Damn right Rafe!

During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.

Campbell's & Falcon's TransLink Mk.2 is a disaster for the taxpayer and a windfall for friends of the Libs.

Here's how this little ponsie scheme works and it is all very legal.

If we are to build light rail from Vancouver to Richmond, the Arbutus line would be a natural, cheap and all there. The cost for a Vancouver to Steveston line (and the airport) would be about $800 million. But no, no, say Falcon and Gordo, we can't build on Arbutus, we need a subway under Cambie St., cost $2.4 billion. So where does the extra $1.6 billion go? Friends of the government, you know the companies that produce cement; all the engineering firms needed for the massive costs of a subway construction; all friends of the 'Board of Trade'. You see that extra $1.6 billion spent doesn't go to a longer line or a better line, it just 'gold-plates' the existing line, or should I say gold-plates the pockets of friends of the government!.

Subway construction escalating, just hire off-shore workers for a pittance or switch from bored tunnel to cut-and-cover construction and don't pay compensation for affected businesses.

It is corrupt, the whole process, but no one can do anything about it as it is all very legal.

Rafe, ever wonder why foreign banks didn't invest in the P-3? Or why Serco, Lavalin's partner, pulled out? Or why cities avoid subway construction unless they have the mass of ridership to sustain it?

Why did Campbell raid the public sector pension plans to fund RAV?

Why is Vancouver an example in not how to provide good rapid transit?

Why is Vancouver an international laughing stock, when it comes to transit?

When will the taxpayer throw this deceitful government out?

Why won't the government release Dobel's and Bird's LRT study saying the light Rail on Arbutus won't work? What are they afraid of? What scares them? The truth?

Where is Carole James? Oh yes, she's telling over 50 white guys they can't run for the NDP.

We are doomed!

your usual good article

Thanks Rafe for telling it like it is.

One observation and one question.

First the question, why is Mike Harcourt lending his good name to these dubious proceedings?

Now the observation. Ummm, the Translink board will be run by the Premier's office like the rest of government. Rumour has it that the Premier's office is now at 400 people (!) and still growing. I know you'll appreciate the implications of that size of office, Rafe.

Now, here is the real story........

First, Zalm I will send you an email, but this might answer your question.

When the Socreds forced SkyTrain on the region, first all LRT supporting planners, managers, and bureaucrats were purged from BC Transit. Then all transit planning was based on the now obsolete (no other city does transit like this) light-metro philosophy of transit planning, where a hugely expensive light-metro 'spine' is force fed by buses.

This sort of transit philosophy has been deemed a failure.

With all transit planning agencies purged of anyone who supported the mode, all planning was based on SkyTrain light-metro, as LRT was treated as an inferior transit mode.

Glen Clark and McPhail and the NDP were sold on the SkyTrain Millennium Line by transit bureaucrats and to get the elevated light metro built, George Puil, then Chair of the GVRD who was leading the charge for TransLink, only signed the agreement when Clark promised to pay 66.33% of "only SkyTrain rapid transit built West of Commercial Drive.

So were sown the seeds of RAV, as it now looks TransLink and the region, were a 'milch cow', to pay for a needless subway.

To cut the costs of the RAV Line which were spiralling out of control, Lavalin was given the OK to build with cut-and-cover construction instead of bored tunnel, as C & C is cheaper,

But C & C is cheaper because the Liberals and TransLink did not add a compensation package into the mix, as is common with C & C construction.

But even SkyTrain was too expensive for RAV, and it is a generic metro, built cheaply with small stations. SkyTrain was designed to be cheaper by being elevated and not in a subway.

Now we come to TransLink Mk. 2 and Vancouver's wish for a SkyTrain Line to UBC. Well folks, if the Cambie St. merchants are successful in lawsuits, a subway will built on 10th Ave. as its harder for residents to sue for loss.

What has happened is that Vancouver is getting another subway, operating on a route that doesn't have the ridership to justify construction. (A subway needs at least a ridership of 300,000 per direction per day to justify construction) payed for by the taxpayers delivered by the Valley Liberal politicians.

Zalm, better get your hardhat ready.

Democracy Hijacked

Good article Raif. Simply put the democratic system of provincial governance in this province is broken, is corrupted by lobbyists and the big corporate sector who have captured the legislative agenda. Indeed municipalities, regional districts, and the citizens that reside there have been stripped of their political power. Furthermore, legislation that protects the labor movement, injured workers--those who will build the Gateway project - has all been denuded, emasculated.

The fundamental cause is the power invested in the Crown and the Premier's office by a colonial, racist system of governance, foisted upon First Nations and settlers alike. The democratic illusion is that a mere change in party elected ..will change that institutional arangement. In 2002 I had the audacity to publicly state at the BC NDP leadership convention that the system of governance in BC was highly dysfunctional, had all the indicators of a low-level democracy --many thought that prognostication was over the top. Well, after some 7 years of this government, where they have imposed neo-liberal ideology to first (a) roll back (b) restructure economic and social realtions, and (c) hollow-out and centralize what little is left of governance, coupled with the matters pertaining to BC Rail and many other matters, let me add my voice to those who have already said: this system of government is completely broken, is corrupt, is beholden completely to the corporate sector. Those who allow themselves to be drawn into the machinations of this goverance system, rather then articulating for significant change, are regretagbly aiding and abetting the existing system. What is needed - and yes, others can quote me, is a "new political architechture" a new "geometry of power" in this province. How to get there, neither wishing or demanding, will do the job. We have to work together for change, and municipal leadership is key. The Mayors (and council) ought to tell Campbell to take a long walk off a short pier, to be polite. They ought to not allow themselves to be used as pawns and drawn into this illigetimate Translink process. Indeed they ought to Stand up For Democracy, and begin the dialogue on this 'new political architecture', this 'new geometry of power'. If not now, when, if not you, then who?

He who must be obeyed

Well said, Peter.... that is exactly the line now being drawn in the sand...the choice each of us must make.

And a great article, Rafe, that certainly highlights the psychology ( or is it pathology?) at work behind the narcissism and madness of those who have crowned themselves kings.

Grumpy---Rapid transit to UBC

Grumpy,

Usually I agree with what you say, but it seems like if any part of Metro Vancouver deserves a subway, then it should be Broadway from Commercial Dr to UBC. It is my understanding that it is the most popular transit route in the region.

Perhaps what you are saying by giving the 300,000 minimum ridership is that there is no part of Metro Vancouver that deserves a subway.

However, I strongly believe (through anecdotal evidence) that many people do not take the 99B line because it is too crowded during rush hour. Yet, it is not physically possible to add more buses to broadway. Seems like a great opportunity for something faster.

what to do?

The fact is that the BC Liberals control the government but were elected by a disproportionate number of voters. The winner-take-all system of election is one of the fundamental flaws in the Canadian system. Other problems include the way elections are financed and poor voter turnout, but until citizens believe that their vote really counts, other problems will be hard to solve. It is unrepresentative to have all the power vested in one party and other voices excluded from the cabinet. Politicians should be forced to work together, but in this system, they are rewarded for grabbing all the power and pretending to have "consultation" and debate.

I hope that people outraged by the actions of this government work toward a different electoral system. It came close to passing in the last election, and concerned citizens should not forget that. Angry posts on a blog won't do much in the long run.

Interesting that you mention

Interesting that you mention Schaffer's academic standing as an SFU public policy adjunct professor, yet merely identify Olewiler as an economist and liberal appointee to BC Hydro's board. In fact, Olewiler is the head of SFU's graduate program in public policy, is a highly respected intellectual authority in the field, and if you've ever encountered her then you know she has no problem whatsoever when it comes to speaking truth to power.

I don't disagree with your main point here, Rafe, but try to avoid the temptation to butter your argument with highly selective omissions of fact.

Eh?

"it should be Broadway from Commercial Dr to UBC."

Broadway does not go to UBC, just on the western side of Alma, it runs into Crown Crescent, and then does some kind of weird warp, from which it suddenly emerges as 8th Avenue, while 9th Avenue, which should logically be the continuation of Broadway, only starts at the Crescent. As soon as you hear 'crescent', you know you are dealing with the creme de la creme, and so this would get messy. I predict that said line will be made to end somewhere slightly west of Granville, which has been the talk for years.

werdnagreb - an answer

Actually a subway will deter people taking transit. If we had 'real' experts teaching modern public transport history at UBC or SFU, they would have taught that in the 60's and 70's, after wholesale European abandonments of cities tramway's, in favour of subways, that ridership on subways declined.

It was the Renaissance of modern LRT, with low-floor cars combined with the concept of the 'reserved rights-of-way', that started making public transport appealing to the car driver. Study after study has shown that it is not speed that attracts people to transit, but the convienence and ambiance of the system. Subways are seen by many as claustrophobic and unpleasant.

We could rid Broadway of all buses, use one sixth less modern streetcars (trams or LRV;s) on a combination of reserved and mixed use rights-of-ways, attract more new customers at a far less cost than a subway.

All subways are, except where ridership demands, politicians demonstrating civic penis envy, by having a very expensive subway service.

You can see why the good folks at TransLink would like me to be burnt at the stake. Yet, our penchant for hugely expensive transit systems, has driven the cost of public transit out of sight, yet we have a very small, rather inefficient transit system. Taking the car is easier and in most cases, cheaper.

transit philosophy

Grumpy: Your definition of bad transit philosophy seems to apply to most European cities.
Why don't you give us an example of a city comparable to Vancouver where the transit actually works the way you like.

Sharp

I must say that Rafe is a lot sharper shooting at what he knows best, i.e. his own provincial government, not the one back east... Thanks for an excellent article.

Actually, most European cities!

What has happened in Europe, including Paris and other major cities, unless ridership warrants (and I mean this, when ridership demands long 6 to 12 car trains, operating at close headways, then grade separations are a must) have created a transit mix that has attracted the motorist from the car.

Today, proponent of a new transit line must just not prove a modal shift, but guarantee one from cat to transit.

Modern LRT (streetcars operating on reserved rights-of-ways) have shown that commercial speeds of streetcars (trams) can be increased to a point that it rivals the commercial speeds of light-metro.

At this point I must stress, SkyTrain and RAV are obsolete, both in concept and philosophy, thats why Bombardier can't sell many (only 3 ART to date - Vancouver, Kuala Lumpor; and JFK) SkyTrain.

What is forgotten in all this, is that SkyTrain's higher commercial speed isn't just operating on segregated rights-of-ways, but fewer stations per route km.

Fewer stations per transit route, may increase commercial speed, but at the expense of ridership.

One doesn't argue that UBC needs better transit service, but does it need a metro? Which is better:

1) A SkyTrain subway with a station every km. apart from Commercial drive to UBC costing $125 million/km.;
2) A LRT/streetcar system from BCIT to UBC, with stops every 500 to 600 metres apart, costing under $25 million/km.

-The LRT system would have a commercial speed about 5 kpm less than subway.
-Both LRT and SkyTrain would have capacities greater than 16,000 pphpd.
-The LRT option could operate 24 hours a day (automated transit systems must shut down for routine maintenance every day.)
-The LRT option would have substantially lower operating costs than buses and subway.
-The LRT option could have the ability to carry containers to UBC, eliminating some commercial traffic on Broadway. (Dresden's streetcar system carries containers and Amsterdam's streetcar system is experimenting with freight LRT)
-The LRT option could operate vintage vehicles.
-The LRT option could run specialty cars, such as bicycle trams (streetcars that cater to cyclists), restaurant cars, and or offer a 'bistro' service.

So instead of a 'there and back' metro, using much cheaper LRT caters to the wants of customers.

One thing is for certain, the public have never had a real say about public transit in the region.

In Europe.....

planners build what the customer wants. In Vancouver planners build what the politicians want. That is why our transit system is so dysfunctional; that's why 87% of the regional population don't use transit.

and montreal

even with all it's problems never duplicated a metro line to the same place - the thing goes in all directions

millennium/expo was/is madness.

this may seem tangential but really

we need a wards system here in Van to ensure continuity of voices and ensure voices are heard, imo.

The province has always called the shots

The problem, though, Rafe, is that the provincial government has always called the shots, when it comes to the big decisions regarding transportation in the region. These things cost so much money that no provincial government is simply going to fund transportation infrastructure and let local people make the decision as to where it will go. From WAC Bennett driving the BCR through West Vancouver and Highway 1 through the valley, to Bennett deciding to have the Skytrain and Vander Zalm and Clark and now Campbell expending it, the decisions have always been made in Victoria. And look what happened when the regional TransLink board said, no, we really don't need or want a skytrain to the airport. To change this you'd have to give constitutional and taxing powers to regional government, and that's not going to happen soon. As for the TransLink board being business oriented, well, yeah, this provincial government is business oriented.

In some ways I think it benefits the environmental cause. You can convince a provincial government to take serious environmental action. I doubt you can expect a regional government to do much more than symbolic gestures. Now to convince Victoria that what the people really want is sustainable transportation - and not a continuation of our auto dependent systems. But do they?

Local Transit for JIm

Calgary is the unsung hero of transit. With a LRT line, costing less than half per km. to build than SkyTrain, has continually out preformed our light-metro. Today Calgary's C-Train carries about 250,000 persons a day, which really pisses TransLink, who always has SkyTrain carrying a little more. Calgary does count ridership, but not TransLink and that should tell the story.

Toronto is embarking on a massive LRT scheme, instead of building subways. The last subway extension cost in excess of $150 million/km. and the lure of cheaper, thus larger network has certainly pointed the TTC planners into a more European style of transit.

Even Montreal, with its 'Paris' style rubber tyre metro is planning for two LRT lines. Metro extensions in Paris were becoming very expensive and it was way too expensive to extend their metro to the burbs. (also rubber tyre metro operate very poorly in snowy conditions, so LRT it is.

Harper killed the Ottawa LRT because the conservatives wanted a prestigious subway for the capital. London got subways. Moscow got subways; and Harpo's great Friend to the south capitol got subways, gee whiz, Ottawa needs a subway to become a world class capitol.

Subways cost a lot of money to build, but to maintain. The problem is that they leak and leakage causes corrosion, especially on delicate automatic train controls. but Vancouver's NPA and Vision (who lack any vision) because under bill 43, property around transit stations will be exempt from city zoning bylaws. So expect 30 story condos around every subway station. 'Ecco density you know'.

But over and over again I stress, if one wants a viable transit system; a transit system that will be an attractive alternative to the car, the public must be involved with transit planning. If not, we will get the same sort of expensive show case transit systems that seems to win votes for the politicians, but offer no real alternative to the car.

LRT is not a panecea..........

........ but a transit mode that has proven to attract the motorist from the car. That's why it's being built in most cities around the world.

Vancouver was never allowed a transit debate, LRT versus metro, and our politicians and planners still go around in a 1950's 'rubber on asphalt' haze, where they believe that the more expensive a transit system is, the better it is.

All the transit customer wants is an easily accessible, cost effective, comfortable transit journey.

Again the following comment speak for itself:

Since the late 1970's only 5 SkyTrain type system have been built (2, Vancouver and Toronto were forced upon the operating authority by senior governments); during the same period, over 100 new LRT systems have been built and a further 100 are either under construction or in advanced stages of planning.

So planners around the world avoid building with light metro and avoid building subways, while our planners don't. There is a message in there somewhere.

What about TILMA? Anything

What about TILMA? Anything democratic about how it was drafted? About how it is to be implemented?
What about Abbot's new Board re the pharmacy program? Talk about the fox in the henhouse!
The saddest part of all of this is that people still have not had enough. When the time comes, they will still vote for these assholes. Always did, always will.
And, don't forget, this is a world-class city!

I'm alright Jack!

This is how the majority of people think.

"I" think SkyTrain is good, because it costs $5 billion and 'all' rapid transit is good.

"I" don't use transit, but "I" think everyone else should.

"I" like SkyTrain because it is up in the air so it doesn't bother 'my' driving.

"I" don't like light rail because it shares the road with "my" car.

"I" like the new transit board because "I" vote Liberal and support premier Campbell.

"I" I like those whining Fraser Valley Farmers to pay for "my" subway in Vancouver.

"I" am all right Jack!

Calgary Transit Sucks

Grumpy: "Calgary is the unsung hero of transit"

Grumpy: It is a little frustrating reading your entries on Vancouver's transit. You have extensive knowledge of the issue but your position that it must be surface LRT or nothing is supported only by very carefully selected data. It is quite one-sided.

I challenge you and everybody interested to visit “Calgary Transit Sucks” blog at

http://www.sowrey.org/2006/08/15/calgary-transit-sucks/

A very lively discussion goes there parallel to ours. From it, one can easily deduct several things.

1. Users are universally not happy with Calgary Transit

2. Calgary LRT already operates well over its capacity

3. People cannot wait to see the underground extension opening in 2012

4. Most users believe that (among others) Moscow, Tokyo and Vancouver transit is superior to theirs.

As expected

The "neo-con" crowd (whatever political label they wish to apply to themselves: Tory, Liberal, Fascist, etc.) don't like democracy. They want a nice tightly controlled plutocracy where those with money make all the decisions, and the rest can go to hell.

Campbell seems to be doing quite well for his real constituents. You know, the ones who paid for his campaigns to convince the easily led hard of thinking people to vote for him. I expect he'll do quite well in his next campaign as well, because sure as blazes what passes for education these days doesn't include "critical thinking". Not to mention that by currying favour with the plutocrats, he's setting himself up for having even more money to spend in the next bought-and-paid-for election.

Face it, money buys elections. You don't have to stuff the ballot boxes when people are being trained by TV and media to believe whoever has the most advertising.
Those with the most money buy the most advertising. Those with the most advertising usually win the elections.

No wonder so many people don't bother voting.