RftV cost for a Vancouver to Rosedale regional railway $5.4 billion cheaper than the 16 km Expo Line extension to Langley.
Re-posted and updated on Saturday, September 19, 2020
Re-released and update July 2, 2026
On September 20, 2010, Rail for the Valley unreleased the groundbreaking Leewood Study regarding the reinstatement of a passenger service using the former BC Electric, now Southern Railway of BC route.
Why Groundbreaking?
The Leewood Study was the first and only independent study done on passenger rail for the Fraser Valley, without political or bureaucratic bias.
The Leewood Study shows the way how passenger rail should be reinstated on the former passenger rail route.
Today, more passenger passenger rail services are being restored on previously abandoned passenger routes; more passenger rail services are being restored on routes long abandoned and now rebuilt. Today politicians and planners see both the wisdom and economy of using existing railway infrastructure as a means to affordably extend passenger services to areas otherwise unreachable due to cost.
The vision was there a decade ago and the vision remains for the Fraser Valley, the question is; “Do politicians and planners in Metro Vancouver have the vision beyond there own parochial politics?”
The following is the Leewood Study’s costs for reinstating passenger rail, adjusted to 2020 dollars.
Total capital costs in 2020 dollars:
Stage 1 Phase 1 (Diesel Light Rail) 98 km Scott Rd. – Chilliwack: $578 million ($720 million – 2026)
Stage 1 Phase 2 (Electrification) 98 km Scott Rd. – Chilliwack: $134 million ($667 million – 2026)
Stage 2 Proposal – 28 km Extension to Downtown Vancouver: $426 million ($531 million – 20026)
Stage 3 Proposal – 12 km Extension to Rosedale: $33 million ($41 million – 2026)
Total:$1.171 billion! ($1.46 billion – 2026)
$5.4 billion less than the estimated cost of the 16 km extensions to the Expo Line To Langley.
From 2010
Groundbreaking report on Interurban light rail – released TODAY
Surrey Leader Editorial: We should get on track (Frank Bucholtz)
North Shore News: Valley residents on track with light rail
Vancouver Province: Valley light rail all go, twin groups claim
News 1130: Commuter rail service to the Valley is affordable – study
Rail For The Valley is extremely excited to announce the release of a comprehensive independent analysis of the potential for light rail service on the existing and publicly owned Interurban Rail Corridor, connecting communities from Chilliwack to Vancouver with an affordable, sustainable public transportation system. The study, now complete, was performed by Leewood Projects.
About Leewood Projects:
Leewood Projects is a British-based company that has professional expertise in light rail solutions, providing comprehensive project management and planning services to the international railway industry. Leewood Projects has i the past had involvement in prestigious rail projects such as the Channel Tunnel.
Railway stations designed as community gathering points. 10 full stations and 8 Tram Stops.
A detailed Journey Time matrix for stops along the line.
Total journey time between Surrey Scott Rd. SkyTrain Station and downtown Chilliwack: 90.5 minutes.
Future proposed expansions of the line: Downtown Vancouver (Stage 2) and Rosedale (Stage 3).
A detailed capital cost breakdown for the entire project.
Total capital costs (2010):
Stage 1 Phase 1 (Diesel Light Rail) 98 km Scott Rd. – Chilliwack: $492 million ($720 million – 2026)
Stage 1 Phase 2 (Electrification) 98 km Scott Rd. – Chilliwack: $114 million ($667 million – 2026)
Stage 2 Proposal – 28 km Extension to Downtown Vancouver: $363 million ($531 million – 20026)
Stage 3 Proposal – 12 km Extension to Rosedale: $28 million ($41 million – 2026)
This is the most comprehensive light rail study ever undertaken in this province, performed by a company with professional expertise in light rail solutions. This report at long last provides us with an honest accounting of the potential for light rail service on the Interurban corridor.
The “gelb wand” (yellow wall) of trams in Karlsruhe Germany
With the the Province; the City of Vancouver and TransLink continued selling big porkies about LRT, the following will be enlightening!
The ongoing planning and construction charade currently being played out by the usual suspects including cities of Vancouver & Surrey, TransLink and the provincial Minister of Transportation that the SkyTrain Light Metro System has shorter headway than light rail!
According to Thales’s 2022 news release, the Millennium Line (Broadway Subway) will only be signaled to allow a maximum capacity of only 7,500 pphpd, instantly puts a lie to these claims. Strange then Toronto’s TTC were obtaining capacities in excess of 12,000 pphpd on select tram/streetcar routes in the late 1940’s and early 1950’s.
Couples sets of PCC cars, Toronto 1940’s
The following is an email from a transit engineer from Germany answering my questions regarding tram headway’s and capacity (Capacity is a function of headway). He is answering questions that were put to me by several local politicians claiming that LRT cannot obtain the same headway’s as SkyTrain. Remember the Millennium Line, after the $1.47 billion rehab by Thales, will only have a maximum capacity of 7,500 pphpd!
One should compare the maximum of 10 to 12 trains an hour on the Millennium Line after resignalling, with Leipzig’s 40 trains per hour or Prague’s 45 trains per hour in the peak hours!
Question: It is not possible to operate 36 trains per hour as traffic signals will hold them back.
Answer: That’s the whole point of traffic light pre-emption. Which does not *increase* the green phase for streetcars, but *shift* it in time. So automobile traffic does not wait longer, it’s just different drivers who wait, statistically.
If there’s no significant automobile traffic parallel to the streetcar/light rail tracks (as typically the case in those “transit malls”), you can even dynamically reduce the green phase for the trains to the strict minimum required to clear the crossing (less than ten seconds, even for a four-car set), which will actually *increase* the green phase for crossing automobile traffic.
Right here next door, Leipzig is easily running 40 trains per hour on sections shared by several routes. And the infrastructure is not nearly at capacity, neither concerning trainset length (platform length would allow 60m instead of 42m), nor concerning frequency. Other operators do as well or even better. Karlsruhe’s 80 trains per hour are running through a pedestrian street. Calgary’s transit mall preciselyseems to suffer from a lack of traffic light pre-emption, judging form the videos.
Another example, from Czechia, the streetcar at Prague. The sectio from Karlovo Namesti east to I.P.Pavolova carries the routes
4: 8 min 7.5 trains/h 6: 8 min 7.5 trains/h 10: 8 min 7.5 trains/h 16: 8 min 7.5 trains/h 22: 4 min 15 trains/h
That’s 45 trains per hour.
The tracks from Karlovo Namesti to the north carry the routes
3: 4 min 15 trains/h 6: 8 min 7.5 trains/h 14: 8 min 7.5 trains/h 18: 8 min 7.5 trains/h 22: 4 min 15 trains/h 24: 8 min 7.5 trains/h
That’s 60 trains per hour.
The tracks from Karlovo Namesti to the south carry the routes
3: 4 min 15 trains/h 4: 8 min 7.5 trains/h 10: 8 min 7.5 trains/h 14: 8 min 7.5 trains/h 16: 8 min 7.5 trains/h 18: 8 min 7.5 trains/h 24: 8 min 7.5 trains/h
That’s 45 trains per hour as well.
All figures given are for the morning peak. There are various other networks in Europe that have similarly dense operation on sections shared by several routes. 40 trains/h is not uncommon.
Question: with a subway, 31 trains are possible per hour with 14,640 passengers.
Answwer: Boston’s green line is running 40 trains per hour, 90 second frequency. Onsight in the tunnel, without ATC. Four branches, six minutes frequencyeach. They are running four-car trainsets for events so the platforms would be long enough.
Zwei has been wondering why all the rah-rah SkyTrain posts on You Tube and it seems the answer is, ridership is collapsing on this gold plated transit system.
This is very bad news because falling ridership equates to reduced service and reduced service translates to fewer buses and higher fares.
Then there is the now over $17 billion, 21.7 expansion program for the Expo and Millennium Lines and the rasion d’etre for expanding the SkyTrain light-metro system is steadily evaporating and it is time for the good old;
Repeat a SkyTrain lie often enough and the people will come to believe it!
The problem with transit in Metro Vancouver is that demographic change, especially the winding down of the “Boomer” generation was never taken seriously with planners. As well, the light-metro system depends on bus riders to fill it cars ar over 80% of SkyTrain’s ridership first take a bus.
Secret agreements and just plain dated planning, which continues at the university level, has created an ossified transit system, with zero flexibility to deal with future changes.
With the Mayor’;s council on Transportation, unwilling or unable to think 20 minutes into the future, with transit investment tied to election dates, rather than moving people, there is little hope for improvement. It seems despite the hype and hoopla about climate change and global warming, our regional and provincial politcans have condemend Metro Vancouver to a “rubber on asphalt future”.
All the YouTube propaganda will not save TRANSLINK’S SINKING SHIP!
Transit ridership is down and up: Here is the April 2026 Statistics
The last link provides monthly statistics by city or metro area.The following six regions have increased from 2.8 % to 22 %Leduc, Longueuil, Halifax, Greater Victoria ( +7.7 % ), Greater Toronto Metrolinx, Yellowknife ( +22 % )
Metro Vancouver – TransLink recorded a loss of 900,000 trips or 4.5 % decrease.( April 2026 vs April 2025 )
For the last 3 months( Feb. March, April 2026 ) TransLink ridership has been down compared to 2025. by 2.8%55.
6914 M vs 57.342 M in 2025
Transit ridership per capita Metro Vancouver 2019 – 100 and 2025 – 75
The Massey tunnel is back in the news and the non stop fake news and alternate facts brigade are hard at it trying to rewrite history.
MLA Ian Paton desperately continues trying to sell alternative facts and myth to the taxpayer and Delta Councillor a and mayoralty hopeful, Dylan Kruger, who has never met a grievance he didn’t like, continue their political song and dance.
Zwei would like to remind everyone that in 2017, CKNW radio reported that the cost for the bridge has risen to $8 billion ($10 billion in today’s brass), which was one of the reasons to build the tunnel.
The probable reason why the NDP put a stop to things is that the current SkyTrain expansion plan is now costing $17 billion and rising, to build 21.7 km of light metro and with staunch MAGA Maple conservatives as local MLA’s, there would be less politcal damage with the cancelled tunnel, than a stoppage in SkyTrain construction.
The following are two RftV post from 2017 and 2018, to remind everyone the incompetence and dishonesty behind this now reported $12 billion project.
As on tunnel engineer told me; “the best solution today is just drop another four lane tube next to the present tunnel and tile it this time and in a couple of years no one will know”.
Massey Tunnel Shit Show
Posted by zweisystem on Saturday, November 2, 2019
Blunt title but it is time to be blunt, regional transit planning is a “shit show”.
Shit show: Noun, vulgar slang, US origin – a situation or event marked by chaos or controversy.
This aptly describes our regional transit planning, where politicians at all levels of government promote their pet transit theories and projects, using an extremely dishonest bureaucracy to carry out their wishes.
This costs money, an awful lot of money; this wastes timed, an awful lot of precious time; this costs planning paralysis and in the end politicians approve doing the same thing over again, hoping for different results.
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.” Albert Einstein, Dec 13, 2017.
The Massey tunnel replacement project must stand out as a grand example of political manipulation; yellow journalism by the mainstream media; and a complete lack of any coherent regional transportation plan.
The Massey Tunnel does not need replacing, it is perfectly safe.
What is needed: A new bridge/tunnel crossing of the South Arm, near the vicinity 80th Ave in North Delta and a second bridge/tunnel crossing, of the North Arm, adjacent to the CN rail bridge, from Richmond to South Burnaby. This entails new highway construction, which the regional politicians are afraid to contemplate.
All the new 8 lane bridge or tunnel do, without a second crossing of the North Arm of the Fraser, is to create a parking lot on Highway 99 in Richmond because of the restricted capacity of the Laing, Oak St. Knight St., and Queensborough bridges!
There has been no capacity increase for crossings of the North Arm of the Fraser River since 1975!
Until a comprehensive transportation plan is tabled and a rational regional strategy for transportation is obtained, any new bridge will create a “shit show” for traffic.
Transit advocates say any plan for replacing the Massey Tunnel should be assessed in light of climate concerns
A Delta councillor says a seismically safe, efficient alternative is urgently needed for the crucial economic gateway
DELTA (NEWS 1130) — Transit advocates are citing climate concerns and calling for plans for the George Massey crossing to be studied further, but a Delta politician says enough is enough.
Abundant Transit Vancouver penned an open letter asking for the plan for replacing the crossing to be sent to the Regional District’s Climate Action Committee for further scrutiny.
Coun. Dylan Kruger is a member of that committee and says further study is not necessary and a new crossing is urgently needed.
“They are arguing that there should be no replacement for the George Massey Tunnel because we should not be building for car infrastructure, we should only be building for transit,” he says. “I’m fully in support of building infrastructure to get people out of their cars but there’s a fundamental concept people have to understand when it comes to the Massey tunnel: the Massey Tunnel is the economic gateway into Canada.”
Kruger says commuters aren’t the only ones who rely on the tunnel.
“At the end of the day, container trucks can’t take transit,” he explains. “We still need to build so we can get goods from point A to point B, in this region and in this country. So the notion that we should be building only for transit infrastructure here, I think really does not take into account the economic ramifications.”
Posted by zweisystem on Tuesday, September 12, 2017
The Massey Tunnel Bridge replacement project is again in the news, as the massively expensive replacement bridge for the Massey tunnel has been mothballed.
Now, the CBC has found hugely expensive financial irregularities with the new Port Mann Bridge, and the air of political corruption hangs heavily in the air.
Was the proposed mega bridge to replace he Massey Tunnel nothing more than Liberal corruption on steroids?
Real reason for span disappears but Delta continues campaign
Delta Optimist
August 30, 2017
Editor:
Delta’s propaganda campaign to garner support for the proposed mega bridge replacing the perfectly safe George Massey Tunnel is in full swing.
Delta’s Politics and Misinformation Must Not Stop. The Bridge campaign is repugnant due to its long list of Trump style fake news and alternative facts.
A proper study for replacing the tunnel with a bridge would take a year or more to do. Delta’s “back of an envelope” review took less than a month to do and is poorly done as a result.
The replacement bridge was never about traffic congestion, rather it was to allow Panama-max tankers and colliers up the Fraser to Surrey Fraser Docks and no plans were made to reduce traffic at the Oak Street Bridge and Knight Street Bridge choke points. If anything, the proposed new bridge would create massive gridlock in Richmond.
As the real reasons for the bridge evaporated, Mayor Lois Jackson doubled down with another “back of an envelope” plan by hijacking the Rail for the Valley’s Leewood Study, for a Vancouver/Richmond to Chilliwack TramTrain service, for her pro-bridge propaganda campaign.
The study released in 2010 took over a year to prepare by real transportation professionals, providing a cost effective Vancouver/Richmond to Chilliwack passenger rail, using TramTrain service for the Lower Mainland.
The study never planned for LRT service across the proposed bridge, nor would a meandering rail line using the proposed bridge be viable.
Unless there was direct service to Vancouver, any rail service using the bridge (which will not have rail built in) would fail miserably.
Instead of a ruinously expensive bridge, the mayor should concern herself with Surrey’s $2.5-billion LRT, where two-thirds of the cost is being spent on roads and utilities for favoured land developers and speculators along the LRT route and the now $3 billion Broadway SkyTrain subway, which the route today has a quarter of traffic flows, needed to justify subway construction. Both are financial time bombs.
The mayor should support practical and cost-effective transit and transportation solutions and not massively expensive vanity projects that will do little real good except pauper the taxpayer.
The following video was brought to my attention and it gives a fairly honest argument about the SkyTrain versus Light Rail.
The big problem for Vancouver has been 45 years of SkyTrain propaganda coupled with condescending and fake news about Light Rail. Those who spoke against SkyTrain were quietly sent to Coventry and let go or for the biggest sins of saying SkyTrain is just plain wrong, get fired.
University professors who spoke positively about light rail were given the “Star Chamber” treatment.
In today’s world, legal or administrative bodies with strict, arbitrary rulings, no due process rights to those accused, and secretive proceedings called “star chambers”.
Even good old Zwei has been blacklisted from Post Media, the Tyee, CBC, CKNW, and most major news stations because they couldn’t cope with the truth about SkyTrain. The last time Zwei was threatened with a lawsuit for libel, but I mentioned a few names that had offered their services in defense, it all went away.
It seems they could not cope with the legal maxim that the defense against libel is the truth.
What is of no surprise for me is the general ignorance of public transport and transport mode, with many echoing old cliches about light rail and light metro. Yet, the one issue no one dares to address is cost, yet these are the same people who will decry the cost of every bean, but when it comes to SkyTrain they hide behind dated rhetoric and more.
The simple fact is, the current $16 billion plus, 21.7 km extensions to the Expo and millennium Lines will be the last simply because by the time funding is secured for the UBC extension, sometime after 2040, there will be no more MALM (SkyTrain) vehicles available and no manufacturers willing to design new vehicles without being paid up front, at a cost of over $200 million, before the first car rolls off the assembly line.
NEWS FLASH! The latest cost for the Expo line extension to Langley is now around $7 billion and the Operations and Maintenance Centre #5 (OMC#5) needed for the 5 car Innovia 300 trains is an added $1 billion.
Golly Gee Whiz Batman, how much light rail could we build for that?
As Canada flounders, with BC in particular, with any sort of passenger rail revival, Europe is leading the way with the current passenger rail renaissance.
HST, on the Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal route is being built more for politcal prestige, than anything else.
If any government is truly interested in mitigating the effects of Global Warming and climate change, rail must be part of the solution, but in Canada it is not.
In British Columbia, there are four passenger rail projects begging for investment:
Rail for the Valley’s Marpole to Chilliwack regional railway
The E&N rehab to a viable regional railway
Restoration of a public passenger railway on BC Rail from Vancouver to Prince George and beyond
.A Kamloops to Kelowna regional railway.
The cost of doing the above is about the same or less than the current cost to extend the Expo and Millennium light-metro lines in Metro Vancouver!
Regional passenger rail service is vital to bring quality transportation accessibility, at an affordable price, to areas with zero passenger service of any kind!
One of Europe’s longest train routes will launch next month, connecting multiple major cities
Spanning more than 1,300km, the journey will reportedly take 18 hours to get from Poland to Germany
Written by Liv KellyTravel WriterFriday 29 May 2026
Photograph: Leo Express | Leo Express train in spring
The European rail boom continues, and a symbolic new route is the latest addition to the continent’s ever-expanding train network.
Leo Express, a Czech rail operator, is set to launch a brand-new route from Poland to Germany (via Czechia) on June 25.
Starting in the eastern Polish city of Przemyśl, the service will stop at Kraków, Prague, Dresden and Leipzig before concluding in Frankfurt.
Demand for rail travel to and through Poland has been on the rise over the last couple of years, with record levels of passengers on the country’s railways. In fact, Przemyśl specifically has become a primary hub for Ukrainian travellers since the beginning of Russia’s war, as the city lies just 10km from the border.
In 2025, the first direct service between Poland and Croatia was inaugurated, and it also has connections to Germany, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, Lithuania and Austria. However, spanning 1,300km, this will reportedly be one of the longest single rail journeys in Europe, and it’s set to take around 18 hours to complete.
Departures from Przemyśl will leave the station at 1.31pm and arrive the following morning in Frankfurt at 7.53am. In the reverse direction, services will leave at 8.27am and arrive at the slightly impractical time of 2.23am.
With all that time to kill, passengers will have access to WiFi, power sockets, air conditioning and on-board catering. Here’s a map of the route.
Image: Leo ExpressLeo Express’s rail network
When initially announcing the route in December, CEO of the operator Peter Köhler said: ‘Leo Express is breaking down the symbolic rail barrier between eastern and western Europe and connecting key European centres with the gateway to Ukraine via a direct route that has been lacking until now,’ according to Notes from Poland.
We don’t yet know how much tickets will cost, but keep an eye on the Leo Express website for announcements about when you’ll be able to book.
Translink, Metro Vancouver, and the provincial NDP, especially Minister of Transportation, Mike Farnsworth, are “flooding the zone”, with the Broadway subway, “nearing completion“, “on time and on budget“, “with change how people commute“, and the goody, “the line will be soon extended“.
Why all the hype and hoopla?
Like all big ticket items, politcans want the biggest bang for their electoral buck. Subways have been presented as the ultimate form of public transit, which will solve the issue of overcrowding and traffic congestion. The extra costs and bankrupt businesses along its route are worth it.
A little bit of pain, is worth the gain in the NDP’s election strategy.
But, what about the costs?
The following was posted in 2020 and is still relevant today.
Both the Broadway subway and the Expo Line extension to Langley are based on inaccurate and manipulated assumptions!
A general note: According to Thales news release in 2022, regarding the $1.47 billion resignalling of the Expo and millennium Lines:
When the programme is fully implemented, the Expo Line will be able to accommodate 17,500 passengers per hour per direction, and the Millennium Line will be able to handle 7500 passengers per hour per direction, a 32% and 96% increase respectively.
Broadway Subway: Based On Inaccurate And Manipulated Assumptions
Posted by zweisystem on Thursday, November 19, 2020
Haveacow is an avatar of a very knowledgeable chap from back east who works with public transport.
In the arcane world of transit in Canada, speaking one’s mind or even being truthful can send one to Coventry.
To send someone to Coventry is an English idiom meaning to deliberately ostracize someone. Typically, this is done by not talking to them, avoiding their company, and acting as if they no longer exist. Victims are treated as though they are completely invisible and inaudible.
Mr. Cow’s insights and vast experience makes him a person to be listened too and indeed, Zwei does.
When one reads the following, which is a comment he made on a previous post, the first thing that comes to mind is that Broadway is not the busiest transit corridor in Canada or the USA. Far from it, it is rather average.
Of course this manipulation of the facts, repeated over and over again so the public tended to believe it, was and is the basis for the justification to build the Broadway subway.
Even TransLink, grudgingly admitted to this in a letter, when they thought they were to be faced with a possible judicial inquiry.
TransLink is confident in its data collection and peer comparisons, noting that the 99 B-Line route on the Broadway Corridor moves 60,000 customers per day on articulated buses running every three minutes at peak times. This is our region’s most overcrowded bus route.
Please note, this includes all bus routes that use Broadway, including the number 9, 8, 14, 16, 17, and of course the 99B. It should be noted that the only bus route which the subway will replace is the 99 B-Line and only from Commercial Drive to Arbutus!
Not only has this sham planning been approved by regional mayors, it has been approved by the province!
For the common person, this would lead to investigation and criminal charges, but not our transit planning, where six figured salaries and bonuses are the order of the day.
Sadly inaccurate and manipulated data, repeated over and over again, swayed civic, provincial and federal politicians to fund a 5.8 km almost $3 billion subway under Broadway! (A cost update from Zwei: I have been told privately that the real cost of the Broadway subway is past $3.5 billion and may top $4 billion when completed.)
The frustrating thing about the way TransLink measured the capacity ranges for the various types of rapid transit technologies was because it was based on how they believed they would run the particular transit operating technology. It wasn’t based on how other more experienced regional transit properties ran their facilities or even close to the best-known Canadian or international operating practices of each type. This pretty much guarantees the results you want. The choice of SkyTrain on Broadway was highly manipulated by this kind artificially low operational capacity and standards and practices that were poor choices for any comparison. I used Bus Rapid Transit as an example here not because I thought it was the best option on Broadway but as an example to show how poorly TransLink’s BRT option really was compared to what could have been used in their report.
The Bus Rapid Transit norms used were inferior and far from the superior practices used by Ottawa and other cities.This absolutely shoddy choice of BRT infrastructure and operating practices shows the limited understanding TransLink officials had on the subject. Thus it’s not surprising that the capacity limits believed for their BRT comparison were more than a little artificially low, especially compared to where and how they planned to operate the SkyTrain.
How TransLink Defined and Would Operate Bus Rapid Transit
I remember reading what TransLink defined as Bus Rapid Transit in many of their past reports and giggling. Ottawa has operated real Bus Rapid Transit on our bus transitway Network since 1983. Ottawa still has the most extensive network of BRT lines in North America, even with 12.5 km of BRT lines already converted to LRT and about 25 km more being converted presently. Many of the operating details of what TransLink defined under BRT would be laughed at by longtime Ottawa Transitway passengers and not considered BRT but really, a glorified express bus with nice bus stops.
Professionally, many of the operating practices presently used or what TransLink planned to use as BRT operational practices in their reports, showed at best an inexperienced operator and a lack of understanding about what you can really do with BRT. If you are going to measure BRT against SkyTrain in a given corridor to determine the most useful operating technology, actually measure a real functioning line that is working within a real BRT operation. Not the joke TransLink used to compare against the SkyTrain. What was obvious from the start was that TransLink doesn’t either understand or wouldn’t acknowledge that there are 2 main types or extremes, of BRT operations, open or closed systems. Choosing to mainly concentrate on either one has real operating advantages depending and different issues that very much effect what gets put in reports. Unfortunately the same lack of understanding can be said for their LRT and just general standard bus operating comparisons as well.
The example of BRT system TransLink used was a mostly closed system which by their nature purposely limits operational capacity and bus numbers to preserve the infrastructure’s theoretical capacity. It greatly lowers cost as a result but TransLink’s own documents downplayed the cost reality. It mainly concentrated on the capacity argument. The examples below are mostly open BRT systems which greatly increase operational capacity.
Before the conversion to LRT, during the height of both the AM and PM peak period, Ottawa’s Transitway would have a passenger level of 10,700 passengers per hour per direction. This was done using 185 to 200 buses per hour per direction on 85 separate bus routes. During the day the Central Transitway would average between 4,000 to 6,000 pass/hr/direction using 60 to 80 buses/hr/direction.
Currently, during both peak periods Gatineau’s Rapi-Bus Transitway moves 4600 to 5000 pass/hr/direction using 90 to 100 buses/hr/direction.
Brisbane, Queensland, Australia “Brisbane Transport Agency known as “Translink” operates a successful BRT “The Busway Network” moves at peak 14,000 pass/hr/direction using 225 buses/hr/direction.
Pitsburgh’s Busway Network during both peaks sees 4500-4800 pass/hr/direction using 90-95 buses/hr/direction
Capacity and Cost is Important Here
The capacity of TransLink’s BRT example in the report shows a service level of only a marginal improvement over the current bus system. Each one of these BRT examples I used uses far greater levels of buses than was currently planned for the Broadway Corridor, but their capacity far exceeds stated capacity levels of Bus Rapid Transit in the reports. The truly laughable BRT capacity used by TransLink here can’t be realistically compared against a full Light Metro line operating in a tunnel. Especially if operating costs aren’t considered important. For example, data out of various projects in Montreal, Toronto and Ottawa all showed that a full scale BRT line is lower in cost per passenger and 30 year operating costs than a Light Metro line if that particular line is moving less than 134,000 people a day. Broadway has quite a while before it will consistently break that service level.
Compare Apples to Apples and Oranges to Oranges
The BRT example used in the Broadway report was mostly operating in a painted bus lane with some physical segregation. Painted bus lanes can be easily entered by other vehicles, they are almost impossible for any police service to regulate if it is more than a kilometre long, are highly effected by parking lanes, driveways and laneways, block lengths, the number, size, frequency of and types of intersections. Different types of intersection signaling and control and the sheer number of other lanes. Painted bus lanes have a very low numerical capacity 3000 to 5000 pass/hr/direction depending on many physical conditions. Lastly, the amount of external traffic is desperately important as well for the operating effectiveness of a painted bus lane. Unless the bus lane is a non painted, physically segregated from other traffic, the comparison of this bus lane to any train in a tunnel is meaningless.
To be fair, if you are going to measure a BRT lane against a SkyTrain operating in a tunnel, the BRT lane needs to be in a tunnel as well!
The type of BRT operations used needs to have the capacity maximized to compete fairly against any type of train. The position of the BRT lanes also needs to be considered as well given other surface road conditions.
A mostly closed BRT system operating along mainly painted bus lanes, operating in the open, along with other mixed traffic lanes and having to enter signalized intersections will never compare favourably against the SkyTrain operating below grade in a tunnel.
Stations become critical here because the report had fairly numerous bus stops that could only hold two articulated buses 18 to 20 metres long each. The SkyTrain station platforms were 80 metres long. There were also more BRT stops than SkyTrain Stations. That’s just not an equal comparison!
Above: A section of the outbound tunnel leading away from the Great Northern Way-Emily Carr Station site (Dec 2022). Photo: TransLink
The following is a letter received from Rail for the Valley www.railforthevalley.com, a great source of information, commentary, and analysis on transportation planning issues, with a special focus on the Metro Vancouver region.
This is in partial response to recent media coverage, including almost non stop postings in the media and on YouTube and other social media platforms.
***********
Reality check for the Broadway Subway
I am always astounded by those who support a subway to UBC, especially those who deem a subway to be a game changer. It’s not.
Mike Harcourt is not a transit expert. In fact, he knows little or nothing about public transport and his input is both uninformed and damaging for regional transit in Metro Vancouver and for the province.
Most politicians, once elected, think themselves transit experts, yet few ever take public transit except for photo-ops at election time.
Even the mighty TransLink is bereft of real transit experts and is now staffed by a large cadre of six-figure salaried bureaucrats and yes-men, having earlier fired those who dared to opine that Broadway did not have the ridership that would demand a subway, as TransLink did before with those who supported modern light rail!
Subways are not a transportation nirvana. Far from it, they are both expensive and user unfriendly and due to their high cost and in North America, are not considered (except for strictly political purposes) on routes with peak-hour traffic flows of around 15,000 persons per hour per direction or more. In Europe, which has a long history of subway construction, planners do not consider building a subway unless traffic flows on a transit route exceed 20,000 pphpd. This is partly due to the fact that trams (streetcars) can handle traffic flows in excess of 20,000 pphpd. By contrast, the maximum capacity allowed by the signalling of the Expo and Millennium Lines is 15,000 pphpd and 4,000 pphpd!
Even after Thales $1.47 billion re-signalling of the Expo and Millennium Lines, the maximum capacity of the the Millennium Line (Broadway Subway) will be a mere 7,500 pphpd!
Broadway’s current maximum traffic flow on the Broadway B-99 Express Bus, operating a peak-hour schedule of three minute headway’s (20 trips per hour), has a maximum peak-hour traffic flow of just over 2,000 pphpd!
Broadway is not the most heavily used transit route in Canada or in North America. This is merely political hearsay by Vancouver politicians and bureaucrats, and has no corroborating evidence to support it. TransLink has even stated that Broadway is merely “our most congested bus route”, which is not a valid reason to build a multi-billion dollar subway.
The other issue with the Broadway Subway is that the proprietary Movia Automatic Light Metro system will be used.
We must remember that the name “SkyTrain” is the name for our regional light metro system, and the system consists of two very different railways. The Canada Line is a conventional heavy rail railway, operating as a light metro, and the Expo and Millennium Lines use the MALM system, now owned by Alstom after they purchased Bombardier’s rail division.
MALM, originally called Intermediate Capacity Transportation system, has a very chequered history. ICTS was developed using cast-off technology from the failed Asea Brown Boveri TransUran MAGLEV, developed in the 1970s. ICTS used Linear Induction Motors (LIMs) for propulsion, making it a proprietary railway, and unlike the modern tram or streetcar, it could not operate with any other railway vehicle.
Only two were built — in Detroit and Toronto — with the latter being forced upon the Toronto Transit Commission by the Ontario government, whose Crown Corporation, the Urban Transportation Development Company UTDC), owned the proprietary ICTS system.
Studies by the TTC showed that “ICTS could cost up to ten times more to install than light rail, for about the same capacity.”
There were no further sales.
The name was changed to Advanced Light Rail Transit (ALRT), to compete against the more popular LRT, and only one was sold to Vancouver, but with its huge costs and lack of performance, there were no other takers.
The UTDC was sold to Lavalin, and they renamed the light metro from ALRT to Advanced Light Metro (ALM), and it went bankrupt trying to build a system in Bangkok, Thailand.
The remains of the UTDC were returned to the Ontario government, which promptly sold it at a fire-sale price to Bombardier, which promptly did a complete rebuild of the proprietary railway, using their universal Innovia body shell, which was longer and had more capacity than the “spam cans” used in Toronto, Detroit, and Vancouver. After SNC absorbed the bankrupt Lavalin, the new SNC Lavalin retained the engineering patents for the proprietary railway, with Bombardier owning the technical patents.
Bombardier renamed the newly-rebuilt proprietary railway Advanced Rapid Transit (ART), and only sold four such systems, with controversy following each one.
The ART system sold to Korea, which later saw Bombardier charged with bribery for paying “success fees” to senior bureaucrats and politicians to ensure a sale was made.
The ART system sold to Malaysia again saw Bombardier and SNC Lavalin charged with bribery and more, for paying “success fees” to senior bureaucrats and politicians to ensure a sale was made.
The Port Authority/JFK Airtrain, in New York, was funded by the Canadian Overseas Development Bank, because the American government, upon peer review (all new transit systems using federal funding are peer reviewed), found the system hugely expensive and badly designed and built, and rejected the use of federal funding, forcing the Canadian government to step in to fund construction to save face for Bombardier!
The Chinese government bought one to gain technology, with two results, the Chinese government obtained patented items and may have copied them unlawfully (China does not recognize intellectual property) and that Canadian users could not legally buy spare parts originating in China and the Chinese government never built another one, but they sold “coned cars (basically the original 1990’s ART design)” to Kuala Lumpur, where past Canadian misdeeds made any bid from a Canadian manufacturer untenable due to past corruption.
There was a fifth ART built and that was the Millennium Line in Vancouver, which the then NDP government flip-flopped from much cheaper LRT to ART, and one wonders what inducements or success fees were paid to have this system built?
Lack of sales saw Bombardier group all its light metros under one banner, Innovia transit systems, and just prior to the sale to Alstom, all the metro systems were grouped into the Movia brand with ICTS/ALRT/ALM/ART/Innovia, designated and Movia Automatic Light Metro. Only seven transportation agencies (cities) bought the system, which has had six rebrandings and no sales since 2005.
It has been rumoured that Alstom will cease production of MALM, as Vancouver is the only remaining customer, after the last paid-for orders are completed, and that also includes spare parts.
Alstom has put the Kingston plant up for sale, which is the home base for MALM production and that also includes the test track for the proprietary vehicles.
It is also interesting to note that Bombardier, after their legal issues, stated that the MALM system should not be used on any route without a peak-hour ridership of over 8,000 pphpd!
The current Broadway Subway plan, is just the original 1990’s LRT plan before the NDP flip-flopped to ART and it stopped at Arbutus, because of the then-planned future use of the former double tracked interurban route, the Arbutus Line, to Marpole and to downtown Vancouver.
The current Broadway Subway, as well as any expansion to UBC, will garner very little new ridership, except for those using the deeply discounted dollar-a-day ride-at-will U-Pass.
The now almost $4 billion for the present 5.7 km subway, plus a minimum of $8 billion investment to build it to UBC, will not attract much new ridership for several reasons, including that subways are non user-unfriendly, with stops about every one kilometer apart; subways deter those who suffer from claustrophobia (a lot more people suffer from this than most think); and the Millennium Line doesn’t go to any major destination other than UBC, which means customers will have to make troublesome and time consuming transfers (which deter ridership).
Example: Those using the Broadway Subway to downtown Vancouver, either will have to make a transfer onto the capacity-constipated Canada Line or travel to Commercial and then double back on the Expo Line, unless TransLink operates a dedicated bus service with frequencies to match the ridership demands of the subway to cross False Creek at Burrard or Granville to downtown.
I predict, based on the more transit-savvy transit users in Europe, that people will avoid the subway and drive instead. It is worth noting that the European tram or light rail Renaissance came about due to the high cost of hugely expensive rapid transit projects like subways, and that subways tend to deter ridership.
The following graph is from Ontario’s MetroLinx, comparing the 50 year costs of various transit modes.
Due to the larger construction and maintenance costs of MALM, the 50 year costs would rival that of a subway!
The huge cost of the Broadway subway to UBC, about $8 billion, could fund the following:
A completely rebuilt E&N Railway from Victoria to Courtney as a modern, 230 km regional railway providing a maximum three trains per hour per direction ($4 billion)
A modern 130 km regional railway connecting Vancouver to Chilliwack, using the former BC Electric interurban route ($2billion)
A modern European-style 25 km tramway connecting BCIT to UBC and Stanley Park ($2 billion)
Instead, we are building [the proposal is] a very short $8 billion subway to UBC to cater to a bus route which presently carries a peak-hour passenger load of just over 2,000 pphpd, with future taxpayers left to pay the huge costs associated with subways!
Sad to say, the Broadway Subway to UBC, if built, will be a financial fiasco for future generations, not just in Metro Vancouver but the entire province, paying the cost of Vancouver’s politically-prestigious subway megaproject.
The problem with the current transit system is simple, those in charge are doing the same thing over again, expecting different results.
Not working!
What is needed is a complete rethought how transit service is provided, based on customer needs and not TransLink’s or Victoria’s political needs.
TransLink’s ridership has been in decline for almost a decade with a huge 3.2% drop in ridership in 2025 from 2024. This should send alarm bells off in TransLink’s ivory towers, but it hasn’t.
The province should be concerned, but they are not, just more ‘gish-gallop’ from the Minister in charge with the current $16 billion+, 21.7 km expansion of the Expo and Millennium Lines.
The problem with transit in Metro Vancouver is rather simple, the bus system is so designed to feed the SkyTrain light metro system – pure 1970’s transit philosophy. Buses feed the rapid transit and the rapid transit takes the customer to the city centre, with everyone relishing the high ridership numbers on the R/T Line, while ignoring bus ridership.
The problem today is; it is 2026 and demographic and travel habits have changed, downtown Vancouver is no longer the main destination and then there is the electric car!
Commuters are now on a East-West axis as high rents in the downtown core are chasing many businesses East into the cheaper Fraser Valley, which is poorly served by transit.
The SkyTrain light-metro system is pure 1970’s transit philosophy designed for short trips in city centres and not as a regional railway and is both uncomfortable and inconvenient for today’s transit customers, yet TransLink is spending $16 billion+ (full program costs) to extend the light metro system 5.7 km in a subway on a route with nowhere the ridership to justify a subway and 16 km , extending it to Langley, again on a route that has noway near the ridership to justify the expenditure.
That $16 billion cost is now coming from healthcare, social services, education and from TransLink itself to pay for what is really and election showcase project.
As commuting habits and demographic change, the massive concrete structures for light-metro do not, yet light-metro is a politcal statement by the provincial and municipal governments. Today, this statement more and more means “we have done it all wrong“, yet change is felt to be politcal suicide.
So Transit ridership will decline and the “Ship of fools” that run the damn thing (Premier’s office, MoT, Metro Vancouver and the Mayor’s Council on Transit and an entrenched ossified bureaucracy will not or cannot change.
Fundamental change is desperately needed but will never happen, because the system is so designed not to!
Financial reality will soon hit TransLink and the fear and loathing from Victoria, and the Ivory towers of Metro Vancouver and TransLink, remain blind to the fact there is only one taxpayer.
Telling the truth about public transit in Metro Vancouver is a revolutionary act!
Lausnne, Switzerland, with a population 144,000 and a regional population of 420,000, is building a new tramway, The city also has a two line metro system, with one line using rubber tired metro’s based on the Paris metro and the other metro line using light rail vehicles.
The high cost of metro construction has now focused city planners on more economic tramways for future transit construction.
In North America, the new tramway would be termed light rail, due to much of its route operating on dedicated right-of-ways.
The lesson to be learned in Vancouver is that transit mode should be chosen to deal with traffic flows on the route and not for politcal prestige as it seems the good Burghers of Lausanne care far more for the taxpayer;’s dollars than their counterpart politcans in Metro Vancouver.
With the new tram line T1, the Swiss city of Lausanne is reintroducing a tramway system for the first time since 1964. At the weekend, a public open day at the Renens-Perrelet depot attracted significant interest, allowing visitors to explore the new vehicles supplied by Stadler Rail and gain insights into the project’s progress and future operation.
Construction timeline and investment
The new T1 tramway line in Lausanne is the result of a multi-stage planning, political and approval process that began in 2005 with the development of an air quality action plan for the Lausanne–Morges agglomeration. This plan was approved in 2006 and identified the expansion of public transport as a key measure, as existing bus services were no longer expected to adequately accommodate projected demand growth. For the Lausanne–Renens corridor, the construction of a modern tramway was therefore recommended.
Following a political framework decision in 2008, the transport operator tl was granted a 50-year concession by the Swiss Federal Council in 2011. The original scheme envisaged a link between Lausanne-Flon and Renens only. However, by 2012, a further extension to Villars-Sainte-Croix had already gained broad political support.
During the planning phase, several modifications were introduced, including the abandonment of a planned underground terminus at Flon in favour of an at-grade solution at Place de l’Europe. This change generated savings of approximately CHF 83 million.
However, the project was heavily affected by legal disputes, particularly concerning a proposed road ramp in the Flon area and interventions in green spaces. Multiple objections between 2016 and 2019 led to delays and federal court proceedings.
Construction of the new tram line officially began in August 2021 following several years of planning and approval procedures. The project involves extensive civil engineering works along the Lausanne–Renens corridor, the laying of utility lines, and the construction of a new depot in Perrelet.
The first phase of construction is estimated to cost around CHF 500 million (approx. €546.43 million). The first phase is scheduled to come into operation at the end of 2026, with the extension to Villars-Sainte-Croix expected to follow in 2027.
The first phase of the line runs over 4.6 km, connecting Lausanne-Flon with Renens-Gare and serving 10 stops. Journey time is approximately 15 minutes, with a planned headway of 6 minutes. In the full build-out, the system will extend by a further 3.4 km, reaching Villars-Sainte-Croix.
Projected demand is estimated at around 13–18 million passengers per year, depending on final network development.
The fleet consists of ten seven-section, fully low-floor Tramlink vehicles:
length: 45 m
width: 2.65 m
capacity: approx. 300–316 passengers
bidirectional design
eight double doors per side
The vehicles were manufactured in Valencia, Spain, and are specifically adapted for high-frequency urban operation in a dense mixed-traffic environment.
Integration into Lausanne’s public transport network
Lausanne already has a highly efficient public transport system: the 7.8-kilometre-long M1 low-floor metro line, the 5.6-kilometre-long fully automated M2 Metro Lausanne, and the 59-kilometre-long trolleybus network.
The new tram line will thus create, for the first time, a third efficient above-ground transport network that complements the metro and trolleybus services and, in particular, strengthens the link between the city centre and the surrounding area.
With construction now in an advanced stage, Lausanne’s tramway represents one of the most significant urban rail reintroductions in Switzerland in decades. The combination of metro, trolleybus, and tram creates a highly structured three-tier public transport system, rare for a city of this size in Europe. 07.05.2026
Recent Comments