What ramifications? Every major transit project in Europe and the USA includes a compensation package for affected merchants – the promoters of the Canada Line didn’t bother providing this.

Even the Nottingham LRT project had a compensation package for affected merchants! And Nottingham’s LRT projects was a real P-3 and is making an operating profit EVEN AFTER PAYING DEBT SERVICING CHARGES!

Pitfield called the RAV/Canada Line a charade.

The real story is this media types.

The cost of RAV went from $1.3 billion to a now estimated $2.8 billion and because of this massive cost escalation RAVCo. did this:

1) Reduce the scope of the project by limiting subway station platforms to accommodate 3 car trains.
2) Single track operation in Richmond.
3) Change from SkyTrain to a generic metro system.
4) Switch from bored tunnel to cut and cover and NOT PAY COMPENSATION TO LOCAL MERCHANTS AFFECTED BY CUT AND COVER CONSTRUCTION!

The result, Vancouver is a proud owner of a truncated metro system that has about 40% less capacity than if simple LRT were to have been build on the Arbutus Corridor for less than 1/3 the cost.

Cost to bring RAV up to a LRT standard?

Over $1 billion!

That is the real story.

I think the bigger issue here is who should be paying the compensation — not whether some is owed.

I think Hayes made a good case that there was a “bait and switch” approach to promoting the new rapid transit line’s construction. The government promoted it as a bored-tunnel approach that would only minimally disrupt business along the way — but instead agreed to the cut-and-cover method when costs came in. Because of her understanding of the original plan, Hayes placed orders for merchandise that she subsequently couldn’t sell (Fashion being a business where the product goes “stale” fast).

Misrepresentation cost her money – yes. But are the contractors at fault? the government contracted them to build a cut-and-cover transit line; they’ve done that.

If Hayes wins in the appeal, it will start to cost taxpayers a lot more to do infrastructure projects because the companies governments contract to do the work will need to take out some sort of “law suit” insurance. Or, they’ll demand a much higher fee in order to cover the risk of lawsuit. Also, for taxpayers, there’s a chance that the world’s best infrastructure engineering firms like SNC or Seimens won’t touch a BC project, leaving us with second-rate, less experienced operators building our infrastructure.

There is a lot at stake. But it would have been so much easier and likely cheaper had the government simply paid each merchant a “compensation sum” at the outset and let the merchant decide whether to move, close, reduce operations for the duration, etc.

@DMJ

1. Not sure where you are getting your info from, but the Canada Line does NOT accomodate 3 trains. The trains are coupled in pairs (like the Mach II skytrain cars) and can ONLY operate paired, and are paired for life. Many platforms are thus ONLY as long as 2 train cars – additional cars CANNOT be added on. That being said, the trains are MUCH bigger than skytrain (about twice as wide and longer than a Mach II) and accommodate many more people. It is my understanding that this was decided EARLY in the process, and not after costs escalated. (All the stations are designed for this type of train, the trains cannot be extended beyond paired cars, and the cars cannot be build any other way).

Also: I am not sure what you mean by “generic metro system”. The system is still fully automated, and the company that has built the technology behind the automation is the same company that built the automated system for the Skytrain. The biggest difference is in the motor type and how the train interacts with the power system. I don’t think that the Skytrain technology was EVER really seriously considered for this project, so it wasn’t a “change from”, if Skytrain had been considered, that would have been decided during the bidding process, and before the costs over ran, and therefore, there was not a “change from skytrain to generic” due to cost overruns. I am not saying it should or shoudn’t have been the same technology, I’m just stating this sort of decision was made at the bidding stage, not the cost over run stage.

Also: in regards to item 2:

NO CLUE where you are getting your “single track operation in Richmond” information from. I have ridden the line end to end, multiple times, and the ONLY places where there is a single track is heading into terminus stations, where dual tracks aren’t needed because the trains going in will be the same trains going out. The tracks then split again before the next station.

Note: I normally comment in this blog with my name but I am witholding it due to the issue of me being employed to work on the Canada Line.

That being said, without commenting on the case/appeal (my company being a sub company of SNC Lavelin created to operate the system is actually free of liability), if anyone has any questions about the system, feel free to post with them and I’ll do my best to answer.

Canada Line attendant- a note:

There is single track operation in Richmond, done to reduce costs.

A ‘generic metro’ is one powered by ‘squirrel cage’ motors and not LIMs. SkyTrain is a ‘proprietary’ transit system. RAV’s “Hyundai cars can operate on any metro system, while SkyTrain cannot. By the way, the official capacity of a RAV car, with all seats taken and 4 persons per metre/2 (industry standard) is 163.

SkyTrain was in fact going to be built but when RAV’s costs were skyrocketing out of control, th more expensive SkyTrain system was rejected.

RAV and SkyTrain are incompatible in operation and will never see a through service, which is just silly transit planning.

The RAV stations are designed for 3-car trains but currently the cars are operated in ‘married’ pairs, just like SkyTrain. ROTEM also offers cars designed for ‘being in the middle’ and the same is true for Bombardier’s MK.2 cars as well, thus, in theory, able to run 3 or 4 or up to 8 car trains if need be. Station size on RAV constrains car size to 3 car trains, in turn constrains capacity.

Being an attendant doesn’t an expert make.

DMJ: Where is there single track operation in Richmond other than heading into the terminus stations? I would really really like to know, seeing as I have been on the line several times and the only single track that I have seen, in real life life and on maps is heading in/out of the two terminus stations. We have been running the system as if it is ‘live’ (as far as frequency of trains goes) and trains run on both sides of the tracks at all times when possible. We have to, as per how we get paid for train availability by Translink. Your continued assertion that there is single track operation in Richmond is simply false.

The capacity of a Canada Line train just under 400 people.

The decision to go with Rotem and not Bombardier was because of the 3p process. All bids were placed on a level playing field, giving no preference to the Skytrain/Bombardier technology, despite how much sense it might have made to stick with the same technology. I am not saying that I think the decision to deflect from the existing technology was necessarily a good idea.

If you look at the final bids in the best and final offer stage proposals, only one of the 4 final bids (2 from each company) specifically indicates Skytrain technology. Even the alternate proposal from RAVexpress, of which Bombardier was a part, suggested a separate technology street car line for the Richmond legs of the system.
Skytrain technology was rejected in the bidding process. Do a little bit of research on the process and this is plain to see.

Yes, they are incompatible. I never suggested they were. As a citizen, I too think it’s a bit absurd, but again, this is due to the 3P process. That being said, in my travels to large cities, it seems common that there are several transit lines with different technologies/different operating companies. It doesn’t appear to be that uncommon.

Again, I’m not sure where you are talking about the stations being designed for 3 car trains. Most stations have platforms that are about 40m long-50m long. I have not seen any document anywhere that talks about changes to designs to suit shorter trains, if you can point me to a document that would be appreciated.

3 car trains are just not feasible on the system as it is. The expansion to 3 cars has never come up in my own research or in training, and to add a 3rd car to the system would fundamentally change a lot of the system – platforms would have to be expanded, and the OMC/maintenance center tracks and buildings would need to be completely changed in their design. Probably Rotem does have designs that allow for this. I’m not arguing against it. What I’m saying is that from my point of view of being in the stations, most stations are only as long as 2 car trains. I would be curious if you could find anything that indicates that there is room/ability/plans/etc. for future expansion to 3 cars. I just don’t see how it can be done.

Again, a lot of your information is false. Where do you get it from? I have been in all the stations and on the system end to end several times. Things like station lengths and dual track operation are things that I witness and encounter on a daily basis.

Canada Line Attendant, sadly you are a TransLink troll. Your points are easy to refute and your ignorance of the line is glaring.

The track between the last two stations in Richmond is single, which was done to save money. Single track operation constrains headways, which in turn constrains capacity. Gogol’s satellite view confirms my statement.

The decision to go with ROTEM was to save $60 million to $100 million by building with a generic metro instead of SkyTrain. Sadly there can never be any interface with SkyTrain, so the prospect of through (no transfer) operation is nil. This makes RAV a bit of a pig in a poke as forced transfers deters ridership.

The system is designed for 3 car operation and ROTEM produces carriage for such operation. If you what you state is true, then RAV’s capacity is well under 14,000 persons per hour per direction, which would make the metro a farce.

Note: TransLink gives higher capacities for ROTEM’s metro cars by using crush loading figures of all seat occupied and standing passengers at 6 persons per metre/2. Industry standard is 4 standing persons per metre/2, thus giving a capacity of 163 persons per car ( still over twice of that carried by a married pair of SkyTrain Mk.1’s). RAV’s theoretical capacity at 90 second headways would be 13,040 passengers per hour per direction. By comparison, Calgary’s C-Train can operate now at 90 second capacities which gives an theoretical hourly capacity of (3 car trains – capacity 175 per car = 525 persons) 21,000 persons per hour per direction.

The km. of single track in Richmond will constrain capacity to such an extent that at best, RAV’s maximum capacity will be about 10,000 pphpd! Sad fact is, the total cost to date of Calgary’s C-Train is just over $1 billion, where the cost of RAV (thanks to information from Susan Heyes court case) is well past $2.5 billion, which added to the $6 billion spent on SkyTrain so far demonstrates why TransLink is in such a financial bind.

As for my comments being false; it is you sir, hiding under anonymity that is shilling false information.

Fact is, subways need ridership in the range of 400,000 to 500,000 passengers a day to justify construction, if not, massive subsidies must be paid.

DMJ: “Heyes had the road [Cambie Street] in front of her dug up for 4 years!”

Correction: The road at 16th x Cambie, where Hazel & Co was located, was dug up for 23 months. It was rebuilt several months ago.

I live near the Cambie Village too and was greatly inconvenienced by the engineering methodology from the Middle Ages. For the record, I suppport a compensation package for this and every other major transit project.

But that does not blind me to the benefits the Canada Line will bring over the next 100 years, especially when placed in the context of the next generations of transit … planned, proposed or potential (now there’s another kind of P3). That would include a plurality of options, from runners to bikes to Euro trams to subways to passenger ferries. We already have enough cars & asphalt.

Here’s to sustainable cities. At least I wish our senior governments would see them that way instead of as cash cows.

Oh yes, my other beef is the P3 ideology.

The private operator will receive revenue from Canada Line ticket sales for 35 years. A floor revenue level is guaranteed by the public agencies.

The P3’s true purpose is to limit not just the financial risk and up-front debt to senior government, but to diminish its direct commitment to transit.

That is a shameful diminshment in government’s duty to uphold the public good, and a demonstration of wilfull ignorance with evidence mounting that alternatives to petroleum-based transportation need to be developed well before the price of oil hits the stratosphere again.

When fill ups cost $300, the public will be howling for all the transit they can get.