|
Delcan's report on the Richmond - Vancouver rapid transit
corridor contains a classic example of how to bend the facts to
fit a preconceived conclusion. There is evidence of dishonesty in
the calculation of a maximum capacity figure for light rail
transit compared to SkyTrain. Capacity is a product of the number
of trains per hour, the number of cars per train, and the number
of people per car.
Putting together statements made on page 5-29 and 7-12 of the
report we discover that the capacity of a SkyTrain car is
calculated based on 4.5 standees per m^2, yielding a figure of 80
people per car. The capacity of a "generic" light rail
vehicle is based on a relatively small vehicle with 4 standees
per m^2, and a "loading factor of 0.90", yielding a
figure of 150 people per LRV. No explanation is given in the
report as to why a loading factor is applied at all, nor why it
is applied to LRT but not to SkyTrain. No explanation is given as
to why people will stand closer together inside a SkyTrain car
than inside a LRV.
Using the same 4/m^2 criteria results in a capacity of 75
people per SkyTrain car. There are LRVs in service today which
can carry over 240 people. If the idea is to calculate the
maximum capacity, why did the authors not use such a vehicle in
the calculation? Even if we take a more reasonable "mid
sized" LRV such as the latest low floor LRV ordered for
Portland, Oregon, we find the capacity per LRV to be 190 people.
The ratio of capacity for LRV vs. SkyTrain is now 190:75, or
2.53, rather than 150:80, or 1.88, an increase of 35%.
Page 5-25 of the report shows that the block of Broadway
between Main Street and Kingsway is 70 m long. A station is shown
in this block, and the report concludes that "these
constraints effectively limit the length of train to 3 cars, each
of length 23 m". The report does not consider building a
grade-separated station, or the possibility of locating the
station west of Main street or east of Kingsway, with traffic
signal co-ordination to ensure that a train cannot get stuck
between Main and Kingsway. The report also fails to justify what
Broadway street has to do with a Richmond to Vancouver rail
transit line! It is especially puzzling that the report should
search for a limitation of train size based on length between
intersections since the only routes considered are almost
entirely grade separated (Cambie) or else follow a rail right of
way at grade and are otherwise almost entirely grade separated
(Arbutus).
Page 5-26 of the report states that a minimum frequency of 3
minutes between trains is required. This, despite numerous
examples of LRT systems which exist today which operate on
headways (time between trains) as low as 30 seconds. There is a
trade-off between short headways and operating speed, of course,
but there are examples of systems which are more frequent than
once every 3 minutes which have high line speeds.
The culmination of the above assumptions is shown on page
5-26: the maximum capacity for LRT is 9000 people per hour per
direction (20 * 3 * 150). Using more favourable assumptions we
can calculate 22 800 pphpd (30 * 4 * 190). The generally accepted
figure is approximately 20 000 pphpd.
Actually, the exact text on page 5-26 of the report is
"The theoretical capacity of a substantially at-grade LRT
system operating along the Broadway-Lougheed corridor, at the
speeds and level of service required, is estimated to be [..]
9000 passengers per hour". It would seem that the same text
is being used in more than one report, despite the fact that the
corridors being considered for Richmond - Vancouver are quite
different than that for Broadway-Lougheed. The most puzzling
thing, however, is that the first page of the chapter states that
"The text for this chapter is from the Vancouver-Richmond
Rapid Transit Study. It has been provided by the authors, N.D.
Lea Consultants Ltd. .." If this is so, then why did the
original Vancouver-Richmond Rapid Transit Study have anything to
do with Broadway Street?
In short, the report is shoddy. Taxpayers deserve better. In
fact, taxpayers deserve an end to the seemingly endless line of
reports; they deserve a quick, at grade light rail network,
constructed for one third the cost of the annual subsidy given to
car users in the Lower Mainland. It is a myth that we cannot
afford rail transit - what we cannot afford is continued
automobile dependence.
James Strickland
|
