HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #241  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2008, 6:44 AM
Jared's Avatar
Jared Jared is offline
senior something
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 4,058
So are they gonna loop it back up to 104th then? Of have it junction where it crosses 104th ave between gateway and surrey central?

BTW, whats everyones thoughts on this alginment vs. going south down King George? As officedweller mentioned, building a wye would be prudent.

Langley City to Waterfront is really beyond the scope of a system like SkyTrain, at that point you will start needing Commuter/Regional rail type service. I think it will come with time. I suppose we should remember not everyone going from Langley is headed to downtown, so an extension to Langley could be useful in getting people to other (closer) parts of the lower mainland, such as Surrey or New West.

It's also encouraging to hear politicians seem to be finally getting it WRT Transit Oriented Development (based on comments from Falcon and Watts). Hopefully councils throughout the GVRD will grow some backbone with this, and start rezoning for higher density at all stations.


mezzanine, no mention of LRT vs. SkyTrain for Evergreen I take it?
__________________
My Diagrams My Photos

I'm not the guy from Subway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #242  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2008, 7:04 AM
lightrail lightrail is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 809
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr.x2 View Post
i agree that it can be confusing. a few days ago, i overheard a mother saying to her kids how she doesn't get how the Millennium Line starts at Waterfront and ends back in Vancouver at VCC.

With regards to the Main Street and Broadway stations. You'll have: Main Street-Science World Station (Expo), Main Street-Broadway Station (M-Line), Broadway-City Hall Station (Canada Line), and Cambie-City Hall Station (M-Line).
Well, I wouldn't advocate two stations with the same name - but stations with names like "Main Street South", "Main Street North", etc is fine. In London England, there are two stations called "Edgeware Road: located about 200 metres apart - one on the District, Circle and Hammersmith & City lines, the other on the deep level Bakerloo line. There are three stations called Shepherd's Bush - one on the deep level Central Line, one on the Hammersmith & City Line and one on the London Overground (West London) Line, there are technically two underground stations called "Paddington", one at the south end of Padding Mainline station for the Bakerloo, District and Circle lines, the other at the north end of Paddington Mainline station for the Hammersmith & City line. Of course, these are historical, but London Underground over the last 100 years has refused to change the names.

And yes, it is confusing - I've waited at the wrong Edgeware Road station to meet somebody at least once
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #243  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2008, 7:10 AM
David's Avatar
David David is offline
David
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Vancouver Island, British Columbia
Posts: 1,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot Rod View Post
It would be very very confusing to have two Main Street stations and two Broadway stations on ONE line (if we kept the current routing, this would be the case).
Simple:
the main street station on the M-Line can be called Mt Pleasant Station
broadway/commercial drive remains the same naming scheme
the broadway/cambie stop on the M-Line takes the name Cambie/City Hall to make it an obvious transfer point for Broadway/City Hall on canada line
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #244  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2008, 7:18 AM
mr.x's Avatar
mr.x mr.x is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 12,805
Quote:
* We will get SkyTrain to Langley City by 2030
Falcon seems to really want SkyTrain to go to Langley. I suppose that's why the extension isn't going down King George to Newton? Though hopefully, they'll have that wye built for the future.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #245  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2008, 7:41 AM
Overground's Avatar
Overground Overground is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 903
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightrail View Post
Well, I wouldn't advocate two stations with the same name - but stations with names like "Main Street South", "Main Street North", etc is fine. In London England, there are two stations called "Edgeware Road: located about 200 metres apart - one on the District, Circle and Hammersmith & City lines, the other on the deep level Bakerloo line. There are three stations called Shepherd's Bush - one on the deep level Central Line, one on the Hammersmith & City Line and one on the London Overground (West London) Line, there are technically two underground stations called "Paddington", one at the south end of Padding Mainline station for the Bakerloo, District and Circle lines, the other at the north end of Paddington Mainline station for the Hammersmith & City line. Of course, these are historical, but London Underground over the last 100 years has refused to change the names.

And yes, it is confusing - I've waited at the wrong Edgeware Road station to meet somebody at least once
That brings back memories. Up around where I used to live. South Ruislip, Ruislip Gardens, then West Ruislip on the Central Line. which is near Ruislip and Ruislip Manor, both on the Met Line. These are close to 4 stations with the name Harrow in it on 2 separate lines. Oh god and then there's the 6 Acton stations...lol.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #246  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2008, 7:57 AM
paradigm4 paradigm4 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Surrey, BC
Posts: 688
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr.x2 View Post
Falcon seems to really want SkyTrain to go to Langley. I suppose that's why the extension isn't going down King George to Newton? Though hopefully, they'll have that wye built for the future.
Actually, according to the Now with a quote from Falcon....



Green is the original conceptual alignment
Red is the Falcon quoted "real" conceptual alignment
Purple are extensions by 2030
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #247  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2008, 8:10 AM
mr.x's Avatar
mr.x mr.x is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 12,805
^ wow, but by 2030? heck, do it by 2020! we need it NOW!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #248  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2008, 9:14 AM
mr.x's Avatar
mr.x mr.x is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 12,805
Less than meets the eye, and light on details

Vaughn Palmer, Vancouver Sun
Published: Tuesday, January 15, 2008

The B.C. Liberals promised their new transit plan would come with an unprecedented price tag and so it did: $14 billion.

But the accompanying release -- less a plan than a 20-page brochure padded with pictures and fact boxes -- didn't put the Liberals on the line for anything like that amount of new money.

The "new" plan includes the Canada Line, already fully financed and nearing completion, plus other, previously committed improvements in transit services.

It further anticipates billions of dollars in new funding from "partners," including the federal government, local government, and the regional transportation authority (TransLink.)

Strip away old news. Strip away the presumed matching funding.

The province says it will spend "up to $4.75 billion . . . by 2020," which works out to about $400 million a year in new money.

The B.C. Liberals are spending about $1 billion on transportation infrastructure in the current budget year.

No wonder Premier Gordon Campbell is saying the province won't need the much-rumored carbon tax to cover its share.

But having said that, the Liberals have shifted priorities. Campbell's last transportation plan, announced two years ago, was the all-roads-and-bridges expansion known as the Gateway project.

The new plan puts transit at the forefront.

It calls for extension of the existing network of rapid transit lines eastward to Coquitlam, westward to the University of B.C., and southeasterly along the Fraser Highway toward Langley.

The Liberals further propose to double capacity on the existing Expo transit line by building larger stations and operating longer trains.

They would help fund the purchase of some 1,500 new buses and bankroll a rapid bus service for the Lower Mainland, the Okanagan and the provincial capital.

The biggest outlay would be for the extended transit lines and estimates for all three projects point to a continued escalation in construction costs.

Taking them in the order in which they would probably be built, the Coquitlam service ("the Evergreen line") is priced at $1.4 billion, about double the estimate when the Liberals took office.

The Surrey extension, perhaps next on the construction schedule, is pegged at $1.1 billion.

The service to UBC, which wouldn't be ready until 2020 at the earliest, is estimated at $2.8 billion in current dollars.

On a comparative basis, the costing for the Evergreen line works out to $127 million a kilometre, Surrey is $183 million and the UBC service $233 million.

The $2-billion Canada Line, linking Vancouver to Richmond and the airport, is being built for about $105 million a kilometre.

Labour and materials account for some of the escalation.

But the extra budget for getting to Coquitlam is also a sign that the Liberals are preparing to abandon the current plan for a surface light rail system in favour of a more expensive SkyTrain service.

The hefty price tag for getting to UBC is partly a product of the running controversy over the construction of the Canada Line along Cambie Street.

The Liberals don't want to subject west-side businesses the experience of cut-and-cover construction, which ruined many a Cambie merchant.

So they've budgeted for extensive tunneling along much of the proposed 12-kilometre route along (or rather under) Broadway toward UBC.

Given the time frame of a dozen years, it would be a mistake to treat any of this as the last word on the plan or even on B.C. Liberal priorities.

It offers a vision of greatly expanded transit services, without a lot of detail on specific projects, timetables or how taxpayers will pay for all of it.

Campbell and Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon insist the province can cover its share from existing sources of revenue.

But that doesn't mean that local governments won't be hitting up their ratepayers for additional contributions via the property tax. Or that TransLink won't be using every bit of its new, provincially mandated room to move on the gas tax.

The Liberals say these projects will tap into other potential sources of revenue, including partnerships with private developers and sale of increased density along transit lines and around stations.

One last point of qualification that ought to be noted is the impact of this megaplan on the government's effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Campbell floated a big number on that score as well: "The plan will reduce emissions by 4.7 million tonnes cumulatively by 2020."

But note the use of the word "cumulatively." The Liberals simply added together the much smaller reductions for each of a dozen years to make the end product look bigger.

As with the big dollar figure, the more you look at the plan's imputed impact on greenhouse gas emissions, the less impressive it is.

vpalmer@direct.ca
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #249  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2008, 5:56 PM
twoNeurons twoNeurons is offline
loafing in lotusland
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lotusland
Posts: 6,020
Quote:
Originally Posted by paradigm4 View Post
Actually, according to the Now with a quote from Falcon....



Green is the original conceptual alignment
Red is the Falcon quoted "real" conceptual alignment
Purple are extensions by 2030
That would be using the Hydro ROW that officedweller suggested to go north.

That's interesting.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #250  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2008, 6:50 PM
cornholio cornholio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,911
This is what I would prefer. Skytrain being extended south along King George to Newton where there would be a major park and ride and terminus for rapid buses from White Rock and Langley. Another Skytrain branch would go from just after Surrey central station to the number 1 via Guildford where there would be another major park and ride and a stop for rapid buses heading from Langley to Coquitlam and Maple Ridge to New Westminster. There would also be a rapid bus or express bus going from Maple Ridge to Langley and in Langley there would be another major park and ride facility same with ones in Maple Ridge. I think good and strategic park and ride facilities are one of the most important things for suburban transit because getting from point a B to C quicker then car is great but getting from point A to point B or point C to D cant be forgotten and giving a person the ability to use a vehicle for part of the trip to make transit for them viable is important.

Also the Newton branch could have stations at 92nd, future/optional one at 84th, one near the Kwantlem campus at 76th and at Newton center near 72nd. The Guildford branch could have a station at 140th, optional/future at 148th, at 152nd in Guildford and one at the number one interchange. Remeber that 8 Surrey blocks is 16 Vancouver blocks which is like the distance from Boradway stn to King Edward stn. 4 Surrey blocks is like 8 Vancouver blocks which is like the distance between 41st stn and 49th stn.

Anyways heres the map i drawn of my ideas.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #251  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2008, 7:03 PM
Nutterbug Nutterbug is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,135
Is anyone else disappointed that nothing was said about replacing the rail bridge at New Westminster?

I say it could have opened up a lot of commuter rail potential, as well as increased Amtrak runs to Seattle.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #252  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2008, 7:45 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 38,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by nname View Post
Actually... there is no switch at Braid station. The closest switch is near Trans-Canada Highway, and it is used to go in and out of the middle track (which is currently used as a storage, and this is also where they park some of the trains overnight). The next closest switch is at the south side of Sapperton station.
Thanks for the info.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mezzanine View Post
Intersting post on VALTAC's blog - Falcon had a presentation to the Langley Chamber of Commerce and provided more details for south of Fraser:

-Surrey skytrain along 104th!!!
-SRY interurban under 'personal review' by Gordo and Falcon themselves - Falcon seems not excited about the SRY :-(, though, maybe we can tie it in with hydrogen powered trains from the BC hydro plant by 88th Ave....
That makes much more sense than even 100th Ave., as it would allow for an intermediate station between King George and Guildford.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nutterbug View Post
Is anyone else disappointed that nothing was said about replacing the rail bridge at New Westminster?
True, but it's probably not viewed as a "transit" issue despite the commuter rail potential. Railways are also a Federal undertaking, so they'd probably need Federal funding in place before an announcement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jared View Post
So are they gonna loop it back up to 104th then? Of have it junction where it crosses 104th ave between gateway and surrey central?

BTW, whats everyones thoughts on this alginment vs. going south down King George? As officedweller mentioned, building a wye would be prudent.

Langley City to Waterfront is really beyond the scope of a system like SkyTrain, at that point you will start needing Commuter/Regional rail type service. I think it will come with time. I suppose we should remember not everyone going from Langley is headed to downtown, so an extension to Langley could be useful in getting people to other (closer) parts of the lower mainland, such as Surrey or New West.
If it is going down 104th Ave., then it makes sense to me to install a wye at 104th rather than looping back up from King George Station. That would leave the tail track at King George Station available to head south down King George Highway. That would be feasible (it was done for the M-Line) and the interruption (using longer trains running on single track while the other is reconstructed) would only affect Surrey Central and King George Stations.

In order to serve Surrey Central Station area, there would have to be a station on the 104th line at the wye (i.e. at King George HIghway) or, as Cornholio mentioned, have the wye south of Surrey Central Station (which would make for curvey detour on the line).

As for whether Skytrain is appropriate for Langley - if Surrey City Centre is to be the next downtown in the regional - as big as Vancouver - then it makes sense to view the Expo line as feeding Surrey City Centre, not just feeding Downtown Vancouver. I do agree it would be a long ride from Langley to downtown Vancouver.

Here's a good Global Air Pic of the area showing the hydro ROW and the SUrrey Central Station area and 104th Ave.



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.


Last edited by officedweller; Jan 16, 2008 at 8:45 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #253  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2008, 8:28 PM
lightrail lightrail is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overground View Post
That brings back memories. Up around where I used to live. South Ruislip, Ruislip Gardens, then West Ruislip on the Central Line. which is near Ruislip and Ruislip Manor, both on the Met Line. These are close to 4 stations with the name Harrow in it on 2 separate lines. Oh god and then there's the 6 Acton stations...lol.
Yes, there seemed to be no imagination in the Victorian age when naming the Acton Stations - all points of the compass are covered.
Acton North
Acton South
Action East
Acton West
Acton Town
Acton North-west
Actin Ever-so-slightly west of North
Acton goes north and then turns west
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #254  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2008, 9:12 PM
djh djh is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightrail View Post
Yes, there seemed to be no imagination in the Victorian age when naming the Acton Stations - all points of the compass are covered.
Acton North
Acton South
Action East
Acton West
Acton Town
Acton North-west
Actin Ever-so-slightly west of North
Acton goes north and then turns west
At various times I lived by the Acton stations, by the Shepherds Bush stations, and by the Ruislip stations. Small world.

I think the point is: yes you can have stations near each other with similar names. You can also use the same name for different lines that go through the same station, but differentiate them by their line, different colours and different destinations.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #255  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2008, 10:36 PM
paradigm4 paradigm4 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Surrey, BC
Posts: 688
Yes, I'm also thinking there will be a switch after Surrey Central now. It couldn't be before, cause all the traffic is at Surrey Central. Just run down a road, connect up with 104th, and you're good to go.

Btw, the new route Kevin has proposed is 10k, not 6k.

How about this proposal?



Basically, you're Expo line goes down to Newton and beyond. Most of the traffic of North Surrey is going to either Vancouver or Coquitlam anyways. Then the branch that goes off to Guildford, and eventually to Langley, why not have that as a new line? It would connect back up with Surrey Central, then split off after the SkyBridge and follow the Millennium Line, then hook into the Evergreen Line! If the Expo Line can share it's route with one more line, then it's completely feasible, considering none of the routes would have more than two lines going down it. Also facilitate much faster connections from Surrey and Langley to Coquitlam.

I know it's kinda of duplicating that Highway 1 Rapid Bus though...

Also if there's going to be a switch at Surrey Central, you can't overload the Expo Line with three different routes! Won't someone please think of the headways!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #256  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2008, 11:29 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 38,229
The switches east of Columbia don't [easily] allow a Skybridge to Sapperton routing and the same with the switches east of Lougheed Station for Coquitlam to Columbia.

The original plans for the Lougheed Station would have oriented the station north-south and easily allowed a Coquitlam to Columbia route (as well as a Coquitlam to VCC route), but that was changed when the M-Line was actually built (when the station was built east-west).

Personally, I think that funnelling everyone through Surrey Central would create a bit of a choke point in the future when Surrey Central becomes a downtown. i.e. not only would it be a bus transfer point, but it would be a transfer point for Guildford to Newton passengers. With the red line, the transfer point for Guildford to Newton passengers would be at Gateway. But it is true that branching south of Surrey Central would up the frequency at that station.

Last edited by officedweller; Jan 16, 2008 at 11:58 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #257  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2008, 12:48 AM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam
Posts: 39,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by paradigm4 View Post
Actually, according to the Now with a quote from Falcon....



Green is the original conceptual alignment
Red is the Falcon quoted "real" conceptual alignment
Purple are extensions by 2030
that red line looks stupid - the green looks the best

if they want to why can't they do something from surrey central to guildford along 104th? and than over into port kells etc
__________________
belowitall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #258  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2008, 12:52 AM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 38,229
You're a couple of posts behind in the thread!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #259  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2008, 1:10 AM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam
Posts: 39,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by officedweller View Post
You're a couple of posts behind in the thread!
i just noticed

anyway that side of the river should get its own system that links to the rest but serves that side really well

I think in the future population will outnumber the other side of the river
__________________
belowitall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #260  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2008, 2:03 AM
djh djh is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by paradigm4 View Post
Where is Riverview on the map, and how will it be served by the transit expansion?
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 2:47 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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