Of eight, including the Seoul Subway, the Hong Kong MTR, Washington State Ferries, the Venetian Vaporetti, Melbourne’s Trams, Medellin’s Gondolas and the (Lost) Los Angeles Cable Cars, we’re No. 6.
The Vancouver SkyTrain was built to reduce the amount of surface traffic in Vancouver, BC. The fully-automated elevated rapid transit line serves several areas around Vancouver, and has a very high level of punctuality. Ridership is ever increasing, and the growing reliance on SkyTrain has lead to concerns that the system may not be able to meet demands.
The SkyTrain is also an excellent example of how efficient mass transit can transform cities, as population densities and wealth have increased around SkyTrain stations.
Building a UBC line and one in Surrey is such a no-brainer.
If they really wanted to reduce the amount of “surface traffic” (i.e. cars) then Skytrain would have been built at-grade.
What was wanted was to have their cake (roads) and eat it too (roads free of pesky trains).
I think by far the larger impact of at-grade Skytrain would have been a big reduction in ridership due to the (a) slower speeds and (b) lower frequencies required by manually driven trains that have to contend with road congestion.
Those are exactly the same reasons why any Broadway line should be grade separated.
At-grade systems operate in traffic and therefore require onboard operators, resulting in significantly higher operating costs, all-but ensuring that an operating subsidy will always be required from the owner during the life of the system. Driverless trains are way cheaper to operate and their availability (on-time performance) higher.
Also, constructing an at-grade system in which traffic is made worse by the transit line decreases the public benefits associated with the line. One of the most fundamental justifications for building a transit line is to take would-be drivers off the road, thereby improving traffic flow on the existing street network through a decrease in congestion.
Generally, the only reasons for why transit systems are constructed at-grade is to save on construction costs or to maintain “urban fit”.
Grade separation and right-of-way separation are separate issues. Many systems that operate at-grade still have dedicated right of ways. But yes, a fully automated system – at least using 1980s technology – requires grade separation since they are limited in what kind of problems they can detect and react to at intersections.
I think whether “making traffic worse” is decreasing the public benefits or not depends on what public benefit you’re measuring. If increased traffic pushes more users on to transit while simultaneously reducing the cost, there’s a good argument that it’s a double positive. It does make it a harder sell to voters though.
At grade trains have a similar problem as a highway causes — it’s hard to cross; it divides the land into two.
A big benefit of the trains in the sky or underground is you can cross their path without having to find a crossing.
Very true.
The problem is that this “obstacle” is not portrayed well in renderings or photos of at-grade light rail projects. – because it’s not a visible, physical constraint. It’s one often imposed by the operational rules of the transit agency.
The reason to build public transit is to have public transit, not to harass automobile drivers. And the reason to give public transit an exclusive right of way is to make better public transit, it isn’t to do a favour to drivers. Getting confused between these two outcomes is what leads to bad public transit decisions. If it is your goal to harass automobile drivers, you could actually do something that benefited other people eg build bike lanes, expand sidewalks, create planted boulevards, plant more trees, create mid-block pedestrian crossings.
Reblogged this on metrobabel and commented:
Gordon shares about Vancouver’s SkyTrain making the i09’s list of Mass Transit Systems that changed their cities. The descriptions aren’t very in depth, but it’s neat to have Vancouver make the grade.
What an old map! Back when we thought the Canada Line was red and Vancouver City Centre might be named Robson.
Yeah, really just a conceptual map – from before the Olympics!
As we can see in Calgary or Edmonton with extensive LRTs land on other side of the train drops sharply in value. Downtown 7th Ave in Calgary is essentially a ghost town.
LRT is a bad idea in urban areas. It makes sense only in rural or very lightly populated industrial areas where noise and optical pollution does not matter as much.