Canada Line races toward capacity

[Zassk]

As far as I know, the convention centre is on the backburner, but in the long term vision for the future entertainment district around Bridgeport.

Basically, the City of Richmond changed their Olympics contribution from roughly $60 million convention centre into about $80 million oval. The commitment to invest was there from the start (unlike with Burnaby).

Several years' worth of gaming money was earmarked to pay for it. Recall that Richmond gets the most gaming money in BC each year thanks to River Rock, which is not only the most successful casino, but consistently exceeds its forecasts.

[officedweller]

Thanks.

A convention centre near Bridgeport would be interesting -
I was thinking closer to the hotels west of No. 3 Rd.

[Klazu]

Few random Canada Line cell phone photos.

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[nname]

Once the new cars arrive, there should be plenty of capacity at 10,000pphpd.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

I noticed this thread hasn't seen a post in a long time, with the Broadway extension appearing imminent in the next 10 years more now than ever it seems Translink will need to have an eye to the future for capacity improvements.

I was wondering, how much are the current capacity numbers increased by the recently removed seating?

Removing 10 seats might squeeze in a few more people but I doubt it would do much to the capacity numbers.

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[nname]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

I'd imagine eventually they will remove all the seats and replace them with bench style which is much more space efficient. Hopefully Translink will eventually be able to get trainsets with swing up bench style seating like on HART prototypes and with four doors per car. I'd imagine if they did this as well as had the trains extend slightly past the platform you could nearly double per train capacity.

I don't really think they would have to go that far, as the new train for 2019(?) would provide a nice 45% boost in capacity (in comparison, the new SkyTrain cars for 2009 gave a 25% boost, and the next order for E/M line will only give about 12%). I think the Broadway extension would both add and remove riders from the busiest segment of Canada Line, as it provides a way for people from the east to bypass downtown completely. In fact, the only reason I'm taking the busiest portion of Canada Line right now is due to the lack of connection to the Millennium Line.

[retro_orange]

Is it just me or do the seats on the Canada Line trains seem a bit large yet quite uncomfortable?

After taking the Canada Line and the Skytrain recently I was wondering if they switched out all the seats on the Canada Line trains for the seating they use on the new Skytrain cars. Would they would have more floor area for people to stand with the same number of seats.

Another issue I have with the Canada Line seating is that they were designed for people to put their suitcases beneath the seats yet in practice there are no signs to indicate that this is the idea but more glaringly the floor is often too dirty to do so.

Often I see someone with several suitcases sitting in the isle seat with their largest case in the isle and another on their lap or on the floor of the window seat, blocking access to the window seat. I really feel there should be a single seat on one side of the car or on one side switch out the front facing seats for a side facing bench running the length of the train. (space planning skills at work)

Anyone have the measurements?

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[trofirhen]

What are the tightest headways possible on the Canada Line? If it's too big a task to lengthen all platforms - and it may be - it seems the only answer is trains as close together as can be.

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

I actually wonder what the feasibility of extending platforms 15 meters on both ends would be in addition to the 10m that was planned for. Do that and you can have a 5 car Canada Line Train that would double the systems effective capacity and actually give Vancouver it's first "true" full loading gauge metro.

I believe the station box is excavated and concrete poured for only 10 meter extensions. From what I understand is any extension beyond that you'd have to dig up the ground and expand the station box, meaning very expensive and disruptive.

[ilikeredheads]

Originally Posted by Jebby

I believe the station box is excavated and concrete poured for only 10 meter extensions. From what I understand is any extension beyond that you'd have to dig up the ground and expand the station box, meaning very expensive and disruptive.

That's not the biggest problem. Bridgeport Station will limit how much your can extend the platforms for the rest of the line because it is sandwiched right between 2 switches. Both switches are important to daily operations as one is where the branches merge while the other is used by trains returning to depot. One quick look at google map and you'll see that there's no room for it to expand beyond the extra 10m that was taken into account during planning.

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[Rico]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

What are the tightest headways possible on the Canada Line? If it's too big a task to lengthen all platforms - and it may be - it seems the only answer is trains as close together as can be.

Unlike the Expo/Millennium lines I think 2 minutes on the common section is the minimum headway. I think this is not just governed by the single track segments but by the Waterfront configuration. That said it will take quite awhile before the line is over the capacity of the new train order and probably another 50 or 60 years till it would be past the capacity of extended stations/trains...and at that point the obvious solution is not to spend a tonne of money extending capacity further but to build a parallel line somewhere like Arbutus.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Rico

Unlike the Expo/Millennium lines I think 2 minutes on the common section is the minimum headway. I think this is not just governed by the single track segments but by the Waterfront configuration.

There's nothing in the configuration at Waterfront that would prevent 90 second headways. There are times that the Expo line Waterfront tail track is out of service and they do just fine with the switches on the outbound side of the platform.

The bottleneck is on the single tracked sections in Richmond and at YVR. It takes around 180 seconds to turn trains around on them, so if trains are split to alternate evenly between the two branches at Bridgeport you can maintain a 90-second interval on the shared portion of the line.

[casper]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

I suppose it all comes down to how desperate we become. I think as I said before if new trains with more doors and retractable seats along with some station improvements we can probably hit 22,000 pphpd.

At that point I time, it may become a better option to build a second set of track down a parallel route.... As it turns out the city just purchased such a route. How convenient.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

There's nothing in the configuration at Waterfront that would prevent 90 second headways. There are times that the Expo line Waterfront tail track is out of service and they do just fine with the switches on the outbound side of the platform.

The bottleneck is on the single tracked sections in Richmond and at YVR. It takes around 180 seconds to turn trains around on them, so if trains are split to alternate evenly between the two branches at Bridgeport you can maintain a 90-second interval on the shared portion of the line.

I've noticed that when trains depart Brighouse, they go through the switch closest to Lansdowne, meaning the train approaching Lansdowne has to stop before the station for what I assume is safety incase something goes awry. If it goes through the first switch, would it improve the frequency at all?