Peak-only rail service has plenty of other issues, too – high per-train cost (deadheading, split shifts, CBD railyards), low ridership potential on any market other than peak-direction travel, limited TOD potential.

Dubai’s and Singapore’s automatic metro’s have been built more for political prestige than anything else (same is true with Vancouver’s SkyTrain). Copenhagen’s metro is so expensive to operate that transit planners what LRT instead bu the politicians win elections with driverless metro’s.

Yes, yes, every city that builds LRT does so for rational reasons and every city that builds any other mode of transit does so for prestige.

Go troll elsewhere.

I’m not part of any lobby–nobody pays me to write anything, and my opinions are my own. If you read the article, you’ll notice I do address reasons why there aren’t many driverless metro systems in operation: they’re expensive to build, and politically difficult as well. Light rail is comparatively cheap to build, especially if you can run it alongside a freeway or in a boulevard median; and most North American cities lack either the density or the land-use patterns to support full metro. Most of the developed cities that can support metros have them already, and in the developing world, labor is sufficiently cheap that automation is out of the question.

I’m not a LRT opponent; I support it for Portland–a city where the local LRT system only achieves 1/3 the ridership of either Calgary or Vancouver, despite having more lane-miles (or lane-km) than either city. Here, the transit debate is LRT-vs-bus, and full metros are way off of anyone’s radar. If you had read the article, you’d know that as well.

You also seem to be conflating the name of TransLink’s metro system, with the various ATO/ATC systems in existence. To say “only seven SkyTrain systems have been built” is nonsensical, and there are at least 20 locales with driverless systems/lines–though quite a few of the examples listed are single-line (or even single-train) installations.

I give high praise to Calgary and C-Train (if you had read the article, you would have noted that as well)–my main point of mentioning C-Train is to note that its off-peak service suffers, whereas Vancouver can offer high-quality service during all hours of operation.

With regards to the quality (or lack thereof) of my blog–it, like most transit blogs, isn’t written by a transit professional. Nowhere do I claim otherwise. (Are you a transit professional, BTW, or an activist?) Transit professionals, of course, consult the professional literature of their field, not the amateur blogs of activists and hobbyists; and most professionals refrain from blogging themselves (Jarrett Walker at Human Transit being a notable exception). Jarrett, of course, has made his opinions on the subject clear; and the professional literature seems to look favorably on driverless metro–your favorite 1989 survey article notwithstanding.

To suggest that driverless metro is “obsoleted” by light rail, or vice versa, is nonsense. That’s like saying that BRT obsoletes light rail or streetcar–when in reality, they’re different technologies with different strengths and weaknesses, suitable for different applications. Falling in love with a particular mode or technology is generally a bad thing to do.

Why then, despite after being on the market for over 30 years, only 7 SkyTrain systems has been built and not one has never been allowed to complete directly against light rail? To date SkyTrain has had at least five name changes (ICTS, ALRT (2 versions) ALM and ART and not one SkyTrain system has ever been allowed to compete directly against LRT for a transit project.

Funny that, during the same period of time over 100 new LRT systems have been built and an almost equal number are under construction or in the advanced stages of planning.

I’m sorry, but the “Dead Horse News”, certainly isn’t the transit forum I would think many transit experts would actually listen too. SkyTrain, VAL and many other proprietary light-metro systems (including monorail) have been made obsolete by LRT.

As for Calgary C-Train, carrying close to 300,000 passengers day, makes it the most successful light rail system in North America, so why not cite it as an example.

Current ST projections estimate that the line, once built out, will have a daily weekday ridership close to 300,000 boardings a day. I fail to see how 300,000 boardings a day is “very poor ridership.” The ridership is that high precisely because of the grade separation, as it is much more attractive to a new transit user as it provides an alternative to driving without any major consequences (travel time is the same). This is not possible with the surface routes that you advocate.