April 19, 2008

Recent Letter to The Editor;

So Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon and his Liberal cronies of 'professional, unprofessionals', on the TransLink board, have decided which route the Evergreen line SkyTrain will run. The problem is not route, but mode, as SkyTrain is an obsolete proprietary light-metro, which has been on the market since the late 1970's and has had very few takers. Real transit professionals would never approve a SkyTrain light-metro!

SkyTrain has never passed public scrutiny in the very important US market and European markets, yet in Vancouver SkyTrain has never been allowed to compete against modern LRT, where no honest public debate has ever been allowed by TransLink, BC Transit before and/or the provincial government.

Today, SkyTrain light-metro is being marketed as a 'prestige' airport people-mover, as there is no market for light-metro, the mode made obsolete by LRT, a transit mode TransLink and the provincial government refuse to build! In the past 30 years, LRT has out sold SkyTrain by over 20 to 1. Kafka would smile.

Today, modern LRT is being built for $6 million/km in Spain; carrying freight containers on city streets in Amsterdam and Desden; trackshares with mainline railways in Karlsruhe; operates at 30 second headway's in peak hours in Helsinki; climbs 13.7% grades in Lisbon; carries over 250,000 passengers a day in Calgary; and has a proven record in attracting the motorist from the car in just about every city it operates.

Minister Falcon's announcement only means the regional taxpayer is again stuck with a billion dollar plus obsolete light metro, operating on route that doesn't have the ridership to sustain it, resulting in ever higher property taxes to subsidise it.

As one European transit specialist commented on our transit planning, "Understand the X-files were filmed in your part of the world, maybe that explains it."

Malcolm Johnston
Light Rail Committee
Box 105, Delta, BC
V4K 3N5


Note to Editor: The New York JFK ART SkyTrain was a private deal between the Port authority, Bombardier Inc. and the Canadian Federal Government. As no US federal funding was involved, there was no public debate and most public objections ended up in the courts. Today the JFK SkyTrain has not met ridership expectations and is subsidised in part, with a $7 departure fee.

Bombardier moves SkyTrain production to Mexico
April 15 2008

What I find interesting about this announcement (see below) is just not that Bombardier Inc. is moving its production of SkyTrain, to the land of cheap wages, but the purchase of 14 more MK.2 cars. The former SkyTrain plant in Burnaby, was an assembly plant not a production plant, with the Mk. 2 cars arrived in Burnaby in a 'kit' form from Ontario and assembled and wired here.

Is this the end of the line for SkyTrain? Once production jobs are lost in Canada, the demand to the federal government to subsidise the hugely expensive SkyTrain disappears. What government would be foolish enough to subsidise Mexican jobs?

Toronto's TTC is pursuing a massive LRT expansion in Toronto, which will probably include the abandonment of the Scarborough's ICTS or ALRT (SkyTrain) line. No hint of SkyTrain for the TTC.

Are the 14 cars from another failed SkyTrain deal?

I ask this question because the Mk. 1 SkyTrain cars, with no end doors, were produced for the failed Milan SkyTrain project. SkyTrain was almost built in Milan Italy but when transit engineers saw how shoddy the SkyTrain was when compare to European mini-metros, they dropped it like a hot-potato and the first batch of cars, minus end doors, were then sold to Vancouver.

Finally, is our TransLink stealth board directors, forcing the taxpayer to fund more SkyTrain cars and designing SkyTrain for the Evergreen Line, knowing (or not knowing) that production may soon be ended. Are we spending billions of dollars on an obsolete metro, that no one else wants so Campbell, Falcon and TransLink can save face?

Malcolm Johnston
Light Rail Committee

Note: Article below

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SkyTrains to be built in Mexico

Frank Luba
The Province

Sunday, April 13, 2008

New SkyTrain cars announced as part of a $150-million expansion of the TransLink fleet will be built by Canadian company Bombardier -- in Mexico.

The fleet expansion, aided by $47 million in provincial money, was decided on at the March 28 meeting of the new professional TransLink board held behind closed doors. Details were not revealed until the official announcement Friday.

The money will expand the current fleet of approximately 1,300 conventional buses and community shuttles by 103 "green" buses.

The purchase includes 20 articulated, zero-emission electric trolleys; 11 articulated, diesel-electric hybrid buses; and 72 standard-size diesel-electric coaches that burn 20-per-cent cleaner, according to TransLink, than its "clean" diesel or compressed natural gas buses.

Also part of the fleet expansion are 14 additional SkyTrain cars that will be in service by February 2010.

Already on order are 34 of the Mark II Bombardier cars. The additional cars will bump the fleet to 258 cars.

Doug Kelsey, who runs TransLink's rapid-transit division, said customers won't notice a difference between the previous Mark II vehicles built in a now-closed facility in Burnaby and the new Mexican Mark II. But there will be updates, like a newer linear-induction propulsion system.

Because there are so few SkyTrain systems, Bombardier only produces the cars when there is an order.

"It's highly expensive to shut it down and then start it up," said Kelsey of producing the cars, which cost about $3 million each.

"You want to keep the production run going," he said.

Kelsey explained that getting more trains will allow TransLink to run more four-car trains to address the congestion that plagues peak hours.

The combination of bus and SkyTrain expansion fits within the province's $14-billion provincial transit plan, according to Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon. "This is our first instalment of our new commitments in the provincial transit plan," said Falcon.

Despite the transit boost, the provincial government remains under fire from opponents of the Gateway Program to twin the Port Mann Bridge and widen the Trans-Canada Highway.

Those opponents see expansion of roads as a contradiction when the push is on to reduce vehicle traffic and the resulting emissions.

A demonstration against Gateway will be held at 10:30 a.m. tomorrow outside Canada Place.

Edge of the Ledge - by Donald Malcom Johnston

I am severely distressed after hearing Friday's program, "Edge of the Ledge", with Vaughn Palmer and Keith Baldrey about the Premier's $14 billion transit plans for the province. Despite so much information about public transit on the 'net' and the easy availability finding fares and operating characteristics for other transit systems, the same old local myths about 'rapid transit' keep being retold. I would expect much better.

I have been involved in transit advocacy since 1986, when the scheme to install the Expo monorail in downtown Vancouver was the flavour of the month. Since 1984 I have been a member of the Light Rail Transit Association, an Association which is an interesting blend of professional and amateur people who advocate good public transport. With LRTA's comprehensive monthly publication, Tramways and Urban Transit, I am up to date on all transit developments around the world, including bus, light rail and metro.

As with the term 'mass transit', there is no such thing as 'rapid transit' because the term is generic and does not specify mode.

Public transit has four main modes:
Bus (including trolley, express and guided buses);
LRT/streetcar;
Metro; and
Commuter rail.
Each mode is operated to deal with specific ridership demands.

LRT becomes more economic to operate than buses when ridership on a transit route exceeds 2,000 persons per hour per direction;

Metro tends to becomes (depending if the route is elevated or built in a subway) more economic when ridership exceeds 15,000 to 20,000 pphpd on a transit route.

Commuter Rail, because of different operating parameters, is excluded.

Metro, because of close headway's and long trains must operate on segregated rights-of-ways.

What TransLink has done is combine many bus routes to provide a fictional 'transit corridor', to artificially inflate potential ridership. TransLink's so-called grand transit corridors are nothing more than planning at its worst.

Myth: There isn't the density for rapid transit in............

The 'density' myth was created by BC Transit and later expanded on by TransLink (at the same time by professors at UBC and SFU) as an excuse for not expanding 'rail transit' eastward through the Fraser Valley. For the past 16 years SkyTrain's ridership has only increased as population increased. There has been no evidence of a modal shift from car to SkyTrain.

That bears repeating: There has been no evidence of a modal shift from car to SkyTrain. To recognise the truth of that statement, one needs only to observe daily traffic congestion at all of the "choke points" in the region.

It was only by grossly densifying the areas adjacent to SkyTrain, that ridership could be increased, but that was a two-edged sword. This is because, as density increased, a greater percentage of the population opted to take the car and not SkyTrain.

In desperation, TransLink cascaded as many bus lines as it could into the SkyTrain web, thus compelling customers to take transit whether they liked it or not (even Main St. bus riders must transfer to SkyTrain if their destination is downtown Vancouver.). This has created an artificial demand on the metro and, to the average person, it seems that SkyTrain is operating at capacity.

So just what capacity is needed for 'rail' transit? At TransLink, no one has stated what density is needed for 'rail' transit . Since LRT can up to one tenth cheaper to install than SkyTrain (TTC, ARTS study), one might logically expect LRT to need only +/- one-tenth of the density required to for SkyTrain, in order for it to be viable. Yet LRT is not being planned for - except, perhaps, for the Evergreen Line, where the per kilometre costs, unbelievably, are quoted in excess of those of the Millennium SkyTrain light metro line.

All European light rail/tram systems can, and do, operate in areas of low density (0 - 2,000 persons per sq. km.) but, of course, the light-rail lines also traverse more densely populated city centres. It would be most interesting if TransLink would produce a density chart for Surrey, Langley, Abbotsford; and Chilliwack. Then we could compare it with European examples, to see if density was a real issue or just an excuse for not providing 'rail' transit.

Here are the real stories that the media is not dealing with:
The SkyTrain Expo Line stations - which can accommodate rakes of 6 car trains of Mk.1 stock and 4 car trains of Mk.2 stock - are being rebuilt at huge costs to provide the excuse to order more Mk. 2 metro cars from Bombardier Inc., the sole supplier of the proprietary SkyTrain light metro. Also, the reconditioned stations will accept the new 'fare gates' by Cubic Transportation Systems Inc., with Ken Dobell and Lecia Stewart http://www.publiceyeonline.com/ lobbying on their behalf.

Question: In the recent past, TransLink has denied that fare evasion exceeds the norm for transit systems in other jurisdictions. So what is the real experience here? Is Minister Falcon's fare evasion diatribe mere camouflage to justify installation of fare machines that Ken Dobell and Ms. Stewart were so well paid to sell?

A deluxe diesel LRT system can be built from Vancouver to Chilliwack, via the old interurban route, for under $1 billion. The 19 km. RAV/Canada line cost is now over $2.4 billion. Why? Because the consulting firm, which did the study for TransLink had no experience with LRT and planned for the heavy rail solution. It was also because a SkyTrain-type system was the obvious - albeit not openly admitted - preference of the provincial Ministry of Transportation.

We can build LRT (not a streetcar) from BCIT to UBC via Broadway and 10th Ave. for under $1 billion. Such a system would see the end of bus operation on the route - thus reducing operating costs. Commercial speed would be 20 to 25 kph, with stops every 500 to 600 metres apart. (industry standard) Ridership on such a route would double in two to three years. This is not my invention - it came during my conversation with an experienced European transit planner.

Why are we building hugely expensive subways, which have a poor record in attracting new ridership?

Why are we investing in RapidBus when, again, the mode has a poor record in attracting new ridership. Where has RapidBus worked?

Did Premier Campbell pay a significant indemnity to Bombardier by not building SkyTrain for the RAV/Canada Line?

Are there secret agreements in place between the province, TransLink, and Bombardier Inc. to build only with SkyTrain - the purpose of which would be to keep the company's Kingston plant in operation, building cars for the orphan light metro system?

Why is TransLink planning so at odds with modern international transit experience? Why does TransLink only plan for SkyTrain or light metro ( the Evergreen Line is designed as a light-metro), when the mode has proven obsolete?

Why does TransLink and the Provincial government reject modern LRT which is used in almost 600 cities around the world and still compel the region to build with hugely expensive SkyTrain light metro, which has only five examples in operation?

Malcolm Johnston
Light Rail Committee
Box 105, Delta, BC
V4K 3N5

LRTA - A 195 km. LRT network for $6 billion!
The following news item from the Light Rail Transit Association confirms the Light Rail Committee's contention that the Vancouver 'Metro' region could build an affordable regional light rail network from Vancouver to Chilliwack for about one half the cost of the current $12 billion recently announced by the BC Liberals in January. Imagine a 195 km. LRT network for the lower mainland for only $6 billion!

If Premier Gordon Campbell is really serious about 'global warming' and the 'greenhouse effect', he should immediately abandon any SkyTrain expansion plans and invest half of the proposed $12 billion investment into a large (200 km.) LRT network that would attract the motorist from the car!

Light Rail Transit Association

Presentation on Light Rail Transit

February 16, 2008

"Tram-train", the Interurban in 2008!

First, before any discussion about rail transit, including Light Rail Transit, we must define what LRT is. The following is a brief descriptions of various rapid transit modes.

• Commuter rail: Locomotive hauled rail coaches or diesel or electric multiple unit trains, catering specifically to peak hour transit demands.
• Passenger rail: Any regularly scheduled passenger rail service.
• Light Rail Transit: A rail mode, that economically bridges the gap between what passenger loads that can be economically carried by bus and that of a metro, between 2,000 and 20,000 persons per hour per direction. Comes from the English term ‘light railway’ or a railway ‘light’ in costs. LRT is able to operate in mixed traffic on city streets, its own ‘reserved rights-of-way’, or on mainline railways. LRT can be built as a simple streetcar or as a light metro, and can combine any and all of the previous examples on one route.

The metro family, including light metro: A rail mode that operates on segregated rights-of-ways, due to longer rakes of passenger vehicles operating at close headways. Metros generally operate on elevated guideways or in subways and has more intensive signaling, sometimes including driverless operation. Metros are built to cater to large passenger volumes, in excess of 300,000 or more passengers per route (line) per direction per day.

Bus rapid transit (BRT): Any limited stop bus service including guided bus and buses using busways.

The problem:

The population of the Fraser Valley is growing at an unprecedented rate, roads and highways are congested and pollution in the upper regions of the valley is increasing rapidly. The provincial government in 1980, forced the proprietary SkyTrain light metro system upon the GVRD instead of previously planned for light rail. For the cost of LRT going from downtown Vancouver to Lougheed Mall, Whalley, and Richmond Centre, the region got SkyTrain from downtown Vancouver to New Westminster. Some $5 billion later we have SkyTrain to Whalley and the Millennium line, the only metro in the world that goes nowhere to nowhere. The annual subsidy for SkyTrain is now over $200 million annually and has given rise to the myth that "we do not have the density for rapid transit". We have plenty of density for LRT, we never did have the density for metro.

The provincial government has again forced another, now $2.4 billion, RAV/Canada Line onto TransLink, on a route without sufficient density to provide the ridership to justify its construction costs, which in turn will further increase the annual subsidy for metro in the GVRD.

The province and TransLink again have pulled a "bait and switch" with the Evergreen Line, though calling it LRT, the Evergreen Line’s high costs, showed it was really another SkyTrain in" drag". Though the province claims that there’s a business case for the new Evergreen SkyTrain Line, the claims that automated, driverless, light-metro transit system carry more people, is faster and costs less to operate than modern light-rail transit are baseless. The opposite is true, not only have automatic or driverless transit systems have proven costly to build and operate, they have poor in attracting new ridership! That’s why very few cities invest in the mode and those cities that have a automatic metro also have LRT, except Vancouver.

Because of the huge cost for TransLink’s ‘rail’ transit, the provincial government claims that there isn’t the density for rapid transit in the Fraser Valley and has embarked on a $4.5 billion "Gateway" highways and bridge program. Problem is new highways and bridges only attract more traffic and soon highways become congested - again!

A Note on Density:

Many people, including TransLink confuse density with ridership. Density is the number of people living per square km. in a region and ridership is the number of people using transit. People only will use public transit if the public transit services their travel needs and if transit doesn’t serve where "I" want to go, "I" will not use it.

What TransLink and the GVRD are trying to do is increase density near a SkyTrain routes and hope that the sheer numbers brought by higher density will provide the ridership for their metro. Sadly what has happened is that yes, more people are using SkyTrain, but even more people are using the car! One can densify all one wants but if public transit doesn’t serve the needs of the population, people will not use it.

Many smaller European cities operate extensive light rail networks and carry large volumes of the ‘customers’ because the public transit services where people want to go. The key is build more ‘rail’ transit, serving more destinations, but built it cheaply!

The Karlsruhe Solution:

Karlsruhe, Germany, with a regional population on par with the Fraser Valley has become famous in the urban-transportation field for its pioneering dual-system Stadtbahn "tram-trains" that run both on city streetcar tracks and on railroad lines shared with normal passenger and freight trains, in what is now known as the Karlsruhe Model.

The first step in this development came with the extension of the previously-existing Albtalbahn, an electric suburban light-rail line that runs southward from Karlsruhe to Bad Herrenalb and Ittersbach. In 1979, it was extended through the center of Karlsruhe on city streetcar tracks, then northward to Neureut, where it shares tracks with freight trains on a lightly-used branch of Deutsche Bahn (DB). Further track-sharing allowed the line to be extended to Hochstetten in 1989. This DB branch uses diesel power, so the shared sections were electrified with 750V DC to accommodate the light-rail (Stadtbahn) trains.

The success of this project stimulated interest in converting some of the DB's regional passenger services to Stadtbahn lines and running them into the city on streetcar tracks also. This would have significant advantages for passengers:

They would no longer have to transfer between trains and streetcars at the main railroad station (Hauptbahnhof) or other stations on the fringes of the city, such as at Durlach.

Because light-rail trains can accelerate more quickly than conventional trains, running time could be reduced. Alternatively, more stops could be made, so that fewer passengers would have to drive or take connecting buses to reach the outer stations.

The first dual-system Stadtbahn service began operation in 1992, between Karlsruhe and Bretten, on what is now part of route S4. It was a huge success, with ridership increasing a whopping 475% in a few weeks. New routes and extensions have followed . The total length of the AVG's routes is now about 470 km (291 miles), making it one of the largest passenger rail operators in Germany. The "tram-train" longest run is now a 210km (130 miles) service from Öhringen through to central Karlsruhe! So successful is the Karlsruhe "tram-train" or interurban, the DB now operates with trams in the region!

Will Karlsruhe work here?

The answer is yes, but the federal and provincial governments must take the lead in passing legislation to compel regional railways to allow such operation, just as what happened in Germany. If we want to reduce congestion and pollution, we must build a viable transit alternative, the Karlsruhe model provides an extensive ‘rail’ network at a far less cost, tens of billions of dollars, than the Vancouver RAV or SkyTrain metro models. To build 100 km of SkyTrain would cost about $9 billion dollars but with the Karlsruhe "tram-train" concept, 100 km. could cost as little as $800 million! Much less if diesel light rail is used!

In an era where European transit planners are continually trying to reduce the cost of new ‘rail’ transit schemes, TransLink’s planners do the opposite, reveling in the idea that ‘rail’ transit becomes better as one throws more money at it! Economy is not in TransLink’s lexicon.

Kevin Falcon’s TransLink Mk. 2 will continue to plan for hugely expensive ‘subways’ in Vancouver and just leave ‘transit’ crumbs for the rest. Vancouver now has nearing completion, a $2.5 billion subway on two transit routes (98-B and Cambie St.) that could muster less than 40,000 customers a day. Now the City of Vancouver wants a multi-billion dollar subway under Broadway and what Vancouver wants, Vancouver gets! To fund Vancouver’s next subway, TransLink needs the tax base of the Fraser Valley to Hope and as far as Squamish.

There are affordable ‘rail’ options for the Fraser Valley and it’s time for Valley politicians convey the message to Victoria and Ottawa that we do have the density for light rail; we can afford light rail; we want light rail; and no, no more hugely expensive metro’s for Vancouver and its neighbors!

back to top