Notes From The Past
The preceding graph is from the late 1980’s and adjusted for 2024 Canadian dollars:
San Diego: $10.25 million/km
Portland: $20.25 million/km
Nantes: $25.15 million/km
Calgary: $30.26 million/km
VAL: $56.7 million/km
SkyTrain: $66.82 million/km. Please note, the current 16 km Expo Line extension to Langley is now costing in excess of $375 million/km or put another way, the 16 km Expo Line extension to Langley is costing over five and half times more per km than the adjusted original Expo Line!
The 5.7 km Broadway (subway) extension to the Millennium Line, is now costing over $700 million/km or, again put another way, is costing ten and a half times more than the original Expo Line!
The following is from a German engineer who has worked in Vancouver and his take on our SkyTrain light metro system is more than interesting. The following is from an exchange of Emails from 2013.
The facts:
Skytrain is operated at a maximum frequency of 120s with trainsets of a
maximum length of 72m or 68m on the Expo and Millenium line, resp. just
42m (!) on the Canada line.
100m trainsets at 90s resp. 60s frequency are perfectly feasible with
light rail operated on sight. As demonstrated in the “real world”. By
examples given here on this list.
BTW: They claim that the Canada line would have a capacity of 15,000
pphpd. With platforms of 50m length (for 63m three-car trainsets?) and
a frequency of 120s, using the figure of 5 pass/m my pocket calculator
tells me it’s
50m/train * 5pass/m * 30trains/h = 7,500pphpd
NewMath. 2+2 equals 8 for them.
With the actually usable two-car sets it’s
42m/train * 5pass/m * 30trains/h = 6,300pphpd
With that strange idea to use 50m platforms for 63m trains it would be:
63m/train * 5pass/m * 30trains/h = 9,450pphpd
But that would be obviously impracticable in reality since the doors
at the ends of the cars wouldn’t be usable. Try to do that during rush
hour.
Conclusion: Like all of those driverless “mini metros” Skytrain is just
yet another ridiculous and hideously expensive gadget that’s unable
to cope with anything that deserves the designation “passenger volume”
in an agglomeration of 2.3 mio inhabitants.
Sincerely,
Jun 14, 2013
Zweisystem: “WHAT IS THE POINT OF DRIVERLESS RAIL CARS ?”
Good question. >;->
Back in the 60s and 70s of the last century, they had this idea to
reduce transit cost by replacing drivers with automation.
The operators and municipalities over here didn’t care for construction
cost for the required grade-free infrastructure (i.e. tunnels) because
these were highly subsidized (by 90%) by the federal and state
governments. Just like what you wrote about the case of the people
mover at Detroit.
Unfortunately for the taxpayers and farepayers, they didn’t
consider operating and maintenance cost of that infrastructure.
RATP (Paris) once admitted that their driverless subway line 14
(meteor) doesn’t require a single person less staff to operate than a
conventional subway line with manual operation. And I even doubt
whether they count in the maintenance staff for the platform screen
doors. Because I happen to have worked once for a company that did such
maintenance and it was a money-printing business for them.
Another operator once admitted that the electricity bill alone for all
those escalators and lifts, for lighting and ventilation of those tunnel
stations is higher than the electricity bill for the subway trains. The
same applies for maintenance of all that equipment. It’s a hopeless
money-sink, as numerous operators of “heavy rail”-style “light rail”
systems with tunnels and grade-free infrastructure over here now start
to figure out.
And now, quite a lot of that expensive equipment in those tunnels and
stations that was once paid with federal and state subsidies has
reached the end of its lifespan and needs to get replaced, while after
~40 years in operation, even the tunnel structure needs expensive
repairs in some places and at the same time, municipalities and
operators are broke.
Like in Lausanne (Switzerland), where they built a driverless
rubber-tyred mini-metro using “trains” consisting of single married
pairs of 24m*2.4m, based on the claim that streetcars/LRVs couldn’t
climb the 11.5% grade – which is nonsense as lots of examples cited on
this list have shown or are still showing. And then they had to install
electric heating of the rolling surfaces with a power of several kW per
m, over several km. At temperatures below 0°C, they’re wasting more
electricity for heating the guideway than for traction power.
BTW: That maglev gadgetbahn called Transrapid also would have required
electric heating of the guideway for operation below <0°C.
Zweisystem: “Detroit reports the same for their Sky-Train but they do not have rail to compare with. Sky Train costs more than buses.”
Which in turn cost more than streetcars or light rail.
Zweisystem: “Vancouver claims Sky Train costs no more than C-Train in Calgary but C-Train has operated well and cost far less to construct. Vancouver has very high ridership with no freeways allowed in the city so is a special case.”
A light-rail system running at grade would have at least as much
ridership. Already since for the same money, you could build a vastly
more extensive network.
Sincerely,
For Mr. B – Dealing With The Facts
Again, a SkyTrain supporter casts doubt on veracity of statements contained in posts.
So, to clarify any doubt, the following comes from a December 1983, article,The Direction of TTC Planning For the 1980’s by Phillip Webb, which appeared in Modern Tramways.
This interesting item certainly raised my attention.
For further clarification, ICTS was renamed ALRT for the sale to Vancouver and the proprietary cars still operate on the Expo and Millennium Lines, on the SkyTrain light-metro system.
Read and learn.
This little gem appears at the end of the article.
And remember a modern tram has two to three times the capacity of a PCC Car. Do the math!
Thoughts For 2025
If You Build a Better Mousetrap the World Will Beat a Path to Your Door.
TransLink would like the public to think that our transit system is world class and spends a lot of money on ‘spin-doctors’ to convince the taxpayer of this.
Sadly, the centerpiece of TransLink’s transit empire is the now obsolete and unsalable SkyTrain light metro system. Even more sad is that the light metro system has been one of the most studied, new-build transit systems in the world, yet no one has copied Vancouver. No one is beating a path to Vancouver’s door.
Strange that a world class transit system is unsalable as the world did not beat a path to our door.
2025, TransLink needs about $600 million a year more in subsidies to operate the transit system at its current levels and there is great public push-back, in an era of inflated costs for bare necessities of life.
TransLink and many local politcans remain deaf to this and continue promoting the expansion of our dated light-metro system.
Oh, we have a “foamer” from Toronto telling us that light-metro is good and subways are even better, yet he never mentions funding. Embarrassingly, the very same “foamer” disses Seattle’s rapid transit system for being light rail, when it is in reality a light-metro with 90% of its route grade separated, either on viaduct or in a subway, and is signaled to carry a maximum capacity of 18,000 pphpd. This is still more than after the Expo Line re-signalling program, which according to Thales, who is doing the the $1.47 billion re-signalling program, stated the maximum capacity of the Expo Line will be `17,500 pphpd after completion!
TransLink continues to plan for grossly over built light-metro lines on routes that just do not have the ridership to sustain them.
Example, on Monday Dec. 23, at 12:45 PM my wife, waited six minutes at Broadway Station for a Canada Line Train to Bridgeport Station. Now, 6 minute headway’s works out to 10 trains per hour, operating a maximum capacity of about 3,600 pphpd – really on a busy light-metro route?
The Broadway subway, upon completion will have a maximum capacity of only 7,500 pphpd, 5,000 pphpd less than what Toronto streetcars were carrying in the late 1940’s!
There is something radically wrong with our regional transit system, but those in charge just want more money and more money to make things better and the taxpayer is being held hostage.
TransLink is broke, yet no one will deal with this; not the premier, not the Mayor;’s Council on Transit; not anyone and this bodes ill for the future.
What do I see in my crystal ball for 2025.
I see the Expo Line extension to Langley deferred as this now $7 billion project and climbing is just not practical for several reasons, including lack of potential ridership.
The preceding sign is rather dated as the cost for Expo Line extension to Langley is now pegged at $6 billion or $7 billion including the needed Operations and Maintenance Centre #5.
I see planning for future ‘SkyTrain’ lines with great promises (all transit projects make good promises) but no real action will take place.
I see an expansion of B-Line (TransLink and the provincial government will call them BRT, but in fact they will not be) express bus routes.
I see a rationalization of bus services, especially suburban rush hour bus services.
I see higher compensation packages for the ossified TransLink bureaucracy much to the chagrin of the taxpayer.
I see higher fares for the commuter and cheaper fares for others, mostly those who would vote for the NDP.
I see former transit users, once again going back using the “electric” car.
I do not see any fiscal responsibility at TransLink continues to treat the taxpayer as a ‘milch cow.
I do not see any tangible improvement to our regional transit system, except higher subsidies, needing higher taxes, taxes the average person is finding hard to pay.
As politicians, pundits cheer for new projects, including the SFU Gondola, financial realities are going to bite hard and with only a one seat majority in Parliament, the current Eby government will not be so cavalier in spending.
Then there is the next federal election and with the current prime Minister Trudeau held in high odor with the voters a Conservative government is almost assured and the conservatives will halt many of the generous funding programs the Liberals have tried to vote buy for the past parliament.
My big fear is that we could be left with some very expensive, uncompleted projects, which like the previous “FastFerries”, will be were left to rot in full view of the taxpayer.
The built, but never used subway station in Chaleroi Belgium.
It is all about funding and I am afraid the “funding tap” is about to get turned off. TransLink has no plan “B”, in fact it really hasn’t had a viable plan for several years, they just do the same thing over and over again, ever hoping for different results, ever hoping the “government” will once again bail them out.
2025 is going to be an interesting year as TransLink will be living in interesting times.
A SkyTrain Carol – Apologies to Mr. Dickens!
Merry Christmas and it is time for Rail for the Valley’s “A SkyTrain Carol”, which, like a certain Mr. Scrooge, the lessons have not been learned.
We are doing transit all wrong, yet the government continues to blunder along, doing the same thing over and over again ever hoping for different results.
Metro Vancouver has become an island among itself, where real solutions are ignored and the taxpayer is treated as a rube with deep pockets.
The current $16 billion, and climbing, cost of the 21.7 km extension to both the Expo and Millennium Lines will not take a care off the road, yet TransLink plans for more “SkyTrain”.
Vancouver has now become the example of not how to plan and build transit. No one copies us or our exclusive use of light metro.
All, the NDP government has done is pave paradise, putting up parking lots.
Rail for the Valley
The SkyTrain Christmas Carol
STAVE1 (The Ghost of SkyTrain Past)
As TransLink still plans for SkyTrain even though it is almost universally known that it is a very expensive piece of kit and provides far less “transit” and “capacity“, than modern trams costing a fraction to build.
The old cliche, “follow the money” comes to mind.
The Province of Ontario’s former Crown Corporation, the Urban Transportation Development Corporation (UTDC) had a problem, its flagship proprietary mini-metro was a dud and no one wanted it.
For most, this is old news. The Intermediate Capacity Transit System/Advanced Light Rail Transit (ICTS/ALRT) version of this proprietary light metro was not only poorly built, but it was both expensive to operate and expensive to maintain. No one wanted it and of the three built, Vancouver’s and Toronto’s systems (Detroit was the third) were forced upon the operating authority by the provincial government. To fool the locals the name, ICTS, was changed to ALRT.
It Worked!
The name SkyTrain is a local name only and was chosen in a radio contest before the Expo line opened. The name SkyTrain is used by many transit systems, unrelated to our SkyTrain.
Almost forgotten, the Bill Bennett Social Credit Government did a horse trade with the Ontario government for Vancouver’s “rapid transit“, which was originally planned to use light rail a la Calgary and Edmonton. The Bill Bennett government bought the unsalable ICTS (renamed ALRT for the deal) and in return got the services of the then famed “Blue Machine”, to win the next provincial election as the Social Credit Party had a one seat majority in Parliament, in Victoria.
The CBC did a full documentary of this, but then prime Minister Mulrroney got wind of it and ordered the CBC not to air it and in fact had it shredded or “reduced to produce”. The reporter who interviewed me and the late Dez Turner (who was the most informed transit advocate in the 90’s), informed me. It was explosive as there were hints of plain brown manilla envelopes changing hands at the highest levels of provincial and federal governments.
The reporter was soon made redundant and the last time I heard from her, she was unemployed and seeking work down south.
Every extension of the Expo Line was designed to meet with a Social Credit election window, which was about every 3 years until the Van der Zalm saga.
STAVE 2
Lavalin purchased the UTDC, which was basically the ICTS/ALRT light metro system from the Ontario government and went bankrupt trying to build the system in Bangkok, Thailand. The UTDC was returned to the Ontario government, which promptly sold the remains to Bombardier at a fire sale price. SNC amalgamated with the bankrupt Lavalin to become SNC Lavalin and SNC Lavalin retained engineering patents for ICTS/ALRT from Lavalin.
STAVE 3
Bombardier Engineers soon found that ICTS/ALRT was unsalable; Bombardier rebuilt the cars using their universal Innovia light-metro body shell and redesigned the steerable axle trucks to support the longer and heavier Innovia body-shells.
The ICTS/ALRT system was rebranded as Advanced Rapid Transit or ART.
Only four were sold:
Korea, where Bombardier paid success fees to both bureaucrats and politicians to ensure a sale. The fallout from this was lawsuits and criminal investigations with the result of irreparable damage to Canadian Industries trying to do business in Korea with the scandal.
Malaysia, where Bombardier and SNC Lavalin paid success fees to bureaucrats and politicians including the prime minister to ensure the sale of ART for Kuala Lumpur for their second rapid transit system. This scandal started the whole SNC Lavalin and Bombardier bribery scandal, with hints that the Prime minister of Canada was involved.
The third system was built in New York, but in the USA all rapid transit systems being built, using federal funds must be peer reviewed and the JFK airTrain was duly peer reviewed and it failed badly, being far too expensive to build and not well designed. To keep Bombardier from “losing face” internationally with this fiasco, the Canadian Prime Minister authorized the Canadian Overseas Development Bank to fund the system.
China bought one strictly to obtain LIM technology and has never built another. Hint, ICTS/ALRT/ART use attractive LIMs, while Maglevs use repulsive LIMs and there is a technological void between the two.
STAVE 4
The ghost of SkyTrain past still haunts.
Both BC Transit and Metro Vancouver soon found out how expensive the ALRT system was to operate and was supported by a massive subsidy of $157.7 million annually or $302.7 million annually in 2024 coin of the realm. The next Rapid Transit project was the Broadway Lougheed Rapid Transit project and BC Transit and the GVRD did everything to plan for light rail.
The BC Government (NDP) did everything in its power to derail the project, first by hiring an international engineering firm with little interest in light rail (they were pushing for a proprietary personal transit pod sort of thing. I still have the video they sent me!) and finally forced Advanced Rapid Transit (ART) onto BC Transit and Metro Vancouver and in the process creating TransLink to exit BC Transit from the debate and making a one George Puil, Chair of Metro Vancouver, the Chair of TransLink to make sure.
But why the flip flop by the provincial government?
From many conversations with professionals and as well as former NDP types, unsavoury means were involved and money was also spent on UBC and SFU to pave the way for SkyTrain, such as the Bombardier Chair of Regional Transportation Planning.
Then there is the strange case of $1 million dollars found in a duffel bag in Clinton Park, in the late 90’s by an off duty police officer and according to a former VPD senior officer, now retired, the million dollars, was not a ransom for a kidnapping (the first investigation), nor wasn’t drug money, as there was no trace of drugs on the money, and it was assumed to be “spreading around money”, but for what or when they could not tell. Victoria did all it could to bury the story.
The postscript to this story is that the police constable who found the money, was able to keep it after much legal angst.
The now called ART Millennium Line was so expensive, it had to be built in two parts, the present Millennium line and the later Evergreen Line which became the Millennium Line. Thus the original Broadway Lougheed R/T cost about one half to one third the cost of the two completed SkyTrain lines.
STAVE 5
From 2005 to 2018 there was absolutely no interest in SkyTrain light metro and the ART system was folded into the Innovia family of transit with the LIM’s being a FREE add on and still no interest and finally, the Innovia line of light metros was folded into the Movia metro line.
Now we come to the strange case of Surrey’s flip flop from light rail to SkyTrain (now marketed as Movia Automatic Light Metro) and the former Surrey mayor’s exaggerations of the truth about building with SkyTrain, like it was going to cost only $1.63 billion and no one challenged him and the NDP government did everything they could to make this happen.
Today the cost for the 16 km Langley extension, including the Operations and Maintenance Centre #5 is now past $7 billion, with the cost further inching up with inflation.
Why did former premier, the late John Horgan agree to this? Could it be that both Bombardier and SNC Lavalin are still heavily invested with the current prime minister and that a promise of a nice job of being ambassador to Germany if Premier ordered TransLink to build what is now called MALM to Langley, to save jobs in Ontario and Quebec?
STAVE 6 (Ghost of SkyTrain Present)
Today, Alstom owns the MALM system when they acquired Bombardier’s Rail Division and all technical patents, but SNC lavalin still owns Engineering patents for the proprietary railway. Alstom is not actively marketing the system and by all appearances will phase out production altogether when the last paid for cars are completed for Vancouver.Vancouver is now the only customer.
The taxpayer has now estimated to have spent over $20 billion more for continued SkyTrain planning and construction, than if we built it with light rail as originally intended in the late 70’s.
Stave 7 (Ghost of SkyTrain Future and the end of it all)
The Broadway Subway will haunt taxpayers for years to come as the cost for this 5.7 km extension is now reaching past $4 billion and to complete it to UBC an additional $8 billion.
TransLink is now promising SkyTrain here, there and everywhere continuing the expansion of the light metro network, yet it has zero funding and much of the planning is mostly ghostly images on YouTube, promising nothing more than “sparkle ponies and fairy dust”.
If Alstom ceases production of LIM compatible vehicles means new cars must be designed and built by other manufacturers, further driving up the cost of the proprietary railway. Small orders will be cost prohibitive, yet the government still labours on pretending that SkyTrain is a world class transit system.
The only world class transit system no one wants to buy!
The poor Taxpayers because they have been totally Scrooged!
Rail for the Valley wishes all a merry Christmas and a happy New Year because 2025 will be ………… well let us not ruin the current festive spirit.
The SkyTrain Follies Continue – SkyTrain Everywhere!
This YouTube post has been creating a lot of local chatter, until I started fact checking, then the posts disappear. Strange that.
The SkyTrain Lobby hates “reality checks”.
Here is one of the many issue that the SkyTrain Lobby ignores, the province can afford only one light-metro line a decade.
Example:
1980’s – the Expo Line, built is 4 sections until the early 90’s.
1990’s – the Millennium Line – formerly the Broadway Lougheed Rapid Transit Project (formerly LRT).
2000’s – the Evergreen Line (the uncompleted portion of the Broadway Lougheed R/T Project.
2010’s – the Canada Line.
2020’s – the Broadway subway (now costing $4 billion).
2030’s – the Surrey/Langley extension – including the Operation & Maintenance Centre #5 – $7 billion (aprox. $3 billion short of funding).
2040’s – Broadway subway to UBC? (Cost in 2024 dollars, now $8 billion).
Both the Expo and Millennium Line’s extension costs have risen significantly and now are surpassing $16 billion. The Broadway subway to UBC is now pegged at $8 billion and that is in 2024 dollars!
Then there is the issue of the vehicle availability as the Expo and millennium Lines operate the now called proprietary Movia Automatic Light metro system now owned by Alstom and Alstom is the sole supplier of the trains operated.
Alstom has strongly hinted that they will cease production once the Vancouver fleet renewal order is finished as Vancouver is the only customer.
Alstom inherited MALM when they purchased Bombardier’s rail division and MALM, being a proprietary railway, with an extremely poor record of sales, with only seven systems built in almost fifty years, is seen a superfluous, especially since it conflicts with Alstom’s in-house products.
Yes, other companies can produce MALM compatible cars, but at a cost, as the new cars would have to designed and safety cased the new trains before they could offer the product.
As we do not know the transit vehicle market will be like 20 years from now, there is a possibility no company would produce cars for such a small market, leaving the cars being custom built, further adding to the costs.
As for the bridges mentioned, according to my sources, were not designed for SkyTrain extensions, rather for “rapid transit” which includes bus rapid transit or BRT.
The author of the post also mistook run-a-way tracks as proof of further extensions. Run-a-way track, several train lengths long, past the station are common on R/T projects and deal with trains with braking problems or a signal failure, prevents the train jackknifing onto the station platform, when it hits the buffer.
The preceding photo is not from a movie set, but the 2014 Chicago metro accident where a derailed train climbed the escalator at a station!
SkytTrain construction in Metro Vancouver is strictly done for politcal reasons and not practical reasons and those who want more SkyTrain, do not fully understand the financial and operational implications of continued building with a proprietary light metro system and that includes the provincial premier; Metro Vancouver; TransLink and the Mayor’s Council on Transit.
The real question that is never asked is simply; “What is the real costs and where will the funding for new SkyTrain extensions come from?”
The Transit Deficit Begins To Bite
Thursday night’s massive traffic accident on Highway 99 was to be expected, as it could not be otherwise.
Zwei drives this route twice a week for my cardio-rehab in White Rock and my eyes have been opened wide at the utterly poor driving habits by both car and commercial drivers.
Just on Wednesday, I witnesses no fewer than four commercial drivers, driving their ‘rigs’ at high speed, weaving in and out of traffic, rat racing to the boarder.
The posted speed is 100 kph and I was going 110 kph, keeping up with the traffic flow, yet these trucks were passing us at 120 kph plus!
Regular car drivers are no slouches either, regularity passing me at speeds I estimate at 130 kph or more!
What is very noticeable is the lack of public transit on the route, with very few buses connecting to White Rock from South Delta (Tsawwassen Ferry), Richmond and South Vancouver.
The current NDP government is hell bent increasing highway capacity with more traffic lanes and even new mini-highways as they firmly believe “rubber on asphalt” traffic solutions win elections and to hell with transit and public safety.
Currently the government is spending over $16 billion to extend the obsolete SkyTrain light metro system to Langley and to Arbutus in Vancouver, a mere 21.7 km, which with around $4 billion in funding yet to be sourced which means there is little or no money available to improve regional bus services.
With TransLink hidebound with “flavour of the month” transit projects and a complete disdain for a user-friendly transit service, the car remains the only real transportation alternative. Sadly, government at all levels do not care about the carnage on our public highways and continue doing the same thing over and over again ever hoping for different results. Sadly more accidents and deaths on our roads and highways will only increase
And do not get me started on the commercial trucking industry and the free pass they have been given by both the provincial and federal governments, with many drivers firmly believe they can break any law they wish, including the law of gravity!
2 critical after 9-vehicle crash on HWY 99 in Surrey; highway remains closed
By Emma Crawford and Charlie Carey
Posted December 12, 2024 5:58 pm.
Last Updated December 13, 2024 7:13 am.
Highway 99 is closed in both directions due to a multi-vehicle accident that happened on Thursday evening just south of the Highway 91 overpass.
Surrey Police Service (SPS) Insp. Finch tells 1130 NewsRadio on Friday morning that the accident involved nine vehicles, including a semi-truck and trailer.
Public Information Officer Ian MacDonald adds that six people were injured during the crash, two of who are in critical condition.
“It needs to be investigated, and regrettably, the location is one that normally is a regular commuter route. So, apologies for the inconvenience, but obviously this is a serious incident that has to be investigated,” MacDonald said Friday.
The closure runs southbound from the Highway 91 interchange and northbound from King George Boulevard.
According to the SPS, the northbound lanes will be the first to reopen, with southbound lanes reopening later in the day due to the nature of the crash.
“The balance that has to be maintained is to be able to gather evidence and not necessarily move all the vehicles around. I know that some of the vehicles have been moved out of the way, and certainly, we will endeavor to continue to do that,” MacDonald explained.
“But ultimately, our task is twofold. The primary task is to gather evidence and see what happened and determine if anything happened from a criminal nature, and then secondarily, obviously, is to remove anything that might be impeding traffic so we can reopen the roadway,” he added.
The BC Emergency Health Services (BCEHS) told 1130 NewsRadio on Thursday evening that it was called to the scene around 5:30 p.m.
“Four ambulances with primary care paramedics, three ambulances with advanced care paramedics, an air ambulance helicopter with critical care paramedics, and a supervisor responded to the scene,” EHS said.
“Paramedics provide emergency medical treatment to seven patients. Five patients were transported to hospital, three in stable condition and two in critical condition.”
REM’s Escalating Costs
The following is a translation from the Quebec Newspaper La Presse which seems to to do far more investigative reporting on transit than our local fish-wrap.
What is important to remember the Caisse du Depot is also a concessionaire with the Canada Lin e P-3, which I have now been told that the SNC Lavalin/Caisse concession operating the Canada Line now receives in excess of $150 million annually to operate the line.
It is safe to say that the Caisse learned well and used the Canada Line P-3 as a model to suck billions of dollars from the Quebec and Canadian taxpayer with an overbuilt light metro system, which by all accounts, is not operating to the expectations of the consumer.
The estimated non advertised cost, as stated in the Addendum, of $20 billion, for the 17 km line does not surprise as the cost for the 21.7 KM extensions of the Expo and Millennium Lines is now passing $16 billion (not including cars and more) and climbing.
(Quebec) Construction costs for the Réseau express métropolitain (REM) will rise to 9.4 billion, or 2.4 billion more than the bill of 7 billion expected in 2018.
Fanny Lévesque Fanny Lévesque La Presse
This new data comes from an update of the accounting analysis of the financial package published in 2018 carried out by the General Auditor (VG). Guylaine Leclerc. “It emerges in particular from this update that the construction costs of the REM have increased compared to the estimate established by the Caisse des Dépôts at the time of our audit, in 2018,” she explains. According to his analysis, the sums required to carry out the large-scale project increased from 7 to 9.4 billion between 2018 and 2024.
This estimate includes the costs paid so far and what is required until commissioning complete REM by 2027. We talks in particular about the costs linked to contracts concluded with consortia and the costs linked to the acquisition of land. Guylaine Leclerc also adds that “these costs could increase at the end of the contractual processes” and other methods of settlement aimed at “the determination and final distribution of costs” of the project – the largest public transport project undertaken in Quebec since 50, she writes. This assessment contrasts with that made public by CDPQ Infra in September 2023 when it was stated that the REM would ultimately cost nearly 8 billion.
In November, this cost was revised to 8.34 billion. This is because CDPQ Infra uses net construction costs to finance. This amount takes into account deductions from income and certain contributions obtained during the construction period. According to CDPQ Infra, such a presentation allows it to demonstrate, during public financial updates, that it assumes any increase in costs since it discloses the evolution of its investment in the project, while confirming that the investment of the government remains unchanged. The Auditor General, Guylaine Leclerc, in her report CDPQ Infra, for its part, indicates that accounting for net project costs allows it “to obtain a fair and precise image of the investment amounts necessary to finance the project”.
This way of doing things, based on net costs, is common in the financing and construction of large-scale infrastructure. CDPQ Infra “Moreover, during the update of the REM project, presented last week, CDPQ Infra presented all the costs, including transitional income (goodwill and land capture income) deducted from the gross costs of the project », we specify. More transparency At a press conference, the VG explains that presenting the net construction costs to be financed is especially “relevant” when speaking to your banker. But, she believes that for the sake of transparency, CDPQ Infra could also present the whole picture.
“It’s their choice to present it that way. […] But for us, by making such an update, it is important to present the full costs and the different types of costs,” argued Ms. Leclerc. In its report, it also recommends that the Caisse des Dépôts and its subsidiary CDPQ Infra carry out a new presentation of construction costs following the commissioning of the REM. CDPQ Infra has already committed “to carrying out a complete financial update of the REM project when the entire network is open to users”, specifies the organization. In its evaluation, the VG also emphasizes that during its operation, the contribution of the Government of Quebec will represent more than half of the ridership revenue that the REM will receive.
Furthermore, according to CDPQ Infra forecasts, the Quebec government “would begin to obtain a return on its share capital investment in approximately 25 years.” She also notes that the government’s equity investments have not changed since 2018. In September 2023, CDPQ Infra affirmed that the pandemic, the war in Ukraine and the discovery of century-old explosives in the Mont-Royal tunnel explained the increase in construction costs.
These three factors alone represent 800 million due to the significant impacts on supply chains and labor availability. The AG listed the same factors to explain the increase in costs. A recent estimate of the project was around 7 billion, but in 2018, at the time of the first bidders, the estimated cost was 6.3 billion. In 2017, the cost was set at around 5.9 billion. But when the REM was launched in 2016, the bill was 5.5 billion.
With Henri Ouellette-Vézina, La Presse
Addendum:
The following is from a local transit advocate, who has worked closely on the REM affair and gives some interesting detail on additional costs! Translated using Google translate.
The costs continue to climb. Considering that the REM used the rights of way of several existing commuter rail and future VIA systems and the highway right of way on the south shore as well as the Mount-Royal tunnel, it was as costly per kilometer as would have been the REM de l’Est, which would have been too much to bear for the Government of the CAQ before it was killed.
Count also the cost of the Commuter lines to the East and the Two Mountains trains which were earning a profit and were about to be upgraded with new double-decker wagons and new locomotives which were purchased and sold at a loss. Add also the cost of the loss of the useful freight service on the Doney Spur line parallel to the #420 superhighway and the cannibalization of the riders on the Hudson-Vaudreuil line rendered less profitable but as necessary as ever.
All these costs were calculated during the public hearings by the BAPE, and denied by the Caisse. The conservative capital costs were stated to be 12 billion by the experts of Trainsparence, Luc Gagnon and Jean François Lefebvre, and up to 20 billion if all the other costs paid by the province and the region not paid for to allow the Caisse’s work to be done. The operating costs calculated by Réjean Benoit raised the overall lifetime costs to another stratospheric level.
The Liberals and the Caisse should have been horsewhipped…..
The Caisse should be removed from all of the future rail projects that they are starting to wedge themselves into owning and running and the existing REM should be taken over by the province if only so that its future costs will be open to public scrutiny instead of hidden from view according to their commercial contract which disallows all examination and truth.
Feedback? When Has TransLink Ever Listened To Public Feedback?
Feedback?
This is TransLink’s spin doctor CEO Kevin Quinn’s attempt to pretend that TransLink listens to the public. A perfect word salad of drivel.
Ha! Ha!
Remember Kevin Quinn, you know the guy they were glad to see the back of in Baltimore …….
“you are about to get a new CEO of Translink in the person of Kevin Quinn. this is a good news/bad news situation. Good news is we are rid of him, bad news you are getting him. Mr Quinn may be the nicest yes man you will ever meet. he is very personable and friendly but have yet to actually see him in 6yrs have an opinion of his own. and if he has any use for light rail he has kept it well hidden. Hopefully you will have better luck than Baltimore, ridership is off (before pandemic) 2% year over year since he took over. good luck“
The Surrey Langley SkyTrain project is culmination of myopic planning; politcal corruption; and a complete squandering of the public’s money on a 16 km extension, using an obsolete proprietary light metro system and is unsalable elsewhere.
The cost of the original light rail project has risen from $1.6 billion to more than $6 billion light-metro project ($7 billion if one includes the OMC#5) for a route that according to TransLink, will carry fewer customers than the Broadway B-Line bus!
Oh, TransLink ignores the fact that proprietary light metro operates poorly, if at all in the snow and past Surrey, it snows a great deal more than in Western Metro Vancouver.
This extension’s cost is so bloated that it will be built as cheaply as possible and public inputs an entertaining side show, worthy of the great Barnum himself! What we see is classic”spin doctoring” to sell to a lazy, if not gullible media, on a slow news day.
No mention of a $2 billion funding shortfall either! One would think that was newsworthy.
Oh by the way, more bad news on costs are coming soon, when Mr. Trumps tariffs kick in and Canada retaliates.
Surrey-Langley SkyTrain project takes public feedback at open house
By Angela Bower
Posted December 1, 2024
The planners behind the Surrey-Langley SkyTrain (SLS) project held an open house Saturday to get public feedback on the design of the new $6 billion expansion.
Gilles Assier, the project’s executive project director, says the expansion is a noteworthy undertaking.
“This is a very important project,” he said. ” It’s the first expansion in the last 30 years south of the Fraser.”
The line will have eight stations spanning the distance between Surrey’s King George Station and Langley’s Willowbrook Mall, with stops in Guildford, Fleetwood, and Clayton Heights.
Each station will have its own look.
Open Gallery4 items
“There was a desire to make each station slightly unique to reflect their neighbourhood,” Assier said.
The final stop will be at 203rd Street in Langley. The current travel time to this station via bus from King George Station in Surrey is just over 50 minutes. The new SkyTrain line is expected to cut travel time to just 22 minutes.
Heading into downtown Vancouver from Langley will take just over an hour.
CityNews spoke to some residents who are excited about having a new alternative to driving.
“If I want to hop on the SkyTrain down the road, I’ll be able to go downtown and not worry about traffic,” one attendee said. “That’s a plus.”
Others are excited about the economic growth encouraged by the new line.
“I think a lot of businesses will be opening because of the density and population,” another attendee said. “And those businesses need people to work.”
Assier agrees.
“We know the population is growing in the region,” he said. “We expect by 2050 to have up to 400,000 people living in Surrey and Langley,” he said.
But one attendee says the SkyTrain isn’t the ideal mode of rapid transit, claiming that light rail is easier to access while also noting the SkyTrain’s concrete pillars aren’t nice to look at.
“I don’t see it as a true friendly infrastructure; it’s not great for pedestrians,” the attendee said.
“It’s more of a car-friendly infrastructure versus LRT, which would be much better for our neighbourhood. I hope in the future, we see LRT because there is space for it on Fraser Highway.”
Residents who live near the new SLS line are encouraged to check the project’s website for any construction updates to avoid traffic disappointment.
“This is a very big project and we can expect a lot of congestion,” Assier said.
The project is expected to be completed by the end of 2029.
Are Hydrogen Powered Trains A Decade Too Soon?
For all the talk of hydrogen powered trains, very few are actually in operation. Oh, they open with great hype and hoopla, but then silence.
Rail for the Valley preferred to stick with current technology as we have seen with the “SkyTrain” example, proprietary products tend to be both very expensive and tend to age out quickly.
“Stick to what is available on shelf” and let those with more experience experiment with hydrogen trains, has been RftV’s clarion call and it seems this was the correct path.
RftV is not anti hydrogen rail, rather we only want to deal with proven technology to get the costs down and not burden future operations with unnecessary costs with opening a 130 km Marpole to Chilliwack regional railway, using modern DMU’s.
Hydrogen Trains Continue To Derail
Recently I collaborated with David Cebon, head of the Cambridge Centre for Sustainable Road Freight, and interested parties on a complete list of all of the abandoned hydrogen bus trials globally. There are a couple of dozen of them, and I’m pretty sure there are more transit agencies that have tried and abandoned hydrogen buses than are currently trying to run them. Of course, there are even more transit agencies that dodged the bullet entirely just by looking at the history of failures and realistic cost workups themselves.
But what about rail? Maybe hydrogen actually has a niche there? Well, chancers keep trying it on, but to typical hydrogen results. Rail sets keep leaving the tracks.
It’s worth starting with the wisest rail organization, or at least the one that publicly patted itself on the back for being smart, Baden-Württemberg. That province of Germany actually used spreadsheets with real numbers in them before buying anything to assess the total cost of ownership and found that hydrogen trains would cost about 80% more over their lifetime than battery-electric and overhead wire powered trains. It said no thanks, of course.
The same can’t be said for its sibling state of Lower Saxony. The rail operator LNVG made the announcement that after running a relatively small number of small passenger regional trains for a few years, and abiding by its contract to buy more last year, it will no longer consider hydrogen trains for anything else. They’re just too expensive to operate, compared to trains with overhead line connections and batteries to bridge the tough spots.
Of course, Lower Saxony is also home to rail operator EVB with their hydrogen trains, which were put onto sidings and replaced with diesel trains in September of 2024 for lack of hydrogen as supplier Linde had a small deflagration incident — that’s industry speak for a hydrogen tube truck blew up — at their hydrogen facility that resulted in sufficient damage that hydrogen was in short supply even for actually sensible use cases in Europe. EVB’s pride of being the first hydrogen train in Europe is likely a little bruised by this.
Not to be outdone, or underdone, or something, the German state of Hesse decided to buy hydrogen trains and received some in 2023. Rhein-Main-Verkehrsverbund (RMV) operates the trains, and has had nothing but trouble. Basically, the trains are just unreliable, mirroring the reality of hydrogen fleets globally, where their inherent fragility and complexity just aren’t being fixed. They finally said enough, train supplier Alstom recalled all the trains to try to fix them — not going to happen — and RMV has leased a bunch of diesel trains to fill the gap in schedules.
Of course, they could have just asked their rail provider, Alstom. A European sales executive from the company is on record saying no one would buy their hydrogen trains because they are maintenance nightmares unless the tender was written in such a way as to exclude anything but hydrogen trains. Instead of learning from their own experience, the Lower Saxony experience and the basic math done by Baden-Württemberg, Hesse is still apparently committed to the dead end of hydrogen.
Closing out German failures with hydrogen — what are they putting in the wasser over there? — is the state of Bavaria. It entered into a 30 month agreement with Alstom for a trial of one of their hydrogen trains on a tiny rail line. With luck they’ll dodge the bullet because the contract for the trial is over in September of 2025, and the train isn’t on the tracks yet. However, they’ll still have wasted millions on hydrogen refueling and repair infrastructure.
As for what is in the wasser in Germany, well, it’s hydrogen infused, like scam brands HTWO and Hfactor, both of which claim miraculous health benefits from bottled or canned water with extra gas. Clearly it has hallucinogenic effects on rail operators because the number of hydrogen rail trials in Germany is the highest in the world. More seriously, the country is the leading proponent of hydrogen for energy in Europe, pushing hard for molecules instead of electrons as energy carriers because so many of its companies depend on molecule-for-energy value chains and are resisting transition heavily. It also explains why German truck manufacturer Daimler is seriously trialing liquid hydrogen refueling stations and trucks, an idea whose complete lack of thermodynamic and economic sense is compounded by the massive safety hazard it represents.
But these firms have a lousy excuse, which is that the government for 25 years has been pushing hydrogen hard, long past the point when rational actors realized it had been outcompeted by direct and battery electrification and heat pumps. Some of this is due to former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder’s close ties to Russia, his in-office and ongoing efforts to keep Germany addicted to Russian gas, and his unsurprising appointment to a million euro a year Board role on Russia’s Gazprom subsidiary Nord Stream AG. That’s led to Germany’s Potsdam Institute for Climate Impacts (PIK) embedding artificially low — incredibly low — prices for hydrogen in its LIMES-EU and REMIND models and being unable to spot how ludicrous the results were just by glancing at them.
So German rail operators have an excuse, no matter how feeble, for buying hydrogen trains, and French rail giant Alstom has the excuse that the customer is always right, even though they clearly feel comfortable telling clients that they aren’t even as they pocket the hundreds of millions for bad technology. That’s likely going to bite them. RMV has been quite vocal about their dissatisfaction, something that’s going to impact transportation manufacturers that get sucked into hydrogen around the world.
The poster child for this right now is Quantron, the German provider of both inferior battery electric trucks and unreliable and more expensive hydrogen trucks. It sold Ikea in Austria, next door to Germany, its short range, expensive battery electric trucks, and then when they couldn’t go distances that were required for some deliveries, sold them expensive hydrogen trucks. Then it went bankrupt because it was wasting lots of money on hydrogen trucks instead of selling reliable, effective, reasonable range electric trucks. After all, when Mercedes is selling a battery electric truck with 150 km more range for €20,000 less than Quantron, and Quantron’s answer is hydrogen, you just know which company is going to survive. Hydrogen can seem appealing to manufacturers, but it’s a strategic trap.
That all said, it’s not like Germany is alone in this rolling stock folly. There are other places that for reasons without basis in economic, technical or service reality have decided that they have millions to throw away on hydrogen trains.
Foshan in China is worth a mention. That city decided to be a contrarian in the country, and while every other city went battery and grid tied electric with rail and buses, Foshan boldly introduced an industrial strategy based around fuel cells and hydrogen. As a result, it has more hydrogen buses on its roads than any other country in the world. Of course, even there battery electric buses outnumber the hydrogen ones. But it’s also home to a rusting set of tracks that once saw a hydrogen tram providing inferior service daily. That tram is now rusting somewhere, and if the tracks haven’t already been dug up and turned into consumer goods, it’s likely to happen any day now.
Hyundai Rotem has secured a contract to supply 34 hydrogen fuel cell trams to the city of Daejeon, South Korea. The agreement, valued at approximately $201 million, was signed in July 2023. The trams are scheduled for delivery between the first half of 2026 and mid-2028. That’s going to end badly, but South Korea is drinking that hydrogen fortified water as well, with equal impacts on rational thought and the ability to use spreadsheets.
In March 2021, 4 French regions—Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes, Bourgogne-Franche-Comté, Grand Est and Occitanie—ordered dual-mode train sets powered by electricity and hydrogen from Alstom again. The total cost for the project is €231 million. They are supposed to start service in 2025. Only Grand Est shares a border with Germany, so the intellectual contagion isn’t due solely to German influences. However, once again these regions are ignoring their rail provider and results from neighboring Germany. It’s going to end predictably. That said, hydrogen is the Champagne of transportation fuels and the French do like their wine. Perhaps they’ll persist long past any reasonable timeframe just out of Gallic contrariness.
Since 2021, North American Class 1 railroad CPKC — the merger of Canadian Pacific and Kansas City Southern railroads —has been conducting service trials with hydrogen-powered locomotives, powered by Ballard’s fuel cell modules. As of September 2024, these locomotives have completed over 3,540 km in mainline tests, which is both a nothing burger in terms of distances and likely means that the fuel cells are about to die of old age. North America is unique globally in claiming that electricity couldn’t possibly power trains, ignoring that every other continent in the world is quietly doing exactly that.
Class 1 railroad CSX decided that it will not stand that CPKC is alone in wasting money pretending that hydrogen is fit for purpose for rail, and introduced its own hydrogen fueled locomotive, again with Ballard’s money losing products providing the electricity. More trials, no operations.
After a good run ignoring hydrogen and focusing on direct and battery electrification, India is about to launch its own hydrogen passenger train. It’s unclear why given that India will have achieved 100% heavy rail electrification this year, and this isn’t a twee tourist train like others targeted for the molecule under India’s Hydrogen for Heritage rail program that aims to modernize and decarbonize historic and iconic routes like the Darjeeling Himalayan Railway, the Nilgiri Mountain Railway, and the Kalka-Shimla Railway. Putting overhead wires on those incredibly scenic routes apparently wasn’t on, but they’d be an improvement over the diesel engines operating there today. Once again, not paying attention to spreadsheets or experiences.
The Italian government has allocated €300 million to replace aging diesel trains with hydrogen-powered alternatives across select routes. These trains will operate on non-electrified lines, particularly in regions where full electrification is not considered feasible. Apparently Italian rail operators aren’t paying attention to battery energy density and cost curves, as well as hydrogen train trials. Alstom again but including Stadler this time are going to be supplying the trains that will end up rusting on sidings, replaced by reliable battery electric trains and some more overhead wires. They aren’t even getting stylish Italian trains, so no one is going to be happy.
In August 2023, Sarawak Metro introduced a prototype hydrogen-powered Autonomous Rapid Transit (ART) vehicle in Kuching, Malaysia. Developed by CRRC Zhuzhou Institute, this three-car, trackless tram is designed to operate on dedicated lanes, offering a sustainable public transportation solution. It’s supposed to be the backbone of the transit system, but if so, the transit system will need a wheelchair. Chinese firms, like Alstom, Stadler, New Flyer and many more, are happy to sell customers bad products for more money if the customers insist. The odds of the customers getting good warranties and service are low.
Finally we have the sole Canadian trial, a tourist train that ran back and forth on a 90 kilometer route in Quebec for three months in 2023. I put that down to the failed Quebec firm Bombardier, whose rail operation was swallowed by Alstom when Bombardier’s insistence on taking existential risks under the assumption that the Quebec and national government would always bail them out resulted in the predictable collapse of the firm. I suspect the train will never return to service and the route will be quietly electrified with batteries or overhead wires.
You’ll note that organizations that have already tried hydrogen trains have had the very predictable failures, with several German states saying never again, and one managing to avoid sniffing the bubbles effervescing off of the bottled wasser entirely. I’m sure that there are many more rail operators who have quietly created the not-all-that-complicated spreadsheets populated with real numbers for hydrogen and equally quietly just ignored the entire thing. But if you happen to know of more hydrogen failures or failures in the making where rails were involved, please let me know.
A Bad News Situation
Kevin Quinn, the American spin doctor, hired by TransLink (a.k.a the provincial government) to bamboozle the taxpayer to agree to anti up more money for the regional transit system is again taken to the media pleading poverty to the provincial government, in order to secure more funding.
He is now blaming the “electric car” for the shortfall. Well, yes there is some fiscal impact of electric cars but he doesn’t mention the free transit for under 12 year olds or the 130,000 or so, dollar a day, unlimited travel U-Pass for post secondary students.
Quinn also forgets to mention the $16 billion, 21.7 expansion for the Expo and Millennium Lines, which operates an obsolete light metro system, the Innovia 300/MALM proprietary railway. Further, he fails to mention that both extensions will operate on routes with insufficient ridership, which will greatly increase operating subsidies.
Fact is, Quinn doesn’t mention how much the Transit system is subsidized, especially the light-metro system. We do know that in 1992, just the Expo Line to New Westminster, was subsidized at over $157 million annually ($301 million in today’s coin!), more than the entire diesel and electric bus operations.
Quinn also ignores any sort of reforms to the regional transit system to make it more user friendly.
Sadly, Mr. Quinn treats the public like a one Mr. Trump treats the public, as rubes.
Back in 2021 I emailed the Engineering Dept. for the MTA to get a quick bio of Kevin Quinn and what i got back was hardly reassuring.
…………………………. you are about to get a new CEO of Translink in the person of Kevin Quinn. this is a good news/bad news situation. Good news is we are rid of him, bad news you are getting him. Mr Quinn may be the nicest yes man you will ever meet. he is very personable and friendly but have yet to actually see him in 6yrs have an opinion of his own. and if he has any use for light rail he has kept it well hidden. Hopefully you will have better luck than Baltimore, ridership is off (before pandemic) 2% year over year since he took over. good luck
The following photo is rather dated as the cost for the Surrey extension to Langley is now around $7 billion, including OMC#5! A billion here, a billion there, means absolutely nothing for TransLink and the provincial NDP!
And just think, Rail for the Valley’s Leewood Study, could see a Marpole to Chilliwack regional railway with three trains per hour per direction for around $2 billion and attract far more new ridership than the Expo Line extension to Langley.
TransLink facing massive funding shortfall, says CEO
By Kier Junos
City News
Posted November 23, 2024
Last Updated November 23, 2024 4:45 pm.
Speaking at an annual address at the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade Friday, the CEO of TransLink said the transit authority is facing a massive funding shortfall.
Kevin Quinn underlined the importance of keeping up with a booming ridership despite being short billions of dollars to do so.
“TransLink is standing at the edge of about a $4.7 billion fiscal cliff,” Quinn said.
“We can’t just say, hey, keep everything going as it is a year from now. Our region is growing, and I can’t convey this enough to this group, and you’re probably seeing it. You’re seeing it on our roads, you’re seeing it everywhere. Our region is growing at an astronomical rate, and we can’t keep up. We have to meet that growth. We have to meet that demand.”
Quinn highlighted a number of challenges keeping the transit operator from getting up to speed.
“Among the reasons, one of the biggest is the regional shift towards electric vehicles, and even more energy-efficient vehicles,” he said.
“I think every single person in this room recognizes that is great for the environment, but on the flip side, it is depleting gas tax revenue that we use to fund our transit system.”
Transit advocate Denis Agar attended Quinn’s address and says TransLink has proposed great expansions to the transit system.
“But at the end of the day, we need to see how is TransLink’s funding deficit going to be addressed,” said Agar, the executive director of Metro Vancouver Transit Riders.
“We need to see that in the next few months.”
In July, TransLink partnered with PCI Developments on a new mixed-use development at a future Vancouver SkyTrain station at Arbutus and Broadway.
Quinn says this sets a precedent for how the company will get the money it needs.
“This is really big because it marks the beginning of a brand new revenue stream for us, one that we have been searching for and advocating for for some time: leveraging TransLink-owned land to generate income that we can invest right back into our system.”
Agar says that would be great — but only if they had the land to work with.
“Using land development to fund transit is time-tested, all around the world. Hong Kong’s service is funded 100 per cent with land development,” he said.
“But someone needs to give TransLink the land to develop, right? They just don’t have a lot at their disposal. Someone needs to give TransLink something. That’s how land development could fund better transit.”
What is more realistic, he says, is the possibility of someone giving TransLink money in the short term.
“[That’s] probably more likely to happen.”
Recent Comments