10 Questions
I do not have the answers to these questions or rather I may know the answers but with libel and slander laws the way they are, I will not offer an opinion.
-
Why do TransLink and the Mayor’s council on Transit still continue planning for the obsolete Movia Automatic Light Metro system (A.K.A. SkyTrain), when it costs more to build, maintain, and operate than al other transit systems of the same class?
-
Why do we build subways on routes that do not have the ridership to support them, with a transit system, specifically designed to mitigate the high cost of subway construction?
-
Why does the provincial government allow TransLink to grossly misinform the public on the costs of building and operating light metro?
-
Why is the government afraid of much cheaper and proven more effective light rail transit?
-
Why is the government spending over $5 billion to Extend the Expo Line in Surrey, while doing all it can to discredit a 130 kilometre, Vancouver to Chilliwack regional railway, costing less than $2 billion to install?
-
Why did TransLink import American transit CEO’s from Baltimore, (where ridership declined , before pandemic, 2% year by year during his tenure), who knows little of local transit issues while ignoring “in house” managers who do have the local expertise to be CEO of TransLink?
-
Why does the provincial MoT refuse to accept any transit solution other than light metro?
-
Why does Premier Eby refuse a judicial inquiry into regional transit planning which by all accounts has failed miserably in providing an affordable alternative to the car?
-
Why did the provincial government allow a $1.65 billion light rail project, balloon to an over $5 billion light metro project in Surrey/Langley?
-
Why do the ruling elites at UBC support a $4 to $5 billion subway to the university, again on a route that does not have the ridership to demand a subway?
Maybe readers can ask these questions of their civic, provincial and federal politicians, but do not expect a straight answer!
1. A. It’s cheaper to extend a existing line today for a new one.
B. Skytrain built to a metro standard.(Under 20,000pphpd Classified as a light matter right now)
C. Comparison of your so-called, l
Light rail vehiclel costs over the lifetime of a MK1 Skytrain car.
2018 Numbers
Portland MAXS LRT Type 1 car or PM6-26 Bombardier,
Cost Per Operating km $5.61 USD
Lifetime Distance 2.2M KM
Lifetime of maintenance $12,342,000
Skytrain MK1
Cost per operation KM $2.51 CAD
Lifetime 5.5M KM
Lifetime of maintenance $13,805,000 CAD
CAD 0.80 To $11,044,000 USD
(Took me a couple of days to get the information)
2. A. Vancouver stupid by law, making it higher price for construction.
B. Section along Broadway are at Operational cost loss bus So Skytrain Will be equal or less than Serving the corridor.
C. Once the line is finished 1/2 Connect and dead end at the nearest Skytrain stations.
3.A. The provincial government allocates money for the project. Until the project is finalized and done, we will have a Actual Cost Project.
B. With designing and engineering, there’s a cost estimate. It can be over to be a bit under the project Cost Estimate.
4. A. Translink and BC transit Have said over and over again in the reports. Cost the building is low. Better than bus service. Slow economic growth. The only downside is the operational cost over the lifetime being higher than bus or Skytrain.
B. The transport minister Seems to be a useless position.
5.A. Rail for The Valley. Yes, it has the coverage. It doesn’t have the time comparativeness with Automobile.
B. SL Extension Long-term Provide more housing Near a rapid transit line, Fast travel time and Faster travel times for people on buses to and from the Skytrain With changes to the bus network.
C. $2B an estimate of your project.
6. Kevin B. Quinn Was the CEO Baltimore transit.
A. He suggested Improvements to the bus network. But With 0 public inputs and Notify Riders of the changes.
B. In Baltimore Transit def spiral Lack of new investment or improvement Services.
C. How long will more social pressures and anxiety of taking transit in the region of Baltimore?
7. Lower mainland Region( I think that’s what you’re referencing)
A. Translink has tested, Passenger only Ferry, ro-ro car ferry, High frequency BUS, BRT Light, High-speed cat, On demand bus, LRT, Little automated buses and Night bus services.
B, Translink has looked into studies of Heavy metro, Gondolas,LRT, Street cars, Regional transit( Commuter rail, All day Rail services, Tram trains) and BRT Multi articulated buses We have dedicated lengths from end-to-end.
C. The only thing they haven’t done Ultra Light rail vehicle.
8. The position Ministry of transport.
A. Prevent your money going to highways, roads, and transit.
B. Highways and roads take more of his time than anything transit related.( It looks like)
C. He And his team hasn’t thought of a regional plan for the province of BC at all.
9.A. The parental government does not have the authority to Interfere with municipal affairs on Infrastructure.
B. Surrey council Change during an election year, so Only approved And support for skytrain to Langley.
10. UBC Extension
A. UBC is funding a portion of the municipal Funds for the project.
B. Well a high quality speedy Travel times to the major University.
C. More coverage by the rapid network.
D. Provide an connection to the beach.
I am going to reply:
1) Actually no, it is not cheaper to extend an existing line, especially for an automatic metro, than building a new line.
A) Cost of the 16 KM Langley extension – $4.1 billion for the guideway, plus $500 million to $1 Billion for the Operation and maintenance centre #5, plus the cost of cars.
B) The 130 km RftV/Leewood Study under $2 billion.
I would also like to add, SkyTrain operates cars in married pairs, while Portland’s MAX and Siemens Cars are articulated, thus it takes more than 2 SkyTrain cars to match the capacity of a Portland LRV. Thus the lifetime maintenance cost for a pair of Skytrain cars (to match the capacity of one LRV) would be $27 million. both BC Transit and Translink have done this trick before to make SkyTrain look cheaper.
2) I agree it is a stupid by-law and what is even more stupid the subway is being built from the previous LRT plans and a subway terminus at Arbutus is just plain stupid.
3) The provincial government and TransLink allocate money, with the feds also funding certain projects. The provincial government should do better do diligence with the public purse when it comes to transit planning.
4) TransLink’s reports are politcal documents masquerading as technical documents and are full of error. Your last point I agree with you.
5) The competiness with the auto issue is nothing more than a man-of straw issue. With current highway congestion on the #1 trips from Chilliwack to the Port Mann Bridge may take up to 90 to 120 minutes. Unlike the Expo Line extension to Langley, the RftV/Leewood plan service many destinations, thus the convenience factor is a major plus.
6) The less said about kevin quinn the better. I am contact with the Baltimore MTA engineers and what I have been told ain’t pleasant.
7)TransLink has made glancing studies of various transit modes, but most are poorly researched and not worth the paper they are printed on. TransLink fired, retired or “sent to Coventry any and all who supported light rail.
8) I tend to agree.
9) The BC Government had a choice with the Mayor of Surrey and should have said you are going to get LRT or no transit and the money will be spent elsewhere. Horgan caved in as the Expo Line extension is seen as a long term electoral photo-op and nothing more.
10) UBC’s funding of a subway is pitifully small and may never see the light of day, The subway would be hugely expensive a vast money loser (U-Passes) ,needing huge subsidies bleeding money form other areas. The subway will increase travel times for many and would see many controversial changes yo bus routes such as the 49th Ave Express bus. In fact TransLink has opines that if a subwat was built there would be no direct buses services and previous bus routes would terminate at the closest subway station.
The same thing happened with the Canada Line and in south Delta, bus ridership collapsed.
By the way, I doubt many people would take a subway to the beach.
@Legoman, One point everyone needs to understand about Translink’s planning reports. Just because they say they are comparing LRT to Skytrain doesn’t mean they are doing the right comparison. LRT can run in many different types right of ways, Skytrain is actually quite limited where it can run. BRT can be hugely varied as well in complexity and capacity.
During the planning of the Broadway extension to Arbutus, Translink compared BRT, LRT, Skytrain (Light Metro system) and full scale Heavy Rail Metro’s. To save time I will skip to the end of a very long report. Translink compared surface LRT and BRT to Skytrain and Heavy Metros running in tunnels. They limited the LRT and BRT systems to low to medium capacity examples, against Light and Heavy Metros running in tunnels. This is a apples to oranges comparison not an apples to apples comparison. As a planner this is a big red flag.
Skytrain running in tunnels have more capacity than limited capacity surface LRT and BRT rights of way, really, you don’t say? The only time when Translink’s planners actually cared about the real passenger levels was when they were pointing out that Broadway didn’t have enough passengers for a Heavy Metro. At no point did they mention that their Skytrain tunnel costs at the time, were only 10% – 20% less than a full scale (and over budget) Heavy Metro tunnel but could only move 50% of the passengers as a Heavy Metro.
They then completely undervalued capital costs and concentrated heavily on theoretical system capacity not the actual passenger levels expected on opening day. They also greatly inflated the projected passenger levels expected at future dates to levels that would be comical, considering what the area’s building density is actually becoming.
At no point did anyone ask what is really needed? The current passenger levels (pre Covid-19) on the existing buses were easily manageable with buses especially, with a surface Busway. They chose in their report to use the current bus lines and management configuration as their business as usual comparison metric, when it is so clearly not up to the best practices and standards for Canada, let alone North America or the rest of the world!
What should have been done, if the Skytrain and Heavy Metros are in tunnels put the buses and LRV’s in them as well. Give the LRT and BRT systems similar capacities to the Skytrain, comparable sytems do exist. These types of rights of way exist in North America and are currently running and comparable. If you want to run BRT or LRT on the surface, put the Skytrain there as well. That’s how planners outside of Vancouver compare different transit operating technologies and systems.
At it’s height, the bus traffic on Broadway barely exceeded 40-45 buses per hour per direction or about 4200-4500 passengers per hour per direction (P/H/D) at the busiest point of the morning or afternoon peak period. This was not only less than half the traffic of our former downtown buslanes for Ottawa’s Transitways Network (Albert and Slater Street Buslanes). It was also less than the bus traffic in both vehicle count and passenger count for what use to be on Ottawa’s Rideau street. BOTH, rights of ways were replaced by our single LRT tunnel. If you saw the pictures of Albert, Slater and Rideau streets it would shock you (Zwei has some of them). That is the level of crowding you need before tunnels are needed. Anything less is just bad management on Translink’s part.
Currently, STO (Societe Des Transport De Ouaotouis) bus levels from Gatineau to Ottawa on the Ottawa River bridges every morning and reverse in the afternoon are at equivalent to what Broadway was in 2019. Although LRT is planned no one is seriously talking about a tunnel under the Ottawa River.
Unfortunately, the City of Ottawa Council still wants the Alymer LRT to be in a tunnel under Sparks Street (Yikes!) not the surface right of Way on Wellington Street (possibly converted to a pedestrian mall in front of the entire Parliamentary Wellington Street frontage).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Slater_Looking_East_1.JPG
This is Slater Street (eastbound one way street) everyday (Monday to Friday), every morning and afternoon, before the Transitway was replaced with a LRT Tunnel. That’s what 185 to 215 buses per hour per direction or 10,700 passengers per hour per direction looks like.
https://austinrailnow.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/arn0_otw-bus-brt-oc-transpo-bus-queue-mackenzie-bridge-20110921_errol-mcghion_otw-sun.jpg
Buses backed up on Mackenzie King Bridge portion of the Transitway.
https://austinrailnow.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/0_arn_otw-bus-brt-jam-mackenzie-king-bridge-2011-sep-z_flickr.jpg
More Mackenzie King Bridge!
This kind of surface transit back up is why you build tunnels, not for small amounts of passengers on Broadway. Remember what the current maximum capacity of the new Millennium Line Subway will be after it gets its improvements to its signaling system. Zwei can show you.
The following is Thales news Release concerning the $1.47 billion resignalling contract.
Please note, the millennium Line is the Broadway subway.
TransLink awards Thales SkyTrain train control contracts
Contracts enable a 22km extension of the fully automated SkyTrain system.
TransLink awards Thales SkyTrain train control contracts – International Railway Journal (railjournal.com)
TransLink has awarded two contracts to Thales for upgrading the train control technology on the Expo and Millennium lines of Metro Vancouver.
Please note the last sentence, the Millennium Line is the Broadway subway.
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.
TRANSLINK has awarded Thales two contracts to provide train control technology under the Expo and Millennium Line Upgrade Programme for the SkyTrain network in Vancouver.
The contracts include a new Operations Control Centre and a new fully automated depot, Operations Maintenance Centre 4. These two new facilities are key components of the upgrade programme.
The system will be expanded from 80km to 106km by 2028, with 41 new trains expected to be in service by the end of 2027.
TransLink says that in 2018 the Expo and Millennium lines saw on-time performance of 96.38% – the best punctuality on record for SkyTrain and higher than that achieved by most major metros in North America.
The government of Canada, the government of British Columbia, and the region have committed to investing $C 1.47bn ($US 1.1bn) in the Expo and Millennium Line Upgrade Programme until 2027.
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.
A.
Comparison Frequency and capacity in North America.
Capacity and mass Car numbers are from the manufacturer.
Frequencies are from the transit agencies.
SKYTRAIN
Expo Line
108sec Target Frequency =33 Train an hour. Up to 90 sec Headways
90% Capacity to 100% a design capacity to MAX Capacity possible(Crush capacity).
MK 1 13,500 to 14,850 to 15,840 car 75-80? 15 Ton
MK 2 14,650 to 16,900 to 19,800 car 124 21.5 Ton
MK 3 15,800 to 17,550 to 31,000 car 130 21.3 Ton
MK 5 19,950 to 22,150 to 39,800 car 134 TBA Ton
Millennium Line
190 sec Target Frequency =19 Train an hour go up 180 sec Headways
MK 2 set 2 car 4,200 to 4,700 to 5,700 car 124 21.5 Ton
MK 2 set 4 car 8,500 to 9,900 to 11,400 car 124 21.5 Ton
3 minute Frequency= 20 Train an hour.
Rotem EMU 6,012 to 6,680 to 8,000 car 167
TTC Target frequency 2min 30sec Realistic 3 minute frequency.
T1 18,000 to 20,000 to IKD car 167, 36.48 Ton
TR 6 set 19,450 to 21,500 to 29,160 car 180, 37.75 Ton
TR 4 set 12,960 to 14,500 to 19,4040
NYC 3 in 4 minutes Target frequency
Oid R 44 8 set – 32,000 car 200, 44.47 Ton
New R 211 10 set- 48,000 car 240, 40.78 Ton
CT 4 minutes Target frequency
Old U2 4 set 7,900
New S200 4 set 7,400
B.
New Signaling frequencies 100 sec 120 sec New capacity numbers could be?
90% Capacity to 100% a design capacity to MAX Capacity possible(Crush capacity).
Expo Line 36 Train an hour
MK 1 14,580 16,200 17,200
MK 2 16,650 18,500 21,600
MK 3 17,262 19,150 33,840
MK 5 21,780 24,200 43,450
Millennium Line 30 Train an hour
Mk 2 set 2 car 7,680 9,000
Mk 2 set 4 car 15,300 18,000
Since the signing contract Signed before New train order.
C.
Sometime in between 2030-2035 Increase the target frequency, to 90 sec On Expo Line
90% Capacity to 100% a design capacity to MAX Capacity possible(Crush capacity).
Expo Line 40 Train an hour
MK2 20,480 24,000
MK3 21,280 37,600
MK5 26,880 48,280
D.
here’s a Rough split of costs for rail divisions.
Rail Operations 2021 346.699 M
WCX 6.61% 22.91 M
Canada L 37.72% 130.77 M1
Expo & Millennium 55.67% 2021 193M
E.
I expect not to be the best design Transit Mode. Skytrain has shown that you can build a more incremental Improvements over time to this transit mode. More expensive on the maintenance end and Involves people monitoring the system.
LRT sign, it’s cheap to build. More costly to operate long-term.
F.
Broadway extension
All skytrain projects Estimates of ridership have been low Compared After a year of opening. CMBC 1 or 2 Months to change the BUS Lines for Better connect or Balance the input going to the skytrains.
Opening day numbers are low.
G.
Kind of arbitrary to draw a line of pphpd When to upgrade to another mode?
H.
Now the new plan with Translink has more coverage with Real BRT.
First I have to say that the MK.2 car and a so called MK.5 car are essentially the same car, thus the figures you give are not quite correct.
You also forget that the maximum legal capacity (Transport Canada’s operational certificate) is 15,000 pphpd on the Expo Line and will only increase to 17,500 after many very expensive rehabs are done as previously mentioned in other posts. So all your manipulating of numbers is nothing more than a smokescreen. If you care to read Thales News Release on their $1.47 billion re-signalling contract, the Millennium Line will be signaled for a maximum capacity of only 7,500 pphpd!
As for your claim that LRT is more expensive in the long term than SkyTrain is absolutely pure rubbish. Metrolinx (Toronto) has put the 50 year costs for LRT at around $200 million per km and elevated LRT at around $575 million per km. SkyTrain, being a proprietary railway would be higher. Subways are an astounding $1 billion!
Sorry, for all your facts and figures, they are not worth the paper they are printed on.
TransLink, the Cov, and the Mot have made careers fudging the facts about the ALRT/ART/MALM light metro system and the only people who buy into their bumf are locals. Look, if any of what you said had any fact, there would be a market for the system, but there is no market, no one wants the damn thing and that sums up the real story.
New skytrain cars have more standing room, and less sitting room. Of course you can pack more people a lot more people into the new cars. Of course it is also a lot less comfortable, a lot less. Standing people can really be packed in tightly.
When I take the train from Coquitlam Central to Stadium-Chinatown, I almost always have to stand the whole way. That is with the 2 car Mk.2 trains on the M-line. I’ve only ever seen them use 4 car trains on the M-line when they were testing the evergreen extension, and on late Sunday nights. Something about ensuring all vehicles run on all track, so they cycle through the long trains at midnight on Sundays on the M-line. The point is, if Translink keeps this level of service, there is just going to be even less seating in the future.
Zwei replies: TransLink is playing the “capacity game” with poli9tcans and can estimate higher ridership than what is actually using the system. Currently the maximum capacity that the M Line is signaled for is 4,000 pphpd! (Thales 2022 News Release) Thus they can only operate 2 car trains.
American transit engineers tell me that in the USA (and Canada for that matter) customers demand seats and their transit systems reduce standing capacity and increase seating. In Metro Vancouver no gives a damn if a transit customer stands or sits as it is maximum amount of riders they can theoretically pck into a train that counts. This why transit ridership has stagnated around 14% of the population for the last 20 years, the transit system is not attracting customers, but ridership increases as per population increase. THIS IS WHY METRO VANCOUVER IS SO HUNG UP ON DENSITY NEAR SKYTRAIN LINES.
The only real difference between a MK.5 car and a Mk.2 car is that you are gangwayed throughout, or in North American parlance, the car has open vestibules allowing through communication with the entire train.
This concept has been around for almost 40 years and one wonders why TransLink never considered one before?
We were surprised that the SkyTrain system did not operate carriages because they were certainly available and would have enabled the operation with 3 or 4 car trains, instead of using the standard married pairs.
I would surmise that one of the reasons for 5 car train stock is that with Mk.2/5 trains you have have 10 bogies or trucks to maintain, instead of 12 truck and bogies for a 6 car train of MK.1 stock.
The 5 car MK.2/5 trains will also carry slightly more passengers but not of the magnitude claimed by TransLink.
Listening to some of the debates here is like listening to the flat earth debates, despite the science of it, they continue with same hackneyed myths and hearsay.
Just a note, TransLink has sent trial balloons on operating seatless cars. I have been told that that went over like a lead balloon!
Just a note: TransLink does not include the many dedicated subsidies it receives operating the light metro system.
90 second frequency is never going to happen for many reasons primarily operating costs and safety issues. There is also such an exhaustive list of improvements that are needed to upgrade existing Skytrain lines to those standards, much of the line infrastructure will need to be shuttered and torn down to the subbase of the right of way to physically do the work .
Skytrain Capacity Issues
The basis of the Skytrain technology is that greater operating frequency and lighter infrastructure lets you do more with less.
Unfortunately, the greater the operating frequency the faster any infrastructure wears out. If you go light on the infrastructure to start with, it wears out even faster. This situation is what the original part of the Skytrain Expo Line is now experiencing. All of the original right of way is now wearing out. Many of those high frequencies and high theoretical capacities that @Legoman wants Skytrain to operate with, would tax the physical infrastructure past its existing tolerances and drastically shorten its lifespan.
Instead of $4 -$5 Billion expansions to nowhere for fewer new passengers than 99 bus carried in 2019, how about a multi billion upgrade so the existing Expo Line doesn’t go kaput, so Translink can actually safely decrease the operating frequency and increase the Expo Line’s passenger capacity.
Concentrating on theoretical capacities isn’t a great idea. Whatever theoretical capacities you get minus 15% – 20%, because at roughly 80% capacity people start to leave the system for other transport options. Passengers just don’t leave the Skytrain, they leave the entire transit system for a long time, maybe forever because it’s far too uncomfortable.
By the way, no seats or fewer seats on the new Skytrains, on top of all the expected crowding, sorry but that’s a big f*** you to passenger comfort. Zwei, is right on target, Translink is making a negative passenger comfort design choice to upgrade system capacity without having to spend the money to upgrade the system’s capacity, which seriously effects the operating infrastructure.
90 second frequency issues
90 second frequency requires such a regular pulse of operations that many of even the planned signaling capacity upgrades Translink is doing won’t be able to manage it. Fundamental issues are that at 90 seconds nobody can’t doddle, no one can wait and given Skytrain’s standard acceleration and deceleration values that gives you somewhere between 20 and 25 seconds to be stopped at the station. Great if there’s not many passengers, terrible during rush hour. When deboarding/ boarding times at the busiest stations are 35 to 40 seconds. I know this because I have been on the Skytrain at peak, at a great many Skytrain stations it takes over 25 seconds (I timed it, yes I’m one of those transit weirdos).
You need 25 to 30 seconds at the least between trains, unless you like moving very slowly. With those time separations between trains, maximum regular braking is required as well as maximum acceleration, all the time. You just increased operating & maintenance costs by 25 % to 50 %. Enjoy the fare increases.
25 to 30 seconds between trains isn’t a lot of time or distance actually. Having been on both London and Toronto subway trains using full emergency braking, -2.7 metres per second squared (industry standard), oh boy, the fun of being airborne. With 90 second frequency you are going to be using that feature a lot more. Expect multiple injury lawsuits every time that happens. Could Toronto’s subway handle less frequency than 2:30, yes but the cost of the possible increased lawsuits is reason enough to not try. That’s the reality of transit operations and transit management.
Platform barrier doorplace meant incompatibility with the skytrain MK 2-3-5
A Innovia body shape and Frame Same for all MK 2-3-5. Interior layouts, Door locations, Door size and Extra interior space mk 3-5 is Foot longer.
Diagram MK 2-3-5 C is Front car, _. Is Spacing and H is Door.
MK 2 C_..H__H__H__I Seat 2-2
MK 3 C_.H__.H__.H._I Seat 2-1 or1-2
MK 5 C_IH__IH__IH._l Seat 1-1
Retirement MK1 Update 001-118 Last one in 2027. 121-156 Last one in 2035
And once all of the MK 5 have arrived from the first order.
MK1-2 Exclusively running on the menendem line.
Mk 3-5 Exclusively running on the expo Line.
To Zwei. Operational Certificate of skytrain A link or photo?
Mr haveacow
Skytrain maintenance Has been a Maintenance where needed. BCRTC Operations Implementing preventive maintenance strategy and Mitigating sound to 75-85 dB.
Zwei replies: Essentially, the MK.2/3/5 cars are the same Innovia body shell, with different ends. The MK.5 cars refers to the 5-car consists and not a new car. There has been little or no development of the MK.2 car since around 2005. The reason is simple, no one wants it, why invest more money on an “Edsel”.
The sound issue has been around , as long as the Expo line. Rail corrugations, etc. create a rumbling sound that increases with age. Part of the problem are the small wheels, which revolve much faster than a standard metro Wheel. Lack of maintenance is also a big factor, as the steerable axle trucks or bogies need constant, expensive maintenance.
Want info on Transport Canada’s Operating Certificate, contact Transport Canada.
@ Legoman to get what you want requires a Access to information request, much of the information is considered corporate property and not easily publicly accessible. There will be a fee per document as well, its multiple documents. We use the trem certificate to easily group all the information. It isn’t a single piece of paper that certain stores or pharmacies have to hang on the wall and display to the public.
Much of the private corporate information may still be redacted, when you get the reports.
Years ago, the late Des Turner (who got me started on transit) did an FOI on the SKyTrain Mk.1 car order. many month later he received literally a foot high box of paper which around 90% was redacted due to the trains being proprietary in nature and the FOI would disclose proprietary information.
Today, Translink goes out of its way to claim that Sky?train is not a proprietary transit system.
FYI – Des Turner was quite prominent stopping ICTS from being built in Hamilton in the late 70’s. He was a Chemical engineer with Shell oil and upon early retirement, he went back to University and obtained a Masters of Planning! His knowledge on Linear Induction Motors was second to none in Canada and was in constant contact with professor Laithwaite, in the UK, who was considered “the father of the LIM”. Laithwaite said thet the UTDC were “using the wrong sort of LIM” which would lead to expensive problems as the transit system aged.
Des was utterly astounded at this FOI request as previous FOI’s were fulfilled with nary a redaction. The question, we asked was “Why now?”
This was back in the early 90’s, before TransLink, when BC Transit ran the show. It is also interesting that BC Transit were very forthcoming about SkyTtain, but as the system was starting to show early signs of problems, relations got very frosty. later, chatting with an ex BC Transit manager he said they were very happy to let TransLink have it as there was a litany of problems, as the system aged. He also told me that the MK.1 cars were not that well built and needed constant maintenance, which was somewhat strange because they were supposed to have simpler operation with the LIMs. The opposite was true.