Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

^Surrey LRT's capacity is hampered by its general at-grade design and relatively low frequencies. In general, at-grade transit isn't intended to move the amounts of people a grade-separated line is. While LRT has higher theoretical capacity, it's rarely taken advantage of in urban settings (As in Portland, not Calgary) due to its limited demand.

Well frequency can always be increased however.

[dpogue]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Well frequency can always be increased however.

Frequency of at-grade LRT can't simply be increased without evaluating how that impacts the other users of the road. If they increase frequency, what does that mean for traffic lights and turn signals? How does it affect the timing of traffic lights and how many cars can get through an intersection before the next train?

This is what Rico was referring to above when mentioning that it's all a balance of different constraints.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by dpogue

Frequency of at-grade LRT can't simply be increased without evaluating how that impacts the other users of the road. If they increase frequency, what does that mean for traffic lights and turn signals? How does it affect the timing of traffic lights and how many cars can get through an intersection before the next train?

This is what Rico was referring to above when mentioning that it's all a balance of different constraints.

Lights cycle on a what 30-40 second timetable? So really if you have the lights connected up it shouldn't be a problem at all.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Well frequency can always be increased however.

In case anybody skipped it the first five times, the fully-upgraded line runs two-car trainsets every three minutes and only gets 4,080 pphpd. To get to 15,000 like SkyTrain or the Eglinton Line, TransLink'd need to run them every 25 seconds!

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Lights cycle on a what 30-40 second timetable? So really if you have the lights connected up it shouldn't be a problem at all.

Tell that to Edmonton. It's very easy to get these things wrong.

[Rico]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Lights cycle on a what 30-40 second timetable? So really if you have the lights connected up it shouldn't be a problem at all.

Each location has its own constraints depending on the amount of conflicts. Take signal premption. That means a transit vehicle should never get stopped by a light....easy to implement on a low frequency line without significant crossings....but it gets harder the more significant the conflicts...or the more frequent the transit....If you can't have signal premption you want signal priority....but it gets harder the more frequent the transit or important the crossings. I don't know the details of the Surrey capacity calculations but for Broadway they basically said they could only achieve about 7,000pphpd before signal priority would become ineffective. That would result in less a slower less reliable system prone to bunching past that point. For the Surrey LRT I am pretty sure the King George/104th intersection as proposed will be difficult to have effective signal priority...and that will limit frequencies, reduce reliability and ultimately constrain the capacity of the system. Without looking at everything I would assume grade seperating just that one intersection would let the system function reliably at close to double the capacity they are currently proposing.

[Rico]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Lights cycle on a what 30-40 second timetable? So really if you have the lights connected up it shouldn't be a problem at all.

Each location has its own constraints depending on the amount of conflicts. Take signal premption. That means a transit vehicle should never get stopped by a light....easy to implement on a low frequency line without significant crossings....but it gets harder the more significant the conflicts...or the more frequent the transit....If you can't have signal premption you want signal priority....but it gets harder the more frequent the transit or important the crossings. I don't know the details of the Surrey capacity calculations but for Broadway they basically said they could only achieve about 7,000pphpd before signal priority would become ineffective. That would result in less a slower less reliable system prone to bunching past that point. For the Surrey LRT I am pretty sure the King George/104th intersection as proposed will be difficult to have effective signal priority...and that will limit frequencies, reduce reliability and ultimately constrain the capacity of the system. Without looking at everything I would assume grade seperating just that one intersection would let the system function reliably at close to double the capacity they are currently proposing.

[CanSpice]

Mayoral transit group aims to make ‘realistic’ decisions on Vancouver-area project priority

Oh boy!

But Mr. Corrigan said it's unrealistic to think all three projects, which he has maintained for years are too ambitious, can proceed at exactly the same pace. And he's not sure whether TransLink, the regional transportation authority for the Lower Mainland, has the capacity to oversee three such big projects at once.

One of his first initiatives in the new year – once he recovers from a badly sprained ankle and takes his annual sun holiday – will be to talk to B.C.'s new NDP government about whether the province shouldn't take over the management of one or more projects.

So of the three -- Broadway SkyTrain extension, Surrey LRT, Pattullo Bridge replacement -- the obvious one to hand over to the province would be the Pattullo Bridge.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

So of the three -- Broadway SkyTrain extension, Surrey LRT, Pattullo Bridge replacement -- the obvious one to hand over to the province would be the Pattullo Bridge.

Unless the province or feds reject the business case for Surrey LRT - then the province can take that over (and TransLink won't be the scapegoat) and move forward with BRT and Skytrain. One can only hope...

More likely though is they'll take over the Pattullo, and possibly any other local bridge building (expanding, twinning, etc).

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Unless the province or feds reject the business case for Surrey LRT - then the province can take that over (and TransLink won't be the scapegoat) and move forward with BRT and Skytrain. One can only hope...

More likely though is they'll take over the Pattullo, and possibly any other local bridge building (expanding, twinning, etc).

Any renders on what the new Patullo will look like?

[Colin4567]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Any renders on what the new Patullo will look like?

The webpage for it shows this:

https://www.translink.ca/Plans-and-Proje...-Bridge/Pattullo-Bridge-Replacement.aspx

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Any renders on what the new Patullo will look like?

Here are some images and schematics.

As you can see the approaches are screaming for it to open with 6 lanes (which would act as proper add / drop lanes).

It will be constructed to handle 6 lanes, but will open with 4...

The money shot

P1 by Ian, on Flickr

The bridge deck

p2 by Ian, on Flickr

The south side. I like the general layout and the general level of grade separations.

p3 by Ian, on Flickr

Note the two lanes merging to one on King George just before the Scott Road west bound to north bound on ramp.

p4 by Ian, on Flickr

The North side. Again, I like the general layout (it was the version I was hoping for out of the options given)

p5 by Ian, on Flickr

p6 by Ian, on Flickr

Again, note the two southbound lanes merging into one before the Royal Ave east bound to south bound on ramp. Also not the super short on ramp from Columbia Street. That is maybe the worst aspect of this design.

p7 by Ian, on Flickr

Again, in general, a good looking project and major improvement. All the super structures and general layout is in place, it is just a few poor details that need to be corrected (pretty much this design is screaming to open with t he full 6 lanes).

[dpogue]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

The North side. Again, I like the general layout (it was the version I was hoping for out of the options given)

p5 by Ian, on Flickr

p6 by Ian, on Flickr

Shame there's no thought to get the Woodlands SkyTrain station done as part of this, since it looks like the ramp from the bridge to Columbia might interfere with attempts to add it later.
(Of course, this is already a huge project of its own without adding more complexity to it.)

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by dpogue

Shame there's no thought to get the Woodlands SkyTrain station done as part of this, since it looks like the ramp from the bridge to Columbia might interfere with attempts to add it later.
(Of course, this is already a huge project of its own without adding more complexity to it.)

I've commented on how a Woodlands station would totally help out transit for the Victoria Hill neighbourhood but it's totally not on TransLink's radar to build it. How much would the ramps interfere with it, what with it being an underground station - presumably it wouldn't need that big of an above-ground stationhouse.

[Reecemartin]

Bridge looks very good, hopefully its built to super high seismic standards as well, and maybe can have some integrated light art like some suggested before.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by dpogue

Shame there's no thought to get the Woodlands SkyTrain station done as part of this, since it looks like the ramp from the bridge to Columbia might interfere with attempts to add it later.
(Of course, this is already a huge project of its own without adding more complexity to it.)

Agreed.

They should build the station in conjunction with the ramps.

[cganuelas1995]

I wonder how old this thing is.

https://tcomm.bustrainferry.com/map

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Bridge looks very good, hopefully its built to super high seismic standards as well, and maybe can have some integrated light art like some suggested before.

there wont be any art or lighting. that isn't what we do here.

[KPELLY]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Bridge looks very good, hopefully its built to super high seismic standards as well, and maybe can have some integrated light art like some suggested before.

Fully agree with the lighting. So many missed opportunities in this region when it comes to lighting effects, especially with bridges.

I do like how each of the cable-stayed / extradosed bridges have unique styles, and don't all look the same.

[Trainguy]

"In a vote that could have major implications for transportation in Metro Vancouver moving forward, Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan defeated Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson for chair of the mayors' council."

This happened last month but he takes over now. I wonder what projects will get priority since he was against the 10 year plan.

[Reecemartin]

Corrigan is against virtually everything good I have ever heard of, my guess is he plans to sell Translink to the Auto manfacturers and replace skytrain with highways.