Transportation improvements not fast enough
Another column in the Province newspaper today: Transportation improvements not fast enough (Jon Ferry)
…And so far the story of Fraser Valley light rail hasn’t been made to sound too compelling, at least to folks in Victoria. The platform hasn’t collapsed, but the train’s still stuck in the station. That’s a pity because, while governments play politics over transportation for one of our fastest-growing regions, its residents spend a lot of their time choking on traffic.
There seems to be plenty of eagerness in the Ministry of Transportation to expand highways, twin the Port Mann bridge etc., but when it comes down to actually doing anything to diminish valley traffic, to decrease the number of cars on the road by providing an alternative way for people to get around, so far nothing.
Any ideas how to make the story of Fraser Valley light rail more “compelling to Victoria?”
One idea involves May 17.
Hey, Mr. Falcon, why do you love SkyTrain?
BC politicians have had a long love affair with SkyTrain and one wonders why?
British Columbia’sAi??Ai??politicians love spending billions of dollars on the prestigiousAi??Ai??SkyTrain light-metroAi??Ai??and the mind set is the more you spend on SkyTrain, the better it must be. Friends of the government love SkyTrain/light-metroAi??Ai??(oh yes they are theAi??Ai??same types that balk at raisingAi??Ai??or installing new taxes) because a lot more money is spread around toAi??Ai??friends of the government, includingAi??Ai??cement manufacturers, the trucking industry, engineering firms, consulting firms and the media. It should come as no surprise that to date, not a penny has been given to the bankrupted merchants along Cambie St. due to the cut-and-cover subway construction, yet millions were spent on media relations and advertising for RAV/Canada Line. Finally, the big winner in the SkyTrain stakes are land developers and property owners who own lands near a SkyTrain line or are lucky enough to own land adjacent to a SkyTrain station.Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Property values, near a SkyTrain lineAi??Ai??skyrocket because of the density mantra of all levels of governments, with the call: Ai??Ai??”Can’t have SkyTrain without more density” or “There is not enough density for rapid transit“!
That nobody knows what density is needed for rapid transit is another story.
The result of course is a small, very expensive metro system, that despite all the increased density alongAi??Ai??the line, still gets 80% of its riders from buses, which should give one pause for thought.Ai??Ai?? Are the people in the newly higher density areas using SkyTrain or hasAi??Ai??TransLink cascaded as many bus riders as they canAi??Ai??onto the metro, toAi??Ai??inflate ridership to give the appearance of people living near the SkyTrain Line are using the metro?
With light rail, being much cheaper to build, up to 10% the cost per km.Ai??Ai??than SkyTrain, there is lot less money to “shovel off the back of a truck” to politicalAi??Ai??supporters and cronies; SkyTrain has now become a vehicle for a provincial corporate welfare scheme, where the provincial government diverts taxpayers money to ‘friends of the government’, legally by building the most expensive rapid transit scheme possible.
Despite claims by the SkyTrain lobby that SkyTrain has a higher capacity, faster, or safer than LRT, the opposite is true; to date SkyTrain has yet to out perform LRT in revenue service and is probably why very few people build it.
So it seems Mr. Falcon’s and Mr. Campbell’sAi??Ai??love affair with SkyTrain or light-metro is to keep theirAi??Ai??political friends in business andAi??Ai??that is maybeAi??Ai??why the Board of Trade supported RAV.
ButAi??Ai??for the taxpayer, who has to pony up the money in higher taxes and user feesAi??Ai??to pay for exotic metro schemes – a lump of coal.
Surrey Leader Editorial: Keep the pressure on
Frank Bucholz’s Surrey Leader editorial offers strong encouragement to us who are pushing hard for passenger rail service, and holding our government’s feet to the fire.
Excerpts:
TransLink is starting to get the message, thanks to relentless pressure from South Fraser mayors and community leaders…
…There has been a smattering of interest in the idea of passenger rail on the corridor over the past 15 years. Now there is more backing for this idea than ever.
Every Fraser Valley mayor is in favour of taking a look at the idea. Surrey has shown strong leadership, both under former mayor Doug McCallum and current Mayor Dianne Watts. In Surrey and Langley it makes particular sense to use the Interurban corridor A?ai??i??ai??? to get from one point to another, and to connect with SkyTrain at the Scott Road station.
Take just one example A?ai??i??ai??? post-secondary institutions. Kwantlen Polytechnic University campuses in Newton and Cloverdale could both be easily serviced by trains along this corridor, as could Kwantlen and Trinity Western in Langley.
TransLink is facing some big financial challenges. It would cost far less to upgrade the Interurban tracks, still in use for freight trains, than it would to build an extension of SkyTrain to Fleetwood, as proposed by the provincial government.
Those who favour a more intense study of the Interurban corridor in Surrey and Langley need to put pressure on Liberal MLAs and candidates in the run-up to the provincial election in May. Surrey will be a very important battleground in that election.
All I can say is, it’s going to be one interesting election.
What is SkyTrain?
Provincial politicians since 1980 have forced SkyTrain construction on the Expo Line, the Millennium Line, the Evergreen Line, and nowAi??Ai??a billion dollar plus extension in Surrey, yet very few people clearly understand what SkyTrain is,Ai??Ai??or whyAi??Ai??SkyTrain is built. Even fewer know that SkyTrain is a light-metro and able to give a definition of the transit mode. If the rest of the world builds with LRT, why then do we build with something different.
A little history lesson.
In the late 1970’s, Ontario’s Crown Corporation, the Urban Transportation Development Corporation (UTDC), developed a proprietary transit system, based around Linear Induction Motors (LIM’s), from an earlier failed MAGLEV monorail system, which was notable for not being able to turn corners. The result was Intermediate Capacity Transit System (ICTS) which carried more passengers and was faster than a Toronto Streetcar but costing less to build than a heavy-rail subway. There were few takers for the automatic railway, which fell into the light-metro family of transportation, with only one sale to Detroit. The UTDC lobbied the Ontario provincial government to force the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) to build with ICTS and abandon the streetcar system. This resulted in the TTC building the orphan ICTS system on the proposed Scarborough Line.
The last straw for ICTS came from the 1983 Ai??Ai??TTC/IBI which found that, “ICTS costs anything up to ten times as much as a conventionalAi??Ai?? light-rail line to install for about the same capacity; or put another way, ICTS costs more than a heavy-rail subway with four times its capacity.” ICTS was dead, but not the UDTC, which quietly changed the name from ICTS to Advanced Light Rail Transit (ALRT) to try to get into the light-rail market, which ICTS/ALRT was definitely not as the mode still was a light-metro.
Again, the newly named ALRT failed to find a market except for Vancouver, where the then Social Credit Government, in a crass political deal which included the much vaunted Ontario conservative ‘Blue-machine’, bought the now obsolete light-metro. Instead of the originally planned for Vancouver to Lougheed Mall, Wally, and Richmond Centre light rail system, the region was forced to build SkyTrain from downtown Vancouver to New Westminster. No transit system had as much hype and hoopla as ALRT and a local name was born for the light-metro – SkyTrain. There were still no takers as SkyTrain cost at least twice as much to build as Calgary’s LRT and four times more to build than Portland’s light rail line. The Advanced Light Rail Transit moniker did not fool anyone and the name was slightly changed in the late 80’s to Advanced Light Rapid Transit.
The UTDC was wound up and the ALRT division was sold to Lavalin and again the name was changed to Automated Light-Metro but was still called SkyTrain, which most elevated railways are called. Lavalin went into receivership in the early 90’s trying to build ALM in Bangkok Thailand. Soon Bombardier bought the rights to ALM or SkyTrain and promptly renamed the light-metro to ART (Advanced Rapid Transit) and re-bodied the original ICTS cars with the largest metro body shellAi??Ai??that the LIM’s could handle and what the Vancouver Expo Line could handle, with the result of a more metro looking vehicle.
There have been four sales of ART.
1) JFK Airport/Port authorityAi??Ai??- In a privately financed deal (financed by the Canadian Government) ART is used as an airport people mover to connect JFK with parking facilities and the New York metro system. It is funded by a $7.00 departure fee.
2) Kuala Lumpor – Already building with an elevated LRT line (STAR), senior politicians wanted something that was perceived to be ultra modern and ordered that an automatic transit system was to be built instead of extending the STAR line. Politicians went so far has to exclude LRT, even an automatic LRT and eventually ART beat out the French rubber tired VAL system for the new automatic line. The same politicians who forced an automatic railway were aghast that the ART line (called PUTRA) was a railway and not very futuristic at all. The third transit line built in Kuala Lumpor is a monorail, which was wanted by politico’s in the first place.
3) Korea – Another airport people mover.
4) China – built a LIM powered rapid transit system to gain technology, as Chinese planners stung by the excessive costs of the Shanghai MAGLEV, want to build with conventional rail instead of unconventional rail system.
To date there are seven ICTS/ALRT/ART systems in operation with Detroit’s single track ICTS and Toronto’s Scarborough Line soon to be life expired and dismantled, there will only be five remaining SkyTrain type light-metros. Discounting the airport ART people movers, Vancouver is the only city that continues to plan for SkyTrain or light-metro for regional rapid transit, yet during the same time ICTS/ALRT/ALM/ART have been on the market over 100 new light-rail systems have been built and a further 100 light-rail systems are either under construction or are in advanced stages of planning.
But what is ICTS or ALRT or ART? They are all light-metro, a transit mode that was supposed to be faster than a streetcar but cost less than a heavy-rail metro. To date there are less than 30 light-metros in operation around the world of which seven are in the SkyTrain family. SkyTrain, like its French cousin VAL have been made obsolete by modern LRT which introduced the articulate car and the concept of the reserved rights-of-way, which enabled light-rail to carry as many passengers and achieve the same commercial speeds as light-metro at a far less cost.
It should be noted, in the present SkyTrain/LRT debate, no mention of this is made by government appointed planners, TransLink or the Ministry of Transportation. No wonder that TransLink is on the verge of Bankruptcy!
Transit study set up to fail? Editorial from the Province.
Editorial, the Province newspaper, Dec. 17
I f the B.C. government thinks it will score political points with voters south of the Fraser River for its $400,000 Fraser Valley transit report, it should think again. Not only will the study’s results not be ready until long after the May provincial election, but its terms of reference are woefully inadequate as well.
The study aims to examine how best to deploy new buses and, more importantly, to assess the viability of running light rail transit on the existing Inter-Urban rail line, which runs from the north end of Scott Road in Surrey through to Langley, Abbotsford and Chilliwack.
A strengthening public movement covering all communities south of the Fraser prefers the right-of-way be re-established for just that: Modern, high-tech light-rail transit to connect everyone in the region and to link them up with the SkyTrain service in Surrey.
Why then did the B.C. government omit Surrey and Langley from the study’s terms of reference?
Skeptics suggest it wasn’t an oversight.
They contend it’s an intentional move to guarantee that the study will conclude there is insufficient population, ridership or economic justification for the light rail concept in the less densely-populated centres such as Abbotsford and Chilliwack.
Factoring the higher-populated Lower Mainland cities such as Surrey, Langley Township and Langley City into this study would certainly yield a different result — one that might well better serve the needs of a travelling, commuting public.
But Victoria has never been gung-ho on the idea of reviving the Inter-Urban line, a bias that becomes increasingly evident when considering the study’s terms of reference and lack of input from all stakeholders.
It’s worth reminding the election-bound B.C. Liberals that every south-of-Fraser mayor who publicly supported a return of Inter-Urban light rail was elected or re-elected in B.C.’s recent civic elections.
Not that government has ever felt it necessary to heed the wishes of its citizens.
-The Province newspaper
Wally
This excellent post is taken from Nathan Pachal (South Fraser On Trax):
In Michigan state, all levels of government and the private sector are coming together to upgrade a 44km section of single track rail to serve as a commuter line between Ann Arbor, Michigan (POP: 341,000) and Howell, Michigan (POP: 9,232). These communities are near Detroit. This project was proposed by the government because they had the choice of spending $500 million to add an additional lane of highway between these communities, or spending $33 million to get a simple commuter rail system up and running. They will be upgrading the signaling, crossings, tracks, and adding some passing sidings. Capital funding for the rail upgrade are in process. The short line operator, Great Lakes Central Railroad, will be providing the train-sets and operating the line. It is expected that passenger revenue and a government subsidy will cover the operating cost. They plan on running eight trains a day to start.
I wanted to point this project out for three reasons. First, it shows that you donA?ai??i??ai???t need to spend lots of money to get a simple rail system going. Second, there are some parallels to our Interurban line. (short line operator, underutilized line, etc.) Third, you donA?ai??i??ai???t need a large population to get a rail system up and running.
I invite you to read the business plan for this project.
-Nathan Pachal, South Fraser Blog
Canada asks provinces to suggest stimulus projects
Canada asks provinces to suggest stimulus projects
As we’ve long pointed out, regular Interurban rail service could be up and running the whole distance between Chilliwack and Vancouver within 2 years, with political will. The Fraser Valley has been clamouring for this service for long enough. It is now time for our provincial politicians to act. This is our golden opportunity!
One ideal infrastructure project that is simple enough to undertake immediately is to upgrade the entire stretch of Interurban track to passenger grade rail, as is currently being done in Surrey for their Heritage Rail Project. Such an upgrade is quite inexpensive, simple to carry out, and necessary for any sort of regular passenger rail service to be implemented.
By performing the necessary upgrades in 2009 using federal economic stimulus money, a Valley-wide demonstration project in time for the Olympics becomes viable.
While the track upgrades are ongoing, an implementation task force could be established to plan the next phase of Interurban infrastructure development – type of service, station locations, areas that are in need of double tracking, etc. Implementation of regular service could then be fast-tracked with the help of federal funds.
Light rail cheaper than buses – study
UBC Prof. Patrick Condon and Kari Dow have come to the startling conclusion that when you add capital costs together with operating costs, light rail is actually cheaper, per passenger per km, than any type of bus, and that Skytrain is the most expensive by far.
This is very significant for the Fraser Valley, because of the government’s promise to implement rapid buses to Langley by 2020 and Abbotsford by 2030. Rapid buses are not the affordable option for the valley. Particularly when you consider this study assumes construction of new light rail track in their cost estimates, when in fact we already have a strategically located rail line (the Interurban) that is sitting mainly idle and is far cheaper (and takes far less time) to uprade and use for LRT than a new line.
Condon also points out that for the cost of the proposed $2.8 billion Skytrain subway to UBC, you could supply each new UBC student with a hybrid car, forever!
Or, for that money we could fund the construction of a comprehensive light rail and transit network extending from UBC through Vancouver and right through the whole Fraser Valley, including a new rail bridge. One question though: if we spend the $2.8 billion UBC subway money on a comprehensive Lower Mainland rail and transit network, how on Earth would we spend the extra $1.1 billion that’s now allocated for a Surrey Skytrain extension?
Karlsruhe Light/Heavy Rail Track-Sharing System
Here is a good article, from Railway-technology.com, that describes the Karlsruhe Model of track-sharing:
Karlsruhe Light/Heavy Rail Track-Sharing System, Germany
“Close to the French border in south-west Germany, Karlsruhe in Baden-WA?A?rttemberg was the first European city to implement track-sharing for light and heavy rail vehicles. The ‘Karlsruhe Model’ is considered the reference point for similar developments worldwide…..”
Langley left out
More coverage today, in the Langley Times:
Rail group pans TransLink plan
and this very blunt editorial by Frank Bucholtz: Langley left out.
Recent Comments