HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2010, 2:00 AM
nname nname is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,652
But that gives high capacity transit to area with low density. I doubt a rail line of any form would ever happen between Guildford and Walnut Grove. It's just too far away and almost nothing in between. Plus there is already Highway 1 there...

There don't have to be major commercial development if SkyTrain go down Fleetwood.. Just look at 29th Ave, Nanaimo, and 22nd Street.. no commercial development, no highrises, but still generating sizable ridership. Fleetwood can be another one if they want to.. In fact, even with a few tomehouses and low-rise and mid-rise apartments, it can already get more density compared to the three stations mentioned above.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2010, 2:28 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 nname View Post
But that gives high capacity transit to area with low density. I doubt a rail line of any form would ever happen between Guildford and Walnut Grove. It's just too far away and almost nothing in between. Plus there is already Highway 1 there...

There don't have to be major commercial development if SkyTrain go down Fleetwood.. Just look at 29th Ave, Nanaimo, and 22nd Street.. no commercial development, no highrises, but still generating sizable ridership. Fleetwood can be another one if they want to.. In fact, even with a few tomehouses and low-rise and mid-rise apartments, it can already get more density compared to the three stations mentioned above.
Hence "provision"; it wouldn't really have to happen, but who knows, maybe the Highway 1 corridor will develop alot with the wider freeway :p
Could be a useful way to get to Port Kells
Well in the Fleetwood case it's actually skipping the potential areas of ridership/development areas; in the 29th/Nanaimo/22nd case it uses this route going between the huge-development areas.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2010, 2:58 AM
nname nname is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,652
My vision on this:

I would like to see the Guildford Line branch out between Gateway and Surrey Central with an intermediate stations at 138th and 144th. The junction would be a Y so Guildford trains can alternate between Surrey Central (King George Line) and Gateway (Expo Line).

The Guildford Line will continues south on 152th with stations at 100th, 96th, and 91st. Then turn on Fraser with the Fleetwood station and a "bus loop" in the area enclosed by Fraser, 156th, and 88th (now that's a pretty good area for a transit exchange as all routes, no matter which way they go, can turn and load/unload in the same island surrounded by 3 roads). The line can then follow Fraser with stations at 64th, and 166th. After crossing 168th, the line becomes at-grade, turn on Pacific Hwy, and then into the Hydro ROW with stations at Pacific, 64th, and 60th. After that, the line elevates again with stations at Hwy10 @ 192th, Willowbrook (Langley Bypass @ Fraser), Langley Centre (Logan @ Glover).

The King George Line continue from King George to Newton with stations at Surrey Memorial Hospital, 88th, 80th, 76th, and 72nd. Then continue south to King George @ 64th, Surrey City Hall (Hwy 10 @ 144th), Colebrook (Colebrook @ 152nd), Morgan Creek (152nd @ 36th), 152nd @ Hwy 99, 152nd @ 24th, 152nd @ 20th, and White Rock Centre (152nd @ North Bluff).

Then LRT/BRT lines go on Interurban (Scott Rd Station through Newton, Willowbrook to Langley North at Glover), Scott (Interurban to Scottsdale), 72nd (Scottsdale through Newton to 152nd), 88th (Interurban through Fleetwood to Walnut Grove), 152nd (from Colebrook to Fleetwood), and 200th (from Haney Place/Maple Meadows through Walnut Grove to Willowbrook).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2010, 3:18 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 nname View Post
My vision on this:

I would like to see the Guildford Line branch out between Gateway and Surrey Central with an intermediate stations at 138th and 144th. The junction would be a Y so Guildford trains can alternate between Surrey Central (King George Line) and Gateway (Expo Line).

The Guildford Line will continues south on 152th with stations at 100th, 96th, and 91st. Then turn on Fraser with the Fleetwood station and a "bus loop" in the area enclosed by Fraser, 156th, and 88th (now that's a pretty good area for a transit exchange as all routes, no matter which way they go, can turn and load/unload in the same island surrounded by 3 roads). The line can then follow Fraser with stations at 64th, and 166th. After crossing 168th, the line becomes at-grade, turn on Pacific Hwy, and then into the Hydro ROW with stations at Pacific, 64th, and 60th. After that, the line elevates again with stations at Hwy10 @ 192th, Willowbrook (Langley Bypass @ Fraser), Langley Centre (Logan @ Glover).

The King George Line continue from King George to Newton with stations at Surrey Memorial Hospital, 88th, 80th, 76th, and 72nd. Then continue south to King George @ 64th, Surrey City Hall (Hwy 10 @ 144th), Colebrook (Colebrook @ 152nd), Morgan Creek (152nd @ 36th), 152nd @ Hwy 99, 152nd @ 24th, 152nd @ 20th, and White Rock Centre (152nd @ North Bluff).

Then LRT/BRT lines go on Interurban (Scott Rd Station through Newton, Willowbrook to Langley North at Glover), Scott (Interurban to Scottsdale), 72nd (Scottsdale through Newton to 152nd), 88th (Interurban through Fleetwood to Walnut Grove), 152nd (from Colebrook to Fleetwood), and 200th (from Haney Place/Maple Meadows through Walnut Grove to Willowbrook).
That's very simplified and seems like a very good option, though I don't see how this would work well with any extensions over the "LRT-Ready" Port Mann Bridge as you could just take the Expo -> Millenium -> Evergreen in the same way (sure it's a bit inconvenient to keep switching but the Port Mann line would seem redundant for this reason). Wouldn't exactly have any western extension provisions to Richmond either (though a B-Line bus coupled with new HOV lanes on the 91 could solve that). The station at 100th would certainly serve the area (and my very own school ) very well.

I think the stations & routing should happen like this instead though:
-Gateway Station as the beginning, then east along 108th (any building on 104th would overcrowd it more and hinder a potential 6-laning of the route which IMO is badly required already considering traffic (esp. truck) volumes).
-Stations on 140th, 148th/Guildford Park
-Turns to go south on 150th Street, to meet up perfectly at the new Guildford Bus Loop to be built at 150th & 104th. South of Guildford, turns east at 101st near the movie theatre and then south on 152nd. There's some space on the west side of the Kingston Gardens property (undeveloped) that could be used for the 100th station. It would be at a convenient location near the T&T, Johnston Heights Secondary and nearby communities.
-Stations, from there, on 96th (SE corner, some expropriation required), 91st and then possibly in the 88th/156th/Fraser triangle (good location but roads need more upgrading esp. 156). From there, would continue on Fraser with stations at 160th/84th and 166th/Fleetwood Rec.
-From there, instead of following Fraser to 176th, it would turn south on 168th (much better route IMO instead of continuing to 176th - requiring more overpasses and possibly impeding a golf course), as a primarly at-grade route. After curving to elevate over 64th, there would be a station. East, then a station at 176th. The line would curve southeast and south, travelling between Lord Tweedsmuir Sec. and the Rodeo grounds. Cloverdale Rodeo station would be just south. If the line got too close to Cloverdale Centre it could ruin it; this is a good compromise.
-Would turn east and take 60th from there (or route 10) - potentially, underground could be better on this segment through residential. Stations at 184 or 186, & 192. Would turn north for a station at Willowbrook Drive & 196A then.
-East on Willowbrook past 200th to 200th Avenue station, then curve southeast skirting (part elevated across roads & railways) on unused land. Would curve south on 202 street @ H10 (good location for station w/commercial), elevate over the railway, then follow the railway spur at-grade under the Duncan St overpass. The line could end at a Glover Road station. It could be extended further into the city centre from there but I worry it would ruin what the quiet city centre is now, creating a concrete, elevated mess.

The King George Line should go like this:
-Start at King George. Curve south at field to station @ Surrey Hospital. West to meet King George after. Stations at 88th, 81st.
-At Newton, turns on 76th/Newton Bypass with a station at KG @ 76, continues and then turns left on 72nd to a station at the Wave Pool. -From there, go back to King George with stations @ 68th, 62nd, Surrey City Hall. Turn east on route 10, station @ Panorama. Turn south on 152, at grade/no stations until reaching 34th St/Morgan Creek. More stations at Cranley Dr/Hwy 99, King George/24th, and 20th.
-West & south on Martin Dr to a new Semiahmoo Centre bus loop. From there, (optionally), south on Martin Street to a White Rock Station just north of the pier.

IMO Surrey to Richmond is underserved, but a new line branching off at 22nd in New West (rather than in Surrey i.e. from Whalley or Newton) could work just as well. That or a very good B-Line with HOV lanes on Highway 91 like I said earlier would work.

Last edited by xd_1771; Sep 9, 2010 at 4:21 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2010, 2:36 PM
amor de cosmos amor de cosmos is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: lodged against an abutment
Posts: 7,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vonny View Post
In Vancouver, the high density clustering is evident:

that's another cool map
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2010, 2:58 PM
whatnext whatnext is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 22,112
Interesting look at that density map of Metro. One can only speculate how Richmond would have developed far more density were it not for the ALR, given its proximity to Vancouver. And Surrey would probably have correspondingly less.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2010, 4:53 PM
jsbertram jsbertram is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vonny View Post
Density



...



...
What I found interesting is that when you have both the Employment Density map and the Residential Density map shown together, you see that the Broadway corridor has BOTH types of density, when either one alone is high enough to justify a SkyTrain through this corridor.


I was also not surprised to see on these maps that most of the Arbutus Corridor also has this mix of high Residential Density and pockets of high Employment Density, even with all the vacant space along the CPR right-of-way. When this area is redeveloped to have transit-oriented residential and office/commercial space, it only adds to the argument for LRT or Trams along the Arbutus Corridor.


I'd like to find a similar Employment Density map for Surrey, but I found some other interesting maps on the StatsCan website:
(http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recen...s-eng.cfm#maps)

Percentage of the Employed Labour Force Using a Sustainable Mode of Transportation to Get to Work
by Place of Work
by 2006 Census Tracts

Vancouver:
http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-re...ainable_ec.pdf

Surrey:
http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-re...ainable_ec.pdf

(Before checking the PDFs, can you guess who has more employers whose workers are using transit to get to their jobs?)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2010, 4:58 PM
Zassk Zassk is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,303
Yes, from the maps you can see Arbutus could be a candidate for LRT, but the maps also show that there is an even stronger case for Hastings getting rapid transit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2010, 4:59 PM
jsbertram jsbertram is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatnext View Post
Interesting look at that density map of Metro. One can only speculate how Richmond would have developed far more density were it not for the ALR, given its proximity to Vancouver. And Surrey would probably have correspondingly less.
Or you could say that the ALR has made Richmond build in a smaller area (with increased density as a result), and the Canada Line will encourage further increases in density along its corridor.

More density around the Canada Line stations means less need for building on ALR.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2010, 10:28 PM
GMasterAres GMasterAres is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 3,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zassk View Post
Hmm... which has higher population - Fleetwood, Cloverdale, or Langley City?

I know Newton and S. Surrey beat all of those in population currently.
Fleetwood estimate for 2010 is ~58,000
Cloverdale estaimte for 2010 is ~59,000
Langley City estimate for 2010 is ~25,000
If you include the township of Langley then you're at about 125,000 people total but that does include areas nowhere near the center of Langley where the hub would be.

No anyone that knows Surrey will understand that the hub of where densification is being planned for is Surrey Central (Walley), Guildford, and Newton. The main cooridores being King George, 104th Ave, 152nd Street, and Fraser Highway.

The reason for the extension alignment makes sense. As a backbone regional infrastructure, it makes more sense to extend skytrain which is most expensive towards the valley so towards Langley but extending along only Fraser Highway is silly.

So they are planning to loop around the Hospital area then down to 104th, along 104th to Guildford and the mall, then up 152nd street then at Fraser Highway swing down to 168th. That allows to extend in 20 or 30 years to Langley itself but also means they can just do a B-Bus line to Langley or increase the bus frequency since busses from Langley will no longer have to travel as far. That also means an increase in transit to the Clayton Heights area.

Newton is planned to be serviced by a similar system that Richmond had before the Canada Line, bus service that can eventually be replaced by rapid transit either in LRT or Skytrain format.

Extending skytrain with the current concept makes the most sense because you're then hitting over 130,000 worth of population that way and creating major hubs (major bus loop and transit center in Guildford which will also integrate the new Port Mann to Coquitlam; Fleetwood centre allowing closer transit links to Langley and Cloverdale) and creating that back end core.

As for transit not encouraging growth, I think Surrey's problem has been the fact it is just naturally on the edge of things, has also had a reputation it has had to overcome (and still is), and because unlike other cities around Vancouver, isn't area limitted so that's made it easier to fall into the quick money urban sprawl mentality.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2010, 10:30 PM
GMasterAres GMasterAres is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 3,055
Also those sitting there staring at the posted maps should note, this is a regional plan and a future plan to 2040. They are looking at the future. Those maps reflect the past and only a small fraction of the present. They are really, for the purposes of planning, pointless and of little value unfortunately.

The past _can_ help but really regional plans are more about guessing and anticipation, both of which can turn out wrong or can turn out right.

Not to mention what type of employment is important too. Broadway may look super dense and as though it is a huge priority but I spend a lot of time down there and it seems like 50% of the employment are restaurants, coffee shops, and little clothing/misc stores. Employment in that type of business is typically local only. You aren't going to have someone from Surrey commuting to go work at Moxies on Broadway. You will though have someone from Vancouver commuting to work at SFU Surrey or the RCMP office in Surrey.

For every 1 restaurant on Fraser Highway in Surrey in a given block, you have 20 on Broadway within that same distance.

So pure density numbers don't tell the whole story. Need to know what type and analyze from there. Remember skytrain is a backbone to get large amounts of people from 1 major region to the next major region. So the purpose of the Broadway Skytrain line wouldn't be for Broadway itself so much as it would be for people going and coming from UBC.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2010, 10:52 PM
Zassk Zassk is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,303
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhausner View Post
Broadway may look super dense and as though it is a huge priority but I spend a lot of time down there and it seems like 50% of the employment are restaurants, coffee shops, and little clothing/misc stores. Employment in that type of business is typically local only.
Well, from the Translink and UBC studies, we already know that about 50% of the employment in the Broadway corridor is performed by people from outside the corridor. Since UBC and the hospital and Main St. are also in this corridor (all regional draws), I would guess that the customers of these businesses also come mainly from outside the corridor.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2010, 11:18 PM
tybuilding tybuilding is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by xd_1771 View Post

I think the stations & routing should happen like this instead though:
-Gateway Station as the beginning, then east along 108th (any building on 104th would overcrowd it more and hinder a potential 6-laning of the route which IMO is badly required already considering traffic (esp. truck) volumes).
It should be interesting to see how much truck volumes will decrease after the SFPR goes in. I imagine it will decrease a lot on 104th Ave and the others.

http://www.civicsurrey.com/2010/08/1...e-city-centre/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2010, 12:35 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 tybuilding View Post
It should be interesting to see how much truck volumes will decrease after the SFPR goes in. I imagine it will decrease a lot on 104th Ave and the others.

http://www.civicsurrey.com/2010/08/1...e-city-centre/
I've been thinking of that lately, hopefully it does work but to get to the industrial around Newton I still think some trucks will be using local streets. In addition, if the lights on SFPR are poorly timed and end up causing huge lineups just like 91A northbound, we could end up seeing even more trucks on 104th again. I still do think that the new Guildford Line should track 108th though as there seems to be a lot more residential areas and commercial areas (north guildford, the new 7/11, etc.) coming up there. Building on 104th could remove car traffic, but could also end up bolstering car traffic there even more - and even local car traffic can be a problem on 104th, especially with short, under-length left turn lanes (and left turn signal on lengths); for example, the turn onto 156th northbound now that it's a major route into Fraser Heights. The new lights they've put up that can be extremely annoying to put up with sometimes when they, Surrey-style, stop traffic for extended periods of time for no reason are also a huge atrocity to this route.

The building of a roundabout on 108th/King George would cause backups for miles (especially with traffic lights) - unless this happens long after the Skytrain lines are extended and transit is improved. Then again, the huge, new influx of pedestrian traffic always crossing the roundabout and ruining the only chances at getting in (i.e. done walking...ohai there's traffic again) could still make it pretty bad anyways. I don't support a roundabout at that location.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2012, 11:09 PM
feepa's Avatar
feepa feepa is offline
Change is good
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,335
It's been awhile since this thread was updated, but I'm interested in whats going on in Surrey, specifically the fight over at-grade on street LRT versus skytrain...

Can anyone sum up the latest in this on going debate?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Nov 1, 2012, 1:03 AM
nname nname is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,652
Quote:
Originally Posted by feepa View Post
It's been awhile since this thread was updated, but I'm interested in whats going on in Surrey, specifically the fight over at-grade on street LRT versus skytrain...

Can anyone sum up the latest in this on going debate?
Neither one is happening as the transit agency does not have extra money to expand rapid transit.

The alternative study is still on-going and the result will be published soon (which is like that ever since spring or summer).

In the mean time, one of the proposed rapid transit route is getting a B-Line service ("BRT", but more closely resemble a limited stop frequent high-capacity route) sometimes next year.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2012, 4:19 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 nname View Post
Neither one is happening as the transit agency does not have extra money to expand rapid transit.

The alternative study is still on-going and the result will be published soon (which is like that ever since spring or summer).

In the mean time, one of the proposed rapid transit route is getting a B-Line service ("BRT", but more closely resemble a limited stop frequent high-capacity route) sometimes next year.
I'm willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that alternative study will be a copy and paste document that is taken from other cities, except the subway system is replaced by Skytrain.

That really peeved me during the Northeast Sector Rapid Transit alternatives studies back in the day, where the document is literally a copy and paste of a rapid transit study for the city of Tel Aviv, except the subway is replaced by Skytrain (incidentally, I was modding the SSC Israeli forums back then, hence why I was familiar). Clarke Lim of Translink felt my wrath in Port Moody City hall as a result...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2012, 4:39 PM
go_leafs_go02 go_leafs_go02 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: London, ON
Posts: 2,406
The City wants LRT - Translink wants either BRT or Skytrain, and there are still 3 different routes (104 Avenue to Guildford, Fraser Hwy to Langley, and King George to Newton & White Rock).

A B-line is expected to launch next year, between Guildford, City Centre, and Newton
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2012, 8:01 PM
nname nname is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,652
Quote:
Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02 View Post
The City wants LRT - Translink wants either BRT or Skytrain, and there are still 3 different routes (104 Avenue to Guildford, Fraser Hwy to Langley, and King George to Newton & White Rock).
Well, the city wants lots of lines going everywhere, but does not care about the operation. As long as they get built, its someone else's responsibility to figure out how to pay for the operating cost. TransLink, on the other hand, would prefer a system with lowest operating cost and care less about the capital cost, as they only pay 1/3 of capital but 100% in operation. Building lots of LRT lines everywhere would be their worst nightmare since operating cost for each line would be much higher than the SkyTrain line that could be built instead, and the revenue per line diminishes as the lines begin to compete with each other.

But ultimately, whatever TransLink or the city want doesn't matter. What gets built is what the province wants.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Nov 4, 2012, 1:11 AM
go_leafs_go02 go_leafs_go02 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: London, ON
Posts: 2,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by nname View Post
Well, the city wants lots of lines going everywhere, but does not care about the operation. As long as they get built, its someone else's responsibility to figure out how to pay for the operating cost. TransLink, on the other hand, would prefer a system with lowest operating cost and care less about the capital cost, as they only pay 1/3 of capital but 100% in operation. Building lots of LRT lines everywhere would be their worst nightmare since operating cost for each line would be much higher than the SkyTrain line that could be built instead, and the revenue per line diminishes as the lines begin to compete with each other.

But ultimately, whatever TransLink or the city want doesn't matter. What gets built is what the province wants.
I'll agree that Translink wants whatever has the lowest operating cost - but the City of Surrey definitely wants LRT

http://www.surrey.ca/city-services/10797.aspx
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 8:37 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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