Millennium Line - Evergreen Extension | Completed

[metroXpress]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

Best one yet! I would only add one small addition:

It only gets better:

[Mac Write]

Once UBC line is up and running, it would make sense to do it "Canada Line Style" and have:
UBC > Douglas
UBC > Columbia

and maybe even
Waterfront > Gilford
Waterfront > Lougheed

Then
Lougheed > Douglas
Columbia > King George

would be the less frequence service routs (3-4 minute service). Would that work out, or, would it be not enough frequency?

If only we could add a switch on the bridge (replace both appraches from Columbia) and add a Sappertone > Scott Road direct link. Then the routes would look like this.

Waterfront > King George
Waterfront > Lougheed
UBC > Douglas
UBC > King George

and maybe even a
King George > Douglas
Waterfront > Douglas
both using the third track for going out to Douglas preventing any timing problems.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by Zassk

That has already been discussed in this thread. Due to timing difficulties, it isn't feasible to try to run Millennium trains interlined with both Expo and Evergreen. It will have to be interlined with one or the other, not both. Most likely that means stopping the Millennium trains at Columbia.

I'm guessing the interlining problem has to do with trying to match the M-line trains with the Evergreen line trains and the Expo Line trains on their respective tracks. Of course we would never get a perfect interlining of a perfect timing between trains. But in someway I do believe it would work.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by Mac Write

If only we could add a switch on the bridge (replace both appraches from Columbia) and add a Sappertone > Scott Road direct link. Then the routes would look like this.

If Lougheed was built with a North/South orientation, this would make a whole world of sense. There's no reason the train has to go through Columbia.

I happened to stay overnight in Surrey last night. I took the train from King George at 7am. A Mark I train filled up and had standees at King George station.

At 7:10am 40 people exited the train to transfer at Columbia to the M-Line. I counted them.

Also, I noticed that there were quite a few people who waited at King George for the next train so they could have a seat not facing sideways. Either that or they just dont like MkIs. There were at least 3 people in front of each door and the train's side seats weren't full yet.

[Zassk]

It seems that the network designers did not anticipate so much traffic would travel onto Millennium from Columbia. I don't know what we can do about it now. Both Columbia and Lougheed are improperly designed to accommodate this traffic. I think these commuters are going to be forced to do more transfers after Evergreen opens. Some of them may choose to transfer through Broadway/Commercial after that.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Zassk

It seems that the network designers did not anticipate so much traffic would travel onto Millennium from Columbia. I don't know what we can do about it now. Both Columbia and Lougheed are improperly designed to accommodate this traffic. I think these commuters are going to be forced to do more transfers after Evergreen opens. Some of them may choose to transfer through Broadway/Commercial after that.

The Columbia area should be upgraded to allow for trains leaving KG going to Waterfront and VCC (future UBC) directly. Would this cause too many problems for Skytrain's automated system?

[lightrail]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

The Columbia area should be upgraded to allow for trains leaving KG going to Waterfront and VCC (future UBC) directly. Would this cause too many problems for Skytrain's automated system?

No but it goes against good design for rapid transit.

The most efficient rapid transit (that is the means to provided the highest capcity for every kilometre of track) is a single line with no branches. This maximises the train paths per hours along every km of track. London underground pushes 40 trains an hour on these single lines.

With a branch, you introduce the need for points (switches) so trains can take either branch. Being mechanical, they're subject to failure and when they fail, shut down trains on both branches or any interconnected branch - a cascade effect of delays. If the junction is flat, then you have the added problem of trains crossing the path of other trains; flying junctions are better, but still have the points issue

More branches or route choices equals more points movements an hour and less trains per hour that can be accommodated. For example, if using branches, the common segment capacity dictates the capacity on the branch. With two branches, the branch capacity is half that of the common segment; with three it is a third of the capacity. So with branches, you are not maximising the use of the branch lines - a wasteful use of expensive infrastructure.

Canada Line would be more efficient if one of the two branches operated as a shuttle on a segregated track. This way, 90 second headway could be maintained along every km of line on the system; whereas today, the branches would be limited to 3 minute headway with a 90 second headway on the common segment between Bridgeport and Waterfront. You would alo eliminate the need to operate two switches at Bridgeport - at the above headway, that means a switch change every 45 seconds (each switch moves every 90 seconds).

[BCPhil]

Yeah.

Not only would trains cross tracks of other lines. They need to reverse against the flow of incoming trains.

The Best solution would be to add a platform above or bellow the current Columbia station and offer the Shuttle and have all trains on the trunk line be Expo line. Then switches would only be used to transfer stock between the lines and wouldn't be used for regular travel. The transfer wouldn't be bad if all you had to do was walk up or down only 1 flight of stairs and be right at your next train.

It would also work if Columbia was a 2 island, 3 track station, with the M-Line on the single center track and Expo Line on the 2 outer tracks, then travelers could exit a train and walk onto the M-Line train waiting on the center track, with no stairs.

An interesting idea might be to build a Lower Columbia and reroute the M-Line "tunnel" into it. This could be extended in the future and head to the Northwest a short distance into New West to the Royal City Center. Then you could have trains from Royal City Center -> Columbia -> Lougheed. I think it would be great to get Skytrain up to Royal City Center. But it would be next to impossible to accomplish, unless we really set our minds to it.

But I think closing Columbia to rebuild it would be a small price to pay improve regional travel and transfers. Just move the transfer point to New West station in the meantime.

[Zassk]

It seems like most of us are in agreement that the Millennium will no longer share track with Expo after Evergreen is built. Has Translink ever spoken on the issue?

[deasine]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

It would also work if Columbia was a 2 island, 3 track station, with the M-Line on the single center track and Expo Line on the 2 outer tracks, then travelers could exit a train and walk onto the M-Line train waiting on the center track, with no stairs.

I've been saying that for all the time but realistically, it's not possible to do that. You need to close off the SkyTrain for a long period of time and restructure the tunnels since you are moving tracks/adding new ones.

Working on your two level platform idea, I did a quick sketch on preview. I don't think you have to close the station with this configuration.



Platform 1 for Waterfront and Platform 2 for King George continue to remain at the same location. Platform 3 for trains to VCC-Clark is built directly on the street level of Clarkson St. Of course, this means that Fourth Street and Blackwood Street must be closed off between Columbia St. and Carnarvon St. but that's not a big problem since access to parking for those properties are still maintained, but accessing to those driveways are more restricted. The new Platform 3 addition would connect with the existing Fourth Street exit at Columbia Stn.

With a little bit of work, the existing Fourth Street entrance can be opened up to directly connect with the Columbia Street exit, thus widening the platform and improving circulation. A new elevator would be placed at both platforms to access to Fourth Street. Going up the stairs of Fourth Street, you will be at the new addition of Columbia. Walking left takes you to the fare gates for the exit at Carnarvon, and walking right takes you to the fare gates for the second Columbia St. exit. Walking straight ahead will take you to Platform 3, where passengers board for trains to VCC-Clark. Trains come from the Eastbound tracks before Columbia, switches over a new switch to the current Westbound tracks, then switches over to a new set of single-tracks to Platform 3. Once trains disembark and board, the train switches direction going back onto the single tracks, then switching over to the Westbound tracks back into the tunnel, heading for VCC-Clark. Since some property acquisition needs to occur to make the single-track possible, extra room can be made for storage tracks, meaning trains from VCC-Clark can disembark at Columbia, then head north into the storage tracks (didn't illustrate that in the diagram).

A little complicated description, but it should and can work. It also improves accessibility for passengers from VCC-Clark trains getting off at Columbia, since this new configuration allows them to have access to the street level without using an elevator.

Originally Posted by Zassk

It seems like most of us are in agreement that the Millennium will no longer share track with Expo after Evergreen is built. Has Translink ever spoken on the issue?

Yes, refer back to previous posts (in Metro Vancouver Transit thread and maybe in this one) with plans for service. They sort of favor the shuttle option.

[BCPhil]

Yeah, an new Upper Columbia would work too.. and might actually result in not needing to close Columbia station during construction.

If Upper Columbia were build a bit elevated access to the roads could be preserved for small cars and pedestrians. The stairs would be longer, but it could be directly above the existing platforms.

I think it would be a simple matter to then put outward facing switches on the Millennium line tracks right outside the tunnel and raise the tracks over the existing ones at Clarkson. Then M-Line trains wouldn't touch Expo Line's tracks. They wouldn't cross paths ever. They would run completely segregated and the existing switches could be used for transferring rolling stock.

Something like this:


The yellow lines (crudely drawn) could either be at street level, elevated, or go below the existing tracks. But this kind of configuration would have the least impact during construction (as all the existing tracks remain) and would result in a system where lines don't cross paths, ever.

The station could be double tracked if you think it's possible or worthy to extend this new spur into New Westminster (I think it would be worth it if possible). If the platform was on the inside, then a two escalator system (outside flight to mezzanine, inside flight to center platform) could work and the 4th ave entrance could be the mezzanine.

[officedweller]

Here's the pic posted by nname earlier in the old archived thread showing his proposed location for switches that could access a new Columbia platform to the north (under Clarkson Street)
(as opposed to the TransLink report (quoted below) which proposed a switch where the future Woodlands Station would be built - preventing the construction of a station there).

Building a third track at Columbia in the “back” of the Columbia inbound platform will allow the Lougheed shuttle to avoid sharing the track with the Expo main line trains.
A crossover for the shuttle would be needed outside Columbia station, likely in the vicinity of the unbuilt Woodlands Station (approximately 950 metres from Columbia).

This would also keep both tracks in the tunnel active and shorten the "single track" segment of the route.
An additional switch would lead to the platform siding under Clarkson St.

[twoNeurons]

With a platform under Clarkson with a single track, you'd be basically looking at a convenient transfer for Surrey --> M-Line (cross platform).

M-Line --> Surrey would require an up/down transfer still.

Assuming most of the transfers to M-Line live in Surrey and have an M-Line destination, this would be convenient, as the morning rush is generally more concentrated and time-sensitive anyhow. In other words, people have to be at work on time, but not many have to be at home on time and tend to leave at variable times / do errands before going home / go directly into town...

However, I'm liking the idea of a station above the existing station. If it's single track have the rails in the middle and two platforms ( on either side of the train )

Because the train empties at this stop, this would be a good feature. People alight northside if they're continuing to Downtown and southside if they're going to Surrey.

You'd essentially have as seen from above:

     To Gastown Vancouver ( I wanna see the Expo Line end in Gastown )
   _________| |________________
  |                           |
  |                           |
====(|||||||||)(|||||||||)=========
  |                           |
  |_________   _______________|
            | |
     To Cloverdale ( down Fraser Highway of course :) )

[officedweller]

To reduce the cost of building two platforms, you could have a single platform with a very short tailtrack (like Richmond) with the farside access looping around the tailtrack.

But I do like the idea of two platforms and both sides of the train opening up - and if the track is above the station you'd probably have to build it on bents anyways - so you already have the supports in place for two platforms. But it would probably be visually obtrusive.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

The yellow lines (crudely drawn) could either be at street level, elevated, or go below the existing tracks. But this kind of configuration would have the least impact during construction (as all the existing tracks remain) and would result in a system where lines don't cross paths, ever.

The problem with having two tracks, as shown in your diagram, merging on to one track is a little bit more expensive than having one set of tracks connecting to the Westbound tracks, aside from the fact that there are one more track. The reasons is because Clarkson Street is in the way. Clarkson Street is higher than the SkyTrain tracks, meaning you'll have to take apart the street. But the problem with that is there is a residential development (or building... I'm assuming it's residential) with their parking lane access on Clarkson Street.

Having the tracks on the Westbound side is easy since there is a lot more room to start elevate your tracks. Remember, you can only have the third platform at a certain height. We are constricted of space, meaning we would probably be hitting the maximum gradient (7% I believe) for it to be at Clarkson Street level.

[officedweller]

If you place the switch to the east of the SkyBridge approach, it cuts the cost hugely and you just need the one track under Clarkson St.

The new station platform can also be between Fourth St. and Blackwood (less interference with the condo towers to the north of the station) - with a short connecting passage to the Columbia platforms/mezzanine.

Are the two buildings at Blackwood and Clarkson (the rectangular ones) residential or warehouses? Seems like the south one could be expropiated to provide access to the apartment building during cut and cover of Clarkson.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by officedweller

If you place the switch to the east of the SkyBridge approach, it cuts the cost hugely and you just need the one track under Clarkson St.

The new station platform can also be between Fourth St. and Blackwood (less interference with the condo towers to the north of the station) - with a short connecting passage to the Columbia platforms/mezzanine.

Are the two buildings at Blackwood and Clarkson (the rectangular ones) residential or warehouses? Seems like the south one could be expropiated to provide access to the apartment building during cut and cover of Clarkson.

The ones on the south side between Clarkson & Columbia are Commercial units from what I know. Now that StreetView is available, it makes imagining these things so much easier. But you have to see the tunnel for the SkyTrain currently going into Columbia Stn isn't straight (aligned with the roads), because it cuts underneath Clarkson St, so if you are to build a third platform, it can't be level with the current Columbia Stn. Unless, I'm mistaken what you've said.

A switch will make the short turning process a little easier, but it doesn't solve the transfer issue.

[officedweller]

I used BCPhil's pic (because I don't know how to capture a pic rom Google)and added where I thought a single track platform could be located to the east of Columbia Station (it can angle off a bit depending on where the existing traks and platform are located).
The buildings I was wondering about are to the north of Clarkson - on Google streetview they all look residential.
I put the platform to the north of the guideway so that the guideway east of the platform doesn't come as close to the condo building to the north. Since the exit from the platform is at the west end, it doesn't matter whether the platform is north or south of the guideway, although if the platform is on the south, it could become an extension of the existing westbound Columbia platform and apassengers could use the existing stairs to transfer to the eastbound platform (which may be a better idea). EDIT: See below.

An underground passage could connect directly to the westbound Expo Line platform and via the mezzanine for the Eastbound Expo Line platform.



This shows existing platforms with extension of westbound platform (you could even stop the Expo Line trains farther east on the platform if the Expo Line track is level and at the same elevation at that location):

[BCPhil]

To capture an image from google maps what I do is set the map up in the browser then push print screen to capture the entire screen. Then I go into Paint.net (because I'm cheap) and paste the image. Then crop it down to what I want so you can't see my windows 7 task bar. Paint.net has a neat function where it's really easy to crop the image, just draw a box around what you want and push the crop button.

It looks like from all our ideas that it is pretty hard not to have a situation where you need to take stairs. It would be nice if it could be done so you could take only one flight up or down (upper/lower stations like in Toronto and Montreal are always nice). But I think from an ease of doing standpoint, Translinks idea might be best, and just place the tracks next to one of the existing platforms. Then the station configuration would be very similar to what Lougheed will be like, with some transfers being cross platform, others, up and down stairs.

But I think we can all agree it should be done so that the M-Line and Expo Line don't share any track. Having shuttles reverse direction against incoming Expo line trains would be difficult with the frequency of the Expo line. Also, it would probably mean an infrequent shuttle, which I would also like to avoid. If there is going to be a shuttle, it should have close to the same frequency as the Evergreen line.

[SpongeG]

so complicated - are you guys this lazy?

like any other city u just transfer - we want to be "world" class well world class you transfer

lol

anyway evergreen story on the news tonight - people are not happy