Quote:
Originally Posted by mr.x2
Mark I trains don't have to be in pairs of two, it's the Mark II's that need to be.
....
I believe officedweller said the platforms were expandable to 8-car Mark I, which is 96 metres.
|
The MKIs are still in "married pairs" - they cannot be separated. It may have to do with the motors or electrical systems.
Yeah, way back in the 80s when the Expo Line was built, they said it could be expanded to fit 8-car MKI trains. The guideway splits far enough away from centre platform stations to easily insert additional platform length.
@ Waterfront Station it isn't really underground (it's below the viaducts) so extending the platform there shouldn't be a problem.
@ Stadium, you'd extend it to the east. That would allow stairs down to the GM Place side of Expo Boulevard and eliminate the traffic cops there on game nights.
@ Granville & Burrard it will be expensive unless there is contingency that we don't know about. The excavation will have to be "mined".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian Mind
Hmm, in the long run, when we can't lengthen stations anymore, would it be feasible to widen them? Thus allowing more trains to be in the station at any one moment in time, which means greater frequency of trains. For instance; when there is a station with two platforms for a single direction, and there is a train once every minute and a half, any one train could be in a station for up to three minutes to load and unload before leaving.
|
Personally, I think this is feasible for Broadway Station when the Safeway is demolished. Not necessarily adding tracks, but adding outside platforms to the station to allow for "one-way" movement into and out of the trains on opposite sides of the train. i.e. doors on the centre platform would open first, allowing passengers to exit and a second later, doors on the outside platform would open, allowing passengers to enter. This would eliminate the face to face combat of entering a train.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mezzanine
I totally agree. I think that the proposed alignment will be a big headache for the city of surrey planners.
It cuts thru a park with limited upzoning potential. The attempt to try to swing north to include guildford is awkward and half-hearted, and the turn back to FH is also awkward and leads to a large green belt (limited zoning, i think, ALR? certainly, it is very prone to flooding) before it hits clayton/langley. Certainly, with upzoning around the areas it will be good, but there is a lot more potential for more intense use along KGH.
Disappointed about the lack of DMUs along the southern rail line, but I think there maybe more prep work involved with negotiations with the company for access to the line. I would also think that an announcement about this would also surprise the city of surrey, who i suspect have not done a lot of work to study this, and give the further appearance of the province dictating transit priorities to local communities (i suppose they are, now...). Still, if skytrain went south to newton, that likely would facilitate DMUs along the old intterurban as it could bypass the busier (car-wise) and less-grade separated section of the southern line.
|
I agree as well, but including Guildford is important. I suspect that the Skytrain extension (wherever it would have gone if it missed Guildford) would delay the 104th Ave LRT, so better now than never.
Hopefully some provision will be included for extending Skytrain south to Newton and the Southern Railway line for a DMU transfer point in future (i.e. a wye switch).
*********
Jared and SFUVancouver make a good point that a new Skytrain storage yard will be required.
Obvious locations are False Creek Flats and UBC Endowment lands (but given the timing, the endowment lands would come on line too late to serve the Expo enhancements, the Surrey extension (and the Evergreen Line if it is Skytrain), which are to be implemented first). False Creek Flats is a viable possibility if it is expedited - it is on the Millennium Line which is more convenient that shuttling trains to and from the Expo Line. There already is a third siding at the end of the tail track west of VCC-Clark Station - that could easily become a ramp for access to from a yard IF property is available in the area (and there's no indication that BNSF would give property up, especially with increased port traffic and the history of prolonged negotiations required for VCC-Clark Station's ROW).
As mentioned by Jared, if the Evergreen line is Skytrain, a yard could be built along Lougheed Highway where the LRT train yard would have been built - that also provides a yard along the Millennium Line.
BTW - Vaughan Palmer is his article today also suggests that given the increased cost, the Evergreen line will be Skytrain.
**********
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty Gull
Media Release | Jan. 14, 2008
UBC Welcomes Transit Announcement
"UBC will work closely with TransLink and others to plan the UBC Line and ensure that a new station integrates with the new University Boulevard neighbourhood that marks the entrance to the Vancouver campus," Toope said.
- 30 -
|
You'd think UBC would adopt the YVR funding formula and add a second station in the south campus area to serve its burgeoning residential population. Hopefully that is being considered. Ultimately, does the UBC Skytrain Station need to integrate as a
transfer station to/from buses? I suppose if there's one more station at the south campus, but otherwise, who's going to transfer when its the end of the line?
*********
As for the continuing comments on the 40m-50m Canada Line platforms, remember that Richmond is NOT a "growth concentration area" under the Livable Region Strategic Plan, so ridership is forecasted to be well below that on the Expo Line.
Prev
Linear Mode
