinted at user fees or carpooling incentives for Sounder lots someday.
Next year, the future RapidRide A line from Federal Way and other buses will pick up passengers on a wide two-lane roadway under the mezzanine. Lines will be rerouted to reach the station from Burien, White Center and Southcenter.
Off to the side, a drop-off area serves taxis and kiss-and-ride users, but getting there requires maneuvering through rows of parking. A nifty stairway connects to the sidewalk of International Boulevard. The station entry itself is enormous; riders take escalators past yellow-painted steel beams to the mezzanine and boarding platforms.
Construction on the huge station and mostly elevated trackway was remarkably smooth. A total 2,457 hollow guideway segments were trucked here from Cashmere, Chelan County, raised by a gantry, then cinched together in a series A?ai??i??ai??? like a box of tightly scrunched doughnuts A?ai??i??ai??? to form 182 spans. Still, there have been controversies:
A?ai??i??A? Early this decade, the city of Tukwila threatened to withhold permits to build the segment, after Sound Transit refused to spend more money to reach Westfield Southcenter mall.
A?ai??i??A? A subcontractor pleaded guilty to misrepresenting the strength of steel casings, wrapped around column foundations. Fortunately, engineering reviews concluded it was not a significant flaw and columns would still withstand a severe earthquake.
A?ai??i??A? Neighbors complained this summer of the screech caused by steel wheels on elevated tracks. Sound Transit has ordered lubricants and will apply them to the rails in the next few days, spokesman Bruce Gray said.
A?ai??i??A? As light-rail opponent Emory Bundy and others have noted, the 36-minute ride from Westlake Center to the airport, via Rainier Valley and Tukwila, is longer than the 194 bus, scheduled to take 28 minutes using freeway HOV lanes. Next year the 194 will be dropped, so transit riders heading to the airport will have to take a train.
Sound Transit argues Link runs more often than a bus; it saves time for people who live in the Valley; and trains are immune from airport-traffic tie-ups. Think Thanksgiving week.
The station appears isolated amid parking lots and low-rise drive-up businesses, but several apartments sit a short walk downhill.
And in the future, the adjoining city of SeaTac intends to redevelop the west side of International Boulevard for retailers, offices and housing in buildings eight stories high, along with a plaza, and town homes on the back streets, attracting up to 4,000 residents.
“We would love to see that built out as an international district, with a variety of shops,” said SeaTac City Manager Craig Ward.
Mike LindblomAi??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? Seattle Times
The aging SkyTrain – Pitfalls of a gadgetbahnen
The major problem with automatic railways, is that they age poorly or should one say, the signaling and miles and miles of wiring needed for automatic operation, age poorly.Ai??Ai??A transit system that is well maintained, with lots of expensive preventative maintenance, preforms well as it ages, but if little or no preventive maintenance is done, service quality drops like a stone. The problem is not inherent with SkyTrain as evidence is now pointing to ‘signal failure, with the recent Washington metro accident. When signaling problems happen on SkyTrain, unlike the Washington metro, the system shuts down until the problem is rectified and/or an attendant drives the train (at a slower speed). The result of ongoing problems causing stoppagesAi??Ai??on SkyTrain means much lower capacities, car overcrowding, greater passenger discomfort and annoyance.
Noon, Monday, July 6
Trouble on SkyTrain right now. TransLink reports a communication problem between a section of track and the central control computer.Ai??Ai?? Trains will be staffed by SkyTrain attendants. ButAi??Ai?? there may be delays of up to 20 minutes at times.
And a little later…………………………….
SkyTrain update:
SkyTrain is currently experiencing delays due to communication problems between a section of track and the central control computer.Ai??Ai?? Trains will be staffed by SkyTrain Attendants, however, there may be delays up to 2-3 minutes at times.
When delays happen, capacity drops and transit customers are left with an inferior service and consider different transportation options. Maybe worn out signaling, causing almost daily delaysAi??Ai??is the real reason for a billion dollar upgrade to the Expo Line? One billion dollars is more than enough money to fund the valley interurban initiative!
With light rail, signaling issues, due to age, seldom arise and if they do, are fixed with little delay in service.
Rail reality grows with Hydro’s revelation – The Vancouver Province.
Ai??Ai??From the Vancouver Province and thanks for Brian Lewis for following this story!
Advocates for establishing a light-rail passenger service in the Fraser Valley have found an ally in B.C. Hydro.
And, not surprisingly, they’ve also found an opponent in mighty Canadian Pacific Ltd., the railway-based corporation that many have loved to hate throughout its century-plus history.
In fact, it’s the ever-present power of Canadian Pacific that led Langley Township Mayor Rick Green to issue a media release yesterday that he hopes will stop CP in its tracks.
The release announced that Langley has a letter from Hydro stating that the utility will continue to protect its historical rights to run passenger-rail service on a section of railway line it sold to CP years ago.
Known as the Pratt-Livingston Corridor, the track runs from 232nd Street, near Trinity Western University, through the downtown cores of the township and Langley City, then west to Cloverdale.
This line was sold by B.C. Hydro to CP in the late 1980s for its coal and container-train service to Deltaport.
But Hydro’s retained passenger-service rights reflect its historical roots in the early 1900s, when its private-sector predecessor, B.C. Electric, owned and operated its extensive, electrified interurban tram service between Vancouver and Chilliwack.
Obviously, when the B.C. government of the day decided that Hydro should exit the railway business, some bureaucrat had enough sense to protect the public interest in case the call for public rail transit in the Valley returned.
And it did. Public pressure is mounting on provincial and federal politicians to re-establish light-rail transit in the region as an environmentally friendly alternative to motor vehicles.
However, the 21-year-old agreement between Hydro and CP, which protected those passenger rights, only became public knowledge last April.
The rights will expire on Aug. 29, unless they’re renewed at the option of either party.
According to several sources, even some of the executives at CP didn’t know Hydro had retained its rights to public rail service. Nor, I’m told, were they amused.
“I have no doubt that this agreement is CP’s worst nightmare,” Green said yesterday.
Not only does CP have to set aside up to one-third of its wheelage (traffic) for public light-rail use, it also has to do it for free.
By contrast, CP makes millions of dollars annually by allowing TransLink to operate the West Coast Express on its northern line into Vancouver.
Now, according to the grapevine, CP is lobbying the Gordon Campbell government to block Hydro’s intention of exercising its legal option of renewing the agreement that will protect public use of the line for another 21 years.
This worries Green and other mayors south of the Fraser who fear the B.C. Liberals may cave into pressure from CP and order Hydro to back off.
For its part, CP said yesterday it’s still reviewing the agreement and had no further comment.
But Hydro said yesterday it has sent a letter to CP, saying it will exercise its option and renew the agreement. So far, so good.
See also:
How green is my rapid transit?
By popular demand, another posting on ‘green’ or grassed light rail rights-of-ways.
Nicely manicured lawned R-O-W in Japan
Grassed light rail lines bring a ‘cooling’ green park-like atmosphere to city tram lines.
German lawned Stadtbahn (City railway) line
Lawned rights-of-ways are also used on heavier (fast) light-rail lines on suburban routes.
Lawned R-O-W on a central city tram route.
Even in dense city centres, a lawned tram line is ascetically appealing.
LRT - Green transit!
The appealing nature of lawned R-O-W, certainly ‘fits in’ everywhere and certainly far more pleasant than miles of ugly concrete viaducts and a lot cheaper than a subway.
No contest, which picture shows the nicer rights-of-way?
Lawned light rail lines, LRT for the 21st century!
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.A?ai??i??A?
The title quote by Joseph Goebbels, famed Nazi propagandist, aptly describes the SkyTrain lobby’s and BC Transit/TransLink’s thirty year long propaganda campaign to sell SkyTrain and discredit modern light rail. The many pro-SkyTrain blog sites that offer little in fact, but much unfounded rhetoric. All the bumf spewed hides one singular fact; that SkyTrain has been rejected by transit planners around the world.
Why is it important for Rail for the Valley to expose the SkyTrain myth for what it is? Simple, it’s all about money. SkyTrain consumes up to ten times or more the money to build, per route kilometre than light rail; put another way, the taxpayer may get up to one tenth, or less,, transit by building with SkyTrain instead of LRT! For any chance of a Valley interurban service, Rail for the Valley must put a ‘wooden stake’ through the heart of SkyTrain and give no quarter to its adherents. It’s ugly business, but for the future of the region, it must be done.
Zweisystem will make two predictions:
1) If the province forces TransLink to build a SkyTrain subway to UBC, there will be NO interurban for the valley.
2) If a SkyTrain subway is built, the municipalities without SkyTrain will secede from TransLink and form their own transit authority or rejoin with BC Transit. (If that happens, watch for $1000.00 to $1,500.00 property tax hikes for the remaining, SkyTrain and metro served cities, including Richmond, Vancouver, Burnaby, Tri-Cities, New Westminster and North Surrey).
The Rail for the Valley blog follows the course of modern public transit development as reported in the transit pressnand reports truthfully. And one must remember, SkyTrain is sponsored by the state through the Premier’s office and TransLink and unfortunately those who support light rail and not SkyTrain are seen as enemies of the state!
The choice for future transit in the region should be this:
SkyTrain metro, with costs starting at $125 million/km.
or
Light rail with costs as low as $6 million/km (tramtrain)
or as low as $15 million/km. (streetcar)
or as low as $25 million/km. (LRT)
Let the public decide!
Tram-train backed in the UK. Can we expect the same here?
Ai??Ai??WhatAi??Ai?? is important to note is that the very thorough and highly respectedAi??Ai??Her Majesty’s Railway Inspectorate is now investigating the safety and implementation of TramTrain in the UK; if it passes the HMRI it can be well assured that TramTrain will be safe for operation on the “interurban” line, on this side of the pond!
HAMPSHIREA?ai??i??ai???S transport chiefs have backed plans for a high-frequency tram-train running between Southampton and Fareham.
As revealed by the Daily Echo yesterday, futuristic hybrid vehicles will replace standard trains on the existing Netley line under an ambitious multi-million pound scheme.
The reintroduction of passenger services on the Waterside line between Totton and Hythe were also supported by the Transport for South Hampshire joint committee.
The proposals were among 11 top priorities identified in a new report outlining the future of railways in South Hampshire over the next 30 years.
From the Light Rail Transit Association – Toronto tram contract finalized
Good news from Toronto!
Toronto tram contract finalised :
Bombardier Transportation has announced that it has signed a contract with the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) for the supply of 204 100% low-floor streetcars to replace the City of TorontoA?ai??i??ai???s aging fleet of vehicles which it is believed to be the largest single order for light rail vehicles in the world.
The contract is valued at approximately CDN$851 million (USD735 million US, 523 million euros). Deliveries for the 204-vehicle order are scheduled to take place between 2012 and 2018, with the first prototype vehicles arriving in 2011. Under the agreement, up to an additional 400 vehicles could be ordered at a later date as part of TorontoA?ai??i??ai???s Transit City Plan to expand the existing streetcar network with 120 kilometres of new double-track streetcar lines.
The new vehicles are based on FLEXITY 100% low-floor, light rail technology modified to TTC specifications and special requirements of TorontoA?ai??i??ai???s streetcar network. The five-module, unidirectional vehicles with all-wheel drive are more than 28 meters long and 2.54 meters wide.
2 July 2009
Recent Comments