Referendum New Transit funding For TransLink – BC Liberal Election Platform

Interesting, election gimmick from the BC Liberals which just may resonate with the regional taxpayer.

For 33 years, the regional taxpayer has been shut out of the regional transit debate, but expected to shell out serious coin for mega transit projects without question. Already the SkyTrain lobby are squealing like stuck pigs with any hint of real public involvement with transit issues and our lot of ‘wannabe‘ transit experts are giving the idea a big thumbs down. Why?

Could it be that real taxpayer scrutiny with transit planning and transit funding will expose 33 years of mismanagement, very bad planning, and Lysenkoism.

Lysenkoism: 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.

It seems that those who are against a referendum on transit funding are those who may be afraid of the truth.

Referendum on new TransLink taxes has fans, foes

By Jeff Nagel – Surrey North Delta Leader
Published: April 15, 2013

The BC Liberals’ surprise pledge of a referendum in November 2014 on any new taxes or tolls for TransLink is getting mixed reaction from transportation watchers.

Canadian Taxpayers’ Federation B.C. director Jordan Bateman said the election promise unveiled Monday would give local voters the power to block any new revenue tool for transit expansion they decide is unjustified.

“That will really change the tenor of the discussion around TransLink,” Bateman said.

“From my point of view, that’s great. Direct democracy is always the best democracy.”

Metro Vancouver mayors have asked the province for new funding sources ai??i??Ai??a vehicle levy, a share of carbon tax, a small regional sales tax or some form of road pricing ai??i?? to give TransLink the money for a massive transit expansion that would include rapid transit through Surrey to Langley and west on Vancouver’s Broadway corridor to UBC.

But some Metro Vancouver mayors are critical of the promised referendum, saying it threatens to dumb down the important debate over the future expansion of transit and put the long-term future of the region at risk.

Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts warned it could divide the region, with voters in cities that already have SkyTrain lines refusing to vote for the higher taxes needed to build new lines in the remaining underserved parts of the region.

“There are going to be people who don’t want to have any expansion in the region whatsoever and that leaves the communities that are growing that have had no investment in rapid transit at a disadvantage,” Watts said.

“Surrey has paid for significant amounts of infrastructure north of the Fraser,” she said. “Now that we’re looking to expand south of the Fraser, where 70 per cent of the region’s growth is coming, we just really need to stop playing politics and get the job done.”

Watts said the debate over funding for TransLink has dragged on for years and waiting until November 2014 would keep the region at a standstill until then.

“Not to be able to do anything for another two years for us in Surrey is simply unacceptable,” said Watts, who questioned why there isn’t a referendum on Liberal plans for changes to income tax levels or the sale of Crown land.

Watts also said the Liberal platform wrongly calls rapid transit for Surrey a “new” proposal, noting it was promised in the Provincial Transit Plan more than five years ago by then-premier Gordon Campbell.

Mayors’ council chair Richard Walton doesn’t reject the idea of a referendum but said he’s concerned 2014 may be too soon to have an informed public debate on a complex issue like road pricing, which could see motorists charged to drive on major routes.

That public discussion would need to address not just what residents would pay in extra charges, but what they would get for the investment and the downside if it was rejected.

“Saying no is easy,” Walton said. “But people don’t necessarily understand the repercussions of saying no.”

Both he and Watts said the referendum idea came without any warning despite months of meetings with Transportation Minister Mary Polak.

The timing of the vote for November 2014 is to coincide with the next civic elections, saving money.

SFU City Program director Gordon Price said a referendum could be a disaster for the region, blocking transit upgrades needed for the livability of the growing region.

“It’s an excruciatingly bad idea,” he said, pointing to transportation funding referenda in U.S. states, where he said good policy is often sacrificed to craft an initiative that might pass.

“It just invites everything to be framed as part of a cynical political exercise that’s put through the grinder of ideology, partisanship and parochialism. It becomes what will sell. Not what’s right or how do we make the tradeoffs that need to be made.”

Price said the move reflects a continuing provincial government bias against transit and in favour of bridge and freeway projects that appeal to drivers but ultimately undercut the aim of more transit use and lower emissions.

“Why is only one part of the transportation system up for a referendum?” Price asked. “I want to vote on the [replacement of the] Massey Tunnel. And why didn’t they do that with the Port Mann Bridge?”

Price said he believes the referendum promise is designed so the Liberals can dodge responsibility for whatever deal may be struck with Metro mayors.

“Everything is framed so they have an out,” he said. “This just sounds like a way to avoid making the really tough decisions.”

Karlsruhe

TramTrain in a cityscape.

This is a picture that the city of Vancouver and the city of Vancouver Engineering Department do not want the public to see; user friendly trams.

A Karlsruhe TramTrain S-41 service (Eutingen im GAi??uai??i??TullastraAYe / VBK Eutingen im GAi??u ai??i?? Freudenstadt ai??i?? Baiersbronn ai??i?? Forbach ai??i?? Rastatt ai??i?? Durmersheim ai??i?? Hauptbahnhof ai??i?? Marktplatz ai??i?? TullastraAYe / VBK)Ai?? on Marktplatz, in Karlsruhe, Germany.

 

This TramTrain is classified as a GT8-100D/M 2S. These 8-axle trams are powered by motor bogies in the lead and trailing positions while the two centre bogies are unpowered. These cars can seat 97 to 100 and accommodate up to 150 standing passengers. TheAi?? GT8-100D have a top speed of 90 km/h, 56 mph, enabling them to operate on the mainline railways. There are rated at 560 kW, 750 hp. All of the Siemens built units feature Panorama windows in the centre section.

TransLink, The City of Vancouver, and the SkyTrain Lobby Practice Lysenkoism

The SkyTrain Lobby Is Watching You!

Lysenkoism: 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.

IgnoringAi?? the fact that the proprietary SkyTrain mini-metro system has been rejected by transit planners around the world as being extremely expensive for what it does and just being poorly designed, many local planners and engineers still hail SkyTrain as a ‘wonder system‘ despite the fact that only seven such systems have been built in 33 years and only two are seriously used for urban transport.

Ignoring facts has been the mainstay of TransLink, countless provincial ministers of transportation, professional engineers, planners and academics, in transit debates and regional transit planning in general. Why have so many people have stained their reputations, supporting a proprietary mini-metro, when the rest of the world has moved on, relegating SkyTrain as a historic footnote?

There are two reasons for so many so-call professional and academic people remain willfully blind on regional transit issues.

1. Many people have made small fortunes by supporting SkyTrain and the SkyTrain planning and building process. Making large sums of money by doing very little is a very hard habit to give up, especially when the taxpayer is footing the bill.
2. Many people have just been bamboozled by the SkyTrain lobby and are embarrassed to acknowledge it. Like sheep, they continue to baa, baa, the SkyTrain line for fear that they would be shown ignorant of transit issues.

Greed, ignorance and fear are the main ingredients of our regional transit planning and until that changes, the powers that be will still plan for SkyTrain and as building and operating SkyTrain is bankrupting TransLink, taxes will continually rise, further feeding greed, ignorance and fear.

This is called Lysenkoism and it is being practiced daily in metro Vancouver.

The Bus Lobby Uses the SkyTrain Lobby’s Tacticts

A bus jam in Ottawa. One modern tram would be as efficient as 6 buses.

If there is any doubt that the bus lobby misrepresents the truth, the following will dispel it immediately.

The Vancouver Observer ran an item by Eric Doherty entitled, Humble trolley bus reborn as climate superhero, which the truth is so distorted that it leaves the reader with the impression that modern LRT is all but obsolete. What is even more distressing, Doherty is advising the NDP on regional transit issues

Zwei takes great exception with the following excerpt,

The comparison to light rail vehicles is important when considering what routes are busy enough to justify the capital cost of building light rail. There is an overlap in the size of modern trams (streetcars and light rail vehicles) and modern buses. Smaller trams have capacities of around 150 people, whereas the largest buses carry up to 200. There is a large potential labour saving in utilizing much larger rail vehicles carrying over 500 people on very busy routes. But on less busy routes there is now little or no labour cost saving to going to rail vehicles. Frequency of service is one of the most important factors in attracting transit riders, so running large light rail vehicles infrequently is not much of an option.

The modern tram has capacities of 200 to 350 people, the smaller trams mentioned are either heritage vehicles or operate on routes that demand a smaller vehicle. Today, the tram is made of modular construction and a smaller tram can economically ‘grow’ with ridership demands on a transit route, by adding a new module, something that is impossible for buses to do.

The three sectioned articulated buses mentioned in the piece are illegal to operate on Canadian streets unless they operate on a dedicated rights-of-ways or busways, which dramatically increase the cost of construction and operation.

http://www.railforthevalley.com/latest-news/zweisystem/eric-chris-on-bi-articulated-buses-for-the-99-b/

The author makes an impression that trams can’t operate at close frequencies (which they can and more efficiently when headways are less than 60 seconds) and his larger bus compared to small tram is just dishonest.

But I will leave it with a German transit expert, Wolfgang Keller, to put things in a proper perceptive.

Ai??Quote; “In Europe, many transit agencies no longer differentiate between Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail lines“

What?! BRT isn’t an issue in Germany, Austria, or Switzerland. What is common, however, is that buses use reserved streetcar lanes as bus-lanes.

There is one BRT network I know of in the Netherlands and a few lines in France. I have no clue of the UK though.

A regular contributor to “Stadtverkehr” (Harry Hondius) has somewhat advocated BRT recently, based on the excessive cost per km (up to 60 mio EUR iirc) of some new networks in France. But that excessive cost was not really rail-related, since the municipal authorities charged a lot of “urban refurbishment” works on the streetcar budget.

The TVR/GLT was a total disaster and it’s no longer marketed by Bombardier, just like all previous attempt at guided buses (Translohr is a streetcar, legally, it’s bidirectional and can run in MU, besides units over 24m). Caen has decided to replace it with actual streetcars. Nancy has decided to refurbish the TVR trolleybuses for something like 750,000 EUR (!) per piece to allow them to live for another 10-15 years, since they have never been really “fit for service”. There were not only numerous derailments, but also safety issues with the electric isolation of the traction equipment (Bombardiers had never built trolleybuses before and the electric equipment of trolleybuses is pretty special for safety reasons).

The region Lorraine seems to have a taste for screwing up public transit imho, since Nancy’s neighbour city Metz is planning to build a “BRT” line with double-articulated hybrid buses at 855,000 EUR (!) per piece (not including VAT). *gasp*

There’s also been an EU-funded research project about “future” BRT, but the results they presented were imho not actually new and don’t fundamentally change the fact that BRT is essentially the union of the (high) fixed (capital) cost of streetcars with the (high) variable (operation) cost of buses. I don’t see where there would be a “window
of opportunity” in the passenger volume vs. total cost diagram where BRT could reach a financial “break even” compared to streetcars.

If there were significant differences in construction cost per km in some french cities between streetcar and BRT infrastructure, that’s imho essentially due to different “scope of budget”.

TVR/GLT is technically already a mis-concept. The guiding system simply doesn’t work even half-reliably.

Quote: “Bus Rapid transit is typically a bit faster than light rail, and has about the same maximum capacity.“

Yet another “leader” who slept through his math classes in primary school.

Buses can at most be 24m in length in Europe, streetcars 75m (in Germany). The maximum frequency is the same, since both operate “on sight” and dwell time at stations are the limiting issue.

And so far, 24m buses have not really convinced the operators. They are not built by any of the major bus builders (Neoman, Evobus, Irisbus…), but by small “niche” manufacturers (Van Hool, Hess…). Thus, they are aliens in the fleets, expensive to maintain and due to their “swept envelope” they can’t go everyhwere within the street network.

With electric propulsion (a strolleybuses), they are not really significantly cheaper than streetcars, considering the lifespan.

Anyone who has not slept through their math classes in elementary school can easily draw up a comparison table for the capacity of streetcars vs. BRT:

“Front door only” boarding for buses for fare collection by the driver makes things even worse because then the dwell times are far longer and consequently the maximum frequency is far lower for buses, but that would be “unfair” imho, since I assert “all other conditions being equal”, i.e. POP for buses as for streetcars.

Does Vancouver or the province of BC have such an important car/bus/oil industry?

The last time I checked, the Canadian oil industry is located in Alberta, and Alberta happens to have two of the best urban transit systems in North America.

Sincerely,

Zwei would hope that the provincial NDP would consult with real transit experts and not bus lobby windbags, who, like their SkyTrain brethren cannot honestly debate transit issues and simply make it up as they go along.

New Rail for the Valley brochures are ready

The Friends of Rail For the Valley Society has come out with some nice brochures ahead of the provincial election! Much credit goes to Robbin Yager for designing these brochures.

RFV1FAi??-Ai??This is a one-fold brochure, 11×17 inches, B&W

RFV1FcmykAi??-Ai??This is the same one-fold brochure, 11×17 inches, COLOUR (quantities limited)

RFV2FAi??-Ai??VOTE FOR CANDIDATES WHO SUPPORT LIGHT RAIL, a special pre-election brochure. 2-fold, 8.5×11 inches, B&W

RFVflysheet1Ai??- Facts vs Myths, and some specific arguments for Light Rail

We have printed out a bunch of these. If you would like some to distribute, please let us know: society@railforthevalley.com.

We can get them to you if you can get them out there!

If you want to further support our efforts, please donate by clicking here.

 

A Letter To BC’s Auditor General John Doyle

Long time light rail advocate, Malcolm Johnston, has sent a letter to John Doyle, BC’s Auditor General regarding the recent Evergreen Line audit.

To the point, if LRT vehicles have higher passenger capacities than Skytrain cars; are cheaper to supply than Skytrain cars and LRT can be built on much cheaper rights-of-ways and operate at comparable headways, how then can SkyTrain be the best option based on providing more capacity at a similar than LRT?

Of course the answer is “Skytrain can’t” and as Mr. Johnston points out “only seven SkyTrain type systems have been sold in 33 years, compared to over 160 new LRT lines built during the same period.“, demonstrates that transit planners have rejected SkyTrain almost completely.

Maybe because modern LRT can provide higher capacities than Skytrain at a cheaper cost.

The Auditor General of British Columbia, John Doyle, dear sir,

 

The just released Audit of the Evergreen Line contains a factual error that “SkyTrain and not light rail was the best option because of its greater capacity at similar costai??i??.ai??? Today, modern LRT has proven to have a somewhat higher capacity than SkyTrain and to date not one of the seven SkyTrain type systems built around the world has yet to obtain the capacity that modern LRT has obtained in revenue service.

“Capacity is a function of headway” and given equal Skytrain or light rail vehicle capacity, operating at same headway’s, would give comparable capacities, but because LRT is cheaper to build, LRT would be able to provide the same capacity as Skytrain, at a much cheaper cost.

One modern light rail vehicle has a maximum capacity of about 250 persons (all seats occupied and standees @ 4 persons per metre sq.) and costs in the range of $4 million to $5 million per unit.

One Mk. 1 Skytrain car has a capacity of 75 persons and had a cost of about $2.5 million a car. One Mk.2 Skytrain car has a capacity of 110 persons and costs just over $3 million per car. Please note, that Skytrain cars operate in married pairs thus the cost per unit must be doubled when compared with a light rail vehicle.

The Canada Line is not Skytrain and the Canada Line metro cars are not compatible with Skytrain operation and thus are not included.

To come near to matching the capacity of a light rail vehicle, at least two Mk. 2 cars SkyTrain cars would be required, in the end, costing more than one modern LRV!

As modern LRT can obtain the same headway’s than Skytrain on a far cheaper rights-of-way and using less cars than SkyTrain is is a matter of logic that modern LRT can obtain the same capacity as Skytrain, but at a far cheaper cost!

Skytrain was first marketed in the late 1970’s, only seven type systems have been built, during the same period, over 160 new light rail lines have been built and a further 36 are under construction or are obtaining final approval. Strange then, if SkyTrain can provide a superior performance than LRT, that it has done so poorly on the international market.

In 2008, responding to a letter from a Victoria (BC) transit group, American transit expert Gerald fox, gave a candid view of the Evergreen Line’s business case, summing up stating:

 

It is interesting how TransLink has used this cunning method of manipulating analysis to justify SkyTrain in corridor after corridor, and has thus succeeded in keeping its proprietary rail system expanding. In the US, all new transit projects that seek federal support are now subjected to scrutiny by a panel of transit peers, selected and monitored by the federal government, to ensure that projects are analyzed honestly, and the taxpayersai??i?? interests are protected. No SkyTrain project has ever passed this scrutiny in the US.

It is my belief, that the Auditor General and the Auditor General Department have been mislead with erroneous claims about Skytrain and light rail and if an independent audit of the Evergreen Line were to be undertaken, these erroneous claims would be exposed.

Malcolm Johnston

The following is the full text of the Gerald Fox letter:

 

From: A North-American Rail Expert

Subject: Comments on the Evergreen Line ai???Business Caseai???

Date: February 6, 2008 12:15:22 PM PST (CA)

Greetings:

The Evergreen Line Report made me curious as to how TransLink could justify continuing to expand SkyTrain, when the rest of the world is building LRT. So I went back and read the alleged ai???Business Caseai??? (BC) report in a little more detail. I found several instances where the analysis had made assumptions that were inaccurate, or had been manipulated to make the case for SkyTrain. If the underlying assumptions are inaccurate, the conclusions may be so too. Specifically:

Capacity. A combination of train size and headway. For instance, TriMetai??i??s new ai???Type 4ai??? Low floor LRVs, arriving later this year, have a rated capacity of 232 per car, or 464 for a 2- car train. (Of course one must also be sure to use the same standee density when comparing car capacity. I donai??i??t know if that was done here). In Portland we operate a frequency of 3 minutes downtown in the peak hour, giving a one way peak hour capacity of 9,280. By next year we will have two routes through downtown, which will eventually load both ways, giving a theoretical peak hour rail capacity of 37,000 into or out of downtown. Of course we also run a lot of buses.

The new Seattle LRT system which opens next year, is designed for 4-car trains, and thus have a peak hour capacity of 18,560. (but doesnai??i??t need this yet, and so shares the tunnel with buses). The Business Case analysis assumes a capacity of 4,080 for LRT, on the Evergreen Line which it states is not enough, and compares it to SkyTrain capacity of 10400.!

Speed. The analysis states the maximum LRT speed is 60 kph. (which would be correct for the street sections) But most LRVs are actually designed for 90 kph. On the Evergreen Line, LRT could operate at up to 90 where conditions permit, such as in the tunnels, and on protected ROW. Most LRT systems pre-empt most intersections, and so experience little delay at grade crossings. (Our policy is that the trains stop only at stations, and seldom experience traffic delays. It seems to work fine, and has little effect on traffic.) There is another element of speed, which is station access time. At-grade stations have less access time. This was overlooked in the analysis.

Also, on the NW alignment, the SkyTrain proposal uses a different, faster, less-costly alignment to LRT proposal. And has 8 rather than 12 stations. If LRT was compared on the alignment now proposed for SkyTrain, it would go faster, and cost less than the Business Case report states!

Cost. Here again, there seems to be some hidden biases. As mentioned above, on the NW Corridor, LRT is costed on a different alignment, with more stations. The cost difference between LRT and SkyTrain presented in the Business Case report is therefore misleading. If they were compared on identical alignments, with the same number of stations, and designed to optimize each mode, the cost advantage of LRT would be far greater. I also suspect that the basic LRT design has been rendered more costly by requirements for tunnels and general design that would not be found on more cost-sensitive LRT projects.

Then there are the car costs. Last time I looked, the cost per unit of capacity was far higher for SkyTrain. Also,it takes about 2 SkyTrain cars to match the capacity of one LRV. And the grade-separated SkyTrain stations are far most costly and complex than LRT stations. Comparing 8 SkyTrain stations with 12 LRT stations also helps blur the distinction.

Ridership. Is a function of many factors. The Business Case report would have you believe that type of rail mode alone, makes a difference (It does in the bus vs rail comparison, according to the latest US federal guidelines). But, on the Evergreen Line, I doubt it. What makes a difference is speed, frequency (but not so much when headways get to 5 minutes), station spacing and amenity etc. Since the speed, frequency and capacity assumptions used in the Business Case are clearly inaccurate, the ridership estimates cannot be correct either. There would be some advantage if SkyTrain could avoid a transfer. If the connecting system has capacity for the extra trains. But the case is way overstated.

And nowhere is it addressed whether the Evergreen Line, at the extremity of the system, has the demand for so much capacity and, if it does, what that would mean on the rest of the system if feeds into?

Innuendos about safety, and traffic impacts, seem to be a big issue for SkyTrain proponents, but are solved by the numerous systems that operate new LRT systems (i.e., they canai??i??t be as bad as the SkyTrain folk would like you to believe).

Iai??i??ve no desire to get drawn into the Vancouver transit wars, and, anyway, most of the rest of the world has moved on. To be fair, there are clear advantages in keeping with one kind of rail technology, and in through-routing service at Lougheed. But, eventually, Vancouver will need to adopt lower-cost LRT in its lesser corridors, or else limit the extent of its rail system. And that seems to make some TransLink people very nervous.

It is interesting how TransLink has used this cunning method of manipulating analysis to justify SkyTrain in corridor after corridor, and has thus succeeded in keeping its proprietary rail system expanding. In the US, all new transit projects that seek federal support are now subjected to scrutiny by a panel of transit peers, selected and monitored by the federal government, to ensure that projects are analysed honestly, and the taxpayersai??i?? interests are protected. No SkyTrain project has ever passed this scrutiny in the US.

Victoria

But the BIG DEAL for Victoria is: If the Business Case analysis were corrected to fix at least some of the errors outlined above, the COST INCREASE from using SkyTrain on the Evergreen Line will be comparable to the TOTAL COST of a modest starter line in Victoria. This needs to come to the attention of the Province. Victoria really does deserve better. Please share these thoughts as you feel appropriate.

Sorry Mr. Doyle, You Are Wrong!

Sorry to say, BC’s soon to be departing Auditor General, John Doyle has got it wrong about SkyTrain and LRT capacity, but then in BC, what is true elsewhere tends not to true here.

“John Doyle’s latest audit concludes SkyTrain and not light rail was the best option because of its greater capacity at similar cost….” is simply not true. In fact the opposite is true, modern LRT light rail has proven to have the same or more capacity than Skytrain at a far cheaper cost and that is one of the reasons why LRT made SkyTrain obsolete some two decades ago! I wonder if Mr. Doyle has noticed that no one builds with SkyTrain anymore and the SkyTrain system is considered an “Edsel” transit system. Only 7 Skytrain type systems have been built in over 30 years, with two being mere demonstration lines and three airport or theme park people movers certainly points to the fact that SkyTrain has failed to be an affordable transit system.

TransLink likes to pretend that SkyTrain will attract more ridership than LRT but has never produced a study to substantiate this.

One wonders where Mr. Doyles sources came from or did he use TransLink’s own figures for the audit?

One hopes Mr. Doyle will have another look at his sources that claim that “SkyTrain has a greater capacity at a similar cost”, because it is simply not true!

I would like to remind everyone that just two years ago, the City of Karlsruhe began relocating its main tram line on KaiserstraAYeAi?? in a subway because; “of the phenomenal success of its regional tramtrain network, which was seeing peak hour headways of 45 seconds.“

About 70% of trams and traimtrain operate in coupled sets in peak hours, thus peak hour capacity on the KaiserstraAYe tram (streetcar) line was over 40,000 persons per hour per direction, which is 10,000 pphpd more than the maximum theoretical calculation for SkyTrain if it ran 8 car trains of MK.1 stock, which it can not do because the stations can only accommodate 6 car trains of MK.1 stock.

I’m sorry Mr. Doyle, you got it wrong.

SkyTrain right call for Evergreen Line: audit

http://www.southdeltaleader.com/news/200467101.html

Jeff Nagel – The Tri-City News
Published: March 28, 2013

The provincial government was right to choose SkyTrain technology to build the Evergreen Line to Coquitlam, but it did so with incomplete information, according to B.C.’s Auditor General.

John Doyle’s latest audit concludes SkyTrain and not light rail was the best option because of its greater capacity at similar cost, its easy integration with the existing rapid transit system and because it’s well understood by transit users.

But he also found the 2008 and 2010 business cases for the 11-kilometre line left out information needed to understand the cost, benefits and risks of comparing SkyTrain, light rail and bus rapid transit options.

“They also did not explain that the SkyTrain ridership forecasts were based on assumptions that placed them at the upper end of the estimated range,” Doyle said.

“Omitting this information meant government did not have the opportunity to understand these risks and endorse actions for protecting and enhancing the benefits of the Evergreen Line over its useful life.”

While the $1.4-billion Evergreen Line is already under construction, the findings may influence the debate underway in Surrey and Vancouver over whether rapid transit extensions in those cities should be done with grade-separated SkyTrain or street-level light rail.

If the province takes the same approach with future lines, Doyle’s audit said, it runs the risk of making different decisions than if it understands all costs, benefits and risks.

Among the concerns raised by Doyle, is that information presented to the Treasury Board didn’t meet the government’s own Capital Asset Management Framework guidelines, and ridership projections were at the top end, and assumed “extensive” investments in other parts of the transit system.

The higher range ridership forecasts for use of SkyTrain in part assumed Broadway and Surrey SkyTrain extensions would be built by 2021, very frequent bus service to Evergreen Line stations and that owning and running a car will be much more expensive in the coming years.

The report noted TransLink does not yet have committed funding for broader transit expansion.

Nor, it said, has the provincial government yet decided to increase the cost of car use ai??i??Ai??the province assumed the cost of driving would jump 70 per cent between 2021 and 2031 to 23.5 cents per kilometre, spurring more motorists to take transit.

Despite the information gaps, Doyle said he was “satisfied” the cost estimates for using light rail were in line with comparable North American light rail systems ai??i?? addressing a key complaint of SkyTrain critics who believe light rail estimates are routinely inflated here due to pro-SkyTrain bias.

The audit also noted the Evergreen Line will carry many more riders to the big SkyTrain pinch points at Broadway-Commercial and Main Street stations.

“Not effectively addressing these capacity issues means Evergreen ridership is likely to suffer as downtown commuters face more crowded and less reliable journeys.”

Parking capacity is also a risk not adequately considered in the business plans, although a decision was later made to add 500 stalls for Evergreen Line users.

Doyle backed the use of a short-term P3 partnership to build the new line but not operate it, as happened with the Canada Line. Instead TransLink will maintain and run the northeast sector line.

Meanwhile, the province has accepted the results of the audit, and will take steps to carry out the recommendations.

“The Evergreen Line has been studied and reviewed extensively for years by multiple levels of government and transit experts,” Transportation Minister Mary Polak said in a statement.

“We are confident that the Evergreen Line can achieve ridership projections as we have seen with the popularity of the Millennium Line and Canada Line where ridership has met or exceeded projections.”

ai??i?? with files from Diane Strandberg

 

 

An Important Message From Malcolm Johnston – A 30 Year Veteran Advocating for LRT

The South Fraser transit customers and taxpayers are about to get shafted again with regional transit investment, as South Fraser politicians are sleeping walking into a well laid trap set by TransLink and the City of Vancouver. The trap is simple, agree to build a $4 billion subway under Broadway now and promise ‘rapid transit‘ for the South Fraser sometime later, decades later!

The Broadway SkyTrain subway, which has become the mantra of Vision Vancouver, its mayor Gregor Robinson and councilor Geoff Meggs, close confident of BC premier in waiting Adrian Dix, that will pauper TransLink and curtail transit development south of the Fraser.

With all the hype and hoopla of sideshow ‘pitchmen‘, TransLink and the City of Vancouver are practicing the fine art of Goebbelesque propaganda, by repeating ad nauseum, anti light rail rhetoric to such a degree, the public are believing the nonsense, that pretends to be facts.

ai???If you tell a SkyTrain or subway lie big enough and keep repeating the SkyTrain or subway lie, people will eventually come to believe it. The SkyTrain or subway lie can be maintained only for such time as the TransLink and the City of Vancouver can shield the people from the political, economic and/or transit consequences of the SkyTrain or subway lie. It thus becomes vitally important for TransLink and the City of Vancouver to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the SkyTrain or subway lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of TransLink and the city of Vancouver.ai???

With a compliant mainstream media and co-opting of special interest groups such as the bicycle lobby, the public are being fed a growing list of misinformation, which if done in other jurisdictions, could lead to criminal action.

TransLink and the city of Vancouver are now armed with several ‘cheapie‘ consults, including one from KPMG, who are not transit consultants and the Sauder School for Business at UBC, which again not transit consultants, calling for a subway under Broadway. In the real world, a proper transit consultation on the scale of Broadway would cost several millions of dollars, not thousands of dollars and done by firms with a demonstrated proficiency in urban transit design and planning, as well with LRT and light metro.

Why focus on Vancouver’s proposed Broadway subway instead of LRT and the RftV/Leewood report?

In a province with limited financial means, a $4 billion or more subway under Broadway would mean no major ‘rail‘ transit investment South of the Fraser River for at least twenty years! The large operating and maintenance costs of a subway would also greatly hamper any investment in public transit South of the Fraser as all financial resources would be poured into transit infrastructure supporting the existing metro lines to desperately try to funnel as many transit customers as can to give the impression of tax monies well spent. In the end, TransLink will collapse under the shear weight of financial distress and political and bureaucraticAi?? incompetence.

What to do?

RftV members must ‘grill‘ upcoming provincial candidates on regional transit and South Fraser transit issues. RftV members must not and I repeat must not give a free ride to NDP candidates as the close relationship between Geoff Meggs and premier in waiting Adrian Dix means the NDP will bend towards a metro solution for Broadway. We have to remember that the NDP in the 1990’s, flipped flopped from LRT to SkyTrain for the Millennium Line, due to political pressure from friends and finical backers. The NDP still refuse to believe, this flip-flop on Broadway – Lougheed Rapid Transit Project helped propel the NDP into a two seat ‘rump‘ after the 2001 provincial election.

This is a message that must be delivered to the NDP and the BC Liberal Party candidates in the upcoming election;

For the cost of a bored subway under Broadway to UBC we can build:

1. A BCIT to UBC/Stanley Park LRT/tram system, using the Lougheed Hwy., Broadway, 10th Ave., Main St. and Hastings.
2. A Whiterock to Surrey Central LRT, using 152nd St., the SRR of BC and King George Hwy.
3. The ‘full build’ RftV/Leewood interurban (which would enable Whiterock transit users direct access to downtown Vancouver via the interurban.
4. A brand new Patullo road/rail bridge, replacing the present decrepit river crossings.

(Please cut and paste the preceding and email it to every regional politician and bureaucrat who work in Delta, Surrey, the Langleys and Abbotsford.)

In theory such a network could provide UBC with direct rail service to Whiterock, Surrey, Langley, Abbotsford and Chilliwack. Such a network would attract far more new transit customers than a Broadway subway by providing an attractive alternative to the car.

This is the type of vision needed for the Metro Vancouver area, not the self indulgent Vancouver attitude that; “I wanna subway because other world-class cities have a subway and I will hold my breather until I get one.”

Write letters, phone radio stations, demand answers from out politicians, bureaucrats, let us not snatch transit defeat from the jaws of victory.

Finally, beware of people calling themselves transit experts and transit analysts – especially if they seem to be of high school age. In BC, anyone can call themselves a transit expert and many who do, seem to be working at TransLink or surrogates of TransLink. A real transit expert never advertises the fact.

HELP! RAIL FOR THE VALLEY VOLUNTEERS NEEDED

MEETING THIS WEDNESDAY

This is a pre-election call-out. We’re going to do a big push to get light rail back on the agenda for this election. Join us! Regardless of whether or not you can make it to the meeting this Wednesday in Chilliwack, please email us if you want to help: railforthevalley@gmail.com

 

RAIL FOR THE VALLEY NEEDS YOUR HELP

Light Rail is our future Now!

Rail for the Valley is having a planning meeting to make Valley Passenger Rail an issue in the next provincial election andAi??

we need your help.Ai??

We have lots of work to do!Ai??We want to hear your ideas too.Ai??Abbotsford volunteers especially wanted!!

Help with tasks such as:

**Volunteer Coordinator**

– hand out brochures

– help with our displays

– posters

– letter writing

– telephoning

– help with all candidate meetings in various communities up and down the valley

– we badly need to develop a Facebook page

– we need a web master

-Ai??and more…

MEETING NEXT WEDNESDAY AT 7PM MARCH 20TH

Chilliwack – 8533 Broadway Street

In the Club House – centre of parking area

For information contact Juanita

rednats2@gmail.comAi??Ai?? Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??604-792-0839

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

Light Rail Vehicle & Tramcar orders – 2013

The following table gives the totals for Trams/LRV’s on order + options, as at February 2013

Source Tramways & Urban Transit No 904 April 2013

Manufacturer	City’s	Orders	Options	Sub-Total		Orders Pending
Ai??	Ai??	Ai??	Ai??	OrdersAi??	Options
Alstom	Bordeaux, Dubai, Nottingham, Ottawa, Paris, Toulouse	188	91	2701	792	587
AnsaldoBreda	Genoa, Firenza	68	7	Ai??	Ai??	Ai??
Astra	Arad	24	51	Ai??	Ai??	Ai??
Belkommunmash	St. Petersburg	15	0	Ai??	Ai??	Ai??
Bombardier	Antwerp, Basle, Berlin, Brussels, Essen, Frankfurt, Gent, Karlsruhe, Manchester, Melbourne, Moscow, Toronto, Waterloo-Kitchener, Vienna	1134	147	Ai??	Ai??	Ai??
Brookville	Dallas	2	2	Ai??	Ai??	Ai??
CAF	Birmingham, Besancon, Cincinnati, Freiburg, Houston, Stockholm, Sydney, Tallinn	199	151	Ai??	Ai??	Ai??
CNR Dalian	Shenyang	20	0	Ai??	Ai??	Ai??
CSR Tangshan	Samsun	5	0	Ai??	Ai??	Ai??
CSR Zhuzhou	Izmir	30	0	Ai??	Ai??	Ai??
Durmazlar	Bursa	14	0	Ai??	Ai??	Ai??
Inekon	Almaty, Olomouc, Seattle, Tashkent	70	41	Ai??	Ai??	Ai??
Kinkisharyo	Los Angeles	78	157	Ai??	Ai??	Ai??
PESA	Kaliningrad, Pavlodar, Szczecin, Warsaw	195	0	Ai??	Ai??	Ai??
Siemens	Atlanta, Den Haag, Doha, Houston, Minneapolis, Munich, Portland, San Diego, Vienna	196	0	Ai??	Ai??	Ai??
Solaris	Braunschweig, Jena, Olztyn	38	0	Ai??	Ai??	Ai??
Ai??koda	Konya, Miskolc, Prague	241	0	Ai??	Ai??	Ai??
Stadler	Bergen, Croydon, Potsdam, Stuttgart	41	0	Ai??	Ai??	Ai??
Vossloh	Chemnitz, Hannover, Karlsruhe, Leeds, Rostock, Santos, Wuppertal	25	50	Ai??	Ai??	Ai??
Transtech	Helsinki	40	95	Ai??	Ai??	Ai??
United Streetcars	Tuscon, Washington	11	0	Ai??	Ai??	Ai??
Ust-Katav	Moscow	67	Ai??	Ai??	Total Orders	4080