A Decade Later, Nothing Changes – A Repost From 2010
A decade later and the same same ills plague transit planning in the Metro Vancouver region. The strangle hold that Vancouver and Surrey have on the region is causing much fiscal mismanagement, as it is deemed, what is good for Vancouver and Surrey politicians is good for the region.
The provincial government seems OK with this regional dictatorship and do nothing.
Democracy, not in Metro Vancouver where “strongmen rule”.
Updates:
- The Broadway Subway to Arbutus is budgeted to cost slightly under $3 billion and to continue it to UBC, another $4 to $5 billion must be found.
- The Expo Line extension to Langley is now running at about $200 million/km to build and the $1.5 billion earmarked for that project will only build about 7 km, thus extending the Expo line to Fleetwood and not Langley.
- Vancouver’s downtown Eastside or DTES has only got worse, far worse, yet Vancouver politicians pander to land developer/speculators, by building a subway on a route without near enough the ridership to sustain it.
- The province and Metro Vancouver still do not recognize the Leewood Study.
- Sadly, Rick Green and Dianne Watts are no longer mayors and no longer in politics.
Leaving Lotus Land
Posted by zweisystem on Monday, November 1, 2010
I find it strange that Vancouver politicians, past and present, still view themselves as the centre of the universe and whatever is built or done in Vancouver is considered immediately as being good or the delightful local phrase, “world class“. Of course, Vancouver’s internationally notorious downtown Eastside is conveniently forgotten by everyone, throw away people are always conveniently forgotten. This myopic view is leading the region down a dangerous road of high debt and questionable planning practices, yet very little is done and everyone carries on as if they were “the best place on earth“. Those who question the status quo are instantly labeled naysayers and derided. Because of this, those who live outside Vancouver and its environs, refer to the city and its citizens as “Lotus land“.
“In the afternoon they came unto a land
In which it seemed always afternoon.
All around the coast the languid air did swoon,
Breathing like one that hath a weary dream.”
— Tennyson, “The Lotus Eaters”
The unelected METRO Vancouver Regional Board and the similarly unelected TransLink Board, both dominated by Vancouver politicians, have insulated themselves from public scrutiny which has greatly eroded the regional publics faith in the two institutions. What support is there for both METRO and TransLink is swiftly eroding.
There are solutions to alleviate the problems associated with METRO and TransLink, but politicians, ever fearful of loosing political power, reject reform out of hand. In BC, according to the local spin, public involvement diminishes democracy.
Where is this leading………
On September 21, 2010, Rail for the Valley released a ground breaking report for ‘rail’ transit for the Fraser Valley.
http://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/2010/09/21/groundbreaking-report-on-interurban-light-rail/
Despite wide media exposure, the response from TransLink has been deafening; there has been no response – no acknowledgment of the report by TransLink. This speaks volumes about the planning bureaucrats in their insulated ivory towers on Kingsway; they do not want to address any transit plan other than their own, especially the RftV/Leewood TramTrain Report.
TransLink, which can’t find the $400 million to pay its share for the yet to be started Evergreen SkyTrain light-metro line, is busily planning for a $4 billion subway under Broadway to UBC and a $2 billion plus SkyTrain light-metro extension to Langley! TransLink, refuses to recognize that the same amount of money spent on a light rail construction program would provide about five to ten times more route mileage that what can be had with SkyTrain!
Without public oversight, TransLink’s planning managers refuse to address real transit and transportation problems that have beset the region and spend countless hours, days, weeks (and spending countless taxpayers dollars as well) in the arcane world of light-metro planning and trying convince the public with outright propaganda that the TransLink way is the right way; the only way!
Even TransLink’s ‘trolls of war’ are finding harder and harder to bamboozle the public on various blogs, etc.
Until TransLink is made to plan for affordable transit options, the ponderous bureaucracy will carry on producing one SkyTrain plan after another and the METRO Vancouver region will wallow in traffic chaos, expensive public transit and ever higher property taxes and transit fares without any light at the end of the tunnel.
What politician in BC, civic or provincial, is not afraid to bell the TransLink Cat!
None it seems, except for Mayors Dianne Watts of Surrey and Rick Green of the Township of Langley!
The time has come to speak of many things and leave the city of the Lotus, to dream dreams of SkyTrain and subways; it is time for the South Fraser region to leave TransLink.
From Jan. 2011
Pertinent today, as it was almost ten years ago.
From January 2011:
Rail For the Valley completes Analysis of Fraser Valley Transit Study
Posted by John Buker on Tuesday, January 11, 2011
- The DRL analysis on which these capital costs are based include extensive re-working, double-tracking and other elaborate expenditures on a small section of Interurban track in Surrey to make it suitable for a West Coast Express-style Heavy Rail service. The study crudely extrapolates this cost to the entire 98 km length of track, without any actual analysis of the track, and assumes falsely the light rail cost to be the same as the DRL estimate, resulting in a grossly inflated cost. The independent Leewood-Interurban report of September 2010 in fact did perform a track analysis, and made it very clear the DRL options were unncessary for light rail and that a far more affordable system achieving the same basic level of service can be built. The Leewood report found capital costs for an Interurban light rail service would be about $5 million/km including vehicles, a quarter the cost assumed in the Ministry report. This is similar to an earlier UMA Report by the City of Surrey estimate of $6 million/km.
- The capital cost of initially building the system was included in the annual cost analysis for Rail options as a yearly repayment amortized over 30 years. In contrast, road construction and maintenance costs are not included in the analysis of bus options, resulting in a completely misleading comparison between the two modes of transport.
- The total Capital cost of the entire project would be cost-shared by all three levels of government, with about a third of the cost shared by the affected municipalities (Delta, Surrey, Langley, Abbotsford, & Chilliwack). It is extremely misleading to compare the total capital cost of the project without cost sharing to the annual Abbotsford-Chilliwack FVRD transit budget.
The report exhibits an extreme bias in making the case for ‘Express’ Buses over Light Rail.
A stark example of this bias: Projected boardings per day for daily Interurban service between Abbotsford and Chilliwack is put at a maximum of 250 passengers. [6800 daily boardings for a hypothetical Chilliwack-Surrey Interurban service, minus 6550 boardings for the same shorter Abbotsford-Surrey service, gives an upper bound on the number of passengers travelling between Abbotsford and Chilliwack, Table 3.17, Foundation Paper #4]*However, when the report looks at the equivalent “Express Bus” service between Abbotsford and Chilliwack, with the same travel time (30 minutes) and the same frequency of service as the Rail service (30/60 minutes peak/off-peak), a very different number is arrived at: 800 boardings. [Table 3.6, Foundation Paper #4]*Buker summed up the comparison: By digging a little under the surface, one discovers shockingly that the report is actually assuming a regional bus service would attract more than triple the number of passengers of an equivalent light rail service. That’s more than a little hard to believe given that there are few cases where buses attract equal let alone greater ridership. If the Fraser Valley can support hourly bus service, or even half-hourly bus service, it can also support light rail, whose operating costs over the lifetime of the vehicles tend to actually be lower, when all costs are taken into account.”While there are positive ideas presented of enhanced local bus service within the study, the hard truth is ridership will not be high enough to sustain these types of services without a light rail backbone, particularly in places where just 1% of the population uses bus transit. The Ministry study is reactive “rubber tire” planning that in fact promotes urban sprawl, while light rail encourages sustainable growth along the corridor and attracts new riders who choose to leave their cars at home or at a station.
The many errors in the data and conclusions of this report are simply too numerous to list. For the most part, the new study is exactly what was always expected, highly polished and designed simply to discredit light rail, and push Victoria’s agenda for rapid bus implementation for the Fraser Valley.
An Ongoing Charade
Gordon Campbell is gone, due to his less than honest performance with the combined GST/PST, which cost him the Premiership. The public had enough and wanted him gone.
But, Gordon Campbell echoed then and what still echoes today with the Mayor’s Council on Transit, TransLink and in Victoria, that somehow SkyTrain is superior to light rail. The sad fact is, those who believe it is superior don’t have a clue what SkyTrain is, that it just the name for the regional light-metro system.
His performance with the Canada Line was not honest. Judge Pittfield, overseeing the Susan Heyes lawsuit against TransLink over cut-an-cove subway construction on Cambie St., devastating local business’s, called the bidding process for the Canada Line, with SNC Lavalin bidding against SNC Lavalin a “charade”.
Details, details……….
Is cut and cover subway construction coming to Broadway?
From 2010:
Mr. Campbell Responds to the Rail For The Valley/Leewood Report With Deciet
Posted by zweisystem on Saturday, September 25, 2010
Gordon Campbell has a very bad reputation for not telling the truth, in fact he is a habitual teller of very tall tales.
The Premier’s statement in the following article, ” But you know the operating costs of the SkyTrain are about 50 per cent a year less than with light rail. And the ridership is two and a half times greater with SkyTrain is a complete falsehood!
A 1996 comparison with Calgary’s C-Train LRT shows that the Expo Line costs 40% more to operate than Calgary’s LRT (both about the same length), yet the C-Train carries more passengers!
http://www.calgarytransit.com/html/technical_information.html
Operating costs, Calgary C-Train (2006).
- Vehicle Maintenance costs: $13.9M (2006)
- Station Maintenance costs: $2.8M (2006)
- Right of Way Maintenance costs: $2.9M (2006)
- Signals Maintenance costs: $2.4M (2006)
- Average annual power costs: $4.8M (2006)
- Annual LRV Operator wages: $6.0M (includes fringe benefits of 21.57%) (2006)
- Total – $32.8 million
A 2009 study done by UBC Professor Patrick Condon also showed SkyTrain as being very expensive to operate and in his study, SkyTrain had the highest cost to operate than any other transit mode in the study, which reflects much higher operating costs.
http://thetyee.ca/News/2010/09/16/StreetcarToBeDesired/
Mr. Campbell’s other statement that ridership is two times and half a much as LRT’s is pure fiction, both SkyTrain and LRT have the same potential capacities. To remind everyone, capacity is a function of headway & train length. This comment from the Toronto Transit Commissions 1980′s ART Study sums up SkyTrain potential capacity:
“ICTS (which SkyTrain was called at the time) costs anything up to ten times as much as a conventional 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.”
There is no independent study that shows that SkyTrain attracts more ridership than LRT, in fact at-grade/on-street light rail tends to be very good for attracting ridership.
There are other erroneous claims being made in the article and they will be dealt with later.
Mr. Campbell demeans himself with such claims, as he continues to demonstrate that truth is not in his lexicon. SkyTrain was built and will be built for reasons of political prestige and not what is best for the transit customer or the taxpayer. SkyTrain has failed to find a market domestically,in the USA and in Europe because it is both more expensive to build and more expensive to operate than its chief competitor modern LRT.
Mr. Campbell, Rail for the Valley demands honest debate for the future of transit in the region, not your half baked statements based on fiction, to pursue your political aims.
“Oh, what tangled webs we weave, when we first practice to deceive“, Mr. Campbell your tangled web of anti-LRT propaganda stops here, next time, deal in fact.
Burnaby News leader
By Jeff Nagel – BC Local News
SkyTrain detractors should consider the benefits of the technology and not focus solely on the lower cost of building new rapid transit lines with at-grade light rail, Premier Gordon Campbell said.
“It does cost less in capital it costs about $150 million less,” the premier said in an interview with Black Press, referring to price estimates for the Evergreen Line to Coquitlam.
“But you know the operating costs of the SkyTrain are about 50 per cent a year less than with light rail. And the ridership is two and a half times greater with SkyTrain.”
The decision to make the Evergreen Line a SkyTrain extension rather than a separate light rail line will ultimately move more people, faster at lower long-term costs, he predicted.
Campbell spoke Thursday, two days after the release of a new study from advocates who say a 100-kilometre light rail line from Surrey to Chilliwack can be opened on existing railway tracks for less than $500 million, compared to $1.4 billion for the 11-kilometre Evergreen Line.
Several mayors, including Surrey’s Dianne Watts, have lobbied for light rail for future lines.
Also critical to any transit expansion in the Lower Mainland, the premier said, is to ensure cities concentrate growth along transit corridors to support use of new lines while also making neighbourhoods more livable for walking and cycling.
“You can’t have an urban transit system at rural densities,” he said. “You have to actually give yourself a chance for transit to make ends meet.”
Campbell signed an accord with Metro Vancouver mayors Sept. 23 promising to explore a multitude of methods to raise more cash for transit expansion.
He said mayors are free to put on the table even contentious options like a vehicle levy or forms of road pricing, which the agreement notes can help shape how people choose to travel.
But he cautioned the key is to deliver good transit services that work and not merely try to use tolls or other fees to deter driving.
“You can’t punish people into transit,” he said. “People use the Canada Line because they love it. It meets their needs.”
Asked about public concern over the potential tolling of all three Fraser River bridges out of Surrey, Campbell downplayed the issue, saying the province determined in advance residents supported tolling the new Port Mann Bridge to deliver congestion relief.
“There’s always going to be someone who says ‘I don’t want to do it,’” he said, but cited the time savings for users of the Golden Ears Bridge.
“Think of the opportunities for connecting families, for moving goods.”
He said an “adult conversation” is required on the options to fund TransLink for the future.
Other parts of B.C. need transportation upgrades too, he said, adding the province will be hesitant about steering money to TransLink that deepens B.C.’s deficit or makes it harder to fund health care.
“If there was a simple answer it would have been done a long time ago.”
The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree – From 2010
Now, a decade later, the City of Vancouver’s Engineering Department still claims that LRT is limited to a capacity of only 7,000 to 8,000 pphpd!
Yet the very same CoV department has never mentioned that the Canada Line, with 40 metre long station platforms can, only allow 41 metre, 2 car trains, which limits capacity of the Canada Line to slightly more than half the maximum capacity of the Expo and Millennium Lines which is limited to a maximum of 15,000 pphpd!
For comparison, the longest tram now operating in the world, in Budapest is 56 metres long and has a capacity of over 350 people. Thus at a 3 minute headway or 20 trips per direction per hour (same as the current B-Line bus service, which offers a maximum capacity of around 2,000 pphpd), the CAF 56m Urbos tram has a capacity of over 7,000 pphpd; at a 2 minute headway or 30 trips per direction per hour, has a capacity of over 10,500 pphpd; and at a 90 second headway (which is common in Europe in peak hours) a maximum capacity of over 15,750. Or put another way, more capacity than the current maximum capacity of the Expo and Millennium Lines.
Mind you, the Broadway B-Line express bus offers a maximum capacity of around 2,000 pphpd, they why is the C0V and TransLink wasting billions of dollars on an expensive subway providing so much expensive unused capacity? If ridership demand doubled or tripled, a tram could easily handle the traffic at the current 3 minute headway’s offered by the B-Line bus route.
It really does make one go hmmm.
From 2010
The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree – TransLink’s Regional Transit Planning
Posted by zweisystem on Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Fruit of the poisonous tree is a legal metaphor in the United States used to describe evidence that is obtained illegally.The logic of the terminology is that if the source of the evidence (the “tree”) is tainted, then anything gained from it (the “fruit”) is as well.
TransLink’s planning officials still maintain that modern light rail has a limited capacity of about 10,000 persons per hour per direction and refuse to entertain the fact that they are wrong. All of TransLink planning, including the RAV/Canada Line, the Evergreen line, the Broadway/UBC rapid transit line, and Fraser Valley transportation have assumed LRT’s seemingly inferior capacity, despite the fact that modern LRT can carry in excess of 20,000 pphpd. TransLink and the media have portray LRT as a poorman’s SkyTrain.
Update, 2020: Transport Canada’s Operating Certificate limits the Expo and millennium Line to a maximum of 15,000 pphpd.
The assumption that light rail has only a capacity of 10,000 pphpd is wrong.
The Light Rail Transit Association [ www.lrta.org ], which can trace its history back 63 years, which has continually campaigned for affordable and efficient public transit, defines light rail transit as:
“a steel wheel on steel rail transit mode, that can deal economically with traffic flows of between 2,000 and 20,000 passengers per hour per direction, thus effectively bridging the gap between the maximum flow that can be dealt with using buses and the minimum that justifies a metro.”
The following study from the LRTA, shows that even in 1986, it was generally understood that modern LRT could carry 20,000 pphpd.
http://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/2010/05/20/the-1986-lrta-study-bus-lrt-metro-comparison/
More recently, (2006) Calgary Transit LRT Technical Data page claims that the maximum theoretical capacity of the C-Train is 30,700 pphpd!
Maximum THEORETICAL single direction capacity (pass./hr/dir) at 256 pass./car and 2 min. headway:
3-car train 23,040
4-car train 30,720http://www.calgarytransit.com/html/technical_information.html
If TransLink’s basic assumption about light rail (including streetcar) is wrong, then TransLink’s entire planning history, regarding bus, LRT, and SkyTrain is wrong and is not worth the paper it is printed on. Yet TransLink, without any public scrutiny and very little political oversight, continues to plan for hugely expensive SkyTrain light-metro projects, which supposed support for, has been heavily biased by questionable studies and even more questionable tactics – all fruit from the poisonous tree!
Noted American transportation expert Gerald Fox, summed up his observations on the TransLink business case for the Evergreen line;
“It is interesting how TransLink has used this cunning method of manipulating analysis to justify SkyTrain in corridor after corridor, and has thus succeeded in keeping its proprietary rail system expanding.”
Has TransLink’s regional transit planning over the past ten years nothing more than “Fruit of the poisonous tree?”, based on the fact that TransLink’s bureaucrats desire that light rail (LRT) be seen inferior to SkyTrain, on paper, to ensure further planning and building of their cherished light metro system?
Rail for the Valley would welcome TransLink’s clarification on this issue!
From September 15, 2010 – A Decade later, Nothing Has Changed
What I find amusing is that policy on regional transit has not changed as politicians do the same thing over and over again, ever expecting different results.
It’s easy and they just don’t have to waste time dithering over details and anyways; “the taxpayer has deep pockets and will ante up to pay for our largess“.
That was pre covid-19, things have changed.
As taxes increase, and they will, to pay off the covid-19 emergency measures, the taxpayer will be keenly aware of expenditures and demand the same of elected officials and the bureaucracy.
In the near future, doing the same thing over and over again might just be a hard sell to over taxed voters and that is sending shivers up the spine of elected officials everywhere.
Mayors, Premier and Transportation Minister to meet next week – The Blind Leading the Blind
Posted by zweisystem on Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Talk about the blind leading the blind.
BC Transportation Minister, Shirley Bond (who knows little or nothing about transit), the besieged premier (who knows that building glitzy metro lines buys votes), and regional mayors (who are equally unread on transit) are going to have a private meeting regarding TransLink’s ongoing financial crisis. The first hing that must be done is to invite the public, simply because the public is public transit’s customers and politicians should value their input. Secondly, TransLink and the Premier must understand that TransLink’s perennial financial malaise is due mainly to the SkyTrain light-metro system and our perverse penchant to build very expensive to build and operate light-metro lines instead of modern light rail!
To date the taxpayer has unknowingly spent over $8 billion for our metro system, yet for less than one half the cost, by building with modern LRT we could have had almost double the route mileage – more trams, serving more destinations providing more incentive for people to use transit!
Now there is a clever thought!
Added to TransLink’s woes, is the singular fact that the SkyTrain light-metro system has failed to attract the motorist from the car and it is just far too expensive to extend in lighter populated areas and has not proven to be a credible transit alternative for the car. The current hype and hoopla about the Canada Line is merely self serving window dressing to sell the public on building more metro, but in real terms, for about $2.4 billion costs to date, the new metro has attracted only about 4,000 to 5,000 new riders (which is about normal for a new ‘rail’ line) and the new riders are mainly the elderly going to the River Rock Casino or Asian shops in Richmond, with most using discounted concession fares and students using $1.00 a day U-Passes! The RAV/Canada line has yet to show that it has attracted the motorist from the car.
Yes, the airport is also garnering new ridership, but do not forget the 15 minute service Airporter bus the Canada Line metro replaced.
TransLink is in a conundrum; there is no money for new metro expansion and the bureaucracy refuses to plan for much cheaper light rail. There is no way out, either taxes must increase to pay for metro construction or the transit system stagnates and becomes even more unattractive product for customers.
Next week, Rail for the Valley will present an affordable alternative to TransLink’s present grandiose metro and subway plans, the problem is: Will the premier, Ms. Bond and regional mayors listen!
In BC Rubber on Asphalt Rules!Mayors, Premier and Transportation Minister to meet next week
By Frank Luba, The Province – September 14, 2010 4:02 PMA closed-door meeting between Metro Vancouver mayors, Premier Gordon Campbell and Transportation Minister Shirley Bond next week is expected to go a long way toward settling TransLink’s financial woes.Langley City Mayor Peter Fassbender, chairman of the Metro mayor’s council on transportation, can’t presume to say exactly what will come out of the meeting.
But he and TransLink CEO Ian Jarvis will both speak at the Tri-Cities Chamber of Commerce luncheon that follows the meeting. Cambell and Bond will also be in attendance.
When asked if there will finally be some news about TransLink’s long-standing cash crunch, Fassbender replied: We will at least be demonstrating where we need to go and how we are going to get there together.
My hope is that Thursday will be a major step forward in finding the answer specifically to the question people have of; “How are you going to do this?” said Fassbender
“These are not easy answers”, he said There isn’t a quick fix here?
The situation has come to a crossroads.
Are we either going to move ahead or is it clear we can’t work together” said Fassbender. “But you know what? I believe we can.”
The problem of TransLink funding was highlighted again Monday night when transportation commissioner Martin Crilly gave his seal of approval to the transportation authority’s 2011 plans.
Crilly pointed out that TransLink doesn’t have the money to do what its own long-range plans to 2040 call for or what the region needs according to Metro Vancouver.
To gain ground on the background growth of the region, a greater portion of the region’s wealth will need somehow to be devoted to providing that [transportation] capacity”, said Crilly in a release.
TransLink has yet to solve the conundrum of funding for capacity expansion, and cannot do so alone”, said Crilly.
From 2010 – Late Friday Night’s Musings For Saturday Reading
From July 2010
Late Friday Night’s Musings For Saturday Reading
Posted by zweisystem on Saturday, July 3, 2010
Zwei, with a cup of tea in hand, has been reading the various transit blogs and answering emails from interested parties around the world, trying to get a read on what direction public transit is going in the near and not so near future. Sadly, I see a trend in North America towards supporting building hugely expensive heavy-rail subway metro systems,
without any consideration for the cost of such a venture. This unrealistic view has tainted our transit planning on this side of the pond to such an extent, that tens of billions of dollars will be wasted on gold plated, over engineered transportation projects, when far cheaper and just as efficient transit solutions would have worked just as well.
The silliness I see from professionals supporting hugely expensive, to install and maintain, automatic train control signaling on new rapid transit (LRT is
not rapid transit) lines, demonstrates a gross naivety on the subject of railway signaling. Has anyone who promotes or supports automatic train control (ATC) ever talked to a signaling engineer? I don’t thinks so by the endless cheer-leading for ATC.
Has anyone compared the operating costs of Vancouver’s SkyTrain with Calgary’s LRT? If they had, they would have found that just the SkyTrain Expo Line costs 60% more to operate (2006) than the Calgary’s C-Train LRT, yet the C-Train carried more customers!
Has anyone thumping the desk for ATC ever stopped and considered that transit systems which include ATC are seldom built and ATC is only used on the heaviest used metro lines where automatic (driverless) operation does save operating costs over older manually operated block signaling?
LRT’s Renaissance started in France in the mid 1980′s, when modern low-floor cars, operating on dedicated or Reserved Rights of Ways, were found to be cheaper to build and
operate than France’s home grown automatic VAL mini-metro. In the 1970′s France only had a handful of elderly tram or streetcar systems, but in 2010, the country boasts 16 operating tram/LRT systems; 9 more under construction; and 5 in later stages of planning!
In the mid 1980′s, metro or subway construction was bankrupting scores of transportation authorities in many countries and at one time, there was over 100 km of uncompleted or semi-abandoned subway tunnels throughout Europe! The Chaleroi in Belgium being a good example. Though building subways on heavily used transit routes still continues and rightly so, European transit planners have reduced public transit,construction costs by building new LRT/tram systems. The Germans take top prize for cost efficient public transit with the very successful TramTrain concept.
TramTrain, where streetcars are so designed to track share with mainline railways, see total construction costs well under $10 million/km., a fraction the cost of subway or metro construction, where in some cases see construction costs exceed $500 million/km.!
Yet this is all lost by the many blogs and bloggist who support ATC and denounce LRT as some sort of 19th century folly. What is really sad, is that those supporting subways and ATC, seem completely removed from the real world of finance and financing expensive public, transit schemes. The fairy tale land of subway planning always include new and higher taxes, yet proponents of subways fail utterly to understand that there is precious little money to fund their ever costlier transit plans.
In the end, those supporting automatic metros and their kin, may see a line built, but with little chance of much needed expansion in the near or not so near future, while at the same time, much derided Portland keeps expanding its LRT network by about two lines every decade. In an age of peak oil, global warming, and massive urban congestion, it is completely foolish to keep advocating ‘pie in the sky’ metro projects that in the end, may build one or two line at most (three lines in Vancouver), financially exhausting the taxpayer and not providing a credible alternative to the car.
Those who spend hours condemning LRT with “Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics“, fail to grasp historic lessons with light rail and have invented their own little world, where Tom
Swift style $250 million/km. or more, driverless, elevated railways or subways, with all the whistles and bangs, are easy to come by and the taxpayer is only too happy to pay more tax to fund transit mega projects.
Updates:
-
The cost of the Expo line light-metro extension has now surpassed $200 million/km.
-
France now has 29 tram systems in operation.
-
There are now over 30 TramTrain systems in operation with over 30 more either under construction or in advanced (funded) stages of planning.
-
The cost of the Broadway subway is now estimated at $488 million per kilometre to build.
PRT – Gadgetbahnen on Steroids.
From August, 2010.
PRT – Gadgetbahnen on Steroids.
Posted by zweisystem on Monday, August 23, 2010
Every few years, much is made of PRT or Personal Rapid Transit, as being the new way to move people. Except for a few specialized installations, such as Morgantown USA, PRT has proven to be both expensive for what it does and esthetically unappealing.
For a PRT system to actually work, one would need elevated PRT lines every 500 metres or so crisscrossing, grid like, to provide the network that would make PRT attractive to the customer.
In an age where even putting simple tram tracks on a city street may lead to years of public debate, PRT would lead to a public revolution.
Vancouver is the perfect example: After the first elevated SkyTrain was installed Vancouver City Council passed a bylaw outlawing elevated transit systems being built in the city, which helped Vancouver to get the $2.5 billion RAV/Canada line built as a subway in Vancouver.
PRT maybe applicable in specialized locations, but as a comprehensive public transportation system, I rather think not.
The following is the latest in “building a new mousetrap“.
STOP PRESS – Another Transit Study For The Fraser Valley. In Time For The Next Election?
Zwei is going to reserve comment, except for the fact that Rail for the Valley’s Leewood Study, lays the groundwork for a viable regional rail service for the Fraser Valley.
The Leewood Study, please click here.
Transportation planning study launches in Fraser Valley
As part of BC’s Restart Plan, the Province is examining a range of possibilities to support growth in the Fraser Valley to help ensure the development of affordable, liveable communities.
“We know that more and more people are choosing the Fraser Valley to live, work and raise their children,” said Claire Trevena, Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure. “Traffic congestion in the Fraser Valley continues to be a problem for people. We need to develop transportation networks and invest in solutions that support the successful growth of the Fraser Valley for the people who live and work there, now and in the future.”
This broad transportation and development study is underway. It will look at traffic congestion and travel demand in the fast-growing region and examine and evaluate options for new transit and transportation initiatives in the Fraser Valley.
“We are working together with local government and Indigenous partners on this study, and we will also be talking to local residents and business owners to get feedback,” said Selina Robinson, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. “Findings will inform transportation and development projects that consider trade corridor needs. We want to focus on continuing to create a good quality of life for citizens in the Fraser Valley, and we are asking what solutions will contribute to this in a positive way.”
Nearly 60% of B.C.’s population lives in Metro Vancouver and the Fraser Valley – nearly three million British Columbians. Decisions on transportation and development in this region have consequences for every part of the province in terms of economic recovery, trade network resilience and housing opportunities. The purpose of the study is to look for opportunities to help reduce future traffic congestion, such as worker mobility, shorter commutes and managing traffic demand.
Improvements to transportation infrastructure are a critical piece of economic recovery – ensuring people have more opportunities for well-paying jobs, shorter commutes and more time to spend with their families.
The ministry also continues to support local, regional and inter-regional transit, and will continue to work with TransLink on its Transport 2050 plan, as well as BC Transit, local governments and their communities to investigate ways to more efficiently move people within and through the region.
Quotes:
Bob D’Eith, MLA for Maple Ridge-Mission –
“When we build new infrastructure, we want to build intelligently and with people at the forefront of these decisions. I am excited about this work and how it will help to promote liveable communities for British Columbians. We are focused on building strong transportation networks that will serve our communities, whether people are driving their vehicles, taking the bus or riding their bikes.”
Henry Braun, mayor, City of Abbotsford –
“One of the most significant challenges facing the City of Abbotsford and for the Fraser Valley region continues to be transportation. We know that effective and efficient transportation systems generate employment and economic development, as well as job creation for local communities. This study will provide useful information as the growth of our economy relies on a safe, reliable and efficient multi-modal transportation network; especially as communities look to expand markets for our key local sectors, such as manufactured goods, agri-foods and aerospace.”
Learn More:
More information about the Fraser Valley Transportation Study is available here: www.gov.bc.ca/transportation/fraservalleystudy
Flexibility
Flexibility: Susceptible of modification or adaptation; adaptable.
Dresden’s successful freight tram, carried car parts from one factory to another in the city.
Modern light rail is very flexible; it can operate as a tram, operating on-street; it can operate as a light-railway, operating on a dedicated rights-of-way; it can operate as a light-metro, on viaduct or in a subway; it can operate as a commuter train, operating on mainline railways; and it can operate as all four on one transit route!
Now, the next logical step is to carry freight.
The key is flexibility and no one at TransLink, the regional mayors and the province has considered when planning for rail transit. That would be thinking “twenty minutes into the future”, something seemingly impossible today.
SkyTrain light-metro, built to strict kinematic envelope (The outline of the space occupied by a rail vehicle when in motion, including the effects of tilt, sway, track cant, etc.) and with automatic (driverless) operation, light metro lacks the all important flexibility that has made light rail a success.
Flexibility has been changed to “density” for metro Vancouver, as a reason for building rail transit, yet flexibility would allow LRT to more better service a densely populated area than a light metro.
I think it would better serve those wanting the return of the interurban, from Vancouver to Chilliwack; the return of passenger service to the entire E&N railway and those wishing to stop the Broadway subway, demand adding flexibility into the debate, something SkyTrain/subway/bus/rail to trail competitors cannot do.
From the Railway Gazette:
GERMANY: Trials with a prototype freight tram or tram-train are to start in Karlsruhe and the surrounding area in 2022. The concept is being drawn up with a view to improving urban life by reducing road traffic and the emissions it generates.
Known as ‘regioKArgo’, a pilot operation is proposed to demonstrate the concept, possibly on the 50 km Karlsruhe – Rastatt – Achern route, which has been studied in detail by the project’s promoters.
regioKArgo brings together operators Verkehrsbetriebe Karlsruhe and Albtal-Verkehrsgesellschaft with freight shippers, logistics companies and research institutes to develop alternative forms of local goods transport to replace lorries and vans.
Increasing use of the internet in recent months to order goods has led to an increase in package delivery traffic, in turn leading to congestion and other problems such as a shortage of staff and delivery vehicles.
Freight trams or tram-trains would operate between consolidation centres, set up at locations outside Karlsruhe and surrounding towns, and ‘city-hubs’ in the central area of each town. From there goods would be distributed to the end customer using emission-free methods such as cargo bikes. Studies are in hand to determine where city-hubs could be located.
One option would be to use modified trams that would be dedicated for passenger duties during peak times but would carry both passengers and cargo during less-busy periods. A team of researchers and industry experts is working on the design of a demonstrator tram under the LogIKTram project, the results of which will be fed into the regioKArgo scheme.
Organisations involved in the project other than operators include DB Engineering & Consulting, the Karlsruhe Institute for Technology, the FZI IT Research Centre, Marlo Consultants and Automotive Engineering Network.
The project team is in the process of estimating the likely cost, the aim being to apply for funding under the ‘Regio-Win’ project which promotes Karlsruhe as a technology development centre. Research by Offenburg University suggests that users would be willing to pay for the service if it fits sustainability and environmental goals.
Freight trams would form the centrepiece of a holistic concept which will entail rethinking the existing freight transport delivery model, according to Ascan Egerer, Technical Director at AVG. Explaining that the whole process was being examined to ensure that it would function economically, this entailed looking at what happens before and after the rail leg of a consignment’s journey. ‘That’s why we have partners from all sectors round the table’, he said. ‘It’s not something that can be solved by a transport operator alone. And we are talking about going beyond the city limits into the region’.
Egerer suggested that the idea was to replicate for goods the tram-train concept for passengers that was pioneered in Karlsruhe in the 1990s. ‘The Karlsruhe model offers the best conditions for bringing about a switch for goods transport too’, he said.
The ‘father’ of the Karlsruhe tram-train concept was Dr Dieter Ludwig, who believed that it was necessary to ‘take the train to the people’. Dr Ludwig, who died on July 16, was CEO of AVG and VBK for 30 years, during which the Karlsruhe model became famous – the first route between Karlsruhe and Bretten opened in 1992, leading to spectacular growth in the use of public transport in the area.
Disappearing Act
The following Google screenshot was made on Wednesday, August 9, 2020, at 7:50 AM.
All major crossings in metro Vancouver show little or no congestion.
Pre Covir-19, there would be bright red at the tunnel, Oak Street, Knight Street, Alex Fraser, Patullo, Iron workers, and the Lions Gate bridges.
In “normal” times, major congestion would rule metro Vancouver but now, commuters have done a disappearing act.
This bodes ill for TransLink, as their income, in part, comes from commuters and their boated ridership statistics come from forced transfers by commuters from bus to SkyTrain, back to bus.
Provincial and Civic politico’s, who haven’t a clue they are being bamboozled by TransLink’s bureaucrats, keep anteing up more money to this bloated and inept organization.
Here is TransLink’s big problem:
Transit customers, except the poor, the elderly and students (who all use deep discounted fares and passes) have abandoned transit for six months and with no timetable to getting back to normal, if there is a return to normal, they may never return; finding new modes to get to where they want to go.
TransLink and the Mayor’s Council on Transit should completely rethink how transit is provided and should institute cost saving measures now.
One cost saving measure would reduce bus stops to a minimum of one every 300 to 400 metres, effectively cutting stops by one third or more. This would both reduce travel times and increase service, without costing the taxpayer more money.
This is but one of several measures that could be implemented during Covid pandemic, to provide a far more cost efficient transit service.
Of course, rethink the $3 billion Broadway subway because there is absolutely no passenger demand to warrant such an investment.
But no, TransLink and the metro mayors insist doing the same thing over and over again, hoping for different results and then expect the taxpayer to again bail them out when it doesn’t.
Recent Comments