The disadvantages of LRT versus SkyTrain
- Reality Check
-
- October 10, 2011
Mayor Dianne Watts has claimed that SkyTrain will “cut our communities in half and destroy our city” [17], while arguing that light rail would help connect town centres and boost economic activity, creating a “vibrancy” in the city. However, several limitations and disadvantages of a ground light rail system have not been made clear to the public. In this article, we aim to examine these disadvantages closely.
Using a new technology is inherently disadvantageous
Building a light rail system instead of extending the existing SkyTrain would mean starting from scratch, which would incur a large capital cost to initiate the new system. A location will also need to be scouted for the construction of a new storage yard and maintenance facilities. The system will also require the use of different rolling stock, necessitating the need to train or employ qualified personnel to work with it.
By comparison, expansion of the SkyTrain RRT (rapid rail transit) system does not require these additional and large capital costs. Although new trains would have to be ordered, these trains could potentially be maintained and controlled from the SkyTrain maintenance centre in Burnaby.
Furthermore, the addition of trains will only minimally impact or increase the SkyTrain system’s operating cost. The system’s operating cost per vehicle kilometre in 2010 was actually the lowest in the past five years, despite that 48 new Mk. II SkyTrain vehicles had been added to service that year [15].
Drivers must be employed, which significantly adds to the operating cost.
During the same year (2010) on Portland’s MAX light rail, fares covered just over 50% of the system’s operating costs, and up to this day, fares still cover only about 60% of the system’s operating costs [28]—the rest has to be subsidized by the government.
By comparison, SkyTrain requires no operating cost subsidies and operates highly efficiently, with just one employee for every 150,000 annual passengers; the Portland MAX, for comparison, requires an employee for every 50,000 annual passengers [22]. Meaning that, if a SkyTrain-type automated RRT system and an LRT system akin to the Portland MAX had the same line lengths and annual passenger counts, the LRT system would require three times as many employees to service the same number of passengers! This would be incredibly expensive.
Road safety becomes an issue, impacting reliability
Surrey’s LRT tracks are planned to run in the middle of the road, meaning an accident along the light rail corridor would be catastrophic. Unlike buses, light rail trains are not able to maneuver around the accident or choose alternative roads to travel on.
One accident at an intersection, whether the accident actually involves a train or not, could shut down both tracks of the system and the entire service for several hours, wreaking havoc on everyone’s commutes.
This could be particularly devastating for the reliability of the system. Rigth now, Twitter feeds of Metro Vancouver traffic news reporters (i.e. News1130, AM730) constantly report accidents, several of which take place on the corridors being studied for rapid transit.
Vehicular accidents at ground level do not put the elevated SkyTrain RRT system at risk of a service disruption at all. The SkyTrain system has consistently recorded above 94% on-time service reliability (within 2 minutes) for the past 5 years [15].
Slower speed than SkyTrain
Light rail is expected to run in the middle or the side of the road, on all three alignments being studied in the South of Fraser area [6]. In these corridors, light rail must adhere to the local speed limit of 60 km/h or 50 km/h for vehicular traffic at all times.
By comparison, trains on the Expo and Millennium Line SkyTrain safely operate at speeds of 80 km/h, with a catch-up speed of up to 90 km/h [29], and subsequent SkyTrain lines built under the same technology will be able to operate at the same speeds.
With the grade-separated guideway, SkyTrains can travel faster than automobiles at ground level below. Automation also significantly shortens the minimum safe distance between trains, allowing trains to run frequently without necessarily having to be longer. Light rail trains at street level would have to interface with vehicular and pedestrian traffic, making automation impractical.
Capacity and frequency could be significantly limited
On light rail systems, communication between trains is limited to sight line and radio, meaning that a minimum safe distance must be kept between trains. This not only limits the maximum possible frequency of the service, but it may also limit future expansion of the line’s capacity.
And, once the line’s capacity has been reached, the only way to increase capacity on the line would be to use larger and/or longer train sets. If this is feasible at all, then cash-costly and space-costly platform extensions, as well as additional street reconstruction, would be required to accommodate the longer trains.
But, if this has not been accounted for in the initial designs and/or is not possible, the LRT line may have to be replaced with a SkyTrain line in the future in order to cope with increasing demand, and this would have to be done at a higher cost at that time.
TransLink also ensures that the SkyTrain system offers an excellent and frequent off-peak service, in addition to the very frequent peak-hour service. Thanks to automation, this can be done for no additional operating cost; whereas light rail’s driver requirement results in a more costly off-peak service when trains are less utilized, meaning that off-peak frequencies are usually lower.
As an example, Calgary’s C-Train LRT operates with an off-peak frequency during weekdays of only every 15 minutes [30]; by comparison, Vancouver’s Expo and Millennium SkyTrain lines operate every 6-8 minutes on their respective split alignments during late-night hours, with interlined service between Waterfront and Columbia stations operating every 3-4 minutes.
Resulting service would not be better than the bus on Highway 1
For travellers to and from Langley Township, light rail running in the middle of Fraser Highway would be subject to its speed disadvantage. Right now, existing trends show that many South-of-Fraser travellers choose to drive instead of taking transit because of the travel time savings.
Assuming light rail would operate at a theoretical average speed of 34.1 km/h, including stops (the same average speed as Portland’s MAX light rail in 2010 [28]), it would be faster for many people to utilize the proposed RapidBus that will link Langley Centre to Surrey Central via Walnut Grove and Highway 1, especially if they park-and-ride. It would also remain faster to drive the entire commute.
Transferring at Surrey Central could result in long waits and overcrowding
Commuters will have to transfer to and from the LRT line at Surrey Central, resulting in extra waiting time before being able to board trains; and, because the light rail train will operate less frequently than the SkyTrain (especially during off-peak hours), there will be an inevitable presence of lineups so long that it may require more than a one train wait before a traveller can board.
A similar situation can already be seen today at Surrey Central Station’s bus loop during the afternoon rush hour, and vicinity bus stops on feeder routes. As the SkyTrain drops off more passengers than the buses can pick up, long lineups – often reported to be so long that they loop around the bus exchange – result in bus overcrowding. For passengers further down the route, this means little to no room to wiggle onto the bus.
Fleetwood stops along the Fraser Highway, serviced by the route 502, are a particular victim of this effect. Buses, overcrowded with traffic from Surrey Central, are unable to board passengers in Fleetwood, and pass-ups occur. The same thing happens in the morning rush hour period, as buses are full of commuters coming in from Langley City. These stops have some of the highest pass-up rates in Surrey and Langley [31].
Increase in convenience doesn't materialize if parallel buses are eliminated
On 104 Avenue between Surrey Central and Guildford, concepts shown by the city of Surrey have shown that general traffic lanes will be removed for light rail transit [17]. This may add so much congestion that regular transit buses like the 320 and 501 would be unable to provide parallel local service; this reduces overall transit capacity on the corridor, through the elimination of parallel local bus service.
That parallel service may have to be rerouted down undesigned side streets not designed for higher speed bus operations, making local bus trips take longer and forcing passengers to walk further to their destination.
Reality Check
Reality Check is the online blog run by the founder of SkyTrain for Surrey, a BC-based community organization that has advocated for the expansion of the Vancouer SkyTrain system, including our successful advocacy for the under-construction Surrey-Langley SkyTrain extension.
Media Contact: Daryl Dela Cruz – Founder, SkyTrain for Surrey ・ Phone: +1 604 329 3529, [email protected]