An Open Letter To The NDP & Leader John Horgan

Three Minutes Into The Future!

More wise words from Mr. ‘Haveacow’ who is an extremely experienced transit planner working on Ottawa’s new regional light rail line.

This was originally a post from the recent Calgary blog and contains a wealth of information that the powers that be don’t really want in the public realm.

What this boils down to is that the Expo and millennium Lines need a lot of investment for modernization, investment that will come from the expense of the Metro and Fraser Valley region.

As one transit expert told Zwei decades ago,”you can get any transit system to do anything you want , if you throw enough money at it.” The problem is, of course, the money thrown at the transit system generally comes from other transit projects.

This begs the question; “How much money is the taxpayer willing throw at SkyTrain”?

An Historical note: The initial ALRT line from Vancouver to New Westminster was originally designed to have a third “express line” through less well used stations, such as Royal Oak or 22nd Ave., to decrease travel time. Zwei was told by a retired GVRD planner some years ago that there were supposed to be five such stations along the route and the plan was to cut almost 10 minutes off the travel time in the peak hour, end to end. Cost constraints and signalling issues sidelined any thought of this type of operation.

Over to you, Mr. Cow!

 

Technically Skytrain can be expanded to do 28,000+ p/h/d. Actually any existing rapid transit system can be expanded to handle much greater passenger capacities. The real issue is how much you want to spend to do that.
Skytrain could with existing technology upgrade its signaling systems to a state of the art, high capacity multiple independent moving blocks signaling system with the newest version of Bombardierai??i??s City Flo 650 Automation System operating as the system governor. But thatai??i??s expensive and Translink is only and very begrudgingly doing some of this, mostly because of cost issues and the time required.

Problem/Issue#1:

The electrical handling capacity of the system needs to be upgraded. Meaning, the existing electrical transformers (hidden behind the doors at nearly every station and what is mostly responsible for the mysterious size of most stations on the ground floor) needs to be upgraded in capacity or new ones have to be built and the corresponding cabling replaced, as well as the replacement of many of the systemai??i??s third rails and third rail connecting joints with each other and the cabling (canai??i??t remember the technical name right now). Translink is trying to do this but its expensive and very time consuming however, it can easily be done at night when the system is closed and doesnai??i??t necessarily. This is the first step in signal upgrades.

Problem/issue #2:

Next spending at a minimum of $500-700 Million and about 2-5 years with multiple daytime shutdowns to completely replace all the existing signaling software and hardware as well as the signals themselves. Toronto is replacing its 60 year old signaling system on line#1 (Yonge-University Spadina-York Subway Line). Its taken 4 years so far with major portions of the line getting shutdown on the weekends. This weekend its Lawrence Station to Yonge and Bloor, (the busiest stretch of rapid transit line in Canada and 2nd busiest in North America during peak hours). But it must be done to improve the lines top capacity limit and to keep the overall network in good repair. The traditional time the TTC does maintenance projects, the 6.5-7 hours a week from closing time Saturday night/Sunday morning to the traditional late start Sunday morning at 9am is just not enough time. So every weekend or at least every second weekend a section of the line is taken out of service to replace the thousands of kmai??i??s of cables and signaling infrastructure. Fall 2017 is the expected completion date.

Next, add new centre platforms to existing stations and or adding centre tracks with new passenger platforms either side and move the existing tracks to the outside wall limit which is also expanded. Except for the highest use stations, this eliminates the need to lengthen platforms and is cheaper optioin when dealing with an above grade rapid transit system.

Problem/Issue #3:

Man this time consuming and expensive and you really have to do step 1 and 2 first but it can work. Translink is doing a station by station approach which means it may have most of the original stations on the Expo line upgraded by 2041. Time to do all the stations depends on budgets and assuming we survive the asteroid impact we will be subject to in 2048 (Iai??i??m a back yard astronomer each time a particular well know asteroid passes by us it keeps getting closer and closer, Iai??i??m not kidding). However, after several expected close fly bys in 2020ai???s and 2030ai???s due to gravitational sheer, may change the final date or it may cause it to miss us altogether, we will see. Anyway back to point.

There are other issues such as, as your above grade Skytrain lines age, the structure between the stations will need significant structural upgrade. The longer you wait the bigger the bill. Translink has no budget or plan to deal with this issue. As we (me and employees of the company I was consulting with at the time) asked during our visit to there control centre a few years ago while we presented to the staff pieces of concrete right of way we found around Metrotown Station. What is your long term plan to deal with Expo lineai??i??s above grade structural renewal proposals we asked? Their answers were polite and diplomatic but you could tell we caught them off guard. It all depends on budgets and the availability time capital was the answer, so no plan until they have enough cash I guess.

Lastly, as any rapid transit system gets bigger and bigger, the cheap and easy to build lines will generally get built first. Each extension or new line becomes relatively speaking more and more expensive (regardless of inflation). Its not Translinkai??i??s fault this generally happens on any system, you pick the low hanging fruit first! Many of the new lines like the Millennium Lineai??i??s Broadway extension to Arbutus and eventually UBC, are very expensive (because of the tunnel) and will only produce for now and even into the future, meager passenger numbers. In my humble professional opinion, the overly optimistic predictions of Translink will never produce the numbers really needed to justify a below grade Skytrain line that costs only 20% less per km than a late, over budget, subway line in Toronto that will daily handle twice the capacity of the planned Skytrain line, using the present 60 year old signaling system not the new one which is being installed on the rest of the line and that will be ready to go when this extension is complete. All these cost predictions for the Broadway Extension are based on 6 year old planning data which needs to be seriously upgraded and will most likely go up in cost per km as well.

There are very few other justifiable new line opportunities for the Skytrain System given current ridership and corridor passenger levels. There are some extensions planned or being discussed. One is the killing of the very poorly thought out LRT line in Surrey and replacing it Skytrain extension but it brings about another issue that is not thought about in Vancouver yet but Toronto and Montreal have been facing for a while, that is the geographic scale of the service area. You can extend the Skytrain in Surrey but even Skytrainai??i??s for Surrey, ai???Darylai???, missed this little issue. If you build the extension of the Skytrain as designed by Translink and Daryl you will have to sit for an hour just to get to the other side of the line, which is downtown. This still seems to be the largest passenger destination for the system. It will take an hour because of all the other existing stops you already have in between Surrey Skytrain extension and downtown Vancouver. You could have a local/ express train system operation but unless track infrastructure is severely upgraded, it just canai??i??t happen. So a change in operational technology is needed, more commuter rail/regional rail or Zweiai??i??s Tram Trains operation. Both Toronto and Montreal learned a long time ago you canai??i??t extend subway/metro lines outward until they are 30-40 miles long its just too expensive to build and operate. Not to mention there would be just too many stations stops between where people want to go and where they will be getting on. Adding express services is expensive and difficult and ultimately lowers capacity. Even heavier capacity LRT lines have a distance/travel time limit. So soon a new form of longer distance rapid transit will be needed for Vancouverai??i??s outer areas you canai??i??t keep building Skytrain further and further out its also way too expensive to build and you still suffer the distance/time penalty for potential passenger numbers. So yes a change in rapid transit operating technology, due to the geographic operating scale, for the outer portions of your region is most likely imminent.

New Jersey’s River Line

New Jersey’s River Line, using diesel light rail TramTrains, enables to provide a quality transit service on a predominantly single track rail line.

The River Line could be a template for several rail services, both in metro Vancouver and Vancouver Island, track-sharing with lightly used freight lines.

Calgary’s C-Train Development & Operating Costs

First published in 2009

A note from Zwei: These costs were taken directly from Calgary Transit, which once had a fine web page giving accurate statistics about the C-Train, unlike TransLink and BC Transit, which hid the real costs in a baffle-gab of nonsense and phony news releases. One did not need a F.O.I. to get actual operating costs!

At the time the Calgary C-Train carried more customers daily than SkyTrain and that an “apples to apples” comparison showed that LRT was indeed much cheaper to operate than SkyTrain. It also goes a long way explaining why Bombardier Inc. refused to let SkyTrain compete directly against light rail and why no one builds with SkyTrain today!

C-Trainai??i??s Development and Operating Costs

Total system development costs to date: $548 M Original cost of vehicle acquisition/unit: $1.2 M Current vehicle replacement cost: $3.9 M Total costs of track construction per meter: above ground $30,000 below ground $35,000 at grade $15,000 Average costs per station: $2.1 M Cost of Rail Control facilities: $3.1M Vehicle Maintenance costs: $13.9M (2006) Station Maintenance costs: $2.8M (2006) Right of Way Maintenance costs: $2.9M (2006) Signals Maintenance costs: $2.4M (2006) Average annual power costs: $4.8M (2006) Annual LRV Operator wages: $6.0M (includes fringe benefits of 21.57%) (2006)

What is interesting is that Calgaryai??i??s C-Train operating costs in, 2006, was nearly $33 million, while SkyTrainai??i??s annual operating costs during the same period was nearly $80 million (not including the $157 million provincial subsidy) and Calgaryai??i??s light rail system carried more passengers! The Interurban, by comparison would be far cheaper to operate on an annual basis.

Karlsruhe’s longest tramtrain route – The 210 km Route S4

Classic single track TramTrain operation through a rural village.

I am updating this post due to a series of recent posts on Facebook and other transit oriented blogs.

Karlsruhe’s TramTrain 210 km route S-4 travels through the sparely populated Schwarzwald or Black forest region of Southern Germany. There are no musings about “not enough density” for the Karlsruhe TramTrain there!
The (AVG) Albtal-Verkehrs-Gesellschaft GmbH- Karlsruhe’s longest tramtrain route – S4

 

The AVG’s longest run is now a 210km (130 mile) S4 service from Ohringen through central Karlsruhe to Achern, south-west of Baden-Baden. The TramTrain route uses DB mainlines, regional railway lines and on-street running in various cities.

The above map gives the various routes of Karlsruhe’s famous TramTrain network;Ai??largely in an area of comparable density and population of Vancouver and the Fraser Valley. This something to think about when planners and politicians claim: “There isn’t the density in the Fraser Valley to support ‘rail’ transit.”

 

Over to You Mr. Cow – The Vancouver Sun’s Recent “Puff” SkyTrain Story

This comment from Mr. Cow deserves a post of its own as there is so much information here, it deserves a wider audience.

As Mr. Cow is a Canadian Transit Engineer, his comments are well worth reading.

When SkyTrain ‘crapped-out’ in the Summer of 2014

there were no drivers or attendants to oversee the evacuation

Ai??of stalled trains, leaving it a free for all for transit customers.

This would not happen with an at-grade LRT with drivers.

********************************************

The point of whether what is more efficient in a study of metros vs light metros is really irrelevant when you are comparing LRT to Light metros. The real problem here is that regardless of how efficient the system is theory or another country with an entirely different operating regime, in Canada there are some realities that canai??i??t be ignored. The people who run Skytrain at Translink and the BC rapid Transit Co. canai??i??t just unilaterally decide to run trains at a greater frequency. They already run at the limit their Safety and Operations Certificate allows them. They have to apply to Transport Canada if they want to change the conditions on that Certificate. Its not just a certificate although there is one issued, its really a whole series of reports and safety test that they actually get tested on.

The last one and I know because my ex neighbor (advantages of living in Ottawa) was one of the people who put your transit people through their paces to allow their current limit of 109 seconds, said that to increase frequency or reduce your headway further Translink would have to correct the safety faults and concerns they found in their last report. There were many small ones, there usually is however, a few main ones were as follows. The lack of electrical current capacity on all lines to run more trains. This requires significant electrical upgrades, which were planned but there is currently no money for to implement, especially on the Expo Line. All the signaling software and hardware is in need of attention and upgrade, the last major one was in the 1990ai???s. That program was temporarily sidelined to provide capital funding for Translinkai??i??s Evergreen Line. The system that monitors track intrusions and restarts the basic computer operating systems after shutdowns, needs urgent upgrade. This was not only identified by Transport Canada but by the report investigating the shutdown and stopages on the system in 2015. That work is only beginning now because only a portion of the $10+ Million for electrical panel upgrades, track/diode hardware replacement and connectors, as well as a whole whack of new computer software and hardware plus other minor administrative improvements have been provided. Again budget issues and a backlog of other deferred maintenance and upgrades partly due again, to needing money for the Evergreen Line project. The report also identified several upgrades/replacement for 3 double track crossovers and a multitude of conversions of slow speed turnouts into higher speed turnouts. That will require more capital funding but also a great deal of extra maintenance time (as in extended shutdowns of certain track sections during normal operating hours).

The biggest part of Transport Canadaai??i??s long term concerns was the insufficient resources being spent on operational costs. Remember to get enough money in the budget to run trains during peak period at frequencies of up to 109 seconds, Translink had to cut back evening and late night service on those same lines. The reports from Transport Canada will a require a Freedom of Information Request to Translink. that is one for each report to access them. The report used to be available here in Ottawa but cuts made by the Harper government to stored information at Transport Canadaai??i??s Library and Report Storage System was cut to the bone and may or may not exist anymore. The operational reality is really quite different from reports and studies.

Actually, here is Ottawaai??i??s main reason for not adopting the Skytrain technology and choosing LRT which is from the 2009 Rail System Selection Report Executive Summary. It is very similar to what zwei said:

ai???The choice of technology determines the future flexibility of a transportation network within Ottawa. By developing a Light Metro style system, the core will meet its capacity prediction targets and have sufficient margin for growth beyond the prediction; but the report finds that the potential although very high, ultimately however, capacity within the core may not warrant such a systemai???.

Also:

ai???The implementation of a high capacity light metro style system may divide Ottawaai??i??s transportation network into a set of fragmented, unconnected and disparate transportation modes, which will multiply staff costs, overheads, maintenance and spares and maintenance facilities. This fragmentation will also cause numerous onward transfers between transport modes for daily passengers moving into the core from the suburbs. The choice of a Light Metro system will effectively increase transportation costs due to the much higher costs of segregation for the outlying suburbs, which will result in lower efficiencies of running and potentially higher ticket costsai???.

Finally:

Light Rail is recommended as the technology choice for deployment in Ottawa as it: ai??? Provides the necessary capacity for the ridership predictions in the main core, ai??? Can accommodate low passenger capacity in the extensions outside of the main core, ai??? Results in less fragmentation of the network, reducing the need for onward transfers, ai??? Has less impact on the urban fabric and allows the ability to build a non-segregated system in the Greenbelt, ai??? Has lower system capital costs with Light Metro, ai??? Has comparatively lower life time operating and maintenance costs with Light Metro, ai??? Allows better integration of technology for the Carling-Lincoln Fieldai??i??s corridor. ai??? Provides greater network flexibility and promotes development of the transportation network in the core, ai??? Is a proven design, and ai??? Is more suited for the climate in Ottawa.ai???

 

A final note from Zwei. There has never been a credible system analysis of light-metro (SkyTrain) and light rail in the region. All four light-metro lines were built by provincial diktat, by the then sitting premier.

1. Expo Line – Premier Bennett (Social Credit)
2. Millennium Line – Premier Clark (NDP)
3. The Canada Line – Premier Campbell (BC Liberal Party)
4. The unfinished portion of the Millennium Line, the Evergreen line – Premier Campbell/Premier ClarkAi?? (BC Liberal Party)

The often used quote; “You are going to get SkyTrain whether you like it or not.”

More SkyTrain “Puff “Stories From the Vancouver Sun

The Vancouver Sun is famous for its ‘puff'” stories about SkyTrain but with each “puff” story comes little slips and new information.

870 employees seems a lot for a “driverless” system, which was sold to the public that it had fewer employees, thus cheaper to operate than light rail. Somewhat inconveniently, SkyTrain costs about 40% more to operate than comparable light rail systems and is one of the main reasons no one buys it.

Loving the idea of driverless trains means higher subsidies must be paid to keep the driverless train in operation.

It seems Ms. King, a career bureaucrat and not a transit specialist, by loving driverless trains, also loves the idea of higher taxes to build and operate them!

The whole idea of the story is to lull the public to really like SkyTrain, as the Vancouver Sun has done for the past 35 years.

Funny that a far more useful story would be to find out why only seven of these proprietary railways have been built in almost 40 years? But then, that would mean investigative reporting and that Ms. Sinoski would actually have to some research into the subject. Not so with “puff” stories; easy to write and it pleases editors and advisors.

Somehow, I do not think that the public will be that easily fooled.

SkyTrain boss attempts to put human face on Metro Vancouver transit

Kelly Sinoski
More from Kelly Sinoski

Published on: August 7, 2016

She loves the idea of driverless trains, but new SkyTrainAi??boss Vivienne KingAi??is on a mission toAi??give transit a more human face.

She has already startedAi??by asking her 870 staff members ai??i??Ai??engineers, maintenance workers and SkyTrain attendants ai??i??Ai??to wear name badges as they go about their work. AndAi??next month, on Sept. 8, King, whoAi??also wears a badge, willAi??join SkyTrain attendants and her vice-president of engineering at Waterfront to greetAi??the travelling public before visiting other stations.

ai???They can come and say hello and tell me their worries if they want,ai??? sheAi??said.Ai??ai???Itai??i??s all about putting a face to this business. I want customers to know there are people running their railway. The first thing is that our staff is actually going to get out of the office and meet the people.ai???

She acknowledges it wonai??i??t be easy changing the perception. As the new president of TransLink subsidiary B.C. Rapid Transit Co. ai??i??Ai??the entity responsible for the SkyTrain, Canada Line and the new Evergreen Line ai??i??Ai??King will have to weather the persistent negativity surrounding the beleaguered transportation system.

Indeed, before she took the job, there were a series of shutdowns on the SkyTrain, and a failed transportation plebiscite, in which the public rejected a proposed 0.5 per cent sales tax that would have generated more funding for transit expansion. Most recently, King faced flak over an in-house commissioned analysis that flagged increasing risks on the SkyTrain system,Ai??mostly the 30-year-old Expo Line.

 

 

ai???I was very disappointed. That was a good report because it highlighted some things for us and they have all been modified,ai??? she said. ai???Itai??i??s aging but itai??i??s not unsafe.Ai??I remember when I first started, people would go on ai???Oh SkyTrain, it breaks down all the time.Ai??That comes from bad publicity, everything like that resonates with people.ai???

Much of itAi??comes down to improving customer service, which ultimately falls on the fleetai??i??sAi??262 full- and part-time SkyTrain attendants, she said. But thatAi??in itself is a challenge because most of the publicAi??donai??i??t know exactly what theAi??attendantsAi??do.

When KingAi??first arrived, for instance, she thought the attendants ai??i??Ai??wearingAi??black shirts ai??i??Ai??were security guards, and, more than once, has had to question workersAi??on their behaviour. In one case, she was curious why an attendant was standing at the end of a platform looking disinterested, only to learn he was ensuring the track was safe after an intrusion alarm. In another, she confronted a worker whoAi??was standing with his back to the transit passengers and staring out the glass of the station. He told her he was waiting for a visually impaired passenger.

She has since suggestedAi??the uniformsAi??be changed toAi??blue, andAi??thatAi??orangeAi??safety vests be wornAi??byAi??workers who are dealing with issues other than customer service. ai???I tell them ai???youai??i??re the front face of our organization so what you do is what the customers think of all of us,’ai??? King said.

King maintains theAi??attendantsAi??are the ai???eyes and earsai??? of the system,Ai??trainedAi??to do everything from helping passengers to resolving conflicts and manually resetting and driving stalled trains. King once pressed theAi??yellowAi??emergency strip in a train car when a manAi??was shouting, swearing and had wet himself, and then started harassing passengers. An attendant came on at the next stop and helped to remove the passenger.

ai???I was uncomfortable so I can imagine how my customers felt. It was a test for meAi??because I wantedAi??to see what would happen,ai??? sheAi??said. ai???If anyone says we should get rid of the SkyTrain attendants, the public should say no.Ai??They are our backup security system.ai???

King, who regularly travels the transit system, said itai??i??s important to let the public know whoai??i??sAi??behind the transit system, so they understand when stations have to be closed or bus bridges set up while work is being done to upgrade the rails. As one of her first measures, King has ordered a new inspection regime of the SkyTrain system that will see the entire line ai??i??Ai??rather than one-third at a time ai??i??Ai??inspected every year,Ai??while also seeking regular upgrades for the inner workings of the track, including the wires, electrical connectionsAi??andAi??switches.

ai???Iai??i??d been through the experience where trains were failing because they werenai??i??t maintained on time,ai??? she said. ai???This is the backbone of Vancouver, we mobilize this whole city.Ai??We have to be able to maintain it at a level thatai??i??s going to keep it running for the next 30 years. Keeping it in a state of good repair is critical to any good rail.ai???

ksinoski@postmedia.com

Rail for the Valley – Where do we go from here?

It has been six years since the release of the Leewood Study,Ai?? yet to date most regional politicians do not even realize that it exists.

Internationally, the Leewood Study is a winner, featured in two international transportation magazines, locally though the Leewood Study has been ignored or discredited by neanderthal thinking municipal politicians.

There are various reason for this, but to sum up why, one word comes to mind; “inconvenient“.

The Leewood Study was inconvenient because it contradicted current transit planning dogma and the love affair with expensive light-metro vanity projects and its bastard child, densification.

The Leewood Study provided a term of reference for a 130 km Vancouver to Chilliwack rail service using with light diesel multiple units or TramTrain. The cost for such a service ranged from $750 million to $1 billion, which compares very badly with the cost of theAi?? $2.4 billion Canada line of a $1.4 billion and counting Evergreen Line.

Thus the Leewood Study was inconvenient for:

1) Transit Planning

The Leewood study contradicted current gold-plated transit planning for politically inspired ‘vanity’ projects.

Unfortunately too many engineers working on light rail projects (as distinct from light rail engineers) appear to be in total ignorance of the following:

“This ai???lightnessai??? of light rail ai??i?? a combination of flexibility, low impact, modest cost, and environmental softness ai??i?? is ephemeral. It must be carefully guarded. Ignorance or ineptitude during the planning, design, specification writing, engineering, or construction phrases of a project can lose the ai???lightnessai???. Light railai??i??s advantages can be diminished or even destroyed with overdesigned overhead; ugly, noisy, or difficult-to-maintain cars; poorly conceived alignments; or simply uneconomic applications.”

Light Rail Transit Special Report 221 United States Transportation Research Board National Research Council p 92Ai?? (1988)

2) The Broadway Subway

ai???Naysayers and nitpickers, get out of the way, because weai??i??re building a subway.ai???

The now $3 billion Broadway subway is being built strictly for political prestige and any thus proof against any sound tram argument.

3) Bus Rapid Transit

The LRT option is very crudely dismissed through excessive costs and few benefits and the BRT option is highly inflated with benefits that cannot be justified from the literature. There is little science behind this study and a lot of politics as it appears to clear the way for motorway spending. I don’t think I have seen a study quite so crudely apparent in its anti-rail politics.

Mode share by auto in the metro Vancouver Region has stagnated at 57% for almost twenty five years, another embarrassing secret of the failure of light metro to attract the motorist from the car!

Montreal, Quebec – op-ed: death of Canadian light metro ??

The proposal at MONTREAL, Quebec’s largest city, for a new light metro system is drawing sharp criticism from a university professor and an urban consultant. They say the plan is hastily constructed and based on optimistic assumptions, according to an op-ed commentary posted by The Montreal Gazette. If it fails to materialize, it may be the last gasp for Canadian light metro. Any agency worldwide who wants it can buy it from Japan-based HItachi’s new subsidiaries AnsaldoBreda and Ansaldo STS. Honolulu is buying from them and the elevated light metro project now has escalated in cost to more than $8 billion, more than is available from city, state and federal funds. Honolulu may have to scale it back in some fashion.Vancouver Skytrain light metro requires a substantial subsidy, the op-ed authors say:

<http://tinyurl.com/j9bja3c>

Port Mann Fiasco

Gridlock is endemic in metro Vancouver.

TransLink has become the “clown of transit planning” and now with with two very expensive vanity projects, the truncated Broadway SkyTrain subway and the Surrey LRT, which is being planned as a “poor man’s” SkyTrain, the clown is turning into a nightmare.

TransLink has had good teachers.

Now, all has become clear. The BC Liberal/ Gordon Campbell masterpiece, the Port Mann Bridge has become a massive financial black hole, sucking in millions of dollars so the BC Liberals could have a vanity project to cut ribbons in front of at the last election.

Cue to the Canada line, another Liberal boondoggle where after $2.5 billion spent, all we have to show for it is the worlds only heavy rail metro, built as a light metro and has less capacity than a simple tram costing a tenth to build! Oh yes, the Canada line is costing TransLink about $110 million per year to operate, three times that of a light rail line of comparable size!

With thanks to Norman Farrell

Since toll revenue at Port Mann has covered only 39% of operating costs, means massive subsidies must be paid; subsidies which monies come from other much needed transit projects in Metro Vancouver, The Fraser Valley and BC!

Political vanity projects are driving the mad dash past the point of no return with congestion in the region and the Massey Tunnel Bridge will be the coup de gras to the regional transportation plan, as inept as it is.

Gridlock in Metro Vancouver will be endemic and the flight of families to more affordable realms are now making current transportation models obsolete.

Within a decade, Metro Vancouver will be almost unlivable due to huge tax increases on inflated property values; extremely expensive transit projects that do nothing in improving congestion; and incompetent municipal governments who kow-tow the BC Liberal’s harebrained vanity project schemes. Metro Vancouver will become the home of the very rich, fat cat bureaucrats, political elites and the very poor, who will live in subsidized housing.

Someone, please tell Delta Mayor Lois Jackson to change her stand supporting the bridge, to demand it not to be built (a complete game changer if she did), but I’m afraid in her declining years she only listens to Victoria now and not common sense.

It is sad to see that the key to metro Vancouver’s livability is held by one who is now past making rational decisions.

Read Norman Farrell’s full blog item