TransLink: LRT is suitable for Broadway!
A post from our friend Mr. Haveacow deserves more attention.
Contained within is an interesting comment;
“They have chosen that overall the Skytrain is the best choice (no surprise there). The whopper comes form the admission that LRT is cheaper and does provide better service over the status quo but the cost is significantly less expensive to build than Skytrain.
This comment is followed by;
“To justify this, the following gem of a statement is included,ai??? Of the alternatives that meet the forecast demand for the corridor, capital costs range from $1.1 billion for LRT1 (100% Surface LRT) to $3.0 billion for RRT (Skytrain in a Tunnel). An assessment of affordability will be made outside this study by considering regional investment needs relative to available funding.ai???
Now Mr. Cow is quite right about this being game changer statement, but Zwei with almost fifteen years of TransLink Speak, will add this.
According to TransLink, LRT is suitable for Broadway, unless politicians can guarantee to raise the cash to build a much more expensive Skytrain subway!
*******************************************************
I am quite surprised at the Phase 2 Report for Translinkai??i??s Broadway Skyrain Subway Line.
From a quick read (about 2hrs and 155 pages plus scanning the rest) of the results I can see two really big issues one of which has not changed from the earlier reports and the other is based on questionable if not outright incorrect assumptions that would change large parts of the outcomes.When you look at the reportai??i??s conclusions there are some surprises but, most were unchanged from the last time. However there is a whopper in there that would lead to the deaths of most planners by their bosses. They have chosen that overall the Skytrain is the best choice (no surprise there). The whopper comes form the admission that LRT is cheaper and does provide better service over the status quo but the cost is significantly less expensive to build than Skytrain. To justify this, the following gem of a statement is included,ai??? Of the alternatives that meet the forecast demand for the corridor, capital costs range from $1.1 billion for LRT1 (100% Surface LRT) to $3.0 billion for RRT (Skytrain in a Tunnel). An assessment of affordability will be made outside this study by considering regional investment needs relative to available funding.ai??? This is a game changer folks. In simple terms, I could produce a report that said, ai???we believe the best choice for transit in the Broadway corridor is genetically engineered flying solid gold unicorns however, an assessment of affordability will be made outside of this study by considering regional investment needs relative to available fundingai???. The next sound I would here is the ax coming out of its sheath being wielded by the people who hired me, just before it came in contact with my neck.
Zwei and Haveacow, I am not sure what Translink report you are referring to, but my point all along is that Translink has not seriously considered a route along 16th Avenue. they have focussed their surface LRT considerations on Broadway.
Yes, an LRT on Broadway would better serve Broadway, if it is the only rapid transit line available, but my point has always been, for the last two years or more, that by installing an LRT on 16th Ave, and saving 4.5 Billion dollars in capital costs plus lots more in operating costs, compared to skytrain, Translink could continue to run express buses and other buses on Broadway, or even improve bus service, and thereby serve Broadway better.
The report we were talking about is the, UBC Line Rapid Transit Study: Phase 2 Evaluation Report produced in August 2012. This is the final report before a choice is made on the technology of the Line. My point was that, the mathematical modeling was really incomplete and only gave kind of quick look at other possibilities that could have been chosen. As well as that, the whole prediction of future growth on the Broadway Corridor is based on predictions that don’t include outside effects on the Broadway corridor by other areas in the region. When you study a corridor in isolation and you don’t truly understand the relationships and mechanism’s that caused the growth on Broadway in the first place how can you make a really accurate prediction of future growth?
They are talking about spending a lot of money here, ($3 Billion +) and the report also states that other technologies would also be an improvement over the status quo, not just Skytrain Technology. The differences in the capital costs of the various operating technologies in my professional opinion are great enough that, a further look into what is really needed on Broadway using better growth models and professional transportation modeling of alternatives like yours (which were not even looked at) is desperately needed. I made the joke about solid gold flying unicorns because the report does not seem to acknowledge that affordability is not just another category from which you compare transit mode alternatives, its one of the major determinants that leads to a modal choice and whether a line is even built or not.
When comparing which different mode of transit technology should be used in a given corridor your computer modeling should actually uses apples to apples comparisons between them, transit vehicle technologies, this report did not do this. The report also suggested that their mathematical modeling was highly effected by small changes most of whom were not looked at in any great detail. For example tunneling sections of the LRT changed many of their final report outcomes regarding LRT. Imagine what happens when you look at the possibility that the line doesn’t have to actually be on Broadway at all. The report for example uses the combined passenger numbers of all transit passengers inside the area boundaries of the Broadway Corridor study including the many parallel transit routes heading in the same direction as the ones on Broadway but, only modeled improvements on Broadway itself instead of looking at the possibility that all or part of the route could be off Broadway somewhere else. Actually studying these model input changes would also alter outcomes and may change the final product that has been chosen for the report and the more detailed look in the next phase of the report (phase 3).
This so called study on transit options to UBC is a sham – as is TransLink. How can TransLink go out to SNC Lavalin for SNC Lavalin to “estimate” the cost of the LRT or tram line by Alstom and Siemens? There is clearly a conflict of interest in this. SNC Lavalin doing the study has a vested interest in choosing the s-train line which it is proposing.
Engineering firms like SNC Lavalin charge a percentage of the cost of the project, usually 20%. Obviously, SNC Lavalin prefers to make 20% of $5 billion for the easy to engineer subway rather 0% of the more difficult to engineer tram or LRT line going to Alstom or Siemens.
http://www.translink.ca/~/media/Documents/plans_and_projects/rapid_transit_projects/UBC/alternatives_evaluation/UBC_Line_Rapid_Transit_Study_Phase_2_Alternatives_Evaluation.ashx
This study is biased and total garbage – lying that the s-train line somehow has more capacity than the tram or LRT line. It is literally stealing money from taxpayers to give SNC Lavalin and Bombardier the contracts to the subway costing the most and delivering the least. Doing a proper study requires Alstom and Siemens being allowed to do their own estimates for a tram or LRT line to UBC (at the same passenger capacity used by SNC Lavalin for the s-train line).
Hello,
I have been reading your post for quite some time, I wish I had time to post a few comments. I wish we had more LRT lines in Vancouver. I been wanting to ask the Pro Skytrain people, if the Skytrain is such a fanatic success how come it’s not popular world wide? Why is Toronto wanting to dismantle the skytrain in Scarborough? I noticed they often attack the capacity that LRT can transport. Did you know that Zagreb with about 240 different types of streetcars transported about 558,000 (daily ridership) in 2008? The Skytrain network transport had only 361,500 trips during the whole work week! Shocking, that the skytrain transported less people!
The skytrain is loud, and riding in the older cars is not enjoyable. I enjoyed riding the tram from brussels from Olympic Village to Granville island very much, it was very quiet and the ride was smooth. It would make more sense to have a few streetcar lines to UBC rather then one route. West Boardway does not need a subway. It’s not busy enough to justify such a expense. It would effect many business and lives of people living close to that route. A streetcar makes more sense, economically, and physiologically. A streetcar on West 4th and 41st Ave would be nice to going to UBC East and West. Expanding Regional transport should be a priory Vancouver-Burnaby-and into the valley express train would be nice. Koncar sells a great EMU http://www.koncar.com/documents/KONCAR+EMU.pdf. This train would be great for regional transport since electrical trains are cheeper then diesel trains.
If you have read the post yesterday featuring Le Havre’s new tramway, we could build a Broadway station to UBC Line for under $700 million, or put another way, we could build a tram, with the same capacity of that of a SkyTrain subway for about one fifth the cost! Something that TransLink wants to keep very quiet about. I suggest forwarding the RftV items you like to your MLA, David Eby, to show where his constituents stand on local transit.
We often don’t have the choice of whom is involved because of the recent trend in large LRT and infrastructure project bids to form a single large group made up of many expert companies performing their particular individual tasks that make up larger project as a whole. In Ottawa, we did not have a choice of certain companies because the various bidders formed single large Consortia made up of the smaller support corporations that filled certain roles and needs inside the bid. For example, the winning bid the Rideau Transit Group was made up of several engineering and building firms like, SNC Lavalin, Ellis Don (Main local Builder and Contractor), ACS Infrastructure (Spanish Tunnel builder and Piped Infrastructure), Dragados and RTGE (International Rail Line Contractors/ Builders & Rail Infrastructure Provider), MMM Group (formerly known as McCormick Rankin, main transportation planning and engineering consultant and not my favorite company in the world), Thales (Rail Control Systems, Rail Operations and Signaling), RTM (Engineering Consultants and Corporate and Project Management) and Alstom (LRV Provider and Main Rail System Operator). There are also about a dozen smaller firms as well that, have particular expert ability in specific areas in the project that are specific to the technology being used. For example, the Swedish Based Mining Equipment Company Sandvik provided the Roadheaders and other Mining equipment. There were 2 other large specialty Consortia Operating groups that were bidding, each of them had a similar arrangement of multiple corporations providing certain special needs in their respective bids. Hopefully the best choice was made. I’m always hoping the good companies will make up for the ones I think were bad choices. Cross your fingers!