RTM SkyTrain Evergreen Rev3

5/27/2018 RTM SkyTrain Evergreen Rev3

1/36

Report

Operations Scenarios for Evergreen Line as ALRTAn Analysis with the Regional Transit Model (RTM)

Vancouver, B.C. / Wilmington, DE, August 2008

PTV America Inc.408-675 West Hastings Street

Vancouver, BC, V6B 1N2(604) 435-2895

South Coast British ColumbiaTransportation Authority

4720 Kingsway, Suite 1600Burnaby, B.C., V5H 4N2

(604) 453 3058


2/36

RTM: Evergreen as ALRT Page 2

PTV America Inc. / TransLink 08-Aug-2008

Table of Contents

1. Background ..................................................................................................................52. Operat ions Scenar ios ..................................................................................................7

2.1. Fleet 72.2. Stations, Alignment and Run Times 82.3. Service Patterns and Headways 112.4. Layover and Recovery Assumptions 122.5. Preliminary Operations Analysis and Line Blocking 13

3. Travel Demand Estimation ........................................................................................143.1. Adjustment of SkyTrain Demand for 2007 143.2. Import of Emme Forecasts 143.3. Deriving Basic Components of Future Travel Demand 183.4. Resulting Travel Demand for 2014 and 2021 193.5. Assignment Results 20

4. Integrated Operat ions Analysis ................................................................................244.1. Operations Analysis with Four Scenarios for the AM Peak 244.2. Selection of the Preferred Scenario 314.3. 24-Hour Operations Analysis for the Preferred Scenario 31

5. Conclusions................................................................................................................34Appendix A : Scenario Composi tion and Route Names in VISUM ..................................35Appendix B : Ass ignment Resu lts fo r 2007 .......................................................................36


3/36



Tables

Table 1: Capacities for Various Train Types ...........................................................................7Table 2: Evergreen Line Inbound: Distances, Run and Dwell times .......................................8Table 3: Evergreen Line Outbound: Distances, Run and Dwell times.....................................8Table 4: Comparison of SkyTrain Average Operating Speeds..............................................10Table 5: Operating scenarios and Operating Assumptions...................................................13Table 6: SkyTrain and WCE 2006: Trip Totals in the OD Matrices .......................................14Table 7: Rapid Transit Ridership 2014: Total Linked Trips and Component of the Total......19 Table 8: Rapid Transit Ridership 2021: Total Linked Trips and Component of the Total......19 Table 9: Train Assignment Peak-Operations 2021................................................................24Table 10: SkyTrain 2021 Scenario Split Tail: Ridership and Operations Statistics ...............25Table 11: SkyTrain 2021 Scenario Break at LH: Ridership and Operations Statistics ..........26Table 12: SkyTrain 2021 Scenario Break at CO (108s): Ridership and Operations Statistics27

Table 13: SkyTrain 2021 Scenario Break at CO (90s): Ridership and Operations Statistics 28

Table 14: Rapid Transit Network 2014 and 2021: 24-Hour Model Results ...........................33


4/36



Figures

Figure 1: Evergreen Line Alignments for LRT and ALRT ........................................................6Figure 2: Regression Analysis for Station-to-Station Operating Speeds.................................9Figure 3: Lines and Route Schemes .....................................................................................11Figure 4: Emme One-Hour AM Difference between ALRT and Base Scenarios ..................15Figure 5: Emme One-Hour AM Difference between Future-Base and 2004-Base................16Figure 6: Emme One-Hour AM Difference between ALRT and 2004-Base Scenarios .........17Figure 7: Passenger Loads 5-9 AM, 2021, Scenario 1 - Split Tail - 108s Expo HW .............20Figure 8: Passenger Loads 5-9 AM, 2021, Scenario 5 - Break at LH - 108s Expo HW ........20Figure 9: Passenger Loads 5-9 AM, 2021, Scenario 7a - Break at CO - 108s Expo HW .....21Figure 10: Passenger Loads 5-9 AM, 2021, Scenario 8a - Break at CO - 90s Expo HW .....21Figure 11: VC-Ratio 8:15-8:30, 2021, Scenario 1 - Split Tail - 108s Expo HW .....................22Figure 12: VC-Ratio 8:15-8:30, 2021, Scenario 5 - Break at LH - 108s Expo HW ................22

Figure 13: VC-Ratio 8:15-8:30, 2021, Scenario 7a - Break at CO - 108s Expo HW .............23

Figure 14: VC-Ratio 8:15-8:30, 2021, Scenario 8a - Break at CO - 90s Expo HW ...............23Figure 15: Scenario Comparison: Ridership Impact 2021 .....................................................29Figure 16: Scenario Comparison: Operations Impact 2021 ..................................................30Figure 17: Rapid Transit 24-Hour Passenger Flows in Network View, 2014.........................32Figure 18: Rapid Transit 24-Hour Passenger Flows in Network View, 2021.........................32Figure 19: Passenger Loads 5-9 AM, 2007...........................................................................36Figure 20: Passenger Loads 24-hour, 2007 ..........................................................................36


5/36



1. Background

The Evergreen Line is planned to link Lougheed SkyTrain Station in Burnaby to Port Moody andCoquitlam with the terminus at Douglas College. Back in 2006 and early 2007 when the Regional

Transit Model (RTM) Phase A was built, the preferred technology and alignment option for the

Evergreen Line was a mainly-surface Light Rail Transit (LRT) line along the Northwest alignment.

This option was coded into RTM Phase A - consistent with detailed microsimulation work

performed by Delcan and PTV America. Since that time circumstances and priorities that affected

the 2004 choice of technology and route for the Evergreen Line have changed considerably (cited

from Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project - Business Case document of February 2008

(http://www.translink.bc.ca/files/pdf/EvergreenLine/BusinessCase.pdf). The most important change

is that the preferred technology for the Evergreen Line is now Advanced LRT (ALRT) which is

coined as SkyTrain-like. The preferred alignment is still the Northwest corridor with somedifferences to the LRT alignment, as shown in Figure 1.

The objectives of the Evergreen Line as ALRT study are:

Update the RTM Phase A model so that the Evergreen Line option is consistent with the

Business Case document of February 2008. This updated model can then be used in future

studies namely the Broadway West Rapid Transit Study, the 5-Car SkyTrain Fleet Strategy

Analysis and future RTM Phase B scenarios.

Analyze the capacity and volume to capacity (v/c) ratios on the Evergreen Line and along

the existing Expo and Millennium Lines.

Determine the fleet requirements for SkyTrain if Evergreen Line provides a high service

quality which minimizes pass-ups.

The basis of this analysis is the RTM Phase A model, which was updated as part of the study to

reflect the most recent boarding and transfer counts for 2007. The forecast years are 2014 and

2021, to be consistent with the Business Case document. The analysis of performance will follow

the same principles and methods applied for the SkyTrain operations scenarios that were analyzed

as part of the RTM Phase A project.


6/36



Figure 1: Evergreen Line Alignments for LRT and ALRT

LRT:

ALRT:


7/36



2. Operations Scenarios

To develop ALRT operations on the Evergreen Line, a set of assumptions are necessary thatcover fleet, route and service schemes and train assignment.

2.1. Fleet

It is assumed that the fleet in 2015 includes at least the following cars:

150 Mark-I

132 2-car Mark-II

Some 3-car Mark-II

For various train types the following capacities have been assumed, which have been jointly

defined by BCRTC and TransLink for peak-capacity planning at the start of the RTM project:

Table 1: Capacities for Various Train Types

Length(Cars)

Capacity(Seat only)

Capacity(Seat & Stand)

4-Mark-I 4 144 300

6-Mark-I 6 216 450

2-Mark-II 2 84 238

3-Mark-II 3 126 357

4-Mark-II 4 168 476

5-Mark-II 5 210 595

6-Mark-II 6 252 714


8/36



2.2. Stations, Alignment and Run Times

Stations and Alignment

The preferred alignment in the Northwest corridor for the Evergreen Line as SkyTrain-like service

has been modeled in VISUM (see Figure 1). The route starts from the existing Lougheed SkyTrain

station and ends at Guildford. The route has eight stations including the existing station at

Lougheed Town Centre. This corresponds to the latest state of TransLinks planning in June 2008.

It is assumed that run and dwell times for both directions are constant over the entire day, so that

the same time-profile applies to peak and off-peak hours. The following two tables display all

station stops as well as stop-to-stop distances, run and dwell times for both directions of the line:

Table 2: Evergreen Line Inbound: Distances, Run and Dwell times

Station Name Code Length[km]

Accumulatedlength[km]

Stationdwelltime

Segmentrun time atarrival

Accumulatedrun&dwelltimes at arr.

Guildford GU 0 0s 0min

Lincoln LI 0.84 0.84 12s 1min 19s 1min 19s

Coquitlam Central CC 0.83 1.67 15s 1min 18s 2min 49s

Ioco IO 1.93 3.60 12s 2min 14s 5min 18s

Port Moody PM 1.47 5.07 15s 1min 55s 7min 25s

Queens QUE 0.9 5.97 12s 1min 23s 9min 3s

Burquitlam BQ 3.23 9.20 12s 2min 52s 12min 7s

Lougheed LH 2.01 11.21 25s 2min 17s 14min 36s

Table 3: Evergreen Line Outbound: Distances, Run and Dwell times

Station Name CodeLength

[km]

Accumulatedlength[km]

Stationdwelltime

Segmentrun time at

arrival

Accumulatedrun&dwell

times at arr.

Lougheed LH 0s 0s 0min

Burquitlam BQ 2.01 2.01 12s 2min 16s 2min 16s

Queens QUE 3.22 5.23 12s 2min 52s 5min 20sPort Moody PM 0.91 6.14 15s 1min 24s 6min 56s

Ioco IO 1.44 7.58 12s 1min 53s 9min 4s

Coquitlam Central CC 1.92 9.50 15s 2min 14s 11min 30s

Lincoln LI 0.81 10.31 12s 1min 17s 13min 2s

Guildford GU 0.84 11.15 12s 1min 19s 14min 33s


9/36



Estimation of run and dwell times.

The business case document was based on a simple travel time assumption for the Evergreen-

SkyTrain. To model the Evergreen SkyTrain in the RTM study a detailed estimation of operating

speeds and times has been performed based on the assumption that running times betweenstations can be derived from average speeds currently observed on the Expo and Millennium lines.

To account for the fact that distances between consecutive stations affect average speed an

approximation based on regression of station to station run times has been used. The regression

analysis resulted in the following formula for the station-to-station run times:

average speed [m/s] = 7.69 + 3.46 x distance [km]

The following picture shows station-to-station travel times on the existing SkyTrain and how the

regression curve fits these times.

Figure 2: Regression Analysis for Station-to-Station Operating Speeds

0

5

10

15

20

25

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

Station-to-Station Distance [km ]

AverageOperating

Speed[m/s]

Existing SkyTrain Speed (Expo & Millennium)

Regression speed = 7.69 + 3.46 x distance

A dwell time of 12 seconds has been assumed for all stations apart from Port Moody and

Coquitlam Central where passengers transfer to other services. A dwell time of 12 seconds

corresponds to the minimum dwell time at existing stations of the Expo and Millennium lines where

the number of passenger boardings and alightings are generally higher than expected for the


10/36



intermediate stations of the Evergreen line.

These assumptions have resulted in a total travel time of 14 minutes and 36 seconds inbound and

14 minutes and 33 seconds outbound. Given the length of the two routes, this corresponds to an

average speed of approximately 46km/h which is due to shorter dwell times permitting an averagespeed higher than that of existing SkyTrain services (Expo and Millennium), which is between 41

and 43 km/h depending on the Line and on the time of day.

Note that these results have led to a revision the ALRT assumptions in the Business Case

documents and model runs which used a significantly higher operating speed.

Table 4: Comparison of SkyTrain Average Operating Speeds

Line Direction Time of Day Stops Served

Average

Op. Speed *

(km/h)

Length

(km)

Total One-w

Op. Time

(min)

Expo Outbound > AM 20 42.8 28.9 40.6

Expo Outbound > Mid 20 43.1 28.9 40.4

Expo Outbound > PM 20 41.9 28.9 41.5

Expo Inbound < AM 20 41.2 28.8 42.0

Expo Inbound < Mid 20 42.3 28.8 40.9

Expo Inbound < PM 20 42.0 28.8 41.2

Millennium Outbound > AM 28 42.1 42.0 59.9Millennium Outbound > Mid 28 42.6 42.0 59.2

Millennium Outbound > PM 28 41.5 42.0 60.8

Millennium Inbound < AM 28 41.6 42.1 60.7

Millennium Inbound < Mid 28 42.3 42.1 59.7

Millennium Inbound < PM 28 42.1 42.1 60.0

Evergreen LH-GU ** > AM, Mid, PM 8 46.3 11.2 14.5

Evergreen LH-GU ** < AM, Mid, PM 8 46.3 11.2 14.5

* : Total operating time and average op. speed do not include the recovery time spent at the first stop of a route.This definition is identical to VISUMs operating statistics but different from BCRTCs published operating speeds which include

recovery times at terminal stations and as a result are slower

** : In scenarios where the Evergreen Line follows Millennium from LH to VC, run and dwell t imes and as a result speed have been

assumed identical to Millennium operations in 2007.


11/36



2.3. Service Patterns and Headways

Four different route schemes have been considered in this study. Figure 3 illustrates the four

alternatives.

Figure 3: Lines and Route Schemes

Split Tail Double Coordinated

Break at CO Break at LH

TheSplit Tailscenario is consistent with the service schemes in the MaxCap study (conducted

with the RTM in 4/2008 for the existing SkyTrain network) and has almost identical round trip times

for both Expo and Millennium Lines, which is practical to coordinate headways of both lines. In the

Double Coordinatedscenario, the Millennium Line needs to coordinate the schedules with boththe Expo and the Evergreen Lines to assure regular headways. The Break at Columbiascenario

avoids any parallel operation of routes, except an Expo short turn. The Millennium line is reduced

to the CO-LH shuttle. This scenario can only be operated with a significant redesign of the

Columbia station so that the shuttle can turn without interfering with the Expo trains. The routes in

the Break at Lougheedscenario are identical to the LRT case forcing Evergreen passengers to

transfer at LH station while Expo and Millennium operate similarily to 2006 operations.


12/36



2.4. Layover and Recovery Assumptions

Recovery and layover times are assumed as follows:

Waterfront outbound (Expo & Millennium): recovery of 75s for a 108s headway (similar to2006 operations) and 60s for a 90s headway.

King George inbound (Expo) as well as VCC Outbound (Millennium & Expo): recovery of

120-150s - similar to 2006.

Coquitlam/Guildford inbound (Evergreen): recovery of 90-120s

Lougheed (Millennium in Split-Tail): recovery of 120-150s

Metrotown (Expo short turn in Break at CO): less than 60s.

Overall, Expo and Millennium would have 3-4 minutes recovery per roundtrip, Evergreen

around 3 minutes.

Building a third track at Columbia in the back of the Columbia inbound platform will allow

the Lougheed shuttle to avoid sharing the track with the Expo main line trains. A crossover

for the shuttle would be needed outside Columbia station, likely in the vicinity of the unbuilt

Woodlands Station (approximately 950 metres from Columbia).

At Lougheed, the track configuration that has been pre-built as part of the Millennium Line

project will permit the CO-LH shuttle operation with only a very limited conflict between

shuttle trains and outbound Millennium-Evergreen trains.

Short dwell times (15s-30s) at LH station for the CO-LH shuttle. Recovery for the shuttle

only at Columbia station. Total recovery time can be short but will be longer than needed

(over 180s) given the long headway.


13/36



2.5. Preliminary Operations Analysis and Line Blocking

A range of operational scenarios has been developed, in most cases without detailed simulation.

For four scenarios (highlighted grey in Table 5), operations have been modeled in VISUM.

Table 5: Operating scenarios and Operating Assumptions

Split Tail Double-Coordinated Break at LH Break at COScenariosand Routes 1 * 2 3 4 5 * 6 7a * 8a *

Evergreen GU-VC GU-VC GU-LH GU-VC

Expo WF-KG WF-KG WF-KG WF-KG, WF-MT

Millennium WF-LH WF-VC WF-VC, LH-VC CO-LH

Schedule **

Evergreen 180s 180s 3 / 5 3 / 5 180s 180s 180s 180s

Expo 3 / 5 3 / 5 3 / 5 2 / 3 2 / 3 2 / 3 2 / 3 2 / 3

Expo WF-MT 1 / 3 1 / 3

Millennium 2 / 5 2 / 5 2/5&2/5 1/3&2/5 1 / 3 1 / 3CO-LH shuttle 255s 255s

Avg. HW [s ]

Evergreen 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180

Expo 180 150 180 135 162 135 162 135

Expo WF-MT 324 270

Millennium 270 225 270 270 324 270

Mill VC-LH 324 270

CO-LH shuttle 255 255

Comb. HW [s]

GU-LH 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180

LH-VC 180 180 108 108 162 135 180 180

WF-MT 108 90 108 90 108 90 108 90

CO-KG 180 150 180 135 162 135 216 180

CO-LH 270 225 270 270 324 270 255 255

Roundtrip ***

Evergreen 78.0 78.0 33.0 78.0

Expo 87.0 87.0 86.5 86.5 87.7

Expo WF-MT 44.2 45.0Millennium 83.8 124.2 124.2

Mill VC-LH 48.5

CO-LH shuttle 21.25

Blocks

Evergreen 26 26 26 26 11 11 26 26

Expo 29 34.8 29 38.7 32 39 32 39Expo WF-MT 8 11

Millennium 19 22.3 27.6 27.6 23 27.6

Mill VC-LH 9 11

CO-LH shuttle 5 5

Total Blocks 74 83.0 83.0 93.0 75 89 71 81* : The marked scenarios have been simulated in VISUM and all numbers in the table have been generated by VISUM.** :This describes headways for stand-alone lines and operating patterns (X of Y trains) for shared lines.*** : Roundtrip time including recovery buffer at the first and last stops.


14/36



3. Travel Demand Estimation

The estimation of the travel demand for Evergreen Line and the other rail systems follows thesame methodology as RTM Phase A. Existing demand, for 2007, is based on the most recent

counts. The future demand as station-to-station matrices is obtained by adding delta matrices to

the existing demand. These delta matrices are derived as differences between the Evergreen

forecast and the base scenario both from the emme/2 regional model. This study uses forecasts

for 2014 and 2021, derived from Emme runs for 2011 and 2021.

3.1. Adjustment of SkyTrain Demand for 2007

Using the latest boarding counts on SkyTrain and WCE, the Phase A travel demand has been

updated to better reflect 2007. The update used the TFlowFuzzy procedure to factor the station-to-station matrices from 2006 so that they fit the most recent SkyTrain boarding survey (2006,

2005 or 2003) using growth factors to reflect the 2007 values.

Table 6: SkyTrain and WCE 2006: Trip Totals in the OD Matrices

Time of Day From - To2006 Matrix Totals -SkyTrain and WCE

2007 Matrix Totals -SkyTrain and WCE

AM 5:00 9:00 53,500 56,200

Mid 9:00 15:00 65,000 69,900

PM 15:00 18:00 65,800 71,100

Eve 18:00 26:00 48,900 53,100

24-h 5:00 26:00 233,100 250,300

3.2. Import of Emme Forecasts

Emme/2 forecasts provide the basis for updating demand for future years 2014 and 2021. Link

volumes have been imported into VISUM to obtain theoretical target values for factoring existing

matrices. The most recent Emme/2 data were made available in the report Evergreen SkyTrain

Transit Volumes and Boardings, May 22nd 2008. The following figures show difference link

volumes of several scenarios, namely these are differences between the forecast year with

Evergreen as SkyTrain and forecast year Base scenario (Figure 4), between the forecast year

Base scenarios and the 2004 Base case (Figure 5) and between the forecast year with Evergreen

as SkyTrain and 2004 Base case (Figure 6). All data are displayed for the AM peak hour.


15/36



Figure 4: Emme One-Hour AM Difference between ALRT and Base Scenarios

Emme differences for 2011:

Emme differences for 2021:


16/36



Figure 5: Emme One-Hour AM Difference between Future-Base and 2004-Base

Emme differences for 2011Base:

Emme differences for 2021Base:


17/36



Figure 6: Emme One-Hour AM Difference between ALRT and 2004-Base Scenarios

Emme differences for 2011SkyTrain:

Emme differences for 2021SkyTrain:


18/36



From Figure 4 it can be derived how the demand changes due to the introduction of the Evergreen

Line as SkyTrain. These changes will be reflected in the demand component Evergreen Line

growth. It can also be seen that the new Evergreen Line results in a shift of passengers from the

WCE Line to services of the SkyTrain. The differences as shown in Figure 5 provide an indication

of changes for the general demand growth which is included in the demand component SkyTraingrowth. Figure 6 sums both parts up to the total changes in demand of all components.

3.3. Deriv ing Basic Components of Future Travel Demand

Demand components were updated based on the assumption that 4-hour AM volumes can be

obtained by multiplying the one-hour emme/2 volumes with a factor of 2.2 (see Phase A report).

Evergreen Line

The delta matrix for the Evergreen Line has been derived from the difference volumes as shown inFigure 4. Note that for the section between Lougheed and Guildford link volumes are zero for the

Base case, i.e. differences are equal to the link volumes as obtained for the scenario with

SkyTrain. The resulting demand that uses the Evergreen Line for the 4-hour AM period is of

17,500 linked trips for 2011 and 25,500 for 2021.

WCE

In the emme/2 forecast, the passenger load on WCE drops by about 800 trips (2021) and 1100

(2011) in the AM peak hour as a result of the introduction of Evergreen ALRT. This is mainly

caused by a change in path choice by former WCE passengers. The increase of SkyTrain

passengers will be part of the Evergreen Line demand component. The reduction of demand is

reflected by a negative WCE growth matrix which is added to the SkyTrain and WCE 2006 matrix.

Technically, the negative growth matrix is obtained by factoring a partial matrix up to the desired

target values. The difference between the partial matrix and the resulting matrix is the reduction of

WCE demand. The partial matrix is obtained as a result of a flow bundle analysis in VISUM which

determines all trips that pass over inbound links between Port Moody and Waterfront (WCE).

General Demand Growth on the Rest of SkyTrain

These changes can be mainly derived from differences without the Evergreen SkyTrain option, i.e.

Figure 5. However, major demand reduction in emme/2 due to the introduction of the EvergreenSkyTrain (negative differences in Figure 4) are taken into account too. The latter can be observed

between Broadway - Columbia, Columbia - King George, and Lougheed - Columbia (both

directions). On these section a more moderate increase than shown in Figure 5 is used to factor up

the existing demand component of SkyTrain growth.


19/36



Canada Line

The Canada Line demand is identical to the one developed during RTM Phase A. There are two

delta matrices: residential weekday demand and airport passenger demand.

3.4. Resulting Travel Demand for 2014 and 2021

The resulting travel demand for 2021 can be directly obtained by adding up matrices of demand

components for this year. For 2014 the following formula has been used:

Demand 2014 = 7/10 * Demand 2011 + 3/10 * Demand 2021

A Python script *.py has been produced which documents the calculation method. It can be used

to obtain and store final matrices in the VISUM version.

Table 7: Rapid Transit Ridership 2014: Total Linked Trips and Component of the Total

2014AM

5:00-9:00Mid

9:00-15:00PM

5:00-18:00Eve

18:00-2:0024 Hour

Day

SkyTrain & WCE 2007 56,300 70,000 71,100 53,100 250,300

+ SkyTrain growth 7,700 10,100 9,700 7,700 35,200

+ WCE growth -2,300 0 -2,300 0 -4,500

+ Canada Line demand 20,700 41,400 28,000 29,200 119,300

+ Airport demand 1,500 1,200 1,900 500 5,100

+ Evergreen Line demand 19,900 26,100 24,900 22,400 93,400

Total Demand 103,900 148,700 133,200 112,900 498,800

Table 8: Rapid Transit Ridership 2021: Total Linked Trips and Component of the Total

2021AM

5:00-9:00Mid

9:00-15:00PM

5:00-18:00Eve

18:00-2:0024 Hour

Day

SkyTrain & WCE 2006 56,300 70,000 71,100 53,100 250,300

+ SkyTrain growth 16,300 21,300 20,400 16,100 74,100

+ WCE growth -1,800 0 -1,800 0 -3,600

+ Canada Line demand 23,800 44,800 32,100 33,600 134,300

+ Airport demand 1,900 1,500 2,300 600 6,300

+ Evergreen Line demand 25,500 33,300 31,800 28,700 119,300

Total Demand 121,900 170,800 155,900 132,100 580,700


20/36



3.5. Assignment Results

Figure 7: Passenger Loads 5-9 AM, 2021, Scenario 1 - Split Tail - 108s Expo HW

Figure 8: Passenger Loads 5-9 AM, 2021, Scenario 5 - Break at LH - 108s Expo HW


21/36



Figure 9: Passenger Loads 5-9 AM, 2021, Scenario 7a - Break at CO - 108s Expo HW

Figure 10: Passenger Loads 5-9 AM, 2021, Scenario 8a - Break at CO - 90s Expo HW


22/36



Figure 11: VC-Ratio 8:15-8:30, 2021, Scenario 1 - Split Tail - 108s Expo HW

Figure 12: VC-Ratio 8:15-8:30, 2021, Scenario 5 - Break at LH - 108s Expo HW


23/36



Figure 13: VC-Ratio 8:15-8:30, 2021, Scenario 7a - Break at CO - 108s Expo HW

Figure 14: VC-Ratio 8:15-8:30, 2021, Scenario 8a - Break at CO - 90s Expo HW


24/36



4. Integrated Operations Analysis

4.1. Operations Analysis with Four Scenarios for the AM Peak

Based on the assumptions of uniform train mix over all three routes, the number of trains that are

needed in peak service (58 for 108s headway and 69 for 90s) can be translated into fleet

requirements and system capacities.

Table 9 shows the train assignment that has been used to compare the operational scenarios

modeled in VISUM.

Table 9: Train Assignment Peak-Operations 2021

Split Tail Break at LH Break at CO

Scenario name max 108s blh 108s bco 108s bco 90s

Scenario number 1 5 7a 8a

Evergreen 5-car Mark-II 3-car Mark-II 5-car Mark-II 5-car Mark-II

Expo 5-car Mark-II 4-car Mark-II 5-car Mark-II 5-car Mark-II

Expo short turn WF-MT 2-car Mark-II 2-car Mark-II

Millennium 4-car Mark-II 5-car Mark-II

Mill short turn LH-VC 5-car Mark-II

CO-LH shuttle 2-car Mark-II 2-car Mark-IITotal 2-car units 93 96 71 81

Total 3-car units 55 43 58 65

Total cars 351 321 316 357


25/36



Table 10: SkyTrain 2021 Scenario Split Tail: Ridership and Operations Statistics

Line Expo Millennium Evergreen

Train KM 7-9 h 2,304 1,481 2,045Train hours 7-9 h 54.9 35.8 47.8

Car KM 7-9 h 11,520 5,924 10,225

Car hours 7-9 h 274.5 143.3 238.9

Passenger KM 7-9 h 374,854 204,308 297,618

Passenger hours 7-9 h 8,645 4,813 6,791

Total transfers AM 14,166

Total transfers by station

BW CM 9,164

CO 1,860

LH 3,142

Capacity analysis 7-9 h: Max 15-min vol * Avg 15-min cap * Max v/c ratio *

WF BW 3,889 4,566 85

BW CO 3,290 4,541 73

CO KG 2,034 2,996 68

LH VC 2,342 2,850 82

CO LH 701 1,564 45

GU - LH 1,670 2,975 56

* Max 15-min vol = maximum 15-minute passenger volume over all l inks of the network section during the 7:00-9:00 period.

Avg 15-min cap = average 15-minute link capacity of all trains serving the network section during the 7:00-9:00 period.

Max v/c ratio = maximum ratio observed over all links of the section, where the v/c ratio = max 15min vol / avg 15min cap


26/36



Table 11: SkyTrain 2021 Scenario Break at LH: Ridership and Operations Statistics


Train KM 7-9 h 2,563 2,508 911Train hours 7-9 h 61.1 60.6 20.9

Car KM 7-9 h 10,252 12,540 2,733

Car hours 7-9 h 244.3 302.9 62.6

Passenger KM 7-9 h 376,452 408,476 94,445

Passenger hours 7-9 h 8,691 9,587 2,024

Total transfers AM 16748


BW CM 8,065

CO 2,463

LH 6,220


WF BW 3,762 4,299 88

BW CO 3,199 4,268 75

CO KG 2,086 2,663 78

LH VC 2,423 3,161 77

CO LH 785 1,636 48

GU - LH 1,698 1,785 95





27/36



Table 12: SkyTrain 2021 Scenario Break at CO (108s): Ridership and Operations Statistics


Train KM 7-9 h 3,141 345 2,046Train hours 7-9 h 76.2 9.1 47.8

Car KM 7-9 h 15,704 689 10,229

Car hours 7-9 h 380.8 18.3 238.9

Passenger KM 7-9 h 515,292 24,500 326,265

Passenger hours 7-9 h 12,022 580 7,458



BW CM 11,160

CO 3,784

LH 3,415


WF BW 3,917 3,970 99

BW CO 2,982 3,675 75

CO KG 1,858 3,319 56

LH VC 2,642 2,780 95

CO LH 416 833 50

GU - LH 1,656 2,975 56





28/36



Table 13: SkyTrain 2021 Scenario Break at CO (90s): Ridership and Operations Statistics


Train KM 7-9 h 3,744 345 2,041Train hours 7-9 h 90.8 9.1 47.7

Car KM 7-9 h 18,719 689 10,204

Car hours 7-9 h 454.0 18.3 238.3

Passenger KM 7-9 h 514,879 24,567 325,989

Passenger hours 7-9 h 12,012 581 7,452



BW CM 11,225

CO 3,794

LH 3,429


WF BW 3,923 4,760 82

BW CO 2,932 4,392 62

CO KG 1,912 3,895 49

LH VC 2,615 2,770 94

CO LH 415 833 50

GU - LH 1,653 2,970 56





29/36



Figure 15: Scenario Comparison: Ridership Impact 2021

Number of Transfers 7:00-9:00:

Passenger KM 7:00-9:00:

Passenger Hours 7:00-9:00:


30/36



Figure 16: Scenario Comparison: Operations Impact 2021

Number of Trains (Blocks) and Train Units in Peak Operation:

74 7571

81

9396

71

81

55

43

5865

0

25

50

75

100

1 - Split Tail 5 - Break at LH 7a - Break at CO108s

8a - Break at CO90s

Number of

Trains

Number of 2-car Units

Number of 3-car Units

Number of Train Cars in Peak Operation:

351

321316

357

250

275

300

325

350

375

1 - Split Tail 5 - Break at LH 7a - Break at CO108s

8a - Break at CO90s

Car KM 7:00-9:00:

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

1 - Split Tail 5 - Break at LH 7a - Break at

CO 108s

8a - Break at

CO 90s

Evergreen

Millennium

Expo


31/36



4.2. Selection of the Preferred Scenario

Based on the operations analysis and other considerations, TransLink selected scenario Split at

Columbia as the preferred scenario, and the 90s headway version (scenario 8a) has been

selected for a detailed 24-hour simulation for the year 2021.

The major advantage of the Split at Columbia scenario is the reduction in fleet size of 35 cars (if

scenarios 1 and 7, or 2 and 8 are compared), which would cost in the order of $100 million. This

financial advantage would enable to upgrade Broadway station to accommodate the increased

number of transfers that are expected with the preferred scenario. Another aspect of scenario 7a

is that the WF-MT capacity is less than in scenario 1. Here however, since the WF-MT short-turn

uses 8 blocks, we could provide more capacity in 7a by replacing the 2-car short-turn trains with 4-

car or 5-car trains, which would require 16 or 24 additional cars and offer fleet investment savings

relative to scenario 1 of $50 million or $20 respectively. A short-turn with 4-car trains would bring

the 15-minute capacity up to 4600 (as per scenario 1) and give a v/c of a reasonable 86%.

4.3. 24-Hour Operations Analysis for the Preferred Scenario

The representation of the preferred scenario 8a Break at CO (90s) has been enhanced with 24-

hour schedules and train assignments to allow for a complete 24-hour run in VISUM. The 24-hour

scenario is based on the following assumptions

Route scheme and operating patterns for shared lines are unchanged over 24 hours:

i.e. the Expo line runs 2 / 3 of the trains WF - KG and 1 / 3 WF MT. Evergreen runs GU-

VC and the Millennium shuttle between CO and LH.

Headways:

o all Routes have the same peak headway during PM (15:00 to 18:30) as defined for

AM.

o Evergreen: 5 minutes during off-peak operations for both Mid-day (9:00 - 15:00,

18:30 - 21:00) and Evening (after 21:00)

o Millennium Shuttle: between 4 and 5 min during Midday and 8 minutes during

Evening

o Expo combined headway WF - MT : 2 minutes for Mid and 3 minutes for Evening.

Round trip times : The time profiles depend on the time of day, so that round trip times can

vary slightly compared to the AM period. As a result, headways are sometimes adjusted,

for example for the shuttle according to the round trip time using the assumptions for

layover and recovery times, given in section 2.4.


32/36



The following figures and table show a selection of graphical and statistical output for model runs

2014 and 2021.

Figure 17: Rapid Transit 24-Hour Passenger Flows in Network View, 2014

Figure 18: Rapid Transit 24-Hour Passenger Flows in Network View, 2021


33/36



Table 14: Rapid Transit Network 2014 and 2021: 24-Hour Model Results

2014 (Sc. 8a) 2021 (Sc. 8a)

Total number of linked trips 499,700 581,400Total number of linked trips (0 transfer)

405,200 475,700Total number of linked trips (1 transfer) 80,500 89,400Total number of linked trips (2 transfers) 9,300 10,000Total number of linked trips (> 2 transfers) 100 200

Total number of transfers 99,500 109,900Total number of unlinked trips 594,700 685,200

Unlinked trips Expo Line 269,300 295,800Unlinked trips Millennium Line 29,600 34,000Unlinked trips West Coast Express 5,300 6,000Unlinked trips Canada Line 126,100 143,100Unlinked trips Evergreen 164,300 206,300

Passenger KM Expo Line 2,661,900 2,928,300Passenger KM Millennium Line 122,900 136,800Passenger KM West Coast Express 153,500 177,900Passenger KM Canada Line 987,500 1,101,200Passenger KM Evergreen 1,430,400 1,794,100

Number of blocks Expo Line 50 50Number of blocks Millennium Line 5 5Number of blocks West Coast Express 5 5Number of blocks Canada Line 16 16Number of blocks Evergreen 26 26

Seat KM Expo Line 10,943,700 10,943,700Seat KM Millennium Line 527,700 527,700

Seat KM West Coast Express 1,440,500 1,440,500Seat KM Canada Line 1,548,500 1,548,500Seat KM Evergreen 6,186,700 6,186,700

Total capacity KM Expo Line 31,007,100 31,007,100Total capacity KM Millennium Line 1,495,200 1,495,200Total capacity KM 3,484,600 3,484,600Total capacity KM Canada Line 6,157,300 6,157,300Total capacity KM Evergreen 17,529,000 17,529,000


34/36



5. Conclusions

The Evergreen-ALRT study has used the Regional Transit Model (RTM) to analyze theperformance and operational conditions that are involved with the extension of the current

SkyTrain network to Coquitlam along the North-West corridor the Evergreen Line. The study

reveales run times and operational indicators for several possible service scenarios and alternative

ways to operate the line. The scenario comparison features multiple performance measures

covering both the operations impact and the ridership impact. The ridership data are based on the

existing demand given by 2007 counts plus Emme forecasts performed for the business case

study.

The preferred operating scenario in this study consists of:

The Evergreen Line running from Guildford (GU, in Coquitlam) over Lougheed station (LH)

to VCC station with a peak headway of 180s.

An Expo line with two branches: the mainline as today from Waterfront (WF) top King

George (KG) and a short-turn from WF to Metrotown (MT). The preferred combined

headway WF-MT is of 90s in 2021. Todays combined headway of 108s has also been

analyzed as a possible intermediary service.

A shuttle along todays Millennium Line between Columbia and Lougheed stations (CO,

LH) with a 255 s headway.


35/36



Appendix A: Scenario Composi tion and Route Names in VISUM

Split Tail Double-Coordinated Break at LH Break at CO

Number 1 2 3 / 4 5 / 6 7a 8a

Evergreen GU-VC GU-VC GU-LH GU-VC

Expo WF-KG WF-KG WF-KG WF-KG, WF-MT

Millennium WF-LH WF-VC WF-VC CO-LH

Evergreen ST_1 ST_2 (BCO_108s) BLH_108 BCO_108 BCO_90

Expo ST_max108 ST_max90 DC_108s BLH_108 BCO_KG108

BCO_MT108

BCO_KG9

BCO_MT9

Millennium ST_max108 ST_max90 DC_108s BLH_WF108

BLH_LH108

BCO_108 BCO_90

Canada Ri and YVR (for all scenarios)

WCE 2007 (for all scenarios)


36/36



Appendix B: Assignment Results for 2007

Figure 19: Passenger Loads 5-9 AM, 2007

Figure 20: Passenger Loads 24-hour, 2007

RTM SkyTrain Evergreen Rev3

Documents

Transcript of RTM SkyTrain Evergreen Rev3