HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #4801  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2018, 3:09 AM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Kitsilano/Fairview
Posts: 8,335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firebrand View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut View Post
Hey now, let's not exaggerate. It's only been about a hundred times.
Sorry. I was getting tired by Reece’s excuse of not having more B-Lines SoF while favouring a costly B-Line on rails.
Nah, I'm sorry - keep forgetting irony doesn't translate over text.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bardak View Post
They are proromissing 5 minute frequency during regular service hours and 15 minutes late at night
I'm sorry, I know the rest is important, but 5 in the day and 15 at night? In other words, the LRT will have the same kind of frequency and service as regular trolley buses in Vancouver/Burnaby?

Pardon my French when I say "phoque Surrey City Council and everyone in it."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4802  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2018, 3:12 AM
ilikeredheads ilikeredheads is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: west coast
Posts: 611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firebrand View Post
Sorry. I was getting tired by Reece’s excuse of not having more B-Lines SoF while favouring a costly B-Line on rails.
most of us are tired too. If you have noticed in this thread, the discussion has been going in circles because supporters continue to present the same talking points as "benefits" despite the fact that they contradict reality.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4803  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2018, 3:18 AM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Kitsilano/Fairview
Posts: 8,335
Let's be fair, members like Reece at least try to make sense (YMMV on whether or not they actually do). Some-who-shall-not-be-named don't even try, they just show up with photos of the ugliest parts of SkyTrain and utopian renders of streetcars, and say "doesn't this look more pleasant to you?" ... You'll also hear empty rhetoric such as "catalyst for density" and "walkable urban streetscape."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4804  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2018, 3:26 AM
GlassCity's Avatar
GlassCity GlassCity is offline
Rational urbanist
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Metro Vancouver
Posts: 5,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut View Post
Nah, I'm sorry - keep forgetting irony doesn't translate over text.



I'm sorry, I know the rest is important, but 5 in the day and 15 at night? In other words, the LRT will have the same kind of frequency and service as regular trolley buses in Vancouver/Burnaby?

Pardon my French when I say "phoque Surrey City Council and everyone in it."
To be fair, those frequencies are pretty average for rapid transit in Canada (in the US it's much worse), we're just spoiled by the SkyTrain's frequency.

As far as Vancouver's buses coming just as often, well, Vancouver has much more demand, and the vehicles carry fewer passengers too. No point in running an LRT every 2 minutes in the evening if it's only 10% full.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4805  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2018, 3:34 AM
Firebrand's Avatar
Firebrand Firebrand is offline
D-Class Suburbanite
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Langley, BC
Posts: 589
That’s like saying protecting worker’s rights is “communist” without fact-checking. Some LRT supporters on Daryl’s posts claim that LRT is Surrey’s solution, not the expensive (to build) and proprietary SkyTrain, without ANY facts to support why. “Oh, because Surrey City Council says so”, no, don’t make that excuse. They just pull statements out of thin air.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4806  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2018, 3:38 AM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Kitsilano/Fairview
Posts: 8,335
Quote:
Originally Posted by GlassCity View Post
To be fair, those frequencies are pretty average for rapid transit in Canada (in the US it's much worse), we're just spoiled by the SkyTrain's frequency.

As far as Vancouver's buses coming just as often, well, Vancouver has much more demand, and the vehicles carry fewer passengers too. No point in running an LRT every 2 minutes in the evening if it's only 10% full.
Absolutely. But a major selling point of the project - often touted by advocates - is that it'll be faster and more frequent than current service... yet all Surrey's actually getting is something that's on the same level as a frequent bus network.

Meaning that now that TransLink's paying attention to them, they could simply lobby for exactly that and get that level of service all over the region for a lot less money. Anybody got a wall I can bang my head against?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4807  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2018, 3:53 AM
Firebrand's Avatar
Firebrand Firebrand is offline
D-Class Suburbanite
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Langley, BC
Posts: 589
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut View Post
Anybody got a wall I can bang my head against?
You can bang the glass of Surrey City Hall.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4808  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2018, 3:58 AM
GlassCity's Avatar
GlassCity GlassCity is offline
Rational urbanist
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Metro Vancouver
Posts: 5,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut View Post
Absolutely. But a major selling point of the project - often touted by advocates - is that it'll be faster and more frequent than current service... yet all Surrey's actually getting is something that's on the same level as a frequent bus network.

Meaning that now that TransLink's paying attention to them, they could simply lobby for exactly that and get that level of service all over the region for a lot less money. Anybody got a wall I can bang my head against?
Oh I agree, but I try to be fair in my criticisms. It still won't do anything a bus couldn't do, but the frequencies themselves are probably appropriate.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4809  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2018, 9:27 PM
Sheba Sheba is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: BC
Posts: 4,290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firebrand View Post
Yes I did. I noticed you made the east-west routes more gridlike.

Can you change the 342 to have it continue on Hwy 10, then turn right to 144th instead of to 152nd? I’ll be more direct.
I looked up that short section on 60th Ave and there's a very good reason TransLink have the 342 there. For the same distance, they chose to travel through some density vs having it continue on a Hwy that has very little next to it.

It wasn't many years ago that it was part of the 341 - people kept requesting they cut it into the two routes that exist now. At that time it didn't travel on Hwy 10 but instead doubled the 364 on 64th between 168th and 152nd.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4810  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2018, 11:44 PM
Firebrand's Avatar
Firebrand Firebrand is offline
D-Class Suburbanite
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Langley, BC
Posts: 589
I’ve been on the 342 once. It is a long, boring route. I’m used to taking straighter, more direct routes like the 502 and the 555. That part of Surrey where the 342 goes is very spread out; not many people take that route.

On the other hand, I’m always thinking of splitting the 501 into two routes: 501 Surrey Central/Carvolth Ex, and 50x Carvolth Ex./Langley Centre. Same with the 320. Have the 320 terminate at Cloverdale, and have its eastern leg numbered in the 500-Series.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4811  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2018, 12:37 AM
Cypherus's Avatar
Cypherus Cypherus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut View Post
Let's be fair, members like Reece at least try to make sense (YMMV on whether or not they actually do). Some-who-shall-not-be-named don't even try, they just show up with photos of the ugliest parts of SkyTrain and utopian renders of streetcars, and say "doesn't this look more pleasant to you?" ... You'll also hear empty rhetoric such as "catalyst for density" and "walkable urban streetscape."
Clearly a snipe at me. You continue to strawman my single argument (and one post in this message board) as if am an LRT advocate with no flexibility. Where did you come from? I simply indicated that both RRT and LRT have their pros and cons, and I am an adamant supporter of no LRT in Surrey unless it is curb and grade separated while achieving the aspirations for livable communities and increased density along the proposed corridors. Clearly though you're looking for argumentation when none exists.

Clearly Surrey is using LRT to influence its zoning regulations for density along the corridor and I don't have an issue with that. If RRT like skytrain only zones density at the stations only, and is not a influential aspect in city zoning between stations (which has been the case along the Lougheed Hwy corridor and pretty much along many corridors), then that is something to consider and the City of Surrey has a point. No? Instead of declaring your own self worth on a message board trying to win favor from other people you don't know, maybe look beyond a pedestrian understanding of transportation and land use and do research....?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4812  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2018, 1:07 AM
Firebrand's Avatar
Firebrand Firebrand is offline
D-Class Suburbanite
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Langley, BC
Posts: 589
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cypherus View Post
Clearly Surrey is using LRT to influence its zoning regulations for density along the corridor and I don't have an issue with that. If RRT like skytrain only zones density at the stations only, and is not a influential aspect in city zoning between stations (which has been the case along the Lougheed Hwy corridor and pretty much along many corridors), then that is something to consider and the City of Surrey has a point. No? Instead of declaring your own self worth on a message board trying to win favor from other people you don't know, maybe look beyond a pedestrian understanding of transportation and land use and do research....?
Didn’t Sheba said about this two weeks ago?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheba View Post
It's not some magical event happening around the stations - it's what the area is zoned for. A lot of the CoV Skytrain stations are surrounded by SFH and those stations are quieter than the ones surrounded by density and / or retail. It's not rocket science.

For the moment there's not much point in Surrey looking at zoning along Fraser Hwy as any variety of rail transit is far enough in the future to make it pointless. I wouldn't be surprised for them to start working on it when there's serious planning and funding in place for that line.
Why do I care about the technology choice that makes it more “appealing” than SkyTrain? Sure, you can put a continuous mixed-used development along the route, but moving from A to B in the shortest possible time should be first priority, not the other way around. Surrey can do that within its borders, but it should not penalize Langley by not putting an extension, which is already pointing at Fraser Hwy.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4813  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2018, 1:23 AM
Rico Rico is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cypherus View Post
Clearly a snipe at me. You continue to strawman my single argument (and one post in this message board) as if am an LRT advocate with no flexibility. Where did you come from? I simply indicated that both RRT and LRT have their pros and cons, and I am an adamant supporter of no LRT in Surrey unless it is curb and grade separated while achieving the aspirations for livable communities and increased density along the proposed corridors. Clearly though you're looking for argumentation when none exists.

Clearly Surrey is using LRT to influence its zoning regulations for density along the corridor and I don't have an issue with that. If RRT like skytrain only zones density at the stations only, and is not a influential aspect in city zoning between stations (which has been the case along the Lougheed Hwy corridor and pretty much along many corridors), then that is something to consider and the City of Surrey has a point. No? Instead of declaring your own self worth on a message board trying to win favor from other people you don't know, maybe look beyond a pedestrian understanding of transportation and land use and do research....?
I suspect he was refering to a certain UBC prof.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4814  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2018, 1:53 AM
Sheba Sheba is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: BC
Posts: 4,290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firebrand View Post
I’ve been on the 342 once. It is a long, boring route. I’m used to taking straighter, more direct routes like the 502 and the 555. That part of Surrey where the 342 goes is very spread out; not many people take that route.

On the other hand, I’m always thinking of splitting the 501 into two routes: 501 Surrey Central/Carvolth Ex, and 50x Carvolth Ex./Langley Centre. Same with the 320. Have the 320 terminate at Cloverdale, and have its eastern leg numbered in the 500-Series.
The 342 is a coverage route while the 502 and 555 are express style routes.

You should draw out your ideas and send them to TransLink.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4815  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2018, 2:05 AM
Firebrand's Avatar
Firebrand Firebrand is offline
D-Class Suburbanite
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Langley, BC
Posts: 589
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheba View Post
You should draw out your ideas and send them to TransLink.
Is that how it worked out for the 106/119 split?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4816  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2018, 2:58 AM
Sheba Sheba is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: BC
Posts: 4,290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firebrand View Post
Is that how it worked out for the 106/119 split?
I wasn't the only person who suggested that one. I'm guessing I'm also not the only person who suggested ending the 129 at Patterson instead of having it continue on to Metrotown. It'll take awhile but if you have valid ideas and can explain them clearly (maps are good for that) they'll listen.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4817  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2018, 4:22 AM
Firebrand's Avatar
Firebrand Firebrand is offline
D-Class Suburbanite
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Langley, BC
Posts: 589
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheba View Post
I wasn't the only person who suggested that one. I'm guessing I'm also not the only person who suggested ending the 129 at Patterson instead of having it continue on to Metrotown. It'll take awhile but if you have valid ideas and can explain them clearly (maps are good for that) they'll listen.
What kind of program did you use to draw the maps? If you do have it, then how’s it done?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4818  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2018, 4:46 AM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Kitsilano/Fairview
Posts: 8,335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cypherus View Post
Clearly a snipe at me. You continue to strawman my single argument (and one post in this message board) as if am an LRT advocate with no flexibility. Where did you come from? I simply indicated that both RRT and LRT have their pros and cons, and I am an adamant supporter of no LRT in Surrey unless it is curb and grade separated while achieving the aspirations for livable communities and increased density along the proposed corridors. Clearly though you're looking for argumentation when none exists.
You know what, screw it, let's start naming names. No, I didn't even remember your post at the time, I was talking about members like Shift and Southward. Click back beyond the past two months (since you don't seem to have done so) and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about. Ain't my fault if you thought it was targeted at you and took it personally, that's you being overly sensitive.

Thanks for trying to help Rico, but Condon's a whole 'nother bag of worms.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cypherus View Post
Clearly Surrey is using LRT to influence its zoning regulations for density along the corridor and I don't have an issue with that. If RRT like skytrain only zones density at the stations only, and is not a influential aspect in city zoning between stations (which has been the case along the Lougheed Hwy corridor and pretty much along many corridors), then that is something to consider and the City of Surrey has a point. No? Instead of declaring your own self worth on a message board trying to win favor from other people you don't know, maybe look beyond a pedestrian understanding of transportation and land use and do research....?
One more time: Lougheed Highway is a highway, so developers ignore it - save for the SkyTrain hubs - for that reason, and that reason alone. Cambie and No. 3 are arterials, and so they're getting various amounts of density all along the Canada Line, even in places that'll never get a station.

Surrey Council's entitled to think whatever they want, but it doesn't make it true. Municipal governments are directly in charge of rezoning with no checks or balances in the way, so the only thing stopping Hepner and Friends (TM) from getting density in-between stations is themselves. All they need for walkable neighbourhoods is to improve bus service and rezone the whole street for low/midrises. Works just fine for Broadway, after all.

Really, I couldn't care less whether I'm liked or disliked; I've disagreed with practically everybody on the forum at one point or another (admittedly, with varying degrees of tact), and will probably continue to do so, just like you're disagreeing with me right now. No need to accuse people of grandstanding and ignorance - if you really want to, please do so after some additional perspective.

Quote:
Of course, that doesn’t matter to Condon, because to him, speed isn’t the point. He points specifically to the redevelopment outcomes of the Portland Streetcar, just as many Portland commenters on my first streetcar post did. If turning buses into streetcars causes all those streets to redevelop, with dramatically higher and yet walkable density, wouldn’t that be a good thing? That wouldn’t improve mobility, but it would improve access. We wouldn’t have to go as far to do things, because everything would be closer.

Yes, but Condon needs you to believe that (a) such redevelopment won’t happen anyway and (b) no such redevelopment will happen if we just keep improving the already-intensive bus system while adding one or two rapid transit lines. The reason streetcars currently trigger investment is that the rails in the street symbolize mobility. The development happens not just because of what will be in walking distance, but because the rails in the street suggest you’ll be able to get to lots of places easily by rail. So rails in the street create redevelopment, which improves access. But they do that by offering an appearance of mobility. That may not be the same as actual mobility; in fact, it might be the opposite.

Last edited by Migrant_Coconut; Mar 20, 2018 at 11:49 AM. Reason: Overlooked a typo. Big one.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4819  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2018, 6:24 AM
Firebrand's Avatar
Firebrand Firebrand is offline
D-Class Suburbanite
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Langley, BC
Posts: 589
From the City of Langley’s document.
Monday, March 7, 2018 @ 7:00pm

https://pub-langleycity.escribemeeti...ocumentId=5363

Quote:
Ms. Ross responded to a further question from a Council member, advising that:
 Transit changes being undertaken in 2019 will be compatible with Light Rail Transit (LRT) stations in terms of the B-Line stops being right at or close to where the LRT stops will go. As part of the LRT planning TransLink will be evaluating how much investment to put into the corridor and stops. As there is still a number of years until LRT comes to the city, TransLink will be looking at continual improvement of the B-Line transit service
ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS!?

So they decided to throw SkyTrain out of the window. I’m losing my $&3t over this.

Last edited by Firebrand; Mar 20, 2018 at 7:35 AM. Reason: My initial reaction was out of context.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4820  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2018, 2:47 PM
logicbomb logicbomb is offline
Joshua B.
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 961
The NDP did not want this but they do not want to piss off the business community and developers..so they have committed funding. The community there is being run by developers...and they hold too much sway.

This is where the entire City needs to come out and protest this. This is potentially the last resort as the City are going to begin construction in Spring 2019.

Also found out...104th Ave would be entirely CLOSED during construction. KGB would be down to 1 lane each direction during construction.
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 8:18 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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