HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #18901  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2018, 4:52 AM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia
Posts: 1,730
Quote:
Originally Posted by trofirhen View Post
SPOT ON !!

Yes, every 8 or 10 minutes would be fantastic.
Ditto. The crossing time is fine - it's missing the boat and watching fifteen minutes tick by waiting for the next one that's the problem.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18902  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2018, 3:35 PM
aberdeen5698 aberdeen5698 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac Write View Post
As for the sea bus, using both berths, and at least 4 boats how frequently could we get them running? (in theory I think the system can support 4 sea buses per berth with 2 in dock and 2 underway at a time so with 2 berths a 8 seabus system can be supported in theory…………drool).
I doubt you'd want to rely on both berths. One of the things that makes the Seabus Translink's most reliable service is the fact that redundancy is built into every aspect of the system. Having two berths on each side is a key part of that. And using both berths subjects passengers to the "I picked the #@&$ wrong side AGAIN!" problem.

Using just one berth, I'd imagine that you could provide 5-minute service using six boats - that's almost 5,000 people per direction per hour.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18903  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2018, 8:53 PM
Mac Write Mac Write is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,030
I remember the days of the 2 original Seabuses using both berths. Then they stopped doing that (GASP) around the turn of the century!

It's very easy to just load one side to 400 then switch to the other side, etc. people will then be on the next possible sailing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18904  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2018, 3:47 AM
jollyburger jollyburger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,608
For people interested in battery/trolley buses there was a huge report at a Translink meeting this week:

https://www.translink.ca/-/media/Doc...lic_agenda.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18905  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2018, 4:54 AM
aberdeen5698 aberdeen5698 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by jollyburger View Post
For people interested in battery/trolley buses there was a huge report at a Translink meeting this week...
Very interesting, thanks for the link! If the numbers are correct, looks like we'll be seeing the last of the trolley buses in about 10 years' time as they won't be able to compete on a cost basis with enroute-charged electric buses.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18906  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2018, 5:41 AM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 26,812
Thanks for the info.
I guess we'll see the in-route charging stations installed at the various bus loops.
Good to see that those buses have smaller batteries.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18907  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2018, 5:46 AM
Firebrand's Avatar
Firebrand Firebrand is offline
D-Class Suburbanite
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Langley, BC
Posts: 429
The document is really optimistic on battery electrics. The document didn’t consider battery-trolley hybrids that exists in Central Europe, only pure BEs. Reality can be really different within that timeframe.

Someone made a great explanation about this document.

Quote:
A new trolleybus fleet is assumed in Electrification Scenario 1, but Electrification Scenario 2 assumes replacement by battery electric buses.

On a quick read the consultant's report recognises a lot of issues with battery buses e.g. costs of installation of charging systems, requirement for a higher number of buses etc. It obviously needs a lot of deeper consideration but one thing seems clear. The report contains a lot of optimistic assumptions about much lower costs for batteries and for battery buses as a whole by the middle of the next decade. But what if battery costs drop by a lower percentage than expected? Or what if the worldwide increase in battery use actual causes cost pressures on lithium, cobalt etc.?

On a first reading they don't seem to have recognised that trolleybuses with batteries and In Motion Charging. With only 50% of route needing wiring, there could be an electrification strategy where there is both an increase in the trolleybus fleet (say to 400 or more) and the introduction of a much larger fleet of battery electric buses.
Link

Quote:
...trolleybuses are expensive because they are a "special order". Until recent times they were about the only electric road-going vehicles.

But with the advent of a big market for battery electric buses, this could be an opportunity to reduce the price of a trolleybus to something similar to a battery bus. After all there is a huge overlap in components. Both have the body, an electric motor and electronic power controller. Most modern trolleybuses are built with auxiliary batteries and on-board charger. So the communality of parts is huge. If a manufacturer was willing, it could have a common unit that would be available either as 100% battery bus or with a battery-trolleybus variant. One example is in Switzerland where Hess AG makes both the TOSA battery bus (it uses opportunity charging plus flash charging at intermediate stops) and the Swiss Trolley Plus. The bodies are the same (except for the trolley poles/electric pantograph) and they have the same electric traction package supplied by ABB.

I think that the adjustment of the trolleybus metric is made because the diesel fleet has a mix of duty cycles: Heavy, medium and light routes, whereas the trolleys are almost entirely on heavy duty stop-go routes in the centre of the system. Otherwise they would be comparing apples and oranges.
Link

Also, BEs may have better performance on hills than diesels and CNGs (due to having max torque while idling), the batteries have much lower energy densities than diesels, so a BE will eat up a lot of range while climbing, while the fuel gauge on a diesel will only change slightly. You don’t have to worry on how much fuel/range you have on a trolleybus, since it draws power from the grid.

Last edited by Firebrand; Sep 23, 2018 at 6:04 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18908  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2018, 4:28 PM
roger1818 roger1818 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Stittsville, ON
Posts: 2,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld View Post
It's deep, but not too deep to be technically infeasible. It would just be expensive. A submersed tunnel would probably do the trick.
I am not sure about the route that would be used, but Burrard Inlet has a maximum depth of 66 m. I was just watching a show on TVO that talked about how the subway in Istanbul is the deepest submerged tunnel at 61m. It is an intercontinental tunnel (Europe to Asia) thus crosses a fault line, so they had to take various measures to make it safe. It is actually interesting to watch. If you are interested, it can be found at Impossible Railways - Ep. 6 - Waterworld (jump to about the 26 minute mark).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18909  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2018, 8:17 PM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia
Posts: 1,730
Quote:
Originally Posted by roger1818 View Post
I am not sure about the route that would be used, but Burrard Inlet has a maximum depth of 66 m. I was just watching a show on TVO that talked about how the subway in Istanbul is the deepest submerged tunnel at 61m. It is an intercontinental tunnel (Europe to Asia) thus crosses a fault line, so they had to take various measures to make it safe. It is actually interesting to watch. If you are interested, it can be found at Impossible Railways - Ep. 6 - Waterworld (jump to about the 26 minute mark).
Right, but that's the deepest part. Most of the inlet is 40 metres or less, and any tunnel would likely cross at one of the 20m sections.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18910  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2018, 12:46 AM
Firebrand's Avatar
Firebrand Firebrand is offline
D-Class Suburbanite
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Langley, BC
Posts: 429
https://www.change.org/p/translink-r...s-split-reform

Apparently there’s a petition to bring back the 410 the way it was. As of this post, there are 50 supporters that signed said petition.

If these people don’t want the 410 split on Brighouse station, it wouldn’t happened in the first place during the consultations. They asked for it, and now they don’t want it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18911  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2018, 12:56 AM
ilikeredheads ilikeredheads is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: west coast
Posts: 269
lol I rather they change it back to 406 Railway instead of Steveston.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18912  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2018, 1:14 AM
Dengler Avenue's Avatar
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Vancouver/Waterloo
Posts: 991
I would rather translink keep it that way though. I still remember the story that people had to wait for 410 Railway for 96 minutes at RC just because of an accident on Queensborough Bridge. (Speaking of that, where are the overdue bus lanes on that bridge??)
__________________
Highway expansion (especially going from undivided 2 lanes to divided 4 lanes), practically speaking, is all about political will, not AADT.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18913  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2018, 1:43 AM
Firebrand's Avatar
Firebrand Firebrand is offline
D-Class Suburbanite
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Langley, BC
Posts: 429
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue View Post
I would rather translink keep it that way though. I still remember the story that people had to wait for 410 Railway for 96 minutes at RC just because of an accident on Queensborough Bridge. (Speaking of that, where are the overdue bus lanes on that bridge??)
New West has a beef against building ANY bridge within its city bounds. If they had a grudge with replacing the Patullo with a new bridge, I don't think they want to deal with the Queensborough bridge.

Even if you put a bus lane on that bridge, the lane will be moot as Hwy 91 backs up during rush hours. If you want to put bus lanes on the bridge, you need to expand the 91 and the Alex Fraser, because the 340 crosses two bridges.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18914  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2018, 5:11 AM
Firebrand's Avatar
Firebrand Firebrand is offline
D-Class Suburbanite
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Langley, BC
Posts: 429
https://old.reddit.com/r/vancouver/c..._by_using_new/

This thread is too amusing to read. It's on a DailyHive article on battery buses, but most comments drift away from the actual subject matter, non-sequitur responses, and then there's this:

Quote:
Yeah let's have TransLink take more money.. Maybe I can pay more taxes at the pump for the bus I don't fucking use.

Cool shit
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18915  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2018, 5:55 AM
Sheba Sheba is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: BC
Posts: 2,178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firebrand View Post
https://old.reddit.com/r/vancouver/c..._by_using_new/

This thread is too amusing to read. It's on a DailyHive article on battery buses, but most comments drift away from the actual subject matter, non-sequitur responses, and then there's this:

I must admit I skimmed quite a bit of it as it drifted a lot. I did spot this near the top:

Quote:
On a global scale, a lot of cities in Asia (especially Japan) and Europe have even better denser networks that outstrip ours, but a part of that is also our having to make a transition in our built environment. As with most of NA, we ran with a 'whatever, you can just drive and there's so much land!' edict for developing low density far flung populations that have to drive to get anywhere (work/school/shops) and are hard to serve efficiently with trains or similar. So unlike a lot of older European centres that were already dense and walkable, we're having to kind of undo that damage. And once stuff is in place, it's hard to plow expensive train tracks through it... and unlike parts of China, we've mostly stopped willfully bulldozing homes to just build for the 'greater good' (see the Viaducts and the history of Vancouver's black community for when we were fully on board for that.)
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:51 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.