Jump to content

maege

Member
  • Content count

    189
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

750 profile views
  1. maege

    Surrey Rapid Transit / Surrey Light rail

    Why is there so much care and concern given to the most inefficient form of transportation? Should it be considered? Yes, but we need to start prioritizing the movement of people and not cars if we actually want a safe, healthy, and reliable transit system throughout the region. ---End of my posts for now since this has moved away from the designated topic--
  2. maege

    Surrey Rapid Transit / Surrey Light rail

    Barcelona's tram system is very similar design to what is proposed for Surrey with a dedicated (mainly median) tramway and signal priority. Zagreb, has a mix with much of it in a separated from cares in median or side tramway, and some sections mixed traffic, and some completely separated sections. The sections/lines I looked at specifically with the sub 3 minute headways were in a median tramway, and their central station is completely separated from other vehicle traffic, similar to City Pkwy. I called them trams as that is what they are referred to in Europe. LRT isn't really a term that is used. The term "trams" encompasses everything from streetcars to fully separated LRT. I would argue that any system can have two of those three attributes 😉
  3. maege

    Surrey Rapid Transit / Surrey Light rail

    Thanks. I am curious about the difference between that table and previous 3 min estimated 2041 headways in previous documents. Yes, there aren't many systems that run 90 second frequency, but there are trams in Barcelona that run 4 min headway much of the day, Vienna and Zagreb (and I'm sure some other cities) run 1-3 min combined headways for their trams along streets close to downtown, so some systems do exist and it is possible. That said, riderhsip will likely take significant time to come close to the need for that level of frequency. Reading it directly "run with other vehicles on the road" sounds like mixed-traffic running to me. Sorry if something else was meant by that. That's fair. I can envision that they could be practical in the 30-50 year time-frame, but likely not sooner. I was taking into account bringing headways down to 75-100 seconds, and even with that, the Expo line will have maxed out design capacity within 30 years or less. My core point with LRT and Skytrain on Fraser Hwy, is that we should use the extra Billion dollars that Skytrian would need to build a regional rail route from Vancouver to Scott Rd, Newton, Cloverdale, and Langley. This will be a faster travel time to Vancouver than Skytrain, and will draw significant numbers of current Expo line riders to Vancouver from SoF. That provides redundancy for the Expo line and SoF as well, since there would be a second rapid transit option for crossing the Fraser River. Direct relievers for the Expo line would be high-capacity LRT along Kingsway (capable of 10,000-15,000 pphpd with 80-100m trains), and a regional/express rail route from Vancouver (Pacific Central or Waterfront) to Scott Rd, Newton, Cloverdale, Langley, and possibly beyond via the SRY ROW. A more indirect reliever would be following existing rail ROW from Scott Rd or New West Stn along the Fraser to Marpole. All 3 could be built for significantly less than the cost of a subway along Kingsway, while providing more overall capacity due to having multiple routes and options. No, Expo line does not have to be and should not be the only connection between Surrey/Langley and Vancouver. Running via SRY, Scott Rd Stn, and Grandview Cut would still be a faster, more direct route, serving more people because Surrey, and act muc more directly as an Expo line reliever. The Colebrook/Hwy 99 route should serve as a main trunk line, with trains from Langley, White Rock, Scott Rd, and Tsawwassen feeding into it before crossing the Fraser to Richmond (ideally in a new transit/cycling/pedestrian tunnel) and onto Vancouver. This won't be an Expo line reliever so much as a giant enhancement to regional transportation and connectivity, pushing a significant mode shift away from cars to transit.
  4. maege

    Surrey Rapid Transit / Surrey Light rail

    Which routes do you think are unnecessary in the 2050-2100 time-frame? From the report: There is no plan to have mixed-traffic (aka streetcar) lines. Everything would run in it's own right-of-way, similar to the current LRT plan at a minimum.
  5. maege

    Surrey Rapid Transit / Surrey Light rail

    I think you mis-understand the problem with the Expo line. The issue isn't with capacity SoF, but in Vancouver, over-crowding from Joyce (even Metrotown many times) to downtown. Running every Expo line train to Surrey does not solve this issue. 5 car trains will provide a bit more capacity, and there is a tiny bit of room to increase peak capacity a little, but even with both of those, that extra capacity will be fully used plus more by 2040. Adding more riders on the Expo line from Surrey and Langley, makes the over-crowding issue in the Vancouver section even worse. Running Regional rail or LRT through Richmond and Delta to South Surrey/White Rock may help a *tiny* bit for the Expo line, but the vast majority of it's ridership would be for people that currently are bus only, or bus to Canada Line. I do agree that we should be looking at rail along that corridor sooner rather than later (and there are many significant benefits to it), but it won't do much to help the Expo line. Could you point me to the where you found the 5 minute headway restriction? From what I had seen before, the SNG was expected to be 3 min in peak by 2041. With new/current LRT designs, it is relatively simple to add a section to a train. Ottawa ordered this train, which is similar to what I have heard is being considered/expected and is easily expandable.
  6. maege

    Surrey Rapid Transit / Surrey Light rail

    The details expect the plan to be completed after Surrey passes 1M+ people, while will be post 2050, 30+ years out. As for cars, the best way to reduce the number o cars on the road is to reduce the amount of roadspace for them, and provide reasonable alternatives, both of which this plan seems to do. Essentially the plan seems to take away induced demand for cars, while inducing demand for transit, both of which are very beneficial from public health, safety, and land-use perspectives. Another way to view it: would you be opposed if all the routes shown for LRT instead just had bus lanes/BRT replace a lane for cars in each direction? Are you against the overall idea, or just the technology? While I am not opposed to Skytrain down the Fraser Highway as an isolated idea, when you start to look at the Expo line ridership and problems now and within the next 2 decades, there is significant cause for concern that extending the line will just exacerbate and accelerate the race to complete failure from overcrowding above max design capacity. The Expo line is in some ways a victim of it's own success, so we need to plan to have alternate options built sooner, rather than later, before it gets tot he point of self-destruction.
  7. maege

    Surrey Rapid Transit / Surrey Light rail

    You are calculating system capacity as if they could only use what they would have initially, which makes the result incorrect. New train cars can easily be ordered and frequency improved as is done for every other rail line Translink has. They were also leaving an option for future station extension (I don't remember to what length), and since LRT is at-grade, it is also significantly easier and cheaper to extend platforms compared to elevated or tunneled options, even beyond what is initially planned. They state that this is for when Surrey has 1M+pop (likely sometime between 2050 and 2100), which I do think is ambitious, but reasonable to have finished shortly after reaching 1M people. Why not? This looks like a decent grid network of fairly good transit.
  8. maege

    Surrey Rapid Transit / Surrey Light rail

    Note, there is now 8 stops proposed for LRT vs 11 initially. That is set roughly equivalent to the Skytrain alternative. IMO, we should use the $1Billion for express trains from Vancouver to Surrey and Langley, with the LRT serving local travel, instead of trying to combine the two and set the Expo line up for even faster failure in the near future (failure would be due to exceeding max design capacity without other viable options within 10-20 years). Advantages of LRT on Fraser combined with express regional train: Better serve local transportation due to faster access times Significantly easier addition of stops in the future as growth continues Reducing level of induced demand for private autos Provide faster service to North of Fraser than Skytrain, while servicing additional areas of Surrey Allow an alternative or reliever to the Expo and Millennium lines for many people, especially when a disruption occurs (redundancy of sorts) A couple very interesting pieces from this new-ish report:
  9. maege

    Surrey Rapid Transit / Surrey Light rail

    Updated costs estimates for the Surrey-Langley line via FOI request: https://thebreaker.news/news/surrey-langley-costs/ LRT for Surrey-Langley estimated at $1.64 Billion in 2016 dollars ($1.95 Billion in 2022 dollars; 2022 is year of planned construction start) for 16.2km. This comes to $101 Million/km in 2016 $ and $120 Million/km in 2022 $. Expo line extension was estimated at $2.46 Billion in 2016 dollars ($2.91 Billion in 2022 dollars) for 16km. This would be $153 Million/km in 2016 $ and $181 Million/km in 2022 $. Expo line extension would cost ~50% more than LRT along the route.
  10. Extending the Evergreen line will be a very costly and inefficient way to serve the areas you mention, IMO. Instead of limiting to certain existing lines and technology, I would recommend considering at-grade rail options along existing rail corridors. By going at-grade and with more pervasive LRT-style trains, you could build from downtown out to the Tri-cities, and along the same routes for roughly the same cost. From Waterfront, or Pacific Central to Braid, with 2-5 stops in between (this section can also be used to serve Surrey, Langley, and the Fraser Valley with faster, express service to downtown). From Braid, it would transition into a more local serving line, with stops every 800m-2km, similar to existing Skytrain distances, following CP ROW up to PoCo, where it would interchange with a Millennium line extension to PoCo, before heading to Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge. A split could occur down to Langley, although it should be noted that it would be decently more expensive due to not using an existing rail ROW. I would personally consider BRT N-S to Langley, at least until population and ridership warrants at least a 40m train every 10-15 mins.
  11. Possible? Of course. Wise thing to do? Definitely not. When extensions are completed to UBC and PoCo, the Millennium line will be longer than the Expo line, and have as much variation in ridership, if not more, compared to the Expo line. Urban rail lines can become too long to be as efficient as they should be, especially when there are dramatic changes in ridership (UBC, Central Broadway vs Burnaby Lake, parts of Evergreen and PoCo extensions). IMO, the main argument against the Expo line being extended to Langley or anywhere else is that by 2040, it will be over max build-out capacity. Having an even longer line, exacerbates that problem and makes the numerous sections that wouldn't be close to capacity very inefficient as there would be extremely frequent trains with minimal ridership. Same applies to the Millenium line, anything past the Pitt River enters a large expanse of farmland and little/no population until the very low density of Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge. This would be very low ridership compared to the rest of the line, making it very inefficient, while also increasing the over-crowding and over-capacity issues in the Vancouver part of the line. A much more efficient (and faster) solution would be express suburban rail from Waterfront or Pacific Central with minimal stops until Coquitlam, then providing a more "local" service (every 600m-1km in populated areas) through to Maple Ridge (and possibly on to Mission or Langley if desired). I am in favour of a single flat fare across the region, but the proposed system is second best, and both are significantly better than the zones. Your proposal is zones with flex zone boundaries, which for many people would be a little more difficult to fully comprehend than other options. Simple is very important in fares.
  12. I would sort of hope that there would be requirement to use at least the majority for service to south of Fraser areas that would potentially have been served by said bridge (Delta, White Rock, Surrey). If that was the case, regional rail from Vancouver, down the Arbutus corridor to Bridgeport, likely along the Shell Rd rail line ROW or HWY 99, through a new rail/bike/pedestrian tunnel to Ladner. From there is would split to Tsawwassen/South Delta/ferries, White Rock, and Langley. All that could be built for $3.5 Billion (~$50M/km), and possibly less. As that local serving requirement probably wouldn't happen, probably spend the equivalent amount on a Skytrain extension to UBC. 7km vs 70km seems like a terrible waste when put in that perspective I would hope, instead, that the extension from Arbutus wouldn't be tunneled much further, but go elevated to save 75-80% on costs, and use the remainder for a desperately needed reliever for the Expo line (either Kingsway LRT, or regional train to at least Surrey/Langley via existing ROW), LRT extensions to Langley and White Rock, and Burnaby Mountain Gondola.
  13. Kinda funny how you say the SRY misses many current centers, then propose Hwy 1, which hits significantly less centers. It would be nice if it followed the Fraser Hwy through Murrayville and Aldergrove, but there is already a very workable ROW with an existing line, which dramatically lowers costs over following the Fraser Hwy or Hwy 1. The SRY would serve multiple purposes: local service within Surrey and Langley, which turns into express service to downtown, regional to Abbotsford and Chilliwack, and possibly local Sumas/Abbotsford/Mission. Side note: Hwy 1 actually follows the old Great Northern Rwy route between Abbotsford and Chilliwack.
  14. Assuming, enough housing could possible be built in that amount of time, one of the first things that comes to mind is that money will be very constrained if that happens in such a short period of time, so things would need to be built to handle massive amounts of people, very efficiently. This would almost completely rule out all subways, partly because they are so expensive, and partly because they take longer to built than surface infrastructure. 1. Kingsway would become a LRT route, likely with median tracks on a separated ROW, with 80-150M platforms, running from Scott Rd Stn, following existing railroad ROW to 12th St in New West, and Kingsway to Main, either ending at Pacific Central Stn, or continuing to Waterfront. 2. There would be express/regional trains from Pacific Central, using new double-tracks through the Grandview Cut, splitting around Braid Stn to PoCo/Pitt Meadows/Maple Ridge and to Scott Rd/Surrey/Langley/Fraser Valley via SRY ROW. These would likely use 100-250M trains/platforms. Some combination of one or both of these is already needed within the next 20 years as the Expo Line will be at max build-out capacity by ~2040. 3. Arbutus corridor would become a main passenger rail corridor, providing access from Vancouver to Marpole (connecting with the existing rail ROW to New West), and Bridgeport, where is would split into local LRT service along Garden City Rd and down to Steveston, and regional service, likely along Hwy 99, to Delta where it would split into 3 lines to Ladner/Tsawwassen, White Rock, and Langley. 4. Rail lines (separated LRT or elevated rail) along many of the lines you mentioned, including (but not limited to) Hastings, King Edward/22nd Ave/Kincaid/Canada Way (UBC-Central Burnaby), 41st Ave, 49th Ave, Main, Fraser, Commercial/Victoria, Willingdon, Scott Rd, Granville, Dunbar/Alma, Lynn Valley/Grand, Marine Dr/Keith/Mt Seymour Pkwy, Nordel/88th Ave, King George(to White Rock) Basically, this map for all longer/regional connections, plus more "local" lines such as along Granville, 128th in Surrey, etc. I agree with most of your post, with 3 exceptions: 1. Express route paralleling Expo line - I would have this be following the SRY corridor from Langley, across a new rail bridge/tunnel and through the Grandview Cut to Pacific Central. Benefits of this are that the corridor is almost fully grade separated and the route can be shared by multiple services (to Tri-cities express, Surrey/Langley all day express, Abbotsford/Chilliwack regional). 2. The bi-directional loop around downtown serves many local places, but does so fairly circuitously. Who would the main ridership be? People in the West End to Granville Island? Waterfront to the West End (missing much of the central Georgia/Robson CBD)? Waterfront to Main St? That would be well served by the lines replacing the 3 and 8. Science World to Granville Island? Tourists? Basically, I don't see who the main user group for this line would be, because although it serves many places, it would be faster and more direct to take other lines for the vast majority of people, leaving relatively few to use what would presumably be a very expensive line due to it's location. 3. Lastly, as I mentioned at the beginning there would be very little subway or tunneling due to the exorbitant cost associated with it and at-grade or elevated being significantly faster to construct, especially when there would be a huge constrain on time and finances. Using the SRY right-of-way, which is the former BCER interurban line. With a new rail bridge/tunnel and some additional tracks through the Grandview Cut, it could cross the Fraser and head to Pacific Central Station.
  15. The Canada Line will be unable to support ridership along it's current line for more than a few decades, much less extra growth from extending the line further south. Tsawwassen, Delta, and other SoF municipalities need a regional rail system that connects with the Canada Line (likely at Bridgeport) before continuing downtown. And has significant historical/heritage value and is a National Historic Place. Also, the bridge was significantly upgraded/refurbished in 2000-2001. There will not be any replacement or expansion of the bridge due to these factors and that the City of Vancouver has consistently rejected any possible increase in vehicles into downtown, including when the Lion's Gate was being looked at in the 1990's for possible replacement. A bridge would be insanely expensive, and quite possibly completely unworkable due to crossing a very active and busy port on both sides, as well as the very significant shipping channel. If Billions of dollars are going to be spent, it will be for a high capacity passenger rail crossing, not yet another road with vastly lower capacity.
×