Jump to content

TransLink Future - Dream's and Aspirations


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, cleowin said:

So skytrain to langley isnt likely?

I don't think it's been likely since Translink and Mayor's Council announced their preference (followed by planning) for LRT. 

1 hour ago, Express691 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.

I would disagree with "need". Vancouver hasn't widened any major road in decades (with lots of population growth) and is still doing alright. Also road widening can induce demand (a similar reason why building better transit attracts more riders), which could hurt transit ridership (specifically the Langley line). I'm only on there a couple times a year, so don't have much first-hand experience of traffic, but if concern for Green Timbers is a high priority (which it probably should be), then alternatives should be considered to widening the ROW and clearing/moving trees. Specifically, I would look at 96 Ave as there almost enough space in the median currently to add two extra lanes throught Green Timbers, so minimal amounts of extra ROW would be needed. 96 Ave and 148th st would only add 600m to a trip vs Fraser Hwy and using 152nd st instead would still only be 900m. Additionally, 100th Ave was looking to be widened to replace some of the expected lose of lanespace on 104 ave, so that could be another option. However, if widening the Fraser Hwy is bound to happen no matter what, that's when I see little difference for a few extra meters for BRT/LRT. 

I agree that rapid transit does not completely stop people from taking cars, but it definitely moves some people from car to transit. As for cars continuing to increase, that depends on how much easier it is made for people to drive vs other forms of transportation. Keeping the current road system in place and in good repair, but not expanding it, except for small spot improvements as needed for safety would encourage many more people to take transit over time, making the whole system of moving people more efficient. If roads keep getting widened, however, that encourages more driving and poor usage of transportation space.

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

But Provincial Government could operate decided the fate of Fraser Highway line.

The could theoretically decide the fate of all the lines. However, there are a few things going against that:

1. The money has already been committed. Both the province and the feds have committed money for the LRT plans.

2. All 3 parties seem to be supportive of the LRT plans, and the Liberals especially have been attempting to be much nicer to Translink and Mayor's Council since the election. 

3. Once the L line gets built with LRT, it will be virtually impossible to build the Langley line with Skytrain due to the much higher cost, which would make the project go significantly over budget.

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

The could theoretically decide the fate of all the lines. However, there are a few things going against that:

1. The money has already been committed. Both the province and the feds have committed money for the LRT plans.

2. All 3 parties seem to be supportive of the LRT plans, and the Liberals especially have been attempting to be much nicer to Translink and Mayor's Council since the election. 

3. Once the L line gets built with LRT, it will be virtually impossible to build the Langley line with Skytrain due to the much higher cost, which would make the project go significantly over budget.

1. I don't remind hearing anything about that.

2. True.

3. But public, mayors and TransLink might change there mind if there are a lot crashs and a lot of system delays due traffic. Langley Line could easily change because no one has putting funding towards building it. 

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

1. I don't remind hearing anything about that.

2. True.

3. But public, mayors and TransLink might change there mind if there are a lot crashs and a lot of system delays due traffic. Langley Line could easily change because no one has putting funding towards building it. 

Here at the end of March. Note the $2.2 billion figure. ~$2.2 billion is the total LRT (with BRT to White Rock) cost for all lines. Broadway extension is just over $3 billion. Rounding up, that gives $5.5 billion, of which 40% is $2.2 billion, the number both the province and feds promised. Funding is in place for all the lines as planned by Translink. 

With the LRT as planned by Translink, accidents won't be any more frequent than comparable lines in the US (and probably less as there is a lower incidence overall for accidents here than in many of those cities), and traffic delays won't be an issue as just like many other LRT systems, LRT has full signal priority so it doesn't wait for traffic. And as mentioned above, the funding is in place. Additionally, assuming the construction schedule sticks, the Langley line construction is set to begin very shortly after the L line opens, so there would be very minimal time for something to occur with the line that would force such a massive swing. 

Also note that the Evergreen extension decision was made well before any construction work was started, and that's what I would hold as a benchmark. Once construction starts on the first LRT line, both lines will be LRT. 

29 minutes ago, GORDOOM said:

Keep in mind that TransLink has gone out of its way to talk about "rapid transit" on the Fraser Hwy. corridor on all the public-consultation documents. Clearly they consider LRT vs. Expo Line extension still up in the air.

I wouldn't say they've gone out of their way to use "rapid transit". They use both LRT and rapid transit fairly frequently, although LRT is still more prevalent. The majority of people don't know what "LRT" is or what it is an acronym for. Rapid transit is much more readily understood by people, hence why it is used in some cases. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw those, and there are a number of issues.

1. Why are there both bike lanes and a multi-use pathway in the LRT image? That would be redundant and unnecessary, and such a combination isn't in the other two images, so it is very misleading. 

Mis-used space: 3m

2. 2m on both sides of LRT is wasteful if you are looking to minimize width and environmental impact. Sufficient barriers can be implemented in a much smaller space.

Mis-used space: 2-3m

3. The supposed "total width" numbers at the top are incorrect/misleading for what is shown. For the 24m image, there is only a total of 20.1m, leaving 3.9m unmarked. By rough approximation, it looks like the lights would be about 1.5m each and the space between Skytrain and the pathway .25m. That's an extra 3.25m, bringing the total to 23.35, reasonably close to the 24m. For the 27m label, the total distances shown are only 23.2m. Add in roughly 1.75m between bikelanes and sidewalks, and there is 26.7, quite close to the 27m.

However, for the 40m label (LRT image), the total distance is only 30.9. The only infrastructure unlabelled here is the light between the bike lane and pathway, which appears about 2m. I see no reason why it can be the same width at the lights in the 27m, so lets make it 1.75m. That gives a total of 32.65m, a dramatic difference from the "40m" label at the top. Misleading much?

Additionally, as I mentioned before there is the issue of bike lanes when you have a pathway. subtract that and you are at 29.65m. If you then subtract the wasted space listed in #2, then you are at 26.65m-27.65m, 3-4m from the "best case" Skytrain scenario, and roughly equivalent with the "moderate" Skytrain image. This is also within the 28m width you mentioned earlier as well.

So yeah, misleading and inaccurate images are a very poor way to attempt to make the case for something. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish TransLink would use Compass system to its full benefit by:

1. All door boarding every route at all stops. 

2. Elimation of months passes and day passes by capping the fare each day and monthly fare cap. 

3. Discount at stores to increase transit useable.

4. BC Transit and BC Ferries joining the Compass system.

5. Cell phone Payment.

6. Offer free rides after a certain amount of trips.

7. Credit and debt card payment on bus and fare gates.

8. Trying to go to cashless system.

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

I wish TransLink would use Compass system to its full benefit by:

1. All door boarding every route at all stops. 

2. Elimation of months passes and day passes by capping the fare each day and monthly fare cap. 

3. Discount at stores to increase transit useable.

4. BC Transit and BC Ferries joining the Compass system.

5. Cell phone Payment.

6. Offer free rides after a certain amount of trips.

7. Credit and debt card payment on bus and fare gates.

8. Trying to go to cashless system.

1. Could work, possibly more fare evasion with less peer pressure and uncomfortable looks at the driver, but likely not a huge issue.

2. Let's do it already!

3. I'm not sure I follow what you are suggesting. Are you saying showing compass card for a 5% discount or something at stores?

4. I wouldn't mind, but there would be a very large capital and ongoing cost to such a system, especially if it is all BC Ferries and BC transit. I could see having the ferries that serve Horseshoe Bay and Tsawassen supporting it, along with Victoria, Fraser Valley, Whistler, and maybe Nanaimo transit systems. Any reach beyond that would be impractical and a waste in my opinion. 

5. Possibly coming via Android/Apple/NFC pay at the same time as Debit/Credit NFC payments start being accepted at Compass readers. 

6. Pointless with fare capping and most people wouldn't keep track of it anyway. 

7. Yup, see 5

8. Probably not, especially since people at the poorest margins of society are the least likely to have credit/debit/phone to pay with, so they would take the hardest hit. That along with visitors from other countries that may not have nfc compatible credit card (debit systems are not interoperable between Canada and other countries) or phone with necessary NFC chip or support for payment methods.

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

1. Could work, possibly more fare evasion with less peer pressure and uncomfortable looks at the driver, but likely not a huge issue.

2. Let's do it already!

3. I'm not sure I follow what you are suggesting. Are you saying showing compass card for a 5% discount or something at stores?

4. I wouldn't mind, but there would be a very large capital and ongoing cost to such a system, especially if it is all BC Ferries and BC transit. I could see having the ferries that serve Horseshoe Bay and Tsawassen supporting it, along with Victoria, Fraser Valley, Whistler, and maybe Nanaimo transit systems. Any reach beyond that would be impractical and a waste in my opinion. 

5. Possibly coming via Android/Apple/NFC pay at the same time as Debit/Credit NFC payments start being accepted at Compass readers. 

6. Pointless with fare capping and most people wouldn't keep track of it anyway. 

7. Yup, see 5

8. Probably not, especially since people at the poorest margins of society are the least likely to have credit/debit/phone to pay with, so they would take the hardest hit. That along with visitors from other countries that may not have nfc compatible credit card (debit systems are not interoperable between Canada and other countries) or phone with necessary NFC chip or support for payment methods.

1. It would have Transit police a point now?

2. Yes a discount for showing a Compass card. 

4. Compass system would be hand off to Provincal Government and TransLink would get money back from building and operating the system. 

5 and 7. Ok 

6. I see your point but disagree with it since the system would do for you. 

8. TransLink should, anyway,introduce a low income option where you get cheaper fares and free card. 

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

I wish TransLink would use Compass system to its full benefit by:

1. All door boarding every route at all stops. 

2. Elimation of months passes and day passes by capping the fare each day and monthly fare cap. 

3. Discount at stores to increase transit useable.

4. BC Transit and BC Ferries joining the Compass system.

5. Cell phone Payment.

6. Offer free rides after a certain amount of trips.

7. Credit and debt card payment on bus and fare gates.

8. Trying to go to cashless system.

1.  I think they may be looking at all door baording for various routes or at least at terminus's that are loops.  This may just be wishful thinking on my part though as they have removed the rear compass readers on most of the 16000's, but that could be a result of extra buses being on the road with the service increases.

2.  They are currently looking at doing an overhaul of the fare structure such as distance based fares that could do exactly this.

3.  This is a neat idea, maybe limited use passes for a discount such as 3 trips per pass or it will last 3 days after first tap.  

4.  BC Transit joining compass would mean upgrading thier equipment on all buses in surrounding areas such as Victoria, Nanaimo, Squamish, Whistler, Abbotsford and Chilliwack.  However, if they were to consider this, I could see a limited rollout to test this on the following routes: Victoria ferry bus, Squamish connector to Lower Mainland if/when it happens if Translink doesn't run it and the FVX.  I believe there has been talk of BC Ferries adding the ability to use compass.

5.  Translink is already looking into doing this.  The system is fully capable of this, just a matter of activating it which would be quite simple from my understanding of it.

6.  I doubt this would ever happen unless ridership goes down a huge amount which is unlikely.  Although this could be useful to get people to use new service if it isn't doing well.

7.  Translink is already looking into this.  The system is fully capable of this, just a matter of activating it with payment processing.

8.  Going to a cashless system has always been the intention of compass.  It's just a matter of time.

One thing I would like to add as a wish which I know is a possibility of the system is to use your compass card to make regular purchases with your balance such as McDonald's etc.  They do it in Hong Kong I believe, they can use thier transit card to buy almost anything.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Blue Bus Fan said:

1. It would have Transit police a point now?

2. Yes a discount for showing a Compass card. 

4. Compass system would be hand off to Provincal Government and TransLink would get money back from building and operating the system. 

5 and 7. Ok 

6. I see your point but disagree with it since the system would do for you. 

8. TransLink should, anyway,introduce a low income option where you get cheaper fares and free card. 

1. Transit police aren't on very many buses due to there being so many buses and trains and limited number of police. I don't think fare evasion would increase much, but it should be at least a consideration.

2. Gotcha. Just depends on whether businesses want to do it. Translink should put very little to no money into this however. I can see it being a tourist oriented thing like is done in come cities where you buy this pass for a little more and get x transit benefits while also getting discounts to a,b,and c attractions.

4. Well it's a fairly generic solution that is offered, just specific branding really. BC Ferries and transit could potentially operate a separate but compatible system, so it could just be more things added to Translink's Compass system, with the province covering the new portion. Whichever makes more sense and is cheaper. 

6. The point of a loyalty/reward system is for people to be aware of it and leads people to spend more (in this case use transit more), but if they aren't aware and the system just does it automatically, it would be pointless.

8. There's a number of options that can help, but with the two things I mentioned initially, I don't think there will be cash fares disappearing anytime soon, but may eventually.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. The transit police would just travel around on buses and trains checking tickets.

6. TransLink would publicize the reward system on social media and the media. I understand that people should be aware of rewards. 

 

Why did not mention the distance base fare because we really need to award people who use and try to make people driver less. But they could revamp the zone based system to make more fare if you go one or two Stations from the last Station in zone boundary excluding Scott Road Station to Columbia Station, you should be considered a single zone rider only if use a Compass card, bank card or cell phone with card on it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So the discussion here has been getting pretty interesting, and I thought I would take at stab at explaining why building more SkyTrain SoF beyond KG Station is so important. The way I see it, it's a simple matter:

dVT0iGF.png

Automobile use here is growing faster here than in any other place in Metro Vancouver.

In a region where automobile use is not set to grow significantly anywhere, Surrey and Langley stick out like sore thumbs. Let alone the local consequences, there are also strong consequences at a regional level. Road infrastructure isn't cheap: it costs millions of dollars to service and maintain. Orienting your lifestyle around the automobile isn't cheap either. Putting up the best transit alternative and getting the best possible ridership outcome is a matter of maintaining a strong economy.

We need to have something that can effectively combat that growth in vehicle use.

SkyTrain down Fraser, and BRT on the L-corridor, is the best possible way to spend that money to generate a long-term modal shift.

Extending SkyTrain is the only alternative that directly integrates with the existing system connecting our region, and also offers the most travel time improvements even on its own. Extending SkyTrain, and not a separate second-rate system, sends a real message that this region is willing to take this area as seriously as any other part of the region when it comes to making places accessible by transit.

Travel time improvement is perhaps the single most important metric you can consider when determining how to spend billions of dollars in a rapid transit system. Our excellence in this metric, by expanding SkyTrain, has awarded us with one of the most successful rapid transit systems on this continent, going by ridership numbers. Our success is built on the fact that we have been able to tie our entire region together with transit.

 

As for why that extension should go down Fraser to Langley...

I realize that in terms of how much population lives within close distance, the KGB and 104 corridors could potentially be within reach of most people. And for Fraser, I agree that BRT would be an excellent alternative; I would certainly advocate for it, especially because it can be set up and running so quickly. But again, building rapid transit is not just about reaching whoever is within a 10 min walking distance or within a 15 min bus ride: it's about tying our region together.

That's the reason that building SkyTrain down Fraser is the best choice: it maximizes the opportunities that investing in rapid transit SoF can bring.

TransLink studied an Expo Line extension to Newton, but found its benefits to be significantly lower. The communities that a Newton extension would reach are either not far from Surrey City Centre or existing SkyTrain service, wouldn't benefit from connecting to SkyTrain in Newton, or already have other means of connection with the rest of the region. For example, South Surrey commuters heading to Vancouver already have the best possible connection through the Highway 99 corridor and the #351.

Extending the Expo Line down Fraser to Langley will bring the most useful travel time reductions to the most possible riders/population centres.

If you were to travel from Waterfront Station to Langley, by current transit (502) it would take 1 hour and 45 minutes. BRT could reduce that to 1 hour 20, but a direct SkyTrain would take that down to less than an hour without transfer.

That means that within the same 1h 45 min time frame it requires to get to Langley today, you would be able to access destinations on Abbotsford's South Fraser Way.

Provided connecting bus service, of course. But the point is, if you never imagined that possibility, that's exactly what the problem is!

I would say this is the inspiration I have taken from all of the tourism and roaming I've done in Japan: you can really go anywhere and everywhere in good time by transit, rarely ever requiring a supplementary transportation such as an Uber or a cab. Imagine the possibilities:

  • Most people NoF wouldn't even think about making a trip down to Cloverdale, but being able to take SkyTrain as far as Clayton Centre will turn that into a more feasible possibility. (Imagine how much more awesome Canada Day in Cloverdale would be!)
  • I wouldn’t be able to take a job based at the industrial areas down in Campbell Heights because I don’t have a car. Extending SkyTrain, however, will most likely result in improvements to bus routes serving Langley Centre like the 531, or new routes, so that will become a possibility.
  • Clayton residents aren’t big users of transit, and that’s why there is a major parking problem in that community. Guess what happens when a SkyTrain station is built nearby.

 

The goal of our rapid transit projects is to tie everything together with transit: that is, create the basis for which transit becomes the primary way to get around the city and region. The best way to do that South of Fraser is to make sure this system is fast and competitive, is integrated with what serves the rest of the region and is also well-integrated internally (i.e. avoid extra transfers). Street-level LRT is inferior on all three counts!

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 8800GTX said:

We need to have something that can effectively combat that growth in vehicle use.

Agreed.

4 hours ago, 8800GTX said:

Extending SkyTrain is the only alternative that directly integrates with the existing system connecting our region, and also offers the most travel time improvements even on its own. Extending SkyTrain, and not a separate second-rate system, sends a real message that this region is willing to take this area as seriously as any other part of the region when it comes to making places accessible by transit.

Travel time improvement is perhaps the single most important metric you can consider when determining how to spend billions of dollars in a rapid transit system. Our excellence in this metric, by expanding SkyTrain, has awarded us with one of the most successful rapid transit systems on this continent, going by ridership numbers. Our success is built on the fact that we have been able to tie our entire region together with transit.

A couple things:

1. Any technology would "directly integrate" with the rest of the transit network through multi-modal hubs, exchanges, etc. I'm assuming what you are trying to get at, though, is the transfer (or lack thereof) if someone is going from the Langley line to Burnaby/Vancouver/New West, etc. I addressed this earlier with the trip numbers, where the vast majority of trips do not actually leave Surrey. Would it potentially benefit those 7% of Langley line trips? Yes, but are those extra 1-5 minutes of transferring for that 7% worth paying 2/3rds more for the line (roughly $60mil per km vs $105mil per km)?

2. You refer to LRT as second-rate without using any evidence to back it up. From a technology standpoint, LRT can go as fast as Skytrain, less a small acceleration difference. I agree that the speed at which Translink proposes running the Surrey LRT at is unacceptable. That is a fault of their planning and design though, not the technology. We should be pushing Translink to do better with the design and implementation to allow for those faster speeds. 

Additionally, when you refer to LRT as "second-rate", you are essentially saying people along the Guildford-Newton line (serving more people than the Langley line I might add) do not deserve a supposed "first-rate" transit, since I think we can agree that the basic design and operation of LRT and (full) BRT lines is very similar, except one is a train and one is a bus.

3. I agree that travel time is important. When designing lines, travel time should focus on the shortest times for the most people. As I've mentioned, only 7% of all Langley trips are to somewhere that would use the Expo line to other parts of the Metro. For Surrey, based on the same report, 76% of all Surrey trips are within Surrey, 6% to Langleys, and only 5% to Vancouver and Burnaby/New West each with 1% to Tri-cities and North Shore. The huge majority of trips that will be affected by these lines are going to be for Surrey. That is what we should be designing and building for. We should have easy and efficient connections to the rest of the metro, but the number of trips going to the rest of the metro area are very tiny compared to the number within Surrey, so that should be the #1 priority by far. 

4 hours ago, 8800GTX said:

I realize that in terms of how much population lives within close distance, the KGB and 104 corridors could potentially be within reach of most people. And for Fraser, I agree that BRT would be an excellent alternative; I would certainly advocate for it, especially because it can be set up and running so quickly. But again, building rapid transit is not just about reaching whoever is within a 10 min walking distance or within a 15 min bus ride: it's about tying our region together.

If you would be willing to advocate for BRT, why not LRT? What is so different, in your view, between the two technologies that makes LRT a "second-class" technology?

As for tying the regions together, it is a complete transit system that does that, not one specific line or technology. Having a frequent and efficient transit system is the key, whether that system uses regular buses, heavy-rail subways, BRT, LRT, Skytrain, gondolas, monorails, or any combination. It was mentioned earlier that with the opening of SoF rapid transit, the bus system in Surrey should be re-designed to be more like Vancouver's with most routes spaces 1-1.5km apart offering frequent, high quality service all day. I completely agree with that. That will be the key to the success of any line and technology. So that said, arguing for any specific technology because said technology will magically tie the region together is BS.

 

4 hours ago, 8800GTX said:

TransLink studied an Expo Line extension to Newton, but found its benefits to be significantly lower. The communities that a Newton extension would reach are either not far from Surrey City Centre or existing SkyTrain service, wouldn't benefit from connecting to SkyTrain in Newton, or already have other means of connection with the rest of the region. For example, South Surrey commuters heading to Vancouver already have the best possible connection through the Highway 99 corridor and the #351.

Extending the Expo to Langley will bring travel time reductions to the most possible riders and population centres. As an example, if you were to travel from Waterfront Station to Langley, by current transit it would take 1 hour and 45 minutes. BRT could reduce that to 1 hour 20, but a direct SkyTrain would take that down to less than an hour without transfer.

There was a number of the "alternatives" that didn't really make sense to me, including that one, which would only serve a fraction of people compared to the larger scale alternatives. Ummm.... I don't think there is any area that wouldn't benefit from having a faster and more frequent service (regardless of technology), including Newton. As for the 351 and Hwy 99, you won't be taking any of those buses if you live anywhere around 72nd or north, so that isn't really relevant for this discussion as no proposal had anything other than BRT between Newton and White Rock. 

I've said it countless times already, but I'll say it again. BRT, LRT and Skytrain are all capable of similar speeds. Skytrain does have a slight acceleration advantage, but that is measured in seconds, not minutes. The design has to be good enough to allow for those speeds, and this is a major failing of Translink. Any lines built can and should be allowed to let the technology achieve the 70-90km/h that they all can easily do. 

And as mentioned a number of times, a relatively minute proportion of trips would continue to/from the Langley line onto the Expo line. The faster service will from other parts of the metro will benefit a few people, but that is a relatively small group compared to all the other trips. And again as far as the time estimates, the only time difference between technologies would be the time to transfer and maybe one extra minute, if you are being generous, for better acceleration of Skytrain. That is a ~5 minute difference tops. 

4 hours ago, 8800GTX said:

That means that within the same 1h 45 min time frame it requires to get to Langley today, you would be able to access destinations on Abbotsford's South Fraser Way.

You must be including a different bus than currently exists between Langley and Abbotsford, as it is still an hour at best from Langley Centre to South Fraser Way in Abby on current buses. I would support such an idea like an express bus route from Abbotsford with one stop in Aldergrove and one in Murrayville, terminating at the end of the rapid transit line in Langley, but that's a different topic. Also, I have actually thought quite a bit about connecting the Fraser Valley, hence the interurban line on the map

4 hours ago, 8800GTX said:
  • Most people NoF wouldn't even think about making a trip down to Cloverdale, but being able to take SkyTrain as far as Clayton Centre will turn that into a feasible possibility.
  • I wouldn’t be able to take a job based at the industrial areas down in Campbell Heights because I don’t have a job. Extending SkyTrain, however, will most likely result in improvements to bus routes serving Langley Centre like the 531, or new routes, so that will become a possibility.
  • Clayton residents aren’t big users of transit, and that’s why there is a major parking problem in that community. Guess what happens when a SkyTrain station is built nearby.

I have made a number of trips to Cloverdale, usually via the 340 and 364, and with the exception of some events, there isn't much to go to Cloverdale for, IMO, unless you know someone there. Yes, people could get there faster with any rapid transit line, and that's a good thing, but there's not going to be a massive influx of new people suddenly deciding to go to Cloverdale after the Langley line opens. 

Any rapid transit line should result in improvements to bus service via more direct routes connecting to the new rapid transit stations, and hopefully the saved hours invested into better frequency. 

Again, that is any rapid transit station, not specific to any one technology.

Overall, I agree with you here. However, all the things you said in this section are applicable to any rapid transit line, not just Skytrain.

4 hours ago, 8800GTX said:

The goal of our rapid transit projects is to tie everything together with transit: that is, create the basis for which transit becomes the primary alternative for which people get around in the city and region. The best way to do that South of Fraser is to make sure this system is fast and competitive, is integrated with what serves the rest of the region and is also well-integrated internally (avoid transfers). Street-level LRT is inferior on all three counts!

The goal of rapid transit projects is to serve as a backbone, providing frequent, higher capacity, and often higher speed service to an area. It should be well integrated with local bus routes, as without those, a rapid transit line would be of little use to most people. 

So yes, I agree that a system should be fast, frequent and well integrated. If we really wanted to help avoid transfers for people, we should go back to the original design of the SoF rapid transit line(s): Newton to Surrey Central via KGB to Guildford via 104 Ave to Fleetwood via 152 st to Langley via Fraser Hwy. As noted above, the huge majority of all trips from Surrey are within Surrey (76%) and for the Langleys, by far the largest amount of external trips are to Surrey (51% of external trips). If we are to have a serious discussion about avoiding transfers for the largest number of people, then let's go back to the original routing since that would serve by far the most number of trips without requiring another transfer. 

In summary, for speed, a few second advantage to Skytrain. For internal connectivity, technology doesn't matter, but the original routing would be hugely better. For external connectivity, all technologies would integrate well into the larger transit system. For most people going to Vancouver, Burnaby, New West, Coquitlam, etc, there would be a short transfer required, regardless of technology. If Skytrain is used for the Langley line, a tiny percentage of people (the 7% of of people on the Langley line which serve 40% of the new rapid transit population) may avoid a transfer to the Expo line. That's 2.8% of all passengers on the new  SoF rapid transit lines.

So then the question comes, should we be spending an extra ~$45 million per km (~$400-$700 million total depending on what costs are included) to save a short transfer for 2.8% of trips on the new lines and a few short seconds of acceleration for 40% of people served by the new lines? 

In my view, the numbers answer for themselves.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that TransLink should consider doing major bus re-routes for 15, 17 and 50:

1. Eliminate the interline between for the 15 and 50.

2. 15 would take over Cambia bridge routing of 17. 

3. The 17 would take Granville St bridge to Waterfront station.

4. 50 would become circular route with a two way routing via the existing route which extend from Olympic Village Station via West 4th Ave, turning on left onto Culumbia St, then right on West 1st Ave then turning left onto Quebec St then left onto Keefer St, then right onto Abbott St, then left onto Pender St and right onto Cambie. This would elimate the one way routing in Chinatown. The layover stop will be in Olympic Village Station Exchange. 

5. Build an exchange at Olympic Village Station which elimate the Ash St stop and Heather loop stops due it being close to both stops, the 15, 50, and 84 would service this exchangec 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Blue Bus Fan said:

The 17 would take Granville St bridge to Waterfront station.

I like the 17 as it is currently because it is in and out of downtown quickly (many drivers also like that about the current routing) and also goes by the Save On Foods and Home Depot. Although I no longer live in Vancouver, when I did live there I found  the 17 to be very convenient for all of my travels. I am sure many people that still live in my old neighborhood would agree.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, captaintrolley said:

I like the 17 as it is currently because it is in and out of downtown quickly (many drivers also like that about the current routing) and also goes by the Save On Foods and Home Depot. Although I no longer live in Vancouver, when I did live there I found  the 17 to be very convenient for all of my travels. I am sure many people that still live in my old neighborhood would agree.

Maybe both the 15 and 17 could service the routing. But I would get rid of the wires to extend the 9 to Brentwood Station. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Blue Bus Fan said:

Maybe both the 15 and 17 could service the routing. But I would get rid of the wires to extend the 9 to Brentwood Station. 

The city of Burnaby would try to kill you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Blue Bus Fan said:

I think that TransLink should consider doing major bus re-routes for 15, 17 and 50:

1. Eliminate the interline between for the 15 and 50.

2. 15 would take over Cambia bridge routing of 17. 

3. The 17 would take Granville St bridge to Waterfront station.

4. 50 would become circular route with a two way routing via the existing route which extend from Olympic Village Station via West 4th Ave, turning on left onto Culumbia St, then right on West 1st Ave then turning left onto Quebec St then left onto Keefer St, then right onto Abbott St, then left onto Pender St and right onto Cambie. This would elimate the one way routing in Chinatown. The layover stop will be in Olympic Village Station Exchange. 

5. Build an exchange at Olympic Village Station which elimate the Ash St stop and Heather loop stops due it being close to both stops, the 15, 50, and 84 would service this exchangec 

If by a bus exchange, you are meaning bus loop, I can't see that happening since Olympic Village would be in the middle of all the routes, and there would be no route starting or ending at Olympic Village. Pulling off the road and into a loop for one stop doesn't make sense unless there are a number of other buses that have a beginning/end/layover there. Since it is only 3 bus routes and Olympic Village is just one stop in the middle for them all, a loop doesn't make sense. 

I'm not sure how the 15 would stop at Olympic Village and then continue onto Cambie Bridge. The only thing I could come up with is if the 15 would have a new stop on Cambie just on the south side of the light at 2nd/5th Ave before continuing across the intersection and up onto the bridge. That would mean riders would have to walk ~130m  and cross two crosswalks between Olympic Village Stn and the bus stop though, which is doable, just not ideal. Additionally, the downside to replacing the 17 with the 15 on Cambie bridge is that there would be ~30% less trips from Cambie in downtown headed south across the Cambie Bridge in a day, whereas there is already tons of service across the Granville Bridge.

As for the 50, I could see continuing to Science World, and do a loop (Quebec, Terminal, Main, 1st/2nd Ave) back towards Olympic Village. This would essentially follow the full proposed South False Creek Tram line then, and may help to see how ridership would be on such a tram line in the future.

14 minutes ago, Blue Bus Fan said:

But I would get rid of the wires to extend the 9 to Brentwood Station. 

If you're going to extend the 9 to Brentwood, why not Lougheed or Production Way so it would serve the full length of the Millennium line not served by other buses already?

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

If by a bus exchange, you are meaning bus loop, I can't see that happening since Olympic Village would be in the middle of all the routes, and there would be no route starting or ending at Olympic Village. Pulling off the road and into a loop for one stop doesn't make sense unless there are a number of other buses that have a beginning/end/layover there. Since it is only 3 bus routes and Olympic Village is just one stop in the middle for them all, a loop doesn't make sense. 

I'm not sure how the 15 would stop at Olympic Village and then continue onto Cambie Bridge. The only thing I could come up with is if the 15 would have a new stop on Cambie just on the south side of the light at 2nd/5th Ave before continuing across the intersection and up onto the bridge. That would mean riders would have to walk ~130m  and cross two crosswalks between Olympic Village Stn and the bus stop though, which is doable, just not ideal. Additionally, the downside to replacing the 17 with the 15 on Cambie bridge is that there would be ~30% less trips from Cambie in downtown headed south across the Cambie Bridge in a day, whereas there is already tons of service across the Granville Bridge.

As for the 50, I could see continuing to Science World, and do a loop (Quebec, Terminal, Main, 1st/2nd Ave) back towards Olympic Village. This would essentially follow the full proposed South False Creek Tram line then, and may help to see how ridership would be on such a tram line in the future.

If you're going to extend the 9 to Brentwood, why not Lougheed or Production Way so it would serve the full length of the Millennium line not served by other buses already?

I putting an exchange at Olympic because future routes could start and end there and to service tram and Olympic Village and it would eliminate two stops along the routes. 

 

As for the 9, I don't think it would do anything to help anyone because 134 and 136 both service neighbours along the Millennium line. 

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

I putting an exchange at Olympic because future routes could start and end there and to service tram and Olympic Village and it would eliminate two stops along the routes. 

What future routes though? I can't envision much of anything new starting from Olympic Village.

15 minutes ago, Blue Bus Fan said:

As for the 9, I don't think it would do anything to help anyone because 134 and 136 both service neighbours along the Millennium line. 

That's fair, although they only serve easily walking distance parallels (aka not a giant hill) sporadically along the route. I also like buses that follow fairly closely to Skytrain as they are able to immediately provide an easy alternate if there are any train issues. 

Speaking of routes that roughly follow Skytrain, I would like to see one from Edmonds to Lougheed through New Westminster eventually (likely 10+ years when the third parts of Edmonds town centre along 18th st in Burnaby becomes a thing). Route via Griffiths, 7th Ave to 22nd, 6th Ave, 10th or 8th st to New West Stn, via Columbia to Columbia Stn, via Columbia, Brunette to Sapperton and Braid, via Brunette and Lougheed Hwy to Lougheed Stn.

With that, I would route the 101 from 12th Ave and 6th St via 6th St, 10th Ave, 18th st, 14th Ave, Griffiths, Edmonds Stn.

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...