Zwei Reflects And Makes A Prediction

The Rail for the Valley Blog was started on December 8, 2008, to bolster awareness of the then newly formed Rail for the Valley group and the need for an affordable rail service from Vancouver to Chilliwack.

One can only write so much about the Rail for the Valley project and the blog branched out into such subjects as unconventional railways, railway history, railway signalling, local and international news, and the efforts of others trying to establish affordable light rail lines in their towns and cities. Along the way we have picked up a good following including transportation experts Cardinal Fang from the UK and, Haveacow from Ontario and our local professional engineer Eric Chris , whose insight and comments are always very welcome.

Zweisystem (German for two system LRT or TramTrain) has been a transit advocate since the 1980’s and has been long around the political shell game. A 27 year member of the Light Rail Transit Association, Zwei has the general knowledge of transit around the world and how transit mode is applied.

We have picked up detractors from the SkyTrain Lobby, but we have a lot of people who regularly visit the Rail for the Valley blog for their regional transit news. More and more regional politicians are using the blog for transit news and information that is free of TransLink speak.

From time to time Zwei does get it wrong, but the blog is well vetted and mistakes are made, but are corrected.

In the metro Vancouver region the SkyTrain lobby and their surrogates have held sway for for 34 years and during this time a number of SkyTrain myths have been created, including:

1. SkyTrain is cheaper to operate than LRT because it has no drivers.
2. SkyTrain can achieve a higher capacity than LRT.
3. Light rail, as well as all at-grade transit systems are slow.

The answers pertaining to these myths are:

1. SkyTrain does not have drivers, but it has attendants (170 full time) and transit police, plus a larger signalling staff means that SkyTrain actually has more employees than comparable light rail operations and more expensive to operate.
2. Capacity is a thorny issue at best and in most cases, capacity is based on theoretical calculations and not practical in revenue operation. SkyTrain has been said to be able to achieve 30,000 pphpd, but that is with 8 car trains (MK.1 stock) with 100 metre station platforms, yet the current SkyTrain system can only operate 6 car trains of MK.1 stock on stations with 80 metre platforms. The claim is moot because in Karlsruhe Germany was seeing traffic flows of over 30,000 pphpd on a simple tram line.
3. The difference between LRT and a streetcar is the concept of the reserved rights-of-way or a R-o-WAi?? reserved for the exclusive use of the tram. The Reserved R-o-W, plus priority signally, gives LRT the ability to travel much faster; it is the number of stations per route KM that makes LRT slower and with Skytrain stations up to 2 km. apart compared with with LRT stations are 500 to 600 metres apart, makes light rail somewhat slower. Studies have shown that with stations more than 600 metres apart, reduce ridership and make the service user unfriendly. Given the same quality of R-o-W and equal stations, LRT and SkyTrain can obtain the same commercial speeds.

Myths exposed, but it is strange how many people still believe in TransLink speak, but again I ask; “Why is nobody buying SkyTrain?“

I have always said, to get a rail link to Chilliwack, we must put a wooden stake in heart of SkyTrain and expose the Lysenkoist science behind SkyTrain planning.

Lysenkoism is used metaphorically to describe 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.

There is a shift in planning, TransLink is attempting to plan for LRT in Surrey, but it is being planned on the SkyTrain model, which will doom it to failure and this, I think, is what TransLink wants.

The TransLink referendum is the next ‘big story’ and Zwei thinks that the Premier is setting TransLink up to fail, and why, do you ask?

The answer could be, “Does the Premier and the BC Liberal Party want TransLink referendum to fail so it can privatize it?” From my perspective, the evidence points this way, but time will tell.

 

 

Letters

Transit and transportation are on the minds of local residents, which is a good thing because the more people who want real change for transit will demand it of their politicos.

Nothing wrong with Massey Tunnel

Published: September 30, 2013

Re: Massey Tunnel replacement.

At first glance, the premierai??i??s announcement for a new bridge sounds good, but when one studies the offer of a new bridge, a lot of disturbing questions surface.

The Massey Tunnel does not need to be replaced, as it just had a large and expensive seismic upgrade. In fact one could lay another tube next to the tunnel to expand vehicle and transit capacity at a much lower cost.

It seems that lobbyists for the port authority have convinced the premier to get rid of the tunnel so they can deepen the river to allow massive bulk carriers to reach Surrey docks to load coal and oil. But wasnai??i??t the Robertai??i??s Bank super-port created so massive bulk carriers did not need to travel up the Fraser, saving time, large pilotage fees and taxpayer dollars for regular comprehensive dredging?

What about the extra traffic the 10-lane bridge will dump into Richmond? The tunnel, having only four lanes, provided passive traffic calming, regulating the flow of traffic. All the new bridge will do is move gridlock to the next choke points, the Knight and Oak Street bridges.

There is no mention of easing congestion on the lonely Queensborough bridge, which is older than the Massey Tunnel and is at capacity almost all day. Unless there is a new bridge to Vancouver, gridlock will be endemic on the 99 and 91 highways in Richmond and New Westminster.

The proposed bridge makes a farce of improving transit south of the river as the Liberal government is investing in ai???rubber on asphaltai??? with single occupancy cars, leaving transit mainly for the poor, the elderly, and students.

The hypocrisy associated with the bridge knows no bounds, with many mayors wanting a referendum for the bridge, yet decrying one for TransLink funding, but on the whole stating referendums are not really democratic. What are regional mayors and the premier afraid of, an outbreak of true democracy?

The timing of the proposed bridge is designed to give leverage to the South Delta Liberal candidate in the 2017 election.

The proposed crossing, which will be tolled, is all about pleasing political friends, winning elections, and leaving legacies, not improving traffic flows or improving regional transit.

 

Malcolm Johnston

Delta

 

Use the tunnel for rail

 

The Massey Tunnel would be ideal for a commuter rail linking the Richmond SkyTrain with South Surrey and Langley.

A light rail route linking the South Fraser region with Richmond would make the best use of the Massey Tunnel and would utilize the existing infrastructure of the old Interurban commuter railway.

Linking Surrey light rail to Richmond would vastly increase ridership on South Fraser light rail and ensure its success.

Glen Churchman

 

Transit woes continue in North Surrey

Published: September 30, 2013

 

I live in Surrey and I take transit to work in Vancouver every day.Ai?? I first catch a bus at 104 Avenue and 146 Street which takes me to the Surrey Central SkyTrain station then I take the train downtown.

Until recently there were four separate buses that regularly travelled westbound along 104 Avenue to the Surrey Central SkyTrain station: the 337 (every 15 minutes); the 509 (every 20 minutes); the 590 (every 20 minutes); and, the 320 (every 15 minutes). Only one of these buses, the 320, stops at all stops on 104 Avenue. The other three are all express buses.

There is a fifth bus that does make all stops on 104 Avenue, the 501, but it does not operate during the morning rush hour.

During rush hour when school is in, the 320 frequently drives right past my stop packed to the rafters with passengers and I and many others find ourselves waiting 15 or 20 minutes for the next bus. Meanwhile the other three express buses roar by with greater frequency and are usually only half full with passengers.

Once I do get on a bus I find that there are often upwards of 30 or more people standing in the aisle. Likewise on the return trip home.

The 320 runs every 15-20 minutes in the evening and is frequently late and at times when I get to the Surrey Central SkyTrain station there are upwards of 80 passengers waiting to catch this bus.

For the past five years I have been asking TransLink to solve this problem of overcrowding on the 320.

I thought the solution was relatively simple and inexpensive.Ai?? All TransLink had to do was tell the drivers of the 337, 509 or 590 that if they see people at any of these affected stops during rush hour to stop and pick them up. But no, TransLinkai??i??s solution was for me to catch the 320 headed in the completely opposite direction of my intended direction, ride it for five or six stops, then get off the bus and cross the road and catch the 320 heading in the direction I want to travel before it fills up. I have also been told repeatedly by TransLink that their long-term plan has been to put articulated buses on the 320 run but first they have to find it in their budget to buy some buses.

TransLink started another new bus route that goes down 104, the 96 B-line. All of the buses on this run are articulated buses and they run every 12 minutes.

I thought the problem was being solved but the B-Line doesnai??i??t stop at our stops. Also, because they have added this new route they have reduced the frequency of the 320 (from every 12 minutes to every 15 minutes) making it even more likely that there will be more drive-bys because those buses will fill up even more and sooner.

Since the new 96 B-line is so under-utilized, why not put all of those articulating buses on to the more heavily used, over-crowded 320 route? Doesnai??i??t that sound reasonable?

Well, it does not seem to resonate with TransLink. The problem continues.

John Werring

Surrey

Transit changes make no sense

Published: September 30, 2013

I am writing to voice my condemnation of the recent changes to the 320 Surrey Central/Fleetwood bus service with the introduction of the 96 B-Line.

For a short while recently, the 320 ran almost every few minutes.Ai?? That was extreme and a waste of money and manpower. Now it has been reduced to every 15 minutes.

Scheduling the 320 runs somewhere between these extremes and closer to what is was before the change ai??i?? i.e. nine- to 10-minute intervals ai??i?? would be prudent at least during morning and evening rush hours.

As I stand in the long line-up at Surrey Central SkyTrain station waiting for the 320 to go home every weekday evening, I see the 96 B-Line buses zooming back and forth every seven minutes with maybe only a couple of dozen people in them. How many transit users benefit from this service?Ai?? Perhaps a small number of people in Newton who want to go shopping at the new Guildford mall?Ai??Ai?? Again, a waste of money and manpower. Maybe the mall should subsidize the B-Line.

I cannot rationalize what TransLink was thinking. How are the ever-growing numbers of us who have abodes along the 320 route from the Surrey Central SkyTrain station to Fleetwood supposed to commute to and from work on a daily basis in reasonable time?Ai?? If TransLink is over their budget, why are they instituting a new service that is not being used to its fullest extent and penalizing the 320 bus service that is?

This further clarifies that TransLink has no comprehension into how to spend their finances wisely.

If however, TransLink is intent on screwing us out of reasonable service on this very busy route, they should use the big B-Line buses on the 320 route ai??i?? at least then the two busloads of people waiting in line during rush hour periods could all get on, and the second busload would not be left behind waiting for the next bus.Ai?? Use the regular-size buses for the B-Line.

 

J. Jordan

Surrey

Does the Provincial government Want TransLink To Fail?

Like a death dirge, the TransLink referendum drags on and on, yet the provincial Premier is steadfast on the question of a funding referendum for TransLink.

The regional mayors are more and more making fools of themselves wanting one of many tax proposals to fund the TransLink behemoth, yet abhor a “none of the above” selection. What the mayors want to ask the taxpayer is somewhat like a condemned man being asked if he wants death by firing squad; hanging; or electrocution.

Except for mayor Corrigan of Burnaby, a former CEO of TransLink, not one of the lower mainland mayors have a working knowledge on the art of modern public transit.Ai?? The mayors want more money for TransLink, but they fail to realize the many problems that plaque the organization, and seem to think the more money one throws at TransLink, the better it will be. This is scary nonsense; TransLink is broken – unfixable.

Vancouver wants a $4 billion subway, Surrey need $2 billion to implement a mediocre Translink LRT plan; SFU wants a $147 million gondola; the Canada line is like a white elephant, too expensive to expand and needs at least $2 billion more to be useful (the same amount of investment could build a completely new Vancouver to Steveston and Ladner LRT); and the list goes on. Unsustainable, no matter what funding is approved.

Does the Premier realizes this? Maybe.

Three important items should be considered.

1. The recent new Fraser Bridge replacement announcement had nothing about transit or improved transit.
2. The almost implemented Compass Card program, will do nothing in reducing fare evasion and with the very simple fare regimen Translink has, there was no need for the Compass Card. What the Compass Card is very good at is apportioning fares between transit mode, which would be very important if Translink were sold off or privatized.
3. The Minister of Transportation, Todd Stone, is from Northern BC and his seat is safe if unpleasant actions are taken against TransLink.

It could be that the proposed TransLink referendum is so designed to ensure Translink fails. It is clear that the Premier has a plan for TransLink and the regional mayors do not.

TransLink referendum doomed, Metro Vancouver mayors warn minister

Jeff Nagel – Surrey North Delta Leader
Published: September 26, 2013

Metro Vancouver mayors emerged from their first meeting with new Transportation Minister Todd Stone with no deal or even the makings of one on how to restructure TransLink or craft a referendum on transit expansion funding slated for next year.

Mayors also expressed frustration Thursday that the province is pushing ahead with a Massey tunnel replacement bridge that they fear could push back transit as a priority.

They object to the premier’s insistence there be a referendum on new taxes for TransLink, fearing it will be defeated at the polls.

And they continue to take a stance that TransLink must be reformed to give them more control over spending priorities as a precondition for their active participation in a referendum, if the province insists it go ahead.

Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan said he doesn’t see how the referendum can succeed.

“Despite the mayors saying it’s the stupidest idea imaginable they continue on with the referendum, they’re absolutely determined to hold it,” Corrigan said. “And it’s pretty clear that none of us are going to participate.”

He called it a “ridiculous” way to govern to go to referendum on such a complex issue.

“Why wasn’t there a referendum on the Port Mann Bridge? Why isn’t there a referendum about building a new Delta bridge? Why isn’t there a referendum on the Pattullo? Where they want to spend money there’s no referendum. Where they don’t want to spend money there’s a referendum.”

Corrigan noted the premier’s promise to give the people the final say came after the province concluded voters were wrong and misguided when they defeated the HST in a referendum.

“I don’t know how a referendum will pass,” said Mayors Council chair Richard Walton,Ai?? added he’s hopeful more meetings can hammer out a deal with the province by Christmas that provides some chance of success.

Walton predicted most people will vote against paying more taxes for transit ai??i?? while continuing to demand more be provided ai??i??Ai??unless a very compelling case is presented.

Stone told reporters he shares a common vision with the mayors on the need to raise billions of dollars for additional transit expansion.

There is no decision yet on what exactly voters will be asked in the referendum, who will pay for it and lead it, or when it will be, other than it will take place no later than November of 2014.

Asked if voters might be denied a “none of the above” option ai??i?? that they might be forced to choose from a menu of new taxes for TransLink as suggested in May by former Transportation Minister Mary Polak ai??i??Ai??Stone said he hasn’t ruled it out.

“The question must be about a vision for the expansion of transit and transportation in the Lower Mainland,” Stone said.

“It is therefore likely that wrapped around that vision in the referendum question itself there may be a list of options that voters have to choose from in terms of different funding mechanisms, new funding mechanisms that could come into play to fund that expansion.”

He predicted the referendum can be successful if the question is worded correctly.

Stone also defended the government’s decision to announce plans to replace the Massey Tunnel with a large new bridge.

If there is a referendum, the more probable sources of potential funding include an annual vehicle levy or a small regional sales tax.

Road pricing or regional tolling, while backed my most mayors, would take years longer to flesh out.

TransLink board vice-chair Howard Nemtin also spoke out Thursday when mayors challenged the board to take a public stand on the future of TransLink.

He insisted TransLink is efficiently run but cannot keep pace with the needs of the growing region.

He said the board backs the mayors’ call for new revenue sources.

“We’ve looked at road pricing. We’ve looked at licence fees. We’ve looked at tolling. We have all been on the same page in that regard,” Nemtin said.

“What we do need is some decision at a higher level, at the provincial level, to allow us to move forward and implement those particular initiatives.”

http://www.surreyleader.com/news/225381242.html

Massey Tunnel Fox Trot

A proposed bridge over the Fraser River to replace Massey tunnel — shown in this rendering — is proving controversial among Lower Mainland mayors who have been told their funding options must go to referendum.

Several Metro Vancouver mayors say Victoriaai??i??s demand for a referendum on TransLinkai??i??s funding options is hypocritical given the recent announcement of a bridge to replace the Massey tunnel ai??i?? without similar public consultation.

In a meeting this morning, the mayors will ask Transportation Minister Todd Stone to explain why the government has foregone a referendum for the Massey bridge.

The mayorsai??i?? council, which approves TransLink funding and shapes the regionai??i??s long-term transit plans, is opposed to the referendum announced by Premier Christy Clark during the election campaign.

The mayors see the referendum as another example of the provincial government overriding the work of long-term regional transit planning. Successive NDP and Liberal governments have jumped the queue to launch highway improvements and rapid transit lines of their choosing.

Several mayors say Clarkai??i??s Massey bridge announcement last Friday was the latest in a string of unilateral government moves that have hamstrung their municipalities, who are dealing with a regional transit system that is ai???busting at the seams.ai???

The mayors argue the provinceai??i??s proposed referendum for TransLink, slated for the 2014 municipal elections, would not give the public the whole picture of the transit situation or identify appropriate sources of funding, and would be divisive to the region.

ai???You can certainly say the referendum is a hurdle to moving forward and providing the transit people want in the region, whereas the bridge is announced four years from now as a fait accompli without even any discussion as to how itai??i??s going to be financed,ai??? said North Vancouver District Mayor Richard Walton, chairman of TransLinkai??i??s mayorsai??i?? council. ai???Transit is considered much less important and essential to the economy than extending the (Fraser) river crossing.

ai???From our point of view ai???Well, show us the business case and what are the rules?ai??i?? ai???

Metro Vancouver board chairman Greg Moore said the bridge and major improvements to the road network didnai??i??t trump new rapid transit in Surrey and along Vancouverai??i??s Broadway corridor in the boardai??i??s regional growth strategy. The tunnel is one of the regionai??i??s largest choke points for traffic and there is no guarantee that the new bridge would be approved in a referendum involving voters from across Metro Vancouver, he added.

The mayorsai??i?? council has long lobbied for more control over TransLink, saying they have been backed into a corner to raise taxes for bridges, roads and transit, but have no control over transit priorities. Instead, decisions are often made in secret by the appointed board or imposed by the provincial government.

Before their re-election, the Liberals promised Metro Vancouver residents a referendum vote on any major transit projects in their communities.

Stone was unavailable for an interview, but spokeswoman Kate Trotter emailed a statement that said the bridge was a ai???significant election issue and we were very clear about our intent.ai???

The statement said that public consultations clearly showed the public wanted the bridge and that the business case for it, as well as its technical design, is now underway.

Richmond Mayor Malcolm Brodie said the Massey tunnel could be significantly decongested by putting more money into a system of buses that get commuters out of their cars as well as opening Port Metro Vancouverai??i??s facilities 24 hours every day to spread out the commercial truck traffic.

ai???You donai??i??t need to build a new bridge to decongest it,ai??? Brodie said. ai???If all youai??i??re doing is to speed the traffic along, so they can get over this brand new bridge, so they can get to the traffic jam that much earlier, what have you accomplished? Nothing.ai???

mhager@postmedia.com

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, especially our friend in Vancouver who 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 mufti-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. If the LRTA found that modern LRT could carry over 20,000 pphpd in 1986, in 2010, in Karlsruhe Germany, one tram or LRT line on Kaisserstrasse was seeing traffic flows around 40,000 pphpd.

 

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:

1. Bus ai??i?? 22.4 minutes
2. LRT ai??i?? 18 .6 minutes
3. Metro ai??i?? 16.3 minutes

The Round trip time, including a 5 minute layover:

1. Bus ai??i?? 54.8 minutes
2. LRT ai??i?? 47.2 minutes
3. 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:

1. Bus ai??i?? 2.7 minute headways, with 22 trips.
2. LRT ai??i?? 7.5Ai?? minute headways, with 8 trips.
3. LRT (2-car) ai??i?? 15 minute headways, with 4 trips.
4. Metro ai??i?? 30 minute headways, with 2 trips.

At 6,000 pphpd:

1. 1 Bus ai??i?? 0.9 minute headways, with 67 trips.
2. LRT ai??i?? 2.4 minute headways, with 17 trips.
3. LRT (2-car) ai??i?? 4.8 minutes, with 13 trips.
4. Metro ai??i?? 10 minute headways with 6 trips.

At 10,000 pphpd:

1. Bus ai??i?? 30 second headways, with 111 trips (traffic flows above 10,000 pphpd impractical).
2. LRT ai??i?? 1.4 minute headways, with 42 trips.
3. LRT (2 car) ai??i?? 2.8 minute headways, 21 trips
4. Metro ai??i?? 6 minute headways, 10 trips.

At 20,000 pphpd:

1. LRT ai??i?? 0.7 minute headways, with 83 trips.
2. LRT (2 car) ai??i?? 1.4 minute headways, with 42 trips.
3. 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:

1. Bus ai??i?? 21 (0)
2. LRT ai??i?? 7 (0)
3. LRT (2 car) ai??i?? 4 (0)
4. metro ai??i?? 2 (up to 38)

At 6,000 pphpd:

1. Bus ai??i?? 61 (0)
2. LRT ai??i?? 20 (0)
3. LRT (2 car) ai??i?? 10 (0)
4. Metro ai??i?? 5 (up to 38)

At 10,000 pphpd:

1. Bus ai??i?? 110 (traffic flows above 10,000 pphpd impractical) (0).
2. LRT ai??i?? 34 (0)
3. LRT (2 car) ai??i?? 17 (0)
4. Metro ai??i?? 8 (up to 38)

At 20,000 pphpd:

1. LRT ai??i?? 69 (0)
2. LRT (2 car) ai??i?? 34 (0)
3. Metro ai??i?? 15 (up to 38)

Though the study is 27 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 headways than LRT are untrue; automatic metros can not operate at higher frequencies than LRT, but if Metro is operated at close headways 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 RoWai??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/

Is The Canada Line A Classic White Elephant?

From Wiki: A white elephant is an idiom for a valuable but burdensome possession of which its owner cannot dispose and whose cost (particularly cost of upkeep) is out of proportion to its usefulness or worth. The term derives from the story that the kings of Siam (now Thailand) were accustomed to make a present of one of these animals to courtiers who had rendered themselves obnoxious, in order to ruin the recipient by the cost of its maintenance. In modern usage, it is an object, scheme, business venture, facility, etc., considered to be without use or value.

The Gordon Campbell Liberal government in eager haste to reward their political friends in Richmond, Vancouver, and the Vancouver International Airport, cobbled together an expensive SkyTrain subway plan to provide both quick service to YVR and not using the former BC Electric Vancouver to Richmond interurban Arbutus Line, which bisects the more posh west side of Vancouver. To pretend that the subway portion of the Canada Line was viable a P-3 charade was hatched to hide real costs of the project.

It should be noted at this point that the judge overseeing the Susan Heyes/TransLink lawsuit called the Canada Line P-3 process a charade!

To TransLink’s chagrin, a conventional metro was chosen, built as a mini-metro through the charade P-3 process, which was incompatible with the rest of the proprietary SkyTrain mini-metro system. As costs for the mini-metro began to escalate from the original cost of $1.3 billion, the scope of the project was greatly reduced, including cheaper cut & cover construction instead of a bored tunnel; not paying compensation to people badly affected by cut & cover subway construction; omitting some stations; single track operation in Richmond and YVR; and build smaller stations with 40 metre to 50 metre platforms, which could accommodate only 2 car trains.

As built the Canada Line cost about $2.5 billion to build, yet was near capacity soon after it opened. All Vancouver bound South Surrey, South Delta and Richmond bus routes were cascaded onto the Canada Line and forcing transit customers to transfer from bus to mini-metro. Despite dubious claims of record high ridership, the Canada line, as built, has the capacity of a heritage streetcar line such as those operating in Toronto. The Canada line, with 41 metre long trains and 40m to 5om long station platforms, compares very poorly other LRT lines such as Calgary’s C-Train soon to be operating 99.3 long trains, with stations having 110m long platforms.

TransLink has not released figures for how many new transit customers the Canada line has attracted, nor do they mention anything more about the often repeated claim that the Canada line would take 200,000 car journeys off the road each day. Except from a few boasts in the media by Translink or their surrogates who work in the media, there is very little said.

The hugely expensive Canada Line, almost at capacity today and is ruinously expensive to both extend and to increase its capacity!

There has been absolutely no mention by the provincial government of extending the Canada Line across the Fraser into South Delta and South Surrey with the Massey tunnel bridge proposal. The provincial government has seen to have forgotten all about their Canada Line, which they forced upon TransLink. No mention of the Canada Line at all. It has become clear that “rubber on asphalt” is the future for transit in the lower mainland.

This begs the question: “Is the $2.5 billion Canada Line a white elephant, ruining TransLink with large maintenance costs and too expensive to extend and too expensive to increase capacity?“

Postscript: TransLink’s official capacity for a 41 metre, 2-car ROTEM metro-set used on the Canada line is 400 persons. Wikipedia gives a full load of 334 per 2 car set (167 per car) and a crush load of 400. The industry definition of a crush load is all seats taken and standees at 6 persons per square metre, impossible to obtain in North America. In comparison, the 49 metre long Spirit Class trams being built for Ottawa have a capacity of 300 persons per car and one wonders if the real capacity for a 41m long ROTEM train-set is much less and capacity figures have been greatly exaggerated to misinform the public.

The Premier Readies For The 2017 Election By Announcing A New Bridge

Premier Christie Clark has started her legacy building by announcing a new 10 lane bridge to replace the George Massey tunnel. The announcement certainly shows that land speculators and developers are running the government as this bridge will not only create more traffic chaos than it will solve, it make it open season on the agriculture Land Reserve, promoting massive new housing developments on former farm land in Delta.

Zwei is in rare agreement with former Vancouver City Councillor, Gordon Price and his prediction that; “it will add more pressure to develop farmland.” In fact this bridge is the death knell of the Agriculture Land Reserve in Delta and will foster urban sprawl on a massive scale.

What is interesting that “rapid transit“, specifically the Canada Line has not been mentioned, yet the scope of investment, including a new bridge begs a rail solution for South of the Fraser, yet nary a mention is made and no rail is shown in the promo’s.

Could it be that it is just too expensive to extend the Canada Line, with the mini-metro looking more and more like the “White Elephant” it is.

All this bridge will do is move gridlock elsewhere andAi?? beggar the poor with onerous tolls and of course, enrich friends of the government with lucrative contracts, all on the taxpayer’s dime.

The Czarina is in charge and this massive new bridge, which planning seems to be cobbled hastily on the back of an envelope, with some spiffy graphics thrown in, is the shape of things to come. Blacktop politics at its worst.

New bridge will replace Massey Tunnel, Premier Clark says

By Jeff Nagel – South Delta Leader
Published: September 20, 2013

A new bridge will replace the aging George Massey Tunnel but the provincial government isn’t yet saying if the span will be tolled.

Premier Christy Clark promised construction will begin in 2017 in her speech Friday at the Union of B.C. Municipalities convention.

Clark said it’s too early to say how improved transit along Highway 99 might fit into the project or whether tolls will be required to pay for it.

If the new bridge is tolled it would join the new Port Mann, the Golden Ears, and possibly the Pattullo ai??i??Ai??where tolls are also an option to pay for replacement ai??i??Ai??as Metro Vancouver bridges that motorists must pay to cross.

The premier said the province is following the advice of the public provided in consultations that a new bridge is best, rather than another tunnel.

The province is also rejecting one controversial alignment that would have crossed the river further upstream and was strongly opposed over concern it would intensify pressure to develop farmland in east Richmond.

“People said the tunnel must be replaced and it must be replaced on the same route,” Clark told UBCM, adding the project will relieve congestion on what is now “the worst bottleneck in the Lower Mainland.”

A newly released report on public feedback found “medium” support for building a new bridge and also keeping the old tunnel.

But decommissioning the 55-year-old tunnel also offers the major advantage of allowing larger ships to sail up the Fraser River, opening up expanded port use of sites in North Delta and Surrey.

Asked if Port Metro Vancouver should contribute to the cost, Clark called that “a good idea.”

The new Port Mann Bridge itself cost $830 million, not counting about $2 billion more to expanding the highway and interchanges.

It’s not yet clear if the province intends similar upgrades along Highway 99 or how many lanes are planned for the new bridge.

But a video released by the transportation ministry depicts a large 10-lane bridge with special HOV and truck lanes.

Some transit advocates have previously said they fear the new bridge will come at the cost of more transit and SFU City Program director Gordon Price predicted Friday it will add more pressure to develop farmland.

Engineering and technical work is underway to develop a project scope and business case for the new bridge and associated Highway 99 corridor upgrades, to be made public next spring.

Meanwhile, the transportation ministry plans to immediately lengthen the Steveston off-ramp at the north end of the tunnel to improve safety and ease traffic congestion there.

The announcement was applauded by Delta mayor Lois Jackson and the B.C. Trucking Association.

Clark first pledged to begin studying options to replace the tunnel at last year’s UBCM convention. The province says the tunnel has about 10 years of useful life left.

Friends of Rail For the Valley – Annual General Meeting

A comparison of Canadian Rail Transit Systems

Please note station platform lengths, SkyTrain and the Canada Line’s station platforms, as well as the vehicles are smaller than most, which means TransLink’s claimed high capacity for Metro Vancouver’s rail system maybe more of a fairy tale than reality. Pixie dust planning and operation seems to be TransLink’s forte.

 

A Letter To South Fraser Mayors And Councils

LRT versus Skytrain – Copy.jpg 170KAi??Ai?? ViewAi??Ai?? DownloadAi??Ai??