Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[CLC]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

I'm not sure you read the entire article, because it says pretty clearly that "the Government has no plans to reduce the number of tram stops by 25 per cent. As part of its submission process, Infrastructure Australia requires that states demonstrate how they have considered multiple options in planning for and investing in new infrastructure projects."

The "spokesman" always has to be careful. Melbourne tram has been under serious pressure to improve performance (reliability and travel speed are two major concerns), that's probably why the department officials admitted to the press that 25 percents of tram stops can potentially be removed.

[CLC]

Originally Posted by golog

Trams are fine, but they're directly comparable and in competition with our busses. The ability to travel at-grade and grade-separated is not an advantage since the speed and headways are affected by pedestrian/bike/car traffic along and across the routes. To compensate, there would need to be a station storing a bunch of extra trains at the transition point to keep everything flowing. This whole design also eliminates the savings of automated trains. Grade-separated and at-grade don't mix, at least within the context where the is any advantage to grade-separated.

A good transit system is built in response to demands as well planning to shape future demands. Busses are great in terms of flexibility allowing early testing to begin and then expanding all the way up to a b-line service, where if the transit supply is saturated the large investment in grade-separated transit can be made with confidence in prospective returns. Streetcars are better for mature routes, that will not be outgrown by demand, may have routes not well suited to roads, and where frequent stops with visibility is an asset -- like a kits beach/granville island/science world/gastown route that follows the waterfront. (assuming streetcars have lower operating costs than busses)

Streetcar/tram can work okay (or even do wonder) for some selected route, though a thorough study should be made. But a network of trams to blanket the city (like Prof PC proposed) to replace all major bus routes is wastefully expensive and at best brings similar level of service as buses network (at worst everything is slower, as other cities' example revealed that tram network cannot eliminate the needs of bus on many corridors, so now have tram, buses, and all other vehicles all tied up on the same busy road surface)

You are right "Busses are great in terms of flexibility", that include the ease to re-schedule even on monthly/weekly basis, like the way Translink has played with #49 route during the past 13 months. As with trams, if something goes wrong (e.g. demand overflown, failed to make timely performance), it is usually hard to fix or re-schedule, Melbourne Yarra trams and Hongkong MTR light rail (which is as slow as tram in many portions) are prime examples.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

i was reading an article about it from a students perspective and how he has to live far away and misses busses etc.

anyway if UBC cares so much why don't they build more student housing? according to this students writing there is no affordable on campus or near campus housing and he is forced to live in east van and miss classes because of full busses - they are building loads of condos - why not get some kind of okay we let you build 500 units of condos you build us 200 units of student housing or something like that more people can live on campus and not need transit that they than whine about

Last estimate I saw for cost of a dorm unit on Campus is $90,000 per bed. It's still not cheap, and for the most part living off campus can still be considerably cheaper for a student. To get another 10,000 students on campus would be close to a billion dollars in just construction costs.

As I mentioned earlier, those market housing units on campus in many circumstances already dictate that UBC students or employees must occupy a given percentage of units.

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by CLC

The "spokesman" always has to be careful. Melbourne tram has been under serious pressure to improve performance (reliability and travel speed are two major concerns), that's probably why the department officials admitted to the press that 25 percents of tram stops can potentially be removed.

That's fine, but a 7% gain in travel time doesn't change a tram system into a "modern light rail", it's a relatively minor optimization. It feels like a case of trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. Melbournites tend to love their trams regardless, and they've got a very solid commuter rail system for longer distance express travel.

Trams in Melbourne function just like busses do in Vancouver, albeit higher capacity and vastly more comfortable. I'm not advocating for trams in Vancouver because we have a very reasonable and functional bus system, but calling trams "outdated" is nonsense.

[CLC]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

That's fine, but a 7% gain in travel time doesn't change a tram system into a "modern light rail", it's a relatively minor optimization. It feels like a case of trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. Melbournites tend to love their trams regardless, and they've got a very solid commuter rail system for longer distance express travel.

Trams in Melbourne function just like busses do in Vancouver, albeit higher capacity and vastly more comfortable. I'm not advocating for trams in Vancouver because we have a very reasonable and functional bus system, but calling trams "outdated" is nonsense.

Turning Melbourne trams to "Modern light rail" is the quote from the article, not my opinion
Whether Melbourne overall network is solid is something I cannot comment, as I have never stayed there for more than few days. However discussion with some residents over the web found that they are full of complaints (perhaps like we here complained about Tranlink). And it was fact the operator of Yarra Trams was changed last year in an attempt to begin overhauling the system.

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

Last estimate I saw for cost of a dorm unit on Campus is $90,000 per bed. It's still not cheap, and for the most part living off campus can still be considerably cheaper for a student. To get another 10,000 students on campus would be close to a billion dollars in just construction costs.

As I mentioned earlier, those market housing units on campus in many circumstances already dictate that UBC students or employees must occupy a given percentage of units.

than the students shouldn't whine about it in their ubssey newspaper - they are living where they live and have to deal with it - welcome to life - if you choose to live in east van than you learn to commute like the working adults

oh well

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

That's fine, but a 7% gain in travel time doesn't change a tram system into a "modern light rail", it's a relatively minor optimization. It feels like a case of trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. Melbournites tend to love their trams regardless, and they've got a very solid commuter rail system for longer distance express travel.

Trams in Melbourne function just like busses do in Vancouver, albeit higher capacity and vastly more comfortable. I'm not advocating for trams in Vancouver because we have a very reasonable and functional bus system, but calling trams "outdated" is nonsense.

trams as local service is good but using trams from say coquitlam to burnaby would be kinda dumb but within coquitlam is fine - ditto for within vancouver - the proposed streetcar line would get me out of my car but a bus won't - its just an image a beliefe a phobia whatever it is a bus will not get me out of my car and I think thats what most people who have cars think

[aberdeen5698]

Jarrett Walker has made the point in his Human Transit Blog that buses and trams/streetcars basically provide the same functional service (see this post of his). Any differences in mobility between buses and trams/streetcars are due to how the service is deployed rather than the difference between rails vs. rubber. For example, busways with dedicated lanes provide basically the same service levels as railed vehicles with dedicated lanes. BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) with separated rights of way provide basically the same service levels as segregated LRT.

LRT basically has two advantages over buses in terms of the provision of service: it has a higher ultimate capacity because the vehicles can be larger and/or can be grouped into trains. And for the same reason it can have a lower labour cost per passenger-mile.

But unless a bus route is bumping up against capacity limitations, LRT won't really improve service levels over what buses can provide. And if your bus route isn't at capacity and you replace it with larger railed vehicles as a way to reduce labour costs then you're also reducing frequency, which means poorer mobility.

[roleypolinde]

The way I see it, our articulated trolley buses are filling the role of articulated trams or light rail. Their high frequency and high capacity has made north-south travel within vancouver very comfortable and convenient compared to a lot of other routes. Not to mention the cost of running trolley wire pales in comparison to laying down track on roadways. the Fraser, Main and Victoria routes can absorb near B-line levels of ridership, and since they don't normally, there's always a seat for me

They should focus on expanding this network of articulated trolleys rather than going for trams or light rail. It's cheaper and very obviously works in this hilly, grid shaped network

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

than the students shouldn't whine about it in their ubssey newspaper - they are living where they live and have to deal with it - welcome to life - if you choose to live in east van than you learn to commute like the working adults

oh well

It's not like the students writing the Ubyssey are planning, architecture, or engineering students though. They're just wannabe reporters for the most part. But hey, they know how to use punctuation

[golog]

Originally Posted by roleypolinde

The way I see it, our articulated trolley buses are filling the role of articulated trams or light rail. Their high frequency and high capacity has made north-south travel within vancouver very comfortable and convenient compared to a lot of other routes. Not to mention the cost of running trolley wire pales in comparison to laying down track on roadways. the Fraser, Main and Victoria routes can absorb near B-line levels of ridership, and since they don't normally, there's always a seat for me

They should focus on expanding this network of articulated trolleys rather than going for trams or light rail. It's cheaper and very obviously works in this hilly, grid shaped network

Trams had a greater window of advantage in the past. If there were no roads, laying down rails was the cheapest option. If personal cars were too expensive for local residents, trams were the answer. They were also cheaper than grade-separated solutions, and nearly as fast due to lack of congestion. Bus ride too bumpy, or operating costs too high? Trams were much more cost effective.

They've mostly been squeezed out. The value of grade separation rises with congestion. The cost of a comparable ride on a bus is cheaper due to better roads and vehicles. They still do have a niche where congestion is low, and space is available/cheap or the routes are narrow and there is no road traffic or parking and busses are not an option. They could also provide lower operating & maintenance costs, provided there is a route (like Kits/Granville Island/Science World/Gastown/Stanley Park/Beach Ave/Pacific/Stadium) that offers a string of destinations but that will not be called upon to handle a large amount of growth as an arterial route. That long term certainty in sweet spot ridership levels is necessary to take advantage of O&M costs, while any attractiveness benefits are just gravy. I've always thought a tram would fit well on 4th Ave, provided the tram lane / station placement / road parking weren't too awkward, and provided Broadway was carrying the bulk of East-West traffic where capacity+speed is the goal.

[CLC]

Originally Posted by CLC

Probably not lots of people affected, Canada Line has been partially down for brief period three times in four days (Saturday+Sunday below Bridgeport, and today between King Edwards <-> OV).

Today again, 4 times in 5 days! This trend is worrisome...

Canada Line train problem causes morning-rush delays:
http://www.theprovince.com/Canada+Line+train+problem+causes+morning+rush+delays/3770715/story.html

[TransitFreak]

Originally Posted by CLC

Today again, 4 times in 5 days! This trend is worrisome...

Canada Line train problem causes morning-rush delays:
http://www.theprovince.com/Canada+Line+train+problem+causes+morning+rush+delays/3770715/story.html

Probably had something to do with overcrowding...people keeping doors open and the trains timing out. Was on the Canada Line this morning, and Bridgeport was packed at around 08:30, so that explains why.

Time to start putting the extra trains in, and having staff at the platforms to manage the doors. Somewhere Mr. X is smiling...

[Mac Write]

<cough>not enough switches</cough>

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by TransitFreak

Probably had something to do with overcrowding...people keeping doors open and the trains timing out. Was on the Canada Line this morning, and Bridgeport was packed at around 08:30, so that explains why.

Time to start putting the extra trains in, and having staff at the platforms to manage the doors. Somewhere Mr. X is smiling...

...or shaking his head in disappointment. I'd also argue that there aren't enough doors on the train, which is why people hold the doors and they time out. Consider that a two-car Mark II car holds 250 passengers and it has 6 doors, but the larger two-car Canada Line car holds 334 passengers and it also has 6 doors? On the trains I've been to in Asia, there are definitely more doors on each car - less space between sets of doors.

More switches would be ideal as well.

[SpongeG]

theres not much you can do about rush hour conditions - if you have 200 metre trains and 400 metre platforms rush hour is going to be crowded and a train every minute there will always be crowds for rush hour

[DKaz]

I'm on my way to the airport, as of this posting the Richmond line is segregated. Passengers to and from Richmond-Brighouse must transfer at Bridgeport.

[CLC]

By CBC-BC The Richmond branch was in trouble since 6am! And till now (11am) it is still using "shuttle"
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/11/04/bc-canada-shuttle-service-richmond.html

[TransitFreak]

How is this current shuttle arrangement affecting frequency on the trunk line? You need the train from Richmond to maintain 3:45 min frequency. Are they running shuttle service from Waterfront to Bridgeport as well?

In a 4 train cycle, you'd have Richmond, YVR, Richmond, YVR. Is it now Bridgeport, YVR, Bridgeport, YVR, or something else? Anyone noticed the scheduling?

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by Mac Write

UBC isn't the end of the line. First they could extend it inside the campus to allow for quicker access to areas (1-2 stations), or they could go for it and tunnel/bridge from UBC too Downtown Vancouver and/or the North shore.

Doing another line from downtown to UBC might be good (yes you have Canada Line to UBC line). Especially if UBC pays for part of it.

Please look at Google Maps, and notice
a) UBC
b) Downtown (not including Stanley Park)
c) North Shore

There is an inconvenient chunk of water called 'English Bay' that would require a 10 KM tunnel under the water to get back Downtown from UBC. This extension would double-back on the line running under the Broadway corridor.

You'll have an easier time convincing me to extend the line from UBC to Bowen Island and Gibsons.