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.
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
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.
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.
Scenes like this will become commonplace as the Expo Line ages
LORINC: Understanding how the TTC won North America’s top transit prize
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.
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 22nd, 2019
Message to the TransLink Mayor’s Council. On July 25th, 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 15th 2020effective Jan. 1st, 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 104th 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
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.
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.
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 18th, 2019
Message to the TransLink Mayor’s Council. On July 25th, 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)
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!
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!
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
It seems the SkyTrain lobby has not had to face one Bill Vander Zalm, until now. Bill does not treat fools lightly and the deliberate misinformation about the valley rail project is being countered by some breathtaking cost comparisons.
What should make every mayor in the region stop and take note is that the projected cost of extending the Expo line to Surrey is now topping $200 million/km.
This cost will increase in due time!
Press Release – from Bill Vander Zalm
July 17th, 2019
Message to the TransLink Mayor’s Council. On July 25th, 2019….
The following are Metro Vancouver numbers only!
5 Reasons to Vote NO to the Fraser Highway SkyTrain Option
and
5 Reasons to Vote YES for State-of-the-Art Interurban Option!
Interurban Pattullo Bridge SkyTrain Station to Langley City serves 434,531!
N. Delta (Kennedy), Sullivan, Newton, Cloverdale/Clayton, Wh. Rock, S. Surrey and Langley City!
Fraser Highway SkyTrain to Langley serves 157,618!
Fleetwood, Clayton, Langley City, Brookswood/Fernridge, Murrayville and Willoughby!
Interurban Cost – Pattullo Bridge SkyTrain Station to Langley City – 20.2 KMs
@ $12,500,000 KM= $252,500,000.
Fraser Highway SkyTrain, Surrey Center to Langley City – 16 KMs
@ $200,000,000 KM= $3,200,000,000.
25% of the Fraser Highway SkyTrain option goes through a dead zone: Green Timbers 1.5 kms / Serpentine Flats 2.5 kms at $200,000,000 per KM wasting $800,000,000 through the ALR and Green Timbers Forest Dead Zone!
Interurban to Langley City reactivation cost per KM – $12,500,000!
Fraser Highway SkyTrain to Langley City cost per KM – $200,000,000
Interurban to Langley City per capita cost – $581.08
Fraser Highway SkyTrain to Langley City per capita cost – $20,302.25
Vote to protect the environment, fiscal responsibility and responsible governance!
Bill Vander Zalm
Former Premier of British Columbia
Former B.C. Minister for Municipal Affairs and Transit / Former Mayor of Surrey
Media – Connect with Bill Vander Zalm by request through Rick Green
TransLink is up to its old games of deception and fabrication, by repeating lies so often that the public believe them.
Who is not afraid to bell the TransLink Cat?
As a reminder, the South Fraser Community Rail Society is not Rail for the Valley, but we are striving for one goal, to reinstate a passenger service using the former BC Electric rights-of-ways.
South Fraser Community Rail Society
“Hydrogen iLink PassengerRail, Scott Rd. SkyTrain to Chilliwack” #connect the valley
Press Release – from Bill Vander Zalm July 16th, 2019
Message to the TransLink Mayor’s Council. On July 25th, 2019….
10 Ways TransLink is WRONG in their critique of the Interurban Corridor. Vote NO to Fraser Hwy SkyTrain and YES to Interurban!
The following refers to the Metro Vancouver portion of the line only!
TransLink suggests Community Rail is an alternative to SkyTrain, it is not. While it will serve all those Metro Vancouver needs at 1/10th the cost, it would serve the needs of the entire valley – through Interregional Transit.
TransLink states the line owned by CP Rail and Southern Railway – It is NOT!
TransLink suggests Passenger traffic conflicts with Freight Traffic, it would not. The Master Agreement signed by CP Rail has agreed to pay the cost of double tracking if required. That is what we negotiated!
TransLink suggests the Interurban has limited alignment with regional land use plans”. TransLink then is prepared to run through Green Timbers Forest, the lightly populated Fleetwood community and the Serpentine Flats, four KMs in the ALR a dead zone. Our corridor is in place ready to use!
TransLink states that the line “does not directly connect relevant regional destinations (i.e. Surrey Central and Langley City).” They fail to acknowledge the line serves regional destinations such as N. Delta, Sullivan, Newton, Cloverdale, S. Surrey, Wh. Rock as well as Langley City – a much greater population than served by the Fraser Highway option at 1/10th the cost.
TransLink states “the Interurban alignment is indirect through lower density and diverse areas. Directness and density are critical factors of a successful rapid transit corridor.” Their own maps clearly show the Interurban connects key job centers – Scott Road, Delta/Surrey, Newton, Cloverdale and Langley, greater than the proposed SkyTrain Line.
TransLink talks about increasing volumes of freight, they are deliberately ignoring the terms of the Master Agreement and CP Rail’s legal responsibility per a contract that we negotiated in 1988 to double track if required and share the track equally with passenger traffic.
TransLink claims the Interurban requires substantial infrastructure investment comparable to building rapid transit along urban arterials.” How can you compare or suggest building an entire new line with all the property acquisition and cement infrastructure that is required to an existing operating rail line with NO property acquisition, lease, or structure required to build; except for the Joint Section which is covered by the Master Agreement, and owned by the Province of B.C. with passenger rights that we reserved at no cost. Furthermore, apart from the “shared section” discussed above, the line is very lightly and used largely during off hours.
It is clear there is a deep misunderstanding by TransLink staff regarding the interurban proposal. The Interurban is necessary to alleviate the congestion on Highway 1 and protect the Fraser Valley Airshed. The full line Pattullo SkyTrain Station to the City of Chilliwack is all about the absolute necessity of establishing an Interregional Transit Network. The Metro Vancouver portion of the line is clearly superior to that of the Fraser Highway SkyTrain proposal and by extension will be for the Fraser Valley.
The Interurban can be activated much faster, at 1/10th the cost, and would serve almost three times the population than that of SkyTrain within Metro Vancouver’s Boundaries.
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
As technology advances, the benefits of a “green” electric rail service will greatly increase. The long distance battery powered train is now upon us.
A FLRT Akku battery powered train could be the answer for a regional passenger service in the Fraser Valley as Battery powered trains could be recharged from strategically placed sections of electrical overhead and at major stations, where dwell times could be slightly extended.
It is time that the Metro Region embrace affordable rail solutions for regional transit, than plan for unaffordable and workable solutions, especially when there is no funding in sight for long kilometres of very expensive concrete viaducts needed for the SkyTrain light-metro network.
STADLER SUPPLIES 55 BATTERY-OPERATED FLIRT TRAINS FOR THE SCHLESWIG-HOLSTEIN LOCAL TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION Stadler has emerged as the winner from the call for tenders issued by Schleswig-Holstein’s local transport association for the supply of 55 battery-operated FLIRT Akku trains with an option for 50 additional vehicles. With it, Stadler has successfully asserted itself against other concepts in the first call for green technology tenders (not diesel) for vehicles with alternative drives in Germany. In addition to supplying the trains, the contract also includes the vehicle maintenance for a period of 30 years. The order volume is approximately 600 million euros.
The unit has a maximum speed of 140 km/h and range of 80 km in battery mode. The battery can be charged from the overhead electrification, from a fixed shore supply at termini and from regenerated braking energy. The three-car unit has 154 seats and capacity of 310 passengers, and is quieter than a comparable diesel vehicle.
It is possible to charge the batteries during operations under the overhead line and also at non-electrified end stops. In addition, the batteries can also be charged with energy generated during braking.
Stadler FLIRT (Fast Light Intercity and Regional Train; is a passenger multiple unit trainset made by Stadler of Switzerland. The baseline design of FLIRT is an electric multiple unit articulated trainset that can come in units of two to twelve cars with two to six motorized axles. The maximum speed is 200 km/h (120 mph). Standard floor height is 57 cm (22.4 in), but 78 cm (30.7 in) high floors are also available for platform heights of 76 cm (29.9 in). Bi-mode electro-diesel, diesel, hybrid diesel-battery, or battery versions are essentially baseline design with a power car inserted in the trainset, which contains the electricity generating and storage components such as diesel engines and batteries that would provide electricity to the train to run “off-wire”.
The FLIRT train was originally developed for the Swiss Federal Railways and was first delivered in 2004. The trains quickly became a success and were ordered by operators in Algeria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Serbia, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, the United States, and, most recently (2018), Canada. As of 18 April 2018, more than 1,500 units have been sold.
Here we have another try in doing what is the right thing to do, reinstate the Vancouver to Chilliwack rail service, using the former and intact BC Electric rail line.
Using existing tracks greatly reduces the cost of a transit project.
TransLink is going to build a 5.7 km subway under Broadway for a cost of about $3 billion, yet for half of this amount we can have two to three an hour traveling up and down the Fraser Valley providing a good scheduled service connects Vancouver to North Delta, south Surrey, Langley, Abbotsford, Sardis, and Chilliwack.
How many new customers will be attracted to the proposed Broadway subway?
Very few as the subway really does not achieve any benefit for the transit customer and for many, it will be seen as an inconvenience.
Every customer of the Valley Rail servcie will be a new customer to transit and with gridlock and congestion along the Number 1 highway in the Fraser Valley, I think many would consider the rail service as a viable alternative.
It is time to do what is right, transit wise and not squander more money on an obsolete light metro system that is ever so expensive to build, maintain and operate.
A century ago, interurban rail service helped Fraser Valley communities develop — and it could do the same thing today, says a group fighting to resurrect passenger trains running from Surrey to Chilliwack.
Their vision of the future: clean, affordable light rail.
“We’re not talking about a commuter line,” said Rick Green, former mayor of the Township of Langley and a founding member of the group South Fraser Community Rail. “We’re talking about a community line.”
The West Coast Express is a commuter line, shuttling residents from as far as Mission to jobs in Vancouver.
But the new service would provide communities south of the Fraser River, home to about 1.2 million people, with a self-contained transportation system from Surrey to Chilliwack. The group estimates 70 per cent of all trips originating in those communities stay within the region, rather than ending in Vancouver.
Green said the car is king in those communities today.
In the Township of Langley for example, 91 per cent of workers commute in vehicles, according to 2016 census data; the percentage in transit-rich Vancouver is 49 per cent.
There are other familiar local names and advocates of sustainable growth in the south Fraser group, such as former B.C. premier Bill Vander Zalm, Peter Holt, an engineer and former CEO of the Surrey Board of Trade, and Patrick Condon, founding chair of UBC’s urban design program (and occasional Tyee columnist).
They believe that renewed interurban rail service is more ambitious than the planned SkyTrain line between Surrey and Langley, covering more ground.
They want to introduce zero-emission hydrogen trains, inspired by the world’s first which were rolled out in Germany last year.
The interurban rail corridor still exists and is used for freight.
It’s been almost 70 years since the BC Electric Railway ended passenger service, which ran from Vancouver to Chilliwack between 1910 and 1950, making up to four round-trips a day and also carrying freight and mail.
The route of the old interurban line between Vancouver and Chilliwack. South Fraser Community Rail hopes to see a passenger line revived between Surrey and Chilliwack. Map courtesy of South Fraser Community Rail.
As well as providing transportation, one of the goals of the original railway was to bring electricity to the communities along the line. Electric light and telephones only came to the Fraser Valley as the line spread through settlements, allowing them to grow into town centres and cities.
BC Hydro owns the rail corridor and Canadian Pacific and Southern Railway have contracts to use part of it for freight operations.
BC Hydro communications told The Tyee via email that any new operations on the corridor would require approval from BC Hydro and the railway operators. It would be “open to discussing the future use of the right-of-way for transit purposes should the Province or TransLink decide to pursue this option,” the statement added.
But TransLink called the plan to revive passenger service on the line “insufficient” in a report last month.
The report, prepared by TransLink’s vice-president of planning and policy Geoff Cross, found that the interurban proposal isn’t in sync with regional planning, skipping key destinations such as Surrey Central and Langley City.
“Lots of the transportation we’re talking about in our visioning is based on those centres, and connecting those corridors,” said Mayor Jonathan Coté of New Westminster, who chairs TransLink’s Mayors’ Council.
The rail advocacy group says the interurban line would serve and help develop other centres the SkyTrain would skip, such as Newton and Cloverdale; TransLink argues that the rail passes through a significant amount of agricultural land where population growth is limited. Cloverdale, it notes, is “projected to be one of the slowest growing urban centres in the South of Fraser.”
TransLink reports that interurban rail has “less attractive travel times between key destinations”; the group argues that the service would be better because there would be more stops.
TransLink also notes that freight trains are already using the line. Green has said that the group is in “no way trying to cut off the freight part of our economy,” suggesting a second track for passenger trains could be built alongside the stretch of rail where freights operate.
And costs of the rail line would be far lower than the planned SkyTrain expansion, says Green. The SkyTrain line cost is estimated at $3.5 billion for 27 kilometres, which is about $130 million per kilometre.
“We can’t keep spending money the way we’re doing,” said Green, who’s worried about the possibility of SkyTrain going over budget.
The rail group estimates their interurban proposal will cost $1.2 billion for 99 kilometres, which is about $12.5 million per kilometre.
Despite TransLink’s criticisms of the interurban proposal, it noted it would explore the potential of resurrecting old rail corridors for passenger use as part of its strategy for the next 30 years, called Transport 2050.
“There could be some opportunity here,” said Mayor Coté. “But we’re right in the middle of our 10-year plan, and we’re pretty committed… The Transport 2050 process is the opportunity for these groups to say what are the next big projects, the next big ideas for the region.”
Green called TransLink’s consideration “lip service” and said the conversation about large-scale transit investment in the South Fraser region can’t wait.
“When Highway 1 is clogged, the Fraser Valley is clogged.”
Green and the group are continuing to lobby community groups, municipalities and business associations to win support for the idea.
Recent Comments