HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1301  
Old Posted Jul 3, 2012, 4:50 PM
SFUVancouver's Avatar
SFUVancouver SFUVancouver is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 6,380
I would disagree that there are a lot of intersections on King George Blvd. Intersection spacing is wholly oriented to vehicle distances everywhere except for Newton, and if improved transit service is planned for that corridor, B-Line or otherwise, then additional intersections and pedestrian crossing will have to be added. What King George Blvd has a lot of is strip malls and these are primarily accessed by vehicles on the far side of the street using a painted centre bi-directional turning lane. If LRT, or a BRT with dedicated and separated lanes, is built, these painted centre bi-directional turning lanes will be removed and vehicle access to these strip malls will become problematic for vehicles on the opposite side of the street, especially when there are so few intersections and a lack of a connected side street grid between arterials. Any budget for LRT/BRT south of the Fraser is going to come with an absolutely huge price tag for road redesign and pedestrian improvements, or in some cases, provisions for pedestrians for the first time. These changes will go just as far as the LRT/BRT itself towards changing the corridors from their current 99% automobile orientation into more complete streets that pedestrians not only have the ability to utilize, but are also a place where people are not expected to drive for all trips all the time. The transformation that is possible along these corridors in the decades ahead is nothing short of a paradigm shift, but I'm not convinced there is sufficient demand or appetite for the streetwall-form of mixed-use development that will transform King George Blvd and Fraser Highway from suburban stripmall arterials into true urban arterial streets.

Here are my photos from Canada Day and the LRT model.


Taken by SFUVancouver, July 1st, 2012.


Taken by SFUVancouver, July 1st, 2012.


Taken by SFUVancouver, July 1st, 2012.
__________________
VANCOUVER | Beautiful, Multicultural | Canada's Pacific Metropolis

Last edited by SFUVancouver; Jul 4, 2012 at 5:08 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1302  
Old Posted Jul 4, 2012, 6:38 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 38,231
Link to City of Surrey Rapid Transit webpage if it hasn't been posted already:

http://www.surrey.ca/city-services/10797.aspx
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1303  
Old Posted Jul 4, 2012, 7:01 PM
The_Henry_Man The_Henry_Man is offline
HA
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: St. Cloud, MN/Richmond, BC
Posts: 872
Don't listen to pundits saying that LRT construction will be less disruptive than Skytrain construction (both under and above-ground). I go to Minneapolis-St. Paul once every around 2 weeks for groceries and other stuff and they're currently building the Central Link Corridor LRT (their 2nd LRT line, the first one was from Target Field to Mall of America) from Target Field to XCel Energy Centre/Downtown St. Paul. Their construction and its impacts to business is highly reminiscent of the Canada Line construction, with some major streets actually closed off for months at a time.

And their main street where that new LRT will be built on is a very wide road (University Ave), much wider than Broadway, and possibly KGH.

I'll see if I can take some pics of the construction next time I go there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1304  
Old Posted Jul 4, 2012, 8:59 PM
Gordon Gordon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,063
I wonder how the costs compare between this at grade LRT and a possible skytrain extension in Surrey?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1305  
Old Posted Jul 4, 2012, 9:25 PM
nname nname is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,652
According to TransLink, that option cost 2.1 billions.

SkyTrain to Langley cost 1.95 billions. SkyTrain to Newton cost 900 millions.

Although the latest survey shows that the cost of the SkyTrain options decreased slightly... But I didn't save the value, and I guess no one else does...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1306  
Old Posted Jul 4, 2012, 10:19 PM
queetz@home's Avatar
queetz@home queetz@home is offline
Go Rotem! Die Bombardier!
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Ortigas
Posts: 3,684
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Henry_Man View Post
Don't listen to pundits saying that LRT construction will be less disruptive than Skytrain construction (both under and above-ground). I go to Minneapolis-St. Paul once every around 2 weeks for groceries and other stuff and they're currently building the Central Link Corridor LRT (their 2nd LRT line, the first one was from Target Field to Mall of America) from Target Field to XCel Energy Centre/Downtown St. Paul. Their construction and its impacts to business is highly reminiscent of the Canada Line construction, with some major streets actually closed off for months at a time.

And their main street where that new LRT will be built on is a very wide road (University Ave), much wider than Broadway, and possibly KGH.

I'll see if I can take some pics of the construction next time I go there.
Just because Minneapolis-St Paul's LRT construction is disruptive doesn't mean LRT construction in Surrey will be just as disruptive. We all know the Canada Line construction was only the way it is because a certain petulant former Transport Minister that shall remain nameless and loves to use the phrase "boo hoo" to the negatively affected stakeholders, made it that way.

Given the highly publicized and controversial Canada Line construction well known and fresh in our memories, I'm sure planners will try to make a Surrey LRT construction less disruptive as possible. We already see this with the Evergreen Line pre-construction alerts and such, which imo is a little bit overkill (either that or those folks at the Evergreen project office are simply bored to death of doing next to nothing all day).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1307  
Old Posted Jul 4, 2012, 11:06 PM
Millennium2002 Millennium2002 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,742
I still see the same or more disruptions for building LRT versus SkyTrain due to the fact that they are working more or less on the surface for the entire length...

Also, half of the Evergreen Line route is being built in areas where few roads would be impacted anyway, so that is not a very fair comparison. Better comparisons would be the impact on Lougheed Highway during the Millennium Line construction or the impact on No 3 Rd during the Canada Line construction.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1308  
Old Posted Jul 4, 2012, 11:13 PM
CoryHolmes CoryHolmes is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,007
I'm more concerned about shutting down major intersections like KGB and 88th every 5-7 minutes. 88th is the major east-west route for that lattitude of the city, and people already drive it like they're maniacs in their desperation to get whereever they're going.

*train arms come down*
"I can make it!" *floors it*
*gets caught between arms*

Yeah, like THAT's not going to happen seven times a week. Just imagine what that would do to daily commutes?

Now add in 96th/Frasier Highway, 64th, etc...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1309  
Old Posted Jul 4, 2012, 11:15 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 38,231
arms? what arms?
I doubt there would even be crossing arms.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1310  
Old Posted Jul 4, 2012, 11:17 PM
nname nname is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,652
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoryHolmes View Post
I'm more concerned about shutting down major intersections like KGB and 88th every 5-7 minutes. 88th is the major east-west route for that lattitude of the city, and people already drive it like they're maniacs in their desperation to get whereever they're going.

*train arms come down*
"I can make it!" *floors it*
*gets caught between arms*

Yeah, like THAT's not going to happen seven times a week. Just imagine what that would do to daily commutes?

Now add in 96th/Frasier Highway, 64th, etc...
Unless the trains in both directions are timed to go through the intersection at the same time, every 5-7 minutes means a headway of 10-15min. The train would run much more often than that in peak hours...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1311  
Old Posted Jul 4, 2012, 11:23 PM
andasen andasen is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Calgary
Posts: 227
There is always the option at said intersections to have the LRT pass under the intersection. Need not be a full on tunnel but more of an underpass.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1312  
Old Posted Jul 4, 2012, 11:36 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 38,231
The abundance of grade-separate intersections on the then-LRT Broadway-Lougheed Line is what brought the cost up to near SkyTrain levels and eventually lead to the switch to SkyTrain for the M-Line.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1313  
Old Posted Jul 5, 2012, 12:16 AM
queetz@home's Avatar
queetz@home queetz@home is offline
Go Rotem! Die Bombardier!
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Ortigas
Posts: 3,684
Quote:
Originally Posted by allan_kuan View Post
I still see the same or more disruptions for building LRT versus SkyTrain due to the fact that they are working more or less on the surface for the entire length...

Also, half of the Evergreen Line route is being built in areas where few roads would be impacted anyway, so that is not a very fair comparison. Better comparisons would be the impact on Lougheed Highway during the Millennium Line construction or the impact on No 3 Rd during the Canada Line construction.
Oh there is no comparison, I wasn't implying as such. Just saying that after the Canada Line construction debacle, I think people in charge of construction would be more inclined to show a little bit more sensitivity to those impacted. Note that even elevated guideways still need some kind of spacing during construction, so just because Skytrain is elevated and LRT is not doesn't mean one would be less disruptive than the other. Its really all about management, and a less intrusive way can be done (see the thread on 1021 West Hastings on how construction companies do make some effort).

And the fact that half the Evergreen Line route is where few roads would be impacted is why I am saying the kind of sensitivity the Evergreen Line project officials are showing is way too overkill. Is it a result of wanting to make up for the Canada Line construction debacle or sheer boredom due to the snail paced progress? I dunno....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1314  
Old Posted Jul 5, 2012, 1:36 AM
mezzanine's Avatar
mezzanine mezzanine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,998
Quote:
Originally Posted by queetz@home View Post
Just because Minneapolis-St Paul's LRT construction is disruptive doesn't mean LRT construction in Surrey will be just as disruptive. We all know the Canada Line construction was only the way it is because a certain petulant former Transport Minister that shall remain nameless and loves to use the phrase "boo hoo" to the negatively affected stakeholders, made it that way.

Given the highly publicized and controversial Canada Line construction well known and fresh in our memories, I'm sure planners will try to make a Surrey LRT construction less disruptive as possible. We already see this with the Evergreen Line pre-construction alerts and such, which imo is a little bit overkill (either that or those folks at the Evergreen project office are simply bored to death of doing next to nothing all day).

I would the culpability was on all sides. As a small business owner, you assess risk and hedge your bets. ms heyes made a big bet that RAV construction would not interfere with her business and she lost.

Quote:
She determined that she could endure any disruption associated with construction of the Canada Line by means of a bored tunnel. She exercised the right to renew the Hazel & Co. lease.

The landlord wished to renew for a three-year term. Ms. Heyes preferred a five-year term. Ultimately, the lease was renewed for a five-year term to expire in December 2008. There was no provision in the lease permitting termination at the option of the lessee should Canada Line construction interfere with business operations.
Regardless, that's past. Moving forward, we have to be clear about any future project, private of public, about any type of change of work to alleviate (short-term) construction issues and if it would be worthwhile.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1315  
Old Posted Jul 5, 2012, 7:14 PM
GMasterAres GMasterAres is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 3,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoryHolmes View Post
I'm more concerned about shutting down major intersections like KGB and 88th every 5-7 minutes. 88th is the major east-west route for that lattitude of the city, and people already drive it like they're maniacs in their desperation to get whereever they're going.

*train arms come down*
"I can make it!" *floors it*
*gets caught between arms*

Yeah, like THAT's not going to happen seven times a week. Just imagine what that would do to daily commutes?

Now add in 96th/Frasier Highway, 64th, etc...
The issue with 88th are trucks. There's a lot of money riding on trucks being diverted to SFPR when it is completed. Same with 96th. Same with KGB.

I'd agree with them if they are able to reduce or remove truck traffic entirely from the major routes aka 88th, 96th, and KGB, then the traffic impact won't be nearly as much. But I don't think it will be achievable simply because you do have a lot of industry in and around Newton and they need to _get there_ somehow.

And right now on the likes of 128th street, they force trucks at 88th to turn onto it. That would have to change.

I too though am leary about LRT down KGB. For Guildford too I think Surrey would be flirting with disaster if they narrowed 104th to 1 lane either direction given it is THE major east-west rount to City Center and directly connected with Highway 1. If you look down the entire stretch though you could certainly nudge either direction left or right and squeeze out another 2 lanes. Along all of 104th you either have empty grass 20+ feet on either side or parking lots/hedging.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1316  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2012, 10:33 PM
TheEmotionalstone TheEmotionalstone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Surrey
Posts: 39
STUDY: Measuring the costs: SkyTrain vs LRT expansion in Surrey, BC
SKYTRAIN FOR SURREY - July 8, 2012

"The SkyTrain for Surrey Initiative has released a study that attempts to accurately measure the costs of SkyTrain expansion vs. LRT expansion on a corridor-by-corridor basis in the City of Surrey.

The study found that the expansion of SkyTrain into Surrey could cost as little as 28% more than an LRT system, at $1.77 billion vs $1.38 billion.

The Initiative analysts started work on the study when they found that the estimates that TransLink gave for SkyTrain expansion in Surrey appeared to be far above the actual costs of previous implementations with comparable or even more complicated characteristics."

Source -
http://skytrainforsurrey.org/2012/07...-vs-lrt-study/
http://skytrainforsurrey.org/2012/07/08/press-release-initiative-releases-study-finds-skytrain-just-28-more-costly-than-lrt/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1317  
Old Posted Jul 9, 2012, 2:25 AM
queetz@home's Avatar
queetz@home queetz@home is offline
Go Rotem! Die Bombardier!
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Ortigas
Posts: 3,684
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEmotionalstone View Post
STUDY: Measuring the costs: SkyTrain vs LRT expansion in Surrey, BC
SKYTRAIN FOR SURREY - July 8, 2012

"The SkyTrain for Surrey Initiative has released a study that attempts to accurately measure the costs of SkyTrain expansion vs. LRT expansion on a corridor-by-corridor basis in the City of Surrey.

The study found that the expansion of SkyTrain into Surrey could cost as little as 28% more than an LRT system, at $1.77 billion vs $1.38 billion.

The Initiative analysts started work on the study when they found that the estimates that TransLink gave for SkyTrain expansion in Surrey appeared to be far above the actual costs of previous implementations with comparable or even more complicated characteristics."

Source -
http://skytrainforsurrey.org/2012/07...-vs-lrt-study/
http://skytrainforsurrey.org/2012/07/08/press-release-initiative-releases-study-finds-skytrain-just-28-more-costly-than-lrt/
I clicked on the link and found this...

Quote:
SkyscraperPage forum user: “nname” – Analyst (unaffliated)
“nname” is credited because he has provided some relevant statistical information that assisted in confirming the accuracy of this study. He is not affiliated with the Initiative.
Oh dear. I'm not sure if nname gave consent and all, but the studies presented here seem extremely biased, and will only hurt their cause in the long run. Seems nitpicky and its really no different than the studies provided by Malcolm Johnston's "Light Rail Committee" or "Rail for Valley".

Who is this Darryl de la Cruz anyway? Does he work for an engineering company? Or is he the same Darryl de la Cruz in Linked as a Director/Producer?

I googled the other people in the credits and no such luck, no professional accreditation, not online anyway. There are tons of Kenneth Chan's but still not linked in statistics, urban planning, engineering, etc.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1318  
Old Posted Jul 9, 2012, 3:31 AM
paradigm4 paradigm4 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Surrey, BC
Posts: 688
Quote:
Originally Posted by queetz@home View Post
I clicked on the link and found this...



Oh dear. I'm not sure if nname gave consent and all, but the studies presented here seem extremely biased, and will only hurt their cause in the long run. Seems nitpicky and its really no different than the studies provided by Malcolm Johnston's "Light Rail Committee" or "Rail for Valley".

Who is this Darryl de la Cruz anyway? Does he work for an engineering company? Or is he the same Darryl de la Cruz in Linked as a Director/Producer?

I googled the other people in the credits and no such luck, no professional accreditation, not online anyway. There are tons of Kenneth Chan's but still not linked in statistics, urban planning, engineering, etc.
Indeed. Daryl is a 16 year old, I believe, from Guildford. Here's his Facebook.

Can we please put an end to these fake organizations? A coalition implies multiple people and groups. This is simply a boy with a blog.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1319  
Old Posted Jul 9, 2012, 5:08 AM
GMasterAres GMasterAres is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 3,055
Lines like:

Quote:
We have developed our own methodology which has allowed us to accurately estimate these costs for each lines along the three rapid transit corridors as both Light Rail Transit and SkyTrain implementations:

just make me cringe. I have a difficult time enough estimating costs for equipment and infrastructure in my profession month to month and I've been doing it for 12 years now. There is no such methodology which can accurately estimate any cost. An estimate by its very nature isn't accurate. With estimates you can either be conservative or liberal in your estimations. But not accurate.

*sigh* and the grammar. Come on. At least get that right.

Wow anyone with word and publisher these days can fake a study to further their cause. Unless someone is in the business of construction or project management, they can't begin to understand how expensive things actually are to design and implement. Especially when you're 16 and quite frankly just a tad naive about the real world.

*sigh*

I do still think though just from a logical standpoint Sky Train down Fraser Highway makes the most sense. It doesn't make sense right now for Newton to Surrey Central and Guildford to Surrey Central. It's a 5 minute drive either direction, 15 in traffic. That stretch isn't worth a billion dollars right now. Especially when BRT hasn't even been tried yet. Do BRT or LRT first, then go from there.

But Skytrain is backbone technology and better fit for Fraser Highway to Langley. I'll stick to my prediction from a year ago now that we'll eventually see SkyTrain extension down FHWY to Langley, and BRT or LRT from Central to Guildford/Newton/South Surrey.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1320  
Old Posted Jul 9, 2012, 6:14 AM
memememe76 memememe76 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 824
Skytrain *and* LRT. Hey, as a Surrey resident, I'm all for it but that seems like a lot for Surrey. I always found it interesting that all the major famous neighbourhoods in Vancouver aren't right beside a Skytrain Station (except Yaletown and maybe Coal Harbour--and Yaletown was after the fact).

I just would like better bus service. The 320 should be a lot more frequent than it is.
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 11:58 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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