February 23, 2018

Bigger, Better TransLink

This morning’s TransLink announcement is most welcome to the vast numbers of people who use SkyTrain and Canada Line to get from here to there.

80 new cars, all to be in service by 2020.

  • 28 Expo and Millennium line cars by early 2019;
  • 28 additional Expo and Millennium line cars by the end of 2019 – three years ahead of schedule; and
  • 24 Canada Line cars by the end of 2020.

The total investment for the 80 new cars is $298 million: $210 million for the 56 Expo and Millennium Line cars and $88 million for Canada Line. The purchase of the new cars is funded through the Public Transit Infrastructure Fund (PTIF). PTIF is funded by the Government of Canada at 50 per cent, Province of British Columbia at 33 per cent and TransLink at 17 per cent.
We expect the additional 80 SkyTrain cars will increase capacity by about:

  • 10 per cent for Expo Line;
  • 23 per cent for Millennium Line; and
  • 30 per cent for Canada Line.

This results in a total of 8,200 additional spaces per peak hour on both directions on all three SkyTrain Lines.

Posted in

Support

If you love this region and have a view to its future please subscribe, donate, or become a Patron.

Share on

Comments

Leave a Reply to Chris KeamCancel Reply

  1. That’s a nice, easy to understand message for Canada Line riders/naysayers:

    We expect the additional 80 SkyTrain cars will increase capacity by about:
    10 per cent for Expo Line;
    23 per cent for Millennium Line; and
    30 per cent for Canada Line.

    1. So from this, I speculate that they’re concentrating the new cars on the Millennium and Canada lines mostly. This is good. The Expo line, while busy is nowhere near as crowded as the other two.

      1. I think you shouldn’t read too much on the detail:
        The expo line has no much room for additional trains (peak frequency is already ~108s), so the increase in capacity come mainly in train of greater capacity (new MKIII consist going to the expo line) replacing train of smaller capacity (that is MKII going to the M line).
        so things can only move slowly …but surely (and the Broadway extension will help).
        order also need to be big enough to lower the price per unit (special order), so they could order more train that planned to operate, what they exactly did for the Canada line at its opening (20 trains order, but only 14 in operation).

      2. I’m guessing Voony is right. The Expo Line is already running a lot closer to capacity than the Millenium line, meaning that the chances for growing capacity are smaller. Also, because the Expo Line already has a operates with a much higher capacity than the Millenium Line, similar increases would appear very different when presented in percentages. I’m guessing the increases in capacity in absolute numbers are actually very similar. The last sentence would seem to support that, if I understand it correctly:
        “This results in a total of 8,200 additional spaces per peak hour on both directions on all three SkyTrain Lines.”
        They do mean on “each” line, right, not combined?

  2. Has some thought been given to extend the length of the CanadaLine trains so that the front and the back of the trains sticks 10-20m or so into the tunnel and one enters or exit via only one of the doors ?

    1. First step is to increase train frequency, running them closer together. No need to spend money on platforms yet.
      Would you rather wait three minutes for a longer train, or two minutes for another train the same length? Both scenarios can produce the same higher capacity.

      1. Not asking for platform extensions which are obviously very costly. I am asking about longer trains or cars so that one sits or stands in the very front or very rear of the train if one doesn’t exit for a while. i.e. one exits only via the door that actually opens to the platforms but not the ones that remain closed as they face a tunnel wall ??

        1. You can’t just put more a bunch more people down there unless you upgrade a couple of the stations. The platform extensions will probably also come with a few additional stairwells and escalators. They’re roughed into the existing stations, so they won’t be super expensive. If you added a bunch more capacity (with a 3rd car) without doing the platform upgrades, you’d likely violate fire codes, and cause all sorts of circulation issues within the stations.
          Keep in mind, you need people to be able to enter and exit the trains quickly to keep the dwell times down, and keep things moving. The whole design strategy of our system is to have frequently trains, so there’s not much buffer to use up if things get congested.
          As is, the Canada Line can handle a bunch more capacity before the 3rd cars are required. I think it can hit ~10,000 pphpd without a 3rd car and platform upgrades. ~15,000 pphpd should be achievable with the 3rd car and 50m platforms.
          The Expo line on the other hand still needs more station upgrades before additional capacity can be realised. Translink has a contract out for studying upgrades to Burrard. As is, the station entrances can’t handle the volume of additional passengers, so they need to add another access point.
          A 5th Mk3 car on the Expo line might be feasilble after a couple more similar upgrades to other stations. Then they would probably only have a single door overhang the platforms on each end of the train. Again, this needs to be thought of to make sure circulation issues don’t develop on the train, but proportionately it’s an easier fit on the Expo line platforms.

      2. Platform extensions are not necessarily costly. Where the space was left for future expansion, it is just opening it up.
        Another potential change is gates on the platforms. They would align with and synchronize with the gates on the cars. They would allow more room on the platforms as people could occupy the space closer to the tracks, while being safer.
        Another potential change is to the single track zones in Richmond.
        A Translink presentation at T2040 meetings showed various steps that would take capacity up by more than double.

        1. Sorry, I don’t have a link. I have meeting notes, but not the presentation we saw. The numbers as I recall them were that current Canada Line capacity (each direction) is around 6500 per hour, and it can go to 15,000 with a series of investments.

    2. My understanding is that a third intermediate but smaller car would be inserted between the two longer CL train cars, therein extending the length of the train by about 1/3. Adding frequency with this option could result in a significant increase in system capacity, especially if they reoriented the seats to afford greater standing room. The ends would probably stick into the tunnel a bit, but not a huge amount, though the doors closest to the ends may remain closed at most stations.

      1. No offense, but standing room is bullshit. Two classes of passenger for the same fee sucks. It’s exactly the type of situation that keeps motorists motoring as Elon Musk made clear in one of his recent idiotic Tweets.

        1. Standing while paying the same price is illogical. Sitting while having someone’s backpack or butt in your face also sucks. We took Skytrain once this year – New Year’s Eve freebie (paid by our taxes). The trip was ok – some of the passengers were hugely irritating. Took it once last year – same circumstances. Have never been, never will be, a transit user; maybe Handy Dart when infirmity comes, but probably not. And we live four minutes walk to Skytrain.

        2. Why is it bullshit? At least if there is overcrowding, standing-room is better than missing your train. Not ideal, but very real world.

        3. Bullshit because we can afford to provide all transit users with safe, comfortable transportation if we collectively decide it’s a priority. And then more people would use it. Success.

        4. I stand most trips on the Canada Line. I prefer it because I can position myself right next to the door and exit just ahead of the rush for the escalator. I know which door stops closest to which escalator at each station. I will sit if I’m carrying something heavier than a backpack or trecking for more than 20 minutes. I suppose this makes me a sucker for paying full fare (well, concession now that I’m a senior) for standing, but it’s a preference only because sitting in double-loaded aisles on a crowded train makes it hard to move to the door. It’s a choice of crowd movement geometry and convenience during rush hours and has nothing to do with class.
          Next time you ride the London Underground please note the bench seat and clear aisle orientation on most lines. Also note the massive public investments made on that system over the last decade and the notable increase in efficiency in moving people, though crowding is still a big issue in some locations. The Piccadilly Line was at capacity in every respect (train length and capacity, station design capacity, interior seat configuration, manually-controlled frequency, etc.) but they found that increasing standing room space really helped along with converting to automatic train control which allows them to space trains even closer together. Another efficiency gain is to stagger work hours in some paerts of central London so the rush hours are a bit less like a flash flood.
          You have a point, though, when it comes to a healthy seated Millennial with earbuds and eyes glued to a smartphone screen who purposely ignores pregnant women, the infirm elderly and people with disabilities so they don’t have to give up their seat, even when directly challenged. I’ve got 50 years on half of them and sometimes feel that being punched out by a senior will probably help them make some key adjustments to their their selfish attitude. At least that’s the fantasy until the septugenarian women weilds her cane on their foot, at which point the car erupts in laughter.

        5. I think your expectations are confusing a subway with some kind of suburban service.
          Most people on SSP have generally been happy that standing room on our trains is increasing, because it’s better to have a train you can fit on than one you can’t.
          The progression from Mk1 to Mk3 Skytrain cars have cut down on the proportion of seats in every iteration. It makes for much more intensely used system which is more likely to be profitable and likely to expand.
          If have to build your system to seat everyone, then it’s a lot less likely to be built.

        6. And the rest of North America (and also the planet) takes as a given the fact that most people will have to stand. That’s not lack of money or lack of consideration, it’s basic physics.
          For example, a Mark III SkyTrain with enough seats for all 500+ people riding it would stretch from Olympic Village to Broadway-City Hall. Not practical.

        7. If you want people to take the train or bus instead of their car, esp. parents with kids, then you make sure they have a seat. Sounds like some creative solutions are needed, along with reframing our priorities. As I say, all we really need is money and will. I’ll be we could find a way to move all those people in comfort and safety.
          As an aside, I was standing on a Skytrain yesterday that made an emergency stop. Threw me into the man beside me. If I had mobility issues I would have fallen, possibly been injured. Not a great sales angle for promoting transit use.
          Transit passengers = second class citizen according to our transportation system. Let’s face it. Accept it. Change it.

        8. One occupied seat takes the room of two or three standing people. And you can’t put seats in the corridor, and you can’t make the train wider, and making the train longer is impractical. Money and will don’t change the laws of geometry – just ask anybody who plays Tetris.
          Seniors and disabled people already get priority seats and wheelchair space; the rest of us (parents and kids included) don’t mind standing, because we’d all rather get THIS train than wait for the next one. You want comfort, rent a limo.
          … Maybe, just maybe, you should’ve been holding onto something?

        9. Yeah, I was holding onto something, that’s why I didn’t go flying down the aisle breaking my neck or injuring someone else.
          Bottom line is we can afford to give transit users a seat. It’s not ‘tooooo haaarrrddd’
          Our priorities are broken. Own it. Move on. Do you commute on transit with kids? Where to and from?

        10. Such are the hazards of transit.
          Can you create a train that’s actually five times larger on the inside like in Harry Potter? No? Didn’t think so.
          I WAS a kid who took transit. We really do not mind standing. More important is having buses running every 5-10 minutes and SkyTrain lines all over the region, which is an infinitely better use of money.

        11. Do you use transit on a regular basis during rush hour with children in tow? Let me tell you, it’s the chore that drove me into right into the arms of car share for a bunch of trips. Mission not accomplished.
          The reality is not to come up with magic solutions. But to demand a different approach. We clearly have time, money, and space to put a seat under every commuter. We wouldn’t have traffic jams of quarter-full automobiles were this not the case. How do we turn empty cars into full transit? Not by offering less comfort and convenience, or urging people to make sacrifices for the good of all. Unless we are serious about climate change and being on a ‘war footing’ to combat it. In which case, great. Seems a solution might be making transit more attractive… ie not a crowded, uncomfortable, and stressful test of personal space invasion tolerance.

        12. In which case that’s a personal choice, and does not speak for all families – many of which (raises hand) are fine with standing.
          You seem to have ignored every single point about seating in favour of “oh, they’ll think of something.” Seats are big. Trains are small. It’s a fact of life that only so many big things fit into a small space – anything more does indeed require a magic solution.
          No, we have traffic jams of quarter-full automobiles because we have a metro region that’s been planned around that kind of commute since the Fifties.
          The answer is to re-plan Metro Van around transit, and to have fast, frequent service all over the city to replace the convenience that the car provides; personally, I don’t care if the bus has leather sofas if it’s going to make me late.

        13. “You seem to have ignored every single point about seating in favour of “oh, they’ll think of something.”
          Not accepting your personal decision that aggressive measures aren’t possible isn’t ignoring the point. It’s pointing out we can aim higher. Oh look….
          “we have traffic jams of quarter-full automobiles because we have a metro region that’s been planned around that kind of commute since the Fifties.
          The answer is to re-plan Metro Van around transit, and to have fast, frequent service all over the city to replace the convenience that the car provides”
          Exactly. And with that fast, frequent service, crowding would be less, and there would be seats for all.
          As for personal space, if you can find me a culture that prefers standing in close proximity to strangers over other options, then it’s a ‘cultural thing’. So, point me to the country where all the rich people happily jam onto the subways and buses. Until then, it’s a human trait the world over to avoid situations that make us uncomfortable. Not a cultural habit.
          Transit fails because we demand altruism of its customers — unlike all the other transportation options. Transit succeeds when it’s better than a car. And that means comfort and convenience. Seats.
          I get that current users would sooner have a timely bus than sit down. But what’s keeping non-users off the bus? Crowding is definitely an issue. Enough capacity to ensure seats for all addresses this issue and at the same time, increases frequency.
          Setting seats for all as a benchmark can address a number of problems with transit. Telling non-users to take one for the team and be uncomfortable during their commute won’t convert a single soul

        14. “In which case that’s a personal choice, and does not speak for all families – many of which (raises hand) are fine with standing.”
          If my remarks are based on personal choice, so are yours, and those remarks don’t speak for all families either. If they did, I expect we would actually see more families on transit at rush hour. But they tend to be a pretty rare sight. I wonder why?

        15. t’s not about personal decisions (whatever that means). “Aiming higher” in this case means “demanding that TransLink bend time and space for your convenience.”
          Let’s use the newest Mark III trainsets – 69m long, with a capacity of 532 riders, but only 33 seats. To give every single rider a seat, you would need a train 1043m long, which is longer than the distance between many SkyTrain stations. That’s clearly not practical.
          ///Exactly. And with that fast, frequent service, crowding would be less, and there would be seats for all.///
          Rather, more people would use transit, meaning all the extra vehicles would be crowded too. Surely you don’t expect the number of passengers (or the population of Vancouver) to stay the same forever?
          ///As for personal space, if you can find me a culture that prefers standing in close proximity to strangers over other options, then it’s a ‘cultural thing’. So, point me to the country where all the rich people happily jam onto the subways and buses. Until then, it’s a human trait the world over to avoid situations that make us uncomfortable. Not a cultural habit. ///
          Sure it’s cultural. Different societies have different perceptions of personal space; it’s usually North Americans going “too crowded, I’ll get the next one.”
          Obviously nobody likes being squished in, but some societies are more used to it than others. People who’re used to a 1000-square foot house and a 4-door car will naturally get claustrophobic in what other people would call a “regular-sized” crowd. Heck, Japan needs their station attendants to PUSH passengers into trains.
          As for rich people, there’ll always be elitist snobs preferring limos and helicopters. The rest of us suck it up.
          ///Transit succeeds when it’s better than a car. And that means comfort and convenience. Seats.///
          Transit succeeds when it gets people from Point A to Point B as fast as driving would.
          Convenience comes from not having to focus on the road, not worrying about parking or gas, and (in the case of the train) avoiding traffic and red lights. Comfort is sacrificed in order to achieve those things.
          ///I get that current users would sooner have a timely bus than sit down. But what’s keeping non-users off the bus? Crowding is definitely an issue…
          … I expect we would actually see more families on transit at rush hour. But they tend to be a pretty rare sight. I wonder why?
          ///
          … Transit is crowded, so nobody uses it?
          No, the problem is the bus takes up to 15-30 minutes to show up (especially off-peak or in the suburbs), and stops every couple of blocks for one passenger. The SkyTrain is fast and frequent, but only covers less than a quarter of the region. Solve both problems, and kids and parents alike will plan their commutes around it like they do in European/Asian cities.

        16. @Voony. You’ve completely misrepresented my remarks.
          @Justin: Transit is crowded, so you don’t see families on it very much. The two statements are not in opposition to each other. Again – a misrepresentation of my remarks, and a focus on skytrain, when I am talking about the whole transit system.
          I hear people who study these things tell me we are in a crisis situation w/r/t climate. That drastic action is needed. I see little appetite for the sacrifices required. Clearly big shifts are needed. Like making taking transit better than the SOV. Seats, baby, seats.

        17. “As for rich people, there’ll always be elitist snobs preferring limos and helicopters. The rest of us suck it up.”
          No. A big chunk of the ‘rest of us’ drive. AKA ‘the problem’

        18. Hey, you’re the one who clicked on a SkyTrain post and started talking about seats. Same problem applies to buses: too many people, too little space. Try seating everybody on a packed 99 – two actually, since they tend to pile up in heavy traffic – and see if it still fits at the Cambie stop.
          You’ve got anecdotes, I’ve got anecdotes; the families, kids and field trips I see are more than fine with standing.
          What deters them is infrequency and slowness, which are important when you need to get somewhere soon – hence a switch to driving. Make the buses come often and have trains run near their home, and just like New York, Singapore and other cities (which you really should visit if you can), families will see transit as an alternative.
          ///“As for rich people, there’ll always be elitist snobs preferring limos and helicopters. The rest of us suck it up.”
          No. A big chunk of the ‘rest of us’ drive. AKA ‘the problem’///
          It’s a reply to this: “So, point me to the country where all the rich people happily jam onto the subways and buses.” Answer: they never will. They’re better than us, so why should they lower themselves to slum with us? (/sarcasm)
          As for regular drivers, simply make transit as fast and reliable and accessible as the car, and people will switch. If being cramped in the driver’s seat is that much better than being cramped standing in a crowd, then that’s your problem.

    3. I don’t think they will be keeping end-doors closed, as that would probably violate safety regulations of some kind. I’m guessing there needs to be an exit within a specific distance of every train passenger in the event of an emergency (fire, crash, whatever).

      1. Presumably they would then open, or could be forced open from inside, as there is a small walking platform along the entire track is there not ? Just not for regular exit/entry in stations.

  3. Where are all the people who wailed and ranted that ridership would never support the investment? Their names should be displayed in prominent places so people know who to blame such a for a ridiculously undersized system.

      1. I used to read “Rail for the Valley” blog but I stopped because it just got to be some sort of bizarroworld with no connection to reality. They were claiming that buses in Vancouver were empty and that’s why they can’t have light rail in Surrey.
        If you want credibility for your lies at least make it something that people can’t go check for themselves and see how wrong you are.

  4. YES standing I BS=== Increase length of Vancouver Central & Bridgeport stations . Four or five unit trains would only need to open the doors of the first two units at the other stations. Most people from Richmond are going downtown

  5. I was a regular user of public transit for two brief periods in my life: in Moscow, for several months, I endured the Metro. Pretty much never got a seat. If you did, as a guy, you had to give it up to females. De riguer. Best boarding move was to wait until everyone piled on, then squeeze in just as the doors closed. At least that way you could have one side that wasn’t people in your face.
    The other time was a month in Colombo – took the bus daily to the beach. Damn that road was rough. Got pickpocketed once – two pockets. The thieves’ trick was for one of them to press their junk against you and, while you recoiled, rob you.
    Outside of those times, it never even occurs to me to take transit. Would walk, bike, motoshare, drive, rollerblade. The bus – no way, no how. Skytrain – would in an emergency, but haven’t picked up a Compass Card yet. Lived in Vancouver over ten years before setting foot in one – think it was during a strike and I walked on with a big nasty dog for just one stop. People were charmed. Someone wanted to pet it. Told him that was a bad idea.
    I’m claustrophobic and have hyperacusis. The worst for me here is Seabus – took it a few times. Makes me ill just thinking about it – and that’s from ten years ago.

  6. Time is money.
    As such, those who value their time more drive more as it is often faster. A congestion charge will shift this slightly, but not the principle.
    To shift more people to transit we need FASTER services and that is why many folks now use Uber or Car2Go (where available) as opposed to a bus where one has to wait 20-30 min in off hours. Covered e-bikes, in a Car2Go like sharing mode, such as this Vancouver invention http://www.velometro.com will help bridge the last 1-4 km in inclement weather that we experience quite a bit in Metrovan.

  7. Standing in overcrowded transit OR sitting in a S O V (with 4 spare seats) Is the choice most people have. Bus lanes & enough transit seats would reduce the volume of cars on the road.

      1. The 99s already run as fast as they can. See for yourself at the UBC loop – as soon as one leaves, the next one pulls in.
        And of course, induced demand kicks in. If TransLink somehow fits in more buses, more people will use them, making those buses crowded too! Ridership is already increasing by two million each year as it is.

        1. Transits 2 million ridership increase was not enough to end congestion . More induced demand on transit means fewer cars on the road which would be good news for other drivers & ICBC.

        2. Which is why we need more buses and the Broadway SkyTrain. Point is, they’re still going to be as packed as they are now; same reason that all the new condos aren’t causing housing prices to drop.

        3. 99 Bus stops far too often, namely at traffic lights. 100 passengers have to stop for one or 2 people to cross the road, or one car to cross Broadway? The HOV/bus lane is also not open all day. Why not ? It is too slow a bus to compete with a subway. Signal priority would help until a subway is in place by 2040.
          MetroVan overall needs more subways, to UBC, to North Shore, further into Richmond, to Langely & deeper into Surrey, to East Van to revitalize that dumpy part of Vancouver etc .. LRT is a garve mistake there as it will clog traffic like we see in Edmonton. BIG mistake.
          CanadaLine needs longer trains ie more capacity by extending trains into tunnel. The speed could be increased.
          MetroVan does not need congestion charges that do not result in better transit, ie just more taxes collected for an ever expanding (and overpaid) bureaucracy. Transit improvements must go hand in hand with higher car use fees.
          Utterly inadequate is a fast ferry service with 30-50 stops like Sydney has in their inner Harbour, from Deep Cove to Port Coquitlam to HorseshoeBay and UBC. Love to see some pricetag blogs on that.

        4. LRT doesn’t clog traffic if you weed out traffic. Just because Edmonton did a poor job and had no intention of reducing SOVs doesn’t mean that’s the way it has to be. If you design a city well you don’t need to go fast because most people don’t have to go far. Speeding up the False Creek Ferries wouldn’t really get you there any faster. The need for speed is evidence of bad design and bad social policy.
          Ferries to UBC. Uh-huh. Step right up folks. Just 500 stairs and you’re there.

Subscribe to Viewpoint Vancouver

Get breaking news and fresh views, direct to your inbox.

Join 7,284 other subscribers

Show your Support

Check our Patreon page for stylish coffee mugs, private city tours, and more – or, make a one-time or recurring donation. Thank you for helping shape this place we love.

Popular Articles

See All

All Articles