SkyTrain for Surrey, not LRT!

SkyTrain for Surrey
Menu

Ottawa transit technology report unfairly compares SkyTrain and LRT

  • Reality Check

A recent commenter pointed us to Ottawa’s Transit Technology Choice Report and its recommendation of Light Rail Transit (LRT) over automated guideway systems like Vancouver’s SkyTrain. I dug into the report because the conclusions struck me as one‑sided, and after reviewing all of the assumptions and numbers, it’s clear the report understates what automated, grade‑separated systems like SkyTrain can deliver—and it overlooks important cost and engineering trade‑offs that matter when comparing technologies fairly.

What the report gets wrong about capacity

The report lists mode capacities for three transit technologies: traditional subway, light rail transit (LRT), and automated light metro (SkyTrain). Although it acknowledges that both subways and SkyTrain-style light metro ultimately do provide a greater capacity than LRT[1], it lists SkyTrain as operating “at-capacity” due to short platform lengths[2], with a maximum capacity of 15,000 passengers per hour per direction (pphpd) on all three lines (the Canada, MIllennium and Expo Lines).[3]

Our commenter pointed out that Edmonton’s LRT is also shown at 15,000 pphpd, and Calgary’s LRT is shown at an even higher theoretical ceiling of between 19,440 and 30,270 pphpd. That framing has been repeated by critics as proof that LRT “moves more people” than SkyTrain.

However, this is misleading for three reasons:

  • The study incorrectly cites the ultimate capacity of the Expo/Millennium Lines at 15,000 pphpd, despite having longer platforms than the Canada Line (which is also cited at 15,000 pphpd). TransLink has since clarified that the existing system capacity is 16,000 pphpd, but that there is headroom to expand to an ultimate capacity of 25,700 pphpd.[4]
  • The study states that SkyTrain is “at capacity” due to short platform lengths, which is not true as the system can still shorten headways.[4]
  • Calgary only hits the higher figure of 30,270 pphpd if it builds a massive, costly subway tunnel to replace its current street-level running downtown. Although this is actually acknowledged in the study, it is often missed by critics/LRT advocates citing the report.

Why automation and grade-separation change the math

There are three practical advantages that the report largely ignores:

  • Operating costs: Automation allows for high-frequency service without the linear increase in labour costs required for staffed LRT.
  • Tunnelling efficiency: Smaller tunnels mean less excavation, lower costs, and less surface disruption; and are possible when third-rail power is used, and there is no need to accommodate the overhead catenary wires that power light rail vehicles. SkyTrain actually takes this even further, as linear induction motor technology permits even smaller tunnel diameters.
  • Reliability: Grade separation isn’t just about speed; it eliminates traffic conflicts, ensuring the clockwork reliability that drives ridership.

Taken together, these factors mean that a fair comparison must look beyond headline pphpd numbers and consider how technology choices interact with route geometry, tunnelling needs, and long‑term operating costs.

Conclusion

Technology specifics matter, but this report treats modes as monolithic categories rather than engineering toolkits. Linear induction motors, automated control, and full grade separation are not just features—they change how you design tunnels, stations, and service patterns. Those changes affect both capacity and cost. And, by treating transit modes as rigid categories rather than flexible engineering toolkits, Ottawa risks locking itself into a sub-optimal solution.

Cities deciding between LRT and automated rapid transit deserve a transparent, engineering‑driven comparison. Only then can elected officials and the public make an informed decision about the transit system—before billions are committed to the wrong tracks.

Footnotes

  1. Ottawa report, p.35[↩]
  2. Ottawa report, p.32[↩]
  3. Ottawa report, p.30[↩]
  4. Expo Line Upgrade Strategy[↩][↩]

Pictured in header: Early concept render of the Ottawa LRT Confederation Line

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 Vancouver 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]

Ottawa transit technology report unfairly compares SkyTrain and LRT