HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #541  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2017, 1:08 AM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 38,228
Yeah, come to think of it, the steel box girders may all be on the SkyTrain Lines, not the Canada Line.

I think the shaft of the single columns may be a bit narrower.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #542  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2017, 6:36 AM
cornholio cornholio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,911
I assume what would be the simplest and cheapest solution would be rebuilding the final stretch while Landsdown acts as a temporary terminus for a year (or less if you are creative). Officedwellers ideas would shorten any rebuild if new columns were cast before the old guide-way was taken down. I assume if the columns are in place you could probably take down the old guideway and put up the new one in less then a month. Then the question is what you do with the station, rebuild it as well or do a patch job...the station is the difficult and time consuming part (unless you build a new one on the west side or center of the road).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #543  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2018, 12:49 AM
Reecemartin's Avatar
Reecemartin Reecemartin is offline
YouTube Creator
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Vancouver/Toronto
Posts: 1,776
[Deleted]

Last edited by Reecemartin; Nov 17, 2020 at 7:20 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #544  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2018, 1:09 AM
invisibleairwaves's Avatar
invisibleairwaves invisibleairwaves is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reecemartin View Post
Welcome to the Canada Line after a few more years and the Oakridge redvelopment

http://torontosun.com/news/local-new...commuter-chaos
The Canada Line has its issues but the TTC has its own...special political situation to deal with. I'll be worried when we drop a few billion on single new station instead of making capacity upgrades.
__________________
Reticulating Splines
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #545  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2018, 1:23 AM
Reecemartin's Avatar
Reecemartin Reecemartin is offline
YouTube Creator
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Vancouver/Toronto
Posts: 1,776
[Deleted]

Last edited by Reecemartin; Nov 17, 2020 at 7:20 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #546  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2018, 1:33 AM
nname nname is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,652
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reecemartin View Post
What about dropping billions on a line so woefully inadequate that we already need to consider redesigning stations < 10 years after it's built. The Canada Line has less capacity than some ACTUAL airport people movers.
All these would be a non-issue for at least the next decade once the new trains arrived.....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #547  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2018, 1:43 AM
Reecemartin's Avatar
Reecemartin Reecemartin is offline
YouTube Creator
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Vancouver/Toronto
Posts: 1,776
[Deleted]

Last edited by Reecemartin; Nov 17, 2020 at 7:20 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #548  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2018, 2:34 AM
dleung's Avatar
dleung dleung is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 5,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryanmaccdn View Post
Center platforms also have significantly reduced capacity comparatively , keep in mind.
Terminus stations are always center platform because passengers can board the next train whichever side it arrives in. It should've been the case for Brighouse, but now, doubletracking with a switch just before the station is the only bandaid solution now that the station can't expand east due to new development.

FYI, this wasn't a budget issue. Doubletrack was originally intended, but the geriatrics at Richmond city council didn't like the heavy guideway ruining the quaint arterial that is No 3 Road, and wanted an at-grade LRT, but settled on single-track for less "visual impact".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #549  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2018, 2:48 AM
Colin4567 Colin4567 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Lower Mainland-ish
Posts: 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reecemartin View Post
Not at all a non-issue, adding new trains isn't going to help much given the abysmal circulation, within stations. It already takes far too long to clear platforms at the busiest stations. Not to mention the trains also are poorly designed with regards to providing capacity.
Well I think we're very different in opinions on other threads (SoFRT) but I have to agree with you on this issue. An infographic provided by the City of Vancouver shows we can only hit 10,000 pphpd until we need to do any renovations, such as demolishing the false walls, to bump it up to 15,000 pphpd.

Realistically there should be a temporary slow/shutdown of development on the Cambie corridor and its feeders (shocking, given how pro-development I am) while they immediately commence the open excavations needed to expand the stations to the full 80 meters, if not 120 (from what I read the longest train that can be run, at least by a Bombardier Mark III, is 6 cars long - and yes I know the Canada Line uses Hyundai Rotem trains but I would expect something similar here). In addition more station entrances/exits and a larger concourse would be great, for example Montreal's subway had many stations with 5 or 6 entrances (and quite far away too). This would be expensive but could become necessary. Painful yes, but not as bad when the line carries 130,000 people per day versus more like 170,000 people per day.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #550  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2018, 3:00 AM
VancouverOfTheFuture's Avatar
VancouverOfTheFuture VancouverOfTheFuture is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 3,263
so there is a lack of capacity apparently yet we are 10,000pphpd from reaching the build capacity? how does that work?

all that is needed is more trains for the neat future. sure, the system wasn't built the best, i took it for years, i know. the A/C could be more powerful, that's for sure.

but all this doomsday/stop developing on Cambie is ridiculous. we can ~ double capacity with more trains, then when that isn't enough we can take out the roughed-in false walls and spend a minimal amount of money to allow the longer platforms to take 3 car trains. so we can add 2x as many trains with each train carrying 33% more people.

seems like there is room to grow, assuming there is money to buy more trains. the flow of people isn't the greatest, but it works and really isn't that bad.


on another note, we tried having multiple entrances to a station here, and what happened? safety issues so they were closed down and filled with sand.

all this doom-and-gloom is really over the top.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #551  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2018, 3:08 AM
Reecemartin's Avatar
Reecemartin Reecemartin is offline
YouTube Creator
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Vancouver/Toronto
Posts: 1,776
[Deleted]

Last edited by Reecemartin; Nov 17, 2020 at 7:18 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #552  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2018, 3:10 AM
Reecemartin's Avatar
Reecemartin Reecemartin is offline
YouTube Creator
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Vancouver/Toronto
Posts: 1,776
[Deleted]

Last edited by Reecemartin; Nov 17, 2020 at 7:18 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #553  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2018, 3:15 AM
VancouverOfTheFuture's Avatar
VancouverOfTheFuture VancouverOfTheFuture is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 3,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reecemartin View Post
The 15,000 pphpd figure is very unrealistic given how crowded stations already are. These figures are all very much inflated (as usual with these type of projects) simply making the trains longer and running them more frequently is going to be useless. If a train takes 30 seconds (thats fast) to dwell and the platform takes 30 seconds to clear (also fast) then we will have constantly crowded platforms at 2 min frequencies. The figures that everyone loves to run around with are just like fuel efficiency measures, absolutely unrealistic best case scenarios.

The multiple entrance exit point is just silly. Every other city has them the only reason we don't is so that our toy train could be open for the olympics and fit in the budget.
there would be less crowds at station if trains came 2x as much. there wouldn't be 3 mins of people waiting, there would be 1.5 mins of people waiting.

no, that isn't the reason why the Canada-Line has 1 big entrance vs many smaller ones. it really does to do with safety/security and funnelling people into 1 entrance/exit. doesn't matter if you believe in it or not, it was tried at Stadium Station and it was filled with sand. it was also tried in Surrey and it was closed up as well. before the Canada-Line was built, the multiple entrances/exit idea had already been pretty much abandoned.


it would be dumb to expand Oakrdige to 80m long... all the other platforms are 40-50m. the canopy has nothing to do with the station, that is just architectural for the project.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #554  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2018, 3:25 AM
Reecemartin's Avatar
Reecemartin Reecemartin is offline
YouTube Creator
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Vancouver/Toronto
Posts: 1,776
[Deleted]

Last edited by Reecemartin; Nov 17, 2020 at 7:18 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #555  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2018, 3:33 AM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 16,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reecemartin View Post
The 15,000 pphpd figure is very unrealistic given how crowded stations already are. These figures are all very much inflated (as usual with these type of projects) simply making the trains longer and running them more frequently is going to be useless. If a train takes 30 seconds (thats fast) to dwell and the platform takes 30 seconds to clear (also fast) then we will have constantly crowded platforms at 2 min frequencies. The figures that everyone loves to run around with are just like fuel efficiency measures, absolutely unrealistic best case scenarios.

The multiple entrance exit point is just silly. Every other city has them the only reason we don't is so that our toy train could be open for the olympics and fit in the budget.
Not trying to pick on you or be a dick, but you seem to have two completely different personalities between the Canada Line and the Surrey LRT.

Despite the abysmal build out capacity numbers / points of conflict shown for the LRT you do your best to circumnavigate them and flower up the entire project.

You then do the complete opposite for the Canada Line which is far superior to the current Surrey LRT in all shapes and forms.

Perfect example is the second expansion for achieving max capacity. The same is planned for the Surrey LRT, yet there you spin it as a common necessity that most major transit lines go through to achieve max capacity. No for the Canada Line this is a very negative aspect that is almost discounted?

I am not completely disagreeing with you, several of the Canada Line stations do need better circulation, especially Van City Centre. Good news is all stations are pre-designed for the 50 meter expansion. Also YVR has a second platform in their future plans for YVR, and it looks like Oakridge 41st Station May get its full 50 meters plus an expanded entrance (maybe even a secondary entrance directly to the mall if Translink plays its card right) with the new mall redevelopment.

As for Van City Centre that is up to us to pester Translink and the city of Vancouver for a second entrance (preferably from the south side of the station).

Also it was largely the city of Vancouver that demanded single entrances for safety. They were also against proper underground connections because of the hippy idea of forcing everyone to street level.

Also the Broadway Subway will likely highly improve the Canada Line Broadway Station.

The Canada Line has flaws, but it is no where near as bad as being spun here. And yes, with the expanded platforms and a few key station modifications (several of them already planned as shown) the Canada Line will meet its max capacity (more than 3 times the planned max capacity of the Surrey LRT as shown in the official documents).
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/306346...h/29495547810/ and Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV0...lhxXFxuAey_q6Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #556  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2018, 3:39 AM
cabotp cabotp is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 2,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reecemartin View Post
There would be more people getting on and off which would worsen crowding. Expanding Oakridge is hardly dumb given that we are going to have to do the same at the rest of the stations eventually.

You've totally lost me on the multiple entrance and exit argument. It makes no sense? Having more exits is much safer? Allowing those exits to also act is entrances is just common sense. Funneling people yet again creates congestion and crowding...
Having more entrances provides more options for a criminal to enter and escape.

Having said that thought certain stations depending on their usage patterns do warrant more than one entrance. Typically this would be a stations where an tranfser between two different lines is going to happen.

Entrances that provide access to a station from a dark area are never a good idea.

As well if a station has multiple small entrances than you can end up with an entrance with very little foot traffic. This could allow a crime such as a purse snatching or a sexual assualt to happen. While a station that has one entrance or very few entrances will have a much higher foot traffic at that entrance and this tends to lower to probability of such a crime happening.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #557  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2018, 3:46 AM
Reecemartin's Avatar
Reecemartin Reecemartin is offline
YouTube Creator
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Vancouver/Toronto
Posts: 1,776
[Deleted]

Last edited by Reecemartin; Nov 17, 2020 at 7:18 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #558  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2018, 4:42 AM
VancouverOfTheFuture's Avatar
VancouverOfTheFuture VancouverOfTheFuture is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 3,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metro-One View Post
several of the Canada Line stations do need better circulation, especially Van City Centre. Good news is all stations are pre-designed for the 50 meter expansion. Also YVR has a second platform in their future plans for YVR, and it looks like Oakridge 41st Station May get its full 50 meters plus an expanded entrance (maybe even a secondary entrance directly to the mall if Translink plays its card right) with the new mall redevelopment.

As for Van City Centre that is up to us to pester Translink and the city of Vancouver for a second entrance (preferably from the south side of the station).

Also it was largely the city of Vancouver that demanded single entrances for safety. They were also against proper underground connections because of the hippy idea of forcing everyone to street level.

Also the Broadway Subway will likely highly improve the Canada Line Broadway Station.

The Canada Line has flaws, but it is no where near as bad as being spun here. And yes, with the expanded platforms and a few key station modifications (several of them already planned as shown) the Canada Line will meet its max capacity (more than 3 times the planned max capacity of the Surrey LRT as shown in the official documents).
very true, is everything good? no not really, but it isn't nearly as bad as people make it out to be. remember the 98 B-Line anyone? people need to remember the Canada-Line had to be rammed through against the wishes of most of the mayors. it took the Olympics, Federal, and Provincial governments to ram the thing through; and they had to give to get it built. if it were up to the cities we still wouldn't have a Canada-Line. or we might have a Surrey LRT in Richmond/Vancouver.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cabotp View Post
Having more entrances provides more options for a criminal to enter and escape.

Having said that thought certain stations depending on their usage patterns do warrant more than one entrance. Typically this would be a stations where an tranfser between two different lines is going to happen.

Entrances that provide access to a station from a dark area are never a good idea.

As well if a station has multiple small entrances than you can end up with an entrance with very little foot traffic. This could allow a crime such as a purse snatching or a sexual assualt to happen. While a station that has one entrance or very few entrances will have a much higher foot traffic at that entrance and this tends to lower to probability of such a crime happening.
on-top of that, the system was built before fare-gates, so there was no way to keep a criminal with no intention except to cause problems from getting into the system and having a low volume, sketchy escape plan. i wish we had more like NYC style entrances, 1 on each corner. maybe now that will happen in the future. they really should reopen the Stadium Station underground walkway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reecemartin View Post
Platform width is much less important than length in our case and while several of these projects "might" happen, thats not enough, they need to happen. If you want to see the infrastructure needed for 15,000pph to be reliably met look no further than the Eglinton Crosstown which has platforms more than double the length of the Canada Line AND multiple entrances and exits. Theres no way that we will be hitting that with stations like Bridgeport in their current state.
they will happen, and if more people had voted "yes" on the transit referendum, they would have been happening a lot sooner. nahh, i will pass on copying Toronto, we don't need that mess here.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #559  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2018, 5:06 AM
Dave2 Dave2 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 511
Quote:
Originally Posted by dleung View Post
Terminus stations are always center platform because passengers can board the next train whichever side it arrives in. It should've been the case for Brighouse, but now, doubletracking with a switch just before the station is the only bandaid solution now that the station can't expand east due to new development.

FYI, this wasn't a budget issue. Doubletrack was originally intended, but the geriatrics at Richmond city council didn't like the heavy guideway ruining the quaint arterial that is No 3 Road, and wanted an at-grade LRT, but settled on single-track for less "visual impact".
Huh? King George and VCC-Clark are terminus stations with side platforms.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #560  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2018, 5:32 AM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Kitsilano/Fairview
Posts: 8,335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reecemartin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture View Post
there would be less crowds at station if trains came 2x as much. there wouldn't be 3 mins of people waiting, there would be 1.5 mins of people waiting...

... it would be dumb to expand Oakrdige to 80m long... all the other platforms are 40-50m. the canopy has nothing to do with the station, that is just architectural for the project.
There would be more people getting on and off which would worsen crowding. Expanding Oakridge is hardly dumb given that we are going to have to do the same at the rest of the stations eventually.
Those people will be "getting on and off" in 90 second intervals, down from 180 seconds. So of the crowds we're used to seeing on the Canada, the "off" crowd will still have cleared the platform in time for the next train, and the "on" crowd will be cut in half (the first half takes the in-between train, the second waits for the next one). As stated, foot traffic is still manageable until we hit 10k pphpd.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reecemartin View Post
Platform width is much less important than length in our case and while several of these projects "might" happen, thats not enough, they need to happen. If you want to see the infrastructure needed for 15,000pph to be reliably met look no further than the Eglinton Crosstown which has platforms more than double the length of the Canada Line AND multiple entrances and exits. Theres no way that we will be hitting that with stations like Bridgeport in their current state.
When you've got ten people from the 1st door + ten from the 2nd door + ten from the 3rd (and so on) trying to squeeze through the same two metres of platform to the escalator, it seems evident that length doesn't solve crowding - it exacerbates it.

As for Bridgeport, the problem is all the passengers that get off the Richmond train and wait for the YVR train (or vice versa); again, half the waiting period means half the crowd.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reecemartin View Post
With regards to the Surrey LRT even at full build out there is no comparison between the densities on the corridors. The Canada Line links several pieces of the regions most key infrastructure (airport, 2 largest employment centres, several of the largest malls). The Surrey LRT does not need to do the same. The funds are also significantly less for the LRT.
So Surrey doesn't want to build an urban high-rise forest that rivals downtown Vancouver, Brentwood and Metrotown?



I'm afraid that if they want this, they're going to need a SkyTrain to match; Portland streetcars won't cut it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
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 8:39 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.