From the Georgia Straight – Patrick Condon highlights cost of Broadway transit

There is no doubt that TransLink, the province and the city of Vancouver are steamrollering ahead for a SkyTrain UBC subway. The $2.8 billion for the proposed 12 km. subway is rather conservative and the true cost would be nearer to $4 billion.

Going back to the $2.8 billion figure – $2.8 billion would buy you:

Ai??Ai??1) A deluxe Vancouver to UBC Interurban, with a new rail bridge

Ai??Ai??2) A LRT Evergreen Line

Ai??Ai??3) A BCIT to UBC LRT, with a possibility of a Tramtrain service from Chilliwack to UBC without making one transfer!

Folk living South of the Fraser had better tell their political leaders that not one penny of their tax money should go to pay for this hugely expensive, yet needless subway. If Vancouver wants a subway, let Vancouver taxpayer’sAi??Ai??pay for it!

If the UBC subway project goes ahead, watch for TransLink to collapse.

Patrick Condon highlights cost of Broadway transit

By Matthew Burrows

A senior researcher at the UBC Design Centre for Sustainability says that a proposed rapid-transit line along Broadway would be A?ai??i??Ai??the most expensive system weA?ai??i??ai???ve had to dateA?ai??i??A?.

Patrick Condon bases this on the provincial governmentA?ai??i??ai???s 2008 Provincial Transit Plan. In it, the B.C. Liberals called for $2.8 billion for a new 12-kilometre rapid-transit line from Broadway Station to UBC.

A?ai??i??Ai??ItA?ai??i??ai???s about twice as expensive [per kilometre] as the Canada Line, and itA?ai??i??ai???s about 15 times more expensive per kilometre than a system which, I think, shows a lot of promise, and that would be a European tram system,A?ai??i??A? Condon told the Straight by phone.

Vision Vancouver councillor Geoff Meggs called expanding the SkyTrain along Broadway a A?ai??i??Ai??city priorityA?ai??i??A?.

A?ai??i??Ai??But I donA?ai??i??ai???t think it can get ahead of the Evergreen project,A?ai??i??A? Meggs told the Straight. A?ai??i??Ai??I donA?ai??i??ai???t think the regional consensus is there for Broadway until they have the Evergreen Line at hand.A?ai??i??A?

Meggs said he has no idea how much the Broadway project would cost. A?ai??i??Ai??We already have a high-speed line ending at the Millennium Line at VCCA?ai??i??ai???Clark,A?ai??i??A? he noted. A?ai??i??Ai??It just makes sense to complete it somehow, either over to the Canada Line or, better yet, take it to Arbutus. It could be the hub of a future extension down the Arbutus corridor or over to UBC.A?ai??i??A?

Initially, Non-Partisan Association councillor Suzanne Anton told the Straight she didnA?ai??i??ai???t want to get A?ai??i??Ai??embroiledA?ai??i??A? in a debate over whether SkyTrain expansion along Broadway should take priority over an Evergreen Line to Coquitlam.

A?ai??i??Ai??They both have to get built,A?ai??i??A? Anton said. A?ai??i??Ai??The Broadway line serves a need thatA?ai??i??ai???s already there, and once it was built, it would immediately start pumping operational dollars back into the system. In other words, it would be a net benefit to the system and not a net cost.A?ai??i??A?

At its Friday (September 25) meeting, the Metro Vancouver board will vote on a motion to advise TransLink that its 2010 10-year base plan, which calls for A?ai??i??Ai??Drastic CutsA?ai??i??A?, is not in line with the regionA?ai??i??ai???s goals. The motion also states that TransLinkA?ai??i??ai???s upgrade and expansion program, which would require additional funds of up to $450 million per year, supports regional planning priorities.

A?ai??i??Ai??And I fully expect that it will be endorsed by Metro on Friday,A?ai??i??A? Meggs said.

http://www.straight.com/article-258880/condon-highlights-cost-broadway-transit

By Rail to Simon Fraser University

In a private email to Zweisystem, a question was asked: “other than buses, how else could Simon Fraser University be serviced by public transit?” The email went on to discuss the merits or pitfalls of various transit modes including Funiculars (not enough capacity) and a high speed Gondolas (again, questionable capacity and high maintenance costs). What wasn’t discussed was light rail because as every one knows, according to TransLink “Ai??Ai??light rail can’t climb steep grades” or can it?

A transit expert from Europe once told Zweisystem that: “If one builds popular transit destinations in extraordinary places, one must use extraordinary methods to service them.”

There is a LRT solution:Ai??Ai??the rack & pinion tram.

Stuttgart Germany also has an university located on a steep hill andAi??Ai??transit authorities operate Ai??Ai??rack & pinion trams on that route, enabling them toAi??Ai??climb the steep grades to service the institution. The service has been in operation for a very long time and works well in all weathers, especially in the snow. The cost of a LRT rack & pinion tram is about 10% to 15% more to install and only on the rack portions of the route; the maximum speed while racking, depending on motor size is about 60 kph and up to 80 kph when not.

A nice touch is thatAi??Ai??the university tram service also offers a bike trolley for customers to take the tram up the hill and then bike down later.

What this post demonstrates, that unlike SkyTrain and light-metro, where costs prohibit even small spur lines to service destinations; (in Richmond the closest station on RAV/Canada Line for the Olympic Skating Oval is about one and a half kilometers away, yet the Oval is built adjacent to an old railway formation which means LRT could have directly serviced it if light-rail had been built instead), thus expensive shuttle buses must be employed or customers face a long walks which makes the decision to take the car instead all the more easier.

For almost every transportation problem, there is an affordableAi??Ai??light-rail solution, something that bureaucrats a TransLink continue to ignore.

New Westminster’s Interurban station C.1949

Here is a vintage video of BC Electric’s New Westminster depot.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9nlBa-4SIU]

Last of the interurbans – Part 5 A video of the South Shore interurban.

Courtesy of U-Tube, a video of the South Shore interurban.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Hd4qqWZM4s]

From the LRTA – Karlsruhe orders Bombardier TramTrains

Good news for Rail for the Valley, Bombardier is now producing TramTrains for the famous Karlshrue Two-System light rail network. One would guess that Bombardier Inc. would love to demonstrate this product here. Imagine, the “Great Tram Train Trials” for the Fraser Valley, with Alstom, Siemens, Bombardier, Stadler all competing for orders here; it would give much international credence for the ‘interurban’ project.

Karlsruhe orders tram trains : The Albtal-Verkehrs-Gesellschaft mbH (AVG) and the Verkehrsbetriebe Karlsruhe GmbH (VBK) have between them ordered 30 dual-system FLEXITY Swift tram-trains from Bombardier at a cost of about 129 million euros (CAD $203 or $6.77 million per vehicle). The vehicles are expected to be delivered between August 2011 and September 2013. An option for up to another 45 vehicles has also been agreed.

The new vehicles will be manufactured in the Bombardier sites of Bautzen and Vienna. the will use the BOMBARDIER MITRAC propulsion and control system which will be provided by Bombardier Mannheim and have the BOMBARDIER FLEXX Urban 2500 bogies manufactures at the Bombardier site in Siegen

The Flexity Swift tram is a light-rail vehicle manufactured by Bombardier Transportation. Most models follow a 70% low-floor design in order to allow access to those in wheelchairs without requiring the construction of high platforms, though some of Cologne’s fleet use a high-floor format (900 mm) with level boarding platforms instead, in order to retain compatibility with stations built for older trams.

They are bi-directional, with cabs at both ends and doors on both sides, and are articulated with three sections. The centre section is very short on most trams, but can be replaced with a longer piece in order to increase capacity, as London is considering doing for future lines.

The trams can be coupled together into trains, and can safely reach speeds of 80Ai??Ai??km/h (50Ai??Ai??mph) when running on dedicated lines. Systems using the Flexity Swift tram include Cologne (for which it was originally designed), south London’s Tramlink, Istanbul, Rotterdam, Stockholm (lines 12 and 22), and the Minneapolis Hiawatha Line. Merseytram in Liverpool/Merseyside plan to use the same model as London if it is built.

A total of 40new Flexity Swift trams have been ordered for use on Manchester Metrolink in England.

The Flexity Swift’s closest competitors are Alstom’s Citadis, the Siemens Combino and Avanto, Sirio from Ansaldobreda, and Bombardier’s other Flexity trams.

The Dreseden Schwebebahn – A monrail funicular

Of course, let us not forget Germany’s other Schwebeban (hanging railway), Dresden’s unique monorail funicular. Though not a true rapid transit system, the historic funicular does predate the Wuppertal Schwebeban by a few years and is worthy of a look.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ezsn4D_mKyA]

The Wuppertal Schwebebahn – Let’s take a ride!

There has been a lot of interest shown in the RFV blog about the Wuppertal Schwebebahn so I have included this video to give the full flavour of this historic monorail transit system.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfE8SKK-ms4]

The Chicago "El"

Since we are on the subject of elevated metro’s, This U-Tube item showing Chicago’s famed “El”Ai??Ai??may prove interesting.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0xfzGtgd2w]

The Greer Report – Review of Rapid Transit Project Claims. We didn’t need an American consultant to tell us TransLink is ‘off the rails’.

Over ten years ago the Greer Report, done byAi??Ai??Greer Consulting Services, issued a scathing report on the Broadway/Lougheed Rapid Transit Projects, later to be know as the SkyTrain Millennium Line. The report found:

• cost comparisons appear to have been contrived to favour SkyTrain over LRT
• Ai??Ai??no ridership (demand) analysis was reported to justify the high capacity system
• Ai??Ai??air quality and transportation benefits are unsubstantiated
• accelerated construction advantages of SkyTrain were clearly unrealistic
• risks associated with the SkyTrain car manufacture have not been assessed.

Fast forward to 2009, has anything changed?

Nada, nope, not a chance!

How can TransLink be trusted with any honestAi??Ai??rapid transit planning, especially when they want hundreds of millions more in taxpayers money to pay for ‘pie-in-the-sky’ light-metro planning based on contrivedAi??Ai??planning and phony studies? The RAV/Canada line is just a symptom of a major problem: TransLink refuses to plan for affordable light-rail and instead invents statistics to suit their in-house light-metro planning. The 100,000 passengers a day, quoted by RAV officials and Liberal politicians, needed so the RAV/Canada line will operate subsidy free is ‘stuff-and-nonsense’ as TransLink has absolutely no mechanism in place to apportion fares between SkyTrain, RAV/Canada line, Seabus, and the regular buses. TransLink doesn’t know what percentage of fares are full fares, concession fares, and the deeply discounted U-Pass, nor do they have a formula for allocating fares between bus, seabus and metro.

Example: A South Surrey student (3 zone fare) going to UBC via transit pays justAi??Ai??$25 a month for a U-Pass; he/she takes a bus to Casino/Bridgeport Junction, transfers to the RAV/Canada LineAi??Ai??and then transfers againAi??Ai??to a bus going to UBC. The apportioned fare should beAi??Ai??$8.33 for the RAV/Canada line and $16.67 for the bus system.Ai??Ai??The RAV/Canada Line’s share of an U-Pass (1,2,or 3 zones) would be $8.33 a month or about $0.41.5 cents a day (based on 20 days use)! There is absolutely no way with the current fare structure that RAV will pay for itself with 100,000 passengers a day; especially when other metros need 400,000 to 500,000 passengers a day to justify construction.

Clearly TransLink hasn’t a clue about apportioned fares or even how the RAV/Canada line will determine what percentage will be paid to the metro and buses. What may happen is that TransLink will count all ridership on RAV as full adult cash fares andAi??Ai??‘fiddle away’Ai??Ai??monies that rightfully should go to the bus system’s coffers.

What is known for certain is that the 100,000 a day claim made by TransLink, Kevin Falcon and Gordon Campbell is completely bogus!

Certainly nothing has changed much at TransLink as American transit expert, Gerald Fox, stated in a Feb.2008 letter regarding the Evergreen line:

“I found several instances where the analysis had made assumptions that were inaccurate, or had been manipulated to make the case for SkyTrain. If the underlying assumptions are inaccurate, the conclusions may be so too.” And adding: ” It is interesting how TransLink has used this cunning method of manipulating analysis to justify SkyTrain in corridor after corridor, and has thus succeeded in keeping its proprietary rail system expanding. In the US, all new transit projects that seek federal support are now subjected to scrutiny by a panel of transit peers, selected and monitored by the federal government, to ensure that projects are analyzed honestly, and the taxpayers’ interests are protected. No SkyTrain project has ever passed this scrutiny in the US.”

Ai??Ai??Metro politicians take note, TransLink is about to take you and your taxpayers on a wild ride, “around, around, TransLink goes; where it will stop nobody knows!”

For the full Greer Report

http://www.bcgreen.com/~samuel/green/GREER_Rep-SkyTrain_April_12_1999.pdf

Gerald Fox’s letter

http://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/2008/12/26/can-translinks-business-cases-be-trusted/