Local mayors say TransLink is headed for a crash

SkyTrain has slowly destroyed public transit in the region; the huge annual $200 million+ subsidy has taken money away from other needed transit projects and because it is so costly to build, it has promoted car use in the region and the need for the Gateway highway & bridge project in the Fraser Valley.

According to TransLink, 80% of SkyTrain's ridership first take a bus. This is a very bad indictment of the metro, for buses are very poor in attracting ridership. What is happening is that TransLink is forcing bus riders onto the metro to inflate ridership numbers. It is a scam.

Because RAV/Canada Line is so poorly planned, TransLink will spend millions to support it; TransLink will destroy current bus services to support it; TransLink doesn't give a damn about the customer.

Gerald Fox, a noted American Transit Expert shredded the Evergreen Line Business case, in a letter to a Victoria transit group. The letter:

Greetings:
The Evergreen Line Report made me curious as to how TransLink could justify continuing to expand SkyTrain, when the rest of the world is building LRT. So I went back and read the alleged "Business Case" (BC) report in a little more detail. I found several instances where the analysis had made assumptions that were inaccurate, or had been manipulated to make the case for SkyTrain. If the underlying assumptions are inaccurate, the conclusions may be so too.

Specifically:

Capacity. A combination of train size and headway. For instance, TriMet's new "Type 4" Low floor LRVs, arriving later this year, have a rated capacity of 232 per car, or 464 for a 2- car train. (Of course one must also be sure to use the same standee density when comparing car capacity. I don't know if that was done here). In Portland we operate a frequency of 3 minutes downtown in the peak hour, giving a one way peak hour capacity of 9,280. By next year we will have two routes through downtown, which will eventually load both ways, giving a theoretical peak hour rail capacity of 37,000 into or out of downtown. Of course we also run a lot of buses. The new Seattle LRT system which opens next year, is designed for 4-car trains, and thus have a peak hour capacity of 18,560. (but doesn't need this yet, and so shares the tunnel with buses). The Business Case analysis assumes a capacity of 4,080 for LRT, on the Evergreen Line which it
states is not enough, and compares it to SkyTrain capacity of 10400.!

Speed. The analysis states the maximum LRT speed is 60 kph. (which would be correct for the street sections) But ost LRVs are actually designed for 90 kph. On the Evergreen Line, LRT could operate at up to 90 where conditions permit, such as in the tunnels, and on protected ROW. Most LRT systems pre-empt most intersections, and so experience little delay at grade crossings. (Our policy is that the trains stop only at stations, and seldom experience traffic delays. It seems to work fine, and has little effect on traffic.) There is another element of speed, which is station access time. At-grade stations have less access time. This was overlooked in the analysis. Also, on the NW alignment, the SkyTrain proposal uses a different, faster, less-costly alignment to LRT proposal. And has 8 rather than 12 stations. If LRT was compared on the alignment now proposed for SkyTrain, it would go faster, and cost less than the Business Case report states!

Cost. Here again, there seems to be some hidden biases. As mentioned above, on the NW Corridor, LRT is costed on a different alignment, with more stations. The cost difference between LRT and SkyTrain presented in the Business Case report is therefore misleading. If they were compared on identical alignments, with the same number of stations, and designed to optimize each mode, the cost advantage of LRT would be far greater. I also suspect that the basic LRT design has been rendered more costly by requirements for tunnels and general design that would not be found on more cost-sensitive LRT projects

Then there are the car costs. Last time I looked, the cost per unit of capacity was far higher for SkyTrain. Also,it takes about 2 SkyTrain cars to match the capacity of one LRV. And the grade-separated SkyTrain stations are far most costly and complex than LRT stations. Comparing 8 SkyTrain stations with 12 LRT stations also helps blur the distinction.

Ridership. Is a function of many factors. The Business Case report would have you believe that type of rail mode alone, makes a difference (It does in the bus vs rail comparison, according to the latest US federal guidelines). But, on the Evergreen Line, I doubt it. What makes a difference is speed, frequency (but not so much when headways get to 5 minutes), station spacing and amenity etc. Since the speed, frequency and capacity assumptions used in the Business Case are clearly inaccurate, the ridership estimates cannot be correct either. There would be some advantage if SkyTrain could avoid a transfer. If the connecting system has capacity for the extra trains. But the case is way overstated. And nowhere is it addressed whether the Evergreen Line, at the extremity of the system, has the demand for so much capacity and, if it does, what that would mean on the rest of the system if feeds into? Innuedos about safety, and traffic impacts, seem to be a big issue for SkyTrain proponents, but are solved by the numerous systems that operate new LRT systems (i.e., they can't be as bad as the SkyTrain folk would like you to believe).

I've no desire to get drawn into the Vancouver transit wars, and, anyway, most of the rest of the world has moved on. To be fair, there are clear advantages in keeping with one kind of rail technology, and in through-routing service at Lougheed. But, eventually, Vancouver will need to adopt lower-cost LRT in its lesser corridors, or else limit the extent of its rail system. And that seems to make some TransLink people very nervous.

It is interesting how TransLink has used this cunning method of manipulating analysis to justify SkyTrain in corridor after corridor, and has thus succeeded in keeping its proprietary rail system expanding. In the US, all new transit projects that seek federal support are now subjected to scrutiny by a panel of transit peers, selected and monitored by the federal government, to ensure that projects are analysed honestly, and the taxpayers' interests are protected. No SkyTrain project has ever passed this scrutiny in the US.

Victoria

But the BIG DEAL for Victoria is: If the Business Case analysis were corrected to fix at least some of the errors outlined above, the COST INCREASE from using SkyTrain on the Evergreen Line will be comparable to the TOTAL COST of a modest starter line in Victoria. This needs to come to the attention of the Province. Victoria really does deserve better.

Please share these thoughts as you feel appropriate.

In any other jurisdiction, the police would be investigating, but not in BC!

I was recently at a luncheon in White Rock and one of the people attending was an elderly woman from Coquitlam. In order for her to get to the resturaunt at 11.30 am she had to leave her area by bus at 7.00am, and translink seems to think that is okay. all of the transit money goes into the Vancouver,Richmond,New Westminster,and north side of the river. It needs a complete overhaul of the board and eliminate the various governments from having any input and sit down and come up with a viable 10 or 15 year plan based on proper economical systems and forget this rich elevated non profitable crusade for the present ideotic system. If they had a sensible system in place people would not have to use their cars.

Our transit problems have nothing to do with SkyTrain. It is the lack of funding from the Liberal provincial government that has caused the transit crisis in Metro Vancouver. This was caused by the mayors and people south of the Fraser rallying against the vehicle levy and the NDP not having the courage to approve the levy just before an election.

According to the 2006 census, the Cities of New West, Burnaby and Vancouver have very high levels of transit usage compared both with other cities in the region and in North America. Much higher than any North American cities that have LRT. The increase in both New West, Burnaby follow SkyTrain expansion. This proves that SkyTrain and bus along with compact development is very effective at attracting ridership. If you don't believe that, just try cramming on a train or a bus at rush hour.

Regarding the priority for rapid transit line, the LRSP did not specify which should be first, rather it commented that if the goal was to serve existing ridership first, then build the Richmond line first. If the goal was to shape development, then build the Coquitlam line first. The Richmond line was being planned in the early nineties before the NDP got in and made the priority the Richmond line. It is politics but it goes both ways.

Instead of the useless squabbling over lines that are already built or under construction, lets work top stop Gateway and get the money reallocated for transit.

And watch for a lock-out of bus drivers when the current contract expires in 2011. Last time there was a bus strike/lockout, Translink saved millions, which they then applied toward turning Cambie into a traffic nightmare for three years.

----
http://fingersmcginty.blogspot.com/

I see there was a long debate about Skytrain vs. LRT vs. tram vs busses, etc. on the TYEE site, but it was ended in Sept. Has someone summarized the main positions and evidence somehwere, or can someone do this?