A Conflict of Interest – The Broadway Subway
TransLink, unfortunately digs very deep holes for itself and Mr. Chris exposes what they want the public to believe as fact, is in fact pure invention.
There are two points I would like to explore, from Mr. Chris’s letter , posted on this blog on November 18.
In 1986, the Light Rail Transit Association defined LRT thus:
“LRT is a transit mode that can economically cater to traffic flows of 2,000 to 20,000 persons per hour, thus effectively bridging the gap between the maxim flow of what buses can carry and that of a heavy-rail metro.“
TransLink’s SNC and Steer-Davies-Gleave Study deliberately dumbs down the capacity for LRT for the Broadway, by claiming that light rail’s assumed capacity along Broadway varies between 5,800 to 7,200 persons per hour per direction, while at the same time put the assumed capacity of a Skytrain subway at 13,000 pphpd.
In Ottawa, Alstom put the capacity of a coupled set of Citadis trams at 600 persons and at 3 minute headway’s (20 trips per hour is the current B-Line bus peak hour schedule), would equal 12,000 pphpd! At two minute headway or 30 trips per hour, the capacity would be 18,000 pphpd or put another way, LRT on Broadway could have the potential to carry more than the maximum capacity of a SkyTrain subway, which is limited to 15,000 pphpd!
Obviously the study pulled numbers out of the air to make light rail look inferior when compared to SkyTrain, therefore if the TransLink study is using phoney numbers, then the entire study must be treated as suspect; in fact the transit study is phoney! Yet, TransLink has gotten away with this nonsense for over a decade and BC Transit before that!
Noted American transit planner, Gerald Fox had it right all along about TransLink’s dubious transit planning.
It is interesting how TransLink has used this cunning method of manipulating analysis to justify SkyTrain in corridor after corridor, and has thus succeeded in keeping its proprietary rail system expanding. In the US, all new transit projects that seek federal support are now subjected to scrutiny by a panel of transit peers, selected and monitored by the federal government, to ensure that projects are analyzed honestly, and the taxpayers’ interests are protected. No SkyTrain project has ever passed this scrutiny in the US.
Secondly, isn’t it a strange coincidence that SNC Lavalin which cosponsored the study also holds half the patents for the proprietary SkyTrain mini-metro system and has a financial stake if the mini-metro is built and more so, if it is built in a subway?
Let us not forget the presiding judge over the Susan Heyes lawsuit, called the Canada Line bidding process……
I call that a blatant conflict of interest.
As usual for TransLink, due diligence never happens and for good reason, truly independent transit studies would never support SkyTrain.
In fact, for 35 years, no independent transit study ever has.
The first paragraph of Mr. Chris’s (PE) letter………
Dear TransLink Board, Mayors’ Council and Minister Stone,
I’d appreciate an explanation (sooner than later) for TransLink’s waste of time, money and resources to produce its fraudulent study favouring s-train based on the s-train line’s supposed increased capacity over the LRT line to UBC. TransLink is bending the truth to keep the ones who are responsible for the massive fraud (that s-train has more capacity than other modes of transit) from being jailed for the rest of their lives. Hoaxers at TransLink are essentially bilking taxpayers of billions of dollars by circumventing fair and competitive bidding from Alstom and Siemens proposing tram or LRT lines in order to sole source contracts to Bombardier and SNC Lavalin for the s-train line to UBC, at a greatly inflated cost to taxpayers. “Assumed” capacity of LRT ranges from 5,800 pph to 7,200 pph while “assumed” capacity of s-train (RRT) is 13,000 pph in the study by SNC Lavalin and Steer-Davies-Gleave (summary on page x)? What’s wrong with the “real” capacity?