Contrasting Canadian News Posts
Freedom takes Flexity to the North American tram market
NORTH AMERICA: Bombardier Transportation President & CEO AndrAi?? Navarri launched the ai???Flexity Freedomai??i?? as the company’s tram platform for North America at APTA Expo 2011 in New Orleans on October 4. The 100% low-floor car is a parallel development to the Flexity 2, launched in Blackpool last month and targeted at the rest of the world.
Flexity Freedom will meet all major US and Canadian standards for crashworthiness, fire safety and accessability, which Bombardier feels are sufficiently different from European standards to justify a separate product line, albeit at a higher cost to the end user than an ai???off the shelfai??i?? European design. Production will be undertaken in Canada or the USA as appropriate to meet government requirements for work to be undertaken domestically.
The first Flexity Freedom cars will be supplied to Toronto, which placed an order in July 2009 for 204 vehicles to replace the CLRV fleet operating its 1Ai??495Ai??mm gauge street tram network in the city centre and subsequently exercised an option for up to 182 additional cars to a slightly different design as part of its Transit City light rail expansion programme.
Political gridlock on transportation
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1064580–political-gridlock-on-transportation
Ontario has long needed an overhaul of the way our publicly owned transportation system is governed and operated. The current election campaign proves it.
On vital transportation issues, all weai??i??re getting are stump speeches promising whatever the candidates believe voters want to hear, but without professional research and planning, let alone funding. Itai??i??s typically shabby treatment of an issue that consistently ranks as one of the publicai??i??s top five concerns.
The Progressive Conservatives will invest $35 billion in infrastructure, ai???much of it in transit and transportation.ai??? They go on to talk almost exclusively about highways and fuel taxes, which wonai??i??t warm transit usersai??i?? hearts.
The NDP will pick up half the operating subsidy for transit, freeze fares and commit to ai???new transit projects and upgrades.ai??? They then pull a U-turn by saying theyai??i??d also make driving more affordable by taking the HST off gasoline and regulating its price.
The Liberals have a shopping list of projects from ai???the next phaseai??? of their transportation strategy. This implies there was an earlier phase that was part of a strategy. All theyai??i??ve served up in eight years is a series of photo-ops to announce the same projects over and over again.
Of these skimpy, politically motivated offerings, the only one with any traction is the Liberal promise of two-way, all-day service on GO Transitai??i??s rail routes, which theyai??i??ve announced twice before. It remains appealing. But a pre-election promise is one thing and post-election delivery is another.
If GO expansion is going to happen this time around in these straitened economic times, whereai??i??s the funding? Never fear, say the Liberals. Thanks to their repeated promises to roll it out, the required $6.8 billion is allegedly covered in future unapproved budgets, so itai??i??s not a new cost at all.
Other details suggesting this is a real plan are similarly lacking. Will this be hourly or half-hourly service? Is there an agreement with Canadian Pacific and Canadian National, over whose lines many of these trains will operate? Will the new trains be electric or will hordes of noisy, emission-producing diesels thunder through neighbourhoods across the GO network? The Liberals are mute.
This is obviously another back-of-the-napkin scheme to grease a re-election bandwagonai??i??s wheels. Thatai??i??s one hell of a way to run a publicly owned railroad. Worse, this politicization of the decision-making process isnai??i??t unique to the provincial Liberals. The mayoral quashing of Torontoai??i??s affordable light rail plan for an unaffordable subway dream is but one recent example of what has been the norm for all parties at all levels of government since the 1970s. The result is todayai??i??s gridlock and transit stagnation.
The only candidate who appears to recognize this is Frank Klees, the current MPP for Newmarket-Aurora. He says itai??i??s time to put transportation out of the reach of politics, protected from the endless cycle of campaign promises made and broken.
For a start, Klees wants appointments to provincial agencies such as Metrolinx based on real-world experience. The politicians would hire the most qualified leaders ai??i?? not the most politically connected ai??i?? and empower these transportation professionals to act in the best interests of taxpayers and users within approved budgetary limits.
This may seem like wishful thinking, but history proves it can be done. To cite but one example, the municipally appointed commissioners of the TTC operated one of the worldai??i??s finest and fairest transit systems for more than 50 years after its inception in 1921. The politicians kept their hands off, allowing the commissioners and their qualified staff to operate the TTC without interference. It all came to a crashing halt when the provincial government insinuated itself into the decision-making process by virtue of the funding it began supplying in the early 1970s. He who pays the piper calls the tune.
Prior to the arrival of the uninvited, behind-the-scenes provincial management team, the public interest was protected through deputations at TTC commission meetings, where the usersai??i?? views were dealt with attentively and respectfully. It was this genuine, community-minded safeguard that enabled a group of Torontonians to intervene to save our streetcars 39 years ago this November.
Properly implemented, there is no reason such an approach wouldnai??i??t work again. It desperately needs to be tested because todayai??i??s politicized approach isnai??i??t. More than constrained funding, this is the reason Ontarioai??i??s transportation system is shockingly inadequate and growing worse.
Knocking partisan game-playing out of transportation is what Ontario needs, not more empty campaign promises. The question remains whether any candidate other than Klees will have the courage and intelligence to say so before Oct. 6.
From The Heart Of The Evergreen Line
The Tri-City news is ground zero with the Evergreen Line projects, but news coming from Northeast sector of Metro Vancouver is not at all comforting, as it seems things are not what they seem. With TransLink, nothing is as it seems, as they have become circus conjurers, rather than transit planners.
Commissioner casts doubt on Evergreen Line ridership numbers
By Diane Strandberg – The Tri-City New
Published: October 07, 2011 11:00 AM
http://www.bclocalnews.com/tri_city_maple_ridge/tricitynews/news/131343183.html
As Metro Vancouver mayors get down to voting today on a plan to boost gas taxes and possibly bump property taxes to pay for transit improvements, a new report is suggesting Evergreen Line revenue projections may be overly optimistic.
The analysis by transportation commissioner Martin Crilly says ridership projections of increases between 65% and 70% in six years after opening are “somewhat optimistic,” although “not impossible.”
He says in the report (available at www.translinkcommission.org under What’s New) that he didn’t have enough data from TransLink to provide a thorough analysis but he’s doubtful such a ridership boost could be accomplished so soon along what he called a low-density corridor.
“This appears optimistic given that it is recognized that the primary role of the Evergreen Line is to shape land use in a relatively low-density sector of the region,” he wrote.
And if ridership numbers don’t meet projections, revenue could fall ai??i?? and even a 25% drop in projected “new” ridership could result in a loss of $28 million in fare revenue over six years.
Meanwhile, the city of Coquitlam is in negotiations with the province over a proposed Lincoln station near Town Centre that would have the desired effect of boosting density to support ridership.
“The whole idea is to densify the Tri-Cities and to build in the Tri-Cities so we increase the ridership,” said Maurice Gravelle, Coquitlam’s general manager of strategic initiatives. He said he couldn’t be more detailed about negotiations because they are confidential.
Current funding provides for six stations: Lougheed Town Centre in Burnaby(at the current Millennium Line SkyTrain station), Burquitlam in Coquitlam, the West Coast ExpressA?ai??i??ai??? and Ioco Road in Port Moody, Coquitlam Central station (the transit exchange near Barnet and Lougheed highways) and Douglas College (adjacent to the Evergreen Cultural Centre at the northwest corner of Guildford and Pinetree ways). All have been chosen because they are close to homes, workplaces and transit.
In addition to a station at Lincoln, two more stations have yet to be confirmed: West Port Moody and Falcon Drive in Coquitlam.
A letter in the same paper, underscores the desirability of modern LRT on the Evergreen line, but don’t hold your breathe, what is good for the transit customer or the taxpayer, is certainly not good for regional politicians and bureaucrats. Mediocrity reigns in Metro Vancouver.
SkyTrain is a bad choice for Evergreen Line
The Editor,
http://www.bclocalnews.com/tri_city_maple_ridge/tricitynews/opinion/letters/131290724.html
Re. “Mayors set to hike gas tax” (The Tri-City News, Oct. 5).
No one doubts sustainable mass transit is long overdue in the Lower Mainland but there’s something seriously wrong with the choice to use SkyTrain for the Evergreen Line, and never has it been more obvious than now, with funding becoming such an issue.
Up until 2008, the line was planned to be a light rail project. Since then, TransLink proposed using SkyTrain-type technology instead, hence the need for an additional $574 million. And we’ll need a lot more than the two-cent-a-litre gas tax increase to fund it. Besides, if you’ve been following the news, it’s clear the SkyTrain proposal was a boondoggle all along and that it wouldn’t benefit the communities here at all. Let’s look at the numbers:
ai??? TransLink’s proposed light rail project was set at $900 million ai??i?? $500 million less than SkyTrain, which means we wouldn’t have needed tax hikes of any kind.
ai??? With SkyTrain, there will be only six stations, as opposed to 11 with TransLink’s proposed light rail project.
ai??? We won’t be able to extend SkyTrain once it’s built. Light rail costs an average of about $30 million per kilometre, as opposed to SkyTrain’s $133 million per kilometre.
ai??? Light rail is used in hundreds of other cities around the world, SkyTrain only in a few, and those cities run much higher capacity than our SkyTrains do.
ai??? Environmental, financial, and social disruption is much less with light rail construction.
The proposed gas tax increase will net $40 million a year, which means that to fund the $574 million gap, without even more tax increases, it’ll take over 12 years. This gas tax is just the tip of the iceberg. We’re either going to have to pay way, way more taxes or we’re going to end up with defunct concrete pillars all over the place. Do you want to be taxed even more for a service that’ll do less and threaten the communities in the process?
Regiona (Liberal) Mayors Vote To Increase Gas And Property Taxes
It seems, the provincial Liberals called in its markers as Liberal mayors in the Vancouver metro region voted to support gas and property tax increases to further fund TransLink. TransLink was holding a dud poker hand but bluffed regional politicians who were holding all the aces. Such weak tax and spend politicians should be defeated in the next round of civic elections.
While ignoring the real reason TransLink is coming begging for more money, which is building hugely expensive SkyTrain and or metro on routes that do not have the ridership to sustain them, Metro mayors voted for new SkyTrain construction, even when transit watchdog, Martin Crilly, is now sounding alarm bells over the Evergreen Line.
Not tackling the real issues that embroils TransLink will continue to cause financial chaos, and regional mayors have now created an massive tax monster, where TransLink will come begging at the door with sad stories of doom and gloom, expecting regional politicians to cave in and shake the regional taxpayer down for more cash to feed this insatiable monster.
As Derek Corrigan says, those who voted for more taxes are nothing more than sheep, who care nothing about the taxpayer, obeying orders from their handlers in Victoria.
As it stands, regional mayors (who no absolutely know nothing about regional transit) approved tax increases demanded by TransLink (who know very little about transit and will only plan for hugely expensive SkyTrain or a SkyTrain clone), which the minister responsible for TransLink (who resides in northern BC and knows absolutely nothing about regional transit), which will be approved by the BC Liberal party and supported by the NDP (who have vested interests in building more SkyTrain) in Parliament, without any questions asked.
John Cummins, are you listening?
From the Georgia Straight
Burnaby’s Derek Corrigan calls other mayors “sheep” as TransLink gas tax passes
The gas tax will help fund the building of the long-promised Evergreen Line.
Stop being sheep.
Outspoken Burnaby mayor Derek Corrigan issued a challenge today (October 7) to fellow mayors of Metro Vancouver. It came as elected local politicians prepared to vote for a new public transportation plan that will again pick the pockets of residents in the region.
“Have courage,” Corrigan urged. “Stand up for your communities.”
The plan, which was approved, involves increasing the gas tax by two cents a litre effective April 1, 2012. It will also require municipalities to raise again property taxes in 2013 and 2014 if the province doesn’t give TransLink the means to raise funds in a sustainable manner.
Addressing his colleagues at the Mayors’ Council on Regional Transportation, Corrigan mused that members have limited powers over TransLink. He also said they needed a history lesson on how transportation planning and funding have been controlled by the provincial government.
Using the sheep analogy, Corrigan noted that the provincial government has treated mayors like docile beings to “herd” and “shear”.
The Burnaby politician recalled that it was not too long ago when the mayors’ council passed a resolution on April 22, 2009, stating categorically that mayors will no longer support any increases in property taxes to fund regional transportation expansion.
According to the plan approved today, the two cents per litre increase in the gas tax will generate $33 million in 2012. It is expected to grow to $45 million in 2014.
The remaining funding requirements of the 2012-2014 plan will supposedly come from new long-term sources to be implemented before the end of 2012.
However, the plan provides that if no new funding sources are tapped at this time, there will be property tax increases in 2013 and 2014.
In his address at the mayors’ council, Corrigan also recalled how mayors approved light rail as the rapid transportation model for the northeast sector of the region. However, according to him, the province later came in and imposed its preference for SkyTrain technology that will be used for the still pending Evergreen Line.
The new plan approved today will fund the construction of the Evergreen Line and other expansion projects in the region.
Corrigan wasn’t alone in his criticism of transportation planning and management.
Delta mayor Lois Jackson said at the meeting that transportation funding should no longer be made at the expense of property-tax payers.
While other mayors declared that they are taking a leap of faith, Jackson said that she doesn’t have much confidence over the “vagaries of the future”.
Richmond mayor Malcolm Brodie suggested that the motion brought to the meeting should be severed into two proposals: one for the two cent gas tax increase, and another for the property tax hikes.
According to Brodie, mayors have time and time again been told to hike property taxes with the promise that a sustainable source of transportation funding will be made available by the province. He has had enough of this.
“I don’t want to take a leap of faith anymore,” Brodie said.
Corrigan, Jackson, Brodie, New Westminster mayor Wayne Wright, Langley Township mayor Rick Green, and Pitt Meadows mayor Don MacLean voted against the plan.
Transit is about moving people stupid!
Interesting news item, from all places, the SkyTrain friendly CKNW radio station.
VANCOUVER/CKNW(AM980)
10/7/2011
Just as the mayors vote today on funding for the Evergreen Line, a report by the transportation commissioner says TransLink’s ridership predictions may just be wishful thinking.
The Province newspaper reports commissioner Martin Crilly wrote last week that the growth predictions for ridership on the proposed Evergreen Line appear somewhat optimistic, and may not be based on logic.
His skepticism stems from the Evergreen Line being built in the relatively low-density Tri-Cities area.
The problem I have with Mr. Crilly is that he is stuck in the density trap and seems to be of the school that massive densification is needed to justify “rapid transit“, while forgetting the fact that modern LRT being much cheaper to build, would require much less of his cherished density to operate economically.
Being soundly criticized and booted from manyAi??so-called transit friendly blogs becauseAi??IAi??advocate a simple message that “Transit is to move people not create density.”, I have been amazed at the nonsense being passed as good transit philosophy. Ai??Development will happen along transit lines but the massive densification advocated by the rapid transit/SkyTrain types maybe counter productive, especially if the populace of the newly densified areas do not work nor commute anywhere near where the rapid transit lines go and take the car instead.
The (N)Evergreen Line is a forgotten spur line of the original Broadway-Lougheed LRT projects and was omitted because we could only afford a much smaller SkyTrain Millennium Line (same was true of the original Expo Line which originally terminated in New Westminster and was much smaller than the original 3 line LRT plan) and now another $1.4 billion is needed to complete it.
The problem with the Millennium Line is that TransLink has been telling ‘Porkies’ about ridershipAi??all along, first exposed by Gerald Fox’s 2008 letter –
From: A North-American Rail Expert (Gerald Fox)
Subject: Comments on the Evergreen Line ai???Business Caseai???
Date: February 6, 2008 12:15:22 PM PST (CA)
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 ai???Business Caseai??? (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, TriMetai??i??s new ai???Type 4ai??? 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 donai??i??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 doesnai??i??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?
Innuendos 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 canai??i??t be as bad as the SkyTrain folk would like you to believe).
Iai??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 analyzed honestly, and the taxpayersai??i?? 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 TOTAL COST 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.
As one can see, TransLink’s business case is on very shaky ground and now Mr. Crilly is sounding alarm bells on the project. The problem with the Evergreen Line is that for transit customers wishing to go toAi?? Vancouver, the West Coast Express is a faster and seamlessAi??ride and those who wish to commute elsewhere, other than Metrotown or Lougheed Mall, will need to inconveniently transfer to another SkyTrain or bus.
Like the Canada Line, for many, the (N)Evergreen Line will be inconvenient and taking the car will just be a better option.
Until we design our regional rail and transit system to cater to customer needs, instead of academic, bureaucratic and political needs, taking the car will be the option for those who can afford to, leaving the rest of the transit system to decay, mainly being for the poor, the elderly and students. Why should the taxpayer ante up two cents more a litre for that?
A never used section on the Belgium Charleroi pre-metro.
Over optimistic ridership numbers, doomed some completed lines to rust away, never seeing a paying customer.
P. T. Barnum Was Right – There Is A Sucker Born Every Minute!
Psssst…….hey want to buy some stock in Nose Dive Airlines or a gold mine on Mars, well come to Metro Vancouver because we have city mayors that would.
With absolutely no guarantee, just a promise from TransLink, that the extra two cent a litre tax increase will actually improve transit, several mayors have blundered ahead on stealing more tax monies from beleaguered taxpayer's, without any taxpayer input. "We know better", is the politician's refrain.
Refusing to address the reality that it is the SkyTrain light metro system that is bankrupting TransLink, those voting for a tax increase live in a dreamworld where the regions populace are just dying to give more hard earned money to TransLink.
Me thinks reality will sink in when civic elections are held in November and many who voted for the tax will be without a job, as the taxpayer has grow weary of TransLink's demands.
Majority of Metro Vancouver mayors set to boost gas tax to pay for more transit
Regional mayors (from left to right) Dianne Watts from Surrey, Pam Goldsmith-Jones from West Vancouver, Richard Stewart from Coquitlam, Peter Fassbender from Langley and Gregor Robertson from Vancouver.
Photograph by: Jason Payne, PNG
METRO VANCOUVER – Seven Metro Vancouver mayors, including those in Surrey and Vancouver, will vote in favour of a TransLink plan Friday that calls for a two-cents-a-litre boost in the gas tax to pay for the Evergreen Line and other regional transit projects.
Calling it an “unprecedented show of strength,” the mayors, who represent 70 per cent of Metro’s 2.5-million population, say it’s critical to start building a regional transit system to ease congestion and offer transportation options for the movement of goods and people.
The group, which includes Coquitlam, Langley City, Port Coquitlam, West Vancouver and North Vancouver District, holds enough weighted votes to pass the plan, despite opposition from heavyweights like Burnaby and Richmond. North Vancouver City and Delta are also expected to oppose the plan.
Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts said it wasn’t easy to advocate for any kind of tax increase for transit expansion, but the group felt it had to start planning for the future, especially as Metro Vancouver prepares to welcome another million people by 2040 — most of whom will move to transit-poor areas like Surrey and Langley.
Metro also has one of the busiest border crossings in the country, she noted.
“It’s imperative we start planning now. If we do nothing now and do nothing about the future, we’re going to be in a mess,” Watts told The Vancouver Sun editorial board Tuesday. “We’re going to see an influx of people; we have to get those cars off the road.”
TransLink’s Moving Forward plan aims to raise $40 million annually through a two-cent increase in the gas tax — to take effect next April — and another $30 million through user-pay measures such as a vehicle levy, road congestion charges, carbon tax or tolls.
A potential time-limited property tax increase of an average $23 per homeowner will come into effect in 2013-14 if alternative funding sources can’t be found within the next year.
Mayors of communities south of the Fraser and the Tri-Cities, which have been waiting decades for the Evergreen Line, tend to be more supportive of the plan than other municipalities. Richmond Mayor Malcolm Brodie said while he supports using the gas tax to build the Evergreen Line, he won’t support any plan that includes an increase in property taxes, even as a stopgap measure.
Within two years, TransLink would be back looking for more money, he suggested.
“Ever since its inception, TransLink has faced a funding shortage; it’s been in a critical situation always,” Brodie said. “I believe that we have to have a long-term focus and come up with a permanent solution and not lurch from crisis to crisis.”
Langley Township Mayor Rick Green agreed. He is leaning against supporting the plan, noting that his community has been funnelling money into TransLink and not seeing any returns because the mayors have no control over the projects that TransLink proposes.
“It’s a very tough decision for us out there,” he said.
But the other mayors say they are committed to coming up with alternatives to raising property taxes in 2013, and finally have the opportunity to work with the province to find that long-term funding.
They acknowledge car-dependent communities, such as those south of the Fraser, will pay more for the transit plan in the short term, but vowed to look at making the plan more fair and equitable across the region. This could include tolling existing bridges and roads and a graduated vehicle levy, Langley City Mayor Peter Fassbender said.
The plan calls for building the long-awaited Evergreen Line, as well as major improvements to SkyTrain stations at Metrotown, Main Street, Surrey Central and New Westminster and the Lonsdale SeaBus terminal; a new B-Line along King George Highway from White Rock to Guildford; more bus routes in south Surrey and Langley; Highway 1 rapid transit from Langley to Lougheed station; and road and cycling improvements.
“There’s pressure on the existing transit system, whether it’s pass-ups on buses in Vancouver or congestion south of the Fraser,” Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson told The Vancouver Sun editorial board Tuesday. “We simply must invest in a more robust transit system.”
Robertson said people in Vancouver would be willing to pay for the plan because it will provide more access to the rest of the region.
“We’re going to be paying more but we have more to gain,” Coquitlam Mayor Richard Stewart said.
TransLink’s 2040 Strategic Plan aims to have 51 per cent of Metro Vancouver’s daily commuters going to work using public transit, bicycles or on foot as a way to reduce carbon emissions.
ksinoski@vancouversun.com
What Was Once $70 million, Is Now $120 Million! The SFU Gondola Project
As TransLink's is extorting as much tax money as it can from the regional taxpayer, the Simon Fraser University gondola project is in full swing. What is interesting is that the cost of the gondola project has soared from $70 million from this spring to $120 million today.
I wonder if TransLink Board Chair, Nancy Olewiler, Director of the School of Public Policy in the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences at Simon Fraser University, has anything to do with this questionable project?
I also wonder if chaining the bus tires, in snowy weather, would be a much simpler and very much cheaper solution for transit service to SFU?
Alas, with TransLink, "why spend $1000.00 on chains, when you can spend $120 million for glitzy gondola ride".
Portland's gondola, which carries 3,700 one way trips per day, not per hour!
The tram cost $57 million to build—a nearly fourfold increase over initial cost estimates.
SFU gondola topic of MP's survey
Kennedy Stewart hopes to present findings in six weeks
BURNABY(NEWS1130) – A local politician is looking for your feedback about TransLink's proposed gondola project at SFU.
Up to 4,000 people an hour would be travelling over homes in the Forest Grove neighbourhood if the $120 million TransLink proposal is approved.
"It's something that I want more information on, so I've decided to launch my own consultation process in Burnaby-Douglas; the affected area around the proposed gondola route," explains Burnaby-Douglas MP Kennedy Stewart.
Around 5,000 households will be receiving surveys and phone calls.
"Often for these projects, where currently there's no federal money involved… I think it's responsible to try to get ahead of these issues because I suspect there will be federal money involved at some point and I'd like to have a clear position on the issue when it comes forward."
Some people in the area fear a loss of privacy. "At a height of 160 feet, gondola riders would be able to see through our windows and into our skylights and private rooftop terraces," says Chris Rarinca.
If you live in Forest Grove, Stewart says the surveys should be arriving on your doorstep soon with the phone calls to follow.
Stewart feels the project has a lot of merits and if they can find a workable solution, this might actually save TransLink some money. "It replaces a large number of diesel buses, it's faster for students but the main thing that comes up is how the gondola affects people in Forest Grove."
Stewart is hoping to presenting his findings at a couple of public meetings in about six weeks.
Gondola system quick facts:
- TransLink says it needs to consider this project, as SFU's population is expected to steadily increase in the next 20 years
- The 30 to 35 person gondola cabins would carry 3,000 more people per hour up the mountain
- Gondola cabins would run every 40 seconds
- The system would eliminate weather-related bus cancellations, which happen about 10 days a year
- The system would eliminate 35,000 hours of diesel bus operation
- The recommended route would have the gondola station located at Production Way SkyTrain station
Union urges Vancouver mayors to accept gas taxes to pay for more transit – so they can hire more union bus drivers
The the bus driver union wants regional mayors to vote to increase property taxes to pay for light metro, mainly for Vancouver, comes as no surprise; the light-metro philosophy needs more buses and bus drivers to feed the hugely expensive metro lines. With much cheaper LRT because it can serve more destinations, doesn't such need a vast bus system to feed as light metro system does.
What is politely forgotten by our batch of transit planners is that when modern LRT replaces bus routes, it increases efficiency and productivity. What has been found in Portland and elsewhere, is that when a bus route is converted to a tram/streetcar operation, it became 6 to 8 times more efficient than the old bus operation. To put it another way, one tram/streetcar (1 driver) is as efficient as 6 to 8 buses (6 to 8 bus drivers) and for every tram or bus operated, one needed a minimum of 3 people to manage, maintain, and operate them and with wages accounting to over 70% of operating cost of a transit system, the saving by using tram/streetcar on busy routes is quite high!
The article mentions that the Broadway route sees 110,000 boardings each weekday, which roughly translates into 55,000 actually people using buses on Broadway (most bus users board the buses twice, inbound and outbound). Moving 55,000 people a day on Broadway has stretched bus service to the max, yet installing a modern LRT/streetcar line on Broadway could carry the same amount of ridership using a minimum of one sixth the amount of vehicles greatly reducing the operational costs on the route.
Please note: A modern tram, with a capacity of 250 persons, running at 4 minute headways (15 trips per hour) has a capacity of 3750 persons per hour per direction; two car trains could double this to 7,500 pphpd, more than enough to cater to transit demands on this route and without using additional drivers.
Example: If 100 buses (both trolley and B-Line) are needed on Broadway to move transit customers in peak hours, then only 17 modern trams are needed. To put another way, only 17 tram/streetcar drivers are needed instead of 100 bus drivers.
One can easily see why the transit union wants the expensive SkyTrain/light-metro status quo and increasing property taxes to pay for an inefficient metro system that requires many more drivers doesn't bother them at all.
Union urges Vancouver mayors to accept gas taxes to pay for more transit
The car proposed for use on the Evergreen SkyTrain line.
Photograph by: Vancouver Sun, Handout
The unions representing transit workers are urging Metro Vancouver mayors to accept TransLink's proposed funding supplement plan — including a two-cents-a-litre boost in gas taxes — to pay for transit projects such as the 11-kilometre Evergreen Line.
A City of Vancouver staff report is also recommending approval of the plan, while the Vancouver Board of Trade is polling residents on what they think of the higher fuel tax for transit projects, just days before the mayors vote on it.
The mayors' council on regional transportation will vote Friday on the proposal, which also calls for potential property-tax increases in 2013-14 if alternative funding sources such as road-congestion charges or a vehicle levy can't be secured to pay for future transit projects.
Burnaby, Richmond, North Vancouver District, Delta and Langley Township have said they will probably vote against the plan, which would generate $70 million annually. Surrey, Vancouver and the Tri-Cities are expected to support it.
The vote is weighted, with Surrey, Burnaby, Richmond and Vancouver holding the most votes because of the size of their municipalities. If the plan is accepted, the province will then have to change legislation to allow the increase in the gas tax funding, while negotiations will continue with the government on other long-term funding sources.
Don MacLeod, president of the Canadian Auto Workers Local 111, said the funding is a "small step forward" to meeting the needs of transit riders in Metro Vancouver, by adding 415,000 service hours — a seven-per-cent increase — to bus and SeaBus service by 2014, in addition to getting the Evergreen Line built.
The plan includes major improvements to SkyTrain stations at Metrotown, Main Street, Surrey Central and New Westminster and the Lonsdale SeaBus terminal; a new B-Line along King George Highway from White Rock to Guildford; more bus routes in south Surrey and Langley; Highway 1 rapid transit from Langley to Lougheed station; and road and cycling improvements.
"We're so buried, in the bus system, that any additional services will help," MacLeod said, noting that drivers are constantly passing up riders across the region. "Ridership continues to increase but we haven't put any additional services into buses in some time."
The City of Vancouver is pushing for rapid transit along the Central Broadway corridor to the University of B.C., noting Broadway has the second-highest concentration of employment in the region and the province, second to the downtown core, and is among the busiest bus corridors in North America with more than 110,000 boardings each week day.
The report also says that while there may be a property-tax increase in 2013, it is only a temporary fallback option.
The Evergreen Line, which has been in the works since 1989, was supposed to be operational by 2014. The project has been stalled as TransLink has been unable to come up with its $400-million share of the project, which is being built jointly with the provincial and federal governments.
ksinoski@vancouversun.com
SkyTrain too costly – A letter to the Editor
It not often that a sensible letter about light rail is printed in local papers.
SkyTrain too costly
In his coloum, Grant Granger argued that SkyTrain is a key symbol to the Lower Mainland and a tourist attraction. While this may be true, the trains come at a cost that far outweighs their symbolism.
Granger suggested that we need a greater SkyTrain system with more trains running more frequently to expand ridership. But SkyTrain is part of the problem, not the solution.
SkyTrain has often been promoted as a necessary technology to ferry Vancouverites from one place to the next. Granger’s view is not far off from the governments’ and other pundits’ view that without the SkyTrain Vancouver’s transit needs would be severely underserved.
This argument misses one crucial point. If there was not SkyTrain some transit system would likely be in place.
The cost of using SkyTrain technology is prohibitive. A ground tramline could have been built at a fraction of the cost. Public transportation should be a priority for any government but public transit should be delivered at a lower cost when possible. Vancouverites do not need the latest technologies. Vancouverites need the best system possible to travel around Vancouver.
Another misconception is that SkyTrain is faster. The SkyTrain can travel to about 90 kilometers an hour. Modern trams can travel at a top speed of roughly 90 kilometers an hour or slightly above that mark.
Since trams can be built at a fraction of the cost and travel as fast as SkyTrain, we could have had essentially the same transit system we have today years ago. The cheaper cost of a tram system at grade would have enabled governments to build more lines and trains sooner.
What Vancouver needs is not more SkyTrain, but a realistic idea of what the public purse can afford. By spending taxpayer money wisely, Vancouver’s system could be greatly enhanced in future projects and taxpayer money could go further towards building a top-notch transit system for the locals who ride it on a daily basis.
Matthew Steinbach
Burnabyhttp://www.bclocalnews.com/greater_vancouver/burnabynewsleader/opinion/letters/129462173.html
The Gough coloum
http://www.bclocalnews.com/greater_vancouver/burnabynewsleader/opinion/128021128.html
Transit Blundering in Victoria
Sad to say, transit planners in Victoria have not read the Rail for the Valley/Leewood Report, but then, why should they, they live in a world of gold-plated transit, where any form of rail transit is over-engineered to such an extent that it will be too costly to build. Economy is not in our transit planners lexicon!
The E&N is a logical choice to install diesel LRT, yet this has been completely ignored, or should I say transit planners in Victoria have been willingly ignorant of diesel LRT and the Rail for the Valley/Leewood report, where a 98 KM diesel LRT line from Scott road Station to Chilliwack would cost just under $500 million or just over $5 million a kilometre to build. $500 million is $450 million less than the proposed Victoria LRT, yet give the region a much larger TramTrain network than what has been offered by planners.
The estimate $950 million to build approximately 19 km. of light rail is outrageous and I can see the ghostly hand of the remnants of BC Transit's 'SkyTrain Lobby' at work, gold-plating the project into oblivion.
I would like to remind everyone that the full build, 138 km RftV/Leewood Report, connecting Vancouver and Richmond to Langley, Abbotsford, Chilliwack, and Rosedale was to cost just under $1 billion.
If the light rail types in Victoria really want to see a successful light rail operation, they they must force BC Transit to hire real experts in light rail to plan for a successful and affordable LRT in their region. Using TramTrain on the E&N would go a long way in accomplishing this.
A modern Stadler GTW Diesel light rail vehicle used in New Jersey
Editorial: E&N, light rail and our future
A pilot commuter rail service between Duncan and Victoria would cost up to $40 per passenger, far above the amount that could be recovered through fares. And that’s just operating costs; add in the required infrastructure work on the E&N and the cost per passenger is more like $200.And even then, the service would do little to reduce road traffic.
In other words, this idea is doomed.
The assessment of commuter rail service was done by B.C. Transit and the Island Corridor Foundation, the organization which controls the rail line. It should not be ignored.
But it is only one piece of the transportation puzzle on the southern tip of Vancouver Island. No decision should be made on the E&N’s future without considering the other plans and proposals floating about, or the grim reality of ever-increasing traffic congestion.
Transportation is vital to a thriving community. The choices — often costly — made by local and provincial governments shape our communities.
What’s needed is one cohesive transportation strategy, developed after thorough investigations of all options.
We’re not getting that now. Instead, we have more talk about reviving service on a line that has not seen a train since March 18, when service was suspended because of the track’s poor condition.
Before trains can roll again, the E&N would need $15 million in track improvements and another $1.5 million for other upgrades, and possibly more, depending on B.C. Safety Authority orders.
And before that money is spent, we need to know the E&N has a long-term future. It might have sentimental and historic value, but if it can’t move people quickly and efficiently, perhaps it’s time to admit the Canadian Pacific Railway was right — the line is not viable.
The harsh numbers on the E&N project should also serve as a reality check for B.C. Transit’s plan of a $950-million light rail transit system linking downtown to the West Shore.
Light rail’s appeal is obvious. But the project would require rebuilding Douglas Street, the Trans-Canada Highway and other key routes.
Granted, the LRT would be able to reach into the downtown core and have stops along Douglas, so it would surely attract more riders than the E&N pilot. But if the low-budget version — if $20 million can be called low budget — doesn’t make sense, how can the LRT numbers add up?
Other fixes could make it easier for us to move around the region, but little is being done.
B.C. Transit buses get stuck in traffic with the rest of us. High-occupancy or bus lanes would help to move them along, at a minimal cost, but that idea seems stalled.
University of Victoria students are required to pay for a transit pass, but are learning, because of a lack of buses, that they should not count on the system. Yes, adding buses and drivers would cost money, but not as much money as the E&N would need to resume operations.
Road improvements are also subject to the same hit-and-miss approach, with different governments having different priorities, which too often results in nothing getting done, or worse, a half-finished overpass in Langford.
It’s time to stop thinking in silos, and of treating every idea individually. If it means starting with a clean sheet of paper — or even creating a region-wide transportation authority — then so be it.
It’s time for cohesive planning. Better late than never.
Tomorrow: Setting the region’s infrastructure priorities.
© Copyright (c) The Victoria Times Colonist
The Mufford Crescent Debate.
The Mufford Crescent overpass debate has implications for the proposed Rail for the Valley/Leewood TramTrain. The question Zwei asks is: “Why is a hugely expensive overpass being planned for Mufford Crescent at all, yet the far heavier used Langley Bypass/ Glover Road/Rail intersection/level-crossing remains almost unchanged.
Would it not be better to move the overpass to the Langley bypass/Glover road alignment and then take out the Mufford Road level-crossing altogether? Is it time to be rationalizing local railway level-crossings, when new highway overpasses are built?
More and more the Mufford Road debate looks like a bureaucratic boondoggle, where the planners will force the issue, just to sate their bureaucratic prestige and let common sense and the taxpayer be damned!
Editor;26 Sep 2011
After years of discussion and changes the Mufford Cres. Glover Road
overpass and intersection are still not finalized. Looking back on the
problem it is obvious the problems being experienced are caused by
inappropriate planning and trying to do things that would not be
needed if were doing it right in the first place.
First; we need a Long Range Master Transportation Plan for the Lower
Mainland and all work must fit and be properly coordinated. Second;
as part of the Plan we need to realize that Light Rail up the valley
using the old BCE Right of Way. Third; heavy rail traffic from Delta
Port needs to be rerouted to connect with the main CN double tracked
line up the valley along the Fraser River. Fourth; the development of
a positive Liveable Region Strategy for the Lower Mainland. We must
preserve farmland for food and green space. We do not need another
Los Angeles in the Fraser Valley.
All our present problems have been caused by poor short range planning
that ensures lots of work in the future and waste of tax dollars. For
example if we built light rail overpasses at the Fraser Highway, 200 St
and the Bypass at Glover Road it would really solve the traffic probems
there and would cut the cost in half. Further, most secondary roads would
only require gates, 10 seconds and the train is gone and vehicle traffic
is able to move. The money saved could be used to relocate the heavy
rail and build a new rail bridge over the Fraser at New Westminster. The
railways would save money. And they would not need the nine road
overpasses that are proposed or the double tracking needed on the present
route through Langley City.
One could write a book on the poor and inappropriate planning to date but
the powers that be just do not want to listen to common sense. The main
problem is the Provincial Government who will only agree to wasting our
money and doing things that ensure the railroads do not spend theirs.
A past example of poor planning was the SPI built at 200 St. and the
Freeway about 10 years ago. We told them it would not work and it was
the wrong place to build one but the transportation staff would not listen
and insisted the $15 million they would get from land sales was a good
thing. It now takes up to 20 minutes to get through the intersection during
rush hours and is now going to cost up to $1 billion to improve and allow
for bus service to Vancouver.
We need good leadership, planning and common sense. Everything should
be put on hold until we get it. Solutions to our problem have been solved
in other parts of the world. There is no need to reinvent the wheel when we
could learn from the mistakes and success stories of others. We can have
a wonderful valley with the needed transportation systems. We must insist
that our leaders and managers do what is right.
Eric J Bysouth, Langley CityAi??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??
