Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[xd_1771]

555 Highway 1 Rapid Bus SURREY STOP is now open at 156 St!

[Tfreder]

I'm surprised this hasn't been reported anywhere. Besides the Updated 555 schedule, there's no news of this anywhere else. There isn't even a news release from Translink.

You'd figure this would be a great publicity piece for Watts and her party.

[Mac Write]

C9 is being cut back to 60 minute service (when I moved to Alberta and Columbia in 1996 service was 7 minutes combined 147, 148, 156, 158?).

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by Mac Write

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

Makes sense except it can't be done as currently set up.

Translink has a policy of always having a train on stand-by which is why there is always one at Waterfront. Effectively the station has just one platform and track as the auxiliary train just sits there taking up space.

Also if they want to increase service on the Canada Line {even if they have the money to do so} is not possible during rush hour because the line is already at capacity in terms of trains being used. Translink could come up with the funds to run them every 20 seconds if they wanted to but it wouldn't make any difference, there are simply no trains to do it with.

There are, of course, always trains at the depot and the one at waterfront but they are not allowed to be used as Translink has a policy of always holding back 15% {I think} of all trains in case of a failure on one of the one's operating.

Even if the referendum grants more funds for the Canada Line it really won't do any good except in the evening. Due to the severe limitations at Waterfront and lack of rolling stock any improvements will not only mean more operational funds but also infrastructure money to bring the entire line up to dual track and figure out some way of adding capacity at Waterfront.

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by Tfreder

I'm surprised this hasn't been reported anywhere. Besides the Updated 555 schedule, there's no news of this anywhere else. There isn't even a news release from Translink.

You'd figure this would be a great publicity piece for Watts and her party.

Would have been better had there been a park-and-ride nearby since the 337 is the only direct connection there for most Guildford/Fraser Heights residents. I have a feeling it would have been a popular park-and-ride for most Fleetwood, Fraser Heights and Guildford residents. I wonder if some people will start parking at that church nearby.

[xd_1771]

The church does not have direct access to the HOV ramp, actually. But it's a shame that the East Guildford Park'n'Ride does not integrate with this (yet). With a short-turn 555 that exits Hwy 1 at 160 St and re-enters at 156 St, it might.

[nname]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

There are, of course, always trains at the depot and the one at waterfront but they are not allowed to be used as Translink has a policy of always holding back 15% {I think} of all trains in case of a failure on one of the one's operating.

The industry standard for spare is about 12-20% - closer to 12% for completely grade separated metro and 20% for at-grade LRT. TransLink, however, had only 3% spare on MkIIs and 9% on MkIs during 2006-2009 when there were really a shortage of vehicles. Before Train2Main, the spare was 7% for MkIIs and 9% for MkIs. There is no stand-by train anywhere on the Expo and Millennium line during peak hours (the trains only park into the spare track at the end of peak).

[Mac Write]

So what are the chances they are going to order the 24 cars or extra 28 cars? Sounds like we desperately need them!

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Translink has a policy of always having a train on stand-by which is why there is always one at Waterfront.

Canada Line stand-by trains are frequently located on one of the two ramps into the OMC, and I see no reason why they cannot cease storing one at Waterfront and only continue to position the stand-by at OMC.

Even if the referendum grants more funds for the Canada Line it really won't do any good except in the evening.

The referendum plan explicitly includes a purchase of additional rolling stock for Canada Line and station upgrades. See below:

From the Mayors Vision document from June, Appendix, "Program: Canada Line Upgrades" page A-27:

• Fleet: 12 additional cars in service in 2019. (An additional 8 cars would be procured in 2024 for revenue service beginning in 2025.)
• Facilities: capacity expansion at the Canada Line Operations and Maintenance Centre to accommodate new fleet.
• Stations: passenger access and circulation upgrades at 3 stations, major platform capacity upgrades at 12 stations to finish or extend platforms from 40 to 50 m, and emergency exiting capacity upgrades at 4 stations.

COSTS
Total Capital Cost (2015$) $52M
Annual Operating Cost (2015$)* $16.2M
*Annual operating cost reflects annual cost following deployment of vehicles procured in 2024

[officedweller]

The new 156th stop is in the Sept 1, 2014 service changes, but agreed you'd think it would have been trumped up a bit...


http://www.translink.ca/en/Schedules-and-Maps/Transit-Service-Changes.aspx

[ssiguy]

I agree that they should be able to cease parking a train at Waterfront but they still do it.
The station and passenger flow would be much easier if they got rid of that train but they insist on having it there.

I hope you are right because if Translink insists on having an auxiliary at waterfront, there is no way in hell they will be able to increase capacity. The most that could be hoped for is for trains to short turn at Vancouver City Centre and that would not go over well.

I can certainly understand the logic of wanting to have a spare train at the end of any transit line, logic was never a requirement of the PPP when building this line. Not only are the stations short but also very thin making them downright dangerous in rush hour. Even if the funding comes thru, 2024 is a decade away and what happens in 2044 is anybody's guess.

The line is basically at capacity as it is now. Technically no but those numbers they use for capacity are a bit of a farce. They don't take into account the reality of everyone carrying a bag, purse, laptop, and especially knapsacks and luggage due to this line serving major post-secondary and YVR.

Until capacity is greatly increased I think Vancouver and Richmond should put a moratorium on any large scale developments along the line ie Oakridge. The line will become much busier and all stations will have too many occasions when there are line-ups to get onto the next train but the Canada Line stations are simply far to thin to allow for this with any degree of safety.

[TransitJack]

It's best to keep spare trains parked where they can quickly be injected near areas of High demand. For Canada Line, that's downtown.

It's unfortunate that the line wasn't built with a pocket track somewhere downtown or even King Edward area, but the costs of subterranean construction negated is, like it did larger stations.

Freeing up the extra platform at Waterfront could actually hinder passenger flow, as passengers for any main branch station would be waiting on both sides, perhaps even chasing the next arriving train, cross platform. I'm always impressed how at the termini on Canada Line, passengers so regularly queue up. Using both sides of Waterfront could prevent this from happening.

Using both platforms is really only needed when service frequency goes below 2 mins or so, and more useful if a much higher station dwell is used. For example, the inbound platform train might have to wait for arriving train for outbound platform to cross over when frequencies increase. At present, it's about 2 and a half minutes from departure to next arrival, more than enough time for a train to clear Waterfront before the next arrives.

[Gordon]

I would have preferred Canada Line waterfront station to have been built with a tail track. allowing for a proper loading & unloading platform.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Until capacity is greatly increased I think Vancouver and Richmond should put a moratorium on any large scale developments along the line ie Oakridge.

Ahh, grasshopper, you do not understand the Way Of Things. Capacity won't be increased unless it's outstripped by demand. Demand won't increase (as much) unless you build large scale developments.

Build it, and they will come.

[DKaz]

Originally Posted by officedweller

The new 156th stop is in the Sept 1, 2014 service changes, but agreed you'd think it would have been trumped up a bit...

I'm going to try taking this bus. I'm going to try to find parking on 107 Avenue but it seems like the safe bet is parking up on 108 Avenue. It's a 400m walk to the bus stop from there.

I usually park on Grosvenor Road and walk 550m to Gateway Station, but I got there at 8am this morning and my free parking spots were full, plus Fraser Hwy was a gong show today. Driving up to 108 Avenue will cut 4km from my drive and save $1.25 in fuel, while taking roughly the same amount of time, maybe take 5 minutes longer.

[officedweller]

Exactly -

The chicken and the egg have reversed since the M-Line was built.

For the M-Line, it was built to shape growth - but low ridership yielded complaints about a train to nowhere. There were even naysayers for Canada Line - at the capacity it was built at.

Nowadays, you practically have to show a proven demand - which is the battle between the UBC Line and the Surrey extensions (apart from factors involving monetary tax contributions and political fairness).

[dpogue]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Exactly -

The chicken and the egg have reversed since the M-Line was built.

For the M-Line, it was built to shape growth - but low ridership yielded complaints about a train to nowhere. There were even naysayers for Canada Line - at the capacity it was built at.

Nowadays, you practically have to show a proven demand - which is the battle between the UBC Line and the Surrey extensions (apart from factors involving monetary tax contributions and political fairness).

It's definitely interesting to see how parts of the M-Line are still in the process of being developed (Brentwood area, Renfrew/Broadway Tech Centre, Sapperton) compared to the Evergreen Line which isn't even finished yet and already has a lot of development interest (around Burquitlam, through Port Moody, and around Coquitlam Centre).

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

The church does not have direct access to the HOV ramp, actually. But it's a shame that the East Guildford Park'n'Ride does not integrate with this (yet). With a short-turn 555 that exits Hwy 1 at 160 St and re-enters at 156 St, it might.

Would irk Langley bound commuters since it would tack on an extra 5-7 min to their commute. There's a new strip mall slated to be built in the NE quadrant of 156th St and 104th Ave right? Could they realistically add park-and-ride stalls, perhaps even underground stalls? I could see this becoming a popular P&R destination for many Fleetwood, Fraser Heights and Guildford residents.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Exactly -

The chicken and the egg have reversed since the M-Line was built.

For the M-Line, it was built to shape growth - but low ridership yielded complaints about a train to nowhere. There were even naysayers for Canada Line - at the capacity it was built at.

Nowadays, you practically have to show a proven demand - which is the battle between the UBC Line and the Surrey extensions (apart from factors involving monetary tax contributions and political fairness).

IMO, I want to see Skytrain extensions, because those are the most long-term solutions that cost less to maintain. I don't want to see technology switches because that means the transfer point will add between 2 and 30 minutes to travel time.

I'm pretty certain the demand exists, if not the future growth in Surrey and along Broadway would certainly create the demand necessary to justify the cost.

BUT...

People wanting to see LRT in Surrey, Broadway or putting anything down Arbutus seem to have this romantic notion that a slower, less-reliable, vehicle-traffic impeding, jaywalker-killing, light rail system is some how cheaper because of NIMBY factors.

Some of the politicians in Surrey don't want Skytrain because of NIMBY's, but they don't really want LRT either because it only converts bus riders, it does nothing to convert car drivers. It will just be an expensive boondoggle that will cost more to operate as the LRV's get damaged or totaled by the already terrible car drivers.

The required link IMO is extending the Skytrain to Langley. Though if you want to start being nitpicky, maybe we should see if the Skytrain can run faster than 80km/h on that straight-stretch, that would more than justify the technology over LRT.

But when you look at Broadway, the roles are reversed. Vancouver wants to put a Subway in (which is long term thinking,) and the people suggesting to build LRT's instead, are again looking at a cost and NIMBY factor rather than the long-term consequences .

Burnaby's Mayor pooh-poohing the SFU Gondola project is kinda funny in this way, because despite citing costs, it's actually opposed by NIMBY's (75% of residents asked wouldn't support it.) So the Burnaby Major may actually have won PR by not going forward with it.

Like, call me a pessimist, but I don't see anything being built in Surrey because the tax payers don't want to pay for it, and that's because voters in the greater metro area see one or both rapid-transit projects as bad, and that's entirely the fault of Surrey trying to bypass Translink and get the Federal government to foot the bill. (If you read about it, http://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/plan/nrp-pnr-prog-eng.php , these are required to be P3 projects... and we all saw how that went with the Canada Line.)

I love this statement though:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/08/20/trudeau-liberals-infrastructure-gdp_n_5696284.html (August 20th 2014, Althia Raj)

Fougere wants to see the Liberals to adopt a policy of unconditional transfers that lets cities make their own choices about where to allocate funds.

He said the Conservatives’ much-talked-about Building Canada Fund has so little money in it this year that he didn’t bother applying.

But hey, if Surrey somehow magically convinces the feds to give them the money to build a LRT without Translink, then the Surrey taxpayer is entirely on the hook for operating it.

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by Kisai

The required link IMO is extending the Skytrain to Langley. Though if you want to start being nitpicky, maybe we should see if the Skytrain can run faster than 80km/h on that straight-stretch, that would more than justify the technology over LRT.

Mark II cars and presumably future Mark III cars are capable of up to 100km/h - they operate at this speed in Beijing and New York. We'd just need to get rid of the Mark Is and test current track sections.

Originally Posted by Kisai

Like, call me a pessimist, but I don't see anything being built in Surrey because the tax payers don't want to pay for it, and that's because voters in the greater metro area see one or both rapid-transit projects as bad, and that's entirely the fault of Surrey trying to bypass Translink and get the Federal government to foot the bill. (If you read about it, http://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/plan/nrp-pnr-prog-eng.php , these are required to be P3 projects... and we all saw how that went with the Canada Line.)

I love this statement though:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/08/20/trudeau-liberals-infrastructure-gdp_n_5696284.html (August 20th 2014, Althia Raj)

But hey, if Surrey somehow magically convinces the feds to give them the money to build a LRT without Translink, then the Surrey taxpayer is entirely on the hook for operating it.

The last point is a great one - and in a low-tax-rate city, it's going to be a gongshow when people find out about the expense to convert a presumably paltry 10-15 minute off-peak/weekend service into something more tolerable for daily ridership.

The problem is no one in Surrey really cares about transit. I've seen people and advocates simply come and go - raise hell for a little but, but then suddenly disappear to be never heard from again. That new rapid bus stop on 156th that opened, I don't think there was anyone else (apart from city politicians) other than myself and a few others crying foul. Other transportation advocacy "organizations" in this city have gone completely inactive.