On the local TV last night, small businesses along the Broadway construction zone are seeing huge drop in sales and a big increase in debt, due to closure of sidewalks.
Shades of the Canada Line debacle on Cambie 15 years ago!
BC’s Transportation Minister Ian Flemming, trundled out the old tried and true comment from the Canada Line days” that profits will return many fold as stated in the business case, after completion”.
Sorry, that maybe true for a surface light rail line, but not for a subway because subways tend to do the opposite and sterilize surface businesses between subway stations!
Just more politcal BS, justifying the BS Line!
From August 2021.
An interesting passage from Steve Munro’s critique of Neptis, which I was reading to gain some insight into the organization, in response to Mr. Burgess’s comment.
Towards the end of this lengthy report, this paragraph stood out.
The whole point of Transit City was to provide improved local, trunk services and to remain on the surface wherever possible to minimize capital costs while avoiding the sterilization of between-station areas with the wide spacing typically found on subway projects.
Let me restate the point of concern.
………. (transit is) to remain on the surface wherever possible to minimize capital costs while avoiding the sterilization of between-station areas with the wide spacing typically found on subway projects.
So now the truth come out, the Broadway subway will sterilize surface business’s along Broadway, between the subway stations.
This contrary to what TransLink and the Mayor of Vancouver is saying! This contrary to hosannas being sung about the subway by the Daily hive and the rest of the mainstream media.
The Broadway subway will harm surface businesses and the City of Vancouver and TransLink are cowards for not telling merchants the truth, that the Broadway subway will sterilize Broadway!
Montreal’s politicians listen to the public far more about transit than Metro Vancouver’s politico’s. The public were growing very disenchanted having an elevated railway go through Montreal’s downtown and maybe would take such disenchantment to the next civic election.
Well, the civic government has pulled the carpet from under the Caisse and in response, they have abandoned REM East.
This means the project is no longer a CDPQ Infra property development transportation project but now a mainly federal- provincial infrastructure project that, will be run jointly between the City of Montreal and the Government of Quebec. As are most of the traditional rapid transit projects in the Province of Quebec. This means also, unlike the existing REM project, there is no ban on other non-REM rapid transit lines that can cross transfer passengers between this project and other new or existing Montreal rapid transit lines.
REM is a light metro and like other light-metros, it has become a “tar baby”…………………
A tar baby is something from which it is nearly impossible to extricate oneself
………………. once you built one, with all the bureaucrats and planners involved desperate trying to save credibility, it is almost impossible to plan for anything else than a light-metro.
REM East was the last straw in Montreal, with a bank dictating how transit was to be built, but light metro now remains with damage already done and cannot be undone.
As one critic of REM said in an email:
The atmosphere of the May 2 press conference hid the fact that the East REM is alive, and worse for the resident community and the environment than before. You have to throw out the REM de l’Est, the REM de Laval, the REM de la Rive-Sud and all the other REMs.
Unlike Montreal, Vancouver’s civic and provincial politicians do not have the moral fortitude to abandon SkyTrain planning in favour of just as effective and less costly public transit alternatives.
REM
Quebec takes over REM de l’Est project after CDPQ Infra backs out
Montreal mayor calls original plan with elevated tracks ‘a historic mistake’
CBC News ·
After butting heads with the creators of the REM de l’Est over a plan to install elevated tracks in Montreal’s downtown core, Premier François Legault announced that the Quebec government will be taking over the massive public transit project and scrapping its downtown portion.
The original developer, CDPQ Infra — a subsidiary of Quebec’s pension fund manager, the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec — is now out. Legault and Montreal Mayor Valérie Plante made the announcement on Monday at a news conference.
Legault said the plan to have elevated tracks did not gain “social acceptability.” The province will also explore other major changes as well.
Without the elevated platforms, the project, which came with an initial price tag of $10 billion, is no longer viable for CDPQ Infra, the premier said. He also added that he understands why the developer would no longer want to proceed.
It’s not yet clear how these major changes will affect the project’s price tag and timeline. The REM de l’Est was first supposed to be completed in 2029.
“People that know me know that I don’t have a lot of patience and I want this project to be completed as quickly as possible,” Legault said.
“It is crucial for the development of the east end of Montreal.”
On Monday, Plante described the initial plan to have elevated tracks in the eastern part of downtown as a “historic mistake that absolutely had to be avoided.”
Plante’s concerns were echoed by a report from an expert advisory committee, which said the elevated platforms would be an eyesore and would “fracture” the urban landscape. There were also concerns it would erode the quality of life in nearby neighbourhoods, including the city’s historic Chinatown.
Experts and officials had raised concerns that the proposed design of the REM de l’Est, with its elevated platforms, would divide neighbourhoods and make some areas less accessible to pedestrians and cyclists. (CDPQ Infra)
Montreal’s mayor has long been pushing for the city to have a heavier hand in shaping the public transit project.
Moving forward, the major partners working with the province will be the regional transit planning agency for the greater Montreal area (ARTM), the Société de transport de Montréal (STM), the City of Montreal and the province’s Transport Ministry.
In a statement, a Québec Solidaire MNA accused the Legault government of being incompetent in matters of public transit.
“The government will finish its mandate with a mess and by not delivering anything concrete to the east end of Montreal in matters of transit,” said Alexandre Leduc, who represents the Hochelaga-Maisonneuve riding.
The REM de l’Est was originally set to include 23 stations along 32 kilometres of track, stretching from downtown to the eastern neighbourhoods of Pointe-aux-Trembles and Montréal-Nord, which have long been underserved by public transit, through a mix of underground tunnels and elevated tracks.
An electric RATP bus caught fire this morning in Paris.
An electric RATP bus, traveling on line 71, caught fire this Friday morning around 8 a.m., near the Bibliothèque-François-Mitterrand stop, in the 13th arrondissement of Paris.
This is the third fire of this type of bus in the Île-de-France in the space of a month
A frightening experience, thankfully no injuries or fatalities?
It seemed an inordinate length of time before les sapeurs-pompiers turned up.
Cardinal Fang is presuming the RATP bus was powered by rechargeable battery cells & not hydrogen.
The Cardinal is afraid that we are going to see a lot more of these incidents from around the world in the next few years, until municipal authorities, politicians & the transport industry wake up & realise that, wireless and on-board vehicle power systems are not as efficient as the lobby believe and do have safety issues.
With the cost of the Expo Line extension to Langley, exceeding the last estimate of $3.95 billion; the Broadway subway completion to UBC now exceeding $5 billion; and of course that pesky $3 billion rehab to the Expo and millennium Lines that TransLink refuses to acknowledge publicly, just where will be funding for this short line?
*
There is no funding and a SkyTrain line to Newton will not happen and TransLink knows this. This is pure smokescreen to hide the fact that SkyTrain will probably not reach Langley and even the most ardent supporters of SkyTrain in Surrey are circling the wagons.
*
The following letter was printed in the Langley Advance Times, which given the stance in the past where negative news about SkyTrain light metro was politely omitted from local papers, this published letter shows that there are cracks appearing in the SkyTrain facade.
The following quote, poses many questions:
It (BRT) is significantly cheaper than SkyTrain investments at $15-million per kilometre, versus $400 million per kilometre for the train.
$400 million/km for SkyTrain?Is this now the real cost of the Expo Line extension to Langley? That would put the cost of 16 km Expo Line extension to Langley at $6.4 billion! No wonder TransLink is trying to put the “big sell” for BRT for the Fraser Valley.
*
Still, Rail for the Valley’s updated Leewood Study would cost less than $1.5 billion for 130 km (less than $11.5 million/km) of a regional light diesel multiple unit line from Vancouver to Chilliwack, with a maximum of three trains per hour servicing North Delta, Cloverdale (and the proposed new hospital KPU); Langley, Trinity Western University, Abbotsford, and Veddar/Sardis (Cultus Lake).
*
It seems that TransLink and the provincial government would rather spend billions of dollars on prestige projects and never admit that Rail for the Valley’s Leewood Study, provided an affordable solution at a cost less than the six figured salaried bureaucrats could come up with.
Ottawa’s O-Train light DMU.
People wait to board the 301 Brighouse bunch to Richmond at Newton Exchange on Friday, March 20, 2020. (File photo: Lauren Collins)
Transportation
TransLink wants to explore SkyTrain extension into Newton
But the BIA executive director wonders how much longer the town centre will have to wait
TransLink says it wants to explore a potential SkyTrain extension to Newton within the next 10 years.
The transit company unveiled its priorities for the first 10 years of its Transport 2050 plan Wednesday (April 20) and the possibility of a Newton line made the list.
But while one Surrey city councillor lauds talk of a Newton SkyTrain line, the leader of a local business group says Newton is still waiting for there to be “real investment” in the community.
“According to the Transit 2050 plan update that was recently released, it seems that other communities have leapfrogged Newton,” said Philip Aguirre, executive director for the Newton Business Improvement Association.
“Newton has the population, the jobs, and the ridership but still has no commitment or real investment in the community. In the year 2032 will we still be talking about ‘exploring other potential SkyTrain extensions, including Newton in Surrey?’”
Aguirre says he wonders how long Newton will have to wait to get rapid transit down King George Boulevard to the town centre.
In 2018, after the majority Safe Surrey Coalition was voted in, Surrey’s light rail transit (LRT) project was cancelled and focus switched to the Surrey-Langley SkyTrain extension project.
Newton Town Centre would have been home to one of the terminus stations for LRT, which would have run from Guildford down 104 Avenue to City Centre and then up King George Boulevard to Newton. The fully funded and approved project would have been completed by 2024.
In Wednesday’s announcement, TransLink said it plans to spend the next 10 years doubling its regional bus service, expanding its rapid bus service, and completing the majority of its new bike and walkways. These priorities are outlined in TransLink’s Transport 2050 strategic plan, which
According to a discussion guide from TransLink, the transit authority is looking to invest in rapid transit on up to 11 corridors, which includes the King George Boulevard and Scott Road corridors. Along King George Boulevard, TransLink is looking to extend RapidBus or Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) from Surrey Centre to White Rock and “complete an exploratory business case of grade separation and technology alternatives, including SkyTrain, between Surrey Centre and Newton.”
Surrey Coun. Doug Elford was thrilled with TransLink’s plan, which was unanimously adopted by the TransLink Mayor’s Council in January.
“I think it’s critical. We do have a rapid bus planned, for now, which I think is fantastic in the short-term,” he said. “But in the long-term, I think SkyTrain to Newton and then eventually all the way to the south would be ideal. That’s something that we would be advocating for. I know the mayor has advocated for that before.”
Elford added he’s glad it’s Newton Skytrain made the list of 10-year priorities.
“At least that indicates that it’s in the thought process. I mean, once we get the line developed in Langley, it’s my understanding – that I’ve heard through the grapevine – that it will be designed so that an extension to Newton would be very feasible, engineered so it would be very feasible.
“It’s going to happen. it’s just a matter of time.”
Meantime, the major focus of the next decade is on bus rapid transit — buses that operate in fully separated lanes with signal priority designed to keep buses moving.
In Surrey, TransLink’s 10-year priorities include BRT on several corridors with two of those in Surrey: King George Boulevard from Surrey to White Rock and Scott Road, an upgrade from the R6.
TransLink said the bus rapid transit routes will be serviced by zero emissions or low emissions vehicles. Riders will prepay before boarding and buses have more spacious interiors to allow higher passenger capacities — similar to a rapid light rail experience. It is significantly cheaper than SkyTrain investments at $15-million per kilometre, versus $400 million per kilometre for the train.
It’s officially a GO (sorry for the pun), all the EA’s are done, we have the company’s (2 Consortium’s) ready and the work thankfully, has already started. We are about to create what will be, electric regional railway service on the core part of the GO network (about 263 km worth of it. It will be on 5 of the 7 GO Train lines. The total cost is expected to be around $27-$30 Billion.
THIS IS A BIG DEAL because it will really be a game changer for the entire GGH planning Region (Greater Golden Horseshoe Region -Toronto’s official and legally defined, commuting zone) none of this unofficial GTA crap anymore. This area has a current population of 9.87 million and an area of 31,561 km2. The entire province of Ontario has only 14.5 million in population. By 2051 the GGH Region is expected to have 15 million. The federal and provincial governments have already built:
8.8 km of Subway,
2 Bus-ways of 52 km (18 km of heavy Bus-way in Mississauga and 34 km of Light Bus-way in York Region)
They are both spending big for the current round of projects:
2 subway extensions about 17km in total (1 already under construction and 1 to start next year)
1 15. 5 km long Automated Metro Line, (under construction)
1 19 km LRT line (11 km of it in tunnels) about to open and a 9.2 km extension (8 km of it in tunnels and yes, it’s under construction)
3 Surface LRT lines, Finch West-11km, Hamilton B-Line-10 km, what was the Hurontario Line but is now the Hazel McCallion LRT Line-18 km (all under construction)
That’s almost 100 km of rail rapid transit under construction or about to open, with more Subway, LRT and full scale BRT lines (real BRT lines with actual busways not BRT Lite, Vancouver) coming in the future.
Unfortunately, THIS JUST ISN’T ENOUGH.
Subways/Heavy rail/Metros can’t go everywhere. Even LRT and BRT have limits because like a Metro, Light Metro, LRT and BRT lines, they all have geographic travel limits. These lines can’t or more accurately, shouldn’t try to service into regional distances, they aren’t designed for it. Any operating cost saving you think you are getting is blown apart if the lines are too long. This is one of the big issues with the Langley extension of the Expo Line. It’s becoming too long to be useful. Do you want to go from Langley and sit for over an hour, stopping at every stop along the way to get to downtown Vancouver. I like trains and that would be hard for me. Considering the cost to build, the ever increasing high cost of operating the Expo Line, contrary to popular belief, the Expo Line isn’t cheap to operate. Add in the really small numbers this line extension will generate, is it worth it?
Even the most ardent subway proponents here know that, although you could probably get a few more km’s of outward expansion from of a couple of Toronto’s existing Subway lines, any of the major planned extensions are all, well within the boundary of the City of Toronto.
Could LRT and BRT lines go regional distances outside of the boundary of the City of Toronto yes, some have definite plans too but, if you are going to travel those kinds of distances, you sure can’t stop at every station. As the distance increases stopping at every stop takes too long for most commuters and offering local and express services on rail systems eats up huge amounts of carrying capacity. That’s why most of New York’s express subway lines operate on the older but numerous 4 track sections. The cost of building lines this long and grand are well documented but it’s the operating costs are where the real devil is.
It’s important to remember that, there are 30 separate, regional, semi-regional and municipal transit agencies in the GGH Region. There is some interest in having a common fare structure but due to the vastly different funding levels, provided to each of the agencies, an overarching super-regional transit agency is functionally and technically, a difficult issue (my thesis was on this subject), it’s more than likely, politically impossible.
No other local transit agency in Ontario, let alone the GGH Region wants to spend TTC levels (European spending levels) on their operational transit budget and Torontonians won’t tolerate less service. There basic operating and service frequency levels exceed TransLink’s by over 30%. It’s almost at what Montreal local transit service levels are. The current provincial government, well no provincial government, has had the desire to create an agency like TransLink here, even the pathological budget conscious Conservatives of the 1990’s “Common Sense Revolution” weren’t up for it. So the only answer is to use GO Transit, like it was originally intended, as a regional wide bridging service for all the region’s individual transit agencies.
Instead of normal commuter rail service on the cheap and already existing railway rights of way. Instead of dropping Billions on rapid transit lines built from scratch, that become more and more unaffordable to build and operate the longer they get, spend money on expanding the long distance rail lines that already exist. You go to true regional railways instead of commuter railways.
Where there is 1 track build another. When you have a 3 track corridor expand it to 4 tracks. Having to use over powered diesel locomotives to move longer and longer trains of passenger cars. Go electric, it provides the constant high power needed to move heavier longer trains. The electric trains can move and accelerate faster as well. Yes $27-$30 Billion is a lot but for 263 km of great electric powered service plus another 259 km of upgraded diesel train service. Think about it, how much would 263 km of SkyTrain cost? (a minimum of $65,750,000,000, based on current per km cost of SkyTrain, not including the extra costs for subway construction)
This why destroying Montreal’s Deux-Montange electric commuter rail line (Canada’s only one) for the s**t storm that is the REM is such a tragedy. The transit agency even owned all the track, including the tunnel into downtown Montreal and the yard for the EMU’s (Electric Multiple Units). The new REM line will actually have less passenger carrying capacity than the peak hour capacity they gave up using the EMU’s. It was only a lack of vision and budget that kept them from greatly expanding the line’s service. It not only destroyed one line, it essentially killed a brand new commuter rail line to eastern Montreal, equipped with dual diesel and electric powered locomotives, that shared the tunnel and downtown rail right of way as part of its route.
The improved GO service will be 1 train every 15 minutes, all day, both directions. Service of at a minimum of 1 train per hour, all day, both directions using diesel trains (off peak) on most of the remaining sections of the network and most of outer portions of the electrified lines, peak hour service will be higher on the rest of the network. The system is expected to be fully complete by 2032 and will run from 5 am to 2 am, daily. The first operating portions will be available by late 2026-early 2027.
The existing GO Train system has 7 rail lines, using 526.1 km of track (GO owns about 70% of it), with 90 locomotives and 845 Bi-Level passenger coaches (120 Cab-Control cars for push-pull operations). Initially, electric locomotives will be purchased and Bi-Level 4 section (4 Car) EMU’s will come later. 4 Section (Car) EMU’s are going to be used because they can be easily joined to form 8 and 12 section (car) trains in the peak hours and more financially viable, 4 car trains for weekends or late evening service.
The Lakeshore East and West lines already have a minimum service frequency of every 30 minutes (off peak), both directions, all day, between Hamilton-Toronto Union (Lakeshore West) and Toronto Union-Oshawa (Lakeshore East).
Currently, the system uses Bombardier designed (originally UTDC), Bi-Level passenger equipment similar to the West Coast Express.
The diesel locomotives are tier 3&4 (the highest 2 levels) compliant and considerably more powerful than the ones WCE (West Coast Express) uses. GO Transit uses MPI (Motive Power International) MP40 PH-3C, tier 3 compliant at 4000 hp (horse power) and MPI MP54AC, tier 4 compliant at 5400 hp. WCE uses 3000 hp tier 3 compliant, diesel locomotives. GO Transit must use these behemoths because the Lakeshore East Line, Lakeshore West Line (with some through service to Niagara), the Kitchener Line (with some through service to London) all use 12 car trains and the 4 remaining lines use either 8 and 10 car trains.
Cheers,
Haveacow
Toronto’s service transit service area, superimposed on Metro Vancouver.
The Expo and Millennium Line are the region’s Rail Rapid Transit Lines that connect key locations across Metro Vancouver. The Expo Line opened in 1985 and was the region’s first rail rapid transit line. Since its inception over thirty years ago, the region has extended the original Expo Line from Vancouver to Surrey and built the Millennium Line to reach Coquitlam.
To accommodate the future growth of the region, and to support longer trains and more frequent service, we are making major investments over the next ten years. These upgrades will keep the system safe, reliable, and comfortable for our current and future customers.
When the program is fully implemented, the Expo Line will be able to move 17,500 passengers per hour per direction, and the Millennium Line will be able to move 7,500 passengers per hour per direction. This represents a 32 and 96 per cent increase respectively over the existing capacity.
What, increase the Millennium Line capacity to 7,500 pphpd?
I know that the term capacity is not used, but it is certainly has been inferred!
The Business Case analysis assumes a capacity of 4,080 for LRT, on the Evergreen Line which it states is not enough, and compares it to SkyTrain capacity of 10400.!
Yet today, according to TransLink, the Millennium Line’s Capacity is much less than 7,500 pphpd and nowhere near the 10,400 pphpd as claimed in the Evergreen line’s business case!
This also points to the City of Vancouver’s bogus claim that an at-grade LRT could only manage slightly more than 7,000 pphpd on Broadway, despite the fact that coupled sets of PCC cars were moving an excess of 12,000 pphpd, on the Toronto’s Bloor/Danforth line, in the late 1040’s!
An excerpt from Modern Tramways in 1983.
So, has TransLink, again, been caught selling “Porkies”.
Is this the reason the Millennium Line can only operate two car trains is because it cannot operate four car trains because it was not designed to operate four car trains from the start?
This could also explain BC’s Attorney General, David Eby’s reluctance to pursue any sort of investigation of TransLink and why due diligence of transit projects is no longer practice by the province and Metro Vancouver.
Where is the mainstream media? Hiding in a corner, afraid to tackle real issues, it seems!
This upgrade program also shows that there is not the ridership potential on the Broadway to justify a subway, even after the upgrade.
What is being hidden from the public is the simple fact a modern, at-grade LRT/tram could easily handle the projected traffic flows which the Millennium Line subway to UBC can handle, but also handle increased traffic flows at a far cheaper cost than the current, full build $8 billion Broadway/UBC, with a limited capacity of a mere 7,500 pphpd – afterupgrade!
More and more, the evidence is adding up that TransLink aand the chief benificarry of the Broadway subwaym the city of Vancouver, has not been honest with the public, more and more, there is a need for a judicial inquiry into TransLink and current transit planning, yet premier John Horgan and Attorney General David Eby remain deaf for such an inquiry.
Malcolm Johnston, local transit advocate and long time thorn in the side of TransLink, is offering his views of the pre civic election hype regarding the oten announced Massey Tunnel replacement.
The one issue that puzzles Zwei is the idea that a bridge will carry more traffic than a tunnel, if both have equal traffic lanes, the carrying capacity of both would be the same.
That politicians are selling the idea that the new tunnel will solve local transit issues, which is tantamount of gifting the public with false information because despite the new tunnel extra lanes and increased capacity, the Oak and Knight Street bridges will still only offer the same four lanes northbound and four lanes southbound. Steveston and New Westminster Hwy’s will still have only two lanes in each direction and are gridlocked (as Zwei found out recently) in peak hours.
The problem with bus service is that customers want their direct bus service back to Vancouver and not to be forcibly transferred to the Canada Line in a very inconvenient way.
So this begs the question, asked in the letter from Mr. Johnston:
Where is the extra traffic going to go?
Letters: Hype and hoopla about nothing
The fake news and the alternative facts concerning the bridge or tunnel constantly spewed by the BC Liberals, the NDP and local mayors is breathtaking
Letter to the editor Mar 24, 2022 7:00 PM
Editor:
The hype and hoopla with the re-announcement of a new tunnel, replacing the perfectly good Massey Tunnel, shows a complete failure in regional transportation planning and a complete omission of any thought to Global Warming.
The Massey Tunnel replacement was a BC Liberal initiative, to build a bridge to replace the current tunnel, thus allowing Cape Max. tankers and colliers to Surrey Docks to load dirty Montana coal and Braken oil, transported by the BN&SF Railway, saving wheelage charges paid, for using BC Rail’s Delta Supper Port line.
The fake news and the alternative facts concerning the bridge or tunnel constantly spewed by the BC Liberals, the NDP and local mayors is breathtaking
What will a $4 billion tunnel do? Create more congestion and more gridlock
Any time savings made will soon be lost as more traffic will use Highway 99 and with Richmond roads now gridlocked in peak hours and no new crossing servicing North of the Fraser, will turn this major highway into a $4 billion parking lot.
Studies show that increasing a highway’s capacity in urban areas, generates more traffic, leading to continued congestion and gridlock.
Contrary to the “pork pies” being sold by MLA’s and mayors, no rapid transit will ever use the new bridge or tunnel.
The Canada Line will not be expanded and Bus Rapid Transit or BRT is nothing more than a political gimmick, to build more highways.
Global warming; the heat dome; and last November’s destructive monsoon, sent a blunt message to our politicians that we must change and sadly the message has fallen on deaf ears. Our elected officials, still believing that higher taxes will cure global warming, continue with good old BC “black top politicas” and Translink is still planning for obsolete, 1980 transit solutions for 2022.
This witch’s brew of rubber on asphalt planning will lead the region to a financial & transportation fiasco within the next decade.
Malcolm Johnston
followed by…….
Letters: If you have a better solution, let’s hear it
The reality that opening the new tunnel in 2025 (I think) will cause gridlock somewhere else on the #99 raises another issue
Letter to the editor Mar 31,
Editor:
Re: Hype and Hoopla about Nothing – letter from Malcolm Johnston (online, March 24).
Mr. Johnston appears to be making the point that the replacement of the Massey Tunnel with more lanes of traffic will simply cause even more gridlock elsewhere along the #99.
I can’t be sure, but that seems to be the purpose of his letter.
I have always thought that any expansion project is meant to cater for suppressed demand, or forecast demand if the planners get it right. When a new wing is built on a hospital, it usually fills up very quickly. Is this because more people are getting sick? Probably not. More likely, some of the population has not been able to receive the hospitalization they deserve quickly enough until the extension is commissioned. Does the fact that the extension fills up so quickly mean that it shouldn’t have been built? Not at all.
The same with any arterial road expansion. The planners know there is suppressed demand and future demand waiting for the expansion. The fact that it attracts a whole lot of additional traffic is proof of this, and, I must say, justifies the expansion project very quickly. I’m sure the new Massey Tunnel will be a case in point.
The reality that opening the new tunnel in 2025 (I think) will cause gridlock somewhere else on the #99 raises another issue. No expansion project can keep lockstep pace with increasing demand. Projects by their nature are “lumpy” and not perfectly incremental, so the planners have to go with the expansion project that will bring the most public convenience per dollar, and then keep planning the next expansion accordingly.
If Mr. Johnston knows of a way to expand arterial roads incrementally according to incremental demand, he should let the Roads Department know right away instead of writing letters about “black top politicas” and fake “fake news”.
Chris Stanton
A printed rebuttal
Editor:
Letters: Playing a fool’s game
The daily congestion at the Massey Tunnel, should have been a win for TransLink
Letter to the editor
Mr. Stanton’s letter, replying to my letter (which appeared on-line last week), seeks an answer.
The simple belief, adding more road-space will solve congestion, is a fool’s game as it will just attract more vehicles, creating greater congestion and gridlock at choke points.
The gridlock on Highway 1 from the North Shore to Abbotsford, during peak hours, is daily proof that adding more road-space does not cure congestion.
The failure of TransLink and the Mayor’s Council on Transit, to provide user-friendly transit for South of the Fraser, is more than an embarrassment, it is a show of incompetence. The empty buses now plying city streets are alarm bells no one is listening to.
The daily congestion at the Massey Tunnel, should have been a win for TransLink to provide a successful user-friendly transit service, but TransLink is not up to the task and taking the car is the only real solution.
All TransLink seems capable of is planning for stale, dated 1970 transit solutions for 2022 and beyond. Multi-billion dollar light metro schemes are being built for land speculation and land development, rather than providing a good public transit alternative.
With ample fake news and alternative facts, to hide current incompetence, politicians play the good old “rubber on asphalt” political game, building more roads, bigger bridges and tunnels for more cars, creating more pollution, at a critical time that we are supposed to be reducing greenhouse gasses.
The sad fact is, gridlock is good for reducing pollution, as it should force the government to look at other solutions, but in B.C., that is not happening as both the NDP and Liberal governments seem to do the same thing over and over again, ever hoping for different results
It will be interesting in Quebec, comparing Montreal’s REM light-metro to Quebec city’s European style tram.
Quebec City Tramway details
The Quebec City $4 billion tramway project will involve the construction of tunnel sections and 36 stations, five of which will be underground. The proposal includes incorporating an integrated system of tramways, electric tram bus and reserved bus lanes.
It will have two routes. The first route will be a 23km-long line, connecting Charlesbourg to Cap-Rouge via Parliament Hill. Approximately 3.5km of the tramway will pass through underground sections. The 17km-long second route will be a fully electrified bus rapid transit (BRT) line served by articulated buses.
40 years of SkyTrain light-metro has created a transit planning vacuum in Metro Vancouver, where a world acknowledged affordable and user-friendly transit mode has not only been ignored by local politicians and planners, the tram has been actively libeled and slandered by the mainstream media, Metro Vancouver politicians and brueacrarts and the provincial government.
What is so sad, despite the federal, provincial and civic politcal spin of fake news and alternative facts, if we do not accept the modern tram has a proven tool to fight global warming, we (society) will ,loose the fight to minimize environmental damage to the region.
Until our local politicians grow up and stop playing trains, by planning $3 billion subways to nowhere or a $3.95 billion line into a bog, the environmental fight will be over.
Unlike Calgary or Edmonton, which operate 1980’s LRT, which was based on German Stadtbahn; Ottawa, where its new LRT is more like a light metro than LRT; or Toronto where LRT is planned as a light metro and only now is the streetcar system being updated with modern trams; Quebec is planning a tramway.
Quebec’s new tramway will be a showcase of a 21st century tramway operation and philiosophy.
Quebec City tramway finally gets green light as province gives unconditional approval
Mayor Bruno Marchand says project is needed to reduce emissions, improve mobility
CBC News ·
Quebec City’s tramway project has been in development for years, but the CAQ government had threatened to put conditions on its approval. (Ville de Québec)
The Legault government has finally authorized Quebec City to launch its long-delayed tramway project and Mayor Bruno Marchand says he’s ready to get started.
“We have many environmental issues that we have to address. And we have to deliver solutions. This is a great solution,” Marchand said on Wednesday after cabinet approved decrees without any of the conditions that had previously been discussed.
Quebec Transport Minister François Bonnardel said it is now up to the city’s mayor to better communicate the benefits of the tramway project in order to convince as many citizens as possible.
And that’s just what Marchand began that very afternoon, touting the importance of a project that he said will help carry the city into a more environmentally friendly future by reducing emissions and improving mobility.
“It’s the best way to respond to some of the big environmental challenges that we face,” he said.
Premier François Legault and his government had voiced concerns over the project’s potential impact on vehicular traffic.
The government demanded better social acceptability before authorizing the tramway and was at first saying the adoption of related ministerial decrees would be conditional on the development of shared streets along the route.
Last month, Marchand harshly criticized the Legault government for standing in the way of the project.
Quebec Transport Minister François Bonnardel said on Wednesday that it is now up to Quebec City’s mayor to get support from residents for the tramway project. (Radio-Canada)
Then on Tuesday, Legault said he was not going to interfere in the powers of the city by remodeling “the layout and the detail.”
“It will be up to the mayor of Quebec City to decide how he does that,” he told reporters.
Bonnardel said regardless of the unconditional decrees, the provincial government still expects a certain level of social acceptability for the project. However, he declined to delve further into what that means.
“Everyone can have their own definition of social acceptability. I have mine. I will keep it to myself,” he said.
Clash between city, province
This should put an end to the first head-to-head clash between the Coalition Avenir Québec government and Quebec City’s new mayor, but Marchand says that’s not what’s important.
“It’s not about the ego of the mayor. It’s all about the citizens of Quebec,” said Marchand, who expects the tramway to be up and running on city streets by 2028.
Quebec City Mayor Bruno Marchand says the tramway project is key to improving mobility and addressing urgent environmental concerns. (Radio-Canada)
He said this project is about carrying the city into the future, getting motorists off the road and reducing emissions in a time when environmental issues are urgent.
“We have to act and we have to act quickly,” he said.
The project, which will cost at least $4 billion, has been delayed by several months, and the Liberal opposition said last week that each day of delay costs the project $274,000.
The Quebec government’s decision has unlocked $124 million to begin preparations. Construction is to start in the summer of 2023.
Labeaume’s dream passed down to new mayor
Quebec City’s tramway was longtime mayor Régis Labeaume’s passion project but was passed on to Marchand when Labeaume retired from municipal politics in November 2021.
Quebec City and the province have gone back and forth for years on the proposed route — whether it would be part of an eventual third link between Quebec City and Lévis, and how the tramway would be incorporated into existing city infrastructure.
They finally reached a verbal agreement on a redesign just over a year ago, and since then, it’s just been a matter of these final decrees.
Now with the project moving forward, Marchand said he has work to do when it comes to convincing all Quebec City residents of the project’s importance.
Some residents will never see it his way, he said, but he is determined to make a difference for future generations.
“We greatly appreciate today that we are able to move forward on time to deliver according to the deadlines that we have promised,” Marchand said.
with files from Radio-Canada, La Canadienne presse and CBC’s Émilie Warren
Good old Zwei is getting on and he does not observe the transit system as he once did, but with Covid in mind and “huff and puff” coming from regional mayors about transit, good old Zwei will make an observation; “The Tesla and the current tranche of electric cars now roaming metro Vancouver’s streets and roads, make current billion dollar investments obsolete before the first “yard” of cement is poured for light-metro expansion.
The cheapest electric cars for sale in Canada range between $38,000 to $45,000, not including government grants and exemptions. The electric car is well within the grasp of the middle class. This will only cascade more cars in metro Vancouver.
Watching a main arterial during rush hour the other day, I saw a parade of electric cars pass by, most with one occupant, but when the express buses went by only 5 to 10 seats were filled.
One wonders if those driving electric cars were former transit customers?
My neighbour just purchased an electric car for family use but his daughter is now commuting to UBC from Delta as “it is much faster and safer”; according to him.
“Before with the bus, she had a 2 hour commute with two transfers and that was only if she made the transfer connection on time. It made late night travel dangerous and even longer as buses sometimes did not run to schedule. with the car she can be at UBC in an hour.”
South Delta and South Surrey used to have a direct express bus service to downtown Vancouver, but with the opening of the Canada line and a secret deal inked between the province of BC and TransLink with the operating concessionaires, SNC lavalin and the Caisse du Depot, that all South Fraser bus routes must terminate at Bridgeport Station to forcibly transfer bus customers to the Canada line light metro.
Predicted ridership did not materialize and despite politcal hype and hoopla, the Canada line did not attract the all important driver from the car.
Provincial government meddling with the transit system, slowly making it into a social service rather operating transit as a business, has further degraded the the transit system.
The 8-lane tunnel, replacing the perfectly good Massey Tunnel is testament of TransLink’s complete failure in providing a user friendly bus service South of the Fraser as the major highway expansion associated with the new tunnel is designed to accommodate more cars.
A quote from Facebook sums up the transit problem:
I live in Mt Pleasant and a few years ago my work moved to Delta from East Van. I lasted about 8 months on transit; 3 buses and 1 Skytrain in the hodgepodge of a system, until I ended up getting my first electric car because the commute was so vile. Does anyone who has any say in transit here actually use it?
Who knew, indeed.
From my observations, it seems the electric car has trumped TransLink for those commuting South of the Fraser and makes me wonder if the current multi billion SkyTrain light metro expansion is just flushing transit money down the toilet.
I guess Mass Transit was hard up for a story and I would have given this story a miss, being a technical paper. Except, the last paragraph is a first class example of bureaucratic baffle gab, so typical of TransLink and well worth someone’s six figured salary!
“Building on our extensive 30-plus-year experience, starting from a demonstration project, to being one of the longest automated systems in the world, we generally have an idea of what hasn’t provided value,” added Geoff Morbey, BCRTC’s director of railway infrastructure. “This knowledge is very helpful as we transition from our previous reactive maintenance methodologies, to one that entails a holistic asset management approach, balancing between the life cycle of the assets, the state of good repair and the overall customer experience.”
The Expo Line was not a demonstration project, the Social Credit government forced the GVRD and BC Transit to build with ALRT operating on the Expo Line.
You will get SkyTrain whether you like it or not was the refrain from the social Credit and the also with the NDP, with their flip flop from LRT to light metro, for what became the Millennium Line.
My question as always been and yet always unanswered by those in power:
If SkyTrain is so good, why has no one copied Vancouver’s transit planning and its exclusive use of light metro?
Maintenance teams are taking a holistic asset management approach toward the rail system and balancing asset life cycle, the state of good repair and the overall customer experience.
SkyTrain, Vancouver’s iconic rail transit system, is a system in motion. Since the opening of the original Expo Line, named and timed to coincide with the 1986 World Exposition on Transportation and Communication (Expo 86), SkyTrain, which moves more than 115 million commuters per year pre-COVID-19, has been a story of expansion and growth, and the growing pains that come with it.
Zwei replies: As there is no independent audit of ridership, the 115 million commuters claim is questionable.
A modern system when it opened in 1986, unforeseen wheel and rail wear issues started to appear shortly after startup. A few years of trial and error and hard-won development of innovative rail profile grinding and wheel re-truing programs, along with the introduction of newly developed friction modifiers, normalized wear and stabilized the system. All was good. Unfortunately, as often happens on transit systems, competing priorities and cost reductions led to a lapse in SkyTrain’s focus on rail maintenance practices.
Zwei replies: During Expo 86, wheel wear was so bad the the wheels had to be air freighted, to keep the mini-metro in operation.
SkyTrain is maintained and operated by British Columbia Rapid Transit Company (BCRTC) as part of TransLink, Metro Vancouver’s transportation authority, and is relatively new as urban transit systems go. The 30-km (18.6-mile) Expo Line opened in 1986 and added extensions in the 1990s. The 20-km (12.4-mile) Millennium Line was added in 2002 and the 11-km (6.8-mile) Evergreen extension in 2016. All told, the system is comprised of 121 kilometers (75.2 miles) of standard-gauge, double-track utilizing 115-pound rail with an assortment of resilient rail fasteners on concrete slab track and fully automated train control (GoA4). The system has 39 stations and operates up to 21 hours per day, seven days a week. Most of the system is built on elevated guideway—hence the name SkyTrain –but there are also approximately 18 kilometers (11.2 miles) of underground and at-grade track. The maximum normal operating speed is 80 km/h (approximately 50 mph).
Zwei replies: Commercial speed of SkyTrain is around 42 kph, 80 kph is the maximum speed the train can travel.
Three generations of rolling stock — MK I vehicles built by Urban Transportation Development Corporation Ltd. (UTDC) and MK II and MK III vehicles built by Bombardier (before it was acquired by Alstom) — operate in two-, four- and six-car sets, depending on the line. Vehicles are driven by a linear induction propulsion system with two linear induction motors mounted on the underside of each vehicle 10 mm above the reaction rail, which is installed between the running rails. The wheels do not generate tractive effort. Electricity for the propulsion system is delivered via power rails mounted on the inside of the guideway parapet walls. Solid steel, high-conicity wheels are mounted on self-steering bogies, which are unique in North America.
Zwei replies: The self steering bogies are a huge maintenance problem, an inherent problem that creates higher maintenance costs.
“The steerable bogies can handle very tight curvature with minimal flange contact, so there is very little gauge-face rail wear in curves. This allows BCRTC to use a single rail profile for tangents and curves on the system,” said Matt Doyle, TransLink director of Project Management. “The downside is that we see corrugation and related noise and ride quality issues.”
In addition to corrugation, wear-related issues resurfaced with the capacity expansion for the 2010 Winter Olympics SkyTrain added 48 new cars, representing 24 additional trains — a 20 percent increase in traffic — to the system.
“I don’t think we fully appreciated the impact that the higher frequency service would have on the system, specifically its effect on the rail,” Doyle said.
Zwei replies: Really, the more trains run, the more wear and tear on the system and the more maintenance needed. This is sort of Transit 101 for beginners.
By 2014, the wear and tear from millions of service kilometers manifested itself in rail surface shelling and spalling, noise-generating corrugation and, more significantly, a couple “reportable” rail defects that required intervention — clear indications to management that it was losing the fight.
Zwei replies: These problems were well known in the early 1990’s.
“The system was degrading quicker than we could maintain it,” Doyle said.
Concerned that further degradation of the rail surface could lead to replacing significant amounts of rail if this trend wasn’t addressed more effectively, Doyle, who was BCTRC’s director of railway infrastructure at the time, brought in Advanced Rail Management (ARM) to conduct a comprehensive assessment of rail and wheel conditions throughout the system.
Immediately evident during ARM’s initial inspection and assessment was a broad wheel/rail contact band, indicting a high degree of wheel/rail conformality that contributed to the development and growth of rolling contact fatigue and corrugation, which in turn led to further deterioration and excessive wheel/rail-generated noise on the system.
Zwei replies: the rail corrugations have been an ongoing problem since the light metro opened. Noise complaints from late night grinding and higher maintenance costs, tended to restrict rail grinding, until it was essential to do it.
“The precise operation of SkyTrain’s Automated Train Operation (ATO) system, which ensures that trains accelerate and decelerate at the exact same locations when coming into and leaving stations, tends to generate corrugation on the system, especially on the older, softer rail on the original Expo Line,” said ARM Director of Projects and Business Development Mark Reimer.
Zwei replies: Bombardier Inc. is no longer supporting the CityFlow ATC used.
The most significant type of defect observed was the formation of squats, which are created by high wheel/rail creep forces that stress the rail material just below the surface, producing shelling that results in material breaking out from the rail surface.
“A lot of damage occurred in high-impact areas, such as turnouts,” Reimer said.
Following the assessment, the first order of business was to conduct a corrective grinding program to remove the surface damage and as many defects as possible (some of the shells were too deep to be removed by grinding). The next order of business was to concurrently re-apply the target rail profile, which is designed to perform with SkyTrain’s custom wheel profiles and work as a wheel/rail system.
Ramped up rail grinding
While BCRTC regularly operates an in-house eight-stone switch and crossing grinder, it alone is not sufficient to address the amount of maintenance required of the rail on the system. SkyTrain contracted ARM, which brought in Loram Maintenance of Way, Inc., which operates an eight-stone production grinder with higher horsepower motors, to perform the initial corrective grind (and the subsequent annual grinding program of approximately 40 shifts per year) under the direction of an ARM grinding specialist.
The initial corrective grind focused on the Expo Line, which had the oldest and softest rail on the system and needed the most attention. This was followed by the Millennium and the newer Evergreen lines. With the most serious rail surface damage addressed by the initial corrective grind, BCRTC and ARM directed their efforts toward getting the system into a maintenance mode and ultimately into a preventive mode of grinding. A critical aspect of the ongoing program is to fully utilize the available work windows to maximize productivity.
“Effective contract grinding requires a collaborative effort,” said Peeter Vesik, BCRTC asset integration project manager, who, in his former role as technical analyst in the Rail Maintenance Division, coordinated the contract and in-house grinding programs over the past five years. “We know that grinding is not cheap. We’re always looking for ways to gain efficiency by trying different methods, speeds and stones to complete as much work per shift as possible to maximize our maintenance windows”
Zwei replies: The continual rail grinding drives up maintenance costs.
In addition to managing the nightly grinding effort to ensure that all defects that can be removed are removed and that the target profile and the desired contact band are returned to spec, ARM also advises BCRTC on which segments of track are most effectively covered by the contract grinder and which are best addressed by the in-house grinder. The in-house grinder currently completes 60 to 70 kilometers (37.3 to 43.5 miles) of maintenance grinding per year.
“ARM is really good at listening to us about our needs and finding solutions to problems,” Vesik said. “They track their own grinding progress on a daily basis and provide detailed reporting through their ARMapp software, which also tracks the locations and number of passes and segments completed by our own in-house grinding.”
BCRTC has learned over the years to make the most of the grinding effort by single tracking — grinding on one track while operating revenue trains on the other — where possible. Instead of starting work at 1:00 a.m., as was typically the case, grinding now starts at 11:00 p.m. Single tracking enables BCRTC to better utilize its maintenance windows while still providing sufficient service during hours in which ridership is traditionally lower.
“When your track windows are only two- to three-hours long, the extra grinding time allows us to effectively double the work window. That’s huge,” Vesik said.
Zwei replies: Now we know why the system cannot run 24/7.
BCRTC has also learned to strategically stage the grinding equipment when parking it for the night so that it’s in position to make the most of the available window the following night.
“We make sure that a fuel truck can access the location, grinding stones can be replaced and other daily maintenance can be performed. We do this to minimize non-productive time because every minute of grind time is valuable,” he said.
BCRTC’s “bang-for-the-buck” productivity metric is track meters completed per shift. In each year since 2018, the contracted grinder has incrementally increased the average of completed track meters per shift, from 1,560 track meters per shift in 2018 to 2,007 track meters per shift in 2021. In addition to its dollars-and-cents calculation, the productivity metric also provides a snapshot of the overall rail condition on the system.
“The number of grinding passes required to restore or maintain rail is directly related to its condition,” Vesik said. “The need for fewer passes is an indicator that not only is the rail health improving, but that we are heading toward a preventative state, the goal of all railways.”
“There were some growing pains,” Doyle noted, but added that “we’re now transitioning from a corrective to a preventive grinding program and a state of continuous improvement. We have the ability to maintain our rail (and wheels) to an acceptable level, but we’re looking at how to make that more efficient and more responsive.”
Toward that end, SkyTrain is currently planning to replace its in-house grinders. Increased in-house capacity will enable BCRTC to advance its preventative grind program and balance grinding capacity with future line extensions on the horizon.
Noise: A condition indicator
With the rail surface condition well in hand, BCRTC was able to direct energy and resources toward another high-priority, high-profile issue — one that all rail transit systems face to varying degrees: noise. Specifically, wheel/rail-generated noise.
As a system that operates primarily on an elevated guideway near businesses and densely populated residential communities in Vancouver’s packed urban environment, noise is a genuine problem. And controlling it is a real challenge. But having successfully addressed one formidable challenge, the BCRTC engineering/maintenance team rolled up their sleeves to tackle another.
“Arresting wear and degradation was our problem, but we’ve moved beyond that,” Doyle said. “Noise is now our priority.”
“We don’t just want to mask noise or put a band-aid on the problem,” Vesik added, “We want to address the root cause.”
BCRTC determined that addressing — and ultimately reducing — wheel/rail-generated noise, which can exceed 90 decibels (dBA) on some parts the system, would not only benefit riders and neighbors near the tracks, , it could also serve as a bellwether of improving or degrading track conditions, since noise can be an indicator of track condition.
“Although noise isn’t necessarily a direct indicator of poor condition, we can use noise and impact vibration to home in on locations that may require maintenance,” Vesik said. “We can also look at the assets in these locations to see if we need to improve the materials, like using harder rail or a friction modifier, to reduce corrugation and increase the interval required for maintenance.”
While viewing asset management through a noise lens can be effective from a maintenance perspective, it also makes sense from a business perspective, Vesik says.
“Controlling noise helps improve the state of good repair and extends asset life. Looked at the other way, improving the state of good repair will likely improve ride quality and reduce noise and the number of residents’ complaints,” he explained.
“If we can control the noise to acceptable levels,” Doyle added, “we can be confident that the system is in a state of good repair.”
Since SkyTrain is not regulated by the U.S. Federal Transit Administration, BCRTC refers to a state of good repair as an engineering standard, rather than a legal or regulatory standard.
Zwei replies: And here is a massive problem, without a legal standard, TransLink can claim anything they wish and hide it under it being an “engineering problem”!
“Our goal is 100 percent asset performance when performing scheduled maintenance and being able to predict the end of the useful life of an asset and having a plan to replace it,” Vesik said.
With that in mind, TransLink commissioned a study in 2018 to assess noise on the SkyTrain system and recommend ways to deal with it. The initial report recommended looking into the feasibility and effectiveness of six noise-mitigation measures:
— Improvements to switch maintenance practices
— Investigation of harder rail steel
— Re-introduction of friction modifiers to improve long-term rail condition
— Improvements to rail grinding practices
— Installation of rail dampers to reduce noise radiated from the rails
— Development of guidelines for new residential developments near SkyTrain
BCRTC and its consultant SLR Consulting spent two years investigating these noise-mitigation measures. In each, BCRTC performed in-track prototype testing.
“We weren’t just investigating a theory,” Vesik said. “We collected data from actual field investigations into each of these measures to prove that they were, indeed, effective.”
For switch maintenance, for example, BCRTC replaced switches and monitored and compared impact levels to those from the previous installation to see if it could reduce and maintain a low-impact level. Investigation showed that replacing worn switches reduced noise levels by at least 10 dBA and possibly more. As a result, BCRTC implemented a program to replace turnouts that are approaching the end of their designed service life. On average, 10 of the 123 turnouts on the system will be replaced per year.
Rail dampers installed in areas with corrugated track reduced noise levels by up to six dBA. BCRTC is planning to use rail dampers to treat a total of 3.2 km (approximately two miles) of track in areas where residents are exposed to high noise levels and where other noise mitigation measures may not be effective.
For the friction management tests, BCRTC installed a wayside top-of-rail friction modifier system and monitored its performance for six months.
“We used the data collected at the site to measure friction levels and their effect on rail corrugation and noise with respect to a dry rail baseline,” said Vesik.
Data has also shown that the need for maintenance grinding correlates well to rail hardness. The softer 260-Brinnell (Bhn) rail that was laid when the Expo Line was built in the 1980s tends to corrugate and flatten out and lose its profile faster than harder 350-Bhn to 370-Bhn rails that are being installed on the system today.
“We found that while high-strength rail will still corrugate, we can extend the grinding cycles because it doesn’t corrugate as quickly,” Vesik told delegates at the annual Rail Transit Wheel/Rail Interaction conference in 2021.
The use of 370-Bhn replacement rail is expected to reduce noise levels by five dBA on the Expo Line.
BCRTC has also developed guidelines for acoustic assessment and design of new residential developments along the SkyTrain lines.
“The new development guidelines encourage and provide guidance to city planners and developers to design buildings around the transit system appropriately, and ensure dwellings are comfortable” Vesik said. “We’re working on the things that we can control, such as source noise, but designers also must be responsible.”
“Building on our extensive 30-plus-year experience, starting from a demonstration project, to being one of the longest automated systems in the world, we generally have an idea of what hasn’t provided value,” added Geoff Morbey, BCRTC’s director of railway infrastructure. “This knowledge is very helpful as we transition from our previous reactive maintenance methodologies, to one that entails a holistic asset management approach, balancing between the life cycle of the assets, the state of good repair and the overall customer experience.”
People wait to board the 301 Brighouse bunch to Richmond at Newton Exchange on Friday, March 20, 2020. (File photo: Lauren Collins)
Recent Comments