Rail for the Valley Rsponds to the SkyTrain Lobby
Malcolm Johnston, from Rail for the Valley responds to Mr. Cruz’s pro-SkyTrain letter from last week.
Transportation: LRT beats SkyTrain, hands down
Langley AdvanceMayAi?? 29, 2012Dear Editor,
I read in absolute amazement a letter full of invented and twisted facts by aAi?? Mr. Cruz, supporting SkyTrain [SkyTrain boosting profits, May 24 Letters,Ai?? www.langleyadvance.com]. I shouldn’t be surprised, as it is typical SkyTrainAi?? lobby bumf.
The letter was so full of hype and hoopla about SkyTrain that it is hard toAi?? know where to begin, except to point out that modern LRT made SkyTrain obsoleteAi?? two decades ago, and no one buys SkyTrain anymore, due to its extremely highAi?? construction and operating costs.
Only seven SkyTrain type systems have been built, under three marketingAi?? names, Intermediate Capacity Transit System (ICTS), Advanced Light Rail TransitAi?? (ALRT), and now Advanced Rapid Transit (ART).
During the same period almost 150 new LRT systems have been built.
To claim that LRT has higher maintenance and operation costs has noAi?? foundation, and the opposite is true, SkyTrain costs much more to maintain andAi?? operate than LRT.
Instead of drivers, SkyTrain has attendants – more than 250 of them at lastAi?? count.
The SkyTrain cars also cost more to maintain than modern LRV’s. Again, no oneAi?? buys SkyTrain anymore.
To compare SkyTrain with Portland’s LRT shows Mr. Cruz’s extreme bias.Ai?? Portland’s 84 km. MAX LRT with 85 stations, now carries more than 128,000 ridersAi?? daily, less ridership than SkyTrain, due to the different demographics of theAi?? city, and not transit mode.
MAX’s lower commercial speed of 34.1 km/h can be attributed to on-streetAi?? (streetcar) operation through Portland’s downtown, but on portions of line,Ai?? speeds of 90 km/h are permissible.
The lower frequencies for MAX are for off-peak services, and if demandAi?? warrants, more trains can be operated, as in peak-hour service.
In Europe, LRT 30-second headways during peak hours are not uncommon.
It should be remembered that Portland’s transit authorities rejected SkyTrainAi?? and opted to build with LRT because SkyTrain was too expensive to build andAi?? operate.
SkyTrain was designed to replace LRT, but was made obsolete by LRT due toAi?? LRT’s inherent flexibility as it can operate as a simple streetcar, aAi?? light-metro like SkyTrain, and a passenger train, and combine all modes on oneAi?? route.
Mr. Cruz should answer this one question: “After being on the market for overAi?? 33 years and during an era in unprecedented growth of urban transit systems,Ai?? only seven SkyTrain type systems have been built: why?”
The answer is simple, and TransLink is now facing the consequences ofAi?? building SkyTrain, as its huge cost of construction and much higher maintenanceAi?? and operation costs are now beggaring the transit authority.
Malcolm Johnston, Rail for the Valley
I have a question, the letter by Mr. Cruz says that there are seven sky train type systems in operation, where? I personally can only think of four and at the least one, The Scarborough RT system is being replaced (ironically by LRT) and the Detroit People Mover is under constant threat of closure for financial reasons.
The question should really be where other than Vancouver, where has the Skytrain’s linear induction technology really taken root and been expanded? Anyone can build a starter line, how many have expanded or built another or multiple lines? Many cities have built starter LRT lines and it does have a proven record as a technology that, has been added and expanded on in many transit operations.
Zweisystem replies:
The SkyTrain family of transit:
ICTS: SkyTrain’s first marketing name – Detroit, Toronto
ALRT: SkyTrain’s second marketing name – Vancouver
ALRT (2): SkyTrain’s third marketing name – 0
ALM: SkyTrain’s fourth marketing name – 0
ART: SkyTrain’s fifth marketing name – Kuala Lumpor (Kelana Jaya Line), JFK, Beijing (airport shuttles), Yongin (Theme Park shuttle).
Total 8 cities with SkyTrain ICTS.ALRT/ALM/ART.
The only other city where ALRT is used as a rapid transit line is Kuala Lumpor, where the city has three modes, including a conventional light-metro (Ampang Line), and a monorail.
Sorry, correction to my last post. Mr Johnston’s letter not Mr. Cruz’s letter. Sorry about the confusion.
Several Japanese and Chinese subways use linear induction motors:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_motor
Nagahori Tsurumi-ryokuchi Line in Osaka (opened 1990)
Toei Ōedo Line in Tokyo (opened 2000)
Kaigan Line in Kobe (opened 2001)
Nanakuma Line in Fukuoka (opened 2005)
Imazatosuji Line in Osaka (opened 2006)
Green Line in Yokohama (opened 2008)
Tōzai Line in Sendai (under construction)
Line 4 of Guangzhou Metro in Guangzhou, China (opened 2005).[5]
Line 5 of Guangzhou Metro in Guangzhou, China (open in December 2009).
Line 6 of Guangzhou Metro in Guangzhou, China (under construction).
Zweisystem replies: All incompatible in operation with the proprietary SkyTrain ART system.