Grumpy Hits Pay (and other) Dirt
Just a note on the Canada Line. Due to the cost of the Canada line escalating from $1.3 billion to over $2.4 billion (How many fast-ferry fiasco's does this equal?), the stations in the subway are a mere 50 metres in length, or just enough to fit a 3 car train.
This means that for $2.4 billion (and climbing) we have the world's smallest subway system with its maximum capacity held at 15,000 pphpd (and that is crush loading) and to increase capacity, larger stations must be built!
This means that to increase capacity, we have to to the cut-and-cover thing all over again on Cambie St., to increase the subterranean stations lengths.
Anyone want to tell this to Susan Heyes?
Two things come to mind with this idiocy:
1)In the real world, subways are not even considered unless ridership on a transit route exceeds 15,000 pphpd.
2) A simple LRT operating on the 'Arbutus' at a fraction of the cost of the Canada Line, could achieve capacities exceeding 20,000 pphpd!
That's right folks, step right up and see the world's smallest and most expensive subway, brought to you by Gordo & his pals, including Malcolm (not the Light Rail Guy) Brodie; Senator Larry (30 pieces of silver) Campbell ; Ken (lets shred those memos) Dobell; Jane ($20,000 a month) Bird; and not to forget Kevin (another bird brained) Falcon.
You just can't make this stuff up!
6 comments:
I was down at Granville Island today and stopped by to chat with the heritage streetcar guys. In fact that 'streetcar' isn't really that at all, rather it's one of the Interurbans that used to run out to Chilliwack and down the Arbutus line to Steveston.
Almost a century ago we installed these systems all over this region and for decades they worked efficiently. Why we think that the Canada Line is somehow some improvement I will never know, but I do know that until we learn to follow in the footsteps of the people who designed this excellent system, we will continue to waste money on projects like Skytrain.
Our predecessors would roll over in their graves if they could see No. 3 Road now. Reinstating the Interurban system to Steveston would have given us the chance to build a human-scaled downtown in Richmond, but instead we chose to say f-you to people and welcome to cars, ensuring that our roads are clogged and polluted for years to come.
Want to find the real dirt on RAV? Ask the French company why they left (or were forced to leave) the bidding process. Was it because they insisted that light rail on the Arbutus would be far cheaper and carry more people than the subway RAV?
Ask this as well, why wasn't SkyTrain used for RAV? Could it be it is an inferior product when compared to other metros and that the private sector would not offer financing on a SkyTrain product?
Whistleblower.
I don't see the small stations as being a problem because the trains are fully automated like the skytrain resulting in more frequent service.
I remember the Toronto subway during rush hour. The trains would get backed up in the tunnels waiting for trains at the main stations to unload.
It was like gridlock in the tunnels.
Want the (pay) dirt on the Evergreen Line? Certainly Transclunk doesn't want anyone to know!
The following is from Gerald Fox, a noted U.S. 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. One 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
Being automatic, doesn't increase frequency of service, that is just a management action. Many streetcar or tram systems operate at 30 second headways.
Small stations = huge future costs and as well as a more constrained service. In Toronto the trains backed up (as do London and Paris) because the passengers could not leave the station platforms fast enough, creating passenger gridlock, as each new arrival dumped more passengers onto the station. The Canada Line stations are just asking for problems, with hugely expensive solutions.
The reason that skytrain is always chosen over light rail is rumored to be because the federal government wouldn't contribute funding otherwise. For some reason they want to subsidize Bombardier's skytrain technology. But Bombardier also manufactures light rail systems, in Europe I believe, so why should the feds care whether we buy skytrain cars or light rail cars from Bombardier? Anyone know the answer to this?
Post a Comment