Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[Waders]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

How do you test someone's skills operating an automated driver-less SkyTrain?

Hm, good question. I didn't think about that.
How about testing operators their skill and time required to switch train driving mode between auto and manual?

[racc]

Originally Posted by Waders

Hm, good question. I didn't think about that.
How about testing operators their skill and time required to switch train driving mode between auto and manual?

At the risk of combining the current two threads, maybe the rodeo is a test to see who can figure out the wayfinding fastest.

[jlousa]

Meant to mention this a few days ago but I've been busy and forgot. Translink has issued a RFP for the replacement of the sidewalks and railings of the Pattullo bridge. Couple of things interesting about that, guess they plan on the bridge being in use for quite a bit longer then earlier predicted, otherwise why spend any money on it, unless the thing can't survive even short time without the upgrades. The other interesting thing is that although the RFP was released by Translink it's obviously written by the MOT and it's quite obvious as their RFPs are completely different formats. It's even obvious that they did a simple find/replace trough out the document as their are numerous of references to "the Translink" made for an amusing read. Not sure what any of this means at this point, just thought it was worth noting.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Meant to mention this a few days ago but I've been busy and forgot. Translink has issued a RFP for the replacement of the sidewalks and railings of the Pattullo bridge. Couple of things interesting about that, guess they plan on the bridge being in use for quite a bit longer then earlier predicted, otherwise why spend any money on it, unless the thing can't survive even short time without the upgrades. The other interesting thing is that although the RFP was released by Translink it's obviously written by the MOT and it's quite obvious as their RFPs are completely different formats. It's even obvious that they did a simple find/replace trough out the document as their are numerous of references to "the Translink" made for an amusing read. Not sure what any of this means at this point, just thought it was worth noting.

the (MOT) dog is wagging its (Translink) tail?

[Waders]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

the (MOT) dog is wagging its (Translink) tail?

Well, my opinion is even though Bond shies away from major TransLink reforms(at least on paper), but in reality MOT has now exercise more influence and control over Translink.
The Peace Arch News article (http://www.bclocalnews.com/surrey_area/peacearchnews/news/92468004.html) mentions some of the change MOT may make in future.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

I stumbled across a blog a few years ago, where the author was sharing stories about living in NYC with a young family.

He was always amused by how his boys were fascinated by the big & noisy subway, and would always come up with an excuse to use it whenever possible. One day while waiting with his boys for their train, a confused traveler asked him how to get to Lex/62nd. While he was thinking of routes & transfers he'd rarely used, the six year old piped up "Oh thats easy! Just take any train heading uptown and get out at Times Square. Walk over to the IND station on 7th and catch an N or an R or an W that goes to Astoria Ditmars. Get out at 59th and Lex"

Before he could agree with these instructions, the younger brother piped up "you silly dilly! the W doesn't run on Saturday and the R goes to Forest Hills not Astoria. GEEEEZ" (as only a younger brother can do when he knows he's PWNed his older brother)

He reassured the confused traveler they were correct - Uptown to Times Square; transfer to N Astoria or R Forest Hills; exit at Lex/59th station.

This is what I'm referring to. Because your friend's son's wanted to explore the NY system. They learned it by exploring it. That is what people need to do here. To many people are not willing to explore. This even goes for driving.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

True Life:

Waiting at Burrard to go home, I was approached by a gaggle of Olympic Visitors. "Where is the platform for the Yellow trains? We've been waiting here for over half an hour, and the only trains that have shown up are the Blue Trains and White Trains. Now We're Late getting to Olympic Hockey Palace.

I'm curious if those people are from a city with a metro line. Because I've never heard of the colour of the train matching the colour of the line. Unless someone knows of such a system

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

Most people have no idea where -physically or geographically- something is. They just know they have to get to "Lougheed" somehow. and then back home. how the skytrain gets there is *magic* because there isn't a driver.

east ? north ? too confusing.
Inbound ? outbound ? Eyes glaze over.
Expo line ? Millennium line ? B-Line ? Head starts to hurt.
Platform 3 ? now you're speaking klingon.

Your referring to what is known as spatial orientation. The problem for the people who have poor spatial orientation is when they learn a route. Whether they are taking transit or driving. They know that route and only that route. If you ask them to take a detour. They get completely lost. I've known people who are like this. Some are worse that others in the lack of this ability.

[The_Henry_Man]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

or you can just read the LED sign at the middle of the platform that indicates what train this is ...

I think Translink should replace all the current LED signs on the E/M-Line platforms and replace them with the C-Line Mitron ones. Mitron LED signs are awesome, easy to see, clear, and the "time to depart" information allows passengers to decide whether they need to run towards the trains in a hurry or not. On the other hand....

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by Waders

Hm, good question. I didn't think about that.
How about testing operators their skill and time required to switch train driving mode between auto and manual?

I've been on the Skytrain between VCC and Commercial, and Commercial and Renfrew a few times while they were actually testing the performance of new recruits. Sometimes the trains do need to be run manually so they test the staffs ability to maintain a proper speed and read the signs, as that section has a lot of straightaways and small curves to watch out for.

I asked how they judge, and they say they compare their station to station time to that of the computer (as long as the staff member didn't break any rules, like speed limits or else they are disqualified).

He said no one he knows has ever beat the computer's time between any 2 stations. And he said end to end a manual operator would easily take over 25% longer than the computer.

But I would say given how slow the staff I've seen go and how long they wait at stations, if the system were manual, it could easily take 50% longer to go from King George to Waterfront than it does now.

[Mac Write]

How many Mark II's would replace the Mark I's? I was going to say 100 (based on 25 6-car Mark I trains), but that would only give us 25 trains, and we need 37.5 trains to maintain the current Mark I fleet based on 4-car trains.

[Canadian Mind]

Basically a MK. II can take between 1.5 and 1.75 times as many people per car as a MK. I. So for every 3 scrapped MK. I they'd replace them with 2 MK. IIs.

[Mac Write]

That would be 100 Mark II's or 25 4-car trains. That would only give us a total of 54 4-car trains or 208 Mark II cars. Would that be enough to maintain 90s headways during rush hour, and what would the timeline be for the new cars (and would we get are bonus 24 cars)?

[TransitJack]

That would be really weird to not see any MK I's around... I guess this funding issue at least will keep them around a while longer.

Also, by the book, a manually train will always be slower than an automatic train as they are limited to a restricted speed when operating in manual. Also, I believe all the lines are prevented from operating completely in manual due to the nature of an automatic line. They are only permitted to operate in manual for emergency situations and the related training/qualification associated with such operations.

[jsbertram]

If a decision to rebuild/refurbish the Mk I cars is made, why not consider buying the two dozen or so Mk I cars that are being orphaned by TTC Scarborough and run them through a mid-life rebuild/refurbish too? I'm sure they could be had for $1 each plus cost of shipping to the Bombardier plant doing the work.

A decision has almost been made to extend the Scarborough RT line to either Markham Road or the Malvern Town Centre, and the existing RT route will be rebuilt to become a Transit City route using the the new Bombardier trains.

If a decision to rebuild/refurbish the Mk I cars is made, maybe these Scarborough cars can be done first so the Vancouver fleet isn't compromised. Then after they are added to the fleet & proven to be reliable (ie: the rebuild/refurbish didn't turn out to be a slapdash quickNdirty fix - making the MK Is worse than they are today) then the Vancouver Mk Is can be sent to rehab. (insert Amy Winehouse 'no No NO' jokes here)

A complication to this scenario is that Scarborough may not orphan their MK Is as soon enough, because the Ont Govt has recently slashed spending on the Transit City projects. Some already started will have their construction time stretched, some not yet started (like Scarborough) will be delayed.

Then there's the extra twist of their 2015 Pan Am Games. If a transit project can't be finished before 2015, or isn't needed for the Pan Am Games, it will be delayed until after 2015 (and you know that should read 'canceled' because of the elections in the next six years that will bring in new civic, prov and fed governments with different priorities)

[TransitJack]

Trouble is, do we really want more 25+ year old cars added to our fleet, that would require a fair bit of modifications included in any retrofit (removing driver cab)?

Unless they gave them to us (because they really would only have scrap value at this point -- as there are so few systems in the world that could use them), I think it would be more productive to just purchase new MkII's. I can't see Translink buying old cars for nostalgia's sake.

The talk of reconstructing the RT line in Scarborough in favour of a LRT always seems weird to me... I mean the technology has been so successful here in Vancouver, yet seems to be shamed out of every other city worldwide (even a city who has it already - Scarborough).

[jsbertram]

I think the situation started back in the early 70s when Ont Premier Davis cancelled the controversial Spadina Expressway and decided that mass transit was better than freeways. However building more of the TTC subways was quite expensive and had higher capacity than what was needed on most of the new routes. They also knew that buses and streetcars weren't capable of growing to meet the capacity needs of the new routes, so something in-between was needed - an "Intermediate Capacity Transit System" that would fit between buses/streetcars and heavy subways.

After years of studies and proposals, it was decided that an urban-format maglev from Germany would be used for the new ICTS routes. Then the German Govt cut the subsidies to the company making the urban-format maglev, so a "Plan B" was needed quickly. The government crown corporation "Ontario Transit Development Corporation" (OTDC) formed a consortium to build the system called for in the ICTS specs, and a factory was built in Kingston.

With the prototype cars finished in 1980, a showcase & testbed was needed so it could be sold to other transit systems the needed a mass transit system that wasn't as expensive as a fully developed subway. TTC had just started building a new streetcar route from Kennedy station to Scarborough, so the Ont Govt ordered TTC to build the route as ICTS instead (the Ont Govt was paying 80% of whatever was built), and the Scarborough RT was opened in the spring of 1985.

During this time OTDC was renamed UTDC and the Ont Govt later sold the crown corporation to Lavalin. When they went bankrupt UTDC ended up back in Ont Govt hands, who then re-sold it to Bombardier. The engineering side of Lavalin ended up being bought by SNC to form SNC-Lavalin.

None of the other ICTS routes in Toronto were built, and the Scarborough RT remained as the oddball system when the rest of the TTC rails were all running Subway and Streetcar. It seems that even ICTS had higher capacity than what was needed for Scarborough, so replacing it with Bombardiers new LRT as part of the Transit City proposals may be the right choice.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by TransitJack

Trouble is, do we really want more 25+ year old cars added to our fleet, that would require a fair bit of modifications included in any retrofit (removing driver cab)?

Unless they gave them to us (because they really would only have scrap value at this point -- as there are so few systems in the world that could use them), I think it would be more productive to just purchase new MkII's. I can't see Translink buying old cars for nostalgia's sake.

The talk of reconstructing the RT line in Scarborough in favour of a LRT always seems weird to me... I mean the technology has been so successful here in Vancouver, yet seems to be shamed out of every other city worldwide (even a city who has it already - Scarborough).

I look on this as: would you spend $1500 on an old car with no rust and 20KMs and another $1000 making it your daily rider, or $50,000 on a brand new vehicle that's already lost 1/3 of its value as soon as it hits the street.

As much as I like shiney new things, I've got better plans for the $47,000 not spent on a new car. In ten years the fixed up car may be a beater, but by then I'll be looking for another no-rust low-miles daily rider.

If we can rebuild/refurbish the Mk Is at 1/2 or 1/3 the cost of new Mk IIs, why wouldn't you? I can live with freshly scrubbed 'old Mk I' cars if it means the next major purchase of Mk II cars can be delayed by 15-20 years. The Scarborough cars have been lightly used because their ridership has only reached around 40K passengers per day, so they may actually be in better shape than Vancouvers Mk Is

Perhaps use that as a sweetener for the UBC Skytrain line - whatever we can save by rehabbing the old Mk I cars can be used to lower the cost of building the UBC line. Even a few % in budget savings when spending billions can make a difference when making 'go no-go' decisions.

[Vonny]

Originally Posted by TransitJack

Trouble is, do we really want more 25+ year old cars added to our fleet, that would require a fair bit of modifications included in any retrofit (removing driver cab)?

Unless they gave them to us (because they really would only have scrap value at this point -- as there are so few systems in the world that could use them), I think it would be more productive to just purchase new MkII's. I can't see Translink buying old cars for nostalgia's sake.

The talk of reconstructing the RT line in Scarborough in favour of a LRT always seems weird to me... I mean the technology has been so successful here in Vancouver, yet seems to be shamed out of every other city worldwide (even a city who has it already - Scarborough).

there are 2 points in yours post:

-purchase the Scarborough RT to refurbish it:
it is probably a good idea: they are at mid life, and Translink is screaming for adding capacity. sure Mk1 have less capacity than MkII, but probably they could come at a fractional cost...so people have to compare cost of added added capacity by reburbished MKI vs brand new MKII.


Second point is why Toronto want get rid of its SRT

First:
SRT is popular and it is at capacity, but they can't expand the fleet because the SRT track profile can't accommodate MkII.

Secondly:
It snows a bit more in TO than in Vancouver, and the SRT is pretty sensible to the snow so the technology is less reliable in Toronto than in Vancouver

Thirdly
People in Scarborough are essentially frustrated by the transfer at Kennedy to the Bloor subway: that is the main drawback of the SRT...

A more classical LRT will not suppress the last point and for long time it was plan to expand the Bloor subway to Scarborough, but political animals don't try to resolve a problem, just to replace an existing one with a new one (that is the Darwinism theory justifying the survival of the specy).

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by Mac Write

That would be 100 Mark II's or 25 4-car trains. That would only give us a total of 54 4-car trains or 208 Mark II cars. Would that be enough to maintain 90s headways during rush hour, and what would the timeline be for the new cars (and would we get are bonus 24 cars)?

We don't need 90s headways, we just need the equivalent capacity. Anything better than 3 minute headways is just gravy.