Millennium Line - Evergreen Extension | Completed

[Gordon]

They say they need to get the $450 million of extra funding \yr to have their portion of the funding(172 million).

[GMasterAres]

Closing or even reducing WCE would be ridiculous in my viewpoint. There are constant arguments across the board that there isn't enough transit expansion as it is so to create a new SkyTrain line only to close down part of WCE would be counter productive even with regards to cost savings considerations.

[nname]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Closing or even reducing WCE would be ridiculous in my viewpoint. There are constant arguments across the board that there isn't enough transit expansion as it is so to create a new SkyTrain line only to close down part of WCE would be counter productive even with regards to cost savings considerations.

Well, they can route the first 4 trains to Downtown, and terminate train #5 at Coquitlam station and use it as an hourly shuttle between Coquitlam and Port Haney station (the round trip will take 52min in this stretch) before going back to Mission from Coquitlam station as train #1

[DKaz]

The Evergreen Line will get built, the Federal and Provincial governments will either come up with the funding shortfall or shove it down Translink's throats (or a combination of both). The Liberals will be on their heels trying to win back votes after this whole HST thing, they'll get Evergreen rolling guaranteed.

Originally Posted by nname

Well, they can route the first 4 trains to Downtown, and terminate train #5 at Coquitlam station and use it as an hourly shuttle between Coquitlam and Port Haney station (the round trip will take 52min in this stretch) before going back to Mission from Coquitlam station as train #1

My wife took train #5 to get to work by 9am.

A lot of construction workers use train #1 each way to and from downtown, consistent with their 7-3 or 7-3:30 work hours.

Downtown needs all 5 trips each way... We actually could use more than 5 trips each way.

If we get to the point where WCE is a profit centre subsidizing the rest of the transit system, why mess with it? If anything I could say that the WCE is keeping the NE Sector (Tri Cities, Maple Meadows) overall farebox recovery rate from being in the absolute pits.

[nname]

Originally Posted by DKaz

My wife took train #5 to get to work by 9am.

A lot of construction workers use train #1 each way to and from downtown, consistent with their 7-3 or 7-3:30 work hours.

Downtown needs all 5 trips each way... We actually could use more than 5 trips each way.

If we get to the point where WCE is a profit centre subsidizing the rest of the transit system, why mess with it? If anything I could say that the WCE is keeping the NE Sector (Tri Cities, Maple Meadows) overall farebox recovery rate from being in the absolute pits.

Maybe they should add train #6 to do the shuttle then... or reschedule them so they run every 40 minutes? I think the WCE would be a good opportunity to funnel people from Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge area to the Skytrain, who otherwise would be using public transit.

And regarding to cost recovery, Tri-City actually have a good cost recovery ratio, which last reported to be in the mid-to-high-60s back in 2004. Ridge Meadows, otherwise, is projected to be in the 30s to low 40s in 2008.

[DKaz]

Originally Posted by nname

Maybe they should add train #6 to do the shuttle then... or reschedule them so they run every 40 minutes? I think the WCE would be a good opportunity to funnel people from Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge area to the Skytrain, who otherwise would be using public transit.

We'll see what they manage to negotiate with CP Rail in 2014, but it's a very heavily used corridor for freight and I'd be ecstatic if they got a 6th trip out of the deal. Having an hourly schedule between Tri-Cities and Maple Ridge would involve building a dedicated track which I know is definitely not on Translink's 10 year outlook.

Originally Posted by nname

And regarding to cost recovery, Tri-City actually have a good cost recovery ratio, which last reported to be in the mid-to-high-60s back in 2004. Ridge Meadows, otherwise, is projected to be in the 30s to low 40s in 2008.

The bus loop at Coquitlam and Port Moody is extremely well used during rush hour with buses and community shuttles leaving full, particularily the ones connecting with WCE. I'm not surprised. Evergreen Line will only boost this. Yes Coquitlam might be sprawling up the mountain but Translink is doing something right in Coquitlam - bringing more buses closer to where people live, making it so convenient that people actually want to take transit.

[cornholio]

BCPhill, you make interesting points and having the line go down Guildford would be good since it go straight to Poco with no branching. It might even be cheaper since there would be hardly any land acquisitions required since the ROW is already in place.

The problems I see though is the schools next to Landsdown(even though I agree its bs, but in the end a station there doesnt have to be a priority as you can have good bus conections to Ioco and Douglas). Also you make a convincing point about the Smith/Clark station but imo I think with the redevelopment of the Burquitlam plaza and the likely significant increase in 143 ridership im not so sure its needed to move the station. Keep in mind that there are allot of people living north of there also and you would be moving the station further away from them.

Anyways it should be looked at atleast and properly studied.

By the way used to live on Cottonwood in those yellow apartment buildings about 16 years ago(the area hasnt changed much since), I also went to Douglas college out there after it was built for some courses, and lived at Austin and North Road area about 10 years ago and spent many years up on Forest grove(Burnaby mountain) so I have a little bit of familiarity of the area...Plus I work in the Kingsway, Coast Meridian area right now.

I also agree with the Poco placement of your station, that area is set for massive redevelopment and its next to the WCE, plus the industrial lands would attract lots of ridership...including me on days when I have time and want to relax.

[metroXpress]

this pic from Vancouver Sun has a lot more stations:

I am assuming that it's from the early planning stage?



Notice the Evergreen Line logo....they didn't include Canada Line!!

[Jared]

Originally Posted by Allen

this pic from Vancouver Sun has a lot more stations:

I am assuming that it's from the early planning stage?



Notice the Evergreen Line logo....they didn't include Canada Line!!

That's the LRT-era plan.

[officedweller]

Care to purchase the Beacon Hill (Seattle) TBM? US$300,000

http://www.tbmexchange.com/pages.php?page=617

[DKaz]

6.44m? Did they try to squeeze bidirectional LRT service into one tunnel? Seems like it'll be a squeeze. Two MKIIs = 5.2m, leaving about less than 1.2m of access. They could also stack the tracks as well.

When I think of the Evergreen Line Clarke Hill tunnel, I think about how can they make sure that the train fire that killed over 150 in that Austrian tunnel doesn't do the same thing here.

[mr.x]

^ i believe the Clarke Hill tunnel is now shorter at 2-kms, originally at 3-kms.

[nname]

Originally Posted by DKaz

6.44m? Did they try to squeeze bidirectional LRT service into one tunnel? Seems like it'll be a squeeze. Two MKIIs = 5.2m, leaving about less than 1.2m of access. They could also stack the tracks as well.

The height of the train is about 4m (I suppose this is the same for SkyTrain too)... plus about 1.5-2m needed for the overhead wire (this is why it is more expensive to put LRT underground than third rail metro).. and a bit more for the rail, 6.44m seems about right.

[SFUVancouver]

Look at how tight the University Link bored tunnel cross section is:


Source [page5]

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Care to purchase the Beacon Hill (Seattle) TBM? US$300,000

http://www.tbmexchange.com/pages.php?page=617

The Seattle LRT has had to use this machine to go through the city's steep hills.

For that price, it's not such a bad deal!! Why not go for it?

[GeeCee]

We still have the C-Line TVMs, don't we?

[osirisboy]

oh no those are long gone

[Jared]

Originally Posted by GeeCee

We still have the C-Line TVMs, don't we?

1) There was only one, they ran it through twice

2) "We" never owned it. I believe it was owned by SELI, an Italian company which was subcontracted by InTransit BC to bore the tunnel.

Just for the record, to avoid confusion: TVM = Ticket Vending Machine. You're thinking of a TBM.

---------------------

DKaz:

WRT bore diameter, trains actually require larger tunnels than you'd think. Remember, all those concrete precast pannels they've added around the edge of the tunnel come from the space that has been dug out. Next, you need to fill up the bottom of the tunnel, to get a flat surface on which to lay your tracks. The overhead power supply also means you need more room, not just for the pantograph, but also to run the overhead catenary wires.

Unless your tunnel is straight as an arrow (unlikely), they you need to look at how your train envelope changes as the train turns. Simply because the tracks have a nice curve doesn't mean your train will curve, it will overhang into the inner radius of the turn, so you need clearance for this. Similarly, if you superelevate any of your tracks, the entire train will tilt, and you have to make sure the top corner in the direction of tilt won't start hitting the tunnel wall.

You also need space for a service/emergency walkway, and of course you want some buffer zone between train and the nearest points of contact.

[GeeCee]

Oops, yeah, TBM not TVM. Losing it..

[mr.x]

^ would be interesting to see a TVM attempt to bore a tunnel!