There's Snow Worries at OCTranspo

Ottawa ON - After a mess in 2005 with heavy snows stranding many buses, OCTranspo has been looking for snow tires to place on the buses. To date, they haven't found any.

What happened in that city, especially with the articulated buses, happens everywhere there is snow. Ottawa is acting like this is the first time ever that buses had problems in the snow. Here are a few options.

In Pittsburgh, with it's hills and every type of weather imaginable, they used sanders for decades to help buses get around in the snow. With the advent of low floor buses, sanders can't be used any longer as there is no place for the sand hoppers and sander apparatus. Chains are also an option but only for a short period as they break and can chew up the wheel wells of the buses.

One other option OCTranspo might look into is keeping a decent set of tires on their buses rather than baloney skins. A set of tires that actually have some tread can do wonders for getting a bus moving in bad weather. These tires aren't called snow tires but regular tires that aren't worn out.

Given some of the problems OCTranspo has during winter with its buses, it really makes me question the quality of the tires they use as well as even question if the drivers know how to drive in the snow. Again, in Pittsburgh, buses traverse hills in snow on a routine basis without special snow tires. They do this by having a decent set of regular tires as well as drivers that know how to drive in the snow.

As far as articulated buses go, of course they will have more problems in snow, especially those articulated buses that use a pusher turntable with the engine in the rear. The answer there not to send them out on routes that aren't clear in bad weather. OCTranspo is expecting the articulated buses to behave exactly as a standard bus and that's like expecting an 18-wheeler to behave exactly like a small Chevy S-10 pickup.

Then there is ice. The ice that forms under the snow on the road surface. No snow tire will help there unless they are studded. Studded tires are much more noisy than regular snow tires which are noisier than regular tires. If I recall, in the 2005 fiasco in Ottawa, there was plenty of ice in addition to the deep snow.

OCTranspo really needs to refocus its efforts from trying to find a new way to spend money by getting snow tires to making sure the tires that are on the buses to start with are good, drivers are trained properly and the city gets out and plows and salts the roads. Snow tires wouldn't have helped very much at all with the 2005 mess and chances are they won't really help much in the future. In heavy snows, few things move and buses are one of the things that usually don't move except on snow routes that are primary roads that get attention first.

Cornwall questions need for transit

Cornwall ON - While there are new start-ups of transit systems across North America on almost a monthly basis and cries for expanded service echo across the continent, some Cornwall Ontario officials are questioning the need for having a transit system at all. The city has hired a consultant to see if it is worth improving the transit operation in place or if the city should reduce or even discontinue the service.

I've ridden the Cornwall system in the past and found it a very freindly operation with very well maintained equipment. While not very crowded on most routes, even in peak, at the time I questioned the need for the large buses rather than smaller buses for their operation. While the cost savings would be minuscule, the appearance would have a big impact.

City Councilor Kim Baird however doesn't want to see smaller buses. She believes that having smaller buses would cause them to fill up. Isn't that the point Kim? A filled bus is far less costly to operate than one that only has a few riding it. Once you start filling up the smaller buses, expand back into larger buses. It won't be an overnight change and will take many years to attract and keep ridership based on the quality of service.

I would love to go in and overhaul the Cornwall operation. It is obvious that the city leaders don't really understand how transit works. Instead of having a 40 or 30 minute set schedule system-wide, routes need to be run based on demand. More frequently on routes that require it and less frequently on routes that have lighter ridership. Much of the change wouldn't impact the finances as it would simply be shuffling existing resources from areas that don't need it to areas that do.

That was one of the issues I had with Cornwall when I visited and rode the operation. The 40 minute headway on all routes at all times. I guess it was from growing up with service that ranged from every 5 minutes to once a day depending on the demand of the route but a system-wide schedule using the same headway does little to attract ridership.

Cornwall currently has a 4% share of riders versus population. That can easily be doubled through simple changes that could actually save money. On my trip there, I rode a route that had 7 people riding on it. When it reached the transfer point, 5 of the 7 people (who all got on at different stops) boarded another bus together. Immediately I questioned why the route I was on didn't continue on in the direction of the other route. Obviously that is where people wanted to go.

What was happening was that Cornwall was in fact getting the people to where they wanted to go but at twice the cost as it should have been. 2 buses and 2 drivers rather than a through routing that would free up 1 bus and driver for service elsewhere or just plain elimination of the freed up trip to save money.

Hopefully the consultant the city hired will look at such things. Cornwall could eventually pull a 15-20 percent share of riders versus population within 5 years if it runs the operation properly. Simply lowering the set system-wide headway from 40 to 30 minutes or adding Sunday service won't do it. Learning where people want to go, adjusting service to serve where people go as well as running an efficient operation will.

Failure despite success

Toronto ON - The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) is in a unique spot these days. Its ridership is greatly increasing but is causing overcrowding as well as cash flow headaches. The TTC finds itself unable to cope with the influx of riders as politicians and activists push harder to get more people on board.

This is a problem every transit system in North America faces as they try to find ways to get people out of their cars and onto transit. It's a Catch-22 where even if you win, you lose.

Of course there is no additional money forthcoming. The TTC claims it needs $6.7 million (C$) to battle the overcrowding by adding more transit vehicles and drivers. Where does this leave the TTC? Wanting to hike fares to help cover the expenses of increased ridership.

Now, one more time people. Let's look back at the Port Authority of Allegheny County (PAT) during the early and mid 1970's. They had a massive increase in ridership yet this was handled without dramatically increasing costs and without fare increases or increased funding. New routes were added, service was run efficiently which allowed more service out of one bus and driver as well as having just about every fare incentive out there to get even more riders on board.

PAT had crowded buses and trolleys but they were able to handle the quick influx of riders quickly, effectively and efficiently. It's too bad the PAT management of today doesn't understand this basic principle but that's another rant for another time.

This is what bothers me on the Toronto story. The TTC has plans for various new transit projects while ignoring the existing service. Just about every other transit system in North America is the same way. Rather than make their operation efficient, they instantly put their hand out for more tax money and when they don't get it, they punish the ridership by raising fares and cutting service.

Politicians, activists of various causes and transit officials all want more people on board. When they get them, they aren't prepared for them. It doesn't take much to prepare either. Run an efficient operation and the ability to handle the crowds becomes easy. You don't need more money to handle an increase in ridership.

The answer most of the politicians, activists and transit officials see is to build expensive transit projects that benefit few and take away from the rest of the area's service to pay to run the project. Rarely do you see any of the above decide to make the system cost efficient and focusing on what they already have in place. As the above groups push harder to make driving more expensive by wanting to tax private car ownership to oblivion, they are also hurting the transit systems. By forcing unneeded transit projects to be built and sacrificing the rest of the operation to pay to run these projects, they ensure people keep finding new ways to keep driving, regardless of cost.

The TTC is also pointing the finger of blame at the monthly pass holders for its revenues dropping while ridership increases. What a load of BS that is. That makes absolutely no sense what so ever. Again, PAT in the 70's had just about every fare incentive you could think of to get riders on-board and it wasn't losing revenue doing it. The vast majority of the riders back then used some form of pre-paid discount fare instrument and fare revenues were increasing, not decreasing. PAT turned the worst fare days into the best with the Tuesday Special reduced fare for everyone during Tuesday off-peak. Using the TTC excuse, the PAT of the 70's should have been losing money faster than water going over Niagara Falls with the Tuesday Special. The TTC is just trying to justify a fare hike with the claim that monthly pass holders are costing it money.

Toronto is just one of many operations that are experiencing a rider surge. More will follow, some will totally screw it up *cough* PAT today *cough* while others will adapt and deal with it. Toronto seems to be trying hard to screw it up while at the same time trying to slip their hand into the tax till for more money.

It seems the common folk have the right idea

Montreal PQ - In a letter to the editor in the Montreal Gazette, Dolly Tiger of Montreal states rather well that rather than spending billions of dollars on a new transit plan for Montreal, they should spend that money to fix what they have in place already.

It's a sentiment I have long held when dealing with anything political, especially public transit. Politicians and activist groups are hot to trot to spend money to roll out new and expensive toys while ignoring the infrastructure already in place. This is perhaps one of the main reasons public transit is falling apart today.

Just imagine how popular public transit could become if the transit agencies and politicians would invest in fixing what is already in place rather than building more things that puts further strain on an already strained system. The Port Authority of Allegheny County in Pittsburgh did just that in the early 1970's with very successful results. Over time it failed as they fell into the trap of ignoring what was in place and began focusing on expensive new toys and wasteful spending habits.

Having politicians and transit system administrations actually embrace fixing what is already in place most likely won't happen very often in our times. They can't get the face time in front of the media for ensuring proper funding is there to fix and improve the existing infrastructure. Because of the political treatment of transit, which is geared for new things rather than maintaining what's in place, it's easy to get government money for new transit projects but rather difficult to get money to actually run and maintain what is in place already.

While there are some flaws in Dolly Tiger's idea such as 20 minute service on every route, she is headed in the right direction. Fix what you have first before adding more. I often see letters like Dolly's and it makes me question why those in charge are so dense when the general public gets it.

Hybrids too costly

Fort McMurray AB - I came across a news story from the Fort McMurray Today news site which I found interesting. It is basically a discussion over hybrid buses and the costs to buy and operate. It is especially interesting as this is a very small operation and one mistake can prove very costly.

The debate in Fort McMurray revolves around the recent purchase of 3 diesel buses which the city opted for rather than purchasing 1 hybrid bus and 1 diesel. Mayor Melissa Blake correctly stated "In the end, you simply can’t justify the hybrid bus when we can get two (regular) buses for the same price". However, Councilor Carolyn Slade insists that the hybrid would save money in the long term.

Sorry Ms. Slade, the hybrid won't do anything except raise your long term costs to operate, especially given the Canadian tendency to hang onto buses for 20 to 30 years. The current hybrid technology still is in its infancy and has not been proven over a long period. Considering the fact that most manufacturers stop producing parts for buses now after 10 years, how in the world are you going to get the parts for it when the bus is 20 plus years old? Many buses today in the United States (including those manufactured by Canadian firms) wear out before their 12 years old and many get scrapped because you can't get the electronics for them any longer.

This rush to jump on the environmentalist bandwagon by transit systems is going to prove costly in the long term, especially for small systems like Fort McMurray. Clean diesel technology works well and is far less costly in both the short and long term for purchasing and maintaining. Replacing Fort McMurray's diesel fleet with hybrids won't make any difference at all in the air quality but it will hurt the finances of the transit system from the purchase date all the way through the life cycle of the bus.

In addition, hybrids actually cause more damage to the environment to manufacture and dispose of than does the lowly diesel. That's a dirty little secret that the enviro-weenies that are trying to price public transit out of existence don't want you to know.

As far as efficiency, the much touted mileage and fuel savings are greatly exaggerated. You save more petroleum fuel by switching to bio-diesel than you do by paying for hybrid technology. Not to say bio-diesel is the best choice out there as it has its issues as well but it is far cheaper in the long term than buying a hybrid bus and having to maintain it.

Mayor Melissa Blake earns a Laurel for taking her position as the steward of the taxpayer's money seriously and making the right choice. Those 3 diesel buses will serve the city better as it will allow more people to benefit and it cost less in both the short and long term than rushing out to jump on the enviro-bandwagon with hybrid buses.

Another attempt by the enviromentalists to destroy transit

Montreal PQ - In Montreal's The Gazette, a report on an environmental groups demands that the Montreal Transit Corporation (public agency) test older buses for emissions. It sounds innocent enough until you come to the key sentence in the report.

"The point we're making is we don't want to wait for fleet turnover through attrition," Bruce Walker of the environmental advocacy group STOP said.

That little comment sums up much of the environmentalist movement's attitude towards public transit. Groups like STOP want public transit to price itself out of existence. STOP doesn't just want the MTC to test more of the older buses for emissions, it wants those buses scrapped as of yesterday. These groups refuse any form of reasonable time line besides what they set and don't care about the cost since they think public transit is just swimming in excess money.

Groups like STOP and enviro-weenies like Walker claim to support public transit but continually push to bankrupt it at the same time. STOP refuses to understand that money isn't free to public transit. It doesn't matter where you go in the world, transit systems are screaming for more money for both vehicles and to operate.

If groups like STOP and activist enviro-weenies like Walker get their way, public transit would be eliminated. They would place standards so strict on the industry that it would be impossible to operate the agency unless they obtained trillions of dollars each year to replace the bus fleet every few months and even then it probably wouldn't be good enough for them.

And don't even say "alternative fuels". Environmentalists already have problems with most of what they pushed for already. Bio-diesel? Can't have that anymore since it still uses petroleum. Fuel cells? Not anymore since the cell is considered toxic when spent. Electricity? They can't even agree among themselves on this one.

The bottom line is this. If the public transit industry continues to cave to every little demand from the so-called public transit loving environmental movement, there will be no such thing as public/mass transit in a few decades. These groups would make it impossible to run any form of public transit that is even remotely affordable to the average person.

Ottawa may be stuck and Pittsburgh may follow

Ottawa ON - In a move that will be observed by many, the Ottawa Sun reports that the consortium that Ottawa chose to build the recently cancelled LRT line may force the line to be built anyway.

This actually isn't surprising given the nature of what is happening. Not just in Ottawa but all across North America. Building these huge transit projects is big money for the contractors, many of whom need years of lead time to design, order and build the projects.

With the rush to slap rail lines down without proper planning, this scenario is set to play out in many cities across North America. Pittsburgh may face such a situation if the North Shore Connector for the Port Authority of Allegheny County (PAT) is cancelled and there is a lot of pressure on the Feds to cancel the funding.

The Feds were unaware that the North Shore Connector was so unpopular. That stunning announcement was made on the Marty Griffin show on KDKA Radio on Monday. PAT received the funding in part by exaggerating and saying the unneeded subway extension was supported by all. State and Federal politicians are trying to stop the project even though work has recently started.

If stopped, PAT may face what Ottawa is facing now, a lawsuit by the consortium that is building the line to force the line to be built.

Expensive projects like LRT lines need to be planned properly. If deemed worthy of building, they need to be placed in high ridership areas, not used for developmental purposes. This rush to get on and stay on the LRT bandwagon needs to stop. Between the threats of lawsuits from consortium's already contracted to build the lines and pro-rail activists like Clay Chastain who will sue to build the line even though he doesn't live in the state, transit systems will be forced to build these expensive toys due to their rush to spend Federal capital money.

Where is the crowd at for LRT?

Edmonton AB - It's been a few days since my last post due to being tied up with other things but a commentary piece out of the Edmonton Sun put other things on hold.

In the article, it is clearly stated that the Edmonton LRT system has been plagued with "high costs, low ridership and poor planning" since its inception.

Wow. If you listen to the pro-rail crowd, Edmonton has a world class LRT system that has more riders than can fit into the LRV's.

The article caused me to do a little digging into my stacks upon stacks of paper to find out a little bit more about the early years of the Edmonton system as well as the much more successful Calgary C-Train operation.

What I found from back in the days when the line was proposed is this. Edmonton wanted LRT to spur development and be among the first cities in North America to be on the LRT bandwagon (yes, the phrase "we need to get on the bandwagon" was used by the city). Planning was rushed to secure funding and be among the early cities in North America to have a new LRT line.

Calgary on the other hand was the exact opposite even though they too were among the early pioneers of the LRT craze. Calgary placed the route where it did for two reasons. First was to provide service to the Stampede Grounds and second was to serve the already rapidly developing southern portion of the Calgary area.

Today, Calgary's C-Train is doing very well while Edmonton's LRT operation is stagnating and in some areas, going downhill. The reason? Calgary planned the line using the proper reasoning as to how best to utilize rail while Edmonton was in a hurry to just slap a line down to spur development which has been lackluster at best to date.

I found some other articles from various rail advocates at the time of the two systems starting up. While they gushed over both lines, the pro-rail crowd was worried about Calgary's operation while stating that Edmonton's line would be the "Gem of Canada".

That started me thinking about why the pro-rail crowd was so worried about Calgary's new line. It was properly planned, it was placed where it was needed and proper amenities such as ample parking were provided. Could that be it? Calgary didn't just slap down a rail line just for the sake of having a rail line? Knowing many pro-rail people and how they think, I'm more than sure that they were upset over the fact that Calgary built their line with a real purpose behind it.

I E-mailed two pro-rail people I know just for a quick opinion. What I found amusing was that they were still gushing over Edmonton's system but were quick to criticize Calgary's system. I might also add that the two I contacted were flaming Liberals who love government waste, especially when it comes to building LRT and streetcar lines. I responded to both asking why are they criticizing a successful operation while praising an operation that is having problems. No response from either.

I am constantly amazed at how the Liberal pro-rail crowd loves wasteful LRT operations while having big problems when the very thing they claim to love actually works efficiently and effectively. No wonder public transit has so many problems these days.

Ottawa hid true LRT costs from public

Ottawa ON - In a move that doesn't surprise me in the least, the Ottawa Citizen reported that the Ottawa City Council hid the true costs of its recently shot down North-South LRT line.

"It was an accounting shell game," said Councilor Alex Cullen, a light-rail supporter who turned against the project when costs began to soar.

This is typical of any large scale government project but seems to be more prominent when it comes to LRT lines. The city and transit system often play the "shell game" with the figures to help make it appear that the cost to build an LRT project haven't gone through the roof.

While the City Council of Ottawa deny there was any attempt at hiding costs, the documentation speaks differently.

The Ottawa Citizen had to file a municipal freedom of information request to obtain documents on the financing and awarding of bids from the city and even then, the city is still reluctant to release all the information. Currently, the paper has gone to court to force the city to release the additional documentation.

That tells me that the city was in fact hiding the true costs. This brings one to ask why? The answer is quite simple. The city wanted this line at any cost and knew if the true costs were released, there would be a public backlash.

This sadly is a common situation in when it comes to public transit projects. The accounting shell game keeps the reported costs lower while the actual costs are often hundreds of millions of dollars more. More people are waking up to this little game that governments in both Canada and the United States play so hopefully there will be more pressure to release the true costs of these expensive projects to the public.

It's a tough sell for transit

London ON - An commentary column in the London Free Press by Ian Gillespie discusses a recent decision by the London Transit Commission to spend millions to overhaul their operation.

In the article, Mr. Gillespie interviews Douglas Leighton, an associate professor of the history department of Huron University College. They lament the fact that transit is losing to the car culture but they end the article at a critical point.

Are there many people who would really rather take a bus than drive a car?

I think not. And the big challenge is to change that and coax people onto public transit.

"But the question is, how do you do that?" says Leighton. "And I'm not sure having jazzier or sexier buses or whatever will do it."

Here is where the critical part of the article stops. While Leighton is 100% correct that "jazzier or sexier buses" will not attract people to public transit, he either missed the opportunity to state that good service will or he truly doesn't know the answer to his own question.

The lack of good service is the problem that plagues mass transit systems across North America. It is a well known and proven fact that if public transit agencies provide a service that is convenient, safe, takes them where they want to go and is affordable, people will crawl out from behind the wheel of their car to ride.

The true concept of good service has been abandoned by many operations in favor of expensive transit projects, bells and whistles on the vehicles and the system's precious image. Many transit systems truly believe that these wasteful items will attract the masses. It's been a dismal failure overall.

To provide good service doesn't have to be a multi-million dollar undertaking. What it takes is understanding the operation and the area it serves. By understanding the operation and the service area, a transit system can quickly adapt to shifts in the ridership trends.

Responding quickly to ridership trends is something I give a failing grade to most every public transit operation. When a transit system can clearly see it's ridership dropping on a route and that coincides with something else that has occurred in the service area such as a new mall or business park opening, transit needs to quickly adapt to this change. What normally happens however is that transit managers sit there, scratch their heads, wonder why their ridership is dropping on a route and then do nothing.

While selling transit to the car driving public is an uphill battle, it can be done. The problem is that many transit systems lost the understanding of what transit is all about. Spending millions to overhaul an operation just to load it up with frills won't attract and keep ridership. Only good service can do that and good service can be done for far less cost overall.

Transit will continue to suffer until transit officials and politicians wake up to the fact that they need to go back to the basics of public transit. Good, reliable, clean and safe service at a reasonable cost that takes people where they want to go when they need to go there. Without good service, the battle to attract ridership is lost.

Can the TTC reinvent itself?

Toronto ON - A Dr. Gridlock article on the globeandmail.com web site offers some commentary on what ails the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) and what could help solve the problem. Most of what follows in my commentary can be applied easily to any transit system, not just the TTC.

In the article, reporter Jeff Gray asks former Toronto budget chief, David Soknacki about what he thinks is wrong with the operation.

Soknacki's answer could fit just about any transit system in North America. An outmoded, monolithic, top-down organization that is too resistant to new ideas.

While I agree with Soknacki's assessment for the most part, I would add to it the following so that it works with the majority of public transit systems: Oblivious to their purpose. I say this simply because too many transit systems have lost touch with what transit is supposed to be. Moving people from point A to point B has lost its meaning as transit administrations across North America focus more on "style over substance" methods of operations.

Soknacki has a vision of dismantling the existing TTC and creating separate agencies for each mode of transport. Each mini-TTC would be overseen by an overarching regional body, aka an umbrella agency or mega agency. This type of set up, Soknacki believes, would allow for quicker adjustments to meet rider needs as well as coming up for new ideas in improving the service overall.

While Soknacki brings forth some valid points for breaking up the TTC into smaller pieces, I think he misses the fact that what he is suggesting is an even bigger bureaucratic monster. One that will further drain the already anemic transit funding coffers. The umbrella agency concept does work but it creates a larger overall paper pusher style of administration which increases the overall cost of providing service.

In Soknacki's vision, the mini-TTC's which are created would handle bus, rail and subway operations and would be able to respond quicker to ridership needs. Where the problem with this comes in is that you then need to wade through many more miles of red tape created by the paper pushing umbrella agency which ultimately will slow everything down.

Many transit systems are considering the umbrella agency method for public transit to try and salvage their failing transit systems. They are using a different reasoning than Soknacki uses however. Other systems see such an umbrella agency as a means to leverage more money out of the government rather than a means to improve operations.

Toronto's Mayor, David Miller, thinks Soknacki's idea would destroy public transit in Toronto. Mayor Miller thinks the problem strictly the lack of adequate funding.

The Mayor is partially correct but this is where Soknacki's earlier comments come into play. The TTC is too resistant to change. It is a lumbering and hungry beast rather than a lean, mean fighting machine.

Adequate funding is needed but the administration needs to trim the fat as well and streamline how the system runs. In many operations, there are too many managers with too little to do besides come up with new ways for the transit system to waste money. The focus should be on service, not bells and whistles like marketing the system and coming up with expensive capital projects. Unless the administration does its part, public transit will continue to go deeper into the fiscal black hole until it finally self-destructs from the ever increasing monetary waste and top heavy bureaucracy.

"It is a waste of time and energy to try to reinvent the TTC" states the Mayor.

Not exactly true. There is not one transit system in North America that can honestly claim to be running at top efficiently regardless of what efficiency ranking is awarded by a transit industry trade group. From how trips are assigned to eliminating duplicate or unneeded administration positions, the savings add up. The funding deficit at any transit system could probably be knocked down by 25 percent from just running an efficient operation which isn't top heavy. That requires reinventing yourself.

An important part of Soknacki's vision for the TTC is about expansion of the system. To expand a transit system without incurring massive costs, one only needs to look to how the Port Authority of Allegheny County did it during the 1970's and is summarized in an earlier article on Laurels & Lances. Simple things such as trimming a trip here and there, eliminating non-performing and duplicate routes, extending trip times by 10 minutes on some routes and using logic when assembling the route assignments allowed for more than enough resources to be freed up to be used for many new routes in Pittsburgh. In short, it involved going back to the basics of public transit. It's not rocket science nor doesn't cost millions of dollars as Mayor Miller suggests.

Soknacki's vision isn't the answer to the TTC's problems but neither is Miller's vision. Both of them miss the point that a large portion of the waste in the TTC is in the administration and how the system is managed. One wants to increase the overall administration while the other wants to leave it alone. No one wants to actually look at trimming the administration back.

Change is at the heart of Soknacki's vision for the TTC. It is something I have believed for years regarding public transit in general. Public transit needs to change how it thinks. While David Soknacki and I have different ideas on the changes that need to be made in transit, we both realize that the few with the ability to initiate the needed changes will step up and do it. My experiences with transit administrations across North America are that they don't want to change. To change how things are done disturbs the status quo.

What the TTC is facing is similar to what most every transit system in North America is facing. The solutions to helping to solve the problems are also similar for every system.

Public transit has lost its way and the simplest way to help it find the right track again is to go back to the basics of what transit was designed to be. Many of the problems will become manageable, if not eliminated, by doing so.

Now if only someone will bother to listen...

Surrey still pushing for LRT any way they can get it

Surrey BC - A news story from the Peace Arch News reports on Light Rail Transit (LRT) proponents that are brandishing a new consultant report in their fight to get LRT in their community.

The City of Surrey commissioned a report that looked at a scaled back version of the 27-km Translink plan. The Surrey plan was a fraction of the length and assumed single track operation. The Translink proposal would have run between $360 - $700 million (CAD) while the shorter Surrey proposal would run around $110 - $150 million (CAD).

There has been a new catch phrase born to identify this type of rail line, "community rail". It sounds like something a Liberal would dream up since it conjures up warm and fuzzy images of a quaint trolley line connecting small towns together. Will we all have to hold hands and sing peace songs too if it's built?

A major problem is that you have single track operation in the Surrey proposal. It's disaster in the making. No, I'm not talking accidents. I'm talking about service delays. One mishap and the entire line can be closed for hours. Systems foolish enough to build a single track LRT line soon find out that single track operations are a major headache and detrimental to the line. Most systems that have single track only have it due to geography issues where double tracking is impossible and hold single tracking to a bare minimum.

I have read some other articles on a LRT proposal for the Surrey area, which was called the "Evergreen LRT" line proposal if I recall correctly. It proved too costly and didn't generate the projected ridership numbers to build even with the transit industry's technique of artificially shaving costs down and inflating projected ridership numbers.

At least the city is attempting to do its homework and realizes that the operating costs of approximately $6 million (CAD) a year will be a big problem. Estimating only a 20 to 30 percent recovery from the fare box, the local government would be left to foot millions of dollars each year to run the line.

I did like what city Engineer General Manager Paul Ham told council in his report. He recommended shelving the rail idea because of the costs as well as creating expectations that may not be achievable and diverting money from other area projects.

The thought on creating expectations that aren't achievable hits at the core of the LRT proponent's argument. Unrealistic expectations are what surround many of the rail proposals around North America. The general public is routinely sold a load of bull regarding economic boom times, development, cleaner air, less congestion, and other unrealistic goals on each and every rail line that is proposed by rail activists and politicians that want something to have for their legacy.

The fact of the matter is that you don't have economic boom times. You end up paying more through taxes to support these expensive projects. You may get some development but it can take decades and most often, the general public pays again through giving massive tax breaks and even low-interest loans which are rarely repaid as well as grants to developers to build something near a rail station. Rail doesn't effect the air quality enough to even measure and there are many reports across North America of increased traffic congestion once an LRT line is built.

What I see here is another example of politicians and activists doing anything they can to get an LRT line built when it's really not needed. The rail activists and politicians pushing for this proposal really need to just let it die. Try improving what you have already as the expensive toys won't solve any of the problems in the area. Surrey politicians and area rail activists get the Lance for continuing to try and push this unneeded project.

Translink testing power modes for next bus order

Greater Vancouver Area BC - A news story out of the Peace Arch News from White Rock and Surrey show a battle over what mode of power buses should have. While leaning towards hybrid technology, politicians battle over the results of a round of tests performed by Translink.

There is a contingent of politicians pushing for the use of natural gas as the power choice for future orders of buses for Translink. Even though Translink did try natural gas in the past, the results were less than spectacular. A common problem for transit systems that have tried natural gas vehicles in cold climates.

While the news story doesn't release the mileage or emission reports, the article states the following regarding Translink's testing:

• Hybrids did better in fuel economy and emissions than diesel and natural gas powered buses.
• Diesel buses were the cheapest to operate and maintain.

Without the results being available, it is hard to determine how much better one mode is over the other in terms of fuel economy and emissions. Based on past examples, the differences aren't that dramatic. The big difference is the cost to buy and operate the different modes.

Some Translink directors want Translink to explore fuel cell technology in the next round of tests that is just getting underway. Translink is also going to test a hydrogen/natural gas fuel mix in the second round.

While I applaud Translink for doing its homework before making another bus order, I hope they don't go too eco-crazy and rule out consideration of the clean air package diesels which will save them much more money in the long run than any of the currently available alternative fuel options.

The big issue that overshadows these tests is the push for natural gas when previous experience with the vehicles proved to be a "dismal failure" according to Burnaby Mayor, Derek Corrigan. When Translink placed 50 natural gas buses in service back in 2002, there was some controversy over this move due to the heavy lobbying done by the natural gas industry and that some who had a direct say in the choice having a financial interest in the natural gas industry.

From Surrey Councillor Marvin Hunt comments in the news article and his position on natural gas buses, it sounds as though the lobbyists are pushing again to make natural gas the fuel choice for Translink, even though Translink's experience with the natural gas buses has been less than stellar.

The tests need to be conducted without bias. The decision on what will power future orders of buses need to be decided without bias. To have directors of Translink and other politicians trying to push one mode over another will not result in a fair decision based on the results of a fair test. It will result in a decision based on lobbyists and personal preference of the politicians, not what mode is the best for the transit system.

This type of situation is a big problem throughout the public transit industry and is one of the many causes of why public transit is in such dire financial straits these days. Decisions made by directors and politicians which make their decisions based on personal preference or having been influenced to choose the lobbyist's choice. Many times, results of tests as well as warnings from manufacturers are ignored in the name of politics.

The bottom line is that decisions with such an impact on the operation need to be made in the best interest of the transit system and the public. To not do so only further hurts the transit system and drives the costs up for everyone.

TTC Chairman wants to "clean up"

Toronto ON - The new incoming chairman of the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) wants to clean up the system, literally. The Globe and Mail reports that the new TTC chairman, Adam Giambrone, says the transit system is dirtier today than it was just two years ago.

It isn't just litter that is the problem but dirt and grime in the subway as well as on the buses and streetcars. "I'm worried that if you stand in our stations, you look at our stations, they're grimy" stated Giambrone after a TTC meeting recently. To that end, Giambrone wants changes to improve the cleanliness of the TTC stations and vehicles as well as an audit done to identify the dirtiest vehicles and stations so that they can be tackled first.

The new chairman also had a few words regarding the TTC web site that he wishes to "clean up" as well. "If you take a look at the TTC website, it looks like you took a bunch of topics and chucked them at the wall and then put them on the website," Giambrone said.

To help attract and keep ridership, public transit needs to be clean and information easily accessible. A Laurel goes out to Adam Giambrone for taking the initiative to tackle a couple of the most common ills and most commonly put off items in public transit right from the start in his new position as chairman of the TTC.