Interesting letter in the Vancouver Sun – Is the proposed two cent a litre gas tax to fund SkyTrain renewals?
The Vancouver Sun, Like the old Soviet "Pravda" of old, is interesting for what it prints and for what it doesn't print. The Sun has been a long supporter of SkyTrain and the paper and its editorial board has gone so far as to play fast and loose with the truth about light rail.
Anyone who knows anything about metros and light rail, knows that they age and appropriate measures are taken to ensure smooth operation. SkyTrain is now 26 years old and by all news reports, is in need of mid-life refurbishment, yet TransLink, it seems, has no plan nor no money for midlife renewals – why is this?
More and more, it looks like the two cent a litre gas tax proposed by TransLink is nothing more than a ruse to let more taxpayer's monies, without telling the whole truth why more tax monies are needed. It seems the wily mandarins on Kingsway are trying to fool regional politicians and regional taxpayers as to the real reason for more and more tax money must be shoveled into TransLink.
I think regional taxpayers should put their foot down and reject TransLink's demands and let the chips fall where they may, as it stands, TransLink is like a spoiled child which has temper tantrums every time it doesn't get what it wants and regional and provincial politicians cave in giving TransLink more of "other people's monies" to stay quiet.
For a start, why not we rid ourselves of TransLink altogether as it really doesn't do a thing but give nonproductive bureaucrats a free ride, then hire real experts to plan and design the transit system we need, just like what Rail for the Valley did two years ago!.
Renew SkyTrain with greater share of gas tax
By William Zander, Vancouver SunRe: Expect more breakdowns if fare hike and gas taxes rejected, Trans-Link says, Sept. 17
This article is alarming, to say the least. A SkyTrain renewal is needed more than ever to relieve gridlock, not to mention pollution, noise, and the escalating cost of roads, renewal, and maintenance.
Rather than letting the system deteriorate, it would be more productive to take a positive stance on its muchneeded upgrading.
Consider how money and faith were put into the system to start with.
Lay out the problems and convince us that it is an absolutely necessary way to reduce greenhouse gases, and that we must find the money not only to improve but also to renew the 25-year-old system.
The Expo Line has been allowed to become a noisy, screeching, rattletrap system, inside and out. Why has this been allowed to happen?
Increasing fares is counterproductive; property taxes have already sucked up downloading from the provincial and federal governments on services and infrastructure renewal.
It's a transportation issue of a magnitude to warrant both provincial and federal support and a larger share of the gas tax.
William Zander
New Westminster
http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion/letters/Renew+SkyTrain+with+greater+share/5434305/story.html
TransLink will spend $55 million for mid-life refurbishment of the 114 original Mark 1 cars, which is expected to extend their service life by 15 years. Work is to begin around the end of this year and will take several years. This was reported in 24 Hours newspaper in its February 18-20 edition.
I think $55 million for 114 cars is a wee bit light. In fact their are 150 MK 1 cars needed to be refurbished, not 114. Also the guideway, track and signaling/ATC systems need refurbishment as well and the costs Zwei has been told that a “full meal deal” to refurbish the Expo Line is over $1 billion!
Presumably the rationale for focusing on the first 114 cars is that these are the originals, built in 1984-85. The other 36 Mark 1s were built in either 1991 (16 cars) and 1995 (20 cars) so have a little more service life left before refurbishment is direly needed.
$500,000 per car does seem light, but on the other hand this could be where the lack of traction motors and moving parts in general might be an advantage. That said, one would think that refurbishment would involve considerable change to the onboard control system. The Mark 1s are primitive in this regard compared to the Mark 2s, in effect having only one onboard system compared to something like 14 on a Mark 2, if memory serves. You may have seen the Mark 2 that was on display before they entered service. There was a plexiglass cover on the cabinet where the systems are mounted, and there were numerous computers stacked in racks. A Mark 1 would have to be extensively modified to make room to house that gear.
I was under the impression that the ATC had been upgraded in preparation for the opening of the Millennium Line, which roughly coincided with the Mark 2s being introduced. Before that time, the control system could only recognize trains of a uniform length at a given time, hence the need to operate all trains with four Mark 1 cars. Before the Mark 2s were launched, the control system needed to be upgraded so that it could recognize and distinguish between two-car and four-car trains operating at the same time, since the Mark 2s were mainly to be operated as single-unit trains of just two cars. Of course, this is not necessarily the same as a full upgrade of the ATC.
Modern traction motors are designed to last 40 to 50 years and why modern LRT vehicles are so long lived.
The refurbishment would consist of completely rewiring the cars, replace worn parts and redo the insides, which would cost more than what was reported. As for the ATC, automatic transit systems must constantly be upgraded as the signaling kit is both complicated and prone to wear and tear. Also the guideway needs attention as it is a viaduct that needs bearing checked and replaced, etc. Another problem to contend with is the reaction rail, which needs to have a precise 1 CM air-gap, but with rail and tyre wear, is near impossible to obtain.
A decade ago, TransLink hinted that it would need about $1 billion for a complete Expo Line refurbishment.