Most people championing expensive transit, fail to see three minutes into the future.
The failure of a switch motor on the Expo Line last week caused transit chaos. Switch motors fail and on automatic railways, the regimen is to replace motors on a preventative basis before they fail in revenue service to maintain the integrity of the transit system. ART SkyTrain has expensive maintenance costs and to curb costs, essential maintenance takes precedent over preventive maintenance.
No skin off TransLink’s nose if the transit system fails, as the expensive spin doctors will smooth troubled waters, with one invention after another and with an extremely gullible mainstream media, the spin becomes fact. Metro Vancouver media do not fact check news releases from TransLink.
In other cities, the media tend to be better informed and understand transit issues, sadly Metro Vancouver lack an informed media.
In other jurisdictions, penalties are assessed against senior management if the transit system fails, in the form of reduced bonuses, wage penalties and in extreme cases firings.
Not so with TransLink, where planning continues for a $3 billion plus SkyTrain Broadway subway, with absolutely no thought for the expensive maintenance regimen needed to operate it at peak efficiency.
Unlike non automatic railways, driverless trains need much expensive preventative maintenance to guarantee operation.
Transit is a vital Toronto service with an insatiable hunger for money. TTCai??i??s budget committee met yesterday to consider a first cut at their next 10-year capital plan and how this might fit with the City of Torontoai??i??s limited funding.
To hear TTC management, all is well, at least in the short term. Spending plans for 2018 match available funding and, most importantly, the City-imposed limit on borrowing for transit projects.
But over 10 years, available fundingai??i??monies that various governments have committed to provideai??i??are about $2.8 billion short of the $9.24-billion plan. This gap between what the City will pay and what the TTC needs has been growing for years. It is only minimally offset by accounting prestidigitation that assumes the TTC will not actually spend all the money they are asking for. That shaves $420 million off of the total, but much remains.
How Deep is the Hole?
The first big problem with the TTCai??i??s budget is that it understates the long-term shortfall by omitting many projects from the formal ai???base budget.ai??? There are four different types of ai???unfundedai??? transit projects:
Base budget items for which there is no funding because the City and its ai???funding partnersai??? cannot or will not ante up the money: $2.273 billion (e.g., automatic train control for Line 2 (BD), new subway cars for Line 2, new subway cars for ridership growth on Lines 1 (YUS) and 2, purchase of new buses starting in 2021, purchase of additional new streetcars for ridership growth and system expansion)
Deferred new budget requests for items that are ai???should haves,ai??? but not yet important enough to formally be in the base: $1.05 billion (e.g., purchase of more than 500 new buses separate from those above, new bus technologies, future Wheel-Trans buses,Ai??Warden Station redevelopment)
Scope changes on existing projects: $128 million (e.g.,Ai??fire ventilation upgrades, escalator replacements)
Projects for future consideration: $2.216 billion (e.g.,Ai??Bloor-Yonge Station capacity improvements, platform edge doors on Line 1, new subway maintenance facility at Davisville, station modernization, new transit control centre,Ai??Islington Station improvements)
Groups 2 to 4 all contain a variety of facility upgrade projects to deal with aging infrastructure. Many of these have a relatively low cost, but collectively they are worth hundreds of millions.Ai??These areAi??only a sampleAi??showing the largest or more important projects.
These lists are growing because City Council has instructed the TTC that new projects cannot be added to the ai???base budgetai??? without Council approval. This does not make the projects disappear. It only hides their cost by leaving them out of the official version of the capital plan. The only exceptions are projects that are deemed critical, or that do not start until the 10th year of the plan, far enough in the future that they have little effect on spending projections.
One important change at the City is the imposition of a ai???stage gateai??? process where a project cannot even reach commitment to proceed until its design is sufficiently advanced to keep the risk of cost overruns low. This is a big change for those who prefer to sketch plans on napkins and worry about the cost later, but it also affects management who low-ball cost estimates simply to get political approval. A more rigourous process has its effects on both groups.
Noble as this change may be, it is a recent addition to the process, and few projects have actually gone through it. The benefits will take a few years to materialize, and it is unlikely that pet projects will completely disappear from TTC plans even with dubious cost estimates.
Which Projects Go First?
The second problem is that every project is presented as if it had equal importance in the overall scheme. The TTC Board previously asked that staff propose a prioritization scheme for projects, but this has yet to appear. A big issue is the meaning of ai???priorityai???ai??i??is a priority project one where ai???if we donai??i??t do this, something will break,ai??? or one where ai???if we donai??i??t do this, I wonai??i??t be re-electedai???? Even ai???breakai??? can mean anything from annoying unreliability to complete collapse.
Not only is a priority list missing, major project clusters (such as the planned renewal of the Bloor-Danforth subway) are scattered across multiple budget lines with no indication that they are related.
Budgets can be deadly dull reading, and the documents can be daunting to a novice, including most members of the TTC board and Council. During the meeting it was obvious that members, and not a few management, were struggling with the details of this core TTC planning document. The budget committee itself cancels more meetings than it holds, and tends to review the budget in the heat of the moment when the whole document must be approved. Little surprise that few understand how it works.
This is not just an exercise in good management theory, but an important part of planning for the Cityai??i??s transit future. Without digging, it is almost impossible to learn how the budget relates to various initiatives councillors might like to see. Is there actually a provision for some change, or has a request simply been relegated to the ai???somedayai??? pile? Are all components of a change present, or are there ai???oops,ai??? missing pieces lurking in the budget that will delay policy changes?
A good example lies in service quality and improvement. Within the 10-year plan, there is provision for only 99 new buses, to be acquired over the coming five years, dedicated for service improvements. Hundreds more may be purchased, but these will simply replace what is on the street today. Pressed to explain what these would be used for, management explained that they would mainly be spare service buses, ai???run as directedai??? as the TTC calls them, to fill in where necessary.
Planning and Budgeting
The TTC board will receive three important reports in coming months that could have significant effects on the capital budget:
Ridership Growth Strategy: a plan for building ridership with a more attractive transit system. This will require more vehicles, but the lead time to provision buses (not to mention build a garage to house them) can be several years. All the will to improve service can founder through a lack of capital resources.
Bus Fleet Plan: related to the RGS or even to a ai???do nothingai??? approach to service. The TTC needs an updated view of its bus and streetcar needs, based on anticipated changes in demand, changing vehicle technologies and the shift of riders between modes as new LRT and subway services replace bus routes.
Renewal Plan for the Bloor-Danforth Subway (Line 2): Separately from the Scarborough extension, the BD line is 50 years old and in need of major overhaul for track, signals, fleet and maintenance shops.
As jobs and population return not just in the core area, but to other parts of the ai???oldai??? city like Liberty Village, there is a growing demand for travel. What are the options for moving more people by transit in areas where streets are clogged with motorists? There is little provision for this in the capital budget.
Other non-TTC projects (such as SmartTrack) compete for funding and these can elbow aside the more mundane, but badly needed, work on the existing transit system.
A structural problem with the TTC budget comes from the age of the subway system. For decades, many components have used up their design lives and some parts of the systemai??i??track, trains, escalatorsai??i??have been replaced once or more. Now with large segments of the subway over 40 years old, the bill is coming due on replacing major subsystems and structures. This effect is only dimly appreciated by members of the TTC board because only the highest priority subsystemai??i??signallingai??i??has attracted their attention through its cost and ongoing service interruptions.
As written, the 10-year plan gives no indication of the magnitude and timing of effects from these issues and policy decisions that they could trigger.
Paying for Transit
Money for transit projects comes from many sources including direct charges against taxes at all three government levels, from project-specific subsidies and from other levies such as development charges.
In recent years, City finance staff have become more creative in their approach to financing capital needs, and this includes measures that could have unexpected consequences. One example is a scheme, advanced in the budget presentation, that the savings from ai???efficienciesai??? could be used to finance debt for capital projects.
Suppose a new bus fleet is alleged to be more energy efficient and require less maintenance. These savings could help pay for the buses, even to the point of subsidizing a premium price.
However, the savings must actually materialize and be sustained over the life of the debt. If they are not, then there is an unfunded cost. If the energy or maintenance savings donai??i??t pan out, what pays down the debt? Problems with new bus technologies that failed to deliver on expectations (Compressed Natural Gas and Hybrids) are perfect examples.
Recently, purveyors of electric buses have suggested that their extra cost could be financed through savings compared to diesel buses. If that approach is taken, the savings could be completely eaten up to offset the extra vehicle cost.
More importantly, savings like these would normally offset rising operating costs. A new bus might use less fuel, or run forever without a tune-up. However, those savings will not translate to more service or lower fares because they will be scooped to pay down the debt. This is a subtle way to transfer capital costs to the operating budget and poach money that should be providing service or limiting fare increases.
One large potential funding source is the second phase of the federal Public Transit Infrastructure Fund, but this is not yet a done deal. Details of the next phase of PTIF remain uncertain, and the current phase extends only to March 2019.
For the City, there is a tricky balancing act. If PTIF money goes to a project that is now City-funded, then the City can recoup part of its contribution for use on other projects. However, if an unfunded project such as new trains for the BD line moves into the funded part of the plan, this requires net new City spending unless there are offsets elsewhere.
The TTCai??i??s plan gives no indication of which projects might be on their ai???wish listai??? for PTIF grants or how the timing of this funding would affect the staging of projects in the pipeline.
The capital budget and plan passed by TTCai??i??s budget committee is, at best, an outline of what capital spending could look like over the next decade, but it raises difficult questions about the number and scale of unfunded projects. This must be explored and explained in better detail to the full TTC board and to Council as it works through the 2018 budget.
Much vital work does not lend itself to photo ops nor to election campaign slogans, but Toronto ignores the growing backlog of transit repairs and renewal at its peril.
As TransLink wheezes along, planning two very expensive rapid transit projects, the Broadway SkyTrain subway under Broadway and the Surrey LRT, both projects are being built to suit a political timetable and not to provide good public transit. Both projects are being planned to be built to both subsidize developers and land speculators in their efforts in building massive multi story condominiums and to appease car users, by not taking away road space and or building new roads.
The question must be asked; “Why spend over $6.2 billion (that’s right, read on!) on two transit projects that will not reduce road congestion and may force more transit users into cars!
Subways, by there very nature are expensive to build, maintain and operate. So expensive that they are only built on transit routes with large traffic flows which demand both long trains and long station platforms to accommodate them.
*
Despite claims of high ridership on Broadway, it doesn’t equate to the present traffic flows that are present today. B-Line bus service, only has a mere 20 articulated buses per hour in the peak giving a capacity of under 2,500 pphpd; with the trolley bus service added, traffic flows on Broadway are less than 4,000 pphpd.
*
The minimum traffic flow recommended for a subway is 15,000 pphpd, which means the subway will be heavily subsidized, with money cannibalized from the rest of the transit system.
Subways also do not attract ridership and by their nature being user unfriendly, do not reduce congestion, in fact subways may increase congestion!
*
The cost of the proposed Broadway subway has now passed $3 billion (based on Toronto’s recent subway construction costs) and may approach $4 billion.
*
For $4 billion, we could build the Vancouver/Richmond to Chilliwack TramTrain; a road/rail bridge replacing the Patullo Bridge; and a Surrey Centre to Whiterock LRT, which would attract new ridership and help ease congestion.
*
The Regional Connector Transit Project is a long time missing link in LA’s LRT network. It will join the Blue, Gold and Expo LRT Lines together,Ai??all running throughAi??to LA’s Union Station,Ai??as well asAi??giving a direct connectionAi??to the Red/Purple Subway LineAi??and theAi??area’s Commuter Rail Network called Metrolink.
*
The cost of this 1.9 mile (3.04 KM) LRTAi??tunnel I imagine, is what has always kept it from being built. The total cost of this project is $1.756Ai??Billion (US).Ai??The tunnelAi??will haveAi??2 new obviously underground intermediate stations and has a direct connection to existingAi??underground 7th ST/Metro Center LRT stationAi??on the Blue Line and a relocated underground, Little Tokyo/ArtsAi??District Station on the Gold Line. The existing Little Tokyo/ArtsAi??District Station isAi??a surface LRT station.Ai??The project is being paid for by the 1 cent area sales tax and matching funding from the State of California and the FTA (Federal transit Administration) of the federal US government. This tunnel will see 88,000 riders a day passing through it 20,000 will be new to transit. The tunnel is already under construction and is set to open in early 2021.
*
The subway will prove to be very expensive to operate and maintain and in my humble opinion, not worth the money for 20,000 new transit riders, if they materialize at all, but in the United States, grossly overbuilt transit lines are the flavour of the past two decades.
*
That’s $924.2 Million/Mile (USD) or $577.6 Million/KM (US) or $780.5 Million/KM (CAN). Ottawa’s LRT Tunnel isAi??cheap in comparisonAi??at $286 Million/KM (CAN).
*
I have a link to LA’s Rapid Transit Map andAi??a link to theAi??Project’s Information Sheet.
The Surrey LRT is just being planned as a not so cheap “poor man’s” SkyTrain, taking all the ills that comes with the light-metro but forgetting all the positives of modern LRT. As a long time supporter of LRT, I am appalled at what TransLink has done with Surrey’s LRT!
*
A reminder that the Canada line was built on the cheap by the former Liberal government, due to spiraling subway construction costs. The Canada line has puny 40m long station platforms and can only operate 41 metre long trains, thus as built, the Canada Line has slightly more than one half the Capacity of the Expo and Millennium/Evergreen lines, which stations have 80m long platforms or longer. The cost today to increase the Capacity of the Canada line to match that of the E&M/E Lines is now about $1.5 billion!
The aging SkyTrain system is having many troubles today.
One of the big problems with expensive light-metro lines is the lack of redundancy in the system.
With the huge costs to build just one line, only one line is built, unlike mature light rail systems, where multiple lines offers redundancy in the system if problems develop with one line.
As most North American light rail lines are built like hugely expensive light-metro lines, the lack of redundancy also becomes an issue.
What is interesting, is that the GVRD in the 1970’s had planned for three east/west lines and two North South lines coming and going out of Vancouver, by the 21st century.
Such planning offered operational redundancy for the LRT network, thus further making the light rail lines user-friendly and of course, user friendliness is the top reason for attracting ridership to transit, especially the motorist from the car.
SkyTrain track issue causing delays for afternoon commuters
Commuters are seen waiting to take a bus after a SkyTrain track issue caused delays on Sep. 27.
Commuters planning on taking the SkyTrain out of downtown after work are being warned of some potential delays.
TransLink says thereai??i??s a switch problem affecting the Main Street station so no trains are running between Stadium and Commercial stations.
Stadium-Chinatown Station has been closed due to overcrowding as well as the HBC entrance to Granville Station.
Canada Line is also experiencing delays due to a train that had to be removed from the tracks at Marine Drive Station.
Spokesperson Chris Bryan said the delays are minor but as could disrupt the rush hour commute.
ai???I think about 15-20 minutes is pretty safe but if crowds get in as the afternoon rush continues, itai??i??s going to get pretty crowded.ai???
TransLink has put shuttle trains in place at both Stadium and Commercial Drive.
Commuter Melissa Jackson said sheai??i??s been waiting for more than an hour and has not moved so far, ai???Thereai??i??s no ETA so it might be an hour, it might be four.ai???
She said thereai??i??s a lot of miscommunication and things are getting tense.
ai???Shoulder to shoulder traffic. Thereai??i??s been a couple of outbursts and outbreaks, arguments, there are a couple of transit people but most of them have vacated because itai??i??s sort of turning into a semi-disgruntled mob mentality.ai???
So far thereai??i??s no timeline for when the issue will be fixed.
More to comeai??i??
Ai??Ai??2017Ai??Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.
As reported earlier, it has been announced that Siemens and Alstom will merge their rail units.
Time will tell how this will effect Bombardier Inc., but one thing is for certain, the merger will streamline their product line and with no sales in the past decade and a greatly diminishing demand for niche light-metros, how soon until ART or what we call SkyTrain will go the way of the Edsel?
Siemens and Alstom signed a Memorandum of Understanding to combine Siemensai??i?? mobility business, including its rail traction drives business, with Alstom. The transaction brings together two players of the railway market with unique customer value and operational potential.
Siemens will receive newly issued shares in the combined company representing 50% of Alstomai??i??s share capital on a fully diluted basis.
ai???This Franco-German merger of equals sends a strong signal in many ways. We put the European idea to work and together with our friends at Alstom, we are creating a new European champion in the rail industry for the long term. This will give our customers around the world a more innovative and more competitive portfolio,ai??? said Joe Kaeser, president/CEO of Siemens AG. ai???The global marketplace has changed significantly over the last few years. A dominant player in Asia has changed global market dynamics and digitalization will impact the future of mobility. Together, we can offer more choices and will be driving this transformation for our customers, employees, and shareholders in a responsible and sustainable way.ai???
ai???Today is a key moment in Alstomai??i??s history, confirming its position as the platform for the rail sector consolidation. Mobility is at the heart of todayai??i??s world challenges. Future modes of transportation are bound to be clean and competitive,ai??? said Henri Poupart-Lafarge, chairman/CEO of Alstom SA. ai???Thanks to its global reach across all continents, its scale, its technological know-how, and its unique positioning on digital transportation, the combination of Alstom and Siemens Mobility will bring to its customers, and ultimately to all citizens, smarter and more efficient systems to meet mobility challenges of cities and countries. By combining Siemens Mobilityai??i??s experienced teams, complementary geographies, and innovative expertise with ours, the new entity will create value for customers, employees, and shareholders.ai???
Closing is expected at the end of calendar year 2018.
The new entity will benefit from an order backlog of approximately $72.1 billion, revenue of approximately $17.6 billion, an adjusted EBIT of approximately $1.4 billion, and an adjusted EBIT-margin of 8%, based on information extracted from the last annual financial statements of Alstom and Siemens.
A single line in Montpellier, line T1, carriess over 130,000 weekday riders! And thatai??i??s with no tunnels, mostly street running.
Systems in Nantes, Bordeaux and Montpellier have ridership at or near 260,000 riders a day! That exceeds Boston.
The French do it right! What you get is: Simple OCS systems; grassy trackways; frequent headways (7A?>10 minutes or less); most of the important urban trip-generating venues served; most systems connect with the railway stations; much peripheral development along tram lines; tram/pedestrian-only zones; and clean, attractive trams.
Compared to metro Vancouver’s poor planning, it is impressive.
Hello everyone. In this video I talk about the tramway revival in France. What are the strengths of the tram? What it can promote in terms of use of means of transport and the attractiveness of urban centers. Since the 1980s, new tram networks have flourished throughout Europe, over fifty of them. The trend was initially shy, then it has undergone a much faster pace since the 2000s, to the point that it is no exaggeration to speak of real fashion.
It was in France that this phenomenon was born and tram networks have been developed the most over the past two decades, as the graph shows you on the screen. In 1983, there was in France only three tram networks left, or rather three tram lines, one in Lille, one in Marseille and one in Saint-Etienne. There was in 2012, 24 operated networks. The first network to have been achieved is the Nantes network, which was commissioned in 1985. It was followed by the Grenoble network in 1987, and the modern tramway, which was developed in AZle-de-France in 1992, then in 1994, the Strasbourg network was born. It was the first tram networks that have been made in France again.
Why such enthusiasm for the tramway? The modern tram, as rebuilt in many European cities, is part of a double movement. The one that first aims to promote the use of other means of transport that the car as part of everyday life, but also on the other hand, the desire to reclassify urban centers to make them more attractive to frequent, as well as live in. Thus in most urban areas where it was reintroduced, the tram was accompanied by an important urban requalification in the city center and a sharing of the road favorable to other modes of transport than the car.
Research on the introduction of a tram in a public transport network, show that it allows a growing number of users. Tram Assets are indeed many for the user: a much higher speed than the bus, high frequency shift during the day, evening and weekend, a smooth ride that allows to use one’s travel time to deploy activities, provided that we have a seat, usually quality foot paths to go to stops because of efforts to improve the ergonomics of the public space, and finally, easier memorizing the path of the lines due to the materialization of the tramway in the public space via the rails.
In France, in many cities that have reintroduced trams, there is also an increase in the number of inhabitants in the city centers. On the one hand, it appears that the tram favors real estate investments in the city, through the redevelopment of public spaces that accompanies it, on the other hand, there is also that the tram contributes to make more desirable to live in the city because the tram limits the dependence on cars by the quality of transport service it offers to residents. The effect of the introduction of the tram on the use of public transport is however very variable.
Statistics on the use of public transport update consequent differences according to the considered cities, and in particular, these figures show that the increase of the number of users five years after commissioning of a tram overall a network varies for France between + 18% and + 50%. This is what you see for example for a number of cities in the table you have before you. This suggests that the use of the tram is not mechanical. That is to say it is not enough to introduce a tram that it is used, even if in all agglomerations in which it was introduced in France, there is an increase in the use of public transport.
How can we explain these differences in the use of public transport following the commissioning of a tram? There are a number of factors related to the offer and the interaction of the offer with the context and the provisions of the resident population in a city that explains these differences. In the offer, there is first of all the commercial speed, following that it is low, 14 to 16 km / h or higher, more than 20km / h, there are differences in the use of the tram network, and more generally of public transport. There are also differences depending on the frequency if the frequencies are quite low, from 8 to 10 minutes, or high, from 3 to 5 minutes. This is also a factor which has an influence on the use.
The fact that the network is unified in its quality, that is to say, we offer almost the same frequencies, the same amplitude sideboards the evenings and weekends throughout the network, or only on the tram network, and that therefore there would be a public transport offer of two speeds, a high-quality service on tram lines, and a lower quality of service on the bus network, it also has an impact on the use of public transport. Another effect that has an impact on the use of trams: is that the lines are saturated or do they offer the comfort of a seat, This allows using one’s time. This is particularly the case when using public transport during off-peak hours. Finally, the link with urban planning and urban development, the question is also to know if the tram lines that have been developed, serve the agglomeration in which the offer was extended, completely or only partially.
Or in other words: how is made the joint between the public transport system and urbanization, Can we go anywhere with public transport, or otherwise, are only some parts of the metropolitan area available? That is also a factor that plays a central role in the greater or lesser use of public transport, especially when there is introduction of a tram. And of course, last factor that plays a role: the issue of reliability. Does generaly, schedules are respected. You understood through the examples I’ve shown you, tram networks in France were often allowed to revalue cities and it is even often their main function. This is the case for example in Bordeaux, a city that is often considered as exemplary of this view. A high quality in the fields which have been cited in this video makes it possible for people to deploy its lifestyle using public transport and it makes attractive the attendance of urban spaces, whether recreational or for habitat.
In this sense, the redeployment of tramway networks in France as much about the planning issues that of transportation issues, although of course and as I noted in this video, there is also an interest in the field of transport to develop these infrastructures since in all the cities where these networks have been redeployed, there is an increase in the use of public transport.
Given by Vincent Kaufmann est professeur de sociologie urbaine et dai??i??analyse des mobilitAi??s Ai?? lai??i??Ecole Polytechnique FAi??dAi??rale de Lausanne (EPFL).
This could be game changer for Bombardier’s rail division and a big game changer for transit planning in Metro Vancouver.
If the Siemens and Alstom merger goes through, it could mean those expensive ART, monorail, and other proprietary transit modes currently marketed by Bombardier Inc. may be chopped from production as a newAi?? “rail” reality emerges from Europe.
If this merger takes place (I stress if) Metro Vancouver’s and TransLink’s planning for further SkyTrain extensions, especially for the Broadway subway, will be for naught, as Bombardier starts to terminate production of non profitable transit modes to remain competitive.Ai?? Very soon, there maybe may be no SkyTrain cars available, unless custom built (very expensive), for Metro Vancouver’s rapid transit planning.
In essence, with Metro Vancouver and TransLink still planning for ART SkyTrain, it will like planning to buy a new Edsel, trouble is, they don’t make it no more!
French fast-train maker confirms itai??i??s negotiating with Siemens
Franco-German train deal could be announced early next week
Alstom SA said itai??i??s in talks with Germanyai??i??s Siemens AG about a possible combination of their rail businesses, a tie-up that would bring together two former European arch-rivals and leave Canadaai??i??s Bombardier Inc. exposed to cut-throat competition from China.
The boards of Siemens and Alstom are scheduled to meet early next week to approve the deal, which may be announced as early as Tuesday, according to people familiar with the matter, who asked not to be identified because the talks are private. The German company would transfer its rolling material and signaling businesses to its French counterpart in exchange for a stake of about 50 percent in the enlarged Alstom, said the people.
ai???No final decision has been made, discussions are ongoing and no agreement has been reached,ai??? Alstom said in a statement Friday,Ai?? confirming a Bloomberg News report the previous day that the two engineering firms are in talks. Siemens, based in Munich, acknowledged Alstomai??i??s statement and also said that no decision has been reached.
President Emmanuel Macronai??i??sAi??government signaled hours earlier that it supports deeper Franco-German corporate ties, suggesting a potential deal has political backing. The announcement also comes ahead of German elections on Sunday, which Chancellor Angela Merkel has run on a platform of political and economic stability and closer ties across Europe.
Surprise Twist
An agreement between the makers of the French and German TGV and ICE high-speed trains that criss-cross their countries adds a surprise twist to negotiations in the global train industry seeking to consolidate. Montreal-based Bombardier had also been in talks with Siemens about combining the companiesai??i?? rail divisions. Talks had centered on two joint ventures, one on the signaling operations and one on rolling stock, people familiar with the negotiations have said.
ai???Bombardier reiterates that its approach to industry consolidation is to
consider multiple options and to weigh them based on their potential to create
value for shareholders,ai??? the company said in a statement. ai???We will not comment on specific initiatives involving our competitors.ai???
Siemens and Bombardier had been nearing a deal toward the end of August, but those talks stalled over concerns including some perceived challenges faced by the Canadian parent including its plane business, the people said. The Canadian firm still sees the rationale of a rail tie up, which wouldai??i??ve been based in Germany, though it also sees the benefit of retaining the cash flow generated from the rail business, the people said. A Franco-German deal, which had been discussed on and off, has the support of the French and German governments as they seek to create European champions, some of the people said.
Bombardier Falls
Alstom shares rose 4.1 percent to 33.01 euros in Paris, the highest close in 4 1/2 years that took market value to 7.3 billion euros ($8.7 billion). Siemens fell 0.8 percent to 116.55 euros while Bombardier dropped 4.6 percent to C$2.26.
The talks for a tie-up come as all three companies are facing increased competition for contracts from industry leader CRRC Corp. of China, formed from a 2015 merger of the countryai??i??s two main regional train makers. During the past few months, Alstom, Bombardier and Siemens executives have spoken about the need for consolidation in the industry, while declining to comment specifically about any possible agreements.
ai???Weai??i??re watching French-German talks,ai???Ai??French cabinet spokesman Christophe Castaner said Friday when asked about Siemens and Alstom. ai???We have to see the terms but it is important to reinforce our industry with Franco-German unity.ai???
Airbus Model
The model for such cooperation between the euro zoneai??i??s two biggest economies is Airbus SE, the Toulouse-based aircraft manufacturer founded in 1970Ai??and formed from companies from four European countries that went on to become the biggest competitor to Boeing Co. Macron, who won power in May by defending closer European ties, has repeatedly said that cross-border cooperation in the region offers the best way to tackle issues ranging from industrial development to immigration and defense. The French and German governments each own about 11 percent of Airbus.
Closer ties could be in the offing in the banking sector as well, with French lender BNP Paribas among the European banks that could buy Germanyai??i??s Commerzbank AG, according to reports this week.
Merkel also weighed in this year when Franceai??i??s PSA Group acquired German automaker Opel from General Motors Co. After PSA gave assurances that existing labor agreements would be honored, Merkelai??i??s government didnai??i??t stand in the way of the deal, which was completed last month.
ai???We are watching these potential tie-ups,ai??? Castaner said of the possible rail and banking deals. ai???There are no concerns if it is not done to the detriment of jobs.ai??? The German government doesnai??i??t comment on talks or company negotiations as a matter of principle, according to a spokesman for the government in Berlin.
Overlap
Siemens and Bombardierai??i??s rail operations have significant overlap in Europe, especially Germany, where the Bombardier unit is based. An agreement between those two companies would have raised the likelihood of asset sales to allay regulatory concerns, and possible job cuts. Alstom has been under pressure from the French government to retain jobs, and was prevented from halting production at a site in the eastern part of the country last year.
A deal with Alstom would be in keeping with Siemens Chief Executive Officer Joe Kaeserai??i??s moves toward a more holding-like structure for the German conglomerate, giving autonomy to units while still being centrally managed. Siemens is now laying plans to carve out the health-care division called Healthineers after combining its renewables business with that of a Spanish rival to form majority-owned Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy SA.
Le Monde reported earlier on Friday that Siemensai??i?? rail and signaling assets assets would be valued at around 7 billion euros ($8.3 billion) and Alstom would issue new shares to Siemens as part of the transaction. The two companies are also discussing an option to increase their stakes in the future, one person familiar said.
Alstom became a transport-focused company after selling most of its energy assets to General Electric Co. in 2015. At the time, Siemens had made a counteroffer for Alstom that included combining its train operations.
As part of the GE deal, construction and telecom company Bouygues SA lent a stake of 20 percent to the French state and retained 8.3 percent. Between Oct. 5-17, the government has a one-time option to buy a portion of the borrowed stake — 15 percent — at around market price. Past that period, Bouygues will reclaim the shares the government hasnai??i??t bought.
NO, we are not talking ‘pole dancing’ but another kind of ‘pole’ dance happening in Toronto.
The use of panto-graphs or “pans” for the collection of electrical power has been around a long time and now it is Toronto’s turn to switch from the old trolley pole to a modern pan.
Sadly, some of our American friends seem upset at this, as they cherish the old trolley pole. They will light their collective hair on fire if ever an “APS” third rail power collection system is used for trams in American cities!
The Massey Tunnel Bridge replacement project is again in the news, as the massively expensive replacement bridge for the Massey tunnel has been mothballed.
Now, the CBC has found hugely expensive financial irregularities with the new Port Mann Bridge, and the air of political corruption hangs heavily in the air.
Was the proposed mega bridge to replace he Massey Tunnel nothing more than Liberal corruption on steroids?
Real reason for span disappears but Delta continues campaign
Delta Optimist
August 30, 2017
Editor:
Delta’s propaganda campaign to garner support for the proposed mega bridge replacing the perfectly safe George Massey Tunnel is in full swing.
Delta’s Politics and Misinformation Must Not Stop. The Bridge campaign is repugnant due to its long list of Trump style fake news and alternative facts.
A proper study for replacing the tunnel with a bridge would take a year or more to do. Delta’s “back of an envelope” review took less than a month to do and is poorly done as a result.
The replacement bridge was never about traffic congestion, rather it was to allow Panama-max tankers and colliers up the Fraser to Surrey Fraser Docks and no plans were made to reduce traffic at the Oak Street Bridge and Knight Street Bridge choke points. If anything, the proposed new bridge would create massive gridlock in Richmond.
As the real reasons for the bridge evaporated, Mayor Lois Jackson doubled down with another “back of an envelope” plan by hijacking the Rail for the Valley’s Leewood Study, for a Vancouver/Richmond to Chilliwack TramTrain service, for her pro-bridge propaganda campaign.
The study released in 2010 took over a year to prepare by real transportation professionals, providing a cost effective Vancouver/Richmond to Chilliwack passenger rail, using TramTrain service for the Lower Mainland.
The study never planned for LRT service across the proposed bridge, nor would a meandering rail line using the proposed bridge be viable.
Unless there was direct service to Vancouver, any rail service using the bridge (which will not have rail built in) would fail miserably.
Instead of a ruinously expensive bridge, the mayor should concern herself with Surrey’s $2.5-billion LRT, where two-thirds of the cost is being spent on roads and utilities for favoured land developers and speculators along the LRT route and the now $3 billion Broadway SkyTrain subway, which the route today has a quarter of traffic flows, needed to justify subway construction. Both are financial time bombs.
The mayor should support practical and cost-effective transit and transportation solutions and not massively expensive vanity projects that will do little real good except pauper the taxpayer.
Due to their high construction and operating costs, subways are only built on the heaviest used transit routes, with traffic flows in excess of 15,000 pphpd. Broadway has transit traffic flows less than 4,000 pphpd!
The new NDP government must reassess TransLink’s grand transit schemes and the lack of any real regional transit planning, except for their two grossly expensive vanity projects.
The Broadway subway, a classic Vancouver “vanity project“, now rumored to cost around $4 billion, will offer no real advantage to transit customers, yet greatly increase the cost of providing transit in the region by sucking money from other transit operations. The Vancouver mayor is already on record saying “subway make world class city“.
Surrey’s LRT, is so badly planned that it has become a “poor man’s” SkyTrain, taking all of the light-metro’s bad points and none of LRT’s positive points. The rumoured cost of Surrey’s LRT is now well over $100 million/km, with two thirds of the cost paying for new road construction and putting utilities underground. Surrey’s LRT is nothing more than a major roads project with rails, built to subsidize land developers and land speculators who acquired properties adjacent to the road/tram project!
TransLink is also planning to reduce the scope of LRT construction by extending SkyTrain to Langley, as it costs only slightly more to build according to planners (but not experts), which will bring a host of new and expensive problems to the at capacity Expo Line.
The many problems facing regional transit, include:
Ai??The Expo Line is at or near its legal capacity of its Transport Canada operating certificate and needs about $3 billion in renovations, station enlargements, new electrical supply and guideway maintenance or replacements.
The bus system forces customers onto SkyTrain, forcing unwanted transfers, which makes the transit user unfriendly and deters ridership.
The Canada Line has effectively half the capacity of the Expo, Millennium/Evergreen Lines and needs a minimum of $1.5 billion investment to increase capacity to match the rest of the ALRT/ART transit system.
TransLink operates the transit system as if it were the 1950’s and ignores 21st century solutions.
The Patullo Bridge replacement only caters to New Westminster’s wishes and not the regions and will have only four lanes and no rail bridge. TransLink again, misses a golden opportunity to meaningfully change peoples commuting habits.
There is no redundancy in the system and as the light-metro system goes down, TransLink is very slow to respond, leaving customers stranded.
TransLink desperately wants to introduce mobility pricing for cars, yet continues to squander billions of dollars on very bad transit planning and dubious transit construction.
TransLink’s senior management remain isolated from the public and spend more time, inventing new fibs to hide their incompetence.
Transit planning is based on political diktat and not consumer based. The transit customer does not like what TransLink forces on them.
There has been no realistic modal shift from car to transit in the past thirty years. Over 80% of SkyTrain’s ridership is recycled bus riders and buses are extremely poor in attracting the motorist from the car.
The GVRD planned a road/rail/LRT bridge to replace the Patullo in the late 1970's. There is no such forward thinking today.
And the list goes on and it is no wonder that 65% of the regions taxpayers treat TransLink like a pustular sore.
There is no future for regional transit in Metro Vancouver until provincial and civic politicians, their planners and engineers plan transit to meet the needs of transit consumers and not political friends and insiders including land speculators and land developers.
There is no future for regional transit in Metro Vancouver, until the universities, most notably Simon Fraser University start teaching modern regional transportation and not largely disputed transit theories decades old. If European Universities offer degrees in Urban Transportation, why not UBC and SFU?
In the 21st Century, public transport is seen as a product and if the product is good, people will use it but if the product is bad, people will not; this credo is from one of the most popular and dynamic public transit systems in the world, in Karlsruhe Germany.
It is time the provincial government compels TransLink to do the same.
A "Bistro" TramTrain" in Karlsruhe Germany, meets the customer's demands for longer distant trips.
By Estefania Duran and Matt Lee CKNW
Siemens and Alstom signed a Memorandum of Understanding to combine Siemensai??i?? mobility business, including its rail traction drives business, with Alstom. The transaction brings together two players of the railway market with unique customer value and operational potential.
Tours
Nice
Paris
A new Toronto tram and its advertising for Sapporo beer.
Recent Comments