Canada Line races toward capacity

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by casper

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

Really!!?? On which street(s) is that route, do you know?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Really!!?? On which street(s) is that route, do you know?

Who knows? It could be anywhere!

But it's certainly not the ROW three express stops from Cambie that used to be a railway...

[TransitJack]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

90s IIRC at least I believe thats what the Expo Line can do. The whole problem is that I think we will use up headway improvements relatively quickly.

I think it is like 2 mins max. Without a tail track at WFS it gets pretty tight. Perhaps if they used both platforms at WFS it could drop down a bit, but not by much.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

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

Why naut? Just build onto the road! Surely it can take the structural load?

Also, is there space to double-track the No.3 Rd. Spur?

Originally Posted by casper

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

Sources or it didn't happen. Also, why does the city need to buy it if it already owns those streets?

Plus, it would still be more expensive to cut-n-cover say, on Main Street, over than rebuilding the Canada Line's stations?

Also, if you're going to do that, put B-Line service on Oak and Grandville, then rebuild the Canada Line. The type of system is probably locked (at that point you might as well build a new one), but expanding the Canada Line would allow for those 2 planned stations at 47th and Queen Elizabeth Park to become a reality. We already have the rails.

Unless the Canada Line is 100% filled, and there is no other option... but then the 2 stations would be lost. Plus, it would have worse connectivity to actual destinations. It's not like twinning a bridge.

[flipper316]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Am I missing something? Does the Oval really attract so many people that it makes sense to run a rapid transit line to it? There must be literally dozens of destinations in the lower mainland that can make a much better case for rapid transit. Starting with the hospital district on Broadway.

Broadway City Hall station is just a few blocks from VGH

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Really!!?? On which street(s) is that route, do you know?

Originally Posted by fredinno

Sources or it didn't happen. Also, why does the city need to buy it if it already owns those streets?

Since it's late and our neurons aren't firing at their fastest, I'll spell it out - casper means the Arbutus ROW.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Since it's late and our neurons aren't firing at their fastest, I'll spell it out - casper means the Arbutus ROW.

If they build it on the Arbutus Row, I just hope to Hades it's a full-fledged subway, not LRT.

[POCO]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

If they build it on the Arbutus Row, I just hope to Hades it's a full-fledged subway, not LRT.

There's never going to be any kind of mass transit on the Arbutus Row other than cycling. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional. They had to stop paving the frigging bike path because the rich special snowflakes that live there weren't "consulted."

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by POCO

There's never going to be any kind of mass transit on the Arbutus Row other than cycling. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional. They had to stop paving the frigging bike path because the rich special snowflakes that live there weren't "consulted."

I think the most possible mass transit would be an infrequent heritage streetcar going down a single track with passing loops at stations.

Also, it would make those rich and selfish NIMBY's even richer because their property value would increase exponentially the very second that an estimated construction start date is even announced. Who wouldn't want their property values to skyrocket outside the confines of the universe?

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by casper

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

I wonder if they'll ever allow any density along Arbutus to make a subway work because if it's just going to be some line to improve north-south traffic from Richmond then maybe building that line somewhere east would make more sense. Would probably see streetcars running on Arbutus as a bus replacement but not a high volume line.

[whatnext]

The station that is most emblematic of C-Line cost cutting is YVR. The platform is ridiculously undersized. And then if you want to go to the international terminal you have to walk outside and cross three lanes of traffic. There should have been an enclosed elevated walkway.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

I think the most possible mass transit would be an infrequent heritage streetcar going down a single track with passing loops at stations.

Also, it would make those rich and selfish NIMBY's even richer because their property value would increase exponentially the very second that an estimated construction start date is even announced. Who wouldn't want their property values to skyrocket outside the confines of the universe?

Screw that, extend West Coast Express down that corridor! Of course, it would have to wait for a bit longer until Cambie and Broadway have high-rises forming walls around their stations.

I think the NIMBYs are more worried about their neighborhood being converted to urban lands.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Imo I like many other doubt Arbutus I is going to be turned into an RT anytime soon. I also certainly don't think it's going to take 50 or 60 years for the Canada Line to reach capacity considering how fast ridership is already growing and the significant new development occuring along Cambie as well as at YVR and in Richmond.

Building another line is certainly an option however at that point you can throw out arguments that Canada Line upgrades are too disruptive or expensive because building a whole new line to a better spec would certainly be very very costly.

I'd imagine for 1 billion or so dollars they could reconfigure Bridgeport and expand all the stations, one option I've thought of in the past would be just running YVR as a shuttle to Bridgeport and thus not necessitating expansion of the Sea Island stations.

You think YVR is going to convert its rail back to bus?

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[nname]

I thought one of the condition for YVR's contribution is a direct service to downtown in less than 25min...

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[officedweller]

As a side note, remember that the short and wide trains and stations enabled a shallow, user friendly cut and cover line.
If the Bombardier proposal with 80m platforms had been built, the line would have been much deeper to lessen grades between stations - and take longer to access the platforms.

Originally Posted by whatnext

The station that is most emblematic of C-Line cost cutting is YVR. The platform is ridiculously undersized. And then if you want to go to the international terminal you have to walk outside and cross three lanes of traffic. There should have been an enclosed elevated walkway.

Even so, compared to Seattle, the distance is amazingly short.

... and YVR is considering building a second platform (Spanish solution) on the parkade side of the track.

There has been a major modal shift in the number of people who take public transit to YVR to the degree that 25% of all people – both travelers and workers – now use public transit, with 20% using the SkyTrain Canada Line and 5% using transit buses. With these numbers, YVR has some of the highest transit ridership in the content, and it more than doubles the 10% transit ridership at Toronto Pearson International Airport – the only other airport in Canada connected to a rail rapid transit service that leads to the city centre.

In an interview last year, Richmond told Daily Hive that it could reduce overcrowding at YVR Airpot Station by building another platform area on the opposite side of the station’s single track. Similar to the SeaBus ferry terminal platforms, this configuration would allow passengers to embark and disembark the train from both sides of the train.

http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/vanco...nsion-yvr-2037

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Haha nonono what I mean by shuttle is just a 2 car Canada Line Train rather than 4 car which I propose.

And what would that help? The big issue is that Canada Line as a whole is underbuilt, Bridgeport needs to build onto the road to allow for larger trains, and Brighouse and the entire No.3 spur would need to be rebuilt to extend Canada to Steveston.

Plus, we need the 4 car trains as YVR expands.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by fredinno

And what would that help? The big issue is that Canada Line as a whole is underbuilt, Bridgeport needs to build onto the road to allow for larger trains, and Brighouse and the entire No.3 spur would need to be rebuilt to extend Canada to Steveston.

Plus, we need the 4 car trains as YVR expands.

YVR/Sea Island needs it's own frequent circulator system. 2 YVR terminal stations on the Canada Line won't be feasible in my opinion, but if someone wants to refute that, go ahead.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by whatnext

The station that is most emblematic of C-Line cost cutting is YVR. The platform is ridiculously undersized. And then if you want to go to the international terminal you have to walk outside and cross three lanes of traffic. There should have been an enclosed elevated walkway.

You got that right! I was really disappointed to find that the entrance didn't connect directly into the terminal building. Oh well, better than at Seattle....