Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by GeeCee

Installing them along the route itself would make more sense from a technical perspective, rather than installing an access point on each trainset.

My point was more that installing it at only stations and not along the route would be dumb aside from late night on the Canada Line branch lines with the super low frequencies.

Wasn't there supposed to be a free WiFi service installed along Main St and along Broadway a few years ago?

Not WiFi hardware on the buses, but WiFi APs on the street lamps to provide continuous service when using the 99 B-line and the Main St buses.

BTW: I borrowed a WiFi sniffer from the office last year & took the B-Line from Commercial to UBC and back just to see what it would find. I wasn't surprised to see that there were several thousand WiFi 'hits', but I was surprised to see over 500 non-encrypted & wide-open connections that it discovered along the route.

When I've been going to/from UBC recently I've noticed many people using their laptops and often wondered how many of them are 'borrowing' other peoples' free WiFi connections as they travel along Broadway.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

When I've been going to/from UBC recently I've noticed many people using their laptops and often wondered how many of them are 'borrowing' other peoples' free WiFi connections as they travel along Broadway.

Wouldn't it just continuously drop and regain if they were all separate networks?

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by deasine

Wouldn't it just continuously drop and regain if they were all separate networks?

Yeah, that was my concern too. I don't think WiFi protocols are designed to optimize hand-offs from one access point to the next the way cell networks are. That might be an argument for having access points on the vehicles rather than (or in addition to) being on the right of way.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

had an idea a dream really - could the canada line be branched off at yaletown roundhouse to go underground up davie to about denman?

My dream would be to extend the Canada Line from Waterfront, past the convention center (could you imagine how cool a Convention Center/Cruise ship terminal/seaplane terminal station would be?), under Coal Harbour then under the West End serving stations in the Robson and Denman areas. The even bigger dream would then have it cross under English Bay to Kits and meet the Broadway Line at Arbutus, providing a transfer between Skytrain and Canada Line on the West Side of the city (and a potential transfer to anything that might happen on the Arbutus Corridor). Instead of splitting any frequencies it gives the West End a high frequency single seat ride to many places in the downtown core (and a single transfer to almost anywhere in Metro Vancouver).

I could see something like this become a necessity if the Broadway Skytrain line spurs high density development in the West Side along Broadway (and the UEL are further developed). People will be wanting a west side connection for quick travel into downtown (instead of making transfers all the way across town at the busy City Hall Station).

[adrianroam95]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

My dream would be to extend the Canada Line from Waterfront, past the convention center (could you imagine how cool a Convention Center/Cruise ship terminal/seaplane terminal station would be?), under Coal Harbour then under the West End serving stations in the Robson and Denman areas. The even bigger dream would then have it cross under English Bay to Kits and meet the Broadway Line at Arbutus, providing a transfer between Skytrain and Canada Line on the West Side of the city (and a potential transfer to anything that might happen on the Arbutus Corridor). Instead of splitting any frequencies it gives the West End a high frequency single seat ride to many places in the downtown core (and a single transfer to almost anywhere in Metro Vancouver).

I could see something like this become a necessity if the Broadway Skytrain line spurs high density development in the West Side along Broadway (and the UEL are further developed). People will be wanting a west side connection for quick travel into downtown (instead of making transfers all the way across town at the busy City Hall Station).

The Waterfront Skytrain station is already in close proximity to the Convention Centre and the cruise ship terminal. IMO, the West End and Kits does not need a rapid transit line built specifically for them. The West End is an old neighbourhood - there is zero growth happening. The bus network already serves this area quite well. If anything, a legacy streetcar line running along Denman and Robson, bringing tourists to English Bay, might benefit West End residents, but nothing more.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by adrianroam95

The Waterfront Skytrain station is already in close proximity to the Convention Centre and the cruise ship terminal. IMO, the West End and Kits does not need a rapid transit line built specifically for them. The West End is an old neighbourhood - there is zero growth happening. The bus network already serves this area quite well. If anything, a legacy streetcar line running along Denman and Robson, bringing tourists to English Bay, might benefit West End residents, but nothing more.

These are 2 of the more dense neighborhoods in Vancouver and certainly more deserving of a rapid transit line than a lot of other neighborhoods. Downtown Vancouver is overcrowded with trolley buses, with a lot of routes serving Kits and The West End. An Arbutus line would be a natural to cover these neighborhoods and would tie in with all 3 other (present and future) rt lines, significantly reducing the number of buses on DT streets, as well as providing much better transit service.

[huenthar]

Originally Posted by adrianroam95

The Waterfront Skytrain station is already in close proximity to the Convention Centre and the cruise ship terminal. IMO, the West End and Kits does not need a rapid transit line built specifically for them. The West End is an old neighbourhood - there is zero growth happening. The bus network already serves this area quite well. If anything, a legacy streetcar line running along Denman and Robson, bringing tourists to English Bay, might benefit West End residents, but nothing more.

For the West End: when I was living down south of Kingsway and Nanaimo I was going over to the West End all the time (Denmam & Comox) - relationship... It would take 10 minutes to walk to Nanaimo station (or the #25 if I timed it) and then Skytrain to Burrard. It would always take longer to get from Burrard to the West End than the rest of the journey - 20 minutes to downtown, another 20+ minutes to the West End. When I was living on Robson and Cordova, I would almost always walk from Burrard because it was faster than any bus service. You would be very surprised at how many people who live there drive everywhere, downtown included. Travel times on the bus are really bad considering the short distance. I think that while the West End population isn't growing much, there is a large latent potential ridership base there from existing residents who find driving far better than the #5/#6. Not to mention the changing demographic of the area over the next 20 years - it's becoming much younger.

I too would love a West End/Arbutus connection. I think it would be more feasible to have it an extension of the Expo Line (it veers off to the right around the curve going from Waterfront to Burrard). Stations at Robson/Jervis, Davie/Denman, Kits Beach, 4th, and Broadway/Arbutus. Probably won't be a good enough excuse for it though until Expo/Canada line downtown/broadway stretches are overcrowded after the UBC line - build it as a relief line to provide extra Downtown capacity.

[jlousa]

I think the Pacific Blvd and Cordova street car lines would solve that problem cheaper and better then a single line could. You'd probably be within a 5 walk to a station, 10 at the most.

[Millennium2002]

TransLink's being railed again by the media agencies, this time by Diane Watts due to some customer satisfaction survey regarding communication that they tried to hand out to people where they offered to donate 100$ for each of the 150 or so responses. =S

Reading the comments on both sites just make me cringe... privatization? provincial control? What? Are those really optimal solutions? This is what I see with each:

1) Provincial control over transit doesn't necessarily guarantee that there will be more customer input and accountability. If anything, BC Hydro's suffering quite the rant these days for their smart meters program, and they're holding firm like a rock. So in the end nothing will really improve from the customer's side. There might be more improvements to actually getting things done perhaps if the agency can plan things without municipal and provincial interference but I doubt that'll happen, and we'll most likely end up with some bad pet projects being thrown into the mix.

2) Municipal control over transit is the worst, and we've seen it happen before. It might be the most responsive to immediate customer complaints, but boy will it be inefficient and cumbersome to do long range planning with all of those short term wants... Even right now it's a mess. Talk about amaganation... perhaps that might get things moving along better in some places.

3) Privatizing or franchising the system doesn't work for me either. Most likely there will have to be rather complicated negotiations and contracts on what the operators are obligated to do and what the region is responsible for, investment to transit will most likely be minimal on both sides (so no expansion funds from the government, and the private agency will most likely try to run things on the cheap), which may be good for selfish car using taxpayers (if they do a good job that is) but it might be hell for riders if some necessary projects don't proceed... and it'll most definitely disadvantage the lower ranks of bus drivers, transit attendants, mechanics, etc more than the higher-ranked CEOs by making their jobs less stable and sustainable money-wise. And yes, I know there are some bad apples in TransLink but I wouldn't throw every single employee out just because of that.

Thoughts or comments? Or am I way off with my opinions?

[mezzanine]

^ yeah, municipal control worked so well for toronto....

Dianne watts robforded translink. her beef is the $100 x 170 donations to charity for a survey response? the crown corporatiosn I know (ICBC, BC hydro, BC ferries) all have charity programs, yet I hear no complaints of 'waste, not core services' from people. In this case, TL used its charity budget to get organizational goals. i fail to see how this is gross mismanagement.

If anything, i like how TL is trying to limit political considerations with transit planning. Of course we need oversight (doesn't martin crilly do that?), but look at the debacle in the GTA about transit city, rob ford and subways.

[WarrenC12]

I think it's well established that Watts has done a great job in Surrey since being elected, but more recently she's been saying some weird things that are way off base. Her comments on the murders in Surrey were terrible, now this...

[Millennium2002]

To me it looks like she's been having some mood swings with TransLink... given how she approved the latter's budget of late... and then this comes around...

[jlousa]

Looks like the plan is 28 trains for opening and another 28trains 1.5yrs later.

2.0 PURPOSE

2.1 TransLink is requesting expressions of interest for the supply and delivery of additional Fully Automated Advanced Light Rapid Transit Passenger Vehicles (“Vehicles”) as more particularly described in this Request for Expressions of Interest (“RFEOI”).

2.2 TransLink intends to procure up to an initial 28 Vehicles (actual number of Vehicles may be increased or decreased at TransLink’s discretion), with potential options for up to an additional 28 Vehicles (actual number of Vehicles may be increased or decreased at TransLink’s discretion). The anticipated service dates for the initial Vehicles is approximately January 2016, and June 2017 for optional Vehicles.

2.3 Vehicles must be compatible with the existing SkyTrain infrastructure (guideways and stations), technology (ALRT and Steerable Axle Trucks), propulsion power systems (Linear Induction Motors powered by 650 Volts DC), and SELTRAC automated train control system. Refer to the system overview provided in Appendix 1 and Vehicle Dimensions listed in Appendix 2.

Lots of real great info in the RFOI and well worth saving for the transit junkies.
http://www.translink.ca/~/media/document...lr%20transit%20passenger%20vehicles.ashx

Looking over the specs it seems a given the trains will be from Bombardier.

[bardak]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Looking over the specs it seems a given the trains will be from Bombardier.

Who would have guessed

[nname]

From the wording, this would not be the 28 cars order for the Evergreen Line, but for the 28 cars suggested in the Expo Line Capacity Study document?

And from the spec:
Length of Vehicle coupler to drawbar centre line (end car): 17.35m
Length of Vehicle drawbar to drawbar centre line (centre car): 16.70m
Number of cars in a basic unit: 4
Maximum number of basic units in an operating train: 1

So it would be 7x 4-cars trainset instead of 14x 2-cars.

[WarrenC12]

I like the looks of the 2021 network.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Looks like the plan is 28 trains for opening and another 28trains 1.5yrs later.



Lots of real great info in the RFOI and well worth saving for the transit junkies.
http://www.translink.ca/~/media/document...lr%20transit%20passenger%20vehicles.ashx

Looking over the specs it seems a given the trains will be from Bombardier.

If I was translinks CEO I would make sure that for the first year of service the trains and stations were full, that means undeserved. That is the critical time period after such a massive project when people decide if its a success or failure. Empty trains look bad and statistics are useless for most people, full trains and stations and calls for increased frequencies and more trains is good, very good, very very good.

I think it makes sense for translink to play such games as it is difficult for them to get funding, push these project through and get good publicity(they cant afford bad publicity once this line is built and media will need to latch on to something, complaining that there isnt enough trains to handle the capacity is better then complaining about empty trains on a $1.5billion project).

just my opinion

[Millennium2002]

lol... even TransLink is inconsistent regarding the Canada Line...

The more worrying concern is how they label what is essentially the Millennium/Evergreen Line extension to UBC as the new "Western Line". That'll probably confuse a lot of people if they don't change it soon.

[Chikinlittle]

Originally Posted by huenthar

For the West End: when I was living down south of Kingsway and Nanaimo I was going over to the West End all the time (Denmam & Comox) - relationship... It would take 10 minutes to walk to Nanaimo station (or the #25 if I timed it) and then Skytrain to Burrard. It would always take longer to get from Burrard to the West End than the rest of the journey - 20 minutes to downtown, another 20+ minutes to the West End. When I was living on Robson and Cordova, I would almost always walk from Burrard because it was faster than any bus service. You would be very surprised at how many people who live there drive everywhere, downtown included. Travel times on the bus are really bad considering the short distance. I think that while the West End population isn't growing much, there is a large latent potential ridership base there from existing residents who find driving far better than the #5/#6. Not to mention the changing demographic of the area over the next 20 years - it's becoming much younger.

I too would love a West End/Arbutus connection. I think it would be more feasible to have it an extension of the Expo Line (it veers off to the right around the curve going from Waterfront to Burrard). Stations at Robson/Jervis, Davie/Denman, Kits Beach, 4th, and Broadway/Arbutus. Probably won't be a good enough excuse for it though until Expo/Canada line downtown/broadway stretches are overcrowded after the UBC line - build it as a relief line to provide extra Downtown capacity.

a) There is re-growth starting to occur in the West End and I would imagine it's just a matter of time until more and more run-down 3 storey walkups will disappear for further densification.

b) As it stands, one of the densest neighbourhoods in North America has TERRIBLE transit options. A line from Waterfront towards the West End, stopping at English Bay, Kits Beach and then meeting at Broadway/Arbutus would be fantastic to further provide a network of rapid transit to the city. So far, the Skytrain network has brought us a regional network. We now need to look at providing more feasible, reliable, and frequent transit options to the inner city to move people AROUND the city, not just in and out of the city. Busses — (as do streetcars à la Toronto). Pretty much everyone agrees about that.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by nname

From the wording, this would not be the 28 cars order for the Evergreen Line, but for the 28 cars suggested in the Expo Line Capacity Study document?

And from the spec:
Length of Vehicle coupler to drawbar centre line (end car): 17.35m
Length of Vehicle drawbar to drawbar centre line (centre car): 16.70m

Number of cars in a basic unit: 4
Maximum number of basic units in an operating train: 1

So it would be 7x 4-cars trainset instead of 14x 2-cars.

I noticed that too.

4-car articulated trains!

If they were just married pairs, there wouldn't be any "centre cars" - they would all be "end cars".