Eric Chris Responds to the SkyTrain Lobby
Eric Chris also respondsAi??to Mr. Cruz’s letter to the Langley Advance.
Lies becoming believable
Langley AdvanceMayAi?? 29, 2012
Dear Editor,
The unbelievable posting [SkyTrain boosting profits, May 24 Letters,Ai?? www.langleyadvance.com] from SkyTrain for Surrey, the friends of TransLink, leftAi?? me disgusted.
Profits for SkyTrain are better than ever, say friends of TransLink, which isAi?? decimated financially and in ruins from spending on SkyTrain.
Friends of TransLink are contradicting the findings of the efficiency reviewAi?? of TransLink by Shirocca Consulting in March 2012.
Have you taken a look at the efficiency review of TransLink by ShiroccaAi?? Consulting? According to Shirocca Consulting, TransLink is the worst performingAi?? transit organization compared in Canada and has disappointing ridership inAi?? relation to other transit organizations in Canada. Moreover, TransLink has theAi?? highest transit fares of all transit organizations compared in Canada.Ai?? SkyTrainAi?? debt by TransLink is such a money drain that TransLink is raising fares by 10%Ai?? as soon as it can despite transit users already paying the highest fares inAi?? Canada.
An inordinate number of transit buses are tied up shuttling passengers to andAi?? from distantly spaced SkyTrain and B-Line stops.Ai?? As a result, there aren’tAi?? enough transit buses to go around in Metro Vancouver.Ai?? This has made transitAi?? service inadequate in Vancouver, Delta, Surrey… Langley.Ai?? Moreover, frequentAi?? transit service in Vancouver means fewer buses for Delta, Surrey… Langley.Ai??Ai?? Too much frequent and late night transit service in Vancouver also results inAi?? many empty buses and increased pollution.
TransLink CEO, Ian Jarvis is steering transit into an abyss with moreAi?? SkyTrain and diesel bus rapid transit (express 99 B-Line, in particular).Ai?? YouAi?? can’t operate an efficient transit organization and take cars off the roads withAi?? SkyTrains and B-Lines which have their stops located 30 minutes apart by foot.Ai??Ai?? Elevated transit (SkyTrain) with distantly spaced stops and express B-LineAi?? service with limited stops are barriers to transit use.Ai?? People prefer not toAi?? transfer from local buses onto regional B-LineAi?? and regional SkyTrain.
Unless you happen to live next to a SkyTrain or B-Line stop (few do), theAi?? overall commuting time is longer on SkyTrain or B-Line transit with the extraAi?? local bus transfer than on LRT, trolley bus transit or streetcar transit withAi?? closely spaced stops to make walking to the transit stop possible.Ai?? You are lessAi?? likely to use transit with SkyTrain or B-Line service than to use transit withAi?? LRT , trolley bus or streetcar service.
The net prevent value cost of SkyTrain is three to five times more than theAi?? net present value cost of at grade LRT when all costs are considered – and notAi?? just the costs considered and reported by TransLink.Ai?? In net present valueAi?? dollars with all costs considered (maintenance, interest, supporting buses_Ai?? control room operators), it costs $100 million per kilometre for LRT and $300Ai?? million to $500 million per kilometre for SkyTrain.Ai?? Inept accounts andAi?? economists at TransLink are not design engineers and do not understand the totalAi?? cost of SkyTrain or are lying to under report the ultimate net present valueAi?? cost of SkyTrain – $5.5 billion or more for the 11 kilometre SkyTrain line toAi?? Coquitlam.
This is the reason for the ongoing financial distress of TransLink -Ai?? TransLink is not reporting the true net present value cost of SkyTrain.Ai??Ai?? Reported SkyTrain costs by TransLink do not include ancillary costs such as allAi?? the diesel buses and drivers necessary to shuttle passengers to the SkyTrainAi?? stations.Ai?? City of Edmonton transportation engineers who are competent andAi?? honest do not consider SkyTrain to be the best choice for transit and preferAi?? LRT.
TransLink is the self-proclaimed greatest transit organization in CanadaAi?? despite being the lousiest in the opinion of most experts who are knowledgeableAi?? about transit.Ai?? How can the accountants and economists at TransLink be rightAi?? about SkyTrain and all the engineers who run transit in the rest of Canada beAi?? wrong?Ai?? Who is more competent and believable, an accountant or economist whoAi?? doesn’t understand how things work or an engineer with 12 calculus courses toAi?? his or her credit?
I do have one question – TransLink has shunned the results of the efficiencyAi?? review by Shirocca Consulting in March 2012 and has been creating distractionsAi?? in the media (fare evasion and transit police costs) to focus attention awayAi?? from TransLink being such a miserable failure.Ai?? Any thoughts on the reason forAi?? this?
I suspect the following – transit by TransLink is a sordid affair.Ai?? Possibly,Ai?? developers with ties to organized crime are using SkyTrain as a tool to tearAi?? down homes for the developers to build condos with laundered drug money.Ai??Ai?? Perhaps, politicians who are supporting TransLink (Mayor Peter Fassbender ofAi?? Langley City, for instance) in the media are either corrupt or dumb.
If you repeat the lie of SkyTrain by TransLink being more economical andAi?? having more ridership than LRT, trolley bus transit or streetcar transit, soonerAi?? or later people start to believe it.
TransLink is one huge sham.
More and more I am amazed that Vancouver’s transit system is allowed to continue under its present form.
Proprietary railways most always cost more to build and operate than conventional railways and is the reason that our present railways have been around in one way or another for almost 200 years. That Vancouver’s politicians allow this to continue, makes me suspicious that they have not a clue about public transport or the operation of public transport.
A transit specialist, who had experience with the Canada Line, said that the transit authorities in Vancouver were totally ignorant about all aspects of railways and rapid transit and made very expensive decisions without any intelligent debate.
I pity the poor ratepayer in Metro Vancouver, they have been sold a bill of goods, by some very good confidence tricksters.
I am not sure if distantly spaced stations are as much of a problem as suggested by the article. I should not that Toronto has offered an effective transit system even in low-density settings by having a high frequency, local services connecting to a few fast subways. Such a metro infrastructure already exists in Vancouver. However, I do not think the fiscal resources are available for expanding Skytrain everywhere Translink wants to. B-lines and express services are employed by many transit agencies, including Sound Transit, Community Transit and King County Transit, as well as Calgary Transit.
Zweisystem replies: Over 40 years of study has shown that the further stations are apart, the less ridership attracted. The optimum distance for LRT is a bout 500 to 600 metres apart for urban operation. The problem with feeder buses is that one loses about 70% of potential ridership per transfer. The metro infrastructure, despite over $8 billion being invested, has not attracted the motorist from the car as TransLink cannot show any sort of modal shift at all.
Do I need to post the links again showing Vancouver transit mode shift again? Pretty clear mode shift in Vancouver, if you like I will post links again but Statistics Canada (not Translink) shows a very dramatic mode shift not just in Vancouver but in Metro Vancouver.
Just a reminder because I am sure with your extensive library you know this, but not all transfers are equal, convinient transfers between high frequency services carry almost no transfer penalty. Transfers involving additional fares, low freQuency services or inconvienent walks carry a high transfer penalty….just saying….ps the Skytrain would be a high frequency service.
Zweisystem replies: I think not and I think you are spending too much time smoking BC bud. The census does not determine transit ridership in the region and is a very poor indicator of actual transit ridership. If anything, the census only shows that transit ridership has increased with the rate of population growth. Relying on census numbers for transit ridership is a fools Paradise. Oh my, the SkyTrain lobby lives in one.
Any thoughts on a less biased source of mode share than Statistics Canada? Feel free to suggest where I should look (besides the fine statistics departtment of RfV where you ask yourself what you think mode share is). Statistics Canada shows that the PERCENTAGE of people reporting using transit as their main method of commuting to work increased from roughly 8 or 12% to 16.5% in Metro Vancouver (higher with approximately equal % change in the City of Vancouver) the 8 or 12% represent different years, if I remember correctly the 8% is 1989 and the 12% sometime in the mid 1990s, the 16.5% is 2009 I think. I posted links previously but if you continue to wear your blinders I can find and post the links again. AGAIN CLEAR UNBIASED DOCUMENTABLE (including methodoly at Statistics Canada….also note the methodology for transit mode share remains the same through all the surveys) EVIDENCE OF MODE SHIFT TO TRANSIT IN VANCOUVER. I am sure the Stats Can data is sufficient for ANY RATIONAL person to conclude that there has been a SIGNIFICANT mode shift not just in Vancouver but Metro Vancouver (feel free to dispute the cause or if the cost was worth it but the result is undeniable).
Zweisystem replies: The problem with stats Canada reporting on transit use is that many people answer positively about transit, when they don’t use it. Transit is a motherhood and apple pie issue and many people report that they use transit regularly when they don’t. This is phenomena that Stats Canada can’t deal with. Example, my wife is south Asian and most of her relatives answer census questions wrongly because they want to answer the questions that they think the government wants to hear. This sort of thing is endemic in Vancouver.
Rico, transit use to work is increasing everywhere. SkyTrain use is lagging transit use in the rest of Canada.
It has already been explained to you that 16.5% of the one million working commuters here take transit (2006 Stats Canada). As far as the entire 2.4 million population in Metro Vancouver goes, 12% use transit (2011). Before TransLink, 10% of the population used transit (1998).
If LRT were being used here, instead, transit use in Metro Vancouver would be 5% higher based on the transit growth of LRT in Edmonton. Transit here would be costing one-half as much as SkyTrain, too.
You keep harping on the Stats Can modal shift from cars to transit as dramatic. The Stats Can modal shift only refers to the “working population”. There has been a huge increase in people driving when they aren’t going to work.
TransLink with SkyTrain is the worst transit organization compared by Shirocca Consulting in March 2012. TransLink and proponents of SkyTrain are steering way clear of the damning report by Shirocca Consulting.
Care to enlighten us as to the reason for this?
ec
Zei,
The problems with Stats Can survey are consistent so although some people will answer incorrectly the general trend will be sound. The same proportion of people are likely to answer incorrectly in Vancouver as Toronto or Calgary etc., in addition the same proportion of people likely answered incorrectly in 1989 as 2011. So as it relates to mode shift a clear mode shift.is apparent. You will note Eric Chris`s numbers adjusted to reflect overall population (not sure I agree with all his assumptions but….) show a 2% mode shift from 1998 to 2009. That would translate to be about a 4% increase since 1989 using his methodology. I would call that significant.
Zweisystem replies: 2% significant? You must be joking. In Europe, transit planners look for 20% to 25% modal shift when a new light rail line is opened. anything over 25% would be significant. 2% is within the margin of error.
To your points
Zei,
Perhaps I was unclear. Using journey to work share from Stats Can|American Census (the most common measure of mode share) the PERCENTAGE of people reporting using transit to work in Metro Vancouver rose from about 8% to 16.5% between 1989 and 2009. That is an increase in transit mode share of 8% (4% if you use Eric Chris`s numbers) regardless of which numbers you use that would be a 100% mode share increase (or 50% from 1998 to 2009). Transit now carries twice the pertantage of journey to work trip as it used to. I would call that significant wouldn`t you? Also note although I pointed out the 100% modal shift I do not believe % modal shift is a good number to look at because if you go from 1% to 2% transit mode share that is a 100% increase, that is much less significant than going from say 20% to 25% which is only a 25% increase. Regardless why are you still arguing the point there has been SIGNIFICANT mode shift to transit within Metro Vancouver. It is not in dispute except with you.
Zweisystem replies: Here we have the main problem with TransLink and the SkyTrain Lobby, they so pervert figures from every source that they can and then believe in it themselves. I think your maths are dubious but then TransLink has sustained itself on dubious maths. If Vancouver and the SkyTrain light-metro is so successful as you claim, why has it been so universally rejected by transit agencies elsewhere? What hasn’t SkyTrain replaced or outsold light rail in the past 30 years? Why is vehicle ownership outstripping population growth in the region? In short, you are full of it!
Eric,
The trouble with picking stats from different places is things don`t necessarily translate. Would Vancouver have had 100% transit mode share shift since 1986 if it had built with LRT instead? Would it have more? Less? Edmonton and Calgary both show good mode shift for transit and both have good transit but Portland also has good transit and it has no mode shift to transit so someone could argue that if Vancouver had built LRT there would not be any mode shift (I don`t believe this it is just a point). Any comparisons with Edmonton should also be taken with a grain of salt because unlike Vancouver or Calgary ETS only services the city of Edmonton not the entire metro area (so it is not as burdened with low productivity routes in the suburbs). Also note I like the Edmonton LRT but it is not that `light`with extensive grade seperation. It will be even better next year when it connects to NAIT.
Also note that according to the city of Vancouver car trips to the downtown peninsula have decreased while transit, walking and biking trips have increased. i would call decreased car trips despite increased population significant, no?
@rico, you are right and all the engineers in the rest of Canada are wrong for selecting LRT over SkyTrain. Call your hero Ian Jarvis (TransLink CEO) on Monday and tell him.