Transportation

Comment

Comment by Peter Finch on September 26, 2011 at 10:25pm

Actually, I have over-estimated the costs I cited, except that of the streetcars themselves.  I made contact with the builder myself, and they sent me rough estimates of costs based on their previous experience (which is impressive to say the least).

Single track can be laid for as little as $1 million per km, if a roadbed is already provided (which it is).  I used the figure of $5 million assuming switches, signalling and station platforms.  Also, that covers a number of possible options: the City has already done extensive engineering and planning, having assembled all the rights of way for future construction with a variety of optional routes.

Maintenance?  True, there is a certain logic to going big, but one of the trade-offs starting out with a simpler technology is that power costs will be slightly higher, but servicing will be less frequent or extensive.

 

The Brussels streetcars, though at the high-tech end of the scale, were programmed, tested, maintained, and de-programmed over the period of 90 days in the carbarn built for the Downtown Historic Railway--which is barely more than a rudimentary shelter.

 

I pointed out the possibility of a small system to challenge the idea that a project must be big to be viable.  Many of Canada's 55 or so streetcar systems pre-WW II were essentially neighbourhood operations--a model that doesn't seem to get a lot of attention today.  

 

It is true that the scope of the problem of urban transportation is immense, but as much as it is matter of technology and engineering, it is also one that challenges the way urban dwellers think.  While possibly not cost-effective to build small, the returns for the re-education it could offer could be tremendous.

Comment by Eric Doherty on September 25, 2011 at 3:33pm

Peter,

 

Don't underestimate the problem scale here. A maintenance facility for 3 or 5 light rail cars does not make that much sense, unless it was just part of a trolley bus maintenance yard. (Light rail and trolley buses use basically the same drive units and controls.)

 

Go big or go home does have some logic. How about a proposal for 3 lines with 40+ cars and a maintenance facility expandable to 100+ cars / trolley buses? Routes like Broadway, Kingsway and Hastings come to mind.

 

Much of what TransLink planners and engineers are proposing makes a lot of sense, despite some misguided direction from the provincial cabinet.

 

Eric

 

 

Comment by Peter Finch on September 25, 2011 at 11:05am

TransLink is rapidly making itself irrelevant as more and more groups are seeking ways to do an end run around it.  Why?  Because they have invested so heavily in promoting one form of transportation--the personal automobile--at the expense of all other options.  

Now, TransLink has a new and powerful enemy: the 700,000 supporters of a streetcar network for Vancouver.  Translink isn't interested, Vision mocks the idea, and strangest of all the right-of-centre candidate for mayor, Suzanne Anton, rolls out a platform that out-greens Vision's wildest dreams.

 

I would have expected Geoff Meggs and Gregor Robertson to have countered "Yes, but we have a better idea"--but apparently, they don't.  While the price tag for a Granville Island to Waterfront streetcar is huge, it is an amazingly good deal in the opinion of American Public Transit Association executives, one of whom told me in 2010 (when the plan was announced) that he couldn't provide the same level of service on a similar route for that price with buses.

 

Still, that $100 million price tag is very specific and extensive.  Essentially, it entails all track, overhead wires, all infrastructure, a maintenence facil;ity and five Bombardier T-3000 streetcars, similar to those borrowed from Brussels for the Winter Olympics (except that the car bodies would be built to North American width).

 

 There's no reason this has to be done all at once.  $5 million would get tracks and overhead from Cambie to Quebec; another $5 million would get the line to Chinatown--for a little more, the line could swing past Pacific Central Station and service Chinatown from Gore St., thus giving service to Strathcona as well.  Build three Gomaco streetcars:  fully modern, fully accessible replicas of the iconic Vancouver streetcar known as the "Narragansett" type.  Cost: about $1.25 million (roughly the same as a trolley bus) each.  There you have it--a $100 million project in about $20 million.

What about Waterfront?  If the system is built as above, the demand will take care of itself, and the rest will be built.

Net effect?  A lot of short-trip driving will be as unnecessary as it would be undesirable.  Access to Granville Island will be better than ever before, and a dynamic link will be made between two major shopping districts--one that has never been made before.

 

In the best possible world, the fleet streetcar would one day be the Bombardier T-3000, with its energy storing capacity and its ability to put energy back into the grid.  That system is so efficient that although the cost of setting one in motion is huge, the net cost of running is less than a modern trolley bus. 

 

Building a system in smaller sections, and as I have described, in no way precludes the possibility of creating a full-sized system.  Add to all of that the quality of life issues like the ambiance of a historical streetcar (but with all the modern conveniences), and the appeal it would have to tourists and the movie industry, while providing a valuable function for everyday life, and doing it in an ecologically sustainable way.  Imagine being able to access bike lanes easily without having to bundle your bike on the front of a bus--IF there happens to be room!--imagine (if you can) the freedom of having one more way to travel if you're in a wheelchair or a young family with a stroller.

 

It's an idea whose time has come.  Admittedly, I never thought it would come from the direction it did--which challenges my notion that"green" is the exclusive property of the political left.

Comment by Eric Doherty on September 8, 2011 at 10:18pm

TransLink's 2012 Supplemental Plan and Outlook imparts intentional inaccuracy

By Eric Doherty, September 8, 2011

TransLink claims that wider roads will reduce harmful emissions.

TransLink’s recently released draft 2012 Supplemental Plan and Outlook includes a startling misrepresentation: the claim that building more and wider roads will reduce greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions. The document states: “Analysis indicates that restored funding levels for the Major Road Network Minor Capital Program is beneficial for the reduction of GHG emissions in the region.”

See full article and comments at http://www.straight.com/article-450541/vancouver/translink-plan-imp...

Comment by Peter Finch on June 29, 2011 at 4:12pm

The Downtown Historic Railway will be back in operation on Friday 1 July and will operate on weekends and holidays 'till mid October (or later if the weather is good)'  Trains run half-hourly from Granville Island and Cambie St., a few steps from Olympic Village Station on the Canada Line, and the #84 bus.

 Departures from 12:00 noon - 5:00 pm.

 Adults $2.00 children and seniors $1.00

Comment by Peter Finch on May 16, 2011 at 10:09pm

Since 1997, the Downtown Historic Railway has operated in summer months (mid-May to mid-October) on weekends and holidays as a demonstration of both how we used to travel and how we could once again.  In 2010, this was reinforced further by the "Olympic Line" which ran for 18 hours a day during the Winter Olympics.  Public response was amazing.  When the Historic cars rolled again for a couple of weekends in late 2010, ridership was far beyond expectations--without any announcements or advertising!

But the City seems ready to drop the ball on this service.  True, there is construction along the right-of-way, but not something that precludes the safe operation of the Historic cars on weekends.

I'm requesting that Village Vancouver people to send emails to the Mayor and Council, asking "Where's the streetcar?"  They need to know that there are people who value the service and wish to encourage this unique, beautiful and "green" mode of transportation.  The fact that operational costs are so low (being volunteer-run) and that its appeal to residents and tourists alike is also worth mentioning.  Thank you in advance for your support!

Comment by Randy Chatterjee on February 13, 2011 at 10:43pm

Hey, it's a balance, a balance we do not currently have in our horrifically "planned" environment.

Behaviour will not change until there is real choice, the choice of safe cycling routes, RAPID transit that is faster, more comfortable and cheaper than a car, and safe and pleasant pedestrian rights of way FOR ALL AGES.  There are hundreds of cities that come closer to this ideal than we do, places that are safe and supportive for the elderly and children on their own, places where transit at any time of day is easy to find and manage even for the differently abled.

Yes to transit lane priority, shorter head times, separated bike lanes, safe bicycle parking, wider sidewalks, pedestrian streets, complete communities and neighbourhood centres away from main roads.

And yes to people learning to make the best of these new healthy choices.

Comment by Peter Finch on February 12, 2011 at 11:28am

The emphasis on personal behaviour smacks of a sort of "religious" view of environmentalism: "You can't be a TRUE environmentalist, because you......." [fill in the blanks].  This sort of approach is a definite turn-off for those who might otherwise be attracted to environmental activism.  Rather than welcoming folks into the village, it effectively builds a wall around it to keep the "unwashed" out.  I advocate reaching out to people wherever they're at and inviting them, rather than setting standards or rules.

There's another reality that many of us don't need to face yet.  We're an aging population, and for some of us, debilitating conditions like arthritis limit access and mobility.  The reality of standing on a bus for half an hour, stopping and starting, when arthritis is not in control--well, it can amount to days or weeks of agony.  Despite all this, I'm planning to go car free, but it won't be without serious challenges and compromises to my personal ideals. That's just reality.

Comment by Eric Doherty on February 12, 2011 at 8:56am

I think there is too much emphasis on personal behavior, and not enough on making changes to our transportation systems. We need to make big changes quickly, and that means things like re-allocating road space to transit lanes and shifting all money being used to expand roadways to low-carbon modes.

Comment by Stephen Bohus on February 11, 2011 at 8:01pm

I sold my car in late 2007, and I've been car free ever since. Instead I walk, bike, jog, and take public transit. While I do understand some of the arguments for keeping a car (elderly, disabled & kids), I can also appreciate the efforts that people make in reducing their reliance on the automobile. We certainly have a long way to go, that's a natural part of the transition.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page