Tim Yzerman draws attention to Nathan Pachal’s comments on the TransLink system failure in his South Fraser Blog – worth excerpting:.
The dangers of having a too efficient transit system: the SkyTrain meltdown
During the system failure yesterday, I saw some truly silly comments from the anti-tax, anti-transit crowd saying that if TransLink didn’t have a new head office, executive staff, public arts, police, or a facility to refurbish old SkyTrain cars, there wouldn’t have been a system failure on Thursday or Monday. The implication was that TransLink was spending money on these items instead of keeping the system in a state of good repair; this couldn’t be further from the truth.
I take the SkyTrain from Surrey to Main Street Station at least five days a week, and sometime after 8 pm. Because TransLink is replacing the power rails along the entire Expo Line to keep the system a state of good repair, it takes me an extra 15 minutes to get home if I’m working the late shift.
[Other examples follow.]… when I hear people claim that the SkyTrain failures of the last few days are due mismanaged priorities, I have to question the credibility of the people making these claims.
Ironically, the people campaigning to strip TransLink of funding in the name of efficiency may be responsible for the time it took to get service restored and get people moving over the last few days. …
Due to the provincially mandated requirement to become more efficient, TransLink has reduced the resiliency of the system.
For example, TransLink didn’t purchase a $20 million backup system that may have allowed SkyTrain service to be restored faster on Thursday. Also, TransLink doesn’t have the long-term funding to pay for the over $1 billion in upgrades that will be required to keep the SkyTrain from becoming overcrowded and running as reliably as possible over the coming decades.
TransLink has tightened up the amount of spare buses and staffing on the bus network. This means that when emergency bus service is needed, there are fewer people available to drive these buses, and few buses available.
What should be apparent from the last few days is that having a resilient transit system is important. …
.
Observations:
The object of those who wish to defund TransLink, certainly to ensure it gets no more tax dollars, is to convince people to act against their self-interest by reinforcing the hate-on of TransLink among its users.
So appreciate the irony: By trying to meet the mandate of efficiency in order to respond to the demands of the provincial government, placate its critics and live within constraints, it lacks the resiliency to respond to the kind of incidents that occurred this last week. Thereby justifying more criticism and less resources, likely resulting in more incidents in the future and less ability to respond. Thereby justifying more criticism … etc. This is how the region ends up with a decaying transit system over time.
Secondly, why is it left to Nathan Pachal to make these points? Where, in particular, is the Chair of the TransLink board and its members? Why are they silent at times like this?
Hey look, it’s a feedback loop! It’s the opposite to modordom funding: Traffic stinks and people complain. Government builds (or expands) more roads. New roads fill up with cars and traffic stinks.
I’m not anti-transit funding person. I work in hi-tech, on mission- and safety-critical systems, and there is no way I’d think (or be allowed to) have a mission critical system with no backup. In most cases, you can’t even get certification to operate a system without proving that there’s no single point of failure.
So the statement that Translink skimped on a $20m backup system in the name of efficiency is completely unbelievable. Not only that, but Translink’s initial statement was that an accidental tripping of a single breaker was responsible for the problem, and I can tell you that’s not a $20m backup system. And not only that, but the Skytrain system has cost >$4b, so cutting back on a $20m safety/operational backup is not “increasing efficiency”, it’s pretty poor engineering/management judgement.
There are things to defend about Translink, but so far there’s nothing about this incident that’s defendable. Maybe when more information becomes available, and Translink details exactly what happened, I would change my mind. But not now.
Transit advocates shouldn’t get in the same mindset as their opponents by blindly defending something because of their ideological standpoint.
I agree that single points of failure shouldn’t be allowed, but my guess is that a choice had to be made amongst leaving people waiting for a bus 300 days/year, attempting to cut unionized wages or buying a computer backup system to cover the possibility that a system that had never failed might fail at some unpredictable time in the future.
You know the penny pinchers would go for scrapping the backup system just as we all know Thomas Beyer will soon arrive to tout the benefits of cutting wages only to be debated by someone noting how that would hurt the economy and force our bus drivers to move even farther from their jobs.
Let’s also discuss union wages & excessive benefits, and the impact on other systems due to lack of $s elsewhere. How much of TransLink’s annual budget is labour costs ?
I’m with bar foo on this one…
I’m a strong advocate for transit as an essential component to successful and sustainable regions and will continue to advocate for additional mechanisms (funding and services) to enhance the transit experience for Metro Vancouver customers….but I won’t be defending TransLink for these most recent failures, particularly Monday’s shutdown.
As bar foo notes, if TransLink hadn’t considered what it would take to back up Skytrain until now (whether it’s a $20M backup system, a second electrical circuit, a large UPS or otherwise) highlights a massive gap in risk management planning. This is a backup system that should have been in place years ago; blaming this on forced efficiencies doesn’t hold water when it’s clear TransLink hadn’t even thought about this until after the events happened. If there is truly a single circuit that can bring down the entire control center, the Monday work should have been done after hours. The event makes me wonder whether they’ve even thought through the impact of a major earthquake on Skytrain; nearly the entire line is elevated…it would only take 2-3 collapsed segments to make the entire system worthless in the aftermath.
As has been noted in other media venues, the larger concern going into referendum season is what impact this will have on TransLink’s credibility in the public eye. I have been sympathetic to the need for funds for maintenance and renewing 25+ year old infrastructure in light of the complete obstinance of the Province. I’m not sympathetic to completely avoidable incidents that highlight a lack of preparedness and leadership.
To your first observation Gordon, it doesn’t take anti-TransLink advocates to promote the hate-on among users, it simply takes a strong showing of incompetence on the part of the agency in question in the midst of increasing public frustration at the current transit debate. I appreciate efforts to try and deflect some of the heat that is often thrown at TransLink undeservedly…but I won’t be supportive in this case. If events such as these most recent ones make even pro-transit advocates take pause, that doesn’t bode well for convincing more middle of the road/less engaged members of the public to join the pro-transit camp…and that’s not a good sign going into a referendum. The way out of this is transparency, a plan of action on how to avoid this again, and visible action against that plan.
why is it left to Nathan Pachal to make these points?
May be because they reflect more a political opinion as valid points.
Facts are
1/
The monday melt down, was related to work on the Evergreen line…so nothing to do with lack of funding for Transit…but quite the opposite! …Appreciate the irony!
2/ The opinion that “TransLink has reduced the resiliency of the system” is simply construed out of thin air… The fact of not implementing a mysterious “back up system” (*) which has never existed in the first place, and never been needed in 25 years, can’t be considered as reducing resiliency. Furthermore this document originated by consultant reads (section 2.3.4):
“ATC system upgrades now underway will accommodate future extensions for at least 25 years. “…If bloggers think that is rubbish, they should explain why.
3/ The Federal gas tax pay for the upgrade of the Expo line…
At the end expecting to have a spare fleet of bus with operators playing cards in waiting of a system wide skytrain failure could be nothing more than a gross mismanagement of public money…
Transit advocates need to keep serious…
(*) We Don’t know the specific, but the Skytrain Control command is probably protected by a UPS, but UPS or not, if you short cut a hot and neutral wire, you gonna trip a breaker…or you risk to fry lot of stuff…your UPS system first in line…