If One Build Metro On Routes That Do Not Have The Ridership That Would Justify Contruction……


…..Then One Will Have To Pay Large Subsidies To Build And Operate It!

Large Subsidies Translates Into Higher Taxes!

Of course those high subsidies will have to be borne by the taxpayer, either in gas taxes, car levies, or road pricing (or all three), and or increased property taxes. The current belief by TransLink’s highly paid bureaucrats is that the homeowner in the Metro Region is flush enough to pay more property taxes.

What TransLink isn’t doing is planning for cheaper transit options and the term “affordable transit“, is not in their lexicon. Politicians and bureaucrats in Victoria are the same, as they force the metro region to build more SkyTrain and light metro. The time has come for Metro and Valley politicians to draw a line in the sand with this nonsense. If the politically unaccountable TransLink and Victoria want more SkyTrain in our region, then let Victoria pay for it, or better yet, take back the financial black-hole TransLink has become, in its entirety.

As previously mentioned, TransLink’s anti-LRT rhetoric has skewed all regional ‘rail‘ transit planning to favour SkyTrain, despite the fact that no one around the world buys SkyTrain for regional ‘rail’ transit. One now must consider all TransLink’s regional transit planning reported as “fruit of the poisonous tree” and reject it all!


TransLink’s business case for the Evergreen Line was so planned to support only SkyTrain construction, has been shredded by American transit & transportation expert Gerald Fox.


The Rail for the Valley/Leewood report has shown that there is another much cheaper way in providing regional ‘rail‘ transit the light rail or LRT and TramTrain solution.


Thus we come to TransLink’s and the provincial government’s gambit to saddle regional property owners with ever increasing  taxes to continue building with the now obsolete proprietary SkyTrain light metro system. Regional mayors should stand fast and reject any further financial demands for ‘rapid transit’ until TransLink does a complete independent financial review of transit options for future ‘rail‘ transit construction, including the the contentious Evergreen Line and a complete independent audit is done on TransLink itself, SkyTrain/RAV-Canada Line and the bus system.

May Zwei suggest Mr. Gerald Fox or Mr. David Cockle to head such a review?

From the press.

TransLink asked mayors for a $68.5 million handout.

The Vancouver Sun


The Black Press


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

4 Responses to “If One Build Metro On Routes That Do Not Have The Ridership That Would Justify Contruction……”

  1. lii Says:

    If One Build Metro On Routes That Do Not Have The Ridership That Would Justify Contruction……

    …..Then One Will Have To Pay Large Subsidies To Build And Operate It!


    That’s exactly why there’s no rail for the valley. Wow you solved your own problem!

    Zweisystem replies: As the RftV/Leewood study shows that a 100 km TramTrain Line costing $500 million could be built for about one third the cost of the 11 km. Evergreen line, thus the scope for attracting new customers is far greater with the Valley TramTrain, than an Evergreen line SkyTrain. Costing one third to build, means that the TramTrain needs one third of new customers to make it as successful as the Evergreen line. Thus if the Evergreen line attracts 10,000 new customers, then the TramTrain need only 3,340 new transit customers a day to be successful!

  2. David Says:

    I’d like to stress the important part of Zweisystem’s comment just in case someone missed it. The important number is NEW transit customers.

    That’s why RfV considers the Canada Line such a colossal waste of money. Most of the people on the line were already transit customers before the line was built.

    Zweisystem replies: Yes, somebody please tell Bill Good this!

  3. zweisystem Says:

    In Europe, no public money is spent on a transit scheme unless there is ample proof that a substantial modal shift, from car to ‘rail’, can be shown. Metro’s, like the RAV/Canada line fare poorly, when compared to new light rail schemes in attracting the motorist from the car.

    One just doesn’t throw money at transit projects, for the sake of building them.

  4. Justin Bernard Says:

    One can argue, the Canada Line was built because of the Olympics.

    Zweisystem replies: The real story about the Canada Line will not be told until Susan Heyes court case stands after all avenues of appeal.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: