Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[mcj]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

I'm guessing that's why FarmerHaight wants TransLink to prioritize the Canada Line.

Canada Line has small platforms which is why overcrowding is a concern, to prevent accidental falls, not to add capacity (the capacity won't change as the trains are the same trains). With uniform rolling stock it should be a relatively easy thing to design compared to the mixed rolling stock on the Expo/Millennium lines. By the time Translink is done with platform screen doors on the Canada line they'll likely have retired the Mk1s, so it should work out better timeline wise as well.

Not adding them on the Broadway Subway is a mistake, and not adding them to start on the SLS is an even larger mistake, but one that can still be changed.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I'd argue that platform screen doors add marginal capacity at best - most of their benefits are in safety and/or climate control.

Safety is the main reason for them but I would say climate control will only become more of an issue going forward. Since half of the Canada Line's stations are underground (and Airport has a substantial roof and walls for the concourse) it would be easier to seal-off most of that line's stations for AC and heating.

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

I'm guessing that's why FarmerHaight wants TransLink to prioritize the Canada Line.

That's exactly why. With the overcrowding especially at the downtown Canada Line stations there is a lot more jostling on the platforms than on the other lines.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by mcj

Not adding them on the Broadway Subway is a mistake, and not adding them to start on the SLS is an even larger mistake, but one that can still be changed.

The issue with the Langley Skytrain is that having platform screen doors on an above-ground station means a significantly more expensive station than the alternative. With underground stations you already have ventilation and only need to add some doors to the station entrance to seal it off for climate control. Whereas the above-ground stations need completely different roofs to protect the doors and I would guess the reinforcement of the platform edges would also be more difficult.

Plus, with lesser-used stations (I would argue most of the stations between Broadway and Metrotown, and between Metrotown and New West, in addition to the Langley stations) the overcrowding of platforms is less of a concern so the safety benefit is perhaps reduced compared to busier stations.

[mcj]

If anyone here is a fan of ranking things for fun, Justin McElroy ranked all of the Skytrain stations:

https://justinmcelroy.substack.com/p/ranking-every-skytrain-station

[mcj]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

The issue with the Langley Skytrain is that having platform screen doors on an above-ground station means a significantly more expensive station than the alternative. With underground stations you already have ventilation and only need to add some doors to the station entrance to seal it off for climate control. Whereas the above-ground stations need completely different roofs to protect the doors and I would guess the reinforcement of the platform edges would also be more difficult.

Plus, with lesser-used stations (I would argue most of the stations between Broadway and Metrotown, and between Metrotown and New West, in addition to the Langley stations) the overcrowding of platforms is less of a concern so the safety benefit is perhaps reduced compared to busier stations.

I would say I disagree that it is substantially more expensive, especially relative to the costs of building the stations from scratch and it's certainly less expensive to do it initially, rather than to put it off and do it in the future as a retrofit.

It's not like the above ground stations will be fully enclosed either. The screen doors just need to be on the track side and prevent people (and their stuff) from accessing the tracks either intentionally or unintentionally. This means you could still allow for natural ventilation through the materials that comprise the platform screen doors, in addition to the natural ventilation you'd have between the other two open ends of the above ground platform.

Would agree with retrofits to install them at the busy stations first, however it's not like the only stations people intentionally or unintentionally go on the tracks are the busy ones. It should be a standard system wide.

Here's an example of platform screen doors on a non-underground station (with no ventilation required):

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by mcj

If anyone here is a fan of ranking things for fun, Justin McElroy ranked all of the Skytrain stations:

https://justinmcelroy.substack.com/p/ranking-every-skytrain-station

#1 is Marine Drive?!? Okay, I guess he's entitled to his opinion...

[ilikeredheads]

the platform screen doors don't need to be full height in above ground stations, so ventilation is never a concern. They are usually around 1m to 1.5m tall, or tall enough that it's hard to jump over.

Plenty of examples in asia.

[madog222]

We should be focusing on reducing overcrowding by increasing capacity, not on how to better pack people in like sandiness. Platform screen doors are not a solution to overcrowding.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

#1 is Marine Drive?!? Okay, I guess he's entitled to his opinion...

When you consider the competition, Marine Drive station is actually pretty nice. It integrates extremely seamlessly into Marine Gateway and the bus loop, and in my personal opinion it's pretty nice to be in and around. The area is definitely still a work in progress but as it stands today I'd rather be there than pretty much any other Canada Line or any Expo Line station.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by mcj

It's not like the above ground stations will be fully enclosed either.

I stand corrected. I guess I fell for Translink's misinformation that all the roofs at the above ground stations would need to be altered to provide weather protection and an anchor point for the doors.

The previous study listed the following required modifications:

• Extension of outdoor station roof canopies to provide complete platform security and weather protection for the PSDs
• Reconstruction of the station platform edges to create an anchor that can support the weight of the PSDs (although, some newer PSDs are floor-based and only reach the shoulder height of an average adult)
• Modifications to the ceiling line to provide an anchor to the PSDs
• Redesigning the ends of the station to include a full wall enclosure to provide restricted access to the tracks
• New electrical power distribution systems
• Modifications to ensure sufficient ventilation in the stations, especially underground stations that depend on the piston effect of train movement for air circulation
• Consider possible greenhouse effect for outdoor stations
• Modifications for the acoustic insulation in ceilings of underground stations
• Modifications to SkyTrain’s automated train control system
• Disconnection and removal of the existing platform and guideway intrusion systems

[mcj]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

I stand corrected. I guess I fell for Translink's misinformation that all the roofs at the above ground stations would need to be altered to provide weather protection and an anchor point for the doors.

Those points are from a 1994 technical study, technology and product offerings have improved since (as well as the need to renovate old stations from that era in general). It also would have only cost $68M at the time to retrofit the stations to those standards.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by madog222

We should be focusing on reducing overcrowding by increasing capacity, not on how to better pack people in like sandiness. Platform screen doors are not a solution to overcrowding.

This. Getting Canada Line train headways down from 180 seconds to 150 or 120 (90 is obviously a long way off) would do a whole lot more to reduce congestion at City Centre than platform doors ever would.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by mcj

Those points are from a 1994 technical study, technology and product offerings have improved since (as well as the need to renovate old stations from that era in general). It also would have only cost $68M at the time to retrofit the stations to those standards.

Wait, so the best answers Translink had for Dailyhive's 2018 article were from a 1994 study? That is ridiculous...

[Migrant_Coconut]

That's... kind of the point of doing a new one now? Platform doors were impractical in the 29 years between '94 and '23 because the Mark Is and IIs were still in use, so why do a study in the meantime?

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

platform doors? really? *sigh*

yup lets waste more money. lets get that SFU gondola built first!

[Hotwax]

Crosswalk at Holland Commons in front of King George station is operating as of today. Transferring to a southbound R1 and other routes can be made much easier now.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

I stand corrected. I guess I fell for Translink's misinformation that all the roofs at the above ground stations would need to be altered to provide weather protection and an anchor point for the doors.

Even if you need the roof as an anchor point, surely you can accomplish that by running columns up to the roof without having to glass in the entire platform.

[Mac Write]

I love the idea of platform doors, but will miss the photo opportunities. If they put platform doors ahead of the replacement of the Expo Line intrusion matts replacement that would save money.

How are the Mark II and Mark III and IV door spacing different?

[madog222]

Originally Posted by Mac Write

How are the Mark II and Mark III and IV door spacing different?

End cars are 0.65m longer than Mark III centre cars so a Mark II 4-car train would have have every door misaligned by 0.65m off a Mark III/V, or one married pair aligned and the other misaligned by 1.3m.

[Mac Write]

Originally Posted by madog222

End cars are 0.65m longer than Mark III centre cars so a Mark II 4-car train would have have every door misaligned by 0.65m off a Mark III/V, or one married pair aligned and the other misaligned by 1.3m.

Thank you for the info. If the platform doors were designed for Mark III/IV would would it look like for a Mark II to use the platform doors (illustration would greatly help)