Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by ClaytonA

What about a median aligned LRT on the Trans Canada from Carvolth through to Phibbs Exchange similar to the ones in Calgary (i.e. grade separated by concrete barriers essentially on the highway taking up 2 lanes of traffic). The LRT is what, the equivalent of 4 lanes of traffic each way? i.e. 4 x 2 directions x 2,000 vehicles. It would be a pretty big start boosting 2nd Narrows capacity with usefull regional connectivity.A new transfer station west of Gilmore would be required, slightly diversion/change at Braid, but otherwise relatively cheap construction on existing structures. Some stations would include park and rides, already existing bus loops, etc.

Sounds good - just going to point out that a rapid bus could take the off-ramp to Rupert/Gilmore, then get back on the highway.

[xd_1771]

I don't think our SkyTrain (Expo Line) is really cut out for having any express, skip-stop services (even if you do build the passing track infrastructure). The track switches add a maintenance risk, and it complicates the service pattern for passengers. There's also a schedule limitation and I think in the end there is a risk that frequency will drop.

When I think of express train services my mind is either taken to New York (where they use dedicated express tracks) or Japan (where there is extensive use of passing tracks and skip-stop services). In Japan, commuter lines carrying local & express services are able to carry lots of people, but they typically operate at much lower frequencies, while the trains are also both longer (10 cars+) and larger (usually 20m, 2.95m wide). Sometimes, on top of express service, there are 'limited express' trains with even fewer stops. Part of the reason they bother with limited express service trains is because of through-running onto other subways and train lines, especially in greater Tokyo. These through-runs can exceed 200 km in length at times.

Also, at an average running speed of around 43.5km/h, the Expo Line is exceptionally fast as an an all-stop service. For comparison, a 24.2km morning rush trip on the Tokyu Toyoko Line between Yokohama and Shibuya Station in Tokyo takes around 32 minutes (45 km/h) for an express service, or around 28 minutes (52 km/h) on a limited express service, which makes only 4 stops but continues on other lines to Shinrin-Koen (nearly 100 km away). You can catch either of these services every 7.5 minutes (each is every 15 mins). If you account for these wait times, SkyTrain actually outperforms the express service: average speeds w/wait times are 42.2 (Expo Line), 40.6 (Toyoko express), and 45.7 (Toyoko limited express).

If BCRTC is able to increase track running speeds on SkyTrain to 100 km/h (matching the Beijing Airport Express and AirTrain JFK), that would bridge this gap even more than trying to run skip-stop services on the Expo Line would.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

One thing that I believe to be a realistic prediction is the eventual reconfiguartion of LTC and Col. such that the Expo branch between the two can be converted to a short shuttle line (I'll be the first to coin it the "Fraser" Line). That way Expo can send all it's trains to Langley/Surrey as this branch will be a pain when that extension happens. In order to deal with the issue of more crowded trains from Surrey being an issue I would simply suggest doing what many other cities do and short-turn some trains before the bridge. I also would advocate short turning a significant number of trains at KGB or at least mid way on the Fraser Hwy extension, frankly I don't think Langley needs a train every three minutes (at least not initially) 6-12 minute frequencies should be plenty especially on what will then be a fairly long line.


TLDR: Remove branches on Expo and convert LTC branch to a shuttle line reconfiguring Columbia and LTC. M and E now run one route each. Short turn trains at a few points along the E line in order to keep service frequency very high on the oldest sections of the Expo Line.

That shuttle service was proposed in one of the reports that TransLink used to have on its website (since removed) - but needs the new siding at Columbia to make it work.

[Gordon]

A number of years ago they would short turn trains at Metrotown. Is there any capability to short trains in Surrey to deal with overcrowding there?

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by nname

At that point, it's probably cheaper, easier, and more beneficial just to build another line...

Why express train though? It actually decreases capacity...

This is a response to you, and to MIPS, whose name I cannot find.
Anyway, in answer to dealing with whether an express train decreases capacitity or not,
here's an example of how the Tokyo line I used when I lived there, functions regarding express trains. The service was frequent and the trains fast, but some trains skipped certain staions.
Where the faster, express trains "skipped" stations, they just continued on through a central tunnel.
The station served by the "local" or all-inclusive train was on its own sort of 'side track' and the platforms, of course.
Express trains took me 20 min, and all-station trains took 30.
An example of of a Non-express, all-included-service station is Sangen-Jaya.
such a concept might or might not work in Vancouver. That might make for something to discuss.

Anyway, if interested in a close-up look, please click on the link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sangen-Jaya_Station
I could mention that at Sangen-Jaya, when the express trains came along, they went out of sight inside their own tunnel, making kind of a haunting roar overhead.
The tunnels at Sangen-Jaya are listed as double subterranenan, but there is no mention of
the fact that it was a local, or "skipped" station, served by all-inclusive trains, and how it was skipped. So this shows the concept, if you don't already get it. BTW, the ratio of express versus all inclusive trains was about half and half, as I recall (Metro can correct me) and it was definitely quite frequent, (just how frequent I sadly forget).
That's really the interesting part, and raises the question of if and how it could be applied to Skytrain anywhere.

... and this is the line it is on, if nothing else for a look at how it worked:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C5%8Dky%C5%AB_Den-en-toshi_Line
Their equipment is a whole lot bigger and heavier, for sure, but that point can, in fact must, be disregarded when applying this to Vancouver trains. ...
That's a "given," of course. How much rebuilding and at what cost would normally be major issues.

Nname, you mentioned another line. Would that be elevated, twinned? What about the Canada Line? Already approcaching warp pax increases, would you tunnel that?
Thank you for your time

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by Gordon

A number of years ago they would short turn trains at Metrotown. Is there any capability to short trains in Surrey to deal with overcrowding there?

If they are building an extension to Langley I'm sure a new crossover could be included, basically a non issue.

With regards to "Express Services" they are mostly impossible to fit in without dedicated tracks and again as has been mentioned you're better off just building another line. Expo doesn't get all of it's passengers from the corridor but, rather from feeder routes which could be redirected.

Again though as has been discussed to death Skytrain is largely already an express service with the size of station gaps. It would make more sense to add increased local service if anything.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

If they are building an extension to Langley I'm sure a new crossover could be included, basically a non issue.

With regards to "Express Services" they are mostly impossible to fit in without dedicated tracks and again as has been mentioned you're better off just building another line. Expo doesn't get all of it's passengers from the corridor but, rather from feeder routes which could be redirected.

Again though as has been discussed to death Skytrain is largely already an express service with the size of station gaps. It would make more sense to add increased local service if anything.

Thank you for your feedback. In fact, the large station gaps you mention make my above example of express verson non-express trains in Tokyo, rather moot. Tut, tut,

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by ClaytonA

Hastings St Olympic lanes in 2010 had the biggest time savings. The line should continue east and take over the Evergreen Line's proposed southern option (IIRC Como Lake).

What about a median aligned LRT on the Trans Canada from Carvolth through to Phibbs Exchange similar to the ones in Calgary (i.e. grade separated by concrete barriers essentially on the highway taking up 2 lanes of traffic). The LRT is what, the equivalent of 4 lanes of traffic each way? i.e. 4 x 2 directions x 2,000 vehicles. It would be a pretty big start boosting 2nd Narrows capacity with usefull regional connectivity.A new transfer station west of Gilmore would be required, slightly diversion/change at Braid, but otherwise relatively cheap construction on existing structures. Some stations would include park and rides, already existing bus loops, etc.

This doesn't fix east-west on the Shore. A second Sea Bus route from the Ambleside Pier direct to Waterfront and returning via Lonsdale? Transitway for buses on Marine-3rd to Dollarton Hwy or Marine-Keith to Mt Seymour Parkway?

In my opinion, rapid transit down freeway/railway corridors usually doesn't make much sense. The big advantage of rapid transit is that it has very high capacity but takes up much less space than a highway, so you can provide good service somewhere like Cambie Street, and Broadway in the future. They don't really provide much benefit in highways, except as a commuter rail service, and at that point, bus lanes could do about as much but cheaper.

[nname]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

This is a response to you, and to MIPS, whose name I cannot find.
Anyway, in answer to dealing with whether an express train decreases capacitity or not,
here's an example of how the Tokyo line I used when I lived there, functions regarding express trains. The service was frequent and the trains fast, but some trains skipped certain staions.
Where the faster, express trains "skipped" stations, they just continued on through a central tunnel.
The station served by the "local" or all-inclusive train was on its own sort of 'side track' and the platforms, of course.
Express trains took me 20 min, and all-station trains took 30.
An example of of a Non-express, all-included-service station is Sangen-Jaya.
such a concept might or might not work in Vancouver. That might make for something to discuss.

That is the concept I was thinking. In order for the local train to switch the side tracks with platform, they need to first slow down to a certain point. In the case of shinkansen, that's slowing from top speed of close to 300km/h to about 80km/h, and unlike the ones we have here, that switch is designed for high speed operation - just see how slow the switch past Columbia works if you're going toward Lougheed. They must then pad extra gap between train so that the express train behind, running at full speed, would not get too close to the slowing local train.

[MIPS]

When I think of express trains in the Skytrain network I consider on top of additional tracking and perhaps additional platforms the dynamic ability for the automatic scheduling system to get trains from point A to point B while taking into account unpredictable delays suck as slow blocks for maintanance or a train waiting an extra five seconds for a door to close. IT is an extremely powerful too we have here and remains key to the system being as flexible as it is. This does not account for the now obsolete auto-coupling. Furthermore the original ICTS spec was tested with regular switches and for more high speed track switching, however I do not believe we ever installed the latter in the system.
As it stands right now, no it is not possible to run anything other than regular service but we cannot assume that the system will continue to scale up. If maintenance is a limitation for additional lines that also is something critical that should be addressed for ares that are quickly becoming arterial in terms of station-to-station travel.
Likewise if capacity means a new line, where do you build it? the Lower Mainland is rapidly becoming some of the most expensive real estate in Canada, with the new neighbors not liking the idea of elevated or at-grade transit running past their backyard.

[Tvisforme]

A couple of thoughts...

Would it make sense for a future Hastings Line to somehow - tunnel or otherwise - connect to the Millenium Line at Lougheed and then carry on to Columbia? That would tie the line to Coquitlam and Surrey service and eliminate the need for the Expo Line spur.

Also, is there any benefit to realigning the Expo Line through False Creek if and when the viaducts are demolished? Right now, the track from Stadium to Main Street follows a "best fit" route around the infrastructure but that would seem to slow the line.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

A couple of thoughts...

Would it make sense for a future Hastings Line to somehow - tunnel or otherwise - connect to the Millenium Line at Lougheed and then carry on to Columbia? That would tie the line to Coquitlam and Surrey service and eliminate the need for the Expo Line spur.

Also, is there any benefit to realigning the Expo Line through False Creek if and when the viaducts are demolished? Right now, the track from Stadium to Main Street follows a "best fit" route around the infrastructure but that would seem to slow the line.

Really not sure if Burnaby needs a third SkyTrain line.

[Colin4567]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

Really not sure if Burnaby needs a third SkyTrain line.

I agree just on fairness alone - Burnaby (with Corrigan at the helm) has consistently denied other regions rapid transit. They've voted no to the Canada Line, Evergreen Line, and now the 10-Year Plan, with Corrigan saying he's "more of a bus man." Well that's great - so should we ban Burnaby residents from the SkyTrain and tell them to take the bus instead? Obviously not, this was just to make a point, but in my opinion Burnaby shouldn't be getting any more transit until they're ready to start acting as a regional partner, and the same goes for New West - voting down every transit expansion that doesn't purely benefit them and voting against a 6-lane Pattullo Bridge.

[ilikeredheads]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

Also, is there any benefit to realigning the Expo Line through False Creek if and when the viaducts are demolished? Right now, the track from Stadium to Main Street follows a "best fit" route around the infrastructure but that would seem to slow the line.

other than throwing money into a blackhole, no. Don't fix it if ain't broke. Trains slow down in that section because of NIMBYs

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

A couple of thoughts...

Would it make sense for a future Hastings Line to somehow - tunnel or otherwise - connect to the Millenium Line at Lougheed and then carry on to Columbia? That would tie the line to Coquitlam and Surrey service and eliminate the need for the Expo Line spur.

Also, is there any benefit to realigning the Expo Line through False Creek if and when the viaducts are demolished? Right now, the track from Stadium to Main Street follows a "best fit" route around the infrastructure but that would seem to slow the line.

I actually think as a fantasy it's a pretty great idea, but it would be prohibitively expensive, and I'll agree that Hastings probably won't need a SkyTrain line anytime soon.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

Would it make sense for a future Hastings Line to somehow - tunnel or otherwise - connect to the Millenium Line at Lougheed and then carry on to Columbia? That would tie the line to Coquitlam and Surrey service and eliminate the need for the Expo Line spur.

I don't see why not. However, as others have noted, Burnaby's already got two lines - I'm guessing that a Lougheed extension is even less of a priority than SkyTrain to Delta.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

Really not sure if Burnaby needs a third SkyTrain line.

North Shore should be on the list well before a third Burnaby line. Or a line to Delta. Or a line out to PoCo, for that matter.

[GlassCity]

Maybe, in the spirit of the exorbitant cost a Hastings to Lougheed tunnel would be, the Arbutus line continuing east from Marpole could make the loop up to Lougheed?

[Reecemartin]

One question I have that directly links to Skytrain and local service is how is Vancouver going to every improve local service? This issue came up on Urban Toronto than the GTHA and Metro Vancouver have basically reverse issues. Let me explain~

Toronto while maybe the news would say otherwise, has a pretty fantastic intra city transit system - the subway stops abput every 600 meters, the southern parts of the city have an extensive high capcity streetcar network (thats getting more and more traffic priority thankfully), and a fantastic bus grid network (buses on almost every street and very high frequencies on any arterial) as well as great integration between these modes. That said Toronto's regional transit isn't the best (lack of fare integration, GO being infrequent, etc.) however with the projects currently planned (100's of kms of BRT, LRT , frequent electric go service AD2W, big station improvements and fare integrations) things are really looking up in a BIG way.

Vancouver on the other hand is the opposite. We have basically total fare integration across the region, and a very good regional rail service (basically what Skytrain is). However within any city the options can be lacking, especially in the Sof cities. As an example most routes in Surrey/Langley operate every 30 mins and coverage isn't the best (especially in area that have gained tons of development in the past 10-15 years). The frequencies and total shape of the Network while a good utilization of resources means that it can take a ridiculous amount of time to go small distances within cities because for many journeys you have to 1) get to a frequent route, 2) transfer at a hub 3) take a frequent route to the nearest connecting local service. The problem is the time it takes to transfer can be utterly insuferable.

As an example I recently had to go across part of Toronto and even though the route required 4 buses the experience was more or less painless as every time I got off the next bus was usually only a few minutes away (time seemed nearly competitiv with just driving).

So the question is, how will Metro Vancouver improve it's local transit within cities?

Infill Skytrain Stations? or new lines as to not jeorpardize the current service speed?

Less of a focus on B-Lines and more of one on adding frequency to all routes?

Consider bringing in more LRT/BRT to solve the transit wasteland sof?

What are ppls Ideas?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Maybe, in the spirit of the exorbitant cost a Hastings to Lougheed tunnel would be, the Arbutus line continuing east from Marpole could make the loop up to Lougheed?

Arbutus is probably going to be light rail (if only to fulfill the deal with CP), so maybe terminate that line at the River District, then instead bring the 41st line down Rupert or Boundary and east along Marine to link up with the branch.