TRAM-TRAIN TECHNOLOGY SEARCHING FOR A PROBLEM – From the LRTA. And what is tram-train? The interurban!
The following discussion paper from the LRTA should be of interestAi??Ai??for those who want the return of the interurban to Chilliwack. Just substitute interurban for tram-train.
A programme on BBC 1 giving a nostalgic look at the former local railway route from York to Beverley (1) interviewed locals along the former route to see if they wanted it put back. It brought out many strong viewpoints, some for and some against. Unfortunately the line closed at a difficult period when British Rail was approximately midway through its policy change to diesel power. Those unfortunate enough to own a house on the former route realised that if pressure to put the line back gained momentum, their house could be in the way. As a whole, it highlighted the many problems that could be encountered with a successful YES campaign. For reasons, not very clear to the general public, the difficulties of introducing the tram-train concept in this country are thought to be fairly substantial but made more so because of our reluctance to look at the successes in Europe. The York to Beverley route with tram-train technology should be a resounding success because existing systems in Europe have already proved its better performance than what went before it and also an ability to circumnavigate obstacles on the former track bed as well as going to pick-up points nearer passenger demand. Added to all this is its sharper acceleration and improved braking power which would probably remove a need for railway type signalling and the expense that goes with it. Much of this is already practised on Metrolink in Manchester. Lower operating costs could increase frequency and with it an improved passenger demand. The tram-train power requirements would be electrification at tramway voltage at each end of the route with an on-board diesel engine being used on the middle section. This would ensure “clean” operation as it passed through the streets of York and also suitable for an extension as a tram into Hull city centre. At this stage of the Discussion Document, a brief look at Germany’s better known tram-train projects could be very helpful. The main-line electric railway services into Saarbrucken Station (Hbf) had a similar problem to Leeds in that a passenger had a short walk to reach the shopping centre. Saarbrucken did something about it and provided a tram-train service over railway tracks at railway voltage to a convenient point where it could branch off as a tram at tramway voltage and pass through the streets of the CBD. It was such a success that at peak periods it was necessary to couple two three unit articulated units together. Leeds had a similar proposal but could not satisfy Central Government requirements. Karlsruhe did something very similar some years earlier but on a much larger scale and its success can be judged by the high passenger demand for extensions.
Tales of Transit studies past – You’d be amazed at the hundreds of politicians manipulated over the last 30 years!
Since SkyTrain was forced onto the region, transit planning has been skewed to fit the expensive proprietary light-metro. Most recently, noted American transit specialist, Gerald Fox, found the business case for the Evergreen SkyTrain LineAi??Ai??had, “several instances where the analysis had made assumptions that were inaccurate, or had been manipulated to make the case for SkyTrain.” (the full letter is found at http://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/2008/12/26/can-translinks-business-cases-be-trusted/Ai??Ai??). This is not news, for over 30 years TransLink, as BC Transit before have manipulated rapidAi??Ai??transitAi??Ai??studies to favour SkyTrain over light-rail, with the desired result of confusing both politicians and the media with false facts, manipulated statistics, and plain untruths.
In 1994, three rapid transit studies; Broadway-Lougheed Corridor Study,Ai??Ai??Coquitlam – New WestminsterAi??Ai??Corridor, and VancouverAi??Ai??- RichmondAi??Ai??Corridor studies were published by BC Transit. All three rapid transit studies are the foundation of TransLink’s SkyTrain or light metro construction program; all three studies are badly flawed and are of little use, yet no one seems able to ‘bell the cat’. The problem is a familiar one; the studies completely misrepresentedAi??Ai??the abilitiesAi??Ai??modern LRT to the detriment of the mode.
Example #1: Even though it was well known that modern LRT could carry over 20,000 persons per hour per direction, the study limited LRT’s capacity at 10,000 pphpd!
Example #2: The study used European metre gauge tramway’s (Geneva & Bern) with smaller profile LRV’s as comparisons with the SkyTrain light-metro.
Example #3: The studies state, without any collaborating research or evidence, that just by building SkyTrain, would attract more riders to transit.
Example #4: Despite the fact that San Diego’s LRT was 16.5% the cost to buildAi??Ai??than the SkyTrain Expo Line; Portland 27% the cost to build than the Expo Line and Calgary’s LRT was 50% theAi??Ai??cost to buildAi??Ai??than the Expo Line, the studies pegged the cost of LRT at 62.5% to 65.5% the cost of SkyTrain to build!
These studies have laid the groundwork of 15 years of misinformation which many regional politicians have taken for gospel, repeating transit nonsense as fact.Ai??Ai??Even today,Ai??Ai??TransLink and the provincial government continue investing massive sums of taxpayer’s money, with little or no public input, into SkyTrain and/or light-metro, which planning foundation is a quicksand of deliberate misinformation and professional fibbing. The RAV/Canada line and the proposed SkyTrain Evergreen line is more of the same; gold-plated rapid transit projects that have done little to alleviate traffic congestion, gridlock and pollution, while at the same time, driving up fares and taxes.
For Rail to the Valley to succeed, the SkyTrain myth must be ended once and for all and regional politicians must be educated about modern public transport philosophy and the importance of modern LRT’ ability to provide an affordable alternative to the car. Until this happens, the provincial government’sAi??Ai??and TransLink’s ‘SkyTrain dog and pony’ show will continue.
Carole James & the NDP – Have they missed the train?
Carole James and the provincial NDP’s regional transportation platform is in stealth mode, which is not surprising, as past NDP administrations have ignored sound public transport practice and used ‘rail’ transit solely as an election tool. Glen Clark, successfully used ‘rail‘Ai??Ai??projects as reelection tools:Ai??Ai??theAi??Ai??West Coast Express (known at the time as the Reelection Express) and the flip-flop on the Broadway – Lougheed Rapid Transit Project, from LRT to the Millennium Line SkyTrain and changing theAi??Ai??route to ‘show it’, billboard style,Ai??Ai??in NDP ridings.
The West Coast Express has never been a trueAi??Ai??alternative to the car, butAi??Ai??helped inAi??Ai??spreading sprawling population growth along theAi??Ai??North shore of the Fraser River to Mission, by providing a highly subsidized commuter rail service, exacerbating traffic congestion and gridlock in the region. The Millennium Line flip-flop cost the NDP many supporters, who worked hard to make modern light-rail a reality in regional planning and were seen to be ‘slapped in the face’ by Glen Clark and Joy McPhailAi??Ai??and did not vote in the 2001 election, the same election that the NDP were reduced to a rump of 2 seats.
The provincial NDP do not have a regional transportation plan and certainly have no vision for the return of the interurban to the Fraser Valley. The silence on this issue is deafening. Yet, reinstating the Vancouver to Chilliwack Interurban is a relatively easy thing to do; the tracks are there and vehicles are available, the only thing that has to be done is to negotiate with the Southern Railway of BC and the CPR/CNR over shared tracks in Langley. A basic (hourly) service could start within a year, with majorAi??Ai??track improvements happeningAi??Ai??when ridership demands new ` investment. The interurban is as ‘shovel ready’ project, as one can get!
What is needed is the political will to make this happen and certainly the Valley Interurban would grab the voters attentionAi??Ai??in May’s election, but the NDP are in silent running mode. The fear is that Carole James, like Glen Clark before, has succumbed to the ‘SkyTrain’ lobby, which always wants “one more line” to be built, this time the Evergreen Line, to make the network a success.Ai??Ai??Now, withAi??Ai??over $6 billion invested by theAi??Ai??taxpayer on the light-metro (those annual subsidies do add up), the best TransLink can say is that “80% of SkyTrain’s customers, first takeAi??Ai?? a bus to the metro“. SkyTrain has just given bus riders a slightly faster trip while at the same time, failing to attract the all important motorist from the car. The failure of TransLink to have independently audited ridership numbers and their refusal to accurately explain how they calculate ridership, indicates they have something to hide.
This election, the NDP could signal the end of the SkyTrainAi??Ai??and hugely expensiveAi??Ai??light-metro planning and join the rest of the world planning and building with light-rail. Supporting light-railAi??Ai??and the valleyAi??Ai??interurban, would go a long way to bring affordable ‘rail’ transit to the region. If that $6 billion, that has been spent on SkyTrain, had been invested in LRT instead the region would have that magic 300 km. light-rail network that would have gone a long way reducing congestion & gridlock, so much so that there would have been little need for new a 10 lane mega-bridge and the Gateway bridge and highways project. Many commentators have stated that this May’s provincial election is Carole James and the NDP’s to lose and by not supporting modern LRT and the valley interurban project, may be very well left behindAi??Ai??on the station platform, after missing the election train!
Five reasons Why Gordo and his ‘Falcon’ don’t want the "Return of the Interurban".
It is all too simple, the tracks are there from Vancouver to Chilliwack, the diesel light-rail vehicles areAi??Ai??available from many manufacturers and have been proven in revenue operation, and the precedent of the Karlsruhe two-system or zweisystem LRT with almost 20 years of safe operation track-sharing with mainline railways, makes the return of the interurban an almost shovel-ready project. Why then does Premier Campbell and his Minister of Transportation, Kevin Falcon, not want the “return of the interurban” for the Fraser Valley. There are five mainAi??Ai??reasons.
1) The interurban is not seen to be a Metro Vancouver rapid transit project. The monied ‘West-side types’ (locally known as the creme de la creme) who run and finance the provincial and federal Liberal Parties, see the interurban as a non-vote getter, thus not essential – not needed. It’s the same Liberal ‘West-side types’ that forced the now $2.5 billion (over $1.2 billion over budget) RAV/Canada line subway on TransLink because they did not want LRT operating on the formerAi??Ai??interurban rapid transitAi??Ai??route, the Arbutus Corridor.
2) Because LRT is much cheaper to build, there is less chance of ‘friends of the government’ or ‘ ‘friends of the bureaucracy’ getting contractsAi??Ai??to work on the project. Simply put, light rail is too cheap to build for political or bureaucraticAi??Ai??benefit.
3) 30 years of the SkyTrain myth has ingrained itself on planning in the region; transit is no longer built to move people affordably, rather it is built to facilitate land development. For developers, the bigger and more expensive a transit project is, the better it is. Building SkyTrain in the region has been like forcing round pegs into square holes.
4) The BC Liberals think ‘valley‘ seats are safe seats and don’t care about any transit improvements because they thinkAi??Ai??FraserAi??Ai??Valley voters, like sheep, will always return Liberal MLA’s to the legislature.
5) The trucking industry and the Road Builders Association are big supporters of the BC Liberal Party and Campbell’s and Falcon’s ‘rubber on asphalt’ transportation policies favour theses two groups. Rail, unless there is political benefit, is not even on the radar screen. ‘Rubber on Asphalt’ is the credo of the Transportation Ministry.
There are many more reasons why the Liberals do not want the ‘return of the interurban’ to the valley, butAi??Ai??here are the top five. It is up to ‘rail’ advocates to make ‘rail for the valley’ an election issue, to force both the BC Liberals and the NDP, to come out of the closet with real (not empty promises) plans for the return of passenger rail service from Vancouver to Chilliwack. The clock for this May’s election is ticking down……………………………..
10 Quick notes on light rail – for quick letters to the Editor.
- Light rail is a mode that can deal economically with traffic flows between 2,000 and 20,000 persons per hour per direction.
- LRT can be uses on-street, on elevated guide-ways (light-metro), in tunnel (subway), or track-share with existing railways.
- Calgary’s LRT (C-Train) carries over 250,000 passengers a day, more than SkyTrain.
- Capacity is a function of headway.
- Commercial speed of LRT is determines by quality of rights-of-way and stations or stops per route km.
- LRT can obtain speeds as high as 100 kph.
- LRT’s operating costs are much lower than the automated SkyTrain.
- The ratio of construction costs for rail transit construction are: tunneling costs about twice as much as elevated construction and elevated construction can cost up to ten times as much as at-grade/on-street construction.
- Ghent Belgium, with a population of about 300,000 has over 29 km. of LRT. Bern, Switzerland, with a population of about 200,000, Ai??Ai??has over 18 km. of LRT (1995).
- In 1991, SkyTrain was subsidized by over $157 million annually, to day the subsidy is over $200 million annually.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR FLOOD: Rail for the Valley, & the new Port Mann bridge
To all supporters of passenger rail service for the Fraser Valley
Last Wednesday, the provincial government announced, out of the blue, an entirely new Port Mann bridge to be built. It will not be a twinned bridge, but a single 10-lane span, and the existing bridge will be torn down, only 45 years into its 75 year lifespan. There will be no light rail component on the bridge when it is forecast to be completed in 2013. The project’s estimated cost is $3.3 billion. (If recent megaprojects are any indication, this cost will likely rise substantially.)
Click here for the story from the Province.
Then, you might want to read these editorials by experts supporting Rail for the Valley:
Government spin that the bridge is designed to accomodate light rail ‘sometime in the future’ is just that – spin. Another word is ‘deception.’ Never in history has this type of bridge been built, and then at a later date had lanes taken away to accomodate light rail.
It appears the BC government is trying to deceive the people of BC, who will likely be expected to pay the equivalent of about $1000 for every man, woman, and child in the province for this single project. (Every premier wants a legacy, I suppose.) While the Pattullo bridge and the Fraser River rail bridge are in true need of replacement, this project will leave the province bankrupt of money for these, and other, important and necessary improvements. Commuters are supposed to cheer the temporary relief of traffic congestion on the bridge, while the light rail needs of the Fraser Valley, and the united pleas of residents across the valley, are completely ignored.
Friends, we can not stand for this!
***What to do right now***
Immediately flood our newspapers with Letters to the editor, cc’ing your elected representatives and opposition candidates.
The government has got to hear the message, loud and clear, from the people of the Fraser Valley, before any contracts for this project are signed.
(Click here for newspaper email addresses)
There is also a facebook event that has been created for this flood
Please pass this on to others who might be interested.
More action to follow.
Thank you for doing your part…
Premier Campbell & Kevin Falcon ‘flips the bird’ to the valley
Gordon Campbell, like all politicians, likes to monument build and with good ‘polling’ numbers has promised a ‘monumental’ 10 lane bridge with all the whistles and bangs to target the car driver in May’s provincial election.Ai??Ai?? The $3 billion plus mega bridge and highways project has nothing to do about good transportation or planning, rather it is all about hucksterism and vote buying by a government that cares little about the environment, global warming, peak oil, and the agricultural land reserve.
The talk of a Langley to Burnaby BRT or rapid bus taking 23 minutes is about as useless a statistic as you can get, but the mediaAi??Ai??keep eatingAi??Ai??it up. The fact is BRTAi??Ai?? doesn’t work, as it has proven not to attract the motorist from the car. Can anyone point to a successful BRT operation? Yet, Falcon prattles on, knowing that the media doesn’t do its homework and just prints ‘verbatim’ what is said, factual or not.
Rail transit is mentioned, but at a later date, “sometime in the future when there is the capacity”. This is just ‘spin doctoring’, to placate the many rail groups lobbying for ‘rail’ transit in the valley and the present government has absolutely no intention to build ‘rail’ transit in the valley. No express highway bridge to date, in the world, has been retrofitted for ‘rail’ transit after it has been opened. No government will eliminate two road lanes for rail and the premier and minister of transportation are disingenuous claiming this will happen.
What Valley politicians and voters should keep in mind that the $1.8 billion dollar difference, from the original twinned bridge conceptAi??Ai??to mega-bridge, would fund a deluxe electrified Vancouver to Chilliwack interurban, with a new Fraser River Rail Bridge, independent LRT lines in Surrey, Langley, and Abbotsford, serving the Abbotsford International Airport!
Premier Campbell and Kevin Falcon have effectively given a ‘Trudeau’ style salute to all valley residents and taxpayers.
The new Port Mann Bridge – A bridge too big!
The provincial governments announcement of a new 10 lane bridge, replacing the Port Mann bodes ill for implementingAi??Ai??good transportation planning for the Fraser Valley. The real winners are the ‘roads lobby’, the trucking industry, and the land developers, as the announced bridge caters directly to their demands.
What theAi??Ai??new bridge does show, is the utter failure of the SkyTrain metro systemAi??Ai??to alleviate auto congestion in the region,with a cost of over $100 million/km. SkyTrain is just too expensive to build in quantity to create the ‘rail‘ network to attract the motorist from the car. The new bridge, a clear winner for car drivers, shows that Gordon Campbell’s transportation policy is strictly ‘rubber on asphalt’.Ai??Ai?? Rapid bus or BRT, is the roads-lobby’s favorite transit gimmick, because BRT buses need new highways to operate, but what has been politely overlooked is BRT’s dismal record in attracting ridership,Ai??Ai??especially the all important motorist from the car. Campbell’s and Falcon’s call for express buses and/or BRT, operating on express bus lanes on the bridgeAi??Ai??is strictly government propaganda; remembering that in 1986, when the Alex Fraser Bridge was opened, the two lanes reserved for express busses lasted for about six months.
The same is true of putting ‘rail‘ transit on the bridge at a later dateAi??Ai?? andAi??Ai??unless the rails are laid during construction itAi??Ai??will neverAi??Ai??happen, unlike the Seattle bus tunnel where rails were laid during its construction and now in use with the new LRT system nearing completion. There is not one single example in the world of an express highway bridge closing traffic lanes and laying track for ‘rail‘ transit. Campbell and his sidekick, Kevin Falcon, speaksAi??Ai??’transit‘Ai??Ai??nonsense strictly for 10 second sound bites for radio and TV.
What the bridge will do is exert great pressure on Valley municipalities to plough under more farmlandAi??Ai??to build houses, increasing population and further putting pressure on our already over-stressed transportation infrastructure. Like the Sea to Sky highway, the new Port Mann Bridge is boon to developers, which should come as no surprise with a developer friendly government. Within five years from opening, the new bridge will be at capacity, what then? With no coherent transportation plan gridlock and traffic chaos will return with a vengeance.
What the new bridge has done is take money away from other important and necessary transportation projects such as the much needed Puttallo Bridge replacement; the Fraser River Rail Bridge replacement, and the return of the interurban.
Gordon Campbell’s Liberal provincial government has played its cards for futureAi??Ai??transportation planning in the Fraser Valley and light rail is not in the hand.
Rail for the Valley: not a left-right issue
In my experience, people on the left sometimes assume Rail for the Valley must somehow be a left-right polarized issue, because of the governing provincial Liberal party’s foot-dragging on such an obvious no-brainer as re-establishing interurban light rail service for the Fraser Valley….. in this time of increasing road traffic, higher gas prices, and concerns regarding climate change and the liveability of our region. Is the government’s foot-dragging based on right-wing ideology?
Not at all.
In my experience as an organizer for passenger rail, Rail for the Valley has received strong support from people on the left, from people on the right, and in fact from people right in the centre, of the traditional political spectrum.
Here is an interesting Letter to the editor of the Chilliwack Times:
Conservatives support light rail
Published: Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Editor:
Regarding Jan. 23 article in the Chilliwack Times by Aidan Chafe, “Rail advocates form society.”
As the B.C. Conservative candidate for the Chilliwack riding, I am pleased to see that members of our community are taking initiative to rally support for a B.C. Conservative Policy which states: “A B.C. Conservative government will re-establish the light rail transit line, in order to connect the Fraser Valley with Metro Vancouver’s transportation system.”
It is upsetting that the current Liberal government has neglected to make this necessary action for the sustainability of growth in our province a top priority, especially now as the 2010 Olympics draw near.
Instead, they continue to mismanage funds through unaccountable measures, such as their all-too-common secretive backroom deals. When a B.C. Conservative government is elected to the legislature it will hold government accountable to ensure the viable needs of the province are met, such as the re-establishing of the eco-friendly light rail transit line in the Fraser Valley.
Benjamin Besler,
B.C. Conservative ,
Chilliwack
Congratulations to the B.C. Conservative Party for making the re-establishment of light rail service for the Fraser Valley one of their Policies.
History shows how quickly the dominant parties can change in British Columbia, usually as a result of government arrogance. The B.C. Liberals would be wise to watch their flank.
Light-rail on Number 10 Highway & The Langley Bypass – An Alternative route to the Valley.
The Light Rail Committee have long advocated for “The return of the Interurban” for the Fraser Valley, as a cost effective way of extending ‘rail’ transit to Langley, Abbotsford and Chilliwack. The LRC advocates that instead of following the original rights-of-ways completely, alterations to the original routeAi??Ai??must be considered to give the ‘interurban’ 21st century usefulness. Using Number 10 highway and the Langley By-pass for LRT, would bring the tram directly to major transit generators, such as KwantlenAi??Ai?? College in Cloverdale; Fraser Downs horse racing facility and Casino; Willow Brook Mall; and businesses along the Langley Bypass.
Using a ‘reserved rights-of-way’ in the median of Highway 10. would not interfere with road traffic, enabling the interurban to penetrate to where the customer wants to go, without the need of long walks or bus transfer.
The proposed 9.5 km. route would diverge from the Souther Railway of BC to Highway 10 at the Serpentine Bridge (164 St.), where there is already a protected rail crossing and proceed in the median (single track), with preemptive signaling at all major intersections. At 175 St. the route becomes two tracks, through Cloverdale to 180 St., where the line again becomes a single track, until it reached the Langley By-pass, where again the routeAi??Ai??is dualAi??Ai??tracked, operating on a ‘reserved rights-of-way’Ai??Ai??until itAi??Ai??rejoins the Coal Port Railway at Glover Rd.
The benefits are many and most importantly giving the interurban 9.5 kilometers of it own route in Langley and Cloverdale, without interference from the mainline railways (this is important, especially if a local service were to be operated), secondly, many businesses and schools would be in easy walking distance tram the interurban, an important consideration if one wants businesses and transit customer support. There is one final benefit of the #10/Langley Bypass route; the proposed 200th St. LRT/streetcar service would feed directly into the interurban, providing a seamless journey to Vancouver, a proven way to attract ridership.
Detractors of the proposed route, mostly the auto lobby, will whine about loss of road space, yet very little road space will be lost, especially if the interurban operates in mixed traffic in Cloverdale. There are hundreds of light-rail operations around the world which operate in such a manner and with proper design the interurban would fit in with minimal disruption. The proposed route would of course cost more to build, about $50 million more than using the existing railwayAi??Ai??rights-of-ways but the benefits would out weigh the added cost or minor traffic disruptions.
The success of the interurban is dependent on how it satisfies the (transit) customer’s needs and a #10 highway/Langley Bypass route, servicing major shopping precincts, commercial businesses, and schools will go a long way to satisfying customer’s travel needs.
Recent Comments