RTM Phase A Final Report

Report
TransLinks Rapid Transit Model

An Operations Planning Model under VISUM Project Report and Technical Documentation Phase A
Vancouver, B.C. / Wilmington, DE February 2007

PTV America Inc. 408-675 West Hastings Street Vancouver, BC, V6B 1N2 P: (604)435-2895 1300 N Market Street, Suite 704 Wilmington, DE 19801, U.S.A. P: (302) 654-4384
Rapid Transit Model
Page 1
Table of Contents 1. 2. Introduction .................................................................................................... 8 Calibration of the Existing Case ................................................................. 10 2.1. 2.2. 2.3. 3. SkyTrain Supply Model .................................................................... 10 SkyTrain Demand Model.................................................................. 19 West Coast Express......................................................................... 28
Operational Scenarios for SkyTrains Existing Fleet................................ 31 3.1. 3.2. Definition of Fleet, Route Schemes, Run Times .............................. 31 Enumeration and Selection of Operational Concepts ...................... 33 3.2.1. .........Assumptions 3.2.2. .........Screening of Alternatives 3.3. 33 35
Detailed VISUM Analysis of Operational Scenarios......................... 37 3.3.1. .........Definition of the Scenarios 3.3.2. .........Assumptions and Results at a Glance 3.3.3. .........Volume/Capacity Analysis 3.3.4. .........Detailed Ridership Analysis 3.3.5. .........Operational Review 38 38 43 50 52
3.4. 4.
Summary and Conclusions .............................................................. 53
Future Rapid Transit Network 2010 and 2021............................................ 56 4.1. Ridership Forecast ........................................................................... 56 4.1.1. .........General Approach 4.1.2. .........Development of Demand Components 4.1.3. .........Total Demand for 2010 and 2021 4.2. 4.3. 56 57 61
Canada Line ..................................................................................... 62 Evergreen Line ................................................................................. 67
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 2
4.4. 4.5. 4.6. 4.7. 5.
West Coast Express 2010 and 2021................................................ 71 SkyTrain Operations 2010 and 2021................................................ 72 Intermodal Transfer Stations ............................................................ 79 Integrated 24-Hour Model Results for 2006, 2010 and 2021 ........... 80
Data and Software Organization ................................................................. 84 5.1. 5.2. 5.3. VISUM Software............................................................................... 84 Model Architecture ........................................................................... 84 The Master Version File ................................................................... 88 5.3.1. .........General Step Process for Scenario Analysis 5.3.2. .........Selection of Line Routes (Step 1) 5.3.3. .........Selection of OD Matrices (Step 2) 5.3.4. .........Model Run (Step 3) 5.3.5. .........Evaluation (Step 4) 5.4. 88 89 91 92 92
Data Organization ............................................................................ 94
6.
Conclusions and Future Directions............................................................ 95
List of Abbreviations............................................................................................. 96 Appendix A: Calibration of SkyTrain Demand 2006........................................... 97 Appendix B: Forecast of SkyTrain Demand 2021............................................... 99 Appendix C: List of all Stops and Stop Areas .................................................. 100 Appendix D: Alternative SkyTrain Scenario 2010 S0b-xl................................. 102
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 3
Tables Table 1: SkyTrain stations and stop types in VISUM ............................................................11 Table 2: SkyTrain 2006: Operational characteristics generated by VISUM ..........................12 Table 3: SkyTrain 2006: Headways.......................................................................................13 Table 4: SkyTrain vehicle units in VISUM .............................................................................14 Table 5: SkyTrain vehicle combinations in VISUM................................................................15 Table 6: SkyTrain 2006: Operational statistics in VISUM......................................................18 Table 7: SkyTrain and WCE 2006: trip totals in the OD matrices..........................................20 Table 8: SkyTrain 2006: Ridership (survey vs. VISUM) ........................................................23 Table 9: SkyTrain 2006: Boardings, alights and transfers (survey vs. Visum) .....................23 Table 10: SkyTrain 2006: Aggregated OD matrices (survey vs. VISUM)..............................27 Table 11: WCE outbound: Distances, run and dwell times ...................................................28 Table 12: WCE inbound: Distances, run and dwell times......................................................28 Table 13: WCE 2006: Total boardings per station (VISUM vs. count) ..................................30 Table 14: Run and layover times assumed for the screening of alternatives ........................34 Table 15: Desired 15-minute capacities per network section and line route .........................34 Table 16: SkyTrain 2006 Base scenario: General operational assumptions.........................39 Table 17: SkyTrain 2006 Base scenario: Ridership and operations statistics.......................39 Table 18: SkyTrain 2006 scenario 1: General operational assumptions ...............................40 Table 19: SkyTrain 2006 scenario 1: Ridership and operations statistics .............................40 Table 20: SkyTrain 2006 scenario 1A: General operational assumptions.............................41 Table 21: SkyTrain 2006 scenario 1A: Ridership and operations statistics...........................41 Table 22: SkyTrain 2006 scenario 2: General operational assumptions ...............................42
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 4
Table 23: SkyTrain 2006 scenario 2: Ridership and operations statistics .............................42 Table 24: SkyTrain 2006: Total number of transfers, AM 5:00-9:00......................................50 Table 25: Canada Line: Comparison of VISUM and emme ridership totals ..........................58 Table 26: Rapid transit 2010: Ridership totals.......................................................................61 Table 27: Rapid transit 2021: Ridership totals.......................................................................61 Table 28: Canada Line outbound: Distances, run and dwell dimes ......................................63 Table 29: Canada Line YVR inbound: Distances, run and dwell times ..............................64 Table 30: Canada Line Richmond inbound: distances, run and dwell times ......................65 Table 31: Canada Line: Operational characteristics..............................................................66 Table 32: Evergreen Line outbound - AM: Distances, run and dwell times...........................68 Table 33: Evergreen Line inbound - AM: Distances, run and dwell times .............................69 Table 34: Evergreen Line: Operational characteristics in VISUM .........................................70 Table 35: SkyTrain assumed fleet 2010 and 2021 ................................................................72 Table 36: SkyTrain 2006: General operational assumptions.................................................75 Table 37: SkyTrain 2006: Ridership and operations statistics...............................................75 Table 38: SkyTrain 2010 (S0-xl Report Scenario): General operational assumptions.....76 Table 39: SkyTrain 2010 (S0-xl Report Scenario): Ridership and operations statistics...76 Table 40: SkyTrain 2021 (S0a-xxl): General operational assumptions...............................77 Table 41: SkyTrain 2021 (S0a-xxl): Ridership and operations statistics.............................77 Table 42: Rapid transit network 2006, 2010 and 2021: 24 hour model results .....................82 Table 43: Transport systems and lines in the RTM ...............................................................86 Table 44: Demand segment in the RTM................................................................................86 Table 45: Operators in the RTM ............................................................................................86
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 5
Table 46: Lines in the RTM ...................................................................................................87 Table 47: Vehicle types in the RTM.......................................................................................87 Table 48: Vehicle combinations in the RTM ..........................................................................87 Table 49: SkyTrain 2006: Boardings, alights, transfers per stop area...................................97 Table 50: SkyTrain 2006: VISUM OD matrix for ADT, station to station ...............................98 Table 51: SkyTrain 2021: Ridership forecast (6:00-9:00, VISUM vs. emme)........................99 Table 52: List of all stop areas, stops and corresponding nodes in the RTM......................100 Table 53: SkyTrain 2010 (S0b-xl): general operational assumptions ...............................102 Table 54: SkyTrain 2010 ( S0b-xl): ridership and operations statistics .............................102
Figures Figure 1: SkyTrain & WCE 2006 in VISUMs network display...............................................10 Figure 2: SkyTrain 2006: Schedules in VISUMs timetable editor .........................................13 Figure 3: SkyTrain 2006: Schedule visualization...................................................................14 Figure 4: Distribution of passengers desired start time over 24 hours .................................20 Figure 5: SkyTrain 2006: Average weekday link volumes displayed in VISUM ....................21 Figure 6: SkyTrain 2006: Average weekday stop volumes (boardings) displayed in VISUM 22 Figure 7: SkyTrain 2006: Station boardings (survey vs. VISUM) .........................................24 Figure 8: SkyTrain 2006: Goodness of fit - station boardings ...............................................25 Figure 9: SkyTrain 2006: Time-dynamic AM passenger link volume (VISUM vs. survey) ...26 Figure 10: WCE 2006: Boardings and alights at Mission and Waterfront stations ................29 Figure 11: WCE 2006: Ridership along all 10 runs in VISUMs timetable editor ...................30 Figure 12: Three SkyTrain route schemes ............................................................................32
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 6
Figure 13: SkyTrain 2006 Base scenario: Alternative screening...........................................35 Figure 14: SkyTrain 2006 scenario 1 (Break@CO): Alternative screening ...........................36 Figure 15: SkyTrain 2006 scenario 2 (Split Tail): Alternative screening................................36 Figure 16: Volume and capacity of one network link (BWI - Broadway inbound)..................43 Figure 17: SkyTrain 2006 Base scenario: V/C ratios in network View (8:15 8:30) .............44 Figure 18: SkyTrain 2006 scenario 1: V/C ratios in network View (8:15 8:30) ...................45 Figure 19: SkyTrain 2006 scenario 1A: V/C ratios in network View (8:30 8:45).................46 Figure 20: SkyTrain 2006 scenario 2: V/C ratios in network View (8:15 8:30) ...................47 Figure 21: Time-space distribution of VC ratio in percent, Inbound direction........................48 Figure 22: Time-space distribution of VC ratio in percent, outbound direction......................49 Figure 23: SkyTrain 2006: Transfers during AM at BW-CM ..................................................50 Figure 24: SkyTrain 2006: Transfers during AM at CO .........................................................51 Figure 25: SkyTrain 2006: Transfers during AM at LH ..........................................................51 Figure 26: SkyTrain operating scenarios 2006: Performance summary (1) ..........................53 Figure 27: SkyTrain operating scenarios 2006: Performance summary (2) ..........................54 Figure 28: Evergreen Line: Difference volumes emme forecast for AM................................60 Figure 29: Alignment and stations of the Canada Line in VISUM .........................................62 Figure 30: Canada Line: Gantt chart of VISUMs line blocking .............................................66 Figure 31: Evergreen Line: Stations and alignment in VISUM ..............................................67 Figure 32: Evergreen Line: Gantt chart of VISUMs line blocking .........................................71 Figure 33: SkyTrain 2006, 2010 and 2021: AM peak operations analysis ............................78 Figure 34: SkyTrain 2006, 2010 and 2021: AM peak volume/capacity analysis ...................78 Figure 35: Intermodal transfer stations in the extended model .............................................79
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 7
Figure 36: Rapid transit 24-hour passenger flows in network view, 2006 .............................80 Figure 37: Rapid transit 24-hour passenger flows in network view, 2010 .............................81 Figure 38: Rapid transit 24-hour passenger flows in network view, 2021 .............................81 Figure 39: Rapid transit 24-hour model statistics comparing 2006, 2010 and 2021 .............83 Figure 40: Weekly calendar in VISUM...................................................................................85 Figure 41: Selection of an operating scenario in the master network file ..............................89 Figure 42: Selection of a demand scenario in the master network file ..................................91
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 8
1.
Introduction
TransLink assigned PTV with the creation of a Rapid Transit Model to support transit operations planning decisions in the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD). The purpose of this report is twofold: on one hand it documents the model building and model calibration; on the other hand it presents the methodology and results of the first application of the model in a fleet requirements study for SkyTrain that involved extensive scenario analysis. Objectives of the Rapid Transit Model The Rapid Transit Model serves to study operations scenarios with variations of the route schemes, fleet assignments and yard locations. In addition, the model is able to analyze future network extensions such as the Canada Line or the Evergreen Line and their impact on the rapid transit system as a whole. The model is able to measure cost and benefit on both the operations and the passenger side. Performance statistics are an important output of the model. An additional objective of the model is to create graphical representations and animations that can easily be understood by a non-technical audience. The model intentionally uses off-the-shelf technology, because one of the major objectives of the project is that TransLink staff runs this model on a day-to-day basis. Architecture of the Rapid Transit Model The Rapid Transit Model is built under the VISUM software platform. The model represents 24 hours of an average weekday, where transit operates from 5:00 AM until 3:00 AM the next morning. The model integrates existing data sources from within TransLink on both the supply and the demand sides of the transit system. The integration of these data sets into one platform is new to the organization. The Rapid Transit Model includes as supply components: schedules, fleet and line blocking of rail modes (bus rapid transit is planned to be added in the future). On the demand side the model is based on all existing ridership surveys that have been transformed into one set of OD matrices and a timetable-based passenger path flow model. Existing and future transit services, as well as existing and future ridership are integrated into one consistent master network file. The Fleet Requirements Study The model has contributed to an ongoing study on fleet requirements for the future SkyTrain system. Different operational concepts and alternatives have been analyzed for the existing state to find out if performance can be improved with the existing fleet. Then, based on assumptions of fleet expansion, future operations have been designed and analyzed in terms of performance. The results of this study are included in this report.
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 9
Organization of the Report Chapter 2 presents the methodology and results of the calibration of the existing state of the model, which includes SkyTrain and West Coast Express. The first application of the model was undertaken right after completion of the calibration and is presented in Chapter 3 (fleet requirements and capacity analysis for the current SkyTrain system). Chapter 4 presents the extension of the model into the future by modeling new rapid transit services and the corresponding ridership, in particular for the Canada Line and the Evergreen Line. Chapter 5 explains the architecture and usage of the model. Chapter 6 draws conclusions from our experience with the Rapid Transit Model and points out directions for future applications and extensions of the model.
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 10
2.
Calibration of the Existing Case
This chapter describes results of the model calibration for the existing state (2006) of the Rapid Transit Model, which includes the two SkyTrain lines (Expo and Millennium) and West Coast Express (WCE). The first two sections - 2.1 and 2.2 are based on an earlier report when the model consisted of SkyTrain only. West Coast Express (WCE) was added later as a network editing case study at the end of the project. For that reason all ridership statistics in sections 2.1 through 2.2 refer to SkyTrain passengers only, where section 2.3 represents West Coast Express ridership. Figure 1: SkyTrain & WCE 2006 in VISUMs network display
2.1.
SkyTrain Supply Model
Network Topology The network topology is modeled with nodes, links, stops points and stop areas. Stop areas are attached to nodes, where stop points in VISUM can be attached to nodes or links. Nodes and stop areas contain a user defined attribute (UDA) with a reference to the node ID in the strategic emme/2 model.
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 11
Stations and Transfer Walking Times Transfer Times on stations have been modeled with intra-stop walking time. Each station corresponds to one stop in VISUM with possibly several stop areas and at least two stop points. The transfer walking time (given as a matrix per stop) represents minimum transfer times, but does not include the waiting time on the platform for the next service. Table 1: SkyTrain stations and stop types in VISUM TypeNo for stops & stop areas 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 Station stop type Elevated Surface Covered Open Cut Elevated Surface Tunnel Tunnel Platform type Centre Centre Centre Centre Side Side Side Stacked Transfer walking time 30 s 30 s 30 s 30 s 5 min 3 min 30 s 3 min 30 s 3 to 4 min 2 min 30 s for platform change, 30 s within platform SkyTrain stations of this category ST, MN, JY, PT, MT, RO, SR, GW, SC, PW, LH TN WF (CM) VC, NA, RE, RU, GM, BR, HO, SP, LC, BD, SA, NW, TS, KG ED CO BU, GV
10
Extended
Centre
BW-CM
Note: SkyTrain station 2-letter codes and their corresponding names are displayed in Table 52, Appendix C.
Lines and Routes, Run and Dwell Times The current model of the existing state in phase A includes the two SkyTrain lines: Expo and Millennium. For reasons of usability, schedule and block editing, it has been decided to model each line as two routes (split into forward and backward, or inbound and outbound) instead of having circular lines. Each route is modeled as three time profiles (time patterns) with specific run and dwell times for morning peak, mid-day and afternoon peak (AM, Mid and PM). In the evening the VISUM model simplifies as it assumes that the lines operate according to the Mid patterns (in reality there is a different late-evening pattern after 21:30). Run times (and dwell times) in VISUM can be stored as attributes of time profiles and also of links (or stop points). SkyTrain run times are stored as link attributes, dwell times as user-defined attributes on stop points. These times on links and stop points are identical to the times on the time profiles. Terminus dwell times are not a hard wired input to the model because they will be a
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 12
result of line blocking. The following table shows operational assumptions for each time profile of both lines. Run times and dwell times are identical to those used by SkyTrain operations. There is a difference with statistics published by SkyTrain as VISUM does not consider the dwell time at the first and last station as part of the round trip time and therefore computes a faster average speed. Table 2: SkyTrain 2006: Operational characteristics generated by VISUM
Line Time profile AM Mid PM AM Mid PM AM Mid PM AM Mid PM Dir. > > > < < < > > > < < < Length [km] 28.95 28.95 28.95 28.81 28.81 28.81 42.03 42.03 42.03 42.06 42.06 42.06 Stop time [s] 286 274 342 340 274 292 437 397 488 471 407 428 Run time [s] 2,147 2,147 2,147 2,180 2,180 2,180 3,157 3,157 3,157 3,173 3,173 3,173 Round trip time [s] 2,433 2,421 2,489 2,520 2,454 2,472 3,594 3,554 3,645 3,644 3,580 3,601 Avg. service speed [kmh] 42.8 43.0 41.9 41.2 42.3 42.0 42.1 42.6 41.5 41.6 42.3 42.0
Expo
Expo
Millennium
Millennium
Both directions combined Expo AM Mid PM AM Mid PM 57.8 57.8 57.8 84.1 84.1 84.1 626 548 634 908 804 916 4,327 4,327 4,327 6,330 6,330 6,330 4,953 4,875 4,961 7,238 7,134 7,246 42.0 42.7 41.9 41.8 42.4 41.8
Millennium
Schedules and Headways The schedules have been entered basically as headways. The model schedules are a very close representation of the real schedules as they are operated today. The following table provides a summary of the modeled headways:
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 13
Table 3: SkyTrain 2006: Headways Peak headway Millennium Expo Combined headway from Waterfront to Columbia 324 s (5 min 24 s) 162 s (2 min 42 s) Off-peak headway 360 s (6 min) 360 s (6 min) Late evening headway 480 s (8 min) 480 s (8 min)
108 s (1 min 48 s)
180 s (3 min)
240 s (4 min)
Figure 2: SkyTrain 2006: Schedules in VISUMs timetable editor

Timetable leaving WF
Timetable leaving KG/VC:
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 14
The following time-space visualization of the schedule in VISUMs timetable editor shows how both lines operate in a coordinated headway on the main corridor between WF and CO. Figure 3: SkyTrain 2006: Schedule visualization
Vehicle Units and Train Blocking Transit vehicles in VISUM are modeled in vehicle units (cars) and vehicle combinations (trains). To model SkyTrain, the following vehicle units and combinations have been included in the model: Train capacity is based on 3.5 standees per square-metre (sustainable capacity) instead of 4.0 (full capacity). The resulting total capacities are for the cars (in VISUM vehicle type): o MK I : total 75 passengers, 36 seats o MK II: total 120 passengers, 42 seats Both Mark-I and Mark-II operate as married pairs. A train can consist of either type of cars but not both. The vehicle units and vehicle combinations that are defined in the VISUM model: Table 4: SkyTrain vehicle units in VISUM No Code 1 2 MK I MK II Name SkyTrain Mark I SkyTrain Mark II Seat Capacity Total Capacity Fleet 2006 36 42 75 119 150 60
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 15
Table 5: SkyTrain vehicle combinations in VISUM No 12 14 16 22 24 25 Code 2MkI 4MkI 6MkI 2MkII 4MkII 5MkII Name 2 car Mark I 4 car Mark I 6 car Mark I 2 car Mark II 4 car Mark II 5 car Mark II Seat Capacity 72 144 216 84 168 210 Total Capacity 150 300 450 238 476 595 Number of Vehicle Units 2 4 6 2 4 5
Notes: grey shaded rows mark the train configurations that are not normally used in the current operations. The 5 car Mark II train is not possible today but has been added as a potential future combination.
As in reality, the VISUM blocking algorithm needs 55 trains during the peak to operate the SkyTrain schedules. VISUMs train assignment is a little bit simpler than in the real world as we have assigned the 2 car Mark II exclusively to the Millennium line. The 55 blocks in the peak period are distributed as follows: 14 blocks using 2 car Mark II (all on Millennium) 7 blocks using 4 car Mark II (all on Expo) 34 blocks using 4 car Mark I (25 on Expo and 9 on Millennium Lines)
The VISUM model simplifies the SkyTrain operations to a certain degree. This is intentional as this model has the purpose to predict the operational reality of future scenarios, where the detailed scheduling and operational optimization has not been performed and the final operational concepts are not known. The most important simplifications of the SkyTrain operations are: Schedules are based only on train runs from terminus to terminus. No special runs from the depot to the first terminus are modeled. Simplified vehicle assignment (see above).
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 16
Figure 4: SkyTrain Expo 2006: Line blocking Gantt chart
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 17
Figure 5: SkyTrain Millennium 2006: Line blocking Gantt chart
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 18
Validation The following table highlights the key operating statistics that the VISUM model computes for SkyTrain after line blocking. The numbers show that VISUMs key operating statistics come very close to BCRTCs operating statistics for SkyTrain. Table 6: SkyTrain 2006: Operational statistics in VISUM
Line Time profile AM Mid PM AM Mid PM AM Mid PM AM Mid PM AM Mid PM AM Mid PM Dir. Number of blocks 32 15 32 32 15 32 23 21 23 23 21 23 32 15 32 23 21 23 32 23 55 Number of service trips 81 120 78 75 91 95 41 119 38 35 122 37 156 211 173 76 241 75 540 392 932 Service hours Service KM
Expo
Expo
> > > < < < > > > < < <
55 81 54 53 62 65 41 117 38 35 121 37 107 143 119 76 239 75 369 391 760
2345 3474 2258 2161 2622 2737 1723 5001 1597 1472 5131 1556 4506 6096 4995 3195 10132 3153 15597 16481 32078
Millennium
Millennium
Expo
Millennium
Total Expo Total Millennium Total System
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 19
2.2.
SkyTrain Demand Model
Time of Day Periods The following four time segments have been used throughout the ridership model. They correspond to the periods used in other SkyTrain statistics and surveys like the Station Count Survey of 2003 (note that the 2005 survey used a different definition of PM and Eve): o o o o AM 5:00 9:00 Mid 9:00 15:00 PM 15:00 18:00 Eve 18:00 26:00 (2:00 on the next day)
In VISUM, a demand segment has been defined for each time period to include four distinct matrices, one for each of the four time periods into the model. As a result, patterns are more realistic. Count and Survey Data o o o o SkyTrain station boarding survey 2003 SkyTrain station boarding survey 2005 (only selected stations) BCRTC car loading survey at BWI (Broadway inbound), January 2006 Customer satisfaction study 2003 through 2005 (OD matrix for SkyTrain trips, based on a sample of 4,500 trips in each year)
Methodology for the Calibration of the Demand Model o The OD Matrix has been synthesized using an optimization routine called TFlowFuzzy, which basically calibrates an OD matrix with the objective to meet the counted values. It has been assumed that the total number of SkyTrain passengers is in the order of 225,800 trips. The zones in the model have been defined such that one zone corresponds to each stop area. A Timetable Based Assignment is the basis of sending the passengers onto the routes and scheduled train runs. Desired departure time distribution is a given input to the model. It has been derived from the 2003 and 2005 station boarding counts and for the morning hours from the BWI load counts.
o o o
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 20
Figure 4: Distribution of passengers desired start time over 24 hours

6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0% 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 Time of day (begin of period)
The total demand of the day is given in four OD matrices for the four time periods. The number of trips for each matrix as they resulted from the matrix calibration are given in the following table: Table 7: SkyTrain and WCE 2006: trip totals in the OD matrices Time of Day AM Mid PM Eve Total From - To 5:00 9:00 9:00 15:00 15:00 18:00 18:00 26:00 2006 Matrix total SkyTrain only 49,700 65,000 62,200 48,900 225,800 2006 Matrix total SkyTrain and WCE 53,300 65,000 65,800 48,900 233,000
Note: The demand for SkyTrain only can be found in the VISUM file RTM_master_27dec06_before WCE.VER
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 21
As a result of the time-table based assignment, VISUM allows the display of passenger volumes on lines, links and nodes. The following two pictures show link and stop volumes for the 2006 Base SkyTrain model: Figure 5: SkyTrain 2006: Average weekday link volumes displayed in VISUM
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 22
Figure 6: SkyTrain 2006: Average weekday stop volumes (boardings) displayed in VISUM
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 23
Validation Table 8: SkyTrain 2006: Ridership (survey vs. VISUM)

Average weekday ridership Unlinked trips (boardings&alights) Linked trips Linked trips with 0 transfers Linked trips with 1 transfer Linked trips with more than 1 transfer VISUM 2006 244,800 225,800 206,700 19,100 0 2003 Survey 215,700 * n/a n/a n/a n/a 2005 Survey n/a n/a n/a 19,200 n/a
Total transferring passengers 19,100 n/a 19,200 Broadway Commercial 13,700 n/a 13,600 Columbia 5,300 n/a 5,600 Notes: SkyTrain boarding surveys 2003 and 2005, avg. weekday. * The raw count data of the 2003 survey reported 208,700 unlinked trips without counting transfers at CO and the new VCC station which together account for approximately 7,000 additional boardings.
244,800 unlinked trips in 2006 represent a 13.5% increase since 2003, when the adjusted total number of unlinked trips was 215,700. This growth assumption is in line with BCRTCs annual ridership statistic which estimates the increase from 2003 to 2006 as 12%. The number of transfers in the system had caused some confusion, as double counts of passengers can occur depending on the way the boarding statistics are computed. The number of trips in the SkyTrain system that include a transfer per day are 19,200 13,600 at BroadwayCommercial (BW-CM) and 5,600 at Columbia (CO) according to the 2005 boarding survey. In VISUM the same numbers can be obtained by using the PuT-Stat report or the Stops listing. In the 2006 model, VISUM accounts for 19,100 total with 13,700 at BW-CM and 5,300 at CO. When looking at the total number of boardings and alights for BW, CM and CO, which corresponds to VISUMs respective stop areas, then each transfer is counted twice as the following table shows. Note that the transfers in the survey are not 100% consistent as the transfer-alights at BW need to be equal to the transfer-boardings at CM and vice-versa. Table 9: SkyTrain 2006: Boardings, alights and transfers (survey vs. Visum)
2005 Survey BW CM CO 2006 VISUM Origin Boarding 16,500 5,800 3,600 Origin Boarding Destination Alight 16,400 7,600 3,300 Destination Alight Transfer Boarding 7,000 6,400 5,600 Transfer Boarding Transfer Alight 7,400 7,000 5,600 Transfer Alight Total Boarding 23,500 12,200 9,200 Total Boarding 22,500 13,324 8,738 Total Alight 23,800 14,600 8,900 Total Alight 21,282 14,357 8,715 Total B+A+T 47,300 26,800 18,100 Total B+A+T 43,782 27,681 17,453
BW 15,014 15,034 7,486 6,248 CM 7,076 6,871 6,248 7,486 CO 3,420 3,397 5,318 5,318 Notes: SkyTrain boardings and transfer survey 2005, avg. weekday.
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 24
The most extensive calibration of the model used data from the 2003 and 2005 SkyTrain boarding surveys. Figure 7 shows how the model approximates the survey data very closely. Figure 7: SkyTrain 2006: Station boardings (survey vs. VISUM)
43782 50000 Total boarding & alights incl. transfers, avg. weekday 45000 36686 40000 35000 30000 22156 21963 20024 14484 7290 25000 20000 15000 9304 10000 5000 0 21936 32887 42773
Survey 2003 Survey 2005 VISUM 2006
17357
15439
12202
16925
17453
10241
7389
MN
MT
GV
NA
JY
8173
RO
WF
CO
GW
BW
NW
BU
Total boarding & alights incl. transfers, avg. weekday
40000 35000 27681 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 4138 4412 3435 2029 5000 0 8044 10606
ED
Survey 2003 Survey 2005 VISUM 2006

21064
3868
2802
8128
1422
GM
CM
VC
HO
PW
RE
BR
SP
RU
Notes: Passenger numbers represent boardings, alightings and transfers. As a result, all passengers are technically doublecounted (board+alight) while transferring passengers are counted four times (board, alight to transfer, board from transfer, alight). For example, the 13,400 passengers who transfer at BW-CM appear in both column charts (BW and CM) appear four times in the above chart. Also double counted are the 5,000 transfers at CO in the VISUM and 2005 bars. The 2003 boarding represents the raw survey result without the transferring passengers. For the meaning of the 2-letter station codes, please refer to Table 49 on page 97 in Appendix A.
PTV America Inc.
BD
LC
LH
SA
2718
19-Feb-2007
KG
ST
PT
TN
TS
SR
SC
10787
Rapid Transit Model
Page 25
The following statistical analysis in Figure 8 demonstrates that the model results fit the 2005 boarding survey results extraordinarily well. RMSE, which can be interpreted as an average error is only 7%. This means that the model number differs only 7% from the counted value. Figure 8: SkyTrain 2006: Goodness of fit - station boardings Total 24-hour passenger volume (boardings, alights, transfers). R = 0.997
VISUM 2006
2
50000
40000
Correlation= 0.999 Root mean square error: RMSE= 0.070
30000
20000
10000
0 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
Survey 2005
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 26
The busiest link in the SkyTrain system is from Broadway to Main-Street inbound (BWI). The total ridership from 5:30 through 9:00 on this link has been surveyed as 21,050 on average, where VISUM estimates this volume to 22,707. The following comparison shows how VISUM replicates the morning peak loading of the trains departing BWI inbound. Figure 9: SkyTrain 2006: Time-dynamic AM passenger link volume (VISUM vs. survey)
6000 Passengers on trains per 30-minute interval BWI loading - survey 2006 5000 BWI Link volume VISUM 2006 4000
3000
2000 1000
0 5:30 6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 Start time, 30-minute interval
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 27
Another form of validation is to look at the passenger OD matrices, in an aggregated view based on districts or macro-zones. On this aggregated view, a comparison of VISUMs total trip matrix with the OD table derived from the customer satisfaction survey 2005 is shown below. The macrozones have been defined as follows: o o o o o o o o 1000: WF through MN 2000: BW and CO 3000: NA through JY 4000: PT through CO 5000: SR through KG 6000: RE and RU 7000: GM through PW 8000: LH through SA
The sample size of this survey matrix is only 4,300. Also the sampling method was not designed to create a representative matrix in the first place. Because of these two reasons we do not aim to have a too close fit of the RTM matrix and the survey matrix. Table 10: SkyTrain 2006: Aggregated OD matrices (survey vs. VISUM)
VISUM 2006 ADT Aggregated 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 Total WF-MN BW & CM NA-JY PT-CO SR-KG RE&RU&VC GM-PW LH-SA Alight 1000 WF-MN 11,107 6,639 10,363 20,717 7,378 1,045 3,426 5,740 66,416 1000 WF-MN 13,921 5,764 6,585 17,388 15,244 998 4,487 6,150 70,537 2000 BW&CM 6,358 49 1,373 4,496 2,664 1,610 3,521 1,883 21,954 2000 BW&CM 5,764 52 1,063 4,092 2,287 961 3,271 1,999 19,489 3000 NA-JY 8,808 1,572 1,296 6,112 1,779 61 419 476 20,524 3000 NA-JY 6,585 1,063 712 4,117 1,270 53 445 395 14,640 4000 PT-CO 18,620 4,707 5,670 10,990 8,663 240 2,246 3,543 54,680 4000 PT-CO 17,388 4,092 4,117 9,941 7,936 210 2,412 3,701 49,796 5000 SR-KG 11,607 1,938 1,315 6,541 2,491 197 997 876 25,961 5000 SR-KG 15,244 2,287 1,270 7,936 3,348 189 1,584 1,549 33,408 6000 RE&RU&VC 865 1,673 61 251 313 143 764 715 4,786 6000 RE&RU&VC 998 961 53 210 189 59 484 498 3,453 7000 GM-PW 2,919 3,469 400 2,171 1,946 770 1,998 1,999 15,672 7000 GM-PW 4,487 3,271 445 2,412 1,584 484 2,091 2,324 17,096 8000 LH-SA 4,348 2,092 478 3,758 1,388 750 2,110 877 15,802 8000 LH-SA 6,150 1,999 395 3,701 1,549 498 2,324 1,063 17,679 Total Board 64,633 22,139 20,956 55,037 26,623 4,817 15,482 16,109 225,796 Total Board 70,537 19,489 14,640 49,796 33,408 3,453 17,096 17,679 226,097
Cust. Satisf. Survey Factored ADT 2006 1000 WF-MN 2000 BW & CM 3000 NA-JY 4000 PT-CO 5000 SR-KG 6000 RE&RU&VC 7000 GM-PW 8000 LH-SA Total Alight
Note: Customer Satisfaction Survey 2005. OD Matrix developed by Ian Graham, BCRTC. Survey matrix has been factored up to 226,000 trips. This matrix represents the trips within SkyTrain only before the introduction of WCE.
It should be mentioned here that this survey matrix has also been used as a seed matrix for the matrix calibration process with TFlowFuzzy.
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 28
2.3.
West Coast Express
During the VISUM training in Vancouver in January 2007, the West Coast Express (WCE) was used as a test case for network modeling. Based on the results from the training workshop, West Coast Express was then completed in the model when large parts of this final report were already written and approved. As a result, the calibration report above had referred to SkyTrain alone. The following tables show run times, dwell times and distances for the WCE routes in VISUM. Dwell times are assumed as 0 given lack of data but are included in the run times. Table 11: WCE outbound: Distances, run and dwell times
Stop Waterfront (WCE) Port Moody Coquitlam Central Port Coquitlam (WCE) Pitt Meadows Maple Meadows Port Haney Mission Code WFW PM CC PC PM MM PH MS Distance (km) 0 21.8 3.4 2.3 7.4 1.8 5.2 25.5 Accum. distance 0 21.8 25.3 27.6 35.1 36.9 42.1 67.6 Run time 0s 21min 5min 6min 10min 4min 6min 21min Dwell time 0s 0s 0s 0s 0s 0s 0s 0s Accum. run time 0s 21min 26min 32min 42min 46min 52min 1h 13min
* Distance = from previous station. Table 12: WCE inbound: Distances, run and dwell times
Stop Mission Port Haney Maple Meadows Pitt Meadows Port Coquitlam (WCE) Coquitlam Central Port Moody Waterfront (WCE) Code MS PH MM PM PC CC PM WFW Distance (km) 0 25.5 5.2 1.8 7.4 2.3 3.4 21.8 Accum. distance 0 25.5 30.7 32.5 40 42.3 45.7 67.6 Run time 0s 17min 6min 4min 10min 6min 5min 25min Dwell time 0s 0s 0s 0s 0s 0s 0s 0s Accum. run time 0s 17min 23min 27min 37min 43min 48min 1h 13min
The methodology to develop the WCE (West Coast Express) ridership follows basically the methodology outlined for SkyTrain in section 2.2. The total ridership for West Coast Express has been derived from count data (source James Kirshin, WCE, 1/2006 and WCE scorecard research 9/2006). The total ridership on an average weekday is assumed to be 4,500 trips per direction, 9,000 ADT.
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 29
20% transfer at the Waterfront station into the SkyTrain system, which is why the total number of trips that are added to the SkyTrain 2006 demand is of 7,200 = 9,000 1,800 (see Table 7 on page 20 for the comparison of trip totals with and without WCE). The distribution of the desired departure time is not constant over all WCE riders. Using VISUMs zone-type dependent departure time distributions, three zone classes have been defined with appropriate time distributions. The following charts show boarding and alighting passengers in the VISUM model for the two termini, Waterfront and Mission stations: Figure 10: WCE 2006: Boardings and alights at Mission and Waterfront stations
Arrival and departure at Waterfront
Arrival and departure at Mission:
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 30
The boarding totals in the model replicate the 2006 survey data very well, as the following table shows: Table 13: WCE 2006: Total boardings per station (VISUM vs. count)
Station No. 677 675 681 676 682 678 679 999 Code MI PH MM PM PC CC PM WF Name Mission Port Haney Maple Meadows Pitt Meadows Port Coquitlam Coquitlam Central Port Moody Waterfront WCE count Jan-2006 AM AM On Off 615 435 765 365 875 840 610 0 2 5 5 9 70 59 69 4,288 VISUM 2006 AM Am On Off 615 436 765 366 873 838 608 0 2 5 5 8 67 56 66 4,289 WCE count Jan-2006 PM PM On Off 2 6 6 11 45 77 84 4,260 624 437 765 372 790 921 580 0 VISUM 2006 PM PM On Off 2 6 6 10 43 75 81 0 626 439 767 374 792 923 581 4,277
The following screenshot from VISUMs timetable editor shows the operating scheme of WCE where five trains run into town in the morning and out of town in the afternoon. The total number of passengers in the train is shown for each segment in each run. These numbers are fairly consistent with the counted volumes. Figure 11: WCE 2006: Ridership along all 10 runs in VISUMs timetable editor
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 31
3.
Operational Scenarios for SkyTrains Existing Fleet
This chapter describes results from an analysis of operating scenarios for the current SkyTrain system. The goal of this scenario analysis is to help understand the potential needs for the expansion of the SkyTrain fleet. While the VISUM model can be used for a complete 24 hour analysis, we focused on the AM peak for this study. The reason for focusing on the AM peak it that major capacity problems in the current SkyTrain system occur during the morning peak. The system fleet requirement is determined by the operations required to satisfy this demand. The methodology of this study followed three major steps: At first all possible operational choices were enumerated and analyzed in spreadsheets to find the promising options (section 3.2). Then, an optimized version of each scenario was implemented as a VISUM model (section 3.3). Each of these final scenarios is included in the RTM master network that has been delivered at the end of the project. The final evaluation (3.4) presents a few performance measures for each scenario, using average peak capacities. The analysis in this chapter is based on the existing fleet and the existing demand. Later in this report, this study will be extended to future conditions (chapter 4).
3.1.
Fleet
Definition of Fleet, Route Schemes, Run Times
During the analysis conducted for this report, it is assumed that only the existing fleet, consisting of 150 Mark I cars and 60 Mark II cars, is available. The goal is to leave about 8% of the fleet as spare in the yard for maintenance work (on an average operating weekday). Route Schemes Four scenarios were selected for this analysis: Base 2006: Existing network with the two lines Expo and Millennium, operating in parallel between WF and CO. Scenario 1: Break the Millennium Line at Columbia (CO), resulting in one shorter Millennium route. Scenario 1a: Like scenario 1, but with full length (WF-KG) and short-turn (WF-MT) Expo patterns. Scenario 2: Split the Millennium Line at Lougheed (LH) into two routes.
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 32
Figure 12: Three SkyTrain route schemes Base (Existing Network 2006)
Scenario 1 Break@CO
Scenario 2 Split Tail
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 33
Line Run Times The run and dwell times for the new routes have been derived from the existing times. The only changes that have been entered relative to the existing network concern dwell and turn-around times at the new termini: o Scenario 1: For the Millennium line we assume 30 seconds dwell at COI as well as COO to pick up or drop off passengers; then 115 seconds turn-around time at CO-switch, which is modeled in part as run and in part as dwell time in VISUM (note that these 115 s do not include the 30 s scheduled dwell time at CO platforms). Scenario 1A: For the Expo-2 line (WF-MT) we assume 18 seconds dwell at each of the MT platforms (MTI and MTO) to pick up / drop off passengers; plus 84 seconds turn around time at the switch east of MT. In a review by BCRTC, these particular assumptions have been assessed as being optimistic. 30 s instead of 18 s, and 100 s instead of 84 s would be more realistic. At future implementations of this or similar scenarios the times should be adjusted. At the time of this report it can be said that these minor differences would not change the general outcome and the conclusions in regard to the performance of scenario 1A. Scenario 2: Millennium-1 line (WF-LH): 30 seconds dwell at LHI as well as LHO, 115 seconds total turn-around time at LH-switch (run and dwell in VISUM) Scenario 2: Millennium-2 line (VC-LH): 30 seconds dwell at LHI as well as LHO, 120 seconds total turn-around time at LH-switch (run and dwell in VISUM)
3.2.
Enumeration and Selection of Operational Concepts
The first step of the fleet-capacity analysis has been an enumeration of possible operational concepts for the existing fleet and evaluation of the resulting link capacities and headways. The goal was to get a quick overview of the range of possible solutions. This analysis has been conducted on spreadsheets, where the VISUM software has mainly supplied inputs at this time. This analysis step has been conducted for scenario 1 and 2, but not for 1a.
3.2.1. Assumptions
The simplified line blockings compute an average capacity based on the following assumptions: o o o o Existing fleet with 8% spare trains (8% reserve) Used train types: 2 car Mark I, 4 car Mark I, 6 car Mark I, 2 car Mark II, 4 car Mark II All models runs and results reflect the AM peak period only. All other assumptions for the three scenarios as outlined under section 3.3.1 of this report.
19-Feb-2007
PTV America Inc.
Rapid Transit Model
Page 34
The following round trip times including empty/recovery times have been assumed for the spreadsheet analysis. These times are consistent with the VISUM network model. Note that the recovery times at the layover are here a given input, where they would be the result of line blocking in VISUM. Table 14: Run and layover times assumed for the screening of alternatives
Base 2006 Expo [Time in minutes] VISUM run and dwell time Assumed layover & recovery time Round trip time WF-KG 82.5 3.9 86.4 Millennium WF-VC 120.6 3.5 124.2 Scenario 1 (break at CO) Expo WF-KG 82.5 3.9 86.4 Millennium CO-VC 59.4 2.3 61.7 Expo WF-KG 82.5 3.9 86.4 Scenario 2 (Split Tail) Mill. 1 WF-LH 80.9 2.3 83.1 Mill. 2 LH-VC 43.9 2.3 46.1
To start the development of new operational alternatives, minimum desired capacities have been determined for all line segments of the network. The desired capacity is derived as the maximum passenger volume observed during 15 minutes on any station-station-link in the VISUM-2006 model on all links of a particular network segment. For the three operating schemes, the desired capacities have then been derived for each line. Note that in case of parallel operations of Expo and Millennium, the desired capacity is divided accordingly. These desired capacities are shown in the following table as they have been used as inputs for the alternative screening: Table 15: Desired 15-minute capacities per network section and line route
Desired capacity per network section: WF-BW: 2750, BW-CO: 2500, CO-KG: 1200, VC-LH: 600, LH-CO: 450 Desired capacity per route section: Base 2006 Expo Millennium WF-KG 2,150 WF-VC 600 Scen.1 (Break@CO) Expo Millennium WF-KG 2,750 CO-VC 600 Scen.2 (Split Tail) Expo Mill. 1 Mill. 2 WF-KG 2,300 WF-LH 450 LH-VC 600
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 35
It is notable, that the current operations do not meet the desired capacities everywhere. The desired 15-minute capacity on the section WF-BW would be of 2,750. The current operations achieve an average capacity of approximately 1,850 for the Expo line and 750 for the Millennium line, with a total combined capacity of 2,600 = 1,850+750 on the network section WF-BW.
3.2.2. Screening of Alternatives

The following three charts try to visualize the many combinations of operational parameters that have been tried in the enumeration of alternatives. The goal of these charts is to understand the problem and its solution space. As the charts have only two or three dimensions, their ability to demonstrate the full complexity of a multi-dimensional optimization problem is certainly limited. The desired capacities for WF-KG and CO-LH are shown as black horizontal lines. Each dot represents a possible combination of headway and train assignment for both the Expo and the Millennium lines. For scenario 2, only Millennium-1 is plotted. To each blue dot (representing the Expo line) there is a corresponding yellow dot representing the Millennium lines capacity. The corresponding dots share the same value on the X-axis. The X-axis stands for the Expo lines headway WF-KG) where the Millennium lines headway is not shown. Figure 13: SkyTrain 2006 Base scenario: Alternative screening
2700 2500
Avg. 15-Minute-Capacity per Line
2300 2100 1900 1700 1500 1300 1100 900 700 500 300 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 Expo WF-KG Millenium WF-VC Desired cap Expo Desired cap Millenium
Headway on the Main Line WF-CO
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 36
Figure 14: SkyTrain 2006 scenario 1 (Break@CO): Alternative screening

2700 2500
2300 2100 1900 1700 1500 1300 1100 900 700 500 300 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 Expo WF-KG Millenium CO-VC Desired cap EXPO Desired cap Millenium
Figure 15: SkyTrain 2006 scenario 2 (Split Tail): Alternative screening

2700 2500
2300 2100 1900 1700 1500 1300 1100 900 700 500 300 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 Expo WF-KG Millenium-1 WF-LH Desired cap Expo Desired cap Millenium
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 37
Conclusions According to this enumeration of alternatives and the quick evaluation, it appears that among all screened fleet assignments of the three different route schemes, the existing operational scheme is a relatively efficient concept to maximize capacity with the available fleet. This screening analysis also indicates that it will be a very difficult task to solve the current capacity problems in the SkyTrain system without fleet expansion. The most important result, however, has been to have starting points for the operational assumptions that have been entered into the next step, the more detailed scenario analysis in VISUM.
3.3.
Detailed VISUM Analysis of Operational Scenarios
After the screening of many operational options, as described in the previous section, one promising option has been selected for each route scheme and then implemented in VISUM to analyze effects on the volume-capacity ratio at various segments. So far the desired capacities (see Table 15) have been obtained based on passenger assignment results of the existing Base case. However, changes in route and schedules will have an effect on passengers route choices. In fact only after testing the impact of a new operational concept on the passenger flows, can it be concluded if the capacities will be sufficient. The detailed analysis of each scenario in VISUM develops a complete and consistent picture of the demand side and the operations side and the interaction between all the different elements of the SkyTrain system, including: Route schemes (itinerary, station service, run and dwell times); Headways (elaborated as exact schedules); Fleet assignment and line blocking; Passenger flow (path choice, train loadings, transfers).
At this time, the analysis has been preformed with the existing fleet and the existing ridership. Operating scenarios for SkyTrain with future ridership will be presented in Chapter 4.
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 38
3.3.1. Definition of the Scenarios

In addition to the assumptions listed in 3.1, the following operational assumptions have been taken Scenario 1 Break @ CO From all screened operational options, the choice fell on one that provided maximal capacity while fulfilling other operational constraints, for example an Expo headway over 140 s to allow the Millennium trains to turn at Columbia. As a result Expo is operated with a longer headway and larger trains. Scenario 1a Break @ CO with shorter Expo pattern Scenario 1a has been developed based on lessons learned from the shortcomings of scenario 1. The Expo line is split into two patterns: a long one from KG to WF and a shorter one serving only from MT to WF, where the highest need for capacity is. Scenario 2 Split - Tail This implementation of scenario 2 is characterized by the following assumptions: Millennium is split into two patterns: VC-LH and LH-WF. The combined headway on the segment WF CO is 109 seconds, where one Millennium train (WF<->LH) is followed by four Expo trains. The segment between CO and LH is serviced with a 9:05 minutes headway.
3.3.2. Assumptions and Results at a Glance

The following tables present for each scenario first the major operational characteristics, like the headways and train assignments that have been chosen; a second table for each scenario shows some key measures of performance, including operational performance as well performance for the passengers. In the following tables (Table 16 through Table 23) all performance statistics referring to Millennium always represent all Millennium trains over their entire route (WF-VC), including the km and hours when they travel in parallel with the Expo Line (CO-WF).
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 39
Base 2006 Table 16: SkyTrain 2006 Base scenario: General operational assumptions Line From - To Headway AM Peak # of blocks/trains AM Peak # of blocks per train type 2-car Mark I 4-car Mark I 6-car Mark I 2-car Mark II 4-car Mark II Total fleet used, AM Peak: Expo WF KG 162 s in avg. (2 min 42 s) 32 Millennium WF VC 324 s (5 min 24 s) 23
--25 9 ---14 7 -136 Mark I (9% spare) and 56 Mark II (7% spare)
Table 17: SkyTrain 2006 Base scenario: Ridership and operations statistics Line Train KM 7-9 h Train 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 Max 15-min vol * 2,842 2,751 1,376 626 480 3,488 3,587 0 Avg 15-min cap * 2,655 2,533 1,681 719 718 Max v/c ratio * 107 106 82 87 67 Expo 2,423 57.8 277,714 6,455 7,075 Millennium 1,845 44.2 207,202 4,841
* 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 15-min vol / avg 15-min cap.
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 40
Scenario 1 Break @ CO Table 18: SkyTrain 2006 scenario 1: General operational assumptions Line From - To Headway AM Peak # of blocks/trains AM Peak # of blocks per train type 2-car Mark I 4-car Mark I 6-car Mark I 2-car Mark II 4-car Mark II Total fleet used, AM Peak: Expo WF KG 152 s (2 min 32 s) 33 Millennium CO VC 370 s (6 min 10 s) 10
---1 22 -4 9 7 -136 Mark I (9% spare) and 54 Mark II (10% spare)
Table 19: SkyTrain 2006 scenario 1: Ridership and operations statistics Line Train KM 7-9 h Train 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 Max 15-min vol * 3,196 2,369 1,359 1,131 433 5,641 4,512 0 Avg 15-min cap * 2,565 2,561 2,546 601 606 Max v/c ratio * 125 92 53 188 71 Expo 2,744 65.4 362,964 8,516 10,153 Millennium 797 19.3 105,722 2,431
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 41
Scenario 1A Break @ CO with two Expo patterns Table 20: SkyTrain 2006 scenario 1A: General operational assumptions Line From - To Headway AM Peak # of blocks/trains AM # of blocks per train type 2-car Mark I 4-car Mark I 6-car Mark I 2-car Mark II 4-car Mark II Total fleet used, AM: Expo 1 WF KG 162 s avg (2 min 42 s) 32 Expo 2 WF MT 324 s (5 min 24 s) 8 Millennium CO VC 246 s (4 min 6 s) 15
---25 4 5 ----4 10 7 --136 Mark I (9% spare) and 56 Mark II (7% spare)
Table 21: SkyTrain 2006 scenario 1A: Ridership and operations statistics Line Train KM 7-9 h Train 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 Max 15-min vol * 2,871 2,517 1,391 979 442 5,603 4,599 0 Avg 15-min cap * 2,675 2,212 1,681 955 951 Max v/c ratio * 107 97 83 103 46 Expo (1+2) 2,980 72.8 365,335 8,562 10,202 Millennium 1,195 29.1 105,520 2,425
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 42
Scenario 2 Split Tail Table 22: SkyTrain 2006 scenario 2: General operational assumptions Line From - To Headway AM Peak # of blocks/trains AM # of blocks per train type 2-car Mark I 4-car Mark I 6-car Mark I 2-car Mark II 4-car Mark II Total fleet used, AM: Expo WF KG 136 s (2 min 16 s) 37 Millennium - 1 WF LH 545 s (9 min 5 s) 9 Millennium - 2 LH VC 229 s (3 min 49 s) 12
--12 9 5 -10 --12 4 -6 --140 Mark I (7% spare) and 56 Mark II (7% spare)
Table 23: SkyTrain 2006 scenario 2: Ridership and operations statistics Line Train KM 7-9 h Train 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 Max 15-min vol * 3,218 2,586 1,244 692 410 4,909 2,219 1,464 Avg 15-min cap * 2,782 2,769 2,295 578 446 Max v/c ratio * 116 93 54 120 92 Expo 3,049 72.7 316,652 7,381 8,592 Millennium (1+2) 1,644 40.7 162,086 3,759
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 43
3.3.3. Volume/Capacity Analysis

Much attention during the SkyTrain fleet analysis has been put on the volume-capacity situation. According to TransLinks service standards, it is sufficient to look at total capacity (seats and standees) instead of seat-capacity. VISUM computes the passenger flow down to each train run (vehicle journey). These detailed numbers can be aggregated to small time periods. In the RTM files this analysis interval is currently set to 15 minutes over the entire day. VISUM provides then for each piece of the transit network (stop, route, route segment, link) 15-minute statistics on passenger flow and capacity. The problem with that method is that the capacity of an individual train run is added as a lump to only one time interval even that it serves passengers from two adjacent time intervals. As a result of this effect and aggravated by variations of train size we observe strong variations of the 15 minute capacities, which can be observed in Figure 16, which shows 15 minute capacities and passenger volumes for one particular link (BWI). Random capacity variations are obvious compared to the smooth curve of the passenger volumes. As a result, individual v/c ratios can randomly over- or under-estimate the service quality. Figure 16: Volume and capacity of one network link (BWI - Broadway inbound)
Broadway inbound: 15 minute link capacities over 24 hours
3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200
2200
Broadway inbound: 15 minute link loading (passengers) over 24 h

3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2300 l
PTV America Inc.
2300
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 44
Because of the capacity variations inherent to the current SkyTrain fleet composition and operations scheme, we use the 15 minute v/c ratios mainly to screen bottlenecks within one scenario, but not for scenario comparison. For comparison of scenarios we developed a v/c ratio based on an averaged capacity, which is shown in section 3.4. The following images and charts (Figure 17 through Figure 22) in this section however show all the original VISUM v/c ratios; as a result they give a good overview of where and when the bottle necks occur. However they should not be used as the final instrument for the direct comparison of scenarios due to the random variation of capacity and of some specific graphic representation issues discussed later. Figure 17: SkyTrain 2006 Base scenario: V/C ratios in network View (8:15 8:30)
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 45
Figure 18: SkyTrain 2006 scenario 1: V/C ratios in network View (8:15 8:30)
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 46
Figure 19: SkyTrain 2006 scenario 1A: V/C ratios in network View (8:30 8:45)
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 47
Figure 20: SkyTrain 2006 scenario 2: V/C ratios in network View (8:15 8:30)
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 48
The next set of time-space charts are very helpful to obtain a quick overview of the capacity performance over the entire network and over the entire time period of analysis. They have been made by importing a VISUM link report into MS Excel, using then Excels graphics to generate the actual chart. Because of Excels way of interpolating the numbers, extreme peaks are not easy to spot. This way Base2006 and Scenario 1a look less efficient in the inbound direction compared to scenario 1 and 2 than they really are. Scenario 1 and 2 have extreme peaks around 8:15 that are not well visible in this chart. As stated above, only averaged capacities should be used for scenario comparison. Note that we use here a possibly counter-intuitive presentation of the inbound and outbound directions for the Millennium line, to be consistent with train directions relative to Waterfront station: Expo line: inbound means KG towards WF Millennium line: inbound means towards WF from VC via SA//CO.
Figure 21: Time-space distribution of VC ratio in percent, Inbound direction Base 2006 Scenario 1 Scenario 1a Scenario 2
BU WF GV BU ST GV MN ST BW MN NA BW TN NA JY TN PT JY MT PT RO MT ED RO TS ED NW TS CO NW XX CO SR XX GW SR SC GW KG SC SA XX BD SA LH BD PW LH LC PW SP LC HO SP BR HO GM BR RU GM RE RU CM RE VC CM
600
630
700
730
800
830
900
600
630
700
730
800
830
900
600
630
700
730
800
830
900
600
630
700
730
800
830
0-10
10-20
20-30
30-40
40-50
50-60
60-70
70-80
80-90
900
90-100
100-110
110-120
PTV America Inc.
930
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 49
In the outbound direction the charts visualize that scenarios 1 and 2 provide insufficient capacity on the main Millennium branch from Sapperton (SA) to VCC-Clark (VC). Figure 22: Time-space distribution of VC ratio in percent, outbound direction Base 2006
W
Scenario 1
W
Scenario 1a
W
Scenario 2
WF BU BU GV GV ST ST MN MN BW BW NA NA TN TN JY JY PT PT MT MT RO RO ED ED TS TS NW NW CO CO XX XX SR SR GW GW SC SC KG
X
600
630
700
730
800
830
900
600
630
700
730
800
830
900
930
600
630
700
730
800
830
900
930
930
600
630
700
730
800
830
900
0-10
10-20
20-30
30-40
40-50
50-60
60-70
70-80
80-90
90-100
100-110
110-120
PTV America Inc.
930
XX SA SA BD BD LH LH PW PW LC LC SP SP HO HO BR BR GM GM RU RU RE RE CM CM VC
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 50
3.3.4. Detailed Ridership Analysis

An important question for the analysis of the new route schemes is to what extent they will increase the total number of transfers that SkyTrain passengers will have to perform. The transfers computed by VISUMs timetable based passenger assignment reflect the headways and to a small degree also the coordination of schedules on transfer stations. Also the assumptions of walking time within the transfer stations are taken into account. Note that the following transfer statistics for 2006 show only transfers within the SkyTrain system. They do not include transfers from SkyTrain to WCE, nor from SkyTrain to any other mode. Table 24: SkyTrain 2006: Total number of transfers, AM 5:00-9:00 Total number of transfers Base 2006 Break@CO 1 Break@CO 1A Split Tail 2 6,650 10,550 10,550 9,300 Number of trips with one transfer 6,650 10,550 10,550 7,600 Number of trips with two transfers 0 0 0 850
The following charts give a detailed view on the transfer activity during the AM period: Figure 23: SkyTrain 2006: Transfers during AM at BW-CM
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 51
Figure 24: SkyTrain 2006: Transfers during AM at CO
Figure 25: SkyTrain 2006: Transfers during AM at LH
Note: The current operating scheme is optimal in terms of minimizing transfers. The Break@CO scenario increases the number of transfers during AM by 60%, the Split-Tail scenario by 40%.
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 52
3.3.5. Operational Review

In the following we present a review of the scenarios by BCRTC regarding the operational feasibility and additional operational concerns that are not reflected in VISUMs operations model: Scenario 1A: As mentioned earlier, the turn-around times and dwell times at MT for the shorter Expo route have been assumed shorter than operationally desired. Overall 16 s more turn-around and 12 s more platform dwell time would be needed. This flaw in our assumptions would however not influence the overall performance of scenario 1A and outcome of the study. Scenario 2: The headway of 9:05 minutes between CO and LH is very low compared to the current service quality standards. Lowering this headway would however increase the capacity problems on the major bottlenecks. Some of the proposed fleet assignments use a high degree of differentiation of train sizes (especially scenario 2). If lines share a common terminus (as Expo and Millennium in base2006 do at WF), the train control system can not avoid switching trains sometimes from one line to the other. Currently the only mitigation is manual intervention (holding back trains at COI to change the sequence of arrival at WF), which is limited in the case of high service frequencies. In other words, very sophisticated train assignments can be limited in regard to operational feasibility.
All in all, scenario 2 does not appear to be a good operational alternative while 1A introduces significant operational complications.
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 53
3.4.
Summary and Conclusions
The four operating scenarios are relatively similar in terms of operational characteristics (train KM and spare percentage). Scenario 1 would save on train KM and fleet usage, where all other scenarios are relatively close in these two measures. Scenario 2 provides a lower spare ratio than the existing operating scheme. Figure 26: SkyTrain operating scenarios 2006: Performance summary (1)
Train km 7:00-9:00 * 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 Base 06 Scen 1 Scen 1a Scen 2 4710 4320 3530
10% 8.3% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% Base 06 Scen 1 Scen 1a Scen 2
Spare Capacity
9.6% 8.3% 6.7%
4440
Note: theoretical train km if peak headway is sustained until 9:00
Transfers 7:00-9:00 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 8000 0 Base 06 Scen 1 Scen 1a Scen 2 10000 BW /CM CO LH 12000
Pass. hours spent in trains 7:00-9:00
11300 10950 10990
11140
Base 06
Scen 1
Scen 1a
Scen 2
Note: Transfers within the SkyTrain system only.
In terms of ridership measures, all tested scenarios will force the passengers to do more transfers than in the existing network. Scenarios 1 and 1a will significantly increase transfer volume at CMBW, which might stretch the station capacity. There is however a benefit for passengers as the overall time spent for travel in trains can be shortened in all scenarios.
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 54
Figure 27: SkyTrain operating scenarios 2006: Performance summary (2)

V/C Ratio - Netw ork segm ent WF-BW 150 3000 125 2500 100 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Base 06 Scen 1 Scen 1A Scen 2 75 50 25 0
3000 125 2500 100 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Base 06 Scen 1 Scen 1A Scen 2 75 50 25 0 V/C Ratio - Netw ork segm ent BW-MT 150
V/C Ratio - Netw ork segm ent CO-KG 150 3000 125 2500 100 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Base 06 Scen 1 Scen 1A Scen 2
V/C Ratio - Netw ork segm ent CO-LH
Max 15 min Vol Avg 15 min Cap V/C ratio
75 50 25 0
V/C Ratio - Netw ork segm ent LH-CM 150 3000 125 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Base 06 Scen 1 Scen 1A Scen 2 100 75 50 25 0
2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 3000
150 125 100 75 50 25 0 Base 06 Scen 1 Scen 1A Scen 2
None of the scenarios is able to improve the current capacity situation: Scenario 1 fails to provide sufficient capacity on the sections BWWF as well as LHCM. Scenario 1a has been designed to cope with these problems. On the critical section (BW inbound to WF) this scenario provides an AM peak V/C ratio of 107%, which is equal to the current operating scheme. The headways on individual routes in this scenario are optimal;
19-Feb-2007
PTV America Inc.
Rapid Transit Model
Page 55
there might be a small improvement possibility by shifting some train capacity from the longer to the shorter Expo pattern. Overall this scenario is the best alternative to the current scheme. Scenario 2 is not capacity efficient, as it is far from providing enough capacity on the section WBWF while wasting capacity on the Expo tail MTCOKG.
Based on our analyses of multiple performance measures in the areas of operations, ridership and capacity, it appears that the current SkyTrain operations are relatively optimal. None of the alternative operating schemes can significantly relieve the current capacity shortcomings without creating new capacity problems or other negative side-effects. Only scenario 1a appears to be a serious operational alternative, while it creates additional transfers especially at the saturated BW station. The current operational scheme has also the advantage of simplicity where the alternative scenarios are characterized by increased scheduling and operational complexity. So far the analysis of operational scenarios has been based on the assumption that only the current existing fleet of 150 Mark I cars and 60 Mark II cars is available. Some following analyses will develop concepts for an expanded fleet that is expected to be available as early as 2009. The scenarios developed during this study will provide the basis for the development of concepts for the future SkyTrain operation with an expanded fleet.
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 56
4.
Future Rapid Transit Network 2010 and 2021
This chapter summarizes the modeling of the future rapid transit system in the Vancouver area. To obtain a complete picture of the future in VISUM, projections for both the demand side and the supply side were prepared. The first section (4.1) of this chapter describes the approach to develop the future passenger demand for 2010 and 2021. Section 4.2 summarizes the model of the Canada Line, which is scheduled to start operations in 2009. Section 4.3 presents the Evergreen Line as an LRT system, which is planned to start operations in 2011. The future demand for West Coast Express follows in 4.4 and SkyTrain operations are developed in 4.5. Section 4.6 describes intermodal transfer stations that were necessary to allow passenger flow between the different rapid transit systems. The final part 4.7 presents the results of integrated model runs for 2010 and 2021.
4.1.
Ridership Forecast
4.1.1. General Approach

The OD matrices for the existing SkyTrain ridership are based on counts only. This OD demand can be used (and has been used in this project) to forecast short-term route-choice and the corresponding shifts between different services. It is however insufficient to forecast the impacts of urban development, demographic changes or of shifts in regional mode choice and of the competition between transit and the automobile. Also the ridership for new transit services such as the Canada Line or the Evergreen Line need to be added from external forecasts, especially TransLinks strategic regional travel demand model that is run under the emme/2 platform. The approach used to develop the OD matrices for 2010 and 2021 keeps the count-based demand as a basis and adds external forecasts only as differentials for growth or new demand. These differentials are stored in individual OD matrices that then serve as components to build the entire trip table for a scenario.
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 57
4.1.2. Development of Demand Components

SkyTrain Growth The ridership growth on the SkyTrain network as a ridership component that is independent of the Evergreen line has been determined as follows: Differences between 2021-Base (no LRT) and 2004 emme AM link volumes are added to the VISUM 2006 link volumes to obtain theoretical 2021 AM link volumes (see Appendix). The differences in link volumes are also displayed in The methodology for the Evergreen line is analogous to the Canada Line, using the latest emme forecasts of 09/2006 only peak-hour link volumes were available in this case. The total demand for the Evergreen Line is about 6,100 trips. It has been assumed that 65% of the boardings at Lougheed (LH) will transfer from or to SkyTrain.
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 58
Figure 28. Matrix calibration has then been used to factor the 2006 AM matrix up to the desired 2021 AM volumes. The growth matrix 2021 has been derived as the difference matrix 2021 versus 2006. The 2010 growth has been derived as 24% of the 2021 growth. In general, the one-hour emme volumes have been multiplied by 2.2 to obtain a 4-hour AM volume (5:00-9:00). This factor is based on the SkyTrain boarding surveys.
Canada Line and Airport Passengers Table 25: Canada Line: Comparison of VISUM and emme ridership totals AM peak hour Total number of trips 2010 Total number of trips 2021 Section max. link loads 2010: Waterfront Bridgeport Airport Bridgeport Richmond Bridgeport Section max. link loads 2021: Waterfront Bridgeport Airport Bridgeport Richmond Bridgeport 4,880 1,460 2,140 4,740 1,530 2,260 4,450 960 1,680 4,230 1,050 1,800 VISUM 8,820 10,820 Emme/Halcrow 7/2005 9,020 10,860
The OD matrix for the Canada line has been developed based on published results by Halcrow/TSi on the Canada Line ridership. The approach has been as follows: Year 2010 and year 2021 one-hour OD matrices for AM peak and midday have been determined using VISUMs TFlowFuzzy method based on published Canada Line forecasts (station boardings and ridership totals). The number of trips in the one hour matrices replicate the total number of boardings in the Halcrow July-2005 forecast very well (without airport passengers): Furthermore, it is assumed that 5% of Canada line boardings at WF are transferring to/from SkyTrain. Canada Line peak hour volumes have been multiplied with 2.2 to obtain AM period demand (5:00-9:00). In addition, air passengers have been created as complementary matrices for the airport branch of
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 59
the Canada Line, as they were not included in the emme forecasts. Following the latest Halcrow forecast, 4,600 passengers per day are added for 2,010 (1.7 million divided by 365) and 6,300 in 2021. These air passenger OD matrices have been developed in spreadsheets based on the assumption that the weekday demand will be 70% business travelers and 30% private travelers, mainly to destinations downtown and also along the Canada Line and SkyTrain without exceeding one transfer.
Evergreen Line The methodology for the Evergreen line is analogous to the Canada Line, using the latest emme forecasts of 09/2006 only peak-hour link volumes were available in this case. The total demand for the Evergreen Line is about 6,100 trips. It has been assumed that 65% of the boardings at Lougheed (LH) will transfer from or to SkyTrain.
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 60
Figure 28: Evergreen Line: Difference volumes emme forecast for AM

Emme-AM forecast: Difference SkyTrain 2021Base 2004:
Emme-AM forecast: Difference 2021LRT - 2021Base
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 61
4.1.3. Total Demand for 2010 and 2021

Finally all the different demand components have been put together to obtain total ridership for 2010 and 2021. All the individual components are also available as individual matrices. The python script RidershipForecast.PY is part of the model data and documents how all components have been added up to the final matrices. The following tables present the trip totals for all demand components and how they have been added to a 2010 base scenario (without Evergreen Line) and a 2021 base scenario (including the Evergreen Line). Table 26: Rapid transit 2010: Ridership totals
2010 AM 5:00-9:00 53,500 4,100 200 19,400 1,400 0 78,500 Mid 9:00-15:00 65,000 5,300 0 38,700 1,100 0 110,200 PM 5:00-18:00 65,800 5,100 200 26,200 1,700 0 98,900 Eve 18:00-2:00 48,900 4,000 0 27,300 500 0 80,700 24 Hour Day 233,100 18,500 0 111,700 4,600 0 368,300
SkyTrain & WCE 2006 + SkyTrain growth + WCE growth + Canada Line demand + Airport demand + Evergreen Line demand Total Demand
Table 27: Rapid transit 2021: Ridership totals

2021 AM 5:00-9:00 53,500 17,000 900 23,800 1,900 11,200 108,200 Mid 9:00-15:00 65,000 22,200 0 44,800 1,500 14,600 148,100 PM 5:00-18:00 65,800 21,200 900 32,100 2,300 14,000 136,200 Eve 18:00-2:00 48,900 16,800 0 33,600 600 12,600 112,500 24 Hour Day 233,100 77,100 0 134,300 6,300 52,400 504,900
SkyTrain & WCE 2006 + SkyTrain growth + WCE growth + Canada Line demand + Airport demand + Evergreen Line demand Total Demand
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 62
4.2.
Canada Line
The Canada Line starts at Waterfront Station in downtown Vancouver and runs south across the Fraser River to Bridgeport, where the line splits with one branch to the YVR Airport and a second going to Richmond. The line is under construction and due to open in November 2009. Figure 29: Alignment and stations of the Canada Line in VISUM
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 63
The time and distance profile for both routes of the Canada line is assumed to be constant over the entire day. In other words, there is no difference in train speed or in dwell times at particular stops between the peak and the off-peak times. The following three tables display stop-to-stop distances and run times for both branches of the line: Table 28: Canada Line outbound: Distances, run and dwell dimes
Station Name Waterfront, outb. Vancouver City Centre Yaletown Roundhouse Olympic Village Broadway City Hall King Edward Oakridge - 41st Ave Langara - 49st Ave Marine Drive Bridgeport Templeton Sea Island Centre YVR Airport Aberdeen Lansdowne Richmond Terminus Code WFMO VAC YR OV BC KE OA LA MD BP TE SIC YVR AB LD RBO Length [km] -0.66 1.02 1.05 0.43 1.53 1.83 0.84 1.78 1.98 1.61 0.70 1.60 1.58 0.75 0.93 Accumulated length [km] 0 0.66 1.68 2.73 3.1 4.69 6.52 7.36 9.14 11.13 12.74 13.44 15.05 12.70 13.45 14.38 Station dwell time -16s 13s 15s 15s 14s 14s 13s 14s 18s 10s 11s -11s 12s -Segment run time at arrival -56s 1min 38s 1min 30s 1min 4s 2min 9s 2min 53s 1min 24s 2min 17s 2min 20s 2min 7s 1min 32s 2min 2s 2min 15s 1min 33s 1min 45s Accumulated run&dwell times at arr. 0s 56s 2min 50s 4min 33s 5min 52s 8min 16s 11min 23s 13min 1s 15min 31s 18min 5s 20min 30s 22min 12s 24min 25s 20min 38s 22min 22s 24min 19s
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 64
Table 29: Canada Line YVR inbound: Distances, run and dwell times
Station Name YVR Airport Sea Island Centre Templeton Bridgeport Marine Drive Langara - 49st Ave Oakridge - 41st Ave King Edward Broadway City Hall Olympic Village Yaletown Roundhouse Vancouver City Centre Waterfront, inb. Waterfront, Layover Waterfront, outb. Code YVR SIC TE BP MD LA OA KE BC OV YR VAC WFMI WFMT WFMO Length [km] -1.64 0.73 1.62 1.98 1.76 0.83 1.83 1.54 0.44 1.05 1.03 0.64 0.01 0.07 Accumulated length [km] 0 1.64 2.37 3.99 5.97 7.74 8.56 10.39 11.93 12.37 13.42 14.44 15.08 15.08 15.15 Station dwell time -11s 10s 18s 14s 13s 14s 14s 15s 15s 13s 16s 23s 1s -Segment run time at arrival -1min 58s 1min 36s 2min 12s 2min 12s 2min 17s 1min 24s 2min 52s 2min 13s 1min 4s 1min 27s 1min 37s 1min 16s 5s 33s Accumulated run&dwell times at arr. 0s 1min 58s 3min 45s 6min 7s 8min 37s 11min 8s 12min 45s 15min 51s 18min 18s 19min 37s 21min 19s 23min 9s 24min 41s 25min 9s 25min 43s
The implementation in VISUM has been based on up-to-date information at the Internet site http://www.canadaline.ca, and on updated results of a project undertaken by Halcrow/TSi ( Technical Memo Financial Close No.3, July, 21st 2005). The alignment in VISUM follows the Financial Close option, where the addition of the stop (Olympic Village) at 2nd Avenue and the deferral of the YVR3 Station were included. This revised Memo also provides information on travel times between stop points excluding dwell times at the stops. For the VISUM model, the original running times have been divided in run and dwell times. As a result the overall running times for the line are in good agreement with the revised report (Technical Memo). As no source was available for the dwell times themselves, an approximation has been used based on a regression of dwell times for the current SkyTrain system against boarding statistics. The following formula was used:
dwell time [sec] = 10 + 0.004 * passengers(boarding&alighting, 7:00-9:00 AM)
Halcrow forecasts for station boardings and alightings were used in the above formula to determine reasonable dwell times along the Canada line.
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 65
Table 30: Canada Line Richmond inbound: distances, run and dwell times
Station Name Richmond Terminus Lansdowne Aberdeen Bridgeport Marine Drive Langara - 49st Ave Oakridge - 41st Ave King Edward Broadway City Hall Olympic Village Yaletown Roundhouse Vancouver City Centre Waterfront, inb. Waterfront, Layover Waterfront, outb. Code RI LD AB BP MD LA OA KE BC OV YR VAC WFMI WFMT WFMO Length [km] -0.95 0.76 1.61 1.98 1.76 0.83 1.83 1.54 0.44 1.05 1.03 0.64 0.01 0.07 Accumulated length [km] 0 0.95 1.71 3.32 5.31 7.07 7.89 9.73 11.27 11.70 12.74 13.77 14.41 14.42 14.48 Station dwell time -12s 11s 18s 14s 13s 14s 14s 15s 15s 13s 16s 23s 1s -Segment run time at arrival -1min 39s 1min 33s 2min 23s 2min 12s 2min 17s 1min 24s 2min 52s 2min 13s 1min 4s 1min 27s 1min 37s 1min 16s 5s 33s Accumulated run&dwell times at arr. 0s 1min 39s 3min 24s 5min 58s 8min 28s 10min 59s 12min 36s 15min 42s 18min 9s 19min 28s 21min 10s 23min 24min 32s 25min 25min 34s
The resulting minimum time for a train round trip is approximately 52 minutes on each branch (without recovery times). For the passenger a one-way ride along the entire length of the line takes about 24.5 minutes, which corresponds to an average speed of 35km/h; (this operating speed is below SkyTrain). In the RTM, the Canada Line is modeled with a 6 min 20 s headway on both the Richmond and the Airport branches, which results in a combined service of 3 min 10 s between Bridgeport and Waterfront. This service is maintained during peak hour periods as well as mid-day until around 18:00. During the evening and night hours a 12 min 40 s service on each of the two branches is provided resulting in a 6 min 20 s headway on the section Waterfront Bridgeport (WF BP). The overall number of daily train runs of the Canada Line is 624. In the VISUM model, services of the Canada Line start at 5:30 from the airport and 5:27 from Richmond. Services from Waterfront start at 5:30 with the first train going to the airport. The following table summarizes operational characteristics of the line:
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 66
Table 31: Canada Line: Operational characteristics Seat capacity, single car Total capacity, single car Total train capacity, all day Headway, peak and mid-day (5:30-18:00) Headway, evening and night (18:00-1;30) Number of blocks, peak and mid-day Number of blocks, evening and night 42 167 334 (2 cars) 6 min 20 s (branches) 3 min 10 s (WF-BP) 12 min 40 s (branches) 6 min 20 s (WF-BP) 18 (9 on each branch) 9
Figure 30: Canada Line: Gantt chart of VISUMs line blocking
The 6 min 20 s headway of the Canada Line allows for a recovery time of at least 2 minutes at each terminus for all the blocks, which seems to be reasonable. A 6 min 0 s headway (which was the original plan that was dropped after adding an additional station) would cut down this recovery time too much.
PTV America Inc. 19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 67
The hourly segment capacity that results from this line blocking and train assignment is in the range of 6,350 (= 334 * 19) on the main segment WF-BP, which is highly sufficient to satisfy the demand forecast which states a maximum hourly segment load of 4,800 in 2021 during the AM peak on Bridgeport-Waterfront (both branches combined).
4.3.
Evergreen Line
The Evergreen Line connects Lougheed Town Centre station in Burnaby with neighborhoods in Port Moody and Coquitlam and will terminate at Douglas College. The line runs over a length of approximately 11km and is planned to open in 2011. The current alignment in the VISUM model has been based on traffic simulation work using VISSIM undertaken by PTV America Inc. as part of the DELCAN team on behalf of TransLink (as of September, 27th 2006). The option implemented has been referred to as option 2, where the Evergreen line serves 11 stations as shown in Figure 31. Figure 31: Evergreen Line: Stations and alignment in VISUM
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 68
Results from the VISSIM simulation have been used to determine travel times for the LRT system. Table 32 gives an overview of the Line route. The dwell times have been assumed between 10 and 30 seconds depending on the projected ridership activity on each stop, which is different from the VISSIM model that assumed 30 seconds on every stop. Table 32: Evergreen Line outbound - AM: Distances, run and dwell times
Station Name Lougheed, outb. Cameron Burquitlam Albert/Barnet Moody Buller Ioco Falcon Coquitlam Exchange Glen Douglas College, outb. Douglas C. Layover Douglas College, inb. Code LH CA BQ AL MO BUL IO FA CEX GL DCO DCT DCI Length [km] -1.08 0.99 2.40 1.28 0.73 1.03 0.60 1.33 1.02 0.63 0.03 0.08 Accumulated length [km] 0 1.08 2.07 4.47 5.75 6.49 7.52 8.11 9.45 10.46 11.09 12.12 12.20 Station dwell time -12s 12s 12s 12s 15s 12s 12s 15s 15s 30s 5min (30s) Segment run time at arrival -1min 26s 1min 9s 2min 46s 1min 34s 54s 2min 23s 40s 1min 35s 2min 6s 1min 14s 14s 34s Accumulated run&dwell times at arr. -1min 26s 2min 47s 5min 45s 7min 31s 8min 37s 11min 15s 12min 7s 13min 54s 16min 15s 17min 44s 18min 28s 24min 2s
The travel times listed in Table 32 and Table 33 refer to the AM time profile, derived from the VISSIM simulation. A PM time profile has been derived from AM by mirroring the run times, under the assumption that LRT run times depend on road traffic conditions with increased delays inbound in the morning and outbound in the afternoon. The Mid time profile is an average of the travel times of the peak periods (AM and PM). The AM and PM time profile provide travel times for the corresponding peak periods whereas the Mid profile reflects travel times of all off-peak times of the day, i.e. mid-day, evening, night.
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 69
Table 33: Evergreen Line inbound - AM: Distances, run and dwell times
Station Name Douglas College, inb. Glen Coquitlam Exchange Falcon Ioco Buller Moody Albert/Barnet Burquitlam Cameron Lougheed, inb. Lougheed, Layover Lougheed, outb. Code DCI GL CEX FA IO BUL MO AL BQ CA LH2I LH(LRT) LH2O Length [km] -0.68 0.96 1.40 0.51 1.12 0.73 1.22 2.40 1.06 1.00 0.14 0.20 Accumulated length [km] 0 0.68 1.64 3.04 3.55 4.67 5.40 6.62 9.02 10.08 11.08 11.22 11.42 Station dwell time -15s 15s 12s 12s 15s 12s 12s 12s 12s 30s 5min -Segment run time at arrival -1min 21s 1min 49s 1min 37s 31s 2min 41s 51s 2min 3s 2min 57s 1min 20s 1min 19s 24s 32s Accumulated run&dwell times at arr. 0 1min 21s 3min 25s 5min 17s 6min 8min 53s 9min 59s 12min 14s 15min 23s 16min 55s 18min 26s 19min 20s 24min 52s
As a result of run and dwell times (including 30 s at the terminus stations, and an assumed minimal layover time of 5 minutes), the minimal operational round trip time accumulates to approximately 49 minutes. For a passenger traveling the entire length of the route the one-way trip would however take less than 19 minutes. The average operational speed (including minimal layover time) equals 29 km/h. The passenger will however perceive an average travel speed of 37 km/h.
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 70
Table 34: Evergreen Line: Operational characteristics in VISUM Seat capacity, single car Total capacity, single car Total train capacity, peak and off-peak Headway, peak (6:00-9:00, 15:00-18:00) Headway, mid-day (9:00-15:00) Headway, evening (18:00-23:00) Headway, night (5:15-6:00, 23:00-1:30) Number of blocks, peak Number of blocks, mid-day Number of blocks, evening 64 210 420 / 210 alternating 2-car and 1-car LRT average capacity >= 315 6 min 7 min 30 s 10 min 15 min 9 (5 w/ 2-car, 4 w/ 1-car) 7 (4 w/ 2-car, 3 w/ 1-car) 6 (3 w/ 2-car, 3 w/ 1-car)
The hourly link capacity that results from this line blocking and train assignment is in the range of 3,250 (= 5.5 * 420 + 4.4 * 210), which is highly sufficient to satisfy the demand forecast which states a maximum hourly segment load of less than 2,500 passengers in 2021.
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 71
The following Gantt chart shows the line blocking for the Evergreen Line over 24 hours according to 2-car and 1-car trains. Figure 32: Evergreen Line: Gantt chart of VISUMs line blocking
4.4.
West Coast Express 2010 and 2021
At this time it is assumed that West Coast Express (WCE) operates exactly the same way in 2010 and 2021 as it does in 2006. The WCE ridership for 2021 has been projected based on the Evergreen LRT forecasts. According to this source, the number of passengers per direction of WCE will increase by 850 from 2006 to 2021 (1700 ADT). For 2010 we assume an increase of 200 per direction (400 ADT).
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 72
4.5.
SkyTrain Operations 2010 and 2021
In this section we present the development of SkyTrain operations for 2010 and 2021. The experience from the 2006 operations scenarios has been utilized. Table 35 presents the SkyTrain fleet assumptions. The fleet size does not influence the operational computations in VISUM directly, but is used to determine the total number of cars assigned and to compute the spare percentage. Table 35: SkyTrain assumed fleet 2010 and 2021 Year 2006 2009 2010 2011 2021 Mark I 150 150 150 150 0 Mark II 60 94 108 118 248 Assuming Evergreen to come that year 96 replacing the Mark-I plus 34 new Comment
Note: only 2006, 2010 and 2021 have been analyzed so far.
A first step towards operational scenarios for 2010 and 2021 has been an analysis of capacity in the AM peak. The following tables present key assumptions and statistics for 2006 in contrast to 2010 and 2021. To perform model runs for 24-hour operations in 2006, 2010 and 2021, reasonable assumptions for the SkyTrain operations have been developed. Two 2010 SkyTrain scenarios have been developed and analyzed. The scenario S0-xl (in the following also report scenario) has been implemented in detail in VISUM and is the basis for all the 2010 statistics and charts of this report. An alternative scenario S0b-xl probably the way of operations for 2010 has also been developed. However, the analysis is not yet complete. The implementation of this alternative scenario has been started in VISUM, but not yet with the necessary detail in scheduling and fleet assignment. Preliminary results are found in Appendix D. The report scenario S0-xl includes the following characteristics: Headways and line blocking for both Expo and Millennium are identical to the current operations in 2006 (with a combined headway of 108 s on WF CO during the peak). The fleet assignment for the 32 blocks of Expo Line is split between 22 blocks 6-car-Mark-I and 10 blocks 2-car-Mark-II. The fleet assignment for the 23 blocks of the Millennium Line
19-Feb-2007
PTV America Inc.
Rapid Transit Model
Page 73
is divided into 17 blocks 4-car-Mark-II and 6 blocks 2-car-Mark-II. Total fleet used: 132 Mark-I cars (88% of the expected fleet in 2010) and 100 Mark-II cars (93% of the expected fleet in 2010), which corresponds to 12% spare on the older Mark-I and 7% spare on the newer Mark-II.
The Alternative scenario S0b-xl has the following characteristics: Using the same route schemes as the current 2006 operations the combined headway for Expo and Millennium on WF CO is reduced to 128 s. This headway allows to operate on 47 blocks. This reduced number of trains allows to use only two types of train: 6-car-MarkI and 4-car-MarkII, both having an almost identical capacity of 450 or 476 respectively. This results in a smoother capacity curve, which makes this scenario very attractive for the projected 2010 fleet. Preliminary results can be found in Appendix D.
The 2021 SkyTrain operations have been defined as follows: Headways and line blocking for both Expo and Millennium as in 2006, but an additional Millennium-2 line runs between VC and LH with a 10 min 48 s headway, resulting in a combined average headway of all Millennium services in this section of 3 min 26 s. Fleet assignment Expo with all 32 blocks 4-car-Mark-II. Fleet assignment Millennium-main (VC-WF): all 23 blocks 4-car-Mark-II. Fleet assignment Millennium-2 (VC-LH): 5 blocks 2-car-Mark-II. Total fleet used: 230 Mark-II cars, which corresponds to 93% of the expected fleet in 2021 and 7% spare.
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 74
The major findings regarding SkyTrain capacity are: The proposed SkyTrain fleet expansion for 2010 and 2021 will improve the capacity situation despite an increasing ridership. Most current bottlenecks can be expected to be relieved to some degree. However the trains will remain full during peak hours. The proposed fleet expansions are designed to meet the ridership levels that have been forecasted. Ridership forecasts are however subject to a high degree of uncertainty. As a result there is strong risk that the future SkyTrain system might run into similar capacity shortages as they are observed today. The current time-dynamic passenger flow model assumes that the desired departure times remain the same as in 2006. The RTM currently does not include a prediction how the morning and evening peaks of passenger demand might spread out in the future. As the capacity constraints in the Rapid Transit System occur only during a very short time of the day, all policies that can lead to behavioral changes in departure time choice are certainly an important complement to the operational improvements that are analyzed with the RTM.
Technical notes regarding the following tables (Table 36 through Table 41) and the following Figure 33: All performance statistics referring to Millennium always represent all Millennium trains over their entire route (WF-VC), including the km and hours when they travel in parallel with the Expo Line (CO-WF). The tables are extremely similar to those shown in section 3.3.2. However, the two base cases (2006) are not identical: the OD matrices for 2006 have been slightly adjusted after computation the fleet requirements scenarios. And West Coast Express has been added which gave the OD matrices a little bit different turn too. In short: the numbers can be a little bit different because they refer to different files, but overall the results are very close.
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 75
Table 36: SkyTrain 2006: General operational assumptions Line From - To Headway AM Peak # of blocks/trains AM Peak # of blocks per train type 4-car Mark I 6-car Mark I 2-car Mark II 4-car Mark II Total fleet used, AM Peak: Expo WF KG 162 s in avg. (2 min 42 s) 32 Millennium WF VC 324 s (5 min 24 s) 23
25 9 ---14 7 -132 Mark I (12% spare) and 100 Mark II (7% spare)
Table 37: SkyTrain 2006: Ridership and operations statistics Line Train KM 7-9 h Car km 7-9 h Car km, Mark I Car km, Mark II Train hours 7-9 h Car hours 7-9 h Passenger KM 7-9 h Passenger hours 7-9 h Total transfers 7-9 h Transfers at BW / CM Transfers at CO Transfers at LH Capacity analysis 7-9 h: WF BW BW CO CO KG LH VC CO LH Max 15-min vol * 2,873 2,760 1,373 666 494 Expo 2,423 9,692 7,572 2,120 57.8 231.2 278,120 6,467 7,076 3,489 3,587 0 Avg 15-min cap * 2,655 2,585 1,681 719 718 Max v/c ratio * 108 107 82 93 69 Millennium 1,845 5,134 2,888 2,246 44.2 122.9 208,019 4,860
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 76
Table 38: SkyTrain 2010 (S0-xl Report Scenario): General operational assumptions Line From - To Headway AM Peak # of blocks/trains AM Peak # of blocks per train type 4-car Mark I 6-car Mark I 2-car Mark II 4-car Mark II Total fleet used, AM Peak: Expo WF KG 162 s in avg. (2 min 42 s) 32 Millennium WF VC 324 s (5 min 24 s) 23
--13 9 --14 11 132 Mark I (12% spare) and 100 Mark II (7% spare)
Table 39: SkyTrain 2010 (S0-xl Report Scenario): Ridership and operations statistics Line Train KM 7-9 h Car km 7-9 h Car km, Mark I Car km, Mark II Train hours 7-9 h Car hours 7-9 h Passenger KM 7-9 h Passenger hours 7-9 h Total transfers 7-9 h Transfers BW / CM Transfers CO Transfers LH Capacity analysis 7-9 h: WF BW BW CO CO KG LH VC CO LH Max 15-min vol * 3,146 2,966 1,578 809 566 Expo 2,423 11,509 9,995 1,514 57.8 274.6 311,693 7,239 8,038 4,073 3,965 0 Avg 15-min cap * 3,301 3,242 1,936 1,135 1,140 Max v/c ratio * 95 92 82 71 50 Millennium 1,845 6,417 0 6,417 44.2 153.6 234,392 5,475
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 77
Table 40: SkyTrain 2021 (S0a-xxl): General operational assumptions Line From - To Headway AM Peak # of blocks/trains AM # of blocks per train type 4-car Mark I 6-car Mark I 2-car Mark II 4-car Mark II Total fleet used, AM: Expo WF - KG 162 s (2 min 42 s) 32 Millennium 1 WF - VC 342 s (5 min 24 s) 23 Millennium 2 LH - VC 684 s (10 min 48 s) 5
5 32 23 230 Mark II (7% spare)
Table 41: SkyTrain 2021 (S0a-xxl): Ridership and operations statistics Line Train KM 7-9 h Car km 7-9 h Car km, Mark I Car km, Mark II Train hours 7-9 h Car hours 7-9 h Passenger KM 7-9 h Passenger hours 7-9 h Total transfers 7-9 h Transfer at BW / CM Transfer at CO Transfer at LH Capacity analysis 7-9 h: WF BW BW CO CO KG LH VC CO LH Max 15-min vol * 3,917 3,538 2,203 1,560 995 Expo 2,423 9,692 0 9,692 57.8 231.2 389,952 9,034 14,588 6,342 5,499 2,747 Avg. 15-min cap * 3,948 3,894 2,415 1,590 1,305 Max v/c ratio * 99 91 91 98 76 Millennium 1 + 2 2,147 7,984 0 7,984 51.8 192.8 333,311 7,761
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 78
Figure 33: SkyTrain 2006, 2010 and 2021: AM peak operations analysis
Car KM 7:00 9:00
20000
5000 4000 3000
Train KM 7:0 9:00
15000
10000
2000
5000
1000 0
2006
2010
2021
2006
2010
2021
Expo
Millennium
Expo
Millennium
Transfers 7:00-9:00 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 BW /CM CO
Pass. hours spent in trains 7:00-9:00 18000 16000 14000 12000 10000 11330 12710
16800
2000 0 2006 2010 2021
8000 2006 2010 2021
Figure 34: SkyTrain 2006, 2010 and 2021: AM peak volume/capacity analysis
2006
4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 BW-WF MT-BW KG-CO LH-CM CO-LH 0 50 25 100 125
2010
4,000 3,500 3,000
75
2021
125 100 75 50 25 0
4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 BW-WF MT-BW KG-CO LH-CM CO-LH
125 100 75 50 25 0
2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 BW-WF MT-BW KG-CO LH-CM CO-LH
Max 15 min Vol
Avg 15 min Cap
V/C ratio
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 79
4.6.
Intermodal Transfer Stations
The network extensions made it necessary to create additional transfer stations to allow transition between the different rapid transit systems. Figure 35: Intermodal transfer stations in the extended model
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 80
In the existing case, only the VISUM stop Broadway Commercial with two stop areas and Columbia with one stop area had transfer activity. All five transfer stops in the extended model are modeled with up to two stop areas and a walking time matrix, using VISUMs hierarchical stop model. The transfer between Granville (GV) and Vancouver City Center (VAC) is a special case as it is modeled using a walking link. At this time with respect to the limitations of the current passenger model, no intermodal transfer is modeled in the Coquitlam area where two stations would enable to transfer between WCE and the Evergreen line.
4.7.
Integrated 24-Hour Model Results for 2006, 2010 and 2021
The following figures and tables show a selection of graphical and statistical outputs, from both the operations and the ridership sides for all three integrated model runs: 2006, 2010 an 2021. Figure 36: Rapid transit 24-hour passenger flows in network view, 2006
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 81
Figure 37: Rapid transit 24-hour passenger flows in network view, 2010
Figure 38: Rapid transit 24-hour passenger flows in network view, 2021
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 82
In the following Table 42 and Figure 39 all performance statistics referring to Millennium always represent all Millennium trains over their entire route (WF-VC), including the km and hours when they travel in parallel with the Expo Line (CO-WF). Table 42: Rapid transit network 2006, 2010 and 2021: 24 hour model results
2006 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 (3 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
* SkyTrain 2010 Report Scenario S0-xl
2010* 368,300 332,500 34,600 1,100 0 36,700 405,000 146,100 131,800 9,400 117,600 0 1,669,600 1,294,200 323,900 929,700 0 32 23 5 16 0 5,225,400 5,697,000 1,440,500 1,548,500 0 12,988,900 14,000,200 3,484,600 6,157,300 0
2021 504,900 436,400 63,100 5,300 0 73,700 578,500 181,800 190,500 10,700 143,200 52,400 2,064,100 1,937,900 368,300 1,101,300 239,400 32 28 5 16 9 5,240,500 5,705,800 1,440,500 1,548,500 667,600 14,972,900 16,302,300 3,484,600 6,157,300 2,190,600
233,100 212,500 20,400 200 0 20,800 253,900 127,200 117,800 9,000 0 0 1,457,600 1,130,100 309,900 0 0 32 23 5 0 0 4,595,900 3,631,500 1,440,500 0 0 10,138,000 8,773,500 3,484,600 0 0
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 83
Figure 39: Rapid transit 24-hour model statistics comparing 2006, 2010 and 2021 Unlinked trips per line:
600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 2006 2010 2021
6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 0 2006 2010 2021
Passenger KM per line:
Expo
Millennium
Canada
Evergreen
WCE
Expo
Millennium
Canada
Evergreen
WCE
Seat KM per line

16,000,000 14,000,000 12,000,000 10,000,000 8,000,000 6,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 0 2006 2010 2021
Total capacity KM per line

45,000,000 40,000,000 35,000,000 30,000,000 25,000,000 20,000,000 15,000,000 10,000,000 5,000,000 0 2006 2010 2021
Expo
Millennium
Canada
Evergreen
WCE
Expo
Millennium
Canada
Evergreen
WCE
Total number of unlinked trips

500,000 400,000
Total number of transfers

80,000
60,000
300,000 200,000 100,000 0 2006 2010 2021
40,000
20,000
0 2006 2010 2021
0 transfers
1 transfer
2 transfer2
Note: SkyTrain 2010 results are based on the Report Scenario S0-xl
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 84
5.
Data and Software Organization
This chapter documents the major aspects of data organization and model architecture under the VISUM platform. This chapter also gives some directions how to use the model. This chapter complements but can certainly not replace the general documentation of the VISUM software such as manuals, tutorials and training text.
5.1.
VISUM Software
All results in this report have been generated using the PTV software VISUM, release version 9.44. In addition to the standard North-American planning package, the following specialized PuT modules are necessary: PuT line costing Calendar Graphical timetable
All scripts for this application have been written in Python, an open source language that is compatible with VISUMs COM library. Python can be downloaded at www.python.org.
5.2.
Model Architecture
The following section summarizes some of the most important definitions and conventions that have been set during the creation of the RTM. The Concept of Time in the RTM The model reflects an average weekday. However the time includes the entire operating day from approximately 5:00 AM until approximately 3:00 AM. VISUM allows a model transition from one day into the next morning. These transitions can be trips of passengers starting before mid-night and continuing into the next day or train runs or train schedules that start on one day and continue after mid-night. The RTM has defined a weekly calendar to allow the transition of the average weekday into the next morning.
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 85
Figure 40: Weekly calendar in VISUM
Analysis Time Intervals To analyze time-dynamic model results VISUMs listings or in the graphical displays, analysis time intervals have been defined. The current RTM has 15-minute intervals defined from 4:00 AM on day one through 3:00 AM on day two (a total of 92 intervals). The analysis time intervals can be edited in VISUM under: Calculate Procedures Functions Analysis time intervals
Zone Types and Departure Time Distributions: The main departure time distribution for passengers is given earlier in this report in Figure 4. This departure time distribution applies to 98% of the passengers in the existing case. Only for passengers traveling on West Coast Express who start at stations far out in the region, different distributions have been defined based on zone types. All zones in the model have been assigned to 3 types: 1 = SkyTrain system, Canada line, Evergreen Line 2 = Coquitlam area (West Coast Express stations) 3 = Distant East (West Coast Express stations)
Special departure time distributions are defined for departures from/to zones 2 and 3. The departure time distributions are accessible in VISUMs main menu under Demand Demand data Standard time series
The assignment of the distributions to pairs of zone types can be edited under Demand Demand data Demand time series
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 86
Systems, Modes, Operators The current RTM has only one mode defined, public transportation short form is PuT. This mode combines several transport systems, such that passengers can transfer between the following systems: Table 43: Transport systems and lines in the RTM
TSys B L M R S W NAME Bus LRT Metro CommuterRail SkyTrain W TYPE PuT PuT PuT PuT PuT PuTWalk Lines None Evergreen Canada West Coast Express Expo, Millennium none
The PuT demand is divided into four demand segments which can all access all of the PuT transport systems. It is important to have these different segments to obtain different travel patterns during the day, for example more trips into downtown in the morning and more trips out of downtown in the afternoon. Table 44: Demand segment in the RTM
DSeg AM Mid PM Eve NAME AM Mid PM Eve Modes PuT PuT PuT PuT TSys B,L,M,R,S,W B,L,M,R,S,W B,L,M,R,S,W B,L,M,R,S,W
Operators in VISUM allow to obtain special constraints in line blocking and to aggregate all kinds of line statistics. TransLink has been introduced as virtual operator for the Evergreen line. Table 45: Operators in the RTM
Operator 1 2 3 4 5 NAME BCRTC CMBC WCE TransLink InTransitBC Lines Expo, Millennium None West Coast Express Evergreen Canada
19-Feb-2007
PTV America Inc.
Rapid Transit Model
Page 87
Lines and Vehicles Table 46: Lines in the RTM

Line Canada Evergreen Expo Millennium West Coast Express Tsys M L S S R Operator 5 4 1 1 3
VISUMs vehicle types correspond to car types in rail operations jargon, where VISUMs vehicle combinations correspond to train types. Table 47: Vehicle types in the RTM
No 1 2 5 7 8 9 CODE MK I MK II Rotem GM Loc WCE LRT NAME SkyTrain Mark I SkyTrain Mark II Rotem Metro GM Locomotive WCE Car LRT car TSYS S S M R R L SEATCAP 36 42 42 0 148 64 TOTALCAP 75 120 167 0 358 210
Table 48: Vehicle combinations in the RTM

No 12 14 16 22 24 25 52 74 77 79 91 92 CODE 2MkI 4MkI 6MkI 2MkII 4MkII 5MkII 2Rotem 4WCE 7WCE 9WCE 1LRT 2LRT NAME 2 car Mark I 4 car Mark I 6 car Mark I 2 car Mark II 4 car Mark II 5 car Mark II 2 car Rotem Metro 4 car West Coast Train 7 car West Coast Train 9 car West Coast Train 1 car LRT 2 car LRT SEATCAP 72 144 216 84 168 210 84 592 1,036 1,332 64 128 TOTALCAP 150 300 450 240 480 600 334 1,432 2,506 3,222 210 420 NUMVEHUNITS 2 4 6 2 4 5 2 5 8 10 1 2
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 88
Numbering Schemes It is not necessary but helpful to maintain numbering schemes in a model. numbering schemes have been used in the RTM: The following
SkyTrain stops from 1 through 43 (same number for corresponding stop area and node) Canada Line stops: 101 through 116 Evergreen Line Stops: 201 through 211 West Coast Express stops: 675 through 682 (same number as corresponding stop area and node) Nodes on stop areas: for SkyTrain same number as stop area otherwise 600 through 699 Nodes representing SkyTrain switches: 500 through 599 Zones have same number as stop area they belong to Stop points: o o same number as stop , if only stop point per stop otherwise: stop area number * 100 plus index for example: stop 11, Metrotown, has stop points 1101, 1102, 1003
5.3.
The Master Version File
The network and demand data for all scenarios that have been computed in this project and for all three planning horizons (2006, 2010, 2021) have been stored in one single VISUM version file (RTM_master_20feb07.ver). The advantage of this approach is that network changes can be automatically transferred from one scenario to the next. Also, it is guaranteed that the same information is used consistently in all scenarios where it applies.
5.3.1. General Step Process for Scenario Analysis

To use the master network file for scenario analysis or to reproduce results from previous model runs, the following steps need to be performed in VISUM:
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 89
1. Select a set of line routes that define the operational scheme (This selection includes all operational data: route scheme, timetables, train assignment) 2. Select a set of OD matrices for the four demand segments AM, Mid, PM, Eve (The choices are basically: 2006, 2010, 2021) 3. Run a set of model operations for this scenario (Typically line blocking, PuT operations statistics, passenger assignment) 4. Evaluations (graphical display, listings, )
5.3.2. Selection of Line Routes (Step 1)

In Step 1, a set of line routes is selected with VISUMs line filter. This selection defines a complete operations scenario (including routes, time profiles, timetables, vehicle assignments) and will apply to all model operations (line blocking, PuT operating indicators, passenger assignment). Figure 41: Selection of an operating scenario in the master network file
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 90
The following operating scenarios are available now: Existing 2006 (S0) SkyTrain scenario 1 (S1) SkyTrain scenario 1a (S1a) SkyTrain scenario 2 (S2) 2010 scenario with expanded SkyTrain fleet (S0-xl) 2021 scenario with expanded SkyTrain fleet and two Millennium patterns (S0a-xxl) 2021 with two Expo patterns S1a-xxl
Examples of complete route bundles are given for the following scenarios (< and > represent the two different route directions in VISUM): Existing: o o o 2010: o o o o o 2021: o o o o o o o Expo S0a-xxl >, Expo S0a-xxl < Millennium S0a_1_xxl >, Millennium S0a_1_xxl < Millennium S0a_2_xxl >, Millennium S0a_2_xxl < West-Coast Express S0 >, West-Coast Express S0 < Canada RI >, Canada RI < Canada YVR >, Canada YVR < Evergreen std >, Evergreen std < Expo S0-xl >, Expo S0-xl < Millennium S0-xl >, Millennium S0-xl < West-Coast Express S0 >, West-Coast Express S0 < Canada RI >, Canada RI < Canada YVR >, Canada YVR < Expo S0 >, Expo S0 < Millennium S0 >, Millennium S0 < West-Coast Express S0 >, West-Coast Express S0 <
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 91
5.3.3. Selection of OD Matrices (Step 2)

In demand - demand data demand segments: Currently there are three sets of OD matrices available: 2006, 2010, 2021. Each matrix needs to be assigned to one of the four demand segments (AM, Mid, PM, Eve). Figure 42: Selection of a demand scenario in the master network file
The relevant scenario matrices are: For 2006: 1 AM06, 2 Mid06, 3 PM06, 4 Eve06
For 2010: 11 AM10, 12 Mid10, 13 PM10, 14 Eve10 For 2021: 21 AM21, 22 Mid21, 23 PM21, 24 Eve21
All other matrices are informational or represent demand components that have been used to build the above scenario matrices: 9 Day06: total demand 2006 (sum for AM, Mid, PM, Eve) 19 Day10: total demand 2010 (sum for AM, Mid, PM, Eve) 29 Day21: total demand 2021 (sum for AM, Mid, PM, Eve) 101 through 109: demand components for 2010 and 2021 131 through 134: special demand components for airport passengers 2021
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 92
5.3.4. Model Run (Step 3)

Under calculate procedures operations, select a set of model runs. The important ones are: o o Line Blocking PuT Operating Indicators (Creates disaggregated operations statistics for all instances of stops, lines, routes, vehicle journeys, territories, ) Assignment (Passenger route choice, creating loadings of stops and lines).
Note that VISUM might keep results from previous model runs. To avoid this, run the Init steps.
5.3.5. Evaluation (Step 4)

Reading Prepared Mapping Parameters: Graphic Parameter (GPA) Files: Graphical display should be used after each model run for an immediate validation of the results. For example, fundamental input errors like the wrong selection of routes or OD matrices can be discovered very quickly when looking at a link volume display. Graphic parameter (GPA) sets have been prepared for the RTM allowing all kinds of graphical
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 93
displays. They can be read from file (file open graphic parameters) or by using the script GPASelector.py.
Listings VISUMs listings menu allows to get aggregated and disaggregated reports for all kinds of model elements. o o Listing layouts have been prepared for several RTM purposes (LLA). Listing can be exported into Excel or Word to generate reports and charts.
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 94
5.4.
Data Organization
The data on the CD that has been submitted to TransLink together with this report are organized in folders as follows: VISUM all VISUM files Scripts all Python scripts Ridership all files that have been used to develop the OD matrices Data all raw input data o Several sub directories for different data sources
Evaluations all files to post-process listed of graphical VISUM output o o o Fleet_Requ_Study Fleet requirements study, mainly spreadsheets Animations AVI animations created from JPG output Other_Spreadsheets Excel files to create charts and tables from VISUM listings
PM project management files o o o o Report Presentations Proposal&Scope StatusReports
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 95
6.
Conclusions and Future Directions
The Rapid Transit Model has been built and calibrated the existing state of SkyTrain and West Coast Express. The model also includes the future rapid transit systems Evergreen Line and Canada Line, with passenger demand available for 2006, 2010 and 2021. The first application of the model has been the SkyTrain fleet requirements analysis. This first application has been undertaken by PTV America as consultants. During the application the model appeared to be especially useful in integrating several data sources that would otherwise remain unconnected. In particular the integration of operations data and ridership data in one consistent data and modeling system appeared to be helpful for the fleet requirements study. The Rapid Transit Model also proved to be of complementary value to the existing strategic planning model in emme/2 which has no operations planning components. Software and model have now been installed in the TransLink organization. TransLink staff has been trained in the use of the VISUM software and the model data. TransLink can now use the model to analyze further operational schemes for SkyTrain, West Coast Express, the Canada Line and the Evergreen Line. Also the RTM can be extended for the use in new kinds of analyses like survey data analysis or fleet facilities planning. The current model build-out represents phase A of the overall Rapid Transit Model project. In phase B it is planned to complete the model by including bus rapid transit (BRT) components and SeaBus. Also, phase B would cover new rapid transit network extensions like the western extension to UBC and alternative concepts for the Evergreen Line. Then, a better connection with the regional strategic travel demand model (emme/2) is planned, which will be helpful to streamline the import of demand matrices for various scenarios. The extension of the model to all transit services, (including a simplified modeling of all bus lines) will allow to model intermodal transfers and fare/revenue generation. New kinds of analysis might include fleet facility analysis (yard locations) and APC data analysis.
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 96
List of Abbreviations
AM APC AVL BCRTC BRT COM GVRD LRT OD PM PuT RTM UDA UBC WCE Morning (ante meridiem) Automated Passenger Counting Automated Vehicle Location British Columbia Rapid Transit Corporation Bus Rapid Transit Component Object Model Greater Vancouver Regional District Light Rail Transit Origin Destination Afternoon (post meridiem) Public Transportation Rapid Transit Model User Defined Attribute (in VISUM) University of British Columbia West Coast Express
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 97
Appendix A: Calibration of SkyTrain Demand 2006

Table 49: SkyTrain 2006: Boardings, alights, transfers per stop area
Total B+A+T survey 2003 Total B+A+T survey 2005 0 33,342 37,594 0 22,547 47,300 0 0 22,439 0 46,270 0 0 0 0 18,100 0 0 20,319 0 0 26,829 4,253 3,529 4,488 8,238 3,928 2,855 1273 10,857 21,587 8,266 2,772 343,124 Total B+A+T VISUM 2006 22,156 32,887 36,686 17,357 21,963 43,782 9,304 10,241 21,936 7,389 42,773 8,173 15,439 12,202 16925 17,453 14,484 7,290 20,024 10,787 2,029 27,681 4,138 3,435 4,412 8,044 3,868 2,802 1422 10,606 21,064 8,128 2,718 489,598 VISUM total boarding trips 2006 10,983 16,004 18,133 8,564 10,948 15,014 4,689 5,178 11,089 3,740 21,409 4,079 7,799 6,105 8486 3,420 7,368 3,678 9,197 6,381 1,018 7,076 2,074 1,725 2,171 4,007 1,957 1,413 706 5,229 10,665 4,083 1,361 225,749 VISUM total alighting trips 2006 11,173 16,883 18,553 8,793 11,015 15,034 4,615 5,063 10,847 3,649 21,364 4,094 7,640 6,097 8439 3,397 7,116 3,612 10,827 4,406 1,011 6,871 2,064 1,710 2,241 4,037 1,911 1,389 716 5,377 10,399 4,045 1,357 225,745
Station
VISUM transfer (doubled) 0 0 0 0 0 13,734 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,636 0 0 0 0 0 13,734 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38,104
WF BU GV ST MN BW NA TN JY PT MT RO ED TS NW CO SR GW SC KG VC CM RE RU GM BR HO SP LC PW LH BD SA TOTAL
Waterfront Skytrain Burrard Granville Stadium Main Street - Sci. World Broadway Nanaimo 29th Avenue Joyce-Collingwood Patterson Metrotown Royal Oak Edmonds 22nd Street New Westminster Columbia Scott Road Gateway Surrey Central King George VCC-Clark Commercial Drive Renfrew Rupert Gilmore Brentwood Town Cent. Holdom Sperling - Burnaby Lake Lake City Way Production Way Univ. Lougheed Braid Sapperton
19,686 31,099 36,204 15,463 18,775 40,023 8,520 9,410 20,455 6,742 38,380 7,413 14,079 11,089 15466 6,853 13,214 6,661 15,474 9,897 0 19,409 2,864 2,867 2,787 6,366 3,096 2,162 0 7,401 17,038 6,578 1,952 417,425
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 98
Table 50: SkyTrain 2006: VISUM OD matrix for ADT, station to station
WF BU GV ST MN BW NA TN JY PT MT RO ED TS NW CO SR GW SC KG VC CM RE RU GM BR HO SP LC PW LH BD SA WF 0 619 683 320 435 819 365 413 904 260 1252 259 555 378 506 219 316 173 474 268 38 291 70 61 67 140 90 62 30 183 612 232 80 BU 522 0 791 364 553 1244 623 713 1575 484 1719 438 1033 639 815 382 431 218 584 392 67 442 119 106 96 232 181 119 54 262 1122 423 138 GV 697 1010 0 558 752 1392 622 701 1533 438 2149 429 921 638 869 370 569 309 822 474 66 494 121 103 104 237 151 103 48 307 1036 393 136 ST 307 434 522 0 344 636 291 331 720 207 967 198 434 294 401 173 259 139 379 222 31 225 56 48 47 109 71 49 22 139 488 184 64 MN 430 640 766 359 0 809 345 386 841 229 1299 234 479 352 494 201 351 195 519 283 36 287 67 56 59 131 74 53 25 181 549 209 75 BW 820 1232 1359 615 764 0 223 238 529 188 1502 233 403 347 494 183 488 236 609 414 241 25 514 419 406 704 280 206 110 910 910 330 106 NA 324 483 562 254 316 254 0 114 254 76 602 91 160 139 201 74 120 58 147 100 3 90 6 4 12 22 9 7 4 34 60 26 9 TN 351 541 627 285 343 283 118 0 278 82 679 100 172 153 223 81 116 59 149 93 3 101 6 5 14 25 10 8 4 40 74 30 10 JY 770 1179 1392 628 753 622 259 273 0 181 1492 220 377 338 493 178 263 132 331 211 6 222 16 13 31 57 23 18 10 93 179 66 21 PT 203 311 355 160 193 225 80 84 189 0 431 64 110 98 141 51 143 71 180 116 3 80 6 5 16 30 12 9 5 57 148 54 17 MT 1289 1958 2232 1030 1300 1477 538 585 1276 351 0 420 737 635 930 342 893 453 1190 741 17 525 39 32 108 202 82 67 39 383 1015 359 118 RO 227 311 360 161 219 232 88 95 212 61 425 0 130 106 149 57 220 98 252 197 3 83 7 6 18 34 16 13 7 57 171 61 19 ED 433 653 745 334 405 468 167 175 395 110 890 135 0 205 294 108 328 159 399 272 6 167 14 12 41 74 34 27 14 118 310 113 36 TS 343 483 546 245 326 351 131 141 314 90 649 105 192 0 223 85 312 141 364 277 5 125 12 10 34 69 31 22 11 88 252 91 29 NW 456 665 782 358 468 518 194 211 462 129 970 148 268 226 0 123 365 176 460 312 8 184 19 18 57 104 42 31 15 131 369 130 42 CO 180 259 310 140 181 200 75 80 178 50 374 58 104 89 128 0 155 73 186 133 4 71 8 7 22 40 17 12 6 50 142 51 16 SR 529 820 954 430 507 398 80 84 189 98 829 122 206 186 271 97 0 120 300 185 11 142 24 19 44 76 28 21 11 97 161 58 19 GW 266 400 462 209 258 196 40 43 95 50 403 61 106 92 134 49 129 0 161 106 6 70 12 9 22 38 14 11 5 48 81 29 9 SC 830 1182 1352 615 821 588 125 137 301 162 1183 188 342 283 405 153 461 215 0 405 17 209 36 29 64 113 46 34 17 142 254 90 28 KG 315 483 596 266 313 247 50 52 118 62 512 74 126 116 170 60 149 75 184 0 7 88 15 12 27 47 17 13 6 58 100 36 12 VC 36 52 64 29 39 247e 2 3 6 2 18 3 6 5 8 3 19 9 22 17 0 88 20 16 23 42 17 13 6 52 98 35 11 CM 290 363 425 193 297 23 84 94 205 77 465 81 162 122 172 68 262 112 297 245 89 0 189 158 127 243 122 85 40 289 369 129 40 RE 59 86 102 45 59 541 6 6 16 6 43 7 14 12 20 8 39 18 46 34 20 192 0 35 50 91 37 27 14 114 214 76 24 RU 49 73 84 38 49 446 5 6 13 5 37 6 11 11 18 7 31 15 37 27 17 159 35 0 42 75 30 22 11 95 174 62 20 GM 74 83 92 40 68 355 11 13 28 16 91 18 40 32 51 21 103 41 110 100 23 126 48 41 0 97 53 36 17 111 207 72 22 BR 134 181 206 92 133 696 20 23 52 29 199 35 72 68 98 38 137 59 156 127 42 248 89 74 101 0 85 61 30 230 357 126 40 HO 63 94 109 48 59 335 9 10 24 13 105 18 35 32 46 17 50 23 58 43 19 119 40 32 50 87 0 25 13 110 151 55 18 SP 47 71 82 36 44 240 7 8 18 10 81 13 26 23 33 12 34 16 40 29 13 86 28 23 36 62 24 0 10 78 107 39 12 LC 27 33 37 16 25 105 4 4 10 6 37 7 15 11 15 6 30 12 32 29 6 38 13 11 16 28 15 10 0 33 58 21 6 PW 192 224 271 124 213 828 32 39 88 56 312 57 119 85 121 49 205 84 229 199 55 293 116 98 112 227 120 84 36 0 490 167 51 LH 460 721 845 382 455 1071 63 75 180 141 1189 173 294 265 389 140 226 115 290 181 107 381 226 180 227 396 146 110 57 515 0 300 98 BD 190 266 310 139 185 359 26 29 66 53 383 62 113 93 132 50 125 55 143 113 37 128 78 64 76 135 58 42 21 169 308 0 35 SA 69 94 111 50 70 113 9 10 21 17 120 19 36 29 42 16 40 18 46 37 12 40 25 21 24 43 19 14 7 53 100 35 0
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 99
Appendix B: Forecast of SkyTrain Demand 2021

Table 51: SkyTrain 2021: Ridership forecast (6:00-9:00, VISUM vs. emme)
Link in the Rapid Transit Model Number 2188 2188 2414 2414 2493 2493 2551 2551 2554 2554 3016 3016 8241 8241 3141 3141 3353 3353 6158 6158 2446 2446 2461 2461 2524 2524 2720 2720 2778 2778 2827 2827 2833 2833 2918 2918 3532 3532 From Node 5 MN 6 BW 6 BW 7 NA 7 NA 8 TN 8 TN 9 JY 9 JY 10 PT 10 PT 11 MT 511 MTS 12 RO 12 RO 13 ED 14 TS 15 NW 17 SR 18 GW 32 CM 33 RE 33 RE 34 RU 34 RU 35 GM 35 GM 36 BR 36 BR 37 HO 37 HO 38 SP 38 SP 39 LC 39 LC 40 PW 42 BD 43 SA To Node 6 BW 5 MN 7 NA 6 BW 8 TN 7 NA 9 JY 8 TN 10 PT 9 JY 11 MT 10 PT 12 RO 511 MTS 13 ED 12 RO 15 NW 14 TS 18 GW 17 SR 33 RE 32 CM 34 RU 33 RE 35 GM 34 RU 36 BR 35 GM 37 HO 36 BR 38 SP 37 HO 39 LC 38 SP 40 PW 39 LC 43 SA 42 BD Rapid Transit Model (VISUM) 2006 5,969 22,707 5,006 19,647 5,013 18,888 5,103 17,828 5,207 15,406 5,314 14,615 4,854 13,992 4,583 13,719 4,051 11,385 2,269 6,565 1,953 4,409 1,875 4,197 1,847 3,992 1,602 4,341 1,459 4,446 1,585 4,091 1,661 3,893 1,629 3,926 2,794 3,122 2021 6,044 29,261 5,098 24,785 5,153 24,094 5,243 23,080 5,412 20,729 5,530 20,004 5,083 19,793 4,817 19,720 4,342 17,473 2,747 11,404 2,184 8,206 2,065 7,996 2,029 7,701 1,793 8,142 1,708 8,008 1,892 7,309 1,998 6,952 1,986 6,934 4,578 3,930 Strategic Regional Model (emme): demand Growth 2004 2021 04-21 1,232 1,206 -26 18,399 24,504 6105 1,276 1,287 11 16,540 21,509 4,970 1,375 1,584 209 15,666 20,781 5,115 1,494 1,584 90 14,540 19,809 5,269 1,881 2,099 218 13,378 18,720 5,342 1,918 2,083 165 12,932 18,511 5,579 1,494 1,705 211 12,980 18,753 5,773 1,551 1,782 231 12,564 18,533 5,969 1,780 2,044 264 10,439 16,394 5,955 506 959 453 5,590 10,859 5,269 871 1,089 218 4,204 8,125 3,920 909 1,089 180 4,191 8,125 3,934 961 1,129 167 3,720 7,652 3,931 856 1,058 202 3,839 7,704 3,865 554 825 271 3,934 7,447 3,513 706 1,016 310 3,302 6,479 3,177 689 1,001 312 3,168 6,310 3,142 702 1,045 343 3,131 6,162 3,032 2,486 4,334 1,848 1,998 2,746 748
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 100
Appendix C: List of all Stops and Stop Areas

Table 52: List of all stop areas, stops and corresponding nodes in the RTM
Stop area number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 101 102 103 104 105 106 107
PTV America Inc.
Stop number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 31 6 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 1 102 103 104 105 106 107
Node number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 650 652 653 631 654 630 656
2-letter code WFS BU GV ST MN BW NA TN JY PT MT RO ED TS NW CO SR GW SC KG VC CM RE RU GM BR HO SP LC PW LHS BD SA WFC VAC YR OV BC KE OA
Name Waterfront Skytrain Burrard Granville Stadium Main Street - Science World Broadway Nanaimo 29th Avenue Joyce-Collingwood Patterson Metrotown Royal Oak Edmonds 22nd Street New Westminster Columbia Scott Road Gateway Surrey Central King George VCC-Clark Commercial Drive Renfrew Rupert Gilmore Brentwood Town Center Holdom Sperling - Burnaby Lake Lake City Way Production Way - University Lougheed Braid Sapperton Waterfront Canada Vancouver City Centre Yaletown Roundhouse Olympic Village Broadway City Hall King Edward Oakridge - 41st Ave
Type number 3 9 9 1 1 1 5 2 1 1 1 1 6 5 5 8 1 1 1 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 1 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 101
Stop area number 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 209 210 211 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682
Stop number 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 41 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 209 210 211 675 676 677 678 679 1 681 682
Node number 657 628 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 605 606 607 673 609 610 674 612 614 670 211 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682
2-letter code LA MD BP AB LD RB TE SIC YVR LHL CA BQ AL MO IO FA CEX GL DC BUL PH PM MS CC PM WFW MM PC
Name Langara - 49st Ave Marine Drive Bridgeport Aberdeen Lansdowne Richmond Brighouse Templeton Sea Island Centre YVR Airport Lougheed (LRT) Cameron Burquitlam Albert/Barnet Moody Ioco Falcon Coquitlam Exchange Glen Douglas College Buller Port Haney Pitt Meadows Mission Coquitlam Central Port Moody Waterfront WCE Maple Meadows Port Coquitlam (WCE)
Type number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 102
Appendix D: Alternative SkyTrain Scenario 2010 S0b-xl

This 2010 scenario has been started in VISUM but remains unfinished in the details of schedules, line blocking and fleet assignment. Preliminary results (in the following tables) show that the scenario performs almost as efficiently as the 2010 scenario S0-xl which was presented in the main report. However this alternative scenario S0b-xl has the advantage of an almost constant train capacity. Table 53: SkyTrain 2010 (S0b-xl): general operational assumptions Line From - To Headway AM Peak # of blocks/trains AM Peak # of blocks 6-car Mark 1 # of blocks 4-car Mark 2 Total fleet used, AM Peak: Expo WF KG 192 s in avg. (3 min 12 s) Millennium WF VC 384 s (6 min 24 s)
Combined headway on WF CO: 128 s (2 min 8 s) 27 20 13 9 14 11 132 Mark 1 (12% spare) and 100 Mark 2 (7% spare)
Table 54: SkyTrain 2010 ( S0b-xl): ridership and operations statistics Line Train KM 7-9 h Train hours 7-9 h Car hours 7-9 h Passenger KM 7-9 h Passenger hours 7-9 h Total transfers 7-9 h Transfers BW / CM Transfers CO Capacity analysis 7-9 h: WF BW BW CO CO KG LH VC CO LH Max 15-min vol * 3,387 2,711 1,530 928 506 Expo 2,161 51.5 255.5 312,095 7,253 7,989 4,032 3,957 Avg 15-min cap * 3,366 3,360 2,235 1,132 1,125 Max v/c ratio * 101 81 68 82 45 Millennium 1,578 37.7 184.7 230,934 5,391
* 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
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007
Rapid Transit Model
Page 103
The implementation of scenario S0b-xl in VISUM is not complete. The current simplifications include: Schedules are not refined in the peak/off-peak transition, also the coordination of arriving and departing runs at the termini is not perfected. All trains are by default of type 4MII, which needs to be replaced by a mix of 4MII and 6MI. Line blocking permits trains to change lines, which has not been allowed in all other SkyTrain scenarios even though it is possible in the current operations.
PTV America Inc.
19-Feb-2007

RTM Phase A Final Report

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

RTM Phase A Final Report

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Report

TransLinks Rapid Transit Model

Vancouver, B.C. / Wilmington, DE February 2007

Rapid Transit Model

Summary and Conclusions .............................................................. 53

Canada Line ..................................................................................... 62 Evergreen Line ................................................................................. 67

PTV America Inc.

Rapid Transit Model

4.4. 4.5. 4.6. 4.7. 5.

Data Organization ............................................................................ 94

Conclusions and Future Directions............................................................ 95

PTV America Inc.

Rapid Transit Model

PTV America Inc.

Rapid Transit Model

PTV America Inc.

Rapid Transit Model

PTV America Inc.

Rapid Transit Model

PTV America Inc.

Rapid Transit Model

PTV America Inc.

Rapid Transit Model

PTV America Inc.

Rapid Transit Model

PTV America Inc.

Rapid Transit Model

Calibration of the Existing Case

SkyTrain Supply Model

PTV America Inc.

Rapid Transit Model

PTV America Inc.

Rapid Transit Model

PTV America Inc.

Rapid Transit Model

Figure 2: SkyTrain 2006: Schedules in VISUMs timetable editor

Timetable leaving KG/VC:

PTV America Inc.

Rapid Transit Model

PTV America Inc.

Rapid Transit Model

PTV America Inc.

Rapid Transit Model

Figure 4: SkyTrain Expo 2006: Line blocking Gantt chart

PTV America Inc.

Rapid Transit Model

Figure 5: SkyTrain Millennium 2006: Line blocking Gantt chart

PTV America Inc.

Rapid Transit Model

55 81 54 53 62 65 41 117 38 35 121 37 107 143 119 76 239 75 369 391 760

Total Expo Total Millennium Total System

PTV America Inc.

Rapid Transit Model

SkyTrain Demand Model

PTV America Inc.

Rapid Transit Model

Figure 4: Distribution of passengers desired start time over 24 hours

0% 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 Time of day (begin of period)

PTV America Inc.

Rapid Transit Model

PTV America Inc.

Rapid Transit Model