Canada Line races toward capacity

[punface]

I ride the Canada Line on the downtown segment every weekday during rush hour (usually just Waterfront->Yaletown or Waterfront-Broadway.)

I find it busy, but rarely uncomfortably busy. I still see the Canada Line as a huge success story, with my only real concern being capacity in the distant future.

BTW, this link (http://www.bclocalnews.com/surrey_ar.../95556724.html) clears up what was meant by "capacity" with the following quote from Doug Kelsey, president of TransLink's SkyTrain subsidiary:

"We've got headway we can reduce between trains, we can put more cars on – those are things that will come in the years ahead," Kelsey said. "Are we at capacity? Absolutely not. We're at about a third only."

I think that # (~300k/day) matches what people were saying on the old Canada Line thread?

[deasine]

Something that wasn't well known that I thought it would be interesting to throw out at you guys is that the contract specifies that new vehicles can only be ordered after 2014. HOWEVER, they are looking to change a few things in that dreaded manual.

[Waders]

Translink has released a formal statement about the Canada Line capacity questions.
I think it answers a lot of questions and clear up some misunderstanding about 'near capacity' vs 'financial break-even point'.
Interesting to note new train purchase and the middle C-car is listed as the last options to look at for implementation.
300,000 rides per day is the maximum capacity at the current service levels. Does this means the system can handle even more rides technically?

Addressing Canada Line capacity questions
June 3, 2010

Some media reports are indicating that the Canada Line is “nearing capacity”, as daily ridership levels climb closer to the 100,000 mark. This is certainly a milestone that has been reached much sooner than originally projected, but it is nowhere near the capacity of the system.

100,000 rides a day is considered a milestone in that it is the financial break-even point for that service: the point at which fare revenues cover operating costs.

- 100,000 rides per day equates to about 5,000 rides per hour
- The Canada Line can handle 15,000 rides per hour at the current service levels.
- During the Olympics, the line often had all 20 trains in operation and easily handled over 200,000 riders per day.

There is no question that there are periods when the system is quite crowded. Along with the integration of bus routes from South of the Fraser, the Canada Line gained a lot of new users during the Olympics, as people discovered the speed and convenience of being able to bypass road traffic to get to and from downtown Vancouver.

- As with the Expo and Millennium Lines, there will be times when a customer will need to wait for the next train to board, particularly at the ‘peak of the peak’ morning and afternoon commuting periods.
- The Brighouse Station appears to experience the most congestion in the morning and the Richmond-bound trains are busy in the afternoons.

Here are the steps that TransLink can take to address passenger volumes on the Canada Line, in order of implementation:

- Canada Line operations can keep an extra train on the ‘tail track’ past the Brighouse terminus station in Richmond and put it into service if necessary to look after peak period demand. Because the Canada Line’s operations centre is close by, a spare train can be sent to Brighouse fairly quickly.
- Total daily service hours can be re-allocated – some mid-day or evening runs can be moved to the morning and/or afternoon peak demand periods.
- More of the existing trains can be put into service. Currently, TransLink funds the operation of 14 of the 20 trains. By August 2011, TransLink will have 16 trains in service, an increase of 12 per cent.
- Bus routes can be adjusted so that some passengers currently transferring at Brighouse Station can have their transfer shifted to the Bridgeport Station, where in-bound trains from YVR usually have capacity available.
- In time, there will be an option to purchase more train sets. The Canada Line is designed to have more than 20 trains in service at the same time.
- Another alternative is to add a third car to the trains.

Some have asked whether the current system of alternating trains to Richmond-Brighouse with trains to YVR-Airport could be changed. However, just as the Canada Line has proven popular with commuters going to and from downtown Vancouver, it has also proven popular with travellers going to and from Vancouver Airport. Right now, it is too early in the life of the Canada Line to make such a major operational change.

Indeed, with the Canada Line being only ten months old, the best way to deal with crowding issues is to respond on an ‘as needed’ basis and allow time for patterns to become established. There is plenty of capacity on the system; now, it’s a matter of using it in a way that best serves our customers.

Source: http://www.translink.ca/en/About-Tra...questions.aspx

[SFUVancouver]

This has been a very healthy couple of days for the Canada Line and the future of SkyTrain. By that I mean that once the Vancouver Sun says something is true, in this case that the SkyTrain Canada Line is already packed and a runaway success, then a very large part of the city's political and business decision makers, plus Mrs John and Jane average suburban British Columbian, accept what has been said as fact. Like it or hate it, Pacific Press is the news outlet of record for our province. Now Translink has been on the defensive and in 24 hours it has released more details about the concessionaire agreement than has come to light in the past five years.

Now the collective 'we' know the number of trains that the concessionaire agreement allows to be put in service on a regular basis, we know that there is a fixed number of service hours that may be open to reallocation and we know that next summer two more trains enter regular service when the "initial service plan" transitions to "regular service plan". We also now know that 75% of all Canada Line traffic is within the municpal borders of the City of Vancouver, with the remaining 25% boarding and departing on Sea Island/YVR and in the City of Richmond. We know that 15% of all traffic is tied to the Richmond leg and 10% to the Sea Island leg. The Canada Line is overwhelmingly about serving the transit needs of the City of Vancouver and it is impossible to imagine that the exponentially more built up Broadway Corridor will be any less of a success from day one should SkyTrain be built there.

In the context of the Evergreen and UBC lines the conventional wisdom that has just fully been entrenched is that SkyTrain attracts ridership like it is going out of style and it does so quickly. The Evergreen line is still up in the air as far as I am concerned but the project just got a huge shot in the arm with this story and the UBC line is the big winner. The public wants fast, frequent, high capacity trains and Translink, and especially the Province, like success stories and are risk-adverse. With the success of each SkyTrain line the case for changing modes grows harder to make and, frankly, that our newest SkyTrain line can be a success without it requiring Bombardier technology is a good thing for our region. But can you imagine the stories that would have already hit the press if an at-grade LRT Canada Line routinely collided with vehicles at level crossings? What about the first time a senior was clipped when they slowly crossed the street in front of a train in Kerrisdale or an oblivious kid on his BMX with headphones in his ears that got hit because he blew through an intersection as a train approached?

Lastly, the drumbeat for more public information about the concessionaire agreement has begun and I hope that Pacific Press keep up the pressure. The packed SkyTrain is a good news story but there is a whole lot more beneath the surface and can you imagine what the reaction will be among the same political and business decision makers, plus Mrs John and Jane average suburban British Columbian, when they learn just how many decisions about the project and design of the system were forefitted by the government and handed over to InTransitBC? On this board we understand the trade-offs that were made, whether we agree with them or not, but the short stations and difficulty increasing capacity are issues that people are not going to take lightly once they learn more.

[Zassk]

^ A key statement in that press release is Currently, TransLink funds the operation of 14 of the 20 trains. The number of trains is a budget issue, not a technical issue.

Now, we can debate whether Translink is justified in funding BCRTP to run up to the entire MKI/MKII fleet as necessary, but only funds PTBC to run 70% of the Rotem fleet.

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

TWe also now know that 75% of all Canada Line traffic is within the municpal borders of the City of Vancouver, with the remaining 25% boarding and departing on Sea Island/YVR and in the City of Richmond. We know that 15% of all traffic is tied to the Richmond leg and 10% to the Sea Island leg.

No, the 75% includes Bridgeport station as well as City of Vancouver. From previous express bus numbers, we know that Bridgeport must be providing about 25% of the Canada Line traffic all by itself. Thus the Canada Line traffic overall is roughly evenly split 50-25-25 between Vancouver, Richmond, and South-of-Fraser.

[mrjauk]

As a poster who was initially irate at the non-professionalism of reporter who wrote the original story (learn something about the subject you're writing about prior to writing the article), it turns out that there has been a silver lining. If you're reading this, Zwei, please retract the post on your blog that claims that Canada Line has a ridership capacity of only 100,000. Oh, and include the copy of the relevant portion of the Translink press release.

I have no doubt, given Zwei's sense of fairness, that he will do just that.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

All this tells me is that the Canada Line was a massive success compared to the last line built, the M-Line.

We can jam this ridership into the naysayer's faces, and hindsight is always 20/20, but we would never have gotten something with M-Line station sizes built. Period.

This just shows that rapid transit is popular, and should be a priority. And hopefully Translink has learned something about negotiating P3 contracts.

I've been on the C-line more lately since I'm very close to Yaletown station. It's busy during rush hour, big surprise. I've never been passed up at any station. mr. x your panic doesn't help.

The M-Line is half-built. Its ridership projections for breaking even were based on the assumption that the Evergreen Line (or what was then called the PMC Line) would have been built a few years after the Millennium Line opened. The NDP ran out of money and decided to turn the Millennium Line into three phases instead of building it all at once. More importantly, the M-Line was built in mind with the future Broadway extension flooding riders into the system.

I've been riding the Canada Line about 3-times a week lately, and that means 3 weekly round trips or 6 train rides per week. I've had to wait for another train most of the time as it's simply too full to even get in.

I have always been adamant that the Canada Line will have capacity issues in 20-30 years when it reaches the max. design capacity of 15,000 pphpd, and that today's current capacity issues are a result of a lack of trains running in the system because of the inflexible (and likely expensive) P3 concessionaire agreement. Whereas with the publicly operated BCRTC SkyTrain, there isn't any of this nonsense.

And these issues shouldn't be swept away under a rug. I'm frequently harping on them because I don't want to see the same mistakes happen all over again for the Evergreen and especially the UBC extension. I'm thrilled that the Canada Line capacity issues are hitting the front covers of newspapers, I've been expecting this to happen for quite awhile - that the media will pick this up, and it would eventually turn into a fiasco of its own.

[mrjauk]

anonymous

12:46 AM on June 2, 2010

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore anonymous. Show DetailsHide Details

Before Canada Line was established I had to take only 2 buses from the BC Ferry terminal to get to UBC for an overall trip time of 3 hours from my other home in Victoria. The last time I came off the Ferry I was forced to take 4 rides, one of which was the Canada Line, and the overall trip time from home to home was FOUR HOURS!!! -A 33% INCREASE IN TRAVEL TIME! I'm rather certain that commuters are being needlessly funneled onto the Canada Line when it is not always the best option in terms of route planning

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/t...#ixzz0prLe0qNW

Here's a comment on the article that prompted this thread. So this person is complaining that the building of the Canada Line has increased his travel time from Victoria, BC (!) to UBC by about 33%. Yes, let's move low fare-recovery buses back to these routes to ameliorate the 2 individuals who commute from Victoria, BC (!) to UBC every Friday afternoon or Monday morning.

[mrjauk]

Originally Posted by mr.x

...And these issues shouldn't be swept away under a rug. I'm frequently harping on them because I don't want to see the same mistakes happen all over again for the Evergreen and especially the UBC extension. I'm thrilled that the Canada Line capacity issues are hitting the front covers of newspapers, I've been expecting this to happen for quite awhile - that the media will pick this up, and it would eventually turn into a fiasco of its own.

The thing that most assures me that the UBC extension of the M-line will be done correctly is that it is an extension of the existing line. As such, it will have to be compatible with the technology and station design (i.e., platform lengths) of the current line.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

This has been a very healthy couple of days for the Canada Line and the future of SkyTrain. By that I mean that once the Vancouver Sun says something is true, in this case that the SkyTrain Canada Line is already packed and a runaway success, then a very large part of the city's political and business decision makers, plus Mrs John and Jane average suburban British Columbian, accept what has been said as fact. Like it or hate it, Pacific Press is the news outlet of record for our province. Now Translink has been on the defensive and in 24 hours it has released more details about the concessionaire agreement than has come to light in the past five years.

Now the collective 'we' know the number of trains that the concessionaire agreement allows to be put in service on a regular basis, we know that there is a fixed number of service hours that may be open to reallocation and we know that next summer two more trains enter regular service when the "initial service plan" transitions to "regular service plan". We also now know that 75% of all Canada Line traffic is within the municpal borders of the City of Vancouver, with the remaining 25% boarding and departing on Sea Island/YVR and in the City of Richmond. We know that 15% of all traffic is tied to the Richmond leg and 10% to the Sea Island leg. The Canada Line is overwhelmingly about serving the transit needs of the City of Vancouver and it is impossible to imagine that the exponentially more built up Broadway Corridor will be any less of a success from day one should SkyTrain be built there.

In the context of the Evergreen and UBC lines the conventional wisdom that has just fully been entrenched is that SkyTrain attracts ridership like it is going out of style and it does so quickly. The Evergreen line is still up in the air as far as I am concerned but the project just got a huge shot in the arm with this story and the UBC line is the big winner. The public wants fast, frequent, high capacity trains and Translink, and especially the Province, like success stories and are risk-adverse. With the success of each SkyTrain line the case for changing modes grows harder to make and, frankly, that our newest SkyTrain line can be a success without it requiring Bombardier technology is a good thing for our region. But can you imagine the stories that would have already hit the press if an at-grade LRT Canada Line routinely collided with vehicles at level crossings? What about the first time a senior was clipped when they slowly crossed the street in front of a train in Kerrisdale or an oblivious kid on his BMX with headphones in his ears that got hit because he blew through an intersection as a train approached?

Lastly, the drumbeat for more public information about the concessionaire agreement has begun and I hope that Pacific Press keep up the pressure. The packed SkyTrain is a good news story but there is a whole lot more beneath the surface and can you imagine what the reaction will be among the same political and business decision makers, plus Mrs John and Jane average suburban British Columbian, when they learn just how many decisions about the project and design of the system were forefitted by the government and handed over to InTransitBC? On this board we understand the trade-offs that were made, whether we agree with them or not, but the short stations and difficulty increasing capacity are issues that people are not going to take lightly once they learn more.

+1.


Incredible post.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by mrjauk

The thing that most assures me that the UBC extension of the M-line will be done correctly is that it is an extension of the existing line. As such, it will have to be compatible with the technology and station design (i.e., platform lengths) of the current line.

At this point I do think the logical SkyTrain option is gaining much more traction than the lunatic LRT alternative, but it's a decision that has yet to be made...much damage can still be done by idiots like zwei, Malcolm, and Mel Lehan.

Even though SkyTrain was the most logical option, the Evergreen Line nearly became an LRT but thankfully the Liberals swooped in. If only they could have been more sensible with the Canada Line, that is caring about its design instead of letting the private sector walk all over us for the sake of pushing the party's P3 agenda.

[nname]

Originally Posted by mrjauk

Here's a comment on the article that prompted this thread. So this person is complaining that the building of the Canada Line has increased his travel time from Victoria, BC (!) to UBC by about 33%. Yes, let's move low fare-recovery buses back to these routes to ameliorate the 2 individuals who commute from Victoria, BC (!) to UBC every Friday afternoon or Monday morning.

There was no way to get from BC Ferry Terminal to UBC with 2 bus rides unless he is extremely lucky to get on the 601 Vancouver from the terminal or using the 480 from Steveston. However, the first was an unscheduled service that run at the discretion of the transit supervisor, and the second was limited service.

Now in term of travel time. Getting from Bridgeport to the Ferry takes a bit less than 1 hour, and the bus runs once an hour. Everyone who take the route would know it would take much much less than 2 hours to get from UBC to Bridgeport. So even if he just missed his bus and have to wait for an hour, it still would not take 4 hours. Plus, the 620 bus run at the exact frequency before and after Canada Line, so missing the bus is his own problem.

Finally, if he still want to take only 2 buses, take 620 and transfer to 480. Other than the fact that the 480 runs more frequent and he don't have to walk two blocks for the transfer, the service runs exactly the same as before. Translink does not force him to change the route and take Canada Line, it is his own choice.

[Edit] Forget to mention that 480 still run limited service to Steveston, so everything is actually the same for him except changing the transfer point from middle of nowhere to Bridgeport Station. In this case, he has absolutely no right to complain.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Zassk

^ A key statement in that press release is Currently, TransLink funds the operation of 14 of the 20 trains. The number of trains is a budget issue, not a technical issue.

Even more interesting, the wording in this statement suggests to me that the number of trains in service is not a contract issue, but a budget issue. In other words, it sounds to me like the contract allows TransLink the discretion to choose to run more trains as long as they fund them.

If that's true, then we shouldn't really be blaming the number of trains on the P3 agreement, but rather on TransLink's budget. What the P3 agreement has done is to put a concrete number on the cost of running each train.

That could make it a little harder for TransLink to run more trains as they wouldn't be able to "sweep the cost under the carpet" so to speak. But it's certainly more transparent.

[WaxItYourself]

I don't think this has been posted yet. It's translinks response:

TransLink says Canada Line has not reached “capacity”, following news report

In response to a news report this week that the Canada Line is “nearing capacity”, TransLink has released a statement about how many riders the SkyTrain route can handle.

The average daily number of passengers who ride the line, which opened in August 2009, is approaching 100,000. Fare revenue from that many riders would cover operating costs for the service, according a statement today (June 3) from TransLink

“This is certainly a milestone that has been reached much sooner than originally projected, but it is nowhere near the capacity of the system,” the regional transit authority says.

TransLink says the route that connects downtown Vancouver and Richmond carried more than 200,000 passengers on some days during the 2010 Olympic Games, with 20 trains running.

TransLink acknowledged crowding, but noted there are strategies in place to ease the passenger crunch on an “as needed” basis.

By Stephen Thompson care of the Georgia Straight

Edit: Sorry I see Waders has already posted the article this article references. However, Zwei seems to be making his usual anti-reality posts.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by nname

There was no way to get from BC Ferry Terminal to UBC with 2 bus rides unless he is extremely lucky to get on the 601 Vancouver from the terminal or using the 480 from Steveston. However, the first was an unscheduled service that run at the discretion of the transit supervisor, and the second was limited service.

Now in term of travel time. Getting from Bridgeport to the Ferry takes a bit less than 1 hour, and the bus runs once an hour. Everyone who take the route would know it would take much much less than 2 hours to get from UBC to Bridgeport. So even if he just missed his bus and have to wait for an hour, it still would not take 4 hours. Plus, the 620 bus run at the exact frequency before and after Canada Line, so missing the bus is his own problem.

Finally, if he still want to take only 2 buses, take 620 and transfer to 480. Other than the fact that the 480 runs more frequent and he don't have to walk two blocks for the transfer, the service runs exactly the same as before. Translink does not force him to change the route and take Canada Line, it is his own choice.

[Edit] Forget to mention that 480 still run limited service to Steveston, so everything is actually the same for him except changing the transfer point from middle of nowhere to Bridgeport Station. In this case, he has absolutely no right to complain.

From the BC Ferries Schedule:
https://www.bcferries.com/bcftravelcentre
Leave Swartz Bay 7:00
Arrive Tswwassen 8:35

From the Translink Schedule:
http://tripplanning.translink.ca

8:35am - TSAWWASSEN FERRY TERMINAL
On Route: "620 BRIDGEPORT STN VIA LADNER Exchange"
Travelling To: 9:15am - BRIDGEPORT STN BAY 1

Transfer At:
9:17am - BRIDGEPORT STN BAY 4
On Route: "480 UBC"
Arriving At: 9:56am - UBC LOOP BAY 3

Just under 3 hours traveling time from Swartz Bay to UBC.
No Skytrain needed.

If he missed the 8:35 620 BRIDGEPORT bus from Tsawwassen, there is another at 9:00 and every half hour through the day. The 480 UBC runs every 10 minutes from Bridgeport.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Even more interesting, the wording in this statement suggests to me that the number of trains in service is not a contract issue, but a budget issue. In other words, it sounds to me like the contract allows TransLink the discretion to choose to run more trains as long as they fund them.

If that's true, then we shouldn't really be blaming the number of trains on the P3 agreement, but rather on TransLink's budget. What the P3 agreement has done is to put a concrete number on the cost of running each train.

That could make it a little harder for TransLink to run more trains as they wouldn't be able to "sweep the cost under the carpet" so to speak. But it's certainly more transparent.

While I did have the same thought as you.

The quote "Currently, TransLink funds the operation of 14 of the 20 trains."

Doesn't say why Translink is currently only funding the operation of 14 of the 20 trains. It could be because of budget issues. It could also be a contract issue that only allows Translink to fund only 14 trains.

[twoNeurons]

Saying the current capacity is 300,000 is a little disingenuous.

100,000 rides per day equates to about 5,000 rides per hour
The Canada Line can handle 15,000 rides per hour at the current service levels.

It doesn't take a genius to realize that transit demand isn't a static 5,000 per hour. Rather, it likely fluctuates from 2,000 to 10,000, depending on the time of day.

Since you really have to measure capacity by the ability of a system to carry the passengers at its peak period, we can't say that we are able to increase the ridership 3x.

At least that's how I read it.

Our realistic capacity on today's system at current service levels is probably somewhere around 150,000.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by mr.x

The M-Line is half-built. Its ridership projections for breaking even were based on the assumption that the Evergreen Line (or what was then called the PMC Line) would have been built a few years after the Millennium Line opened. The NDP ran out of money and decided to turn the Millennium Line into three phases instead of building it all at once. More importantly, the M-Line was built in mind with the future Broadway extension flooding riders into the system.

I've been riding the Canada Line about 3-times a week lately, and that means 3 weekly round trips or 6 train rides per week. I've had to wait for another train most of the time as it's simply too full to even get in.

The fact that the M-Line was half built is my point... it was too big and too expensive to complete. The Canada Line was completely built from day 1, in terms of the routing, and it is a success.

Your story of waiting in line seems to be in clear opposition to others on this forum who ride the train during rush hour daily.

[DKaz]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

With the current stations, that would require a substantial overhang at each end with some of the doors programmed to remain closed. Do any existing systems actually do this? It seems like there would be a safety issue if the train had to be evacuated in an emergency.

All stations can be extended to 50m, but just FYI, West Coast Express currently runs two of their trips each way as 9-car trains on platforms that only hold 7-cars. They cordoned off one door half a car) on the inbound side and three doors (one and a half cars) on the outbound side, they are still available for emergency exit but not general use.

Anyway the Canada Line should double the frequency before they think of extended the platforms and trains.

[mezzanine]

Now Translink has been on the defensive and in 24 hours it has released more details about the concessionaire agreement than has come to light in the past five years.

Now the collective 'we' know the number of trains that the concessionaire agreement allows to be put in service on a regular basis, we know that there is a fixed number of service hours that may be open to reallocation and we know that next summer two more trains enter regular service when the "initial service plan" transitions to "regular service plan". We also now know that 75% of all Canada Line traffic is within the municpal borders of the City of Vancouver, with the remaining 25% boarding and departing on Sea Island/YVR and in the City of Richmond. We know that 15% of all traffic is tied to the Richmond leg and 10% to the Sea Island leg. The Canada Line is overwhelmingly about serving the transit needs of the City of Vancouver and it is impossible to imagine that the exponentially more built up Broadway Corridor will be any less of a success from day one should SkyTrain be built there.

As always SFUVancouver, a great synopsis...