Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Mac Write

Someone said awhile ago that Lougheed station was supposed to be built down the centre of North Road this was 1997 time frame.

Planning for the Millennium Line

Here's the reference to the Connectivity Report with diagrams.
It was to be north-south - probably in the Lougheed parking lot - maybe on North Road(?).

FYI - M-Line background information here:
Note the "Connectivity Report" which identifies issues dealing with interlining.
Note, however, that the report dates back to when the system design
called for a north-south Lougheed station with a south facing wye
(to enable a one seat ride to Columbia from Coquitlam and one transfer to Surrey),
as opposed to the east facing wye that was actually built.

http://www.llbc.leg.bc.ca/public/Pub...rainReview.pdf

Map from the above report (showing a N-S Lougheed Station) - note that Grandview Station was subsequently deleted in its entirety and this shows the original VCC Station under Broadway rather than on the flats.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=4492482&postcount=849


http://www.llbc.leg.bc.ca/public/Pub...rainReview.pdf


http://www.llbc.leg.bc.ca/public/Pub...rainReview.pdf


http://www.llbc.leg.bc.ca/public/Pub...rainReview.pdf


http://www.llbc.leg.bc.ca/public/Pub...rainReview.pdf


RTPO 2000 - Millennium Line

Here's the final RTPO 2000 plan for Lougheed with the east-west station and the basketweave.

The basketweave was to facilitate a terminus at VCC (or beyond) for both Expo Line and Millennium Line trains,
allowing both lines' VCC-bound trains to stop at the same platform (marked "Vancouver" on the first diagram).
That avoided the problem that Toronto's TTC had at Bay Station & St. George Station during their brief interlining project when the
Bloor-Danforth Line was first opened, where trains with the same destination were split between 2 platforms and passengers
at the wrong platform would miss the "next" train.

With the Expo Line terminating at Production Way Station, the problem would affect fewer passengers,
hence the current decision to split the westbound platforms.
















Evergreen Extension

And the Evergreen Extension (as SkyTrain) Operations diagram from the Partnerships BC website (?) without the basket weave.

[dpogue]

And just for completeness, here's the current routing at Lougheed (from October 22nd, 2016 until June 25th, 2018):


Here's the routing after the June 25th, 2018 change:

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Sheba

I wouldn't be surprised to eventually see them put a Skytrain from downtown Van to Kootenay Loop - that corridor has multiple bus routes that could be replaced / moved elsewhere. Either end of that line could continue over to the North Shore.

Originally Posted by Sheba

Image of current and the next set of B-Lines to start up (really large or I would have posted it here).

Hastings makes sense, since it'll be the "oldest" and busiest B-Line once the 96 and 99 cease to operate. Not to mention it'd go through downtown.

I'd expect Marine Drive to be next. The North Shore is the only part of Metro Van without RRT (besides Delta and Maple Ridge, which'll probably have to wait for the Transit 2080 plan), so politics - and congestion - demands that TransLink look that way first.

Originally Posted by Sheba

Tunnelling is crazy expensive, which is why I suspect they'll do more on / above-ground lines and leave most of the subways for future generations.

Keep in mind that we've had two partially-tunneled lines within the past ten years, and that connecting Broadway and Surrey/Langley to the network will increase revenue even further. The funding will likely be there; the real problem is voting in a government that gives a rat's ass.

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Hastings makes sense, since it'll be the "oldest" and busiest B-Line once the 96 and 99 cease to operate. Not to mention it'd go through downtown.

I'd expect Marine Drive to be next. The North Shore is the only part of Metro Van without RRT (besides Delta and Maple Ridge, which'll probably have to wait for the Transit 2080 plan), so politics - and congestion - demands that TransLink look that way first.

Since the Waterfront terminus faces towards Hastings Street, it'll make more sense to extend to at least to Kootenay Loop, if that's going to happen. And if it did, should it go to Phibbs Exchange or up to Duthie Avenue? (east of Duthie, you're at Burnaby Mountain, so it would be best to put a gondola from Duthie to SFU.)

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Keep in mind that we've had two partially-tunneled lines within the past ten years, and that connecting Broadway and Surrey/Langley to the network will increase revenue even further. The funding will likely be there; the real problem is voting in a government that gives a rat's ass.

I've read that there doing early works on the Surrey-Langley Line on the Ten Year Vision website, which doesn't say what type of tech it will be while the media say that it'll be "LRT on Fraser Hwy". I'm not sure how the next City of Langley mayor will do something about that (now that Schaffer is out). I bet Pachal hasn't changed his mind about the tech.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Hastings makes sense, since it'll be the "oldest" and busiest B-Line once the 96 and 99 cease to operate. Not to mention it'd go through downtown.

I'd expect Marine Drive to be next. The North Shore is the only part of Metro Van without RRT (besides Delta and Maple Ridge, which'll probably have to wait for the Transit 2080 plan), so politics - and congestion - demands that TransLink look that way first.



Keep in mind that we've had two partially-tunneled lines within the past ten years, and that connecting Broadway and Surrey/Langley to the network will increase revenue even further. The funding will likely be there; the real problem is voting in a government that gives a rat's ass.

Man, I am getting blue balled right now waiting for another transit fantasy.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Firebrand

Since the Waterfront terminus faces towards Hastings Street, it'll make more sense to extend to at least to Kootenay Loop, if that's going to happen. And if it did, should it go to Phibbs Exchange or up to Duthie Avenue? (east of Duthie, you're at Burnaby Mountain, so it would be best to put a gondola from Duthie to SFU.)

Here's the full B-Line map, once finished.

This is running into the "fantasy" side of things again, but it seems much better to have the Hastings Line keep going straight. It's much harder to justify a Willingdon-Duthie Line than a Willingdon-North Shore.

Originally Posted by Firebrand

I've read that there doing early works on the Surrey-Langley Line on the Ten Year Vision website, which doesn't say what type of tech it will be while the media say that it'll be "LRT on Fraser Hwy". I'm not sure how the next City of Langley mayor will do something about that (now that Schaffer is out). I bet Pachal hasn't changed his mind about the tech.

If Surrey Council wants to desperately repeat "LRT, LRT, LRT" like it's Beetlejuice and it'll appear if they say it three times, they can do that. If the media wants to swallow the story instead of questioning it like they're supposed to as good journalists, they can do that.

At the risk of becoming a broken record, nothing is official until the year 2026 arrives, TransLink announces "LRT for Langley" and they literally start ripping up Fraser Highway.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Firebrand

Since the Waterfront terminus faces towards Hastings Street, it'll make more sense to extend to at least to Kootenay Loop, if that's going to happen. And if it did, should it go to Phibbs Exchange or up to Duthie Avenue? (east of Duthie, you're at Burnaby Mountain, so it would be best to put a gondola from Duthie to SFU.)

Why would they put two gondola routes up Burnaby Mountain? It makes more sense to have people ride the (already existing) Millennium Line and then transfer to a gondola at Production Way Station - which would be a shorter gondola run too.

For fantasy Skytrain lines, I'd put one from Kootenay Loop through downtown Van and then a Skybridge near the Lions Gate Bridge. Another North Shore Skytrain route would be Metrotown, Brentwood, Kootenay Loop and then a Skybridge near Second Narrows Bridge.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

This is running into the "fantasy" side of things again, but it seems much better to have the Hastings Line keep going straight. It's much harder to justify a Willingdon-Duthie Line than a Willingdon-North Shore.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

Man, I am getting blue balled right now waiting for another transit fantasy.

Oops

[nname]

Saw an ad on a bus stop... Seems like TransLink is going ahead with distance-based train and flat-rate bus fare. Final round of consultation later this month.

[ilikeredheads]

Originally Posted by nname

Saw an ad on a bus stop... Seems like TransLink is going ahead with distance-based train and flat-rate bus fare. Final round of consultation later this month.

good. Keeping it simple is always the best.

[nname]

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

good. Keeping it simple is always the best.

https://www.translink.ca/Plans-and-Projects/Transit-Fare-Review.aspx

Consultation is out.

[dothediu]

It's a good first step for fare changes. What's the timeline for the new fare structure to be implemented?

[Mac Write]

I'm wondering how many seabed's would be required during rush hour to always have a seabus arriving as one leaves,
or
use both berths so the empty berth fills up with passengers, then the overflow goes to the other berth.

Why is option 2 not used anymore? Also with 4 sea buses during rush hour and using the fully load waiting area on both sides, how frequently would they be coming?

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by nname

https://www.translink.ca/Plans-and-Projects/Transit-Fare-Review.aspx

Consultation is out.

They're not giving much time - June 18th - 29th.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by dothediu

It's a good first step for fare changes. What's the timeline for the new fare structure to be implemented?

At the end of the pdf:

Using the input received from the public and stakeholders, we will refine and finalize our recommended approach for changes to the fare structure before seeking endorsement and approval from the Mayors’ Council and TransLink Board later in 2018.

We would then begin to implement the first move recommendations that are technically possible within the current Compass system, which could begin to be rolled out as early as the next one to two years. At the same time, we would begin work to enable the changes recommended for future consideration.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Mac Write

...use both berths so the empty berth fills up with passengers, then the overflow goes to the other berth.

One of the brilliant features of the design of the SeaBus system is its redundancy. The vessels can operate with a couple of disabled engines, the berths can operate with a couple of ramps or doors out of service, and the terminal can operate even if an entire berth is out of service. That's kept the SeaBus running when maintenance has been required. So I don't think you're going to see a scenario where they depend on having both berths in service simultaneously.

They can maintain a 15-minute service interval with two SeaBuses in service. With three in service that goes down to 10 minutes and if they put four into service then they could get it down to 7-1/2 minutes. I'm pretty sure they could do that using just one berth at each terminal.

[Mac Write]

in a worse case running on 2 berths with 5 sea buses how fast could they operate? I could see a day sooner then later were 5-6+ sailing waits are the norm (I have heard of a 4 sailing wait) What do we do when we get to a 6-8 sailing wait as the norm?

I really just want to see what the seabus can do running a 2 berth setup at max headroom (one seabus leaves and the other arrives) and same for a 4 berth senerio.

How would the seabus handle a fully loaded 12+car WCE unloading everyone for the seabus?

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Mac Write

(I have heard of a 4 sailing wait) What do we do when we get to a 6-8 sailing wait as the norm?

The only time I've ever heard of such high passenger loads is during extraordinary events such as the Olympics or when they offered free service following the summer strike a couple of decades back. Investing in that kind of capacity would be a waste for at least a couple of decades, I'm sure.

I doubt you'd be able to get very much more frequent than around 5 to 7 minute frequencies - that's a maximum of around 4800 people per hour. Any more than that and I'd think you'd run into safety issues trying to maneuver vessels in and out at the same time, and any slippage in transit or dwell time would start to have domino effects.

[twoNeurons]

Just to add something... Passengers travelling from Braid or Sapperton to West of Production Way will now pretty much always want to transfer at Production Way. Previously, you could choose Lougheed or Production Way as they were both same-platform transfers.

The flipside is that passengers anywhere on the M-Line can transfer at Production Way or Lougheed for a same-platform transfer.

It's a wash when it comes to ease of transfers along the traditional M-line route.

The losers in this new scenario:

• Lougheed passengers en route to SFU ( have to choose a platform and may not get the next train )
• Suburb-to-suburb transit ( Tri-cities to Surrey/New West/Burnaby ) Lougheed transfer is up and down, going to Production Way will definitely mean you miss the next Expo Line train.

Essentially, it adds at least another 5–10 minutes to a trip that already has lower train frequency ( Expo between Columbia and Lougheed )

You can definitely see WHY we have the current setup. It was really to help residents of the Tri-cities. While your average person won't be affected that much anyone in a wheelchair, scooter, bike, stroller, large luggage will be affected negatively

[nname]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

I doubt you'd be able to get very much more frequent than around 5 to 7 minute frequencies - that's a maximum of around 4800 people per hour. Any more than that and I'd think you'd run into safety issues trying to maneuver vessels in and out at the same time, and any slippage in transit or dwell time would start to have domino effects.

And that's about twice as much capacity as Surrey LRT...

Sorry, I just have to say it

[MIPS]

The issue yesterday with the SkyTrain seems to of been a problem with a cable for the ATC. They didn't say if it was a fiber trunk or a length of leaky coax but a train went over the dead block, lost contact with the VCC and timed out as it's designed to do in such an instance.