SkyTrain technology is not outdated and not proprietary

RE: Critics say SkyTrain technology is outdated – Global News

Pictured above: The new Tozai Line in Sendai, Japan uses SkyTrain technology – and is opening in just 7 days.

Nathan Pachal was incorrect in stating that Bombardier “dictates what we’re going to do in our region” in a recent interview with Global BC, and I couldn’t have been more disappointed at what he said. I couldn’t have been more disappointed with the report either, which claimed and brought attention to SkyTrain technology being “outdated” and a “boutique system is made by only one company.

This is misleading and untrue, and I have proven this many times in my research and advocacy efforts throughout the past few years.

SkyTrain technology is proven, efficient, and used around the world in more than just a handful of cities. The idea that SkyTrain is a single-company offering, and that it’s outdated, comes down to a lot of miscommunication, misinformation and the sheer lack of information in discussion circles here. It’s important to get some perspective, so firstly…

What is “SkyTrain technology”?

Used in our Expo and Millennium Lines, SkyTrain technology basically comes down to two unique aspects:

  1. Automatic train control (ATC)
  2. Linear induction motor (LIM) propulsion

See: NEARLY ONE IN FOUR METRO CITIES HAS AT LEAST ONE AUTOMATED LINE

Longest metro systems

The world’s longest automated metro systems are in major global cities including Dubai, Singapore, Paris and Tokyo, among others.

The former (automatic train control) has become the global standard in rapid transit, with more than 1 in 4 cities now having at least one automated metro line as part of their system, according to the Automated Metros Observatory. There are 732km of automated metro lines, and the observatory expects this to triple in the next 10 years.

I can imagine that the latter (LIM propulsion) has become the popular subject of contention – since only 5 systems have been built if you only count the systems installed by Bombardier.

However, if you count all of the other systems offered by other companies, LIM technology is now used in over 20 systems in cities around the world, including many busy, large-scale systems in China and in Japan.

Bombardier isn’t the only manufacturer of LIM cars

See also: List of Linear Induction Motor rapid transit systems

Osaka's Nagahori-Tsurumi-Ryokuchi line was the first of numerous linear motor train lines.

I took this photo when I was visiting Osaka in March of this year. Look, a reaction rail!!!

The biggest thing we misunderstand is that we think Bombardier is the “owner” of LIM technology and is the only manufacturer and provider of LIM cars. This is false.

In the city of Guangzhou, China, the world’s largest linear motor train system has over 100km of track. Already, three train lines in the city are using the technology and are responsible for carrying hundreds of thousands of passengers each day.

These are some of the newest subway lines that have been built in the city. One of them, line 6, opened just 2 years ago and is now the busiest line in the whole city.

The 3 Guangzhou metro lines use cars that were jointly manufactured by ITOCHU and CSR-Sifang. Meanwhile, in some of Japan’s biggest cities, Kawasaki Heavy Industries has manufactured LIM transit cars for systems serving hundreds of thousands of passengers a day in Kobe, Osaka and Tokyo.

sub_i_20150330_h_1

Brand new linear motor trains on Tokyo’s Oedo Subway line were made by a different manufacturer than the one that made the first-generation cars.

Kawasaki isn’t the only Japanese manufacturer of LIM cars. The upcoming system in Sendai is being supplied by Kinki Sharyo, and the Fukuoka system was supplied by Hitachi.

The Oedo subway line in Tokyo, one of the busiest lines in the city, is using several different manufacturers’ offerings: the first generation cars were manufactured by Nippon Sharyo and Hitachi, while new-generation cars delivered just this year were made by Kawasaki Heavy Industries. Tokyo’s example is proving that more than one manufacturer can be the supplier of linear motor trains.

These companies aren’t unaware of each others’ presence and do work with (and compete with) each other. They have even collaborated on certain occasions (as an example, Bombardier supplied bogies for some of Guangzhou’s metro cars – while Mitsubishi supplied the actual linear motors).

These cities chose SkyTrain technology for various reasons, one of the most popular reasons being the reduction in tunnel sizes and – as a result – the reduction in capital costs for building the system. In Japan, SkyTrain technology systems are directly promoted as a way of saving money.

See also: Linear Metro promotion page by Japan Subway Association

New systems are being announced and built very often, speaking to the success of this technology. The systems are responsible for moving many more people than even SkyTrain does – and do so reliably, every single day.

The newest system is opening in just 7 days in Sendai, Japan. I am looking forward to the launch celebrations.

Above: A promotional video for Sendai’s upcoming Tozai Line, showing the use of SkyTrain technology. The Tozai Line opens on December 6.

This technology is still very much being developed

Last month we were greeted by the arrival of the first “Mark III” SkyTrain vehicles. Bombardier’s Innovia Metro 300 product is the newest generation of Bombardier’s offering of SkyTrain technology. It has won orders here in Vancouver, for an expansion in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia and – of all places – for a new rapid transit line in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

The renaming of what was previously called “ART” (Advanced Rapid Transit) into a “Metro” class product shows that Bombardier is as committed to keeping up with the development of linear motor propulsion technology, as its competitors are in China and Japan.

But what about all the breakdowns?

I’ve been feeling that SkyTrain technology critics would be motivated to speak as such due to the intensity of the recent SkyTrain breakdowns. For this, it’s important to get some perspective – particularly on what’s been causing some of these incidents to occur.

skytrain-control-cc-by-nc-sa

Track displays at SkyTrain control in Burnaby

Many of the recent break-downs on SkyTrain have been made worse by a particular shortfall that was identified in the commissioned SkyTrain performance review.

In the 1990s, BC Transit decided not to add a simple component to the automatic train control system which would have allowed the system to recover more quickly when a train is stalled. Other driverless transit systems have installed this component and thus do not face this particular problem.

From the independent SkyTrain performance review:

The SELTRAC technology of the 1980s has been upgraded with new control and software elements. SkyTrain was upgraded to the 2nd generation of the SELTRAC technology in 1994. However, SkyTrain did not include the auto-restart module that was available. Therefore, in a temporary loss of communication from the VCCs or VOBCs, SkyTrain SELTRAC technology still requires each train to be manually introduced into the control computer system.

Averaging 5-10 minutes per train to enter the necessary data, this equates to approximately 5 hours to fully recover operations, as there are approximately 40-58 trains operating depending upon when a service delay related to a train control communication failure occurs.

TransLink has identified the addition of this system as an immediate priority, but it may not be happening for another 5 years as the installation is a complex undertaking.

If BC Transit installed it 21 years ago, it would have been in place before the Millennium Line was built and we would be saving a lot of time with recent issues.

See: Fast SkyTrain restart 5 years away – Surrey Leader

Other breakdowns simply amounted to – in the case of last week’s incident – misplacement; – in the case of one of the 2014 breakdowns – human error; or – in the case of both the recent birds nest fire and tree hitting train incident – sheer bad luck.

Perhaps some of these breakdowns have resulted from the particulars of how our system was designed. Regardless, any transit system is prone to a breakdown of some sort. There are many different reasons.

breaker

At the same time as the SkyTrain incidents last week, a light rail train struck a pedestrian in Seattle and caused a 3-hour closure of the line in that area. Courtesy KIRO 7

My last blog post (We can learn from Japan on transit delays/incidents) was about a similar transit mishap in Japan last week on the JR Kobe Line, due to a fallen power pole. This is a conventional electric train line with rotary motors.

And, it seems no one knew about this but on the same day (and at the same time) as the SkyTrain breakdown of this week, Seattle’s LINK Light Rail line faced a 3 hour closure and disruption, when a pedestrian was struck by a train on an at-grade section.

What about the Scarborough RT?

You definitely can’t excuse the fact that Toronto wants to shut down the Scarborough RT, one of the first SkyTrain lines built and in-service, and replace it with either an extension of the Eglinton Crosstown LRT on the same route – or an extension of the Bloor-Danforth Subway line.

However, I reckon that the conversion and replacement has more to do with the desire to provide a through service with these other lines and reduce transfers. From a transportation planning perspective, that’s a very natural thing to want to have. It’s part of why the City of Vancouver has preferred that the “Broadway Subway” be built as an extension of the existing Millennium Line and not in any other way.

However, it’s also importance to have some perspective. The Scarborough RT was the first SkyTrain-technology line ever built, and was converted from what was supposed to be a standard extension of the Toronto streetcar system. The system was built to run only shorter Mark I cars, with newer Mark II cars deemed incompatible without a refurbishment.

Scarborough RT

The Scarborough RT was built well before a “Mark II” train car was even considered as part of the design.

This refurbishment was in fact studied, and was valued at $360 million. Going with a refurbishment was considered one of the most cost-effective ways to improve transit to Scarborough. The existing line and stations would be rebuilt to accommodate newer Mark IIs and Mark IIIs, and so provide a better service.

It would have cost less than rebuilding the line as an LRT system to integrate with the Crosstown line, and far less than building a new subway. It would have also avoided 28 additional months of transit service disruption for riders in Scarborough.

For whatever reason, be it political or otherwise, this suggestion fell on deaf ears – and that has been the subject of plenty of criticism. Transit planners in Toronto have condemned the neglect of the Scarborough RT’s infrastructure, calling it “shameful” and “inefficient”. It is pointed out that a January 2013 report by the TTC, commenting on the technology matter for a Scarborough rapid transit project, explicitly stated that:

“Notwithstanding criticisms and misinformation over the years, the Scarborough RT has been the single most-reliable service operated by the TTC. The service has been very successful at attracting ridership and has been operating over-capacity for a decade.” (2013 TTC report – page 9)

In addition, the Scarborough RT is run with drivers who operate the doors – breaking the fully-driverless design standard to which it was built to. As Toronto has not seen the full benefits of running ALRT the way it was designed, it’s hard to consider today’s judgement of replacing/shutting down the RT fair or unbiased.

2 years ago, Michael Schabas, a UK-based railway consultant of the Neptis Foundation, published an excellent report hypothesizing that the acceptance of SkyTrain technology in Greater Toronto could have saved billions of dollars and prevented a lot of the choking debate that’s put transit expansion there at a standstill today.

See: Toronto rapid transit review recommends SkyTrain expansion over LRT

Reports and viewpoints like these provide great insight and in my view are worth serious consideration. We all lose when someone is dismissive to consider really great alternatives, and ignores facts when there are facts at hand.


Help me put an end to the misinformation

Share this article on Twitter, Facebook and with anyone you know who’s concerned on transit matters. I believe that regional transit planning has been damaged significantly by misinformation like this, and it’s time to put it to an end for good.

I urge everyone reading this to help me spread the word and help me pressure Global into allowing me to respond to their article.

 

Advertisements
Featured image: Kelana Jaya Line train approaches station. CC-BY Flickr - @withcuriosity

Malaysia confirms SkyTrain technology for 36km Klang Valley line

Featured above: A Mark II train on the region’s existing Kelana Jaya Line

It’s official: SkyTrain technology has been confirmed in Malaysia for a brand new, 36km rapid transit line to be built on the outskirts of Kuala Lumpur. The new ‘Klang Valley LRT Line 3’ will begin construction at the beginning of next year, and is expected to open for revenue service in the year 2020. An alignment study has been completed, and the project owner has distributed the construction tenders just last week for the new line so that the detailed design process may proceed.

The Klang Valley line will intersect with the existing Kelana Jaya Line on Kuala Lumpur’s RapidKL network. The Kelana Jaya Line was built on the same propulsion and driver-less technology used on the SkyTrain system in Metro Vancouver, and uses the same Mark II vehicles manufactured by Bombardier. In addition to the Klang Valley Line, RapidKL is also currently in the process of completing a 17km extension of the Kelana Jaya Line, which will open in 2016. Here’s a short description of the new line from RapidKL:

Designed to ease traffic congestion in the Klang Valley and connected to the current LRT Kelana Jaya Line and the upcoming MRT Line 1 Sungai Buloh–Kajang, the proposed alignment of the LRT3 is currently being finalised by the Land Public Transport Commission. LRT3 aims to connect Bandar Utama to Klang, covering 36km, and will comprise 25 new stations.

Daryl’s take reported on the Klang Valley Line last year, then known as the “Shah Alam Line” (SEE: Previous article) when its potential use of SkyTrain technology was merely a possibility. This has now been confirmed in the alignment studies.

VIEW NOW: Klang Valley LRT 3 Environmental Assessment [PDF]

The environmental impact assessment for the Klang Valley/LRT3 project, which was uploaded by observers on the SkyscraperCity forum, mentions that the vehicles on the proposed transit line will be the “similar to those used on the Kelana Jaya line” – indicating that they will be the exact same vehicles or a close variant, using the same linear motor propulsion technology, and driver-less operation.

The Light Rail Vehicle train, similar to those used in the Kelana Jaya LRT Line, will be used. The train can be configured to a 2, 4 or 6 car-vehicle train. The dimension of each car is 20 m long x 2.65 m wide x 3.44 m high. Each car will have a minimum of 36 seats and 6 passenger doors (3 doors on each side). It will be full Automatic Train Operation driverless system.

While the assessment did not specifically mention the use of linear motor propulsion, it did specify a vehicle height of 3.44m, matching the vehicle height of the Mark II trains on the Kelana Jaya line and thereby requiring the use of linear motor “SkyTrain technology”, as the height would not permit standard rotary motor propulsion due to its requirement of a higher platform. As a comparison, the regional network’s Ampang Line trains, using standard rotary-motor propulsion, have a height of about 3.9m. The assessment also specified a 5% maximum grade, requiring linear motor trains for safe operation. For rapid transit rail lines, standard rotary propulsion trains are generally limited to 3% maximum grades in order to accommodate for push-pull operations in the event of train stoppages and other emergencies.

The initial operation will use 54 2-car trains, at a 2-minute headway throughout the day. There will be an end-to-end time of 51 minutes on a running speed of 80 km/h, for an average speed of 42 km/h. Here are some additional highlights of the new Klang Valley line:

Largest SkyTrain technology expansion in recent history

At a whooping 36km from end-to-end, with 25 stations, the line will be the largest expansion of SkyTrain technology in recent history. I believe this will assuage some critics in Metro Vancouver who have claimed that the expense of SkyTrain technology prevents us from building larger-scale expansions. This is 36km of track being built at once, within 4 years!

6-car trains!

Guangzhou Metro Line 5

Yep, 6-car trains! Pictured: Guangzhou Metro Line 5

The new line will be designed to accomodate 6-car trains on platforms that are 120 m long – 50% longer than those used on the Expo and Millennium Lines. This will not be the first example of a SkyTrain technology transit line with trains longer than 4 cars (the Toei subway Oedo Line in Tokyo runs 8-car trains), but it may be the first done with Mark III trains if Bombardier is awarded the rolling stock contract.

330,000 daily passengers after 30 years

The line is being designed to meet projections of carrying 330,000 daily passengers by the year 2050, which will make it one of the busiest SkyTrain technology lines in the world – and possibly the busiest using Bombardier’s Innovia trains if those are used on the new line. Opening-day ridership is estimated at 70,000 riders.

82km of SkyTrain technology

With the existing Kelana Jaya Line and its extension, the Klang Valley line’s 36km addition will result in over 80km of SkyTrain technology rapid transit in operation in the Greater Kuala Lumpur area.

This will be the second largest network in the world, short of the Guangzhou Metro which is already operating over 100km of linear motor rapid transit and continues to expand that. If the rolling stock is provided by Bombardier, then RapidKL will surpass Vancouver’s SkyTrain to become host to the world’s largest SkyTrain technology system with Bombardier trains.

CSR-Zhuzhou consortium bids, debunks “SkyTrain is proprietary” myth

Naza proposes to finance up to 90% of LRT3 – The Star

According to a recent news report, Chinese rolling stock manufacturer CSR-Zhuzhou, which has previously provided linear motor technology for the Guangzhou Metro and the Changsha Maglev, has bidded for the Klang Valley line in a consortium with local construction firm Naza Engineering & Construction. The Naza-CSR consortium have offered to fund up to 90% of the project cost, in an effort to lure the contract.

If the consortium wins the contract, the trains will then be built by CSR-Zhuzhou rather than Canada’s Bombardier. They will still have to fit the specifications in the alignment study, meaning that linear motor propulsion trains – likely based on the ones in service in Guangzhou – will be used.

A Naza-CSR win would mark the second time in history (the first being Tokyo) that a SkyTrain technology rapid transit system is operating vehicles from two different manufacturers, effectively debunking a commonly spread idea throughout this region that “SkyTrain technology”, which was originally developed in Canada, is proprietary. The Greater Kuala Lumpur region is familiar with CSR-Zhuzhou: they had previously provided rapid transit vehicles (of standard rotary propulsion tech) for the region’s older Ampang Line.

Bombardier eyeing Klang Valley Line, sets up resources in Malaysia for prospective bid

Bombardier targets sales in the Asia Pacific to reach 25% in the next 5 years – XSInvest

A representative from Canada’s Bombardier Transportation (the manufacturer of our Expo and Millennium Line SkyTrain cars) has previously stated that the company is eyeing a train order for the proposed Klang Valley Line project, as well as other proposed heavy rail rapid transit projects throughout the region. Bombardier Rail opened a new office in Kuala Lumpur last year to facilitate operations in Malaysia and throughout Asia, accomodating 100 engineering, project management, systems integration and signalling specialists. If Bombardier bids for the Klang Valley line, they will then be in open competition with CSR-Zhuzhou and any other bidders for the line rolling stock.

Debates over: the line is opening in 5 years

LRT3 Tender Documents Ready for Collection – RapidKL

While we can’t seem to decide on transit projects or technologies here in Metro Vancouver, the Klang Valley region has progressed quickly and the project owner has already started the call for construction tenders. This is not just a proposal at this point – the consultations have been finished, and the project is moving forward. The line will be open for service just 5 years from today.

About Kuala Lumpur’s “Rapid Rail” system

Kuala Lumpur's integrated rail system. The Kelana Jaya line is in magenta.

Kuala Lumpur’s integrated rail system. The Kelana Jaya line is in magenta.

Kuala Lumpur’s RapidKL network is like a clone of our SkyTrain system overseas: the system is composed of several grade-separated, automated (driverless) rapid transit lines. Some use the same linear induction motor propulsion technology and Bombardier Mark II vehicles used on SkyTrain here in Vancouver, whereas others use standard rotary motor technology (as with the Canada Line). The Ampang Line, the first rapid transit line, used standard rotary propulsion and was opened in 1996. This was followed by the 1998 opening of the Kelana Jaya Line, the fully automated linear-propulsion line that looks and works exactly like our SkyTrain system, with the same Mark II trains.

The 29km Kelana Jaya Line is built with both overhead sections and bored tunnel sections through the city core. It is the busiest and most popular rapid transit line in metropolitan Kuala Lumpur with 160,000 riders daily [1], and was for a long time the only rapid transit service in the Klang Valley metropolis that broke even (revenues paid for operations costs) until the Ampang Line, which had historically fallen a few thousand riders short from breaking even [1][2], was equipped with thec system to itself become fully automated (driverless) [3]. Both lines are currently receiving extensions that are due to open at around the same year the Evergreen Line is opened here in Vanouver.

The extensions are shown in the above map (note the unnamed stations near the bottom). Kuala Lumpur’s Rapid Rail system has been immensely successful since its opening, being major money generators for the regional rapid transit system and the biggest drivers of ridership and high-density development. SkyTrain technology helped the fares on RapidKL’s rapid transit lines remain completely unchanged for 10 years [4], despite hydro bill increases for the operating company, as a result of continually increasing ridership [5]. The RapidKL network is considered the “key revenue-generator contributor” for Prasarana, the regional transportation authority if the Klang Valley [6]

Sources/footnotes
  1. Passenger numbers from Urban Rail Development Study, page 19 [LINK]
  2. The Ampang Line breaks even at 170,000 riders daily, according to Malaysian Business (article “Red Flags” from 16 June, 2000 issue – not available online) – most recent recorded ridership was 141,000 daily
  3. The Kelana Jaya Line has been automated from start of service; the Ampang Line was refitted with the Thales SelTrac system in 2012 [SEE HERE]
  4. LRT, Monorail fares to go up next year – Astro Awani report [LINK]
  5. Prasarana Power Cost Up 17% since Jan 1 – The Edge Malaysia [LINK]
  6. Description page on Rapid Rail Sdn Bhd [LINK]
TransitMix - 420 Victoria-Richmond Centre Express

Testing out Transitmix – New Transit Mapping/Visualization Tool

TransitMix is a new web app that allows both professionals and armchair transit planners/enthusiasts to easily conceptualize transit networks and routes

TransitMix is a new web app that allows both professionals and armchair transit planners/enthusiasts to easily conceptualize transit networks and routes

I caught wind of Transitmix while scrolling through my new reads on Pulse Reader. Jarrett Walker’s blog (Human Transit) has this to say about the tool, which was created by a group of Code for America developers:

Transitmix is simple way to think about transit in terms of bus requirements and real costs. Basically, the user draws a route on a map and plugs in span and frequency. The app then calculates a vehicle requirement and cost in both hours and dollars, factoring in an adjustable layover ratio, average speed and dollar cost per service hour.

Transitmix theoretically works for any city on the map, as any city-related data such as operating cost per service hour is inputted by the user. This tool could theoretically also be used to layout and plan rapid transit lines (including rail) with the insertion of the appropriate “average speed” and “operating cost” values, albeit with the present limitation that lines snap to roads and cannot use other rights of way.

It’s made by the same people who created Streetmix, an urban road visualization tool that I previously featured on this blog.

See also: StreetMix lets you create the perfect urban road
See also: Human Transit – Transitmix: a new tool for armchair transit planners (and pros too?)

I tried it out here in Vancouver to conceptualize one new transit route I had in mind, based on a City of Vancouver (and more recently, Mayors’ Council-approved) proposal to introduce a B-Line type service from Commercial-Broadway station down Victoria Ave. (Pictured above – separate article coming soon)

On the Transitmix Experience

Bus assumptions - TransitMix

One of the reasons Transitmix is currenty able to work with so many cities around the world without issue is because it currently relies solely on user-inputted data.

That means, making effective use of the tool means knowing the average cost of service in your area (operating cost per revenue service hour) because this is not provided for you by the tool. I tracked this down for Metro Vancouver by checking TransLink’s bus performance reviews and other documents.

Unfortunately, that single value for operating cost is valid for all routes on the map and cannot be changed per route – meaning it is currently not possible to accurately compare the costs of standard bus services vs. less-costly community shuttle bus services (or mixes of both). It is, however, possible to create a completely separate map with the appropriate value inputted for those routes.

TransitMix is also currently not able to tell which roads are arterial roads, freeways, or local neighbourhood streets. That means that any speed calculations – which have an effect on operating cost and service levels – will have to be done manually, outside of the tool. At present, they will also have to be converted to mph.

These are the only limitations I’ve found. Among the strengths, previously made maps can be easily shared or remixed – and kept for future re-access – via the numbered URL.

Outlook

Transitmix will become an important tool to empower individuals who have an interest in transit. It takes out a lot of the effort in visualizing and presenting a proposal, and makes instant what would otherwise be a plethora of calculations.

The tool is available at www.transitmix.net.

Montreal may use SkyTrain technology for Champlain Bridge “LRT”

After Côté tribute, council debates Champlain Bridge transit

BY RENÉ BRUEMMER, GAZETTE CIVIC AFFAIRS REPORTER MAY 26, 2014

MONTREAL — The start of Monday’s monthly city council meeting was dedicated to a man who never served as an elected official but whose life left an enduring mark on a city he loved.

After his homage, a large part of the meeting was dedicated to the question of putting a light-rail transit system on the new Champlain Bridge, a topic close to the heart of Marcel Côté. [READ MORE – The Gazette]

In the City of Montreal, City Council is at odds as to what type of transit should complement the replacement of the dangerous Champlain Bridge, which has come under increased scrutiny after the federal government announced its funding.

SEE ALSO: Federal budget promises fix for Montreal’s aging Champlain Bridge, new Windsor-Detroit border crossing – National Post

Montreal’s transit authority is pleading the City Council to vote in favour of a Light Rail Transit (LRT) system on a replacement for the crumbling Champlain Bridge, whereas some stakeholders prefer a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system. The LRT line, initially meant to provide an alternative transit option for the corridor with no Champlain Bridge replacement, has been in the planning stages since before the need to replace the bridge was identified.

I was reading about this and came across a concept image for the proposed highway median LRT system, on the official website for the proposed line. The yellow-coloured train looks suspiciously like a Mark II SkyTrain vehicle in a 5-car configuration:

CONCEPT IMAGE - Champlain Bridge LRT, taken straight off of the AGENCE MÉTROPOLITAINE DE TRANSPORT website

CONCEPT IMAGE – Champlain Bridge LRT, taken straight off of the AGENCE MÉTROPOLITAINE DE TRANSPORT website

I did some further digging and found that this image is repeated in the preliminary design studies for the light rail transit system, which is comprehensively suggesting that the desired specifications of the new “LRT” line are fully compatible with linear induction motor propulsion (“SkyTrain technology”) and will be using similar rapid transit vehicles.

SEE ALSO: Highway 10/Downtown Montreal Corridor LRT study

This is made evident by a number of items on the project’s list of desired performance criteria on page 32:

• an attractive service operating at a high commercial speed (over 50 km/h) and a high maximum speed (100 km/h);
• a high frequency (intervals less than every 3 minutes at rush hour);
• a high level of safety thanks to guide rails, an exclusive track, automated operating systems and anti-collision devices;

and on page 55:

3.4.1 Operating mode
Automatic train operation has been retained because, among other things, it allows for reduced service intervals and running
times, increased flexibility for adjustments of timetables and intervals, as well as improved safety, better controlled accelerations,
and greater passenger capacity in each train set.

and on page 56:

3.4.7 Car performance requirements
…The design load of the cars (seated passengers + four standees/m2) is 131 passengers per car. Each train will be made of 5
cars and will therefore have a capacity of 655 passengers.

Notice how this is exactly the passenger capacity of a Mark 2 vehicle.

With 80-90m platforms, frequencies less than 3 minutes, 5-car trains, and high-floor cars on a fully grade-separated right-of-way with 6% slopes… almost everything matches. You name it, SkyTrain has it, and Montreal’s Champlain Bridge “LRT” is also going to have it.

Studies have identified that the proposed rapid transit line, which will be fully grade separated, has a positive benefit:cost ratio of 1.11:1. It is 15km long, and advertises a travel time of just 18 minutes from the outbound terminus to Montreal City Centre.

Montreal Champlain LRT recommended alignment

Montreal Champlain LRT recommended alignment – taken from study

Why this matters

You may recall that I recently started a new blogseries called The Problem with SkyTrain critics, which comes at a time when several SkyTrain or other rapid transit expansions are being debated here in Metro Vanouver. One of the problems I have identified with SkyTrain critics (and will be discussing shortly in more articles on the matter) are the numerous dubious claims of SkyTrain’s “obsolescence” – SkyTrain critics claim that the technology, which was developed in the 1980s, no longer has a place in rail rapid transit planning.

SkyTrain criticsdeny SkyTrain’s potential as a high-quality rapid transit system that generates billions of dollars in transportation, developmental and economic benefits. They clutter our blog-feeds, newsletter sections and comments with endlessly varied suggestions to perpetuate the belief that SkyTrain simply isn’t the best option for investment.

SEE ALSO: The Problem with SkyTrain Critics – Denying the Benefits Part I

But, this is the second example I have uncovered as of late that shows that the technology we use in SkyTrain is becoming a serious rail rapid transit option for cities worldwide. In another recent blog article, I brought to light that Kuala Lumpur [SEE HERE] has approved an additional 36km of SkyTrain expansion in addition to the ongoing 17km extension of the Kelana Jaya Line. Other extensions are taking place in Sendai, Japan and in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The Guangzhou Metro recently opened a new metro line using SkyTrain technology, which already carries over 700,000 passengers daily.

The success of SkyTrain (in particular, the Canada Line) has also inspired the Montreal airports authority to advocate for a light metro-type shuttle to the airport.

SEE ALSO: Montréal-Trudeau Airport Light Rail Shuttle Study
The JFK AirTrain was one of the rapid transit systems mentioned in the Champlain LRT study as a reference, alongside the Millennium Line and Canada Line in Vancouver.

The JFK AirTrain (which uses SkyTrain technology) was one of the rapid transit systems mentioned in the Champlain LRT study as a reference, alongside the Millennium Line and Canada Line in Vancouver.