Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion II

[jollyburger]

And they're only spending $27 million to rehab the current infrastructure for another 30-60 years.

https://vancouver.citynews.ca/2023/12/13/vancouver-trolley-bus-translink/

Back in 2000 they said the trolley infrastructure was worth $184 million

The 309 kilometers of trolley routes are serviced by overhead wire under which 925,000 hours of service are operated annually. The overhead trolley infrastructure has an estimated replacement cost of $184 Million. The existing network of overhead wires has been well maintained with ongoing, routine maintenance and rehabilitation. There is
estimated to be a remaining life of 20 ­ 30 years for the overhead infrastructure.

https://www.sfu.ca/person/dearmond/set/Vancouver.etb.replacement.htm

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

And they're only spending $27 million to rehab the current infrastructure for another 30-60 years.

From the previously posted DailyHive article:

There are also further costs of $220 million for the installation of on-route charging infrastructure across Metro Vancouver and $370 million for the expansion of the bus fleet with up to 175 battery-electric buses

So it sounds like for each additional bus the on route charging infrastructure costs an additional $1.25M. It's difficult to crunch the numbers but I wonder what the cost of expanding the trolleybus network per bus would be. The nice thing about trolley busses is you seemingly can throw almost unlimited extra trolley busses on the line. What happens exactly on a busy bus line when two battery busses bunch up and both need to charge at the end of the line?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by chowhou

So it sounds like for each additional bus the on route charging infrastructure costs an additional $1.25M. It's difficult to crunch the numbers but I wonder what the cost of expanding the trolleybus network per bus would be. The nice thing about trolley busses is you seemingly can throw almost unlimited extra trolley busses on the line. What happens exactly on a busy bus line when two battery busses bunch up and both need to charge at the end of the line?

TransLink considered all the options for replacing the combustion engine buses.They concluded that adding charging infrastructure is a more flexible long term solution than adding more trolley wires.

The scenario you suggest shouldn't happen. Depending on the model the 40' buses available already have a range of 280 to 400km. They'll be charged overnight, and then topped up during the day when it's convenient. They should never reach a point where two arrive 'needing to charge'.

Vehicle battery technology is advancing fast, and range is increasing, charging speed is increasing, and battery prices are falling. As more battery buses are added, once the charging infrastructure has been installed, there should be capacity to expand the fleet and operate it with the same flexibility that the current combustion engine fleet offers.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by chowhou

It turns out the $2.1m vs $2.2m number didn't seem to take into account the cost of charging infrastructure.

Another consideration is the longevity of the vehicles. Vancouver has a pretty solid track record from three generations of trolley buses of getting up to 20 years or more worth of service from them. I'm pretty skeptical that batteries would be able to provide the needed worst-case range for that long a time, so at the very least it would likely mean a substantial midlife battery replacement program.

It's true that battery buses are more flexible, but there are plenty of obvious transit corridors that are not going to change over the next few decades where trolley wires could be installed. And trolleys could use much smaller and cheaper batteries to deal with temporary diversions and localized power outages.

It's good that Vancouver is going to invest in a fourth generation of trolley buses, and it's also good that we're going to start replacing our carbon intensive fleet with full electric buses. But it seems to me like there might be a bit of a missed opportunity to ease into the battery era with a little less cost and risk.

[jollyburger]

From 2020 Translink Low Carbon Fleet Transition Plan

Lithium-ion batteries lose capacity (kWh) as they are charged and discharged, but the exact deterioration rate in transit service is unknown. This analysis assumes up to 2.4 percent capacity loss per year, which will require 100 percent battery replacement at bus mid-life (year 8). This will be a major expense which must be budgeted for annually, beginning in 2030. Expenses will include material purchases and mechanic labor.

Electric was more expensive than traditional buses but the fuel savings help keep that in check.

These cost relationships are shown more clearly in Figure D-2, which plots the difference in cost between diesel buses and electric buses. As shown in Figure 24, compared to diesel buses the purchase cost of current electric buses will add $0.27 - $0.56/km over their life, the cost of installing charging infrastructure will add $0.24 - $0.27/km, battery pack replacement will add $0.07 - $0.20/km, charger maintenance will add $0.03 - $0.05/km and bus operator labor costs will be $0.02 - $0.16/km higher. This will be balanced by a fuel cost savings of $0.49 - $0.51/km. Net costs will be $0.43 - $0.52/km higher for electric buses.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Another consideration is the longevity of the vehicles. Vancouver has a pretty solid track record from three generations of trolley buses of getting up to 20 years or more worth of service from them. I'm pretty skeptical that batteries would be able to provide the needed worst-case range for that long a time, so at the very least it would likely mean a substantial midlife battery replacement program.

the good thing about the timning is, that we are buying another round of trolley at the same time as the battery.

so we can see how both do over the next 10,15,30yrs and compare.

i prefer the trolleys myself, as i do think they will have better longevity. but the only way to know this for sure, is a long-term trial in our region.

[WarrenC12]

Really curious what has changed with respect to the BEV bus depot. The cost has tripled(!). How much is BC Hydro infrastructure, how much is related to river flood mitigation, etc.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Really curious what has changed with respect to the BEV bus depot. The cost has tripled(!). How much is BC Hydro infrastructure, how much is related to river flood mitigation, etc.

In addition to the recent steep market inflation in the prices for construction materials, labour, and equipment, the escalation in the construction costs was also due to the need to make “massive changes to the seismic and structural design of the project.” These changes are required under the provincial government’s 2023 update to the BC Seismic Code.

Such changes included adding over 3,500 steel foundational piles under the two main buildings and drilling over 17,000 concrete columns into the ground. This work can now be actively seen at the development site.

In addition to the challenging soil conditions on the riverbank land area, TransLink notes the required flood protection wall along the foreshore is also more complex than originally expected with the preliminary geotechnical information.

According to the development permit application approved by the City of Vancouver, the entire site will be elevated on a platform about 4.6 metres above sea level to serve a “superdyke” function — higher than the existing ground elevation between 2.5 metres and 3.3 metres. The complex will elevated about two metres higher than Kent Avenue along the northern perimeter, and a flood protection wall will be built along the south perimeter fronting the river.

Other unexpected site conditions now require TransLink to remove contaminated soil, debris, and buried foundations to improve the ground conditions before building the facility’s foundation.

Additionally, there will be numerous buckling-restrained braces to meet the provincial government’s new seismic standards.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/translink-marpole-transit-centre-bus-depot-vancouver-cost

Current ‘seismicity’ requirements for design have increased. This means you need to start designing for higher seismic hazard levels. Design requirements vary across the country depending on location and soil conditions at that location—Southwest BC and the Greater Victoria region will see the greatest increase in design load requirements.

New provisions have been included for lower-level earthquakes. These set performance requirements for certain types of buildings. Hospitals and schools are likely to be impacted the most (again, particularly in high seismic hazard areas like Southwest BC).

https://ausenco.com/insights/a-seismic-change-to-the-building-code-here-in-british-columbia/

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/translink-marpole-transit-centre-bus-depot-vancouver-cost

Thanks but where is the breakdown, and more importantly perhaps, why were these not included in the original estimate. Surely the seismic stuff isn't new.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Thanks but where is the breakdown, and more importantly perhaps, why were these not included in the original estimate. Surely the seismic stuff isn't new.

Actually the seismic stuff is new. The Marpole Bus Depot has been in the works for some years, but the new seismic requirements were only brought in by the BCNDP last year coming into affect this year. We really do work hard in this province to make things as difficult to build as possible.

[jollyburger]

The 2024 building code changes mentions a transition period where buildings in progress get grandfathered. Not sure how that worked with the 2023 changes.

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farmin...-r_seismic_design_delay_period_final.pdf

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

The 2024 building code changes mentions a transition period where buildings in progress get grandfathered. Not sure how that worked with the 2023 changes.

IMHO if this piece of public infrastructure wasn't too far along to incorporate the new standards, then they should indeed incorporate them even at the cost of blowing the budget. We don't want to cheap out on this sort of thing for a facility that might well have a life span of several decades.

[NewfBC]

Of course the price has tripled. This would have never been approved had they quoted the actual cost in the initial proposal.

Ron.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

IMHO if this piece of public infrastructure wasn't too far along to incorporate the new standards, then they should indeed incorporate them even at the cost of blowing the budget. We don't want to cheap out on this sort of thing for a facility that might well have a life span of several decades.

It's pretty easy to say we don't want to cheap out, but if incorporating new ever changing standards in pursuit of seismic perfection starts causing projects to triple in cost then I think it's definitely time for some introspection on whether "cheaping out" and using the older good enough standard would have been good enough. Perfect is the enemy of good.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by NewfBC

Of course the price has tripled. This would have never been approved had they quoted the actual cost in the initial proposal.

Ron.

I think that's part of it. Much easier to increase the budget later after the initial one is approved. How many get cancelled at this stage when this is revealed?

[mcj]

Originally Posted by NewfBC

Of course the price has tripled. This would have never been approved had they quoted the actual cost in the initial proposal.

Ron.

Yeah they really should have predicted all the future global events that would lead to an inflationary crisis globally.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The same students and TFWs who already get U-Passes, free one-trip tickets and other kinds of subsidies? This is not the "gotcha" you think it is.

While it is true that most students {except those in our private diploma mill schools} get the UPass, TFWs don't and that's tens of thousands of transit riders disappearing in the next 2 years.

Added to this, our student population is about to drop dramatically and their revenues even more so as foreign students pay much higher tuition fees. All our post-secondaries are going to be hit VERY hard over the next 2 years. Already in Ontario, colleges are closing down whole depts and campuses and the layoffs have begun.

With PS facing collapsing revenues, things like the UPass will be the first on the chopping block as schools desperately try to balance their books as actual courses are the very last thing they consider. With the BC gov't already facing a monstrous deficit in the wake of a slowing economy, Translink shouldn't bank on the province bailing them out and with a PP gov't those planned transit transfers from Ottawa that Translink was counting on will not materialize.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

With the BC gov't already facing a monstrous deficit in the wake of a slowing economy, Translink shouldn't bank on the province bailing them out and with a PP gov't those planned transit transfers from Ottawa that Translink was counting on will not materialize.

It seems very unlikely that the provincial government would allow TransLink to have to reduce service by any significant amount. They don't seem to be particularly concerned about the deficit for the time being.

There are no planned transfers from Ottawa for transit operations, only infrastructure funding. It's quite possible that a federal conservative government would not fund further transit expansion. Poilievre has already linked transit funding to increasing housing construction, which isn't likely to have sustained growth, so will be his excuse to stop any funding (assuming that idea isn't just hot air).

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

...With PS facing collapsing revenues, things like the UPass will be the first on the chopping block as schools desperately try to balance their books as actual courses are the very last thing they consider...

From what I can tell, the U-Pass program is subsidized by the student societies and through bulk purchasing, not subsidies from the institutions themselves.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

- snip -

Low-income workers often have access to other subsidies. Some neighbourhood houses, for example, buy a monthly supply of free Compass tickets to give to their clients; if said clients are no longer able to work in Canada, said tickets will likely be given to somebody else.

As above, it's student unions buying U-Passes, not campuses - that's why many for-profit institutions also don't have healthcare or dental plans. The switch from ICEs to EVs alone hurts TransLink much more than any of that.