Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Kisai

They can do whatever they want if enough money is thrown at it since it's grade separated. If they want to extend the platforms to 200 meters they can, they just have to mine out 140 meters in the underground segments and rebuild the tracks. It doesn't make economic sense to do so, but they can. It makes more sense to actually build a parallel track (eg down Arbutus) to provide relief to the Canada Line when the time comes. The knock-out panels provide for extending the platform lenght to the maximum design. There is still the question of train capacity. Like the actual Skytrain system, it's probably capable of one train every 75 seconds, but where are all those extra trains going to be stored?

Compared to on-street LRT/Street car options where you can't extend the platform because the train will block the intersection. They are decidedly set at the length of the smallest at-grade block length, otherwise they have to close the intersections permanently.

The most likely scenario is that when the Millenium Line is extend to Arbutus, there will be a proposal to turn the Arbutus corridor into another subway to retain the "bike trail" that the surface will ultimately end up as. That will end up going from Grandville Island down Arbutus to Marpole and cross over at Cambie. Then the next Subway ends up being 41st or 49th. It's more likely there will be a Hastings line before there will ever be an Arbutus line.

But more to the point, we are lacking in north-south connections. A Clark/Knight Street would connect everything from a Hastings, Millennium Line all the way down to a possible second crossing into Richmond. The other possibility is through Burnaby down Willingdon to Metrotown and then down Sussex maybe to Big Bend (though not likely since the grade is super-steep once you get to Rumble.)

Arbutus being turned into a subway to preserve the bike trail on top is my dream. But while it may relieve congestion from the Vancouver portion of the Canada Line, it does nothing to relieve the Richmond leg, which is a significant problem. I don't know what they could do though. I have a hard time picturing a second corridor that another line could travel into Richmond on.

[dothediu]

Originally Posted by Kisai

They can do whatever they want if enough money is thrown at it since it's grade separated. If they want to extend the platforms to 200 meters they can, they just have to mine out 140 meters in the underground segments and rebuild the tracks. It doesn't make economic sense to do so, but they can.

Actually no, it's not possible to mine any more meters out of the underground stations for Canada Line. The max is the faux wall amount allocated (~25m). Reason being there are tunnel ventilation fans at the four corner ends of all underground stations. You can see it if you ride the train and from inside the stations. They cannot be moved.

Canada line, theoretically, can only add one middle train into their existing trains, making them 3 car trains. That is the extent they can do for longer trains, and nothing more. The above ground and at grade stations are already designed for 3 car trains, and doesn't need modification when they do the upgrade.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by dothediu

Actually no, it's not possible to mine any more meters out of the underground stations for Canada Line. The max is the faux wall amount allocated (~25m). Reason being there are tunnel ventilation fans at the four corner ends of all underground stations. You can see it if you ride the train and from inside the stations. They cannot be moved.

Canada line, theoretically, can only add one middle train into their existing trains, making them 3 car trains. That is the extent they can do for longer trains, and nothing more. The above ground and at grade stations are already designed for 3 car trains, and doesn't need modification when they do the upgrade.

You are focusing on the wrong part of my statement. They can do whatever they want if given unlimited money. That would mean literately ripping out the tracks around each station. Thus they would need to shut down the line to add changes to it beyond what it was not already designed for.

That's the point.

The Canada Line was cheaply built, thus it has the consequences of being cheaply built, which means that it will inevitably require a parallel line.

[TransitFreak]

Canada line isn't cheaply built just light in rolling stock I think running trains at 2 min headways on the trunk and 4 at the spurs would be a tremendous improvement. It's just unfortunate that it may take 3-4 years as sometime mentioned. I'm hoping that as part of the 10 year plan they can run all the trains during crush hour in the mean time, similar to when the Olympics were around, and send the extra trains towards richmond to help alleviate that spur. I think max headway on trunk is 2m50s if all 20 trains are deployed?

[Express691]

Also looking at the yard, it seems like they can build extra track to accomodate more fleet.

[nname]

Originally Posted by Kisai

The Canada Line was cheaply built, thus it has the consequences of being cheaply built, which means that it will inevitably require a parallel line.

If anything that's overcapacity and require a parallel line, its the Expo Line. Just compare the population of catchment area for each of the three lines outside of Vancouver, the Canada Line (Richmond, Airport, South Delta, part of South Surrey/White Rock) just isn't comparable to Expo (Burnaby, New West, Surrey, Langley, part of White Rock) and even Millennium (Burnaby, Tri-Cities, Ridge Meadows, Mission, part of Langley, few of Abbotsford/Chilliwack). Having the ultimate capacity of about 60% of Expo Line isn't under-built by any mean, as it serve much less than half of the amount of population that Expo Line serves.

[ilikeredheads]

Even if money is not an issue, Canada Line is underbuilt and will face capacity problems sooner than later. There are 2 major roadblocks that hinder expansion potential:
1) Bridgeport Station
As I said in a earlier post, Bridgeport is a station that's sandwiched between 2 switches. One is used by trains merging from Richmond/YVR, so it's critical to train operations. Even if all other stations can be extended beyond the 50m, Bridgeport is still limited by the location of those 2 switches, which are just before and after the station. There's no easy way to extend Bridgeport without removing the switch on the east side.
2) Single tracking between Brighouse and Lansdowne.
You can buy as many trains as you want but the single track is the true bottleneck that'll limit train frequency. Thank Richmond City Hall for their shortsightedness. You can say the same thing for the YVR spur, but it doesn't see as many passengers as Richmond does.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

2) Single tracking between Brighouse and Lansdowne. You can buy as many trains as you want but the single track is the true bottleneck that'll limit train frequency.

I did some rough calculations on headways based on the turnaround time over the single-tracked segments and concluded that they could accommodate 90-second headways on the main portion of the line assuming that number of trains is split evenly between the two forks in Richmond and on Sea Island. That's pretty much the minimum headway that the automated system allows for anyway, so I don't see them as being a bottleneck.

What the single tracks do prevent is any different allocation of trains (i.e., two trains to Richmond for every one to YVR) when running at maximum capacity unless you short turn some of them. And they also make it impracticable to extend the Richmond branch of the line further south.

[Rico]

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

Even if money is not an issue, Canada Line is underbuilt and will face capacity problems sooner than later. There are 2 major roadblocks that hinder expansion potential:
1) Bridgeport Station
As I said in a earlier post, Bridgeport is a station that's sandwiched between 2 switches. One is used by trains merging from Richmond/YVR, so it's critical to train operations. Even if all other stations can be extended beyond the 50m, Bridgeport is still limited by the location of those 2 switches, which are just before and after the station. There's no easy way to extend Bridgeport without removing the switch on the east side.
2) Single tracking between Brighouse and Lansdowne.
You can buy as many trains as you want but the single track is the true bottleneck that'll limit train frequency. Thank Richmond City Hall for their shortsightedness. You can say the same thing for the YVR spur, but it doesn't see as many passengers as Richmond does.

Bridgeport is already 50m.

[ilikeredheads]

Originally Posted by Rico

Bridgeport is already 50m.

no it's not. If it were 50m, there would extra space left between the end of the platform and the front/end of the train because the train is about 40m long, but there isn't. Brighouse's platform is 50m though, not Bridgeport.

[ClaytonA]

Fantastic seeing it approved.

Originally Posted by dpogue

I suspect phase 3 will be the SkyTrain extension to Langley, as well as starting to replace the Mark I vehicles with new Mark III (or Mark IV at that point?) trains.

I don't think we'll see a full extension out to UBC or to PoCo in the plans until mid-2020s, depending on funding and regional growth.

IIRC the numbers to UBC were high enough to justify taking the line to UBC. The gap is between VCC and the Canada line and Broadway has huge demand (residents/employment), but a large percentage also ride full length. Except more ridership to divert from 41 Ave and other routes too. Recall that Vancouver delayed half the Broadway extension due to it being Surrey's turn for rapid transit in the negotiations for the Mayors 10 year vision. The ridership just isn't there for PoCo or Langley. Skytrain to 168 St in Surrey makes sense.

Also as you imply, if Jericho Lands turn into Amazing Brentwood-like density, then they need to be planning how to fund and less importantly build it pretty soon to have it open in the mid 2020s.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Kisai

You are focusing on the wrong part of my statement. They can do whatever they want if given unlimited money. That would mean literately ripping out the tracks around each station. Thus they would need to shut down the line to add changes to it beyond what it was not already designed for.

That's the point.

The Canada Line was cheaply built, thus it has the consequences of being cheaply built, which means that it will inevitably require a parallel line.

Yes, I think that notion of lengthening the platforms is unfeasable, and a parallel line would be years and many many $$$$$$$ down the road, if ever.
The only solution I can think of is buying more trains (possible) and tightening the headways to the max. How possible is that? How short could the headways get?

[nname]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Yes, I think that notion of lengthening the platforms is unfeasable, and a parallel line would be years and many many $$$$$$$ down the road, if ever.
The only solution I can think of is buying more trains (possible) and tightening the headways to the max. How possible is that? How short could the headways get?

down the road.. You meant 2061 or 2081? That's the projected year that the line will get full as it only using 40% of its capacity now... And we are not likely even to reach that projection unless all those transit funding magically passed...

[Express691]

Originally Posted by nname

TransLink had posted a list of bus route changes effective Dec 9:

http://www.translink.ca/en/Schedules-and-Maps/Transit-Service-Changes.aspx

Few more tidbits according to released GTFS data and CPTDB

-175 is a shuttle route (It takes over the 159 Meridian Industrial Park routing)

-With regards to artics, only 8 blocks need artics. The 6 runs on the 143, a run on the 151, and 2 of the 701 blocks (one of which goes to Mission).

-N9 will no longer be able to accomodate articulated buses as it is interlined with other 40 foot routes now. Since 160 will fit inside Kootenay Loop, it wont be using artics either.

-183 (ex-C27) is an all day 40 footer

[Express691]

Originally Posted by nname

TransLink had posted a list of bus route changes effective Dec 9:

http://www.translink.ca/en/Schedules-and-Maps/Transit-Service-Changes.aspx

Few more tidbits according to released GTFS data and CPTDB

-175 is a shuttle route (It takes over the 159 Meridian Industrial Park routing)

-With regards to artics, only 9 blocks could potentially be artics. The 6 runs on the 143, a run on the 151, and 2 of the 701 blocks (one of which goes to Mission).

-N9 will no longer be able to accomodate articulated buses as it is interlined with other 40 foot routes now. Since 160 will fit inside Kootenay Loop, it wont be using artics either.

-183 (ex-C27) is an all day 40 footer

[Gordon]

Will the new 23 main route be be a shuttle or a regular 40ft bus?

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by Express691

Few more tidbits according to released GTFS data and CPTDB

-175 is a shuttle route (It takes over the 159 Meridian Industrial Park routing)

-With regards to artics, only 9 blocks could potentially be artics. The 6 runs on the 143, a run on the 151, and 2 of the 701 blocks (one of which goes to Mission).

-N9 will no longer be able to accomodate articulated buses as it is interlined with other 40 foot routes now. Since 160 will fit inside Kootenay Loop, it wont be using artics either.

-183 (ex-C27) is an all day 40 footer

I took the N9 a few years ago and it was completely packed. I have heard rumors about several N9 trips being axed as well. This is a substantial loss.

[Express691]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

I took the N9 a few years ago and it was completely packed. I have heard rumors about several N9 trips being axed as well. This is a substantial loss.

It is quite, especially with the fact that there is a noticeable multi-hour long gap in service on the M-line corridor (which goes against what Translink says about the N9).

Speaking of Skytrain, set 425-428 was spotted at waterfront this afternoon, which means all 7 mark 3s are in service.

[wrenegade]

Originally Posted by Pinion

I don't understand why they can't start 10 minute sailing sooner though? Do they need four or three? I thought one seabus was retiring when the new one arrives.

I guess they say they need the 3rd one as a spare? It's frustrating. They ran the Seabuses from 1977 until the Olympics without a spare, but now they need to have one just sitting around?

What I find a little unbelievable is the Burrard Otter II, built in Singapore in 2014, cost $22M and the new one is budgeted at $34M? WTF 50% inflation in 5 years (2019 delivery)?

[waves]

Originally Posted by wrenegade

I guess they say they need the 3rd one as a spare? It's frustrating. They ran the Seabuses from 1977 until the Olympics without a spare, but now they need to have one just sitting around?

What I find a little unbelievable is the Burrard Otter II, built in Singapore in 2014, cost $22M and the new one is budgeted at $34M? WTF 50% inflation in 5 years (2019 delivery)?

The 50% is likely inclusive of a contingency for any unforeseen problems. That combined with inflation is likely why it's "budgeted" at $34 mil. From what is sounds like, you are saying that $22 million is the final cost for the BO2. I don't know the numbers for what it was budgeted at, but maybe it too was budgeted ~$30 mil. If it was budgeted more around $23 mil than, I agree with you; $34 mil is quite a strange jump.

The evergreen line final numbers were released today and the project came in $70-$85 mil under the budgeted $1.431 bil. Should that mean that if a duplicate evergreen line were to be built we should now budget $1.350 billion? From a political standpoint it's a fine line between trying to budget above actual costs so that the project comes in under budget, and keeping the budget low so that funding partners are not scared away.