The Broadway Follies Part 1 – From April 2010
Going even further back in the ‘way-back machine’, here is a re-post from April 2010, concerning the Broadway Corridor.
In three years nothing has changed, except for the volumes of anti-LRT rhetoric from TransLink and the City of Vancouver and the City of Vancouver’s love for subways is now revealed for all to see …. for all to pay for, that is.
************************************************************************************************************************
The Broadway Follies ai??i?? TransLink does the Gong Show
Posted by zweisystem on Monday, April 26, 2010
Here we go again, TransLinkai??i??s famous planning exercises that in the end will please no one and achieve very little. There is no bold ai???grand planai??i?? but more of the same, a little BRT here; a little SkyTrain there, with a hint of LRT thrown in to keep the trolley-jolly types happy. With all the information available today, with all the examples of modern LRT, TransLink goes back to its dated and questionable planning practices which are a blend of distortions and misinformation.
The present six alternatives, save for one, are expensive and unworkable and begs the question: ai???Does TransLink have the revenue streams to fund any of them?ai???
The one alternative, the sixth and last, the Best Bus Alternative is probably the only doable option, which then poses the question: ai???Why waste the public’s time with five expansive and unworkable transit solutions?ai???
The Light Rail Committeeai??i??s 1990ai???s plan, the BCIT to UBC and Stanley Park LRT is simply a much superior plan, which had a vision for Vancouverai??i??s transit needs for the next half century. Alas, not in Vancouver, where tunnel vision, subway tunnelai??i??s that is, still rules how TransLink bureaucrats still plan for transit.
If TransLink is to have any credibility, it must ai???think out of the boxai??i??, they have not and what they present as transit planning is the ai???same old song and danceai??i??, with TransLinkai??i??s patented ai???dog and pony showai??i??. Transit customers and regional taxpayers deserve better.
The following are the six transit alternatives presented by TransLink.
BRT Alternative
Buses are not ai???rapid transitai??i?? as the definition for ai???rapid transitai??i?? is a heavy-rail metro installation. BRT in North America is really express buses or buses operating on a busway. For buses to truly compete against ai???railai??? they must be guided, either curb guided or rail guided (optical guidance has been proven far too troublesome), which requires a ai???reserved rights of waysai??? or a route used exclusively by transit. Guided bus has proven to be a third less costly to build than light rail, but has proven disappointing in operation, by not attracting new ridership. For many a bus, is a bus and perceived as a second rate transit mode and remain taking their cars.
BRT, if built, would prove only slightly cheaper to build than LRT, with none of the operating benefits.
LRT Alternative 1
Like BRT, LRT is by definition not ai???rapid transitai??i??, but is light rail a separate ai???railai??i?? mode built to solve different transportation problems. What makes LRT different from a streetcar is the concept of a ai???reserved rights-of-waysai??i?? (RRoWai??i??s), where the streetcar operates on an exclusive route free from traffic, add in preemptive signaling at intersections and LRT operation can rival its much more expensive cousin heavy-rail metro, in operation. Modern LRT has all made light-metro such a as VAL and our SkyTrain obsolete.
Clearly,Ai?? TransLink has only dusted off BC Transitai??i??s Broadway Lougheed ai???rapid transitai??i?? planning from the early 90ai???s and cobbled together this loser. No thought has been made to provide a customer friendly transit service and again TransLink planners prove that they plan for LRT as a ai???poor manai??i??sai??i?? SkyTrain.
LRT Alternative 2
The second LRT alternative, feeding a second line to the Olympic Line, seems to have been planned on a back of an envelope to take advantage of the recent success of the now closed Olympic Line. Another daft TransLink plan.
RRT Alternative
It seems that TransLink is scared by the term subway or metro and use the very strange term Rapid Rail Transit, more to confuse people than anything else. The name is to infer that it is fast and for TransLink, the speed of a transit line is their mantra. But the higher speed from a metro comes from grade separation and fewer stations, which means an expensive ai???shadowai??i?? bus operation to try to feed the metro. Metros are very expensive to build and are not very good in attracting new ridership and guess what, SkyTrain is a metro, yet has seemed very poor in attracting the motorist from the car. Strange to, that SkyTrain was first conceived to be elevated to mitigate the massive cost of subway construction.
Rail Rapid Transit or metro is only built if ridership demand (15,000 pphpd or more) warrant the huge expenditures required to build and operate the mode.
Combo Alternative
This is truly bizarre and it seems TransLink is trying to please Bombardier, by having a ai???railai??? option for both their LRT/tram line of vehicles and SkyTrain. Really, what has been proven over and over again is that transfers deter ridership, yet TransLink loves to force transfers on transit customers. This option is expensive and extremely poorly thought out.
Best Bus Alternative
It would save TransLink a lot of grief and money by promoting an European style of bus service with stops every 400m to 500m,Ai?? with faster commercial speeds and better productivity. The Best Bus is well past its ai???Best Byai??i?? date but probably will be the winning option due to TransLink horrendous financial problems.
The Broadway Gong Show Revisited
Back by popular demand, the Broadway gong show.
Broadway Transit Follies ai??i?? TransLink Does The Gong Show ai??i?? Part 2
Posted by zweisystem on Thursday, March 31, 2011
Want to know how TransLink spends taxpayer’s hard earned money? It is easy, TransLink studies transit options for Broadway. TransLink’s Broadway “Rapid Transit” (which means metro) study for Broadway is dated and extremely misleading, but what else would one expect from an organization that has done little, but to waste time, justifying their existence. TransLink’s seven options are studies in mediocrity, nothing more. It is time TransLink get out of the planning business and let real transportation experts have go at it, at least we would get something resembling a 21st century public transit.
Memo to South Fraser Politicians: Dump this turkey called TransLink and form a new South Fraser Transportation Authority,Ai??asAi??TransLinkAi??couldn’t even plan for an outhouse, let alone understand its function.
The following are the seven transit options offered by TransLink with Zweisystem’s comments added.
Option 1: Street level Bus Rapid Transit ai??i?? cost $350 million to $450 million
The problem with Bus Rapid Transit or BRT, is that to be truly rapid, it must operate on either a guideway or a dedicated bus way. If the proposed BRT is to be BRT, it will cost almost the same for a simple streetcar or tramway to install. As there is much more benefits that come with a streetcar/tramway than BRT, it is natural to spend a little more and get a far greater bang for your buck.
Here lies the Achilles heel of BRT.
Option 2: Street level LRT- Cost $1.1 billion
Here we see TransLink at its finest, loading costs onto LRT to make it more expensive than it should be, but then by not doing so, it would make the SkyTrain and Canada line metros (they are two completely different metro systems) look like bad bargains. Modern LRT, either as a basic streetcar/tramway or light rail can handle capacities exceeding 20,000 persons per hour per direction, with just a basic there and back track design. The real costs for a light rail option:
- Streetcar/tramwayAi??(not including vehicles and using existingAi??electrical overhead): ai??i?? $6 mil/km to $10 mil/km.
- LRTAi??(not including vehicles and using existingAi??electrical overhead) with 60% reserved rights-of-ways and priority signaling at intersections: $15 mil/km to $25 mil/km.
- Light Rail Vehicles: Used staring under $1 million to new (depending on size) $3 million to $6 million each.
Option 3:Ai?? LRT #2 ai??i?? Cost $1.3 to $1.4 billion
This LRT variant is just puzzling and one must ask the question why? Why go via the Great Northern Way? It seems TransLink is just up to its puerile games, not knowing what to do and hoping someone will come along and fund a SkyTrain subway under Broadway.
Option 4: Bored tunnel Rail Rapid Transit ai??i?? Cost $2.9 to $$3.2 billion
Here is the meat of the matter; here is what TransLink really wants to build ai??i?? a SkyTrain subway to UBC. The real cost for a bored SkyTrain subway to UBC is nearer to $4 billion and there isn’t the ridership today or in the future that would justify such an expenditure. To reduce costs, revisiting cut and cover construction would be a real option, but will the memory of the ruined Cambie Street merchants, still linger when the final decision is made?
Option 5: Street level LRT ai??i?? bored tunnel RRT ai??i?? elevated RRT ai??i?? Cost $2.4 billion
Here we have a plan to keep the LRT and SkyTrain types happy, silly and unprofessional, but then I would expect nothing lessAi??from TransLink. A planned forced transfer for UBC bound passengers at ArbutusAi??defies modern public transit philosophy of providing a seamless or no transfer journey.
Option 6: Street level BRT/Tunnel Elevated RRTAi??- CostAi??$1.9 billion
Here we have real silliness by TransLink, a plan to keep the bus boys and SkyTrain types happy. It’s not quite April Fools Day, but TransLink’s bizarre BRT planning could fund over 60 km of streetcar/LRT for the city of Vancouver.
Option 7: Best bus ai??i?? Cost $325 million
Here we come to the transit plan that will probably be implemented, the Best Bus option ai??i?? it is what TransLink can afford.
I try not to be tooAi??hard with my comments about TransLink, but really, when such rubbish is presented at public meetings it is hard to contain ones self. Not one of the plans addresses real transit problems, rather they seem to be a continuation of the Expo Line in one form or another and those bureaucrats in those ivory hall on Kingsway should hang their heads in shame. Not one plan will offer an attractive alternative to the car. Buses, in their various guises, have singularly failed to attract the motorist from the car and haphazard and meandering light rail lines will do likewise. forced transfers are well know to deter ridership and in Europe transit is so designed to minimize or eliminateAi??transfers altogether.
Why doesn’t TransLink use the simple term metro or subway, instead of using Rail Rapid Transit or RRT. Could it be that TransLink wants to play the old SkyTrain shell game once again by claiming that RRT is faster and carries more customers than LRT? Sad to say, TransLink played this game with the Evergreen Line, until US transit expert Gerald fox caught them out!
In 2008, noted AmericanAi??transit expert Gerald Fox, statedAi??in a letter to a Victoria transportation group,Ai??shredded TransLink’sAi??Evergreen Line business case, stating; “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.”Ai??
FoxAi??later said; 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.”Ai??
Over 15 years ago, during the Millennium Line fiasco, Zweisystem had a long chat with a transit professional from Asea Brown Boveri, regarding the application of a successful light rail line on Broadway. His comments still ring true and show how dated TransLink’s present day efforts are.
He stated that a BCIT to UBC line with a second line from Main Street, through Vancouver’s downtown to Stanley park, would more than double present bus ridership on the two routes in two to three years, creating the ridershipAi??which fares would not only pay for the operational costs, but the capital costs of the new LRT. With such revenue, we could find an operator that would design, build and operate the new transit line at no cost to the taxpayer.
Maybe this is why TransLink has done so poorly in planning for transit, they are afraid that the private sector would show what TransLink really is, a ponderous bureaucracy whose only efforts is to create jobs for itself to pretend that it is actually accomplishing something. But then, there is no money for any of this, except for the last Best Bus option and what is planned for today, will be stale-dated by future events, when what ever option is implemented.
It is time that civic and provincial politicians put this expensive gong show out of its misery.
TransLink’s numbers challenged
Long time transit advocate Malcolm Johnston has scored a direct hit on TransLink.
For too long TransLink has manipulated planning to favour SkyTrain and with so many new light rail lines being built, it is hard for TransLink to hide from the truth any longer.
One only wonders, how TransLink will reply or will they just ignore the letter and hope that it will be soon forgotten.
TransLink’s numbers challenged
Published: March 12, 2013Editor: I have read with dismay TransLinkai??i??s continued campaign to deliberately misinform the public about modern LRT or light rail, while at the same time championing the very expensive proprietary light metro system that is known as SkyTrain. I am not surprised, as this is just a continuation of TransLinkai??i??s deceitful method of transit planning, where the truth has become so twisted it is barely recognizable.
I have been advocating affordable public transit since 1986. During that time, I have made scores of contacts with professional engineers and transit planners in North America and Europe. This has guided my knowledge on the subject of urban transportation.
To date, not one of these professionals has favoured SkyTrain, nor recommended its use. It is easy to see why. The SkyTrain system has been on the market for over 35 years, and gone through at least four official name changes (ICTS, ALRT, ALM, ART).
Only seven such systems have been built, and only two are seriously used for urban transit. The other five systems are short demonstration lines, or airport/theme park people movers.
It is strange that TransLink never broadcasts the following facts:
1. SkyTrain is not faster than LRT ai??i?? TransLinkai??i??s planners have deliberately designed LRT to be slower. Some LRT vehicles are designed to travel at 100 kph on the mainline railways.
2. To date, only seven SkyTrain-type systems have been built. During the same period, 156 new LRT/tram systems have been built, with another 36 on the way.
3. Speed of a transit system does not itself attract ridership, rather it is the speed of the overall commute. SkyTrain with its widely spaced stations will mean longer overall journey times, when compared to LRT.
4. TransLink has yet to offer a credible study which shows that SkyTrain attracts more transit customers than LRT. Elevated transit systems and especially subways tend to deter ridership.
5. To date, no SkyTrain system has matched the capacity offered by LRT or even a streetcar. The main tram route through the City of Karlsruhe is seeing peak hour headways of 45 seconds, catering to traffic flows in excess of 40,000 persons per hour per direction.
6. No SkyTrain system built to date was ever allowed to compete directly against modern LRT. All SkyTrain systems built to date have been sold in private deals or forced on the operating authority by senior governments.
7. The Canada Line is not SkyTrain, rather it is a conventional heavy rail metro, built as a light metro and as such has less potential capacity than a streetcar. Canada Line cars cannot operate on the SkyTrain system and visa versa.
8. SkyTrain is a proprietary transit system and only SkyTrain-made cars are able to operate on SkyTrain. TransLink is tied to one supplier and if SkyTrain goes out of production, there will be no supplier. LRT is a generic transit system and is able to operate cars as a generic transit system. There can be cars from scores of suppliers. The Portland LRT operates vehicles made by Bombardier and Siemens, and the Skoda- built streetcars can also operate on the MAX LRT system.
9. Driverless transit systems are not cheap to operate. In fact, small driverless mini-metro systems like SkyTrain and the Canada Line cost much more to operate than comparable LRT systems with drivers. TransLink has never produced an ai???oranges to orangesai??? comparison between LRT and SkyTrain.
TransLink has deliberately over-engineered proposed LRT lines, for the purposes of making it look less affordable than SkyTrain. A general rule of thumb is that underground (subway) construction is about twice that of elevated construction and elevated construction can be up to 10 times more expensive to build than at-grade construction.
What TransLink is practicing, with the many sham studies it produces and the erroneous claims it makes, is simple.
If one repeats a lie over and over again, eventually the public perceives it as truth.
I would recommend South Fraser councils do the following:
1. Demand that TransLink have its ai???rapid transitai??? plans reviewed by a credible transit expert, someone who has both planned, built and operated modern light rail and light metro.
2. Fund a second study by a someone who has expertise in designing, building and operating modern LRT.
3. Secede from TransLink altogether and form a South Fraser Transit Authority.
Some years ago, a Victoria transit group asked noted American transit expert, Gerald Fox, to review the Evergreen Line business case. The following was his conclusion and sadly, it still holds true for TransLink today.
ai???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 U.S., 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 U.S.ai???
D. Malcolm Johnston,
Delta
http://www.langleytimes.com/opinion/letters/197461681.html
Vancouver and TransLink Get What They Pay For!
Some interesting insight into KPMG, who are not transit consultants, who did a $110,000.00 transit study supporting a subway under Broadway. I guess the city of Vancouver and TransLink got what they paid for.
KPMG: A History of AbettingAi??Fraud
While KPMG has avoided the fate of fellow auditing giant Arthur Anderson, it has primarily done so through quick settlements that prevent its numerous cases of fraud from ever reaching court. Though most of the focus of the financial crisis of 2008 has been placed upon the nation’s big financial institutions such as Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan and Citibank, more evidence is arising over the role of auditing firms throughout the subprime loan disaster. KPMG was the first “big-four” firm to be hit with a lawsuit, accused in 2009 of “grossly negligent audits” of home loan provider New Century Financial Corp
In 2005, KPGM settled for $22.5 million with SEC for allowing Xerox to manipulate its accounting practices to close a $3 billion gap between actual and stated earnings between 1997 and 2000. During the time, KPGM explicitly claimed that the copy company had followed established auditing rules and truthfully reported its earnings. The auditing giant would pay a later settlement of $80 million to Xerox investors in 2008.
Conflicts of interest often arise when the same accountants both audit and advise a client at the same time. Often, poor quarterly numbers are overlooked or lied about in order to give the client/audited company a stronger image in the eyes of investors. Between 2001 and 2003, KPMG performed this dual role for Fannie Mae, and was accused by investors of the mortgage giant of 17 counts of “negligance and breach of contract” in November 2006.
KPMG recently settled with the SEC for $24 million over its alleged role in various misstatements and omissions regarding the lending policies of Countrywide Financial. The giant’s failures lead to investors being exposed to undetected risk.
In early 2005, eight top executives at KPMG agreed to pay $456 million in penalties to the U.S. Department of Justice for creating illegal tax shelters that helped rich clients avoid paying over $2.5 billion in taxes. Prosecutors and company officials agreed to a Deferred Prosecution Agreement, in which prosecutors would agree not to seek a grand-jury indictment as long as the company committed no further wrong-doing.
- KPMG executives agree to massive penalities for roles in overshore tax havens
- Investors sue KPMG in response to the tax fraud
http://www.cheatingculture.com/accounting-fraud/2011/1/6/kpmg-a-history-of-abetting-fraud.html
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Rail for the Valley – Saturday March 16 PRE-ELECTION WORKSHOP
To all supporters of Rail for the Valley,
The election is just around the corner! Our Society has been hard at work on some ideas for the provincial election. If you want to get involved and put regional rail service for the Fraser Valley on the map this coming election, please attend this upcoming workshop:
To all friends of Rail for the Valley:
It was agreed at our Friends of Rail for the Valley board meeting onAi??February 20, 2013 that Graham Dalton would arrange forAi??a workshop to help us all become more effective before the BC Election campaignAi??in promoting a light railway from Surrey to Chilliwack. Graham has spoken to Sheila Muxlow and she agreed to do a workshop for us. This will be a seminar for the Rail for the Valley Election campaign. All will be welcome. Sheila is currently Campaign Director for the Water Wealth Project.
Date:Ai??Ai??Saturday, March 16
Time:Ai??9:00am to 12:00
Address: 45668 Storey Avenue, Chilliwack
This is Sheila’s office. (behind 7-11 on Vedder Rd)
Phone:Ai??604-858-8021Ai??(Sheilaai??i??s office)
Topics:
Goals
Tactics
Timetables
Fundraising
Volunteer Recruitment
Power Mapping
Media Strategy
Before the upcoming Provincial Election,
Rail for the Valley wants to reachAi??allAi??the candidates and the voters.
We need everyoneai??i??s input.Ai??Ai??Come, learn and help.
Graham Dalton, TreasurerAi??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??604-316-6774Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??ghdalton@smartt.comAi??
Myrtle Macdonald, Membership SecretaryAi??Ai??604-795-6390Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??
John Vissers, PresidentAi??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??
TransLink Decieves Surrey – Planning Flim-Flam Continues
Hey buddy, want to buy a good used car” Then go to ‘Honest‘ TransLink and they will fit you up nicely.
Well it seems that TransLink has fitted up Surrey and Langley nicely with their very questionable “rapid transit plans“. As usual TransLink deceives the public about LRT and one has to ask the question why?
Why is TransLink ignore over thirty years of LRT development including modular cars, TramTrain, freight trams and much more?
Why does TransLink discounts the ability of LRT to carry high volumes of ridership?
Why does TransLink misinform the public about the economy of LRT?
It is truly sad that TransLink’s massive economies of the truth are allowed to stand and South Fraser politicians should demand an independent review of TransLink’s planning.
To quote American transit expert, Gerald Fox, with a review of the Evergreen Line’s business case;
“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.
Post Script: I still see Surrey high school student, Daryl Cruz, is still pretending to be a transit annalist, as Zweisystem has said before, when dealing with TransLink and the SkyTrain lobby it is strictly caveat emptor!
PPS: It is time for the South Surrey municipalities and cities to secede from TransLink.
SkyTrain to Langley top rapid transit option for Surrey: TransLink
By Jeff Nagel – Surrey North Delta Leader
Published: March 06, 2013 12:00 PM
Updated: March 06, 2013 2:57 PM
New rapid transit studies released by TransLink have handed more ammunition to backers of SkyTrain technology through Surrey to Langley as well as on Vancouver’s Broadway corridor toward UBC.
A SkyTrain line running above Fraser Highway from Surrey City Centre to Langley, coupled with Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) lines running south to White Rock on King George Boulevard and east to Guildford on 104 Avenue is the most expensive of four short-listed options at $2.22 billion, but TransLink found it delivers the most transportation benefits and by far the highest ridership.
It would also be the fastest, carrying passengers from Langley to Surrey Central station in just 22 minutes, compared to 29 or 30 minutes for the other three options.
Surrey council has lobbied for a network of ground-level light rail (LRT) lines, rather than BRT or elevated SkyTrain, arguing LRT would be a better fit for the city’s neighbourhoods.
TransLink previously studied a dozen different technology permutations in Surrey before winnowing them to the four front runners.
The option closest to the city’s preference would run light rail trains on all three corridors radiating from downtown Surrey, with BRT rapid buses running on the southern section of King George from Newton to White Rock as light rail isn’t considered justifiable there.
At $2.18 billion, that would be only slightly cheaper than the SkyTrain/BRT option, but is estimated to attract only half the new transit riders as SkyTrain because light rail trains run more slowly and less reliably at street level with traffic.
The main downside of SkyTrain is the elevated guideway down Fraser Highway would be an eyesore, while BRT and LRT offer more scope to improve urban design.
Surrey transit advocate Paul Hillsdon, who previously backed light rail, now prefers the SkyTrain option (with BRT running to Guildford, Newton and White Rock), adding it clearly outperforms LRT at virtually the same cost.
“Based on the cost, there seems to be very little benefit to pursuing the light rail system as the city has advocated,” Hillsdon said.
He added TransLink may have inflated the light rail costs somewhat compared to systems built elsewhere, but he accepts the findings.
“There are huge travel time savings with SkyTrain and double the ridership, for basically the exact same price.”
But he said SkyTrain on Fraser Highway would depend on neighbourhood acceptance of denser development ai??i?? SkyTrain could bring high-rise towers, not just mid-rises, to Fleetwood and Clayton.
Despite the city’s goal of densifying King George, Hillsdon noted that hasn’t happened, while growth has concentrated in areas like Clayton and Grandview instead.
BRT, which delivers the southern leg to South Surrey/White Rock in all options, does not simply mean adding more buses.
A BRT line would run high-capacity articulated buses in their own dedicated lanes, with traffic priority ai??i??Ai??functioning much like a light rail system on rubber wheels instead of tracks.
Surrey Coun. Barinder Rasode said council definitely wants light rail, not just express-bus BRT, on King George to densify that corridor, in line with city plans.
“We’ve been very clear that our option would be LRT, not just because of the cost but because it is less intrusive to the community,” Rasode said.
Light rail passengers riding at street level would be more likely to stop and shop at Surrey businesses, she said, than an overhead Skytrain whisking residents to other cities.
“It’s about economic investment in our own city,” Rasode said. “We don’t want mass rapid transit running right out of the city every time. We don’t want people to just be transported straight out to Langley.”
The $2.18-billion LRT scenario would still require passengers arriving from South Surrey and White Rock on BRT buses to transfer to trains in Newton.
A cheaper option, at $1.68 billion, would run light rail on Fraser Highway to Langley and BRT on the King George and 104 corridors.
The cheapest scenario still on the table is running BRT on all three corridors at a cost of $900 million.
Also released was a study of options for rapid transit on Vancouver’s heavily congested Broadway corridor to UBC.
Again, the most expensive option ai??i??Ai??a $3-billion underground SkyTrain line down Broadway ai??i?? also ranks as having the highest benefit, most ridership and best speed and reliability.
At-grade LRT could be built to UBC for $1.1 billion, while tunnelled LRT or a combo LRT/subway scenario could run $1.4 to $2.7 billion.
TransLink plans to lead regional discussions with the public, elected officials and other stakeholders to examine the trade-offs of the options and decide on preferred options for the Surrey and Vancouver expansions.
“We’re not picking one over the other,” said Bob Paddon, TransLink’s executive vice-president of strategic planning and public affairs. “We’re nowhere near identifying a preference.”
Paddon said the short-listed options perform differently depending on what criteria is considered and the goals of the local communities, adding more detail on TransLink’s findings will be released in the weeks ahead.
Nor is it clear yet how either new transit line will be financed.
Area mayors are pressing the province for new funding sources for TransLink, but Paddon noted there would also have to be large capital contributions to the new linesAi?? from the federal and provincial governments.
“You can’t do rapid transit without senior government involvement.”
No decision has been made on whether a Surrey or Vancouver rapid transit expansion should be built first.
Liz James Finds a Conflict of Interest
Liz James writes a weekly article for the North Shore news, but she finds more real transit stories than all the mainstream media reporters combined.
It is sad, when the architects of TransLink’s financial chaos, are now hired by TransLink as consultants, consulting on TransLink’s financial woes.
Oh woe is to the taxpayer, who must pay over and over again for bureaucrat’s and politician’s stupidity of doing the same thing over and over again, ever hoping for better results after the next tax hike.
As one English transit expert once said, about TransLink’s ineptitude; “Understand the X-files were filmed in your part of the world, maybe that explains it.“
What $110 thousand buys you in planning!
One degree of separation
By Elizabeth James, North Shore News March 6, 2013
“It’s TransLink. It’s a completely dysfunctional organization. They have a board of directors. The provincial government controls the ultimate power. They have the mayors’ council that recommends and the province rejects; and they have a TransLink Commissioner who costs $500,000 a year and nobody knows what he does.”
– Mayor Michael Smith
IT was a beautiful day in the neighbourhood when West Vancouver Mayor Michael Smith told local Chamber of Commerce delegates what many of us had long suspected – the regional Mayors` Council on Regional Transportation is virtually powerless to effect a change for the better at TransLink.
We have waited 15 years to hear that.
On June 18, 2004, at the end of a presentation to that year’s incarnation of the TransLink Board, I said that in my opinion the governance model of TransLink was dysfunctional.
No holds barred, I predicted that if board members couldn’t find a way to improve the organization and decision-making, they would hand then Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon the excuse he needed to disband the semi-elected model and replace it with something more to his liking.
Although it took longer than expected, Falcon did just that in March 2007.
Ten months later, CEO Pat Jacobsen resigned. She had steered the TransLink operation for seven years.
In July 2008, her successor Tom Prendergast arrived in Vancouver with a resume that included management-level experience with both England’s London Underground and the New York Transportation network. It didn’t take him long to see the dysfunctional light and less than 18 months later, he accepted a position as president of New York’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
Today, despite numerous appointments and reorganizations, TransLink remains a dysfunctional, multi-billion-dollar albatross around taxpayers’ necks.
But that’s not even half of the tale.
Because it was not until dawn on Feb. 25, when I read an email from light-rail advocate Malcolm Johnston, that I realized I had been so busy fact-checking other conflicts of interest, I’d missed one on TransLink that had been sitting right under my nose since the first of the month.
‘My bad’ as the kids say. So, better late than never, here comes the rest of the story:
Last fall, Transportation Commissioner Martin Crilly said he had set aside $75,000 to fund an “independent analysis” of TransLink’s current efficiency, performance and outlook plans.
Since Crilly himself occupies a position which is independent of TransLink, most people – even columnists like me – could be forgiven for thinking that meant the analysis would be doubly firewalled.
But engrossed in making sure I could include mention of the analysis and recommendations in time for a February column, I did not think to look for the names of the principals of Shirocca Consulting.
Independent? Well you be the judge.
On Dec. 5, 2012, in his Remarks to the mayors’ council document, Crilly introduced “two colleagues”: Bob Irwin, former president and CEO of BC Transit (and soon-to-be Crilly’s successor) and Teresa Watts, president and sole proprietor of Shirocca.
More importantly, and as Crilly explained to the assembled mayors and members of the appointed TransLink Board, Watts was also “deputy project director for building the Millennium Line and a project manager for building the West Coast Express and Expo Line.”
Qualified to express a professional opinion on regional transportation issues? Absolutely.
Independent and without bias as to TransLink’s efficiency and progress?
What do you think? But it doesn’t stop there, because “On (Watts’) team are two other professionals,” Crilly said. One of the two is her husband, “Glen Leicester, who was TransLink’s VP planning before retiring five years ago.”
Does Leicester’s “38 years of transportation planning experience in B.C.” qualify him to express an opinion on regional transportation issues? Absolutely.
Completely independent and without bias as to TransLink and its choices of technology?
What do you think? Is it reasonable for us to expect people who have spent their careers moving from one regional transportation appointment to another, to be completely divorced from that history – especially when the decisions they made in the past may still be influencing the current position of the agency they are now tasked to analyze?
Whether the news items concern less than arms-length consultations, or are emails to me that fail to disclose the writers’ relevant connections – such as to the group Better Environmentally Sensitive Transportation which has benefitted from federal and TransLink funding, or to aspiring election candidates – they are all part of my overall discomfort with the lack of openness and transparency in the entire transit discussion.
Meanwhile, back at the TransLink barn, I had not even decided where to adjourn this ongoing saga when another firestorm reignited.
It seems that, since the province tweaked the rules to enable TransLink to recover $30 million in fines for unpaid fares, the agency has recouped only $1 million.
Not to worry, though. Be happy!
Because, instead of working with his colleagues to sort out the current fiscal mess, the mayor at the Vancouver-centric hub of TransLink’s debt-servicing problems thinks it would be a great idea to dig regional taxpayers even deeper into a hole along Broadway and out to UBC.
Dysfunctional it is Mayor Smith – and then some.
Patrick Condon in the Tyee
Streetcar advocate, Prof. Patrick Condon has a good article in the Tyee.
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2013/03/06/Vancouver-Transit-Report/index.html#comment-278124
The Vancouver Sun Shills for a Broadway Subway.
The Vancouver Sun, again embarrasses itself, with a news item that that is nothing more than shilling for a Broadway subway.
This story contains so many red flags, that one would think it was a paid advertisement and not news.
- If Sinoski did his/her homework on subways, which he/she obviously hasn’t, he/she would find that subways, because of their high costs, are always a decision of the last resort. The one exception is that subways are built for political and bureaucratic prestige. The peak hour traffic flows alongAi?? Broadway would barely support a light rail solution, let alone a subway solution.
- The UBC forecast of 320,000 daily boardings is laced with pixie dust, really UBC should be embarrassed, yet modern LRT could easily handle this.
- Toronto has subways already, so the argument that high tech jobs will leave Vancouver is a bad joke. Today both Toronto and San Diego operate dated, smaller first generation trams and in the case of Toronto, even smaller non-articulated trams; modern light rail/trams have far more capacity, with some vehicles designed, having a capacity of 250 persons or more.
- The UBC study shows that the authors are mere amateurs, by putting LRT in a tunnel, thinking that a subway is the modern elixir to improve transit. Sorry, not only do subways tend to deter ridership, they steal money away from other transit priorities.
- TransLink’s costs for rapid bus and light rail are so huge, that one would think that the prices were increased on purpose to make the costs of a Broadway subway look reasonable in comparison. TransLink’s planning reeks of professional misconduct!
What the followingAi?? does illustrate is that TransLink is completely unqualified to plan for “rapid transit” and the authors of the UBC study should hang their collective heads in shame for such unprofessional nonsense. But then this is BC, where stupidity and ignorance reign supreme.
If there was any doubt in the past, there is none now: TransLink must go, they have no function except being very expensive cheerleaders for those who want to burden the regional taxpayers with massive taxes to pay for Vancouver politicians “penis envy” a Broadway subway.
The Vancouver Sun as always, further demonstrates that it has ceased to be a newspaper, rather an infomercial for the highest bidder.
What $110 thousand buys you in planning!
Subway line for Broadway corridor is best option but also most expensive, UBC study says
By Kelly Sinoski, Vancouver SunMarch 5, 2013
TransLink has cited a $3-billion subway line along the Broadway corridor as having the ai???highest acceptability ratingai??? among three potential rapid-transit options.
But the transportation authority noted light rail transit or a partly tunnelled LRT ai??i?? ranging from $1.1 billion to $1.84 billion ai??i?? along with a $2.67-billion combination of subway and LRT are also ai???more acceptable than business as usualai??? on the heavily congested corridor.
Bus or bus rapid transit along the route, meanwhile, has not been recommended for further consideration because ai???they do not have sufficient capacity to meet demand in 2041,ai??? according to a University of B.C. rapid-transit analysis.
The analysis comes less than a week after the city of Vancouver and UBC released a KPMG report and made another pitch for a subway along the Broadway corridor, with Mayor Gregor Robertson suggesting the area is at risk of losing high-tech jobs to other cities such as Toronto, New York or San Diego because of ai???gridlock and over-stretched transit.ai???
According to the UBC rapid-transit analysis, the subway would provide the greatest improvement at the highest cost along the corridor, with a projected 320,000 daily boardings by 2041, and would generate 54,000 additional daily trips in the region.
By comparison, a combination of LRT and subway would have a projected 350,000 daily boardings, generate 44,000 additional transit trips and provide ai???rapid transit benefits to a broader areaai??? because it serves two routes east of Arbutus. LRT is projected to have 160,000 daily boardings with 11,000 additional trips by 2041 but has the option of part of the LRT built in a tunnel where Broadway is busiest.
Meanwhile, TransLink has also narrowed the options for rapid transit in Surrey, including a $900-million bus rapid-transit project on Fraser Highway, King George Boulevard and 104th Avenue; a combination of light rail on Fraser Highway with bus rapid transit ($1.68 billion) on King George and 104th; light rail on Fraser Highway, 104th Avenue and King George to Newton, with rapid bus to White Rock $2.18 billion); and SkyTrain ($2.2 billion) on Fraser Highway and bus rapid transit everywhere else.
Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts said her city will continue to push for light rail on all three routes: Fraser Highway, King George and 104th Avenue. That option is expected to generate 166,000 daily boardings, compared with 180,000 for the first two options and 200,000 for the four alternative.
The options for both rapid transit lines will now be referred to the regional transportation strategy to consider the trade-offs and benefits and determine the preferred option.
A letter to Martin Crilly
What $110 thousand buys you in planning!
Martin Crilly, TransLink Commissioner:Please provide the feasibility study with the cost breakdown of the tram line to UBC and the cost breakdown of the sky train line to UBC.Ai?? Surely COV engineers in collaboration with TransLink did one before they proclaimed sky train to be the ai???best optionai??? for rail transit to UBC.Ai?? Give the current and projected demands for transit to UBC in passengers per hour per direction, also.Last week on behalf of Point Grey residents who asked me to email you, I requested an explanation for all the empty and nearly empty articulated 99 B-Line diesel buses operating as an express and frequent service in parallel to the infrequent trolley buses – during off peak hours.Ai?? You did not reply.If you are working on the reply and have not had sufficient time to reply, fine.Ai?? If you ignored the email last week, and continue to ignore it, the Mayorsai??i?? Council copied will be asked to rid taxpayers of you and your $500,000 annual salary.If TransLink were a logging company, horrendously loud noise disturbances and harmful diesel emissions from its service wreaking havoc on the lives of residents in Point Grey would not be allowed to continue.Ai?? Residents in Point Grey are upset that TransLink is allowed to operate the 99 B-Line service with impunity and want answers from Ian Jarvis and Nancy Olewiler – making the decisions at TransLink.Creative accountingSky train is sold as being fast.Ai?? TransLink contends that savings from its automated sky trains reduce operating costs to make up for the high capital cost of sky train.Ai?? Unfortunately, sky trains would get bogged down if buses operated every 20 minutes to 30 minutes (conventional transit) to get people to the distantly spaced sky train stations.Ai??Ai?? To compensate, TransLink is forced to operate buses on the frequent transit network (FTN) every few minutes.This results in many buses running around empty or nearly empty with massive service hour costs for busing.Ai?? In contrast, trams take buses off the roads to reduce service hours for busing.Ai?? In Metro Vancouver, FTN is analogous to a pail under the faucet being pulled away too quickly before it is full ai??i?? the FTN buses for sky train are operated far to frequently and the FTN buses often depart with few or no passengers on board during off peak hours.In 1999 before TransLink, CMBC running buses for TransLink logged 3.4 million service hours. In 2011 after TransLink expanded sky train, busing service hours increased to 4.7 million.Ai?? Notwithstanding the increase in population and demand for transit which should have been addressed with the sky train service hours which also increased with the Canada Line and Millennium Line (sky train lines built since 1999) – at $115 per service hour for busing, sky trains add about $150 million to the annual operating budget for buses here ai??i??Ai?? to facilitate the operation of sky train.This is the hidden cost of sky train and creative accounting techniques by the accountants at TransLink are concealing it.Ai?? You are the TransLink Commissioner and are being paid big money to be on top of things and you really donai??i??t appear to be.As a result, TransLink uses too many buses on the FTN in Vancouver to avoid delays for passengers taking sky train.Ai?? This means few to no buses for Surrey and Delta.99 B-Line red herringOn West 4th Avenue, the express and frequent No. 84 articulated diesel buses travel about 14 kilometres to UBC, and the No. 84 buses log about 40,000 annual service hours.Ai?? On Broadway, the No. 99 B-Lines travel about 14 kilometres to UBC, too – but log about 120,000 annual service hours (triple the service hours of the No. 84).This is totally intentional and avoidable by TransLink.Ai?? Overcrowding on the 99 B-Lines on Broadway is contrived by TransLink to make the 99 B-Line service one of the busiest in North America while all the supporting bus routes operating in parallel to the 99 B-Line route are typically starved for passengers.If TransLink merely increased service hours on the No. 84 route and reduced service hours on the No 99 route – it would redirect passengers taking the Canada Line and going to UBC onto the No. 84 route on West 4th Avenue to solve the overcrowding on the 99 B-Line buses going to UBC along Broadway.Ai?? Amazingly, solving the overcrowding on the 99 B-Lines is really very easy and inexpensive!Overcrowding on the 99 B-Line route is a red herring to trick the mayors in Metro Vancouver to provide more funding to TransLink.Ai?? We all know that TransLink is essentially insolvent and desperate for cash.Ai?? It canai??i??t manage future sky train costs.Ai?? TransLink is using the expansion of sky train as a ploy to get money to pay for its future sky train losses which it canai??i??t finance with its current funding.Common sense just solved the overcrowding on the supposed busiest route (99 B-Line) in North America.Ai?? How soon can TransLink reduce service hours on the 99 B-Line route and other FTN routes during off peak hours to reduce its cash crunch?RegardsReferencesUrban-LRT in EdmontonTransLink 99 B-Line off peak service increaseU of T research paper on the efficacy of transit – 2009Northwest transportation insightsMetro Vancouver vehicle use from 1999 to 2011Shirocca Consulting transit efficiency review of TransLink – 2012http://translinkcommission.
org/TransLink_Efficiency_ Review_Mar_21-12_FINAL.pdf
Recent Comments