Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion - Page 502

xsoccerplayer18x · #**10021** Posted **Oct 12, 2012, 8:23 AM**

So, hypothetically if we were to upgrade the system to wider cars, would it be a sudden change or more gradual?

What I mean is, if we started buying the 2.95m cars and then removed the platform edges, could a small ledge/step be added to the narrower cars to compensate until they are withdraw from service?

Of course, for the sake of argument, I've ignored the Dunsmuir Tunnel and am just strictly looking at the platform edge issue.

GeeCee · #**10022** Posted **Oct 12, 2012, 8:43 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by xsoccerplayer18x

So, hypothetically if we were to upgrade the system to wider cars, would it be a sudden change or more gradual?

What I mean is, if we started buying the 2.95m cars and then removed the platform edges, could a small ledge/step be added to the narrower cars to compensate until they are withdraw from service?

Of course, for the sake of argument, I've ignored the Dunsmuir Tunnel and am just strictly looking at the platform edge issue.

It is highly unlikely that Translink will have the money to replace the fleet with wider vehicles overnight, not to mention the renovations that would be required to the tunnel section of the line. I'd put my money on Translink ordering C cars for the Mark IIs before thinking about wider cars.

xd_1771 · #**10023** Posted **Oct 12, 2012, 3:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by xsoccerplayer18x

So, hypothetically if we were to upgrade the system to wider cars, would it be a sudden change or more gradual?

What I mean is, if we started buying the 2.95m cars and then removed the platform edges, could a small ledge/step be added to the narrower cars to compensate until they are withdraw from service?

Of course, for the sake of argument, I've ignored the Dunsmuir Tunnel and am just strictly looking at the platform edge issue.

New York subway occasionally uses "retractable platforms" to deal with gaps at station platforms. SkyTrain could theoretically have a similar thing to allow interoperability between 2.95m and 2.65m trains.

officedweller · #**10024** Posted **Oct 12, 2012, 7:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by federal777

So, Expo/Millennium lines can be considered "light" rail, Canada Line "heavy" rail? What was the reasoning for making the Canada Line wider than expo/mil? Uniformity would be nice for the SkyTrain system.

Wider cars allowed shorter trains (reducing platform length) while maintaining the required ultimate capacity.

Because of the steep grades on the route, the shorter platforms allowed the line to be built closer to the surface, rather than in a deep bore tunnel. (i.e. think of each station as a level plateau. if you lengthen that plateau, the tunnel/guideway between stations becomes steeper, which could challenge the operational logistics of the trainsets. The alternative is to flatten out the grade of the route, but then the line is no longer at the surface, and you'd need to bore the tunnel. That's also probably why a station at 16th Ave. was never proposed - the proximity to the Broadway Station made the grades too steep.)

Bombardier's proposal would have used 80m platforms, with a deep bore tunnel, but because of that, there was no future station at 33rd Ave (too deep to access) and because of the added costs, the line would have been in a permanent open trench (in the median of Cambie Street) south of 49th Ave. until elevated at Marine Drive.

The current design reduced costs all around (to fit within the funding envelope) and made the stations more accessible.

Gordon · #**10025** Posted **Oct 12, 2012, 8:08 PM**

Funding
The Federal gas tax that goes to Translink is $120 M\ year but can't be used for projects the feds are already funding (Evergreen Line) or for day to day operations. This sum would solve Translink's financial problems. This deal has to be re-negotiated.

There was a story on CTV news @6 on sunday9( in their video archive)

tybuilding · #**10026** Posted **Oct 12, 2012, 9:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gordon

Funding
The Federal gas tax that goes to Translink is $120 M\ year but can't be used for projects the feds are already funding (Evergreen Line) or for day to day operations. This sum would solve Translink's financial problems. This deal has to be re-negotiated.

There was a story on CTV news @6 on sunday9( in their video archive)

That funding also can't be used for cycling projects. Something that was only changed a couple of years ago.

aberdeen5698 · #**10027** Posted **Oct 12, 2012, 9:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gordon

The Federal gas tax that goes to Translink is $120 M\ year but can't be used for ... day to day operations.

These "capital expenditures only" clauses are ridiculous. It's a huge problem for infrastructure in the US where the states are getting Federal money to build new highway interchanges while old structures are crumbling and flagged as "deficient" because there isn't enough money to maintain them.

Budgeting for new infrastructure without also creating a means to fund it's maintenance should be a crime.

Tfreder · #**10028** Posted **Oct 12, 2012, 9:26 PM**

It looks like the provincial government is funding $4.5 million to expand the South Surrey Park & Ride.

http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2009-2013/2012TRAN0092-001548.htm

According to the release they plan to add 300 parking spots. And in comparison, there's currently 240 spots there now.

ETA: It's interesting to note that there's mention of adding on/off ramp bus lanes on the 99 at the new SFPR interchange. Does that mean there's a chance there will be transit travelling on the SFPR??

officedweller · #**10029** Posted **Oct 12, 2012, 10:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tfreder

ETA: It's interesting to note that there's mention of adding on/off ramp bus lanes on the 99 at the new SFPR interchange. Does that mean there's a chance there will be transit travelling on the SFPR??

WRT bus lanes - it could just be bus lanes on Hwy 99 when it refers to transit lanes that go "through the interchange". Are there existing bus lanes on that stretch of Hwy 99?

Metro-One · #**10030** Posted **Oct 12, 2012, 10:14 PM**

No existing Bus lanes there, unless they mean the HOV lanes.

federal777 · #**10031** Posted **Oct 12, 2012, 11:21 PM**

When I read that SkyTrain document, it seems to imply the Dunsmuir tunnel could accomodate the 2.95m trains (no mention of the tunnel). Does anyone have a source about the Dunsmuir tunnel width limitation?

deasine · #**10032** Posted **Oct 12, 2012, 11:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tfreder

It looks like the provincial government is funding $4.5 million to expand the South Surrey Park & Ride.

http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2009-2013/2012TRAN0092-001548.htm

According to the release they plan to add 300 parking spots. And in comparison, there's currently 240 spots there now.

ETA: It's interesting to note that there's mention of adding on/off ramp bus lanes on the 99 at the new SFPR interchange. Does that mean there's a chance there will be transit travelling on the SFPR??

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

WRT bus lanes - it could just be bus lanes on Hwy 99 when it refers to transit lanes that go "through the interchange". Are there existing bus lanes on that stretch of Hwy 99?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

No existing Bus lanes there, unless they mean the HOV lanes.

See map:
http://maps.sfprconstruction.ca/maps/S4.pdf

The HOV/Bus Lane should be the rightmost Northbound lane from the bottom of the map. It should become a general exit lane for Southbound SFPR (just like how many of the 99 interchanges are right now), then back to a HOV/Bus Lane immediately after the Southbound SFPR exit.

Notice this set up seems to start a C/D-sort of system on the 99.

Anyways this discussion should really go in the SFPR thread.

aberdeen5698 · #**10033** Posted **Oct 13, 2012, 12:27 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by federal777

When I read that SkyTrain document, it seems to imply the Dunsmuir tunnel could accomodate the 2.95m trains (no mention of the tunnel). Does anyone have a source about the Dunsmuir tunnel width limitation?

The Dunsmuir tunnel was originally used for full-sized rail cars, some of them quite long (in curved tunnels the length of a car between and beyond its trucks is an important constraint because on curves the body overhangs the track centreline). For example the stainless steel Budd cars of "The Canadian" consists were regularly shuttled through these tunnels, and those cars are 10 feet (3.04 metres) wide and 85 feet (29.5 metres) long (with 59.5 feet (18.1 metres) between truck centres). So on that basis the tunnels should be able to accommodate wider cars.

Raised walkways have been added which may interfere with wide clearances, but I imagine that's a problem that can be solved.

twoNeurons · #**10034** Posted **Oct 13, 2012, 4:09 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by red-paladin

The original Mk I trains are narrow because that was the model of train that was being built for the Scarborough RT. The reason that was narrow was they took a mostly built streetcar guideway and converted it to ICTS to showcase that technology as the Ontario Gov't owned UTDC at the time. Had the first project been a normal subway, likely none of this would have happened.

Yes, we would've ended up with an LRT line down the old Interurban, as was originally planned.

The reason we got SkyTrain is because the province wanted to showcase the technology at the World's Fair of Expo 86. It was new, it was shiny, it was magnetically powered, it was driverless... it was the future.

Metro-One · #**10035** Posted **Oct 13, 2012, 6:19 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Yes, we would've ended up with an LRT line down the old Interurban, as was originally planned.

The reason we got SkyTrain is because the province wanted to showcase the technology at the World's Fair of Expo 86. It was new, it was shiny, it was magnetically powered, it was driverless... it was the future.

Thank goodness we got skytrain! That potential LRT plan could go in the "Bullets dodged" thread!

federal777 · #**10036** Posted **Oct 13, 2012, 6:25 AM**

Yes, I am SO happy we got SkyTrain! The government at the time was so forward-thinking. SkyTrain has aged beautifully since 1986.

aberdeen5698 · #**10037** Posted **Oct 13, 2012, 3:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

The reason we got SkyTrain is because the province wanted to showcase the technology at the World's Fair of Expo 86. It was new, it was shiny, it was magnetically powered, it was driverless... it was the future.

And the cool thing is, if you compare it to the transit systems in most other cities, it still is "the future". Driverless trains speeding along on overhead guideways affording expansive views of a spectacular city. It really doesn't get any better than that!

WarrenC12 · #**10038** Posted **Oct 13, 2012, 5:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by federal777

Yes, I am SO happy we got SkyTrain! The government at the time was so forward-thinking. SkyTrain has aged beautifully since 1986.

Malcolm, is that you?

queetz@home · #**10039** Posted **Oct 13, 2012, 5:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Malcolm, is that you?

Oh dear....if we have both Malcolm Johnston and Darryl De La Cruz in this forum duking it out, time to bring in the popcorn...

Spork · #**10040** Posted **Oct 14, 2012, 5:32 PM**

When I was visiting Taiwan and transiting (as I do in every city that I visit), I noted that busses board through the rear doors and people exit through the front, tapping their card out of the bus to pay. I've been racking my brain ever since to figure out if there is any advantage to this system. Can any of you think of a reason that this might be the case?