HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2010, 6:33 PM
BCPhil BCPhil is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,486
Quote:
Originally Posted by djh View Post
What is the explanation for this? Why does it cost more to add existing trainsets to an automated system? It's automated, there are no drivers needed, it's computer-controlled so the software handles it...so why does it cost more?
Trains aren't powered by well wishes and unicorn farts. Adding a train means you need to buy the electricity to run it. Lets say if we run more trains to increase capacity by 15% a day, we are increasing the electric bill 15%. While it might not be a staggering figure, depending on ridership levels and patterns at certain times of day, it could impact finances. If increasing capacity isn't offset by increased ridership it seems pointless.

If Canada Line can move the same number of people with 15% less operating cost, shouldn't it do that until it NEEDS to increase capacity? As it stands now how many people are turned away by not enough space on trains?

While more capacity during peak times is probably warranted, right now during non peak hours the system seems well balanced between wait times and passenger volumes. I think we are jumping the gun on the sky is falling talk. There is still plenty of capacity left in the system without having to buy anything. Just look how well it did during the Olympics.

We might also be seeing peak demand early. Usually ridership figures are figured to start at around former bus levels and grow slowly from there as more people discover the system or external factors in their lives drive them towards transit (dead car, new job/home, needing to save money). However I think the Olympics forced Canada Line onto people who might not have tried it for YEARS. And people found they liked it ahead of schedule.

I can see sort of a plateau form in ridership levels as we get to our estimates early. It will probably level off just based on the customer base available in Richmond and south Vancouver at the moment. As new high density comes online we'll see surges in ridership, but in the mean time I can see a leveling off of growth after this amazing (not even first full) year of ridership.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2010, 6:51 PM
yogiderek yogiderek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: westend Vancouver
Posts: 497
connecting

So if you connect the millienium to the Canada at Broadway and Cambie its just simple math to figure out the system will carry even more people. Or how about this. Even a further extension into Richmond along three then along Granville close to the the Olympic oval future community. The build it and they will come needs to be looked at, not oh lets not doing anything and worry about it tomorrow.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2010, 6:59 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
We definitely have to remember that the Canada Line design was largely influenced by the much flawed GVRD Livable Region Strategic Plan which did not "plan" for the growth we're seeing today in Richmond and the South of Fraser....and Tri-City mayors and Burnaby's Corrigan were also using the LRSP for their arguments that the Canada Line would be a white elephant.

If they actually looked at Richmond with the eyes they had rather than basing their designs on outdated studies and reports, they would have seen the growth Richmond was seeing.

It's a shortsighted mess, it's our own Scarborough RT.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2010, 7:06 PM
aberdeen5698 aberdeen5698 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCPhil View Post
Adding a train means you need to buy the electricity to run it.
Not to mention the maintenance cost and accelerated wear on the cars themselves.

I'm actually a little curious as to whether the electricity used by Translink to run it's trains and trolleys is actually metered or if there's some sort of negotiated and contracted price based on calculations of usage.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2010, 8:19 PM
idunno idunno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 353
Quote:
it's our own Scarborough RT.
Hahaha hold on there, it is pushing it to compare the hugely successful Canada Line with the rumbly, poorly used RT. That thing is a piece of $&*# compared to the Canada Line.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2010, 8:25 PM
cc85 cc85 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Island City
Posts: 451
well the scarborough RT, after all, is simply Bombardier Skytrain technology. It simply wasn't built in the appropriate context.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2010, 9:18 PM
flight_from_kamakura's Avatar
flight_from_kamakura flight_from_kamakura is offline
testify
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: san francisco and montreal
Posts: 1,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr.x View Post
We definitely have to remember that the Canada Line design was largely influenced by the much flawed GVRD Livable Region Strategic Plan which did not "plan" for the growth we're seeing today in Richmond and the South of Fraser....and Tri-City mayors and Burnaby's Corrigan were also using the LRSP for their arguments that the Canada Line would be a white elephant.
this is a very legit critique. sorry boys, you were wrong.

interestingly, the ridership/service we're seeing here is actually a strong disincentive for further richmond expansion, which is just the sort of counter-intuitive result that puts the scale of the blunders here into sharp relief.

and finally, does anyone else have the feeling here that translink is sitting on this, waiting to see if these numbers hold, before committing to putting the next couple cars online? the ironic things is that constant crush is just the disincentive that would push the numbers back down, you'd hope that they'd take the hit now and make up for it with sustained/increased ridership, rather than letting ridership drop to within the anticipated range. hopefully that's how it goes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2010, 9:25 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 23,558
Another cost might be creating computer programming for the revised schedules that include the additional trains.

Overall, just because it's crowded on a subway train - is that reason enough to spend the extra money? I think pass-ups on the 99 B-Line appear to be a bigger problem that people being squished if money's being thrown around..
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2010, 9:27 PM
nname nname is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,711
Translink is in a no-expansion mode. Without taking service away from the other routes, they can't improve service unless there's more funding. The original service plan state a service improvement 2 years after start-up (which is Aug 2011), but I guess everthing before that would have to considered as an "expansion".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2010, 9:30 PM
Zassk Zassk is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,266
I haven't seen people left behind by Canada Line trains - they've been packed to the doorframes but everyone got on. A few people obviously choose to wait for YVR trains, but those people aren't trying to get on and being denied. Has anyone else seen the line actually leave people behind? How does the crush compare to Expo from Main-Broadway?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2010, 9:32 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 23,558
It's a fine line that would have had to have been negotiated.

If projections were optimistic, then maybe the 2013 break-even point may have been 120,000 per day or maybe TransLink would have been stuck with an expanded service plan but not enough riders. With all the negative press leading up to the line, I'll bet the focus was on keeping service and costs low - rather than on expansion.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2010, 10:34 PM
jsbertram jsbertram is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by cc85 View Post
well the scarborough RT, after all, is simply Bombardier Skytrain technology. It simply wasn't built in the appropriate context.
Scarborough RT was primarily built by the Bill Davis Government in Ontario to demonstrate ALRT technology produced by UTDC (an Ontario crown Corporation) to boost sales.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_T...nt_Corporation

ALRT from UTDC was meant to replace the freeways that Davis canceled early into his term (notably the cancellation of the Spadina Freeway). One proposal was to have the ALRT line run across the top of Toronto from Pearson Airport to Scarborough with Phase One being the Scarborough RT to demonstrate the technology. This line to Scarborough was originally supposed to be a streetcar line that was in mid-construction when the Ontario gov't (who was paying 80% of the costs) ordered the change to ALRT.

By the time Scarborough RT was running, Davis was out of office and the new Ontario government wanted nothing to do with the previous administration's pet projects. UTDC was sold off to Lavalin, who went bankrupt & UTDC landed back in Ontario government hands. SNC absorbed the engineering side of Lavalin to become SNC-Lavalin, and Bombardier bought the UTDC assets.

Now you can see why any SkyTrain project has SNC-Lavalin as the primary contractor with Bombardier as the train supplier.

In a bit of an ironic twist, plans are to change the Scarborough RT to streetcar or LRT as part of TransitCity. This was meant to be done in time for the PanAm games in 2015, but with budget cutbacks it is now delayed until sometime after 2016. It is undecided whether the new Eglinton LRT will connect directly into the Scarborough RT line (and become the Scarborough - Pearson Airport line planned over 50 years ago), or simply terminate at Kennedy Station where Scarborough RT and the Bloor-Danforth subway already terminate.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2010, 11:40 PM
excel excel is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 3,013
They say they wernt expecting it to reach capacity till 2013. Three and a half years after completion date? That still sounds like poor planning to me. Whats the point in building a line down the heart of the city and not making it capable of expansion. I still cant get over how they didnt make the stations bigger. They say they can add trains but that will only do so much...

What happens in 2020 when the line is at capacity for trains and passengers?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2010, 11:44 PM
Hitmonlee Hitmonlee is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: vancouver
Posts: 30
Anyone here been forced to wait for the next train because the first one was too full?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Jun 3, 2010, 12:08 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 idunno View Post
Hahaha hold on there, it is pushing it to compare the hugely successful Canada Line with the rumbly, poorly used RT. That thing is a piece of $&*# compared to the Canada Line.
Considering it's only 6-kms with just 6 stations, and it has a weekday ridership of 45,000, I'd call the RT a success.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Jun 3, 2010, 12:14 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 Hitmonlee View Post
Anyone here been forced to wait for the next train because the first one was too full?
Yes, many times....the Canada Line trains are sometimes more packed than the Hong Kong MTR trains I've been on in rush hour. On the Expo and Millennium Lines, it's also seldom that packed eversince the expansion fleet of cars arrived...and before then, Translink coped with demand by running almost all of their cars during rush hour - they had something like 5% for spares.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Jun 3, 2010, 12:21 AM
whatnext whatnext is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 6,076
Quote:
Originally Posted by djh View Post
What is the explanation for this? Why does it cost more to add existing trainsets to an automated system? It's automated, there are no drivers needed, it's computer-controlled so the software handles it...so why does it cost more?
Electricity consumption maybe? I wonder how many kW its takes to move one train from one end of the line to the other.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Jun 3, 2010, 12:26 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 flight_from_kamakura View Post
this is a very legit critique. sorry boys, you were wrong.

interestingly, the ridership/service we're seeing here is actually a strong disincentive for further richmond expansion, which is just the sort of counter-intuitive result that puts the scale of the blunders here into sharp relief.

and finally, does anyone else have the feeling here that translink is sitting on this, waiting to see if these numbers hold, before committing to putting the next couple cars online? the ironic things is that constant crush is just the disincentive that would push the numbers back down, you'd hope that they'd take the hit now and make up for it with sustained/increased ridership, rather than letting ridership drop to within the anticipated range. hopefully that's how it goes.
And if the Canada Line had been built as an at-grade LRT, as Corrigan and asinine former-SSP member "queetz" would have liked, we wouldn't have these capacity problems today...because ridership would be nowhere near 100,000.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Jun 3, 2010, 1:30 AM
Alex Mackinnon's Avatar
Alex Mackinnon Alex Mackinnon is offline
Can I has a tunnel?
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Strathcona
Posts: 1,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatnext View Post
Electricity consumption maybe? I wonder how many kW its takes to move one train from one end of the line to the other.
That and maintenance probably.
__________________
"It's ok, I'm an engineer!" -Famous last words
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Jun 3, 2010, 1:41 AM
CLC CLC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 877
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr.x View Post
Yes, many times....the Canada Line trains are sometimes more packed than the Hong Kong MTR trains I've been on in rush hour. On the Expo and Millennium Lines, it's also seldom that packed eversince the expansion fleet of cars arrived...and before then, Translink coped with demand by running almost all of their cars during rush hour - they had something like 5% for spares.
I agree 100% with your statement based on my observation. I especially feel the pain because I always use the Langara station, which is in the middle of the route.
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 10:17 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.