Bob Ransford posted this:
When the Canada Line was being planned more than 15 years ago, the public was shown ridership models that said 70 percent of the ridership would be in the portion of the corridor between Waterfront Station and Oakridge Station.
Reality today is crush loads during rush hour from Richmond Brighouse all the way to Waterfront with lines at many Vancouver stations where crush-filled trains can’t accept more riders and near full loads at all hours just within Richmond alone. They got it wrong.
Transit drives housing development. So much for empty condos. Empty condos don’t drive this kind of heavy ridership.
Apparently we didn’t expect this.
Why are we not drilling a tunnel under Broadway to UBC yet ?
Sure Bob, there are no empty condos or homes in Richmond or Vancouver. Just ask Meng Wanzhou
It didn’t help that the City of Richmond’s preferences led to the single tracking of the guideway at the Brighouse terminus (they wanted a street level system, with the elevated system imposed on them, so the compromise was to single track the guideway to the terminus to reduce the shadowing on the street).
At one point, there was also a plan to single track the guideway between Aberdeen and Bridgeport, I think (i.e. Capstan area), but that proposal was rejected.
With the new trains coming in a couple (?) of years, there will probably be the opportunity to increase service to Brighouse while maintaining a high frequency of trains to YVR (there’s a contractual requirement of some sort – could be frequency of trains to YVR or a percentage ratio splitting off at the Bridgeport wye).
Funny how decisions are made by people who never walk (I suspect,) and think that a cover over that shadowing on the street would be bad.
The shadow of the guideway is popular as sun shade in the summer and rain cover in the winter. People walk there all the time.
Can I get a hell, yeah! for this
https://giphy.com/gifs/yes-star-trek-hell-yeah-IyFBbg97qPN3q
Do you have any documentation of that Guest? I was fairly certain the single track at both YVR and Brighouse was strictly a cost-saving measure.
It’s true that the City of Richmond preferred grade level LRT and was pretty disappointed when big ugly concrete guideways were imposed on them. but I don’t think that directly translated to reducing the width of the big ugly concrete guideways.
LRTs are a MAJOR mistake in urban areas as they clog traffic. Look no further than the mess in Edmonton. Bravo to Surrey to demand SkyTrain (or a subway) !
Of course Canada Line trains and/or stations length a major mistake too.
Why not this even in W-Van or N-Van or to downtown ? http://www.skytran.com ?
No subway (yet) all the way to UBC on Broadway also a major mistake .. a lost decade, see KPMG report https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/KPMG-UBC-Broadway-Corridor-2013-02-26.pdf
Out of 200 grade level urban rail systems worldwide Thomas can only dig out Edmonton over and over and over and over and over again as an example of what not to do.
So learn from what Edmonton did wrong and build functional LRT like 199 others.
Both Edmonton and Calagary’s LRT systems were actually copies of German Stadtbahn systems, which used the then new Duewag articulated vehicles. As planning progressed, the term LRT became accepted.
Funny that, because no one seems to build with SkyTrain as Vancouver is the only city out of 7 that built with SkyTrain, still planning for it. Light rail on the other hand is used in over 600 cities around the world and over 200 were built during the same period SkyTrain was on the market.
metros or subways are only built when traffic flows on a transit exceed 15,000 to 20,000 pphpd. you can build a subway anywhere you wish, but remember this, you must pay the huge operating costs that are associated with subways.
Vancouver’s subway mania is a very costly mistake and it is driving congestion and gridlock because we cannot afford to build the user friendly transit system, that has proven to attract the motorist from the car.
The two go hand in hand.
Unhappy City decries shadowing, Project office wants to reduce costs… Bingo!
Richmond wasn’t screaming to keep a dual guideway.
I found this – interesting read…
https://www.richmond.ca/cityhall/council/agendas/gp/2004/112204_minutes.htm
There’s discussion about an at-grade system, moving the line to Minoru Blvd and reducing the visual profile.
So I would expect that cost-cutting and appeasement went hand-in-hand.
PS – a system requirement for the RAV Line was that it be capable of extension to the south (which it is – there would just be a bottleneck if the single track section is retained).
single track & small stations—-penny wise & pound foolish—- measure twice & cut once— They pretended to build it for less than $2 billion
Here’s a clause from the Memorandum of Understanding linked in the above minutes:
[img]https://i.imgur.com/eqznxXM.png[/img]
https://www.richmond.ca/__shared/assets/112904_item110055.pdf
https://i.imgur.com/eqznxXM.png
from Translink website (Richmond/Airport/Vancouver Rapid Transit, Final Report on Ridership & Revenues January 2003)
2021 peak ridership projection Aberdeen-Bridgeport (busiest segment in richmond) = 2300 , observed 2016 = 2400
2021 peak ridership projection King Edward Broadway (busiest segment in Vancouver) = 5300, observed 2016 = 5600
The only things Translink got wrong is that the projected ridership has been hit 5 years ahead of schedule.
all the rest is just misinformation. Thanks to verify data before spreading fake news.
Thanks for the numbers Patrick but ridership forcasts are time sensitive as well. Obviously based on your numbers they got the origins of riders roughly correct, but timing is important as well… That said modelling is tough. I can’t wait to see what the Broadway line does to Canada line ridership.
I can’t wait to see what the Broadway line does to Canada line ridership.
Energize. Catalyze. Boost. Choose your verb. I suspect it will be energized/catalyzed/boosted over the top.
There is a crossover switch just north of Broadway City Hall Station.
So conceivably, they could run peak hour shuttles between Waterfront and Broadway CityHhall Station, to lighten the load, the same way they run peak hour shuttles from Waterfront to Commercial Broadway on the Expo Line to lighten the load (of Millennium Line transfers).
Extend elevated stations—- longer trains with doors on last 2 carriages to stay closed at underground stations except Vancouver Center & Broadway where after unloading train could move far enough to allow remaining passengers to get off—– Confusing for tourists but better than being unable to board an overcrowded train
I see this as a good problem to have showing the success of building fast public transit. With this high ROI we can use the funds for other high speed public transit to UBC Langley etc. This also shows what a huge mistake LRT would have been with no ROI and slowing the implementation of future successful high speed transit.
Fast public transit on Broadway will likely show an exemplary ROI. However, Broadway also needs high-quality local transit too. It’s unique that way.
You bet. Why are we not drilling yet ? .. a lost decade, see KPMG report which shows MAJOR benefits https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/KPMG-UBC-Broadway-Corridor-2013-02-26.pdf
A few buses can remain there. or this: http://www.skytran.com .. quiet .. inexpensive
Does anyone know how much more the Canada line would have cost if the station length was doubled? This number should truly tell us if it was a mistake to not have those stations bigger.
I know a member of the Bombardier-led bid who mentioned that their submission was based on bored tunnels all the way to 63rd Ave, the standard 80 m platforms and SkyTrain tech to mesh with the existing system. Their bid was nearly $500 million more than than the SNC Lavalin bid that essentially changed the goalposts to cut & cover, shorter platforms and a few other changes / cuts to the original RFP and tender meant to impress the politicos with its ‘fiscal wisdom.’
The rest is history.
500 million is a lot more. I think read they pay back period is 22 years. With a 500 million more considering compound interest it might not pay back. Now yea I know these considerations are never considered for roads
Isn’t it a Pity that under the P3 Partnership deal the underground platform length was limited, thus limiting the future expansion of the Canada Line capacity?
Lets see what happens when all the new trains go into service, I figure that will cover it for 10 or 20 years, after that their is always the platform extensions for adding the 3rd car. It sucks they cheaped out but we are still 30 to 40 years from really feeling that pain.
Even with the new trains, the Canada line cannot carry more than about 9,000 pphpd.
There is no third car and there never will be, this is a myth. With 3 cars, train lengths will be over 60 metres in length and the platforms can be extended to a maximum of 50 metres. I doubt Transport Canada will allow it.
The other big problem is station access and if capacity exceeds about 9,000 pphpd, more entrances and exits must be added to comply with Transport Canada’s safety regulations.
The design parameter was an ultimate capacity of 15,000 pphpd based on regional population forecasts, etc.
That’s what the bidders designed to – in this case, with wider, luggage-friendly trains of 3.0m wide versus SkyTrain’s 2.6m wide). Wider trains allow cramming people into a shorter train.
But the shorter trains also allowed shorter station platforms close to the surface (for easy access), avoiding deep boring. If the platforms were longer, the stations would have been deeper (think of digging into the Cambie hill on a level plane) with no more than 5-6%(?) grade between stations.
All the design parameters are interlinked.
Rise = Slope x Run. The run from Broadway to King Ed is very long, and the slope could have been very gentle if tunnel boring was used in place if cut / cover over that distance. The exception would have been with a station at 16th Ave, but the existing tunnel even there was not deep and remains under 6% slope, which is the technical maximum for trains. Bored tunnels would still have been possible even with a 16th Ave station and would have not affected the invert elevation that much, especially if the station box was offset to the south by 20-30 m and thus increased the run from Broadway.
“Deep bore” is kind of a misnomer and is misleading. The top of the tunnels and station boxes do not have to be more than a few metres below the lowest underground service below an average street. But it remains the best possible engineering method to minimize disruption, and to drill through hills while maintaining a steady slope.
This is to say that here is no technical reason bored tunnels could not have been used for the CL. The other issues are all about cost, or more accurately compromising future capacity to look good on today’s balance sheets. Pound foolish indeed.
One down side to boring is time. While it’s possible, if not always practical, to cut-and-cover the entire length at once, a boring machine must plod along slowly for it’s entire length or have a major additional expense of multiple machines and the disruption of multiple staging areas.
One big advantage, though, is gravity assist. It often wouldn’t cost much more to dive down deeper between stations and get gravity assist for both acceleration and deceleration. Apparently this was used where possible on Montreal’s Metro. Montreal has a few great innovations that our system designers have fallen excruciatingly short on. For example, the Columbia Station transfer is a really bad joke.
Compare that disaster with Lionel-Groulx station. Two lines cross there both heading out of (or into) downtown Montreal, meaning the vast bulk of transfers remain either inbound or outbound. They’ve configured the station so you need only cross the platform. Even if you do the unusual transfer you need only deal with one set of stairs instead of two like at Columbia. L-G required some guideway gymnastics to achieve but the rider is very well served. Columbia only needed to have a centre platform to have the same effect. It’s truly disturbing that nobody though of that.
Wider trains need wider tunnels & have more room for people stand not sit— Having to stand on transit should be the exception not the norm.—- Standing on transit is not going to get people out there H O V s
SOV S not HOV s
Bob is right in a way. One reason the Evergreen Line was supposed to be built first is that it goes to an area well above sea level with good soil conditions – where all these condos were supposed to be built. The Canada Line has diverted development onto a flood plain vulnerable to liquefaction in an earthquake. Not a big problem if your idea of long-term planning is 10 years. Looks fine now, but the sea level goes up faster every year . . .
I find the regional politics for Richmond development fascinating from a historical planning view. There is a continuous narrative of limiting urban growth (the “where”, not the “how much”) in Richmond found in successive regional plans, due to floodplain, farming, and airport concerns. The evolution of the language is quite interesting given the underlying concerns never changed and the eventual development that occurred. I also find the more general switch from “Targets” to “Projections” interesting. In the context of this post, it would be fascinating to understand the tension between regional and local “interest” over the years that isn’t captured in the documents.
If you are also curious look at these resources:
1952 – (from The Lower Mainland Looks Ahead)
source: http://www.metrovancouver.org/about/library/LibraryPublications/The_Lower_Mainland_Looks_Ahead_1952.pdf
1966 – (from The 1966 Official Regional Plan )
source:http://www.metrovancouver.org/about/library/LibraryPublications/Official_Regional_Plan_For_The_Lower_Mainland_Planning_Area_1966.pdf
1975 – The Livable Region 1976/1986
source: http://www.metrovancouver.org/about/library/LibraryPublications/Livable_Region_1976_1986_-_Proposals_to_Manage_the_Growth_of_Greater_Vancouver.pdf
1980 – (from Plan for the Lower Mainland of BC)
source:http://www.metrovancouver.org/about/library/LibraryPublications/Plan_for_the_Lower_Mainland_of_British_Columbia_1980.pdf
2010 – Metro Vancouver 2040 Shaping Our Future
source: http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/regional-planning/PlanningPublications/RGSAdoptedbyGVRDBoard.pdf
Developer money wins every time. Welcome to Metro Vancouver.
That’s because the Regional Growth Strategy had to be unanimously approved by the Metro Vancouver municipalities – and Richmond refused to agree if it continued to be left out of the “Growth Concentration Area” (which focussed on areas on bedrock like Surrey and the NE Sector) due to the flood / earthquake risk.
So they strong-armed the Metro Vancouver Board into changing the plans.
That’s why the Canada Line only has an ultimate capacity (15,000 ppdph) half that of the Expo Line – people aren’t supposed to live in Richmond.
Er, no, you have it wrong.
Transport Canada’s operating certificate allows a maximum capacity of 15,000 pphpd on the Expo/Millennium lines and the maximum capacity for the Canada line is obscured by the P-3 contract, but is around 9,000 pphpd. To increase capacity on the Expo and Millennium lines, around $3 billion must be spent rehabbing both lines to allow for longer trains and more power distribution. there is also a long list of items that must be done before capacity can be increased.
Any chance we can get an underground bike and pedestrian path built inside the upcoming UBC line tunnel? Avoiding all this rain would be awesome.
In fairness, most of the high-rise development shown in that photo pre-dated the Canada Line. So whilst the statement “Transit drives housing development” may be true, the photo caption is inaccurate, since it was largely pre-existing.
I noticed that no one really has mentioned the real problem of the Canada line, it is a classic white elephant.
Built with 40m to 50m long station platforms, the Canada line can only operate 41m, 2 car trains, which gives limited capacity. The maximum capacity of the Canada line as built, is lightly more than half of the Expo and Millennium Lines, at about 9,000 pphpd.
As built, the Canada line has less capacity than a simple streetcar system, costing a fraction to build.
To increase capacity, about $1.5 to $2 billion must be spent in enlarging station and station platforms to accept 4 car trains and those subway stations will be hugely expensive to enlarge!
Speaking of subways, the North American standard for traffic flows that would justify a subway is 15,000 pphpd (20,000 pphpd in Europe because of the ability of modern LRT to carry heavy loads), yet the Canada line has a maximum capacity of around 9,000 pphpd, which means money was wasted building a subway.
Presently, the peak hour capacity currently obtained from Bridgeport Station to Waterfront,at 20 trains per hour (3 minute headways) is about 6,500 pphpd, half of this for trips going to YVR and Richmond Centre.
The overcrowding can be attributed to forced transfer of all Richmond buses and South Delta/Surrey buses onto the line and the the overcrowding can be rectified by once again having express bus servcie from south Delta and south Surrey going directly to downtown Vancouver, a servcie greatly wanted by transit customers.
So, here is the real issue, increasing population is creating crush conditions at rush hour on a mini-mini-metro with limited capacity and one does not need full condos to create this mess, rather incompetent planning, bureaucratic hubris, and politcal meddling has brought you the worlds only heavy-rail metro, built as a light metro which has less capacity than a modern tram.
No wonder transit experts abroad label the Canada line a classic white elephant.
Oh yes, it costs TransLink (read taxpayers) over $110 million annually to operate it!
Don’t believe me? Then why has no one copied the Canada line and in fact, why has no one copied our exclusive use of light-metro?
I think the answer would embarrass a lot of people.