The Great Canadian Transit Thread - Page 213

eemy · #**4241** Posted **May 1, 2014, 8:53 PM**

While that might seem fair, it's hardly in Translink's interests not to consider such efficiencies. I don't know why they would feel beholden to other manufacturers.

GlassCity · #**4242** Posted **May 1, 2014, 9:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

While that might seem fair, it's hardly in Translink's interests not to consider such efficiencies. I don't know why they would feel beholden to other manufacturers.

Yeah, it was stupid alright. It's funny how they don't take passenger convenience into account: The fact that Bombardier trains are faster didn't seem to worry them. It's even worse considering Bombardier WAS cheaper with efficiencies taken into account, but Translink disallowed that.

Also, I might be wrong on this one, but I believe part of what helped Rotem come out cheaper, and ultimately win the contract, was that they used cut and cover to False Creek, rather than boring the entire way like Bombardier wanted to do. And the whole cut and cover thing down such a major street turned out to be a disaster.

Innsertnamehere · #**4243** Posted **May 1, 2014, 9:19 PM**

Ontario budget came out today, and as expected includes $14 billion for new GTA transit infrastructure, $15 billion for general transportation infrastructure outside of the GTA. Now we see if the NDP support it or not.

Metro-One · #**4244** Posted **May 1, 2014, 9:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Yeah, it was stupid alright. It's funny how they don't take passenger convenience into account: The fact that Bombardier trains are faster didn't seem to worry them. It's even worse considering Bombardier WAS cheaper with efficiencies taken into account, but Translink disallowed that.

Also, I might be wrong on this one, but I believe part of what helped Rotem come out cheaper, and ultimately win the contract, was that they used cut and cover to False Creek, rather than boring the entire way like Bombardier wanted to do. And the whole cut and cover thing down such a major street turned out to be a disaster.

Bombardier's bid included an open trench along Cambie for a significant portion of the route. That was one of the major deal breakers.

I am fucking tired of this conversation and ssiguys misinformation.

I rode the Canada Line everyday from Marine to Downtown when I lived in Van, never had a problem ,was never left waiting for the next train, and many more times than not I even had a seat. I for one actually prefer the Canada line to the E/M lines. It is very clean and never left me delayed.

It only seems slow because skytrain is so fast, the Canada Line is a pretty standard subway speed.

GlassCity · #**4245** Posted **May 1, 2014, 10:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Bombardier's bid included an open trench along Cambie for a significant portion of the route. That was one of the major deal breakers.

I am fucking tired of this conversation and ssiguys misinformation.

I rode the Canada Line everyday from Marine to Downtown when I lived in Van, never had a problem ,was never left waiting for the next train, and many more times than not I even had a seat. I for one actually prefer the Canada line to the E/M lines. It is very clean and never left me delayed.

It only seems slow because skytrain is so fast, the Canada Line is a pretty standard subway speed.

I know it's standard speed, but when there was the option to make it faster, I don't see why we wouldn't do it. To me speed is the number one most important thing in a metro system, but I know lots of people that also prefer the Canada Line for the same reasons you do, although that has more to do with age than technology.

I had no idea about the open trench, that would likely be a deal breaker for me as well.

Metro-One · #**4246** Posted **May 1, 2014, 10:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I know it's standard speed, but when there was the option to make it faster, I don't see why we wouldn't do it. To me speed is the number one most important thing in a metro system, but I know lots of people that also prefer the Canada Line for the same reasons you do, although that has more to do with age than technology.

I had no idea about the open trench, that would likely be a deal breaker for me as well.

Yes, the city of Vancouver was quite against the open trench, I believe it would have been 2 or 3 kms long running down south Cambie.

People should really just be happy that we received a fully automated grade separated metro line.

The Canada Line almost became an at grade system. Richmond actually was against an elevated guide way and wanted it to run along #3 Road originally (or a parallel road away from the heart of the commercial district). Now that would have been a disaster!

GlassCity · #**4247** Posted **May 1, 2014, 10:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Yes, the city of Vancouver was quite against the open trench, I believe it would have been 2 or 3 kms long running down south Cambie.

People should really just be happy that we received a fully automated grade separated metro line.

The Canada Line almost became an at grade system. Richmond actually was against an elevated guide way and wanted it to run along #3 Road originally (or a parallel road away from the heart of the commercial district). Now that would have been a disaster!

I knew about Richmond's plan for it to be LRT, I'm very glad that they were defeated. I am happy how the line turned out given how much worse it could have been, but it could have been better too. Aside from using LIM technology, I also wish we didn't single track the ends of the lines in Richmond.

Metro-One · #**4248** Posted **May 1, 2014, 10:40 PM**

That was also Richmond demanding the guide way to have less of an impact...

GlassCity · #**4249** Posted **May 1, 2014, 10:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

That was also Richmond demanding the guide way to have less of an impact...

I know...didn't they think that it would have to be double tracked eventually anyway? Richmond-Brighouse Station is already packed, eventually it will run out of capacity and it will have to be done. Or were they thinking at least they'll have less of an impact for 40 years?

Aylmer · #**4250** Posted **May 1, 2014, 11:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I knew about Richmond's plan for it to be LRT, I'm very glad that they were defeated. I am happy how the line turned out given how much worse it could have been, but it could have been better too. Aside from using LIM technology, I also wish we didn't single track the ends of the lines in Richmond.

Metro vs LRT is a false dichotomy. As we're showing here in Ottawa, you can have LRT as a metro. What might have been interesting for the Canada Line would be metro-LRT (which I'll call MLRT for the lack of a better term) in Vancouver and surface LRT (SLRT) in Richmond, where it would be appropriate.

That said, I'm generally more in favour of having S-Bahn-type service to suburbs, since it allows both urban transit to run more frequently with a higher station density and suburban transit to run faster with a lower station density.

Metro-One · #**4251** Posted **May 1, 2014, 11:10 PM**

The definition of metro is grade separation vs non grade separation, the train technology does not matter (LRT, HRT, Monorail, etc...)

GlassCity · #**4252** Posted **May 1, 2014, 11:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aylmer

Metro vs LRT is a false dichotomy. As we're showing here in Ottawa, you can have LRT as a metro. What might have been interesting for the Canada Line would be metro-LRT (which I'll call MLRT for the lack of a better term) in Vancouver and surface LRT (SLRT) in Richmond, where it would be appropriate.

That said, I'm generally more in favour of having S-Bahn-type service to suburbs, since it allows both urban transit to run more frequently with a higher station density and suburban transit to run faster with a lower station density.

You're right, LRT can be grade separated just like Ottawa is doing, but I've just gotten used to "metro" meaning grade separated and "LRT" being on the surface. Lots of people like to point out that the Skytrain is LRT, which it is, but at least in Vancouver I've noticed LRT to mean only at grade.

I disagree that surface LRT would be appropriate in Richmond. But I've made my views clear in the past that I don't think surface LRT is appropriate anywhere, so I'm not going to revisit that.

As far as S-Bahning goes, I think Vancouver's nodes are all close enough to each other that it's not necessary as of right now. But I think it would be a good idea in the future to help relieve capacity, so say mirroring the current Expo Line but only stopping at Waterfront, Commercial-Broadway, Metrotown, New Westminster and Surrey Central.

Innsertnamehere · #**4253** Posted **May 1, 2014, 11:25 PM**

Honestly, I would consider Ottawas "LRT" a metro. In all senses of the definition, it is one, only it uses LRT cars.

GlassCity · #**4254** Posted **May 1, 2014, 11:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Honestly, I would consider Ottawas "LRT" a metro. In all senses of the definition, it is one.

I thought we all agreed it was already?

Also, I've been meaning to ask this for a while but it hasn't come up. Is the O-Train fully grade separated too? I looked at satellite images and it looked like the only crossing was with some railway, but I assume it's not in use anymore?

Innsertnamehere · #**4255** Posted **May 1, 2014, 11:28 PM**

it crosses a low use freight line and a few at grade pedestrian crossings.

GreaterMontréal · #**4256** Posted **May 1, 2014, 11:34 PM**

There is talk of a LRT for the Montréal West Island. The route would cross the Pierre-Elliot-Trudeau airport and could possibly link the future LRT on the Champlain Bridge.

VIce · #**4257** Posted **May 1, 2014, 11:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aylmer

Metro vs LRT is a false dichotomy. As we're showing here in Ottawa, you can have LRT as a metro. What might have been interesting for the Canada Line would be metro-LRT (which I'll call MLRT for the lack of a better term) in Vancouver and surface LRT (SLRT) in Richmond, where it would be appropriate.

That said, I'm generally more in favour of having S-Bahn-type service to suburbs, since it allows both urban transit to run more frequently with a higher station density and suburban transit to run faster with a lower station density.

The term I've heard quite often is "light metro".

GlassCity · #**4258** Posted **May 2, 2014, 12:00 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by VIce

The term I've heard quite often is "light metro".

Or Advanced Light Rapid Transit

spaceprobe · #**4259** Posted **May 2, 2014, 2:34 AM**

it would have been great if canada line was build with skytrain technology but used the wider (ie standard train) width cars which apparently is used in some cities that have built skytrains.

I remember reading a long time ago that the expo line can accomodate these wider cars as well...there is a yellow panel at the stations that can be removed to fit the wider cars. Not sure if this is completely true, and if so, why we don't do it. It might be cheaper than extending platforms. Use the current cars on evergreen, and get new wide cars for expo.?

Aylmer · #**4260** Posted **May 2, 2014, 3:41 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

The definition of metro is grade separation vs non grade separation, the train technology does not matter (LRT, HRT, Monorail, etc...)

Quite right. So then I guess my argument is that you don't just have to chose between class A, B or C RoW (granted, B might affect reliability a little and C definitely will): many systems have a combination of two or more. Calgary (A & B), Boston (A & B) and Marseille (A, B+ and some short sections of C) come to mind.

My point is that A might be appropriate in some contexts (dense, active areas) and B might suit others better (more space, lower activity) and you can have a same line do both. That's why I say that metro vs. LRT is a false dichotomy.

(From Jarett Walker's excellent book/manual, Human Transit)