Jump to content

maege

Member
  • Content count

    132
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About maege

Profile Information

Recent Profile Visitors

328 profile views
  1. That is what I assumed as well, and is what I was using to attempt to calculate the speed. Based on this, the Newton-Guildford line is 10.5km with a travel time of 27 min (.45 hrs). 10.5km/.45hr = 23.333 km/h. Older documents show 23-25 minutes, so it would be even faster with those numbers. Based on the numbers on page 260 of this pdf, the Broadway Extension from VCC to Arbutus is 35.24 km/h with 5.11km taking 8.7min. Alternately, using page 38 of the same report, VCC-UBC, the 12.4km would take 17.3min, giving a speed of 43km/h. For the Langley line, using this report, on page 72, the Langley line is 17.1km (using LRT 5a length to get only the Langley line). As times are measured from Surrey Central, we are unable to use the 15.8km figure shown for RRT as that is only King George to Langley, not Surrey Central. Skytrain takes a route ~100-200m shorter than LRT between Surrey Central and King George, so I'll 16.9-17.1km seems to be a valid range to use for RRT. With the times on Page 45, RRT would take 22min from Surrey Central to Langley, and LRT would be 29-30min. For LRT that gives us 34.2-35.38 km/h - note that the 35.17 km/h listed by @8800GTX falls within this range For RRT, we have 46.09-46.64 km/h. On a different note, one thing I noticed while going through this document is that on page 57, it indicates that LRT/BRT would not have dedicated lanes through Green Timbers, but instead share road space with cars. From the newer documents and information, this seems to have changed, and LRT will have dedicated lanes through Green Timbers, which it should.
  2. Thanks for putting that together. One question I did have is exactly what numbers and calculations you used for the proposed lines ( Broadway extension and the Surrey lines)? I was just going back through both the documents you mentioned as well as others from each project, and I was unable to duplicate your speed numbers for those proposed lines, no matter which numbers I used.
  3. Night buses generally suck here, especially since some routes don't run bi-directional all night (I'm looking directly at you, N19). So I made a rough map, which will not be implemented anytime soon if ever The only thing that seems missing to me is a north-south route from the Tri-cities/Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows to New West/Surrey/Langley, but I'm not sure what the best option would be for that. Coquitlam Central to New West via Lougheed Hwy/Brunette? To Surrey Central or Guildford via Lougheed and Port Mann? Pitt Meadows-Langley via Golden Ears? Also, should the N250 extend to Horseshoe Bay? My main goal was to provide overall connectivity, serving the most people, that could get you most places, even if you have to walk a little farther (up to 1.5-2km). Generally this meant using the FTN and the pre-2001 night bus network as a basic framework, with alterations for more access for people (such as the 320 instead of the 502). Many of them are probably only mini-buses, at least at the start. All buses run both directions all night at least every 30 minutes. Bi-directional is key for me as it allows people to access services or enable them to utilize first thing in the morning long-distance planes/trains/buses before the normal transit system is up and running fully. As always, thoughts, opinions, changes?
  4. Crescent Beach Bypass meaning something like this? Or just upgrades to the existing track/ROW around Crescent Beach? I'm assuming you're referring to the moving of the ROW to a different route as with the existing ROW, there isn't really space in many sections to add 2 additional tracks, and the curves that the ROW takes are too much for HSR at speed. The benefits to terminating at YVR would be lower cost due to less elevated or tunnelled track being needed. There would still need to be a whole new station built for the train, which would of course have CPB/CBSA, so there wouldn't really be any benefit from that perspective for having a YVR terminus . However, at Pacific Central there is already a station with a CPB/CBSA facility as well, so that would just need to be expanded for HSR. There would be a couple downsides for having the station at YVR: 1. It's still 30min from downtown and eliminates what is often one of the central benefits of HSR over planes - they take you much closer to downtown, where more people would be going, compared to getting to an airport than still having a significant amount of travel to ones destination. That is both extra time savings from being on the faster HSR and convenience savings by not having to go all the way to the airport. 2. You would need a whole new station, whereas Pacific Central would just need some upgrades (which would be cheaper than a whole new station). The cost of a new station definitely doesn't cancel out the savings for the Knight elevated/tunnelled section, but it does eliminate some of the savings. 3. Why would you end at YVR instead of Bridgeport? As a whole new station and customs facility would be needed anyway (it doesn't matter if customs was 500m or 5km from the YVR customs as they would still need a whole new location and staffing), why not save some money and just end at Bridgeport? There is room for a new station, and it would have better integration with transit, especially important as there would be 300-1200 people getting off of HSR about the same time, so the combined capacity of the two Canada line legs would be very beneficial, vs just having one leg at YVR. I did some quick calculations for what may be needed for HSR frequency/capacity. HSR carries anywhere from 350 to 1300 people per train, depending on configuration, etc. On a random Friday in September, there is 10 flights in each direction between YVR and SEA/PDX, with a rough total capacity of 1800 people. QuickShuttle, Greyhound, Boltbus, and Amtrak Bus have a combined ~20 trips each way per day between SEA nad YVR, with a rough total capacity of ~1200 people. Twice a day Amtrak trains have a capacity of ~600 people per day, giving a total capacity between all three modes of ~3600 per day. With the low end of HSR capacity per train, there would be ~10 trains each direction per day that would be needed to replace existing capacity from these sources that would likely be replaced by HSR. Adding in additional capacity for people who would switch from driving or other means not included above, and there would be about one train per hour per direction every day (~12-15 train per day per direction). That would probably be about ideal as once per hour trains be just frequent enough to provide flexibility and convenience for people relative to the existing ~20 flights per day.
  5. With the possibility of a future Vancouver-Seattle/Portland high-speed train, what the routing would be through BC? I came up with two likely routes that seem most likely: 1. Basically the current Amtrak route from Pacific Central Station through the Grandview Cut, across a new New West rail bridge/tunnel, and along the BNSF alignment to Hwy 99, then Hwy 99 to the border. 2. Hwy 99 from the border to somewhere around Hwy 91 or Westminster Hwy where it would cut over to Knight St, and follow Knight/Clark (either elevated or tunnelled) to where the Expo and Millennium lines cross Clark, then along the existing rail ROW to Pacific Central Station. The first option may have issues with limited space through the Grandview Cut, especially if the current rail gets double tracked for improved movement of freight and passengers. That's probably the main obstacle, but could be the undoing of the whole route. It would probably use the new rail bridge/tunnel across the Fraser with separate tracks from freight. Option 2 would likely be more expensive, specifically if it is tunnelled in Vancouver along Knight/Clark, but elevating it, while being significantly cheaper and very competitive with option 1, would face some local opposition (the question is how much opposition). A second Massey tunnel would provide the south Fraser crossing (the tunnel would also have sections for pedestrians and bikes, possibly car lanes and local/regional rail). A significant portion of the tracks/ROW could potentially be shared with local/regional trains, depending on the exact configuration and design. Thoughts? Are these probably the best/most likely routes? Are there other options or alterations to these routes that should be considered?
  6. I would argue New West Station is already the hub. Columbia is a secondary station and seems to serve mainly for people changing trains, as well as the people that live a little closer to Columbia than New West. All the buses go to New West station, with only some shuttle routes passing by Columbia. I would prefer to have the Glenbrooke station around Mcbride Blvd/Victoria Hill instead of Columbia. It would more evenly spread the stations in New Westminster, and serve an area with significant density that doesn't have all that great transit service now. Additionally, New West and Columbia Stations are some of the closest together at ~600m apart. Only Granville-Burrard on the Expo line and Broadway City Hall-Olympic Village and Vancouver City Center-Waterfront on the Canada line have stations that are closer together.
  7. Vancouver general sightings and notes

    The stops for the 430 in the new schedule look the same as previously, so it does seem to be just the C7 as @Express691 noted. http://infomaps.translink.ca/Public_Timetables/136/tt430.pdf
  8. 2018 SkyTrain Procurement

    Tunnelled lines should allow for easy expansion far beyond any estimated ridership in 30 years or whatever. Tunnels will be around for 100+ years, nobody will be able to even remotely project ridership levels in 100 years. When a tunnel is built, the stations should allow for easy expansion and lengthening, whether it is 15, 50, or 90 years from now. Allow extra room in the station area for additions and expansions when the time comes, because it will come. I don't necessarily have an issue with how long the platforms were made initially, but they should have allowed for easy lengthening when needed, and they didn't. So I somewhat agree with you, but take a slightly different perspective. For the Canada line specifically, there was a lot of questioning and derision saying the ridership projections were far too optimistic. It probably wouldn't have been very beneficial or productive to have higher estimates as there likely would have been even more opposition saying they were completely unreliable and challenging the whole process and project as incompetent. Stupid politics. Yep, Canada Line was a long-term P3 (DBFOM - Design, build, finance, operate, maintain) and the Evergreen a short-term P3 (DBF). Two notes: I am not suggesting that Translink or others should build the lines themselves, but that a simpler fixed-cost contract with requirements for work and quality can achieve the same thing as a P3 (I view a project as a P3 when a private company finances at least some of the project). Second, I'm really not against P3's as a whole, but more precisely, that the operations and maintenance should not be part of the P3. Lastly, I agree, politics should have very minimal to zero involvement in transit planning and construction. Politics and political motivation is what screws over transit agencies much of the time and makes them much less efficient.
  9. 2018 SkyTrain Procurement

    Of course there are statistical ridership projections, but as most other projections, it can be counted on that they will be wrong. The only question would be wrong by how much and in which direction. They can serve to provide a vague idea, but it is virtually impossible to get an accurate ridership projection. I don't think the Canada Line projections were necessarily bad (conservative estimates are usually not a bad problem to have), the fact that stations weren't designed to easily allow for extra growth, no matter if that growth was within 10 years or 30 is the issue. P3's don't inherently protect against capital cost overruns. They definitely can be written up to do that, and often are, but it isn't an inherent trait. Similarly, regular design-build and similar contracts can be written to put cost overruns on the contractor(s), and they are sometimes. It all just depends on how it is written in the contract.
  10. Would it be reasonable/possible to have some artics on the 319? It seems like the extra capacity could be used, I'm just not sure if they would have trouble with the hill on Scott Rd when fully loaded, or if there would be other potential issues (Scottsdale Exchange not being made for artics?) I don't think that will happen before the B-line is implemented, but when it is, I think there may also be a stop at 104 Ave, then 96 Ave and one roughly every 4 blocks (800m) thereafter. I agree with the improved night service. Even 15 minute service until midnight, and 20 minute service until 2am would be a decent start and then increase it from there if still needed. I also want to see a night-bus for 24 hour service when the B-line starts. The night bus should have bi-directional 30 minute service.
  11. Nah, it's only running every 15 minutes during peak now. It would be more beneficial to just have regular buses at a higher frequency if additional capacity is needed.
  12. Agreed. With the current night-bus network, I think FTN buses should run 0500-2500 or 2600 during the week, with a few starting at 0600 on weekends, but most still at 0500. If we had a good night-bus network (more or less a night bus on every FTN route with a few exceptions), I would be alright with buses ending at midnight or 1 am, and having the night-buses start then. One thing I don't believe was in the 10 year plan but should be implemented is more night bus routes. If a corridor has a B-line or better (Skytrain, Canada Line, LRT, gondola, etc), it should have at least 30 minute frequency for night-bus service in both directions. Surrey is definitely lacking, and should have a night bus for the 96 at a minimum (the 319, 321 and 502 have a good argument as well). Others like the N19 need to be made bi-directional all night. As there are supposed to be something like 11? new B-lines added over the course of the 10-year vision, I think they should add night bus routes for each of those lines as the B-lines come online.
  13. The 49 is getting quite a bit more frequency all day long M-F http://infomaps.translink.ca/Public_Timetables/136/tt049.pdf
  14. 2018 SkyTrain Procurement

    And that is why I hate P3 contracts for transit with a passion.
  15. 2018 SkyTrain Procurement

    That's fair. I was just thinking about Skytrain cars where everything not in refurbishment/maintenance is running at peak and has been for the last while. When there is more demand than capacity during peak, it would seem to make sense to run those extra trains, rather than having them sit. If maintenance is needed on a train, then pull it from service. The lack of one train would have a very minimal impact on wait times and wouldn't be noticeable to most people, other than being slightly more crowded. Of course over the long term (as you mention) this is not what you want, but until more trains arrive, why not? It would improve service for most people most of the time. Hence part of the question as to why the don't run the extra 2 trains that they have, similar to Skytrain right now. And why don't they increase the train speed to what they are capable of running during peak? The combination of those two would provide a significant amount of extra capacity and relief. Thanks for pointing out the spares, the number of 11 more trains makes sense when spares are accounted for.
×