HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1441  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2013, 2:25 PM
SFUVancouver's Avatar
SFUVancouver SFUVancouver is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 6,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Track View Post
I wanted to ask something here: for all that people have debated about LRT v. BRT v. RRT, no one's mentioned streetcars. Which aren't rapid transit, I know. But they're cheap, extensive, and can most definitely drive development and ridership in a way that buses can't. Of course, they probably aren't a better option, I was just wondering if anyone who knows a bit more about different transit options might be able to evaluate the pros and cons of a tram system in a city like Surrey.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xd_1771 View Post
And how do you expect might that happen? o_O
The Pearl District and South Waterfront District in Portland are textbook cases of significant development induced by a modern streetcar system. In addition to that, nearly all of the residential and low-rise commercial development along a city's main streets are the result of there once having been streetcar service along those arterials. 'Streetcar suburbs' accurately describe most central city/inner-suburb gridiron neighbourhoods in the North American context.

At this point, streetcars/trams and LRT/tram train vehicles are arguably one and the same with the following two caveats: streetcars/trams are almost always single consists train -meaning a single-piece train or a single front and back set with connecting pieces in between- as opposed to multiple consist train being used as a single unit (see below for examples); and, LRT/tram trains exist primarily in exclusive rights of way as opposed to mixed-in-traffic on city streets. The rolling stock can be identical, though streetcar/tram models that operate in-street or in old European cities are often more narrow than their exclusive right of way brethren.

Single-consist train
Two-consist train
Three-consist train
Four-consist train
__________________
VANCOUVER | Beautiful, Multicultural | Canada's Pacific Metropolis

Last edited by SFUVancouver; Feb 22, 2013 at 2:39 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1442  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2013, 5:36 PM
Rico Rico is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFUVancouver View Post
The Pearl District and South Waterfront District in Portland are textbook cases of significant development induced by a modern streetcar system. In addition to that, nearly all of the residential and low-rise commercial development along a city's main streets are the result of there once having been streetcar service along those arterials. 'Streetcar suburbs' accurately describe most central city/inner-suburb gridiron neighbourhoods in the North American context.

At this point, streetcars/trams and LRT/tram train vehicles are arguably one and the same with the following two caveats: streetcars/trams are almost always single consists train -meaning a single-piece train or a single front and back set with connecting pieces in between- as opposed to multiple consist train being used as a single unit (see below for examples); and, LRT/tram trains exist primarily in exclusive rights of way as opposed to mixed-in-traffic on city streets. The rolling stock can be identical, though streetcar/tram models that operate in-street or in old European cities are often more narrow than their exclusive right of way brethren.

Single-consist train
Two-consist train
Three-consist train
Four-consist train
Street cars and LRT can be (and often are) the same vehicles. The difference is in the application (granted there can be a range of application). Street cars are considered 'local' transportation with lots of stops and very low speeds (Portlands Street car has journey times comparable to a healthy person walking), LRT has fewer stops and more improvements to increase speed. In general it is the politically difficult/expensive things that make a street car something more than just a waste of money. The more of these improvements the closer to LRT the streetcar is. So LRT could be a streetcar with an exclusive right of way, signal preemption, off board ticketing, all door boarding, frequent service, limited vehicle turning (no left turns if center running) to avoid conficts with the LRT. 'Street cars' with these features are LRT and are worth the investment but they are more expensive. Street cars without these features are slower and less reliable than a bus and based on the Eastside loop in Portland cost $30 million per km (for 18 minute frequency). Seems like a lot of money to reduce service. For the record Portlands the Pearl district has had huge amounts of subsidy for redevelopment, look at some of the Portland blogs, most people seem to feel that it would have redeveloped with just the subsidies (apparently Downtown with the streetcar but without the subsidies has basically done nothing).
Street cars would be a complete waste for Surrey with its generally longer commute distance (this applies to mixed traffic streetcars in the Portland mode not LRT). Picture frequent stops in mixed traffic on King George...of course since no one will use it it will also have low frequencies unless running empty trains comes into fashion. Surrey needs rapid transit (proper LRT, BRT or Skytrain). Just like in Vancouver buses can serve the local transit needs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1443  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2013, 6:15 PM
xd_1771's Avatar
xd_1771 xd_1771 is offline
(daka_x)
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 1,689
I don't understand where an electric trolley bus system (esp. with articulated buses) falls short of delivering excellent (and emissions-free) local transit. Streetcars just wouldn't work in Vancouver, in mixed traffic. There'd be constant stoppages due to the street layout - due to left turns, or maybe right turns. The ability to change lanes is crucial to the functioning of local transit here.

Also, those Portland subsidies have happened for many of their developments along all of their LRT lines (and I find it hard to call Portland an example for anything TOD-related, really). Here are some posters on saveportland.org that detail these subsidies.... they're real, according to the Portland City Council agenda. 10-year property tax exemptions to encourage development. There was a news article from 1996 on The Oregonian with statements of Portland's Councillors of the time that detailed when these subsidies began after "10 years of no development at all along Portland's LRT system", but it seems that NewsBank has taken the article down and it's no longer available for public viewing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1444  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2013, 6:34 PM
huenthar huenthar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Track View Post
I wanted to ask something here: for all that people have debated about LRT v. BRT v. RRT, no one's mentioned streetcars. Which aren't rapid transit, I know. But they're cheap, extensive, and can most definitely drive development and ridership in a way that buses can't. Of course, they probably aren't a better option, I was just wondering if anyone who knows a bit more about different transit options might be able to evaluate the pros and cons of a tram system in a city like Surrey.
We're not talking about streetcars in Surrey because the current need is for rapid transit of some sort radiating from Whalley to Guildford, Newton/South Surrey and Fleetwood/Langley. LRT, BRT, RRT etc. can potentially offer something to address this need hence why they are being discussed. What can a streetcar offer towards filling this need? Nothing. Hence streetcars in Surrey are not being discussed right now.

First we identify what our needs are; then, we talk about how to address those needs. It's NOT the other way around: we don't study a solution first (like a streetcar system) and then think about whether or not there's a need for it.

Portland is a great example. They didn't say "wow, streetcars are neat, now where can we put one" and bam, redevelopment was a positive side effect... No. Redevelopment of the Pearl district and of downtown in general was the goal from the outset; then they looked at a streetcar as a means of addressing this need.

Surrey's currently identified need right now is not at all similar to that. They need to address transit speed, reliability, and capacity along major transportation corridors over some considerable distance. Streetcars won't do that. So why would anybody be talking about them?

I'm sure Surrey will be talking about streetcars if/when a transit or urban design need arises that warrants looking into it. Right now for example there are two small streetcar projects developing out of Cloverdale. The Fraser Valley heritage railway is supposedly starting some historical/tourist type demonstration service between Cloverdale and Sullivan this summer. And also the cloverdale business association AFAIK is still planning to implement a short streetcar running a few blocks through downtown to the rodeo grounds.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1445  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2013, 6:43 PM
GMasterAres GMasterAres is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 3,055
Street cars are a gimmick. They can be fun for tourists when the city in question already has an outstanding transit system in place. But as a standard, they're to me fairly pointless because as has been pointed out, they typically result in about the same speed moving around as if you just walked to your destination especially when you factor in needing to wait to catch one.

In Surrey especially and even in Vancouver, we don't really have medium distances. You either have small distance where you can simply walk (downtown for example, or in city centers within Surrey) then you have longer distance where streetcars/walking isn't really useful and you want something a bit quicker aka bus/LRT/SkyTrain. Those distances would be say downtown to Broadway, or Surrey Central to Guildford/Newton.

So to me I'd rather our transit system in Surrey focus on getting people to and from city centers with a rapid backbone for regional transit. That's why I still think LRT to Guildford/Newton/South Surrey is a good idea with SkyTrain cutting along Fraser Highway towards Langley.

SkyTrain in that sense is our backbone because you can travel rapidly throughout the entire region and to the major regional centers. LRT on the other stretches (and even BRT first) then encouraged going between town centers so say Guildford to Surrey Central to Newton, etc.

There will be overlap obviously but it makes more sense to me. LRT ultimately is the gap I think we are missing largely in Metro Vancouver. We either do expensive RRT or we do unreliable Bus service here which is what causes so many issues. No in-between.

Back on street cars though, we do have to remember that what was done in the past isn't always best. I do hear often with regards to street cars that "Hey we had them in the past during the early 1900s and they were great then!" as some reason to bring them back. A simple response of "And we had horse drawn buggies too... want those back too?" nullifies that nostalgia. Not to mention the population was FAR different.

Between 1920 and 1940 more than 60% of the entire region's population lived in Vancouver proper and by 1940 our population was regionally 586,000. Compare that today where less than 30% of the population lives in Vancouver proper and we're over 2.1 million people. Much larger land mass, more spread out population, bigger population, means different transit needs. It's the same reason people arguing about road and freeway expansion and extension need to jump in a lake and shut up. We aren't living in the 1960s anymore. Abbotsford isn't a town with more cows than people anymore.

Again street cars are a fun tourist gimmick just like what is happening in Surrey with the FVHRS restoration, not a viable transit solution for modern Surrey.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1446  
Old Posted Feb 23, 2013, 1:15 AM
cabotp cabotp is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 2,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by Track View Post
I wanted to ask something here: for all that people have debated about LRT v. BRT v. RRT, no one's mentioned streetcars. Which aren't rapid transit, I know. But they're cheap, extensive, and can most definitely drive development and ridership in a way that buses can't. Of course, they probably aren't a better option, I was just wondering if anyone who knows a bit more about different transit options might be able to evaluate the pros and cons of a tram system in a city like Surrey.

Street cars are just a fancy track based bus system. That have absolutely no benefit over the current bus system that we have today. We would be spending a whole bunch of money and not getting anything better than what we have.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1447  
Old Posted Feb 23, 2013, 2:37 AM
memememe76 memememe76 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 824
You mean those streetcars like in San Fran that go to the Wharf? I HATED those things (basically, I found MUNI pretty annoying my entire time there). I have no desire for some slow rickety trolley from Guildford to Whalley.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1448  
Old Posted Feb 23, 2013, 6:17 AM
Whalleyboy's Avatar
Whalleyboy Whalleyboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by huenthar View Post
We're not talking about streetcars in Surrey because the current need is for rapid transit of some sort radiating from Whalley to Guildford, Newton/South Surrey and Fleetwood/Langley. LRT, BRT, RRT etc. can potentially offer something to address this need hence why they are being discussed. What can a streetcar offer towards filling this need? Nothing. Hence streetcars in Surrey are not being discussed right now.

First we identify what our needs are; then, we talk about how to address those needs. It's NOT the other way around: we don't study a solution first (like a streetcar system) and then think about whether or not there's a need for it.

Portland is a great example. They didn't say "wow, streetcars are neat, now where can we put one" and bam, redevelopment was a positive side effect... No. Redevelopment of the Pearl district and of downtown in general was the goal from the outset; then they looked at a streetcar as a means of addressing this need.

Surrey's currently identified need right now is not at all similar to that. They need to address transit speed, reliability, and capacity along major transportation corridors over some considerable distance. Streetcars won't do that. So why would anybody be talking about them?

I'm sure Surrey will be talking about streetcars if/when a transit or urban design need arises that warrants looking into it. Right now for example there are two small streetcar projects developing out of Cloverdale. The Fraser Valley heritage railway is supposedly starting some historical/tourist type demonstration service between Cloverdale and Sullivan this summer. And also the cloverdale business association AFAIK is still planning to implement a short streetcar running a few blocks through downtown to the rodeo grounds.
Well there has been some very small talk I believe for the cloverdale street car. Mainly for historic factors but its not a top of the list kinda thing

I will say a street car systen could one day work in the city centre but thats once it gets more built up. I think it would work great on the loop of whalley blvd and university drive when complete.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1449  
Old Posted Feb 23, 2013, 10:31 PM
Millennium2002 Millennium2002 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,742
I agree with the streetcar idea, but I also agree with others that say that that isn't the top priority for Surrey at the moment (or the whole region for that matter) vs the LRT system that they've been wanting to get for for the last several years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1450  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2013, 5:24 AM
Robert in Calgary Robert in Calgary is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFUVancouver View Post
The Pearl District and South Waterfront District in Portland are textbook cases of significant development induced by a modern streetcar system. '
I'm sorry, but this is rubbish. The Portland Streetcar is wildly overrated and gets a massive amount of undeserved credit.

You should try researching how much public money and breaks were tossed in to get the developers building.

Hundred of millions of dollars, possibly a Billion dollars.

What's the current best service level - 14 minutes? This is success?

http://www.wweek.com/portland/articl...slow_ride.html

http://portlandtribune.com/pt/9-news...corridor-plan-
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1451  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2013, 11:36 PM
BCPhil BCPhil is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by cabotp View Post
Street cars are just a fancy track based bus system. That have absolutely no benefit over the current bus system that we have today. We would be spending a whole bunch of money and not getting anything better than what we have.
That's a bit of a hyperbole. There are some advantages to a streetcar over a bus system.

First, public perception. If the public likes rail transport more than buses (it is often perceived as more convenient, luxurious and comfortable), and encourages people to use transit instead of drive, then the extra cost can be made up by extra patronage over the years.

Second, capacity. Even if a streetcar gives no advantage time wise, a single train can usually hold more people than an articulated bus. Therefore you need fewer trains than you do buses. And the trains themselves last longer. A streetcar can easily last 50 years, a bus, maybe 10(?).

Which leads to operating cost. If a train can hold more people than a bus, then you need fewer trains running at once to hold more people. For example, on Main and Commercial we often have 2 articulated trolleys running at the same time, back to back, because 1 is not enough (but the second almost never gets more than half full). That is double the operating cost to run buses.

Streetcars can also be easier to operate. With advances in train control, the train can keep the driver from exceeding the maximum speed limit for each meter of track, and can tie into traffic control to keep drivers from running red lights (which seems to be a problem right now even possibly killing pedestrians) and adjust light timings based on the location of trains to allow better operation.

That said, I don't think streetcars are the solution that Surrey needs at this moment, as travel time is the biggest problem that keeps many people south of the Fraser from riding transit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by memememe76 View Post
You mean those streetcars like in San Fran that go to the Wharf? I HATED those things (basically, I found MUNI pretty annoying my entire time there). I have no desire for some slow rickety trolley from Guildford to Whalley.
Ummm, no, not like those. You are either referring to the heritage streetcars they run on the F line, or the historic cable cars (they are actually pulled by a physical cable under the street). Modern streetcars are nothing like that. But the cable cars do offer one advantage: they allow public transportation over some of the steepest hills in any city in the world. Even to this day I don't think there are many north/south bus lines over the steepest parts of the hills.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1452  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2013, 1:03 AM
GMasterAres GMasterAres is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 3,055
We should really define streetcar vs LRV LRT. Both are LRT. Streetcars simply are on the same road as cars with no dedication and run on tracks. Think the famous San Francisco streetcars. Once you start getting longer trains and having dedicated lanes or right of way, they are no longer streetcars and are LRV which is what Surrey is pushing for between Guildford, Surrey Central, and Newton.

So if I had a choice I would say no streetcars but LRV for sure.

Remember, all streetcars are LRT, all LRT are not streetcars.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1453  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2013, 4:45 AM
SFUVancouver's Avatar
SFUVancouver SFUVancouver is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 6,380
For the sake of comparison, here's a modern streetcar and a city bus.

Credit: CirrusLogic
__________________
VANCOUVER | Beautiful, Multicultural | Canada's Pacific Metropolis
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1454  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2013, 4:46 AM
cabotp cabotp is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 2,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCPhil View Post
That's a bit of a hyperbole. There are some advantages to a streetcar over a bus system.

First, public perception. If the public likes rail transport more than buses (it is often perceived as more convenient, luxurious and comfortable), and encourages people to use transit instead of drive, then the extra cost can be made up by extra patronage over the years.

Second, capacity. Even if a streetcar gives no advantage time wise, a single train can usually hold more people than an articulated bus. Therefore you need fewer trains than you do buses. And the trains themselves last longer. A streetcar can easily last 50 years, a bus, maybe 10(?).

Which leads to operating cost. If a train can hold more people than a bus, then you need fewer trains running at once to hold more people. For example, on Main and Commercial we often have 2 articulated trolleys running at the same time, back to back, because 1 is not enough (but the second almost never gets more than half full). That is double the operating cost to run buses.

Streetcars can also be easier to operate. With advances in train control, the train can keep the driver from exceeding the maximum speed limit for each meter of track, and can tie into traffic control to keep drivers from running red lights (which seems to be a problem right now even possibly killing pedestrians) and adjust light timings based on the location of trains to allow better operation.

That said, I don't think streetcars are the solution that Surrey needs at this moment, as travel time is the biggest problem that keeps many people south of the Fraser from riding transit.



Ummm, no, not like those. You are either referring to the heritage streetcars they run on the F line, or the historic cable cars (they are actually pulled by a physical cable under the street). Modern streetcars are nothing like that. But the cable cars do offer one advantage: they allow public transportation over some of the steepest hills in any city in the world. Even to this day I don't think there are many north/south bus lines over the steepest parts of the hills.
I do agree that the street car will have a higher capacity than compared to an articulated bus. My disagreement with the idea of the street car stemmed from an blog that Jarret Walker posted in 2009 on how there are many people who will advocate building a street car, only because they like the street car. Not because it would be the best solution for a certain corridor.

http://www.humantransit.org/2009/07/...ent-truth.html

We are already undecided on whether Surrey should get a Skytrain type system or and LRT system. Adding another option would not be the best idea.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1455  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2013, 12:49 AM
GMasterAres GMasterAres is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 3,055
I'd like to know the ridership of the bus lines a street car would replace.

So for example from Surrey Central to Guildford. According to the Portland web site, their streetcar system has a ridership of about 11,000 per day. If you compare and contrast to say SkyTrain which is several hundred thousand per day or even Canada Line which is over 80,000 per day, it seems fairly... ok... majorly low.

But that's comparing RRT to LRT. You would have to compare bus vs street car. To me if you are minimally increasing ridership if that, it doesn't matter the capacity ie it doesn't matter if you can fit 1 million people on a streetcar, if the ridership doesn't change or improve, then the system is a waste of time and money.

So ultimately we are looking at usage patterns and if someone would take a streetcar vs a bus and I don't entirely see it right now. Not if speed doesn't change.

If speed remains the same then why would you suddenly go from driving to getting on a streetcar. You wouldn't. The same waiting in the rain would kick in and let's face it that may happen more often because if you increase train capacity, Translink would argue the frequency should be decreased too.

At the end of the day what Surrey needs is increased speed traveling. If I can drive faster to my destination, I will drive every single time. If I can take a bus faster, I will take a bus. I live at King George station. If I want to go to Guildford it is still faster by 5-10 minutes to drive to the mall even if you take into account my needing to get out of P3 underground parking and go around the block to head the right direction. I can throw a rock at SkyTrain.

I still drive. Why? Because it is 5-10 minutes faster. Round trip that is 20 minutes of my time. I'm an extreme example, but that's the attitude of someone born and raised in Surrey because well, I've had to drive since I was 16 to 99% of where I want to go out here. It is difficult to crack those habits so if you're talking marginal improvements if that, it just ain't going to happen easy.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1456  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2013, 2:01 AM
Alon Alon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 219
Is there any option for extending SkyTrain to both Newton and Langley? It wasn't studied as an alternative, but having two branches with lower frequency, à la the airport and Richmond, should be considered as a possibility. How important is it to have 8-minute service per branch at night as opposed to 12-minute service (or 8-minute service with one of the three branches cut to a shuttle to either King George or New West)?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1457  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2013, 4:25 AM
GMasterAres GMasterAres is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 3,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alon View Post
Is there any option for extending SkyTrain to both Newton and Langley? It wasn't studied as an alternative, but having two branches with lower frequency, à la the airport and Richmond, should be considered as a possibility. How important is it to have 8-minute service per branch at night as opposed to 12-minute service (or 8-minute service with one of the three branches cut to a shuttle to either King George or New West)?
We can't even get a rapid bus stop in Surrey let alone a B-Line. I'm not holding my breath on SkyTrain extention anywhere soon out here. There is definately an option in the Translink study. Personally though any sort of a loop from Guildford to Newton or even just Surrey Central to Newton doesn't make sense to me as SkyTrain. If anything it should be a B-Line or LRT because both are a bit more friendly to me for travel within a city.

I still group SkyTrain as really being a backbone transportation network. Getting you from 1 regional center to another regional center. And the staple for commuting.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1458  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2013, 8:19 AM
Alon Alon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 219
What are the costs involved in a B-Line, anyway, beyond the usual increase in frequency?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1459  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2013, 1:04 PM
Jebby's Avatar
Jebby Jebby is offline
........
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Mexico City
Posts: 3,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhausner View Post
So for example from Surrey Central to Guildford. According to the Portland web site, their streetcar system has a ridership of about 11,000 per day. If you compare and contrast to say SkyTrain which is several hundred thousand per day or even Canada Line which is over 80,000 per day, it seems fairly... ok... majorly low.
Isn't the Canada Line at 130,00/day?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1460  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2013, 1:11 PM
Jebby's Avatar
Jebby Jebby is offline
........
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Mexico City
Posts: 3,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alon View Post
Is there any option for extending SkyTrain to both Newton and Langley? It wasn't studied as an alternative, but having two branches with lower frequency, à la the airport and Richmond, should be considered as a possibility. How important is it to have 8-minute service per branch at night as opposed to 12-minute service (or 8-minute service with one of the three branches cut to a shuttle to either King George or New West)?
SkyTrain should be built out to Langley down Fraser Hwy and an LRT should be built from Newton up King George Blvd to Surrey Central, then east along 104 ave to Guildford (and then potentially down 152 St to Evergreen Mall and a connection to SkyTrain along Fraser Hwy)
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 8:46 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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