A MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL – FROM RAIL FOR THE VALLEY

From the Zweisystem and the rest of the Rail For The Valley Gang

A very merry Christmas and a very happy and safe New Year!

A Darmstadt tram plowing through a snow storm.

Global Warming, Copenhagen, & Light Rail – The Solution That Is Ignored

When one looks past the European street theater of riots, the embarrassment of Canada, the intransigence of the USA, China and Russia, what will Copenhagen climate conference accomplish? Probably very little. The world is not ready for global warming and if a few island nations submerge due to rising sea levels, no one will really care.

Much of CO2 contributing to global warming is coming from burning fossil fuels and much of it comes from gas and diesel motors, yet no one seems to think reducing auto and truck use should be a top priority. Premier Campbell points to the newly completed RAV/Canada Line as an example of taking 200,000 car trips off the road per day, but can’t show any believable statistic to support his claim as the RAV Line has yet to show that a modal shift, from car to transit,  has taken place.

Unlike the new Karlsruhe tramtrain service which saw an over 423% increase in ridership in a few short weeks, RAV’s new ridership seems to be elderly Asians from Vancouver shopping in Richmond and older gamblers going to the River Rock Casino to be relieved of their savings; there is absolutely no evidence of the all important modal shift from car to transit. Have we spent almost $3 billion to attract people to malls and casinos?

The SkyTrain light-metro system is force-fed 80% of its riders from the bus system and in almost twenty-five years of operation, BC Transit and now TransLink have never claimed any modal shift from car to transit. This is dismal news, as the taxpayer has now invested over $8 billion in a light-metro system that has failed to attract the motorist from the car. Regional transit planners, abetted by politicians, seem to be doing the same thing over and over again, without achieving a different outcome.

Rapid transit does not reduce congestion or pollution.

It is an ongoing myth that rapid transit reduces traffic congestion and pollution and the cliché’ “Build it and they will come”, is now used to masquerade poorly implemented transit schemes, like Seattle’s Link Light Rail. What does reduce auto congestion and pollution, is a transit system that is designed to suit the needs of customers and what customers want is a ‘seamless’ of no transfer journey from home to destination. Modern light-rail, being much cheaper to build, is better able to achieve the all important seamless journey than much more expensive metro and light-metro. Modern LRT can provide the rail network that can achieve the all important modal shift from car to transit, yet it is largely ignored.

Even though the SkyTrain light-metro system carries a large volumes of customers every day, most (over 80%) are bus passengers forced onto the metro not former car drivers. This certainly makes for impressive ridership numbers and bureaucrats can pat themselves on the back, but in reality, SkyTrain has achieved very little because it hasn’t provided the transit network that will attract the all important motorists. The SkyTrain lobby, of course, continues the myth that the light-metro has reduced congestion and pollution, but ignores that SkyTrain’s ridership has just kept pace with population growth. Too expensive to extend (Langley is said to get SkyTrain by 2030), SkyTrain continues to constrain both public transit policy and public transit development.

With the spectre of ‘Peak Oil’ and ‘Global Warming’ looming, the METRO region will find it difficult to cope with increasing public transit demand and will be forced, kicking and screaming,  to consider much cheaper LRT; in fact, in a few short years the SkyTrain light-metro system will be seen as a combined curse of dated technology and operational philosophy. 

Vancouver and the Fraser Valley needs 300 km to 400 km of ‘rail‘ transit to provide the transportation network that will attract the motorist from the car, thus creating the all important modal shift. The question is do we build with modern LRT, with costs as low as $4 million to $7 million (track sharing) or SkyTrain with starting costs now well over $100 million km. By building with LRT, the region could create a large, user friendly transit network that would go a long way in achieving the all important modal shift. Continuing our present course of only planning for light metro will create financial chaos resulting in a very expensive, disjointed and very user unfriendly transit system.

One has little hope for any successful outcome from the Copenhagen conference and very few people in the METRO region have the foresight to provide the real solutions to mitigate a looming environmental catastrophe. Building modern LRT and creating a large light rail network would go a long way in reducing both auto congestion and CO2 pollution which, strangely, is something local environmental groups seem afraid in endorsing, as they prefer to jet about pretending they are achieving something.

Sadly in BC, it is business as usual, with planning continues for very expensive, politically prestigious light metro built on routes that do not have the ridership to sustain them and building highways, in transit starved areas to cater to the auto.

21st century transit planning has never seemed so far away.

Has SkyTrain become British Columbia’s Greatest Bamboozle?

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. The bamboozle has captured us. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.

Carl Sagan

Is SkyTrain a colossal bamboozle? Does the SkyTrain lobby and TransLink still continue to bamboozle the mainstream media and politicians, with false claims and/or questionable statistics supporting building more SkyTrain? 

Why do transit authorities, civic, provincial and even federal politicians continue to support, plan for, and fund a transit mode that costs up to ten times more to construct, almost double to operate than the light rail alternative. Why do the powers that be continue to plan and build with a transit mode that has failed to achieve the all important modal shift from car to transit?

The mainstream media has long been bamboozled and continues to be bamboozled by the  SkyTrain lobby and its friends;  twisting and perverting stories to always make the mode look good, especially when the mode is deemed an obsolete by many knowledgeable transit planners around the world.

Part of the great SkyTrain bamboozle is the ‘density’ bamboozle.

For years politicians, planners, and assorted pundits have claimed there isn’t enough density for ‘rapid transit’ when light rail is mentioned for a transit route, but never state what density is needed for successful ‘rapid transit’. If “there is not enough density for rapid transit”  then there needs to be a published density criteria for transit modes such as bus, light rail and SkyTrain and/or light-metro, yet there is none.  Why then was the Arbutus Corridor, which had a higher published density than the Cambie Corridor, deemed to have not enough ‘density‘ for light rail, yet there was the ‘density‘ on Cambie St. to support a much more expensive light-metro subway?

Point of logic: If one can build light-rail for one half to one quarter the cost of SkyTrain, then does one need on half to one quarter the density to support LRT than SkyTrain?

Is the ‘density‘ question just a bamboozle, by the transit charlatans to support building more SkyTrain?

SkyTrain’s supposed higher speed is another bamboozle, oft used by the SkyTrain lobby, while at the same time, failing to mention that the supposed higher speed comes from sacrificing stations, as most LRT lines have twice a s many stations per route km. than SkyTrain. If this is so, then if we design a LRT line with just as many stations as SkyTrain, then LRT will be as fast, if not faster than SkyTrain.

Yet another bamboozle, is the old saw that SkyTrain is cheaper to operate because it has no drivers, yet the SkyTrain lobby fails to mention that automatic transit systems actually have more employees than comparable LRT systems. Funny how politicians, media types and pundits never actually use hard numbers to compare the actual number of people working for SkyTrain, rather state: “it’s a driverless system, no drivers and much cheaper to operate”, as well the SkyTrain lobby always uses the bamboozle that “with no drivers, SkyTrain can’t be shut down by a strike!” What the pundits politely forget is that if the SkyTrain operators go on strike, the metro effectively shuts down.

With the present provincial government and their transit planning, the art of the bamboozle is fully evident and the mainstream media, being asleep at the switch for over thirty years, have been captured by the SkyTrain bamboozle. Sadly, those who should be doing reporting and investigation have unwittingly been a major player in the Great SkyTrain Bamboozle.

The Night of the Blunt Butter Knives – TransLink Fires Three Executives

It looks like TransLink has sacrificed three executives, to give an appearance of “getting their house in order” after two very recent uncomplimentary reports; nothing like firing three top executives (of course leaving with handsome golden handshakes) to give the public confidence that TransLink is cleaning house.

Sorry, no it’s not – not even close.

If TransLink was really concerned how taxpayers money was spent, it would cut non-productive bus routes like the South Delta 609 service, that only carries five to ten passengers a day. How many more 609 like bus routes operate in the region? If TransLink was really interested in revenue protection, they would disband the SkyTrain police (which more and more seem like a sop for retired RCMP officers), with real fare inspectors or conductors and do actual revenue protection duties on the trains. In Europe, it is not turnstiles (which TransLink is being forced to install by the BC Liberals) that ensures fare compliance, but roving conductors checking tickets and issuing on the spot fines for noncompliance.

Why does TransLink have or even need expensive spin-doctors, unless they want to continue to deliberately confuse the public. What is TransLink trying to hide?

What is needed is a forensic audit by the Auditor General, to root out the real financial problems with TransLink and the RAV/SkyTrain light-metro system. Only after a complete and thorough audit is done will the public, politicians, and TransLink’s management will know where real economies can be made.

TransLink fires three executives

Move linked to ‘finding efficiencies’

By Kelly Sinoski, Vancouver Sun December 12, 2009

Three top senior TransLink executives have been let go, a little more than a month after a comptroller-general’s report criticized the transit authority for its “excessive” number of senior staffers.

But TransLink spokesman Ken Hardie said the departures of the three executives — who held posts in human resources, information technology and capital management — were part of a move by TransLink to “find efficiencies” and not related to the report.

The move started before the provincial government had even asked for the comptroller’s report, he said.

Hardie couldn’t say how much money would be saved by the loss of the three executives, saying TransLink would need some time to work through some of the details with them.

TransLink, under the guidance of then CEO Tom Prendergast, had sought late last year to find efficiencies in the transit system and “get more for less,” Hardie said.

“We went at this looking at the work that needed to be done and the resources needed to do it,” Hardie said.

This included eliminating duplication of services.

The capital management division, for instance, which is involved in vehicle acquisitions and the Vancouver Transit Centre, was doing similar work to that undertaken by Coast Mountain Bus.

As TransLink isn’t currently involved in building large new projects, it’s looking at redesigning its corporate management structure.

The move to find efficiencies came as TransLink was facing a looming cash crunch. The regional mayors’ council has since approved a $130-million supplement to help keep transit services running at existing levels.

Hardie noted TransLink has about 23 vacancies right now and more are anticipated as a result of a hiring freeze.

Our Campaign Blog – 1 year old today

April 11, 2009: Two young Rail for the Valley supporters hold a banner on a Chilliwack overpass, part of our Highway 1 Day of Action.

Today marks the one-year anniversary of the Rail for the Valley Campaign Blog!

Readership (now at 300-400 hits per day) has grown dramatically since last December, when the Campaign Blog was initially launched and the readership was… well, 0.

Here’s the very first blog post, on Dec. 8, 2008: https://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/2008/12/08/rail-for-the-valley-on-ctv/

When I first created this blog, I had in mind a place where I and others could regularly congregate and contribute  – not necessarily “News” items – but our thoughts and items of interest, a place to communicate and get ideas flowing. In that regard, the blog has so far been a success well beyond my expectations.

At the time, I asked Zweisystem if he would like to be a contributor. I had no idea how quickly he would adapt to blogging, to getting debate going (and certainly not always preaching to the converted!), and how adept he would be at building our readership, both locally and in fact around the world. I know today we have visitors from every place you can imagine – to our international readers, I’m glad you have found this blog and are enjoying it!

Looking to the future of the blog, I want to keep us moving forward, and to really build an online community around our main issue, as well as other related issues. To do this, means more writers and fresh perspectives. (Zweisystem strongly agrees.)

In the new year, you can look forward to an increase in the number of “guest posts” on this blog – and if all goes well, new regular bloggers as well.

In order to achieve this, we are looking for

1) “guest” bloggers who wish to contribute one or more “guest” articles for publication on the blog

You don’t need to be an expert on the Fraser Valley, or on all things light rail. A well-written post from a personal point of view is just as good. We’re looking for both local, as well as international perspectives.

2) regular contributors, whether it be once a week, or more frequently.

If you’d like to contribute, or if you know someone else, please send an email to railforthevalley@gmail.com.

If you have a passion for the issue of Rail for the Valley, and an enthusiasm to write for us, please come forward!

From The Centre For Transportation Excellence – The Anti-Public Transit Crowd

The following from the CFTE is interesting, as the following names pop up North of the 49th once in a while. Strangely, many in the SkyTrain lobby think that these people support SkyTrain because they attack modern Light Rail in the United States, but of course, they don’t build SkyTrain in the U.S. do they. Once ‘Peak Oil’ kicks in in a decade or so, these people will probably be relegated as a rustic anachronism or 21st Century version of Luddites as American cities will be grappling with fuel shortages and rationing, inadequate transportation alternatives, but having miles and miles of very underused highways and expressways.

Randal O’Toole, Executive Director of Oregon’s Thoreau Institute (http://www.ti.org).
His publications include: ISTEA: A Poisonous Brew for America’s Cities; Light Rail Myths and Realities; The Vanishing Automobile; and Light Rail: Yesterday’s Technology Tomorrow. O’Toole’s background is in economics, and prior to being energized by Portland’s Urban Growth Boundary, he worked mainly on forest issues and against the federal subsidization of logging. He was the primary organizer of the February 2003 transit critics conference, “Preserving the American Dream.”

Wendell Cox, a self-employed privatization proponent who lives in the St. Louis area who has written attacks on transit and Amtrak for the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Highway Users Alliance and others. His work includes the Cato publication False Dreams and Broken Promises: The Wasteful Federal Investment in Mass Transit and has continued with numerous op-eds, seminars and radio and TV appearances in communities considering new transit investments. Cox has authored reports for the Wisconsin Policy Center and the James Madison Institute attacking the proposed Milwaukee rail system and the Florida Overland Express high speed rail project. Cox’s background as an expert is derived from his appointment to the old Los Angeles County Transportation Commission as a citizen member. He has been employed by various conservative and road building groups over the years. Cox is also known for his anti-Portland and transit-bashing website, (http://www.publicpurpose.com), which Peter Gordon has cited in his presentations.

John Semmens, a fellow at Phoenix’s Goldwater Institute. His major contribution so far is the report “Public Transit: A Worthwhile Investment?” The report was an attempt to de-rail the Phoenix Transit 2000 initiative, which called for a .4 percent tax increase to expand bus service and build a light rail line there. The ballot measure was approved in March of 2000. Semmens’ report includes a number of fact sheets, including “A Declining Industry”, “A Financial Disaster”, “A Blight on the Economy”, and “A Failure Everywhere.”

Robert Poole, President of the Reason Foundation. He and others at the Reason Foundation have published detailed attacks on the Los Angeles MTA’s rail projects and on transit investments in general. Poole came to Phoenix before the 1997 referendum to attack the proposed regional transit system at seminars and on the radio. This visit created negative coverage in several local media outlets, including the Arizona Republic, which was otherwise in favor of the project.

Stephen Mueller of the Independence Institute played a role in undermining support for the 1997 referendum on the Denver light rail project with his paper Light Rail In Denver: Taking Taxpayers for a Ride and numerous appearances in the local media.

John Charles of the Cascade Policy Institute in Oregon began as an environmentalist and has evolved into a libertarian who promotes congestion pricing and attacks transit and planned growth. His recommendations include: “Local transit taxes should be abolished, Oregon’s ties to federal government transit funding should be terminated, and publicly owned transit assets should be auctioned off. Stop any further spending on publicly owned urban rail systems.” He also travels to spread the word: the Phoenix Business Journal reported that “… Charles was invited to Phoenix by the Goldwater Institute.”

Peter Samuel, editor of the self-published Toll Roads Newsletter, wrote a piece for the Reason Foundation which makes the case that one can build one’s way out of congestion. Samuel is a libertarian and an advocate of building toll roads and converting existing highways to toll roads as a solution to transportation problems. His past work includes writings for the Cato Institute promoting highway privatization, and he is also associated with something called the Sutherland Institute, and has joined the fray over Salt Lake City’s light rail proposal, arguing that the absence of rail has been a reason for growth in the West.

Other main actors include Peter Gordon and Harry Richardson of the University of Southern California, Charles Lave of the University of California at Irvine, Steven Hayward of the Commonwealth Foundation in Pennsylvania, and others.

 http://www.cfte.org/critics/who.asp

Prendergast’s parting words on Rail for the Valley

A couple weeks ago, it was announced that Translink CEO Tom Prendergast was quitting his position, and accepting a job as president of New York City’s Transit Authority. He had only joined Translink in July 2008, and now he has left! I am guessing he didn’t like what he saw.

Prendergast was as positive a force as could be expected in such an organization as Translink, run under the tightest of control of Premier Gordon Campbell.

Here’s an illuminating excerpt, his parting words on the possibilities of light rail for the valley (Surrey Leader, Nov. 24):

Kwantlen Student Association rep Nathan Griffiths said improved transit is needed to serve campuses in Cloverdale and Langley and asked about the potential to extend passenger light rail to the Fraser Valley.

“There’s really no impediment,” Prendergast responded. “It’s overcoming the cultural embracement of SkyTrain that has existed to date.”

He said TransLink is seeking to cut through the pro-SkyTrain “cultural bias” as it embarks on a careful examination of rapid transit technologies for line extensions west along Broadway and south of the Fraser.

Prendergast predicted the first light rail line that comes to the Lower Mainland will lead to much greater appreciation of its potential.

It’s interesting to think about this “cultural bias” towards Skytrain. Who actually has this bias? It isn’t residents or even politicians in the Fraser Valley: Not a single municipal candidate in Surrey the last election supported Skytrain expansion over light rail. Not a single candidate. Not one!

No, it’s the old-guard politicians of Vancouver, who were around for the previous Skytrain expansions and have the most personal stake in continuing to expand the Skytrain money hole. It’s Mike Harcourt, it’s Gordon Campbell, and others involved in Vancouver’s transportation decisions of the last 25 years.

To anyone who wonders why the problems with Skytrain often take centre stage on this blog, Prendergast answers the question.

To get light rail for the valley, we absolutely must cut through the pro-SkyTrain “cultural bias” that exists, not among the populace of the Fraser Valley, but among Vancouver’s political elite, who all-too-often take it upon themselves to make all the decisions for the rest of us.

From the Seattle Times – $26 million sought to buy land for portion of Eastside rail corridor

This transit story from the Seattle Times illustrates the land value for a soon to be abandoned rail lines, which with the current railway land deal, amounts to slightly over $1 million a mile or about $0.6 million/km. A local example would be the Arbutus Corridor, which using the same formula as used in Seattle, would cost about $6 million to buy.

Where Seattle’s government organizations are showing foresight in buying and protecting redundant and/or abandoned railway lines for future use, METRO Vancouver buries it’s collective heads in the sand, ignoring what must be done and continue to support hugely expensive metro projects that have done little to reduce auto congestion or pollution, while at the same time, proposing ever higher taxes and user fees to fund the nonsense.

Future generations will condemn the present METRO Vancouver Board for their short sightedness and incompetence.

$26 million sought to buy land for portion of East side rail corridor

King County Executive Kurt Triplett proposed today that the county spend up to $26 million to buy most of the southern part of BNSF Railway’s 42-mile Eastside rail corridor for future use.

By Keith Ervin – Seattle Times staff reporter

King County Executive Kurt Triplett proposed today that the county spend up to $26 million to buy most of the southern part of BNSF Railway’s 42-mile Eastside rail corridor.

If approved by the Metropolitan King County Council, the purchase would help preserve for future rail and trail use the old rail line that connects Renton, Bellevue, Kirkland, Woodinville, Redmond and Snohomish.

Under deals that are still begin negotiated, the Port of Seattle would buy the entire rail line from BNSF by Dec. 15 for $107 million or less, then would sell much of the southern part to King County and other partners.

The county would own most of the 25 miles of the southern portion, but Sound Transit and Redmond are negotiating to buy smaller stretches from the Port of Seattle.

Sound Transit could acquire a portion of the corridor in Bellevue for its planned Seattle-to-Bellevue-to-Redmond light rail line. Redmond could buy part of the Woodinville-to-Redmond spur, and Puget Sound Energy and the Cascade Water Alliance are expected to buy utility rights of way.

King County would finance its part of the deal by selling bonds to be repaid with future revenues from the conservation futures property tax. That tax can only be used for acquisition of trails and open space — and legally can’t be used to rescue the county’s troubled general fund — Triplett said.

Terry Lavender, chair of the conservation futures advisory committee, endorsed the funding plan, saying, “Bonding against this fund should be for extraordinary circumstances and I believe this project rises to that level.”

In his final news conference as county executive, Triplett said he was “thrilled” to be part of a purchase of land “that’s going to belong to King County forever and for future generations.” After years of negotiations, he said, public agencies are “finally on the precipice of acquiring this corridor.”

He was joined in the news conference by County Council members Dow Constantine, Jane Hague, Julia Patterson and Larry Phillips, Lavender and Cascade Bicycle Club Executive Director Chuck Ayres.

“Woohoo! I’m so excited,” Hague exclaimed.

The Port will buy and hold the rail line between Woodinville and Snohomish, allowing a contractor to take over BNSF’s freight-hauling business. A trail could eventually be put alongside the track.

From Woodinville to the south, where BNSF has abandoned the rail line, the future owners expect to eventually build a trail and passenger rail service.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010319650_webrail20m.html

Post number 300 and many more to come.

This post marks the 300th posting on the Rail for the Valley Blog and congratulations to (now) Dr. John Buker for all his efforts with the valley rail project. When John asked me to post for the RFV blog, I don’t think he expected such a “stormy petrel“. I have tried hard to keep the blog current on rail projects around the globe, as well, inform local enthusiasts of the history and application of modern public transit.

“The Seattle’s monorail versus LRT debate – Same story, different players!”  https://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/2009/07/11/seattles-monrail-versus-lrt-debate-same-story-different-players/   remains the number one post, with “The SkyTrain lobby – “Pixie Dust planning””  https://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/2009/08/15/the-skytrain-lobby-pixie-dust-planning/  and  “Is LRT becoming the new Light-Metro?”  https://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php  second and third respectively. The large daily viewing of Seattle’s monorail scheme, certainly shows we has as many readers South of the boarder as we do here.

Our readers responses to the various posts are informative and very welcome.

The RFV blog is just not a local blog, but we also have many international readers and not just in the USA, but in the UK, Finland, Russia, and elsewhere, which continues my task to keep postings interesting.

There is going to be some changes in the New Year, with more posts from guest contributers, to give a different opinion on transportation in the region. As well, the new year will bring some very interesting events, which will make Rail For The Valley front and centre for the Return of the Interurban debate in the Fraser Valley. 2010 will be a good year for valley transportation.

To Toll Or Not to Toll – That is The Question

There is a current push to implement Road Pricing or Road Tolls in the region by various levels of government, to help fund public transit. The problem is, Road pricing or tolling will not work unless there is a viable public transit alternative in place. There isn’t and road pricing will fail and those politicians who implemented Road Pricing will face electoral oblivion.

The problem is the region doesn’t have a viable public transit alternative as the present bus/SkyTrain light-metro model has failed to attract the motorist from the car, or more simply buses do not attract ridership. We have squandered over $8 billions of dollars to date on light-metro, where 80% of its ridership must first take a bus to use. Instead of three disjointed light-metro lines, the region could have had over nine light rail lines, serving more destinations; more destinations means a more attractive transit service. Nine LRT/streetcar lines translates in almost twenty-seven actual light rail routes, providing a network that would provide the incentive for the all important car driver to use.

We must also remember that road pricing isn’t as well received as many promoters here would have us think, even London’s Congestion Tax is not working as well as many would have us think, as congestion is again approaching pre-tax levels and goods and services have increased within the congestion zone as the cost of the tax is downloaded onto the consumer. Also kept secret is the amount of subsidy paid to businesses within the congestion zone who could show a loss of business to the new tax.

In Manchester, voters rejected a comprehensive road pricing scheme by a large margin, leaving transportation planning in tatters.

In theory, road pricing and/or congestion charging looks good, but in the real world there are many problems to overcome. For the METRO region, road pricing or congestion charging will only work if there is a viable public transit alternative and again, buses are not a viable alternative. Only when the METRO region adopts and offers a large light-rail, streetcar or trams network of 300 km. or more, will road pricing be accepted.

If not, woe to the politicians who forces this on to the public. 

From the UK Department of Transport.