It has been brought to Zwei’s attention than another group is wanting to build more SkyTrain, this time calling itself Crosstown SkyTrain , a 38km light-metro line from Downtown Vancouver to Surrey.
Well, that sounds good doesn’t it, how about the cost?
A bare minimum cost for an elevated SkyTrain would be $19 billion, based on the cost of today’s cost of the Expo Line extension to UBC, including cars and other costs not included with the Langley extension program.
But it will not be elevated in Vancouver, oh no, the ‘creme de la creme’ will not have it.
So if 50% of the line is in a subway (in Vancouver of course), the cost would top $29 billion!
But of course there is more, the line would need Operations and Maintenance Centre number 6, costing around $1 billion and a new bridge crossing the Fraser River, $3 billion ( I am being extremely generous here) and the total cost for this line would top $33 billion.
The Rail for the Valley Marpole (Vancouver) to Chilliwack, Leewood Study proposal would cost under $2 billion and extending the line to Vancouver, via the Arbutus corridor would be around $300 million.
As BC is cash strapped at the moment and the $8 billion Broadway subway to UBC would be the next line to be built, then the North Shore transit has to be dealt with; I would say that the Crosstown SkyTrain Line to Surrey is nothing more than a pipe-dream.
Contrary to the hype and hoopla about SkyTrain, modern light rail is the only transit mode that can affordably deal with today’s traffic and transit woes, but we can’t have that, can we, as the politcans and bureaucrats who support SkyTrain would be extremely embarrassed at how modern light rail out performs SkyTrain at every level.
40 years of telling SkyTrain porkies would be embarrassing!
But, eventually, Vancouver will need to adopt lower-cost LRT in its lesser corridors, or else limit the extent of its rail system. And that seems to make some TransLink people very nervous.
Telling the truth about SkyTrain in Metro Vancouver is a revolutionary act!
As the hype and Hoopla of the provincial election shudders along, there is a lot of postings in the various Social media outlets about the SkyTrain Line, now called the Dave Barrett Extension (strange that as former Premier Dave Barret was very pro light rail and not too fond of SkyTrain) confirms that SkyTrain is being built more to win elections that provide an affordable and user friendly transit alternative.
And yes, since this was published, it seems a Brazilian company has trademarked the name SkyTrain for their proprietary transit system, as their Emails remind me.
The old saw dating from an Email from 2019, proclaiming to all that SkyTrain is the brand name of the transit system and that the LIM powered trains are made by various companies, is coming back to haunt transit issues in 2026.
Sorry, but Alstom now owns the patents for the proprietary MALM system and SNC Lavalin may still hold engineering patents, inherited when Lavalin owned the system and then promptly went bankrupt.
Yes, the Chinese Railway Corporation produced compatible cars for the Kuala Lumpor system but they were cloned cars of the Beijing MALM system and the design is 30 years old. As the CRRC doesn’t believe in intellectual property (patents) such cars could be illegal to operate in Canada or cause huge extra penalty costs to the operator.
No other company produced LIM powered cars that are compatible with the trains used on the Expo and Millennium Lines. There is no market for the system, therefore no investment for what is now considered an orphaned system.
The name SkyTrain is used on a lot of elevated transit systems, simple because it is railway is in the Sky, so to speak. SkyTrain is not a brand of transit, it is a name only!
Miami’s Airport SkyTrain People Mover, No Relation to Vancouver’s SkyTrain!
BTS Bangkok is a conventional railway, operating as a regional metro system and is no relation to the proprietary “SkyTrain” light-metro system in Vancouver.
The Kuranda SkyTrain or Sky-rail in Australia, is an aerial tramway.
Bombardier’s Airport People Mover system was called SkyTrain, no relation to MALM.
Why the deliberate misinformation?
Sadly it is the old “if you repeat a lie often enough, the people are bound to believe it.”
What they are calling the SkyTrain brand in Vancouver, is not a brand, rather the name of the regional light-metro system, chosen via radio contest by CKNW in 1985.
So, as a refresher, I will start with the brands that our light-metro system has been marketed under.
Intermediate Capacity Transit System (ICTS)
Advanced Light Rail Transit (ALRT)
Advanced Light Metro (ALM)
Advanced Rapid Transit (ART)
Innovia Rapid Transit
Movia Automatic Light Metro (MALM)
The various brands have been owned by four companies:
The Urban Transit Development Corporation (UTDC)
Lavalin
Bombardier Inc.
Alstom
Powered by Linear Induction Motors, MALM certainly is, as most unconventional railways are proprietary. The MALM system is not compatible in operation on any other railway, other than its family of now six systems (Toronto abandoned their ICTS system) and no other company has ‘off the shelf’ vehicles that can be used on the MALM system.
As stated before, Alstom now hold the technical patents and SNC Lavalin hold engineering patents.
One should be wary of politcans pretending they are transit experts and their blatant attempts to mislead the public may come back and haunt them in the future.
.This is a repost and in light of both provincial and civic elections, Lysenkoism will reign supreme!
Lysenkoism: describes the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives
Transit is about moving people, not building high rise condos and towers!
Really, not in Vancouver, where the SkyTrain light metro system is designed to shape land use, ensuring big profits for politcal friends and insiders.
Ignoring the fact that the proprietary SkyTrain mini-metro system has been rejected by transit planners around the world as being extremely expensive for what it does and just being poorly designed, many local politicians, planners and engineers still hail SkyTrain as a ‘wonder system‘ despite the fact that only seven such systems have been built in almost years and only three are seriously used for urban transport.
Ignoring facts has been the mainstay of TransLink, countless provincial ministers of transportation, professional engineers, planners and academics, in transit debates and regional transit planning in general. Why have so many people have stained their reputations, supporting a proprietary mini-metro, when the rest of the world has moved on, regarding SkyTrain as a historic footnote?
There are two reasons for so many local so-called professional and academic people remain willfully blind on regional transit issues.
Many people have made small fortunes by supporting SkyTrain and the SkyTrain planning and building process. Making large sums of money by doing very little is a very hard habit to give up, especially when the taxpayer is footing the bill.
Many people have just been bamboozled by the SkyTrain lobby and are embarrassed to acknowledge it. Like sheep, they continue to baa, baa, the SkyTrain line for fear that they would be shown ignorant of transit issues.
Greed, ignorance and fear are the main ingredients of our regional transit planning and until that changes, the powers that be will still plan for SkyTrain. The continued building and operating SkyTrain is bankrupting TransLink, taxes will continually rise, further feeding greed, ignorance and fear.
Lysenkoism is the doctrine and it is practiced by the provincial government, Metro Vancouver and TransLink.
There has been a lot of comment on the recently announced VIA Rail car order.
Many people complain about the cost, but the ordered cars comes with a maintenance package, which means VIA does not have to invest in several maintenance centers across Canada. to give one the idea at the cost of a maintenance centre, the proposed Operations and Maintenance Centre #5, to be located on the Expo Line extension to Langley is around $1 billion!
As well, these will be newly designed cars with 9 different interiors, which again is quite expensive and the new cars must be “safety cased” by Transport Canada, which in itself is no easy or cheap task.
Depending on the maintenance package, $4.7 billion may prove to be a prudent decision and time will tell.
On another note, Alstom winning the contract (if there was a contract to win), this order will keep Ontario and Quebec jobs as Alstom is about to abandon production of SkyTrain capable cars and there is zero interest in the proprietary system, with no sales in a quarter of a century.
Alstom to build new passenger cars for VIA Rail Canada in Ca$4.7 billion deal
David Lassen
September 3, 2026
A preliminary rendering of new VIA Rail Canada long-distance equipment. Alstom will build the Ca$4.7 billion, 313-car order in Canada. Alstom/VIA Rail Canada
THUNDER BAY, Ontario – The Canadian government will provide Ca$4.7 billion (U.S. $3.41 billion) for 313 new VIA Rail Canada passenger cars, which Alstom will build in Canada, Prime Minister Mark Carney announced today (Thursday, Sept. 3).
Alstom Canada will produce the cars, with design and engineering work to be done at Saint-Bruno-de-Montarville, Quebec, and construction at Thunder Bay, Ontario, and La Pocatière, Quebec.
The announcement comes at a time when tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump have increased efforts by the Canadian government to support industry in Canada.
“In the face of strong headwinds, a confident Canada is choosing to build,” Carney said in a statement. “For the first time in four decades, VIA’s passenger cars will be built in Canada. Cars that used to be made in the United States will now be made here at home. This means new contracts for Canadian suppliers, good jobs for Canadian workers, and paychecks that stay in Canadian cities and towns. That’s how we build Canada strong.”
It is the largest single investment in VIA Rail Canada in the Crown corporation’s history, officials said, and in Canadian intercity passenger rail in generation. The new cars will replace a long-distance and regional railcar fleet largely dependent on Budd-built stainless steel equipment built for Canadian Pacific in 1954 and 1955.
A press release from the Prime Minister’s Office said that replacing the existing fleet will deliver safer, more reliable, and more modern service. The project will support nearly 700 jobs and generate more than Ca$1.6 billion in economic benefits, according to the release.
“Today’s announcement marks a defining step in shaping the future of VIA Rail’s pan-Canadian fleet,” VIA Rail Interim CEO Mathieu Paquette said. “These new Canadian-built passenger rail cars will retain signature features such as dome cars, full-service dining, and social areas, while incorporating modern amenities, improved accessibility, and greater reliability. They will help us preserve essential services to remote communities and elevate the unique onboard experience that allows passengers to discover Canada in a way that only train travel can offer. We thank the Government of Canada for this historic investment in the future of passenger rail.”
A preliminary rendering of a new VIA dining car. Alstom/VIA Rail Canada
The order will include:
78 sleeping cars.
58 coaches.
38 panorama cars.
29 baggage cars.
26 accessible sleepers.
25 dome cars.
20 dining cars.
20 Prestige class sleepers.
19 berth sleepers.
The new equipment will maintain the high-end Prestige Class service that currently exists on VIA’s Canadian, along with all other current classes of service. Alstom/VIA Rail Canada
The order is intended to maintain all current classes of service and preserve the signature features of VIA’s long-distance service. The first cars are projected to enter service in 2031, with the order completed by 2035.
Today’s announcement brings recent government investments in VIA to more than Ca$6.6 billion (U.S. $4.79 billion). In July, the government announced it would provide Ca$1.6 billion to purchase 45 new VIA locomotives from Stadler, as well as Ca$357 million to fund a new locomotive factory in Montreal.
User friendly a term scoffed at locally is really a big deal for transit customers.
The new MK.5, Innovia 300, 5-car train-sets have few seats as TransLink is playing a numbers game with capacity, due to counting more standing customers. The trains, despite the millions of dollars spent on You Tube videos and advertising saying how great the SkyTrain light-metro system is; declining ridership tells a different story.
User-friendless is the key to attracting ridership, something that TransLink refuses to understand.
Mk.5 SkyTrain stock ………………….
………….. Stadler Tram Train interior.
Government to banish 60,000 ‘ironing board’ seats on busy commuter trains
The transport secretary has promised ‘more comfortable alternatives’ for rail passengers
More than 60,000 “ironing board” Thameslink seats are set to be upgraded as part of ongoing government rail reforms.
Transport secretary Heidi Alexander has announced plans to replace the seat base cushions on all 115 Thameslink trains with “more comfortable alternatives and improved backrests”.
The Department for Transport (DfT) said the move marked “an end to the notorious ‘ironing-board’ seats that have long frustrated commuters on one of Britain’s busiest rail routes”.
Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR), Britain’s largest train operator, transferred to public ownership in May.
GTR will move forward with plans to fit upgraded standard class seats as part of the government’s “drive to ensure Great British Railways delivers tangible improvements for passengers”.
Proposed improvements will be rolled out over two years starting in 2027.
First class seats will benefit from improved seat base cushions, but will keep their existing backrest design, said DfT.
The 70 trains currently not fitted with a seat back table will also be fitted with them.
Ms Alexander said: “This is what public ownership looks like in action. Less than 100 days since GTR transferred into public control, we’re delivering on the improvements commuters have been asking for.
“From next year, we’ll start getting rid of the dreaded ‘ironing board seats’ so passengers can enjoy comfier, more pleasant journeys on some of Britain’s busiest commuter routes.”
John Whitehurst, CEO at GTR, which operates Thameslink, said: “Our customers tell us that comfort matters, which is why we’ve been working on plans to improve seating on Thameslink services and give the millions of people who use our extensive network a better experience.
“Through customer research with everyday commuters, we’ve gathered valuable insight to help us shape the best possible solution for cushion comfort onboard our high-capacity trains. We’re pleased to move forward with plans and bring about those much-expected improvements.”
In New Zealand, a battery-electric Edison railcar with a range of 160 km (99 mi) operated from 1926 to 1934 on the 34 km (21 mi) long Little River Branch line. The Drumm nickel-zinc battery was used on four 2-car sets between 1932 and 1949 on the Harcourt Street Line in Ireland. British Railways used lead-acid batteries in a British Rail BEMU from 1958 to 1966 on the 38 mile long Aberdeen to Ballater line in Scotland. The BEMU was a success, but decommissioned as the line was closed.
Battery trains are more expensive than diesel trains or overhead line electric vehicles
Although battery trains are considered to be more environmentally friendly than, for example, diesel railways, are significantly more expensive to purchase than diesel multiple units or pure electric multiple units – precisely because they have heavy and large batteries on board. On average, investments of around CAD $256,600 per train meter are to be expected, while standard electric multiple units cost about CAD $120,300 to CAD $160,300 per meter. A battery train with a usual length costs about CAD $$10.4 million according to “German Aerospace Centre”. “Diesel-powered trains (DMU) and overhead line multiple units (EMU) with the same seat capacity” cost about CAD $6.4 to CAD $8 million. For small batteries – such as those that are sufficient on routes that have partial overhead lines – “the additional costs of a BEMU are likely to be rather low compared to a pure overhead line train, however, required infrastructure costs for recharging must be included.
The running costs depend on the current electricity prices, which are currently below the diesel prices – but are still very high in international comparison in Germany. The batteries are usually recharged both at charging stations and on the contact wire, as far as it is applied.
The CAF trains are the latest example of the ongoing evolution of the Battery train and certainly the range fits well with both the Rail for the Valley Marpole to Chilliwack modern interurban servcie and the restatement of passenger servcie on the E&N.
CAF battery train achieves 273 km in test runs ahead of German deployment
GERMANY: CAF has demonstrated a battery-only range of 273 km with its Class 557 BEMU. The manufacturer hopes that this will enable the production fleet to run further than they will typically need to without overhead power on the Niederrhein-Münsterland network.
CAF announced in late August that its Class 557 battery-electric multiple unit had achieved a range of 273 km during testing at the Siemens Mobility-owned test circuit at Wildenrath in the northwest of the country. The Civity BEMU, equipped with lithium-titanate-oxide batteries, operated entirely on battery power during the trials. The result is around 24% above the 220 km range specified by Verkehrsverbund Rhein-Ruhr for the batch of trains it has ordered for RE10 and RB37 services.
The 220 km requirement applies to the longest sections that the trains are expected to cover on battery power, with a 10 min recharge permitted after 110 km. On RE10, which runs from Kleve through Krefeld to Düsseldorf, the approximately 65 km section between Krefeld and Kleve is non-electrified; an overhead charging facility is being provided at Kleve to supplement the batteries. Other services require battery ranges of 90 km or 65 km, depending on the operating diagram.
VRR and Zweckverband Nahverkehr Westfalen-Lippe ordered 63 Civity BEMUs from CAF in 2021, comprising 15 short units of 45 m in length and 48 long units of 55 m. CAF is also responsible for maintenance for 30 years. NWL subsequently ordered a further 10 trains for routes RB68 and RB76, with later additions taking the fleet to 76, including 15 short and 61 long units, making this Germany’s largest BEMU procurement to date.
Delayed entry
The trains were originally due to begin entering service in 2025, but the programme has since been pushed back. The first Class 557s are now scheduled to enter passenger service in December 2027, with the rollout continuing in stages until December 2029. The revised programme followed a decision by CAF, VRR and NWL to equip all 76 trains so that their traction batteries can also be charged from a 400 V low-voltage supply while stabled, reducing their dependence on overhead charging infrastructure.
Alongside the range test, CAF has assessed traction performance under extreme operating conditions and collected data on energy management, vehicle control and battery behaviour, which will be compared with the simulation models used during the design phase.
A battery-electric Class 557 multiple unit will be exhibited at InnoTrans 2026 in Berlin, where CAF says it will be presented to the international rail industry for the first time.
Being a member of the Light rail transit Association for 45 years, one has just more than a passing knowledge of transit.
I find that Canadian politcans must be dragged kicking and screaming to provide a modern and user-friendly (oh that damned phrase again) public transit service for the public. Yes, Vancouver’s SkyTrain seems modern, but also is a dated proprietary light-metro system, based largely on 1960’s transit philosophy and trends – News Flash: It’s 2026 and travel tastes and demands have changed, yet the transit that has been provided, has not and cannot due to the massive investments made for the guideways and subways.
Result: Ridership is in decline as the transit system is deemed user unfriendly by potential customers.
The following is an excerpt from a North American transit group I belong to, regarding transit priority.
One comment: The Light Rail Transit Association’s 1990 video, Light Rail, Today’s Way Forward, shows several examples of signal priority in action, simple and effective, yet in Canada one would think it was like designing a moon rocket!
TTC has no Priority for all bus routes. TTC does have Priority for St Clair, Spadina streetcars routes and a few other locations close to 2 decades, but the City, mainly Transportation and Works (TW) has refused to turn them on until the Finch mess. The mayor has order TW to deal with all transit priority issues and report back to council by 2027 how to improve service. The only change so far, TW has move left turn singles from first to last.
As far I know and seen, there are no systems in NA and Europe using a true transit priority signal system all the time. It is only use when vehicles are behind schedule.
Finch Ave was a 5 lane road before construction started to 7 lanes now that require major rebuilt of everything including bridges and new retraining walls. I never knew this until construction took place that the Islington/Finch intersection is a bridge on a 45 degree angle that was widen for better water flow.
Finch like a number of Toronto roads that could easily support an elevated line but it had an CPKC bridge to go over as well a 12 lane Hwy 400.
Since Finch, Eglinton and Hurontario lines are own by Metrolinx, they call the shot how the line was to be built and the technology under the P3 process to reduce the cost to build the lines. Operations was to be under the control of the P3 group and awarded that way. Near the completion of the Eglinton Line, TTC and the City started to call for TTC to operate the line. The Province decided to change the operation contract to allow TTC to operate both Eglinton and Finch lines under a 5 year contract will a renewal 5 year extension and this is where the lines went off the rails.
TTC demanded various changes to the lines as well bring in out dated operation policy that down graded operations. They require speed reduction for all intersections that can handle full speed in the first place for both lines, but chose to reduced the speed like they have done for all the streetcar lines. The original operators of all Metrolinx lines were to be outside sources who operate systems worldwide.
Sadly, I do not see any appetite for change and doing the same thing over and over again, ever hoping for different results, is the Canadian way forward.
If one took the ‘Way-back’ machine to the late 1980’s, the argument that SkyTrain was cheaper to operate than LRT would show the massive propaganda campaign to give the public a positive view of the proprietary ALRT light-metro. This is because it was forced upon the region by the Social Credit government of the day.
It was all fake news.
From an article, written by a Canadian author for the Light Rail Transit Association’s periodical, in 1983……………
This was written before the name ICTS was changed to ALRT.
For the Expo Line, there were no comparative studies done as the orders came directly from the Premiers Office and the same was true for what is now called the Millennium Line.
The reality was, building the Expo line with ALRT was a horse-trade with the government of Ontario (the UTDC was their Crown corporation) to both sell a very unsalable R/T system and to obtain the services of the then Ontario Conservative governments ‘Blue Machine’ to win the next BC election.
This is the base for Vancouver’s love affair with light-metro.
Ever since, the SkyTrain light-metro system has been portrayed as a wonder system, which over time has built up to the current SkyTrain myth. Like Robin Hood or King Arthur, the SkyTrain myth is nothing more than cobbled together claims and cherry picked facts and a myth often repeated tends to become fact in the people’s minds.
It is all “repeat a lie enough times and the people will come to believe” shtick.
It also be remembered that both BC, Transit and TransLink were in partnership to sell Advanced Rapid Transit (ART) or SkyTrain, abroad. This meant that there would be no way for LRT to be built in metro Vancouver.
The Calgary C-Train has traditionally carried more customers than the Expo Line (both being about the same length) and costing less than half to build and much less to operate.
Today, many of the “old gang” at TransLink have retired and the new lot of bureaucrats (many earning six figured salaries”)repeat the old porkies actually believing they are true.
Sadly, never was.
The print and electronic media also fell into this trap as those reporters who did investigative reporting have long retired, with the new crop of reporters,eager to please their corporate bosses, treat TransLink news releases as real news, instead of a well planned propaganda campaign.
Even in the 90’s, then huge subsidies for ALRT, made the mini-metro not cost effective in operation.
Vancouver’s SkyTrain light-metro system has had the transit eyes of the world on it for almost 40 years, yet no one has copied Vancouver and that is a question that the SkyTrain Lobby prefer not to deal with.
In an era of unprecedented investment in public transport, no one has copied the Vancouver model, the exclusive use of a light metro, including a proprietary light-metro system, for urban transport.
Why?
The per km cost of LRT and light-metro, 1981 to 1987.
A Comparrison Of Operating Costs – SkyTrain & Light Rail
The late Des Turner was meticulous with his research with the SkyTrain light metro system and in 1988, embarrassed the then Social Credit Government to release the real costs of the mini-metro.
What is more interesting is comparing the operating costs of the Calgary C-Train light rail and SkyTrain.
Thought the operating costs are a year in difference, it must be noted that the Calgary C-Train has historically carried more customers than the Expo Line, yet its operating costs are more than $12 million less than that of SkyTrain.
BC Transit knew this, but continued the myth that SkyTrain was cheaper to operate. This is called professional misconduct; others may call it more.
TransLink, which was mostly made up of BC Transit bureaucrats jumping ship, knew this, but continued the myth that SkyTrain was cheaper to operate.
COMPARISON OF OPERATING COSTS
The total 1988/89 budget for SkyTrain:
Operations………………… 5,483,863
Maintenance……………. 14,243,092
Administration………….. 7,931,834
Total: $27,658,789 (Adjusting for inflation, $62,407,681 in 2026)
(Rick Krowchuck, Executive V.P. Finance)
Calgary C-Train 1990 Operating Budget
Operators……………………… $2,332,000
Maintenance………………….$4,804,000
(Labour, parts, materials)
LRV Power……………………. $1,384,000
Fixed Operating …….Costs $6,815,000
(administration, cleaning facilities/buildings)
Total: $15,335,000 (Adjusting for inflation, $33,140,856 in 2026)
(Niel Mckendrick Coordinator of Transit Services, Calgary Transit)
I will say it again, at a time (1989-1990) when the Expo Line was brand new and Calgary’s LRT network was just starting to show its age, not to mention that Calgary’s network was 4km longer as well as moving more passengers at that time. That maintenance total for Expo Line is interesting. I would suggest that Calgary’s total is missing something. However, now that I know and have seen the difference in both systems maintenance practices, it does graphically show one of the problems of Vancouver’s chosen transit operating technology. I can say with great confidence that, a very large percentage of the difference between the two system’s maintenance costs has a lot to do with the Skytrain’s linear induction propulsion motors and the need to support them (the LIM motors) and its extra track infrastructure.
It’s a very cumbersome, intrusive and expensive way to move a train from point A to point B, compared to just using standard electric motors. The LIM units may have been better than traditional electric motors from the mid 1970’s to very early 1980’s (the LIM propulsion unit’s main design era) but when you add in the need for a 4th rail to just function, wow. Unfortunately in nearly all but a few rare cases, they offer no advantage compared to today’s electric railway motors. Just their physical location alone, at the bottom of the centreline of the trucks/bogie frame, a place they have to be to make them work efficiently, adds maintenance costs compared to standard electric railway motors.
In Germany, the average cost to construct a new at-grade, 2-track (double) street tramway typically ranges from €10 million to €20 million per kilometer (CAD $16 million to $32 million)
This includes the physical track installation, embedding in the road, overhead electrification, and basic stop infrastructure.
However, total project costs fluctuate heavily based on localized urban conditions:
Average European Baseline: While Germany generally enjoys some of the most cost-effective at-grade tram delivery in Europe (often averaging around million per mile nationwide), heavy utility relocation, land acquisition, or intersection redesign can easily spike the price.
Total System Build vs. Track Only: For a comprehensive urban light rail or street tramway—which also requires rolling stock (trams), maintenance depots, and signaling systems—costs can range anywhere from €25 million to over €45 million per kilometer (CAD $41M – $97M/km) when factoring in all necessary capital outlays.
International Context: When compared to other developed nations, German urban rail infrastructure delivery is considered highly cost-efficient, costing significantly less per mile than similar projects in the UK, USA, or Australia.
This is important, the initial tram line, complete with Operations and Maintenance Centre, will always cost more than future extensions.
The previously planned for Surrey LRT’s initial line was said to cost $1.65 billion, but that included cars, OMC and all the other items for a start-up line.
Extensions to the line, depending on quality of Right of Way, would have cost $16/mil/km to $32 mil/km. Thus a 16 km extension to to Langley would have cost anywhere from $512 million to $1.03 billion.
The total cost of both the initial light rail line and the 16 km extension would range from CAD $2.2 billion to $2.68 billion.
Compare this to the current SkyTrain extension to Langley:
The guideway’s latest cost from 2025, $6 billion, but does not include signalling (part of the Thales $1.47 re-signalling contract of the Expo and Millennium Lines), extra cars needed and the the $1 billion Operations and Maintenance Centre #5, needed for the new MK.5 Innovia 300 cars.
The total cost for the $16 km SkyTrain extension to Langley is costing over $7 billion and possible over $8 billion!
Thus the total cost for the 16km extension works out to $437 million/km to $500 million/km to build!
Both civic and provincial politicians are spending over $5 billion more for a light metro line, which, according to TransLink, move less customers than the Broadway B-Line bus!
One must remember that the Mayor’s Council on Transit, Metro Vancouver and the provincial NDP, abetted by the corporate media, fully approved of this massive $5 billion fiscal mismanagement.
The ION’s capital cost was about $818 million in 2017 (1.06 billion in 2026 dollars) for 19 km of greenfields construction or $43 million/km to build ($56 million/km in 2026 dollars), complete.
Compare this with the Expo Line extension now costing over $400 million/km to build not including signalling, cars and much more.
Recent Comments