Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

So what was the deal with that, anyway? They had to bring in a "special crane" to remove the car? Why on earth couldn't they just have used a tow truck?

Basically the tracks are not embedded in those tunnels, they turn into standard rails I imagine this guy did alot of damage to his car driving down the tunnel, which is actually very long.

I agree with the aforementioned points on LRT, it works very well in numerous places. And it's sort noting that these places all have true grade separated it's as well. I don't think an all LRT solution like in LA really makes any sense, but neither would an all bus solution. What's important to recognise is that despite what all the anti LRT people say bus is not just as good, all mode have inherent advantages and disadvantages. The logical connclusion of the no LRT argument suggests that we should just build rt everywhere and if we can't then it should just be bus service. The problem with this is that it doesn't recognise the economics of LRT, in that you can serve a corridor that is high traffic (but not rt level) without having an incredible number of buses and hence having to pay more drivers and fror more maintenance (not to mention that roads deteriorate quite rapidly and rail vehicles perform better in inclement weather).

It also a common point but not very appreciated that since LRT has a driver it can be put in numerous ROW's this means that hypothetically an LRT line could go from being a fully separated metro to being a streetcar to being a commuter train all on one line to best serve the areas around it.

[waves]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

... doesn't recognise the economics of LRT, in that you can serve a corridor that is high traffic (but not rt level) without having an incredible number of buses and hence having to pay more drivers and fror more maintenance (not to mention that roads deteriorate quite rapidly and rail vehicles perform better in inclement weather).

Your economic sense is that we pay the equivalent of a skytrain system for reduced transit frequency.

You thoughts about maintenance are flat wrong. For LRT you would have to build a second OMC and employ people to operate it. For skytrain we already have one.

Your thoughts about LRT performing better in inclement weather is also wrong. Just look at the troubles the Canada Line had getting over the Fraser River during the snow storm. Skytrain has much higher grades along it's lines and had no problems whatsoever. Additionally, because the trains are driverless, they could run the skytrain along the track all night to keep it clear of snow.

[bardak]

Originally Posted by Kisai

This is the entire problem with street-running LRV's. They are not ever properly engineered.

Like all it takes to ruin the morning commute is someone parking their car on the rails.

Source: https://twitter.com/bradTTC/status/834730181273202689

If a streetcar network was to be properly engineered, they have to consider that people are going to make some really boneheaded mistakes, get hit by LRV's, or drive into them. Streetcars are only viable in cities that are far less dense and have no gridlock, which means they are uneconomical to run.

I'm sorry, but the day Vancouver decides to put street-cars back on the downtown peninsula, is the day the city has stopped using common sense. I would not be surprised if the next city council decides to sell the Arbutus Corridor just to "flip it" and spite the current city council. You can not put a street car system back into operation after not running it for 70 years when the city density calls for rapid transit, and even tore up the last tourist historical street car.

There are a few places that might benefit from it, but the city would have to ban all car and pedestrian traffic from crossing the rails in the area to make taking the street car viable, and that just is not going to happen without making all the roads one-way, right-hand-turn only. The Trolleybus is more flexible and cost effective without making such drastic changes. As it is, the city geography is not particularly good for light rail anyway. That is why Seattle's light rail system is a mostly underground, the terrain just is too steep.

I like to be critical of LRT/Streetcar/Trams but there is a point when you have a high demand local transit corridor and you need to add capacity to. I can see that the 4/5 eventual would need to be converted to a streetcar/tram. I would hope that whoever is in charge at that time can see that the demand would also be significant enough to require its own Lane.

Trying to argue that the Queen or King streetcar in Toronto should be buses is just ridicules. There are many criticism that can be slung at the TTC/Toronto city council but the demand on the Queen or King corridors require at the minimum streetcars. The fact that they do not have their own lane is just ridiculous.

[officedweller]

Came across this:


https://twitter.com/BrentToderian

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Vancouver had a monorail?

Yep, and a Gondola.

Monorail went from Stadium Station and through what is now Yaletown to where the Roundhouse is. Had 2 or 3 stops along the way.

Gondola went from the Eastern Edge of the Olympic Village past Science World to Approximately the South edge of Chinatown.

The Monorail was a bit circuitous, but imagine how that could have been as they built condos around the monorail structure. We'd end up with some really fascinating and interesting infrastructure... and we'd probably have extended the monorail to Denman by now... an area which isn't that easy to reach by transit.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Yep, and a Gondola.


Gondola went from the Eastern Edge of the Olympic Village past Science World to Approximately the South edge of Chinatown.

Actually 2 gondolas - one branded by Air Canada, the other branded by CP Air

http://gondolaproject.com/2013/03/25/expo-86-skyrides-canada/


http://gondolaproject.com/2013/03/25/expo-86-skyrides-canada/

[retro_orange]

Now that you mention it. I have hanging in my kitchen one of the original presentation pieces made by the Architectural Institute of BC for Expo 86, it shows the monorail station in various views, but you can see that much like the deteriorating remaining structures, it wasn't made to last a long time.







pics are mine. http://s1376.photobucket.com/user/retro_orange/profile/

[ilikeredheads]

Originally Posted by waves

Your economic sense is that we pay the equivalent of a skytrain system for reduced transit frequency.

You thoughts about maintenance are flat wrong. For LRT you would have to build a second OMC and employ people to operate it. For skytrain we already have one.

Your thoughts about LRT performing better in inclement weather is also wrong. Just look at the troubles the Canada Line had getting over the Fraser River during the snow storm. Skytrain has much higher grades along it's lines and had no problems whatsoever. Additionally, because the trains are driverless, they could run the skytrain along the track all night to keep it clear of snow.

I agree mostly with what you said except that last part. Canada Line is not LRT. It had trouble with the bridge because ProTrans BC didn't de-ice the tracks properly.

[retro_orange]

I also think it would be awesome if they changed the colour scheme of the skytrain stations to the blue, red and yellow a la Expo '86.

[waves]

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

I agree mostly with what you said except that last part. Canada Line is not LRT. It had trouble with the bridge because ProTrans BC didn't de-ice the tracks properly.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. The Canada Line is similar to at-grade LRT because they both are a conventional motor style of train where the motor is in the train spinning the wheels and therefore the propulsion of the train is dependent on the friction of the wheels on the rails. An at grade conventional motor LRT would run into the exact same problem the Canada Line ran into because of this.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

The Monorail was a bit circuitous, but imagine how that could have been as they built condos around the monorail structure. We'd end up with some really fascinating and interesting infrastructure... and we'd probably have extended the monorail to Denman by now... an area which isn't that easy to reach by transit.

The problem with monorails is that they're... well... mono rails.

Can't twin the track like with regular metro, so you either have to run it in a loop, or build two parallel viaducts; neither would work very effectively, especially downtown. And don't even think about making wyes, spurs and/or branch lines. Notice that other cities have rejected or scrapped their monorail networks.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by waves

Your economic sense is that we pay the equivalent of a skytrain system for reduced transit frequency.

You thoughts about maintenance are flat wrong. For LRT you would have to build a second OMC and employ people to operate it. For skytrain we already have one.

Your thoughts about LRT performing better in inclement weather is also wrong. Just look at the troubles the Canada Line had getting over the Fraser River during the snow storm. Skytrain has much higher grades along it's lines and had no problems whatsoever. Additionally, because the trains are driverless, they could run the skytrain along the track all night to keep it clear of snow.

I myself should have been more clear, LRT would perform better than BRT in snowy or icy conditions. Look at how crippling the snow was to buses this winter, if we start seeing more of this type of more extreme winter weather it's certainly something to consider. And I would point out that the problem with the Canada Line actually has little to do with the motors iirc supposedly ice on the power rail meant trains had inadequate POWER to climb the hill, since LRT would use centenary this would likely be less of an issue as centenary tends to work better with ice.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

I myself should have been more clear, LRT would perform better than BRT in snowy or icy conditions. Look at how crippling the snow was to buses this winter, if we start seeing more of this type of more extreme winter weather it's certainly something to consider.

This year was a La Niña, so it's probably not going to be a common occurrence. But yes, during a snowfall, our bus service falls to pieces. Light rail would not.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by retro_orange

Now that you mention it. I have hanging in my kitchen one of the original presentation pieces made by the Architectural Institute of BC for Expo 86, it shows the monorail station in various views, but you can see that much like the deteriorating remaining structures, it wasn't made to last a long time.

Very cool!

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The problem with monorails is that they're... well... mono rails.

Can't twin the track like with regular metro, so you either have to run it in a loop, or build two parallel viaducts; neither would work very effectively, especially downtown. And don't even think about making wyes, spurs and/or branch lines. Notice that other cities have rejected or scrapped their monorail networks.

They can't make a Fork-shaped viaduct with 2 rails?

Originally Posted by Sheba

Plenty of people ride bikes - and it's increased since they added bike racks to buses and allowed bikes on Skytrain.

What's wrong with exercising?

It's not a 'transportation" system.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

It also a common point but not very appreciated that since LRT has a driver it can be put in numerous ROW's this means that hypothetically an LRT line could go from being a fully separated metro to being a streetcar to being a commuter train all on one line to best serve the areas around it.

That argument can be turned on it's head: by requiring a driver the line can't take full advantage of the grade separated portions by minimizing headways, which means it will have longer frequencies and inferior ultimate capacities.

[MIPS]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Yep, and a Gondola.

Monorail went from Stadium Station and through what is now Yaletown to where the Roundhouse is. Had 2 or 3 stops along the way.

Gondola went from the Eastern Edge of the Olympic Village past Science World to Approximately the South edge of Chinatown.

The Monorail was a bit circuitous, but imagine how that could have been as they built condos around the monorail structure. We'd end up with some really fascinating and interesting infrastructure... and we'd probably have extended the monorail to Denman by now... an area which isn't that easy to reach by transit.

Keep in mind that while our old monorail still runs full-time at Alton Towers it was never designed for the wear and tear of running as an arterial transit system in a city. You might be better off looking at the Seattle monorail which 50 years later has been built around but has never seen an expansion (or at least, every attempt to expand it has been defeated) and trains depart once every ten minutes (plus the trip takes two minutes), so you are almost better off walking the 1.5km.


Image courtesy of Wikimapia

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

That argument can be turned on it's head: by requiring a driver the line can't take full advantage of the grade separated portions by minimizing headways, which means it will have longer frequencies and inferior ultimate capacities.

Well that's why I mention ATO the Eglinton Crosstown will use it and it allows minimised headway.

And yes cycling is a transportation system, I'm pretty surprised that someone on a forum devoted to transit doesn't appreciate the importance of different modes...

[waves]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Canada Line actually has little to do with the motors iirc supposedly ice on the power rail meant trains had inadequate POWER to climb the hill, since LRT would use centenary this would likely be less of an issue as centenary tends to work better with ice.

Literally from the Dailyhive February 8th 2017:

"The technology utilized by the Canada Line is conventional – it is the most widely used in the world. It is simple: two rail tracks plus a power feeder either overhead or on the side as a power rail. The Canada Line has the latter.

Its trains are essentially giant electric cars with moving rotary motors that push the train forward, and with such a design this means steel wheel traction is very important.

This is why ProTrans BC has “sanding trains” as part of its pre-emptive measures, as sand provides traction – the very same reason why municipalities are using sand on the roads.

With poor traction from snow and ice buildup, trains have been unable to climb the incline near the North Arm Bridge.

Comparatively, the technology used on the system for the Expo and Millennium lines could easily handle the same incline as traction as a mechanism is not nearly as vital.

In addition to the two rail tracks and side power rail, the trains on the Expo and Millennium lines use linear motors that interact with a continuous aluminum induction strip, essentially magnetism, along the length of the track. Linear induction motors on the underside of each train propel trains forward, which reduces the amount of moving parts found inside a train and the regular maintenance required.

Linear propulsion systems on trains provide superior acceleration and deceleration and can climb a much steeper grade of 6%, such as the Evergreen extension track just east of Lougheed Town Centre Station and the SkyBridge to Surrey east of Columbia Station.

In contrast, conventional motor systems like the Canada Line can comfortably climb a maximum grade of about 3.5% in optimal weather conditions."

http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/canada-line-conventional-rail-linear-induction-technology-snowfall

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by waves

Literally from the Dailyhive February 8th 2017:

"The technology utilized by the Canada Line is conventional – it is the most widely used in the world. It is simple: two rail tracks plus a power feeder either overhead or on the side as a power rail. The Canada Line has the latter.

Its trains are essentially giant electric cars with moving rotary motors that push the train forward, and with such a design this means steel wheel traction is very important.

This is why ProTrans BC has “sanding trains” as part of its pre-emptive measures, as sand provides traction – the very same reason why municipalities are using sand on the roads.

With poor traction from snow and ice buildup, trains have been unable to climb the incline near the North Arm Bridge.

Comparatively, the technology used on the system for the Expo and Millennium lines could easily handle the same incline as traction as a mechanism is not nearly as vital.

In addition to the two rail tracks and side power rail, the trains on the Expo and Millennium lines use linear motors that interact with a continuous aluminum induction strip, essentially magnetism, along the length of the track. Linear induction motors on the underside of each train propel trains forward, which reduces the amount of moving parts found inside a train and the regular maintenance required.

Linear propulsion systems on trains provide superior acceleration and deceleration and can climb a much steeper grade of 6%, such as the Evergreen extension track just east of Lougheed Town Centre Station and the SkyBridge to Surrey east of Columbia Station.

In contrast, conventional motor systems like the Canada Line can comfortably climb a maximum grade of about 3.5% in optimal weather conditions."

http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/canada-line-conventional-rail-linear-induction-technology-snowfall

Ok, but this was also in a daily hive article....

A spokesperson with TransLink was unable to provide a comment to Daily Hive on the matter, but the public transit authority wrote the following on its Buzzer blog earlier today: “Because of the steep grade, trains require full power when travelling through this section of the bridge, and Canada Line believes ice buildup on the power rail is the likely cause of the disruptions.