The SkyTrain Lobby – Get Over it!
After a post in Facebook, where I stated some facts about the SkyTrain light-metro system in Vancouver, I was reported to Facebook for spreading fake news.
Really!
So, just set the record straight about Vancouver’s proprietary and non proprietary SkyTrain light metro system, here are some random facts.
- SkyTrain is not the name of the vehicles used on the SkyTrain light metro system, but the system itself. The name was chosen via a radio contest in 1985.
- The first trains used on the Expo Line were marketed as ALRT or Advanced Light Rail Transit system. The name was changed from ICTS or Intermediate Capacity Transit System for the sale to Vancouver which was originally planning for a Edmonton or Calgary style light rail. ICTS/ALRT were powered by Linear Induction Motors or LIM’s and were incompatible to operate with any other railway except their own family of trains.
- ALRT was forced on the GVRD by the then Social Credit provincial government, with then premier Bennett stating, “You will get SkyTrain whether you like it or not”, after some disturbing news surfaced about the proprietary light metro system.
- The ARTs Study in Toronto found that “ICTS (ALRT) could cost up to ten (10) more to install than LRT, for about the same capacity.”
- Only three (3) ICTS/ALRT systems were built.
- Lavalin purchased the Ontario Crown Corporation the Urban Transportation Development Corporation (UTDC) which owned and produced ICTS/ALRT and promptly went bankrupt trying to build the renamed ALRT, which Lavalin renamed Automated Light Metro (ALM) in Bangkok Thailand. SNC later amalgamated with Lavalin and became SNC Lavalin.
- Bombardier bought the remains of the UTDC and ICTS/ALRT/ALM and promptly redesigned the system using their universal “Innovia” body shell and called the finished product Advanced Rapid Transit (ART)
- Studies showed that the Expo Line, using the proprietary ALRT/ART system cost about 40% more to operate than Calgary’s LRT, both carrying the same passenger loads.
- Only four (4) systems were built: Youngin Korea; Kuala Lumpor, Malaysia; JFK Airport, USA and Beijing, China. All four sales were fraught with scandal, with criminal legal cases in Korea and Malaysia (SNC Lavalin Scandal); the American government refusing to underwrite the JFK line because it failed a peer review and China built one to gain technology.
- The then BC NDP government flip flopped from LRT to ART for what is now known as the Millennium Line, again with then premier Clark stating “you are getting SkyTrain, whether you like it or not”.
- A sports bag with $1 million cash was found in a garbage can in Clinton park, by an off duty policeman in the late 1990’s. After an extensive investigation and court battle the off duty police man was awarded the $1 million as “found goods”.
- As there were no further sales of ART, the proprietary system was folded into the Innovia line of light metros with the LIM propulsion package being a “free” add-on”. The conventional Innovia light metros used 4/5 car trains with open vestibules.
- As there has been no sales of the proprietary LIM powered Innovia light metro, the Innovia Line of light-metros were folded into Bombardier’s Movia Metro system, with the former ALRT/ART/Inniovia system being called Movia Automatic Light Metro or (MALM).
- The Canada line, was a provincial BC Liberal project using a P-3 to cover the high cost of construction. The Canada Line is a conventional railway and is the only heavy-rail metro in the world, built as a light metro, having less capacity than a modern tram or streetcar, costing a fraction to build!
- Bombardier reconfigured the 5-car Innovia trains to accept the LIM powered trucks or bogies as part of the replacement package for the aging MK.1, ALRT fleet.
- A fact finding group from Ottawa, was sent to Vancouver to investigate the SkyTrain light metro system for a possible construction in Ottawa but found that SkyTrain was more expensive to build; more expensive to operate; more expensive to maintain; lacked capacity; lacked flexibility than a conventional light rail system. Instead Ottawa built a hybrid LRT/light-metro system using Alstom light rail vehicles.
- The John Horgan NDP government agreed to flip flop a $1.65 billion light rail project into an almost $5 billion, 16 km SkyTrain project in Surrey/langley.
- Bombardier’s rail division was sold to Alstom.
- Alstom is not actively marketing MALM.
- Former premier John Horgan is now Ambassador to Germany.
Oh my, punished for challenging the group think, did you.
Zwei replies: Yes, I challenged the great SkyTrain god and the Make SkyTrain Great Again crowd tried to burn me at the stake.
When we were involved with the RAV Line, we had a list of 20 points to take to meetings with your Mayors, Engineers and provincial government people, why it would be not a good idea to build light metro to Richmond and building a tram would be a far better investment.
No one would listen.
We tried to get the various levels of government to acknowledge that using trams, instead of light metro would be not only much cheaper, there would be a far greater scope of enlarging the system.
No one listened.
Instead we got the constant rhetoric that trams were slow, trams stopped traffic, and trams were not compatible with SkyTrain.
The RAV or Canada Line is not compatible with the trains on the Expo and Millennium Lines.
To put it bluntly, many of those who support SkyTrain light-metro were ignorant of transit and not even bothered to read a Primer on transit.
The biggest laugh we got was when we were told how shocked your Premier of the Day, his Transport Minister and even the CEO of TransLink was, when they were told that the Canada Line was incompatible with the rest of the system.
One of the issues we (sorry it’s the royal we I’m referring to) are having with Stage 3 of our LRT program is that the powers that be want a hugely expensive Skytrain like raised right of way all the way from Algonquin College, south through the Greenbelt to the Fallowfield VIA/Transitway station in the community of Barhaven. The main reason given is the need to operate free of the traffic flow on the parallel 6 lane, Woodroffe Ave. Unfortunately, it also involves taking away some homes along the way in the “difficult areas” (areas with a large concentration of public housing and destroying them, great policy during a housing crisis). Taking away 2 lanes on Woodroffe Ave. was seen as negative because it would slow down traffic.
Well because of post Covid inflation, that plan isn’t very affordable now. Considering that 35 to 40% of Stage 1 & 2 of the LRT project has been funded locally, total project cost is a serious issue. It’s amazing to watch transit professionals bend and contort themselves into a whole range of mental gymnastics to try and say with a straight face that, staying with the existing and extremely expensive plan, a plan that will remove almost 100 public housing units (again folks, we are having a housing affordability crisis here) and force us to rebuild them somewhere else adding more cost to the project, is a good idea. Instead of just taking out 2 of 6 lanes on a ugly, yes heavily used, suburban stroad.
The provincial government made the decision to build three skytrain lines in the 1980s. This is mostly complete, with some extensions currently being added. The Canada line is pathetic as it is not compatible with the other two and is under built.
The former Premier Vanderzalm supported this skytrain and now recommending a new regional line for south of the Fraser River. I think this is a good idea and would complement the skytrain.
A fourth light rail from marpole to Chilliwack would be great. It would allow people from Fraser valley to go to the airport and downtown with connections to skytrain or Canada line.
1,2,5-9,12,13,15,18,19 is Actually correct.
3. BC transit division GVRD and Provincial government at the time were an agreement of building ALRT System for the Expo line.
4. TTC and Toronto city, They haven’t been great with their cost estimates.
10. LRT no Funded and BC Transit Division GVRD Mechanisms or resources to increase revenue and support expansion. GVRD given a new name and new mandates from the province to spearhead growth in the region.
11. Not linked the transportation at all. more to drug-related.
14. Canada line 6,500 pphpd Daily average in 2019. 2023 we’re at 4,400 out 15,000 not at ultimate capacity. Service increase planned 15 may.
16. BT was struggling to deliver products on time New York cars and Toronto’s car. Went with Alstom transportation solution package.
17. SLS Extension $4.2 Billion including the OMC 5. Also account for the early LRT works and planning already spent.
18. Transportation division. Mainly after By-level, Monorail, APM and Custom Manufacturing Capabilities.(Access North American market)
20. That is absolutely nonsense to link to SkyTrain.
My own facts that I have found out.
Skytrain car designed for a 100 kmh but Test them to a 120 kmh at Kingston factory. Transport Canada that limits them to 80 km.
The huge struggle for BCRTC is keeping trains available for rush hour service.
Federal and Perventural not giving additional funding to grow the Fleet to required levels.
UTDC Develop the lim proportion unit for the Go alert but sign the contract with Vancouver MK1. First 7 years of its life was dealing with a stop request system that was not necessary. Main cause of delays for skytrain is people holding the doors. The lim proportion unit itself hasn’t changed but the computer system on how it gets controlled has. Translink has agreement to the patent for the lim. Translink operates at no different than any other service with increasing or decreasing demand when needed throughout the week. MK1 worst for power efficiency per passenger. New MK 5 is Longest skytrain, and it’s also lighter than MK3 par car.
Zwei replies: Again, you have been baffled by your own BS, what can I say.
let me correct you.
3) The then Social Credit government made a politcal deal with the Ontario government to buy the unsalable ICTS (renamed ALRT for the sale to Vancouver) in exchange to use the services of the “Blue machine”, to win the the next provincial election. BC Transit did as it was told. but they never did like ALRT and one reason why TransLink was created. But that is another story.
4) The ART Study took the figures from the IBI study which was independent from the TTC.
10) Absolute BS sunshine, I was there, it was a politcal decision that the current NDP are afraid to reveal. BC Transit wanted light rail because it ccheaper to build and operate and had a higher capacity.
11) One thing was for certain it was not drug money as there was no trace of any drugs on it, If it was deemed drug money the $1 million would have been seized by the government. A retired upper management VPD type told me it was “Spreadin around money” but the resources were not provided to pursue it any further”.
14) The problem with the Canada Line is that all information is proprietary due to the P-3 agreement and what information is disclosed cannot be verified. Peak hour capacity is around 6,000 pphpd (but it it half of that at Richmond and YVR. Maximum signaled capacity is around 8,000 to 9,000 pphpd, again the number is deemed proprietary.
16) Again pure BS, where do you invent this stuff? The Ottawa fact finding mission was to compare the LIM powered ART with light rail after then Prime Minister Harper wanted to force Ottawa to build with ART (SkyTrain).
17) Again, WRONG. According to the latest BC Government News release, the guide way’s cost is $4.01 billion with the track, stations and OHLE still being negotiated, cars of course are not included. Translation, the cost of the SLS will be closer to $5 billion, not including OMC#5.
18) The news releases state Rail Division. From what I have been told, Alstom now seems to be having buyer’s remorse.
20) But it does and there may be much more on that story sooner than anyone thinks.
LRT can travel at 100 kph so what is the big deal?
Actually the UTDC purchased the LIM technology from Krauss Maffie, which was used on their TransUrban Maglev.
Your last paragraph is all meaningless drivel. The MK5 cars have been around a long time but not used here, because they were not configured to use LIMs. 5 car trains are longer than 6 car MK.1’s but so what? The MK.5 cars also will be cheaper to maintain because they will have 10 trucks (20 axles), instead of 12 truck (24 axles) for the MK.1’s.
FYI
https://www.railforthevalley.com/latest-news/zweisystem/skytrains-daddy-the-krauss-maffei-transurban-maglev-2/
Weird how you guys hate Skytrain and didn’t even say anything that LRT is better at than Skytrain. It has less capacity, lower headways, and not to mention that it creates conflicts with cars. The Skytrain is faster, automated, and has higher ridership than the DC Metro.
If that’s not proof of a successful system, then let me remind you about the buffoonery of Eglinton Crosstown, Finch West, Ottawa, Hamilton, AND Ville-Quebec. All of these are delayed, all of them LRT, and most importantly, all are not completed, save for Ottawa, which opened early and rushed their system.
Then you have the REM and the Skytrain, both systems are automated, are frequent, with the REM being proposed, built, and opening the first section within the same time that Eglinton has been under construction.
Zwei replies: I find it interesting you are using very dated “man of straw” arguments and fake news.
TransLink does not publish “linked trips”, just raw boardings to the public and I believe the USA, linked trips are the norm. Also, TransLink tends to overstate ridership by 10% to 15%, strictly for politcal purposes. There is no independent audit of SkyTrain’s ridership.
LRT, by its very nature does not conflict with cars and modern LRT tends to have closer headway’s than metro (in Europe 30 second headway’s on main routes are common in peak hours). Automation brings higher costs and with today’s modern tram, unless traffic flows exceed 20,000 pphpd, automation is not cost effective.
The trouble with Eglington is that it is not a true light rail, rather a hybrid light metro/rail system with over 50% of its route in a subway and as I understand it, the subway has been a major problem.
Just dated clap-trap I am afraid and with a new Conservative government coming soon, federal monies for prestigious transit projects, mostly light-metro and metro will soon dry up. Then what?
Yes LRT can have issues but everyone of those LRT lines you mentioned, except the Finch West and Hamilton’s line can easily pass the capacity of the Skytrain without any significant upgrades. The planned level of service frequency on unopened LRT lines is a political and budget choice not a limitation for LRT operating technology. The big advantage of LRT as opposed to Skytrain Light Metro operating technology is building and operating costs. This far less for LRT than Skytrain. Remember, Ottawa is building 44 km of LRT lines for only a little more than 16 km of Skytrain, $4.6 Billion for 44 km of LRT whereas Vancouver is paying $4.1 Billion for 16 km of Skytrain. A line which the former mayor of Surrey said could be built for the same price as the $1.6 Billion LRT proposal !
Ottawa’s LRT easily beats the capacity of the Skytrain. That’s one of its advantages, it’s already future proofed for high capacity. Where Skytrain requires lengthening stations and or operating at a frequency that Transport Canada and most experts say is going to cause operational issues as well as big infrastructure problems. So much so they probably won’t allow it unless huge new budget sources suddenly happen. Remember, the last increase in frequency of the Skytrain to its current limit of 109 seconds was possible only by cutting evening and night service back. A point which Transport Canada says they will not allow again to happen.
The Crosstown in Toronto is having issues because the base of the 70 year old Yonge Street Subway tunnel box needed to be completely rebuilt and reinforced because the Crosstown tunnel box passes underneath it at Yonge Street. Nobody knew digging under the Yonge Subway would be so much of a problem.
Running very high frequency services using Skytrain technology, something the Skytrain fan club keeps proposing (Skytrain frequencies of 75 to 90 seconds for example) on infrastructure that was already designed to be “light” as in cheaper and far less robust, is a recipe for the early wholesale replacemen of said infrastructure. This is something Translink can’t afford to do and the province of B.C. might be forced to pay for alone, that’s why they are taking about BRT now, instead of more Skytrain liens .
To ZweiSystem
Also what I am doing is not strawmanning, the fact that you never mentioned the porrly built Eglinton Crosstown and Ottawa LRT in your article however, is.
Also do you have a source on that added 10 percent that Translink adds? Do you work for Translink? If so then please blow that whistle until it breaks then! Or maybe you might be, to put it fairly “bullshitting?”
I should also ask, can you please tell me the amount of crashes on C-Train, ELRT, and the Toronto Streetcar?
They also automated the system due to need to pay drivers, automation also results in a system that keeps operating in the case of a strike.
I do, however, agree with the fact that Eglinton is not light-rail, it is premetro, a tram that has metro like qualities, and portions.
Zwei replies: Oh, where do I begin.
Fact is, people die via Skytrain. Again, crashes is a man of straw argument and almost 100% of crashes are cause by auto drivers not obeying signals. A more accurate comparison is to compare tram/LRT accidents at intersections with auto/auto accidents at intersections and the tram is about 10 times safer (CDOT).
Compare the annual death rate with Skytrain and LRT systems and one will find death by SkyTrain is somewhat higher.
I did a study back in the late 80’s and found that ridership numbers were fudged by BC transit by 10% or a little more. A study done by UBC students in the 90’s showed the same results, confiming what I had found.
As SkyTrain is driverless it has no drivers but it has attendants, who are unionized and maintenance/operations staff who are also unionized and if they go on strike the system stops, period. In fact, the threat of strike on the SkyTrain light-metro system is very real.
The one question that is never answered by those championing the proprietary SkyTrain (ALRT/ART/MALM)is that after being on the market for almost 50 years, only seven systems have been built. No one has copied Vancouver’s light metro only transit planning and no one has copied Vancouver’s planning. During the same period over 300 new LRT systems have been opened, or under construction or in final planning stages.
And also to Haveacrow
No they can’t, they are light-rail, they are not a metro, they do not have the capacity to run at high frequencies due to them being on the surface. If they can, please learn how do cite your sources.
Also, Ottawa’s LRT currently has several many problems, and has had two train derailments. The SLS extension costs 4 billion, yet is creating new apartments, with massive new zoning plans at Fleetwood, Clayton, Langley City, and Downtown Surrey.
Ottawa’s LRT operates at five-minute frequencies with trains that can hold 600 people at max, however the Mark V will be able to hold almost 1,207 people at max, crush-load. 109 seconds seems pretty fast, and Skytrain also starts and ends at roughly the same times as the O-Train.
The Ottawa LRT is not automated, and thus cannot get closer to other trains. Unlike the Skytrain, which can operate at extremely high frequency.
I should also mention that the Broadway Subway also passes under the Canada Line, yet has seen no issues. The only delays were due to a concrete plant strike, and general North American transit delays. This is due to the Broadway Subway not building a new station directly under an existing subway.
They absolutely knew it was more complicated, as building beside to the station would be better than directly under it.
The infrastructure on the Expo Line was underbuilt, I can agree with that, as planners from the time of Bill Bennett never thought the system would be so successful, however light rail would be even more underbuilt than the Expo Line, as looking at the Seattle’s 1 Line, it’s fairly clear that the system requires more capacity.
BRT is good as an interim solution for Skytrain, and in limited circumstances, LRT. The North Shore is a good case to build Skytrain currently, however UBCx and the SLSx, need to be completed first, as these will serve UBC and the Jericho Lands, as well as Surrey and Langley respectively. These two would serve over 700,000 people.
I’d imagine that John Rustad might try to get light rail, should the Cons be elected, although the planning might take the same time as Rustads’ first term in the legislature. Although maybe Eby wins. Who knows!
Zwei replies: I will let Mr. cow answer, but I will add this, you haven’t a clue what you are talking about. but then the same goes for TransLink and the Cov, and the provincial government. Metro Vancouver using light metro is an outlier, spending easily 3 to 4 times more than it should to get the same thing. Best read a book on the subject.
To ZweiSystem (2)
Platform Screen Doors can be installed at stations, they may be expensive, although work better than people dying.
Secondly, I am talking about Ottawa, and their derailments, of which is on a system entirely grade-separated.
Thirdly, would Skytrain collide with a person if PSDs are installed? They also can provide A/C in summer and heat in winter, improving passenger comfort.
And finally, that’s BC Transit though, I’d give fair chance that Translink could copy BC Transit, though I’d imagine it would be lower than BC Transit. Good point there.
And I should also note, CUPE 7000 has an agreement that currently should go until 2027, or beyond, the risk is only if the current agreement is not good enough.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
For the other comment, I should correct, Skytrain has been around for 40, not 50 years, and secondly I should tell you about the Vehicule Automatique Leger (VAL) systems constructed in France and other parts of the world. Of which, like Skytrain uses an oddball technology, was founded by a company which no longer exists, and is now operated by a larger rail copmany.
It is quite interesting, and I’d recommend you research it, in the morning of course. Rather sleep well than debate over train technologies!
Zwei replies: ICTS was first marketed in 1975, by the Ontario government Crown corporation, the UTDC. ICTS’s name was changed to ALRT for the sale to Vancouver in the early 80’s. And again, the name SkyTrain was chosen via a radio contest for the name of the light-metro system and are not the name used for the light metro system which last official name was Movia Automatic Light Metro (MALM).
The problems in Ottawa were deemed politcal where decisions made by politicians caused the issues, such as the maintenance P-3, where the concessionaire had little knowledge of maintaining the cars!
As for BC Transit, a former manager told me that they were glad to be rid of the thing as it was hugely expensive for what it did.
VAL was a rubber tyred light-metro system which was hugely expensive to build and operate. As it was produced by MATRA, the famous French arms manufacturer it was deemed by the French government that French cities not buying VAL would be a black mark against VAL. It was the refurbishment of the old Roubaix Turcuoing tramway to a modern light trail standard, that it was cheaper to build and operate light rail or le tram, than VAL. France has now over 30 light rail operations.
The French have done many studies concerning driverless operation and the outcome has been basically the same, no cost savings at all unless ridership exceeds 20,000 pphpd. Sorry the local meme that driverless operation saves money just aint true with SkyTrain.
Ultimate capacities rapid transit lines by technology.
all at 6 People per Square meter but skytrain 3 People per Square meter
B-line 3000 ppdph
3s Gondola up 5,000 ppdpd
BRT 12,000 ppdph
LRT O-Train up 24,000 ppdph
LRT C-Train up 19,000 ppdph
LRT TTC Eglinton crosstown up 30,000 ppdph
Skytrain 1986 Ultimate capacity 30,000 to day 26,000 ppdph. Existing platforms
and Signaling 108 Seconds.
REM up 31,000 ppdph.
Another round of signal line upgrades in the future operational headway 60 second and extended platform by 50 M platform length would be a 130 M. MK Trainset would have 8 cars capacity 1,075 3 people per square meter or 1,900 6 People per Square meter.
Ultimate capacity in 2050 Somewhere in between 64,500-114,000 ppdph.
To keep in mind these capacities are only used during peak hours. For maybe 1 or 1 1/2 hours at most in AM And PM. Select rail segment would be at max capacity. Like Commercial Broadway to Waterfront Skytrain station segment was shuttle train headway 108 sec.(Since 2020 it’s been suspended) Translink changes capacity on day to day basis in projected ridership demand, events and equipment availability.
Math:
Mk train with 8 car Capacity.
Divide the capacity of mk 5 to per car capacity is 241.4(672÷5=134.4 or 1207÷5= 241.4)
Ultimate frequency for skytrain is 60 Second or 1 minute or 60 trains an hour.
60 x Capacity = Ultimate frequency.
“Light Infrastructure”
Skytrain is design metro service and was designed for 60 headways guide way supports to handle the weight. Most of the stations were upgradable to Ingress and digress from the station and multiple new entrances. There are still select locations where new transformers can be added for the additional power needs. No, Cheap to do these upgrades.
Transportation has a changed in all this time. Chorometrics are capacity, speed, comfort and cost. Low cost of transportation allows for meeting the requirements but Exceeding or benefiting more people in the community. Every transportation mode has their trade-off and benefits.
Zwei in South Delta nowhere near skytrain.
The only services are buses that get stuck in traffic on the highway.
Me Downtown Surrey is Few minute walk from the sky train, Rapid bus, community shuttles and bus.
In this case, translink is not serving his community equally on coverage rapid transit services. Future projects are planned to connect hubs to hubs with skytrain.
(Like: 2025-2035 10 year priority plan aka Access for everyone.
Burrard Inlet Rapid Transit aka BIRT
Park Royal exchange, Phipps exchange, kootenay bus Loop, Brentwood town center skytrain station, Metrotown skytrain station and bus loop
UBC extension.
UBC bus loop.
Langley to Surrey aka SLS
Langley Bus exchange)
Funding for any transit project going forward. This is going to be difficult. Smaller city run transit agencies are looking forward to renewing their Fleet. TTC need money too rehab on their subway system. Translink needing money for expansion in general. Permanent transit from starting at 3 Billion dollars in 2026. Plus VA Rail needing new long distance cars and locomotives.
Ultimate capacities rapid transit lines by technology.
B-line 3000 ppdph
3s Gondola up 5,000 ppdpd
BRT 12,000 ppdph
LRT O-Train up 24,000 ppdph
LRT C-Train up 18,000 ppdph
LRT TTC Eglinton crosstown up 30,000 ppdph
Skytrain 1986 Ultimate capacity 30,000 to day 26,000 ppdph. Existing platforms
and Signaling 108 Seconds.
REM 31,000 ppdph.
Another round of signal line upgrades in the future operational headway 60 second and extended platform by 50 M platform length would be a 130 M. MK Trainset would have 8 cars capacity 1,075 3 people per square meter or 1,900 6 People per Square meter.
Ultimate capacity in 2050 Somewhere in between 64,500-114,000 ppdph.
To keep in mind these capacities are only used during peak hours. For maybe 1 or 1 1/2 hours at most in AM And PM. Select rail segment would be at max capacity. Like Commercial Broadway to Waterfront Skytrain station segment was shuttle train headway 108 sec.(Since 2020 it’s been suspended) Translink changes capacity on day to day basis in projected ridership demand, events and equipment availability.
Math:
Mk train with 8 car Capacity.
Divide the capacity of mk 5 to per car capacity is 241.4(672÷5=134.4 or 1207÷5= 241.4)
Ultimate frequency for skytrain is 60 Second or 1 minute or 60 trains an hour.
60 x Capacity = Ultimate frequency.
“Light Infrastructure”
Skytrain is design metro service and was designed for 60 headways guide way supports to handle the weight. Most of the stations were upgradable to Ingress and digress from the station and multiple new entrances. There are still select locations where new transformers can be added for the additional power needs. No, Cheap to do these upgrades.
Transportation has a changed in all this time. Chorometrics are capacity, speed, comfort and cost. Low cost of transportation allows for meeting the requirements but Exceeding or benefiting more people in the community. Every transportation mode has their trade-off and benefits.
Zwei in South Delta nowhere near skytrain.
The only services are buses that get stuck in traffic on the highway.
Me Downtown Surrey is Few minute walk from the sky train, Rapid bus, community shuttles and bus.
In this case, translink is not serving his community equally on coverage rapid transit services. Future projects are planned to connect hubs to hubs with skytrain.
(Like: 2025-2035 10 year priority plan aka Access for everyone.
Burrard Inlet Rapid Transit aka BIRT
Park Royal exchange, Phipps exchange, kootenay bus Loop, Brentwood town center skytrain station, Metrotown skytrain station and bus loop
UBC extension.
UBC bus loop.
Langley to Surrey aka SLS
Langley Bus exchange)
Funding for any transit project going forward. This is going to be difficult. Smaller city run transit agencies are looking forward to renewing their Fleet. TTC need money too rehab on their subway system. Translink needing money for expansion in general. Permanent transit from starting at 3 Billion dollars in 2026. Plus VA Rail needing new long distance cars and locomotives.
Zwei replies: I guess your aim is to “bullshit baffles brains” because you have spent far too much time spinning your wheels. It may look good, but currently it is not working. To be successful transit must be user friendly, TransLink does not provide a user-friendly service and the percentage of population using transit is dropping and why there is a mad dash by politcans to density. doing more of the same and expecting different results is the definition of madness.
@Legoman The O-Train is automated, but runs with a driver on a queue based system instead of being completely driver less and has a CBTC system to separate trains. The driver responds to on train emergencies and watches for mechanical issues, when the automation system doesn’t concur with reality. This way trains don’t stop for half an hour with no local safety control on the train, like the Skytrain does, if the main control system fails.
An answer to Legoman.
Yes, I live in South Delta and ridership has collapsed on the morning and evening express buses and the reason is not being stuck in traffic (the route to Richmond has HOV lanes), rather it is the increased travel times being forced onto the Canada Line.
What used to be a 50 to 60 minute direct journey to Vancouver is now a 60 to 90 minute journey or more. What used to be a no transfer journey to Vancouver is now a minimum one transfer journey to Vancouver. Taking a bus is now not just a transit trip, but a transit ordeal and the transit customers have fled from the system.
The same is true in South Surrey but the problem has bee masqueraded by a large increase in population. TransLink is oblivious tom this and further exacerbates the situation with short turning buses, forcing more transfers. Just look at the fine print on the schedules.
The result, the system has become wildly user-unfriendly.
All TransLink does is play a numbers game, but from the data I have seen, the percentage of population using transit is falling and falling rather fast.
Sad to day, TransLink remains in high odor with the population.
@ Legoman, your quote.
“Transportation has a changed in all this time. Chorometrics are capacity, speed, comfort and cost. Low cost of transportation allows for meeting the requirements but Exceeding or benefiting more people in the community. Every transportation mode has their trade-off and benefits.” This is pure TransLink speak and it is pure bullshit baffles brains nonsense that come from that ossified bureaucracy.
in the 21st century, user-friendliness is the key to good transit. User-friendliness includes many factors but most important is the seamless or no transfer journey and one of the reasons why the TramTrain was developed.
As for your Chorometrics, ALRT/ART/MALM or SkyTrain is the opposite of everything you mentioned. it creates longer journey times door to door, the cars are not comfortable, and it is the most expensive transit system around for what you get. Sadly we are stuck to this mode like a tar-baby and almost 45 years of misinformation, deceit and a complete lack of investigative reporting has lead us to this point of having a mediocre transit system, which more and more people refuse to take. In my book, there should be a criminal investigation with TransLink and the provincial government on why we keep building with this museum piece.
Kid nothing has changed in the almost 3 decades I have done this. Cost is almost everything. Too much and it will not get built, period. If the public thinks the number is too big, even if it’s a steal, nope, sorry. Convince the public it is necessary, you win.
What has changed is younger people think the present situation of multi billion dollar infrastructure projects is normal, whereas the actual people with money, the older generation, don’t want to spend it and remember the 80’s and 90’s when very little was spent. Who do you think will vote for Conservatives, a group who do not spend big on urban infrastructure projects.
Like it or not the pendulum has swung back to, “we will maybe build 1 Skytrain extension per decade, maybe!” Translink just does not have money any more to put in their 33% of the rapid transit bill, the feds are spending way less and the province is going to have to cover just about everything. It may go back to the situation that peaked in the early to mid 1980’s where unless there is an Olympics, Commonwealth Games or World’s Fair, there is no federal help on anything, especially regarding infrastructure. You need a big change of technology to something cheaper, Skytrain just can’t do it anymore.
@Highspeed the Mk. 5 Skytrains hold 672 people at 4.25 passengers per square metre. THE over 1200+ figure is at 8 passengers per square metre and that is used for axle load testing not people or passenger testing in actual use. The Mark 5 trains are 5 sections at about 72 metres long.
For example, a two car Alstom Citadis LRV train used Monday to Saturday (single car trains on Sundays) is about 98 metres long. Each car has 4 sections and is 49 mrtres long, so a two car train is around 98 metres. Since the Confederation Line 2 car trains’s are about 2.86 m wide compared to a Skytrain’s 2.65 m, 98 metres long compared to a Mk. 5 Skytrain at about 72 metres long, 16 metres shorter, my guess is that the 600 passenger capacity is at 4 passengers per square metre.
So the Confederation Line trains technically hold more passengers.
However, starting at about 90% capacity how many passengers do you begin loosing due to crowding? It’s amazing how many passengers leave any system at 90% capacity. Systems and trains with fewer seats and more standing area get hit hard by this. Passengers want seats!
This confirms because Skytrain station platforms are only 80m long and surface O-Train stations on the Confederation Line are 95 to 100m in length (easily expandable to 120m long) and the tunnel stations are already 120m long already.
It took awhile to find but supposedly, the maximum safe frequency for the Confederation Line is 2 minutes and 15 seconds or 135 seconds. 3.5 to 4 minutes is normal in peak (today anyway), 5 minutes (today again) to about midnight and approximately 10 minutes until close at 1 am.
quote of wikipedia “The maximum based on station platform lengths is a six-car configuration, totaling 72 metres (236 ft 2+5⁄8 in) The SkyTrain fleet currently includes 150 Mark I trains”
to mr Haveacow
MK 5 is 85 M Long train set with 17 M car Lengths linked 5 together 85 M and platforms are going to be 80-81 m. Doors will lineup from one side of the platform to the other. It have the rest of the train hanging outside of the platform.
At translink
internally 1.9 People per square meter.
Public 3 people per square meter.
Comparison 6 People per square meter.
Yes MK 5 672 is 3 People per square meter.
84×2.55 M= 214.2 floor area.(Internal volume is smaller than overall dimensions.)
672 ÷ 214.2 m 2= 3.13 People per square meter or 1207 ÷ 214.2 m 2 = 5.63 People per square meter.
I don’t know what the math is for the O Train it LRV.
Skytrain frequencies.( EXPO line)
Rush hour 122 sec on the branch ⅓ and 2/3
Middle of the day
3 minute frequency on the main section
6 Minutes Branches branches
Off-peak various 6-20 minutes on the branches or Main section 3-10.
Mix of rolling stock 14,500-16,500 ppdph during rush hour.
This spring I toured systems in Ottawa, Montreal, Kitchener, Detroit, Edmonton, Calgary, and Vancouver.
Best of Class: New Streetcar|LRT systems operating in Edmonton Valley Line; Kitchener-Waterloo Line (both demonstrated in 2010 as the Olympic Tram in Vancouver).
With Apologies to Mr. Cow: The Ottawa System failed to impress. It operates like Skytrain built from LRT bits & pieces. It wants to be automated (thus it operates grade separated) but it has drivers on board. What I am looking for in Canada transit systems are ‘trams’ that mix with traffic and give maximum access to pedestrians. One section of the new Edmonton line, for example, runs down the middle of suburban streets with single family houses either side.
Platform Access Times: whether in the Toronto subway, Montreal subway, or the new REM, where Streetcar|LRT holds a comparative advantage is in the time it takes to reach the platforms (or to reach the sidewalk at journey’s end) on all grade separated systems. Streetcar|LRT is right there on the street, boarding and alighting from the sidewalk.
Most Stunning Revelation: riding the Detroit People Mover (back in FREE service after acquiring the entire Scarborough Line for CAD$1 million) ‘revealed’ the concept behind the Skytrain: operate a loop with a 8.5-mile diameter in the metro core of Vancovuer.
My Conversation with former Premier Bill Vander Zalm: he re-iterated that it was a member of his government that brought to their attention that the BCER could be secured in government hands in perpetuity, ready to operate a commuter service from Granville Island to Chilliwack. Zweig has since re-iterated that government owns 30% wheelage on the Fraser River Rail Bridge. Add the two together and we can operate Streetcar|LRT to Chilliwack for…
The Price Comparison (CAD$millions/km): Skytrain in tunnel (600—contract price); Skytrain in viaducts (300—estimate for Langley line); Kitchener-Waterloo (46—yes CAD$46 million/km—after cost overruns); Edmonton Valley (138—contract price). Edmonton’s higher costs compared to Kitchener include: some unforeseen construction problems; the line enters a tunnel on either side of the bridge before crossing the North Saskatchewan River; one elevated station with attendant viaducts.
The Facts vis-a-vis Kitchener: Skytrain Broadway tunnel—13-times more expensive to build, will carry 30% as many passengers. Skytrain in viaducts—6-times more expensive to build. Lagley extension also projected to care 30% of Streetcar|LRT capacity.
Housing Crisis: to end the housing crisis, we need to provide mobility to the population to reach places where there is cheap land for building affordable houses in numbers sufficient to meet or exceed demand. The sad truth about all the systems I toured is that the lines are on average, in a very coarse estimate, about 20 km long. Zweig reiterates that LRT can operate 200 km lines.
Government Capture: Building ‘Skytrain-and-Towers’ is evidence that political contributions from the development industry have captured governments to make decisions favoring securing profits for the 0.01%, by passing legislation guaranteeing the right to build towers, rather than guaranteeing affordable houses in perpetuity for all Canadians (GAHP).
End of the Housing Crisis (1): For the cost of the Langley Skytrain extension (16 km) build the Granville Island-Chilliwack line (BCER 120 km; 13 km Pratt-Livingstone corridor upgraded free of charge as terms of lease). The BCER reaches both Langleys, and many more places, that the Langley Skytrain will never reach.
End of the Housing Crisis (2): For the cost of extending the Broadway tunnel to a university (!) build a Canada Line tunnel form Granville Island to Lonsdale Quay. The Burrard Street alignment would provide a subway under one of Vancouver’s most important streets. Once on the North Shore, and taking advantage of the Canada Line’s conventional technology, couple DMUs and run a service to Whistler. For the first time since its inception, the #1 skiing destination in N America will have a direct connection to YVR. In addition, Whistler is building affordable houses for its local population. A future Winter Olympics could build all Olympic Athlete’s villages as GAHP.
End of the Housing Crisis (3): Provide Horseshoe Bay to Hope Streetcar|LRT service North of Fraser. A bridge over (a renamed) Indian Arm would provide service along the 1930 Lougheed Highway/Dewdney Trunk Road corridors. Streetcar|LRT would operate on the Mission-Abbotsford bridge linking North and South of Fraser services.
Service to UBC: operate Streetcar|LRT on the historic 4th Avenue corridor connecting UBC to Stanley Park via Waterfront Square, built at the door of the old CPR Station/Waterfront Station in Gastown.
The Final Analysis: due to its hamstrung reach (caused by astronomical costs of construction and operation) the Skytrain has corralled the population of Greater Vancouver within its restricted footprint of service. Think: Detroit People Mover. Thus, by constricting land supply, government put in place the conditions where demand would fuel land price inflation. Then, by permitting the construction of products marketed and sold on the global real estate markets, government doubled down in securing boundless profits to the development industry, while condemning the population to become renters. As a direct result, our right as Canadians to land ownership has been gifted away, along with our opportunity to grow real equity on our lawns, living in our own cottages, row houses and courtyard houses.
Great piece Zweig. Add footnotes to silence the critics. Adding dates would create a ‘time line’ effect that will also help folks connect the political dots.
Ottawa’s LRT advantage is that its building a lot (64km worth) for a lot less ($6.7 Billion), very quickly (opening 13th years after the first segment started construction in 2013). Compared to a standard Light Metro system, like Skytrain, using LRV’s which are ubiquitous and can easily be replaced with other manufacturers if needed. Plus it had to move quite a lot of people on day 1, far more than Waterloo’s LRT was supposed to carry. Approximately 240,000 passengers per day (what the Transitway moved per day). Unfortunately now about only 75% of that (180,000 per day) post Covid. By 2034 the first 21 years, there will be 85 km of service plus 20+ km of Bus Transitway (new and legacy mileage) for less than any Light Metro system can. The need for a complex automation system was brought in by city council’s need for limiting pension costs as well as potentially union busting, favored by our council’s more conservative city council members, which were needed to get their votes.