As with all Metro Vancouver transit projects, they are good for three or four election cycles.
The NDP are just using their tired playbook from the 90’s, nothing more and, shock and disbelief, Parliamentary Secretary for TransLink, Browinn Ma is the do nothing MLA for North Vancouver Lonsdale.
Need I say more.
“Our government is committed to creating greener and more liveable cities and boosting access to transit as much as possible,” Claire Trevena, minister of Transportation.
If the NDP government was really committed to creating a greener and more livable cities, they would dump the $500 million/km plus Broadway subway in favour of $25 million/km LRT and the $200 million/km Expo Line extension in Surrey for $6 million/km Vancouver to Chilliwack TramTrain.
Show us the funding for this $6 billion plus project, then maybe we will get excited.
NORTH VANCOUVER (NEWS 1130) — Rapid transit to the North Shore is one step closer to being delivered after the completion of a technical feasibility study, with five potential crossing options.
The list for a third Burrard Inlet crossing — finalized by the B.C. Ministry of Transportation — includes links to either downtown Vancouver or Burnaby, via a tunnel or bridge.
“We are now able to move forward on some more technical planning around that. That’s the really exciting part, for me. There’s at least five feasible options,” said Linda Buchanan, mayor of the City of North Vancouver.
She’s not saying which option she prefers, though.
“At the end of the day, I just want to make sure that we can do the next phase of the work, and we really are looking at getting a line that starts us to be able to move people and goods and greener and sustainable ways, keeps our cities vibrant and makes us more prosperous.”The Burrard Inlet Rapid Transit study is to help with Transport 2050 planning.
The study was led by Mott MacDonald Canada and listed as crossing options:
Downtown Vancouver to Lonsdale via First Narrows (tunnel crossing);
Downtown Vancouver to Lonsdale via Brockton Point (tunnel crossing);
Downtown Vancouver to West Vancouver via Lonsdale (tunnel crossing);
Downtown Vancouver to Lonsdale via Second Narrows (new bridge crossing);
Burnaby to Lonsdale via Second Narrows (new bridge crossing).
“Our government is committed to creating greener and more liveable cities and boosting access to transit as much as possible,” Claire Trevena, minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, says in a release.
“This study shows possibilities that can be considered in future planning. It’s exciting to look towards a future high-speed connection that will make moving around on the North Shore and Greater Vancouver easier and greener.”
Connecting Lonsdale City Centre with Vancouver’s metropolitan core and the regional rapid transit network, while considering compatibility with existing and future land use, is one of the recommendations put forward by the Integrated North Shore Transportation Planning Project.
“People living in North Vancouver are eager to embrace socially, environmentally responsible ways to travel that allow them to beat the traffic,” says Bowinn Ma, MLA for North Vancouver.
No timeline or start date has been set for the crossing project, nor have costs.
Cutting through TransLink’s hype and hoopla about the proposed aerial tramway to Simon Fraser University and despite their sham public input process, they remain mute on operating costs.
This is a Trojan Horse, because the annual subsidies need to operate it must come from other regions in TransLink’s vast empire, notably the South Fraser.
The initial Expo line was claimed by the boosters and politicians of the day, that it covered its operating costs, but at the same time the operating costs were never revealed.
Extending the Expo line sent off alarm bells in the GVRD, which released a study on the costs of transporting people in the Fraser Valley region, which showed that just the Expo Line to New Westminster was subsidized annually more than the combined diesel and trolley bus systems.
In 1993, the annual subsidy for the Expo Line, just to New Westminster was a massive $157 million annually!
In no way was the Expo Line covering its operating costs and in fact was a massive drain on BC Transit revenue stream!
Today, TransLink keeps secret the annual subsidy for the SkyTrain light metro system but privately it is estimated to be around $400 million, with over $110 million of this sum being paid to the SNC Lavalin lead consortium operating the Canada Line faux P-3 operation!
It is also politely not mentioned, that the proprietary Movia AutomaticLight Metro system, used on the Expo and Millennium lines costs about 45% more to operate than a conventional light rail, because it uses Linear Induction Motors and the wrong type of Linear Induction Motor!
The Broadway MALM operated subway will not only cost 45% more to operate than a system using LRT or even a conventional light metro car, the costs of maintaining the subway itself, based on Toronto’s Metrolinx (which has a lot of experience operating subways) data, will add $40 million more to TransLink’s annual operating costs for the light metro.
Add the 45% premium for operating the LIM equipped MALM system, the total operating cost of the 5.8 km Broadway subway maybe nearer to $60 million!
The regional taxpayer is being taken for a very expensive ride!
Now we come to the last of the trio of vanity projects for metro Vancouver’s three largest cities, the Burnaby aerial tramway going to SFU. What will be the annual operating costs and I mean the real operating costs, not TransLink’s fudged figures that they are so famous for.
The following is the current adult fares for the following aerial tramways:
The 300 metre long Hell’s Gate aerial tramway is $16.00 per adult.
The cost of the 3.03 km Peak to peak aerial Tramway is $75 per adult weekdays and $80 per adult weekends.
The cost of the 885 metre Sea to Sky aerial tramway ranges from 53.95 to 59.95 for adults. (See Stop Press)
The cost for the long running, 1.6 km Grouse Mountain aerial tramway is $29.50 (previously pre-covid) which is 50% off their normal fare.
The fare using the proposed approximately 2.5 km SFU aerial tramway will be the $1 a day U-Pass, allowing for unlimited daily travel.
Despite the many hosanna’s being sung by Burnaby Council, SFU and TransLink, the aerial tramway will be highly subsidized which means higher fares, taxes and the cannibalization of transit south of the Fraser.
Regional Mayors had better wake up and smell the coffee because after this prestige project, TransLink’s cupboard will be bare.
SQUAMISH (NEWS 1130) – Vandals appear to have hit the Sea to Sky Gondola for a second time. This comes just more than a year after cables were deliberately cut, sending dozens of cars crashing to the ground.
The attraction’s general manager says “exactly the same thing” happened Monday morning.
“Something you’d never think would happen, once in a lifetime, has happened twice,” General Manager Kirby Brown tells Mountain FM. “An individual climbed a tower and, despite our security system and all of the measures, rapidly cut through the cable and brought the gondola to the ground.”
Brown says the RCMP is on scene.
The Sea to Sky Gondola brought in additional security following last year’s vandalism. However, that didn’t appear to deter the person responsible.
“We’ve got clear imagery of what happened,” he says, adding most of his team had not been made aware of what happened as of 7:00 a.m. Monday.
“As the light comes on the gondola, it’s perfectly clear to everybody what’s happened, given the experience that we and our town has been through before,” Brown says, adding the investigation is still in its early stages.
The cutting of the cable in 2019 resulted in millions of dollars in damage. The company was forced to bring in about 30 new cabins and a new main haul rope from Europe.
“This is one bad actor who needs to be caught and brought to justice for the protection and safety of us all,” Brown tells Mountain FM, adding the company will do what it can to keep people safe and hopefully rebuild, again.
Spending the morning on the phone with industry partners, Brown says everyone is rallying around the Sea to Sky Gondola to get it back up and running.
“We now know that in addition to all the security measures we put in place before, we’re going to have to put more physical protections in place until this person is caught. That will be the focus of the RCMP,” he says.
The priority now is to get the gondola operating again, he adds.
“We’re not going to let one person bring us or the town down,” Brown affirms. “I know we will rebuild again.”
-With files from Mountain FM, Monika Gul, and Martin MacMahon
Monorails are proprietary railways and suffer the same ills that come with proprietary transit systems. They are expensive to operate and maintain. Spare parts tend to be expensive and hard to get, especially when the manufacturer ceases production.
With the proprietary Movia Automatic Light Metro, TransLink and Metro Vancouver will soon have to relearn the pitfalls of operating an aging proprietary railway.
The Skytrain is an orphan design because fewer and fewer of the options that make up the Skytran as a whole, options that people in Vancouver would recognize as your Skytrain, are being chosen by other cities. The LIM propulsion system of the Skytrain is a prime example. Bombardier offers it as an option instead of the cheaper standard electric propulsion motors. The lack of sales in many of Skytain’s other special features (other than the Citiflo 650 Automation System which is a big seller) is probably why the Skytrain technology was shoved from its own design category into the Movia set of products last year by Bombardier. ~ haveacow
Monorails, which have an ardent lobby, as strong as the SkyTrain lobby are going to have a quick lesson in the pitfalls of building with a gadgetbahnen, but like the SkyTrain lobby, the will remember nothing and they will learn nothing.
Las Vegas Monorail files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
The Las Vegas Monorail crosses over the Las Vegas Convention Center as viewed on January 4, 2017 in Las Vegas. (Photo by George Rose/Getty Images)
LAS VEGAS (KLAS) — The Las Vegas Monorail Company has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The company made the announcement Monday, saying it’s doing it as a voluntary petition for protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada.
The company’s Board of Directors authorized the filing. The following statement was released.
“The Las Vegas Monorail has served a critical mobility need in the resort corridor for over 16 years, carrying over 85 million riders during that time. Like many other companies, we were forced to shut down on March 18 due to the COVID-19 pandemic and are not yet able to reopen,” said Curtis Myles, president & chief executive officer. “As a result, it is in the Las Vegas Monorail company’s best interest to file for bankruptcy and effectuate a sale of the system assets to a party who intends to keep the system in operation and help ensure that the mobility benefits the Monorail provides continue during conventions, events and throughout the year.”
8 News NOW first told you that the Las Vegas Monorail entered into a sales agreement with the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority, which the Monorail will submit to the bankruptcy court under an auction sale. Other qualified bidders are also allowed to participate.
Idled Las Vegas Monorail to be bought by city’s tourist authority
In this 2016 photo, the Las Vegas monorail pulls out of a station.
The idled Las Vegas Monorail is being bought by the local tourism authority, which plans to arrange the system’s second Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 16 years.
The Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority on Tuesday approved, by a series of 12-1 votes, spending $24.26 million to acquire the 3.9-mile elevated train system from the not-for-profit Las Vegas Monorail Co., the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported. Las Vegas Mayor Carolyn Goodman voted no.
The elected Clark County Commission also approved the move.
The system, which cost $650 million to build, shut down in March because of the COVID-19 pandemic. It makes six north-south stops, including at the Las Vegas Convention Center and several hotel-casinos east of the Las Vegas Strip.
Officials said management and operations would change after the purchase by the authority, which also owns and operates the convention center.
The monorail workforce of about 120 has been reduced by furloughs to about 15 people. The Review-Journal said it was not immediately clear whether current management and staff would be involved once the buyout closes.
Sep. 2, 2020
Tourism authority chief Steve Hill told the tourism board that the system could be obsolete in the next decade, but the purchase gives the authority a non-compete agreement on the east side of the Las Vegas Boulevard tourist corridor.
Elon Musk’s Boring Co. is due later this month to begin testing an east-west underground people mover designed to whisk conventioneers between exhibit halls at the existing convention center and an expanded facility.
Musk also got the go-ahead from county officials to extend his loop system using driverless cars from the Convention Center to Wynn Resorts’ Encore and the Resorts World project that is nearing completion across the street on the Las Vegas Strip.
Hill said the tourism authority would shelve proposals to build a new monorail station near the Sands Expo and Convention Center and the Venetian and an extension from the MGM Grand to the Mandalay Bay resort and Allegiant Stadium.
The monorail began operations in July 2004. But it shut down two months later amid problems, including parts falling from the elevated track. It resumed operating that December.
Ridership never met builders’ projections, peaking at nearly 8 million annually before the major recession that began in 2007. In recent years, ridership has fallen to less than 5 million a year.
The corporation reorganized after filing Chapter 11 protection in 2010 and emerged from bankruptcy two years later.
Hill said Tuesday that convention customers asked the tourism authority to keep the monorail operating because of its convenience, the Review-Journal reported.
As the regional mayors are gung-ho on the $200 million SFU gondola, I went back to my files and found some more interesting information on using gondolas or aerial tamways.
*
I see one very big problem, the aerial tramway is a transit system and must adhere to Transport Canada’s rules and one big problem is the gondolas never fully stop in stations.
*
This means a minimum of two operators must be on duty at the stations during operation and as wages are a large percentage of operating costs, there is no real economic advantage for an aerial tramway, especially on a route where the vast majority of customers will use the $1.00 a day U-Pass.
*
Another heavily subsidized transit vanity project from TransLink!
*
$200 million seems to be a lot of money because TransLink does not want to properly chain buses during the few weeks of snowy weather at SFU.
Capacity is listed as 4100 passengers per hour, with 22 out of 28
passengers per cabin seated, that’s ~3200 seats phpd.
Calgary offers ~12,000 seats phpd, with the possibility to extend it to
15,000 seats phpd by adding a fourth car per trainset.
The ropeway with the highest capacity ever built was (is?) at Koblenz,
Germany, passing over the Rhine for the “Federal Horticultural Show”
in 2011. It can carry 7,600 passengers phpd. The ropeway was chosen
because it doesn’t require a bridge over the river and one end is on a
fortress high above the river.
Speed: At most 10 m/s (= 36 km/h = 22.5 mph). Light rail/streetcars
achieve twice that when running in the street, and up to three times as
much, when running on private right-of-way, for station distances over
~1 mile.
The “peak 2 peak” gondola runs at 7.5 m/s (=17 mph, that’s *top* speed).
Accessibility: The gondolas never fully stop in stations, they keep
moving. Try to board such a thing if you have difficulties walking,
with a wheelchair, a baby buggy or significant amounts of luggage.
Besides, such a system can’t be integrated as well into a city as
low-floor light rail/streetcars, from the perspective of the feet of the
passengers. Just like anything that requires full grade separation,
such as e.g. “Skytrain”.
It’s the old story in metro Vancouver, Transit is not built to better public transit, it is built for land development. To sell it to very gullible and uninformed politicos you dress up the transit as a gadgetbahnen, all glitzy and nice. The politicians all act if they got their very first electric train set to play with.
From 2011……
It seems there is interesting political connections with SFU and TransLink, with the gondola project. TransLink Board member, Howard Nemtin, President, Nemtin Consultants Ltd., is also a member of the The SFU Community Corporation board. Could it be that the Trust’s real estate development arm, UniverCity will use the gondola as a sales tool for their development on the mountain; of course paid for by the regional taxpayer through TransLink?
Other coincidental connections on the SFU Corporation Board include TransLink Board Chair, Nancy Olewiler, who also is the Director of the School of Public Policy in the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences at Simon Fraser University and a blast from the past, Jane Bird, who is famous for her obfuscation with the Canada Line debacle.
Let us not forget that TransLink subsidizes transit for over 900 Burnaby Mountain residents, with a community transit pass that gives them unlimited access to the regional buses and trains for just $30 a month, a perk that seems only to pertain to SFU and its environs.
It seems like again we have foxes in the hen-house, when it comes to the planning for the SFU gondola project and one wonders if the fix is in for a now $120 million (up $50 million from the original $70 million) gondola to SFU.
The proposed $120-million Burnaby Mountain gondola project poses a dilemma for a group maintaining trails in the environmentally sensitive area.
According to Ron Burton, president of the Burnaby Mountain Biking Association, the construction and operation of a gondola system that would link the Production Way University SkyTrain station to Simon Fraser University could have serious ecological impacts.
They will have to cut and they could cut up Burnaby Mountain in order to put up the gondola and service the towers, Burton, who is also a Burnaby school trustee, told the Straight in a phone interview.
Burton pointed out that the gondola infrastructure would slice through the Burnaby Mountain Conservation Area, which includes wetlands, streams, and woods that serve as habitat to various wildlife.
However, Burton noted that the project appears to make some economic and environmental sense.
According to material put out by TransLink, the gondola system could eliminate 35,000 to 55,000 hours of diesel bus operations going up and down Burnaby Mountain. The transportation authority also claims that the project would save up to two million hours of transit and car travel time by 2021.
Our position is a wait-and-see, Burton said, adding that his organization wants to see more details.
For residents of the Forest Grove community on the lower slopes of Burnaby Mountain, the time has come for action.
Resident Christian Rarinca, a spokesperson for the Citizens Opposing the Gondola, will address members of the Metro Vancouver regional planning committee in a meeting on Friday (June 17).
According to Rarinca, the gondola system would cut across the neighbourhood. They propose to have at rush hour a gondola leaving every 40 seconds, leaving from both sides of Production Way and SFU, which gives us an average of 20 seconds and a gondola will go over our heads, Rarinca told the Straight by phone. It is really something that not only destroys the character of the neighbourhood but also it has no benefit for us. The gondola doesn’t stop at Forest Grove to take passengers.
COG prepared presentation to the Metro Vancouver planning committee also raises concerns about safety risks. A copy of the paper provided to the Straight by Rarinca states that the construction of towers for the gondola may affect pipelines operated by energy company Kinder Morgan, and this could lead to explosions.
The public has until June 30 to submit comments on the proposed gondola project. TransLink spokesperson Ken Hardie didn’t return calls from the Straight before deadline.
The NDP have now blundered in approving the Broadway subway and photo-ops by Premier Horgan attributed what LRT is very good at and light-metro which is not very good at. Wrong script, wrong mode.
LRT has a proven record of modal shift, attracting motorists from the car. SkyTrain has no such record.
LRT has a proven record attracting new customers to transit, SkyTrain has a very poor record of attracting new customers as over 80% of SkyTrain’s ridership first take the bus and buses are extremely poor in attracting new ridership.
LRT has a proven record of attracting customers to businesses along its route. Subways, due to their nature of being underground has no such record as customers underground to not see the businesses on the street.
The Broadway subway will achieve nothing, except to show how dishonest and corrupt our regional transit planning is. Shame on everyone on this travesty of planning.
And now, a final insult. The following is a comment by Haveacow …….
A former head of Translink’s maintenance operations suggested that, removal of the 4th rail and purchasing cheaper, and most likely larger LRV’s would save 40% – 45% in operating costs compared to Skytrain. Simply removing the 4th rail and switching to standard electric motors alone would save 25%. The LRV’s would have to be converted to 3rd rail power pick-ups but that’s not too difficult or expensive. Keep in mind he said this as he was retiring, so the big wigs couldn’t fire him.
This makes absolute, those who say Movia Automatic Light Metro (MALM), a.k.a, SkyTraion; a.k.a. Advanced Light Rail Transit; a.k.a. Advanced Rapid Transit; is cheaper to operate than light rail are telling “porkies” very big Porkies!
From 2015.
Despite a growing number of supporters, such as the business community, the City of Vancouver; most of the regional mayors, the provincial NDP and their combined sundry of shills clamouring for a SkyTrain Broadway subway, many serious questions remain unanswered. The following op-ed commentary published by The Toronto Star questions whether the concept of building a heavy rail subway to replacing the aging Scarborough light metro amounts to a subway a billion-dollar boondoggle?
The key phrase in the article is; “An expert panel established by city council found an LRT superior to a subway on all counts: funding, economic development, transit service, sustainability and social impact.”
It is strange that the likes of Mayor Greggor Robinson, Geoff Meggs, various business groups and Chamber’s of Commerce have come to an opposite conclusion about a Broadway subway, but then, real transit experts have never been asked.
A no value-for-money case can be made for the Scarborough subway extension, yet Toronto’s Mayor John Tory and Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne continue to support it.
Back in BC, TransLink has not even done such a study for the proposed Broadway SkyTrain subway, yet actual planning is under way.
The Broadway subway could be Vancouver’s billion dollar boondoggle which offers the taxpayer, no value for money, unless the taxpayer is assembling land along Broadway for major development!
By: R. Michael Warren Published on Sat Jan 03 2015
Is the Scarborough subway another billion-dollar boondoggle?
Tory ducks the Scarborough subway controversy by saying the decision has been taken by council. And he doesn’t want to put a stick in the eye of the Liberal government.
This is political pandering to Scarborough voters and the Wynne Liberals. Tory has neglected to make the case for a three-stop subway link that will cost $3.56 billion (USD $2.02 billion) $1.6 billion (USD $1.35 billion) more than a modern seven-stop light-rail transit line.
Tory chose this political strategy despite knowing that three highly qualified and independent groups had already recommended an LRT.
Metrolinx favoured replacing the aging RT with a modern LRT link that would cost $1.8 billion (USD $1.52 billion).
An expert panel established by city council found an LRT superior to a subway on all counts: funding, economic development, transit service, sustainability and social impact.
The Pembina Institute also supports an LRT for Scarborough. They maintain it would deliver twice as much service for every dollar invested.
By any measure, the subway option shouldn’t even be on the table.
The 30,000 riders per hour subway capacity is overkill.
Peak ridership is expected to grow to only 9,000 by 2031.
The subway option will cost about twice as much and, according to Pembina, attract only 23 million riders a year compared to 31 million for an LRT.
By supporting a subway, Tory is placing a $910-million (USD $772.2 million) tax burden on the shoulders of Toronto taxpayers.
Fully $745 million (USD $632.1 million) of this has to come from a property tax surcharge, which amounts to $41 a year (USD $34.79) for 30 years for the average homeowner.
That’s on top of the tax hikes that will inevitably flow from the rest of Tory’s election agenda.
But when it comes to Tory’s own SmartTrack plan, he stresses it will not burden local taxpayers and must go through a rigorous examination process.
He said recently, The express purpose of what we’re doing here is to move forward with a fact-based, transparent process.
This begs the question: why does SmartTrack get a comprehensive fact-based analysis while the Scarborough subway doesn’t?
Part of the answer rests with Wynne, who backed the subway option in an effort to win seats in vote-rich Scarborough.
Tory went along in pursuit of Liberal support for his mayoralty bid and for future favours.
Wynne compromised sound transit planning while chasing the 2013 byelection seat in Scarborough-Guildwood and more recently in the June provincial election.
She committed the $1.4 billion (USD $1.18 billion), originally meant for an LRT, to the subway link, knowing it was not the best financial or operating option.
During the last election Wynne promised all future transit infrastructure investments would be based on a rigorous business case analysis.
She still hasn’t explained why this decision-making process isn’t being applied to the Scarborough transit link.
Her political strategy worked.
The Liberals won all five Scarborough seats.
But if the subway link is built, these seats will cost taxpayers an additional $1.6 billion (USD $1.35 billion) and saddle Scarborough with a transit solution that’s inferior to an LRT.
Does all this have a familiar ring?
Surely by now Wynne has developed the ability to see a billion-dollar boondoggle coming down the track.
Building a subway extension into Scarborough has all the hallmarks of a spending scandal.
It’s unlikely that Wynne or Tory will still be around for the opening in 2023.
But tax-weary Toronto and provincial voters will be.
And by then they’ll still be paying for an overbuilt and underused transit white elephant.
There’s still time for Wynne and Tory to put the Scarborough transit link through the same rigorous value-for-money analysis they say is being applied to every other transit investment.
It would go a long way toward showing they’re serious about making transit decisions based on costs and benefits rather than wasting money on parochial politics.
R. Michael Warren is a former corporate director, Ontario deputy minister, TTC chief general manager and Canada Post CEO. r.michael.warren@gmail.com
……….. or cutting through the BS about light rail, SkyTrain and BRT.
The following is a guide plus definitions.
ALM: Automatic Light metro, the fourth marketing name given for the SkyTrain family of light-metros, when Lavalin briefly owned SkyTrain before going bankrupt.
ALRT (1): Advanced Light Rail Transit, the second marketing name for SkyTrain.
ALRT (2): Advanced Light Rapid Transit, the third marketing name for SkyTrain, when Advanced Light Rail Transit failed to find a market.
ART: Advanced Rapid Transit, the fifth marketing name for SkyTrain, used by its current owners, Bombardier Inc.
Automatic (Driverless) Operation: A signaling system that permits train operation without drivers. Contrary to popular myth, automatic operation does not reduce operating costs because there are no drivers, because attendants must be hired instead to permit safe operation. Automatic signaling was designed to reduce signaling staff, not operation staff.
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT): Generally means Express Buses, a true BRT needs a very expensive and land consuming busway or highway or be guided.
Bored tunnel: A tunnel boring machine also known as a “mole”, is a machine used to excavate tunnels with a circular cross section through a variety of soil and rock strata. They can bore through anything from hard rock to sand.
Busway: A route needed for BRT. Busways can be conventional HOV lanes or exclusive roads for buses. Busways can be equipped with raised curbs or rails for bus guidance.
Canada Line: Vancouver’s third metro line which is a grade separated EMU operation and is not compatible with the rest of the SkyTrain light metro system in operation.
Capacity: A function of headway multiplied by vehicle capacity, which in turn is dependent on station station platform length measured in persons per hour per direction.
Community Rail: a government strategy supported by the rail industry. It engages local people in the development and promotion of local and rural routes, services and stations. Community Rail routes remain connected to the national rail network, and train operating companies run the trains and stations.
Consultation: To sell a transit decision to the public after the decision has been made.
C-Train: The Calgary light rail system.
Cut and cover: A method of building a tunnel by making a cutting, which is then lined and covered over. (Civil Engineering) designating a method of constructing a tunnel by excavating a cutting to the required depth and then backfilling the excavation over the tunnel roof
DMU: Diesel Multiple Unit – A diesel multiple unit or DMU is a multiple–unit train powered by on-board diesel engines. A DMU requires no separate locomotive, as the engines are incorporated into one or more of the carriages. Diesel-powered single-unit railcars are also generally classed as DMUs.
EMU: Electrical Multiple Unit – An electric multiple unit or EMU is a multiple–unit train consisting of self-propelled carriages using electricity as the motive power. An EMU requires no separate locomotive, as electric traction motors are incorporated within one or a number of the carriages.
Evergreen Line: The 11.4 km newly finished portion of the old Broadway/Lougheed Rapid Transit Project. When the NDP forced the SkyTrain Millennium Line onto TransLink, there was not the money left order to complete the line to the Tri-Cities. Now completed.
Expo Line: The first SkyTrain line built, completed in late 1985. The Expo Line was built in three sections. The Waterfront to New Westminster section (cost a much as LRT from Vancouver to Whalley, Lougheed Mall and Richmond Centre), the Skybridge, section across the Fraser river to Scott road Station, and the final section to Whalley in Surrey.
Grade: The vertical rise of a railway track, normally given in a percentage (1% grade = a 1 metre rise in 100 metres). Industry standard grade for LRT is 8%; Sheffield’s( LRTA) operates on 10% grades; the maximum grade for a tramway is located in Lisbon, where the streetcars operate, unassisted, on 13.8% grades.
Flip-flop: Make an abrupt reversal of policy. common with transit planning in MetroVancouver.
Goebbels Gambit: The fine art of repeating a lie often enough that it is perceived as the truth.
Guided Bus: A BRT that is physically guided by either a raised curb or a central rail. Some guided buses are considered monorails.
Headway: The time interval between trains on a transit route.
Hybrid: A transit system that is designed operated as a LRT/light metro mix. Generally very expensive as it uses the most expensive features of both modes.
Innovia: The sixth name SkyTrain was marketed by (no buyers).
ICTS: Intermediate Capacity Transit system, the first name SkyTrain was marketed by.
Interurban: An early streetcar which operated at speed on its own R-o-W connecting urban centres.
Light Rail Transit (LRT): A steel wheel on steel rail transit system that can operate economically on transit routes with traffic flows between 2,000 pphpd to over 20,000 pphpd, thus bridging the gap on what buses can carry and that which needs a metro. A streetcar is considered LRT when it operates on reserved rights-of-ways or R-o-Wa’s for the exclusive use of the streetcar/tram. Number of LRT/tramways in operation around the world over 500; light railways (many use LRV’s) and over 120; heritage lines over 60.
Light Metro: A transit mode, generally a proprietary transit system, that has the capacity of LRT, at the cost of a heavy-rail metro.
Light Rail Vehicle (LRV): A vehicle that operates on a LRT or streetcar line. Also called a streetcar, tram, TramTrain or interurban.
Lysenkoism: used metaphorically to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives.
Mass Transit: A generic term for heavy-rail metro. See rapid transit.
MAX: The Portland Tri-Met LRT system.
Metro: An urban/suburban railway that operates on a segregated R-o-W, either in a subway or on a viaduct, due to long trains (5 cars+) and close headways. There are 174 heavy/light metros in operation around the world.
Millennium Line: The second SkyTrain Line built, using the new Bombardier ART cars.
Monorail: A transit mode that operates on one rail. There are two general types of monorail: 1) hanging monorail and 2) straddle beam monorail (not a true monorail). Some proprietary BRT systems are also classed as monorail.
Movia Automatic Light Metro: The seventh and last name that SkyTrain has been Marketed under, with Linear Induction Motors a customer add on.
Priority Signaling: A signaling system that gives priority to transit vehicles at intersections.
Proprietary Transit System: A transit system who rights are exclusively owned by one company. Transit operations who operate proprietary transit systems must deal with only one supplier.
Rapid Transit: A generic term for metro. See mass transit. Rapid Transit is not Light Rail Transit
Reserved Rights of Way: An exclusive R-o-W for use of transit vehicles, can be as simple as a HOV lane (with rails for LRT) or as elaborate a a lawned boulevard or a linear park complete with shrubs.
SkyTrain: An unconventional proprietary light-metro, powered by Linear Induction motors, marketed by Bombardier Inc. Currently there are 7 SkyTrain type transit systems in operation around the world. ICTS 2; ALRT (1 & 2) 1; ART 4.
Streetcar: A steel wheel, on steel rail electric (also can be diesel powered) vehicle that operates in mixed traffic, with little or no priority at intersections. Also known as a tram in Europe. Streetcars become LRT when operating on reserved R-o-W’s.
Subway: An underground portion of a rapid transit line. Subways may either be bored or cut and cover or a combination of both construction methods.
TTC: The Toronto Transit Commission.
Tram: European term for streetcar, as the Europeans do not use the term LRT.
TramTrain: A streetcar that can operate on the mainline railways, operating as a passenger train.
TransLink Speak: The lexicon used by TransLink to mask problems. Example: medical emergency on SkyTrain means a suicide.
Viaduct: A viaduct is a bridge composed of several small spans.
What we are getting is a $3 billion subway, which will operate a capacity limited proprietary railway, which will drive up TransLink’s operating costs and will not take a car off the road nor improve businesses along the route.
Oh yes, how do forced transfers reduce travel times?
Well they don’t, but Horgan reading from the same “song and dance” script as other premiers before him repeats the same very misleading information.
This is the real story of the Broadway subway.
This subway will now retard all transit initiatives for the next decade, but do not tell Premier Horgan and the NDP this because they refuse to listen because they hope what few union jobs this will bring will keep them in office.
As always, the South Fraser gets royally screwed.
So this Presser/photo-op probably means a provincial, if not federal election is just around the corner. It better be for the NDP because the bad news, like the ever more costly site -C dam will soon show the NDP’s penchant for FastFerry style transit projects comes at an ever increasing cost to the taxpayer.
The ship of fools has sailed…………….
Addendum:
Acciona’s key consultant for its B.C. bid wins since the NDP came to power?
* None other than former SNC-Lavalin B.C. EVP Jim Burke, who would have been called to testify had the corruption trial not ended in a plea bargain.
* Acciona is also behind the North Shore Wastewater Treatment Plant debacle.
Vancouver’s Broadway subway line from Commercial to Arbutus set to be built by 2025
Premier John Horgan says British Columbia boasts Canada’s strongest economy but growth is threatened by a shortage of affordable housing for workers and their families. Premier Horgan answers questions from the media during a press conference following the speech from the throne in the legislative assembly in Victoria on Tuesday, Feb. 12, 2019. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Chad Hipolito. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Chad Hipolito
Shovels are set to be in the ground this fall for the much anticipated Broadway SkyTrain extension from Commercial station all the way to Arbutus Street in Vancouver.
B.C. Premier John Horgan says the project is expected to be completed by 2025. The construction contract has been awarded to Acciona-Ghella Joint Venture.
The contract to fund the 5.7 kilometre extension is valued at $1.729 billion and covers the design, construction and partial financing of the project.
The cost estimate for the Millennium Line Broadway expansion has now gone up from $1.98-billion in 2015 up to $2.83 billion.
“As we restore the economy through B.C.’s Restart Plan, major infrastructure projects like the Broadway Subway line will be key to our recovery,” Horgan said.
“When completed, the Broadway Subway will transform how people get around in Vancouver. It will mean faster travel to work and school, better access to local business and fewer cars on the road.”
The avatar, “Haveacow” is used by a very knowledgeable Canadian transportation specialist. He knows what he is talking about and Zwei greatly respects his input.
Since SkyTrain was first foisted on the taxpayer, one of the many false claims for building with it, was that it was fast.
There are problems with this claim, including:
1. The initial Expo Line had less than half the amount of station/stops than comparable LRT at the time, thus the Expo Line was indeed fast; but, if an “apples to apples” comparison was made, with both having the same amount of station/stops, LRT would have been slightly higher due to having less dwell time, as demanded for driverless transit systems.
2. Speed alone does not attract ridership but many factors that make transit user friendly, including user friendliness. If over all comute time was counted (including transfers, etc., travel time for SkyTrain is not superior to light rail.
The SkyTrain Lobby, ever promoting fast transit are also promoting a small transit network, higher taxes and fares, and a transit system that is only fast because it is not user friendly.
From Mr. Haveacow!
I Understand People Want Speedy Transit.
Folks, Speedy Transit Has Huge Hidden Costs!
I remember the debate around the Sheppard Subway in Toronto, mainly because the house I grew up in was a 3 to 5 minute walk from Sheppard Ave. East in Scarborough. It didn’t matter to the supporters, including me at the time, how many passengers there should be, for a subway to exist. What was important wasn’t that the surface bus routes along Sheppard at the time moved about 6000 passengers/hour/direction or that the roughly 65 to 75 buses per hour at the time were mostly packed, even outside peak periods.
What was important was that even with express buses it took 20 to 30 minutes of traveling along Sheppard Ave. East, just to get to the Yonge Street Subway. I was spending, depending on the time of day, 1 hour, 10 minutes to 1 hour 30 minutes to get home in Scarborough or go to downtown to school. If I took the other quickest route downtown to school, south on Warden Ave. to Warden Station, then the Bloor-Danforth Subway to the Yonge Line at Yonge and Bloor Station, then transferring to the Yonge Line to finish the trip to either Dundas or College Stations, opposite if I was going home, it still took me roughly the same time. (So passengers stuck on crowded express buses along Broadway, I UNDERSTAND AND GET IT ,THE TRIP ISN’T A FUN TIME!)
GO Transit’s Stouffvile Commuter Rail Line from Agincourt Station was considerably faster, around 40 to 45 minutes, but the GO Trains on that line only traveled during morning and afternoon rush hour. THANKFULLY TO THE GO RER
PROJECT, THIS WILL SOON CHANGE. The peak hour only line was nearly useless for a University student whom had 25+ hours a week of classes, labs and official architectural studio time which depending on the day, had classes that started as early as 8 a.m. or as late 1 p.m. Depending on the day, I could be in class until 10 p.m. on certain evenings (at least 2 times a week). Endless hours of group work just added to this dilemma.
My point is for most people, a train of some sort traveling through a tunnel is often the only way most non transit people (people who don’t work in the industry) can honestly visualize there being any time savings when dealing with the combination of heavy surface traffic and way too many car centric, traffic light controlled intersections.
Whereas people who do work in the industry know that, with good design, modern surface LRT routes and or modern surface mainline railway lines controlled by modern signaling can easily come close to or equal the travel times of below grade train tunnels. At a fraction of the cost.
ZWEI, what would be most helpful to the cause are multiple articles about how modern surface mainline railways and LRT signaling combined with good design can be almost or just as efficient with travel time savings as overly expensive tunnels.
My 2 Cents Worth.
Look folks, the concept of rail rapid transit tunnels going everywhere is just not affordable or helpful. An almost completely tunneled Skytrain route from V.C.C. to U.B.C. is desired by the public however, many other cheaper options were just never considered or effectively looked at by Translink. I read all your planning reports on the subject, many things that could have been done to better manage bus flows as well as other rapid transit operating technologies, scenarios and plans were never considered. Unfortunately Zwei, MAY have a point when he believes that the Broadway Line as currently designed, was a fix for developers right from the beginning.
Given the actual pre-Covid transit passenger numbers for Broadway (65,000-100,000 passengers a day depending on how wide a corridor you choose), a mostly tunneled Skytrain line 12 to 14 km long, costing anywhere from from $5.7 to $7.5 Billion (depending on length, number of stations and tunnel design), taking anywhere from 10 to 14 years to build both stages, is frankly, JUST NOT WORTH IT, FOR NOW. It is also a project that will tie up a huge amount of transit capital funding for a better part of a decade. There will be little money for anything else, especially extensions of the Canada Line or a rail transit line to North Vancouver.
Keep in mind as well, if you want significantly more passengers on the Expo Line, expensive repairs and upgrades must be done. An increase of 10 to 20 % in daily passengers is possible but anything more will require hugely expensive and time consuming work. The line is at its limit and it is getting older by the day, you can make the trains longer but little else is possible without big spending.
Citizens of Langley, by not implementing LRT and forcing an overly expensive above grade Skytrain line, you just guaranteed that, not only are you building fewer km’s of Skytrain compared to how many km’s of LRT you could have had (16 km of Skytrain vs. of 27 km of LRT). You have also made certain the fact that, no Skytrain or any rail rapid transit line will be going to the centre of Langley, until long after 2030. Considering the competition with other line extensions, once the Broadway Line to UBC is complete. It may be well into the 2040′s before construction of any rail line into Langley is finished. The moral of this story, tunnels cost not only a lot of money but time as well.
First, before any discussion about rail transit, including Light Rail Transit, we must define LRT and other transit modes. The following is a brief descriptions of various transit modes advocated as solutions for transit in the region.
Commuter rail:
Locomotive hauled rail coaches or diesel or electric multiple unit trains, catering specifically to peak hour transit demands.
Passenger rail:
Any regularly scheduled passenger rail service.
Light Rail Transit:
A rail mode, that economically bridges the gap between what passenger loads that can be economically carried by bus and that of a metro, between 2,000 and 20,000 persons per hour per direction. Comes from the English term light railway or a railway light in costs. LRT is able to operate in mixed traffic on city streets, its own reserved rights-of-way, or on mainline railways. LRT can be built as a simple streetcar or as a light metro, and can combine any and all of the previous examples on one route.
The metro family, including light metro:
A rail mode that operates on segregated rights-of-ways, due to longer rakes of passenger vehicles operating at close headways. Metros generally operate on elevated guideways or in subways and has more intensive signaling, sometimes including driverless operation. Metros are built to cater to large passenger volumes, in excess of 300,000 or more passengers per route (line) per direction per day.
Bus rapid transit (BRT):
Any limited stop bus service including guided bus and buses using busways.
The problem:
The population of the Fraser Valley is growing at an unprecedented rate, roads and highways are congested and pollution in the upper regions of the valley is increasing rapidly. The provincial government in 1980, forced the proprietary SkyTrain light metro system upon the GVRD instead of previously planned for light rail. For the cost of LRT going from downtown Vancouver to Lougheed Mall, Whalley, and Richmond Centre, the region got SkyTrain from downtown Vancouver to New Westminster. Some $5 billion later we have SkyTrain to Whalley and the Millennium line, the only metro in the world that goes nowhere to nowhere. The annual subsidy for SkyTrain is now over $200 million annually and has given rise to the myth that “we do not have the density for rapid transit“. We have plenty of density for LRT, we never did have the density for metro.
The provincial government has again forced another, now $2.5+ billion, metro system onto TransLink, on a route without sufficient density to provide the ridership needed to justify its construction costs, which in turn will further increase the annual subsidy for metro in the GVRD.
TransLink, with absolutely no experience with modern LRT is planned for a hybrid light metro/rail line costing well over $100 million per km to build, later fiddled………..
……….. a business plan to support SkyTrain light-metro; again on a route that doesn’t have the sufficient ridership to justify the line and again will further increase the annual subsidy for the GVRD’s grand railway projects.
Because of the huge cost for TransLink’s rail transit, the provincial government claims that there isn’t the density for rapid transit in the Fraser Valley and has embarked on a $4.5 billion “Gateway” highways and bridge program. Problem is new highways and bridges only attract more traffic and soon highways become congested – again!
A Note on Density:
Many people, including TransLink confuse density with ridership. Density is the number of people living per square km. in a region and ridership is the number of people using transit. People only will use public transit if the public transit services their travel needs and if transit doesn’t serve where “I” want to go, “I” will not use it.
What TransLink and the GVRD are trying to do is increase density near a SkyTrain routes and hope that the sheer numbers brought by higher density will provide the ridership for their metro. Sadly what has happened is that yes, more people are using SkyTrain, but even more people are using the car! One can densify all one wants but if public transit doesn’t serve the needs of the population, people will not use it.
Many smaller European cities operate extensive light rail networks and carry large volumes of customers because the public transit services where people want to go.
The key is build more rail transit, serving more destinations, but built it cheaply!
The Karlsruhe Solution
Karlsruhe, Germany, with a regional population on par with the Fraser Valley has become famous in the urban-transportation field for its pioneering dual-system Stadtbahn “tram-trains” that run both on city streetcar tracks and on railroad lines shared with normal passenger and freight trains, in what is now known as the Karlsruhe Model.
The first step in this development came with the extension of the previously-existing Albtalbahn, an electric suburban light-rail line that runs southward from Karlsruhe to Bad Herrenalb and Ittersbach. In 1979, it was extended through the center of Karlsruhe on city streetcar tracks, then northward to Neureut, where it shares tracks with freight trains on a lightly-used branch of Deutsche Bahn (DB). Further track-sharing allowed the line to be extended to Hochstetten in 1989. This DB branch uses diesel power, so the shared sections were electrified with 750V DC to accommodate the light-rail (Stadtbahn) trains.
The success of this project stimulated interest in converting some of the DB’s regional passenger services to Stadtbahn lines and running them into the city on streetcar tracks also. This would have significant advantages for passengers:
They would no longer have to transfer between trains and streetcars at the main railroad station (Hauptbahnhof) or other stations on the fringes of the city, such as at Durlach.
Because light-rail trains can accelerate more quickly than conventional trains, running time could be reduced. Alternatively, more stops could be made, so that fewer passengers would have to drive or take connecting buses to reach the outer stations.
The first dual-system Stadtbahn service began operation in 1992, between Karlsruhe and Bretten, on what is now part of route S4. It was a huge success, with ridership increasing a whopping 475% in a few weeks. New routes and extensions have followed . The total length of the AVG’s routes is now about 470 km (291 miles), making it one of the largest passenger rail operators in Germany after DB. The “tram-train” longest run is now a 210km (130 miles) service from Ohringen through central Karlsruhe!
So successful is the Karlsruhe “tram-train” or interurban, the DB now operates with trams in the region!
Will Karlsruhe work here?
The answer is yes, but the federal and provincial governments must take the lead in passing legislation to compel regional railways to allow such operation, just as what happened in Germany. If we want to reduce congestion and pollution, we must build a viable transit alternative, the Karlsruhe model provides an extensive rail network at a far less cost, tens of billions of dollars, than the Vancouver RAV or SkyTrain metro models. To build 100 km of SkyTrain would cost about $9 billion dollars but with the Karlsruhe “tram-train” concept, 100 km. could cost as little as $800 million! Much less if diesel light rail is used!
In an era where European transit planners are continually trying to reduce the cost of new rail transit schemes, TransLink’s planners do the opposite, reveling in the idea that rail transit becomes better as one throws more money at it! Economy is not in TransLink’s lexicon.
Kevin Falcon’s TransLink Mk. 2 will continue to plan for hugely expensive subways in Vancouver and just leave transit crumbs for the rest. Vancouver now has nearing completion, a $2.5+ billion subway on two transit routes (98-B and Cambie St.) that could muster less than 40,000 customers a day. Now the City of Vancouver wants a multi-billion dollar subway under Broadway and what Vancouver wants, Vancouver gets! To fund Vancouver’s next subway, TransLink needs the tax base of the Fraser Valley to Hope and as far as Squamish.
There are affordable rail options for the Fraser Valley and it’s time for Valley politicians convey the message to Victoria and Ottawa that we do have the density for light rail; we can afford light rail; we want light rail; and no, no more hugely expensive metro’s and subways for Vancouver and its neighbours!
Recent Comments