Audit says TransLink could save $41 million by reducing SkyTrain frequency, taking other measures
The empty VCC/ClarkAi??SkyTrain, maybe a candidateAi??for closureAi??in non-peak hours.
This comes as no surprise.
As everyone knows, except for the most die-hard SkyTrain enthusiast, one tends to run driverless transit systems at close frequencies at times when there isn’t the demand for such a service. SkyTrain is a railway and like all other railways, the more one operates the service, the more wear and tear there is on the tracks, the vehicles, etc. and this comes at a cost.
Offering high capacity service at low demand times is a recipe for higher operational costs and SkyTrain is no different than LRT except, when there is reduced demand on an LRT system, less employees are used, not so for the automatic SkyTrain which requires almost the same number of employees during peak times and at slack times. It is already acknowledged that SkyTrain or light-metro is more expensive to operate than comparable LRT systems and is a very good reason why very few SkyTrain or light-metro systems are built today and those transit agencies who opt for light-metro having been well groomed by companies selling light metro.
One is intrigued by the phrase; “TransLink could find more than $41 million in potential savings by measures thatAi?? include reducing SkyTrain frequency during non-peak hours or converting toAi?? shuttles………..“
Does this mean that portions of the SkyTrain line do not have the ridership to justify ridership at off peak hours and a simple shuttle-bus service will suffice on portions of the light-metro line? If it does, it would be sound evidence that SkyTrain has been built on portions of route that did not justify such a service.
The VCC/Clark to Commercial Broadway portion of the Millennium Line comes to mind. Could this mean that service to VCC/Clark station maybe only a weekday service in the future?
Fiscal reality is not in TransLink’s lexicon and squandering the taxpayers money on bad or lazy management only underscores how unfit TransLink and the TransLink Board are for overseeing METRO Vancouver’s transit operations.
Transit reality is knocking at TransLink’s door, but is anyone listening?
Audit says TransLink could save $41 million by reducing SkyTrain frequency, taking other measures
By Kelly Sinoski, Vancouver SunOctober 16, 2012
METRO VANCOUVER — A provincial government audit suggests TransLink couldAi?? find more than $41 million in potential savings by measures that includeAi?? reducing SkyTrain frequency during non-peak hours or converting to shuttles ai??i?? orAi?? reducing or cancelling service ai??i?? on some of the lowest-performing routes.
The suggestions were among 27 recommendations in the audit, which wasAi?? released today, and recommends TransLink should also take a “less averse riskAi?? approach” to its conservative budgeting, which may help the organization reduceAi?? the need for future fare and tax increases.
Other recommendations include: freezing police and security hiring andAi?? conduct an efficiency review to determine the appropriate staffing levels afterAi?? the impact of the faregates and new ticketing legislation is known; using splitAi?? shifts to maximize cost efficiency; addressing absenteeism; and reviewing theAi?? bus maintenance work force.
I would suggest reading the report before posting next time. You would have easily found the answers to your questions.
Here it is:
http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/publications/reports_and_studies/Review_of_TransLink.pdf
It does not recommend eliminating off-peak or weekend SkyTrain service. From page 19 “The frequency of midday service and early weekday and weekend service on the Expo/Millennium Line could be reduced by one to two minutes thereby generating annual savings of $1.57 million.”
You will be also interested to note on page 1 it states that “The delivery of rail services is efficient and resources are maximized, although there are opportunities for cost savings by decreasing the frequency of SkyTrain services during non-peak times.”
The statement about converting to shuttles is obviously referring to buses and not SkyTrain. It was just poorly stated in the article.
I has always puzzled me that those buying into driverless metro, always think they can provide unlimited service with no extra costs. The driverless metro frenzy, which started in the 1980’s, really only saw cost savings on older metro lines which had complicated signaling and signal boxes, employing scores of highly trained people; it was never about saving on the cost of drivers.
Dockland’s is a good example; it has no drivers, but has train captains and every train is manned.
I hope that the ratepayers in Vancouver clearly understands that he/she is paying far more to operate SkyTrain metro than a manned LRT system and that the operating authority comes clean on the real costs of operation.
Yes, and while the LRT stations in Edmonton are spaced just over one kilometre in the suburbs, the off-peak frequency of buses to the LRT stations isn’t every five to 12 minutes until 1 am like it is for the nutty SkyTrain lines here. Off peak, buses travel to the LRT stations about every 20 minutes to 30 minutes (possibly every hour) and riders in Edmonton still use transit at 40 deg C below zero, there. By the way, Edmonton has a higher transit ridership than Vancouver!
Frequent SkyTrain transit (including rapid bus) by TransLink during off peak hours is a failed strategy by transit fanatics who felt that they were going to revolutionize Vancouver to get drivers onto transit with frequent transit every two minutes at times – the fanatics failed and the 99 B-Line is only crowded because TransLink funnels passengers down the Broadway corridor to make a case for another SkyTrain line to keep the TransLink empire growing. Meanwhile, most of the buses going to UBC are 75% empty (in particular the trolley buses west of Arbutus Street).
As Edmonton has shown, you don’t need a crazy frequent transit network to attract riders. You just need a reliable, user friendly (LRT) and good transit network with low fares – fares in Edmonton are one-half the cost the fares in Vancouver.
To be accurate the first driverless subway/metro line in North America was the Lindinwood New Jersey to Downtown Philadelphia. lt opened in 1969 and the program that ran it became the blue print for all future North American systems. It was also the first system that used large park and ride lots at most of the stations. Most driverless systems do have substanial attendent/Train Captain ranks for various reasons not all have to do with safety or union agreements. The main problem is when the system needs manual control, some systems have back up driver controls in the car itself plus driver controls at the command centre. How you handle the change from centralized control to human control is the main driver of costs in driverless systems. The lack of a drivers cab can lead to unforseen costs in communication and information gathering needed by the command centre. The need for coordination of the staff can lead to presious time being lost during the control change over. Sometimes a simple driver controlled system is less troublsome and can be cheaper. It is a very complex issue because it requires near perfect knowledge of driver based systems as well as driverless systems in the same operating environment. Labor agreements and benefits further complicate the cost calculation issue.
From what I have read, I believe that I. K. Brunel’s post about driverless operation hits close to the mark, automatic signaling systems were far cheaper in the end to operate than older metro systems that still relied on older block signaling systems, requiring vast control rooms and scores of operators. The problem with light metro is that instead of drivers for the metro, the system requires “attendants” to be on duty to both ensure safety on the system and take control of a train. The problem with SkyTrain is that if a train goes down, the nature of the system is that an attendant must walk to the train on the guideway then drive it to the nearest station.
Some years ago, during a stoppage in service, transit customers became so enraged that the stopped train was only a few metres away from the station, were kept as hostages as there was no attendant near by to drive the train. After 30 minutes the enrages transit customers opened the front door and walked to the station, necessitating the shutdown of the entire station.
The VAL system is operated in such a way that there is always an attendant on a train in service, even though the attendants rove the entire system.
So instead of drivers, SkyTrain employs attendants and a lot of them, so they myth of cheaper operation by automatic control because there are no drivers is just that, a myth.
This bogus audit has not found any real savings. It is an audit by accountants and economists who have no understanding of how to make a transit system operate efficiently, and they are saving a penny now to preserve their jobs while costing taxpayers a dollar, later.
TransLink has an operating budget (transit only) of about $1.3 billion and can’t figure out how to move 300,000 people on a busy day? TransLink is a lost cause. Edmonton transit has a budget of about $200 million and moves 100,000 people daily without the drama by TransLink, here.
Simply put, the accountants and economists who head TransLink are not fit for the job – they don’t hold engineering degrees to make long term cost saving and smart decisions and don’t deserve to be running transit.
If the media want to focus on ways to hand over more money to TransLink, the media are merely acting as messengers of propaganda for TransLink and are too scared to print both sides. Handing transit over to capable engineers to cut costs and to make transit better isn’t being discussed by the media.
TransLink is run by people who are just stringing taxpayers along to build another SkyTrain line (Evergreen Line) – which gets the job done in the same way that a Corvette gets the job done hauling gravel at gravel pit. Engineers are selecting tram lines elsewhere – TransLink has it figured out and engineers in the rest of Canada haven’t figured it out?