The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toro...street-coming-totoronto/article32828137/

What I found interesting about this article was the section on Highway 7 in Markham, and it is an incredibly one-sided article. Highway 7 through this area (not far from where I live) is basically now un-usable and a major choke point in York Region. A friend of mine works just off of it and he hates having to drive on it, because of how this redesign has created massive gridlock. In his case, using public transit is not an option, as it takes him 10 minutes to get to work driving versus almost an hour on VIVA. (He is able to avoid using 7 to get to work, which of course, means more traffic on other roads)

Increased traffic congestion is a side of this story you don't hear about in the downtown Toronto media that has been cheer-leading these changes.

This all said, tolls on nearby Highway 407 are definitely a contributing factor as well.

What's changed exactly? Looking at the before photos it looked like it used to be 2 lanes, and now it's 3. Is there something I'm missing?

Either way, I don't think anybody claims that these changes don't have any impacts on car traffic. However, cars have had free reign over city streets for decades now, while more sustainable options have been neglected. With transit and cycling being more efficient travel choices, it makes sense for them to get increased priority. It's an attempt to make thing more equal.

[ssiguy]

Spare me the "he hates Vancouver" crap. I do not.

I really like the SkyTrain but the Canada Line was built on the cheap and it shows. You don't build a transit line for 20 years but rather 100. Imagine the situation Toronto and Montreal would be in if they built their current systems with 50 meter stations.

[GreaterMontréal]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Spare me the "he hates Vancouver" crap. I do not.

I really like the SkyTrain but the Canada Line was built on the cheap and it shows. You don't build a transit line for 20 years but rather 100. Imagine the situation Toronto and Montreal would be in if they built their current systems with 50 meter stations.

you can't really compare the Skytrain with the Metro or the Subway. Look at the density once you steps out of the downtown area.
https://chartingtransport.com/2015/11/26/comparing-the-densities-of-australian-and-european-cities/

[Metro-One]

Not to mention that they are very different technologies. (one of the major differences being that skytrain is automated).

As noted by myself and several others here, the stations have not become a problem yet. Train frequencies can still be doubled and a third car can be added.

I am sure relatively minor improvements (such as adding new exit / entrances) will help passenger flow at the busiest stations when crowding does become an issue (such as Vancouver City Centre).

Also, please admit when you have been corrected. You said 40 meters, when they are all designed for 50.

You said that no other metro uses such station lengths, several examples were given (some even shorter).

In 30 or 40 years in the future, if crowding really becomes an issue, well then that will just be a great opportunity to build the LRT down Arbutus as a local relief line.

You do this same argument routinely. Each time you are corrected. Then you wait for the pasty correction to be buried, and say the same arguments again. it is really annoying trolling.

This is also not the only issue you do this behavior with. I have seen you use similar trolling techniques regarding other issues in BC and Ontario.

[GlassCity]

In any case, continuing to talk about it won't help. It's been built and it's running, nothing can change that now. Especially on the national forum. The rest of the country doesn't care how long our station platforms are.

[red-paladin]

I agree that the platform lengths on the Canada Line were shortsighted.
However the fact remains that it's frequency and it's train capacity can be expanded greatly.
In the long run, it's definitely true that Vancouver would be better off with eventually 2 medium capacity north-south rapid transit lines than one high capacity one.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

I agree that the platform lengths on the Canada Line were shortsighted.
However the fact remains that it's frequency and it's train capacity can be expanded greatly.
In the long run, it's definitely true that Vancouver would be better off with eventually 2 medium capacity north-south rapid transit lines than one high capacity one.

The problem with a relief line is that while it may help ease congestion in Vancouver, the continuing densification of Richmond and even South Surrey will make it difficult for the Richmond branch to escape the issue quite as easily. It will be a while until it gets to that point, but I'm not sure if there is really anything to do once it does.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Spare me the "he hates Vancouver" crap. I do not.

I really like the SkyTrain but the Canada Line was built on the cheap and it shows. You don't build a transit line for 20 years but rather 100. Imagine the situation Toronto and Montreal would be in if they built their current systems with 50 meter stations.

At least the CDPQ is planning for 100m platforms for the REM now in Montreal. This is the current length of the yellow/blue line trains.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

The problem with a relief line is that while it may help ease congestion in Vancouver, the continuing densification of Richmond and even South Surrey will make it difficult for the Richmond branch to escape the issue quite as easily. It will be a while until it gets to that point, but I'm not sure if there is really anything to do once it does.

There is always the option of removing branches and continuing one as an independant line. The Richmond branch might be extended as its own line in the far future.

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

What's changed exactly? Looking at the before photos it looked like it used to be 2 lanes, and now it's 3. Is there something I'm missing?

Either way, I don't think anybody claims that these changes don't have any impacts on car traffic. However, cars have had free reign over city streets for decades now, while more sustainable options have been neglected. With transit and cycling being more efficient travel choices, it makes sense for them to get increased priority. It's an attempt to make thing more equal.

Yeah, Highway 7 is no worse to drive on now than before the Viva line was built, with the exception of left turns since you can only turn left on a dedicated signal now. But through traffic was gridlocked before the construction just as it is now. 16th Ave in that area is just as congested as Highway 7, as is Steeles.

[red-paladin]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

There is always the option of removing branches and continuing one as an independant line. The Richmond branch might be extended as its own line in the far future.

I did email Richmond city hall, asking if it's possible to double track the final section of guideway, in case it's a limiting factor for Canada line frequency.
They said there is no contemplation to double track the guideway to Richmond-Brighouse, though the tail track could be used to hold an extra train, which could be put into service if the platform is crowded. So it doesn't sound like the city is willing to ever extend the Canada line.

[MalcolmTucker]

No contemplation does not equal not possible. If you're having trouble upzoning near existing transit, why pain yourself by trying to do so near new transit?

Where would it even go? There is no obvious destination further on.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

I did email Richmond city hall, asking if it's possible to double track the final section of guideway, in case it's a limiting factor for Canada line frequency.
They said there is no contemplation to double track the guideway to Richmond-Brighouse, though the tail track could be used to hold an extra train, which could be put into service if the platform is crowded. So it doesn't sound like the city is willing to ever extend the Canada line.

This is probably in 25-50 years time anyways. I was more talking about expending the Richmond branch NORTH of Bridgeport, as to make the Richmond extension its own line.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

I agree that the platform lengths on the Canada Line were shortsighted.
However the fact remains that it's frequency and it's train capacity can be expanded greatly.
In the long run, it's definitely true that Vancouver would be better off with eventually 2 medium capacity north-south rapid transit lines than one high capacity one.

I also agree.. I think that the Canada line's stations will need upgrading sooner than we think. Personally I think that Bridgeport station is going to need an upgrade first as it is a very busy station with all of its connections to major bus-lines, the airport, and to Richmond-Brighouse.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by scryer

I also agree.. I think that the Canada line's stations will need upgrading sooner than we think. Personally I think that Bridgeport station is going to need an upgrade first as it is a very busy station with all of its connections to major bus-lines, the airport, and to Richmond-Brighouse.

Sorry for hijacking the national transit thread, but this is a more sensible approach. In the mid to long run, outside of expanding all stations to their full 50 meters, only a few key stations will require further upgrades. IMO they will by Van City Centre (new entrance on the south side), Broadway (hopefully new entrance and connections added with construction of Broadway subway), Bridgeport (new entrance on north side?), and Brighouse (new platform built on west side?). All other stations should be fine (Oakridge being the only maybe).

[urbancanadian]

^I don't think you're hijacking the thread. The forumer you were calling out has been spreading misinformation in the Canada section for years now. A lot of the misconceptions about Vancouver in this section happen because he repeats the same falsehoods over and over so people tend to believe it eventually - which can be frustrating. He has actually had his account suspended before with regards to this exact topic.

Anyways, pending final approval later this month, the Canada Line will see its fleet size expanded by over 50% in the next year or two.

As for the stations, they are small but none are anywhere near capacity, save for Vancouver City Centre, which has relatively easy fixes built-in. The main problem is the fare gates. Many of the stations have too few gates, which Translink is already planning to fix.

Also, I wouldn't be surprised to see the line extended further south in the longer term. However, I can only see it going as far south as Granville Avenue (in the vicinity of Richmond City Hall).

[Metro-One]

Any possible future extension south would really reaalllly depend on Richmond.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by urbancanadian

^I don't think you're hijacking the thread. The forumer you were calling out has been spreading misinformation in the Canada section for years now. A lot of the misconceptions about Vancouver in this section happen because he repeats the same falsehoods over and over so people tend to believe it eventually - which can be frustrating. He has actually had his account suspended before with regards to this exact topic.

Anyways, pending final approval later this month, the Canada Line will see its fleet size expanded by over 50% in the next year or two.

As for the stations, they are small but none are anywhere near capacity, save for Vancouver City Centre, which has relatively easy fixes built-in. The main problem is the fare gates. Many of the stations have too few gates, which Translink is already planning to fix.

Also, I wouldn't be surprised to see the line extended further south in the longer term. However, I can only see it going as far south as Granville Avenue (in the vicinity of Richmond City Hall).

What is their current frequency interlined? What is the minimum time between trains that can be done safely, if they had enough cars?

[nname]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

What is their current frequency interlined? What is the minimum time between trains that can be done safely, if they had enough cars?

Current is 3min 10s

Minimum without any upgrade and complicated turn-backs is 2min

The new train order will make the line running every 2min with 2-car trains, so capacity of 10,000 pphpd.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by nname

Current is 3min 10s

Minimum without any upgrade and complicated turn-backs is 2min

The new train order will make the line running every 2min with 2-car trains, so capacity of 10,000 pphpd.

Without any construction to any of the platforms, is 2 car trains the longest it can be?