HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2008, 9:20 PM
flight_from_kamakura's Avatar
flight_from_kamakura flight_from_kamakura is offline
testify
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: san francisco and montreal
Posts: 1,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by officedweller View Post
Essentially, the P3 partner designs, constructs, maintains and guarantees available track time (i.e. maintain to a standard) in exchange for payment - they just aren't involved the operation of the vehicles.
good point. still, for me, operation is key, with maintenance being somewhat less of a priority... the p3 structure that i see as problematic (and which invariably is) being the design/build/operate. under any normal circumstance, a private operator would be designing and building these things.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2008, 9:30 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 24,752
The rest is a bit like highway maintenance contracts.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted Dec 14, 2008, 6:49 PM
twoNeurons twoNeurons is offline
loafing in lotusland
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lotusland
Posts: 5,702
Quote:
Originally Posted by usog View Post
Yeah but...there's nothing there. Wouldn't running an at-grade line through that area totally defeat the benefits that it would otherwise give?
Nope, not really. From King George Station up the Hydro row to 104th is about 1600m, which is about the distance between most stations.

In fact, it would be ideal. The line is away from people's back yards and the station's where the people are. Put a station at around 104th and 140th. I believe that area is slated for low-rise condos. Or if want to build to existing density, a station at 102nd Ave where there already is an established development.

Looks like it would be a little tricky with tonnes of hydro wire in the area, not impossible.

There's also a pedestrian path would could then have the opportunity of being enhanced.

As long as it can make the curve from King george Hwy North up the ROW, I think this route makes the most sense.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted Dec 14, 2008, 7:36 PM
usog usog is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 580
After consulting google maps again, it seems you are correct up to 104 street. But what about when it actually hits 104th street. If you want it at-grade, hows it going to go down that route? Its a pretty narrow street and the sides are all either residential or small businesses, not to mention the odd apartments and fire department or park. I'm just really curious about this since given these problems suggesting something such as at-grade light-rail seems ludicrous to me. If someone could please enlighten me. Thanks.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted Dec 14, 2008, 7:36 PM
fever's Avatar
fever fever is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,019
Why use the Hydro ROW? If it goes along 104th to King George, then there would be a more direct transfer from Guildford to the Expo line westbound. The LRT stop would be just south of 103rd on King George, and the transfer would be a 150-m walk to Surrey Central through what will eventually be Surrey's pedestrian-friendly centre. The Hydro ROW bypasses Surrey's core-to-be by 800 m, and never comes within walking distance.

Light rail would likely go straight down the middle of the street. 104th has a suicide lane/left turn lane down the middle that you could expect would disappear. The street might also be widened a few feet, or it might be reduced to two lanes in one direction, and one lane in the other. I'm not sure if that's necessary, though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted Dec 14, 2008, 7:37 PM
cc85 cc85 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Island City
Posts: 451
arghhh, LRT is going down 104 from kgh to 152, its already been in the works through road aquisition.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted Dec 14, 2008, 10:54 PM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam/Rainbow Lake
Posts: 29,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by DKaz View Post
I think this all calls for a new fantasy rapid transit map... but I think we've all gone a bit off topic here. Come on folks, Surrey's gotta be worth talking about.

Getting skytrain to Guildford and Fleetwood is a great idea... but there are surely faster, less expensive ways to get an extension to Langley. At grade trains running in excess of 100km/h to quickly get them from Langley to Surrey. Skytrain is a bit too slow for the task. I welcome the study because they'll have be able to properly identify the best way to go at this... hopefully.
i think they should look at the fleetwood extension as a regional thing and than the langley leg could be designed separately as a municapal system that serves langley/surrey but is tied into via transfers to the expo line etc

that way they can change the technology needed
__________________
belowitall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted Dec 14, 2008, 11:04 PM
usog usog is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 580
Uh, I go down 104th at least twice a week and the turning lane is just that, a turning lane, one car's width. Hardly, I'd say, enough space for two tracks, let alone a station. But yeah, unless they will change their mind on the stated route, I don't see anything at-grade/Light rail happening and so skytrain, although more expensive, seems the way to go.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted Dec 15, 2008, 12:24 AM
fever's Avatar
fever fever is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,019
I took a closer look on Surrey's version of VanMap (it's better, btw). The suicide lanes on 104th are wider than a regular lane width, at about 14.5 ft. The regular lanes are about 11.5 ft. The sidewalks are about 7.5 ft. The entire ROW including the sidewalks is a minimum of about 78 ft wide, enough for a 20-ft wide light rail ROW, four 11-ft wide traffic lanes, and two 7-ft wide sidewalks.

There are other a few places where the property line doesn't extend to the street. It does look they'd need to acquire some property to make the ROW wide enough for stations without reducing the number of lanes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted Dec 15, 2008, 9:54 AM
Distill3d's Avatar
Distill3d Distill3d is offline
Glorfied Overrated Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver (Burnaby), British Columbia
Posts: 4,151
so, uh, here's my question...

when the SkyTrain arrives at Guildford Mall along 104 Avenue, what exactly is going to happen. i mean, there is that part of the mall that actually spans across the street connecting the Sears (north) to The Bay and WalMart (south)?

at risk of sounding like a moron, are we looking at the train going above the mall, underneath the mall, even perhaps through the mall? seems to me that would be the best spot to put the station, but then again i'm no transit planner.
__________________
The Brain: Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?

Pinky: I think so, Brain, but this time, you put the trousers on the chimp.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted Dec 15, 2008, 8:09 PM
Overground's Avatar
Overground Overground is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 897
^Perhaps they would have the guideway go over top that elevated part of the mall that is on top of 104th, and it would then curve(like the Main Stn curve) through the northeast part of the property and then arrive at a station on 152nd(halfway between 104 and 102a) so it could tie in with the proposed mall extension and "Village" plans if they're still doing that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted Dec 15, 2008, 9:09 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 24,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overground View Post
^Perhaps they would have the guideway go over top that elevated part of the mall that is on top of 104th, ....
Like the Las Vegas Monorail:

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted Dec 15, 2008, 9:13 PM
twoNeurons twoNeurons is offline
loafing in lotusland
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lotusland
Posts: 5,702
Quote:
Originally Posted by fever View Post
Why use the Hydro ROW? If it goes along 104th to King George, then there would be a more direct transfer from Guildford to the Expo line westbound. The LRT stop would be just south of 103rd on King George, and the transfer would be a 150-m walk to Surrey Central through what will eventually be Surrey's pedestrian-friendly centre. The Hydro ROW bypasses Surrey's core-to-be by 800 m, and never comes within walking distance.
Correct, sorry I was unclear. If they chose Skytrain Technology and wanted to go down 104th, this would be a Skytrain extension which goes up the Hydro ROW. It would be at-grade along the ROW to save money, but obviously elevated or cut n' cover along 104th.

Obviously if it was LRT along 104th, it would make more sense to connect at Surrey Central, or as near as possible and then continue south to Newton in big "L" reserving the Skytrain for a future "possible" extension down Fraser Hwy terminating around 168th unless density at that time warrants anything more.

This would give Surrey a two tiered transit route, a rapid route that cuts diagonal and a feeder LRT line that runs along 104th and King George Hwy.

Quote:
Light rail would likely go straight down the middle of the street. 104th has a suicide lane/left turn lane down the middle that you could expect would disappear. The street might also be widened a few feet, or it might be reduced to two lanes in one direction, and one lane in the other. I'm not sure if that's necessary, though.
Yep, this makes sense. Due to Surrey's large block size, LRT may be a very practical choice. A few key intersections could be fly-unders. Definitely the major arterials (KGH and 152nd) and perhaps 140th and 148th.
Left turns only permitted on major blocks roads (140, 144, 148, 150?, 152) which are approximately every 800m. (officially blocks were built to ~1/2 mi.)

Also, an LRT to Newton has a MUCH better chance of getting extended to White Rock, given that you have a large swath of agricultural land perfect for LRT south of 56th Ave. (or even south of 62nd, really)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted Dec 15, 2008, 10:53 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 24,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by tintinium View Post
This would give Surrey a two tiered transit route, a rapid route that cuts diagonal and a feeder LRT line that runs along 104th and King George Hwy.
That's consistent with feeder streetcar/LRT lines into Skytrain.
The question just appears to be whether Guildford is a big enough destination that warrants a kink in the diagonal line to Langley (and therefore replaces the 104th LRT line). At one time, Guildford was BC's largest shopping centre. That question also depends on how committed Surrey is to concentrating growth at Surrey Central since a dispersion of development between nodes would occur.
But if it's on par with Brentwood or Lougheed town centres, it may warrant a Skytrain station.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted Dec 15, 2008, 11:30 PM
Distill3d's Avatar
Distill3d Distill3d is offline
Glorfied Overrated Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver (Burnaby), British Columbia
Posts: 4,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by officedweller View Post
That's consistent with feeder streetcar/LRT lines into Skytrain.
The question just appears to be whether Guildford is a big enough destination that warrants a kink in the diagonal line to Langley (and therefore replaces the 104th LRT line). At one time, Guildford was BC's largest shopping centre. That question also depends on how committed Surrey is to concentrating growth at Surrey Central since a dispersion of development between nodes would occur.
But if it's on par with Brentwood or Lougheed town centres, it may warrant a Skytrain station.
I would venture to say that Guildford is more populated and will be used more than a station like Lake City Way Station or Holdom Station on the M-Line. in fact, one would assume that it would be as busy as Metrotown or Lougheed
__________________
The Brain: Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?

Pinky: I think so, Brain, but this time, you put the trousers on the chimp.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted Dec 15, 2008, 11:37 PM
usog usog is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 580
Well, the 320 buses are always packed during most times of the day between Surrey Central and Guilford. Also, don't know if this is being overlooked, but it's also pretty close to highway one. Could put a giant park and ride in the area next to the potential skytrain station or something.

Still kind of against using a whole new system like LRT for such a small line. Also, I assume with your measurements on 104th that there would be no stations? Unless they bought out some properties they can't fit. Fitting the track down the middle is already a stretch, if possible at all. That and the understated hassle of having to switch at the skytrain station.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2008, 12:47 AM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam/Rainbow Lake
Posts: 29,674
so its for sure going along 104th?

i thought it was going to be south of guildford mall nearer to the movie theatre... and run along that street
__________________
belowitall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2008, 3:03 AM
fever's Avatar
fever fever is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,019
Falcon's proposal is on 100th, not 104th. I think it's more of an idea that rapid transit should be extended to Guildford to Fleetwood than a proposal. It's just one possible solution to consider (and not the best one, I think).

Quote:
Originally Posted by us
Also, I assume with your measurements on 104th that there would be no stations? Unless they bought out some properties they can't fit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by me, from my last post
It does look they'd need to acquire some property to make the ROW wide enough for stations without reducing the number of lanes.



I'm hoping for an eventual three-tiered rail transit system in Surrey and Langley, with Langley on a very-limited-stop system to Scott Road along the interurban ROW. Surrey's grid (they weren't metric back then, it's a half-mile grid just like most of Metro Vancouver) is basically perfect for light rail with stations every mile or half mile. There are few intersections, so the difference in speed between light rail and skytrain is negligible, while the cost isn't.
Reply With Quote
     
           
     
  #100  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2008, 4:11 AM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam/Rainbow Lake
Posts: 29,674
thats waht i thought - i was wondering why everyone is going on about 104th
__________________
belowitall
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 5:14 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.