Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[nname]

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)

If you go to any of the Evergreen station, they shown it as the "M" train on the LED screens

[Marshal]

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?)

Why would anyone want to do that? Think of the cost, then think how far down the priority list such a route would be.

[Marshal]

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)

I decided to ask for you. From someone in Translink management, though not tasked with Skytrain way-finding: systems like ours (Toronto's too) are still too simple to need letter/numbering systems. The way to think about it is that letter/numbering of lines is an abstracted form of naming which really only becomes useful once the map (the actual geographic map, or the abstracted route map, or the mental map that relies on these) becomes entangled and difficult to visualize in terms of particular lines, both as a routes with stations, and as a components of the larger complex. We then have to switch from the intuitive/imagined space in which visualizing the system is reasonable for most users, to a system in which we must follow a naming structure with no need to know exactly how the actual routes are laid out.

With big systems this becomes obvious. Number/lettering allows for an abstract structure to overlay the individual 'names' (number/letter) of the lines. I like the Vienna U-Bahn as an example for this. It is not a massive system, but there is enough entanglement to benifit from number/letter naming. If Vienna's lines only had names, like Ringline, Praterpass, Schonebrunn . . . it would be difficult to disseminate directional information. Instead, U1 through U6, along with a colour, simplifies route communication and the ability to visually separate the lines on the route map. It also provides a naming structure that helps one figure the system out and then remember it.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by Marshal

I decided to ask for you. From someone in Translink management, though not tasked with Skytrain way-finding: systems like ours (Toronto's too) are still too simple to need letter/numbering systems. The way to think about it is that letter/numbering of lines is an abstracted form of naming which really only becomes useful once the map (the actual geographic map, or the abstracted route map, or the mental map that relies on these) becomes entangled and difficult to visualize in terms of particular lines, both as a routes with stations, and as a components of the larger complex. We then have to switch from the intuitive/imagined space in which visualizing the system is reasonable for most users, to a system in which we must follow a naming structure with no need to know exactly how the actual routes are laid out.

With big systems this becomes obvious. Number/lettering allows for an abstract structure to overlay the individual 'names' (number/letter) of the lines. I like the Vienna U-Bahn as an example for this. It is not a massive system, but there is enough entanglement to benifit from number/letter naming. If Vienna's lines only had names, like Ringline, Praterpass, Schonebrunn . . . it would be difficult to disseminate directional information. Instead, U1 through U6, along with a colour, simplifies route communication and the ability to visually separate the lines on the route map. It also provides a naming structure that helps one figure the system out and then remember it.

Thanks!!

[fredinno]

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?

Hopefully we never actually have to name the L line an actual name.
The L-line is a perfect name for a project that never gets off the drawing board.

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.

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.

The current system is pretty easy to remember. Expo is the main line that goes from Surrey to Downtown. Canada is the Airport and Richmond line.

And Millennium is the Expo's half-twin that nobody uses.

Evergreen being part of Millennium makes things confusing though. Hopefully when Broadway is complete, Evergreen will become a new Line again.

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?)

Originally Posted by Marshal

Why would anyone want to do that? Think of the cost, then think how far down the priority list such a route would be.

It wouldn't be so far down the priority list if you extended it to Douglas College and Albion, and made a BRT or Skytrain connection to 200 St. instead.

200 St and 208 St are going to really benefit from a Skytrain in the long term future. Nothing but development area.

Originally Posted by 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?

Sure- especially if the rest of the world falls in another recession, as expected in 2017. None of the financial issues from 08 have really been fixed- so expect a spectacular meltdown.

Because that's what happens when you learn nothing from your previous failures.


Regardless, I actually think despite renewables being as cheap as or cheaper than fossil fuels (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment...l-fuels-for-the-first-time-a7509251.html), high land usage and lack of storability will make the big jump down for the time being be from coal to natural gas (still pretty good in CO2 emissions, but it locks us into a higher base level of emissions).

http://www.oilandgas360.com/coal-vs-natural-gas-natgas-takes-the-lead/

(US fossil power production is now 50% gas and 50% coal, from 35% gas and 65% coal 5 years ago- not bad).

Add this existing momentum (buisness as usual) to the expansions in electric vehicle tech and infrastructure- and the propagation of 'smart grids' that would better allow existing hydroelectric plants to act as giant batteries, and electric consumption to be micromanaged for renewables, and you get a end picture for the future a lot less hot than the one shown.

Obviously it's a good idea to keep the existing thing around for planning purposes, but still.



On a side note, we might need a ski resort with higher elevations in metro Van. I vote Widgeon Peak, next to Widegon Lake, in Pinecone Burke.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

The current system is pretty easy to remember. Expo is the main line that goes from Surrey to Downtown. Canada is the Airport and Richmond line.

And Millennium is the Expo's half-twin that nobody uses.

Evergreen being part of Millennium makes things confusing though. Hopefully when Broadway is complete, Evergreen will become a new Line again.

Yes and no - Millennium is now the full Arbutus-Coquitlam stretch, with Expo taking over the Production Way spur. If Evergreen comes up again, it'll be as a brand new line.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Yes and no - Millennium is now the full Arbutus-Coquitlam stretch, with Expo taking over the Production Way spur. If Evergreen comes up again, it'll be as a brand new line.

Yeah, why would you ever seperate one Line that travels in one general direction into two lines, their appears to be no scheduling issues to me. Every transfer you require will hurt ridership.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

what it is:

Expo Line: Waterfront - King George
Expo Line: Waterfront - Prodution Way-University
Millennium Line: VCC-Clark - Lafarge Lake-Douglas
Millennium Line Evergreen Extension: Lougheed Town Centre - Lafarge Lake-Douglas
Canada Line: Waterfront - Richmond-Brighouse
Canada Line: Waterfront - YVR-Airport

what it should be:

Expo Line: Waterfront - Langley Centre
Expo Line: Waterfront - Prodution Way-University
Millennium Line: VCC-Clark - Lafarge Lake-Douglas
Canada Line: Waterfront - Richmond-Brighouse
Canada Line: Waterfront - YVR-Airport

when you start putting extra names on the same line, it just confuses everyone, so does having similar colours... it is pointless complications that make no sense.

[casper]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

what it is:

Expo Line: Waterfront - King George
Expo Line: Waterfront - Prodution Way-University
Millennium Line: VCC-Clark - Lafarge Lake-Douglas
Millennium Line Evergreen Extension: Lougheed Town Centre - Lafarge Lake-Douglas
Canada Line: Waterfront - Richmond-Brighouse
Canada Line: Waterfront - YVR-Airport

what it should be:

Expo Line: Waterfront - Langley Centre
Expo Line: Waterfront - Prodution Way-University
Millennium Line: VCC-Clark - Lafarge Lake-Douglas
Canada Line: Waterfront - Richmond-Brighouse
Canada Line: Waterfront - YVR-Airport

when you start putting extra names on the same line, it just confuses everyone, so does having similar colours... it is pointless complications that make no sense.

Over the next few years the Evergreen terminology will slowly disappear. In a few years it will all be all gone. In time it will simply turn into the historic footnote found on Wikipedia pages and in thous youtube videos on abandoned stations and railway lines.

Its existence made sense in the early stages of construction when it was not clear how it would be integrated into the system.

[Reecemartin]

Totally agree^^

Question: I don't remember any branched bus routes in MetVan, are there any? E.g. Toronto has most major routes into the suburbs split towards their terminus to cover a wider area ie. Eglinton West is 32a 32b 32c 32d, I wonder if there are any places this would make sense in MetVan, one idea I had was alternating the 531 if it's frequency ever gets improved to 15 minutes. 531a follows current route turning on 32nd and going South through the Nothern Areas of the business park and 531b runs South on 200 all the way to 16th, and then runs west on 16th and north on 192 meeting the a route at 24th. With this you can serve Fernridge and potentially drop the c63 altogether (while doubling it's service frequency effectively)

[nname]

The 531 is barely surviving at 30min frequency though...

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

what it is:

Expo Line: Waterfront - King George
Expo Line: Waterfront - Prodution Way-University
Millennium Line: VCC-Clark - Lafarge Lake-Douglas
Millennium Line Evergreen Extension: Lougheed Town Centre - Lafarge Lake-Douglas
Canada Line: Waterfront - Richmond-Brighouse
Canada Line: Waterfront - YVR-Airport

what it should be:

Expo Line: Waterfront - Langley Centre
Expo Line: Waterfront - Prodution Way-University
Millennium Line: VCC-Clark - Lafarge Lake-Douglas
Canada Line: Waterfront - Richmond-Brighouse
Canada Line: Waterfront - YVR-Airport

when you start putting extra names on the same line, it just confuses everyone, so does having similar colours... it is pointless complications that make no sense.

Originally Posted by casper

Over the next few years the Evergreen terminology will slowly disappear. In a few years it will all be all gone. In time it will simply turn into the historic footnote found on Wikipedia pages and in thous youtube videos on abandoned stations and railway lines.

Its existence made sense in the early stages of construction when it was not clear how it would be integrated into the system.

Evergreen will be revived when and if Skytrain is extended to Maple Ridge, and eventually Langley (Via Golden Ears).


Millennium would be rerouted to New Westminister, and Evergreen would terminate at New West.

[nname]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Evergreen will be revived when and if Skytrain is extended to Maple Ridge, and eventually Langley (Via Golden Ears).


Millennium would be rerouted to New Westminister, and Evergreen would terminate at New West.

It would just be a branch of Millennium Line.

I think the key for long term is to distribute the passenger as evenly between Expo and Millennium Line as possible to avoid (or delay) the need of capacity upgrade on the Expo Line. This plan does the opposite...

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by nname

The 531 is barely surviving at 30min frequency though...

Really? Used to use it in the mornings and it was quite busy even at 630

[bardak]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Totally agree^^

Question: I don't remember any branched bus routes in MetVan, are there any? E.g. Toronto has most major routes into the suburbs split towards their terminus to cover a wider area ie. Eglinton West is 32a 32b 32c 32d, I wonder if there are any places this would make sense in MetVan

Translink has some branching routes that do. the 410 has some alternate routing depending on the time of day, the 100 alternates the final part of its route. Then there are the 601, and 351 that have alternate routings during peak hours but they run them as different route numbers but they could easily be designated as branches instead. Then there are scheduled short turns all over the system also.

Translink seems to be where Jarrett Walker came up with and was able to test his method of transit planning and they seem to continue to follow it today. One of his main arguments is the frequent transit network. Branching reduces frequency and on anything but the most frequent line it would remove that portion from the FTN.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by bardak

Translink has some branching routes that do. the 410 has some alternate routing depending on the time of day, the 100 alternates the final part of its route. Then there are the 601, and 351 that have alternate routings during peak hours but they run them as different route numbers but they could easily be designated as branches instead. Then there are scheduled short turns all over the system also.

Translink seems to be where Jarrett Walker came up with and was able to test his method of transit planning and they seem to continue to follow it today. One of his main arguments is the frequent transit network. Branching reduces frequency and on anything but the most frequent line it would remove that portion from the FTN.

Branching would be ideal IMO at the very ends of FTN because then you can serve some different areas.

On another note what do plans look like in terms of expanding park and rides, would a facility in Aldegrove be worth it if we could attract significant riders from Abbotsford and the Valley? What about extending the 555?

[bardak]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Branching would be ideal IMO at the very ends of FTN because then you can serve some different areas.

A large benefit to the FTN is you can manage the line by headway instead of by the schedule. if you spit the line at the end you need each end to be timed to a pulse where it spits so that you can transfer from one to the other and you have to manage the whole line to the scheduled and reduce its reliability.

I'm not saying that there is no place for branching routes. They work in Toronto and there could be a place for them here as well but there are different contexts between the cities. Translink uses buses routes to do dual duty as local service and longer regional services over the entire region but for the TTC they are used mostly for local service and they have much higher frequency due to the fact that they only covers the central part of a larger region.

[flipper316]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Branching would be ideal IMO at the very ends of FTN because then you can serve some different areas.

On another note what do plans look like in terms of expanding park and rides, would a facility in Aldegrove be worth it if we could attract significant riders from Abbotsford and the Valley? What about extending the 555?

Don't really see the need to expand the 555 to Aldergrove if that's what you're getting at. Aldergrove has their own 503 express bus that goes to Surrey Central using those comfy Orion highway buses.

[Large Cat]

Originally Posted by flipper316

Don't really see the need to expand the 555 to Aldergrove if that's what you're getting at. Aldergrove has their own 503 express bus that goes to Surrey Central using those comfy Orion highway buses.

The Orion highway buses are NOT comfy. If you are over 6 feet, you are in PAIN for the whole trip. Seats, not long enough!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No place to stand!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BUT air conditioning.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by Large Cat

The Orion highway buses are NOT comfy. If you are over 6 feet, you are in PAIN for the whole trip. Seats, not long enough!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No place to stand!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BUT air conditioning.

Yeah hopefully we get some new highway coaches, I know I've mentioned before but, double Deckers really would be great. Most routes running the current ones are overcrowded.