The SkyTrain/LRT debate – 20 Years Too Late!
On Sunday, November 13, will be a civic election debate in the Fleetwood Library in Surrey (BC) on the topic SkyTrain versus LRT, the sad fact is, the SkyTrain versus LRT debate has been dealt with over twenty years ago and light rail won! That local political wannabees are still trying to turn SkyTrain lead into light rail gold is testament to the general ignorance by many on the topic or urban 'rail' transit.
The following is an excerpt on the general questions regarding light rail and SkyTrain.
. Light Rail/Street Car vs SkyTrain
· Light Rail/Street Car is less expensive than SkyTrain to build (track and stations)· SkyTrain?s operating expenses maybe lower than Light Rail/Street Car (automated vs drivers)· In areas where travel distances are lengthy and passenger volume is less than highly urbanized locations Light Rail would seem the better choice, Surrey is such a location· At level track for Light Rail/Street Car can impede the flow of cars and trucks at intersections· TransLink is under financial pressure now and probably through enactment of its 40 year plan so opting for a very expensive rapid transit mode would not be wise· Light Rail can be run on existing railway right of ways (eg. Cloverdale to Newton to Scott Road ) saving property acquisition costs (ie. to provide for dedicated space for an elevated track along major roads)· Street Cars integrated with Light Rail is more compatible with Surrey ?s ?City Centres? plan, a key component of Surrey ?s Transportation Strategic Plan (Oct.20, 2008)· An expanded SkyTrain network in Surrey might be more compatible with the current SkyTrain system (smother passenger flow)Question: Assuming there will be an ongoing financial challenge for TransLink what would you advocate for a) including SkyTrain in the mix and a system of smaller scope, b) Light Rail/Street Car and the exclusion of SkyTrain?
Zwei will answer each question in red italic.
· Light Rail/Street Car is less expensive than SkyTrain to build (track and stations)
The Toronto Transit Commission found with their 1983 Accelerated Rapid Transit Study (ARTS) that ICTS (what SkyTrain is called in Ontario) could cost anywhere up to ten times more to construct than LRT, but have about the same capacity. Today modern LRT can offer the same standard of service as SkyTrain for about one third to one half the cost of SkyTrain.
· SkyTrain?s operating expenses maybe lower than Light Rail/Street Car (automated vs drivers)
Automatic operation or automatic signaling has nothing to do with reducing operating costs by having no drivers, in fact it was to reduce the operational costs of expensive signaling. Instead of drivers, SkyTrain employs attendants. Most automatic metros (Victoria Line UK) retain drivers as a safety measure. Studies have shown that automatic operation is not cost efficient unless ridership exceeds about 20,000 persons per hour per direction on a metro line.
· In areas where travel distances are lengthy and passenger volume is less than highly urbanized locations Light Rail would seem the better choice, Surrey is such a location
This statement is factually incorrect, today modern LRT can achieve passenger capacities greater than SkyTrain (Karlsruhe Germany – 40,000 pphpd) It is generally accepted that modern LRT can affordably cater to traffic loads between 2,000 pphpd to over 20,000 pphpd (Light Rail Transit Association).
· At level track for Light Rail/Street Car can impede the flow of cars and trucks at intersections
This comment has no factual basis as modern LRT has less disruption at intersections than ordinary light controlled intersections. Would you have us take out all traffic lights at intersections to increase traffic flow?
· TransLink is under financial pressure now and probably through enactment of its 40 year plan so opting for a very expensive rapid transit mode would not be wise
SkyTrain considered an obsolete (except for Vancouver) unconventional railway and only seven such examples have been built since SkyTrain was first marketed in the late 1970's.
· Light Rail can be run on existing railway right of ways (eg. Cloverdale to Newton to Scott Road ) saving property acquisition costs (ie. to provide for dedicated space for an elevated track along major roads)
LRT operating as a TramTrain, track sharing with regular railways, construction costs can be as low as $6 million/km. (Leewood Rail for the Valley Study). When LRT is elevated it loses any cost advantage over SkyTrain, in fact it becomes a light-metro with all the financial baggage that comes with the mode. There is no need to elevate modern LRT except to pass over an obstacle like a highway, railway, or water.
· Street Cars integrated with Light Rail is more compatible with Surrey ?s ?City Centres? plan, a key component of Surrey ?s Transportation Strategic Plan (Oct.20, 2008)
Streetcars are merely light rail vehicles that operate on-street in mixed traffic; LRT is streetcars operating on a reserved rights-of-ways or dedicated routes for LRT, which can be as simple as a HOV lane with rails.
· An expanded SkyTrain network in Surrey might be more compatible with the current SkyTrain system (smother passenger flow)
Question is; who is going to pay for an expanded SkyTrain in Surrey? With all-in (guideway, rails, signaling, stations) costs starting at about $100 million/km, who is going to pay. All-in costs for streetcar are about $15 million+/km and $25 million+/km for light rail. With LRT/streetcar, one gets a far bigger bang for your buck.
Question: Assuming there will be an ongoing financial challenge for TransLink what would you advocate for a) including SkyTrain in the mix and a system of smaller scope, b) Light Rail/Street Car and the exclusion of SkyTrain?
That no one else builds SkyTrain as an urban transportation system in North America and Europe should speak volumes about the undesirability of SkyTrain.
