From the Delta Optimist: Commute now 20 minutes longer thanks to the train
More evidence that all is not well in “Lotus Land“. Despite some ‘good news’ stories provided by TransLink’s spin doctors this weekend on local radio stations, the new, almost $3 billion RAV/Canada Line light metro system has increased journey times for South of the Fraser commuters, especially if they have to make two or more transfers. What is also interesting is that any savings in journey times for bus riders from South Delta/Surrey, is not the Canada line, but the newly installed HOV lane on the highway 99 from Number 5 Road interchange to St.Edwards Drive, near the Oak Street Bridge, which now buses can avoid about 2 km. of congestion.
The question must be asked: “Why the need for an almost $3 billion metro system, when what was needed to decrease journey bus journey times was a $50 million HOV lane?
Which again begs the question: “Why didn’t TransLink invest in HOV lanes on Hwy 99 in the first place?” Seems to be a lot cheaper solution than a very expensive metro system.
No wonder TransLink isAi??Ai??verging onAi??Ai??bankruptcy as it seems we have idiots running the show.
Published:Ai??Ai??Saturday, September 26, 2009
Editor:
Re: Sky didn’t fall as riders make switch to Canada Line, Community Comment, Sept. 19
I disagree with Nathalie Heiberg-Harrison’s conclusions about the train’s usefulness. Furthermore, her “Chicken Little” characterization was off the mark because nobody predicted the world would end.
The travelling public did predict that commuting times would be negatively impacted (I thought it would add 10 minutes to my ride) despite TransLink’s predictions that travel from Ladner to UBC would be quicker.
After trying every reasonable combination of bus-to-train-to-bus connection I could find over the last two weeks, I have found that both predictions were wrong.
My prediction of a 10-minute increase was out by a factor of two — my commute time has actually increased by 20 minutes each way when riding the train.
So, by that measure, I think that predictions of worse transit service from South Delta have been proven correct. No, the world hasn’t ended, but the train has not lived up to its intended purpose of improving the public transit experience.
Judging by conversations with other bus passengers, I am not alone.
Minimizing commuting time on public transit is all about minimizing transfer time; fast vehicles alone are not enough. Rides such as Bridgeport to 41st Avenue are simply too short to compensate for the longer transfer times built into the new system.
It’s easy to squander all the benefit of a high-speed train run with a lengthy transfer. It’s a shame that TransLink was not upfront about this reality during its planning and open houses.
Remember the Fast Cat ferries? Same effect is at play with the train.
The comment about the new bus lane south of the Oak Street Bridge is a red herring because its only linkage with the train is political expediency. It could have been built long before the train was conceived. If TransLink was serious about eliminating bottlenecks for buses, it could build a southbound “fast bus lane” on Highway 99 at Westminster Highway.
There is no doubt the train has degraded the commuting from Ladner to UBC. Perhaps other routes have been improved, but it’s hard to judge the overall balance. TransLink has never provided an unbiased assessment of who benefits and who pays, but it’s my suspicion that overall commuting from South Delta has also been degraded.
In conclusion, I will use the 601-480, just as I did before the train was built. I’ve tried the train in all sorts of route combinations, but nothing works well.
But I guess the train will move lots of well-heeled Olympic fans, and that was the main reason for its construction, wasn’t it?
http://www2.canada.com/deltaoptimist/news/letters/story.html?id=7b0689a9-6e92-4e0d-8386-8ee31aff7859
From the Georgia Straight – Metro Vancouver board pushes for $450 million a year increase in TransLink funding
Is TransLink like the Titanic, sailing full steam ahead into a "financial" iceberg?
If one really wanted any more evidence that our regional politicians are completely outAi??Ai??of touchAi??Ai??on regional transit issues, this item from the Georgia Straight should putAi??Ai??that to rest.
The financialAi??Ai??problems with TransLinkAi??Ai??are simple:
1) It operates light-metro (an obsolete transit mode) on routes that do not have the ridership to support it. Result – high annual subsidies must be paid to sustain the light-metro.
2) Operates buses on routes that have little or no ridership, while ignoring bus routes with endemic overcrowding. Result – bus service is diverted from high demand areas to areas of low demand.Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??High subsidies must be paid to sustain less than marginal bus operations, while at the same time limiting revenues from high demand bus services.
3) Offers deep discounted fares while at the same time providing a veryAi??Ai??expensiveAi??Ai??’premium’ transit service with light metro. Result – Over crowding of high demand services and limiting much needed revenue from full fare paying customers andAi??Ai??again demandingAi??Ai??large subsidies needed to sustain the premium transit service.
Huge annual subsidies forAi??Ai??SkyTrain and RAV/Canada Line,Ai??Ai??in excess of $200 million annually and a growing deficit as scarce transit monies are poured into unworkable transit solutionsAi??Ai??has created a burgeoning deficit.Ai??Ai??TransLink has run into a financial iceberg.
And regional politicians want more of this hocus-pocus planning?
Regional politicos suffer from completeAi??Ai??‘transit denial’ in the region, where the SkyTrain myth reigns supreme andAi??Ai??combined withAi??Ai??a complete lack of accountability by TransLink to the taxpayer, has left us in a regional hubris. Despite over $8 billion spent on light metro to date, forAi??Ai??three metro lines of which one is incompatible in operation with the other two, has not created the all important modal shift from car to transit.
And regional politicians what more of this?Ai??
Do they notAi??Ai??Ai??Ai??realize that with the impending HST and other downloaded provincial taxes onto regional taxpayers, there is no money left for this “pixie dust’ TransLink planning.
What should worry advocates for the return of the interurban is that regional politicians want to continue TransLink’s extremely expensive, yet grossly inept transit planning and not wanting to pursue more affordable transit solutions. To be blunt, by voting to fund TransLink,Ai??Ai??regional politiciansAi??Ai??have voted to leave South of Fraser residents out of the mix, while gladly tappingAi??Ai??theirAi??Ai??wallets to pay for dated transit plans that have proven unworkable.
Man the lifeboats!
Metro Vancouver board pushes for $450 million a year increase in TransLink funding
By Matthew Burrows
Metro Vancouver directorsAi??Ai??voted today (September 25) to push for the best-case TransLink funding scenario.
Burnaby councilor Sav DhaliwalAi??Ai??was the only politician who voted againstAi??Ai??Vancouver mayor and director Gregor Robertson’s motion.
Now the board will send the message to TransLink’s private board of directors and its mayors’ council that it should implement $450 million in annual funding above current levelsA?ai??i??ai???theAi??Ai??most generousAi??Ai??of the three options presented in TransLink’s 2010 10-Year Plan to address funding constraints at the regional transportation authority.
The Metro motion originated through its regional planning committee earlier this month. At the latest meeting at Metro headquarters in Burnaby, directors also expressed concerns over the first business-as-usual A?ai??i??Ai??base planA?ai??i??A? funding scenario proposed, which would lead to A?ai??i??Ai??drastic cutsA?ai??i??A?, according to TransLink.
TransLink CEO Tom Prendergast was at the meeting, and said he wanted to avoid the potential A?ai??i??Ai??chaosA?ai??i??A? the base plan would unleash on transit riders across the region.
Robertson said at the meeting that significant consultation had taken place to get to the Metro consensus. He said it was important that directors A?ai??i??Ai??don’t fold tents nowA?ai??i??A? and A?ai??i??Ai??remain unitedA?ai??i??A?. In response,
Corrigan said he understood why people would want to avoid cuts, but said the $450 million had to come from somewhere. The former B.C. Transit chair also cautioned that A?ai??i??Ai??there is a limit to what the taxpayer can expectA?ai??i??A?.
He said that, like with the discussions around the previous 10-year plan in 2004, there is a temptation to be overly optimistic on the accounting side. A?ai??i??Ai??We keep on supporting things; then we don’t know how to pay for them.A?ai??i??A?
Surrey councillor and director Linda Hepner moved an amendment, which passed, thatA?ai??i??ai???in the event funding is constrainedA?ai??i??ai???priority be given to the northeast sector and areas south of the Fraser.
Corrigan added his own amendment, which stated: A?ai??i??Ai??Without additional funding any 10-year plan cannot be successfully implemented.A?ai??i??A? Corrigan’s motion passed ahead of the main motion.
Ai??
Will the regional taxpayer go down with the 'TransLink' ship? Will politicians and bureaucrats get to the 'financial' lifeboats first?
The propaganda campaign for the UBC subway has begun. Here comes the Campbell Line!
OnAi??Ai??September 8, theAi??Ai??first day of regular commuting, after the summer break,Ai??Ai??in the region, the Vancouver Sun had a “Canada Line” Live chat where a poll question pops up “Should SkyTrain continue to UBC” and not surprisingly 59% have voted, “Yes get on with it”. Here we have the the firstAi??Ai??push ofAi??Ai??a massiveAi??Ai??propaganda campaign to win public approval for building Vancouver’s UBC subway. Certainly the mainstream media, both print and electronic, loudly banged the drum for RAV/Canada line and now banging on the drum forAi??Ai??the UBC subway.
Not only should a UBC subway worry residents in the Tri-Cities as they see their long promised Evergreen Line dismally fade away, it should worry residents in the Fraser Valley, that once again Vancouver is getting a politically prestigious subway at the expense of regional and provincial taxpayers. The promoters of the a UBC subway and the SkyTrain Lobby will delight at the fact that once again taxpayers who live outside of Vancouver, with no say onAi??Ai??how transit is providedAi??Ai??inside Vancouver will seeAi??Ai??massive taxAi??Ai??and user fee increasesAi??Ai??to fund a subway to UBC that they will seldom, if ever use.
It will take about one year before the hoopla of the RAV/Canada Line dies down andAi??Ai??aAi??Ai??meaningful statistical analysis can be made. Many questions must be answered, including:
- How many RAV Line customers first took a bus to the metro?
- Is TransLink apportioning fares between bus and metro?
- What percentage of RAV Line customers use deep discounted U-Pass?
- What is the real daily ridership?
- Is there an independent audit of RAV service?
Before we invest any more money on a very expensive subway, we first must have solid evidence that the RAV/Canada Line has indeed attracted new customers and that it has created a discernible modal shift from car to transit, in the neighbourhood of at least 30%. If not, then a subway, under Broadway, will be a colossal waste of taxpayers money.
Just what sort of ridership justifies subway construction? About 400,000 to 500,000 passengers a day, far less that what the Broadway buses carry on Broadway today. TransLink and SkyTrain/metro lobby are again, selling ‘pixie dust’ planning as real the real thing, with faux arguments supporting a SkyTrain subway! Ai??Ai??One must stop and pauseAi??Ai??for a moment to reflect,Ai??Ai??that despite now investing over $8 billion of taxpayers money on light-metro, TransLink share of regional ridership is still a dismal 11% to 12%, a number thatAi??Ai??has remained almost unchanged for almost two decades!
Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, is TransLink’s modus operandi!
Gordon Campbell, with full support of Liberal ‘West side types’, Vancouver politicians, UBC academics, and the mainstream media will champion a nearly $4 billion subway because Vancouver is a ‘world-class city’ and as everyone knows ‘world-class cities’ all have subways; whether the subway will actually attract the motorist from the car is a different matter.
Premier Gordon Campbell, with a disastrous start to his third term as Premier and withAi??Ai??the CN Rail-gateAi??Ai??trial beginning to stink like three day old fish, is looking for a legacy or two before he departs for more leisurely pursuits in Maui. Could it be that the new replaced Port Mann Bridge will be called the Gordon Campbell Bridge and the new UBC subway will be called the Campbell Line?
One thing is for certain, if theAi??Ai??Campbell LineAi??Ai??subway is built, watch for TransLink to implode, as Fraser Valley politicians shunAi??Ai??the transit authorityAi??Ai??like a leper, and call for a new South Fraser Transit Authority. If that happens, then wait for shrill screams of Vancouver’s taxpayers as they have to pay the real cost of a very expensive, yetAi??Ai??needless politically prestigious subway.
From the Georgia Straight – Patrick Condon highlights cost of Broadway transit
Just substitute TransLink for MTA
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
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]
Recent Comments