Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[nname]

Well, the Expo Line have the catchment area covering part of Vancouver, Burnaby, New West, Tri-Cities (from the Millennium branch), Surrey, North Delta, and even Langleys. That's probably close to 1 million living in the area and it only have 16,000 pphpd after 30 years of operation.

Would the catchment for Canada Line ever grow close to 1 million in population?

[st7860]

The buses along cambie aren't even articulated yet. A lot can be done before the Canada Line, if ever, needs to be expanded beyond triple what it can handle now.

[WarrenC12]

Don't forget one of the only potentially available ROWs (Arbutus) is another North-South line through Vancouver, which would offload some Canada Line volume.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by nname

Well, the Expo Line have the catchment area covering part of Vancouver, Burnaby, New West, Tri-Cities (from the Millennium branch), Surrey, North Delta, and even Langleys. That's probably close to 1 million living in the area and it only have 16,000 pphpd after 30 years of operation.

Would the catchment for Canada Line ever grow close to 1 million in population?

I'm not talking about the expo line with the millennium line considered as a branch because it's not going to be past 2016. And while increasing bus service overall is smart and likely to happen this will worsen congestion at the street level. As well though the catchments of the Canada line stations when accounting for bus tie ins would likely carry a similar population.

Vancouver and Richmonds populations plus a lesser percentage of Delta and Surrey (South) Populations likely add up to a similar number as the Populations of Burnaby and Vancouver when you consider that the Canada line hits a much larger percentage of Vancouvers population and appears to be on a corridor with more growth.

And whether scaling up the Canada line is valid or not I'm thinking pretty far ahead here, and just generally curious what will eventually* happen along this ROW since its future demand will be cemented by development currently occurring along the line.

[Reecemartin]

Check out this link from Vancity Buzz
http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2015/09/soil-...erground-broadway-extension-of-skytrain/

[st7860]

Finally z good find

[ssiguy]

I don't see how a change in the technology would make any difference. It's not the technology it's the station size that greatly inhibits it's capacity. Yes Skytrain would probably be a bit quicker but so could the Metro but they cheaped out on the rails as well by not inclining them properly between King Edward and 41st. That's why it slows down during this section and is as loud as hell.

The Canada Line is a textbook example of how not to build {or operate} a transit line. From puny stations, single line track, no extra car track at Waterfront, poor access to the stations, dangerously thin stations, not properly inclined rails, cut and cover construction, and no forethought into future needs.............the Canada Line is an incredible failure on so many levels.

It's absurd that just 5 years after the line was opened there is even talk of a parallel line.

Campbell as his PPP can of course take a lot of the blame but there is tons to go around. Translink should have demanded at least 80 meter stations to begin with and better access and wider platforms. Richmond should be shot for demanding only a single rail line and made worse by not making any allowances for a future twinning.

Campbell certainly twisted arms but the final OK still came from Translink. If there was not enough money then they should have built fewer stations to begin with as long as there was an ability to build them later.

The Canada Line is exactly how a city should not build transit but the citizens are stuck with it. A parallel line is out of the question for at least 50 years as there are so many other faster growing areas of Metro that have no rapid transit so their needs must come first. From the Broadway/UBC extension to Surrey LRT/SkyTrain, Valley commuter/suburban rail, Hastings rapid transit, a new line via a new bridge/tunnel to NV, Evergreen extension to PC/PM/MR, to 41st LRT............. a parallel route is out of the questions for generations. NO one or city will EVER agree to any form of relief of the line while their cities wait for any rapid transit.

The capacity of the line is completely insufficient and due to the huge amount of development planned along Cambie and Richmond Centre, the line will only get busier. The problem is that there will come a point within 20 years when even with the puny 50 meter trains and higher frequency there line will be overwhelmed.

A capacity line with very thin stations is both dangerous and greatly reduces speed as it takes much longer to load/unload a packed train than a normal one. Due to these thins Translink will have no option but to take the suburban WR/SS and Delta commuter lines off the route and back onto Granville. Sounds pathetic but they really will have absolutely no option.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

It's absurd that just 5 years after the line was opened there is even talk of a parallel line.

There isn't, though.

[Bdawe]

Originally Posted by Jebby

There isn't, though.

Precisely. There is discussion of a parallel line only on internet forums. It will likely be decades before we *really* need more than 15,000 pphpd or equivalent. And if in a future we find ourselves building parallel lines, it will be mostly a side effect of the demand existing to serve those parallel routes. And for that we will have a more broad reaching system.

It's utterly absurd to call the Canada Line a failure. There are few new-build transit lines in North America that can be said to pay for their own operations. By any operational qualifications the line is very much a success.

There are legitimate criticisms - the platforms are too narrow for peak demands, that the PPP contract is too inflexible, that extension and branch frequency is limited by single tracking, but the simple fact that the line is not in the red should be loud and clear that the project is successful

[red-paladin]

Canada line is not near capacity but I agree 100% that at the moment too few trains operate, too infrequently. Just like the Expo line is great but it sucks at 10pm on power rail single tracking days where you wait 15min and get packed in like sardines.

Canada line needs more trains, more often, and that's just a matter of money on Translink's part. That's all there is to it at this moment. I do agree that a few years down the road, they damn well better think seriously about the 50m extensions and 3 car trains.

[logan5]

Don't forget that the Canada Line was built for a bargain price. Half the price of Bombardier Routes in with more than half it's capacity.

When the Canada Line reaches capacity (many decades from now) there only needs to be a 3 km relief line (expo line from waterfront up to main and Broadway). Easy fix.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

Canada line is not near capacity but I agree 100% that at the moment too few trains operate, too infrequently. Just like the Expo line is great but it sucks at 10pm on power rail single tracking days where you wait 15min and get packed in like sardines.

Canada line needs more trains, more often, and that's just a matter of money on Translink's part. That's all there is to it at this moment. I do agree that a few years down the road, they damn well better think seriously about the 50m extensions and 3 car trains.

Yes, the downtown sections are too busy right now.

Your point, which I echo, is that there's a big difference between the theoretical capacity of the line, and how much is being utilized today due to operational costs. Those are two entirely different numbers that some people on this forum seem to struggle with.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I don't see how a change in the technology would make any difference. It's not the technology it's the station size that greatly inhibits it's capacity. Yes Skytrain would probably be a bit quicker but so could the Metro but they cheaped out on the rails as well by not inclining them properly between King Edward and 41st. That's why it slows down during this section and is as loud as hell.

The Canada Line is a textbook example of how not to build {or operate} a transit line. From puny stations, single line track, no extra car track at Waterfront, poor access to the stations, dangerously thin stations, not properly inclined rails, cut and cover construction, and no forethought into future needs.............the Canada Line is an incredible failure on so many levels.

It's absurd that just 5 years after the line was opened there is even talk of a parallel line.

Campbell as his PPP can of course take a lot of the blame but there is tons to go around. Translink should have demanded at least 80 meter stations to begin with and better access and wider platforms. Richmond should be shot for demanding only a single rail line and made worse by not making any allowances for a future twinning.

Campbell certainly twisted arms but the final OK still came from Translink. If there was not enough money then they should have built fewer stations to begin with as long as there was an ability to build them later.

The Canada Line is exactly how a city should not build transit but the citizens are stuck with it. A parallel line is out of the question for at least 50 years as there are so many other faster growing areas of Metro that have no rapid transit so their needs must come first. From the Broadway/UBC extension to Surrey LRT/SkyTrain, Valley commuter/suburban rail, Hastings rapid transit, a new line via a new bridge/tunnel to NV, Evergreen extension to PC/PM/MR, to 41st LRT............. a parallel route is out of the questions for generations. NO one or city will EVER agree to any form of relief of the line while their cities wait for any rapid transit.

The capacity of the line is completely insufficient and due to the huge amount of development planned along Cambie and Richmond Centre, the line will only get busier. The problem is that there will come a point within 20 years when even with the puny 50 meter trains and higher frequency there line will be overwhelmed.

A capacity line with very thin stations is both dangerous and greatly reduces speed as it takes much longer to load/unload a packed train than a normal one. Due to these thins Translink will have no option but to take the suburban WR/SS and Delta commuter lines off the route and back onto Granville. Sounds pathetic but they really will have absolutely no option.

You have actually been suspended over this issue once before,yet you continuing to spread lies and and untrue statements about the Canada line. To call it a failure is absurd. I rode the Canada Line every day when I was living in Vancouver and not once did I have problems accessing the first train that arrived at my station.

There are some legitimate criticisms to be had but over all it is a solid addition to Vancouver's rapid transit network.

It is no where near its final build-out capacity (in fact is is only just over 1/3 now).

The train fleet (and frequency) can be more than doubled, a third middle card can still be added, nearly all of the stations outside of downtown can still have their 10 meter expansions added, and if need be I am sure the busiest stations can have new access points retrofitted onto them without much problem.

The only real issues are the single track in Richmond which will prevent further extensions south and that Vancouver City Centre was not built with a south exit.

In the end, the Canada Line is a fully grade separated automated metro line with frequent train service built during the middle of North America's surface rail LRT craze. Sounds like a win to me!

is it perfect? No. Is it a failure? NO! For example, I would take the Canada Line over Seattle's new half surface rail LRT any day. (and compare the costs of those two!)

The only people who I have ever heard complain about the Canada Line are pretty much restricted to this forum (and their anecdotal second cousin's pool boy's lawyer's stories)..

I often talked to tourists and random people on the train, and the general public always seemed to have positive reactions to it.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

You have actually been suspended over this issue once before,yet you continuing to spread lies and and untrue statements about the Canada line. To call it a failure is absurd. I rode the Canada Line every day when I was living in Vancouver and not once did I have problems accessing the first train that arrived at my station.

i agree completely. i took it for years as well, i still remember taking the 98 B-Line down Granville before the Canada-Line was built. at rush hour, sure it got busy but i was never once passed up by a train. it is not even close to a failure though.

and to ssiguy point about future twinning on the Richmond side. if they want to add a 2nd platform to Richmond/Brighouse. it is 100% possible. it would just be built covering the road and you could put support columns, if necessary, in the centre median. it was also not just Richmond that made it single tracked at the end. that was done at both ends, Richmond and Sea Island, as a way to save money to make the project cheaper.

there is also the fact that the trains and platforms can be lengthened easily. it will just cost money and it isn't needed at this point in time anyways. what is needed is are more trains to run closer together set up in 2-car trains.

ssiguy, why do you hate Richmond and Canada-Line so much? you just seem to hate on both a ton, constantly, with incorrect information at that.

[TransitFreak]

We still haven't hit 2 minute headways in the trunk line yet, which would mean 4 mins in the spurs. That's a 50% increase alone over current peak service, and all you need are 8-10 2-car trains to accomplish that, and provide some spare trains in reserve. Waterfront can handle 2 min headways as you will have each platform dedicated to a specific route (i.e. Richmond or YVR Bound). This is with the current 40-ft trains. On top of that, you can add a C car to the trainset and expand the platforms, so there is capacity still untapped.

It comes down to the operational agreements that was signed as part of the P3, and we haven't triggered the additional service request due to lack of trains and operational cost issues, from what I can tell. My guess is Translink is waiting for the tipping point or some mechanism to have future developments pay for the increased capital costs of additional trains and operating requirements. If there is a perceived failure of the system, in my opinion it's not designed or technology based, it's more financial constraints.

[st7860]

Originally Posted by TransitFreak

We still haven't hit 2 minute headways in the trunk line yet, which would mean 4 mins in the spurs. That's a 50% increase alone over current peak service, and all you need are 8-10 2-car trains to accomplish that, and provide some spare trains in reserve. Waterfront can handle 2 min headways as you will have each platform dedicated to a specific route (i.e. Richmond or YVR Bound). This is with the current 40-ft trains. On top of that, you can add a C car to the trainset and expand the platforms, so there is capacity still untapped.

It comes down to the operational agreements that was signed as part of the P3, and we haven't triggered the additional service request due to lack of trains and operational cost issues, from what I can tell. My guess is Translink is waiting for the tipping point or some mechanism to have future developments pay for the increased capital costs of additional trains and operating requirements. If there is a perceived failure of the system, in my opinion it's not designed or technology based, it's more financial constraints.

Exactly. The Canada Line is fine the way it is. The stations are nice and designed for easy expansion by knocking pieces of them out. But even without modifying anything, all that needs to be done is buy more trainsets and put them into service, and find some way to pay protrans for that. Even with all the development along the line things are fine the way it is. What is needed are more east west blines in vancouver. The Canada line is even safer than the Expo line in many aspects. For example, stick a finger out across the platform and an automatic voice is triggered warning you to step back.

[trofirhen]

When I was last in Vancouver some months back, I took the Canada Line, and was impressed by how much more capacious the cars are than the old MK1s, which are a bit like toy trains.
Before they get around to knocking out station walls etc, could the headways not be increased to 1 minute during rush hours, or would this risk collisions?
Also, a bit too bad the trains don't have a higher max operating speed (like 100 k/h) for the long stretch to YVR. I think the Canada Line is adequate, and could be made even better with more trains and more frequent headways, before doing major surgery on it.

[Rico]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

When I was last in Vancouver some months back, I took the Canada Line, and was impressed by how much more capacious the cars are than the old MK1s, which are a bit like toy trains.
Before they get around to knocking out station walls etc, could the headways not be increased to 1 minute during rush hours, or would this risk collisions?
Also, a bit too bad the trains don't have a higher max operating speed (like 100 k/h) for the long stretch to YVR. I think the Canada Line is adequate, and could be made even better with more trains and more frequent headways, before doing major surgery on it.

I am pretty sure 2 minute headways are the best the Canada line can do on the shared section.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

When I was last in Vancouver some months back, I took the Canada Line, and was impressed by how much more capacious the cars are than the old MK1s, which are a bit like toy trains.
Before they get around to knocking out station walls etc, could the headways not be increased to 1 minute during rush hours, or would this risk collisions?
Also, a bit too bad the trains don't have a higher max operating speed (like 100 k/h) for the long stretch to YVR. I think the Canada Line is adequate, and could be made even better with more trains and more frequent headways, before doing major surgery on it.

An absolutely lot of things need to go wrong to create a collision scenario for the SELTRAC signalling and train control. The Skytrain and Canada Line have central control computers and independent vehicle computers. Like the only scenario that could even create that would be for the train to be driven manually and the driver being incapacitated once it starts moving. Even then AFAIK "manual" operation of SELTRAC is much less involved.

Canada Line

See also https://www.flickr.com/photos/dennistt/6683477289/in/album-72157622734906841/

Skytrain MK II


Both pictures are from Dennis Tsang

Most of the buttons just open and close the doors.

TTC's Subway have more stuff to look at. And more so on the Light Rail/Streetcar.

The maximum headway is mostly dictated by the stopping distance, which is longer when the trains are longer and heavier.

So if you have enough trains sets to hit the lowest headway, then any delays in the system ripple across the transit network during peak times when all trains are in use.

[Reecemartin]

Do you think they would ever consider changing the ratio of trains going from Richmond to Vancouver if they did this and add a double tracks at the end this could definitely increase service to Richmond.

On another note I've heard before that the skytrain's at least the older lines run on an older version of the automated train software seltrac I believe it's called do you think there is a newer more modern software suite or that one could simply be developed that could add a lot more intelligence to the way the trains are dispatched etc.