|
Post by Mike C on Feb 28, 2013 16:04:38 GMT -8
The difficulty with comparing these rapid transit technologies is that, although they seem relatively the same at face value, there is actually quite a contrast. Light Rail capital costs are significantly lower than Rail Rapid Transit (SkyTrain). Cities like Seattle have taken advantage of these lower costs. RRT is expensive, but the capacities are higher and faster. For example, Expo Line operates at headways that are 1 minute 38 seconds, as opposed to Central Link which operates at 4 minutes.
We are currently having the discussion surrounding LRT vs. RRT on our Broadway Corridor between Commercial Station and UBC. At present, the 99 B-Line (which is the Bus Rapid Transit route that currently operates the Broadway Corridor) is the busiest bus route in North America. Do not forget the Surrey Rapid Transit there are studying the same of the UBC Rapid Transit. I think the SkyTrain would better for both because more frequent and will not change traffic patterns after it done. I am currently writing my semester paper on the Surrey Rapid Transit study. They are currently viewing light rail as the best option for that area, due to the costs associated and large land areas that need to be covered. Awesome Cheese, if you're concerned about your taxes going up, I suggest you get behind LRT.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Feb 28, 2013 15:45:42 GMT -8
Last weekend in Vancouver, I got to ride the Skytrain system quite a bit, which included all three lines: Expo, Millennium, and Canada Line, mainly in the downtown area. The furthest out I ever got was the Science World station on the Expo/Millennium Line. I must say, it's a very efficient system, and having ridden extensively on Sound Transit's LINK Light Rail in Seattle, it gave me something local to compare that train to. Personally, I really like the openness of the Skytrain cars, particularly the newer Canada Line trains. LINK works well, but the cars are really cramped compared to the Skytrain cars, and LINK has that elevated section in each car over the wheels below that you have to use stairs to get to. The Canada Line cars have wider aisles, more open space for standing, and it's all on one level - no stairs. I also found the Canada Line cars to be very smooth. The LINK trains jostle you around quite a bit. Don't get me wrong, I'm really glad Seattle now has light rail, but I think the Skytrain vehicles are a better design. Of course, part of that difference is the way the trains get their electricity. Skytrain uses an electrified third rail (I think), whereas LINK uses overhead lines. Anyway, I've rambled on far too long here, but I did take a picture of one of the Canada Line cars this weekend, and I have an older one I took of LINK to compare it with. The difficulty with comparing these rapid transit technologies is that, although they seem relatively the same at face value, there is actually quite a contrast. Light Rail capital costs are significantly lower than Rail Rapid Transit (SkyTrain). Cities like Seattle have taken advantage of these lower costs. RRT is expensive, but the capacities are higher and faster. For example, Expo Line operates at headways that are 1 minute 38 seconds, as opposed to Central Link which operates at 4 minutes.
We are currently having the discussion surrounding LRT vs. RRT on our Broadway Corridor between Commercial Station and UBC. At present, the 99 B-Line (which is the Bus Rapid Transit route that currently operates the Broadway Corridor) is the busiest bus route in North America.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Feb 28, 2013 14:25:29 GMT -8
I am so stoked on this. Get out your cameras British Columbians! This will definitely be motivation for me to start making stops while heading up the north island again.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Feb 28, 2013 14:07:42 GMT -8
I agree. Compared with the robust Spaulding style concept we've seen for the last few years, this new design feels a little too minimal. Since this is at the most a 60 Car Vessel though, it does make sense to have a more scaled down passenger cabin. I'd compare it to say... the Powell River Class Vessels, while they do hold about 70 cars, their passenger cabin is quite minimal too. Though it is unfair to compare vessels that operate runs that are in most cases an hour or less compared to these vessels that will operate a run 5 hours long. If it was up to me though, I'd go with the Original Design. A lot more pleasing to look at and would look great alongside the other vessels in the AMHS Fleet. I agree with all of this 100%. I just wanted to mention that I think this design is based on the MV Lituya. That is all.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Feb 27, 2013 22:57:19 GMT -8
Hi everyone, Some of you may have noticed that I have recently been promoted. Yes, it is true, and not just a V5 glitch, where we were all mods for 2 hours on the first day My name is Mike, and I live in southern Greater Vancouver. About me: I attend school at Langara College, and will likely be continuing my studies at UNBC in Prince George for regional urban planning, specifically in transportation. My hobbies include photography, skiing, cycling, swimming, and pretty much anything transportation. You can find me on the top of the mountain the morning after a dump of snow, or on my bike on a sunny day in June. My connection to ferries: I have family in the Comox Valley, and spent a significant amount of time on BC Ferries' Route 30, on the Queens of Alberni and New Westminster. Our place in the Valley also overlooks Route 17, so I have fond memories of jumping in the waves of the Queen of Sidney and kayaking out and watching the Burnaby turn around (at a safe distance of course!). So my ferry fondness is deeply rooted. My feet are now firmly in Delta, BC.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Feb 27, 2013 22:29:58 GMT -8
Just a couple minor notes... It is not policy. The way the system works is a first come-first serve basis, and this is just a side-effect of that. I anticipate that this is an issue on Quadra as well. [...] First-come, first-served? Not really, from how I read Neil's post that I was quoting, it definitely did not seem that way. It seemed like a "we like Denman Islanders more than Hornby Islanders, so all Denmanites can come to the front of the line" system, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. You're right, it doesn't make sense, which is why it doesn't exist. Denman West terminal is as such that people line up along the road, similar to a lot of WSF terminals, in a single file with no given priority. As I mentioned, Neil described a situation where, because of the first-come-first-serve basis, Denman islanders are able to get in line before the load from Hornby arrives and gets in line, therefore giving them the advantage. There are no priority or reservation systems in place on any Gulf Island, except for those served by Route 9.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Feb 27, 2013 18:56:57 GMT -8
Just a couple minor notes... Really? That's the strangest policy I've ever heard of! They should get rid of it, since I wouldn't be surprised if that, along with high fares, made people move off of Hornby Island. It is not policy. The way the system works is a first come-first serve basis, and this is just a side-effect of that. I anticipate that this is an issue on Quadra as well. I would expect the only way around this would be to create a reservation system for Hornby Islanders, which would involve in a major terminal reconfiguration at Denman West. So are you saying Quinitsa used to carry 70 cars just like her sister Quinsam? Just to nitpick - they are not sisters - they are more or less cousins, built five years apart. Neil mentioned in his post that the five-lane configuration creates a 60 AEQ.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Feb 26, 2013 23:12:30 GMT -8
...just wait until they try to run Kahloke as a refit-replacement ship on the Cortes run during winter. ouch. Yeah, how's that gonna work? They really need to have three 30-car, single ended ferries. Three 30 AEQ boats on the Cortes run? The route only requires a single 24 AEQ at this point. Unless you mean we need three 30 AEQ boats in our fleet. Which is the status quo (one of those is a 24). Poor Kahloke, I am genuinely going to feel bad for that ship. And everyone who has to spend 45 minutes on her.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Feb 26, 2013 15:49:15 GMT -8
Am I the only one that finds this just slightly ridiculous? It sounds to me like this gentleman has too much money to know what to do with, so instead of donating it to charity or doing something productive, he's decided to reproduce a ship at the bottom of the ocean. The logic is incredible:
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Feb 24, 2013 17:43:48 GMT -8
Paul, thanks for posting those photos.
Not to get off topic, but those photos reminded me of a question I have been trying to find the answer for for a while: when were those CPR ferry berths removed? I know they were removed to make way for the Seawall and ultimately the new convention center, but I haven't been able to pin-point a date.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Feb 22, 2013 1:12:51 GMT -8
Long time listener, first time caller.
We are having the same discussion regarding LNG conversions north of the border. It has been determined that the first vessel to receive the conversion will be the Spirit of British Columbia, built in 1993. The conversion will take place during her MLU in 2015. She will be 22.
To me, spending any amount of money on a 50 year old ferry is a government boondoggle and a level of crazy that goes beyond me. I would rather see this conversion happen to an Issaquah and be mid-life, instead of the Hyak and making this a life-extension. It is ridiculous that anything major, besides retirement, happen to this ferry for the rest of her career. A life extension of the Hyak would lead to another Steel-Electric gong show, where ferries are kept in service well past their intended lifespan.
I also wanted to chime in regarding our "MLU" process on our minor vessels: to clarify, these are not by any stretch of the imagination mid-life upgrades. But rather Life Extension Projects, due to a lack of funding for replacement ferry construction. These are vessels that are nearing the end of their lifespan, but are not yet at the point of retirement. I don't think we would ever consider investing in new technologies in these ferries that are 40+ years old.
If this does go forward, which I very highly doubt it will, we will be watching closely. I am not by any means against innovation, I just think this is the wrong vessel to innovate with - as I previously stated, I think an Issaquah would be a much wiser choice: smaller, has less impact when out of service, and is newer.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Feb 21, 2013 18:10:59 GMT -8
Paul: Thanks for pulling that chart together. That provides a good visual. I see no reason why vessels the size of the Skeena Queen could not use Knapp Passage. Vessels the size of the V-class used to use that route routinely, though that may have depended on tides. In any case, that route via Knapp Passage would be about equal in length to Paul's 'route A'. My measurement of 3.01 NM was based on travel through Knapp Passage (C). As far as I know, minor vessels accessing Swartz Bay use this route almost exclusively.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Feb 21, 2013 14:57:53 GMT -8
30 minutes? I used to live in North Saanich and looking across the water at the south end of Saltsping, I estimate the distance between the 2 places at 1-2 miles. The Denman-Vancouver Island run only takes 10 minutes most days so I can't see the ferry taking more than that to get between Swartz Bay and the south end of Saltspring. The route to Swartz Bay, as you have suggested it, is 3.0 Nautical Miles (NM) according to Google Earth. The Mill Bay route is also 3.0 NM, with an indicated crossing time of 25 minutes. I stand behind my original assessment.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Feb 21, 2013 13:27:56 GMT -8
That could literally be the worst attempt at stating something I have ever seen:
...and? Where are the facts? I attempted on at least six different occasions, in a period of about a minute, to find the rest of the post. Maybe it's at the bottom of the page, I thought? But there was nothing. What a let-down.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Feb 21, 2013 12:58:36 GMT -8
This is one great big undertaking for the movers. I think this is as big as what FSG has done for the BCF projects (perhaps bigger). It's the same job, but remember, our ferries are about three-four times the size
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Feb 20, 2013 18:13:21 GMT -8
I do have several photos of ferries leaving including that one of the Kwuna. I also have lots of photos of ferries approaching the berth, without the berth in view. Unfortunately, neither of these meet the criteria. What say you, LB?
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Feb 20, 2013 14:52:49 GMT -8
It is a good photo, Michael, and it is obvious that the ferry is nearing the end of its run, but I don't think it meets the criteria as quoted below. It must be obvious from the photo that the ferry is arriving and at least part of both the terminal and the ferry are in the picture. Thanks for the input. I won't submit it, and hopefully I can pull something together... For some reason I'm struggling with this one...
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Feb 20, 2013 12:18:56 GMT -8
The colours have nothing to do with the lines, it just happened to be Translink colors at the time. Between the first Mark IIs and the second Mark IIs Translink changed the paint scheme. Referring the M Line yellow on the trains is a misnomer. Partially correct. The "200" series of MKII cars were bought for use on the M-Line (many of those finished in Burnaby) and the M-Line was built with yellow dominance signage and marks. That was done to provide distinctiveness to the line (apart from the Expo Line which has been blue dominant). The "300" series are the second round of purchases which were a joint federal provincial project Translink has different colour schematics for the varied transit services it provides based on its core colour patterns. The Evergreen Line will have green accented markings. Paul, I truly do not know where you get your facts from. Dane is 100% correct - TransLink garnered the colours in 99, and ordered the Mk II trains as fleet expansion because of the required capacity for the Millennium Line, but not exclusive operation there. The yellow on the train has absolutely nothing to do with the colour of the line or signage in the station. The Mk III trains will not have green "accented markings" and will not operate exclusively on the Evergreen Line - they will be painted in the same scheme as the 2nd Gen Mk II vehicles.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Feb 19, 2013 23:34:34 GMT -8
I have never understood why the brainiacs at BC Ferries don't put a terminal at the very southern tip of Saltspring? There is a road at the southern tip so why not stop wasting fuel and wear and tear on the ships and make it a 10 minute crossing instead of a 35 minute crossing? Your argument could be made for pretty much every ferry terminal in British Columbia except Tsawwassen. There are a variety of geographic, engineering and logistical reasons behind where each terminal is located, including Fulford Harbour. In this case, it would be unrealistic to move because 1) it would get shot down in the public consultation process; 2) the cost savings would be extremely nominal: decreasing the crossing time to 25-30 minutes from 35 (I do not know where you got 10 from), crewing/labour costs would be the same; and 3) a new terminal is a huge undertaking in any circumstance and requires heavy investment, i.e. it would take a long time to recoup the "cost savings".
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Feb 19, 2013 14:03:44 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Feb 18, 2013 0:18:47 GMT -8
For some reason, I do not see Translink doing it or doing it sooner. I think Translink needs to be replace the Mark I Skytrains with new mark III. Will the mark I trains run on the evergreen line when it opens? I have no doubt refurbishing the Mk I Trains is the most Cost-Effective Option, and Translink intends to do the first one in March according to this article from last month. www.vancitybuzz.com/2013/01/translink-to-refurbish-skytrain-cars/Now perhaps if they ran into some issues that upped the cost of refurbishment greatly, I'm sure they'd have to consider Mk III Trains as the Plan B. I highly doubt that would be the case.. Good find. This was pushed through the consultation process around this time last year. The Mk IIIs have been ordered, (28?) new vehicles to add capacity for the up-and-coming Evergreen line.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Feb 17, 2013 23:08:25 GMT -8
This was the plan, however only the RFP for repainting has been issued. No word on upgrades. A note for you SkyTrain nerds: the lifespan on the Mk I trainsets is indicated as 40 years, they have been in service for 28. The talk surrounding upgrades was regarding life extension. Will the mark I trains run on the evergreen line when it opens? Yes.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Feb 17, 2013 17:40:28 GMT -8
Is Translink going to upgrade the Mark i trains? This was the plan, however only the RFP for repainting has been issued. No word on upgrades. A note for you SkyTrain nerds: the lifespan on the Mk I trainsets is indicated as 40 years, they have been in service for 28. The talk surrounding upgrades was regarding life extension.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Feb 16, 2013 23:36:34 GMT -8
-No solarium at either end of the main passenger cabin, but classical seating instead (and the KdTs are also the first built-for-WSF vessels that don't have a solarium while having outside space) That's nice. I always hated the shelter deck on each end of the main passenger cabin, it always seemed dark and gloomy, whereas the fully-enclosed passenger cabin seems bright, and more of an open space. Agreed. I have always liked the way they are on our Coastal Class: at the bow, but not on a passenger deck level, and open to the sun deck. It creates a very bright and comfortable atmosphere. Shown here, top deck (7):
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Feb 15, 2013 23:28:41 GMT -8
I gather that the QQ II & Tachek were identical to begin with but at some point the QQ II had its passenger cabin expanded? I am looking for info that would confirm or refute this. Unless mislabeled, this photo indicates that her original configuration was identical to the Tachek, as you mentioned: m3.i.pbase.com/u47/kstapleton/small/30243593.QuadraQueenII.jpg
|
|