Posts Tagged ‘tramtrain’

Transit News From Here and There

October 21, 2010

A former 4 lane arterial road with lawned

Chilliwack Times

http://www.chilliwacktimes.com/Uninformed+about+transit/3693739/story.html

Nick Wimpney  open letter to Sharon Gaetz in the Times needs following up

North Shore News

http://www.burnabynow.com/story.html?id=3699636

Hamilton

Most Candidates Support LRT, Mayoral Candidates Split

http://www.raisethehammer.org/article/1207/most_candidates_support_lrt_mayoral_candidates_split

Winnipeg

Bus rapid transit has edge in poll

Winnipeg Free Press

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/bus-rapid-transit-has-edge-in-poll-105418328.html

Cambridge, Ontario

Light rail transit dominates regional debate

Cambridge Times

http://www.cambridgetimes.ca/news/local/article/891078–light-rail-transit-dominates-regional-debate

Los Angeles – Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor light-rail project

L.A. Metro lands TIFIA loan for Crenshaw/LAX light-rail project

Progressive Railroading

http://www.progressiverailroading.com/news/article.asp?id=24827

Engineering to begin on Crenshaw/LAX light rail

South California Public Radio

http://www.scpr.org/news/2010/10/20/engineering-begin-crenshawlax-light-rail/

Advertisements

Transit News Around The World October 19, 2010

October 19, 2010

Phoenix

METRO Playing With A Full House

http://raillife.com/blog/

Los Angeles

LAX rail line is early stop in plan to expedite transit work

http://www.dailybreeze.com/opinions/ci_16357591

Tampa Bay

Hillsborough rail plan is still taking shape

http://tinyurl.com/35egf4g

Wellington, NZ

Councillors signal light rail battle lines

http://tinyurl.com/2udcyql

Norfolk, VA

Light rail may be up & running by Dec.

http://tinyurl.com/2es7phc

Ottawa

Transit tops voter issues, poll finds

Taxes, turfing current mayor, also rated important by respondents

http://tinyurl.com/329zt57

More Transit News – October 15, 2010

October 15, 2010

From the Victoria Times Colonist

http://www.timescolonist.com/technology/Think+rail+only+rail+future+transportation/3649005/story.html

 http://www.timescolonist.com/sports/Maclean+Cars+here+stay/3651236/story.html

 http://www.timescolonist.com/news/Public+input+sought+last+route/3613881/story.html

 http://www.timescolonist.com/travel/rail+line+along+Johnson+Street/3613919/story.html

 http://www.timescolonist.com/ahead+interchange/3532824/story.html

 Vancouver Courier October 13, 2010

http://www.vancourier.com/technology/case+free+transit+downtown+core/3663446/story.html

 Public transit debate can get messy, murky 

Vancouver Courier Wednesday, November 04, 2009

Vancouver bus routes dwarf Surrey grid

http://www.vancourier.com/life/Public+transit+debate+messy+murky/2900233/story.html

The Tyee

 Get Rolling on Streetcars, Say Gathered Experts

They reduce carbon, promote healthy development, and tourists love them, Translink is told.

http://thetyee.ca/News/2010/10/01/Streetcars/

Coquitlam NOW

SkyTrain is too expensive

http://www.thenownews.com/SkyTrain+expensive/3631453/story.html

Internationally

Philadelphia – work begins on streetcar casino branch

Historic trolley off track

Philly.com

http://www.philly.com/community/Historic_trolley_off_track.html?viewAll=y

http://www.septa.org/maps/trolley/pdf/015.pdf

Phoenix

Valley Metro

http://www.valleymetro.org/metro_light_rail/future_extensions/tempe/

Tempe-South update

http://tinyurl.com/35zampm

http://raillife.com/blog/

Wellington, New Zealand

Councillors signal Light Rail battle lines

http://tinyurl.com/2udcyql

The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree – TransLink’s Regional Transit Planning

October 13, 2010

Fruit of the poisonous tree is a legal metaphor in the United States used to describe evidence that is obtained illegally. The logic of the terminology is that if the source of the evidence (the “tree”) is tainted, then anything gained from it (the “fruit”) is as well.

TransLink’s planning officials still maintain that modern light Rail has a limited capacity of about 10,000 persons per hour per direction and refuse to entertain the fact that they are wrong. All of TransLink planning, including the RAV/Canada Line, the Evergreen line, the Broadway/UBC rapid transit line, and Fraser Valley transportation have assumed LRT’s seemingly inferior capacity and despite the fact that modern LRT can carry in excess of 20,000 pphpd, have portrayed LRT as a poorman’s SkyTrain.

The assumption that light rail has only a capacity of 10,000 pphpd is wrong.

The Light Rail Transit Association [ www.lrta.org ], which can trace its history back 63 years, which has continually campaigned for affordable and efficient public transit, defines light rail transit as:

“a steel wheel on steel rail transit mode, that can deal economically with traffic flows of between 2,000 and 20,000 passengers per hour per direction, thus effectively bridging the gap between the maximum flow that can be dealt with using buses and the minimum that justifies a metro.”

The following study from the LRTA, shows that even in 1986, it was generally understood that modern LRT could carry 20,000 pphpd.

https://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/2010/05/20/the-1986-lrta-study-bus-lrt-metro-comparison/

More recently, (2006) Calgary Transit LRT Technical Data page claims that the maximum theoretical capacity of the C-Train is 30,700 pphpd!

Maximum THEORETICAL single direction capacity (pass./hr/dir) at 256 pass./car and 2 min. headway:
3-car train 23,040
4-car train 30,720

http://www.calgarytransit.com/html/technical_information.html

If TransLink’s basic assumption about light rail (including streetcar) is wrong, then TransLink’s entire planning history, regarding bus, LRT, and SkyTrain is wrong and is not worth the paper it is printed on. Yet TransLink, without any public scrutiny and very little political oversight, continues to plan for hugely expensive SkyTrain light-metro projects, which supposed support for, has been heavily biased by questionable studies and even more questionable tactics – all fruit from the poisonous tree!

Noted American transportation expert Gerald Fox, summed up his observations on the TransLink business case for the Evergreen line;

” It is interesting how TransLink has used this cunning method of manipulating analysis to justify SkyTrain in corridor after corridor, and has thus succeeded in keeping its proprietary rail system expanding.”

https://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/2010/09/20/a-must-read-for-regional-mayors-before-they-talk-transit/

Has TransLink’s regional transit planning over the past ten years nothing more than “Fruit of the poisonous tree?”, based on the fact that TransLink’s bureaucrats desired that light rail (LRT) be seen inferior to SkyTrain, on paper, to ensure further planning and building of their cherished light metro system?

Rail for the Valley would welcome TransLink’s clarification on this issue!

If One Build Metro On Routes That Do Not Have The Ridership That Would Justify Contruction……

October 8, 2010

…..Then One Will Have To Pay Large Subsidies To Build And Operate It!

Large Subsidies Translates Into Higher Taxes!

Of course those high subsidies will have to be borne by the taxpayer, either in gas taxes, car levies, or road pricing (or all three), and or increased property taxes. The current belief by TransLink’s highly paid bureaucrats is that the homeowner in the Metro Region is flush enough to pay more property taxes.

What TransLink isn’t doing is planning for cheaper transit options and the term “affordable transit“, is not in their lexicon. Politicians and bureaucrats in Victoria are the same, as they force the metro region to build more SkyTrain and light metro. The time has come for Metro and Valley politicians to draw a line in the sand with this nonsense. If the politically unaccountable TransLink and Victoria want more SkyTrain in our region, then let Victoria pay for it, or better yet, take back the financial black-hole TransLink has become, in its entirety.

As previously mentioned, TransLink’s anti-LRT rhetoric has skewed all regional ‘rail‘ transit planning to favour SkyTrain, despite the fact that no one around the world buys SkyTrain for regional ‘rail’ transit. One now must consider all TransLink’s regional transit planning reported as “fruit of the poisonous tree” and reject it all!

https://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/2010/10/05/the-10000-pphpd-question-translink-is-hoisted-on-its-own-petard/

TransLink’s business case for the Evergreen Line was so planned to support only SkyTrain construction, has been shredded by American transit & transportation expert Gerald Fox.

https://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/2010/09/20/a-must-read-for-regional-mayors-before-they-talk-transit/

The Rail for the Valley/Leewood report has shown that there is another much cheaper way in providing regional ‘rail‘ transit the light rail or LRT and TramTrain solution.

https://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/2010/09/20/groundbreaking-report-on-interurban-light-rail-released-today/

Thus we come to TransLink’s and the provincial government’s gambit to saddle regional property owners with ever increasing  taxes to continue building with the now obsolete proprietary SkyTrain light metro system. Regional mayors should stand fast and reject any further financial demands for ‘rapid transit’ until TransLink does a complete independent financial review of transit options for future ‘rail‘ transit construction, including the the contentious Evergreen Line and a complete independent audit is done on TransLink itself, SkyTrain/RAV-Canada Line and the bus system.

May Zwei suggest Mr. Gerald Fox or Mr. David Cockle to head such a review?

From the press.

TransLink asked mayors for a $68.5 million handout.

The Vancouver Sun

 http://www.vancouversun.com/news/TransLink+asks+Metro+mayors+million+handout/3639962/story.html

The Black Press

http://www.bclocalnews.com/surrey_area/surreyleader/news/104509894.html

BRT to Chilliwack & SkyTrain to Langley? Just Business as Usual in BC!

October 7, 2010

The following article by Brian Lewis should forewarn us that the transit decision for the Fraser Valley has been already made. Like all transit studies done in the region in the past 30 years, the decision on transit mode is made beforehand and then a study is commissioned to confirm the decision. This is how transit planning is done in BC: Politicians make the decision and the bureaucrats make sure the political decisions stand with bogus, yet expensive studies.

One wonders why Trans Link is needed at all!

It is to be certain, Premier Campbell has not read the RftV/Leewood Report, though he is aware of its content with the announcement of an Express bus to Chilliwack and SkyTrain to Langley, sometime in the future. The TramTrain study is a radical change how transit is planned for in BC, in which no special party is rewarded, except for those wishing to use ‘rail‘ transit!

In Mr. Campbell’s world, bus based transit means new highways, which will keep the road Builder’s Association happy and building more SkyTrain will keep both Bombardier Inc. and land developers happy. Happy people translates into lucrative political donations to a political party which the happy people belong!

The Premier’s speech to the Union of BC Municipalities, was just telling the party faithful that it is business as usual in BC.

 

 

 

Premier’s transit pitch hard to swallow

By Brian Lewis, The Province

October 7, 2010

A mother shoving cod liver oil down her child’s throat in the belief it’s a good health remedy — even though it tastes bad — is one thing, but unilaterally shoving public transit policy down taxpayer throats is positively unpalatable.

That’s precisely what Premier Gordon Campbell did last week at the Union of B.C. Municipalities convention in Whistler when he announced Victoria’s intention to extend SkyTrain through Surrey to Langley. The tasteless tactic was repeated in the same speech when he proclaimed that Rapid Bus service would link Chilliwack with the rest of the Fraser Valley.

On both counts reaction throughout the transit-challenged region was predictable: “Oh, really?”

Regarding the SkyTrain extension, TransLink, the region’s mayors and all other stakeholders are a long, long way from agreeing on what type of rapid transit technology should be used in building the 17-kilometre link between SkyTrain’s current terminus in north Surrey and Langley district. By far the most expensive option is SkyTrain’s elevated guideway, which in current dollars is estimated to cost a whopping $2.5 billion, or more.

Campbell’s announcement took mayors such as Dianne Watts of Surrey by total surprise. As she has said many times, a ground-level system between Surrey and Langley makes more sense because it’s far cheaper, easier and quicker to build.

Langley Township Mayor Rick Green’s response was blunt : “SkyTrain to Langley is simply pie-in-the-sky,” he tells me.

“There’s no question the premier is jumping the gun here.”

Green notes that TransLink, its Mayor’s Council and the B.C. government only several weeks ago signed a Memorandum of Understanding to conduct long-term transit planning throughout the region.

Yet, here comes Campbell with an announcement that the extension to Langley will be the SkyTrain technology. “He does this even though the ink on the MOU isn’t even dry,” Green adds.

As for establishing a Rapid Bus system to serve as far east as Chilliwack, those advocating that the old Inter Urban rail line be utilized to re-establish light rail transit from Chilliwack to Surrey are more than a little miffed.

Green, who also heads the South of the Fraser Community Rail Task Force, points out that unlike Vancouver, Richmond or Burnaby, population densities in the valley tend to form in pockets, which makes an Inter Urban light rail system much more efficient and cost-effective than SkyTrain, which works best in areas where high density is uniform.

The premier announcing that Rapid Bus is the choice for service to Chilliwack also reinforces suspicions that a $400,000 study of transit options for the valley, undertaken by Victoria almost two years ago, which still hasn’t been released, will kill the Inter Urban light rail option.

Despite Campbell’s announcements, Langley City Mayor Peter Fassbender says all transit options for the region will remain on the table.

He also chairs the Mayor’s Council and acknowledges that this places him in a consensus-building role to keep peace between the region and Victoria and to move the issue forward.

“We all have to work together for the south of Fraser solutions,” Fassbender says.

But a premier dispensing policy like spoonfuls of cod liver oil makes that job tougher.

blewis@theprovince.com

Read more: http://www.theprovince.com/opinion/Premier+transit+pitch+hard+swallow/3635873/story.html?cid=megadrop_story#ixzz11g8drgeT

The 10,000 PPHPD Question – TransLink is Hoisted on its Own Petard

October 5, 2010

At the recent streetcar symposium in Vancouver, TransLink officials contend that streetcars have very little capacity, almost less than a bus and that light rail can carry only 10,000 persons per hour per direction. This, despite the fact that the Light Rail Transit Association has, since the 1980’s, defined LRT “as a mode that can carry 2,000 to 20,000 pphpd, thus bridging the gap of what can economically be carried by buses and the ridership that would demand a subway“.

Many cities operating LRT or tram, provide capacities of over 20,000 pphpd on portions of their routes during peak hours, including Karlsruhe, Germany; Helsinki, Finland; and Tuen Mun, Hong Kong. Why then does TransLink maintain that LRT can carry only half as much as many LRT operations do in revenue service daily?

The answer lies in the 1994 Broadway – Lougheed Corridor BC Transit/Delcan study, which has formed the basis for TransLink’s questionable light rail planning since. Instead of involving consultants who have hands-on knowledge about LRT (as RftV did), TransLink continues to refer back to this questionable study, that was ill prepared and filled with technical error. TransLink wants to keep the door open for SkyTrain and metro construction in the region!

In order to make modern light rail appear inferior to the much preferred SkyTrain, the B-L Corridor Study used small capacity light rail vehicles, long headways and a small two car station in the middle of the Broadway/Kingsway/Main Street triangle to maintain the charade LRT comparisons to SkyTrain. The ruse has worked well and TransLink still spews out such dreadful bumf about light rail, that American transit and transportation expert Gerald Fox felt compelled to write a letter condemning the SkyTrain Evergreen Line business case!

https://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/2010/09/20/a-must-read-for-regional-mayors-before-they-talk-transit/

If TransLink has been dishonest with LRT planning in the region since its inception, then we must assume that all TransLink planning is dishonest;  “the fruit of the poisonous tree“.

Regional politicians must now consider that TransLink’s metro planning and their so-called public consultations as a sham process and must now demand independent studies by consultants who have expertise in light rail for regional transit planning. If TransLink’s own vast planning department needs to be reduced to accommodate this, so be it, as the transit planning coming from the ivory towers on Kingsway are not worth the paper they are printed on.

A primer on modern light rail for Mr. Shiffer and company:

  1. The difference between LRT and a streetcar is that a streetcar operates-on street in mixed traffic, LRT operates on a reserved rights-of-ways.
  2. LRT and streetcars can carry 20,000 pphpd, or more, if need be.
  3. LRT can and does operate at 30 second headways.
  4. LRT is cheaper to operate than SkyTrain.
  5. Modern light rail has made SkyTrain and the light-metro class of transit obsolete.

It becomes evident why Vancouver and the Metro region is the only city in North America and Europe that uses SkyTrain and light-metro (Canada Line), exclusively for regional rail transit instead of LRT and its variants.

The taxpayer have grown weary of TransLink and carrying the SkyTrain tax burden.

The Streetcar Symposium – TransLink Doesn’t Get it!

September 30, 2010

Zwei attended the streetcar symposium on Wednesday and came out with a great sinking feeling – TransLink just doesn’t get it. The event itself was very well put together, with ample food and drink, but there was little discussion about streetcars, but a lot of back-slapping by the various agencies and bureaucrats attending. The symposium was derailed and for good reason too, I beleive.

What was it all about? To my well practiced eyes the event was an infomercial for Bombardier Inc. (they were well advertised) to sell Flexity trams to Vancouver for their $90 million tourist streetcar line. Why not purchase much cheaper second hand trams from Europe? No one has ever thought of that in a Bombardier town.

The symposium was mostly a tedious event with most speakers dancing around the topic of streetcars with, “oh no, they are not light rail“, responses. What is even more worrisome is that TransLink hasn’t a clue about light rail or even streetcars and continue their well honed mantra that LRT can’t carry more than 10,000 persons per hour per direction and that streetcar’s capacity is even less! of course this TransLink nonsense is to keep the SkyTrain option alive for Vancouver’s Broadway UBC Line.

Lesson for TransLink – Light Rail can carry over 20,000 pphpd! Of course TransLink knows this, but ignores it and continues to squander millions of dollars on pointless transit studies favouring SkyTrain metro or even a $80 million skyride to SFU!

As for Rail to the Valley and our ground breaking report? Nope, never, Nada; never heard of the group nor read the study; haven’t a clue what TramTrain is but; “we’ll have a look in Wikipeada……”.

Professor Patrick Condon summed up the days events; They are talking about stations and land development, they just don’t get it.

Zweisystem’s advice for the South Fraser Region, secede from TransLink and the sooner the better as TransLink is incapable of planning for affordable LRT and continues to dream in “SkyTrain”.

Update

Stephen Rees also attended the meeting and even though he said he wasn’t going to post to his blog about it, he has. It is worth while to see his view on the day.

http://stephenrees.wordpress.com/2010/09/30/streetcars-the-missing-link/

The Leewood Projects ‘Full Build Option’ or “Full Meal Deal”. Finally a Transit Plan With Vision!

September 28, 2010

Click here to download the full 84 page report

What is interesting about the Rail for the Valley/Leewood Projects TramTrain or interurban report is the vision shown by the author. Not only does he plan for the ‘politically correct’ (for valley types) Scott Road to Chilliwack TramTrain he also looks to the future with extensions to Vancouver, Richmond and Rosedale, with the ‘Full Build Option’ costing just under one billion dollars!

For a better perspective, the 11 km. SkyTrain Evergreen Line extension will cost over $1.4 billion and service far fewer potential transit customers, this has lead to demand for more density along the Evergreen Line in the Tri-Cities region to try to increase ridership on the metro. The RftV TramTrain doesn’t need such high density as there is plenty of population along the route to provide ridership. The density issue for rail transit has become a SkyTrain only issue as there is sufficient population to ensure economic operation with much cheaper to build light rail.

For the same cost as the Evergreen SkyTrain Line, a  full build (Full Meal Deal) Valley TramTrain, Vancouver/Richmond to Rosedale could be built and with the remaining $400 million, a Vancouver/Richmond to Maple Ridge TramTrain operation could also be funded.

The planned SkyTrain subway to UBC is estimated to cost $3 billion to $4 billion, yet for the same amount of monetary outlay, we could build a BCIT to UBC/Stanley Park LRT/streetcar ($1 billion); a full build RftV TramTrain ($1 billion); a new multi track Fraser River Rail bridge (approx. $500 million); TramTrain to Whiterock (approx. $300 million); and LRT/tram lines in Surrey and Langley ($500 million to $1 billion+)!

For the cost of one SkyTrain subway line, we could fund a sizable regional LRT network combining light rail, TramTrain and streetcar/tram, with the potential of being able to get on a tram in Rosedale and take the same tram to Stanley Park or UBC or Richmond! This is the vision behind the Rail for the Valley/Leewood Projects Report, it is not just a one politically and bureaucratically prestigious rapid transit line, rather a plan to implement affordable light rail transit in the region, providing affordable ‘rail‘ transit for generations.

The sad fact is, Premier Campbell lacks such vision with his childish, TransLink Speak, remarks regarding light rail and his pronouncements are a continuing embarrassment for those  trying to get affordable rail transit built in the Fraser Valley.

The Fraser Valley municipal politicians had better show transit vision now and board the valley TramTrain, lest they be left waiting at the platform, paying Vancouver’s fare for a new $4 billion SkyTrain subway under Broadway.

A Karlsruhe TramTrain operating on tram tracks. The same LRV can operate on the mainline.

Spain’s FEVE Regional Light Railway – A Model For The Valley TramTrain?

September 27, 2010

The following came via the Light Rail Transit Association’s members group.

The FEVE is a Spanish narrow or metre gauge railway, what could be termed a ‘light’ railway, operating light rail style articulated electrical multiple units, diesel articulated multiple units as well as freight or goods trains. It is this type of operation that is envisioned for the Rail for the Valley interurban.

I visited last week the northern Spanish coast around Santander, and had the opportunity to travel frequently on the FEVE metre-gauge semi-light rail system, notably on the electrified bit between Santander and Cabezon de la Sal, which operates a regular service using high-platform tram-like articulated railcars. The stopping service uses double-articulated cars, and the “express” service single-articulated ones, both as single units. Current feed is by pantograph (I think 1500 vdc) to fairly basic but robust catenary, either span-wire or bracket-arm.

The stations are either unstaffed rural halts or else town stations with electronic gates and a “pay on arrival” ticket machine. Sometimes there is a roving conductor selling tickets on the railcar, but more often not. Disabled access is provided, either by new lift installations in the town stations or by using the ramp at the end of the platform in the rural case. There is also wheelchair space at one end of the railcar, and a lavatory at the other end. Bicycles are permitted.

The system is ferociously punctual, with a railcar every half-hour off-peak and more frequently at peak times. Rural halts seem to have spacious (and full ) car parks during the day, and even the off-peak services normally have a half-full load of passengers (in contrast to the competing local buses, which are frequently seen running empty). Fares are cheap, typically 1.90 euros single full fare for a 20 km trip (many concessions are on offer, and if my Spanish had been better I would have been tempted to try my ITSO pass and see if it worked !)

There is also a regular goods service, involving long trains of low wagons loaded with sheet metal hauled by a pair of diesel locos. At the frequent un-barriered rural level crossings these rely on massive air horns to announce their imminent passage (the passenger railcars use a whistle). This is one of the few visible weaknesses of an otherwise excellent system.

Whereas the goods trains go slowly, the railcars certainly don’t. I paced one from the adjacent motorway going at least 80kph, and they don’t slow down for the frequent sharp curves (the Spanish coast has very hilly topography – the new motorways have frequent tunnels, and the FEVE has frequent sharp curves rather like a full-size Hornby Dublo trainset.) Railcar brakes are interesting too: each trailing axle has a centrally-mounted disc brake of considerable size, but there are no track brakes. Despite that, the railcars can stop pretty quickly if required (see item above about “near-misses”)

I couldn’t get any information about the railcars’ build, but I would guess within the last decade and from a Spanish local supplier. The system seems to be subsidised by the “Ministerio de Fomento” (almost impossible to translate ‘Fomento’ – “public works and transport” is probably the closest, though it also means “encouragement”. We could do with that in the UK !)

A good example of European rural Light rail/Metro/Tram-Trains; exactly what we are attempting to achieve in the Fraser Valley.

 http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&tab=wl&q=Cabezon%20de%20la%20Sal

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FEVE

Following photos by David Orchard

 
 
 
   

FEVE EMU

 
  FEVE Station
 
   

Interior of a FEVE EMU

 
   

FEVE DMU