Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[officedweller]

Yeah, that would really mess up the blind people.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Personally I'd rather not get a bunch of trainsets with yet another different door spacing layout.

They could always just make a 5-car train and not open the farthest door if it goes past the platform, but that would increase dwell time. Of course if they did this, the media trolls like Bateman would come out and go "Oh look Translink wasted money on trains that don't fit"

[WBC]

Originally Posted by Waders

"Medical Emergency" is the usual term Translink uses to refer to "suicide" or "accident" incident.

The term they actually used this time, as I was on trains that day, was "extreme medical emergency"...Never heard that before...

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by Kisai

They could always just make a 5-car train and not open the farthest door if it goes past the platform, but that would increase dwell time. Of course if they did this, the media trolls like Bateman would come out and go "Oh look Translink wasted money on trains that don't fit"

Or the "D car" in the middle of the set (A-C-D-C-B) can be a slightly shorter version of a "C car" so that the normal-length 1st, 2nd, 4th & 5th cars in the train set can have their doors land on the platform. The front and back tips of the train can still extend beyond the edge of the platforms, since all the doors (including the first and last doors) are what needs to land on the platform.

Like the C cars, the "D car" could also be built with only the minimal electronics needed to operate within the train set.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Yeah, that would really mess up the blind people.

Don't the doors land at different points on the platform already, depending on whether it is a MkI or MkII train set and if the train is composed of 2-cars, 4-cars or 6-cars?

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

Don't the doors land at different points on the platform already, depending on whether it is a MkI or MkII train set and if the train is composed of 2-cars, 4-cars or 6-cars?

The MkI's have a different door spacing, but they'll probably be out of service within the next couple of decades. There's no reason a 2-car MkII train can't stop at the same place as the first two cars of a 4-car MkII train so that the door positions are consistent.

But if we buy new trainsets with a different door spacing than the MkIIs or MkIIs then it will ruin any chance of consistent door spacing for the next 50 years. That would eliminate any chance of station safety improvements such as platform screen doors. We may never spend the money on these anyway, but I think it's short sighted to buy rolling stock that would be incompatible with them just in case we ever want to do it.

[Express691]

https://youtu.be/NForkmmz1QU In regards to screen doors, I think its still feasible if we can have them open wherever the train stops, as in the example in this video.

[MIPS]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

That would eliminate any chance of station safety improvements such as platform screen doors.

I hope to god we never have those nasty things installed.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

But if we buy new trainsets with a different door spacing than the MkIIs or MkIIs then it will ruin any chance of consistent door spacing for the next 50 years.

TransLink has already ordered new MkIII trains.

[Mac Write]

WHen did they place the second order for Mark III trains? I thought they only placed one order for 7 4-car (A-C-C-B) trains (28 cars total).

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Jebby

TransLink has already ordered new MkIII trains.

Yes, but they have the same door spacing as the Mk II's. This discussion of door spacing started when someone proposed different-length cars so you could fit all the doors of a 5-car train into the existing platform. But I think that's a short-sighted move. Better (although more expensive) to extend the platforms, IMHO.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Yes, but they have the same door spacing as the Mk II's. This discussion of door spacing started when someone proposed different-length cars so you could fit all the doors of a 5-car train into the existing platform. But I think that's a short-sighted move. Better (although more expensive) to extend the platforms, IMHO.

Realistically, if we can get cars/trainsets to standardize on a length so the doors always open at the same part of the platform +/- 15cm(6") then Platform doors can be used to prevent accidents and some impulse suicides. Given that the number of suicides is around 2 per year (less than Toronto's subway, more than C-train in Calgary if the data is correct) it's really a function of the system length. Calgary's system has less because it's more convienent to jump off a bridge, while Toronto and Vancouver's are higher because it's extremely hard to jump of a bridge, but jumping in front of a train at the station is easier.

That said, nearly every light rail/LRT system is more dangerous simply because of the level-crossings, and the unprotected right-of-ways.

[MIPS]

I see the need for platform doors as just a way to push problems somewhere else. IF they are so desperately needed, tell the government to flip the full bill for their installation, else spend that money on mental health services.
They'll offer to pay a portion but you know they would never fully fund that. It's ridiculous. Given how many suicide attempts happen annually it's not worth the cost (Grim, yes.)

In related news, leave it to ScanBC to be the only outlet that gave any sort of ACTUAL idea on what the heck happened at Burrard that evening other than it was a "Medical Emergency".

Originally Posted by ScanBC, January 2

#Vancouver crews are on scene with a person that jumped in front of a train at Burrard Skytrain. Station Closed.

Twitter link

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Yes, but they have the same door spacing as the Mk II's. This discussion of door spacing started when someone proposed different-length cars so you could fit all the doors of a 5-car train into the existing platform. But I think that's a short-sighted move. Better (although more expensive) to extend the platforms, IMHO.

Do they though? Does a 4 car MK II train have the exact same door spacing as a 4 car MK III train? Won't doors between train 1 and 2 be further apart than the doors between the second and third cars on a MKIII?

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

Do they though? Does a 4 car MK II train have the exact same door spacing as a 4 car MK III train? Won't doors between train 1 and 2 be further apart than the doors between the second and third cars on a MKIII?

Possibly. If so, then the whole point is moot, I guess...

[ssiguy]

With Trudeau II throwing money around ....[/QUOTE]

Actually rolling stock does NOT qualify for infrastructure spending. It can qualify for the infrastructure itself, storage/maintenance facilities, command centres, track repair etc but not the actual vehicles themselves.

The reason for this is uniformity of the spending across the country and to make sure that the infrastructure is not only for Canadians but also built by Canadians. The feds are not going to spend infrastructure money for vehicle manufacturing jobs in South Korea or Mexico and nor should they.

Why are they going to the bother of all these station upgrades without actually extending the stations? Seems like a waste of time and money to me. Let's face it the current SkyTrain stations are only 80 meters which is pretty puny compared to almost every other world Metro system.

[ssiguy]

Question..............are there any actual plans for any rapid transit expansion once the Evergreen Line is finished? I know they want "extensions" but that could mean anything. Have they actually made up their minds on what they want to build, where it will go, stations, and done environmental reviews?

Toronto has so many plans ready to go and underway as every week seem to bring more money from Wynne in Queen's Park. Now it looks like London alone will be getting a $1 Billion for it's rapid transit and very little contribution from the city itself. Ontario cities have hit the jackpot when it comes to transit funding and Wynne is funding nearly 100% of the many projects underway.

If Trudeau starts spending {which I'm sure he will} has Chrusty made any funding commitments and what about Translink/Vancouver? Where will they get their portion?

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Question..............are there any actual plans for any rapid transit expansion once the Evergreen Line is finished? I know they want "extensions" but that could mean anything. Have they actually made up their minds on what they want to build, where it will go, stations, and done environmental reviews?

Toronto has so many plans ready to go and underway as every week seem to bring more money from Wynne in Queen's Park. Now it looks like London alone will be getting a $1 Billion for it's rapid transit and very little contribution from the city itself. Ontario cities have hit the jackpot when it comes to transit funding and Wynne is funding nearly 100% of the many projects underway.

If Trudeau starts spending {which I'm sure he will} has Chrusty made any funding commitments and what about Translink/Vancouver? Where will they get their portion?

Well an extension to PoCo is likely in the cards. The Broadway Subway's first Phase is to Arbutus, and second Phase is to UBC.

Based on historical plans, there still may be a Hastings line. Though I doubt we'll see that in the next 20 years.

I don't really see the Millennium line being extended past Poco unless it goes to Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge. I only see this happening if Surrey screws over Langley, as the transit-oriented development will prefer the higher frequency Skytrain lines.

[Spork]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Question..............are there any actual plans for any rapid transit expansion once the Evergreen Line is finished? I know they want "extensions" but that could mean anything. Have they actually made up their minds on what they want to build, where it will go, stations, and done environmental reviews?

Toronto has so many plans ready to go and underway as every week seem to bring more money from Wynne in Queen's Park. Now it looks like London alone will be getting a $1 Billion for it's rapid transit and very little contribution from the city itself. Ontario cities have hit the jackpot when it comes to transit funding and Wynne is funding nearly 100% of the many projects underway.

If Trudeau starts spending {which I'm sure he will} has Chrusty made any funding commitments and what about Translink/Vancouver? Where will they get their portion?

Nothing is teed up as being next. That still needs to be worked out. Based upon the core samples being done along Broadway, I would expect that this line is the furthest along and most likely to go next. I believe the province has made commitments towards the 1/3 for that line, as has the Federal government.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Question..............are there any actual plans for any rapid transit expansion once the Evergreen Line is finished? I know they want "extensions" but that could mean anything. Have they actually made up their minds on what they want to build, where it will go, stations, and done environmental reviews?

Toronto has so many plans ready to go and underway as every week seem to bring more money from Wynne in Queen's Park. Now it looks like London alone will be getting a $1 Billion for it's rapid transit and very little contribution from the city itself. Ontario cities have hit the jackpot when it comes to transit funding and Wynne is funding nearly 100% of the many projects underway.

If Trudeau starts spending {which I'm sure he will} has Chrusty made any funding commitments and what about Translink/Vancouver? Where will they get their portion?

I bet that somewhere at Translink there is a Big Book of Skytrain. In this book are details of all the possible routes and even the backup plans.

The great thing about the Skytrain System has been it's ability to expand. The demo track integrated with the initial system. New West logically lead to Columbia. Columbia provided a way to Scott Road and Surrey, and up to Lougheed. From there they could go to Port Moody or into North/Central Burnaby. The history of the BCRTC doesn't seem to be a by the seat of their pants operation.

King George station clearly points to their intention to extend down Fraser Highway (which in theory could take them eventually all the way to Abbotsford). The station at VCC Clark clearly indicates the intention to continue west. The third platform at Lougheed was part of their plan to extend to Coquitlam. The layout of the tracks at Coquitlam allow them to branch off to Port Coquitlam (and beyond to Maple Ridge), and the end of the line can be extended up Burke Mountain if needed.

Even Waterfront was going to be extended as Bombardiers proposal for the RAV line (and those ideas date back to at least the early 90's), which would have happened had the Liberals not been in such a hurry to get it built in time of the Olympics and unload as much of the cost as possible as a PPP.

I think it all shows that they don't just orient the stations a certain way or add platforms at the last minute of the design phase as what ifs. I think it shows they are working off a master plan in some back office and make concentrated efforts to align the current project with the next one they hope they do.

I don't know why they don't share the plan. Probably because they don't want to send real estate speculators into a tizzy. And probably because they don't want to depress the average populace that their taxes are going to be tied up with Skytrain expansion for the rest of their lives.

=====

Anyway, when Trudeau starts spending money, it will be for the Broadway line. I have a feeling it will be a set amount for the specific project (if that's what you were asking?). I'm thinking they are going to throw down at least $1 billion on the table, and it will be up to the Province and Translink to agree on how to fund the rest and design the project. The feds won't have any interest in the design of the line, only that it is rapid transit on Broadway (similar to their approach on the Canada line and Evergreen line). The only difference being they will contribute more than 1/3 of the cost (that's my hunch anyway).

They could fund Surrey rapid transit if they didn't want to come up with as much money or were worried Translink wouldn't come up with any. The feds could easily cover 2/3 of the cost in Surrey (as the city is very eager to move and the province would back up their 1/3 no problem as long as the other 2/3 are taken care of). That way they could at least get construction started soon.

The only question would be if they build King George/104 LRT or Fraser Skytrain to 168 St (which has been an often talked about plan now on the back burner with the province for over a decade).

If it was rushed, I think Skytrain might win out just because there is no need to debate about design choices or rolling stock. You just build some guideway and stations and it could be up and running and fully integrated in the transit network in under 3 years.