[SpongeG]

Translink is the first result coming up on google.ca:jester:

when you google "vancouver skytrain" you get the one that i got

i just googled "skytrain" and translink came up first

good to know :koko:

[tGill]

Nothing Translink can do about Google rankings of skytrain.info over translink.ca with certain key words other than terminating the domain or redirecting at the domain level. Also keep in mind that if you are logged in to a google service like gmail your search is also tracked by default prioritizing sites over others based on your traffic.

Its really baffling why that terrible BCRTC site is even maintained, it was designed in some crappy proprietary html "web designer" program and looks straight out 2001. I don't see the benefit of confusing customers, apparently no one at Translink understands basic SEO or google page rank principles.

[twoNeurons]

It would seem that the shape of the frequent transit network in Surrey is a quartet of lines radiating out from Surrey Central. 104th, Fraser Highway, King George Hwy to Newton and a line along 120th to serve North Delta.

Two points:
1 - I don't think Surrey can be served well with one [SkyTrain] line.

2 - I don't think we can financially afford to put [SkyTrain] lines along all those corridors.

The solution, a network of LRT, perhaps?

[Gordon]

Google Transit does not show a majority of the bus stops on Granville Street downtown.

[Zassk]

1 - I don't think Surrey can be served well with one [SkyTrain] line.

2 - I don't think we can financially afford to put [SkyTrain] lines along all those corridors.

The solution, a network of LRT, perhaps?

Agreed completely. We could seriously accelerate Surrey Central's growth and importance by planning new lines in 3-4 directions that converge on it, and then building 1-2 of them immediately using the most pragmatic technology. Sitting here from a distance, it seems to me that Newton should be the priority since it has the population and potential for densification; but most people in-the-know seem to put Fleetwood and Guildford as the priorities.

Anyway, an east-west line that can connect to N. Delta in future, and a north-south line that can connect to S. Surrey in future, would seem to be the obvious solutions. But I can't see a justification for SkyTrain, it just doesn't seem likely that there will be enough ridership on any one line. Who cares if there is a mandatory transfer to SkyTrain at Surrey Central? The point of this new network is not to move people to Vancouver, the point is to move people around Surrey and its satellites.

[Gordon]

The Provincial government as part of it's transit plan has Rapid Bus routes, why not put 1 Rapid bus route east towards Langley, and 1 to South Surrey White Rock?

[DKaz]

LRT along the interurban and LRT along King George Hwy then over to Guildford would work best. Then they could build Skytrain straight down the Fraser Hwy to Langley.

[SpikePhanta]

LRT along the interurban and LRT along King George Hwy then over to Guildford would work best. Then they could build Skytrain straight down the Fraser Hwy to Langley.

But why, a good portion of that route is farm land/low density
Not to mention the trains would be full before New west.

If anything they should build a new WEC line that goes SOF to Langley and Abbotsford, and maybe making it's terminus either Waterfront or Pacific Central

[Zassk]

It doesn't make sense to build SkyTrain to Langley.

Aside from nearly doubling the length of Expo Line... and representing probably 70 minutes' ride end-to-end... how many people would actually ride a transit line from Langley?

And do we want to encourage development all the way out in Langley? It seems to me that we should be encouraging as much SoF development as possible to be concentrated tight in close to Surrey City Centre instead.

In terms of SkyTrain's scale of distances, Langley is way, way, out there. The distance is huge and the needed population just isn't there (and we don't want the population there).

[SpikePhanta]

It doesn't make sense to build SkyTrain to Langley.

Aside from nearly doubling the length of Expo Line... and representing probably 70 minutes' ride end-to-end... how many people would actually ride a transit line from Langley?

And do we want to encourage development all the way out in Langley? It seems to me that we should be encouraging as much SoF development as possible to be concentrated tight in close to Surrey City Centre instead.

Yeah, if they are going to extend it along the fraser highway then they should end the line at fleetwood.

[twoNeurons]

People will move to Langley whether you build transit or not.

Why not build a Fraser Valley Express to service central nodes in Langley and encourage higher density development.

Here's an example:

A suburb of Edinburgh (City pop. 500k, Metro Area 700k)), Scotland: Livingston (http://maps.google.com/?q=Livingston+Scotland).

Trains run every 30 minutes during the day into Waverly station. Because Edinburgh is horribly expensive to park in, and because traffic is congested, if one goes into the city, one takes the train. Look at all that countryside between the city and the suburb. Note: Edinburgh is only JUST building an LRT.

It helps that the train is 30 minutes and makes 4 or 5 stops vs. the car being closer to 40 minutes.

We've been talking about a "Fraser Valley Express" for years on SSP. The rail corridor is there and is not heavily used. A station in Willowbrook, Cloverdale South, Newton, Scott Road, Sapperton*, Gilmore*, Commercial* and Downtown.

*These stations are optional.

This could be started with DMUs and upgraded to full commuter rail later. This would also connect Newton to SkyTrain. Translink is sitting on some parcels of land in Newton they bought a few years ago.

The SkyTrain extension idea was floated out of the blue when Kevin Falcon was transportation minister. It wasn't on anyone's radar until then. Kevin Falcon lives in Cloverdale. A SkyTrain extension to 168th would do two things for Cloverdale:

It would make SkyTrain just convenient enough for its residents ( a few minutes on the bus down Fraser Hwy )
it would guarantee a few more decades of no rail transit out to the valley, as the SkyTrain [or CrimeTrain as many NIMBY 'feel'] is too expensive to be used to cross the countryside between 168th and 186th.


Langley, Cloverdale and beyond are best served with commuter rail at the moment.

[Zassk]

We've been talking about a "Fraser Valley Express" for years on SSP. The rail corridor is there and is not heavily used. A station in Willowbrook, Cloverdale South, Newton, Scott Road, Sapperton*, Gilmore*, Commercial* and Downtown.


Question - from Scott Road to downtown, would this rail route actually be any faster than Expo Line? It seems to me that it would have a good chance of actually being slower. Wouldn't the priority be to connect those neighbourhoods with Scott Road or Surrey Central first?

[twoNeurons]

It would allow a one-seat ride, but you're right, at the moment, it would probably match the Expo Line, timewise.

A good compromise would be terminating at Scott Road Station.

Saying that, I would really like to see that part of the segment improve.

Anyone who has timed an Amtrak Cascades train would have a pretty good idea of the time it takes. It's about an hour from the border to downtown, which includes stopping for other traffic. Obviously, one major hurdle is the New West rail bridge. I don't know how much of that hour is the Surrey - Vancouver leg, but my guess is that it's currently about half the time.

[nname]

it would guarantee a few more decades of no rail transit out to the valley, as the SkyTrain [or CrimeTrain as many NIMBY 'feel'] is too expensive to be used to cross the countryside between 168th and 186th.

Why? SkyTrain is expensive because it requires grade separation. Building it at-grade would probably cost similar to a building a LRT. If the line continue to Langley via Fraser, only 3 underpasses (the train goes under the road in intersection) required to reach 192th (though, some property acquisitions are needed, just like LRT). If the line go via Cloverdale, only 5 required. One of the underpasses is probably going to be built anyways regardless of technology.. would the MoT ever allow a busy train line to cross Hwy 15 at-grade?

[nname]

It would allow a one-seat ride, but you're right, at the moment, it would probably match the Expo Line, timewise.

A good compromise would be terminating at Scott Road Station.

Saying that, I would really like to see that part of the segment improve.

Anyone who has timed an Amtrak Cascades train would have a pretty good idea of the time it takes. It's about an hour from the border to downtown, which includes stopping for other traffic. Obviously, one major hurdle is the New West rail bridge. I don't know how much of that hour is the Surrey - Vancouver leg, but my guess is that it's currently about half the time.

I used to see the train everyday when I catch the #169 departing Braid Station at 6:16. The train departed 5:45, so it takes at least 20 minutes for the train to get from Pacific Central to Braid.

[CLC]

heard that articulated buses are really out for #49. I'm surprised that Translink did not cancel the plan at last minute:haha:

added on 6:20pm: good thing I did not attempt #49 route today, words are passups situation was not solved, a few extra articulated buses are not enough for this route!

[madmigs]

The Provincial government as part of it's transit plan has Rapid Bus routes, why not put 1 Rapid bus route east towards Langley, and 1 to South Surrey White Rock?

The rapid bus routes that are part of the provincial transit plan:

■ From Westbank to the University of British Columbia Okanagan in the central Okanagan
■ From Douglas Street in downtown Victoria to Langford on the West Shore
■ Highway 1, connecting Lougheed Station to exchanges in Surrey and Langley across the Port Mann Bridge
■ Hastings Street from downtown Vancouver to Simon Fraser University
■ 41st Avenue from the Canada Line to the University of British Columbia
■ Highway 99 from White Rock to the Canada Line in Richmond
■ King George Highway from Surrey Centre south to White Rock
■ Fraser Highway, connecting Langley to the Expo Line in Surrey
■ Highway 7 from the Evergreen Line in Coquitlam across the new Golden Ears Bridge

Note: all are part of the transit plan - just bolded ones to white rock/langley

PS: Transit plan is here: http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/Transit_Plan/Provincial_Transit_Plan_LR.pdf

[madmigs]

Why? SkyTrain is expensive because it requires grade separation. Building it at-grade would probably cost similar to a building a LRT. If the line continue to Langley via Fraser, only 3 underpasses (the train goes under the road in intersection) required to reach 192th (though, some property acquisitions are needed, just like LRT). If the line go via Cloverdale, only 5 required. One of the underpasses is probably going to be built anyways regardless of technology.. would the MoT ever allow a busy train line to cross Hwy 15 at-grade?

The skytrain is an LRT system, just an automated one so it is designated an ALRT. Skytrain can run at grade as it does in multiple parts of the track now(Nanaimo to 29th Ave station as one example).

Skytrain's operating costs, grade-separated or not, are lower than LRT due to no drivers being needed. And since we already have the automated system, the initial cost for that is already paid for, apart from probably some upgrades to handle additional trains/track. So you are right in that building it at-grade the costs would probably be similar as either way you would want good fencing and track intrusion detection systems(even with a driver you would want this so that they would know ahead of time and so would the head office to get staff out there to clear the issue). LRT could cross the road directly, but like you say, going under(or over) would be more efficient, whereas skytrain you would pretty much need it to go over or under.

And don't forget with LRT, as we have none right now, there are initial costs for a train yard/repair depot. Skytrain wouldn't necessarily have this as it already has a repair depot, although like evergreen, we may want to add a light duty depot for cleaning/minor repairs.

[xd_1771]

People will move to Langley whether you build transit or not.

Why not build a Fraser Valley Express to service central nodes in Langley and encourage higher density development.

We've been talking about a "Fraser Valley Express" for years on SSP. The rail corridor is there and is not heavily used. A station in Willowbrook, Cloverdale South, Newton, Scott Road, Sapperton*, Gilmore*, Commercial* and Downtown.

*These stations are optional.

This could be started with DMUs and upgraded to full commuter rail later. This would also connect Newton to SkyTrain. Translink is sitting on some parcels of land in Newton they bought a few years ago.

The SkyTrain extension idea was floated out of the blue when Kevin Falcon was transportation minister. It wasn't on anyone's radar until then. Kevin Falcon lives in Cloverdale. A SkyTrain extension to 168th would do two things for Cloverdale:

It would make SkyTrain just convenient enough for its residents ( a few minutes on the bus down Fraser Hwy )
it would guarantee a few more decades of no rail transit out to the valley, as the SkyTrain [or CrimeTrain as many NIMBY 'feel'] is too expensive to be used to cross the countryside between 168th and 186th.


Langley, Cloverdale and beyond are best served with commuter rail at the moment.

If this Fraser Valley Express line means no change in transit service to Guildford, then I'm thoroughly against it. The bus service between certain areas of Guildford and Surrey Central is already mediocre enough; a rail line would very much benefit the area here especially with the growing Guildford Town Centre. In addition, with the new Port Mann Bridge construction Guildford will become a major transit hub.
That said, if the Expo line extension does indeed follow either 96th or the Fraser Highway while completely skipping Guildford, I will be extremely mad - heck, possibly mad enough to destroy the entire extension :P. Fleetwood is half as busy and I think can get away being served by a good bus line.

This coupled with something much better to link Surrey and Richmond than an agonizing route through downtown (or at least New West if you take a bus, but it still takes the same amount of time anyway) and we're all set :tup:

[SpongeG]

i think surrey needs to step away from the idea of funnelling people into vancouver and provide better service within surrey - the extension into fleetwood would be great and than maybe a street LRT or streetcar creating some kind of route that focuses on surrey would be good

[xd_1771]

i think surrey needs to step away from the idea of funnelling people into vancouver and provide better service within surrey - the extension into fleetwood would be great and than maybe a street LRT or streetcar creating some kind of route that focuses on surrey would be good

Any Skytrain extension into Fleetwood probably wouldn't get enough ridership to pay off as most of the potential riders would be in Guildford - it's the same distance & time bus-ride from Guildford to Fleetwood as it is to Surrey Central. The only other bigger community with potential riders near Fleetwood is Newton and that's even further off than Guildford (i.e. it should get it's own extension down from King George).

I do agree on the prospect of Surrey/N Delta getting better bus service though; a lot more community shuttles (i.e. Panorama, or Cloverdale) could prove really useful combined with good mainline routes and frequency. I could probably get to Newton much easier if the 341 from Guildford to Newton was much more frequent and in-time with other buses to the Guildford Centre from where I live. What Surrey could really use is a crosstown Skytrain or LRT line going from Guildford south to Fleetwood, then on to Newton, west to Strawberry Hill and terminating within North Delta. This would really help out travel within and out of the city, coupled with SkyTrain extensions to Guildford and south to Newton (and beyond those points).

Coupled with a second line branching out at Newton and going to South Surrey/White Rock and Surrey would have an excellent transit system :D

The line could also be extended north of guildford and onto the Port Mann Bridge & beyond (the best terminus in that case would be Coquitlam Centre, though a branch going to Lougheed would work as well, in which case the best routes would probably go as follows: Lougheed to Guildford to Fleetwood & Newton to South Surrey, and Coquitlam Centre to Guildford to Fleetwood & Newton to Strawberry Hill to North Delta.

The North Delta end of the line could also be extended north and to the west, and then suddenly Surrey has a line to Richmond too! (I know, going a bit farther now but I can't help myself :rolleyes:)

[SpongeG]

the fleetwood extension is going through guildford though so you pick up those riders

ther plan shows it going north east to guildford and the south east to fleetwood

i look at the people i know in surrey they all live and work within surrey never leave surrey - occasionally go to richmond - they live in fleetwood - getting to guildford mall by skytrain would be great for them

[paradigm4]

I love how most of the suggestions made towards transit expansion in Surrey completely neglects the current and ongoing financial troubles. It's easy to say "put a SkyTrain line here and here, problem solved" but that certainly is not practical. The question remains, with the limited amounts of capital available, how best can we currently and in the short term serve the needs of both the Broadway corridor and the south Fraser area?

So far, the best I've heard is phasing the Broadway SkyTrain to Arbutus and doing a BRT network in Surrey, with an optional light rail line. If the economy picks up and provincial coffers begin busting with cash again, I could see money being put forward to do just this in the next five years or so.

[madmigs]

the fleetwood extension is going through guildford though so you pick up those riders

ther plan shows it going north east to guildford and the south east to fleetwood

i look at the people i know in surrey they all live and work within surrey never leave surrey - occasionally go to richmond - they live in fleetwood - getting to guildford mall by skytrain would be great for them

Whose plan? Translink, Metro, or Province? Please also provide a link to this plan.

The provincial transit plan - http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/Transit_Plan - has no specifics about the skytrain extension in Surrey. There is a picture of the conceptual alignment of new extensions on page 10 of the brochure, but that alignment goes SE on Fraser Highway until 96 Ave then east to 152 St then SSE towards 160th and Fraser Highway. So basically no Guildford(the closest it gets is 1.3 km south of Guildford at 96 Ave and 152 St) but the path will skirt just northeast of Fleetwood Town Centre.

[nname]

I love how most of the suggestions made towards transit expansion in Surrey completely neglects the current and ongoing financial troubles. It's easy to say "put a SkyTrain line here and here, problem solved" but that certainly is not practical. The question remains, with the limited amounts of capital available, how best can we currently and in the short term serve the needs of both the Broadway corridor and the south Fraser area?

So far, the best I've heard is phasing the Broadway SkyTrain to Arbutus and doing a BRT network in Surrey, with an optional light rail line. If the economy picks up and provincial coffers begin busting with cash again, I could see money being put forward to do just this in the next five years or so.

My point always is - introduce a BRT route (King George-104th) next year, then another (Fraser) by 2012. Let ridership build and then decide what to do with the corridor later (SkyTrain? LRT? monorail? bus-on-rail? subway?).

If fact, they can start the service as soon as December this year as soon as they get the money within the next couples of week.. from the service hours proposed, seems like they need about 10 millions a year? With fare and if they does not re-invest the cut in 320, 321, and 394 to improve service, this can probably reduce the cost to about 4 millions/year...

Would this work?
- Terminate all 321 at Surrey City Hall via King George, 72th, Newton Exchange, 72th, 144th, then the loop around City Hall, 144th, Hwy 10, 152nd, 60th, 144th, and return
- Reduce the 321 headway to every 15 minutes peak and 30 minutes off-peak.
- Cancel the 394
- Let the 399 do local service between Hwy 10 and South Surrey P&R (the 3 stops that's in the middle of nowhere)
- Let the 351 do local service south of South Surrey P&R
- Reroute the 341 to from 64 Ave to Hwy 10, via 60th, 168th, Hwy 10, King George, 72th, Newton Exchange, 72th, 144th, and the rest unchanged.
- Cancel the 332
- Cancel the short-turn trips of 320 to Fleetwood (except the ones noted below)
- Continue all 335 at fleetwood as 320 to Surrey Central during peak hours
- Extend the 375 to Surrey Central via 108th.

This would remove service duplications
- The 375 isn't really that full north of Fraser Hwy, and the 320 has people going to Surrey Central on the same corridor.. why don't they just use the extra capacity on the 375 as the 320?
- Why does the 341 has to go all the way to 64th, serving pretty much nothing? And why does it have to do that funky little loop around city hall, and serve the 72nd Ave twice?
- There is no point continuing the 321 to the farmland anymore as the 399 can do its job.

[Vonny]

My point always is - introduce a BRT route (King George-104th) next year, then another (Fraser) by 2012. Let ridership build and then decide what to do with the corridor later (SkyTrain? LRT? monorail? bus-on-rail? subway?).

If fact, they can start the service as soon as December this year as soon as they get the money within the next couples of week.. from the service hours proposed, seems like they need about 10 millions a year? With fare and if they does not re-invest the cut in 320, 321, and 394 to improve service, this can probably reduce the cost to about 4 millions/year...

Would this work?
- Terminate all 321 at Surrey City Hall via King George, 72th, Newton Exchange, 72th, 144th, then the loop around City Hall, 144th, Hwy 10, 152nd, 60th, 144th, and return
- Reduce the 321 headway to every 15 minutes peak and 30 minutes off-peak.
- Cancel the 394
- Let the 399 do local service between Hwy 10 and South Surrey P&R (the 3 stops that's in the middle of nowhere)
- Let the 351 do local service south of South Surrey P&R
- Reroute the 341 to from 64 Ave to Hwy 10, via 60th, 168th, Hwy 10, King George, 72th, Newton Exchange, 72th, 144th, and the rest unchanged.
- Cancel the 332
- Cancel the short-turn trips of 320 to Fleetwood (except the ones noted below)
- Continue all 335 at fleetwood as 320 to Surrey Central during peak hours
- Extend the 375 to Surrey Central via 108th.

This would remove service duplications
- The 375 isn't really that full north of Fraser Hwy, and the 320 has people going to Surrey Central on the same corridor.. why don't they just use the extra capacity on the 375 as the 320?
- Why does the 341 has to go all the way to 64th, serving pretty much nothing? And why does it have to do that funky little loop around city hall, and serve the 72nd Ave twice?
- There is no point continuing the 321 to the farmland anymore as the 399 can do its job.
I suggest to continue the discussion specific to Surrey in http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=4973883#post4973883

[SpongeG]

Whose plan? Translink, Metro, or Province? Please also provide a link to this plan.

The provincial transit plan - http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/Transit_Plan - has no specifics about the skytrain extension in Surrey. There is a picture of the conceptual alignment of new extensions on page 10 of the brochure, but that alignment goes SE on Fraser Highway until 96 Ave then east to 152 St then SSE towards 160th and Fraser Highway. So basically no Guildford(the closest it gets is 1.3 km south of Guildford at 96 Ave and 152 St) but the path will skirt just northeast of Fleetwood Town Centre.

months maybe years ago there was the "planned" routes rendered somewhere in this forum which showed it going to guildford and onto fleetwood as the initial expo expansion when it was borught to the local medias attention

there is suppossed to be a transit hub close to guildford - not at the mall itself but close enough to serve the area

i sure as hell ain't going through the 100's of pages to find it - but it was discussed to death in here at the time

[Whalleyboy]

months maybe years ago there was the "planned" routes rendered somewhere in this forum which showed it going to guildford and onto fleetwood as the initial expo expansion when it was borught to the local medias attention

there is suppossed to be a transit hub close to guildford - not at the mall itself but close enough to serve the area

i sure as hell ain't going through the 100's of pages to find it - but it was discussed to death in here at the time

New plans have since changed and the new guidlford transit loop is gonna take place right at the corner of 150th street and 104 ave. Once they tear down the old section of the mall where the lordco is it will be build around there.

[SpongeG]

i have no life and i found it - lol - its in the expo extension/renovations thread...

http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/9418/2020rapidbusnetworkuf8.jpg

[Whalleyboy]

I still think the route out to newton would be better. Surrey could start using more of a grid system bus route feeding people into the skytrain route along king george.

[madmigs]

i have no life and i found it - lol - its in the expo extension/renovations thread...

http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/9418/2020rapidbusnetworkuf8.jpg

ok. That's the same image I was using as it appears in the 2008 provincial transit plan(page 12) which follows the route I outlined earlier in this thread - http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=4973844&postcount=6824

[madmigs]

I still think the route out to newton would be better. Surrey could start using more of a grid system bus route feeding people into the skytrain route along king george.

But you don't necessarily want all of Surrey dependent on the skytrain to get them downtown or elsewhere across the river. It also doesn't work for Metro Van to have the majority of the jobs in one non-central area(aka downtown) that everyone from everywhere tries to get to in the morning and leave in the evening. Now if Surrey had more employment, people would also be going to Surrey in the morning, leaving in the evening, thus leveling out the traffic going both ways on the skytrain. And people in Surrey wouldn't need(but still could) to join the rest of the masses going downtown and would have the option of working closer to home.

That said, I do admit that the area around Central Surrey Mall and Gateway has drastically changed for the better in the last 10-15 years. Bringing with it a lot of employment. The 2011 census should be able to give us a better idea of things, unfortunately some of the data that is on the long form will now be suspect as it will no longer be a random sampling of everyone. And if I recall correctly - employment location is on the long form.

[paradigm4]

months maybe years ago there was the "planned" routes rendered somewhere in this forum which showed it going to guildford and onto fleetwood as the initial expo expansion when it was borught to the local medias attention

there is suppossed to be a transit hub close to guildford - not at the mall itself but close enough to serve the area

i sure as hell ain't going through the 100's of pages to find it - but it was discussed to death in here at the time

There's supposedly two transit loops planned for Guildford. One will be at 156 St and 104th, right near Hwy 1. This will be used by the Port Mann Rapid Bus. The other is to be a rebuilt version of the existing transit exchange at the Mall.

The alignment in the Provincial Transit Plan is nothing more than conceptual and the fact that the existing study underway isn't even focusing or putting a priority on that route goes to show how solidly planned it is. In fact, if there's one route that has been favoured in planning reports through the decades, it's the L shaped line, connecting Guildford and Newton to Whalley along King George and 104th - in my opinion a far more effective use of money.

[SpongeG]

yes its all talk right now

but i think an extension via guildford to fleetwood would be great for surrey

but an extension to newton would also be great - anything is good

[cabotp]

heard that articulated buses are really out for #49. I'm surprised that Translink did not cancel the plan at last minute:haha:

added on 6:20pm: good thing I did not attempt #49 route today, words are passups situation was not solved, a few extra articulated buses are not enough for this route!

I read on the Buzzer Blog. Apparently they are going to start with 6 Arc buses. At the end of September they will see how things are going and could possibly had more Arcs to the route. Of course this isn't set in stone and nothing else could happen. :haha:

[WarrenC12]

The rapid bus routes that are part of the provincial transit plan:
Note: all are part of the transit plan - just bolded ones to white rock/langley

PS: Transit plan is here: http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/Transit_Plan/Provincial_Transit_Plan_LR.pdf

How relevant is that today? I mean, wasn't the KGH B-Line already scrapped? Or just "delayed"?

[WarrenC12]

Given a mythical $3B pile of money to spend (after Evergreen is build of course), initially planned for Skytrain from VCC to UBC, could this buy:

- Skytrain from VCC to Arbutus
- 2 LRT lines in Surrey, down KGH and Fraser Hwy, or Maybe across 104 to the #1 rapid bus
- Streetcar Phases 0-2 in Vancouver?

Everybody happy? Even zwei?

I'd even be ok if the Skytrain extension only made it as far as City Hall station, although that's an even worse area for massive bus transfers sure to occur.

[jlousa]

I found the following an interesting read.

the RGS recognizes for rapid transit investment purposes, three overriding priorities: the need to reinforce the development of and shape the travel patterns associated with the north east sector focused on the Coquitlam Regional City Centre; and the need to reinforce the development of and shape the travel patterns in the area south of the Fraser focused on the Surrey Metro Centre; and the need to connect the central Broadway portion of the Metro Core to the eastern and southern part of the transit system. These translate into the following rapid transit investment priorities: the Evergreen Line (“Priority 1”), the expansion of transit south of the Fraser River to connect to Urban Centres in that part of the region to the Surrey Metro Centre (“Priority 2”) and the westward extension of the ‘Broadway line’ in some form to Central Broadway as far west perhaps as Arbutus (also “Priority 2”). [The first and third of these are essentially remaining priorities from the 1996 regional growth strategy (the LRSP) and the second is clearly the pressing priority for the next phase of growth within the region].

The concern was expressed that a technical study was being undertaken by TransLink on the possible linkages form central Broadway to UBC and the suggestion made that “Priority 2” include expansion to the main campus of the University of British Columbia (UBC), pending the results of the rapid transit technical studies currently being undertaken by TransLink.

We recognize that this study involves a rigorous analysis of alternatives and will yield valuable insights. However, in our view the issue there is a fundamental policy issue than needs to be recognized. Given the financial situation facing TransLink, the Province and the Federal Government it is difficult to be optimistic about rapid transit lines being constructed more rapidly than they have in the past. Nonetheless, the plan identifies two complete new lines and the completion of the Broadway line as a priority for supporting, serving and shaping regional growth. This is consistent with past policies.

It seems unlikely that there will be sufficient funds to build more than these and, regardless of current ridership in the corridor, a line such as the Broadway line could not reasonably be viewed as legitimately competing for scarce funds with lines to serve and reinforce those major regional centres.

The Plan does suggest that the second layer of priorities, which are seen as expansion of bus service in the near term, and which include the Central Broadway to UBC route, could be considered for rapid transit service after the first priorities have been satisfied. Note that proposed plan does not require a two phased approach to transit in the Broadway corridor. Nor
does it imply any particular technology. If the TransLink study suggests that the best solution is a line built from the existing SkyTrain line at Commercial all the way to UBC, the proposed plan does not exclude that.

Does increasing transit south of the Fraser actually mean building a rapid transit line? Or would providing a B-Line or two satisfy the requirement of increased transit? I find it interesting that they don't see the current ridership along Broadway as a defining factor. It also shows that the final decision is clearly up to Translink regardless of the wants of the Metro.

[Langdon0630]

If Translink or the government doesn't have money, why not use the Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) or Build-Own-Operate-Transfer (BOOT)? There are some successful cases around the world, such as Taiwan High Speed Rail. I am sure some companies would like to invest on Broadway Line.

[nname]

such as Taiwan High Speed Rail.

If I remember correctly, the government ended up buying share of the company (or something like that) to help pay for the cost overruns.

[DKaz]

I'd love to see private transit operators fill in the gaps but from what I understand it seems that largely the union and somewhat the municipalities and Translink will block any attempts for private operators to enter the game.

[cabotp]

I would only support such an idea.

If my monthly pass or a tick I purchase Ticket. Worked with all transit providers. And I don't have to pay to transfer, unless the time on my ticket ran out.

What I'm afraid would happen is there would be different fares for each operator. And I'd probably end up pay just to transfer.

[deasine]

Having different operators can work if TransLink contracts these services out as RFPs for different companies as if they operate like the Canada Line PPP system. To the consumer, it looks like everything is the same, unified system.

[madmigs]

Having different operators can work if TransLink contracts these services out as RFPs for different companies as if they operate like the Canada Line PPP system. To the consumer, it looks like everything is the same, unified system.

So basically the other operator would build station and track for skytrain to exact specs, as well as run the station, and would then pay translink for cops and to run the trains to their new station? Operator gets certain % of fares purchased at the station or per boarding or something. People are happy with new station.

Back to reality - as much as I would like that to happen, I don't think the people would go for it. Either that or the other operator cut corners and takes down entire skytrain network, thus resulting in a lynching or two.

I can see maybe building new track and a station maybe, just with translink operating it. Just pay owner monthly rent-to-own fee which in the end will be more expensive than translink building it outright, but those costs will come from the operating budget, not the capital budget. And seeing as skytrain more than pays for itself overall, that could work. Oh wait this sounds like first scenario I outlined except for other operator not running the station, just building it and owning it with translink being the tenant :)

[jsbertram]

Having different operators can work if TransLink contracts these services out as RFPs for different companies as if they operate like the Canada Line PPP system. To the consumer, it looks like everything is the same, unified system.

Similar to the PPP used for the Canada Line, but instead a PPP may be structured so that the private company "BroadwayTransitCo" builds a new SkyTrain line to Translink's specifications and maintains the stations & tracks &tc. on this new line.

Translink gets all the ticket revenue and maintains & operates the trains, and pays "BroadwayTransitCo" a fee for using their tracks & stations. This fee is calculated based on up-time & availability of the tracks & stations for Translink to run their trains, and is sufficient for "BroadwayTransitCo" to staff and maintain their infrastructure for the life of the contract (50 years?) and generate a reasonable annual profit for decades.


I think this may be how the Millennium Line may get the extra $450 million from private sources, and if successful can be the basis for building the UBC Line and Surrey Line.


Toronto was trying to do a PPP to build their new airport line from downtown to Pearson, but the private company they were negotiating with walked away from the deal because the profits couldn't be guaranteed & therefor no bank would finance it during these flakey economic times.

Now the Ontario gov't is doing it themselves because it was promised for the PanAm games in 2015.

[DKaz]

Well I'm thinking if I start an Abbotsford to Waterfront express, I would charge $8.75 for someone to go from Abbotsford to Waterfront, where they can complete their trip with a $2.50 fare. Same with a monthly fare, I would charge $217.50 for a 4 week pass and they can pay $81 for a monthly fare to complete their trip downtown. This way I'm priced the same as West Coast Express.

[BCPhil]

If I remember correctly, the government ended up buying share of the company (or something like that) to help pay for the cost overruns.

The Government indirectly paid for it. While the money was supposed to be privately raised for the BOT scheme, much of the money came to the consortium through Government owned corporations or government loans when the consortium failed to meet deadlines. And much of the money they did borrow from private sources came with such a high interest rate, that the consortium has only managed to make an operating profit last year (after massive labor cuts), but it was still a net loss of something like $150million when you include debt financing (which I think they managed to cut in half) and amortization of the line (which they also managed to improve).

[CLC]

I read on the Buzzer Blog. Apparently they are going to start with 6 Arc buses. At the end of September they will see how things are going and could possibly had more Arcs to the route. Of course this isn't set in stone and nothing else could happen. :haha:

The reply on Buzzer Blog comments section does not seem official.:shrug:
In any case #49 situation is still really ugly, particularly on afternoon. The problem is C-Line transfer-to-bus passengers often fill eastbound bus to almost full, leaves no room for Langara stops.

[WarrenC12]

The reply on Buzzer Blog comments section does not seem official.:shrug:
In any case #49 situation is still really ugly, particularly on afternoon. The problem is C-Line transfer-to-bus passengers often fill eastbound bus to almost full, leaves no room for Langara stops.

I saw a lineup around the corner down Cambie the other day. Reminded me of Olympic lines. :D

[cabotp]

The reply on Buzzer Blog comments section does not seem official.:shrug:
In any case #49 situation is still really ugly, particularly on afternoon. The problem is C-Line transfer-to-bus passengers often fill eastbound bus to almost full, leaves no room for Langara stops.

I only said I that I read about it on the Buzzer Blog. Not that it was an official reply. :)

[deasine]

I find that the 49 is one of the most challenging bus routes to plan in Metro Vancouver. Most routes, where ridership is either evenly distributed throughout the route or where ridership gradually increases as the bus reaches its final destination. This is not the case for the 49.

In the Westbound Peak Hour Direction: the bus reaches its capacity between Keer-Victoria, and dramatically drops at Langara-Cambie, then increases slightly again when it reaches Dunbar/UBC.

In the Eastbound Peak Hour Direction: buses reaches its capacity at Arbutus-Granville, drops at Cambie, where it picks up more passengers, then only begins gradually decreases in number of passengers after Knight.

These fluctuations make it a real challenge to plan for the 49. I find that the capacity for articulated buses is wasted after Langara/Cambie in the peak hour direction, but yet, the articulated buses are necessary from Metrotown-Langara/Cambie. I know that we do have short-turn buses that only run from Metrotown-Langara, but I don't think that's a good solution to the problem.

What I think needs to happen is that TransLink needs to implement a new bus route (either from Joyce, Patterson, or Metrotown), and run the buses along 54th and 57th Avenue, then going back to Langara when it reaches Main. They can then terminate there, or run to Dunbar Loop via 57th. As demand for the route progresses, some buses can then run to UBC.

[SpongeG]

what happenned to skytrain today?

I just missed it on the news - sounds like the system was shut down most of the morning?

[BCPhil]

I saw a lineup around the corner down Cambie the other day. Reminded me of Olympic lines. :D

Lines: Our Olympic Legacy.

P.S. Skytrain was broken this morning, but seems to be back to normal.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/09/10/bc-skytrain-breakdown.html

All the more reason to extend Millennium line to City Hall, pronto. If the M-Line went through to the Canada Line, it would offer an alternative to get massive amounts of people into downtown when the Expo Line segment is down (or reduced). I would rather ride Skytrain around in the opposite direction than wait for a bus bridge bus at Metrotown to take me all the way downtown.

[DKaz]

Yea a few of my coworkers were a couple of hours late to work today.

[CLC]

All the more reason to extend Millennium line to City Hall, pronto. If the M-Line went through to the Canada Line, it would offer an alternative to get massive amounts of people into downtown when the Expo Line segment is down (or reduced). I would rather ride Skytrain around in the opposite direction than wait for a bus bridge bus at Metrotown to take me all the way downtown.

The reliability of bus bridge was illustrated in a conversation captured by Vancouver Sun reporter:

Outside Waterfront Station, a Coast Mountain Bus Transit Supervisor was directing buses over his cell phone to come in and pick up riders going back down the line.

“I believe the SkyTrain is down, that’s all I know, and we are trying to set up a bus bridge to get people from here to Joyce Station,” said the supervisor, Michael, who would not provide his last name.

He was on his cellphone with the driver of bus 8143 as it came down Seymour Street and got into position outside Waterfront Station. It was not the first in the bridge he said, and certainly not the last.

Snider later confirmed that 18 buses were diverted for the bridge between Metrotown and Waterfront.

“Since this was at the height of rush hour, CMBC didn't have many buses (or bus drivers) to pull from regular service and put onto the bus bridge,” Snider said.

As a dozen passengers boarded bus 8143, Michael instructed the bus driver to head first to Granville Station: “Then make a left on Georgia Street. Take the viaduct, and right on Main. Pick up at the Main Station. From Main, you’re going to go up Broadway. At the Broadway Station, dropoff and pickup and then from there, go to Nanaimo Station, then 29th and Joyce, however you can get there.”

“It only stops at the SkyTrain stations?” the driver asked.

“SkyTrain station, SkyTrain stations, this is a SkyTrain bus,” the supervisor replied.

[CLC]

What I think needs to happen is that TransLink needs to implement a new bus route (either from Joyce, Patterson, or Metrotown), and run the buses along 54th and 57th Avenue, then going back to Langara when it reaches Main. They can then terminate there, or run to Dunbar Loop via 57th. As demand for the route progresses, some buses can then run to UBC.

If there is funding for new route in Vancouver, I 100% agree running buses along 54th and 57th is the only way to alleviate the crush section of #49 route. However I cannot think of the ideal endpoints of such a new route, but if it is not going to reach Dunbar loop, I believe the route should get at least to Cambie so that customers can transfer to C-Line (then, say to other UBC bound routes)

[usog]

Very detailed description by the Vancouver Sun on the little act of god today: http://www.vancouversun.com/Metal+tracks+brings+SkyTrain+halt+thousands+riders/3506031/story.html They said a bunch of communication wire was ripped out, I was under the impression the skytrains communicated wirelessly?

[CLC]

^ Isn't physically wired still being faster, safe and reliable than wireless?

More reading about today act on Vancouver Sun reporter blog:
http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun/blogs/growthspurts/archive/2010/09/11/skytrain-grinds-to-a-halt-delaying-thousands-of-metro-vancouver-transit-riders.aspx

[deasine]

The SkyTrain communicates with the OMC, detailing its precise location through wires on the track. These are those two sets of wires running parallel with the tracks between the two rails and beside the linear magnetic strip. They are basically wires on little metal sticks, where there's a little metal knob linking the wire and stick together. Everytime the train crosses a knob, the location of the train is sent back to the OMC.

[Mac Write]

Why weren't the trains able to be driven manually and single track it until the communication lines could be fixed?

They need to add signs on the buses for "Skybus Expo Line." Translink has buses in storage. 30-40+ should be at ready status so if the Skytrain goes down, they can be deployed as a bus bridge within 15-60 minutes (pulling drivers from the spare board). Yes this would cost some money, but it is critical when Skytrain goes down.

[madmigs]

Hey guys,

I could use some help - some dude going by chemical engineer(but never in the name field) is trying to claim it would be better if the people that took diesel buses would drive instead(at least with respect to toxins and GHG) on a Georgia Straight article - http://www.straight.com/node/344939. "Migzy" is me. Feel free to "agree" my comments and disagree his, and/or add helpful comments. :) In any case, I have disputed his every statement but he somehow is claiming I am helping his cause. Yes I know he is a "troll" but it would at least be good to have others agree with me(even if just on this thread)

To try and make his numbers work, he is also is somehow trying to say that 100,000 people would translate into 70,000 cars. I posted this in reply(needs GS mod approval before goes live) to show that doesn't make sense:
Let’s say out of 100,000 people, 50,000 drove alone. That leaves 50,000 to pack into 20,000 cars or 2.5 people/car. But 50% of people carpool, really? Even if we said 60,000 drove alone, that leaves 40,000 to pack into 10,000 cars of 4 people/car. Even 40% of people carpooling seems extreme and so does packing 4 to a car.

Some things I can't find(and please provide link if you have it), and I'll probably email translink if no-one has it, as now I am curious:
- the mpg(US gallon please) of translink's diesel buses(% of total service km would be ok as I know how much they spent on diesel in 2009 - $42 million and can approximate using $0.75/L)
- % of total service hours that are diesel
- where are monthly passes/etc counted as boardings? I'm guessing total boardings, not revenue boardings, as revenue boardings seem to be where people bought a new ticket. It would be good to know as there were an avg 160,000 passes bought per month in 2009. And a 342,000 daily boarding difference between revenue and total boardings. But if passes are non-revenue boardings, and assuming 2 boardings/day, that only leaves 22,000 for people that board more than 2x/day.

PS: Yes, once my GS comment goes live I know I made a mistake on the diesel costs and said they were 24.5 million, not the actual 42 million. In any case I doubt he will call me on it, as he apparently can't do math(even with a supposed Masters in Chemical engineering).

PPS: The translink annual reports for 2009 including the Statutory report, are treasure troves of info :)

cheers

[SpikePhanta]

I find the straight and cbc.ca to be filled with those type of people.

[deasine]

Why weren't the trains able to be driven manually and single track it until the communication lines could be fixed?

They need to add signs on the buses for "Skybus Expo Line." Translink has buses in storage. 30-40+ should be at ready status so if the Skytrain goes down, they can be deployed as a bus bridge within 15-60 minutes (pulling drivers from the spare board). Yes this would cost some money, but it is critical when Skytrain goes down.

Well they needed to fix the communication wires before they can get trains running... or else it would've had to be driven manually the entire day!

As for signs on buses, agree. I had one past me that was not in service, but it said "BC Rail." Coast Mountain has buses that are ready, but they don't have enough staff, especially since it was an unexpected disruption. You can't have that many drivers on standby.

[aberdeen5698]

I could use some help - some dude going by chemical engineer(but never in the name field) is trying to claim it would be better if the people that took diesel buses would drive instead(at least with respect to toxins and GHG)Point him at the graphic on page 12 of the 2009 Translink Annual Report. It shows that a passenger commuting by diesel bus emits only about 1/3 the GHG of commuting via a single-passenger car, and about 1/5 that of an SUV.

[usog]

Point him at the graphic on page 12 of the 2009 Translink Annual Report. It shows that a passenger commuting by diesel bus emits only about 1/3 the GHG of commuting via a single-passenger car, and about 1/5 that of an SUV.

Waste of breath, he'll just say that since its a *Translink* report that it's obviously just a lie/covering up the truth, the truth which he is trying to expose in his righteous quest:rolleyes:

These kind of people are predictable, just ignore the trolls imo.

[aberdeen5698]

Waste of breath, he'll just say that since its a *Translink* report that it's obviously just a lie/covering up the truth, the truth which he is trying to expose in his righteous quest:rolleyes: Of course he will. Migsy can't convince him, but he can point the other people reading the thread to the published information, and Migsy can also make the point [to those other readers] that Translink is in a much better position to be able to estimate these things than the troll is.

And that would be a good time for Migsy to say that now he's provided a published reference there's no point in arguing any further and bow out.

[madmigs]

Of course he will. Migsy can't convince him, but he can point the other people reading the thread to the published information, and Migsy can also make the point [to those other readers] that Translink is in a much better position to be able to estimate these things than the troll is.

And that would be a good time for Migsy to say that now he's provided a published reference there's no point in arguing any further and bow out.

Thanks :) It's just so aggravating... grrr... But it has at least caused me to dig deeper into the issue and now have a pretty solid argument should I encounter other people.

[madmigs]

Point him at the graphic on page 12 of the 2009 Translink Annual Report. It shows that a passenger commuting by diesel bus emits only about 1/3 the GHG of commuting via a single-passenger car, and about 1/5 that of an SUV.

Yes but that is not the entire picture. As buses aren't always at capacity etc, so I did a bunch of calculations based on total service hours, capacity, etc... Now i know for sure :)

But his big HUGE issue is that he is one of the creme de la creme of Broadway that hates the B-Line in general due to its noise and dragging poor students and other "transit dependent" people into his neighborhood and past his place.

[cabotp]

Yes but that is not the entire picture. As buses aren't always at capacity etc, so I did a bunch of calculations based on total service hours, capacity, etc... Now i know for sure :)

But his big HUGE issue is that he is one of the creme de la creme of Broadway that hates the B-Line in general due to its noise and dragging poor students and other "transit dependent" people into his neighborhood and past his place.

Mad migs this comment isn't pointed at you but the idiot you are referring.

Ahh poor baby having to deal with people going past his home to get to where they want to go. If he doesn't like it. Why doesn't he move to fracking Antarctica. :rolleyes:

[Mac Write]

Just found a VHS tape of the 2 part special on VTV in 1998 on Vancouvers Transit System and the Future.

I am throwing out all my VHS tapes.

[xd_1771]

Just found a VHS tape of the 2 part special on VTV in 1998 on Vancouvers Transit System and the Future.

I am throwing out all my VHS tapes.

They made TV shows about Vancouver's transit!?
Must... seee.... naow :tup:

[Mac Write]

Just a 2 part paid advertisement. Shows LRT on Broadway, and more. The old streetcar, etc.

[SpongeG]

did u transfer all your videos to digital? those little things you can buy work pretty good - i was surprised at the end result

[allan_kuan]

(post removed)

[Mac Write]

No I didn't transfer the stuff as it was recorded movies from TV. The one tape I needed to save I accidently through out, as I got the tape numbers mixed up.

[DKaz]

So I was in the West Coast Express train yard and they made some changes to the new car configurations... Train #1 AM and #2 AM remain at 4-cars and 7-cars respectively now. Train #3 and #4 (which is also #3 and #4 in the PM respectively) have been lengthened from 9-cars to 11-cars, with a 1.5 car overhang on the inbound side and 2.5 car overhang on the outbound side. All the platforms still have a 7-car capacity.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll81/DKazrolla/7097cfb1.jpg

Train #5 AM has been lengthened from 7 to 8 cars.

At the moment, Train #1 AM runs Train #5 PM and formerly Train #2 AM ran Train #2 PM and Train #5 AM ran Train #1 PM. I was on Train #3 this morning with the 11-car configuration and it was extremely busy, standing room only past Port Moody. Since this train and #5 AM just got extended to 11-cars for today's run (#4 AM was extended last week), it'll take a little while for people to adjust towards the inbound sleeper side, but the normally busy outbound sleeper side just basically got a 40% boost in capacity from a 1.5 car overhang to 2.5 car overhang.

Another note (I should've taken photos), Car 401 and 402 on Train #4 AM are nice, but the new cars use LED lighting which has a cool colour compared to the older cars. Weird that when fluorescent lighting first came around there were the same complaints and I'm not sure if they improved the lighting to give it a warm incandescent look or if we're just used to it now. I'll have to take Train #4 tomorrow to see how it is.

[aberdeen5698]

So I was in the West Coast Express train yard and they made some changes to the new car configurations...Very interesting - thanks for posting! Looks like they're putting the new cars with walk-through doors to good use.

Is there room at all the stations to lengthen the platforms? You'd think they'd do this since the overhanging cars probably won't ever be as full as the ones directly accessible from the platform. And it doesn't seem like it would be all that expensive compared to the purchase of the cars themselves.

[DKaz]

The ends do get filled. It's basically overload capacity at the ends used by people getting on at Port Moody and Coquitlam Central as there is a better chance at getting a seat (although sometimes some are SOL) and at Waterfront in the PM by last minute arrivals.

I would rather they add a 6th train than lengthen the platforms. Yes it is straightforward at almost all stations except for Coquitlam Central. They do have three years to decide because all the stations will be changed from their current open concept stated to a secured zone when the fare gates come.

[jsbertram]

Reminds me of the commute in Chicago.

Most of the station platforms were only long enough for 2 or 3 cars when they were built decades ago, and only the platforms at the downtown terminal were extended for the full length of the train, so every car had a sign indicating which stations the car would stop at.

For a ten car train, cars 8, 9 & 10 were used for the first few station stops in the afternoon commute. Then cars 7, 8, and 9 were used for the next few stations; then cars 6 through 8, 5 through 7 &tc until the last station stops were for cars 1 through 3.

During the afternoon commute the train would empty from the back cars to the front cars, so when a car was empty the car doors were locked (after the crew made sure nobody was still in the car) and left unused for the rest of the trip.

What the smart AM commuters started to do was get on the train and then move to the next empty car so they could get a good seat. Staff figured this out quickly & kept the between-the-cars doors locked until a car had already taken on some passengers. Since all the good seats had been taken, there was no reason to move from your stuffed car to another not-quite-so-stuffed car.

[DKaz]

SHHHHH! I hope no one working for the West Coast Express is getting any ideas.

[BCPhil]

Reminds me of the commute in Chicago.

Most of the station platforms were only long enough for 2 or 3 cars when they were built decades ago, and only the platforms at the downtown terminal were extended for the full length of the train, so every car had a sign indicating which stations the car would stop at.

For a ten car train, cars 8, 9 & 10 were used for the first few station stops in the afternoon commute. Then cars 7, 8, and 9 were used for the next few stations; then cars 6 through 8, 5 through 7 &tc until the last station stops were for cars 1 through 3.

During the afternoon commute the train would empty from the back cars to the front cars, so when a car was empty the car doors were locked (after the crew made sure nobody was still in the car) and left unused for the rest of the trip.

What the smart AM commuters started to do was get on the train and then move to the next empty car so they could get a good seat. Staff figured this out quickly & kept the between-the-cars doors locked until a car had already taken on some passengers. Since all the good seats had been taken, there was no reason to move from your stuffed car to another not-quite-so-stuffed car.

That seems kind of ridiculous. Why should people getting on a train at a busy station at the end of the line (in the AM) be forced to stand the entire way into downtown, while people getting on closer to downtown get guaranteed seats. Seems evil.

[jsbertram]

That seems kind of ridiculous. Why should people getting on a train at a busy station at the end of the line (in the AM) be forced to stand the entire way into downtown, while people getting on closer to downtown get guaranteed seats. Seems evil.

I think you're missing the concept:

1st station in the AM has 3 empty cars waiting at the platform (the last 3 cars -8 9 & 10) for commuters to jump on & grab their preferred seats. A few more stations fills up those cars, so the last car (now full) doesn't platform at anymore stations until reaching the downtown terminal.

Meanwhile, at (say) the 4th station along the trip with the 10th car now full, cars 7, 8 & 9 are platformed. Car 7 is empty for those lucky commuters, but savvy ones may prefer car 8 which isn't too full & still has some good seats.

We know that some stations will have more commuters waiting than others, so one station may fill all 3 cars that are platformed, or it may take a half-dozen station stops to fill 3 cars that are platformed.

The train trundles onwards to downtown, and at each station a set of 3 cars is platformed, and sometimes the front-most car of that set of three is empty for those lucky commuters. By the time the train reaches the last station before the downtown terminus, the first 3 cars are used for boarding passengers. The front-most car is probably kept empty until these last two stations, since they may have the highest volume of commuters heading downtown.

Meanwhile the commuters with the longest commute (ensconced in the cars at the back of the train) are undisturbed during their commute by people shuffling on & off their car at every stop.

[DKaz]

Sorry I was somehow given wrong information, Trains #3 and #4 are only 10 cars each!

[aberdeen5698]

We know that some stations will have more commuters waiting than others, so one station may fill all 3 cars that are platformed, or it may take a half-dozen station stops to fill 3 cars that are platformed.The biggest issue with this is what I call the "partitioning problem". It's the same problem you have when you split your computer storage up into multiple partitions - you run the risk of filling up one partition while another one has lots of space available.

In the case of the train, the risk is that you'll end up with some cars filled to capacity and potentially even have to leave passengers stranded on the platform while other cars have available space. This is especially true if the platforming of cars at each station is done in accordance with a predefined plan, since plans often end up out of sync with reality.

It can be minimized if there's active communication between the crew and the engineer so that the emptiest cars are always the ones that are platformed. But that doesn't work all that well when the emptiest cars aren't neatly arranged as 3 consecutive coaches.

The best solution, short of extending the platforms, is for open gangways between the cars so that passengers can distribute themselves evenly throughout the train. But passengers rarely distribute themselves all that evenly, as anyone who's tried to make their way to the back of a fully loaded bus can attest. That's what led to my original comment about the non-platformed cars not being as full as the others.

[allan_kuan]

I don't think that the Chicago policy is necessarily one that WCE would want to adopt... in fact it'd probably confuse and anger many riders accustomed to the current situation if such a system is implemented.

[cabotp]

The biggest issue with this is what I call the "partitioning problem". It's the same problem you have when you split your computer storage up into multiple partitions - you run the risk of filling up one partition while another one has lots of space available.

In the case of the train, the risk is that you'll end up with some cars filled to capacity and potentially even have to leave passengers stranded on the platform while other cars have available space. This is especially true if the platforming of cars at each station is done in accordance with a predefined plan, since plans often end up out of sync with reality.

It can be minimized if there's active communication between the crew and the engineer so that the emptiest cars are always the ones that are platformed. But that doesn't work all that well when the emptiest cars aren't neatly arranged as 3 consecutive coaches.

The best solution, short of extending the platforms, is for open gangways between the cars so that passengers can distribute themselves evenly throughout the train. But passengers rarely distribute themselves all that evenly, as anyone who's tried to make their way to the back of a fully loaded bus can attest. That's what led to my original comment about the non-platformed cars not being as full as the others.

I always assumed there was an open gangway between the trains. I've only ridden it once and that was back in the 90's Just took a trip from downtown to Poco. Didn't want to go any further or else I'd be stuck out there. So I never really paid attention to whether there was an open gangway.

As for people not walking to back of the buses. If they don't mind me putting my elbow into their back as I walk by. Fine by me cause I then can sit down.

[jsbertram]

I don't think that the Chicago policy is necessarily one that WCE would want to adopt... in fact it'd probably confuse and anger many riders accustomed to the current situation if such a system is implemented.

Fortunately, when WCE was started, all of the station platforms were the same length, so all the cars would platform.

However, now that the trains are longer than the platforms, the trains can start in Mission with the last 8 cars platformed and use those cars until (say) PoCo when the first 8 cars are platformed instead and are used for the rest of the trip. By doing this you reserve some empty cars for the latter half of the trip when they are needed, and cars 3 through 8 are used for every stop. Some savvy commuters boarding before PoCo might clue in and board the car closest to the front of the train and then migrate to the fairly empty cars when they are opened up at PoCo. Other savvy commuters boarding at Mission might appreciate they can get on cars 9 & 10 knowing that there's an empty seat & they can doze off knowing that after Pitt Meadows they won't be disturbed by people boarding at every remaining station.

In my experience, riders will figure out where 'their car' stops on the platform so they self-select which car to board before the train arrives. Over the course of a few days or weeks, new commuters will experiment with boarding different cars to find 'their fit' - the empty seats, the rolling bridge game, the quiet area, the party section (especially on a Friday heading home). I found that some cars were quite clique-y if you were 'the new kid' so it took some time to fit in - especially if some fellow travellers had been doing the same commute since before you were born (scary but true) and you were upsetting their routine.

[jsbertram]

I don't think that the Chicago policy is necessarily one that WCE would want to adopt... in fact it'd probably confuse and anger many riders accustomed to the current situation if such a system is implemented.

is it any worse than the confusion & anger caused when some car doors are locked and you have to walk through two cars before getting to the platform?

[jsbertram]

Sorry I was somehow given wrong information, Trains #3 and #4 are only 10 cars each!

Its my understanding from reading the press release that more cars are coming from Bombardier so the whole fleet will be 9 car trains when this project is done (each current train set will have a new Bombardier car added to it).

Adding more trains to the schedule is also desirable, but that involves renegotiating the time slots with CPR so the WCE trains would fit in with the scheduled freight trains on the same tracks.

[jsbertram]

That seems kind of ridiculous. Why should people getting on a train at a busy station at the end of the line (in the AM) be forced to stand the entire way into downtown, while people getting on closer to downtown get guaranteed seats. Seems evil.

Or they migrate to a less-full car when it gets unlocked & grab a seat.

[BCPhil]

Or they migrate to a less-full car when it gets unlocked & grab a seat.

Why not just let them migrate as soon as they get on the train?

Lets simplify for discussion: The train is 5 cars long, there are 5 stations where passengers board before the terminus station (6th) and each platform, besides the terminus, is 1 car long.

If station 1 fills the first car so that there is standing room only, why should the people standing be banned from finding a seat in car 2? They have a longer ride, thus are more deserving of resting their legs than someone who gets on at station 5. People at station 5, who have the shortest trip, are getting onto an empty car (car 5), where they can find seats for their short trip, while people have been standing in car 1 the entire time.

I'm just saying its like school yard thinking, where the people in charge have come up with what they believe is a very clever system, so they punish people who think differently, IE: locking them in a full car when they would naturally want to find an empty seat.

[DKaz]

Fortunately, when WCE was started, all of the station platforms were the same length, so all the cars would platform.

But then they realized that train #1 was barely running at 50% capacity while trains #3 and #4 were overcrowded. Makes sense to put the cars on whatever trains need them.

In my experience, riders will figure out where 'their car' stops on the platform so they self-select which car to board before the train arrives. Over the course of a few days or weeks, new commuters will experiment with boarding different cars to find 'their fit' - the empty seats, the rolling bridge game, the quiet area, the party section (especially on a Friday heading home). I found that some cars were quite clique-y if you were 'the new kid' so it took some time to fit in - especially if some fellow travellers had been doing the same commute since before you were born (scary but true) and you were upsetting their routine.

I always sit on the third car from the front inbound on the western midlevel going to Vancouver and second car from the back outbound on the top level going to Mission. This is somehow my routine. I mostly socialize on the way home but I like my quiet mornings. There's always a group of 4 to 6 getting on at Maple Meadows Station who sit in my area and whenever some new "jerk" gets on at Mission and sits in their area, you can see an obvious "hey what are you doing here?" expression on their faces. :).

I always assumed there was an open gangway between the trains. I've only ridden it once and that was back in the 90's Just took a trip from downtown to Poco. Didn't want to go any further or else I'd be stuck out there. So I never really paid attention to whether there was an open gangway.

As for people not walking to back of the buses. If they don't mind me putting my elbow into their back as I walk by. Fine by me cause I then can sit down.

Yes there is a door between all cars that people may go through,

is it any worse than the confusion & anger caused when some car doors are locked and you have to walk through two cars before getting to the platform?

What anger and confusion? :)

Its my understanding from reading the press release that more cars are coming from Bombardier so the whole fleet will be 9 car trains when this project is done (each current train set will have a new Bombardier car added to it).

Adding more trains to the schedule is also desirable, but that involves renegotiating the time slots with CPR so the WCE trains would fit in with the scheduled freight trains on the same tracks.

No, they were adding a car to each train and gaining two spares (two of the older cars are becoming spares and all the new cars are going into regular service). Yea even though these trains do nothing but carry passengers, things do happen. The washroom exhaust fan can malfunction stinking up the entire car, or there could be a plumbing problem, or the air conditioning system could stop working. Last year there were power problems on Train #4.

In 2014, the current contract expires and a new one can be negotiated. Maybe at that time we can add a trip or two. Even with the 10-car trainsets, the trains are still extremely busy.

[SpikePhanta]

I'm loving the added buses on the 49 route!
Here's my take on the ridership.
Most of the people get on starting at kerr and 49 then gradually the bus gets full before main st. I get off at Oak and the bus is still pretty full.
And all the way to metrotown the bus (old bline one) is probably 3/4 full.

[deasine]

I don't know about you... but there still are times I can't get on the 49 and I'm busing from Elliott.

TransLink is still clearly testing out the 49's schedule-a lot of the times, the buses don't arrive or that they arrive really late, and you'll see a bunch bunched up together. The other day at the UBC loop, the lineup for the 49 was horrendous: worst than the 99 B-Line and that's no joke. Apparently, people in the beginning of the line waited for 20 minutes for the 49. Then, there were a few back-to-back to relieve the amount of people, but that led to no one being able to get on the 49 along the way.

Today, my 49 from UBC going Eastbound (notice Eastbound NOT Westbound) terminated at Dunbar Loop, requiring all of us to transfer. Why are you running it as 49 then? If I wanted to transfer, I would've taken the 41st or 43rd!

[WBC]

Transportation heavyweights gearing up for historic meeting
Lara Fominoff Sep 14, 2010 23:20:54 PM

METRO VANCOUVER (NEWS1130) - TransLink is hoping a closed door meeting between The Premier, Transportation Minister, and Metro Vancouver Mayors next week will go a long way to solving their cash crunch.

It will be the first time that Gordon Campbell, Shirley Bond, Metro Vancouver Mayors and TransLink will all be sitting at the same table trying to figure out a solution to TransLink's financial problems.

Langley Mayor Peter Fassbender, who is also the chair the of Metro Vancouver Mayor's Transportation Council, is hoping they can come up with some viable solutions. "So I think the premier coming and the minister coming is a clear indication that we're willing to work together. And I'm not presuming details at this stage, but we're going to have that kind of a discussion."

He says it's about time they all put their heads together. "We have to find solutions, not just to build infrastructure, but then to have the funds to operate it. That is not going to change. So what we have to do is fin, what are the levels of cooperation we can find to get there?"

The group will also try and figure out how they can get construction on the Evergreen Line finally going.

[Waders]

It looks like there is a high probability some funding formula agreement will be reached by all parties next week.

Langley City Mayor Peter Fassbender, chairman of the Metro mayors’ council on transportation... and TransLink CEO Ian Jarvis will both speak at the Tri-Cities Chamber of Commerce luncheon that follows the meeting. Cambell and Bond will also be in attendance.
Source: http://www.theprovince.com/news/Mayors+Premier+Transportation+Minister+meet+next+week/3524841/story.html#ixzz0zZD9kvs3

[SpikePhanta]

I don't know about you... but there still are times I can't get on the 49 and I'm busing from Elliott.

TransLink is still clearly testing out the 49's schedule-a lot of the times, the buses don't arrive or that they arrive really late, and you'll see a bunch bunched up together. The other day at the UBC loop, the lineup for the 49 was horrendous: worst than the 99 B-Line and that's no joke. Apparently, people in the beginning of the line waited for 20 minutes for the 49. Then, there were a few back-to-back to relieve the amount of people, but that led to no one being able to get on the 49 along the way.

Today, my 49 from UBC going Eastbound (notice Eastbound NOT Westbound) terminated at Dunbar Loop, requiring all of us to transfer. Why are you running it as 49 then? If I wanted to transfer, I would've taken the 41st or 43rd!

Well, I guess its the time, I catch it at Metrotown at like 7:20 AM, and going eastbound I catch it after 3:20 PM.
Though this morning in the older diesel bus (regular) at around before langara they wouldnt accept any more people.
what time do you take it?

[madmigs]

Check this out, got this link from today's buzzer blog - http://www.swisstrains.ch/. A live map of trains in Switzerland. Think how awesome this would be for buses and trains here

[SpongeG]

i watched the busses on granville today while i waited for a friend - it was like nonstop i didn't know there were so many busses - and at least half a dozen cars in teh mix - like can they not see its busses only?

where are the police to hand out tickets when you need em

[madmigs]

Another excellent article from today's Buzzer Blog, this one is about the 1 year anniversary of the Canada Line. It's long but an excellent read and contains links to a number of reports and surveys. An excellent article if you ever need a link to a report or whatnot to dispute wild claims made by others.

http://regardingplace.com/?p=9549

---

And here's another good article from today's buzzer blog from The Transport Politic(with lots of comments from Zwei, he even trotted out his alter ego, Malcom, to agree with Zwei!). It's about which way to build the skytrain, and mentions the metro draft plan and other factors about the different routes.

http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/09/08/vancouvers-transit-trajectory-densify-the-core-or-extend-out/