Expo Line - Surrey Langley Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

It doesn't matter what the fleet size is. With an automated system there are no drivers to pay, so there's no penalty for breaking your fleet up into smaller trains that run more frequently. The only time you need to increase the size of the trains is when passenger loads have justified buying so many trainsets that you've already reached minimum possible headways. And you'd only need to increase the size of the stations when trains at their maximum lengths and minimum headways are unable to service demand. And even at that point it might make more sense to build an alternate line instead, given the greater connectivity, coverage and network benefits and relatively smaller incremental cost (i.e., the cost of building the new line avoids having to pay for expanding the stations).

Exactly.

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

I'm speaking in general terms, of course. A Skytrain extension to Langley would share Expo line trains, and the Expo line is getting to be capacity constrained at the downtown end- which means it's mostly grown to using the longest trains that the stations can accommodate.

But I can't imagine it being capacity constrained at the Langley end. In theory, you could run smaller trains at that end of the system - for example, you could have two-car trains that shuttle back and forth between Langley and King George while a separate set of longer trains runs between King George and downtown. That would provide more frequent (and therefore better) service for people on the outer edge of the system. It would also have the advantage isolating the two segments so that problems one one wouldn't affect the other (although that isolation could also be done dynamically as and when needed).

That would force Langley-bound passengers to switch trains, but the high frequencies and the simplicity of just having to walk across the platform would minimize the pain and the delay.

In practice, though, I suspect it's unlikely that an extended Expo line would be operated that way - what would probably happen is to short turn every other train or perhaps 2/3 of the trains at King George. That would result in less frequency on the Langley segment, which would mean poorer service.

We don't really know how many people would be taking Skytrain in Langley as they don't have anything comparable now. There may well be loads of people who would take it to Surrey Central (which is why I'd have the trains short turn past that - both Gateway and Scott Road are options). Even if they had to wait comparable times to what the Millennium Line does now, it would still be an improvement over what they have.

Plus I said short turn trains from both ends of the line. Maybe for every 3 trains from Waterfront, 2 are short turned and 1 continues through to Langley. Also for every 2 trains from Langley, 1 is short turned and 1 continues through to Waterfront. Keeper shorter trains in Surrey and Langley (a Mark 1) while the through train would be longer (a Mark 2 or Mark 3).

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Maybe for every 3 trains from Waterfront, 2 are short turned and 1 continues through to Langley. Also for every 2 trains from Langley, 1 is short turned and 1 continues through to Waterfront. Keeper shorter trains in Surrey and Langley (a Mark 1) while the through train would be longer (a Mark 2 or Mark 3).

Yet the train is still going to be on the southbound platform... and now it's heading back north. That's going to lead to a lot of unnecessary confusion for the sole purpose of skipping eight stations. TransLink could build a third platform for short-turned trains, but that'd be confusing and expensive.

Besides, the real bottleneck will still be the Production Way spur, now part of the Expo Line; SoF headways can't be any shorter than 2.5 minutes because of it. Short-turning 2 in 3 trains at Surrey Central means a 7.5 minute wait at Langley, and at that kind of frequency, you might as well save the money and connect Langley with a B-Line or LRT.

An easier solution would be diverting only 1 in 3 trains to Production instead of 1 in 2, which raises Surrey and Langley's max. frequency to 32 trains/hour instead of 24.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Yet the train is still going to be on the southbound platform... and now it's heading back north. That's going to lead to a lot of unnecessary confusion for the sole purpose of skipping eight stations. TransLink could build a third platform for short-turned trains, but that'd be confusing and expensive.

Besides, the real bottleneck will still be the Production Way spur, now part of the Expo Line; SoF headways can't be any shorter than 2.5 minutes because of it. Short-turning 2 in 3 trains at Surrey Central means a 7.5 minute wait at Langley, and at that kind of frequency, you might as well save the money and connect Langley with a B-Line or LRT.

An easier solution would be diverting only 1 in 3 trains to Production instead of 1 in 2, which raises Surrey and Langley's max. frequency to 32 trains/hour instead of 24.

I wasn't suggesting skipping any stations, and how is the train going to be wrong railing? At the Langley end it could just travel to the tail track and come back on the proper side (just like they do at King George Station now) and at King George / Gateway / Scott Road (whichever station is chosen) it has the ability to switch tracks.

The number of trains going through for the whole route vs short turning was arbitrary and I have no idea what they'd choose. At a guess they'd probably choose to just short turn some of the trains from Waterfront only, which would reduce the frequency out to Langley. I'll leave the spur to Production Way and all the math to their computers.

[Xrayal]

All these ideas of express trains and a relief line for the expo line once it is maxed out has got me thinking. What I find interesting is that essentially the millennium line will get a commuter style express trains the day the Evergreen extension opens up (The Westcoast Express essentially duplicates the service in a way). So instead of building a new line from scratch why not do something similar with the excising heavy rail nearby. A rail corridor runs from Commercial-Broadway station to almost Scott Road station (getting decently close to Scott Road station could be an issue but maybe building an elevated structure could do the trick).

If Translink, government partners, and the private railways all worked together and upgraded that segment (grade separation or double/triple tracking) so that everybody would get some good value for the work. (leaving aside the elephant in the room, the NW rail bridge, we all know that is a major chock point)

A question that I've had problems answering is how quickly could a commuter style train provide this service? Translink has just updated the travel times between stations as of July 6 2016. It shows Skytrain takes 24 minutes to travel between Commercial-Broadway and Scott Road. If proposal produces ruffly the same travel times is this really worth while?

Anyways everyone's thoughts and comments are welcome.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Xrayal

All these ideas of express trains and a relief line for the expo line once it is maxed out has got me thinking. What I find interesting is that essentially the millennium line will get a commuter style express trains the day the Evergreen extension opens up (The Westcoast Express essentially duplicates the service in a way). So instead of building a new line from scratch why not do something similar with the excising heavy rail nearby. A rail corridor runs from Commercial-Broadway station to almost Scott Road station (getting decently close to Scott Road station could be an issue but maybe building an elevated structure could do the trick).

This has already been discussed to death in the Heavy Rail, Commuter Rail and Intercity Transportation thread.

Even if it was feasible the Expo line isn't at capacity yet and there are many other, more pressing transit needs for the money.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Sheba

The number of trains going through for the whole route vs short turning was arbitrary and I have no idea what they'd choose. At a guess they'd probably choose to just short turn some of the trains from Waterfront only, which would reduce the frequency out to Langley. I'll leave the spur to Production Way and all the math to their computers.

Well, it doesn't really matter how many you short turn or don't. 1 in 2, 2 in 3, whatever, every train being routed to Production Way is one that isn't going to Surrey/Langley. That's the real chokepoint. Route more trains to Surrey and Langley (but keep headways on the Production spur under 5 minutes), and you get enough frequency to make short-tuning viable.

... But short-turning is still a bad idea.

Originally Posted by Sheba

I wasn't suggesting skipping any stations, and how is the train going to be wrong railing? At the Langley end it could just travel to the tail track and come back on the proper side (just like they do at King George Station now) and at King George / Gateway / Scott Road (whichever station is chosen) it has the ability to switch tracks.

No matter how many tracks the train switches, the Surrey stations only have two platforms. If the short-turned Skytrain pulls into the westbound platform (to Waterfront), there's a potential conflict with other westbound trains coming in from Langley.

So our train stops on the eastbound platform (to Langley), waits a bit, then turns around and heads back west. Also a bad idea, since many people don't bother to read displays: expect a lot of complaints from people who see the train, hop on expecting to go to Langley, then are unpleasantly surprised when it heads back to Waterfront - and from more intelligent people who have to wait another 2-3 minutes for the next one.

TransLink could build a third platform, but that would be equally confusing for similar reasons. Might as well let every train terminate at Langley.

[scryer]

See I wouldn't short turn trains, I would have different first train/last train times for the Expo line extension to Langley..

Mon - Fri

First Train from Langley Central to Waterfront - 5:45am or 6am
Last Train from Waterfront to Langley Central - 1:00am or 12:45am

Compared to what we currently have/would keep:

Mon - Fri

First Train from King George to Waterfront - 5:08am
Last Train from Waterfront to King George - 1:16am

And then I would have a night bus serve Langley, maybe extend the N25.

The reason why I would have different service times is because most of Langley commutes to Surrey and we can still have the same quality of service while being realistic with the actual demands of the metro region.

And by the way with the extension of the Expo line to Langley, probably being preceded by the extension of the Millennium line to Arbutus; wouldn't this warrant a need for a secondary maintenance yard?

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by scryer

And by the way with the extension of the Expo line to Langley, probably being preceded by the extension of the Millennium line to Arbutus; wouldn't this warrant a need for a secondary maintenance yard?

Yes, but there's a lot of empty land between Surrey and Langley.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

But short-turning is still a bad idea.

Given the reality that budget constraints mean that we never have enough trainsets, allocating more trains where demand is highest is not a bad idea.

So our train stops on the eastbound platform (to Langley), waits a bit, then turns around and heads back west. Also a bad idea...

...which is why it wouldn't work that way. Trains that short-turn at King George, for example, would use the crossover switch on the inbound side of the station to pull into the westbound platform. Trains on that side of the platform would always be bound for downtown. That's exactly why that switch is there and why it crosses over in the direction that it does.

...expect a lot of complaints from people who see the train, hop on expecting to go to Langley, then are unpleasantly surprised when it heads back to Waterfront...

Translink already short-turns some Expo line trains at Broadway, where the switch configuration doesn't allow what I just described. Trains that short turn continue eastbound to the pocket track between Broadway and Nanaimo where they switch tracks and reverse direction. Yet somehow people traveling eastbound from Broadway manage to get on the right trains, just as they do when they need to select an Expo vs. Millennium line train.

No matter how many tracks the train switches, the Surrey stations only have two platforms. If the short-turned Skytrain pulls into the westbound platform (to Waterfront), there's a potential conflict with other westbound trains coming in from Langley.

Which is why we have an automated train control system. It's just a matter of scheduling, and the fact that there are fewer trains beyond the short-turn point makes this even easier.

[dpogue]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Translink already short-turns some Expo line trains at Broadway, where the switch configuration doesn't allow what I just described. Trains that short turn continue eastbound to the pocket track between Broadway and Nanaimo where they switch tracks and reverse direction. Yet somehow people traveling eastbound from Broadway manage to get on the right trains, just as they do when they need to select an Expo vs. Millennium line train.

This isn't quite short-turning as you're describing it, because the train is actually considered "not in service" between Waterfront and Broadway and doesn't stop at any outbound stations. There are frequently people who jump on it at the Waterfront inbound platform, and are stuck on the train until goes to Vanness, turns around, and stops again at Broadway inbound.

A better example might be the outbound trains during morning reduction, which go from Waterfront to Edmonds. They pretty clearly indicate "Train to Edmonds".

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Translink already short-turns some Expo line trains at Broadway, where the switch configuration doesn't allow what I just described. Trains that short turn continue eastbound to the pocket track between Broadway and Nanaimo where they switch tracks and reverse direction. Yet somehow people traveling eastbound from Broadway manage to get on the right trains, just as they do when they need to select an Expo vs. Millennium line train.

Dpogue beat me to it. But I should also point out that the Expo and Millennium head in the same direction. Short-turning involves either arriving at the “wrong” platform, or arriving at the “right” platform and heading in the “wrong” direction. That's always going to be confusing.

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Given the reality that budget constraints mean that we never have enough trainsets, allocating more trains where demand is highest is not a bad idea.

Any Skytrain extension will, by default, be accompanied by the purchase of more trains to cover the added distance.

Again, the real issue is that South of Fraser service is hampered by half the trains going to the Millennium Line, or in the near future, the Production Way spur.
The Skytrain's maximum headway is 75 seconds, or 1.25 minutes. Every other train branches to Production, so that's 2.5 minutes SoF. And now with 1 in 2 (or 2 in 3) trains short-turned, that's a 5-8 minute headway beyond the turning station, relegating SkyTrain to the same frequency as a B-Line or an LRT.

What TransLink really needs to do is route two thirds of the Expo fleet to Surrey instead of half. That leaves New West-Burnaby commuters with 3.75 minute headways, and gives SoF commuters a maximum of 36 trains an hour instead of just 24 – with proper scheduling, that can cover the entire Surrey-Langley stretch without short-turning.

[Caliplanner1]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Dpogue beat me to it. But I should also point out that the Expo and Millennium head in the same direction. Short-turning involves either arriving at the “wrong” platform, or arriving at the “right” platform and heading in the “wrong” direction. That's always going to be confusing.

Any Skytrain extension will, by default, be accompanied by the purchase of more trains to cover the added distance.

Again, the real issue is that South of Fraser service is hampered by half the trains going to the Millennium Line, or in the near future, the Production Way spur.
The Skytrain's maximum headway is 75 seconds, or 1.25 minutes. Every other train branches to Production, so that's 2.5 minutes SoF. And now with 1 in 2 (or 2 in 3) trains short-turned, that's a 5-8 minute headway beyond the turning station, relegating SkyTrain to the same frequency as a B-Line or an LRT.

What TransLink really needs to do is route two thirds of the Expo fleet to Surrey instead of half. That leaves New West-Burnaby commuters with 3.75 minute headways, and gives SoF commuters a maximum of 36 trains an hour instead of just 24 – with proper scheduling, that can cover the entire Surrey-Langley stretch without short-turning.

Look folks,.....losing a few commuter minutes (here and there) is ultimately not as crucial in the grand scheme of mass urban train service provision rationale as in giving people greater DIRECT access to jobs and potentially cheaper real estate housing options.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Caliplanner1

Look folks,.....losing a few commuter minutes (here and there) is ultimately not as crucial in the grand scheme of mass urban train service provision rationale as in giving people greater DIRECT access to jobs and potentially cheaper real estate housing options.

I don't follow. Fast, frequent RRT from point A to point B already provides access to jobs and housing; "cheaper" housing would require rail to Abbotsford!

An express train offers nothing except "losing a few commuter minutes" - in fact, the way things are, it'd limit access by reducing service to Very Fast and Slow instead of Fast overall.
Unless you're suggesting all the jobs and houses should be concentrated around the most important transit stations? That might work.

[Caliplanner1]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I don't follow. Fast, frequent RRT from point A to point B already provides access to jobs and housing; "cheaper" housing would require rail to Abbotsford!

An express train offers nothing except "losing a few commuter minutes" - in fact, the way things are, it'd limit access by reducing service to Very Fast and Slow instead of Fast overall.
Unless you're suggesting all the jobs and houses should be concentrated around the most important transit stations? That might work.

If a commuter is going to be late he/she needs to get disciplined/rise earlier and plan to catch the earlier train times.

Unless Skytrain use reaches the insane optimal levels of some Asian cities (like Tokyo) where the intra-city commuter trains see station attendants literally pushing passengers into overcrowded train cars (like "sardines in a can") a few minutes extra station platform wait times won't hurt (unless you're very tardy and expect to travel the full length of the rail service in a flash).

What thus becomes more important in the urban mas rail conversation is the direct/RELATIVELY more timely convenience of being able to access cheaper housing and jobs/education/health services etc. at increasing distances.

[dpogue]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

What TransLink really needs to do is route two thirds of the Expo fleet to Surrey instead of half. That leaves New West-Burnaby commuters with 3.75 minute headways, and gives SoF commuters a maximum of 36 trains an hour instead of just 24 – with proper scheduling, that can cover the entire Surrey-Langley stretch without short-turning.

That is how it currently works, at least during rush hour: 2 trains depart Waterfront for King George, followed by 1 train for VCC-Clark (in future, Production Way).

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Caliplanner1

Unless Skytrain use reaches the insane optimal levels of some Asian cities (like Tokyo) where the intra-city commuter trains see station attendants literally pushing passengers into overcrowded train cars (like "sardines in a can") a few minutes extra station platform wait times won't hurt (unless you're very tardy and expect to travel the full length of the rail service in a flash).

Yet that's exactly the kind of demographic that uses express trains. Otherwise, a few extra minutes' waiting for other people to get on and off at their stations doesn't hurt either.

Originally Posted by Caliplanner1

What thus becomes more important in the urban mas rail conversation is the direct/RELATIVELY more timely convenience of being able to access cheaper housing and jobs/education/health services etc. at increasing distances.

If distance becomes that much of a problem, then that'd be a job for a second WCE line to South Fraser and beyond - new commuter rail would service key stations better and faster than a superfast Skytrain, and without cutting into existing service. And as mentioned above, a second WCE line isn't a major priority yet.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Given the reality that budget constraints mean that we never have enough trainsets, allocating more trains where demand is highest is not a bad idea.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Any Skytrain extension will, by default, be accompanied by the purchase of more trains to cover the added distance.

When was the last time that a Skytrain extension added enough new trainsets to eliminate rush hour overcrowding?

For some reason, the Provincial Government thinks they have to build 10-lane bridges all over the region to deal with future capacity but they never think that way with transit. The short platforms on the Canada line are the most egregious example of that.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

When was the last time that a Skytrain extension added enough new trainsets to eliminate rush hour overcrowding?

For some reason, the Provincial Government thinks they have to build 10-lane bridges all over the region to deal with future capacity but they never think that way with transit.

*sigh*

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

For some reason, the Provincial Government thinks they have to build 10-lane bridges all over the region to deal with future capacity but they never think that way with transit. The short platforms on the Canada line are the most egregious example of that.

Yup. It's all part of the Ten Year Plan to expand and upgrade infrastructure everywhere BUT Metro Vancouver (mutters irritably about apathetic/vindictive Premiers)...

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

When was the last time that a Skytrain extension added enough new trainsets to eliminate rush hour overcrowding?

Never said anything about solving the rush-hour crowd. That's always going to be a problem, no matter where or when on the planet.

But trainsets are added, (usually) in a large enough number to make said crowd manageable - hence the 28 new Mark IIIs ahead of the Evergreen's opening and another 24 on the way.

Logically, we should be getting a similar boost to the fleet as the Broadway and Langley projects finish. Short turning seems like a desperate "eat the horses" solution that assumes the existing Expo fleet needs to cover the entire Waterfront-Langley route... and again, it would cause an inadvisable 5-8 minute peak hour wait at Langley.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Short turning seems like a desperate "eat the horses" solution that assumes the existing Expo fleet needs to cover the entire Waterfront-Langley route... and again, it would cause an inadvisable 5-8 minute peak hour wait at Langley.

The trick is to juggle the length of time that Langley riders have to wait for the next train against the number of trains that people at Commercial/Broadway have to pass up because they're jammed full. If the wait time for the later multiplied by the number of people affected exceeds the same factor for the former, then it makes sense to short turn some trains to ease the pressure on the capacity-limited section of the line.

It may not be an issue when a hypothetical Langley extension is first constructed if enough additional trainsets are added to service it. But there are two reasons why I think it's likely to happen:

• The government has a track record of providing only the minimum funds needed. If short turning some trains means they can buy fewer trainsets at the outset, then that seems likely to happen. It's easier to do this at the outset because Langley residents will be happy to get any Skytrain service, even if it's only at relatively lower frequency.

• Even if enough trainsets are bought initially, ridership will grow and Translink will be forced to juggle its resources to meet demand. Short turning is an obvious tool they can use to maximize service to the greatest number of riders (at the expense of others, as usual). This is the more politically difficult approach because it means reducing service that Langley riders would have become accustomed to. Nonetheless, since the defeat of the transit referendum this is exactly the kind of thing that Translink has had to resort with the bus fleet to in order to handle rising demand without a corresponding increase in funding.