Toronto Politicians Fear Scarborough Subway Costs

As expected, the costs for the Scarborough subway, the subway that is replacing the Scarborough ICTS Rapid Transit line, is escalating. Toronto’s ICTSAi?? or locally called SRTAi?? is a very close cousin to Vancouver’s ALRT/ART system, which we collectively named SkyTrain.

What should interest Metro Vancouver residents is the final cost of the 6.4 km Scarborough subway in 2018 dollars, because the proposed Broadway SkyTrain subway is about the same length.

While TransLink has budgeted the subway at $2 billion in 2015 dollars ($2.1 billion in 2017 dollars), independent estimates for the subway project, put the cost in excess of $3 billion, with one estimate as high as $4 billion!

It is quite possible that civic politicians in Metro Vancouver, like their brethren in Toronto, will postpone the final cost estimates after the next round of civic elections.

Updated Scarborough subway costs won’t be published until after 2018 election

Cost estimate expected to be ready in 2018 but public report planned for the first quarter of 2019.

By Jennifer PagliaroCity Hall reporter

Wed., Nov. 22, 2017

Senior city officials will know the updated cost of the Scarborough subway in 2018.

Exactly when that estimate will be ready is still unclear. But the Star has confirmed the public wonai??i??t be told until the first quarter of 2019, when a staff report to council is expected ai??i?? well after the next municipal election.

ai???I donai??i??t see why the government of the City of Toronto would sit on information for three quarters of the year and not make it available to Torontonians as they go to polls,ai??? said Councillor Gord Perks, who has been critical of the subway plan.

With only very preliminary design done, the current estimate for a single-stop subway extension of the Bloor-Danforth line to the Scarborough Town Centre is $3.35 billion. That number comes with a very wide margin of error and does not include the costs necessary to finance a large infrastructure project.

The last time there was a cost update, the price of the subway increased by $1 billion.

As he announced his resignation Tuesday, outgoing TTC CEO Andy Byford said that if costs of the subway rise ai???way beyondai??? todayai??i??s estimate the project ai???will need to be revisited.ai???

The TTC earlier confirmed to the Star the subway will be at 30 per cent design by ai???mid-2018.ai???

But in email Wednesday, TTC spokesperson Brad Ross clarified that the work will happen in phases and that an actual cost estimate is not expected to be ready until ai???late 2018.ai???

Council was told in March that ai???city and TTC staff plan to report at the next key decision milestone for this project in late 2018ai??? with a cost update, once the subway has advanced to 30 per cent design, according to a staff report.

But a change in that reporting date is buried in an attachment to a new, unrelated report from staff released on Tuesday about the mayorai??i??s ai???SmartTrackai??? transit plan.

A letter from city manager Peter Wallace to the head of the provincial transit agency Metrolinx dated Nov. 20 outlines the cityai??i??s position on a regional transportation plan being drafted by the agency. At the end is a chart updating the status of the cityai??i??s priority transit projects.

The chart notes that the TTC is ai???currently advancing both tunnel and station design work from 10 per cent to 30 per centai??? with ai???expected completion end of 2018.ai??? It notes the ai???next milestoneai??? is a report to council on the updated cost estimates in ai???Q1 2019.ai???

City spokesperson Wynna Brown told the Star that while an updated cost estimate is expected ai???Q3/Q4 2018ai??? there is no council meeting until January 2019 ai???so the first opportunity to report out is Q1 2019.ai???

The last council meeting where city business can be dealt with next year is scheduled from July 23 to 25.

The nomination period for the election runs from May 1 to July 27 next year. Election day is Oct. 22.

Last month, council debated the schedule of meetings for 2018.

Though some councillors requested there be a meeting at the end of August in the election year, which is typical, others sided with the staff-recommended scheduling that ended all meetings in July.

ai???I donai??i??t think we should be meeting in the month of August while we are at the same time campaigning,ai??? said Councillor Glenn De Baeremaeker, who moved to have no meetings after the summer break.

Perks, at the time, objected, telling his colleagues: ai???Weai??i??re elected for a four-year term, not a three-and-a-half year term.ai???

Council voted 22 to 17 to end meetings in July. Mayor John Tory was absent for the vote.

The Star asked Toryai??i??s office for comment on whether the mayor thought it was reasonable to not inform the public of the cost until after the election and if he would work to ensure that update was provided.

In a short statement, Toryai??i??s spokesperson Don Peat wrote: ai???The timing of the release of that information will be up to city staff.ai???

Council still has to vote on whether to proceed with construction of the subway once the costs are updated.

With files from Ben Spurr

The Driverless Car – Much Ado About Nothing

For those who think the driverless car will usher in the demise if “rail” transit, think again.

Quote: “A growing number of metro regions, including the Bay Area, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, Boston, Dallas, Houston, Miami, Atlanta, and Toronto, have now reached the physical point where the car is no longer an effective technology for moving people long distances.”

There lays the problem for Vancouver, our roads have reached a saturation point for auto’s, yet politicians and city engineers have sneered at proven methods of reducing the dependency on cars, they have collectively sneered at the simple tram.

A modern tram, operating on a user friendly transit route (user friendly in that the route is so designed for the transit customer and not land developers), part of a user friendly tram network, has proven to make a modal shift (from car to tram) of up to 35%.

Such a modal shift can only be dreamed of by TransLink, where they cannot show much of, if any modal shift from car to SkyTrain.

It will not be driverless cars or SkyTrain that will curb congestion in Metro Vancouver, but the simple tram.

Driverless Cars Wonai??i??t Save UsAi??

(Tuesday, Nov. 21, 2017)

Ai??Ai?? RICHARD FLORIDA

In fact, theyai??i??ll do the opposite of what techno-optimists hope, and worsenai??i??not easeai??i??inequality.

For a growing chorus of techno-optimists and even urbanists, driverless cars are the solution to everything from traffic congestion to high housing prices.

By providing an easy, flexible, hands-free commute, during which people can watch videos, talk, or get work done, they will stretch the current boundaries of our crowded metro areas, and enable more and more people, especially the affluent and the advantaged, to live in far-off suburbs and exurbs.

To this way of thinking, driverless cars are the most recent in a long line of technologiesai??i??from the horse-drawn carriage and the streetcar to subways, trains, and the automobile itselfai??i??that have allowed us to escape the clutches of geography and the constraints of distance.

But the reality of driverless cars is likely to be rather different.

The vision of millions of workers logging hours from their comfortable offices on wheels can be intoxicating.

And, yes, it is true that the desire to avoid long commutes is one of the things that has sent affluent Americans streaming back to cities over the past decade and a half.

But a driverless car is still a car.

A growing number of metro regions, including the Bay Area, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, Boston, Dallas, Houston, Miami, Atlanta, and Toronto, have now reached the physical point where the car is no longer an effective technology for moving people long distances.

This is a limit that the new technology will not overcome.

The basic law of traffic congestion is that as more new roads get built, they quickly fill up with more cars, and congestion remains.

Although you wonai??i??t be driving them yourself, driverless cars wonai??i??t be able to overcome the reality of congested roads, occasional accidents, and unpredictable commutes.

Ai??Higher-income people who want to avoid such commutes will continue to use their money to avoid them by living closer to the urban center.

Weai??i??ve seen endless predictions about how new transportation technology would lead to the death of distance. Every one of them has been wrong.

While cutting down on long commutes has mattered to the back-to-the-city movement, this is not the only factorai??i??and not the most important oneai??i??that has shaped the return of advantaged people to the urban center.

Two other factors have mattered as much, or more.

For one, knowledge workers have flocked back to cities because that is where the best, highest-paying professional, tech, and creative jobs are, and where their dense professional networks occur.

On top of this, people have been drawn to the unique amenitiesai??i??museums, art galleries, restaurants, theaters, nightlife, and much, much moreai??i??that cities offer.

In fact, according to several econometricAi??studies, dense concentrations of these amenities are a motivating factor in the back-to-the-city movement of the affluent and the educated.

Driverless cars will do little to change either of these factors.

Truliaai??i??s chief economist Ralph McLaughlinAi??rightly arguesAi??that driverless cars will accentuate geographic inequality.

But he sees this happening as both affluent people and businesses are able to locate farther and farther out in the green exurban fringe, while urban centers lose their current value and allure, and once again become home to less advantaged groups.

I fully agree that driverless cars will exacerbate spatial inequality. But I see it occurring in almost exactly the opposite way.

Driverless cars will do little to alter the basic factors and forces that have brought affluent people back to cities.

What they will do instead is free up space on the urban periphery to house less advantaged groups and classes there.

Driverless cars will open up cheap outer-edge land for low-cost development and make todayai??i??s ai???drive ai??i??til you qualifyai??? commutes look like a breeze.

Rather than being used by a re-suburbanizing rich headed to far-flung luxury developments, driverless carsai??i??or more likely, driverless bussesai??i??will extend the commuting range of blue-collar workers, service workers, and the poor. Americaai??i??s metropolitan geography will come to look more like that of Europe or the developing world, with the rich clustered on the increasingly valuable land in and around the city center, and the low-income warehoused in the much cheaper land at the suburban and exurban fringe.

Over the past several decades, weai??i??ve seen endless predictions about how new transportation, information, or communications technology would lead to the death of distanceai??i??the end of geography and the flattening of the world.

And every one of them has been wrong. The world has become spikier. Superstar cities have become more prosperous.

And the affluent have used their resources to colonize the most economically functional and amenity-rich areas near the urban center.

Driverless cars will do nothing to change that. In fact, they are only likely to make our current geographic divides even worse.

Fake News And The SkyTrain Lobby – Who Are They Really Working For?

Really, can’t the SkyTrain Lobby do any better?

The following is so silly and juvenile because it is all hearsay and opinion, not fact. But facts have never bothered the SkyTrain Lobby as they try once again try to fool the public about SkyTrain. They treat everyone like rubes at a country fair.

This is from the Daily Hive, written by anonymous. Forgetting the fact no one builds with SkyTrain anymore and only seven such systems have ever been built in the past 40 years, Zwei is going to explore the following claims.

• Offer a low ultimate capacity that is only 27% that of the Canada Line’s
• Be much slower and less frequent than SkyTrain
• Potentially be unreliable and prone to collision
• Cost comparable to a SkyTrain extension to build but generate less ridership, and
• Have operating cost shortfalls for decades

 

1) Offer a low ultimate capacity that is only 27% that of the Canada Line’s

Not true.

Capacity is a function of train size and headway.Ai?? As the Canada Line’s station platforms are a mere 40 metres long, it can only accommodate trains 41 metres long.

The capacity of the Canada Line is extremely limited, around 9,000 pphpd.

Modern LRT can carry in excess of 20,000 pphpd and in extreme circumstances much more.

In Karlsruhe Germany, due to the success of the regional tramtrain system, the traffic flows along Kaiserstrasse to trams and tramtrains operating at 40 second headway’s, offering a capacity in excess of 35,000 pphpd.

More local to home, in Toronto in the 1950’s, couple sets of PCC trams, were carrying 12,000 persons per hour on the old Bloor – Danforth route.

Currently, the operating certificate for the ALRT/ART proprietary light-metro lines limits capacity to 15,000 pphpd, one third that was carried on Kaiserstrasse in Karlsruhe Germany.

2) Be much slower and less frequent than SkyTrain

Not true.

LRT operating on-street, in mixed traffic, has it’s speed limited by posted speed limits and we call this a streetcar in North America. Not so, if LRT operates on a reserved rights-of-way, with no interfering traffic, LRT can match if not surpass the commercial speed of SkyTrain.

In Europe, peak hour headway’s can be as much as 30 seconds, on major routes.

3) Potentially be unreliable and prone to collision

Not true, but with a caveat.

LRT is extremely reliable when compared to automatic railways like SkyTrain.

LRT does have collisions with cars and or trucks, but 99.9% of tram auto/truck accidents are the fault of the car/truck drive, disobeying signs and signalling. In many European countries there are harsh penalties for drivers who are found at fault causing an accident with a tram.

More people die by SkyTrain in Vancouver annually, than by tram in Calgary.

4) Cost comparable to a SkyTrain extension to build but generate less ridership

Not true.

If LRT is being built as a light-metro on a segregated R-o-W, then yes the costs are comparable, like in Seattle where their LRT is being built as a light-metro with over 90% of its route operating on viaduct or in a subway. But then it is not LRT, but a light metro.

Costs for LRT start as low as $5 million/km for tramtrain; $15 mi./km to $25 mil./km for a streetcar; and $25 mil./km to $45 mil.km for LRT. Now if extra engineering for LRT includes complete street reconstruction and landscaping or new road construction, the costs will escalate.

The last cost estimate for SkyTrain (elevated) is $130 million/km. ; the cost of the proposed 7 km. Broadway SkyTrain subway is now well over $3 billion!

At-grade transit has proven to generate more new ridership than elevated or underground transit and one of the reasons LRT is so popular!

5) Have operating cost shortfalls for decades

Not true.

As LRT is much cheaper to build and operate than SkyTrain, will have much less operating and cost short falls than SkyTrain.

The subsidy to operate the ALRT/ART SkyTrain system, is now well over $250 million annually and then there is the Canada Line.

The Canada Line is not ALRT/ART SkyTrain, but a conventional heavy-rail metro built as a light metro, the result of a Gordon Campbell, BC Liberal faux P-3 project. The SNC Lavalin lead consortium receives about $110 million annually from TransLink to operate the line, about three times more than a conventional LRT line to operate.

What stands out with the SkyTrain Lobby’s cacophony of deceit, massive exaggerations of the truth, fake news and alternative facts, is the number seven (7), because only 7 SkyTrain type systems have been built under three names in the past 40 years, compared with over 200 new LRT systems built during the same time, adding to the already existing 350 tram/LRT networks operating around the world.

What is the SkyTrain Lobby really up to? Who are the SkyTrain Lobby working for? Who benefits with hugely expensive SkyTrain construction and operation; certainly not the transit customer or taxpayer.

As the saying goes , with SkyTrain “follow the money!”

Has TransLink Missed The Bus? AGAIN?

The combined arrogance and ineptitude of TransLink just makes one’s head shake.

TransLink has just sent out 400,000 invitations for people to do a trip diary, with all sort of silly incentives to get people on board.

What will happen is this:

1) People who do not take transit will toss the invitation aside.

2) Very few people who do take transit, will bother filling it out.

3) The information from the trip diaries will be of little use.

The problem with TransLink is that it doesn’t listen to what the public really want.

A good example is South Delta, where transit ridership is flagging. People want their direct South Delta to Downtown Vancouver bus back as there is a general dislike of the forced transfer to the Canada Line. TransLink does nothing and people vote with their cars.

The same sort of issues are happening throughout the region and the vast majority feels that TransLink does not listen or do they care.

No trip diary will solve this and instead TransLink needs to deal with real issues.

It seems TransLink cannot deal with any issue at all and has a vast propaganda machine at work, manipulating statistics to convince politicians that everything is OK.

A recent example was the news release that TransLink was carrying one million people daily, strange that TransLink just recently said 15% of the Metro Vancouver (Approximately 2.5 million), use transit. The fact is there could have been one million boarding’s, but as most people make 2 or more boarding’s a trip, let alone each day, the real number of people using transit each day is more like 375,000 or less.

Now TransLink has a very accurate tool in measuring ridership and it is called the compass card and the Compass Card can easily calculate the number of “unique” transactions made by the card, giving a fairly accurate number of people using transit on any given day.

TransLink refuses to use this data, which makes one think; “What is TransLink trying to hide?”

 

 

TransLink wants your help to better plan transit in the Lower Mainland

by Amanda Wawryk

Posted Nov 11, 2017

24 Hour Operation for SkyTrain? Not Going To Happen.

One has to laugh at the armchair experts, who think it’s so simple to offer a 24 hour servcie on the SkyTrain light metro system. The ignorance about the SkyTrain light-metro system operation is endemic.

SkyTrain does not magically move people from point A to point B, rather a lot of man-hours are spent ensuring safe operation of the light-metro system and it comes at a cost.

SkyTrain costs about 40% more to operate than comparable LRT lines.

The notion that TransLink runs; “a world class transit system”, is a fiction. TransLink repeats this fiction to try to get the public to believe it (repeat a lie often enough the public will come around to believing it.).

No one has copied Vancouver’s transit planning, nor its exclusive use of light metro.

TransLink operated three light-metro lines:

1. The Expo Line, Advanced Light Rail Transit System.
2. The Millennium and Evergreen Line Bombardier Inc. and SNC Lavalin’s rebuilt and revampedAi?? ALRT system now marketed as Advanced Rapid Transit. (ALRT/ART is compatible in operation, though the trains cannot operate coupled together.)
3. The Canada Line, the worlds only heavy-rail metro, built as a light metro and has less capacity than a simple LRT system costing a fraction to build. The Canada Line vehicles cannot operate on the ALRT/ART Lines. The Canada Line is recognized internationally as classic “White Elephant”.

The cost to operate the faux P-3 Canada line is around $110 million annually, at least twice as much as comparable LRT operations.

Automatic transit systems are expensive to maintain, because they must be at 100% to operate or the signalling system will shut it down. Automatic railways need 4 to 5 hours of downtime daily to do preventative maintenance to ensure problem free running as even the simplest of problem requires the system to shut down, with obvious results. This is expensive.

A full complement of transit police, attendants and control room staff must be on duty during ours of operation, which again adds to the operating costs if the light metro were to operate around the clock.

The question boils down to this: “Will the cash strapped TransLink finance 24 hour operation of the light-metro system which will cater to a very few people, by curtailing transit servcie elsewhere?”

In comparison, many cities that operate trams or light rail, do offer 24 hour servcie on important routes. Unlike automatic light-metro, signalling is not centralized, but local and much simpler; stations/stops do not need staff; with a driver, a problem can be assessed on the fly, and operations are not stopped; maintenance can be done while the route is in operation; and there are no excessive operational costs.

Those who want 24 hour servcie for Vancouver, should think trams and not SkyTrain.

 

TransLink could offer 24-hour SkyTrain service, but thereai??i??s a catch: official

By Simon Little Digital Reporter Ai??CKNW

Island Corridor Foundation’s Letter to Minister Claire Trevena

After years of indifference by the Island Corridor Foundation, a new provincial government seems to have brought some life to the Island Corridor Foundation.

Now the ICF is a political creature, which was believed by many, to oversee the demise of the E&N Railway on Vancouver island.

Enter the NDP and Vancouver Island MLA and premier, John Horgan.

The ICF has come to life, like a bear out of hibernation.

I guess those receiving stipends for being on the ICF board want to continue receiving a stipend under the new administration and with talk of a commuter style rail servcie, the ICF has miraculously risen from the dead.

ICF Letter to Minister Claire Trevena

Posted November 15, 2017

Minister of Transportation & Infrastructure

The Honourable Claire Trevena

Victoria, B.C.

Via Email: Minister.Transportation@gov.bc.ca

 

Dear Minister

 

Re: Island Rail Train Service & Infrastructure Plan

 

Thank you for meeting with the Island Corridor Foundation and Southern Rail delegation November 9^th.

We presented to you a plan that would provide significant train service to the people of Vancouver Island through a modest track infrastructure investment by your government and by Canada.

 

We know you are specifically focused on the section of rail between Langford and Victoria. Our plan provides a path to satisfy the western communityai??i??s transportation needs and also communities north of the Malahat.

 

As mentioned it is imperative that track infrastructure improvements are made so we donai??i??t lose this wonderful Island asset.

 

You also heard of the commitment that our rail operator has to Island rail. To assist them and the Foundation in planning for the future we asked four specific questions;

1.Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? Does the provincial government support Island train service?

2.Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? What is the government response to the SVI/ICF Train Service & Infrastructure Plan?

3.Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? Should SVI/ICF make a formal submission?

4.Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai?? Will the province support the submission?

We respectfully request a timely response to these questions.

 

Madam Minister the Island Corridor Foundation and Southern Rail of Vancouver Island are keen to assist you in whatever way we can. Please let us know how we can help.

 

 

Yours Truly

 

Dr. Judith Sayers

Chair

Toronto’s King Street – A Template For Broadway?

The European light rail Renaissance in Toronto seems to be successful.

Active traffic calming will both improve transit service, while at the same time pull more people to transit, a lesson that TansLink and Vancouver traffic engineers refuses to learn. Putting transit underground, may make local improvements, but the high costs hurts transit operations elsewhere.

In Europe, the simple reserved rights-of-way for trams (LRT) gives a servcie comparable to a subway at a fraction of the cost. Unless traffic flows are in the order of 20,000 pphpd plus, there are far more befits for transit customers, local businesses, and the taxpayer, with light rail.

Unlike subways, modern light rail is both user friendly and non-user friendly and demonstrates the reason why LRT is the first choice of transit planners around the world.

Sadly, not in Metro Vancouver….pity.

Marcus Gee

King Street pilot project: Toronto finally finds the courage to address its commuting mess

Rush hour on Toronto’s King streetcar is usually hell on steel wheels. The packed streetcars that travel the city’s busiest above-ground public transit route trundle along at the pace of a Victorian landau, stuck in traffic like everyone else. Walking is often faster. Cyclists fly past.

So commuters who boarded the King car on Monday, the first weekday of a year-long experiment in getting the lead out, were amazed, even a little bewildered, when they looked out the front windshield and saw, well, nothing. No line of stop-and-go traffic. No big delivery truck blocking the road ahead. No old beater stopping to turn left, causing a mass transit vehicle with scores of people on board to shudder to a halt while waiting for a single car to get out of the way.

Just a long stretch of clear road, free of obstacles, even at the height of the afternoon rush. It was such an unfamiliar sight that it was hard not just to gawp, like a yokel seeing his first elevator.

Here was a vision of the future, and, you know, it seems to work. Freed of its four-wheeled competitors, the big red-and-white streetcars fairly sail along the open street, making that sweet electrical hum that they do when they get going.

Toronto transit riders never speak to each other ai??i?? the riders’ code forbids human interaction ai??i?? but on this day, a man in a fashion-forward version of one of those winter hats with the strings dangling past the ears couldn’t help turning to a couple of women beside him and remarking, “It’s almost like travelling at warp speed today.” He shook his head in wonder. “Toronto is putting on its big city pants and growing up.”That put it nicely. Finally, after years of chin stroking, the city has found the courage to do something bold about its commuting mess. Finally, it is coming to understand that cities that want to avoid strangling on their own growth have to change how they move people around. At last it has seen the sense in giving big vehicles with lots of people an advantage over small vehicles with one or two. At last it is struggling to loosen the tyranny of the car.

The King Street project gives streetcars precedence on the busy stretch of King between Bathurst Street in the west and Jarvis Street in the east. Motor vehicles won’t be able to drive through any more. They won’t be able to turn left, either. If they come onto that stretch of King, they must turn off at most intersections and get out of the way.

Vehicles operated by emergency services, road crews and the Toronto Transit Commission will get an exception, as will taxis after 10 at night. Cyclists can ride right through as before. Apart from that, streetcars will have the run of the road.

It is about time. This should have happened a decade, two decades ago. The King car is the third-busiest transit service in the city, trailing only the two main subway lines. It carries more than 65,000 people a day. That compares with the 20,000 vehicles that use the street. It is obvious who should get priority.

City leaders hesitated because they feared being accused of launching a “war on the car,” a familiar battle cry of the Rob Ford era. For years, nothing happened. The King car kept on trundling, full to the fogged-up windows with the thousands of new workers who are commuting to Toronto’s thriving downtown and the thousands of people who have moved to teeming condo communities such as Liberty Village. Change had to come. So Toronto bit the bullet. City council voted to authorize a pilot project. It started on Sunday.

Naturally, there have been problems. No one expected otherwise. That is what the pilot is for: to see how this can work. Some motorists are ignoring the signs forbidding them from driving straight into the streetcar zone. Cop cars with lights flashing were pulling many of them over on Monday and giving them a warning. Some commuters were confused when they found that their old streetcar stops have been moved. Instead of stopping at the traffic light at big intersections, the streetcars stop after the light. There are sure to be other hang-ups. This is all very new and it’s going to take time to get used to it.

But, at least at first, the streetcar zone seems to be making a real difference. With planters on the road at stops and colourful barriers at intersections, the King car seems not just faster, but safer. This looks and feels like a real transit zone, where transit riders are not battling for a space on the street and hoping to avoid getting knocked over by a car when they step out the streetcar door. For once, they are being treated as if they matter. For the battle-weary Toronto strap hanger, that is a delicious feeling.

The whole thing makes the city feel a little bit different, too. A little more sophisticated, a little more modern, a bit more like the international city that Toronto has come to be. Those big-boy pants look good.

A Broadway Tram – Under $5 Million Per Kilometre To Build!

What is the cost for light rail?

In Budapest, Hungary, aAi?? 1Ai??7Ai??km extension of Budapest tram Route 1, will cost HF8Ai??6bn.

Wow! 8.6 billion Hungarian Florints to build?

But wait, HUF 8.6 billion, converts to CAD $7,690,959!

What is more, the 1.7 km extension is costing CAD $4,524,093 per kilometre to build.

I know, that the headline is a little misleading and of course the cost does not include trams or land acquisition, but it does include track and OHE,Ai??(over head equipment) but not substations.

So when TransLink beats the drum, claiming LRT is very expensive to build, with costs of the Surrey LRT now exceeding CAD $100 million/km to build and too expensive for Broadway, TransLink should be reminded that in Budapest, new tramway construction and OHEAi?? is under $5 million/km and on Broadway OHE is already in place!

$5 million/km is a great base cost to start planning for light rail.

It is time to remind, not only the mayor of Vancouver and Surrey of this, but the Mayor’s Council on Transit, TransLink, Premier Horgan and the Minister for Transportation, that modern LRT can be built a lot cheaper than TransLink claims!

Budapest, Hungary: Work begins on Budapest tram extension

 

A Novices Guide To Transit – Updated

ai??i??ai??i??ai??i?? or cutting through the BS about light rail, SkyTrain and BRT.

The following is a guide plus definitions about ai???railai??? transit.

ALM: Automatic Light metro, the fourthAi??marketing name given for the SkyTrain family of light-metros, when Lavalin briefly ownedAi??SkyTrain before going bankrupt.

ALRT (1): Advanced Light Rail Transit, the secondAi??marketing name for SkyTrain.

ALRT (2): Advanced Light Rapid Transit, the third marketing name for SkyTrain, when Advanced Light Rail Transit failed to find a market.

ART: Advanced Rapid Transit, the fifth marketing name for SkyTrain, used by its current owners, Bombardier Inc. & SNC Lavalin.

Automatic (Driverless) Operation: A signaling system that permits train operation without drivers. Contrary to popular myth, automatic operation does not reduce operating costs because there are no drivers, because attendants must be hired insteadAi??to permit safe operation. Automatic signaling was designed to reduce signaling staff, not operation staff.

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT): Generally means ai???Express Busesai???, a true BRT needs a very expensive and land consuming busway or highway or be guided. Some pundits have coined the term BRT a Build Rail Transit.

Bored tunnel: A tunnel boring machine also known as a “mole”, is a machine used to excavate tunnels with a circular cross section through a variety of soil and rock strata. They can bore through anything from hard rock to sand.

Broadway Subway: A proposed $3 billion to $4 billion 7 km. SkyTrain subway to Arbutus Street.

Busway: A route needed for BRT. Busways can be conventional HOV lanes or exclusive roads for buses. Busways can be equipped with raised curbs or rails for bus guidance.

Canada Line: Vancouverai??i??s third metro line which is a grade separated EMU operation and is not compatible with the rest of the ALRT/ART SkyTrain systemAi??in operation.

Capacity: A function of headway multiplied by vehicle capacity, which in turn is dependent on station station platform lengthAi?? measured in persons per hour per direction.

Consultation: To sell a transit decision to the public after the decision has been made.

C-Train: The Calgary light rail system.

Cut and cover: A method of building a tunnel by making a cutting, which is then lined and covered over. (Civil Engineering) designating a method of constructing a tunnel by excavating a cutting to the required depth and then backfilling the excavation over the tunnel roof.

Demoviction: Where those who live in affordable housing are evicted because the housing is demolished to build high density housing, usually too expensive for those evicted to rent.

Evergreen Line: The 11.4 km newly finished portion of the old Broadway/Lougheed Rapid Transit Project. When the NDP forced the SkyTrain Millennium Line onto TransLink, there was not the money left order to complete the line to the Tri-Cities. Now completed.

Expo Line: The first SkyTrain line built, completed in late 1985. The ExpoAi??was built inAi??in three sections. The Waterfront to New Westminster section (cost a much as LRT from Vancouver to Whalley, Lougheed Mall and Richmond Centre), theAi??SkybridgeAi??section across the Fraser river to Scott road Station, and the final section to Whalley in Surrey.

Grade: The vertical rise of a railway track, normally given in a percentage (1% grade = a 1 metre rise in 100 metres). Industry standard grade for LRT is 8%; Sheffieldai??i??s LRTAi??operates onAi??10% grades; the maximum grade for a tramway is located in Lisbon, where the streetcars operate, unassisted, on 13.8% grades.

Goebbels Gambit: The fine art of repeating a lie often enough that it is perceived as the truth.

Guided Bus: A BRT that is physically guided by either a raised curb or a central rail. Some guided buses are considered monorails.

Headway: The time interval between trains on a transit route.

Hybrid: A transit system that is designed operated asAi??a LRT/light metro mix. Generally very expensive as it uses the most expensive features of both modes.

ICTS: Intermediate Capacity Transit system, the first name SkyTrain was marketed by.

Interurban: An early streetcar which operated at speed on its own R-o-W connecting urban centres.

Light Rail Transit (LRT): A steel wheel on steel rail transit system that can operate economically on transit routes with traffic flows between 2,000 pphpd to over 20,000 pphpd, thus bridging the gap on what buses can carry and that which needs a metro. A streetcar is considered LRT when it operates on reserved rights-of-ways or R-o-Wai??i??s for the exclusive use of the streetcar/tram. Number of LRT/tramways in operation around the world is now almost 600; light railways (many use LRVai??i??s) ai??i?? over 120; heritage lines ai??i?? over 60.

Light Metro: A transit mode, generally a proprietary transit system, that has the capacity of LRT,Ai??at the cost of a heavy-rail metro. Light metro was originally conceived to bridge the gap from what old streetcars could carry and that of a heavy-rail metro.

Light Rail Vehicle (LRV): A vehicle that operates on a LRT or streetcar line. Also called a streetcar, tram, TramTrain or interurban.

Lysenkoism: used metaphorically to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives.

Mass Transit: A generic term for heavy-rail metro. See rapid transit.

MAX: The Portland Tri-Met LRT system.

Mayor’s Council On Transit: A group of metro Vancouver’s mayors who are not transit experts, who think they are. The results of their endeavors proves the adage; “The blind leading the blind.”

Metro: An urban/suburban railway that operates on a segregated R-o-W, either in a subway or on a viaduct, due to long trains (5 cars+) and close headways. There are 174 heavy/light metros in operation around the world.

Millennium Line:Ai?? The second SkyTrain Line built, using the new Bombardier ART cars.

Monorail: A transit mode that operates on one rail. There are two general types of monorail: 1) hanging monorail and 2) straddle beam monorail (not a true monorail). Some proprietary BRT systems are also classed as monorail.

Priority Signaling: A signaling system that gives priority to transit vehicles at intersections.

Proprietary Transit System: A transit system who rights are exclusively owned by one company. Transit operations who operate proprietary transit systems must deal with only one supplier.

Rapid Transit: A generic term for metro. See mass transit.

Reserved Rights of Way: An exclusive R-o-W for use of transit vehicles, can be as simple as a HOV lane (with rails for LRT) or as elaborate a a lawned boulevard or a linear park complete with shrubs.

SkyTrain: An unconventional proprietary light-metro, powered by Linear Induction motors, marketed by Bombardier Inc. Currently there are 7 SkyTrain type transit systems in operation around the world. ICTS ai??i?? 2; ALRT (1 & 2) ai??i?? 1; ART 4.

Streetcar: A steel wheel, on steel rail electric (also can be diesel powered) vehicle that operates in mixed traffic, with little or no priority at intersections. Also known as a tram in Europe. Streetcars become LRT when operating on reserved R-o-Wai??i??s.

Subway: An underground portion of a rapid transit line. Subways may either be bored or cut and cover or a combination of both construction methods.

TTC: The Toronto Transit commission.

T.O.D. or Transit Oriented Development: A local political doctrine which sees massive development along rapid transit routes. T.O.D. favours land developers and land speculators at the expense of affordable housing. T.O.D. works like this, over priced rapid transit is built on a line and land speculators rush in and assemble land along the route, especially a proposed station sites. The land is promptly sold to land developers who tear down affordable housing and build high density condos in there place. The high rents compel those evicted from affordable housing (see demoviction) seek accommodation in areas not well serve by transit. In the end, the new condos are sold to overseas buyers. T.O.. is favoured by planners, especially planners from S.F.U.

Tram: European term for streetcar, as the Europeans do not use the term LRT.

TramTrain: A streetcar that can operate on the mainline railways, operating as a passenger train.

TransLink Speak: The lexicon used by TransLink to mask problems. Example: medial emergency on SkyTrain means a suicide.

Viaduct: A viaduct isAi??a bridgeAi??composed of several small spans.

Vision Vancouver: The current political party running Vancouver, better known as “Visionless Vancouver”. Want subways for Vancouver, as long everyone else pays for it.

Thoughts For November

As 2017 wanes in the days of September and October andAi?? now the chill winds of November are upon us , the unprecedented dry spell, reeks of global warming. 7mm of rain in July and August must be setting off alarm bells in the various forestry and environmental ministries.

This summer and autumn I had the pleasure of talking to a great many people about our current transit mess, TransLink and their thoughts on the mess.

To try to get a measure of peoples feelings, I have condensed the answers to something that is certainly not scientific, but I believe gives a good insight on our current regional transportation situation.

And please, don’t shoot the messenger.

TransLink: Almost universally hated by all, with very few defending it. It seems TransLink has alienated itself from almost everyone, which is a sad commentary on the organization.

Politicians: They follow party lines with the Liberals supporting highways and the NDP/Greens supporting transit. There is a general distrust of all politicians.

SkyTrain: All rail transit is called SkyTrain with not people not knowing of mode. Build more is the theme.

The Massey Tunnel replacement bridge: This is a 50/50 split, but with the majority voicing the need for either better transit or more bridges into Vancouver/Burnaby

Tolls: Almost unanimous that should be tolling of bridges and tunnels, but including the major bridges in the City of Vancouver and the Sea to Sky Highway and the Coquihalla Highway, but with a caveat, tolls should not be more than a$1.00 a crossing and surprising, no electronic tolling.

Road pricing: Almost a universal nyet! Unlike tolling, road pricing is seen as a massive tax gab and a tax grab by TransLink is seen as money completely wasted.

Rail transit south of the Fraser: There is general support by all I talked to for this link, many people are unaware that there is an existing rail line and are surprised that it is not being used.

Broadway subway: It is strange that except for a few, the Broadway subway is seen to be a transit “overkill”. Many people think that subways the “gold standard” of transit and unaware of the vast costs involved. The few merchants I talked to were dead set against a subway, probably because of the Canada Line/Cambie St. fiasco.

Traffic: Almost unanimous that traffic is seen as a problem, but what is is great interest, many people I talked to are planning to leave or have already purchased a retirement house outside of metro Vancouver, with traffic being one of the reasons why. Expanding on this, many people who would use transit are leaving Metro Vancouver to live in areas with no transit at all.

New highway construction: Bring it on, as almost everyone I talked to wants new highways.

The Arbutus Corridor: It’s for light rail, silly. The Arbutus, once used for “rail” transit is still seen as a future route for “rail” transit.

Surrey LRT: This is a strange one indeed, those who live in Surrey hate the project and those who live outside Surrey like the project, with a SkyTrain for Vancouver and LRT for Surrey theme.

Bus Rapid Transit: A lot of people like the idea of BRT, but would not take it. BRT is seen as “someone else’s” transit.

Light Rail: Most people perceive that LRT is an inferior mode and are surprised to learn that it has a higher capacity than our SkyTrain and a lot more LRT lines have been built when compared to SkyTrain. I guess forty years of anti-LRT rhetoric by the media, BC Transit, TransLink, and the various political parties has done its work.
To sum up, people want better transit, but do not want to pay more. Many people are voting with their feet, leaving Metro Vancouver. The general dislike of TransLink is a constant theme and if there is to be any improvement to regional transit or to curb any major electoral push-back with TransLink’s planning, Horgan’s NDP must make changes and fast. If not, the public just might perceive TransLink and its next round of projects as another FastFerry fiasco.