No, It Does Not Make Sense

It is as I predicted, the people in the Fraser Valley are awakening to the realities of TransLink, poor transit and high taxes.

Politicians have such poor memories of the 2015 plebiscite.

For too long TransLink has done what the City of Vancouver’s wants, continuing the city’s perverse desire to have a gold plated, Edsel style transit system, built strictly to drive property development, with the rest of the region paying for Vancouver’s largess. The Fraser Valley, is seen by Vancouver’s politico’s as a “Milch Cow” with an unlimited ability to pay more and more taxes.

Sadly, far too many Valley politicians tend go along with this perverse philosophy!

With realities of a recession looming, tax monies will become scarce and major projects must be able to prove their worth and bureaucrats will also must prove their value.

During an era of unprecedented investment in regional transit systems, where success is eagerly copied, not one city has copied Metro Vancouver’s transit strategy; not one city has copied metro Vancouver’s transit planning and not one city has copied Metro Vancouver’s exclusive use of light metro, a.k.a. SkyTrain.

Something to think about.

LETTER: Langley man shakes his head at TransLink and Mayors’ Council decision making

TransLink can’t provide Langley with better transit but can hike the CEO salary, local man writes.

Vancouver Will Need To Adopt Lower-Cost LRT In Its Lesser Corridors

But, eventually, Vancouver will need to adopt lower-cost LRT in its lesser corridors, or else limit the extent of its rail system. And that seems to make some TransLink people very nervous.

Gerald Fox, 2008.

 

Here is the big crunch which TransLink seems deathly afraid of, do they continue with the now obsolete and often renamed and now called Movia Automatic Light Metro, or join the rest of the world and build with light rail?

Here are the cost comparisons so far.

1. McCallum’s Expo Line extension to Langley – $3.2 billion and climbing ($1.6 billion funded).
2. The original LRT plan – $1.6 billion and climbing, (but not so much).
3. Broadway subway to Arbutus – $3 billion plus (funded to $$2.8 billion).

Another Look At Gerald Fox’s Review Of The Evergreen Line Business Case

I cannot stress enough the importance of this short letter as it shreds TransLink’s Business Case for the Evergreen Line.

I did not support the Evergreen Line because from what I gleaned from all the studies and documents, that there was not the ridership to sustain the uncompleted portion of the Millennium Line to the Tri Cities.

From what I can see, my prognostications have proven true as the Evergreen line extension and in fact the entire Millennium line can only sustain 2 car trains, which have less capacity than a modern tram!

I observed in the fall a 6 minute headway on Sundays.

So, let us once again revisit how TransLink perverts the truth to bamboozle regional and provincial politicians (federal politicians don’t give a damn unless they are invited for a photo-op) to support the unsupportable SkyTrain light metro expansion.

Translink’s business cases for extending the light metro system are not worth the paper they are printed on.

From Gerald Fox…

February 6, 2008

Greetings:

The Evergreen Line Report made me curious as to how TransLink could justify continuing to expand SkyTrain, when the rest of the world is building LRT. So I went back and read the alleged Business Case (BC) report in a little more detail. I found several instances where the analysis had made assumptions that were inaccurate, or had been manipulated to make the case for SkyTrain. If the underlying assumptions are inaccurate, the conclusions may be so too. Specifically:

Capacity. A combination of train size and headway. For instance, TriMet’s new Type 4 Low floor LRVs, arriving later this year, have a rated capacity of 232 per car, or 464 for a 2- car train. (Of course one must also be sure to use the same standee density when comparing car capacity. I don’t know if that was done here). In Portland we operate a frequency of 3 minutes downtown in the peak hour, giving a one way peak hour capacity of 9,280. By next year we will have two routes through downtown, which will eventually load both ways, giving a theoretical peak hour rail capacity of 37,000 into or out of downtown. Of course we also run a lot of buses.

The new Seattle LRT system which opens next year, is designed for 4-car trains, and thus have a peak hour capacity of 18,560. (but doesn’t need this yet, and so shares the tunnel with buses). The Business Case analysis assumes a capacity of 4,080 for LRT, on the Evergreen Line which it states is not enough, and compares it to SkyTrain capacity of 10400.!

Speed. The analysis states the maximum LRT speed is 60 kph. (which would be correct for the street sections) But most LRVs are actually designed for 90 kph. On the Evergreen Line, LRT could operate at up to 90 where conditions permit, such as in the tunnels, and on protected ROW. Most LRT systems pre-empt most intersections, and so experience little delay at grade crossings. (Our policy is that the trains stop only at stations, and seldom experience traffic delays. It seems to work fine, and has little effect on traffic.) There is another element of speed, which is station access time. At-grade stations have less access time. This was overlooked in the analysis.

Also, on the NW alignment, the SkyTrain proposal uses a different, faster, less-costly alignment to LRT proposal. And has 8 rather than 12 stations. If LRT was compared on the alignment now proposed for SkyTrain, it would go faster, and cost less than the Business Case report states!

Cost. Here again, there seems to be some hidden biases. As mentioned above, on the NW Corridor, LRT is costed on a different alignment, with more stations. The cost difference between LRT and SkyTrain presented in the Business Case report is therefore misleading. If they were compared on identical alignments, with the same number of stations, and designed to optimize each mode, the cost advantage of LRT would be far greater. I also suspect that the basic LRT design has been rendered more costly by requirements for tunnels and general design that would not be found on more cost-sensitive LRT projects.

Then there are the car costs. Last time I looked, the cost per unit of capacity was far higher for SkyTrain. Also,it takes about 2 SkyTrain cars to match the capacity of one LRV. And the grade-separated SkyTrain stations are far most costly and complex than LRT stations. Comparing 8 SkyTrain stations with 12 LRT stations also helps blur the distinction.

Ridership. Is a function of many factors. The Business Case report would have you believe that type of rail mode alone, makes a difference (It does in the bus vs rail comparison, according to the latest US federal guidelines). But, on the Evergreen Line, I doubt it. What makes a difference is speed, frequency (but not so much when headways get to 5 minutes), station spacing and amenity etc. Since the speed, frequency and capacity assumptions used in the Business Case are clearly inaccurate, the ridership estimates cannot be correct either. There would be some advantage if SkyTrain could avoid a transfer. If the connecting system has capacity for the extra trains. But the case is way overstated.

And nowhere is it addressed whether the Evergreen Line, at the extremity of the system, has the demand for so much capacity and, if it does, what that would mean on the rest of the system if feeds into?

Innuendos about safety, and traffic impacts, seem to be a big issue for SkyTrain proponents, but are solved by the numerous systems that operate new LRT systems (i.e., they can’t be as bad as the SkyTrain folk would like you to believe).

I’ve no desire to get drawn into the Vancouver transit wars, and, anyway, most of the rest of the world has moved on. To be fair, there are clear advantages in keeping with one kind of rail technology, and in through-routing service at Lougheed. But, eventually, Vancouver will need to adopt lower-cost LRT in its lesser corridors, or else limit the extent of its rail system. And that seems to make some TransLink people very nervous.

It is interesting how TransLink has used this cunning method of manipulating analysis to justify SkyTrain in corridor after corridor, and has thus succeeded in keeping its proprietary rail system expanding. In the US, all new transit projects that seek federal support are now subjected to scrutiny by a panel of transit peers, selected and monitored by the federal government, to ensure that projects are analysed honestly, and the taxpayer interests are protected. No SkyTrain project has ever passed this scrutiny in the US.

Politcal Penis Envy Drives Subway Costs

This is rather old news and one questions why the media have not picked up on this earlier.

Subways cost a lot of money to build, yet they provide no better service than modern light rail, unless traffic flows on the transit route surpass around 20,000 pphpd.

Vancouver does not have one route that has traffic flows surpassing this number and it well to remember that the three light metro lines have many bus routes transferring their customers onto the light metro, instead of providing a direct service to downtown Vancouver.

If the cost of elevated and subway construction was, instead, spent on at-grade LRT, we could build many North/South – East West lines giving a far better and more comprehensive transit service, providing a much more user-friendly, seamless or no transfer journey, which has proven to attract ridership.

Until taxpayer’s wake up and understand that they are being taken for a very expensive ride to provide “politcal penis envy” for regional politicians, a quality transit service for the metro Vancouver region will prove to be extremely elusive!

In US Dollars

2010

Canada’s soaring subway construction costs need to get back on track

As transit planning in Toronto is wracked by a political tug-of-war, one of the most important issues has been almost completely ignored: New York has the highest construction costs in the world, but Toronto is a strong competitor for second place. The city is spending a vast sum on a very ambitious transit-expansion plan, but is getting far less track for the buck than most other places around the world. It’s a national problem, too: Other Canadian cities’ transit construction costs are not far behind.

In the past year, price estimates for Toronto’s Relief Line and Scarborough subway extensions have ballooned. The Relief Line’s projected costs rose to $7.22-billion, or about $1-billion for each kilometre. The Scarborough subway one-stop extension is now projected to cost $3.48-billion for a 6.2-kilometre line. While the Scarborough extension may seem like a bargain by the Relief Line’s standards, subway stations are usually the costliest part (about 75 per cent of the itemized costs in New York), and thus a single-stop line which should be cheap, isn’t.

In contrast, the median urban subway around the world costs less than $300-million for each kilometre. This includes complex projects such as Grand Paris Express, an automated network bored under dense inner suburbs including the office tower cluster at La Défense business district.

And Paris is just the median: In cheaper cities such as Seoul, Stockholm and Madrid, urban subways under historic city centres or waterways cost $100-million to $150-million a kilometre.

Even the new Ontario Line plan – a transit line in Toronto proposed by the provincial government and meant to cost less than the Relief Line proposal – is still expected to cost $735-million per kilometre, and much of it isn’t even underground. Curiously, Canadian costs were not always especially high by world standards. Toronto’s Sheppard subway was completed in 2002 for about $166-million a kilometre.

A Must Read – Translink’s 10 Year Plan Finances.

A must read.

If you want to understand the financial implications with the Mayor’s Council on Transit 10 year plan as it pertains to the light metro system, our resident expert, Mr. Cow’s comments deserve a post of their own.

From what I can deduce from this is that Bombardier has telegraphed to TransLink that they can no longer depend on them for new cars and had better source a new supplier.

I wonder what other little bombshells there are?

Notice the $1.3 Billion section about the Expo and Millennium section, now $1.47 Billion, of the second Stage summary of the 10 year plan

Phase 2 Summary
$7.3 billion in transportation investments
The Phase Two Investment Plan represents the next milestone in delivering the Mayors’ 10-Year Vision for Metro Vancouver transit and transportation.

Phase 2 Investments
Major Projects
Millennium Line Broadway Extension (Estimated cost: $2.83 B*)
Procurement starts: 2018
Construction starts: 2020
Target completion: 2025
Surrey-Newton-Guildford LRT (Estimated cost: $1.65 B*)
Procurement starts: 2018
Construction starts: 2020
Target completion: 2024
*Reflects full project scope, including funding received through Phase 1

Expo/Millennium Line Upgrades Program (Estimated cost: $1.3 B)
203 new SkyTrain cars with more capacity for the Expo and Millenium Lines, including 108 expansion cars and 95 replacement cars
Station upgrades
Construction of upgrades to Burrard and Brentwood stations
Design of future upgrades to stations, including Columbia, Edmonds, and Stadium-Chinatown
Vehicle storage and maintenance capacity expansion
Vehicle storage and maintenance capacity expansion

Rail Operating (Estimated: $495 M)
Increase Expo and Millennium Line service during rush hours, mid-day, and weekends starting in 2019
Increase Canada Line service during rush hours, evenings, and weekends starting in 2020
Operate the Millennium Line Broadway Extension
Operate the Surrey-Newton-Guildford Light Rail Line

Future Projects (Estimated: $36 M)
Project development and early works for the Surrey-Langley Line
Planning for a potential Burnaby Mountain Gondola
Planning for rapid transit to UBC Point Grey campus

Bus Capital (Estimated: $530 M)
151 new buses, as well as replacement buses for existing fleet
Transit priority projects and enhanced passenger amenities along bus routes, including new B-Lines
New bus depot, as well as capacity expansion at existing bus depots

Bus Operating (Estimated: $360 M)
Increase bus service by 8% across the region in 2020 and 2021
Improve service on up to 75 different bus routes that carry over 350,000 passengers across the region every day
Provide new bus service to the following communities:
North Vancouver – Harbourside
Surrey – 68th Avenue Crosstown (Scottsdale to Sullivan), East Fraser Heights
Vancouver – East Fraser Lands (River District)
Implement two new B-Lines by 2021:
Richmond to Expo Line
Scott Road (120th Street)
Extend last SeaBus sailing out of Waterfront Station by 10 minutes to meet the last Canada Line train
Increase HandyDART service by 7% over 2020 and 2021

It’s also clear that by using the term “estimate”, they can rob the Rail Operations portion or any other operations part of the 10 year plan to pay for the higher than expected costs in the Expo/Millennium Capital portion.

The following is from the official RFQ/RFP Ariba website, yes its 5 car consists or 4 car consists expandable to 5 car consists, for the new Skytrains.

(A note from Zweisystem: The MK. 3 car is really a saloon, gangwayed at both ends, which means it can be used in 3,4,or 5 car consists.)

SCOPE OF WORK/PROJECT SUMMARY
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Capitalized terms used in this Scope of Work have the meanings ascribed to such terms
elsewhere in this RFP, including the contract terms contained within the Production and
Supply Agreement, unless such terms are specifically defined in this Scope of Work or the
context of their use requires otherwise.
1.2 TransLink is seeking proposals for the design, production, supply and delivery of;
1.2.1 A minimum of two-hundred and five (205) Cars to form forty-one (41) Trains
comprised of a 5-Car consist (may include a number of 4-Car expandable Trains to
5-Car Trains);
all as outlined in the Performance Specification, Contract and as more fully described in
this RFP.
1.3 TransLink is seeking pricing and related information for the following Optional Vehicles;
1.3.1 Option year 1 – Up to thirty (30) Cars forming six (6) Trains comprised of a 5-Car
consist;
1.3.1.1 Option to be exercised by the end of 2021; and
1.3.1.2 Cars estimated to be delivered by end of 2025
1.3.2 Option year 2 – Up to seventy (70) Cars forming fourteen (14) Trains comprised of
a 5-Car consist;
1.3.2.1 Option to be exercised by 2024; and
1.3.2.2 Cars estimated to be delivered by 2028
1.3.3 Option year 3 – Up to one-hundred (100) Cars forming twenty (20) Trains
comprised of a 5-Car consist
1.3.3.1 Option to be exercised by 2026; and
1.3.3.2 Cars estimated to be delivered by 2032
1.3.4 Option year 4 – Up to one-hundred (100) Cars forming twenty (20) Trains
comprised of a 5-Car consist
1.3.4.1 Option to be exercised by 2028; and
1.3.4.2 Cars estimated to be delivered by 2034
1.3.5 Option year 5 – Up to one-hundred (100) Cars forming twenty (20) Trains
comprised of a 5-Car consist
1.3.5.1 Option to be exercised by 2030
1.3.5.2 Cars estimated to be delivered by 2036
1.4 TransLink requires a proposed schedule for delivery of Cars. The schedule should include
a proposed date for delivery and Acceptance of all 205 Cars

These are stage 2 projects so all funding has been secured. What still bugs me is how much is going to be spent on those infrastructure projects. Even the Daily Hive pointed out that this portion of the stage 2 funding will only partially pay for a new Skytrain yard and upgrades to the existing one, which is one of the reasons the $3.112 Billion expansion of the Expo Line to Langley (specifically the 7 km extension to Fleetwood) is so expensive.

I honestly think that Translink thinks that these new trains are going to be much more expensive than previously Bombardier designed cars.

Skytrain fans, if these new trains are built by someone other than Bombardier and the cost per car is more than 10% higher than earlier designs, you have an obvious sign that this is indeed a proprietary technology. All bids should be within 5% of each other and within 10% of earlier designs. Notice, in the information on the bid at the Ariba website, Translink is placing major emphasis on new bidders to “innovate in their designs” wherever possible. This is government speak for, if you find a way to build and maintain these trains cheaper we will view your bid very favorably! These are all hallmarks of not only Skytrains proprietary nature but a transit operator who has been forced, probably kicking and screaming all the way, to openly and publicly expand the bidding process to outside suppliers.

What is also clear from the proposed delivery schedule is that, Translink is expecting the Mark 1 cars to be fully retired by 2030 to 2032. It’s only after that point that there will be enough new skytrain vehicles to completely replace the existing passenger carrying capacity of the Mark 1 fleet and that all new consists after that are clearly expanded passenger carrying capacity. So the network’s expanded passenger carrying capacity will only start to have an effect around 2030 or later. That means only marginal increases in capacity due to some limited infrastructure upgrades for a decade or more. All the existing Skytrain orders, the 14, 4 car consists (which equals 56 cars) will only just cover the basic operational requirements of the Broadway and Fleetwood expansions.

A Stark Choice

The stark choice for the Fraser Valley.

Does one want to spend $1.6 billion for seven or eight kilometres of a now obsolete light metro metro system, ending in  Fleetwood, with vague promises of future funding to go to Langley or a Vancouver to Chilliwack, via North Delta, Cloverdale, Abbotsford, Sardis and Chilliwack regional rail service?

With endemic gridlock on Highway One, the answer should be a “no brainer” decision for regional politicians.

Evidently it is not.

Patrick Condon is the James Taylor Chair in Landscape and Liveable Environments at the University of British Columbia.

Our region is about to squander its last best hope for a sustainable future, by opting for a massively overpriced seven-kilometre extension of the Expo Skytrain line. What’s worse: It’s an overpriced extension to a place most of us have never heard of: Fleetwood, Surrey.

Surrey Mayor Doug McCallum won the last election, in part, by promising he could stretch the $1.6-billion in secured transit funding for 10 kilometres (of much cheaper to build) surface light rail, for 14 kilometres of much more expensive elevated Skytrain. He was, of course, proven wrong when the real costs came in. TransLink delivered the bad news last month: $1.6-billion would only pay for enough Skytrain to reach Fleetwood, about seven kilometres away – only halfway to Langley City.

Worse still, there is no funding even remotely in sight to extend the line from Fleetwood to Langley, meaning at best it might reach there some time in the late 2030s.

Sadly, the TransLink Mayor’s Council endorsed this misguided plan when Vancouver Mayor Kennedy Stewart, himself lusting for a breathtakingly expensive $7-billion Millennium Line extension to the University of British Columbia, backed up Surrey’s mayor in what could only be read as a “one hand washes the other” quid pro quo of support.

We simply cannot squander that much money, missing our chance to take intelligent action to secure a sustainable and affordable future for our region. The infrastructure funds we commit now must lay the spine for that more sustainable future.

Land use and sustainability always – and necessarily – follow our transportation infrastructure choices. In the 19th century, it was the extension of the streetcar and interurban lines that enabled transit-oriented growth. In the 20th century, it was the provincial and federal highway system that enabled explosive and sprawling auto-based growth.

But another two decades of auto-based growth will choke us in congestion and pollution. It is now both our opportunity and our responsibility to lay the spine for a more walkable, transit-based region. Fortunately, we can. And cheaply.

We can reactivate an existing 90-kilometre passenger rail line all the way from Surrey to Chilliwack for less than the cost of the seven-kilometre Fleetwood Express.

How is this possible? By reviving the still-available, provincially owned BC Hydro interurban rail line. This still-operational line connects every urban centre between Surrey and Chilliwack, as well as more than a dozen sites of higher education and a host of jobs centres employing tens of thousands.

And best of all, it was only the “freight use rights” that were sold to Southern Rail and Canadian National when passenger use ceased, while the “master agreement” protected the passenger rights for public use in perpetuity. We could literally have rail passenger service from Surrey to Chilliwack reactivated in months, rather than the many decades our present path requires.

This existing rail line is completely separated from roads, with crossing gates already installed at major intersections. The full cost of improvements, including a dozen stations, a maintenance yard, additional crossing gates and numerous passenger vehicles, would be less than the $1.6-billion already in hand. Best of all, rail companies now manufacture hydrogen-powered, zero-greenhouse gas rail cars that cost only slightly more than diesel-powered cars.

So, what will it be? A 90-kilometre rail service for North Delta, Surrey’s industrial district, Newton, Cloverdale, Langley City and Township, two Kwantlen Polytechnic University campuses, numerous campuses of the University of the Fraser Valley, Trinity Western University, Gloucester, Abbotsford, Huntington, Vedder Crossing, Sardis and Chilliwack for a grand total of $1.6-billion or the seven-kilometre Fleetwood Express, added to the already at-capacity Expo Line.

It’s your choice, B.C.

Professor Patrick M. Condon
University of British Columbia
James Taylor Chair in Landscape and Liveable Environments2357 Main Mall
Vancouver, BC   –   V6T 1Z4

TransLink Wins An Award

So, it ends up being a “participation medal” of sorts that’s shuffled around to a different member city each year, give the transit staff something to feel good about, but completely meaningless from an aspirational perspective.

Brit Gardner

TransLink has won an award, but we have seen this before. In the 1990’s BC Transit won a same sort of award but the following year the transit system collapsed due to the fact BC Transit deferred maintenance to fudge the figures to win the award.

Transit customers were not impressed.

TransLink has a long record with questionable claims about ridership, etc. and the flood of news releases claiming almost impossible ridership gains in the last few months and no independent verification of said claims means that the APTA used  questionable statistics with their award process.

The APTA award has just become a participation award and designed to influence the rubes, err I mean the mayor’s sitting on the Mayor’s Council On Transit to vote for over $5 billion for two very questionable transit projects which will do nothing to improve transit in the region but will keep TransLink’s ponderous bureaucracy growing.

It has worked.

 

The problem with TransLink is that you can never believe what it says; TransLink never produces a report based on the same set of assumptions.”

Former West Vancouver Clr. Victor Durman, Chair of the GVRD (now METRO) Finance Committee.

LORINC: Understanding how the TTC won North America’s top transit prize

June 28, 2017 | By John Lorinc

 

When the TTC announced on Monday that it had won the American Public Transportation Association’s (APTA) award for outstanding achievement for 2017, many Toronto commuters and pundits had a kind of collective WTF moment, puzzling over the mystery of an Oscar conferred on a movie we all love to hate.

“A development that will raise eyebrows,” noted the Toronto Star’s Ben Spurr. “Is this some kind of joke?” The Sun fulminated rhetorically, adding that “it’s been a bad year for reality.”

“No one is saying it’s perfect,” responded TTC CEO Andy Byford, who hastened to point out that the system had “lost its way” since its last victory, back in 1986 – an observation that ignored a host of obvious achievements, like the 2003 ridership growth strategy and the execution of the TTC’s accessibility program.

As usual (and yesterday’s reaction was no exception), the TTC catches a great deal of flack that is properly directed at our elected officials. These are the folks who fail to invest in expanding a heavily-used system, shovel vast sums into hopeless projects, jack up fares to protect the delicate sensibilities of property taxpayers, and wantonly punish riders by forcing service cuts.

The politicians we send to City Hall (and Queen’s Park and Ottawa for that matter) are responsible for a lion’s share of the problems that generate all the grumbling about the TTC. And for that, we have only ourselves to blame.

Indeed, the APTA award, in some ways, sends a discrete signal, audible mainly to transit nerds, that the TTC runs a tight ship in spite of, well, everything.

Having said all that, what follows may sound like nit-picking.

My issue with the APTA’s prize is that it’s extremely difficult to figure out why, exactly, the TTC won. And against whom. And by which measures.

Strangely, the news of the prize came straight out of the TTC; the APTA didn’t formally announce it (still hasn’t). The association’s spokesperson, Virginia Miller, told me yesterday that they allow individual winners to reveal their victories at their own pace. Unlike most of the organizations that compile various city rankings, APTA doesn’t publish a list of the participating agencies, any kind of score sheet, nor a guide to its methodology for determining how the competitors are judged. In an age of open data and public sector transparency, the process is remarkably opaque.

Miller did share some details in an interview, however. The TTC’s award is for a category of transit agencies with at least 20 million trips per year (the TTC tops 500 million). That means 56 APTA member agencies are eligible, although she wouldn’t disclose which others submitted entries. The award is based on performance over a three-year period, from 2014 to 2016.

There are two categories of criteria – qualitative and quantitative. Under the former, Miller said, agencies are judged according to seemingly quantitative areas such as safety, operations, maintenance, customer service and financial management. The qualitative category also includes fields such as workforce development, minority and women participation, marketing, accessibility and community relations. Miller explained that for the latter, the TTC cited its partnerships with the National Ballet and Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment, as well as its handling of the 2015 Pan Am Games. The TTC submitted a description of how it moved people around during the 2015 Games but the APTA, she added, didn’t verify the data provided.

As for categories with actual metrics, the TTC scored well in cost-per-vehicle hour, chalking up a 2.1% drop over the three-year period. Another was “mileage between delays,” which saw the TTC record a 30% increase (also good). The APTA lauded the TTC for its five-year modernization plan and a decision to add 700 weekly hours to its night bus service, which, truth be told, is less an accomplishment than a reinstatement of a service that had been cut during the Rob Ford era.

Finally, Miller noted that the APTA’s prize also took into account the fact that the TTC’s subsidy, 89 cents per rider, is the lowest in North America.

Which brings me back to the strange politics of a prize like this.

The TTC’s management works hard to ensure that the agency is run cost effectively, but Byford & Co. don’t, of course, make the final decision about the level of subsidy per rider. That’s a political choice, which does bear the commission’s imprimatur but is ultimately the responsibility of city council and Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals, who have studiously ignored long-standing calls to reinstate the Bill Davis-era subsidies (50% of the operating shortfall and 75% of capital outlays) that were on par with almost all other transit agencies in most large Western cities. (The current provincial operating subsidy has been nothing since Mike Harris declared transit to be an entirely local responsibility way back in 1996.)

In other words, the TTC’s shiny prize rests, in part, on a perverse incentive: the agency gets more points for starving itself.

Which begs this question: Does this award increase or decrease the political imperitive to invest in more and better transit for Toronto?

On the glass-is-half-full side, you might say that the APTA’s gold star tells politicians and the voters they answer to that the TTC is a tightly run operation, and thus worth investing in. But a cynic (!) might argue that the prize, in effect, takes the pressure off those same politicians, because North America’s largest transportation association is telling all and sundry that everything’s fine, nothing to look at here.

I’m inclined to opt for what’s behind curtain number two, especially because the APTA’s award is so wanting in the kind of transparency that would allow the public to make an informed decision about what this prize actually measures.

Don’t get me wrong: I’m not complaining about Team Byford. They are doing a solid job under perennially crappy conditions. And who could blame them for trying to get a bit of love in a city that complains endlessly about its transit system?

Let’s just hope the APTA’s gold star doesn’t turn out to be a subtle double-edged sword, one that gives the transit haters out there – and you know who they are – just one more reason to perpetuate the thin trickle that’s been dribbling out of the funding taps for lo these many years.

Tax, tax, tax – SkyTrain Needs New And Higher Taxes

From the very beginning, building the SkyTrain network demanded new and higher taxes. As the SkyTrain light-metro network is automatic, it must be grade seperated and grade separation is costly. It is the Achilles heel of light-metro as construction is so costly, compared to other modes, that extending the initial line into areas of low population is not cost effective.

Light rail proved this back in the early 80’s when two studies done for the Toronto Transit Commission, the IBI and ART studies showed that:

“ICTS (the first name of the now called Movia Automatic Light Metro, as used on the Expo and Millennium Lines): cost up ten times more to construct, for the same capacity as LRT for about the same capacity”

Thus building with light-metro, create much higher taxes, to pay for the same quality of service operated by light rail.

Our high taxes, in metro Vancouver are, in part, due to the high cost of the SkyTrain light-metro network and building more, especially to lightly populated areas or in a subway, will only increase what is already very high taxes in the region.

American transit engineer and transportation expert, Gerald Fox foresaw this in 2008, when he stated:

But, eventually, Vancouver will need to adopt lower-cost LRT in its lesser corridors, or else limit the extent of its rail system. And that seems to make some TransLink people very nervous.

Commonsense transportation planning and affordable transit is something regional mayors would rather have the taxpayer forget.

Press Release – from Bill Vander Zalm                      

July 22^nd, 2019

Message to the TransLink Mayor’s Council. On July 25^th, 2019….

TransLink Taxation and Spending is out of control…. Spending $3,200,000,000 when $252,500,000 provides better service, better value and serves more people in Metro Vancouver?

What are they thinking!

• Parking Tax                       Now 24% (adds 15 cents hr. to aver. $5/hr. Parking Stall)

 

• Property Tax                    7% (Incr. 3% per yr. of the TransL. Prop. Tax base per yr.)

 

• Gas Tax                             18.5 cents a litre (Highest gas taxes in North America)

 

• Transit User Fees              Single use +5 cents to 10 cents/Day Pass +25 cents/monthly passes + $2 – $3.

 

• BC Hydro Transit Levy     TransLink brought the regional trans. Levy (utility tax) back in

2006. Today that amount is $0.0624 cents per day for a regular single-family dwelling or $1.87 month. There are 960,890 occupied private dwellings in the region equaling $1,798,786. Per month or $21,585,432. per yr. (on monthly B.C. Hydro Bill)

 

• Develop. Cost Charges     effective January 15^th 2020   effective Jan. 1^st, 2021

single family   $2,100 unit     $2,975 unit                            

Duplex            $1,900 unit     $2,470 unit

Townhouse    $1,900 unit     $2,470 unit

Apartment     $1,200 unit     $1,545 unit    

Retail/Serv     $1.25 / ft2       $1.25 / ft2

Office              $1.25 / ft2       $1.25 / ft2

Institutional   $0.50 / ft2       $0.50 / ft2

Industrial        $0.30 / ft2       $0.30 / ft2

 

NOTE – Introduced in 2018, rates come into effect Jan.15 2020 and increase in 2021. This Development Cost Charge fee is just another tax, which makes housing that much more unaffordable to hard working residents trying to afford their first home.       

 

• The approved parking tax funding increase approved last Spring were for major projects, the LRT in Surrey (Not SkyTrain to Langley which is under review for a Business Plan since last December, yet to be voted on.) and the Broadway extension.

 

Summary on Taxation –

 

One thing that cannot be challenged by looking at all of these real numbers, TransLink taxation and spending is out of control. When the Mayor of Surrey runs his election campaign under Safe Surrey Coalition on two primary promises 1) A change to a City Police Force from the RCMP stating during the election campaign that it would only be a 10% increase to taxpayers (not going to happen) and 2) he promises a change from the approved LRT Guildford down 104^th to Surrey Center South on King George Blvd. to Newton to SkyTrain from Surrey Center to Langley City for the same price – $1.65 Billion (Not going to happen). TransLink has spent over $50 Million in LRT prep costs and Mayor McCallum dismisses it as irrelevant and then TransLink are going to buy into it? That is nothing short of irresponsible! The Mayors TransLink Council has got to put a break on TransLink and their irresponsible taxation, planning and spending.

 

What are we hearing now – Gondolas up to SFU and now a Bus on call system for Bowen Island. We are in serious need of Provincial Government intervention. We are in serious need of the TransLink Council to back off any more votes (no quorum) so that some common sense can be brought back into some responsible Interregional Transportation improvements.

 

Take a close look at the TransLink taxation and spending decisions that are currently in effect – we cannot continue in this direction!

 

Sincerely,

 

Bill Vander Zalm

Former Premier of British Columbia

Former B.C. Minister for Municipal Affairs and Transit

Former Mayor of the City of Surrey

Media – Connect with Bill Vander Zalm by request through Rick Green

@ 604 866-5752 or by email at southfrasercommunityrail@shaw.ca

Mr. Cow Pegs It. Expo Line Extension Will Cost $3.2 billion

I am continually amazed that an area like the lower mainland of BC, an area that claims to be so high tech, yet can’t get its head around the simplicity of a regional rail line using already available track.

Yet, will spend billions and you guys will be spending billions ($2.9-$3.2 Billion by current estimates) , on a poorly thought out rapid transit line to Langley.

Haveacow, in a comment on July 15, 2019

 

When one deals with experts, one gets expert answers and when one deals with amateurs … well we know the answer.

 

Surrey-Langley SkyTrain would cost nearly twice as much as light rail option

by Taran Parmar

Posted Jul 19, 2019

NEW WESTMINSTER (NEWS 1130) – A Surrey to Langley SkyTrain would cost significantly more than funding available, TransLink says.

Updated numbers from the transit authority show the project would cost $3.12-billion, when there is only $1.6-billion available.

Given that figure, TransLink has proposed other options that could potentially fit the budget instead of the original plan.

 

I can now hear the shrill cries of “shock and disbelief from the SkyTrain camp and guess what, we can go from Vancouver to Chilliwack for the same cost as LRT to Langley.

The South Fraser Community Rail Society Valley Rail Protects Farmland and Forests.

Another News Release from the The South Fraser Community Rail Society.

By using existing railway rights-of-ways, there is little land take for operating the passenger service.

By using existing railway rights-of-ways, reduces the overall cost of providing a passenger service.

By using existing railway rights-of-ways a passenger service can be provide to areas otherwise omitted from the planning process.

The words of Mr Cow ring true.

I am continually amazed that an area like the lower mainland of BC, an area that claims to be so high tech, yet can’t get its head around the simplicity of a regional rail line using already available track. Yet, will spend billions and you guys will be spending billions ($2.9-$3.2 Billion by current estimates) , on a poorly thought out rapid transit line to Langley. Yes, a regional rail line won’t have the operating frequency of the Skytrain but because of the low to medium levels of expected passengers (too low for a Skytrain line, according to Translink itself), the service doesn’t need it, yet. As the need grows the regional line can be cheaply and easily updated, unlike the Skytrain which is horrendously expensive to upgrade. The advantages of this line and operating technology (DMU’s & Battery powered EMU’s) is that, a great many more kilometers of track can be offered for the same amount of money as 17 km of Skytrain.

What is being done around the world, providing an inexpensive transit service using existing railway lines.

Press Release – from Bill Vander Zalm                        July 18^th, 2019

Message to the TransLink Mayor’s Council. On July 25^th, 2019

3 Reasons to Vote NO to the Fraser Highway SkyTrain Option

and

3 Reasons to Vote YES for State-of-the-Art Interurban Option!

Protect Agricultural and Park Land in Metro Vancouver!

(Interregional South Fraser Community Rail Protects Agriculture / Parkland all the way to Chilliwack)

 

1. The Fraser Highway SkyTrain Option Surrey Center to Langley City will run through 2.5 KMs of Agricultural Land (Serpentine Flats) and will have a peripheral negative impact and affect on agriculture in Surrey!

The Interurban Hydrail Option does not!

 

2. The Fraser Highway SkyTrain Option Surrey Center to Langley City will run through 1.5 KMs of Green Timbers Forest and will require the clear cutting of a large swath of Green Timbers Forest down Fraser Highway.

The Interurban Hydrail Option does not!

 

3. The State-of-the-art Interurban Hydrail Option protects against the encroachment into agricultural land by utilizing an existing passenger protected rail corridor at a cost that is pennies on the dollar.

 

Sincerely,

 

Bill Vander Zalm

Former Premier of British Columbia

Former B.C. Minister for Municipal Affairs and Transit

Former Mayor of the City of Surrey

Media – Connect with Bill Vander Zalm by request through Rick Green

@ 604 866-5752 or by email at southfrasercommunityrail@shaw.ca