A Tale of Two Letters
The SkyTrain lobby has entered the Surrey political arena with the all so predictable misinformation that is so common with the "metro lobby". Sadly much of their anti-LRT rhetoric is thirty years out of date.
Light rail system may be the wrong choice
Published: October 31, 2011 1:00 PM
I have a few important points to share about Surrey’s transportation future.
Currently dominating the “vibrant” future of the City of Surrey is a cataclysmic light rail transit scheme that may make transit service worse instead of better.
Surrey’s primary transportation corridors need to be serviced with high-capacity, reliable and expandable rapid transit service. The city’s push for LRT (light rail transit) over SkyTrain RRT (rapid rail transit) may be a mistake.
Firstly, LRT will not improve service. In fact, LRT may even end up reducing (not increasing) the overall transit capacity of a corridor. Congestion increases associated with the removal of traffic lanes will not only disrupt parallel bus service, but also disrupt communities and stall economic development.
LRT’s slower speed (approximately 10-15 km/h slower than RRT) also renders it uncompetitive with the automobile, which may result in lower service popularity.
LRT is not “future-proof.” Due to frequency limitations caused by communication restrictions, the only way to expand LRT service once having reached frequency capacity would be to lengthen trains, requiring costly station extensions and street-scaping.
Misinformation from LRT advocates is responsible for deceptive claims that SkyTrain RRT will cost “billions” to build versus just “millions” with LRT.
Several refer to rough ballparks of about $110 million/km to describe the costs of RRT, derived from the Evergreen Line and Canada Line. These lines contained many special provisions (including underground bored tunnels) and the cost per kilometre cannot be reasonably compared to the cost of expanding SkyTrain in Surrey. The 1994 extension of SkyTrain in Surrey to King
George from Scott Road Station was, in fact, the cheapest per kilometre to construct at just $66 million/km (and that’s in 2011 dollars).
To adopt a LRT system would be challenging; LRT would require many special provisions of its own. Aside from new rolling stock, a new maintenance centre and yard would have to be built and employees would have to be trained.
It is likely that after factoring in the capital cost to start up the system as well as the possible need to upgrade several roads parallel to LRT corridors, LRT in Surrey will cost not significantly less to implement than RRT expansion.
It is widely accepted that transportation is one of the most pressing issues in Surrey. The right choice for the City of Surrey’s transportation future needs to be made.
Daryl Dela Cruz
skytrainforsurrey.org
http://www.surreyleader.com/opinion/letters/132949678.html
Rail for the Valley member Malcolm Johnston certainly corrects some of the SkyTrain hype and hoopla with his reply.
SkyTrain design full of limitations
Published: November 03, 2011 7:00 AM
A recent letter from Mr. Cruz, (skytrainforsurrey.org) is full of dated and misleading misinformation, so common with the SkyTrain lobby.
Only seven SkyTrain-type systems have been built since it was first marketed in the late 1970s, compared with well over 100 new light rail systems built during the same period. Why?
Modern light rapid transit (LRT) improves service on routes which it operates, bringing a quality transit service to former bus routes.
SkyTrain is a proprietary mini-metro system and if Bombardier Inc. (the present owner) decides to cease production, we would lose our only supplier. No one else builds SkyTrain, unlike modern LRT, which has many suppliers – including Bombardier Inc.
What many people do not realize is that SkyTrain was too expensive for the Canada Line and a cheaper, generic, grade-separated, electric multiple unit transit system was built instead. The
Canada Line is not compatible to operate with the rest of the SkyTrain system.
Speed of LRT is dependent on the quality of rights-of-ways it operates on and the number of stations per route kilometre. LRT operating on a reserved right-of-ways (which can be a simple as a HOV lane with rails) can obtain commercial speeds equal of that of SkyTrain; LRT operating as a TramTrain on railway lines can obtain higher commercial speeds than SkyTrain.
Mr. Cruz, quoting “raw” construction costs, which excludes the cost of cars, signaling and power supplies for the Expo Line in Surrey, is again misleading as the same “raw” costs for LRT operating on-street is about $6 million/km.
The Rail for the Valley group, which engaged Leewood Projects from the UK to plan for a Fraser Valley TramTrain service using the old interurban route, found that the full build, 138 kms from Vancouver/Richmond to Rosedale worked out to $7.2 million/km. Modern LRT is affordable if it is designed to be affordable.
It sad to see the same old dated rhetoric trundled out by the SkyTrain lobby, especially today when there is such overwhelming evidence that modern LRT is faster than, attracts more ridership than, and is cheaper to build than SkyTrain.
Malcolm Johnston
Rail for the Valley
The argument that LRT being a bit slower then Skytrain making people prefer their cars is dumb. You know what makes me prefer my car? The fact that we have a very incomplete transit system because we have to build a truncated route due to the construction costs of skytrain. I can’t justify using the “transit” system if I have to drive half an hour to get to it.
Mr. Cruz lost the argument when thinks Skytrain is competitive with the car. It’s not. NO transit mode is competitive with the car! There is the little factor of travel time OFF the vehicle, many advocates of expensive grade-separated rail like to ignore. People are willing to walk to transit, if transit is within a reasonable distance, which means you need stops that are considerably less then 1km apart, which is not the case with Skytrain. I have yet to see a ART system where the stops are not far apart.
Speed isn’t only the factor in determining transit attractiveness, accessibility plays an important factor. It’s much easier to walk up to a surface stop, then it is to trudge up or down flights of stairs to an underground or elevated station. Even worse if you’re not lucky enough to live near a Skytrain station(which is tough, since most are pretty far apart, and not really located in convenient areas.)
And it’s much, much, MUCH easier(I had to emphasize that) easier and quicker to install surface rail. Many projects are forced to do unecessary utility relocation, which increases the time, and costs of projects.