It was a strange week last week, as various mayors from around the region talked about TransLink with the kind of critical commentary usually adopted by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.
Why would a group that nominally has some control over TransLink be criticizing their own creature? Because they feel as they don’t have much control ever since Kevin Falcon, as transportation minister, removed a big part of the decision-making from them in 2007 and passed it on to an newly created, appointed board. (Yes, they get to appoint the board, but that still doesn’t give them direct powers.)
What we’re left with five years later is mayors feeling as though they have to put through tax increases for TransLink to pay for services, but they have little direct say in the billion-dollar operating budget.
That has resulted in tussles over getting an audit, which I reported on here today and here last week. It is also resulting in ongoing discussions between the mayors and Transportation Minister Blair Lekstrom about possible changes in the governing model. More, as they say in the magazine business, TK (to come).
52 responses so far ↓
1 mezzanine // Feb 13, 2012 at 11:56 am
Strong local control over transit planning has worked horribly for toronto.
http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1125037–james-what-transit-needs-is-better-politics
I’d welcome more analysis of TL’s spending ( doesn’t martin crilly do that?) but it seems that Watts robforded translink with her complaints about the $100 to charity x 170 survey responses. Other crown corporations (ICBC, BC Ferries, BC Hydro) contribute to charity, yet ppl are not complaining that it’s not core service.
2 Agustin // Feb 13, 2012 at 12:10 pm
This seems like a political play on behalf of Watts to get Skytrain in Surrey. I like most of what Watts has done, and I agree that Skytrain in Surrey should be the Next Big Thing for Skytrain (even though I live only a few blocks away from Broadway) – but I don’t agree with her methods here.
It seems shortsighted on her part to plant the seed (or water it) that Translink is mismanaged. If that movement goes far enough, Translink could be totally thwarted by bureaucracy and resistance at every turn. And that would lead to increased costs and decreased services for everyone.
3 Dan Cooper // Feb 13, 2012 at 12:42 pm
My understanding is that the mayors do not appoint the Translink board. See for example [ http://translink.com.au/about-translink/who-we-are/our-board ]:
“Our board consists of seven members – six members are appointed by the Governor in Council, and there is one standing member, being the chief executive of the Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994.”
From all I have read, the only power the mayors have is to either rubber-stamp or reject plans they are handed by the board/Translink staff.
4 boohoo // Feb 13, 2012 at 12:46 pm
Augustin,
Skytrain already exists in Surrey.
Dan Cooper,
You’re looking at translink in Australia…
5 Lewis N. Villegas // Feb 13, 2012 at 12:52 pm
… mayors feeling as though they have to put through tax increases for TransLink to pay for services, but they have little direct say in the billion-dollar operating budget.
FB
A billion-dollar tax-borne operating budget with… never mind the mayors… the taxpayers having no direct ability to influence it?
Something is rotten in the State of Denmark.
6 Richard // Feb 13, 2012 at 12:52 pm
@Agustin
The business case for expansion in Vancouver is likely much stronger. The ridership revenue and the operating cost savings will be much higher so expansion in Vancouver will likely not require an operating subsidy and may even produce a surplus that can go to help financing the capital costs.
For political reasons, rapid transit in Surrey will likely have to go ahead at the same time as the expansion in Vancouver.
7 Dan Cooper // Feb 13, 2012 at 12:53 pm
Oh man! The above is the stupidest post I’ve ever made, meaning it’s pretty darn stupid. Obviously I have a link from Australia. *sigh* I had thought (if I can use the term “thought,” which is obviously sketchy for me) that the number of board members was off. Actually, as I look further I find conflicting information: On Translink’s own site it says the board is chosen by the mayors, but in news articles from both 2007 and 2011 it says they are chosen by the province. Have to read more about this.
8 Dan Cooper // Feb 13, 2012 at 1:07 pm
Hmmm….this may be the answer:
http://translinkcommission.org/html/about_the_commission.html
Seems the Mayors Council “appoints” the Translink Board…but only from candidates presented to them by a Screening Panel. And the mayors only get to choose one member out of five on that Screening Panel. Veeeery interesting to see who appoints the other four; a majority of the positions are chosen by private business organizations with no public accountability whatsoever. (Reminds me rather of a “ballot,” if I can call it that, I received once for the board of a co-op; all five candidates for the five available positions were “nominated” by the current board, and no write-ins were allowed.)
9 Jack Hope // Feb 13, 2012 at 2:47 pm
@mezzanine
While I think our current crop of mayors would likely do better than Rob Ford and his ilk, your point is very well taken.
If anyone hasn’t been paying attention to what’s been happening in Toronto, it something that anyone concerned with transit in Canada should be looking at.
A question if anyone has the answer: Under the original Translink board structure, didn’t the government include seats for three MLAs to also sit on the board? I seem to recall that the provision was there, but neither the NDP or Liberal governments ever assigned anyone to those seats.
10 Silly Season // Feb 13, 2012 at 3:08 pm
I doubt that there is any one perfect solution for the thorny question of board selection for TransLink.
For instance, if the board is entirely composed of mayors/counsellors from Metro, my first thought is : that’s almost purely political. There are many oxen to gored in that situation: muni vs. muni, munis vs. the province. Lots of opportunity for horsetrading, but also lots of opportunity for opportunisits to make a worse hash of things. At one time, Metro Mayors of various persuausions, didn’t want Canada Line.
Diversity of experience of board members is also a consideration. For instance, you have members on the TL board who have backgrounds in financing, operations, transportation, communications, etc. With that expertise they do press TransLink staff for details and demand explanations. I shudder to think of how that relationship would work, were the board composed soley of politicians. What would be the added costs of adding more Metro Van staff and consultants, for instance, to explain or opine on what is going on—then having those same pols in place over election cycles to render timely decisions? Simply put: I believe politicians may not necessarliy have the kind of skills sets that fill all the gaps. And do we want to add more bureaucracy at the the Metro and local government levels? It’s tough enough getting permits for a couple of patio chairs now!
However, I find it understandable that mayors feel frustrated that they are rubber stamping plans from the transportation authority, via the board. Without the ability to negotiate their own pet or regional projects they may have some resentment that they are at the back of the proverbial budget bus when it comes to okaying (and having to help pay for) plans.
So, here’s a potential Solomanic solution: what about a mix of proven business people and Metro Van Mayors on the board?
Heck, let’s also throw in a direct rep or from the Province of BC. They actually have a few seats on the TL board, but, to the best of my knowldege, have never formally filled them. One can understand why if one understands the political dynamite that is our transpo authority. No one wants to do the dirty work (raise taxes, provide funding) —but everyone likes to cut ribbons!
With all of that representation at the board table it could even mean that the political football that is TransLink might cease to exist in the format it is now: with a Lucy, continually pulling the football away from Charlie Brown.
And those two characters are interchangable politically, imho.
11 Agustin // Feb 13, 2012 at 3:31 pm
@ boohoo,
Yes, of course. I was referring to adding more lines in Surrey, which is what Watts is after.
@ Richard,
Perhaps, and I welcome the debate. From my standpoint I’d rather see Vancouver get real BRT (not just lines with fewer stops, but dedicated rights-of-way for busses with priorities at traffic lights, along with real BRT stops) on Broadway and use the savings to establish a pattern of transit-oriented development in Surrey, exacerbated by an expanded Skytrain system for regional travel.
However, what I most object to is Watts’ current method of “influencing” TransLink.
@ Jack Hope,
Strongly agree!
12 spartikus // Feb 13, 2012 at 4:04 pm
what about a mix of proven business people
Why just “business” people. Why not “community” leaders too?
Why not academics?
There’s more to community – and a community’s needs – than the opinion of business.
13 spartikus // Feb 13, 2012 at 4:04 pm
Otherwise a good suggestion…
14 Glissando Remmy // Feb 13, 2012 at 4:22 pm
The Thought of The Day
“Why would anyone want to look at Denmark, when we all now, that’s something rotten in there!”
Lewis #5 says:
“A billion-dollar tax-borne operating budget with… never mind the mayors… the taxpayers having no direct ability to influence it?”
Exactly!
Throughout the history of the human world they were known as Eunuchs!
“Do you ask, Panychus, why your Caelia only consorts with eunuchs? Caelia wants the flowers of marriage – not the fruit.” says this epigram.
Translink Board needs the Mayors only for the occasional shag, no strings attached though.
A sort of a Black Widow spider type of love.
“Emperors were surrounded by eunuchs for such functions as bathing, hair cutting, dressing, and bureaucratic functions, in effect acting as a shield between the Emperor and his administrators from physical contact, enjoyed great influence in the Imperial Court of Eusebius and Eutropius.
Eunuchs were believed loyal and indispensable.”
Ditto Translink & The Mayors.
We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.
15 Silly Season // Feb 13, 2012 at 7:00 pm
@spartikus #12
Thought about that. But financing was my issue. Now we would be talking about actual planning, if I understood your remark correctly. I can see experts (or interested parties) having a board position on that. regardless, all on board would also have to recognize and work with pros in TL planning department. See: Brent Toderian.
A board with two committees, perhaps: finance and planning?
And they would still all have to agree on the chicken and the egg situ.
16 mezzanine // Feb 13, 2012 at 7:15 pm
The ottawa LRT rejection in 2008 by their city council is another example of local parochialism trumping long-range planning.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/story/2006/12/14/lrt-vote.html
Council voted 13-11 Thursday afternoon in favour of scrapping both the original $778-million light rail contract approved by the previous council in July and the shortened, slightly cheaper light rail plan passed last week.
The decision — made less than two hours before a crucial 5 p.m. contract deadline — means the city forgoes for now $400 million in federal and provincial funding promised for the original plan.
City lawyers have estimated that the decision could also cost the city between $250 million and $300 million in claims from Siemens-PCL/Dufferin, the group of companies contracted to design, build and maintain the rail line through an agreement worth $778.2-million. The city has already spent $65 million on the project.
17 mezzanine // Feb 13, 2012 at 9:30 pm
@spartikus 12
i agree that business/finance is only one aspect of transportation, i don’t think you will remove governance issues with what you are suggesting.
TL does a lot of consulting work with interested ppl (their website is great and i’ve been to a few open houses about the broadway corridor) but the heavy lifting/horse trading should be done by the munis and TL, with the munis canvassing neighbourhoods.
I have some caveats (when can we start tolling?) but imo this system is the least of evils.
——-
TransLink is the first transportation authority in North America to be responsible for planning, financing and managing public transit in addition to major roads, bridges and other transport modes in the region. Our integrated model lets us plan the transportation network as a strategic whole.
http://www.translink.ca/en/Be-Part-of-the-Plan/10-Year-Transportation-Plan.aspx
18 Richard // Feb 13, 2012 at 10:31 pm
@Agustin
More ridership revenue and lower operating costs means that the UBC Line options will require less money from taxpayers. In a sense, they are more profitable to TransLink so if they are delayed, that is less total money available for transit throughout the region.
Options are evaluated in the following 2 links:
http://www.translink.ca/~/media/documents/bpotp/rapid_transit_projects/ubc/feedback_reports/ubc%20line%20rt%20study%20evaluation%20summary.ashx
http://www.translink.ca/~/media/documents/bpotp/public_consultation/surrey_rapid_transit/faq_and_info_sheets/surrey%20rapid%20transit%20study%20evaluation%20summary.ashx
Option B, the 2.9 billion extension of the Millennium Line to UBC performs better than the 2.1 billion LRT 1 option and 1.9 billion SkyTrain to Langley option. For some unknown reason, they are using different discount rates for the UBC Line and the Surrey RT options. If the same discount rates were used, the UBC Line options might even outperform more of the Surrey options.
Ridership is much higher with LRT and especially RRT options.
With the high frequency of buses required on Broadway to meet demand, the many pedestrian signals and the relatively short signal cycles, signal priority on Broadway is challenging.
With a significant percentage of people walking, cycling and using public transit on streets that cross Broadway, measures that give transit priority on Broadway could increase travel times for people using sustainable transportation on these other streets.
Anyway, a deal where both the UBC Line and Surrey RT expansion happen at the same time is pretty obviously the best solution.
19 voony // Feb 13, 2012 at 11:16 pm
Translink comes with a very solid business case for a Gondola improving operation efficiency…anti transit Corrigan doesn’t pay a dime to it and blindly opposes to any transit improvement measure.
Similarly to Rob Ford, Watts has already decided what kind of transit is good for her city, not based on any relevant study , but on a vague and unsubstantiated perception..
…and those people fell no guilt to call for a Translink audit…
Who should be audited, Translink for the lack of efficiency due to all those politicians interference, or Surrey for opening green field like Campbell height or Tynehead to new development which will cost an arm and leg to serve by Transit?
Mezzanine is absolutely right: Watts is our Rob Ford, and seeing what we see, I have absolutely no appetite to see Translink under control of the Mayors, but it should be the reverse: Translink should audit any municipal OCP and put a pricetag to provide transit service in it (and concerned community should be prepared to assume the cost of their development choices).
Also, people get it wrong, The Mayor council controls Translink (and what Translink put on the table can and is directly influenced by the will of the mayor council – as illustrated by Dan cooper, the translink model is not alone around…), but obvious our local warlords want always more…
20 D. M. Johnston // Feb 14, 2012 at 7:31 am
All major transit operations in Europe and North America are audited on an annual or bi annual basis, this also includes an independent performance audit, which is to see if the transit operation is performing to expectations.
In South Delta, we have three bus routes, though operating on a hourly or better schedule, carry less than 30 people a day!
TransLink has no audit program of this magnitude and I would love to see an independent audit of TransLink by England’s National Audit Office or NAO, to see if the agency is performing well.
As comparing Watts, with Rob the “Edsel” Ford, is laughable to the extreme as Toronto’s Ford wanted an unaffordable metro built instead of affordable light rail and Watts wants affordable light rail instead of extremely unaffordable metro.
Dealing with overseas experts, many of whom are aghast for what passes as transit planning at TransLink, annual or biannual audits of TransLink would be most welcome.
21 Agustin // Feb 14, 2012 at 7:50 am
@ DM Johnston, re. Watts and Ford:
I agree that Watts and Ford are miles apart in substance, but this latest move from Watts reeks of Ford in style.
22 spartikus // Feb 14, 2012 at 9:39 am
TransLink has no audit program of this magnitude
Frances’s Globe article notes Translink has had 2 major audits since 2008 – one by KPMG and one by the B.C. Comptroller-General.
23 voony // Feb 14, 2012 at 9:47 am
D. M. Johnston misses the point. The problem is not a technology, the problem is that both Ford and Watts come with their own pet technology and try to impose it disregarding how suitable it is. So it is indeed same style.
Also, don’t forget that the pricetag of a technology is not indicative of how affordable it is…you have to put it in regard of the value it brings: one dollar spent on service bringing no added value is more waste than one million dollar spend to deliver a service bringing 2 million dollar value…on that topic, you would like meditate one of the latest post of Jarret Walker
http://www.humantransit.org/2012/02/socrates-visits-the-us-federal-transit-administration.html before answering here.
24 Silly Season // Feb 14, 2012 at 9:55 am
@Sparty,
True, BUT these always seem to take place in times of duress, mostly through political pressures.
It would add value to the organization’s credibility (if nothing else) to give ratepayers a regular assurance that funds are being used wisely.
I believe I saw a news report where TL Board Chair Olewiler (sp?) said they were looking into starting such a program of regular audits. And they should.
Let’s face it: it you can’t show/prove you are using funds efficiently, it’s not so easy to ask for more.
25 MB // Feb 14, 2012 at 1:44 pm
@ Augustin 11: “I’d rather see Vancouver get real BRT (not just lines with fewer stops, but dedicated rights-of-way for busses with priorities at traffic lights, along with real BRT stops) on Broadway…”
@ Richard 18: “With the high frequency of buses required on Broadway to meet demand, the many pedestrian signals and the relatively short signal cycles, signal priority on Broadway is challenging …With a significant percentage of people walking, cycling and using public transit on streets that cross Broadway, measures that give transit priority on Broadway could increase travel times for people using sustainable transportation on these other streets.”
I believe this issue is crucial, much more important than critics think about the specific and unique conditions found in the 8 km Broadway corridor.
I wouldn’t want to propose something that would make it very difficult to cross the street (dedicated transit medians acting a barrier) or wastes over a billion bucks to gain very little additional ridership (milk run LRT mixed in traffic).
With over 90% of its cross streets signalized(and achieving its significant density decades before the suburbs) Broadway is different than any other major artierial in Western Canada and requires special treatment.
26 MB // Feb 14, 2012 at 1:56 pm
@ Voony 23: “The problem is not a technology…”
I agree.
If by some magic we could get rid of technological bias and political interference (good luck with that!), then I presume quality of service would become paramount.
The technology — which comes from quite a wide range of options — would be adapted to the site conditions, and to maximize the quality of service.
There are justifiable reasons Paris, London, Barcelona, NYC, etc. have subways / metros in their dense cores, and BRT or LRT at the periphery. The reasons have to do with city building, not transit technology.
27 MB // Feb 14, 2012 at 2:08 pm
We have seen with the Ford Effect that biased people elevated to positions their abilities cannot deal with can do a lot of damage.
Ford is heavily biased toward the suburbs and has a fire in his belly to stick it to the Big City, especially on his misconceived notions on the supremacy of the private car.
He also comes with an apparent inability to understand how cities really work, and deep hubris that prevents him from learning from the historic written record and collective memory about Toronto.
Moreover, his elevation to the mayoralty was, in fact, a promotion to a position thathas become too powerful under the amalgamation of the GTA. We may elect the odd Ford here, but s/he won’t govern every city, and therein would be little more than a cumudgeonly anomaly without amalgamation.
I’ll bet a loonie Ford won’t survive more than one term.
28 mezzanine // Feb 14, 2012 at 4:18 pm
@ sillyS 24
“It would add value to the organization’s credibility (if nothing else) to give ratepayers a regular assurance that funds are being used wisely.”
But IMO that is being done already by martin crilly on an ongoing basis. Certain events trigger a review of TL funding (like a fare hike of more than 2% annually).
It seems that corrigan and watts seem to ignore that this process is happening on an ongoing basis. IMO watts isn’t asking for an audit becuase there has been no regulation, but she is shoring up her own politcal base and trying to spin the propoesed property tax increase.
compare that to Peter fassbender, the mayor of langely city, a leader of a south-of-fraser city that seems to want to work with translink and nows that negotiation and balance is needed.
———–
It is because some of these increases exceed an average of 2% per year that TransLink must by law obtain the Commission’s approval. By law, in deciding whether to approve the fare increases, the Commission must weigh four considerations:
-maintain financial stability of TransLink;
-allow TransLink to provide planned services;
-encourage TransLink to minimize expenses; and
-keep fares as low as possible.
A decision is due March 27, 2012. As input to its decision, the Commission is undertaking an intensive review of the cost-efficiency of TransLink. This will help determine whether TransLink can reasonably be expected to deliver all the services and projects to which it has committed in its approved plans, while managing with less-than-proposed fare revenue in 2013 onwards.
http://translinkcommission.org/CommissReport2012Supplement.pdf
29 Jack Hope // Feb 14, 2012 at 8:30 pm
While I’m loathe to do so, I do feel compelled to defend Watts in this aspect. It is doing her a disservice to refer to her as our Rob Ford, even in the limited arena of rapid transit planning for Surrey. Ford is driven completely and totally by ideology with little or no rational calculation.
Watts, on the other hand, appears to have looked at the different scenarios and decided to prioritize getting a rapid service of some type as fast as possible. Given the debacle with getting construction on the Evergreen Line going and the fact that the people in this province blew a UBC Skytrain Line sized hole in our own budget, she’s come to a conclusion that’s not all that unreasonable.
Right now, there is no way this government is going to release funding to get a Surrey extension and UBC extension by 2020. And anyone can read the writing on the wall when it comes to the UBC extension: nothing less than a Skytrain extension will be acceptable.
The debate in Toronto has been driven entirely by ideology and Ford’s defeat was a triumph of pragmatism over ideology. After all, they still approved the construction of 19.5km of brand new, grade separated rapid transit.
Watts, I would argue, is still within the pragmatic grouping, she is simply prioritizing different outcomes. There is still politics at play of course, and I personally disagree with a lot of her politics, but she hasn’t yet migrated into the “LRT über alles” that typifies mode fanaticism on this side of the country.
30 Chris Keam // Feb 15, 2012 at 8:41 am
@voony
That was a remarkable link. Entertaining and easy-to-understand. I’m reposting it in this entry in case people missed it and I encourage everyone to take a few minutes and read it, if only for the enjoyment factor of a well-written article.
http://www.humantransit.org/2012/02/socrates-visits-the-us-federal-transit-administration.html
31 D. M. Johnston // Feb 15, 2012 at 9:09 am
@ Voony
As always, Voony misses the point. It is not technology, but mode. Today, the mode light-metro is all but obsolete, made obsolete by light rail, because light rail out performs light-metro.
If anyone cares, light-metro has been relegated to airports and such.
In fact, most American light rail schemes are more light-metro than light rail, which drives up the costs, but provides little in benefits.
The cost to move customers is much cheaper by light rail than a light-metro.
Heavy-rail metro is another story all together.
@ Sparticus
The two audits you mention were more fluff than real. One has to see if the numbers provided by TransLink are real or invented, thus an independent audit of transit, only uses it own research and numbers, then compares with what the transit agency provides, not to see if TransLink’s calculations are correct.
Independent audits would certainly put an end to the fare evasion conspiracy, but hard numbers tend to be very flexible with TransLink.
I would wager an independent audit by the NAO would send TransLink’s managers into a panic.
32 brilliant // Feb 15, 2012 at 9:44 am
@MB27-why shouldn’t Ford be biased toward the suburbs? Ya gotta laugh at the assumption in your comment that urban dwellers are somehow more exalted and worthy of being catered to.
33 MB // Feb 15, 2012 at 2:11 pm
@ brillaint, absolutely not.
Ford was elected to represent everyone, not just his neighbours. The same would apply to an “urban dweller” who was elected mayor.
His personal biases are unfortunate.
34 voony // Feb 15, 2012 at 10:34 pm
D. M. Johnston writes:
the mode light-metro is all but obsolete, made obsolete by light rail, because light rail out performs light-metro.
[...]
In fact, most American light rail schemes are more light-metro than light rail…
So is it an obsolete mode or not?
35 Silly Season // Feb 15, 2012 at 11:41 pm
@mezzanine #24
Oh, I don’t doubt and do recognize that whether it’s Corrigan, Watts, or a provincial politician, all ecteds are only too happy to use Translink as a convenient whipping post.
But, as you pointed out, the Commissioner steps into the fray on those occassions that where regulation requires it. He is constrained by the numbers presented by the agency.
I think that @D.M. Johnson #31 has put forward a very good presentation about why TL–or any other quasi governmental agency or Crown—should undergo true, fully independent audits.
36 mezzanine // Feb 16, 2012 at 7:14 am
@35
“But, as you pointed out, the Commissioner steps into the fray on those occassions that where regulation requires it. He is constrained by the numbers presented by the agency.”
but that’s the whole idea – it is clear and transparent when there will be scrutiny of translink. correct me if i’m wrong, but you seem to agree that watt’s call for an audit is political theatre and not in earnest.
When would another governement body, like say vancouver coastal health get audited? no time to google if they have set rules, but TL already has a a high level of scrutiny IMO.
Prior to watts’ statement, martin crilly already launched a review of translink efficiency in January.
http://www2.canada.com/story.html?id=5974938
——-
and i’m not familiar with the NAO in the UK. But i’m not sure if it will complete settle issues of ‘true, fully independent audits’
This criticism stems from the normal way in which the reports are written. Initial drafts of reports are shared with the department(s) about which they are written. This begins a process of ‘clearance’, during which all facts are agreed between the NAO and departments. The reason for this is to give the PAC a mutually agreed report on which to base its later hearing; the hearing would be pointless if the departmental witnesses were able to disagree with the findings of the report. In practice, the clearance process is said to lead to a watering down of the initial draft, with the most contentious early findings removed at the behest of the department (and never, therefore, made public).
[wikipedia]
37 mezzanine // Feb 16, 2012 at 7:15 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Audit_Office_(United_Kingdom)#Criticisms
38 Lewis N. Villegas // Feb 16, 2012 at 5:19 pm
Option B, the 2.9 billion extension of the Millennium Line to UBC performs better than the 2.1 billion LRT 1 option and 1.9 billion SkyTrain to Langley option… Ridership is much higher with LRT and especially RRT options.
Richard 18
Okay, I’m baffled… as I dive into the links and read them over tonight, what is RRT? And, Millenium to UBC? Skytrain on Broadway??
As far as ridership, is it still BRT/LRT/Subway, in that increasing order? Should we distinguish between LRT and Skytrain on ridership?
On signal priority for surface B-Line/BRT/LRT on Broadway, I’m inclined to give Broadway priority and slow trips crossing Broadway. If the Broadway service is that much better, it will be worth it.
Voony has tripped another curiosity in me. Does an audit extend to releasing those coveted ridership numbers you-all are always looking for, but not getting? I would love to have some transparency on that.
I’m still unmoved by the discussion from my belief that regional elected government runs TL. A lot of the points being made get simplified if you do.
Voony— one more. Friend of mine suggested an elevator connecting SFU to the underground tunnel of the Greenline—which supposedly takes a swerve to catch the SFU elevators.
They have them in London… station new Bloomsbury? I can’t remember. I used it. You must know it.
39 Lewis N. Villegas // Feb 16, 2012 at 5:20 pm
… near Bloomsbury?
40 Lewis N. Villegas // Feb 16, 2012 at 6:40 pm
First you answer your own questions… then you start talking to yourself.
BRT – Bus Rapid Transit (dedicated lanes; signal priority)
LRT – The Olympic Line (surface rail transit; signal priority)
RRT – Rail Rapid Transit (Skytrain; blights urban space)
Subway – highest capacity system
Richard & Voony would warn that signal priority is optional for BRT/LRT.
41 Lewis N. Villegas // Feb 16, 2012 at 7:46 pm
The Design Guide was the better doc for me:
http://www.translink.ca/~/media/documents/bpotp/public_consultation/surrey_rapid_transit/design_guide_backgrndr/surrey%20rts%20design%20guide.ashx
South of Fraser
The scenarios presented don’t include the one that I would pick.
The BC Electric ROW (faintly dotted on the map) links Surrey Centre, Newton, Cloverdale and Langley. I would run LRT on that ROW, and bring Cloverdale into the system.
Expansion would consist of running further down the track, eventually reaching Chilliwack. My argument would be: affordability of housing.
King George Highway-152nd Street
I would run BRT on the King George to Newtown, finally linking into 152nd Street to reach White Rock.
Expansion of service would consist of converting BRT to LRT as capacity demand materialized.
We don’t know the costs, because the BCE ROW was not considered (?). But, one of the savings would be eliminating disruption of surface traffic during the always painful construction stages.
42 Lewis N. Villegas // Feb 16, 2012 at 9:51 pm
The Design Guide for the UBC Line (Broadway) is here:
http://www.translink.ca/en/Be-Part-of-the-Plan/Rapid-Transit-Projects/UBC-Line-Rapid-Transit-Study/Alternative-Designs.aspx.
The analysis is much simpler than for South of Fraser. The options are BRT, LRT and Skytrain. If you were looking for a Subway (and I was), Translink is not considering one. During BRT/LRT construction on Broadway, BRT may run on 4th Avenue.
1. BRT can be either diesel bus, or trolley. Slight variations in price will be off-set by environmental advantages, including less noise (what we want is zero-Green House Gas vehicles).
2. The daily ridership numbers: bus/trolley (75k); LRT (100k); and Skytrain (140k).
[Call it a wash. This reporting is complicated by the fact that the City of Vancouver's Director of Engineering reported last summer that Broadway B-Line is carrying 100,000 daily passengers. So, one would expect that BRT will exceed that by some amount, perhaps as much as the Canada Line's current knee-capped capacity reported by the same source as 130,000. Skytrian could duplicate the Expo Line's 200,000. And, LRT on the ground might equal Skytrain. The blocks are long enough to run two LRT trains linked together.]
3. The street sections are awful. Furthermore, reporting from Translink misses an important point about transit implementation: street revitalization. One of our overarching goals is to turn arterials into “livable streets”. Transit implementation can play a leading role.
[Surface BRT/LRT on Broadway should run between tree medians. Redevelopment should set back some 10-feet, for a new street ROW totalling 120 feet. The medians help to add livability to the street, as well as reducing pedestrian crossing distances, and creating pedestrian islands of safety. On station blocks, the medians join at the middle, and a series of bumps separates BRT/LRT from narrowed travel lanes that achieve traffic calming, and further reduce crossing distances from the curb to the station platform.]
4. Operating costs are: bus (1), trolley (2), and LRT or Skytrain (3).
5. Construction costs are: bus/trolley (1); LRT (3) and Skytrain (8.5).
6. A key number has been left out.
With BRT/LRT average daily trips (ADT) on Broadway will be reduced by 20,000 (10,000 cars per day per lane occupied by transit). With LRT, ADT will increase. Removing the 99 B-Line will create more road space that will be filled by new trips.
The choice is a clear one for me. Operating costs for LRT equal Skytrain; cost of construction are 3x less; carrying capacity is equivalent; and only LRT removes cars from the street, delivers street revitalization, and improves street livability.
CONCLUSION
A. South of Fraser, the BC Electric ROW should be used to implement LRT linking Surrey Centre; Newton; Cloverdale (not served in the Translink proposals); and Langley. Future extensions reach to Chilliwack, opening affordable housing sites along the route. One of the advantages of this route is that disruption to surface traffic will be limited to the street crossings.
B. On Broadway, surface LRT saves money, removes 20,000 vehicles per day from the street, and revitalizes one of Vancouver’s Great Streets. Of a total score of 8.5 to build Skytrain, Broadway LRT uses only 3.0.
The remaining 5.5 in capital can be used to:
1. Build LRT on Hastings (3.0)
2. Build BRT on Main Street (1.0).
3. Build False Creek Streetcar (Phase I: 1.5)
43 Lewis N. Villegas // Feb 16, 2012 at 9:56 pm
CORRECTION:
(Item #6)… With [Skytrain], ADT will increase. Removing the 99 B-Line will create more road space that will be filled by new trips.
44 Lewis N. Villegas // Feb 17, 2012 at 9:08 am
I’ve updated the transit plan on the Vancouver Historic Quartiers site here:
http://wp.me/p1mj4z-sw
45 voony // Feb 17, 2012 at 10:01 pm
The choice is a clear one for me. Operating costs for LRT equal Skytrain; cost of construction are 3x less; carrying capacity is equivalent;
well that is one viewpoint, I suggest you to consider this one:
http://voony.wordpress.com/2011/04/05/ubc-line-rapid-transit-act-2/
only LRT removes cars from the street, delivers street revitalization, and improves street livability.
Lewis, I noticed that you are geared to speak against too much of revitalization on Broadway (cf Rize development at Main#Kingsway), but notice that those 100,000+ people planned to roam be the skytrain or the LRT (100,000-) will eventually (and for sure in the LRT case) alight somewhere along Broadway: at this time there is simply no sidewalk wide enough to accommodate that …and I think we agree that ample sidewalk are also necessary to a quality urban environment, the problem like you have mentioned is that Broadway is not wide enough to have it all on one level…
46 Lewis N. Villegas // Feb 18, 2012 at 8:12 am
Sydney and Caroline got on for free, and hide under one of the horse carts, but everyone else had to get tickets.
Voony
We agree. At 99-feet Broadway is not wide enough. But, for most of its length, Broadway could re-develop with new buildings. If these new structures set back, like the London Drugs does at Broadway and Cambie, then that would release new land to the right-of-way.
Elizabeth MacDonald and Alan Jacobs suggest that a boulevard section can be built on as little as 100-feet. By taking 10.5-feet of land from each new development, the street right-of-way grows from 99-feet to 120-feet (36.5m); by taking back 15.5-feet, the R.O.W. grows to 130-feet (40 m).
Bill McCreery tells me that developers could still build private underground parking under the land released to the R.O.W.
It’s a bold move. But, we see it as necessary to improving the “livability” on all Vancouver arterials:
http://wp.me/p1mj4z-rW
[Note: I've corrected the dimension on the Urban Spine—the street section that would correspond to Broadway].
47 Lewis N. Villegas // Feb 18, 2012 at 8:15 am
CORRECTION
along Broadway: at this time there is simply no sidewalk wide enough to accommodate that …and I think we agree that ample sidewalk are also necessary to a quality urban environment, the problem like you have mentioned is that Broadway is not wide enough to have it all on one level…
Voony
Ooooops! Wrong content in the clipboard. I’m sure, Voony, we also agree that Carousels are not transportation, and they don’t require turnstiles, either.
48 MB // Feb 20, 2012 at 10:47 am
@ Lewis #46: “At 99-feet Broadway is not wide enough. But, for most of its length, Broadway could re-develop with new buildings. If these new structures set back, like the London Drugs does at Broadway and Cambie, then that would release new land to the right-of-way. … Elizabeth MacDonald and Alan Jacobs suggest that a boulevard section can be built on as little as 100-feet. By taking 10.5-feet of land from each new development, the street right-of-way grows from 99-feet to 120-feet (36.5m); by taking back 15.5-feet, the R.O.W. grows to 130-feet (40 m).”
You can also gain more space by bumping out the curbs by 2m at intersections and, in the case of the eight-or-so blocks of Central Broadway, at mid-block.
By doing this you are eliminating the curb lane rush hour speedways in what is otherwise parking and loading space.
You are also making parking and loading functions permanent without respect to existing surface vehicle counts. This would be a bold move on what is perceived as one of the heaviest-travelled arterials in the region.
However, it stems from the calculation that with a new transit project that vastly increases street level pedestrian activity as well as ridership, it will lower the demand for single-occupant cars destinating to Broadway and free up road space for pedestrians, while respecting commercial loading zones on the street.
To me that means a decent subway with high-frequency and fast regional service with generous plaza space placed at station entries that happen to straddle formerly private land and road space. The subway would be coupled with a much improved electric trolley service on the surface that utilize the bump outs.
Any major transit project on Broadway must address creating much more and better quality pedestrian space, and respecting the very significant pedestrian and commercial vehicle cross traffic along its entire length.
49 Lewis N. Villegas // Feb 20, 2012 at 10:32 pm
@ MB
Richard 18 and my own 42 give the links to Translink reports that decidedly do not have a subway option. It’s Skytrain (preferred by the transit engineers, I think it’s safe to assume) and Olympic Tram on the centre lanes.
Our own post on urban spines shows the section you and I have kicked about here on the Fabula.
http://wp.me/p1mj4z-rW
While I don’t want to say “no bulges”, the kinds of bulges that build along the side allées of the boulevards are not the same as the kinds that protect parking strips.
The idea is really to build a “mixed use” street, and change the nature of Broadway altogether to something that is equal parts local and cross-town.
Of the 44-feet showing for the distance from the transit tree medians to the streetwall, half would be occupied by 2 lanes with curbside parking (where something like the bulges you describe would take place). That leaves 22-feet for sidewalks.
Now, I have not measured 22-foot (6.7m) sidewalks anywhere in town. Maybe they’re that deep in front of the new London Drugs. Maybe they are that wide on Pacific Blvd. across from the False Creek Community Centre. Possibly along stretches of Georgia or Burrard.
But none of these sites have the energy level of Broadway.
50 Phil // Feb 21, 2012 at 8:46 pm
@Lewis
Check your own link:
Operates primarily in bored tunnel, with an elevated section between Great Northern Way and the existing VCC-Clark Station connecting to the existing system. A section on University Boulevard is assumed to be a cut and cover tunnel.
51 Bill Lee // Feb 22, 2012 at 6:17 pm
@Lewis N. Villegas // Feb 18, 2012 at 8:12 am
Why not a mildly elevated train in one or other of the lanes beside Broadway.
I am thinking of the steam-engine era, still working Wuppertal Schwebebahn (Wuppertal Floating Tram, a suspension railway in Wuppertal, Germany. Its full name is “Electric Highway Installation” )
Been runing since 1903 and transports 25 million a year, 82 thousand a day. 13 km, 22 minutes, and 8 metres above the street. That is homey.
Vossloh Kiepe will supply 31 new articulated cars there, as they do the trolley systems here. and have an office off S.W. Marine Drive.
Use the lanes.
52 MB // Feb 23, 2012 at 1:57 pm
@ Lewis #49, p. 7 of the Design Guide (PDF), Rail Rapid Transit (RRT) in your link to the TransLink studies on Broadway:
Technology: “RRT is an automated or driver-operated rail technology that is powered by electricity. In Metro Vancouver, RRT (e.g. SkyTrain) is automated and operates separately from other road users.”
Alignments: “The RRT Alternative operates primarily in a BORED TUNNEL [emphasis mine] with an elevated section between Great Northern Way and VCC Clark Station to connect with the existing system. A section on University Boulevard [golf course?] is assumed to be cut and cover.”
Your comment,
“The idea is really to build a ‘mixed use’ street, and change the nature of Broadway altogether to something that is equal parts local and cross-town.”
is something I agree with. But my emphasis is on enhancing the pedestrian realm which is a public asset, literally and figuratively, which at present is quite hideous on Central Broadway, but fairly acceptable west of McDonald.
Public streets at the human | pedestrian level need a lot of work in this town. In my opinion, commerce and community will follow up with their own enhancements after a solid and high quality street treatment that strengthens the sidewalk experience on Broadway. This is in addition to people being drawn to its neighbourhoods via a high quality, frequent and pleasant transit experience.
Leave a Comment