Trams Around The world
In Metro Vancouver and its surrounds, there is a definite lack of knowledge of the modern tram. This lack of knowledge is illustrated by both politcal leaders and the mainstream media who treat the modern tram with disdain and prefer more photo-op ready light-metro, due to its appeal when ribbon cutting happens.
Sadly there is a price to be had with Vancouver and TransLink’s penchant for light-metro and that is cost.
Simply put, TransLink is paying up to ten times more or even double or treble this with subway construction, yet at the same time, providing a service inferior when compared to the modern tram. Remember, over 80% of the light-metro’s ridership come from bus customers forcibly made to transfer to the light-metro.
Much cheaper costs, yet the tram has the ability to cater to traffic flows much larger than the proprietary ART Movia light-metro, explains why the modern tram has held its own with light and heavy rail metro and with well over six hundred examples in operation around the world, the tram is the number one rail transit choice among knowledgeable planners.
The following is some examples of cities using trams.
Basel Switzerland
City: Basel Switzerland
System length: Metre gauge, 77 km., 9 lines.
Budapest, Hungary
City: Budapest, Hungary
System length: Standard gauge, 157 km, 36 routes.
Customers carried: Over 400 million annually
Grenoble, France
City: Grenoble, France.
System length: Standard gauge, 42, km., 5 lines.
Customers carried. Over 250,000 daily.
Melbourne, Australia
City: Melbourne, Australia
System length: Standard gauge, 250 km., 24 routes.
Customers carried. 206 million annually.
Paris France
City: Paris, France.
System length: Standard gauge, 105 km. 10 lines.
Customers carried. Over 200 thousand daily.
Toronto Canada
City: Toronto Canada
System length: Broad gauge, 80 km. 10 lines.
Customers carried. Over 300,000 daily (weekdays).
The Best Public Transportation Have Trams. Vancouver Does Not. Why?
Nottingham's new tramway
Ah yes, if we were to believe TransLink and the Mayor’s Council on Transit, Vancouver’s unprogressive mayor, Vancouver is the envy of the transit world with our SkyTrain rapid transit system.
A recent news item listed the top fifteen city transportation systems and twelve of the cities have trams or LRT or both, with some with very extensive networks!
Reality hurts, doesn’t it TransLink or the CoV, not even a honorable mention.
In order, from fifteenth to number 1, the list goes like this:
15 ) Berlin – 22 tram lines serving 377 tram stops and measuring 294 km.
14 ) Stockholm – 35 km tram network.
13 ) Beijing – 13.5 km tram line, more building.
12 ) Prague – 142.5 km of tram line.
11 ) New York – 0 tram lines, 1 tram line in planning stage.
10 ) Zurich – 118 km of tram line.
9 ) Shanghai – 13.9 km of tram line, more being planned.
8 ) Dubai – 10.6 km of tram line, extending.
7 ) Tokyo – 24.4 km of tram/LRT lines.
6 ) Chicago – 0 tram lines LRT in planning stages.
5 ) Madrid – 27.8 km of tram line with one under construction.
4 ) Paris – 107.4 km of tram line
3 ) Hong Kong – 13 km heritage tramway and 36.2 km of LRT
2 ) London – 28 km of tram line
1 ) Singapore – 0
Of the fifteen top transit cities, only three, New York, Chicago and Singapore do not have trams, but both have extensive metro style service.
What is apparent, cities with good public transport have trams in one form or another, something that Vancouver City politicians and its bureaucrats ignore.
Despite the hype and hoopla about SkyTrain, Vancouver’s public transit system, with its penchant for driverless light metro is ignored internationally; yet we plan and build more.
Cities with the Best Public Transportation, Ranked
By Briana Hansen on May 24, 2019
It goes without saying that it’s much easier to enjoy a city when you can easily get around it. That’s why the best tourism cities boast superb public transit systems — publicly-subsidized networks of trains, subways, buses and boats that can quickly and cheaply get you where you want to go.
According to John Fairfield, professor of history and urban development at Xavier University, public transit systems have other benefits too, including a reduced energy footprint and improved safety, since cars are a far more dangerous way to get around. And the best systems have charm and character to boot.
So, which metropolises offer the best public transit systems in the world? It’s a somewhat relative question, since some people value affordability over efficiency or sustainability over ease. But experts agree that the following 15 city systems are among the finest you’ll have the pleasure of using.
Spoiler alert: If you want great public transit, Asia and Europe are the places to go!
Now, for the rest of the story, please click here!
A French tram fits perfectly in the environment.
Quebec city & Montreal Getting LRT, Why Is Vancouver Sticking With The Dated SkyTrain?
Strange world isn’t it.
Both Montreal and Quebec city are getting new tram lines, yet Vancouver’s politico’s still want the hugely expensive, yet dated ART Movia Light-metro, which one one else around the world wants?
Contrary to what the mayor and councils from Vancouver and Surrey claim, it seems the good mayor of Lachine, Mayor Maja Vodanovic has done her homework well.
By building a tramway, both the cities of Montreal and Quebec city will learn the value of affordable transit and with extension costs, again affordable, both Montreal and Quebec City will have future extension build, way before a subway is completed to UBC or the Expo line completed to Langley.
Memo to The mayor’s Council on Transit: It is not to late to put the breaks on future SkyTrain expansion, either in Surrey or a subway under Broadway. Failure to do so, will lead metro Vancouver to a ruinous LA style freeway region, complete with endemic congestion and pollution.
This is what Montreral is getting, should Vancouver be getting it too?
Montreal, Quebec City to get new tramway systems
By Rachel Lau Online Producer – Quebec Global News
Montreal will get a tramway system linking the downtown area to the west-end borough of Lachine, Mayor Valérie Plante announced on Wednesday.
The mayor was all smiles, calling the tramway a first step to her proposed Pink line on the Montreal Metro and pointing out reporters wearing shades of pink at the press conference.
“The Pink line from downtown to Lachine was always supposed to be above ground,” she said.
“This was taken into consideration by the Quebec government. A big tramway in the west — wow.”
The government of Quebec has agreed to invest $800 million in public transit in Montreal. It had previously transferred that same amount of federal money to fund projects in Quebec City.
“The breakthrough was let’s agree on three principles: Quebec is ready, it needs to complete the financing, and we want the federal government to commit,” said Treasury Board president Christian Dubé.
“She [Plante] said: ‘OK, but what do you give me in return?’”
The Montreal mayor said her main concern remains addressing problems of overcrowding.
Whether or not the project will be called the Pink line is yet to be determined.
“It’s not a question of colour, it’s a question of giving service to the people of Montreal,” said junior transport minister Chantal Rouleau.
Lachine Mayor Maja Vodanovic is ecstatic about the plan.
“It is a dream come true,” she said.
The borough had already started feasibility studies to come up with the best form of transportation for the area which is not linked to the metro line and is not part of the REM light rail stops.
Vodanovic says a tramway is better for Lachine than either the metro or the REM, since they don’t have to expropriate land, build underground or build train viaducts.
“Tramways around the world are known to build good quality living. They are accessible, no sound and you can walk to it,” said Vodonavic.
Officials were not able to say where the exact stations would be. As of yet, there is no timeline for the project.
The agreement will be part of the Quebec Infrastructure Plan for 2020 to 2030.
ION Opens – Canada’s New Light Rail
Kitchener’s new LRT, ION, is now open!
ION LRT gets on track in Kitchener and Waterloo
By Kevin Nielsen Local Online Journalist Global News
Grand River Transit cut it close on its promise to have the ION LRT vehicles taking passengers through Kitchener and Waterloo by the end of spring.
The first train left the station at Fairway Mall on Friday morning at 11:40 a.m, just minutes before the end of spring.
“Isn’t it a beautiful spring morning,” Coun. Tom Galloway joked at the opening ceremony which launched the province’s first new transit system since the 1980s. “It’s a beautiful spring morning but I sense a Solstice about to arrive…
But that’s purely coincidental.”
The long-awaited LRT system has been under development since 2012 with its arrival coming months behind schedule.
Galloway, who has helped spearhead the project as part of the region’s Rapid Transit Steering Committee, also pointed to the economic benefits of the 19-station line which will run through the downtown cores of Kitchener and Waterloo.
“We are here today to report that with zero passengers carried, there has been $3.282 billion in completed, under construction or building permitted projects in the corridor,” he told the crowd.
“These numbers represent 13,000 new residential units and over four-million square feet of office and commercial space.”
A large crowd had gathered to watch the launch of the first ION train. It included many who had worked on the train, local MPs and MPPs, as well as many current and former regional councillors.
“This is one of the largest and fastest-growing urban centres in Ontario,” said Mike Harris, MPP for Kitchener-Conestoga.
“The Waterloo ION LRT project will provide a quick and convenient transportation option to more people between Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge, and mean shorter commute times that leave people more time for what matters most.”
Region of Waterloo chair Karen Redman noted how the trains, which can transport 200 passengers in each vehicle, will benefit the region as a whole.
“ION will connect seamlessly with Grand River Transit to create an efficient, easy-to-use public transit system,” she said.
Redman paid warning to the provincial and federal politicians that she will be knocking on their doors as the region turns its eyes towards the next phase which is intended to continue on from Kitchener to Cambridge.
“Once stage two is complete, ION buses will be replaced with rail creating a continuous LRT system across the region’s three urban centres,” she said.
Here We Go Again – TransLink’s Cunning Method of Manipulation
The problem with TransLink is that you can never believe what it says; TransLink never produces a report based on the same set of assumptions.”
Former West Vancouver Clr. Victor Durman, Chair of the GVRD (now METRO) Finance Committee.
One hates to keep reminding people of TransLink’s lack of honesty, but dishonesty continues as nauseum.
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. In the US, all new transit projects that seek federal support are now subjected to scrutiny by a panel of transit peers, selected and monitored by the federal government, to ensure that projects are analyzed honestly, and the taxpayers interests are protected.
No SkyTrain project has ever passed this scrutiny in the US.”
Gerald Fox, noted American Transit Engineer.
Again, one hates to keep reminding everyone that TransLink is just not honest with transit planning.
To counter the drive to reinstate a Vancouver to Chilliwack passenger rail service, operated as a regional railway, using mostly the former BC Electric interurban tracks, but using 21st century EMU’s, possibly powered by the “made in Canada” Ballard hydrogen fuel cells, TransLink blundered ahead with its own anti interurban plan.
This is the same TransLink who would tell all who listen that Broadway was the “most heavily used transit route in Canada and North America”, but after being caught on this exaggeration, they now claim “This is our region’s most overcrowded bus route.”
After two critiques of TransLink’s “Interurban Passenger Rail”, by UBC Professor Patrick Condon and from Mr. Haveacow (a Canadian transit specialist), TransLink is not being honest with the Mayors Council on Transit and the taxpayer.
I will comment on three important points.
1) The folks currently promoting the “return of the interurban” are not Rail for the Valley, but a separate group promoting this vital transportation link. To date there are at least three separate groups promoting the reinstatement of the former interurban service.
TransLink’s rebuttal seems to be about the letter Zwei sent to the two Langley’s comparing an affordable Vancouver to Langley rail link that could be built far cheaper and far quicker than TransLink’s underfunded ($1.4 billion underfunded) SkyTrain planned extension .
2) Those mandarins sitting in Translink’s expensive digs in Sapperton, haven’t even bothered to tour the interurban line and to see personally the many destinations that the rail service would cater too. Like the “Lotus Eaters”, they live in a pampered taxpayer paid world of their own.
3) TransLink is hugely afraid of publishing the projected costs of SkyTrain to Langley, which using TransLink’s own figures, now will exceed over $200 million per km to build. Nor is TransLink being candid with the operating costs of the extension and the $2 to $3 billion rehab of the Expo Line to cater to somewhat higher ridership.
Today, the cost for a reinstated rail service from Vancouver to Chilliwack, using EMU’s or DMU’s, range for $750,000.00 for an hourly service to $1.5 billion, for a deluxe three train an hour service per direction.
Three trains an hour per direction is more than many bus routes TransLink operates!
This spring’s massive hike in gas prices are due, in part, to SkyTrain’s huge annual subsidies. In 1992, the subsidy for the Expo line from Vancouver to New Westminster was $157 million. TransLink and the Mayor’s Council on Transit, utterly refuse to give a clear figure to operate the light metro network.
A source told Zwei that the annual subsidy, including payments to the SNC Lavalin lead consortium operating the Canada Line, is near $500 million annually!
Why are they so afraid to tell the truth?
The Mayor’s Council on Transit are like rubes at a fair, buying the magic elixir, a cure all, hawked by seasoned con artists.
Parochial politics, seasoned by politcal intrigue, supported by dirty laundered casino money is driving both SkyTrain extensions and it is time to say stop!
Who is in charge of the clattering SkyTrain?
The axles creak and the couplings strain,
and costs are too high, as fiasco nears,
and sloth hath deadened Translink’s ear,
and the warnings flash through the night in vain,
for the Mayor’s Council is in charge of the clattering SkyTrain.
More Comments On TransLink’s Anti Valley Rail Screed
This reply by our friend, Mr. Haveacow is very much worth reading.
There are big problems extending SkyTrain; big problems equals lots of ta money, which equals more taxes and user fees.
Like high gas prices, just continue building with SkyTrain.
I will add to the professors point, the Hydrogen powered I Lint54, is a hydrogen fuel cell equipped version of Alstom’s top selling Lint 54 DMU /EMU commuter and regional rail vehicle. Ottawa’s O-Train uses the Lint 41 DMU for its diesel LRT equipped Trillium Line. The number in the title refers to the length of the individual DMU/EMU vehicle. It comes in 3 sizes 41 metres, 54 metres and 81 metres.
The Lint series of vehicle would require a minimum of testing because Ottawa already uses a version of this vehicle and has already recieved special dispensation to run on North American railways from Transport Canada. Only the Hydrogen Fuel Cell technology and the Hydrogen storage facilities would need the intense testing required for operations on Canadian mainline railways.
What Translink is really upset about is the same thing O.C. Transpo was upset about when the planning for the O-Train stsrted around 1997-98. They will have to negotiate with the railway for running rights. Then pay said railway while this system operates. To say most transit operators are uncomfortable with this, is a massive understatement. The history of your West Coast Express is an example of how much they (Translink), dislike not owning the right of way.
The benign neglect of Translink regarding the West Coast Express (WCE), shows the nature of the relationship between it and true regional level transit lines. The Skytrain is at best a downtown to suburb based rail system. As a regional level rail transit system (downtown to distant suburb or exurb), the Skytrain operationally is a very expensive and clumsy. This also clearly displays how both the Skytrain technology and Translink have a big problem of dealing with the geographic scale of true regional rail based transit. Both are not equipped to handle the issue and as a result, do it very poorly. This is an issue I have discussed before on this website, as Zwei will attest. Skytrain’s high level of technological complexity means that, any long distance stretch of track with little or no development like the Langley extension, will require many decades to get to the point were the ridership numbers come close to the current network’s average ridership revenue plus subsidy vs operating costs. Technological complexity means higher operating costs. These costs become a big limiter to service frequency if there isn’t enough ridership.
As per the service area boundary issue between B.C. Transit and Translink that is at best a red-herring! If Translink was interested in actually doing this Valley Service, the time between Translink proposing the idea and an agreement in principle with the province, could be measured in minutes. As soon as provincial officials realize that there is serious support for this locally in Translink, the process would instantly begin. I can see the meetings among provincial officials, “Someone other than us wants to operate a regional rapid transit service from Chilliwack to Surrey’s Skytrain Stations instead of B.C. Transit doing it! Sounds good to us!”
Finally what Translink just won’t talk about is the extreme high cost of building with Skytrain vs. low to medium passenger cappacity DMU ‘s and EMU’s using very much underused mainline railway rights of way, that already exist. I peg the cost of the Valley Rail Line project at 1/7 to 1/8 of the lowest end of Skytrain construction. The operational costs somewhere between 1/5-1/3 that of Skytrain. Yes, it will carry fewer passengers but so will any Skytrain line going out this far from the centre of Vancouver.
A Reply to TransLink’s Anti Valley Rail Screed
Translink has released a report dated June 6 to the Joint Regional Transportation Planning Committee later share with the Mayors Council on Regional Transportation.It contains a number of misunderstandings and factual errors, some of which are addressed below.*Preamble:*The overarching misunderstanding is this: the concept of the Community Rail proposal is not driven by a desire or a need to connect the larger valley to the center of the Vancouver region as the Translink response seems to imply, but to serve what is an increasingly self contained urban region where more than 70 percent of all trips originating south of the Fraser now end south of the Fraser, a dramatic reversal from only 15 years ago. For example, in that time the South of Fraser Region has seen population and employment growth that is fifty percent higher per year than Vancouver’s. Air traffic out of Abbotsford International airport is increasing by almost 50% per year. Employment (such as at the new Molsons Brewery, which left Vancouver for Chilliwack) is rapidly moving to the valley in search of more affordable land, a stable labor force, and broader transportation access than that possible in Vancouver. Any assessment that does not elevate these facts to the status of first principles for analysis will be fatally flawed. Any assessment that is more than ten years old will be of little relevance. Any assessment that does not accept that rubber based transportation systems in the valley are already in a state of gridlock and crisis, and destined to remain so indefinitely absent a government response, is negligent. Detailed point by point responses are below.*1. Under the heading of “Purpose,” Translink falsely claims that the Community Rail proposal is suggested as an alternative to skytrain to Langley this is not the case. While the Community Rail serves many of the same ends as a skytrain to Langley proposal, at far less than one tenth of the cost, the Community Rail proposal has a far broader ambition: to serve the entire valley with affordable rail, not just the Surrey to Langley leg of the narrowly defined Vancouver Metro area.*2 Under “Background,” first paragraph. Translink mistakenly says that the line is owned by Canadian Pacific and Southern Railway. It is not. It is owned by the Province. Only freight rights were sold. Passenger rights were retained.*3. Under “Background” paragraph two. Translink mistakenly suggests that freight conflicts with freight movement would be a hindrance. It would not. The master agreement between the Province and the rail users stipulates that freight must give way to passenger use and that if double tracking is needed due to use conflicts, the cost will be borne by CP.*In the same paragraph Translink suggests that the alignment of the interurban line has “limited alignment with regional land use plans” which is hard to credit while Translink is proceeding with a plan for very expensive Skytrain through the lengthy unoccupied Green Timbers reserve, the lightly populated Fleetwood, and the agricultural lands of the Serpentine Valley before arriving at the same Langley Centre area also served by the interurban line.*4. Under “Background” paragraph three. Translink suggests that the line “may be part of a longer-term future, and opportunities should be retained for future services.” which is a positive statement. However valley citizens have long held the opinion that this future is now. Furthermore Translink overstates its mandate, which to date ends at the Langley border. The community rail proposal serves a region that extends at least 70 km east of that line.*5.Under “Background” paragraph four.
- Translink states that the line “does not directly connect relevant regional destinations (i.e. Surrey Central and Langley City),” while failing to acknowledge that the line does serve regional destinations such as North Delta, South Newton, and Cloverdale that their current plans fail to serve at all.
- Translink states that “resulted in less attractive travel times between key destinations” while failing to acknowledge that travel times are a function of the number of stops per unit distance and that the number of stops can be balanced against travel time objectives. Also that the interurban line is already in its own ROW and would not be slowed by traffic conflicts.
- Translink goes on to assert that the line “would require significant capital investments to meet safety requirements,” apparently ignorant of the fact that the Alstom hydrogen powered vehicles proposed can run immediately on the existing line without significant alteration and already meet Canadian safety standards.
- Furthermore in the same paragraph Translink states that these misunderstood cost factors would end up “resulting costs similar or higher than those along Fraser Highway or King George, but without commensurate benefits.” An independent assessment would prove this assertion to be dramatically misstated.
5. Under “Background” paragraph five. Translink helpfully suggests that “A new element of the Interurban proposal includes the potential use of hydrogen fuel cell trains, as being used in Germany for passenger service. This idea has not been evaluated.” We suggest that this evaluation be fast tracked as this technology removes many impediments. Self contained power eliminates the need to restore electrification of the line, which would be the major cost if new catenary and electrical power systems were required. With hydrogen they are not – nor does hydrogen pollute valley air.6. Under “Discussion” first paragraph. Translink states, that “the Interurban alignment is indirect and through lower density and diverse areas. Both directness and density are critical factors in the performance of a successful rapid transit corridor” while their own maps shown clearly indicate that the interurban line connects key jobs centers including Scot Road, Delta/Surrey, South Newton, Cloverdale, and more of Langley than the proposed Skytrain line, while again failing to place this comment in the context of the much larger ambitions of the interurban proposal.*7. Under topic: “Freight volumes are expected to increase along the Interurban corridor.” Translink makes much of the volume of freight traffic flowing through the so called “shared section” of the line, shared by Southern Rail and CP largely to the north of the City of Langley. As mentioned above Translink seems unaware that CP is contractually obligated to pay the costs of double tracking this section should passenger use be impacted.*8. Under the topic: “Interurban requires substantial infrastructure investments comparable to building rapid transit along urban arterials”. Much of what Translink asserts must stem from confusion about the legal status of the line. The line is owned by the Province and available for use, for free, for passenger use immediately. Furthermore, with the exception of the “shared section” discussed above, the line is very lightly used and largely during off hours. Thus any discussion of double tracking the line is wildly premature.*Conclusion:*The detailed responses above are provided in an attempt to clarify what appears to be a deep misunderstanding on the part of Translink staff with regard to the interurban proposal. However this discussion may obscure the main point. The main public benefit of the proposal is not in how fast a few commuters might get from Langley centre to downtown Vancouver, but rather in how we might lay the spine for a more sustainable South of Fraser region. This region is experiencing explosive job and population growth, partly or largely driven by the exorbitant cost of housing closer to Vancouver. This growth, now almost entirely car dependent in form, has led to region wide grid lock. This gridlock is particularly severe on Route 1, where travel times during rush hours have slowed to a crawl, and where idling cars foul the air of the entire valley floor. We are suggesting that, at very very low cost, essentially the cost of just a few vehicles, interurban service could be resumed and could restore the walkable transit oriented structure that gave birth to the valley economy in the first place.**Professor Patrick M. Condon
University of British Columbia
James Taylor Chair in Landscape and Liveable Environments2357 Main Mall
Vancouver, BC – V6T 1Z4
604 822 9291Professor Patrick M. Condon
University of British Columbia
James Taylor Chair in Landscape and Liveable Environments2357 Main Mall
Vancouver, BC – V6T 1Z4
604 822 9291
Nonsense From The Langley Times
Such an ill informed column in the Langley Advance Times, that one would think it is a plant, by those who want to spend billions on SkyTrain, which is well past its “Best Before” date.
Just who builds with ART Movia Metro (Expo and Millennium Lines) any more? Not one of the proprietary mini-metros sold in the past decade you say?
Why have only seven such systems have been built in the past forty years?
The failed TransUrban MAGLEV, the forerunner of ICTS, which was ALRT's previous name. What we call SkyTrain, is actually now called ART Movia metro and has had at least 5 previous names
The real issue is that the regional rail network, called SkyTrain, comprises of a conventional railway (Canada Line) and a proprietary unconventional railway called ART Movia Metro (Expo and Millennium Lines).
The now called ART Movia Metro is so unpopular because of poor design and operating characteristics that it has undergone six official name changes with only seven such systems have been built in the past 40 years! Of those systems, Toronto is soon to tear theirs down and in Asia the Youngin, Korea and Kuala Lumpur’s ART systems have embroiled Bombardier inc. and SNC Lavalin in legal ills.
The gross ignorance of railway operation by the author showed that he did no research, because if he did, he would have learned a thing or two.
First of hall a passenger and freight service can operate on the same line and do on literally thousands of railways around the world today. It is all about signaling and allocation of pathways for trains and the science for this goes back to the pre 1800’s, before the modern railway was conceived.
The “ace in the hole” is that the master agreement included with the portion of track purchased and used for the CPR allows up to 33% “wheel-age” for passenger operations, with the owning railway (CPR) paying full cost of all track improvements, including double tracking.
With a maximum of two freights a day on the remaining portion of line, poses absolutely no problem for passenger operation.
In Germany, TramTrain operates on mainline railways with mixed passenger and freight service, with little problems.
Then there is the extremely successful TramTrain, which in layman’s terms is a streetcar designed to operate on both on-street track and mainline railways. Both cheap and successful, TramTrain has affordably extended passenger services by rail at costs a mere fraction of that what would be spent building a SkyTrain style light-metro.
The first TramTrain line opened in Karlsruhe Germany in 1992 and saw ridership soar, in the first six months from 534,000 per week to 2,555,00 a week a massive 479% increase in ridership!
Karlsruhe Germany first TramTrain operation saw a dramatic 479% increase in ridership in the first six month of operation.
The Leewood Study, commissioned by the Rail for The Valley Group, done by Leewood Projects UK and released a decade ago, found that such a service was viable. The study was vetted by Canadian transportation specialist and Transport Canada. In Europe, the Leewood Study had great exposure for its forward thinking and affordability, featured in two transportation “trade’ magazines. In Canada it was ignored by the SkyTrain centered cabal planning transit in civic, provincial and federal levels.
The 2010 Leewood Study saw the per km cost of a DMU/EMU/TramTrain service varied from $5.2 to $7.2 million.
Alstom's Hydrogen fuel cell Coradia Lint is bringing a new dimension in public transport. Though not TramTrain, most TramTrain's will have a fuel cell option with in five years.
ART Movia Metro’s cost per km, using Translink’s own data, is over $200 million/km. And combined with onerous operating and maintenance costs, and lack of flexibility in operation makes it cost prohibitive to extend through Surrey to Langley. The automatic ART Movia Metro was never designed as a regional railway and it operates extremely poorly in snow.
It snows much more on the Surrey plateau, than Vancouver.
The success for a “return of the interurban” is dependent if it operates into Vancouver, providing a seamless and transfer journey from Vancouver to Chilliwack. The failure of building a combined road/rail bridge replacing the decaying Patullo Bridge and the absolutely decrepit Fraser river Rail Bridge, demonstrates a complete lack of foresight by regional politicians, especially the Mayor’s Council on Transit.
The GVRD were planning to replace both the Patullo and Fraser River Rail Bridge with a new road/rail bridge as early as the mid 1970's. Today, no such plan, a parochial politics is going to see the old 4 lane bridge replaced by a new 4 lane bridge.
If the Fraser Valley politicians want a rail connection to Vancouver, TramTrain or a hydrogen EMU is the way to or they will be waiting at a station for a SkyTrain that will never come.
TransLink Doesn’t Want Affordable Transit
TransLink, one of the most dishonest and unaccountable bureaucracies in the province, doesn’t want to reinstate the former interurban service. So powerful is TransLink, so totalitarian in operation, the regional mayors, the Minister of Transportation and the the Premier Horgan are deathly afraid of the bureacracy and cower in the shadows.
Such power, so abused!
I laugh when Translink blusters and fumes why it doesn’t want a reinstated modern interurban service, such utter nonsense. According to TransLink, the interurban doesn’t service key destinations?
Doesn’t service key destinations, you say?
Really, Really?
Is downtown Vancouver not a key destination?
Is North Delta/Surrey not a key destination?
Is Newton and Cloverdale not key destinations? Don’t tell the tens of thousands of people who, live there.
Is KPU Tech in Cloverdale not a key destination? Please don’t tell the students?
TransLink does not consider KPU Tech, which is a mere 400 metres from the interurban line a major transit destination.
Is downtown Langley not a key destination? I guess not.
Is Kwantlan Polytechnic University not a key destination?
TransLink does not consider KPU Langley, which is a mere 300 metres from the Interurban Line, a major transit destination.
Is Trinity Western University not a key destination?
Trinity Western University sits right on the interurban route and TransLink doesn't consider it a major destination?
Is the Gloucester industrial area near 56th Ave. and 272 St. not a key destination?
Is downtown Abbotsford not a key destination?
Is downtown Sardis not a key destination?
Is not Chilliwack a key destination?
What TransLink is really afraid of is optics, because for the same cost of SkyTrain to Fleetwood (aprox. 1.64 billion) the region can build a deluxe, three train an hour service from Vancouver to Chilliwack in each direction, providing a modern 21st century rail service using hydrogen electrical multiple units, (EMU’s) or the highly successful TramTrain.
TransLink would rather build with the dated (so 1970’s) SkyTrain light metro so land speculators and developers can build high rise towers and condos for the provincial money laundering crowd.
This begs the question: “Is TransLink building SkyTrain to benefit the public or criminal casino money launderers.
Over to you premier Horgan.
Service on Interurban rail would be expensive, miss key destinations: TransLink
Those pitching passenger service along the existing track call TransLink’s review ‘seriously flawed’
- Amy Reid
- Jun. 13, 2019
TransLink has released a report written for Lower Mainland mayors to assist in evaluating the pros and cons of a proposal to reactive passenger rail service along the existing Interurban line from Surrey to Chilliwack.
According to TransLink, activating passenger service on the line has “less attractive travel times between key destinations” due to a less direct route (compared to other alternatives); would not connect to key areas such as Surrey Central and Langley City; and would require “significant capital investments” to meet safety requirements and reliability objectives.
But TransLink’s review is being called “seriously flawed” by those pitching the plan.
A 99-kilometre, 90-minute route with 12 stops is proposed by the South Fraser Community Rail group, which says reactivated service on the existing interurban rail line would serve about 1.2 million residents in the region.
The TransLink report was released as proponents behind the push are holding “Rally for Rail” meetings, touting the use of “emissions-free hydrogen powered trains” along the track.
Behind the push is former B.C. premier Bill Vander Zalm, former Langley Township mayor Rick Green and also Patrick Condon, founder of UBC’s Urban Design program.
The group argues their train proposal would cost an estimated $12.5 million per kilometre, compared to the now-dead Surrey light-rail project’s estimated $157 million per kilometre (a figure provided by TransLink last September.)
TransLink argues it would be expensive, given safety regulations.
“To meet Transport Canada requirements for rail passenger safety, LRT vehicles must either be separated from freight train traffic through scheduling, or physically, by constructing separate tracks,” according to a 2012 TransLink study that evaluated the interurban corridor as a potential route for rapid transit expansion.
The report states that “constructing additional track and stations, acquiring right of way to add the tracks along the existing interurban corridor, and overcoming related construction challenges would be costly.”
TransLink’s most recent report summarizes the findings of the 2010-2012 Surrey Rapid Transit Study, when the transit authority assessed the interurban section between Scott Road and Langley to “explore merits of utilizing the Interurban corridor for fast, frequent, and reliable rapid transit service compared to Fraser Highway or King George Boulevard.”
At the time, TransLink notes, the “Interurban corridor was not selected, nor recommended for further consideration” for the aforementioned reasons and others, including freight volumes along the rail line that are expected to increase as well as potential environmental risks as the corridor travels along the Agricultural Land Reserve and floodplains of the Serpentine River.
The 2012 assessment study also pointed to land use along the corridor being lower density than other routes, and noted that it runs through a significant amount of agricultural lands, “resulting in lower potential ridership catchment near stations.”
“If there was a request to revisit previous assessment that this corridor could not effectively meet the objectives for rapid transit, the above and other challenges would need to be reviewed in the current context to provide an updated assessment of the transportation performance of the line,” the report notes. “TransLink staff have not completed an updated assessment of this idea.”
The new element of the interurban proposal – the potential use of hydrogen fuel cell trains – has not been evaluated by TransLink.
“The concept of using existing rail corridors and infrastructure in the rapidly-growing Lower Mainland is one that TransLink will be exploring through the update to the long-range strategy, Transport 2050,” TransLink’s report to the region’s mayors notes. “Transport 2050 will examine the long-term demand for improved inter-regional connections between the Metro Vancouver region and the Fraser Valley and examine what corridors could viably serve that demand. TransLink staff have met with proponents of the idea twice in lengthy meetings to hear the proposal and have shared with the group that management will be recommending that the Interurban concept be considered through the Transport 2050 process.”
But Green with South Fraser Community Rail called the TransLink evaluation “seriously flawed.”
“We have done a professionally supported critique on the TransLink reports which will be released by Monday next week,” said Green.
“To me and all of our team TransLink are embarrassing themselves with the material they are producing in support of their decisions,” he said. “One thing is sure, we have woken them up to a fight against their irresponsible decisions. The fact is TransLink staff have been receiving a fair number of questions from the region’s mayors about the Interurban because frankly very few of them knew anything about it.”
The Mayor’s Council on Regional Transportation has seen the report in a closed meeting, which was subsequently released to the public ahead of their June meeting. The region’s mayors are expected to receive the report as information at their next public meeting on June 27 in New Westminster.
TransLink And The Mayor’s Council Beg for More Money
An open letter to the Prime Minister of Canada, the Premier of BC, Federal and Provincial Ministers of Transportation, Metro Vancouver members of Parliament and the British Columbia Legislature.
The axles creak and the couplings strain,
and costs are too high, as fiasco nears,
and sloth hath deadened Translink’s ear,
and the warnings flash through the night in vain,
for the Mayor’s Council is in charge of the clattering SkyTrain.
This could be the fate of TransLink’s and the Mayor’s council transit planning,
Recent Comments