Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by officedweller

I was looking at the 2 green lines before the 3 blue lines.

I KNOW!!! I didn't know that the blue line was two lines until I was actually ON the blue line and I had to get to continue onto the "OTHER" blue line. They are KIND of a continuation of one line, so I can KIND of see the logic, but still, I was surprised.

The other blue line you mention is actually a purple color which is much more distinguishable on most maps.

Originally Posted by MacWrite

Expo line should be red…oh wait the logo was a light blue, nevermind.

Why Red? Hasn't it been dark blue from the beginning? It seems to make sense that the Canada Line would be red to me.

[officedweller]

I didn't realize the two-colour blue line was two colours until I clicked on the English map.

BTW - remember way, way back when the initial livery of the Canada Line included a red swoosh?
My guess is that the VANOC or Provincial marketing/branding people got involved and the red swoosh and any red (including a red line on a map) was discarded in the process (and you don't bite the hand that feeds you).

[Mac Write]

Got a picture of the original ivory?

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by officedweller

BTW - remember way, way back when the initial livery of the Canada Line included a red swoosh?

I don't remember that. I have photos of the freshly painted equipment at the OMC in Richmond that don't have any red that I can see.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

I don't remember that. I have photos of the freshly painted equipment at the OMC in Richmond that don't have any red that I can see.

Even before that:


(Cheryl Young 2010)

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by deasine

Even before that

Ah, so that was in the concept renderings but never actually on the trains themselves...

[CLC]

I think the skytrain map is worse than the 2011 Translink version, which I refer to the brochure given out at waterfront station.
btw the 2011 Translink skytrain map does not include 97-b.

[bardak]

Originally Posted by CLC

I think the skytrain map is worse than the 2011 Translink version, which I refer to the brochure given out at waterfront station.
btw the 2011 Translink skytrain map does not include 97-b.

It looks to me that his proposed skytrain was made to be more aesthetically pleasing with out increasing the readability at the cost of geographic information.

And on the 97-b not being in the new maps from what I understand the 97-b is closer to a well branded express bus than a "rapid" bus route that the 99 and 98 are/were.

[xd_1771]

I wonder if anyone has seen this before
Sky Trolley Bus
Sky Trolley Bus by SkyTrolleyInc channel on YouTube

This looks like it could serve as a great compromise between Skytrain & LRT in certain areas actually. Low-cost, does not interfere with traffic. The video is fairly worded too, they acknowledge both the construction hassles with RRT and that LRT will not provide as suitable a benefit as RRT (which I agree with). It looks like a GREAT compromise.

[Millennium2002]

... just watching the introduction made me go... right... =_="

Reminds me of that huge bus in China that is said to avoid traffic by driving on top of it...

Now can we return to reality, please? ^^;

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by allan_kuan

... just watching the introduction made me go... right... =_="

Reminds me of that huge bus in China that is said to avoid traffic by driving on top of it...

Now can we return to reality, please? ^^;

I think you are in denial, or perhaps haven't watched the whole video. This might actually be a "damn good idea" for supporting urban connections such as Guildford-Whalley-Newton or Metrotown-Brentwood-Downtown via Hastings, that we often deem infeasible with RRT/Skytrain. It's basically a type of elevated monorail. It is fast & separated, inexpensive, and through the elevator station can still be integrated with the ground level. It is realistic and feasible due to the flexibility, little interference with existing infrastructure, and quick construction time. Similar versions have also already been implemented in Japan and elsewhere where they work and are very feasible.

Why monorails like these haven't been considered is beyond me, but most definitely, for certain situations (i.e. no track branching needed, and serves & promotes an urban population), it seems a great idea.

[nname]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

I think you are in denial, or perhaps haven't watched the whole video. This might actually be a "damn good idea" for supporting urban connections such as Guildford-Whalley-Newton or Metrotown-Brentwood-Downtown via Hastings, that we often deem infeasible with RRT/Skytrain. It's basically a type of elevated monorail. It is fast & separated, inexpensive, and through the elevator station can still be integrated with the ground level. It is realistic and feasible due to the flexibility, little interference with existing infrastructure, and quick construction time. Similar versions have also already been implemented in Japan and elsewhere where they work and are very feasible.

Why monorails like these haven't been considered is beyond me, but most definitely, for certain situations (i.e. no track branching needed, and serves & promotes an urban population), it seems a great idea.

The design of the station is seriously limiting the capacity of the system, as it create a huge bottleneck at the elevator entrance. And I don't see how that elevator thing can reduce cost, even if they're building tiny station..

There are many issues to be consider for a design like that.. mainly emergency escape route (where would the people go when the train breaks down?), maintenance (do they have to close the road below every time during nightly maintenance? where should the worker go when they can't walk on the track?), perception of safety (would you drive in the road below when you know there's something hanging above you?), and cost (it now need twice as many support pillars at a higher length, and twice as many stations with one for each direction of travel). When you add all those up, would it be a better and cheaper system than RRT or LRT?

[jlousa]

Surprised it hasn't been mentioned yet, looks like a gravel barge collided with the New West swing bridge this morning knocking it out of comission indefinetely. Time to include it into a new Patullo bridge me thinks.

[nname]

It was the bridge between downtown New Westminster and Queensborough (Port Royal), not the one near the Patullo.

[xd_1771]

As pointed out you can easily place public advertising on the diagonal walls of the station to better refund the project. I don't think the station has to be built as grand as it is in the video either (i.e. even more glass walls on all sides), a simple outdoor enclosed elevator platform supported by posts or trusses without anything else extra around it could perhaps work as well.

Of course for such maintenance you may have to close the road below, but I really wouldn't expect this to be a problem in the middle of the night when not really anyone is on the road. In addition, we might want to consider how much maintenance this track may really need: little to none at all. The skytrolley bus itself is powered by simplistic rubber wheels on a much smaller overhead girder box (compared to the "platforms with tracks on top" way of doing things). An emergency escape route would definitely be an unfortunate problem, but I wonder if it would be solvable with very small emergency "towing" cars that could be placed onto the track, quickly ride to the broken train, and at the very least pull/push it to a nearby station to allow passengers off quickly. Also due to how the train connects onto the guideway, a derailment would be extremely unlikely if not impossible.

(it now need twice as many support pillars at a higher length, and twice as many stations with one for each direction of travel)

The good thing about this is that it's fairly flexible. The guideway/right of way will be even narrower than either RRT or LRT. Each pillar may not have to support as much weight. You don't have to build it on the side of the road either; you could build it in the centre and use a single centre post to support both directions of guideway in certain sections. The use of more traditional boarding platforms is also possible in certain transfer-prone areas.

I can definitely agree that there are certain places where it won't be appropriate i.e. definitely wouldn't use this for a regional application unless on a very large scale (i.e. don't replace ALRT/Skytrain with this) but for other intra-urban routes such as within areas of Surrey, Burnaby & Vancouver, this could work great! There are many places in these cities and other metros that really need Skytrain for most effective travel & growth, but apparently a lot of people are convinced it isn't viable.

Think of it this way: It's not much different than riding a gondola, something being planned for implementation to SFU on Burnaby Mountain as rapid transit. Service-wise and cost-efficiency wise, it is a great idea. For the metropolitan area of Vancouver, which is very wellknown to provide new examples of transit options to the world (one that prominently began with the proprietary ALRT in 1986), it may also benefit the transportation image and even the attractiveness of transit.

Surprised it hasn't been mentioned yet, looks like a gravel barge collided with the New West swing bridge this morning knocking it out of comission indefinetely. Time to include it into a new Patullo bridge me thinks.

That's going to mean trouble for getting any freight into annacis island... with the trucks needed now to get freight & etc into and out of annacis island, the Alex Fraser and the Queensborough are going to become even worse traffic nightmares... that might be it for on-time commutes to Richmond on the 410, with the Queensborough being the only direct replacement of that bridge and already in really bad traffic condition (the northbound approaching merge particularly).

[deasine]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

As pointed out you can easily place public advertising on the diagonal walls of the station to better refund the project. I don't think the station has to be built as grand as it is in the video either (i.e. even more glass walls on all sides), a simple outdoor enclosed elevator platform supported by posts or trusses without anything else extra around it could perhaps work as well.

How is this any different from SkyTrain stations today? And don't tell me SkyTrain stations aren't as close as the edge of the road as these ones: it doesn't get closer than Aberdeen:

http://local.google.ca/maps?q=Richmond,+...w8MMn7sm0JD3G5Vg&cbp=12,155.75,,0,-10.81

Originally Posted by xd_1771

Of course for such maintenance you may have to close the road below, but I really wouldn't expect this to be a problem in the middle of the night when not really anyone is on the road. In addition, we might want to consider how much maintenance this track may really need: little to none at all. The skytrolley bus itself is powered by simplistic rubber wheels on a much smaller overhead girder box (compared to the "platforms with tracks on top" way of doing things). An emergency escape route would definitely be an unfortunate problem, but I wonder if it would be solvable with very small emergency "towing" cars that could be placed onto the track, quickly ride to the broken train, and at the very least pull/push it to a nearby station to allow passengers off quickly. Also due to how the train connects onto the guideway, a derailment would be extremely unlikely if not impossible.

At the end of the day, this is proprietary technology literally. SkyTrain is already quite limiting, but there are companies that build linear-induction trains including Hitachi and Kawasaki Heavy Industries. I was glad the Canada Line wasn't built using linear-induction technology: at least there are a lot more companies that can bid for any expansion should there be the need in the future.

With this concept, you are going with one company, or you would have to go with something custom-made, both of which are expensive.

[DKaz]

Canada Line seems so slow as a result.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

This might actually be a "damn good idea" for supporting urban connections such as Guildford-Whalley-Newton or Metrotown-Brentwood-Downtown via Hastings, that we often deem infeasible with RRT/Skytrain. It's basically a type of elevated monorail. It is fast & separated, inexpensive, and through the elevator station can still be integrated with the ground level.

It doesn't hurt to examine other options. The thing with this is that this system is described as less expensive than subway but more expensive than street surface light rail, so probably close to the same price as elevated Skytrain.

Here's another form of innovative public transit from China that was mentioned earlier. It's cost to build is said to be 1/10 the cost of subway and take 1/3 the time to build. It also runs on super capacitors. Imagine these things on KGB or 104th in Surrey.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

• Video Link

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by logan5

It doesn't hurt to examine other options. The thing with this is that this system is described as less expensive than subway but more expensive than street surface light rail, so probably close to the same price as elevated Skytrain.

Actually the video mentions that it will cost 25% less to construct than other elevated rapid transit options (it is mentioned a bit later on). I don't believe they are the only company out there to offer such elevated suspended monorail options either.

The SkyTrolley station will only be as big as of one of those road lanes.

[nname]

But what are they comparing to? I'm sure SkyTrain would cost 10~20% less if they build tiny stations and platforms that fit only 2-cars trains, as seen in the video, instead of full 80m platform...