HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2010, 6:42 PM
jsbertram jsbertram is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by DKaz View Post
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.
left unsaid is that people riding in the WCE cars that have both their doors locked (ie: the 9th car) need to walk between the train cars to the 8th car and then the length of the 8th car to get to a door on the platform.

If you made a Canada Line train of four cars, only the 2nd and 3rd cars would platform, so anyone in the 1st and 4th cars would have to walk through the flexy-bendy between cars before exiting. There isn't a way to walk between the 2nd and 3rd cars of the train, since that is where the panoramic windshield is.

Reminds me a lot of the subway in NYC at South Ferry station. It was a tight loop that only had platform space for the first 5 cars, so at the station before South Ferry, there was an announcement that anyone in the rear of the train who needed to exit at S.Ferry had to move into the forward cars.

The platform loop was so tight that there were platform extensions that filled in the gap between the car and the platform once the train had stopped at S.Ferry. The train driver had to be very precise in stopping at the right point to the gap-fillers could line up with the doors of the train.

After a hundred years of this futzing around, the new South Ferry station was opened with a straight platform that allowed all the subway car doors to open for riders to exit & enter the train. I think the old loop tracks are used for storing trains between the rush hours.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2010, 6:49 PM
Zassk Zassk is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by mezzanine View Post
As always SFUVancouver, a great synopsis...
Except the part you quoted is wrong, City of Vancouver's share of the ridership is 50%, not 75%.

It's still very high, and like Expo Line, the section north of Broadway will be the biggest headache.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2010, 7:01 PM
TransitJack TransitJack is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 361
Some great comments on this issue so far. A few thoughts related to some of them:

*I think the OMC is already pretty full with the existing trains. If a third car were to be added and/or # of trains increased they might have to be very creative in where trains were stored and/or use the main track to keep trains parked.

*Translink is only paying for 14 trains to be utilized, and it appears that the "tweaking" they mentioned is simply about maintaining funding these 14 trains, but perhaps increasing service during peaks times, but further reducing frequency (less trains) at non peak times. The alternative would be to increase funding to operate more trains now (instead of waiting for next year when the contract says 16 trains are to be operated). Since Translink has no extra cash, I don't think we should expect extra service this year when we'll get it next year anyways. It would probably make sense to 'tweak' the system to have 16 trains during peak periods, and then maybe only 12 during the daytime? say 10-2?
EDIT: During the Olympics, Translink paid for the operation of the extra trains, thus 20 trains were running.


*Waterfront - Yaletown plus Brighouse & YVR stations are already long enough to accommodate the mystical 3rd car. The other underground stations have knock-down walls that can be removed and with a few other mods become capable of handling 3car train-sets. Why they were not built to full length is simply due to keeping the costs down (same reason there are practically no down escalators -- the line was built to be cheap versus not built at all). The more difficult task of platform extensions is the remaining above ground and at-grade stations, which will require more complex construction. I think having the train overhang without utilizing all doors would be foolish. Such expansion is going to have a steep price tag I suggest, thus won't be done for at least 10 years.

*I find myself often in the middle of the train, those big open areas that have few hand holds compared to the # of people who can actually cram into this area. They should definitely increase the # of hand holds in this "bike/area". They could also look at maybe flip down seating for this area too, so people can sit when no bike is on board.

Last edited by TransitJack; Jun 4, 2010 at 7:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2010, 7:35 PM
Zassk Zassk is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,266
The OMC is nowhere near full. In the Google Maps image, I count 16 trains visible in the OMC (more may be inside buildings), and the OMC looks nearly empty compared to the Edmonds OMC. And there is lots of empty land available in the OMC to add more storage track. Have a look:

http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&sourc...00957&t=h&z=17

Last edited by Zassk; Jun 4, 2010 at 7:51 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2010, 8:09 PM
BCPhil BCPhil is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,486
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zassk View Post
The OMC is nowhere near full. In the Google Maps image, I count 16 trains visible in the OMC (more may be inside buildings), and the OMC looks nearly empty compared to the Edmonds OMC. And there is lots of empty land available in the OMC to add more storage track. Have a look:

http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&sourc...00957&t=h&z=17
Not only that, but when would you need 100% of your trains in the OMC at once? Even on Skytrain, at night they park trains on the tracks and sidings all over the system so that trains are in place for the morning commute (I imagine keeping them out saves a lot on electricity as you aren't sending empty trains all over the network). On the Canada line at the end of service you could line up a few trains on the Northbound track just North of Lansdowne. It would work like a First in Last out Stack, but for trains.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2010, 8:11 PM
twoNeurons twoNeurons is offline
loafing in lotusland
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lotusland
Posts: 5,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by TransitJack View Post
Some great comments on this issue so far. A few thoughts related to some of them:

EDIT: During the Olympics, Translink paid for the operation of the extra trains, thus 20 trains were running.
During the Olympics, VANOC paid Translink to run 20 trains. Translink then paid ProTrans.

It seems that under their previous CEO, Translink was successfully using the media to educate people on the issues.

Since he left for the NY transit system, Translink's positive Media coverage hasn't been that thorough.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2010, 8:26 PM
BCPhil BCPhil is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,486
Quote:
Originally Posted by aberdeen5698 View Post
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.
I would agree with that assessment.

People need to stop looking at this agreement between Translink and ProTrans like its written in stone and impossible to change. It's not 10 Commandments or a cell phone contract. These are two business entities that are in a mutual beneficial agreement where both parties get something important out of it. Tranlink gets rail service that they would otherwise have been unable to finance, and ProTrans gets money they would otherwise be unable to make without Tranlink.

Both parties can agree to amend the contract at any time, as long as it benefits both parties. This free-market check and balance keeps either side from being stupid.

If Translink feels like they need more trains to maintain and increase ridership (IE sell more fares, IE make more money) then they can approach Protrans and ask for more trains to be run. And Protrans will look at their costs and decide what a decent profit would be and say x amount of trains costs y amount of dollars to run. Translink will then look at their books and predictions, and either go, OK, the gain isn't worth the cost, or go sounds good. Translink can cover the costs of the trains themselves if ridership increases don't factor into how much Protrans gets. Protrans will then make more money, so why would they refuse?

This isn't like calling up your cell phone provider and asking for a new phone after the first year of your 3 year contract. Even then, you can still get a new phone if you pay. SNC-Lavalin has shareholders to answer to, who are looking for the most return on their investment possible. If an opportunity comes along to increase that, even if it is very slight, they would go for it. As long as the risk is mostly assumed by Translink, Protrans would probably go for anything. We have to decide if, at this point in time, it's actually worth the money for a couple of trains a day to be less jam packed.

Even the United States Constitution has been amended.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2010, 8:30 PM
TransitJack TransitJack is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zassk View Post
The OMC is nowhere near full. In the Google Maps image, I count 16 trains visible in the OMC (more may be inside buildings), and the OMC looks nearly empty compared to the Edmonds OMC. And there is lots of empty land available in the OMC to add more storage track. Have a look:

http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&sourc...00957&t=h&z=17
You can't fill every inch with trains. Any train yard needs to have the ability to MOVE trains within it. Drive over the Oak ST bridge after midnight and see how full it looks. I'm not saying its full to the brink, but adding more trains will mean adding more track to store them on.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2010, 9:05 PM
Zassk Zassk is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,266
The OMC appears to have enough storage track to hold 38 cars (outdoors and not impeding movements), and enough bare ground to double that by laying more lanes of track. The buildings look to be built for 3-car lengths. So I think the site is adequate for an ultimate fleet of 25-30 3-car trains.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2010, 9:39 PM
TransitJack TransitJack is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zassk View Post
The OMC appears to have enough storage track to hold 38 cars (outdoors and not impeding movements), and enough bare ground to double that by laying more lanes of track. The buildings look to be built for 3-car lengths. So I think the site is adequate for an ultimate fleet of 25-30 3-car trains.
I agree the site has more than enough room, I was suggesting that the storage tracks at night are already full and thus more tracks would need to be built to more easily accommodate such an increase.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2010, 9:46 PM
trofirhen's Avatar
trofirhen trofirhen is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 7,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by TransitJack View Post
I agree the site has more than enough room, I was suggesting that the storage tracks at night are already full and thus more tracks would need to be built to more easily accommodate such an increase.
All this seems to point to a more affordable, and efficient option than knocking out walls to make longer stations.

Introduce three-car trains and /or increase the frequency.

It's relatively the cheaper option, so why beat ourselves up over it? Just do it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2010, 11:23 PM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 6,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by trofirhen View Post
All this seems to point to a more affordable, and efficient option than knocking out walls to make longer stations.

Introduce three-car trains and /or increase the frequency.

It's relatively the cheaper option, so why beat ourselves up over it? Just do it.
Three car trains would mean knocking out walls and getting all of the stations to 50m. I think more frequency is the key.. on all rail lines in Metro Vancouver.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2010, 2:16 AM
SFUVancouver's Avatar
SFUVancouver SFUVancouver is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Kelowna
Posts: 5,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zassk View Post
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.
My source for 75% of Canada Line traffic being within Vancouver is from a Richmond News article on May 28th that quoted Ken Hardie:

http://www.richmond-news.com/story.html?id=3082101

Quote:
The YVR line carries an average of 9,300 passengers per day, Hardie said. That's about 10 per cent of the total daily number of 94,000. By contrast, about 15 per cent of riders use the Richmond segment (Bridgeport to Brighouse).
Read more: http://www.richmond-news.com/story.h...#ixzz0pwPfRtqU
__________________
VANCOUVER | Beautiful, Multicultural | Canada's Pacific Metropolis
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2010, 2:36 AM
jlousa's Avatar
jlousa jlousa is offline
Ferris Wheel Hater
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 7,833
SFU I read the same story I believe the discrepancy lies in the following tidbit.

Quote:
The YVR line carries an average of 9,300 passengers per day, Hardie said. That's about 10 per cent of the total daily number of 94,000. By contrast, about 15 per cent of riders use the Richmond segment (Bridgeport to Brighouse).
Bridgeport to Brighouse is 15%, everyone that gets off/on at Bridgeport headed to Vancouver is already removed from that 15% but still needs to be counted in the Richmond numbers as pointed out above. Hope that clears things up.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2010, 5:49 AM
Zassk Zassk is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFUVancouver View Post
My source for 75% of Canada Line traffic being within Vancouver is from a Richmond News article on May 28th that quoted Ken Hardie:
More than 20,000 express bus riders board Canada Line at Bridgeport, so it is simply not possible that Bridgeport is included in the 10% or 15% numbers that Ken Hardie stated for the two spurs. Bridgeport is one of the busiest stations in the whole SkyTrain network, I believe it was in the top 4 or 5 even among Expo line stations. Someone posted a station list on this message board a while back.

Vancouver is providing the remainder after 10% YVR line + 15% Richmond line + 25% Bridgeport (roughly).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2010, 6:38 AM
CLC CLC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zassk View Post
More than 20,000 express bus riders board Canada Line at Bridgeport, so it is simply not possible that Bridgeport is included in the 10% or 15% numbers that Ken Hardie stated for the two spurs. Bridgeport is one of the busiest stations in the whole SkyTrain network, I believe it was in the top 4 or 5 even among Expo line stations. Someone posted a station list on this message board a while back.

Vancouver is providing the remainder after 10% YVR line + 15% Richmond line + 25% Bridgeport (roughly).
Have you ever used Bridgeport station? It is relatively quiet during weekdays midday and quiet on weekends and holidays. It is not on par with Metrotown or Commercial-Broadway.

My estimate is 20-25% on weekdays. <10% on weekends
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2010, 6:56 AM
jsbertram jsbertram is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,945
I read it as 10% is YVR segment ridership and 15% is Brighouse segment ridership.

It doesn't say how much of the remaining 75% of the ridership is Suburban bus riders transferring to/from Canada Line at Bridgeport, nor now much of the traffic is inter-Vancouver riders (between Marine and Waterfront) ie: Oakridge to City hall or Yaletown to Waterfront.

It would be nice to get the raw numbers to see what the station-to-station traffic is really like.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted Apr 22, 2014, 3:23 PM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 6,325
Resurrecting this thread from the dead.

Frances Bula has a post on Canada Line capacity, potential expansion, etc.

http://www.francesbula.com/uncategor...de-depends-on/

Of note:

The "current line" has a capacity of 6,100 pphpd.

Latest count is 5,500 pphpd.

Capacity is listed as 10,000 if they can shorten the headways, but they don't have the cars for that, and 15,000 if they can shorten headways and get a C-car in between, and expand platforms, and so on.

I wonder what the 6,100 figure is based on. Is that using the 14 or 16 of 20 cars they have today, or having all 20 in service. Anybody know?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #99  
Old Posted Apr 22, 2014, 3:51 PM
spm2013 spm2013 is offline
More Towers
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,312
I guess this quote assumes shorter headroom times as well?

From the G&M article:

"“We have included all the estimates for regional growth, development along Cambie and in Richmond and, even by 2045, we can suffice with these two-car trains.”"

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle18068848/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #100  
Old Posted Apr 22, 2014, 4:09 PM
spm2013 spm2013 is offline
More Towers
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,312
Also reading some old posts, how does Translink's partnership with IntransitBC work in terms of increasing headroom times. I guess their contract will be over before they start work on the three-car option?

Some more numbers from a Translink presentation on the Canada Line:

Quote:
Service and capacity
- within first two year period an initial service plan will be run
- specifies frequencies run with the shortest headway 3.75 min and longest is 10 min – that’s for main branch of line between Waterfront and Richmond-Brighouse
- trip times by contract are 25 and 26 minutes (longer time is to YVR)
- and capacity initial service plan is 6400 at 400 per car
https://buzzer.translink.ca/2010/06/...-line-session/
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 10:21 AM.

     

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