Surrey Langley Skytrain - Expo Line Extension | Proposed

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

Regional distinctions apply. The only jurisdictions I know of on earth trying to classify "high floor LRT" and "low floor LRT" as a separate transit mode, with one supposedly faster than the other, and the other able to "integrate with communities" better than the other, are Calgary and Edmonton in Alberta.

For everybody else, it's just a technical distinction with the height of the floors. There are high floor LRTs designed like low floor tramways (Manchester, Stuttgart, Hong Kong-Tuen Mun) and low floor LRVs run on full metros (Seville, Changchun, Ottawa).

I for one think it works to look at "LRT" as more of a surface running urban rail mode, SkyTrain is more of a "light metro" and in many ways closing on heavy metro.

The biggest difference between high floor and low floor LRTs is that low floor LRTs have bulkheads for the wheels, which create pinch points in the car layout. High floor LRTs allow layouts that provide better passenger flow in the cars.

[Metro-One]

The argument is between grade separation and non grade separation.

In North America, 99% of the time LRT = at grade interactions for at least portions of any given line.

Therefore LRT has become synonymous with a lower quality at grade running system.

[chowhou]

For Translink BRT is the new LRT. Love it or hate it, it has almost all of the problems but also almost all of the benefits at a lower cost.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

The argument is between grade separation and non grade separation.

Exactly. You could build a grade-separated road and run bus trains on it and it would be pretty similar to Skytrain (apart from the automation).

Grade separation gives you two big wins: avoiding gridlock and allowing for the use of automation, which allows for increased frequencies at pretty much no increased cost. Frequency is almost as big a factor as travel time in making a transit system attractive to use.

[NewfBC]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Exactly. You could build a grade-separated road and run bus trains on it and it would be pretty similar to Skytrain (apart from the automation).

Grade separation gives you two big wins: avoiding gridlock and allowing for the use of automation, which allows for increased frequencies at pretty much no increased cost. Frequency is almost as big a factor as travel time in making a transit system attractive to use.

They did an elevated BRT Trolleybus system in Mexico City.. it's pretty neat..

https://www.urban-transport-magazine...rt-trolleybus/

Ron.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

The argument is between grade separation and non grade separation.

Originally Posted by chowhou

For Translink BRT is the new LRT. Love it or hate it, it has almost all of the problems but also almost all of the benefits at a lower cost.

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Exactly. You could build a grade-separated road and run bus trains on it and it would be pretty similar to Skytrain (apart from the automation).

Grade separation gives you two big wins: avoiding gridlock and allowing for the use of automation, which allows for increased frequencies at pretty much no increased cost. Frequency is almost as big a factor as travel time in making a transit system attractive to use.

Yes, all this seems very valid. As such, couldn't they builda large part of the (long) Langley Expo Line extension that way? Grade separated? Underground would IMHO be more aesthetic - and maybe cheaper - than an elevated guideway. (I'll let the engineers and experts answer that question)