The Seamless (No Transfer) Journey
From a 2010 post, edited for today.
It has been long known with transit operators that the seamless or no transfer journey is the ‘ticket’ to attract customers to public transit as it is well understood that one could lose upwards of 70% of ridership per transfer, even inter modal. On older tramways and streetcar systems, many lines offered more than one service, providing the all important seamless journey to many destinations. Cities that abandoned there streetcar/tramways in favour of subways, forced many customers to first take a bus to the metro and then for many, transfer again. Many former transit customers found that the car provided the seamless journey and with the added advantage being easier and less time consuming to use.
Though transit officials were aware of the problem of loss of ridership due to transfer, little was done to improve the situation until a very dramatic event happened in 1993, in Karlsruhe Germany. When Karlsruhe’s first two-system (Zweisystem) or tram train line opened, replacing one major transfer point at the City BanhoffAi?? where transit customers normally would transfer from commuter train to tram, ridership surged way beyond expectations! Weekday ridership on TramTrain increased 423% in just a few weeks.
Before LRT
Commuter trainAi??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? After LRTAi??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? % increase
Weekdays – 488,400Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? 2,064,378 Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai??Ai?? 423%
SaturdaysAi?? – 39,000 Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? 263,120 Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai??Ai?? 675%
SundaysAi?? -Ai??Ai?? 6,200Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? 227,47Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? 3,669%
Total Ai?? – 533,600Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? 2,554,976Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? 479%
(Albtal-Verkengesllschaft Karlsruhe & ABB Henchel)
Since Karlsruhe’s dramatic increase in patronage on their tram train system, European planners have put great emphases on the all important seamless (no-transfer) journey and designed new transit lines, not as feeders to subways or regional railways but as stand alone transit lines servicing major destinations, even in competition with other transit modes.
The lesson of Karlsruhe should not be lost on the advocates for the return of the Valley interurban service, who want the new service to terminate at Scott Road SkyTrain Station and compel those who want to go to Vancouver to transfer to SkyTrain. The all important seamless journey from Vancouver to Langley, Abbotsford and Chilliwack may just provide the ticketAi?? to make the new service successful!
Meanwhile, South of the Boarder…………
Seattle is building a subway system, using light rail vehicles. LRT it is not as 70% of the current hybrid rail system is grade separated, either on viaduct or in a subway, with the only at-grade portion traveling through a poorer (black) neighbourhood, and extensions being built to date are almost entirely subways.
The main reasons for building light rail as a metro; Seattle’s very expensive bus/LRT tunnel ($468 million in 1990 dollars) under the city centre and the very vocal and well financed monorail lobby, which made silly promises about the capabilities of monorail. The LRT had to be designed to counter the monorail lobby’s rhetoric and politicians demanded that the LRT use the bus subway, which had streetcar rails already laid. The rails had to be replaced for the new mini-metro.
So bad was the feelings of those supporting LRT, that they quit and ceased to support the current transit planning in the region!
With very generous subsidies from the Federal Government, Seattle’s hybrid mini-metro continues to grow, but oh my the costs.
If built, Seattle would have a subway/metro network extending 100 km from Tacoma to Everett and 60 km. from Redmond to Ballard/West Seattle costing more than $50 billion; that’s $67.5 billion CAD!!
It is clear that Seattle’s transit planners have ignored the European light rail Renaissance and continue to spend massive sums of monies on a 1950’s style transit system, where transit is submerged in tunnels, so cars have free reign of the roads. Unfortunately, history has told us, such planning will come back and haunt the good citizens with ever higher taxes and increased congestion, the same which is happening in Metro Vancouver.
Sound Transit outlines plan for major light rail expansion
SEATTLE ai??i??
New light rail tunnels beneath downtown Seattle could be part of a big ballot measure next year.
On Friday, Sound Transit released details of how Seattle’s single light rail line could expand to be more like a big-city subway system.
“It’s necessary for a growing city like Seattle, so I’m for it,” said Chris Metcalf as he rode Sound Transit’s Link Light Rail.
Sound Transit officials say the agency is considering as many as four one-way tubes beneath Fifth and Sixth Avenues to accommodate new light rail lines.
Sound Transit released a map showing how lines might be split.
One would run between Everett and West Seattle, another between Everett, Downtown Seattle and Redmond.
A third line would expand the current Link, going between Ballard and Tacoma.
“This is beginning to look like and operate like a real metropolitan subway system,” said Ric Ilgenfritz, Sound Transit executive director for planning and project development.
New connecting tunnels could be part of the Sound Transit 3 ballot measure before voters in November 2016.
Sound Transit says the typical adult in urban areas of King, Pierce and Snohomish counties would pay $200 more per year because of higher property and sales taxes and car tag fees.
Next year, Sound Transit’s board will decide whether to ask voters to pay over 15, 20, or 25 years.
“How far out into the future the program goes determines how many projects we can do,” said Ilgenfritz.
The 25-year option would bring in $27 billion in local taxes, plus $21 billion in other revenue, for a total of $48 billion.
The Tunnel machine Bertha’s delays digging the State Route 99 tunnel could make voters hesitant to fund new tunnels.
But Seattle Mayor Ed Murray points out Sound Transit has a much better tunneling track record than the state.
“We can build tunnels in this region on time and on budget,” Murray said.
In late March, Sound Transit will release a draft of which projects make it into the ballot measure.
The list will be finalized in June before the vote in November.
More details on Sound Transitai??i??s analysis of light rail routes can be found at soundtransit3.org
If It Is Not Stock, Don’t buy It!
I found these two adds while I was looking on older Twitter feeds. These two adds are from this year’sAi??UITP Conference in Brussels back in September. The first is a add featuring one of the 220 Flexity LRV’s serving in the host city. The same class of LRV’s that ran in Vancouver in 2010 for the Olympics. Looks pretty nice in a faux cityscape doesn’t it?*The second add is showing the numbers of currentAi??ORDERS for Bombardier Flexity LRV’s and Trams, againAi??THIS ISAi??LRV’S ORDEREDAi??NOT DELEIVEREDAi?? which by the way, is over 2000. It doesn’t even show the 220 + orders for Ontario based LRT Lines.*The add shows a point I have tried toAi??drill into SkyTrain supporters heads untilAi??I have been blue in the face. If you want your rail public transit vehicle design to survive, these are the kind of numbers you have to produce for it to be considered successful. Bombardier’s Innovia ART 200 & 300 numbers don’t even come anywhere close to this!*Cheers
A Letter to the Prime Minister – Transit Issues in Metro Vancouver
Congratulations on your recent electoral success and now a fresh wind sweeps across Canada.
I have been an advocate for better public transit in the Metro Vancouver region for over 30 years. I have seen three major rapid transit projects built during this time and can honestly say all were built for political and/or bureaucratic prestige.
In the late 1970s, instead of the originally planned-for light rail transit (LRT) from downtown Vancouver to Whalley, in Surrey; Lougheed Mall in East Burnaby and Richmond Centre, the then Social Credit provincial government forced the propriety SkyTrain mini-metro system onto the region.
Later that turned out to be a shady deal between the BC government and the Ontario. The owners of the proprietary mini-metro system, the Urban Development Transportation Corporation was an Ontario Crown corporation that had great problems selling its ICTS/ALRT product, which we call SkyTrain. No one wanted it, including the Toronto Transit Commission.
Despite the hype and hoopla about ICTS/ALRT a 1982 TTC study found; “ICTS cost up ten times more to install than light rail, for about the same capacity…….” Yet for the cost of the proposed 1970’s LRT network to Surrey,Richmond and Lougheed Mall, taxpayers received a SkyTrain from downtown Vancouver to new Westminster!
The1982 study showed that, although modern LRT was then still in its infancy, had made ICTS/ALRT SkyTrain obsolete! This fact has been well covered up by both the media and by various governments who spent a lot of editorial and political credibility supporting ICTS/ALRT.
Later the UDTC was sold to Lavalin, which went bankrupt, in part, trying to sell the proprietary mini-metro, now called Advanced Light Metro or ALM, to Bangkok, Thailand. then Bombardier purchased the rights to ICTS/ALRT/ALM at Lavalin’s bankruptcy sale, but the newly-formed SNC Lavalin retained the engineering patents.
The mini-metro was again renamed Advanced Rapid Transit or ART, with Bombardier designing a larger new car, commonly known as the Mk.2.
Back in Vancouver, the shortfalls of the original ALRT/SkyTrain Line had become apparent and great work was done to ensure the next major transit project, the Broadway-Lougheed Transit project would use modern light rail. Alas, that was not to be. Instead, the governing NDP, in a private deal with Bombardier, again forced SkyTrain onto the region in what as now known as the Millennium Line. So expensive was ART/SkyTrain, that the planned route to Port Moody had to be abandoned and the Millennium Line eventually petered out at a station between Glen and Clark Drives in Vancouver.
The nearly-completion Evergreen Line is but the originally abandoned portion of the original Broadway-Lougheed LRT project to Coquitlam.
The BC Liberals, wanting their own vanity transit project, forced through the Canada Line, which uses conventional electrical multiple units, operating either on elevated guideways or in a subway in Vancouver. The cost of building the subway portion greatly escalated from the original cost of the project at $1.3 billion to about $2.4B. To reduce costs the scope of the project was significantly reduced. That was achieved by employing cut-and-cover construction on Cambie St. (with devastating results for local merchants) and by reducing station sizes with platforms lengths that vary between 40 metres to 50 metres, which can only accommodate two-car trains, 41 metres long.
ai??i?? The Canada Line station platforms are half as long as the Expo and Millennium Line stations, effectively giving the $2.4 billion Canada Line half the capacity! Embarrassingly, the Canada line is the only heavy rail metro in the world that was built as a light metro, having less capacity than a simple streetcar line costing a fraction to build! For added insult, the Canada Line, not being ALRT/ART SkyTrain is incompatible in operation with the the Bombardier proprietary mini-metro system.
ai??i?? The above graphic illustrates Ottawa’s LRT line (presently under construction)Ai?? with longer station platforms, will have a greater capacity than our current SkyTrain system. It is worth noting that two modern light rail vehicles (approx. $5 million each) can carry more customers than 5 Mk.2 vehicles (MK.1’s are no longer in production) costing over $3 million each.
To date, only seven ICTS/ALRT/ALM/ART systems have been built. Toronto will be tearing down their life-expired ICTS system in the near future. During the same period that ICTS/ALRT/ALM/ART has been on the market, over 200 new LRT systems have either been built; are nearing completion; or are in advanced stages of planning.
Metro Vancouver’s much troubled TransLink operation wants to build two more transit lines; a Broadway SkyTrain subway to Arbutus and Surrey’s ill-designed LRT. The problem with both projects is that they are being built on routes that do not have the customer flows to justify construction. If built, they will suck-up much needed funding from regions that desperately need improved transit in order to to fund overbuilt vanity projects that satisfy the whims of the mayors in both Vancouver and Surrey.
The Broadway subway is really the unfinished Western portion of the originally-planned for Broadway-Lougheed light rail project. The Arbutus and Broadway terminus and the creation of TransLink was an NDP inducement for then GVRD Chair and Vancouver Councillor George Puil to agree to fund the NDP’s switch from LRT to ART, with the added sweetener that the province would pay two thirds of the cost of SkyTrain only construction west of Commercial Drive.
Today, even with the B-line buses, peak hour traffic flows along Broadway are less than 5,000 persons per hour per direction (pphpd), which is about two thirds less than the bare minimum of 15,000 pphpd that would justify subway construction. You can build a subway, but expect to pay huge subsidies to keep it in operation; subsidies that will erode transit operations elsewhere.
ai??i??
Modern LRT can easily handle such traffic at one half to one third the cost to build and costing about half to operate than the current buses on that route. Modern LRT can handle traffic flows of 15,000 pphpd, the maximum capacity the current ALRT/ART SkyTrain can handle. An unpleasant fact is, a Broadway subway would have potentially less capacity than surface light rail, unless about $3 billion is spent to upgrade the current ALRT/ART system. New electrical and upgraded electrical installations would be required to handle more trains and major station upgrades, like extending platform lengths on the entire system, to accommodate longer trains needed for increased capacity!
The Surrey LRT is just more bad planning.
TransLink has not planned the Surrey LRT as a stand-alone light rail operation, rather, as a poor man’s SkyTrain, feeding the already at capacity Expo Line! Operating on routes that do not have the customer flows to justify LRT construction, it seems chosen for political reasons only.
Two more badly planned and expensive transit projects will only drive up the cost of transit, which already has made the cost per revenue passenger one third higher in metro Vancouver than Edmonton, Calgary and Toronto.
There is another way.
In September 2010, Rail for the Valley released their privately-commissioned study,prepared by Leewood Projects of the UK, which saw that a TramTrain service between Vancouver and Chilliwack, using the existing former BC Electric interurban route was viable and could be built, depending on the amount of money one wished to invest, between $500 million to $1 billion dollars for the 136 km. route.
The Leewood Study.
TramTrain is a variation of LRT which has trams or streetcars, operating on both trams/streetcar tracks and main line railway tracks. First operated in Karlsruhe Germany in 1993, TramTrain has proven very successful and today over 25 TramTrains are operating in Europe and North America and many more are being planned.
Using TramTrain on existing railway tracks greatly reduces costs, while providing quality transit services to areas which otherwise would go without.
TransLink and the provincial government have remained blind deaf and mute to The RftV/Leewood TramTrain and instead want to see a hugely expensive subway built under Broadway, which will not reduce congestion plus an equally expensive LRT in Surrey, which again will do little to reduce congestion.
Why are subways and light rail built?
In the real world, LRT is built on heavily used bus routes because one tram (1 tram driver) is as efficient as up to six buses (6 bus drivers) and because for every bus or tram used, one needs to hire a minimum of three people to manage, maintain and operate them. LRT becomes the better investment over a standard business cycle.
Subways are only built when ridership demands long trains needing large stations accommodating long station platforms, that at-grade would be problematic. The threshold for subway construction are traffic flows in excess of 15,000 persons per hour per direction. In many European cities peak hour ridership on sections of tram routes exceed 25,000 pphpd!
ai??i??
One can build subways on lesser routes, but the huge operating and maintenance costs means monies for other transit operation must be diverted to pay for the subway.
Solutions are needed for today’s transit needs.
- Fund new Faculties of Urban Transport and Transportation, granting degrees at major Canadian Universities. Unlike Europe, Canada does not have a School of Public Transportation and many planning for “rail” transport have little notion of the science or history of public transportation. Vancouver is a very good example of this.
- All major public transit projects that receive public financing must be subjected to scrutiny by a panel of ‘arms-length’ transit peers. In the U.S. all new transit projects that seek federal support are now subjected to scrutiny by a panel of transit peers, selected and monitored by the federal government, to ensure that projects are analyzed honestly, and that taxpayersai??i?? interests are protected. No SkyTrain project has ever passed this scrutiny in the U.S.
- Federal laws pertaining to railway operation must be changed to accommodate regional transit needs. Unlike Europe, where the mainline railways tend to be owned publicly, in Canada, the railway companies must be legislated to accept either regional rail or TramTrain. If Canadian law allows one-man operation of dangerous cargoes like volatile oil, then the law can be changed to accommodate regional transit needs.
- For Metro Vancouver, instead of giving monies to the Broadway Subway Project or the Surrey LRT, money would be better spent in funding the replacement of the decaying Patullo Bridge and the decrepit Fraser River Rail Bridge with a combined road/rail bridge. A high level road bridge and a three track lifting span would give ample capacity for both motorists and freight, passenger and local suburban train service in the region. A combined road/rail bridge across the Fraser River would do more in alleviating congestion in the region than a short subway line in Vancouver and a poor man’s SkyTrain being proposed for Surrey.
It is my hope and wish that transit planning is again done for the benefit of the transit customer and not for political or academic vanity. Metro Vancouver politicians love to boast about Vancouver and its transit system, but no one has copied Vancouver or its use of light metro. Transit planners and politicians come to Vancouver; they see SkyTrain; and they go home and build with light rail!
Sincerely;
The 1986 LRTA Study: Bus ai??i?? LRT ai??i?? Metro Comparison
I thought I would again reprint this post from May 20, 2010 as it may clear up some major misconceptions about LRT capacity, since many in Metro Vancouver are very confused about modern light rail.
There is an ongoing debate today that LRTAi??can only carry a limited number of riders and that the magic number for a subway is about 100,000 riders a day on a transit line. This may have been true in the 1970ai???s, but not the 21st century, where modern multi-articulated low-floor light rail vehicles (tram is much easier to say!) are able to easily carry three or four times this number, thus negating the need for expensive subway construction, except on the most heavily used routes. The LRTA shows that modern LRT can carry over 20,000 pphpd in 1986 and in 2010, in Karlsruhe Germany, one tram or LRT line on Kaisserstrasse was seeing traffic flows over 35,000 pphpd.
Karlsruhe also shows what the threshold is for subway construction in Germany, after many very expensive lessons with subways built on lesser routes.
The 1986 LRTA Study: Bus ai??i?? LRT ai??i?? Metro Comparison
The following is from the Light Rail Transit Associations hand book Light Rail Transit Today, comparing the operating parameters of bus, light rail, and metro on an unimpeded 8 kilometre route with stations every 450 metres. Using real data based on acceleration, deceleration, dwell time, etc., the study gives real time information for the three transit modes.
Please note: This study has been abridged for brevity and clarity.
The study assumes a vehicle capacity for a bus at 90 persons; LRT 240 persons (running in multiple unit doubles capacity); and metro at 1000 persons.
The time to over the 8 km. route would be:
- Bus ai??i?? 22.4 minutes
- LRT ai??i?? 18 .6 minutes
- Metro ai??i?? 16.3 minutes
The Round trip time, including a 5 minute layover:
- Bus ai??i?? 54.8 minutes
- LRT ai??i?? 47.2 minutes
- Metro ai??i?? 42.6 minutes
The comparative frequency of service in relation to passenger flows would be:
At 2,000 persons per hour per direction:
- Bus ai??i?? 2.7 minute headways, with 22 trips.
- LRT ai??i?? 7.5Ai?? minute headways, with 8 trips.
- LRT (2-car) ai??i?? 15 minute headways, with 4 trips.
- Metro ai??i?? 30 minute headways, with 2 trips.
At 6,000 pphpd:
- 1 Bus ai??i?? 0.9 minute headways, with 67 trips.
- LRT ai??i?? 2.4 minute headways, with 17 trips.
- LRT (2-car) ai??i?? 4.8 minutes, with 13 trips.
- Metro ai??i?? 10 minute headways with 6 trips.
At 10,000 pphpd:
- Bus ai??i?? 30 second headways, with 111 trips (traffic flows above 10,000 pphpd impractical).
- LRT ai??i?? 1.4 minute headways, with 42 trips.
- LRT (2 car) ai??i?? 2.8 minute headways, 21 trips
- Metro ai??i?? 6 minute headways, 10 trips.
At 20,000 pphpd:
- LRT ai??i?? 0.7 minute headways, with 83 trips.
- LRT (2 car) ai??i?? 1.4 minute headways, with 42 trips.
- Metro ai??i?? 3 minute headways, with 20 trips.
Comparative Staff Requirements on vehicles in relation to passenger flows. Station staff in brackets ().
At 2,000 pphpd:
- Bus ai??i?? 21 (0)
- LRT ai??i?? 7 (0)
- LRT (2 car) ai??i?? 4 (0)
- metro ai??i?? 2 (up to 38)
At 6,000 pphpd:
- Bus ai??i?? 61 (0)
- LRT ai??i?? 20 (0)
- LRT (2 car) ai??i?? 10 (0)
- Metro ai??i?? 5 (up to 38)
At 10,000 pphpd:
- Bus ai??i?? 110 (traffic flows above 10,000 pphpd impractical) (0).
- LRT ai??i?? 34 (0)
- LRT (2 car) ai??i?? 17 (0)
- Metro ai??i?? 8 (up to 38)
At 20,000 pphpd:
- LRT ai??i?? 69 (0)
- LRT (2 car) ai??i?? 34 (0)
- Metro ai??i?? 15 (up to 38)
Though the study is 30 years old and completed before the advent of low-floor trams (which decreased dwell times), it still give a good comparison of employee needs for each mode. Metroai??i??s, especially automatic metro systems do require a much larger maintenance staff than for bus or LRT and when one factors in the added high cost of subway or viaduct construction plus higher operational costs, Metro only become a viable proposition when traffic flows exceed 16,000 pphpd to 20,000 pphpd on a transit route.
Claims from other blogs that automatic metros can operate more frequent headway’s than LRT are untrue; automatic metros can not operate at higher frequencies than LRT, but if Metro is operated at close headway’s in times of low traffic flows, they do so with a penalty in higher maintenance costs and operational costs.
Taking into account the almost universal use of low-floor trams, operating in reserved rights-of-ways, combined with advances in safe signal priority at intersections; given an identical transit route with equal stations or stops, LRT operating on the surface (on-street) would be just as fast as a metro operating either elevated or in a subway at a fraction of the overall cost grade separated R-o-Wai??i??s. Also, automatic (driverless) metros, though not having drivers have attendants and station staff, which negate any claim that automatic metros use less staff than light rail.
The LRTA study does give good evidence why LRT has made light-metros such a as SkyTrain and VAL obsolete.
http://www.railforthevalley.com/latest-news/zweisystem/the-1986-lrta-study-bus-lrt-metro-comparison/
Global News Spotlights SkyTrain’s Ills
To say I am gobsmacked is an understatement, Global News actually had a rather negative story about SkyTrain, which convinces me some pointed questions about the proprietary railway are circling in Victoria.
Everything about SkyTrain, from it being forced onto the region in the early 80’s, the NDP flip-flop of the Millennium Line and forcing through the Canada Line (though not ALRT/ART SkyTrain) has come directly from the Premier’s office. Bennett, Harcourt, Clark, Campbell and now Christy C., have seen the benefits of ribbon cutting in front of multi billion dollar transit projects at election time and now with the Evergreen Line’s opening delayed until 2017, again shows that politicians build transit win elections, not affordably move people.
Global News has opened a chink in SkyTrain’s Teflon armor and SkyTrain’s future has just become less assured in the region.
How Do You Spell Rotten – T-R-A-N-L-I-N-K
Local independent reporter has been tearing into TransLink and the TransLink story seems to go from bad to worse.
Where is the Vancouver Sun? The Province? Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition?
With Transit, there are so may rotten apples in the barrel, it is time to throw it all out.
From Business in Vancouver……
TransLink should report supplier payments, says political watchdog
Business in Vancouver investigation reveals inventory of contractors and suppliers that includes brother of former TransLink boss
A company owned by the brother of Ian Jarvis was paid more than the ex-TransLink CEO was in 2014, but you wonai??i??t find that in TransLinkai??i??s list of suppliers obtained by Business in Vancouver.
The Financial Information Act Return shows TransLink paid Ian Jarvis $483,625 in 2014. The report does not show the $676,000 in payments to Trevor Jarvis Contracting Ltd. from the subsidiary that operates SkyTrain.
TransLink media adviser Chris Bryan said thatai??i??s because subsidiaries like BC Rapid Transit Corp. (BCRTC) are not subject to the act, which requires public organizations to annually list suppliers of goods and services worth $25,000 and up.
Bryan said Trevor Jarvis Contracting performs landscaping and maintenance at 90 sites, including SkyTrain stations, transit centres, bus loops, park and rides, rectifier stations and HandyDart locations. It is also contracted for snow and ice removal.
In Toronto Developers Want Light Rail and Not A Subway!
Something new.
In Toronto, developers want light rail and not an expensive subway to replace their life expired SkyTrain Line, the Scarborough R/T. What should be of interest is that the ridership on the proposed LRT/subway route, is more than the proposed SkyTrain subway under Broadway.
Maybe Vision(less) Vancouver would rethink their grand Broadway subway plans, especially if their developer friends had to foot the bill for the $3 billion subway.
Subways are easy to plan for, especially if you are not paying for it.
Developers challenge Scarborough subway with OMB appeal
The organization representing developers is fighting the city at the Ontario Municipal Board over the controversial Scarborough subway
Marcus Oleniuk / Toronto Star file photo
The Scarborough subway would replace the aging Scaborough RT.
By: Jennifer Pagliaro City Hall reporter, Published on Thu Nov 26 2015A powerful organization representing developers and builders says the city should scrap plans to build the Scarborough subway because the number of potential riders doesnai??i??t justify the $3.56 billion price tag.
The Building Industry and Land Development Association, better known as BILD, is taking on the city at the provincial body that handles land and development disputes, the Ontario Municipal Board, the Star has learned, a move that could cost the city millions.
The Real Evergreen Line Story
The Evergreen Line, with only seven stations will do very little
for local residents, who will find the car the only practical means of transportation.
The Evergreen Line is the unfinished portion of the old Broadway-Lougheed rapid transit project, but to true BC standards, all transit lines must have a media savvy name and the Evergreen line was chosen.
What is so disturbing is the influence of the somewhat disgraced former Vancouver mayor and Premier, Mike Harcourt in forcing SkyTrain, instead of light rial for Evergreen Line. As noted before, Mr. Harcourt meddling in transit affairs is akin to a child trying to play electric trains for the first time, without reading the instructions first.
With the former Social Credit government forcing SkyTrain onto the region, instead of light rail and the NDP flip-flop from LRT to SkyTrain for the Broadway Lougheed project has probably forced the taxpayer to spend easily $5 billion more for SkyTrain, than modern light rail.
The article also demonstrates, that the Georgia Straight, a weekly entertainment newspaper, has never been afraid to print the real story about rapid transit in the region, unlike the Vancouver Sun and Province!
What Bob Matkin’s news item does show is that where SkyTrain is built, SNC Lavalin is soon to follow and where SNC goes, trouble follows.
The real Evergreen line story:
Evergreen Line surprises delay rapid transit to Port Moody and Coquitlam
by Bob Mackin on November 26th, 2015
The Evergreen Line is being built with a tunnel-boring machine named Alice, but sheai??i??s experiencing a great deal of difficulty in reaching her destination.
When Premier Christy Clark christened the Evergreen Line tunnel-boring machine ai???Aliceai??? on March 7, 2014, she honoured Canadaai??i??s first female geologist.
Alice Wilsonai??i??s legacy includes the 1947 childrenai??i??s textbook The Earth Beneath Our Feet, but whatai??i??s going on with the rapid-transit project above and below Port Moody and Coquitlam recalls another Aliceai??i??one who fell down another hole in the ground into a bizarre ai???wonderlandai???.
Like the White Rabbit, who was late for a very important date, the government revealed late one Friday afternoon last February that Alice was tunnelling slower than the advertised eight metres per day. The summer 2016 opening was delayed to fall 2016. At this yearai??i??s September 25 board meeting, TransLinkai??i??s vice-president of engineering and infrastructure management, Fred Cummings, revealed that Alice had been stalled for five months and finally restarted the previous week.
Asked if he knew when the $1.43-billion Burnaby-to-Coquitlam Millennium Line extension would open, Cummingsai??i??s reply might have flattered Aliceai??i??s Adventures in Wonderland author Lewis Carroll himself: ai???Depending on how the boring goes, that will determine when the service date is. We donai??i??t have a date for that yet.ai???
Vancouver Blunders Ahead With Its Vanity Project.
Well, Vision(less) Vancouver is blundering ahead with its much cherished $3 billion subway under Broadway and our feckless politicians South of the Fraser remaining willfully blind to this billions of dollars boondoggle. One would think they would be more in tuned with the costs of this massive project.
Surrey has been bought off with its own vanity project, the poor man’s SkyTrain masquerading as light rail; Delta with the promise of a massive new bridge to replace the Massey Tunnel and good Liberal city councilors tow the provincial line in the Langleys, Abbotsford and beyond.
What is so sad is no one is thinking three minutes into the future, where road congestion and gridlock will reign supreme, forcing politicians to build more highways because the cost of transit is so high to build, based on the cost of current rapid transit vanity projects, that will do little to attract ridership or alleviate congestion.
Rail for the Valley offered another and cheaper way to provide quality transit to the South Fraser region, but politicians just love cutting ribbons in front of expensive vanity projects at election time.
Subway stops prepared along Vancouver’s Broadway corridor
by Carlito Pablo on November 25th, 2015
The strip mall on the southeast corner of Broadway and Oak Street is deserted.
ai???Weai??i??ll be starting demolition here pretty quick,ai??? Wayne Vickers, development manager of Bosa Properties, told the Georgia Straight in a phone interview. ai???Iai??i??d say December, with excavation in January, February.ai???
BlueSky Properties, a Bosa family company, is constructing a 10-storey office and retail building on this spot, which the City of Vancouver has chosen to be the location of one of the stations for a proposed subway line along Broadway.
According to Vickers, his company and the city have agreed to designate an area in the new building to serve as a connection to an underground transit station. ai???We got the plan. We have the design for it,ai??? Vickers said.
According to a city staff report, similar arrangements have been made for two other sites. One is near Arbutus Street at 2080 West Broadway, where the Pinnacle Living on Broadway condo building is located. The other is at 525 West Broadway, the site of Crossroads, a mixed-use residential, commercial, and office building kitty-corner to the Canada Lineai??i??s Broadwayai??i??City Hall Station.
A rapid-transit line along Broadway is one of the projects in a 10-year plan for Metro Vancouver released in June 2014 by the Mayorsai??i?? Council on Regional Transportation.
The $1.9-billion project involves extending the Millennium SkyTrain Line from VCC-Clark Station to Arbutus Street, connecting along the way with the Canada Line at Broadwayai??i??City Hall. Two-thirds of its cost would consist of funding from the provincial and federal governments.
In a referendum this year, Metro Vancouver voters rejected a proposed 0.5-percent increase in the sales tax to help fund major infrastructure projects in the $7.5-billion transportation plan prepared by regional mayors.
During the federal election campaign, Liberal Leader and now Prime Minister Justin Trudeau promised to work with the province and the city to extend rapid-transit service along Broadway to Arbutus.
Until the subway is built, Bosaai??i??s BlueSky Properties will use the future subway-connection space for retail.
Recent Comments