Should We Convert The Canada Line to Light Rail?

Updated for 2024

 With Covid-19, this becomes more important than ever.

Right now we have a Hobson’s choice for regional rail transit, extend the Millennium and Expo Lines and continue using the proprietary Movia Automatic Light Metro or nothing.

This must change and change soon, or the hugely expensive SkyTrain light metro system will become largely irrelevant; a museum piece dedicated to political corruption, professional ennui and public hubris.

The public just cannot afford throwing billions more at rapid transit for so little return.

First posted by zweisystem on Thursday, October 11, 2012, updated May, 2024

Subways & metros are very expensive to build and operate.

The proposed new tunnel that is planned to replace the George Massey Tunnel is on the back burner. Premier John Horgan cancelled the Liberal vanity project and a more reasonable solution has been made.

Replacing the tunnel with a larger a larger tunnel will only send the gridlock to the next choke point, Steveston Highway and ultimately the Oak Street & Knight Street bridges. This will cause massive congestion if traffic through the tunnel when highway traffic is expanded.

What is needed is a a rail transit solution that works and can be readily and affordably extended to meet the needs of the ever growing population South of the Fraser River.

The proprietary SkyTrain light metro system and the light metro philosophy of operation has done very little in attracting the motorist from the car. The light-metro’s high ridership can be attributed mostly to recycling of bus customers who are forced to transfer from bus to metro to complete ones journey to Vancouver/Burnaby.

SkyTrain has done little to ease congestion in the METRO Vancouver area, with the sad fact that the percentage of regional population using transit is falling!

The proprietary SkyTrain light-metro system is just too expensive to build and it just cannot be extended affordably into the outer suburbs to attract new customers. The extremely high costs of rapid transit has made rubber on asphalt solutions cheaper than improving regional transportation, as evidenced by the many highway expansion projects underway in the Metro Vancouver region. As new highways are built, auto use increases, with the only barrier against increased auto use being road capacity.

Extremely myopic regional planning, shows Metro Vancouver’s complete ineptitude when it comes to regional transportation as transit planning is based on 70 year old concepts, when fanciful monorails, metros and subways were all the rage.

What was “de rigor” in 1960 is not just passe in 2020, it is obsolete.

Sadly, this short sighted and extremely dated planning, will only lead to more gridlock and traffic chaos.

The Canada Line is a heavy-rail metro, operating ROTEM’s electrical multiple Units (EMU’s), but built as a light metro, with very limited capacity. The Canada Line’s automatic operation, complete with small stations and 40 to 50 metre long platforms gives  roughly slightly more than half the capacity of the Expo and Millennium Lines, which stations have 80 metre long platforms. The capacity constrained Canada Line has hamstrung  future attempts capacity to meet tomorrow’s transit demands.

To both increase capacity on the Canada Line and to increase its reach into Richmond in an effort to attract more ridership,would cost  a minimum of $2.4  billion.

$2.4 billion would buy you about 65 km. (at about $35 mil/km.) of modern LRT!

That $2.4 billion would be put to better use by:

  1. Converting the Canada Line hybrid heavy/light metro to light rail.
  2. Increasing North/South capacity by using the Arbutus Corridor.
  3. With the money saved by much cheaper LRT construction, extend the the new Canada Line LRT across the Fraser river into Delta and South Surrey.

This is not whimsical musings, rather it very well may be a transit solution that TransLink or a future operating authority may seriously consider.

The Canada line is in a conventional railway and most modern light rail vehicles would easily operate within the Rotem EMU’s Kinematic Envelope.

(Kinematic Envelope: the space that a rail vehicle could potentially occupy as it moves laterally and vertically on its suspension.)

The expensive and complicated automatic signalling system should be replaced with much simpler and more robust signalling system, doing away with the higher operating costs of automatic signalling.

Retain third rail power pick on the elevated and underground portions of the line by equipping, as done before on other transit lines, the trams with retractable shoes to collect power from the third rail and using standard pantographs on non-guideway portions of the line. Simply, the first station the tram stops at on the guideway portion of the line the driver drops the pan and deploys the power collection shoes. Several tram varieties on the market today have dual pantograph/shoe for power pick up on APS ground level contact-less power supply.

By converting the Canada Line to LRT would make the cost of extending the Canada Line, first to Steveston and Ironwood Mall an affordable option. It would also be much cheaper to build with LRT for a new crossing of the Fraser River to serve both Ladner and South Delta; then onwards to South Surrey.

The cost to extend the Canada line to Steveston and Ironwood Mall (about 11 .3 km.), should cost no more than $400 million and the CN rail line bisecting Richmond is reported up for sale for $65 million, probably much cheaper if it was used for transit. It is conceivable that for the cost of the Canada Line extending to Steveston and the Ironwood Mall, we could build LRT to both Steveston and the Ironwood Mall, then through a tunnel under the Fraser River to Ladner and  the Tsawwassen ferry terminal!

To increase capacity of the capacity limited trunk line to downtown Vancouver, the Canada Line can branch onto the existing and seldom used former interurban route, owned by the CPR to New Westminster, To access downtown Vancouver, using the Arbutus corridor and Granville Street bridge, which was designed for trams. This could be done quite cheaply for under $35 million/km.

It is time for TransLink to start planning for light rail for the region. SkyTrain, with construction costs exceeding $200 million/km. just cannot be built economically into the burbs, ( the estimated cost of the 16km guideway, alone, to Langley is $4.01 billion) but modern LRT, with construction costs as low as $10 million/km. (TramTrain) can. Regional politicians must be made to understand that building with SkyTrain and/or light-metro has been a mistake and that we must plan future transit on the light rail model. The regional politicians who make up METRO Vancouver should tell TransLink either change their transit planning direction and for a start, seriously look at converting the Canada Line to LRT and extend it through Richmond, with plans to build it across the Fraser River to Delta and beyond.

Comments

9 Responses to “Should We Convert The Canada Line to Light Rail?”
  1. legoman0320 says:

    Converting the Canada line is stupid.

    Converting it to ALT(Advanced light Transit) or LRT (Light rail transit). Size of the tunnel has enough space, but with the platforms cap and platform length is the issue. Existing gap between the rolling stocks 20 ~ cm. and then the platform Length need to be extended to equivalent capacity needs 15,000 pphpd. At least the signaling, so it’s universal for light rail or metro styles of service/ Rolling stock. Power system can be reused with top contact third rail need tobe spell product of LRV.

    Average travel speed along the line:

    Canada line 35 kmh
    EXPO line 45 kmh
    M line 38 kmh
    Seattle light rail 30-40 kmh*
    Car 31 kmh (Morning rush hour)
    TTC Line 1 28 kmh
    USA LRT average 29.29 kmh
    Ion LRT 25 km

    LRT can be downgrade in travel speed.
    Seattle light rail 30-40 kmh Split at grade or on Viaduct. For some weird reason?

    For s**** and giggles. I’m gonna put the ion system average speed At 25 kmh.

    Ministry of transport with BC Transit should focus regional and HSR/Intercity Rail province wide. Not just the E&N on Vancouver Island. Faster, more reliable way of getting across the province on cheap. Alberta is drafting up a plan, but there’s nothing from the BC government.

    A updated plan of Rail For The Valley addresses the issues that translink put forth. New route that hits these requirements fraser valley. Leadwood plan not near bus exchanges and out of the way of commuters. No cost-benefit on time saved Traveling.

    MR zweisystem

    Like to follow-up and get your feedback on Revise plan of rail for the valley?

    Zwei replies: you have been baffled by your own BS.

    Let’s start from the top. There is no such thing as Advanced light Transit, so your comparison is not valid. As the Canada Line platforms can be extended by 10 metes to 50 metres, we could operate 50 metre plus trams on the line, giving a higher capacity than the current 2 car metro trains. In fact you could operate both on the same line, with the proper signalling. (Example: Use the metro cars from YVR to Waterfront and the trams from Ironwood/Steveston to Vancouver via the Arbutus, with the trains sharing the Fraser River Bridge.

    It is actually a very smart plan and demonstrates your lack of knowledge.

    Commercial speed of a transit system is based station spacing and quality of R-o-W, not the vehicles, thus you must also give average station spacing before you quote commercial speeds.

    You have it backwards, as TransLink is updating their planning to what RftV is advocating. Bus exchanges can be moved more easily than track and with the RftV plan servicing so many destinations and population centres, bus exchanges will be suit the need of the rail and not visa versa.

  2. Haveacow says:

    Ion is slower because it has more stops that are closer together than Skytrain, therefore more opportunities to get passenger usage especially, outside of peak periods.

    The surface running capabilities brings highly expandable capacity and far cheaper construction costs. More network coverage (Surface LRT has 2.5-3.3 times the coverage as Skytrain) for the same amount of money compared to Skytrain. The Ion LRT is running at 1/3 of its current capacity and can very inexpensively add more capacity in the future. This is something Skytrain can’t do inexpensively and must add more expensive upgrades to increase capacity. .

    The far greater station spacing on the Skytrain may make it slightly faster but Translink must add parallel bus service to complete the trip for a far greater majority of its passengers than the Ion LRT passengers need. More of the passengers final destinations are within walking distance of their Ion LRT stations.

    Speed isn’t necessarily better, especially when you have to include the high building and operating costs of the Skytrain’s stations and trains.

    TTC Line 1 (proper name: Yonge, University, Spadina and York Subway Line) has a low speed because the majority of stations are between 800m and 1.2 km. This males the line more useful for passengers to go to destinations along the line, thus higher passenger useage. Everything is within walking distance of a station. This way ridership stays much higher outside of peak period. The TTC can keep frequency higher and not loose money.

    Your Ministry of Transportation won’t ever do regional rail because Translink already operates a line (Westcoast Express). They won’t do intercity trains, as long as VIA Rail exists.

    Zwei replies: Thank you! What Mr. Lego is doing is using TransLink’s talking points why they do not like LRT. The problem is that they have been doing it so long, people believe it. I was told by a friend that they heard on the radio (station unkown) either a politician or bureaucrat, state that the Broadway subway will be completed to UBC BY 2035 and by 2040, SkyTrain will reach Abbotsford via the Number 1 Hwy!

    I believe it is pre-election talking points.

  3. legoman0320 says:

    Translink 10 year plan (2016-2026)
    Major infrastructure projects are done/ Under construction. Bus electrification and more frequency on bus services are dependent on Ridership demand. Certain regions saying no to B- Line or rapid bus services.

    10 year priority or Access for everyone plan (2026-3036)

    UBC Extension.
    Park Royal to metrotown rapid transit.
    King George to Newton exchange or White Rock.
    M LINE Extension to Port Coquitlam.

    Top of the list is the highest priority, followed by the lowest at the bottom.

    UBC extension is in business case.
    North shoreline is planning stage.
    King George and M Line extension Back burner.

    BRT standard that they’re going to use is the same as Viva Rapid transit.

    Along with the typical adding more bike lanes, people first Streets and Adding more sidewalk.

    Sidelined.
    All day West Coast Express and expansion to Abbotsford.
    All day or Commuter operations going to squalmish and north shore.
    Bus electric in or on route charging infrastructure being delayed.

    Not pursue.
    R 4 Upgrade to skytrain.
    R 5 Upgraded to Skytrain.
    Arbutus corridor.
    Vancouver street car.
    Canada line extension/upgrades.
    R 7* Richmond to metrotown.
    R ? Seabus to Lynn valley.
    R ? Park Royal to downtown.

    Zwei replies: You haven’t a clue what you are talking about. There is serious doubt that the proprietary SkyTrain light metro system will not be around in a few years.

    The Canada Line is a P-3 and I doubt the concessionaires of the P-3 line, SNC Lavalin and the Caisse du Depot have any appetite to extend the line until the concession ends.

    Where’s the money?

    In BC, business cases are merely politcal documents masquerading at technical documents and not worth the paper they are printed on.

    Added to this, If Pierre Pollierve is elected, there will be no federal funding.

    Tell your buddies at TransLink they are smoking dope.

  4. legoman0320 says:

    10 year priority or Access for everyone plan (2026-3036)

    Skytrain

    UBC Extension.
    Park Royal to metrotown rapid transit.
    King George to Newton exchange or White Rock.
    M LINE Extension to Port Coquitlam.

    Top of the list is the highest priority, followed by the lowest at the bottom.

    Sidelined:
    All day West Coast Express and expansion to Abbotsford.
    All day or Commuter operations going to squalmish and north shore.(North Coast Express)

    Public Transportation is always fighting against people using cars mode a transportation. Expo Line is faster in rush hour traffic if close to a station. If Transfer to a bus, it’s comparable to driving in some cases. Without the stress of driving or paying extra for parking or other fees related to vehicles. During non rush hour slightly slower than a car.

    Bus has to do a better job with coverage.
    And rapid transit that is great for a long distance to medium distance travel (aka Express service). And if you want both then there’s compromises.(Customer)People only care about how long it will take to get somewhere!!!

    2023 Statistics Canada
    The proportion of commuters taking public transit grew notably in both Vancouver (+7.4 percentage points to 22.5%) and Toronto (+4.9 percentage points to 20.6%), but was little changed in Montréal (16.4%)

    2023 TransLink pop 2.6M
    boarding 390.28 M
    trip 233.24 M
    Recovery 95%

    2023 TTC 6.5 M
    boarding 738 M
    Recovery 80%

    Zwei replies: Show me the money. You can’t, well that answers it.

  5. zweisystem says:

    People drive because for many, the door to door trip using transit and/or the car is about the same. My wife works in Vancouver (Alma and Broadway) and from our South Delta residence she can get to her work in about 60 minutes in the car and about 75 minutes using transit, coming home its up to 90 minutes using transit.

    Sorry, you are full of prunes.

  6. HighSpeed says:

    This could either be the most insane thing I’ve ever seen, or the greatest idea ever thought of in the city. Either way I’m still confused about this article.

    Zwei replies: converting the Canada Line to light rail? A lot easier than one would think.

  7. itsthetrains says:

    As long as we’re dreaming of things Translink won’t do, I’m curious about the feasibility of also converting the broadway/expo/ millennium/emerald lines (ALRT/MALM or whatever they call it these days) to LRT as well?

    Would be nice to install LRT in the Broadway tunnel and swap Clark up to Commercial while we can. After that, swap out the older sections that need the most work up to a station where folks could transfer, say Downtown to Commercial/bdway, or maybe work our way towards the center from the outskirts (Emerald line, Surrey) so we could extend out at the same time.

    I imagine as we put in LRT (and afterwards) we could bring elevated parts down to grade instead of replacing the guide ways that are near or at end of life.

    Zwei replies: The Canada line is a conventional railway, but the Expo and Millennium Lines are a proprietary railway and designed to operate only their cars. You could probably get a way with it for the Millennium Line but the original Expo Line was designed specifically not to operate trams.

  8. Lou says:

    Canada Line is expensive because it’s a P3 project that’s getting paid off until TransLink takes full ownership, unlike the other two lines that were more in-house.

    How is reducing train capacity and frequency an upgrade?
    How is replacing driverless trains with a fleet that requires and depends on a host of train drivers an upgrade?

    Also consider the economic activity that the whole skytrain network has facilitated. Skytrain is arguably the best metro system in usa-canada, a showcase of reliability and space-efficiency of driverless trains (tbf, two-car trains is too small for Canada Line, those cars need a lot less seating)

    Zwei Replies: You lost me. “SkyTrain the best metro system in USA-Canada….”, er no sorry it is not. SkyTrain has been one of the most studies transit systems in USA-Canada and the result, no one has copied us, NO ONE! Good god Bombardier/SNC Lavalin had to bribe politcans and bureaucrats in Korea and Malaysia to build 2 of the 7 sold in 50 years. The USA government refused federal subsidies for the one built in JFK. Toronto has abandoned theirs and the one in Detroit only survives because they went to the TTC’s garage sale and bout all they could to keep theirs going.

    The proprietary railway has had 4 owners, UTDC, Lavalin, Bombardier and now Alstom, sorry successful it is not.

    What has been successful is Translink’s propaganda program and their ability to “blacklist” all those who speak out against the light metro system in the mainstream media.

    In the past 40 years there has been unprecedented investment in urban and suburban public transport, where success is eagerly copied and failure is avoided at all costs, no city in the world has copied Vancouver light-metro only construction program or the almost exclusive use of a proprietary railway.

  9. zweisystem says:

    The Expo and Millennium Lines use the proprietary and last named Movia Automatic Light Metro (MALM) cars, exclusively built by Alstom. The MK.1 cars were an exclusive product produced by the UTDC. No other vehicle can operate on the Expo and Millennium Lines other than the Alstom product, unless one is custom built for the purpose and that would be extremely expensive.

    The Canada line is a conventional railway operating as a light-metro. Being conventional, most other manufacturers products can operate on the Canada Line without penalty.

Leave A Comment