Baffle-gab from the SkyTrain Lobby.
One just has to shake one’s head at this.
The SkyTrain LobbyAi??is workingAi??hard toAi??haveAi??more of the proprietary mini-metroAi??built in Surrey, now with a glitzy news release claiming that the proposed SkyTrain will only cost a little more to build to Langley than LRT, so let’s build with SkyTrain. We have heard this before.
The following isAi??the SkyTrain for Surrey document.
http://skytrainforsurrey.org/2012/07/08/skytrain-vs-lrt-study/
Let us compare this with the Rail for the Valley and the historic Leewood Study.
In 2009, the Rail for the Valley group engaged Leewood projects of the UK, experts in the field of urban transportationAi??http://leewoodprojects.co.uk/Ai??to do a study on reinstating passenger rail service on the former BC Electric interurban route, now used by the Southern Railway of BC. Rail for the Valley left it up to an independent consultant from outside of the lower mainland to come to a conclusion of the viability of such a service. The result was the historicAi??Leewood Lower Fraser Valley British Columbia, to Surrey Interurban StudyAi??https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http://www.railforthevalley.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/chilliwacktosurreyinterurbanfinalreportr.pdf&pli=1&chrome=trueAi?? which not only concluded that an reinstated interurban service would be viable, it could be built quite cheaply when compared to other transit modes.
The Leewood StudyAi??included severalAi??options, from $500 millionAi??98 kilometre,Ai??Chilliwack to Scott Road Station Diesel LRT to an almost $1 billion 138 km Vancouver Central Station to Rosedale electric TramTrain service.
It is interesting that the SkyTrain for Surrey did not use any figures from the Leewood Study, rather the only mention that SfS gave Rail for the Valley was a completelyAi??erroneous SkyTrain extension on interurban right of wayAi??which gave a cost of $100 mil to $140 mil. The aforementioned study had nothing to do with Rail for the Valley and if the SfS study is so badly researched in this instance, one must question SfS method of study. Was it on the back of an envelope?
Which experts did SkyTrain for Surrey (SfS)Ai??engage for their SkyTrain cost analysis.
Here are the main players mentioned Ai??in the SfS news release:
- Daryl Dela Cruz ai??i?? Chief Statistics Analyst. Daryl is the Initiative Chair, Founder, Representative and website manager, in addition to being the Initiativeai??i??s Chief Statistics Analyst.Ai?? As a developed researcher, he is in charge of the collection and interpretation of most statistical data and has contributed heavily toward our studies.Ai?? The Surrey Board of Trade has awarded Daryl with a ai???Top 25 Under 25ai??? award for his contributions to the City of Surrey through the SkyTrain for Surrey Initiative and the Progressive Surrey Transit Coalition.
- Neo Caines ai??i?? Chief Infrastructure Analyst. Neo joined the Initiative in Summer of 2011; he has shared much crucial knowledge regarding the SkyTrain infrastructure and has contributed through writing input.
- Kenneth Chan ai??i?? Analyst, Advocate. Kenneth has lead previous advocacies for SkyTrain in Surrey.Ai?? He made some contributions regarding the study presentation that have been of great assistance.
- Skyscraper Page forum user: ai???nnameai??? ai??i?? Analyst (unaffiliated). ai???nnameai??? is credited because he has provided some relevant statistical information that assisted in confirming the accuracy of this study.Ai?? He is not affiliated with the Initiative.
The Rail for the Valley group sees no experts here, in fact like most SkyTrain initiatives in Metro Vancouver, real transit experts have seldom been consulted with. What really is laughable, they use an unnamed source from a Skyscraper as an analyst.
To quote American Transit Expert, Gerald Fox and his scathing critique on the Evergreen Line business case; “I found several instances where the analysis had made assumptions that were inaccurate, or had been manipulated to make the case for SkyTrain. If the underlying assumptions are inaccurate, the conclusions may be so too.”
The SfS’s assumptions about LRT and LRT’s construction costs are inaccurate, then; “the conclusions may be so too.”
http://www.railforthevalley.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7553&action=edit
For an historic context on construction costs, the 5th (1995) Edition of On-track, published by the Greater Victoria Electric Railway Society, published a table of Comparable Capital Costs for New-Start Lower Cost Light Rail Systems Updated to 1995 Canadian Dollars.
- Baltimore – $15.4 mil/km
- Denver- $15.4 mil/km
- Portland (Gresham Line)Ai??- $16.2 mil/km
- Sacramento – $10.5 mil/km
- San Diego – $13.8 mil/km
- St. Louis – $17 mil/km
- SkyTrain Millennium Line (SFS StudyAi??2011 estimated cost) $68.3 million/km.
One can see that even by adjusting the 1995 figures to 2011 values, modern LRT can be easily built for one quarter to one third the cost of SkyTrain and gives a good indication why no one buys SkyTrain today.
The SkyTrain lobby is working very hard to discredit modern light rail, which happens to be the first choice for rail transportation by transit planners around the world. SkyTrain has been sold as the panacea transit system and being driverless, silly claims are being made that itAi??costs almost nothing to operate, the problem is that factsAi??get in the way of the SkyTrain rhetoric and modern light rail can be built much cheaper than SkyTrain, carry more customers than SkyTrain; attract more new customers than SkyTrain; be designed to operate faster than SkyTrain; and cost a lot less to operate than SkyTrain. It is easy to see how modern LRT made SkyTrain obsolete over two decades ago and like the Luddites of old, the SkyTrain Lobby persists with dated mini-metro gadgetbahnen-speak, when the rest of the world has moved on.
I leave it up to Gerald Fox to sum up the dilemma now faced by TransLink and the SfS folks; “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.“
Over to you, Cardinal Fang…………………
The SkyTrain boys and girls are like a flea-market huckster, selling used garbage as something new and useful. I laughed at the Surrey SkyTrain chaps when they call themselves experts, really what are they expert in? BS!
The “Eye” has contacts in TransLink and Mr. fox is quite correct, there is great fear of light rail and the push for LRT in Surrey by Dianne Watts scares the hell out of the SkyTrain types because it will reveal over 30 years of bogus planning and deliberate professional misconduct. The fear of criminal investigation is apparently very real.
The the SkyTrain Lobby blunders on and on like the proverbial Titanic steaming head long into a finical iceberg.
Could the Skytrain lobby at least tried to contact “nname” to get his real name? What a joke.
The people who run the SkyTrain for surrey blog should brush up on their transit history because they just don’t know what they talk about.
SkyTrain or should I say the UTDC proprietary ICTS or ALRT transit systems has been one of the most unsuccessful transit systems marketed and despite lots of hype and hoopla about the mini-metro, only three were built, two being little more than demonstration lines and Vancouver’s fledgling metro system. No one else bought ICTS or ALRT.
When Bombardier bought the proprietary rights for SkyTrain from the wreckage of the bankrupt Lavalin Corporation, they rebuilt the ICTS/ALRT model and tried to sell it as a cheap metro. This has failed also, and now the renamed ART system is now marketed as a niche transit system mainly for airports.
Only Kuala Lumpur uses ART as a urban transit system and was built after much political interference. Kuala Lumpur already has an excellent elevated light-metro system and building ART has made the metro system somewhat less accessible. To further muddy the waters, Kuala Lumpur has also built a proprietary monorail as an urban transit system.
SkyTrain may be proprietary and have it’s downfalls but there are two things to note:
* Whatever you build, it must be grade separated or long-term it will be stuck in traffic.
* If it is SkyTrain you can have a no-transfer, one-seat ride to downtown. Unfortunately, we’re stuck with SkyTrain for this one (I doubt anybody is going to build more rail from Surrey for downtown – unless you can use existing rail with no modification – e.g. a diesel/battery train that makes stops in Surrey and then goes to downtown with no more stops will actually be quite a nice option)
Zweisystem replies: You re absolutely wrong, LRT does not get stuck in traffic at all because it operates on reserved rights-of-ways and has priority signaling at intersections. This is why modern LRT has made light-metro (SkyTrain) obsolete!
The Rail for the Valley/Leewod study has an option for direct service to downtown Vancouver.