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 ProvinceAi??newspaper. Well researched, Chris exposes theAi??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 toAi??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.Ai?? TransLink isnai??i??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.Ai?? 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.Ai?? 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.Ai?? This isnai??i??t ethical.Mayors in Metro Vancouver do not serve TransLink.Ai?? 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.Ai?? 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 whatai??i??s best for transit in their municipalities.Ai?? TransLink meddling in municipal transit affairs merely adds an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy from bungling bureaucrats interfering in municipal transit.Ai?? Cosmopolitan Vancouver is well suited to streetcar transit and growing Surrey is perfectly suited to LRT.Ai?? 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 isnai??i??t someone who might be considered completely trustworthy with impeccable moral character ai??i?? ai???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 TransLinkai??i??s next five to seven yearsai??? [2008 to 2015]… Aligned with provincial plans, TransLink is… planning… the Evergreen Lineai???.Ai?? Mike Harcourt was right:Shady Transit FinancesOf the $2 billion spent by TransLink on the RAV Line, TransLinkai??i??s private partners contributed about $500 million in return for ai???performance paymentsai??? over 30 years.Ai?? TransLink is paying its private partners ai???annual performance paymentsai??? of about $100 million. This isnai??i??t shady?Ai?? 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?Ai?? 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 ai???investorsai??? 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.Ai?? 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).Ai?? 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.Ai?? 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.Ai?? 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.Ai?? 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.Ai?? For TransLink, the health of residents along B-Line routes is unimportant.Ai?? 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.Ai?? Smoking vehicles emit high levels of harmful PM and automatically fail AirCare.Ai?? Many diesel buses operated by TransLink are smoking and would fail AirCare.Ai?? TransLink knows this and exempts its diesel buses from the AirCare program.Ai?? TransLink diesel buses canai??i??t meet municipal noise by-laws for vehicles as well.Ai?? 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.Ai?? If TransLink went on strike, carbon emissions would be expected to increase by no more than 3% in Metro Vancouver.Ai?? If everyone on diesel buses were passengers or drivers in cars, carbon emissions would be expected to drop by 20% in Metro Vancouver.Ai?? In other words, fewer transit users taking diesel buses and more transit users driving would be more effective in reducing carbon emissions.Ai?? 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%).Ai?? Transit by TransLink results in no meaningful reductions in carbon emissions.Ai?? Nil.Vehicle Use ExplosionSince the formation of TransLink, the rate of vehicle registrations has accelerated relative to the rate of population growth.Ai?? 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.Ai?? SkyTrain by TransLink has opened up distant communities.Ai?? By raising the status of developments along SkyTrain routes,Ai?? transit by TransLink has made developers and realtors much money.Ai?? 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.Ai?? 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 driverai??i??s licence.Ai?? Predominantly, transit users are people who canai??i??t drive for various reasons (four out of five transit users do not have access to a vehicle).Ai?? 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.Ai?? This relatively small number of transit users who might drive (4% = 60,000 / 1.5 million) in Metro Vancouver would not cause gridlock.Ai?? 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.Ai?? TransLink merely provides mobility to a small percentage of the population (11% on average).Ai?? 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.Ai?? It gives the false impression that TransLink hasnai??i??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.Ai?? It is disingenuous of TransLink to imply that road construction is less with transit by TransLink.Ai?? Roads are required in any new housing development.Ai?? Transit by TransLink canai??i??t operate without roads.In short, transit by TransLink is a menace to society in Metro Vancouver.Ai?? Transit by TransLink has done the following:Inflated the cost ofAi??Ai?? transitDiminished the qualityAi??Ai?? of air-inhaledImpaired the health ofAi??Ai?? residentsIncreased the use ofAi??Ai?? 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)?Ai??Ai?? No basis.Until transit is made more extensive, affordable and accessible ai??i?? it will not improve.Ai?? 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.Ai?? TransLink wants more cash to continue expanding SkyTrain transit?Ai?? Here is a novel idea: reduce TransLinkai??i??s budget for TransLink to operate streetcar transit or LRT like all the rest of the transit organizations in Canada.Ai?? Forget the ai???unique made in B.C. solution unmatched by any transportation authority in the worldai??? 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
Montreal’s capital costs for construction only cannot be compared with the payments to the Canada Line operator for design, construction, operation and maintenance — that is, both capital and operating costs. It is an apples to oranges comparison. For a true comparison, one would need to add in Montreal’s costs for operation and maintenance of whatever was built with the $300 million in capital costs.
The Canada Line’s operating costs are somewhere between $20 million to $25 million annually, leaving $75 million to $80 million annually as a P-3 cost, which still puts the RAV/Canada Line total cost about $4 billion plus! it seems the concessionaire is reaping a handy annual profit, money that would otherwise be spent on transit!
I think not chaps, in fact your blog/web site is creating more than a few giggles overseas with your corn pone rhetoric and anti-LRT nonsense. You have a world wide audience now and you are showing how silly the SkyTrain lobby is.
I like the way Fact Check references his sources, i was able to reference all the source materials I looked for. It may help if Rail For The Valley uses a similar format as I usually can’t find the sources you quote.
Zwei has checked the fact checker and golly gee whiz, most of the so called sources are known to be biased and anti light-rail. This is the problem, the SkyTrain types refuse to acknowledge, much of the SkyTrain rhetoric is based on deliberate misinformation presented as facts. After 33 years of deliberate anti LRT rhetoric, the public treat the crap from TransLink as gospel. Here is are facts that is never dealt with by the SkyTrain lobby; “Why, after being on the market for over 34 years, only 7 SkyTrain type system have been sold and why hasn’t SkyTrain ever been allowed to compete against LRT in a fair and open bidding process?”
If you want sources, I can list hundred’s of them, but I don’t really want to bore you with facts as what you claim is fact in Vancouver, is dismissed as mumbo-jumbo elsewhere.
Updated.
Most of the sources quoted by the SkyTrain for Surrey Folks are commercial web pages and scores of web pages in Chinese, Japanese, and/or Korean.
Get real boys and girls at SkyTrain for Surrey, posting nebulous transit sites as a source is somewhat of a joke.