TransLink looks at higher prices for park-and-ride lots……..When idiots run the show, don’t be surprized………..
Didn’t take long for TransLink to make another cash grab from transit customers. Forgetting that ParkAi??& Rides are supposed to attract customers that would otherwise not take a bus or live to far from convenient transit, TransLink’s bureaucrats continue to blunder on and on with ideas that will only deter ridership.
Tis a very small world TransLink lives in and until TransLink’s bureaucrats are willing to give up their very generous monthly car allowances and other perks and told they must use the transit system as part of their employment contract, little should be heard from them. In fact, we could rid ourselves of TransLink all together and not hinder the transit service one iota. How’s that for saving money!
Just a note, the TransLink Park and ride at the South Delta Exchange is just the parking lot at the South Delta Recreation Centre and it would be very hard indeed to charge for Park & Ride parking.
TransLink looks at higher prices for park-and-ride lots
By Kelly Sinoski, Vancouver SunJune 21, 2012
TransLink is considering charging parking fees at some of its free park-and-ride lots ai??i?? or raising the price at others ai??i??to encourage people to take transit to SkyTrain stations or bus loops instead of driving to them.
The idea, part of a study to determine how the regionai??i??s 19 park-and-ride lots can more efficiently feed into the transit network, could see prices at some lots jump substantially.
TransLink spokesman Jason Martin said no decisions on pricing have yet been made, but acknowledged TransLink could potentially partner with more parking companies, such as Impark, which now charges commuters $6 per day to park at Surreyai??i??s King George SkyTrain station.
By comparison, the South Surrey park-and-ride lot is free, while the Scott Road park-and-ride charges commuters $3 per day. Richmondai??i??s Bridgeport station, which has a partnership with the River Rock Casino, charges $2.50 per day.
ai???Weai??i??re going to look at our strategy overall for park-and-rides,ai??? Martin said, adding there will likely continue to be a range of pricing and partnerships across the regionai??i??s park-and-ride lots.
Charging more at the lots may encourage people to take buses to SkyTrain stations or connecting bus loops, instead of driving to them, he said.
ai???Pricing may be the most efficient way to control demand. If a park-and-ride lot is free we might not be creating the right incentives for people to consider using transit in those areas.ai???
Meanwhile, TransLink is cracking down on illegal parking at the South Surrey park-and-ride, where overcrowding has prompted some drivers to park at curbs, double park, block other cars or park in such a way that prevents buses being able to manoeuvre.
TransLink has had a tow truck on the lot during this weekai??i??s morning rush hours to warn drivers that it will begin towing cars next week.
Martin said the overflow is happening even though the lot was reconfigured recently to increase the parking spaces from 425 to 481.
Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts said the South Surrey park-and-ride has been over-capacity for the past five years, with little being done to improve the problem.
And while she supports getting people out of their cars and onto transit, she doesnai??i??t believe commuters south of the Fraser should be penalized with higher fees because they donai??i??t have the same transit infrastructure as some cities like Vancouver and Burnaby.
ai???All the park-and-rides are busy. When you have a car-dependent community because of lack of transit, you want to do everything you can to encourage people getting out of their cars and taking transit when they can,ai??? Watts said. ai???Until you have an integrated transportation system you can rely on, I donai??i??t think fees should be in place.ai???
Martin said the study, which is expected to be completed within the next six months, will look at where commuters are coming from and where they are parking to develop a strategy that complements the existing transit service.
It may be that some underserved areas need cheaper access to park-and-ride lots, he said, while the prices could increase at lots in transit-dense areas where people live closer to SkyTrain. Martin would not confirm whether TransLink is considering closing certain lots.
He said the increase in traffic at park- and-ride lots is a result of more people taking transit, including those who are catching buses from South Surrey or Ladner and connecting with the Canada Line at Bridgeport.
But he noted it costs TransLink $3,000 to create each parking space and $200 per year to operate it.
ai???Itai??i??s positive people are taking transit but we have to look at what are the value or the cost of park-and-rides,ai??? he said. ai???We understand park-and-rides offer a convenience for customers but it comes at a price.
ai???Itai??i??s a matter of balancing how transit can support park- and-rides but park-and-rides themselves are not an overall solution.ai???
Coquitlam Mayor Richard Stewart said that if transit is made ai???inconvenient enough,ai??? people will continue to drive.
Fees are charged at all West Coast Express station park-and-rides. But park-and-rides at Gleneagles, Westmount, Park Royal mall, Phibbs exchange, Sexsmith, Walnut Grove, Ladner exchange and south Delta exchange are all free.
ksinoski@vancouversun.com
It is interesting how TransLink has used this cunning method of manipulating analysis to justify SkyTrain in corridor after corridor, and has thus succeeded in keeping its proprietary rail system expanding.
The Great transit philosopher’s stone, the Evergreen Line saga continues and it is once again time for Rail for the Valley how suspect TransLink’s business case for the (N)Evergreen Line was.
In, 2008 Gerald Fox, a well known American transit and transportation expert shredded TransLink’s Evergreen Line business case and found it grossly biased in favour for SkyTrain.
It is interesting how TransLink has used this cunning method of manipulating analysis to justify SkyTrain in corridor after corridor, and has thus succeeded in keeping its proprietary rail system expanding.
In other jurisdictions such comments would lead to legal action or an inquiry, but not in BC, where TransLink’s deliberate manipulating of certain facts may have lead to a police investigation of TransLink and its bureaucrats!
I would like to remind Surrey mayor, Dianne Watts, that the very same TransLink bureaucrats are now planning for LRT in Surrey are the very same anti-LRTAi??~ pro-SkyTrain bureaucrats that worked on the Evergreen Line and it is for certain the very same pro-SkyTrain arguments are being made for Surrey!
Nothing less than an audit of TransLink, West coast Mountain Bus and SkyTrain including the Canada line, by BC’s Auditor General, will clear the air. Both the provincial government and TransLink are deathly afraid of this happening as they continue to steamroll one SkyTrain or light-metro project after another on the BC taxpayer.
The following is the Gerald Fox letter of 2008……………..
From: A North-American Rail Expert
Subject: Comments on the Evergreen Line “Business Case”
Date: February 6, 2008
Greetings:
The Evergreen Line Report made me curious as to how TransLink could justify continuing to expand SkyTrain, when the rest of the world is building LRT. So I went back and read the alleged “Business Case” (BC) report in a little more detail. I found several instances where the analysis had made assumptions that were inaccurate, or had been manipulated to make the case for SkyTrain. If the underlying assumptions are inaccurate, the conclusions may be so too. Specifically:
Capacity. A combination of train size and headway. For instance, TriMet’s new “Type 4” Low floor LRVs, arriving later this year, have a rated capacity of 232 per car, or 464 for a 2- car train. (Of course one must also be sure to use the same standee density when comparing car capacity. I don’t know if that was done here). In Portland we operate a frequency of 3 minutes downtown in the peak hour, giving a one way peak hour capacity of 9,280. By next year we will have two routes through downtown, which will eventually load both ways, giving a theoretical peak hour rail capacity of 37,000 into or out of downtown. Of course we also run a lot of buses.
The new Seattle LRT system which opens next year, is designed for 4-car trains, and thus have a peak hour capacity of 18,560. (but doesn’t need this yet, and so shares the tunnel with buses). The Business Case analysis assumes a capacity of 4,080 for LRT, on the Evergreen Line which it states is not enough, and compares it to SkyTrain capacity of 10400.!
Speed. The analysis states the maximum LRT speed is 60 kph. (which would be correct for the street sections) But most LRVs are actually designed for 90 kph. On the Evergreen Line, LRT could operate at up to 90 where conditions permit, such as in the tunnels, and on protected ROW. Most LRT systems pre-empt most intersections, and so experience little delay at grade crossings. (Our policy is that the trains stop only at stations, and seldom experience traffic delays. It seems to work fine, and has little effect on traffic.) There is another element of speed, which is station access time. At-grade stations have less access time. This was overlooked in the analysis.
Also, on the NW alignment, the SkyTrain proposal uses a different, faster, less-costly alignment to LRT proposal. And has 8 rather than 12 stations. If LRT was compared on the alignment now proposed for SkyTrain, it would go faster, and cost less than the Business Case report states!
Cost. Here again, there seems to be some hidden biases. As mentioned above, on the NW Corridor, LRT is costed on a different alignment, with more stations. The cost difference between LRT and SkyTrain presented in the Business Case report is therefore misleading. If they were compared on identical alignments, with the same number of stations, and designed to optimize each mode, the cost advantage of LRT would be far greater. I also suspect that the basic LRT design has been rendered more costly by requirements for tunnels and general design that would not be found on more cost-sensitive LRT projects.
Then there are the car costs. Last time I looked, the cost per unit of capacity was far higher for SkyTrain. Also,it takes about 2 SkyTrain cars to match the capacity of one LRV. And the grade-separated SkyTrain stations are far most costly and complex than LRT stations. Comparing 8 SkyTrain stations with 12 LRT stations also helps blur the distinction.
Ridership. Is a function of many factors. The Business Case report would have you believe that type of rail mode alone, makes a difference (It does in the bus vs rail comparison, according to the latest US federal guidelines). But, on the Evergreen Line, I doubt it. What makes a difference is speed, frequency (but not so much when headways get to 5 minutes), station spacing and amenity etc. Since the speed, frequency and capacity assumptions used in the Business Case are clearly inaccurate, the ridership estimates cannot be correct either. There would be some advantage if SkyTrain could avoid a transfer. If the connecting system has capacity for the extra trains. But the case is way overstated.
And nowhere is it addressed whether the Evergreen Line, at the extremity of the system, has the demand for so much capacity and, if it does, what that would mean on the rest of the system if feeds into?
Innuedos about safety, and traffic impacts, seem to be a big issue for SkyTrain proponents, but are solved by the numerous systems that operate new LRT systems (i.e., they can’t be as bad as the SkyTrain folk would like you to believe).
I’ve no desire to get drawn into the Vancouver transit wars, and, anyway, most of the rest of the world has moved on. To be fair, there are clear advantages in keeping with one kind of rail technology, and in through-routing service at Lougheed. But, eventually, Vancouver will need to adopt lower-cost LRT in its lesser corridors, or else limit the extent of its rail system. And that seems to make some TransLink people very nervous.
It is interesting how TransLink has used this cunning method of manipulating analysis to justify SkyTrain in corridor after corridor, and has thus succeeded in keeping its proprietary rail system expanding. In the US, all new transit projects that seek federal support are now subjected to scrutiny by a panel of transit peers, selected and monitored by the federal government, to ensure that projects are analysed honestly, and the taxpayers’ interests are protected. No SkyTrain project has ever passed this scrutiny in the US.
Victoria
But the BIG DEAL for Victoria is: If the Business Case analysis were corrected to fix at least some of the errors outlined above, the COST INCREASE from using SkyTrain on the Evergreen Line will be comparable to the TOTALCOST of a modest starter line in Victoria. This needs to come to the attention of the Province. Victoria really does deserve better. Please share these thoughts as you feel appropriate.
A Tale of Two Bridges: Pattullo survey in New West opposes six lane replacement
It seems the good burghers in New Westminster do not want a mega bridge dumping traffic into their city.
In the 1970’s, the GVRD (pre-METRO Vancouver days) proposed a new six lane bridge, with two lift spans for railways,Ai?? plus two light rail lines to replace replacing the decrepit Fraser River Rail bridge and the Pattullo Bridge. Today, we still have the now decrepit Pattullo Bridge, the even more decrepit Fraser river Rail Bridge and the now twenty year old SkyBridge for the SkyTrain light metro for its short run into Surrey.
The problem with the SkyTrain Skybridge is that Surrey doesn’t want SkyTrain, rather Surrey wants LRT, thus making the SkyTrain Skybridge somewhat a white elephant as it can’t be used for anything but SkyTrain!
Zweisystem has a solution; TransLink should design and buildAi??aAi?? combined road/rail bridge to replace both the aged Fraser River Rail and the Pattullo road bridges. The design could be a modified GVRD 1970’s bridge with a modern 4 trafficAi??lanes, generousAi??pedestrian/bicycle lanes and a three track lift span for the railways.
Such a bridge would allow modern LRT to directly access downtown Vancouver at least 20 minutes faster than taking SkyTrain from Scott Road Station. Allowing light rail, operating as TramTrain,Ai??to trackshare with the mainline railways would mean faster travelling times for transit customers and according to TransLink, the faster one can travel via transit, the more people will use the service!
A three track lift spanAi??would allow many trains to use the bridge at the same time, without conflict and with modern technology, a modern lift span can be raised and lowered in about 90 seconds, minimising disruption of rail traffic, while keeping the waterway open for ever less shipping traffic on the Fraser River.
The problem is that TransLink is not interested,Ai??instead planners spend their times planning for ever more expensive light metro construction or road only bridges. The fear Zwei has, that in 20 years, we will have the aged white elephant, the SkyTrainAi??Skybridge, a white elephant six lane car bridge replacing the Pattullo Bridge and an even more decrepit Fraser River Rail Bridge or a single track lashup if the bridge falls into the river, all being a monument to TransLink’s myopic planners of today.
From radio News 1130
Pattullo survey in New West opposes six lane replacement
Andrew Hopkins Jun 19, 2012
NEW WESTMINSTER (NEWS1130) –
The mayor of New Westminster says TransLinkAi??is offering his city more input on what a new Pattullo Bridge might look like. New Westminster council has a problem with the current focus on building a six lane replacement to help you get across the Fraser River.
Mayor Wayne Wright says at city-run open houses earlier this year they collected feedback from the public. He says almost everyone they heard from was against jumping from four lanes to six. He believes roads through his city won’t be able to handle the increase in traffic that could result.
“We are at capacity as we speak, anything that we add to it now will just cause more congestion everywhere, so that came out very strong from everyone that was on this side, and I think people who realistically look at it from any point of view, will see it,” says Wright.
He adds a letter to council from TransLink now suggests the authority is willing to review all the options with the city.
Councillor Jonathan Cote says that has him feeling a little more positive about the project’s future. He believes the letter shows TransLink may be willing to reconsider the six lane proposal.
“Indicating that they’re open to have dialogue with both New Westminster and Surrey, and that they’re willing to put back on the table the location of the bridge and also the lane capacity,” says Cote.
He hopes discussions will lead to a solution that can handle the region’s needs, without hurting New Westminster.
Wright says he’s anxious to see how TransLink plans to get six lanes of bridge traffic through New West.
The city says it won’t be able to handle the increase in traffic
384510 COM Customer Service Report – Report of low ridership in bus service across the Golden Ears Bridge
Zwei receives many copies letters about transit concerns in Metro Vancouver and the Fraser Valley, but my focus is on the ‘Community‘ Bus Servcies or “C” routes.
It has bee Zwei’s contention that the ‘Community‘ buses or ‘C‘ bus services were a sop for the lower Fraser Valley politicians so they would approve the hugely expensive Canada line in a sort of cake for Vancouver and crumbs for the Fraser Valley routine.
South Delta is another example of Community Bus nonsense as both the local “C” routes and the 609 bus (locally known as the Wally Wagon) carry less than 20 passengers a day,Ai?? yet operate at a hourly or better headways. Why doesAi??TransLink insist in operating the three bus services?
Transit is at a crossroad, does TransLink continue with the dated SkyTrain light metro model with scores of bus routes feeding the metro and a second grade of buses operating ‘community services’, or a ridership based transit servcie operating the appropriate transit mode (LRT or bus) on routes that justify transit such service?
TransLink’s current planning is the status quo, providing a Vancouver centric transit service,Ai??with a new light metro line built every decade and a transit system that is used mainly by students, the elderly and the poor. The rest of TransLink’s little fiefdom get nothing but crumbs.
You are quite correct that bus usage in Langley is abysmally low.Ai?? Whenever I see a bus, I see lots of empty seats, just like you.Ai?? The past three Saturdays, I have taken Route C62 from downtown Langley to Fort Langley, and at every occasion, shared the shuttle bus with 2 other passengers.Ai?? All three of us got on at Logan Crescent and got off at Glover Road and 96 Avenue, so I guess the buses continue empty to Walnut Grove.Ai?? As member of PTAT in 2000-2001, (the Public Transit Advisory Task Force that came up with the idea of shuttle buses for Langley, (all the C-buses), together with Paul Cordeiro of the ToL and Bill Lambert of TransLink), I would like to reiterate my concerns at that time: that ridership would be quite low.Ai?? That may even have been recorded in the Minutes.
Average Load 8 (passengers) is shown on the Attachment for Route C62.Ai?? And Average Load 2 (passengers for Route 61 is even lower – see Attachment.
Last Saturday, the fare box was covered by a tarp; the bus driver said that it was “out or order” and all three passengers had a free ride.Ai??Ai?? Is that their way of doing business?Ai?? So even the new statistics would record that as 0 passengers and 0 revenue.Ai?? Or that run is judt deleted from the date base.Ai?? But it costs money…..
I detect (and detest) the gall that TransLink has to thank you for “taking an interest in the efficiency of the transit network”.Ai?? Just astounding.Ai??Ai?? Why?Ai??Ai?? Because you had clearly commented on their inefficiency, when you wrote:
Gentlemen,
Why are large buses being used to link Langley to Maple Ridge?Ai?? I have seen at most eight passengers on board – at any time of the day.Ai?? Most of the number of passengers is less than six.Ai?? I have seen buses travelling along 2000th Street without any passengers.
Question – does TransLink monitor the usage of their bus services? Is anybody checking whether the use of such large buses is warranted on your routes? Would smaller busses not be more appropriate for this route?
Would a taxi service perhaps be more appropriate?Ai?? I remind you of TransLink’s commitment under the Emission Policy heading -Ai?? *Ai?? TransLink is uniquely positioned to help reduce emission impacts that occur with the transportation of people and goods, andAi?? *Ai?? Implement transportation demand management strategies and programs.
Awaiting a reply, I remain,Ai?? yours truly,Ai?? B.C. (Chris) Schneider
And they, they did not even really respond to your real question, about passenger loads over the Golden Ears Bridge.Ai??Ai?? They only discussed ridership on 200 Street, where the 501 and 590 buses share the route with the 595.Ai?? If anything, the 595 should be a type of “express”, not stopping at all bus stops along that route.Ai?? They stated:
If you look at the route-by-route summaries, youai??i??ll see that the 501, 590, and 595 services along 200th street experience average peak passenger loads in the range of 27 to 32. This is above what can be accommodated on a minibus (~20). While these peaks are generally not reached along 200th street, vehicles on these routes need to be able to accommodate them.
Their statistics about Route 595 did not even show how many people crosssed the mighty Fraser River by bus.Ai?? I think they do not want to share these very low numbers.Ai?? With the Albion Ferry, at least there were statistics – as it was mostly full and there were lineups of cars, lots of bicycles and the odd pedestrian.Ai?? Saturday afternoon, after my 4 hour shift as “Station Agent” at the Fort Langley CN Station, Lydia and I drove down to the south ferry landing.Ai?? The bus shelter that was built there, is still in existence, but almost falling apart.Ai?? If that ferry with good transit connections at both ends had still existed, it would have been nice to go to Maple Ridge by bus/ferry.
I went to Maple Ridge a week or so ago, for the first time in more than a year, and I found the concrete deck of the Golden Ears Bridge less than smooth.Ai?? I do not know if it is deteriorating, as I have only crossed it a total number of 7 times since fares started.
Keep on plodding and eventually, the truth will come out that this Golden Ears Bridge is a “loss leader”.Ai?? The Fort Langley Community Association may also find this interesting – and disturbing.
Editorial: Less parking, more transit a winning duo – The Van Sun’s Editors still do not get it!
Today’s editorial in the Vancouver Sun, may seem to many that the Editors support more transit, but I think not. What we see is the beginning of the soft sell for higher regionalAi??taxes to pay for a Broadway subway and other Vancouver oriented transit investment.
The war on the car and now the reduction of city parking underlines as a means to improve transit, may resound with the Vision Vancouver crowd, but in the long run will do little to improve transit and the war on the car may exacerbate the regional transit fiasco, by driving businesses out of ‘transit rich’ Vancouver to more car friendly, but less accessible realms outside the city.
There is a solution and the solution has proven itself over and over again and it is called light rail. Modern LRT provides both an environmentally sound and a financially affordable solution for our traffic woes in the city. Unlike the hugely expensive SkyTrain and Canada Line min-metros, modern LRT can provide the benefits of ‘rail’ transit, at a cost that the local taxpayer can afford. Being easy to use and providing a quality transit service, modern LRT naturally attracts the motorist from the car.
The problem of course is with the SkyTrain Lobby and Vancouver’s perverse politics, which subscribes to the notion that; “being the centre of the universe (well BC actually), regional taxpayers must be expected to pay for extremely expensive light-metro, operating in subways preferably, to make Vancouver a world class city.” That modern LRT has all but made light-metro obsolete many decades ago is not mentioned in Vancouver’s quest for more and more expensive subway construction.
The Vancouver Sun’s Editorial Board should entertain a mea culpa, with SkyTrain and light metro and offer an editorial something like this; “Modern Light Rail Is The Way to Go“, but like the City of Vancouver, failure to admit to past mistakes, means that the SkyTrain and TransLink shell game will continue, to the detriment of car drivers and the taxpayer.
Editorial: Less parking, more transit a winning duo
Cars are expensive. They are expensive to buy, expensive to drive and expensive to park, especially when land is scarce as it is in the heart of cities.
Increasingly, people who have access to good transit are deciding they can do without a car and all of its related costs.
In addition, cars are losing their status with young people.
A recent study in the U.S. found the percentage of 16-year-olds who have driverai??i??s licences fell by a third between 1983 and 2008, as what was once a near-universal rite of passage has lost some of its urgency.
We think itai??i??s too early to pronounce that what we are seeing is the end of the age of the car, as Vancouver councillor Geoff Meggs hopefully suggests.
But these trends can have significant benefits for Vancouver and the people who live in the Lower Mainland if they are incorporated into city planning.
A recent study conducted by Metro Vancouver found a significant amount ai??i?? 18 to 35 per cent ai??i?? of unused parking in apartment buildings.
Providing parking is expensive. According to the report, a single parking space costs $20,000 to $45,000. In a city with few options for lowering the cost of new housing, that represents a significant opportunity if condominiums can be built and sold without the assumption that every new owner will have a car.
In addition, the report found that renters often do not use available parking since fewer renters than owners have a personal vehicle, but they have to pay for it anyway since it is built into the costs. Thatai??i??s a waste.
The report suggests that developers should be allowed to reduce the amount of parking they are required to provide for a new development, especially in areas that are well served by transit.
That makes sense. Developers report that there is a strong market for units that do not have parking, particularly among young buyers. In a market as expensive as Vancouver, cutting costs at the entry level should be considered a priority.
In Toronto, city council recently approved a condominium tower that has no parking, other than for bicycles.
Weai??i??re not sure weai??i??re there yet. These projects should be looked at on an individual basis, taking into account the effect of available street parking in the neighbourhood and the access to transit.
At the same time changes to parking requirements are being considered, city planners should be looking at harvesting some of the savings that can be realized as a result to pay for the thing that makes them possible ai??i?? access to transit.
TransLink is struggling to come up with the money needed to service the growing demand on existing and new routes.
At the same time, the provision of transit creates value that can be realized by increasing allowable housing density along transit routes.
If the people attracted by the proximity to transit can then get the benefits of not having to pay for a parking stall that they donai??i??t need, that value is multiplied.
While care will be needed not to kill the golden goose, some of that increased value should then be able to be diverted to paying for transit in what can become a virtuous circle.
Better transit should lead to lower costs and higher values. That creates more revenue for transit.
Given the resistance to raising revenue through traditional means, higher fares, property and other taxes, civic politicians should be breaking down doors to get at what could be a winning formula.
Light Rail for Surrey The WKW Line ai??i?? A Rerun from May 2011
It has been over one year since this post was printed and in that year nothing of substance has been done.
In the lower mainland, transit is designed to increase density, thus increasing property values and profits for friends of the government at the expense of the taxpayer.
The same is true forLRT/streetcar for Surrey. Having TransLink do light rail planning is a major mistake, as TransLink has no experience with modern light rail, nor cares to, preferring to plan for much more prestigious SkyTrain and/or light metro. TransLink’s LRT planning for Surrey and for Broadway (in Vancouver)Ai??is extremely weak and seems to be designed to fail from the onset. This would, of course, make the SkyTrain lobby very happy indeed, asAi??the SkyTrain lobbyAi??is growing more and moreAi??desperate because as SkyTrain design has stagnated for the past twenty years, yet modern LRT is evolving with new ideas and applications, such as TramTrain, that makes the grade separated SkyTrain (and Canada Line) mini-metros seemAi??very dated indeed.
What Surrey needs is a bold new vision for modern LRT and I believe the WKW Line or a close variant would provide the impetus to implement a strategic and affordable light rail network for the lower mainland. Failure to do so and continue with the hugely expensive SkyTrain light-metro, will beggar the region, driving out business and residents alike, leaving Metro Vancouver a ghetto for the wealthy and the poor.
LIGHT RAIL FOR SURREY ai??i?? The Whalley ai??i?? King George ai??i?? White Rock (WKW) Line
Posted by zweisystem on Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Surrey wants light rail, but where will the first LRT line go and what line would attract the most customers to the new light rail line?
If the goal of the new light rail line is to serve customer needs and offer the ability to provide an attractive alternative to the car, it must serve a multitude of destinations. Those presently planning for LRT doAi??not much expertise and tend to treat the mode as a poor manai??i??s SkyTrain. Building LRT as an extension of the SkyTrain light-metro system will fail to meet expectations as LRT will not be designed to its best advantage. It is not ai???rocket scienceai??i?? to design a transit line to be an attractive alternative to the car and the following plan may prove useful.
The Light Rail Line
The 23 kilometer Whalley ai??i?? King George ai??i?? Rail for the Valley ai??i?? White Rock line (WKW Line for short) may be just the trick in laying a foundation for an attractive light rail system in Surrey. The light rail would be a classic LRT, operating on a ai???reserved rights-of-way’ (RoW) in the median of the roads involved.
The route of the WKW Line would start at Gateway SkyTrain station at 108th Ave & 134th St. and continue a short distance east (500 m) to the King George Highway, From the KGV Hwy and 108th St, the KWK Line would travel South (7.5 km) to the Southern RR of BC (formerly the BC Hydro R.R.), running in the median of the KGV highway. This portion of the route would service the Central City shopping district; Surrey Memorial Hospital; Queen Elizabeth Secondary School; Bear Creek Park; and the Newton shopping district.
The WKW Line would then network south-east along the former BCE interurban and proposed Valley Rail Vancouver to Chilliwack TramTrain route to 152nd (4 km). Traveling mainly through industrial lands, which would provide the ideal location for the Light Rail storage and maintenance yards. The 4 km. of track involved would be double tracked and adequately signaled for safe freight/Interurban/tram operation.
There is the possibility of futureAi??joint operation with the RftV/Leewood interurban, enabling South Surrey and White Rock transit customer’s to continue on the Scott Station or even into downtown Vancouver, if the ai???full buildai??? RftV/Leewood Interurban project is built.
From 152nd Street, the KWK Line would go straight south to White Rock (11 km) crossing the Nicomakle /Serpentine River valley basin. Along here the line must be raised above flood plain and three new bridges across the Superport Railway Line, and the Serpentine and Nicomakle rivers must be built. It is this portion of line that will be the most expensive.
Rising out of the small river valley the KWK Line would continue south along 152nd Ave., terminating in downtown White Rock.
Map of South Surrey & the City of White Rock
In the summer, the light rail line would bring congestion relief to White Rock by providing a quality transit alternative for the many thousands of people who come in cars to the popular beaches. Also close to the KWK Line is the South Surrey Athletic fields, which many fields and arenas are constantly busy with hockey, baseball, soccer, rugby, and football games, twelve months of the year. The KWK Line would also provide an excellent transportation access for the burgeoning housing estates in South Surrey and White Rock.
The Cost
The the total cost of the KWK Line, including bridges and/or viaducts should cost no more than $690 million, based on an average of $30 million/km to build. The high cost of major engineering in the Nicomakle/Serpentine valley, would be mitigated by simple on-street construction on 152nd and the King George Highway and track sharing for 4 km on the Southern Railway of BC Line bisecting Surrey .
It is interesting to note that the total cost for the 98 km RftV/Leewood Chilliwack to Scott Road Interurban using Diesel LRT and the 23 km KWK Line would be under $1.2 billion or put another way we could build 121 km of modern LRT lines in the Fraser Valley for $200 million cheaper than the 11 km Evergreen Line!
Unlike present light rail planning, where development is encouraged to take place along a LRT/SkyTrain route, the KWK Line can pass through sensitive agriculture and ecological areas, without the need to densify along its entire route. By building the KWK Line a potential capacity of 20,000 persons per hour per direction is available to handle future passenger loads, yet still can be built much cheaper than its Skytrain/light-metro competitors. The cost for a SkyTrain along the KWK Line? About $2.3 billion at a conservative cost of $100 million per km to build!
A modern LRT Line in Madrid, Spain ai??i?? A template for the WKW Line?
The WKW Line will provide a high capacity light rail line with a potential of carrying over 20,000 persons per hour per direction, without increasing road space. Using low-floor trams, with convenient stops, ensures an obstacle free journey for all transit customers, including the mobility impaired, without the need of expensive stations and equally expensive to maintain elevators and escalators.
The KWK Line can provide traffic calming where needed, yet still supply ample capacity for future transit needs. By providing a regular and efficient transit service from White Rock to Surrey Central and servicing many destinations along its route, would attract ample ridership, including the all important motorist from the car, to the new light rail line. The KWK Line would also easily integrate with the RftV TramTrain interurban service from Vancouver to Chilliwack and could provide in the not too distant future a direct White Rock to Vancouver TramTrain service, faster than the present bus and Canada line service.
The WKW Line would bring 21st century transit solutions to Surrey, transit solutions that are too long overdo.
A Poll That TransLink Wishes To Suppress
Reprinted from May 2010
A very strange thing happened yesterday with ‘Zwei’. When I was discussing a transit matter with an US transit type about the RAV/Canada line. He told me that TransLink officials claimed that over 80% of Vancouverites supported RAV and if it were not for the high costs of the metro, many more metro type transit systems would have been built in the USA.
I replied that “Well no; TransLink likes to claim 80% support, but their polling results are questionable.”
I have dug up the following 2004 contrary poll from Robbins Research and emailed it to him and I thought it should be posted on RFV as well. What is interesting is that there is such a wide gap between this poll and TransLink’s claims.
With the Broadway Follies now in full swing, it must be remembered that what TransLink claims, isn’t necessarily true and that we should treat what TransLinkAi?? or Vancouver City bureaucrats claim about public support for SkyTrain, the RAV/Canada Line and the upcoming,Ai?? SkyTrain Broadway ‘Rapid Transit’ Line as we would treat a Nigerian Email.
- What the SkyTrain lobby really wants.
From Robbins Sce Research
http://www.robbinssceresearch.com/
| A random sample of 405 Vancouverites on May 14, 2004, It features a margin or error of 4.2%, 18 times out of 20, @97% competency. |
| Question #1Recently, the Board of Directors of Translink voted down RAV, with the opposing votes claiming that it was too costly, and that it may ultimately overburden taxpayers. Do you agree with THIS opposition to RAV? |
| Yes | 72.6 % | |
| No | 27.4 % |
| Question #2Would you regularly use light rapid transit between Vancouver-Richmond and/or the Vancouver Airport? |
| Yes | 35.3% | |
| No | 64.7% |
| Question #3How likely would you be to EVER use a light rapid transit means of transportation between Vancouver/Richmond and/or the Vancouver Airport? |
| Very Likely | 33.6% | |
| Likely | 10.7% | |
| Not very likely at all | 55.8% |
| Question #4The Vancouver Board of Trade, The BC Business Council, Premier Gordon Campbell, and Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon are all demanding that the Translink Board reconsider their vote on RAV. Mayor Larry Campbell voted for RAV, Vancouver City Councilors David Cadman and Raymond Louie voted against the proposed RAV. Whose position do you agree with? |
| Vancouver Mayor Larry Campbell | 31.4% | |
| Vancouver Councilors David Cadman and Raymond Louie | 68.7% |
| Question #5In your opinion, what direction should Translink now take with respect to light rapid transit between Vancouver-Richmond and the Vancouver Airport? |
| Scrap the whole concept, we don’t really need it and its all too expensive | 14.9% | |
| We should construct light rapid transit between Vancouver Richmond and the Airport for under 1 billion dollars with NO cost overruns to be born by the taxpayer | 81.8% | |
| We should construct the original RAV line for between 1.5 billion and 2 billion dollars just as was planned | 3.5% |
Commentary |
| Commentary-No matter how you choose to look at the light rapid transit issue between Vancouver Richmond and the Airport, it is clear that the original E?Cadillac” RAV must be kept off the table for ever. Its too expensive, and taxpayers do not want to be exposed to additional taxes owing to cost overruns. |
| It is obvious there is a need to light rapid transit to the airport; however it remains interesting how many respondents who said they would use RAV want to know what they would do with their luggage. This is the same question which was raised by Airport workers in a previous poll of Richmond residents. |
| Media coverage of last weeks loss on the RAV vote, including Surrey Mayor and Translink Chair Doug McCallum, Vancouver Board of Trade and BC Business Council representatives, Rezac and Lampert, Premier Gordon Campbell and Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon, complaining about the outcome is becoming very offensive to right thinking British Columbians. It is abundantly clear that these individuals are not thinking in the interests of the citizens they purport to represent, or in the case of the two special interest representatives, ANY voting citizens. |
| Why do the media persist in speaking to special interest groups on subjects that those groups or organizations have no democratic interest in? I put the same criticism on the Canadian Taxpayers Association debating with H.E.U. members. This RAV debate if not modified to a dialogue that makes sense to the voter, and the consumer, runs the risk of further turning this province into a political Ozark. Mr. Falcon’s comments that 80% of the public want RAV are dishonest.http://www.robbinssceresearch.com/polls/poll_71.html |
The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
This post, first appeared in 2010, yet the very same problems exist withAi??Trans Link today.
In the Vancouver regional area, change happens at a glacial pace.
The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree ai??i?? TransLink’s Regional Transit Planning
Posted by zweisystem on Wednesday, October 13, 2010 – reprinted May 30, 2012
Fruit of the poisonous tree is a legal metaphor in the United States used to describe evidence that is obtained illegally.The logic of the terminology is that if the source of the evidence (the ai???treeai???) is tainted, then anything gained from it (the ai???fruitai???) is as well.
TransLinkai??i??s planning officials still maintain that modern light Rail has a limited capacity of about 10,000 persons per hour per direction and refuse to entertain the fact that they are wrong. All of TransLink planning, including the RAV/Canada Line, theAi?? Evergreen line, the Broadway/UBC rapid transit line, and Fraser Valley transportation have assumed LRTai??i??s seemingly inferior capacity and despite the fact that modern LRT can carry in excess of 20,000 pphpd, have portrayed LRT as a poormanai??i??s SkyTrain.
The assumption that light rail has only a capacity of 10,000 pphpd is wrong.
The Light Rail Transit Association [ www.lrta.org ], which can trace its history back 63 years, which has continually campaigned for affordable and efficient public transit, defines light rail transit as:
ai???a steel wheel on steel rail transit mode, that can deal economically with traffic flows of between 2,000 and 20,000 passengers per hour per direction, thus effectively bridging the gap between the maximum flow that can be dealt with using buses and the minimum that justifies a metro.ai???
The following study from the LRTA, shows that even in 1986, it was generally understood that modern LRT could carry 20,000 pphpd.
http://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/2010/05/20/the-1986-lrta-study-bus-lrt-metro-comparison/
More recently, (2006) Calgary Transit LRT Technical Data page claims that the maximum theoretical capacity of the C-Train is 30,700 pphpd!
Maximum THEORETICAL single direction capacity (pass./hr/dir) at 256 pass./car and 2 min. headway:
3-car train 23,040
4-car train 30,720http://www.calgarytransit.com/html/technical_information.html
If TransLinkai??i??s basic assumption about light rail (including streetcar) is wrong, then TransLinkai??i??s entire planning history, regarding bus, LRT, and SkyTrain is wrong and is not worth the paper it is printed on. Yet TransLink, without any public scrutiny and very little political oversight, continues to plan for hugely expensive SkyTrain light-metro projects, which supposed support for, has been heavily biased by questionable studies andAi?? even more questionable tactics ai??i?? all fruit from the poisonous tree!
Noted American transportation expert Gerald Fox, summed up his observations on the TransLink business case for the Evergreen line;
ai???It is interesting how TransLink has used this cunning method of manipulating analysis to justify SkyTrain in corridor after corridor, and has thus succeeded in keeping its proprietary rail system expanding.ai???
Has TransLinkai??i??s regional transit planning over the past ten years nothing more than ai???Fruit of the poisonous tree?ai???, based on the fact that TransLinkai??i??s bureaucrats desired that light rail (LRT) be seen inferior to SkyTrain, on paper, to ensure further planning and building of their cherished light metro system?
Rail for the Valley would welcome TransLinkai??i??s clarification on this issue!
Eric Chris Responds to the SkyTrain Lobby
Eric Chris also respondsAi??to Mr. Cruz’s letter to the Langley Advance.
Lies becoming believable
Langley AdvanceMayAi?? 29, 2012
Dear Editor,
The unbelievable posting [SkyTrain boosting profits, May 24 Letters,Ai?? www.langleyadvance.com] from SkyTrain for Surrey, the friends of TransLink, leftAi?? me disgusted.
Profits for SkyTrain are better than ever, say friends of TransLink, which isAi?? decimated financially and in ruins from spending on SkyTrain.
Friends of TransLink are contradicting the findings of the efficiency reviewAi?? of TransLink by Shirocca Consulting in March 2012.
Have you taken a look at the efficiency review of TransLink by ShiroccaAi?? Consulting? According to Shirocca Consulting, TransLink is the worst performingAi?? transit organization compared in Canada and has disappointing ridership inAi?? relation to other transit organizations in Canada. Moreover, TransLink has theAi?? highest transit fares of all transit organizations compared in Canada.Ai?? SkyTrainAi?? debt by TransLink is such a money drain that TransLink is raising fares by 10%Ai?? as soon as it can despite transit users already paying the highest fares inAi?? Canada.
An inordinate number of transit buses are tied up shuttling passengers to andAi?? from distantly spaced SkyTrain and B-Line stops.Ai?? As a result, there aren’tAi?? enough transit buses to go around in Metro Vancouver.Ai?? This has made transitAi?? service inadequate in Vancouver, Delta, Surrey… Langley.Ai?? Moreover, frequentAi?? transit service in Vancouver means fewer buses for Delta, Surrey… Langley.Ai??Ai?? Too much frequent and late night transit service in Vancouver also results inAi?? many empty buses and increased pollution.
TransLink CEO, Ian Jarvis is steering transit into an abyss with moreAi?? SkyTrain and diesel bus rapid transit (express 99 B-Line, in particular).Ai?? YouAi?? can’t operate an efficient transit organization and take cars off the roads withAi?? SkyTrains and B-Lines which have their stops located 30 minutes apart by foot.Ai??Ai?? Elevated transit (SkyTrain) with distantly spaced stops and express B-LineAi?? service with limited stops are barriers to transit use.Ai?? People prefer not toAi?? transfer from local buses onto regional B-LineAi?? and regional SkyTrain.
Unless you happen to live next to a SkyTrain or B-Line stop (few do), theAi?? overall commuting time is longer on SkyTrain or B-Line transit with the extraAi?? local bus transfer than on LRT, trolley bus transit or streetcar transit withAi?? closely spaced stops to make walking to the transit stop possible.Ai?? You are lessAi?? likely to use transit with SkyTrain or B-Line service than to use transit withAi?? LRT , trolley bus or streetcar service.
The net prevent value cost of SkyTrain is three to five times more than theAi?? net present value cost of at grade LRT when all costs are considered – and notAi?? just the costs considered and reported by TransLink.Ai?? In net present valueAi?? dollars with all costs considered (maintenance, interest, supporting buses_Ai?? control room operators), it costs $100 million per kilometre for LRT and $300Ai?? million to $500 million per kilometre for SkyTrain.Ai?? Inept accounts andAi?? economists at TransLink are not design engineers and do not understand the totalAi?? cost of SkyTrain or are lying to under report the ultimate net present valueAi?? cost of SkyTrain – $5.5 billion or more for the 11 kilometre SkyTrain line toAi?? Coquitlam.
This is the reason for the ongoing financial distress of TransLink -Ai?? TransLink is not reporting the true net present value cost of SkyTrain.Ai??Ai?? Reported SkyTrain costs by TransLink do not include ancillary costs such as allAi?? the diesel buses and drivers necessary to shuttle passengers to the SkyTrainAi?? stations.Ai?? City of Edmonton transportation engineers who are competent andAi?? honest do not consider SkyTrain to be the best choice for transit and preferAi?? LRT.
TransLink is the self-proclaimed greatest transit organization in CanadaAi?? despite being the lousiest in the opinion of most experts who are knowledgeableAi?? about transit.Ai?? How can the accountants and economists at TransLink be rightAi?? about SkyTrain and all the engineers who run transit in the rest of Canada beAi?? wrong?Ai?? Who is more competent and believable, an accountant or economist whoAi?? doesn’t understand how things work or an engineer with 12 calculus courses toAi?? his or her credit?
I do have one question – TransLink has shunned the results of the efficiencyAi?? review by Shirocca Consulting in March 2012 and has been creating distractionsAi?? in the media (fare evasion and transit police costs) to focus attention awayAi?? from TransLink being such a miserable failure.Ai?? Any thoughts on the reason forAi?? this?
I suspect the following – transit by TransLink is a sordid affair.Ai?? Possibly,Ai?? developers with ties to organized crime are using SkyTrain as a tool to tearAi?? down homes for the developers to build condos with laundered drug money.Ai??Ai?? Perhaps, politicians who are supporting TransLink (Mayor Peter Fassbender ofAi?? Langley City, for instance) in the media are either corrupt or dumb.
If you repeat the lie of SkyTrain by TransLink being more economical andAi?? having more ridership than LRT, trolley bus transit or streetcar transit, soonerAi?? or later people start to believe it.
TransLink is one huge sham.
Rail for the Valley Rsponds to the SkyTrain Lobby
Malcolm Johnston, from Rail for the Valley responds to Mr. Cruz’s pro-SkyTrain letter from last week.
Transportation: LRT beats SkyTrain, hands down
Langley AdvanceMayAi?? 29, 2012Dear Editor,
I read in absolute amazement a letter full of invented and twisted facts by aAi?? Mr. Cruz, supporting SkyTrain [SkyTrain boosting profits, May 24 Letters,Ai?? www.langleyadvance.com]. I shouldn’t be surprised, as it is typical SkyTrainAi?? lobby bumf.
The letter was so full of hype and hoopla about SkyTrain that it is hard toAi?? know where to begin, except to point out that modern LRT made SkyTrain obsoleteAi?? two decades ago, and no one buys SkyTrain anymore, due to its extremely highAi?? construction and operating costs.
Only seven SkyTrain type systems have been built, under three marketingAi?? names, Intermediate Capacity Transit System (ICTS), Advanced Light Rail TransitAi?? (ALRT), and now Advanced Rapid Transit (ART).
During the same period almost 150 new LRT systems have been built.
To claim that LRT has higher maintenance and operation costs has noAi?? foundation, and the opposite is true, SkyTrain costs much more to maintain andAi?? operate than LRT.
Instead of drivers, SkyTrain has attendants – more than 250 of them at lastAi?? count.
The SkyTrain cars also cost more to maintain than modern LRV’s. Again, no oneAi?? buys SkyTrain anymore.
To compare SkyTrain with Portland’s LRT shows Mr. Cruz’s extreme bias.Ai?? Portland’s 84 km. MAX LRT with 85 stations, now carries more than 128,000 ridersAi?? daily, less ridership than SkyTrain, due to the different demographics of theAi?? city, and not transit mode.
MAX’s lower commercial speed of 34.1 km/h can be attributed to on-streetAi?? (streetcar) operation through Portland’s downtown, but on portions of line,Ai?? speeds of 90 km/h are permissible.
The lower frequencies for MAX are for off-peak services, and if demandAi?? warrants, more trains can be operated, as in peak-hour service.
In Europe, LRT 30-second headways during peak hours are not uncommon.
It should be remembered that Portland’s transit authorities rejected SkyTrainAi?? and opted to build with LRT because SkyTrain was too expensive to build andAi?? operate.
SkyTrain was designed to replace LRT, but was made obsolete by LRT due toAi?? LRT’s inherent flexibility as it can operate as a simple streetcar, aAi?? light-metro like SkyTrain, and a passenger train, and combine all modes on oneAi?? route.
Mr. Cruz should answer this one question: “After being on the market for overAi?? 33 years and during an era in unprecedented growth of urban transit systems,Ai?? only seven SkyTrain type systems have been built: why?”
The answer is simple, and TransLink is now facing the consequences ofAi?? building SkyTrain, as its huge cost of construction and much higher maintenanceAi?? and operation costs are now beggaring the transit authority.
Malcolm Johnston, Rail for the Valley
Recent Comments