The second letter sent by Malcolm Johnston to Surrey council and a possible solution for South of the Fraser transportation woes.
Mayor and council;
Two weeks ago I sent a letter to Mayor and Council about modern light rail and this letter is a follow up.
Our urban transit planning is an expensive mess because those who plan for public transit, have no foundation for planning public transit. Unlike Europe, BC and Canada do not have university courses in urban transport, nor offer university degrees in modern public transport and a great many graduate planners have little or no knowledge of modern public transportation philosophy and because of this, fundamental errors are being made to long term transit planning.
Our regional transportation ills started when the then Social Credit government forced the proprietary Advanced Light Rail Transit light-metro system on the GVRD instead of originally planned for LRT.
The problem was, for the cost of LRT from Vancouver to Richmond and from Vancouver to Surrey and Lougheed mall, via New Westminster, all we got ALRT from Vancouver to New Westminster.
What the public was not told, was that ALRT was really the renamed Ontario governmentai??i??s Crown Corporation, the Urban Transportation Development Corporation, unsellable Intermediate Capacity Transportation System or ICTS.
ICTS was designed to be a bridge between what the maximum loads that could be carried by Toronto Streetcars and that of a metro or subway.
Modern LRT, with longer articulated cars, effectively and affordably bridged this gap and the need for ICTS disappeared almost overnight.
What sealed ICTSai??i??s demise was the Toronto Transit Commissionai??i??s Accelerated Rapid Transit Study (ARTS) found that:
ai???ICTS could cost as much as ten times as much as a conventional light rail line to install, for the same capacity, or, put another way, ICTS cost more than a heavy rail metro with four times the capacity.ai???
From the original 1978 GVRD Study for LRT, with estimated costs included.
The UDTC quickly renamed ICTS to Advanced Light Rail Transit, to compete against modern LRT and quickly cut a deal with the BC Social Credit government to build with the newly renamed ALRT, in full knowledge that it was a costly proprietary light-metro that was inferior to modern light-rail.
The propaganda campaign commenced creating the SkyTrain myth.
The cost of the original SkyTrain was at least twice the cost of Calgaryai??i??s new LRT and four times the cost of Portlandai??i??s new LRT line.
SkyTrain cost over twice as much as Calgaryai??i??s LRT to build; over four times more than Portlandai??i??s LRT and seven times more to build than San Diegoai??i??s premier LRT line.
As ALRT expanded, it sucked money from the rest of the transit system and prevented affordable transportation planning in the region.
Despite the fact that SkyTrain was heavily marketed and showcased at Expo 86, transit authorities that did proper due diligence rejected the proprietary light metro and Vancouver remained the sole example of ALRT operation.
The UDTC and ALRT was sold to Lavalin, which renamed ALRT to Advanced Light Metro (ALM), but Lavalin became bankrupt, in part, trying to build an ALM line in Bangkok Thailand.
As a result of the bankruptcy, Bombardier acquired the technical patents (the cars) and the Engineering patents (the guideway) stayed with Lavalin when it combined with SNC, to form SNC Lavalin.
Today what was once called ICTS is now marketed as Advanced Rapid Transit.
SkyTrain was so expensive to build, that BCai??i??s Crown Corporations Secretariat stated: Ai??ai???that the only reason rapid transit should be built was for land useai??i??.ai???
Thus the great SkyTrain density myth was created and ai???rapid transitai??i?? was built, not to efficiently and affordably move people, rather to create and increase density.
SkyTrain was not built to satisfy transit customerai??i??s needs, rather developer and land speculator needs!
This set off a chain reaction with many academics, who tried to rewrite the book why ai???railai??i?? transit was built and in doing so dismissed modern LRT as a relic, where in reality, LRT made ALRT a historical footnote!
This is an example of Lysenkoism, (The term Lysenkoism can also be used metaphorically to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social, academic,l or political objectives.) where the manipulation and distortion of LRT fabricated a predetermined decision to build with ALRT and ART in the Metro Vancouver region and it is still happening with the proposed Broadway SkyTrain subway and Surreyai??i??s LRT.
The taxpayer keeps getting SkyTrain shoved down their throats.
The region needs to rethink on how and why ai???rail transitai??i?? is built as in the real world, ALRT/ART (SkyTrain) has been long rejected by transit planners.
Even the ai???white elephantai??i?? Canada Line, which is just a heavy rail metro, built as a light metro demonstrated that conventional railway was cheaper than ART.
This shows the comparison of MK.1 cars with MK.2 cars and the Canada Line EMUai??i??s. Please note that the station platform lengths, where the Canada line station platforms are half the length of the Expo and Millennium/Evergreen Line station platforms, thus the Canada line can only operate short trains and effectively has little more than half the capacity of the E & M/E Lines.
Questions that must be asked before any more investment for ai???railai??? transit:
Why is TransLink still planning for extremely expensive ART (SkyTrain) in the region, when it has been rejected by transit authorities for over fourty years?
Why have only seven SkyTrain type systems (ICTS, ALRT, ART) been built in the past fourty years?
Why has modern LRT been prevented to compete, by senior governments, against ALRT/ART in those seven application?
The answers are unpalatable for some, including those who cheerlead more building of ALRT/ART, especially in subways. What we call SkyTrain is inferior and expensive transit mode and putting it in a subway is just fiscally irresponsible.
The base principles that should guide transit planning are readily available.
Good transit provides a network of options that moves masses of commuters effectively where they need to go. Most jurisdictions canai??i??t afford a subway to everywhere so the wise course is to provide movement along the essential corridors where citizens connect.
In a tight economy, decision makers do cost-benefit analyses and deliver the best bang for the buck.
And they use universal, tried-and-tested measurements to evaluate options, striving to remove partisan and parochial and political influence from polluting the outcome.
TransLinkai??i??s present planning does not follow this pattern.
Surreyai??i??s LRT is being planned as an appendage to the Expo Line and not a transit system unto itself, which will doom it as a mediocre and expensive transit line.
The major problem confronting TransLink is that the Expo line is at capacity and it will cost between $2 billion to $3 billion to increase capacity on the ALRT/ART lines.
Today, 15,000 pphpd is the upper legal limit allowed on the Expo line. However, itai??i??s not just government paperwork and rules that holdAi??SkyTrain back, other obvious issues come into play.
Unless TransLink plans to seriously change the operating conditions on their operations certificate, higher capacity is just not going to happen. But if TransLink does want to do change things then,Ai??some seriously expensive upgrades need to be done, including power systems, swapping outAi??the out ofAi??date signaling system technology for something newer, big time softwareAi??upgrades, track and switch replacement and wholesale station rebuilding.
It is time to have a complete rethink of Surreyai??i??s planned LRT to make it a successful operation. LRT needs a plan to take Surrey and Langley transit customers, not only to destinations in Surrey, but into Vancouver and this can be done much cheaper than one would think.
After conferring with transit specialist in Canada and Europe, who have very kindly helped me in the past, I offer this three step program for an affordable LRT operation for Surrey and the South Fraser transit customer.
1)The proposed Patullo Bridge replacement must include a heavy- rail crossing (replacing the decrepit Fraser river rail Bridge) for at least two tracks, either in the form of a ai???lift-spanai??i?? or draw bridge. Dutch engineers have made great strides in water crossing, due to the topography in their country and it would be good money invested consulting with a Dutch engineering firm. The GVRD even proposed such a bridge in the late 1970ai??i??s.Estimated cost $1 billion.
Ai??
The GVRD planned for a combined LRT/heavy rail/road bridge in the late 1970ai??i??s
2) A modified and enhanced Leewood/ Rail for the Valley TramTrain (TramTrain: A tram-train is a light rail public transport system where trams run through from an urban tramway network to main-line railway lines which are shared with conventional trains. This combines the tram’s flexibility and accessibility with a train’s greater speed, and bridges the distance between a main railway stations and a city centre.) service from Langley to downtown Vancouver, allowing 20 minute headways, with double tracking in strategic locations, including the Grandview Cut (2.5 km.); Fraser Hwy. and 184th (4.5 km.) and 152nd to King George Hwy, (3.75 km.) using Diesel LRT such as the Stadler GTW which is FRA compliant.
Estimated cost $750 million.
A Stadler GTW diesel LRT in operation in the United States
3) 24 km. White Rock to Surrey Central electric LRT, via 152nd Ave. the SRR of BC (between 152ndAve. and King George Hwy.), then up the King George Hwy. to Surrey Central
Estimated cost $1 billion.
Total Cost including contingency: $3 billion
With the three step transportation program completed, it would provide direct access from White Rock & Langley to Vancouver and, thus benefitting the region with a quality and affordable ai???railai??i?? network.
With LRT, the transit customer in Langley and South Surrey can ride direct to Vancouver, without transfer, in under an hour, which is superior to any plan TransLink has offered.
This plan also offers redundancy in the transit system by having two routes from Vancouver across the Fraser River, especially as the aging SkyTrain is now prone to frequent breakdowns.
The system can affordably expand in the future, to suit the needs of the traveling public. Extending TramTrain service to Abbotsford and Chilliwack would cost under $10 million/km., cheaper than new highway construction.
The cost of the three phase transportation plan would cost about the same as the proposed $3 billion plus Broadway SkyTrain subway and attract far more new customers to public transit.
This plan demonstrates 21st Century public transport philosophy by combining modern LRT with existing infrastructure to provide the transit customer with a quality service that will not impoverish the taxpayer.
This plan should be the vision of the Mayorai??i??s 10 year plan and not the present hugely expensive parochial and politically prestigious transit planning now taking place.
Tavistock Railway Station will be seeing passengers again in 2022!
The UK is reopening once abandoned rail lines to cope with congestion and increased population.
A UK developer must pay A?13.2m (CAD $23.25m) towards the restoration of the Bere Alston Tavistock railway route before building 750 new homes.
This works out to CAD $31,000 per home.
When one looks at the massive developments happening in the Fraser Valley should not developers pay a per house rate to help with the restoration of a Vancouver to Chilliwack interurban!
Example: If 5,000 new homes are built in the Fraser Valley in 2017, then $155m could be raised to fund about 10% the interurban project and in ten years, the project would be paid for without added gas taxes or property taxes.
Something to think about in a region, where inaction to increasing transportation problems associated with increased population, is deafening.
The end of the line today, but not for tomorrow, where the line is being rebuilt to Tavistock.
Well it tool seven long years for this as it is the first time any of the mainstream political parties have even acknowledged the need for a passenger/commuter rail service for the Fraser Valley.
ai??i??ai??i??ai??i?? or cutting through the BS about light rail, SkyTrain and BRT.
The following is a guide plus definitions about ai???railai??? transit.
ALM: Automatic Light metro, the fourthAi??marketing name given for the SkyTrain family of light-metros, when Lavalin briefly ownedAi??SkyTrain before going bankrupt.
ALRT (1): Advanced Light Rail Transit, the secondAi??marketing name for SkyTrain.
ALRT (2): Advanced Light Rapid Transit, the third marketing name for SkyTrain, when Advanced Light Rail Transit failed to find a market.
ART: Advanced Rapid Transit, the fifth marketing name for SkyTrain, used by its current owners, Bombardier Inc.
Automatic (Driverless) Operation: A signaling system that permits train operation without drivers. Contrary to popular myth, automatic operation does not reduce operating costs because there are no drivers, because attendants must be hired insteadAi??to permit safe operation. Automatic signaling was signed to reduce signaling staff, not operation staff.
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT): Generally means ai???Express Busesai???, a true BRT needs a very expensive and land consuming busway or highway or be guided.
Bored tunnel: A tunnel boring machine also known as a “mole”, is a machine used to excavate tunnels with a circular cross section through a variety of soil and rock strata. They can bore through anything from hard rock to sand.
Busway: A route needed for BRT. Busways can be conventional HOV lanes or exclusive roads for buses. Busways can be equipped with raised curbs or rails for bus guidance.
Canada Line: Vancouverai??i??s third metro line which is a grade separated EMU operation and is not compatible with the rest of the SkyTrain systemAi??in operation.
Capacity: A function of headway multiplied by vehicle capacity, which in turn is dependent on station station platform lengthAi?? measured in persons per hour per direction.
Consultation: To sell a transit decision to the public after the decision has been made.
C-Train: The Calgary light rail system.
Cut and cover: A method of building a tunnel by making a cutting, which is then lined and covered over. (Civil Engineering) designating a method of constructing a tunnel by excavating a cutting to the required depth and then backfilling the excavation over the tunnel roof
Evergreen Line: The 11.4 km newly finished portion of the old Broadway/Lougheed Rapid Transit Project. When the NDP forced the SkyTrain Millennium Line onto TransLink, there was not the money left order to complete the line to the Tri-Cities. Now completed.
Expo Line: The first SkyTrain line built, completed in late 1985. The ExpoAi??was built inAi??in three sections. The Waterfront to New Westminster section (cost a much as LRT from Vancouver to Whalley, Lougheed Mall and Richmond Centre), theAi??SkybridgeAi??section across the Fraser river to Scott road Station, and the final section to Whalley in Surrey.
Grade: The vertical rise of a railway track, normally given in a percentage (1% grade = a 1 metre rise in 100 metres). Industry standard grade for LRT is 8%; Sheffieldai??i??s LRTAi??operates onAi??10% grades; the maximum grade for a tramway is located in Lisbon, where the streetcars operate, unassisted, on 13.8% grades.
Goebbels Gambit: The fine art of repeating a lie often enough that it is perceived as the truth.
Guided Bus: A BRT that is physically guided by either a raised curb or a central rail. Some guided buses are considered monorails.
Headway: The time interval between trains on a transit route.
Hybrid: A transit system that is designed operated asAi??a LRT/light metro mix. Generally very expensive as it uses the most expensive features of both modes.
ICTS: Intermediate Capacity Transit system, the first name SkyTrain was marketed by.
Interurban: An early streetcar which operated at speed on its own R-o-W connecting urban centres.
Light Rail Transit (LRT): A steel wheel on steel rail transit system that can operate economically on transit routes with traffic flows between 2,000 pphpd to over 20,000 pphpd, thus bridging the gap on what buses can carry and that which needs a metro. A streetcar is considered LRT when it operates on reserved rights-of-ways or R-o-Wai??i??s for the exclusive use of the streetcar/tram. Number of LRT/tramways in operation around the world over 500; light railways (many use LRVai??i??s) ai??i?? over 120; heritage lines ai??i?? over 60.
Light Metro: A transit mode, generally a proprietary transit system, that has the capacity of LRT,Ai??at the cost of a heavy-rail metro.
Light Rail Vehicle (LRV): A vehicle that operates on a LRT or streetcar line. Also called a streetcar, tram, TramTrain or interurban.
Lysenkoism: used metaphorically to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives.
Mass Transit: A generic term for heavy-rail metro. See rapid transit.
MAX: The Portland Tri-Met LRT system.
Metro: An urban/suburban railway that operates on a segregated R-o-W, either in a subway or on a viaduct, due to long trains (5 cars+) and close headways. There are 174 heavy/light metros in operation around the world.
Millennium Line:Ai?? The second SkyTrain Line built, using the new Bombardier ART cars.
Monorail: A transit mode that operates on one rail. There are two general types of monorail: 1) hanging monorail and 2) straddle beam monorail (not a true monorail). Some proprietary BRT systems are also classed as monorail.
Priority Signaling: A signaling system that gives priority to transit vehicles at intersections.
Proprietary Transit System: A transit system who rights are exclusively owned by one company. Transit operations who operate proprietary transit systems must deal with only one supplier.
Rapid Transit: A generic term for metro. See mass transit.
Reserved Rights of Way: An exclusive R-o-W for use of transit vehicles, can be as simple as a HOV lane (with rails for LRT) or as elaborate a a lawned boulevard or a linear park complete with shrubs.
SkyTrain: An unconventional proprietary light-metro, powered by Linear Induction motors, marketed by Bombardier Inc. Currently there are 7 SkyTrain type transit systems in operation around the world. ICTS ai??i?? 2; ALRT (1 & 2) ai??i?? 1; ART 4.
Streetcar: A steel wheel, on steel rail electric (also can be diesel powered) vehicle that operates in mixed traffic, with little or no priority at intersections. Also known as a tram in Europe. Streetcars become LRT when operating on reserved R-o-Wai??i??s.
Subway: An underground portion of a rapid transit line. Subways may either be bored or cut and cover or a combination of both construction methods.
TTC: The Toronto Transit commission.
Tram: European term for streetcar, as the Europeans do not use the term LRT.
TramTrain: A streetcar that can operate on the mainline railways, operating as a passenger train.
TransLink Speak: The lexicon used by TransLink to mask problems. Example: medial emergency on SkyTrain means a suicide.
Viaduct: A viaduct isAi??a bridgeAi??composed of several small spans.
From the usual suspect, long time LRT and tram advocate Malcolm Johnston.
What has been forgotten by most, is the historical context for our light metro system has been lost, due to political, bureaucratic and academic intrigue.
The illustrations have been removed for brevity.
Dear Mayor and Council;
My name is Malcolm Johnston and I have been advocating for modern Light Rail Transit (LRT) since the early 1980ai??i??s. I have been a member of the international Light Rail Transit Association since 1984 and the person who coordinated the Leewood/Rail for the Valley Study, recommending a Vancouver to Chilliwack TramTrain (a variant of LRT) service operating on the former BC Electric rights-of-way. Today I belong to the Rail for the Valley group, promoting the Valley TramTrain.
Except for the odd letter in local newspapers, I have not been involved with the Surrey LRT, until events have forced me to.
I am disturbed with the planning of the Surrey LRT and after consulting with transportation engineers in Canada, the USA and Europe, who are members of the LRTA and/or read the Rail for the Valley blog, my concerns are indeed valid.
Modern LRT combines three concepts, the low-floor tram; the reserved or dedicated rights-of-way, and priority signaling at intersections, which provides a service that rivals todayai??i??s much more expensive metro systems.
Ottawaai??i??s low floor trams have the same capacity of four MK.1 cars or three Mk.2 cars.
Modern LRT made the metro variant, light-metro (what we call locally SkyTrain) obsolete by the end of the 1980ai??i??s.
Today, there are over five hundred and fifty transit systems that fall in the LRT family, with over two hundred built since the Edmonton LRT (considered to be the first modern LRT built) opened in the late 1980ai??i??s. Since this time only seven of the unconventional, proprietary SkyTrain type systems, which has been marketed under the various names including ICTS, ALRT, ALM, and ART, have been built.
Why has modern LRT proven so popular?
The answer is simple economics, as one modern tram (1 tram driver) is as efficient as six buses (6 bus drivers) and for every bus or tram operated, one must hire a minimum of three people to manage, maintain and operate them. When one considers that wages account for about 80% of a transit systemai??i??s operating costs, the savings by operating LRT over a forty year business cycle are considerable.
SkyTrain, an automatic light metro does not see this economy of operation, even though it has no drivers, light metro has many attendants, signaling and maintenance personnel to ensure smooth operation and SkyTrain needs continued bus operation to feed it its customers. This greatly increases operating costs.
When SkyTrain was forced upon the GVRD in 1980, experts of the day opined that SkyTrain would drive up operating costs, which would eventually lead to finical shortfalls and cannibalization of the transit system in the suburbs. These predictions have come true.
The myth that SkyTrain paid its operational costs was exploded in 1992, when the GVRD Study, The Cost of Transporting People in the GVRD found that SkyTrain was heavily subsidized, more than the entire bus system at the time!
Recent studies have also shown that TransLinkai??i??s cost per revenue passenger is about one third higher than Calgary, Edmonton and Toronto.
Even though warnings of high costs for SkyTrain light-metro went unheeded by local politicians and planners, those in other jurisdictions did due diligence and have built with light rail instead.
Again, only seven of the proprietary Ai??ALRT/ART (SkyTrain) systems have been built in forty years.
It is important to understand the difference between LRT and a streetcar.
The difference is not the vehicle, rather it is the concept of the reserved or dedicated rights-of-way, which enables a tram to operate without hindrance. LRT does not impede automobile traffic.
The reserved rights-of-way can be as simple as a HOV lane with rails or in most cases, the reserved rights a way is a boulevard for the exclusive use of the tram. In Europe these boulevards are lawned and landscaped, making the tram route a linear park.
Intersections are signal controlled, giving priority to the tram, over automobile traffic and is just like any other light signaled intersection. Those who claim LRT intersections hinder traffic, must concede that all light controlled intersections hinder traffic and the argument is moot.
A streetcar operates on-street in mixed traffic.
Transit planners in Europe consider that a streetcar or tram route with 60% or more of its route operates on reserved rights-of-ways can be considered LRT.
It also should be noted that there is no operational advantage for grade separating LRT on viaduct or in a subway and it only increases the costs, without any real benefit.
Today, the cost for a modern LRT line, should be around $25 million/km. to $35 million/km.
Surreyai??i??s proposed LRT is being planned as a poor manai??i??s SkyTrain, acting strictly as a feeder line to the now almost capacity Expo Line.
This will adversely affect ridership on the proposed light rail line.
According to one transportation specialist; ai???The Surrey LRT System is just that, itai??i??s entirely Surrey based system and it doesnai??i??t go anywhere else. The benefits only fits a certain subset of the Surreyai??i??s possible transit passenger market. The current route design gives no other connection to the outer region than pouring more passengers on to the SkyTrain system, instead of for example, connecting to the SkyTrain and then by passing it on its own right of way, outwards towards the rest of the region.ai???
The cost of the proposed LRT has now rumored to have surpassed $100 million/km. If this is true, then I am afraid that those planning for LRT are deliberately inflating costs to make the project unbuildable.
This happened in the 1990ai??i??s during the Broadway/Lougheed Rapid Transit Project, where the cost of LRT was deliberately inflated to within 7% of that of SkyTrain, which then made the flip-flop from LRT to SkyTrain, what we now call the Millennium Line, publicly acceptable.
I see the same scenario happening now, in 2017.
I do support modern LRT in Surrey. I do not support the present planning as it both expensive and myopic and I would strongly urge the City of Surrey to engage a company with the expertise in planning, building and operating with LRT, as Rail for the Valley group did, by engaging Leewood Projects of the UK for an unbiased study for the feasibility of a ai???railai??i?? service from Vancouver to Chilliwack.
In 2010 The Leewood Study found that a 130 km. Vancouver to Chilliwack TramTrain (a variant of LRT), track-sharing with the existing railway line, could be built for just under one billion dollars!
Modern light rail is extremely adaptable in operation as it can be built as a streetcar, light rail, or a tramtrain.
LRT can also carry freight or have ai???Bistroai??i?? cars serving light refreshments and even vintage trams can operate on LRT lines.
Modern LRT has over 125 years of development behind it and there is plenty of scope for LRTai??i??s continued development in the future.
This why LRT is built today, its inherent simple design and operating philosophy enables to mode to operate economically where it is built. Designed right, light rail can provide a user friendly alternative to the car.
Those who advocate for SkyTrain, advocate for a dated proprietary transit system, which costs more to build, maintain, and operate than LRT. ALRT/ART was designed in the 1970ai??i??s to cope with 1970ai??i??s transit issues.
LRT constantly evolves and never becomes ai???stale-datedai???, evidenced by many tramways that can trace their linage over 120 years of operation and now operate as modern light rail.
Light rail transit is truly the transit mode of the 21st century and should be designed as such, which at present it is not.
They are cheaper to operate than coupled sets of trams.
These cars are multi-section modular cars, 100% low floor with no internal steps.
Budapest Transport Ltd. operates the trams in peak hours at two minute intervals. To ensure quick and convenient passenger flows eight double-leaf doors on each side with a clear width of 1,300 mm and spread over the whole length of the tramcar.
While local politicians squabble about expensive transit planning and gouging the taxpayer to pay for multi billion dollar transportation vanity projects, economic and user friendly TramTrain construction and operation continue to increase.
Stadler Rail Valencia previously supplied electro-diesel tram-trains to Chemnitz.
HUNGARY: National passenger operator MA?V-Start has selected Stadler Rail Valencia to supply eight electro-diesel tram-trains to operate on the planned route between Szeged and HA?dmezAi??vA?sA?rhely. The order announced on April 18 includes an option for four more vehicles.
The project is being fully financed by the EU, with rolling stock estimated to cost HF10bn. Services would run on the current alignment of tram Route 1 in Szeged, before using an 800Ai??m connection that will be built to connect the tram route to the unelectrified Szeged ai??i?? BAi??kAi??scsaba railway line. A new 3Ai??3Ai??km single-track line is also to be built through HA?dmezAi??vA?sA?rhely to take tram-trains to the cityai??i??s main station.
Weaver hasn’t a clue about transit and throwing more money after bad will not improve it.
The “road pricing” issue is nothing more than a wet squib; for road pricing to be publicly accepted and successful one must have a viable and user-friendly transit system.
We don’t, not even close and Weaver throwing an extra paltry $25 million annually at transit, will make bureaucrats happy, but that is about all.
I am tired of tax and spend politicians who want more taxes for transit, but are absolutely clueless at what are transit’s ills.
The problems at TransLink are massive and road pricing will not cure it, as a complete philosophical change in providing public transit is needed.
What is needed are politicians who have taken the time actually studying regional transit issues and have a real knowledge about public transit.
The key word in this article is “rapid transit” whichAi?? indicates Weaver hasn’t a clue what he is talking about.
Tolls and road pricing are a tax and spend politicians best friends.
Road pricing, transit spending take centre stage in Green transportation platform
Widespread road pricing, new transit funding, and de-privatizing B.C. Ferries are all on the menu should the BC Green Party find itself at the head of the table following the May 9 election.
The party is also pledging to press pause on the Massey Tunnel Replacement Project, pending a review of alternatives.
B.C. Green leader Andrew Weaver rolled out the platform Thursday,Ai??which he says would prioritize regional planning and clean transportation.
Public transit
Weaver says a Green government would boost funding for public transit by $25-million a year with the goal of increasing service and keeping fares low.
He says the Greens would also put up a new $152-million in provincial funding to fully match funds the federal Liberals promised last year as a part of a Public Transit Infrastructure fund.
He adds a Green government would match any federal infrastructure funding dollar for dollar.
ai???Itai??i??s good public policy to match federal investment, and we know that for every dollar we spend weai??i??re getting a dolalr from the federal government that would feed into the B.C. economy.ai???
Weaver says the spending would be funded by an increase in the carbon tax $10 per year until it reaches $70/ ton.
On top of that, he says the greens would bring B.C. Ferries back into the fold as a crown corporation, arguing it is a public service and key link in the transportation network.
Tolls
While the B.C. Liberals and BC NDP have been battling it out with duelling toll-slashing policies, the Greens are going the other way.
Weaver says not only would existing tolls be left in place, but that a Green government would toll any new major road project to fund it.
Weaver also opened the door to wider road pricing once better transit is in place, including schemes that look at pricing specific areas (the downtown peninsula, for example), or full network pricing in which all drivers pay, potentially based on how far they drive.
ai???If there are transportation options available. If thereai??i??s rapid transit going all the way out to Abbotsford for example. And you start to recognzie that downtown Vancouver is congested, we could model other jurisdictions. For example, in London, it was incredibly successful to implement congestion taxes.ai???
Regional focus
Arguing that current transportation planning has been piecemeal and overly road and bridge-focused, the Greens are also pitching a ai???10-year integrated transportation plan.ai???
Weaver says the plan would look at any infrastructure upgrades in the context of regional plans and prioritize clean transportation.
That would include the controversial Massey Tunnel Replacement Project, which Weaver says heai??i??d put on hold while it gets a second look.
ai???Why are we talking about a Massey Bridge? Really itai??i??s nothing more than a jobs creation plan that will kick the problem down to the Oak Street bridge and make it much worse. Thatai??i??s not a transportation strategy. What we need is an integrated strategy. Why arenai??i??t we talking about rapid transit from say Tsawwassen?ai???
He says the party will alsoAi??back the mayorsai??i?? ai???10-year-visionai??? and match federal funding for it, support their regional transportation plans, and work together on coming up with a ai???rational tolling system.ai???
Clean transportation
Weaver says the party would promote private sector investment in clean technology and transportation initiatives to spur job creation.
He says it would also introduce initiatives to promote low carbon transportation and encourage people to get out of their cars.
Ideas on the table include breaks on tolls or parking for electric vehicles, more charging stations, better bike and pedestrian infrastructure, and distance-based insurance.
Weaver says the party would also begin to assess future transportation investments in terms of sustainability andAi??their effects on long-term emissions.
As the Scarborough ICTS cars and Vancouver’s MK.1 cars are the same, one would surmise there are corrosion problems with Vancouver’s cars, especially in Vancouver with airborne salt from the sea.
Does the public have the confidence in TransLink to keep them safe?
Scarborough RT vehicles need repairs to avoid ai???catastrophicai??i?? corrosion failures
TTC asking board’s permission to award $6.8-million sole-source repair contract to Bombardier.
An inspection of the TTC’s aging Scarborough RT vehicles uncovered a corrosion problem. The TTC plans to award Bombardier a sole-sourced $6.8-million contract to repair the decaying fleet.Ai??Ai??(Marcus Oleniuk / Toronto Star file photo)Ai??Ai??
The TTCai??i??s aging fleet of Scarborough RT vehicles has a corrosion problem that could cause ai???catastrophicai??? structural failures if not addressed soon, and the transit agency plans to award embattled rail manufacturer Bombardier a sole-sourced $6.8-million contract to conduct the urgent repairs.
The TTC uncovered the corrosion issue during an inspection of its fleet that it undertook after council voted to extend the life of Line 3 (Scarborough RT) until the Scarborough subway extension opens a decade from now.
ai???When we peeled the floors back, we found that some of the vehicles had holes the size of toonies, and a lot of wear,ai??? said Raffaele Trentadue, the TTCai??i??s head of rail cars and shop.
Trentadue said the problem was caused by decades of snow and salt accumulating near the doorsof the 32-year-old vehicles.
This photo shows corrosion in one of the Scarborough Rapid Transit cars. The TTC has discovered corrosion problems in the cars that need to be repaired, otherwise they could lead to catastrophic structural failures.
The corrosion has affected load-bearing joints of the door post and car-body frames. According to a report going to the TTC board on Thursday requesting funding for the repairs, if the decaying parts arenai??i??t fixed ai???as soon as possibleai??? the corrosion might compromise the vehiclesai??i?? structural integrity. That could ai???potentially lead to catastrophic vehicle failure and put the service plan of operating the system until 2026 at risk.ai???
TTC chief operating officer Mike Palmer said thereai??i??s ai???no questionai??? that the vehicles are safe but the TTC needs to take proactive measures to ensure they remain that way.
ai???From our point of view this is a good news story. This is us not ignoring a problem, and (instead) dealing with it in quality way and in a swift way which also will benefit customers for the next 10 years,ai??? he said.
The TTC first discovered the corrosion in 2015, but Palmer said it took until now to devise a fix for the problem.
The TTC sent one car each to Bombardier and a Montreal-based company called CAD Rail to test each vendorai??i??s repair methods. Third-party consultants determined that only Bombardier was capable of developing a repair that would last 10 years, which is why the TTC is recommending awarding the repair contract to the company on a sole-source basis.
A company that Bombardier later bought built the Line 3 cars, and Bombardier still owns proprietary information about the vehicles. Palmer said the company was best positioned for the repair job, and added that the consultant determined that the price Bombardier quoted for the work is fair.
If the TTC board approves the contract, the vehicles will be shipped by truck more than 300 km to a Bombardier facility in Kanona, New York that specializes in refurbishing rail cars.
The Line 3 fleet consists of 28 vehicles, and all 26 that havenai??i??t already undergone repairs will likely need work.
The TTC has few vehicles to spare however, which means there will be reductions in service. Until the repairs are completed sometime next year Line 3, which carries about 3.4 million people annually, will be down to five trains of four cars each, instead of the usual complement of six trains.
The Scarborough RT was originally supposed to be decommissioned and replaced by an LRT line, which would have necessitated replacement bus service for about four years while the LRT was being built.
That changed in 2013 when council voted to build the controversial Scarborough subway extension instead, and to spend $170 million to extend the Scarborough RTai??i??s life and then tear it down once the subway opened.
At the time, the subway extension was expected to enter service in 2023, but that has now been pushed back to 2026, meaning the TTC will have to keep the SRT system running for even longer than expected.
Asked whether the Scarborough RT will last that long, Palmer responded ai???I donai??i??t have a crystal ball.ai??? But he said he was ai???reasonably confidentai??? that the latest round of repairs will keep them in service for a decade.
The TTC has already repaired the vehiclesai??i?? steel-and-fiberglass bodies, overhauled their mechanics, and upgraded the lineai??i??s track, signalling, and civil structures. Palmer said the work is paying off and delay minutes have been reduced by a whopping 79.2 per cent since 2014.
ai???You can keep any vehicle going for as long as you like,ai??? Palmer said, ai???but obviously, the older they get the more you spend, and the more you have to be innovative.ai???
After the “locust years” of the 70’s and 80’s, German tramways have reinvented themselves and very successfully too. German tramways have set the standard for modern efficient and cost effective operation.
The key for this success?
German tramways are very user-friendly!
On another note, buses only made slight gains in ridership, when compared to the tram.
German tramways have done very well attracting the motorist from the car.
Use of both local and long-distance public transport services in Germany grew by 1.5% in 2016 to reach a new record of 11.38 billion journeys, according to provisional results published by the German Federal Statistics Office Destatis, which attributes the growth to an increase in population, employment and students.
Local public transport accounted for the majority of the traffic with 11.2 billion passengers, a 1.4% increase. LRT saw an increase of 2.2% to 3.97 billion passengers, while rail including S-Bahn services also recorded a rise of 2.2% to 2.63 billion journeys. Bus transport was almost stagnant with only a 0.5% increase to 5.3 billion journeys.ai???The number of passengers using local services has steadily increased since 2004, the first year for which comparable data are available,ai??? Distatis says. ai???In 2016, passenger volume was almost 1.3 billion higher (+12.7%) than 12 years earlier. Particularly strong growth was recorded in rail traffic (+34.6%) and in tram transport (+18.1%). On the other hand, local bus services recorded a slight increase of 0.9%.ai???
Long-distance rail transport saw a 5.3% increase to 138 million passengers, which Destatis says is due to an expansion of services and special offers.
The boom in long-distance bus transport, created by the opening up of the market, appears to have come to an abrupt end, with only moderate growth of 4.3% in 2016 to 24 million passengers.
Widespread road pricing, new transit funding, and de-privatizing B.C. Ferries are all on the menu should the BC Green Party find itself at the head of the table following the May 9 election.
Recent Comments