Transit Fantasies

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by mcj

Hey Ron, could you explain what you think happened in Surrey? Been over it many times here that Translink conducted economic and technical feasibility studies into that LRT system that ultimately showed it was less efficient than a bus, and that a Skytrain/BRT combo was the way to go.

Here's a link to the study, RRT1A is the combo we are getting now, which surprise surprise shows the best ridership and travel time numbers.

Just to nitpick, we're not quite at RRT1A yet as the R1 doesn't go all the way to White Rock. Then again there's also now the R6 down Scott Road and 72nd Ave to Newton Exchange, which I guess was kind of outside of the study area of that document. We likely would not have any LRT in Surrey at this point (in early 2018 they said it would be complete by 2024, but we all know how construction deadlines like to slip), let alone having three rapid transit lines by this point.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Just to nitpick, we're not quite at RRT1A yet as the R1 doesn't go all the way to White Rock. Then again there's also now the R6 down Scott Road and 72nd Ave to Newton Exchange, which I guess was kind of outside of the study area of that document. We likely would not have any LRT in Surrey at this point (in early 2018 they said it would be complete by 2024, but we all know how construction deadlines like to slip), let alone having three rapid transit lines by this point.

RRT1A is still what we're getting, the R1 to White Rock is exactly the planned Surrey BRT.

[xd_1771]

If timelines are followed, the King George Blvd BRT line (which TransLink has indicated will also traverse 104 Avenue, at least per TL's intentions and admittedly a bit moreso than the current City government) will be running in 2027-ish, let's say around the time of SLS opening to account for any possible delays.

SLS and BRT are now two different programs, but indeed, both together may effectively deliver the original RRT1A vision (plus an extra 200 Street BRT line!)

[mcj]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

If timelines are followed, the King George Blvd BRT line (which TransLink has indicated will also traverse 104 Avenue, at least per TL's intentions and admittedly a bit moreso than the current City government) will be running in 2027-ish, let's say around the time of SLS opening to account for any possible delays.

SLS and BRT are now two different programs, but indeed, both together may effectively deliver the original RRT1A vision (plus an extra 200 Street BRT line!)

Exactly, if you haven't already, read the Access for Everyone plan and sign the petition to get this done.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by mcj

Exactly, if you haven't already, read the Access for Everyone plan and sign the petition to get this done.

I just wish Translink wasn't pushing for development fees to support itself. Otherwise, get signing!

[Migrant_Coconut]

I have no idea why light rail holdouts think Newton is any more "developed" or "in need" of rapid transit than Fleetwood or Langley. Either corridor would significantly boost ridership and density in Surrey... but the SLS will help the entire region, not just Newton-Whalley commuters (who already have a RapidBus).

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

- snip -

Which'd be wonderful, if even the Arbutus-Science World stretch weren't half a billion (page 85), including the depot, vehicles and general overhead; the full network to VCC, Stanley Park and Yaletown is closer to a full billion, so we can safely rule out any water crossings or New West.

Personally, I started out wanting this thing to work. But then you hear about the Quebec segment being mixed-traffic, and the average speed being 15 km/hr (6+ kph slower than a RapidBus), and 7-minute headways (15 off-peak), and the False Creek tracks being redeveloped and the streetcar kicked out to 6th... and you realize that even the Powers That Be pushing for it don't really want it to work - they just want it to boost development, as with every other streetcar in North America.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

...and you realize that even the Powers That Be pushing for it don't really want it to work - they just want it to boost development, as with every other streetcar in North America.

I think you'll find that most of the time the only problem that streetcars reliably solve is "there is no streetcar".

Otherwise it's a bit of a worst of all worlds scenario.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I have no idea why light rail holdouts think Newton is any more "developed" or "in need" of rapid transit than Fleetwood or Langley. Either corridor would significantly boost ridership and density in Surrey... but the SLS will help the entire region, not just Newton-Whalley commuters (who already have a RapidBus).

There tends to be a lack of critical thought put in. KGB absolutely could support Skytrain but people are still moaning over the streetcar plan being reversed.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Which'd be wonderful, if even the Arbutus-Science World stretch weren't half a billion (page 85), including the depot, vehicles and general overhead; the full network to VCC, Stanley Park and Yaletown is closer to a full billion, so we can safely rule out any water crossings or New West.

Personally, I started out wanting this thing to work. But then you hear about the Quebec segment being mixed-traffic, and the average speed being 15 km/hr (6+ kph slower than a RapidBus), and 7-minute headways (15 off-peak), and the False Creek tracks being redeveloped and the streetcar kicked out to 6th... and you realize that even the Powers That Be pushing for it don't really want it to work - they just want it to boost development, as with every other streetcar in North America.

Funny how when you start looking at the technical and economic feasibility of these proposals, they completely fall apart. Plus it's not like False Creek of all places needs anything to boost development, just remove the damn view cones and let it flourish if we're so concerned about it, we don't need a multi billion dollar white elephant that's slower than a bus and the same speed as a bicycle. It's almost like everyone in the last 20 years has forgotten about the "rapid" part of rapid transit.

Originally Posted by chowhou

I think you'll find that most of the time the only problem that streetcars reliably solve is "there is no streetcar".

Otherwise it's a bit of a worst of all worlds scenario.

Streetcars are used to speed up walking, that's the only use case they're effective at. Our tax dollars need to go into systems that get people out of cars, and therefore need to be faster than driving.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by mcj

Streetcars are used to speed up walking, that's the only use case they're effective at. Our tax dollars need to go into systems that get people out of cars, and therefore need to be faster than driving.

They're not even effective at that; A bus can do the same job cheaper, more flexibly, and with a quicker implementation time.

And if a bus fails to do the job, more serious grade separated solutions are then the leading candidates.

LRT just doesn't really have a niche. Cities that are serious about public transportation that don't already have trams do not implement trams.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by chowhou

They're not even effective at that; A bus can do the same job cheaper, more flexibly, and with a quicker implementation time.

And if a bus fails to do the job, more serious grade separated solutions are then the leading candidates.

LRT just doesn't really have a niche. Cities that are serious about public transportation that don't already have trams do not implement trams.

Yeah fully agree that buses are the better option overall. Was just saying that's the only effective use for trams/LRT, but it's not better than buses once you start to calculate the economics, I was more trying to illustrate that they are slow as hell and only have an advantage for people who would otherwise be walking. People who are currently driving would never switch to a ~15km/h option, and if they would it would be active transportation like biking which yields a similar travel speed.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by NewfBC

Well, look what happned in Surrey. They were going to build LRT to connect Guildford, Central and Newton (and further South possibly).. instead they got a Skytrain through the middle of nowhere (that will be built who knows when) at double the cost. The LRT would be built and in operation now.

Ron.

The Surrey LRT and a Arbutus / False Creek LRT would be very different IMO. First, the Surrey LRT would have been the only transit backbone in the city. If bus routes were to be planned like they are north of the Fraser, it's reasonable to expect we would see Expo Line-level overcrowding almost immediately. Considering how much Surrey is expected to grow, a lower capacity LRT line would be completely inadequate in decades to come. Meanwhile, the Arbutus / False Creek LRT would be a relief line to the higher capacity Canada Line and Broadway Subway.

Second, while there is adequate space to provide dedicated running lanes for LRT on Surrey streets, the LRT would not be in its own dedicated ROW. This would result in far more conflicts with vehicles at intersections either leading to frustration for drivers if the trains every five minutes were to be given signal priortity or very slow trains compared to Skytrain.

Third, I would expect construction process of Arbutus / False Creek LRT would be much less painful than a Surrey LRT. The ROW are largely already established and previously had train traffic, meaning expensive tasks such as utility relocation or rebuilding roads would be avoided. Also, building in the dedicated ROW sections would have minimal impacts on traffic and nearby residents/businesses. Sure, a beloved mixed use pathway would have to be closed but this would be nothing compared to taking KGB and 104 Ave down to a lane in each direction for several years of construction.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by chowhou

They're not even effective at that; A bus can do the same job cheaper, more flexibly, and with a quicker implementation time.

And if a bus fails to do the job, more serious grade separated solutions are then the leading candidates.

LRT just doesn't really have a niche. Cities that are serious about public transportation that don't already have trams do not implement trams.

I think folks also get mixed up on LRT, streetcar, and tram. All of these for a fantasy future line could be a mostly-at-grade in its own ROW line that can be implemented here in the Lower Mainland, even in Vancouver successfully.

A tram running in traffic definitely isn't a big win for users, cost, frequency, capacity, but might be a good option in the downtown peninsula and Gastown. I understand fantasy wishes are fantasy, but unlimited funds for subway or elevated isn't unlimited.

Automated LRT from Science World up Pacific to 2nd Beach would be awesome.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Automated LRT from Science World up Pacific to 2nd Beach would be awesome.

Once again for everyone, Skytrain IS automated grade separated LRT.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

Second, while there is adequate space to provide dedicated running lanes for LRT on Surrey streets, the LRT would not be in its own dedicated ROW. This would result in far more conflicts with vehicles at intersections either leading to frustration for drivers if the trains every five minutes were to be given signal priortity or very slow trains compared to Skytrain.

As a transit user and driver in Edmonton I don't see this issue with their new Valley Line. I do see it with their older high-floor line, which is essentially designed with poor signal prioritization and the roads are HUGE so traffic management is such a pain.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by mcj

Once again for everyone, Skytrain IS automated grade separated LRT.

Ya I just don't see either realistically or fantastically an elevated line or subway line just to run to Second Beach / English Bay.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Ya I just don't see either realistically or fantastically an elevated line or subway line just to run to Second Beach / English Bay.

Actually in some of the earlier Skytrain plans there was meant to be an English Bay shuttle from Waterfront, not quite as fantastical as you'd think!

[Migrant_Coconut]

Could be baked into a First Narrows crossing sometime in 2060-70.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by mcj

Streetcars are used to speed up walking, that's the only use case they're effective at. Our tax dollars need to go into systems that get people out of cars, and therefore need to be faster than driving.

Not an LRT holdout by any means but I could see a use case for capacity on routes where it makes sense. But the capacity, not speed, has to out-do what a bus can do.

The other use case, that can be argued, would be if there is an existing ROW that can be converted to LRT tracks. Namely I am alluding to the Arbutus greenway ROW.

I have always viewed at-grade LRT to be a very niche transit solution despite them being sold to the public as a rapid transit.

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

I think folks also get mixed up on LRT, streetcar, and tram. All of these for a fantasy future line could be a mostly-at-grade in its own ROW line that can be implemented here in the Lower Mainland, even in Vancouver successfully.

Agreed. I think that the language needs to evolve from "LRT" to "at-grade" or "grade separated" when referring to transit technology.

LRT, IMO, is just too broad of a term used by those with an agenda to sell their product when they want it to look more appealing to the general public.

As others have pointed out, Skytrain is technically considered LRT but when it is mentioned it carries an entirely different gravity in a conversation .

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

A tram running in traffic definitely isn't a big win for users, cost, frequency, capacity, but might be a good option in the downtown peninsula and Gastown. I understand fantasy wishes are fantasy, but unlimited funds for subway or elevated isn't unlimited.

I also agree here as well for the use-case for an at-grade LRT option.

I hate making the comparison because people frequently miss the point (and I am sort of comparing apples to oranges); but part of the reason why the Toronto streetcar system is successful as a transit solution is that fundamentally it provides a high capacity solution on routes that have a high passenger volume.

Ain't no one in Toronto taking the streetcar because it is rapid, that's what the metro system is for. They're taking the streetcar because it is there, and it connects them to popular destinations that will never see rapid transit stations developed on, in a comfortable modality. I'm also suspicious that the TTC streetcar averages lower speeds than buses but I don't have the links to back that up.

[RedArbutus]

Originally Posted by chowhou

I am thinking about the entire metro, there just isn't a compelling case to push the Skytrain station a block south to me. As for a Central Lonsdale routing, believe me, it's enticing. I think in a perfect world it actually would be preferential to have the purple line reach Central Lonsdale. The two big issues are number one, 13th and Lonsdale has an elevation of 100m! A straight shot from Phibbs to Central Lonsdale would be almost a 3% continuous climb. A more realistic tunnel from Heywood is a 4.5% continuous climb for over 2km! LIM allegedly can feasibly do 6% grades for short distances, but I find it hard to believe that this climb would be a comfortable proposition. Secondly, there just really isn't anything between Central Lonsdale and Heywood. The density really just follows 3rd and a Moodyville station is simply far more justifiable than a "Keith-Grand Boulevard" or "Ridgeway-9th" station.

Another factor here justifying the 3rd St. routing is capital acquisition costs for property. Translink already owns the North Shore Transit Centre and I have been saying, since well before Dailyhive announced that Translink was going to pursue development through their Real Estate Development Program, that it would be likely the site of a future Skytrain station 10-20 years from now, given both the recent multi-lateral push for the purple line plus Moodyville development in the last few years. Ironically as a Moodyville resident myself I think that Central Lonsdale (vs Lower) is better suited to integration with a Skytrain network, but IMHO it just seems too unlikely (as more expert voices here have noted) given the empty field of SFH between Phibbs and Central Lonsdale not to mention the incline. Maybe Lions Gate is a point in its favor though?

Incidentally, a quick Google dive finds that Translink settled on their development proposal team for the NVTC build in late July 2023: Francl Architecture, PMY Consulting, MAKE Projects, and Aplin Martin. Wonder how long it will take before we see some of their ideas.

(Long time reader, first time forum poster by the way - have enjoyed perusing everyone's maps! )