Toronto rapid transit review recommends SkyTrain expansion over LRT

Scarborough RT
A Scarborough RT train in Toronto boards passengers. The Scarborough RT uses the same propulsion technology as Vancouver’s SkyTrain system, using a fleet of Mark I cars.

Looks like my calls are being echoed in the City of Toronto. Someone out there is seriously listening to me, for I had previously proposed the very idea this think tank is proposing through Better Surrey Rapid Transit (SkyTrain for Surrey), in an attempt to communicate to people that SkyTrain expansion can make sense.

I have been pushing for quite some years now for a SkyTrain expansion in my home city (Surrey) over the current Light Rail expansion plan on account of SkyTrain making a lot more sense (most of you reading probably know this of me). As part of that, I went ahead and applied some of my thinking onto Toronto’s transit proposals in a special article I wrote regarding the under-construction Eglinton Crosstown Line. I published that write-up more than 1.5 years ago, in March 2012.

The use of [SkyTrain technology] would provide the same cost savings that moving a portion of the LRT at-grade would and more, despite a need for complete grade separation.  It would provide faster, more reliable service and be more flexible in capacity expansion, and also remove the travel time penalty associated with at-grade LRT.
[READ MORE – “The Compromise is SkyTrain – Toronto should be pursuing this technology and not LRT on Eglinton” on SkyTrain for Surrey]

I supposed that using linear motor-propulsion “ALRT” (also known by some critics here as “SkyTrain technology”) would cut down on the Eglinton Crosstown Line’s tunnel size and tunneling costs (the LRT is being built with a 6.5m diameter tunnel, whereas SkyTrain technology requires just a 5.3m diameter tunnel), saving billions and billions of dollars, and opening up the room for grade-separating the rest of the line and providing better service throughout, increasing ridership numbers and improving the business case. The Crosstown Line is currently being built for at-grade LRT technology, assuming that further expansions would be at-grade.

A map of the Eglinton Crosstown LRT in contrast to Toronto's current rapid transit system
A map of the Eglinton Crosstown LRT in contrast to Toronto’s current rapid transit system

The Neptis Foundation yesterday submitted a very bold critique of the Metrolinx “Big Move” plan that seems to agree with a lot of my previous propositions. The 144-page study recommends a different Toronto rapid transit plan than the one being recommended by Metrolinx. It thinks in the same way I have thought, in that leveraging the Scarborough RT’s ALRT/SkyTrain technology and extending it would make more financial and practical sense than the current proposal to build LRT.

Business case of LRT proposals vs. study's SkyTrain proposal [CLICK TO ENLARGE]
Neither Metrolinx nor TTC seems to have given serious consideration to development of Scarborough and Eglinton Crosstown lines using ALRT or similar “light metro” technology. This technology has been applied very successfully in more than 20 cities around the world. 89 Some architects and urban designers prefer surface LRT, because it is less visually intrusive, and can run in mixed traffic and pedestrian environments, albeit at much lower speeds. But faster services on exclusive rights-of-way are far more effective, and efficient, at getting motorists to switch to transit.
The Toronto LRT schemes could be greatly improved by building them with fully exclusive rights of way, perhaps automated ALRT or similar technology. Ridership would be much higher, as would the benefits to the region. And the costs could actually be less.

The author, a UK-based railway consultant, is calling for the full package: a switch of the Eglinton LRT line to a SkyTrain-technology ALRT line with driverless train automation, grade-separation of the full line (including Phase II) to offer faster journeys, and shorter station platforms (appropriate given higher train frequency). He cites that such a setup would generate more than twice the benefits and cost half as much per new daily transit rider. This is based largely on the basis that as a faster SkyTrain-type line it could provide better service and attract more ridership, which is very sound. It isn’t rocket science: when compared against light rail transit systems throughout North America, our 68km SkyTrain system here in Metro Vancouver is outperforming all of them in ridership numbers. There is value in better rapid transit service.

Here is one excellent question I would like to highlight: the study questions a proposal to refurbish the existing Scarborough RT line (a 1980s-era SkyTrain technology line traversing eastern Toronto), noting that the costs to refurbish the RT line to use LRT technology are higher per kilometre than the from-scratch SkyTrain construction costs for the Evergreen Line in Vancouver:

At $1.8 billion for 10 km, the Scarborough LRT line would be considerably more expensive than the Sheppard Line, 68 or about $180 million per km. About half the cost is for conversion of the existing 6.5-km RT to accommodate low-floor LRT cars, with overhead power collection. This involves substantial reconstruction of six intermediate stations, and complete reconstruction of Kennedy Station to provide a larger underground loop, and track connection with the Eglinton LRT so TTC can exchange cars for maintenance purposes (but not for through-running with passengers). The balance is for construction of 4 km of new line, mostly elevated, from McCowan to Sheppard Avenue.
Note that at $180 million per km, the cost per km for the Scarborough RT is about 30% higher than the cost of the Evergreen Line, a fully grade-separated ALRT line in Vancouver, even though the Scarborough line uses mostly existing infrastructure, and otherwise operates through a broadly similar corridor.
Concept: Douglas-Lafarge Lake SkyTrain Station on the Evergreen Line SkyTrain
Concept: Douglas-Lafarge Lake Station on the Evergreen Line SkyTrain

The study recommends building on SkyTrain technology on account of finding that the LRT proposals in Transit City and following plans had low (or negative) benefit:cost ratios, in exactly the same manner as I am recommending SkyTrain technology in Surrey based on a negative benefit:cost ratio for LRT – and does a great job at making a case for it, addressing issues raised with capacity and size of rolling stock, among other things.

The author officially proposes the “Scarborough Wye” concept, for 3 rapid transit lines using SkyTrain technology: the existing Scarborough RT with renewed infrastructure, its extension to Malvern Centre, and a new line from Scarborough Centre to North York via an elevated right-of-way in the centre of the 401 Freeway and down the existing Sheppard Subway tunnels. He makes the case that the whole concept could be built for an outstandingly low cost per new transit rider and a high benefit-cost ratio – better than any of the LRT proposals that have gone through thus far.

Scarborough Wye proposal from Toronto transit plan critique; CLICK TO ENLARGE
Scarborough Wye proposal from Toronto transit plan critique; CLICK TO ENLARGE

We can only wonder if the common sense overflowing from this study could possibly prevail in the upcoming decisions at TTC and Metrolinx, and I hope something moves forward because it does look like SkyTrain technology is the solution for providing a lot of high quality transit. I think it would send a good message across Canada and to Metro Vancouver’s decision-makers and planning authorities as well.

More on Michael Schabas, the study author

Michael Schabas is a UK-based railway consultant who has been involved in launching several new railway projects and businesses.

With a background in urban rail projects in the Canada and the United States, he came to London in 1988 as Vice President for Transport for Olympia & York (O&Y), who were developing the Canary Wharf project in London Docklands. He led O&Y’s involvement in planning and promotion of the Jubilee Line Extension, and also instigated the re-signalling and re-engineering of the Docklands Light Railway.

Between 1981-1986, he worked for the UTDC (Urban Transportation Development Corporation) and was involved in the early development of the automated rapid transit technology used in Vancouver’s SkyTrain system.

Source: Wikipedia; Also see: his website

REALITY CHECK: Debunking more myths of TransLink “inefficiency”

NOTICE: This article has been superseded by the new, updated data in my latest write-up: Referendum Myths: TransLink Inefficiency [LINK]

From the TransLink Efficiency Review by Shirocca Consulting
From the TransLink Efficiency Review by Shirocca Consulting
Smashing, isn’t it?

I feel as if this graph was designed to make you think TransLink is inefficient and it sucks. The first time you see it, there’s obviously something TransLink is doing that the other transit agencies being compared aren’t, because the operating cost per revenue passenger is much higher than all of these other transit systems.

The first time I ever saw this graph was on a post on the Rail for the Valley transit advocacy blog that featured Eric Chris: a Point Grey, Vancouver resident and transit critic who often likes to grill TransLink on what he thinks is its “inefficiency”. Numbers like this have the power to cause a lot of controversy in the media world and really shape public opinion on a particular thing.

This number, however, is a deceiving comparator. Something is missing. In fact, a lot of things are missing.

A few days ago, I completed work on an infographic [CLICK HERE] that explored transit affordability in Vancouver from a fare-payer’s perspective, and compared it to the transit systems in the two other major Canadian cities – Toronto and Montreal. Through the creation of this infographic, I also managed to find some important numbers that effectively offset the critical numbers in the Shirocca report that have been consulted by critics of TransLink.

When you consider the amount of bus service hours that are provided per passenger revenue dollar in fares, TransLink significantly outperforms Toronto and Montreal in this regard.

It’s also true that TransLink transit has a high operating cost per revenue passenger, but this is what outbalances it. It’s not that TransLink is inefficient with its money; it’s just that TransLink provides more transit service per revenue passenger than other transit agencies.

SkyTrain in Burnaby, looking towards Vancouver
SkyTrain in Burnaby, looking towards Vancouver

TransLink provides 11,416 bus service hours per $1 million in fare revenues, in addition to providing twice the rapid transit length per $1 million. This is 52% higher than the 7494 bus/streetcar service hours per $1 million in fare revenues provided by the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC). By comparison, TransLink’s operating cost per passenger of $3.92 is just 40% higher than TTC’s cost of approximately $2.80. When all rapid transit service hours (Toronto Subway, Vancouver SkyTrain) are considered for a proper comparison of all transit services in terms of service hours per passenger revenue dollar, TransLink wins by a huge margin of 72%.

If anything, that means that TransLink is actually the far more efficient of the two to the fare payer. TransLink provides 72% more transit service hours per revenue dollar, at just 40% more operating cost per revenue passenger.


(I’d have put Montreal into the comparison as well, but Montreal’s STM does not report the amount of service hours provided by its metro – just service km; which makes it worse because Toronto does not report the amount of service km provided by its subway. Darn transit agencies and different reporting standards.)

And, what happens when you remove the variable elements of revenue passengers, revenue passenger dollars, and revenue passenger whatever and just compare operating costs with service hours? Cue the fanfare, please.

Operating cost per service hour: TransLink vs TTC

Funnily enough, that same Shirocca Consulting report defines operating cost per revenue service hour as the primary performance indicator of a transit operator’s cost efficiency (page 22) – but never bothered measuring TransLink’s, and/or comparing it to any other transit agencies. Instead, it uses the graph on the top of this page to describe “cost efficiency”. Why that happened (or, rather, didn’t happen) baffles me, although I suspect it is because many of the agencies (other than Toronto) Shirocca was comparing don’t seem to report those numbers… I know I can’t find them anywhere, and I guess Shirocca consulting couldn’t either.

But, anyway, there you have it. TransLink can provide the same amount of service hours for just 81% of the cost as the Toronto TTC. Alternatively, for every tax and fare-payer dollar, TransLink provides 22% more transit.

So, critics love to bash TransLink for being inefficient as a transit agency. Huh.

(Numbers taken from the Translink financial & performance report, TTC annual report, and another TTC paper revealing service hour splits per transit mode).

Transit is more affordable in Vancouver (Infographic)

SkyTrain in Burnaby, looking towards Vancouver
SkyTrain in Burnaby, looking towards Vancouver

A few days ago I was speaking to a good friend and a colleague of mine, who really wasn’t a fan of TransLink. I noticed that much of that judgments seemed to come from his experiences as a transit rider, and from a generally negative shadow that has been/is being cast over TransLink by many institutions and groups – the media, politicians, and – of course – public transit users from all over Metro Vancouver. It’s a perception that can affect the most important choices that will make or break the hopes of many people who are pining for better transit, especially if the B.C. Liberals happen to win the upcoming provincial election and subject future TransLink funding to a referendum in which there is a status-quo option (my response to that at [CLICK HERE]).


There are a few things I know about TransLink, however, that many others don’t – things I have found out through spontaneous or targeted research sessions. So, I decided to tell him one thing I knew about how TransLink’s fares and affordability compare with the rates in other cities in Canada. It took me several messages on Facebook just to get the message to him about what the facts were in terms of fares, but by the end he was quite satisfied with what he was hearing.

I’ve never really tried to get this knowledge out to the public in a big way before, and I don’t think too many people are like him and would be willing to read long messages for me for 20 minutes straight. So, I’ve decided to try something new and different. Inspired by a recent series of Infographics that have concerned similar topics on the Metro604 website (former Civic Surrey)…. here is something that everyone can read at their own pace.