South Delta Leader – LETTERA?ai??i??ai???Light rail the one

LETTERA?ai??i??ai???Light rail the one

Published: November 18, 2010 11:00 AM

Updated: November 18, 2010 11:18 AM

The ongoing debate about TransLink, taxes, bridge tolls, and transit will not be resolved if current planning practices continue.

The problem is funding and when TransLink continues to plan for A?ai??i??Ai??pie in the skyA?ai??i??A? SkyTrain or light metro, costing over $125 million/km to build ($250 million/km for subways), instead of much cheaper light rail, our current transit funding gridlock will continue.

Provincial politicians like SkyTrain because they like to cut ribbons for glitzy new metro systems and TransLink likes SkyTrain because bureaucrats can hire scores of planners, engineers, spin doctors needed for light metro and everyone knows, a successful bureaucrat has hundreds of subordinates to help push paper.

Rail for the Valley and Leewood Projects have offered TransLink a golden opportunity to think out of the SkyTrain box with their recently released report, which shows that a basic TramTrain service could be had for under $6 million/km or put another way, at least $119 million/km cheaper than the TransLink SkyTrain product!

TransLink has ignored the report and now carries on planning for massively expensive subways and metros for Vancouver. The time has come to get blunt with TransLink, either plan for affordable transit for the region or face the South Fraser Valley municipalities seceding from this Kafka-ish bureaucracy.

Malcolm Johnston,

Rail for the Valley/Light Rail Committee

via South Delta Leader – LETTERA?ai??i??ai???Light rail the one.

International Comparisons of Urban Light Rail Systems

Three references, on the subject of International comparisons of Light Rail systems are posted for information purposes and education.

1) The roles of integrated ticketing, pedestrianisation and population density  

http://www.raumplanung.uni-dortmund.de/rwp/ersa2002/cd-rom/papers/167.pdf                                                            

2) Light Rail Transit encyclopedia.

http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm121.htm

3) Modern Light Rail as a transport solution for large cities. http://www.kaupunkiliikenne.net/Kirja/Modern%20Light%20Rail%20basics.pdf

Adios TransLink?

Recent events are pointing that TransLink’s time may soonAi??come to an endAi??and a new regional (or two) transit authority(s) may come into being.

The trouble with funding for the $1.4 billion Evergreen Line and TransLink’s strict adherence with SkyTrain and or light-metro is highlighting TransLink’s endemic financial woes. TransLink is getting a rough ride from regional mayors withAi??their almost unanimous rejection of increasing property taxes to fund transit, yet TransLink continues to plan for gold plated metro lines in Surrey and Vancouver, rejecting any call to live within its means.

The provincial government is in totalAi??chaos with the announced resignation of premier Campbell over the HST andAi??will be loathe to force new taxes on the region to fund transit, with a loomingAi??leadership convection and a possible provincial election in the next 12 months. The taxpayer is financially exhausted, something which well paid regional bureaucrats fail toAi??comprehend (which lead to the HST revolt) and announcing new transit taxes is just not on the menu at this time. Calls for road pricing and bridge tolls will also suffer the same fate.

Rail for the Valley has offered a partial solution with the RftV/Leewood TramTrain report, which clearly shows that much cheaper TramTrain can be built in the region, providing a much larger ‘rail’ network for attracting the motorist from the car. For the cost of the Evergreen Line SkyTrain we can install a ‘full build’ RftV/Leewood TramTrain (Vancouver/Richmond to Rosedale), with enough money left over for a Vancouver to maple Ridge TramTrain! TransLink continues to think only in a SkyTrain box and continues to ignore an affordableAi??TramTrain solution!

More bad financial news may come TransLink’s way. Despite much hype and hoopla about the $2.5 billion plus Canada Line metro, there is no evidence that it has attracted the all important driver from the car. In fact, the opposite is happening and the forced transfer from South of the Fraser bus customers onto the RAV/Metro is deterring ridership. What new ridership TransLink is claiming is from:

1. Elderly gamblers going to River Rock Casino.
2. Elderly Asians shopping in the manyAi??Asian stores and mallsAi??in Richmond.
3. Employees at YVR who park in the spacious parking lots on Sea Island and travel the short distance,Ai??free, to work on RAV.
4. U-Pass college and university students, who are making multiple trips per day (up to 8 boardings) on $1.00 a day tickets.

What is hurting TransLink’s bottom line is that the previous categories of new riders using the RAV/Canada line are either traveling on discounted fares or riding free, which translates into higher fees (taxes)Ai??being paid to the concessionaire. Laila Yuile’s diligent research has shown that ‘shadow tolls’ are being paid on the Sea to Sky highwayAi?? http://lailayuile.wordpress.com/2010/10/31/shadow-tolls-on-sea-to-sly-highway-the-william-r-bennett-bridgeand-the-bc-rail-connection/Ai??Ai?? and one wonders what TranslinkAi??and the provincial government is paying theAi??concessionaireAi??to operate the RAV/Canada Line?

The question that regional politicians must ask is “As Translink just does not have the will to live within its means and its selfserving doomsday senerios to scare politicians into squeeze the taxpayer for Ai??more money must end.Ai??Why not get rid ofAi??TransLink altogether and start anew?” The RftV/Leewood report has shown that transit planning by an outside transit consultant results in much more affordable transit options; so why then do we need such a ponderous planning bureacracy, well past its ‘best by date’Ai??that still plans for obsolete light-metro and rejects cheaper, yet just as efficent transit options, such as light rail?

If regional politicians do some soul searching on the transit/Translink issue, they just might come to the conclusion to say adiA?s Translink, you have over stayed your welcome.

Two upcoming events in Langley

Hosted by South Fraser On Trax:

On Saturday, November 20th, we will be hosting our 2nd Annual Ai??Ai??Sustainability onAi??Ai??the Edge event. Our keynote speaker this year is Time Ai??Ai??Magazine’s A?ai??i??Ai??One of the 6Ai??Ai??Most Important Civic Innovators in the WorldA?ai??i??A? Ai??Ai??Dan Burden. He will be speakingAi??Ai??on A?ai??i??Ai??How we got into this mess and our Ai??Ai??way outA?ai??i??A? along with other sustainabilityAi??Ai??minded developers and local Ai??Ai??government staff.

Sustainability on the Edge,Ai??Ai??Saturday, November 20, 2010,Ai??Ai??9:00am A?ai??i??ai??? Noon,Ai??Ai??4th Floor – Township of Langley Civic Facility,Ai??Ai??20338 65 Avenue

On Saturday, November 27th, our Living Green, Saving Green workshop kicks-off.Ai??Ai??Learn from David Suzuki FoundationA?ai??i??ai???s Queen of Green Lindsay Ai??Ai??Coulter and SFU’sAi??Ai??The City Program Director Gordon Price. Also, BC Hydro will talk on energyAi??Ai??saving in the home Ai??Ai??and provide help with accessing various energy savingAi??Ai??rebates and grants Ai??Ai??available.

Living Green, Saving Green,Ai??Ai??Saturday, November 27, 2010,Ai??Ai??1:00pm A?ai??i??ai??? 3:00pm,Ai??Ai??Douglas Recreation Centre,Ai??Ai??20550 Douglas Crescent

http://www.southfraser.net

A New Look and a New Resolve!

The growing support for the Rail for the Valley TramTrain/Interurban project has made the new look Rail for the Valley website and blog a must as the old blog was rather dowdy. Zweisystem welcomes Cardinal Fang to the blog role, but lest the SkyTrain Lobby think they have chased old Zwei away, think again!

The Rail for the Valley blog has become the centre (some say target) for discussion on modern public transit philsophy and modern transportation. For too long the SkyTrain Lobby has held sway, with a revisionist's fervour, manipulating local transit studies and rewriting transit history to suit their own ends. The RftV blog challenges the SkyTrain Lobby to come clean, by forcing them to deal with transportation fact, not SkyTrain fairytales. Rail for the Valley also challenges TransLink to an open public debate, not propaganda power point presentations, for rail transit South of the Fraser. The silence from the Ivory towers on Kingsway on the RftV/Leewood study speak volumes that TransLink is scared, so scared after a decade of deliberate misinformation, bordering on professional misconduct, that any honest debate will expose their current charade of regional transit planning. Expose the truth and those Ivory towers will crash down.

The new look Rail for the Valley blog, Cardinal Fang and a very large support from people South of the Fraser River are going to make this springs transit debate one to remember!

Welcome to the new Rail For the Valley website

Hi everyone,

I am extraordinarily pleased to present to you the new Rail For the Valley website.

http://www.railforthevalley.com

 

 

AdiA?A?s the Evergreen Line?

USA: Why the Stimulus Package Failed

A commentary by Lyndon Henry, fromAi??Ai??the Light Rail Now folks in the United States. The question to be asked here is: “Was Canada so-called stimulus funding successful?”

While the commentary below doesn’t directly mention public
transportation, rail transit, or passenger rail, I believe it is
directly relevant to the issue of federal investment in these
services and facilities (now under political attack). Beinhart makes
a compelling case for investing in major projects as the most
effective way to create jobs – this certainly bolsters the case for
investing in urban rail, Amtrak, and other public transport projects
as a way not only to start addressing America’s dire
infrastructure-decay and capacity-insufficiency problems but also to
significantly create essential, productive jobs.

The author presents one of the best explanations I’ve seen of the
job-creation “multiplier effect” of such investments.

The Teapot GOP (and Blue Dog Dems) have derided the Obama
administration’s 2009 “stimulus” program as a “failure” that cost
$787 billion (exaggerated to “$800 billion” and even more exaggerated
to “$1 trillion”). Beinhart lays out a compelling case that the
“stimulus” was actually mostly tax cuts and unemployment benefit
subsidies, with only $154.5 billion of actual job-creating stimulus.
Based on that figure, and the well-documented creation of at least
1.6 million jobs, he calculates an average cost per created job of
less than $97,000 – a figure that compares extremely well with other
government “efforts” at “job creation” (such as “trickle-down”
effects of high-inome tax cuts).

I think this analysis and these figures will be helpful to rail
advocates in making the case for much more, not less, public
investment in rail transit and intercity rail projects (definitely an
uphill struggle in today’s loony, Neanderthal political climate).

Lyndon

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-beinhart/why-the-stimulus-package_b_781206.html

Huffington Post
November 9, 2010 05:41 PM

Why the Stimulus Package Failed

Larry Beinhart
Author, ‘Salvation Boulevard,” “Wag the Dog,” “The Librarian.”

The stimulus package failed because it consisted mostly of tax cuts.
Tax cuts are among the very worst ways to create jobs and certainly
the most expensive.

The stimulus package authorizes 787 billion dollars. According to the
official website (Recovery.gov) $565 billion has actually been spent
or credited. There are three categories of “stimulus.” Citing amounts
spent, they are:

1. $243.4 billion in tax cuts.

2. $154.5 billion in contracts, grants, and loans. This is what
we actually think of as a stimulus, construction and research projects.

3. $166.8 billion in entitlements. This is mostly money to the
states to help with unemployment insurance.

Estimates of jobs “saved and created” by the package range from
800,000 to 2.4 million (both from the Congressional Budget Office),
with other estimates at 1.25 million (IHS/Global Insight), 1.06
million (Macroeconomic Advisors), and 1.59 million (Moody’s).

Let’s use Moody’s estimate (sort of the high middle, and independent)
and round it off to 1.6 million jobs “saved and created.”

That’s $353,125 per job.

I’m sorry, but that’s ridiculous. It’s obscene.

If you have an essentially unlimited line of credit, as the
government essentially does, it would appear relatively easy to create jobs.

“Hey, you, over there on the unemployment line, wanna work cleaning
up our national parks? Yeah, we’ll give you a twenty dollar rake,
some biodegradable garbage bags, and twenty bucks an hour.” That
happens to be 47 cents an hour over the average wage.

No national parks or monuments in your neighborhood?

All right, there are lots of empty lots and abandoned homes due to
the housing market collapse. “Let’s clean ’em up. Same deal. That’s
forty thousand a year. You can live on that.”

Presumably the government will be decent about it and pay the usual
benefits — social security, unemployment insurance, workman’s comp,
and so on — which adds $8.11 an hour. That’s a little less than
$17,000 a year, making a total cost of $57,000 per year, per job.

Jobs don’t exist in a vacuum, not even sweeping the streets by hand
with a broom. There has to be a certain number of overhead costs. Not
counting salaries of supervisors and such (which would be part of the
job creation numbers), not counting benefits (already in there), 15
percent is a very generous number, for another $8,550, a total of
$65,550 per job.

So that’s what a “created” job should cost. About $65,000.

If you actually want to “create jobs,” that’s how you should do it.
Go out and create them.

But that’s not how we do things. We were not goddamn Communists. Or
even socialists. We’re capitalists. So we give out contracts to
private enterprises and grants to universities and other institutions.

Construction projects, one of the primary forms of job creation has
lots of costs beside labor. They have machinery, materials, a variety
of business expenses (accounting, insurance, legal, etc.), the
purchase of land and so on. Labor accounts for 20-30 percent of a
construction contract. Let’s take the low end, 20 percent, and assume
that a construction job is one of those $65,000 wages plus benefits
for a full year jobs, and the cost of that job then becomes $325,000.

That’s pretty close to the $353,125 per job number we got using the
Moody’s estimate.
Except that all those other construction costs (excluding land
purchase, which should be less relevant here) involve additional
labor. For example, materials are manufactured, a certain portion of
them here, in the US. Truckers transport them. Building supply
company employees handle them. Machinery is built (some portion of it
here), and maintained (all of it here). The construction company pays
it’s staff and the professionals (lawyer and accountants), and so on.
All those people buy food (keeping supermarket workers employed), buy
other stuff, pay their bills, and so on.

This is the famous Keynesian multiplier effect.

It’s also very difficult to calculate how many non-site, indirect
jobs does a construction project support with all its other spending.
In the figures we’re using, that 80% of the costs. It’s reasonable to
say that at least half of that goes into people’s pockets as it moves
down the line.

If we figure it that way, it should probably cost about $130,000 per job.

Let’s go back to the breakdown.

First let’s take out the aid to the states for unemployment insurance
assistance. Obviously that doesn’t add jobs. It helps people. It goes
to keeping the community afloat, but it doesn’t create a whole lot of jobs.

Let’s take out the tax cuts. Just as an academic exercise, for the moment.

That leaves projects, grants, and loans. $154.5 billion.

If we have 1,600,000 jobs created and saved, and divide it into the
money spent on projects, it comes out at $96,562 per job.

That actually makes sense. It’s expensive. But it makes sense.

Direct job creation, or job creation through contracts (like road
building), has a multiplier effect. Each job creates more jobs, both
through the support jobs and through the spending by the people who
are employed.

Job creation through tax cuts works the opposite way.

The price per job is multiplied many times over.

In this last election cycle, Carl Paladino was running against Andrew
Cuomo for governor of New York. One of the charges that Cuomo leveled
against him was that he got $1.4 million in tax breaks but created
only one job from that.

The implication was that Paladino was a sleazy rip-off artist. At best.

He may be, but it is only a particularly vivid example of how the tax
cuts to job creation equation actually works.

We are still arguing about extending the Bush Tax Cuts.

The Bush Tax Cuts cost about two trillion dollars.

They were originally labeled and promoted as “jobs and stimulus”
packages. Let’s take him at his word. Over the course of his two
terms 1.1 jobs were created. That didn’t even keep up with population
growth. It also cost $1,818,182 per job.

Close to the same numbers that Paladino was working with.

The Obama White House, a prisoner of the prevailing ‘tax cuts
stimulate the economy and create jobs’ theology, passed a stimulus
bill that was 40 percent tax cuts, 30 percent unemployment insurance,
and only 27 percent actual stimulus.

That’s why it didn’t work.

That’s not even the bad news.

Here’s the bad news. The tax cuts are still in effect. The odds are
they will be extended, even for the very wealthiest.

Here’s worse news. There’s only one thing stupider than cutting taxes
to create jobs. It’s to cut spending. In the recent NY governor’s
race, for example, both leading candidates promise to cut spending.
That means cutting jobs. That’s happening state by state all around
the country. Not only does cutting jobs mean, in a very direct
one-to-one way, fewer jobs, it has a negative multiplier effect. It
means there are fewer people with money to spend on the things that
create jobs for other people.

Surrey considers paying its own fare for better transit

Surrey considers paying its own fare for better transit

BY KELLY SINOSKI, VANCOUVER SUN NOVEMBER 5, 2010

Surrey plans to make a stronger case for light rail and streetcar service, and may even consider footing part of the bill if cash-strapped TransLink can’t afford it.

Coun. Judy Villeneuve said city officials were impressed after a visit to Portland, Ore., that it had struck deals with the U.S. federal government and the development industry to help build its transit system, particularly its downtown streetcars.

While Surrey city staff were still reviewing transit options and their cost, Villeneuve said the city might take TransLink up on a suggestion that municipalities consider providing some of their own transit.

“We’re moving in that direction,” Villeneuve said. “We’re not confident we’re going to get the kind of transit (from TransLink) we’re going to need south of the Fraser in the next 10 years.

“We’re going to look at what the options are and what kind of partnerships [are available].”

Meanwhile, Metro Vancouver mayors were to receive a report from Trans-Link today on its proposal for a financial supplement to help pay for the Evergreen Line, a SkyTrain extension in Surrey and other transit projects. TransLink and the mayors are scheduled to meet next Tuesday to discuss the plan.

TransLink is asking Metro mayors for up to $68.2 million next year to help fund transit options, but the mayors are balking at any more property tax increases.

The proposed financial supplement includes options that would see homeowners paying an additional $5.20 to $9 a year per $100,000 assessed value.

The mayors’ council on regional transportation will vote on the proposed supplement in December.

Vincent Lalonde, Surrey’s general manager of engineering, said the city had not made a decision to pay for its own transit projects, but was looking at all options to fast-track transit, including funding, land-use and building relationships with TransLink and the provincial government.

“Surrey is interested in bringing forward rapid transit sooner rather than later, so we’re looking at the things that could be done to fast-track it,” he said.

Lalonde noted councillors were impressed that Portland had initiated its own downtown streetcar service, and that it is funded by all levels of government.

Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts said she would like to see a mix of transportation throughout the city, but added that much depends on the provincial government.

But she said that with another million people moving into Metro in the next 30 years — 70 per cent of them south of the Fraser — Surrey’s transit system has to improve.

“Our goals are to build a community, to move people around, but not necessarily speed them through the city,” she said.

Surrey Coun. Bob Bose said he envisioned a huge network of streetcar and light rail lines connecting Whalley, Newton and Cloverdale, but added, “It’s been a hard sell.”

He said if the city decides it wants to contribute to transit costs, it should take the question to a referendum.

“We’ll have to find ways of recovering it,” he said. “We’ve got to get out of this straitjacket we’re in, in terms of the regional transit system.”

ksinoski@vancouversun.com

Ai??Ai?? Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

via Surrey considers paying its own fare for better transit.

Rail for the Valley News in the EUROPEAN Press!

Ha, ha, ha………

If TransLink, the provincial government and the Vancouver Sun don't think the Rail for the Valley/Leewood TramTrain report isn't worth responding too, Railway Strategies do. Here we have a situation of the RftV/Leewood report being deemed more important overseas than in the Vancouver metro area! This just furthers the evidence that our regional transportation planning has completely off the track or put another way, TransLink is taking the regional taxpayer for a very long ride on the wrong train!

The following link is to the Railway Strategies article.

http://www.railwaystrategies.co.uk/article-page.php?contentid=11367&issueid=346