Canada Line races toward capacity

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I have actually been toying with the idea of a higher order Arbutus LRT that could also transition to a new subway stretch throughout the western end of downtown and terminate at Waterfront.

You'd want to still hit Granville Island though.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

I mean, I would appreciate if people ignored their own qualms with the idea of expanding the Canada Line, and helped answer my question.

I mean, it's not like Victoria or Artubus Relief Skytrain Lines don't have their own problems. Victoria Line would funnel more people into the busiest part of the Expo, cutting down its lifetime, and the Artubus Line would be winding, and go through a highly NIMBY area.

Is it qualms or just common sense? The stations themselves only extend to 50m, and as officedweller noted, they're limited by vent shafts on either side. We've already answered the question: TransLink'd not only have to shut down the Canada Line, they'd have to completely rebuild significant portions of the tunnel and stations; that's likely going to be as long and costly as building a relief line, and since we didn't have a relief line to start with, that'll negatively affect several hundred thousand passengers. That of course is assuming the fully-built Canada would overflow in the near future, which seems doubtful. Some forumers may be a bit snappy because they've already repeated it for other newbs over the span of 3+ years.

By contrast, Victoria or Arbutus would increase coverage and decrease reliance on the Canada, and there's no reason we can't build other relief lines (Hastings, etc) for that part of the Expo. Outside the box thinking is always welcome, but in this case it's a bit too far; 15k max really does mean 15k max.

Originally Posted by officedweller

You'd want to still hit Granville Island though.

Dig a tunnel between 6th and the False Creek ROW, add a wye leading to downtown Burrard?

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by fredinno

I mean, I would appreciate if people ignored their own qualms with the idea of expanding the Canada Line, and helped answer my question.

Dude, read the responses. People HAVE answered your question. The kind of expansion you're talking about is simply not going to happen. Deal with it.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Dig a tunnel between 6th and the False Creek ROW, add a wye leading to downtown Burrard?

Off-topic.. but yeah, I always thought that the "LRT combo" option from the UBC extension study (with a route along 6th RoW) provided good local connectivity between Main St Station, OV Station and future Arbutus Station.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Is it qualms or just common sense? The stations themselves only extend to 50m, and as officedweller noted, they're limited by vent shafts on either side. We've already answered the question: TransLink'd not only have to shut down the Canada Line, they'd have to completely rebuild significant portions of the tunnel and stations; that's likely going to be as long and costly as building a relief line, and since we didn't have a relief line to start with, that'll negatively affect several hundred thousand passengers. That of course is assuming the fully-built Canada would overflow in the near future, which seems doubtful. Some forumers may be a bit snappy because they've already repeated it for other newbs over the span of 3+ years.

By contrast, Victoria or Arbutus would increase coverage and decrease reliance on the Canada, and there's no reason we can't build other relief lines (Hastings, etc) for that part of the Expo. Outside the box thinking is always welcome, but in this case it's a bit too far; 15k max really does mean 15k max.



Dig a tunnel between 6th and the False Creek ROW, add a wye leading to downtown Burrard?

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Dude, read the responses. People HAVE answered your question. The kind of expansion you're talking about is simply not going to happen. Deal with it.

I know that. If I move this discussion to the Transit Fantasies thread, will it be more reasonable and acceptable? That was (admittedly) the original purpose of my question, (and how it was supposed to be put in the context of). However, I never got any answers to a similar question about the Expo there, so I decided to put it on here instead. Maybe not the best decision, considering the reaction...


Then I get hammered with a ton of replies explaining why it's not possible, when my intent was to ignore the obvious problems in the first place.






OK, edit, it seems like if you can get the headway down to 75 seconds by removing all the single-tracked sections, since the 'C' car seems to actually be a full-length car, not half-size.

This would provide sufficient capacity for up to at least 2070, which is more than enough.

How difficult and expensive would replacing the single-tracked sections be? Obviously YVR and Bridghouse would have to be rebuilt, though you might be able to get away with frequent BRT between the stations. The fact that it's elevated should make track replacement easier and comparatively faster.- the station would be the problems.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by fredinno

I mean, I would appreciate if people ignored their own qualms with the idea of expanding the Canada Line, and helped answer my question.

I mean, it's not like Victoria or Artubus Relief Skytrain Lines don't have their own problems. Victoria Line would funnel more people into the busiest part of the Expo, cutting down its lifetime, and the Artubus Line would be winding, and go through a highly NIMBY area.

I think you're missing the benefits of a relief versus an expansion.

A relief provides redundancy in case of failure or extended outage. It's a lot easier to guarantee service quality for transit dependent people if you have a backup. A single point of failure doesn't paralyze a city once that happens.

A single overbuilt line is more likely to be impossible to mitigate if something breaks.

A relief line also opens up new areas to high quality service and spreads out real estate demand. The new service areas also make the existing service more useful due to what's called the network effect.

There's a reason that putting in huge linear pieces of infrastructure is a bad idea. It's poor economics and operability. 16 lane super highways, 50,000 pphpd commuter lines, etc. They all suffer from the same problems. You don't want to over-concentrate your dependence on the single point of failure unless you're willing to spend huge sums to guarantee reliability.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

OK, edit, it seems like if you can get the headway down to 75 seconds by removing all the single-tracked sections, since the 'C' car seems to actually be a full-length car, not half-size.

This would provide sufficient capacity for up to at least 2070, which is more than enough.

How difficult and expensive would replacing the single-tracked sections be? Obviously YVR and Bridghouse would have to be rebuilt, though you might be able to get away with frequent BRT between the stations. The fact that it's elevated should make track replacement easier and comparatively faster.- the station would be the problems.

A lot of posters have been needing to give the same answer over and over again for a very long while, so they may be a bit snappy about it. Usually when somebody asks "how much would it cost," they're implying "is there a chance?"

There'd be nine elevated stations (including Capstan), and Metrotown's upgrade cost $37 million. 9 x 37 is $333M. The ten underground stations (including 33rd and 57th) would have to be dug them up again, then completely rebuilt, then buried again, so that's going to be much more expensive. I'm guessing $1B for the stations alone, then at least half as much again for track rebuilding, meaning that we'll more or less be paying for the line twice.

Originally Posted by fredinno

OK, edit, it seems like if you can get the headway down to 75 seconds by removing all the single-tracked sections, since the 'C' car seems to actually be a full-length car, not half-size.

This would provide sufficient capacity for up to at least 2070, which is more than enough.

Made the same mistake earlier in the thread. 75s is possible because of LIMs; Hyundai uses regular motors, so the Canada's limited to 90s.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

A lot of posters have been needing to give the same answer over and over again for a very long while, so they may be a bit snappy about it. Usually when somebody asks "how much would it cost," they're implying "is there a chance?"

There'd be nine elevated stations (including Capstan), and Metrotown's upgrade cost $37 million. 9 x 37 is $333M. The ten underground stations (including 33rd and 57th) would have to be dug them up again, then completely rebuilt, then buried again, so that's going to be much more expensive. I'm guessing $1B for the stations alone, then at least half as much again for track rebuilding, meaning that we'll more or less be paying for the line twice.



Made the same mistake earlier in the thread. 75s is possible because of LIMs; Hyundai uses regular motors, so the Canada's limited to 90s.

Ah, ok. Thanks. I'm pretty sure changing the train to a LIM (not Skytrain, a different car that is compatible with the greater width) would need to rebuild the track, or would you be able to lay a 3rd rail across the line overnight and phase-in LIMs? Most likely the cut-and-cover sections would still have to be dug up even if you could just lay a 3rd rail.

The extra capacity isn't exactly needed anytime soon, but it'd give us extra options for expansion if possible.

[ilikeredheads]

The C car won't be full length. It's only about 10m long because max platform length is 50m. Current trains are around 40m long.

[jlousa]

I thought the middle cars were going to be ~12M, the trains can overhang the stations a bit so long as the doors are on the platfrom. The 12M C-train because of no ends can hold almost the same amount of people as the A cars.

[Bdawe]

Originally Posted by jlousa

I thought the middle cars were going to be ~12M, the trains can overhang the stations a bit so long as the doors are on the platfrom. The 12M C-train because of no ends can hold almost the same amount of people as the A cars.

I would be surprised if we ever see C-cars

By the time we get to the point where Canada Line frequency is practically maxed out, is it going to be wise to special-order custom cars that cannot operate on their own to wedge in between what will probably be *at least* twenty year-old A units?

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

The C car won't be full length. It's only about 10m long because max platform length is 50m. Current trains are around 40m long.

Originally Posted by jlousa

I thought the middle cars were going to be ~12M, the trains can overhang the stations a bit so long as the doors are on the platfrom. The 12M C-train because of no ends can hold almost the same amount of people as the A cars.

The Expo Line Upgrade Strategy planned for 5-car MKII trains, which would overhang 7m from the 80m platforms. 10m overhang is probably possible.

Originally Posted by Bdawe

I would be surprised if we ever see C-cars

By the time we get to the point where Canada Line frequency is practically maxed out, is it going to be wise to special-order custom cars that cannot operate on their own to wedge in between what will probably be *at least* twenty year-old A units?

Well, C-cars were originally intended as the first part of the upgrade to an ultimate capacity of 15,000 pphd, the 2nd part being a 120s headway.


Most likely by the time C-cars are needed, Canada Line trains will be upgraded to the standards of the day, just as the Expo and Millennium trains get new models over time. The thing is, though, it's not critical, as the Canada Line trains are modern enough (though it could benefit with another door) http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/canada-line-new-trains-model-rotem-2020 but, yeah, by the time we need C-cars, we will already at least have a new Canada Line train model to implement the C-cars on.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by jlousa

I thought the middle cars were going to be ~12M, the trains can overhang the stations a bit so long as the doors are on the platfrom. The 12M C-train because of no ends can hold almost the same amount of people as the A cars.

From the documents I saw 15 metres. 5 metres shorter than the current cars which are 20 metres each. 2.5 metres will overhang on each side. All doors on the platforms though, so no one worry / ask.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

From the documents I saw 15 metres. 5 metres shorter than the current cars which are 20 metres each. 2.5 metres will overhang on each side. All doors on the platforms though, so no one worry / ask.

Can you please source me to the documents?

[kmcamp]

I'm curious if the Broadway subway will neccesitate speeding up adding a C car to the line, and if Broadway-City Hall might become Toronto's Bloor-Yonge in miniature.

[officedweller]

Development-wise or passenger volume-wise?

WRT passenger volumes, I think Commercial-Broadway is already our Bloor-Yonge as the Expo Line is more like the Yonge Line (more passengers than Canada Line). Broadway City Hall may be like St. George in TO.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by kmcamp

I'm curious if the Broadway subway will neccesitate speeding up adding a C car to the line, and if Broadway-City Hall might become Toronto's Bloor-Yonge in miniature.

The issue with adding C cars is that the existing cars are already 10 years old. It's the same issue with adding C cars to the Expo/Millennium-Evergreen-Broadway line. You CAN, but you are better off maximizing what you get in a new trainset first.

So new trains can be ordered with the C cars, and once simultaneous train operation capacity is reached (eg 90 secs, all day) then order C-cars for additional trainsets for primetime, until eventually they all have them. They might not even need to be powered (eg no traction motors, just wheels) and can just be inserted between the A-B car set.

The Expo line/Millennium Line can still add C cars too, but the rolling stock for the Mark II's are around 17 years old while the Mark I's they will be retiring at some point will be 34 years old. So it makes more sense to just order more 4/5 car sets and retire the old rolling stock, by the time they're all retired the Broadway line and Surrey lines should be open, thus possibly never needing to buy the C cars before they're retired.

We should not worry too much about the Canada Line's capacity right now. If Arbutus is ever built, I sure hope they come to their senses and build a parallel subway under it. If not, we will have to wait and see how traffic shifts once the UBC subway extension is built.

[officedweller]

There's a crossover just north of Broadway-City Hall too, so they could short-turn downtown trains like on the Expo Line.

[whatnext]

Ouch! Op-Ed piece from the DailyHive today:

Opinion: Canada Line is a model example of a poorly-designed, under-built toy train

“No, that is not the airport monorail line.”

I recall saying something to that effect some years ago when a friend from Boston was visiting me for the first time in Vancouver. She had just exited the doors of Vancouver International Airport, and was pointing at the Canada Line’s YVR Airport Station, asking whether that was an airport monorail and where the ‘real’ train to the city was.

It was a fair observation; elsewhere around the world, there are airport people mover systems — train lines that exclusively move people between airport terminal buildings and airport parking lots — with station platforms that are longer than the city-serving system of the Canada Line.

After explaining that was the actual train to the city, she then quipped “I guess not a lot of people take transit here.”

As we approach the 10th year anniversary of the opening of the Canada Line, which served its first passengers on August 17, 2009, this SkyTrain line certainly epitomizes the Metro Vancouver’s tendencies of under-building transportation infrastructure.

Not only is it a sheer symbol of under-building, but its limitations — even though it is a relatively young system — are already becoming quite functionally apparent.

With its super-short platform lengths of just 40 metres and 50 metres, the Canada Line can theoretically eventually reach an ultimate capacity of 15,000 passengers per hour per direction (pphpd).

Comparatively, the Expo Line and Millennium Line each have an ultimate capacity of 25,000 pphpd, with the Expo Line currently hovering at a peak hour capacity of roughly 15,000 phppd. Recent new automation systems on Toronto’s will increase the Yonge-University Line to 36,000 pphpd, while the London Underground’s Victoria Line has 25,000 pphpd, and some of the Hong Kong MTR’s lines reach 80,000 pphpd.

Currently, the Canada Line has a peak hour capacity of 6,100 pphpd, and this will increase to just over 8,000 pphpd when 12 new two-car trains are added to the system by 2020. These new trains being added over the coming year will have an immense noticeable difference over existing conditions....

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/canada-line-skytrain

[Migrant_Coconut]

^ I got half a mind to carve that on Corrigan's gravestone.