Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by Sheba

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

Thanks! (Btw I think the newish T logo is great, that's something Toronto actually lacks!)

Another question that I've been thinking about that's actually quite interesting,

Toronto has the Eglinton Crosstown, and Montreal has REM, what if any project of a similar scope does (or could) Vancouver have? These lines both will act as regional connectors, don't get me wrong I'm not really talking about a project of major cost ie Broadway rather Im asking what people opinions are about a totally new line or at least a major project that has true effects that go across the system, ideas?

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

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.

TBH, it seems like LRT is a revival of the streetcar, or just putting the idea of a streetcar on life support, or making it seem like a completely new thing.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

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...

The problem outside of SSP, is that people simply do not know one rail technology from another, and that's why there are not crowded townhalls demanding a technology change. For all anyone outside of railfans care, everything is a bus, skytrain or a subway. In Vancouver at least. Outside of Vancouver, "Skytrain" only refers to a people mover at an Airport other than in Bangkok and Sydney.

"The Vancouver Skytrain" explicitly refers to the original Expo Line guideway, MK I LIM rolling stock, and Seltrac automated CBTC signalling. Each part of the technology is not dependent on each other. The MK I trains can be run manually like the TTC does, the Seltrac tech can be used on any rail transport, but is mainly used for "complete systems", eg subways, and "upgrading to automated" can be done to any LRT system, but they are typically only in "push to start" mode, and the drivers entire purpose is to put their foot on the deadmans switch.

When people ask about the Skytrain, it is that part that primarily is referenced, or the Millenium Line. Not the Canada Line.

The "RT" in LRT stands for "Rail Transit" while the former ALRT name for the Skytrain is "Rapid Transit". This we get all these confusions.

"LRT" as in Light Rail Transit, is understood to mean any non-commuter rail transit without it's own ROW, but it does have it's own tracks. That's about as simple as it gets. One category is "Street car/Tram" mode which shares the road, and is thus less efficient than an articulated Trolley bus, and is frequency impaired by other vehicles. The other category is "Dedicated ROW" which can only achieve marketed frequency and capacity of there are no grade crossings. Otherwise any claim made by a politician about capacity or frequency is being completely pulled out of thin air.

You can only make a claim to capacity and frequency with a grade-separated ROW. So an Elevated system, here is called "Skytrain" but a more understood term is simply "Metro", or "Subway" if it's major destination is underground.

So when you listen to people who are not railfans speak about "Surrey getting rapid transit". Surrey is not getting rapid transit. That is confusing the "RT" again. For all intents Surrey is getting an expensive bus on rails at the cost of two lanes of traffic.

And as I said before, the real danger here is that the cities ask for cheaply built LRT systems that are super-expensive to operate and then fail to maintain them because they were sold on it being cheaper to build.

[casper]

Originally Posted by Kisai

The problem outside of SSP, is that people simply do not know one rail technology from another, and that's why there are not crowded townhalls demanding a technology change. For all anyone outside of railfans care, everything is a bus, skytrain or a subway. In Vancouver at least. Outside of Vancouver, "Skytrain" only refers to a people mover at an Airport other than in Bangkok and Sydney.

"The Vancouver Skytrain" explicitly refers to the original Expo Line guideway, MK I LIM rolling stock, and Seltrac automated CBTC signalling. Each part of the technology is not dependent on each other. The MK I trains can be run manually like the TTC does, the Seltrac tech can be used on any rail transport, but is mainly used for "complete systems", eg subways, and "upgrading to automated" can be done to any LRT system, but they are typically only in "push to start" mode, and the drivers entire purpose is to put their foot on the deadmans switch.

When people ask about the Skytrain, it is that part that primarily is referenced, or the Millenium Line. Not the Canada Line.

The "RT" in LRT stands for "Rail Transit" while the former ALRT name for the Skytrain is "Rapid Transit". This we get all these confusions.

"LRT" as in Light Rail Transit, is understood to mean any non-commuter rail transit without it's own ROW, but it does have it's own tracks. That's about as simple as it gets. One category is "Street car/Tram" mode which shares the road, and is thus less efficient than an articulated Trolley bus, and is frequency impaired by other vehicles. The other category is "Dedicated ROW" which can only achieve marketed frequency and capacity of there are no grade crossings. Otherwise any claim made by a politician about capacity or frequency is being completely pulled out of thin air.

You can only make a claim to capacity and frequency with a grade-separated ROW. So an Elevated system, here is called "Skytrain" but a more understood term is simply "Metro", or "Subway" if it's major destination is underground.

So when you listen to people who are not railfans speak about "Surrey getting rapid transit". Surrey is not getting rapid transit. That is confusing the "RT" again. For all intents Surrey is getting an expensive bus on rails at the cost of two lanes of traffic.

And as I said before, the real danger here is that the cities ask for cheaply built LRT systems that are super-expensive to operate and then fail to maintain them because they were sold on it being cheaper to build.

I think all of this is technically correct until you get marketing involved.

Most people in Vancouver would view Skytrain as Expo, Millennium and Canada Line. That is simply because that how is marketed to the general public.

Similar to London. The tube is the general term for the overall system despite the fact some lines as shaped like tubes (and have weird tube shaped cars) while others look "normal" as far as transit cars go.


If they build the silly Surrey light rail I would not be surprised to see is called "Skytrain" despite the fact the technology is completely different and it mixes with traffic in places.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by casper

I think all of this is technically correct until you get marketing involved.

Most people in Vancouver would view Skytrain as Expo, Millennium and Canada Line. That is simply because that how is marketed to the general public.

Similar to London. The tube is the general term for the overall system despite the fact some lines as shaped like tubes (and have weird tube shaped cars) while others look "normal" as far as transit cars go.


If they build the silly Surrey light rail I would not be surprised to see is called "Skytrain" despite the fact the technology is completely different and it mixes with traffic in places.

I don't agree, LRT is a totally different technology and the line on KGB and 104 will not be elevated at all I highly doubt they will call it Skytrain, though it is interesting to think about what they might call it. I don't mind L for now, but something like DLR in London makes more sense to me (maybe SLR?). I think this makes more sense than calling it "...." some name that fits with the Skytrain naming scheme. It definetly should have a different name.

On a somewhat related note, does Translink have any plans to number or letter their lines akin to what the TTC did?

[casper]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

I don't agree, LRT is a totally different technology and the line on KGB and 104 will not be elevated at all I highly doubt they will call it Skytrain, though it is interesting to think about what they might call it. I don't mind L for now, but something like DLR in London makes more sense to me (maybe SLR?). I think this makes more sense than calling it "...." some name that fits with the Skytrain naming scheme. It definetly should have a different name.

On a somewhat related note, does Translink have any plans to number or letter their lines akin to what the TTC did?

Translink has never numbered or lettered the system in any way.

Skytrain was called the ALRT before the marketing people adopted the "Skytrain" name. Here is one of the early videos: https://youtu.be/W_BoeXqaV9c

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by casper

Translink has never numbered or lettered the system in any way.

Skytrain was called the ALRT before the marketing people adopted the "Skytrain" name. Here is one of the early videos: https://youtu.be/W_BoeXqaV9c

I know that they haven't numbered the system, that's no different than Toronto what I asked was whether it was planned or had been discussed, it can make it easier for tourists and in general to refer to lines just as Line 1 etc..
(Note: it would still have Expo it would just line 1 expo line etc)

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

I know that they haven't numbered the system, that's no different than Toronto what I asked was whether it was planned or had been discussed, it can make it easier for tourists and in general to refer to lines just as Line 1 etc..
(Note: it would still have Expo it would just line 1 expo line etc)

Or it could make it harder. "Line 1 (Expo)" is as equally confusing - if not more so - than just "Expo Line."

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Or it could make it harder. "Line 1 (Expo)" is as equally confusing - if not more so - than just "Expo Line."

Well it could be made so that it's pretty much exclusively referred to as Line 1 with Expo Line simply being the technical name (similar to Toronto).

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Well it could be made so that it's pretty much exclusively referred to as Line 1 with Expo Line simply being the technical name (similar to Toronto).

Even worse.

Tourist: "Now was Line 1 the blue line or the yellow line...?"

The best mnemonic would be a destination (Airport Line, East-West Line, Surrey Line, etc), but that's not really an option either.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Even worse.

Tourist: "Now was Line 1 the blue line or the yellow line...?"

The best mnemonic would be a destination (Airport Line, East-West Line, Surrey Line, etc), but that's not really an option either.

Well it would be labeled Line One as such, on signs and maps.

On another note when do we expect to see B Line of Fraser begin service and what buses do we expect will be used?

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by casper

Translink has never numbered or lettered the system in any way.

Skytrain was called the ALRT before the marketing people adopted the "Skytrain" name. Here is one of the early videos: https://youtu.be/W_BoeXqaV9c

Fuck me backwards without foreplay that video has a e s t h e t i c.

[retro_orange]

Though i do enjoy a e s t h e t i c too.

[Reecemartin]

Loool

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Or it could make it harder. "Line 1 (Expo)" is as equally confusing - if not more so - than just "Expo Line."

Agreed.
Having names in the lines is easier to recognize rather than an arbitrary number. Maybe if you have more than 5 lines, it may be useful.

London doesn't number it's lines, does it?

[Xerx]

London does not number its lines

[Mac Write]

If they built the Port Coquitlam extension, and had it cross over into Maple ridge and then cross over into Surrey on route to White Rock, that would provide a direct link for Surrey to Coquitlam.

Is this a long term idea (2050-2075?)

[casper]

Originally Posted by Xerx

London does not number its lines

Yes, it is more of a continent think..

Berlin, Frankfurt, Zurick, Paris have numbers. However they usually don't give lines names.

Lisbon is the weird one, with Names, letters and pictograms for each line.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by Mac Write

If they built the Port Coquitlam extension, and had it cross over into Maple ridge and then cross over into Surrey on route to White Rock, that would provide a direct link for Surrey to Coquitlam.

Is this a long term idea (2050-2075?)

IF this happens they probably just build a new line, typically a good rule of thumb is that if you are going in a completely different direction for that period of time you might as well split it because how many people are likely to ride north east to get to Broadway or UBC.

[Reecemartin]

Saw this article what do you folks think the implications are? Transit being planned so far ahead of time and all.

http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/...ouver-into-san-diego-but-at-a-heavy-cost

I've always expected that we will see a major reduction in emissions going through the 2020's with developing countries embracing renewables, developed countries increasing efficiency and moving towards renewables and the further electrification of transport. Thoughts?