Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[ninjakafi_81]

Originally Posted by spm2013

Copy of the Phibbs Exchange Conceptual Design Study

http://nelsonnygaard.com/wp-content/uplo...bbs-Exchange-Conceptual-Design-Study.pdf

6 of them are articulated and 5 standard and 1 community shuttle. 28/130/239 210/211/214 (to Vancouver) and the 210 would be articulated from the document.

Here's the chart from that PDF.



I didn't know that the 210 had that many riders that required articulated buses.

[spm2013]

Ah never mind the articulated on 211/214, just re-read the table and only the 210 would be articulated.

I think it's more about downtown traffic for the 210 than any demand in Lynn Valley.

[ninjakafi_81]

Originally Posted by spm2013

Ah never mind the articulated on 211/214, just re-read the table and only the 210 would be articulated.

I think it's more about downtown traffic for the 210 than any demand in Lynn Valley.

Yea, I know thats why I was surprised that the 210 actually needed articulated buses. Probably that's the reason why the 210 might need articulated buses, but aren't there several other routes that go to the downtown area via Phibbs Exch ?

[Millennium2002]

TransLink has been moving to a hub and spoke model for some time now...

Does anyone remember Richmond before/after 98 and then SkyTrain? All the local routes would feed into downtown... I can't imagine that going well if say some buses were trapped on the Vancouver side due to an accident at Oak Street Bridge...

The system-wide trend has been to feed all the local routes into a hub, and then run a regional connector from there to the next hub. This way the local or regional services can run independently in case something happens to either. In the Richmond case, it was the 98 B-Line (now the Canada Line).

I'm pretty sure that soon enough, the North Shore service pattern will follow this model, and we'll be left with only a few routes crossing the bridge at any point in time. This will mean that the regional routes will need either higher frequencies of service or longer buses to cope with the traffic from the feeders, and this is most likely what they're anticipating with the 210 in this case.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Bear in mind that only every second train goes down that single-track segment, so you're really looking at a 3-minute turnaround time. They also have the option of short-turning every other train that goes down that leg, so that ultimately it's only every 4th train at 6-minute intervals that has to go all the way down the single track segment.

Every train from Vancouver goes to either the Richmond terminal or the Airport terminal, both of which are single-tracked terminal stations.

Having built single-tracked terminal stations, they will be the major factor determining how quickly trains can be turned around and sent back to Waterfront.

Doing short-turns on the Richmond or Airport segments means that people waiting at the terminal will get 1/2 of the segment's capacity (which s already 1/2 of the full-line capacity), ensuring there will be many P.O.'d customers at those well-used stations. It doesn't take much imagination to guess the reaction of fatigued travellers at YVR seeing a train *finally* lumbering down the tracks, only to see it stop at the cross-over and head back to Vancouver - empty.

Someone's going to have to bite the bullet and pay to double-track to the terminals to increase the overall line capacity - and with the increasing popularity of the line, this will need to be done sooner than they want.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

Someone's going to have to bite the bullet and pay to double-track to the terminals to increase the overall line capacity - and with the increasing popularity of the line, this will need to be done sooner than they want.

I measured the travel time on the Richmond leg between Brighouse and Lansdowne as 85 seconds (1m25s) in both directions (start of motion to complete stop). If you allow a 30-second dwell time at Brighouse then that gives you a Lansdowne-to-Brighouse-to-Lansdowne travel time of 200 seconds. When you cut that in half to get the minimum headway on the shared portion from Bridgeport inbound, that gives you 100 seconds.

But that's based on station-to-station time. The trains don't need to be right at Lansdowne station to pass each other - there's actually about 15-20 seconds of travel time outbound of the station before you get to the point where you'd hit the occupancy block for an opposing train going through the last switch (switch 342). Cutting a mere 10 seconds off the time in each direction would take you down to the 90-second headway on the shared section. And if the trans run the trail track at "catch-up" speed then there are even more savings to be had.

So I think that the quoted 90-second figure is based on the the tail track turnaround time, and that the tail tracks were designed with that in mind. I say this because the single track tail section of the YVR leg is only about half the distance between YVR and Templeton stations - so they clearly double-tracked the line to a specific point, and the location of that point was almost certainly dictated by minimum headway requirements ('cause I can't imagine what else it would be based on).

The biggest deal with the single-track tail sections is that they make it difficult to extend the line further. Not so much of a problem at YVR, because where else would it go? But it would be a bigger issue for the Brighouse leg. I suppose that with some finesse they could double-track the section beyond Brighouse and time the opposing trains over the single-track section so as not to conflict, but with both inbound and outbound trains having to dwell at the same station I doubt it would be feasible.

[ssiguy]

What I've always wondered about is how they will increase capacity and frequency levels at Waterfront.

A train is always just sitting there taking up one side of the platform as an emergency backup. While it's always good to have a train on stand-by it doesn't change the fact it greatly reduces frequency capacity because it effectively makes the Waterfront station a single track area but the trains are already coming in every 3 minutes and 30 seconds and have to turn around and leave immediately or the next train will have to wait.

right now it seems to work but if they were to double capacity on the Richmond Line it would be very difficult and if they doubled capacity on both the Richmond and YVR trains then I don't know how the hell they could possible do it.

Of course it should have been built with a section behind the station for train parking/changing but that would have required Campbell to actually care what happenes to the line after the Olympics. He cheaped out so much on this line that it is going to take a lot of money to bring it up to the capacity it will eventually need and a lot of disruption.

[MIPS]

Of course it should have been built with a section behind the station for train parking/changing but that would have required Campbell to actually care what happenes to the line after the Olympics. He cheaped out so much on this line that it is going to take a lot of money to bring it up to the capacity it will eventually need and a lot of disruption.

That's impossible. Take a walk under Waterfront station in the parking lot and you can see that even the walkway to the platform is a tight squeeze. You can't extend the tail end without dividing the parking lot completely in two. Another 40 feet and you're overlapping the expo line.

[Mac Write]

It's already been said that Waterfront will use one platform for YVR and the other platform for Richmond/Brighouse.

[ninjakafi_81]

Originally Posted by allan_kuan

TransLink has been moving to a hub and spoke model for some time now...

Does anyone remember Richmond before/after 98 and then SkyTrain? All the local routes would feed into downtown... I can't imagine that going well if say some buses were trapped on the Vancouver side due to an accident at Oak Street Bridge...

The system-wide trend has been to feed all the local routes into a hub, and then run a regional connector from there to the next hub. This way the local or regional services can run independently in case something happens to either. In the Richmond case, it was the 98 B-Line (now the Canada Line).

I'm pretty sure that soon enough, the North Shore service pattern will follow this model, and we'll be left with only a few routes crossing the bridge at any point in time. This will mean that the regional routes will need either higher frequencies of service or longer buses to cope with the traffic from the feeders, and this is most likely what they're anticipating with the 210 in this case.

So in short, Translink is going to make the 210 the frequent regional connecting route. Most of the North Shore routes will terminate at Phibbs Exch and then the passengers will transfer to the frequent 210 to Downtown.... Or something along those lines.

[officedweller]

Cursory article on Canada Line being 5 years old:

http://www.theprovince.com/news/Canada+L...+signs+success+story/10126188/story.html

[spm2013]

Originally Posted by ninjakafi_81

So in short, Translink is going to make the 210 the frequent regional connecting route. Most of the North Shore routes will terminate at Phibbs Exch and then the passengers will transfer to the frequent 210 to Downtown.... Or something along those lines.

Well Park Royal and Lonsdale are still pretty big hubs as well. You'll see more interconnected routes around the North Shore since Translink thinks there will be less traffic South of the Inlet and more people travelling around the North Shore.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Cursory article on Canada Line being 5 years old:

http://www.theprovince.com/news/Canada+L...+signs+success+story/10126188/story.html

Looks to me like the author's research started and ended with wikipedia.

[urbancanadian]

Hey everyone. I've been reading this forum off and on for several years now and I've considered joining a number of times. I never start something unless I can commit myself to it (ie. posting regularly) so I've stayed away. Every once in a while though, I see a question go unanswered that I might know something about so I figured I would sign up. I won't post very often, unless I have something contribute. PS - thanks for some great reads over the years.

--------------------------------------------------

Alright, to the point:

It looks like the plan has changed again for Metrotown Station. Instead of a loop at the base of the station, it sounds like the city wants the main bus bays to be located on either side of Central Boulevard, with the current loop area still being used for some buses, Handy Dart, and layovers. Central Boulevard would continue to have two GP through lanes in each direction.

Good news is that a replacement passerelle is planned to connect to the new central (mid) station house.

Also of interest:
- addition of 4 escalators each, to the east and west station houses (8 total).
- bike storage room
- 3 retail units at grade
- current bus loop reverses direction (becomes counter-clockwise)
- current bus loop island used as layover area, with adjacent escalators closed

The rest seems to be roughly the same as previous designs.

Here's the link to the report: https://burnaby.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentList.aspx?ID=14912

I don't know how much the station architecture will change, but I hope it looks similar to what was posted previously on this forum (I think it was a VIA Architecture design). Considering the relatively limited budget for the project, I thought the design was quite nice - simple, modern, respectful of the previous design.

Okay, hope this is at all useful to anyone.

[hollywoodnorth]

thanks for your post and welcome to the forum!

[spm2013]

Welcome! Same reason I joined.

[rxp]

Originally Posted by Mac Write

When will the next headway increase take place to 2 minutes?

anyone know this?

[LeftCoaster]

As far as I know there is no set date but will be demand based.

When the Canada Line reaches a certain # of travelers intransitBC will be contractually obliged to increase frequencies.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

As far as I know there is no set date but will be demand based.

It's also budget based, and it certainly won't happen if Translink can't allocated the extra operating funds necessary to pay for the increase in service.

And the fate of those operating funds lies in the upcoming referendum.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by urbancanadian

Alright, to the point:

It looks like the plan has changed again for Metrotown Station. Instead of a loop at the base of the station, it sounds like the city wants the main bus bays to be located on either side of Central Boulevard, with the current loop area still being used for some buses, Handy Dart, and layovers. Central Boulevard would continue to have two GP through lanes in each direction.

Thanks and welcome

I've copied your post to the station renovation thread.