Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut
City's moving to plan and build the Greenway, which is independent of TransLink and the streetcar. I'd be genuinely surprised if the City has a direct role in building the streetcar itself - even they realize that they have no idea how to do public transit.
That's kind of the point - with Broadway, both the City and TransLink have decided that they want to minimize the inconvenience.
Many arterials have much the same kind of car/bus traffic and commercial density as Cambie (if not more), so every party involved has to decide whether or not the short-term savings justify the potential fallout. I should point out that last time around, cut n' cover saved $400 million (~$500 million 2019), not $800-1,000 million. You can decide if that was worth it.
Despite most ridership coming in from Metrotown or beyond, and the Arbutus extension providing another way into the core, the point is, Expo or Millennium, everyone interchanges at Commercial; build a Lonsdale or a Port Coq line, that gets even worse.
Hastings is going to become a major corridor in and of itself - even if it doesn't connect to the M-Line at all, a parallel line means that most local riders'd use it to go into the core instead of the M-Line.
Langley needs to happen, I'm not contesting that. And if we can guarantee funding for it and UBC, and then the same level of funding every decade, this entire argument is moot. If not, we need to come up with something else.
And on top of that something else, there's not a lot of phase-able projects left. Half a Hastings Line might work, but half a Newton-Guildford/North Shore/Port Coq Line doesn't... and half a Lonsdale Line gives you a tunnel to the middle of Burrard Inlet. So that means we'll have to go suburb, core, suburb, core - maybe two suburbs for every core? Crowding's going to be an issue anyway, agreed, but we're going to get there a whole lot faster if it's just suburb, suburb, suburb and no core.
|
No, but it makes 0 sense to build a Bus Loops at the current terminus to abandon it a couple years later. It's less efficient overall (minus cost inflation) to phase 2 projects like this instead of focus all the money into 1 and build the other one at once later.
It's a political move.
RE: Cut-and-cover's cost, is that comparing the Bombardier proposal over the OTL one?
But yeah, Commerical-Broadway needs to become a 2nd Waterfront Station with or without the Hastings (possible extension of the Lonsdale into East Van and Richmond as a relief for the Canada), and it's
not designed for that. The lack of/slow redevelopment around the area may actually be a blessing in disguise in this case. Without the Hastings, people would still likely use the SeaBus for Direct-Downtown transfers.
You could say the same thing about DRL/Ontario, and the benefits of a relief line there are still very limited (especially considering the scale). If Toronto can't get higher frequencies at the same time as the DRL/Ontario, they're screwed.
Yeah, 2-3 suburban/urban seems to be consistent with the current strategy. That pushes Hastings to
after the NS though (assuming the next Suburban are White Rock-Newton-Guildford-Langley+PoCo). Maybe you'd get the NS and Hastings
simultaneously so we can actually get rid of the Seabus. Assuming they can deal with the DTES problem somehow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottN
I think a Hastings line would offer some relief to the Expo line even if it didn't turn south. From much of north Burnaby, the fastest way to get downtown is to take the Millenium Line and tranfer to the Expo Line. With a Hastings Line in place that would become the preferred route to go downtown instead and there wouldn't be as many transfers from the Millenium Line to the Expo Line.
But the easiest and cheapest way would surely be to lengthen the trains, lengthen the platforms at high use stations and use selective door opening at other stations. There appears to be plenty of straight track to allow for longer platforms at all stations, and only the underground stations at Granville and Burrard and maybe also Columbia would pose big construction challenges. You could probably get away with only lengthening the platforms at half the stations.
A 7 car train would be 117m long. Two A cars at one end would only open at A stations. Two B cars at the other end would only open at B stations and there would be 3 A+B cars in the middle that open at every station. The pocket tracks near Nanaimo and Metrotown seem to be about 150m long so they should be able to handle this length of train without any changes.
|
Some relief, yes, but it wouldn't be as effective. Plus, the demand after Boundary is a lot lower, so truncating there and reserving space for a future line for the long-term is most likely best.
Yeah, but them people would be trapped in stations they didn't want to be stuck in. Unless the outer cabs are designated as a skip-stop service, but the most difficult ones are the underground ones, which everyone wants to get off at (Downtown).
You could get 130m long platforms with 8-car trains for a total car length ~136m (current max is 5-car) for all the elevated stations easily (ignoring possible slight inclinations that would complicate matters- and Main Street and New West are already pretty much built to over that length) minus Gateway in Surrey, where the track connecting between the 2 tracks would have to be demolished somehow. King George also has a similar problem, but it might be able to simply be ignored, since it's not built to Spanish Solution (you might still want to rebuild the station to Spanish Solution anyways, though, so the Surrey Stations would be closed off.)
Ie. The current Surrey section would have to be shut down.
The Lougheed Spur on the Expo was not included in this analysis, neither was the Langley Extension, which might become a new line.
Assuming each MKIII train carries 20-50 more passengers than the MKIIs (so 50 passengers over the MKII earlier gen), this means a capacity of 702.5 people/train.
Considering the current max #s assume 93 s headways rather than the max of Taipei's Brown Line at 72s min. (any more, and you'd likely have problems with trains not being able to 'catch up').
All this means that the modern absolute capacity max is likely around 35,125pphpd maximum. This excludes the possible removal of even more seats, but MKIIIs are already fairly highly optimized, with a seating factor (seats per row) of 2.5.
Having a seating factor of 2 - (ie. same # of seats as row seating, though w/ not necessarily the same layout)
https://www.wired.com/2013/04/rethin...ubway-seating/ and a standing space ratio ~0.35m^2 (approx. correct #s for MKIs) means a capacity increase of ~7.5 people/train.
The absolute potential maximum capacity with all possible improvements on existing infrastructure is 35,500pphpd.
https://books.google.ca/books?id=NbY...pacity&f=false
With 130m long stations (8-train MKIIIs), this means a potential max capacity of 56,800pphpd could be reached, a number that should be enough for anything the future demands of Vancouver could throw at it for the next 6-7 decades.
Dunno if you could deal with potential inclination problems without having to rebuild the stations.
Dunno about the cost of doing this thing. We 'extended' Main Street and New West (kind of), but I can't find the individual cost of the upgrades, plus, it didn't actually add in longer platforms or anything.
Anyone have any idea how to calculate such a thing, I'm open ears.