Council Report
17 May 2004
by
Carolanne Reynolds, Editor
www.WestVan.org
WVM: Ccl Mtg Notes May 17 & Mtgs/Events to
27th
Meeting/Event changes/additions; ccl mtg highlights on Shaw
tonight (Biz Hours and Good Nbr Policy -- how high is your grass???
Big Brother DWV may be watching you!); Meetings/Events; More info on
RAV/LRT (Report from CAGE, Questions for TransLink);
Quotation
NOTE: Sports/Rec Fac Planning mtg has been changed to Thursday
8:30, Biz after Biz on Wed at 5pm, and a WV Streamkeepers public mtg
Thursday 7:30.
=3D=3D=3D CCL MTG NOTES for May 17th&nbs=
p;
=3D=3D=3D
Ccl Mtg
was 7 to 10:25pm so 9 to 12:25am on Shaw Ch 4 Tues; videotape at
Library
=3D First half hour consists of two interesting delegations
with slides: one on walks in WV and the other on heritage
conservation.
=3D The disability issues conclude about 8pm
=3D Interesting discussion re 1257 Marine strata
conversion: rental, precedence. Motion failed.
=3D The Biz regulation bylaw took from 8:20 to
about 9:30
Mostly on whether to change commercial closing hours from 6 to
7pm to 9pm or whatever. Left at 7pm Sat to Wed, 9 Th/Fr at
second reading to be sent out for public input.
Presentations on leaving it up to business when to be open and
closed. Vote was split. Thx to Cclr Jean Ferguson for
wanting notification to be more than just biz reg so people know
what's at stake (hours), and more than minimum notice required by
Cmnty Charter as well as sent to ratepayer groups. This was
echoed by Cclr Durman (thx!) and Cclr G-J incorporated it into the
motion (more thx!).
Interesting to note that NV stays open later and of course some
of those businesses compete with ours. The Chamber of Commerce
strongly supports allowing businesses to set their own hours.
Yours Truly pointed out that the issue of 6pm closing came up
when I and Cclr Day were on Council and there wd have been a riot if
Stong's and Caper's had been closed then b/c people needed till 7pm at
least to get over the bridge (and miss rush hour). Dear Readers,
you may have noticed they stay open till 7. Cclr G-J wasn't
aware that it was indeed 6 and just not being enforced. I also
said that perhaps a resident concern wd be any noise b/c of late
opening but I hadn't noticed any or heard any complaints about
Thursday and Friday nights.
=3D next contentious issue was the Good Neighbour Bylaw (9:30 to
10:10).
A resident brought up incredible examples in the bylaw for which
staff judges as to what is a 'nuisance' and is not defined (answer was
that it can't be so gives discretion to staff) wch cd result in $10K
fine and even six months in jail. This goes beyond 'untidy
premises' and includes "brush", Canada thistle, bindweed,
morning glory, standing water, night lights, length of grass, height
of fencing. Some provisions wd "prohibit a plastic
container -- a majority of garbage cans are plastic now; so then we
can't put them out; many owners haven't garages they have carports;
many people, older generation, accumulate [stuff] for longer than 15
days". What about birdbaths? What about water pooled
on flat roofs? As to lights, states "outdoor light that
causes a nuisance", but many lights are installed for security,
activated, and as a deterrence, and for many older residents they are
a form of assurance for them.
The Dir/Admin agreed saying the bylaw is "a very subjective
bylaw, intended that way, meant to give authority to District".
Stay tuned for a lively discussion. Cclr VD asked wch bylaw wd
take precedence when there's one coming up to ban pesticides. He
als asked if it wd apply to crown corporations (thinking BC Ferries no
doubt) and to DWV itself pointing out some graffitti [yes, tt, not t]
on municipal property there for 13 years. WRT ponding, Cclr G-J
sensibly said the bylaw shd then specify the West Nile virus potential
(so pools with fish, for example, wd not be targeted). Several
had questions and wanted answers and changes.
Cclr Sop asked it be deferred (VD said bylaw was not well
thought out and had inconsistencies; G-J also asked for deferral)
saying it stepped on the toes of residents and their rights but it
was a split vote and the Mayor voted to go to second reading saying
"so something to go out to the public as the MMgr
suggested". While it is true amendments can be made at
second reading, this ignores the successful practice of releasing the
draft bylaw (eg pesticides) for public comment so that most of the
work can be done resulting in fewer amendments and less debate at
second reading before approving the bylaw. When the Mayor
said there was nothing to go out, Cclr Sop pointed out that there was
a draft that cd go out but the Mayor apparently dismissed that and
voted to go for second reading.
The MMgr seemed a bit perplexed that it had been out for a while
but did suggest/agree it go out to the public now. The
impression left was that if a resident hadn't taken the time to go
through this bylaw carefully and then bring up problems he saw to Ccl,
it wd have sailed through. Council cd have rejected or amended
this bylaw themselves long ago but guess they have a lot to read.
The MMgr's frustration is that staff wd have been more than happy to
answer and respond to their concerns before this late date when it's
on the agenda for three readings! We're grateful a citizen blew
the warning whistle and some of Council listened.
This will affect lives in our neighbourhoods. One
remark was that we shdn't operate with neighbours as snitches.
We are, however, handing over staff wide powers of discretion wrt to
our little plots of paradise. Come to think of it, I haven't
heard grumblings about our present untidy premises bylaw and when
asked, the MMgr said there have only been a few cases over the past
few years. Hm. If the bylaw now is considerably expanded
to anything that someone thinks is a 'nuisance', surely that has the
potential of an increase! Maybe some staff writer is
enthusiastically prescriptive. Please give your views on how you
want your neighbours' yards to look next to you. The MMgr said
it wd not come back before July.
=3D In Reports, Cclr JF referred to MLA Ralph Sultan's talk
at the Chamber of Commerce breakfast and that the Citizens' Assembly
process has nearly ended and there will be a public referendum on
changes with the election next May. There will be a delegation
to Ccl at a ccl mtg soon re the Citizens' Assembly looking into the
voting system.
=3D Cclr Sop and Mayor attended Lower Mainland Municipal Assn
mtg in Whistler; Mayor and Dir/Engg attend the safety awards (some
Blue Bus drivers over 20 years accident-free)
=3D PQP at 10:13 had a riveting account of a 130km-an-hour chase of
some reckless motorcyclists on the Sea to Sky Hwy after speeding out
of WV with no response from WV Police (who are known to be diligent in
WV proper) in spite of five phone calls finally ending with
recommendation to call the Squamish RCMP. As Cclr Clark said,
you'd think the WV Police at least wd call ahead instead of leaving it
to a driver with a cell phone. In any case, the Squamish RCMP
office was closed when she got there! Warning: watch for
bikers!
=3D Meeting over just before 10:30 pm. Enjoy Victoria Day
weekend!.... next ccl mtg is May 31st.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D MEETINGS/EVENTS
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
+ TUESDAY, May 18th
=3D 3:30 - 5pm =3D Youth Adv Cmte at Hall
=3D 6 - 8pm =3D Opening Reception "Natural Selection"
Painting/Collage by Ken Prescott & Stone Sculpture by Ian Rowles.
=46erry Building Gallery (Exhibit from May 18 - June 6)
=3D 7pm =3D is there a WRA mtg at GCC??? Is Liz still in
Europe? Will Bruce send out a mtg notice?
+ WEDNESDAY, May 19th
=3D 8:30am - Sports & Rec Facilities Planning Select Cmte at
Hall - MOVED TO THURSDAY
=3D 5 - 7pm =3D WV Chamber of Commerce's Business After Business in
their boardroom
=3D 5:30-7pm =3D Finance Adv Cmte CANCELLED (AGAIN)
=3D 7 - 9pm =3D Library Board in the Peter J. Peters
Room at the WV Library
=3D 7 - 9pm =3D Board of Variance in the Council
Chambers
+ THURSDAY, May 20th
=3D 8:30am - Sports & Rec Facilities Planning Select
Cmte
=3D 6 - 8pm =3D NS Family Court & Youth Justice Cmte at
the CNV Municipal Hall
=3D 7:30pm =3D WV Streamkeepers' Public Meeting at St
Stephen's, 885 - 22nd; hear reports on creeks by the various
streamkeepers, the Adopt-a-Fish program, and projects/plans such as
the Hadden fish ladder
=3D 7:30pm =3D Author Michael Hetherington will talk
about the process of writing and getting published and read
from his short story collection The Late Night Caller in
the Peter J. Peters Room at the library
+ FRIDAY, May 21st [to 23rd]
=3D 10am =3D "Arts of a Lifetime" at the Seniors'
Centre; Opening Celebrations with music and refreshments (Exhibit:
10 - 4pm Fri and Sat; 10 - 2pm Sun)
+ SATURDAY, May 22nd
=3D 2pm =3D Artists' Talk, "Natural Selection"
Painting/Collage by Ken Prescott & Stone Sculpture by Ian Rowles.
=46erry Building Gallery
+ MONDAY, May 24th =3D No Council Meeting =3D
Municipal Hall Closed - Victoria Day
*** NEXT WEEK a glimpse ahead, to be updated
***
+ TUESDAY, May 25th
=3D 8:30am =3D Arts and Culture Cmte mtg moved to May 26th
=3D 6:30 - 9pm =3D Lighthouse Park Draft Mgmt Plan mtg at WV
Yacht Club
+ WEDNESDAY, May 26th
=3D 8:30am =3D Arts and Culture Cmte mtg at Hall
=3D 4 - 6pm =3D Police Bd (moved from May 27th) at Ch of Commerce
Boardroom
=3D 5 - 7pm =3D PAC
*** Also at 7pm perhaps WVHistorical Society and WV
=46oundation annual report
+ THURSDAY, May 27th
=3D Police Bd moved to May 26th
=3D 4:30 =3D DAC
=3D 5 - 7pm NSACDI at CNV Municipal Hall
*** May 31, televised ccl mtg with delegation by Citizens'
Assembly
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
*** RAV and LRT
***
Just in case you've seen the press release,
have put questions from Liz James of CAGE
(dedicated to accountability in govt)
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 17:46:48 +0100 (BST)
=46rom: Elizabeth James <cagebc@yahoo.com>
Subject: Truth or Consequences: RAVCo opted for the
consequences
Comments on Malcolm's four questions:
- Chair McCallum has, for over two years, talked of
'SkyTrain' in one and the same breath as RAV, so one should have
no problem believing the Siemens theory. Moreover, since Bombardier
Inc. and SNC-Lavelin are intertwined, the choice of one over the
other just makes a sham of the so-called 'bid and selection' process.
- Judging by the comments of 2010 CEO John Furlong, it is pretty
well a given that the cost estimates for RAV - those
estimates TransLink actually included - will
fall millions short of reality.
- Polls, like statistics, can be made to show almost anything
one wants them to show - depending upon the way the question
is worded. The only poll that has a proven result, is the exit poll at
the voting booth.
- Ridership numbers - like polls and statistics - can be as
accurate, or not, as TransLink wishes to make them. While the
PNE, BC Place, Cirque du Soleil...and, even, Canadian Tire...seem to
have no problem with turnstile counts and ticket checks, Cirque du
TransLink has arranged its business in such a way that it has no
reliable way of estimating ridership. The only proof of anything
is the bottom line on ridership revenues. So it is that, although
TransLink claims certain ridership figures, a quick check against
revenues has demonstrated quite clearly that one or the other number
is inaccurate.
- Furthermore, comparisons with Calgary, Chicago and other systems
show up TransLink estimates for what they are - just today's
unsupportable guesses.
- There are two important questions Malcolm Johnston has not
asked:
1.
"What is it about SkyTrain that has made it so
worthwhile for, first, RTP-2000 and now RAVCo to be so
willing to risk the ongoing wrath of the people by
pursuing that option?" and,
2.
"Why is it that local business leaders
are so upset by a turndown of a business plan that
would have been laughed out of their own
boardrooms?"
By any normal, rational business evaluation, it just
doesn't make sense... so how about it, Auditor-General Strelioff? How
about you go over TransLink one more time?
Regards,
Liz James
[604] 988-0456
_____________________________________________________________
Four questions for the Chair of TransLink:
1. Is it true
that TransLink and RAVCo. rejected outright a $890 million
light rail option for RAV from Siemens - Fluor and then
cut them from the bidding? Background: I have now been told by
four different unrelated sources that the Siemen/Fluor bid was
rejected without discussion by RAVCo. and TransLink
planners.
2. Is it true
that the cost of RAV, as advertised, has now escalated to $2.5 billion
to $2.7 billion? Background: A discussion with Mark M.
Miller of Vimarc Consulting revealed that in his opinion, RAVCo. has
greatly understated the cost of subway construction and RAV, built as
advertised (Subway from downtown Vancouver to 63rd, then viaduct and
bridges for the rest of the route) would cost $2.5 to $2.7 billion!!
As steel and concrete prices escalate, the final cost for RAV may rise
dramatically!
3. RAVCo and
Jane bird are trumpeting a poll that gives 80% support for RAV, is
this poll valid? Background: Only 400 people, living along the
RAV route were polled, this works out to 20 persons per km. of
route. Certainly this isn't a scientific poll!
4. RAVCo.
estimates that over 100,000 passengers a day will use RAV, is this
assumption valid? Background: Recent, international
studies have found the vast majority of ridership on any transit line
comes from about 300m around each station; also, it is well known
fact that upwards of 70% of potential ridership can be
lost per transfer. Enforced transfers (bus to RAV to bus) and
lack of population around RAV may only generate ridership of 40,000
passenger per day. RAV may even force people into
cars!
- GVRD/GVTA predicted that ridership on the Expo Line would exceed
20,000 persons per hour per direction in the peak hour by the year
2,000. It is now 2004 and ridership on the Expo Line is slowly
diminishing - at best it's carrying only 7,500 pphpd!
- Calgary's LRT line's direct cost was $548 million, yet it
carries 181,000 passengers daily, with a $24 million
annual operating budget (source Calgary Transit) SkyTrain's Expo
Line's direct cost was $1.5 billion, yet it only handles
100,000 passengers daily and has an annual operating cost of
$40 million! (source Frank Luba, Van. Province)
Malcolm Johnston
Light Rail Committee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
******* Ebroadcast news below sent Monday 17th
*******
This just in. As you know RAV's been cancelled but some
want to revive it. Here's an alternative for consideration.
Presume if not acted on 'big time', RAV will be resurrected.
--
Editor
********
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 18:21:11 +0100 (BST)
From: Elizabeth James <cagebc@yahoo.com>
Subject: URGENT: LRT TO RICHMOND: AN EFFECTIVE, MUCH CHEAPER -
AND MORE ATTRACTIVE - ALTERNATIVE
In my opinion, this is the way to spend taxpayers' dollars
wisely: In other words, get the most effective and attractive product
for the dollar - that way we can have more transportation than
the gold-plated, underestimated, SkyTrain will ever allow. To
build the type of solution shown below, leaves money left over
for other routes, or even for other municipal uses. Moreover, it will
not threaten the well-being of the Municipal Finance
Authority. Liz James
_________________________________________________________________________________
Light Rail
Committee
Box 105 ~ DELTA, B.C. V4K 3N5 ~ CANADA
Vancouver to Steveston: "The Return of
the
Interurban" and Affordable
Light Rail Transit
[photo] Modern LRT on a lawned reserved
right-of-way (LRTA)
The problem.
The recent demise of the RAV/SkyTrain/subway rapid transit
project, again brings up two very important questions:
1) Is there the ridership to justify a rail transit option
from Vancouver to Richmond?
2) If so, what route or routes shall a rail option
take?
RAV=92s first premise was: not to build with LRT on the former
dual tracked interurban route known as the Arbutus Corridor.
RAV=92s second premise was: to design rapid transit for the
proprietary SkyTrain mini-metro (ART) system.
Except for Vancouver, there is no SkyTrain versus light rail
debate, as the debate is really metro or light-metro (including
monorail) versus light rail. The basic question is: Is there the
ridership to justify LRT or metro? There is no firm rule as
what ridership demands what mode, but a general rule of thumb is that
LRT can economically handle traffic loads of between 2,000 and 20,000
persons per hour per direction. Metro or light metro, because of its
more expensive construction costs for segregated rights-of-ways, needs
much higher traffic loads, in excess of an average of 10,000 pphpd, to
justify construction costs. Light metro, such as SkyTrain, built on
lightly used transit routes will need much larger operating subsidies
than LRT, conversely LRT carrying heavier passenger loads, becomes
less costly to operate.
As modern LRT has proven in revenue service, to easily handle
heavy passenger traffic, on simple and relatively inexpensive
rights-of-ways, has made it very hard to justify metro construction,
unless peak hour ridership exceeds over 20,000 pphpd on a transit
route! Of course there are exceptions, but one thing is true; the
weaker the ridership, the larger the annual subsidy to cover debt
servicing charges resulting from much higher construction costs. It is
for this reason that modern LRT is built in quantity around the
world!
[photo] Modern LRT on lawned right-of-way,
could be the Arbutus Corridor or Railway Ave.! (LRTA)
Is there the ridership to justify a rail transit
solution to Richmond?
RAV Co. was overly optimistic in their prediction of 100,000
riders a day to Richmond centre and the airport. Lack of population on
the Cambie St./No. 3 Road route and the close proximity of YVR (about
a 20 minute cab ride) to Vancouver=92s downtown certainly would make
their predicted high ridership an almost impossibility, as well, the
predicted 100,000 passengers a day certainly would not justify hugely
expensive subway construction!
The LRC estimates that ridership from Vancouver to Richmond on
either the Arbutus corridor or Cambie Street would be about 40,000
passengers a day, thus demanding the most economic of rail
option. The Arbutus Corridor is an established rail route, it would
also be the cheapest as compared with any rail on or under
Cambie St. as it would be very expensive =91greenfields=92
construction. To boost ridership, the rail option must not just
serve Vancouver but also serve an inter community role in Richmond.
Simply, this means any rail option must reach as far as
Steveston to ensure sufficient ridership.
Certainly the ridership is established for a lean and mean
light rail route, using the existing former interurban route from
downtown Vancouver as far as Steveston.
[photo] A modular light rail vehicle in
the city centre. (LRTA)
Where would the route run?
To maintain the economy of light rail, the proposed LRT route
starts at Granville Street at Hastings, with a simple stub terminus
and proceed South, along the Granville Transit Mall and over the
Granville St. Bridge to 6th Ave. (3 km.).
The route will then turn West for 2 blocks (500 m.) until
it reaches the Arbutus Corridor and then proceed South to Marpole
(11 km.). This 14.5 km. of route would be of double track
construction, with lawned or grassed right-of way on the Arbutus
Corridor proper, giving a park like atmosphere, until just prior to
the Fraser River swing bridge.
The route would then use the existing CPR bridge (single track
(500 m.) and proceed into Richmond on a double tracked viaduct
over Bridgeport and Sea island Way to Garden City, then travelling
south, to Granville Ave. (4.5 km.), turning West and following
Granville Ave. till it reaches the former interurban right-of-way
(3.5 km.) paralleling Railway Ave. This part of the route would
be double tracked for 7 km. from Sea Island Way, adjacent to the
Sexsmith Park and Ride operating on a central reservation to the end
of Granville Ave.
Travelling South on the former interurban formation, the proposed
route would be single track, with passing loops at stations, to
Steveston Highway (3.5 km.), turning North on Steveston to No.1
Rd. (1 km.) South on No.1 Rd. to Moncton St. (1 km.) and
East, terminating at a simple stub terminus on Railway Ave. (1
km.).
Proposed LRT specifications
- Route length: 29.5 km.
- Route on street: 6.5 km. of which 3 km. is single tracked.
- Route on reserved rights-of-ways: 23 km., of which 3.5 km.
is single tracked.
- Route on double track: 23 km.
- Route on single track: 6.5 km.
- Route on bridge and viaduct: 1.5 km. (including Granville St.
bridge)
- Stations/stops spacing: approximately 800 metres urban, 1 km.
suburban.
- Signalling: GPS, automatic block on reserved rights of way and
single tracked routes; line of sight in downtown Vancouver. Priority
signalling at intersections with traffic light control
- Commercial speed: about 30 kph. to 35 kph.
- Vehicles: modular with capacities ranging from 250 to 350 persons
(Jumbos)
- Maintenance Centre: On the Eburne lands adjacent to the Arbutus
Corridor, in Marpole.
- Frequency: Marpole to downtown Vancouver 4 minute peak; Richmond
to Vancouver 6 minute peak.
- Estimated capacity: Marpole to downtown Vancouver @ 4 minute
headway=92s with single cars, 4000 pphpd.; Steveston to Vancouver @ 6
minute headway=92s with single cars, over 2500 pphpd.
- Theoretical capacity: Marpole to downtown Vancouver, 20,000 pphpd;
Steveston to Vancouver, two car trains @ 6 minute headway=92s 5,000
pphpd. Please note, if ridership demanded that the route be double
tracked through out, then maximum capacity would be 20,000+ pphpd!
- Estimated daily ridership: start up 30,000 a day; after 1 year=92s
operation 40,000 pphpd..
- Estimated construction time: 2 to 3 years!
Estimated Construction Costs
(Estimates are from contemporary light rail lines
built and conversations with international experts in the
field.)
- Double track construction (including overhead) @ $18
mil./km.....$414 million (1)
- Single track construction (including overhead) @ $10 mil./km.
=2E......$65 million (1)
- 20 vehicles @ $4.5 million
each..............................................................$90
million (2)
- Viaduct
construction...............................................................................$50 million
- Bridge
modifications................................................................................$20 million
- Maintenance
centre.................................................................................$20 million
- Land acquisition (from
CPR)..................................................................$50 million (3)
- Contingency @
10%............................................................................... $70 million
Total...................................................................................................................... $779
million
Notes
1. Based on LRT construction figures on newly opened lines.
2. Based on Siemens Combino modular light rail vehicle
3. This figure is just an estimate, but based on recent court
actions, it is the opinion of the LRC that this figure is
conservative.
[photo] Simplicity and economy is
the hallmark of modern LRT; note the simple pedestrian crossing!
(LRTA)
Conclusion:
The term Light Rail Transit comes from the English.
Light Railway or a railway that is cheap to build. In North
America LRT has been called rapid transit and lumped in with light
metro, which planners prefer to plan for, treating LRT as a
poor-man=92s metro. It is not! Certainly TransLink=92s planners have
fallen into this trap, as they do not understand the philosophy behind
modern LRT and continue for grand metro planning like RAV.
LRT is able to share roads and bridges with other traffic, share
existing railway infrastructure with other railways, as well as
operating on its own rights-of-ways. This flexibility of operation
enables modern LRT to be built much cheaper than metro, yet by using
modern operational principles, enables LRT to carry large traffic
loads at commercial speeds near that of metro=92s operating on hugely
expensive segregated rights-of-ways.
The LRC=92s Return of the Interurban illustrates modern
LRT=92s ability to be built cheaply to Richmond, by utilising the
Granville St. bridge and the Fraser River swing bridge and by using
single track on lightly travelled parts of the route. Of course when
ridership demands and a link to the airport is built, the route will
have to be double tracked throughout and a new Fraser crossing be
built, but for the time being it is more important to build a work
horse light rail to where people live and want to go, rather than
a hugely expensive show case Light Metro system.
The question never asked by politicians, the GVRD, and
TransLink is "how cheaply can we build LRT on this
route?"
Addendum
What attracts customers to rail transit? A study by
Professor Carmen Haas-Klau, Professor of Public Transport in the
=46aculty of Civil Engineering, in the University of Wuppertal, Germany,
found in a recent study eleven influences in success for light rail
and rapid transit.
- population density in 300m light rail corridors following the
lines.
- monthly fare relative to the country=92s GDP/capita.
- pedestrian street length per city population.
- percentage of passengers using travel cards.
- average light rail speed.
- percentage of new light rail vehicles.
- peak headway in minutes of light rail service.
- park and ride spaces per light rail track-km.
- light rail network density (track-km. per population.
- number of public parking spaces in the city centre according to
city centre size.
- other suburban rail provision.
(Future of Urban Transport, Learning from Success
and
****Editor: the press release above apparently was clipped
midsentence -- this is what I had received
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
QUOTATION:
Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for
the future of the human race.
--
H.G. Wells, writer (1866-1946)