Time To Rethink SkyTrain Premier Eby
With a looming trade war with the USA, it is time to rethink the BC Governments exclusive planning, centred around the proprietary SkyTrain light metro system.
Yes, I know the NDP government ministers call SkyTrain a world class system, but it is the only world class system I know of that no one wants to buy or build.
Currently we are spending over $16 billion to extend the Expo and Millennium Lines a mere 21.7 km on two routes that just do not have the ridership to justify this scale of investment.
According to TransLink the Expo Line extension to Langley will carry fewer customers than the Broadway B-Line Bus and the Broadway subway is replacing the Broadway B-Line bus, which has a peak hour capacity of only 2,000 pphpd, from Commercial drive to Arbutus.
In the real world Premier Eby, subways are not built until ridership on a transit route surpasses 15,000 persons per hour per direction! In the late 1940’s and early 50’s Toronto was operating coupled sets of PCC cars on select routes offering peak hour capacities in excess of 12,000 pphpd. The modern tram has the ability to double this at a fraction of the cost.
Yes, I know that the NDP and the current developer friendly Vancouver Council, with their ill-conceived denisfication program for Broadway, believe the Broadway subway will be the great transit panacea.
Sorry it will not be, rather it will become the great Vancouver $4 billion “White elephant“.
Just to remind you Premier Eby, subways tend to be user unfriendly and are poor in attracting new ridership. As planned, the $4 billion subway is following the ghost rails of the previously planned for light rail, terminating at Arbutus and will force an unwanted transfer to a 99 B-Line bus to continue West.
The current estimate to complete the subway to UBC is now in the range of $8 billion and that is before tariffs!
Oh, by the way, TransLink thinks the same because after their $1.47 billion re-signalling program of the Expo and Millennium Lines; the maximum capacity of the Millennium Line (Broadway subway) will be a mere 7,500 pphpd.
Remember those PCC streetcars in Toronto?
The Expo Line extension to Langley is more of the same, a hugely expensive light-metro system, on a route that just not have the ridership to justify the investment. It was the NDP government that turned a $1.63 light rail project into a now $7 billion light metro project and it begs a question.
Why is the NDP stuck to SkyTrain like a tar-baby?
Twice in the NDP’s history, they overturned planning from light rail to the proprietary railway that operates on both the Expo and Millennium Lines.
Remember, no one wants to buy or build with this proprietary railway. Only seven such systems have been built in almost 50 years (only six remain in operation) and the proprietary railway being rebranded at least six times (ICTS > ALRT > ALM > ART > Innovia > MALM), is hardly a positive endorsement for the system.
Now, with the tariff war looming with the United States, the cost of the specialty steel and cement, which the SkyTrain light metro system is a voracious consumer of, will further increase the costs of construction.
A billion dollars here, a billion dollars there and soon the taxpayer will be bankrupted funding what is really a NDP government prestige project, designed to win elections and not move people.
Considering that Rail for the Valley’s Marpole to Chilliwack regional railway plan, will cost around $2 billion, servicing twelve major transportation destinations and attracting more new ridership than the Expo Line extension to Langley, would it not be a wise and prudent decision to abandon all light-metro construction and planning and instead plan for what we can afford and what would provide a modern user-friendly transit service for the Fraser Valley?
Premier Eby, time to stop using jingoistic word salads and cut the apron strings to SkyTrain light metro and instead, do what is best for the taxpayer and the province.
Dear Reader, please decide for yourself about Mr. Zwei’s claim that Toronto streetcar routes in the late 1940s-50s achieved pphpds of more than 12,000.
See a discussion of Mr. Zwei’s source for this claim in the fifth Comment on his Dec 31 post at https://www.railforthevalley.com/latest-news/zweisystem/thoughts-for-2025/#respond.
The Toronto streetcars had a standing capacity of about 100 (sixty something sitting). A pphpd of 12,000 would require 120 cars per hour. One car every 30 seconds, or 60 pairs of coupled cars running every minute.
But these streetcars operated in mixed traffic, crossed major streets and lacked any traffic priority. On such routes is any kind of regular service of 120 or 60 streetcars per hour plausible?
Mr. Zwei’s Jan 5 posts quotes a Major Hoople as describing 45 or 60 trains per hour in Prague in recent years. But these trains carry several times the number of passengers as the Toronto streetcars did, and operate with full traffic priority.
Yes, you can get a pphpd of 12,000 with 60 trains per hour each carrying 400 passengers.
But was this Toronto in the late 1940s-50s?
Zwei replies: Don’t get lost in your math. Contrary to local lore, 30 second headway’s on busy tram/streetcar routes are fairly common even today. Your disbelief against common knowledge borders on Trumpian. Of course you forget that the reason Toronto built subways was because they could not squeeze more capacity on surface tram routes.
In fact, several US Cities, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles had streetcar/tram routes that rivaled Toronto achievements. Also, traffic priority at the time wasn’t a problem and most streetcar/tram stops were at intersections, thus not a big problem.
I use the 12,000 pphpd to illustrate that after a $1.47 billion signalling rehab, the maximum capacity of the Millennium Line (Broadway subway) will be only a mere 7,500 pphpd and that is what bothers you. you also forget that SkyTrain has been one of the most studies new build transit systems in the world and it has been found wanting and unsalable and that, again, bothers you.
To be blunt, SkyTrain is an under achieving proprietary railway that is out performed by light rail and why Metro Vancouver and the NDP Government still build with it brings up the subject of unsavoury dealings and mismanagement and that should bother you.
45 second to 2 minute service was always happening on King, Bathurst, College and Queen Streets when I was a kid in the 70’s and 80’s.
During the era the streetcar picture dates from, the late 1950’s to early 1960’s the TTC had a fleet of over 525 active PCC Streetcars and almost 200 more being used for spare parts. They also had 50 surviving Peter-Whitt’s. The last Whitts were retired in the early 1970’s They had so many PCC’s because they purchased hundreds of them from cities that were abandoning their systems
The current TTC Streetcar schedule has its root in the fact that after the early 1990’s, the TTC had only 204 ALRV’s & CLRV’s + 19 Improved PCC Steetcars. Over 100 PCC’s were getting a rebuild in the TTC’s Harvey Shops. The TTC never lost the ability to build its own rapid transit and streetcar work equipment as well as do body and frame upgrades to existing equipment). The TTC unfortunately had to end the PIC upgrade project at 19 units because of budgets cuts due to the recession of the early 1990’s. The TTC is currently planning a purchase of 50 to 60 LRV’s based on a improved Flexity design, for the 2 new lines planned and service upgrades on existing lines.
So yes, it was very possible to move 12,000 p/h/d on the Bloor-Danforth Car Line with frequencies of 30 seconds to 1 minute. The tag line they had was “always a streetcar in sight”.
https://www.railforthevalley.com/latest-news/zweisystem/for-mr-b-dealing-with-the-facts/
Toronto blogger Steve Munro is a fan of Toronto streetcars. A 2010 blog post links to a 1952 report by the TTC’s Operations Manager that reports the “passengers per maximum hour” of the Bloor line streetcars was 9000 (see https://stevemunro.ca/2010/01/08/streetcars-for-toronto-1952/).
With a standing capacity of coupled PCC cars of 200, 9000 passengers per hour translates into 45 trains per hour, or one every 1.33 minutes.
Munro also links to TTC schedules (see https://stevemunro.ca/ttc-scheduled-service-summaries/) . The 1954 schedule for the Bloor route reports its round trip using PCC multiple units was 20.09 miles long, took 130 minutes during rush times, averaged 9.28 MPH in rush times, and had headways of 2.0 minutes in rush times.
2 minute headways or 30 trains per hour with coupled cars carrying 200 people is a pphpd of 6000.
From the information in two TTC documents from the early 1950s, the maximum pphpds for the Bloor streetcars was well below 12,000. The IBI study referred to in Mr. Zwei’s source referred to a pphpd of 12,000, but this was only “at times”.
Please stop stating or implying that 12,000 is the pphpd that prevailed in practice or was even possible in regular service on such routes.
Zwei Replies: The information comes from independent sources and a study by a well regarded engineering group. Today, due to several factors Toronto may limit capacity to 9,000 pphpd. But in Europe there are scores of tramways that offer capacities of 20,000+ in the peak hours on portions of their tram (streetcar) routes. I have 30 year old videos shown 30 second headway’s in Amsterdam and other European cities!
In North America, the power of the tram, due to the car/bicycle and other lobbies has been all but ignored. If you do not want to believe it don’t, but do not try yo make me out as some sort of liar because the only person selling porkies is you.
Mr. Burgess, it doesn’t really matter at 9,000 or 12,000 p/h /d. It’s cheaper to use LRT, its frankly better and has more right of way options, making it cheaper and easier to build. LRT has greater carrying capacity, all at far lower capital and operating cost per km. Compared to a Light Metro System using LIM propulsion, designed from the outset to operate with a lower passenger capacity vehicle (even compared to streetcars), using higher operating frequencies and lighter infrastructure (giving the illusion that it is saving on capital costs) but failing because maintenance costs (including the greater number of mechanical staff), spare part costs, and operational limitations that force the construction of expensive right of ways. The greater operating frequencies, degrade the far too light infrastructure, faster. When I worked at Bombardier, operating technology like your Sktrain, Scarborough RT, Detroit People Mover were given the unfotunate label,”a solution in search of a problem”.
Even the Chinese never chose to copy the technology after they acquired it. The Japanese the biggest users of this technology combination rarely build with it. Years working at Bombardier and only 6 users worldwide and the number is falling. It was cheaper to use Toronto’s Scarborough RT garbage, then upgrading with more modern equipment from Alstom. Vancouver is paying 80% – 90% of the cost of a full metro system but less than half the capacity of one. Unfortunately your stuck with the Skytrain and yet no one in Vancouver chooses to build with anything else.
LRT cheap and configurative.
– Low operating cost.(less hours operation < bus)
– Low to medium capacity.
– For city or town.
– Radio or bowtie network.
– Combine cordor provide high frequencies from one end to the other of the cordor. Individual lines will need to wait longer.
– If a combined corridor ridership grows beyond capacity, paging holds your riders.
2023 Skytrain
Operational cost per kilometer $0.03
Operational cost Car KM $3.50
2023 Canada line
Operational cost per KM $0.12
Operational cost car km $18.47
What's the operational cost of the modern LRT in:
Operational cost per KM?
Operational costs car KM?
Cost per passenger. Variable with popularity of a line.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION RIDERSHIP top 2024
1- MTA 2,040,132.0
2- TTC 803,792.6
3- STM 553,971.6
4- TransLink 404,203.8
https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/2024-Q4-Ridership-APTA.pdf
I find it interesting that Vancouver’s light metro system has been one of the most studied, new build transit system in the world and no one has copied Vancouver, yet TransLink and its minions try to do everything in its power to say otherwise.
Something that Legoman fails to state, that American transit ridership is independently calculated and TransLink’s numbers are in house and not independently verified. it is in TransLink’s interest to claim high ridership but unless there an independent verification of ridership numbers, their claims are not worth the paper they are printed on.
As I stated before, Metro Vancouver’s light metro system has been one of the most studied, new build transit system in the world and no one has copied Vancouver nor its exclusive use of light metro.
From personal observations, I would say Translink over-states ridership between 10% to 15%, thus any calculations based on TransLink’s numbers are more than suspect
\
I have talked to many professionals over the years and my conclusions are based on their opinions.
Again, I refer you to my opening sentence.
Operational cost / Operational Hours = cost per hours
2023 Skytrain $300M / 1,280,282 Hours = $234.32
2023 Canada line $150M / 201,660 = $743.82
CMBC
40/60 foot $204.34
28 foot $120.68
LRT cost per hours?
Zwei replies: Each one of the over 450 light rail/tram lines would have their own cost per hour. What is known and understood, LRT/tram is cheaper to operate than light metro, unless ridership is such that would demand a metro.
Mr. Havacow, I objected to Mr. Zwei’s claims about Toronto streetcar capacity in the 1940s-50s because such exaggerations of what occurred in those conditions facilitate exaggeration of what is possible today.
I’m all in favour of public transit not being compromised by other users of that route but it is important to remain fact-based about when this is not true.
It is also about credibility regarding claims on other points.
Mr. Haveacow, how do you square your own claims of pphpds of 12,000 and headways as low as 30 or 45 seconds with the TTC schedules linked in Steve Munro’s blog? The shortest peak hour headway I noted was 2 minutes on Bathurst.
Zwei replies: Mr. B, you sound like Trump saying, The Ukraine started the war”.
You are comparing historical operation, with today’s operation, which is a big mistake.
The statement comes from a Toronto write on transit who has published several books on the subject.
to quote his last paragraph in the story; (in 1983)”streetcars moved 1580 people out of the CNE grounds in 15 minutes (6320 pphpd) and 1205 in a ten minute period (7230 pphpd) all in single 4 axle cars! Operating those cars in pairs would be 12,640 pphpd and 14,260 pphpd respectively.
I rest my case.
The only way to accurately compare costs is to compare the actual cost of light rail on the present SkyTrain routes and that has been done several times, modern light rail comes out on top every time. That is why no one buys the damn thing.
One must just sometime refrain from commenting, but one must come to the defense of the tram.
Many make the mistake of comparing scheduled operation with actual operation. Most cities on our side of the pond have regular schedules for tram routes ranging from 5 to 15 minutes depending on the day, but extra unadvertised services may be added on if demand warrants.
Using a timetable merely gives you what is being offered and not the actual service. In Munchen, peak hour tram service may include 10 or so unadvertised services per hour on heavily used routes to prevent leaving customers at the stop, depending on traffic volumes and driver availability. I would assume the the same is true in Toronto.
I also question why the Angst over streetcar ridership? It is well know that streetcars in major cities were carrying extremely heavy passenger volumes, far greater than Toronto’s 12,000 pphpd.
Mr Zwei, you compared a current, rated pphpd of 7,500 for one Skytrain line with a pphpd of 12,500 that you claimed “Toronto streetcars were carrying in the late 1940’s!” (https://www.railforthevalley.com/latest-news/zweisystem/thoughts-for-2025/#respond )
My comment noted that this pphpd was possible in exceptional circumstances like when the CNE Midway closed for the night, but was not plausible with PCC cars operating in traffic on Bloor-Danforth, the biggest streecar route in Toronto.
My point was that comparisons *like you made* should be ‘apples to apples’, e.g., for regular service or even overload service that is possible on that route for more than a very short period of time.
Yes, contemporary LRT achieves high pphpds where it enjoys suitable route conditions.
Zwei replies: Where to begin? Yes it is an apples to apples comparison and streetcars could achieve this today, but being a diehard SkyTrain supporter, you cannot admit to this.
The problem you have is that you are trying to fit square pegs into triangular pegs and it don’t work.
Streetcars can achieve an exceptional lift if need be but because most of our transit knowledge is about 50 years old, we cannot accept it. It is like the Ukraine fighting a 21st century war against a foe still using 1914 tactics. It don’t work.
Although I don’t work for Bombardier (now Alstom), I still have to be very careful about what I say, due to non disclosure agreements I signed when I left. What I can say, nobody outside of the guys and girls trying to sell Skytrain, wanted it around. Bombardier staff wanted very little to do with it. Even the newer (for the time) contracts of Shanghai, Yongjin, New York and Kuala Lumpur became courtroom disasters for Bombardier. Shanghai being a problem because the Chinese purchased it to acquire the technology, publicly admitted it and have no intention to ever purchase it again. This sparked a federal government competition/intelligence commission investigation with CSIS
Only New York’s Kenndy Airport connection route avoided open court. By the way, the Kennedy Airport Shuttle line is now very successful in terms of passenger attraction. However its continued success going on into the future hinges on, better connections to the Long Island Railroad commuter network and New York’s subway network. All this means expansion but nobody and I mean nobody, wants to pay for it and this was before President Trump.
The one thing that told you Bombardier wasn’t interested in the product was that, just before Bombardier sold its surface transportation division, the entire Skytrain technology and trainsets were officially moved to the Monorail and People Mover division of the company. In Bombardier, having your product moved to that division was known as the “Kiss of Death”. It was a place where many products went to wither and eventually, die. My most sincere apologies to the very hard working Bomarbier (now Alstom) staff whom, took or still take care of those products.
This product, The Automated Light Metro Transportation System, directly competes with Alstom’s HeavyMetro/Subway products, its existing Light Metro products, including its automated operating system technology, all its LRT products, plus all the Bombardier products that weren’t dealing with mainline or regional railroad equipment. It has no new contracts other than Vancouver and its highly likely it will never be purchased again. Alstom sure won’t put much effort into selling it.
FYI: Ottawa’s LRT can also operate without drivers, no LIM propulsion. No expensive 4th rail (induction rail) required. No hugely expensive rights of way and no specialized rail vehicles required. All of it built by only a single producer, guranteeing high maintenance and spare part costs. If you ran a city transit system and wanted a automated train, what would you choose?
Mr. Burgess unfortunately the printed schedule has often little to do with what is actually happening on the line or with what the transit company needs on the line. Due to shot turns, stalled traffic and many other daily occurrences and the simple need to clear backlogs, your schedule rarely meets the surface conditions. If your referring to the TTC, many times seen on sceduoes, was the term,” frequent service”, instead of a time, this means anything from a streetcar or bus every 20 seconds up to 2 minutes.It was common practice in the 50’s, 60’s and i0’s to add in unscheduled extras or trainees during the peak. The TTC had hundreds of extra streetcars to use because the two heaviest routes the Bloor-Danforth and the Yonge lines were gone by 1964.
I would like to add this. I have been told privately a lot of information and stories that I cannot publish, from those in the industry.
Until Metro Vancouver’s takeover by the city of Vancouver, the old GVRD did not want to build any more SkyTrain, but Vancouver wanted subways and cut deals with Burnaby and surrey to make this happen.
The result is $16 billion+ to extend the Millennium Line and Expo Line a mere 21.7 km. And now with tariffs going to be placed on American steel and cement in retaliation to American tariffs on Canadian products, the is cost will rise.
I can tell you that the current premier wants the Langley extension built because he believes it was critical for the NDP’s near electoral loss. The only problem is that the entire 21.7 km project is at least $4 billion short and Eby firmly believes that the feds will ante up the cash.
What may happen is that the Langley extension maybe only half completed as far as Fleetwood then half completed to Langley. Be prepared for more Emergency Room closures and other frills because Eby is pulling out the stops to fund it.
Forget the Broadway subway completion to UBC and forget about other transit improvements, except for tarted up express buses serving SkyTrain stations.
The result and what a few politicos have told me is that there is now serious talk of building another highway out to Abbotsford and using the Arbutus Corridor for BRT.
Continued SkyTrain expansion has completely bankrupted transportation planning simply because it does not allow for cheaper alternatives like LRT or regional railways because they would look better in comparison to SkyTrain.
In layman’s terms; “We are F***ed”
Sorry minor correction, in the sentence”The TTC had hundreds of extra streetcars to use because the two heaviest routes the Bloor-Danforth and the Yonge lines were gone by 1964.”, should read, were gone by 1966!
Anyway,
Moving huge numbers outside of “special situations”, like the X was quite common on the Queen and King Street corridors. Along certain sections, especially in the core, as many as 5 routes regular and 1 or 2 peak only routes were operating in the same corridor alone Queen Street East and West. Especially in the 1960’s. These were not special but daily occurrences. Nobody would argue that the service was fast on Queen Street, the traffic today might actually be a little lighter but 12,000 p/h/d could easily have been done during that era.
This is why the idea behind the long talked about, Queen Street Subway, stretching from the Scarborough border west to Long Branch, (leading to the abandonment of the Queen Street Streetcar Line and most likely the rest of the existing streetcar system by 1980.) was such a hot button topic at the time. The central portion of the Queen Street subway survived as the Downtown Relief Line and the currently building Ontario Line.