But, What About Hard Numbers?
In classic fashion, a TransLink news release to the mainstream media claims that, “there was a 17-per cent increase in the total number of trips taken on transit from 2008 to 2011.”, yet no hard numbers are used, and why not?
TransLink wants money, a lot of money and how better to groom the taxpayer into paying higher taxes, faresAi??and/or user charges/road pricing for general traffic, by releasing a golly gee whiz good news release claiming a 17% increase in ridership over a three year period; including, of course, the ridership spike during the 2010 Winter Olympicsai???.
Zwei has been around on the transit scene for over 30 years and this claim is just another from a long list of ridership bumf that TransLink releases to the media to counter claims by certain letters to the editor bad press in general.
Ridership claims given in percentages only and not includingAi??hard numbers mean absolutely nothing and until TransLink establishes a criteria for how it measures ridership and until then, any figures from TransLink must be treated as gravely suspect.
More using Transit
Vancouver/CKNW(AM980)People in Metro Vancouver are making more trips in a day and are more often choosing transit and cycling to get around.
The results are from the “trip diary survey” which draws data from over 22-thousand households.
The survey’s done every three to four years to get a ‘snapshot’ of a day of Metro Vancouver transportation.
Translink’s Drew Snider says there was a 17-per cent increase in the total number of trips taken on transit from 2008 to 2011.
The goal is to get 51-per cent of all trips to be made by transit, cycling or walking by the year 2040.
SkyTrain Is At The Centre Of TransLink’s Finacial Woes
SkyTrain, the sum of TransLink’s financial evils.
Long time transit advocate, Malcolm Johnston has had a very good letter printed in the weeklies and at least one daily newspaper, pointing out that the SkyTrain and light-metro are at the root of TransLink’s financial ills.
No doubt the SkyTrain lobby will react negatively to Mr. Johnston’s letter, but their time is presently occupied chirping at TransLink because of the proposal to reduce headways by two minutes at slack times.
http://www.surreyleader.com/news/175694591.html
In 1980, SkyTrain was sold on the basis of being a ‘wonder system’ costing almost nothing to operate because it was driverless, while real experts predictedAi??a futureAi??of very largeAi??fiscal problems with the very expensive light-metro. Today those predictions have come true and in 1993, the study, “The Cost of Transporting……..”, firmly showed, with hard figures, that one SkyTrain line (the Expo Line) cost more to subsidize than all of BC Transit’s diesel and trolley bus linesAi??in the then GVRD.
It seems our current batch of so called transit experts promoting SkyTrain do not read nor want to read our local transit history and by doing so are leading local and BC taxpayer’s into financial Armageddon with road pricing.
Road pricing all about keeping status quo
Published: October 24, 2012 2:00 PM
The real reason for the newest flavour of taxation policies ai??i?? road pricing, to further fund a decrepit regional transit authority, can be laid squarely at the feet of both the SkyTrain light metro and the BC Liberal government pilfering of gas/carbon tax monies for general revenue.
Despite the hype and hoopla about SkyTrain, the proprietary light-metro is just too expensive to build and operate, as evidenced by the Canada Line which is not SkyTrain at all, but a cheaper off the shelf knock-off. SkyTrain was too expensive for the Canada Line.
On page 15, in the 1993, joint GVRD/Min. of Transportation report, ai???The Cost of Transporting People in the BC Lower Mainlandai???, it was revealed that the annual provincial subsidy for SkyTrain was $157.6 million; the combined subsidy for the diesel and trolley buses was just $132.4 million. With the addition of the Millennium Line, this subsidy increased to over $200 million and with the Canada line, this annual subsidy has now surpassed $300 million.
It becomes easier to see why there is no extra money for TransLink, because TransLink is already quietly getting a big chunk of transit cash from the province.
The Evergreen Line will only add to this annual subsidy, further exacerbating problems with TransLinkai??i??s dubious finances.
When the Gordon Campbell Liberals gained office, they instantly reduced taxes and greatly increased user fees and levies. To maintain revenue, the BC Liberals diverted gas tax and carbon tax monies into general revenue, to balance the books. Tax monies earmarked for regional transportation just disappeared into the black hole of general revenue.
TransLink is deliberately hiding the real truth about their ongoing financial malaise because they have compliant regional mayors who seem to be ever so willing to destroy their political careers to force yet another onerous tax on the taxed-out local taxpayer.
Road pricing is all about keeping the status-quo with the bloated bureaucrats at TransLink, who like alcoholics refusing to accept that they are addicted booze, are addicted to dated and transit planning and continue to squander huge sums of tax monies on SkyTrain such as the UBC SkyTrain subway in Vancouver. Road pricing is all about once again screwing the taxpayer to pay for bureaucratic and political hubris.
Malcolm Johnston, Delta
http://www.surreyleader.com/opinion/letters/175682541.html
As well an edited version was also printed in the Vancouver Sun
Federal Government Forces Transit P-3’s
In Europe, a P3 is a tool where by a private consortium is involved in the planning, design, building, and operation of a transit project, then ‘hires‘ money, in a form of a loan,Ai??from a bank or institution and assumes risk in the building and operation of a transit project.Ai??The P-3 consortium thenAi??pays back theAi??loan with the profit of the successful operation of the transit project. In Europe, a P-3 reduces the public’s cost for a transit projects.
In Canada, P’s are a sort of money laundering scheme, designed to spread and hide the real cost of a transit project over time,Ai??from the taxpayer. P-3’sAi??are also used as aAi??tool to protect corporate revenue streams, to the detriment of the local taxpayer. In Canada, for little investment the return on a P-3 can be many times higher than other investments and to top it all off, in Canada, those investing in a p-3 assumes little or no risk!
The Canada Line is a perfect example of a Canadian P-3, where the winning consortium, as a bit player,‘hired’ investment money both from banks and provincial retirement funds for the Canada Line P-3Ai??for aAi??fraction of theAi??total advertisedAi??cost of building the light-metro, assumed no risk, yet receives anywhere from $90 million to $100 million annually from TransLink and/or the provincial government or both. As the project is a P-3, exempt from Freedom of Information requests, the taxpayer does not know the true cost of the Canada line, which ranges anywhere between $1.8 billion to $2.8 billion, nor does the taxpayerAi??know the actual cost to operate the Canada Line.
It seems the Harper Government is forcing a P-3 on Edmonton’s newAi??LRT project, in a sort of Ponzi scheme investment,Ai??to insure healthy revenue streams for its corporate friends.
Public Right Yes! Monopoly Right No!
NoAi??to Secret Edmonton Transit Privatization Deal
– Jim Nugent –
OnAi??October 15 it was revealed that a secret deal has been made between EdmontonAi??City Council and the Harper government that seriously violates publicAi??interests in Edmonton’s transit system. Under this deal, the operation andAi??maintenance of the 13.8 km south-east light rail transit (LRT) line will beAi??handed over to a private for-profit operator under the most onerousAi??conditions. The deal was approved during anin camera meeting of City CouncilAi??held on August 29 and kept secret until now. It only became known when theAi??advocacy group Public Interest Alberta obtained information about the secret Council decision and released this information to the public.
AtAi??that August 29 meeting, Council went in camera to review terms dictated byAi??the Harper government as conditions for a federal funding contribution toAi??the $1.8 billion cost of the LRT
project. In return for funding, the HarperAi??government demanded that the LRT must also be operated and maintained by aAi??Ai??private operator. All but two councillors voted to accept Harper’sAi?? terms.
Prior to the August 29 meeting, Council had decided to use aAi??private-public-partnership (P3) arrangement to design and build the LRT,Ai??while operational control of this important public service would be kept inAi??Ai??Ai??Ai?? City hands. Under the rules and criteria of the federal infrastructure funding body P3 Canada, this would make the Edmonton LRT project eligible for federal funding. The Harper government though had changed its own rules.
InternationalAi??infrastructure monopolies prefer P3 arrangements that include the operationAi??and maintenance of infrastructure because this arrangement yields multi-year guaranteed revenue streams. Harper changed the rules to accommodate these monopoly interests.
When the city made an application to P3 Canada for $300-400 million in federal funding, even though the LRT project as it was set up was eligible under P3 Canada’s rules, the City’s plan was arbitrarily rejected. The Harper government told Edmonton that the project would have to be P3 all the way toAi??get any federal funding. The City would have to abandon its plan to keepAi??operation and maintenance under City control. It would have to hand theAi??whole project over to private for-profit operators.
AllAi??across the country, the Harper government has been using funding through P3Ai??Canada to impose similar private-public-partnership arrangements onAi??municipalities. For every type of infrastructure project requiring a federalAi??contribution, from water-treatment plants to LRTs, the Harper government is using funding blackmail to shove P3s down the throats of cities and towns.Ai??Elected municipal officials are often opposed to these arrangements,Ai??especially when they involve giving operational control of important urbanAi??services to for-profit operators and indebting municipalities in multi-yearAi??contracts. These arrangements are also opposed by workers building theAi??projects and providing services and by service users.
This interference in municipal affairs and dictate by the Harper government isAi??unacceptable, in Edmonton and elsewhere. The secret conniving of CityAi??Council with the Harper dictatorship to violate the public interest inAi?? transit services is also unacceptable.
SkyTrain & Canada Line Hubris At The Vancouver Sun
I see that the Vancouver Sun is continuing its propaganda campaign for the Canada Line with Saturday’s effort; “Future is bright for Cambie Corridor as development booms.”
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Stories/813152/story.html#ixzz29rcrw1OW
What the article boils down to, is that the Canada Line was never about moving the public, nor reducing auto use (remember the 200,000 car journeys taken off the road that was restated ad nauseum, by Gordon Campbell and Kevin Falcon?) No, the Canada line is all about real estate and for land developers to make very big bucks. The article is almost desperate; “buyers lining up…..”, etc., but little or no mention about the subway itself.
The claim of 124,000 passengers a day can be taken with a grain of salt, as TransLink has always overstated ridership and with the media absent from any investigative reporting, Translink could get away with the claim that; “the moon was made of cheese.” TransLink has no way of calculating ridership and deduces ridership by an arcane formula which includes the U-Pass, car loading numbers at key points, and guesstimates.
Another question no one wants answered is how many $1.00 a day U-Pass users use the Canada line and is it true that over 25,000 U-pass users use the Canada line more than twice a day or even more? If it is true, then the Canada line is hemorrhaging huge amounts of money!
Still, the claim of 124,000 passengers a day for the metro, is very weak for a metro, which means the taxpayer has to make up the slack with higher subsidies and user fees. Read road pricing.
Zwei has stopped taking the delivery of the Sun years ago and whenAi??I read pap like this, I know I made the right decision!
Cities by the sea
A tale of two marine citiesai??i??
Bordeaux & Vancouver have much in common
-
Ocean location
-
Temperate climate
-
Situated on a major tidal river
-
A large natural seaport
-
Extensive transport links, river, rail, air & road to the hinterland
-
Comparable land area, both city & metropolitan areas
-
An outstanding urban and architectural ensemble
|
City |
Land Area Km2 |
Population |
Population Density /Km2 |
| Metro | Metro | Metro | |
| Vancouver | 2,878 | 2,314,000 | 5,249 |
| Bordeaux | 3,875 | 1,315,000 | 4,779 |
Ai??SkyTrain is a light rapid transit system in Metro Vancouver. SkyTrain uses fully automated trains on grade-separated tracks, running mostly on elevated guideways.
Lines 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??i?? 3
Track Length Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? ai??i?? 88 Km
Daily RidershipAi??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? – 400,000
The Bordeaux tramway is an at-grade Light Rail network, using five & seven segment articulated tram cars, running in dedicated ROWai??i??s.
Lines 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??i?? 3
Track Length Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? ai??i?? 45 Km
Daily RidershipAi??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? – 300,000
Ai??
To Richard & those other Translink cheer leaders, whose mantra is:-
Trams/streetcars, at-grade LRT cannot possibly serve a comparably sized modern city ai??i?? you do not have any idea of what you are talking about ai??i?? look further than your city boundaries as others have got it right.
If your planners were not so hung up on accommodating the car, then you could have it right as well.
The Guru’s of Tax & Spend Are Grooming the Public for Road Pricing
Like a pervert on the Internet grooming children for lewd encounters, the powers that be in METRO Vancouver are grooming the public for “road pricing” for a very rude tax grab.
What is road pricing anyways?
Road pricingAi??and congestion charging are direct charges levied for the use of roads, including road tolls, distance or time based fees, congestion charges and charges designed to discourage use of certain classes of vehicle, fuel sources or more polluting vehicles.
Hard lobbying by the tax and spend crowd at TransLink, METRO Vancouver, and Simon Fraser UniversityAi??are trying to convince local taxpayers that road pricing is inevitable. Very few cities have road pricing or congestion charges and many pundits confuse road pricing with toll roads and bridges. Of course toll roads and bridges are a form of road pricing, in most cases the tolls collected were to fund and maintain a certain stretch of highway or a new bridge like the Golden Ears Bridge.
IfAi??politicians want to impose road pricing on the Vancouver METRO region, they region must provide an adequate transit alternative to the car and sorry for the bus crowd, this does not include buses or B-Line style express buses, otherwise known as BRT.
For the Vancouver METRO region to even consider road pricing, we should have a minimum of 300 km of rail transit, providing direct access to such destinations as downtown Vancouver and Stanley Park, SFU, UBC, BCIT, Whiterock, Tsawwassen Ferry terminal, Langley and Abbotsford (and YXX).
That current transit plans don’t include the majority of these destinations, road pricing will fail and those promoting such a scheme will be discredited and/or have their political careers terminated.
The reason of course why the road pricing debate is surfacing its ugly head is that we build with the very expensive SkyTrain light metro system or just slightly cheaper light metro such as the Canada Line, instead of much cheaper light rail. TransLink and many regional transit planners are stuck in the mud of 1980’s transit planning, where money was plentiful and all transit had to be grade separated to not to interfere with cars.
Today we live in the 21st century where money is hard to get and cities which seriously want to build affordable transit systems, build with LRT which has costs from one half to one tenth of that of light metro. Sadly, our local crop of politicians, planners and academics still believe we live in theAi??free spendingAi??80’s and refuse to accept the fiscal realities of today.
The likes of Gordon PriceAi??can blather on allAi??they want about road pricing, butAi??untilAi??the regionAi??actually provides a viable alternative toAi??extortion every time one drives, road pricing will remain aAi??wet dream for tax and spend bureaucrats and politicians.
Postscript: To see how SkyTrain has acted like a black hole for the taxpayers money, compare the RftV/Leewood TramTrain report for a 138 km. Vancouver to Chilliwack TramTrain (LRT) costing just under $1 billion with the 11.5 km. $1.4 billion Evergreen Line using SkyTrain.
Postscript 2: It seems the so called transit experts on the panel are not transit experts at all, rather engineers and salesmen for road pricing systems. Has anyone of the so called experts have a degree in urban transportation? I doubt it. This smells like the fare-gate fiasco, where shills for the fare-gate manufacturers convinced local politicos that the SkyTrain system needed faregates, despite the fact they will cost more to maintain and operate than fares lost to fare evasion!
Like it or not, regional tolling likely to happen: SFU prof
Local politicians gathering to talk about options today
Shane Bigham Oct 17, 2012
BURNABY (NEWS1130) – Local politicians are gathering today to discuss regional tolling options with a panel of experts from across North America.
Drivers might not be fond of the idea, but the head of Simon Fraser University’s City Program says it’s only a matter of time before it happens.
“It’s going to happen at some point in our future,” insists Gord Price. “Don’t know when, but now is not too soon to start thinking about it and at least getting approval in principle without having to go in and retroactively impose tolls on projects people think that they’ve already paid for.”
He notes tolling only bridges across the region probably wouldn’t work. “That just creates so many regional inequities that it’s going to be very tough to pull off.
“However, a road pricing system using new technologies does make a lot of sense,” he point out.
Mayors, councillors, and experts are gathering this afternoon at the Metro Vancouver offices in Burnaby to “open a dialogue” about road pricing.
Audit says TransLink could save $41 million by reducing SkyTrain frequency, taking other measures
The empty VCC/ClarkAi??SkyTrain, maybe a candidateAi??for closureAi??in non-peak hours.
This comes as no surprise.
As everyone knows, except for the most die-hard SkyTrain enthusiast, one tends to run driverless transit systems at close frequencies at times when there isn’t the demand for such a service. SkyTrain is a railway and like all other railways, the more one operates the service, the more wear and tear there is on the tracks, the vehicles, etc. and this comes at a cost.
Offering high capacity service at low demand times is a recipe for higher operational costs and SkyTrain is no different than LRT except, when there is reduced demand on an LRT system, less employees are used, not so for the automatic SkyTrain which requires almost the same number of employees during peak times and at slack times. It is already acknowledged that SkyTrain or light-metro is more expensive to operate than comparable LRT systems and is a very good reason why very few SkyTrain or light-metro systems are built today and those transit agencies who opt for light-metro having been well groomed by companies selling light metro.
One is intrigued by the phrase; “TransLink could find more than $41 million in potential savings by measures thatAi?? include reducing SkyTrain frequency during non-peak hours or converting toAi?? shuttles………..“
Does this mean that portions of the SkyTrain line do not have the ridership to justify ridership at off peak hours and a simple shuttle-bus service will suffice on portions of the light-metro line? If it does, it would be sound evidence that SkyTrain has been built on portions of route that did not justify such a service.
The VCC/Clark to Commercial Broadway portion of the Millennium Line comes to mind. Could this mean that service to VCC/Clark station maybe only a weekday service in the future?
Fiscal reality is not in TransLink’s lexicon and squandering the taxpayers money on bad or lazy management only underscores how unfit TransLink and the TransLink Board are for overseeing METRO Vancouver’s transit operations.
Transit reality is knocking at TransLink’s door, but is anyone listening?
Audit says TransLink could save $41 million by reducing SkyTrain frequency, taking other measures
By Kelly Sinoski, Vancouver SunOctober 16, 2012
METRO VANCOUVER — A provincial government audit suggests TransLink couldAi?? find more than $41 million in potential savings by measures that includeAi?? reducing SkyTrain frequency during non-peak hours or converting to shuttles ai??i?? orAi?? reducing or cancelling service ai??i?? on some of the lowest-performing routes.
The suggestions were among 27 recommendations in the audit, which wasAi?? released today, and recommends TransLink should also take a “less averse riskAi?? approach” to its conservative budgeting, which may help the organization reduceAi?? the need for future fare and tax increases.
Other recommendations include: freezing police and security hiring andAi?? conduct an efficiency review to determine the appropriate staffing levels afterAi?? the impact of the faregates and new ticketing legislation is known; using splitAi?? shifts to maximize cost efficiency; addressing absenteeism; and reviewing theAi?? bus maintenance work force.
Vancouver second most traffic congested city in North America: report
Ha, ha, ha – or should I weep. I guess “rubber on asphalt” with a $8 billion SkyTrain Canada Line sweetener hasn’t worked. Does the taxpayer really want to throw more money at TransLink to carry on with their unworkable and unaffordable light-metro dreams?
The failure of the SkyTrain and the Canada Line light-metros to alleviate gridlock in the Vancouver METRO region should set off alarm bells with regional politicians, but it doesn’t. A very sad commentary indeed.
Vancouver second most traffic congested city in North America: report
By TIFFANY CRAWFORD, VANCOUVER SUNOctober 12, 2012
VANCOUVER – Traffic congestion in the Metro Vancouver area continues to be the second worst in North America after Los Angeles, according to a quarterly report by TomTom, a navigation and map supply company based in Amsterdam.
The congestion index of 26 cities in North America, released Thursday, also says Montreal and Toronto round out the Top 5 worst cities for congestion after San Francisco, in third place.
Vancouver has remained in second place since the last quarterly report was released in July. Ottawa, which was number 10 in July, was no longer in the Top 10.
To compile its list, TomTom monitored real travel time data captured by GPS equipment in customersai??i?? vehicles between April and June to compare the percentage change between non-peak times and rush hour.
The company, which also prepares a separate index for Europe, says that data show journey times in Vancouver are 33 per cent longer during the busy times than in non-peak times.
New Yorkers, in comparison, only wait 25 per cent longer in peak traffic times than do Vancouverites. New York is number 8 on the list, followed by Chicago and Miami.
In Metro Vancouver, the waiting times are longest during evening rush hour, according to the index, with a 69 per cent longer wait during the commute home in the car.
Metro Vancouverai??i??s congestion levels are worse on local and arterial roads than on highways, according to Nick Cohn, head of congestion research for TomTom.
Problem areas include roads leading to bridges such as the Knight Street, Oak and Lions Gate bridges, as well as downtown streets such as Georgia, Dunsmuir and Seymour.
The company says it aims to provide the public, industry and policy-makers with unbiased information about congestion levels in urban areas.
The top 10 most congested North American cities between April and June 2012, according to the TomTom congestion index:
1. Los Angeles 34 per cent
2. Vancouver 33 per cent
3. San Francisco 29 per cent
4. Montreal 28 per cent
5. Toronto 27 per cent
6. Washington 26 per cent
7. Seattle 26 per cent
8. New York 25 per cent
9. Chicago 23 per cent
10. Miami 22 per cent
Ai?? Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun
Should We Convert the Canada Line metro to LRT?
Subways & metros cost a lot of money to build and operate.
The George Massey Tunnel is back in the news, as Premier Christie Clark is using the tunnel as an election gimmick, promising to replace the tunnel within 10 years.
Replacing the tunnel with a larger structure, bridge or tunnel will only send the gridlock to the next choke point, the Oak Street & Knight Street bridges, which will see massive congestion if traffic through the ‘tunnel‘ 
route were to be expanded. What isAi??needed isAi??a ‘rail‘ transit solution the works and can be readily and affordably extended to meet the needs of the everAi??growing population South of the Fraser River.
The proprietary SkyTrain light metro system and the light metro philosophy of operation has done very little in attracting the motorist from the car and its high ridership can be attributed mostly to recycling of bus customers onto the light metro and over 100.000 $1.00 a day U-Passes issuedAi??post secondary students in the region. SkyTrain has done little to ease congestion in the METRO Vancouver area.
The proprietary SkyTrain light-metro system is justAi??too expensive to buildAi??and it just cannot be extended affordably into the outer suburbs to attract new customers.Ai??The extremely high cost to constructAi??SkyTrain light-metroAi??has madeAi??theAi??’blacktop‘ option the cheaper optionAi??in improving regional transportation, as evidencedAi??by the Gateway highways program, South of the Fraser River. As new highways are built, auto use increases, with the only barrier against increased auto use being road capacity.Ai??With major highway and bridge construcion are now coming tolls on new bridges, first with the Golden Ears Bridge, then onAi??the replaced Port Mann Bridge and in the future, maybe all bridges and the tunnel.
What we see is extremely myopic regional planning and showsAi??Metro Vancouver’s complete ineptitude when it comes to regional transportation as the region’s transportation clock has been merely turned back some 50 years when all bridges and the tunnel were tolled in greater Vancouver.
Sadly, thisAi??short sightedAi??and extremely dated planning,Ai??which fits in well withAi?? BC’s ‘black-top’ politics practiced by both the BC Liberal Party and the NDP, will only lead to more gridlock and traffic chaos.
The Canada Line is in reality a heavy-rail metro, operating ROTEM’s heavy-rail electrical multiple Units (EMU’s), built as a light metro. In fact, because of the Canada Line’s automatic operation and small stations, it can only offer a maximum capacity of 15,000 persons per hour per direction, less than half that is being carried today on the main tram (streetcar)Ai??line through Karlsruhe, Germany. It now seems that automatic metro (driverless metro) automatic signallingAi??has ‘hamstrung‘ light metro capacity, making it somewhat obsolete for tomorrow’s transit demands.
To both increase capacity on the Canada Line (an estimated $1 billion alone) and to increase its reach into Richmond in an effort to attract more ridership,Ai??would costAi??about an additionalAi??$1 billion for a total of about $2 billion. By comparison, $2 billion would buy you about 80 km. (at about $25 mil/km.) of modern LRT!
ThatAi??$2 billionAi??would be put to better use by:
- Converting the Canada Line hybrid heavy/light metro to light rail.
- With the money saved by much cheaper LRT construction, extend the the new Canada line LRT across the Fraser river into Delta and beyond.
This is not fanciful musings, rather it very well may be a transit solution that TransLink or a future operating authority may seriously consider.
The Canada line is in a heavy-rail metro andAi??most modern light rail vehicles would easily operate within the Rotem EMU’s Kinematic Envelope (Kinematic Envelope: the space that a rail vehicle could potentially occupy as it moves laterally and vertically on its suspension.), including the subway tunnels.
The expensive and complicated automatic signalling system should beAi??replaced with much simpler and more robust signalling system, doing away with the higher operating costs due to automatic signalling.
Retain ‘third rail’ power pick on the elevated and underground portions of the line by equipping, as done before on other transit lines, the trams with retractable shoes to collect power from the ‘third rail’ and using standard pantographs on non-guideway portions of the line. Simply, the first station the tram stops at on the guideway portion of the line the driver drops the ‘pan‘ and deploys the
power collection shoes. Several tram varieties on the market today have dual pantograph/shoe for power pick up on APS ground level contact-less power supply.
By converting theAi??Canada Line toAi??LRT would makeAi??the cost of extending the Canada Line, first to Steveston and Ironwood Mall an affordable option. It would also be much cheaper to build with LRT for a new crossing of the Fraser River to serve both Ladner andAi??South Delta; then onwards to South Surrey. As well, it would also be a viable option to extend the Canada Line, via at-grade operation to UBC a much cheaper option than bored subway tunnel.
The cost to extend the Canada line to Steveston and Ironwood Mall (about 11 .3 km.), including minor retrofitting, would cost about $1.5 billion. by converting to LRT, the cost would be about $150 million for 30 cars, each having a capacity of 250 persons; about $150 million for re-signalling, an estimated $150 million for engineering, etc.; and $280 million to build 11.2 km (@$25 mill./km.) of LRT, for a grand total of $730 million – just less than half the cost of extending with metro! It is conceivable that for the cost of the Canada Line extending to Steveston and the Ironwood Mall, we could build LRT to both Steveston and the Ironwood Mall, then through a tunnel under the Fraser River to Ladner and Tsawwassen!
It is time for TransLink to start planning for ‘rail’ transit for the region and not just for a small cluster of municipalities that surround Vancouver. SkyTrain, with construction costs exceeding $100 million/km. just cannot be built economically into the ‘burbs‘, but modern LRT, with construction costs as low as $6 million/km. can. It is time for regional politicians declare that building with SkyTrain and/or light-metro has been a mistake and that we must plan future transit on the light rail model. The regional politicians who make up METRO Vancouver should tell TransLink either change their transit planning direction and for a start, seriously look at converting the Canada Line to LRT and extend it across the Fraser River to Delta and beyond.
Eric Chris Tackles Vancouver’s Media and Politicians SkyTrain Hubris
A picture that Vancouver’s SkyTrain lobby do not want the public to see! Modern LRT on a lawned rights-of-way.
Eric Chris’s letter to Vancouver media and politicans.
SkyTrain is by far the worst possible alternative for theAi?? proposed Evergreen Line from Burnaby to Coquitlam in Metro Vancouver.Ai?? HereAi?? are some highlights from a recent UBC research paper comparing tram lines andAi?? light rail transit (LRT) lines to SkyTrain lines:
Cost
Total cost per trip (Figure 22 on page 10 of researchAi?? paper):
Tram = $3.04 (best)
LRT = $7.64
SkyTrain = $12.34 (worst)
Total cost per passenger mile (Figure 21 on page 10 ofAi?? research paper):
Tram = $1.22 (best)
LRT = $1.68
SkyTrain = $2.66 (worst)
Environment
Lifecycle carbon emissions per passenger mile (page 7 ofAi?? research paper):
Tram = 32.59 (best)
LRT = 51.6
SkyTrain = 156.3 (worst)
Efficiency
Energy use in kWh per passenger mile (page 5 of researchAi?? paper):
Tram = 0.11 (best)
LRT = 0.13
SkyTrain = 0.30 (worst)
Occupancy
Number of passengers by transit mode (page 4 of researchAi?? paper):
Tram = 155 (close second best)
LRT = 178 (best)
SkyTrain = 105 (worst)
By any measure and by a huge margin, modern tram lines areAi?? superior to outdated SkyTrain lines.Ai?? Tram lines move more people and useAi?? much less energy than SkyTrain lines.Ai?? Tram lines are much more economicalAi?? than SkyTrain lines, and on an trip by trip basis, SkyTrains are 306% moreAi?? expensive than trams to operate.Ai?? SkyTrain isnai??i??t just a financialAi?? disaster; however, SkyTrain is also an environmental disaster.
According to the UBC research paper, carbon emissions for aAi?? SkyTrain line ultimately exceed carbon emissions for a tram line by 380%.Ai??Ai?? All SkyTrain lines require extra diesel buses to shuttle transit users to theAi?? distantly spaced SkyTrain stations.Ai?? When carbon emissions from theseAi?? diesel buses are included, carbon emissions by SkyTrain are far worse than theAi?? UBC research paper suggests.Ai?? Moreover, SkyTrain lines rely on redundantAi?? rapid bus routes (articulated diesel or hybrid diesel bus routes) to fill in theAi?? gaps of the SkyTrain network and to connect SkyTrain lines (99 B-Line routeAi?? operating underneath existing trolley bus lines in Vancouver, forAi?? instance).Ai??
These rapid bus routes, which would not be necessary with tramAi?? lines, often operate in parallel to existing bus routes and increase carbonAi?? emissions tremendously.Ai?? From an environmental perspective, tram lines areAi?? far more effective in the fight against climate change than SkyTrain lines ai??i?? SkyTrain lines are lemons.Ai??Ai??Ai??
SkyTrain is inconvenient to use and deters transit use (byAi?? drivers who donai??i??t have to take transit) ai??i?? most transit users donai??i??t live near aAi?? SkyTrain station and have to walk a long distance or transfer from a bus toAi?? reach a remote SkyTrain station located every two kilometres apart in distanceAi?? on average.Ai?? Tram lines have closely spaced stops and result in fasterAi?? overall trip times than SkyTrain lines for the vast majority of transit usersAi?? because the bus transfer or long walk required for the SkyTrain line isAi?? avoided.Ai?? Really, SkyTrain is being promoted by certain individuals whoAi?? wonai??i??t admit that it is terrible mistake because if they do, they will be out ofAi?? a job.Ai??
Supposed urban planning and transportation guru, Gordon PriceAi?? of SFU, as well as self professed transportation expert and City of VancouverAi?? Councillor, Geoff Meggs have little credibility and donai??i??t know the first thingAi?? about civil, electrical or mechanical engineering to give any worthwhile adviceAi?? on the efficient design of transit networks; yet, they never miss theAi?? opportunity to support more taxes to pay for more SkyTrain when simply cuttingAi?? our losses to switch to tram lines would be the shrewd move.Ai?? Perhaps theirAi?? inflated egos just prevent them from admitting that they are wrong aboutAi?? SkyTrain.Ai?? Gordon Price and Geoff Meggs are entitled toAi?? express theirAi?? simple thoughts in the media; however, for the media to ignore technicallyAi?? qualified university professors and professional engineers who disagree withAi?? Gordon Price, Geoff Meggs and the rest of the Mickey Mouse club at TransLink isAi?? censorship.Ai?? For the media to withhold the truth and to print liesAi?? favouring SkyTrain is tantamount to propaganda, and the media appears to beAi?? promoting SkyTrain for TransLink to reward the media with thousands to millionsAi?? of dollars annually in bribes advertising.
Peter Fassbender who is the vice-chair of the Mayorsai??i?? CouncilAi?? has capitulated with TransLink to obtain his rapid bus route for Langley.Ai??Ai?? He is a toady for TransLink, and it is disgusting to read articles about PeterAi?? Fassbender wanting to raise taxes for more SkyTrain lines by TransLink.Ai??Ai?? SkyTrain is a scam as far as doing anything significant to reduce vehicle useAi?? (it does reduce some vehicle use but it also reduces walking and cycling,Ai?? too).Ai?? SkyTrain is primarily being used to spur development alongAi?? SkyTrain lines for developers to profit.Ai?? This is not the purpose ofAi?? transit; the purpose of transit is to move students, retirees… tourists in aAi?? cost effective and sustainable manner.Ai??
After the Canada Line fiasco (SNC Lavalin submitted a low bidAi?? to win the job and then open cut rather than bore Cambie Street to save moneyAi?? while businesses on Cambie Street paid the price and went bankrupt as a result) ai??i?? it is incredible to see TransLink attempting to build another SkyTrain lineAi?? (Evergreen Line) with SNC Lavalin ai??i?? unbelievable.Ai?? The depth of depravityAi?? at TransLink is amazing.Ai?? Because TransLink is spending too much onAi?? SkyTrain lines, conventional transit is being sacrificed,Ai?? consequently:
- TransLink operates diesel buses on trolley bus routes to saveAi??Ai?? money and air quality suffers to increase respiratory and heart diseasesAi??Ai??Ai??
- TransLink reduces the budget for buses to save money andAi??Ai?? transit buses become overcrowded at peak hours
- TransLink gouges drivers and homeowners who are unfairlyAi??Ai?? taxed to pay for over priced SkyTrain lines
Fundamentally, TransLink is a make work program created toAi?? increase employment.Ai?? Not one inch of the proposed Evergreen Line will beAi?? built by existing TransLink staff.Ai?? Everyone at TransLink could be purgedAi?? and the new palace being built to house the 500 staff at TransLink in NewAi?? Westminster could be sold to raise cash for transit.Ai?? TransLink is an awfulAi?? drain on the economy and employs overpaid economists, planners… accountantsAi?? who are not required to operate transit.Ai?? In March of 2012, ShiroccaAi?? Consulting ranked TransLink as the worst run transit organization in Canada ai??i?? transit could only improve if current Metro Vancouver staff replaced everyone atAi?? TransLink ai??i?? at least Metro Vancouver is staffed by competent planners andAi?? engineers who are in touch with the communities in the LowerAi?? Mainland.
This isnai??i??t a game; people are being harmed and cheated whenAi?? the bungling buffoons (accountants and economists) making the decisions atAi?? TransLink commit to build more SkyTrain lines with money raised by taxingAi?? drivers and homeowners.Ai?? Do your readers a big favour and write the truthAi?? for a change ai??i?? expose TransLink for what it is ai??i?? a sick organization headed byAi?? corrupt individuals building SkyTrain lines when tram lines would lower carbonAi?? emissions from transit and lower personal taxes for transit.Ai?? Here is theAi?? UBC research paper for your perusal:
http://www.sxd.sala.ubc.ca/8_
research/sxd_FRB07Transport.
Recent Comments