A Poll That TransLink Wishes To Suppress
Posted by zweisystem on Tuesday, June 5, 2012 · 3 Comments
Reprinted from May 2010
A very strange thing happened yesterday with ‘Zwei’. When I was discussing a transit matter with an US transit type about the RAV/Canada line. He told me that TransLink officials claimed that over 80% of Vancouverites supported RAV and if it were not for the high costs of the metro, many more metro type transit systems would have been built in the USA.
I replied that “Well no; TransLink likes to claim 80% support, but their polling results are questionable.”
I have dug up the following 2004 contrary poll from Robbins Research and emailed it to him and I thought it should be posted on RFV as well. What is interesting is that there is such a wide gap between this poll and TransLink’s claims.
With the Broadway Follies now in full swing, it must be remembered that what TransLink claims, isn’t necessarily true and that we should treat what TransLinkAi?? or Vancouver City bureaucrats claim about public support for SkyTrain, the RAV/Canada Line and the upcoming,Ai?? SkyTrain Broadway ‘Rapid Transit’ Line as we would treat a Nigerian Email.
- What the SkyTrain lobby really wants.
From Robbins Sce Research
http://www.robbinssceresearch.com/
| A random sample of 405 Vancouverites on May 14, 2004, It features a margin or error of 4.2%, 18 times out of 20, @97% competency. |
| Question #1Recently, the Board of Directors of Translink voted down RAV, with the opposing votes claiming that it was too costly, and that it may ultimately overburden taxpayers. Do you agree with THIS opposition to RAV? |
| Question #2Would you regularly use light rapid transit between Vancouver-Richmond and/or the Vancouver Airport? |
| Question #3How likely would you be to EVER use a light rapid transit means of transportation between Vancouver/Richmond and/or the Vancouver Airport? |
| Very Likely |
|
33.6% |
| Likely |
|
10.7% |
| Not very likely at all |
|
55.8% |
| Question #4The Vancouver Board of Trade, The BC Business Council, Premier Gordon Campbell, and Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon are all demanding that the Translink Board reconsider their vote on RAV. Mayor Larry Campbell voted for RAV, Vancouver City Councilors David Cadman and Raymond Louie voted against the proposed RAV. Whose position do you agree with? |
| Vancouver Mayor Larry Campbell |
|
31.4% |
| Vancouver Councilors David Cadman and Raymond Louie |
|
68.7% |
| Question #5In your opinion, what direction should Translink now take with respect to light rapid transit between Vancouver-Richmond and the Vancouver Airport? |
| Scrap the whole concept, we don’t really need it and its all too expensive |
|
14.9% |
| We should construct light rapid transit between Vancouver Richmond and the Airport for under 1 billion dollars with NO cost overruns to be born by the taxpayer |
|
81.8% |
| We should construct the original RAV line for between 1.5 billion and 2 billion dollars just as was planned |
|
3.5% |
Commentary
|
| Commentary-No matter how you choose to look at the light rapid transit issue between Vancouver Richmond and the Airport, it is clear that the original E?Cadillac” RAV must be kept off the table for ever. Its too expensive, and taxpayers do not want to be exposed to additional taxes owing to cost overruns. |
| It is obvious there is a need to light rapid transit to the airport; however it remains interesting how many respondents who said they would use RAV want to know what they would do with their luggage. This is the same question which was raised by Airport workers in a previous poll of Richmond residents. |
| Media coverage of last weeks loss on the RAV vote, including Surrey Mayor and Translink Chair Doug McCallum, Vancouver Board of Trade and BC Business Council representatives, Rezac and Lampert, Premier Gordon Campbell and Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon, complaining about the outcome is becoming very offensive to right thinking British Columbians. It is abundantly clear that these individuals are not thinking in the interests of the citizens they purport to represent, or in the case of the two special interest representatives, ANY voting citizens. |
| Why do the media persist in speaking to special interest groups on subjects that those groups or organizations have no democratic interest in? I put the same criticism on the Canadian Taxpayers Association debating with H.E.U. members. This RAV debate if not modified to a dialogue that makes sense to the voter, and the consumer, runs the risk of further turning this province into a political Ozark. Mr. Falcon’s comments that 80% of the public want RAV are dishonest.http://www.robbinssceresearch.com/polls/poll_71.html |
With no real political support, one wonders why they built the Canada Line as a metro?
What really is a puzzle, is the complete ignorance of planners in that far corner of Canada, about trams and how trams operate and persist in building rather expensive metros or subways when a tram would do the job just as well.
I read quoted some years ago on Vancouver’s transit planning and it went like this; “Understand that the X-Files were filmed in your part of the world, maybe that explains it.”
I.K. Brunel, possibly, SkyTrain expansion is due to political corruption. Developers with the help of certain politicians are making big money taxing drivers to pay for SkyTrain lines. Then, the developers swoop in to bulldoze homes for the developers and politicians to make money from condo developments near the SkyTrain stations:
http://www.bosaproperties.com/evergreen/location_coquitlam.php
After TransLink builds a SkyTrain line, TransLink goes to work to increase housing density near the SkyTrain stations under the guise of taking cars off the roads and increasing transit use. In fact, vehicle use isn’t dropping (it has exploded since the expansion of SkyTrain) and the condos merely concentrate existing transit users or facilitate more people moving here along the SkyTrain lines.
You can try to argue that without the SkyTrain lines more people would be driving. In reality, fewer people would be living here without SkyTrain opening up new housing for people to move here and fewer people would be driving as 75% of the people in the condos drive – all the condos come with parking spaces for cars.
Trams or LRT lines would fit nicely into the existing housing density of communities and would not give TransLink any reason to bulldoze homes (not what TransLink wants). Trams and LRT would improve transit for transit users and keep fares low. Improving transit for users or keeping fares low isn’t what TransLink is trying to achieve – it is milking taxpayers to keep the SkyTrain scam alive and to keep the big salaries at TransLink coming in for as a long as possible.
Eventually, TransLink will implode as the cost to maintain SkyTrain becomes too onerous. Then, the media will cry foul but the crooks at TranSlick will have made their millions by then.
This is what one of the lead transportation engineers in Edmonton says about SkyTrain:
“We have not completed a detailed and formal study comparing elevated and automated LRT systems to grade level LRT systems, however we know the cost differences based on comparisons with other North American systems. As you may know, the City of Edmonton has grade level and underground elements of the system, and we compare costs with our colleagues operating systems in other cities.
For some back ground, one of the City’s Transportation Master Plan (The Way We Move) includes the LRT Network Plan which states that all future LRT projects that are not extensions of the existing high-floor LRT system, will be based on low-floor LRT technology. Another principle within the LRT Network Plan is the use of urban friendly LRT.
*** This means few barriers and a higher level of integration between LRT and the surrounding neighbourhoods. This leads to the LRT being part and parcel of the community with easy accessibility.
*** An elevated rail system is less urban friendly due to the significant amount of infrastructure (i.e. guide-ways, raised stations, stairs, escalators, elevators, etc.).
*** And as you cited, elevated [SkyTrain] is more costly to construction, therefore the grade level system is being pursued in Edmonton.
Thank you again for your interest in our project.”
Sincerely,
Nat Alampi, P.Eng.
Program Manager
LRT Design & Construction
City of Edmonton
I find it strange that the Engineering chap from Edmonton clearly understands the difference between elevated or subway construction and at-grade construction, yet Engineering chaps from Vancouver do not.
Clearly, transit planning in Vancouver is a hodge podge of dated transit planning sprinkled with political opportunism.
What I do see and in abundance is professional malfeasance at every level of transit planning in Vancouver.