Debunking the SkyTrain myth part 5. Thirty years of SkyTrain planning – the years that the Locusts hath eaten!
In the late 1970’s, after much study and with regional consensus, Greater Vancouver’s Regional Authority, the GVRD,Ai??Ai??was on the verge of approving three light rail lines; Vancouver to Whalley (via New Westminster); New Westminster to Lougheed Mall and Vancouver to Richmond. Costing $350 million to $460 million. It wasn’t to be. The then Social Credit provincial government forced the construction of the newly renamed Advanced Light Rail Transit (ALRT) System onto the GVRD and built a $850 million light-metro just to new Westminster.
A history lesson:
In the late 1970’s, the UTDC or Urban Transit Development Corporation, a Ontario crown corporation designed a new elevated light-metro called ICTS or Intermediate Capacity Transit System, for a public transit niche between the maximum ridership Toronto’s streetcars could carry and the ridership needed to justify a subway. The cost of ICTS was roughly half of a that of aAi??Ai??subway to build, though, according to the Toronto Transit Commission, “up to ten times more to install than light rail.”. Only two such systems were sold, Detroit (known locally as the mugger mover) and the Toronto, soon to be torn down, Scarborough Line.
Unfortunately for ICTS, it came after the Renaissance of modern LRT, which filled this niche and according to the TTC’s own studies, ICTS, despite the much higher costs, had about the same potential capacity of light rail!
To try to reinvent their proprietary light metro system and compete with light rail, the UTDC renamed ICTS’s to ALRT or Advanced Light Rail Transit in the late 1970’s. Then in a crass political deal with the then BC Social Credit Party, they agreed to purchase ALRT in exchangeAi??Ai??to obtain the then famous, Ontario Premier William Davis’s ‘Blue Machine’, which pioneered computer tracking of voters during elections, to desperately try to win the next BC provincial election.
The die was cast and the GVRD got SkyTrain “whether you like it or not.” Instead of originally planned LRT from Vancouver to Lougheed Mall, Whalley and Richmond, the region got SkyTrain only to New Westminster and as a bonus, the famed UTDC/BC TransitAi??Ai??‘SkyTrain speak’, which would even put George Orwell to shame.
The rest of the world came and saw SkyTrain at Expo 86, but the rest of the world built with LRT instead. No one else built with ALRT. The UTDC was sold to Lavalin which went bankrupt trying to sell the, again renamed ALM or Automated Light Metro, to Bangkok. Bombardier Inc. bought the shattered remains of Lavalin and ALM, redesigned the light-metro and renamed it ART or Advanced Light Metro.
In the mid 1990’s in other crass political deal, this timeAi??Ai??with Bombardier Inc., to get a (nowAi??Ai??abandoned) SkyTrain fabrication plant in Burnaby, the Glen Clark NDP government forced ART to be built on the Millennium Line. To date Bombardier as only soldAi??Ai??four ART systems, the Port Authority in New York, connecting the JFK airport to the subway system, Kuala Lumpur, Beijing, and Korea. It should be noted that ART was not allowed to compete against LRT forAi??Ai??all installations, strange as LRT has outsoldAi??Ai??ART by well overAi??Ai??70 to 1!
With SkyTrain came the ALRT/ART technocrats and bureaucrats who so perverted transit planning in the region, that we only plan for light-metro. After Vancouver had a well publicized temper tantrum, not wanting elevated SkyTrain, they got a much more expensive subway instead for the RAV/Canada Line. What Vancouver wants, Vancouver gets. As subway construction is about twice as much as elevated construction, RAVCo. and Intransit BC cut construction costs by building the somewhat cheaper cut-and-cover method, with the cost savings coming from not paying compensation to affected businesses.
The SkyTrain or light-metro trap
Regional planners have fallen into the SkyTrain trap, where all transit planning in the region is based on light-metroAi??Ai??including theAi??Ai??predicted ‘flip-flop’ on the Evergreen Line, whereAi??Ai??proposed LRT was planned as light-metroAi??Ai??andAi??Ai??then dutifully replaced withAi??Ai??SkyTrain. The SkyTrain trap is when one builds aAi??Ai??light-metro and then hires none but shills, who only plan for SkyTrain, which is a light-metro. Building much cheaper LRT would only show how inept previous transit planning has been and career bureaucrats and politicians, ever mindful of their reputations until the pension cheques roll in, will do everything in their power to prevent honest transit planning in the region.
SkyTrain trap:
Build small but very expensive proprietaryAi??Ai??light-metro line >> densify metro route by rezoning industrial & commercial lands to residentialAi??Ai??along the metro line to increase ridership >> increasing land values >> exodus of families and businesses, searching for cheaper homes and industrial landAi??Ai??>> new highways and bridgesAi??Ai??to cater to increasing suburban populationAi??Ai??>> increasedAi??Ai??traffic congestion as it too expensive to build with light metro in lightly populated areas >> build another light-metro line, thoughAi??Ai??not catering to suburban populations >> increased densification along the route to increase ridership >> further increasing land values >> a greater and further exodus of families and businesses to the suburbs, searching for cheaper homes and industrial landAi??Ai?? >> more new highways and bridgesAi??Ai??to cater to increasing suburban populationAi??Ai??>> increased traffic congestion >> more light-metro is planned, but not enough to cater to suburban populations >> increased densification >> and so on.
Most cities understand the SkyTrain trap is, with the first light-metro line built and subsequentlyAi??Ai??future transit construction isAi??Ai??with light rail; but no, not in Vancouver, where planners and politicians continue to plan for pie in the sky light metro lines.
SkyTrain, wins the battle but looses the war: Highways forever!
PortlandA?ai??i??ai???s Regional Planning Agency Highlights Two New Corridors for Light Rail – From the Transport Politic
Interesting news from Portland Oregon, where their light rail system keeps on growing at a steady pace, with taxpayer’s approving construction onAi??Ai??every new line. It must be remembered that Portland’s original light railAi??Ai??line cost one quarter of that to build than Vancouver’s SkyTrain and the regional taxpayer has never been allowed to vote on any ‘rail’ transit project.
13 July 2009
Second line to Gresham and new path to Sherwood would extend cityA?ai??i??ai???s high-capacity network.
PortlandA?ai??i??ai???s Metro regional planning authority has picked two corridors for future major transit investments, plotting the regionA?ai??i??ai???s path towards better public transportation. The new routes would extend east and southwest from downtown and will be developed consecutively after the completion of projects already in the engineering stage today. Metro also selected a number of other corridors for long-term consideration.
Along with the I-205 Green Line light rail scheduled for opening on September 12, the Portland region is currently planning a new light rail line south to Milwaukie, another north to Vancouver (WA), and a streetcar extension south to Lake Oswego. These projects, already being readied for the New Start funding process, will be the first completed.
MetroA?ai??i??ai???s new plans confirm that new routes between downtown and Gresham along Powell Boulevard and another between downtown and Sherwood via Tigard along Barbur Boulevard and Highway 99 will be the next to enter engineering. These routes were chosen after a close analysis of 18 possible corridors in the region and were determined to be the most cost-effective in terms of attracting ridership. Unlike the routes mentioned above, however, these lines have yet to be guaranteed funding. They also could theoretically be built as bus rapid transit, but PortlandA?ai??i??ai???s success thus far with light rail indicates that the city will continue investing in the latter mode.
The plan also argues for future consideration of other corridors in the southern and western parts of the region, though those projects are a long ways off.
PortlandA?ai??i??ai???s pursuit of advanced planning for its light rail program fits well with the cityA?ai??i??ai???s strict adherence to the Oregon-mandated urban growth boundary, which ensures that the countryside remains rural, rather than becoming exurban. Strong transportation investments in the right areas can allow for future growth in dense, infill neighborhoods and prevent suburban sprawl. The cityA?ai??i??ai???s streetcar expansion project follows a similar vein of thought.
The city and region could be doing a better job making that infill happen, however, and one hopes that the new lines will be the setting for a significant densification of the existing urban fabric. Though light rail has brought intense development to downtown and a few isolated spots along the routes, it hasnA?ai??i??ai???t been enough of a game-changer to reorient the auto-centered lifestyle thatA?ai??i??ai???s still present in much of the area. Part of the problem is that many of the light rail routes A?ai??i??ai??? including the soon-to-open Green Line A?ai??i??ai??? are located adjacent to or in the median of grade-separated highways. This makes them less than ideal places for transit-oriented, walkable neighborhoods.
But Powell Boulevard and much of Route 99, by virtue of their tighter girth, are connected to the neighborhoods around them, unlike I-205, for instance. ItA?ai??i??ai???s easy to imagine them transformed into urban boulevards, with four and five-story buildings facing the street and commercial districts situated around light rail stations. As downtown reaches its developmental limits, these corridors could become extensions of that core, adding a bit of mixed-use urbanity to neighborhood around the whole region.
http://thetransportpolitic.com/<!–Yonah Freemark–>
The demise of the Evergreen Line – How does this affect the valley interurban?
It seems that TransLink, which is in deep financial trouble, is on the verge of dumping the Evergreen SkyTrain Line. No surprise here as the proposed Evergreen line follows a route with little ridership potential.
Despite claims and opinions to the contrary, there is little demand for a SkyTrain metro extension to the Tri-Cities as peak hour bus ridership is still less that would sustain a bare bones tram system. Why then TransLink’s penchant for SkyTrain and light-metro?
It’s all about land development and not providing an attractive transit alternative, nor building a customer friendly transit system. Land valuesAi??Ai??near SkyTrain, especially at stations rises considerably as municipal politicians relax zoning and allow much higher densities. This in turn creates large windfall profits for the landowners. The lands adjacent to the Evergreen line have already been rezoned for higher residential and commercial densities and there was little scope for large profits. The $450 million shortfall in funding, poor ridership, and little scope for property rezoning and redevelopment, means the Evergreen Line will remain a vague political promise, with little chance of fruition.
What does this mean for the valley interurban?
The deferral of the Evergreen Line could be good news and I stress ‘could be’ good news for the valley interurban. Why so? TransLink is ‘tapped out’ and taking on another short metro line will only add to their current financial woes. There is an ever increasing demandAi??Ai??from Fraser Valley politicians and residents that they too want to see ‘rail’ transit.
Including RAV, total spending on SkyTrain light-metro networkAi??Ai??is past $8 billion dollars (those huge annual debt servicing charges do add up), yet there is little to show for it south of the Fraser. If RAV/Canada Line doesn’t meet projected ridership numbers by August 2010, there possibly could be a demand by politicians (mindful of 2011 municipal elections) in the Fraser Valley for a more affordable and quicker ‘rail’ transit solution than a $3 billion or more ‘pixie dust’ SkyTrain line to Langley by 2040!
A hourly Vancouver to Chilliwack diesel LRT service could be put in place for about the same cost of two or three km. of SkyTrain and completed in under two years!
The collapse of the Evergreen SkyTrain metro will not herald a new era of light rail in the lower mainland, but may compel transit plannersAi??Ai??to build a cheap ‘rail‘ showcase light railway project fueled by political demands of the taxpayers south of the Fraser River, tired of funding ‘other people’s’ rapid transit lines!
Light rail – The safest public transit mode!
The following item is from Phoenix’s METRO Rail and addresses the safety issue of light rail. Much is said about the safety of on-street light rail or streetcars safety, especially at intersections, yet statistical analysis shows that a light rail/tram automobile intersection is much safer than an automobile automobile intersection. Accidents will happen and in the vast majority of cases of a tram/auto collision, it is the motorist who is at fault. Of course, those who decry at-grade/on-street ‘rail’ operation never mention that SkyTrain annual death rate is two to three times higher than Calgary’s C-Train death rate.
The recent non-fatal accident on Seattle’s new hybrid LRT system, caused by a car driver deliberately disobeying a traffic signal and driving in front of a moving tram,Ai??Ai??was given prominentAi??Ai??display by major media, including national mediaAi??Ai??over several days.
Yet this fatal accident, with a school bus is given just a footnote in the local media, as itAi??Ai??was too common place!.
Ai??
Ai??
Statistics indicate that light rail is by far a safer mode of transportation than other forms of motorized travel.
During the twelve-year period from 1994 through 2005, the National Center for Statistics and Analysis reports a fatality rate for all street and highway accidents of approximately 42,887 every year. According to the United States Bureau of Transportation Statistics, public transportation represents only about 0.004 percent of that national average and light rail only about 0.0003 percent.
The following statistics, available from the United States Bureau of Transportation Statistics, are taken from 1990 through 2002. They indicate that light rail is one of the safest forms of public transportation.
Transit Safety Data by Mode for All Reported Accidents (1990-2002)
| Average Annual Overall Public Transporation Fatalities | 178 |
| Motor Bus | 84 |
| Heavy Rail | 30 |
| Commuter Rail | 48 |
| Light Rail | 11 |
[Source: United States Bureau of Transportation Statistics]
With over 42,000 street and highway deaths recorded every year in the U.S., light rail is statistically one of the safest modes of motorized travel. Of the light rail accidents that do occur, 47 percent in 1998 involved cars making left turns in front of light rail vehicles. 51% of all the accidents on the Long Beach LRT line since July 1990 were the result of vehicles making improper left turns. [Source: Light Rail Now]
This improper left hand turn phenomena is not specific to light rail. ItA?ai??i??ai???s not uncommon for motor vehicle drivers to make improper left hand turns that cause accidents. Once in a while they also make these wrong turns in front of light rail vehicles.
In a 2002 statement before the Subcommittee On Highways And Transit Committee On Transportation And Infrastructure in the U.S. House Of Representatives, Mary E. Peters, Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration said A?ai??i??Ai??Transit has an enviable safety record. Across all modes of public transportation, accidents per million passenger miles decreased by nearly 28 percent between 1993 and 1999; transit passenger injuries per million passenger miles declined nearly 24 percent; and fatalities rates remained stable at .008 deaths per million passenger miles. Largely as a result of technological advances, both light rail and heavy rail showed very significant declines in accidents and injury rates.A?ai??i??A?
[Source: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration]Ai??
First day passengers pay for Seattle light rail – From the Seattle PI
The costs for Seattle’s hybrid light-metro/rail system are about on par with Vancouver’s SkyTrain, indeed there was a lot of collaboration from Vancouver’s transit planners and Seattle’s planners on ‘rail’ transit. What Seattle has is an extremely expensive light rail system that resembles a ‘poor-man’s’ metro than light rail. The massive costs of expansion will retard Seattle’s LRT system until planners fully understand the modern light rail philosophy of build lots; built it cheap; and build it on the surface to attract customers.
I would have thought Seattle’s transit planners would have done better to listen to Portland’s light rail planners as their system goes from strength to strength. It will be the Seattle taxpayer that will have to reign in the extravagant transit planning to a more realistic level; of course METRO Vancouver’s taxpayers have never had a chance to vote on any transit initiative, with the provincial government commanding, “You will get SkyTrain whether you like it or not!”
SEATTLE — After 92,000 passengers tried out Seattle’s new light rail line over the weekend for fun, the first fare-paying commuters boarded trains Monday on the 14-mile line between downtown Seattle and Tukwila.
Fares range from $1.75 to $2.50. Riders buy tickets at vending machines or use pre-paid Orca smart cards. Bus passes and transfer slips are also recognized.
Construction of the city’s new mass transit system took five years and cost $2.3 billion. By the end of the year Sound Transit says light rail will reach Sea-Tac Airport.
By 2016, a $1.9 billion tunnel will reach the University of Washington. And voters have already approved spending $18 billion to extend lines to suburban stops in Lynnwood, Federal Way and Redmond.
The high cost of subway construction compared to LRT
Ai??Ai??The following excerpt from the UK House of Commons Select Committee on light rail, 2000, reported the following subway construction costs in 2004 Canadian dollars:Ai??ai??i??
Toulouse metro line B – CAD $161 million/km.
Turin metro extension – CAD $196 million/km.
Meteor Metro, Paris – CAD $290 million/km.
Singapore metro – CAD $420.7 million/km.
Jubilee Line extension, London – CAD $559 million/km.
Ai??Ai??
The average cost for three newly built LRT lines in the UK: $16. 1 million/km.
All aboard: Seattle’s Light rail service starts Saturday
Even though Seattle’s new light rail service has more in common with Vancouver’s SkyTrain, with many tunnels and viaducts, it still retains the all important ability to operate on lesser rights-of-ways or even trackshare with mainline railways. Seattle’s transit planners have much in common with Vancouver’s transit planners: the more costly the transit system is, the better it is. One hopes that transit planning matures in Seattle and that local transit planners learn from their mistakes.
All being said, one wishes Seattle’s ‘LINK’ LRT success!
Ai??
From the Seattle PI:
All aboard: Light rail service starts Saturday
By SCOTT GUTIERREZ
SEATTLEPI.COM STAFFSeattle, can you hear that train a-comin’?
Thirteen year after voters approved the taxes to build it, Sound Transit’s Central Link light rail opens for service Saturday. Trains will run every 71/2 minutes from stations along the 14-mile line between Westlake Center in Seattle and the massive, glass-encased station in Tukwila at South 154th Street and Tukwila International Boulevard.
Passengers can ride for free during the inaugural weekend. Sound Transit officials had no predictions on opening day ridership, but are ready for up to 100,000. Their best reference is Phoenix, Ariz., where the city’s new Metro light rail logged 90,000 riders when it opened last December, with some waiting in lines for two to three hours.
Still under construction is a 1.7-mile segment from Tukwila to SeaTac Airport, which is set for completion in December. On Monday, a bus shuttle will begin taking passengers from the Tukwila station to the airport until construction is finished. The shuttle service won’t be available on opening weekend.
This week, it came down to final details, including elevators and escalators at light rail stations passing final safety inspections, spokesman Bruce Gray said.
“Light rail is going to be great,” said Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, who is Sound Transit’s board chairman and a longtime advocate for light rail. “It’s going to be a big step forward.”
It took seven years to build Seattle’s light rail, and several tries over the last century to build a rail transit system in Seattle. The Central Link is the most complex light rail line in the country because it runs in all different types of environments, with tunnels under downtown and Beacon Hill, elevated tracks in Tukwila, and 5 miles of grade-level tracks in the Rainier Valley, said Joni Earl, Sound Transit’s chief operating officer.
Plus, Seattle is the only place in the world where passenger rail and buses will share a tunnel simultaneously, Earl said.
“I just hope that when the public rides it — as the owners of this system — that they can take pride and feel pride that our region was able to bring this high-capacity transit system into being,” she said. “To me, it’s a regional pride, not just pride for Sound Transit.”
You should know
Here are a few things to keep in mind if you go this weekend:
Ai??
- Trains will run from 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Saturday and from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Sunday. Normal Monday-Saturday service, from 5 a.m. to 1 a.m., begins next week. Regular Sunday hours are 6 a.m. to midnight.
- Fares, from $1.75 to $2.50 for adults, don’t go into effect until Monday. Loading platforms are “barrier-free,” so riders pay on an honor system with no turnstiles. Fare inspectors will soon be patrolling trains and platforms for violators. A fare-evasion ticket costs $124.
- Sound Transit will loop bus shuttles between light rail stations Saturday and Sunday for people who don’t want to wait to ride. The downtown transit tunnel, however, will not be running King County Metro bus routes in anticipation of large crowds, according to Metro Transit.
- Click here for more information on Metro bus routes that connect with light rail stations. Metro plans route changes in September to better accommodate light rail. Bus transfer slips can be used on light rail until the end of this year as transit officials phase in new ORCA cards.
- The city’s Restricted Parking Zones don’t take effect around light rail stations until Monday. After that, permits will be required to park for more than two hours within a quarter-mile of stations between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. Tukwila is the only park-and-ride station with 600 spaces, although most of the space will be occupied this weekend for festivities.
- Sound Transit plans family-friendly music and entertainment at stations this weekend. Plenty of police will be on-hand, as well as volunteers to answer questions.
Ai??
What you voted for, what you’re getting
Link light rail was part of Sound Move, a $3.9 billion, 10-year regional transit package that voters in King, Snohomish and Pierce Counties approved in 1996. A $6.7 billion rail and transit proposal had failed the year earlier. Prior to that, Seattle voters had rejected rail transit three times, including the Forward Thrust initiatives of 1968 and 1970, and a plan in 1912 by city planning director Virgil Bogue to build a rail system with a central terminus in South Lake Union.
Initially, Link light rail’s first segment was planned as a 21-mile, $1.7 billion line from the University District to the City of SeaTac. But waning public confidence, and cost overruns and delays nearly derailed the entire project. A $500 million federal grant was temporarily withheld after an unfavorable report from the Office of the U.S. Inspector General.
Sound Transit retooled and brought in new management, with Earl taking over in 2001. The plans and schedule for the first segment were revised to the current 14-mile line and completeion date. Construction of a second phase, a 3.15 segment through twin tunnels to Capitol Hill and the U-District, was put off until this year.
Those were the “dark days,” Earl said, although she pointed out that the plan mapped out 8 years ago has since been on time and under budget.
“I don’t think we ever lost sight of where we were getting to, but I would say that was our riskiest time. I look back at that as a pretty defining time and it marks my view of how huge this accomplishment is,” Earl said.
Nowhere was construction as disruptive as Martin Luther King Jr. Way South in South Seattle, where roads were ripped up and utility lines moved underground to make room for trains to run in the median. Now, the street is repaved and lined with trees.
“We also hope that this will be a catalyst for redevelopment and transit-oriented density. Already, wer’re seing some tremendous changes in the Rainier Valley, which is an area that has been under-invested in, in my mind,” she said.
She credited the patience of businesses and residents during the construction.
“I’ll be forever grateful to the people who still talk to us now that it is finished,'” she said.
Take Transit Campaign to Province – From the Aldergrove Star
The following is a letter from VALTAC, published in many Fraser Valley newspapers and I believe sums up what the majority of residents think. Regional mayors should think twice before supporting any moreAi??Ai??TransLink inspired taxes, until the TransLink behemoth itself, cleans house.
Editor:
Re: TransLink Workshop Consultation Process, June 1-2.
Kicked off with a May 27 editorial in the Vancouver Sun by TransLink CEO Tom Prendergast and accompanied by a barrage of print, radio and TV advertising, the TransLink Community Consultation Workshops Showboat made eight stops in the GVRD.
Reports on attendance vary from 15-30 people per event, totaling less turnout than we had for the Mufford Crescent Overpass Open House hosted by the Township at Milner Community Hall on January 31 this year. Why such an abominable turnout despite the major advertising campaign promoting the event, depicting the upcoming challenges and begging for input?
We firmly believe the citizens of the GVRD are very concerned as to how we intend to cope with the 1 million-plus A?Ai??migrA?Ai??s anticipated over the next 20 years. However, the citizenry simply declined to attend because they are resigned to the fact that in the long run TransLink will do as it pleases and taxpayers will be turned upside down and the required funds to subsidize TransLink will be shaken from their clenched fists. The only question remains in which manner and how painfully will the funds be extracted.
We donA?ai??i??ai???t believe the boardgame used to delineate the options as tabled truly reflected the costs of the various levels of service. We would love to know what it cost for the media advertising blitz, board game development/production, etc. Was this the best use of funds considering the response from the public at large or must it be written off as the cost of the consultative process?
Joe and Mary 6-Pak can only be girding their loins for the inevitable shelling out of $800 per family of four in after-tax dollars, in perpetuity. The best they can hope for is it may possibly arrange for a bus to come closer to their front door with more frequent service or light rail will finally come to the South of the Fraser.
South of the Fraser, and in the Langleys specifically, we are third class citizens compared to North of the Fraser. We will reluctantly contribute the same dollars per capita, endure most of the population growth and continue to receive the least service. Unfortunately, plans I have seen for the future promise little more and guarantee nothing.
We want nothing but the best for South of the Fraser and only ask we somewhat receive in the proportion to what we will give. We await to see where the consultative process now takes us.
VALTAC will conclude by thanking the hundreds of citizens who stopped by our booth at the Langley Canada Day Celebrations. The interest and enthusiasm of the younger crowd (aged 16-23) who do not want to purchase a car and wish to avail themselves of light rail as a transportation alternate was overwhelming and encouraging. The 53-foot-long A?ai??i??Ai??mobile signA?ai??i??A? has been a truly effective outreach vehicle and was instantly tied to our booth display.
With BC Hydro committed to reconfirmation of passenger running rights on the BCER and all Mayors and Councils South of the Fraser supportive of same, we must now elevate our campaign to the provincial government.
Lee Lockwood, VALTAC Chairperson, Aldergrove
TransLink funding crunch has mayors worried about Evergreen – From the Tri-City News
This is not surprising at all, with very little ridership potential and massive costs, it is real challenge to make the Evergreen Line SkyTrain, light-metro line successful! Again, TransLink completely ignores the folly of building hugely expensive metro lines on transit lines with not nearly enough ridership to demand metro service. TransLink is bankrupt, yet the highly paid mandarins that run the show are completely oblivious to this andAi??Ai??plan to build even more expensive metro lines. Maybe we should do away with their $900 monthly car allowances and force the bureaucrats to take transit.
Postscript: For the cost of the Evergreen Line SkyTrain, we could have both a deluxe Vancouver to Chilliwack Interurban and a light-rail Evergreen line.
http://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/2009/07/14/time-to-bell-translinks-cat/
http://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/2008/12/26/can-translinks-business-cases-be-trusted/
By Janis Warren – The Tri-City News
Port Moody’s mayor continued to sound the alarm bell last week over the TransLink funding crunch and its potential to derail the Evergreen Line to Coquitlam.
Joe Trasolini told a sold-out crowd at the Tri-Cities Chamber of Commerce’s annual mayors’ barbecue that he believes the regional transportation authority’s board of directors will come up short when it presents its budget to the TransLink mayors’ council later this month (a vote is expected in October).
TransLink has promised to pay $400 million of the $1.4-billion cost of building the rapid transit line while the federal government has already committed $416.7 million and the province $410 million. Another $173 million is expected to come from private-public partnerships for the 11-kilometre route.
Earlier this year, during a pre-election speech to the local chamber, Premier Gordon Campbell said construction for the line, which is to run from Lougheed Town Centre in Burnaby, through Port Moody to Coquitlam Town Centre, would start in late 2010, with service starting in 2014.
“I have the greatest confidence in the design team,” Trasolini said Thursday about the Evergreen planners and engineers but urged caution about TransLink’s current operational budget deficit. “TransLink alone will not be able to come up with $400 million.”
Coquitlam Mayor Richard Stewart said his city’s plans for growth are contingent on the Evergreen Line being built.
And Port Coquitlam Mayor Greg Moore complained about TransLink governance, which was imposed by the provincial government in 2007 to yank control away from elected politicians and put in the hands of appointees who meet behind closed doors.
During the hour-long discussion, which was also attended by the Tri-Cities’ two BC Liberal MLAs, Iain Black and Douglas Horne, the mayors also talked about how their municipalities are strapped for cash as well as this year’s hikes in property taxes. Downloading pressures from senior governments to build non-market housing and fix regional roads are ongoing, they said. Moore said revenues from lottery, liquor and goods and services taxes would help pay for infrastructure renewal, including aging pipes and civic facilities.
Other questions from the floor focused on homelessness, measures to address immigration needs and the lack of affordable commercial space for Share programs.
Still, despite some heavy topics, the mayors kept it light by responding to a question on what other Tri-City municipality they would like to head.
“Coquitlam A?ai??i??ai??? for the first hour A?ai??i??ai??? to leverage the casino money, then Port Moody to get the Evergreen Line to come to PoCo,” Moore said, adding he wouldn’t mind briefly ruling Belcarra and Anmore for their parks.
“Coquitlam because the pay is higher,” Trasolini said.
Stewart quipped he wouldn’t mind being mayor of all five municipalities at once A?ai??i??ai??? an answer that delighted Coquitlam businessman and pro-amalgamation lobbyist Doug Stead, who cheered and applauded.
Wuppertal Schwebebahn – The 108 year old gadgetbahnen!
The Wuppertal Schwebebahn isAi??Ai??one of theAi??Ai??most unique public transit system in the world, a true monorail.Ai??Ai??Opened in 1901, the Schwebebahn operated overAi??Ai??98 years before it recorded itsAi??Ai??first fatal accident and thus quite correctly, can be called the safest public transit system in the world. What is also interesting is that the Schwebebahn was never copied as a model for ‘public transit’ anywhere else in the world, a singular fact that the monorail lobby wishes everyone to forget.
The Schwebebahn is a true monorail, unlike straddle-beam monorails such as Seattle’s vintage ALWEG monorail which is nearing its 50 year birthday.
The Schwebebahn survived World War Two, mainly because the majority of the route is suspended above the River Wupper, thus escaping serious bomb damage and was easy to get back into operation after the cessation of hostilities.
The lessons of the Schwebebahn and ALWEG monorails in generalAi??Ai??is that, indeed gadgetbahnen do work, but for many and varied reasons, have failed to become a recognized public transit system in the eyes of urban transit planners, a lesson that that TransLink and the SkyTrain lobby fail to understand.
Ai??Ai??
The Schwebebahn Wuppertal is a suspension railway in Wuppertal, Germany. Its full name is the “Eugen Langen Monorail Suspension Railway” (Einschienige HA??i??Ai??Ai??ngebahn System Eugen Langen). The people of Wuppertal know it, however, as the “Old Lady” or the “Iron Wyvern“. Designed by Eugen Langen, who originally planned to build it in Berlin, it was built in 1900, opened in 1901 and is still in use today as a local transport system in the city.
The suspension railway travels along a route 13.3 km long, about 12m above the bed of the river Wupper and approximately 8m above the city streets, between the districts of Oberbarmen and Vohwinkel. At one point the railway crosses the A46 motorway. The entire trip, including stops for people to get on and off, takes about 35 minutes.
The Schwebebahn operates within the VRR transport association and accepts tickets issued by the VRR companies
The Wuppertal Schwebebahn had one model: in 1824, Henry Palmer of England first presented the world with a railway system which differed from all previous construction forms. It was basically a small suspension railway on which suspended carriages were drawn by horses.
 |
| Ai??Ai?? |
Friedrich Harkort, a famous German industrialist and politician, loved the idea. He had a system of this type built as a trial in 1826 and ran it on the grounds of what is today the tax office at Elberfeld. He tried to interest the public in his scheme.
On September 9 1826 the town councillors of Elberfeld met to discuss the use of a “Palmer’s Railway” from the Ruhr to the Wupper river. Friedrich Harkort inspected the projected route with a surveyor and a member of the town council. The railway was to go from Elberfeld to Hinsbeck or from Elberfeld to Langenberg. The plan never went ahead, however, due to the owners of various pits who had not been included in it and felt disadvantaged at being left out.
The suspension railway which was finally built was planned and tested by the engineer Eugen Langen in Cologne during the 1880s. In 2003 the Rhenish Heritage Office (Rheinische Amt fA??i??Ai??A?r Denkmalpflege des Landschaftsverbandes Rheinland or LVR) published a press report announcing the discovery of an original section of the test route of the Wuppertal Schwebebahn.
In 1901, after a construction period of about three years overseen by the government’s master builder, Wilhelm Feldmann, the railway came into operation in Wuppertal. Around 19,200 tonnes of steel were worked to produce the supporting frame and the train stops. Construction cost 16 million gold marks. Since its first opening, the railway has remained in continuous use as an overground metro system. Every year about 23 million passengers travel on it (2003).
The Wuppertal Schwebebahn was considered one of the safest means of transport in the world, carrying up to 75,000 passengers a day through the town. Since 1995, the supporting frame has been largely modernised, and a large number of train stops have been reconstructed and brought up to date technically. The “Kluse” stop, at the theatre in Elberfeld had been destroyed during the Second World War; this too was reconstructed during the modernisation. Work was planned to be completed in 2001; however a serious accident took place in 1999 which left 5 people dead and 47 injured. This, along with delivery problems, meant that the completion date was delayed. In recent years (2004) the cost of the reconstruction work has nearly doubled from 225 million to 394 million euro.
Since 2004 many of the train stops have been fitted with CCTV cameras.
In 1950 Tuffi, the circus elephant, jumped from a train into the Wupper during a botched publicity stunt.
 |
| Ai??Ai?? |
The suspension railway is a monorail suspended from a steel supporting frame with a rail built underneath it. It hangs on wheels which are driven by electric motor.
The supporting frame and tracks are made out of 486 pillars and bridgework sections. At the ends of the route there are turning points and parking spaces for the trains, which turn around so as to carry passengers there and back one after the other. This method of transport, without crossings, is similar to an overground metro system.
One carriage can carry about 200 passengers. The top speed is 60 km/h and the average speed is 26.6 km/h.Ai??Ai??
History
The Wuppertal Schwebebahn had one model: in 1824, Henry Palmer of England first presented the world with a railway system which differed from all previous construction forms. It was basically a small suspension railway on which suspended carriages were drawn by horses.
|
| Ai??Ai?? |
Friedrich Harkort, a famous German industrialist and politician, loved the idea. He had a system of this type built as a trial in 1826 and ran it on the grounds of what is today the tax office at Elberfeld. He tried to interest the public in his scheme.
On September 9 1826 the town councillors of Elberfeld met to discuss the use of a “Palmer’s Railway” from the Ruhr to the Wupper river. Friedrich Harkort inspected the projected route with a surveyor and a member of the town council. The railway was to go from Elberfeld to Hinsbeck or from Elberfeld to Langenberg. The plan never went ahead, however, due to the owners of various pits who had not been included in it and felt disadvantaged at being left out.
The suspension railway which was finally built was planned and tested by the engineer Eugen Langen in Cologne during the 1880s. In 2003 the Rhenish Heritage Office (Rheinische Amt fA??i??Ai??A?r Denkmalpflege des Landschaftsverbandes Rheinland or LVR) published a press report announcing the discovery of an original section of the test route of the Wuppertal Schwebebahn.
In 1901, after a construction period of about three years overseen by the government’s master builder, Wilhelm Feldmann, the railway came into operation in Wuppertal. Around 19,200 tonnes of steel were worked to produce the supporting frame and the train stops. Construction cost 16 million gold marks. Since its first opening, the railway has remained in continuous use as an overground metro system. Every year about 23 million passengers travel on it (2003).
The Wuppertal Schwebebahn was considered one of the safest means of transport in the world, carrying up to 75,000 passengers a day through the town. Since 1995, the supporting frame has been largely modernised, and a large number of train stops have been reconstructed and brought up to date technically. The “Kluse” stop, at the theatre in Elberfeld had been destroyed during the Second World War; this too was reconstructed during the modernisation. Work was planned to be completed in 2001; however a serious accident took place in 1999 which left 5 people dead and 47 injured. This, along with delivery problems, meant that the completion date was delayed. In recent years (2004) the cost of the reconstruction work has nearly doubled from 225 million to 394 million euro.
Since 2004 many of the train stops have been fitted with CCTV cameras.
In 1950 Tuffi, the circus elephant, jumped from a train into the Wupper during a botched publicity stunt.
|
| Ai??Ai?? |
The suspension railway is a monorail suspended from a steel supporting frame with a rail built underneath it. It hangs on wheels which are driven by electric motor.
The supporting frame and tracks are made out of 486 pillars and bridgework sections. At the ends of the route there are turning points and parking spaces for the trains, which turn around so as to carry passengers there and back one after the other. This method of transport, without crossings, is similar to an overground metro system.
One carriage can carry about 200 passengers. The top speed is 60 km/h and the average speed is 26.6 km/h.
Recent Comments