Millennium Line - Evergreen Extension | Completed

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by st7860

Even in mature cities like New York and Toyko their trains don't come anywhere nearly as often as the skytrain. When I tell people that they are always shocked.

This is why I get so frustrated when people argue against Skytrain technology by saying it's "too expensive". First of all, most of the added expense is because of grade separation, not because it happens to use Bombardier's technology. And grade separation allows automated operation, which in turn means you can run frequent trains without increasing labour costs. So while it is more expensive than at-grade LRT, you get far superior service (frequency and travel times) which means more riders. That helps to amortize the extra cost and provides a whole host of unquantifiable benefits by taking more cars off the road.

[spaceprobe]

Originally Posted by DKaz

Then Tokyo and New York was like a candy supermarket, next door to a Toys R Us, next door to an amusement park.

I could make local to express to local transfers all day long.

New York's system may be extensive, but it is so uncomfortable. The stations, especially in the summer, are so hot and muggy. Many are smelly and dark as well. The A/C doesn't work on so many of their subway cars! They really need to spend money on improving the stations and old cars.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by spaceprobe

New York's system may be extensive, but it is so uncomfortable. The stations, especially in the summer, are so hot and muggy. Many are smelly and dark as well. The A/C doesn't work on so many of their subway cars! They really need to spend money on improving the stations and old cars.

Ditto London.

[memememe76]

So unless you see tramways or buses with downtown Vancouver like frequency in areas like Maple Ridge, Twassen or West Van, Metro Vancouver still is no where close to what Stockholm has.

I have never been to Stockholm, but is infrequent transit service in Maple Ridge or Tsawwassen really something Vancouverites should be ashamed of? I would ask why someone who lives so far from Downtown Stockholm would want such frequent transit.

Anyways, I think West Van has pretty damn good bus service. Going to Park Royal or Horseshoe Bay from Downtown is very easy.

[dpogue]

Originally Posted by memememe76

I have never been to Stockholm, but is infrequent transit service in Maple Ridge or Tsawwassen really something Vancouverites should be ashamed of? I would ask why someone who lives so far from Downtown Stockholm would want such frequent transit.

Anyways, I think West Van has pretty damn good bus service. Going to Park Royal or Horseshoe Bay from Downtown is very easy.

The last direct bus from Braid Station to Maple Ridge is at 7:20 pm, and only runs weekdays. Outside of that, you need a bus to Coquitlam Centre and then a bus from there to Maple Ridge.
If you miss that last bus at Braid, you're looking at an extra half-hour - if not hour - commute (and most of that is waiting for the other buses, not actual travel time).

The Evergreen Line running to Coquitlam Centre will definitely cut down that time, but I'm also hoping Compass data will help TransLink realize that a lot of people are trying to get home to Maple Ridge later than 7:20pm.

[xd_1771]

This is why I get so frustrated when people argue against Skytrain technology by saying it's "too expensive". First of all, most of the added expense is because of grade separation, not because it happens to use Bombardier's technology. And grade separation allows automated operation, which in turn means you can run frequent trains without increasing labour costs. So while it is more expensive than at-grade LRT, you get far superior service (frequency and travel times) which means more riders. That helps to amortize the extra cost and provides a whole host of unquantifiable benefits by taking more cars off the road.

Just show this chart to the next person who misunderstands

[s211]

Originally Posted by st7860

Even in mature cities like New York and Toyko their trains don't come anywhere nearly as often as the skytrain. When I tell people that they are always shocked.

And our train lengths are like one-twentieth the length of theirs. Their capacity blows ours out of the water.

[st7860]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

This is why I get so frustrated when people argue against Skytrain technology by saying it's "too expensive". First of all, most of the added expense is because of grade separation, not because it happens to use Bombardier's technology. And grade separation allows automated operation, which in turn means you can run frequent trains without increasing labour costs. So while it is more expensive than at-grade LRT, you get far superior service (frequency and travel times) which means more riders. That helps to amortize the extra cost and provides a whole host of unquantifiable benefits by taking more cars off the road.

I've never heard of a train in tokyo coming in as little as 30 seconds after a train already left but with skytrain during rush hours it can happen.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by st7860

I've never heard of a train in tokyo coming in as little as 30 seconds after a train already left but with skytrain during rush hours it can happen.

It's the moving block train control system that makes the close headways possible. With a conventional fixed block system a following train can't get any closer to the train ahead of it than dictated by the fixed track occupancy blocks, and they have to be spaced at least a few train lengths long to allow room for the trains themselves and enough distance to stop.

With the moving block system, the occupancy block "follows" the train as it moves along the track. That means you never have a "worst case" situation where end of the leading train is still a few feet into a fixed occupancy block behind it which prevents the following train from entering that block. So Skytrain consists can always follow each other at very close to the required braking distance.

I'm not sure about this, but I think that moving block systems are exclusive to automated systems, because it seems to me like they pretty much require computer control (no wayside "traffic lights" at fixed points for a driver to see).

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by s211

And our train lengths are like one-twentieth the length of theirs. Their capacity blows ours out of the water.

I'll take frequency any day. The trains there are still jam packed.

[st7860]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I'll take frequency any day. The trains there are still jam packed.

And in Vancouver there aren't any/many subway perverts.

[red-paladin]

If I saw a sleezo guy molest a woman on the skytrain, he better hope the next train isn't coming in 30 seconds.

[st7860]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

It's the moving block train control system that makes the close headways possible. With a conventional fixed block system a following train can't get any closer to the train ahead of it than dictated by the fixed track occupancy blocks, and they have to be spaced at least a few train lengths long to allow room for the trains themselves and enough distance to stop.

With the moving block system, the occupancy block "follows" the train as it moves along the track. That means you never have a "worst case" situation where end of the leading train is still a few feet into a fixed occupancy block behind it which prevents the following train from entering that block. So Skytrain consists can always follow each other at very close to the required braking distance.

I'm not sure about this, but I think that moving block systems are exclusive to automated systems, because it seems to me like they pretty much require computer control (no wayside "traffic lights" at fixed points for a driver to see).

here's one of the more extreme examples. less than 20 seconds apart

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq3f7_niQas&feature=related

[deasine]

Originally Posted by s211

And our train lengths are like one-twentieth the length of theirs. Their capacity blows ours out of the water.

Perhaps because their systems serve a much larger population.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by s211

And our train lengths are like one-twentieth the length of theirs. Their capacity blows ours out of the water.

Reality check:

NYC Subway trains are up to 600 feet long ("B" division cars).
Skytrain (Expo and Millennium) trains can be up to 230 feet long (6 Mk I or 4 MK II cars).

These limits to train size are set by the platform lengths of the respective train systems.

That works out to a difference of around 2.6 times, not 20.

[s211]

Length isn't everything (he said). Number of passengers per train is.

[Rico]

I am a bit befuddled about the recent posts, what exactly are we arguing? That Tokyo or New York have systems with greater capacity than Vancouver? Of course they do. Does Vancouver have a system sufficient for our needs (at least where we have built it)? Yes it does. For the record I am for more frequent small vehicles to achieve our capacity rather than fewer larger vehicles....assuming operating costs are similar (like on Skytrain).

[queetz@home]

I agree with everything you said except for this one.

Originally Posted by Rico

Does Vancouver have a system sufficient for our needs (at least where we have built it)? Yes it does.

There wouldn't be a call to upgrade or add additional trains if this was not true. And while people who are served by the Skytrain are okay, that still constitute a minority of the coverage required and the population it serves. Thankfully the Evergreen Line is on its way and hopefully, Surrey and Broadway will follow soon.

[Rico]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

I agree with everything you said except for this one.



There wouldn't be a call to upgrade or add additional trains if this was not true. And while people who are served by the Skytrain are okay, that still constitute a minority of the coverage required and the population it serves. Thankfully the Evergreen Line is on its way and hopefully, Surrey and Broadway will follow soon.

I agree we need more lines, that is why I said 'where we built it.' That said despite 'pass ups' on the Expo line it is still no more crowded than a lot of other systems I have used. Not saying we shouldn't be adding capacity to make a more comfortable system though.....another little gem a lot of people missed in the Broadway corridor study was the people per hour per direction West of Broadway/Commercial was expected to DECLINE if Broadway RRT was built (the Broadway line would provide better connections for many people currently transferring onto the Expo line at Broadway/Commercial)....So building the Broadway line would reduce crowding on the most crowded part of the Expo line (while increasing use on the less crowded part of the line). Go Broadway line.....

[GlassCity]

Speaking of capacity, I just started taking the Canada Line in the early mornings, and pass ups occur occasionally. Why were the platforms built so much shorter than on the Expo Line? It's alright for now, but I'm sure it'll get worse.