Transit Planning In Metro Vancouver – Where Have We Gone Wrong?
The release of TransLink’s $400,000.00 Fraser Valley Transit Study continues over three decades of transit denial by politicians and bureaucrats alike. The SkyTrain driverless light metro system has brought with it, the seeds of a regional transportation debacle, where the invented claims by the SkyTrain lobby has infected all regional planning, including the universities with the automatic metro myth. With this voodoo transit planning so entrenched in the region, Vancouver has become alone in the world pursuing a strictly automatic metro transit philosophy.
Recent postings from so-called ‘professional engineers’ (whichAi??I only have their word for it) not only shows an ignorance about modern public transit philosophy, but a desire to spend the taxpayers money with wanton abandon, which I belive insults the profession.
A question which I have always asked; “when did UBC or other local universities, include urban transportation in their syllabus?” In Europe of course there are whole faculties devoted to urban transit, granting degrees, but not in BC.
The planning faculties at those very same universities also must accept part of the blame as they also do not give courses in urban transportation, and what isAi??taught is so dated it is next to useless. The recent UBC inspired Streetcar Symposium in Vancouver a few month back was a good example, where those supporting streetcars or light rail, could not define the mode. This was most singular, having a symposium on streetcars but failing toAi??define what a streetcar is!
What must change?
First, a new degree granting facultyAi??of Urban Transportation must be created,Ai??independent ofAi??the Engineering and the Planning Faculties. StudentsAi??would beAi??taught the modern aspects of urban transportation, combined with a good historical base of various transportation modesAi??that have been used for public transport.Ai??This would give an independent view of urban transport problems and viable solutions to curb gridlock and transit chaos, so common in cities around the world. Graduates would have a working knowledge of LRT in its various forms (streetcar/tram/LRT) as well as heavy rail metro, light-metro,Ai??mainline commuter trains; buses (BRT/GLT); ferries and even the private auto.
Secondly, we must consider transit customer wants, with the ability of the taxpayer to pay for it. In simple terms, the transit customer wants to be taken from where he lives to where he wants to go efficiently and affordably and the taxpayer doesn’t want to feel like a ‘Milch cow’ to fund outrageously expensive transit projects. In most cases the transit customer wants his/her transit on the pavement and ready to use and the ability taking it in a seamless (no-transfer) journey.
Thirdly, politicians must approve new transit schemes that are good for the transit customer and not what he/she thinks will win an election, or use transit monies to enrich political friends and land developers.
To date, building hugely expensive SkyTrain light-metro has skewed our regional planning to such a point that it is all but worthless and has created the SkyTrain myth that rapid transit (SkyTrian) is built solely to increase density and one must have massive density to sustain rapid transit.
If the region does not change its present course, the region will bankrupt itself building hugely expensive SkyTrain style light-metro linesAi??which in the pastAi??have done little in providing an affordable alternative to the car.
Light Rail Transforming Cities, Guiding Development
December 27, 2010
JJ Sutherland, National Public Radio http://www.npr.org/
It’s hard to find a city in America that isn’t planning, proposing, studying or actually building a light rail system. Cities as diverse as Dallas, Seattle and Washington, D.C., all see light rail as part of their future — a way to reshape their development.
There are 35 light rail systems operating in the U.S. today. At least 13 metro areas are currently building others. Many more are being planned.
read the story here:-
http://www.npr.org/2010/12/27/132283143/light-rail-transforming-cities-guiding-development
The first light rail car prepares to leave a station stop at the official opening of Metro Light Rail on Dec. 27, 2008, in Phoenix. The 20-mile, $1.4 billion line runs from north-central Phoenix through downtown, and then east through suburban Tempe and Mesa.
Have a Happy 2011 Toronto, love from Rob Ford
Rob Ford ready to let transit projects hold in favour of Sheppard subway
Globe & Mail December 21st
Mr. Ford has criticized light-rail transit as too similar to the streetcars he believes causes congestion in Toronto’s gridlocked roadways. He scoffed at the idea that monorails or a similar above-grade technology, which in theory would allow cars to continue unimpeded, could replace light rail. Similar projects have been tried in Vancouver’s Canada Line, which opened this year.
“There’s no more above ground,” he said. “No, everything’s going underground. I want to do subways. Every poll you see, over 80 per cent of people in the city want subways compared to LRT or streetcars. So I’m going to do what I campaigned on.”
hmmm, our Rob is clearly not impressed with the Canada Lines' ability to give cars unimpeded access to Vancouvers streets… how long before we see a Vancouver Mayor following Rob (Super Size Me) Ford's doctrine?
….politicos in the Fraser Valley are nearly there, their support for TransLinks FVRD report condemns residents to ever more highways & ever more congestion…
No intention of toning down in 2011, Ford says
Globe & Mail December 22nd
This report merely postpones a serious attempt to grapple with crafting a long-term solution – Articles About TransLink’s Valley Transit Plans
It seems TransLink and the provincial government got what they wanted – nothing, for this is what their recently released transportation plan is really about, doing nothing.
The estimated annual cost of $90 million to operate rail transit in the Fraser Valley is laughable, as well as the contention that buses would attract more ridership than LRT. If these two items are incorrect, then how much else about the study is incorrect?
The current Liberal Government's transit planning is all about "rubber on asphalt" and how to funnel money to their political friends in the Road Builders Association by building super highways in the Fraser Valley.
What is most laughable is that the mainstream media still picture Gordon Campbell as environmentally friendly, where the opposite is true.
In an age of 'peak oil' and global warming, not considering a 'rail' transit plan for the Fraser Valley, especially when RftV has presented a realistic and affordable plan to do so, shows just how backward our current government is with regional transportation. I'm afraid that we may be just to late to save the situation.
Chilliwack Times: (Paul Henderson)
SimCity4 Tramway, why politicians dislike streetcars and other matters
the Cardinal is enjoying playing with an early Christmas present; TRAM NETWORK SET for Simcity 4 Rush Hour http://www.eclatami.org/simcity/tram_mod/readme_english.htm
The WORLDnews web site http://wn.com/simcity_tram
allows you to view YouTube videos of different tram options.
all that is missing is the cantankerous politician
Steve Munroe http://stevemunro.ca/?p=4537 has written a blog, which makes sense of the definitions and clears the fug of the Toronto Mayoral elections, clarifying the the deliberate fudging of the streetcar/LRT differences in the campaign.
This YouTube video is a hoot!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4DRtpO-r5U
A Letter To Zweisystem
From time to time, Zwei gets letters that actually do not libel, nor threaten me and they deserved to be printed.
Much thought has been put into this letter by the author and though I agree with him on many points, there are some slight quibbles or additions which I would like to make and they will be in italics and highlighted.
Letter for zweisystem
I've been meaning to comment on your postings for quite sometime now, and my thoughts are now too long for a comment on the blog. Let me start by saying I agree with you for the need for a TramTrain or similar service into the Fraser Valley, I agree we've wasted far too much money on SkyTrain, and I agree that TransLink is often completely incompetent. This is just a bit of a rant on who should be most commonly be in the cross hairs of your blog posts.
First, how did we end up with SkyTrain to begin with? Well, as you know, it was the province's choice (mostly) to build it in 1986 (we can blame the feds too). At the time it might have seemed like 'the way of the future', so whatever, we'll let that one go. Some of the early extensions might have also made sense, at the time. One thing that was really stupid was building it down the old interurban corridor, which for one was nicely separated from traffic already and was much more suited to an LRT type system. The other problem with this corridor is a lot of it is in sketchy industrial areas in Burnaby, so we got off to a nice start by building poorly lit stations in the middle of nowhere requiring passengers to bus to convenient crime hotspots. But, as I say, we'll let this one slide.
The main reason for the then Social Credit Government for buying SkyTrain was that it also got access the then famous Ontario governments' "Blue Machine", in the deal. The Blue Machine successfully used computer tracking during elections and was deemed the main reason for the Ontario Conservatives gaining power.
Then came the millennium line. I'm not sure who was supporting what in the case of early talks of the BCIT / UBC transit line, a Hastings line, or a Lougheed LRT, but all these plans ended when the NDP decided to build the millennium line instead. They basically built an incredibly expensive line through half empty industrial lots and suburban sprawl – an area that wouldn't even have had enough ridership to support an express bus. Then, to make good and sure an NDP project wouldn't succeed, the BC liberals canceled the extensions at both ends of the line when they came into power, making it the line 'from nowhere to nowhere). This appears to have begun the province's favourite habit of messing with TransLink, and to me shows who should shoulder most of the blame for our SkyTrain obsession.
The NDP built SkyTrain for the Evergreen Line when Bombardier Inc. promised to build a fabrication plant in Burnaby to assemble Mk.2 cars. The spin was more tech jobs for BC and the plant would build SkyTrain cars for Asia.
This may be a good spot for me to do an aside and talk about SkyTrain ridership. The millennium line has remarkable ridership given where it goes. It's amazing how the City of Burnaby and TransLink (yes, TransLink) have managed to get a line that was never extended to either of it's original endpoints and that runs through almost entirely low density sprawl to be so busy. I used the millennium line to go to SFU and 4-car (mark II) and 6-car (mark 1) trains were arriving every 5 minutes completely FULL. While they're not the capacity of most metro systems, it's still impressive. Yes, TransLink was forced to make commuters transfer from buses onto the line to boost ridership, but what else could they do given that, thanks to the province, they had a 'gold-plated metro' in the middle of nowhere? The U-pass also helped a lot too (more on that later). Burnaby allowed high-rises all along the line. While, not the best form of housing in my opinion, they made a huge difference in boosting ridership. To me it looks like most of the unfavourable things you list of about SkyTrain are examples of work done to make what could have been a completely disastrous project be almost a success – it was all a response to a problem created by the province.
It gets even better… I remember when the TransLink board rejected the RAV line – twice! They weren't sold on Cambie and they weren't sold on SkyTrain. It was then that the province stepped in and said 'build SkyTrain (or more accurately a cheaper knock-off) as a P3 under Cambie or you loose your funding'. On the third vote RAV passed. It was Gordon Campbell and Kevin Falcon who wanted a shiny new line to the airport for the Olympics. Ridership is high on the 'poor mans metro', but I don't think it's entirely false numbers. See it is Vancouver's only somewhat 'urban' line. I think for the Broadway – Waterfront area we can actually support a 'metro-like' system – it just shouldn't have been a priority. There is a lot of legit users commuting to downtown on the Canada Line, we could have just gotten a lot more bang for our buck if the province hadn't crammed the most expensive option down our thoughts. To me it's not that the Canada line wasn't needed, its more that it would have better to get it, as an LRT, and have a bunch of money for LRT lines elsewhere leftover.
We have a general agreement but I have been told by a source within TransLink that because of having several Universities and colleges along the line, a large number of U-Pass holding students are using the metro several times a day (up to 8 times), this gives the appearance of heavy use but at the same time the metro is not generating income. As TransLink has no way of determining how many U-Pass holders are using the metro thus the monies earmarked for the buses are paid to the Canada Line, as TransLink uses each boarding as a new passenger. What the high U-Pass usage on the Canada Line is doing is robbing monies from the bus system. We also have to contend with the large amount of free ridership on Sea Island where employees drive to YVR, park their cars in the large parking lots and take the Canada Line for free one or two stations down the line. Indeed, they are counted as boardings and used in TransLink's ridership/funding formula for the Canada Line.
Added to the U-Pass woes is that it has been reported that many unused U-Passes are being sold to other parties, thus creating more funding chaos for TransLink.
Back to U-pass users. They ride SkyTrain a lot. You call it 'highly subsidized'. Well it wasn't, initially, at least not by tax-payers. The initial price for the U-pass was calculated to be revenue neutral. Because it is mandatory the subsidy would come from those paying for the U-pass, but not using it. TransLink would only cover the cost of running the extra transit, most of which was at the time expected to be just filling excess capacity. Of course, the program proved so popular TransLink ended up needing to increase service more than expected, but if you look at the numbers, it wasn't actually costing them that much (given how they cram students into buses). The pass was mostly paid for as it was about half the price ($34/month) of a normal pass ($69 month – one OR TWO zones for students with a transit sticker) and only half the students were expected to actually use it. Again, it was the province that came in and demanded universal $30/month U-passes at all schools, regardless of how expensive it is to service them. Transit costs less per person the more people use it, so the U-pass was intended to increase the efficiency of the system, it's just now unafforadble to TransLink.
Just a note: The U-Pass was conceived to put student "bums" on empty seats on mandated bus services in the USA, I don't think there has been an empty seat on Broadway bus for years!
Back to SkyTrain. The Evergreen line was supposed to be an LRT. TransLink planned that and sometimes the oblivious media still uses drawings of the Evergreen Line as an LRT. Kevin Falcon wanted SkyTrain and thus, we're now (supposedly) building SkyTrain. The LRT was going to be expensive for light rail, but the need for a tunnel to avoid the steep hill was real. Other routes were off the table mostly because of stupid decisions made in the past. It was entirely the province that forced SkyTrain for the Evergreen line, there is enough money available that the LRT plan is actually funded. Kind of seems like Falcon hates transit. I feel Falcon is a bit like Rob Ford (from Toronto). He likes cars, and his concession for transit users is a few expensive subway lines (instead of many LRT lines) because it keeps transit users out of his way. I feel it is mostly those heavy into car-culture that push subway and SkyTrain type projects.
Now, the UBC and Surrey extensions. TransLink planned for light rail, the province said 'no, you're building SkyTrain'. TransLink planners seem to be trying to at least partially avoid this with their 'alternatives' featuring light rail in public consultation. Gordon Campbell then, cluelessly, said they needed to get started 'building SkyTrain to Langley'. Campbell showed he was unaware of the actual plan, and that he didn't really care what people were saying, it was going to be SkyTrain.
So, in summary, while I often like to blame TransLink for stuff, I really thing it is the province that should be blamed for forcing SkyTrain on the region. While TransLink consistently demonstrates its incompetence, I think there may be a few good planners buried down in the organization somewhere, they just aren't allowed to actually plan anything sensible.
I agree, I just wished that some senior planners had the backbone to resign because of Provincial Government meddling with transit!
Moving forward, we have SkyTrain now. We paid way too much for what we got, but it's there. As is outlined on Human Transit there are some benefits to the automated system, such as the high frequencies we get at night (up to every 2-3 minutes on the combined section of service, unlike the 15 minute service on LRT lines in Calgary and Edmonton at night). The benefits of SkyTrain, to me, don't out weigh the insane cost, but now it's built we might as well take advantage of it. Instead of just ripping apart SkyTrain, I think it makes sense to think of it as a 'backbone' of our system. We should move forward planning light rail extensions from the end of SkyTrain lines (like the TramTrain to Chilliwack). We can continue with other light rail lines, such as from the Canada Line to the ferry, from the Millennium line to Maple Ridge, etc. We can then 'fill-in' the gaps in urban areas with streetcar lines running on corridors not served by SkyTrain. We should take advantage of the high-frequency backbone of SkyTrain we already have for future transit projects.
First, modern LRT can too, operate at 2 to 3 minute headways, in fact in Europe trams operate on 30 second headways on many routes during rush hour, something that the chap from Human Transit, will not acknowledge. LRT extensions from SkyTrain is a very bad mistake as it will not generate ridership, in fact forced transfers hamstrings public transit development. If LRT is built, it must be independent from SkyTrain and operate as a mode unto itself. Of course we will have transfer points, but to operate LRT as a poor cousin of SkyTrain is a very bad mistake and is why it is so important that we cut the SkyTrain apron strings now and go with light rail. If the Valley TramTrain connected directly to downtown Vancouver, ridership could be 4 to 5 times higher than a TramTrain stopping at Scott Road! Please remember the lessons of Karlsruhe, take away one transfer and ridership increases over 450%!
It is a mistake to depend on one line as a backbone, for if the bone breaks, the transit system is in chaos. It is better having a network of lines operating in a city to give the customer options and if a delay happens, there are other alternatives to continue ones journey. With our "SkyTrain is the backbone" philosophy, when SkyTrain goes down, a major transit crisis looms; bus bridges are made; spreading the inconvenience system wide. This is not a good way to operate the transit product.
That being said, I feel I have to admit there might be one place where a 'last SkyTrain ever' should be built. I think the millennium like needs to be extended from VCC-clark to Cambie. This big 'gap' should be closed and forcing an extra transfer to LRT doesn't make sense (see Human Transit). Just something that shows sometimes we're stuck following through on bad ideas from the past.
For the cost of this little subway, we can build a BCIT to UBC LRT/tram line, providing much better transportation alternatives for customers.
Hope my little rant leads to some interesting postings in the future.
H.
P.S. human transit articles I referenced.
http://www.humantransit.org/2010/04/vancouvers-broadway-corridor-options-announced.html
http://www.humantransit.org/2010/04/vancouver-a-cheap-fix-for-the-network-gap.html
http://www.humantransit.org/2010/02/vancouver-the-broadway-debate-and-the-dangers-of-interrupted-grids.html
The $400,000.00 Fraser Valley Transit Study – Much Ado About Nothing
TwoAi??weeks before Christmas and the provincial Liberal Government releases its long awaited Fraser Valley Transit Study and one can see why; it is badly stale-dated by the Rail For The Valley/Leewood Report. By releasing the report before Christmas, the government hoped to bury this stinker under Christmas cheer, hiding the the fact that the Fraser Valley has again received lump of coal inAi??its Christmas stocking.
Rail For The Valley, quite rightly is going to study this document and do an in depth report in the new Year, but Zwei wants to make a general observation; “Why don’t the BC Liberal partyAi??find the moral fortitudeAi??and tell the Valley taxpayers that they just do not want to build affordable rail transportation in the Fraser Valley and instead want to build highways for the Fraser Valley transportation needs. What really makes this report look silly is the estimated $70 million operational costs for a yet to be planned for “interurban commuter rail service.”
Really?
$70 million to operate what?
TheAi??phase 1Ai??RftV/Leewood Report ( http://www.railforthevalley.com/studies/Ai??), diesel LRT Scott Road to Chilliwack option, costing just under $500 million or slightly more than $5 million/km. to build, would have annual operating costs under $10 million per year! Already the government report has been discredited and as many have observed in the past, if the author has got this wrong, then what else has he got wrong in the report?
Oh yes, buses will attract more ridership than rail!
The report seems full of this nonsense.
No matter,the report will give Liberal candidates an opportunity to once again ignore implementing ‘rail’ transit for the Fraser Valley, citing this report, while at the same time, hiding it in the Christmas rush, hoping that no one really looks or heavens forbid, vet the report for its accuracy.
The latest Transit Study – initial reaction from Rail For the Valley
2nd Swiss Tramway opening in the week – Berne
Tram Berne West opens
http://www.railwaygazette.com/nc/news/single-view/view/tram-bern-west-opens.html
SWITZERLAND: Trams now serve the business and residential areas of Bümpliz and Brünnen in the western suburbs of Bern, replacing two former trolleybus routes.
On December 12 public transport operator Bernmobil inaugurated its Tram Bern West project, a 6·8 km Y-shaped extension of the city’s light rail network from Kaufmännischer Verband to Bümpliz and Brünnen-Westside.
Two new tram routes have been introduced. The Bümpliz branch forms part of Line 7, with its eastern terminus in Ostring, while the Brünnen route operates as Line 8 which runs from the Westside shopping centre via Bethlehem and the main railway station to Saali. The two branches meet at Unterführung and share a 2 km section of new track as far as Kaufmännischer Verband, where they join the existing network serving central and eastern Bern.
In November 2007 Bernmobil awarded Siemens a €65m order to supply 21 Combino Classic 100% low-floor trams for use on Line 9 to Wabern and Tram Bern West. The air-conditioned cars are 42 m long and 2 300 mm wide.
ZA?A?rich celebrates the opening of the final Auzelg A?ai??i??ai??? Stettbach section of the Glattalbahn light rail project
Glattfest celebrates Glattalbahn completion
SWITZERLAND: Project promoter Zürcher Verkehrsverbund and concessionaire Verkehrsbetriebe Glattal organised a day of festivities to celebrate the opening of the final Auzelg — Stettbach section of the Glattalbahn light rail project north of Zürich on December 11.
The completed route runs from Stettbach to Zürich Airport via Wallisellen, Auzelg and Glattpark and is operated by VBZ as Line 12.
On December 11, following official inauguration ceremonies attended by local dignitaries, the line was opened to the public. A fleet of 13 vehicles ran at 5 min intervals between 11.00 and 18.30, carrying more than 70 000 visitors who came to try out the new airport connection and enjoy the entertainment provided at several stations as part of the Glattfest celebrations. Commercial service began on December 12.
Work on the 12·7 km network started in September 2004 and was divided into three stages. The first 3 km between Messe/Hallenstadion and Auzelg with five stops entered service in December 2006, as an extension of Route 11, followed by Phase II from Glattpark to Zürich airport in December 2009 operating as an extension of Line 10. Completion of the final section enables Line 12 passengers to transfer to S-Bahn services at Wallisellen and Stettbach.
Line 12 operates daily between 05.00 and midnight at 15 min intervals; journey time is 26 min and capacity is 960 passengers/h per direction. The route is worked by Bombardier Cobra low-floor trams.
Recent Comments