If you tell a SkyTrain lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.
This is an updated post from 2009.
The title quote by Joseph Goebbels, famed Nazi propagandist, aptly describes the SkyTrain lobby’s and BC Transit/TransLink’s thirty year long propaganda campaign to sell SkyTrain and discredit modern light rail. The many pro-SkyTrain blog sites that offer little in fact, but much unfounded rhetoric. All the bumf spewed hides one singular fact; that SkyTrain has been rejected by transit planners around the world.
If you tell a SkyTrain lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The SkyTrain lie can be maintained only for such time as the provincial government, TransLink and the Mayors Council on Transit can shield the people from the political, economic and/or environmental consequences of the SkyTrain lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the provincial government, TransLink and the Mayors Council on Transit to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the SkyTrain lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the provincial government, TransLink and the Mayors Council on Transit .
Why is it important for Rail for the Valley to expose the SkyTrain myth for what it is? Simple, it’s all about money. SkyTrain consumes up to ten times or more the money to build, per route kilometre than light rail; put another way, the taxpayer may get up to one tenth, or less,, transit by building with SkyTrain instead of LRT! For any chance of a Valley interurban service, Rail for the Valley must put a ‘wooden stake’ through the heart of SkyTrain and give no quarter to its adherents. It’s ugly business, but for the future of the region, it must be done.
Zweisystem will make two predictions:
1) If the province forces TransLink to build a SkyTrain subway to UBC, there will be NO interurban for the valley.
2) If a SkyTrain subway is built, the municipalities without SkyTrain may secede from TransLink and form their own transit authority or rejoin with BC Transit. (If that happens, watch for $1000.00 to $1,500.00 property tax hikes for the remaining, SkyTrain and metro served cities, including Richmond, Vancouver, Burnaby, Tri-Cities, New Westminster and North Surrey).
The Rail for the Valley blog follows the course of modern public transit development as reported in the transit press and what we are told by experts. And one must remember, SkyTrain is sponsored by the Province through the Premier’s office and TransLink and unfortunately those who support light rail and not SkyTrain are seen as enemies of the provincial government, TransLink and the Mayors Council on Transit!
The choice for future transit in the region should be this:
SkyTrain metro, with costs starting at $250 million/km.
or
Light rail with costs as low as $10 million/km (tramtrain)
or as low as $20 million/km. (streetcar)
or as low as $35 million/km. (LRT)
Let the public decide!
The future of rapid transit is in grade separation. You can have “at grade” transit for cheaper, but it won’t be as rapid or reliable. If you want cheap, do BRT.
Zwe1 replies: Sorry, not quite correct as grade separation has little to do with reliability and certainly the new tramways being built in Europe are extremely reliable.All grade separation does is to increase road use. BRT has been oversold for what it will do and to be true BRT, it needs a “reserved right-of-way” like a tram, with priority signalling at intersections. Also, the operating costs increase with increased ridership which does not happen with light rail. On the Whole, 50 year cost of BRT is almost on par with a tram, which has far greater operational flexibility.
Again, this well understood in Europe, where the great “philosopher stone” of BRT in the 90’s, has largely turned into a wet squib by the 2020’s.
This is not to say that true BRT is not good, but rather it has become a niche transport system, for routes where a tram cannot operate.
Grade Separated Anxiety
It’s the speed at all cost obsession that gives people the desire or the outright need of grade separation. This need for grade separation is what is making good rapid transit almost unaffordable. Skytrain may never be expanded after UBC because the capital cost versus the at best, medium capacity of the Skytrain Light Metro technology. Skytrain’s main issue is the medium capacity, not heavy capacity, all for the price that is almost as high as that of a heavy rail or full Metro system.
Keeping Capital Cost Down vs Building Nothing
If you want to increase transit use you or going to HAVE TO reduce the number of car lanes. Replace those car lanes with cheaper physically segregated transit rights of way. As a planner that’s usually the only way to politically and or realistically, have any chance of reducing car use and increase transit use. You can with just good physical segregation on a surface right of way, which keeps costs down, while building affordable rapid transit.
With the Conservatives looking like they will form the next federal government (a hard edged particularly right wing Conservative party this time), the days of big federal infrastructure spending is ending. So high cost rapid transit will mean, no rapid transit funding, unless provincial governments step up. BC generally only builds one big transit project per decade when they are doing the majority of the funding. This pattern of increased Skytrain building in Vancouver recently, has only continued because of increased federal infrastructure funding.
BRT Pitfalls
As for BRT, I professionally have a lot of experience in this form of rapid transit. Zwei is correct BRT needs a segregated right of way to be truly effective, which drives up the price very close to the capital cost of surtace LRT. The main issue with BRT is that the bigger the passenger capacity needs to be, the more grandiose and expensive the BRT infrastructure needs to be. Eventually, your BRT infrastructure needs to be bigger and more robust than the comparative rail infrastructure needs to be, to move the same number of people.
This requirement for heavier and heavier infrastructure around BRT drives up the operations costs to a point it exceeds rail technology operating costs.
BRT is great unless you need to move large amounts of people. Ottawa, had to move 10500 passengers per hour per direction, using over 185 buses per hour per direction at peak hours, causing huge bus jams in downtown everyday, driving our operating transit budget to the limit. Thus we finally decided to switch to rail, thankfully our Transitways (really high capacity BRT Busways) were designed with the conversion to rail in its basic design.
The political reality is that politicians generally build BRT because it’s initially cheaper than rail, not because they really care or want good rapid transit. So either the BRT infrastructure never gets upgraded once built or they simply keep cutting back BRT projects to the point that its not really BRT at all. This leads to the Real BRT vs. the BRT Lite debate. The political effect sometimes refered to as “BRT Creep” propelled by anti-transit politicians. At first they support BRT over any rail based system, then once BRT is decided on they begin to cut back the BRT project until it’s an express bus operating in mostly mixed traffic with some painted bus lanes and nice bus stops. They still claim though its rappid transit.
Zwei replies: Exactly what is happening in Metro Vancouver.
The only transit mode with a proven record of reducing auto traffic and able to achieve modal, shift from tram to car is light rail for the very simple reason it tends to reduce road space.
The French came to the same conclusion decades ago when after many comprehensive studies, le Tram was the only transit mode to reduce auto use because it took up road space. 1 traffic lane could move around 3,000 pphpd (bus and car), compared to one tram operating on a traffic lane 10,000 pphpd plus in mixed traffic or over 20,000 pphpd if the traffic lane was for the exclusive use for le tram. This is the main reason French went on a spree building now over 24 modern tramways since 1985.
SkyTrain vs metro
Train 6 car MK 1 90 long tons, 76.2 m, 408 Capacity, 2 people/m2
Train 4 car MK 2 86 long tons, 69.4 m, 432 Capacity, 2 people/m2
Train 4 car MK 3 85.2 long tons, 68.4 m 452 Capacity 2 people/m2
Train 5 car MK 5 106.5 long tons? 85 m* 668 Capacity* 3 people/m2
Train 7 car London Underground 2009 Stock 194.2 long tons, Train length 133.275 m, Capacity 1,128 6 people/m2
Train 6 car Toronto Rocket 202.3 long tons, Train length 137.82 m, Capacity 1080 4* people/m2
to Day Max Capacity
Expo Line 39 x 660= 26,052 pphpd
Victoria line 43 x 1128 = 48,504 pphpd
TTC line 1 24 x 1080 = 25,920 pphpd
X Tons on Rail 25,000 to 26,000 pphpd
Expo Line 39 x 106.5 ton = 4,153.5 long tons
Victoria line 23 x 194.2 ton = 4,466.6 long tons
TTC line 1 24 x 202.3 ton = 4,855.2 long tons
Train 8 car MK 6 170.4? long tons, 135 m, 1070? Capacity, 3 people/m2
43 x 1070* = 46,010 pphpd
43 x 170.4 ton = 7,327.2 long tons
Victoria line 43 x 194.2 = 8,350.6 long tons
SkyTrain is
– Vehicle maintenance costs low.
– Rail grinding is done by Portable machine.
– On old standard for automated train.
– Needs a available staff for checking Error.
– staff up up up!!!
Zwei replies: Much of your information is not quite accurate and I would hope you got your numbers other than TransLink.
I have been told that the maximum practical capacity of the MALM SkyTrain MK.5’s is under 600 persons; TransLink has always inflated capacity numbers.
But your claim that vehicle maintenance cost are very low is not correct as the LIM powered SkyTrain cars tend to be maintenance hogs and cost about 60% more to maintain than conventional light metro cars. Remember, the MK.5 cars are basically MK.2 ART cars with a new front end with coaches with full vestibules. The coaches have been available since the Millennium Line opened with TransLink not buying any. There has been no development of the ART/MALM cars for about 20 years simply because no one wanted the thing.
You, like the rest of the SkyTrain lobby believe alternative facts and invented claims, as SkyTrain has been one of the most studied new built transit systems in the world and no one wants it.
DO NOT confuse the LIM powered cars with the conventionally powered Innovia light metro cars as they are somewhat different, due to the fact they are powered conventionally.
For your information According to Wiki a 8 car formation of 2009 Tube Stock is 1,128 per train (252 seated, 876 standing at 6 people/m2) and I can tell you 6 persons per metre/2 is impossible, thus the capacity is lower. The last time I chatted with an engineer from Calgary about SkyTrain he indicated that they were tired of Translink’s deliberate information and claims and the operating authority would refrain from any future comments and comparisons because it was not worth their time and effort. They has investigated SkyTrain and found it wanting.
Further to your comment I would like to remind you that in the past 40 years there has been unprecedented investment in urban transit systems with successful systems copied and mistakes avoided. That no one and i mean no one is interested in ART/MALM is telling, Bombardier and SNC Lavalin had to bribe bureaucrats and politicians in Korea and Malaysia to get it built and the system has left the stink of corruption in both countries and a very, very black mark on Canadian businesses and business practice! Only 7 sold since 1980; one major redesign; four owners; and only seven built with only 6 remaining in operation, tells the tale.
Skytrain is no so bad. It is a bit expensive but not as expensive as other subways in other larger cities.
An interurban system ran in Greater Vancouver from about 1891 to 1958, with five major lines:
the Central Park Line (similar to today’s Expo Line),
the Burnaby Lake Line (similar to today’s Millennium Line),
the Lulu Island Line (similar to today’s Canada Line)
the Westminster-Eburne Line (connecting Marpole to New Westminster)
the Chilliwack Line (connecting New Westminster to Chilliwack).
The last two could be recreated as surface based rail then Vancouver would have a complete interurban system. The old station in New westminster would make a great public transit station.
Millennium line (Burnaby lake line) should go to UBC.
Zwei replies: This comment could be regarded as SPAM, due to the Email Address HaHa@ABC ………………..
I am allowing this because there is a growing angst at the City of Vancouver that the subway may prove next to useless unless it goes to UBC and with the costs of the extension to UBC and Alstom’s silence whether they will continue building SkyTrain and spare parts, the Vancouver politicians (including Premier Eby)and their hounds, the SkyTrain Lobby are in a bit of a pickle. The problem now facing the CoV, TransLink and the province is the ever escalating costs of SkyTrain light metro construction, demographic change and a growing user-unfriendliness of the bus system and TransLink in general.
There are several rules in rail transit planning.
1. Anything more than 4 passengers per m2 is pointless. When you see 5 and 6 passengers per m2 you are seeing maximum engineering axle loads (5 pass/m2) and maximum vehicle frame loads (6 pass/m2).
2. Anything above 4 passengers per m2 will not be tolerated by North Americans (Canadians & Americans), ANZAC’s (Australians & New Zwealanders), western and central Europeans for more than a few minutes. At that point you seriously start loosing large percentages of choice transit passengers (over 10%) and even after 8 minutes, non choice passengers start declining as well. Once 90% of practical capacity is reached, usually resulting in large pockets of passenger densities exceeding 4 passengers per m2 passenger physicologies like, the beginning of panic due to crowding and other related phobias take over. This drives passengers away semi- permanently from transit. That means the next day they actively start looking for other transport options.
The TTC, a long subscriber to this crowding issue has long ago adjusted their capacity numbers, including the one that @Legoman0320 used, to a point where capacity is actually only about 82% of the vehicle’s practical capacity. What this means is that once vehicle crowding gets to that point the TTC, IF POSSIBLE, will put on an extra bus, streetcar or subway train, along that route, in fear of loosing passengers, especially the vaunted choice transit passengers.
3. The reason I can say these things with such accuracy is because of the MBTY Formula (Mine is Bigger Than Yours), me and my friend Brock (a noted mathematician) created, what turned out to be a very complex mathematical formula to predict at what crowding and vehicle load point (based in percentages), do passengers start leaving transit and why. Based on climate, weather, physical conditions, physical limitations of the passengers, vehicle size, particular individual city characteristics, historical transit data and about 18 other data points. It was well received back in the 90’s when we presented at the Toronto 1997 joint, APTA/CUTA/UITP World Transit EXPO. The largest transit exposition in the world that occurs every second year (usually odd years). This past year’s expo was in Barcelona Spain. We updated the formula when we presented again, when the same Expo came to Montreal in 2017.
Note: Although the title is done for shock value and to attract attention to it, its reasoning is pretty much the exact opposite to the reasoning of the title. As a young Urban Planning student in University back in the early 1990’s a female colleague of mine pointed out to a group of male students (including me), that arguing about what capacity was greater in what vehicle, leading to debates about functional capacity vs. theoretical capacity which would begin soon after, just like transit nerds (whom are mostly male by the way) do on the internet today.
She pointed out to us, it’s more important to figure out why and when people leave transit to improve transit, then figuring out how many passengers you can uncomfortably jam into a transit vehicle,”just like a man would do”. She pointed out to us with a rather glib smile, that guys seem to be more interested in whose transit vehicle has a bigger/greater capacity (with the obvious connection and comparison to men bragging about the size of their relative genitalia) vs. if it’s actually comfortable to be ride the vehicle! I never forgot the absolutely brilliant point she made.
There’s a new found knowledge of transit capacity and practical use of capacity on Vehicle. More comparable data between the different vehicles and Modes.
SkyTrain vs metro
Train 6 car MK 1 90 long tons, 76.2 m, 408 Capacity, 2 people/m2
Train 4 car MK 2 86 long tons, 69.4 m, 432 Capacity, 2 people/m2
Train 4 car MK 3 85.2 long tons, 68.4 m 452 Capacity 2 people/m2
Train 5 car MK 5 105 long tons* 85 m* 565 or 668 Capacity* 2 or 3 people/m2
Train 8 car London Underground 2009 Stock 194.2 long tons, Train length 133.275 m, Capacity 564 3 people/m2
Train 6 car Toronto Rocket 202.3 long tons, Train length 137.82 m, Capacity 885 3* people/m2
to Day Rush hour practical capacity
Expo Line 39 x 660= 26,052 pphpd
Victoria line 43 x 564 = 24,252 pphpd
TTC line 1 24 x 885 = 21,240 pphpd
Rush hour decoration of rail (1 hour) 24,000 to 26,000 pphpd
Expo Line 39 x 105 ton = 4,095 long tons
Victoria line 43 x 194.2 ton = 8,350.6 long tons
TTC line 1 28 x 202.3 ton = 5,664.4 long tons
new MK Train 8 car 904 Capacity* 2 people/m2 168 long tons
43 x 904* = 38,872 pphpd
43 x 168 ton = 7,224 long tons
hi Mr haveacow
1.How much can you tell me about how the formula for your practical capacity Calculation?
2. Skytrain, compared to the other systems that you have done the calculations?
hi ZWEI to compare a metro/Subway to LRV At grade, Like comparing apples to an orange or to a banana. I know what we call SkyTrain today had the same accurement at some point in time ART(Automatic Rapid Transit) not LRT(Light Rail Transit).
Vancouver skytrain and RT In Toronto had different Maintenance procedures and cost Operate of same system. Operational cost LRT’s or Metros are difficult because of different suppliers, locations, etc. That’s on how flexible the agency can adapt or change to the customer demands of transportation across their Boundaries or region.
canadian division of Austin transportation name change. Same Transit Vehicles are available plus the new ones from Europe will be available At some point.
Update Skytrain Signaling upgrade 43 Trains an hour for the expo line.(math 17500 ÷ 408 or mk 1= 43.37) 35 Train an hour On the m line(math 7500 ÷ 216 or mk 2 = 35. A max frequency increase to 85 sec and 120 sec when it’s necessary for them to increase capacity with frequency.
Statistics MK Capacity Increase in frequency.
Mk 1 408 X 43 = 17,544 pphpd
Mk 2 432 X 43 = 18,576 pphpd
Mk 3 452 X 43 = 19,436 pphpd
Mk 5 565* X 43 = 24,295* pphpd
Zwei replies: you have spent a lot of time and effort defending the undefendable, I’m afraid. What we call SkyTrain (MALM) and SkyTrain light metro has been studied to death and no one wants it. Six rebranding has not fooled anyone but the politicians in metro Vancouver and Victoria as well as the SkyTrain Lobby.
Like the Edsel before, ICTS/ALRT/ALM/ART/ILM/MALM has proven far more expensive to build and operate than light rail.
Your fancy figures all come from TransLink, which has a very coloured history of telling the truth and today no one cares because no one wants the product.
Simple at-grade LRT is just as efficient, yet a whole lot cheaper to build and operate than the MALM family of transit and can carry more people. Here is the key, LRT is extremely flexible in operation, which makes it far easier to adapt to future needs.
You must accept the fact The MALM family of transit has been on the market for over 44 years, yet only 7 systems were sold with now only 6 in operation. There has been zero interest in the mode and almost no development has been done for almost 20 years.
The Canada Line still remains the only heavy rail metro, built as a light-metro and has less capacity less than a modern on-street streetcar, let alone light rail. No one has copied this; no one wants SkyTrain.
It’s not about a particular single number but given characteristics what will drive out people from transit faster, at what point for example does Skytrain become unpleasant for given characteristics. That can change because of weather, holiday seasons, people are carrying shopping bags (grocery vs Xmas shopping) this effectively adds passenger density because baggy winter clothing and shopping bags take up more space. If a person is skinny vs large can seriously complicate whether someone’s comfort is challenged. Height is an issue, tall people complain more about odours of perfume more than body odours but the opposite can be true for smaller people. Women and Men have very different ideas about what conditions are acceptable.
Cities with historically higher general transit usage have passengers whom are more tolerant of crowding. Conditions that drive someone in Ottawa completely away from transit can be laughed at in Toronto for example. Larger cities also have more tolerance for crowding and travel times. Cities with higher commuter levels in both automobile and transit have a higher tolerance of travel time and maybe more willing to try new ideas. People in suburban Hamilton have a completely different idea about what is an acceptable travel time vs. downtown Hamilton.
Commuters in cities like Toronto and Montreal that have very, very long subway and Metro trains can find the tight confines of a Mk. 1 Skytrain unpleasant. The Scarborough RT always had this issue, when Torontonians were used to 135 m to 137 m long subway trains that were 3.2 m wide, the narrow and short LIM powered vehicles on the Scarborough RT (Mk. 1 Skytrains) were never as comfortable and could never fully compete, even when it was less crowded.
Montreal’s commuters riding the new REM, with its relatively short, 4 car 80m long multi car trains although popular are nowhere as comfortable to Montreal commuters as the much longer (152m-155m) and opened gangway, single car Metro trains. Even though the width is similar.
Zwei replies: The so called MK.5 trains (5 is for 5 cars) will give the impression of being roomier with full vestibules, but TransLink’s addiction to capacity, with a lack of comfortable sating, will make long commutes uncomfortable, Old Zwei who is now 68, has noticed a phenomenon with suburban transit, the lack of the elderly using transit. Of course there is Handy Dart and community shuttles for pensioners, but there is a definite lack of “older” people using transit and my other observation is, there is a complete lack of customers taking the express buses (602,603,604) to Bridgeport to take the Canada line. What was once full buses in 2019 now have maybe 10 people today.
I have asked a few people and the reply is basically the same, buses are dirty, the Canada Line is full and we must stand and it takes a lot longer com ing home than going into town