Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[Gordon]

Very interesting & damning article. 11 breakdowns in November alone. That's atrocious It looks like Translink is far better run than Edmonton's is.

[SOSS]

Wow, yes a very one-sided article. From his description it sounds like there is plenty of room for improvement: control arms being lowered for minutes vs seconds, speed of trains, etc. But sounds like they made some very poor design choices like at grade crossings near the hospital. I know when Calgary moved from vision to implementation of their latest West LRT line they adjusted a number of road crossings from at grade to below. Regardless - I still this this technology is not the right technology for Surrey. Let Edmonton and Calgary go crazy. Give me full grade separation please.

[waves]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

There's a pretty damning article about Edmonton's LRT in the National Post this morning.

Yeah I thought that too when I read it.

The thing is though is that these problems are everywhere LRTs are built not just Edmonton and the simple problem is, you are trying to run a train where the tracks are literally in the middle of the road. Sure you can improve a few things, but it won't be fixed until the train is off the road, and by that point, it's no longer LRT.

Portland, Calgary, Houston. All of their light rail transit works alright where it is grade separated, but where it's not, it's a nightmare. Surrey councilor's may have gone down to Portland to speak with other councilor's about their LRT but the problem with that is, the majority of Portland residents found the LRT ineffective and thereby hugely costly. So much so that newly planned lines keep getting stalled because of the people of Portland's refusal to pay for it.

I think people like LRT, simply because it's name contains "Light" and they think it has some sort of "European Quaintness". I don't understand how someone could advocate for their citizens to essentially take tourist buses/trains for their public transit.

[xd_1771]

I think one of the key problems with the at-grade nature of LRT systems is it's being treated as a 'design advantage' rather than the drawback that it actually is. When you look at the way planners are designing LRT systems, they tend to be rather liberal with the alignment - almost as if to characterize LRT construction possibilities regardless of what implications they have for everyone else.

The majority of these Metro Line LRT delays come from a particular intersection where the two roads intersect at a sharp angle - the LRT has to cross both of them to the Southwest of it, before immediately entering a station. The delays affect the traffic signal timings as they must remain red in coordination with approaching trains; and the resulting 12-16 minute delay is the compound of the initial, actual delay at the crossing and the numerous cycles needed to get lined-up traffic moving again as it is a highly congested area.



This is really an issue of at-grade running; fixing the Thales signalling issues/getting the Metro Line operating at full-speed (50km/h rather than 25) won't solve it - that's expected to reduce these delays by only 15-20% (transpo director Craig Walbaum mentioned it to Metro News). So anyone waiting for 12 minutes right now, as Tristin said, would still be stuck in delays of about 10 minutes under the regular schedule.

Surrey's LRT will not be without similar design flaws.

For example, here's what the City wants to do around King George & Fraser Highway (this is from the PCI King George Stn development files...)


I can't see a lot of good coming out of that decision to have trams suddenly criss cross King George Blvd here (and again at 102A Ave) and bring anyone that isn't going southbound to a grinding halt... and I don't think that narrowing the dual left turn lanes to Fraser into a single turn lane would be a good idea either....

Going back to the Metro Line issues for a minute, the traffic issues are one thing - but I'm honestly even more concerned about the issue I touched up on when I wrote about the Metro Line's issues back in May of this year.

The Thales signalling was supposed to enable the new LRT line to run at frequencies of 5 minutes, with the combined (grade-separated) portion on the existing LRT line to be improved to frequencies of 2.5 minutes. The current service frequencies are reduced due to the signalling system issues; but Council has since expressed no intention to ever return to the initial service plan of 2.5/5 minutes, now saying instead that...

Should council in the future decide that people, residents want more service then we could by all means order more trains.
John Wollenzin – Division supervisor of LRT Operations

So the permanent service frequency has already been cut in half before the full operation of the line has even started. I don't even have to propose or theorize that the Metro Line was never about reducing travel time or creating transportation benefits - Edmonton has already proven this by abandoning its initial service promise.

We definitely shouldn't follow the Edmonton way of doing things. If this is the kind of end-result they're going to get, then I can't imagine how bad things will get when the disaster comes around to Surrey...

[logan5]

I wonder what the approximate cost of 1 brt overpass would be. Even with 5 overpasses brt would probably still be way cheaper than let. On top of that, because there would be far less interaction with traffic, brt (with overpasses) would be faster, and there would be less service interruptions (no accidents at intersections where most accidents are likely to occur). Driverless technology will allow brt to match lrt's capacity in the near future, so the only advantage lrt really has at this point is comfort of ride. Buses can do a pretty good job of simulating the look of lrt...


http://www.tmb.cat/en/innovacio/-/projecte/ARTICLE-INNOVACIO-10

[Gordon]

Cpuld one of these Bi-Articulated buses be used on a regular route (#99) r can they only be used on a bus way

[Express691]

Speaking of buses,

http://buzzer.translink.ca/2016/01/buses-the-next-generation/

Buzzer blog has an article up on the brand new XDE60 articulated buses for the 096 B-line and Burnaby routes.

Originally Posted by Gordon

Cpuld one of these Bi-Articulated buses be used on a regular route (#99) r can they only be used on a bus way

It's rather crowded for bi-articulated buses to run on the 099. Turn radius, contracts to how much land their bus stops can use, and storage space are only a few of the concerns, and probably explains why we don't really see them up here in North America.

[xd_1771]

The artics at STC will start to be in service at the end of January with all of them on the road by March.

I'm on the 96 every week so I do look forward to this!!!

[ssiguy]

LRT can work extremely well. Of course there will be accidents due to non-grade separation but that's like saying we shouldn't build any roads because there might be an accident.

All systems have their pros and cons. An LRT maybe prone to more accidents but then due to be manually operated are not at the whim of a central computer on automated systems. There maybe more accidents but then they are easier to evacuate in case of an emergency or even a small breakdown as opposed to being stuck on an elevated rail or underground for hours.

Edmonton's new line is not due to the technology but rather incredible incompetent planning and execution.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Cpuld one of these Bi-Articulated buses be used on a regular route (#99) r can they only be used on a bus way

It's possible; some members of Council have considered using bi-articulateds for the 99 B-Line.

https://www.biv.com/article/2012/5/council-pushes-for-longer-broadway-buses/

Being a frequent user of the 99 though, it's probably a bad idea.
You usually order a three-car bus because you've already got a straight, grade separated road, and you're more concerned about capacity than manoeuvrability. Making that same bus shift lanes and (in the case of Broadway-Alma-West 10th) make hairpin turns down the middle of one of Vancouver's busiest streets is akin to giving Charlie Chaplin a mop.

[bardak]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

It's possible; some members of Council have considered using bi-articulateds for the 99 B-Line.

https://www.biv.com/article/2012/5/council-pushes-for-longer-broadway-buses/

Being a frequent user of the 99 though, it's probably a bad idea.
You usually order a three-car bus because you've already got a straight, grade separated road, and you're more concerned about capacity than manoeuvrability. Making that same bus shift lanes and (in the case of Broadway-Alma-West 10th) make hairpin turns down the middle of one of Vancouver's busiest streets is akin to giving Charlie Chaplin a mop.

I think the biggest issue with bi-articulated is not with the bus operation or safety but with how other vehicles react to them. We already have problems with people not given way to articulated buses when they try to change lanes. I think unless you gave the 99 a dedicated lane we would have a major increase in sideswipes on Broadway with bi-articulated

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

LRT can work extremely well. Of course there will be accidents due to non-grade separation but that's like saying we shouldn't build any roads because there might be an accident.

All systems have their pros and cons. An LRT maybe prone to more accidents but then due to be manually operated are not at the whim of a central computer on automated systems. There maybe more accidents but then they are easier to evacuate in case of an emergency or even a small breakdown as opposed to being stuck on an elevated rail or underground for hours.

Edmonton's new line is not due to the technology but rather incredible incompetent planning and execution.

Most LRT's are designed by urban planners, not transportation planners. This is why you see the potential for collisions with pedestrians magnified because this is what the urban designer thinks is a good people-friendly pretty design rather than grade separating all crossings because elevated guideways are "ugly"

But urban designers aren't transportation people, the street car is interchangeable with a metro to them. They don't care about enabling mobility, rather they want the opposite. Go look at nearly every argument about light rail and there are three camps:
A) The transportation professionals, who promote mobility, who will tell you that only BUS systems should be built until capacity dictates a full size metro.

B) The urban designers who promote sustainable transportation by wanting street cars, not buses. Often they purposely push street-cars as light rail, and thus we get poorly designed streetcar systems that are called light rail, but are no more efficient than a bus. They don't care about the human cost. They don't care about the long term costs.

C) The passengers and pedestrians that will use the system, which always favor subways unless their property and property value is at stake.

This is why the argument tends to be always look like a technology fight when it is really about which school of thought you subscribe to, pretty cities with unfixable transit problems, or ugly cities with efficient transportation networks. You can't have both.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Kisai

Most LRT's are designed by urban planners, not transportation planners. This is why you see the potential for collisions with pedestrians magnified because this is what the urban designer thinks is a good people-friendly pretty design rather than grade separating all crossings because elevated guideways are "ugly"

But urban designers aren't transportation people, the street car is interchangeable with a metro to them. They don't care about enabling mobility, rather they want the opposite.

Only an urban planner would consider slow transit to be a good thing. And don't even get me started on Patrick Condon....

[ssiguy]

Very good points about urban planners. They think transit is there to create "complete streets" when their only endeavor should be to move people as quickly, safely, and efficiently as possible.

This is the problem with the Metro LRT as opposed to the main line. The first Edmonton LRT was built as rapid transit and it does that very well. This line was built as "urban renewal" and transit users be damned. Now Edmonton wants to do the same with the Valley line which is why there has been a push back.

[Bdawe]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Very good points about urban planners. They think transit is there to create "complete streets" when their only endeavor should be to move people as quickly, safely, and efficiently as possible.

Surely you recognize that a street has more purposes than mobility, no? No, the endeavor of urban planning should emphatically not be on prioritizing fast traffic flow above all things. Streets are also platforms for commerce and society, a role that cities ignore at their peril.

That being said, our straw-urbanists certainly should concern themselves with the street-degrading effects of running frequent fast trains with priority at intersections down the middle of their 'complete streets'

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Bdawe

Surely you recognize that a street has more purposes than mobility, no? No, the endeavor of urban planning should emphatically not be on prioritizing fast traffic flow above all things. Streets are also platforms for commerce and society, a role that cities ignore at their peril.

We need walkable, friendly streets and we need high speed backbone transit services. The two do not mix. That's why rapid transit should be grade separated. Let each realm keep its best characteristics.

It really doesn't matter that much what the technology is. You can use buses, LRT or heavy rail - the key is the grade separation.

The SF Muni is an interesting LRT that acts like a streetcar in the middle of the road in the outlying areas of San Francisco and goes into a tunnel to behave like a subway in the city centre. One end-to-end ride on that does wonders to clarify the difference between surface and grade-separated transit, even with exactly the same vehicle.

[SOSS]

City of Toronto looking ahead:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEebyt6G5kM

[ssiguy]

I've often wondered............who is responsible for an accident when it occurs?

Can the car maker or Google be held liable when there is a an accident occurs? All those driving videos look great but I didn't see those automated cars trying to negotiate a meter of snow, black ice, a flooded road, or even a car ahead of them who slams on their breaks because they missed their cut off.

Those who think everything will be fine due to automation are delusional. That's like saying computers don't make mistakes so can't malfunction but who here hasn't had to bring in their computer to get fixed? What if someone tries to infect the automated vehicles with a virus...........it could lead to mass killings.

Sounds stupid but most viruses are created by hackers who have nothing better to do and do it as more of a personal challenge than any form of revenue source.

Also, cars are status symbols and people who buy expensive cars are usually doing it for only that reason. Cars are also fun. People enjoy driving. It may be a pain in the ass sitting in traffic but when you are going somewhere people like the freedom of getting away.

I just don't see it.

[urbancanadian]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Very good points about urban planners. They think...

I don't mean for this to come across the wrong way, but I think you should take a couple urban planning classes before you claim to know how "they" think... In my experience, urban planners have many differring views on how cities should be designed and are quite open to new ideas.

I think people tend to forget that urban planners don't actually make all the decisions. Elected mayors and city councils do. So if the politicians decide to build LRT, then it's the planners' job to work with that decision and try to plan for a community that includes LRT, taking into consideration the concerns of the people affected by it.

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I've often wondered............who is responsible for an accident when it occurs?

Can the car maker or Google be held liable when there is a an accident occurs? All those driving videos look great but I didn't see those automated cars trying to negotiate a meter of snow, black ice, a flooded road, or even a car ahead of them who slams on their breaks because they missed their cut off.

Those who think everything will be fine due to automation are delusional. That's like saying computers don't make mistakes so can't malfunction but who here hasn't had to bring in their computer to get fixed? What if someone tries to infect the automated vehicles with a virus...........it could lead to mass killings.

Sounds stupid but most viruses are created by hackers who have nothing better to do and do it as more of a personal challenge than any form of revenue source.

Also, cars are status symbols and people who buy expensive cars are usually doing it for only that reason. Cars are also fun. People enjoy driving. It may be a pain in the ass sitting in traffic but when you are going somewhere people like the freedom of getting away.

I just don't see it.

Good points. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Most articles I've read seem to focus on how automation will affect the world around cars, as opposed to the actual issues with driving itself. Since people don't usually take everything into account, the predictions of true full automation always keep being pushed back further down the road.

For example, how much separation between cars will be necessary? If a person or a dog or something jumps in front of a car, then that car will automatically slam on the brakes. But will there be enough space between cars for the ones behind to stop or will a pileup form? And these things (thousands of exact specifications) will need to be legislated into law or else it will be a never-ending issue of who is at fault. And how insurance companies work into this is another question.

Also, how will speeds change? And cars won't be able to zoom through every intersection free-flowing because pedestrians and bikes need to cross too. It's not like we're going to build overpasses at every single intersection. We already tried building cities around cars, and the result was not exactly ideal.

I don't know why I gave those examples, but there are tons. I'm sure others can name a bunch.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Can the car maker or Google be held liable when there is a an accident occurs? .... Those who think everything will be fine due to automation are delusional.

The questions go a lot deeper than that. When a computer is in control of a machine that might kill people, moral issues come into play. What if the car needs to make a choice between continuing on its present course and killing two people, or veering and killing someone else? What if it has to choose between killing a child or a senior? Who's in charge of making these decisions at the programming level? How are these kinds of programming rules going to be interpreted by the courts, and who will be held accountable?

This article on the moral implications of automated vehicles is worth a read, IMHO.