The SkyTrain Lobby – And The fine Art of Deception
The deliriously pro SkyTrain blog, SkyTrain for Surrey (SfS), continues its campaign of deception and misinformation in an attack against American transit expert Gerald Fox. I don’t normally follow the nonsenseAi??spouted byAi??the SkyTrain lobby because they live in a world of their own, where the rules are simple; SkyTrain good, light rail bad.
The recent post; “RE: Gerald Fox ai??i?? Evergreen Line business case underestimated SkyTrain“……
http://skytrainforsurrey.org/2012/06/23/skytrain-underestimated/
……completely underscores the deliberate attempt to misinform the public. Why should I not be surprised?
American transit expert, Gerald Fox, knows SkyTrain very well as he used the SkyTrain as one of hisAi??examples in hisAi??1980’s study comparing automatic transit systems (AGT) with light rail, using hard data, came to the conclusion that operatingAi??AGT and LRTAi??on the same quality of rights-of-ways with equal station stops,Ai??found that LRT was cheaper to operate than AGT.
The SkyTrain for Surrey blog takes Mr. Fox to task and offers a ‘man of straw’ argument that Mr. Fox has got it all wrong because the maximum speed for SkyTrain is 90 kph and not 80 kph.
Such nonsense! The real issue is looking a SfS right in the face, as TransLink’s study compares a longer SkyTrain train operating at 3 minute headways with a maximum speed of 80 kph, with a small LRT train at 5 minute headways, with a maximum speed of 60 kph. No wonder that TransLink can claim a peak hour ridership of 10,400 persons for SkyTrain versus a mere 4,080 persons for LRT by using LRT operating at longer headways. The TransLink comparison is totally dishonest and in other countries, those producing such a study would have been censured and could have faced criminal prosecution.
A honest comparison, because modern light rail vehicles have a slightly larger capacity than SkyTrain, wouldAi??see LRT havingAi??slightly higher capacity at equal headways; theAi??maximum speedAi??which a transitAi??vehicle can operate at has very little to do with capacity! Today, one can buy a LRV which can operate in excess of 110 kph.
Libeling transit expert Gerald Fox only highlights the desperation of the SkyTrain Lobby.
But the SkyTrain Lobby’s nonsense continues.
We are directed to another SfS post…………
http://skytrainforsurrey.org/2012/05/30/misconceptions-skytrain-is-proprietary/
………where the SkyTrain Lobby once again embarrasses itself, claiming that the SkyTrain is not a proprietary transit system.
It seems the great authority on transit, XERX (I am not making this up!), claims that an email from Bombardier told him so. More rubbish from armchair experts who really do not know what they are talking about.
Here is a lesson boys and girls, SkyTrain is considered a proprietary transit system because it uses Linear Induction Motors (LIM’s) for propulsion and not standard (squirrel cage) electric as used motors used on other rail systems; the third or fourth rail power pick-up has nothing to do with it. This means only Bombardier stock can operate on proprietaryAi??ART lines.
As ART is propelled by magnetic force and not adhesion, the cars are lighter andAi??active steerable axle trucks (bogies) can be used as the axles are not hampered by power drives, etc.Ai??The use of LIMsAi??is the reason why SkyTrain can’t operate on the Canada Line and why the ROTEM EMU’s can’t operate on the SkyTrain lines.
SkyTrain has always been seen as a proprietary railway and those buying with ART, will be forced to use the same product for the lifespan of their transit line. Of course another company can design a SkyTrain type vehicle, but the development costs ($70 million+) would prohibitAi??any profit when bidding against Bombardier for replacement vehicles.
The claim that Osaka’s metro can operate on our SkyTrain tracks is another display of ignorance as the Osaka cars are longer, heavier and slower, would be impossible to operate on the SkyTrain guideway.
A good indication of a proprietary transit system is, can another company’s ‘off the shelf’ transit vehicle operate on the line, if the answer is no, it is a good chance that the said transit line is proprietary.
Portland’s LRT is a good example as it operatesAi??vehicles manufactured byAi??Siemens, Gomaco, and Bombardier stock and evenAi??the Skoda streetcars can operate on the light rail lines if need be. Vancouver’s SkyTrain can only operate Bombardier built Mk.1 and MK. 2 cars and if they are not coupled together.
The preceding posts from the SfS web site are a goodAi??indication at what lengths the SkyTrain Lobby will go to distort the truth and should be treated as nothing more than bumf; bumf from those who haven’t a clue what they are talking about.
It is breathe taking how folly is made into fact by the SkyTrain chaps.
I did read the two posts mentioned above and found them so off the mark, that they pass the realms of amusement into the abyss of uninformed nonsense.
I know that the proposed Milan Skytrain was abandoned due to escalating costs and questionable reliability. I would hope that the Skytrain supporters start to understand that the dated system will cause many problems in the future. But, I suspect the colonial inferiority complex has taken hold and the perception is that Skytrain is better than what is done across the pond, then the powers that be will continue down that expensive road.
I pity the taxpayer.
It is specious of TransLink to call SkyTrain fast. In Metro Vancouver, the median one-way trip distance is less than six kilometres.
That is, 50% of the commuters on transit commute less than six kilometres (one-way) and any bus transfer to the SkyTrain makes SkyTrain slower than LRT, trolley bus or tram service. SkyTrain might be faster than LRT for about 20% of the commuters.
Top speed on SkyTrain is a red herring. With SkyTrain stations spaced two kilometres apart, many users have to walk a long distance or transfer from a bus to reach a SkyTrain station.
This effectively makes the “overall commute” on SkyTrain slower than the overall commute on LRT, trolley bus or tram service, for most. You have the same issue with the “express” 99 B-Line diesel bus service which operates with distantly spaced stops located about every two kilometres – to emulate transit on SkyTrain.
Both the 99 B-Line and SkyTrain are inefficient and costly. They require the operation of additional buses in parallel to the 99 B-Line or SkyTrain to shuttle users to the 99 B-Line or SkyTrain. This essentially doubles the “operating and capital costs” of transit by TransLink.
SkyTrain by TransLink means fewer people on transit at a greater cost to taxpayers than conventional transit – LRT at grade. We all make mistakes, but for TransLink to continue to keep being stupid and to not learn from its SkyTrain stupidity is beyond stupid – it is retarded.
The original Expo Line (Vancouver to New West) was so designed to have three more stations added if need be and if my memory serves me correctly, the three extra stations would be in at 3rd Ave and Stewartson Way in New West; Rumble at Gilley in Burnaby, and the East end of Terminal Ave. I stand to be corrected. If those stations were to be built, the commercial speed of the SkyTrain would drop considerably.
Of course the top speed of SkyTrain is a red herring, yet it is used over and over again to convince politicians that SkyTrain is better than light rail and so far that ruse has succeeded.
On another note, a study has been released in the UK claiming that 66% of London’s pollution comes from diesel buses.
A question that I had is how much would it cost to repower the Skytrain system to allow light rail trains to operate on the line. I suspect the computer program would have to be changed, but wires on the Expo line (how about a third rail\overhead duo-collection system. That way I could get a one seat ride with out having to spend 10 billion dollars completing the Skytrain system out to langley, newton and coquitlam. would that deal with the path dependence issue? The existing trains would still operate, but would share the track..Thoughts?
Zweisystem replies: The cost to retro fit the SkyTrain guideway for LRT would be costly, due to the small kinetic envelope of the proprietary cars. One can’t operate conventional railway on a LIM powered railway, due to the problems with the automatic signaling between an adhesion and magnetic propelled railway. Part of the problem is that the signaling system uses the rotation of the car wheels as part of the signaling process and wheel-slip is not a problem on SkyTrain as the wheels and axles are unpowered, but on adhesion railways, wheel-slip is an operational problem.
It would be far easier to operate a tram on the Canada Line and I can see the abandonment of EMU operation, in favour of trams (LRV’s) in the next decade.
To be fair, a manufacturer CAN make trains for the ART systems, but it’ll come at a premium. It’s the main reason why Toronto is scrapping it’s ICTS system once it reaches the end of it’s service life, the trains were simply too expensive, and upgrading to handle the Mark II cars did not justify the cost.
Zweisystem replies: I did mention that the cost to design an ART/SkyTrain/ICTS vehicle was about $70 million, which was an estimate in 2001.
Surrey will be operating LRT in the next two years as a stand alone municipal transit system (similar to Edmonton Transit) and TransLink will start to unravel when Surrey takes this initiative (good riddance):
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Surrey+display+light+rail+model+during+Canada+celebrations/6861432/story.html
Zweisystem should state facts and also tell readers that his opinions are mere opinions. First, if an LRT travels at 80 km/h while crossing an intersection, and some driver drove a car onto the tracks, then the result would be fatal. Second, how does LRT attract more ridership? Third, if Translink replaced SkyTrains with conventional subways, then the capacity would overtake the amount in LRT. Fourth, you should cite your sources and not just make lies (or truths, whatever).
Zweisystem replies: You make a lot of assumptions that are, to be plains speaking, that are pure nonsense.
What is the difference between a tram traveling at 80 kph across an intersection and a bus traveling across an intersection at 80 kph? The passengers in the tram are safer, but if a driver chooses to disobey a stop signal at an intersection, chances are a crash will happen. I do not see you complaining about buses crossing intersections at all. So your 80 kph/intersection argument is nonsense.
On-street/at-grade transit has proven to attract far more NEW ridership than grade separated transit, because ones transit is there, on the pavement, ready to use. You must remember that most of SkyTrain’s ridership are recycled bus riders.
What would be the cost of replacing SkyTrain with subways, lets see $20 or $30 billion dollars? Just where are you going to get the money from to do such a thing. Oh yes, you also fail to mention the Canada Line, which is a heavy rail metro, built as a light metro and as built has less capacity than a streetcar.
So before you moan and groan about citing sources (a lot of professionals read this blog and if Zwei makes a mistake, they certainly inform me so), cite your sources and please do not make up stories based on SkyTrain hearsay!
The comment from Jacky needs further comment. No LRT or tram traveling in a city crosses an intersection at 80 kph, rather (as most stops are at intersections) are crossed much slower. The tram has it’s own signals to proceed and if a motorist disobeys his signal and crashes into a tram, generally there are severe penalties for the one who disobeyed the signal.
A tram traveling at 80 kph generally will have barriers that are operated when the tram approaches the intersection and again, if a car driver deliberately ignores the barriers and drives around them and then causes an accident, there would be severe consequences for the driver of the car including license suspension.
Now, what about buses crossing intersections at speed?, There are no barriers and only simple traffic lights for buses and I hear no shrill calls for safety by the anti-LRT crowd for increased safety for buses at high speed intersections. Why is this?