Are The NDP Backing the “SkyTrain” For Transit Expansion?
A recent article in the Black media certainly indicates thatAi??the provincial NDP are going to expand the SkyTrain system in a forlorn hope to improve transit. Bains’s quote; “Besides the need to replace two Fraser River crossings, there’s multi-billion-dollar demands for new rapid transit extensions in Surrey and down the Broadway corridor in Vancouver toward UBC.“
Rapid transit is of course TransLink speak for SkyTrain or light metro.
Rapid transit history in Vancouver repeats itself with every light metro line built, first as political arrogance, second as politicalAi??deceit, thirdly as a farce and now fourthly, ignorance.
But with friends like Joy MacPhail and Mike Harcourt in the backrooms of the NDP, quietly manipulating a regional transit strategy for premier in waiting, Adrian Dix, may also be setting the course for the NDP to be a one term wonder.
Let us not forget the Millennium Line debacle, where the then Glen Clark government did an about face on the Broadway – Lougheed rapid transit project by forcing a SkyTrain solution, now know as the Millennium Line onto the region with little or no meaningful debate. Despite years of hard work by scores of dedicated people, to correct the original SkyTrain mistake, the NDP government, with vague promices of thousands of jobsAi??and the export of SkyTrain abroad, topped with a small fabrication plant along the Expo Line, steamrolled SkyTrain for Vancouver’sAi??second ‘rapid transit’ line., with the perverse motto; “SkyTrain is better than LRT because it carries more people and is faster than a car“.
No surprise then at the next election,Ai??where the NDP were routed and left with only two seats in the legislature.
Today it’s nearly 2013, and there were no mass sales of SkyTrain to Asia; the SkyTrain fabrication plant has been long dismantled and the thousands of jobs promised never materialized. The provincial NDP, if elected,Ai??will haveAi??two options for regional transit:Ai??either to extend the present SkyTrain or dump SkyTrain (and TransLink for that matter) and build with modern light rail. Given the NDP’s dismal track record on regional transit, I think they will take the cowards way out, as they have doneAi??before and it is up to Mr. Dix and Mr. Bains to prove me wrong.
Bains, Polak ride much same road on transport questions
By Jeff Nagel – Surrey North Delta Leader
Published: December 05, 2012
For a while it looked as if the New Democrat who may be B.C.’s next transportation minister if his party takes power would steer clear of the new Port Mann Bridge ai??i?? the province’s biggest infrastructure project.
Opposition transportation critic Harry Bains, MLA for Surrey-Newton, told Black Press last week he didn’t intend to register with the TReO tolling system because he had little cause to use the Port Mann. Most of his duties keep him south of the Fraser or taking SkyTrain to Vancouver, rather than visiting the Tri Cities.
But as his constituents clamoured to register before opening day to get a $30 credit ai??i?? pushing registrations above the half-million mark ai??i?? Bains had a change of heart and signed up as well.
“I finally registered and I’m going to go take a trip,” Bains said Tuesday. “Since it’s free this week, I’ll go take a look.”
The NDP’s critic still has plenty of concerns, notably the expected congestion at the Pattullo Bridge and crossings further south as motorists seek a free alternative.
He also contends the new #555 Port Mann bus service may not have enough capacity to meet demand.
But his views on other transportation issues in the Lower Mainland are not far off those of B.C. Transportation Minister Mary Polak.
Bains insists the tolls introduced by the province on the Port Mann are here to stay, rising to $3 next December when introductory discounts end.
And like Polak, he’s prepared to listen to Metro Vancouver mayors who want to pursue road pricing and other new revenue sources to fund TransLink and address complaints of unfair tolling.
He’s just as cautious as the minister, stressing any controversial new scheme to extend tolls to existing bridges or roads must win public support.
Bains dismisses the province’s announcement of plans to replace the Massey Tunnel as a vague and unfunded “electioneering” ploy
But he wouldn’t call off the consultation and planning process if the NDP is elected next spring, agreeing the tunnel is a key Lower Mainland choke point.
“There is a need to have that crossing improved,” he said. “It is a main trading corridor to the United States. You can’t afford to have trucks lined up in that area.”
Tolls on the Port Mann and perhaps later a replaced Pattullo Bridge may mean even more traffic trying to use the tunnel, he noted.
Bains said government must also be mindful the Lower Mainland will grow by another million people, most of them settling south of the Fraser.
“You have to look ahead and say ‘how are we going to move those people and the goods that are going to serve them south of the Fraser?’
A replaced tunnel could also be a source of new jobs and economic growth in Surrey and North Delta, he said, allowing larger container ships now limited by draft to head further up river to the under-utilized Fraser Surrey Docks, instead of Vancouver terminals.
“If we have an opportunity to move those containers closer to their destination, can you imagine all the trucks you will be removing off Vancouver streets and off those crossings of the river?”
Whether the tunnel must be replaced or can be fixed instead would depend on further engineering advice, he said.
The big challenge for the next government, he said, will be juggling priorities in the face of limited resources.
Besides the need to replace two Fraser River crossings, there’s multi-billion-dollar demands for new rapid transit extensions in Surrey and down the Broadway corridor in Vancouver toward UBC.
There’s a need to upgrade SkyTrain stations and boost bus service throughout the region.
Better transit has to be the top priority, he said, along with TransLink’s need for long-term sustainable funding.
The NDP promises to raise corporate taxes ai??i?? cut to offset the carbon tax ai??i?? back to 2008 levels.
That would free up about $400 million a year for provincial transportation projects, Bains said.
Government would earmark a portion of that for the Lower Mainland, while area mayors would be expected to agree on how they will raise more money from residents.
“I’m willing to sit down with them and look at all options.”
The Broadway Follies – Vancouver Tries Terror Tactics.
Cut and Cover subway construction
Last week, the City of Vancouver started a long and odious campaign for a multi-billion dollar SkyTrain Subway under Broadway, as far as Arbutus and maybe as far as UBC. In order to secure a favourable public opinion, the city claimed doom and gloom to any and all who would dare advocate for a much cheaper and possibly more effective light rail option.
What should concern the great unwashed who live South of the Fraser, if the spoiled brat that the City of Vancouver has become, gets funding for a subway, kiss goodbye to any transit improvements south of the Fraser river, except for token bus improvements. Also watch for for South Fraser taxpayers more than their fair share of taxes to pay for Vancouver’s extravagance.
The following letter sent to Zwei says it all.
Mayor and council, City of Vancouver;
There are many transit developments that the mayor and council maybe completely unaware or deliberately made unaware by the city Engineering Department and TransLink.
SkyTrain is obsolete and made obsolete by modern light rail over three decades ago. That TransLink keeps wanting to build with with the proprietary SkyTrain system, demonstrates that they are wilfully blind to modern light rail transit.
The huge annual subsidies required by our three mini-metro lines have pauperedTransLink, yet we plan and build more, even though SkyTrain has been rejected by knowledgeable transit planners around the world for almost 30 years. To date, only seven SkyTrain systems have been built and only 3 are used seriously for public transit, the rest being one experimental line and three airport style people movers.
SkyTrain’s decline into obsolescence started in 1982, four years before the opening of the Expo Line. The 1982 IBI Study, done for the Toronto Transit Commission found’“that ICTS/ALRT (SkyTrain) costs anything up to ten times as much as a conventional light rail line to install for about the same capacity; or put another way, ICTS/ALRT cost more than a heavy-rail subway with for times its capacity.” The report killed several major ICTS/ALRT projects in Ontario, the birthplace of SkyTrain, yet the then Social Credit provincial party, like country rubes, bought into the SkyTrain‘kool-ade’, much to the Ontario government owned UTDC’s delight.
Arguments comparing SkyTrain with light rail are moot and the arguments put forward by the province, TransLink, and the City of Vancouver’s Engineering Department today are based on hearsay and false premises.
Subways by nature are very expensive, both to construct and to maintain and unless a transit line has traffic flows in excess of 15,000 persons per hour per direction, a subway line soon becomes a financial millstone around the operating authorities neck. In 1992, just the Expo Line saw an annual subsidy of $157 million, more than the the combined subsidy for diesel and trolleybuses in Metro Vancouver. With two more metro lines built since, this annual subsidy is now well over $300 million annually and goes a long way to explain why TransLink is in the financial mess it finds itself today.
The Evergreen Line and the proposed Broadway subway will all but bankrupt TransLink with their huge burden of costs.
Subways suffer from high maintenance costs and have proven not to be very successful in attracting new ridership and our mini-metro system is a good example. In 1999 when BC Transit ran our regional transit system, 57% of the trips in the were by car drivers yet in 2011 after 12 years of TransLink rule and over $8 billion invested in‘rapid transit’ 57% of the trips in the region were by car drivers; there is no evidence of modal shift from car to transit.
Just a week ago, in what was tantamount to a terror preemptive strike by the City of Vancouver, a vast anti-LRT diatribe, including that “Broadway would be completely ripped up and the trees chopped down………..” was unleashed to soften up any opposition to Broadway subway. The problem with using the old hackneyed anti-LRT rhetoric as used by the City of Vancouver for the past several decades, is that in the 21st century, modern light rail has evolved, unlike SkyTrain, and can happily operate as a streetcar, LRT operating on a reserved rights-of-way, a light-metro, and TramTrain or a commuter train –all on the same route!
Unlike metro or light-metro, which is built to cater to already established large passenger loads on a transit route, modern LRT and even a streetcar can economically handle traffic flows from 2,000 pphpd to over 20,000 pphpd, thus effectively bridging the gap of what buses can carry and that of a metro. Light-metro, such as SkyTrain and the Canada Line, are constrained by their expensive automatic (driverless) method of operation, have comparable capacities.
Modern light rail transit, despite the SkyTrain spin, is very economic to build and operate. One tram (one tram driver) is as efficient in operation as 6 buses (6 bus drivers) and unlike light-metro, which being driverless has a small and expensive army of attendants and maintenance people to ensure smooth operation.
Modern LRT, operating on Broadway, with stops every 500 metres to 600 metres, would replace all bus service on Broadway and give a clear economic benefit to TransLink with reduced operating costs, unlike a subway which is expensive and needs ‘shadow‘ bus service, which again increases operating costs. There is no economy to be had in building a Broadway subway, Skytrain or no.
In 2008, noted American transit expert Gerald Fox, in a letter to a Victoria transportation group, shredded TransLink’s 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.”Fox later said; “It is interesting how TransLink has used this cunning method of manipulating analysisto justify SkyTrain in corridor after corridor, and has thus succeeded in keeping it proprietary rail system expanding. In the US, all new transit projects that seek federal support are now subjected to scrutiny by a panel of transit peers, selected and monitored by the
federal government, to ensure that projects are analyzed honestly, and the taxpayersai??i?? interests are protected. No SkyTrain project has ever passed this scrutiny in the US.”It seems that the City of Vancouver is following TransLink’s lead in providing “assumptions that are inaccurate and manipulated” and are “manipulating analysis”to make the case for a hugely expensive Broadway SkyTrain subway, in deference to the overwhelming need for affordable transit South of the Fraser River.
Pre-fab tram/streetcar/LRT track construction
Rail transit must get on right track – From the Vancouver Sun
An interesting piece in the Vancouver Sun and the first time in many years that the Sun has allowed a positive article about light rail!
Rail transit must get on right track
Opinion: But government capital is likely not enough to fund an all-underground system west of Main Street
Surrey is thinking about while Calgary and Edmonton are already building light rail transit (LRT) lines on the surface, as are many cities in the United States. In fact, Edmonton is now planning to construct a surface line from its west end via downtown to Millwoods. All want surface lines because they find going underground too expensive. But then we have the City of Vancouver where nobody is allowed to see rail transit west of Main Street. And those who are more frugal would have to contribute through their federal and/or provincial taxes to cater to Vancouverai??i??s obsession.
The City of Vancouver is going through the usual process with all options on the table, but it has already predetermined that the Broadway line shall be SkyTrain and as a consequence must be all underground. The fact that there is no money for even a bus stop for Surrey on the new express route from Langley, that the Evergreen Line has not been built yet and that everybody else in the country through federal, provincial and regional taxes should pay for this underground line, does not influence anybody in city hall. Frankly, I think since all governments are short of money, senior governments should only contribute to a surface line. If a local community wants to put a line underground, they should raise the money locally to pay for the difference.
There is a rough ratio as regards costs. If a surface line has a cost factor of one, then a line on structure is five or six and underground has a factor of 10 or 12. Let us use 10, in which case, it means with limited funding each year every kilometre of underground line prevents nine kilometres of surface line somewhere else. Or, in other words, if it takes 10 years to build the surface lines we need now, it will take 100 years to put them all underground. Do not expect capital funding for transit to increase that much so that we could afford an all-underground system. Broadway is wide enough to accommodate LRT in the median, all the way from Broadway/Commercial to at least Alma.
The concern about loss of parking is one I do not share. The median would have to be continuous between major cross streets, other side streets would be right turns in and out. Drastic yes, but better than creating more road space for cars.
So what is the stated problem? There are narrow streets west of Alma. Light rail does not prevent a short section of tunnel, but because there is a short section going through a high property value area, does not mean the entire line should be underground. The second problem is that SkyTrain technology forces underground or overhead alignment because no at-grade crossings are possible.
So where do passengers on the Millennium Line go, west to UBC or downtown? Considering the overcrowding west of Broadway on the Expo line, it may well be that downtown is the major destination. If the Millennium line was extended via Main Street to Waterfront, with stops at Terminal Avenue and Hastings, there would be a better SkyTrain network. We would interline the Expo and Evergreen lines and create a Circle Millennium Line.
The success of the Olympic line in 2010 can then be repeated with a second LRT line from the Main/Terminal/Rail/Bus/Science Centre station via Olympic Village to Granville Island and Arbutus.
John J. Bakker is professor emeritus of civil engineering (transportation) at the University of Alberta. He now lives in Surrey.
What have the Romans ever done for us?
Apart from the Aqueduct, Sanitation, the Roads, Irrigation, Medicine, Education, Public Health, Wine, Public Baths andAi??Law & Order.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSELOCMmw4A
Taking the contemporary view;
What have Translink ever done for us?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DtVyH801FM
Apart from:
-
The U-Pass Fraud
-
Fare Evasion
-
The Evergreen Line
-
Increased Transit ticket fees
-
The Canada Line
-
Express Bus Lines
-
and the Broadway subway
there was a deathly silence; looks as though the Romans win on points
Sleeping with the Enemy
All too often public transit advocates are refused access to politicians, in Britain the Light Rail Transit Association LRTA has been instrumental inAi??the setting up of a forumAi??where ministers and their advisors can meet with the industry leaders, campaigners & Light Rail advocates.
– the All Party Parliamentary Light Rail Group [APPLRG]
http://www.applrguk.co.uk/
APPLRG stands for All Party Parliamentary Light Rail Group.
The All Party Parliamentary Light Rail Group is an independent forum for MPs and peers from all political parties and Industry to come together and raise awareness of matters concerning Light Rail & Tramways best practice and sustainable development.
The All Party Parliamentary Light Rail Group holds regular inquiry sessions in order toAi?? to provide a holistic package of policy proposals that will drive forward best practice, leading to affordable light rail & tramways with resultant physical and economic regeneration, carbon reduction, improved air quality, congestion relief, affordable transport. to the UK and its’ citizens.
Why Light Rail
Ai??Ai??Ai??
For public transport to become a force in dealing with urban congestion, carbon reduction,Ai?? improving air quality and to be an attractive alternative to the car, it must be built quickly and operate affordably.
Croydon Tramlink
Some benefits
ai???Light rail systems have proven track record
ai???Growing the public transport market
ai???Creating modal shift in some cases 32%
ai???Supporting regeneration , renewal and inward regeneration
ai???Assisting in the creation off a new urban framework
ai???An extremely green mode of transport
ai???Will drastically reduce the nations carbon footprint
ai???Can be used to re-engineer city districts
Light Rail is a mode of transport in which uses vehicles which are more versatile than conventional ai???heavy railai??? trains. A light rail vehicle can negotiate sharper curves than a conventional train (both vertical and horizontal), can negotiate steeper gradients and can stop much faster.Thus the systems available provide the ability to follow the curves and gradients of the urban environment which a conventional train cannot do. Light Rail systems offer an attractive and effective system, reducing congestion and pollution by offering motorists an alternative to car use, helping to create pollution-free zones in cities (clear zones). It moves large passenger flows in a more cost-effective way than buses, but at a fraction of the cost of a full urban railway.
Light rail vehicles which are adapted to street running (either on-street or alongside the street on reserved track) are called TRAMS.
The Tyne & Wear Metro and the Docklands Light Railway in London are examples of fully segregated light rail systems in the UK.
However most light rail systems feature mixed running including non-segregated running and are referred to as tramways.
Examples of tramways in the UK are:
Croydon Tramlink, Manchester Metrolink, Midland Metro, Nottingham Express Transit, Sheffield Supertram, Leeds Supertram, Docklands Light Railway
In addition there is an existing tramway between Blackpool & Fleetwood which operates in the traditional old British manner using ai???heritage or historicai??? double-deck trams etc. track sharing with modern LightAi??Rail VehiclesAi??(LRV)
When Should Light Rail be Used?
Light rail is mainly appropriate in urban or inter-urban systems in medium-sized cities where full metro systems are inappropriate. In the largest cities underground/metro systems tend to be the mainstay of public transport but such cities might use a light rail solution to supplement the metro system.
Examples are:
Paris: The Metro provides radial public transport where flows are heavy and tramways are being built to replace buses on orbital routes.
Central London: The stations on the London Underground system are further apart than on the Paris Metro and a tramway is being proposed on a north-south axis to provide access to intermediate points and to help relieve the Underground.
However smaller towns may also have corridors appropriate to a tramway and even where the size of a town would not be considered sufficient to support a tramway there may be over riding conditions which might make a tramway feasible. These can range from the status of a town, such as Bath, as a tourist attraction or to the availability of disused railway routes which might reduce the cost of provision.
Why are Trams so successful?
Light Rail vehicles can provide the ambience of a train, but can run in places where a train cannot. They are thus able to attract motorists out of cars where a bus would not be successful. Even when running on former rail alignments, light rail vehicles can offer a better service because they can offer a more frequent service. They can stop at more places because the stops are much easier and cheaper to construct than railway stations. On roads they can offer attractive journey times in comparisons with cars and buses by taking advantage of segregated alignments and the latest traffic engineering techniques to avoid road congestionAi??.
A frequent light rail service provides security in city streets throughout the day, both on and off the vehicle. Low-floors together with a spacious layout provide easy access to mainstream public transport for everyone including parents with buggies and disabled people using wheelchairs.
Trams areAi?? generally electric vehicles which produce no pollution at the point of service delivery, may use locally produced “green” electricity and the visible path makes sharing precincts with pedestrians a safe option. Thus pedestrian precincts with trams can provide access to city centre areas where buses and cars would be obtrusive.
A significant part of the success of any system is the demonstration that changingAi?? peoples life styles awayAi?? from the car can be of considerable benefit to them and their surroundings.
The Design of Tramway Systems
Design of a tramway system should start with a consideration of the public transport needs of the area under consideration. One needs to know the origins and destinations of commuters, shoppers, leisure travellers and tourists etc.
If the flows of passengers are not sufficient to justify metro or heavy rail construction then we can proceed further.
The next step is to consider whether it is possible to build a tramway to serve the above needs. The versatility of light rail is very important here.
Tramways can run on the following alignments:
ai???Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? On former rail routes
ai???Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? On new Greenfield or Brownfield routes
ai???Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? Along the highway mixed with other traffic, or mixed with buses
ai???Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? Along the highway on dedicated lanes
ai???Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? Alongside the highway
ai???Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? On the central reservation of a dual carriageway
ai???Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? On elevated sections
ai???Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? In tunnel
ai???Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? In pedestrianised areas
ai???Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? On main-line railways (with special arrangements)
The optimum combination of these possibilities needs to be selected bearing in mind the following:
ai???Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? The need to adequately serve origins and destinations of passengers
ai???Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? The need to minimise construction costs
ai???Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? The need to achieve fast transit times
It has to be remembered that there is a tendency for City & Town Planners, Politicians etc., to use this opportunity to at times re-engineer the City or Town which is fine and good provided that the re-engineering costs, landscaping etc., are treated separately and not hidden in the Tramway building costs. A good example of this is Edinburgh Tram were around A?170M has be allocated against the tramway from moving the utilities to flowers for Princess Street. The utilities do not need to be moved, stop the trams and give access.
Light Rail Fits in
Light Rail Fits in, that is unless you live in Vancouver where corruption, Canadian Transit Politics and incompetence threatens logic and commonsense
Of all the modes of transport electric railways have proven to be the most successful in providing an alternative choice that entices people to leave their cars at home. With light rail it is possible to combine the attractiveness of traditional railways with the ability to penetrate city centres at street level…
http://citytransport.info/Trams01.htm
Amsterdam
Mayor of Moscow commits to tram investment – Why Not Vancouver?
The Mayor of Moscow, Russia, with a population 11,500.000 is committing investment for the renewal of the city’s extensive tramway network. Until a few years ago, Moscow’s trams were under threat of abandonment, but not to day.
Even with the world’s largest cities, trams, streetcars and LRT have proven their ability to affordably move large numbers people with the minimum of investment. Something that a certain vocal NDP surrogate and Vancouver councillor, Geoff Meggs, should consider before misinforming the public about the virtues of a SkyTrain subway under Broadway. Even though Megg’s is echoing the City of Vancouver’s long stated policy of demanding subways (especially if regional taxpayers foot the bill) for urbanAi??’rail’ transit because subways make the city “world-class“.
Megg’s and the C of V’s embarrassing anti-LRT mumbo-jumbo is doing public transit and the regional taxpayer a great disservice.
Mayor of Moscow commits to tram investment
30 November 2012
RUSSIA: Mayor Sergei Sobyanin confirmed his commitment to the future of Moscow’s 416 km tram network during a visit to a section of modernised track on Krasnoprudnaya Ulitsa on November 26.
‘We are not going to stop the tram traffic in the city’, the Mayor said. ‘On the contrary, we intend to work to make the Moscow tram service more convenient and comfortable for the passengers, as well as speedier.’
Daily ridership is currently around 600 000, and this is expected to increase by 20% once a three-year upgrading programme is completed.
A total of 57 km of the 1 524 mm gauge tramway is to be modernised this year, followed by 71 km in 2013 and 55 km in 2014. Bids have been invited for a contract to supply a potential 300 modern low-floor trams in 2014-15, and the winner is scheduled to be announced after December 15. Tram tracks are to be segregated from other traffic, and 1 min headways are planned. Work will also be undertaken to reduce noise.
Consideration is being given to the reinstatement of six former sections of tramway totalling 26 km.
Vancouver’s SkyTrain Subway Gambit
With great manipulations of the truth and terror tactics, abetted by Vision mayor and council majority,Ai??designed to scare local merchants the City of Vancouver has outlined its desire to have regional taxpayers ante up for a politically prestigious, $2.8 billionAi??SkyTrain subway, under Broadway to UBC.
The same old dated anti-LRT rhetoric, that has been used since 1980, when SkyTrain was first foisted on the taxpayer has been dusted off and used again by Vancouver’s bureaucrats and politicians. Even though modern LRT has made SkyTrain obsolete two decades ago, dated transit thinking and land-grab developer mentality, still rules regional politics.
Ever notice, no one buys with SkyTrain anymore? Well, Vancouver politicos and bureaucrats still remain blind deaf and dumb to that fact.
The NDP leaning Vision(less) Vancouver mob that controls Vancouver City Council think that premier to be, Adrian Dix, will give the city a blank cheque to fund the dated SkyTrain mini-metro subway, but financial storm clouds on the horizon may dampen any provincial funding for the project for many decades to come.
The joker in the deck is the transit bare City of Surrey and its popular mayor Dianne Watts who just may turn Vancouver’s blinkered transit planning for a hugely expensive, TransLink inspiredAi?? SkyTrain subway into a major politicalAi??bid to become Premier in 2017. The rest of the mayors and politicians South of the Fraser may agitate for secession from TransLink and even Metro Vancouver, leaving the City of Vancouver and the the rest of the muni’s North of the river at risk of seeing property taxes double, if not triple to pay for politically prestigious, but financially ruinous SkyTrain light-metro.
Let there be no mistake, if Vancouver gets a $2.8 billion plus SkyTrain subway, there will be no money on the table for Rail for the ValleyAi??or major transit improvements South of the Fraser.
Rapid transit push from Vancouver and Surrey a ai???regional investmentai??i??
Ai??Cities working together makes sense, says Vancouver councillor Geoff MeggsSurrey and Vancouver are using their combined clout to push for rapid transitAi?? projects in Metro Vancouver, despite being rivals for the scant transportationAi?? dollars available.
Vancouver Coun. Geoff Meggs said the two cities canai??i??t afford to fight overAi?? which one should get a new rapid transit line first, noting both projects haveAi?? regional significance. About 50 per cent of transit users using the BroadwayAi?? corridor, for instance, come from outside Vancouver.
ai???Thereai??i??s a strong need for regional investment,ai??? Meggs said. ai???We have a lotAi?? of people going back and forth from one city to the other.ai???
His comments come a day after a Surrey planner joined VancouverAi?? transportation manager Jerry Dobrovolny at City Hall as he outlined a vision forAi?? a $2.8-billion subway for the Broadway corridor.
The proposal, along with a rapid transit line for Surrey, are the next twoAi?? high-dollar rapid transit projects earmarked for Metro Vancouver, although noAi?? decision on which one will be built first, or when, has been made.
Meggs argues the Broadway corridor has been in line for rapid transit for atAi?? least a decade and already has more population density and economic activityAi?? than other areas in the city with access to rapid transit.
Serving the University of B.C. and the central Broadway business districtAi?? spanning from Main to Burrard streets, the route sees about 160,000 dailyAi?? transit trips. The 99-B Line, for instance, runs frequently on the BroadwayAi?? corridor, but an estimated 2,000 people are passed up by overcrowded buses everyAi?? day.
And itai??i??s no faster to drive. A recent report by the Urban Futures InstituteAi?? found UBC is one of the most difficult areas to travel to by car in MetroAi?? Vancouver.
ai???[UBC] is tucked away so even if thereai??i??s no traffic on the road it takes aAi?? long time to get there,ai??? said Andrew Ramlo, director of Urban FuturesAi?? Institute.
TransLink is studying seven options for the Broadway line, including addingAi?? extra buses at a cost of $325 million to light rail ($1.1 billion), rapid railAi?? ($3.2 billion) or a combination of the three. A recommendation is expected nextAi?? year after a technical study on the corridor is completed.
Richard Walton, chairman of the mayorsai??i?? council on regional transportation,Ai?? said any decisions on whatai??i??s built will ai???depend on the funding available and theAi?? politics at the time.ai???
He acknowledges itai??i??s ai???good politicsai??? for Surrey and Vancouver to workAi?? together, noting they have significant clout as combined they represent nearlyAi?? one-third of B.C.ai??i??s population.
This should bode well ahead of the provincial election next May, Walton said,Ai?? because ai???the size of infrastructure projects in Metro Vancouver are a huge partAi?? of provincial needs.
ai???Thereai??i??s no question that with the funding impasse the way it is, anythingAi?? that goes ahead is going to require significant capital funding in the future,ai??? he said. ai???Surrey and Vancouver are going to have to continue to lobby theAi?? business case. Theyai??i??re doing what every community should be doing and advocatingAi?? for their needs.ai???
Both projects would take at least five years to design and another five toAi?? build, meaning they wouldnai??i??t even be likely be built until 2020-2022. ai???We needAi?? to get the wheels turning and the finances in place,ai??? he said.
Meanwhile, Adrien Byrne, spokesman for the Urban Development Institute, saidAi?? Vancouver should be developing a land-use policy for the Broadway corridor. ThisAi?? would allow the city to get buy-in from the community and developers, whichAi?? would help finance the project through community amenities.
Developers are now cashing in on projects along the Canada Line, he said, yetAi?? the city isnai??i??t using developer levies for transit. And the city has failed toAi?? reap benefits along the Expo and Millennium lines as many of those stationsAi?? havenai??i??t realized higher density. Richmond, on the other hand, has built its newAi?? Capstan station using development funds.
ai???Many of those stations (along the Expo and Millennium lines) havenai??i??t beenAi?? leveraged with developments,ai??? Byrne said. ai???In many other jurisdictions transitAi?? and land use go hand in hand and in Vancouver, thatai??i??s not the case.ai???
Broadway needs SkyTrain rather than light rail, Vancouver city staff & Translink trot out the same old, same old.
Broadway needs SkyTrain rather than light rail, Vancouver city staff say
http://www.straight.com/article-843831/vancouver/broadway-needs-skytrain-rather-light-rail-vancouver-city-staff-say
By Yolande Cole, November 27, 2012
Vancouver city staff believe a subway SkyTrain line to UBC is the best way to meet the growing demand along the Broadway corridor, outweighing the option of a light-rail system that they say would not accommodate the transit needs along the busy route.
Vancouver transportation director Jerry Dobrovolny told city council today (November 27) that staff have ai???major concernsai??? about the anticipated impacts of a surface rapid transit system west of Arbutus Street, and see a subway line as the best mode to meet the projected growth in trips along what they say is the busiest bus route in North America.
ai???Weai??i??ve tried very hard and weai??i??ve looked at it for years, to see if there was a surface solution west of Arbutus, and our conclusion today is no there is not a surface solution west of Arbutus that moves the number of people that need to move in that corridor, without tremendous impacts on the corridor,ai??? Dobrovolny told reporters following his presentation to council.
Those anticipated impacts include turn restrictions on over 90 percent of the intersections along the corridor, removal of over 90 percent of the parking spaces, narrowed sidewalks, the removal or replacement of street trees, and ai???an entire reconstruction of the street corridorai???, according to Dobrovolny.
Long-term city policy has identified rapid transit along the Broadway corridor as a priority, he noted. Council has also identified a tunnel SkyTrain along Broadway to Arbutus Street as the preferred rapid transit option.
ai???This project has been identified as a priority for decades,ai??? he said. ai???The time for a decision we feel is now. And itai??i??s important to understand that a major project like this could take five years or longer to be realized, in terms of design and construction.ai???
Broadway currently sees over 100,000 people moving down the corridor daily, and approximately 2,000 passengers are passed by full buses during the peak morning hours at Commercial-Broadway, noted Dobrovolny.
ai???What that tells us is that transit capacity is not there to meet the job and population demand that currently exists in that corridor,ai??? he told council, noting the number of passengers travelling along the route is anticipated to balloon faster than projected.
Vision Vancouver councillor Geoff Meggs said todayai??i??s presentation clarified why staff believe a subway is the preferred option over a light-rail transit system.
ai???I think thereai??i??s been a lot of interest in the LRT from people who are very committed to transit, and if the cityai??i??s going to keep going ahead on the bored-tunnel option, citizens need to know why staff take a strong position, so we got a lot more clarity on that,ai??? Meggs said in a phone interview with the Straight.
ai???I think itai??i??s also important from a regional perspective to underline why weai??i??re proposing a technology which superficially looks more expensive, but we believe would deliver more in the long run, by a country mile,ai??? he added.
The ai???high-levelai??? estimated cost of an underground SkyTrain from VCC Clark to UBC is $2.8 billion, according to Dobrovolny. The price tag for an initial phase of subway construction to Arbutus Street is estimated at $1.5 billion.
City manager Penny Ballem noted the operating costs of a machine-operated SkyTrain are lower than a driver-operated LRT.
ai???SkyTrain is one of the only technologies in the world that actually costs less to deliver than the revenues it receives once itai??i??s built,ai??? she told council.
University of British Columbia officials indicated they remain concerned about guaranteed funding for the rapid-transit line all the way to the west-side campus.
ai???Weai??i??re still concerned that once the funding discussion has been held, that if there is not enough money to make the solutions as proposed happen all the way to UBC, that we might get stranded with buses running between Arbutus and our campus, which is the one solution we really donai??i??t want,ai??? Pascal Spothelfer, the vice-president of community partnerships at UBC, told the Straight in a phone interview.
Derek Zabel, a spokesperson for TransLink, said the authority is currently conducting a study that will identify and evaluate various possible solutions for the transit corridor, which will be followed by a ai???regional dialogueai??? with municipalities. He expects results of the study to be released early in the new year.
According to city staff, over half the trips made along the Broadway corridor to Central Broadway or UBC originate from outside Vancouver.
Meggs said from Vancouverai??i??s point of view, the next votes on the rapid transit issue should take place at the regional level.
ai???All transportation investment is regional, so youai??i??ve got to make the argument to all 22 municipalities that they have a stake in the outcome..because rapid transit is expensive,ai??? he said. ai???But in this case, at least half the riders are from all over the region, so this is something citizens in every municipality would benefit from.ai???
Why Is TransLink’s Price for Light Rail Triple What Other Cities Pay?
Arguments for spending billions on SkyTrain along Broadway rest on oddly high estimates for the alternative: light rail.
ByAi??Kathryn Mandell and Patrick M. Condon, Today, TheTyee.ca
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2012/11/28/TransLink-Light-Rail/
Future interrupted? Why is Vancouver light rail assumed to be three times more expensive than elsewhere? Image source: Steer Davies Gleave.Ai??Ai??Ai??
An extremely expensive decision for taxpayers looms near, and those making it are working with costs figures for light rail systems that seem inexplicably high, demanding closer scrutiny.
TransLink will soon be releasing its decision on a proposed transit technology for the Broadway Corridor. Two rounds of public consultation were completed for the study — in the springs of 2010 and 2011. And now both the City of Vancouver and the University of British Columbia are already calling for a bored tunnel to accommodate a SkyTrain-like system along Broadway.
TransLink’s discussion has revolved around the choice of system technology, with the options of improved bus service, a SkyTrain extension in a deep bore subway tube, a surface light rail line, as well as different combinations and iterations of each. Hired consultants Anthony Steadman and Associates estimated that the total capital cost of choosing a 12-km light rail system from Commercial-Broadway SkyTrain Station to UBC would be $1.1 billion. This compared to a $3-billion cost for a fully underground “SkyTrain” type system.
While the cost savings for a surface light rail system are clearly substantial, the advantage erodes when the “combination” systems are examined. “Combo 1” would have a subway extend from Commercial Drive station to Arbutus St., there to shift to a light rail system extending to UBC to the west and back via Grandville Island and Science World to end downtown. This alternative has received the most formal and informal support in the city. However, at a cost of $2.4 billion, many logically question why you would want to have two different technologies on the same line when for a “mere” half billion more you could zip all the way to UBC underground and in less time.
Lost so far in this conversation is an oddity. It appears that the assumed price for the light rail option is roughly three times higher than the actual costs incurred to construct similar systems in Europe and the U.S.
The cost per kilometre for the surface rail option also approaches the cost per kilometre for the recently completed Canada Line, a largely underground system. For a surface system to cost as much per kilometre as an underground system seems hard to fathom. Such a high cost for surface light rail seems even more inexplicable given the fact that the European systems navigate urban infrastructure which is much more complex to adjust for new light rail infrastructure — all at a fraction of the cost per kilometre.
Ai??
Absent a detailed explanation for this huge disparity, it would seem that a correspondingly low price tag should be realistic for the construction of a surface light rail system in Vancouver. Using figures from European examples allows us to speculate that a light rail system (exactly as pictured in consultation documents emanating from TransLink), could be built between the Commercial Drive station and UBC in the range of $360 million — $740 million less than TransLink’s estimate.
Curious about this discrepancy we investigated, as best as we could, using publicly available documents. In the interest of enhancing the conversation before this important decision is made, we share our results below.
How we got our figures
To make this comparison as fair and complete as possible, we provide cost and capacity comparisons between the current TransLink estimates and the actual construction costs for similar systems worldwide. We have also adjusted these figures to 2012 dollars. Finally we have ascertained the hourly capacity of these systems. This last point is important, as many knowledgeable voices have argued that only a SkyTrain type subway has the capacity to serve the Broadway corridor. This argument has convinced many that SkyTrain is the only reasonable option. However, many of the systems in our comparison exceed the capacity requirements for the corridor. In some cases they exceed capacity requirements quite substantially. In others they could easily exceed the capacity requirements for the Broadway corridor if more and longer cars were added and/or electrical systems were upgraded for more trains.
This question has a regional significance. Should a lower price tag be achieved, the savings could presumably be passed on to transit projects elsewhere in Vancouver and the Lower Mainland, improving access to zero greenhouse gas transit, helping our region meet its 2020 and 2050 GHG reduction targets (Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act of 2007). The research conducted here is preliminary, seeking principally to provide a frame of reference for Vancouverites (and those elsewhere in the region and province) who take a keen interest in the future of public transit, and the long term sustainability of our region.
What do we mean by light rail?
The variety of terminologies used for light rail transportation projects can be confounding. Here, we are concerned specifically with transportation systems that are nearly identical to the light rail technology assumed by TransLink for its alternatives study. These run at-grade, on the street, in lanes that are separate from car traffic, and at a speed that is high enough for the express service. All of the systems we compare are double-track (two trains, running in opposite directions, operating simultaneously), and none run on former railroad lines. As there are plans to plant grass along segments of the tracks, we give some special consideration to similar applications elsewhere.
Light rail systems in other cities.
Why does the cost of Vancouver’s system stand alone as the most expensive of the lot, in one case by a factor of four? The comparison systems do not sacrifice speed or capacity. They carry more than 20,000 passengers per hour on average, and could carry many more if frequency or car length was increased. They each use vehicles with level boarding, meaning passengers can disembark at a curbside stop, rather than at a raised platform. The stations are simple, like our existing bus stops. With the exception of Minneapolis, the systems have at least partial grass tracking.
A note on the Minneapolis system. The higher price for the Minneapolis LR system in comparison to the European examples is attributable to a 3-km tunnel bored through the ground under the airport. That infrastructure is not needed on Broadway; and still, the line was completed at less than half the cost per kilometre of assumed for a similar Vancouver system.
SkyTrain vs. light rail: How much is one minute worth
A favoured point of opposition to light rail is its lower speed when compared to a SkyTrain system. Here, we look to details of the UBC Line Study for answers. TransLink estimates that a trip by LRT from Commercial-Broadway Station to UBC would take 26 minutes, while a SkyTrain subway transit ride would take 20 minutes. If that is the case, what is the price of each minute saved?
With the SkyTrain priced at $3.2 billion, the SkyTrain will cost $25 million a year per minute saved, over an amortization period of 30 years.
That means that, for every one of the 50,005,000 riders expected in a year, taxpayers will pay $3.00 for each trip, or a total of $150 million annually, to save six minutes.
Capacity
A modern street-level tram system has, maybe surprisingly, the same or higher capacity than SkyTrain. By looking at the light rail model that was chosen for the temporary Olympic tram one can see why. These trams can be conjoined to be very long. Thus the only element limiting capacity is the length of blocks along the route. Even Vancouver’s shorter blocks are 80 meters long (most on Broadway are twice that). An articulated Flexity tram under that length would provide an hourly capacity of up to 40,000 passengers per hour.
This is higher than the Canada line, the capacity of which is limited by its short stations and consequent two car maximum length per train. (See sidebar to see how we calculated comparable capacity in other cities.)
Why is the estimated cost for Broadway light rail so high?
Seeing projects that are even less expensive than those in our comparison, such as the recent light rail extension in Helsinki, emphasizes the need to ask questions about over-design and efficiency when we make choices to implement new transportation systems. If the high cost of this estimate derives from gold-plated requirements for completely rebuilding streets traversed, is this really required?
Portland recently added rail transit downtown with a bare minimum of street disruption. No major intersection reconstruction. No major utility changes. Bare bones platforms. Current cost estimates provide little in the way of detail to assess the portion of the budget attributable to rebuilding intersections, locating platforms, accommodation for ticket vending and platforms, etc.
But there’s no time like the present to push for the better use of transit dollars, to the benefit of taxpayer wallets, commuters, and residents across the region. Our region has come to the verge of committing to surface rail too many times to be derailed yet again by unrealistic and potentially unfair cost and function comparisons with SkyTrain.
Here then is our request to TransLink, Vancouver City Hall, and other public transportation researchers in the Lower Mainland: Why is the estimated cost for Broadway light rail so high? Let’s find out. The answer could be worth billions.
NOTES ON CALCULATIONS
Capacity Calculations for:
1. Angers: Trams run every six minutes, and are not linked together.
2. Barcelona: The trams run at a minimum headway of 2.5 minutes, with two rail cars linked together.
3. Lyon: Monday through Friday, trams run at a three-minute headway, with two rail cars linked.
4. Minneapolis: With minimum headways of five minutes, used during special events in the city, and three cars linked together. The system currently runs with two- and three-car trains during peak hours, and will switch to only three-car trains in 2014.
5. Nantes: Line 2 trams run at minimum headways of two minutes.
6. Strasbourg: Line B trams, with a crush load capacity of 400 passengers, run at minimum headways of three minutes.
Recent Comments