Canada Line | Completed

[agrant]

Originally Posted by geoff's two cents

I'm not sure what Canada Line planners were thinking in not accounting for the possibility that increased transit use in the future will require longer trains. Have these people ever ridden a TTC subway? Perhaps this is what happens when planning is "fast-tracked"?

I guess the thinking is that the population won't compare, not even close, for the next 100 years. It's probably the same reason why Toronto didn't go for 16 car trains.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by johnjimbc

For as much flack as the US gets (and often deserves) about their urban planning flaws, the DC metro system is an amazing success. It is a large system, with the essential stations designed and laid out virtually from day one (going on 30 years in service now), designed to blanket the area for several decades to come. The core system of stations was then built. It is all one technology (including trains and cars interchangeable on all lines). It was designed with easy-access gates usable with smart-cards years before the technology even existed and easily retrofitted for them when they came into vogue (the smart-cards works on buses as well). The stations were all designed to be much larger than necessary when the system first began operating (the trains now run 8 car lengths, which work / fit for all stations). Stations were mapped out in congested areas as well as areas where the population was very light when construction began, and the metro authority purchased lands around the stations that have over time sold off to developers for high-density centers around the stations.

Let me first apologize if I sound rude. Windows just crashed on me while I finished my long response. ARGH!

I don't really understand this entire thing about technology. It's quite normal for a transportation network using different technologies and different trains to serve the region's commuters. Hong Kong's MTR system uses almost different rolling stocks for each line, and many of the trains cannot with the 10 lines despite using the same conventional rail technology with overhead wires. Because of this, there are seven depots (OMCs) throughout Hong Kong that maintain the different rail cars. Another example is the Paris Metro. where it too uses different rail technologies. From what I can recall, it has light rail, VAL (rubber-tired automated metro), and conventional rail. The London Underground has different rolling stocks as well, with many of the lines incompatible with each other. I think it's fine to use different technologies as long as it has proper transfer points and that it serves a separate commuters. For commuters using the Canada Line, it will be generally from Downtown to Richmond, Sea Island, YVR, White Rock, or Delta. The only thing I am concerned about is the lack of proper transfers in the Downtown core. Vancouver City Centre doesn't have a direct underground walkway between the Canada Line and the SkyTrain; same situation with Waterfront. These are all slated for the future, and it might not even be possible as the City of Vancouver is still studying to see if these options are structurally possible.

Other than the Expo Line, the Millennium Line and the Canada Line includes future space for fare gates. I think the Canada Line stations are generally fine, where Vancouver City Centre and Waterfront might pose a slight space problem in the future. I do wish that the downtown stations shoud've been designed slightly larger but it should be adequate for the next ten years.

Metro Vancouver Board, TransLink, and the municipalities design the region around rapid transit now. Many high density developments occur around SkyTrain stations, such as Joyce-Collingwood and Edmonds. With the Canada Line, there are plans to include similar developments around King Edward and Oakridge.

Originally Posted by johnjimbc

The last point I want to re-emphasize is the capacity issue that has dominated the discussion here. What kind of planning creates a system that from day one has no growth potential without additional massive spending (extending platform lengths, etc)? What I was trying to point out was that the DC system was built so that stations built 30+ years ago are just now beginning to approach their full capacity. When started, many of the trains were 2 or 4 car-length trains. Just during the time I lived in DC, they went from 6 to 8-car length trains on the lines during peak times, and those extended trains fit in the originally constructed station platforms. Without a doubt, it must have cost more upfront to construct the stations with the larger platforms and larger entrance systems. But as the capacity has grown, a great deal of money has been saved from the core system, meaning funds could instead by applied to expanding the system network to reach more communities and neighborhoods.

...

As excited as I am by the sleek look of the new Canada Line cars, a little voice in my head still goes, "Why a new car? Shouldn't all the lines use the same cars?" And it does seem strange to me that the new line is built with (seemingly) little forethought into what will be necessary when the capacity needs to be expanded. Are there other ways of expanding the capacity that have been discussed (more runs on the same line, etc?). Perhaps I'm just not getting the full picture from what I have read.

Future growth in Metro Vancouver is not expected to occur anywhere near the Canada Line. By 2040, Vancouver and Richmond will be seeing a population increase of 18% and 37% respectively. Most of the growth occurs around the existing SkyTrain network. The Expo Line serves Vancouver, Burnaby/New Westminster, and the South of Fraser. Burnaby/New Westminster sector is expected to have a population increase of 53% and South of Fraser, which will surpass the population in City of Vancouver, will have an increase of 56%. Employment projections will also mainly occur within Burnaby/New Westminster and South of Fraser. The Canada Line, with an initial capacity of 9000 pphd, will have a maximum capacity of 15000 pphd. Right now, the Expo Line with the same 15000 pphd capacity, serves more people than the Canada Line. The 98 B-Line moves 1146 people per hour. Even if you factor in the different bus routes that will be funneled into the Canada Line, it doesn't come close to even the initial Canada Line capacity.

If we are to be concerned, we should be worried about the South of Fraser. The current public transit infrastructure doesn't serve the population well and even the Provincial Transportation Plan won't serve the residents well enough. The growth occurring within the region is incredible but the plans don't seem to reflect this.

Population projections stated above are from Metro Vancouver 2040 Employment & Population Page 8 & 9 of Transport 2040 and Metro Vancouver's Livable Strategic Plan.

Originally Posted by johnjimbc

It is proof you can design a full system instead of a patchwork, which is what Vancouver appears to be doing.

You make it sound like the D.C. metro just appeared overnight. You know they too have slowly expanded their network.

Originally Posted by johnjimbc

Again, I just wanted to bring up the DC metro rail system to emphasize that there can be a more unified approach to planning - not to suggest it would be easy or that the DC system didn't have some advantages (being the federal capital area certainly helped, I'm sure ; ).

Regarding the system itself, my understanding that the 3 perennial issues facing metro these days are as follows:

1) ongoing operating costs / aging system concerns (to be expected)
2) Purple line planning, with that line representing the first line not to be part of the spoke & hub pattern. It would essentially connect points on 2 or 3 of the existing lines. I would be stunned, however, if they opted for a different technology on the rail system or cars itself - it just wouldn't make much sense in conjunction with the hundreds of miles on the rest of the unified system. The only way I could imagine that is if they opt for a different mode entirely - dedicated bus line perhaps. I know there has been talk of creating some type of street-car system to overlay the existing metro rail and bus system (creating a "third way" of transportation). I think there is even a short demo line planned for a portion of DC. DC like many north american cities once had an enviable streetcar system that was totally dismantled when the highway lobbyists got their way in the 50s and 60s.
3) Downtown congestion in coming years. There has been talk that because the system is hub and spoke (with separate lines merging to share track within the downtown core), the system will reach a congestion choke-hold in the coming decade or two that will start to limit the capacity of the entire system. As such, there has been talk of creating a new line through downtown and thus off-loading / separating some shared lines. That of course will be a massive undertaking requiring new tunneling downtown, which hasn't been necessary since the original core was built over 30 years ago. The route of such a split would also be subject to debate as well.

All of the above items, however, can be correctly categorized as "victims of their own success" issues (i.e. a well-designed system that nearly 4 decades later is starting to bump up against its own design constraints). But given how many major systems like that flop badly or remain non-profitable due to poor planning or design, the DC system still manages to be a rather impressive example of success.

I just wish there would be some move in Vancouver for a more integrated, common plan put together for future expansion of the entire skytrain system, at least from what I can see in my short time here.

Washington DC is different, not just geographically as people have pointed out, but just the way the entire region (and the surrounding regions) are planned. Metro Vancouver is designed with different regional centers and municipal centers all over the region.



I don't know if DC is the best place to compare with Vancouver. Then again, I don't know many other cities in the world with a strategy similar to Vancouver.

Originally Posted by johnjimbc

It just seems when you use different technology and different cars for different segments or lines, you are setting yourselves up with increased costs for the lifetime of the system. Whatever money you might be saving up front (if any), I expect you would lose having to maintain and supply the disparate systems for the duration.

Not necessarily. While maintenance costs will be different, where the Canada Line will be more expensive per train to maintain than the rest of the SkyTrain network, the cost for the Canada Line to be integrated with the SkyTrain network is incredibly more. Again, the Canada Line serves different commuters so the different technologies won't really affect anyone.

Originally Posted by johnjimbc

The last point I want to re-emphasize is the capacity issue that has dominated the discussion here. What kind of planning creates a system that from day one has no growth potential without additional massive spending (extending platform lengths, etc)? What I was trying to point out was that the DC system was built so that stations built 30+ years ago are just now beginning to approach their full capacity. When started, many of the trains were 2 or 4 car-length trains. Just during the time I lived in DC, they went from 6 to 8-car length trains on the lines during peak times, and those extended trains fit in the originally constructed station platforms. Without a doubt, it must have cost more upfront to construct the stations with the larger platforms and larger entrance systems. But as the capacity has grown, a great deal of money has been saved from the core system, meaning funds could instead by applied to expanding the system network to reach more communities and neighborhoods.

Originally Posted by geoff's two cents

I share the enthusiasm, as well as the criticism. I once heard it said that New York has grown the way it has in part due to the fact that city administrators planned for how they thought the city would grow 100 years down the road

Vancouver's Millennium line is in some ways a good example of this way of thinking, in that much of the land surrounding the line is sparsely populated, but presumably that is where the metro area envisions much of the highest density growth taking place in the future. The Expo Line, of course, is an example of a transit line meeting existing demand.

Both the Expo and Millennium lines have been really designed for the future. It can still handle longer MKI trains (6 car vs current 4 car) and longer MKII trains (5 car vs current 4/2 car configurations) and the platforms for both lines can still be extended. I would hope to see that the Evergreen Line will be able to have the same expansions possible. The Canada Line would be an example of a line that will meet demand in the short term and long term, but not the extended future unlike the Expo Line.

Originally Posted by officedweller

I think it boils down to available funding.
I think DC's metro was built at a time when the US Feds were funding rapid transit across the US - i.e. I think BaRT, DC's Metro and Atlanta's Marta are all from the same era and have similarities. In comparison, US cities today aren't building full fledged subways, they are building LRTs. I think I recall a Seattle forummer saying that there were plans back in that era for Seattle to have a subway too.

With transportation funding being very politicized, politicians are also not willing to plan so far beyond their terms in office.

Seattle is spending way too much money on a LRT system. For the money they are building the Central Link, they could be building a heavy rail metro. I have to say that the Seattle LRT does have a huge initial capacity and lots of potential for growth. From what I know, platforms can be extended to fit a 4 trains coupled together.

DC Metro and Atlanta Marta are amazing system. BART has a rather unusual system design, where the train network is both a commuter train and a metro train. One thing I didn't like about BART is how they funnel all the trains heading to Downtown into two tracks.

Originally Posted by officedweller

From the schedules - so I think they probably are wood over steel beams:

Templeton Station Construction
Type of work: At-grade station construction: Underway east of Templeton
Road. Involves concrete works for the station stairs, installation
of the station roof decking and structural steel, glazing
installation of laminated wood beams, mechanical and
electrical work, installation of escalators and north elevator,
and general construction activity for Templeton Station.
General impact: Please see general impacts on last page.
Traffic pattern changes: No further traffic pattern changes are anticipated during this work.

Oh Good. You know they should have installed the laminated wooden beams for BC Place over the ugly concrete.

[johnjimbc]

Thanks for your very thorough response, Deasine. It explained a lot of rationale to me. I do feel like I understand the whys a bit more now.

Just a couple of additional thoughts / clarifications:

I do understand the DC system took years to construct. The best example of that fact being that the original route system didn't reach fruition for nearly 25 years after initial construction began. There were some tweaks and changes made along the way, of course, and funding sources varied and shifted over time. But the original plan (the concept of using the same rail cars, the number of distinct lines, basic routes, overall uniform look and feel of the stations, etc) was essentially laid out at the beginning. By patchwork, in contrast, I meant each new line here seems to have new and separate requirements drawn up each time. As you've explained, though, there are reasons for that - particularly why the Canada line was considered an exception of sorts (in that growth is not expected as much along that line in the same fashion as the other lines will experience). So I understand what you are saying as well.

On one of your other points, while DC clearly has a large and more dominant downtown "core" (the district), I would say the DC metro area actually reminds me of the Vancouver metro area in that there are key regional centers as well. The DC/MD/VA area is in many ways the home of "town center" concepts in the US. Reston, Virginia, is a planned town center from the 60s (possibly even late 50s). Columbia, Maryland, is a planned community from about that time as well. Bethesda, Maryland is its own urban center, with a very urban downtown north and west of DC itself. Montgomery County in Maryland (in which Bethesda is located), incidentally, is one of the more progressive counties in the US, with some of the most advanced educational programs, public health programs, and affordable housing programs in the country (very Canadian actually, and I mean that in the most positive way . In more recent years, more town centers have been planned and constructed or come to fruition as growing population density centers - Gaithersburg and Largo in Md, as well as Roslyn and Ballston and Falls Church in Va come to mind. One of the reasons there is talk about adding a "Purple" line to the metro system there is because of the need to connect some of the regional centers in Maryland and Virginia without sending folks through downtown DC (thus further taxing the system's capacity in the center).

At any rate, thank you again for your very detailed explanations and answers. It does help me understand the system here much better (and makes me feel better about the thought that went into the different lines and future capacity).

[johnjimbc]

Deasine,

I thought about this more and do have one question related to your detailed comments. I think your point about the south of Fraser River planning coming up short are valid. With that in mind, why wouldn't - or couldn't - the Canada Line have been seen as a starting segment of a line that would eventually be expanded further south - possibly all the way to Tsawassen or even White Rock?

To apply my DC metro analogy (loosely, I'll admit), they could have mapped out a projected line that went all the way from downtown to a future end-point possibly as far south as White Rock. With that as the end objective, the portion from downtown to Richmond and the Airport would just be seen as the first phase to be completed in time for the Olympics. But everything would be planned with the idea that it would eventually - possibly even a decade or two down the line - extend much further and be planned with projected future population growth along the whole route in mind.

Instead, by stating up-front that the line will only ever run from downtown to the Airport, it is correct to plan as if population growth along the line will be relatively modest. But by planning it with those very constraints, the line will be hemmed in to just serve that need, and any potential expansion is limited before it is even built.

Please don't misinterpret what I'm saying. I do understand the points you made. But in a way, the explanations also reiterate my point that each segment seems to be very self-contained in definition to the point that it could hinder or fail to address long-term needs.

Hope this makes sense. I was just always impressed that the metro system in DC had a very traceable history and fairly transparent future planning process (even to the casual citizen viewer). The system was clearly part of a bigger vision. When I see and read about the planning here, I just don't see the big vision as clearly.

Perhaps I'm just having a hard time understanding a different paradigm here, which is why reading your explanation does help. Maybe I'm just not getting it yet.

[deasine]

Why can't it be further expanded? Just because it is single tracked between Lansdowne and Richmond-Brighouse does not prevent it from being expanded further south. It's live the SkyTrain Expo Line could be extended all the way to Abbotsford. Is that the proper way of using resources, time, and money? Obviously not.

According to what I remember, the Canada Line was designed so that it could be double tracked in the future. Now that might mean the closing of Richmond-Bridghouse station and the rebuilding of the single guideway, but I won't see that as a big problem. Buses can be easily moved to Lansdowne for the time being.

I don't see the need of expanding it all the way to Tsawassen or White Rock. That's a waste of money and resources. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, between Richmond to Tsawassen or Richmond to White Rock. Just farms. We need density in order for a rapid transit line to be successful. If the Canada Line were to be expanded, it would probably go down to Steveston and terminate there indefinitely. Should it be further expanded, if we run the maximum capacity between Waterfront and Bridgeport, there will still be a huge waits for the Richmond portion of the line and that's obviously not the approach to rapid transit. If I'm at Richmond Centre going to Aberdeen, what's the point of me waiting 20 minutes for the next Canada Line train in broad daylight when I can take the 410 bus and get there within the time I wait for the train? RapidBus/BRTs can serve the commuters between South of Fraser to the Canada Line just fine.

Keep in mind that even though there will be a lot of growth occuring in the South of Fraser, not everyone is going to downtown. In fact, a lot of people usually commute within the area or to a neighboring one. That's how the region is designed. Metro Vancouver would rather see you live closer to your workplace more than having you live from one end of the region traveling to the other side. Unfortunately, it's not always possible for people to do that. So if people are going to downtown, by 2020, you'll have a lot more options. For White Rock commuters, they could take a RapidBus to Bridgeport Station and transfer on the Canada Line or take a RapidBus to Surrey Central to ride the SkyTrain.

At the moment, we don't have a firm plan of what's going on with the planning of the Surrey Rapid Transit. Kevin Falcon says they are considering every option. Until then, we can only use what is given to us today. The Provincial Transportation Plan only breifly addresses the commuting problems that exist within the South of Fraser today. What we need is more rapid transit connecting the different municipal centers and regional centers together, like Surrey Central, Newton, Guildford, Fleetwood (future), and Langley. Since everything is spread all over the place, a mix of Rapid-Bus and surface rail would be the most cost effective solution, or at least in my opinion. I'll be posting up my vision (transit fantasy) of transportation solutions for Metro Vancouver within the next week (I hope).

[G-Man]

Originally Posted by deasine

I don't see the need of expanding it all the way to Tsawassen or White Rock. That's a waste of money and resources. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, between Richmond to Tsawassen or Richmond to White Rock. Just farms.

Hmmm... Steveston and Ladner jump to mind. Then there is the ferry terminal. In 30 years there may be some good reason for extending out that way.

[officedweller]

I could see expansion to Steveston - but unless that area sprouts highrises or office space (apart from the light industrial near Hwy 99), the existing proposals/suggestions to link Steveston to downtown Richmond / Canada Line via streetcar/LRT may be sufficient.

As for Ladner Tsawassen, the barriers are the required river crossing and the open farmland in the Agricultural Land Reserve (meaning no significant densification except in existing areas). It's unlikely that the expenditures could be justifed.
White Rock is far to the east from Tsawassen (separated by more ALR) and would probably be better accessed by rail from Surrey (although current bus routes taking Hwy 99 would probably remain faster to downtown Vancouver since they travel through undeveloped areas).

[djmk]

Canada Line construction to end in June at latest

Builder says earlier completion possible

By William Boei, Vancouver SunJanuary 9, 2009


Thirty-seven months after work crews first broke ground for the Canada Line, there is light at the end of the tunnel.

It's not a train, not yet. But this is the year the disruptions end. By late June, and quite likely earlier, all the intersections, on-ramps, streets and lanes that have been wholly or partly blocked, some of them for years, will be open again.

Since work began in December 2005, commuters and other Metro Vancouver residents have been plagued by traffic detours and delays. Small-business owners have pulled out their hair over construction messes that cost them customers on the Granville Mall, at Davie and Pacific in Yaletown, in the Cambie Village stretch south of Vancouver city hall and along parts of the route in Richmond.

But it's almost over. "We are slightly ahead of schedule and ... on budget," said Canada Line spokesman Alan Dever.

Construction schedules for 2009 were made public Thursday, and they show that everything but some interior finishing in stations and train testing and commissioning is to be completed by the end of June. It could be earlier. Steve Crombie of InTransitBC, which is building the Canada Line and will operate it, said the work will more likely be complete some time in May, and then the streets will be handed back to Vancouver and Richmond for final paving, line-painting and traffic-light installation.

Some parts will be completed earlier. Work on all three downtown Vancouver stations will be finished by the end of April. Further south, some stations will be done by the end of April, others in May, and YVR Airport Station by the end of June.

All 20 two-car trains have arrived and they've been tested in Richmond, at the airport and as far north as 41st Avenue in Vancouver. "We haven't run them all the way through the system yet," Crombie said. "We've still got some work to do before we can go all the way downtown." But testing has been going well: "We're delighted with the way the trains run and feel."

Train testing will keep going right to opening day. That's theoretically Nov. 30, but Crombie said: "Our goal is to get the line in service prior to that date."

Dever injected one note of caution. He said Canada Line Rapid Transit Inc., which is overseeing the Canada Line project for TransLink, isn't counting its chickens until they've, well, arrived at the station.

"The project is moving ahead very well," he said, "although you never know what might go wrong."
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun


sounds promising

[officedweller]

Nice to see that "goal" quoted in writing.

[phesto]

I haven't been following this thread all the way through, so apologies if this has been discussed already, but has there been any speculation as to how soon before Nov.30th the line could go in service? Are we talking a couple of weeks? or a couple of months?

[Spork]

Originally Posted by phesto

I haven't been following this thread all the way through, so apologies if this has been discussed already, but has there been any speculation as to how soon before Nov.30th the line could go in service? Are we talking a couple of weeks? or a couple of months?

Some signs have pointed possibly to early-late August.

[deasine]

The Annual Look-Ahead Schedule is out: http://canadaline.ca/documents/AnnualLookAheadJantoDec2009.pdf

Notice all the construction will be completed before August... And everything other than the Cambie St. Offramp will be completed by end of June. =D [Train testing doesn't count]

[zivan56]

So, when will they finally restore Cambie Bridge so that it has 2 lanes in both directions? Going southbound during any time of the day takes at least 10-20 minutes of crawling along to get past the missing part of the bridge.

[officedweller]

That was the bus loop RFP that mentioned that (and which was subsequently reissued without the Canada Line in service date).

[DKaz]

So, are we doing an SSP group first ride on opening day? =D

[Metro-One]

Well that was my idea for anyone who wanted to, with a lunch at the Richmond side. But we still have lots of time to arrange such an event! hehe.

[raggedy13]

^That sounds fun.

[The_Henry_Man]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Well that was my idea for anyone who wanted to, with a lunch at the Richmond side. But we still have lots of time to arrange such an event! hehe.

Looks like I might be the ONLY one on this board who's riding it the opposite direction, from Richmond-Brighouse to Waterfront?

[Metro-One]

Haha, well you can take the Canada Line to meet us downtown Of course we will have to ride both extension as well. As for lunch there are many great places near Richmond-Brighouse. I for one am a sushi lover.

[The_Henry_Man]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Haha, well you can take the Canada Line to meet us downtown Of course we will have to ride both extension as well. As for lunch there are many great places near Richmond-Brighouse. I for one am a sushi lover.

There's Richmond Sushi, Tokyo Ichiban, Torarenbo and Guu (Aberdeen).