Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[GeeCee]

Originally Posted by Mac Write

I was hoping for a new bus loop way closer to the station. It's quite the hike from all 3 platforms to the bus loop (WCE and SkyTrain). and don't get me started on the ramp access to the station for those who use a walker or wheelchair.

I agree. And the new loop/structure will be even further away. The fenced off area is closer the Evergreen Line construction office was.

[dpogue]

Originally Posted by GeeCee

I agree. And the new loop/structure will be even further away. The fenced off area is closer the Evergreen Line construction office was.

I don't think they're moving the bus loop, I think they're just adding a bus-only lane and traffic light so that busses can avoid needing to go up the overpass onto Mariner and then turn onto Lougheed.

[Express691]

https://service.ariba.com/Discovery.aw/ad/viewRFX?id=7047447

RFP is out for the skytrain cars to be ordered for the next 10 years

[madog222]

This Request for Proposal ("RFP") is issued by TransLink, on behalf of its operating entity, the British Columbia Rapid Transit Company Ltd. (“BCRTC”), to solicit proposals for the design, manufacture, testing, delivery and commissioning of two-hundred and five (205) passenger railcars as further outlined in the Scope of Work/Requirements section of this RFP.

From:

Originally Posted by Express691

https://service.ariba.com/Discovery.aw/ad/viewRFX?id=7047447

RFP is out for the skytrain cars to be ordered for the next 10 years

[Mac Write]

Can you give us a summary of what Translink wants (seat config, etc)?

[dpogue]

Originally Posted by Mac Write

Can you give us a summary of what Translink wants (seat config, etc)?

Nope, because they don't publicly post their full RFPs as PDF files anymore, you have to register as a supplier and go through the Ariba platform to get the full documents (or file a Freedom of Information Act request, if you really want it).

[SFUVancouver]

Summary RFP PDF: https://service.ariba.com/Discovery.aw/ad/viewRFX?id=7047447#

Highlights include:

1.2 TransLink is seeking proposals for the design, production, supply and delivery of;

1.2.1 A minimum of two-hundred and five (205) Cars to form forty-one (41) Trains comprised of a 5-Car consist (may include a number of 4-Car expandable Trains to 5-Car Trains);

1.3 TransLink is seeking pricing and related information for the following Optional Vehicles;

1.3.1 Option year 1 - Up to thirty (30) Cars forming six (6) Trains comprised of a 5-Car consist;
1.3.1.1 Option to be exercised by the end of 2021; and
1.3.1.2 Cars estimated to be delivered by end of 2025

1.3.2 Option year 2 - Up to seventy (70) Cars forming fourteen (14) Trains comprised of a 5-Car consist;
1.3.2.1 Option to be exercised by 2024; and
1.3.2.2 Cars estimated to be delivered by 2028

1.3.3 Option year 3 - Up to one-hundred (100) Cars forming twenty (20) Trains comprised of a 5-Car consist
1.3.3.1 Option to be exercised by 2026; and
1.3.3.2 Cars estimated to be delivered by 2032

1.3.4 Option year 4 - Up to one-hundred (100) Cars forming twenty (20) Trains comprised of a 5-Car consist
1.3.4.1 Option to be exercised by 2028; and
1.3.4.2 Cars estimated to be delivered by 2034

1.3.5 Option year 5 – Up to one-hundred (100) Cars forming twenty (20) Trains comprised of a 5-Car consist
1.3.5.1 Option to be exercised by 2030
1.3.5.2 Cars estimated to be delivered by 2036

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Mac Write

Can you give us a summary of what Translink wants (seat config, etc)?

I'd suspect it's still the same as Waders posted back in January.

[Express691]

Originally Posted by dpogue

Nope, because they don't publicly post their full RFPs as PDF files anymore, you have to register as a supplier and go through the Ariba platform to get the full documents (or file a Freedom of Information Act request, if you really want it).

My friend did the FOI request for the double deckers but the useful information got redacted.

[Waders]

Originally Posted by Mac Write

Can you give us a summary of what Translink wants (seat config, etc)?

Translink conducted a survey back in January about this. So I would expect some of the following requirements in the RFP.

Layout Improvements Being Considered

- Perimeter (sideways) seating for the new SkyTrain cars.
- Bike racks in flex areas for more convenient and comfortable storage.
- Leaning rails for customers who cannot sit and stand easily.
- Flex areas to better serve customers with mobility devices, strollers, bicycles, and luggage.

Source

Also mentioned in this news article.

[Express691]

Also to note:

If any of the other railcar manufacturers win the bid (Alstom, Siemens, Kinki Sharyo, NIPPON sharyo, Toshiba, Kawasaki (whose series-70 cars for the LIM-powered green line of the Osaka Subway comes to mind) to name a few), then this order will most certainly be for mark IVs.

Also to note (2):

I also think that with the elimination of mark 1s with this order, platform screen doors can now be a possibility. Kuala Lumpur has done it in their underground stations while running both mark 2s and 3s of different train lengths.

[GeeCee]

The presence of mark 1s or no, I don't see TL going forward with platform screen doors of their own volition. It'd need considerably capital funding, for one thing, and an edict handed down at the provincial (or mayor's council) level like we had with the faregate/Compass project. Plus all of their messaging over the past several years on the matter has been quite negative.

There's also a big risk of entrapment between the train doors and the platform doors, so they're not a perfect solution. Good for reducing the number of people jumping/being pushed in front of trains, but the risk of unintentional injuries rises.

[Express691]

My thread on cptdb is here at https://cptdb.ca/topic/19461-2021-2030-skytrain-procurement/

Someone (nname) went bonkers on calculating how many trains would run on each line and concluded that the 205 cars to be ordered will *not* be enough to replace the mark 1s, even after frequency increase on Expo line and 4-car operation on the Millennium line.

As for replacing all MkI with the 205 firm order... there is actually not enough, unless one of the following is true:
- The planned peak frequency improvement for 2019/2020 will be rolled back once Arbutus extension opened
- Short-turn trains introduced for the western half of the Millennium, while the eastern half sees frequency reduction
- About half of the 6-cars MkI and all of 4-cars MkII on Expo Line would be replaced by 4-cars MkIII instead of 5-cars (order would be 13x 5-car trainset and 35x 4-car transet)
- Millennium line remains 2-cars operation

Here is my approximation of the cars needed for each scenario:

100 replacement with 4-cars
25 expansion to 5-cars
16 Arbutus extension 2-cars
4 replacement for 4-MKII transfer to Arbutus (with 5-car trains)
76 Millennium expansion to 4-cars
19 replacement for 4-MKII and 4-MKIII transfer for M-Line expansion (with 5-car trains)

Total: 240 (short by 35 cars)

The first option of 30 cars are clearly for the Fleetwood expansion. However, it is still not enough to raise the frequency of the entire Expo line in order to have "one in three" trains running at "4-5min peak frequency" for Langley branch, according to the presentation.

Hence I thought some of the MkI trains will remain in the fleet until midway through the delivery of the second option of 70 cars. And even after the replacement, the remaining trains from this option is only enough for either one of Langley or UBC extension, but not both

================

Here's the daily hive article for that
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/translink-skytrain-new-cars-biding-process-august-2019

[officedweller]

A couple of good historical blog reads I came across:

Concrete octopus: Some unrealized Vancouver rapid transit plans.
https://orangeraisin.wordpress.com/2019/04/21/concrete-octopus-vancouver-rapid-transit/


Source: Vancouver Province. (Colour highlights added.)
https://orangeraisin.wordpress.com/2019/04/21/concrete-octopus-vancouver-rapid-transit/


A SkyTrain historical footnote: The Edmonds-Cariboo extension.
https://orangeraisin.wordpress.com/2019/05/14/skytrain-edmonds-cariboo-extension/


Source: SkyTrain Extension to Coquitlam Transit Planning Study Summary Report, BC Transit, 1986.
https://orangeraisin.wordpress.com/2019/05/14/skytrain-edmonds-cariboo-extension/#footnote-1-report


Source: SkyTrain Coquitlam Extension, BC Transit, 1991.
https://orangeraisin.wordpress.com/2019/...s-cariboo-extension/#footnote-2-pamphlet


Source: “SkyTrain route debate”, Burnaby Now, May 1, 1991.
https://orangeraisin.wordpress.com/2019/...ariboo-extension/#footnote-3-burnaby-now

[Migrant_Coconut]

That Cariboo-North extension looks like a switching nightmare - can you imagine all the breakdowns we'd have if that SOB went ahead?

[officedweller]

No different than the switch at the SkyBridge.

The multiple lines shown are alternative options, not concurrent builds.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Third graphic down: looks like they were considering a Surrey line, a Coquitlam line AND a Lougheed line, all branching off the Expo. We had serious problems with just the Lougheed line!

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Third graphic down: looks like they were considering a Surrey line, a Coquitlam line AND a Lougheed line, all branching off the Expo. We had serious problems with just the Lougheed line!

The "corridors" were alternatives. They are described as such in the writeups below.

If the Edmonds Line were built, the Bruentte Line would not have been built (ie no Braid or Sapperton Stations).
As for a branch off the Expo Line at Broadway & Commercial - at that time it would have been a 3rd alternative to
both the Edmonds Line and Brunette Line and is described below as a "branch" so presumably an elevated structure
but was dropped for being out of scope. It was the NDP who later introduced it as LRT, which then became the M-Line.

In retrospect, the Brunette Line (as built) is better for Coquitlam <-> Surrey connections.
An Edmonds Line would have required Coquitlam <-> Surrey trips to backtrack a lot more.



https://orangeraisin.files.wordpress.com...m-extension-pamphlet-bc-transit-1991.pdf


https://orangeraisin.files.wordpress.com...m-extension-pamphlet-bc-transit-1991.pdf

[SpongeG]

UBC to Surrey private express shuttle service quietly shuts down
Kenneth Chan | Aug 12 2019

A privately-operated direct, express bus service between Surrey and the University of British Columbia’s Point Grey campus has apparently folded.


https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/beyond-shuttle-ubc-surrey-ceased-operations

[ilikeredheads]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

UBC to Surrey private express shuttle service quietly shuts down
Kenneth Chan | Aug 12 2019

A privately-operated direct, express bus service between Surrey and the University of British Columbia’s Point Grey campus has apparently folded.


https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/beyond-shuttle-ubc-surrey-ceased-operations

not surprised. It was doomed to fail from the start. Why pay $10 a trip when their tuition already subsidize the U-pass? It was too expensive for most students since if you can afford it, you are most likely driving.