What is SkyTrain?
Provincial politicians since 1980 have forced SkyTrain construction on the Expo Line, the Millennium Line, the Evergreen Line, and nowAi??Ai??a billion dollar plus extension in Surrey, yet very few people clearly understand what SkyTrain is,Ai??Ai??or whyAi??Ai??SkyTrain is built. Even fewer know that SkyTrain is a light-metro and able to give a definition of the transit mode. If the rest of the world builds with LRT, why then do we build with something different.
A little history lesson.
In the late 1970’s, Ontario’s Crown Corporation, the Urban Transportation Development Corporation (UTDC), developed a proprietary transit system, based around Linear Induction Motors (LIM’s), from an earlier failed MAGLEV monorail system, which was notable for not being able to turn corners. The result was Intermediate Capacity Transit System (ICTS) which carried more passengers and was faster than a Toronto Streetcar but costing less to build than a heavy-rail subway. There were few takers for the automatic railway, which fell into the light-metro family of transportation, with only one sale to Detroit. The UTDC lobbied the Ontario provincial government to force the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) to build with ICTS and abandon the streetcar system. This resulted in the TTC building the orphan ICTS system on the proposed Scarborough Line.
The last straw for ICTS came from the 1983 Ai??Ai??TTC/IBI which found that, “ICTS costs anything up to ten times as much as a conventionalAi??Ai?? light-rail line to install for about the same capacity; or put another way, ICTS costs more than a heavy-rail subway with four times its capacity.” ICTS was dead, but not the UDTC, which quietly changed the name from ICTS to Advanced Light Rail Transit (ALRT) to try to get into the light-rail market, which ICTS/ALRT was definitely not as the mode still was a light-metro.
Again, the newly named ALRT failed to find a market except for Vancouver, where the then Social Credit Government, in a crass political deal which included the much vaunted Ontario conservative ‘Blue-machine’, bought the now obsolete light-metro. Instead of the originally planned for Vancouver to Lougheed Mall, Wally, and Richmond Centre light rail system, the region was forced to build SkyTrain from downtown Vancouver to New Westminster. No transit system had as much hype and hoopla as ALRT and a local name was born for the light-metro – SkyTrain. There were still no takers as SkyTrain cost at least twice as much to build as Calgary’s LRT and four times more to build than Portland’s light rail line. The Advanced Light Rail Transit moniker did not fool anyone and the name was slightly changed in the late 80’s to Advanced Light Rapid Transit.
The UTDC was wound up and the ALRT division was sold to Lavalin and again the name was changed to Automated Light-Metro but was still called SkyTrain, which most elevated railways are called. Lavalin went into receivership in the early 90’s trying to build ALM in Bangkok Thailand. Soon Bombardier bought the rights to ALM or SkyTrain and promptly renamed the light-metro to ART (Advanced Rapid Transit) and re-bodied the original ICTS cars with the largest metro body shellAi??Ai??that the LIM’s could handle and what the Vancouver Expo Line could handle, with the result of a more metro looking vehicle.
There have been four sales of ART.
1) JFK Airport/Port authorityAi??Ai??- In a privately financed deal (financed by the Canadian Government) ART is used as an airport people mover to connect JFK with parking facilities and the New York metro system. It is funded by a $7.00 departure fee.
2) Kuala Lumpor – Already building with an elevated LRT line (STAR), senior politicians wanted something that was perceived to be ultra modern and ordered that an automatic transit system was to be built instead of extending the STAR line. Politicians went so far has to exclude LRT, even an automatic LRT and eventually ART beat out the French rubber tired VAL system for the new automatic line. The same politicians who forced an automatic railway were aghast that the ART line (called PUTRA) was a railway and not very futuristic at all. The third transit line built in Kuala Lumpor is a monorail, which was wanted by politico’s in the first place.
3) Korea – Another airport people mover.
4) China – built a LIM powered rapid transit system to gain technology, as Chinese planners stung by the excessive costs of the Shanghai MAGLEV, want to build with conventional rail instead of unconventional rail system.
To date there are seven ICTS/ALRT/ART systems in operation with Detroit’s single track ICTS and Toronto’s Scarborough Line soon to be life expired and dismantled, there will only be five remaining SkyTrain type light-metros. Discounting the airport ART people movers, Vancouver is the only city that continues to plan for SkyTrain or light-metro for regional rapid transit, yet during the same time ICTS/ALRT/ALM/ART have been on the market over 100 new light-rail systems have been built and a further 100 light-rail systems are either under construction or are in advanced stages of planning.
But what is ICTS or ALRT or ART? They are all light-metro, a transit mode that was supposed to be faster than a streetcar but cost less than a heavy-rail metro. To date there are less than 30 light-metros in operation around the world of which seven are in the SkyTrain family. SkyTrain, like its French cousin VAL have been made obsolete by modern LRT which introduced the articulate car and the concept of the reserved rights-of-way, which enabled light-rail to carry as many passengers and achieve the same commercial speeds as light-metro at a far less cost.
It should be noted, in the present SkyTrain/LRT debate, no mention of this is made by government appointed planners, TransLink or the Ministry of Transportation. No wonder that TransLink is on the verge of Bankruptcy!
Transit study set up to fail? Editorial from the Province.
Editorial, the Province newspaper, Dec. 17
I f the B.C. government thinks it will score political points with voters south of the Fraser River for its $400,000 Fraser Valley transit report, it should think again. Not only will the study’s results not be ready until long after the May provincial election, but its terms of reference are woefully inadequate as well.
The study aims to examine how best to deploy new buses and, more importantly, to assess the viability of running light rail transit on the existing Inter-Urban rail line, which runs from the north end of Scott Road in Surrey through to Langley, Abbotsford and Chilliwack.
A strengthening public movement covering all communities south of the Fraser prefers the right-of-way be re-established for just that: Modern, high-tech light-rail transit to connect everyone in the region and to link them up with the SkyTrain service in Surrey.
Why then did the B.C. government omit Surrey and Langley from the study’s terms of reference?
Skeptics suggest it wasn’t an oversight.
They contend it’s an intentional move to guarantee that the study will conclude there is insufficient population, ridership or economic justification for the light rail concept in the less densely-populated centres such as Abbotsford and Chilliwack.
Factoring the higher-populated Lower Mainland cities such as Surrey, Langley Township and Langley City into this study would certainly yield a different result — one that might well better serve the needs of a travelling, commuting public.
But Victoria has never been gung-ho on the idea of reviving the Inter-Urban line, a bias that becomes increasingly evident when considering the study’s terms of reference and lack of input from all stakeholders.
It’s worth reminding the election-bound B.C. Liberals that every south-of-Fraser mayor who publicly supported a return of Inter-Urban light rail was elected or re-elected in B.C.’s recent civic elections.
Not that government has ever felt it necessary to heed the wishes of its citizens.
-The Province newspaper
Wally
This excellent post is taken from Nathan Pachal (South Fraser On Trax):
In Michigan state, all levels of government and the private sector are coming together to upgrade a 44km section of single track rail to serve as a commuter line between Ann Arbor, Michigan (POP: 341,000) and Howell, Michigan (POP: 9,232). These communities are near Detroit. This project was proposed by the government because they had the choice of spending $500 million to add an additional lane of highway between these communities, or spending $33 million to get a simple commuter rail system up and running. They will be upgrading the signaling, crossings, tracks, and adding some passing sidings. Capital funding for the rail upgrade are in process. The short line operator, Great Lakes Central Railroad, will be providing the train-sets and operating the line. It is expected that passenger revenue and a government subsidy will cover the operating cost. They plan on running eight trains a day to start.
I wanted to point this project out for three reasons. First, it shows that you donA?ai??i??ai???t need to spend lots of money to get a simple rail system going. Second, there are some parallels to our Interurban line. (short line operator, underutilized line, etc.) Third, you donA?ai??i??ai???t need a large population to get a rail system up and running.
I invite you to read the business plan for this project.
-Nathan Pachal, South Fraser Blog
Canada asks provinces to suggest stimulus projects
Canada asks provinces to suggest stimulus projects
As we’ve long pointed out, regular Interurban rail service could be up and running the whole distance between Chilliwack and Vancouver within 2 years, with political will. The Fraser Valley has been clamouring for this service for long enough. It is now time for our provincial politicians to act. This is our golden opportunity!
One ideal infrastructure project that is simple enough to undertake immediately is to upgrade the entire stretch of Interurban track to passenger grade rail, as is currently being done in Surrey for their Heritage Rail Project. Such an upgrade is quite inexpensive, simple to carry out, and necessary for any sort of regular passenger rail service to be implemented.
By performing the necessary upgrades in 2009 using federal economic stimulus money, a Valley-wide demonstration project in time for the Olympics becomes viable.
While the track upgrades are ongoing, an implementation task force could be established to plan the next phase of Interurban infrastructure development – type of service, station locations, areas that are in need of double tracking, etc. Implementation of regular service could then be fast-tracked with the help of federal funds.
Light rail cheaper than buses – study
UBC Prof. Patrick Condon and Kari Dow have come to the startling conclusion that when you add capital costs together with operating costs, light rail is actually cheaper, per passenger per km, than any type of bus, and that Skytrain is the most expensive by far.
This is very significant for the Fraser Valley, because of the government’s promise to implement rapid buses to Langley by 2020 and Abbotsford by 2030. Rapid buses are not the affordable option for the valley. Particularly when you consider this study assumes construction of new light rail track in their cost estimates, when in fact we already have a strategically located rail line (the Interurban) that is sitting mainly idle and is far cheaper (and takes far less time) to uprade and use for LRT than a new line.
Condon also points out that for the cost of the proposed $2.8 billion Skytrain subway to UBC, you could supply each new UBC student with a hybrid car, forever!
Or, for that money we could fund the construction of a comprehensive light rail and transit network extending from UBC through Vancouver and right through the whole Fraser Valley, including a new rail bridge. One question though: if we spend the $2.8 billion UBC subway money on a comprehensive Lower Mainland rail and transit network, how on Earth would we spend the extra $1.1 billion that’s now allocated for a Surrey Skytrain extension?
Karlsruhe Light/Heavy Rail Track-Sharing System
Here is a good article, from Railway-technology.com, that describes the Karlsruhe Model of track-sharing:
Karlsruhe Light/Heavy Rail Track-Sharing System, Germany
“Close to the French border in south-west Germany, Karlsruhe in Baden-WA?A?rttemberg was the first European city to implement track-sharing for light and heavy rail vehicles. The ‘Karlsruhe Model’ is considered the reference point for similar developments worldwide…..”
Langley left out
More coverage today, in the Langley Times:
Rail group pans TransLink plan
and this very blunt editorial by Frank Bucholtz: Langley left out.
Why we build with LRT
What is Light Rail Transit or more commonly known as LRT? According to the Light Rail Transit Association (www.lrta.org) Light rail is a mode that can deal economically with traffic flows of between 2,000 and 20,000 passengers per hour per direction, thus effectively bridging the gap between the maximum flow that can be dealt with using buses and the minimum that justifies a metro. But there is more, by track-sharing with existing railways on their rights-of-ways, means that LRT can effectively and affordably service less populated areas, with public transport. Streetcars are also light rail, but operate on-street, in mixed traffic, with little or no signal priority at intersections. The main difference between LRT and a streetcar is the quality of rights-of-way, where a streetcar operates on-street, LRT operates on a reserved rights-of-way or a route that is reserved for the sole purpose of the light rail vehicle. A reserved rights-of-way can be as simple as a HOV lane with rails, to a lawned park like route with trees, hedges and flowerbeds. LRT, in it’s various forms is used in over 600 cities around the world and is the first choice of transit planners for affordable, customer friendly public transport.
The German city of Karlsruhe (City population 275,285) has taken light rail to a new standard, by track sharing with mainline railways and operating, what is called tramtrains. In Karlsruhe, one can board a tram, on-street, on the pavement and alight, on-street in Ohringen some 210km (130 mile) later, with the tram acting as a streetcar, light rail vehicle and a passenger train! Karlsruhe’s light rail network now extends over 400 km. (250+ mile) of route, servicing scores of small towns and villages with high quality public transit at very little cost simply because the tram can use existing railway tracks.
In British Columbia, tramtrain can be a useful tool for implementing a high quality ‘rail’ transit service, not only in Vancouver and the Fraser Valley, but in Victoria (E & N Railway) and the Kelowna/Vernon rail corridor as well.
The question is: Why does TransLink and the BC government reject modern LRT out of hand and continue to build with dated SkyTrain light metro?
Langley not in rail study
Langley not in rail study (Langley Advance)
“Rail for the Valley says Langley is being railroaded when it comes to a study of local transit options…”
Jordan Bateman is also quoted. He seems to think the study will seriously look at the Interurban. If that were the case, wouldn’t Langley be included in the study announcement?
Brian Lewis: Transit boss’s credentials starting to show
Is Translink REALLY going to give honest consideration to light rail on the Interurban route? Brian Lewis seems to think so. He really likes their new CEO Tom Prendergast:
Brian Lewis’s Province column yesterday
Excerpt:
“…after listening to Prendergast yesterday, my gut feeling says: Don’t count this guy out.
He’s a consummate transit professional, as his more than 30 years in the business suggests. His previous posts include senior vice-president of New York City’s subway system and president of the Long Island Rail Road, which is the largest commuter railroad in the U.S.
Yes, the man knows his rails and, as he said yesterday, he’s not about to dismiss either light rail or the existing Interurban right-of-way options as TransLink plans its options for south of the Fraser.
Nor is he convinced that SkyTrain’s extension in Surrey has to be a continuation of the elevated system.
In fact, when TransLink announces today that it’s embarking on two new major studies — one covering a westward, rapid-transit extension to the University of B.C. and the other focusing on Surrey — the latter study will look at all options, Prendergast told me yesterday.”
Recent Comments