Two Years Since the Leewood Report and the Silence is Deafening!
It has been two years since Rail for the Valley released the historic RftV/Leewood study and the silence has been deafening. The RftV/Leewood study is light years ahead of anything that TransLink has produced, yet it has been given the silent treatment; “being sent to Coventry“, while TransLink squanders tens of millions of dollars promoting its pet SkyTrain mini-metro on various routes in Vancouver and Surrey.
In true TransLink form, bureaucrats are being forced to plan for LRT in Surrey at the behest of pro-LRT Surrey mayor, Dianne Watts, but with little enthusiasm and what is being planned for is classic TransLink, an ill-designed LRT, treated as a poor-man’s SkyTrain only costing a little less than SkyTrain to build.
It has all been done before, but from TransLink’s point of view, if you are successful bamboozling regional politicians about light rail and SkyTrain, andAi??why not, most regional politicians are profoundly ignorant of public transit and only support those projects which look good politically.
TransLink has every excuse thinkable to discredit the RftV/Leewood study, with the latest bit of nonsense so pathetic it would be laughable it it were not so sad. “We will not consider any rapid transit line that can’t achieve 10 minute headways or better“, was the latestAi??moan.
RftV has never claimed that the proposed TramTrain service was rapid transit, but a regional railway, that would operate LRT compliant vehicles that could operate as a train (interurban) or as a tram/streetcar. We find the proposed 90 minute schedule from Chilliwack to Scott Road Station (a commercial speed of 90 kph)a viable proposition and considering the almost daily traffic jams on the number 1 highwayAi??between the Port Mann Bridge and Abbotsford, the RftV/Leewood TramTrain service would make a viable alternative for many people. But not for TransLink, who continue to plan for ‘pie in the sky’ SkyTrain service from Langley to UBC!
Fiscal reality is just not in TransLink’s lexicon!
Here we have a ‘shovel ready’ transportation plan, with a starting cost less than one half of that of the Evergreen Line, servicing far more communities, left to molder on a shelf because it can’t run at 10 minute headways. Even the deluxe version of the RftV/Leewood Report hasAi??electric service to downtown Vancouver at less than $1 billion! The truth is easier to fathom, LRT in any form makes highly paid TransLink’s bureaucrats at very nervous.
To completely ignore a study done by a professional transit consultant, without any honest discussion only shows how inept TransLink and its bureaucrats are and the taxpayer and transit customers South of the Fraser deserve much better. “Who is not afraid to bell TransLink?”
Memo to Dianne Watts: Get out of TransLink and fast! The know-nothings at this ponderous bureaucracy have only one goal, to greatly increase their political prestige, while at the same time greatly increasing their pensions, by continually planning for unaffordable and very dated SkyTrain mini-metro. Sadly, TransLink is incapable of doing anything else.
The Leewood Study:
Is the concept of TramTrain too difficult for TransLink to grasp?
U.S. (And Canada) Taxpayers Are Gouged on Mass Transit Costs
With BC Transit quoting silly prices for LRT in Victoria and TransLink doing the same in Vancouver and Surrey, the following article from Bloomberg should be essential reading. As the previous post has shown, modern LRT/streetcar can be built cheaply, if there is the political and bureaucratic will to do so.
With thank to Justin Bernard.
U.S. Taxpayers Are Gouged on Mass Transit Costs
ByAi??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? Stephen SmithAi??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? Aug 26, 2012
Bloomberg
If the first segment of Manhattanai??i??s Second Avenue subway opens on schedule in 2016, New Yorkers will be reminded that it was once ai???the line that time forgotai??? — a project more than 75 years in the making, with no end in sight. It should be remembered for another failing as well: It will be one of the most expensive subways in the world.
Tunneling in any dense urban environment is an expensive proposition, but the $5 billion price tag for just the first two miles of the Second Avenue subway cannot be explained byengineering difficulties. The segment runs mainly beneath a single broad avenue, unimpeded by rivers, super-tall skyscraper foundations or other subway lines.
American taxpayers will shell out many times what their counterparts in developed cities in Europe and Asia would pay. In the case of the Second Avenue line and other new rail infrastructure in New York City, they may have to pay five times as much.
Amtrak is just as bad. Its $151 billion master plan for basic high-speed rail service in the Northeast corridor is more expensive than Japanai??i??s planned magnetic levitating train line between Tokyo and Osaka, most of which is to be buried deep underground, with tunnels through the Japan Alps and beneath its densest cities.
The numbers for Californiaai??i??s proposed high-speed rail system are similarly shocking.
California Bloat
The French rail operator SNCFAi??told the California High-Speed Rail Authority that it could cut $30 billion off the projectai??i??s $68 billion estimated price tag. San Francisco can barely build underground light rail for the price that Tokyo pays for high-capacity subways. Los Angelesai??i??s planned subway to the sea will be a bit cheaper, but is still very expensive considering the areaai??i??s lack of density.
The budgets for other types of urban public-works projects can be just as shocking. Who can forget Bostonai??i??s Big Dig, the$24 billionAi??highway boondoggle? But mass-transit networks stand to lose most from out-of-control infrastructure costs.
A huge part of the problem is that agencies canai??i??t keep their private contractors in check. Starved of funds and expertise for in-house planning, officials contract out the project management and early design concepts to private companies that have little incentive to keep costs down and quality up. And even when they know better, agencies are often forced by legislation, courts and politicians to make decisions that they know arenai??i??t in the public interest.
Comparing American transit-construction practices with those abroad yields a number of lessons. Spain has the most dynamic tunneling industry in the world and the lowest costs. In 2003, Metro de Madrid Chief Executive Officer Manuel Melis Maynar wrote a list describing the practices he used to design the systemai??i??s latest expansion. The donai??i??t-do list, unfortunately, reads like a winning U.S. transit-construction bingo card.
Perhaps the most ostentatious violation of Melisai??i??s manual of best practices is expensive architecture in stations. ai???Design should be focused on the needs of the users,ai??? he wrote, ai???rather than on architectural beauty or exotic materials, and never on the name of the architect.ai???
American politicians have different priorities. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is spending $3.8 billion on a single subway station at the World Trade Center designed bySantiago Calatrava, a Spanish architect known for his costly projects. If New York could build subways at the prices that Paris and Tokyo pay, $3.8 billion would be enough to build the entire Second Avenue subway, from Harlem to the Financial District.
Spainai??i??s Model
Melis also warned against ai???consultants who consultant with consultants and advisers who advise advisers,ai??? something American planners would do well to learn. He said he didnai??i??t hire any ai???large firm of consulting engineersai??? as general project managers for his Metro de Madrid expansions, and that designers werenai??i??t allowed to interfere with, or bid for, their own construction contracts.
Not so in the U.S. Parsons Brinckerhoff, perhaps the biggest name in the nationai??i??s transit construction industry, is both the lead-design contractor and project manager for Californiaai??i??s planned high-speed rail line, and the company stands a good chance of winning construction contracts for its own designs.
As if that conflict of interest wasnai??i??t bad enough, the California High-Speed Rail Authorityai??i??s new CEO, Jeff Morales, arrived at the agency after a stint as senior vice present atParsons Brinckerhoff, where he worked on the authorityai??i??s business plan.
Parsons Brinckerhoff, like all the other multinational contractors and construction companies that win bloated contracts in the U.S., can do good work. Its rail projects forHong Kongai??i??s Mass Transit Railway were built at a reasonable cost, and its participation in Turkeyai??i??s Marmaray rail tunnel across the Bosporus in Istanbul shows that it can deliver affordable results in forbidding terrain. But absent the right incentives and oversight, even the best private companies will resort to rent seeking.
Larry Littlefield, who has worked in logistics and as a budget analyst at New York City Transit, also suggests the U.S. legal system is an obstacle to designing and building affordable infrastructure. (The U.K. and India share a common-law legal heritage with the U.S. that is heavy on judicial review, and they also have trouble controlling costs.)
New York government agencies are saddled by procurement rules dating back generations, Littlefield says, when corruption in infrastructure projects was endemic. Reformers demanded objective and easily policeable standards, which often meant lowest-price bidding rules. Bidders compete mostly on price, not quality.
Speed Matters
In Madrid, on the other hand, cost was given only a 30 percent weight when picking designers and builders, according to Melis. Speed was weighted at 20 percent. Melis praised quick execution as necessary for an efficient, affordable project. (Compare this with multigenerational projects, such as Californiaai??i??s high-speed rail and New Yorkai??i??s Second Avenue subway.) The remaining 50 percent was determined by the technical merits of proposals and the staffai??i??s subjective considerations.
Littlefield also argues that judges in New York routinely side with contractors in disputes with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. ai???In the private sector, if you rob your customer, you will suffer a hit to your reputation and possible losses in the courts,ai??? he said in an interview. ai???Not so if you rob an agency like the MTA. Then itai??i??s all rights and no responsibilities.ai???
The MTA must continue to award contracts to the lowest-price bidder, and without the ability to hold bad contractors accountable, Littlefield said, the agency turns to ai???writing longer and longer and longer contracts, expressly prohibiting every way it has been ripped off in the past.ai??? The byzantine contracts that come out of this process drive entrants away, limiting competition and pushing up costs.
Littlefield holds out hope, however, that transit agencies are capable of building with reasonable costs and timelines –at least when they have to. ai???Remember how fast and how cheap they rebuilt the 1 train after 9/11? Thatai??i??s what theyai??i??re capable of. But it just doesnai??i??t happen otherwise.ai???
(Stephen Smith is a writer based in Brooklyn, New York, who covers land use and transportation. The opinions expressed are his own.)
To contact the writer of this article: Stephen Smith at smithsj@gmail.com.http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-26/u-s-taxpayers-are-gouged-on-mass-transit-costs.html
Helsinki tram extension gives some insight as to the cost of building LRT.
The following article from the Railway Gazette, givesAi??raw cost of laying track in Helsinki, Finland and give good insight for the cost of laying tram/LRT track on-street. The ai??i??7.5 million (CAD $9.3 million), 4.1 km double track extension on the metre gauge network alsoAi??includes the cost of the overhead.
TheAi??cost of the 4.1 km extension works out to about CAD $2.7 million/km to build!
There is something radically wrong in BC and North America, where simple tram or streetcar lines can cost over $50 million a km. to build, yet in Finland, the cost for new tram construction is under $3 million/km.
I think from Surry’s point of view, TransLink should be fired and then engage Helsinki city transport operator HKL, Stara, Skanska and VR Track, who seem to have the taxpayers best interests at heart.
Helsinki tram extension opens
28 August 2012
FINLAND: Helsinki tram Route 9 services began running to the LAi??nsisatama ferry terminal on August 13, completing a ai??i??7Ai??5m extension project. Trams run every 10 min during the day, with late-night services co-ordinated with ferry times.
The 4Ai??1 km double-track extension has 11 stops. Construction was undertaken by city transport operator HKL, Stara, Skanska and VR Track, with electrical works by HelenService.
http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/urban-rail/single-view/view/helsinki-tram-extension-opens.html
As Predicted – TransLink’s Gas Tax is Faltering – Higher Taxes Predicted!
As predicted, gas tax revenue has failed to meet expectations as thousands of lower mainland residents fill up their family chariots east of Aldergrove or in the US, where gas is much cheaper. This was predicted by Zwei some years ago (the wife fills up her belch-fire in Point Roberts) and was roundly criticized by politicians and bureaucrats alike. The collected response by our hapless crowd of politicos was something like; “We hope this will not happen.”
Ha, ha, ha it has!
Vice Chair of the Mayors Council on TransLink, Langley’s Mayor Fassbender,Ai??seems surprised at this, well he shouldn’t as the regions taxpayers are paying far to much taxes for far to little transit service. We have a good example in Tsawwassen where preciousAi??transit monies are squandered on three bus services which combined carry fewer than 20 passengers a day! Of course the biggest wastrel of tax dollars is the SkyTrain and Canada Line mini-metro systems, where massive debt servicing costs and large operating costs have creates a terestrial black hole for tax dollars.
Until regional mayors understand the real reasons of the mass exodus of car drivers to the upper Fraser Valley or the USA to fill up their cars with gas, threatening new and higher taxes willAi??do nothing more than enrage taxpayers as they will again feel like hostages to the profligate spending by transit bureaucrats and inept regional politicians takin a back seat on badly planned and poorly transit projects .
Again, its high time that Municipalities south of the Fraser should abandon TransLink and its huge costs and form a leaner and meaner transit authority for transit projects that are both affordable and usable. With TransLink, the end game is SkyTrain and how many bus riders they can recycle on the the mini-metro to pretend that they are doing a good job and to hell with the taxpayer.
Falling gas tax continues to plague Translink: Mayor
VANCOUVER/CKNW AM(980)
Janet Brown |More bad news for Translink: Gas tax revenue continues to freefall.
The latest estimates suggest the transportation authority will end up with millions fewer than it expected from the 15-cent-a-litre fuel tax it charges in Metro Vancouver.
Originally, $30-million was needed to fund projects like a rapid bus service over the new Port Mann Bridge.
But now, Peter Fassbender, Langley city mayor and vice-chair of the mayors’ council to Translink, believes Translink will likely have to find close to $75 million.
A big part of the reason? Gas tax revenue will continue to drop significantly.
More and more people, he says, are purchasing gas in the Fraser Valley where the gas tax isn’t applied, as well as in the U.S.
Fassbender says only a huge raft of savings uncovered by auditors will allow the region to move ahead with transit projects.
A Blast From the Past – Zwei Was Advocating the Stadler GTW in 2009!
I seems Zwei has had it right all along with the Stadler GTW! Here is a repost from October 2009!
The Stadler GTW ai??i?? A new generation of Diesel light rail.
Posted by zweisystem on Wednesday, October 14, 2009
The Stadler GTW Diesel light Rail car
The Stadler GTW, sold by Stadler Rail, Switzerland, is one of the best-selling articulated local transport railcars in Europe. The name GTW stands for Gelenktriebwagen (articulated railcar).
Description
More precisely, Stadler GTW is actually a whole family of vehicles which differ externally, in the various designs of the head of the vehicle (from angular to streamlined), and also in the different designs and power units that drive them. They also come in different gauges and as rack railway vehicles. The basic version is the ai???GTW 2/6ai???, a railcar which conforms to UIC standards. ai???2/6ai??? means ai???two of six axles are poweredai???. The GTW 2/6 is used for example by Deutsche Bahn as ai???Baureihe 646ai??? (Series 646) and by Swiss railways as ai???RABe 526ai???.
The basic concept is rather unconventional: the car is driven by a central ai???power moduleai???, also known as a ai???powerpackai??? or a ai???drive containerai???, powered on both axles. Two light end modules, each with a bogie, rest on the power module, which produces useful traction weight on the driving axles. The end modules also use the space very effectively, although the railcar is divided into two halves by the power module. Some units have a path through the drive container. The end modules can be delivered with standard pulling devices or buffer gears, or with central buffer couplings. They are built with a low-platform design except above the bogies and at the supported ends (more than 65% low-platform). All of the usual comforts to be expected in a modern local network railcar are provided, such as air conditioning, a multi-purpose room, vacuum toilets (in a washroom suitable for the disabled) and a passenger information system. The GTWs can be diesel or electric-powered (via overhead wires or third rail).
Propulsion
There are diesel propulsion modules with 550 kW (since 2003) with 2Ai??375 = 750 kW power available, and electric propulsion modules with 600 kW to 1,100 kW. All drive modules work with IGBT pulse inverters. The converter plant stems from ABB and Turgi manufactured at the site.
By inserting a middle car (also with only one bogie) on one side of the propulsion module, the GTW 2/6 is expanded to GTW 2/8. Instead of the middle car, another drive module can also be inserted. Between the two modules are then either a trailer passenger car (GTW 4/8) or two medium cars and partitions (GTW 4/12). For operational flexibility up to four GTWs of the same pattern can be operated as a multiple unit.
North American application
New Jersey Transit uses 20 GTW diesel light rail vehicles on the 34 mile River LINE (New Jersey Transit) service between Trenton and Camden. The diesel LRV offers a tighter turning radius than typical main line light rail vehicles (i.e. Siemens Desiro, Bombardier Talent, etc.) and thus is capable of street running. The basic GTW is the 2/6 which indicates that two of the six axles are powered. The vehicle is more than 65% low floor. The GTW is available in electric and diesel-electric versions. 390 units have been sold to date and are in use in Italy, the Netherlands, and Switzerland. The Austin, Texas Capital Metro is expecting delivery of six vehicles in the fall of 2007 for its new transit rail service. In Texas, the diesel-electric units will provide service on a 32 mile route between Austin and Leander starting in January 2008.
The River LINE in New Jersey was opened in May 2004. The service is operated by the Southern New Jersey Rail Group (SNJRG), a consortium of Bechtel Group and Bombardier. The 20 stations on the line include PATCO SpeedlineA?ai??i??ai???s Broadway Station, which allows for transfers to service to Philadelphia. The River LINE uses a proof of payment system with a flat fare of $1.35. Service is offered on a 15 minute peak headway and 30 minute off peak headway. Much of the line is single track with passing sidings.
FRA Approves First Integrated Use of Stadler GTW Rail Vehicle for DCTA – The RftV/Leewood Study is Shovel Ready!
Good news everyone, in the USA the Federal Railway Administration has approved theAi??first integrated use of the Stadler GTW Rail Vehicle for Denton County Transportation Authority’s new passenger rail line.
Not quite TramTrain and not quite an old Budd RDC or Bombardier O-train, theAi??Stadler Diesel LRTAi??fits the market for light weight diesel rail cars for use on secondary rail lines that now only handle freight service. Well golly gee whiz, doesn’t that sound like the former BC Electric interurban service from Vancouver to Chilliwack. ForAi??under $600 millionAi??(less than half the cost of the 11.5 km SkyTrain Evergreen line) the region could operateAi??a basic hourly passenger service from downtown Vancouver (Central Station) to Chilliwack.
Success is written all over thisAi??project and it this makes the the powers that be in TransLink (and BC Transit for that matter), very worried. Maybe 33 years of hackneyed andAi??badly datedAi??SkyTrain only planning by provincial and regional transit planners would be all too evident if an affordable light rail transit service were to be built connecting the Fraser Valley to downtown Vancouver and more importantly, from downtown Vancouver to the Fraser Valley.
Let us hope that a new provincial government will see the importance of a light railway connecting Vancouver to Chilliwack, through the Fraser Valley, as the public has already recognised the importance of reinstating the former BC Electric interurban service.Ai??
FRA Approves First Integrated Use of Stadler GTW Rail Vehicle for DCTA
Source: Denton County Transportation Authority (DCTA)
On Monday, June 4, 2012, Administrator Joseph Szabo of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) in conjunction with the American Public Transportation Association Annual Rail Conference formally announced approval of DCTAai??i??s request to operate the Stadler GTW concurrent with traditional, compliant equipment. This means that for the first time ever; light-weight/fuel efficient, eco-friendly low-floor vehicles will be permitted to operate in rail corridors concurrently with traditionally compliant vehicles. The waiver, a first of its kind, will expand commuter rail options for transportation authorities across the United States.
In 2009, the FRAai??i??s Rail Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) prepared a set of technical criteria and procedures for evaluating passenger rail train-sets that have been built to alternative designs. The alternative designs enable lighter, more fuel-efficient rail vehicles equipped with a Crash Energy Management system to commingle with traditionally compliant equipment. The DCTA/Stadler alternative design waiver is the first comprehensive submittal that follows the RSAC Engineering Task Force (ETF) procedures for Tier I equipment. The approval of the DCTA/Stadler waiver request demonstrates that the enhanced crashworthiness and passenger protection systems inherent to DCTAai??i??s new rail vehicles meet the latest and most stringent safety standards in the U.S.
ai???Stadler is excited and proud to have the opportunity of announcing this milestone and appreciates the immense joint effort conducted by DCTA and the FRA,ai??? stated Steve Bonina, Stadler USA president. ai???Stadler continues to be hopeful that the FRA codifies the RSAC guidelines into regulatory requirements in order to open the North American Rail Network to this outstanding, safer, eco-friendly rail technology, which will help to make rail systems safer, more efficient, more reliable and less costly.ai???
Stadler, DCTA and DCTAai??i??s vehicle consultant, LTK Engineering Services, have been working closely with the FRA to achieve this waiver since 2009. DCTA partnered with Stadler to make modifications and enhancements to the GTW to comply with the required safety guidelines. Modifications include changes to the fuel tank design, window glazing and passenger and operator seats.
ai???This approval is the result of unprecedented cooperation between DCTA, the FRA LTK and Stadler,ai??? stated Jim Cline, DCTA president. ai???Our efforts to operate the nationai??i??s first alternative compliant vehicle demonstrate not only our commitment to increased safety for our passengers and operators but to improving safety for the commuter rail industry. We are setting the conditions for future success for commuter rail expansion in North Texas and the conditions will allow us to advance the integration of these vehicles onto our system.ai???
DCTA purchased 11 diesel-electric GTW 2/6 articulated rail vehicles from Stadler. The vehicles are compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and incorporate enhanced air conditioning, passenger information system, video surveillance and numerous FRA compliant elements. The spacious interior has room for wheelchairs, strollers and bicycles. There are 104 seats and standing room for 96 persons in every vehicle along with bright compartments, large windows and comfortable seating. DCTA and Stadler will begin integrating the cars into service this summer.
At Last The Main Stream Media Questions The Transit Police!
For some time now I have questioned why we have the transit police and evidently the main stream media are nowAi??asking questions too.
There was never any need for the transit police and more and more the transit police looked like a sop to the provincial RCMP, enabling recently retired officers to make lucrative incomes byAi??double dipping, being paid asAi??transit police officerAi??and receiving a handsome pension as well.
There was never any need for the transit police and they should be disbanded as soon as possible.
Mulgrew: Costly Transit police force takes taxpayers for a ride
By Ian Mulgrew, Vancouver SunAugust 15, 2012If there is such a good case to be made for TransLinkai??i??s stand-alone police force, why doesnai??i??t BC Ferries have its own armed cops?
I think itai??i??s nonsense that Transit officers authorized to use sidearms ride SkyTrain supposedly catching fare evaders and ai???fighting crimeai??? while enjoying an exorbitant overtime deal and a 25-per-cent bonus for working on Sundays.
On the weekend aboard a Gulf Island ferry, I watched a slightly built female attendant, without backup or a 9-mm, order two thirsty tough-looking truckers to put away the beers they were sucking back.
She didnai??i??t have a problem.
Over decades of travelling up and down the coast on the ferry system, I canai??i??t recall a discussion over coffee much less a public outcry that it was unsafe or lacked an armed security force.
The SkyTrain system is not a qualitatively different public space than our streets, buses, ferries or airports.
There was no good reason to create this unique little force in 2005 and there is no good reason to maintain Chief Neil Dubordai??i??s $27-million-a-year empire of 167 sworn officers and 67 civilians.
In 2010, those officers earned between $75,000 and $226,247 each, with the total salary cost reported at $40.5 million. They billed about $1 million a year in overtime, roughly twice what the much larger Vancouver police department paid.
Listening to chief operating officer Doug Kelsey justify this expensive fiefdom based on the supposed-to-be-opened-by-2016 Evergreen Line rankles.
Whom is he trying to kid that vandalism and fare evasion cannot be curbed equally well by less expensive attendants or ordinary security guards?
As for crime-fighting, where is the civic pantheon of SkyTrain heroes?
Iai??i??m sure the officers probably have been threatened and had to deal with drunks, drug-addled mental patients, testosterone-charged teenagers or menacing individuals.
So have most of us who regularly hang out downtown after 11 p.m.
But murder, kidnapping, human trafficking, prostitution, gambling, extortion, drug dealing, vicious gangsters and the truly dangerous job of real policing?
Thatai??i??s why police officers are well paid and given good benefits-and-retirement packages ai??i?? not for riding the rails during daytime handing out tickets that until recently werenai??i??t worth the paper they were printed on.
We paid on average $158,000 for each sworn transit officer in 2009 compared to the VPDai??i??s average of $160,000 or the RCMPai??i??s $155,000 per officer.
They are not doing equivalent work and the managerial redundancies are self-evident.
Crimes on the transit system are primarily crimes of opportunity and those who commit them are desperate, petty thugs and thieves. They act when no one in authority, armed or not, is around to raise an alarm.
The woman sexually assaulted at the Edmonds station, the disabled woman robbed of her iPad or the women harassed at the Joyce Street station in recent weeks are typical victims.
SkyTrain police did not prevent any of these incidents for the same reasons beat policing doesnai??i??t stop all street crime.
Still, municipal police or the RCMP could as easily have done the followup investigations, checked the surveillance videos and dealt with the cases.
If we want patrols on buses, incorporate them into the mandate of the regular policing agencies.
The most recent audit of the Transit force didnai??i??t bother to address whether a regional force, joint municipal-RCMP patrols on the system or even private security coupled with more staff could be as effective and cheaper.
The attitude is just keep taking taxpayers for a ride.
SkyTrain Obsolete!
One can predict the wailing and gnashing of teeth by the SkyTrain lobby with long time transit advocate, Malcolm Johnston’s recent letter published in the Surrey Now.
One wonders why TransLink, civic and provincial politicians almost worship SkyTrain in Metro Vancouver, as some sort of transit miracle, when the rest of world views it as a rather expensive gadgetbanen and/or a historic curiosity like the Wuppertal Schwebebahn.
What is lost on our local bunch of politico’s, except for Surrey mayor Dianne Watts and recently deposed Langley mayor Jim Green, is that no one, except TransLink,Ai??wants SkyTrain.
Could it be that over 30 years of transit baffle gab, exaggerated truths, and questionable studies have so warped TransLink’s and politican’s understanding of SkyTrain, that they still support this aging light-metro?
I leave you with the following:
ai???If you tell a SkyTrainAi??lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The SkyTrain lie can be maintained only for such time as theAi??province can shield theAi??taxpayer from the political, economic and/orAi??transportation consequences of the SkyTrainAi??lie. It thus becomes vitally important for theAi??province to useAi?? all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the SkyTrain lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the province.ai???
Ai??
The historic Wuppertal Schwebebahn monorail, the first all electric transit transit
system in the world. Only one was eve built.Ai??
SkyTrain is obsolete
Surrey NowAugust 14, 2012
The Editor,The ongoing SkyTrain vs. light rail debate continues in the Lower Mainland,Ai?? which is curious because elsewhere, modern LRT made SkyTrain obsolete over twoAi?? decades ago.
Has anyone noticed no one builds with SkyTrain anymore? Over 33 years on theAi?? market, only seven have been built. Compare this with more than 150 new lightAi?? rail lines built during the same period.
SkyTrain is driverless and that means it costs more to operate than LRT -Ai?? because instead of drivers, SkyTrain has attendants, more than 250 of them atAi?? last count.
And with more technical employees needed for smooth operation, that makesAi?? SkyTrain more expensive to operate than modern LRT.
Combined with SkyTrain’s huge construction costs, SkyTrain is a badAi?? bargain.
South Korea’s Yongin SkyTrain, the Everline, was completed in 2009 and hasAi?? remained idle due to large projected operating costs.
Embarrassed city officials, who have just signed a contract withAi?? Bombardier Inc. (the owners of the SkyTrain system) in June, to operate theAi?? mini-metro for three years. The city will assume all operating deficits.
Closer to home, the Canada Line, a conventional metro (the only metro in theAi?? world designed to have less capacity than a streetcar) was cheaper to build thanAi?? the proprietary SkyTrain.
The SkyTrain minimetro system has become the pariah of transit systems, yetAi?? TransLink, which is sinking fast in a quicksand of debt, still plans for more ofAi?? the obsolete mini-metro. Can’t any civic or provincial politicians draw aAi?? straight line from SkyTrain to TransLink’s financial chaos?
Evidently not. Today, modern light rail has proven to carry more people at aAi?? far cheaper cost than SkyTrain.
Who wants SkyTrain anymore?
It seems only the rubes in Victoria, Metro Vancouver and TransLink do.
Malcolm Johnston, Delta
Read more: http://www.thenownewspaper.com/opinion/editorials/SkyTrain+obsolete/7086200/story.html#ixzz23dSz7vqI
Faregate Hoopla – In TransLink’s World 1 + 1 =3
Lots of hoopla in the media today about TransLink’s daft $175 million fare-gate program, with the first fare gates being installed at the Marine Drive Canada Line Station. The taxpayer is anteing up over $175 million to retrofit fare-gates to Vancouver’s mini-metro system and with operating costs estimated to exceed $15 million annually, one wonders, with fare evasion pegged at about $10 million annually, where there is any cost benefit to this.
To many familiar names, including ex-premier Gordon Campbell good buddy, Ken Doebel are involved with this nonsense and it seems the taxpayer has been again treated as rubes by the BC Liberal party and TransLink.
What we have is a $175 million photo-op for BC Minister of Transportation, Blair Leckstrom and Langley Mayor Fassbender and assorted federal MP’s and Provincial MLA’s.
Instead ofAi??investing precious transit monies on good transit for the customer, SkyTrain is awarded a $175 million bauble that in the end will cost TransLink more money and reduce bus service as money earmarked for transit will be spent on subsidizing SkyTrain!
First SkyTrain faregate installed
The first SkyTrain faregate was installed Monday at Marine Drive Station in Vancouver.
Faregates are part of the overall strategy to reduce fare evasion and increase security on Metro Vancouver’s transit system.
Wai Young, Member of Parliament for Vancouver-South, B.C. Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure Blair Lekstrom, and TransLink Chief Operating Officer Doug Kelsey were on hand at Marine Drive Station to commemorate the project milestone.
“The new faregates will make SkyTrain service safer and more secure for commuters,” said Young.
Lekstrom said Metro Vancouver has a world-class transit system and governments at all levels are working together to make the system even better.
“Faregates will modernize the regional transit system by making transit easier and safer for everyone,” he said.
Faregates will be installed at all Canada, Expo and Millennium line stations and SeaBus terminals. Following a testing period, customers will begin transitioning to the faregates system in late spring 2013 with the system in service by fall 2013. All Evergreen Line stations will have faregates when the line opens in summer 2016.
The B.C. government is providing $40 million for the project and the federal government is contributing $30 million from the Building Canada Fund for the up to $100 million costs of faregate equipment and station improvements. TransLink is responsible for the remaining cost.
“We’re bringing a new convenience for customers, while helping to ensure every customer is paying their fare and feels safe on the system,” said Kelsey. “We are grateful to our partners in the federal and provincial governments for providing the funding to do the job.
Myth Busting!
It seems that the same tall tales about modern LRT are being told is Sydney Australia, that are being told in Vancouver and Surrey. Like always. a lie often repeated soon becomes truth, well the following sets the record straight, but will the public remain deaf to the truth all depends on the amount of money spent by the SkyTrain Lobby on printing rumours, half-truths and lies.
Myth Busting
Trams in the City will cause more traffic congestion.
This is a scare story. The Truth is Light Rail will operate in one lane only, and that lane will be the current bus lane, while moving four times the number of people as a bus.Ai?? In comparison, buses will be constrained to operate in all the road lanes.
Trams will always stay in their lane unlike buses which are constantly frog-hopping around each other and taking up 2, 3 or even 4 traffic lanes in the City.
The streets are too narrow.
No theyai??i??re not. The space require to operate a tram is less than a bus, not more.
Witness other cities in Europe that have really narrow streets, and still manage to operate trams eg Lisbon or Amsterdam.
Trams are stuck on one route.
With a carefully planned transport system this is not a problem. Trams are designed for high capacity corridors terminating in major junctions / hubs. They move large numbers of people very well.Ai?? Any system would need to be fully integrated with buses servicing the lower capacity areas and the suburbs.
Trams can run in pedestrian areas and malls, on road and on railway track making them an extremely versatile transport option.
Buses can carry more people than light rail.
This is simply not true. A Light Rail vehicle has three to four times the capacity of a standard bus.
If we could replace four of the buses heading down George St at peak hour with one tram, there would instantly be less traffic congestion. Half empty buses trying to deliver people to Circular Quay contribute to peak hour traffic in the city.
Tram travel is also more friendly to the disabled, elderly and families and it gives a more comfortable, smoother ride.
Trams are slower than buses.
The travel time for a tram is the same as other modes, quicker if given traffic light priority. Such priority for buses is not possible as there are simply too many of them. Trying to move a great number of buses through many intersections is even more difficult, when one bus stopping often blocks other buses travelling shortly behind. Trams are also quicker because you can load and unload in a fraction of the time of a bus.
Buses are cheaper and sufficient.
Buses cannot cope with the high demand of Sydney CBD, adding more buses will accentuate the problem.Ai?? Light Rail is a high capacity, efficient mode perfect for big cities.
People donai??i??t like to interchange between modes.
People donai??i??t like sitting in traffic only minutes from their destination or unreliable journeys either.Ai?? Given the overwhelming benefits Light Rail will deliver, people will interchange.
We have researched this issue with the people of inner Sydney specifically, explained the project and the need to interchange, and asked them what they thought. 85% of those that responded said that they thought the benefits outweighed the inconvenience.
Interchange is a key part of networks in all leading cities ai??i?? in fact some are designed around it. It is OK in Paris, London, New York, Singapore and Hong Kong, why not in Sydney?
Interchange is the only way to cope with high passenger volumes in constrained spaces. And, people do it every day in Sydney. Country trains terminate at Central, and people interchange. Bondi junction has an interchange. If the transport system is reliable, interchange works ai??i?? ask the Swiss people whose train system is designed around interchange.
Light railai??i??s track system and overhead cables make a mess of city streets.
The overhead cables are extremely unobtrusive.Ai?? They currently run through the pedestrian precinct around Haymarket and up to Central Station with little concern. Overhead cables running a clean system are always going to be more aesthetically pleasing than high levels of pollution and noisy traffic jams.Ai?? If this really is a problem, new light rail technology allows trams to run without overhead wires, picking up from an underground feeder, eg Bordeaux.
In many cities, well-designed tram vehicles are seen as adding visual appeal to the urban landscape.
Light rail is NOT cleaner for the environment.
Trams ARE cleaner than petrol or diesel buses. Tram vehicles create no pollution at all in the city, reducing smog and improving air quality, not to mention little or no noise pollution.
Powering a Light Rail vehicle creates one third of the amount of pollution as the worldai??i??s most environmentally friendly bus, and the energy created by the tramai??i??s braking system is fed back into the electricity grid.Ai?? Electricity can easily be sourced from Green supply such as wind and solar.
A tram route can move up to 12,000 people in one hour; thatai??i??s a lot of cars and buses off the road. The simple fact that one tram can take four buses off the road, means that they create less pollution.
We had trams in Sydney and they were removed because they didnai??i??t work.
This is not why they were removed. The Sydney tram system was a victim of its own success. Trams were taken out of Sydney because they were too well patronised with passenger journeys peaking at 405 million per year in 1940s. That is double the current number of passenger trips provided by Sydney Buses. Keeping in mind that most trams had seating for only 45 ai??i?? 80 passengers, trams became very crowded.
Sydney had one of the largest tram systems in the world. It was an extremely busy network with about 1,600 trams in service at any one time at its peak during the 1930s. As a comparison there are about 500 trams in Melbourne today.
Overseas ai???transport expertsai??? were called upon to advise the city and they recommended closure of the system to be replaced by buses. Closure generally went against public opinion. Nevertheless, closure became government policy and the system was wound down in stages, with withdrawal of the last service, to La Perouse, in 1961.Ai?? All the major Sydney bus routes in the inner city are old tram routes.Ai?? The same recommendation was made in Melbourne, but the Cityai??i??s leaders refused to accept it, and they have since moved on to develop and promote their iconic network.
A new integrated Light Rail system cannot be compared with the trams of yesteryear. If the previous network was reinstated it would offer an extremely comprehensive and sensible transport option for Sydney. Given that the new light rail vehicles have a capacity of 200 passengers, 400 million or even 800 million passenger trips a year would be not only feasible but also a practical and efficient way to provide environmentally responsible mass transit.
http://lightrailextension.metrotransport.com.au/myth-busting/
Recent Comments