Eby’s Reality Check On Transit

From what I can read, Eby is playing footsie with the Broadway subway to UBC. Farnsworth, who is now minister in charge of transit is doing penance for his complete screw-up of the Surrey RCMP/police fiasco, which many in the NDP blame their poor showing in the recent election.

Subways are expensive, both to build and operate. Replacing a bus route, which has a maximum peak hour capacity of only 2,000 pphpd, with a subway, which maximum capacity of only 7,500 pphpd, boarders on politcal and fiscal insanity!

In the real world, subways tend to be built on routes where traffic flows exceed 15,000 pphpd!

The maximum capacity of the Millennium Line (Broadway subway) after the $1.47 billion rehab of the signalling system will be only 7,500 pphpd! According to ThalesWhen the programme is fully implemented, the Expo Line will be able to accommodate 17,500 passengers per hour per direction, and the Millennium Line will be able to handle 7500 passengers per hour per direction, a 32% and 96% increase respectively.

The 16km extension of the Expo Line to Langley is now costing $6 billion ($7 billion if one adds the much needed Operations and Maintenance Centre number 5). The government has yet to release the updated cost for the 5.7 km extension of the Millennium Line (Broadway subway), which, according to sources, is now costing around $4 billion.

I have been told that TransLink is still trying to source $2 to $3 billion to complete the two projects.

The completion of the Broadway subway to UBC is now said to cost around $8 billion, by the time construction starts. There has been a rumour about that to reduce the cost to a more manageable $6 billion, is to build the line elevated from MacDonald to UBC.

Watch Premier Eby try to get elected with that!

But there is a joker in the deck and it is called Trump.

If the tariff war takes place between Canada and the USA, one will see two things, a dramatic revenue shortfall in tax revenues and an equally dramatic increase in the cost of cement and special structural steel.

The American CEO of TransLink may just pack his bags and return to the ‘land of the free’ because, all things concerning transit and TransLink will become ugly, far uglier than it is today.

I can draw two main conclusions; first, the NDP want Farnsworth gone by giving him a no win assignment and two, I think it may mark the end of “SkyTrain” expansion in Metro Vancouver because there is a second joker in the deck and that is SkyTrain itself.

SkyTrain is the name of the regional light-metro system and consists of a proprietary train which operastes on the Expo and Millennium Lines and a conventional train which operate on the Canada Line with both railways being incompatible in operation.

The Linear Induction Powered (LIM) trains are proprietary and is currently owned by Alstom, when the acquired Bombardier’s rail division. The now called Movia Automatic Light Metro system (the proprietary railway has been rebranded at least six times) uses the former Bombardier Innovia light-metro body shell. Indeed the new MK.5 cars are actually over twenty years old but were reconfigured to use LIM equipped trucks for the sale to TransLink.

MALM is dated tech, more expensive to build and operate than conventional light-metro’s and a lot more expensive to build and operate than light rail. As Alstom has two lines of successful light-metro systems, they will phase out production of the proprietary MALM system, after the last paid for car leaves the production line. Only seven systems have been built in the past fifty years, with six remaining in operation and to add to further embarrassment, each one of the Bombardier built examples (then called Advanced Rapid Transit or ART) have been mired in controversy and/or legal ills.

The EverLine, above, in Korea can only operate one car trains and has lead to legal action in Korea over claims of “success fees” paid to bureaucrats and politcans in Korea.

To be blunt, there may not be any SkyTrain compatible trains available for future extensions available as new cars would have to be designed and a new production line built, further increasing the cost of an already costly system.

Contrary to what is being said, there is no affordable or efficient expansion of the now obsolete proprietary SkyTrain light-metro system. In fact there never was.

‘No discussion of funding,’ as Mike Farnworth takes on B.C.’s transit deficit and difficulties

Extending the $3 billion Broadway subway, now under construction, was a key election promise in the transportation plank of David Eby’s election platform.

Author of the article: By Derrick Penner Published Jan 16, 2025

Transit
Premier David Eby tasked Transportation Minister Mike Farnworth with leading efforts to extend TransLink’s Broadway SkyTrain line to the University B.C. in a mandate letter that talked a lot about transit priorities but not so much about cash. Photo by Jason Payne POSTMEDIA /PNG

Premier David Eby tasked Transportation Minister Mike Farnworth with leading efforts to extend TransLink’s Broadway SkyTrain line to the University B.C. in a mandate letter that talked a lot about transit priorities but not so much about cash.

Extending the $3 billion Broadway subway, now under construction, was a key election promise in the transportation plank of Eby’s election platform and the premier’s mandate asks Farnworth to work with the federal government, UBC, the City of Vancouver and First Nations on planning the extension.

Farnworth also has Parliamentary Secretary George Anderson, MLA for Nanaimo-Lantzville, to handle co-ordination of efforts and relationship-building, as well as priorities related to transit oriented housing development.

Transit advocates, however, are worried that Farnworth’s mandate is short on the discussion of stable funding, when agencies such as TransLink and B.C. Transit are starving for more cash.

“There is no discussion of funding to increase service at TransLink or B.C. Transit, let alone filling the huge budget hole that we’re seeing at TransLink,” said Denis Agar, executive director of the advocacy group Movement.

Instead, at the same time that TransLink is warning about a looming $600 million per year deficit as early as 2026, Farnworth is being tasked with reviewing ministry programs, including in transit, to make sure services “remain relevant, are efficient (and) are responsive to the needs of commuters.”

The idea is that the review will help “protect key services that British Columbians rely on,” but Agar said that sounds like “classic deflection,” which indicates transit “isn’t a priority” for government.

Agar said such reviews or audits typically find “a handful of places to save” but “never in the order of magnitude that is needed to actually honour the people that are currently riding transit in this province.”

The broader scope of Farnworth’s mandate includes supporting improvements to road infrastructure, though balanced against opportunities to integrate better transit services and “work with B.C. Ferries” to reduce administrative costs “and ensure affordable, reliable and sustainable ferry service.”

It also talks about finding “ways to support taxi and ride hail operators, as well as working with Minister of Public Safety Garry Begg on using technology to improve transit safety.

Most of the letter, however, is devoted to other transit initiatives, including expansion of regional and intercity transit priorities, such as the Central Okanagan Regional Transit Plan and regular transit service on the Sea to Sky corridor, and identifying “affordable and efficient” expansions of SkyTrain, RapidBus and rail transit services.

As Eby’s government finalizes the budget it will table to support his cabinet’s mandates, however, the Transportation Ministry is going to need “stable long-term funding,” for transit, said planner Andy Yan.

“Not only from the province but it’s also from the federal government,” said Yan, an associate professor and director of the City program at Simon Fraser University. “It’s about how we’re going to get people where they’re going. It’s also about employment patterns and how economic development is spread out through the province and how (communities) can be serviced.”

depenner@postmedia.com

Comments

4 Responses to “Eby’s Reality Check On Transit”
  1. legoman0320 says:

    Capacity explained with a comparison.
    Why compare Vancouver and Toronto? Same rolling stock manufacturer and metro service. 4 car or length of 92.1 M Toronto Rocket trains vs MK 5 have 5 car or length 85 M. Capacity 1207 crush load vs Rocket crush load 948.(both at 6 people per square meter) MK 5 trains entering service this year. Why does skytrain have more capacity in comparison? flex space for wheelchairs, bikes, scooters, strollers or add standing room with removing 5 perimeter seats. Dare to say it’s the pen ultimate interior configuration for rapid transit. Toronto rocket doesn’t have same amount of flexible space. BCRTC skytrain portion adjust things on the fly when it comes to service frequency. Simple offset 40-60 seconds from inbound and outground trains. Intransit BC contract to meet a certain service level 18 trains an hour. Sometime later this year, it’s supposed to be 20 trains an hour. Obligated to do an offset. P3 contracts $147,000,000 with annual service car hours 201,650 or in day 8402.5. hours and BCRTC $289,000,000 with an annual service car hours 1,280,282 or in day 53,345. ART or Advanced Rapid Transit lower cost of maintenance and higher frequencies than other light metros. No other metro line to compare to BCRTC operations in CBTC?

    Skytrain signal.
    6 times skytrain that the signaling system has been upgraded. Decreasing operational headway 108 seconds to 81-85 seconds and Not in service headway 75 seconds to 30-40 seconds. Adding additional super computer, transformers, fiber optic, OCC 2, capacity for extensions and new lines. One part of the skytrain expansion program: OCC 2, OMC1 upgrades, guideway shop upgrade, new rail grinder equipment, upgrading emergency exit, replacing and upgrading ends of platforms for the MK5. Estimated cost 1.47 Billion. Project’s not finished and no updated total.

    Zwei replies: Our shill from TransLink, like the rest of the shills working for TransLink try the old “BS baffles brains” routine.

    Seating is important, especially if, and right now that is a big if (the tariff debacle maybe enough for Eby to cancel the SLS), customers paying premium fares will want a seat and for an hours journey, a comfortable seat and if not they will drive.

    As for signalling, the upgrades did not increase capacity, as the current upgrade is not really increasing capacity either, despite the hype and hoopla. Try talking to a signalling engineer for a while and increasing capacity is not as simple as upgrading a disc, especially with a moving block system.

    The other big, big problem with increased frequencies is platform/station clearance as most stations can handle only a set amount of customers and if it cannot, trains can’t unload, backing up service. This is what happened on London’s Tube when capacity was increased, additional means of egress also had to be built and that is very expansive.

    In the end, you are just pointing out how expensive this “world class system” is to operate and is the only “world class” transit system in the world that no one wants to buy.

  2. Haveacow says:

    @Legoman, no one uses 6 people per square metre, that’s for weighting or vehicle frame resistance. The TTC’s 1207 passengers for the Toronto Rocket Trains is exactly 3.52 people per square metre in the standing room areas. That’s the point the TTC is supposed to dispatch another train, due to passenger discomfort. 4 passengers/square metre is the maximum passenger density that most Canadians can take before they usually start leaving transit, for anything else. You have to do the math and do a proper comparison. Usually 90% of capacity is the critical number transit agencies watch for. At that point most “choice transit riders” start leaving transit for their cars. It’s not who has the most capacity it’s who’s 90% capacity is more liveable. Usually, bigger trains with more passenger facilities at the stations is what wins passengers back to rapid transit trains. The Rocket Trains are 138m long and 3.14m wide. The bigger width is a big comfort feature for passengers.

  3. legoman0320 says:

    We already have talked about a station capacity. Metrotown skytrain station passenger flow of 9,000 pphpd multiple entrances elevators and escalators. commercial and Broadway passenger flow 11,000 pphpd. M line platform flow 6,000 pphpd + 1,000 pphpd emergency exit. The skytrain has always been limited by the amount of rolling stock available. Last busy stations have a flow 3,000-4,000 pphpd. A future line capacity EXPO is supposed to cap 26,000 pphpd. Columbia station is supposed to get an upgrade And Burrad station upgrade at some point.

    Lol Taiff war won’t hurt the expansion of skytrain is canadian built system and Canadian operated. Very few parts we get from the US. Just switch over to overseas if needed.

    What’s holding back Signaling for skytrain is computer software and hardware.

    Zwei replies: It’s the cement and specialty steel that will climb in price. Remember TransLink is still short of $2 to $3 billion in funding and the Broadway subway is now rumoured to cost $4 billion to complete, which means the Translink maybe short of $4 billion and a tariff war would allocate such monies elsewhere.

  4. Major Hoople says:

    Mr. Legomann there is a big difference between a standard metro car, such as the Rockets you mention and the new SkyTrain cars, which are narrower and have less capacity. Realistically, the MK.5 trains can carry around 500 passengers for a 5 car set.

    There is a very big difference in theoretical capacity and practical capacity and 6 persons per metre/2 is more than wishful thinking. This is why light-metro has lost favor with transit planners, small capacity at a cost higher than a regular metro.

    It is obvious you do not understand how signalling works and it is hard to explain here but I will try. The signalling provides pathways for trains, the more intense the signalling the more pathways, thus the m ore trains operate.

    The moving block system maintains a safe braking distance between trains, in the form of pathways and due to the complexities of a moving block system, maximum headway are no less than 90 seconds and more common 120 seconds. It gets very expensive to maintain a signalling with small headway’s and as Mr. Zwei pointed out, station congestion becomes a major factor and the infrastructure cannot move the amount of people in a given time. Just one station refurbishment in Frankfurt to allow greater capacity cost over 400 million euros.

Leave A Comment