TransLink Menace to Society in Metro Vancouver
Eric Chris takes on TransLink!
The following is a copy of a “letter to the editor“, that a Mr. Eric Chris sent to the Vancouver Province newspaper. Well researched, Chris exposes the TransLink’s current charade with its involvement with regional transit. As well, he has determined the real cost of the Canada Line mini-metro, which according to Chris’s research, is at least $4.5 billion, which does not include debt servicing on the provincial portion of the costs.
One tires of TransLink’s and the SkyTrain Lobby’s distortions of the truth about SkyTrain, the Canada Line and with regional transit and if Mr. Chris’s letter doesn’t inspire the provincial Auditor General to do an audit of TransLink, nothing will.
The truth is out there, if anyone cares to look.
Subject: TransLink Menace to Society in Metro Vancouver
To: susan lazaruk <slazaruk@theprovince.com>, editor province <provletters@theprovince.com>Susan,Here is my letter to the editor (also attached is a chart showing population, vehicle and transit trends before and after the formation of TransLink in 1999):Certainly, a transit organization with skilled technical professionals to operate transit seamlessly in Metro Vancouver has merit. TransLink isn’t this organization and never has been.Staffed by minions appointed and directed by the provincial government, TransLink is orchestrated by former and current provincial politicians aided by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. TransLink embodies the classical Greek tragedy filled with corruption, greed and hubris. Bureaucrats at TransLink have no apparent useful purpose in the day to day operation of transit. What good they do, nobody knows.In Metro Vancouver, the provincial government through TransLink dictates the type of transit to make SkyTrain transit the only choice. Mayors in Metro Vancouver are essentially blackmailed into accepting the use of SkyTrain transit as a pre-condition for transit funding from the provincial government. This isn’t ethical.Mayors in Metro Vancouver do not serve TransLink. Priorities for transit rightfully belong to the mayors representing the municipalities served by TransLink.Along all SkyTrain routes operated by TransLink, the excessive use of diesel buses degrades the air quality with harmful emissions and impairs the health of residents living along the SkyTrain routes. Noise and pollution associated with SkyTrain transit under the control of aloof and unaccountable staff employed at TransLink are causing severe tensions in Metro Vancouver.Municipalities such as Burnaby, Vancouver, Richmond, Delta and Surrey already have qualified transportation engineers and staff who know exactly what’s best for transit in their municipalities. TransLink meddling in municipal transit affairs merely adds an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy from bungling bureaucrats interfering in municipal transit. Cosmopolitan Vancouver is well suited to streetcar transit and growing Surrey is perfectly suited to LRT. Both LRT and streetcar transit eliminate the use of polluting and costly diesel buses used by TransLink on SkyTrain routes.According to former NDP Premier, Mike Harcourt who resigned in disgrace after he tried to cover up the theft of money from a charity organization and who isn’t someone who might be considered completely trustworthy with impeccable moral character – “TransLink was born in 1999: a unique, made in B.C. solution unmatched by any transportation authority in the world… What will blow everyone’s socks off… is TransLink’s next five to seven years” [2008 to 2015]… Aligned with provincial plans, TransLink is… planning… the Evergreen Line”. Mike Harcourt was right:Shady Transit FinancesOf the $2 billion spent by TransLink on the RAV Line, TransLink’s private partners contributed about $500 million in return for “performance payments” over 30 years. TransLink is paying its private partners “annual performance payments” of about $100 million. This isn’t shady? In total, the undiscounted cost of the RAV Line is ultimately going to be $4.5 billion ($1.5 billion plus $100 million for 30 years).What motivated TransLink to partner with private investors in the first place? Surely, the provincial government could have financed the RAV Line without private investors.Transit in Montreal floated a bond paying 4.5% interest to finance $300 million in transit expenditures. TransLink could have financed the $500 million shortfall for the RAV Line with a similar bond paying 4.5% interest. Annual interest payments to bond holders (residents in the province) would have been $22.5 million annually rather than $100 million annually to “investors” and it would have been a way of letting transit users invest in their transit system.It costs TransLink about twice as much as it costs Edmonton Transit to put someone onto transit when the costs of long and harsh winter conditions in Edmonton are taken into account. Without gas taxes and other taxes subsidizing transit by TransLink, on average each transit user in Metro Vancouver would have paid $9.34 daily in 2010 to ride on transit by TransLink – underscoring how terribly inefficient transit by TransLink truly is ($989 million transit operating expenditures in 2010 / 365 days / 290 thousand average transit users in 2010 = $9.34 daily for each transit user on average). Transit by TransLink has reached the point where TransLink can save money by paying people to drive a car.Air Quality DegradationIn Metro Vancouver, the over use of high frequency diesel buses by TransLink leads to increased rates of lung cancer and asthma robbing people of their health, particularly in middle age and later life. It would be political suicide to tear down the trolley bus lines, so TransLink plays dirty on Broadway in Vancouver, for instance: TransLink operates diesel buses (B-Line) on a two minute frequency and undermines trolley buses operating on a 10 minute frequency (while suspending trolley bus service in the evenings and on weekends).SkyTrain stations are spaced two kilometres apart in distance and additional diesel buses are required along all SkyTrain routes to shuttle passengers to and from the SkyTrain stations. To support the SkyTrain transit operating every few minutes, diesel buses shuttling passengers to and from SkyTrain stations operate every few minutes, too.Along all mayor diesel bus routes used to support the SkyTrain network (including the B-Line route complementing the SkyTrain at Commercial Drive in Vancouver) air is saturated with ultra fine particulate matter (PM). Ultra fine PM emitted in the exhaust of diesel buses is 70 times smaller than the diameter of a human hair and is invisible. Much like contaminated radioactive fallout, it is insidious, coated in toxic arsenic, lead… mercury.People have no natural defense to PM from diesel buses operated in excess by TransLink. Ultra fine particulate matter lodges in the lungs and enters the bloodstream of residents living within approximately 100 metres of SkyTrain routes and trolley bus routes overrun with diesel buses. Over time toxic PM accumulates and leads to increased cancer and asthma rates in people living on routes with frequent diesel bus service. For TransLink, the health of residents along B-Line routes is unimportant. Perhaps the technically inept and ignorant imbeciles at TransLink are unimportant, instead.Although all cars except electric cars are required to go though AirCare administered by TransLink, diesel buses operated by TransLink are not required to go through the AirCare program. Smoking vehicles emit high levels of harmful PM and automatically fail AirCare. Many diesel buses operated by TransLink are smoking and would fail AirCare. TransLink knows this and exempts its diesel buses from the AirCare program. TransLink diesel buses can’t meet municipal noise by-laws for vehicles as well. TransLink has a fix for this, too: it cheats and obtains exemptions from municipal noise by-laws to operate screeching, screaming and shrieking diesel buses with impunity.TransLink often cites the reduction of carbon emissions by transit to justify transit funding. If TransLink went on strike, carbon emissions would be expected to increase by no more than 3% in Metro Vancouver. If everyone on diesel buses were passengers or drivers in cars, carbon emissions would be expected to drop by 20% in Metro Vancouver. In other words, fewer transit users taking diesel buses and more transit users driving would be more effective in reducing carbon emissions. Incidentally, Canada emits 2% of the global GHG emissions, and if everyone in Canada took zero emission transit power by renewable wind or solar electricity, global GHG emissions would not decrease to any extent (~0.2%). Transit by TransLink results in no meaningful reductions in carbon emissions. Nil.Vehicle Use ExplosionSince the formation of TransLink, the rate of vehicle registrations has accelerated relative to the rate of population growth. In the 10 years from 2000 to 2010, after the formation of TransLink, vehicle registrations exploded to 302,000 (231,000 vehicle registrations from 1989 to 1999 in the 10 years before TransLink).SkyTrain by TransLink is regional long distance transit with limited stops. SkyTrain by TransLink has opened up distant communities. By raising the status of developments along SkyTrain routes, transit by TransLink has made developers and realtors much money. At the same time, transit by TransLink has put many more cars on the roads.When condos go up along SkyTrain routes – the condos all have parking facilities and three out of four people in the condos drive. While slightly more drivers are taking transit to school or work as a result of parking taxes imposed by TransLink, for instance, transit by TransLink is not converting a significant number of drivers into transit users to reduce vehicle gridlock to any extent.In Canada, one-third of the population does not have a driver’s licence. Predominantly, transit users are people who can’t drive for various reasons (four out of five transit users do not have access to a vehicle). There are 1.5 million registered vehicles in Metro Vancouver and only about 60,000 out of the peak 300,000 transit users (about one-half as many transit users on holidays and weekends) might drive. This relatively small number of transit users who might drive (4% = 60,000 / 1.5 million) in Metro Vancouver would not cause gridlock. Transit by TransLink is doing little to nothing to reduce traffic gridlock.On the other hand, traffic flow would improve dramatically for most of the day (likely all day) without the clutter of B-Line diesel buses on the roads in Vancouver if TransLink did not operate B-Line diesel buses excessively every two minutes to five minutes with few people or no people on board, as is often the case, for instance. TransLink merely provides mobility to a small percentage of the population (11% on average). Transit by TransLink except for a few hours in the morning and afternoon rush hours hampers traffic flow.It is specious of TransLink to continually mention relatively modest transit ridership records in the media without at the same time mentioning the far greater vehicle use records. It gives the false impression that TransLink hasn’t been a miserable failure in the reduction of vehicle use which has exploded in Metro Vancouver as SkyTrain transit has expanded.There is no traffic gridlock from vehicles on the roads late at night or early in the morning, and TransLink is not doing anything to reduce gridlock by offering transit then. It is disingenuous of TransLink to imply that road construction is less with transit by TransLink. Roads are required in any new housing development. Transit by TransLink can’t operate without roads.In short, transit by TransLink is a menace to society in Metro Vancouver. Transit by TransLink has done the following:Inflated the cost of transitDiminished the quality of air-inhaledImpaired the health of residentsIncreased the use of vehiclesWhat basis do the glorified monkeys at TransLink have to increase transit fares and gas taxes to pay for the Evergreen Line (SkyTrain requiring extra diesel bus service)? No basis.Until transit is made more extensive, affordable and accessible – it will not improve. Unless there is a switch to LRT or streetcar transit which delivers more transit for less money (without the concomitant degradation of the environment by SkyTrain transit), transit in Metro Vancouver will continue to languish and disappoint.SkyTrain transit by TransLink is a fiasco. TransLink wants more cash to continue expanding SkyTrain transit? Here is a novel idea: reduce TransLink’s budget for TransLink to operate streetcar transit or LRT like all the rest of the transit organizations in Canada. Forget the “unique made in B.C. solution unmatched by any transportation authority in the world” by individuals whose egos are too big to admit that SkyTrain transit relying on frequent diesel bus service is not only a financial mistake but also an environmental disaster.ecReferences:Mike HarcourtBlair LekstromDiesel ExhaustCarbon Emissionshttp://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/policy/report-aca-anre2009-2464.htm
TransLink TransitSurrey LRTVancouver StreetcarToronto TransitMontreal Transit
Toronto LRT latest
From TTCriders, a public transit advocacy group that gives transit riders a voice
Why Silence Gary Webster?
http://www.ttcriders.ca/
For the second time in less than a month, 5 TTC Commissioners are trying to silence TTC staff from doing their jobs: giving expert opinions on transit expansion that contradicts the Mayor’s calls for subways. This time, they are threatening to fire Gary Webster, TTC Chief General Manager.
“Why are they firing Gary Webster,” asked Jamie Kirkpatrick, spokesperson for TTCriders. “Are they afraid he will do his job and provide an objective analysis of how transit expansion should happen in Toronto?”
Kirkpatrick noted that the five Commissioners who want to sack Webster also voted against allowing TTC staff to provide information on options for transit expansion at the January 31st TTC meeting.
Commissioners Crisanti, Di Giorgio, Kelly, Minnan-Wong and Palacio also voted with the Mayor against a Council-approved plan to build 3 new Light Rail Transit (LRT) lines throughout the city. This fully funded plan was adopted at a special Council meeting on February 8th. As well, these Commissioners support the Mayor’s call for a subway along Sheppard, instead of a fully funded LRT, even though TTC staff reports and other transit experts agree the proposed subway is unnecessary and not affordable.
These Councillors can be reached at the following email addresses and phone numbers:
Councillor Crisanti - councillor_crisanti@toronto.ca, 416-392-0205
Councillor Di Giorgio - councillor_digiorgio@toronto.ca , 416-392-4066
Councillor Palacio - councillor_palacio@toronto.ca, 416-392-7011
Councillor Minnan-Wong - councillor_minnan-wong@toronto.ca , 416-397-9256
Councillor Kelly - councillor_kelly@toronto.ca, 416-392-4047
It’s a sad day for transit riders when five Commissioners who are responsible for our transit system want to fire someone for doing their job.
Over at the Toronto Star http://www.thestar.com/news/transportation/article/1133785–ttc-
TTC’s Gary Webster would be tough to replace: David Gunn
Toronto Mayor Rob Ford shows off the Mall Walkers Club T-shirt he was presented by club members at the start of a walkabout at Malvern Town Centre in Scarborough on Saturday. Ford refused to comment about the fate of TTC chief Gary Webster, who is reported to be facing the axe.
Mayor Rob Ford and the TTC will be hard-pressed to find a qualified replacement for Gary Webster if the embattled transit chief is sacked as expected on Tuesday, said David Gunn, an international transit expert who once held the TTC’s top job himself.
“There are not a lot of people out there who can just slip into that seat,” Gunn said from his home on Cape Breton Island.
Five councillors loyal to the Ford administration have called a special meeting of the TTC board on Tuesday, where it is believed they will try to fire Webster, the chief general manager who has worked at the transit agency for 35 years.
Webster, a senior bureaucrat and civil engineer, has drawn the Ford administration’s ire for his refusal to build the case for a subway extension on Sheppard Ave. E. and an underground light-rail transit system on Eglinton Ave.
“What’s happening is obviously totally political,” said Gunn, who was chief general manager of the TTC from 1995 to 1999, and has led transit authorities in cities across North America, including New York City and Washington.
Vancouver’s Streetcar (Tram) Planning – TransLink Boldly Plans For The 1940′s
Recent comments on various transit blogs, by representatives of TransLink only confirm that TransLink does not wish to build with light rail and their current LRT/streetcar/tram planning for Vancouver is woefully dated.
It has been mentioned several times in the past month that a 2010 news item from Karlsruhe Germany, that the main tram line through the city was being relocated in a subway because of the success of the regional TramTrain network the main route through the city of Karlsruhe, was seeing 45 second headways.
45 second headways equals 90 trams per hour and with the Karlsruhe three section articulated trams and TramTrain having a capacity of about 250 persons; the capacity offered by LRT on this route about 22,500 persons per hour per direction. Except of course, many trams and TramTrains operate in coupled sets during peak hours, thus the peak hour capacity of this simple tram line was in excess of 40,000 pphpd!
“Not true“, moan the venerable ‘trolley-jolly’ crowd, lost in their dreams of PCC heaven; “impossible” drone TransLink’s planners, “can’t be done“. Yet evidence demonstrates that not only is this possible, it happens every business day!
The Karlsruhe tram/subway story shows demonstrates two very important items:
- LRT/streetcars/LRT can carry large volumes of customers when needed.
- The threshold for building a very expensive subway, is much higher than TransLink’s guesstimate of 5,000 pphpd, or the more universally accepted 15,000 pphpd, rather the threshold for putting transit in a subway is probably in the 30,000 pphpd. range!
As modern light rail and its variants, including streetcars and TramTrain continue to evolve, TransLink remains deaf, blind and mute about modern light rail and wastes the taxpayers money telling tall tales about streetcars, that lost their relevance in the 1940′s.
Is TransLink relevant?
Should TransLink be in the planning game at all?
Atlanta & Cincinnati Streetcars
http://designinghealthycommunities.org/atlanta-getting-new-streetcar-line/
U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed and local officials have kicked off construction of a new 2.6-mile streetcar line that will run through the heart of Atlanta’s business, tourism, and convention corridor, bringing jobs and new development to the city and reflecting President Obama’s blueprint for an America that’s built to last.
http://atlanta.curbed.com/archives/categories/downtown.php
“President Obama called on us to rebuild America by putting people back to work on transportation projects that are built to last, like Atlanta’s modern streetcar line,” said Secretary LaHood. “All across America, there is work to be done on projects like this. Now is the time to connect people who need work with the work we need to do to improve our nation’s transit centers, highways, railways, airports and ports.”
Secretary LaHood’s visit follows President Obama’s State of the Union address, in which he called for using funds saved from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to pay down the debt and fund a six-year transportation bill that would clear the way for nation-building here in the United States.
The Atlanta streetcar will traverse an economically distressed area of downtown, serving as a catalyst for millions of dollars in new residential, official, and retail development. It also reconnects the eastern and western sides of the city that have been divided by two interstate highways for half a century. The streetcar will eventually serve about 7,000 people who live within a quarter-mile of the route, as well as more than five million tourists and convention-goers. Operated by MARTA (Metropolitan Rapid Transit Authority), it will include 12 stops with access to major attractions like the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. National Historic Site and the historic Auburn Avenue corridor, which is the birthplace of the Civil Rights movement. The line will also connect with MARTA’s heavy rail and bus systems and city bicycle routes.
The streetcar project heeds President Obama’s call for a new era for American energy, fueled by homegrown and alternative energy sources, and because the streetcar will be powered by electricity, it will produce zero emissions. Throughout construction of the line, the City of Atlanta, MARTA, and all other stakeholders will use sustainable building materials, recycled materials, and renewable energy sources to make the system as “green” as possible. And overall, locally expanding transit options will help reduce vehicle miles traveled, which lessens our dependence on oil and reduces emissions.
“The Atlanta streetcar project is creating American jobs, using American-made materials,” said Federal Transit Administrator Peter Rogoff. “It’s a great reflection of the President’s support for American manufacturing and for giving everyone a fair shot at success by investing in the infrastructure our country needs right now.”
Secretary LaHood travelled to Atlanta in October, 2010, to announce $47.6 million for the streetcar project through the Department’s second round of TIGER (Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery) grants. It was the largest of the capital TIGER II grants awarded in 2010. The project is a cooperative effort by the City of Atlanta, the Atlanta Downtown Improvement District (ADID) and MARTA. The City and ADID funded the balance of the project.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
The city of Cincinnati plans to break ground Feb. 17 on the $110 million-plus streetcar, the controversial project that has dominated local political discourse for years and that still faces at least one lingering obstacle that could delay it or raise its cost.
Mayor Mark Mallory, determined to move forward on a project that City Hall hopes will galvanize inner-city redevelopment, announced plans for the groundbreaking during a special City Council meeting Friday at which two council critics of the streetcar reiterated concerns about its expense and other factors.
In Toronto, a Major Victory for Light Rail
It was an $8.4 billion question that had simmered all year, but finally boiled over this week at Toronto City Hall during a no-holds-barred debate that may well determine the future of city’s transit expansion.*
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2012/02/toronto-major-victory-light-rail/1202/
For years, Toronto struggled to modernize and expand its transit system, which now carries about 500 million riders annually, making the Toronto Transit Commission one of North America’s most heavily used networks. In 2007, the city’s former mayor David Miller and the Ontario government did a multi-billion dollar deal that would see the construction of an extensive light-rail network serving the city’s post-war suburbs.
But the current mayor, Rob Ford, ran on a subway-building platform in 2010. He vowed to kill Miller’s LRT plan because, he told voters, it would take up valuable road space and exacerbate traffic congestion. Upon taking office, Ford declared that Miller’s LRT strategy was “dead.”
`Meanwhile’ in Toronto, the Fight for Transit City Continues
The Transport Politic http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2012/01/31/in-toronto-the-fight-for-transit-city-continues/
LRT victory in Toronto
Victory in Toronto as Mayor’s all subway plan defeated by council
Toronto’s Mayor Ford lost anti-light rail battle
“Ford loses council transit battle TTC chair’s proposal revises portions of Transit City plan”
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/02/08/toronto-transit-debate-city-hall.html
Toronto Mayor Rob Ford has lost his battle in the City Council to save his all-subway vision for future rail transit. Instead, the council voted 26-17 for Toronto Transit Commission [TTC] chair Karen Stintz’s plan for three light rail lines including subway-surface operation for Eglinton LRT.
A great clip of the Mayor’s “contrite” reaction and the response when he calls Council’s vote “irrelevant”:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Eh2dBlarX4&feature=youtu.be
Mayor Rob Ford and TTC chair Karen Stintz are in favour of two distinctly different transit development plans, which councillors are debating Wednesday.TTC chair Karen Stintz said the proposal she brought forward was amended to keep some of the mayor’s concerns in mind.
Mayor Rob Ford was unsuccessful in a bid to delay a vote on the transit proposal brought forward by TTC chair Karen Stintz.
Toronto transit face-off
http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/TV_Shows/The_National/1233408557/ID=2194437547
Toronto Transit Commission chair Karen Stintz’s transit proposal has been accepted by council, derailing Mayor Rob Ford’s plan to keep the Eglinton Crosstown LRT almost entirely underground.
A deeply divided council debated the two competing visions during a special meeting held at City Hall on Wednesday, with Stintz’s plan passing 26-17.
Stintz’s proposal calls for a light-rail line on Finch Avenue West, while moving ahead with the Eglinton Crosstown LRT development, but keeping its eastern stretch above ground.
Her proposal puts the Sheppard LRT off the table for now, while an advisory
panel reviews options for transit there.
Asked whether Ford will be able to support the proposal, Stintz said it had been amended to keep some of the mayor’s concerns in mind.
“What we’ve done is we’ve taken Sheppard out of the package,” Stintz told reporters Wednesday, after introducing her proposal.
“So the package will now read that light-rail will be built for Eglinton, Finch and the [Scarborough] RT replacement. But what we’re going to do is defer Sheppard off for further study.”
Earlier in the debate, Ford tried and failed to delay a vote on Stintz’s proposal.
His motion, which sought to have an expert panel review the options for extending the Eglinton line east of Laird Drive, was voted down 24-19.
Ford’s $8.4-billion plan to put an Eglinton line underground also included funding to replace the Scarborough RT with light rail, which is the same approach that would be taken under Stintz’s proposal.
That proposal includes elements from the Transit City plan developed under former mayor David Miller.
The transit debate gets underway at City Hall. The transit debate gets underway at City Hall. (Jeff Semple/CBC)
Ford had declared Transit City “over” after he became mayor, later striking a deal with the province to put the Eglinton line underground.
Coun. Josh Matlow said during the debate that Ford had repeatedly turned down compromises that could have averted the meeting that Stintz forced Wednesday, using a petition that was backed by 23 other councillors.
“We have gone to the mayor several times to propose compromises that he could frankly claim victory on,” Matlow said Wednesday.
But Matlow said in each case, the mayor “has not been willing” to accept a compromise option.
Mammoliti says plan rams LRT `down our throats’
Coun. Giorgio Mammoliti told reporters Wednesday that he opposes the proposal brought forward by Stintz because it will eliminate the possibility of a putting a subway along Finch Avenue.
“We don’t want an LRT along Finch Avenue, we want a subway. Don’t ram it down our throats,” Mammoliti said.
The prior Transit City plan called for a new light-rail on Finch. When Ford scrapped that plan, there were plans to enhance bus service, with an eye to upgrading to rapid transit at an unspecified date.
Scarborough councillors want Eglinton below grade Several Scarborough councillors, including Norm Kelly, have gone on record supporting the mayor’s plan to keep the Eglinton line underground.
“When you have the money, do it right,” Kelly said.
“And doing it right means that when you get the money, you build underground
transit.”
Ford wanted to extend the Sheppard subway, but had not determined how the project would be funded.
Stintz’s opposition to the mayor’s vision for the Eglinton line has put her at odds with Ford and some of his allies.
Coun. Doug Ford, the mayor’s brother, recently said it was “a betrayal” for Stintz to back an opposing plan.
The Toronto Star in an editorial is hailing the City Council’s vote to dump Mayor Rob Ford’s all-subway vision for future rail transit and instead accept a light rail plan offered by Councillor Karen Stintz:
http://www.thestar.com/article/\
1128320–all-aboard-for-light-rail-in-toronto
“All aboard for light rail in Toronto”
(Wednesday, Feb. 8, 2012)
TTC chair Karen Stintz deserves credit for leading the way in the transit
breakthrough at city council on Feb. 8.
BERNARD WEIL/Toronto Star
Toronto’s transit future has been dramatically switched to a better track with the defeat of Mayor Rob Ford’s rash plan to build impractical subways.
City council’s decision Wednesday is more than just a landmark reversal for the Ford administration it provides a definitive verdict from the city of Toronto on how it intends to proceed. And it wants to ride into the future on light rail lines while further studying the practicality of a Sheppard subway extension.
Premier Dalton McGuinty and Metrolinx, the province’s transit coordinating agency, now have the clear direction from the city that they had requested.
So there’s no further reason for Queen’s Park to stall or dither in deciding how the province should now spend the $8.4 billion it has allocated for new Toronto transit.
To his shame, Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti urged Ontario to ignore city council’s majority vote and base provincial funding on polls indicating that people like subways. Councillor Doug Ford said much the same thing. It’s an absurd contention. Why have elections at all? What not just govern by polls alone? That’s not how democracy works.
And that’s what this decision is ultimately about. A little over a year ago, Toronto had a fully-funded, council-backed plan to extend a network of light rail lines across this city. That thoroughly studied, widely discussed plan was unilaterally declared “dead” by Ford on taking office.
He replaced it with a different vision one that involved spending almost the entire $8.4 billion on burying one light rail line and expecting the private sector to pay for a Sheppard subway. Ford’s only rationale: “People want subways.” Regrettably, the province went along with that flawed vision, but it still required city council support.
Well, council spoke on Wednesday, and it loudly advocated a return to light rail. A majority wisely realized that this approach offered the fastest transit, for the most people, for the best price. Toronto Transit Commission chair Karen Stintz deserves credit for leading the way in this breakthrough.
Normally a Ford supporter, she put the city’s transit needs ahead of hewing to the administration’s ill-judged official line.
Some subway advocates in the Ford administration are vowing to fight on,
against light rail lines, despite council’s clear verdict. That would be a mistake. At some point, the bickering over Toronto’s transit future needs to end. And that point is now.
It’s safer to travel in groups
Saturday’s smile.
Advertising for transit in Europe and very funny too!
http://www.youtube.com/v/gBnvGS4u3F0?hl=en
http://www.youtube.com/v/mgCIKGIYJ1A?hl=en
http://www.youtube.com/v/LuVPnW0s3Vo?hl=en
A day in gridlocked Richmond
Zwei had business to conduct in Richmond yesterday and it was my first time I have driven around the municipality in many years. Yes, ‘Zwei‘ ventures to Landsdown Mall to rescue his wife from TransLink when she works late in Vancouver several times a week, but that is late at night and traffic is light.
The first thing I noticed in Richmond is that everyone drives, and bus passengers are either students (most with $1 a day U-Passes) and the elderly. The roads are choked with cars and parking is both expensive and scarce. Even Richmond Centre Mall’s parking lot was almost filled by noon. During breaks in meetings, I ventured to two Canada Line stations to observe passenger flows and like the buses, ridership was mostly students (with $1 a day U-Passes) and the elderly.
It seems the RAV/Canada Line has not attracted the motorist from the car and the metro just doesn’t serve the needs of Richmond’s transit customers, except if one holds a cheap ticket or if one is going to downtown Vancouver. What is very noticeable is a small land boom near the RAV/Canada Line as assembled properties are being turned into highrise (well ten stories or so) apartments and condos. If the Canada Line’s object was to aide land speculators and developers, it has succeeded, but as a transit mode, the Canada Line has failed miserably.
What is so sad is the the Canada Line highlights TransLink’s failure in transit planning, that after spending over $2.5 billion for the world’s only mini-heavy-rail metro, it has done little to alleviate traffic congestion and gridlock in Richmond, in fact with all the new housing being built near the Canada line, it seems the metro has exacerbated traffic congestion!
Except, for the very few who are lucky enough to live near a Canada Line station, the best transit option is to drive and drive Richmond residents do and in large numbers, with the Canada Line metro and the rest of the transit system being reserved mainly for the students, the elderly, and the poor.
TransLink and the Canada Line – The real story – Part 2
It even gets better!
More from the email I received Monday and what a bombshell! If the following is to believed and I believe very strongly it is true, TransLink is doing a very poor, yet very expensive job in moving transit customers. This why TransLink and the provincial government are deathly afraid of an independent audit by BC’s Auditor General, John Doyle, for he will highlight waste in TransLink and I believe waste is endemic in the TransLink bureaucracy.
Here is another way TransLink arbitrarily increases ridership on paper without really increasing ridership and ‘Zwei’ calls this vehicle capacity creep or VCC.
VCC is when TransLink increases SkyTrain/Canada Line vehicle capacity on paper then uses the increased capacity to inflate ridership claims. TransLink uses passenger counts on transit vehicles as part of its ridership counting formula, with a full bus or metro car counted at its maximum TransLink rated passenger capacity.
The MK 1 SkyTrain car was first rated having a capacity of 70 persons when used in Toronto but was increased to 75 persons for use in Vancouver and again increased by 5 to 80 persons in the 90′s. This means an increase of 10 persons per car or 40 persons per 4 car train, with an on paper ridership calculations inflating ridership by thousands a day. Success with MK 1 VCC, TransLink rated the MK 2 cars at 130 persons, yet the MK 2 are only a third longer and slightly wider than a MK 1 car and were originally rated having a capacity of 110 persons.
This means TransLink has inflated ridership (on paper) in peak hours by about 80 persons per MK 2 train and 40 persons per MK 1 trains and with trains traveling at less than 120 second headways TransLink’s boffins are inflating ridership by well over 10,000 persons per day with VCC!
TransLink is pulling the same trick with the RAV/Canada Line, where the ROTEM EMU’s are rated internationally with a capacity of 163 persons, yet TransLink claims each vehicle has a capacity of 200 persons.
Could it be that TransLink is inflating mini-metro ridership by 5% to 10% hiding what a very poor job they are doing moving people? Could it be that TransLink used VCC to convince politicians to build more SkyTrain?
What is desperately needed is a complete independent audit of TransLink and its operating practices, but of course, Christie Clark and Ida Chong are desperately trying to thwart any oversight of this runaway bureaucracy, for fear of exposing decades of incompetence, exacerbated by BC Liberal interference in the past decade.
Dear Province Editor and Reporter, Susan Lazaruk,
TransLink doesn’t like to report on transit incidents. This comment to an article on transit in the Georgia Straight caught my attention:
Stuart Richards
Fri, 2012-01-13, Eve, problem is people are shooting “projectiles” at SkyTrains:
http://www.theprovince.com/news/Transit+police+investigating+projectiles…
TransLink isn’t calling them bullets, just yet, it might give transit a bad name.
My daughter’s friend was assaulted on a SkyTrain car. Soon after, I bought my daughter a car and told her never to take transit late at night. She hasn’t.
When I found out that TransLink keeps most crimes quiet to build up transit use, I was disgusted. Give TransLink more money? You have to be kidding. Those SkyTrain cars are coffins suspended 10 m above ground and there isn’t anything that anyone can do if some nut boards… fire the retards at TransLink and start building LRT lines with drivers to screen for creeps.
http://www.straight.com/article-582931/vancouver/tax-rich-transit-economist-says
Is there any update on the projectiles (bullets) which caused panic on the SkyTrain operated by TransLink on January 11, 2012? Sam Cooper with The Province wrote an excellent article about it (he’ll likely be banned from any more transit articles in the future after TransLink reads it). Here are links for the story on the projectile incident and a few other recent incidents which don’t make it on the TransLink annual report (TransLink might start listing transit incidents in its annual reports):
http://www.vancouverite.com/2010/05/14/skytrain-area-sex-attack-prompts-police-warning/
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/2011/03/23/17733521.html
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2007/04/17/bc-skytrain-attack.html
http://www.vancouverobserver.com/blogs/policeblotter/2011/05/30/sword-swiping-man-arrested-skytrain
http://bc.rcmp.ca/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=230&languageId=1&contentId=18454
I find the whole spectacle of TransLink Commissioner, Martin Crilly, acting as transit watchdog, to investigate TransLink on the proposed 12.5% transit fare increase, comical. Even though Martin Crilly is appointed by the Mayors’ Council, many mayors on the Mayors’ Council are loyal to TransLink and Martin Crilly isn’t impartial on transit matters. Martin Crilly has strong ties with TransLink and appears on the TransLink website:
http://www.translink.ca/en/About-Us/TransLink-Governance-and-Board/Commissioner.aspx
Martin Crilly is paying consultants up to $80,000 to compare transit costs in Metro Vancouver to transit costs in other cities. It doesn’t seem reasonable for Martin to hire consultants for help. Can’t Martin do the job? If he can’t; how did he manage to land the job of TransLink Commissioner? Anyone who isn’t totally clueless can tell you that TransLink through the hand picked stooges being paid by Martin Crilly will recommend exactly what TransLink wants recommended:
http://www.theprovince.com/Commuters+facing+cent+hike+transit+fares/5978327/story.html
Here is my free and objective third party evaluation of transit by TransLink: the fare comparison of $2.75 quoted by The Province for transit in Calgary leaves out one important detail. Calgary Transit only has one fare zone and $2.75 is the average transit fare for all zones by Calgary Transit ($3 by Edmonton Transit for all zones on February 1, 2012); whereas, the average and non-weighted transit fare for all zones by TransLink is $3.75 and will be approximately $4.17 in Metro Vancouver if TransLink raises transit fares in January 2013:
http://www.calgarytransit.com/html/fares.html
http://www.edmonton.ca/transportation/ets/fares/types-of-fares.aspx
http://www.theprovince.com/Editorial+time+transit+users+more/5981584/story.html
On average, TransLink after the transit fare increase will charge 52% more for transit than Calgary Transit charges. Is it still time for transit users to pay more in Metro Vancouver or is it time to question the wisdom behind the formation of TransLink? Bureaucrats at TransLink roughly cost taxpayers an extra $100 million annually for very low level thinking and planning (including public consultations intended to persuade the attendees to go along with whatever the plan by TransLink is).
In Edmonton, transportation engineers and staff do what TransLink does and very much more (free from the political interference leading to unethical conduct which is all too common at TransLink with TransLink taking its orders from the ruling provincial government which condones TransLink bending municipal by-laws to operate loud and noxious diesel buses on trolley bus routes with impunity, for example). Office and administrative costs for Edmonton Transit are part of the City of Edmonton overhead. There isn’t a palace housing numerous and costly transit bureaucrats pushing paper and getting in the way in Edmonton. In Metro Vancouver, on the other hand, TransLink is building a new palace in New Westminster to “expand” office space for its bureaucrats.
You might be thinking, well that is fine, TransLink provides better transit than Edmonton Transit or Calgary Transit. Wrong. TransLink is one of the lowest ranking transit organizations in the world (worst three or bottom 13% of transit organizations ranked on page 11 of the Scorecard on Prosperity – 2011):
http://www.bot.com/Content/NavigationMenu/Policy/Scorecard/Scorecard_2011_Final.pdf
Transit Costs
Senior transit operators in Edmonton and Metro Vancouver are paid essentially the same hourly wage, $29.19/hour and $29.20/hour, respectively. Therefore, it should cost TransLink and Edmonton Transit approximately the same to put someone onto transit, right? Wrong, it costs TransLink much more than Edmonton Transit to provide transit.
In 2009 for the 189 million annual ridership, it cost TransLink $3,637 to put someone onto transit for one year ($943 million operating budget / 259 thousand transit users based on a ridership of two daily trips on average per transit user). In 2009 for the 68.5 million annual ridership, it cost Edmonton Transit $2,216 to put someone onto transit for one year ($208 million operating budget / 94 thousand transit users based on a ridership of two daily trips on average per transit user).
Edmonton Transit operates in a longer and harsher winter climate than TransLink in Metro Vancouver. As a result, Edmonton Transit has higher operating costs than TransLink in mild Metro Vancouver. Despite this, it costs TransLink 39% more ($1,421 annually) than it costs Edmonton Transit to put someone onto transit (without factoring in the added cost for the long and harsh winter climate in Edmonton). In other words, almost $4 out of $10 spent by TransLink is not being used to provide transit. Bureaucrats at TransLink have merely fabricated a costly transit economy to give themselves cushy jobs for big money. Transit users and taxpayers are paying for it.
Transit Ridership
TransLink has been going on and on about moving so many people in Metro Vancouver and has been making a fuss about all its ridership records, year after year, as if TransLink is doing such an outstanding and unique job. Every added person on transit is a ridership record by definition and any city with a growing population is going to continually break ridership records for transit use. If TransLink can’t brag about anything other than more people on transit owing to the exploding population here, TransLink is in deep trouble. Per-capita, transit in Edmonton moved 12% of the population on average in 2009 based on weekday, weekend and holiday transit use. Transit use in Edmonton increased by 19% from 2006 to 2009:
http://www.edmonton.ca/transportation/ets/about_ets/ets-statistics.aspx
As a percentage of the population served, TransLink moves fewer people than Edmonton Transit. Per-capita, TransLink moved 11% of the population on average in 2009 based on weekday, weekend and holiday transit use. Transit use in Metro Vancouver increased by 14% from 2006 to 2009 (less than in Edmonton over the same period):
http://www.theprovince.com/sports/More+people+transit+many+evade+fare/5870384/story.html
http://www.vancouversun.com/business/TransLink+track+another+ridership+record/5876827/story.html
While the population has risen sharply in Metro Vancouver, in Edmonton, the population growth has been much less dramatic (about two-thirds as much as the population growth in Metro Vancouver). Consequently, the transit increase of 19% by Edmonton Transit from 2006 to 2009 is phenomenal compared with the disappointing transit increase of 14% (largely induced by population growth) from 2006 to 2009 by TransLink.
Moreover, to achieve its relatively meager ridership records considering population growth, TransLink has cheated. TransLink has lured many post secondary students, who would normally be walking or cycling, onto transit with the U-Pass program targeting students at post secondary institutions and discounting the monthly transit pass for qualifying students by two-thirds to four-fifths:
http://www.translink.ca/en/Fares-and-Passes/Student-Passes/U-Pass.aspx
http://www.translink.ca/en/Fares-and-Passes/Monthly-Pass.aspx
Unlike working commuters who are too pooped to change into their party outfits after work, students with their transit passes and their high energy are ready to boogey on Friday and Saturday nights. TransLink takes advantage of this to bolster its ridership figures by running its buses longer and harder until almost 4 am for the partying students hitting the dance clubs.
Finally, in Edmonton and in Metro Vancouver about 62% of the population drives. TransLink isn’t removing many vehicle drivers from the roads to increase ridership with transit. Almost all transit spending by TransLink is being used to accommodate the growing population here. TransLink has performed poorly for the money spent on transit and deserves no accolades in the media. If it weren’t for TransLink spreading propaganda to portray a false reality of its greatness in Metro Vancouver and if reporters didn’t rely on TransLink for twisted and misleading propaganda, many people would see TransLink for what it truly is in Metro Vancouver: an abject failure created by individuals who are benefiting from it.
Fare Evasion
TransLink blames fare evasion for its rising costs. It estimates the 2010 fare losses to be $5.3 million (0.5% of TransLink’s $1 billion operating budget in 2010).
http://www.theprovince.com/news/Skyrocketing+fare+evaders+cost+TransLink+millions/5788036/story.html
Retail stores experience anywhere from 1% to 8% in shrinkage or losses. Losses from fare evasion are the natural consequence of the SkyTrain network operating without transit operators to keep the dishonest – honest. Neither electronic fare cards nor fare gates will stop fare evasion, completely. If TransLink is keen to eliminate losses from fare evaders, streetcar transit or LRT with a vigilant driver would arguably do more than fare cards or gates (which can be compromised) to mitigate fare evasion.
Losses from fare evasion at 0.5% of TransLink’s operating budget are too small to be the cause of the ongoing financial distress at TransLink and not worth mentioning – except to divert attention away from bumbling bureaucrats spending too much on SkyTrain transit which doesn’t even generate as much ridership (as a percentage of the population) as LRT in Edmonton.
Nevertheless, TransLink is committed to improving its financial performance by tackling fare evasion. To reduce fare evasion, TransLink is spending $171 million on fare gates and smart cards costing up to $15 million annually to maintain (resulting in an outright loss of $171 million and another $9.7 million loss annually). This makes perfect sense to the bureaucrats at TransLink. Bureaucrats at TransLink are able to strut around like important and powerful people awarding lucrative contracts for not only fare cards and gates but also for the Evergreen Line, SkyTrain expansion, costing a modest $1.4 billion for 11 km of track if it is built on budget. Then, the bureaucrats at TransLink simply pass the costs of their boondoggles onto transit users (fare increases) and vehicle drivers (gas taxes) who pay for it:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/mediaroom/releases-2011-h062e-6400.htm
http://www.vancourier.com/transit+fare+card+cost+million/4032665/story.html
http://www.langleyadvance.com/news/TransLink/5520191/story.html
http://www.evergreenline.gov.bc.ca/
So, what is the proper course of action for Martin Crilly? Unless Martin Crilly is working behind the scenes for TransLink, Martin Crilly must do the following to turn transit around in Metro Vancouver:
Replace SkyTrain transit with streetcar transit (avoids tunnel) for the future Evergreen Line (saving $1 billion)
Sub-lease the TransLink palace in New Westminster and use the money to fund transit improvements
Dismiss the bumbling bureaucrats at TransLink (saving about $100 million annually)
Roll back transit fares to an average of $3 or less for all zones
Increase transit during peak hours to alleviate overcrowding
Disallow the unethical use of unwelcome diesel buses on trolley bus routes
Dissolve TransLink and establish a moratorium on SkyTrain routes
Replace TransLink with the Mayors’ Council to set priorities for transit in Metro VancouverTransLink relies on blatant lies and half truths to keep many in Metro Vancouver thoroughly confused and misinformed. Under the pretence of working to reduce traffic gridlock, air pollution and transit costs (more than slight exaggerations), bureaucrats at TransLink have raised transit fares excessively and imposed transit taxes unfairly.
TransLink advertises abundantly and unnecessarily in the media with money from transit users and taxpayers to buy goodwill from reporters covering transit. TransLink must be the only transit organization in Canada to employ a Director of Communication (euphemism for Director of Propaganda) whose duty it is to control the media and to spoon feed reporters with articles extolling the false merits of TransLink transit.
TransLink Commissioner, Martin Crilly is to investigate whether the fare increase by TransLink is in order? How about the Premier investigate Martin Crilly and TransLink to determine whether they are in order? TransLink is already charging far too much for transit. If Edmonton Transit operated transit rather than TransLink in Metro Vancouver, transit fares would be 39% lower and ridership would be 5% higher.
Regards,
Eric
Reference links:
http://www.translink.ca/en/About-Us/Corporate-Overview/Annual-Reports.aspx
http://www.metrovancouver.org/about/statistics/Pages/KeyFacts.aspx
http://www.edmonton.ca/transportation/Annual_Collision_Report_2010.pdf
http://www.coastmountainbus.com/careers/bus_operator/pay_benefits.asp
http://www.edmonton.ca/transportation/ets/compare-positions.aspx
http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/econ46a-eng.htm
http://www.themilwaukeestreetcar.com/
http://ubyssey.ca/news/point-grey-and-kits-residents-rally-against-a-ubc-skytrain-line/
http://www2.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=233ef411-9b1a-4260-8160-029ad7176f41
http://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/page/12/
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=3327190136#!/group.php?gid=3327190136&v=wall
http://www.kitsilano.ca/2011/01/31/kits-point-residents-fight-to-preserve-view-corridors/
Useful links:
http://www.rockantenne.de/webplayer/?playchannel=alternative
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12218729
http://www.radioshaker.com/radio-stations/rock/alternative/radio-k__rock-hd2.html
TransLink and the Canada Line – The real story
The following was emailed to me last night and contains some explosive comments about TransLink and the RAV/Canada Line.
Rand Chatterjee is one of the very few people who took the time to research the cost of the RAV/Canada Line and he clearly understands the nuances of the P-3 contract and the negative impact on the taxpayer.
Zwei has been onto the TransLink/Canada Line game since its inception and it is very good to see other people now very interested at the goings on at TransLink, especially the financial aspects of the organization. Not all is what it seems to be and it looks like TransLink’s hoopla is nothing more than a smokescreen to hide the real story, that TransLink is slowly being bankrupted by the three (soon to be four) mini-metro lines.
Jennifer et al,
The essence of my original email was that TransLink is spending well beyond its means and isn’t providing adequate transit while it is using insignificant fare evasion losses and exaggerated ridership records as red herrings. Here is a very insightful comment from The Georgia Straight about TransLink bamboozling and swindling taxpayers in order for TransLink’s private partners to profit:
Rand Chatterjee
The big, untold reason for the failure to begin the Evergreen Line construction in earnest and actually sign a contract is the Canada Line, aka RAV.
Translink’s newest ”gas tax” increase brings its take at the pump to over double what it was just ten years ago, up to now 17 cents per litre. This is the largest part of the reason why gas prices in the Metro Vancouver area are the highest in Canada, and by a lot. The latest 2-cent rise was supposed to fully fund the Evergreen Line, and this indeed was exactly the justification for the increase. But, yet, nothing is happening. Why not?
A recent FOI uncovered that the Canada Line is sucking over $120 million out of Translink every year. Its actual operating costs are roughly a tenth of this amount. The rest, about $100 million, are what are termed ”performance payments,” which the provincial government stipulated would be turned over every year to repay the contractor for its financial participation in the P3 (public-private-partnership) that was the RAV project. According to bank records, the RAV partners borrowed no more than $600 million to complete the line. The amount may been less than $500 million, the gap between the authorized $1.5 billion paid by the government and the claimed $2 billion cost of the project.
Given the 30-year concession duration of this P3 RAV project, we can thus expect the presumed $500 million private sector contribution will be repaid at least 5 times over…that is if that $100 million per year does not increase. It has been going up by nearly $10 million every year since the first year of payments in 2009.
If we deflate just a $100 million annual revenue stream to determine a net present value of this P3 public debt, we are still looking at a doubling of the supposed RAV price tag from $2 billion to $4 billion in today’s dollars. In nominal dollars, we will be paying well over $4.5 billion. If you want to look at it in terms of an interest rate, the taxpayer is paying the RAV Line “investors” over 20% interest, per year and compounded. Some deal!
The cost of the Evergreen Line is supposed to be roughly $1.2 billion, but it is clear why this recent gas tax and likely another one soon enough, and additional property taxes, and other governmental contributions will be needed first just to pay for RAV, and the likelihood of ever funding the Evergreen Line is decreasing every year as a mountain of P3 debt continues to crush Translink, and the taxpayer.
If you are waiting for a bus, whose service was reduced, and don’t have enough money for the now more expensive fare, this is why. It’s pure graft. Most everyone at Translink, especially the senior executives, drive to work. They know better.
Read everything Eric Doherty writes. You’ll learn a lot about Transit policy, and how much better BC’s should be.
On the TransLink website, TransLink boasts that the RAV Line moved 104,682 people on average in May 2010. Moreover, TransLink CEO, Ian Jarvis seems to be stoking this misconception:
http://www.news1130.com/news/local/article/86201–canada-line-could-be-paid-off-sooner-than-expected
Unfortunately, TransLink CEO, Ian Jarvis is not telling the truth. Perhaps Ian Jarvis is merely too inept. Maybe he is too removed from the reality of transit to know that almost every person on transit makes two trips daily – otherwise almost everyone would never return home at night.
According to TransLink ridership-data, based on two trips daily per person on average, the true number of people carried by the RAV Line is about 39,985 people on average (see attachment). Patrons moved on the RAV Line is the basis for the true economics of the RAV Line and not some fictional tally of imagined paying riders by TransLink. Based on each person paying $1,000 annually (overly conservative and optimistic) to ride the RAV Line (undeservingly renamed to the Canada Line to win over the hearts of patriotic Canadians), the RAV Line generates at most $40 million annually.
Because many people on the RAV Line are transfers from buses or concession riders (U-Pass students) paying little to use it, the RAV Line must surely generate no more than a few million dollars in revenue annually, if that. After TransLink pays for the control room operators, electrical power consumption, RAV Line security, frequent break downs… RAV Line maintenance – the RAV Line has to be losing money for the $2 billion spent by TransLink.
Thanks to TransLink publishing false information on transit use, Colliers-International is now proclaiming the RAV Line as a resounding success moving 100,000 people daily in 2010:
http://www.colliers-international.com/vancouver/MarineGateway/MG_Brochure.pdf
This is incredible as TransLink only moves about 300,000 people daily on a good day in all of Metro Vancouver. I expect a full retraction and apology displayed prominently on the front page of every newspaper in Metro Vancouver (paid by TransLink CEO, Ian Jarvis, and not by taxpayers) as TransLink is misrepresenting the number of people on transit and it is tantamount to fraud with legal ramifications. He will run the retraction and apology by February 15, 2012 or risk legal consequences.
TransLink plans to spend $1.4 billion to repeat the RAV Line fiasco with the Evergreen Line even though TransLink can’t afford to operate trolley buses on trolley bus routes and can’t afford enough buses at peak hours to avoid overcrowding on buses. This foolish and audacious “moving forward plan” is not “on track” as TransLink contends.
TransLink is not relevant when it has to “sell the Evergreen Line” based on job creation during construction. Is TransLink a make work program for friends of TransLink or a transit organization for transit users? TransLink is corrupt. TransLink can’t finance the Evergreen Line unless it continues to sacrifice conventional transit service to spend on its silly SkyTrain schemes for its private partners to profit. I trust that the mayors (copied) will quickly withdraw their support for the Evergreen Line to protect taxpayers from higher taxes and to protect transit users from not only poorer transit service but also higher transit fares.
Regards,
Eric
http://www.rockantenne.de/webplayer/?playchannel=alternative
Recent Comments