Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

The Official Transit Thread


nitronuts

Recommended Posts

I never said I liked the cost of any of the transit in van. In fact I think its all over priced. I live in Mission and if I decided to take the sky train and public transit for the day, it would easily cost me double what I would pay if I just drove.

It's $21 for an all day transit pass from Mission, including the WCE. Are you sure you can drive around all day to and from Vancouver for less than half of that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's $21 for an all day transit pass from Mission, including the WCE. Are you sure you can drive around all day to and from Vancouver for less than half of that?

Yup. It would cost me 5-6 bucks for parking, and no more than $5-$10 in gas. Even if it cost me the same as transit, Im not sure I would take it. Not to mention, if you have another person with you, you are looking at $42 for the day. There is NO WAY that is worth the cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup. It would cost me 5-6 bucks for parking, and no more than $5-$10 in gas. Even if it cost me the same as transit, Im not sure I would take it. Not to mention, if you have another person with you, you are looking at $42 for the day. There is NO WAY that is worth the cost.

No way you can park all day for 5-6 bucks unless you park once in an inconvenient lot and never move.

Also assuming you give no monetary value to your time, stress from driving or health from sitting in traffic. Also, there is the risk of accident that is much higher, and the cost of increased wear and tear on your car.

Then, sure, it's worth it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No way you can park all day for 5-6 bucks unless you park once in an inconvenient lot and never move.

Also assuming you give no monetary value to your time, stress from driving or health from sitting in traffic. Also, there is the risk of accident that is much higher, and the cost of increased wear and tear on your car.

Then, sure, it's worth it.

I pretty much park downtown somewhere if I am shopping and walk everywhere. If I am going to metro, parking is free. If I am going to the beach, parking is either free or $5. The wear and tear on my car will happen regardless. And the stress and health really make no difference. I can get into an accident on a bus just as well, and I am pretty much breathing the same air.

So, ya, its worth it. Certainly worth it if I am not going alone, which is more often than not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nitronuts, do you think Trankslink will build the protection door in the future.

take a look at the clip at 4:17.

Before passengers enters the train, they have to pass through the protection door.

It can keep people from jumping off the track or committing suicide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I pretty much park downtown somewhere if I am shopping and walk everywhere. If I am going to metro, parking is free. If I am going to the beach, parking is either free or $5. The wear and tear on my car will happen regardless. And the stress and health really make no difference. I can get into an accident on a bus just as well, and I am pretty much breathing the same air.

So, ya, its worth it. Certainly worth it if I am not going alone, which is more often than not.

No. If your car is at home, it won't accrue wear and tear.

You must be young.

No. You're much more likely to get in an accident in a single occupancy car.

That attitude is why we're all breathing that same air.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. If your car is at home, it won't accrue wear and tear.

You must be young.

No. You're much more likely to get in an accident in a single occupancy car.

That attitude is why we're all breathing that same air.

lol ya, I must be. My car will incur wear and tear regardless, because I will drive it again some other place, it may not be that day, but it will be again some point soon. If it gets an extra 100 k on sunday instead of monday, I am not to worried about it.

Your right, I am more likely to get into an accident in a car than a bus, but I COULD get into an accident in either.

As for me being the reason we are all breathing the same air? lol ya, you got it, me driving to van every other weekend is what is causing van to be so polluted. You got me figured out lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol ya, I must be. My car will incur wear and tear regardless, because I will drive it again some other place, it may not be that day, but it will be again some point soon. If it gets an extra 100 k on sunday instead of monday, I am not to worried about it.

Your right, I am more likely to get into an accident in a car than a bus, but I COULD get into an accident in either.

As for me being the reason we are all breathing the same air? lol ya, you got it, me driving to van every other weekend is what is causing van to be so polluted. You got me figured out lol

The young and the ignorant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nitronuts, do you think Trankslink will build the protection door in the future.

take a look at the clip at 4:17.

Before passengers enters the train, they have to pass through the protection door.

It can keep people from jumping off the track or committing suicide.

Not for another 40 years. And the proper name is "platform doors".

We run both the Mark I and Mark II trains...each car model is a different length and each train has a different number of cars. Most importantly, the door placements on each car model are different so that makes platform doors impossible. The only possibly way SkyTrain can install platform doors is if it chooses to stay with one train model and one train length forever, like a five-car Mark II train.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not for another 40 years. And the proper name is "platform doors".

We run both the Mark I and Mark II trains...each car model is a different length and each train has a different number of cars. Most importantly, the door placements on each car model are different so that makes platform doors impossible. The only possibly way SkyTrain can install platform doors is if it chooses to stay with one train model and one train length forever, like a five-car Mark II train.

Mark II trains can't be five-car. They come in sets of two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark II trains can't be five-car. They come in sets of two.

Sometime in the next decade, Translink will buy 3-car Mark II trains to pair them up with a 2-car Mark II for a 5-car Mark II train....which would fill up the entire 80-metre platform, meaning no capacity is lost with shorter trains. I don't think there's a need for platform extensions for another 30-years if we do this. With more trains and longer trains to fill the entire platform, both the Expo and Millennium Lines can reach a capacity of 30,000 passengers per hour per direction. That's the capacity of Toronto's Yonge Subway. And with further computer and singnalling upgrades, both SkyTrain lines could probably reach 35,000 passengers per hour per direction.

Right now, the Expo Line runs a 15,000 pphpd capacity during peak hours and the Millennium Line is at 7,000 pphpd. The additional 48-Mark II cars arriving this year would boost capacity by 30%. Meaning, capacity between Waterfront to Columbia could theoretically increase from 15,000 phppd to 20,000 pphpd.

The claimed maximum capacity (with a 10-metre platform extension to 50-metres, one additional car, and more trains/higher frequency) of the Canada Line is 15,000 pphpd. But I'm beginning to highly doubt if it's 15,000 pphpd at all. In North America, we use the normal train capacity as the standard. Translink uses the normal capacity as well. But the folks at the Canada Line are waving around crush load capacity with the "400 passengers per two-car train" figure. Crush load is only used in Asia and some European centres, as you really need to pack into a train for that to happen. The normal capacity for a two-car Canada Line train is 334-passengers. This means that the Canada Line could be well below the contracted 15,000 pphpd capacity as the crush load was used to design the line's capacity rather than the normal load, which is a standard in this city and continent. The contract RAVCO wrote didn't exactly specify whether 15,000 pphpd would be based on normal capacity or crush load capacity trains.

When folks at InTransitBC first unveiled the trains in 2007, they said the trains would have a capacity of 334-passengers each. A year and a half later, the capacity for the trains increased to 400-passengers each. It wasn't as if anything changed about the train design: number of seats were the same, seating arrangement was the same, and certainly the train length and width were the same as well. It's the same train, yet in less than 2 years the capacity magically increased. I couldn't help but laugh when they said with one more car it would be equivalent to a 747 taking off every 3-minutes....sure.

*sigh*

Edited by nitronuts
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometime in the next decade, Translink will buy 3-car Mark II trains to pair them up with a 2-car Mark II for a 5-car Mark II train....which would fill up the entire 80-metre platform, meaning no capacity is lost with shorter trains. I don't think there's a need for platform extensions for another 30-years if we do this. With more trains and longer trains to fill the entire platform, both the Expo and Millennium Lines can reach a capacity of 30,000 passengers per hour per direction. That's the capacity of Toronto's Yonge Subway. And with further computer and singnalling upgrades, both SkyTrain lines could probably reach 35,000 passengers per hour per direction.

Right now, the Expo Line runs a 15,000 pphpd capacity during peak hours and the Millennium Line is at 7,000 pphpd. The additional 48-Mark II cars arriving this year would boost capacity by 30%. Meaning, capacity between Waterfront to Columbia could theoretically increase from 15,000 phppd to 20,000 pphpd.

The claimed maximum capacity (with a 10-metre platform extension to 50-metres, one additional car, and more trains/higher frequency) of the Canada Line is 15,000 pphpd. But I'm beginning to highly doubt if it's 15,000 pphpd at all. In North America, we use the normal train capacity as the standard. Translink uses the normal capacity as well. But the folks at the Canada Line are waving around crush load capacity with the "400 passengers per two-car train" figure. Crush load is only used in Asia and some European centres, as you really need to pack into a train for that to happen. The normal capacity for a two-car Canada Line train is 334-passengers. This means that the Canada Line could be well below the contracted 15,000 pphpd capacity as the crush load was used to design the line's capacity rather than the normal load, which is a standard in this city and continent. The contract RAVCO wrote didn't exactly specify whether 15,000 pphpd would be based on normal capacity or crush load capacity trains.

*sigh*

What the heck would a 3 car Mark II look like?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the heck would a 3 car Mark II look like?

80-metre SkyTrain platform:

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

4-car Mark I train (48-metres, 320-passengers):

|||||||||||-|||||||||||-|||||||||||-||||||||||

6-car Mark II train (72-metres, 480-passengers)

|||||||||||-|||||||||||-|||||||||||-|||||||||||-|||||||||||-||||||||||

2-car Mark II train (36-metres, 260-passengers)

(||||||||||||||||-||||||||||||||||)

4-car Mark II train (72-metres, 520-passengers)

(||||||||||||||||-||||||||||||||||)-(||||||||||||||||-||||||||||||||||)

4-car Mark II train (using 2-C cars: ~56-metres, 500-passengers)

(||||||||||||||||-||||||||||-||||||||||-||||||||||||||||)

3-car Mark II train (46-metres, ~380-passengers)....the middle car is called a C-car

(||||||||||||||||-|||||||||||-||||||||||||||||)

5-car Mark II train (82-metres, 640-passengers...by merging a 2-car and 3-car pair together)

(||||||||||||||||-|||||||||||-||||||||||||||||)-(||||||||||||||||-||||||||||||||||)

6-car Mark II train (1-A car, 1-B car, and 4-car cars: 76-80-metres, ~800 passengers)

(||||||||||||||||-||||||||||-||||||||||-||||||||||-||||||||||-||||||||||||||||)

Note that the Mark II train figures are based on the old trains, not the new trains we will be receiving over the next few months. The new Mark II's have a much higher capacity (probably 20-30% more) given their much more space efficient train interiors and less seats replaced with standing space, supported by bars to hold onto.

The 6-car Mark II train is based on a special order from Bombardier. It's possible, and the higher capacity (even though it's shorter than a 5-car train) is because C-cars are much more space efficient. On top of that, all 6-cars are fully articulated which also increases capacity by 10% because of better passenger flow in the train...and space isn't wasted for the computers or driver ends. Same goes for a 3-car Mark II train or the 3-car Canada Line Rotem train below.

Only those that are bolded are the configurations Translink will have.

Canada Line 40-metre platform

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Canada Line 2-car Rotem train (41-metres, 334-passengers)

(|||||||||||||||||||-|||||||||||||||||||)

Canada Line 50-metre platform

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Canada Line 3-car Rotem train (with 1-C car: 55-metres, ~420-passengers)

(|||||||||||||||||||-||||||||||||||-|||||||||||||||||||)

edit, here's a picture for a 4-car Mark II train using 2-cars in the middle. It was recently ordered by Kuala Lumpur for their own ALRT line.

20080901_rapidkl_4-car.jpg

Edited by nitronuts
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^

The Canada line will hold 400 people per train.

From post 3274:

The claimed maximum capacity (with a 10-metre platform extension to 50-metres, one additional car, and more trains/higher frequency) of the Canada Line is 15,000 pphpd. But I'm beginning to highly doubt if it's 15,000 pphpd at all. In North America, we use the normal train capacity as the standard. Translink uses the normal capacity as well. But the folks at the Canada Line are waving around crush load capacity with the "400 passengers per two-car train" figure. Crush load is only used in Asia and some European centres, as you really need to pack into a train for that to happen. The normal capacity for a two-car Canada Line train is 334-passengers. This means that the Canada Line could be well below the contracted 15,000 pphpd capacity as the crush load was used to design the line's capacity rather than the normal load, which is a standard in this city and continent. The contract RAVCO wrote didn't exactly specify whether 15,000 pphpd would be based on normal capacity or crush load capacity trains.

When folks at InTransitBC first unveiled the trains in 2007, they said the trains would have a capacity of 334-passengers each. A year and a half later, the capacity for the trains increased to 400-passengers each. It wasn't as if anything changed about the train design: number of seats were the same, seating arrangement was the same, and certainly the train length and width were the same as well. It's the same train, yet in less than 2 years the capacity magically increased. Instead, they decided to use the crush load capacity to design the line. I couldn't help but laugh when they said with one more car it would be equivalent to a 747 taking off every 3-minutes....sure.

Edited by nitronuts
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From post 3274:

The claimed maximum capacity (with a 10-metre platform extension to 50-metres, one additional car, and more trains/higher frequency) of the Canada Line is 15,000 pphpd. But I'm beginning to highly doubt if it's 15,000 pphpd at all. In North America, we use the normal train capacity as the standard. Translink uses the normal capacity as well. But the folks at the Canada Line are waving around crush load capacity with the "400 passengers per two-car train" figure. Crush load is only used in Asia and some European centres, as you really need to pack into a train for that to happen. The normal capacity for a two-car Canada Line train is 334-passengers. This means that the Canada Line could be well below the contracted 15,000 pphpd capacity as the crush load was used to design the line's capacity rather than the normal load, which is a standard in this city and continent. The contract RAVCO wrote didn't exactly specify whether 15,000 pphpd would be based on normal capacity or crush load capacity trains.

When folks at InTransitBC first unveiled the trains in 2007, they said the trains would have a capacity of 334-passengers each. A year and a half later, the capacity for the trains increased to 400-passengers each. It wasn't as if anything changed about the train design: number of seats were the same, seating arrangement was the same, and certainly the train length and width were the same as well. It's the same train, yet in less than 2 years the capacity magically increased. Instead, they decided to use the crush load capacity to design the line. I couldn't help but laugh when they said with one more car it would be equivalent to a 747 taking off every 3-minutes....sure.

You could be right.

I'm just going by what my "source" told me.

Either way, what the capacity of a B-Line bus? My guess would be 150 max, so I doubt the Canada line will run at max capacity. I think the frequency will be more often wont it? A B-Line from Richmond to Vancouver is every 15 minutes, where the train is ever 5 minutes, isn't it ?

Edited by Lager Hog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...