Canada Line | Completed

[deasine]

Originally Posted by cornholio

this is why the frequencies are this low and this is why they will remain this low for a very very long time. there is a private company trying to recoup their investment and make a profit(which they will), running trains costs money because of wear and tare and other costs, they will not run trains at night when ridership numbers drop just to make transit nicer for people. this is why p3's are a very bad idea for transit, because we lose control and the operators motives are very different from our.

Initial frequencies were set by TransLink. In fact, if demand warrants it, the frequencies would be raised but at the moment, the B-Lines and 424 Airports aren't busy at all during night time.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by deasine

Initial frequencies were set by TransLink. In fact, if demand warrants it, the frequencies would be raised but at the moment, the B-Lines and 424 Airports aren't busy at all during night time.

yes they were but unless there are set frequencies based on pph ridership figures (which I doubt) then you will be very disappointed. the operator will do the MINIMUM required to increase their profit, that means that the line is built to minimum specifications, minimum capacity, starts of at the minimum frequencies required travel times are the longest they can be, the fare gates were not installed because the operator deemed them not profitable...obviously, especially given the fact that the ridership is not expected to hit 100,000 on opening day so the operator makes the same amount of money no matter how many people dont pay their fare ...and they will continue doing the minimum.

translink no longer has any control of the line, the operator has to adhere to the minimum requirements of the contract that was agreed upon and thats it. and beleive me they will do the minimum and milk every penny they can out of this investment over the next 35 years. p3's are a horrible idea imo for transit and I really doubt that they save any money in the long run(except for obviously for the intial capital investment)

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by deasine

Initial frequencies were set by TransLink. In fact, if demand warrants it, the frequencies would be raised but at the moment, the B-Lines and 424 Airports aren't busy at all during night time.

Wouldn't the contract technically have to be re-written for more late-night service?

I understand there is an INITIAL SERVICE PLAN in the contract, which involves using 16 of the 20 trains. The initial service plan will be used starting opening day:

INTIAL SERVICE PLAN in 2009/2010
Weekday frequency (32 vehicles/16 trains required)

Early Morning
- Waterfront to Bridgeport: 6 minutes
- Bridgeport to YVR: 12 minutes
- Bridgeport to Richmond Centre: 12 minutes

Morning Peak Period
- Waterfront to Bridgeport: 3 mins 45 secs
- Bridgeport to YVR: 7 mins 30 secs
- Bridgeport to Richmond Centre: 7 mins 30 secs

Mid-Day
- Waterfront to Bridgeport: 3 mins 45 secs
- Bridgeport to YVR: 7 mins 30 secs
- Bridgeport to Richmond Centre: 7 mins 30 secs

Afternoon Peak Period
- Waterfront to Bridgeport: 3 mins 45 secs
- Bridgeport to YVR: 7 mins 30 secs
- Bridgeport to Richmond Centre: 7 mins 30 secs

Evening
- Waterfront to Bridgeport: 6 minutes
- Bridgeport to YVR: 12 minutes
- Bridgeport to Richmond Centre: 12 minutes

Late Night
- Waterfront to Bridgeport: 10 minutes
- Bridgeport to YVR: 20 minutes
- Bridgeport to Richmond Centre: 20 minutes




And there's also a SERVICE PLAN in the contract when the line gets busier, which will only increase peak-hour and mid-day frequencies marginally by using 2 additional trains by having 18 of the 20 trains online at a time. There's no improvement to late-night frequencies whatsoever:

SERVICE PLAN
(36 vehicles/18 trains required)

Early Morning
- Waterfront to Bridgeport: 6 minutes
- Bridgeport to YVR: 12 minutes
- Bridgeport to Richmond Centre: 12 minutes

Morning Peak Period
- Waterfront to Bridgeport: 3 minutes 10 secs
- Bridgeport to YVR: 6 minutes 20 secs
- Bridgeport to Richmond Centre: 6 minutes 20 secs

Mid-Day
- Waterfront to Bridgeport: 3 minutes 10 secs
- Bridgeport to YVR: 6 minutes 20 secs
- Bridgeport to Richmond Centre: 6 minutes 20 secs

Afternoon Peak Period
- Waterfront to Bridgeport: 3 minutes 10 secs
- Bridgeport to YVR: 6 minutes 20 secs
- Bridgeport to Richmond Centre: 6 minutes 20 secs

Late Night
- Waterfront to Bridgeport: 10 minutes
- Bridgeport to YVR: 20 minutes
- Bridgeport to Richmond Centre: 20 minutes



And if we want higher frequencies after 18-trains, we'd probably have to arrange for more trains to be purchased. But who's responsible for paying to buy more trains? Who's responsible for paying for the platform extensions?

[deasine]

Originally Posted by cornholio

yes they were but unless there are set frequencies based on pph ridership figures (which I doubt) then you will be very disappointed. the operator will do the MINIMUM required to increase their profit, that means that the line is built to minimum specifications, minimum capacity, starts of at the minimum frequencies required and will continue doing the minimum.

translink no longer has any control of the line, the operator has to adhere to the minimum requirements of the contract that was agreed upon and thats it. and beleive me they will do the minimum and milk every penny they can out of this investment over the next 35 years. p3's are a horrible idea imo for transit and I really doubt that they save any money in the long run(except for obviously for the intial capital investment)

The problem is this is what TransLink set earlier and not ProTransBC. P3 models are risky and so is building the entire thing yourself. With P3s, you must be very careful of the terms you've set in the beginning. Our P3 model for the Canada Line is not exactly the best model I've seen. But there is nothing wrong with P3s for transit. I don't see Transport London having issues with their DLR. Nor do I see Hong Kong MTR having any problems. Technically, with the MTR, it's almost ALL-PRIVATE aside from some help from the gov't when building new infrastructure.

Not to mention, if it wasn't for the P3 model, TransLink will be assuming all the costs of Cambie business owners who would sue back at us. With the P3 model, the private company takes some of that cost away.

There wouldn't be too much of an issue with frequency. If there is demand, ProTransBC will need to add more trains. Remember, they are getting paid depending on customer satisfaction & service.

Oh, add on to my previous remarks earlier, they've literally stuck a sticker on the Fare Paid signs. Nothing wrong with the ones previously, but it wasn't clear enough for TransLink I'm guessing, so, they've stuck Fare Paid Zone signs in red and white over the existing text and a white/black stripe over top so it looks more like the ones used on SkyTrain.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by cornholio

this is why the frequencies are this low and this is why they will remain this low for a very very long time. there is a private company trying to recoup their investment and make a profit(which they will), running trains costs money because of wear and tare and other costs, they will not run trains at night when ridership numbers drop just to make transit nicer for people. this is why p3's are a very bad idea for transit, because we lose control and the operators motives are very different from our.

There's nothing wrong with P3's, but we did have a terrible P3 model for the Canada Line and RAVCO did do a terrible job by lowballing capacity and frequency and the overall design of the line, letting the contractor decide on what platform lengths to use for instance....the private sector would logically only do the bare minimum they are required to do. And if I were also operating the line for such a long period (35-years), I'd also build the bare minimum/small to lower operational costs so my profit margins are higher.

As for the P3 model, as they were the biggest financer of the project ($600-million) they were given a lot of responsibility for the design of the line and how it should have been built. It wouldn't have been a problem if it we were a transit addicted city like Hong Kong, where the private sector would make a killing and would design and build with the future in mind....but this ain't Hong Kong, where the profit margins for a transit line will be marginal.

I would have more than welcomed having a different type of P3 model with the private sector having far less responsibility and say in the design and operational phase. The only good thing that has come out with the current P3 model is that InTransitBC's fare revenues from Translink is dependent on the service reliability of its trains and the quality maintenance and upkeep of trains and stations as well as customer service.....in other words, I'd like to think clean stations and a large [and friendly/helpful] staff presence throughout the line.

[arashi_1987]

Was just playing around with the Trip Planner (date Sept. 7) on the translink website to test a few starting points and starting times to get to Richmond Centre (i.e. Brighouse Station).

Results:

From Lougheed Town Centre to Brighhouse

Option 1 (59 minutes)

4:36pm Depart Lougheed
4:54pm Arrive Commercial
5:00pm Depart Broadway
5:06pm Arrive Granville
5:11pm Depart Vancouver City Centre
5:35pm Arrive Brighouse

**Note the computer suggests transfer at Granville/VanCityCentre instead of Waterfront.

Option 2 (1 hour 6 minutes)

4:32pm Depart Lougheed
4:45pm Arrive 22nd Street
4:56pm Depart 22nd Street (Bus 410)
5:38pm Arrive Richmond Centre

But the trip duration varies.

Option 1 is actually longer from 9:36 to 10:37pm (1h1min) than Option 2 9:32 to 10:22 (50 minutes).

It also gives you some options to go from Lougheed --> Commercial --> 99B to Cambie St. City Hall Station --> Brighouse (about 1h3min)

All the routes seem to take a similar amount of time depending on transfer time variability. With late night frequencies at 20minutes in Richmond, taking the bus doesnt seem to make much difference for people travelling to New West/Burnaby/Coquitlam area.

So, if you were travelling from Burnaby...where would you transfer? Waterfront? Or Granville station as the computer suggested? Or 99B-line it to skip the downtown section?

Anyone else has thoughts on this routing problem? Another choice problem I've been hearing is Richmond to UBC. 480 bus? Canada line to Oakridge then 41/43? Or CanadaLine to Broadway then B-Line?

[SpongeG]

i don't think we need high frequencies at night - its not fun but i've waited for what seems forever on the m line but there is maybe two people waiting on either side and when you get on the train its empty

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by cornholio

yes they were but unless there are set frequencies based on pph ridership figures (which I doubt) then you will be very disappointed. the operator will do the MINIMUM required to increase their profit, that means that the line is built to minimum specifications, minimum capacity, starts of at the minimum frequencies required travel times are the longest they can be, the fare gates were not installed because the operator deemed them not profitable...obviously, especially given the fact that the ridership is not expected to hit 100,000 on opening day so the operator makes the same amount of money no matter how many people dont pay their fare ...and they will continue doing the minimum.

translink no longer has any control of the line, the operator has to adhere to the minimum requirements of the contract that was agreed upon and thats it. and beleive me they will do the minimum and milk every penny they can out of this investment over the next 35 years. p3's are a horrible idea imo for transit and I really doubt that they save any money in the long run(except for obviously for the intial capital investment)

I highly agree with you on the line being built with minimum specifications, capacity, and travel times as long as they can be under contract....however, the fare gates are not InTransitBC's responsibility. All fare collection infrastructure is the responsibility of Translink. The ticket vending machines and ticket validators on the Canada Line are paid by Translink and are operated by Translink. And with regards to fare gates, fare gates are system-wide....on SkyTrain as well....wouldn't make sense to have two different and incompatible fare gates now, would it?

Translink does have some control with the line, mainly with quality control in return for higher payoffs for InTransitBC. But yes, higher frequencies beyond the SERVICE PLAN i posted above will likely mean having to renegotiate the contract.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by deasine

The problem is this is what TransLink set earlier and not ProTransBC. P3 models are risky and so is building the entire thing yourself. With P3s, you must be very careful of the terms you've set in the beginning. Our P3 model for the Canada Line is not exactly the best model I've seen. But there is nothing wrong with P3s for transit. I don't see Transport London having issues with their DLR. Nor do I see Hong Kong MTR having any problems. Technically, with the MTR, it's almost ALL-PRIVATE aside from some help from the gov't when building new infrastructure.

I'd go with building the entire thing ourselves as being a lot less riskier. Afterall, we did build the Expo Line and Millennium Line publicly....and quite successfully.

Not to mention, if it wasn't for the P3 model, TransLink will be assuming all the costs of Cambie business owners who would sue back at us. With the P3 model, the private company takes some of that cost away.

If the Canada Line wasn't a P3, SNC-Lavalin wouldn't be responsible for designing the line. Instead, Translink would be designing the line....and I highly doubt they would have done cut and cover, so no there wouldn't have been any lawsuits from Cambie. It was SNC-Lavalin's call to do cut and cover on Cambie.

There wouldn't be too much of an issue with frequency. If there is demand, ProTransBC will need to add more trains. Remember, they are getting paid depending on customer satisfaction & service.

I think it's customer service (e.g. helpful staff) and station/train maintenance (clean trains and stations) that is what InTransitBC's payoffs will be dependent on, not frequency. Frequency is completely separate from quality, and the train frequencies were finalized in the contract years ago. Increasing frequencies would only mean the contract would have to re-open for renegotiation.

Oh, add on to my previous remarks earlier, they've literally stuck a sticker on the Fare Paid signs. Nothing wrong with the ones previously, but it wasn't clear enough for TransLink I'm guessing, so, they've stuck Fare Paid Zone signs in red and white over the existing text and a white/black stripe over top so it looks more like the ones used on SkyTrain.

Now get Translink to completely revamp the entire signage scheme on the Canada Line. Do you hear me Translink?!!!!

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

i don't think we need high frequencies at night - its not fun but i've waited for what seems forever on the m line but there is maybe two people waiting on either side and when you get on the train its empty

If they lowered it to 7-minutes in Vancouver and 14-15 mins at YVR/Richmond, it would be acceptable in my opinion. But 20-minutes is just ridiculous for people to actually make the Canada Line a feasible transport choice during late night hours.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by mr.x

I'd go with building the entire thing ourselves as being a lot less riskier. Afterall, we did build the Expo Line and Millennium Line publicly....and quite successfully.

If the Canada Line wasn't a P3, SNC-Lavalin wouldn't be responsible for designing the line. Instead, Translink would be designing the line....and I highly doubt they would have done cut and cover, so no there wouldn't have been any lawsuits from Cambie. It was SNC-Lavalin's call to do cut and cover on Cambie.

Well the main issue is if we get sued after and we did so having a P3 model for that is fine. Then again, we deserve to pay part of the portion since it was TransLink/Provincial Gov't that chose SNC-Lavin.

Either way though, if Cut-and-Cover wasn't done, I think we'll have an issue of meeting August 17 as our opening date

Originally Posted by mr.x

I think it's customer service (e.g. helpful staff) and station/train maintenance (clean trains and stations) that is what InTransitBC's payoffs will be dependent on, not frequency. Frequency is completely separate from quality, and the train frequencies were finalized in the contract years ago. Increasing frequencies would only mean the contract would have to re-open for renegotiation.

See that's one thing which is also weird now: if ProTransBC is being paid on customer service, what's this discussion about meeting specific ridership and having to pay the company if we don't meet it? There is some fog with this model that as the public, we don't exactly know about. But I am very sure that increasing frequency wouldn't be a big problem.

On the plus side, even though it takes forever to wait for a Canada Line train to come, at least you know that it's still faster than the B-Line. If TransLink properly synchronizes trains and buses, I really wouldn't have a problem with the wait.

Originally Posted by mr.x

Now get Translink to completely revamp the entire signage scheme on the Canada Line. Do you hear me Translink?!!!!

This is when TransLink responds back to you with their cry for more money to meet Transport 2040 plans.

~~~

Responding to earlier articles about the LINK LRT, one main issue is that the LRT doesn't provide any good bus connections right now. Sound Transit and King County Metro should be feeding their Sounder Express buses into the current terminus of LINK to raise ridership for the LINK. This would provide faster service for the express buses since many of them are stuck in rush hour traffic on the I-5. But then again, it's a little different for Seattle because Seattle has an extensive bus network and they did spend a lot on carpooling, HOV initiatives, and freeway bus stops and exchanges; it's just not as easy as our scenario, where we can just redirect buses to Bridgeport STN.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by deasine

Well the main issue is if we get sued after and we did so having a P3 model for that is fine. Then again, we deserve to pay part of the portion since it was TransLink/Provincial Gov't that chose SNC-Lavin.

Well yes, but getting sued wouldn't be a problem at all if we didn't pick a different route to fund/build/operate the line during square 1.

Either way though, if Cut-and-Cover wasn't done, I think we'll have an issue of meeting August 17 as our opening date

I'm quite sure InTransitBC negotiated the original November 30th opening date knowing they can open it well ahead of schedule. I mean, it would be asinine for them to go with a date they know will be risky.

I would be fine waiting a few more months if it meant a better system, the line isn't going anywhere.

[argon007]

Originally Posted by arashi_1987

So, if you were travelling from Burnaby...where would you transfer? Waterfront? Or Granville station as the computer suggested? Or 99B-line it to skip the downtown section?

if i were traveling from north burnaby, i would like to take skytrain, then 99B-Line
if i were traveling from metrotown or south burnaby, i would like to take skytrain, then 41/43 because there is big congestion in 49 avenue. (or option 2)

Anyone else has thoughts on this routing problem? Another choice problem I've been hearing is Richmond to UBC. 480 bus? Canada line to Oakridge then 41/43? Or CanadaLine to Broadway then B-Line?

i would like to take 480 if i don't rush in school.
if i rush, i would like to take Canada Line to Oakridge then 41/43, or broadway then b-line, or king edward then 25.

but i hope 43 can upgrade to b-line and extend to BCIT or Brentwood station.

advantage for upgrading 43 to b-line:
1. express
2. reduce the load of b-line 99 at broadway
3. BCIT and UBC student can go to school easily

disadvantage:
1. how can Joyce station handle the b-line bus?
2. how can 41 avenue be divided to the busway and carway? if so, there will be congestion.

[nname]

Originally Posted by arashi_1987

Was just playing around with the Trip Planner (date Sept. 7) on the translink website to test a few starting points and starting times to get to Richmond Centre (i.e. Brighouse Station).

I was playing it, and this is what I've found:

From New West to Richmond Centre at around noon..

Option 1 - Take E/M-Line to Downtown then transfer to C-Line to Richmond
Option 2 - Take E/M-Line to 22nd Street, then 100 to Marine Dr, then C-Line to Richmond
Option 3 - Take E/M-Line to Broadway, then 99 to City Hall, then C-Line to Richmond
Option 4 - Take E/M-Line to 22nd Street, then transfer to 410 to Richmond
Option 5 - Take E-Line to Scott Road, 319 south to 84 Ave then 301 to Richmond

Guess what, the first 4 trips take exactly the same amount of time, and the 5th is just 1 minute longer..

[deasine]

Also in other news, the horizontal bars to protect the station facade from collapsing because of bad drivers has been installed at Aberdeen and Lansdowne. Thinking back, the stations are WAY too close to the road, especially Lansdowne when there's so much more room Eastwards.


Photography by Deasine - Taken August 6 2009 - Hosted on Facebook - Creative Commons Protected


Photography by Deasine - Taken August 6 2009 - Hosted on Facebook - Creative Commons Protected


Photography by Deasine - Taken August 6 2009 - Hosted on Facebook - Creative Commons Protected


Photography by Deasine - Taken August 6 2009 - Hosted on Facebook - Creative Commons Protected


Photography by Deasine - Taken August 6 2009 - Hosted on Facebook - Creative Commons Protected

I personally find the overall redesign a welcome improvement, but it could be done way better. I feel Richmond isn't spending the money they spent on the redesign as properly as they should've done. It's great to see so much greenery and landscape, but what's the point in doing so if the urban structure isn't designed around the road. We have small strip malls with their own separate parking entering and exiting No. 3 Rd. I understand that it's not possible to just get rid of all of them all at once, but at the same time, I don't think so much greenery is needed when there isn't that much people walking around that portion of No. 3 Rd. anyway. Steven Rees commented on the bike lanes issue and I have to echo what he said about it. Richmond and Vancouver took the idea of raised bike lanes differently. Vancouver saw it as an extension of a sidewalk (Carrall St.) vs Richmond seeing it as part of the road. I really think the extension of the sidewalk will work better as it's much more friendly to average-joe bikers. I was also commenting on how bus stops aren't actual bus islands so that buses don't have to merge onto the bike lane as the bike lane is to the right of the bus stop. Considering there's so much room and so much more potential to do something else, I am slightly disappointed. I'm also quite concerned about the widths of No. 3 Rd. With the bike lanes and centre median, all the lanes are reduced to the maximum and I'm worried that many "Richmond Drivers" won't be able to handle No. 3 as properly as they should be. Lastly, I hope they are resurfacing No. 3 as there are bumps EVERYWHERE.

[argon007]

Originally Posted by nname

Option 5 - Take E-Line to Scott Road, 319 south to 84 Ave then 301 to Richmond

it feels strange... because you have to go to delta and transfer... new westminster to delta to richmond??? i don't believe some idiots do that.

[arashi_1987]

Originally Posted by nname

I was playing it, and this is what I've found:

From New West to Richmond Centre at around noon..

Option 1 - Take E/M-Line to Downtown then transfer to C-Line to Richmond
Option 2 - Take E/M-Line to 22nd Street, then 100 to Marine Dr, then C-Line to Richmond
Option 3 - Take E/M-Line to Broadway, then 99 to City Hall, then C-Line to Richmond
Option 4 - Take E/M-Line to 22nd Street, then transfer to 410 to Richmond
Option 5 - Take E-Line to Scott Road, 319 south to 84 Ave then 301 to Richmond

Guess what, the first 4 trips take exactly the same amount of time, and the 5th is just 1 minute longer..

Actually the 4th option would be best for people who only hold a 1-zone bus pass travelling before 6:30pm (Richmond and Burnaby are the same zone!!).

Yeah but otherwise, personally I think I would do the Millennium Line to Commercial, 99B then down from City Hall to Richmond....it seems this would be the fastest way in terms of transfer wait times.

[Gordon]

Daily ridership on skytrain is 33,157

[DKaz]

Originally Posted by Gordon

Daily ridership on skytrain is 33,157

Wow did you guys build a time machine to 22 years ago? Where the heck did you pull that number from? Daily ridership on skytrain is over 260,000.

[twoNeurons]

Would've been cool if Rotem had used these stanchions:


This is the stanchion used on their Urban Mag-Lev