Except for brief mentions of our local SkyTrain Lobby, we do not hear about the now called Movia Automatic Light metro system in Youngin and for very good reason, as it has mired Bombardier into a massive local scandal.
The local prosecution office is more blunt: EverLine, a lead prosecutor says, was built after Bombardier engaged in corrupt practices to win the 2004 contract for its construction.
The evidence his office gathered showed that Bombardier supplied its South Korean representative, Henry Kim, with lobbying fees totalling $1.8-million over a five-year period. Bombardier sent gifts to the homes of local politicians, as well as to researchers tasked with creating the ridership forecasts that would underpin construction of the new light-rail line, the prosecutors found. Mr. Kim received a further $4.7-million in advanced payment incentives that were deposited into a Swiss bank, under the name of Mr. Kim’s wife, Mr. Cha said.
One wonders what gifts and lobbying fees were given or paid locally to in Metro Vancouver to continue planning for the now obsolete MALM system?
Why do local politicians still strongly support building with it, when expert opinion, in Canada and abroad, has deemed our SkyTrain light-metro system obsolete?
Why do local politicians never explain that only seven such systems have been built in the previous 40 years and only three are seriously used for urban transport?
why do local politicians sidestep any question about the light metro system with inaccurate or misleading statements?
In Canada, politicians and police don’t care to know!
The Bombardier-built EverLine, which runs along an 18-kilometre track in Yongin, South Korea, was sold to local leaders as a vision of the future, but is now derided by locals as a bus on rails.NATHAN VANDERKLIPPE/THE GLOBE AND MAIL
Every few minutes, a single car passes by Chodang station, one of the stops on 18 kilometres of elevated track that wind through Yongin, a small city 40 kilometres south of Seoul. When the EverLine was sold to local leaders, it was a vision of the future – driverless cars that would swiftly transport tens of thousands of passengers a day.
Today, locals mockingly call it a bus on rails, slower on some routes than taking an actual bus, and, for the city that built it, far more expensive. The local prosecution office is more blunt: EverLine, a lead prosecutor says, was built after Bombardier engaged in corrupt practices to win the 2004 contract for its construction.
The project’s one-trillion-Korean-won price tag, equivalent to $940-million in today’s dollars, was based on initial expectations that some 160,000 people would ride the EverLine every day. But even three years after operations began in 2013 – a start date delayed by legal wrangling between Yongin and the Bombardier-led consortium that built the line – actual ridership was less than a fifth of that figure. The resulting financial shortfalls have saddled Yongin with so much debt that the municipal government was forced into austerity measures around the time the line entered service.
The problems have brought intense scrutiny to how a consortium led by Bombardier won the right to build the project. A special investigation by Yongin prosecutors concluded that the company operated a slush fund and bribed researchers and decision-makers with gifts and trips. For half a year, a team of six South Korean prosecutors, 14 investigators and two certified public accountants worked together. They examined the records of 52 fixed phones, analyzed 115 cellphones and computers, scoured 725 bank accounts and accumulated 285 boxes of documents. “We were aiming to hold people responsible for this wrongful private-sector investment project,” prosecutor Cha Maeng-ki told The Globe.
In Yongin, lawyer Hyun Geun-taek is surrounded by more than
10,000 pages of paper, the accumulated record of legal challenges
to the Bombardier-backed Everline.
NATHAN VANDERKLIPPE/THE GLOBE AND MAIL
The evidence his office gathered showed that Bombardier supplied its South Korean representative, Henry Kim, with lobbying fees totalling $1.8-million over a five-year period. Bombardier sent gifts to the homes of local politicians, as well as to researchers tasked with creating the ridership forecasts that would underpin construction of the new light-rail line, the prosecutors found. Mr. Kim received a further $4.7-million in advanced payment incentives that were deposited into a Swiss bank, under the name of Mr. Kim’s wife, Mr. Cha said. Some of that money, Mr. Cha said, was used to buy real estate in South Korea.
The company also flew 37 people, including 18 city councillors, to Canada, where it “paid their full expenses, put them up in luxury hotels, and provided them with golfing trips, a trip to Niagara Falls and other luxuries,” he said. “These trips took place at the time during which Yongin city and Bombardier were going through negotiations for their business conditions.”
Mr. Cha said, “Providing gifts or funding trips to civil servants in the line of duty constitutes bribery.”
The results of Mr. Cha’s investigation were made public in 2012 and, in the years that followed, local courts found Lee Jeong-moon, the former mayor of Yongin, guilty of corruption on charges related to the EverLine construction. He was sentenced to prison for bribery related to the selection of subcontractors, including his younger brother and friends, for the rail-construction project.
Mr. Kim was found guilty of embezzling funds from the Bombardier-led consortium, where he had served as CEO. But the Bombardier representative did not face trial on charges of corrupting officials nor was the company itself charged with wrongdoing. By the time prosecutors began digging into the company’s South Korean project, it was too late for charges. “The statute of limitations at the time was five years,” Mr. Cha explained.
Canada’s toughened anti-corruption law contains no such statute of limitations.
(Mr. Kim’s phone number in South Korea has been disconnected, and The Globe was unable to reach him for comment.)
Bombardier’s Mr. Marcil, however, contested Mr. Cha’s interpretation of events. “We reject the insinuation that we, in any way, acted wrongfully in the Yongin project, or that we unduly influenced either the choice of technology or the decision to build the transit system,” Mr. Marcil said. “After our full cooperation in their investigation, South Korean investigators determined that there was no cause for charges against Bombardier.”
Mr. Lee, the former mayor sentenced to jail on corruption charges, also defends the EverLine – and the company that built it. He is “completely in favour of them,” he said in an interview. “Bombardier didn’t hurt Yongin City the tiniest bit. Not one bit.”
Bombardier had been given preferential status in bidding for the Yongin project, and was the sole company to submit a bid, according to a local lawmaker.
But the company has since gained many detractors in a city where the EverLine has grown into a symbol of extravagance and waste. The lower-than-forecast number of riders has meant less revenue than initially expected and has sparked a dizzying number of efforts to assign blame. Prosecutors charged 10 people, accusing them of bribery and violating construction safety laws. A citizens group has sued Yongin for damage compensation.
The city and the Bombardier-backed consortium faced off twice before the International Court of Arbitration, or ICA, after Yongin accused the consortium of safety flaws and noise issues. The consortium then sued over delays in opening the line, and won. In two judgments, the ICA awarded the consortium a total of 778.6 billion Korean won, an amount roughly 22-per-cent greater than the consortium’s share of construction costs. Because the city could not afford to pay the entire sum at once, it agreed to continue payments until 2043. After a contractual change, Bombardier no longer operates the rail project that it helped bring to Yongin, where the project continues to raise local passions.
Lee Sang-cheol, one of the 18 councillors who travelled to Canada with Bombardier, acknowledged that the company gave him gifts, although he down-played them as “nothing out of the ordinary.” He also defended the trip he took to Canada on Bombardier’s dime. “If they want to sell us machines, they have to show us those things,” he said. And he added that “stopping by some tourist attractions shouldn’t be such a big deal. How can we just see light rail and nothing else?”
Still, he has come to regret the company’s involvement. “Bombardier made zero losses in this transaction. Bombardier lost absolutely nothing. It took everything it wanted to take,” he said. And he resents the financial duress that the EverLine project inflicted on his city. “Honestly, what Bombardier did, it caused massive harm to Yongin city.”
I think the senior management at TransLink are worried, very worried.
Bombardier is in serious finical trouble and is wanting to sell its rail division.
With Covid-19, all deals are off, as transportation conglomerates cut operations to suit their immediate financial needs.
Bombardier has now ceased all production and it is doubtful that Bombardier continue producing transit designed for niche markets, such a Movia Automatic Light Metro.
The immediate effects are that delivery dates for new MK III cars will be pushed back and spare parts will become even more scarce.
If the covid-19 scare lasts several months, the SkyTrain lobby had better be prepared for some sobering news as other transit companies may not want to produce vehicles and parts for a niche railway system that no one wants.
Ever try sourcing spare parts for an Edsel today?
Bombardier temporarily ceases work at its Canadian facilities
*
Posted on March 24, 2020
*
Employees impacted by these temporary shutdowns will be placed on furlough, as will corporate office employees whose support functions are
less critical in the short-term. Bombardier Bombardier announced that in support of the recent mandates from the Governments of Quebec and Ontario to help slow the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, it will suspend all non-essential work at most of its Canadian-based operations starting this evening at 11:59 pm until April 26, 2020, inclusively. The suspension includes Bombardier’s aircraft and rail production activities in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario.
*
Employees impacted by these temporary shutdowns will be placed on furlough, as will corporate office employees whose support functions are
less critical in the short-term. During this furlough period, Bombardier’s CEO and senior leadership team will forgo their pay, and the chairman and members of the board have agreed to forgo board compensation for the remainder of 2020.
*
Bombardier is also suspending its 2020 financial outlook as it evaluates the impact of temporarily closing its Canadian operations, as well as other actions being taken in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. “Since the corona virus outbreak, the company has been focused on keeping our employees safe, serving our customers to the best of our ability during these difficult times and taking the necessary actions to protect our business for the long term,” said Pierre Beaudoin, chairman of the board of directors at Bombardier Inc. “In addition to the actions announced today, Bombardier has cut all discretionary
spending, is continuing the work on closing the previously announced transactions, and is pursuing additional measures to enhance liquidity.”
In late May, the Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority of the Phoenix metropolitan area opened a $1.9-million extension to the area’s light rail transit line.PHOTO COURTESY WSP
June 17, 2019
Roundabout for Light Rail Is One of First in the U.S.
In late May, the Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority of the Phoenix metropolitan area opened a $1.9-million extension to the area’s light rail transit line. The new line extends service along Main Street from Mesa Drive to Gilbert Road in downtown Mesa. The project created the second roundabout in the U.S. to be incorporated into a light rail system at East Main Street and South Horne, says the construction manager, a joint venture of WSP USA and PGH Wong. A joint venture between Stacy & Witbeck and Sundt is the contractor. As a train approaches the roundabout, crossing gates with flashing lights and bells will come down to block vehicles in the left lane of the roundabout. Drivers wishing to cross the light rail tracks queue in the lane. Vehicles traveling east or westbound on Main Street can continue their travel while the train is crossing through the intersection.
RTC Southern Nevada Goes All In on Infrastructure Week
The Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada celebrated National Infrastructure Week by hosting three events with a focus on engaging and educating stakeholders, policymakers and community members. With a theme of “Technology and Innovation: The New Infrastructure of Tomorrow,” the RTC-hosted Las Vegas events were one of only four national summits. On May 15, RTC hosted a Careers in Motion event at Texas Station Hotel and Casino that attracted more than 120 attendees and 50 vendors. “Careers in Motion is one of the building blocks, I believe, to solving the workforce issue that the construction industry has,” says Guy Martin, president of Martin-Harris Construction. “This is bringing our needs directly to the community.
As ridership plummets on TransLink, it will be ever harder to implement the $4.6 billion extensions to the SkyTrain light-metro network as monies will be needed to shore up a collapsing transit network. Remember, the SkyTrain light-metro network is very expensive to maintain and operate.
How can TransLink defend a $4.6 billion investment in an obsolete light-metro system, while the transit system itself shrinks due to lack of funding.
The taxpayer will have absolutely no time for tax increases and civic of provincial politicians who defend tax increases will find themselves out of office.
Mayor “Dithers” of Vancouver and the Mayor’s Council on Transit will face a rather nasty choice about continuing with Translink’s future planning.
After the Corvid-19 epidemic, the taxpayer may want to question TransLink’s gold plated, yet dated planning and if the politicians object, chances are they feel it at the ballot boxes.
Coronavirus May Have a Lasting Impact on Public Transit Funding
Ridership is likely going to plummet, which will make it harder on local transit agencies
Coronavirus is beginning to upend American life. The stock market is crashing, universities are cancelling classes or moving them online, conferences are being canceled, and airlines are struggling. Unsurprisingly, public transportation is also going to be greatly impacted. It’s still early to know exactly how this will unfold, but without proper mitigation efforts from local governments, we could be feeling the effects of coronavirus on public transportation service for years to come.
In the short term, we can expect fewer people to use public transportation as part of a broader policy of avoiding public gatherings. We don’t have a great idea how most transit systems have been affected yet, because most report ridership numbers monthly and, believe it or not, we’re still really early into the US’s exposure.
But we do know this is already happening in San Francisco, where BART lost eight percent of ridership between the last week of February and the first week of March, a massive drop by public transportation standards. And it certainly stands to reason other transit systems will experience something similar, given that universities are cancelling classes and many workplaces are instituting work-from-home policies (not to mention some transit agencies themselves like New York’s MTA are encouraging people to avoid it if possible).
Taking these precautions, such as limiting public gatherings, in the name of public health is obviously worth doing. But not only must we prepare for coronavirus itself, so too must we prepare for the effect those precautions will have. And for public transportation, which is always in a financially precarious position, those precautions could really screw things up if other measures aren’t taken.
We’re talking about money here. Transit agencies are going to lose a lot of money. They get most of their money from two sources: fares and government subsidies, and both could be impacted by coronavirus. Some agencies depend on fare revenue more than others. On average, fares fund 32 percent of transit operations in the US, according to the Department of Transportation, and it is almost unheard of for an agency to get more than 50 percent of its operating budget through fares alone.
To just ballpark some figures for a moment, let’s consider New York’s MTA, which estimated it will receive $6.5 billion in fares this year out of a total budget of $17 billion. An eight percent reduction in fares would result in a $520 million shortfall, which is no joke for a transit agency already struggling to balance its budget. (I know that an eight percent reduction in ridership, to use BART’s figure, is not equal to an eight percent reduction in fares, especially for the MTA where fares vary wildly between commuter rail and the subway and bus system, but we don’t have any better figures at this stage.) The story is similar around the country, where even small revenue drops of a percentage point or two often force transit agencies to make tough decisions about whether to cut service or amenities.
Transit agencies are also spending more money during the coronavirus outbreak cleaning their trains, buses, and facilities more often, which is not tremendously expensive for a few weeks, but if they have to do it for months it could add to the financial pressure.
Not only will people be taking fewer transit trips because they have fewer places they need to go, but also because the alternatives are getting cheaper. Oil prices, and therefore gas prices, are tanking. Outside of New York, where most people own cars, this will make driving even more attractive. So too will the fact that most people drive in their cars alone or with friends and family they’re regularly exposed to anyway, which has its benefits during a virus outbreak.
Of course, it’s too early to tell the magnitude of any of these shifts. But it’s likely transit agencies and their advocates will have tougher cases to make when budget season rolls around.
On average, 56 percent of a transit agency’s budget comes from state or local subsidies, according to that same Department of Transportation report—the rest comes from the federal government or is directly generated by the agency through advertising or other initiatives—and a big part of convincing politicians those subsidies are worthwhile is by demonstrating people use the system with, you guessed it, ridership figures.
So, if ridership plummets, that argument becomes harder, especially if government budgets become stressed bailing out all the other at-risk businesses and populations that need more money. When it comes to governments at all levels, transit has a long history of taking the back seat during crunch time. And if people abandon it in droves due to coronavirus, history may repeat itself once again.
Hats off to Optimist reporter, Sandor Gyarmati as he correctly states:
A Boarding represents each time a passenger enters a fare paid zone using Compass fare media or other proof of payment. Transfers are counted as additional boarding’s.
This is the first time in the print or electronic media that a reporter has stated this. This is important because with over 80% of SkyTrain’s ridership first taking a bus, means boarding numbers do not relate to the actual number of people taking transit.
This translates to over 80% of SkyTrain’s ridership effectively counts as a minimum of four boarding’s a day per customer!
Thousands of people have avoided taking transit amid the coronavirus pandemic.
The province, for now, has exempted buses and SeaBus from the 50-person gathering limit with TransLink saying there’s “no indication that shutting down public transit in Metro Vancouver would be an appropriate course of action at this stage.”
Dr. Bonnie Henry has called on TransLink to impose regulations to limit the amount of people on buses.
The transit authority has hit social media with advertisements with the message it is closely monitoring the situation and remains in contact with regional health authorities and other transit agencies in order to determine best practices and ensure the response is appropriate.
“At this time, we have not been directed to make any operational changes, however, we are all taking steps to ensure a high standard of cleanliness is maintained in order to reduce any potential risk of viral spread,” TransLink states.
Starting today, bus passengers are asked to board buses using rear doors only.
TransLink also says bus riders won’t have to pay fares until further notice, but fares still apply to other modes of transit including SeaBus.
Here’s recent system-wide numbers provided by TransLink:
Tuesday, March 17
-52% below the same day in 2019
Total boardings on Tuesday, March 17: 684,000
Monday, March 16
-38% below the same day in 2019
Total boardings on Monday, March 16: 843,000
Sunday, March 15
-29% below the same day in 2019
Total boardings on Sunday, March 15: 552,000
Saturday, March 14
-23% below the same day in 2019
Total boardings on Saturday, March 14: 726,000
Friday, March 13
-17% below the same day in 2019
Total boardings on Friday, March 13: 1,213,000
Thursday, March 12
-7% below the same day in 2019
Total boardings on Thursday, March 12: 1,312,000
Specifically for Tuesday, March 17:
Total Boardings were -52% below the same day in 2019
Total Bus Boardings were -48% below same day in 2019
Total Expo/Millennium Line Boardings were -54% below the same day in 2019
Total Canada Line Boardings were -59% below the same day in 2019
Total SeaBus Boardings were -69% below the same day in 2019
Total WCE Boardings were -70% below the same day in 2019
PLEASE NOTE: A Boarding represents each time a passenger enters a fare paid zone using Compass fare media or other proof of payment. Transfers are counted as additional boardings.
Boardings are available as a system total and by transit mode. This does not represent an amount of people, given that most riders have more than one boarding per journey and more than one journey per day.
Sadly, I have been attending several funerals this year, but just few weeks back at a funeral for an acquaintance I bumped in to an old BC Transit type, who I dueled with back in the 80’s and early 90’s.
Having a coffee after the service, he said something quite astounding;
“You know, you were right all along“.
He went on;
“We were so bedazzled by all the modern kit, flashing lights and gadgets, we forgot about the cost“.
Then he added the bombshell:
“TransLink was created to keep building with SkyTrain because BC Transit wanted to wash their hands of it.”
He smiled and said;
“The predictions of the high cost of the system, when compared to other modes, is just staggering and we were ready to ‘draw a line in the sand’, but the SkyTrain boys and girls did an end run, by getting the government to create TransLink“
Then came the punch line;
“You know that TransLink is the City of Vancouver’s baby and they control itand the rest of you pay for it, that’s the NDP’s legacy on transit“
With my jaw firmly on floor, the conversation meandered with valley rail and other niceties one observes at a funeral.
When politicians get involved with transit, fiasco happens.
When light-metro pretends to be light rail, fiasco happens.
When the media’s ignorance of light-metro and light rail is so evident and they fail to ask important questions, fiasco happens.
This article about the operational ills of Ottawa’s new light metro system (though the Ottawa light-metro uses modern light rail vehicles, it operates over on a fully grade separated rights-of-way and has automatic train control) is worth reading.
The media on our side of the Rockies are now pointing out to all who can read and hear, that LRT is a failure.
It best to understand the problem and how politicians exacerbated the operational ills of Ottawa’s new light metro system.
No, the people wearing this embarrassing launch are the politicians and city staff who, much to their frustration, have relatively little control over how the fixes are being applied.
Then there is the blinkered thinking of the metro mania cult and their mantra; “subways cure gridlock” – NOT!
“I was puzzled by Chiarelli’s choice of the route,” says O’Brien, “and I knew the system needed a downtown tunnel to really be effective.”
Modern light rail negates the need for a subway unless ridership exceeds 20,000 pphpd. In Karlsruhe, Germany, a subway was built under a very congested tram route which as seeing a peek our capacity greatly in excess of 30,000 pphpd!
The city of Vancouver and TransLink want a subway under Broadway, yet the peek hour capacity is well under 5,000 pphpd!
Subways add greatly to construction and maintenance costs, yet do little in alleviating congestion.
Our correspondent from Ottawa, Haveacow, will probably add his take, but I am certain that the Automatic Train Control signalling system, could be one of the main contributing causes of Ottawa’s transit woes.
ATC or Automatic Train control, just does not operate well in adverse conditions as we know so well with out SkyTrain light-metro system.
The more complicated a public transit system is, the more that can and does go wrong.
Keeping it simple should be on the very top of the list for public transport planning and operation, to keep the system functioning for those who depend on public transport.
Nearly six months after the launch, the city is exhausted. Commuters can cite by rote the many ways a rail car can be disabled — jammed doors, hobbled communications, unpredictable rail switches, disconnected power cables, disabled brakes and more.
In the end, they set aside what complicated stuff this was, and went with their gut — because at some point, you have to trust your hired guns.
But when the City of Ottawa finally launched the first of its approved two-phase, $9 billion-plus light rail system last Sept. 14, those with deep knowledge of the decade-long project were understandably nervous.
It wasn’t just that large construction projects like this are inherently unpredictable. Everyone understood that trying to mesh together so many trades, technologies and timelines is more art than science. It’s why contingency payments were built into the contracts.
The problem was, this project also harboured additional layers of risk that cascaded in a manner rarely seen in the launch of a major transportation system. An investigation by this newspaper — based on interviews with city officials, politicians, light rail experts and procurement specialists, along with an examination of thousands of pages of documentation filed with the city and other regulatory authorities over the past decade — reveals no single issue was at fault in this problem-plagued rollout. Rather, this was a case of seemingly reasonable risks compounding in unpredictable ways thanks in part to compressed budgets and timetables.
This is the story of how myriad parts of the project failed to come together as promised.
Classic political bait and switch; bait the public into thinking that the province is really doing something, but in reality, doing nothing.
The key is funding and of course funding is never mentioned.
Without having each option showing cost, means the study is next to useless as people don’t have real information.
Before everyone jumps on the rapid transit train, we must define light rail and cost; then define light metro and cost. Then look at the costs over 50 years for both modes.
Just what is the province’s definition of light rail?
This has not been done.
In truth, the federal, provincial and civic politicians do not know. TransLink does not know.
Despite the hype and hoopla, the North Shore transit plans have no validity without these costs included. What we have now is classic Provincial bait and switch; baiting the public with meaningless planning, and switching, doing nothing.
What have the taxpayer not been told?
Today, we have funded $4.6 billion to extend the Millennium and Expo lines 12.8 km. This cost could escalate, if Alstom, who is currently buying Bombardier Inc. were to cease production of the proprietary Movia Automatic Light Metro, used on the Expo and Millennium Lines; including spare parts.
They have done before with other obsolete product lines.
Hint: Vancouver is the sole customer for MALM.
As mentioned, we have funded $4.6 billion to build 12.8 km of what is now MALM, with 5.8 km in a subway.
*
Unfunded costs for planned rapid transit extensions and needed rehab.
1) Expo & Millennium Line rehab – $2 to $3 billion, needed before extensions to Langley and UBC.
2) Extension to Langley – near $2 billion
3) Extension to UBC – over $4 billion
The wish list, with estimated costs
1) SkyTrain to Abbotsford – $8 billion to $12 billion.
2) SkyTrain to the North Shore – $5 billion plus
3) Canada Line (not compatible with the Expo & Millennium Lines) rehab needed after the end of the P-3 and to increase capacity – minimum $2 billion.
4) Extending the Canada line to Steveston and Ironwood mall, up to $5 billion. South across the Fraser, another $5 billion.
Total cost to date to the taxpayer of the present light metro network $11 billion; 50 year costs of the network, including mid life rehab, $600 million/km grade separated, $1 billion/km for subways.
By comparison, the 50 year costs for light rail is about $200 million/km and LRT has more capacity!
SO TELL ME PLEASE, WHAT ARE THE COSTS AND WHERE IS THE FUNDING FOR ANY RAIL SERVICE TO THE NORTH SHORE IN THE NEXT 40 YEARS?
There are six potential routes for a rapid transit line linking the North Shore to the other side of Burrard Inlet. image supplied
The province has long-listed six potential routes for a rapid transit line connecting the North Shore to the other side of Burrard Inlet.
After hiring Mott MacDonald Ltd. in October 2019, the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure released an interim update on the Burrard Inlet Rapid Transit study Monday, as the first phase of the research is completed.
After months of studying the physical geography and topography, structural requirements, ridership projections/needs, traffic models, weather and climate change impacts, as well as notional costs to construct, operate and maintain infrastructure, the engineers say there are at least six projects worth a serious look:
• 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)
• Burnaby to Lonsdale via Second Narrows (existing bridge crossing)
“I think, honestly, any movement towards the rapid transit solution for the North Shore is extremely exciting,” said North Vancouver-Lonsdale NDP MLA Bowinn Ma. “These are more than just lines on a drawing where somebody has said ‘It would be great if we had a crossing over the Burrard Inlet here. … Instead, what’s happening under the Burrard technical feasibility study is that we’re actually looking at whether we can make this work.”
Connecting the Lonsdale core to Vancouver via a rapid transit line was one of the recommendations of the Integrated North Shore Transportation Planning Project, led by Ma in 2018. All three North Shore municipalities and the City of Vancouver chipped in $50,000 for the $450,000-rapid transit study, along with the province, which put in $250,000.
While all six alignments performed well when it came to ridership and greenhouse gas reduction modelling, given current and predicted land use and commuting patterns, options 1 and 4 showed the best results, Ma said.
The study considered rapid transit bridges and tunnels, a gondola crossing and more cross-inlet ferries.
Previous studies have found the existing Ironworkers Memorial Second Narrows Crossing cannot be expanded due to structural limitations, but Ma said she was particularly interested to learn it may be at least technically possible to run a transit line under the existing bridge deck through the bridge’s trusses.
Ma said the ministry won’t be releasing more details, including the cost estimates, until completion of Phase 2 of the study this summer. She did say that that all six options came with cost estimates in the same ballpark.
“And it will definitely be in the billions,” she said.
Phase 2 of the study, which will involve engineers drilling down into much more technical detail, is expected to last another three months. Once Phase 2 is complete, Ma said she expects the current list to be narrowed down to just three options for TransLink to consider.
Exciting as it may be to see some tangible options, Ma cautioned the BIRT still has some rather large hurdles to clear. In order to get built, it must be approved by the TransLink Mayors’ Council as part of TransLink 2050, the next major phase in transit expansion.
Ma acknowledged that a traffic-weary constituency may be running out of patience; however, the study is both prudent and necessary before anyone will commit money to the project, she said.
“We’re building credibility. We’re building a case for a rapid transit solution to the North Shore. And that can only be accomplished if the entire region pulls together and that’s what INSTPP is about. And that’s what this study is about,” she said.
Vancouver politicians live in “The Land of the Loyus Eaters”, when it comes to transit.
In Greek mythology the lotus-eaters, were a race of people living on an island dominated by the Lotus tree. The lotus fruits and flowers were the primary food of the island and were a narcotic, causing the inhabitants to sleep in peaceful apathy.
As TransLink, Vancouver Council, UBC, and the Mayor’s Council on Transit sleep in peaceful apathy, the realities of the real cost of the subway are ignored.
According to Metrolinx’s study, the real cost of the 5.8 km Broadway subway will be more like $6 billion over 50 years.
As costs mount ever higher elsewhere for subways, our politicians and bureaucrats remain ignorant of escalating costs for subway construction, continue to misinform the public as to the real cost of Broadway’s subway.
In Metro Toronto, Metrolinx has finally admitted that:”
“……the Scarborough subway costs simply aren’t worth it,” he said. “It’s been years that Scarborough subway advocates haven’t been telling the truth to Scarborough residents and people across the city.”
And for years now, Translink: the City of Vancouver, UBC, the Ministry of Transportation, the Minister of Transportation, the Minister responsible for TransLink, the Mayor’s Council on Transit and the subway lobby haven’t been telling the truth about the high costs of subway construction to taxpayers in metro Vancouver. Is the $6 billion. plus, cost over 50 years, giving good value?
Is it not time that the province steps in for a fiscal reality check? Is there the moral fibre in Victoria to do this?
Interesting that the numbers for LRT came via the TTC and the numbers for the subwaycame from the provincial government who wanted the subway.
The subway project in Scarborough has been hotly debated in Toronto since 2013, when its backers won council support for cancelling a light-rail line in the area and replacing it with an extension – the Toronto-York Spadina Subway Extension seen here in 2016 – of the subway to Scarborough Town Centre mall.
Kevin Van Paassen/The Globe and Mail
Two of Ontario’s marquee transit projects have costs that far exceed their benefits, according to a pair of analyses prepared for the regional transit agency Metrolinx.
The reports, released Friday afternoon, show that the Scarborough subway extension proposed for east-end Toronto and the westward extension of the Crosstown Eglinton light rail line across the city could, together, cost nearly $10-billion to build while producing benefits amounting to billions less. In spite of this, Metrolinx has recommended both projects be advanced.
The analysis deliberately errs on the side of caution and Metrolinx hopes to improve the benefits of these projects over time, agency CEO Phil Verster said in a statement.
The benefits are calculated by assigning a monetary value to such things as removing cars from the road and saving commuters time.
Shelagh Pizey-Allen, spokesperson for the advocacy group TTCRiders, said the projects were examples of proposals pitched with a modest price tag, but costs rose and value diminished over time.
The Metrolinx board received these reports at an in-camera meeting in January and, at the time, quietly approved pushing ahead with the projects. The agency refused to release the reports when asked earlier this month.
Both projects are being overseen by the provincial government, which struck a deal with the city of Toronto that handed over control and financial responsibility for major rail construction to Metrolinx.
A spokeswoman for Transportation Minister Caroline Mulroney said the government would continue to support both projects.
“These [reports] represent Metrolinx’s best understanding of the projects at a given moment in time and are inevitably subject to change during the projects’ life cycles,” Christina Salituro said in an e-mail.
“These documents are key elements in ensuring Metrolinx continues to make the most informed decisions going forward and are just one of a number of factors used in making a final decision.”
The subway project in Scarborough has been hotly debated in Toronto since 2013, when its backers won council support for cancelling a light-rail line in the area and replacing it with an extension of the subway to Scarborough Town Centre mall.
The analysis released Friday of the subway extension concluded it would bring $2.8-billion in benefits over a 60-year period, and cost about $5.5-billion to build. The Ontario government had last year pegged the cost at this level, which is about $2-billion more than the amount budgeted by the city when it was in charge of an earlier version of project.
“That subway is not going to be cost-effective,” said Brenda Thompson, with the advocacy group Scarborough Transit Action, adding that such a high price tag would preclude building anything else in that part of the city.
“I think this is going to suck up all of the money and I think politicians should be upfront about that. This is what we’re going to end up with, if at all.”
Toronto Councillor Josh Matlow, who has long advocated for the original plan for light rail instead in Scarborough, said that the report is another example of the claims of subway boosters being proved wrong.
“Today Metrolinx finally admitted that the Scarborough subway costs simply aren’t worth it,” he said. “It’s been years that Scarborough subway advocates haven’t been telling the truth to Scarborough residents and people across the city.”
The city had budgeted $3.56-billion for a one-stop Scarborough subway extension. During the last election campaign, now Premier Doug Ford pledged to add two more stations. The version being studied by Metrolinx includes the additional stations.
The newly released analysis for a light-rail extension of the Crosstown to Pearson International Airport shows that it will cost up to $4.4-billion, net present value, in 2019 dollars, if it has nine stops and is substantially below ground. In that form it would bring benefits of $1.4-billion over 60 years.
The project’s capital cost could be reduced to about $2.8-billion if most of the stops were removed, the analysis notes, or to as little as $2.1-billion if it was built on the surface.
Mr. Ford has pledged to bury as much of the Crosstown extension as possible.
Large-roundabout on Marszalkowska Street near Central tram station in Warsaw
Luxembourg’s new tramway, classic modern light rial
Edinburgh’s newer tramway. Lot’s of teething problems but now a solid performer.
Melbourne’s streetcar/tram system, now being slowly upgraded to light rail status.
Trams have now returned to Paris, modern light rail at its best!
Brussels’ famous tramways, slowly upgrading to light rail status with new cars and dedicated rights-of-ways.
There are six potential routes for a rapid transit line linking the North Shore to the other side of Burrard Inlet. image supplied
Interesting that the numbers for LRT came via the TTC and the numbers for the subwaycame from the provincial government who wanted the subway.
/arc-anglerfish-tgam-prod-tgam.s3.amazonaws.com/public/M35ZOHK4KRDBBM2CUU4KLEBRT4.JPG)
Recent Comments