Debunking the SkyTrain Myth – A Repost From 2009
Debunking the SkyTrain myth. Rail for the Valley answers the UBC SkyTrain Lobby!
With updates.
It was brought to Zweisystemai??i??s attention yesterday that a blog site was established by the UBC SkyTrain Lobby, critiquing modern LRT.Ai?? Zweisystem responded,Ai?? posting corrections for the many myths, half truths and anti-LRT claptrap so often used by the SkyTrain lobby. The SkyTrain folks removed the comments from said blog and by doing so, fully admit that they are afraid of the truth. Zweisystem is not surprised as this is exactly how the SkyTrain lobby operates: repeat a lie so often that it soon becomes a fact. What is lost in the LRT/SkyTrain debate is that LRT has made SkyTrain light-metro obsolete decades ago,Ai??Ai??something theAi??Ai??SkyTrain lobby fails to admit.
Why should Rail for the Valley supporters be concerned with a UBC SkyTrain? Simple, the $4 billion subway (RAV was to cost a mere $1.3 billion and now itai??i??s direct costAi??Ai??may exceed $2.8 billion) will suck money away from all ai???railai??i?? projects for the Fraser Valley by spending hard earned tax dollars on another needless gold-plated rapid transit project for Vancouver. We must debunk the SkyTrain myth now.
There is no mention who the UBC SkyTrain lobby are and one wonders why they are so afraid of debate?
(Update – The Broadway SkyTrain Lobby is non other than TransLink, The Vision Vancouver political group, the NDP including Adrian Dix and Geoff Meggs, and the City of Vancouver Engineering Department.)
The following is the website of the UBC SkyTrain lobby.
http://ubcskytrain.wordpress.com/22points/
The following is the 22 myths comment, with Zweisystemai??i??s comments in Italics.
Debunking Myths: Our 22 Points
Twenty-two points created by our organization, debunking myths and inaccuracies:
==============
TIME IS MONEY
==============
LRT SUPPORTERS:
It’s okay to have longer travel times (which is what ground-level LRT will bring) in exchange for a community-friendly systemA?.
Zweisystem responds: What is lost, is that a community friendly transit system attracts ridership, something that an unfriendly transit system does not do. Subways are very user unfriendly. Speed of a transit system itself doesnai??i??t attract ridership (Hass Clau) but the time of the total commute (doorstep to doorstep), the overall ambiance and ease of use of a transit system that has proven to attract ridership, especially the motorist from the car.
FACT:
(1) SkyTrain will have 2-3 times more capacity and more than twice the speed of an ground level LRT line due to its private right-of-way. Speed is an important factor for the daily commuter, as shown by bus ridership statistics for the Broadway corridor: 99 B-Line (60,000 passengers per day); other Broadway bus routes (40,000 per-day) = total Broadway bus ridership is 100,000 passengers per day.
There is a reason why a large majority of Broadway transit commuters take the 99 B-Line: speed and convenience. The 99 B-Line is a rapid bus service, and it is at capacity in terms of the number of buses that can be put into service (according to TransLink, over 120 articulated buses were dedicated to the 99 B-Line in 2006; 10% of the entire TransLink bus fleet). Counting the 99 B-Line’s 60,000 daily riders alone, that is more than the ridership of Toronto’s streetcar lines.
Zweisystem responds: SkyTrain does not have 2 to 3 times more capacity than LRT as SkyTrainai??i??s potential capacity is about the same as modern light rail (Gerald Fox). This myth was created by the discredited Delcan and ND Lea studies of the early 90ai???s, whichAi??Ai??arbitrarily claimed that SkyTrain had more capacity than LRT, without any study backing this assertion. Modern LRT/tram, operating on-street/at-grade, can handle over 20,000 persons per hour per direction (LRTA).
The claim that the B-Line carries more than Torontoai??i??s streetcars is pure bunkum. Maybe on a route by route basis, the Broadway buses carry more riders than on some streetcar lines, but not the network!
(Update – the main tram line on Kiaserstrasse in Karlsruhe Germany was seeing 40 second headways with coupled sets of trams during peak hours. This gave a peak hour ridership of between 35,000 to 40,000 persons per hour per direction.)
(2) The 12-km SkyTrain extension from VCC/Clarke Station to UBC via the Broadway corridor will take between 15-20-minutes travel time from terminus to terminus. Stations will be located at Finning, Main/Kingsway, Cambie (vital interchange station with Canada Line), Oak (hospital precinct), Granville, Arbutus, Macdonald, Alma, Sasamat/West Point Grey Village, and UBC transit interchange. All of these stations parallel the existing 99 B-Line service. A SkyTrain would be mainly tunneled, and with its own private right-of-way would be allowed to reach speeds of 80 km/h.
A ground-level LRT line would begin from Commercial/Broadway Station, and would take a travel time of between 30-45-minutes from terminus to terminus. It would have the same stations as the above mentioned SkyTrain with an additional four to six stations. Its higher travel time, on par with the existing 99 B-Line bus service, is a result of the line running through city streets instead of its own private right-of-way; as it runs in city streets, it must abide local traffic laws and speed limit of 50 kms/h. This will no doubt affect the extension’s reliability as a real alternative to the car: peak-hour traffic, road congestion, traffic accidents, etc.
In addition, commuters will be given a one-train ride with SkyTrain: no transfer will be needed, saving significant time. It also offers higher train frequencies and flexible schedule adjustments. On the contrary, LRT tends to have less frequent schedules due to the expense of having drivers and it would require a time-costly transfer from the region’s main transit network: SkyTrain (as it would simply be an extension of the Millennium Line). Such a pointless transfer would also affect ridership.
Zweisystem responds: A light rail/tram line operating on a reserved rights-of-way, with equal number of stops, would have travel times comparable to a SkyTrain light-metro. In Germany, trams operating in mixed traffic (with autos)Ai??Ai??are allowed to travel 10 kph faster than posted auto speeds and if tram/LRT operates on a reserved rights-way (a rights-of-way used exclusively for a tram), could operate at higher speeds quite safely. The authors of the blog conveniently forget that a transfer would have to be made to the proposed UBC SkyTrain from the Expo Line, thus the transfer argument is moot.
One, also questions the validity of recent light rail studies and asks, ai???were they done by qualified experts in LRTai???. To date not one company with a proven expertise in the construction and operation of modern light rail have ever been allowed into the study process. It is also important to know that the various owners of the proprietary SkyTrain light-metro system have never allowed it to compete against modern LRT!
(3) SkyTrain is the region’s main transit network. Such a network should be high in speed, capacity, reliability, and frequency. Metro Vancouver axed a highway expansion plan in the 1970’s in favour of building a competent transit network: we must build a competent transit backbone that makes up for our lack in road capacity.
Zweisystem responds: Many cities around the world happily operate metro with light rail and the argument is again silly. What is not mentioned is that SkyTrain is a proprietary light metro, a mode long made obsolete by modern light rail. Building with SkyTrain today, is like trying to buy a new Edsel, because ai???I already have oneai???. Who buys SkyTrain?
(Update – The authors seem to conveniently forget that the Canada Line is not SkyTrain and is incompatible in operation with the rest of the SkyTrain mini-metro network.)
(4) For such a costly expense, ground-level LRT will be a minor upgrade from the existing 99 B-Line bus service. The 99 B-Line is overflowing with riders, it needs something far greater than that to take its place. LRT is a short-term solution and will simply be a 99 B-Line with steel wheelsA?. On the other hand, SkyTrain will provide a long-term solution for the corridor’s transit needs.
Zweisystem responds: Light Rail will be more expensive to build than upgrading the B-Line service, about 30% more, but it would be much cheaper to operate than buses. One modern light Rail vehicle, with one driver is as efficient as 6 to 8 busses, with 6 to 8 bus drivers and one needs to hireAi??Ai??three or more people per bus or tram to drive, maintain and manage them. Do the math, cities that operate LRT have done so. Ai??Ai??Even operating in mixed traffic, with no reserved rights-of-ways or signal priority, modern trams are about 10% faster than buses. SkyTrain on the other hand, costs a lot more to operate, almost twice as much as Calgaryai??i??s LRT C-Train, which also carries more customers daily! The higher operating costs of SkyTrain and other proprietary light-metros were well understood by the early 1990ai???s and helped in the demise of the mode.
(5) Frequent trolley service will still exist, given the importance of local service along the Broadway corridor. It will complement the SkyTrain service.
Zweisystem responds: Why, after spending up to $4 billion on a subway, would TransLink want to operate trolley buses as well, driving up operating costs of the route; even on Cambie St., the electric trolley buses are now replaced by diesel buses. Modern LRT is built because it is cheaper to operate than buses on a transit route, when ridership exceeds 2,000 pphpd. With LRT operating on-street, with stops every 500 to 600 metres, there would be no need for buses on Broadway.
(6) A 2000 study by the City of Vancouver concluded that an LRT line, with 16 stations from Commercial to UBC along the Broadway corridor, would rake in 140,000 daily riders. However, a SkyTrain extension from VCC/Clarke to Arbutus combined with a rapid bus service from Arbutus to UBC would bring in 150,000 daily riders.
(Update – the author has mistakenly used ‘boardings” as riders, most riders make two or more boardings a day. 150,000 riders is actually 150,000 boardings, which translates to less than 75,000 actual riders using Broadway a day.)
Zweisystem responds: Based on what figures? Subways are notoriously poor in attracting new ridership and that, combined with high operating and maintenance costs, subways are avoided, unless traffic flows are over 500,000 passengers a day. It was predicted in 1980, that SkyTrain would be carrying over 20,000 pphpd, in the peak hour, by the year 2000; presently it is carrying half this number.
Note that the study was completed before the U-Pass was implemented, before record high gas prices, and before the green shift took priority. Following the 2002 implementation of the U-Pass, transit ridership at UBC increased significantly: in 2002 daily ridership was at 29,700 but by 2004 it was 50,000; a 68% increase in ridership in just two years because of the U-Pass! Transit ridership still increased significantly in the years after.
Zweisystem responds: Funny how a bus route, Broadway, operating at capacity can attract 68% more customers. The argument is moot because a LRT line could easily handle 250,000 or more passengers a day.
The study also does not account for the improved transit services since, especially the new Canada Line that will be opening in September 2009.
Taking account that the study was completed nearly ten years ago, and with all the changes to the region since then, ridership for a SkyTrain extension to UBC could rake in more than 200,000 passengers per day.
(Update – As per before, 200,000 BOARDINGS = less than 100,000 riders a day.)
For comparison’s sake, the Expo Line (29-kms) currently has a daily ridership of 185,000; Millennium Line (20-kms) at 75,000; and the projected daily ridership for the Canada Line (19-kms) and Evergreen Line (11-kms) is at 100,000 and 80,000.
Zweisystem responds: SkyTrain, unlike other transit systems around the world, has never had an independent audit of ridership, so the figures presented are questionable; that being said TransLink admits that 80% of SkyTrainai??i??s ridership first take a bus to the light metro and as buses are poor in attracting new ridership, one questions this 200,000 a day figure. But again the argument is moot, because LRT can easily handle such loads!
As there is no independent audit of SkyTrainai??i??s ridership, the numbers are questionable, also Expo Line riders are double counted on the Millennium Line and visa versa. Ridership projections for the Evergreen line and RAV Canada line are speculative at best.
====================================
ROUTE AND CONSTRUCTION METHODOLOGY: LRT
====================================
LRT SUPPORTERS:
Building light rail is fast and painless, unlike building SkyTrain; light rail won’t require digging up the road, while SkyTrain will. Businesses will not be affected. With light rail, parking spaces will not be lost both during the construction process and after construction is complete. LRT can be built on West 4th Avenue, instead of Broadway. LRT will not require tunneling. LRT will cost only a fraction of what SkyTrain would cost.
FACT:
(7) If light rail were the chosen technology for the extension, a trunk sewer underneath Broadway will require a costly removal and relocation. Thus, it will require digging up the entire street, like a large trench, and will be time consumingA?ai??i??Ai??
Zweisystem responds: The sewer trunk is built in the gutter lane, why? Because the old streetcars operated in the median lanes! The argument is thus lost.
(8) In addition to removing the Broadway trunk sewer, ground level light rail construction will require the closure of several lanes and all on-street parking lanes. Traffic will be reduced to two-lanes, similarly to Cambie Canada Line construction.
Zweisystem responds: Modern LRT construction would require street closures on a block by block basis and only for a short period of time, no different when the city tears up roads for utility maintenance.
(9) All in all, with light rail Broadway merchants will still be significantly affected by construction for about 2 years. In comparison, most of Cambie has been closed for about the same period for Canada Line construction. Light rail construction is far painless as claimed. It should also be noted that the construction timeline for an LRT line in the middle of a road should not be confused with the construction timeline for an LRT or streetcar line with its already existing private right-of-way.
Zweisystem responds: More fear mongering as Broadway would be closed on a block by block basis as track laying progressed. Street construction would be completed in about one years time or less.
(10) As Broadway is a narrow street, a ground-level light rail system would result in the permanent removal of the majority of the on-street parking spaces that Broadway merchants hold onto so dearly. Nearly all of Broadway will also be reduced to a two-lane road (one lane in each direction) due to the massive amount of spacing needed for ground level light-rail; a major east-west road artery in the city will be abolished.
Zweisystem responds: Such nonsense, there will no loss of on-street parking, unless the city of Vancouver wishes it, what will happen is that one traffic lane, in each direction, will have capacity increased from a bout 1,600 pphpd to over 20,000 pphpd, with LRT.Ai?? Traffic on Broadway will be reduced by 1 lane in each direction; this is known as traffic calming.
(11) Any mass transit extension would need to be located along the Broadway corridor. West 4th Avenue would not work as it would skip the main employment hubs along Broadway, thus reducing potential ridership significantly.
The Broadway corridor catches 16th Avenue to 4th Avenue; more people live along the upper corridor rather than 4th Avenue
Zweisystem responds: What is ai???mass transitai???? We are dealing with light-rail and light metro and there are pros and cons about each mode. For the cost of a SkyTrain subway to UBC, one could build a 4th Ave. LRT; a Broadway LRT; 41st Ave. LRT, for a combined capacity of over 60,000 pphpd, plus at least 2 North south LRT lines in Vancouver.
(12) LRT would likely require significant tunneling due to the steep grades on the hill west of Alma Street. LRT trains will be unable to climb the hill on such a steep slope.
Zweisystem responds: Not true. The industry standard for LRT climbing grades is 8%; in Sheffield England the maximum grade is 10% and in Lisbon, their trams climb 13.8% grades. The old streetcars climbed the Alma grades and modern LRT can do the same as well.
(13) It is a myth that $2.8-billion could build you 200-kms of light rail. Such a claim would likely mean the routes for these 200-kms of light rail lines already have pre-existing rail right-of-ways: we know that certainly does not exist in Vancouver, especially not for the Broadway mass transit extension.
Zweisystem responds: In Spain, new LRT is being built for under $8 million/km. and in Helsinki, on-street tram construction, including the electrical overhead was about $5 million/km. The $2.8 billion for 200 km. of LRT is very realistic. What the SkyTrain lobby is scared of is that $2.8 billion will buy you less than 28 km. of elevated SkyTrain or less than 9 km. of subway.
Proponents also falsely advocate this claim by cherry-pickingA? the best features of LRT, all of which come with a high price. The real cost of 200-kms of real LRT in the region would likely be at least $12-billion.
Zweisystem responds: More invention and uninformed assertions, showing a complete ignorance of modern light rail.
=======================================
ROUTE AND CONSTRUCTION METHODOLOGY: SkyTrain
=====================================
LRT SUPPORTERS:
SkyTrain construction along the Broadway corridor will devastate local businesses just like Canada Line construction. SkyTrain is also expensive to build and operate.
FACT:
(14) The SkyTrain extension would likely occur under 10th Avenue (and NOT on Broadway), one block/60-metres south of Broadway. Station entrances will still be located on Broadway.
(15) Such an extension under 10th Avenue, bored or cut and cover, would significantly reduce the impact on local businesses.
(16) With the large $2.8-billion budget, a vital long-term investment into the region’s infrastructure, it is likely that planners are planning for a bored tunnel design rather than cut and cover to avert most of the mistakes on Cambie.
Zweisystem responds: $2.8 billion will not buy much of a subway. If the 19 km. RAV/Canada line 50% subway may cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $2.8 billion a Broadway subway will cost a lot more.
(17) With an underground system, built on 10th Avenue and likely a bored tunnel, businesses will not be as affected (compared to a ground-level LRT line or a Cambie-style cut and cover tunnel).
Zweisystem responds: if a bored tunnel is used, properties adjacent to the subway may settle because the surrounding ground will be disturbed. Without costly pre-engineering work, the true cost of subway construction is a guesstimate at best.
(18) Local businesses stand to benefit significantly from the additional foot traffic within SkyTrain station precincts.
Zweisystem responds: Not so, as subways have proven poor in attracting business to local merchants. Modern LRT has a proven record in increasing business by about 10% along routes where LRT runs. Passengers in subways do not see surface businesses.
(19) SkyTrain may cost billions to build, but this is a long-term investment into our region’s infrastructure: an investment that could last up to a century. On the contrary, LRT with its limited capacity and speed is a short-term investment.
Zweisystem responds: Completely untrue. Subways lack operational flexibility and require most customers to use other transport to get to the subway. To date, SkyTrain has yet to match LRTai??i??s capacity and speeds! Lack of stations may provide a faster service, but at the same time deter ridership. Many LRT lines operate on well maintained infrastructure that is over 100 years old; subway on the other hand require constant and expensive maintenance as Londonai??i??s TUBE and Torontoai??i??s subways have well proven.
(20) SkyTrain, with its driverless automation, is cheaper to operate annually compared to driver systems such as LRT. In addition, there are capital cost savings and efficiencies from using the same maintenance yard/facilities, operations centre, and train rolling stock.
Zweisystem responds: Actually it is the other way around, automated transit systems cost a lot more toAi??Ai??operate than LRT. Calgaryai??i??s C-Train LRT costs less than half per annum to operate than SkyTrain and it carries more passengers as well! in 2006, the cost of wages for drivers was $6 million. SkyTrain doesnai??i??t have drivers, rather attendants and SkyTrain police, which cost more than drivers for Calgaryai??i??s LRT system.
(Update – 1in 2013, Translink admitted they had 170 full time attendants and did not give a number of part time attendants. Also not included are the transit police.)
As SkyTrain light-metro cars cost more to purchase than equivalent LRT cars, the last statement loses much of its validity. Also, with SkyTrain, there is only one supplier ofAi?? one style of car:Ai?? Bombardier Inc.; With LRT there are many suppliers and styles of cars to choose from and all are able to operate in conjunction with each other, something that RAV/Canada line and SkyTrain cars canai??i??t do.
============================
A REGIONAL CORRIDOR
===============================
BUILD NOTHING & LRT SUPPORTERS:
There is not enough ridership to support a rapid transit rail line along the Broadway corridor. Any rapid transit rail line’s real purpose would be to solely serve the University of British Columbia.
FACT:
(21) Central Broadway/Cambie UptownA? is the second largest employment centre in the entire region after Vancouver City Centre. According to a 1996 census, there were 40,000 jobs in the area and half of these people live outside of Vancouver making the district a regional centre. We can only assume that the number of jobs in the area has grown significantly since 13 years ago and will continue to grow. In addition, the Broadway corridor is one of the most densely populated areas outside of Downtown Vancouver.
Zweisystem responds: By building LRT down Broadway, it would protect both residents and businesses from escalating taxes to pay for a gold-plated subway project and the need to massively increase density along the route to feed the metro, while at the same time provide high quality transportation to the area.
Central Broadway is also part of the Metropolitan Core, part of Downtown Vancouver; a focus area for population and employment growth.
All of the above only serves to support ridership. And as mentioned above, there are already 100,000 daily bus riders along the Broadway corridor making it the busiest bus corridor in the entire region.
(22) The University of British Columbia is one of the largest employment centres in the entire region. With over 50,000 students and faculty, it will only continue to grow. In addition, the university is developing plans to build new dense residential neighborhoods ai??i?? this will only serve to support ridership.
As already mentioned above, transit ridership at the university was at 50,000 in 2004 we can only assume it will be much more today. It will only grow with additional and improved services.
Zweisystem responds: LRT would be able to service all of UBC and with the inherent flexibility of the mode, could provide a minor LRT network on campus. Also there is the possibility of LRT carrying freight to UBC, as done in other European cities, taking commercial vehicles off city streets. The ridership forecasts certainly point to a light rail solution for UBC and not an expensive subway.
Actually, the Broadway merchants should not worry about the loss of parking spaces. If there was an at-grade light rail line with reserved right of way plus stations spaced every 500 or 600 meters apart, then the ex-car drivers would take light rail and not drive. The whole point of building light rail is to discourage car-driving (because of narrow lanes) and encourage taking public transit. So if there is no parking space, instead of driving, drivers will take the light rail.
Zweisystem replies: LRT or trams on Broadway would not take away merchant’s parking spaces, rather it would take away one traffic lane in each direction. This is known as traffic calming. Thus trams on Broadway would reduce capacity on Broadway by about 2,000 pphpd, but replace it with modern trams, able to carry over 20,000 pphpd and keep the all important parking for local merchants.
I think it would be better if every driver would get out of their cars and all take public transit. How do you think this can be achieved?
Zweisystem replies: to get people to get out of their cars and unto transit is basically designing a transit system to suit the needs of its customers, not Translink;s Monty Pythonish; “Now there’s your transit – now use it.” TransLink does not provide a user friendly transit service.
First, should Vancouver follow Zurich by building tram lines everywhere so that even the richest people take public transit? Second, if some people are accustomed to privacy and want their own schedule, how do you nudge these people out of their cars?
Zweisystem replies: In cities such as Zurich and Basel, wealthy folk show their confidence with politicians by using public transit, especially trams. In order to attract the motorist from the car, Bistro or cafe cars are used for longer journeys, some trams have saloon section with no doors for more privacy for longer journeys. Trams being much cheaper to build, means one can service more destinations with direct (no-transfer) services. Sadly TransLink deals with light rail as if it were a poorman’s SkyTrain and plans it as such and never plan for the many attributes that makes LRT so successful.
I think PRT is a feasible solution, but it is used to supplement LRT services.
Zweisystem replies: PRT has been around for 40 years and it never has been successful because one can never afford a big enough PRT system to provide an attractive transit alternative.
PRT does not replace LRT, it just supplements LRT, nothing bad about LRT.
Zweisystem replies: Why go to the expense of having PRT and build LRT to the same job. Contrary to the PRT spin, most are more expensive than a tram.
By the way, PRT only costs $5M to $15M per mile, which is really cheap to construct.
Zweisystem replies: What PRT systems cost $5M to $15M per mile to construct. Base cost for on-steet LRT is about $6 million/km (track and overhead).
I have unfortunately, had experience in this field of study.
1.PRT systems always require much heavier structures than in their glossy pictures and planning reports. To get these whisper thin metal structures that are often in these promotional videos usually requires materials that either do not exist or cost more than silver per ounce to build with. Never mind the fact that, these pictures are always in nice sunny (usually sub tropicial) and warm/hot environments. They never say how these things are going to structurally handle year after year ground frost (freeze/thaw cycles) and winter conditions or salt heavy air.
2. Everyone assumes this new technology will work right out of the box. Nothing that is mechinical ever does. With PRT there is usually only one or very few suppliers who can charge any price they want especially in spare parts. It doesn’t seem like it but, modern rail car producers are very sensitive to the vehicle costs paid by their customers and make sure they offer the lowest price they can. They also make sure the Transit Operators do not go bankrupt trying to do maintenance and supply spare parts at or near cost whenever possible.
3. Most PRT systems that have been tried, never get beyond an embrionic stage because unplanned operating costs and constraints appear (for example, turnout or switch issues for Monorail type systems) that usually force the operating costs to multiply, thus killing any larger system before it even is built.
4. Plain old politics comes into play as well. What is a real great new technology for someone is an expensive toy for another.
5. These PRT systems have never been able to actually deliver on what was promised. What usually happens is that, for some reason the costs escalate or it is never able to operate at the expected level of service. Thus it breaks the basic deal that it was bought under in the first place. The populace and their political masters get angry and good or bad, they never buy anything with PRT attached to it again.
6. If somone does go through all the teething problems and produces a much larger PRT system no one has any guarantees that the on going costs for things like maintenance will continue to be affordable. A small PRT system may only need a few mechanics and staff but a large or huge area wide system may require many many more at that point it may not be an inexpensive system.
7. There is a basic problem that transport systems which carry small numbers of people per vehicle never have been able to fix, how are popular major destinations able to avoid the traffic congestion that will occur without building a huge and complex system of bypasses and multiple arrival platforms. If you have a major destinantion that gathers hundreds if not thousands of people in a small amount of time like a morning/afternoon peak period you will still have major vehicle congestion at that location, instead this time it will be PRT vehicles, not cars causing the congestion. Thus, one of the issues you hoped to avoid by building this system is creating a similar issue all by itself. Sucessful BRT systems have have this problem because the basic vehicle becomes to small to handle the crowds and thus more vehicles are needed and then congestion of multiple transit vehicles becomes a major problem. (For example: Curibita, Ottawa and Brisbane)
Zweisystem replies: Thank you. The following story about PRT may give some insight. In the 90’s, during early in on in the Broadway-Lougheed debate, the Light Rail for Vancouver Group asked the engineering firm, Raytheon, to demonstrate their expertise with modern LRT, they could or would not. After a month of Letters and Fax’s, the reply the LRfVC got was breath taking. Raytheon (the rocket boys & girls) felt that LRT was a passing fad and the real transit mode for the 21st century was PRT, which they sent us a nice video of. I have never seen or heard of the Raytheon PRT ever since.
It makes sense that they would do and say things like that. PRT vehicle and system construction could easily occur in the existing light manufacturing plants that Raytheon already uses. The Sidewinder, Sparrow and AMARAAM AIM 120 air to air missile systems as well as most of the components for the Trident C4, & D5, SLBM’s and the current crop of American ICBM’s are all Raytheon products. Those lines could easily be transformed for PRT construction. LRT production requires real rail manufacturing expertise and production facilities not converted missile production lines.
The only PRT installation I know of is the one at Heathrow Terminal 5, and the infrastructure looks nothing like the promotional video.
http://www.humantransit.org/2009/07/streetcars-an-inconvenient-truth.html
“Streetcars that replace bus lines are not a mobility improvement. If you replace a bus with a streetcar on the same route, and make no other improvements, nobody will be able to get anywhere any faster than they could before. This makes streetcars quite different from most of the other transit investments being discussed today.
Where a streetcar is faster or more reliable than the bus route it replaced, this is because other improvements were made at the same time — improvements that could just as well have been made for the bus route. These improvements may have been politically packaged as part of the streetcar project, but they were logically independent, so their benefits are not really benefits of the streetcar as compared to the bus.”
So when Zweisystem said that trams/streetcars operating on mixed right-of-way (with autos) can operate 10kph faster than automobiles, a bus can do the same thing (such as using island platforms, similar to the F-Market streetcar.)
Zweisystem replies: Actually it is faster acceleration, deceleration and faster dwell times that improves a streetcar’s performance. In Germany, streetcars are allowed to travel 10 kph faster than posted speed limits. The rest of course is your opinion.
The UBC Skytrain Lobby meant that no transfer had to be made from the future Evergreen Line. I doubt the Evergreen Line would have a high ridership, so there is no point in creating another costly subway line. Also, a subway line would serve too few people because the people who would really need to use transit is east of Commercial Drive, and right now there is barely even a bus service along Broadway since 2002. Also, if the 99 B-Line is overcrowded with riders, there is evidence that most commuters do not mind a transfer from either the Expo or Millenium Line. Finally, if light rail has the capacity of 6 to 8 buses, then the frequency would have to be slightly reduced to actually gain a benefit with higher capacity.
A very important lesson from that Human Transit blog post which obviously has not been learned here in the lower mainland:
“[W]hen the thinking starts with the love of one technology, you’re in danger of producing an inferior transit service, because when compromise needs to be made, technology-first thinking will tend to sacrifice the goals to save the technology. ”
bingo.
It is really no suisprre to me at all that ALRT finally won-out. Lougheed Station, the planned starting point for the line, was built with all the necessary special trackwork and guideway-takeoffs in place from Day One to allow for fully-integrated service and possible run-through route extensions to Downtown Vancouver. Funding limitations at the time forced study of alternative technologies for the Evergreen Line even though the existing system was obviously prefered for the expansion. It’s really nice to see that all the work and money invested to install a fully functional junction to nowhere’ will not have been wasted. The possibilities for run-through interlining will certainly prove to be of great value.Don’t be suisprred if the long-envisioned westerly extension of the northern loop of the Millenium Line becomes the planned UBC branch line.