HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

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

Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #3041  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2011, 2:13 AM
logan5's Avatar
logan5 logan5 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Mt.Pleasant
Posts: 4,057
I wonder if it's too late to switch to a cut and cover tunnel for the 1.7 km North Rd./Clarke section, instead of having an elevated guide-way running down the middle of the street. North Rd./Clarke is the main drag for the neighborhood and would be where you would want to develop it as the main focal point, where you would try to recreate another Main St. or Commercial Dr.

What would that add to the cost to go cut and cover, another 150 million? In the long run I'd say it's worth it. At the very least put the guide-way off to the side like they have in Richmond. You can still have retail space under the guide way and mitigate its negative effect, like they've done in Berlin.
     
     
  #3042  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2011, 2:15 AM
GeeCee's Avatar
GeeCee GeeCee is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Port Coquitlam, BC
Posts: 2,493
Quote:
Originally Posted by logan5 View Post
I wonder if it's too late to switch to a cut and cover tunnel for the 1.7 km North Rd./Clarke section, instead of having an elevated guide-way running down the middle of the street. North Rd./Clarke is the main drag for the neighborhood and would be where you would want to develop it as the main focal point, where you would try to recreate another Main St. or Commercial Dr.

What would that add to the cost to go cut and cover, another 150 million? In the long run I'd say it's worth it. At the very least put the guide-way off to the side like they have in Richmond. You can still have retail space under the guide way and mitigate its negative effect, like they've done in Berlin.
Cut and cover isn't really possible in this case because of the depth of the tunnel required to deal with the grade at snake hill. Also there are a ton of houses and crap in the area that are also necessary to go under in order to deal with the grade / curve.
     
     
  #3043  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2011, 2:25 AM
Canadian Mind's Avatar
Canadian Mind Canadian Mind is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,921
Would it be a crime for me to admit I actually prefer an elevated guideway? Granted, there are some places where it would be best underground, but I actually like what can be done with an elevated guideway. The Canada Line in Richmond is an excellent example. it's an amazing riders experience without doing anything that degrades street-level vitality. If anything I'd argue that the elevated guideway makes the area underneath feel more intimate, and cozy.
__________________
"you're eating chicken periods" - Vid
"I love eggs, especially the ones with runny yolks" - Me
"EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW, you're disgusting!" - Vid
     
     
  #3044  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2011, 3:02 AM
Millennium2002 Millennium2002 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,699
I know that the double decker seems impractical, but I'm also somewhat irked out at how they're keeping that speed bump that is currently roughed in... unless they want that as a monument to the many false starts of this project?

Reminds me, another nitpick... which is more agreeable... the fact that they want to rebrand almost the entire Millennium Line as the Evergreen Line is going to be confusing for familiar passengers once the extension is opened...

As for the debate about the best layout of Lougheed Station... I can say that BCPhil's theory about not having to change platforms during track disruptions elsewhere works to some extent, but unfortunately it relies on a single point of failure in either of the two switches to the east of Lougheed Station which can essentially grind the system to a halt:



Also in the lower half of that picture are two possible ways of remedying the situation somewhat, although the Millennium Line from the south will probably still have some redundancy issues... =S and both alternatives also rely on them removing that speed bump...
     
     
  #3045  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2011, 4:09 AM
Zassk Zassk is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,303
There's no reason to assume that the 'bump' will be retained by any of the shortlisted contractors. I'm sure it 's easy enough to rip out those few tens of meters of rising guideway when rebuilding Lougheed Station.
     
     
  #3046  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2011, 5:28 AM
cc85 cc85 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Island City
Posts: 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by adrianroam95 View Post
I wonder why they changed their minds about having the elevated portion run on the west side of North Road; now, the plans call for it running along the centre.


It's likely run down the street as it demarcates the municipal boundary between Burnaby and Coquitlam. If there are no technical issues forcing the guideway to the east or west side of the street then it makes diplomatic sense to share the burden between the two cities rather than subjecting one city to an urban obstacle.
     
     
  #3047  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2011, 6:08 AM
aberdeen5698 aberdeen5698 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian Mind View Post
Would it be a crime for me to admit I actually prefer an elevated guideway?
Absolutely not. I too am strongly in favour of elevated guideways where practicable. They make the transit experience far, far more enjoyable than a dark, noisy tunnel. Hundreds of thousands of people every day benefit from that, something which IMHO is very significant and which nobody ever seems to mention.

I think we really missed the boat by burying the Canada Line underground between Marine and King Edward. Here we have a wonderful transit line directly from the airport to the city centre, and yet we go and hide all our visiting tourists in a dark tunnel instead of showcasing one of the world's most beautiful cities.

Madness.
     
     
  #3048  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2011, 8:46 AM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 27,005
Speaking of views from the train - it's also unfortunate that the current allignment has the guideway passing under Barnet Highway at Port Moody, rather than the original proposal of exitting "mid-cliff" above and over Barnet Highway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by adrianroam95 View Post
I wonder why they changed their minds about having the elevated portion run on the west side of North Road; now, the plans call for it running along the centre.
I think it's because neither Burnaby nor Coquitlam wanted it on their side of North Road.
That's also what prevents a future station at Cameron Rd. (a side of road allignment would have been easier to rough in a level section of track for a station, as there woudl be no need for a mezzanine)
     
     
  #3049  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2011, 9:32 AM
TransitFreak TransitFreak is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by deasine View Post
In Leftcoaster's proposed platform reassignment and yours in the above, why would there be a need for the trains flipped back? Looking at the map again, the train direction will already be on the right side.
If the double decker basket weave guideway is built as intended, then (assuming right ways movement) VCC bound trains would be forced to the middle track, and Douglas bound trains would have to be forced to originate from the unfinished 3rd track. If you wanted to switch these directions around, then (assuming the basket weave in place) VCC-bound trains would be coming from the wrong direction from Burquitlam, and Douglas bound trains would be headed in the wrong direction from Lougheed. This is taking only the 'Coquitlam' and 'Vancouver' platforms, and flipping them and the effects of train movement with a basket weave/double decker flyover scenario.

Quote:
Originally Posted by deasine View Post
In Leftcoaster's proposed platform reassignment and yours in the above, why would there be a need for the trains flipped back? Looking at the map again, the train direction will already be on the right side.
You're correct, there's no need to flip the trains IF the Coquitlam and Vancouver platforms were switched AND the basket weave fly-over WAS NOT built. I was trying to figure out the implications of having the basket weave in place and trying to change platform arrangements.

Quote:
Originally Posted by deasine View Post
I'm quite sure the cost of the flyover (and I still don't understand why it can't be a fly-under) would be comparable to the cost of filling in the current third tracks and building a new guideway.
This would be the best option, as it would be all cross platform loading. It would be cool to see the Millenium train in the middle track with both side doors open to accept passengers from either Evergreen train. The only conflict would be the Douglas bound trains interfering with the inbound Millenium line train for a brief section.
     
     
  #3050  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2011, 5:12 PM
Mininari Mininari is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Victoria (formerly Port Moody, then Winnipeg)
Posts: 2,308
Quote:
Originally Posted by officedweller View Post
Speaking of views from the train - it's also unfortunate that the current allignment has the guideway passing under Barnet Highway at Port Moody, rather than the original proposal of exitting "mid-cliff" above and over Barnet Highway.
This is something that goes way back to Trasolini and Co.'s original opposition to "any elevated structures whatsoever in the city of Port Moody" for rapid transit.

Clearly elevated structures will destroy what little character-value Port Moody has left, and will make it just another urban cesspool of surbanity.
     
     
  #3051  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2011, 6:13 PM
tom_g tom_g is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Port Moody, BC
Posts: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mininari View Post
Clearly elevated structures will destroy what little character-value Port Moody has left, and will make it just another urban cesspool of surbanity.
I've never understood the argument around maintaining the 'charm' of Moody Centre. And as a resident of Port Moody, I never visit this part of town, never consider it. yes there's the odd cool heritage building lying around, but the evergreen line can only bring good things whether above ground or at grade.

I would however argue that there is character value in Port Moody, but it's a younger more urban character around Newport and Suter Brook that will benefit from the new train.
     
     
  #3052  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2011, 10:05 PM
TransitFreak TransitFreak is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 188


Great schematic...I had a question regarding Alternative #2...I don't think I've ever seen a 'cross-over', on the regular line at least, for the Expo/Millenium lines. Is that possible? I know the switches involve movement of the 'frog' (?) so that there's always a continuous solid rail track for the trains.

Put it this way, I don't see the traditional switch and cross-over styles that you see with the Canada Line on the Expo/Millenium line. Perhaps it's an operational issue for the Bombardier trains to have continuous rail?
     
     
  #3053  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2011, 10:17 PM
Mininari Mininari is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Victoria (formerly Port Moody, then Winnipeg)
Posts: 2,308
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom_g View Post
I've never understood the argument around maintaining the 'charm' of Moody Centre. And as a resident of Port Moody, I never visit this part of town, never consider it. yes there's the odd cool heritage building lying around, but the evergreen line can only bring good things whether above ground or at grade.

I would however argue that there is character value in Port Moody, but it's a younger more urban character around Newport and Suter Brook that will benefit from the new train.
Bingo.
I grew up in Port Moody, and lived there for 25 years before moving to Winnipeg for University (for both my wife and I). We have an 85-year old house in a full-scale 'heritage' neighbourhood called 'Wolseley' here in Winnipeg (hundreds of old houses, nestled together in a grid-street-network with tree-lined boulevards), and Sorry Joe (Trasolini), no part of Port Moody compares in any way...

And yes, the evergreen line can only bring good things in a younger, urban character, part of a dense liveable region, which is what the GVRD is being forced to become by high demand and limited geography.
     
     
  #3054  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2011, 10:42 PM
deasine deasine is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,715
Quote:
Originally Posted by TransitFreak View Post
Great schematic...I had a question regarding Alternative #2...I don't think I've ever seen a 'cross-over', on the regular line at least, for the Expo/Millenium lines. Is that possible? I know the switches involve movement of the 'frog' (?) so that there's always a continuous solid rail track for the trains.

Put it this way, I don't see the traditional switch and cross-over styles that you see with the Canada Line on the Expo/Millenium line. Perhaps it's an operational issue for the Bombardier trains to have continuous rail?
It's a good point: the E/M Lines do not indeed have frog or "X" rail crossings. Looking at other ART networks, however, these crossings do exist:
Clearly, it is possible, but I wonder if there are limitations to these switches resulting in its limited use in certain systems (perhaps trains need to slow down significantly to use crossings, thus only usually found where trains slow down near stations or at OMC).

Going back to allan_kuan's schematic proposals, it's important to note that the alternatives outlined require extensive work with existing rail infrastructure, potentially resulting in disruptions during construction to the system.
     
     
  #3055  
Old Posted Nov 15, 2011, 12:43 AM
Zassk Zassk is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,303


The number of switches (in any of these scenarios) is simply appalling. The whole station ought to be rebuilt from scratch. Surely, reducing the complexity of the tracks would pay for itself in the long term.
     
     
  #3056  
Old Posted Nov 15, 2011, 2:53 AM
nname nname is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,112
The 6 switches on the right side of the station doesn't really count as they are located quite far away (the Millennium one is actually used for storage track rather than train reversing). If you take those out, the number of switches I've counted is 10. The absolute minimum number of switches needed for the branch with 3 platforms is 2 (switch before reaching the station for both directions). Since its a terminus station, to be able to reverse the train both before and after the station (better flexibility) would require a crossover on each of the 3 branches. This adds 2x3 = 6 switches and it gives a minimum requirement of 8 switches. So we're just 2 switches above the minimum. From the diagram, these two extra switches actually come from the double crossover for the Millennium branch.

A similar branching with 4 platforms is used for the Taipei metro. Since the system is not driver-less, layover and train reversal can only be done inside the station. The design is much more complex - 18 switches, 2 frog switches, and 2 flyovers. Since the train is also much longer, the entire system of switches and flyovers span 3 stations and is almost 2km in length! I wonder if anyone know any other example of this design around the world..
     
     
  #3057  
Old Posted Nov 15, 2011, 4:45 AM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 27,005
MacArthur on BaRT comes to mind, but I don't know the track map.
     
     
  #3058  
Old Posted Nov 15, 2011, 6:02 AM
jsbertram jsbertram is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,183
The "platform fill-in" concept is not mine, I was just commenting on why it is unlikely that Translink and/or the selected contractor would spend extra time & money to cover up the unfinished track bed that was included when Lougheed Station was originally built and then build new tracks on the north side of the north platform.

That being said however, using the existing unfinished track bed and adding a new crossover east of the station to the ‘main platform track’ can allow for Millennium trains and Evergreen trains to use the same Lougheed Station main platform while also using the north platform as a separate terminal.

I've being working with this drawing to sort out tracks, switches and train movements of this atypical station that has two tracks to the west, changing to three platform tracks, and then changing to four tracks to the east of the station, and the running of two different routes through this station.


Uploaded with ImageShack.us


a) Millennium Line routing through Lougheed Station


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Tracks not needed for train movements are greyed out to highlight the active tracks and switches.

This is the routing of Millennium trains that we are familiar with it today.

Eastbound Millennium trains to Braid and onwards to Columbia use the tracks (shown light blue) on the south side of the main platform. Trains on this route go straight through switch 152 before entering the station, and then go straight through switch 156 when leaving the station.

Westbound Millennium trains to Production Way and onwards to VCC use the tracks (shown dark blue) on the north side of the main platform. Trains on this route arrive on the tracks from Braid (shown red) and take switch 161 to switch 160, which is a portion of the existing crossover from switch 162 to switch 160 (shown purple). Trains on this routing go straight through switches 159, 158 and 157 before entering the station, and also go straight through switches 153 and 154 when leaving the station.


b) Evergreen Line routing through Lougheed Station


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Eastbound Evergreen trains to Douglas College use the tracks (shown light blue) on the south side of the main platform. Trains on this route go straight through switch 152 before entering the station, but when leaving the station they take switch 156 to switch 159 using the existing crossover (shown purple) and go straight through switch 160 so they are on the new Eastbound track (shown dark blue) to Douglas College.

Westbound Evergreen trains to Production Way and onwards to VCC use the tracks (shown dark blue) on the north side of the main platform. Trains on this route arrive on the tracks (shown green) from Douglas College and take switch 158B to switch 158 using the crossover (shown yellow). Trains on this route go straight through switch 157 before entering the station, and go straight through switches 153 and 154 when leaving the station.

The new set of switches (labelled 158 and 158B) and new crossover between them (shown yellow) does away with the twist-over design for the new track bed and a substantial length of ‘wrong-rail’ running along these new tracks between Lougheed Station and North Road. The unfinished track bed east of switch 155 was built with the expectation that the continuation of this track will rise above and twist over the other new Evergreen track. In order to make room for the new switches 158 and 158B and the new crossover track, the eastern-most 2 segments of this unused track bed will need to be removed and rebuilt so it is level with the rest of the Evergreen tracks east of Lougheed Station.

The cost of making these changes to the existing unfinished track bed and building the new track bed between Lougheed Station and North Road in a typical flat (side-by-side) design used by all the other elevated track sections is likely cheaper than what would be spent on the extra engineering and construction techniques that are needed to build the twist-over curve section between Lougheed Station and North Road.

Any crossover of tracks by trains entering or leaving the station happens within the Lougheed Station area, so workers in the area will be aware of train movements around them.



c) Evergreen Line trains from Douglas College terminating at Lougheed Station.


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Finishing the platform and tracks on the north side of the Lougheed Station allows this area to be used as the terminal platform of the Lougheed Station.

When Evergreen trains are operating only between Lougheed Station and Douglas College, they can use this Lougheed Station terminal platform. Having the terminal platform available for holding Evergreen trains in the station allows other trains to use the Lougheed Station main platform without blocking, or being blocked by, Evergreen trains that are waiting to start their trip back to Douglas College.

Westbound Evergreen trains arriving at the Lougheed Station terminal platform use the tracks (shown green) on the south side of the terminal platform. Trains on this routing arrive on the tracks (shown green) from Douglas College and go straight through switches 158B and 155 to arrive at the terminal platform.

Eastbound Evergreen trains to Douglas College start at the tracks (shown green) of the terminal platform. Trains on this route take switch 155 to switch 157 using the existing crossover (shown yellow) and go straight through switches 158, 159 and 160 so the train is on the new Eastbound track (shown dark blue) to Douglas College.

This is the simplest use of the Lougheed Station terminal platform because Evergreen trains arriving at the Lougheed Station terminal platform don’t interfere with other trains using the main platform. It is possible that 3 different train movements can be done simultaneously:

a) Evergreen train arriving at the terminal platform;
b) Eastbound Millennium train to Braid arriving at, or departing from, the main platform;
c) Westbound Millennium train to Production Way arriving at, or departing from, the main platform

For Evergreen trains leaving the terminal platform, this will have to be coordinated with Westbound trains arriving at Lougheed Station, but because the train locations are always known and train movements are computer-controlled, Evergreen train departures can be adjusted so they don’t interfere with incoming trains using the same track (shown dark blue) east of Lougheed Station.


d) Millennium Line trains from Braid terminating at Lougheed Station.


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

When Millennium trains are operating only between Lougheed Station and Columbia (or Vancouver Waterfront), they can also use the Lougheed Station terminal platform. Using the terminal platform for short-turning Millennium trains allows other trains to use the Lougheed Station main platform without blocking, or being blocked by, Millennium trains that are waiting to start their trip back to Columbia (or Vancouver Waterfront).

Westbound Millennium trains terminating at Lougheed Station use the tracks (shown green) for the Lougheed Station terminal platform. Trains on this route arrive on the tracks from Braid (shown red) and take switch 161 to switch 160 using the existing crossover (shown purple), then though switches 159 and 158, then take switch 157 to switch 155 using the existing crossover (shown yellow). .

Eastbound Millennium trains leaving Lougheed Station use the same tracks and switches in reverse order. Starting from the track (shown green) on the terminal platform, trains take switch 155 to switch 157 using the existing crossover (shown yellow), then though switch 158 and 159, then take switch 160 to switch 162 (straight through switch 161) using the existing crossover (shown purple).

Using the Lougheed Station terminal platform for Millennium trains uses many of the same tracks and switches in use by through-running trains, so these train movements need to be highly coordinated with other trains arriving at, or departing from, the main platform. However, while sitting at the Lougheed Station terminal platform these trains don’t interfere with other trains using the main platform for running through Lougheed Station.

Needless to say, having a terminal platform means that either the Millennium trains or Evergreen trains can be short-turned at Lougheed Station, but it is unlikely that Millennium trains and also Evergreen trains will be short-turning there at the same time using the same terminal platform.


e) Millennium Line trains from Production Way terminating at Lougheed Station.


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Having a Lougheed Station terminal platform also allows for Millennium Line trains from VCC to terminate at Lougheed Station, although I’m not when, how or why this would be needed.

Eastbound Millennium trains use the tracks (shown green) of the Lougheed Station terminal platform. Trains on this route arrive on the tracks from Production Way (shown light blue) and take switch 152 to switch 153 using the existing crossover (shown brown), and then takes switch 154 to the terminal tracks.

Westbound Millennium trains leaving Lougheed Station terminal platform start from the track (shown green) on the terminal platform and take switch 154 to the mainline (shown dark blue).

This eastbound routing is the same as how in previous studies the Coquitlam–bound trains from VCC, Vancouver and Burnaby were supposed to get to the ‘Coquitlam’ platform (the unfinished platform and tracks north of the existing main platform) by crossing over the westbound tracks and then switching to the ‘Coquitlam’ tracks. This meant that every eastbound train heading to Coquitlam would have to cross over the westbound tracks, and therefore prevent any westbound trains from leaving the main platform until the switches west of Lougheed Station were cleared and set.

After leaving the ‘Coquitlam’ platform, the Coquitlam train would have continued eastbound straight through switch 155 to the Evergreen eastbound tracks to North Road. These tracks were originally designed so they would rise up and fly over to the ‘proper’ right-hand side of the new Evergreen westbound tracks by the time the tracks start heading up North Road.

The Evergreen westbound tracks were designed so they would line up with the tracks on the north side of the main platform so every train heading west to Burnaby and Vancouver would use the same platform regardless if the train was ‘Evergreen’ or ‘Millennium’.

This unusual pattern of having the eastbound trains to Columbia, Metrotown and Vancouver Waterfront using the main platform and Coquitlam trains using their own eastbound platform would require people to change platforms just to change trains.


By adding the new switches 158 and 158B and the new crossover, when Millennium and Evergreen trains are running through Lougheed Station if someone needs to change trains they can simply stay on the main platform for their next train to arrive regardless of whether the next stage of their trip is on a westbound or an eastbound train.

When the Lougheed Station terminal platform is in use, people will still have to change platforms to change trains, but this will be done during off-peak hours when fewer people are inconvenienced.

At times when the terminal platform is closed, these tracks could be used to lay-up a few trains between the rush hours.
     
     
  #3059  
Old Posted Nov 15, 2011, 7:28 AM
nname nname is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by officedweller View Post
MacArthur on BaRT comes to mind, but I don't know the track map.
I knew that station! I lost my laptop there >.<

From Google Map, I've counted 29 switches, but some more might be blocked by the highways:



Now I feel our system is so switch-less...
     
     
  #3060  
Old Posted Nov 15, 2011, 9:52 AM
BCPhil BCPhil is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbertram View Post
The "platform fill-in" concept is not mine, I was just commenting on why it is unlikely that Translink and/or the selected contractor would spend extra time & money to cover up the unfinished track bed that was included when Lougheed Station was originally built and then build new tracks on the north side of the north platform.

That being said however, using the existing unfinished track bed and adding a new crossover east of the station to the ‘main platform track’ can allow for Millennium trains and Evergreen trains to use the same Lougheed Station main platform while also using the north platform as a separate terminal.

I've being working with this drawing to sort out tracks, switches and train movements of this atypical station that has two tracks to the west, changing to three platform tracks, and then changing to four tracks to the east of the station, and the running of two different routes through this station.


Uploaded with ImageShack.us
The problem with using the North platform for the terminal track that short turns is that it results in every single transfer made at the station being a downstairs-upstairs transfer and there will be no cross platform transfers at all, EVER.

With the Translink proposed (assumed) configuration, if you commute (come back the same way you go out) then every day you will have 1 cross platform transfer and one up-down transfer.

As well, the majority of morning (thus time sensitive) transfers will be cross platform. People coming from South Burnaby, New West, and Surrey going to SFU will only need to cross the platform in the morning to catch the train to SFU. People coming from Coquitlam going to work in South Burnaby, New West, or Surrey will get to transfer Cross-platform in the morning. That is 2 out of 3 possible morning transfer patterns, which will probably account for 90% of all morning transfers, being cross-platform.

Also, by having each platform be for a static destination, then there does not need to be platform changes if there is service alteration. If one of them is the "terminal" platform, then if trains change their routing, someone will have to be there to direct traffic and tell people to change platforms. You'll have people get off the bus, run up the stairs thinking they are going to the Millennium line platform, only to find out that they were switched and have to go across to the other one.

Having a terminal platform also makes 2 different, independently operating lines cross paths. In the proposed solution, only trains from Evergreen will have the potential to be on the same rail going opposite directions, and the Millennium line and Evergreen only share the same section of track for a few seconds, but going in the same direction (westbound). If the Millennium line terminated on the North Platform, it would have to cross the paths of 2 different tracks. That makes it harder to schedule to avoid conflicts. And when there is a conflict, it takes longer to resolve, with one train having to wait longer.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Closed Thread

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 10:43 AM.

     

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