Who should run the Interurban? A recommendation.

Now a recap of the earlier posting, Who should run the interurban?”

TransLink

TransLink has been against the ‘return of the interurban’ from the start and the recent study done by an engineering firmAi??Ai??that had no background in modern LRT was predictable. Why would you consider commuter rail on a route that was not designed for standard passenger cars, but for light-rail in a form of an interurban? TransLink knows this, yet preceded with a transit study that was not only questionable, but next to useless. If the study was so good, why do another (after the election)? Traditionally TransLink has thought of LRT as a poor-man’s SkyTrain that has inferior service, even believing that just by building with SkyTrain, will attract about double the ridership. Funny though, TransLink never offers any studies that would substantiate this claim. But TransLink is the regional public transit operating authority and maybe compelled to plan and operate the interurban.

A South Fraser Transportation Agency

The new interurban service may herald a new South Fraser Transportation Agency to run public transit South of the Fraser River, from Delta or SurreyAi??Ai??to Chilliwack. Certainly when South Fraser taxpayer’s, faced with large property tax (read TransLink tax) increases to pay for very expensive ‘metro’ in other municipalities, may want to walk away from TransLink and even ‘Metro” Vancouver. In the very near future, the municipalities with RAV and/or SkyTrain, may have to pay the full shot! A new South Fraser Transportation Agency may be created out of the chaos and wish to plan for and operate much cheaper light-rail, in its various forms, instead.

Southern Railway of BC

As the proposed interurban service will operate on largely S.R.R. trackage they may be asked to run the service. Who knows better how to run a railway than those who run railways. Certainly if the interurban connects to Vancouver proper, via the existing Fraser River Rail Bridge, the S.R.R. will be asked to negotiate pathways (with historical rights going back to the BC Electric) with the CNR and Burlington Northern Santa Fe, to operate the service. The S.R.R. may be asked to run the interurban as a separate subsidized service for the provinceAi??Ai??Ai??Ai??or TransLink or evenAi??Ai??operate the interurban as a private venture. The S.R.R. maybe veryAi??Ai??interested in operating the interurban, light-rail, and tram-trains as the operation maybe a successful template for the E&N railway on Vancouver Island and many other short line railways.

TransLink & BC Transit

The Province of BCAi??Ai?? may operate the interurban, strictly for political reasons, through BC Transit. BC Transit is TransLink’s older brother and has a dubious history with modern light-rail, which TransLink inherited, but may be compelled to by the transportation ministry and the Minister of Transportation.

An opinion by Zweisystem.

Both TransLink and its earlier cousin BC Transit have never wantedAi??Ai??to plan for or operate light-rail and their entrenched anti-LRT stance makes both organizations unsuitable. BC Transit was once in partnership with Bombardier Inc. to sell SkyTrain abroad and there are several other close connections to the light-metro/SkyTrain lobby. The problem is simple; operating modern LRT may embarrassingly expose their published biases about light-rail and embarrassing bureaucrats is a major political no-no; let us not forget Gerald Fox’s shredding of TransLink’s business case for the Evergreen Line and the silence from the “Ivory Towers” on Kingsway.Ai??Ai?? Both organizationsAi??Ai??could not be trusted to plan and operate any LRT project in the region.

A South Fraser Transit Authority is intriguing, but a long way off and I doubt that a new transit organization would want to take on the Interurban which leaves the Southern Railway ofAi??Ai?? BC as a very good contender.

Even thought the SRR of BC is a freight carrier,they have good experience with operating railways andAi??Ai??would understand signalingAi??Ai??nuances and track up-grades needed for safe operation of tram-trains and freight trains. A bonus for the SRR of BC is that they are also involved with the E & N Railway on Vancouver island and the same passenger rail solutions could be used in that locale as well. In an era where transit organizations are beginning to realize that cheap ‘rail’ transportation solutions are desirable, a successful Vancouver to Chilliwack Interurban could provide the very solution needed elsewhere in North and South America. The management of the SRR of BC may even embrace the idea of tram-train operation and sell their expertise abroad, with the Fraser Valley and the SRR of BC being the very centre of a 21st century public transport revolution -Ai??Ai??cheap rail transit!

Anyone can build a metro at $150 million a km. or more, one just hires the experts to design and build it; only true ‘rail’ experts can build modern LRT (tram-train) on the old BCE Interurban route for $10 million a km. or less.

An European view of light-rail in North America. Is it time for a new definition of LRT?

The following maybe of interest on why LRT projects in Canada and the U.S.A. seem toAi??Ai??cost more than new European installations and some (Seattle is a good example) have more in common with light-metro, than what manyAi??Ai??people would callAi??Ai??light-rail. It seems in North America, what is called LRT, is really light-metro and real LRT has been ignored. Are we stuck forever in 1970’s planning?

From the LRTA blog.

While it might appear that tramways are being built on the heaviest corridors, remember that “light rail” in the States is very much
like a Metro might be elsewhere. Ai??Ai??Take Calgary, for instance. Ai??Ai??Virtually all the route is segregated, much is built in a wide median
(NE line) much appears to have been built on a disused railway line (S line) and the NW line appears to have been built alongside a
freeway or major arterial road. Ai??Ai??It has several tunnels, stations are more like main line stations in the UK, with escalators,
lifts, bridges over the adjacent roads. Ai??Ai??Think Docklands Light Railway grown up a bit. Ai??Ai??Then there is the 7th Street section – on
street yes, but all other traffic has been cleared out except for a few bus routes – can’t actually remember seeing a bus there!
High level platforms in the street, no problem. Ai??Ai??Very successful, but hardly light rail by UK standards.

When the light rail revival started in Canada and the US, their eyes were on Europe, and especially Germany, where at the time the
great idea was bury the trams – put them underground – and the U2 had been developed for Frankfurt. Ai??Ai??Stadtbahns were the go, and the
idea has carried over. Ai??Ai??Only now is the traditional tramway – the streetcar system, coming back into focus.

Not for nothing do the Yanks refer to their light rail systems as operating “trains”.

Regards

Dudley Horscroft

Who Should Run The Interurban?

Who should run the proposed interurban service from Vancouver to Chilliwack? This is an important question that must be addressed before any operation is to commence.

TransLink

TransLink has been against the ‘return of the interurban’ from the start and the recent study done by an engineering firmAi??Ai??that had no background in modern LRT was predictable. Why would you consider commuter rail on a route that was not designed for standard passenger cars, but for light-rail in a form of an interurban? TransLink knows this, yet preceded with a transit study that was not only questionable, but next to useless. If the study was so good, why do another (after the election)? Traditionally TransLink has thought of LRT as a poor-man’s SkyTrain that has inferior service, even believing that just by building with SkyTrain, will attract about double the ridership. Funny though, TransLink never offers any studies that would substantiate this claim. But TransLink is the regional public transit operating authority and maybe compelled to plan and operate the interurban.

A South Fraser Transportation Agency

The new interurban service may herald a new South Fraser Transportation Agency to run public transit South of the Fraser River, from Delta or SurreyAi??Ai??to Chilliwack. Certainly when South Fraser taxpayer’s, faced with large property tax (read TransLink tax) increases to pay for very expensive ‘metro’ in other municipalities, may want to walk away from TransLink and even ‘Metro” Vancouver. In the very near future, the municipalities with RAV and/or SkyTrain, may have to pay the full shot! A new South Fraser Transportation Agency may be created out of the chaos and wish to plan for and operate much cheaper light-rail, in its various forms, instead.

Southern Railway of BC

As the proposed interurban service will operate on largely S.R.R. trackage they may be asked to run the service. Who knows better how to run a railway than those who run railways. Certainly if the interurban connects to Vancouver proper, via the existing Fraser River Rail Bridge, the S.R.R. will be asked to negotiate pathways (with historical rights going back to the BC Electric) with the CNR and Burlington Northern Sante Fe, to operate the service. The S.R.R. may be asked to run the interurban as a separate subsidized service for the provinceAi??Ai??Ai??Ai??or TransLink or evenAi??Ai??operate the interurban as a private venture. The S.R.R. maybe veryAi??Ai??interested in operating the interurban, light-rail, and tram-trains as the operation maybe a successful template for the E&N railway on Vancouver Island and many other short line railways.

The Province of BCAi??Ai??& BC Transit

The Province of BCAi??Ai?? may operate the interurban, strictly for political reasons, through BC Transit. BC Transit is TransLink’s older brother and has a dubious history with modern light-rail, which TransLink inherited, but may be compelled to by the transportation ministry and the Minister of Transportation.

The question of who will operate the proposed interurban is an important one and must be answered before the first tram-train operates. At this point of time Zweisystem will not give his preference but let the reader ponder four options or, if he/she wants, offer their own.

The Bistro Tram – Is it the right menu for the interurban?

Two previous postings – http://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/2009/03/02/why-the-valley-interurban-must-service-abbotsford-international-airport-yxx/Ai??Ai??and – http://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/2009/03/01/why-the-valley-interurban-must-service-vancouver/Ai??Ai??talk about long distance rail travel from Vancouver, East to Abbotsford, YXX, and Chilliwack and one must think of amenities for the transit customer. The proposed interurban service must be user-friendly from the start, to gain a solid consumer base and a ‘Bistro‘ car, serving light refreshmentsAi??Ai??maybe the ticket to make a long journey more enjoyable and give the service some panache; offering something different.

In the 1970’s and 1980’s, German transit officials, in order to attract ridership, offered ‘Bistro‘ trams with small kitchens to serve light snacks, coffee, and even beer and wine. The ‘Bistro‘ cars were widely accepted where used, but the first ‘Bistros‘Ai??Ai??were converted from old stock, thoughAi??Ai??making many a long tram journey more pleasant when one could sip a coffee or have a breakfast croissant, were cramped and somewhat uncomfortable. Later, larger articulatedAi??Ai??’Bistro‘ cars came with toilets, tables at some seats, and other amenities and have become an icon on transit systems with longer routes. Karlsruhe Germany is a good example whereAi??Ai?? ‘Bistro‘ cars ( and observation cars) operate on some routes as long as 210 km.Ai??Ai?? The following video clip shows a bistro tram on the inter-urban line which links DA?A?sseldorf and Krefeld in Germany.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Izr4WOQ4_UY

The proposed Vancouver to Chilliwack interurban service should consider having a ‘Bistro‘ car for the the 90 minute plus service. Certainly, offering snacks and fresh coffeeAi??Ai??on theAi??Ai??serviceAi??Ai?? would be very user-friendly and aAi??Ai??positive inAi??Ai??attracting customers. It could even be call a ‘Starbuck’s‘ or ‘Blenz‘ car if they were so interested in operating the service. Today’s modular construction of light-rail vehicles makes it easier than one would think, in designing (some modular cars have a ‘Bistro‘ module) and buildingAi??Ai?? a Bistro.

So,Ai??Ai??is aAi??Ai??’Bistro‘ car on the menu for Rail for the Valley’s plans? If not, maybe it should be, it just might be the ticket to sell the project to the politicians and the public alike!

Why the Valley Interurban Must Service Abbotsford International Airport (YXX)

To be successful, a transit system or transit line must serve popular destinations in order to generate ridership, the notion that transit customers will take ‘rail’ because it is just there is wrong. In order for successful interurban service it must serve destinations where customers want to go and Abbotsford International Airport (YXX) is a natural destination, especially if some airlines move their operations from the very expensive YVR to YXX.

AsAi??Ai??the interurban is in light-rail family, it can if need be, operate on-street makingAi??Ai??an easier and much cheaper route, instead of extremely expensive ‘greenfields’ construction. A strong case can be made forAi??Ai??a routeAi??Ai??diverging West from the Southern Railway of BC rights-of-way at Huntington/Douglas, WestAi??Ai??along the medianAi??Ai??of Vye (servicing as well the penitentiary complex) & Huntington Rd’s.Ai??Ai??, turning North onAi??Ai??Mount Lehman Road until it arrives at YXX.Ai??Ai?? An on-street single trackAi??Ai??10 km. route with one or two passing loops, serving two destinations (three destinationsAi??Ai??if one includes the TRADEX Convention Centre at YXX), would cost in the neighborhood of $100 million or about $10 million/km., yet may be the crucial link and revenue generatorAi??Ai??for the proposedAi??Ai??interurban service.

There is persistent rumour that if YXX has a rail connection, one or two larger scheduled airlines would make the move to YXX. With the interurban directly servicing Vancouver http://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/2009/03/01/why-the-valley-interurban-must-service-vancouver/Ai??Ai?? it would give Vancouver customers a ‘seamless’ rail journey to YXX, which must send chills down YVR’s management’s spine. Unlike RAV, where YVR is just to close to attract much ridership, a direct Vancouver to YXX rail service would provide the incentive for airlines to make the switch to YXX, with easy connections not only to Vancouver, but Surrey, Langley and Chilliwack.

$100 million may seem like a large investment for the airport connection but it would bring at least a ten fold investment backAi??Ai??to Abbotsford and environs,Ai??Ai??more if airlines make YXX their hub. For those who want the ‘Return of the Interurban’ serious consideration must be made for a connection to YXX and it must be included in future interurban and transit planning.

Why the valley interurban must service Vancouver.

The current thinking is that the proposed valleyAi??Ai??’interurban’ service terminate at Scott road SkyTrain station and this is a big mistake. Lest we forget the majority of interurban customers will want to go to Vancouver and forcing them to transfer to SkyTrain will add at least 30 or more minutesAi??Ai?? to their journey. What is also forgotten is that one can lose upwards of 75% of potential customers per transfer, which was reflected in Karlshrue Germany, where after opening their first tram-train, eliminating one transfer point, from commuter train to tram, weekday ridership rocketed from 488,400 to 2,064,378 – a 423% increase in just a few weeks! So were sown the seeds of success!

The Fraser River Bridge is there, the line is mostly double tracked to Vancouver Central Station and gaining pathways for the interurban would be one of scheduling with the other users. Track-sharing and providing pathways for the interurban to serviceAi??Ai??Vancouver maybe difficult, but Ai??Ai??not impossible, the old interurban track-shared across the Fraser River Rail BridgeAi??Ai??100 years ago and certainly today it can again!

Servicing Vancouver, means the interurban will service a large population base, which would ensure ridership, which wouldAi??Ai??bring anAi??Ai??early success andAi??Ai??is what the proposed interurban service needs! Rail for the Valley must include direct interurban service to downtown Vancouver, as the benefits of a direct Vancouver to Chilliwack rail service far outweigh the obstacles.

B.C. on the hook for $3.3-billion Port Mann bridge

The Ministry of Transportation announced today that the Port Mann P3 has failed, and B.C. will now directly fund the bridge construction. Globe and Mail article here.

The B.C. taxpayers will be taking all of the risk, if traffic on the bridge is less than forecast.

What this means is…..

If the government does invest in a light rail alternative for the Fraser Valley, successfully encouraging people to leave their cars for more sustainable transportation options, resulting in less traffic on the bridge than forecast, taxpayers will have to pay up!

Not to worry, people.

Not to worry.

Kevin Falcon says he is A?ai??i??Ai??very comfortable with traffic forecasts.”Ai??Ai?? Why’s that, Mr. Falcon? Maybe because the current plan for the valley is “no light rail alternative for the foreseeable future?”

Next time you’re stuck in traffic, you’ll know at least someone’s comfortable.

On another note, check out this latest location of VALTAC‘s rail for the valley trailer:

Picture taken by Terry Lyster. “Taken yesterday in Abbotsford just after Hwy 1 was made passable. The Interurban moved in all weathers; the only time it was stopped was during the great flood of 1948. Darn Sumas Lake! Several winters ago, Southern Rail of BC carried emergency provisions and rescued people during a freeway closing blizzard. Fancy that.“

There is a good reason why the propaganda system works the way it does. It recognizes that the public will not support the actual policies. Therefore it is important to prevent any knowledge or understanding of them.A?ai??i??A?

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has promised to give $350 million for the beleaguered and ill planned Evergreen SkyTrain Line,Ai??Ai??which must bring joy to the hearts of the SkyTrain lobby and Bombardier Inc.

The SkyTrain/metro lobby is waking up to the fact that Fraser Valley residents wantAi??Ai??light-rail and they want it sooner rather than later. For almost 30 years the great SkyTrain propaganda machine ground on and on, spewing reams of phony claims, based on contrived facts. The so-called business case for the Evergreen SkyTrain line continues the sad saga of manipulating truth to insure more of the light metro is builtAi??Ai??http://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/2008/12/26/can-translinks-business-cases-be-trusted/ .Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? It seems the Prime Minister has also been scammed to support this white elephant, with loads of Federal (photo-op) money for ‘politically prestigious’Ai??Ai?? and politically correct transit mega-projects. One guesses the Prime Minister is trying to buy votes for Conservative MP’s alongAi??Ai??the Evergreen line will operate; shades of Glen Clark’s Millennium Line.

The Vancouver Sun also embarrassed itself with a picture of a classic European style tram operating on-street instead of showing ugly elevated guideways which will be in place with the elevated automatic SkyTrain ART light-metro!Ai??Ai?? It seems the Vancouver Sun continues its long history ofAi??Ai??pro-SkyTrain propaganda and anti-LRT rhetoric, distorting facts to favouring SkyTrain.Ai??Ai?? The Evergreen Line will definitely not run at street level. Ai??Ai??http://www.vancouversun.com/Business/Harper+expected+announce+billion+Evergreen+transit+line/1329040/story.html

For the taxpayer, the Evergreen SkyTrain Line means higher property taxes; for the car driver, a car levy; and for the transit customer, higher fares, all brought to you courtesy of Gordon Campbell, Kevin Falcon, and now Stephen Harper. Harper’s and Campbell’s latest Evergreen Line gambit may backfire if Fraser Valley residents feel they have been ignored far too long and return MP’s and MLA’s not belonging to the federal Conservative or provincial Liberal parties.

As Abraham Lincoln said, “You can’t fool all the people all the time.”

Is TransLink Going Bankrupt? Has Gordon Campbell Made a Secret Deal With The Devil (TransLink)?

An interesting email came my way today, with the astonishing claim that TransLink will go bankrupt next year!

Two tiny snippets out of that tell the whole story…

Even with the inflated ridership claims, the provincial subsidy per trip (TransLink) is $5/rider, and for Victoria’s BC Transit system it is over $20/rider.!!! We all pay for that…likely much of it out of gasoline tax revenues.

The other snippet is that,as we’ve been told by Tom Prendergast, without an additional $300/million/year, T-Link will have to close its doors. The vehicle levy of course is back on the table.

If this is true, it begs the question; “Has Gordon Campbell and Kevin Falcon already entered into a secret agreement with TransLink to reintroduce the auto levy after next May’s election?” Rail for the Valley must get into election mode nowAi??Ai??and force political candidates in all political parties to come clean on regional transit planning; as it stands now the valley taxpayer is going to pay hefty tax hikes to fund other peoples expensive transit systems!

The Valley Interurban – As Shovel Ready as One Can Get!

In today’s lexicon of government deficit spending, ‘shovel ready’ has become the clichA?Ai?? of choice for politicians to fund their pet mega-projects. Evergreen Line, Gateway are all said to be shovel ready, yet much planning and design work must take place before the shovels are actually in the ground.

The Valley Interurban project is almost complete; the tracks are there; the vehicles are ready for hire and all what is needed is negotiations with the Southern Railway of BC and the Super Port railway folks for ‘pathways’ for the interurban service. No major engineering is needed. What must happen is track renewals, new signaling, simple bus-stop style station infrastructureAi??Ai?? and passing loops at strategic points. It is not an exaggeration to say that a basic 5 or 6 returns a day service could be up an running within 1 year and certainly a more intensive hourly or half hourly service could be in place within 2 years.

It is certain that the Valley Interurban project meets the current definition of ‘shovel ready’ but it seems it doesn’t meet the politicians desire for building grand metro and highway projects which more and more look like pre-election monument building thanAi??Ai??building affordable and sustainableAi??Ai??transportation infrastructure for the region.