Jump to content

TransLink Future - Dream's and Aspirations


Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, cprted said:

That's because the North Shore has 49x the population of Bowen Island ... you're proposing a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. 

But your argument seems like duplication of service is waste of money. So, TransLink should use same logical of they use for SkyTrain making a stations the terminus for buses. So all those routes should been moved to Lonsdale Quay. 

A passenger only ferry could help Bowen Island economy grow stronger because more tourists could be drawn to it because of the direct service to Downtown.

28 minutes ago, cprted said:

If there was enough demand for a direct to Downtown water connection from Bowen, don't you think Cormorant Marine (Water Taxi company) would offer that service?

No because the service would probably need be subsidized like the rest of transit service or maybe TransLink hasn't approved them to operate the route. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Blue Bus Fan said:

But your argument seems like duplication of service is waste of money. So, TransLink should use same logical of they use for SkyTrain making a stations the terminus for buses. So all those routes should been moved to Lonsdale Quay. 

A passenger only ferry could help Bowen Island economy grow stronger because more tourists could be drawn to it because of the direct service to Downtown.

No because the service would probably need be subsidized like the rest of transit service or maybe TransLink hasn't approved them to operate the route. 

That isn't my argument at all.  My point was that the population of the North Shore supports the level of service that is has (multiple bus connections in addition to the SeaBus) and that Bowen doesn't have the population to necessitate increased service, especially a niche market, passenger only ferry.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, cprted said:

That isn't my argument at all.  My point was that the population of the North Shore supports the level of service that is has (multiple bus connections in addition to the SeaBus) and that Bowen doesn't have the population to necessitate increased service, especially a niche market, passenger only ferry.

So then would you support a bus service from every other city in Metro Vancouver to Downtown Vancouver when SkyTrain could handle all the passenger? 

But the route could be peak only during the off peak hours and all day, seven days a week during peak season to help reduce the operation costs.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Blue Bus Fan - What @cprted said. I'll leave it at that.

Quote

Right, I completely forgot about the seaplanes.... hmmmmm.....I'll have to rethink things, but my initial thought is maybe only one crossing could be built with all landings and takeoffs coming from other directions. I know that probably wouldn't work without a detailed agreement from all parties and regulators, at best, but that was my initial thought. Second thought is seeing if there is another proximate location for seaplanes that could be used instead, but that's probably not likely at all. Third thought is that seaplanes are small and take little room to take off and land, so "runway" location could be altered, but there would be the rare "what if" scenario that would still cause issues.

I'll mull over things though and see if I can come up with something cheaper than a multi-billion dollar tunnel that would improve service compared to Seabus, or if I can't find any, then maybe it is just Seabus, although I would prefer something faster and more frequent.

After doing some calculations and a little research, seaplanes could still operate fine with one of the gondolas (likely Waterfront-Lonsdale). This would just require seaplane to take off away from the gondola (towards Stanley Park / Lion's Gate Bridge) and land between the Lion's Gate/Stanley Park and the gondola. They could also takeoff towards or land coming from the North Shore if they needed more room for whatever reason, although this should be very rare. The max takeoff/landing distance I found for seaplanes currently operating from Vancouver Harbour Flight Centre was 660m (actually that was a larger variant than is currently used) with most being much less. Depending on the exact path, it is ~1-1.5km between Stanley Park and the Waterfront-Lonsdale gondola, so there would be ample space for flight activities still. 

That said, the Park Royal gondola would likely be a no-go (although I would ideally like stakeholders to see if a solution could be found before completely closing the idea), so I would probably extend the Hastings line (elevated monorail or Skytrain) from Stanley Park to Park Royal  via the Stanley Park Causeway and a First Narrows crossing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Blue Bus Fan said:

But your argument seems like duplication of service is waste of money. So, TransLink should use same logical of they use for SkyTrain making a stations the terminus for buses. So all those routes should been moved to Lonsdale Quay. 

A passenger only ferry could help Bowen Island economy grow stronger because more tourists could be drawn to it because of the direct service to Downtown.

No because the service would probably need be subsidized like the rest of transit service or maybe TransLink hasn't approved them to operate the route. 

Duplication in itself isn't a waste of money (and can be a good thing for capacity and redundancy if the level of usage to support it is there), but it is a waste of money if the duplicate service creates a large amount of excess capacity.

Subsidizing any particular route isn't necessarily a bad thing, but that route should be the most efficient way to provide that essential service. If it is not one of the most efficient ways to provide said service, then it should be stopped and a more efficient method introduced.

The question is, do people on Bowen Island or those living off Bowen Island want it to become more "city-like" or have many more tourists? A significant portion of Bowen Island is an ecological reserve and, in my opinion, one of the main draws to Bowen Island is that it isn't more suburban sprawl or city-like, retaining a more rural and community feel, while still being close to Vancouver. Yes, they should have decent quality transit to the island, and there is a ferry and water taxi that currently provide adequate service. I initially proposed a gondola to Bowen Island and continuing to Gibsons to provide a higher level of service for people on Bowen Island and the Sunshine coast, and hopefully provide a significant reduction of vehicle traffic (and therefore likely reduce ferry frequency and operational costs). Such a system would have higher capital costs than ferries but, comparatively, very minimal operating expenses, while providing a more efficient and higher quality service. 

4 minutes ago, Blue Bus Fan said:

So then would you support a bus service from every other city in Metro Vancouver to Downtown Vancouver when SkyTrain could handle all the passenger? 

But the route could be peak only during the off peak hours and all day, seven days a week during peak season to help reduce the operation costs.  

The comparisons you are attempting to draw are baffling. I support a well integrated transit network, where smaller local routes (bus or otherwise) feed Skytrain and other rapid transit lines. In the case of Horseshoe Bay, this means ferries or gondolas from various locations feeding into a frequent transit service that connects to other parts of the city. Point to point systems don't usually work very well in public transit unless you have very high demand between two locations. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, maege said:

Ummmm.... how is timing the light correctly for BRT any different than timing it different for LRT? They would both run through the middle of the street on the green light with other traffic stopped. Again, I am talking about full BRT, which would have it's own separated bus-lanes, not a B-line, which is basically just a frequent express bus.

Well it isn't, but it's much cheaper.

17 hours ago, maege said:

Bi-articulated buses carry 200-300 people, depending on model and configuration. That is essentially the same for any modern LRV that you would buy, so I'm not sure where you are getting that "same as 5-car LRT" from.

Disregard this, uncredible random source.

17 hours ago, maege said:

Regarding accidents, what I spelled out is explicitly meant to prevent accidents. After all the infrastructure mentioned is put in place, if there happened to be a rare accident, theoretically a bi-articulated bus could detour around it, but driving a bi-articulated bus in city traffic is far from easy, especially because it has to turn out of the busway, into the road, then back into the busway at the next intersection. Bi-articulation doesn't lend itself to easy turns, so those manoeuvres would be difficult, albeit, possible. 

What would the other benefits be? Lower capital costs, yes, but higher operational/maintenance costs. Other than that, other benefits?

In Europe, it's commonly done, but I agree with you. A bi-articulated bus is hard to manuver without "keep right" or exit lanes.

 

Operational/maintenance costs are actually lower. Other benefits? It's expandable. You can have a bus to Langley Ctr, Scottsdale and other places. Just have a seperate service within the bus lanes with normal articulated buses.

 

17 hours ago, maege said:

To be honest, that's a horrible argument. Yes, Surrey will be the largest city by population, but it also covers a massive area. Surrey covers a larger area than Vancouver, Burnaby, New Westminster, Port Moody, Port Coquitlam and North Vancouver combined (plus and extra 30 square km), but only has just over half the population (~518k for Surrey vs ~1.08million). Density is much more important and Surrey has less than one-third the density of Vancouver, about one-third of New Westminster and North Vancouver, about two-thirds the density of Burnaby, and just slightly more dense than Richmond.

Yeah, but I do think Surrey should build SkyTrain as a backbone. Not everywhere. Then, have the buses feeding into stations.

17 hours ago, maege said:

The capacity is a non-issue. LRT, just like other trains can be added until they are as long as you need. Frequency with drivers would only be 2-3 minutes, vs ~60-70 seconds with Skytrain, but automated LRT can operated at similar headways to Skytrain if needed. I agree that the low speed needs to be addressed and the system designed for higher speeds.

What if the platforms are too short? There are limitations with all systems, including the SkyTrain.

17 hours ago, maege said:

Edit:

Regarding automated LRT, it looks like we will see one in Montreal (REM) after today's federal funding announcement. Project site: https://www.cdpqinfra.com/en/Reseau_electrique_metropolitain

Discussion page: 

 

Last time I checked that was supposed to use Linear Induction Motor Innovia Metro 300's. Also known as the SkyTrain Mark III.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, buizel10 said:

Last time I checked that was supposed to use Linear Induction Motor Innovia Metro 300's. Also known as the SkyTrain Mark III.

The specific technology hasn't been chosen for the Montreal project beyond the fact they want a driverless system.  Some of the artwork shows Innovia Metro 300 cars with overhead wire, but that's all that is, concept artwork.  However it is pretty reasonable to expect a Bombardier product will eventually be chosen ... after all, this is a taxpayer funding system in Quebec ... lol 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, buizel10 said:

Well it isn't, but it's much cheaper.

 

In Europe, it's commonly done, but I agree with you. A bi-articulated bus is hard to manuver without "keep right" or exit lanes.

Operational/maintenance costs are actually lower. Other benefits? It's expandable. You can have a bus to Langley Ctr, Scottsdale and other places. Just have a seperate service within the bus lanes with normal articulated buses.

That's basically the core of what I'm getting at. There advantages of BRT are lower capital cost (~20-50% less depending on the system), and the possibility that maybe an accident can be detoured around in the rare instance it would occur (side note, LRT would likely single-track through the area, once one track was cleared, if both were blocked initially). 

Do you have a link for O&M costs? From everything I have seen, when comparing like to like (trolley bi-articulated BRT and a single LRV), LRT has lower costs due to steel wheels lasting longer than rubber and having lower rolling resistance, therefore using electricity. Additionally, rails last a good bit longer than pavement, especially if frequency is 5-8 minutes or less, and having longer replacement cycles, leading to lower annualized life-cycle costs. Note that this lower O&M cost doesn't seem to usually make up the difference in capital costs, but that difference is somewhat reduced over the life-cycle. 

Any form of rapid transit is expandable. You can also have buses operating within LRT ROW, often called a "transit mall" as is done for sections in Calgary, Portland, and Seattle. 

2 hours ago, buizel10 said:

Yeah, but I do think Surrey should build SkyTrain as a backbone. Not everywhere. Then, have the buses feeding into stations.

There should be a frequent, rapid transit backbone. I don't think the particular technology of that backbone is of terribly great importance for Surrey or any other city, as long as it performs well. 

2 hours ago, buizel10 said:

What if the platforms are too short? There are limitations with all systems, including the SkyTrain.

Platforms can be lengthened, for any system. Theoretically, there could be 10 car Skytrains, LRT, or any other rail technology, but it usually seems more prudent to provide that extra capacity with somewhat shorter trains and higher frequency. Two car LRT would provide for 400-600 passengers per train, 4 car LRT would be 800-1200 per train. That means at 5 minute headways, LRT can provide 9600-14400 pphpd with 4 car trains, double frequency to 2-3 minutes and you are ~20000+ pphpd. If that capacity is needed within 30 years in Surrey for these lines, then Translink has an incredibly unexpected and wonderful problem on their hands. That is why I say there is no reason to build stations for more than 3-4 cars (3 car trains would provide 7-10,000 pphpd at 5min headway), and anything beyond that would be unnecessary and wasteful. 

My question as to why not full, well-designed BRT on the Langley line instead of Skytrain still stands. You prefer BRT on the line with a higher population, so why not the Langley line too? The cost would be only 20-40% of Skytrain, and with bi-articulated buses could carry up to 9000 pphpd at 2 minute headways, which would provide well in excess of the needed 2041 capacity. As mentioned before, speeds could be similar except for a few seconds of acceleration, so that is a non-factor. I want to get to the core of why you like BRT for the L line, but seemingly not for the Langley line. 

My second question that you also didn't answer: 

Everything else about Translink's LRT plan being the same, you would be fine with it as long as it was elevated or underground?

2 hours ago, buizel10 said:

Last time I checked that was supposed to use Linear Induction Motor Innovia Metro 300's. Also known as the SkyTrain Mark III.

1 hour ago, cprted said:

The specific technology hasn't been specified for the Montreal project beyond the fact they want a driverless system.  The artwork shows Innovia Metro 300 cars with overhead wire, but that's all that is, concept artwork.  However it is pretty reasonable to expect a Bombardier product will eventually be chosen ... after all, this is a taxpayer funding system in Quebec ... lol 

They seem to have decided on LRT with overhead catenary for power, which would rule out a LIM system, although the Innovia can be built without LIM so they could still en up being the rolling stock. Alstom, Hyundai, and Bombardier are the finalists and a winner hasn't been announced yet.

I think the catenary is the best option for this project as ground based power system such as LIM and third-rail rotary seem to have quite a bit more difficulty staying reliable in harsher winter conditions like Montreal has.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, maege said:

Do you have a link for O&M costs? From everything I have seen, when comparing like to like (trolley bi-articulated BRT and a single LRV), LRT has lower costs due to steel wheels lasting longer than rubber and having lower rolling resistance, therefore using electricity. Additionally, rails last a good bit longer than pavement, especially if frequency is 5-8 minutes or less, and having longer replacement cycles, leading to lower annualized life-cycle costs. Note that this lower O&M cost doesn't seem to usually make up the difference in capital costs, but that difference is somewhat reduced over the life-cycle. 

http://www.translink.ca/-/media/Documents/plans_and_projects/rapid_transit_projects/SRT/alternatives_evaluation/Surrey_Rapid_Transit_Study_Phase_2_Alternatives_Evaluation_Executive_Summary.pdf

The really brief "BAU" section. Under Financial. It says LRT is worse so I think it's about O&M rather than capital.

Trolleys also use electricity. Also, before there is enough demand, you could run E60LFRs or the existing XDE60s. 

 

I do agree with the rails arguement, but aren't rails more expensive?

 

38 minutes ago, maege said:

There should be a frequent, rapid transit backbone. I don't think the particular technology of that backbone is of terribly great importance for Surrey or any other city, as long as it performs well. 

I don't feel the current slow ground level at grade LRT will work well for that line. It has lots of traffic, even during off-peak, and many accidents.

39 minutes ago, maege said:

My question as to why not full, well-designed BRT on the Langley line instead of Skytrain still stands. You prefer BRT on the line with a higher population, so why not the Langley line too? The cost would be only 20-40% of Skytrain, and with bi-articulated buses could carry up to 9000 pphpd at 2 minute headways, which would provide well in excess of the needed 2041 capacity. As mentioned before, speeds could be similar except for a few seconds of acceleration, so that is a non-factor. I want to get to the core of why you like BRT for the L line, but seemingly not for the Langley line. 

Because of the study. I just followed the TransLink study.

 

Plus they would have to reengineer King George to get it to work.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, buizel10 said:

http://www.translink.ca/-/media/Documents/plans_and_projects/rapid_transit_projects/SRT/alternatives_evaluation/Surrey_Rapid_Transit_Study_Phase_2_Alternatives_Evaluation_Executive_Summary.pdf

The really brief "BAU" section. Under Financial. It says LRT is worse so I think it's about O&M rather than capital.

Trolleys also use electricity. Also, before there is enough demand, you could run E60LFRs or the existing XDE60s. 

 

I do agree with the rails arguement, but aren't rails more expensive?

If you read the description in that document for financial:

Quote

The Financial account considers capital and operating costs, as well as cost-effectiveness.

It's good to fully read and understand before guessing and assuming ;) 

Translink's estimated O&M costs for this project can be found on the 96th page (it says Page 76 in the pdf, but is the 96th page in the pdf) here: http://www.translink.ca/-/media/Documents/plans_and_projects/rapid_transit_projects/SRT/alternatives_evaluation/Surrey_Rapid_Transit_Study_Phase_2_Alternatives_Evaluation.pdf

You can compare BRT1 ($28.3mil in 2021 and 46.6mil in 2041) and LRT1 ($27mil in 2021 and $38.9mil in 2041) as the cover the same routes, but LRT1 has BRT from Newton to White Rock and therefore doesn't accurately compare the O&M costs of the two technologies. To get the direct O&M costs for BRT and LRT, I used BRT1 ($28.3 and $46.6) - BRT2 ($20.7 and $32.5), since the only difference between the two is the Newton-White Rock portion, and subtracted that result ($7.6mil and $14.1mil) from LRT1 O&M costs ($27mil and $38.9mil) to get LRT O&M costs of $19.4mil in 2021 and $24.8mil in 2041.

We can compare those LRT numbers directly to BRT2 as BRT2 and LRT1(less the White Rock BRT that we subtracted) have the exact same routes and distances.

So LRT is $19.4mil O&M in 2021 vs BRT of $20.7 in 2021. In 2041, due to a shorter life-cycle of BRT, costs are $24.8mil for LRT vs $32.5 for BRT. 

I am aware trolley buses use electricity, that is why I specified them, so that we could get a most like to like comparison, and not have one side be more polluting and have a different measure of fuel than the other. You could use potentially use current buses, if there are extra buses available, but that isn't relevant when trying to directly compare the cost of different technologies at a general level.

Depends what you are comparing the rails to... If you are comparing them to the same few inches wide of concrete, then yes rail is more expensive. If comparing them to the equivalent road needed for BRT, then I'm not sure as I haven't found specific numbers for just the rail or the durable concrete that allows BRT lanes to last more than 10-15 years. The numbers I have found are ~$5mil per km for building a full rail bed, rails, ties, etc while cost for roads is ~$2mil/km for ashpalt and up to $100+ mil per lane km for urban elevated freeways. My best guess is that rail would cost $2-4mil per km, and $3-$25mil per lane km (I really don't have much idea) for concrete that is able to last 20-25 years of BRT use. 

2 hours ago, buizel10 said:

I don't feel the current slow ground level at grade LRT will work well for that line. It has lots of traffic, even during off-peak, and many accidents.

This is going circular..... Assuming LRT is designed well, it can achieve similar speeds to Skytrain, so let's not re-hash that Translink's proposal needs to be designed better, but the technology is capable, even at grade. As for traffic, that doesn't make much of an impact on rapid transit lines on Fraser Hwy or King George as the same number of road lanes would be retained. Additionally, rapid transit draws riders from personal vehicles, thereby reducing traffic on said routes. On 104 Ave, I believe the number of lanes would be reduced, if I remember correctly, but there are plans to expand a parallel road to serve as a replacement. Again the combination of that and rapid transit drawing people from cars would likely help traffic somewhat. Regarding accidents, again, go back to what I've written before about implementing design features to greatly minimize any possible accidents. Such features, while not guaranteeing that there would be no accidents, would immensely reduce the possibility, so accidents would be extremely rare occurrences. 

As for traffic, if you are referring to the 502/Langley line instead... In 2015 the 502 had a ridership of 2.6 million, while the 96 B-line had 3.7 million and the 321 had 2.2 million, good for the 33rd, 21st, and 36th most ridden bus routes for Translink. Any rapid transit technology can easily handle those numbers.

Edit: Source - http://www.translink.ca/-/media/Documents/plans_and_projects/managing_the_transit_network/2015 TSPR/2015 TSPR Appendix A Additional Figures.pdf

2 hours ago, buizel10 said:

Because of the study. I just followed the TransLink study.

Plus they would have to reengineer King George to get it to work.

Uhhh... Translink alternatives included full BRT options (BRT1 and BRT2), as can be seen in the pdf linked above, so.......

King George will be re-engineered no matter the technology, so I am not following.

Once again:

Why not BRT on the Langley line?

Everything else about Translink's current LRT plan being the same, would you be fine with it as long as it was elevated or underground?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, maege said:

This is going circular..... Assuming LRT is designed well, it can achieve similar speeds to Skytrain, so let's not re-hash that Translink's proposal needs to be designed better, but the technology is capable, even at grade. As for traffic, that doesn't make much of an impact on rapid transit lines on Fraser Hwy or King George as the same number of road lanes would be retained. Additionally, rapid transit draws riders from personal vehicles, thereby reducing traffic on said routes. On 104 Ave, I believe the number of lanes would be reduced, if I remember correctly, but there are plans to expand a parallel road to serve as a replacement. Again the combination of that and rapid transit drawing people from cars would likely help traffic somewhat. Regarding accidents, again, go back to what I've written before about implementing design features to greatly minimize any possible accidents. Such features, while not guaranteeing that there would be no accidents, would immensely reduce the possibility, so accidents would be extremely rare occurrences.

I know. but the current proposal looks like this:

LRT-whalley-BLVD.jpg

That's a problem for me. I would accept it if they grade seperated with elevation, tunnels or fences like they would do with an SkyTrain line.

2 minutes ago, maege said:

Uhhh... Translink alternatives included full BRT options (BRT1 and BRT2), as can be seen in the pdf linked above, so.......

King George will be re-engineered no matter the technology, so I am not following.

Once again:

Why not BRT on the Langley line?

Everything else about Translink's current LRT plan being the same, would you be fine with it as long as it was elevated or underground?

Because advocates advocate for SkyTrain + BRT.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, buizel10 said:

I know. but the current proposal looks like this:

LRT-whalley-BLVD.jpg

That's a problem for me. I would accept it if they grade seperated with elevation, tunnels or fences like they would do with an SkyTrain line.

Because advocates advocate for SkyTrain + BRT.

I agree that the current LRT proposal needs much better designing, and I said as much in far greater detail in the Translink consultation survey. Skytrain like fencing would be acceptable (I would prefer something with somewhat better aesthetics, but it could work), but intersections would have to have a break of course. That is where there would be two crossing arms on each side of the tracks (or poles that raised up from the street or other barrier mechanism), along with stop-lights, cumulatively preventing traffic from crossing tracks when a train is passing though the intersection.

But WHY do you advocate for Skytrain+BRT? Why not just BRT? Advocating or supporting something "just because" or "because that's what everyone else does" is horrible reasoning and is often to blame for the spread of bad/incorrect information and ideas.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, maege said:

But WHY do you advocate for Skytrain+BRT? Why not just BRT? Advocating or supporting something "just because" or "because that's what everyone else does" is horrible reasoning and is often to blame for the spread of bad/incorrect information and ideas.

Because other advocates before me advocated for SkyTrain + BRT. They have a point so ask them. @Express691 @8800GTX

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, buizel10 said:

Because other advocates before me advocated for SkyTrain + BRT. They have a point so ask them. @Express691 @8800GTX

The same question would apply to them too, but why do YOU support Skytrain+BRT and not just BRT?

Accepting someone else's arguments and then advocating for them without investigating the arguments and alternatives for yourself is irresponsible for an informed public discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, maege said:

The same question would apply to them too, but why do YOU support Skytrain+BRT and not just BRT?

Accepting someone else's arguments and then advocating for them without investigating the arguments and alternatives for yourself is irresponsible for an informed public discussion.

It's a grade seperated rail service much better suited for Fraser Hwy. Fraser Hwy has a lot of potential and empty space, unlike 104/KGB (well KGB has a lot too but). It's elevated or tunneled. That's the most important part. It has to save space through Green Timbers unlike the 104/KGB plan.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, buizel10 said:

It's a grade seperated rail service much better suited for Fraser Hwy. Fraser Hwy has a lot of potential and empty space, unlike 104/KGB (well KGB has a lot too but). It's elevated or tunneled. That's the most important part. It has to save space through Green Timbers unlike the 104/KGB plan.

Why is grade separated rail much better suited for the Fraser Hwy (I'm assuming you're comparing to at-grade BRT/LRT) since it has plenty of extra space? With the extra space you could implement at-grade BRT/LRT, without taking from the current roadway, and save significantly on costs. 104 doesn't really have extra space in the ROW, unlike the other two, but you support BRT, which would be at-grade, for it? 

I brought up City of Surrey population estimates previously showing that the Langley line would serve less population at present the the L line, and will continue to in the future, with the population difference growing even greater than present. So if by having "a lot of potential", I would urge re-consideration. Yes, development and population will grow along the Langley line, but it will still fall further behind in population served, compared to the shorter L line. 

As for Green Timbers, I agree that it should remain as minimally disturbed as possible. That said, there are wide shoulders (~3m on each side) through Green Timbers, so only another 1-2m of space would be needed for LRT (and presumably BRT if it takes up the same width as LRT). That would be an acceptably minimal amount of disruption in my opinion. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, maege said:

As for Green Timbers, I agree that it should remain as minimally disturbed as possible. That said, there are wide shoulders (~3m on each side) through Green Timbers, so only another 1-2m of space would be needed for LRT (and presumably BRT if it takes up the same width as LRT). That would be an acceptably minimal amount of disruption in my opinion. 

Last time I checked, the current road is about ~15-20m. I don't know though. 4 lanes, a pathway and SkyTrain will take anywhere from 22-30m. The recommended wideness my the Green Timbers Society is 28m max. The City of Surrey suggests 40m for LRT. LRT takes up less space than BRT. (slightly)

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, buizel10 said:

Last time I checked, the current road is about ~15-20m. I don't know though. 4 lanes, a pathway and SkyTrain will take anywhere from 22-30m. The recommended wideness my the Green Timbers Society is 28m max. The City of Surrey suggests 40m for LRT. LRT takes up less space than BRT. (slightly)

Through Green Timbers Fraser Hwy is only 2 travel lanes, one in each direction, unless it has been widened since the latest Google satellite images, in which case I would just take the two new lanes for LRT and call it good.

3m (about 10ft) per lane is sufficient for each travel lane, and from what I looked into for LRT for Arbutus earlier in this thread, 7-8m is enough for double-track LRT. If the road is 15m currently, 6 meters for travel lanes and 8-9 meters for LRT/BRT, would fit perfectly within the current road width, without any extra room required on the sides. If a pathway is wanted alongside the road, then you would just be adding however wide the pathway is desired to be (I would guess ~2-3m). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, maege said:

I agree that the current LRT proposal needs much better designing, and I said as much in far greater detail in the Translink consultation survey. Skytrain like fencing would be acceptable (I would prefer something with somewhat better aesthetics, but it could work), but intersections would have to have a break of course. That is where there would be two crossing arms on each side of the tracks (or poles that raised up from the street or other barrier mechanism), along with stop-lights, cumulatively preventing traffic from crossing tracks when a train is passing though the intersection.

But WHY do you advocate for Skytrain+BRT? Why not just BRT? Advocating or supporting something "just because" or "because that's what everyone else does" is horrible reasoning and is often to blame for the spread of bad/incorrect information and ideas.

I'll take a stab at this from my pov.

The main reason I am against LRT on Fraser Hwy is because it would mean a longer travel time compared to Skytrain to Surrey Ctrl/King George, and then would require a transfer onto Skytrain. BRT would of course be the same.

People in Langley need the easiest travel possible, and having an extra transfer and bus/LRT ride won't entice too many people to ditch the car and start using transit to get around

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, maege said:

Through Green Timbers Fraser Hwy is only 2 travel lanes, one in each direction, unless it has been widened since the latest Google satellite images, in which case I would just take the two new lanes for LRT and call it good.

3m (about 10ft) per lane is sufficient for each travel lane, and from what I looked into for LRT for Arbutus earlier in this thread, 7-8m is enough for double-track LRT. If the road is 15m currently, 6 meters for travel lanes and 8-9 meters for LRT/BRT, would fit perfectly within the current road width, without any extra room required on the sides. If a pathway is wanted alongside the road, then you would just be adding however wide the pathway is desired to be (I would guess ~2-3m). 

No, they want 4 traffic lanes and 2 LRT lanes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Translink69 said:

I'll take a stab at this from my pov.

The main reason I am against LRT on Fraser Hwy is because it would mean a longer travel time compared to Skytrain to Surrey Ctrl/King George, and then would require a transfer onto Skytrain. BRT would of course be the same.

People in Langley need the easiest travel possible, and having an extra transfer and bus/LRT ride won't entice too many people to ditch the car and start using transit to get around

It would be slightly longer, but if designed well as I proposed, it could achieve similar speeds and that time difference would only be ~1-3 minutes due to the acceleration advantages of Skytrain. And that would be for a capital cost of ~40% less with LRT or ~75% less with BRT compared to Skytrain. The transfer, for those that would need it, would be ~1-6 minutes depending on wait time for Skytrain. So for people that don't need to transfer to Skytrain, that would be ~1-3 minutes extra and for those transferring to Skytrain, ~2-9 minutes more. 

Why do people in Langley need the "easiest travel possible" when they only represents a small portion of the people that would be served by Newton-Guildford, and only ~30% (50% if including Langley and local surroundings) of the people served by the Langley line? Additionally, your assumption is that the majority of people from Langley that would use the Langley line would continue on Skytrain and not just be going to different parts of Surrey. According to Page 66 of the 2011 Translink Trip Diary Analysis, which is their most recent one on their website, internal traffic within the Langleys made up 65% of all trips, which seems fairly normal. For trips outside, however, South of the Fraser (Surrey/White Rock/North Delta) was by far the largest, accounting for 18% of all trips. After that, the Fraser Valley Regional District (FVRD) accounted for 7% of trips. Everywhere else accounted for 10% combined, with no area having over 2% of trips to/from Langley.

Basically, Surrey (and White Rock and North Delta) make up over half of all trips to/from the Langleys, and ~64% of trips to/from Langleys to the rest of Metro Vancouver. To put it another way, the areas that people would take Skytrain to (Burnaby/New West, Vancouver/UEL, Northeast Sector, North Shore) only accounted for ~20% of external trips from Langley (7% of total trips) while South of Fraser accounted for ~51% of external trips for Langleys. 

The numbers from the 2008 Translink Trip Diary Survey show very similar results as well on Page 27-28. 

In summary, travel time would be minimally longer for the line (~1-3 minutes), and the vast majority of trips using the Langley line likely wouldn't transfer to Skytrain, but go to other parts of Surrey (part of the reason why I prefer Tranlink's initial routing of the Langley line via Guildford). And why is Langley special, but not Newton and Guildford, even though they have more people? If we want people to ditch cars, we should provide the best service to the most people, not just a small subset.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, buizel10 said:

No, they want 4 traffic lanes and 2 LRT lanes.

Ah, right, this: http://www.civicsurrey.com/2015/05/27/fraser-hwy-widening-set-to-expand-green-timbers/

I don't agree with this plan, however, if they are going to massively widen the corridor anyway, I don't really see the difference in having an extra 3-4m for LRT/BRT vs Skytrain. I would much prefer keeping it at 2 lanes and rapid transit roughly within the current space, and possibly widen a little for a pathway. 

I agree with this guy:

Quote

Foulkes said he isn't opposed to an LRT line on Fraser Highway, but he doesn't understand why the city needs to add an additional two lanes of traffic.

"If you create rapid transit, people can park their cars and use it," Foulkes said. "You don't need four lanes anymore."

Source: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/surrey-to-cut-down-hundreds-of-green-timbers-trees-to-make-way-for-lrt-1.3089323

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, maege said:

Truth of the matter is, Fraser Highway will still need to be widened regardless. With SkyTrain though, you potentially cut down less trees compared to LRT. Also, rapid transit does not COMPLETELY stop people from taking cars. Car usage will still increase but at a decreased rate. Widening roads will be justified 40-50 years from now.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...