The Truth Slowly Ekes Out – Surprise, Surprise

Well, someone is waking up at the Vancouver Sun or are they.

SkyTrain is obsolete.

The philosophy behind the operation of SkyTrain is obsolete.

Obsolete transit mode + obsolete transit philosophy = lagging ridership.

So it should come as no surprise Vancouver spends more for transit, but like fools at a carnival, planners and politicians, pitch more Skytrain, built in subways on routes that to not have the ridership to justify the investment.

Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is a sign of madness; in Metro Vancouver, planners and politicians do the same thing over and over again expecting different results.

Now, only if the Vancouver sun print a honest story about modern light rail……………

Vancouver outspends Toronto, Montreal in transit, but lags in ridership – study

Ai??By Don Cayo, Vancouver SunSeptember 5, 2014

Vancouver has been outspending both Toronto and Montreal on rapid transit for the last two decades, yet it still trails both cities in infrastructure and ridership.

VANCOUVER – Vancouver has been outspending both Toronto and Montreal on rapid transit for the last two decades, yet it still trails both cities in infrastructure and ridership.

A new study by the Pembina Institute notes that Vancouver has built 44 kilometres of new rapid transit lines in the past 20 years, almost half of it ai??i?? the Canada Line ai??i?? in the last 10, while Toronto and Montreal have added very little.

This construction leaves the total length of Vancouverai??i??s rapid transit lines at 68 kilometres. This compares with 83 for Torontoai??i??s aging subway system, which added 18 kilometres in last 20 years, and 69 kilometres for Montreal, which added only five.

When ridership and access are considered, Vancouver is much further behind.

Metro Vancouver residents take an average of 52 rapid transit trips per year, behind not only Toronto with 133 and Montreal with 93, but also Ottawa with 104 and Calgary with 74.

And only 19 per cent of Metro residents live within walking distance of rapid transit, compared to 21 per cent in Calgary, 28 per cent in Ottawa, 34 per cent in Toronto and 37 per cent in Montreal.

The report acknowledges that Vancouverai??i??s rapid transit challenge is magnified by the need to serve several low-density suburbs, and that express buses fill some of the gap.

The completion of the Evergreen Line now under construction to Coquitlam and scheduled to open in 2016 will change the Vancouver numbers, but all of the other cities surveyed have even more construction underway or planned, so Vancouver wonai??i??t catch up.

Ai?? Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun


4 Responses to “The Truth Slowly Ekes Out – Surprise, Surprise”
  1. eric chris says:

    Please replace my last post with this one:

    I’d say that someone at TransLink dropped the ball and didn’t get TransLink’s spin on the s-train being a disaster before the published article by Don at the Vancouver Sun. By the time the spinsters at TransLink managed to get their spin on the “Pembina” study (possibly released at the request of TransLink to deflect criticism from the salaries at TransLink) Don at the Vancouver Sun reported on the facts.

    Has anyone heard of Cherise Burda? Does she know anything about transit?

    Then, Ian Jarvis of TransLink went to work telling us on the CBC that s-train is actually a success because s-trains are cheaper than subways to build in Toronto and Vancouver has laid more tracks than Toronto has! Gordon Price our bachelor of arts graduate professor at SFU and TransLink advisor also explained that it will take at least 50 years for the s-trains to become successful and that people have to be patient, gosh darn it. This might have gone according to plan by TransLink if the s-train hadn’t suffered the misfortune of another embarrassing malfunction during the live CBC broadcast at 6 pm.

    After the new host of CBC, Andrew Chang, switched to the breaking news (while I was watching at the gym) that s-train had melted down and people were breaking down the doors, he had a hard time keeping a straight face trying to stick to the original story from TransLink in damage control that s-train is actually a success by being less of a failure than the subway in Toronto… this broadcast has mysteriously disappeared and isn’t on the CBC web site… but the meltdown story on s-train today is…

    Zwei replies: Ah, Gordon Price TransLink’s no nothing expert. Someone should tell Gordon that the life span of SkyTrain is about 50 years and billions of dollars must be invested to keep it operational. SkyTrain was never designed to be in a subway, rather it was designed to be elevated to mitigate the high cost of subway construction. Of course the Canada Line is not what most people think is Skytraiin rather it uses heavy-rail EMUs and to reduce the cost of construction the Canada Line has only 40m to 50m long station platforms, which means it has less capacity than a streetcar.

    In the UK and the US, TransLink’s executives would be in jail for the BS they spew and Price may face a tribunal for his nonsense.

  2. Haveacow says:

    Eric are you sure the CBC didn’t record the original video on line, you saw at 6pm? I’d love to the see some of the original video!

    I once saw a story on the BBC that was priceless in terms of the timing and irony. Its easier to convince people who have never been in a war to fight for a cause than the ones who have already, in any conflict. As a ex military man myself whom unfortunately, saw action in Yugoslavia and against pirates in the Arabian Sea (no desire to ever do it again), the BBC once did a great video/news piece, on the brave Libyan rebels fighting the forces of Khadafi early in the civil war/overthrow of his regime. The camera shows many young smiling rebels, obviously poorly armed and trained in a group formation, really a poorly organized gaggle of men and vehicles, most of whom, you could tell, have never or should have never been in any serious armed conflict. They were bravely driving by in full view of the camera, on the attack! The camera followed the group into the distance as the reporter droned on, the camera switched focus and panned towards the horizon. Several seconds later while the reporter continued his report, you could see a quick series of large orange flashes (between 10-15 flashes) and hear deep rumbles coming from the direction of these flashes. This was obviously Khadafi’s, in place and well prepared heavy artillery hitting the forward elements of the rebel force probably with Soviet HE and HEAT rounds. The story continued on for another 30-45 seconds. Just as the BBC reporter was finishing the story you could plainly see rather terrified rebels forces in full retreat, in an even less organized group than before, all driving by as fast as they could, but now in the opposite direction! Credit to the reporter, he never broke character, as far as he was concerned these guys were glorious in attack and completely unorganized retreat!

    What was really funny was the obviously pro rebel/anti Khadafi story was most likely done to show that with only a little extra help these rebels could defeat the better armed professional soldiers fighting for the other side. This kind of common media war piece of, plucky Robin Hood like rebels versus the far better armed and trained forces of evil story, you often see on the news. By the way, these stories in reality never turn out good for the rebels, especially early on in an armed conflict. It also shows how sometimes that those same reporters really need experts to explain to them what they are actually filming. Then again, the reporter’s ignorance of military affairs probably figured out better in this story than if he had a better idea of what was actualy going on. You could just here it, “Very poorly armed and organized rebel combat groups led by a patch work of incompatible political idiots and barely trained militarily command morons made a head long rush into Khadafi’s entrenched, long range heavy artillery units, guess who won?” I found out that the BBC had pulled the piece and then re-edited the video later.

  3. eric chris says:

    @Haveacow, CBC doesn’t keep stories around and has a quick turn around, usually a few hours. There is a follow up by CBC about TransLink “blaming passengers” for the s-train problems. This isn’t being well received and here is one of my favourite responses:

    “SomeYoungGuy Guest

    Rank 4407

    So, did TransLink immediately announce over the speaker system that it was only going to be five to seven minutes and to wait patiently? Didn’t think so. Was the air conditioning on? Probably not. Was it stifling smelly and cranky in there? Uh huh. Has this happened before and it’s taken hours to fix? You betcha. Do people have lives to attend to/children to feed/important appointments to get to? Of course! Should TransLink make a safer way for passengers to exit in the case of an emergency/break down. Yes. Should a tax payer financed corporation be threatening the very people that provide the funds? Nope. Do human beings want to sit enclosed in a glorified cattle car while they wait for a Publicly Funded Company to get it’s act together? NO!

    Of course breakdowns occur, but when this happens more than it should(it does) and people are left hanging, this is the result.

    Smarten up Translink. And can the threats please. Very uncouth”

    Another surprise story is about TransLink’s irrational method used to count passengers, to inflate ridership…

    “Dermod Travis, executive director of IntegrityBC, questioned why TransLink would use a different term. He said complainants are presumably specific about their problems on transit and TransLink’s rationale is illogical.”

    It looks to me as if the Indians are circling the wagon at TransLink. Cracks are starting to appear in the TransLink façade.

  4. eric chris says:

    Well, I guess the proof is in the pudding, roads rather than transit reduce road congestion based on science and facts which are hard to dispute…

    This doesn’t mean that we are wrong in spending money on transit which is necessary for the students and others – it just means that s-trains and subways are an elaborate hoax costing too much and not doing any good. They do not reduce road congestion – looking at the road congestion along s-train routes in Vancouver, that isn’t news to me. Here is my draft article going out soon to the papers and you’re welcome to comment:

    Dear Editor et al:

    When road congestion caused by transit is considered, not having transit by TransLink reduces road congestion more than having transit. In other words, transit by TransLink increases road congestion, air pollution and carbon emissions. At least that is what the attached calculations verified by numerous professional engineers registered with APEGBC suggest.

    Since August of 2013, TransLink has not been able to refute these calculations – based on the 2012 Shirocca report and TransLink data. TransLink is a sham and debacle.

    Further funding for transit by TransLink has no basis. Censorship of this to promote propaganda (disguised as news) for TransLink to exaggerate the truth is beneath the ethics of journalism intended to avoid biases impeding fair and accurate reporting of the facts, to ultimately expose corruption and vice.

    Pigs at the trough
    Society can’t afford to pay planners at TransLink ridiculous salaries which are far more than the salaries for highly trained and qualified teachers and nurses. Fundamentally, TransLink is a make work program for planners and others twiddling their thumbs all day. TransLink is unnecessarily costing taxpayers $45 million annually in Metro Vancouver.

    Money siphoned away from taxpayers for overhead at TransLink deprives schools of teachers and hospitals of nurses. Taxpayers don’t have the money to squander on Ian Jarvis and others slurping at the trough and employed “planning” at TransLink, whatever that entails and it surely isn’t much. We have a huge early childhood crisis and troubled youth are not receiving the early attention required to prevent them from swelling the ranks of the degenerates who plague crime riddled transit at present.

    Driving into downtown Vancouver losing jobs has plummeted. Driving to Surrey, Delta… Richmond gaining jobs is way-way up in Metro Vancouver. Too much money has been wasted on the wrong type of transit (s-train and subway) in Vancouver and not enough money has been invested in conventional transit for Surrey, Delta… Langley where most of the population growth is occurring. Road congestion and urban sprawl are exploding in Metro Vancouver. Raising taxes for planners at TransLink to pay for s-trains along North Road in Coquitlam and subways along Broadway in Vancouver is untenable:

    Transit by TransLink is a billion dollar blunder by the hundreds of half-wits employed as “planners” at TransLink: “Bachelor of Arts (BA) graduates” making $100,000 to $500,000 annually. I’m not bashing everyone including relatives, friends and others holding a BA degree. Unless planners at TransLink have sound fundamentals in science and calculus, they lack the insight to formulate solutions which are well beyond their grasp. They are stymied by seemingly intractable problems which really aren’t with the right qualifications. Planners at TransLink lose taxpayers millions and billions of dollars from blunders such as the Compass electronic fare system which adds up to 40% to the travel time on certain routes.

    Planners at TransLink don’t have the problem solving skills and common sense to understand that it does not take 0.3 seconds for each transit user to tap in or out at the sensor for the Compass system; it takes at about 3 seconds to get up to the sensor and move away from the sensor for someone else to tap in or out at the sensor. Compass cost taxpayers $200 million to purchase and can’t be used. Planners at TransLink are praying for a technical solution to reduce the tap in or out time at the sensor to 0.3 seconds. There is no solution for stupidity.

    Planners who don’t have the ability to comprehend Green’s theorem in calculus also don’t have what it takes to be effective as planners at TransLink. It’s that simple.

    There will be no solution to the Compass debacle. Buffoons at the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure spearheaded it and bungling planners at TransLink blindly followed – to divert attention away from the Shirocca report showing TransLink to be a miserable failure and the worst performing transit organization in Canada.

    Transit incongruity
    Elevated s-trains or buried subways with distantly spaced stops located every one to two kilometres apart are self-defeating. They might reduce the number of buses on the roads along their routes and lure a few would be drivers onto the s-train and subway cars. Wonderful: taking a few buses and drivers off the roads just frees up road space and has the same effect as building roads – it merely encourages more and other drivers to drive along the s-train and subway routes (U of T, 2009).

    At the same time, to transport riders to the s-trains and subways many “more buses operating at hyper-frequencies” to match the hyper-frequencies of the s-train and subway cars “are added to the roads” for the added buses to run at right angles to the s-trains and subways. This greatly compounds the existing road congestion on these roads by transit and is exactly what happened on Cambie Street after the subway was built; the 100,000 cars which TransLink said would go away never went away – more cars were added. As well, this is what happened at the Pattullo Bridge in Surrey after the Expo Line (s-train) by TransLink – vehicle use exploded on the Pattullo Bridge.

    Exactly the same thing will happen on Broadway if the subway is built, and the 50,000 cars won’t be removed from Broadway as Mayor Robertson contends. Instead, many more cars will be added to Broadway, many-many more cars.

    Most people only commute 30 minutes or less to work (or somewhere) from home, It takes 20 minutes on average to reach the distantly spaced s-train and subway stations. Result: s-trains and subways remain sloooow and inconvenient for most people who only travel short distances. Subways and s-trains do not attract drivers who continue to drive – after almost 30 years of s-trains and subways – Vancouver has developed the worst road congestion in Canada. TransLink has squandered billions of dollars. TransLink saying that more s-trains and subways will reduce road congestion is analogous to saying that more maternity wards will produce more babies. It is patently false. People drive to avoid transit – even Ian Jarvis who is the CEO of TransLink, drives. Gulp.

    Nevertheless, Bob Paddon of TransLink is busy conniving and doing polls (using our money paid in taxes to TransLink) to convince readers through his pet reporter, Kelly Sinoski, of the Vancouver Sun, to pay more taxes to keep him and others at TransLink employed. Keeping Bob Paddon and everyone else at TransLink around any longer to plan for more s-trains and subways increasing road congestion, air pollution and carbon emissions doesn’t seem like a good plan to me.

    Transit solution
    In Metro Vancouver as in other cities in Canada, billions of dollars don’t have to be spent s-trains and subways. Instead, much less money can be spent on trams costing millions of dollars and carrying just as many passengers as s-trains and subways. Unlike s-trains or subways, 45 metre long trams merely replace the shorter 12 metre or 18 meter long articulated buses on the roads. Trams don’t free up road space and they don’t reduce road space to any extent. Trams merely travel every 15 minutes to 20 minutes rather than every 2 minutes to 10 minutes by the buses.

    So, the added length of the tram is offset by its reduced operating frequency – road congestion is not changed but transit capacity is increased immensely. Magic. Well not really, it is just transit aimed at moving people rather than transit aimed at filling the pockets of swindlers becoming rich at TransLink from the misfortune of individuals who have no choice but to use transit.

    Trams use one-third the electrical power of linear induction powered s-trains or subways and cost up one-tenth as much to construct as s-trains or subways. Trams remove polluting diesel buses which s-trains and subways add. As a result, operating, maintenance and construction costs for transit with trams are greatly reduced compared with the operating, maintenance and construction costs of s-trains and subways (UBC, 2009). What isn’t there to like about trams cutting air pollution, transit costs and “not increasing” road congestion?

    TransLink is a taxpayer fleecing operation. That’s the bottom line. Ridding Metro Vancouver of the looters at TransLink is the final solution, and that’s the message which is being lost in the propaganda filled stories being used to brainwash readers to vote for more transit by the swine at TransLink.

    Eric Chris, Vancouver

    “I believe… I can see the future… I repeat the same routine… I think that I use to have a purpose, then again it might have been a dream… I just do what I’ve been told. Every day is exactly the same…”