TransLink and the Canada Line – The real story

The following was emailed to me last night and contains some explosive comments about TransLink and the RAV/Canada Line.

Rand Chatterjee is one of the very few people who took the time to research the cost of the RAV/Canada Line and he clearly understands the nuances of the P-3 contract and the negative impact on the taxpayer.

Zwei has been onto the TransLink/Canada Line game since its inception and it is very good to see other people now very interested at the goings on at TransLink, especially the financial aspects of the organization. Not all is what it seems to be and it looks like TransLink’s hoopla is nothing more than a smokescreen to hide the real story, that TransLink is slowly being bankrupted by the three (soon to be four) mini-metro lines.

Jennifer et al,

The essence of my original email was that TransLink is spending well beyond its means and isnai??i??t providing adequate transit while it is using insignificant fare evasion losses and exaggerated ridership records as red herrings.Ai?? Here is a very insightful comment from The Georgia Straight about TransLink bamboozling and swindling taxpayers in order for TransLinkai??i??s private partners to profit:

RandAi??Ai??Ai??Chatterjee

The big, untold reason for the failure to begin the Evergreen Line construction in earnest and actuallyAi?? sign a contract is the Canada Line, aka RAV.

Translink’s newestAi??Ai??”gas tax” increase brings its take at the pump to over double what it wasAi?? just ten years ago, up to now 17 cents per litre. This is the largest part of the reason why gas prices in the Metro Vancouver area are the highestAi??in Canada, and by a lot. The latest 2-cent rise was supposed to fully fundAi??the Evergreen Line, and this indeed was exactly the justification for theAi?? increase. But, yet, nothing is happening. Why not?

A recent FOI uncovered that the Canada Line is sucking over $120 million out ofAi??Translink every year. Its actual operating costs are roughly a tenth ofAi??Ai??this amount. The rest, about $100 million, are what are termedAi??”performance payments,” which the provincial government stipulated would be turned over every year to repay the contractor for its financialAi??participation in the P3 (public-private-partnership) that was the RAVAi??Ai??project. According to bank records, the RAV partners borrowed no more thanAi??Ai??$600 million to complete the line. The amount may been less than $500Ai??million, the gap between the authorized $1.5 billion paid by theAi??government and the claimed $2 billion cost of the project.

GivenAi??the 30-year concession duration of this P3 RAV project, we can thus expect the presumed $500 million private sector contribution will be repaid atAi?? least 5 times over…that is if that $100 million per year does notAi??increase. It has been going up by nearly $10 million every year since the first year of payments in 2009.

If we deflate just a $100 millionAi??annual revenue stream to determine a net present value of this P3 public debt, we are still looking at a doubling of the supposed RAV price tagAi??from $2 billion to $4 billion in today’s dollars. In nominal dollars, weAi??will be paying well over $4.5 billion. If you want to look at it in termsAi??Ai??of an interest rate, the taxpayer is paying the RAV Line “investors” overAi??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? 20% interest, per year and compounded. Some deal!

The cost of theAi??Evergreen Line is supposed to be roughly $1.2 billion, but it is clear whyAi??this recent gas tax and likely another one soon enough, and additionalAi??property taxes, and other governmental contributions will be needed first just to pay for RAV, and the likelihood of ever funding the Evergreen LineAi?? is decreasing every year as a mountain of P3 debt continues to crushAi??Ai??Translink, and the taxpayer.

If you are waiting for a bus, whoseAi??service was reduced, and don’t have enough money for the now moreAi??expensive fare, this is why. It’s pure graft. Most everyone at Translink, especially the senior executives, drive to work. They knowAi??better.

Read everything Eric Doherty writes. You’ll learn a lotAi??about Transit policy, and how much better BC’s should be.

 

http://www.straight.com/article-593651/vancouver/eric-doherty-transit-delays-and-fare-hikes-drive-tar-sands-expansion

On the TransLink website, TransLink boasts that the RAV Line moved 104,682 people on average in May 2010.Ai?? Moreover, TransLink CEO, Ian Jarvis seems to be stoking this misconception:

http://www.translink.ca/en/About-Us/Media/2010/August/Some-Canada-Line-passengers-arriving-three-years-early-for-their-trips.aspx

http://www.news1130.com/news/local/article/86201–canada-line-could-be-paid-off-sooner-than-expected

Unfortunately, TransLink CEO, Ian Jarvis is not telling the truth.Ai?? Perhaps Ian Jarvis is merely too inept.Ai?? Maybe he is too removed from the reality of transit to know that almost every person on transit makes two trips daily ai??i?? otherwise almost everyone would never return home at night.

According to TransLink ridership-data, based on two trips daily per person on average, the true number of people carried by the RAV Line is about 39,985 people on average (see attachment).Ai?? Patrons moved on the RAV Line is the basis for the true economics of the RAV Line and not some fictional tally of imagined paying riders by TransLink.Ai?? Based on each person paying $1,000 annually (overly conservative and optimistic) to ride the RAV Line (undeservingly renamed to the Canada Line to win over the hearts of patriotic Canadians), the RAV Line generates at most $40 million annually.

Because many people on the RAV Line are transfers from buses or concession riders (U-Pass students) paying little to use it, the RAV Line must surely generate no more than a few million dollars in revenue annually, if that.Ai?? After TransLink pays for the control room operators, electrical power consumption, RAV Line security, frequent break downs… RAV Line maintenance – the RAV Line has to be losing money for the $2 billion spent by TransLink.

Thanks to TransLink publishing false information on transit use, Colliers-International is now proclaiming the RAV Line as a resounding success moving 100,000 people daily in 2010:

http://www.colliers-international.com/vancouver/MarineGateway/MG_Brochure.pdf

This is incredible as TransLink only moves about 300,000 people daily on a good day in all of Metro Vancouver.Ai?? I expect a full retraction and apology displayed prominently on the front page of every newspaper in Metro Vancouver (paid by TransLink CEO, Ian Jarvis, and not by taxpayers) as TransLink is misrepresenting the number of people on transit and it is tantamount to fraud with legal ramifications.Ai?? He will run the retraction and apology by February 15, 2012 or risk legal consequences.

TransLink plans to spend $1.4 billion to repeat the RAV Line fiasco with the Evergreen Line even though TransLink canai??i??t afford to operate trolley buses on trolley bus routes and canai??i??t afford enough buses at peak hours to avoid overcrowding on buses.Ai?? This foolish and audacious ai???moving forward planai??? is not ai???on trackai??? as TransLink contends.

TransLink is not relevant when it has to ai???sell the Evergreen Lineai??? based on job creation during construction.Ai?? Is TransLink a make work program for friends of TransLink or a transit organization for transit users?Ai?? TransLink is corrupt.Ai?? TransLink canai??i??t finance the Evergreen Line unless it continues to sacrifice conventional transit service to spend on its silly SkyTrain schemes for its private partners to profit.Ai?? I trust that the mayors (copied) will quickly withdraw their support for the Evergreen Line to protect taxpayers from higher taxes and to protect transit users from not only poorer transit service but also higher transit fares.

Regards,

Eric

http://www.rockantenne.de/webplayer/?playchannel=alternative

Review of Light Rail/Tramway costs

A Federal Parliamentry Review of Light Rail/Tramway/Transit costs must be carried out!Ai??

Both Fang & Zwei have posted articles in the past weeks on the high costs of Canadian LightAi??Rail, Tramway & Transit schemes. Vancouver, TorontoAi??and Waterloo.

Design, Utility relocation, Financing vehicles (ie P3) Project management, Construction management, Land purchase and now theAi??concern that Ai??Canadian LRT is being built, not to economically carry transit customers, rather to promote land speculation and land development. This is the main reason that SkyTrain and the Canada Line have been built as metros, it is perceived that metro will give the biggest bang for the developers buck and the real reason the Rob Ford wants subways instead of LRT in Toronto.Ai?? In theAi?? Autumn of 2011 aAi?? review ofAi?? light rail costs was Ai??published in Britain

http://www.railwaygazette.com/nc/news/single-view/view/review-of-uk-light-rail-costs-published.html

A Department for Transport report into the high costs of light rail projects in the UK was published on September 20. ‘Green Light for Light Rail’ was commissioned by Transport Minister Norman Baker with the aim of identifying the key cost drivers and what can be done to make light rail more cost-effective and thus more attractive to promoters.

The report draws on work by the National Audit Office, Commons Transport Committee and All-Party Parliamentary Light Rail Group, and evidence from industry lobby group UKTram and project promoters. While some reasons for high costs apply to UK infrastructure projects in general, a number of tram-specific problems are identified.

There is a tendency to ‘over-design’ because promoters lack internal expertise to select designs which minimise lifecycle costs, or are unable to withstand pressure from consultants and politicians for prestige projects. The lack of specialist tram engineers results in an over-reliance on heavy rail expertise and ‘unnecessarily cautious’ approaches.

The report says UKTram should assist with sharing expertise through a procurement ‘centre of excellence’. The adoption of Germany VDV technical standards is proposed, and is supported by the Office of Rail Regulation. Pooling of maintenance facilities and spares could also save money, with joint ownership of heavy equipment.

The report says further work is required to address utility relocation costs, and DfT is to commence consultation on this subject. At present promoters pay 92Ai??5% of the costs, but UKTram says light rail’s share should be reduced to 82% to match road projects. Finding ways of avoiding the perceived need to move utilities would help, possibly by tolerating disruption to light rail services when utility work is required.

DfT is to convene a light rail summit to discuss implantation of the report’s findings.

‘In the past light rail systems have been seen as expensive and an unaffordable option for local authorities to pursue’, said Baker. ‘I initiated this review so we can get to the nub of the problem. I now urge all parts of the light rail sector to work together on implementing these recommendations and I look forward to working with them towards these exciting opportunities.’

• The report recommends that promoters study the ‘no-frills’ tram project in BesanAi??on, France.

How is BesanAi??on Building a Tramway at ai??i??16 million/kilometer?

http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/10/01/how-is-besancon-building-a-tramway-at-e16-millionkilometer/

Though MontrAi??al has significant Metro and tramway expansion plans, its next new transit line will come in the form of a bus rapid transit line down Boulevard Pie-IX on the east side of the city.Ai?? The city hopes that the creation of a ai???bus highwayai??? connecting into the suburban city of Laval would be able to attract about 70,000 daily users. The project, which includes the construction of new stations and dedicated lanes along the entire MontrAi??al side of the 15 kilometer corridor, would cost some C$305 million ai??i?? or about U.S. $32 million a mile.

MontrAi??alai??i??s new line will share many features of the Express Pie-IX, a bus line whose contra-flow bus movements were blamed for the deaths of several bikers and pedestrians and which was shut down in 2002 after carrying about 8,000 daily users.

The development of BRT in MontrAi??al isnai??i??t particularly remarkable outside of the fact that it is being done at a high price for what are primarily surface improvements. Yet compared to other recent rail projects in North America, the project looks downright cheap: Phoenixai??i??s first light rail segment cost about $70 million a mile; Seattleai??i??s broke the bank at $150 million. Subway projects are far more expensive.

How, then, is the eastern French city of BesanAi??on building a new tramway for the equivalent of just about $35 million a mile?*

Itai??i??s a question Americans should be asking themselves, since the costs of transit investments seem to be spiraling out of control even as the demand for alternative transportation options has increased and the funds to support them have diminished. BesanAi??on, a city of about 115,000 in a region of about twice that size, has managed to develop a project whose costs are acceptable ai??i?? ai???optimized,ai??? the local transit agency calls them ai??i?? even in a small metropolitan area.

Delivering a `No-Frills Tram’

http://www.caf.net/img/prensa/notprensa/20110505112705railway_gazette_april2011.pdf

BesanAi??on: Build it Right, Build it at a Fair Price

This French community isn’t very big, much smaller than Victoria, in fact (metro pop. appr. 220,000). The nearest big city to BesanAi??on is Geneva, Switzerland. But they’re building a 14.5 km tramway (almost as long as a James Bay/Western Communities tramway) for ai??i??228 million (that’s about $310 million Canadian).

The B-BOT Bring Back Our Trams blog which is centred on Victoria has a very authoritive web page on comparative Light Rail & Trams costs for Canada, Europe & the US http://www.b-bot.ca/tramwaycost.html

The strap line is What should a Tramway Cost and guess what from the following table -Ai??Canada, BC & particularly Victoria is twice the Cost $million/km of comparative European schemes.

Costs of At-Grade Tramways

 

 

Whatai??i??s the Best Way To Get Users To Embrace Mass Transit?

Make it pleasant? Or make it efficient?

An article in Slate magazine

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/transport/2012/01/jarrett_walker_s_human_transit_are_we_thinking_about_urban_planning_all_wrong_.html

Make it pleasant? Or make it efficient?

by Tom Vanderbilt

North American light rail systems

Modern LRT is reasonably cheap to build, when compared with metro type systems, but in NorthAi??America

transit planners have done the impossible, they have planned LRT to be more expensive than a metro to build.Ai??

Such stupidity should be stopped at once!

From the Globe and Mail.

This maybe of some interest, but the cost per km. of various LRT is completely out of whack and I question the source for these costs. Certainly, any LRT line that operates in a tunnel longer than 1 km. must be considered a metroAi?? and many grade separated light rail systems are indeed considered light-metro.

The basic cost for an elevated SkyTrain line is around $100 million/km to build and any costs for LRT that are higher than this benchmark, should be coincided greatly suspect.

The one interesting cost is the $15/km for the Spadina Line LRT, which is much less than TransLink’s cost estimate of over $100 million/km.

I strongly guess that the reporter and the “Globe” were fed exaggerated cost for LRT from the metro lobby and I think our dear Cardinal Fang would have something to say about this.

Infographic

North American light rail systems

Published Sunday, Jan. 22, 2012 8:48PMAi?? EST

Transit Realities In Toronto

Transit realities are coming into the fore in Toronto and Toronto’s mayor Ford is being dragged screaming and kicking into the 21st century; even the Mayor’s political appointees are singing the light rail song!

The Mayor’s anti-LRT stance is based on many factors, including;

• Subways keep traffic lanes open for cars, thus are poor in attracting the all important motorist from the car, but makes the various auto lobbies very happy.
• Subways are very expensive, with lots of money to spread aroundAi??for engineers, planners, contractors, cement manufacturers and alike, mostly friends of the government.
• Subways are cool to cut ribbons in front of, because of the physical size of the project, it gives the taxpayer an impression of money well spent.
• Subways are the great excuse for bad transit planning, when congestion becomes problematic, politicians always rely on the old; “but we built a subway for that, now it’s up to the people to use it!”
• Subways become development and land speculationAi??tools, where cronies of the government buy and sell land along a subway route like a Monopoly game.

Vancouver and TransLink planners should take note with what is happening in Toronto, with their grandiose yet poorly planned SkyTrainAi??subway planning, lest the regional taxpayer demands that they too be dragged kicking and screaming into 21st century transit realities, or beAi??replaced with much more transit savvy experts, who actually know what they are doing.

 

TTC chair fires first salvo at Fordai??i??s LRT plan

From Tuesday’s Globe and Mail

Published Monday, Jan. 23, 2012

 

TTC chair Karen Stintz took a risky butAi?? important step when she questioned plans for the Eglinton-Scarborough CrosstownAi?? transit line. Risky because it puts her at odds with the man to whom she owesAi?? her post, Mayor Rob Ford. Important because it opens a debate on the biggestAi?? transit project in the city.

The $8.2-billion light-rail line is to carryAi?? passengers from Black Creek Drive in the west to the Scarborough City Centre inAi?? the east, linking up with existing subway lines and easing congestion. TheAi?? original plan for the line would have seen it travel through a tunnel in theAi?? centre of the city on either side of Yonge Street, but above ground on lessAi?? dense areas such as the eastern stretch of Eglinton Avenue. When he took officeAi?? in 2010, Mr. Ford ripped up that plan, along with the rest of Transit City, andAi?? said that the whole line must go underground.

That, Ms. Stintz says, makes no sense.Ai?? Light-rail vehicles are designed to travel on the surface, and the broad streetsAi?? of east Eglinton have plenty of room for them. If it is going to be light rail,Ai?? she wants to go back to Plan A and make it a mixed line: part underground, partAi?? above.

It would be much cheaper that way ai??i?? $1-billionAi?? to $1.5-billion cheaper, she says ai??i?? and the money saved could be used to pay forAi?? an extension to the Sheppard subway, Mr. Fordai??i??s favoured project. Changing backAi?? to the original plan could save time, too, because the environmental assessmentsAi?? for Plan A have already been completed and, with less tunnelling required,Ai?? construction would be quicker.

There are two barriers to Ms. Stintzai??i??s excellentAi?? idea: the province and the mayor. Take the province first.

Less than a year ago, Mr. Ford and PremierAi?? Dalton McGuinty struck a deal to have the province build an all-buried EglintonAi?? line and the city build a Sheppard subway. Given all the back-and-forth weai??i??veAi?? seen over transit in recent decades ai??i?? an Eglinton line was started then stoppedAi?? in the 1990s ai??i?? provincial officials would be reluctant to change course yetAi?? again.

But the political winds have changed since Mr.Ai?? McGuinty, facing a tough fight for re-election and trying to avoid a fight withAi?? a popular and newly elected Mr. Ford, signed that memorandum of understanding.Ai?? The wording of the memorandum makes clear that it is a non-binding letter ofAi?? intent, not a binding contract. If city council voted to return to Plan A forAi?? Eglinton and request the leftover money be used for Sheppard, Queenai??i??s Park wouldAi?? at least have to consider it.

Support is growing on city council for just suchAi?? a vote. It comes not only from left-leaning councillors who hope, against theAi?? odds, to revive Transit City, but from moderate and even conservativeAi?? councillors who wonder how much sense it makes to spend hundreds of millions ofAi?? dollars tunnelling under the wide open spaces of Eglinton east with a light-railAi?? line, not to mention the expense of spanning the vast Don Valley.

Conservative-minded Councillor John Parker hasAi?? raised doubts about burying the whole Eglinton line and using LRT technologyAi?? designed mainly for surface travel. Centrist Josh Matlow says he is ai???on the sameAi?? pageai??? as Ms. Stintz about the Eglinton line and urges the mayor to consider herAi?? idea.

Will he? Changing his mind on Eglinton will notAi?? be easy. His dislike of streetcars is well known, and the way he sees it, theAi?? light-rail lines that would go on Eglinton east are just a fancy kind ofAi?? streetcar.

Gordon Chong, a Ford associate who is lookingAi?? into ways of financing a Sheppard subway line, sounds lukewarm on Ms. Stintzai??i??sAi?? proposal. ai???While her suggestion is one way to free up funds,ai??? he told me in anAi?? e-mail, ai???itai??i??s not my preferred choice.ai???

But if the mayor would bend a bit on hisAi?? stubborn opposition to rails on streets, he has much to gain. His SheppardAi?? project is in trouble. Mr. Chong, who will present his report soon, has made itAi?? clear that even if the city can woo private-sector investors to the project, itAi?? will require government money, too. If more is left over from Eglinton byAi?? running it above ground where possible, the mayor could get a bigger downAi?? payment on Sheppard.

In an editorial, The Star says Toronto Transit Commission [TTC] chair Karen Stintz is risking Mayor Rob Ford’s wrath by suggesting the Eglinton light rail line doesn’t need to be totally in a subway:
http://www.thestar.com/article/1120014–ttc-chair-karen-\stintz-speaks-up-risking-the-wrath-of-mayor-rob-ford
“TTC chair Karen Stintz speaks up, risking the wrath of
Mayor Rob Ford.
(Monday, Jan. 23, 2012)

Karen Stintz has finally seen the light on a planned Eglinton light rail line ai??i?? and it’s not at the end of a tunnel. In fact, what she sees isn’t much underground at all. And that’s the point.

As chair of the Toronto Transit Commission, Stintz has finally come to realize that it makes little sense to bury all 18 kilometres (11.1 miles) of the Eglinton line, at a cost of $8.2 billion. And she’s daring to voice that sensible view even though it could put her on a collision course with Mayor Rob Ford.

Stintz, usually a Ford ally, is far from alone in questioning the wisdom of tunneling the entire length of the Eglinton route. Since disclosure of that misguided plan last spring, transit advocates have said burying this light rail line would send costs soaring while providing service inferior to that of a true subway.

Under the original Transit City plan for Eglinton, about 11 kilometres of the line was to go underground, in the most built-up sections of Toronto’s downtown. It was correctly felt that, outside the core, there was ample space on Eglinton for both a surface light rail line and traffic lanes. Ford called that kind of sharing a “disaster” for drivers and ordered the entire line built under the street, out of motorists’ way. Since the switch didn’t cost the province any extra money, Queen’s Park agreed, shamelessly abandoning proper transit priorities.

Now Stintz is pointing out the obvious ai??i?? this is a bad deal for those who ride the transit system and those who pay for it. And she offers some hope that rational planning might yet triumph.

As reported by the Star’s Tess Kalinowski, simply returning to the original Transit City plan for Eglinton likely wouldn’t involve any significant delay. New environmental assessments for an entirely underground route haven’t even begun, Stintz said. So there’s time to switch tracks and avoid Ford’s folly.

High Costs For LRT In Waterloo Ontario Questioned! Is LRT Being Designed as a Money Pit?

Friday, January, 20, 2012 – 10:10:36 AM

 

Experts say there are some cost issues with Waterloo Region’s LRT plans.

Off track

International LRT experts question regionai??i??s per kilometre cost

Ida Chong is afraid to order an audit of TransLink! Those damned skeletons in the closet!

Well, good old ‘Zwei’ has been arguing for this for over a decade, but the BC Liberal government and the Liberal lickspital minister in charge of TransLink, Ida Chong, is afraid to order an audit of TransLink.

Why?

Audits have a strange way of uncovering misspent monies or dubious bookkeeping Ai??practices or evenAi??more sinister wastes of public monies. Ai??BC’s Auditor General, John Doyal,Ai??recently found questionable bookkeeping methods by BC Hydro that have put ratepayers on the hook forAi?? $2.2 billion in public debt ai??i?? with no apparent plan in place to recover theAi??money! I wonder what he would find at TransLink?

It is clearly evident thatAi??Ida Chong is peeing her pants that an audit of TransLink by John Doyle would find more than dubious bookkeeping practices, he may find that the BC Liberal darling project, the Canada Line hasAi??cost the taxpayer a whole lot more than advertised and that would not do for election ready Premier Photo-Op.

Could it be that theAi??BC Auditor General may find that the real cost of BC Transit’s and TransLink’s light-metro program may greatly exceed, Zwei’s estimate of $8 billion, as sources have indicated that the total cost to date of our two SkyTrain proprietary light-metros and the Canada Line may top $10 billion! An audit may also show that TransLink has greatly inflated the costs of proposedAi??LRT in the region, while at the same time misinforming politicians of the abilities of modern LRT, to curry favour to build the Evergreen line?

Most major public transportation agencies are regularly audited to ensure that public monies are well spent, yet the BC Liberals and Ida Chong feel that no audit is not necessary forAi?? TransLink and I just wonder what the BC Liberals are trying to hide? What is Premier Photo-op afraid of?

 

Metro Vancouver mayors renew demand to audit TransLink

TransLink spends more than $1 billion a year to provide
transportation services in Metro Vancouver, including the Canada Line.

By Jeff Nagel – Surrey North Delta LeaderJanuary 18, 2012Ai??
Metro Vancouver mayors are again demanding the provincial government name an auditor to probe TransLink and ensure taxpayers aren’t getting ripped off.

TheAi?? Mayors’ Council on Regional Transportation, which controls tax increases for TransLink, had asked the province last fall to put the transportation
authority under the scrutiny of its new Auditor General for Local Government (AGLG).

But Ida Chong, the minister responsible for municipalities, said in a letter TransLink’s “unique governance structure” makes that difficult, adding she instead wants to get the new AGLG office running and focused on performance audits for cities and regional districts.

That answer didn’t go over well with the mayors council, which voted Wednesday to raise the issue again.

“At the end of the day we just want TransLink audited ai??i?? whatever mechanism they choose,” Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts said.

“We’d like to get a little bit more information about the organization we’re blamed for,” added Coquitlam Mayor Richard Stewart.

Mayors also said it appears Chong doesn’t really understand how TransLinkAi??works and how little the mayors control.

The minister stated in her letter that the mayors council “plays a key oversight role” in reviewing and approving plans approved by TransLink’s unelected board of directors.

But the mayors contend they have no real power to shape or amend plans that the TransLink board passes ai??i?? only to approve or reject the accompanying tax increases.

“She obviously doesn’t have any idea,” Richmond Mayor Malcolm Brodie said of Chong.

“We’re in a situation where TransLink falls between the cracks and nobody seems to realize that,” Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan said.

The mayors are also pressing for major reform of how TransLink is governed, which potentially could mean a return to elected mayors or councillors directly voting on plans and day-to-day spending, rather than the appointed board.

“We want to be in a position where we can actually influence the decisions coming to us in a meaningful way,” Corrigan said.

TransLink Commissioner Ai??Martin Crilly, who independently advises the mayors, said the TransLink board tries to tailor its plans in such a way that most mayors will support them and approve the required taxes.

Eliminating the board and putting mayors back in direct charge could be a dangerous return to more intensive politicking, he suggested.

“You may throw yourself into a situation where you’re forced to horse-trade with each other,” he warned. “I’ll vote for your project if you vote for my project, and we end up with a transportation system that is sub-optimal.”

Corrigan said some horse-trading would be inevitable but noted the Metro Vancouver directors generally succeed in putting aside local differences for the good of the entire region.

“What’s better?” he asked. “Being responsible? Or being manipulated?”

Corrigan said his main concern is that the province skews TransLink’s priorities by dangling offers of grant money tied to the government’s pet projects.

TransLink’s board puts such projects in its base plan and funds them through automatic increases in fare and property tax for inflation over which the mayors have no veto.

If mayors had real control of plans, he said, they might have put money to other uses, rather than provincial priorities like expanding the transit U-Pass system or choosing costlier SkyTrain technology over light rail for the Evergreen Line.

Transportation Minister Blair Lekstrom had indicated last year he was amenable to discussing governance reform, but Watts predicts it will still take a concerted effort to sway Victoria.

“The provincial government is not motivated to change the governance model,” Watts said. “They just want us to continue to raise taxes and take the hit for it and merrily go on doing what they do.”

As for audits, the mayors also say they’d be fine with the province putting TransLink under the auspices of the B.C. Auditor General, which examines provincial government spending, but the government has so far refused.

TransLink’s more than $1-billion annual budget comes mainly from $430 million in transit fares, $325 million in gas taxes and nearly $300 million in property tax, with the average home paying $228 to TransLink.

North Vancouver District Mayor Richard Walton was re-elected the chair of the mayors council Wednesday, defeating Langley City Mayor Peter Fassbender.

Fassbender, who was the previous chair before Walton, was acclaimed as vice-chair.

Walton said the mayors council will aim to quickly decide its vision for governance changes and take that to Victoria ahead of a possible spring session of the Legislature.

He said they’re also working with the province to explore new funding options for TransLink, which could include options like a vehicle levy or more road and bridge tolling.

The mayors and the province must agree on a new revenue source by the end of this year to help fund TransLink’s share of the Evergreen Line or a temporary property tax increase averaging $23 per home kicks in for 2013 and 2014.

That’s in addition to the two-cent gas tax hike that takes effect in April and a 12.5 per cent transit fare increase slated for next January, subject to the commissioner’s approval.

How to pay for Victoria’s proposed over priced light rail….. Don’t!…..Plan for much cheaper TramTrain on the E&N!

BC Transit is an old hand at inflating costs of LRT, so they don’t have to deal with it. In the 90’s, BC Transit increased the cost of the proposed Broadway-LougheedAi??LRT to such an extent, that there was only a 7% difference between the cost for light rail and that of SkyTrain. Sprinkled with political ignorance, back scratching and professional misconduct and viola – LRT is too expensive to build.

BC Transit seems to retreated to its bad old habits and has given a cost estimate of $950 million for aAi??building proposedAi??18 km. LRT on theAi??abandoned CNR rail line rights-of-way,Ai??with some on-street operation in Victoria. It is not expensive “greenfields” construction, rather it is using already existing railway formations.Ai??BC Transit is at it again, inflating costs forAi??LRT because they don’t want to build with light rail.

The RftV folks, greatly tired of TransLink’s, inherited from BC Transit, anti-LRT stance and inAi??association with Leewood Projects of the UK, prepared an independentAi??TramTrain study for the old BC Electric interurban line from Vancouver to Chilliwack. The economy 98 km. diesel LRT line from Scott Road Station (Expo Line) in Surrey to Chilliwack was projected to cost a mere $492 million or $5.02 million/km.!

Looking at the map of the proposed LRT, by using and operating TramTrain on the E&N rail line andAi??extrapolating the RftV/Leewood Study figures the approximately 14 km. Langford to Victoria route could cost as low as $70 million and change using diesel LRT or, about $90 million if the line was electrified!

It is clearly self evident that TransLink and BC Transit refuse to recognize the RftV/Leewood Study, because by acknowledging the study would mean building LRT could be much cheaper than what they propose, WHICH TRANSLINK AND BC TRANSIT JUST DO NOT WANT TO DO!

Why?

Building modern LRT in the Vancouver Region or any city in BC, would expose over 30 years of professional misconduct by transit plannersAi??in BC Transit, TransLink and the provincial government,Ai??with regional rapid transit transit planning and they will pull out all the stops to prevent affordable LRT to be built in BC!

Victoria, the capital city of British Columbia on Vancouver Island, is asking its residents how the local share of a proposed light rail line should be funded, The Times Colonist reports. Here’s a map of a possible LRT route for the $950 million line westward to Langford:
Here’s a rendering of how LRT might appear in Victoria:

http://tinyurl.com/88pjdya
“Residents asked for views on LRT funding
By Derek Spalding
Times Colonist
January 18, 2012

Plans to outline local funding options for light rail transit in Greater Victoria have inched forward with a call for input from residents.

Identifying a range of cash-flow sources is required before a business plan is prepared to send to the federal government, which is expected to fund a large portion of the bill.

Residents can offer their opinions by completing online surveys and participating in focus groups next month, said the local funding task force set up by the Capital Regional District and B.C. Transit.

The deadline for coming up with a local funding plan was pushed back two months to May because municipal elections in November resulted in the retirement of four out of seven members of the Victoria Regional Transit Commission.

B.C. Transportation Minister Blair Lekstrom will appoint the four new members by late February, his office said in a statement Wednesday.

Waiting that long for new appointments after an election is common, but delays this time around are more pronounced without a commission to continue until the appointments are made.

“It’s par for the course because we go through this every three years, but it’s obviously disappointing because you’d like them to get to it,” said Saanich Mayor Frank Leonard.

“And municipal elections are not a surprise.”

The local funding task force is continuing its work. Identifying options will complete the $3.1 million first phase of the LRT proposal.

The second phase will cost about $5 million for a detailed business case, which will include an independent review. Phase three will be construction.

Local funding options for similar transit projects typically require one-third funding with equal contributions from senior levels of government, but details will be considered during negotiations.

A long list of options include a regional sales tax, a carbon tax, a parking levy or a fuel tax.

Anyone wanting to participate in the focus groups must fill out a survey by Feb. 5.

Meetings are scheduled for Feb. 14 to 17.

The online survey can be found at
http://lrtlocalfunding.ca

An interesting thought

An interesting thought:

Has anyone made or care to make a calculation of the annual lives saved; medical costs saved;Ai??Ai??insurance not paid out; etc.,Ai??if the Fraser Valley had a regularly scheduled TramTrain service from Chilliwack to Vancouver? This an especially important question today, with the scores of accidents and injuries, just on Tuesday on the Number 1 highway from Surrey to Chilliwack.

Zwei reckons that TramTrain would save the medical/insurance agencies aloneAi??about $10 million annually, or about two thirds of the operating costs of the proposed Valley TramTrain service.

Is TransLink and the Provincial Government listening? Do they care?

 

Utilities – to divert or to not divert?

The need for utility relocation on LRT schemes has been a major issue for promoters in Canada, the US and Great Britain but less so in continental Europe, where many utilities remain public owned,Ai??for decades.

The Cardinal has received details of the project costs for the Waterloo, Ontario Light Rail project;

http://www.tritag.ca/light-rail/why-light-rail/Ai??and

http://www.wonderfulwaterloo.com/showthread.php?t=219Ai??also

http://rapidtransit.region.waterloo.on.ca/

that demonstrates how utility diversions areAi??driving up the costs of light rail.

For the 19 km scheme, the projected cost is $818 million, giving a route Km cost of $43 m

The figures are:

Hard Costs
Property Acquisition$18 M
Civil Works$106 M
Staging/Enabling Works$69 M
Maintenance Yard$52 M
Parking; Park and Ride Lots$16 M
Structures$38 M
Utility Relocation$86 M
Stations$22 M
Traction Power$22 M
Hydro Supply$3 M
Substation Electrical$17 M
Line Electrical $3 M
Signals$17 M
Communications and Supervisory Control Data and Data Acquisition (SCADA) System$14 M
SUBTOTAL:$483 M
Soft Costs
Engineering Design$48 M
Construction Management$39 M
Design Support (Construction)$9 M
Construction Change Order Contingency $48 M
Agency Costs$29 M
Project Reserve$48 M
Program Management$14 M
SUBTOTAL:$235 M

Vehicle Costs
Capital Vehicle Costs (2016)$100 M

GRAND TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURE:$818 M

Utility relocation is by far the most expensive single item in the budget, almost 1/8 of the total. if this could be addressed in a satisfactory manner it could significantly lower capitalAi??costs.