SkyTrain Billions Better Spent on Trams: Study

[Jared]

Originally Posted by mr.x2

any links to posts made by Translink staff?

took a quick look at Rees blog. I think "ken" is probably Ken Hardie.


That Malcolm Johnson guy is a total nutcase. He actually claimed that the Evergreen Line wont be complete by 2014 because its not under construction right now.

Millenium Line: 21km, 3 years
Canada Line: 19km, 4 years
Evergreen Line: 11km.......6 years?

[clooless]

Originally Posted by officedweller

That's what I said - the interlined service would be OK - but the individual branches would have slow service, esp. outside rush hours.

http://trimet.org/schedules/index.htm

That's exactly the problem with Calgary's C-Train. Outside of the morning and evening rush service is reduced to every ten or fifteen minutes. And the buses never wait for the trains, which are on a fixed schedule, unlike Skytrain. I can't count the number of times I've slipped and fallen on the icy stairs in winter at Brentwood Station running to try and catch the #20 bus because the driver won't wait 30 seconds for passengers from the LRT.

Skytrain has it all over the C-Train in terms of bus connections.

[Hot Rod]

SkyTrain is not an LRT. Get this through your head, for the last time.

SkyTrain uses 3rd rail, not overhead
SkyTrain has half of its network underground
SkyTrain has all of it's ROW grade separated
SkyTrain has much larger capacity than LRT
SkyTrain has much more frequent scheduling options
SkyTrain is automated, NO LRT is (and the ONLY way you can have an automated system is if it is a metro)
SkyTrain uses Subway 'style' stations and platforms
SkyTrain has fairgates (soon)

The ONLY reason why I'd even consider SkyTrain to be Light is that it doesn't use Heavy Rail vehicles, but it doesn't use Light Rail vehicles either.

Like was said, SkyTrain is in-between Heavy Rail Subway and Grade Separated Light Rail; in a classification all its own - known as Automated Light Rapid Transit (NOT AUTOMATED LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT).

IT IS NOT LIGHT RAIL!!!!!! it is Light Rapid Transit, meaning METRO or SUBWAY!

OK, glad I got that off my chest - hopefully for the LAST TIME!!!!!!

[EastVanMark]

Skytrain-superior, LRT, at-grade Tram-inferior.

[Hong Kongese]

Originally Posted by Hot Rod

SkyTrain has half of its network underground

May be the SkyTrain should not be called "SkyTrain" anymore in this case. How about call it something like BC Train; V Train or Metro Vancouver Train.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by Hong Kongese

May be the SkyTrain should not be called "SkyTrain" anymore in this case. How about call it something like BC Train; V Train or Metro Vancouver Train.

errrr....i prefer SkyTrain, it sounds quite distinct as our metro system. There's nothing original about calling our system the "Metro".

[CLC]

I personally hard to imagine how a LRT line can sufficiently serve the Broadway corridor. Currently almost every minute a No.9 or 99 run along Broadway. I assume a single LRT line has peak frequency of every 4 or 5 minutes , will it able to provide enough capacity? unless assume a LRT car has no seats (standing room only!) so that it can pack 200+ people in one car then probably it may work!

From my experience I am not impressed in LRT system in Calgary and Hong kong. I know Calgary C-trains do have huge boardings and most would consider it a successful infrastructure, but even from a tourist perspective I found C-trains not frequent and not fast enough (may be I am too get used to Vancouver skytrain)

Hong kong MTR Light Rail (formly KCR light rail) serving the Tuen Muen and Yuen Long (satelite cities in North Territorites of Hong kong), a population area of more than 1 million. It is an example of LRT cannot do the job in high density area. The LRT in Hong kong have much greater routes selection and combined frequncies than Calgary C-trains, and have drivers and transit priority signals. However it is so slow, the maximum operational speed is 80km/h, the real speed is slower than bike! And it is sardine-packed too because residents don't have much other options since many buses have been axed when LRT there started operating in early 1990s. In recent years with the additional of many bus routes back and a heavy rail (MTR West Rail
) serving as backbone the transit there improving again. Light Rail by itself is simply a great failure, and many Hong kong residents still see it as the most inferior mass transit system there

[Nutterbug]

Planners should make LRT systems to be modular and upgradable to a fully grade separated system with minimum cost and difficulty.

[flight_from_kamakura]

just a little on the etymology:

"metro" comes from the name of the first line in paris, which was called the "metropolitain" line, as opposed to the inter-urbain lines.

"skytrain" was apparently coined by grace mccarthy when she was infrastructure minister in bennet's last government. talk about particular!

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by Hot Rod

The ONLY reason why I'd even consider SkyTrain to be Light is that it doesn't use Heavy Rail vehicles, but it doesn't use Light Rail vehicles either.

Like was said, SkyTrain is in-between Heavy Rail Subway and Grade Separated Light Rail; in a classification all its own - known as Automated Light Rapid Transit (NOT AUTOMATED LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT).

IT IS NOT LIGHT RAIL!!!!!! it is Light Rapid Transit, meaning METRO or SUBWAY!

OK, glad I got that off my chest - hopefully for the LAST TIME!!!!!!

Not to be pedantic... but it's not called ALRT. It's called ART (Advanced Rapid Transit)

Saying that... the tracks were specifically designed so that LRT could be retrofitted at a later date... though they'd have to be specially designed, no doubt, to be lighter.

[officedweller]

ALRT has meant a few different things over the years -
Automated Light Rail Transit
Advanced Light Rail Transit
Automated Light Rapid Transit
Advanced Light Rapid Transit

Transit Toronto has an article on GO Transit's proposal for an ALRT system back in the 80s using the UTDC technology (i.e. Skytrain technology):


http://transit.toronto.on.ca/gotransit/2107.shtml

*****

WRT "Skytrain" there was a contest and that name won (it was submitted by many people and I think one person was randomly selected as the winner).

[en2]

Not that I am endorsing Bombardier or anything, but I wonder why lots of people here are so "against" SkyTrain.

Its a great, Canadian-made technology and I think more people should be proud of that.

If you look at other countries that have their own railway equipment manufacturer (i.e. Japan), they usually don't buy from foreign suppliers.

Not many cities in the world have fully automated rail transit systems and we had ours since the mid 80s. Thats a pretty good accomplishment if you remember what computer technology was in the 80s or even 90s.

Regarding LRT, I still do not get why people think its so great.

In the U.S. they think of nothing when building a giant 10 lane freeway or giant multi-bridge interchange, but when it comes to rail transit, they try to nickel-and-dime as much as possible...

[lightrail]

Originally Posted by flight_from_kamakura

just a little on the etymology:

"metro" comes from the name of the first line in paris, which was called the "metropolitain" line, as opposed to the inter-urbain lines.

"skytrain" was apparently coined by grace mccarthy when she was infrastructure minister in bennet's last government. talk about particular!

I have to correct you, though I think you're half right. The first use of the word metropolitan referring to a subway was in London. The world's first underground railway was opened in London, England, on January 10, 1863 by the Metropolitan Railway between Farringdon Road and what is now called Paddington Station.

The Paris metro opened after London and probably used a French version of the world Metropolitan.

[mr.x]

More ivory tower bogus from Malcolm J.:

What I find appalling is the utter ignorance about ‘rail’ transit here. SkyTrain is treated as a god, yet there are very few examples of it in operation and not one SkyTrain was allowed to compete against light rail. Despite being on the market for almost 30 years here are 5 or 6 in operation and every time SkyTrain failed to find a market, the owners of the proprietary light-metro changed the name. 5 times to date. Hmmm.

It should be noted that every SkyTrain built to date was a private deal with little or no public vetting and not one SkyTrain has ever survived public scrutiny in the USA (the JFK SkyTrain was a private deal between the Port Authority, Bombardier Inc., and the Canadian government, there was little public involvement).

Meredith hates the C-Train because a relative was killed by it, yet the singular fact is that the C-Train now carries over 250,000 passengers a day, a feat deemed impossible by TransLink.

Here is a primer on ‘rail’ transit. Both SkyTrain and LRT are railways, being LIM powered and driver-less, SkyTrain is a very expensive railway to build and operate. SkyTrain is in fact a unconventional, automatic light-metro.
(Myth #1 - SkyTrain is a different technology than LRT)
(Myth #2 - driver-less railways are cheap to operate because they have no drivers)

When ridership on a transit route exceeds 2,000 pphpd, LRT (streetcar/tram) becomes cheaper to operate than buses. This is because 1 tram and one tram driver is as efficient as 6 buses and 6 bus drivers. Added to this equation, for every bus or tram operated at least 3 people must be hired to drive, maintain and manage them and with wages accounting for about 70% of operating costs, the financial advantage of streetcar/tram (LRT) is very apparent.

SkyTrain is light-metro ( a mode largely made obsolete by LRT) and being completely grade separated it is very expensive to build and operate, one needs ridership numbers larger than 15,000 pphpd to make light-metro viable on a transit route. China’s vast population would ensure this number, while in Vancouver huge subsidies must be paid because the metro is operating on routes that doesn’t have the ridership to sustain it.

Myth #3 - SkyTrain pays it’s operating costs of $80 million annually)

Light rail does make cities livable, because one can build at least 4 LRT lines for every 1 SkyTrain line, more LRT lines = a more compressive ‘rail’ network = a more attractive ‘rail’ network for potential customers. it so simple, I am staggered that very few people here understand the concept. Even UBC’s Prof. Condon is beginning to understand the power of at-grade LRT in making a city more livable.

SkyTrain has damaged the environment because it is just too expensive to build out into the Fraser Valley and highway construction in the form of Gateway becomes a cheaper option.

(Myth #4 - We don’t have the density for rapid transit in the Fraser Valley)

TransLink deliberately plans LRT to be slower, this is done either by ignorance or on purpose, yet TransLink refuses to let real LRT experts anywhere near any LRT project. If LRT is slower than SkyTrain on the Evergreen line, then it was deliberately designed to be!

The real problem with SkyTrain is that, despite almost $6 billion of taxpayers money spent on it to date, it has failed to show a modal shift from car to SkyTrain. 80% of SkyTrain’s ridership first take a bus to the light-metro and this tells transit experts 2 things: 1) TransLink is forcing bus passengers onto SkyTrain to inflate ridership numbers and 2) SkyTrain is poor in attracting new ridership.

It is very difficult to debate transit in BC because most people don’t have a clue about transit or transit mode and certainly haven’t kept abreast of new developments. Yet the alarm bells are sounding, TransLink is going to have at least a $300 million shortfall by 2012. What are the alarm-bells saying? The folly of building light-metro (a.k.a SkyTrain) on transit routes that do not have the ridership to support the mode.

The only way to sustain SkyTrain is to have whopping big tax increases, tax increases that will deter businesses from locating in Vancouver, instead locate in the Fraser Valley, which will in turn create more urban sprawl up the valley. SkyTrain light-metro has created the very urban sprawl that its proponents wished to cure.

You just can’t have it both ways.

May I suggest Prof. Carmen Hass Klau’s 4 international studies beginning with “Bus or Light Rail, making the right choice.”

Those who failed to read transit history are doomed to repeat the same expensive mistakes.

[Rusty Gull]

I think Rees and Malcolm J would have a lot more credibility if they didn't undermine the success of SkyTrain at every given opportunity. Yes, the Fraser Valley could use more light rail. Yes, there is a place for LRT in Metro Vancouver.

But the way these two trash everybody in the business, they are polarizing the debate - and giving people a legitimate reason to tune their arguments out.

[ssiguy]

LRT works very well in Calgary because they were able to use dormant rail lines and go down the middle of their many wide median roads ie Crowchild.

Remember CTrain carries more passengers than SkyTrain yet is not as extensive, serves less than half the population ,and has cost one-third of the price of SkyTrain in todays dollars.
Either way, whether you like it or not, it has been a stellar success.

Whether you like the technology or not is not the point. It is by far and away, the most succesful LRT system in NA and it's figures hold up against any system in the world for such a realtively small length and only one million people served. CTrain is a feather in Calgary's cap.

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by Hot Rod

SkyTrain is not an LRT. Get this through your head, for the last time.

SkyTrain uses 3rd rail, not overhead
SkyTrain has half of its network underground
SkyTrain has all of it's ROW grade separated
SkyTrain has much larger capacity than LRT
SkyTrain has much more frequent scheduling options
SkyTrain is automated, NO LRT is (and the ONLY way you can have an automated system is if it is a metro)
SkyTrain uses Subway 'style' stations and platforms
SkyTrain has fairgates (soon)

The ONLY reason why I'd even consider SkyTrain to be Light is that it doesn't use Heavy Rail vehicles, but it doesn't use Light Rail vehicles either.

Like was said, SkyTrain is in-between Heavy Rail Subway and Grade Separated Light Rail; in a classification all its own - known as Automated Light Rapid Transit (NOT AUTOMATED LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT).

IT IS NOT LIGHT RAIL!!!!!! it is Light Rapid Transit, meaning METRO or SUBWAY!

OK, glad I got that off my chest - hopefully for the LAST TIME!!!!!!

its LRT!!!!

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

LRT works very well in Calgary because they were able to use dormant rail lines and go down the middle of their many wide median roads ie Crowchild.

Remember CTrain carries more passengers than SkyTrain yet is not as extensive, serves less than half the population ,and has cost one-third of the price of SkyTrain in todays dollars.
Either way, whether you like it or not, it has been a stellar success.

Whether you like the technology or not is not the point. It is by far and away, the most succesful LRT system in NA and it's figures hold up against any system in the world for such a realtively small length and only one million people served. CTrain is a feather in Calgary's cap.

once the extensions and new lines are done its gonna be amazing

[officedweller]

Its success is probably also a function of Calgary's layout (rather than any particular technology). My understanding is that commuter patterns in Calgary are primarily radial into the core (which are easy to serve), versus GVRD's where there is a very dispersed commuting pattern (and in some respect due to the LRSP Town Centre concept).

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by lightrail

I have to correct you, though I think you're half right. The first use of the word metropolitan referring to a subway was in London. The world's first underground railway was opened in London, England, on January 10, 1863 by the Metropolitan Railway between Farringdon Road and what is now called Paddington Station.

The Paris metro opened after London and probably used a French version of the world Metropolitan.

Yes. Métropolitain