daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Subways and Urban Transport

Subways and Urban Transport Metros, subways, light rail, trams, buses and other local transport systems



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old July 14th, 2005, 08:47 AM   #441
Yappofloyd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Bangkok & Melbourne
Posts: 971
Likes (Received): 49

Excuse my ignorance but what is the small metal frame at the front of the bus on the drivers side? It looks as though it folds down?
Yappofloyd no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old July 14th, 2005, 09:10 AM   #442
zonie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 331
Likes (Received): 0

Nobody’s saying Vancouver is perfect, and that goes for me as well. What I’m saying though is that the Canada Line is just about the perfect solution for a rapid transit line in that particular area – far superior to conventional at-grade LRT or anything else given the particular capacity this application demands. Ask yourself if it would really make sense to have an LRT holding up each intersection on Cambie every couple minutes? Would it be worth the relatively small difference to the taxpayers now to impede traffic for a century?
zonie no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 14th, 2005, 09:19 AM   #443
[email protected]
Philippine Forum Mod
 
queetz@home's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Ortigas (Pasig City)
Posts: 3,678
Likes (Received): 3025

So basically you are defending the single occupancy vehicle users. Because if holding up each intersection would inconvenience those people who refuses to give up their cars for transit, then I don't have a problem with that. And if you really love the GVRD, you shouldn't have a problem with it either! For the amount of money you spend on one single subway line underneath the Westside of Vancouver, you can build an extensive LRT system throughout every corner of the region so ALL residents of the GVRD will have access to decent transit and a true alternative to the automobile, not just the creme de la creme who would NEVER give up their Acuras and BMWs for transit anyway.
queetz@home no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 14th, 2005, 09:25 AM   #444
mr.x
Ex-mod
 
mr.x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: █♣█ Vancouver
Posts: 7,931
Likes (Received): 486

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yappofloyd
Excuse my ignorance but what is the small metal frame at the front of the bus on the drivers side? It looks as though it folds down?
That's a bike rack.
__________________
"My Homer is not a communist. He may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a communist, but he is NOT a porn star." - Abe Simpson

"Preparations for the Vancouver 2010 Olympics are progressing so well, it's boring. We'd like there to be some challenges, so we [the IOC] could shout at them." - IOC (Sept. 2007)


"In medieval Europe if you didn't like somebody's argument and couldn't think of a real response you called them a witch and demanded they be burned at the stake. In the US you call them unpatriotic, and in Canada you call them racist."
mr.x no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 14th, 2005, 09:57 AM   #445
zonie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 331
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wally
For the amount of money you spend on one single subway line underneath the Westside of Vancouver, you can build an extensive LRT system throughout every corner of the region
I highly doubt the half-billion or so that GVRD taxpayers are paying for the Canada Line could build an extensive LRT system throughout the region when the Coquitlam LRT alone is supposed to be about $800 million (maybe a couple hundred million less than Skytrain would be, which is a bit of shortsightedness in my opinion).

According to KPMG, converting Arbutus to LRT would be a $1.1-$1.2 billion job, which is hardly as cheap as you and Ssiguy2 seem to be suggesting, especially as a Cambie route would undoubtedly cost more. Also, the travel time would be about 11-15 minutes longer, up to 60% slower, which would surely deter riders. Further, the airport required a 25 minute time to downtown as a requirement for its funding, which LRT seemingly cannot manage.

I also wanted to add that you can’t just force people to take transit - this is a mostly democratic country after all. Vancouverites support the Canada Line in its chosen form. I find it hard to believe they'd support a nearly-as-expensive to build, more expensive to operate, significantly slower and lower capacity system that would replace heavily utilised road lanes, and otherwise slow traffic.

Last edited by zonie; July 14th, 2005 at 11:17 AM.
zonie no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 14th, 2005, 08:03 PM   #446
nname
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 126
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wally
Why is it that the at grade C-Train carries just or more riders than Greater Vancouver's fully grade seperated Skytrain?
It might be because of the service area and population that it convers. You might say that Calgary has only half of the population as GVRD, but if you capare the area, Calgary is only 72,200 ha (http://www.municipalaffairs.gov.ab.c...unctype_01.pdf) while GVRD has a size of 284,400 ha (http://www.gvrd.bc.ca/growth/keyfacts/landuse.htm) - that is nearly 4 times as large! In fact, the cities and that have rapid transit going through is barely half of the total GVRD population, not to mention that only Vancouver east side and a small portion of Surrey is served by skytrain. Area such as North and West Vancouver, Richmond, Delta, Tri Cities, Langley, White Rock, Pitt Meadow, Maple Ridge, Lions Bay, and Bowen Island doesn't even have any rapid transit (although the latter two have almost no population at all...). I remembered once there's a report on Translink website saying that the total GVRD served by rapid transit is somewhere around 30% or 40%...

I had to admit that it was not a good planning to be so spread out, but this can't be changed and we just have to accept it. It should not be blame on rapid transit and saying that skytrain is ineffective and is a failed system just because it does not carry the passengers that it isn't served. To have a system that serve the entire or most of the GVRD population is merely impossible.
nname no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 14th, 2005, 08:10 PM   #447
nname
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 126
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wally
For the amount of money you spend on one single subway line underneath the Westside of Vancouver, you can build an extensive LRT system throughout every corner of the region so ALL residents of the GVRD will have access to decent transit
That will probably require at least 10-20 billions even if it was LRT. Do you know that the distance from Horseshoe Bay to Aldergrove is almost 100km? Not to mention that there's Lions Bay and Bowen Island. If such system is build, then it would probably be longer than the New York subway or London Tube...
nname no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 14th, 2005, 11:10 PM   #448
officedweller
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,379
Likes (Received): 98

To remove land from the Agricultural Land Reserve, you would need to apply to the Agricultural Land Commission - a Provinicial government body. It is very difficult to remove land from the ALR.

As for an LRT being cheaper for the RAV line, the contract includes OPERATION of the line as well. So having to pay drivers during the 30 year contract period for the line would probably produce a higher total bottom line cost than an automated line or a hybrid automated/manual line. Especially with 3 minute headways.
It's not just capital costs, it's also operating costs that are included in the RAV contract.
It's a design, build, partially finance, operate and maintain contract.

Here's an excerpt from the RAV website FAQs:

How much will the RAV Line cost, and is it too expensive for our region?

The Funding Agencies (Governments of Canada and British Columbia, TransLink, and the Vancouver International Airport Authority) have a set of clear requirements for the RAV Line. These relate not only to safety, capacity, speed, and frequency, but also the affordability of both the construction and operations.

Highly experienced proponent teams were invited to propose solutions that would best meet our operational needs, within the financial parameters specified. These financial parameters included two kinds of costs - capital and operating. A system that is less expensive to build but too expensive to maintain, or one that doesn't generate enough riders and therefore fares [sic] to pay for itself over the long run, is not an affordable system.

All of these variables must be considered when looking at the overall cost. The RAV Line's estimated capital cost of about $1.72 billion ($2003) will provide the additional transportation capacity equivalent to 10 road lanes and serve the region for the next 50 to 100 years. Fare revenue and savings associated with the RAV Line are projected to be equal to or greater than operating costs over the life of the 30-year contract, i.e., requiring no operating subsidy.
__________________
officedweller

Last edited by officedweller; July 14th, 2005 at 11:29 PM.
officedweller no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 15th, 2005, 12:22 AM   #449
nname
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 126
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by officedweller
As for an LRT being cheaper for the RAV line, the contract includes OPERATION of the line as well. So having to pay drivers during the 30 year contract period for the line would probably produce a higher total bottom line cost than an automated line or a hybrid automated/manual line. Especially with 3 minute headways.
And they can't be so cheap to build some single track sections down at the Richmond end. However, I absolutely hate this idea of single tracking... Can you believe it, having both northbond and southbond trains shared a single track between Bridgeport stn and Cambie Road stn, and also from Alderbridge stn all the way to the end. This make the system really hard to expand, and that's probably why the ultimate capacity state that the system can at most run at frequency of 4 min. I don't think any rapid transit system in the world that actually does this...
nname no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 15th, 2005, 01:32 AM   #450
mr.x
Ex-mod
 
mr.x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: █♣█ Vancouver
Posts: 7,931
Likes (Received): 486

^ they should make the Richmond single track be expandable to double track in the future......and the station platforms should also be expandable so they can handle more vehicles in the future.
__________________
"My Homer is not a communist. He may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a communist, but he is NOT a porn star." - Abe Simpson

"Preparations for the Vancouver 2010 Olympics are progressing so well, it's boring. We'd like there to be some challenges, so we [the IOC] could shout at them." - IOC (Sept. 2007)


"In medieval Europe if you didn't like somebody's argument and couldn't think of a real response you called them a witch and demanded they be burned at the stake. In the US you call them unpatriotic, and in Canada you call them racist."
mr.x no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 15th, 2005, 01:41 AM   #451
officedweller
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,379
Likes (Received): 98

A lot of LRT systems do that and there are some monorails in Japan that do it - but I'm not sure of heavy rail or mini-metros that do it.

RAV Bulletin No. 8 - issued today - says that Translink will decide by July 20th whether to exercise an option to double track the Brdigeport to Cambie segment. Staff recommend reinstatement of the double tracks - see agenda link below. The cost is only $10.26M. Hopefully they will.

Here's my SSP post on the bulletin:

****************
Airport Line Takes Shape
Decision on Project Options


RAVCO and InTransitBC (the selected contractor for the RAV
Line) are currently finalizing Project agreements according to
the mandate provided by Funding Agencies in December 2004.

The mandate from Funding Agencies provided for essential
elements of Project scope, such as number of stations, affordability, travel time and capacity requirements.

In addition, Agencies provided for optional elements of Project scope. These options were to be explored further and “exercised” (or not) by the relevant Funding Agency (see
table on page 2).

Option - Status

Addition of False Creek South Station at Cambie and 2nd Avenue - Approved by City of Vancouver and TransLink

Pedestrian / Bike Bridge with the North Arm Fraser River Bridge - Approved by TransLink

YVR Alignment Alternative - Approved by Airport Authority and TransLink

Single Track Airport Line in vicinity of terminus station - Approved by Airport Authority and TransLink

Deferral of YVR3 Station - Approved by Airport Authority and TransLink

Construction Management Agreement for Design and Construction of YVR Stations - Approved by Airport Authority and TransLink

Location of King Edward Station (to Northwest Corner King Edward and Cambie) - Approved by TransLink

Alignment of Richmond City Centre Station (east side of No. 3 Road) - Approved by TransLink

Double Track Main Line from Bridgeport to Cambie Station in Richmond - Decision by TransLink scheduled for July 20, 2005

Additional Train - Deadline lapsed - Option not exercised

Controlled Access to Stations - Decision by TransLink pending


YVR Segment of the RAV Line

In total, the RAV Line is about 19km long with 17 stations. The Line will run underground in downtown Vancouver, under False Creek and underground along Cambie to 64th Avenue.

The elevated portion of the Line begins just before Marine Drive in Vancouver and continues over the North Arm of the Fraser River and into Richmond. The Vancouver International Airport (YVR) Line begins at Bridgeport Station in Richmond and branches off to cross over the Middle Arm of the Fraser River (Moray Channel) and onto Sea Island.

While plans called for the Airport Line to be elevated to the terminal station, the Vancouver International Airport Authority and TransLink have agreed that:

�� A portion of the Line on Sea Island (approx 1.7km, from east of YVR1 to west of YVR2) will run separated from traffic but at grade instead of elevated;

�� The guideway will be a single rather than a double track for a 650-metre segment in the vicinity of the YVR terminals;

�� Construction of one of four stations on Sea Island (YVR3 Station) will be deferred to a future date;

�� The Airport Authority will work closely with InTransitBC on the design and construction of YVR stations.

These changes were requested by the Airport Authority, which is paying for the Airport Line and contributing to Main Line costs. The changes will support future efficient movement on airport lands and ensure that YVR stations are integrated effectively with the airport terminals as they undergo future
improvements and expansion.

The decision by the Airport Authority to defer construction of one of the RAV Line stations (shown on maps as YVR3) on Sea Island was made because there is currently no need for a station at that location. While future airport development, including a possible terminal, is planned for the site, deferring construction of
this RAV station saves funds and allows flexibility for reassessing the need for a station at a later date when development options and timing have been finalized.

Consultation for the Airport Authority’s 20-year longterm Master Plan began in November 2004 and will continue until the end of 2006.

The consultation process seeks input on future airport development options. The input will inform the Airport Authority’s 2007-2027 Master Plan and help determine how land at YVR will be developed over the coming decades.

The YVR changes do not affect the overall cost of the Airport Line, s the savings from moving a portion of the Line to at-grade on Sea Island are offset by the increases in costs to deal with vehicular and plane traffic movement over the Line.

*************
Here's the link to the Translink July 20 Agenda:

http://www.translink.bc.ca/files/boa.../4.3report.pdf

Good news on the doubling tracking in Richmond - hopefully they follow staff recommendations:

Staff Recommendations:
That the GVTA Board:
A. Approves the reinstatement of double tracking from Bridgeport Station to Cambie Station to be funded from existing capital programs in an amount estimated at $10.26M (2004 dollars); and
B. Authorizes the Chief Executive Officer to execute legal documentation to implement this change.


"plane traffic movement over the Line"? What are they going to do, put a taxiway over Grant McConachie Way?

I'll bet YVR1 and YVR2 become side platform stations instead of centre platform stations as a result of being at-grade. You'd only need 2 elevators instead of 3. I think both Edmonds and 29th Ave. have side platforms.

Here's an aerial of the area where it'll be at grade - you'd think there are a lot of road crossings there. YVR1 is in the green field, YVR2 is near the Air Canada Hangar - both will be at grade segments. Sounds like road closures to me.



Here's another shot for perspective (YVR3 deferred - is probably near the darker paved parking lot:

__________________
officedweller

Last edited by officedweller; July 15th, 2005 at 01:57 AM.
officedweller no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 15th, 2005, 02:00 AM   #452
nname
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 126
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr.x
^ they should make the Richmond single track be expandable to double track in the future......and the station platforms should also be expandable so they can handle more vehicles in the future.
Well, looking at the station design for Richmond Ctr Stn, it seems like the guideway is only large enough for a single track, and which means it will be a disaster when they decide to double track it on a later date... I hope they at least build the guideway wide enough so that if they decide to double track it, they just need to lay the second track beside the original one instead of rebuilding the entire concrete structure...

And yes, I too hope dual tracking that middle portion get passed on the 20th
nname no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 15th, 2005, 02:00 AM   #453
officedweller
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,379
Likes (Received): 98

Trolley Bus Replacement Project status report:

http://www.translink.bc.ca/files/boa...4.11report.pdf
__________________
officedweller
officedweller no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 15th, 2005, 02:03 AM   #454
officedweller
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,379
Likes (Received): 98

I think the Richmond terminus will still be single track.
The option described above is just for the single track part in the middle of the line, which would have a greater impact on operations.
__________________
officedweller
officedweller no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 15th, 2005, 02:06 AM   #455
mr.x
Ex-mod
 
mr.x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: █♣█ Vancouver
Posts: 7,931
Likes (Received): 486

^ Having it at-grade at Sea Island on the grass (which does not intersect any roads) is a good idea. Station YVR3 also wouldn't be used that much since it's in the middle of nowhere It'll save money so turning that into a future station is a very good idea....and what money that is saved from these cost saving measures should be used to make this portion of the line dual track.

I'm hoping that the whole Richmond portion will be dual as well.
__________________
"My Homer is not a communist. He may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a communist, but he is NOT a porn star." - Abe Simpson

"Preparations for the Vancouver 2010 Olympics are progressing so well, it's boring. We'd like there to be some challenges, so we [the IOC] could shout at them." - IOC (Sept. 2007)


"In medieval Europe if you didn't like somebody's argument and couldn't think of a real response you called them a witch and demanded they be burned at the stake. In the US you call them unpatriotic, and in Canada you call them racist."
mr.x no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 15th, 2005, 02:11 AM   #456
mr.x
Ex-mod
 
mr.x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: █♣█ Vancouver
Posts: 7,931
Likes (Received): 486

Downtown Richmond seems to be at the wrong place since it's in the flight path of YVR....no tall structures, like Metrotown, can be built. The city centre should be at Steveston.
__________________
"My Homer is not a communist. He may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a communist, but he is NOT a porn star." - Abe Simpson

"Preparations for the Vancouver 2010 Olympics are progressing so well, it's boring. We'd like there to be some challenges, so we [the IOC] could shout at them." - IOC (Sept. 2007)


"In medieval Europe if you didn't like somebody's argument and couldn't think of a real response you called them a witch and demanded they be burned at the stake. In the US you call them unpatriotic, and in Canada you call them racist."
mr.x no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 15th, 2005, 02:40 AM   #457
rt_0891
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Toronto, Hong Kong, Vancouver
Posts: 2,683
Likes (Received): 30

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr.x
Downtown Richmond seems to be at the wrong place since it's in the flight path of YVR....no tall structures, like Metrotown, can be built. The city centre should be at Steveston.
I have pondered that before too. Sometimes the area (No.3 Rd) shakes a little from the sound's impact & the planes' pitch is far from pleasant. I'm actually surprised people are snatching up condos in the area.

Richmond is the last place I would ever want to live in within the GVRD.
rt_0891 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 15th, 2005, 02:50 AM   #458
mr.x
Ex-mod
 
mr.x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: █♣█ Vancouver
Posts: 7,931
Likes (Received): 486

Quote:
Originally Posted by rt_0891
I have pondered that before too. Sometimes the area (No.3 Rd) shakes a little from the sound's impact & the planes' pitch is far from pleasant. I'm actually surprised people are snatching up condos in the area.

Richmond is the last place I would ever want to live in within the GVRD.
Shakes a little? It shakes a whole lot, particularly at Parker Place. A few months ago, I was sleeping in the car waiting for my parents and then all of a sudden there's this deafening sound of a jet that vibrated everything. The jet was maybe 400-600 feet above the car.

The current city centre is the worst place ever, but I wouldn't say because of that it will stunt growth. I do think that growth will happen no matter what, condos, malls, office towers, etc. will continue to rise in Richmond......even more so if the city centre was at Steveston, makes sense as the downtown as that was the first city centre of Richmond. Imagine another waterfront downtown in the region, it would've been awesome.
__________________
"My Homer is not a communist. He may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a communist, but he is NOT a porn star." - Abe Simpson

"Preparations for the Vancouver 2010 Olympics are progressing so well, it's boring. We'd like there to be some challenges, so we [the IOC] could shout at them." - IOC (Sept. 2007)


"In medieval Europe if you didn't like somebody's argument and couldn't think of a real response you called them a witch and demanded they be burned at the stake. In the US you call them unpatriotic, and in Canada you call them racist."
mr.x no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 15th, 2005, 02:51 AM   #459
bs_lover_boy
POUND THE ALARM!!!
 
bs_lover_boy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hong Kong / Vancouver
Posts: 385
Likes (Received): 12

Single Track in Richmond will be hideous!!! Richmond's development is very fast right now (in terms of mid rises). All the buildings along #3 Road and near it are getting taller and taller. The usage/patronage of the line will rise if Richmond Continues to grow at this rate, so I would suggest that a future option to expand Richmond Center Station into a dobule platform is to be built. Also, Richmond is a very good place to live in because it is one of those places where you can get density and not feel tight at all.
__________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NIMBY – Not In My Back Yard
YIMBY - Yes In My Back Yard
LULU – Locally Unwanted Land Use.
NOPE – Not On Planet Earth
BANANA – Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything

Anymore????
bs_lover_boy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 15th, 2005, 02:55 AM   #460
nname
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 126
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by officedweller
I think both Edmonds and 29th Ave. have side platforms.
Edmonds has side platforms, but 29th Ave has centre platform. However, 29th Ave Stn is in a trench... similar to Commerical Drive Stn.
nname no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
british columbia, canada, vancouver

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 01:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium