HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #481  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2010, 3:54 AM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 38,192
Here's post of mine from January 2008 if SkyTrain goes to Guildford...
With the current City Centre developments, I doubt the blue allignments would work since there wouldn't be room for the flyovers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by officedweller View Post
...

And here are my suggested allignments - I prefer the red line with a station at King George Highway. If Surrey orients its transit (bus) plaza between the two stations, it would work OK and transfers from Guildford to King George could transfer at Gateway Station. I suppose there could be an issue though with bus passengers having a choice of two nearby stations (esp. if one branch has more service than the other). The blue routing would focus a lot of passenger traffic on Surrey Central Station (possibly overloading it in the long term?), plus the red routing allows more stations in a more central location in Surrey's downtown than the blue line (which is further to the south closer to King George Station).
As for the overpass, Skytrain can make sharper turns than the Canada Line trains, so the structure wouldn't have to be as massive as at Bridgeport Station - think Columbia Station-Skybridge switches.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #482  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2010, 5:19 AM
Millennium2002 Millennium2002 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,742
Having seen many recent plans... there's one thing that's distracting me a little... the spacing of SkyTrain stops.

Now, I do realize, there are several cases in Vancouver where stops are placed roughly a kilometre or less apart based on track length. The ALRT technology is also generally quite adaptable to these scenarios.

Having said that, I feel that stations in Surrey should be spaced out more to improve the speed of the service... stations should only be built if there's a minimum of a kilometre separating each one from the next. In Surrey's case, another good recommendation would be to have a station per every two laarge 0.8-kilometre squares, which was what I did on my own map.

Yes, there may be less stations in the end and some people may be missed, but too many stops and starts may turn people off as well if they feel that they can just drive there faster. Also, it's not like if rapid transit is supposed to be a complete replacement of the local bus service underneath.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #483  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2010, 6:05 AM
Whalleyboy's Avatar
Whalleyboy Whalleyboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,014
I really dont know where would be the best areas for fleetwood to be honest i mean i know surrey has plans to work with 160th to be a main street for that area.
also not that the stations for lrt would probably be alot like the ones used for the olympic line sort of abus stop like thing so its not like being at busy intersections would matter
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #484  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2010, 6:28 AM
invisibleairwaves's Avatar
invisibleairwaves invisibleairwaves is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 638
Along Fraser, 152nd, 159th/Venture Way, 168th, 188th, Willowbrook, and Langley Centre are really the only necessary ones. 148th, 182nd, and 200th could be considered as well, but I agree that too many stations will make it less attractive. 192nd/64th is probably too steep for a station.

I still have doubts about at-grade LRT on Fraser Highway. There is a setback as go_leafs_go mentioned on the last page, but I doubt there's enough room for LRT tracks, at least not without taking a huge chunk out of the sidewalks. It does, however, seem perfect for a Skytrain guideway...
__________________
Reticulating Splines
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #485  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2010, 3:54 PM
Whalleyboy's Avatar
Whalleyboy Whalleyboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,014
the expansion out to where ever isnt just about getting people to Vancouver though. Its about getting people around the area. Letting others use the system for there jobs in there city. I can't remember where i saw it but i saw a thing a while back that showed most people from langley dont work in vancouver they work in surrey and to take away stations just so people can get to vancouver quicker would be a bad idea.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #486  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2010, 4:43 PM
TransitFreak TransitFreak is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whalleyboy View Post
the expansion out to where ever isnt just about getting people to Vancouver though. Its about getting people around the area. Letting others use the system for there jobs in there city. I can't remember where i saw it but i saw a thing a while back that showed most people from langley dont work in vancouver they work in surrey and to take away stations just so people can get to vancouver quicker would be a bad idea.
One of the things I mentioned in the Translink survey, and I think another forumer mentioned as well (BC Phil?), was why not have RRT down Newton and down Fraser highway? If Surrey is indeed going to densify and increase their population significantly, it would be prudent to provide a couple of trunks to cover both N-S, and E-W. That way all buses can target a station along their route. With the Canada line, Vancouver finally has a N-S option to complement the E-W Expo/Millenium line. Make no mistake, it would be a huge, huge investment, but it may ultimately be necessary if Surrey does achieve its goal.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #487  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2010, 5:19 PM
Whalleyboy's Avatar
Whalleyboy Whalleyboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,014
I would love to see both and sure one day surrey will need both I do not doubt it one bit
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #488  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2010, 5:20 PM
Canadian Mind's Avatar
Canadian Mind Canadian Mind is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,921
Quote:
Originally Posted by invisibleairwaves View Post
Along Fraser, 152nd, 159th/Venture Way, 168th, 188th, Willowbrook, and Langley Centre are really the only necessary ones. 148th, 182nd, and 200th could be considered as well, but I agree that too many stations will make it less attractive. 192nd/64th is probably too steep for a station.
Why not have a two-tiered approach to Surrey and Langley transity by running Skytrain to Langley with only 5-6 more stops, and serve the rest of surrey with an at-grade LRT/Streetcar loop that feeds into these stations? Could set a precident for future skytrain & LRT expansions in Vancouver, Burnaby, and Richmond.
__________________
"you're eating chicken periods" - Vid
"I love eggs, especially the ones with runny yolks" - Me
"EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW, you're disgusting!" - Vid
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #489  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2010, 5:47 PM
Zassk Zassk is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian Mind View Post
Why not have a two-tiered approach to Surrey and Langley transity by running Skytrain to Langley with only 5-6 more stops, and serve the rest of surrey with an at-grade LRT/Streetcar loop that feeds into these stations? Could set a precident for future skytrain & LRT expansions in Vancouver, Burnaby, and Richmond.
Yeah, that's a good idea, but isn't Newton a better terminus for SkyTrain, and Langley better as an outpost on an LRT? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Newton has more population and jobs than Langley, is more centrally located, and has more prospects for Transit-oriented development.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #490  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2010, 8:00 PM
Whalleyboy's Avatar
Whalleyboy Whalleyboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,014
heck fleetwood has more population then langley city according to wiki
heres some comparisons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langley...bia_%28city%29
Langley city: 23,606
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langley...unicipality%29
Langley town: 93,726
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleetwood_Town_Centre
Fleetwood: 50,284
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guildford_Town_Centre
Guildford: 59,542
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whalley,_British_Columbia
Whalley: 95,433 (city centre:25,602)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_Town_Centre
Newton: 120,714
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #491  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2010, 10:51 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 38,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zassk View Post
Yeah, that's a good idea, but isn't Newton a better terminus for SkyTrain, and Langley better as an outpost on an LRT? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Newton has more population and jobs than Langley, is more centrally located, and has more prospects for Transit-oriented development.
I tend to agree with Canadian Mind - save the SkyTrain for the longer haul route to Langley (can travel the longer distance faster) plus elevated makes sense with all of the intersections on that diagional route. LRT Alternative 2 uses BRT down Fraser Highway - allowing SkyTrain to be built in future when demand warrants it.

For Newton, you could have either SkyTrain or LRT, but connecting Guildford and Newton with an LRT provides an opportunity to create an integrated LRT network in Surrey. If SkyTrain goes down King George to Newton, the transit modes in south central Surrey will automatically shift to being east-west buses feeding into SkyTrain stations - with little prospect for extension of the SkyTrain mainline. If the mainline is LRT, there is more likelihood of branching out (whether to White Rock or east or west along the SRY).

If Newton gets SkyTrain and Guildford gets LRT - where else is the Guildford LRT going to be expanded to? Maybe down Scott Road, but when is a parallel line going to be justfiable? Maybe to the east? The Guildford line may end up being an orphan with scant ridership and a forced transfer in Surrey Central to get to Newton (and you wouldn't be able to easily link up to LRT routes in the south to share OMC facilities, potentially relegating points south (White Rock) to BRT forever).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #492  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2010, 11:42 PM
xd_1771's Avatar
xd_1771 xd_1771 is offline
(daka_x)
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 1,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by allan_kuan View Post
Having seen many recent plans... there's one thing that's distracting me a little... the spacing of SkyTrain stops.

Now, I do realize, there are several cases in Vancouver where stops are placed roughly a kilometre or less apart based on track length. The ALRT technology is also generally quite adaptable to these scenarios.

Having said that, I feel that stations in Surrey should be spaced out more to improve the speed of the service... stations should only be built if there's a minimum of a kilometre separating each one from the next. In Surrey's case, another good recommendation would be to have a station per every two laarge 0.8-kilometre squares, which was what I did on my own map.

Yes, there may be less stations in the end and some people may be missed, but too many stops and starts may turn people off as well if they feel that they can just drive there faster. Also, it's not like if rapid transit is supposed to be a complete replacement of the local bus service underneath.
What ruins this plan: the lack of park-and-rides or room to build park-and rides in Surrey.
Take 160th Street @ 104th for example; it really only serves one route to/from Langley and primarily on the eastbound route. I don't believe there's a permanent park-n-ride solution at Guildford; at the moment there's a maximum time limit being imposed on parking spaces to make sure all the people in that parking lot are actually going to the mall or nearby and nowhere else. The same can be said for other stops around Surrey, if allan's spaced-out-stations concept were true; I don't think there's much room to build park-n-rides where the line would stop in most places. Of course alternatively you could have more community shuttles, but then that'd be a bit painful on budget, as you'd need a lot more shuttle routes, a lot more buses and a lot more drivers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TransitFreak View Post
One of the things I mentioned in the Translink survey, and I think another forumer mentioned as well (BC Phil?), was why not have RRT down Newton and down Fraser highway? If Surrey is indeed going to densify and increase their population significantly, it would be prudent to provide a couple of trunks to cover both N-S, and E-W. That way all buses can target a station along their route. With the Canada line, Vancouver finally has a N-S option to complement the E-W Expo/Millenium line. Make no mistake, it would be a huge, huge investment, but it may ultimately be necessary if Surrey does achieve its goal.
So both options, absolutely nothing for Guildford? No, no, no

----

CanadianMind does have an interesting idea though. In fact his idea would be more or less a combination of LRT alternative 2 & RRT alternative 1, or otherwise the plan/diagram I posted a few pages ago:
[CLICK TO ENLARGE]


About Whalleyboy's post about population: well, density is more or less equal in these areas. There's some business areas, but most of the houses are just plain suburban houses or townhouse complexes. In some areas like closer to Newton Centre, closer to Whalley Centre and closer to Guildford Centre, you have some condominiums/apartments that can house more per area. This sort of thing is not really present much in some areas such as Fleetwood. It really all comes down to density rather than actual population or community size when you compare these areas.

officedweller is also interestingly right about a continuous LRT or SkyTrain line into both Newton and Guildford being more beneficial because it results in less transferring and moreover helps inter-city movement, but the Guildford line will definitely not have scant ridership. Actually go there and check out how full the Central-Guildford buses are and you'll see.

Last edited by xd_1771; Oct 19, 2010 at 11:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #493  
Old Posted Oct 20, 2010, 1:49 AM
invisibleairwaves's Avatar
invisibleairwaves invisibleairwaves is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whalleyboy View Post
heck fleetwood has more population then langley city according to wiki
heres some comparisons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langley...bia_%28city%29
Langley city: 23,606
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langley...unicipality%29
Langley town: 93,726
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleetwood_Town_Centre
Fleetwood: 50,284
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guildford_Town_Centre
Guildford: 59,542
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whalley,_British_Columbia
Whalley: 95,433 (city centre:25,602)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_Town_Centre
Newton: 120,714
Cloverdale is around 60,000, isn't it? That would give Fleetwood + Cloverdale + Langley City a higher population than Newton. So by those numbers, Fraser Highway seems like the better choice for RRT.
__________________
Reticulating Splines
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #494  
Old Posted Oct 20, 2010, 1:50 AM
hollywoodnorth's Avatar
hollywoodnorth hollywoodnorth is offline
Blazed Member - Citygater
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Downtown Vancouver
Posts: 6,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by invisibleairwaves View Post
Cloverdale is around 60,000, isn't it? That would give Fleetwood + Cloverdale + Langley City a higher population than Newton. So by those numbers, Fraser Highway seems like the better choice for RRT.
ummm maybe density should play something in this?

I mean Victoria has more people that that....lets route the line to there shall we?

your comparing apples and oranges you know
__________________
Quote of the Decade on SSP: "what happens would it be?" - argon007

"orange vested guy" - towerguy3
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #495  
Old Posted Oct 20, 2010, 1:57 AM
Whalleyboy's Avatar
Whalleyboy Whalleyboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,014
yeah but dont forget a route down king george would better suit south surrey and with whalley, newton and south surrey being served i think those number put all the others to shame
http://www.surrey.ca/for-business/1418.aspx
using this for numbers
whalley: 96,720
+
newton: 123,270
=219,990
+
S.Surrey
75,600
= 295,590
vs.
Fleetwood: 58,260
+
cloverdale: 59,840
+
langley: 25,000
= 143,100
+
guildford
(even though skytrain route planed but brt route would)
58670
=201770
So with these numbers this is why I pick the route down king george to newton instead of langley. Also note the route to langley would be far longer add on then to newton just to pick up close to the numbers along the newton route. Langley add on with skytrain would be about 16km where is newton to 72ave would about 6 km.

Also newton line would hit well developed industrial area in surrey

Last edited by Whalleyboy; Oct 20, 2010 at 2:20 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #496  
Old Posted Oct 20, 2010, 2:12 AM
punface punface is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 63
Translink is doing a live webinar right now on Surrey rapid transit if anyone is interested: http://www.translink.ca/en/Be-Part-o...d/Webinar.aspx
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #497  
Old Posted Oct 20, 2010, 2:22 AM
xd_1771's Avatar
xd_1771 xd_1771 is offline
(daka_x)
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 1,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whalleyboy View Post
yeah but dont forget a route down king george would better suit south surrey and with whalley, newton and south surrey being served i think those number put all the others to shame
http://www.surrey.ca/for-business/1418.aspx
using this for numbers
whalley: 96,720
+
newton: 123,270
=219,990
+
S.Surrey
75,600
= 295,590
vs.
Fleetwood: 58,260
+
cloverdale: 59,840
+
langley: 25,000
= 143,100
+
guildford
(even though skytrain route planed but brt route would)
58670
=201770
So with these numbers this is why I pick the route down king george to newton instead of langley. Also note the route to langley would be far longer add on then to newton just to pick up close to the numbers along the newton route. Langley add on with skytrain would be about 16km where is newton to 72ave would about 6 km.
You're completely ousting the "density" part of the calculation. I mean, will the line even pass close to near-dense areas of Cloverdale? Will the line be able to serve everyone in Fleetwood? The line should be placed in a manner so as to best serve the areas that need it the most, hence my suggestion of a Newton-Guildford line to better serve intra-city travel. A line to Langley could possibly better serve travel from Langley to Surrey, but we're not exactly there yet - I mean, look at the population and density of Langley (city and township) itself: it's like Surrey, very spread out - which means Skytrain won't be able to effectively serve everyone there. Would it really benefit us that much if a SkyTrain line went there, much more it would if a line went to other places within the city such as South Surrey?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #498  
Old Posted Oct 20, 2010, 2:51 AM
Whalleyboy's Avatar
Whalleyboy Whalleyboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,014
i would say newtons density is probably pretty good considering its double the population of cloverdale and about the same size in land area. Also if you look around newton there is alot of small aparentment buildings all over the place. I really wish Surrey would have a density map for itself.
also looking at here it looks like newtons town centre is more dense then cloverdales are

img from http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_tTCyS07dYV...er+Density.png
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #499  
Old Posted Oct 20, 2010, 3:03 AM
xd_1771's Avatar
xd_1771 xd_1771 is offline
(daka_x)
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 1,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whalleyboy View Post
i would say newtons density is probably pretty good considering its double the population of cloverdale and about the same size in land area. Also if you look around newton there is alot of small aparentment buildings all over the place. I really wish Surrey would have a density map for itself.
also looking at here it looks like newtons town centre is more dense then cloverdales are

img from http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_tTCyS07dYV...er+Density.png
This doesn't make sense; it would appear those very dense areas are closer to Scottsdale than Newton. It also shows that Guildford would be more dense than both in about the same land area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #500  
Old Posted Oct 20, 2010, 3:27 AM
Whalleyboy's Avatar
Whalleyboy Whalleyboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,014
well guildfords is explained by the fact its growth came from the hwy back in the earlier days. It can been seen with the age of most of the apartments in the area being pretty old.
The scott road one I'd just guess cause scott road has been around for a very long time and it wasnt a main hwy like king george use to be so it was more viable to live along there then king george when it was hwy 99.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:03 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.