Fear of Subway Costs Grips Mayors Council

As our friend, Haveacow indicated some time ago, the Broadway subway is going to cost a lot more than many think.

Some years ago, Zwei entered into correspondence with a German transit Engineer, Wolfgang and he warned of subway construction and operating costs, which hobbled German transit authorities and also lead to the rebirth of the tram in Germany.

In Toronto, the TTC estimates that the cost to operate and maintain a one station 5 km subway is $40 million annually.

The last post now sees Vision Vancouver and the mayor, rushing ahead with subway plans, yet the very same council is afraid to release the estimated costs for the subway.

Memo to Premier Horgan: Enforce a moratorium on all subway planning until TransLink releases:

  1. Total construction costs for a SkyTrain subway.
  2. Ai??The annual maintenance costs for a SkyTrain subway.
  3. Present passenger flows on the 99B buses on Broadway.

Planning by stealth never works and fear now grips the mayor’s Council on Transit as they are afraid of releasing the real costs of subway construction.

Thank you to Bob Mackin and the Breaker news!

 

Fear of huge costs of the Broadway subway has scared TransLink and the Mayors Council on Transit. There is a long dark tunnel of escalating subway costs.

Exclusive: Mayors got secret update last year on TransLink megaproject costs, but kept public in the dark

Bob Mackin

Internal TransLink documents obtained by theBreakerAi??strongly suggest the estimated costs for three Metro Vancouver transportation megaprojects have skyrocketed and the agency is grappling with how and when to break the news to the public.

Document obtained by theBreaker confirms TransLink and Metro Vancouver mayors are keeping secrets about megaproject costs.

The 2015-adjusted estimates were $2.53 billion for light rail transit in Surrey, $2.28 billion for a subway under Broadway and $1.1 billion to replace the 80-year-old Pattullo Bridge. Documents released to theBreaker on Dec. 11 under the freedom of information law confirm that the costs were further updated in 2016 and given secretly to the Mayorsai??i?? Council, ai???but not publicly released.ai??? Further estimates were crafted this year.

A March 9, 2017 communications plan said the cost pressures include rising real estate prices, inflationary pressures on contractors and a Canadian dollar that is lower in value than when the estimates were made for the regional mayorsai??i?? $8.08 billion, 10-year plan in 2014.

Specifically, the Broadway project is feeling increased pressure because of geotechnical assessment. The cost of an operations and maintenance facility is adding pressure to the Surrey-Newton-Guildford phase of Surrey LRT, along with utility relocation and the rising cost of land to accommodate corridor widths.

The communications document indicated that TransLink was planning to hold media briefings to provide in-depth information about the projects, business cases and updated costs. It contemplated holding a major media event in conjunction with the B.C. and federal governments. Development was underway on project websites and social media content, it said, was shared with mayors and the province.

Project cost estimates were censored from January updates to the Public Transit Infrastructure Fund steering board. The documents did show that more than $11.6 million had been spent on the Broadway project and $15.2 million on Surrey. Other documents warn that every year of delay adds $300 million to $500 million to capital costs.

An April 2 email from Sany Zein, TransLinkai??i??s infrastructure management and engineering vice-president, to TransLink CEO Kevin Desmond did not show dollar figures, but it said ai???the project inflation numbers are higher than recent GDP growth and higher than general recent inflationary growth; so some level of ai???hot marketai??i?? inflation is accounted for.

ai???The contingency percentages have been getting lower as the design definition improves.Ai??If interest during construction and internal labour charges are excluded from the gross total, the contingency value would represent a higher percentage.ai???

Inflation was estimated at 3.5% per annum for construction and 2.5% for systems prior to contract award, 2.5% for construction and systems during construction and 2.5% for management and professional services.

Donald Trapp, the ParternshipsBC project director, wrote April 7 to Zein that contingency estimates for construction costs ranged from 19% for Surrey-Newton-Guildford to 25% for Pattullo. Trapp also offered some optimism.

ai???Cost inflation for heavy civil does not follow residential/commercial domestic market trends,ai??? Trapp wrote. ai???Major projects attract contractors and consortia from around the world, and some areas (think Europe) the outlook is not secure; our projects will be very attractive.

ai???Cost control is achieved through proper management of the scope and schedule throughout the project from inception to substantial completion.ai???

TransLinkai??i??s Sany Zein

Final business cases were supposed to be completed and submitted for approval to the NDP government this fall. The documents estimated that, pending funding confirmation, construction work on all three projects could be underway by 2019. Pattullo and Surrey-Newton-Guildford could be completed in 2023 and Broadway in 2024.

An update on major capital projects is on the agenda for the Dec. 14 board of directors meeting at TransLink headquarters in Sapperton. It will be the swansong for Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson and Surrey Mayor Linda Hepner, who were replaced as the Mayorsai??i?? Council-appointed directors last week.

The regionai??i??s mayors chose Burnabyai??i??s Derek Corrigan to replace Robertson as chair and North Vancouver Districtai??i??s Richard Walton to replace Hepner as vice-chair.

Corrigan, a pragmatic, longtime NDP member, suggested that smaller municipalities are growing anxious.

ai???Both Gregor Robertson and Linda Hepner were very much focused on the big projects in their cities, so I think there was a feeling that maybe there would be a little more regional perspective if they got people in that were from more neutral ground,ai??? Corrigan told the Burnaby Now.

Comments

15 Responses to “Fear of Subway Costs Grips Mayors Council”
  1. Dondi says:

    No 3 in Zwei’s memo from Premier Horgan regarding the 99 bus ridership in 2016 has been hiding in plain sight at

    https://www.translink.ca/-/media/Documents/plans_and_projects/managing_the_transit_network/2016-TSPR/2016-TSPR-Appendix-C1-Routes-001-099.pdf?la=en&hash=C6E768A5DE629AE7E6B6ED8E6B3459BC166527B2

    Annual APC boardings 17,288,000
    Ave. M-F daily boardings 33,700
    Annual service cost $10,295,000
    Revenue hours with overcrowding 33%
    Ave. speed 20.7 km/hr

    The same info is available for other ‘Broadway’ routes, e.g, annual APC boardings for

    No 9 7,137,000
    No 44 1,439,000

    And some of the following passengers from non-Broadway routes that travel towards UBC would probably shift (or be shifted, from often more convenient bus routes) to rail on Broadway:

    Bus route 25 7,409,000 annual APC boardings
    33 2,469,000
    41 9.019,000
    43 1,810,000
    44 1.439,000
    49 7,506,000
    84 2,744,000

    Zwei replies: You just proved my point, there isn’t the ridership to justify a subway.

  2. Haveacow says:

    I did a few quick estimates of the increase in costs for both the stage 1 LRT (surrey-Newton-Guildford) and the Broadway project. I used general 2.5% inflation for the whole project and management costs but allowed for a 3.7% inflation rate for steel and 5% for re-enforced concrete. Both steel and concrete costs have been growing at a rate above the stated rate of inflation for a while now. Concrete especially has been growing by 5% per annum at the least, and has been for the last 2 decades, North America wide! Based on the amounts of steel and concrete needed for both projects this is what I came up with. Keep in mind these are class “D” estimates at best.

    Assuming the government can get set price guarantees for the planned length of construction period on both steel and concrete for both projects, as well as other input costs being kept somewhat constant within the rate of inflation, the Broadway Subway by the middle of 2017 would have costed between $2,54 -2.618 Billion and $1.22 and $1.26 Billion for the Surrey-Newton-Guildford LRT line. That works out to roughly $385-$396 Million/KM for the Broadway Line and $115-$119 Million/KM for the first stage of the LRT line.

    Sorry Zwei, considering your having to build an operations and maintenance centre ,that looks pretty consistent.with other surface LRT projects across North America. In most cases a surface LRT line is about 30% the cost/km of a tunneled Skytrain line.

    Unless you want to do what Europe does and guarantee price supports for all the input costs by essentially giving massive tax breaks and outright annual legal subsidies to a small list of very large international pre-chosen (chosen by politicians) builders, contractors and vehicle suppliers. Even large Canadian companies like Bombardier and SNC-Lavalin get European Union payouts sorry, European Union Construction Technology/Research Grants. These grants are given annually and are so large that, they would make what we have given (the Canadian people, through our governments) to both Bombardier and SNC-Lavalin, look tiny in comparison. They discount the land cost in some European countries too. Power and utility companies have to pay the cost of new infrastructure and are not added to the transport project costs. Yes, they are subsidized too by the European Union and national governments. .

  3. Dondi says:

    Zwei, it is my pleasure to help you prove that there isn’t the ridership to justify a Broadway subway. We all need to be guided by the facts.

    Except, I SCREWED UP.

    The average M-F boardings for the 99 bus in 2016 were 55,700. The 33,700 I cited was for Saturdays. Apologies for my crooked eyes. (See https://www.translink.ca/-/media/Documents/plans_and_projects/managing_the_transit_network/2016-TSPR/2016-TSPR-Appendix-C1-Routes-001-099.pdf?la=en&hash=C6E768A5DE629AE7E6B6ED8E6B3459BC166527B2 )

    Adding the No. 99 bus (M-F) average daily ridership and the No 9 bus ridership of 22,200 gives a total of 77,900 daily boardings on weekdays.

    This 77,900 boardings divided by the 99 bus route length of 7.71 miles (12.4 km) = 10,104 boardings/mile.

    A crude comparison of riderships in North American metros (c. 2014) using this measure is available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_North_American_rapid_transit_systems_by_ridership.

    The above 10,104 number for the two Broadway buses is higher than the weekday boardings per mile for 13 of the 22 metros in the above Wikipedia list.

    It is even higher – and this seems improbable – than the 9,169 boardings/mile that Wikipedia reports for Skytrain. [Although my arithmetic using Wikipedia numbers actually makes it 7,907/mile for Skytrain - there is the risk of relying on Wikipedia!!!]

    This comparison is very crude. But this measure suggests that more than half the cities in North America who built metros were even more stupid than Vancouver is to consider the Broadway line.

    It is even worse – since they were not even considering Skytrain they can’t blame Bombardier’s and Translink’s lies for their stupid choices.

    Zwei replies: As Wikipedia is written by others and especially on transit subjects, is somewhat unreliable. That being said, those cites who built subways are going to pay a big price in the very near future, when subway maintenance takes place, it is breathtakingly expensive.

    But back to basics, passenger flows on Broadway do not warrant a subway, in fact passenger flows barely justify light rail. Cut the crap about passenger mile/km or inch, it does not really matter, what matters is the actual number of people using Broadway and with the B-Line bus is handling the passenger flows quite handily, except for the very peak of rush hour. 3 minute headway’s > 20 buses and hour (rush hours) hardly justifies a subway. My wife uses the B-Line at peak hours and has only missed a very few buses due to overcrowding.

    Now TransLink could remedy that with a few more buses if they wish, but they don’t, thus giving the illusion of massive overcrowding and the rubes like you are buying into it.

  4. zweisystem says:

    I have always wondered why people so desperately support SkyTrain, when it has been consigned to history, made obsolete by light rail.

    Both are railways, both adhere o the same principles of railway operation, just one is much more expensive to build and operate than the other.

    This fascination with SkyTrain has so retarded Metro Vancouver ability to cope with congestion, that, personally, I think we have passed the point of no return transit wise. We have invested now over $11 billion on light metro and congestion is horrific in Vancouver and the great divide is now upon us; transit for the poor, the elderly and students and cars for wealthy.

    So, is a 5.5 km $3 billion+ subway going to improve things. I highly doubt it and i am supported bu most professionals in that regard.

    We have deified SkyTrain as the great go of public transport, but like all false gods, just does not deliver.

    The car is king! All hail SkyTrain, the god of “rubber on asphalt”!

  5. Joel says:

    One thing that still baffles me is why a subway was chosen over an elevated option for Broadway. I have searched through essentially all of Translink’s docs on the project and could not find any reason or mention of the decision to switch to subway from elevated. Cost-effectiveness is definitely one of the main elements that should be considered in transit choices and at 3-5x (~70-100M/km vs $330M-$500M+/km) the cost, a subway seems like a very irrational choice in that sense over an elevated option. In that, I do agree with Zwei about the subway.
    However, I do believe that the extension of the Millenium line to UBC is the best option, due to seamless experience and avoiding a transfer, rather than forcing the transfer to a slower option to save a few hundred million at most.
    Regarding the ridership, Zwei, you state that the ridership “barely justify light rail”, yet the main focus of this site is supporting a line through the Fraser Valley, and all bus lines combined it may replace has nowhere near the ridership of Broadway buses. I’m not saying the Tram-train shouldn’t happen (it should) but you have to be careful about making claims about one project which then could be applied to other projects you support as well.

    Zwei replies: You are comparing apples with oranges.

    What Rail for the Valley wants is a passenger rail connection from Vancouver to Chilliwack. Now such a line can be built for about $5 to $7 million/km and with a train or two every hour, could affordably provide a good service.

    Now for LRT on Broadway and I mean real LRT, reserved RoW’s, lawned, priority signally, et. costing $35m to $45m/km, needs a lot more ridership to justify its construction and it needs many more cars, etc.

    Thus a subway is as different to LRT as a regional railway is as different to LRT, Ultimately when Transport Canada allows TramTrain and it is merely a matter of time, then LRT in one form or another will travel the line.

    Rail for the Valley is not demanding a train every few minutes, rather just a train every hour or so. Big difference.

  6. zweisystem says:

    I would like to remind every one, that the planned subway is to Arbutus and not UBC. At present there is no plan for a subway to UBC.

    On a historical note; SkyTrain was first conceived to bridge he gap from what old streetcars could carry in Toronto, (about 11,000 to 12,000 pphpd) to that of a metro (15,000 pphpd). Modern LRT bridged that gap easily thus killing the market for the automatic SkyTrain system.

  7. Haveacow says:

    Mainly due to the never ending growing cost of reinforced concrete in the above grade right of way, it’s almost as expensive to do as a below grade right of way. The on-going maintenance costs are also very high in above grade structures and are just as high as tunnels. Unfortunately the work is often more difficult because it’s being done several stories in the air. Case point, the still unknown costs of rehabilitating the nearly 20 km of above grade right of way between the stations of the Expo Line. Something that must be planned for soon.

    Zwei replies: This is mainly why LRT made light-metro obsolete decades ago.

    Here is the problem I believe we face in North America, planners and politicians have not “bought” into LRT, mainly because it takes up road-space and built light metro, calling it LRT instead.

    Essentially, in North America, we are building German style S-Bahn and not le Tram or LRT. It sort of proves what I was told over 20 years ago by a European transportation specialist; “Your politicians are not mature enough for light rail.”

  8. Haveacow says:

    Remember Zwei, you (in Greater Vancouver) and me (in the National Capital Region) live in fairly rare municipal circumstances. The battle for rapid transit in places where we live, revolves around questions of where should it go first, the nature of and what type of rapid transit operating technology should we have and how it will operate? Who will get what service first and who has to wait? Much of the rest of North America outside a handful of cities, face battles like, should we have transit public or privately run at all? Why do we need it? Why should my tax money pay for someone else’s transportation? These places are facing questions of whether we should even tax or not let alone provide transit.

    Money for heavily subsidized highways is easy because it allows people to use something they own and control, they don’t control public transit and that is the rub. Most people don’t like giving money away unless they can completely control where and who it goes too. Unfortunately, you can’t run a modern society like that, control has to be given up and many (usually older people but not always) aren’t ready or willing to do that as much anymore.

    Even in the Greater Golden Horseshoe area where transit ridership levels are really high compared to other North American jurisdictions, 70% still drive regularly. You just can’ t realistically tell that large a percentage of the population especially in the suburban areas, “Oh were going to take up to 50% of your driving lanes away for our rapid transit project”, unless you have really bad traffic problems and or you have done one of the greatest rapid transit information campaigns in history to convince people that your project is needed desperately. Even then, it would be a 50/50 proposition in most heavily suburban locations.

    Remember as well that, one of the main reasons you don’t see a lot street level LRT in North America is that in many jurisdictions across North America (not just in the US) it is actually illegal to remove road lanes for LRT or any form of rapid transit. California only recently, changed a law like this in their state that had been on the books for decades, so that transit can take away road lanes. In Ontario it is not illegal to remove road lanes for rapid transit however, you better explain why and I mean really explain why road lanes have to disappear. I worked on the VIVA Rapidways BRT right of way project in York Region for Hwy. #7 East and West during its early planning. Several pro transit Regional Councilors and the York Region’s Region Chairman (the mayor in a Ontario Regional or Upper Tier Municipal Government) were nearly defeated in the municipal elections over not wanting to widen HWY #7 and advocating that they just take away lanes for the VIVA Rapidways. In the end the HWY. #7 was widened in certain areas.

    Zwei replies: It is as was told to me some years ago, our politicians are not mature enough for light-rail.

  9. subway4van says:

    Why should rising real estate prices be a concern for a subway?

    The subway and stations are to be built under the street. Only the station entrance is located above the street. The only only station above ground is to be located on emily carr campus on great northern way. Most of the station entrances are to be included in developments already built. example are broadway at cambie, broadway at oak and broadway at arbutus. A station entrance doesn’t need much land.

    LRT will not be cheaper. It will still require a tunnel. Makes more sense to extend an existing train to provide transfer free travel.

    A tunnel will reduce congestion and noise on Broadway. Anyone that lives near Broadway know that diesel buses make a lot of noise. Look at Granville street, it is quieter now with just one electric bus route. Congestion is reduced on Granville with elimination of diesel buses.

    Zwei replies: When real real estate costs rise, so do rents, so those who are dependent on transit are forced to move away (demoviction) as well merchants leave to find cheaper rents. Transit ridership drops.

    You don’t get it do you, those widely spaced subway stations deter ridership and in subway terms, ridership on Broadway is extremely weak for a subway.

    Light rail would not need a subway at all, what LRT would need is road space, which is much much cheaper, in fact most of the infrastructure is in place for LRT/tram and this is what the CoV is now deathly afraid of.

    No tunnels needed for LRT.

  10. subway4van says:

    Zwei replies: This is mainly why LRT made light-metro obsolete decades ago.

    Light metro is the same thing as LRT.

    Light metro is automated LRT with no drivers.

    Zwei replies: Part of a definition of light rail transit is that it must be able to operate in mixed traffic. Automatic (driverless) light-metro cannot, thus it is not LRT.

    It is all about the rights-of-ways sunshine, not the vehicle.. I do not know who is giving you the info, but they don’t have a clue what they are talking about.

    SkyTrain was originally called ICTS or Intermediate Capacity Transit System, but a lack of sales had the UDTC changed the name to ALRT or Automated Light Rail Transit to compete against LRT. Everyone saw the ruse and no one bought except the rubes in Vancouver. So bad was the marketing fiasco that the name was quickly changed to Automated Light Rapid Transit, so it could prevent LRT competing against it.

    It didn’t work and the name has been changed twice since.

    So lesson to be learned: LRT can be built as a light metro (a la Seattle) but using LRV’s still retains the ability to operate on lesser R-o-W’s. The automatic ICTS/ALRT/ALM/ART system cannot and must operate on its rigid and inflexible grade separated R-o-W.

  11. subway4van says:

    I would like to remind every one, that the planned subway is to Arbutus and not UBC. At present there is no plan for a subway to UBC.

    Not true. Subway is planned to UBC in two phases. Phase 1 to arbutus, phase 2 to UBC. The handout at the recent meeting in kitsilano explained this. Expo line was built in phases. Expo line only went to New westminster in phase 1. Phase 2 added 4 more stations to Surrey. Phase 2 broadway subway to UBC only need 4 more stations after arbutus street.

    Zwei replies: In your dreams. There is no money for the present $3 billion+ subway to Arbutus and definitely no money to extend it to UBC. You are talking stuff and nonsense.

  12. subway4van says:

    So, is a 5.5 km $3 billion+ subway going to improve things. I highly doubt it and i am supported bu most professionals in that regard.

    3 Benefits.

    1. It will reduce travel times.
    2. It will reduce congestion.
    3 it will reduce noise.

    Zwei repines:

    1) No, it will reduce travel time for a few, but increase travel time for the many.
    2) No, it will add to congestion as subways are very poor in attracting ridership, for many, taking the car will be easier.
    3) No, this is a man of straw argument, as the buses to UBC will not be replaced and the diesel 99B’s will still operate the full route, there will be no noise abatement.

    By the way, what professionals?

  13. subway4van says:

    Dondi and Zwei have never been on the 99 bus. That bus is over crowded and it is every 3 minutes at busiest times. it is hard to increase frequency if city is refusing to eliminate parking on broadway. 99 bus often travel in pairs because bus is delayed by traffic. When you wait for the bus, 2 bus often show up at the same time. Subway will replace at least 2 bus routes. #84 and 99.

    Zwei replies: Actually my wife takes the 99B daily to work and it is only over crowded for an hour or so. The subway will not eliminate the bus services at all, because the subway will terminate at Arbutus and contrary to what you say, the 99B will still continue to Service the Expo Line at Commercial.

    Parking is not the problem, rather traffic lights are as the CoV do not want to install bus priority signals.

    The ignorance about subways in Vancouver is nothing short of appalling, as they do not reduce congestion, nor are they user friendly and forced transfers will again have transit customers consider the car, especially electric cars.

    The problem with the 99B is blatant bad management.

  14. Haveacow says:

    @subway4van, the increase in the cost of steel, concrete and inflation alone will turn the $2.1 Billion dollar 5.5 km subway line to Arbutus which I believe currently costs slightly above $ 2.5 Billion. Increases in the cost of construction trades people (a really big one) and the devaluation of the Canadian Dollar since 2010 for all the international based construction equipment help you will have to procure, hasn’t even been figured into that costs. :Let alone, the increased land costs in Vancouver (another big one). I predict that each year they delay building this line, adds about $70-75 Million.to the final cost.

    The Innovia Metro 300 System (the newest marketing name Bombardier is using for the Skytrains) no longer have a nearly permanent open production line held for them in their Montreal assembly facility, so they are going to cost more when the production line is re-tooled following the planned orders already on the list for those Montreal production lines. Translink will have to decide if the Skytrains needed for this extension are produced as part of the order for the replacement for the Mark 1 Cars thus, the costs are not added to the line’s construction costs. Or will it be part of a separate vehicle order and included as part of the line’s costs. This can add even higher costs to the project if the vehicle’s are included in the line costs.

    Currently its now making body components for Greater Golden Horseshoe’s and Edmonton Light Rail Vehicle (LRV) contracts. Yes, their Flexity Freedom LRV contract order for the Greater Golden Horseshoe has been slashed from 182 to 76 (+14 for Waterloo’s Ion LRT Line) but that is still a massive order considering that internationally, 35-50 units is considered a big order for LRV’s. They are still in the middle of building 204 nearly identical Flexity Outlook LRV’s for the TTC’s legacy streetcar lines!

    Next after the LRT contracts rail vehicles for Montreal’s new 68 km REM Network, which would seem to be using vehicles superficially similar to skytrains in size and body type are in fact, very different. No Linear Induction Motors (too expensive and harder too maintain) instead, standard electric side body mounted “can” units. No 3rd rail (again too expensive to maintain for a 68 km system), an Overhead Catenary System. Far more seats (much more like a Commuter Rail Passenger car) and very little standing room (again like a Commuter Rail Passenger car). The resulting order will mean the Skytrain vehicles are going to wait and have to include in the order cost, the price of re-tooling Montreal production line.

    All this wait time for Bombardier production lines means the Broadway costs spiral higher. several years ago I said that, I didn’t think people in Vancouver would realize just how expensive this line is really going to be!

  15. subway4van says:

    “the 99B will still continue to Service the Expo Line at Commercial.”

    Not true. 99 will be a shortened route from Arbutus to UBC. 99 will be eliminated when subway is extended to UBC. If you went to public meeting, you would know this. Look at the extension to Coquitlam that replaced the #97 bus. Canada lline replaced the #98 bus. All suburban buses that used to travel to downtown now terminate in Richmond. This is why Canada line is crowded. The #9 will continue to provide a frequent stopping service from boundary to UBC. Just like the #10 bus on Granville street or #15 on Cambie. All electric busses.

    Canada line from downtown to richmond takes 25 minutes. The old 98 bus used to take almost 1 hour to travel from downtown to Richmond. That is a big improvement.

    Skytrain from Lougheed to Coquitlam takes 15 minutes. the old 97 bus used to be 45 minutes. Another big improvement.

    Skytrain from downtown to King George station is 39 minutes. The night bus is double that time.

    “The problem with the 99B is blatant bad management.”

    The 99 bus needs all day bus lanes to be effective. The current bus lanes only operate 3-6pm. Vancouver doesn’t want to lose the parking revenue from eliminating the parking. Elimate the parking and the bus will be faster.

    Stop being like the mayor of Burnaby.

    Zwei replies: As the Mayor of Burnaby was a former CEO of BC Transit, he knows a thing or two about transit, something the other mayors have demonstrated an almost universal ignorance of light rail.

    If the 99-B will still operate from Commercial to UBC, whey the need of a $3 billion+ subway?

    We have three things wrong with the Broadway subway: 1) Lack of ridership to justify a subway; 2) using the capacity constrained SkyTrain in the subway; and 3) a complete ignorance of the CoV about subway management. It is a recipe for a finical fiasco.

Leave A Comment