All highways and no rail
There’ll be an “announcement about the South Fraser Perimeter Road” tomorrow. Probably a funding announcement.
The SFPR is a new proposed highway from Deltaport to the Trans Canada Highway, primarily for trucks. It’s a major part of BC’s $10 billion Gateway project, which is focused entirely on road-building to the exclusion of rail.
Looking at the bigger picture… Where is the Interurban light rail announcement? Where is the New Westminster rail bridge announcement? Where is the announcement of the re-routing of heavy freight traffic away from downtown Langley?
The BC government’s current focus – all highways and no rail – in this day and age – I think is completely unacceptable. Other governments sure aren’t taking this approach. In the U.S., strong signs that Obama in the coming weeks will unveil a huge infrastructure stimulus program, heavily focusing on rail. In BC, so far nothing.
For anyone who is interested, this bulletin from http://www.gatewaysucks.org:
HEADS UP! PLEASE POST AND FORWARD FAR & WIDE:
Tomorrow — Monday Jan. 12, 2pm — Gordon Campbell, Kevin Falcon, and Federal reps will be making an “announcement about the South Fraser Perimeter Road” at the Surrey Fraser Docks.This announcement may concern new Federal funding for the SFPR.
MAJOR MEDIA WILL BE THERE. Let’s greet them with a large outside presence, and let them know that the people of the Lower Mainland demand TRANSIT NOT FREEWAYS — GREEN WAYS, NOT GATEWAY!
The announcement will be behind the fence on Port property, so public access will be controlled (interesting, that they need to control access for a public announcement…what are they afraid of?).
Please join us there between 1 and 2 pm, with signs, drums and banners if you got em! (we will have some extra to share).
The announcement site is at the Surrey Fraser Docks on Elevator Road. Google map To get to the site: you can take the #640 bus from Scott Road Station. (bus schedule) Ask the driver to let you off at River Rd & Elevator Rd. OR take the #312 from Scott Road Station to Townline Divers
Thanks all! We look forward to seeing you tomorrow, as we continue to demand better solutions than Gateway and, in the leadup to the Provincial election, let our leaders know what the public wants.
You might also be interested in signing this petition.
A Question of Capacity – A LRTA Topic Sheet
A?A?A? Maximum capacity is only likely to be required for a few hours during peak hours, and even here there are likely to be variations both day by day and within each hour. The capacity required originates from the route’s social characteristics.
A?A?A? As for the vehicles, buses have a comfort capacity equal to the number of seats, and a maximum capacity equal to seats plus standing load.
A?A?A? In the case of trams, it is more complicated. The nominal maximum capacity is calculated at four passengers per square metre of available floor space (a reasonably comfortable level), plus the number of seats.
A?A?A? As trams are designed to carry a large standing load, the ratio of standees to seats is quite high. The standing area is also important for the carrying of wheelchairs, pushchairs, shopping and sometimes bicycles. Some manufacturers quote maximum capacity using 6p/m2 while a figure of 8p/m 2 is used as a measure of crush capacity. This last figure is also employed to determine the motor rating of the vehicle.
A?A?A? A further complication is that even when there are seats available, some passengers prefer to stand. This may be because they are only travelling for a few stops, that they want to stretch their legs, or may just prefer to stand.
A?A?A? A tram’s comfort capacity can therefore be considered as the number of seats, plus the voluntary standees who may amount to up to 10-15% of the nominal maximum number of standing passengers.
ELASTICITY
A?A?A? It is the difference between the average passenger load for any particular time and the crush load which gives light rail its Elasticity Factor, allowing it to cope with variations in conditions such as sudden surges or emergency conditions.
A?A?A? Standing is made more acceptable by the design of track and vehicle, reducing the forces acting on the passenger to a minimum. This makes for a smooth ride, as well as ensuring ease of access, good support and the ability to see out without having to stoop.
A?A?A? Where a route is mainly urban with short journey times, the number of vehicles required should be calculated on the nominal maximum. On longer journeys outside the central area, a lower level may be more appropriate, dependent on the route’s characteristics. Even on rural sections, there are likely to be a a number of short distance riders, and the loading factor will increase nearer to the urban area.
COMPRESSIBILITY
A?A?A? While it might be thought desirable to offer every passenger a seat, it is in fact the ability to carry high loadings in a confined area (the Compressibility Factor) which enables light rail to achieve many environmental benefits, allowinglarge numbers of people to be carried withoutharming, and often improving, the features of a city.
A?A?A? It is city centres where several routes combine that the most capacity is required. A typical situation could be a pedestrian street with six routes operating at 10-minute headway giving 36 double coupled trams per hour each with a capacity of 225. This gives a nominal capacity of16 200 passengers per hour which can be increased to 25 200 pph in extremis without extra vehicles. Light rail is unique in this ability to operate on the surface with its capacity without detracting from the amenities which it serves.A further factor in setting the resources required is the need to lure motorists out of cars. The more difficult the traffic conditions, the higher the loadings will be acceptable. It is however important that crush loads are not allowed for morethan the shortest of periods on an infrequent basis, both to maintain customer satisfaction and prevent elasticity of the system being compromised.
A?A?A? It is vital that public transport can cope with sudden changes in demand, such as extreme inclement weather or air quality violations which can cause private traffic to be halted. This is where the elasticity inherent in light rail is so beneficial in enabling an instant response in an economical fashion. A tram may be crowded, but its infinitelybetter than having to wait in the snow of smog untilextra vehicles are brought into service.
A?A?A? It is this unique combination of Capacity, Compressibility and Elasticity rather than capacity alone which makes light rail so successful as an urban transport mode.
A?A?A? Note Statistics are based on Karlsruhe, using GT/8 cars
Calling all passenger rail advocates – PLEASE WRITE YOUR MAYOR!
Calling all passenger rail advocates – PLEASE WRITE YOUR MAYOR! (spread the word)
regarding the upcoming federal budget: You may have heard, with the economic turmoil, that the federal government is planning a massive amount of new infrastructure spending for their next budget, supposedly for projects that are useful, ideally sustainable, and can be started immediately.
One ideal infrastructure project that is simple enough to undertake immediately is to upgrade the entire stretch of Interurban track to passenger grade rail, including crossings, as is currently being done in parts of Surrey for their Heritage Rail Project. Such an upgrade is relatively inexpensive, simple to carry out, and necessary for any sort of regular Valley-wide passenger rail service to be implemented in the future.
It is best to write your mayor, and cc your other local representatives, as mayors have strong influence with federal politicians.
More points you can mention in your letter:
-There is very strong support for Interurban passenger rail across the Fraser Valley. While the Vancouver region gets expensive transit upgrades, we in the Fraser Valley have so far been left out. The federal government needs to be heavily lobbied in order for this sustainable infrastructure initiative to happen.
-2010 is the Centennial anniversary of the historic Interurban passenger rail service that was shut down in the 1950s. At the time of completion in 1910, it was North America’s longest Interurban rail track! What better way to celebrate than to have the Interurban running again in 2010?
-Upgrading the track, and putting in crossings, does not require advanced study, and therefore is an ideal infrastructure project that can be started immediately this spring. This type of project is exactly what the federal government is looking for.
We have a better-than-normal chance of getting something done in this budget, but only if our politicians hear from us LOUD AND CLEAR. Your own personal letter works far better than any petition or form letter.
If you live in Chilliwack, email:
Mayor Sharon Gaetz: gaetz@chilliwack.com
and cc:Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? barry.penner.mla@leg.bc.ca, john.les.mla@leg.bc.ca, Strahl.C@parl.gc.ca
If you live in Abbotsford, email:
Mayor George Peary: mayor@abbotsford.ca
and cc:Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? john.vandongen.mla@leg.bc.ca, mike.dejong.mla@leg.bc.ca, Fast.E@parl.gc.ca
If you live in Langley, email:
Township Mayor Rick Green: rgreen@tol.bc.ca,
City Mayor Peter Fassbender: mayor@langleycity.ca
and cc:Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? mary.polak.mla@leg.bc.ca, rich.coleman.mla@leg.bc.ca, Warawa.M@parl.gc.ca
If you live in Surrey, email:
Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts: dlwatts@shaw.ca
and cc:Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? kevin.falcon.mla@leg.bc.ca, jagrup.brar.mla@leg.bc.ca, harry.bains.mla@leg.bc.ca, sue.hammell.mla@leg.bc.ca, bruce.ralston.mla@leg.bc.ca, guy.gentner.mla@leg.bc.ca, dave.hayer.mla@leg.bc.ca, gordon.hogg.mla@leg.bc.ca, Cadman.D@parl.gc.ca, Dhaliwal.S@parl.gc.ca, Grewal.N@parl.gc.ca, Cummins.J@parl.gc.ca, Hiebert.R@parl.gc.ca
If we all do this, we will have a very big influence.
Also, consider turning your letter into a Letter to the editor of your local newspaper (click here to view email addresses), and respond to the government survey on this website.
West Broadway Business Association calls for light rail
A new group, the West Broadway Business Association, has been formed: The WBBA is a non-profit society representing the local interests of businesses along West Broadway, from Alma to Burrard, and beyond to Cambie.
They’re calling for a surface-level light rail or tram system along Broadway instead of the current plan to build a subway:
A?ai??i??Ai??We are very much in favor of improving rapid transit,A?ai??i??A? said Dobo, owner of Just Imagine on West Broadway.
She said many merchants and residents were unhappy with the impact of the Canada Line and would be horrified at cut-and-cover or tunneling projects occurring in the area.
A vast Lower Mainland light rail network stretching from UBC to Hope, or a 12km subway…
what a hard choice
Why it is important that SkyTrain not be built on the Evergreen Line
A letter in todays Vancouver Sun ~
SkyTrain extension not an astute investment
Vancouver Sun January
David Gillen, director of the Centre for Transportation Studies at the University of B.C., should look into the subject further. If he did, he’d find that light metros like SkyTrain aren’t good investments. If the private sector were to invest in a transit project, much cheaper light rail transit would be the way to go.
Dublin’s and Nottingham’s new LRT lines are operating at a profit, even after paying debt-servicing charges.
Then there is the strange case of Gerald Fox, a respected U.S. transit specialist, shredding TransLink’s business case for the Evergreen Line in a widely circulated letter. Fox states that “the analysis had made assumptions that were inaccurate, or had been manipulated to make the case for SkyTrain . . . in corridor after corridor, and has thus succeeded in keeping its proprietary rail system expanding.”
The Evergreen Line project is like the Titanic racing through the fog towards a financial iceberg.
~ is an important reminder that by building SkyTrain light-metro on the Evergreen Line, will mean no money for valley rail.
A previous post “Can TransLink’s Business Cases be Trusted?”……….
http://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/2008/12/26/can-translinks-business-cases-be-trusted/
……..demonstrates that TransLink is very adept in supporting SkyTrain, even operating in corridors without the ridership to support light-metro. There is only one taxpayer and the dubious SkyTrain Evergreen Line will take what little money is available to build, more, politically prestigious SkyTrain. Even SkyTrain was far too expensive for the now $1 billion over budget RAV/Canada Line, where a much cheaper generic metro was built instead.
If modern light-rail were to be built on the Evergreen line instead of SkyTrain, there would be enough money to build a basic Vancouver to Chilliwack Diesel LRT service, with the ability for an Evergreen LRT, to network directly with the Interurban, giving the possibility of direct Valley to Tr-City service and a much faster Tri-City to Vancouver service than using the SkyTrain Millennium Line.
As always, transit planning in the region is like the ‘squeaky wheel’ – the more one squeaks, the more you get greased. Fraser Valley politicians are just not squeaking in the volumesAi??Ai??that theirAi??Ai??counterparts in Vancouver, Richmond, and the Tri-Cities have done.
Current transit planning is foolhardy to the extreme and in a time ofAi??Ai??great economic upheaval, squandering limited taxpayers money on hugely expensive make work or infrastructure projects, is like the captain of the Titanic ordering more coals onto the fires, even after the doomed ship had impaled itself onAi??Ai??a massive financial iceberg.
TramTrain, the interurban of the 21st century!
With the ongoing campaign for the “return of the interurban” in the Fraser Valley, an understanding of what the 21st century interurban is needed. The old Vancouver to Chilliwack interurban,Ai??Ai??ran from downtown Vancouver along streetcar tracks, up Main St. and down KingswayAi??Ai??to the beginning of the Central Park Line, just past Commercial drive. Then the interurban track-shared with the mainline railways across the Fraser River Rail Bridge, then proceeded on a regular railwayAi??Ai??line to Chilliwack. Today, in Karlsruhe Germany an almost identical service is offered where a tram leaves the downtown on tram tracks, networks onto a light-rail rights-of-way, then track-shares with mainline railways to its destination. Today, Karlsruhe’s two system LRT is called TramTrain, where the tram acts as a streetcar, light-rail vehicle and a passenger train.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXsIRUEeZts
The following from the Light Rail Transit Associations gives some insight to TramTrain and TramTrain operation and one only hopes that TransLink and the provincial Ministry of Transportation (and the Minister Falcon) understand the economy and success of TramTrain.
Does light-rail make the grade?
There is a common misconception, especially with loal transit planners, that light-rail can’t climb steep grades. The industry standard (crush capacity or all seats taken and 8 persons per square metre standing) for the maximum gradient that modern LRT can climb is 8%. Sheffield’s trams (streetcars) because all axles are motorized, can climb 10% grades and in Lisbon, Portugal, the famous route 28, see 2-axel trams climb 13.75% grades!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YiHO5jZYY4
This short U-Tube video dispels three common LRT myths:
- That LRT/trams can’t operate in close headways – the video shows 10 second headways!
- That LRT can’t climb steep grades – the video shows 13.75% grades!
- That LRT can’t operate in confined areas.
Clearly modern LRT can make the grade!
Bus Rapid Transit or BRT – Does it deliver?
The bus lobby are quick to jump on the Bus Rapid Transit or BRT bandwagon, yet fail to point to any one BRTAi??Ai?? that has attracted the all important motorist from the car. While new LRT/tram operations have seen major jumps in ridership, ridership figures for newAi??Ai??BRT systemsAi??Ai??have been disappointing. Ottawa is on record though as experiencing between 1981 and 1996 a ridership decline of 18% which probably played a major part in that city’s decision to stop building busways and to concentrate in future on diesel light rail and LRT expansion.
The following is aAi??Ai??”Discussion Document” from the Light Rail Transit AssociationAi??Ai??and contains, not so much useful information, rather how comparisons between LRT and BRT can be skewed to favour buses.
“MASS TRANSIT : BUS RAPID TRANSIT SHOWS PROMISE” (1)
INTRODUCTION
This discussion document will deal principally with an attitude change by the US General Accounting Office (GAO), which has sparked widespread controversy and criticism for what many professionals have described as an amalgam of misinformation, factual errors, serious anomalies and, in many instances, questionable data. The GAO report was written at the behest of several congressional representatives, some of whom played front- line roles in boosting highway expansion and opposing major transit projects.
“It should be noted that much of the data included in the GAO report has been proven to be faulty and must be regarded as highly controversial and not accepted as reliable by a consensus within the transportation planning profession” (2).
ANALYSIS OF GAO’S REPORT (3)
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has begun to support the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) concept as an alternative to building light rail systems, and promotes this policy with the slogan “Think Rail, Use Buses”. A figure used to suggest that buses can provide equivalent attributes to rail, but at lower cost, is deceptive. An average (BRT) construction cost figure often includes in the performance characteristics the simple marking of street lanes for 12 mph service, in no way rapid transit. The equivalent average given for LRT included subway or tunnel (included in a few systems) but was omitted from the BRT average cost. The costly BRT subway in Seattle for instance was inadvertently omitted from the study.
That relatively few BRT projects were ready for funding was claimed to be because of the newness of the concept, among other reasons. BRT is hardly new, being first known in Newark in 1938. A second known BRT was on the Ardmore route of the Philadelphia Suburban Transportation Co, converted from LRT in 1967. Its effect turned out to be an increase in operational costs and a 15% loss of patronage. This result was consistent with transit officials noting the poor public image of buses. A comparatively recent example of this followed in Northern Virginia when their BRT opened in 1970 and then continued to lose passengers ever since the 1980 energy crisis. Patronage is now down to about 67%.
POOR RESULTS FROM PITTSBURGH
Pittsburgh’s first BRT was opened in 1977 with an estimated patronage of 32 000 each weekday. The service now averages 14 500. The current West BRT in Pittsburgh was estimated to attract 50 000 weekday passengers but so far has attracted about 6 000 (4). This compares with an independent estimate for rail operation which forecast 20 000 weekday passengers.
OPERATING COSTS
GAO reported the hourly cost on selected bus systems as USD84.72, as against USD161.48 on LRT in the same cities. The capacity figures used were 50 on buses and 110 on LRT. A simple calculation puts a bus passenger cost at USD1.69 per hour as against USD1.47 for an LRT passenger. On a mileage basis, an actual cost for an express bus in Dallas, the only place where the data was segregated out, was given as 46 cents per passenger mile. It is of interest to look a little deeper, at either San Diego or Saint Louis for instance, where the LRT passenger mile cost in 1998 was 18.5 cents. Were these well-performing systems deliberately left out ?
GAO’s fig.7 is replete with errors (5) and is very much at odds with the FTA’s 1998 figures. The cost in Los Angeles per bus hour is not USD56 but USD93.72 and per LRT hour is not USD434 but USD253.94. This goes some way towards invalidating the GAO findings.
RIDERSHIP
One of GAO’s findings was that the top capacities of BRT and LRT were quite similar. This though is not borne out by fact with busways averaging about 15 000 per weekday as against 29 000 on LRT. The Blue line to the CBD in Los Angeles carries well over 63 000 and is the reason why “transit officials” told GAO that passengers prefer rail.
SPEED
GAO’s 56 mph BRT speed must be without any stops for passengers. The LRT figure is not unrealistic at 16 mph for slower lines making stops and with the turnaround time at each terminus included, but 20 mph would be better. GAO’s speed for LRT in Denver as 11 mph was distorted because this is for the downtown section of the route. Full route speed is 23 mph. The 35 mph bus speed only applies to an isolated freeway section. The entire Green line LRT in Los Angeles averages 35 mph, which includes stops and a daily load of 33 000. LRVs, although with have good acceleration and, are also good on grades. Bus drivers sometimes have to turn off the air conditioning to climb grades at reasonable speeds, not a problem with electric LRVs.
IMPORTANT OMISSIONS BY GAO
Passengers don’t respond well to bus flexibility; – GAO assumes that the BRT title adds incentive to bus use; – the change from express bus to a stopping bus in Denver more than doubled patronage; – poor ridership on Detroit’s people mover shows that passengers prefer a park + ride served by LRT; – for a given mileage buses have an 80% increase in reported injuries; – the air quality is improved in CBDs when transportation is with LRVs.
PURPLE LINE SWITCH HAS CAUSED A FEW SURPRISES (6).
Surprise and concern has been expressed after the Maryland Transportation Secretary’s announcement that the proposed Purple Line light rail route is under serious consideration to be a future rapid bus system instead. Described as a Super Street Train, it would be a cheaper and more mobile alternative to rail and, although there is a history of consumers preferring light rail to traditional buses, “we would like people to keep an open mind”.
CONCLUSION
A discussion document on a topical transit mode would fail in its purpose if it only looked at quality as a function of economy and became totally obsessed with low price, and consequently failed to address the many disadvantages of an economy- based decision. A transit system with low passenger appeal contributes little towards solving a mobility and traffic congestion problem. This has recently been dramatically demonstrated in Leeds where, despite two new guided bus corridors, the city is about to install a Supertram system.
REFERENCES
- “LIGHT RAIL NOW” has produced a report – GAO’s “BRT” REPORT ERRORS, ANOMALIES, MISINFORMATION – with a sub-heading “LIGHT RAIL PROGRESS – DECEMBER 2002” (www.lightrailnow.org/myths/m_brt002.htm). The GAO report (www.gao.gov/new.items/d01984.pdf) was dated September 2001.
- LIGHT RAIL PROGRESS – page 2. (see above for details)
- Presented to a meeting of the RESEARCH BOARD COMMITTEE A1E12, Light Rail, in January 2002 by Edson L Tennyson PE, Transportation Consultant and former Deputy Secretary of Transportation for the State of Pennsylvania.
- LIGHT RAIL PROGRESS – page 4. (see reference 1 for details)
- LIGHT RAIL PROGRESS – page 5. (see reference 1 for details)
- Michael H Cottman – Washington Post Staff Writer – Washington Post page B02 – Friday 7th March 2003.
Produced by F A Andrews – for the LRTA Development Group – March 2003
SkyTrain – Eight myths and the facts;Oh what tangled webs we weave, when we first practice to deceive!
Since 1980, when SkyTrain was imposed on the region, the SkyTrain lobby abetted by politicians, bureaucrats, and the media, have created a grand SkyTrain myth which is now taken as fact. Lenin’s quote, “A lie told often enough becomes the truth“, is certainly true of the SkyTrain lobby, when defending their beloved light-metro system. Despite plenty of evidence to the contrary, the SkyTrain light-metro system has found a very expensive niche in the ‘Metro Vancouver’ culture and with TransLink and the Minister of Transportation, Kevin Falcon, championing more SkyTrain construction for the region, let us now explore eight SkyTrain myths. A general warning must be issued: the following maybe harmful to the SkyTrain lobby.
Myth #1 – SkyTrain is faster than LRT.
Not true. LRT tram-trains, with speeds in excess of 100 kph, edge out SkyTrain for being faster mode. What is true is that most LRT lines have many more stops per route km., thus having lower commercial speeds than light-metro. Streetcar systems of course have low commercial speeds because they run in mixed traffic because of this, many streetcars or trams have smaller (cheaper) motors for such operation. An identical LRT/SkyTrain line, having identical stops, would have identical commercial speeds. The St. Louis LRT system actually has a higher commercial speed than SkyTrain.
Myth #2 – Speed of SkyTrain, alone, attracts people to transit.
Not true. The speed of the transit system is not as important as the SkyTrain lobby would have you think. What is true, if the total travel time (doorstep to doorstep) using transit, is equal to or even slightly more than alternatives, then public transit will attract customers. The actual speed of SkyTrain or LRT trip is only part of the complete ‘transit’ trip package, which would include walking time or taking a bus (if need be) and transfers. Recent studies (Hass-Klau) have concluded that even ‘speed’ is not as important as the over all ambiance of the transit system, ease of use, and ease of ticketing, for attracting customers, especially the motorist from the car.
Myth #3 – SkyTrain is safer than LRT.
Not true. Though this contentious topic sends many of the SkyTrain lobby into fits of apoplexy, the facts are completely opposite. The death rate on SkyTrain is about twice of that of Calgary’s LRT (both transit systems carry high volumes of traffic), yet TransLink and others would have us think differently. The SkyTrain lobby wrongly assumes that all deaths on SkyTrain are suicides and all deaths on LRT is not. Why suicides are supposed to be ignored and other deaths are not, is a sad reflection on those wanting to build with the light metro. According to the Light Rail Transit Association modern LRT/tram is the safest public transit mode in the world.
Myth #4 – SkyTrain attracts more customers than LRT.
Not true. There is no study comparing SkyTrain and LRT, that shows that ‘rail’ mode (light metro/light rail) alone is a determining factor in attracting transit customers. Calgary’s LRT has consistently attracted more customers than SkyTrain. What is true that all ‘rail’ transit modes are far better attracting new customers than buses.
Myth #5 – SkyTrain costs less to operate than LRT.
Not true. This old saw is repeated so often that it has been ingrained as a fact. Early on, it has been found that SkyTrain light-metro, despite being automatic and having no drivers, was much more expensive to operate than LRT systems the same size. As far back as 1990, it was found that SkyTrain cost over 80% more to operate than Calgary’s LRT system, despite the fact Calgary’s C-Train carried more people. Today the figure has dropped to about 60% more to operate.
Myth #6 – SkyTrain has a higher capacity than LRT.
Not true. The capacity game has been far overplayed by the SkyTrain lobby as capacity is a “function of headway“. Any dual tracked LRT/streetcar/tram line can carry over 20,000 persons per hour per direction, as true for SkyTrain. Studies, including Gerald Fox’s A Comparison of AGT and LRT Systems and the Toronto Transit Commission’s ART Study, have found that the capacities for SkyTrain and LRT are about the same.
Myth #7 – LRT delays traffic at intersections.
Not true. TransLink and the SkyTrain lobby become hysterical with the myth that LRT delays traffic at intersections. The fact is, there is less delay than a regular light controlled intersection and no delay for LRT. The logic is troublesome for if LRT delays traffic to such an extent, why don’t other light controlled intersections cause traffic chaos? Shall we ban all light controlled intersections because they delay traffic?
Myth #8 – SkyTrain pays its operating costs.
Not true. TransLink trots out this little gem every once in a while for some positive spin when things go wrong on SkyTrain. TransLink and the SkyTrain lobby quietly forgets that SkyTrain is subsidized by the provincial government at over $200 million annually! In the United States, where many transit initiatives are passed by referendum, the total cost of the project is told, as well as financing options. Example: Seattle’s LRT is said to cost over $10 billion, but that is the total cost of the project including debt servicing! To date, the taxpayer does not not know the total cost of SkyTrain or even RAV, nor how it is financed. The $200 million plus annual subsidy has now put the cost of SkyTrain at over $6 billion dollars. If SkyTrain was really paying its operating costs, it would not need a $200 million subsidy! Note: Dublin’s and Nottingham’s new LRT lines operate at a profit after paying their annual debt servicing charges.
All what Rail for the Valley wants is a ‘level playing field’ when planning for region ‘rail’ transit and not TransLink inspired pro SkyTrain nonsense. Isn’t it odd, that after being on the market for over 30 years, SkyTrain has failed to find a market in North America and Europe and that the owners of the proprietary SkyTrain have forbidden the system to compete in an open bidding process against modern light-rail. “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
In the snow, go Diesel LRT! The E & N’s RDC’s (D-LRT’s big cousins) had no problems!
Snow pulls Islanders onto E&N trains
Ridership jumped nearly 50% since snowstorms hit
by Darrell Bellaart, Times-Colonist, December 30, 2008
More Vancouver Islanders are choosing to travel by train when the roads get too slushy and slippery to drive. Southern Rail, which operates the E&N railway from Victoria to Courtenay, saw more customers buying Via Rail tickets when heavy snow made travel difficult on the Island Highway earlier this month.
Ridership rose almost 50 per cent in the past two weeks, so Southern Rail asked Via Rail to add a second car, something that only happens during the busiest periods.
“It’s been up and down daily but we’re definitely seeing above-average ridership,” said Don McGregor, Southern Railway Vancouver Island general manager. “Talking to people, there’s a lot of people using the service, rather than using the roads.”
And while Via expects an increase in traffic at Christmas, he said this year the numbers jumped earlier than usual because of Island snow conditions.
The Christmas rush can be heavy enough to warrant putting a second car on the line, but McGregor said when that happens, it’s just a “bit of a blip” for Christmas only. “But this is a significant blip and beyond what we would have expected and it started a week earlier.”
Between Dec. 17 and 28, when weather was at its worst, Via Rail saw 1,132 passengers travelling north from Victoria to Courtenay. That compares with 770 during the same period last year.
“That represents a 47 per cent i n c r e a s e . I t ‘ s p r e t t y significant,” McGregor said. And while McGregor a g r e e sAi??Ai?? aAi??Ai?? s e c o n d scheduled train would make passenger rail travel more attractive on the Island, it wouldn’t happen before the line gets muchneeded rail bed improvements, which are estimated to cost more than $100 million. That would only happen with government support.
“Our first priority is to get the funding together to get the track up to scratch,” he said. “You’re piling more load on an existing track that needs some infrastructure. It’s like loading up a dilapidated horse.”
About half the passengers interviewed yesterday at the Nanaimo train station said weather played a part in their choosing to travel by rail. “That’s part of it,” said Carol Young, who was on her way back to Courtenay after visiting family in Nanaimo. “I wouldn’t want to drive in this.” She added driving in snow is too stressful and she finds trains a relaxing way to travel, and wishes the service could be expanded.
“There should be two trains a day, because I’d go to Victoria lots if they did,” Young said. Cindy Green came to Nanaimo on Dec. 14 from Fort McMurray, Alta., to spend Christmas with her family. She decided to take the train back to Courtenay so she could catch her plane home from Comox. “I just thought, I don’t know what the roads are going to be like, I don’t know what the weather will be like, I’ll take the train,” Green said. “When a friend’s son drove me here, I was appalled at the roads. I could not believe a major highway [was] like that.”
Ai??Ai?? Copyright (c) The Victoria Times Colonist
Recent Comments