SkyTrain is obsolete

[Yellow Fever]

Surrey Now August 14, 2012


The ongoing SkyTrain vs. light rail debate continues in the Lower Mainland, which is curious because elsewhere, modern LRT made SkyTrain obsolete over two decades ago.

Has anyone noticed no one builds with SkyTrain anymore? Over 33 years on the market, only seven have been built. Compare this with more than 150 new light rail lines built during the same period.

SkyTrain is driverless and that means it costs more to operate than LRT - because instead of drivers, SkyTrain has attendants, more than 250 of them at last count.

And with more technical employees needed for smooth operation, that makes SkyTrain more expensive to operate than modern LRT.

Combined with SkyTrain's huge construction costs, SkyTrain is a bad bargain.

South Korea's Yongin SkyTrain, the Everline, was completed in 2009 and has remained idle due to large projected operating costs.

It has embarrassed city officials, who have just signed a contract with Bombardier Inc. (the owners of the SkyTrain system) in June, to operate the mini-metro for three years. The city will assume all operating deficits.

Closer to home, the Canada Line, a conventional metro (the only metro in the world designed to have less capacity than a streetcar) was cheaper to build than the proprietary SkyTrain.

The SkyTrain minimetro system has become the pariah of transit systems, yet TransLink, which is sinking fast in a quicksand of debt, still plans for more of the obsolete mini-metro. Can't any civic or provincial politicians draw a straight line from SkyTrain to TransLink's financial chaos?

Evidently not. Today, modern light rail has proven to carry more people at a far cheaper cost than SkyTrain.

Who wants SkyTrain anymore?

It seems only the rubes in Victoria, Metro Vancouver and TransLink do.

Malcolm Johnston, Delta


Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/SkyTrain...#ixzz23xksmxLh

[Huhu]

What exactly is the difference between Skytrain and the Canada Line?

[Nouvellecosse]

Sorry Malcolm; I definitely still want it.

There are lots of claims in that article that are at best dubious. I would need some strong data before believing the claim the driversless operation is pricier. And even if it were, it offers greater flexibility in scheduling. And the claim that the Canada line has lower capacity than a strretcar is laughable. Not only is the individual vehicle just as large or larger than a streetcar, but the trains per hour is much greater than a streetcar could achieve.

The main difference with the Canada line is that it uses conventional propulsion instead of the electromagnetic technology of the Skytrain, and the CL stock is wider.

[ssiguy2]

Well I'm not SkyTrain's biggest fan as the system is proprietary and other elevated systems like monorail {suchas the Bombardier system Sao Paulo is building} are cheaper and eaier to build and have higher capacity. That said, it would be dumb not to interline the Evergreen as SkyTrain and same with the UBC and Guilford extensions.

SkyTrain is CHEAPER to run than even the well used Calgary CTrain. It certainly has it's flaws and is an expensive technology but at the same time the proof is in the pudding.......SkyTrain has served Vancouverites well since 1984 and it has proven itself to be fast, safe, reliable, and with the MK11 cars, comfortable and pleasant.

The real problem is that Translink keep building systems with low capacity suchas the Canada Line.

[Mr.A]

I just experienced Seattles transit and this weekend Portlands. I take Skytrain any day over the others.
Seattle is not to bad because it is underground through downtown.
Portland has an excellent network but poor schedule and very slooow through downtown!
After the soccer game it took 15 minutes for the first train to arrive and 30 minutes on the airport (red line)
At BC place after a game every 90 second a train and fast out to the burbs!

[spongeg]

that malcolm guy whines about skytrain all the time and gets something published somewhere every chance he can get to whine some more

he's a freaking loser, he needs a hobby

[(E.G.O.S.)®]

I'm also a bit surprised about the low capacity in the Canada Line.

Having said that, I'd still vote for more Skytrain in Metro Vancouver. It's fast, clean and reliable. I just hope the Evergreen Line and UBC lines are built so they can accommodate the equivalent of at least 6 Mark-I trains.

[Plumber73]

Both Skytrain and Canada Line were able to carry around 800 thousand people in a day during the Olympics... what's the problem?

[ssiguy2]

Originally Posted by Mr.A

I just experienced Seattles transit and this weekend Portlands. I take Skytrain any day over the others.
Seattle is not to bad because it is underground through downtown.
Portland has an excellent network but poor schedule and very slooow through downtown!
After the soccer game it took 15 minutes for the first train to arrive and 30 minutes on the airport (red line)
At BC place after a game every 90 second a train and fast out to the burbs!

That is typical of most US cities.

American cities have been spending a small fortune on their mass transit networks in the last 15 years but often with mixed results and this is primarily due to poor service. They spend billions on lines but then only run then every 10 minutes or worse.

[manrush]

Sounds like the type of article that Zweisystem would write.

It is Zweisystem, isn't it?

[Cal_Escapee]

Originally Posted by Yellow Fever

Has anyone noticed no one builds with SkyTrain anymore? Over 33 years on the market, only seven have been built. Compare this with more than 150 new light rail lines built during the same period.

SkyTrain is driverless and that means it costs more to operate than LRT - because instead of drivers, SkyTrain has attendants, more than 250 of them at last count.

And with more technical employees needed for smooth operation, that makes SkyTrain more expensive to operate than modern LRT.

Combined with SkyTrain's huge construction costs, SkyTrain is a bad bargain.

They don't build many Skytrain-like lines because they can't afford it. It isn't that they wouldn't like to if money grew on trees. Most of us think of "obsolete" as meaning not preferable, leaving money out of the equation. That isn't the case here.

Since you are in San Francisco, there is an interesting and relevant development here. While there are several projects to extend our Skytrain-like BART system, in one case it was elected not to do that and to build, in a far-distant suburb, a thing called eBART which is a line extension using not the electric-powered computerized BART trains but self-powered diesel trains, again I assume because it is cheaper but does give you a robust, grade-separated subsystem.


http://www.mtc.ca.gov/news/current_t...0-10/ebart.htm


http://www.mtc.ca.gov/news/current_t...0-10/ebart.htm

http://www.bart.gov/about/projects/ecc/index.aspx

[Yellow Fever]

Other than the under ground sections in SF, I'm surprised to see even there are lots of land between Oakland and Fremont, instead of using the less expensive LRT on the grade level, the BART is running all the way on the elevated track between those two cities.

[trece verde]

Malcolm Johnston has been writing stuff like this for years, cherry-picking facts to suit his agenda for LRT systems and streetcars. Obviously it's cheaper to build an at-grade LRT than any kind of grade-separated system, but operate it? Dead horse argument, of course, but let's add in the cost of removing traffic lanes on over-capacity streets and trying to run the same at-grade system, even with priority signalling. Not looking so good anymore, is it?

[spongeg]

nope - he's just a whiner who has an agenda

at grade would make for a slower system thus turning off riders thus lower ridership

as for Canada line - people complain about capacity all the time - i have never had a problem, are we so freaking spoiled that we must get a seat? that we must have a 10 foot personal zone? and dare not come into contact with other humans?

and its not like in the future there won't be more lines - the arbutus line will one day come along and thus alleviate some of the perceived capacity problems with the canada line

[Vrachar]

UNPUBLISHED: Response to misleading Anti-SkyTrain newsletter

7 DECEMBER 2012 BY DARYL

The Vancouver Sun and the Surrey Leader (and other local newspapers) did not respond this response to an anti-Skytrain newsletter sent several weeks ago. This letter, filed under our “Debunking myths” section, debunks a fallacious claim by Malcolm Johnston (lobbyist - Rail for the Valley) that there are hidden SkyTrain annual operating subsidies that are creating a “status quo” at TransLink. SkyTrain for Surrey analysts reviewed several documents at local public library locations to debunk this letter. What circumstances lead to this letter going unpublished, we do not know.
Attached below, with reference links, our letter – sent by Chief Statistics Analyst Daryl Dela Cruz, – was written as follows:

The rest here: http://skytrainforsurrey.org/2012/12...g-newsleter-1/

[Vrachar]

Skytrain vs. LRT Bible:





######