Plan B – the Leewood/Railfor the Valley TramTrain.
With the resounding defeat of the YES side in the recent plebiscite, maybe it is time to dust off the Leewood/Rail for the Valley Study. The simple fact is, other groups are, without acknowledging the massive efforts Rail for the Valley has invested in this project, trying to take credit for a plan B!
The Leewood/Rail for the Valley Study could be a good compromise for a “Plan B”, sinceAi?? the failure of of the TransLink/mayors Plan plebiscite.
A Chilliwack to Vancouver TramTrain service could be just the ticket to bring credibility back to Metro Vancouver, the regional mayors and TransLink.
A modified Leewood plan could see an thirty minute service (a train every 30 minutes) from downtown Vancouver to Chilliwack, using FRA approved Stadler diesel LRT vehicles.
An updated cost of $1 billion would include double tracking and improved signalling on the shared Roberts Bank Railway tracks; longer sidings and passing points at strategic locations along the line, and double tracking the line through the Grandview cut. By using diesel LRT, would enable more money to be invested on track and infrastructure.
Service would see 16 FRA approved Stadler diesel light rail vehicles operating on 130 km of refurbished line connecting Chilliwack, Abbotsford, Langley, South Surrey, and North Delta, with downtown Vancouver.
A new combined road/rail bridge replacing the decaying Patullo Bridge and the downright decrepit Fraser River Rail Bridge, would ensure enhanced TramTrain service throughout the Fraser Valley.
Here is a plan that maybe would muster a YES vote at a referendum!
That map is awsome. It illustrates perfectly what is wrong with this proposal (at least past Langley). Notice the lovely meandering route, its scenic, who wants to go straight to where they want to go? The map is a bit out of date, but notice it shows urban areas. Who wants to go to any of those, farmland is much more scenic. A cheap to build line that serves very few people is a bad deal.
Zwei replies: Rico, you are stupid and stupid people are so stupid that they don’t know that they are stupid. Drive out to valley sunshine, things have changed big time since the 1950’s.
Oh that just makes too much sense for her “photoopness” to work with. Like how are the friends of B.C. Lieberal insiders going to make any money off of that. A measley billion. Gee, that will never work for the friends of the B.C. Lieberals.
Now don’t get me wrong. I think its a great idea. One of the best to come along since the train to Mission which brings people to work in downtown Vancouver. I can remember taking the tram from Richmond into Marpole, a long long time ago. Worked well, except for the Sunday morning it stalled on the bridge over the river, but the rest of it worked just fine.
What some see today as not so populated, give it a few year. it will be all populated. Putting in rail now makes sense. if we had done that back in the mid 1980s would would have saved a bundle.
Zwei replies: The rail is there, just begging for transit use.
“A new combined road/rail bridge replacing the decaying Patullo Bridge and the downright decrepit Fraser River Rail Bridge, would ensure enhanced TramTrain service throughout the Fraser Valley.”
As far at the Patullo Bridge goes, I read a very good suggestion to just tear it down rather than throw away another $100 million or whatever on temporary repairs and then make the Port Mann Bridge free (not tolled). Hopefully this idea catches on with people. Tolling the Trans-Canada at present (Port Mann Bridge) is obscene.
I’d like to see the tram line to Richmond. Scratch the subway to UBC and use the money for it. To make it economical, some sort of combined commercial venture has to be sought – possibly lumber railed to Vancouver for export to Japan. Given the state of the economy, it might be a great make work infrastructure project. More investment in the s-train and subway boondoggle is a money pit for the concrete companies selling concrete to destroy the environment:
Are the ones behind the never ending taxes to expand s-train saving us from gridlock as they purport or are they making money by funding firms (concrete) making money from expensive subway and s-train lines using tonnes of GHG intensive concrete charged to taxpayers? Doesn’t mining sand from the ocean floors for TransLink to build subway and s-train lines destroy aquatic ecosystems and island habitats? How does this not degrade the environment? According to UBC research, s-train is the most carbon polluting transit mode there is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAPfwwb59uY
You know what transit by TransLink is? It is a lie. No more TransLink and no more taxes for transit – cut costs. Fire everyone at TransLink.
Do not think it is a realistic one, the Surrey light rail programme could be a good one. Hope to see it up and running by 2018.
Zwei replies: I think not. The proposed Surrey LRT is extremely poorly planned and will not come close in fulfilling expectations.
First thing is first, lets not call each other names please, we all should act like adults! I understand frustration with differing opinions I do this for living, it can make you want to punch holes in walls, especially when no one is looking!
Second, after reading some of the guiding literature of the current Surrey LRT project and having read Zwei’s report as well, my first comment is that, a better job on both has to be done to define the need and scope of the project. Any first phase has to be extremely precise about what its particular goals and objectives are. Both are very unclear, sorry Zwei you have to a better job on that.
Next, the scope and starting geographical scale of the project’s first phase has to be a little clearer for Zwei’s and a whole lot more clear from Surrey’s Mayor LRT project. Are both project’s designed primarily in the first phase to just service the area south of the Fraser River or are we wanting connections to the rest of Vancouver. Is this a glorified connection to the Skytrain or is there are another stage that will have a cross river connection.
Zwei, even in casual conversation’s like this, you must be crystal clear about what is phase 1 and what are later phases, keep using that same language in every conversation you have on the subject, no matter how casual. It is very unclear when you, Zwei, speak about your Tram Train project what is phase 1. Imagine it this way, any time you talk about the Tram Train, write about it, pretend that there is a camera and reporter talking to you, for as long as you seriously want to do this project, no matter what the circumstance or location, remember you must be cordial and concise.
The LRT project that the Mayor of Surrey wants is seriously flawed for other reasons. As drawn on the maps, its unclear what will be the advantage of the LRT service over say, a really good BRT system (A real BRT system not B Lines). How much of the project is running physically on segregated road lanes or a side of the road private right of way. What type of signaling system is going to be used to favor LRT at intersections. These are not trivial details to be worked out later. Yes, drivers will probably have to deal with surface LRV’s and that will take time to for them to learn how to deal with them. It’s not rocket science, it’s the same for every surface LRT project there has ever been, there is a learning curve and drivers will adjust, the sky will not fall because the LRT system is on the road beside you in traffic.
That being said, when I look at the T intersection arrangement where the (2 or 3 ?) LRT line’s meet in the many diagrams I have seen, I shudder because in no picture or drawing have I ever seen what that intersection is supposed to actually look like. I have a pretty good imagination of what it should or could look like but, this portion of the LRT system is quite critical and must be designed well for the whole thing to work. This has led to a very serious situation in my opinion regarding this project. There are very few serious details about the project it self, planned vehicle fleet size, consist length or individual LRV length. Station platform length and width are very critical items for a surface LRT system. I have seen 3 or 4 estimates of its operating frequency all claiming to be true but each one had some serious operational issues that must be dealt with if they are all true. In all, a serious lack of detail that leads me to believe that, little actual predesign work and or basic track engineering has been contemplated or completed around this project.
Most importantly, how the mayor and the City of Surrey plans to actually pay for this thing, or at the least its portion. I know what the mayor’s Plan B is and it won’t work! You see, the power vacuum at Translink following the NO vote has left it little funding options but to cut service. Remember, I have been telling you guys for a while now, Translink current funding is declining relative to inflation and really needs in my opinion about 30-40% more funding to just begin catching up to the levels it really needs to be spending at for not just future projects but to maintain what they already have. Remember, if you don’t like P3’s don’t ask for money from the Federal Government to build any rapid transit lines because all federal government money for this type of project comes with the precondition that it must be a P3 project.
In my opinion, most major North American cities in general have to increase spending for not just transit but most infrastructure spending, no less than 200-250% across the board. Not one rapid transit line at a time but 2-3 at a time, just to catch up to where they should be right now. That’s my opinion but it is shared by many experts who monitor our quickly dissolving water/sewer lines, water purification plants, massively overbuilt road systems, at the least compared to what roads we can actually afford to maintain and operate, existing rapid transit and many other critical systems that make life in cities possible.
Voting No, and smashing Translink, won’t keep the original Expo Line Skytrain right of way from collapsing due to age. They still haven’t even budgeted for that yet, The Skytrain station platform enlarging and power equipment enhancements yes, they have been budgeted for. However, the whole above grade right of way between the stations has not been budgeted for, yet. It will be in the Billions of dollars. Translink have yet to buy the new software, the better intrusion sensors and power system upgrades that were identified as needed in last October’s report on the mysterious Skytrain system shut downs last summer. They simply don’t have the resources to reduce the system start up time when the Skytrain shuts down. That should have been purchased and installed while the plebiscite was going on.
The problem, not enough money! Even if Translink could stop paying the money it has to for the Canada Line P3 project it would not even come close to solve the issue around their complete lack of funding. Their budget as it is, is simply not big enough for what they it is supposed to do. You can’t be in charge of half the cost of the maintenance and building of certain major area roads and all of the cost of building and maintaining major road bridges/tunnels as well as all the costs of operating and building the entire area’s transit system with a funding regime that is declining, no matter how efficient they are or not.
<strong>Zwei replies: The scope of the Leewood study was to see if a reinstatement of rail service on the former interurban route was viable and and the cost og installing a new interurban servcie. As the route services major post secondary institutions, the feeling was that an appropriate ridership could be had.
How many new riders has SkyTrain attracted to transit? Not as much as many people think and with over 80% of SkyTrain’s ridership first taking a bus, much of SkyTrain’s ridership is recycled bus riders.
As for Rico, six years of his nonsense and much libeling in the MSN during the recent plebiscite, I just told as it is.
As for abuse, the pro side for Surrey’s LRT are after my scalp as well – a no win situation.
Just a note. The Canada Line is not a true P-3, as the SNC lead consortium did not assume risk for the project (which is a hallmark of a P-3) and instead, they sourced money at a higher interest rate, than what the province would pay. The judge who presided over the Susan Heyes court case against TransLink called the Canada Line P-3 a “charade“.
Please replace my last post with this one:
@Haveacow, simply dissolving TransLink to let Metro Vancouver (utility authority supplying water and other services to Metro Vancouver) run transit in the Lower Mainland saves about $150 million annually. None of the deadbeats at TransLink are remotely interested in this idea.
http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/Pages/default.aspx
Charging the 130,000 free-loading students full fare generates about another $140 million annually. Shaving the 13 bus routes to UBC (80% empty) to four saves another $60 million annually. There you have it: $350 million annually for transit. What’s wrong with this approach to funding transit?
There is a criminal element associated with TransLink which is funneling money to concrete firms building concrete guide-ways for s-train and subways. Finding new taxes to fund the pigs at the trough at TransLink isn’t a new plan. It is the old plan dressed up in a different way.
Rather than more astronomical spending on fancy s-train and subway lines to try in vain to coax drivers (with little success and growing road congestion) onto transit which they clearly don’t want to take, the pursuit of efficient and affordable tram and trolleybus networks actually reducing GHG emissions and commuting times (for anyone who wants to take transit) is the right course of action. Money saved can then be allocated to the road improvements and bridges benefiting everyone in Metro Vancouver, including transit users.
Taxpayers did not shoot down the sales tax for another tax. Already, certain columnists plying for TransLink are putting out feelers to see whether road pricing or other tax scheme might be palpable for taxpayers to keep the good times rolling at TransLink. Another tax isn’t.
Voters who voted no in the transit plebiscite objected to not only the current unfair and discriminatory gas taxes and parking taxes targeting drivers but also any new taxes, direct or indirect to fund TransLink. Their vote wasn’t just an objection to the overspending on transit yielding limited results. It was an indictment of the fraud and corruption by the swindlers at TransLink.
@Eric Chris
That is literally those most regressive things I think I’ve ever heard anyone propose. Charge people with almost no expendable (or often negative) income an extra $140M/yr.
Then cut the services on the bus routes with the lowest costs per rider in the system.
Perhaps we should cut welfare, and maybe revert to a flat fee instead of graduated income taxes. How about we determine wait times at a hospital by auction?
This is how you build a strong society, right?
@UB,
Almost 30 years as an engineering student, I paid $57 monthly (I kept the pass as a memento) for the discounted transit pass (student). Students going to UBC currently pay just $35 monthly for their all (three) zone student pass.
I call this a bribe. What do you call it?
Stick with me for a moment. I’m going to rant to clarify things for you and others like you who haven’t got a clue. Transit actually increases both air pollution and road congestion according to scientific evidence and empirical data. Drivers and other non-transit users paying two-thirds of the cost of transit for transit users are not being unfairly subsidized to use the roads as loons such as you believe. No.
“The irrelevance of transit service to urban traffic volumes goes against both intuitions and the claims of many transit analysts. Yes, it’s easy enough to argue that if all transit riders started driving, then they’d clog the roads during rush hour; and conversely, that if a bunch of people switched from cars to buses, rush hour traffic would get lighter for a while. But as the authors point out, if drivers switch from cars to buses or trains, it has much the same effect as adding new road space: traffic clears up temporarily, but faster travel quickly attracts more drivers who take longer trips.
… this… poses some serious problems for transportation compromises that couple road expansions with transit projects. It’s easy to convince yourself that those kinds of compromises are win-wins—that road expansions will simply ease congestion, and that transit will help keep traffic growth in check. But this research suggests that that sort of compromise is a pipe dream.”
http://daily.sightline.org/2011/12/14/study-more-roads-more-traffic/
Roads are for everyone, just as hospitals and schools are. Transit is for anyone who can’t or won’t drive. Society to some extent agrees to pay for transit. If you want to use transit based on your delusions that transit is saving the world from climate change or whatever, go ahead.
Who are you to tell me and others, especially drivers, who don’t share your delusions, to pay for your ride? Really, who the hell are you? It makes me want to:
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=778713558832780
Poor students who are paying $20,000 annually or more to attend UBC don’t need the bribe for cheap bus passes from TransLink. They are being compensated for UBC in collusion with TransLink taking their parking spaces away for UBC to build condos for sale and profit. This has displaced students to put them on s-train and is what TransLink wanted.
It costs TransLink $510 per month to offer transit for three zones. Remember, the $170 monthly three zone pass paid by welfare transit users is only one-third of the cost of the three zone pass.
Each student paying $35 monthly for the three zone student pass is subsidized $3,800 (93%) over the eight months at UBC each year. Can you do the math, or should I do it for you (8 x 3 x $170 – 8 x $35 = $3,800 or $510 minus $35 divided by $510 = 93%)?
People like you are so messed up that I can’t help you (Eric Doherty, Daryl DC and Rico come to mind). You’re fanatical transit fascists who think that you are right and anyone who doesn’t share your limited view about transit is wrong. You have no clue about the world around you. None.
It is unlikely that I helped you understand anything but I feel better now. Have a good day on transit doubling your commuting time, increasing carbon emissions, exposing you to diseases as well as creeps and increasing road congestion. I feel sorry for you but do support tram and trolleybus routes as they do reduce air pollution and are at least economical without the detrimental social and health impacts of noisy diesel buses.
https://translinkharassment.wordpress.com/2015/03/09/dont-stand-so-close-to-me/
I’m fine with helping others and contribute thousands of dollars to charity annually. Transit is just another charity which I support. How much of your money do you give away every year? Let me guess, $0 annually. G’day.
I don’t grasp why Chris elevates the Upass to “bribe” over a simple subsidy. But if a bribe it was the Gordon Campbell Liberal government, not Translink who ‘angry man’ Eric Chris should thank for the widespread Upass.
The Sightline article that addresses the claim of transit as a solution for traffic congestion is not evidence that “Transit actually increases both air pollution and road congestion”. Chris should cite the “scientific evidence and empirical data” for the latter, but please, keep it real and cite comparisons of general modal choice.