Can TransLink’s business cases be trusted? A Repost from 2008
As construction on the Evergreen Line is now under way, it would be interesting to once again see how a real transit expert views TransLink’s Business Case for the metro line.
Since last spring, the Light Rail Committee has circulated an E-Mail sent by American transit and transportation expert, Gerald Fox to a Victoria transit group that wants to promote LRT and diesel LRT into the Capital Region. Mr. Fox easily shreds TransLinkai??i??s business case for the Evergreen Line which should forewarn transit groups in the Fraser Valley that TransLink easily manipulates statistics to favour SkyTrain to the detriment of light-rail and is not to be trusted with any transit study. The following is the text of the E-Mail and for those lobbying for the return of the Interurban, just substitute the Fraser Valley for Victoria.
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?
Innuedos 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.
A Question of Capacity ai??i?? A LRTA Topic Sheet
Contrary to the COV and TransLink, modern LRT can obtain high capacities, on transit routes, by being able to operate
at close headways.Ai??Today, the main tram route through the city is being relocated in a subway because the line was
seeing 45 second headways during peak hours, giving an nominal capacity exceeding 40,000 persons per hour per direction!
A repost from 2009.
With TransLink and the City of Vancouver’s Engineering Department deliberately misleading politicans and the public about light rail and light rail capacity, the following is a pimer on capacity as it pertains to LRT and streetcars.
A Question of Capacity ai??i?? A LRTA Topic Sheet
Maximum capacity is only likely to be required for a few hours during peak hours, and even here there are likely to be variations both day by day and within each hour. The capacity required originates from the routeai??i??s social characteristics.
As for the vehicles, buses have a comfort capacity equal to the number of seats, and a maximum capacity equal to seats plus standing load.
In the case of trams, it is more complicated. The nominal maximum capacity is calculated at four passengers per square metre of available floor space (a reasonably comfortable level), plus the number of seats.
As trams are designed to carry a large standing load, the ratio of standees to seats is quite high. The standing area is also important for the carrying of wheelchairs, pushchairs, shopping and sometimes bicycles. Some manufacturers quote maximum capacity using 6p/m2 while a figure of 8p/m 2 is used as a measure of crush capacity. This last figure is also employed to determine the motor rating of the vehicle.
A further complication is that even when there are seats available, some passengers prefer to stand. This may be because they are only travelling for a few stops, that they want to stretch their legs, or may just prefer to stand.
A tramai??i??s comfort capacity can therefore be considered as the number of seats, plus the voluntary standees who may amount to up to 10-15% of the nominal maximum number of standing passengers.
ELASTICITY
It is the difference between the average passenger load for any particular time and the crush load which gives light rail its Elasticity Factor, allowing it to cope with variations in conditions such as sudden surges or emergency conditions.
Standing is made more acceptable by the design of track and vehicle, reducing the forces acting on the passenger to a minimum. This makes for a smooth ride, as well as ensuring ease of access, good support and the ability to see out without having to stoop.
Where a route is mainly urban with short journey times, the number of vehicles required should be calculated on the nominal maximum. On longer journeys outside the central area, a lower level may be more appropriate, dependent on the routeai??i??s characteristics. Even on rural sections, there are likely to be a a number of short distance riders, and the loading factor will increase nearer to the urban area.
COMPRESSIBILITY
While it might be thought desirable to offer every passenger a seat, it is in fact the ability to carry high loadings in a confined area (the Compressibility Factor) which enables light rail to achieve many environmental benefits, allowinglarge numbers of people to be carried withoutharming, and often improving, the features of a city.
It is city centres where several routes combine that the most capacity is required. A typical situation could be a pedestrian street with six routes operating at 10-minute headway giving 36 double coupled trams per hour each with a capacity of 225. This gives a nominal capacity of16 200 passengers per hour which can be increased to 25 200 pph in extremis without extra vehicles. Light rail is unique in this ability to operate on the surface with its capacity without detracting from the amenities which it serves.A further factor in setting the resources required is the need to lure motorists out of cars. The more difficult the traffic conditions, the higher the loadings will be acceptable. It is however important that crush loads are not allowed for morethan the shortest of periods on an infrequent basis, both to maintain customer satisfaction and prevent elasticity of the system being compromised.
It is vital that public transport can cope with sudden changes in demand, such as extreme inclement weather or air quality violations which can cause private traffic to be halted. This is where the elasticity inherent in light rail is so beneficial in enabling an instant response in an economical fashion. A tram may be crowded, but its infinitelybetter than having to wait in the snow of smog untilextra vehicles are brought into service.
It is this unique combination of Capacity, Compressibility and Elasticity rather than capacity alone which makes light rail so successful as an urban transport mode.
Note Statistics are based on Karlsruhe, using GT/8 cars
Metro Vancouver mayors call for new fees, taxes to fund transit
Well they areAi??back at it, the regional mayors (I should say well paid regional mayors) are asking for more of our money to fund SkyTrain. Yes, that what it boils down to, more money to fund SkyTrain.
Our regional mayors tend to think they are transit experts, but with the exception of Burnaby’s Derrek Corrigan (who was once CEO of BC Transit) and Surrey’s Dianne Watts (who actually did read a book on the subject) are expert at throwing good money after bad at TransLink, ever hoping that things will improve.
The big problem with TransLink is SkyTrain and the Canada Line and the huge annual subsidies needed to keep them in operation, subsidies that takes money away from the rest of the transit system.
If regional mayors were honestAi??with their constituents andAi??with themselves, they would demand a complete reorganization of TransLink and a complete rethink on how and why we provide public transit. Sadly, I just do not see any moral fortitude with this lot, as they seem to beAi??hell bent inAi??selling the taxpayer out, when it suits them and for many their political masters in Victoria.
Like a spoiled child, it is time to say no to TransLink.
Metro Vancouver mayors call for new fees, taxes to fund transit
By Kelly Sinoski, Vancouver Sun February 5, 2013
Metro Vancouver mayors have come up with a list of five new funding sourcesAi?? to pay for transit expansion, ranging from a resurrected vehicle registrationAi?? fee to a regional sales tax for transit.
The recommendations ai??i?? which also include a regional carbon tax, land-valueAi?? capture around SkyTrain stations, and road pricing ai??i?? were outlined in a letterAi?? to B.C. Transportation Minister Mary Polak this week.
ai???There is a consensus on the mayorsai??i?? council that economic and politicalAi?? limits have been reached on the rates of existing taxes and fares, so little orAi?? no more funding can be squeezed from established sources,ai??? the letterAi?? states.
The mayorsai??i?? council suggests an annual vehicle registration fee, based onAi?? vehicle emissions or engine size, could reap $50 million.
At the same time, a regional sales tax of 0.5 per cent, collected withinAi?? Metro Vancouver, could yield about $250 million annually, while a $5-per-tonneAi?? regional carbon tax could potentially generate $90 million a year for theAi?? region.
The technical analysis also suggests land capture ai??i?? leveraging the value ofAi?? lands around SkyTrain station development ai??i?? would generate about $30 millionAi?? annually.
As far as road pricing, which is a longer-term measure, the mayorsai??i?? councilAi?? argues it ai???has the greatest potential to achieve our shared vision for theAi?? region.ai??? The letter notes this involves direct pay-by-use charges for roads,Ai?? similar to how riders pay for the transit system.
Mayorsai??i?? council chairman Richard Walton said the group is looking for aAi?? commitment from the province that it would be willing to consider one or all ofAi?? the funding sources and work together on a public consultation process.
They are also asking for the province to enact further legislation for theAi?? vehicle registration fee. Although it has been rejected by the province threeAi?? times, Walton said it is the regionai??i??s best bet for a short-term funding source,Ai?? while other options, such as road pricing, are developed.
Polak said Tuesday that while the mayors have shown ai???good progress,ai??? theyAi?? need to do more to give the public an understanding of why the funding is neededAi?? and where it will be spent. They should start, she said, by coming to aAi?? consensus on the specific regional priorities slated for the near future.
This could include whether the proposed Surrey light rail system, or rapidAi?? transit for the Broadway corridor, is built first, she said, with a ballparkAi?? cost to determine what funding source would work best to cover the cost.
ai???The public gets very frustrated with the idea that they are asked toAi?? continuously pay more tax and more fees without feeling they are gettingAi?? anything more from it,ai??? Polak said. ai???Itai??i??s about building that support … youAi?? have to help them understand what theyai??i??re getting for that increase.ai???
The province has said any funding sources must be affordable for families,Ai?? have regional sourcing, avoid potential negative effects on the economy, andAi?? help TransLink share in the local benefits arising from transit investment.
Walton said the ball is now in the ministerai??i??s court. ai???There is an electionAi?? on, and obviously weai??i??re trying to get some sense if the government is willing toAi?? move on any one of these areas. If the response is no, the public wants to knowAi?? that.ai???
The Cost of Transporting People in the British Columbia Lower Mainland – Revisited
In 1993 the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD), now known as metro Vancouver,Ai??and the province of British Columbia released a report entitled “Transport 2021“, part of the 2021 study was the study, “The Cost of Transporting People in the British Columbia Lower Mainland“.
On page 15 of the “The Cost of Transporting People in the British Columbia Lower Mainland” study is a chart showing the breakdown of financial studies for public transit in 1991. The chart showed that the total subsidy for SkyTrain was $157.6 million. The huge subsidy for SkyTrain sent howls of “shock and disbelief” from BC Transit and the SkyTrain lobby, which until then maintained the myth that SkyTrain operated without subsidy and in fact suggested that SkyTrain paid its operating costs, a myth that remains today.
In early 2004, the late light rail campaigner, Des Turner, confirmed with TransLink that the annual SkyTrain subsidy, with the opening of the Millennium LineAi??surpassed $200 million a year! Alas, Mr Turner has since passed away and his meticulous records have been lost to the ages.
With the $90 million concessionaire’s fee for the Canada Line and addingAi??provincial debt servicing charges for the metro, the annual subsidy for the mini-metro system has now surpassed $300 million!
When politicians or media types claim that “SkyTrain operates without subsidy“, or “pays its operating costs“, just remind those cheer-leading for mini-metro of “The Cost of Transporting People in the British Columbia Lower Mainland” and that the annual subsidy for mini-metro has surpassed $300 million annually! One can also add, that the $300 million pus annual subsidy has hamstrung financially TransLink and its public transit operations.
The following is reproduced from”The Cost of Transporting People in the British Columbia Lower Mainland“.
Exhibit III-1
Breakdown of financial subsidies for public transit in 1991 ($millions)
SubsidyAi??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? Paid byAi??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? Diesel BusAi??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? Trolley BusAi??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? SkyTrainAi??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? SeabusAi??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? Total
Gas TaxAi??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? Auto driversAi??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? $19.6Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??$9.4Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? $17.8Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? $0.6 Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? $47.4
Hydro LevyAi??Ai??Ai??Ai?? HouseholdersAi??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??5.2Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? 2.5Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??4.7Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??0.2Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??$12.6
Commercial
Property TaxAi??Ai??Ai??Ai?? BusinessesAi??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??9.9Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? 4.8Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? 9.0Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? 0.3Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??$24.0
Residential
Prop. TaxAi??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? Home OwnersAi??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??5.8Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??2.8Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? 5.2Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??0.2Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??$14.0
Provincial
GovernmentAi??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Provincial
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??TaxpayersAi??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? 50.0Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? 24.2Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? 120.9Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??1.7Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? $196.8Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??
Total SubsidyAi??- All SourcesAi??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? $90.5Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? $43.7Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? $157.6Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? $3.0Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? $294.8
The Noviceai??i??s Guide to ai???Railai??? Transit Orai??i??ai??i??ai??i??ai??i?? (Updated)
ai??i??ai??i??ai??i??ai??i??..cutting through the BS about light rail, SkyTrain and BRT.
The following is a guide plus definitions about “rail” transit for this coming May’s provincial election.
ALM: Automatic Light Metro, the fourth marketing name given for the SkyTrain family of light-metros, when Lavalin briefly owned SkyTrain before gong bankrupt.
ALRT (1): Advanced Light Rail Transit, the second marketing name for SkyTrain.
ALRT (2): Advanced Light Rapid Transit, the third marketing name for SkyTrain, when Advanced Light Rail Transit failed to find a market.
ART: Advanced Rapid Transit, the fifth marketing name for SkyTrain, used by its current owners, Bombardier Inc.
Automatic (Driverless) Operation: A signaling system that permits train operation without drivers. Contrary to popular myth, automatic operation does not reduce operating costs because there are no drivers, because attendants must be hired instead to permit safe operation. Automatic signaling was signed to reduce signaling staff, not operation staff.
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT): Generally means “Express Buses”, a true BRT needs a very expensive and land consuming busway or highway or be guided.
Busway: A route needed for BRT. Busways can be conventional HOV lanes or exclusive roads for buses. Busways can be equipped with raised curbs or rails for bus guidance.
Canada Line: Vancouver’s third metro line which is a grade separated EMU operation and is not compatible with the rest of the SkyTrain system in operation.
Capacity: A function of headway multiplied by vehicle capacity, measured in persons per hour per direction.
Consultation: To sell a transit decision to the public after the decision has been made.
Evergreen Line: The uncompleted portion of the Millennium Line being sold to the public as a separate metro line by the MSM.
Express Bus: A bus which has limited stops. See Rapid Bus.
Expo Line: The first SkyTrain line built, completed in late 1985. The Expo was built in in three sections. The Waterfront to New Westminster section (cost a much as LRT from Vancouver to Whalley, Lougheed Mall and Richmond Centre), the Skybridge section across the Fraser river to Scott road Station, and the final section to Whalley in Surrey.
Grade: The vertical rise of a railway track, normally given in a percentage (1% grade = a 1 metre rise in 100 metres). Industry standard grade for LRT is 8%; Sheffield’s LRT operates on 10% grades; the maximum grade for a tramway is located in Lisbon, where the streetcars operate, unassisted, on 13.8% grades.
Goebbels Gambit: The fine art of repeating a lie often enough that it is perceived as the truth.
Guided Bus: A BRT that is physically guided by either a raised curb or a central rail. Some guided buses are considered monorails.
Headway: The time interval between trains on a transit route.
HOV Lane: High Occupancy Vehicle Lane, a lane for exclusive use of high occupancy vehicles, such as carpooling cars, buses and LRT.
Hybrid: A transit system that is designed operated as a LRT/light metro mix. Generally very expensive as it uses the most expensive features of both modes.
ICTS: Intermediate Capacity Transit system, the first name SkyTrain was marketed by.
Interurban: An early streetcar which operated at speed on its own R-o-W connecting urban centres.
Light RailAi?? (LRT): A steel wheel on steel rail transit system that can operate economically on transit routes with traffic flows between 2,000 pphpd to over 20,000 pphpd, thus bridging the gap on what buses can carry and that which needs a metro. A streetcar is considered LRT when it operates on reserved rights-of-ways or R-o-W’s for the exclusive use of the streetcar/tram. Number of LRT/tramways in operation around the world 461; light railways (many use LRV’s) ai??i?? 119; heritage lines ai??i?? 60.
Light Metro: A transit mode, generally a proprietary transit system, that has the capacity of LRT, at the cost of a heavy-rail metro.
Light Rail Vehicle (LRV): A vehicle that operates on a LRT or streetcar line. Also called a streetcar, tram, TramTrain or interurban.
Leewood Projects: Leewood Projects Limited was formed in 1999 to provide a comprehensive Project Management and Planning service to the railway industry.
Leewood Report: A study commissioned by Rail for the Valley, reinstating the old BC Electric Vancouver to Chilliwack interurban.
http://www.railforthevalley.com/studies/
Main Stream Media (MSM): Daily print media and electronic media who seldom report on real transit issues: See SkyTrain Lobby and Goebbels Gambit.
Mass Transit: A generic term for heavy-rail metro. See rapid transit.
Metro: An urban/suburban railway that operates on a segregated R-o-W, either in a subway or on a viaduct, due to long trains (8 cars+) and close headways. There are 174 heavy/light metros in operation around the world.
Millennium Line:Ai?? The second SkyTrain Line built, using the new Bombardier ART cars.
Monorail: A transit mode that operates on one rail. There are two general types of monorail: 1) hanging monorail and 2) straddle beam monorail (not a true monorail). Some proprietary BRT systems are also classed as monorail.
OHE or OHLE: Overhead line equipment.
Priority Signaling: A signaling system that gives priority to transit vehicles at intersections.
Proprietary Transit System: A transit system who rights are exclusively owned by one company. Transit operations who operate proprietary transit systems must deal with only one supplier.
Rail for the Valley: A group of people, living in the Fraser Valley, wanting to reinstate the old BC Electric interurban service.
Rapid Bus: Please see rapid bus.
Rapid Transit: A generic term for metro. See mass transit.
Reserved Rights of Way: An exclusive R-o-w for use of transit vehicles, can be as simple as a HOV lane (with rails for LRT) or as elaborate a a lawned boulevard or a linear park complete with shrubs.
SkyTrain: An unconventional proprietary light-metro, powered by Linear Induction motors, marketed by Bombardier Inc. Currently there are 7 SkyTrain type transit systems in operation around the world. ICTS ai??i?? 2; ALRT (1 & 2) ai??i?? 1; ART 4.
SkyTrain Lobby: A group of people and politicians who love linking to anti-LRT web sites. Most are ill-read on transit issues.
Streetcar: A steel wheel, on steel rail electric (also can be diesel powered) vehicle that operates in mixed traffic, with little or no priority at intersections. Also known as a tram in Europe. Streetcars become LRT when operating on reserved R-o-W’s.
Tram: European term for streetcar, as the Europeans do not use the term LRT.
TramTrain: A streetcar that can operate on the mainline railways, operating as a passenger train.
TransLink Speak: The lexicon used by TransLink to mask problems. Example: medial emergency on SkyTrain means a suicide.
Viaduct: A viaduct is a bridge composed of several small spans.
Man marries his car
NO, HUMAN MANAGEMENT IS NOT PERFECT but neither is automated management. Records prove the safest way to go is to have automatic safety controls that will override a human mistake, such as 1920 style automatic train stop. It is much safer to rely on an automatic device checking on a human than to have a human checking on an automatic device.
The June 22nd 2009 accident that killed ten on the Washington DC Metro was totally a computer failure. The computer salesman may claim it was a track circuit failure, but an honest system would stop the train when the circuit failed instead of letting it go haywire.
Records are worth a whole lot – automation is not worth the cost but an automatic train stop is in most cases.
The Miami MetroMover, the Detroit Sky-Train, the Las Vegas MonoRail and the Jacksonville MonoRail are all automated and they are all far too expensive to build and operate. Vancouver Sky-Train is just about operationally value for money, what with its fare subsidies and traffic volumes, but it is certainly not cost effective to build; despite what TransLink would have us believe using selective statistics to buttress the pro-ART and pro-highway spending case. There are records on that too. Look at the records, do not argue about it.
Bait and Gate – The Fare Gate Scandal Unfolds
Well, Rail for the Valley told you so, but with the hoopla in the mainstream media and on certain radio station, to a certain lobbyist’s delight, fueledAi??a public frenzyAi??on the subject of fareAi??evasion. So much so, was the public’s anger over fare evasion, the public demanded fare gates be installed at all SkyTrain stations. The fact of the matter was different, the percentage of people avoiding to pay fares was about the same as on other transit systems. Fare evasion is a cost of doing business.
Should not this study have been done before TransLink wasted hundreds of millions of dollars retrofitting the mini-metroAi??stations with fare gates?
The real winners in the fare gate fiasco is Cubic, who supplied the fare gates in a market that is seeing most transit agencies ridding themselvesAi??of them and former premier Gordon Campbell’s good friend and former Vancouver City manager under the Campbell regime (who’s thumbprint is behind many of TransLink’s expensive fiascoes) and Cubic highly paid lobbyist, Ken Dobel!
I think we can call it “bait and gate!”
The fare evasion/fare gate fiasco is just another reason why there should be a full independent audit of TransLink, including the light metro system.
Memo to Adrian Dix: Do you have the moral fortitude to order such an audit?
Study finds transit fare gates don’t curb crime
VANCOUVER/CKNW(AM980)
Janet Brown
1/31/2013Fare gates on public transit systems have very little impact on fare evasion, crime and public disorder.
That’s the finding of a study carried out by Criminologist Darryl Plecas at the University of the Fraser Valley.
Plecas says while the introduction of turnstiles and fare gates is perceived by the public as a panacea to deal with fare evasion it’s really not the answer.
He also says there is little data to suggest the gates have a measurable impact on crime and/or public disorder.
“These gates are very expensive to install and when you look at how long it takes to get the payback from what you lose on fair evasion i think that at least some people conclude that at the end of the day they certainly don’t pay for themselves.”
The study – which cost five-thousand dollars – was commissioned by Transit Police whose role is already being questioned once the fare gates come in.
The first fare gates on Skytrain and Canada Line are expected to up and running in the fall.
Liz James UpsetsThe SkyTrain Lobby
It seems North Shore News weekly columnist, Liz James has upset the SkyTrain Lobby with her most recent article, “No shortage of projects for the new AGLG“.Ai??Ai??So much so, that an email to Ms. James, from a SkyTrain lobbiest comes very close inAi??libeling her good name.” The fact that Ms. James has been on the SkyTrain/TransLink/ Canada line file since the late 90’s is ignored.
The SkyTrain lobby’sAi??main Fraser ValleyAi??voice is a high school student who calls himself an “analyst“, yet has absolutely no credentialsAi??except that heAi??runsAi??the SkyTrain for Surrey web site. This so called analyst was in diapers, when Ms. James first started researching transit issues in the region.
What set the SkyTrain lobby’s hair alight is the following;
If so, they would do themselves an injustice because, as provincial andAi?? federal taxpayers they too are funding the bottomless pit that is TransLink, itsAi?? gold-plated SkyTrain projects and its unwieldy, costly governance structure.
In particular, when it comes to “achieving value for money,” it would be aAi?? relief for your office to settle once and for all the TransLink-manipulatedAi?? comparative cost debate over SkyTrain versus Light Rail Transit technology.
If you were to do that – without political interference – I have no doubt youAi?? could save taxpayers billions of dollars in capital and debt-servicingAi?? costs.
Really, that’s it? The only thing that Zwei could complain about is the claim that SkyTrain and LRT are different technologies – they are not, as both are railways and adhere to the same principles of railway operation.
What makes the SkyTrain lobby go white withAi??panic is an independent audit of the SkyTrain light metro and an apples to apples comparison between SkyTrain and light rail.
Gerald Fox, noted American transit expert, clearlyAi??understood this,Ai??when he wrote:
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 taxpayers’ interests are protected. No SkyTrain project has ever passed this scrutiny in the US.
No shortage of projects for the new AGLG
Ai??ByAi?? Elizabeth James, Special to North Shore News January 30, 2013Read more: http://www.nsnews.com/news/shortage+projects+AGLG/7892438/story.html#ixzz2JZ48ulOd
“We are most interested in hearing from members of the public who haveAi?? suggestions of areas where the AGLG can be most helpful to British Columbia’sAi?? local governments by conducting performance audits that may identify ways toAi?? improve value for money or highlight best practices.” aglg.ca
Ms. Basia Ruta, CA Auditor General for Local Government, Surrey, B.C.
Dear Ms. Ruta:
Congratulations on your appointment as British Columbia’s first ever auditorAi?? general for local government.
We have waited a long time for this day and look forward to reading yourAi?? reports, as we do those of B.C. Auditor General John Doyle.
We appreciate your offer to consider our suggestions about your work andAi?? understand that your mandate is to conduct performance audits to evaluateAi?? whether councils are providing good “stewardship of public assets” andAi?? “achieving value for money in their operations.”
In that vein, I offer my own thoughts for your consideration.
A review of the information on your website notes that your first milestoneAi?? will be the release of what will become an annual service plan – the firstAi?? expected sometime in April.
Bearing that in mind, I hope that over the next few weeks you will have timeAi?? to review the Community Charter/Local Government Act – the foundation upon whichAi?? our local government structure is built.
Recent experience here on the North Shore suggests there is an urgent needAi?? for a clarification and strengthening of the legislation that covers conflict ofAi?? interest and the public hearing process.
In that regard, if you should schedule a review of the City and District ofAi?? North Vancouver, I urge you to consider the two municipalities concurrentlyAi?? because, as residents support mirrored councils and staffs for a combinedAi?? population of only 131,000, many of them want to see a facilitated dialogue onAi?? the pros and cons of amalgamation – no matter what some politicians wouldAi?? prefer.
I agree and suggest that a politician who denies citizens that opportunity isAi?? in a direct conflict of interest.
My next suggestion also touches on democratic process.
If British Columbians are to play a meaningful role in determining theirAi?? local destiny, the act must be returned to its pre-charter status with respectAi?? to referendums.
The charter’s “alternative approval process” is unwieldy and nothing moreAi?? than negative-billing: “Council plans to do such-and-such unless enough of youAi?? read this advertisement and tell us not to.”
And now, Ms. Ruta, we come to a long-standing North Shore bug-a-boo: ourAi?? regional transportation authority.
If you compare the Aug. 9, 2001 report and recommendations on TransLink byAi?? former provincial auditor-general Wayne Strelioff to the November-December 2012Ai?? reports of TransLink Commissioner Martin Crilly and the Efficiency Review byAi?? North Vancouver’s Shirocca Consulting, I believe you will find significant roomAi?? for improvement with respect to value for money. Commissioner Crilly notified meAi?? on Sunday that two further reports by Shirocca are due to appear on his websiteAi?? on Feb. 1.
Taxpayers elsewhere in B.C. might believe another review by you would focusAi?? too much on the 22 Lower Mainland municipalities.
If so, they would do themselves an injustice because, as provincial andAi?? federal taxpayers they too are funding the bottomless pit that is TransLink, itsAi?? gold-plated SkyTrain projects and its unwieldy, costly governance structure.
In particular, when it comes to “achieving value for money,” it would be aAi?? relief for your office to settle once and for all the TransLink-manipulatedAi?? comparative cost debate over SkyTrain versus Light Rail Transit technology.
If you were to do that – without political interference – I have no doubt youAi?? could save taxpayers billions of dollars in capital and debt-servicingAi?? costs.
In general terms, council budgets increasingly suffer from the downloading ofAi?? what were previously provincial responsibilities – with insufficient funding toAi?? support the services.
Although that applies throughout the province, the problem is exacerbated forAi?? North Shore residents who are disproportionately burdened by high property-taxAi?? assessments and by Metro Vancouver regional decisions over which they have noAi?? direct control.
No control because the charter does not require members of council to pollAi?? the majority opinion of their colleagues before they vote at the regionalAi?? committee level.
At regional tables it is a case of voting one man’s – or woman’s -Ai?? opinion.
So the final item I would like to see reviewed – before the 2014 municipalAi?? election – would cover the pros and cons of allowing citizens to elect the boardAi?? of the Greater Vancouver Regional District.
Never again do I want to hear that a member of council must “take off his/herAi?? North Shore council hat, when sitting at a regional table” as one councillorAi?? said.
“No taxation without representation” is such an important concept that,Ai?? earlier this month at the inauguration of President Barack Obama, the citizensAi?? of Washington, DC reignited the fight that began in England in the 1700s. Why doAi?? we still tolerate it at the regional level in B.C.?
So thank you for the invitation Ms. Ruta; I hope you will receive suggestionsAi?? from many other British Columbians.
You have my sincere best wishes as you carry out your work in this politicalAi?? viper’s nest of a province.
Footnote: Ms. Basia Ruta began her five-year fixed term on Jan. 15, 2013.
Nominated by an appointed five-person Audit Council, Ruta comes from OntarioAi?? with an impressive resume that includes more than 10 years with the auditorAi?? general of Canada.
How About A TramTrain Link To Abbotsford Internationl Airport
One major destination for the RftV Vancouver to Chilliwack TramTrain is the Abbotsford International Airport and having a TramTrain connections would mean YXX could be directly reached from Vancouver, Surrey,Ai??Langley, Abbotsford, and Chilliwack.
A bonus withAi??a YXX TramTrain connection would be Abbotsford’s Tradex, trade fair complexAi??would also be served by rail.
Reaching the airport could pose some problems, but by TramTrain’s very nature it could operate as a tram or streetcar on single track reserved right’s-of-way on either Vye/HuntingtonAi??Road; King or Clearbrook Road or a combination of all four, from the SRR of BC line to YXX.
Also in the area is the University of the Fraser Valley and Corrections Canada facilities, which would mean good ridership potential for a TramTrain line to YXX.
From Rail Technology Magazine
Tram-train link to airport ai???once in a lifetime opportunityai??i??
The all-party parliamentary light rail group is pushing for a tram-train link from Leeds to Leeds-Bradford International Airport (LBIA), via Horsforth.
At a meeting on Tuesday, the group outlined progress on the project to cross-party MPs, representatives from the DfT, local government, and the light rail industry.
Three local MPs are to lead a campaign to promote the proposal: Greg Mulholland MP (LibDem, Leeds North West); Alec Shelbrooke MP (Con, Elmet and Rothwell); and Gerry Sutcliffe (Lab, Bradford South).
They discussed a strategy for progressing the scheme, which was described as ai???once in a lifetime opportunity for lasting infrastructure benefitai???.
The LBIA link is currently being examined for possible inclusion in the projects to go forward within the proposed A?1bn West Yorkshire Plus Transport Fund.
Shelbrooke said: ai???The APPLRG meeting was invaluable for getting all political parties together as well as the major stakeholders to highlight the united aim we have in securing a tram-train link to LBIA for the benefit of Leeds, Bradford, West Yorkshire and the North. It is crucial we act quickly and with coordination to achieve this outcome and I look forward to leading this with Gerry Sutcliffe and Greg Mulholland in the future.ai???
Quebec Corruption Inquiry: SNC-Lavalin Linked To Scheme To Raise Construction Project Prices
What happens in Quebec must surely happen in BC, asAi??SNC Lavalin has been involved with the heavily engineered SkyTrain and Canada Line light-metros. The question that must be asked; “Has the very expensive SkyTrain and Canada line light metros part of a provincial scheme to ensure healthy profits for corporate friends of the government by building over-engineered rapid transit projects?”
If the answer is yes, then; “Is TransLink deliberately making false statements about modern light rail to ensure that SkyTrain is built, instead of light rail, for regional ‘rail’ projects such as the Evergreen Line and the Broadway subway?”
The followers of this blog know what the correct answers are!
From the Huffington Post……………
Quebec Corruption Inquiry: SNC-Lavalin Linked To Scheme To Raise Construction Project Prices
MONTREAL ai??i?? A number of major engineering firms ai??i?? including global giant SNC-Lavalin ai??i?? participated in a collusion scheme to raise the price of construction projects in Quebec, the head of one company testified Thursday at a provincial inquiry.
The incendiary testimony of Michel Lalonde suggested that big, even publicly traded, engineering firms were complicit in the cartel-like practices previously ascribed to lower-level construction companies in that province.
The president of Genius Conseil Inc. said the group of companies selected him as a go-between with Montreal city officials, and he pointed at firms of varying sizes as participants in the system including: Montreal-based SNC-Lavalin (TSX:SNC), Dessau, CIMA, Genivar (TSX:GNV), Tecsult, SM, BPR and Roche.
He said the companies were expected to cough up donations to the cityai??i??s ruling political party.
ai???We had to talk if we wanted to make sure that we could split up the contracts and assure that we understood the political donation obligations we had,ai??? Lalonde explained to commission counsel Denis Gallant.
The inquiry has heard similar tales about other pockets of the industry conspiring to inflate public contracts, while sharing the illegal profits with political parties, corrupt officials and the Mafia.
Among the engineering firms, Lalonde described himself as a key player in a scheme that ran for roughly five years, between 2004 and mid-2009.
The co-chair of the inquiry, Renaud Lachance, asked him: ai???When you say ai???spokesman,ai??i?? youai??i??re basically saying, ai???collusion co-ordinator?ai??i??ai???
Lalonde replied: ai???I call it spokesman in the name of the firms.ai??? He added that he had a personal interest in the role because it might have helped his own company win some contracts.
Each of the other firms had a representative that would take part in discussions about how contracts would be divided, Lalonde said.
He said his city contact was Bernard Trepanier, a fundraiser for the Union Montreal party at the time. He said Trepanier had connections within the cityai??i??s executive body and would keep him abreast of upcoming contracts. He said he would make political donations to ensure the city selection committee gave him contracts.
Lalonde said he even had a few meetings with Frank Zampino, then the executive committee chairman. He said they would discuss upcoming contracts, in Trepanierai??i??s presence. Zampino and Trepanier now face criminal charges in an alleged fraud scheme.
Lalonde estimated that his firm would give Union Montreal anywhere from $50,000 to $100,000 a year between 2005 and 2009. The scandal-plagued party recently lost power, following a series of defections.
Lalonde said the first cash call came in 2004 when his firm paid Union Montreal $100,000, split into about a half-dozen payments.
Lalonde testified that bigger firms would give double ai??i?? about $200,000.
After that, a three-per-cent rule apparently went into effect: a fixed cut on each contract would go to the cityai??i??s ruling party, he said. Lalonde said most of the money was given through Trepanier, with the presumed blessing of the party.
ai???When someone asks you for a significant amount for political contributions, I guess it has to come from the party,ai??? Lalonde said.
ai???And he (Trepanier) told me, ai???Listen, I set this up with Mr. Zampino, we talked about it.ai??i?? Thatai??i??s why I say it was sanctioned.ai???
On one occasion, Lalonde said he gave money directly to a city official ai??i?? Robert Marcil ai??i?? who headed the public works department.
The practice ended four years ago, he said. Media reports began surfacing about corruption in the industry. Authorities began to crack down, beginning with a provincial police unit called Operation Hammer. It has since made numerous arrests.
He said such practices drove up the price of construction in Montreal by 25 to 30 per cent, which taxpayers had to cover.
Lalonde is back on the stand Monday.
Earlier Thursday, new details have emerged about the events that led to the scandal-propelled resignation of Montrealai??i??s mayor last fall.
It turns out that the witness whose damning allegation at a public inquiry torpedoed the mayorai??i??s career did not originally share it with investigators because, he said, he thought it seemed ai???trivial.ai???
That statement from former mayoral aide Martin Dumont came Thursday as he was back on the witness stand, nearly three months after he shared an anecdote that pushed his ex-boss Gerald Tremblay into political retirement.
Dumontai??i??s earlier testimony has been under attack since he admitted to making up another story during his appearance at the inquiry in October.
At the time, as Tremblay resigned in scandal, he vehemently denied Dumontai??i??s testimony and said he was eager to clear his name.
The former aide had testified that Tremblay was at a meeting in 2004 where he heard his party kept two sets of books ai??i?? one for legal purposes, and an accurate one for illicit cash. Dumont said the mayor promptly stood up and, declaring that he did not want to be involved in such a chat, left the room.
The claim severely damaged Tremblayai??i??s reputation, as he had spent years professing ignorance of any criminal activity within Union Montreal.
Provincial politicians began pressing Tremblay to resign. Within a few days, he was gone.
The inquiry heard Thursday that Dumont actually described the controversial 2004 meeting when he met investigators last Sept. 12 ai??i?? but he left out the mayorai??i??s presence.
He finally mentioned Tremblay when he met investigators a second time, the following month. He soon repeated the story publicly, on the stand, and the mayor quit days later.
Commission chair France Charbonneau questioned how Dumont could have forgotten to share that story the first time he met with investigators, on Sept. 12.
ai???Am I to understand that if you didnai??i??t mention this the first time itai??i??s because you found this incident trivial?ai??? she asked Thursday.
Dumont replied, without hesitation: ai???Yes, it was trivial.ai???
Later Thursday, Dumont explained his ai???trivialai??? comment, saying that what he meant was it wasnai??i??t shocking to see Tremblay at the meeting.
He said it was shocking to see two sets of accounting books.
The explanation didnai??i??t fly with Charbonneau.
She said she couldnai??i??t understand how the mayor being there ai??i?? and not wanting to know about the books ai??i?? could be deemed ai???trivial.ai???
ai???I thought he was already aware of the books,ai??? Dumont explained.
Asked bluntly, under cross-examination by the lawyer for the Union Montreal party, if he invented the story involving the mayor, Dumont maintained the testimony was true.
Lawyer Francois Dorval spent much of the morning attempting to poke holes in Dumontai??i??s testimony. His most serious strike was the revelation about Tremblay.
ai???When it is a fact thatai??i??s as dramatic as revealing before the mayor that youai??i??re over-budget and the official agent produces a document talking about two sets of accounting to get around the law ai??i?? this is a detail you forgot?ai??? an incredulous Dorval asked.
Concerns about Dumontai??i??s credibility have dominated the commission this week, since it returned from its holiday break.
Also, Dumont initially told investigators that heai??i??d described to a colleague how he was threatened by a Mafia-linked businessman. He says the construction boss warned Dumont heai??i??d be buried in concrete if he kept asking questions about inflated costs.
In a subsequent interview, Dumont had the name of that supposed colleague struck from the record. He has admitted to making up another story about a secretary who was forced to count illegal cash donations to Union Montreal.
Also, Dumont was questioned Thursday about his claim that a safe in party offices was stuffed so full of cash it wouldnai??i??t close.
Dorval produced a receipt showing that the safe was actually broken and thatai??i??s why it wouldnai??i??t close.
Tremblay cannot be reached for comment through his former spokesman. But he is expected to respond on the inquiry witness stand.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/01/25/snc-lavalin-quebec-corruption-inquiry_n_2550144.html
Recent Comments