VANCOUVER | Public Transport

[MrNogatco]

I don't understand the obsession with Bombardier's very expensive Skytrain technology and the equally costly Hitachi system used on the RAV line. Not to mention the tiny trains and limited expansion possibilities built into the system...

A more cost-effective, standard metro system running 6-8 car driver operated trains seems to make much more sense.

Human driven trains, and service personnel other than armed transit cops (glorified fare inspectors) on the trains and platforms would also make the system much friendlier and less sterile.

Good ole' Vancouver, sacrificing substance for expensive and mediocre style since 1986.

[manrush]

I don't mind driverless trains, per se. The expense of such systems is usually a hindrance.

I wonder if it would be at all possible to essentially turn the Canada Line into a future Vancouver MRT, perhaps turning the two-car units into four-car units.

Though the people over at a some transit websites would probably have a conniption about it.

[ssiguy2]

The RAV was so ill thought that the stations cannot be extended beyond 50 meters, a very cosy fit for 3 subway {60 metre} trains. After that Vancouver is screwed and will have to begin building a whole new line. At least SkyTrain was built with 72 metre stations which carries it's ability for 6 MK1 cars but more importantly the stations were all built to be able to be extended to 105 metres which is 9 MK1 lengths but due to the make up of the MK11 that has the capacity of 10.5 MK1 cars. Running every 90 seconds with the higher pick up speeds of SkyTrain that is high subway capacity.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by ssiguy2

The RAV was so ill thought that the stations cannot be extended beyond 50 meters, a very cosy fit for 3 subway {60 metre} trains. After that Vancouver is screwed and will have to begin building a whole new line. At least SkyTrain was built with 72 metre stations which carries it's ability for 6 MK1 cars but more importantly the stations were all built to be able to be extended to 105 metres which is 9 MK1 lengths but due to the make up of the MK11 that has the capacity of 10.5 MK1 cars. Running every 90 seconds with the higher pick up speeds of SkyTrain that is high subway capacity.

In terms of ridership capacity numbers, Canada Line has a potential capacity of the Expo Line in terms of movement of people per hour. The Expo Line is more important to have a high capacity because it connects many regional and municipal centres. Also, the Expo Line cuts through diagonally, which cannot be reproduced anywhere. With the Canada Line, parallel routes can be used, and this is better as it also improves access to rapid transit for many communities. And unlike what many people say, the Canada Line is not going to be overcapacity for quite a while.

Originally Posted by MrNogatco

I don't understand the obsession with Bombardier's very expensive Skytrain technology and the equally costly Hitachi system used on the RAV line. Not to mention the tiny trains and limited expansion possibilities built into the system...

A more cost-effective, standard metro system running 6-8 car driver operated trains seems to make much more sense.

Human driven trains, and service personnel other than armed transit cops (glorified fare inspectors) on the trains and platforms would also make the system much friendlier and less sterile.

Good ole' Vancouver, sacrificing substance for expensive and mediocre style since 1986.

Cost-effective 6-8 operated trains? First of all, constructing 6-8 car platforms are expensive and not cost-effective. This will just be excess capacity that wouldn't be used for a long time.

Automated trains allow for high frequencies that driver operated trains cannot reach. In theory, SkyTrains can arrive more frequent than 60 seconds, but optimal frequencies are every 90seconds, as ssiguy2 pointed out already. System automation also reduces the cost of having drivers in the first place: from an operational standpoint, it is cheaper, and this has been studied and noted by many public transit agencies. Linear Induction SkyTrains, while slightly more expensive as initially, are easy to operate and maintain. Our MK Is have lasted longer than its designed lifetime and haven't required a motor overhaul. Canada Line, on the other hand, we will have to see... That being said, initial costs per kilometre for Bombardier SkyTrains are still cheaper than 6-8 car systems. Just want to note that the Expo Line has platform extensions that can fit 6 MK IIs.

WRT staff that make up the system, well that's just another story. Being a frequent transit user, I don't see transit cops too much on the system. I see more of the SkyTrain staff. On the Canada Line, service is much better on their line and there is quite a bit of Canada Line attendants at stations.

Originally Posted by manrush

I don't mind driverless trains, per se. The expense of such systems is usually a hindrance.

I wonder if it would be at all possible to essentially turn the Canada Line into a future Vancouver MRT, perhaps turning the two-car units into four-car units.

Though the people over at a some transit websites would probably have a conniption about it.

4-Car units might be pushing it as the Waterfront track interchange are potential limits. In fact, the Canada Line technically can't fit a full 3rd Car unit (@ 20 metres). I believe the maximum is ~ 15m, which would mean overhang for the Canada Line trains, but just be able to fit all the doors on a 50 metre platform.

There are many advantages to automated systems. For one, operational cost is lower, and this has been studied already by many transit agencies. Human error problems are also reduced and

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by MrNogatco

I don't understand the obsession with Bombardier's very expensive Skytrain technology and the equally costly Hitachi system used on the RAV line. Not to mention the tiny trains and limited expansion possibilities built into the system...

A more cost-effective, standard metro system running 6-8 car driver operated trains seems to make much more sense.

Human driven trains, and service personnel other than armed transit cops (glorified fare inspectors) on the trains and platforms would also make the system much friendlier and less sterile.

Good ole' Vancouver, sacrificing substance for expensive and mediocre style since 1986.

Actually, the Canada Line uses Hyundai trains....and at the end of the day, I would take the Bombardier Mark II's in a heart beat. They are much more superior than the Hyundai trains we have, especially with speed and acceleration (Vancouver is near the top of the list when it comes to this).

And no, I very much like our automated system. While trains are shorter, trains come more frequently than most driver systems and it is done at minimal cost. You can't do this on a driver system without a significant operational cost. Automation is simply cheaper (both operational and capital), more effective, and safer.

In the future, the seating arrangements in the train can be arranged to side seating...that will easily boost capacity inside each train by at least 50%. And without station improvements, but with additional cars for both longer trains and more frequent service, the Expo Line and Millennium Line can each handle 30,000 passengers per hour per direction (pphpd). That is substantial. With future platform extensions from the current 80-metres to ~100-metres, the future max. capacity will near 40,000 pphpd.

The Expo Line has not reached its max. frequency and certainly not its max. capacity....it utilizes 14,000 pphpd of its 30,000 capacity; the trains do not fill the entire length of the platform.

We made a choice to build SkyTrain as our region's transit backbone. What's done is done, there's no turning back, and it has proven itself to be a great system....as the regional backbone, extensions must continue.

What we also need is fare gates.



Would you rather have...

1) A 30,000 pphpd system with smaller 3-car trains running every 90-secs...

OR

2) ...a 30,000 pphpd system with larger 8-car trains running every 6-mins?

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by manrush

I don't mind driverless trains, per se. The expense of such systems is usually a hindrance.

I wonder if it would be at all possible to essentially turn the Canada Line into a future Vancouver MRT, perhaps turning the two-car units into four-car units.

Though the people over at a some transit websites would probably have a conniption about it.

Anything's possible...it is possible to extend the platforms to accommodate 4-car trains (2-car trains paired together, not the shorter middle C-cars). But it would just be very, very expensive....and sadly, it will be a necessary future expense.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by ssiguy2

The RAV was so ill thought that the stations cannot be extended beyond 50 meters, a very cosy fit for 3 subway {60 metre} trains. After that Vancouver is screwed and will have to begin building a whole new line. At least SkyTrain was built with 72 metre stations which carries it's ability for 6 MK1 cars but more importantly the stations were all built to be able to be extended to 105 metres which is 9 MK1 lengths but due to the make up of the MK11 that has the capacity of 10.5 MK1 cars. Running every 90 seconds with the higher pick up speeds of SkyTrain that is high subway capacity.

Again, it's a 3-car subway train. Not 3 subway trains, that would make it a 6-car train.

SkyTrain is built with 80-metre platforms, not 72.


And while the Canada Line is most certainly underbuilt, it does have the same max. capacity as the current Expo Line at 15,000 pphpd. It's substantial....current capacity restraints are solely from a lack of trains.

Ridership for the Canada Line is currently at 105,000/day (a number not expected until 2013!), and odds are it will also be much more than 142,000 by 2021. With the Millennium Line extension to UBC with a transfer hub at Cambie to the Canada Line, ridership on the Canada Line could see an increase of 50,000/day.

The Canada Line can still reach frequencies of 90-secs from Waterfront to Bridgeport, and 3-minutes from Bridgeport to YVR or Richmond.


And the Olympics proved that the Canada Line, with all its current 20-trains in use, can move great volumes. It moved 200,000/day comfortably during the Games...there were some delays when ridership exceeded 200,000 and neared 300,000 on some days.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by ssiguy2

In normal circumstances I would not advocate SkyTrain but it's pretty much a must do to aleviate a needless transfer at Comericial/Broadway. The system must be made to be as seamless as possible.
I do not however agree with a UBC extention. It only needs to go to Alma and after that a BLine. After alma the ride is free flowing, the there is available area along 10th for higher density housing and there are far higher priorities namely Hastings. The Hastings corridor along that part of Broadway is far far busier and more congested. Commercial to Alma but after that Hastings must be top priority with no exception. UBC can wait.

Not sure why you're so obsessed with Hastings, you clearly underestimate the demand coming from UBC...a major regional destination.

A Hastings rail transit line can wait until UBC and the south of Fraser rail infrastructure is complete. Hastings is within the Millennium Line corridor, it doesn't make much sense.

[spongeg]

something Canada line has going for it is its in Vancouver and judging by what the city has not done, other than joyce, they haven't really built up around the stations - its neighbour cities have done so though so there won't be a huge surge in passenger growth to worry about
haha

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by spongeg

something Canada line has going for it is its in Vancouver and judging by what the city has not done, other than joyce, they haven't really built up around the stations - its neighbour cities have done so though so there won't be a huge surge in passenger growth to worry about
haha

IMO not at all...many have underestimated the demand on the Vancouver-Richmond corridor. Current ridership numbers prove that.

Although the City of Vancouver likely won't change its policies on densification around most stations, Downtown Vancouver and especially Richmond City Centre will only grow in the years to come. And Oakridge Mall is on its way into becoming a major destination with its future renovations and expansions. There's also rapidly the growing east-west bus ridership that funnels passengers into the Canada Line.

The Millennium Line extension to UBC is going to attract many, many new riders to the Canada Line:

1) Canada Line corridor residents being able to access Broadway quickly

2) Current bus passengers switching to the Millennium Line (via Canada Line) for its shorter travel times to destinations like UBC

3) A flood of Expo Line passengers transferring to the Millennium and Evergreen Lines at Commercial/Broadway for transfer to the Canada Line. It also makes airport rail travel much more feasible to those living in the East.


I'd expect no less than 50,000 new riders on the Canada Line when the UBC extension opens.

[MrNogatco]

Interesting perspectives...

One thing I don't get...why didn't they use Skytrain on the Canada Line? I'm not a huge fan of Skytrain but, for consistencies sake, it makes more sense to use the same technology throughout the system. Also, as someone pointed out, at least Skytrain platforms are easier to lengthen when that time comes. Canada Line, not so much.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by MrNogatco

Interesting perspectives...

One thing I don't get...why didn't they use Skytrain on the Canada Line? I'm not a huge fan of Skytrain but, for consistencies sake, it makes more sense to use the same technology throughout the system. Also, as someone pointed out, at least Skytrain platforms are easier to lengthen when that time comes. Canada Line, not so much.

It's not the technology method that restricts platform extension, it's the construction method. SNC/Lavalin's bid was to shave costs, and it was able to meet the capacity requirements set out by RAVCO by using short platforms with shorter, but wider trains. Also note, RAVCO was to level out the playing field. Originally, Bombardier was proposing to add train stocks with the Edmonds OMC, thus making their bid much more attractive. Of course, this restricts other companies, so RAVCO required that this is an independent system with its own OMC and vehicles, which makes sense to some extent.

Before, I thought for consistency sakes, they should just have it SkyTrain too. But one has to realize most metros around the world don't have the same technology/rolling stock used. It is also important to note that the Canada Line and the rest of the SkyTrain network serve a complete different transit user. Transfers between the Canada Line and the Expo Line are there, but there aren't too many, and if there are, most of them are still commuting within Vancouver and choose to use the Canada Line as the other options are much slower (i.e. 99 B-Line). Take the Hong Kong MTR for instance, most of the lines has its own rolling stock, but from the interior, they all look the same. In that sense, I agree, we should've developed a consistent look and branding for the Canada Line. It should have had the same livery design as the new MK IIs (Black/Blue/Yellow/Grey) instead of the ugly blue/green/grey scheme. The interiors should've looked similar to the MK IIs as well, with lots of white light (vs florescent now), comfortable seating material, and yellow handle bars. The Canada Line train icons should look like the SkyTrain ones and there is no need of differentiating the two.

Another advantage of using conventional rail technology is that we aren't stuck with Bombardier if we ever want more rolling stock in our system. Many manufacturers, including Bombardier, create conventional rail vehicles and given the proper specifications, many more companies can build them.

Also to note, if the Canada Line was built to higher specifications, it would've allowed longer platforms, but would've increased its cost exponentially.

[lightrail]

Originally Posted by MrNogatco

I don't understand the obsession with Bombardier's very expensive Skytrain technology and the equally costly Hitachi system used on the RAV line. Not to mention the tiny trains and limited expansion possibilities built into the system...

A more cost-effective, standard metro system running 6-8 car driver operated trains seems to make much more sense.

Human driven trains, and service personnel other than armed transit cops (glorified fare inspectors) on the trains and platforms would also make the system much friendlier and less sterile.

Good ole' Vancouver, sacrificing substance for expensive and mediocre style since 1986.

Obsession. Let's see:
1. trains can run as frequently as 45 seconds apart
2. automated trains accelerate the same and decelerate the same every single time, no exception - meaning headway's are easily maintained
3. no driver means train turn around can be as quick as it takes to load and unload - no need to wait for the driver to switch ends or take a break
4. no driver means trains can be added, or service extended as demand warrants without having to schedule drivers for them
5. no drivers means that trains can run shorter but more frequently - no labour costs involved in running more but shorter trains.
6. standard metros are not necessarily cost effective. The trains are heavier and require more power, more servicing and higher safety standards and train separation, etc.
7. Skytrain is driven by linear induction - no moving parts, so is actually inexpensive and low maintenance - and extremely reliable
8. Drivers do not make me feel any safer - I've never seen one come out of the cab to render assistance. Agree with more staff at stations, but that can be done on the current system, the technology has nothing to do with it.

Here's a fact - in it's 24 year history, Skytrain has never had an accident while under automated control.

[deasine]

Good point about the turn around. Missed that. And to note, many of the "manual" systems are actually semi-automated. Some systems went full conversion from manual to automated, like the Paris Metro. Interestingly enough, operator RATP was able to do a full conversion of Line 1 to automation while keeping the system fully running: http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2...mate-a-subway/

[spongeg]

Originally Posted by mr.x

IMO not at all...many have underestimated the demand on the Vancouver-Richmond corridor. Current ridership numbers prove that.

Although the City of Vancouver likely won't change its policies on densification around most stations, Downtown Vancouver and especially Richmond City Centre will only grow in the years to come. And Oakridge Mall is on its way into becoming a major destination with its future renovations and expansions. There's also rapidly the growing east-west bus ridership that funnels passengers into the Canada Line.

The Millennium Line extension to UBC is going to attract many, many new riders to the Canada Line:

1) Canada Line corridor residents being able to access Broadway quickly

2) Current bus passengers switching to the Millennium Line (via Canada Line) for its shorter travel times to destinations like UBC

3) A flood of Expo Line passengers transferring to the Millennium and Evergreen Lines at Commercial/Broadway for transfer to the Canada Line. It also makes airport rail travel much more feasible to those living in the East.


I'd expect no less than 50,000 new riders on the Canada Line when the UBC extension opens.

it functioned fine during the olympics it will be fine for years to come

teh last time i used it last week it was dead at the stations i went to and there was plenty of room on the trains in the afternoon - expo line was much busier

[mr.x]

Canada Line races toward capacity
The SkyTrain branch nears 100,000 riders per day three years ahead of schedule after Olympics brought the crowds out

By Kelly Sinoski, Vancouver Sun
June 1, 2010 11:02 PM

The new Canada Line is nearing capacity three years ahead of schedule, prompting TransLink to look at "tactical options" to help ease pressure on the 19-km route.

The line has been recording an average of 94,000 trips per day — just shy of its capacity of 100,000 riders, a number TransLink had not expected to reach until 2013. It now anticipates it could reach that number as early as next year.

While immediate options to ease overcrowding include running an extra train from Brighouse during peak periods, passengers won't see any more trains running regularly between Vancouver and Richmond until the summer of 2011.

TransLink believes passenger numbers are higher than projected due in part to the Olympic need to get drivers off the roads, as well as a push to funnel suburban bus commuters to the new line.

"You make your projections on what you know ... years in advance of the project startup," TransLink spokesman Ken Hardie said. "It's probably the Olympics that have been the key difference [between] what we were expecting and what we have."

Ridership on the $2-billion Canada Line has been growing steadily since it began operating last August.

Hardie didn't have a total count of how many new riders are taking the train, but according to TransLink figures, the number of daily commuters from south Surrey and White Rock using the No. 351 bus was up 38.9 per cent in May from last June.

Weekend traffic also rose by 52.5 per cent on Saturdays and 53.2 per cent on Sundays.

That increase, as well as a rise in commuters from Richmond, Delta and Vancouver, has contributed to passenger crunches along the Canada Line.

The squeeze is particularly severe at Brighouse, the transit hub for all local Richmond buses, and Bridgeport, where buses shuttle long-haul commuters from Delta, south Surrey and White Rock, during rush hour.

For Percy Bond, this means he never gets a seat when he boards the train at Brighouse for his commute into Vancouver. The only way he can do so, he said, is to get off at Bridgeport and take the airport train, which is usually empty, into downtown.

"I like [Canada Line] except for the fact it's always full," he said. "What surprises me is they can't put three cars on ... it would be nice to see in the rush hour."

Hardie said that now, TransLink typically runs 14 of its 20 Canada Line trains, each with two cars, at 3.5-minute intervals, with another two trains added at rush hour.

By August of 2011, the transit authority plans to regularly run 16 trains, which will represent a 12-per-cent lift in service, every 3.33 minutes.

Hardie wouldn't say how much this would cost.

But he noted that when "we run more transit, we spend more money."

But that doesn't mean commuters won't see any improvements this year, he said, as TransLink has the option to improve service during peak periods to deal with severe overcrowding or pass-ups.

Options include adding extra trains to the Brighouse line during "peak of peak" periods, he said, as well as having buses scheduled for Brighouse shifted to Bridgeport, where commuters can catch a second, nearly empty train, from the airport.

While the airport trains don't have the same passenger numbers, Hardie said TransLink isn't considering moving some of those trains to the Brighouse line. He noted a new park and ride facility at Templeton on the YVR line is drawing more transit users and airport traffic is expected to rise. The park and ride is for airport workers and passengers, who are travelling on the Sea Island route.

The YVR line carries an average 9,300 passengers per day, or 10 per cent of the total ridership, compared with 15 per cent on the Richmond line.

Hardie noted the Canada Line has only been running for less than 10 months so it's still early days and variables such as high fuel costs or parking can have an effect on transit use.

Vancouver commuter Ken Law, who lives at 49th and Cambie, drove downtown regularly until the Olympics. He said transit has proven to be more convenient, faster and cheaper, especially with higher parking prices expected with the HST.

"I find it okay," he said. "If you can save money and don't have to drive, there's less stress."

Hardie noted he expects ridership to continue to grow, especially as municipalities continue to densify areas around the transit stations.

Richmond has been densifying its city centre since 2000 in anticipation of huge transit use of the Canada Line. "There was a pent-up demand for effective, reliable transit in the Richmond, Vancouver transit corridor," Mayor Malcolm Brodie said.

Meanwhile, Hardie noted there is another silver lining for TransLink if the Canada Line reaches its capacity by next year.

The rapid transit line was built as a public-private partnership, with TransLink guaranteeing to subsidize ridership shortfalls of less than 100,000 per day. It must also provide operator InTransitBC with some capital, as well as debt-service costs of $38 million to $39 million over the life of the 35-year agreement.

Once it hits an average 100,000 riders, Canada Line will reach the break-even point in covering its own operating costs, similar to the Expo and Millennium lines.

"With a lift in capacity next year, that could move [ridership] pretty darn close," Hardie said, but added: "All signs still point to TransLink having to hustle to meet up with the demand."

ksinoski@vancouversun.com
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/t...#ixzz0pfx7GVzN







One big sigh....albeit an obvious ridership success. I can't believe they're still using only 14 trains, and next year's increase will only add 2 trains for a total of 16. It needs 18 today! Unbelievable.

If this were BCRTC-operated SkyTrain, there wouldn't be any of this nonsense...it doesn't cost THAT much to immediately put 2 or even 4 more trains onto the system. The only thing that's obviously stopping them is the P3 contract.




"You make your projections on what you know ... years in advance of the project startup," TransLink spokesman Ken Hardie said. "It's probably the Olympics that have been the key difference [between] what we were expecting and what we have."

The Olympics has increased ridership marginally, I certainly wouldn't put the spotlight on the effect of the Games entirely...we saw the numbers before the Games started and they were already quite high.

You sure did screw up on the ridership projections, Translink...or RAVCO, whatever. It was incredibly clear from the beginning that this line would see high ridership.

It's almost unheard of that a new rapid transit rail service is near/at capacity 10 months after opening. It's a clusterf@ck.

[trainrover]

Originally Posted by deasine

like the Paris Metro

rubbish!

[lightrail]

Originally Posted by lightrail

.

Here's a fact - in it's 24 year history, Skytrain has never had an accident while under automated control.

Guess I tempted fate here. SkyTrain just had it's first derailment while under automated control. Seems something came loose from a train and derailed the following train. No injuries or fatalities, but it shut down a portion of the line for a few hours.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by lightrail

Guess I tempted fate here. SkyTrain just had it's first derailment while under automated control. Seems something came loose from a train and derailed the following train. No injuries or fatalities, but it shut down a portion of the line for a few hours.

It's important to note that this accident was not because of a computer glitch, but because a loose component of the rail boogie fell onto the tracks, causing the wheel of the MK I vehicle to hit and "jump" the track. I say "jump" because the train was really going at less than 10 km/h.

[manrush]

You know, I never really got why the "Rail for the Valley" blog has such a beef with the SkyTrain and similar systems.