TransLink, Act 5

High hopes at founding in 1999 have turned into a riddle of costs, ridership and political tensionsAi??

By Kelly Sinoski AND Rob Shaw, Vancouver SunFebruary 14, 2014

Former Vancouver councillor George Puil was so confident TransLink was the best system for Metro Vancouver 15 years ago that even after knee surgery, he hobbled around on crutches to every mayor and council to sell the idea.

The plan, under then-NDP premier Glen Clark, was simple: the unelected BC Transit board would be replaced with local politicians who had both the power to raise taxes for transportation and the accountability to face voters if those taxes werenai??i??t wanted.

The 12-member board was responsible for everything from buses and trains to roads and bridges. It got its funding from the fare box and other taxes, and also had a sustainable funding source: a $75 vehicle levy approved by the province, with revenue to go to TransLink.

ai???I went to every municipality to get them to agree and they did,ai??? said Puil, a former TransLink chairman who met with transportation officials across North America to develop the model. ai???I thought we had it right.ai???

But TransLink was troubled from the start. The NDP government reneged on the controversial vehicle levy in 2001, leaving the system cash-starved from the beginning, and municipalities have battled successive governments that opted to build their own costly pet mega-projects like the Canada Line or Millennium Line over cheaper transit like light rail.

This left municipalities with only a handful of unpolitically unpopular ways to generate funds for transit: by raising fares, property taxes and gas taxes.

The problems persisted long after the NDP was voted out in 2001 and the B.C. Liberals took over. Successive governments have continued to reject the vehicle levy, and the Liberals are ordering a public referendum before any new funding sources can go ahead.

The Liberals, claiming the TransLink board was dysfunctional, restructured it in 2007 and instituted an unelected board. TransLink is now on the cusp of another overhaul this spring.

ai???Iai??i??m disappointed,ai??? Puil said.

Clark, B.C.ai??i??s premier from 1996 to 1999, acknowledges the transportation authority didnai??i??t quite work out the way he imagined.

The idea was to bring more accountability to TransLink by giving the elected members of the Greater Vancouver Regional District Ai??ai??i?? now Metro Vancouver ai??i?? the ability to appoint mayors and councillors to the TransLink board.

But this proved troublesome. Transportation decisions ai??i?? such as how much money would be spent on transit and roads ai??i?? Ai??had to first pass the hodgepodge of politicians on the TransLink board, but could then be overruled by a second vote by the GVRD, which had veto power on tax and fee increases. Although the NDP set aside three seats on the board for provincial appointees, the Liberals never placed anyone on the TransLink board.ai???Iai??i??d be the first to admit it was flawed in one sense,ai??? Clark told The Vancouver Sun in a recent interview. ai???It still retained the fundamental problem, which was only indirect accountability for their actions.ai???

Money was at the heart of the problem.

Provincial politicians argue that when TransLink was created, the province exempted the regional government from having to pay 40 per cent of local hospital projects on the understanding they would use the property taxes to fund transit projects. But from the start, mayors have been reluctant to raise property taxes for fear of a backlash from tax-weary voters.

ai???I again underestimated the territoriality, the turf protecting, that went on,ai??? Clark said. ai???They donai??i??t want to raise the money for big projects. They could theoretically do it, but itai??i??s very hard for them to raise that kind of capital. So it ends up them kind of running the bus system.

ai???And the big-picture stuff, everybody has competing demands. The province has, historically, including when I was there, including when Gordon Campbell was there, including when Bill Bennett was there, simply intervened, paid the money, set the priority and turned it over to them.ai???

That repeated intervention from Victoria is a sore spot among local mayors who feel they get overruled whenever the province wants to push a project.

Tensions came to a head in 2004, a pivotal year for the transportation authority, which was pursuing big-city dreams of light rail cars zinging between Vancouver and Richmond and Burnaby and Coquitlam.

Still reeling from the former NDPai??i??s decision to build the $1.2-billion Millennium SkyTrain, which was losing $27 million per year, municipal politicians faced intense pressure from the Liberals to build the Canada Line ai??i?? rather than light rail to Coquitlam ai??i?? ahead of the 2010 Winter Olympics.

They voted twice to kill it, but it went through anyway.

Former Liberal transportation minister Kevin Falcon, who publicly chastised the mayors for trying to vote the Canada Line down, defended his decision, saying the Canada Line has been incredibly successful since opening day.

ai???At the end of the day the public really gets tired of the infighting and the parochialism and finger-pointing and they really want to see results,ai??? Falcon said. ai???Iai??i??m happy to let people criticize myself or government during that process, but I like to be able to look back and say, ai???You know what, we got those things launched and we got them built, whether it was the Canada Line or Evergreen Line.ai??i?? ai???

Ken Dobell, TransLinkai??i??s first CEO from 1998 to 2001, said if the province is putting in more than one-third of the money for a project, as it often does, then itai??i??s only fair that Victoria get a say in how the project is built, he said. He added that transit-related property tax levels in Metro are lower compared with Toronto or Montreal.A frustrated Falcon overhauled TransLink in 2007, taking substantial control away from local politicians and giving it to an unelected board of experts, who met in secret to come up with plans and priorities.

The mayorsai??i?? main role was downgraded to approve those plans and the additional taxes to pay for them. For instance, while TransLink is already allotted three per cent of Metroai??i??s property taxes for transit, the mayors would have to approve any further hikes to pay for transit infrastructure.

And from the start, they were loathe to boost property taxes any further.

ai???It seemed to me we needed to have a structure that would give the public more confidence that decisions would be made for the right reasons,ai??? Falcon said. ai???Itai??i??s not a perfect model for sure, and itai??i??s entirely appropriate the province now take a look at it and tweak it to see if they can improve upon that.ai???

The third version of TransLink, unveiled this month by B.C.ai??i??s current transportation minister, Todd Stone, flips Falconai??i??s version on its head. Nobody really knows yet what itai??i??s going to mean for the region, but it suggests a compromise, with mayors gaining more control over TransLinkai??i??s policies and priorities, and the board handling the budget and operations.North Vancouver District Mayor Richard Walton, chairman of the mayorsai??i?? council on regional transportation, is optimistic. Mayors now only have three tasks in their mandate: to appoint the commissioner and the TransLink board ai??i?? candidates are appointed by the province ai??i?? and approve large capital budgets.

ai???If thereai??i??s no money you canai??i??t approve a large capital budget,ai??? he said. ai???There hasnai??i??t been a financial model thatai??i??s worked. For them to turn around and say we didnai??i??t have a vision or continued to work to get one left us all speechless.ai???

Former Liberal transportation minister Blair Lekstrom argues both the mayors and Victoria have to take responsibility, but in the end, it all comes back to property taxes.

ai???At some point, and this is where I differed from many members on the mayors council, property taxes have to be part of that solution,ai??? said Lekstrom. ai???They were adamant theyai??i??d paid enough. But you canai??i??t reach out to the people of Tumbler Ridge or wherever to say contribute to Metro Vancouver transit.ai???

Metro Vancouver mayors agree that any funding sources should be local. They have pitched pleas to use the vehicle levy, regional carbon tax or tolls on local bridges ai??i?? rather than property taxes ai??i?? to raise cash for transit.

TransLink has seen unprecedented growth over the past decade, laying the groundwork in 2005 for more buses, SkyTrain cars and projects like the Canada Line, Coast Meridian Overpass, Central Valley Green Bicycle route and the Golden Ears Bridge.

Expenditures rose from $630.9 million in 2001 to $1.4 billion in 2012, according to TransLink figures, which have been converted to 2013 dollars. But that growth came in fits and starts, bolstered in part by increases in property and gas taxes to ensure projects ai??i?? once started ai??i?? were built.

TransLink, which had started to see its cash flow shrink in 2009, was dipping into its reserves three years later to pay for several system expansions. These included not only the long-awaited Evergreen Line, linking Burnaby and Coquitlam, but politically motivated projects such as a rapid bus lane along the new Port Mann Bridge and a Compass and fare gate system, after municipal politicians refused to raise property taxes any further.

TransLink CEO Ian Jarvis acknowledges the transportation authority has its work cut out, especially with another million people coming to Metro Vancouver by 2040. Last year, bus routes were already being shifted across the region, with service hours cut in areas like Port Coquitlam and added to busier routes along Vancouverai??i??s Broadway where thousands of people are passed up each day.

And itai??i??s not just transit TransLink has to worry about: it is also responsible for several bridges, including the Pattullo and Knight Street, HandyDart and 2,400 kilometres of roads.

ai???We have adequate funding to cover the services that are there today,ai??? said Jarvis, who has been with TransLink since its inception, previously as chief financial officer. ai???The challenge is what is the appropriate level of investment we need to bite off next and whatai??i??s a fair and equitable way to pay for that?ai???Local mayors have repeatedly called for a road pricing strategy to pay for transit. This could include the vehicle levy, tolls on every bridge or a fee per distance travelled.

Puil, who championed the first vehicle levy, is still pushing the move as a better alternative to raising fares.

ai???You have to have some form of road tax,ai??? he said. ai???I think the municipalities have to be strong enough and they have to step in and say ai???this is our business. You canai??i??t make decisions for us.ai??i?? ai???

But Clark, now a high-level executive in Jim Pattisonai??i??s business empire, maintains it would be a tough sell, noting voters need to see a direct connection between the tax and service, and a vehicle levy needs at least some level of popularity to survive.

The province should have known a vehicle levy would be unpopular, Dobell said. But by never allowing TransLink to implement the measure, it took away one of their main revenue sources.

North Vancouverai??i??s Walton, who met with Stone Friday, said it appears the mayors and province are finally making headway. Itai??i??s the first time in five years they have been at the table together, he said, a period that has seen public feuding with Victoria suggesting the mayors arenai??i??t doing anything to resolve the funding issues.

ai???Those kinds of comments are personally vindictive and donai??i??t do anything to encourage people to work together,ai??? Walton said.

Puil argues mayors have to be involved in the system, noting in the early days there was unanimity around the board. ai???We never wanted SkyTrain,ai??? he said. ai???The main problem is the lack of money, and the capital projects they take on are huge. The capital expenditure for SkyTrain is far in excess of what it would have been for light rail.ai???

Ken Cameron, a former planning manager with Metro Vancouver, agreed things seemed to be on track before the Canada Line kerfuffle.

Since then, he said, provincial politicians blindsided by the ai???dream of having their own trainai??? seem to have forgotten the original intention of TransLink: to move goods and people more efficiently.

Both Millennium Line and Canada Line were heavily motivated by politics, he said, noting neither has seen the high-density that was expected to be coupled with transit routes. Although Canada Line has drawn the ridership, highrise development is only now going in along Cambie ai??i?? four years after the trains started rolling to the airport.

It may be different for the new Evergreen Line, which took so long that Coquitlam and Port Moody had developed high density town centres around it, but it depends on whether people are willing to get out of their cars and take it in 2016.

ai???If I had my way I wouldnai??i??t build another inch of rapid transit in this region until we have a better idea of where weai??i??re growing,ai??? Cameron said. ai???What we should be doing is the least costly solution to achieve the outcome that we want. What we seem to be losing track of is that we should be trying to move people and goods efficiently in the region and yet we have these vanity projects that are costing a lot of money.ai???

ksinoski@vancouversun.com

rshaw@vancouversun.com

Ai?? Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

The Greer Report & Rapid Transit

 

From 2009

Reedited, but the message is the same.

The Emperor has no Clothes and no Transit – A Repost From March 27, 2011

Vancouver is at first glance a beautiful city. It is surrounded by sweeping vistas and a dramatic skyline.

The climate is moderate butAi??spend some time here and scratch the surface and it becomes far less attractive. It is a city that is divided politically; it is parochial, narrow minded and shallow. The people are characterless, flaky and disingenuous. Vancouver is the scam capital of North America, a skill set for which the local population is particularly adept.

There are times when I am certain that Vancouver is something straight out of Conradai??i??s Heart of Darkness.

It is a cold place, people in the same business do not interact of share information they do not network or help each other. There is an almost a Darwinian or Hobbesian social culture ai??i?? Vancouver is an empty void.

The political environment is polarized and doctrinaire. The left adheres to ideas that are at least a generation out of date. Vancouverites think that Naomi Klein is an intellectual when in reality she is a very silly charlatan. To Vancouverites the secret is a serious work of self help. The right is equally foolish in the banality of their free market ideology.

You donai??i??t meet people of substance here. You meet flakes. The press is dominated by yellow journalism. Rarely if ever have I read a real piece of investigative journalism. You do not meet people who form their opinions based upon facts. When you encounter Vancouverites and engage them in the discussion of social issues the argument usually become circular and they end of talking only about themselves. There is a kind of deep insecurity that comes from profound feeling of self loathing that is hard wired into the political culture here. Narcissism is the dominate religion and worshipping at the Temple of Mammon ai??i?? real estate speculation isAi??the Holy Grail.

People here (generally speaking of course) are stuck up, materialistic yuppies. The downtown scene used to have decent variety, now itai??i??s full of ai???cookie-cutterai??? clubs and bars that cater to Armani clones.
Go east of here, or especially south of here, and youai??i??ll find friendlier people that arenai??i??t so consumed with cliques and materialism. If one hails from Harare, Timbuktu, Tripoli, or Darfur then yes, Vancouver appears pretty good, but ai???the most liveable city on Earthai????

Not only is this pretentious, itai??i??s just plain wrong.

No where is the contrast more apparent, than in Coquitlam and Port Moody; cities like Surrey, Delta and Langley, South of the Fraser River andAi??east along the Valley to Abbotsford and Chilliwack.

Politicians, planners, decision makers, wealthy Vancouver suburbanites and the `movers & shakersai??i?? contemptuously dismiss the communities beyond downtown as the boondocks; the disdain for the citizens of the Greater Vancouver Regional Districtand the Fraser Valley is illustrated in the attitude of the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, BC Transit and Ai??TransLink, to public transport in these areas.

The Emperor has no Clothes and no Transit.

In December 2010;

the FRASER VALLEY TRANSIT STUDY http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/FraserValleyTransit/publications.htm

was released and condemned the communities of the Fraser Valley Regional District to a life of perpetuity with no more than a second-rate bus service as an alternative to the private car.

TheAi??Rail for the Valley movement has long campaigned against this inequity:

Whereai??i??s The Transit?

http://www.railforthevalley.com/latest-news/zweisystem/wheres-the-transit/

Transit Planning In Metro Vancouver ai??i?? Where Have We Gone Wrong?

http://www.railforthevalley.com/latest-news/zweisystem/transit-planning-in-metro-vancouver-where-have-we-gone-wrong/

Added costs for the Canada Line ai??i?? Has The Taxpayer Assumed Risk?

http://www.railforthevalley.com/latest-news/zweisystem/added-costs-for-the-canada-line-has-the-taxpayer-assumed-risk/

The truth is now beginning to be realised by the wider community;Ai??The Globe & Mail published the two following articles on March 25 & 26th.

Transit a hit-and-miss affair in B.C.ai??i??s Lower Mainland

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/transit-a-hit-and-miss-affair-in-bcs-lower-mainland/article1957867/page2/

Transit problems across Canada prompt calls for politicians to address issue

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/transit-problems-across-canada-prompt-calls-for-politicians-to-address-issue/article1957897/page2/

We can only hope that the National Election called on the 2nd May and the endAi??to the ten years of ineptitude, inequality, corruptionAi??& nepotism in Gordon Campbellai??i??s BC Liberal administration will improve the outlook; we can but hope and wish.

One should have some basis for comparison before showering such hyperbole on the overpriced, congested, and conceited squalor that is the most liveable city in the world. If any city (or province) is presumptuous enough to put ai???the best place on Earthai??? on its license plates; itai??i??d better well be the case, becauseAi??itai??i??s citizens donai??i??tAi??uphold the credibility.

Vancouver is a poor-manai??i??s version of Seattle that, ironically, costs five times at much. Unlike Seattle, however, Vancouver has a dearth of friendly (and English-speaking) people, good music, and reasonably-priced beer. The self-satisfied smugness Vancouverites have toward their neighbour city to the south (or any metropolis, for that matter) stems from an amalgamation of an inferiority complex coupled with an identity crisis. Canada is like the U.S. in every way, except not quite as good. Nowhere is this exemplified more than in Vancouver.

 

The ULI Land Developers Want A Subway – Surprise, Surprise, Surprise

From a group that claimed it would not talk about mode, the the Urban Land Institute, backs a subway and says “avoid light rail”.

Zwei knew from the beginning this was nothing more than an elaborate set up to support Vancouver’s demand for a subway and to further support the almost discredited policy of ‘densification – Vancouver style‘, which is putting massive highrises on rezoned land for future SkyTrain stations, which ensures very healthy profits for mostly friends of the government. The ULI, sells this Lysenkoist drivel like a medicine man, selling ‘snake oil‘ to the local rubes.

Definition of Lysenkoism: metaphorically describes the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives.

In the real world, it takes several transit specialist, many months to plan for transit mode and to see if a very expensive subway is warranted; the ULI did it in five days and several luncheons later, but then the ULI are not transit experts and the the result was well planned prior to the ‘investigation’.

The ULI were not even expert enough to see that the short (80 metre) SkyTrain stations would have less capacity than a modern LRT. Short SkyTrain station platforms equals lower capacity when compare to LRT systems in Calgary and Ottawa.

The ULI rates a very high and well deserved 5 on the BS meter.

 

The Urban Land Institute backs the City of Vancouverai??i??s preference for an underground subway from Commercial Drive to UBC. (File photo.)

Photograph by: ian lindsay, Vancouver Sun

SkyTrain ills

Oops, the transit system that never breaks down, according to the SkyTrain lobby was on the fritz again.Ai?? A stuck train caused transit chaos Wednesday afternoon, not a train that has broken down, mind you, a stuck train (glue on the tracks?).

Well, trains normally don’t get stuck but when that do in the case of a tram, it is towed away by another tram to a siding where it can be dealt with, not in the case of SkyTrain evidently.

The key phrase in yesterday’s major inconvenience was; “This happens too often, there is no explanation………….” ; all too often is the message Zwei is getting from frustrated transit customers who have vented all too often.

Well SkyTrain Lobby, welcome to the real world of transit operation, trains break down, but with LRT the problem is generally dealt with quite quickly, unlike SkyTrain because when SkyTrain breaks down it gets stuck.

Broken SkyTrain fixed at Main Street StationTransLink warns passengers heading west should expect delays

News1130 Staff February 5, 2014

VANCOUVER (NEWS1130) ai??i?? TransLink says a problem train at the Main Street SkyTrain Station has been fixed.

Passengers heading west into the downtown core are warned to expect delays as service returns back to normal.

SkyTrain riders are frustrated, saying theyai??i??re sick of trains breaking down.

ai???This happens too often, there is no explanation. There are hundreds and hundreds of people that itai??i??s going to take at least an hour to clear off this platform,ai??? expressed one rider.

SkyTrain users endure delays as train gets stuck at Main Street station

By Matthew Robinson, Vancouver Sun February 5, 2014

TransLink is blaming a problem train near Vancouver’s Main Street-Science World SkyTrain terminal for system-wide chaos that left thousands of commuters scrambling to reach destinations Wednesday afternoon.

Liz James Takes On The TransLink Referendum

The fiery independent columnist Liz James is one of the few scribes that is willing to take on the TransLink behemoth with other than the political correctness that follows the issue. David Cockle, mentioned in Ms. James piece, is the very same David Cockle who did the famous Leewood/Rail for the Valley Study…..

….. and a transit study done by Mr. Cockle for Burnaby, Richmond, Vancouver or Surrey would be most welcome.

The region needs very desperately and independent view on transit, as present planning relies too heavily on the SkyTrain light metro model, which has proven to be obsolete for the more cash constrained 21st century. Essentially, the regional taxpayer has been paying about three times more for SkyTrain and the Canada line, with no advantage in operation.

One hopes Mayor Walton will see beyond the fog of “rapid transit” and look at other transit alternatives without interference from the SkyTrain Lobby.

The transit consumer and regional taxpayer deserves no less.

Stumbling towards a transit referendum

Elizabeth James / North Shore News
February 5, 2014

“Somebody has to have the guts to go to the public and talk about all the various sources of (TransLink) funding and do all of the groundwork.” North Shore News Jan. 26, 2014 – North Vancouver District Mayor Richard Walton (from a Jan. 26 news story)

Speaking at a recent Chamber of Commerce lunch, District of North Vancouver Mayor Richard Walton expressed his frustration with the confusion over the proposed TransLink referendum.

Walton, who continues as mayors’ council chair for 2014, echoed the council’s opinion that the province owns the referendum and is responsible for wording the question and for educating the public as to possible funding options.

The same day, Transportation and Infrastructure Minister Todd Stone told reporters the mayors have each “put numerous ideas out there” about the transportation priorities for “their respective communities” without saying how the projects can be funded.

Mayors promoting the needs of their communities? Isn’t that what they were elected to do? People are often accused of demanding services they’re not willing to pay for – the accusation grates every time I hear it. People are not against paying for improved and efficient services; they are sick of pouring their dollars down black holes of provincially driven political decisions that fail to deliver anything close to a region-wide transportation system.

The mayors are overdue to dig in their heels. Indeed many believe they should dump TransLink in the lap of the current premier who has done nothing to rectify the mess she inherited from a succession of previous governments dating back to the Glen Clark era.

Instead, mere hours after Stone’s comments, she pulled the rug out from under him by backing away from the government’s “committed” position that the referendum would be held alongside November’s municipal elections.

That’s reminiscent of a long-ago remark by former CKNW talk-show host Rafe Mair who said, “People are mistaken if they think anyone in power knows what the hell they are doing.”

Now, under the guise of giving people a voice, the province plans to offload its responsibility by forcing you, the voters, to decide how you want your ox gored for who knows what “priorities” they want to ram through.

Recently, I received two documents pertinent to this discussion. One came from longtime North Van District council-watcher, Corrie Kost; the other was a transit presentation made to authorities in Dundee, Scotland.

Too lengthy to analyze here, they add a wider dimension to the transportation investments you are being asked to make.

Kost referred me to a 2012 referendum held in Atlanta, Ga. where area residents were asked to approve a Transportation Special-Purpose Local-Option Sales Tax.

In brief, the referendum failed by a vote of 417,593 to 257,942, despite the fact that proponents spent US$6.5 million to the US$14,000 “and shoe leather” spent by opponents.

If you search for “A well-tied knot: Atlanta’s Mobility Crisis,” authored by Edward A. Hatfield of Emory University, you can read the longer story online. Although Hatfield says Atlanta’s transportation issues were complicated by disturbing racial overtones, some of his comments sound eerily familiar: “… it wasn’t altogether clear that area leaders could even agree on a slate of projects, much less persuade voters to foot the bill.”

And, “… some ninety one percent of the voters opposing the referendum were motivated by a profound lack of faith in government…” To be fair, Hatfield said 49 of 62 initiatives put forward by the U.S. nonpartisan Center for Transportation Excellence did succeed.

Another issue Hatfield touched on was that of development: “The project list as a whole was not paired with thoroughgoing changes in land-use regulations.”

You be the judge as to whether our “regional transportation (is) still chasing development rather than shaping it.”

The second report was a presentation by Jim Harkins, FC ILT and David Cockle of Leewood Projects Ltd. on the Dundee Waterfront Circular Tram. Both members of the U.K.’s LRTA Light Rail Development Group, they do lean toward light rail. Nonetheless, their presentation models the co-ordinated information so desperately needed in this region. Affordability, connectivity, university needs, reduction of car use, pedestrian walkways and much more was covered.

Cockle regularly visits family in Chilliwack and so I asked him about the dynamics of producing such a report for Metro Vancouver. He said circulators could, indeed, feed into the current transit network. Routes to consider: Waterfront-Gastown-Robson; Waterfront-Robson-West End; Robson-West End-Yaletown; Burnaby, Richmond.

Cockle also said that if commissioned, separate reports by Harkins et al for the North Shore and for the Broadway corridor to UBC route would take from four to six weeks to complete.

I hope to discuss the specifics with Mayor Walton and tell you more in an upcoming column.

The cost of those expert independent reports would likely pale in comparison to the costs of a stumbling referendum which would guarantee little but more TransLink grief.

All that’s needed is someone with “the guts” to commission them.

rimco@shaw.ca

Ai?? North Shore News

– See more at: http://www.nsnews.com/news/stumbling-towards-a-transit-referendum-1.814063#sthash.K6x3X2wx.dpuf

Congestion Crisis

Well Zwei told you so, the failure to plan for an affordable public transit alternative for the car has helped create this crisis and no one in charge seems to understand what the real transportation problems are in the region.

While Victoria and regional mayors squabble about who is going to tax whom and by how much, those in TransLink’s ivory towers have done little, except plan for more SkyTrain. Yet for all the SkyTrain we have built and planning so far, has achieved little except spend over $9 billion in the process.

Failed transportation policy.

TransLink’s transportation philosophy has been to connect city centres by light metro and those who wish to use ‘rapid’ transit had to takeAi?? a bus to the R/T, then, if one did not work in a city centre, take a bus from the R/T to where one wishes to go. To be successful we had to operates a massive amount of buses to feed the light-metro system day and night at a considerable cost.

This policy is fraught with problems including the high cost of bus operation; the the thorny issue that buses are very poor in attracting ridership; and the issue of transfers, especially forced transfers, deterring potential customers.

Added to this is light-metro itself; very expensive to build and very expensive to operate and today has proven inferior to modern light rail, yet TransLink wants to keep building with light-metro and when forced to plan for light rail, designs it as an expensive poorman’s SkyTrain.

Etched in stone planning.

Our transit planning is etched in stone and no one is willing to say it must take a different direction or change altogether. Rapid transit (SkyTrain) is planned to subsidize land developers, building massive tower blocks at major transit station locations. Already, land assembly is happening along Broadway and under the guise of “densification” and is deemed good planning by academics, think tanks, politicians .

But something is badly amiss………….

…………. but as the preceding chart shows, despite a $9 billion plus investment in SkyTrain and the Canada line, regional travelAi?? mode share via the car has remained unchanged at 57% and transit use has risen a mere 3%, in twenty years! Transit has not taken cars off the road and congestion and gridlock continue to grow.

There is a cure for congestion, but it is strong medicine and it is not higher car fees or road pricing, unfortunately the medicine is too strong for our current crop of politicians and planners and until there are plans for a large light rail network servicing both major destinations and residential areas, providing the all important “seamless journey” for transit customers, gridlock and congestion will continue to grow unabated.

 

Cars and buses crawl along West Georgia Street in Vancouver during a recent afternoon rush hour. A new study projects that 700,000 more cars will be on Metro Vancouver roads by the year 2041.

Photograph by: Mark van Manen, PROVINCE

If you think traffic is bad now, wait until there are 700,000 more vehicles on Metro Vancouver roads.

Those estimates reflect the number of new vehicles we could see on our streets in the next three decades, according to a 2013 Business Council of B.C. study.

The report, Congested and Nowhere to Go: Congestion, Road Infrastructure, and Road Pricing in Metro Vancouver, projects that Metro Vancouver alone could see ai???an additional 1.4 million residents by 2041 which, by 2011 estimates, could result in 700,000 more vehicles vying for road space.ai???

ai???I was amazed at the number, so much so that I had to do it again,ai??? said study author Jonathan Arnold, an SFU masterai??i??s public policy student.

ai???New roads just arenai??i??t keeping up with the increase in demand.ai???

B.C. has seen 470,000 additional vehicles hit the streets between 2002 and 2012, according to ICBC statistics, while the population grew by 524,000. If the trend holds, it could mean another half a million cars on B.C. roads by 2022.

The question is how to convince owners to leave these cars in their driveways. To date, the answer has been more transit and roads.

Transit investments such as the Canada Line and Port Mann express bus appear to have had an impact, TransLink ridership hit 239 million trips in 2012, up six million from the year before. But transit may remain a second choice where speed and convenience lag. Last yearai??i??s ai???share the roadai??? race between car, bike and transit commuters saw transit users come in dead last.

The provinceai??i??s massive Gateway Program ai??i?? including the billion-dollar Port Mann Bridge, Cape Horn Interchange and Highway 1 upgrades ai??i?? aims to decrease congestion. Yet critics argue road improvements just create ai???induced demand,ai??? quickly re-clogging roads.

ai???You pave your way into a future where you can never get out,ai??? said UBC professor of urban planning and public health Lawrence Frank. ai???No oneai??i??s ever built their way out of congestion, you build alternatives.ai???

One alternative is road pricing.

The Business Council of BC report noted drivers donai??i??t cover two-thirds of the real costs (including environmental) of car commuting, which is ai???artificially cheap in terms of money, and artificially expensive in terms of time.ai???

To remedy that, Robin Lindsey, UBCai??i??s Sauder School of Business professor of transportation economics points to high-occupancy toll lanes (HOT lanes). They allow access to HOV lanes for a price that rises as road congestion rises, and theyai??i??ve been successful in Stockholm, Singapore and Melbourne.

ai???If you want quick, reliable trips by car, you need some form of road pricing,ai??? Lindsey said.

Long-term traffic changes will also result from urban planning and social engineering strategies. Metro Vancouverai??i??s regional growth strategy land use policy encourages transit, car-sharing, cycling and walking, and building denser transit-accessible ai???complete communities.ai???

Yet gridlock isnai??i??t a foregone conclusion. Experts point to demographic, social, economic and technological interventions that could drive B.C.ai??i??s transportation future in a whole new direction.

Andrew Ramlo, executive director of the Urban Futures Institute, said one factor limiting future gridlock is simply self-regulation. As it becomes ai???more and more expensive (in terms of time and gas) to be in your car, you are going to seek alternatives.ai???

Ramlo added car-license data may not represent cars on the road. In his own two-car family, both cars usually stay parked: he and his wife bike or walk to work.

Lindsey stresses the driving habits of future generations are also subject to change. Some studies indicate youth arenai??i??t buying cars or getting their licenses at the rate of their parents, preferring transit in part so they can use social media during commutes.

Plus, thereai??i??s no way of knowing the of future impact of gas prices.

ai???Another game-changer is the impact of technology and driverless vehicles,ai??? Lindsey noted.

Google is already testing driverless cars which could radically alter road capacity, as three times as many can fit on roadways, due to faster reaction times requiring less space. And they can be rented per trip, reducing car ownership.

More voluntary opting out may come from health conscious commuters who eschew the car to save their health. For every hour a day spent in a car, a personai??i??s propensity to obesity increases six per cent, according to research by Frank, director of UBCai??i??s health and community design lab. Some 700,000 more cars on Metro Vancouver roads by 2041 combined with an aging population could be a public health nightmare.

ai???Its an ominous prospect,ai??? he said. ai???The heath costs are so horrific.ai???

eoconnor@theprovince.com

twitter.com/elaine_oconnor

Ai?? Copyright (c) The Province

The Land Developers are Coming to Town

The problem it seems is that the Urban Land Institute seems to be more interested in land development more than anything else and certainly do not seem to be transit experts as the news article portrays them to be.

On the thorny question of what kind of technology the line should use ai??i?? SkyTrain, light rail, subway or bus ai??i?? the ULI panel will be silent. Boniface said it may lightly look at whether it should be underground or above grade, but the main purpose is to examine where stations might go and what the impact they would have on neighbourhoods.

This is the the big issue! LRT, mini-metro (SkyTrain) and rapid bus are different transit modes built to deal with different transit problems. Mini-metro (SkyTrain) is obsolete, made obsolete by modern LRT and modern LRT is built because it is much cheaper to operate than buses on a heavily used transit route. Oh by the way, for light rail, stops would be every 600 metres or so along Broadway, simple stuff that you do not need the Urban Land Institute. The big issue for LRT on Broadway would be eliminating two traffic lanes for tram operation.

This seems to be nothing more than a PR stunt to build a capacity constricted SkyTrain subway under Broadway to subsidize land development and land developer’s profits.

For those who do not want to believe, modern LRT does indeed have a much higher capacity than LRT

The Canada Line, with its very small 40m to 50m station platforms has about one half the capacity than SkyTrain!

International panel to advise on Broadway corridor transit

Washington, D.C.-based Urban Land Institute will do an independent assessment

By Jeff Lee, Vancouver SunJanuary 31, 2014

The Dundee Circulator – The Affordable Tram, a Template for Broadway?

The following was sent to us by our friends in the UK.

What should be of extreme interest is the low cost for the proposed Dundee tram compared to the sky high costs for light rail from TransLink!

The example of the 13.5 km Portland streetcar is of great interest as the costs break down as thus:

• Rail, electrical and street workAi?? …….. USD$35.1m – CAD$38.94m
• Maintenance facility …………………… USD$4m – CAD$4.43
• Trams (5 +s pares) ……………………… USD$11.3m – CAD$12.53
• Utility works (only in swept path) …. USD$3.8m – CAD$4.21
• MiscellaneousAi?? ………………………….. USD$0.4m – CAD$0.44

Total………………………………………………….USD$54.6m – CAD$60.5(approximate)

LR Dundee Circulator Dec 13 v 28 (2)

If we look at a 20 km BCIT to UBC LRT, tram or streetcar, we could build an economy tram/streetcar line far cheaper than what TransLink proposes, with a multi billion dollar subway.

The following are adjusted costs for an economy LRT operation from BCIT to UBC, via Willingdon, Lougheed Hwy., Broadway, 10th Ave. and University Blvd.

Signalling: Line of sight through out, except for the single track section to BCIT, and priority signalling for intersections, and local signals for switches & crossovers.

Start up capacity: 5 minute headways (12 trips per hour) – approx. 3,000 pphpd. Capacity can be increased by adding by using longer trams or adding more trams. Capacity West of Commercial Drive can be increased by short turning trams at Broadway Station.

• Rail, electrical and street work: Approximately CAD$120m for 18.5 double track & 1.5 km for single track (from Lougheed hwy to BCIT). Note, supports and span wires are already in situ from Broadway and Boundary Road to University Boulevard.
• Maintenance facility: Approximately $25 million, based on fleet size.
• Trams: 25 modular trams and spares with a design capacity of 250 persons: Appropriately $125 million based on current vehicle cost.
• Utility works (only in swept path): $25 million.
• Miscellaneous: $50 million, based on contingencies.
• Single track rail bridge across the Number 1 Hwy.: $75 million.

Total cost ………………………………………………………… CAD$420 million.

Let us add another $80 million contingency and an economy BCIT to UBC tram streetcar, with basic HOV lane with rails reserved rights-of-ways over 50% of its route; with stops every 500m to 600m (except Lougheed Hwy & BCIT sections); and priority signalling should cost about $500 million!

This is not, by any means scientific, but we also must remember that the route would be seen as a reinstatement of the original streetcar line and all major utilities, sewer and water are located under the gutter lanes on Broadway. Most of the route is straight, making it easy for pre-fab track and station installation. What a BCIT to Broadway tram would do is replace most buses that operate on Broadway, greatly reducing the operating costs on the route.

I already hear the howls of shock and disbelief now as the SkyTrian Lobby and the LRT nay-sayers (mostly subsidized by TransLink) running in circles claiming that this will sour the milk: kill and maim thousands of people; destroy business along Broadway and more. The fact is, we can build an economy LRT/tram line far cheaper than what the City of Vancouver and Translink claim.

Score: HUB $157,300.00 – Rail for the Valley $0.00

The title refers to the $157,000.00Ai?? HUB (a non-profit cycling society) gets from the cash strapped TransLink.

The lesson to be learned is that many people who are nay-saying light rail in Vancouver and/or posting anti tram nonsense are members of HUB, which I think, puts them in a conflict of interest.

One could say that TransLink’s apron strings are quite long.