Appeal Court upholds Canada Line class-action of Cambie Street merchants – From the Vancouver Sun
It seems in BC, justice from the courts depends on the judge presiding over the case and not the law. From the same court of appeal which rejected former Cambie Street merchant Susan Heyes award for ‘nuisance‘ due to Canada line cut-and-cover construction, now upholds a class-action lawsuit by Cambie Street merchants for nuisance for Canada Line cut-and-cover construction. Only in BC you say? Very strange indeed.
It must be noted that no compensation was offered to merchants and businesses along the Canada Line route whose businesses were bankrupted or severely effected by almost four years of cut-and-cover construction. Zwei has yet to find an example where a compensation package has not been offered to merchants affected by transit construction, except for Vancouver that is.
The following comment is from the intrepid Susan Heyes, who has been reduced as a self representative litigant to the Supreme Court of Canada. I for one wish her luck.
ai???But in a ruling released Wednesday, B.C. Court of Appeal Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett noted that much of Canada Lineai??i??s argument was founded on a finding that there was no nuisance, which she did not accept.ai???
My Application for Leave to Appeal as a self-represented litigant to the Supreme Court of Canada is now filed, and must be heard.
Well done, Elizabeth Bennett. There is hope for justice to prevail at long, long last.
Cheers
Susan
A?Ai??A?
Appeal Court upholds Canada Line class-action of Cambie Street merchants
Photograph by: ian Lindsay, Vancouver Sun Vancouver Sun
VANCOUVER – A class-action lawsuit by Cambie Street merchants over the disruption and nuisance caused by building the Canada Line rapid transit system has been upheld by the B.C. Court of Appeal.
In a ruling released today, three judges of the Appeal Court decided to dismiss an appeal by the builders of the $2-billion line, which runs from downtown Vancouver to the airport.
The question on appeal was whether the lower court judge erred in concluding the claims of businesses and property owners affected by the prolonged construction have common issues that can be resolved in a class-action.
The three-judge appeal panel unanimously ruled that the judge did not err and it is not necessary to consider individual losses in order to determine whether a nuisance was created by the construction of the Canada Line.
“In my view, the chambers judge did not err when he concluded that the class proceeding would advance the litigation in a meaningful way,” Appeal Court Justice Elizabeth Bennett wrote.
“I would not interfere with his conclusion that the class action is the preferable procedure.”
Chief Justice Lance Finch and Justice John Hall both agreed to dismiss the appeal.
The representative plaintiff in the case is Gary Gautam, who ran a business in an area on Cambie Street between 2nd and 25th Avenues known as the “Cambie Village.”
Justice Ian Pitfield decided last February to certify the class-action lawsuit, finding the common allegation is that construction substantially interfered with access to the properties or businesses owned or operated by members of the class.
Construction of the Canada Line was originally proposed as a bored tunnel under Cambie, which was not expected to disrupt businesses in the area, but the builders decided to go with “cut-and-cover” construction, which required a five-storey pit that was loud, dusty and cut off access to businesses.
Construction started in 2005 and lasted until 2009. The Canada Line opened last year before Vancouver hosted the Winter Olympics.
The full judgment is online here: http://bit.ly/jJI337
SkyTrain justifications are way off track
It seems The North Shore News’s Liz James has scored a direct hit with her most recent article andAi??I hope the rest of the Post Media papers pick this up and print it.
BC Transit and now TransLink has made the LRT/SkyTrain debate an idealogicalAi??one and not a debate about what is best for the transit customer. The result is a cacophony of idealogical propaganda from TransLink, the SkyTrain-friendly mainstream media and the provincial government about how fast SkyTrain is; how much more capacity SkyTrain has; how cost effective SkyTrain is; etc., etc. Yet, when it comes to the nuts and bolts with SkyTrain, the mini-metro system is found wanting.
Some unpleasant facts that TransLink keeps hidden from regional politicians.
- SkyTrain is not faster than LRT – it is TransLink that has designed SkyTrain to faster.
- SkyTrain does not have a greater capacity than LRT, it may have done in the 1970’s when it was compared with Toronto’s venerable PCC tramcars, but not with today’s much longer articulated trams, which have effectively tripled the capacity offered without an increase in vehicles.
- SkyTrain does not attract more customers to transit than LRT, in fact the opposite is true, at-grade/on-street LRT has proven to offer a better incentive attracting new customers to transit.
- SkyTrain, despite being driverless, is not cheaper to operate than LRT, in fact SkyTrain costs about 40% moreAi??to operate than comparative LRT lines.
- SkyTrain can cost up to ten times more to install than LRT (20 timesAi??more for TramTrain).
Yet TransLink continues with its anti-LRT planning bias, which has cost the regional taxpayer at least five times more for regional ‘rail’ transit than it should. Planning for more grand SkyTrain mini-metro lines in the region boarders on professional misconduct, by tax and spend bureaucrats and politicians who are locked in a “Tom Swift” era of elevated uranium powered monorails and elevated railways and not the real world which we live today.
Modern LRT, operating on a lawned rights-of-way, making it both user-friendly and non-user friendly.
SkyTrain justifications are way off track
Introduction to Foundational Research Bulletin No. 7, 2009
UBC authors Prof. Patrick M. Condon and Kari Dow were right in 2009 and their data is just as relevant today.
If we were to pick any radius within the boundaries of Metro Vancouver and through the Fraser Valley to Chilliwack, none of our transit routes would exceed international standards for local service.
So why is it that, after 13 years of data that show otherwise, Bowen Island’s Coun. Peter Frinton and other members of the Mayors’ Council are still being told by TransLink that SkyTrain carries more people faster than light rail?
That simply is not true; the misinformation is being force-fed by TransLink to justify the provincial government’s determination to bankrupt the region with SkyTrain.
As Condon and Dow show in their bulletin, the “maximum” and “typical” passenger-carrying capacities of a 90-foot, single articulated light-rail car exceed those of Mark I and Mark II SkyTrain vehicles.
As for speed: for more than 20 years now, light-rail advocate Malcolm Johnston has tried in vain to get TransLink to acknowledge that the functional speed from Points A to B is determined by three things: topography of the route (curves, inclines, etc.), the time-distance separation (headway) between trains, and the number of stops on the route.
Measured on the same track, with the same number of stops, the running speeds of modern light-rail and tram-trains are actually faster than SkyTrain.
Furthermore, the access and boarding speed of light-rail is faster than SkyTrain.
The multi-billion-dollar problems that plague TransLink were created before it was born. They began when Ottawa and Quebec-based Bombardier Inc. persuaded former NDP Premier Glen Clark to stop extolling the benefits of light-rail and to use SkyTrain.
In 1998, when Clark realized the Millennium Line project threatened to become another fast-ferries-style legacy on his books, he downloaded Lower Mainland transit onto the Greater Vancouver Regional District.
A major turning point for the region, TransLink has held municipal taxpayers hostage ever since.
Gordon Campbell himself outlined the crux of TransLink’s problem on October 13, 2000:
“The only reason TransLink needs this extra revenue is because of the higher costs imposed on it by the NDP’s unilateral decision to go ahead with SkyTrain, without any consultation. By imposing SkyTrain, the NDP doubled the cost of rail transit construction, for less service. And now local taxpayers are being forced to pay the price.”
When Pat Jacobsen resigned as TransLink’s second CEO, she was succeeded by Tom Prendergast, who arrived from New Jersey with “over 30 years of experience in transportation operations.”
Prendergast weathered only 15 months before deciding “to take the helm of North America’s largest subway and bus system, New York City Transit Authority,” to quote the TransLink media release.
His parting shot was less diplomatic: “There’s really no impediment,” he said as he discussed transit along Broadway and south of the Fraser River. “It’s overcoming the cultural embracement of SkyTrain that has existed to date.”
Ah, the folly of cultural embracements. Separations after 13 years of entanglement are notoriously expensive and fraught with dissension.
The most believable explanation for TransLink’s determination to ignore the fiscal red flags and to perpetuate the SkyTrain extravagance was provided by Coun. Frinton.
Addressing the possibility that a different technology could be chosen for future transit projects, Frinton wrote, “As to the type of Evergreen Line system, that battle was before my time. . . . There appear to be good arguments for an at-grade light-rail system . . . but because the province has been adamant the system they will fund is the SkyTrain option, at this point I think it best to just get on with it, unless (B.C. Transportation Minister Blair) Lekstrom takes a different view than his predecessors.”
I intend no criticism of Coun. Frinton or his mayors’ council colleagues when I say such passive acceptance of provincial interference is calculated to send me through the roof.
When he appointed the TransLink board, Campbell and his ministers claimed it would take the politics out of regional transit decisions. Then, in answer to citizen complaints that they could not hold the board accountable for in-camera decisions, the Mayors’ Council was given the right to approve or reject board recommendations.
Yet now we have tacit acknowledgement that council members may acquiesce to TransLink’s decision to put a SkyTrain-type Evergreen Line out to bid because that is the only way the province will pay its share of the bill.
They should seek our support for a determined push-back.
The burning question is this: If Victoria, directly or indirectly, is to make the decisions about South Coast regional transit, why in blazes are we paying for the eight other boards, committees and Partnerships B.C. that sit between us and the province?
rimco@shaw.ca
Read more: http://www.nsnews.com/news/SkyTrain+justifications+track/4947237/story.html#ixzz1PM13CKv6
Around Canada
A column published by The National Post says Toronto has a fetish for
streetcars and what the city really needs is more rapid transit subways to
make it a world class urban area. The commentary compares Toronto with London and its Tube system:http://life.nationalpost.com/2011/06/10/kelvin-browne-derailed-by-the-spacehog-streetcar/
Every city with aspirations for greatness insists on good transit, and subways are typically at the top of the wish list – unless it’s Toronto.
We’re burdened with a fetish for streetcars. Visit London and ride the Tube and it’s clear how amateur Toronto is in this department. London is London, of course, a bigger, richer, older city. But this doesn’t excuse Toronto’s transit backwardness, and the squandered millions on dedicated streetcar
lines that make main roads awkward for cars and pedestrians. Ride subways in New York (a bit grungy but efficient), Barcelona and Paris and you wonder where we went wrong. What TTC honcho, mayor or consultant had romantic delusions about streetcars, and inflicted a mode of transit now only popular in second-tier towns and struggling formerly Communist countries?
It’s not only streetcars that have derailed us. There’s our phobia for urban density that has, until recently, made transit less cost efficient; a belief that if we made using cars difficult, people would use transit; and an assumption that bikes could solve our transit deficiencies if streetcars
didn’t.
London’s Tube system is remarkable. The staggering investment being made now to upgrade it prior to the Olympics next year is creating a marvel. Many of the major stations have been rebuilt, most notably St. Pancras, which has had a reported $1-billion investment. Of the 270 stops on the London subway system, most are in good condition, and the ones that aren’t are scheduled
for maintenance. Many of Toronto’s are tawdry by comparison. It’s not all perfect, but it’s easy to get around London on the Tube. Unless you have difficulty with the two or three escalators that take you down to some mineshaft-deep platforms (the underground is really underground), and the
narrowness of the cars (they do feel like tubes), you won’t have an issue
with using transit in London.
London’s transit system helps it be a vital city. Since it’s an old city with narrow streets, it makes it possible for neighbourhoods to be retained because you’re not widening lanes for cars. It also makes it possible for middleclass people to work downtown and commute 30 minutes to an affordable
area, yet not be car-dependant. There are lots of young people on London’s most fashionable streets. I doubt they live there, in the most expensive real estate in the world, but they work and party there, and then take the Tube home. And, yes, they have an “Oyster” card system we haven’t been able
to figure out yet, and The Tube is affordable if you use one. They must be discouraging single-ticket purchase as it is costly.
London’s Tube system expands with efficient buses, new “over ground” rail lines and a commuter train – links that can have you to your country place in Kent in about an hour. Cabs are also part of the system and quite different than the awful experiences you often have in Toronto. London cab
drivers know the city well, and are trained and tested so they do, unlike the cabbie I had last week who didn’t know where a major Toronto intersection was. London cabbies are courteous professionals. Cabs are clean and they have the advantage of being purpose built. No one pretends that regular cars make good cabs.
It’s not too late for us in Toronto. Maybe we’ll transform the King Street streetcar line into a subway and let development intensify along its route. Let’s look to cities that are truly urban for our inspiration, make the enormous and long-term investment in transit that is the prerequisite for future vitality, and discipline the TTC so it stops being an apologist for mediocrity.
“Light rail system nothing new for the capital region
By Jim Hume, Times Colonist, June 12, 2011
It’s “back to the future” in Victoria, the Vancouver Island capital city of the
province of British Columbia. It once had street railway service and now it’s
poised for revival in the form of a $950 million light rail line to link
downtown Victoria with suburban Langford to the west.
I arrived in Victoria in June 1948, just in time to watch the last electric
street car rattle away into the sunset a month later on July 5. With a bit of
luck, I hope to be around when the new breed of tram, hopefully running a little
more silently than its predecessor and now called light rail, rolls down Douglas
Street heading for the western suburbs and – dare we dream? – eventually to the
airport and the Swartz Bay ferry terminal.
If the powers that be can get light rail up and running by 2015, it would mark a
full-circle trip it’s taken 125 years to complete.
Light rail clanked down city streets for the first time on Feb. 22, 1890, the
proud child of the National Electric Tramway and Light Company, a company inspired by none other than Colonist editor David William Higgins. On hand that cool February day were Lt.-Gov. Hugh Nelson and Premier John Robson and a large crowd of civic dignitaries to witness what was one of the most remarkable inventions of the ages – electric power.
Editor Higgins was later to eloquently report in his newspaper that as the
February day folded into a gloomy West Coast evening, “the [tram] cars were
brilliantly illuminated and, filled with passengers, dashed through the streets
in busy metropolitan style, the admiration of all lovers of enterprise,
convenience and progress.” In 2011 we may well smile at such eloquence, but we must remember that what Higgins and others were witnessing was a miracle of the times – with the first electricity-powered public transit vehicle in British
Columbia, proudly ahead of upstart rival cities Vancouver and New Westminster on the mainland.
Vancouver got rolling electrically in June 1890, and New Westminster in October
1891, when the Westminster and Vancouver Tramway company opened its “inter-urban” light rail link through the mostly uninhabited forest and brush
separating the two communities.
But proud though all three cities were to be leaders in the public transit
field, and eager to embrace the latest inventions, they couldn’t weather the
economic downturn that ushered out the 1800s. After just a few years of
operating, all three tramway companies declared bankruptcy and the systems were saved only when Victoria businessman Frank S. Barnard and British financier Robert Horne-Payne reorganized the trio as the Consolidated Railway Company.
That bright moment of salvation took place in 1896 – less than a month before
the disaster of May 26, which saw a street car overloaded with families
celebrating the May 24 holiday plunge from a collapsing Point Ellice Bridge (Bay Street Bridge) into the harbour. Fifty five people died that day, many of them women and children. A coroner’s jury condemned Consolidated for allowing the street car to be overloaded and the city of Victoria for failing to make sure the bridge was safe.
Consolidated declared bankruptcy, but once again emerged under the leadership of Barnard and Horne-Payne as the British Columbia Electric Railway Company, and Vancouver, New Westminster and Victoria were again in the light-rail business with Victoria in expansion mood.
Growth was strong, demand so high that a car construction plant was opened in
New Westminister.
Before that plant got into full operation, the arrival of new street cars was
cause for admiring pride as the Colonist demonstrated when it reported “the new
[tram] car that made its appearance on Fort Street yesterday was a source of
great interest to the travelling public and many were the admiring comments made thereon.” The report went on to praise the new design for keeping two things in mind – “absolute safety and the greatest possible comfort to passengers . the cars are beautifully furnished . the seats being of oak and upholstered in rattan.lights have been placed, one between each two seats to enable passengers to read their newspapers . and there is also at each seat an electric button to call the conductor.”
All very civilized – and all soon to disappear as first the trams gave way to
the bus and the bus to the personal automobile. The streetcar became obsolete and all rail connections (there used to be three) between Victoria and Deep Cove (Sidney) and their original rights of way were allowed to disappear. From our lofty hindsight vantage point, we can only wonder how that was allowed to happen, and consider how wonderful it would be today if we could hop on a
light-rail car downtown and hop off at ferry or air terminals – or any point in
between – a matter of minutes later.
But that day is coming, and if the planners and the politicians get their act
together I might be around to ride on the inaugural run and tell readers how we
“dashed through the streets in busy metropolitan style . lovers of enterprise,
convenience and progress.” Hey, dreams can come true, you know.
British Columbia Electric Railway operated 4-wheel Birneys at Victoria:
http://www.davesrailpix.com/odds/bc/htm/vic07.htm
The system also had larger double-truck cars:
http://www.davesrailpix.com/odds/bc/htm/vic06.htm
One of Victoria’s cars is operational but at Nelson:
http://www.davesrailpix.com/odds/bc/htm/vic12.htm
Here’s a page about the Birney’s preservation:
http://www.nelsonstreetcar.org/nelsonstreetcar.org/Streetcar_400.html
Ai??________________________________
The CPR and Marathon Realty sold off much of this land and made millions in profits
I think you are blaming the wrong people….the E & N railway was supposed to be maintained in perpetuity by the Dunsmuir company and later purchasers in exchange for over 1 million acres of land on the east coast of Vancouver Island. The CPR and Marathon Realty sold off much of this land and made millions in profits all the while ignoring the line and requesting approval for abandonment every few years, showing no profit on the line, etc. until they eventually got approval and then eventually an emotional buyer in the name of our local governments! At least our local treaty group is going after the lands now owned by a timber company. The CPR should not have got away with this so lightly and now we have emotional politicians trying to save the Kinsol trestle and the commuter rail service all under the guise that some tourist out there might like to use it! It’s
too late people, ring the bell, abandon the rail line. For you politicians out there, how about using the transportation budget a little more cleverly and maybe modernly even……commuter train nonsense….even the bus can’t make a go of it!”
http://www2.canada.com/nanaimodailynews/news/story.html?id=c80d7ac8-cb1a-41a4-ae3d-5b60bed9c06b
Walter Cordery: Premier’s E&N idea is lacking
Walter Cordery, The Daily News
Published:Ai??Friday, May 20, 2011
Let’s hope it was just a slip. I’m talking about Premier Christy Clark’s assertion on a televised news report that the proposed Raven Coal Mine in the Comox area “would be a huge source of revenue for the E&N Railway.”
I’m sure that proponents of the Island Corridor Foundation like the Regional District of Nanaimo, the cities of Nanaimo and Parksville and the town of Qualicum Beach, all instrumental in establishing the foundation, found her comment reassuring.
Unfortunately, Clark appears to be more sizzle than substance much like ex-premier Bill Vander Zalm. She also seems to have inherited his penchant from shooting from the lip without knowing what he was talking about.
When it comes to the Raven Mine plan, the railway would have to build a spur line to the proposed site, something the ICF doesn’t have the money for.
Also the company has decided it plans to truck the coal from the mine to Port Alberni. It explains this in its environmental impact statement, saying “trucking has been identified as the preferred option for the transport of coal from the mine site to the port facility.”
The submission goes on to say that a “rail line is not currently technically and economically feasible.”
Not only that but B.C. has yet to determine if the mine’s environmental impact statement can be verified. Raven has yet to receive provincial and federal approval to start operations. And if local opposition to the plan is any indication, that could be a long-time coming. The E&N railway is in need of major repair so how does Clark think it could transport tonnes of coal?
As NDP MLA for Alberni, Pacific Rim Scott Fraser told me: “The Liberals have done nothing to ensure our Island railway remains a viable option for residents, tourists and industry alike.
“The premier’s assertion that a coal mine could somehow help our railway recover from a decade of Liberal neglect is bizarre.”
Unfortunately, I think he’s correct.
Clark’s statement was made while she was talking to residents of the Comox Valley and it appears she believed it was an easy way to score easy political points.
We’ve got an unusable railway line that has shut down the Dayliner’s operations since March 19 and a company that plans to truck its coal to Port Alberni and would need a spur line before it would consider rail. I’ve got to agree with Fraser when he asks: “How will this unapproved coal mine bring huge benefits to the E&N Railway?”
He believes the province must come forward with funding for the ICF in order to persuade Ottawa to contribute to the railway.
If Clark wants to see economic benefits to the E&N, her government is going to have to put some money into it first.
A letter about light rail, the Vancouver Sun refuses to print.
It is strange that the pro-SkyTrain Vancouver Sun printed an article about the proposed Victoria LRT project, unless the Sun wanted to cool the anti-Evergreen Line, pro-LRT stance taken by many regional mayors, especially mayor Watts of Surrey. The gist of the Victoria story…..
…. is that LRT is also very expensive and that Victoria's regional taxpayers will have to pay up to three times more in taxes to pay for the new LRT.
What is strange, is that the cost per km. to build the Victoria LRT, almost $60 million/km. is almost exactly the same of TransLink's almost $60 million/km.to build a Broadway LRT!
I find it ludicrous that when modern LRT is being built around the world, from between $20 million/km, to $35 million/km. for more deluxe lines, that the cost for LRT is so much higher in BC.
What the Vancouver Sun and Mr. Craig McInnes should be investigating is why BC Transit's and TransLink's costs are two to three times higher than new LRT lines in Europe and the USA!
The following letter was copied to (name withheld on request) Zwei, further questioning the high cost for LRT in Victoria.
Laying prefabricated track for light rail, greatly reduces the cost of building new lines.
The Editor;
One welcomes the news that Victoria is planning for light rail to ease the regions chronic congestion, but the bad news is that LRT planning in BC is dated and heavily over-engineered, taking the "light" out of light rail.
The problem is simple, local consultants treat LRT as a poor-man's SkyTrain and design it as such, taking away LRT's inherent advantages over the SkyTrain mini-metro system. Today the cost for LRT ranges as low as $5 million/km for the LRT variant TramTrain (LRT which can track-share with regular railways); $15 million/km. for streetcar; and $25 mil/km. for LRT. The cost of almost $60 million/km. for the Victoria LRT is much to high and one wonders if real experts were involved with the LRT planning, the cost of Victoria's LRT would be a fraction of the consultant's cost.
The Rail for the Valley group engaged Leewood Projects of the UK, who have expertise planning for modern LRT, to plan for an affordable LRT option for the old Fraser Valley interurban Line. The cheapest option from Scott Rd. to Chillwack cost $5.02 million/km. and deluxe 'full build' 138 km. option, Vancouver/Richmond to Rosedale cost just under $1 billion or about $7.2 mil/km.!
What is presently being planned for in Victoria is far too expensive and it's time that real experts be brought in to plan for affordable light rail in Victoria.
LRT plan for Victoria has mayor nervously eyeing bill – From the Vancouver Sun
An interesting item in the Vancouver Sun. It should be noted that BC Transit, who oversaw the Victoria light rail planning, has a vested interest in keeping construction costs for LRT high as BC Transit was also the organization thatAi??oversaw the implementation of the first SkyTrain line in Vancouver and their anti-LRT bias has carried on with TransLink.
TransLink, like BC Transit before, has always treated LRT as a poor-man’s SkyTrain and planned it as such, making their version of light rail, expensive and poorly planned. This must change before the Vancouver and Victoria regions will be able to take advantage of modern LRT’s cost effectiveness and general success. Compare Portland’s MAX LRT with Seattle’s SkyTrain clone and it is easy to see that real light rail and not a light-metro clone is the successful way to plan for 21st century transit.
I will add comments to this opinion piece in yellow highlighted italics.
A modern lawned LRT route built on a former road – quality transit, built inexpensively.
Opinion: LRT plan for Victoria has mayor nervously eyeing bill
By -Ai??Craig McInnes, Vancouver Sun
Saanich Mayor Frank Leonard easily concedes he supported light rail over bus service in a motion before council last year.
So why is the mayor of the largest municipality of the 13 that make up the greater Victoria region now warning taxpayers that they need to look askance at light rail after a detailed proposal has finally come down the planning track? Leonard told me that it was an easy decision last year to support a statement of principle that his council would prefer rail to more buses as a solution to what’s known in Victoria as the Colwood crawl. That motion didn’t deal with cost.
Light rail is always a crowdpleaser in principle. Clean, green and even a little bit romantic, the modern versions of street cars have become the symbol of forward-looking urban planning.
This is a triteAi??understatement, modern LRT is the favourite choice of transit planners around the world because it has proven to attract more new customers to transit, especially the motorist from the car, than either bus or metro like SkyTrain. Since SkyTrain was first marketed in the late 1970’s, over 150 new LRT lines have been built or are now under construction around the world, which compares very favourably with onlyAi??7 SkyTrain type systems built in the same time.
Not only does it take cars off the road, but an electrified system does it without the nasty emissions put out by diesel buses. And a single LRT vehicle can ferry twice as many passengers as the biggest bus.
A modern tram or streetcar, both LRT vehicles is as efficient in operation asAi??6 toAi??8 buses or put another way, one tram driver is as efficient as 6 to 8 bus drivers.
Before it gets rolling, however, it has a big hill to climb -the capital cost of building an entirely new system.
The Victoria Regional Rapid Transit Project looked at three options to get more people onto transit between downtown, where the jobs are, and the western communities, where most of the population growth in the capital region is happening.
The consultants picked a light rail system over trying to put more buses on the existing road network and creating a dedicated bus lane. Even though the LRT was the most expensive option, it was judged the best, a recommendation that was subsequently approved by the board of BC Transit, the Crown corporation that owns the bus system in Victoria, the Regional Transit Commission, of which Leonard is a member and the Capital Regional District.
Like the Evergreen Line in Vancouver, however, which everyone seems to like but no one wants to pay for, the proposed 16-kilometre line from downtown Victoria to the western communities comes with a price tag -now estimated at $950 million -that only seems affordable if someone else picks up the bill.
Modern LRT costs anywhere from $6 million/km to build (TramTrain) to about $25 million/km. The cost of $60 million/km. for Victoria’s planned LRT isAi??far too excessive and demonstrates BC Transit’s and TransLink’s anti-LRT bias, where unnecessary costs are added to the project to make it look more expensive than it should be. Old bureaucrats are still very afraid if LRT is built cheaply, that unpleasant questions would be asked about the SkyTrain mini-metro system. In the real world, Victoria’s proposed LRT should not cost more than $25 million/km. to build with a total cost around $400 million.
The estimated tab for the 11-kilometre Evergreen Line at $1.4 billion is higher than for the Victoria line, but the potential ridership is also much higher. The Evergreen Line is anticipating 70,000 trips a day by 2021; the Victoria line would only be generating a third to half that number -if people use it as much as planners hope.
Anticipating is the key word, the Evergreen Line is anticipating 70,000 boardings a day, with many continuing their trip from the present Millennium Line. The real question is: “How many new transit customers will the Evergreen line attract?” This is the same question that TransLink refuses to answer with the Canada Line, where about 90% of its ridership are bus customers now forced to transfer to the Canada Line. Trans Link also admits that at least 80% of the SkyTrain’s ridership first take a bus to the metro. 100,000 boarding a day doesn’t justify the now $2.5 billion price tag of the orphan metro line.
The report recommending the light rail option estimated that if the traditional funding formula were used, under which just over two-thirds of the cost is raised locally, the transit portion of residential taxes would more than triple. “I’m trying to engage taxpayers to pay some attention to this,” Leonard says.
Leonard was part of a delegation from the Regional Transit Authority that met last week with provincial Transportation Minister Blair Lekstrom.
Leonard says Lekstrom told them that the province is still committed to the $14-billion transit plan outlined by then premier Gordon Campbell three years ago, but it depends on local residents coming up with their share of the costs.
As with the Evergreen Line, any carbon taxes that go to pay for a Victoria LRT will be new taxes, above the increases that are already scheduled to go into the province’s general revenues. Leonard is concerned that BC Transit can decide to go ahead with the LRT, without approval from municipalities, and local taxpayers will get stuck with the bill whether or not they favour the transit system.
He raised similar concerns earlier this year when Victoria got new buses that had been purchased for the Olympics, along with increased debt-servicing costs.
Leonard would like to have a plebiscite on the November municipal election ballot, but because of uncertainty about funding he doesn’t know what the question would even be.
As with most projects the provincial government undertakes, there is no requirement that taxpayers approve the Victoria LRT line they will be expected to pay for, either through property taxes or higher gas taxes or more likely a combination of both.
Maybe that should change.
What should change is who you get to plan for LRT in BC and like the Rail for the Valley group, engage real consultants with expertise in modern LRTAi??such asAi??Leewood Projects of the UK and/or LTK from the USA!
Maybe Evergreen Line just isn’t affordable – From the Vancouver Province
Maybe Evergreen Line just isn’t affordable – you think? 11 km. of transit route for over $1.4 billion seems to be just a tad too much especially when it is compared with other transit modes, but Translink has created a lot of spin for the (N)Evergreen Line and it would be truly embarrassing for them if the project were to be mothballed. Certainly transit planners in Vancouver would smile, as it would mean their cherished $4 billion Broadway/UBC subway would be a step closer to reality and we all know that subways built in Vancouver will be affordable because subways will make Vancouver a coveted ‘world class city’!
The debate to build subways has been around a long time.
The Province
BC’s TransLink taking taxpayers for a ride – North Shore News
It seems Ms. James now joins the Georgia Straight's Charlie Smith, with her knowledge on regional transit issues and one hopes other commentators get up to speed on the subject of transit as well.
Yes, TransLink and the provincial government are taking taxpayers for a ride and have done so since 1980 when the then Bill Bennett Social Credit provincial government forced the proprietary SkyTrain mini-metro on the region. There is no logic why we continually build with SkyTrain and only plan for light metro, even when SkyTrain was just too expensive to build for the Canada Line, TransLink and the provincial government foisted a $2.5 billion truncated heavy-rail metro in its stead, hiding its real costs with a very questionable P-3 partnership with SNC Lavalin.
Zwei doesn't see any change in planning direction, with both the present Christy Clark Liberal government, nor with the Adrian Dix lead NDP, who are both fixated on the SkyTrain Evergreen Line. That TransLink's business case for the (N)Evergreen Line is full of holes, as exposed by US transit expert Gerald Fox, is quietly brushed aside as even more grand SkyTrain metro lines are being planned for by provincial and regional bureaucrats.
History is full of examples of hugely expensive metro projects bankrupting their promoters; in Europe in the 1980's, there was about 100 km of uncompleted subway tunnels for phantom metro lines that had run out of money. the Charleroi pre-metro system in Belgium still has a uncompleted metro line with three quarters of the route having track signals and stations installed, which has never seen a train or passenger in revenue operation!
The Evergreen Line debate is a line drawn in the sand, with the taxpayer wanting better 'rail' transit but not wanting to see exorbitant tax increases to fund gold-plated metro lines. As it stands, many of the regional politicians are just too weak to take on the SkyTrain Establishment and their tax and spend ways.
If affordable transit is wanted, then its time to say adiós to SkyTrain.
Though this cartoon is 13 years old, it shows that nothing has changed in the Vancouver METRO Region.
BC's TransLink taking taxpayers for a ride
By Liz James, Special To North Shore News
"In the future, I am open to considering using the carbon tax to support regional initiatives, such as public transit. If we go this route, we must ensure that the allocation of carbon tax revenue respects regions and communities so that one region is not subsidizing investments in another."
Premier Christy Clark, May 6, 2011
How many questions can be raised in 49 words?
Premier Christy Clark believes regions and communities should be respected enough that one is not required to subsidize another.
Does that mean residents of the North Shore, Delta and the Fraser Valley will no longer have to fore go transit solutions as they subsidize multi-billion-dollar investments for Vancouver-centric SkyTrain?
What other initiatives would crowd TransLink for a share of carbon tax revenues?
How far away is our future? Will it only arrive after we have paid $1.4 billion-plus for the oft-delayed Evergreen Line?
And, speaking of Evergreen, who will have the last say? Will it be the premier or B.C. Transportation Minister Blair Lekstrom, who just last week told the legislature that although the province wants to work with the TransLink Mayors' Council, he does not want "to leave a grey area to think that if they don't come up with their $400 million, there's another $400 million from the federal or provincial government. There just isn't."
That sounds like a subsidize-or-else ultimatum to me.
The premier made no mention of the commitment she signed onto in 2001, namely that a BC Liberal government would "require taxpayer approval by regional referendums prior to authorization of any new type of TransLink tax or levy."
Perhaps the Mayors' Council will suggest it might be politic of her to honour that promise.
Because, in addition to the watchful eye of regional transportation commissioner Martin Crilly, TransLink's curtailed spending, particularly its capital spending, warrants a more thorough examination than the agency has ever received in its 13-year history.
At one point in his 2010 report on TransLink's 2009 Funding Stabilization Supplemental Plan, Crilly said: "Part of the Commission's role is to be skeptical. Is TransLink changing its deliverables so as to make its job less difficult?"
TransLink's "job" was to deliver projects and services, as promised, in return for 10 years of fare increases and the higher fuel and parking taxes approved by the Mayors' Council.
The examination might begin by asking how many chiefs TransLink needs.
Once an integral component of the provincial BC Transit system, TransLink must now answer to no less than nine drivers – Crilly; its own BC Liberal-appointed board; the federal and provincial governments; Partnerships BC and the corporations it favours; the Metro Vancouver board, the Mayors' Council and, with the least say of all, municipal councils.
The individuals who make up those groups have access to the most qualified of local and international transportation professionals. Yet decisions about our Lower Mainland transportation system have been largely political — and ruthlessly expensive as a result.
To justify those decisions, we have been consistently misled for more than ten years.
Snowed under by misinformation that claims passenger capacity and speed superiority of SkyTrain over light-rail (to be discussed next week), we continue to pay billions more than necessary for regional transit.
In their 2009 Foundational Research Bulletin No. 7, UBC professor Patrick Condon and Kari Dow confirmed that in total dollar cost per passenger-mile, SkyTrain and bus rapid transit far outstrip six alternative modes of transport.
In 2009 U.S. dollars the numbers were:
SkyTrain — $2.66
Bus rapid transit — $2.01
Light-rail transit — $1.68
Trolley-bus — $1.62
Diesel bus — $1.59
Ford Explorer — $1.35
Modern streetcar — $1.22
Toyota Prius — $0.90
Simply put, we are paying 58 per cent more for SkyTrain than we would for LRT.
And we still have not been told the extent to which capital, operating and, most seriously, the debt-servicing costs of our three rapid transit lines are bedeviling attempts to keep TransLink finances on the rails.
And again with regard to Evergreen: Reached for his comment, Bowen Island councillor and Mayors' Council member Peter Frinton wrote, "Lekstrom is absolutely correct that the primary reason for the delay is the funding gap, and that it is the local government portion — the $400 million — that is the primary missing piece."
Primary because, as Frinton added, "there is a putative $200 million extra needed as well."
So how are regional taxpayers to come up with what Port Moody Mayor Joe Trasolini asserts is their moral obligation?
Frinton believes "some kind of road pricing is the only real viable alternative to increased property taxation."
"What the mayors primarily want from the province," he explained, "is an assurance that ICBC would collect some form of road taxation, if that was approved by the Mayors' Council."
But that is a new type of tax that would require a referendum, right?
There is an easier answer: The premier could repay our $478 million — the first installment of a total $778 million — that the Campbell Liberals heisted from ICBC in order to pad its own general revenues account.
Problem solved?
rimco@shaw.ca
Rail for the Valley
An Interesting video on U-Tube Rail for the Valley well worth watching about rail in the Fraser Valley.
LRT for Dummies – I hope Clark and Dix read this!
From the Atlantic.
Infographic: Light Rail Transit for Dummies
Jun 2 2011
It's a subject that's sparked quite a bit of heated discussion, both in our own offices here at the Watergate and in homes across America. President Obama and his team have promised millions to transform our country's rail system, but several Republican governors have rejected federal funds outright, arguing that we shouldn't be spending more money on a form of transportation that consistently loses money. But "light and high speed rail transportation," when done right, "have the potential to revolutionize urban environments where traffic and pollution are at an all time high," according to the Crisp Green blog, which presents this infographic designed to sway undecided readers in favor of the issue.
The data presented in this graphic are focused around Waterloo, a small city in Ontario, Canada, where Snapsort, the company responsible for the graphic's construction, is based. While not all of the numbers can be applied to any region where light rail is being considered, they do provide a clear look at how trains can alter the transportation options in an urban environment.
Infographics are always a bit of a hodgepodge of statistics culled from a variety of sources. Here, we sort through the clutter and pull out some of our favorite facts and figures:
- LRT will get more people to their destination, faster, and in a more comfortable setting. In Waterloo, the full standing capacity of the proposed light rail trains is 450, compares to only 75 for the buses currently being used.
- The light rail system in Waterloo would cost more to build — and leave residents with a higher tax contribution — but is projected to last three times longer than a bus transit system.
- "The more cities sprawl outward, the more we damage the environment and our health," said David Suzuki. "We need to design communities so that the people who live in them use their cars less and have a much lower impact on the environment, and a better quality of life in return."
The Great TransLink Rip-Off
Zwei doesn't have a problem with discounted bus passes, but they must be available to all. Having deep discounted bus passes available only to a select few is an insult to transit customer and an insult to the taxpayer, especially if TransLink is demanding more money from the regional taxpayer to fund its grand metro schemes because the transit authority claims it doesn't have the money.
This begs the question; "Is TransLink's chronic peak hour over crowding on its bus and metro routes caused by a mass of deep discounted transit passes?"
This is not a foolish or frivolous question, but an economic one; why should a small portion of regular transit customers get a heavily subsidized transit pass that is unavailable to the rest of us?
Zwei lives in South Delta, which TransLink operates three hourly or better bus routes that carry fewer than 20 people a day in total, why then doesn't TransLink offer deep discounted, $30.00 a month, transit passes to South Delta residents for "using capacity that otherwise would be going to waste"?
The transit rah-rah crowd, especially those who expect the taxpayer to pay their fare will be upset at any thought of them paying full fare, but why should certain segments of the population get a free ride on our regional transit system. This is especially true when the provincial government is mulling over adding a second gas tax to the region, to pay for TransLink's dated and ill-thought transit plans.
If TransLink is ever to get its financial house in order and actually operate a fiscally responsible transit system, it must take a serious look of offering deep discounted travel passes to select groups, lest full fare patrons of the transit system give up in disgust and go back using the car instead.
Are cheap transit passes adding to TransLink's chronic overcrowding?
Metro taxpayers foot bill for transit passes
Recent Comments