A Comparrison Of Operating Costs – SkyTrain & Light Rail
Posted by zweisystem on Monday, May 20, 2013 · 6 Comments
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. This is called professional misconduct, others may call it more. I would like to call it more, but for legal reasons I cannot.
At this time I would like the review the definition of fraud. from the Canadian criminal code.
380. Fraud
380. (1) Every one who, by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether or not it is a false pretence within the meaning of this Act, defrauds the public or any person, whether ascertained or not, of any property, money or valuable security or any service,
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding fourteen years, where the subject-matter of the offence is a testamentary instrument or the value of the subject-matter of the offence exceeds five thousand dollars; or
(b) is guilty
(i) of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or
(ii) of an offence punishable on summary conviction,
where the value of the subject-matter of the offence does not exceed five thousand dollars.
I leave it up to readers of this post to determine if this definition fits.
COMPARISON OF OPERATING COSTS
The total 1988/89 budget for SkyTrain:
SkyTrain 1988/89 Budget
Operations 5,483,863
Maintenance 14,243,092
Administration 7,931,834
Sub Total: ___________
$27,658,789
Capital Repayment 12,938,166
Interest 65,262,304
Property Tax 1,489,484
Corporate Allocation 1,932,141
Total $109,279,884
(Rick Krowchuck, Executive V.P. Finance)
Calgary C-Train 1990 Operating Budget
Operating Budget
Operators$ $2,332,000
Maintenance
(Labour, parts, materials) $4,804,000
LRV Power $1,384,000
Fixed Operating Costs
(administration, cleaning facilities/buildings) $6,815,000
Total: $15,335,000
(Niel Mckendrick Coordinator of Transit Services, Calgary Transit)
The taxpayer in me would be upset by the induced costs of the administration and debt servicing costs however, the Transport Planner in me knows that these costs are part and parcel of how the line’s construction budget was administered and fiananced and can very project to project as well as it maybe time sensitive based on pre arranged payment schedules and as a result from my professional opinion should be ignored from a planning and operations standpoint. This is really the area covered by transportaion financing accountants not planners.
As a transit professional this is quite revealing, the maintenance budget is over half of the day to day operating cost. Keep in mind this is not a line like the Yonge Subway in Toronto which was 35 years old at this point (1989) and was in the middle of a station upgrade program at this time. This is a line whose running sections are no more than 4 or 5 years old. In the past I told people on this blog of my attendance at a presentation and after conversation with a gentleman who was responsible for solving of the track grinding and wheel ware issues of the Skytrain system and the many problems he had with the on going maintenance practices of Translink. Many TTC staff have commented to me about the SRT (Scarborough Rapid Transit) line’s operating issues some occurring strait out of the box in 1985. What would be really interesting is if you could have a year to year progression of the Skytrain basic operating issues and see if this was a temporary thing or a long term issue. The technology itself has always had it’s detractors but, one has to wonder about future viability of this system as the residents of BC work out the form and eventual operating profile of the Broadway Line. I have said this before but someone has to explain to me why you would be extending a line out to the burbs (Evergreen Line) when the same line already has passenger capacity issues in the central part of the system. The obvious hole being that the current end of the line (Millineum) should connect to the Canada Line as way to ease existing passenger congestion with out having to expand the existing above grade tranfer station with the Expo Line by adding a third platform which is very costly and ultimately self defeating.
Zweisystem Replies: I understand that the debt servicing costs, etc. are part and parcel of how the line’s construction budget was engineered. What I wanted to focus on was the actual operating costs. The costs presented in this post come from musty letters of the day which have been in store for a few decades and have come to light because someone (TransLink, Bombardier?) has been telling certain transit operators in the USA that; “Because SkyTrain has no drivers, it costs next to nothing to operate?” The same BS is commonly restated in our local mainstream media, ad nauseum!
SkyTrain’s overcrowding can be traced to the operating philosophy of TransLink cramming every bus rider it can onto the metro and with huge population growth South of the Fraser, more and more people are forced onto the Expo Line. With light rail/streetcar/tram, instead of one line, there are generally several to take the load and cheaper construction makes this possible. If the RftV/Leewood Vancouver to Chilliwack interurban were to be reinstated, we could offer a 25 minute trip to downtown Vancouver from Scott Road Station, versus SkyTrain’s 45 minute service. A second semi express passenger route could offer relief to the overburdened Expo Line but TransLink will have none of that.
Just as a note. The proposed Evergreen Line is just the uncompleted Millennium Line called the Evergreen Line because the Millennium Line was an NDP transit project and not a Liberal one. For a trip to Vancouver a transfer must be made at Lougheed Mall for a 40 minute trip by the Millennium/Expo Lines or a transfer must be made at Commercial drive for a shorter journey time. There can be no physical connection between the Millennium Line and the Canada line because the two are incompatible in operation.
From what I can see, the main support for the Evergreen line comes from politicians, who want photo-ops; developers who want to want to play the property game; and from students, who want gold plated transit systems so they can use their heavily subsidized, ride at will U-Passes, for most transit customers, the Evergreen Line, like the Canada line, will make travel by public transit more inconveneient.
No worries, the driverless feature is for selling to the public and some politicians not transit professionals. There are some politicians who sit open mouth and gauk when you mention driverless systems but most are just thinking about the easier labor negotiations better transit operations is the last of their worries. World wide everybody knows the existing issues with the various driverless systems not just this one. Anyone stuck in a driverless airport people mover halfway between the main terminal and departure area can tell you about issues with these type of vehicles and operating systems (thanks Tampa Airport). Their main selling point to us when we toured Translink and their properties was that their flexibility in line haul operations to offer any kind of shedule at any time through computerized scheduling and the ability to easily add trains when large public events occur and how easy it is to remove them when they are no longer needed.
Zweisystem replies: Any competent traffic manager should be able to add trains to deal with special events. The San Diego Trolly, a transit system that carries under 100,000 customers a day, when it hosted the Super Bowl carried 650,000 customers in three days including 350,000 customers on the day of the event!
Driverless rail systems have been around since the late 60’s with experiments going back to the early post war period. If they were really that great wouldn’t they be a hell of a lot more popular and used more often. Like most systems that offer an ability that most other systems don’t or can’t do there is always a trade off. Want a train that is driverless ok but, you are slaves to your computer’s imperfect operating system and have to have someone get people out of delayed trains too far from a station. Want 100% low floor streetcars and light rail vehicles great(nearly all North American systems are mostly low floor 67-75%) , here you go, oops did I mention your vehicle maintenance costs go up dramatically because of the modified trucks and motor systems. Also, the crazy locations carbuilders have to put stuff when you don’t have full sized trucks and all there extra space to play with. Want bi or tri articulated buses, fantastic. What do you mean there not road legal in Canada or the USA? What do you mean there are only a few producers. Who is Van Hool? Really, wow Volvo makes buses? Oh, Nova Bus Canada is Volvo. What do mean they can’t make them here in Canada or even in their US plants.
Zweisystem Replies: Historical notes: The first true driverless railway was the 10.5 km London Post Office Railway which opened in 1927. British rail experimented with driverless steam trains (yes that is right, no driver but retaining the stoker!!) in the early 50’s.
By “stoker” do you mean, Fireman? Did the line have full sized RPO cars or were they shortened for city running only? Both the CPR and CNOR (private predessor to CNR) did experiments even earlier than that with harbor trains between coal bins and ship loading facilities in Montreal, Halifax and Quebec City between 1905-1914. The Germans apparently experimented with a mechanical driverless system designed to operate around their “Indusi” safety system during WW2. It was discovered because allied pilots attacking certain steam engines noticed that there was no engineer or fireman in the cab. It was introduced due to a shortage of skilled and trusted workers. The Indusi system itself although not a driving system but, a safety system that “turned off” locomotives when they entered a shared track block that had a on coming or outgoing train in it, has also been around since the 20’s. The O-Train in Ottawa uses a modernized Indusi safety system.
Zweisystem replies: Yes the stoker is the fireman. I read the article some years ago in Modern Railways and the experiments took place on the Staines Branch in West London in the 1950’s. The locomotive used, I believe, was a 0-6-0 Pannier tank.
Actually, light rail systems do not need many employees such as transit police or station attendants. When a light rail line has an accident, it is very easy to escape the trains. Rapid transit systems (such as drivered and driverless subways) need the employees mentioned above. When there is an accident, the safest method is to continue to the next station. This has nothing to do with the driver. Also, Paris is starting to automate more of its subway lines. Since subways and trams are different types of transportation, there are different needs for employees, so it does not relate to drivers and no drivers.
Zweisystem replies: Automatic train operation was never to replace drivers as French law dictates that there must be a driver/attendant on every train, where automatic or driverless systems have been installed is to reduce the cost of signalling staff and maintenance, which for some metro operations, outnumbered train staff. As technology improved, signalling has been simplified (automatic route selection for trams), the cost/benefit ration of automatic operation has risen. Has anyone queried TransLink as to how many signalling staff they have?
I never said that driverless metros were to replace drivered trams. Trams will stay, but then drivered metros (in other parts of the world) can be replaced by driverless metros. Driverless metros should be compared with drivered metros, not trams. So even if there are drivers on a metro system, signalling staff cannot be removed.