Welcome Guest!
In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away.
or Create an Account




Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Surrey council unanimously passes motion to ‘cancel ’ LRT
#16
(11-07-2018, 01:39 AM)tomh009 Wrote:
(11-06-2018, 10:33 PM)Canard Wrote: I've been following this for quite some time - LRT here isn't the right technology choice.  I think an extension of SkyTrain makes the most sense.

But why will it be that much better? At probably twice the cost?

The video I shared detailed all of the reasons. Have a watch!
For daily ion construction updates, photos and general urban rail news, follow me on twitter! @Canardiain
Reply


#17
(11-13-2018, 09:43 AM)Canard Wrote:
(11-07-2018, 01:39 AM)tomh009 Wrote: But why will it be that much better? At probably twice the cost?

The video I shared detailed all of the reasons. Have a watch!

OK, so this is what the video claims (there is no backup data, so it's just claims for now):

No transfer to get to Vancouver. Yes, this correct, I agree with this.

Fully grade-separated. But somewhere else they said that parts might be at grade.
https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news...lly-funded

Much faster. But small print says there are many fewer stations. 

Same cost. To some extent, this is an apples-to-oranges comparison. The proposed SkyTrain route is the same as the proposed LRT phase 2. The SkyTrain proposal leaves the proposed LRT phase 1 route for BRT, presumably to be implemented later. And it's questionable whether it really could be built for the same price.
https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news...-in-surrey

75% lower operating cost. I am skeptical of this, given the number of assumptions they make in their calculations. But maybe that's just me.

Much higher ridership. Based on surveys, but I don't know who did the surveys or what the questions were. And the routes are different.

One thing that the SkyTrain proponents don't talk about is the LRT's capability to spur development, and how that is used to select routes. The proposed LRT routing goes to Newton and Guillford, two significant Surrey centres with a total population of about 200,000. The proposed SkyTrain route (as well as the LRT Phase 2) runs along the Fraser highway to Langley (population about 25,000). I don't know Surrey that well, but I think this highway is significantly less urban with lesser intensification potential -- think running the LRT along Victoria St in Kitchener.
Reply
#18
I can buy the 'lower operating costs' argument if you take it as meaning there's no need for a separate LRT OMSF; the vehicles would be maintained at the existing SkyTrain facility.
My Twitter: @KevinLMaps
Reply
#19
(11-13-2018, 02:03 PM)KevinL Wrote: I can buy the 'lower operating costs' argument if you take it as meaning there's no need for a separate LRT OMSF; the vehicles would be maintained at the existing SkyTrain facility.

Don’t forget that SkyTrain actually uses the automatic train operation feature of the system, unlike the Scarborough RT. This saves a huge amount on operating costs associated with having human operators.

I don’t know if that adds up to the SkyTrain proposal being better — most suggestions to cancel LRT lines are bad — but it’s a significant point.
Reply
#20
(11-13-2018, 12:19 PM)tomh009 Wrote: Fully grade-separated. But somewhere else they said that parts might be at grade.
https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news...lly-funded

This one is bogus, at least as to technology choice. LRT can be grade-separated; it just has the flexibility to not be if it’s helpful to do so in a particular situation. A requirement for a technology to be grade-separated is a minus, not a plus.

Now of course this works in reverse; part of the reason LRT can be less expensive is because it can skip the grade-separation. So if a particular route warrants grade-separation, this benefit of LRT disappears. It reappears if there are significant extensions of the system that could usefully be made where grade separation is not warranted.

So if the argument is over routes and how fast they run, it’s legitimate to champion an alternate proposal that is fully grade-separated. But wanting grade separation isn’t a reason to choose SkyTrain rather than LRT.
Reply
#21
(11-13-2018, 02:03 PM)KevinL Wrote: I can buy the 'lower operating costs' argument if you take it as meaning there's no need for a separate LRT OMSF; the vehicles would be maintained at the existing SkyTrain facility.

Most of the difference is explained by their assumptions on asset life: 41 years for LRT, 48 years for BRT and 61 years for SkyTrain. I don't know where the numbers came from and what they mean. I can't see running today's SkyTrain rolling stock in 2080, even with refurbishment -- that would be like running Kennedy-era trains today. And I would really expect the SkyTrain station infrastructure to cost significantly more to maintain.

The other assumption is based on the passenger revenues, which in turn is based on the assumption that SkyTrain ridership will be far higher.

[Image: press-release-surrey-lrt-doesnt-work-300x174@2x.png]

Anyway, this will not affect me in any way, so I will just reserve a large bucket of popcorn and see what actually happens in Surrey.
Reply
#22
(11-14-2018, 11:19 AM)tomh009 Wrote: Most of the difference is explained by their assumptions on asset life: 41 years for LRT, 48 years for BRT and 61 years for SkyTrain. I don't know where the numbers came from and what they mean. I can't see running today's SkyTrain rolling stock in 2080, even with refurbishment -- that would be like running Kennedy-era trains today. And I would really expect the SkyTrain station infrastructure to cost significantly more to maintain.

They just retired the MR-63 metro trains in Montreal, which were in service from 1966. That is pretty much 60 years. Of course, metro trains run underground (in a high humidity environment), not in the sky. But, there's no salt on the SkyTrain. So who knows.
Reply
#23
(11-14-2018, 06:31 PM)plam Wrote:
(11-14-2018, 11:19 AM)tomh009 Wrote: Most of the difference is explained by their assumptions on asset life: 41 years for LRT, 48 years for BRT and 61 years for SkyTrain. I don't know where the numbers came from and what they mean. I can't see running today's SkyTrain rolling stock in 2080, even with refurbishment -- that would be like running Kennedy-era trains today. And I would really expect the SkyTrain station infrastructure to cost significantly more to maintain.

They just retired the MR-63 metro trains in Montreal, which were in service from 1966. That is pretty much 60 years. Of course, metro trains run underground (in a high humidity environment), not in the sky. But, there's no salt on the SkyTrain. So who knows.

That's pretty old indeed, 52 years.

The proposal says 48 years for BRT. Those would be 1970 vintage bus equivalents (GRT has nothing older than 2004 active today).

[Image: e440ed2003cf625fc18a9b662551c3bb.jpg]
Reply
#24
(11-14-2018, 06:39 PM)tomh009 Wrote:
(11-14-2018, 06:31 PM)plam Wrote: They just retired the MR-63 metro trains in Montreal, which were in service from 1966. That is pretty much 60 years. Of course, metro trains run underground (in a high humidity environment), not in the sky. But, there's no salt on the SkyTrain. So who knows.

Montréal’s trains don’t just run underground; they are stored there. They never see sunlight at all. More importantly, they never see rain, blowing leaves, snow, or anything of the sort. This has to help with longevity.
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

About Waterloo Region Connected

Launched in August 2014, Waterloo Region Connected is an online community that brings together all the things that make Waterloo Region great. Waterloo Region Connected provides user-driven content fueled by a lively discussion forum covering topics like urban development, transportation projects, heritage issues, businesses and other issues of interest to those in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the four Townships - North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich.

              User Links