SkyTrain Was So Successful No One Wanted One!
Yes, SkyTrain the most successful transit system in the world, no one wanted to buy!
Interesting article in the Hive, which is basically the mouthpiece for TransLink.
The problem with SkyTrain is that it was a politcal decision and now with almost 45 years of deliberate misinformation and pro SkyTrain propaganda, the local media, especially with lazier younger reporters and journalists just do not do any research and print what they are told to print.
Here the old adage comes true; “if you repeat a lie often enough, the public become to believe it.“
The trains used on Vancouver’s Expo and Millennium Lines us the the proprietary ICTS/ALRT/ART/Innovia RT/MALM system, which has had four owners, the Ontario government, throught the UTDC, Lavain, Bombardier and Alstom. Only seven such systems were built and only six remain in operation.
The four systems that Bombardier sold, when they owned the patents, were fraught with controversy!
1 ) Korea, where Bombardier paid success fees to both bureaucrats and politicians to ensure a sale. The fallout from this was lawsuits and criminal investigations with the result of irreparable damage to Canadian Industries trying to do business in Korea with the scandal.
2) Malaysia, where Bombardier and SNC Lavalin paid success fees to bureaucrats and politicians including the prime minister to ensure the sale of ART for Kuala Lumpur for their second rapid transit system. This scandal started the whole SNC Lavalin and Bombardier bribery scandal, with hints that the Prime minister of Canada was involved.
3) New York, but in the USA all rapid transit systems being built, using federal funds must be peer reviewed and the JFK airTrain was duly peer reviewed and it failed badly, being far too expensive to build and not well designed. To keep Bombardier from “losing face” internationally with this fiasco, the Canadian Prime Minister authorized the Canadian Overseas Development Bank to fund the system.
4) China bought one strictly to obtain LIM technology and has never built another. Hint, ICTS/ALRT/ART use attractive LIMs, while Maglevs use repulsive LIMs and there is a technological void between the two.
No SkyTrain MALM system has been sold in now over 20 years, in fact there is zero interest, even when Bombardier would add on the LIM option at not extra cost!
What Zwei sees is that with Alstom soon going to cease production of MALM (SkyTrain), as the already have the manufacturing centre, including the all important test track, up for sale. There will be no more cars made and specialty parts will be expensive because they will have to be custom built.
As light metro costs increase and the fear that transitioning to light rail would expose the SkyTrain as a massive scandal, due to the porkies sold to the public, including faux business cases and bidding processes by all levels of government, it is hoped that BRT will squeak in unnoticed until all politcans and bureacrats involved be enjoying their generous pension plans and SkyTrain fades into the past.
Opinion: SkyTrain’s future is at an uncertain crossroads after 40 years of success
Dec 18 2025
Mark V train at SkyTrain’s Stadium-Chinatown Station. (Kenneth Chan)
In the early 1980s, the Government of British Columbia made a choice that would later have a profound impact on how people in Metro Vancouver move and how the region is shaped and structured for growth.
Zwei Replies: The choice for the proprietary SkyTrain was a horse trade between the Social Credit government and the government of Ontario, to sell the unsalable ICTS (ALRT) light metro system, manufactured by their Crown Corporation, the Urban Transportation, Development Corporation and in return got the use of the then famous “Blue Machine” to win the next provincial election, which the social Credit had a frail one seat majority.
It chose to build the region’s first modern rail rapid transit line using the latest state-of-the-art innovations in fully automatic train control technology, as well as new Canadian-made linear induction motor (LIM) train propulsion technology.
Zwei replies: Actually the ICTS/ALRT system used the dated components from the failed Krauas Maffei TransUrban MAGLEV people mover under development in Ontario.
LIMs on the underside of the SkyTrain vehicles used on the Expo and Millennium lines interact with a continuous aluminum strip down the centre of the tracks to create an electromagnetic reaction that propels the trains forward.
In contrast, the SkyTrain vehicles on the Canada Line use conventional electric motors — akin to most subways elsewhere in the world, like New York City, London, Hong Kong, Toronto, and many other systems. In some ways, the Canada Line trains have more similarities with a Tesla car than the trains on the Expo and Millennium lines, with an electric source powering onboard motors that push the train forward.
Zwei Replies: A rather bizarre comparison, the cars used on the Canada Line are standard railway Electrical Multiple Units and do not operate via a battery.
LIMs are well-suited for the Expo and Millennium lines because they move trains using electromagnetic propulsion instead of relying on the grip of steel wheels. This means trains can accelerate quickly, climb steeper hills, and run reliably in rain, snow, or leaf-covered tracks. As well, this provides superior rapid acceleration and deceleration for a system with relatively closely spaced stations.
Zwei Replies: Partly true, but LIM’s were only recommended for railways with continuous grades exceeding 10% and have nothing to do with acceleration or deceleration, which conforms to customer comfort. There are no such grades on the SkyTrain system.
Diagram showing the differences between linear induction motors (non-adhesion drive system) and conventional rotary motors (adhesion drive system). (Kawasaki Heavy Industries)
The narrow air gap between a SkyTrain car’s linear induction motors and the aluminum reaction plate on the tracks. (TransLink)
With fewer moving parts beneath the passenger floor than conventional motor technology, LIM-equipped trains generally have lower maintenance needs and can be built with a lower overall profile. This reduced underfloor height allows for smaller tunnels and slimmer elevated guideway structures, and works especially well with fully automated, high-frequency metro systems like SkyTrain. This was a key consideration for the Expo Line, which reused Canadian Pacific’s former freight tunnel — the tight Dunsmuir Tunnel, built in 1932 — for the downtown Vancouver segment between Stadium-Chinatown Station and Waterfront Station.
Zwei Replies: Most of this is untrue. The Mk.1 Cars were the standard vehicles for the ICTS system and similar vehicles were used in Toronto and Detroit. Detroit still uses MK.1 cars which are virtually identical to Vancouver’s MK.1s. The name ICTS was changed to ALRT to fool the locals and media that SkyTrain was new, it was not.
The Detroit ICTS system, almost identical to Vancouver’s MK.1 cars.
But no system is perfect; every advantage has its trade-offs.
The trains on the Expo and Millennium lines have a less-than-optimal narrow width compared with modern trains, which can reduce interior comfort and limit accessibility. This design constraint stems from the early legacy decision to size the Expo Line around the dimensions of the Dunsmuir Tunnel, a choice that continues to influence vehicle design today. By contrast, the Canada Line — built as a completely separate system — uses trains that are roughly half a metre wider, a difference that has a noticeable impact on interior space, comfort, and passenger flow.
Zwei Replies: Again not true, the MK.1 cars were not designed for the operation in the Dunsmuir Tunnel as they were standard ICTS/ALRT cars. The Canada Line is a heavy-rail railway that uses standard EMU’s!
1982 planning map to repurpose Canadian Pacific’s former Dunsmuir Tunnel for SkyTrain’s Expo Line segment in downtown Vancouver. (TransLink)
Another downside is that LIMs on the Expo and Millennium lines can use more electricity than conventional motors and waste some energy as heat in the track, which can, on occasion, be seen from the track’s aluminum strip as rising steam during rainfall. LIMs also require extra equipment built into the guideway, which requires very precise measurements for installation, and adds to the initial capital and ongoing maintenance costs.
Zwei Replies: Today LIMs (and the SkyTrain light-metro system uses the wrong sort of “attractive” LIM) costs more to operate and maintain than a modern rotary electrical motor.
Trains on the Expo and Millennium lines also tend to emit more noise while in motion, particularly the high-pitched whine associated with the original Mark I fleet, which is now a model being retired and replaced by the new generation of Mark V trains. This sound does not come from wheel-and-rail contact, but from electromagnetic noise generated by the LIMs.
Zwei Replies: The MK.5 Trains are a TransLink name only as the 5 car train-sets use the Innovia 300, 5-car light metro train-sets, designed by Bombardier to accept either LIM or standard electrical motors. The entire package was sold under the Movia Automatic Light Metro (MALM) system.
Mark I car for SkyTrain’s Expo Line in 1985. (TransLink)
At the time in the early 1980s, some wondered whether the then-futuristic technological combination of driverless trains and LIM applied for use on the scope of a metro rail network was a gamble — too ambitious, too expensive, and too unconventional.
Zwei Replies: ICTS/ALRT (SkyTrain) was unsalable, but as mentioned before and the choice to use the proprietary ICTS/ALRT system was politcal and had little to do with the system being automatic.
The TTC Accelerated Transit Study (ARTS) and the IBB Study found that; “ICTS coast anything up to ten times to install than a conventional light rail line to install for the same capacity, or put another way, cost more than a heavy-rail subway to instal with four times its capacity!
But over the subsequent decades, both technologies, particularly full automation, have been increasingly adopted on other large systems elsewhere in the world, with Vancouver being an early pioneer.
Zwei Replies: Not so fast. The first automatic (driverless railway) was the London’s post office Railway, opened in 1927. London’s Victoria Line, opened in 1968 is considered the firs automatic metro in the world. The big problem of automatic railways is maintenance costs and automatic operation requires a massive and expensive amount of preventative maintenance to guarantee operation.
The legacy of SkyTrain and light-metro for metro Vancouver is that to date, taxpayers have paid (including the current $16 billion/21.7 km expansion program) about $30 billion for SkyTrain light metro, fully two thirds more than what a conventional light rail system would have cost and with light rail having a higher capacity!
Frohe Weihnachten!
We are still surprised by the support your Skytrain system has.
On this side of the pond it was nothing more than a curiosity, there was nothing special about it.
When Milan was thinking of using it it was soon found out how poorly built is was, but Vancouver keeps building with it.
I think some should be telling the story how subways and metros almost bankrupted the German transport system but like all politically inspired transit projects, the people in politics wish to keep failure a deep secret.
Prost!
Battle of mode choice.
Capacity: Transit option that no one knows about Advanced Rapid Transit(ART). 23 public studies on ART incorrect TTC comfort capacity 50 people per car(2.4 people per square meter. Instead of UTDC practical capacity 88 and crush load 112 people per car. 2 x capacity defense operator and the manufacturer. Why is it described? I don’t know!!! Even in the new studies old TTC numbers. Latest version ART car can practical 139 and crush load 240 people per car.
Electricity Efficiency: LIM proportion math formula efficiency to use that would be accurate to real Life conditions. For now, it’s just an hypothesis. Have a comparison in Metro Vancouver with the Canada line and LIM proportion. In short, they’re the same on efficiency per passenger. Canceled it on average, over a year. On LIM proportion not additional power usage at max capacity. The drawback transit LIM is going up hills for an extended amount of time. Do to overheat LIM air cold with their fans. 4% grade over 1.5 km*. Krauas Maffei TransUrban no active cooling on LIM, monorail could not switch rail or turn and had problems with power management. Yes, in theory, it could be efficient. In reality, it’s complicated.
TTC study of modes with ICTS:
Written to kill any future expansion ICTS. Guideway and station construction was less than tunnels for the subway. No details of maintenance yard cost or return on revenue. Capacity per car 50.
Different in operators of ART
1 transit organization
1 transit commission
1 transportation company
1 port authority
2 P3 contracts
With the product line that has delivered 1200 cars. (not including the monorail or APM)
In 1980 the option was ART car or H6 train or U2?
My opinion: convenient timing of this new technology and building for an Expo 86. SkyTrains have been quite convenient for the afternoon shopping and sports/events. Visiting a friend or monthly grocery shopping SkyTrain doesn’t do well. Go to work. It depends where you are and where they’re going if it saves you time. SkyTrain have high reliability 98% and speed up 100* KMH, not a whole lot to complain about. Other than coverage, when is it coming to x or y?
Zwei replies: Nice try Mr. Translink but no.
First of All, the TTC never used ART cars, only Vancouver, Kuala Lumpor, Korea, JFK, and Beijing used the ART vehicles which were the Bombardier rebuild of the ICTS/ALRT proprietary light-metro system. So, those public studies have no bearing on the ICTS/ALRT cars, which at best had a practical capacity of 75 persons.
The present ART cars have a practical capacity of around 100 persons, max and the cars which you are describing are more in tune with the Canada line EMU’s.
Te LIMs, at the time were more efficient in in operation than electrical motors, but not no more. Today’s modern electric motor is more efficient than the LIM.
Today’s industry standard for a LRV is 8% grades, but a few systems have 10% grades and of course Lisbon has 13.9% grades, all done without the complexity of LIMs.
And the maximum speed for SkyTrain is 80 to 90 kph, a speed that the modern tram can obtain if the route demands it. But SkyTrain cannot track-share and that is going to be very important in the coming years when modern public transit philosophy finally crosses the pond to Canada.
As for the Scarborough Line, it was a one off, forced on the TTC by the provincial government. it was expensive to operate and had real problems operating in the snow.It was never going to be expanded and when it became “life expired” the TTC abandoned it.
Again, the real decision to build SkyTrain (the provincial government was ready to sign off on the extensive LRT plans) was a trade off with the Ontario Government who had a Crown corporation (UTDC) stuck with an unsalable rapid transit system and the BC government had a tenuous one seat majority in Victoria. The then social Credit goverment desperately wanted the then famed “Blue Machine” to help secure a electoral victory. To get the ‘Blue Machine”, the social Credit government had to buy ICTS, which was renamed ALRT for the sale to Vancouver.
What we see with the the Hive’s bit of Yellow Journalism to soften up the public to the fact that no more SkyTrain will be built, due to massive costs, as well as Alstom closing the door on LIM powered “MALM” cars because there is no market for them and the LIM propulsion is rather stale dated.
The Kingston manufacturing plant is up for sale and this includes the all important test track and the CNR has applied to abandon the siding servicing the plant.
What is not mentioned is light rail and I have been told by a former TransLink manager that the senior bureacracy is deathly afraid of light rail because of the “apples to apples” comparison that would be made. This is because much which has been claimed supporting SkyTrain expansion would be, to be polite, utter and complete nonsense. This why Translink is pushing BRT, but of course it isn’t real BRT, just an enhanced B-Line express bus service, but hey if Translink can pull the wool over the eyes with SkyTrain, selling B-Line express buses as BRT would be easy peasy.
And yet ridership on TransLink is steadily falling, 1.5% from 2024.
What is frustrating planners in the region is that they know what must be done but is not allowed to be done by the provincial government.
Another quick note, the Innovia 300 (Skytrain MK.5’s) have open vestibules so the maximum capacity is around 600 persons, due to the extra space made available. the problem with capacity is that it decreases in winter, when everyone is wearing heavier clothing (especially in Toronto and why they use the figure 50) but there is also another issue, loading and unloading of customers. Th more people on the train makes it harder and slower for people to get on and off. Crush loading in the winter translate into longer dwell times (slower service) has people hold the doors to let people on or off.
In the USA, seating is a far more important issue than capacity because those south of the border demand a seat when using public transit, thus in the US capacities on transit are lower than other countries.
So the debate on capacity has many influences, with many ignored, thus cannot really be made part of the argument about transit mode and is really used as a 10 second sound bite more than anything.
As a person whom used to work for the TTC and heard all the complaints of the RT (Scarborough RT) the biggest issue (among many issues) was its high maintenance costs compared to the TTC’s CLRV and ALRV streetcar fleet (which was what the RT right of way was actually designed for) and the then H5 & H6 class subway trains.
All the maintenance equipment and tools that the RT used were non standard compared to standard railway equipment in the subway and streetcar fleets. The RT’s equipment and tools were nearly all specialized one-offs only available from one single provider, the company that Bombardier picked. A virtual guarantee of high cost for both training and spare parts.
Not to mention the smallest, most narrow and uncomfortable rail rapid transit cars in Toronto’s history. “Rinkky-Dink little trains” was the most common comment from the RT operators. The management at the TTC just called them, “very expensive, little trains. Especially considering what they could actually do!”
I assume when you refer to a conventional light rail system you are referring to a system that mostly runs at grade with close stop spacing. This type of system is useful if you’re building a rapid transit system for a small area(single city or a couple of neighbourhoods in a city) but it tends to show its limitations if you are trying to build a rapid transit system for an entire region. In London the tube is their regional metro system with stop spacing that is similar to other metro systems, including Vancouver’s Skytrain. London also has a tram system that serves Croydon and the surrounding parts of southern London. The London tram isn’t suitable or suppose to be a regional rapid transit system, it’s designed to bring people from neighbourhoods that aren’t served by the tube to stations in southern London that have tube service(District line at Wimbledon Station). If metro Vancouver were to build LRT/Tram lines they would likely be designed as a feeder system for the Skytrain. For example if Vancouver ever gets its downtown streetcar system and has it run along the Arbutus right of way to serve the residents of South Vancouver the streetcar would mostly be used as more efficient way of connecting to the Skytrain.
Many cities that build “conventional” LRT systems are now choosing to build them as light metro systems to be able to better serve the entire region, this can be seen in Seattle where the line mostly runs on elevated guideways or in subway tunnels. This has resulted in the construction costs being similar to the construction costs of the Skytrain in Vancouver.
Many commuters and cities want their rail rapid transit systems to move people quickly, thus it’s becoming less common to see rail transit being built entirely at grade with close stop spacing. Even London uses old rail lines for the Croydon tram right of way when the tram leaves central Croydon. In Seattle the few at grade portion of its right of way are either built in a design that is similar to a mainline rail right of way(parallel to the street with crossing gates) or the train runs in dedicated medians with signal priority. But even with these measures in place Seattle has chosen that the best option is to use full grade separation, non-grade separated trains are much more likely to be involved in a collision with a vehicle.
When you build a regional rail rapid transit system you need it to be fast and reliable. Conventional LRT systems, LRT mostly at grade with close stop spacing simply doesn’t work well as a regional rail rapid transit system.
I do not think you quite understand what light rail is. Light Rail or LRT is a modern tram or streetcar that operates on a dedicated (reserved) R-o-W, with priority signalling at intersections, thus by doing so, obtains the operating characteristics of a metro at a fraction of the cost. This has been blurred in North America to the point many LRT systems look and operate as a light-metro. In Europe light rail has a whole different meaning and what we call LRT is a tram and planners know that a tram operates at best on a reserved R-o-W, but operating on street is essential to both attract ridership, traffic calming, and keeping costs affordable.
Stops for tram/LRT tend to be every 500m to 600m because that uis optimal distance to attract customers, stations further apart, both increase journey times, but deter customers.
Vancouver’s SkyTrain system receives most of its ridership from customers on buses transferring to the light metro and according to TransLink over 80% of Skytrain’s customers first take the bus. The problem is, downtown Vancouver is no longer the job centre and many jobs are locate east up the Fraser Valley, where transit options are poor and extending light metro horrendously expensive. The current 16km Langley extension is now said to cost over $7 billion!
In the UK, a tube solution is not even considered unless traffic flows on a transit route exceed 20,000 pphpd!
Croydon’s LRT largely uses former regional urban rail passenger routes and with on-street operation through Croydon, gives passenger travel options they did not have before. By operating as a tram, meant far cheaper operating costs.
Designing LRT as a feeder to Skytrain is a fools errand, as this is what happened in part, to the Surrey LRT as it was designed as a poor-man’s SkyTrain feeding the mini-metro.In my book, Surrey’s LRT was designed to fail and fail it did.
Actually not many cities are building LRT as a light metro, Ottawa did (the Confederation Line operates on a segregated R-o-W and is fully automatic, but it was designed for customer flows in excess of 20,000 pphpd! As well the Confederation Line retained drivers, so it could operate much cheaper on future lines that did not have the ridership to justify automatic operation. This is a lesson Translink did not learn for the Langley extension.
Why would LRT need crossing gates in an urban area? By your logic, every light controlled road intersection should have crossing gates and in fact the whole idea that LRT slows traffic is nothing more than a man of straw argument.
As for speed, there are many ways to improve commercial speeds to the suburbs including, express tracks(s) and TramTrain. Remember the train or light metro must be customer friendly.
Seattle’s Light metro/rail system was designed as such because (1) the subway transit system could only be accessed by underground for trains; (2) Extremely generous state and federal funding; (3) they had to compete against the Monorail Lobby (which is akin to Vancouver’s Skytrain Lobby); (4)topography. In fact the original group proposing light rail did not support Seattle’s current and massively expensive light metro/rail planning, which included a high speed Seattle to Tacoma line.
Again you are not up to date as cities are building with LRT and in fact most modern public transit philosophy has come from the modern tram.
An Example: What a $2 billion budget buy you – 50 km of European style LRT/tram, including cars; 5 km of elevated guideway (based on the Expo Line extension to Langley, without cars; or about 2.5 km of subway (based on the Sky/train Broadway subway cost), without cars. And guess what LRT still has the highest capacity.
For an LRT to achieve a decent rate of speed you need full traffic separation(grade separated or remove physical crossings from an at grade right of way). Either way to achieve these higher speeds money needs to be spent, speeding up LRTs aren’t cheap. As for European trams the cities that they are in either have a metro system or robust passenger rail system to move people grater distances(trams aren’t being used as a region wide rapid transit system in major urban areas), even with a dedicated right of way the trams in Europe often function as buses on rails and at most are permitted to go about 10km/h faster than the posted speed limit for cars. The reason why trams in Europe are being built at such a low cost is because they simply use paint & road signs along with the occasional median to form a dedicated right of way. In major urban areas like Paris or Berlin the trams aren’t being used as a region or even city wide rapid transit system, they use subways & mainline passenger rail for city/regional rail rapid transit.
As for here in Vancouver & British Columbia the areas where I believe LRT could work are: the Arbutus right of way, the Olympic Streetcar line with further extension to Waterfront & Yaletown and an LRT line along the median of highway 1 out to the Fraser Valley. As for Skytrain the obvious low hanging fruit for future extension are: a continuation of the Broadway extension to UBC, a line along 41st AVE connecting Joyce to UBC and an extension of the Millennium Line to Port Coquitlam.
As for future expansions of LRT or Skytrain beyond the routes that I mentioned we should do frequent evaluations of the ridership on the soon to be implemented BRT network and the existing Rapid Bus network. I’m realistic in expecting that most of the the upgrades from rapid bus to rail will be in the form of LRT instead of Skytrain, but there will be lines where a Skytrain extension is easier to build and makes more sense than forcing passengers to change to a tram, for example if rail rapid transit ever comes to Maple Ridge it will likely be as an extension of the Millennium Line instead of an LRT.
Other cities have demonstrated that paying more for metros is worth the upfront costs in exchange for faster service that can fundamentally transform an entire region, Skytrain has done that for Vancouver. We now have dense walkable communities near our Skytrain stations when before there was either nothing or endless low density suburban sprawl.
Sorry, you are wrong on most counts and i would say a very dated view.
LRT in urban areas have stops to pick up passengers every 500m to 600m, thus the speed issue is constrained by station spacing. LRT operates on a dedicated R-o-W and need not be grade separated (hugely costly) and has priority signalling at intersections. Europe cities have metros on routes, which ridership is such that a metro is desirable. The modern tram is the backbone of most major European City public transport systems.
Trams, buses metros, all are about moving people, just the modes used are operated on routes with are the most economic for that modes operation. Then there is TramTrain, which is a modern tram so designed to operate on the railway mainline, doing away with a mode change from tram to train. It is obvious you are not up to date with modern tram operation and still use arguments that are stale dated.
You place far too much emphasis on speed, rather than flexibility and user-friendliness which has proven to attract ridership. The Vancouver transit system has seen a steady decline in ridership since 2018, yet Vancouver has a relatively fast light-metro system. The problem is that its costs are so high it cannot be affordably extended, thus taking the car is the only option.
BRT is vastly over rated for what it does and locally, BRT is not BRT at all, rather a tarted up Broadway B-Line type service, which in the end will prove disappointing.
I severly doubt we will see any more expansion of the Skytrain light metro system. The Expo and millennium Lines overall construction costs will deter future expansion and the proprietary trains used on the the E&M Lines will be out of production and new trains must be designed from scratch, which will add about $100 million to any future order of cars.
The P-3 Canada Line faces large cost as well, because the present design demands about $2 billion in rehab, before 1 cm of new line is built.
Cities that built with metros have found operating costs onerous and many Transit authorities are facing bankruptcy from the much needed mid-life rehabs, which robs the rest of the transit system of much needed investment.
You last sentence doesn’t quite match the situation today, with increased car use with decline in transit ridership, not quite the panacea you pretend there is.
It’s the cost folks! The senior levels of government in Ottawa are spending on phase 1 of HSR between Montreal and Ottawa. There will be s lot less money for transit projects. Especially, if the next phases get built. Your Skytrain money is going to Montreal and Ottawa and then, Peterborough, Three Rivers, Quebec City and Toronto.
LRT is just cheaper normally about 1/3 the cost of the Skytrain, for Ottawa’s LRT system, 1/4 as much. The Skytrain (a Light Metro) is very expensive for what it carries in passenger numbers. Less than Ottawa’s LRT, half of a Toronto Subway or Montreal Metro but it sure costs more than half a Toronto or Montreal heavy rail train to build, on a per km basis.
So unless the B.C. government wants to cover all the costs (because Translink can’t afford the local component anymore) they are going to have to pay for nearly all of the future Skytrain and BRT lines. Which means at most, 1 Skytrain extension per decade or about 2 or 3 BRT extensions per decade. That is traditionally what they can afford.
Think of it you guys are paying at a minimum $6.5 Billion to $7 Billion for 16 km & 8 stations of Skytrain (not including the trains and the desperately needed new OMC#5).
Ottawa spent $6.79 Billion for 64.5 km of electric LRT and D.M.U. service operating as a Diesel LRT, 44 stations, 3 yards and all the trains.
Zwei replies: I have been reliable informed that the total cost for the 21.7 extension to the Expo and Millennium Lines is now passed $16 billion and the provincial government is short about $3 billion. TransLink is cutting corners like mad to save money, yet ridership is declining.
Evidently my Christmas tale A 2025 SkyTrain Carol or How the taxpayer got Scrooged, printed by the CityHall Watch folks has caused a lot of heartburn in Victoria. From what i was told, a certain minister of the crown wanted to take legal action until an aide said there was nothing to take legal action against. Evidently said politician went pale!
https://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/2025/12/23/2025-skytrain-carol-taxpayer-scrooged-johnston/