Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by mr.x

I believe the City of Vancouver's reasoning behind building Olympic Village Station also had to do with redeveloping the site the station is on...it's supposed to be a very significant development with entertainment facilities which I believe included floating around the idea of a multiplex theatre.

That's the first time I've heard about any sort of entertainment facilities on that parcel. I gathered it was likely going to be some form of office and retail project, likely with a residential component, too.

[jlousa]

Never heard that either and I would've, think you have things mixed up.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Never heard that either and I would've, think you have things mixed up.

Perhaps...this is from memory 7 years ago.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by nname

TransLink does not separate Expo and Millennium line in the counting (they're in the same gated area anyways)...

But shouldn't the two platforms be considered different for counting?

The upper Expo / Millennium platform south of Broadway would have different volumes of people than the lower Millennium platform north of Broadway.

[nname]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

But shouldn't the two platforms be considered different for counting?

The upper Expo / Millennium platform south of Broadway would have different volumes of people than the lower Millennium platform north of Broadway.

I don't think that is what TransLink wanted. The count they did in 2011 count the platform entrance/exits, but to calculate SkyTrain ridership, TransLink always uses station entrance/exits.

Currently, this is how "official" ridership count works on SkyTrain...

1. Going from Brentwood to Downtown: 1 trip, 1 boarding
2. Going from Brentwood to Richmond via Downtown: 1 trip, 2 boardings
3. Going from Lougheed to Surrey Central: 1 trip, 1 boarding
4. Going from Yaletown to Main Street via Waterfront: 1 trip, 2 boardings
5. Going from Airport to Richmond: 1 trip, 1 boarding

The counting that the contractor did count all those scenarios as 2 boardings except for #2 (3 boardings) and #5 (since Canada Line numbers are taken from the counter at station entrance). This is why the total boardings is 45k higher than the official SkyTrain ridership. TransLink stated that they are looking into a way to filter out these 45k in future counting (I guess compass card solves this issue?)

I wonder why are they doing these though.. as most other agency count the station "boarding" as the number of people entering the train, which means there should be 2 to 3 boardings for every scenarios above

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by officedweller

I was actually thinking more of the condos to the north near the water - Leg in Boot Square, around Monk's, etc.
Does sort of support the original designation as a "future" station.

I recall that the 'TBM launch box' had to be dug there so the TBM could be assembled and begin the bores under False Creek to Yaletown & then down Granville Street to Waterfront. Since the hole was already there, it was decided to build the Olympic Village station in the pit after the TBM work was finished.

It's easier to build the station while the dirt is already removed and the tunnels are still under construction, rather than 'cut in' a new station in a few decades while the C-Line is running.

We'll see how easy this 'just add the station later' thinking works out when the 33rd Ave and 57th Ave stations are added to the C-Line in the future.
I won't be surprised if the cost reaches $100 million per station.
I also won't be surprised if the area residents & businesses go ballistic when those parts of Cambie St need to be dug up again for several years while the new station is built.

Granpa said it best: "do it RIGHT the first time"

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

I recall that the 'TBM launch box' had to be dug there so the TBM could be assembled and begin the bores under False Creek to Yaletown & then down Granville Street to Waterfront. Since the hole was already there, it was decided to build the Olympic Village station in the pit after the TBM work was finished.

It's easier to build the station while the dirt is already removed and the tunnels are still under construction, rather than 'cut in' a new station in a few decades while the C-Line is running.

We'll see how easy this 'just add the station later' thinking works out when the 33rd Ave and 57th Ave stations are added to the C-Line in the future.
I won't be surprised if the cost reaches $100 million per station.
I also won't be surprised if the area residents & businesses go ballistic when those parts of Cambie St need to be dug up again for several years while the new station is built.

Granpa said it best: "do it RIGHT the first time"

The City of Vancouver wanted it built "now" rather than in the future - so it coughed up $12M to build it. I do recall talk of a mixed use project for the site - but nothing as specific as including a theatre (which sounds like Marine Gateway).

I'm also wondering about the 33rd Ave site as it may involve some blasting to dig out the rock immediately adjacent to the station box.

You would think the CoV would be putting some of the DCL money from Cambie development into a fund for the 33rd Ave. station - or are they?

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

I recall that the 'TBM launch box' had to be dug there so the TBM could be assembled and begin the bores under False Creek to Yaletown & then down Granville Street to Waterfront. Since the hole was already there, it was decided to build the Olympic Village station in the pit after the TBM work was finished.

It's easier to build the station while the dirt is already removed and the tunnels are still under construction, rather than 'cut in' a new station in a few decades while the C-Line is running.

We'll see how easy this 'just add the station later' thinking works out when the 33rd Ave and 57th Ave stations are added to the C-Line in the future.
I won't be surprised if the cost reaches $100 million per station.
I also won't be surprised if the area residents & businesses go ballistic when those parts of Cambie St need to be dug up again for several years while the new station is built.

Granpa said it best: "do it RIGHT the first time"

By the time we get to considerations for building the underground future stations on Cambie, we will realize that there's no point in building them if the Canada Line wouldn't be able to handle the additional ridership.

I am highly doubtful the underground future stations will happen. And that might be a good thing, although one that's also...well, tragic in a sense lol....given the reasoning.

[Rico]

Originally Posted by mr.x

By the time we get to considerations for building the underground future stations on Cambie, we will realize that there's no point in building them if the Canada Line wouldn't be able to handle the additional ridership.

I am highly doubtful the underground future stations will happen. And that might be a good thing, although one that's also...well, tragic in a sense lol....given the reasoning.

Someone should correct me if I am wrong but I thought headways on the Canada Line during rush hour are currently at 3.5min and the system can go down to 90sec headways? If that is true...and I think it is... we can more than double capacity just by adding more trains. Of course the stations seem pretty narrow to me and at double the people I imagine they will have to build extra exits on some of the busier stations....Personally I would love to see a station at 33rd although I realize it maybe a pipe dream due to the cost.

[Smooth]

Originally Posted by Rico

Someone should correct me if I am wrong but I thought headways on the Canada Line during rush hour are currently at 3.5min and the system can go down to 90sec headways? If that is true...and I think it is... we can more than double capacity just by adding more trains. Of course the stations seem pretty narrow to me and at double the people I imagine they will have to build extra exits on some of the busier stations....Personally I would love to see a station at 33rd although I realize it maybe a pipe dream due to the cost.

I think the exact rush hour headways right now are about 3 minutes & 18 seconds.

I've been told that the system can only go down to about 2.5 minute headways. Apparently the limiting factor is the single track section in Richmond.

Any major increase in capacity would likely come from adding a 3rd train and knocking down false walls to extend station platforms.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by Rico

Someone should correct me if I am wrong but I thought headways on the Canada Line during rush hour are currently at 3.5min and the system can go down to 90sec headways? If that is true...and I think it is... we can more than double capacity just by adding more trains. Of course the stations seem pretty narrow to me and at double the people I imagine they will have to build extra exits on some of the busier stations....Personally I would love to see a station at 33rd although I realize it maybe a pipe dream due to the cost.

Currently, the Canada Line uses about 130,000 of its ultimate 300,000/day capacity, which includes extending the platforms by the allowable length of 10-metres.

As Smooth mentioned, the Richmond single track section restrains it from going to 90 secs...although the computer would certainly allow it. Both single tracking sections at Richmond and YVR are 800-metres long, and it takes roughly just over a minute for a train to travel along that 800-metre span in one direction....and of course, only one train can be in that single tracked section at any one time.

I wonder how long it'll take for No. 3 Road to be ripped up again to add another track. Not sure how they'd add a second platform to Richmond-Brighouse either considering there's no space for it.

And as you mentioned, even if they did increase capacity towards its maximum 300,000/day capacity the station passageways, concourses, and entrances are fare too small to handle that type of traffic....and this also now includes having a sufficient number of fare gates, but in most stations they've maxed out on the space in the fare gate concourse area.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by mr.x

As Smooth mentioned, the Richmond single track section restrains it from going to 90 secs...

Just to clarify - does that headway restriction apply just to the Richmond section? In other words, if trains left Richmond every 3 minutes and also left the Airport every 3 minutes, could the interleaved headway on the section inbound of Bridgeport be 90 seconds?

[nname]

Originally Posted by mr.x

I wonder how long it'll take for No. 3 Road to be ripped up again to add another track. Not sure how they'd add a second platform to Richmond-Brighouse either considering there's no space for it.

Well, they could also turn it into a loop following No.3, Granville, Garden City, and Lansdowne. This solves both the space and rebuild issues..

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by nname

Well, they could also turn it into a loop following No.3, Granville, Garden City, and Lansdowne. This solves both the space and rebuild issues..

Stephen Rees also suggested this loop solution, although if it were to be built, I would prefer it to loop to the west instead, to service the new density being built toward the oval. To the east, the downtown is basically up against the ALR.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Just to clarify - does that headway restriction apply just to the Richmond section? In other words, if trains left Richmond every 3 minutes and also left the Airport every 3 minutes, could the interleaved headway on the section inbound of Bridgeport be 90 seconds?

I think both single track segments that would impact headways - but remember they can short-turn trains at Bridgeport to shorten headways on the mainline.

[nname]

Originally Posted by officedweller

I think both single track segments that would impact headways - but remember they can short-turn trains at Bridgeport to shorten headways on the mainline.

They can even short-turn at Lansdowne...

[cornholio]

A loop is a interesting idea, and you can also implement a shuttle train to only service the loop to handle demand between stations within the loop. Say one train running only the loop and the rest going to/from Waterfront. Assuming 90 second frequencies within the loop would give you a 240 second frequency of the shuttle trains and a 120 second frequency of the Waterfront to Bridgeport trains, allowing a comfortable 240 second Bridge port to Airport frequency and a resulting 90 second Bridgeport to Waterfront frequency...obviously the actually timings and frequencies can be played around with so these numbers are just examples. Can go say 480 second shuttle frequency, assuming it might take 8 min to run the loop would leave you with just one train running as the shuttle train, then 120 second loop to Bridge port frequency with a combined 90 second loop frequency, and a 180 second airport to Bridgeport frequency and a combined 75 second Bridgeport to Waterfront frequency (putting you at probably the theoretical max frequency of the the system along the Bridgeport to Waterfront segment)...

Richmond would need to start planing for this now though and begin assembling the right of way, most of it would be along existing roads and only cutting over one property, the bottom left corner would cut over public land so should not be too difficult to do and the bottom right hand corner would cut over the city hall land, again public land so should be able to use some creativity to cut the corner.

*Also with the double tracking by Landsdowne the shuttle train staying within the loop would have a staging area making it easier to time its re entry in to the loop without negatively effecting overall maximum system frequency and capacity.


Actually looks like a cool set up assuming no continuation of the Canada line further south, which is unlikely any time soon and a LRT or BRT would probably suffice for close to ever utilizing Richmond s flat grid system with extra long blocks.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by cornholio

A loop is a interesting idea, and you can also implement a shuttle train to only service the loop to handle demand between stations within the loop. Say one train running only the loop and the rest going to/from Waterfront. Assuming 90 second frequencies within the loop would give you a 240 second frequency of the shuttle trains and a 120 second frequency of the Waterfront to Bridgeport trains, allowing a comfortable 240 second Bridge port to Airport frequency and a resulting 90 second Bridgeport to Waterfront frequency...obviously the actually timings and frequencies can be played around with so these numbers are just examples. Can go say 480 second shuttle frequency, assuming it might take 8 min to run the loop would leave you with just one train running as the shuttle train, then 120 second loop to Bridge port frequency with a combined 90 second loop frequency, and a 180 second airport to Bridgeport frequency and a combined 75 second Bridgeport to Waterfront frequency (putting you at probably the theoretical max frequency of the the system along the Bridgeport to Waterfront segment)...

Richmond would need to start planing for this now though and begin assembling the right of way, most of it would be along existing roads and only cutting over one property, the bottom left corner would cut over public land so should not be too difficult to do and the bottom right hand corner would cut over the city hall land, again public land so should be able to use some creativity to cut the corner.

*Also with the double tracking by Landsdowne the shuttle train staying within the loop would have a staging area making it easier to time its re entry in to the loop without negatively effecting overall maximum system frequency and capacity.


Actually looks like a cool set up assuming no continuation of the Canada line further south, which is unlikely any time soon and a LRT or BRT would probably suffice for close to ever utilizing Richmond s flat grid system with extra long blocks.

That's actually not half-bad, although I'm on the fence - seems like it could be a little convoluted in execution.

Basically, it'll be a people-mover system....for an urban area....a lot like the 5-km single-tracked Detroit People Mover, which happens to actually use Bombardier's ALRT. That system is one continuous loop around Downtown Detroit.

Considering all the development happening near the Oval, as well as the Oval itself, it might be wise to have a station right in the immediate vicinity of the oval neighbourhood.

[officedweller]

There's a trade off though with a one-way loop - between serving areas and causing too long a detour for others.
If the above is one-way southbound at Lansdowne, a passenger will have to traverse 4 stations to get out of downtown Richmond headed to Vancouver.
You'd also never have anyone ride from Lansdowne to Alderbridge (a 4 station ride) when walking would be faster (that's a problem that Detroit faces due to the one-way loop).
A smaller loop that returns via Westminster Highway or Cooney (i.e. joins in south of Lansdowne Station) may be manageable.

[mr.x]

This reminds me of how Richmond was so obsessed with aesthetics during the Canada Line planning process, to the point that they argued for automatic trains running at-grade along No.3 Road.

Functionality? What about it?

When RAVCO proposed cost-cutting measures of single-tracking the last 800-metres of Richmond and Sea Island, including their stations, Richmond applauded the move as "there would be less bulky guideways in Richmond City Centre." For RAVCO, at least for the Richmond section, they saved something like a mere $30-million. Originally they had also proposed single-tracking the section between Aberdeen Station and Lansdowne Station.....horror show.