HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #10061  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2012, 5:20 AM
officedweller officedweller is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 26,185
I was actually thinking more of the condos to the north near the water - Leg in Boot Square, around Monk's, etc.
Does sort of support the original designation as a "future" station.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10062  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2012, 5:28 AM
mr.x's Avatar
mr.x mr.x is offline
with glowing hearts
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: █♣█ Vancouver, British Columbia
Posts: 12,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by officedweller View Post
I was actually thinking more of the condos to the north near the water - Leg in Boot Square, around Monk's, etc.
Does sort of support the original designation as a "future" station.
I believe the City of Vancouver's reasoning behind building Olympic Village Station also had to do with redeveloping the site the station is on...it's supposed to be a very significant development with entertainment facilities which I believe included floating around the idea of a multiplex theatre.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10063  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2012, 5:33 AM
SFUVancouver's Avatar
SFUVancouver SFUVancouver is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Kelowna
Posts: 5,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr.x View Post
I believe the City of Vancouver's reasoning behind building Olympic Village Station also had to do with redeveloping the site the station is on...it's supposed to be a very significant development with entertainment facilities which I believe included floating around the idea of a multiplex theatre.
That's the first time I've heard about any sort of entertainment facilities on that parcel. I gathered it was likely going to be some form of office and retail project, likely with a residential component, too.
__________________
VANCOUVER | Beautiful, Multicultural | Canada's Pacific Metropolis
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10064  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2012, 5:39 AM
jlousa's Avatar
jlousa jlousa is online now
Ferris Wheel Hater
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,008
Never heard that either and I would've, think you have things mixed up.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10065  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2012, 5:42 AM
mr.x's Avatar
mr.x mr.x is offline
with glowing hearts
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: █♣█ Vancouver, British Columbia
Posts: 12,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlousa View Post
Never heard that either and I would've, think you have things mixed up.
Perhaps...this is from memory 7 years ago.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10066  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2012, 11:13 PM
jsbertram jsbertram is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by nname View Post
TransLink does not separate Expo and Millennium line in the counting (they're in the same gated area anyways)...
But shouldn't the two platforms be considered different for counting?

The upper Expo / Millennium platform south of Broadway would have different volumes of people than the lower Millennium platform north of Broadway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10067  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2012, 11:32 PM
nname nname is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,974
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbertram View Post
But shouldn't the two platforms be considered different for counting?

The upper Expo / Millennium platform south of Broadway would have different volumes of people than the lower Millennium platform north of Broadway.
I don't think that is what TransLink wanted. The count they did in 2011 count the platform entrance/exits, but to calculate SkyTrain ridership, TransLink always uses station entrance/exits.

Currently, this is how "official" ridership count works on SkyTrain...

1. Going from Brentwood to Downtown: 1 trip, 1 boarding
2. Going from Brentwood to Richmond via Downtown: 1 trip, 2 boardings
3. Going from Lougheed to Surrey Central: 1 trip, 1 boarding
4. Going from Yaletown to Main Street via Waterfront: 1 trip, 2 boardings
5. Going from Airport to Richmond: 1 trip, 1 boarding

The counting that the contractor did count all those scenarios as 2 boardings except for #2 (3 boardings) and #5 (since Canada Line numbers are taken from the counter at station entrance). This is why the total boardings is 45k higher than the official SkyTrain ridership. TransLink stated that they are looking into a way to filter out these 45k in future counting (I guess compass card solves this issue?)

I wonder why are they doing these though.. as most other agency count the station "boarding" as the number of people entering the train, which means there should be 2 to 3 boardings for every scenarios above
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10068  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2012, 11:34 PM
jsbertram jsbertram is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by officedweller View Post
I was actually thinking more of the condos to the north near the water - Leg in Boot Square, around Monk's, etc.
Does sort of support the original designation as a "future" station.
I recall that the 'TBM launch box' had to be dug there so the TBM could be assembled and begin the bores under False Creek to Yaletown & then down Granville Street to Waterfront. Since the hole was already there, it was decided to build the Olympic Village station in the pit after the TBM work was finished.

It's easier to build the station while the dirt is already removed and the tunnels are still under construction, rather than 'cut in' a new station in a few decades while the C-Line is running.

We'll see how easy this 'just add the station later' thinking works out when the 33rd Ave and 57th Ave stations are added to the C-Line in the future.
I won't be surprised if the cost reaches $100 million per station.
I also won't be surprised if the area residents & businesses go ballistic when those parts of Cambie St need to be dug up again for several years while the new station is built.

Granpa said it best: "do it RIGHT the first time"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10069  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2012, 11:46 PM
officedweller officedweller is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 26,185
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbertram View Post
I recall that the 'TBM launch box' had to be dug there so the TBM could be assembled and begin the bores under False Creek to Yaletown & then down Granville Street to Waterfront. Since the hole was already there, it was decided to build the Olympic Village station in the pit after the TBM work was finished.

It's easier to build the station while the dirt is already removed and the tunnels are still under construction, rather than 'cut in' a new station in a few decades while the C-Line is running.

We'll see how easy this 'just add the station later' thinking works out when the 33rd Ave and 57th Ave stations are added to the C-Line in the future.
I won't be surprised if the cost reaches $100 million per station.
I also won't be surprised if the area residents & businesses go ballistic when those parts of Cambie St need to be dug up again for several years while the new station is built.

Granpa said it best: "do it RIGHT the first time"
The City of Vancouver wanted it built "now" rather than in the future - so it coughed up $12M to build it. I do recall talk of a mixed use project for the site - but nothing as specific as including a theatre (which sounds like Marine Gateway).

I'm also wondering about the 33rd Ave site as it may involve some blasting to dig out the rock immediately adjacent to the station box.

You would think the CoV would be putting some of the DCL money from Cambie development into a fund for the 33rd Ave. station - or are they?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10070  
Old Posted Nov 30, 2012, 12:38 AM
mr.x's Avatar
mr.x mr.x is offline
with glowing hearts
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: █♣█ Vancouver, British Columbia
Posts: 12,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbertram View Post
I recall that the 'TBM launch box' had to be dug there so the TBM could be assembled and begin the bores under False Creek to Yaletown & then down Granville Street to Waterfront. Since the hole was already there, it was decided to build the Olympic Village station in the pit after the TBM work was finished.

It's easier to build the station while the dirt is already removed and the tunnels are still under construction, rather than 'cut in' a new station in a few decades while the C-Line is running.

We'll see how easy this 'just add the station later' thinking works out when the 33rd Ave and 57th Ave stations are added to the C-Line in the future.
I won't be surprised if the cost reaches $100 million per station.
I also won't be surprised if the area residents & businesses go ballistic when those parts of Cambie St need to be dug up again for several years while the new station is built.

Granpa said it best: "do it RIGHT the first time"
By the time we get to considerations for building the underground future stations on Cambie, we will realize that there's no point in building them if the Canada Line wouldn't be able to handle the additional ridership.

I am highly doubtful the underground future stations will happen. And that might be a good thing, although one that's also...well, tragic in a sense lol....given the reasoning.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10071  
Old Posted Nov 30, 2012, 2:52 PM
Rico Rico is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr.x View Post
By the time we get to considerations for building the underground future stations on Cambie, we will realize that there's no point in building them if the Canada Line wouldn't be able to handle the additional ridership.

I am highly doubtful the underground future stations will happen. And that might be a good thing, although one that's also...well, tragic in a sense lol....given the reasoning.
Someone should correct me if I am wrong but I thought headways on the Canada Line during rush hour are currently at 3.5min and the system can go down to 90sec headways? If that is true...and I think it is... we can more than double capacity just by adding more trains. Of course the stations seem pretty narrow to me and at double the people I imagine they will have to build extra exits on some of the busier stations....Personally I would love to see a station at 33rd although I realize it maybe a pipe dream due to the cost.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10072  
Old Posted Nov 30, 2012, 7:54 PM
Smooth's Avatar
Smooth Smooth is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 894
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rico View Post
Someone should correct me if I am wrong but I thought headways on the Canada Line during rush hour are currently at 3.5min and the system can go down to 90sec headways? If that is true...and I think it is... we can more than double capacity just by adding more trains. Of course the stations seem pretty narrow to me and at double the people I imagine they will have to build extra exits on some of the busier stations....Personally I would love to see a station at 33rd although I realize it maybe a pipe dream due to the cost.
I think the exact rush hour headways right now are about 3 minutes & 18 seconds.

I've been told that the system can only go down to about 2.5 minute headways. Apparently the limiting factor is the single track section in Richmond.

Any major increase in capacity would likely come from adding a 3rd train and knocking down false walls to extend station platforms.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10073  
Old Posted Nov 30, 2012, 10:15 PM
mr.x's Avatar
mr.x mr.x is offline
with glowing hearts
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: █♣█ Vancouver, British Columbia
Posts: 12,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rico View Post
Someone should correct me if I am wrong but I thought headways on the Canada Line during rush hour are currently at 3.5min and the system can go down to 90sec headways? If that is true...and I think it is... we can more than double capacity just by adding more trains. Of course the stations seem pretty narrow to me and at double the people I imagine they will have to build extra exits on some of the busier stations....Personally I would love to see a station at 33rd although I realize it maybe a pipe dream due to the cost.
Currently, the Canada Line uses about 130,000 of its ultimate 300,000/day capacity, which includes extending the platforms by the allowable length of 10-metres.

As Smooth mentioned, the Richmond single track section restrains it from going to 90 secs...although the computer would certainly allow it. Both single tracking sections at Richmond and YVR are 800-metres long, and it takes roughly just over a minute for a train to travel along that 800-metre span in one direction....and of course, only one train can be in that single tracked section at any one time.

I wonder how long it'll take for No. 3 Road to be ripped up again to add another track. Not sure how they'd add a second platform to Richmond-Brighouse either considering there's no space for it.

And as you mentioned, even if they did increase capacity towards its maximum 300,000/day capacity the station passageways, concourses, and entrances are fare too small to handle that type of traffic....and this also now includes having a sufficient number of fare gates, but in most stations they've maxed out on the space in the fare gate concourse area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10074  
Old Posted Nov 30, 2012, 10:55 PM
aberdeen5698 aberdeen5698 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr.x View Post
As Smooth mentioned, the Richmond single track section restrains it from going to 90 secs...
Just to clarify - does that headway restriction apply just to the Richmond section? In other words, if trains left Richmond every 3 minutes and also left the Airport every 3 minutes, could the interleaved headway on the section inbound of Bridgeport be 90 seconds?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10075  
Old Posted Nov 30, 2012, 11:04 PM
nname nname is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,974
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr.x View Post
I wonder how long it'll take for No. 3 Road to be ripped up again to add another track. Not sure how they'd add a second platform to Richmond-Brighouse either considering there's no space for it.
Well, they could also turn it into a loop following No.3, Granville, Garden City, and Lansdowne. This solves both the space and rebuild issues..
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10076  
Old Posted Nov 30, 2012, 11:45 PM
Zassk Zassk is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,303
Quote:
Originally Posted by nname View Post
Well, they could also turn it into a loop following No.3, Granville, Garden City, and Lansdowne. This solves both the space and rebuild issues..
Stephen Rees also suggested this loop solution, although if it were to be built, I would prefer it to loop to the west instead, to service the new density being built toward the oval. To the east, the downtown is basically up against the ALR.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10077  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2012, 1:57 AM
officedweller officedweller is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 26,185
Quote:
Originally Posted by aberdeen5698 View Post
Just to clarify - does that headway restriction apply just to the Richmond section? In other words, if trains left Richmond every 3 minutes and also left the Airport every 3 minutes, could the interleaved headway on the section inbound of Bridgeport be 90 seconds?
I think both single track segments that would impact headways - but remember they can short-turn trains at Bridgeport to shorten headways on the mainline.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10078  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2012, 2:07 AM
nname nname is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,974
Quote:
Originally Posted by officedweller View Post
I think both single track segments that would impact headways - but remember they can short-turn trains at Bridgeport to shorten headways on the mainline.
They can even short-turn at Lansdowne...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10079  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2012, 6:37 AM
cornholio cornholio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,748
A loop is a interesting idea, and you can also implement a shuttle train to only service the loop to handle demand between stations within the loop. Say one train running only the loop and the rest going to/from Waterfront. Assuming 90 second frequencies within the loop would give you a 240 second frequency of the shuttle trains and a 120 second frequency of the Waterfront to Bridgeport trains, allowing a comfortable 240 second Bridge port to Airport frequency and a resulting 90 second Bridgeport to Waterfront frequency...obviously the actually timings and frequencies can be played around with so these numbers are just examples. Can go say 480 second shuttle frequency, assuming it might take 8 min to run the loop would leave you with just one train running as the shuttle train, then 120 second loop to Bridge port frequency with a combined 90 second loop frequency, and a 180 second airport to Bridgeport frequency and a combined 75 second Bridgeport to Waterfront frequency (putting you at probably the theoretical max frequency of the the system along the Bridgeport to Waterfront segment)...

Richmond would need to start planing for this now though and begin assembling the right of way, most of it would be along existing roads and only cutting over one property, the bottom left corner would cut over public land so should not be too difficult to do and the bottom right hand corner would cut over the city hall land, again public land so should be able to use some creativity to cut the corner.

*Also with the double tracking by Landsdowne the shuttle train staying within the loop would have a staging area making it easier to time its re entry in to the loop without negatively effecting overall maximum system frequency and capacity.


Actually looks like a cool set up assuming no continuation of the Canada line further south, which is unlikely any time soon and a LRT or BRT would probably suffice for close to ever utilizing Richmond s flat grid system with extra long blocks.

Last edited by cornholio; Dec 1, 2012 at 7:04 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10080  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2012, 9:42 AM
mr.x's Avatar
mr.x mr.x is offline
with glowing hearts
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: █♣█ Vancouver, British Columbia
Posts: 12,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornholio View Post
A loop is a interesting idea, and you can also implement a shuttle train to only service the loop to handle demand between stations within the loop. Say one train running only the loop and the rest going to/from Waterfront. Assuming 90 second frequencies within the loop would give you a 240 second frequency of the shuttle trains and a 120 second frequency of the Waterfront to Bridgeport trains, allowing a comfortable 240 second Bridge port to Airport frequency and a resulting 90 second Bridgeport to Waterfront frequency...obviously the actually timings and frequencies can be played around with so these numbers are just examples. Can go say 480 second shuttle frequency, assuming it might take 8 min to run the loop would leave you with just one train running as the shuttle train, then 120 second loop to Bridge port frequency with a combined 90 second loop frequency, and a 180 second airport to Bridgeport frequency and a combined 75 second Bridgeport to Waterfront frequency (putting you at probably the theoretical max frequency of the the system along the Bridgeport to Waterfront segment)...

Richmond would need to start planing for this now though and begin assembling the right of way, most of it would be along existing roads and only cutting over one property, the bottom left corner would cut over public land so should not be too difficult to do and the bottom right hand corner would cut over the city hall land, again public land so should be able to use some creativity to cut the corner.

*Also with the double tracking by Landsdowne the shuttle train staying within the loop would have a staging area making it easier to time its re entry in to the loop without negatively effecting overall maximum system frequency and capacity.


Actually looks like a cool set up assuming no continuation of the Canada line further south, which is unlikely any time soon and a LRT or BRT would probably suffice for close to ever utilizing Richmond s flat grid system with extra long blocks.
That's actually not half-bad, although I'm on the fence - seems like it could be a little convoluted in execution.

Basically, it'll be a people-mover system....for an urban area....a lot like the 5-km single-tracked Detroit People Mover, which happens to actually use Bombardier's ALRT. That system is one continuous loop around Downtown Detroit.

Considering all the development happening near the Oval, as well as the Oval itself, it might be wise to have a station right in the immediate vicinity of the oval neighbourhood.
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 5:38 AM.

     

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