HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada


Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #11301  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2018, 12:58 PM
Reecemartin's Avatar
Reecemartin Reecemartin is offline
YouTube Creator
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Vancouver/Toronto
Posts: 1,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by White Pine View Post
I remember reading that the proposed LRT had less capacity than B-line service and was only one minute faster, though I can't prove it.

But you're right to make that distinction between Vancouver and Surrey. Vancouver's (underground) skytrain project is going to be great by any standard and much needed.
Less capacity than the B-Line is just blatantly false given the frequencies and expected capacity of a 30m LRV.
     
     
  #11302  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2018, 1:03 PM
Reecemartin's Avatar
Reecemartin Reecemartin is offline
YouTube Creator
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Vancouver/Toronto
Posts: 1,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by scryer View Post


You do realize that the entire region pays for Surrey's vanity project, right? Do your research, fool.
I don't need to do my research, I have lived on the proposed route for years and have spent time in Waterloo and Toronto in recent years where 30m flexity LRV's like the ones that will most likely be used in Surrey are already in service. The Surrey LRV will have more service prioritization than either of these routes. It will also be the first rapid major rapid transit investment South of the Fraser ever (4 stops on the Skytrain 1 of which is in an industrial area doesn't count). Currently, about 1/3 of Metro Vancouver's population is south of the Fraser.

And before you go calling me a fool and calling this LRT a vanity project maybe you should actually go ride my local bus route the 321 and the 96-B-Line both of which get frequently caught in traffic especially in Newton an issue an LRT will not have given its dedicated lanes.

SMH

Edit: And better yet the Expo Line Extension is not precluded at all! It will most likely be the next major rapid transit expansion to happen after the Broadway Subway Extension, however the required funding envelope for it is still much larger than the LRT, and if you'd do your research (like you so kindly told me to do) you'd know that the Skytrain extension would need to get passed Highway 15/ 176st to actually hit a major separate population node (and actually lead a decent ridership increase) something that won't happen with the Surrey LRT's budget.
     
     
  #11303  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2018, 1:38 PM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 17,849
Just some cut and dry facts about the Surrey LRT from the project's environmental and socio-economic review:

Opening Day:

40 metre platforms with 30 metre long cars.
capacity of 2,040 pphpd

Current peak hour capacity on the 99 B-Line is 3,700 pphpd

So technically, yes, upon opening the LRT will have less capacity than a B-Line.

However, in the future the system can be expanded to 60 metre stations.
This will give a build out capacity of 4,080 pphpd (380 people more than the 99 B-Line)

For comparison, the Canada Line currently has a peak capacity of 6000 pphpd, expandable to a build out capacity of 15,000 pphpd.

So the ultimate build out capacity for the Surrey LRT is a mere 27% that of the Canada Line's build out capacity.

Then there is the fact that the LRT will travel much slower and less frequently than Skytrain.

All these facts are especially troubling for the Langley extension.

Yes, 1/3 of Metro-Van's population lives south of the Fraser, so shouldn't we invest in building a far more robust system for the future of this area??

But this is what Surrey wants. So in the end it will only be Surrey to blame (though for the Langley extension the province should really stop pandering to the city).

These are all facts from the official documents themselves.

I am sure Reecemartin will say "if you add this, fudge that, calculate this yourself, etc... you can get a much higher capacity"

Well, I am going to preemptively say none of that matters, because once again these stats are from the official plans themselves. This is the capacity they are building for. This is what is going to get built. And any fudging done afterwards will either be minimal increases in capacity or will require super expensive major rebuilds, which is why we should re-think this project now in the first place.
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/30634635@N03/with/29495547810/ and Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV0_0h9qKlhxXFxuAey_q6Q
     
     
  #11304  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2018, 2:17 PM
Reecemartin's Avatar
Reecemartin Reecemartin is offline
YouTube Creator
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Vancouver/Toronto
Posts: 1,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metro-One View Post
Just some cut and dry facts about the Surrey LRT from the project's environmental and socio-economic review:

Opening Day:

40 metre platforms with 30 metre long cars.
capacity of 2,040 pphpd

Current peak hour capacity on the 99 B-Line is 3,700 pphpd

So technically, yes, upon opening the LRT will have less capacity than a B-Line.

However, in the future the system can be expanded to 60 metre stations.
This will give a build out capacity of 4,080 pphpd (380 people more than the 99 B-Line)

For comparison, the Canada Line currently has a peak capacity of 6000 pphpd, expandable to a build out capacity of 15,000 pphpd.

So the ultimate build out capacity for the Surrey LRT is a mere 27% that of the Canada Line's build out capacity.

Then there is the fact that the LRT will travel much slower and less frequently than Skytrain.

All these facts are especially troubling for the Langley extension.

Yes, 1/3 of Metro-Van's population lives south of the Fraser, so shouldn't we invest in building a far more robust system for the future of this area??

But this is what Surrey wants. So in the end it will only be Surrey to blame (though for the Langley extension the province should really stop pandering to the city).

These are all facts from the official documents themselves.

I am sure Reecemartin will say "if you add this, fudge that, calculate this yourself, etc... you can get a much higher capacity"

Well, I am going to preemptively say none of that matters, because once again these stats are from the official plans themselves. This is the capacity they are building for. This is what is going to get built. And any fudging done afterwards will either be minimal increases in capacity or will require super expensive major rebuilds, which is why we should re-think this project now in the first place.
The capacity of a 30m car is 250 with standees so 500 for a 60m car. The frequency is planned to be every 5 minutes (12 trains per hour). 12 * 500 is 6000 cut and dry. I don't know why you are so critical of doing this math, its no different than the math Translink is using or planners use, no university degree needed. I just used the vehicle capacity and the frequency it's simple no fudging required. I don't know whether the 2040 number you have is from some official document but, 2040 would be a 30m car at 8-minute frequency, not 5, and the document on the Translink website says trains every 5 minutes. Clearly, the numbers are being fudged however not by me. Nonetheless, anyone can calculate these numbers based on vehicle capacity and frequency.

You are so critical of my numbers but they are also based on official documents so I would love to figure out where the discrepancy is.

Edit: In fact it just confuses me why anyone would argue that buses that aren't on a busway are offering higher capacity. The LRT vehicles are bigger and can come just as frequenly, indeed that means that an LRT should at a minimum be able to match the capacity of a bus because again X * Frequency >= Y * Frequency when X >= Y

The Canada Line is going to need expensive rebuilds to reach 15,000 ppdph its stations are going to struggle to handle even double the current ridership. Vancouver City Centre is already going to need a South Exit sooner than that.

As always I am very much in favour of extending the Expo Line on Fraser Highway, however, the extension to Langley isn't going to happen with the current Surrey LRT budget and ending the Langley Line at 176st in a field doesn't make sense, it needs to get to Willowbrook at a minimum.

Edit #2: You are also comparing the 99 B-Line's capacity to the Surrey LRT, last time I checked the 99 B-Line operates in Vancouver, not Surrey. The 96 B-Line operates in Surrey so if we are talking about comparing capacity before and after then we should be using THAT for comparison, its dishonest to suggest that Surrey ever has had anything close to 99 B-Line level service on this corridor. Obviously that level of service isn't necessary today but its relevant because it is being suggested that capacity is going down on this route.

Last edited by Reecemartin; Sep 4, 2018 at 2:33 PM.
     
     
  #11305  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2018, 3:00 PM
BlackSpade741 BlackSpade741 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Montreal
Posts: 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metro-One View Post
Just some cut and dry facts about the Surrey LRT from the project's environmental and socio-economic review:

Opening Day:

40 metre platforms with 30 metre long cars.
capacity of 2,040 pphpd

Current peak hour capacity on the 99 B-Line is 3,700 pphpd

So technically, yes, upon opening the LRT will have less capacity than a B-Line.

However, in the future the system can be expanded to 60 metre stations.
This will give a build out capacity of 4,080 pphpd (380 people more than the 99 B-Line)

For comparison, the Canada Line currently has a peak capacity of 6000 pphpd, expandable to a build out capacity of 15,000 pphpd.

So the ultimate build out capacity for the Surrey LRT is a mere 27% that of the Canada Line's build out capacity.

Then there is the fact that the LRT will travel much slower and less frequently than Skytrain.

All these facts are especially troubling for the Langley extension.

Yes, 1/3 of Metro-Van's population lives south of the Fraser, so shouldn't we invest in building a far more robust system for the future of this area??

But this is what Surrey wants. So in the end it will only be Surrey to blame (though for the Langley extension the province should really stop pandering to the city).

These are all facts from the official documents themselves.

I am sure Reecemartin will say "if you add this, fudge that, calculate this yourself, etc... you can get a much higher capacity"

Well, I am going to preemptively say none of that matters, because once again these stats are from the official plans themselves. This is the capacity they are building for. This is what is going to get built. And any fudging done afterwards will either be minimal increases in capacity or will require super expensive major rebuilds, which is why we should re-think this project now in the first place.
You are saying none of this matters but, real life means real numbers.

30m LRV that is planned in Surrey:

"Flexity Outlook
Entered service August 31, 2014
Formation 5 articulated cars
Fleet numbers 4400–4603
Capacity 70 (seats), 181 (standing), 251 total"


These capacities have been validated IN SERVICE in Toronto

Link: https://www.google.com/search?q=flexity+outlook+capacity&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-ab

Frequency is listed as every 5 minutes on the first page.

Link: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=...rds.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1M1zzqAS1Go_SfgooLUE4h

So actually the capacity is 12 * 251 => 3012 for 30m trains and 12 * 502 => 6024 for 60m trains, even higher than reecemartin stated.

I actually agree here and don't get the hesitation around doing this math ourselves, if we aren't willing to how can we ever hold anyone accountable or update our findings etc?

I personally think we would be better off building the Expo Line extension immediately by reworking current funding for other capital projects but, I can't stand the disdain many anti-LRT people have for the facts and numbers that I have linked you to. If the numbers you are posting are from official documents then clearly they are getting the capacity of an LRV wrong (I have a hard time believing they'd get the frequency wrong), the numbers I stated are from a system currently operating 30m low floor LRV's who would have a better idea of the real world capacity.

Now clearly the LRT is nowhere near the service quality of a Skytrain but, it is also measurably better than a bus. If that wasn't true then why are they still building LRT and Tram systems across the world (and not just tram-trains but, street based systems many of which have dedicated lanes) instead of just building bus systems or going straight to light metro? The answer is because there is such thing as a middle ground that offers less benefits than skytrain but more than buses.

I think Vancouver's greatest weakness so far is the assumption that all transit service can be operated with just two types of service, thats something you really don't see in the transit wonderlands of Montreal, Paris, London, Tokyo, etc etc
     
     
  #11306  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2018, 3:02 PM
BlackSpade741 BlackSpade741 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Montreal
Posts: 6
I'd also point out that both Montreal and Toronto used to operate systems more akin to Vancouver but both are introducing new lower cost modes (LRT and REM) I don't see any reason why Vancouver shouldn't do the same as each mode has its service niche.
     
     
  #11307  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2018, 3:24 PM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 17,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackSpade741 View Post
You are saying none of this matters but, real life means real numbers.

30m LRV that is planned in Surrey:

"Flexity Outlook
Entered service August 31, 2014
Formation 5 articulated cars
Fleet numbers 4400–4603
Capacity 70 (seats), 181 (standing), 251 total"


These capacities have been validated IN SERVICE in Toronto

Link: https://www.google.com/search?q=flexity+outlook+capacity&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-ab

Frequency is listed as every 5 minutes on the first page.

Link: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=...rds.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1M1zzqAS1Go_SfgooLUE4h

So actually the capacity is 12 * 251 => 3012 for 30m trains and 12 * 502 => 6024 for 60m trains, even higher than reecemartin stated.

I actually agree here and don't get the hesitation around doing this math ourselves, if we aren't willing to how can we ever hold anyone accountable or update our findings etc?

I personally think we would be better off building the Expo Line extension immediately by reworking current funding for other capital projects but, I can't stand the disdain many anti-LRT people have for the facts and numbers that I have linked you to. If the numbers you are posting are from official documents then clearly they are getting the capacity of an LRV wrong (I have a hard time believing they'd get the frequency wrong), the numbers I stated are from a system currently operating 30m low floor LRV's who would have a better idea of the real world capacity.

Now clearly the LRT is nowhere near the service quality of a Skytrain but, it is also measurably better than a bus. If that wasn't true then why are they still building LRT and Tram systems across the world (and not just tram-trains but, street based systems many of which have dedicated lanes) instead of just building bus systems or going straight to light metro? The answer is because there is such thing as a middle ground that offers less benefits than skytrain but more than buses.

I think Vancouver's greatest weakness so far is the assumption that all transit service can be operated with just two types of service, thats something you really don't see in the transit wonderlands of Montreal, Paris, London, Tokyo, etc etc

I fail to see why the engineers / planners of the project would incorrectly calculate their capacity.

But to give you the benefit of the doubt, even at those numbers the 99 B Line will still have a higher capacity than the Surrey LRT on opening day. And the buildout capacity is still less than 50% that of the Canada Line.

This is only the capacity issue though.

Then there is there is the fact that road capacity is being taken away to build this surface Line.

And no, I am not against LRT full stop, LRT can indeed be built right, for example the superbly done first phase of the Ottawa LRT, and I support the Arbutus LRT as a good secondary north / south transit artery in the future (it won’t be a trunk line and it has a considerable amount of its own ROW), but the Surrey alignment has many terrible designs with excess road crossings and needles traffic interactions.

It is a terrible cost benefit ratio.

Again, my primary concern is the second phase out to Langley, which very clearly makes far more long term sense as an extension of the Expo Skytrain Line (which currently terminated in that exact direction and is far more suited for traveling fast between further spaced stops, which this route will have even with LRT) since this will be a backbone line. Also running LRT at grade along Fraser Highway is not the best of ideas...
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/30634635@N03/with/29495547810/ and Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV0_0h9qKlhxXFxuAey_q6Q
     
     
  #11308  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2018, 9:30 PM
BlackSpade741 BlackSpade741 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Montreal
Posts: 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metro-One View Post
I fail to see why the engineers / planners of the project would incorrectly calculate their capacity.

But to give you the benefit of the doubt, even at those numbers the 99 B Line will still have a higher capacity than the Surrey LRT on opening day. And the buildout capacity is still less than 50% that of the Canada Line.

This is only the capacity issue though.

Then there is there is the fact that road capacity is being taken away to build this surface Line.

And no, I am not against LRT full stop, LRT can indeed be built right, for example the superbly done first phase of the Ottawa LRT, and I support the Arbutus LRT as a good secondary north / south transit artery in the future (it won’t be a trunk line and it has a considerable amount of its own ROW), but the Surrey alignment has many terrible designs with excess road crossings and needles traffic interactions.

It is a terrible cost benefit ratio.

Again, my primary concern is the second phase out to Langley, which very clearly makes far more long term sense as an extension of the Expo Skytrain Line (which currently terminated in that exact direction and is far more suited for traveling fast between further spaced stops, which this route will have even with LRT) since this will be a backbone line. Also running LRT at grade along Fraser Highway is not the best of ideas...
Having less lanes is ok, especially in what will be a major city centre there is no good reason to have King George be six lanes in the core ~ are we trying to replicate Missasauga?

Induced demand also exists, keep roads wide and they are gonna be full no matter what - you just encourage more driving. Literally all of the South of the Fraser has NS and EW roads, a reduction on lanes for 2 is a non issue.
     
     
  #11309  
Old Posted Sep 5, 2018, 5:10 AM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 17,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackSpade741 View Post
Having less lanes is ok, especially in what will be a major city centre there is no good reason to have King George be six lanes in the core ~ are we trying to replicate Missasauga?

Induced demand also exists, keep roads wide and they are gonna be full no matter what - you just encourage more driving. Literally all of the South of the Fraser has NS and EW roads, a reduction on lanes for 2 is a non issue.
Not really the issue (although reducing traffic lanes should never be a supportive argument for a major transit project / choice of transit technology). Also King George would be better preserved as Surrey’s ceremonial street, such as Georgia in downtown Vancouver.

What this means is that there will be far too many points of conflict where accidents between trains and vehicles (and pedestrians) can occur, causing both delays to transit and general traffic (a two for one deal!). Not only that, but accidents / problems that only affect one can potentially still affect the other, causing more delays.

The Surrey LRT should not even be described as “at grade” (since many at grade LRTs can still have full separation from traffic via overpasses / underpasses for long stretches and dedicated (as in fenced off railbed) ROW). Instead this project should be referred to as “street grade.” It is more akin to the Toronto Streetcar in proposed built form.

Not a good idea for a backbone system to Langley...
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/30634635@N03/with/29495547810/ and Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV0_0h9qKlhxXFxuAey_q6Q
     
     
  #11310  
Old Posted Sep 5, 2018, 1:37 PM
Treplow's Avatar
Treplow Treplow is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by d_jeffrey View Post
FYI, for operational purposes the STM refused the loop idea for the Orange line. Exactly because if there's an issue the whole circle is down. If the metro is ever extended to Laval on the West branch, the line will be divided into two seperate lines at Bonaventure or Lucien L'Allier.
Which is exactly what Toronto should be doing with their Line 1
     
     
  #11311  
Old Posted Sep 5, 2018, 2:26 PM
p_xavier p_xavier is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Treplow View Post
Which is exactly what Toronto should be doing with their Line 1
Yup, it was a missed opportunity to not do it with Union station renovations.
     
     
  #11312  
Old Posted Sep 5, 2018, 8:09 PM
Reecemartin's Avatar
Reecemartin Reecemartin is offline
YouTube Creator
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Vancouver/Toronto
Posts: 1,776
Indeed Toronto in reality has 5 lines right now, Yonge and Spadina legs serve different markets.
     
     
  #11313  
Old Posted Sep 5, 2018, 8:31 PM
GeneralLea's Avatar
GeneralLea GeneralLea is offline
Midtowner since 2K
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Midtown Toronto
Posts: 5,954
I took this two days ago, of work being done near the Mt. pleasant station for the upcoming Eglinton Crosstown.
[IMG]TJ033684 by Josh Kenn Photographics, on Flickr[/IMG]
__________________
"Living life on the edge"
     
     
  #11314  
Old Posted Sep 5, 2018, 9:46 PM
Nouvellecosse's Avatar
Nouvellecosse Nouvellecosse is online now
Volatile Pacivist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 11,107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Treplow View Post
Which is exactly what Toronto should be doing with their Line 1
I don't understand. The Yonge line isn't a closed loop; it's the same configuration as the Orange line extending into and through downtown and back out again. But the outer ends come nowhere near one another which is what the Orange line proposal involved.
__________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
Don't ask people not to debate a topic. Just stop making debatable assertions. Problem solved.
     
     
  #11315  
Old Posted Sep 6, 2018, 2:20 AM
GreaterMontréal's Avatar
GreaterMontréal GreaterMontréal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,628
from Reddit

Quote:
“There will be impacts to customer experience with less investment in fleet, stations and buildings. Over the next few years, 40-year-old U2 trains will continue retire but without replacements, service will gradually be reduced to 3-car service.
https://old.reddit.com/r/Calgary/comments/9d7qpt/calgary_transit_may_gradually_regress_back_to_3/

what's up with that ?
     
     
  #11316  
Old Posted Sep 6, 2018, 3:00 AM
Doady Doady is offline
SUSPENDED
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,166
Calgary Transit ridership peaked in 2014 and it still hasn't recovered. Maybe 4-car trains not needed until ridership starts increasing again.
     
     
  #11317  
Old Posted Sep 6, 2018, 3:12 AM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 10,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal View Post
Sounds like a warning/reminder to council that they will need to buy more trains. Makes sense and 'shouldn't' be anything to worry about. Yes ridership has been down due to the state of the economy, but there's no way that will continue forever.
     
     
  #11318  
Old Posted Sep 6, 2018, 6:37 AM
White Pine White Pine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 398
I think Calgary has had problems with their new order from Siemens. There hasn't been anything publicized lately but IIRC they had stopped accepting new ones for a while? any Calgarians here?
     
     
  #11319  
Old Posted Sep 6, 2018, 12:45 PM
The Chemist's Avatar
The Chemist The Chemist is offline
恭喜发财!
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: 中国上海/Shanghai
Posts: 8,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by White Pine View Post
I think Calgary has had problems with their new order from Siemens. There hasn't been anything publicized lately but IIRC they had stopped accepting new ones for a while? any Calgarians here?
It's really too bad they're having technical problems with them. I finally got a chance to ride on the new cars when I was in Calgary over the summer and they're fantastic - far better than any of the previous models. I especially loved the glass divider into the driver's cab that allowed you to look pretty clearly out the front.

Anecdotally I did see one car that had just been delivered while I was in town - it was still on the flatbed car and wrapped up in plastic, so it must have just been brought in on a freight train quite recently.
__________________
"Nothing is too wonderful to be true, if it be consistent with the laws of nature." - Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
     
     
  #11320  
Old Posted Sep 6, 2018, 3:29 PM
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 11,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by White Pine View Post
I think Calgary has had problems with their new order from Siemens. There hasn't been anything publicized lately but IIRC they had stopped accepting new ones for a while? any Calgarians here?
They were or perhaps still are slowing deliveries. Calgary got a steal of a deal on these cars as first customer for a new model family, and just like AZURE in Montreal, or the streetcars in Toronto, new can reveal problems. Fortunately nothing near the problems with BBD in Toronto.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Closed Thread

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:58 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.