Making Sense From TransLink’s Nonsense

The following is from the RftV friend, Eric Chris. Mr. Chris is a graduate engineer and he sees through TransLink and TransLink Speak.

*****

TransLink is bending the truth to keep the ones who are responsible for the massive fraud (that s-train has more capacity than other modes of transit) from being jailed for the rest of their lives. Ai??Hoaxers at TransLink are essentially stealing billions of dollars from taxpayers to circumvent fair and competitive bidding from Alstom and Siemens proposing tram or LRT lines, for instance, in order to sole source contracts to Bombardier and SNC Lavalin for s-train lines at an inflated cost. Ai??ai???Assumedai??? capacity of LRT ranges from 5,800 pph to 7,200 pph while ai???assumedai??? capacity of s-train (RRT) is 13,000 pph in the study by SNC Lavalin and Steer-Davies-Gleave (summary on page x)? Ai??Whatai??i??s wrong with the ai???realai??? capacity?

http://www.translink.ca/~/media/Documents/plans_and_projects/rapid_transit_projects/UBC/alternatives_evaluation/UBC_Line_Rapid_Transit_Study_Phase_2_Alternatives_Evaluation.ashx

Unfortunately Vancouverites just re-elected Mayor Gregor Robertson. Ai??He is a faux pas environmentalist believing that dredging sand from the ocean floors to destroy our aquatic ecosystems is fine as long as it is to produce concrete for his subway to UBC. Ai??Heai??i??d be harmless except for his obsession with the subway to UBC. Ai??Anyhow, the voters have made up their minds and chose him over other candidates having substance ai??i?? thatai??i??s democracy for you and weai??i??ll have to make the best of it until he is hit by a bus or is hopefully defeated in the next election.

ai???Environmentalismai???

Any mode of transit whether it is LRT, s-train or tram can be designed to have the same passenger capacity ai??i?? although, Iai??i??ll concede that there are practical limits to running too many trams on roads. Ai??Broadway is wide enough to be able to manage 45 metre long trams at a frequency of every minute, in my opinion, based on the number and frequency of buses in operation on Broadway, now, and the tram line along Broadway is technically feasible. Ai??Ai??So, the contention by City of Vancouver engineers that only s-train can meet the passenger capacity (for the planned development of concrete condo towers along Broadway) for concrete firms to mine oceans and destroy ecosystems for sand is a blatant lie. Ai??Iai??i??d rather have logging firms harvest trees and replant them for modest homes along tram lines ai??i?? an eccentric environmentalistai??i??s and anti-whaling, Greenpeace sympathizerai??i??s, biased opinion.

Sparing with Gregor Robertson and his Vision council over the last six years over TransLinkai??i??s use of diesel buses for 89% to 100% of the transit service along Broadway in Vancouver on the No. 9, No. 14 and (yes) No. 99 ai???trolleybusai??? routes has made me realize that Gregor is a sham environmentalist. Ai??He is merely deceiving gullible voters who are being seduced and betrayed.

His main goal is to increase the population in Vancouver by cramming more people into condos along Broadway to collect more taxes to run the city. Ai??This is not at all an environmental political platform so he has concocted the lie that the s-train line in the subway to UBC is necessary to reduce road congestion ai??i?? saying what sounds good to appeal to naA?ve individuals, instead, in order to have an excuse to go wild with high density condo development on Broadway.

Passenger capacity of the s-train line, LRT line or tram line depends upon the number of passengers that each set of cars (s-train, LRT or tram) can carry. Ai??Siemens has tram (LRT) designs carrying up to 700 passengers (people). Ai??They are 72 metres in length.

http://www.mobility.siemens.com/mobility/global/en/urban-mobility/rail-solutions/trams-and-light-rail/avenio/avenio-capacity/pages/avenio-capacity.aspx

For the 45 metre tram design carrying 300 people every minute, the passenger capacity of the tram line is 300 people / 1 minute = 18,000 people per hour per direction (abbreviated as pph as direction of travel does not matter for an intrinsic property and pph is an intrinsic property). Ai??Youai??i??d never want to run trams at this frequency, but you could if you really had to do it ai??i?? to exceed the present capacity of s-train operated by TransLink in Vancouver. Ai??Along Broadway, the tram length of about 45 metres is ideal, as it is in Sydney, Australia.

http://www.sydneylightrail.transport.nsw.gov.au/

For the 45 metre s-train or LRT design carrying 300 people every minute, the passenger capacity of the LRT line or s-train line is 300 people / 1 minute = 18,000 pph which is the same as the passenger capacity of the tram design ai??i?? obviously the study by SNC Lavalin and Steer-Davies-Gleave is wrong, and it cost TransLink millions of dollars pilfered from taxpayers to prepare.

Are you not entertained by this? Ai??Are you not entertained!

Right now from Broadway at 9:00 am in the morning during weekdays, the following buses arrive at UBC:

-Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? No. 9 trolleybus carrying no more than ~ 60 people every 10 minutes (360 pph)

-Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? No. 14 trolleybus carrying no more than ~ 60 people every 10 minutes (360 pph)

-Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? No. 99 ai???flagshipai??? carrying no more than ~ 100 people every 3 minutes (2,000 pph)

In total, these buses have a combined passenger capacity of ~ 2,720 pph. Ai??If trams were operated, instead of 99 B-Line diesel buses, the combined passenger capacity from transit along Broadway can reach 18,720 pph. Ai??Trams were never considered by SNC Lavalin and Steer-Davies-Gleave which focused on a myriad of impractical possibilities for transit to UBC, instead, in order to make s-train appear much less bad than it truly is. Ai??Stick it, Mick Jagger doesn’t do s-train commercials.

ai???Intrinsic and Extrinsic in the context of transitai???

When you talk about passenger capacity in pph, it is an intrinsic property such as pressure in ai???psiaai??? or enthalpy in ai???BTU per pound massai???. Ai??When you talk about the number of rail cars referred to as rolling stock (set of s-train cars, LRT cars or tram cars) required for a rail line, it is an extrinsic property. Ai??It is important to understand the difference between the number of rail cars required for the rail line (extrinsic) and the passenger capacity in pph of the rail line (intrinsic). Ai??Ask anyone at TransLink to explain what intrinsic and extrinsic mean in the context of the rail line to UBC. Ai??Youai??i??ll get plenty of confused looks. Ai??Taxpayers are entrusting billions of dollars to the planners at TransLink for their ai???expertiseai??? to design transit, nevertheless.

ai???Capacityai???

Presently along Broadway, the round trip transit time (t) for the 99 B-Line (express articulated diesel bus) service with 13 stops during peak hours is approximately 80 minutes. Ai??Consequently, if trams replace the Ai??99 B-Line service, their round trip transit time will also be 80 minutes, and 80 trams will be required for the tram line during peak hours if the trams operate at the frequency of one tram every minute (f) to achieve the 18,000 pph passenger capacity along Broadway, t/f = 80 minutes/1 minute per tram = 80 trams. Ai??With trams operated every minute, 80 drivers are necessary too during peak hours for about six hours daily, at most.

Round trip transit time for the 99 B-Line service during ai???off-peakai??? hours is approximately 60 minutes. Ai??For 14 hours of operation daily during off-peak hours, the transit demand is only about 600 pph (if that) and you can provide double this with four trams and four drivers with transit service every 15 minutes. Ai??So, on average, for 20 hours of transit service daily, there are 27 drivers working per hour on the tram line, (6 hours * 80 drivers + 14 hours * 4 drivers ) / 20 hours = 27 drivers per hour.

Automated s-train requires no drivers. Ai??However, s-train requires at least 11 people per km per 20 hours, instead. Ai??This is only 7 pseudo-drivers per hour on average for the 12.5 km UBC line (11 employees per km * 12.5 km divided by 20 hours = 7 pseudo drivers per hour). Ai??Pretty good, except that power consumption for the s-train is three times the tram’s power consumption. Ai??Forget this for a moment: Ai??the s-train for 18,000 pph in passenger capacity saves 20 drivers on average (27 drivers for the tram per hour – 7 pseudo-drivers for the s-train per hour = 20 drivers per hour on average saved by s-train). Ai??Each added driver for the tram line costs about $60,000/year for eight hour working days.Ai?? For the 20 hour transit days, the drivers cost $3 million annually in salaries (20 added drivers per hour on average by the tram * $60,000/yr per 8 hour working days per driver * 20 hour transit days = $3 million/yr).

ai???Powerai???

Linear induction motors used by s-train are power pigs. Ai??Expo Line moving no more than about 12,000 pph at peak times ate $7.4 million/yr in power in 2011 (TransLink FOI). Ai??Running more rolling stock for 18,000 pph in transit capacity on the Expo Line raises the cost of power to $11.1 million/yr ($7.4 million/yr * 18,000 pph / 12,000 pph = $11.1 million).

Adjusting the 28.9 km Expo Line power consumption for the 12.5 km UBC line brings the power cost down to $4.8 million/yr ($11.1 million/yr * 12.5 km / 28.9 km = $4.8 million/yr). Ai??Round trip transit time for the s-train line is one-half the tramai??i??s round trip transit time and the tram line requires double the rolling stock of the s-train line, therefore (rolling stock required is directly proportional to the round trip transit time).

Since the tram line to UBC uses twice as much rolling stock compared to the rolling stock for the s-train line, the power consumption of the tram line would be $9.6 million/yr (twice the s-trainai??i??s) if trams were power pigs. Ai??Trams are not power pigs and use very efficient squirrel cage motors with regenerative braking and consume one-third as much power as the crappy motors used by s-trains. Ai??So, the power for the tram line to UBC with 18,000 pph in transit capacity costs only $3.2 million/yr (33% * $9.6 million/yr = $3.2 million/yr).

ai???Costsai???

There you have it, $4.8 million/yr for s-train power minus $3.2 million/yr for tram power = $1.6 million/yr saved with the tram line to UBC. Ai??In other words, the high power costs of s-train offset savings from the s-train not having drivers. Ai??Just looking at drivers and power, the tram line to UBC adds $1.4 million/yr in operating costs ($3 million/yr cost of drivers with trams – $1.6 million/yr saved on power with trams = $1.4 million/yr net cost with trams) but there are many other s-train costs such as the $30 million/yr transit police at s-train stations and maintenance of the white elephant elevated s-train station themselves (driving up the cost of the s-train line further). Ai??Ai??For the tram line to UBC, this small added operating cost which does not consider all the added costs of the s-train, including the many bus drivers required to shuttle the many transit users to the s-train line, does not outweigh the added capital cost of the s-train line to UBC.

When you consider that the tram line costs a meagre $60 million to construct compared to the s-train line costing $5,000 million to construct, many heads have to roll at TransLink ai??i?? actually every head at TransLink. Ai??Tram lines are more convenient for users and statistically cut the commuting for users, also.Ai?? Talking about funding more s-train lines for the zombies at TransLink to continue to have jobs is not worth any sort of discussion and is distracting from the job at hand, ridding Vancouver of the zombies at TransLink, in my opinion.

Iai??i??d appreciate any comments, especially, on the math. Ai??I plan to send this to the Mayorsai??i?? Council and Todd Stone (minister of TransLink) for an explanation of TransLinkai??i??s waste of time and resources to produce its fraudulent study favouring s-train based on its supposed increased capacity.

 

TransLink: LRT is suitable for Broadway!

A post from our friend Mr. Haveacow deserves more attention.

Contained within is an interesting comment;

“They have chosen that overall the Skytrain is the best choice (no surprise there). The whopper comes form the admission that LRT is cheaper and does provide better service over the status quo but the cost is significantly less expensive to build than Skytrain.

This comment is followed by;

“To justify this, the following gem of a statement is included,ai??? Of the alternatives that meet the forecast demand for the corridor, capital costs range from $1.1 billion for LRT1 (100% Surface LRT) to $3.0 billion for RRT (Skytrain in a Tunnel). An assessment of affordability will be made outside this study by considering regional investment needs relative to available funding.ai???

Now Mr. Cow is quite right about this being game changer statement, but Zwei with almost fifteen years of TransLink Speak, will add this.

According to TransLink, LRT is suitable for Broadway, unless politicians can guarantee to raise the cash to build a much more expensive Skytrain subway!

*******************************************************

I am quite surprised at the Phase 2 Report for Translinkai??i??s Broadway Skyrain Subway Line.
From a quick read (about 2hrs and 155 pages plus scanning the rest) of the results I can see two really big issues one of which has not changed from the earlier reports and the other is based on questionable if not outright incorrect assumptions that would change large parts of the outcomes.

When you look at the reportai??i??s conclusions there are some surprises but, most were unchanged from the last time. However there is a whopper in there that would lead to the deaths of most planners by their bosses. They have chosen that overall the Skytrain is the best choice (no surprise there). The whopper comes form the admission that LRT is cheaper and does provide better service over the status quo but the cost is significantly less expensive to build than Skytrain. To justify this, the following gem of a statement is included,ai??? Of the alternatives that meet the forecast demand for the corridor, capital costs range from $1.1 billion for LRT1 (100% Surface LRT) to $3.0 billion for RRT (Skytrain in a Tunnel). An assessment of affordability will be made outside this study by considering regional investment needs relative to available funding.ai??? This is a game changer folks. In simple terms, I could produce a report that said, ai???we believe the best choice for transit in the Broadway corridor is genetically engineered flying solid gold unicorns however, an assessment of affordability will be made outside of this study by considering regional investment needs relative to available fundingai???. The next sound I would here is the ax coming out of its sheath being wielded by the people who hired me, just before it came in contact with my neck.

Ottawa Developements

Tunnel Vision vs. Green vision

The following power point presentation comes from Adam Fitch and succinctly shows the difference between light rail and a Skytrain subway under Broadway.

Click and view.

Tunnel Vision vs Green vision

 

UPDATE: WE HAVE TECHNICAL PROBLEMS, MY APOLOGIES

BCIT to UBC and Picnics in the Park, by tram

First published in 2009. Updated 2014.

A Wee Bit Of Local History

In early 1996, during BC Transitai??i??s meaningless public consultation period for the Broadway Lougheed Rapid Transit Project which later morphed into the Millennium Line, Zweisystem received a phone call from an European Transit specialist, who worked for Asea Brown Boverai (later absorbed by Bombardier Inc.) regarding the project.

The European transit specialist, wanting to make contact with those planning for light-rail, had phoned BC Transit to arrange a meeting regarding the then proposed Broadway/LougheedAi?? LRT project and was given Zweiai??i??s phone number instead!

After his initial shock and displeasure being fobbed-off by BC Transit, the transit specialist entered into a long conversation with me on transit issues in the region and how modern light rail could help solve them. To make a long story short, he proposed a classic European style tramway for Broadway, with stops every 500m to 600m, going from BCIT to UBC, replacing all Broadway bus services and a second line via Main Street, Hastings St. to Stanley Park, that, he claimed would double present bus ridership on the two routes within two years, providing enough fare revenue for the tram to operate without any subsidy, with fares covering not only operating costs but debt servicing costs as well. By doing so, a private company could build and operate the light rail line at no cost to the taxpayer.

The rest is history as they say and the SkyTrain Millennium Line was built instead and is subsidized by over $80 million annually!

The Light Rail Committee Proposes the BCIT to UBC and Stanley Park Light Rail Project.

In late 1996 the Light Rail Committee (now defunct) proposed a bold Broadway light rail plan: a tram/light rail line from BCIT to UBC via the Lougheed Hwy., Broadway, 10th Ave. and University Blvd. with a second line via Main street to Hastings Street to the Aquarium in Stanley Park. The plan consisted of lawned reserved rights-of-ways and on-street running; priority signaling on traffic calmed Broadway and Hastings Streets; tram/streetcar stops every 500 metres; a single track Vancouver General Hospital Loop via Fraser St., 10th Ave. and Cambie St., providing front door service to the hospital.

Commercial speed would be about 20 kph to 25 kph (depending on the number or tram-stops per km.) and the construction costs in the region of $25 million/km to $35 million/km; maximum hourly capacity 18,000 to 20,000 persons per hour per direction using modern low-floor trams.

Signaling would be line of sight with intersections and switches protected by local signaling. Headway’s could be as low as 60 seconds in peak hours.

What the LRCai??i??s plan would do is service many important transit destinations (UBC, BCIT, VGH, downtown Vancouver, Stanley Park, etc.), while providing economy of operation by replacing all bus services on Broadway and many in Vancouver, thus reducing operating costs by about half. Further economies are made by using existing masts and span wires along the proposed transit routes. The new LRT would be merely seen as the reinstatement of ai???railai??i?? service by modern streetcars, operating on 21st century rights-of-ways.

The concept of a private operator, by securing financingAi?? to build the line at no or little cost to the taxpayer must be looked at by politicians. This type of P-3, not to be confused with the Canada Line scam, would see little or no subsides from government, unlike the Canada line which in 2012 TransLink paid the SNC Lavalin lead consortium operating the mini-metro line $145 million!

The plan would reduce Broadway to one lane of traffic in each direction (passive traffic calming) except in areas of mixed operation, while keeping the all important on-street parking for local merchants. The plan would have offered a minimum of five transit routes: BCIT to UBC; BCIT to Stanley Park; UBC to Stanley Park; UBC and BCIT to VGH loop.

The plan incorporated modern European light rail and tram philosophy of the day; lawned reserved rights-of-ways, modular cars, high capacity, passenger comfort, and affordable cost. It was not to be, as the Glen Clark NDP government, for reasons that can only be speculated, dismissed LRT out-of-hand and went for a truncated SkyTrain light metro line, the only metro in the world that went nowhere to nowhere.

In 2014, the Millennium Line is seeing another $1.4 billion spent on it, in the guise of the Evergreen Line, to see its completion.

In 2014 there is no rumour of a SkyTrain subway to UBC instead both the City of Vancouver and TransLink are demanding a multi-billion dollar subway under Broadway.

It is time to again to consider again a BCIT ai??i?? UBC ai??i?? Stanley Park light-rail network, that could cost the taxpayer little or no money instead of a $3 billion subway to Arbutus or a $5 billion plus subway to UBC that ignores transit concerns East of commercial Drive.

 

Surrey Light Rail Map

As requested, the map for the proposed LRT network.

Surrey’s Proposed LRT Advances

Looks like the proposed three line LRT network in Surrey, is advancing.

The old anti-LRT rhetoric continues, despite well over thirty years of commercial operation by over 500 tram/LRT lines around the world that disproves this nonsense.

No mention that only seven Skytrain systems have been built since the late 1970’s mind you, demonstrates that the SkyTrain Lobby would prefer for that statistic to quietly fade away.

Zwei believes the costs for LRT are much too high, but with TransLink in charge, planners may wish to gouge the taxpayer, rather than lose face that modern LRT is a considerably cheaper to build than SkyTrain, especially when Vancouver wants a $4 billion subway under Broadway.

Surrey LRT plan passes key federal hurdle

Compass Card Fiasco

Installed but not working. Until the compass Card becomes operational

the turnstiles stay idle, paying silent testament to TransLink’s incompetence.

As expected, TransLink’s new Compass Card is turning into a fiasco and now the transit agency is contemplating a single zone for buses.

Because of TransLink’s simple three zone fare system and full fare/concession fare ticket system, there was no need for a very complicated fare card system.

The mainstream media, coupled with a former well known radio host banged the drum for turnstiles because of perceived rampant fare evasion, even though fare evasion was well within industry norms.

The annual operating costs, coupled with the set costs of the new fare card/turnstile system cost more than what was lost due to fare evasion!

Enter former TransLink CEO and good pal of former Premier Gordon Campbell, Ken Dobell, who was acting as a lobbyist for Cubit Industries, flogging an outdated fare card/turnstile system and TransLink was compelled to buy.

After almost $200 hundred million or so dollars spent, the turnstiles are installed but the Compass Card is not workable and now TransLink is contemplating a one zone fare for all buses to make the compass Card work.

The kicker is, if there is only one zone for buses there is really no need for a fare card as all that is needed is a transfer to prove that a fare was paid, which is very easy for anyone checking fares to see.

Stay tuned, the sitcom called TransLink is set to continue; a boring little show, with little comedy but a lot of pathos.

Lies, Damned Lies and the Vancouver Sun

So, Calgary’s Nenshi backs Gregor Robertson’s Broadway subway plans. Well not exactly, he supports better urban transit funding and all Mr. Nenshi said was “So I imagine there is a scramble right now in Ottawa precisely to figure out how to fund Vancouver’s next Skytrain expansion.”

How the Vancouver sun can construe this as support for a Broadway subway is mind boggling!

The Vancouver Sun, a long supporter of SkyTrain, again distorts the facts to pervert the truth when it comes to regional transit in the region.

There are lies, damned lies and The Vancouver Sun!

Just to refresh everyone’s memory, the Expo and Millennium Lines (and the Evergreen Line) have 80 metre long station platforms limiting trains to about 80 metres. The Canada line has station platforms between 40 metres and 50 metres long, limiting trains to around 40 metres. Short station platforms limit the capacity of the Canada line to about 7,500 pphpd and the Skytrain lines to about 15,000 pphpd. to increase capacity, very expensive station and electrical renovations must take place. Estimated cost $2 billion to $3 billion.

Meanwhile in Calgary, stations have been renovated and platform lengths extended to 110 metres in length so they can accept four car (99 .3 metre long) coupled sets of trams.

 

News Flash:

Calgary can run 99 metre long trains versus Vancouver ability to only run 80 metre long trains

Calgary can operate trains up to 110 metres long, which Vancouver cannot.

Calgary’s LRT has a higher capacity than SkyTrain.

Subways do not increase capacity, they just keep surface roads clear for motorists.

SkyTrain Switch Excuse Grows Very Thin

Like the old fable; “The boy who cried wolf“, the ongoing TransLink excuse for problems on the Skytrain system is growing very thin.

Again, SkyTrain goes kaput on the tail end of the morning rush and again TransLink blames a “switch problem” as the reason.

Sorry, I just do not buy that excuse anymore and from the feedback from transit customers, nor do they.

Zwei thinks TransLink has deferred maintenance to cover financial shortfalls and like all transit systems that defer important maintenance as an economy measure, the results come back to haunt the operator big time,Ai?? just like what happened in Portland!

Vancouver commuters really donai??i??t care for these SkyTrainAi??disruptions

October 28, 2014.

Vancouver commuters faced another obstacle today on TransLinkai??i??s SkyTrain service which has been beset byAi??delays and disruptionsAi??in recent months.

A switch problem caused delays on the line between Joyce Station and Metrotown this morning. TransLink posted on its websiteAi??at 9:59 a.m that a service disruption of minor severity on both the Expo and Millenium Lines was due to a problem train in the Metrotown area thatAi??has since been cleared.

The disruption led to over-flowing crowds at SkytrainAi??stations across Metro Vancouver. Angry commuters vented their frustrations on Twitter.