Indeed, we need more people

Indeed, we need more people like Patrick Condon and less people like Kevin Falcon and Gordon Campbell.

Let's hear it for light rail!

We could also use some non-market student housing at UBC instead of magnificent new parking garages that facilitate private automobiles. It would also be nice to get the parked cars out of the former bike lanes on 16th Avenue and Marine Drive at UBC.

I Dunno...

Sounds nice on a relaxing, recreational Saturday or Sunday when one takes the tram from Granville Island to Science World to Chinatown to Gastown to Stanley Park... as envisaged by the contemplated Vancouver tram system.

But typical daily weekday travel to Point B from Point A??? To the ~85% of Metro Vancouver vehicular users... time is money and also means less time spent commuting/traveling... which means more time with the family.

As for the proposed Evergreen Skytrain line... here are the estimated travel times:

1. Bus: 23~29 min. for 10 km - 21~26 km/h
2. B-Line: 31~39 min. for 12.5 km: 19~24 km/h
3. LRT (tram): 24 min. for 11 km: 28 km/h
4. Skytrain: 14.5 min for 11 km: 46 km/h

Skytrain over lrt? ~ 10 minutes in time savings for just one direction.

A City of Vancouver transit study from 1999 (options and conclusions) along Broadway to UBC:

http://vancouver.ca/engsvcs/transport/rto/ubcline/pdf/beyondthebline_execsumm.pdf

So why even bother to expend funds on lrt (tram) along Broadway to UBC, when rapid bus is cheaper and quicker??? It seems that a Skytrain/rapid bus combo is the best bet.

provactive idea- but what are costs?? Part 1

"Add up all costs for each form of transportation -- capital, operating and energy -- and guess which is most expensive per passenger mile? SkyTrain"..but the UBC academics propose giving Prius cars to students forever as being more cost efficient.

and just what are costs--what about all the externalities that are not factored into the financial cost equation. To get to sustainability we need full cost accounting...and more than that we need to reduce the 'throughput' of ecosystem derived resources and the four categories of ecosystem services - which are undervalued or not valued at all..into the 'machine' that will spit out all those cars "forever', plus reduce carbon and other toxics emission into the 'sink' of rivers, skies, acquifers, etc.......and if our eco-lite crew within the existing government, Provincially and Federally were to actually get on the ball..get around to passing 'entended product responsibility' legislation as they have in the EU...those costs all need accounting for too. We have one planet to live on --not three...and we are already way in 'overshoot'...with an enormous erosion of natural capital and huge social capital debts. Just wait till Ed Deak responds to those 'economists' doing their number computer modelling game :)

...I think that when all the true costs are added up, the best alternative is ground-level light rail like in Portland over skytrain..if any of our political parties had the smarts to consider the demographics of growth for the Metro Van region 50 years ago...they then could have planned for and built our underground tubes...much like Oslo has done for a city of 500,000 or Budapest did in the early 1850's...and not with P3s.

provactive idea- but what are costs? -Part Two

Rather than carbon tax being revenue neutral a portion ought to go to mass transit nationally...do as Dion propose -make the green shift (like Norway, etc) from income tax to carbon tax...and not revenue neutral. Use the money to stimulate endogenous (not export) led growith - local green collar jobs. There - some economics for Tyee readers and the likes of the NDP party and Liberal party to consider...where is the BC NDP on carbon tax anyway - except 'axe the tax'. Why the hell would anyone vote for them without seeing a better alternative in this age. .We need to move from an ownership to an access society..just like 'open source software' is accessible to all ...Wonder why the Tyee pays soooo much attention to those UBC academic economists' and not folks like Deak, or myself, or Professor Bil Rees, who have both the education and the experience in ecological economic matters to offer competing views to the worn-out treads in this article? Ever heard of 'thermo-dynamic' economic thories -their time for application is well overdue. Still haven't seen a decent review of the MA at the Tyee -which complements the IPPC report on climate change..and would inject some 'reason' into those orthodox UBC economists - still being trained like mice at universities with the same stale cheese. The eco-footprint of individually owned Prius cars by students forever -did they ever calculate that..and the batteries, the mining of the metals, the waste water, the recyling costs, etc, the poor wages paid to Labor in the developing world..which is a social debt. I could continue -come on David Beers...give us something much better to inspire us, to give us hope, to engage our intellect, rather than dumb-down to us loyal Tyee readers :) - love ya anyway and the Tyee too.!

Had a vehicle

In '83 I went to UBC from Renfrew and settled on the bus. I doubt that I could have covered costs of fuel and parking with the bus fare nor walked in from whatever (zed lot now?) in less total time.

Most mature cities I have visited - Paris, London, Rio, Sao Paulo have efficient underground systems. Some, like Amsterdam work quite well with surface trams. Venice has canal systems and not even bicycles for grown ups. Vancouver is sort of similar to Amsterdam and Venice in that anything underground there is also under the water but so is most of Rio de Janaro subway which worked just fine once we figured out (with the kind help of local people) how to get from here to there.

My point being: (as a UBC Alumnus) Please do not donate multiple cars to the students there especially not hi-tech electric cars.Wreck Beach would become a dump for the NiMHy current tech battery and covered by a layer of LiPolymer with a thin layer of hybrid vehicles on top.
"The better to date you with."
said the big bad wolf

We need more than one solution

David makes several good points here. Planners often want to go with the big glitzy fix when simple ones would do.

Often the solution is not a one shot fix, but a series of options. Something that should be considered is what it would cost to build bicycle lanes in addition to trams. How about taxing drivers to fund rapid transit. Another part of the solution is to sell insurance with gasoline, so that the less gas you use, the more insurance you pay. If you already own a car and insurance is fixed, you feel that you have already paid that, so you only factor in the cost of gas to get somewhere which can often be cheaper than transit.

To solve as complex a problem as transit, we will need a lot of clever solutions. Skytrain is nice, but it is a luxury that hogs resources cutting off other solutions.

Transit

One does not have to travel the world to see examples of decent, evolving rapid transit. Calgary, at the very same time new neighbourhoods are built in all four directions, LRT is installed at the very same time. Go figure. With planning and action, the Lower Fraser Valley could have LRT right to Rosedale by now, couldn't it? But oh no, everyone and their dog had to have "input" and no "action" was ever taken, since EXPO for gawd's sake!!

Facts please!

There is a sort of nonsense that pervades our transit planning, the faster the system, the more passengers it attracts - not proven.

When one compares SkyTrain (SkyTrain: 14.5 min for 11 km: 46 km/h) with LRT (tram: 24 min. for 11 km: 28 km/h, one is comparing SkyTrain with far fewer stops or stations, which in turn increases travel time. Fewer stations means longer access times which equal linger journey times.

Then there is the fact that subways do not attract ridership and is good reason why European transit planners shy away from subways, unless there is the ridership (average 15,000 persons per hour per direction) to justify construction.

Quote:

"LRT from Commercial to UBC (Alternative 2) has the highest capital cost and annual operating cost. It is also by far the most expensive way of attracting new riders to transit."

This is pure bullshit how can one say this with on-street LRT costing $10 million/km. to $20 million/km. and subway's costing $125 million/km.+ to build. LRT is also far cheaper to maintain than SkyTrain in or out of a subway.

Quote:

"Rapid Bus (Alternative 1) has the lowest capital cost and is the cheapest way to attract new transit riders."

More bullshit, as buses are very poor in attracting new ridership. Even much hyped guided bus has failed to attract new ridership.

Quote:

"SkyTrain to Arbutus (plus Rapid Bus to UBC; Alternative 6) has an intermediate capital cost and an operating cost comparable to Rapid Bus. It has the highest number of new riders and is between Rapid Bus and LRT in terms of cost per new rider."

This is so 1980's and pure BS. Both subways and buses are poor in attracting ridership, the whole statement is stuff and nonsense.

Quote:

"SkyTrain alone is the most expensive technology on a per km basis; however, when combined with Rapid Bus to UBC, the combination costs less than LRT."

More bullshit, one could easily built 5 to 10 km. of LRT for every KM. of SkyTrain subway ; for the cost of 3 km. of SkyTrain subway we could build 15 to 30 km. of LRT!

It is feasible to build a BCIT to UBC LRT for the cost of 2 km. of subway. This is the main reason why SkyTrain and/or subways are largely rejected by transit planners around the world.

Quote:

"It seems that a SkyTrain/rapid bus combo is the best bet."

This would be the worst combination possible; a limited stop SkyTrain subway and a forced transfer onto buses, all three proven to not attract customers

God hasn't anyone read a book on the subject?

Responding to Peter D

Peter,

Perhaps it's the way I wrote the headline, but if you read the piece, Prof. Condon is not suggesting a Prius for each student, but simply saying that would be hardly less extravagant and inefficient as SkyTrain, which is expensive, creates its own externalities through construction materials and (tho I didn't have room for it) its passengers often have to ride one or two more modes of transit to use it. His solution: the tram. I invite you to debate that proposition, since it's the one I was helping him put forward (not, actually, the attention grabbing notion of a Prius for all).

An expert's comment on TransLink's love affair with SkyTrain

Gerald Fox's letter

Greetings:

The Evergreen Line Report made me curious as to how TransLink could justify continuing to expand SkyTrain, when the rest of the world is building LRT. So I went back and read the alleged "Business Case" (BC) report in a little more detail.
I found several instances where the analysis had made assumptions that were inaccurate, or had been manipulated to make
the case for SkyTrain. If the underlying assumptions are inaccurate, the conclusions may be so too.

Specifically:

Capacity.

A combination of train size and headway. For instance, TriMet's new "Type 4" Low floor LRVs, arriving later this year, have a rated capacity of 232 per car, or 464 for a 2-car train. (Of course one must also be sure to use the same
standee density when comparing car capacity. I don't know if that was done here). In Portland we operate a frequency of 3 minutes downtown in the peak hour, giving a one way peak hour capacity of 9,280. By next year we will have two routes through downtown, which will eventually load both ways, giving a theoretical peak hour rail capacity of 37,000 into or out of downtown. Of course we also run a lot of buses. The new Seattle LRT system which opens next year, is designed for 4-car trains, and thus have a peak hour capacity of 18,560. (but doesn't need this yet, and so shares the tunnel with buses). The Business Case analysis assumes a capacity of 4,080 for LRT, on the Evergreen Line which it states is not enough, and compares it to SkyTrain capacity of 10400.!

Speed.

The analysis states the maximum LRT speed is 60 kph. (which would be correct for the street sections) But most LRVs are actually designed for 90 kph. On the
Evergreen Line, LRT could operate at up to 90 where conditions permit, such as in the tunnels, and on protected ROW. Most LRT systems pre-empt most intersections, and
so experience little delay at grade crossings. (Our policy is that the trains stop only at stations, and seldom
experience traffic delays. It seems to work fine, and has little effect on traffic.) There is another element of speed, which is station access time. At-grade stations have less access time.
This was overlooked in the analysis.
Also, on the NW alignment, the SkyTrain proposal uses a different, faster, less-costly alignment to LRT proposal. And
has 8 rather than 12 stations. If LRT was compared on the alignment now proposed for SkyTrain, it would go faster, and cost less than the Business Case report states!

Grumpy...

Again... you're too grumpy.:)

That's just for the Evergreen line extension inter-connecting with SkyTrain's Lougheed station.

Let's say that you are travelling from Coquitlam Town Centre to UBC. Very time consuming!!!! Most people prefer the quickest option from Point A to Point B. For obvious reasons as I've previously cited.

The Broadway corridor extension to UBC involved a study commissioned by the City of Vancouver wayyy back during 1999. Seamless transit along the M-Line. No transfers. No additional waiting times and quicker.

Now, if ~ 85% of Metro Vancouverites currently utilize their vehicles, which provides the fastest mode of transport in the region from Point A to Point B, intend to utilize transit as an alternative , it better provide a similar time equivalent.

Just common sense. No studies required.

Gerald Fox's letter Part 2

Cost.

Here again, there seems to be some hidden biases. As mentioned above, on the NW Corridor, LRT is costed on a different alignment, with more stations. The cost difference between LRT and SkyTrain presented in the Business Case report is therefore misleading. If they were compared on identical alignments, with the same number of stations, and designed to optimize each mode, the cost advantage of LRT would be far greater. I also suspect that the basic LRT design has been rendered more costly by requirements for
tunnels and general design that would not be found on more cost-sensitive LRT projects.

Then there are the car costs. Last time I looked, the cost per unit of capacity was far higher for SkyTrain. Also,it takes
about 2 SkyTrain cars to match the capacity of one LRV. And the grade-separated SkyTrain stations are far most costly and complex than LRT stations. Comparing 8 SkyTrain stations with 12 LRT stations also helps blur the distinction.
Ridership. Is a function of many factors.

The Business Case report would have you believe that type of rail mode
alone, makes a difference (It does in the bus vs rail comparison, according to the latest US federal guidelines). But, on the Evergreen Line, I doubt it. What makes a
difference is speed, frequency (but not so much when headways get to 5 minutes), station spacing and amenity etc.
Since the speed, frequency and capacity assumptions used in the Business Case are clearly inaccurate, the ridership
estimates cannot be correct either. There would be some advantage if SkyTrain could avoid a transfer. If the connecting system has capacity for the extra trains. But the
case is way overstated.

And nowhere is it addressed whether the Evergreen Line, at the extremity of the system, has the demand for so much capacity and, if it does, what that would mean on the rest of the system if feeds into?

Innuedos about safety, and traffic impacts, seem to be a big issue for SkyTrain proponents, but are solved by the
numerous systems that operate new LRT systems (i.e., they can't be as bad as the SkyTrain folk would like you to
believe).

Gerald Fox's letter part 3

I've no desire to get drawn into the Vancouver transit wars, and, anyway, most of the rest of the world has moved on. To
be fair, there are clear advantages in keeping with one kind of rail technology, and in through-routing service at
Lougheed. But, eventually, Vancouver will need to adopt lower-cost LRT in its lesser corridors, or else limit the extent
of its rail system. And that seems to make some TransLink people very nervous.

It is interesting how TransLink has used this cunning method of manipulating analysis to justify SkyTrain in corridor after corridor, and has thus succeeded in keeping its proprietary rail system expanding. In the US, all new transit projects that seek federal support are now subjected to scrutiny by a panel of transit peers, selected and monitored by the federal government, to ensure that projects are analysed honestly, and the taxpayers' interests are protected.

No SkyTrain project has ever passed this scrutiny in the US.

Victoria

But the BIG DEAL for Victoria is: If the Business Case analysis were corrected to fix at least some of the errors
outlined above, the COST INCREASE from using SkyTrain on the Evergreen Line will be comparable to the TOTAL COST of a modest starter line in Victoria. This needs to come to the attention of the Province. Victoria really does
deserve better.

Please share these thoughts as you feel appropriate.

And Grumpy...

That WAS a transit study of the Broadway corridor commissioned by the City of Vancouver during 1999. It wasn't just a letter. Big difference.

No doubt, lrt/trams are great for intra-city transit... you name it, but not for specific strategic/regional corridors.

Luke, read Fox's letter.

You make the mistake that SkyTrain's faster, based on what; TransLink's say-so?

TransLink, like BC Transit before have never been honest about SkyTrain and LRT and your posts continue this sort of nonsense.

What you do not include of course is total commute time. Given the same length of transit line and same amount of stations, LRT travel times would be about the same.

Recent studies have concluded that speed is not the most important factor in attracting people to transit, rather the overall ambiance, ease of ticketing, etc. that is more important in attracting ridership.

Properly designed an on-street LRT could have comparable travel times as SkyTrain. Sadly TransLink is so out of date that they compare horse drawn trams with SkyTrain not modern LRT.

Trams

Please read the study. It only takes ten minutes. Then i would love to hear the comments.

Here is the link:
http://www.sxd.sala.ubc.ca/8_research/sxd_FRB07Cost_Comparisons%5B3%5D%5B1%5D.pdf

If that one gives you trouble try this one and click bulletin 7 at the bottom of the page.

http://www.sxd.sala.ubc.ca/8_research.htm

Patrick

Luke, I have the study....

..... and it is pure bullshit, based on the fact the City of Vancouver wants a subway, paid for by the regions taxpayers. The authors of the study did not do much research but just rehashed Translink's and BC Transit's anti-LRT venom.

To be blunt, the region has not had a proper transit study since the 1970's and anything done post 1980, is so pro SkyTrain and anti-LRT that they are all but useless.

In one letter, Gerald Fox easily shreds the Evergreen Line's business case; a business case that Falcon and Gordo's zombies on the TransLink Board cheer about.

What is needed is a clearly independent transportation study, but it will never happen, not here.

Oh by the way Luke, have you wondered why Bombardier will not let SkyTrain compete directly against LRT. What are they afraid of? The truth?

Skytrain has never been about economics

The appeal of the system to the right was always that it was automated, and thus did not require a non-management labour force (which would almost certainly be unionized) to operate it. Hence no strikes.

Grumpy...

It's apparent that "Gerald Fox" is involved with Tri-Met in Portland:

Did you know that TriMet's downtown tram is slower than riding a bike? I've been on the system.

Did you know that TriMet purchased rail cars for its commuter train that was on the verge of insolvency?

http://www.oregonlive.com/special/index.ssf/2008/12/trimet.html

Be careful what you wish for.

Comments about

Strikes ........ SkyTrain staff are unionized and did go on strike, but management caved in and SkyTrain was down for a day or two.

Operating costs on just the Expo Line are 60% higher than Calgary's LRT, yet Calgary's LRT carried more customers.

SkyTrain was never conceived for long distance traveled, but a replacement for Toronto's streetcars. According to the TTC's 1983 ART study, "ICTS (what SkyTrain is called in Ontario) could cost anything up to 10 times more to install than LRT, for about the same capacity."

There is good reasons for not building with SkyTrain, it just in BC, where TransLink, like BC Transit before, couldn't plan for a whorehouse, let alone understand its function!

reply to David Beers

of course, David, when I said provocative...the title...is provocative, and leaving out the definition of 'costs' is provocative too. As I see it light rail trams and buses, and mini-buses, and bicycles are the way to go...but in addition to that, your article makes no mention of what 'costs' were being considered/not considered by the design economist team...and that they threw Priius for every student forever..indeed! We could have a light rail manufacturing factory here, great spin off jobs, high multiplier effects. I would just like to encourage much more savvy articles on economics and the economy at the Tyee. ...and on making this City/region much more 3E sustainable..beyond more bike paths...we still have genuine progress to achieve with respect to recyling...and extended product responsibility by the corporate sector. Thanks for responding though and keep up your passion!

We Need More Funding

Just what we need. Another poorly researched opinion piece that cherry pick numbers. Funny that LRT proponents criticize reports favouring SkyTrain or buses that do the same then proceed to use the same methods to make arguments supporting LRT or trams. One can manipulate numbers and stats to support any position they want.

In the end, you get what you pay for. Sure a system of trams would cost much less than SkyTrain up front, but the incremental increases in ridership over buses would be rather small. Why spend hundreds of millions of dollars for a network that is not much faster than buses?

In Condon's last "research study", "SkyTrain Billions Better Spent on Trams", if one bothered to find the capital cost per passenger of the Portland Streetcar system, it was about the same as the per passenger cost of the UBC Line Subway. If one actually looked at cost per passenger mile, the UBC Line would be much less expensive than the Portland Streetcar. Conveniently, the cost per passenger mile of the Portland Streetcar was not included in either study.

Similarly, for this study, if one looks at passenger levels over the life of the UBC Line, the UBC Line would be a lot more competitive with the streetcar.

Hard to know what the numbers in Condon's study really are as no information was provided on how the results were calculated or what the assumptions were.

It would be really nice if we could have some non-biased (or less biased) analysis to inform people of these important issues.

Or even better, fight for more funding for transit so we can have both SKyTrain and streetcars.

Luke............

............ do you realize that we are selling cars from manufacturers (Ford, GM, Chrysler) that are on the verge of bankruptcy?

We pumped billions into SkyTrain, an obsolete light-metro that apparently no one else wants to buy? As for Tri-Mets downtown operation, closely spaced stations and no priority at intersections do make both the tram and LRT slow in the city centre, yet they are popular.

80% of SkyTrain's riders are forced to transfer from bus to metro, to give the appearance of high ridership, a hell of a way to operate a transit company.

Grumpy...

Ya forgot to mention a few things though:

1. Calgary has 1/2 the population of Metro Vancouver;

2. Calgary has several times the office space of Vancouver in its downtown core;

3. Calgary's lrt system works in that it's a "spoke system"... suburb to downtown;

4. Calgary also has an excellent free-flow highway system compared to Metro Vancouver;

4. Metro Vancouver has a completely different commuter/travel pattern than Calgary... that is... from region to region... not from suburb to downtown akin to Calgary;

Makes a HUGE difference and comparing the two is akin to comparing apples and oranges. Really.

Not true rac.............

Quote:

" Funny that LRT proponents criticize reports favouring SkyTrain or buses that do the same then proceed to use the same methods to make arguments supporting LRT or trams. One can manipulate numbers and stats to support any position they want"

All the light rail lobby wants is a level playing field, which certainly has not happened. Most statistics about LRT/trams/streetcars come from actual revenue service, with figures accumulated under strict controls. Not so for SkyTrain, where there is little independent information about the the metro and most information must come from FOI requests. What are they trying to hide?

We know we can build trams for $5 million to $7 million a km. because they are doing so in Spain, Germany and Finland.

We know that LRT/tram/streetcar can carry over 20,000 persons per hour per direction (something that SkyTrain has yet to achieve) in Helsinki, Hong Kong, and Karlsruhe.

We know that LRT can operate at speeds of 90 to 100 kph, because it does in Portland, Karlsruhe, and many other cities around the world.

Here is something to think about - surface tram/LRT lines attract more new ridership than subways, yet to hear TransLink speak, one would think the opposite is true.

Ever wonder why the Europeans stopped building subways in the 1980's?

SkyTrain is a light-metro, a mode made obsolete by LRT, why - because LRT attracts more new ridership, is cheaper to build and operate, and has a far greater flexibility of service. That's why no one builds with SkyTrain - too expensive to build; too expensive to operate; to inflexible to change with the times.

Only 6 SkyTrain systems are in operation around the world, with two that maybe demolished in the near future. there are over 600 LRT/tram/streetcar operations around the world, with over 100 new ones built since SkyTrain was first marketed in the late 1970's.

Hmmmm - I wonder why?

Forced onto the Bus

Yeah, forced on to SkyTrain. It is more like being forced on a bus from SkyTrain. I used to take the bus to Lougheed Mall. It was just a painful journey before SkyTrain.

Portland's LRT and streetcar have less than half the ridership of SkyTrain and their region's transit mode share is half that of Vancouver's. It is painfully slow and pretty much abandoned on weekends outside the downtown core.

I took SkyTrain and bus to MetroTown from Kits. During the round trip, I only waited for a total of a minute or two during transfers. That is pretty good service. With LRT, they run longer trains with greater headways to lower operating costs. Don't need to do that with SkyTrain. Even late at night, you only have to wait 3-5 minutes max for a SkyTrain compared to 15-10 minutes on many LRT systems. In the cold weather, that really makes a difference.

SkyTrain is practically a horizontal elevator the service is that good.

No one ever claimed the market for light metros is large. It fills a small niche between LRT and a full metro. We are fortunate to have enough potential ridership to justify a light metro and the high level of service it offers.

Luke, Luke...

All I compared was the cost to operate the SkyTrain Expo Line with Calgary's LRT; both lines are about the same length, yet the SkyTrain Expo Line costs 60% more (with the SkyTrain police, this cost just increases) to operate than Calgary's LRT, which carries more ridership. It's an apples to apples comparison. I know it makes you nervous to admit that LRT is better and that SkyTrain is an orphan system.

Calgary's LRT, despite having drivers, is cheaper to operate than the driverless SkyTrain. This is a fact not lost on transit planners elsewhere. Again I must state; "Who builds with SkyTrain?"

I think th answer is obvious, too expensive for the results!

Use on the Ground Numbers Here

SkyTrain doesn't carry r 20,000 persons per hour per direction because there isn't the demand yet nor the cars required to carry that number of passengers.

Burnaby, New West and Vancouver according to the census all have transit mode shares of over 25% which is far greater than any city with LRT in North America. Your claim that LRT attracts more ridership is simply not borne out by the facts on the ground.

Funny, no one told Madrid or Copenhagen Europe was not building Metros. I suspect that the metro construction decline in the 80's was more due to cheap oil than LRT. Cities all around the world are building metros again, including oil-rich gulf states. They are building LRT as well.

The Exception Does not Prove the Rule

Calgary's LRT is the only one in North America that has ridership at SkyTrain levels. At this point, it is actually slightly greater although that will likely change next year when the new SkyTrain cars arrive.

The exception does not prove the rule. The ridership on most other North American LRT lines is just a fraction of what SkyTrain ridership is.

Calgary also talking about building a $2 billion tunnel downtown which will bring the cost up to SkyTrain levels.

RAC............

........... Portland doesn't force people from bus to LRT. The Vancouver Main St. buses, terminate at Main St. Science World and those who wish to continue to downtown Vancouver must transfer to SkyTrain. It is done just to increase SkyTrain ridership numbers.

Portland's daily ridership on MAX is now 120,000 a day, far surpassing ridership projections. Unlike SkyTrain, MAX's ridership is audited, where TransLink merely guesses ridership numbers, based on a hocus-pocus alchemy of revenue received, U-Passes issued and spot ridership checks. It doesn't pass scrutiny.

Headways on a transit system are based on patronage, fewer passengers = less headways. All too often in the evening I see SkyTrain operating all but empty = increased maintenance costs.

Quote:

"We are fortunate to have enough potential ridership to justify a light metro and the high level of service it offers."

We don't have the ridership to justify a light metro, that's why SkyTrain is being subsidized annually at over $200 million by the province. You just don't get it - light-metro is obsolete - made obsolete by LRT because light-metro offers no advantage over LRT, it just costs more.

WHY DO YOU THINK THAT AFTER BEING ON THE MARKET FOR ALMOST 30 YEARS SKYTRAIN HAS FAILED TO FIND A MARKET - IT'S OBSOLETE OLD CHUMS.

Everyone's off base

As everyone knows, but has forgotten, George Puil's 2000 quote is still perfectly accurate today. "Skytrain is an engine of real estate development. It is not intended to be a people mover, and never was."

So you have to ask yourself "Which are the districts that are preparing for 22-storey towers?"

Grumpy...

We Agree On:

Having an expanded tram/streetcar/lrt sytem.

Perhaps I'm more focused upon the intra-city aspects of same in Metro Vancouver.

We Disagree On:

Expanding the 22-year old SkyTrain system marginally to its ultimate conclusion for seamless transit:

1. The M-Line to Coquitlam Town Centre;

2. The Expo Line to Guildford thereabouts in Surrey;

3. The M-Line along Broadway albeit not to UBC;

And no, it's not political.

Facts on the Ground

Terminating the buses at Main Station was not done to inflate SkyTrain numbers, it was done to increase the frequency of buses on Main Street. That said, it would be nice if some of the buses continued along Hastings.

Funny how you keep ignoring the facts on the ground:
Burnaby, New West and Vancouver according to the census all have transit mode shares of over 25% which is far greater than any city with LRT in North America.

Actually RAC............

It's been proven that on-street LRT attracts more new customers than a subway, there are many reasons for this, too many to repeat here.

Copenhagen is going bankrupt building metros and is planning for LRT for future transit.

The same is true for Madrid, which has a metro but is building two LRT lines.

The problem with SkyTrain is that 80% of its riders first use a bus, then are forced to transfer to the metro. This greatly skews ridership numbers. Almost all American LRT operations have exceeded their ridership forecasts, so much so, that they are greatly expanding.

There is one thing that TransLink doesn't brag about (and it's telling) is the number of motorists that have been attracted to the metro. Very few, yet planners outside BC point to this fact as SkyTrain is a failure of sorts. Too expensive to do any real good, with high ridership numbers maintained by cheap student passes and forced transfers.

Real Estate

zalm is right.

All transportation projects in this province are driven by real estate development. This is fine when it is high density around SkyTrain stations. Not so great when it is sprawling development up the valley or along the Sea to Sky

Grumpy...

Just have to add my epilogue here. ;)

Look at Skytrain as a 4-lane "free-flow" highway if ya will. You know... that 100 km/hr freeway?

Then look at lrt... it's more akin to a 4-lane "boulevard" with that 60 km/hr speed limit.

Just for comparison's sake.

seth:

LOL... reminds me of that statement by the poster Kootkoot one year ago. And that's why I enjoy this site. ;)

The Proof in Burnaby and New West

From the census, transit commuting in Burnaby increased by 10,000 people or 75% between 1996 and 2006, in New West the increase was 3,345 or 69% but I'm sure the Millennium Line had nothing to do with that. It must have been the invisible LRT that everyone is really using.

RAC............

One also has to wonder if the numbers are correct, I have my doubts because they don't add up. Until there is a credible and independently audited ridership on SkyTrain, I would trust any figure in the region.

Imagine with the money invested in LRT, we could have had easily 4 times the network, attracting even more ridership. But one figure has not changed, the percentage of people using transit in the region has remained at about 11%. With TransLink desperately trying to increase it to 17%.

If SkyTrain is so good, why has it been rejected on such a large scale.

Light Metro Has a Big Advantage

The advantage that SkyTrain has is the low headways. Even late at night, the headways are 3-5 minutes as opposed to LRT where they are usually 15-20 minutes late at night.

Luke, you are dead wrong

You forgot that a transit system must stop to take on passengers. The optimum distance in a urban setting for a transit system is stops every 500 to 600 metre apart. In suburban areas stops could be as far as 2 km. apart. With this in mind, both SkyTrain and LRT would have identical commercial speeds. Fewer stops = fewer passengers.

Sad fact is Luke, rac light rail made SkyTrain obsolete some two decades ago. No one in North America or Europe use SkyTrain for urban transportation. The few cities that have a SkyTrain were either forced to build one by politicians wanting a prestigious transit system or a glorified airport people mover.

Census Data

Well, here is the data. There is no reason to doubt the census numbers. Statscan has no vested interest in this.

http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census96/data/profiles/DataTable.cfm?YEAR=1996&LANG=E&PID=35782&S=A&GID=204707

http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/profiles/community/Details/Page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CSD&Code1=5915025&Geo2=PR&Code2=59&Data=Count&SearchText=burnaby&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All&Custom=

The packed SkyTrain cars back this up as well.

Yes rac.........

........empty trains at 3 minute headways late at night, keeps the maintenance boys busy. Many LRT systems can and do run 24 / 7 but not SkyTrain because being an automatic railway, it must stop at night for at least 4 hours, for essential maintenance to the signaling systems or it just doesn't work.

I really don't see any advantage at all, if the ridership is there the tram will be there to cater to customer's needs. It's called service, which isn't in Translink's lexicon.

Packed at peak hours......

..........just like every other transit system operating in the world.

RAC you just don't get it. SkyTrain is obsolete, for all the reasons mentioned above. You are so busy using questionable stats, that you failed to understand why people use transit.

Again, why is no one buying SkyTrain? Why is LRT built in so many places? Why won't bombardier let SkyTrain compete against LRT?

Answer those and you may learn something.

Grumpy...

Ya might be right, but remember... Calgary's lrt passes through numerous road crossings along its entire length, requiring slowdowns [akin to traffic lights in road parlance), irrespective of distance between stations.

And that has an impact upon speed (again the difference between a freeway and a boulevard in road parlance).

Hey, we still almost agree on everything except the contemplated relatively short and final extensions to SkyTrain!

So What

Who cares if SkyTrain is obsolete and that no one else is buying it.

The bottom line is that it is getting better ridership than all North American LRT lines and that it is more successful in attracting ridership as shown by the census data in New West and Burnaby.

Uhhh... facts?

["Funny how you keep ignoring the facts on the ground:
Burnaby, New West and Vancouver according to the census all have transit mode shares of over 25% which is far greater than any city with LRT in North America."

Burnaby/New West's share of transit is 16.7% (2003 figures are the latest ones available) while Vancouver's is 20.1% (2004 figures - I'm having trouble finding the results of the 2005-2007 performance plan, but they expected transit share to grow by 11% in that period based on the 2002-2004 transit plan, bringing the results for Burnaby-New West to 18.3% by 2007 and 22.2% by 2008, although they noted that Vancouver's total transit use was dropping as services were expanded to outlying areas.)

All figures courtesy Translink's annual reports and transit plans.

Don't juggle figures - you'll get cut.

Rac

"Well, here is the data. There is no reason to doubt the census numbers. Statscan has no vested interest in this"

We already went over this six months ago at
http://thetyee.ca/News/2008/06/05/UpWithTrams/

You were wrong then and you're still wrong now. Statscan doesn't ask questions you can understand the results of. They only ask if you take transit, but not how often, whether to work, home, shopping or anywhere else, what proportion of your trips are by transit, car, bike walking or teleportation, or whether you even know what a bus looks like.

That's always been Statscan's problem.

Translink on the other hand asks very specific questions about modal use, and that's why they know much more about transit trips (and hence show a lower transit penetration rate) than does Statscan.

Hell, if all the people who YOU said were taking transit actually were doing so all the time, the oil industry in Canada would suffer an immediate and catastrophic drop in sales of about a million barrels of oil a day!

Hasn't happened yet, that I'm aware of....

Rac (again, sigh...)

"From the census, transit commuting in Burnaby increased by 10,000 people or 75% between 1996 and 2006, in New West the increase was 3,345 or 69% but I'm sure the Millennium Line had nothing to do with that. It must have been the invisible LRT that everyone is really using."

If you look at the various Translink Transportation plans for those years (up to 2004 in the case of Burnaby-New West) you find that total transit use increased by 18% in those areas. You have to reach deeper to get the actual number of riders, but I doubt that there were 13,333 transit riders in Burnaby in 1996.

What you DO find from those figures is that the greatest number of trips originating in Burnaby-New West were to the TriCities and to Delta-Ladner-White Rock, with Richmond a close third behind.

Must be that invisible LRT, all right - the personal one.

two things

1.
i can only approve of future transit options that will be overseen by a non-elected, overpaid board that meets in secret while deciding how to use my money.

2.
i can only assume that the person who (above) referred to vancouver as "densly-populated" must be an economic or climactic refugee from flin flon or chicoutimi who hasn't seen any of the rest of our world.

With you Rac! Grumpy give it up!

Man-oh-man. I am not going to get into a long debate this time with you, Grumpy... because you continue to play with half-truths.

Sytrain technology is continuing to be purchased and used around the world. Korean, China, and Malaysia are three places that have recently employed or are constructing ART systems.

Walking is by far the cheapest solution, but for some reason, it does not just get the ridership over the long distances in Vancouver.

Dual Mode Tram/Train System

The Karlsruhe Light/Heavy Rail Track-Sharing System (lower part of linked page) is probably the most up to date tram system in the world and one of the most successful for passenger use.

Delusions of trams

Vancouver is growing at a rate that requires an extensive subway system to accommodate future growth.

I assume David Beers is merely making a humorous example when he proposes a Prius for every incoming UBC student. Think of the parking problems!

Of course, common sense initially concludes that the capex for implementing a tram system is cheaper than a subway. But, tram supporters forget to consider that since trams compete for space with other forms of surface transport, like cars, trucks and buses. This increases congestion and reduces efficiency. Trams can't carry as many people as subways and increasing the number of trams and tram lines only compounds the problem and increases accidents. Subways offer more future expansion capacity. Delaying subway building only increases the cost.

Trams and tram lines end up displacing traffic from main streets into neighbourhoods. It really becomes a zero sum gain because street space is very limited. Now you're next assumption that displacement won't occur because all the tram riders will be former car occupants. It simply doesn't translate that directly and easily. Trams and buses only worsen the situation.

Yes, the European cities you cite have tram systems, but they were installed a long time ago when the cities were much smaller. Using them as an example is like saying Vancouver should develop a canal system like Venice.

Skytrain Only Serves Regional Needs...

The expense of Skytrain and the long construction times fails to serve growing cities like Surrey. Here we have the second largest city in the province, and every rapid transit option is designed to take people out of the city, instead of moving people around the city.

People in Surrey voted in a council that supports LRT as the answer. We could have a system that would efficiently move more people from Langley to Scott Road Station by 2010 or 2011 for a fraction of the cost of the Skytrain extension to Fleetwood.

Instead, Kevin Falcon has already committed to Skytrain by 2020, and has launched yet another phony study designed to laud Skytrain while poo-pooing local LRT.

So, instead of a lower-cost, efficient ground-level system, we're still stuck with a proprietary expensive elevated system that can be decimated for years by a single earthquake.

The good, the bad, and the ugly - about transit.

The trouble with transit and mode, is that very few people actually read a book about it and are driven by emotion.

The call for subways is laughable, what routes have ridership numbers of 15,000 pphpd? Yes, that's right 15,000 pphpd. None, yet that is the minimum that justifies a metro. Even SkyTrain was designed to minimize subway construction costs by being elevated - oh but the horrors of an elevated railway!

A Canadian subsidized SkyTrain in Korea and China, are in fact glorified airport people movers. Both heavily subsidized by the Canadian government, just like JFK SkyTrain, because they are built by the Canadian darling Bombardier Inc.! China has also built a MAGLEV, yet it doesn't mean MAGLEV's are any better than a train.

We have to look at transit like how the French look at transit - each traffic lane is a lane of capacity. With cars, the best a traffic lane can do is about 1,400 pphpd; buses - 6,000 pphpd; but with LRT over 20,000 pphpd!

Quote:

"Yes, the European cities you cite have tram systems, but they were installed a long time ago when the cities were much smaller. Using them as an example is like saying Vancouver should develop a canal system like Venice."

Dead wrong Bobby P. France has built at least 15 new tramway's in the past 25 years and even Paris is building a massive tram network!

Germany was on the verge of abandoning trams in the 80's, now has reinvented streetcars an LRT.

Spain has built many new tram systems and is planning many new lines. The same is true for Italy.

Of course England has built 5 new LRT/tram lines in cities that long ago abandoned the mode.

Trams don't displace traffic, because they have proven to attract the motorist from the car.

not Skytrain

One point against Skytrain is that chunks of the concrete structure keep... dropping out... It is apparently a miracle that no one has been hurt yet; which should make it a crime that this fact is kept under wraps as further construction is being considered.

Speed On Skytrain

Skytrain may be faster point to point (compared to buses and light rail), but unless you are within walking distance at both your entry and depature from the system, any perceived time savings are quickly lost if you narrowly miss a transfer or a bus in running late. Heck, miss the walk/don't walk cut-off at your average interesection and it's going to cost you a couple of minutes of standing still. A ten minute difference over kilometers of travel isn't a good enough reason for Cadillac solutions, especially if that solution beggars the bus system and exacerbates the problems with too few buses filling in the massive gaps in Skytrain coverage.

Condon is right. We need to lose the need for speed.

My morning laugh

Thanks Bob!

"But, tram supporters forget to consider that since trams compete for space with other forms of surface transport, like cars, trucks and buses. This increases congestion and reduces efficiency."

I LOL'ed. Anyone who's going to try to make the argument that one form of public transit is the problem with road congestion needs some remedial math.

Stump............

........I have always called SkyTrain the "Edsel" of public transit! The analogy fits as well!

Simply put, the Edsel was too pricey for people to buy. It had all sorts of gadgets for the time, which drove the price beyond what people would pay. For all the hype and hoopla, the Edsel did the same job as other cheaper cars, only at a much higher price.

Accept the Facts

grumpy

Seems to be that if the Census data supported you contention that SkyTrain is not successful, you would not be calling it questionable. Seems like you conveniently discount facts that do not support your beliefs.

zalm

Statscan asks the same questions each time so it can be used for comparative purposes between years and between cities. The question they ask is specifically regarding work trips. It is not perfect but what is. The point is that transit commuting in Burnaby and New West has risen significantly since 1996 and transit usage is much higher than Calgary. Why can't you accept that facts?

Go to http://www.statscan.ca/ and actually do some research.

RAC............

what is the percentage of population increase during the same period? What the stats show is people use transit, not just SkyTrain.

You and your arguments are oblivious to the fact that SkyTrain is a failed system no one wants. TransLink forced a massive amount of bus passengers onto the metro to increase ridership, not a very good way to run a transit system.

The Gateway highway and bridge project certainly underlines SkyTrain failure.

Just to let you know rac, I have forgotten more about transit than you have actually read and your SkyTrain rah rah, shows your desperation.

Questions:

1) What is SkyTrain's real ridership numbers? Can they be independently verified?

2) What is the real cost of SkyTrain, including subsidies? Waht is the real total cost?

3) Why have transit authorities around the world rejected SkyTrain?

4) Why doesn't TransLink allow a 'systems tender' on transportation projects, where companies actually come in, plan and bid for a project?

5) Why will Bombardier Inc. NOT allow SkyTrain to compete against LRT?

Build what is needed for a location

In densely built cities you put your system underground. This save land, land that is worth a lot more as commercial/residential then as just a transportation corridor. If you go to cities like Paris you have an underground system in the heart of the city and light rail out the suburbs. This makes perfect sense.

Where is this corridor to put a lightrail beyond Granville island up to UBC? Are we whiling to take Park space away from people? With the corridor going from Clark to Granville, why not dig the train underground and sell the land above it to help pay for the $ 2.8 billion. Or my personal favorite idea, put a real bike/pedestrian route above it. This would make the area more accessible and safer, instead of divided by a rail system with fences on both sides. We can't spread out any more, the only directions to grow in the City of Vancouver is to build up and down, not side to side.

Existing Right-of-Ways

Building rail throughout the city is not going to happen in order to accommodate Trams. I get it trams are romantic from a design perspective but I suggest that this academic leave his office for five minutes and walk around Vancouver. Upon taking a short walk the impracticalities of this method will become apparent.

Cut and cover was hugely disruptive to Vancouver, building rail lines would be no different. I say skytrain using bore method in order to dig the tunnel. We have tunnel crews right here in Vancouver working who know how to do this.

Mistake made by Grumpy

To Grumpy,

SNC Lavelin is responsible for all but the original expo line. If as you claim you have forgotten more about transit than others know why did you post question 5?

Mode Share Increases

Grumpy:
"4) Why doesn't TransLink allow a 'systems tender' on transportation projects, where companies actually come in, plan and bid for a project?"

Your beloved Canada Line was a system tender. LRT could have been used and it could have been at grade south of 41st

Go over the census data and you will see that the only municipalities where the mode share for transit increased significantly were Burnaby and New West ironically exactly where the Millennium Line is. Specifically, the mode share increased from 16.8% to 25% in Burnaby and from 20.1% to 26.8% in New West between 1996 and 2006. I'm sure it is just a coincidence thought. That increase is just not possible without LRT.

Greenfly

Bombardier owns the proprietary SkyTrain system, which because it is automated and powered by LIM's needs such expensive rights-of-ways. Lavalin went bankrupt trying to build SkyTrain in Bangkok and Bombardier bought the SkyTrain division from the receiver. As such, question #5 is quite correct.

Also please remember that SkyTrain or ICTS/ALRT was designed to be elevated to mitigate the high cost of subway construction. to put SkyTrain in a subway is something of an oxymoron!

Here is what $100 million will buy:

a) 1/2 km. of subway.
b) 1 km. of elevated guide way.
c) up to 20 km. of LRT/tram.

Having LRT, on-street, may look like a good idea when peak oil hits us with a vengeance, next year.

RAC............

Quote:

"Your beloved Canada Line was a system tender. LRT could have been used and it could have been at grade south of 41st"

Absolutely untrue, LRT was written off by Ken Doebell and Jane Bird, before any bidding was to take place. Why?

Simple old chum, if LRT were to be planned for, the Arbutus Corridor would be a natural for LRT and any bidding would soon show that Puil's TransLink were more than fudging the truth about light rail. In fact, the 3 bidders were forbidden to mention LRT period; I know, representatives from Siemens contacted me trying to figure out why!

Wait until Susan Heyes lawsuit goes to court, it may create a far larger scandal than BC Railgate!

And RAC, nowhere does statscan have a question, do you use SkyTrain. You are making an illogical assumption that SkyTrain increased ridership, rather it is the increased bus services, due to increased population that has increased ridership.

TransLink's own figures that transit use has stagnated at about 11% of population for over a decade.

ha ha

"you'd start by putting the $2.8-billion price of the train into a trust that earns six per cent interest".

Be Careful of Your Agruments

Grumpy, it is ironic that you use the same flawed arguments against SkyTrain that LRT critics like Randal O'Toole make against LRT.

Mr. O'Toole quotes regional transit usage to undermine the case for LRT and make the case for highway expansion. However, highway projects will have little impact on regional congestion or travel times either.
In a region with 5-6 million trips per day, one or two transportation projects whether they be LRT, SkyTrain or highway expansion will have little impact on regional mode shares.

You must look at the areas near the project to determine their impact. That is why I'm highlighting Burnaby and New West where there has been investment in transit and mode share has increased dramatically.

The reasons why transit usage has not increased much in the region is due to poor land use policy south of the Fraser where sprawling developments and office parks that are hard if not impossible to serve by any form of transit have sprung up all over the place. The other reason is underfunding of transit to the tune of around $100 million per year by the provincial government over the last decade.

Find a statistical excuse for this one

or blame the NDP. That's the usual order of operations isn't it? Skytrain costs approx. 225 million dollars per km. I just about fell off my chair when I read that in The Tyee. For that money, we could have put trains on existing tracks all over the lower mainland, where they have been since gov't "leaders" caved into corporate pressure to put the trams into mothballs. Sure, it would require expansion and upgrading, but the costs are nowhere near the obscene demands of Skytrain. Remember that when times are hard, we have to question our addiction to luxury items. Just think of the people we could house, children we could save from dangerous homes, women we could protect from violence. I don't hear the liberal apologists speak about those human tragedies, nor do I see the premier saying anything at all, especially now when the homeless will freeze to death because of his inaction and arrogance. Check the signs at the Skytrainstations that state it is an offence to give your ticket or transfer to another person. Is this so because the Skytrain is sucking so much money out of Translink that every penny must be saved, even at the expense of those who require the occasional act of kindness? Don't your stats show that? In Gordon Campbell's B.C. it is already perfectly clear that it is an offence to help people in any way at all. After all, humnanity cuts into profits. Check the new paving on Broadway in Kits. Is that the same new paving that will be ripped up for construction of Whytrain? I just can't fathom spending so much money when there are so many well-understood and available alternatives.

my opinion

I like taking Skytrain. Separated rail is always more comforting than buses, one always knows where the stops are.

A tram along Kingsway from downtown to Metrotown would be considerably slower. As a kid taking the bus downtown from Burnaby was like going on a great journey, now it's like an elevator ride.

Skytrain encourages development to ensure increased ridership and less cars. I know people who've moved close to Skytrain for quick access.

Skytrain is regional. Trams would be useful in any city but not inter-city. I love Portland's trams but I was just a tourist.

UBC and Broadway is densifying, a seamless connection from Coquitlam to UBC is useful. The B-line buses are over stuffed and transferring is a pain.

Broadway has too much traffic to accommodate surface rail. The cars won't go away.

Translink is short of bus drivers, where will we get all the labour for Trams? I remember taking the Skytrain when buses were on strike, it was great.

stop the free ride

cheaper is often not sensible; for too long we have been ignoring the true costs of our actions, facilitating our denial of our personal responsibility for the degradation and destruction of our bodies and our environments

even if SkyTrain cost the equivalent of 3 Priuses per student, supporting the production and proliferation of more individual transportation units over mass transit, not to mention the road upgrades the extra cars would need, is undefendable over the long term

Its SkyTrain or Buses

Grumpy

"And RAC, nowhere does statscan have a question, do you use SkyTrain. You are making an illogical assumption that SkyTrain increased ridership, rather it is the increased bus services, due to increased population that has increased ridership."

Well it is either SkyTrain and or buses, both of which you claim are ineffective compared to LRT in encouraging people to use transit. So either way, you can't claim LRT is the only way to dramatically increase transit usage. However, other in other municipalities like Port Moody and Coquitlam, the population has increase dramatically yet transit usage has not increased to the degree it has in Burnaby and New West.

So if you say it is not SkyTrain, you are saying that it is buses which undermines your case for LRT. Why then spend millions of dollars on LRT when buses are very effective at attracting new riders? Again, be careful of your arguments. You may end up debating yourself and losing. To be clear, I believe, like you, rail is more effective at encouraging people to use transit and LRT is a good option for many places. We just disagree regarding the success of SkyTrain in Metro Vancouver

Higher density = better transit............

........not necessarily so.

Quote:

"SkyTrain encourages development to ensure increased ridership and less cars. I know people who've moved close to SkyTrain for quick access."

SkyTrain doesn't encourage development, rather it gives politicians the reason to up-zone property for higher densities, thus increasing the value of property. So let's see, we increase the population on SkyTrain lines, but not everyone takes SkyTrain so they will resort to the car. Higher densities also increases car use.

The problem with these post is that no one understands that metros cost money a lot of money, so what do you want SkyTrain subway and no new hospitals and schools?
Or LRT, with enough money left over to invest in other projects.

It is no coincidence that Hospitals were closing in Vancouver, when the NDP built the Millennium Line. Funding has to come from somewhere.

So those who want SkyTrain, what do you want to give up? Medicare? Affordable education? The social safety net? An affordable transit system?

And rac, again I ask, why do transit planners around the world avoid SkyTrain like the plague; only 6 such systems in operation in 30 years certainly is not stellar.

You never answer that question but pervert statistics to suit your opinion about metro, in the real world you would be laughed off the stage, but in Vancouver the SkyTrain lobby can misrepresent, at will. Too bad, because your taxes will increase exponentially! Hope you have the income to pay them.

What to Give Up

How about the automobile and highways? People waste over $10 billion a year on automobiles. In one year we could pay for SkyTrain expansion, LRT and streetcars.

Compared to the $6 billion the province is about to waste on Gateway, SkyTrain looks like a really good investment. LRT would be a good investment as well

Get Some Perspective

GM and the auto industry are set on destroying the environment, the economy, our cities and apparently even themselves.

Grumpy, it is time you focus on the real problem and stop trying to make SkyTrain the enemy. No one is buying it.

It is a Matter of Priorities

The provincial budget is $34 billion a year. You say the SkyTrain subsidy is $200 million, which is a small fraction of the budget. Knowing this government, if it was not for SkyTrain debt, they would much rather cut taxes by $200 million than spend it on schools, hospitals or housing.

It is a matter of ideology and not money. We are a rich province and can afford both SkyTrain and schools, hospitals and housing if we want to.

If Skytrain is a Cadillac

...then "street level trams" are rolling garbage trucks.

Actually, they'd have to be something else because metaphor is different from plain description.

What it is, at root, is that I am spoiled by Vancouver, which is generally a nice-looking and clean place to live. I've gotten used to that.

If I was used to living in a place that smells vaguely but constantly of sewage, like, say, Las Vegas, then being on a bus or "street level tram" would probably not fill me with horror.

But, being spoiled by fresh air, I NEED to have that Skytrain, which is fast, wowee, and often surprisingly pristine-looking.

Also, Priuses are bad for the environment. Batteries are toxic landfill, and they take up roadway. Just sayin'.

Now that I am old

let me share this with you. As a kid we would take a tram down at Hastings and Abbott and go way out to New Westminster to pick berries. We didn't make much money as we ate too many berries but it was a great way to travel.

Other days we would catch the tram at 41st and the Boulevard in Kerrisdale and whiz out to Steveston for the day. Great fun and the tracks still run from 4th Ave way into darkest Marpole.

Sometimes one needs to look into the past to learn what is really viable.

Cars are Bad for the Local Economy

Here are the emotional facts from the 2006 census.
In Metro Vancouver, 16.5% commute by transit while 67.3% drive. In Calgary, 15.6% take transit while 69.1% drive. Clearly we are doing better here but not by much.

Lets wait until the Canada Line opens before trying to guess whether it will be a success or not.

The part of Vancouver will fail economically as people are forced to spend more and more of their money on transportation. Most of the money spent on cars and gas goes out of the region while money spend on other items tends to stay in the region creating wealth and jobs.

Paying a few hundred dollars extra in taxes for transit is nothing compared to the $9,000 a year it costs to own and operate an automobile.

Prius for every student?

These 2 options may both provide transportation at the same cost (for the first year), but it is hardly a reasonable equivalency. Think of how much more land would have to be assigned to parking and roads to meet that kind of increased demand.

Don't forget: it isn't just about the students, but for the largest employer on the Vancouver peninsula, too, as well as everybody who happens to live and work along the route.

Comparing the 2 makes a strong case for spending $2.8 billion on extending Skytrain.

Translink wants Skytrain or UnderTrain

I'd love to see a streetcar line down Broadway. Merchants would first of all raise hell about all the parking being taken away, but if Portland's experience is anything to go by, they'll soon be singing the streetcar's praise, because it brings in more customers. Streetcars have stops every couple of blocks, like buses, whereas a subway will have only a few nodes, at Granville, Burrard (maybe), MacDonald, Alma...and so on, if that many. It is ridiculous to think that a Skytrain/UnderTrain is the best option, but that's where Thomas Prendergast, the new CEO of Translink, is headed. I know this because he told me. Why? Because there's no labour costs, or minimal labour costs, associated with an automated train, as opposed to those pesky, rabble-rousing streetcar drivers.

Then there's the sex factor. You've got a bunch of men who want to thrust a long machine underground, deep Throat it all the way to the university.

If commonsense ruled (and it doesn't, ever) we'd be talking streetcar. We'd be building the second generation streetcar right now---the Evergreen Line, so desperately needed. And we'd see how effective it is, and then, and then, they'd have less reason to deny the efficacy of a streetcar for the UBC line...which, maybe, is why the Evergreen line is being delayed??

rac...

If those figures are correct (and I ain't sayin' that they aren't), then that speaks volumes about Calgary's so-called and heralded lrt C-Train system that Grumpy always points to as the proverbial "best thing since sliced bread". ;)

Not sliced bread............

..........all I have said about Calgary's C-Train is that it cost half as much per km. to build as SkyTrain (original Expo Line to New Westminster), yet carries more than the entire SkyTrain metro system! Simple!

I don't confuse things with statistics as rac tries to do.

The transit system which I do think is better than sliced bread is Karlsruhe's tram-trains and their philosophy of customer first operation! And it's just not me, for Karlsruhe's transit system won a prestigious German business award, for being best product.

Vancouver is alone in the world using only SkyTrain/light-metro and building transit to create density.

Trams

I have always kind of questioned the building of trams lines in a place that already has trolley buses. Wouldn't it just make more sense to just make the curb lane bus only?

Wilfried

"Wouldn't it just make more sense to just make the curb lane bus only?"

How would cars turn onto other streets?

Buses are just not good (see rant above). Since this is not very good cycling weather, I have been forced back into these lurching ERs and they are still no better than my direst stereotypes. They are still thirty minutes late, and then come three at a time; they are still gross and uncomfortable.

I should stress that none of this is the fault of the operators, who must be selected for saintliness of patience and good spirits!

bluerev

How much land do roads take up? The last figure I heard was in the range of 25%. How much land do parking lots take up? Light rail would eliminate a fair chunk of these.........which could be turned into parklands, and not more condo developments.

Just some numbers

Translink's budget this year is about $800 million. Its debt service on the three Skytrains alone (yes it's paying some on the RAV line already!) is very close to $200 million this year and going up about $20 million a year, despite falling interest rates. (It's also very difficult to pick out of the financials, because it's recorded three different ways.)

69% of morning commuters go by car
4% by walking
1% by cycling
18% by bus,
8% by Skytrain

So there's only $600 million left to pay for operating costs on all these five modes of transport. What seems silly to me is that it costs $200 million to pay for the borrowed money for the infrastructure of Skytrain, and then another $65 million a year to run it. More than 30% of the budget for 8% of the users.

Somebody's getting away with a scam here. And it's not just the riders of the West Coast Luxury Express.

Repeating myself

...and not just because I like the sound of my own voice. This is from a thread six months ago.

The RAV line uses 300,000 cubic yards of concrete, which at a tonne and a quarter of carbon per yard to manufacture, means that the RAV Line has a carbon debt to pay off just for the concrete alone equal to 50,000 cars driving 20,000 km each for a year. That's just for concrete, not for excavation, placing, trucking, labour or any of the steel or finishing, which is likely to double that amount.

Consider that, according to the spin-doctors, they hoped to take 5000 cars off the road with RAV, which would mean the carbon debt would be paid back in minimum twenty years, and only then would we begin to save the environment.

Only 5000, you say? Yes, remember most of the existing ridership is coming from the bus routes they are cancelling and directing instead to the Skytrain.

At least buses and trans using the existing "guideways". No additional carbon burden to construct a totally new guideway.

But if you want a Cadillac...

bus info

"I like taking Skytrain. Separated rail is always more comforting than buses, one always knows where the stops are."

Bus schedules with stops and times listed are available online and in hard copy at any library branch.

"A tram along Kingsway from downtown to Metrotown would be considerably slower. As a kid taking the bus downtown from Burnaby was like going on a great journey, now it's like an elevator ride."

#19 bus - roughly 25 minutes from Main St. Station to Metrotown (goes up Kingsway)

Expo Line - 12 minutes from Main St. Station to Science World

So, almost double... unless you start to factor in all the variables that can affect your personal experience.

My personal experience is that I've done that commute lots of times and the reality is that depending on how close you live to a bus stop/Skytrain station, the #19 is as fast or faster than the Skytrain and invariably less crowded.

"Broadway has too much traffic to accommodate surface rail. The cars won't go away."

Actually there's lots of unused capacity on Broadway, esp at non-rush hour times. Currently at least one lane is almost always dedicated to parking. As for cars, they slowly but surely are going away. Maybe not all of them, but we will never see the same kind of auto-dependence in Vancouver in the future as we have now.

(“There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.” — Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp. (DEC), maker of big business mainframe computers, arguing against the PC in 1977)

"Translink is short of bus drivers, where will we get all the labour for Trams? I remember taking the Skytrain when buses were on strike, it was great."

Yeah, it was great if you weren't headed anywhere that wasn't on Skytrain or didn't need any route advice. Otherwise, not so great.

Curb Bus Lanes vs Bus Ways

"Wouldn't it just make more sense to just make the curb lane bus only?"

Good question, but curb bus lanes are mainly for reliability, so when the traffic grinds to a complete stop buses can still move. These already exist on parts of Broadway during rush hour, and do work for this limited purpose.

To improve travel times and comfort transit lanes/busways (for trams / LRT and buses) are generally built in the center of the roadway. The 98B lines used to run in such a busway for a short distance in Richmond.

e.g. see http://www.transitlab.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=61&Itemid=60

"Bus schedules with stops

"Bus schedules with stops and times listed are available online and in hard copy at any library branch"

Yes, filed under "fiction"

funny stuff

Good one Dave2.

However, the place where the bus stops doesn't randomly change and I find most buses are usually relatively close to on schedule, unless there's too many cars on the road.

Wilfred Laurier

No, because tram lines can also be used to transport freight - as it done in much of Europe.

Zalm and Carbon....

Zalm,

I respect your tone of discourse, but your discussion of carbon usage and Skytrain concrete gets plain crazy.

When you are comparing buses to Skytrain, are you also considering oil changes, purchasing/recycling of buses, tire usage, accidents, oil leaks into our rivers and oceans, etc... it goes on and on.

Skytrain has proven itself. People use it, people like it. It is 18 years old, and still seems new enough.

How many 18 year old buses are there out there?

moat

We built a road to carry people. Then we let people drive their own vehicles on it. when it got too crowded, what did we do?

Not ban the excess vehicles.

No, we built another road.

You tell me where the logic is in that.

Carbon usage is merely one more way to drive the point home - we're a wasteful people and we can't wait to start wasting the next billion because we're selfish.

It's not a criticism. Just a fact. Like the numbers.

Can't you see it yourself?

You like Cadillacs. how many different ways can I put it?

"Skytrain has proven itself. People use it, people like it. It is 18 years old, and still seems new enough."

It hasn't proven anything. The original Skytrain still has a hundred million dollar debt from 1986 and requires a subsidy of $20+ a rider. The Millennium line currently requires a subsidy of $44 a rider, down from $48 a few years ago due to the lower price of financial instruments.

Transit is a public good - it's supposed to be subsidized. But not at Cadillac prices.

If you ever have any facts to back up your assertion that "Skytrain has proven itself" please feel free to continue the conversation. Becasue as far as moving people around efficiently (and I mean per dollar spent, not per minute of time spent by those lucky enough to get on the train that happens to be going exactly where they're going) it's a wretched failure.

PatrickC cost comparisons

PatrickC posted this link for a study of cost comparisons by transit mode, and it contains some useful number and sources:
http://www.sxd.sala.ubc.ca/8_research/sxd_FRB07Cost_Comparisons%5B3%5D%5B1%5D.pdf

However, more information on the methodology of this study is needed for its costings to be convincing.

For example, ir reports that Skytrain operating costs per passenger mile are only $.06, compared to $.31 for the Modern Tram (Combino) option that the study favours for the UBC line, even though Skytrain has half the passenger capacity, [and is that passenger capacity per time?], and that Skytrain has higher energy costs per passenger mile. So how can it's operating costs be so much lower than any other mode?

Skytrain capital costs are reported to be $1.71 per passenger mile, compared to $.60 for the tram, ammmortized over the expected life of the system and/or vehicles.

But what are those service lives, and at what passenger load? I think I've heard that the Skytrain guideway is rated for 100 years, and that since the linear induction motors have no moving parts the car life is much longer than other rail cars. And was the growing ridership that can be expected over the service life been included in the calculation?

On a different topic - the $20 or $48 subsidies per Sky Train trip in a message above - where do these numbers come from?

Zalm and the efficiency argument

Zalm, you've got the numbers on your side. If people were simply units of mass needing to be moved, then Skytrain isn't very efficient.

What I believe though is that people are not units of mass, but consumers with transit choices.

And, while I am not, like, an awesomely good person, I don't think I am wildly off the median of public opinion when I say that buses are gross, hot, they lurch and make you feel seasick, and are bogged down in traffic and unpredictable in arrival at peak times, which is when people actually want to use them.

Cars are comfortable. People pay for that.

The Skytrain is not exactly comfortable, but at least you don't get sweaty and grossed out riding them, and they are fast.

Is it possible to have street-level transit that is just as fast and nice? Maybe. I liked the bus system in Ottawa. But they have separate roadways.

The bus and the car cannot share the road without making bus travel a foretaste of hell.

rush hour crowds

Skytrain is just as crowded as a bus at peak hours and just as uncomfortable. At least with a bus you can always get off a few stops early and walk the rest of the way if it gets too annoying. They are only faster for people who can walk from home to the station and from the station to their destination. They have less capability to handle bikes and more restrictions on bringing a bike. For most people, there's still a bus ride involved, only now you are adding transfers and waiting around some more for the train. Buses run 24 hours (albeit with more limited service). Skytrain does not. Skytrain is stuck servicing where the rails are. Buses can be assigned to other routes as necessary.

The Skytrain strategy is all about reducing your transit choices so that you are forced to ride the train so they can meet ridership numbers. Skytrain is insanely expensive and can't be sold off to another jurisdiction. Buses are cheap to build and can be sold when we no longer feel they are usable. Our 25 year old trolleys were sold to Argentina. 80 units for $2300 = $184,000. I don't know who would be interested in buying old Skytrain cars.

Skytrain's actually 23 years

Skytrain's actually 23 years old this month, not 18.

Stump: it wasn't the late buses so much as the early ones, I used to take the original 99 B-Line out to Burnaby, in theory it ran every 15 minutes, but AM Broadway traffic was so light that it was often ahead of schedule and not all drivers would wait. Broadway and Granville is not a "Timing Point" for the B-Line despite being a major crosstown transfer point.....even if you got to the stop 5 minutes early, the bus could be 6 minutes early and you were stuck out in the cold for another 22 minutes. Not as much an issue when the buses are more frequent, I'll grant you

Zalm... Grumpy... and a few others...

I have been through this on numerous threads with you guys before.... arguing numbers with you guys is crazy...

Grumpy runs around saying that "nobody is buying Skytrain technology". We know that is not the case - the technology is used around the world. United States, Korea, China, Malaysia, China....

What is the point of arguing numbers when we cannot agree on basic facts?

irvine

"On a different topic - the $20 or $48 subsidies per Sky Train trip in a message above - where do these numbers come from?"

Ron Stromberg. Original head engineer on the 1984 Skytrain test bed, and one of the design, construction and commissioning team for the Expo line. He was all ecstatic when they finished the line in early '86 and they went out to sell it - and were laughed out of boardrooms around the world.

He has since become a transit guru of a different sort, but maintains a loathing for his former project and the political connections that spawned it. I enjoy my coffees with him - always good for another report, a round of statistics, or just a plain good old-fashioned rant on the ability of large corporations to talk their way into government-sponsored largesse at the expense of citizen's taxes.