Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

There is no way that the Expo Line is going to carry that many people. The TTC with significantly larger trains (half a meter wider and 60m longer) and stations will supposedly only be able to get 35000 ppdph on Line 1. That will be running full ATC which is essentially Skytrain with a driver for emergencies. Suggesting the line can carry more than 40k pphpd is either just totally false or isn't factoring in the fact that its going to be virtually impossible to maintain those headways across a whole line.

34,000, technically. And that study assumes two minutes or more between trains, rather than one-and-a-half or less; again, SkyTrain works on the principle that a larger number of smaller trains will do the same job as a smaller number of larger trains.

In addition, TTC rolling stock uses conventional motors instead of linear-induction like the SkyTrain – that means acceleration and deceleration take a whole lot longer (come on, you’re the electrical engineering major here!). So Toronto's ATC can only bring minimum headways down to 115 seconds, but 75-90 is perfectly doable for Vancouver - for Aslan's sake, the Expo does 90 seconds all the way down the line right now!

[Mac Write]

21 Mark III trains within the next 2 years confirmed.

When the Broadway line goes live, I assume Millennium line will go back to 4-car train sets?

Then another 108-cars or 27 Mark III trains for a total of 48!!! That alone will over-power the Mark I fleet with only 25 6-car trains or 37.5 4-car trains. This doesn't include the 15 Mark II Series 1 or 12 Mark II series 2 4-car trains.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Still curious what those are going to look like. I'm surprised we haven't heard anything. It's been about 10 years since the original cars started coming. Surely the new models should have more screens, better seating, and more doors or sth.

Better HVAC is all I want.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by ClaytonA

It's pretty easy to do more than 20km/h on a bicycle;

HA! Not for someone who's been sitting behind the wheel and eating donuts every day...

[nname]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

There is no way that the Expo Line is going to carry that many people. The TTC with significantly larger trains (half a meter wider and 60m longer) and stations will supposedly only be able to get 35000 ppdph on Line 1. That will be running full ATC which is essentially Skytrain with a driver for emergencies. Suggesting the line can carry more than 40k pphpd is either just totally false or isn't factoring in the fact that its going to be virtually impossible to maintain those headways across a whole line.

Here is a good read about SkyTrain capacity

Basically, headway of 75s during a short period of peak hour can be done with ATC software and additional staffing at station. With 5-car trains and 75s headway, the system can achieve 30,000pphpd capacity easily.

To run 6-car trains would require platform extension. From my calculation using 75s headway and MkIII trains, that would push the capacity up to 38,000.

Note that the Expo Line had sustained a headway of 84s through most of the days during the Olympics, and there wasn't any issue other than a short delay due to some idiot stick his hand out and hit an incoming train....

[Mac Write]

With the Patello bridge now being fully funded by the Province, how does that change the funding gap for phase 2 of the 10-year plan?

[Colin4567]

Originally Posted by Mac Write

With the Patello bridge now being fully funded by the Province, how does that change the funding gap for phase 2 of the 10-year plan?

Well the feds were never going to fund it because they believed it would be a toll bridge, so this only changes the province who said they'd commit 40% to Phase 2. So this probably doesn't change much other than now TransLink doesn't need to get 20% of 1.337 billion, which isn't enough to close the funding gap.

[xd_1771]

I'm pretty sure this changes nothing - and if not nothing, then very little. TransLink's original plan was to pay for their share of the new Pattullo Bridge entirely with tolls, was it not?

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

I'm pretty sure this changes nothing - and if not nothing, then very little. TransLink's original plan was to pay for their share of the new Pattullo Bridge entirely with tolls, was it not?

It was, until the NDP scuppered that plan.

[WarrenC12]

Assuming the GEB and Patullo are completely removed from Translink's scope, both were money drains and would have added to debt levels.

Removing those big capital debts and smaller operating costs is all positive for their balance sheet, but they will still need to find some capital to fund the major rail projects. Maybe this will be a mix of financing now.

[Mac Write]

I just want Drastic improvement in HandyDart (like compass card and 50% service increase and the boundary road barrier dropped) the Burnaby Gondola, SkyTrain to UBC and 41 new Mark III trains.

[Colin4567]

Originally Posted by Mac Write

I just want Drastic improvement in HandyDart (like compass card and 50% service increase and the boundary road barrier dropped) the Burnaby Gondola, SkyTrain to UBC and 41 new Mark III trains.

The Burnaby Mountain Gondola should have taken priority over the Surrey LRT IMO, especially considering it has a cost-benefit ratio of 3.5.

[officedweller]

Coquitlam lit up the Evergreen Guideway in pink for Valentine's Day:


https://twitter.com/GregMooredotca

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Colin4567

The Burnaby Mountain Gondola should have taken priority over the Surrey LRT IMO, especially considering it has a cost-benefit ratio of 3.5.

I'd agree that the Gondola should take priority over the L Line from Guildford to Newton. Extending the Expo Line down Fraser Hwy though... At least the first portion of that deserves priority.

[Colin4567]

Originally Posted by Sheba

I'd agree that the Gondola should take priority over the L Line from Guildford to Newton. Extending the Expo Line down Fraser Hwy though... At least the first portion of that deserves priority.

In a perfect world that would be the case, but the SFU gondola is a pretty low-controversy project (besides the people at the bottom of the mountain protesting it due to "privacy concerns") and a quick win. Any student who has waited 30 minutes for a bus, or had the busses cancelled due to snow, would appreciate this. A positive business case, low cost, probably easy to construct...they should go for it.

[Metro-One]

It still amazes me that the Gondola to SFU hasn't been built already.

Everything seems so logical (cost, benefit, scale) for it to just move forward on a whim.

[Colin4567]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

It still amazes me that the Gondola to SFU hasn't been built already.

Everything seems so logical (cost, benefit, scale) for it to just move forward on a whim.

It's been a "future project" since I was 13 and most likely won't even be approved until after I graduate from SFU. This is how transit planning works in the GVRD.

[AMTDGT]

Originally Posted by Mac Write

With the Patello bridge now being fully funded by the Province, how does that change the funding gap for phase 2 of the 10-year plan?

Be interesting to see if the provincial NDP's ill concieved dust up with Canada and Alberta over something in Federal jurisdiction, impacts federal funding for any project in BC for the next little while. My understanding is it has already cost Victoria increased Child Care funding for the next little while

#Oiloverpinotgris

[dpogue]

Originally Posted by AMTDGT

My understanding is it has already cost Victoria increased Child Care funding for the next little while

It cost them a photo op/press announcement, the actual funding is still coming through. (Source)

Originally Posted by Vancouver Sun

The provincial-federal deal was instead quietly posted to a subsection of the B.C. government’s website on Friday. B.C. will still get the money.

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]