Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[paradigm4]

I love how most of the suggestions made towards transit expansion in Surrey completely neglects the current and ongoing financial troubles. It's easy to say "put a SkyTrain line here and here, problem solved" but that certainly is not practical. The question remains, with the limited amounts of capital available, how best can we currently and in the short term serve the needs of both the Broadway corridor and the south Fraser area?

So far, the best I've heard is phasing the Broadway SkyTrain to Arbutus and doing a BRT network in Surrey, with an optional light rail line. If the economy picks up and provincial coffers begin busting with cash again, I could see money being put forward to do just this in the next five years or so.

[madmigs]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

the fleetwood extension is going through guildford though so you pick up those riders

ther plan shows it going north east to guildford and the south east to fleetwood

i look at the people i know in surrey they all live and work within surrey never leave surrey - occasionally go to richmond - they live in fleetwood - getting to guildford mall by skytrain would be great for them

Whose plan? Translink, Metro, or Province? Please also provide a link to this plan.

The provincial transit plan - http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/Transit_Plan - has no specifics about the skytrain extension in Surrey. There is a picture of the conceptual alignment of new extensions on page 10 of the brochure, but that alignment goes SE on Fraser Highway until 96 Ave then east to 152 St then SSE towards 160th and Fraser Highway. So basically no Guildford(the closest it gets is 1.3 km south of Guildford at 96 Ave and 152 St) but the path will skirt just northeast of Fleetwood Town Centre.

[nname]

Originally Posted by paradigm4

I love how most of the suggestions made towards transit expansion in Surrey completely neglects the current and ongoing financial troubles. It's easy to say "put a SkyTrain line here and here, problem solved" but that certainly is not practical. The question remains, with the limited amounts of capital available, how best can we currently and in the short term serve the needs of both the Broadway corridor and the south Fraser area?

So far, the best I've heard is phasing the Broadway SkyTrain to Arbutus and doing a BRT network in Surrey, with an optional light rail line. If the economy picks up and provincial coffers begin busting with cash again, I could see money being put forward to do just this in the next five years or so.

My point always is - introduce a BRT route (King George-104th) next year, then another (Fraser) by 2012. Let ridership build and then decide what to do with the corridor later (SkyTrain? LRT? monorail? bus-on-rail? subway?).

If fact, they can start the service as soon as December this year as soon as they get the money within the next couples of week.. from the service hours proposed, seems like they need about 10 millions a year? With fare and if they does not re-invest the cut in 320, 321, and 394 to improve service, this can probably reduce the cost to about 4 millions/year...

Would this work?
- Terminate all 321 at Surrey City Hall via King George, 72th, Newton Exchange, 72th, 144th, then the loop around City Hall, 144th, Hwy 10, 152nd, 60th, 144th, and return
- Reduce the 321 headway to every 15 minutes peak and 30 minutes off-peak.
- Cancel the 394
- Let the 399 do local service between Hwy 10 and South Surrey P&R (the 3 stops that's in the middle of nowhere)
- Let the 351 do local service south of South Surrey P&R
- Reroute the 341 to from 64 Ave to Hwy 10, via 60th, 168th, Hwy 10, King George, 72th, Newton Exchange, 72th, 144th, and the rest unchanged.
- Cancel the 332
- Cancel the short-turn trips of 320 to Fleetwood (except the ones noted below)
- Continue all 335 at fleetwood as 320 to Surrey Central during peak hours
- Extend the 375 to Surrey Central via 108th.

This would remove service duplications
- The 375 isn't really that full north of Fraser Hwy, and the 320 has people going to Surrey Central on the same corridor.. why don't they just use the extra capacity on the 375 as the 320?
- Why does the 341 has to go all the way to 64th, serving pretty much nothing? And why does it have to do that funky little loop around city hall, and serve the 72nd Ave twice?
- There is no point continuing the 321 to the farmland anymore as the 399 can do its job.

[Vonny]

Originally Posted by nname

My point always is - introduce a BRT route (King George-104th) next year, then another (Fraser) by 2012. Let ridership build and then decide what to do with the corridor later (SkyTrain? LRT? monorail? bus-on-rail? subway?).

If fact, they can start the service as soon as December this year as soon as they get the money within the next couples of week.. from the service hours proposed, seems like they need about 10 millions a year? With fare and if they does not re-invest the cut in 320, 321, and 394 to improve service, this can probably reduce the cost to about 4 millions/year...

Would this work?
- Terminate all 321 at Surrey City Hall via King George, 72th, Newton Exchange, 72th, 144th, then the loop around City Hall, 144th, Hwy 10, 152nd, 60th, 144th, and return
- Reduce the 321 headway to every 15 minutes peak and 30 minutes off-peak.
- Cancel the 394
- Let the 399 do local service between Hwy 10 and South Surrey P&R (the 3 stops that's in the middle of nowhere)
- Let the 351 do local service south of South Surrey P&R
- Reroute the 341 to from 64 Ave to Hwy 10, via 60th, 168th, Hwy 10, King George, 72th, Newton Exchange, 72th, 144th, and the rest unchanged.
- Cancel the 332
- Cancel the short-turn trips of 320 to Fleetwood (except the ones noted below)
- Continue all 335 at fleetwood as 320 to Surrey Central during peak hours
- Extend the 375 to Surrey Central via 108th.

This would remove service duplications
- The 375 isn't really that full north of Fraser Hwy, and the 320 has people going to Surrey Central on the same corridor.. why don't they just use the extra capacity on the 375 as the 320?
- Why does the 341 has to go all the way to 64th, serving pretty much nothing? And why does it have to do that funky little loop around city hall, and serve the 72nd Ave twice?
- There is no point continuing the 321 to the farmland anymore as the 399 can do its job.

I suggest to continue the discussion specific to Surrey in http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=4973883#post4973883

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by madmigs

Whose plan? Translink, Metro, or Province? Please also provide a link to this plan.

The provincial transit plan - http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/Transit_Plan - has no specifics about the skytrain extension in Surrey. There is a picture of the conceptual alignment of new extensions on page 10 of the brochure, but that alignment goes SE on Fraser Highway until 96 Ave then east to 152 St then SSE towards 160th and Fraser Highway. So basically no Guildford(the closest it gets is 1.3 km south of Guildford at 96 Ave and 152 St) but the path will skirt just northeast of Fleetwood Town Centre.

months maybe years ago there was the "planned" routes rendered somewhere in this forum which showed it going to guildford and onto fleetwood as the initial expo expansion when it was borught to the local medias attention

there is suppossed to be a transit hub close to guildford - not at the mall itself but close enough to serve the area

i sure as hell ain't going through the 100's of pages to find it - but it was discussed to death in here at the time

[Whalleyboy]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

months maybe years ago there was the "planned" routes rendered somewhere in this forum which showed it going to guildford and onto fleetwood as the initial expo expansion when it was borught to the local medias attention

there is suppossed to be a transit hub close to guildford - not at the mall itself but close enough to serve the area

i sure as hell ain't going through the 100's of pages to find it - but it was discussed to death in here at the time

New plans have since changed and the new guidlford transit loop is gonna take place right at the corner of 150th street and 104 ave. Once they tear down the old section of the mall where the lordco is it will be build around there.

[SpongeG]

i have no life and i found it - lol - its in the expo extension/renovations thread...

[Whalleyboy]

I still think the route out to newton would be better. Surrey could start using more of a grid system bus route feeding people into the skytrain route along king george.

[madmigs]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

i have no life and i found it - lol - its in the expo extension/renovations thread...

ok. That's the same image I was using as it appears in the 2008 provincial transit plan(page 12) which follows the route I outlined earlier in this thread - http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=4973844&postcount=6824

[madmigs]

Originally Posted by Whalleyboy

I still think the route out to newton would be better. Surrey could start using more of a grid system bus route feeding people into the skytrain route along king george.

But you don't necessarily want all of Surrey dependent on the skytrain to get them downtown or elsewhere across the river. It also doesn't work for Metro Van to have the majority of the jobs in one non-central area(aka downtown) that everyone from everywhere tries to get to in the morning and leave in the evening. Now if Surrey had more employment, people would also be going to Surrey in the morning, leaving in the evening, thus leveling out the traffic going both ways on the skytrain. And people in Surrey wouldn't need(but still could) to join the rest of the masses going downtown and would have the option of working closer to home.

That said, I do admit that the area around Central Surrey Mall and Gateway has drastically changed for the better in the last 10-15 years. Bringing with it a lot of employment. The 2011 census should be able to give us a better idea of things, unfortunately some of the data that is on the long form will now be suspect as it will no longer be a random sampling of everyone. And if I recall correctly - employment location is on the long form.

[paradigm4]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

months maybe years ago there was the "planned" routes rendered somewhere in this forum which showed it going to guildford and onto fleetwood as the initial expo expansion when it was borught to the local medias attention

there is suppossed to be a transit hub close to guildford - not at the mall itself but close enough to serve the area

i sure as hell ain't going through the 100's of pages to find it - but it was discussed to death in here at the time

There's supposedly two transit loops planned for Guildford. One will be at 156 St and 104th, right near Hwy 1. This will be used by the Port Mann Rapid Bus. The other is to be a rebuilt version of the existing transit exchange at the Mall.

The alignment in the Provincial Transit Plan is nothing more than conceptual and the fact that the existing study underway isn't even focusing or putting a priority on that route goes to show how solidly planned it is. In fact, if there's one route that has been favoured in planning reports through the decades, it's the L shaped line, connecting Guildford and Newton to Whalley along King George and 104th - in my opinion a far more effective use of money.

[SpongeG]

yes its all talk right now

but i think an extension via guildford to fleetwood would be great for surrey

but an extension to newton would also be great - anything is good

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by CLC

heard that articulated buses are really out for #49. I'm surprised that Translink did not cancel the plan at last minute

added on 6:20pm: good thing I did not attempt #49 route today, words are passups situation was not solved, a few extra articulated buses are not enough for this route!

I read on the Buzzer Blog. Apparently they are going to start with 6 Arc buses. At the end of September they will see how things are going and could possibly had more Arcs to the route. Of course this isn't set in stone and nothing else could happen.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by madmigs

The rapid bus routes that are part of the provincial transit plan:
Note: all are part of the transit plan - just bolded ones to white rock/langley

PS: Transit plan is here: http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/Transit_Plan/Provincial_Transit_Plan_LR.pdf

How relevant is that today? I mean, wasn't the KGH B-Line already scrapped? Or just "delayed"?

[WarrenC12]

Given a mythical $3B pile of money to spend (after Evergreen is build of course), initially planned for Skytrain from VCC to UBC, could this buy:

- Skytrain from VCC to Arbutus
- 2 LRT lines in Surrey, down KGH and Fraser Hwy, or Maybe across 104 to the #1 rapid bus
- Streetcar Phases 0-2 in Vancouver?

Everybody happy? Even zwei?

I'd even be ok if the Skytrain extension only made it as far as City Hall station, although that's an even worse area for massive bus transfers sure to occur.

[jlousa]

I found the following an interesting read.

the RGS recognizes for rapid transit investment purposes, three overriding priorities: the need to reinforce the development of and shape the travel patterns associated with the north east sector focused on the Coquitlam Regional City Centre; and the need to reinforce the development of and shape the travel patterns in the area south of the Fraser focused on the Surrey Metro Centre; and the need to connect the central Broadway portion of the Metro Core to the eastern and southern part of the transit system. These translate into the following rapid transit investment priorities: the Evergreen Line (“Priority 1”), the expansion of transit south of the Fraser River to connect to Urban Centres in that part of the region to the Surrey Metro Centre (“Priority 2”) and the westward extension of the ‘Broadway line’ in some form to Central Broadway as far west perhaps as Arbutus (also “Priority 2”). [The first and third of these are essentially remaining priorities from the 1996 regional growth strategy (the LRSP) and the second is clearly the pressing priority for the next phase of growth within the region].

The concern was expressed that a technical study was being undertaken by TransLink on the possible linkages form central Broadway to UBC and the suggestion made that “Priority 2” include expansion to the main campus of the University of British Columbia (UBC), pending the results of the rapid transit technical studies currently being undertaken by TransLink.

We recognize that this study involves a rigorous analysis of alternatives and will yield valuable insights. However, in our view the issue there is a fundamental policy issue than needs to be recognized. Given the financial situation facing TransLink, the Province and the Federal Government it is difficult to be optimistic about rapid transit lines being constructed more rapidly than they have in the past. Nonetheless, the plan identifies two complete new lines and the completion of the Broadway line as a priority for supporting, serving and shaping regional growth. This is consistent with past policies.

It seems unlikely that there will be sufficient funds to build more than these and, regardless of current ridership in the corridor, a line such as the Broadway line could not reasonably be viewed as legitimately competing for scarce funds with lines to serve and reinforce those major regional centres.

The Plan does suggest that the second layer of priorities, which are seen as expansion of bus service in the near term, and which include the Central Broadway to UBC route, could be considered for rapid transit service after the first priorities have been satisfied. Note that proposed plan does not require a two phased approach to transit in the Broadway corridor. Nor
does it imply any particular technology. If the TransLink study suggests that the best solution is a line built from the existing SkyTrain line at Commercial all the way to UBC, the proposed plan does not exclude that.

Does increasing transit south of the Fraser actually mean building a rapid transit line? Or would providing a B-Line or two satisfy the requirement of increased transit? I find it interesting that they don't see the current ridership along Broadway as a defining factor. It also shows that the final decision is clearly up to Translink regardless of the wants of the Metro.

[Langdon0630]

If Translink or the government doesn't have money, why not use the Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) or Build-Own-Operate-Transfer (BOOT)? There are some successful cases around the world, such as Taiwan High Speed Rail. I am sure some companies would like to invest on Broadway Line.

[nname]

Originally Posted by Langdon0630

such as Taiwan High Speed Rail.

If I remember correctly, the government ended up buying share of the company (or something like that) to help pay for the cost overruns.

[DKaz]

I'd love to see private transit operators fill in the gaps but from what I understand it seems that largely the union and somewhat the municipalities and Translink will block any attempts for private operators to enter the game.

[cabotp]

I would only support such an idea.

If my monthly pass or a tick I purchase Ticket. Worked with all transit providers. And I don't have to pay to transfer, unless the time on my ticket ran out.

What I'm afraid would happen is there would be different fares for each operator. And I'd probably end up pay just to transfer.