Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[waves]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

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.

That quote is also true.

Trains require full power BECAUSE they aren't getting traction on rails. The goal is to get to full speed before you hit the hill so momentum will carry you up the hill. Have you ever tried to drive up a hill on a road covered in ice? No matter how much power you put to those wheels while on the hill, you won't get up that hill. If you however get up to full speed (and therefore utilized full power) before you hit the hill, then your momentum will carry you up the hill.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by waves

That quote is also true.

Trains require full power BECAUSE they aren't getting traction on rails. The goal is to get to full speed before you hit the hill so momentum will carry you up the hill. Have you ever tried to drive up a hill on a road covered in ice? No matter how much power you put to those wheels while on the hill, you won't get up that hill. If you however get up to full speed (and therefore utilized full power) before you hit the hill, then your momentum will carry you up the hill.

So in that case it's a combination of the factors, hopefully it doesn't happen next time, they need to be alot more prepared. The Canada Line is very important.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by MIPS

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.

Even more weird for Seattle to keep it and both were built for their World's Fairs.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

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...

People here don't seem to appreciate LRT or surface Rail in general...

Of Course cycling is a transportation system. It's not really an important one though, unless you're talking Downtown.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by fredinno

People here don't seem to appreciate LRT or surface Rail in general...

Of Course cycling is a transportation system. It's not really an important one though, unless you're talking Downtown.

Yeah, I suppose it sometimes seems that way, I just think people need to look at the pros and cons of each mode. If Skytrain or Heavy Rail RT cost the same and are superior in all cases we probably wouldn't see the LRT explosion that we do now, e.g. LA Toronto Calgary etc. Like I've always said LRT has its issues, but if we really want to make transit the best choice for getting around we are going to have to build more LRT, BRT, RRT, and as you mentioned Commuter Rail. There's room and a place where each mode fits.

[nname]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Yeah, I suppose it sometimes seems that way, I just think people need to look at the pros and cons of each mode. If Skytrain or Heavy Rail RT cost the same and are superior in all cases we probably wouldn't see the LRT explosion that we do now, e.g. LA Toronto Calgary etc. Like I've always said LRT has its issues, but if we really want to make transit the best choice for getting around we are going to have to build more LRT, BRT, RRT, and as you mentioned Commuter Rail. There's room and a place where each mode fits.

I think most of us here would agree that at-grade LRT have its place on secondary routes, where we could start building after the primary network is completed. I don't think anyone here would argue that a line on Arbutus, Scott Road, or 152nd would warrant a full grade-separated metro system. At-grade system is suitable for those routes, but buses are also just fine for the time being, and the upgrade you mentioned can come after we have a well-established rapid transit system (there are limited amount of fundings, after all). But for primary routes such as Fraser Hwy, and to a lesser degree King George Blvd.. Most of us just think that these are the primary regional connectors and should be built as grade-separated system.

And I'm being careful about my wording... as the word "LRT" can mean a lot of thing, ranging from completely grade-separated system (like Ottawa's), to basically just streetcars. Even the SkyTrain system we have here is being grouped into the "LRT" category in part of Asia. The issue is that some LRT advocates always seems to list the best properties of LRT, not mentioning that you cannot have all of them. For instance, people say LRT is "flexible" and "can carry about the same amount of people as heavy rail".. but the flexibility comes as a sacrifice of capacity - at-grade crossings limits the headway; closely-spaced at-grade crossing in dense neighborhood limits platform length. Another one is that LRT is "cheaper" and "can run just as fast"... but in order to improve the speed, you need more grade separations, and to grade separate, it increase cost.. and in the end, the LRT system may even cost higher than systems like SkyTrain.

Calgary is lucky (or I should say.. "have the foresight") to have a lot of right-of-way reserved for LRT when a neighborhood is developed. It also have a lot of expressways or highways with reserved RoW so the LRT can be built at-grade but with very few crossings. The problem is - they are running out of these reserved RoW - and without them, construction cost skyrocketed. Their latest line, the West LRT, was constructed 8 years ago, at a cost comparable to the Evergreen Extension today but 25% shorter in length. This is a case of grade separation driving up cost (and even that, there are still quite a few at-grade crossings on that line).

Another case is Ottawa's system - fully grade separated, but is almost 50% more expensive than Evergreen. The underground downtown section have a lot to do with the high cost, but the section outside downtown should be relatively cheap as there is already a grade-separated RoW.

Toronto build LRT as an alternative to the subway. There are dead against any elevated system, so "grade-separation" pretty much means "underground". The Eglinton Line currently under construction is expensive (but less expensive than the alternative - subway). In fact, it is the most expensive rapid transit line to be ever constructed in Canada, yet it still have a long at-grade section that limits its capacity.

LA, or pretty much every city in the US outside of NY area, are still build around private vehicles. Even with the rapidly expanding rapid transit system, I think even now most people still have the mindset of "transit = poor man's ride" [..after all these years, my relatives there still don't understand why I'm commuting with SkyTrain everyday..]. They are less interested in high-quality rapid transit system - but instead, wanting to move as many poorer people out of their car so the richer can have a less congested road to drive on. So basically, the objective is to build a big network as cheap as possible. Name one country in the world where at-grade LRT is preferred option for primary network in major cities... I don't think there is any other than the US.

And even with that, the cost latest lines in Seattle and Portland (with some degrees of grade-separation but still have some at-grade segments) is comparable, or more expensive, than Evergreen Extension...

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by nname

I think most of us here would agree that at-grade LRT have its place on secondary routes, where we could start building after the primary network is completed. I don't think anyone here would argue that a line on Arbutus, Scott Road, or 152nd would warrant a full grade-separated metro system. At-grade system is suitable for those routes, but buses are also just fine for the time being, and the upgrade you mentioned can come after we have a well-established rapid transit system (there are limited amount of fundings, after all). But for primary routes such as Fraser Hwy, and to a lesser degree King George Blvd.. Most of us just think that these are the primary regional connectors and should be built as grade-separated system.

And I'm being careful about my wording... as the word "LRT" can mean a lot of thing, ranging from completely grade-separated system (like Ottawa's), to basically just streetcars. Even the SkyTrain system we have here is being grouped into the "LRT" category in part of Asia. The issue is that some LRT advocates always seems to list the best properties of LRT, not mentioning that you cannot have all of them. For instance, people say LRT is "flexible" and "can carry about the same amount of people as heavy rail".. but the flexibility comes as a sacrifice of capacity - at-grade crossings limits the headway; closely-spaced at-grade crossing in dense neighborhood limits platform length. Another one is that LRT is "cheaper" and "can run just as fast"... but in order to improve the speed, you need more grade separations, and to grade separate, it increase cost.. and in the end, the LRT system may even cost higher than systems like SkyTrain.

Calgary is lucky (or I should say.. "have the foresight") to have a lot of right-of-way reserved for LRT when a neighborhood is developed. It also have a lot of expressways or highways with reserved RoW so the LRT can be built at-grade but with very few crossings. The problem is - they are running out of these reserved RoW - and without them, construction cost skyrocketed. Their latest line, the West LRT, was constructed 8 years ago, at a cost comparable to the Evergreen Extension today but 25% shorter in length. This is a case of grade separation driving up cost (and even that, there are still quite a few at-grade crossings on that line).

Another case is Ottawa's system - fully grade separated, but is almost 50% more expensive than Evergreen. The underground downtown section have a lot to do with the high cost, but the section outside downtown should be relatively cheap as there is already a grade-separated RoW.

Toronto build LRT as an alternative to the subway. There are dead against any elevated system, so "grade-separation" pretty much means "underground". The Eglinton Line currently under construction is expensive (but less expensive than the alternative - subway). In fact, it is the most expensive rapid transit line to be ever constructed in Canada, yet it still have a long at-grade section that limits its capacity.

LA, or pretty much every city in the US outside of NY area, are still build around private vehicles. Even with the rapidly expanding rapid transit system, I think even now most people still have the mindset of "transit = poor man's ride" [..after all these years, my relatives there still don't understand why I'm commuting with SkyTrain everyday..]. They are less interested in high-quality rapid transit system - but instead, wanting to move as many poorer people out of their car so the richer can have a less congested road to drive on. So basically, the objective is to build a big network as cheap as possible. Name one country in the world where at-grade LRT is preferred option for primary network in major cities... I don't think there is any other than the US.

And even with that, the cost latest lines in Seattle and Portland (with some degrees of grade-separation but still have some at-grade segments) is comparable, or more expensive, than Evergreen Extension...

If grade-separated LRT is going to be built, it should be in the flavour of premetro and should be build for capacity needed in the future, not the day it's planned.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by nname

I think most of us here would agree that at-grade LRT have its place on secondary routes, where we could start building after the primary network is completed. I don't think anyone here would argue that a line on Arbutus, Scott Road, or 152nd would warrant a full grade-separated metro system. At-grade system is suitable for those routes, but buses are also just fine for the time being, and the upgrade you mentioned can come after we have a well-established rapid transit system (there are limited amount of fundings, after all). But for primary routes such as Fraser Hwy, and to a lesser degree King George Blvd.. Most of us just think that these are the primary regional connectors and should be built as grade-separated system.

And I'm being careful about my wording... as the word "LRT" can mean a lot of thing, ranging from completely grade-separated system (like Ottawa's), to basically just streetcars. Even the SkyTrain system we have here is being grouped into the "LRT" category in part of Asia. The issue is that some LRT advocates always seems to list the best properties of LRT, not mentioning that you cannot have all of them. For instance, people say LRT is "flexible" and "can carry about the same amount of people as heavy rail".. but the flexibility comes as a sacrifice of capacity - at-grade crossings limits the headway; closely-spaced at-grade crossing in dense neighborhood limits platform length. Another one is that LRT is "cheaper" and "can run just as fast"... but in order to improve the speed, you need more grade separations, and to grade separate, it increase cost.. and in the end, the LRT system may even cost higher than systems like SkyTrain.

Calgary is lucky (or I should say.. "have the foresight") to have a lot of right-of-way reserved for LRT when a neighborhood is developed. It also have a lot of expressways or highways with reserved RoW so the LRT can be built at-grade but with very few crossings. The problem is - they are running out of these reserved RoW - and without them, construction cost skyrocketed. Their latest line, the West LRT, was constructed 8 years ago, at a cost comparable to the Evergreen Extension today but 25% shorter in length. This is a case of grade separation driving up cost (and even that, there are still quite a few at-grade crossings on that line).

Another case is Ottawa's system - fully grade separated, but is almost 50% more expensive than Evergreen. The underground downtown section have a lot to do with the high cost, but the section outside downtown should be relatively cheap as there is already a grade-separated RoW.

Toronto build LRT as an alternative to the subway. There are dead against any elevated system, so "grade-separation" pretty much means "underground". The Eglinton Line currently under construction is expensive (but less expensive than the alternative - subway). In fact, it is the most expensive rapid transit line to be ever constructed in Canada, yet it still have a long at-grade section that limits its capacity.

LA, or pretty much every city in the US outside of NY area, are still build around private vehicles. Even with the rapidly expanding rapid transit system, I think even now most people still have the mindset of "transit = poor man's ride" [..after all these years, my relatives there still don't understand why I'm commuting with SkyTrain everyday..]. They are less interested in high-quality rapid transit system - but instead, wanting to move as many poorer people out of their car so the richer can have a less congested road to drive on. So basically, the objective is to build a big network as cheap as possible. Name one country in the world where at-grade LRT is preferred option for primary network in major cities... I don't think there is any other than the US.

And even with that, the cost latest lines in Seattle and Portland (with some degrees of grade-separation but still have some at-grade segments) is comparable, or more expensive, than Evergreen Extension...

All good points though its important to note that for example, Ottawas system would be expected to cost more than Evergreen as it has OMC and significant vehicle procurement as well as many more stations than Evergreen, I also think it's longer but not sure about that. (I think it would be much better to compare cost per kilometre or per station). In the case of Toronto Imo it's a good use of LRT's actually flexibility, as the grade separated portion already has alot more demand and can be run with ATO (some trains will likely short turn at laird so frequency should be excellent). The problem for Eglinton is that if it was fully grade separated for the length of the line it would be incredibly expensive (as you mentioned it already will cost over 4 billion ), and also there would be a stronger push for subway, which would only further increase costs and possibly land TO in replace it was for a long time with fewer very high capacity lines which IMO provide worse service than several parallel lower capacity lines.


Don't mistake my words for me being a stringently pro LRT guy, Ive just accepted that Im pretty sure KGB and 104 are going to get LRT so at this point my goal is to try to get people to pressure it into being on the better end of what can be done with LRT. You also make a good point about the definition, LRT can hypothetically run the gamut from being streetcar to almost heavy rail capacity.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by nname

I think most of us here would agree that at-grade LRT have its place on secondary routes, where we could start building after the primary network is completed. I don't think anyone here would argue that a line on Arbutus, Scott Road, or 152nd would warrant a full grade-separated metro system.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's more or less the entire pro-LRT argument (on this forum) in a nutshell. Haven't found anybody suggesting that light rail can replace SkyTrain as the primary people mover, only that it could supplement it.

[Bdawe]

One thing I would note about LA LRT is that a lot of it is making use of old railroad rights of way and functions more like an S-bahn (especially once the regional connector is completed under DTLA), but instead of using mainline equipment uses light rail equipment.

Old RR rights of way, are more like Arbutus than Surrey - they're private rights of way or already reserved medians, they have fewer grade crossings than a new route would have, fewer utility relocations. These corridors were all bought up in a binge by regional agencies from the railroads in the last thirty years.

Given the distances to be covered in LA and the nature of the rights of way in question, it makes more sense than it would in a lot of places to go with at-grade LRT

[nname]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Ottawas system would be expected to cost more than Evergreen as it has OMC and significant vehicle procurement as well as many more stations than Evergreen, I also think it's longer but not sure about that. (I think it would be much better to compare cost per kilometre or per station).

Evergreen (Vancouver) - 10.9km, 6.5 stations, 1.4B
Confederation (Ottawa) - 12.5km, 13 stations, 2.1B

Ottawa's project will have one full maintenance centre (as oppose to the light maintenance for Evergreen), much bigger vehicle but similar amount. However, for much of the length, it is built at-grade on existing right-of-way from the original transitway.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

In the case of Toronto Imo it's a good use of LRT's actually flexibility, as the grade separated portion already has alot more demand and can be run with ATO (some trains will likely short turn at laird so frequency should be excellent). The problem for Eglinton is that if it was fully grade separated for the length of the line it would be incredibly expensive (as you mentioned it already will cost over 4 billion ), and also there would be a stronger push for subway, which would only further increase costs and possibly land TO in replace it was for a long time with fewer very high capacity lines which IMO provide worse service than several parallel lower capacity lines.

When the Scarborough Line was originally part of the Eglinton-Scarborough crosstown, the plan is to have trains short-turn at both Laird and Kennedy, leaving the at-grade portion with half of the capacity as the rest of the line. I think if Toronto is willing to consider elevated for the part of the route that is more suburban, then the entire line is quite likely to be fully grade-separated.

And the cost for the line is actually 5.3 billions.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's more or less the entire pro-LRT argument (on this forum) in a nutshell. Haven't found anybody suggesting that light rail can replace SkyTrain as the primary people mover, only that it could supplement it.

Yep, never said it would be replacing Skytrain I just think it's ok to have a mode which fits between Bus and Skytrain.

I can confirm Toronto will never build elevated, it is viciously opposed. The Crosstown as it stands makes good use of the money as the heaviest traffic area is fully separated (as well as 2 of the GO connections).

I mostly refer to LA as an example of what we should be trying to do, albeit likely with less LRT. They have constructed expansions on every mode of transit and are continuing to expand aggressively. I think most people would agree that LRT can actually be a good solution for largely developed areas (unlikely to see much ridership growth), or as an upgrade from BRT in terms of capacity. Like was mentioned by someone else, most major transit cities offer cohesive RRT LRT and Bus networks each designed to travel at different speeds and to service different stop spacingss, all I suggest is that this is a model we should consider.

[Sheba]

I received an e-mail back from TransLink with a few tidbits about New West:

-The main reason for the recent C3 changes is because of the massive population and ridership growth in the Victoria Hill. We have had overcrowding to this area in the past, and I suspect that it will keep growing. Unfortunately, the road network in that neighbourhood does not allow us to upgrade the fleet size to a standard bus.

-We have some service improvements for the C3/C4 coming up in the spring, primarily regarding late night service.

-There have not been any recent discussions about any new infill stations along either branch of the Expo Line.

-There are on again/off again plans for a pedestrian/cycling bridge to Queensborough. TransLink has been involved in funding discussions in the past. The latest plan is for a passenger ferry, which TransLink is not involved in. Read more at the following link: <https://www.newwestcity.ca/waterfront-vision/articles/3943.php>

[nname]

Originally Posted by Sheba

I received an e-mail back from TransLink with a few tidbits about New West:

Service extend to midnight for C4 and the Quayside section of C3. C3 running every 20min late night service; C4 every 30min.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by nname

Service extend to midnight for C4 and the Quayside section of C3. C3 running every 20min late night service; C4 every 30min.

Not aware of the area but, every 20 mins for a shuttle late at night seems pretty good, do they use the larger shuttles?

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

If grade-separated LRT is going to be built, it should be in the flavour of premetro and should be build for capacity needed in the future, not the day it's planned.

The issue is that there usually isn't $$$ for both BRT, LRT, Skytrain, and Commuter Rail- and since LRT is the technology that kind of has a difficult niche (it can't go large distances quickly, like Commuter Rail, it can't be built as cheaply as BRT for suburban or lower priority areas, like B-line/BRT (particularly in newer neighborhoods, which have wider roads), and can't be the spine of the people-mover system (like Skytrain).

So LRT gets the short end of the stick. It can spur more development, and has better capacity and is more expandable than BRT, but what usually ends up happening is that we save up $$$ for Skytrain.



LRT might be good for Maple Ridge, South Surrey/White Rock, and Langley, but by the time we build Broadway, the Surrey Skytrain/L-line+ Fraser Line, BMG, and Hastings, we'll have enough development to justify Skytrain....

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by fredinno

The issue is that there usually isn't $$$ for both BRT, LRT, Skytrain, and Commuter Rail- and since LRT is the technology that kind of has a difficult niche (it can't go large distances quickly, like Commuter Rail, it can't be built as cheaply as BRT for suburban or lower priority areas, like B-line/BRT (particularly in newer neighborhoods, which have wider roads), and can't be the spine of the people-mover system (like Skytrain).

So LRT gets the short end of the stick. It can spur more development, and has better capacity and is more expandable than BRT, but what usually ends up happening is that we save up $$$ for Skytrain.



LRT might be good for Maple Ridge, South Surrey/White Rock, and Langley, but by the time we build Broadway, the Surrey Skytrain/L-line+ Fraser Line, BMG, and Hastings, we'll have enough development to justify Skytrain....

What type of area is best suited for LRT as opposed to BRT, RRT, streetcar, and commuter rail? What separates LRT from a tram, aside from exclusive guideways and capacity, both of which are present in trams?

And how does LRT even exist?

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

What type of area is best suited for LRT as opposed to BRT, RRT, streetcar, and commuter rail? What separates LRT from a tram, aside from exclusive guideways and capacity, both of which are present in trams?

And how does LRT even exist?

Well as has been mentioned LRT is a very wide term, alot of circles consider Skytrain to be LRT. Inherently the tech is not bad, you can theoretically use it and build a fully automatic grade separated system like Skytrain. As far as being different from Trams, many would argue that exclusive ROW and increased capacity are what would make a tram an LRT however, you should also add signal priority to that list. Basically LRT is a highly optimised streetcar, tbh though I think we would all benefit from just calling it what it most resembles I.e. you could have an LRT be Skytrain, or Commuter Rail, or Streetcar - LRT is mainly just a product of its ROW

As far as where it works (this has been mentioned) look at King Street and Queen Street in Toronto, these lines carry enormous amounts of people through downtown Toronto. King Street at least is being moved towards having an exclusive ROW, and left turns are already banned on major intersections along streetcar routes during peak periods, in addition the new streetcars are largely based off of LRVs with the only difference being that they have more articulative flexibility since the network has tight curves and they have doors on only one side.

Why do these corridors work quite well for LRT type tech? Well the TTC is absolutely cash strapped and so they really do see it as the difference between hiring 3 drivers or one (that can add up fast), they also operate good frequencies, and while they are planning a relief line for the Yonge Subway along Queen that is going to take years and cost extraordinary amounts (tunneling though a downtown with numerous underground utilities AND the path underground walkway system). Kind of an aside but, the system also provides reliable enough to provide 24 hour service on the standard lines which IMO is a really good thing (Vancouver could really work on its night service).

Basically, LRT is a very fluid thing and so it's just important we make sure to define what we are talking about ~ each different flavours has different costs and pros and cons and some flavours have proven successful (ie streetcar conversion like Spadina in Toronto) and some have proven to not be (ie Central Link) note Central Link gets very small ridership compared to Skytrain.

[Reecemartin]

Quite curious, I know the TTC has a map which has all of its services bus, streetcar, subway on one single map (they actually have them hanging in the subway) I don't remember every seeing a full combined bus and rt map from Translink, does one exist?

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Quite curious, I know the TTC has a map which has all of its services bus, streetcar, subway on one single map (they actually have them hanging in the subway) I don't remember every seeing a full combined bus and rt map from Translink, does one exist?

Of course it does - it's the first map listed.