Canada Line | Completed

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Well 60 meters would not have been enough for another C car i believe, but i do agree it would have been better if they built it to open with 50m with 1 c car, and expandable to 65m and adding another c car. And some storage tracks would have been a good idea (at least one in the underground region) and no single tracking in Richmond. The YVR single tracking is okay because there really is no room for expansion there.

Not enough for two-40-metre cars and one-15-metre car, but enough for another 20-metre car.

Ideally, perhaps the platform length should be 65-metres long to accommodate two C-car/15-metre trains. That would be enough for 20,000 pphpd, enough for the forseeable future...and would give the line some visual dignity.

[Metro-One]

Thats what i just said. We have discussed how hard it would be to double the platform lengths in the future, but how hard would it be to add another 15 meters for another C-car?

[metroXpress]

^ that's a pain for them to do it. I assume it's going to cost a lot..just to make all stations have a 50-m plaform.

[TransitJack]

Let's recall the project was rejected more than once due to high costs. Once it finally went through it was only expected costs would be curtailed wherever possible. Add into the mix a P3 operation where 'extras' are nixed and the line is built to spec only.

The line was built on a contract for projected ridership. Twenty years from now if increases in capacity are warranted, then a new contract would be negotiated. A private company isn't going to spend their money on "what ifs" today, when it can simply negotiate expansion at a future date.

All that being said, the 2-car trains on the CL have more capacity than 2-car mkII trains on Skytrain. They are longer, wider, and have more seats PLUS lots of standing room. Every other Northbound train arriving at Bridgeport will be next to empty (as they come off the YVR spur) helping with the flux of people arriving at Bridgeport by bus.

The line wasn't just built for today, it has room for capacity increases (ie increased number of trains running) for the next decade plus at least.

It definitely has some questionable shortsightedness, but at least its built and almost ready to open. Sure will beat taking the 98B Line.

[TransitJack]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Thats what i just said. We have discussed how hard it would be to double the platform lengths in the future, but how hard would it be to add another 15 meters for another C-car?

Some stations seem to just fit the 2 cars, where as others have extra room already. I think some stations can accommodate a slight increase in platform length.

The difficulty of expansion post revenue service can be seen at Broadway...such expansion is even more difficult when you're dealing with underground stations...

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by mr.x

That's the problem. Short-term thinking instead of long-term thinking.

We've basically built ourselves a much bigger Scarborough RT.

Man, it was a joke. If you overbuild everything you'll never get anything built. Or if you do, it will cost so much and be such a white elephant, nobody will let you build anything else. What would have happened if we built the new PMB in the 60s? We'd never have the Alex Fraser, and we'd still be paying it off.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by TransitJack

The line wasn't just built for today, it has room for capacity increases (ie increased number of trains running) for the next decade plus at least.

It definitely has some questionable shortsightedness, but at least its built and almost ready to open. Sure will beat taking the 98B Line.

You said it. If there's one thing the skytrain has on all other systems I've used, it's that more frequent, but shorter trains are much more preferable to long but infrequent trains.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by TransitJack

Let's recall the project was rejected more than once due to high costs. Once it finally went through it was only expected costs would be curtailed wherever possible. Add into the mix a P3 operation where 'extras' are nixed and the line is built to spec only.

The line was built on a contract for projected ridership. Twenty years from now if increases in capacity are warranted, then a new contract would be negotiated. A private company isn't going to spend their money on "what ifs" today, when it can simply negotiate expansion at a future date.

All that being said, the 2-car trains on the CL have more capacity than 2-car mkII trains on Skytrain. They are longer, wider, and have more seats PLUS lots of standing room. Every other Northbound train arriving at Bridgeport will be next to empty (as they come off the YVR spur) helping with the flux of people arriving at Bridgeport by bus.

The line wasn't just built for today, it has room for capacity increases (ie increased number of trains running) for the next decade plus at least.

It definitely has some questionable shortsightedness, but at least its built and almost ready to open. Sure will beat taking the 98B Line.

^ I think most of us would be referring about the bidding stage (not after the fact when SNC-Lavalin was chosen to design, build, and operate), when RAVCO was setting the requirements/standards for what needs to be built (i.e. 15,000 pphpd line). Aside from low balling the capacity, one of the most baffling thing they did was ignore cost savings of having an integrated system with SkyTrain (staff, OMC, vehicles, operational costs, etc.). Bombardier presented them with an integrated SkyTrain bid, to have cost only about $100-million more than SNC-Lavalin's $1.74-billion bid (but actual cost to date is $2.05-billion).

RAVCO completely ignored this cost saving component, in favour of a "fair bidding process". Personally, I think getting the best bang out of the taxpayer's hard worked money is more important than a leveled playing field.

The short sightedness with this project is incredible. I'm definitely excited about the line opening in a few weeks....but if you're going to build it, build it right.

[metroXpress]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

You said it. If there's one thing the skytrain has on all other systems I've used, it's that more frequent, but shorter trains are much more preferable to long but infrequent trains.

I am thinking of long and frequent trains for the route.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by TransitJack

Some stations seem to just fit the 2 cars, where as others have extra room already. I think some stations can accommodate a slight increase in platform length.

The difficulty of expansion post revenue service can be seen at Broadway...such expansion is even more difficult when you're dealing with underground stations...

The max. platform length is 50-metres, some stations are already at that length...but most aren't, for instance the Broadway-CH Station. Those tha aren't have 40-metre platforms.


I've had about a dozen friends talk to me about the Canada Line, and their first question is: "why is it so short???"

[mrjauk]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

You said it. If there's one thing the skytrain has on all other systems I've used, it's that more frequent, but shorter trains are much more preferable to long but infrequent trains.

I absolutely agree. I rode my bicycle from the West End to Home Depot on Terminal Ave. Sunday evening (being environmentally conscious I left my car at home) and in the time it took me to cycle from Home Depot to Quebec street, two sets of trains went by. This was at about 8:30 on a Sunday evening.

For those of you wiseguys out there, it only took me about 4 minutes or so to cycle that distance.

[metroXpress]

Originally Posted by mr.x

The max. platform length is 50-metres, some stations are already at that length...but most aren't, for instance the Broadway-CH Station. Those tha aren't have 40-metre platforms.


I've had about a dozen friends talk to me about the Canada Line, and their first question is: "why is it so short???"

same here...maybe we should have a list of all the platform lengths:



Downtown Vancouver

* Waterfront

50-m

* Vancouver City Centre

??-m

* Yaletown - Roundhouse

??-m

Cambie Street
* Olympic Village

??-m

* Broadway - City Hall

40-m

* King Edward

??-m

* Oakridge - 41st Ave

40-m

* Langara - 49th Ave

??-m

* Marine Drive

??-m

Richmond
* Bridgeport

??-m

* Aberdeen

40-m

* Lansdowne

40-m

* Richmond - Brighouse

40-m

YVR
* Templeton

??-m

* Sea Island Centre

40-m

* YVR - Airport

50-m

================================

Help fill in the blanks~

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Man, it was a joke. If you overbuild everything you'll never get anything built. Or if you do, it will cost so much and be such a white elephant, nobody will let you build anything else. What would have happened if we built the new PMB in the 60s? We'd never have the Alex Fraser, and we'd still be paying it off.

What I'm suggesting is that we build it right, it's far from being "overbuilt". "Overbuilt" would be something like a 100-metre platform.

[TransitJack]

...but if you're going to build it, build it right.[/QUOTE]

I agree. But times, they have a changed. The days of the provincial government parachuting money in and entirely financing such projects are clearly gone. "Efficiency" (or cheap) is the name of the game now.

I'd have to go back a ways to research the actual projections, but if memory serves, the line was criticized heavily in the beginning for being overly optimistic on ridership projections.

SkyTrain may have a lot of warm and fuzzy feelings within Vancouver, but let's face it, the trains are small, the technology is not widespread/popular, and the OMC at Edmonds would never be big enough to hold an entire new line of cars.

SkyTrain's ALRT technology was a creation of an Ontario Crown corporation over 30 years ago, bought by our Provincial government entirely. They have had very few customers world wide since, with Skytrain being the biggest one. It might prove beneficial to have varied technologies in our system.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

You said it. If there's one thing the skytrain has on all other systems I've used, it's that more frequent, but shorter trains are much more preferable to long but infrequent trains.

Nobody is arguing against that, the automation of both systems allows for high frequencies. But, there’s a limit to frequency.

[Metro-One]

I've had about a dozen friends talk to me about the Canada Line, and their first question is: "why is it so short???"

Everything is relative, there is no need for Vancouver to have Hong Kong, New York or Osaka sized trains. Also I am willing to bet that before seeing the trains you have already built up in your friends minds that the C-line stations/trains are short.

[nname]

Originally Posted by deasine

I honestly don't think overcrowding would be a big problem. Yes, we can't expand our platforms by a lot, but it's not like the initial ridership of 98 B-Line + other suburban buses exceed what the Canada Line can handle on opening date.

I remembered somewhere in the RTM document they predict close to 100% capacity in King Edward-Broadway by 2010, and the section between Olympic Village and Oakridge will be well over capacity by 2021. I assume they're using the current train configuration and headways.

[Metro-One]

SkyTrain may have a lot of warm and fuzzy feelings within Vancouver, but let's face it, the trains are small, the technology is not widespread/popular, and the OMC at Edmonds would never be big enough to hold an entire new line of cars.

SkyTrain's ALRT technology was a creation of an Ontario Crown corporation over 30 years ago, bought by our Provincial government entirely. They have had very few customers world wide since, with Skytrain being the biggest one. It might prove beneficial to have varied technologies in our system.

The biggest downside to ALRT is the cost, but personally i really like grade separated automated systems. They have a futuristic feel to them and are very efficient. I feel vancouver is very lucky to have such a system built as its mass transit backbone. Look at the rest of north America, countless cities are having at grade LRTs built as their backbones, to me, that is being very short sighted.

Also what is wrong with having something that is somewhat unique to our city? Skytrain is a true Vancouver trademark, and a good one if you ask me!

[metroXpress]

^ that's why Bangkok took us as a model for ALRT and even name their system, Bangkok SkyTrain

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by TransitJack

...but if you're going to build it, build it right.

I agree. But times, they have a changed. The days of the provincial government parachuting money in and entirely financing such projects are clearly gone. "Efficiency" (or cheap) is the name of the game now.

I'd have to go back a ways to research the actual projections, but if memory serves, the line was criticized heavily in the beginning for being overly optimistic on ridership projections.

SkyTrain may have a lot of warm and fuzzy feelings within Vancouver, but let's face it, the trains are small, the technology is not widespread/popular, and the OMC at Edmonds would never be big enough to hold an entire new line of cars.

SkyTrain's ALRT technology was a creation of an Ontario Crown corporation over 30 years ago, bought by our Provincial government entirely. They have had very few customers world wide since, with Skytrain being the biggest one. It might prove beneficial to have varied technologies in our system.[/QUOTE]

The actual ridership projections were somewhere along the lines of:

New ridership: 30,000
Bus ridership transplants: 40,000
98 B-Line ridership transplants: 30,000
TOTAL: 100,000

Train size/width is entirely up to the operator. The Mark II cars for the Air Train in New York are 3-metres wide. And with regards to our own trains and their small capacity, blame it on the horrid seating configuration that basically wastes space (the Canada Line trains as well).

Perhaps a smaller satellite OMC than what exists at Bridgeport right now would have been built if it were SkyTrain. And with regards to its worldwide popularity, there have been quite a few implementations worldwide over the last few years.