Sunday, 06 November 2011 10:40
Dr John MacDonald, O.C. BC Business Hall of Fame Member, co-founder of MacDonald Dettwiler and Associates (MDA), Canada's principal space company and currently Chairman of Day4 Energy Inc. made some interesting remarks while acting at a panellist at Metro Vancouver's recent Sustainability Dialogue, Energy Resilience: Meeting the Challenge, held at SFU's Segal Graduate School of Business. In response to a question from the audience regarding what is being done to encourage a diversity of energy supply solutions, Dr. MacDonald replied that, in his experience, professionals too often look to solve a problem by first trying to accommodate their selected technology into the solution instead of asking the question "what is available?". In terms of energy supply an example could be trying to locate a coal fired power station next to a city hundreds of miles away from any coal supply, when the same region may have an abundance of other potential power sources such as geo-thermal, wind, tidal, solar etc.. Dr. MacDonald was talking about energy supply but the same applies to solving most if not all challenges that extend across large geographical areas. It certainly applies to our transportation/transit here in Metro Vancouver and in the Lower Mainland of BC. VALTAC have been campaigning for many years for the adoption of practical solutions to solving South of Fraser's increasing transportation problems. We have been advocating for "excellent transit" not any particular form of transit. We have been advocating for timely solutions that can at least keep up with the rapid pace of population growth. While some improvements are evident, we mainly see endless reports and promises of better things to come. Our pleas for the authorities to use "what is available" first, has fallen on deaf ears. This is particularly true in the case of the regions most underutilized transportation corridor, the BC owned, interurban rail corridor. Why is this corridor ignored? It's simple........"it does not fit the technology solution"......... and we seem to have locked the minds of our professional planners and politicians into certain technologies. The truth is that alternative well proven and highly cost effective technologies are available. Let's listen to what one of the best minds in Canada has to say and answer the first question first ........ "what is available"........... If we answer this question we may well be surprised at the quality of the transit solution available and its cost to the taxpayer. Thank you Dr. MacDonald.
Last Updated on Sunday, 06 November 2011 11:51
|
Sunday, 20 February 2011 19:59
Author of "Rail for the Valley" Interurban Report challenges MoTI's Interurban Conclusions: David Cockle, respected UK transit consultant clearly agrees with local Fraser Valley critics of the MoTi report titled, Strategic Review of Transit in the Fraser Valley. As with so many reports commissioned by our political masters over the years this seems to be "tilted" in the direction of government policy which is counter to the best interests of the local community. Few people will read this report with any understanding of all the issues under consideration and we can only thank "Rail for the Valley" and others for their continued vigilance on behalf of those residents South of the Fraser. Below is the recently published response from David Cockle, on behalf of "Rail for the Valley" regarding the government report. Strategic Review of Transit in the Fraser Valley A response from Leewood Projects Ltd David Cockle On December 16th, the B.C. Ministry of Transportation & Infrastructure (MoTI) published the Strategic Review of Transit in the Fraser Valley, which looked into future transit options for the Fraser Valley. The study is the second major study to be released this fall, the first being our own study of the Interurban Rail Line, carried out for Rail for the Valley. We found that an Interurban passenger service could be achieved in the Fraser Valley at relatively low cost due to the already existing track, and recommended early implementation in order to realize the benefits as soon as possible. The BC MoTI and TransLink appear to have predefined that Bus Rapid Transit [BRT] was the only option and the report was to prove that point of view. As already noted by the Rail for the Valley group, one example of the bias of the report can be found by comparing projected boarding’s: Projected boarding’s per day for daily Interurban service between Abbotsford and Chilliwack is put at a maximum of 250 passengers. [6800 daily boarding’s for a hypothetical Chilliwack-Surrey Interurban service, minus 6550 boarding’s for a shorter Abbotsford-Surrey service, give an upper bound on the number of passengers travelling between Abbotsford and Chilliwack, Table 3.17, Foundation Paper #4] However, when the report looks at the equivalent "Express Bus" service between Abbotsford and Chilliwack, with the same travel time (30 minutes) and the same frequency of service(30/60 minutes peak/off-peak), a very different number is arrived at: 800 boarding’s. [Table3.6, Foundation Paper #4] The report extrapolates costs from an earlier 2006 DRL report on Commuter Rail to the western Fraser Valley, in order to arrive at a Capital Cost estimate of $18.6 million/km for track repairs and upgrades. The estimate, in brief, is based on double tracking of the entire line, stations in close proximity (one station every 1.6 km, each station costing $3 million), and other costs entirely unnecessary for Light Rail Transit[See DRL Report, Tables 4-1 and 6-1]. The result is a far too high Cost per km. (We arrive at a Cost per km of approximately $5 million.) However, for the purposes of calculating ridership, the Review assumes only 1 stop in Chilliwack and 1 stop in Abbotsford, for a total of 9 stops on the entire Chilliwack-Surrey route, along with a maximum operating speed of 60km/h [Table 3.19, Foundation Report #4]. (This is well under the 80-100 km/h operating speed that we find would be readily achieved on the Interurban route.) These two assumptions in combination, cause EMME-based Transport Modelling (as the Strategic Review uses) to show artificially low Ridership numbers. The MoTi had formed their conclusion prior to commissioning the report, and the evidence in the report has been selectively incorporated, in order to substantiate the conclusion that they wanted to see; despite the proven facts that the Light Rail option, for the Fraser Valley would have an annual cost of less than a quarter of the figure quoted in the FVTS report. In the first four weeks of 2011, confirmed details have been released of confirmed intensions to implement or approved funding for, construction commencement or opening dates of: Seven new and three extensions of UK & European, at grade Light Rail/Tram systems, including two Tram- Train projects· Three new and three extensions of US, at grade Light Rail/Tram systems The promoters have demonstrated by their decision, the unique opportunity that Light Rail will bring to their communities, in economic, regeneration, environmental and social benefits. Full details can be studied in the news section of the Rail for the Valley website The FVTS study assumes that a regional Bus/BRT would always attract the largest number of riders. The MoTI’s economic justification in the FVTS report for not reopening the Interurban from Chilliwack to Surrey is at best diffident, at worst erroneous in its conclusion. David Cockle LEEWOOD PROJECTS Kingston upon Thames United Kingdom 27th January 2011
Last Updated on Sunday, 20 February 2011 20:59
Transportation Advocates Disappointed By a “Collective Lack of Vision” following the Release of “Strategic Review of Transit in the Fraser Valley” Study Langley, BC: The Valley Transportation Advisory Committee (VALTAC) was pleased to finally see the long awaited study in late December and wonders why the release of this one year study, largely funded by the Province of BC, was delayed for over a year. VALTAC is particularly disappointed with the study’s approach to connecting Metro Vancouver and Fraser Valley Regional District (FVRD) destinations, described as inter regional services. The proposed approach will add further congestion to the road network, promote further suburban sprawl and increase pressure on FVRD agricultural land. While the study, which is essentially an Abbotsford/Mission/Chilliwack (Fraser Valley Regional District) study assembles much useful information it is lamentably short on true vision. In fact, on the key issue of a 25-30 year transit vision it offers very little beyond what residents of Abbotsford/Mission/Chilliwack(AMC) can deduce for themselves over their morning coffee; adding buses to an already overburdened road system. The two main road corridors, Highway 1 and the Fraser Highway cannot successfully solve regional and inter-regional transit, be the backbone of goods movement for the entire Lower Mainland and be the preferred “rat run” for increasing numbers of private commuters. Current and future transit users deserve an integrated regional transit system that can be successfully scaled up to meet the projected dramatic increase in population. Such a system would be multi modal (road and rail), provide attractive options and be cost effective. In September 2008 when then Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon announced this study he was pressured to include in the work package an additional study investigating the benefits of integrating rail transit along the provincially owned interurban rail corridor. It was explained to him that the rail service should not be considered just as a “commuter” service moving people quickly to Vancouver. Instead it should be viewed as community rail service that would connect South of Fraser (SoF) communities and serve as a high capacity backbone from which feeder bus services could operate. Such an integrated transit system could dramatically alter the “reach” of transit SoF. Minster Falcon agreed to include the additional study covering the rail services but the study’s authors seem to have adopted the long established TransLink strategy of ignoring the interurban line’s real potential, which is in connecting SoF communities. VALTAC asks the question, why the study chooses to extrapolate data from a TransLink report (DRL Commuter Rail Report, Oct 2006) which resulted in limiting the types of service and inflating the capital and operating costs while ignoring other available reports (UMA/AECOM in 2007 and Leewood Projects in 2010) that came to entirely different conclusions. Two of the reports ignored in the study were funded by municipalities, namely the City of Surrey and the Township of Langley. This study has failed the province and the regions. Minister Falcon had clearly articulated that he wanted to understand what the future could hold if the interurban corridor was incorporated into future transit planning. Instead the report looks backwards and relies on old thinking and old rail cars. The report mainly looks at heavy diesel (circa 1950s) and actually considers “Budd Cars”, these cars are over 60 years old, and then focuses on commuter rail service with only 7 stations between Chilliwack and Scott Road (9 if you include the two terminus stations). South of Fraser residents want to have more choice when it comes to transit. They want to be able to move around their own region, ideally in comfort and in modern rail cars. They do not need to be just shuffled along to jobs in downtown Vancouver, they want to be able to move between South of Fraser regional centres. Why are TransLink and the province frightened of considering a modern rail service using a rail corridor that has the passenger rights preserved for the people of British Columbia and is already owned by the people of British Columbia?
Last Updated on Thursday, 10 February 2011 20:38
Transportation Advocates Support "Rail for the Valley" Questionnaire for Prospective Leadership CandidatesLangley, BC: The Valley Transportation Advisory Committee (VALTAC) is pleased to support “Rail For The Valley’s” initiative to send a questionnaire to all BC Liberal Leadership Candidates. Candidates have been asked to confirm receipt of the questionnaire and forward a reply back to rail for the Valley within a week. The results will be made public and posted on the “Rail For The Valley “ website; www.railforthevalley.com. Details of the questionnaire are reproduced below: Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. 1) Premier Campbell has promised to extend SkyTrain to Langley City but both Mayor Watts of Surrey and Mayor Green of the Township of Langley have expressed a strong preference for developing a more affordable at-grade Light Rail system and are against extending SkyTrain to Langley City. Do you support developing an at-grade Light Rail system to serve the South of Fraser region? 2) Under Premier Campbell, the Provincial government advocated a form of Rapid Bus system for the Fraser Valley Regional District instead of integrating Light Rail into a reorganized and integrated bus and rail network. Do you have the same preference for a bus only system or do you support an additional Light Rail option for the Fraser Valley? Under what timeline? 3. The recent provincial study "Strategic Review of Transit in the Fraser Valley" covered the Fraser Valley Regional District but also reviewed and rejected introducing a "Commuter Rail" service using the provincially owned Interurban rail corridor. There were just 7 stations between Chilliwack and Scott Road SkyTrain in Surrey (100 kms). This type of Commuter service is not a sensible approach using the Interurban corridor. Community Rail, on the other hand, would result in a modern Light Rail system suitable for travel between communities along the 100 km line. Do you support the Community Rail concept of a rail service designed to move people around Fraser Valley communities? 4) The Interurban (Southern) Railway has long been mentioned as a potential route for a Light Rail service in the fast-growing Fraser Valley. The 2010 Leewood Projects Ltd. Study takes a detailed look at the Interurban and suggests an initial service can be built quickly and affordably. The Study recommends early implementation in order to maximize the benefits. Do you support moving forward with planning Interurban Light Rail? 5) The South of Fraser Community Rail Task Force, with official representation from almost all South of Fraser municipalities, and all the universities, is promoting a Community Rail (Interurban) demonstration project. Under your leadership, will the Provincial government work with this Task Force to ensure that such a project is a success?
Last Updated on Sunday, 30 January 2011 21:15
Friday, 22 October 2010 20:45
Comment: South of Fraser Transit –Too Important To Put On The Shelf The recent announcement by TransLink, concerning the Surrey Rapid Transit Study, dismissed the interurban corridor as having no role to play in solving the regions transit problems. During the workshops held in Surrey, participants found it difficult to understand why such a wonderful public asset and low cost option was so easily cast aside. TransLink staff seemed to be struggling to find a reason too. So much so, that in the closing summary, the very person who spoke to the media, dismissing the interurban corridor, was suggesting that a sober second look be in order. A sober second look is exactly what is needed. Premier Campbell’s preferred option of a SkyTrain extension to Langley City will cost over $2 billion or about $125 million per km in today’s dollars. He appears to be a lone voice advocating this Cadillac option. Surrey’s Mayor Watts, Langley Township Mayor Green and many others were certainly not taken in by this shameless ploy to insert a 20 year delay clause into creating “beyond the bus” transit options for South of Fraser taxpayers. With an additional 650,000 residents already starting to flow into the South of Fraser region the need to influence future land use, by modifying community plans and implementing critically needed transit improvements, is now. TransLink’s previous attempts to hoist a transit master plan on the South of Fraser have fallen far short of what is needed for a region scheduled to grow from today’s 850,000 to over 1.5 million by 2040. With no master plan we are being forced to make risky decisions, or are we? If there are options available that involve minimal cost, little disruption to current traffic flow, and speedily delivered are these not worth exploring first? This is what many local rail advocacy groups are pleading for. The recent, very credible, report commissioned by Rail for the Valley from UK transport consultants clearly comes to the conclusion that the publically owned interurban rail corridor is exactly this low risk option. Langley Township’s Mayor Green and his South Fraser Community Rail Task Force of elected representatives have a similar view promoting a passenger rail demonstration project for the line. Rail based solutions can be a vital part of future South of Fraser transit options and they don’t need to cost billions or spend any time on the shelf. The time for action is now.
Last Updated on Friday, 22 October 2010 20:55
|
|
