RTM SkyTrain Evergreen Rev3

Report
Operations Scenarios for Evergreen Line as ALRT

An 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 Columbia Transportation Authority 4720 Kingsway, Suite 1600 Burnaby, B.C., V5H 4N2 (604) 453 3058
RTM: Evergreen as ALRT
Page 2
Table of Contents 1. 2. Background ..................................................................................................................5 Operations Scenarios ..................................................................................................7 2.1. 2.2. 2.3. 2.4. 2.5. 3. Fleet Stations, Alignment and Run Times Service Patterns and Headways Layover and Recovery Assumptions Preliminary Operations Analysis and Line Blocking 7 8 11 12 13
Travel Demand Estimation ........................................................................................14 3.1. 3.2. 3.3. 3.4. 3.5. Adjustment of SkyTrain Demand for 2007 Import of Emme Forecasts Deriving Basic Components of Future Travel Demand Resulting Travel Demand for 2014 and 2021 Assignment Results 14 14 18 19 20
4.
Integrated Operations Analysis ................................................................................24 4.1. 4.2. 4.3. Operations Analysis with Four Scenarios for the AM Peak Selection of the Preferred Scenario 24-Hour Operations Analysis for the Preferred Scenario 24 31 31
5.
Conclusions................................................................................................................34
Appendix A: Scenario Composition and Route Names in VISUM ..................................35 Appendix B: Assignment Results for 2007 .......................................................................36
PTV America Inc. / TransLink
08-Aug-2008
Page 3
Tables Table 1: Capacities for Various Train Types ...........................................................................7 Table 2: Evergreen Line Inbound: Distances, Run and Dwell times .......................................8 Table 3: Evergreen Line Outbound: Distances, Run and Dwell times.....................................8 Table 4: Comparison of SkyTrain Average Operating Speeds..............................................10 Table 5: Operating scenarios and Operating Assumptions ...................................................13 Table 6: SkyTrain and WCE 2006: Trip Totals in the OD Matrices .......................................14 Table 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................................................................24 Table 10: SkyTrain 2021 Scenario Split Tail: Ridership and Operations Statistics ...............25 Table 11: SkyTrain 2021 Scenario Break at LH: Ridership and Operations Statistics ..........26 Table 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
08-Aug-2008
Page 4
Figures Figure 1: Evergreen Line Alignments for LRT and ALRT ........................................................6 Figure 2: Regression Analysis for Station-to-Station Operating Speeds.................................9 Figure 3: Lines and Route Schemes .....................................................................................11 Figure 4: Emme One-Hour AM Difference between ALRT and Base Scenarios ..................15 Figure 5: Emme One-Hour AM Difference between Future-Base and 2004-Base................16 Figure 6: Emme One-Hour AM Difference between ALRT and 2004-Base Scenarios .........17 Figure 7: Passenger Loads 5-9 AM, 2021, Scenario 1 - Split Tail - 108s Expo HW .............20 Figure 8: Passenger Loads 5-9 AM, 2021, Scenario 5 - Break at LH - 108s Expo HW ........20 Figure 9: Passenger Loads 5-9 AM, 2021, Scenario 7a - Break at CO - 108s Expo HW .....21 Figure 10: Passenger Loads 5-9 AM, 2021, Scenario 8a - Break at CO - 90s Expo HW .....21 Figure 11: VC-Ratio 8:15-8:30, 2021, Scenario 1 - Split Tail - 108s Expo HW .....................22 Figure 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 ...............23 Figure 15: Scenario Comparison: Ridership Impact 2021.....................................................29 Figure 16: Scenario Comparison: Operations Impact 2021 ..................................................30 Figure 17: Rapid Transit 24-Hour Passenger Flows in Network View, 2014.........................32 Figure 18: Rapid Transit 24-Hour Passenger Flows in Network View, 2021.........................32 Figure 19: Passenger Loads 5-9 AM, 2007...........................................................................36 Figure 20: Passenger Loads 24-hour, 2007 ..........................................................................36
08-Aug-2008
Page 5
1.
Background
The Evergreen Line is planned to link Lougheed SkyTrain Station in Burnaby to Port Moody and Coquitlam 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 some differences 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.
08-Aug-2008
Page 6
Figure 1: Evergreen Line Alignments for LRT and ALRT LRT:
ALRT:
08-Aug-2008
Page 7
2.
Operations Scenarios
To develop ALRT operations on the Evergreen Line, a set of assumptions are necessary that cover 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) 4-Mark-I 6-Mark-I 2-Mark-II 3-Mark-II 4-Mark-II 5-Mark-II 6-Mark-II 4 6 2 3 4 5 6 Capacity (Seat only) 144 216 84 126 168 210 252 Capacity (Seat & Stand) 300 450 238 357 476 595 714
08-Aug-2008
Page 8
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 Guildford Lincoln Coquitlam Central Ioco Port Moody Queens Burquitlam Lougheed Code GU LI CC IO PM QUE BQ LH 0.84 0.83 1.93 1.47 0.9 3.23 2.01 Length [km] Accumulated length [km] 0 0.84 1.67 3.60 5.07 5.97 9.20 11.21 Station dwell time 0s 12s 15s 12s 15s 12s 12s 25s 1min 19s 1min 18s 2min 14s 1min 55s 1min 23s 2min 52s 2min 17s Segment run time at arrival Accumulated run&dwell times at arr. 0min 1min 19s 2min 49s 5min 18s 7min 25s 9min 3s 12min 7s 14min 36s
Table 3: Evergreen Line Outbound: Distances, Run and Dwell times

Station Name Lougheed Burquitlam Queens Port Moody Ioco Coquitlam Central Lincoln Guildford
Code LH BQ QUE PM IO CC LI GU
Length [km]
Accumulated length [km]
Station dwell time 0s
Segment run time at arrival

0s
Accumulated run&dwell times at arr. 0min 2min 16s 5min 20s 6min 56s 9min 4s 11min 30s 13min 2s 14min 33s
08-Aug-2008
2.01 3.22 0.91 1.44 1.92 0.81 0.84
2.01 5.23 6.14 7.58 9.50 10.31 11.15
12s 12s 15s 12s 15s 12s 12s
2min 16s 2min 52s 1min 24s 1min 53s 2min 14s 1min 17s 1min 19s
Page 9
Estimation of run and dwell times. The business case document was based on a simple travel time assumption for the EvergreenSkyTrain. 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 between stations 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
25
Average Operating Speed [m/s]
20
15
10
Existing SkyTrain Speed (Expo & Millennium) Regression speed = 7.69 + 3.46 x distance
0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Station-to-Station Distance [km] 3.5 4.0
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
PTV America Inc. / TransLink 08-Aug-2008
Page 10
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 average speed 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 Total One-way Average Length Op. Time Op. Speed * (km) Time of Day Stops Served (min) (km/h)
AM Mid PM AM Mid PM AM Mid PM AM Mid PM AM, Mid, PM AM, Mid, PM 20 20 20 20 20 20 28 28 28 28 28 28 8 8 42.8 43.1 41.9 41.2 42.3 42.0 42.1 42.6 41.5 41.6 42.3 42.1 46.3 46.3 28.9 28.9 28.9 28.8 28.8 28.8 42.0 42.0 42.0 42.1 42.1 42.1 11.2 11.2 40.6 40.4 41.5 42.0 40.9 41.2 59.9 59.2 60.8 60.7 59.7 60.0 14.5 14.5
Line
Expo Expo Expo Expo Expo Expo Millennium Millennium Millennium Millennium Millennium Millennium Evergreen LH-GU ** Evergreen LH-GU **
Direction
Outbound > Outbound > Outbound > Inbound < Inbound < Inbound < Outbound > Outbound > Outbound > Inbound < Inbound < Inbound < > <
* : 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 times and as a result speed have been assumed identical to Millennium operations in 2007.
08-Aug-2008
Page 11
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
The Split Tail scenario 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 Coordinated scenario, the Millennium Line needs to coordinate the schedules with both the Expo and the Evergreen Lines to assure regular headways. The Break at Columbia scenario 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 Lougheed scenario are identical to the LRT case forcing Evergreen passengers to transfer at LH station while Expo and Millennium operate similarily to 2006 operations.
Page 12
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 to 2006 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.
08-Aug-2008
Page 13
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
Scenarios and Routes Evergreen Expo Millennium Schedule ** Evergreen Expo Expo WF-MT Millennium CO-LH shuttle Avg. HW [s] Evergreen Expo Expo WF-MT Millennium Mill VC-LH CO-LH shuttle Comb. HW [s] GU-LH LH-VC WF-MT CO-KG CO-LH Roundtrip *** Evergreen Expo Expo WF-MT Millennium Mill VC-LH CO-LH shuttle Blocks Evergreen Expo Expo WF-MT Millennium Mill VC-LH CO-LH shuttle Total Blocks Split Tail 1* 2 GU-VC WF-KG WF-LH 180s 3/5 2/5 180s 3/5 2/5 Double-Coordinated 3 4 GU-VC WF-KG WF-VC 3/5 3/5 2/5&2/5 3/5 2/3 1/3&2/5 Break at LH 5* 6 GU-LH WF-KG WF-VC, LH-VC 180s 2/3 1/3 180s 2/3 1/3 255s 180 180 270 180 150 225 180 180 270 180 135 270 180 162 324 324 180 135 270 270 255 180 180 108 180 270 78.0 87.0 83.8 180 180 90 150 225 180 108 108 180 270 78.0 87.0 124.2 180 108 90 135 270 180 162 108 162 324 33.0 86.5 124.2 48.5 21.25 26 29 19 26 34.8 22.3 26 29 27.6 26 38.7 27.6 11 32 23 9 75 11 39 27.6 11 89 5 71 5 81 26 32 8 26 39 11 180 135 90 135 270 180 180 108 216 255 78.0 86.5 44.2 87.7 45.0 255 180 180 90 180 255 180 162 324 255s 180 135 270 Break at CO 7a * 8a * GU-VC WF-KG, WF-MT CO-LH 180s 2/3 1/3 180s 2/3 1/3
74
83.0
83.0
93.0
* : 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. PTV America Inc. / TransLink 08-Aug-2008
Page 14
3.
Travel Demand Estimation
The estimation of the travel demand for Evergreen Line and the other rail systems follows the same 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 stationto-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 AM Mid PM Eve 24-h From - To 5:00 9:00 9:00 15:00 15:00 18:00 18:00 26:00
5:00 26:00
2006 Matrix Totals SkyTrain and WCE 53,500 65,000 65,800 48,900 233,100
2007 Matrix Totals SkyTrain and WCE 56,200 69,900 71,100 53,100 250,300
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.
Page 15
Figure 4: Emme One-Hour AM Difference between ALRT and Base Scenarios Emme differences for 2011:
Emme differences for 2021:
08-Aug-2008
Page 16
Figure 5: Emme One-Hour AM Difference between Future-Base and 2004-Base Emme differences for 2011Base:
Emme differences for 2021Base:
08-Aug-2008
Page 17
Figure 6: Emme One-Hour AM Difference between ALRT and 2004-Base Scenarios Emme differences for 2011SkyTrain:
Emme differences for 2021SkyTrain:
08-Aug-2008
Page 18
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 SkyTrain growth. Figure 6 sums both parts up to the total changes in demand of all components.
3.3.
Deriving 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 in Figure 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 Evergreen SkyTrain (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.
08-Aug-2008
Page 19
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
2014 AM 5:00-9:00 56,300 7,700 -2,300 20,700 1,500 19,900 103,900 Mid 9:00-15:00 70,000 10,100 0 41,400 1,200 26,100 148,700 PM 5:00-18:00 71,100 9,700 -2,300 28,000 1,900 24,900 133,200 Eve 18:00-2:00 53,100 7,700 0 29,200 500 22,400 112,900 24 Hour Day 250,300 35,200 -4,500 119,300 5,100 93,400 498,800
SkyTrain & WCE 2007 + SkyTrain growth + WCE growth + Canada Line demand + Airport demand + Evergreen Line demand Total Demand
Table 8: Rapid Transit Ridership 2021: Total Linked Trips and Component of the Total
2021 AM 5:00-9:00 56,300 16,300 -1,800 23,800 1,900 25,500 121,900 Mid 9:00-15:00 70,000 21,300 0 44,800 1,500 33,300 170,800 PM 5:00-18:00 71,100 20,400 -1,800 32,100 2,300 31,800 155,900 Eve 18:00-2:00 53,100 16,100 0 33,600 600 28,700 132,100 24 Hour Day 250,300 74,100 -3,600 134,300 6,300 119,300 580,700
SkyTrain & WCE 2006 + SkyTrain growth + WCE growth + Canada Line demand + Airport demand + Evergreen Line demand Total Demand
08-Aug-2008
Page 20
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
08-Aug-2008
Page 21
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
08-Aug-2008
Page 22
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
08-Aug-2008
Page 23
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
08-Aug-2008
Page 24
4.
4.1.
Integrated Operations Analysis

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 Scenario name Scenario number Evergreen Expo Expo short turn WF-MT Millennium Mill short turn LH-VC CO-LH shuttle Total 2-car units Total 3-car units Total cars 93 55 351 96 43 321 4-car Mark-II 5-car Mark-II 5-car Mark-II 2-car Mark-II 71 58 316 2-car Mark-II 81 65 357 max 108s 1 5-car Mark-II 5-car Mark-II Break at LH blh 108s 5 3-car Mark-II 4-car Mark-II Break at CO bco 108s 7a 5-car Mark-II 5-car Mark-II 2-car Mark-II bco 90s 8a 5-car Mark-II 5-car Mark-II 2-car Mark-II
08-Aug-2008
Page 25
Table 10: SkyTrain 2021 Scenario Split Tail: Ridership and Operations Statistics Line Train KM 7-9 h Train hours 7-9 h Car KM 7-9 h Car hours 7-9 h Passenger KM 7-9 h Passenger hours 7-9 h Total transfers AM Total transfers by station BW CM CO LH Capacity analysis 7-9 h: WF BW BW CO CO KG LH VC CO LH GU - LH Max 15-min vol * 3,889 3,290 2,034 2,342 701 1,670 9,164 1,860 3,142 Avg 15-min cap * 4,566 4,541 2,996 2,850 1,564 2,975 Max v/c ratio * 85 73 68 82 45 56 Expo 2,304 54.9 11,520 274.5 374,854 8,645 14,166 Millennium 1,481 35.8 5,924 143.3 204,308 4,813 Evergreen 2,045 47.8 10,225 238.9 297,618 6,791
* Max 15-min vol = maximum 15-minute passenger volume over all links 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
08-Aug-2008
Page 26
Table 11: SkyTrain 2021 Scenario Break at LH: Ridership and Operations Statistics Line Train KM 7-9 h Train hours 7-9 h Car KM 7-9 h Car hours 7-9 h Passenger KM 7-9 h Passenger hours 7-9 h Total transfers AM Total transfers by station BW CM CO LH Capacity analysis 7-9 h: WF BW BW CO CO KG LH VC CO LH GU - LH Max 15-min vol * 3,762 3,199 2,086 2,423 785 1,698 8,065 2,463 6,220 Avg 15-min cap * 4,299 4,268 2,663 3,161 1,636 1,785 Max v/c ratio * 88 75 78 77 48 95 Expo 2,563 61.1 10,252 244.3 376,452 8,691 16748 Millennium 2,508 60.6 12,540 302.9 408,476 9,587 Evergreen 911 20.9 2,733 62.6 94,445 2,024
08-Aug-2008
Page 27
Table 12: SkyTrain 2021 Scenario Break at CO (108s): Ridership and Operations Statistics Line Train KM 7-9 h Train hours 7-9 h Car KM 7-9 h Car hours 7-9 h Passenger KM 7-9 h Passenger hours 7-9 h Total transfers AM Total transfers by station BW CM CO LH Capacity analysis 7-9 h: WF BW BW CO CO KG LH VC CO LH GU - LH Max 15-min vol * 3,917 2,982 1,858 2,642 416 1,656 11,160 3,784 3,415 Avg 15-min cap * 3,970 3,675 3,319 2,780 833 2,975 Max v/c ratio * 99 75 56 95 50 56 Expo 3,141 76.2 15,704 380.8 515,292 12,022 18,359 Millennium 345 9.1 689 18.3 24,500 580 Evergreen 2,046 47.8 10,229 238.9 326,265 7,458
08-Aug-2008
Page 28
Table 13: SkyTrain 2021 Scenario Break at CO (90s): Ridership and Operations Statistics Line Train KM 7-9 h Train hours 7-9 h Car KM 7-9 h Car hours 7-9 h Passenger KM 7-9 h Passenger hours 7-9 h Total transfers AM Total transfers by station BW CM CO LH Capacity analysis 7-9 h: WF BW BW CO CO KG LH VC CO LH GU - LH Max 15-min vol * 3,923 2,932 1,912 2,615 415 1,653 11,225 3,794 3,429 Avg 15-min cap * 4,760 4,392 3,895 2,770 833 2,970 Max v/c ratio * 82 62 49 94 50 56 Expo 3,744 90.8 18,719 454.0 514,879 12,012 18,448 Millennium 345 9.1 689 18.3 24,567 581 Evergreen 2,041 47.7 10,204 238.3 325,989 7,452
08-Aug-2008
Page 29
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:
08-Aug-2008
Page 30
Figure 16: Scenario Comparison: Operations Impact 2021 Number of Trains (Blocks) and Train Units in Peak Operation:
100
74 55 93 75 96 81 81
75
71 71 65 58 43
Number of Trains Number of 2car Units Number of 3car Units
50
25
0 1 - Split Tail 5 - Break at LH 7a - Break at CO 8a - Break at CO 108s 90s
Number of Train Cars in Peak Operation:

375 351 350 325 300 275 250 1 - Split Tail 5 - Break at LH 7a - Break at CO 8a - Break at CO 108s 90s 321 316 357
Car KM 7:00-9:00:
35000 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 1 - Split Tail 5 - Break at LH 7a - Break at CO 108s 8a - Break at CO 90s
08-Aug-2008
Evergreen Millennium Expo
Page 31
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 4car 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 24hour 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 GUVC 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. Evergreen: 5 minutes during off-peak operations for both Mid-day (9:00 - 15:00, 18:30 - 21:00) and Evening (after 21:00) Millennium Shuttle: between 4 and 5 min during Midday and 8 minutes during Evening 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.
08-Aug-2008
Page 32
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
08-Aug-2008
Page 33
Table 14: Rapid Transit Network 2014 and 2021: 24-Hour Model Results
2014 (Sc. 8a) Total number of linked trips Total number of linked trips (0 transfer) Total number of linked trips (1 transfer) Total number of linked trips (2 transfers) Total number of linked trips (> 2 transfers) Total number of transfers Total number of unlinked trips Unlinked trips Expo Line Unlinked trips Millennium Line Unlinked trips West Coast Express Unlinked trips Canada Line Unlinked trips Evergreen Passenger KM Expo Line Passenger KM Millennium Line Passenger KM West Coast Express Passenger KM Canada Line Passenger KM Evergreen Number of blocks Expo Line Number of blocks Millennium Line Number of blocks West Coast Express Number of blocks Canada Line Number of blocks Evergreen Seat KM Expo Line Seat KM Millennium Line Seat KM West Coast Express Seat KM Canada Line Seat KM Evergreen Total capacity KM Expo Line Total capacity KM Millennium Line Total capacity KM Total capacity KM Canada Line Total capacity KM Evergreen 499,700 405,200 80,500 9,300 100 99,500 594,700 269,300 29,600 5,300 126,100 164,300 2,661,900 122,900 153,500 987,500 1,430,400 50 5 5 16 26 10,943,700 527,700 1,440,500 1,548,500 6,186,700 31,007,100 1,495,200 3,484,600 6,157,300 17,529,000 2021 (Sc. 8a) 581,400 475,700 89,400 10,000 200 109,900 685,200 295,800 34,000 6,000 143,100 206,300 2,928,300 136,800 177,900 1,101,200 1,794,100 50 5 5 16 26 10,943,700 527,700 1,440,500 1,548,500 6,186,700 31,007,100 1,495,200 3,484,600 6,157,300 17,529,000
08-Aug-2008
Page 34
5.
Conclusions
The Evergreen-ALRT study has used the Regional Transit Model (RTM) to analyze the performance 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.
08-Aug-2008
Page 35
Appendix A: Scenario Composition and Route Names in VISUM
Split Tail Number Evergreen Expo Millennium Evergreen Expo Millennium Canada WCE ST_1 ST_max108 ST_max108 1 GU-VC WF-KG WF-LH ST_2 ST_max90 ST_max90 2
Double-Coordinated 3/4 GU-VC WF-KG WF-VC (BCO_108s) DC_108s DC_108s
Break at LH 5/6 GU-LH WF-KG WF-VC BLH_108 BLH_108 BLH_WF108 BLH_LH108
Break at CO 7a GU-VC WF-KG, WF-MT CO-LH BCO_108 BCO_KG108 BCO_MT108 BCO_108 BCO_90 BCO_KG90 BCO_MT90 BCO_90 8a
Ri and YVR (for all scenarios) 2007 (for all scenarios)
08-Aug-2008
Page 36
Appendix B: Assignment Results for 2007

Figure 19: Passenger Loads 5-9 AM, 2007
Figure 20: Passenger Loads 24-hour, 2007
08-Aug-2008

RTM SkyTrain Evergreen Rev3

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

RTM SkyTrain Evergreen Rev3

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Report

Operations Scenarios for Evergreen Line as ALRT

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

RTM: Evergreen as ALRT

PTV America Inc. / TransLink

RTM: Evergreen as ALRT

PTV America Inc. / TransLink

RTM: Evergreen as ALRT

PTV America Inc. / TransLink

RTM: Evergreen as ALRT

PTV America Inc. / TransLink

RTM: Evergreen as ALRT

Figure 1: Evergreen Line Alignments for LRT and ALRT LRT:

PTV America Inc. / TransLink

RTM: Evergreen as ALRT

PTV America Inc. / TransLink

RTM: Evergreen as ALRT

Stations, Alignment and Run Times

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

Accumulated length [km]

Station dwell time 0s

Segment run time at arrival

2.01 3.22 0.91 1.44 1.92 0.81 0.84

2.01 5.23 6.14 7.58 9.50 10.31 11.15

12s 12s 15s 12s 15s 12s 12s

RTM: Evergreen as ALRT

Average Operating Speed [m/s]

RTM: Evergreen as ALRT

PTV America Inc. / TransLink

RTM: Evergreen as ALRT

Service Patterns and Headways

RTM: Evergreen as ALRT

Layover and Recovery Assumptions

PTV America Inc. / TransLink

RTM: Evergreen as ALRT

Preliminary Operations Analysis and Line Blocking

RTM: Evergreen as ALRT

Travel Demand Estimation

Adjustment of SkyTrain Demand for 2007

Import of Emme Forecasts

RTM: Evergreen as ALRT

Emme differences for 2021:

PTV America Inc. / TransLink

RTM: Evergreen as ALRT

Emme differences for 2021Base:

PTV America Inc. / TransLink

RTM: Evergreen as ALRT

Emme differences for 2021SkyTrain:

PTV America Inc. / TransLink

RTM: Evergreen as ALRT

Deriving Basic Components of Future Travel Demand

PTV America Inc. / TransLink

RTM: Evergreen as ALRT

Resulting Travel Demand for 2014 and 2021

PTV America Inc. / TransLink

RTM: Evergreen as ALRT

PTV America Inc. / TransLink

RTM: Evergreen as ALRT

PTV America Inc. / TransLink

RTM: Evergreen as ALRT

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

PTV America Inc. / TransLink

RTM: Evergreen as ALRT