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??

The Bateman Strategy: Killing TransLink and the regional vision – NOT!

Gordon Price has entered the TransLink fray and with gusto, blaming Jordan Bate of having the audacity to ask for “none of the above” on the ballot in the upcoming election. Without a “none of the above” on the ballot means the much ballyhooed TransLink referendum would be nothing more than a wet squib, in effect asking the voter, “death by hanging” or “death by firing squad“.’ the referendum would mean absolutely nothing. A “none of the above” would give the electorate real power in sending TransLink, Metro Vancouver, and the provincial government a real message, if it proved to be in the majority.

One has to remember that Gordon Price was a former Vancouver city Councillor and is now Simon Fraser University professor and he is protecting his turf, for if “none of the above” were to be on the ballot and if the majority voted for “none of the above“, it would change how transit is planned in the region or put another way, his past support for Vancouver centric transit planning would come into question as well as his vision for transit in metro region in the future. A “none of the above” vote my shuffle Price and SFU right out of the regional planning picture.

One can sense the fear and loathing by the TransLink and SkyTrain Lobbies and if they seem to be scared stiff of the “none of the above” option, which makes it a very good option for the public.

A none of the above vote could spell the end of the line

for expensive SkyTrain light-metro planning.

The Bateman Strategy: Killing TransLink and the regional vision

Surrey North Delta Leader

Published: August 29, 2013

By Gordon Price

Not that I want to publicize Jordan Bateman (the local spokesman for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation) even more, since the media do enough of that already (and letai??i??s face it, I get my fair share of coverage too) ai??i?? but in the absence of leadership from local leaders, his strategy regarding the transit referendum may well prevail.

And what strategy is that?Ai?? Why, getting people to vote against their self-interest in order to effectively disable TransLink ai??i?? and with it, the regional vision we have pursued for decades with considerable success.

Not, of course, that Metro citizens will intend to vote against more transit or a more sustainable region.Ai?? But thanks to Jordanai??i??s strategy, thatai??i??s what will happen.

Hereai??i??s how the strategy works.

1. First, discredit government ai??i?? in this case, TransLink, and the collective goods we pay for with taxes.Ai?? Ignore the larger purpose of the organization and concentrate on the ai???bureaucratsai??i??, whom you can dismiss contemptuously.

2. To do that, use small examples, real or manufactured, to tar the entire organization.Ai?? Whether free coffee for staff, bonuses for executives, teething problems for Compass Cards, policing costs (or not enough policing), the installation of fare gates (or not installing fare gates), it doesnai??i??t matter what the examples are ai??i?? so long as there is a steady beat of criticism, amplified for and by the media.

3. Maintain that any new programs can be paid for by eliminating ai???waste, fraud and abuse.ai??i??Ai?? Never give credit for any instances where that actually occurs.Ai?? TransLink has already had three performance reviews and an audit, it has already saved millions in ai???efficienciesai??i?? (often a euphemism for cuts) ai??i?? but never mind.Ai?? Always maintain that spending is ai???out of control.ai??i??

4. Establish the bottom line as ai???No More Taxes.ai??i??Ai?? Do not ever get into a debate about the value and merit of what those taxes purchase.Ai?? Simply repeat, and repeat: NMT.

5. Suggest that voters can ai???send TransLink a messageai??i?? by voting for ai???none of the aboveai??i?? on the transit-funding referendum.Ai?? It matters not that eliminating the entire administration of TransLink (about 4 percent of its budget) would barely pay for a few more bus routes, much less a multi-billion-dollar rapid-transit line.Ai?? Insist that cutting salaries and perks is a necessary condition (though never sufficient) before discussing new revenues.Ai?? At that point, simply assert that weai??i??re taxed out, even if weai??i??re paying less taxes or getting new services.

By aggressively attacking the organization so that those in favour of a new tax will have to defend it before they can argue in favour of its funding, you disarm the proponents before they even begin a ai??i??yesai??i?? campaign.

Meanwhile, time is running out ai??i?? 442 days left til Nov 15 (though itai??i??s possible that the referendum might be held in May or June) ai??i?? and we havenai??i??t even got the wording yet, much less leadership for a yes vote.

One wonders whether the CTF was instrumental in convincing the Premier to go with the referendum idea during the election since it gives them an ideal platform to pursue their agenda.Ai?? Better yet, blame for a No vote can be put on local politicians for their inability to convince the electorate.Ai?? And the subsequent cutbacks on local transit services as other sources of revenue decline thereby justify another round of criticism of TransLink.

It just doesnai??i??t get any better than that.

Eric Chris’s Study – Not having transit is more environmentally sustainable than having transit in Vancouver

Ai??Ai??

BRT = Build Rail Transit

Easy and simple to understand, then why doesn’t TransLink get it? Forget about B-Line buses, which only exacerbates TransLink’s financial woes and build with LRT, replacing heavily used bus services with affordable and efficient light rail.

Despite of cries of doom and gloom about light rail construction, the new First Hill streetcar line in Seattle causes minimal traffic disruption during construction.