German plans for maglev derailed
My readers seem to like high speed train stories. So here is another one. From Auntie Beeb. I think I may detect here a bit of gloat. It was an English scientist, Eric Laithwaite, who invented maglev. And linear induction motors - as used on SkyTrain. He used to appear on one of those geewhiz science programs “Tomorrow’s World” when were I a lad. On BBC tv as it happens. And LIMs and Maglev were to be the future.
The UK was first to introduce maglev trains for commercial use in 1984 in Birmingham to bridge a short distance between the city’s airport and railway station.
But after 11 years in operation, reliability problems and the sheer expense of extending the network, which are incompatible with traditional railway lines, prompted its replacement with a conventional system.
I think that this may have been a forerunner of the SkyTrain. I have certainly read that UTDC thought its application was going to be as an airport people mover - though only New York bought into that. The idea of a frictionless, no moving parts propulsion system sounds great in theory. But the reality has been a great deal different. It is perhaps ironic that the only city in the world to have a major LIM driven transit system will have conventional electric trains serving its airport.
Maglev has had some spectacular failures - and only Shanghai (illustrated) now has an operational system. Meanwhile more conventional electric trains have done very well indeed both for local transit and high speed applications. The conventional electric motor being the heart of both systems but electronic control technology making the real difference between modern systems and those first demonstrated by Frank Sprague back in the 1880s.
I think that the problem with Maglev was it was a solution looking for a problem. Conventional electric traction has been very versatile and efficient and quite amazingly reliable and long lived compared with say internal combustion engines. And electrical transmission systems for ic power sources are still together one of the most efficient ways of turning the energy in fossil fuels into motive power. It may be that I will be proved wrong as energy efficiency and need for speed continue to pose ever greater challenges. But not for a while, I think. Maglev to me looks a lot like the monorail - it looks pretty but it really doesn’t work very well.
Maybe they’re not ready for prime time yet, but the Maglev still holds a great deal of promise in both local and high speed applications. Yes, I realize Japan’s Linimo suffered a bunch of problems, but the promise of super-quiet rail in urban settings is hugely appealing. Hopefully, in 3 decades or so, we can realize that potential.
As for LIMs, they are not that uncompetitive with conventional rail. For Evergreen, the proposed SkyTrain buys a heck of a lot more train than the comparable LRT for a 25% difference ($1.4B vs $1.1B) - double capacity, double speed (in terms of combined travel & transfer time), fully-separated ROW, automated operation, and seamless integration with the existing Millennium line. Also, Bombardier seems to slowly be getting more and more orders for SkyTrain, especially from Asia - the technology is growing.
I think you’re probably right- the maglev was supposed to supplement the existing S-Bahn trains from the centre and there wa great fanfare about is when we lived near Munich (and a big campaign by the Green party against…).
Alright, it would have cut journey times from the station to the airport from 40 minutes to about ten (according to the literature) which would have reduced the taxis racing to and fro on the Autobahn, but I’d have thought a rail link which could connect with and then compete with air (By connecting to other cities) would be more sensible
Bert - I would not believe the latest comparisons for the Evergreen Line if I were you. And no doubt Malcolm Johnson will weigh in here too. The LRT figures were distorted to make the SkyTrain look better. There are no Asian SkyTrains - except for one that uses the same name but different technology. So far the only sales have been to Vancouver, Scarborough (TTC), Detroit and New York airport. And you can do fully separated ROW and automated operation with conventional trains as the Canada Line will do and Docklands does. I just do not think either is needed here. Surface LRT has numerous advantages - not least of which is reducing space for SOVs!
Andy - I think the need for a completely new ROW for MAGLEV is the main financial issue. TGV/ICE can also use conventional track where necessary and provides enough advantage for most city pairs.
Bert, the Evergreen Line was designed for SkyTrain from the start. Trans Link’s cost estimates for LRT were based on LRT designed as a light metro, not true light rail. As for capacity, both systems are railways and can be designed to handle comparable capacities.
The best theoretical capacity for the Expo line is 30,000 persons per hour per direction (based on 8 car trains every 90 seconds, yet the stations can only handle 6 car, Mk.1 trains); the Millennium Line’s maximum capacity is a mere 26,000 pphpd. Calgary has pegged their theoretical capacity at 33,000 pphpd; so much for SkyTrain having a higher capacity.
Kuala Lumpor’s PUTRA system is indeed a Bombardier ART (SkyTrain) system, but the city also has a elevated LRT system (STAR) and a monorail. Interesting the STAR LRT has a capacity, by contract, of over 35,000 pphpd.
The UTDC based ICTS (later ALRT or SkyTrain and later still ART) on a Krause Maffei MAGLEV system, which had a wee demonstration line in Toronto. The MAGLEV distinguished itself by not being able to turn corners and this is how the LIM technology came into use for the UTDC’s ICTS system.
Presently there is no orders for SkyTrain in Asia, due to high populations in Asian cities, metro’s are almost always built. Manila has built an elevated LRT system, which designed to carry 350,000 passengers a day, is now carrying over 650,000 per day!
Now a word on MAGLEV. The problem is that for all the extra expense of a MAGLEV system, it only buys you 100 kph (60 MPH) faster speed than TGV, ICE, or Shinkansen (Bullet train), with the added bonus that a conventional high-speed trains can network on non express train routes and use existing stations. With fast, near ground level transit, there is a roar over about 450 kph due to the air flow over the train, which raises environmental concerns.
MAGLEVs are a science fiction writers gadgetbahnen that may travel fast, but there is no economic application. Mmmmm, sounds like SkyTrain.
[Moderator's note: some parts of this comment have been removed]
>There are no Asian SkyTrains - except for one that uses the same name but different technology
That would be Bangkok.. but yes, there is an Asian SkyTrain (ALRT) in Malaysia, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_Advanced_Rapid_Transit, another is under construction in Incheon, South Korea apparently.
… and here’s another one being built, in Beijing
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2006_March_20/ai_n16110525
http://pic.carnoc.com/news/070911/0709111053449.jpg
Looks like the Asians aren’t so smart after all… or perhaps they are.
Hi Stephen,
I have just started following your blog, which is excellent by the way.
I’ve actually been tracking the numbers for some time. The following provides a (likely non-exhaustive) history of publicly available cost estimates for the NW Evergreen route:
$620 - $730 Million LRT vs. $850 - $900 Million SkyTrain - 29.6% SkyTrain cost premium
(July 2003 - http://www.translink.bc.ca/files/board_files/meet_agenda_min/2003/07_30_03/4.4_NES_Rapid_Transit_Project.pdf)
- note that the report also includes a 2002 estimate for SkyTrain of $730 Million
$834 Million LRT vs. $1,097 Million SkyTrain - 31.5% SkyTrain cost premium
(October 2004 - http://translink.bc.ca/files/board_files/meet_agenda_min/2004/10_15_04/4.1report.pdf)
- note the public support for SkyTrain (60% of first choice technology responses) vs. LRT (17% of first choice technology responses)
$953 Million LRT
(July 2006 - http://www.translink.bc.ca/About_TransLink/News_Releases/news07270601.asp)
$970 Million LRT
(October 2006 - http://www.translink.bc.ca/About_TransLink/News_Releases/news10120601.asp)
- note this estimate was still based on the preliminary design phase
$1,250 Million LRT (the $1.1B estimate was for the SE route) vs. $1,400 Million SkyTrain (on both NW & SE routes) - 12% SkyTrain cost premium
(February 2008 - http://www.translink.bc.ca/files/pdf/EvergreenLine/BusinessCase.pdf)
I made a mistake with the $1.1B figure I mentioned in my previous comment, which is what I heard reported in the media. That estimate was for LRT along the SE route. The NW route, which now appears extremely likely to be selected, is estimated to cost $1.25B using LRT according to the business case I found and linked to.
Now, a $1.1 billion estimate for LRT is exactly what you’d expect using a financial calculator to get a February 2008 estimate, based on the previous October 2006 estimate of $970 million, and the 10-11% annual construction inflation rate we’ve seen in recent years in BC (http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/business/story.html?id=b9e321b4-b1e0-4313-ba1d-d819f74e4716). And, given a 30% cost premium (seeing that the previous two SkyTrain vs. LRT estimates were consistent in this regard), the SkyTrain’s $1.4 billion estimate would not be that far off.
But a $1.25 billion LRT estimate does seem to skew things.
There are at least a few alternative possibilities (assuming no errors in estimates) that I can see:
1. SkyTrain was purposefully underestimated by approximately $200 million OR the LRT cost was overestimated by $150 Million
2. The idea of a 30% SkyTrain cost premium does not hold - SkyTrain expenses increase less than linearly compared to LRT expenses as estimates rise
3. Work on Evergreen’s detailed design showed that it would cost $150 million more than the preliminary design estimated
Let’s say it’s possibility #1 to entertain the notion that there was deliberate skewing going on.
Politically, there would be both reasons for and against choosing SkyTrain. The Millennium line was an NDP project, which, until fairly recently (with growing ridership and much development fostered along the line), was seen as a bit of a boondoggle, so why should the Liberals continue using SkyTrain (especially if it really isn’t cost competitive with LRT, as you imply)? Well, public support for SkyTrain is much stronger than LRT, as shown in both the October 2004 report linked to above and Port Moody Councillor Mike Clay’s August 2007 survey (http://www.mikeclay.ca/survey/transitsurvey.htm).
Still, it would be a big risk to misrepresent cost figures. But from what I’ve seen, Minister Falcon shoots from the hip, and seems to care more about pushing transportation mega-projects through - his way, mind you - rather than thinking them through or caring about any political consequence they might have. He MAY have a personal preference for SkyTrain vs. LRT, much as his personal preference for living in Surrey and driving across the Port Mann frequently seems to have been a key impetus for Gateway (couldn’t resist that shot). But, for all projects, it’s the “do nothing” alternative I think he hates most.
Overall, however, I still question your assertion that the most recent LRT vs. SkyTrain estimates have been purposefully distorted in favour of SkyTrain.
As others have mentioned, there are Bombardier LIMs in Beijing, Kuala Lumpur, and soon to be Yongin, South Korea. The fact is, the technology is proliferating as never before.
———
Malcolm J., I understand that LRT can be designed in whatever way you’d like, and SkyTrain actually is LRT, taken to an extreme in some senses. Capacity actually almost isn’t even an issue for Evergreen. But let’s talk about the way Evergreen has been designed as LRT, and the costliness of that design. The public wants an LRT which is time-competitive with driving, so they’ve designed it with tunnelling and signal priority/separation at intersections, and the cost, accounting for inflation, has remained fairly consistent for several years (except the latest $1.25 billion estimate is a tad more than expected). Still, it’s hardly time-competitive with driving, but if they designed it to be more streetcar like, it would cost less, of course.
I’m curious as to how you think costs could be cut from the design while still maintaining the degree of performance the public expects? I do not see it as an extravagant design at all. I realize LRT has been done much cheaper in other places, but you have to look at it in the context of our exorbitant and still rapidly rising construction costs, and the specific engineering challenges of the route.
Also, the sound maglevs produce is not what I’d classify as a “roar”. I’ve personally been trackside in Shanghai, and it’s just a quick whoosh - the thing is extremely aerodynamic. If you’re in a car by the track, the maglev is actually quiet enough that you do not hear it at all, nor do you even see it sometimes since it’s so fast. And, really, I was talking more about LRT-type maglevs like Linimo - elevated rail through urban settings where quietness is most important. It may not be economic yet, but I think it could be in 30 years - I personally wouldn’t call it sci-fi.
Sorry Bert, all your facts and figures really don’t mean a thing when it comes to the Evergreen Line. TransLink’s planning is suspect from the start and their total reluctance in having light rail specialists plan for LRT is telling. TransLink inflated the costs of the Evergreen Line to make it cost comparative with SkyTrain as the same crew did with the Millennium Line. None of TransLink’s planning would pass scrutiny.
Transit specialist after transit specialist have scoffed at TransLink’s baffle-gab and voodoo planning. Lack of independently audited ridership figures means that TransLink can claim what figures they want and if a private company were to do the same, they would be in court!
SkyTrain has crippled our public transit system with high costs and debt servicing, which in turn forces fares to go higher and higher. The Hass-Klau studies have shown that the ambiance of a transit system trumps speed. To be fast a transit line has fewer stations, not grade separated. to get to those stations customers must take a bus or walk long distances; taking the car just becomes easier. As one transit specialist in the UK told me, “understand the X-files were filmed in your part of the world, maybe that explains it.
A LRT line, operating on a reserved rights-of-way, such as the Arbutus corridor, with the equal amount of stations, would have comparable commercial, speeds of a grade separated SkyTrain.
Your statement that “technology is proliferating as never before.” is laughable. Since SkyTrain was first marketed in the late 70’s only 6 have been built and 1 is under construction; during the same period over 100 new LRT systems have been built and almost the same amount are either under construction or in advances stages of planning. SkyTrain is not being built in Europe, nor the USA.
Also interesting, 3 of the SkyTrain lines built; JFK, Beijing, and Korea are limited access airport lines like Orly-Val in Paris and hardly qualify as public transit in the common sense; maybe that’s why Bombardier Inc. and TransLink have not been crowing about them to the locals. JFK is notable because the Canadian government subsidized its construction and it is being funded by a $7 departure fee.
As for MAGLEV, dream on, a technical marvel it may be but hugely expensive when compared to TGV etc. China is purchasing foreign technology to acquire the technology, not to provide cost effective transit. The LIM powered SkyTrain and MAGLEV may have intrigued them, but it is not the technology that the Chinese are favouring.
High Speed trains like ICE……………
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqPirYTXxFs
……….TGV…………..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJb-oUgSwN8
………Bullet train…………..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnjKu5g2djA
………that can use existing railway routes as well as their own specialized routes have made TransRapid’s MAGLEV obsolete, just like how LRT has made SkyTrain obsolete.
And MAGLEV, well it’s noisy too…….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUVD1rSFpEA
I know I have posted this before and my appologies, but this is for Bert and the rest of the SkyTrain lobby.
The following email is from Gerald Fox, a noted transit specialist, who has worked on most major public transit infrastructure projects in the USA. He also authored a study in the 1980’s which showed that automatic or driverless systems were more expensive to build and operate than light rail. The study heralded the demise of sales automatic transit systems in North America.
Mr. Fox is currently advising a Victoria group on how to implement inexpensive LRT in the city. The Light Rail Committee, wonders why the provincial government and TransLink have never sought the opinion or expertise of Mr. Fox, yet a group in Victoria have easily done so.
——————————————————————————–
The Evergreen Line Report you sent me made me curious as to how TransLink could justify continuing to expand Skytrain, when the rest of the world was 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 BC 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 BC report states !
- 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 BC 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 for 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 BC 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 BC 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, which seem to be a big issue for Skytrain proponents, but are solved by the numerous systems that operate new LRT systems (ie they can’t be as bad as the Skytrain folk would like you to believe).
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 thus suceeded 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 BC analysis was corrected for 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.
Gerald
>Our policy is that the trains stop only at stations
That may be their policy, but I know I’ve been held up in the Rose Quarter, this may or may not have been the reason.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/SteelBridgeOpen1.jpg
At any rate, MAX takes a long time to traverse the downtown, 15km/h may be overestimating the service speed MAX acheives between the Steel Bridge and the western edge of Downtown Portland… As a Burnaby commuter, I appreciate the speed of the M line as it wisks past the traffic stuck on the Grandview Highway.
LRT too would whisk by traffic. You seem to confuse streetcars for light rail. LRT operates on reserved rights-of-ways, just like in Portland and is not delayed by traffic. Using existing infrastructure (like the Steel Bridge) save money and it’s opening is restricted to non peak hours. Look at the SkyBridge to Surrey, absolutely useless for anything but SkyTrain.
I have used MAX many times and it seems to take you where you want to go without transferring to a bus. The Zoo, airport, city centre market, Loyd Centre. etc. It’s cheap and easy to use. I never use SkyTrain because it too far away and doesn’t serve where I want to go.
Here is question no one is brave enough to answer. “Why should municipalities not serviced by SkyTrain, be taxed to pay for it? “Why should the suburbs subsidize Vancouver’ and Burnaby transit customers?” Vancouver, Burnaby and New West transit riders are heavily subsidized by the suburbs, yet your politicians demand more $100 million/km.+ SkyTrain instead of much cheaper LRT. Until the Vancouver/Burnaby/New Westminster rate payers pay their fair share for SkyTrain, this metro nonsense will continue.
LRT is not a panacea but I would rather spend $1 billion on 30 to 40 km. of LRT rather than 10 km. of SkyTrain.
Malcolm,
You covered a lot of ground, so I’ll just have to try my best to reply to some of your major points.
—
“TransLink inflated the costs of the Evergreen Line to make it cost comparative with SkyTrain”
Were you referring to the February 2008 report or all the reports? Realize that Translink recommended LRT, mostly due to the lower cost, in the 2004 reports. Then, from 2005-2007 it was pretty much a push to get the LRT funded, which obviously didn’t happen (the business case presented to the provincial and federal governments was basically a lot of fluff) - nevertheless, SkyTrain was off the table then. I get the picture you’re saying Translink purposefully designed LRT for failure, effectively wasting a half-decade of their effort as well as the municipalities’ involved, but it doesn’t make sense to do so for some kind of massive SkyTrain conspiracy.
The major justification for SkyTrain I can see in the February 2008 report is that:
“primary consideration is given to maximizing ridership by determining the system that will provide the best rapid transit solution so that people living in the Northeast sector will regularly choose transit, rather than automobiles, as their preferred method of transportation. Further consideration is given to the relative cost of delivering the system.”
The primary focus is now on getting the most riders out of cars as possible, which meets the BC Liberals new green stance, with only a secondary focus on cost. This shows a shift in priorities from the October 2004 report, which recommended LRT for cost reasons, concluding:
“the line should be constructible within a financial envelope of $800 million”.
—
“A LRT line, operating on a reserved rights-of-way, such as the Arbutus corridor, with the equal amount of stations, would have comparable commercial, speeds of a grade separated SkyTrain.”
Certainly true, but then LRT wouldn’t cost much less than SkyTrain… Even the Evergreen Line LRT, as designed (half the speed, half the capacity, no fully-reserved ROW, etc.) is not very far off from the SkyTrain cost estimate. If we went with a SkyTrain-level conventional LRT, we’d pay nearly the same as SkyTrain and still lose out on the huge convenience & speed benefit of a seamless transfer to the M-Line at Lougheed. It would be the worst of both worlds, as I’ll get to when I address Mr. Fox’s letter.
—
“The Hass-Klau studies have shown that the ambiance of a transit system trumps speed.”
Without having read the Hass-Klau studies (perhaps you can shed some more light on them), I can only see ambiance being more important than speed for tourists, not commuters. People generally think with their pocketbook (as in, leisure time is a good people desire, which has a relative price in terms of commuting/labour time), and most people, given the average commuting distance here, face two realistic alternatives in their transportation decision: transit or the car.
A Coquitlam Centre to Brentwood commuter could save at least 30 minutes per day using SkyTrain vs. LRT - that’s 11 minutes in travel time, at least a minute in average headway waiting time (during peak service), and, say, 3-5 minutes in Lougheed Station transfer time, in each direction. That adds up to a huge differential in leisure time over the 50+ year life of the line. This SkyTrain commuter could get to their destination slightly faster than they could by car and much faster than they could by LRT as designed - the choice, for many, would be obvious.
—
“To be fast a transit line has fewer stations, not grade separated. to get to those stations customers must take a bus or walk long distances; taking the car just becomes easier.”
You’ll need to remember that the point of SkyTrain is to provide a fast link between high density pockets in a low density region. There’s no point trying to serve just the existing low density region with expensive rail transit. A major use of SkyTrain as designed is as a tool to shape new population growth - you put thousands of newcomers in high density nodes within walking distance of SkyTrain. Burnaby, for example, seems to understand this, which is why Burnaby has so much development around its SkyTrain stations. Other municipalities (Vancouver, especially) simply need to figure this out for themselves. Finally, all municipalities (even Burnaby), still need to work on getting thousands of jobs near the SkyTrain line.
—
“And MAGLEV, well it’s noisy too”
The thing is, it’s more air noise/electrical buzz rather than metal on metal plus those things. And, let me emphasize yet again that I think it’s the LRT-like 80-100 km/h maglevs like a future, improved version of Linimo that is where the REAL benefit of the quietness of maglev technology could come in. Perhaps if China makes progress on its maglev technology, it can export it to the rest of the world at a more competitive price than Japan/Germany can in 3 decades time. I see no reason to totally write off a technology, which has some major advantages, just because it’s not competitive today.
—
On Mr. Fox’s letter…
I agree that parts of the latest business case are questionable; since the real issue seems to be speed/cost, let’s skip the parts about capacity/ridership/safety.
On LRT vs. SkyTrain, Fox says, “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.”
Have they not been designed to optimize each mode? SkyTrain works best with larger, fewer stations to rapidly connect high density nodes in a low density region, where the actual alignment almost doesn’t matter. “Ambient” LRT, especially on such a relatively short line, would seem to work best with smaller, more frequent stations, and an alignment which is more street-oriented. Technically, they should have evaluated a SkyTrain-like LRT option as well - elevated with fewer but larger stations, but that would pretty much give you the worst of both worlds - a Lougheed transfer (lower speed), and a costly, less ambient line.
We should also note that there is a lot less fluff to the Feb. 2008 report than the LRT business case presented to senior government last year, which I mentioned above. The most neutral report so far has been the 2004 Alternatives study, which gave no recommendation, but simply analyzed the alternatives. The October 2004 report I linked to simply tacks on a weak recommendation of LRT without much justification except that it fits within a given funding envelope.
I will say that I completely agree with this part of Gerald Fox’s conclusion: “…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.”
I am not advocating SkyTrain everywhere, but it does seem to make sense for Evergreen and the M-Line West extension for the reasons Mr. Fox provided there. Other lines should probably not be SkyTrain in the future, unless there is a clear reason for them to be SkyTrain. If more automated, fully grade-separated lines are built in the future, then Canada Line-style LRT would seem more appropriate than SkyTrain, given the price benefits of not being locked in to a single supplier.
But I do find this part of what Mr. Fox said rather doubtful: “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.”
I’m doubtful of that because, although I’m not aware of the American criteria:
A) A system like SkyTrain gets a combined 220,000 riders/day on two lines - significantly more ridership than most LRTs in the US
B) Even the ill-thought-out Las Vegas monorail at 20,000 riders/day qualified for federal funding in 2005
—
“LRT is not a panacea but I would rather spend $1 billion on 30 to 40 km. of LRT rather than 10 km. of SkyTrain.”
Me too, if that were possible. However, for the needs of the Evergreen line, it does not appear to be possible. It might be possible for Surrey though. I think alternatives should be studied rather than pushing ahead with the idea to extend SkyTrain from King George station toward Langley (which would inevitably result in a further extension to Langley Centre in the future). Without seeing any studies first, I’d imagine Surrey/Langley would probably be more cost-efficiently served by at-grade LRT.
Bert, your letter is difficult to answer because it contains so much bias against LRT.
SkyTrain is an unconventional, proprietary railway, first developed by the UTDC in Ontario and is now owned by Bombardier Inc. It is a light metro, which in layman’s terms, means it costs the same of a regular sized metro, but with far less capacity. Since SkyTrain was first marketed in the late 70’s, it has had 5 name changes; ICTS, ALRT (2 versions), ALM, and it’s now being marketed as ART. The SkyTrain name is a local name and not a marketing name and many elevated transit systems are called SkyTrain or Air-Train. Of the 6 SkyTrain’s built 1 is a 4 km. single track loop (Detroit) 2 were forced on the operating authority (Vancouver and Toronto), 1 was built as a high-tech showcase (Kuala Lumpur) and only automated metros were allowed to bid, and 2 are limited stop airport lines.
TransLink has had a long history in planning LRT as a light metro and is one of the main reasons that the Evergreen line’s costs were excessive.
Studies in Europe have shown that at-grade/on-street transit operation is the most successful in attracting customers to transit and the Renaissance of LRT in Europe, especially France, have shown how at-grade LRT succeeds.
If TransLink says that LRT is slower and would carry less people than SkyTrain, then it is TransLink themselves that have designed the light rail to do so.
Here are some comments I have received about TransLink’s LRT planning and projected costs.
A reply from an Edinburgh transit consultant was blunt. “It’s plain as a pikestaff that the figure of $60 million/km. quoted for on-street LRT construction is daft and so is the statement that on-street construction would be about three times of that of ‘greenfields’ construction.”
From transit specialist in Sheffield, I was told, “The whole situation bemuses us. We can not understand such an intercine “politik” running here in the UK. Understand that the X-Files were filmed in your part of the world. Perhaps that explains it……………”
and
“Certainly I can imagine that the powers that be in Vancouver cannot begin to imagine
the reputation that they have managed to generate in the wider transport community
around the world.”
Instead of saying “SkyTrain works best with larger, fewer stations to rapidly connect high density nodes in a low density region, where the actual alignment almost dozen’t matter.” Say light metro instead, then compare light metro’s with light rail, and one sees instantly that LRT is superior because not only can LRT operate as a light metro (STAR Line Kuala Lumpor & Manila are good examples), it can also retain the ability to operate in mixed traffic.
LRT can carry large volumes of traffic if need be; Calgary’s C-Train carries 250,000 passengers a day and the San Diego Trolley (LRT) carried almost 700,000 passengers in 3 days when the city hosted the Super bowl.
If you have read my many letter to the Tri-City News, you would have been puzzled because I did not support the Evergreen line LRT because there wasn’t the ridership to justify the cost and with even a more expensive SkyTrain Light metro, the line just doesn’t make sense. Transit axiom #1 - If people do not like taking the bus, they will not take it to rapid transit, metro or LRT!
Just to be a misery, I contacted some transit specialists overseas about rack and pinion light rail, to climb the grade from Port Moody to Coquitlam and to SFU, to reduce the cost by omitting tunnel construction. It was doable and I penned a wee paper on the subject which caused TransLink great heartburn. Of course they rejected it out of hand but my research showed that it could be done and could reduce the cost of the Evergreen Line by at least 50% (rack speed would be about 30 kph while the rack equipped cars could travel at normal speeds on non rack section.
Imagine a rack LRT to SFU, giving good public transit service to the hill top university in all weathers. “When one builds major transit destinations in extraordinary places, one must take extraordinary measures to service them.”
From 2000 to 2003, I was in communication with several UK transit specialist who worked for (I believe) Siemens which was one of the bidders for RAV. During the course of our correspondence they pointed out that “if you wanted to be up to date on transit planning Carmen Hass-Klau’s ‘Bus or Light Rail Making the Right Choice’ series of studies are must read”.
Prof. Carmen Hass-Klau is a Professorial of Public Transport Systems and European Urban Transport in the Faculty of Engineering at the University of Wuppertal, Germany and the proprietor of Environmental and Transport Planning in Brighton England.
The 4 studies are: Bus or Light Rail Making the right Choice, 1st and 2nd editions; Future of Urban Transport; and Economic impact of Light Rail. They cost just over $100 per volume and can be ordered through the Light Rail Transit Association at http://www.lrta.org
One can’t really talk transit without reading this series of studies.
[Moderator's note: this comment has been editted]
A note on the JFK SkyTrain and the Las Vegas monorail.
Both transit schemes were privately funded, thus avoiding Federal scrutiny and if one reads the ‘transit’ news, the Las Vegas monorail bonds are at junk status. SkyTrain has failed to find a market because it just too expensive to build and operate when compared with LRT.
It is now apparent that Bombardier has found a niche for their proprietary metro system, as a show-case glorified airport people-mover. Since TransLink and the provincial government refuse any sort of regular professional audit of the light-metro system and the fact that SkyTrain has never been allowed to compete against other LRT firms such as Siemens, certainly shows that the SkyTrain product isn’t very good. Mr. Fox has appeared at Congressional Committee hearings, defending public transit schemes, something that the present TransLink Board of ‘professional unprofessionals’ and Kevin Falcon will never have to do. I wouldn’t want to defend SkyTrain in the USA, as our American friends take perjury very seriously!
Gerald Fox has been involved in many new LRT schemes in north America and though many do not match SkyTrain’s ridership (which is questionable), most have greatly surpassed their original ridership projections.
“TransLink has no expertise with LRT and as long as they have sold SkyTrain to gullible politicians, we will get more”
For the four years from 2004-2007, Translink was selling LRT rather than SkyTrain. The politicians at the senior levels didn’t buy it. But let’s not belabour this point anymore as we clearly disagree.
—
“If you have read my many letter to the Tri-City News, you would have been puzzled because I did not support the Evergreen line LRT because there wasn’t the ridership to justify the cost and with even a more expensive SkyTrain Light metro, the line just doesn’t make sense. Transit axiom #1 - If people do
not like taking the bus, they will not take it to rapid transit, metro or LRT!”
I agree to some extent. However, in this case, it’s more population growth shaping that would justify the cost of a rail line rather than immediate ridership. As I mentioned before, it matters relatively little whether the existing low density parts of the region use the line compared to getting a new, higher-density population concentrated about stations to use it. Without a rail line (since bus lines don’t seem to attract much development), sprawl in the northeast will continue unabated.
—
“Just to be a misery, I contacted some transit specialists overseas about rack and pinion light rail, to climb the grade from Port Moody to Coquitlam and to SFU, to reduce the cost by omitting tunnel construction.” … “rack speed would be about 30 kph”
Wouldn’t that be a bit of an excessive speed penalty just to reduce construction costs? The passengers from Coquitlam Centre already face a 15-minute one-way trip time deficit on LRT as designed vs. SkyTrain. There’s also the psychological factor of drivers seeing a train climb up the road beside them at a relative crawl - they’re not going to choose something so comparatively slow. Still, rack rail up to SFU might be something Translink could consider in the future.
—
“A note on the JFK SkyTrain and the Las Vegas monorail. Both transit schemes were privately funded, thus avoiding Federal scrutiny”
This FTA spreadsheet (http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/t-81.xls) appears to show the LV Monorail was 60% federally funded.
I made no claims that JFK Airtrain was federally funded, but a search of the FTA site doesn’t even show so much as an application for funding, which would explain that. They seem to have went for a federal alternative, applying to the FAA instead under the “Passenger Facility Charge” program - permission to collect an airport improvement fee rather than direct funding. That request was granted: http://www.tc.faa.gov/intercom/sep99a.PDF
Malcolm
You wrote “TransLink’s history with LRT is dismal and the outfit has never hired real experts in LRT.” and you have written similar things many times. You may have forgotten that I used to be a planner with Translink and for its predecessor BC Transit.
For while there we were actually planning an LRT for Broadway/Lougheed. In fact the regional plan always referred to Intermediate Capacity Transit Systems (ICTS) and was technology neutral. The decision by Glen Clark to extend the SkyTrain took everyone by surprise. And it was he who hired Lecia Stewart to run the Project Office.
The original Translink study for the Evergreen Line was conducted by Clark Lim and is still a model I would recommend to anyone for objective assessment of alternative routes and technologies. As a professional he is unbiased - which is as it should be.
The Canada Line followed a similar trajectory to the Millennium Line. Ken Dobell appointed the Project Manager, Jane Bird - someone who had no experience or qualifications in transportation planning, transit or project management. She set up a separate Project Office and only one of my staff was initially seconded to assist - and he came back very quickly, utterly disgusted with a process which started with a pre-determined outcome and worked backwards to justify it. For instance it was stated that the hill at Cambie and 12th was too steep for surface LRT. Two minutes with the city map on line showed that to be nonsense - a 6% average could easily be built. Not only that but I enjoyed sending them images of ancient Lisbon trams climbing much steeper hills. And they are simply adhesion, not rack equipped. The only surprise was that Bombardier did not win the contract - but then the consortium that did came up with the cost cutting “cut and cover” proposal - something that earlier had been rejected by the Project Office and was not allowed by the ToR.
Even when BC Transit brought experts in and paid them it did not listen to them. I worked on the 98 B LIne - which was designed to be converted to LRT at some unspecified future date when ridership justified it. Delcan brought in the man from Ottawa who had designed and run their busway. He said that direct, no transfer bus service was essential and that people in Richmond would not accept an unnecessary transfer. That was ignored. And he was right and the old express bus routes came back at peak periods with different numbers at the first sheet change.
Much of the pressure for grade separation and grossly exaggerated fears of the safety of surface LRT comes from the Professional Engineers who work for the municipal governments as traffic “experts”. Their only concern is to maintain SOV capacity - no matter what policy direction they may have been given. It was the City of Vancouver Engineering Department that killed exclusive bus lanes on Granville Street not Linda Meinhardt.
The direction in Transport 2021 - which is part of the LRSP - was clear. ICTS starts with buses, then bus lanes, then LRT and only when capacity requires it is grade separation justified. Many European cities tried “pre-metro” (putting streetcars underground) and quickly abandoned it when they realised that all they had achieved was creating more road space for SOVs. Tram only streets in places like Grenoble were commercial triumphs - the merchants on other streets started demanding their own tram routes.
Urban planning is never just about technology. And transportation is simply a means not an end in itself. When planning a region we do not need “experts” who only know one form of rapid transit. We also need people who are skilled and experienced urbanists. The solutions need to be multi-dimensional. The Granville bus mall was as good an example of how not to do things as the SkyTrain. And the professional transit planners only ever played a peripheral role at best in both decisions. It is the Province that runs transit here - and the City of Vancouver is a law unto itself.
I think that was the main cost issue. From my distant memory of the blurb in the airport they were planning to make an elevated ROW over the S-bahn most of the way, and then an elevated route into terminal 2, where a mockup had been built, so it would have been pricey. Hopefully DB will now be a bit more sensible and get some conventional High speed trains connecting Munich, the airport and elsewhere.