HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #161  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2008, 10:30 PM
deasine deasine is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whalleyboy View Post
people in surrey are just as bad as every were else in the lower mainland we want to go some where fast and with as little hassle of going slow as possible
lrt just dont cut it compared to skytrains for travel times
plus down the line the lrt would just have to be up to skytrains this wasting money cause lrt didnt cut it in the long run
That just proves you haven't been listening. I said LRT in Surrey would be A LOT faster than in Vancouver. You live in Surrey, you should be aware that there are far fewer intersections from the minor streets to the major arterials. LRTs move a lot faster when there are fewer intersections. Adding signal priority to LRTs makes it even faster. Let me guess... the next thing people would say is that LRT + signal priority to the Broadway Corridor would make it fast. Yeah that's true... just a little faster than the B-Line. That's because there are more road intersections and pedestrian signals throughout the entire corridor.

And you are talking REALLY in the long run. As long as you build the LRTs with a capacity of at least 8000 pphd, it is fine in the long run. There's more room along King George highway to build longer platforms than on Broadway. Just to remind everyone, Expo Line has a capacity of 15000 pphd, the busiest part of the line between Waterfront and Metrotown. You seem to be mixing LRTs up with Streetcars. LRTs can have a larger capacity than heavy metros.

For instance, Seattle's upcoming Sound Rail LRT project, has a higher capacity (maximum) than the current Millennium Line. Initially, they will be able to run a maximum two train sets, but this is expandable to four in the future, if needed.


Here's a more extreme example: the Manila LRT has a capacity of 40000 pphd. That's more than our Expo Line.


It really depends on how you build the line. Technology is only a minor piece of the bigger puzzle. With Surrey, you have much more room to build a system where it can be expanded in the future. Since most people travel within the South of Fraser, you don't need to have SkyTrain or even heavy rail technology. Vancouver's Broadway Extension is much different since many people from different part of the region travel throughout the Broadway Corridor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whalleyboy View Post
to people who think skytrain will be going down 100 all i have to say is open your [edited by moderator] eyes theres nothing down 100th for skytrain to stop at meaning a long hall for nothing (well there is green timbers but thats all)
I don't get why people say 100th either... but that doesn't give you the right to start swearing. It's an actual rule here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by officedweller View Post
If the light blue LRT turned south along 152nd and hit a Skytrain Station, that would significantly improve connectivity to Guildford from the east (but probably not required until Skytrain hits Langley)
Agreed.

Last edited by deasine; Dec 17, 2008 at 10:43 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #162  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2008, 11:52 PM
usog usog is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 580
I question how many of you travel the streets in Surrey with any frequency. Our roads aren't wide at all, with the widest being four lanes with a turning lane in the middle. You guys are essentially proposing to have the middle three lanes taken out of every single one of those arterial streets for your LRT. Oh and don't forget that a vast majority of the area is residential and highly spaced out. Not only will you have to buy out space for stations, but if you want even a remote chance of people using it then I assume you want buses feeding into each station, oh wait that takes more space. On paper, yes it does theoretically seem cheaper and much easier than Skytrain. If you take a look at the actual situation though, it's not that simple. Skytrain, LRT, or whatever besides actual rail, you will be paying an arm or leg somewhere. Might as well go all the way. That said, those things apply to Skytrain too, although I'm wondering if they are going to put it underground like the Canada line.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #163  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2008, 11:58 PM
LeftCoaster's Avatar
LeftCoaster LeftCoaster is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Toroncouver
Posts: 12,624
Underground skytrain in surrey?? You must be dreaming.

Quote:
That said, those things apply to Skytrain too
You summed it up quite nicely.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #164  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2008, 11:58 PM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 16,806
LRT can work in Surrey, but the proper way to build LRT is that it is built separate from the road, most of Seattle's new LRT is on elevated guide-ways, tunnels and on its own rail bed, same with Calgary's C-train, Edmonton's light-rail, etc... Surrey has the space to build the LRT this way, so it should work. Building them down the middle or roads (unless it is only for a block or less) is a bad idea. Build the LRT with its own rail corridors (that is the only way they can achieve capacity greater than that of a metro). If they are built along the road then yes, they do become more of a street car than anything else. Of course when built in this fashion, the price rises (as we say from the proposed evergreen LRT) but it is the only sensible way to build LRT.

Just look at the pics of Seattle's system above, elevated guide-ways and separate rail bed corridors.

The majority of people supporting LRT in Vancouver cherry pick their examples. They use speed & capacity stats from LRT systems where the trains are primarily grade separated and given their own rail corridors, but then they give price and construction stats from systems that are built along the center or side of streets at grade (which have much slower speeds and reduced capacities).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #165  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2008, 12:05 AM
usog usog is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 580
Thats the thing, if you are going to go through the trouble of putting up elevated guideways, you might as well just plop skytrain down on it. Anything street-level is out of the question it seems.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #166  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2008, 1:24 AM
deasine deasine is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by usog View Post
I question how many of you travel the streets in Surrey with any frequency. Our roads aren't wide at all, with the widest being four lanes with a turning lane in the middle. You guys are essentially proposing to have the middle three lanes taken out of every single one of those arterial streets for your LRT. Oh and don't forget that a vast majority of the area is residential and highly spaced out. Not only will you have to buy out space for stations, but if you want even a remote chance of people using it then I assume you want buses feeding into each station, oh wait that takes more space. On paper, yes it does theoretically seem cheaper and much easier than Skytrain. If you take a look at the actual situation though, it's not that simple.
Property acquisition is going to happen no matter what, whether it's SkyTrain or LRT. The column itself for an overhead guideway is more than one lane of roads. When there is no room, you can always move the LRT overhead or underground - but it can still run on surface for most of the time. If you didn't already know, the stations for SkyTrain take up more room than LRT stops/shelters. We really don't need new bus loops, except for Newton, where TransLink and the City of Surrey already own a portion of the land.

Quote:
Originally Posted by usog View Post
Skytrain, LRT, or whatever besides actual rail, you will be paying an arm or leg somewhere. Might as well go all the way. That said, those things apply to Skytrain too, although I'm wondering if they are going to put it underground like the Canada line
That's a huge cost difference. $20 Million/km (this is already high for LRT) vs $100 Million/km.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #167  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2008, 1:27 AM
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 bdigital View Post
Eventually I think an LRT should also run down King George Station to White Rock.
i think thats the best idea out of you're vision.
__________________
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
     
     
  #168  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2008, 1:47 AM
nname nname is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,652
Quote:
Originally Posted by deasine View Post
That's a huge cost difference. $20 Million/km (this is already high for LRT) vs $100 Million/km.
Calgary's new west LRT cost 700 millions for about 8 km.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #169  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2008, 2:01 AM
jlousa's Avatar
jlousa jlousa is offline
Ferris Wheel Hater
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,371
*l* Someone should post those numbers for Malcolm to see, he'll probably find some explanation about conspiracy theorists out to make LRT look bad.

Anyone read the interview with Translinks new CEO in this weeks BIV, he mentions the expansion heading all the way to Langley.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #170  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2008, 2:11 AM
usog usog is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 580
Exactly, Calgary's new line also runs a large portion above-grade or in tunnels. Not that cheap now is it? Also add on the fact that you are adding a whole new system essentially, and have to build a yard for it as well as all the other associated infrastructure, and purchase the rolling stock. Skytrain would just be adding more track/guideway. Its exactly that advantage that prevented them from making the Canada line a skytrain, since it is an unfair one, and set them back a lot in the bidding process. But this is simply an expansion. And if it were eventually to extend to Langley, I'd rather want speed since it is quite a distance from there to downtown.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #171  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2008, 2:23 AM
CLC CLC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 877
Quote:
That's a huge cost difference. $20 Million/km (this is already high for LRT) vs $100 Million/km.
I'm always skeptical of the notion that LRT is many times cheaper than metro/subway.

Calgary LRT is certainly not cheap according to this old piece of info (not sure how accurate it is):
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #172  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2008, 2:38 AM
fever's Avatar
fever fever is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,019
If you look on Surrey's webmap you'll see that the utilities are generally located on the sides of roads, while the centre is generally free of utilities.

I don't think anyone is talking about light rail running in mixed traffic.

There appears to be enough room on the typical Surrey arterial for a double-tracked light rail ROW and four 11-foot traffic lanes. King George appears to be wider but I didn't measure it. I'd suggest that light rail run down the middle of the street in a segregated ROW with at-grade crossings at half-mile intervals. There might be a good reason to grade-separate some crossings (i.e. major arterials are at two-mile intervals) but this would be overkill for minor arterials.

The brown line on the map is a regional/interurban line. The Translink report on it estimated the cost at $700m. I'd suggest reducing the number of stations from 9 or 16 to the 5 shown which also reduces the number of trains needed. This would save about $200m, which should be used instead to electrify the line and grade-separate the line at all intersections (aside from a few farm roads). The line would be much faster than skytrain, with a typical operating speed of up to 140 km/h instead of 80 km/h and with fewer stations. This regional line would be integrated well with light rail at Newton and on Scott Road at Nordel, and with skytrain at Scott Road.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #173  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2008, 3:15 AM
geoff's two cents geoff's two cents is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 504
Couldn't agree more. And alarmists should keep in mind that the SFPR will offset the need for a lot of cross-border traffic using Surrey arterials to get around. This should make it easier to justify removing a lane or two, or a turning lane here and there. This certainly won't solve every contingency, but it's something to keep in mind.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #174  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2008, 4:44 AM
Chikinlittle Chikinlittle is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by fever View Post
If you look on Surrey's webmap you'll see that the utilities are generally located on the sides of roads, while the centre is generally free of utilities.

I don't think anyone is talking about light rail running in mixed traffic.

There appears to be enough room on the typical Surrey arterial for a double-tracked light rail ROW and four 11-foot traffic lanes. King George appears to be wider but I didn't measure it. I'd suggest that light rail run down the middle of the street in a segregated ROW with at-grade crossings at half-mile intervals. There might be a good reason to grade-separate some crossings (i.e. major arterials are at two-mile intervals) but this would be overkill for minor arterials.

The brown line on the map is a regional/interurban line. The Translink report on it estimated the cost at $700m. I'd suggest reducing the number of stations from 9 or 16 to the 5 shown which also reduces the number of trains needed. This would save about $200m, which should be used instead to electrify the line and grade-separate the line at all intersections (aside from a few farm roads). The line would be much faster than skytrain, with a typical operating speed of up to 140 km/h instead of 80 km/h and with fewer stations. This regional line would be integrated well with light rail at Newton and on Scott Road at Nordel, and with skytrain at Scott Road.

I think that using the old interurban existing ROW for some form of rail rapid transit is one of the most under-discussed topics in here. There would be minimal land acquisition required compared to other alternatives. It also connects existing town centres in Langley, Cloverdale, Newton, and where it crosses Scott Road near North Delta, and could easily be aligned to provide a convenient connection right at Scott Rd Skytrain station. I think investing in grade-segregated crossings would improve safety and operating speed, but I think that a few more than the 5 stations indicated would be prudent, as you are missing numerous opportunities for population catchment and integration with new and reworked community shuttles and local bus service.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #175  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2008, 4:52 AM
Hot Rod's Avatar
Hot Rod Hot Rod is offline
Big City Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Seattle-Vancouver-Osaka-Chongqing-Chicago-OKC
Posts: 1,174
Why don't they do Expo Line from King George down Fraser into Langley (and Abbortsford eventually) and have a LRT go from Guildford to King George or Surrey Central then on to Central Richmond (providing a MUCH NEEDED connection of the two neighbouring suburbs. There could be a split at Surrey Central for the LRT where one goes to Richmond and the other to the south and perhaps eventually White Rock.

Perhaps even another idea that makes sense would be to redesign Surrey Central to do a split, one way to Guildford and then along Fraser to Langley and eventually Abbortsord, the other way to King George then on to the south eventually to White Rock. This makes the most sense given the increased capacity plan for the Expo trains (120m platforms). Does not make any sense whatsoever to have such long trains make a curve up from King George to Guildford only to go down again. Just do a split at Surrey Central.

If I had my choice, I would pick the former choice though. Richmond and Surrey need to be connected. And it would be cheaper, but still giving a much needed SkyTrain extension into the suburbs while LRT being the 'crosstown' for Surrey and Richmond with Central in both cities as each's hub. Expo SkyTrain should go from King Goerge to the SE suburbs. It could also split at King George to the South.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #176  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2008, 4:53 AM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam
Posts: 39,104
Quote:
Originally Posted by fever View Post
If you look on Surrey's webmap you'll see that the utilities are generally located on the sides of roads, while the centre is generally free of utilities.

I don't think anyone is talking about light rail running in mixed traffic.

There appears to be enough room on the typical Surrey arterial for a double-tracked light rail ROW and four 11-foot traffic lanes. King George appears to be wider but I didn't measure it. I'd suggest that light rail run down the middle of the street in a segregated ROW with at-grade crossings at half-mile intervals. There might be a good reason to grade-separate some crossings (i.e. major arterials are at two-mile intervals) but this would be overkill for minor arterials.

The brown line on the map is a regional/interurban line. The Translink report on it estimated the cost at $700m. I'd suggest reducing the number of stations from 9 or 16 to the 5 shown which also reduces the number of trains needed. This would save about $200m, which should be used instead to electrify the line and grade-separate the line at all intersections (aside from a few farm roads). The line would be much faster than skytrain, with a typical operating speed of up to 140 km/h instead of 80 km/h and with fewer stations. This regional line would be integrated well with light rail at Newton and on Scott Road at Nordel, and with skytrain at Scott Road.

that area between king george and scott road could use a station at least - its horrible when its quitting time - way too many single car drivers and the streets get bumper to bumper - been caught in it many times - not fun
__________________
belowitall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #177  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2008, 5:26 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 jlousa View Post
*l* Someone should post those numbers for Malcolm to see, he'll probably find some explanation about conspiracy theorists out to make LRT look bad.

Anyone read the interview with Translinks new CEO in this weeks BIV, he mentions the expansion heading all the way to Langley.
hehe no doubt

but I thought Malcolm was on this forum?
__________________
Quote of the Decade on SSP: "what happens would it be?" - argon007

"orange vested guy" - towerguy3
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #178  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2008, 5:54 AM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam
Posts: 39,104
Quote:
Originally Posted by deasine View Post
That just proves you haven't been listening. I said LRT in Surrey would be A LOT faster than in Vancouver. You live in Surrey, you should be aware that there are far fewer intersections from the minor streets to the major arterials. LRTs move a lot faster when there are fewer intersections. Adding signal priority to LRTs makes it even faster. Let me guess... the next thing people would say is that LRT + signal priority to the Broadway Corridor would make it fast. Yeah that's true... just a little faster than the B-Line. That's because there are more road intersections and pedestrian signals throughout the entire corridor.

And you are talking REALLY in the long run. As long as you build the LRTs with a capacity of at least 8000 pphd, it is fine in the long run. There's more room along King George highway to build longer platforms than on Broadway. Just to remind everyone, Expo Line has a capacity of 15000 pphd, the busiest part of the line between Waterfront and Metrotown. You seem to be mixing LRTs up with Streetcars. LRTs can have a larger capacity than heavy metros.

For instance, Seattle's upcoming Sound Rail LRT project, has a higher capacity (maximum) than the current Millennium Line. Initially, they will be able to run a maximum two train sets, but this is expandable to four in the future, if needed.


Here's a more extreme example: the Manila LRT has a capacity of 40000 pphd. That's more than our Expo Line.


It really depends on how you build the line. Technology is only a minor piece of the bigger puzzle. With Surrey, you have much more room to build a system where it can be expanded in the future. Since most people travel within the South of Fraser, you don't need to have SkyTrain or even heavy rail technology. Vancouver's Broadway Extension is much different since many people from different part of the region travel throughout the Broadway Corridor.



I don't get why people say 100th either... but that doesn't give you the right to start swearing. It's an actual rule here.
100th is what was shown a few months ago when falcon first announced it - there was/is a map somewhere showing the route choices

it makes sense because there is nothing to get in its way right now and it will be easier to build up afterwards - like edmonds or joyce popped up after the skytrain...
__________________
belowitall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #179  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2008, 6:06 AM
Whalleyboy's Avatar
Whalleyboy Whalleyboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,014
it wont happen for one its a city forest along 100th so nothing will be poping up plus thats another reason why it wont go down 100th cause it would disturb nature around that area
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #180  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2008, 6:10 AM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam
Posts: 39,104
yes but its just a line running past the trees - cars and a roadway already cut through that area - there is no need for a station until you hit guildford anyway if you go along either alignment

here is what has been released showing alignment - it is quite south of 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 10:13 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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