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.
Scarborough ……… Or Should We Say Broadway Subway ai???Not A Worthwhile Use Of Moneyai??i??
No real surprise here.
What is very odious is that the Mayor of Toronto wants a subway, purely for political purposes and the taxpayer be damned!
The same is true about the proposed Broadway SkyTrain subway, where the traffic flows just do not warrant a now almost $4 billion subway, yet the Mayor of Vancouver demands a subway!
The results for both cities will be the same with a subway, higher fares, higher taxes to pay higher subway subsidies and the politicians see absolutely nothing wrong with this.
Internal Metrolinx report found Scarborough subway ai???not a worthwhile use of money.
Council to consider push for auditor general to conduct value-for-money comparison of the costs and benefits of transit options in Scarborough.
ByAi??JENNIFER PAGLIAROCity Hall reporterTues., Nov. 7, 2017Is the Scarborough subway a waste of money?
That essential question will again be raised at council this week after audit committee denied a motion from Councillor Josh Matlow last month to have a city watchdog provide the answer.
In 2013, council scrapped a fully-funded, seven-stop light rail transit (LRT) line to replace the aging Scarborough RT and voted instead to build a three-stop subway that at the time would cost at least $2 billion more, there has never been a comprehensive comparison of the costs and benefits between the two options.
But a secret report obtained by the Star through a freedom of information request provides a glimpse of what that kind of analysis might find: That a subway is ai???not a worthwhile use of money.ai???
Ahead of this weekai??i??s council meeting, Mayor John Tory remains firm that the subway project should move forward without a cost-comparison study ai??i?? something that has never been requested or provided by staff.
ai???This is the most voted upon project, I think, thatai??i??s probably ever gone through the city council,ai??? Tory told the Star on Friday. He said if councillors believed requesting that kind of analysis was in the public interest theyai??i??d vote for it.
ai???In the meantime my objective has been what itai??i??s always been: Get on with this project.ai???
After the plan for a subway was revised last year to just a single-stop extension at $3.35 billion, Matlow continued to challenge his colleagues to request such a study.
ai???If you would prefer the one-stop subway and if the information comes back to support that argument, in fact, if you always believed it would, then what do you have to be afraid of?ai??? he asked last month.
TheAi??switchAi??from an LRT to a subway took place over three separate council meetings, culminating in an October 2013 vote.
Behind-the-scenes at that time, emails show senior Metrolinx officials were trying to make sense of the political machinations since the city had already signed a master agreement with the province to build an LRT with provincial money, then estimated at $1.8 billion.
In the midst of that confusion, Metrolinx analysts drafted an internal report assessing whether the subway or the LRT provided the best value for money. The report obtained by the Star, dated September 2013, is clearly marked ai???draft.ai??? It was never published.
The Star received the report in 2015 as part of a broad request to Metrolinx for records dating back to 2013. Years after the 2013 debate and before a new subway proposal was pitched under Toryai??i??s administration, the significance of the Metrolinx analysis was overlooked.
Today, it remains relevant.
Hawthorne Park – Premier Horgan, Are You Listening?
Surrey’s Hawthorne Park debacle clearly illustrates that something is wrong with our regional transit planning.
When You Really Need It – SkyTrain Craps out!
Again, SkyTrain never fails to, well fail!
CKNW NEWS ALERT Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai??Ai??
Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai?? Ai??Delays on the Expo Skytrain line are getting longer, as TransLink deals with a track issue between the Edmonds and 22nd Street Stations.Ai?? Ai??A shuttle bus bridge has not been able to keep up.Ai?? The Millennium and Canada Lines are not affected.Ai?? TransLink says the problem has nothing to do with the cold, snowy weather.
Mebourne: Trams Far Cheaper To Operate Than Buses
Interesting numbers from Melbourne Australia, where the subsidy for a tram, per customer, is $7.18 less than for a bus, per customer!
Something to think about, isn’t it.
Costs per passenger in Melbourne Tram vs Bus
30-Oct-2017Ai?? Ai?? Mal RoweI came across the PTV annual report for last year (2015/16) with some remarkable figures.
On page 16 there is a chart and some numbers for payments to transport service providers and on pages 20-21 there are details of loading.
* Trams got $200M to carry 203.9M passengers – a subsidy of about 98c
per passenger
* Metropolitan Buses got $900M to carry 122.5M passengers – subsidy of
about $7.35 per passengerThe equivalent statement in 2016/17 says:
“PTVai??i??s total operating expenses in 2016-17 were $4.7 billion. The majority of PTVai??i??s expenditure was for payments to the transport service providers including $1.2 billion for metropolitan and regional train services, $0.2 billion for metropolitan tram services, $1.9 billion for the governmentai??i??s capital assets charge for rail infrastructure and $1.0 billion for bus services.”
Trams had a small increase in passenger numbers (0.2% to 204M) and buses had reduced numbers (down 4% to 118M).
So the comparable statement for the latest year would be:
* Trams got $200M to carry 204M passengers – a subsidy of about 98c per
passenger
* Metropolitan Buses got $1000M to carry 122.5M passengers – subsidy
of about $8.16 per passengerA proportion of the capital assets charge for rail infrastructure would be additional to the tram subsidy, but, on the other hand, the buses get an equivalent additional taxpayer subsidy (not accounted) through free access to the road network.
I do realize that buses in Melbourne often are on low patronage routes, but the comparison is staggering.
Figures for trains are not so easily worked out as the metropolitan and regional services are not separated.
Mal Rowe – happy to be advised if he has missed something
The BRT And LRT Saga Continues
What is missing from this LRT/BRT study is very important, the cost of operating the BRT or LRT line.
In Mexico, South America and the Middle East, wages paid to drivers, mechanics, managers and maintenance workers are much, much less than North America and Europe.
As well, in third world countries, the world bank balks at funding “rail” transit projects, but is overly generous funding with new highway construction and BRT needs new highways.
Of course in Asia, large populated cities need metros because of the capacity needed to move massive volumes of customers daily and in monsoon regions, transit needed to be elevated because of annual flooding.
So, with a select few cities with BRT, the mode tends to look better than it really is.
With operating costs downplayed or politely ignored this study lacks the validity of a proper route by route LRT/BRT study, with all factors included. In North America and Europe, when the proper studies are done, LRT tends to come out on top.
The question of whether trains are superior to bus rapid transit [BRT] is examined in an op-ed commentary Monday by “the city fix dot com” site:
<https://tinyurl.com/y8d8sego>
Are Trains Better Than Bus Rapid Transit Systems? A Look at the EvidenceAi??
(No superior system worldwide)
By Dario Hidalgo
October 23, 2017
The worldai??i??s great public transit systems: Tokyoai??i??s Metro, Londonai??i??s Tube, Honk Kongai??i??s MTRai??i??andAi??Mexico Cityai??i??s bus rapid transit corridors? Trains are often seen as the pinnacle of modern urban transport infrastructure. Theyai??i??re green and efficient, supported by permanent, complex track infrastructure. Bus rapid transit systems, on the other hand, are less flashy and often associated with their slow cousins, the local buses.
But in a new study published inAi??Transport ReviewsAi??researchersAi??Jesper IngvardsonAi??andAi??Otto NielsenAi??from the Technical University of Denmark point to data that suggests thereai??i??s little that separates the two approaches in many contexts.
Ingvardson and Nielsen compare 86 metro, light rail transit (LRT) and bus rapid transit (BRT) corridors using several variables: travel time savings, increase in demand from riders, modal shift, and land use and urban development changes. In some cases, the much more economical BRTs matched and even outperformed rail.
Travel Time and Ridership
The study starts by looking just at whether BRT can reduce travel times and improve mass transit ridership on its own.
There are large variations across BRT systems regarding travel time, making it difficult to draw broad conclusions, but overall they saw declines. WhileAi??MetrobA?sAi??in Istanbul produced travel time savings of 65 percent compared to previous commutes, theAi??Bus-VAOAi??lane in Madrid led to 33 percent savings and theAi??South Miami-Dade BuswayAi??just 10 percent.
Ridership gains after a new BRT corridor also varied: 150 percent in Istanbul, 85 percent in Madrid and 50 percent in Miami. Ridership gains are associated with travel time savings, but also derived from other factors such as the frequency of buses, station quality, vehicle type and user information systems.
Converting Drivers to Mass Transit
An interesting impact of mass transit implementation is its effect on drivers. In the 13 cities where Ingvardson and Nielsen studied BRTs, the number of riders who shifted from car trips ranged from 5 percent (Stockholm) to 40 percent (Adelaide), with a simple average of 17 percent. This figure is similar for the 24 LRTs (average 16 percent) and slightly lower than for the two metro systems included in the study (average 23 percent).
One caveat to these conclusions is that BRT and LRT corridors tend to be much smaller than metro corridors in terms of total volume of riders. The notable exception is Istanbulai??i??s MetrobA?s, which serves more than 600,000 passengers a day, 4 to 9 percent of which would otherwise be car users.
Land Values and Development
Despite the permanence of train tracks, Ingvardson and Nielsen found no significant difference in how BRTs, LRTs or metro impact land value. Land value increases ranged as high as 30 percent for BRT corridors; 32 percent for LRT; and 20 percent for regional rail and metro corridors. In several BRT and LRT cases, no increase in land value was observed; for the Coaster rail corridor in San Diego, a negative value was recorded.
Land value comparisons are difficult, however, because of varying assessment methodologies, distances to stations, and before and after time periods. Itai??i??s likely these conclusions should be taken with a grain of salt. The particular mass transit mode is less important than other factors, like access conditions, the urban environment, and service characteristics (e.g., frequency, speed, comfort and pricing). For the 41 projects with quantitative data, the differences in land values achieved by the different modes are not significant.
BRT, LRT and regional rail also show increased residential and commercial development around stations. Nevertheless, the improved access provided by transit is an insufficient driver of better land use. Other complementary activities, like changes in regulations, government support for investment in real estate, and investment in pedestrian connectivity, are required to achieve urban development goals. The most recognized case isAi??Curitiba, Brazil, where 45 percent of the long-distance motorized trips in the BRT vicinity use the buses. There is also evidence of positive urban development impacts from the BRTs inAi??Ottawa, Boston, Cleveland and Los Angeles.
There Is No Superior System
Ingvardson and Nielsen recognize that there are limitations in the data collected, analytical methodologies and even in the distinction between transit modes. There isnai??i??t always a clear difference between light, regional or metro rail, for example, or between bus rapid transit and bus priority corridors.
Despite these limitations, the researchers conclude that BRTs can improve travel times, modal share and urban development at rates similar to those reported for light rail and metro. This evidence contradicts conventional wisdom. It is not possible to categorically say trains have greater benefits than BRT; they are not always superior. Context matters, not just the material of the wheels or the permanence of the tracks.
Dario HidalgoAi??is Director of the Integrated Transport Practice for WRI Ross Center for Sustainable Cities.
Or
Sometimes it is not just operational costs that determine the choice for light rail.
Is Casino Money Laundering Driving SkyTrain Expansion?
As charges are laid in the casino money laundering fiasco where it is alleged, dirty money from abroad was laundered at BC Casino’s then invested in Vancouver’s hot housing market.
The question must be asked:
Is laundered illegal drug money driving the demand for higher density and SkyTrain expansion in Metro Vancouver?
Back in the 1990’s, the provincial Crown Corporations Secretariat stated:
SkyTrain is so expensive that it is only be built for land use purposes.
Thus planning in Metro Vancouver has been based on “hub to hub” SkyTrain lines, where properties adjacent to the light-metro line are densified to justify the construction of the extremely expensive proprietary SkyTrain light-metro.
Gerald Fox, noted American transit expert said:
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.
The Canada Line, which is not a proprietary light metro, was solely designed to promote high density construction on Cambie St. but light-metro was so expensive to build, especially in a subway, the scope of the project was greatly reduced. As built, the Canada Line has much less capacity than the ALRT/ART Lines and even less capacity than a simple streetcar. The Canada Line has less than half the capacity of a modern LRT line costing one third to one quarter to build, on routes that do not have the ridership to sustain them!
The Canada Line has station platforms only 40m long and can only accomodate 2car trains.
Why did then Premier Gordon Campbell, then Minister of Transportation Kevin Falcon; and the cabal running TransLink, insist on building the Canada Line, the only heavy rail metro in the world, built as a light metro and with less capacity than a simple streetcar line costing a fraction to build?
Sadly, the regional universities jumped on board this greatly flawed transit model, most notably Simon Fraser University, where unaffordable transit lines are built solely to promote higher densities along transit routes. This has paupered TransLink by building light metro lines costing up to ten times more than they should.
This is the crux of TransLink’s financial woes!
Has regional transit planning centered on creating a massive increase of density in the Metro Vancouver region, is nothing more than a vehicle to camouflageAi?? illegal drug money laundering in real-estate?
Even though Surrey is planning for LRT, it is being designed as a poor man’s SkyTrain, with costs to match. Surrey’s LRT is LRT in name only costing three to four times more than it should.
This begs many question about regional transit planning and the continued use of the obsolete light metro, especially Bombardier’s and SNC Lavalin’s ARTAi?? system (Expo, Millennium and Evergreen Lines).
- Why do regional planners still plan for SkyTrain style light-metro, both the proprietary ALRT/ART lines and the dumbed down Canada Line heavy rail metro, when by 1986 the proprietary ALRT light metro was deemed obsolete by the TTC?
- Why do regional politicians, planners and engineers continue to misinform taxpayers of both the real costs of SkyTrain (and light-metro) and that only seven such systems have been built (only three seriously used for rapid transit) since the late 1970’s?
- Why are regional planners and politicians so determined to tear down affordable housing, for unaffordable high rise condos along SkyTrain lines?Why have the NDP and Liberal governments deliberately not allowed, much cheaper and more efficient LRT to be built?
- Why is the Mayor’s Council on Transit demanding the now almost $4 billion Broadway subway on a route which doe not have the ridership to support a subway?
- Why the deceit and deception by TransLink and the City of Vancouver about ridership along Broadway? Is TransLink deliberately creating crowded buses and pass ups in a blatant attempt to convince people that a subway is needed?
- Why wereAi?? “goons” engaged to threaten and intimidate citizens from asking about light rail during the Broadway subway horse and pony shows?
- How much laundered drug money is finding its way back into political parties bank accounts, in the form of donations?
It seems Metro Vancouver’s transportation planning is being driven by laundered drug money, so a question for Premier Horgan:
When are you going to stop it?
Everyone Is An Expert
Why is it, when someone is elected to office, they become instant transit experts?
Why is it, when it comes to transit, common sense is tossed from the window?
It seems Liberal MLA, Jane Thornthwaite, wants a SkyTrain subway to the North Shore.
First question that she should be asking is: Would it be the Canada line or the Expo Line ALRT/ART mini-metro as they are incompatible in operation. MLA Thornthwaite must remember that it was her political party,Ai?? lead by then former Premier Gordon Campbell, abetted by then former Transportation Minister, Kevin Falcon, who oversaw the building of a non conforming mini metro Canada Line.
A 10 km. SkyTrain subway from Waterfront Station, via the First Narrows route (Stanley Park) and ending around Lonsdale would cost over $4 billion.
On a positive note, a subway to the North Shore would make lots more sense than a $2.5 billion SkyTrain extension to Langley.
Then there is the question of ridership. Is there the ridership to support a subway?
No, not even close and it is absurd in the extreme to even think about building SkyTrain to Squamish and Whistler.
SFU types have a bad habit calling themselves transit experts, but the university does not offer degrees in Urban Transport. Most academics who call themselves “transit experts” have little or no expertise in transit at all, but are very savvy with media relations.
Rail for the Valley has another, far cheaper solution., a light diesel multiple unit service (and later TramTrain, when Transport Canada approves the mode) connecting the North Shore with downtown Vancouver. Two trains an hour each way could probably offer adequate capacity for transit customers.
Such a service could be installed quite cheaply, for around $200 million, not breaking the TransLink budget.
Now we come to the big problem, our so called experts planning for transit are not experts at all, rather career bureaucrats, academics and politicians, planning for expensive gadgetbahanns like SkyTrain or the SFU gondola to further their careers.
The only transit expertise in Metro Vancouver is the art of manipulating facts to merit more and more hugely expensive and obsolete SkyTrain light metro construction.
North Vancouver MLA calls for North Shore SkyTrain
A hypothetical SkyTrain map produced by MLA Jane Thornthwaite shows the North Shore with a commuter rail link across the Second Narrows and transit stops from Cates Park to Dundarave. image suppliedIf youai??i??re patiently waiting for the SkyTrain to arrive on the North Shore, you could be in for a long wait.
Mayor Darrell Mussatto began raising this issue publicly this spring, calling for a feasibility study. And North Vancouver-Seymour Liberal MLA Jane Thornthwaite broached the topic in the legislature twice in the last session.
But TransLink CEO Kevin Desmond has responded saying the transit authority is too focused on expanding the existing system to be getting serious about new megaprojects.
ai???I think the recent conversations, particularly about SkyTrain coming to the North Shore are just indicative of the thirst people have to improve the transportation infrastructure and the transit system,ai??? he said during a recent visit to North Vancouver. ai???We need to start advancing the current 10-year plan, moving forward with that with the support of the new provincial government to help make that happen. Then we have to move on and think about what the next plan is and the next plan after that,ai??? he said.
If a fixed rail bridge or tunnel to Vancouver is a high priority for residents, they should make that known in the upcoming review TransLink is doing of its 30-year regional transportation strategy, Desmond said.
But Thornthwaite isnai??i??t waiting 30 years. Sheai??i??s already drawn up a proposal including hypothetical transit map featuring a SkyTrain connection over the Second Narrows with stops across the North Shore, from Cates Park to Dundarave. And sheai??i??s started consulting with local MPs and the North Vancouver Chamber of Commerce.
ai???I desperately want to have the idea of a SkyTrain to the North Shore on the map of the mayorsai??i?? council,ai??? she said. ai???Iai??i??m talking about a bold vision here. I think we all have to start having these conversations.ai???
Thornthwaite said she was inspired to lobby for a North Shore rail link because constituents in North Vancouver-Seymour have very little coming to them in terms of transit improvements.
ai???If we want to have any hope of encouraging and incentivizing our people to get out of their cars and take transit, weai??i??ve got to start improving the system,ai??? she said. ai???I would certainly like TransLink to consider the option of SkyTrain to the North Shore within their 10-year (transportation) plan. Right now, thereai??i??s nothing in my riding from the (mayorsai??i??) 10-year plan and thereai??i??s hardly anything for the North Shore.ai???
Funding is in place currently for a new SeaBus, which will allow 10-minute service during rush hour, a 30 per cent increase in regular bus service and new B-Line buses for the North Shore.
Thornthwaite said she hasnai??i??t done any back-of-the-envelope calculations on what such a plan would cost although she conceded it would be in the billions.
ai???But the only way we can get an assessment going and the interest from the decision-makers like TransLink and the mayorsai??i?? council is to start talking about it. Thatai??i??s what Iai??i??m trying to do. Everybody Iai??i??ve talked to thinks itai??i??s a good idea.ai???
Such a rail line could even be connected to Squamish and Whistler over the longer term, Thornthwaite added.
Gordon Price, fellow with SFUai??i??s Centre for Dialogue and former head of the universityai??i??s city program, said itai??i??s refreshing to see the discussion of a fabled ai???third crossingai??? return but centred around mass transit for a change.
ai???Itai??i??s certainly doable and it could certainly be doable faster than what dreamers might think at this point. Thatai??i??s a political and financial commitment,ai??? he said.
But before North Vancouver and West Vancouver can pursue a rail link with any seriousness, they have to be able to answer some existential questions about the kind of communities they aspire to be. To justify a SkyTrain, our urban planning would have to become much more centred around transit over the long term than it currently is.
ai???If youai??i??re going to be looking at something like SkyTrain rapid transit, and you should, itai??i??s a long-term solution. Weai??i??re talking over 100 years. And it means a fundamental change in the scale, and for some parts of your community, a fundamental change in character. Youai??i??re building transit-oriented, concentrated communities with both work and play and all the rest of it,ai??? he said. ai???Because otherwise, why build rapid transit?ai???
Park Royal would have to look more like Burnabyai??i??s Brentwood neighbourhood, Price used as an example.
ai???North Van and West Vancouver would have to commit themselves to having a different kind of long-term vision for themselves, and Iai??i??m not sure that the population is yet ready for that,ai??? he said.
But, Price noted, if the hope is that a North Shore SkyTrain would be the silver bullet to solving the bridge congestion problem, there are much cheaper and faster options within reach, namely mobility pricing. The technology to track usage of the roads and transit system in real time exists in most anyoneai??i??s smartphone, meaning it would not be difficult to charge tolls based on usage. That would be the most effective incentive for getting people and cars off the road, and speeding up the daily commutes, Price said.
ai???Thatai??i??s going to be so much easier to do in the world weai??i??re moving into. Weai??i??re not quite there yet but itai??i??s happening,ai??? he said.Ai?? ai???The politics of that? Brutal. But it could be done.ai???
Is It time To Say Adios To TransLink’s Kevin Desmond?
TransLink’s American CEO, Kevin Desmond, was always TransLink’s man. A consummate bureaucrat, he knows what buttons to push and what whistles to blow, but when it comes to transit, Desmond does what he is told to do.
TransLink has never acknowledged the fact that the public, especially the taxpayer after the 2015 plebiscite do not like nor trust the ponderous bureacracy. Blaming everyone else for TransLink’s woes, bureaucrats offered some “window dressing” changes but nothing more and one of those window dressing changes was Kevin Desmond, the new CEO.
Today, TransLink is mired in a fiscal fiasco, where it’s gross spending habits have greatly outpaced its income. Unwilling to live within its means and continuing to plan for two mega transportation projects that smack of “FastFerry Fiasco”, the over $2 billion Surrey LRT and the now estimated almost $4 billion Broadway subway, TransLink has doubled down by offering gimmicks, which were previously offered before, to take the attention away from their continued blundering.
The SFU Gondola, which the last cost estimate was $120 million in 2011, is supposes to placate the SFU types with “gimmickbahnn” transit, instead of investing about $10 thousand for chains for buses.
Sadly, unlike buses, a gondola operation does not have intermediate stops and the bus route to SFU would still continue. Contrary to what the TransLink CEO said, a SFU gondola will add to the cost of providing students; a gold plated transit solution on an economy class transit route. Economy class, you say? Yes, indeed as the vast majority of users would be those using the $1 a day U-Pass!
Then to add icing to the cake as to how unsuitable and out of touch Desmond is, he offers this little nugget:
Desmond also said there is a blueprint for extending the Arbutus Line to theAi??University of British Columbia, but said completing the mayorsai??i?? ten-year plan is TransLinkai??i??s top priority.
Desmond says if Arbutus line went to @UBC, it would double price of project. It says next set of plans should go out to the university
There are no plans to use the Arbutus Line for Rail, nor any plans to extend the line to UBC.
If LRT were to be used a 15 km Marpole to UBC Line would cost no more than $500 million, but if a subway is proposed for the Arbutus the same 15km route would cost over $4.5 billion.
Obviously Desmond is talking out of his hat and incredulous statements that are emanating from TransLink’s CEO, should signal that it is time to say adios and farewell to Kevin Desmond.
TransLink proposes electric-powered gondola for Simon Fraser University
By Kyle Benning Reporter Ai??CKNW
TransLinkAi??is trying to find a cleaner way to get people to Simon Fraser University according to CEO Kevin Desmond.
Desmond said the transport company is in talks with the academic institution to get an electric-powered gondola on Burnaby Mountain.
ai???The idea is if there is a gondola, it would replace the major bus route that goes from Production Way Station to the University. It would be a more reliable service, possibly as much, if not more capacity than the buses allow.ai???
He said the operating costs of the bus route would be incorporated into the costs of running the gondola.
ai???If we can figure out a way to pay for the capital; I believe SFU needs to be part of that solution as well. We think there might be some federal grants that could be available for that also, we might be able to put together a really nice project and replace basically at this point, diesel-powered buses.ai???
Desmond also said there is a blueprint for extending the Arbutus Line to theAi??University of British Columbia, but said completing the mayorsai??i?? ten-year plan is TransLinkai??i??s top priority.
Metro Madness – FastFerry Fiasco 2
Vancouver wants subways and nothing else. Vancouver wants the region to pay for those subways.
Vancouver’s pet SkyTrain subway, just to Arbutus Street, may cost upwards of $4 billion.
Vancouver’s pet SkyTrain subway will use the now obsolete ALRT/ART proprietary railway, jointly owned by Bombardier Inc. and SNC Lavalin.
Vancouver’s pet SkyTrain subway will have cars supplied by only Bombardier Inc. as no one else makes ALRT/ART compatible cars.
SNC Lavalin will automatically engineer the the almost $4 billion subway under Broadway because they own the ART Engineering patents.
Present traffic flows on Broadway are well under 5,000 pphpd or well under a third that would justify a subway for North American standards.
The operating costs for the Broadway subway have not been calculated.
The operating certificate for the ALRT/ART SkyTrain lines allows a maximum capacity of 15,000 pphpd.
The cost to upgrade the ALRT/ART SkyTrain lines could be as high as $3 billion.
The city of Vancouver lead TransLink is trying to force “Road Pricing” in Metro Vancouver, not for regional transit improvement, rather SkyTrain subway and associated upgrades.
Cost of FastFerry scandal, an estimated $450 million- cost of the future Broadway subway scandal, full build – almost $7 billion!
Cost of cancelling site C dam – estimated $7.3 billion.
What more can go wrong?
Underground Spaces Already Prepped For Broadway Subway Stations
Developers, city negotiated deals to set aside space for entrances at four key sites.
ByChristopher CheungToday|TheTyee.caChristopher Cheung is a reporter and page editor at the Tyee. You can find his stories here and follow him on Twitter at @bychrischeung.
The funding for the planned Broadway subway line is not confirmed, but the City of Vancouver has been steadily securing spaces under the busy corridor for transit stations, The Tyee has learned.
Space has been set aside for four potential stations ai??i?? at Great Northern Way, Cambie, Oak and Arbutus.
If there is a development,said Steve Brown, the manager of Vancouver’s rapid transit office, we can make a request to see if they are able to shape the development to allow for a void space that can connect from the street level down to the underground.ai???
These large underground rooms are not the stations themselves; they are entrances/exits, hence their official name Statutory Rights of Way.
The intention is to maximize the connectivity to future transit stations, and developers are usually more than happy to do that,said Jeff Doble, the global leader in transportation design with architecture firm Perkins+Will.
Perkins+Will designed the Crossroads project at the corner of Cambie and Broadway.
The cityai??i??s engineering department is in the mixed-use Crossroads project, along with a London Drugs, a Whole Foods and, formerly, a Lululemon lab at the street level where one entrance that descends to the void space is located. This void space is large enough to fit a staircase, an escalator and an elevator.
Doble said the developerai??i??s decision to prepare a potential transit entrance for the city is a ai???no brainer.ai???
ai???They would stand to benefit from having transit in their development and having retail in the station, which benefits the station as well,ai??? he said.
Six stations are planned for the Broadway subway; four already have void spaces. Two potential station locations, at Main and at Granville, do not have void spaces beneath them yet.
Crossroads, completed in 2008, was not the first project to have a void space.
The city negotiated in the late 1990s for the creation of a space beneath the Great Northern Way Campus Trust lands, home to the new Emily Carr University of Art and Design.
Recent Comments