Canada Line races toward capacity

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by fredinno

How feasible is it really to increase the Canada Line's headways to 75-60s max instead of 120s?
Has this sort of thing been done before on similar non-LIM lines?

Since they added 12 more train sets in 2020, the current capacity is about 8,000 people per hour per direction. The current operting headways could be shortened to 2 minutes if additional two car trains were acquired, which would take operating capacity to 10,000 pph. After that, the capacity could be increased to 15,000 pph by adding a third car in the centre of the train and using the full 50m design capacity of the stations. As noted, to go beyond that you'd also have to try to increase capacity at either end of the line, which could be expensive.

There are no current development scenarios that anticipate that sort of demand on the system for decades, and as the line only serves Richmond and the airport it seems unlikely that there would be any need to examine if headways could be shortened to under 2 minutes. It might be possible in theory but the lowest currently seems to be 110 seconds at peak on the Tokyo Metro. (Taipei headways on the Brown Line are shorter, but it's a slower, rubber-tyred Metro).

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Since they added 12 more train sets in 2020, the current capacity is about 8,000 people per hour per direction. The current operting headways could be shortened to 2 minutes if additional two car trains were acquired, which would take operating capacity to 10,000 pph. After that, the capacity could be increased to 15,000 pph by adding a third car in the centre of the train and using the full 50m design capacity of the stations. As noted, to go beyond that you'd also have to try to increase capacity at either end of the line, which could be expensive.

There are no current development scenarios that anticipate that sort of demand on the system for decades, and as the line only serves Richmond and the airport it seems unlikely that there would be any need to examine if headways could be shortened to under 2 minutes. It might be possible in theory but the lowest currently seems to be 110 seconds at peak on the Tokyo Metro. (Taipei headways on the Brown Line are shorter, but it's a slower, rubber-tyred Metro).

The Broadway City Hall to Waterfront section is going to get extremely busy over the next 20 years. The Broadway Corridor is going to grow at a rapid pace. Much more than the City is letting on, so I won't be surprised at all if the Canada Line runs out of capacity in the next 20 to 30 years.

[Lexus]

Wonder if they can do some trains that only run to Landsdowne. 2 tracks go up until there. This might solve issues with single track related issues. It will add confusion for sure, but for regular commuters won’t be a problem.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Dave2

IIRC the single tracking on the ends of the two branches limits headways to 3 minutes, for a combined 90 seconds north of Bridgeport.

Originally Posted by Changing City

Since they added 12 more train sets in 2020, the current capacity is about 8,000 people per hour per direction. The current operting headways could be shortened to 2 minutes if additional two car trains were acquired, which would take operating capacity to 10,000 pph. After that, the capacity could be increased to 15,000 pph by adding a third car in the centre of the train and using the full 50m design capacity of the stations. As noted, to go beyond that you'd also have to try to increase capacity at either end of the line, which could be expensive.

There are no current development scenarios that anticipate that sort of demand on the system for decades, and as the line only serves Richmond and the airport it seems unlikely that there would be any need to examine if headways could be shortened to under 2 minutes. It might be possible in theory but the lowest currently seems to be 110 seconds at peak on the Tokyo Metro. (Taipei headways on the Brown Line are shorter, but it's a slower, rubber-tyred Metro).

Other than the fact that Richmond wants the Canada Line to be extended (probably to Steveston, requiring rebuilding the track south of Landsome), the reason I'm asking is that I'm trying to calculate the absolute theoretical maximum capacity the Canada Line could achieve, regardless of the actual demand.
(Maybe it's because I want an excuse to think about rebuilding the Canada Line elevated for most of its run instead of being a subway that I want to know this, lol- regardless of how necessary it is.)

The existing Canada Line stock is less efficient than the newer SK stock, and if they can get the frequency to 60s-75s, they should be able to reach max capacities slightly lower than the Bombardier lines.


I want to know if there are any other no-LIM or rubber tyre subway systems rated for 75-60s max, especially for similar systems in Asia (since this is using South Korean rolling stock)- as this would theoretically double the maximum frequency on the Bridgeport-Waterfront segment.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by logan5

The Broadway City Hall to Waterfront section is going to get extremely busy over the next 20 years. The Broadway Corridor is going to grow at a rapid pace. Much more than the City is letting on, so I won't be surprised at all if the Canada Line runs out of capacity in the next 20 to 30 years.

That section could be compensated with the re-introduction of rapid bus service over the Granville Street bridge, or having the 99 go over the Burrard Street Bridge to Waterfront to mimic the 44 (which would also serve Senakw).

There's also the distant future option either allowing for or just initially building the eventual Hastings Skytrain to have a spur that meets the Broadway Subway as a relief line.

Ideally the initial demand surpasses expectations and the argument towards building a relief line gains momentum, or maybe the initial demand estimates are inflated and we'll be fine, in either case we won't know for sure until 2027.

[madog222]

Originally Posted by fredinno

I want to know if there are any other no-LIM or rubber tyre subway systems rated for 75-60s max, especially for similar systems in Asia (since this is using South Korean rolling stock)- as this would theoretically double the maximum frequency on the Bridgeport-Waterfront segment.

This system can do 75s headways with conventional motors on rail. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitachi_Rail_Italy_Driverless_Metro

I believe signaling is the current limitation if we ignore track arrangement. LIM or rubber tire's advantage in acceleration is pretty much gone with modern IGBT motor drives.

[Migrant_Coconut]

8k of 15k is about 53%; as busy as City Hall < - > City Centre is, it's very unlikely that even Broadway Corridor growth covers the remaining 47% all at once.

[fredinno]

OK, so then that reason goes out the window. I have a max capacity of 28,000 pphpd with 60s frequency and upgraded trains (+15m C-trains.) I can send the document calculating this if you guys want it.



Though, TBF, at such high pphpds (or even 15,000, since the extra capacity is mostly from frequency), the issue is probably the stations themselves being unable to deal with so many passengers without spanish solution.

The narrower Bombardier trains have less need for spanish solution stations.

---
There may be a different reason to connect the Bombardier tracks with the Canada Line and make them using the same rolling stock - the Canada Line OMC is within a 5-10 minute walk from Bridgeport Station (better if you're just going by how the crow flies- it practically abbutts the station.)

For comparison, the Edmonds OMC is 10-15 min away from the Edmonds station.


You're going to get people living in Bridgeport complaining about the OMC eventually for being a noisy eyesore.

So getting rid of the Richmond OMC would be a massive boost once the area fills up.



Putting the OMC underground and building on top of it is technically feasible, but risks the entire thing filling up with water, so it's probably best just to move the OMCs somewhere more geologically stable and higher up to ensure the system keeps operating in a disaster.


How much money you could get by rezoning and selling off the entire industrial area bounded by Bridgeport, Great Canadian Way, the North Arm, and No 4 Rd?

The Capstan Road station was funded with $52M in CACs from developers across an area of 212,800m3.
- The 45m height cap was for 194,500m3 of that land- the rest is a 35m height cap.
- The land available for rezoning to fund it is 709,400m3 - more for having reclaimed land into the water.

So maybe around $184.6M could be generated in CACs. More if you add the OMC lands itself (so ~$300M generated total?). Land prices would be higher by the time you get to this point. You could generate a significant fraction of the money required, but probably not enough to finance the entire thing unless you also used CACs elsewhere to finance the project to 'replace the Canada Line' (which would easily be over a billion dollars.)

Making the rolling stock the same across all the lines would make maintenance easier, though, the cost-benefit is still iffy.
It would also prevent any further requirement of improving signaling systems to increase capacity, so maybe if you're extending the line to Steveston, it might still be a good idea to do this?

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Lexus

Wonder if they can do some trains that only run to Landsdowne. 2 tracks go up until there. This might solve issues with single track related issues. It will add confusion for sure, but for regular commuters won’t be a problem.

Agreed that this would be a good solution to address Richmond demand.

For the Broadway subway to downtown demand, there is an X-crossover just north of Broadway City Hall station, so they could short turn a train during rush hour, the same as they do (did?) to Commercial-Broadway Station on the Expo Line.
I think they have 1 or 2 trains as spares, so a spare train could be used to provide that service.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Other than the fact that Richmond wants the Canada Line to be extended (probably to Steveston, requiring rebuilding the track south of Landsome), the reason I'm asking is that I'm trying to calculate the absolute theoretical maximum capacity the Canada Line could achieve, regardless of the actual demand.
(Maybe it's because I want an excuse to think about rebuilding the Canada Line elevated for most of its run instead of being a subway that I want to know this, lol- regardless of how necessary it is.)

Richmond Council don't want to extend the Canada Line. They want to double track the last section, and are suggesting either BRT or LRT to Steveston. (That might add demand on the Canada Line, but it would be less convenient). AFAIK that's not in any TransLink plans though, and when TransLink wanted a new bus loop in Steveston Richmond Council turned them down, so they're not putting transit priority at the top of their list just yet!

Given the soils issues, and need to have parking for any development, trying to put the OMC underground and build on top seems likely to be a logistical nightmare. I doubt whether glueing a new station onto an existing track gives a realistic estimate of what it might cost. And the logistics of losing the OMC to redevelop it would also be a nightmare.

They won't rebuild the Canada Line - they'll add a new parallel line if there was ever sufficient north/south demand.

[madog222]

Originally Posted by fredinno

There may be a different reason to connect the Bombardier tracks with the Canada Line and make them using the same rolling stock - the Canada Line OMC is within a 5-10 minute walk from Bridgeport Station (better if you're just going by how the crow flies- it practically abbutts the station.)

For comparison, the Edmonds OMC is 10-15 min away from the Edmonds station.


You're going to get people living in Bridgeport complaining about the OMC eventually for being a noisy eyesore.

So getting rid of the Richmond OMC would be a massive boost once the area fills up.

Any source for the OMC being noisy?

They still need a full yard for the line even if it was magically connected to the rest of the system. That isn't going to happen anyway because then we have narrow trains with short platforms and completely cannibalize the system capacity.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Richmond Council don't want to extend the Canada Line. They want to double track the last section, and are suggesting either BRT or LRT to Steveston. (That might add demand on the Canada Line, but it would be less convenient). AFAIK that's not in any TransLink plans though, and when TransLink wanted a new bus loop in Steveston Richmond Council turned them down, so they're not putting transit priority at the top of their list just yet!

Given the soils issues, and need to have parking for any development, trying to put the OMC underground and build on top seems likely to be a logistical nightmare. I doubt whether glueing a new station onto an existing track gives a realistic estimate of what it might cost. And the logistics of losing the OMC to redevelop it would also be a nightmare.

They won't rebuild the Canada Line - they'll add a new parallel line if there was ever sufficient north/south demand.

You're right, they want LRT to Steveston... let's just pretend they said Skytrain because that's usually how these things end .



No, I'm using the Capstan Station as an estimate for the CACs they could get to pay for at least part of the cost of converting the Canada Line rolling stock.

IMO, this would require straight-up rebuilding most of the line itself, especially if they want to keep the trains running during construction.



I think you'd keep the OMC until the line was finished, then pay off the debt after the replacement line and OMC is finished.

I've already pointed out using the Ontario Line that the amount of passengers you usually get off by making parallel lines is much lower than most people think it is.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by madog222

Any source for the OMC being noisy?

They still need a full yard for the line even if it was magically connected to the rest of the system. That isn't going to happen anyway because then we have narrow trains with short platforms and completely cannibalize the system capacity.

Not to mention you can always build on top of the OMC should the need for land arise, but that would be after the whole area is densified to the max

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

Not to mention you can always build on top of the OMC should the need for land arise, but that would be after the whole area is densified to the max

Not really in Richmond, which is completely flat. That strategy works with OMC1 and OMC5, which are on sloped sites or partially underground.

In Richmond, you would want to elevate the roads surrounding it to basically 'hide' the OMC, which is feasible, but not easy considering the size of the OMC (and future expansions by the time you'd want to do this.)

Just the current OMC is the size of the entire Waterfront railyard (including the Gastown segment, which is beyond the nominal Waterfront Hub area planning.)

[dpogue]

Originally Posted by officedweller

For the Broadway subway to downtown demand, there is an X-crossover just north of Broadway City Hall station, so they could short turn a train during rush hour, the same as they do (did?) to Commercial-Broadway Station on the Expo Line.
I think they have 1 or 2 trains as spares, so a spare train could be used to provide that service.

What makes it possible to do Commercial-Broadway to Waterfront shuttles on the Expo Line is the pocket track between Broadway and Nanaimo stations. They can park the shuttle train there, and the slip it in to a gap between trains on the inbound.

They can't do that with the X crossover on the Canada Line because there's nowhere to park the shuttle train and wait for a gap that isn't blocking other train traffic. Hypothetically it's possible, but in practice you'd end up with a near-constant traffic jam and trains getting held up outside of stations as soon as anything gets even a few seconds off-shedule.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by madog222

Any source for the OMC being noisy?

They still need a full yard for the line even if it was magically connected to the rest of the system. That isn't going to happen anyway because then we have narrow trains with short platforms and completely cannibalize the system capacity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xP9CeRg0a1c
Try having a ton of trains coming out from here during the start of service.
Note that the siding tracks are much louder than the normal tracks due to the lack of grinding.

I doubt you'd end up using the existing stations anyways, since the dimensions simply don't line up. You're effectively rebuilding the line.

[madog222]

Originally Posted by fredinno

I doubt you'd end up using the existing stations anyways, since the dimensions simply don't line up. You're effectively rebuilding the line.

So we aren't retrofitting the Canada Line, we are building a whole new line. What does that achieve? Why is that money not better spent building a new line where there isn't already rapid transit?

[Migrant_Coconut]

OMC 1 & 2 at Edmonds and OMC 3 at Coquitlam are probably just as loud (or louder), but they're getting redevelopment next door anyway. Ditto the new builds near the CP freight ROW: new tenants will just have to deal with it.

If there's any construction work at Bridgeport, it should be a third platform to convert the YVR branch into a spur line.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

OMC 1 & 2 at Edmonds and OMC 3 at Coquitlam are probably just as loud (or louder), but they're getting redevelopment next door anyway. Ditto the new builds near the CP freight ROW: new tenants will just have to deal with it.

I pointed out earlier that Bridgeport's OMC is way closer than Edmonds.
As in, literally next-door.

It's more like the New West railyard I hear New Westminster residents complaining about all the time... less loud clanking, but still pretty bad.

CP's using their tracks near Brentwood as a rail yard.
That was the problem with people living there.
That's not supposed to happen, but no one can really stop CP.

[madog222]

Which would explain why Richmond has maintained industrial use for the area surrounding the OMC in their most recent OCP.