Transit Fantasies

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by madog222

80m platforms on the Canada Line and 120m on the Expo line are not really a option (while maintaining platform grade standards at least), that would mean rebuilding large sections of the guideway. Ignoring the viability of interrupting service, that's money better spend on other lines.

Yeah higher frequency would be a better thing to spend money on. If we're gonna rebuild large sections of the guideway, we might as well quad track it so we can get express service, starting with the Expo Line so people going from Langley to Vancouver won't have to ride the train for an hour,

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

Yeah higher frequency would be a better thing to spend money on. If we're gonna rebuild large sections of the guideway, we might as well quad track it so we can get express service, starting with the Expo Line so people going from Langley to Vancouver won't have to ride the train for an hour,

How much time would that express service actually save? I assume express service would mean stopping everywhere SoF with additional stops NoF at Columbia, Metrotown, Broadway, and all the downtown stops (at least). That would eliminate eight stops. Would that save a rider 5 minutes? 10? And if you don't stop at enough stations, you need to add the time it takes for a passenger to get off at an express station, transfer to a local train, and ride to their actual final destination.

Quad tracking would be incredibly expensive compared to extending platforms. You would need to re-design and possibly tear down every station on the line. And the NIMBYs would be out in full force when our dainty little Skytrain guideway suddenly starts to look a lot more like the Chicago L.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

How much time would that express service actually save? I assume express service would mean stopping everywhere SoF with additional stops NoF at Columbia, Metrotown, Broadway, and all the downtown stops (at least). That would eliminate eight stops. Would that save a rider 5 minutes? 10? And if you don't stop at enough stations, you need to add the time it takes for a passenger to get off at an express station, transfer to a local train, and ride to their actual final destination.

Quad tracking would be incredibly expensive compared to extending platforms. You would need to re-design and possibly tear down every station on the line. And the NIMBYs would be out in full force when our dainty little Skytrain guideway suddenly starts to look a lot more like the Chicago L.

In the case of the Expo to Langley, I can imagine it either being local from Waterfront to Joyce-Collingwood, then stopping at major hub stations like Metrotown, 22nd Street, Scott Road, Surrey Central, and terminating at Langley City Centre.

If we're gonna extend the platforms to the point where we gotta rebuild part of the guideway to accommodate, then we might as well see about making provisions for express.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Still a waste. Joyce doesn't even get 15k/day, and how many of those want to go all the way to Waterfront or Surrey? Nah, scrap the Expo upgrade idea altogether and build a relief line - same capacity increase, even more ridership and coverage.

[Tvisforme]

If we were to invest in quad-track rebuilds, would the Dunsmuir Tunnel be a useful section to redo? Could the tunnel be widened in phases - upper and lower tracks - so that a single track could remain in service?

The idea here would be to allow a relief line to follow a different path through the rest of Metro while delivering additional capacity to the downtown. For example, a Hastings line could also use the tunnel to service downtown (Waterfront/Burrard/Granville) and then head south along Granville.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

If we were to invest in quad-track rebuilds, would the Dunsmuir Tunnel be a useful section to redo? Could the tunnel be widened in phases - upper and lower tracks - so that a single track could remain in service?

The idea here would be to allow a relief line to follow a different path through the rest of Metro while delivering additional capacity to the downtown. For example, a Hastings line could also use the tunnel to service downtown (Waterfront/Burrard/Granville) and then head south along Granville.

If we're gonna touch that tunnel, we should probably add a provision so we have eventually extend the Expo northwest and serve Coal Harbour/West End and then terminate at Park Royal, thus eliminating the need for buses that rely on the under capacity bridge that seems to have an accident on it every day

[mcj]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

If we're gonna touch that tunnel, we should probably add a provision so we have eventually extend the Expo northwest and serve Coal Harbour/West End and then terminate at Park Royal, thus eliminating the need for buses that rely on the under capacity bridge that seems to have an accident on it every day

If we were to build a high speed relief line it could tunnel from the Grandview cut on to Waterfront and across the first narrows to Park Royal. Having a Surrey Central - Lougheed TC - Commercial/Broadway - Waterfront - Park Royal high speed line would hit major hubs and might even be cheaper than retrofitting quad tracks all along the expo line, providing the relief to the Expo while also adding a useful new service.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by mcj

If we were to build a high speed relief line it could tunnel from the Grandview cut on to Waterfront and across the first narrows to Park Royal. Having a Surrey Central - Lougheed TC - Commercial/Broadway - Waterfront - Park Royal high speed line would hit major hubs and might even be cheaper than retrofitting quad tracks all along the expo line, providing the relief to the Expo while also adding a useful new service.

Maybe we could do it in such a way that we can reintroduce Millennium line service from Commercial Broadway to Waterfront so we get a one seat ride from Lafarge to Waterfront. Assuming by then the extensions to PoCo and UBC are already built and operational, then we would have a Millennium line split at both ends, with termini at Waterfront, UBC, PoCo, and Lafarge

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by mcj

If we were to build a high speed relief line it could tunnel from the Grandview cut on to Waterfront and across the first narrows to Park Royal. Having a Surrey Central - Lougheed TC - Commercial/Broadway - Waterfront - Park Royal high speed line would hit major hubs and might even be cheaper than retrofitting quad tracks all along the expo line, providing the relief to the Expo while also adding a useful new service.

If (and that's a big if) rail is ever necessary and cost-effective up the Sea to Sky, it makes sense to plan through-running tracks so a train from Seattle or Abbotsford could go straight up to Whistler. But a stop at Broadway or Park Royal are far too close to downtown to justify the dwell time. Whether for inter-city service or regional rail, you don't want to gum up the speed by stopping too often.

I think the closest stops to downtown for regional rail on the route you suggested would be Lougheed (or possibly Brentwood to facilitate a transfer to the Millennium or Willingdon line) in the southeast and Horseshoe Bay in the northwest.

If you're concerned about a lack of access to the second downtown on Broadway, transferring at Brentwood would be NBD IMO. And if Pacific Central was used instead of Waterfront, bus service up Main Street is pretty reliable.

[scottN]

Originally Posted by madog222

80m platforms on the Canada Line and 120m on the Expo line are not really a option (while maintaining platform grade standards at least), that would mean rebuilding large sections of the guideway. Ignoring the viability of interrupting service, that's money better spend on other lines.

Actually if you look at the Expo line station designs, they all have 120m of straight guideway that is suitable for extending the platform without touching the guideway. For above ground stations (including waterfront) this wouldn't be too difficult - perhaps comparable to the metrotown station rennovation.

The upgrades can also be done gradually with full platforms at major stations where extensions are practical (Waterfront, Commercial-Broadway, Metrotown, Columbia, Surrey Central) and then using selective door opening at the stations with shorter platforms.

[Unregistered User]

If we're opening the door (sorry) to selective door opening, I really hope they abandon the idea of the 10m C-car for the Canada Line and just adding full-length 20m cars for the upgrade and just alternate keeping the first or last pair of doors closed at each station.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by scottN

The upgrades can also be done gradually with full platforms at major stations where extensions are practical (Waterfront, Commercial-Broadway, Metrotown, Columbia, Surrey Central) and then using selective door opening at the stations with shorter platforms.

Originally Posted by Unregistered User

If we're opening the door (sorry) to selective door opening, I really hope they abandon the idea of the 10m C-car for the Canada Line and just adding full-length 20m cars for the upgrade and just alternate keeping the first or last pair of doors closed at each station.

Something, something, safety hazard - can you imagine everybody pushing for the centre doors at the feeder stations? If we're ever at the point where the Expo maxes out, a relief line would work better.

[scottN]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Something, something, safety hazard - can you imagine everybody pushing for the centre doors at the feeder stations? If we're ever at the point where the Expo maxes out, a relief line would work better.

The New York City subway uses selective door opening. I don't know how extensively, or how well it works when trains are heavily loaded. Presumably after some adjust period, riders that are getting on at front doors only station and getting off at a back doors only station know that they have to ride the middle part of the train that stops at both stations, and then self sort into the correct parts of the train when boarding, rather than trying to move around inside the train.

I don't think you would want to have selective door opening at really busy stations where large numbers of people are getting on or off.

[Migrant_Coconut]

NYC has just one station that does that, though. If there's (let's say) an earthquake, you run the risk of every short station getting caught in a stampede for the centre doors; if it's a fire or other emergency, that's just one station, but same problem.

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

NYC has just one station that does that, though. If there's (let's say) an earthquake, you run the risk of every short station getting caught in a stampede for the centre doors; if it's a fire or other emergency, that's just one station, but same problem.

Sorry, but "stampede for the centre doors" seems a bit much! Yes, people can panic in emergencies, but we're talking about ten or twenty metres at most with multiple exit points. You're more likely to have issues with the limited number of exits from the stations than with the trains.

[Migrant_Coconut]

On further research, it's common practice in Britain and Australia, so alright. Apparently it increases dwell times, though; will it work with 120s headways or less? And why not "just" build a new SkyTrain on Kingsway? There's a lot of upcoming density there which could use rapid transit too.

[LeftCoaster]

This is also a train more heavily used by tourists than most, so it seems like the worst possible line to do it on.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

On further research, it's common practice in Britain and Australia, so alright. Apparently it increases dwell times, though; will it work with 120s headways or less? And why not "just" build a new SkyTrain on Kingsway? There's a lot of upcoming density there which could use rapid transit too.

Not an issue with the DLR which often has trains on the combined sections in similar headways.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

On further research, it's common practice in Britain and Australia, so alright. Apparently it increases dwell times, though; will it work with 120s headways or less? And why not "just" build a new SkyTrain on Kingsway? There's a lot of upcoming density there which could use rapid transit too.

I have often wondered why Kingsway has never been used for transit and/or vehicular traffic (with clever engineering) more than it has been. It's still a dreary looking, congested, relic of Vancouver's bygone years, just ripe for some kind of upgrade. What kind of upgrade? I can't exactly say. I'll let the engineers figure that one out, but surely Kingsway is destined to be something more dynamic, more important, more efficient, and smarter-looking than it is.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

I have often wondered why Kingsway has never been used for transit and/or vehicular traffic (with clever engineering) more than it has been. It's still a dreary looking, congested, relic of Vancouver's bygone years, just ripe for some kind of upgrade. What kind of upgrade? I can't exactly say. I'll let the engineers figure that one out, but surely Kingsway is destined to be something more dynamic, more important, more efficient, and smarter-looking than it is.

It has transit - there are trolley buses. In Vancouver, the Skytrain line runs parallel three blocks away, so it's very unlikely to get any other form of transit for decades. There have been thousands of new apartments - rental and condo - built over new retail spaces along Kingsway over the past 15 years since the approval of the Knight and Kingsway Plan in 2004 and the Norquay Plan in 2010. There are at least 10 more projects - mostly rental - approved in the past three years.