Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by rsxstock

what's worse about LRT in surrey is that it would significantly reduce the chance of them getting skytrain in the near future, if at all. i can imagine them realizing after it is built how poorly it integrates with the existing network and having no chance to go back

I almost want them to just go ahead and build a line just so everybody can realize how dumb it is so we can finally stop having LRT as an option for every rapid transit corridor proposal.

I retain hope that even if we screw up and built LRT in Surrey, when ridership exceeds its capacity we can build Skytrain and keep the tracks and vehicles as a more conventional streetcar system.

[officedweller]

Hopefully they build just the 104 and KGB LRT lines first, preserving the option to use SkyTrain for the longer haul to Langley.

[nname]

KGB line is set to complete in 2021; Langley line is 2026
So there is a 5 years gap in between.

[queetz@home]

I don't think this has been posted yet.....beautiful isn't it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LknWB-7FqTs
• Video Link

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

The question I have with the LRT is how much grade separation does that include? It may be that the proposed plan has overpasses at major intersections, it could have sections in trenches, it could have elevatoped sections.

We could end up with something almost fully grade separated like Seattle's North Link or Calgary's West LRT. Alterntively, we could end up with a fancy, slow and useless streetcar like our friend Malcolm proposes. All we know is what the renders look like near Central.

So... go go Carbon Tax? I think that will probably work. It certainly fits the ideology well.

None except one railway crossing in Langley.

Although Langley township council's opposition to at grade may require some overpasses to be built there and further inflate the cost.

[Genauso]

I didn't like Christie Clark announcing a referendum, as I saw Translink being set up to fail because all the tax money goes to the Federal/Provincial level, but the Municipal level is where the most valuable spending is done. I would support a lot of spending, if the value was there. The Mayors' Council had five months, but they could have done a lot more to show they put consideration into the plan even if they did not have time to get answers to questions that arose.

The reason why I don't like the plan can be summarized by the choice to expend the greatest resources where there is the least demand, and choke the areas that make the greatest contributions and have the greatest needs.

Surrey today is a bedroom community and a pedestrian desert. Every major investment there has been below projected volumes and sapping cashflow for operating expenses. This plan to attract ridership by increasing operating expenditure for the same level of service is no better supported than hiring a DJ to spin records on buses, less so if you consider DJs are easier to fire.

One more big project will not create a durable platform for demand, it will overextend Translink to the point of failure. A better way forward would be binding but contingent plans for Translink to make specified capital investments, and then let Surrey work with developers to achieve preliminary targets that make it a safe investment for the developer, city, and Translink over the next 30 years without fear of interruptions, abandonment, or 30 years of delays to construction starting.

The most expensive project is one that is not well used. My objection is what the plan guarantees won't happen in the future.

=/=/=/=

I will shut up and quit my arguing, a thread is much better with people expressing interest in what they like. However the one reason why I returned to post in this thread was to share a population pyramid of the Vancouver Census Metropolitan Area circa 2011.



Transit usage is not invariant across age groups. Expect demand to decline, and the decline to be unevenly distributed across the system. There is not enough awareness of history, or at least there is a poor sense of the future by imagining your self of today not changing when considering your opinion in the future.

I have not seen this discussed anywhere by Translink or the media, as if the current wave of popularity is eternal.

Skytrain lines will endure, just like the Subway in NYC, because it offers both speed and reliability by controlling its right of way completely and because it's cheaper to operate because it has no driver. Self-driving cars/trucks will be as big of a change as cars and freeways were to ~1950-1970, and it completely undercuts the Translink+Taxi monopoly on those who don't drive, or don't want to find parking. This is the time to secure competitiveness, and avoid incurring future burdens for that matter.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

Although Langley township council's opposition to at grade may require some overpasses to be built there and further inflate the cost.

Langley's very familiar with trains holding up traffic...

[ninjakafi_81]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

I don't think this has been posted yet.....beautiful isn't it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LknWB-7FqTs
• Video Link

I just had to laugh at 1:55 when he said 159 additional B-Line buses will be added to the fleet and then looking at the buses in the picture.

But this plan does look really promising in the near future with the Millennium Line extension out to Arbutus Street and most of the B-Line services look pretty promising as well. Hopefully the proposed Scott Rd B-Line service will be implanted soon and help out the 319 during the day.

But I do agree about some of the members thoughts on the Surrey LRT. LRT is just a joke and it won't do anything with getting people places faster and with regional growth. The LRT from Guildford to Newton with possible extension to South Surrey / White Rock seems alright but down Fraser Hwy to Langley is just a bad idea. I would say just extend the Skytrain out to Fleetwood first and see if it's worth extending it further down. With the new 503 service it'll relieve some pressure from the 502 but if that doesn't help, then extend the skytrain out to Langley.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Genauso

Surrey today is a bedroom community and a pedestrian desert. Every major investment there has been below projected volumes and sapping cashflow for operating expenses.

I sympathize with your reticence about the Surrey part of the plan. But the political reality is that the other parts of the plan really are needed and without Surrey's agreement they wouldn't be forthcoming. It's not perfect, but it's the world we live in and we just have to suck it up and move forward.

LRT in Surrey could either surprise us with high ridership or be so underused as to put an end to their transit demands. Either extreme is a win of sorts, IMHO.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

I sympathize with your reticence about the Surrey part of the plan. But the political reality is that the other parts of the plan really are needed and without Surrey's agreement they wouldn't be forthcoming. It's not perfect, but it's the world we live in and we just have to suck it up and move forward.

LRT in Surrey could either surprise us with high ridership or be so underused as to put an end to their transit demands. Either extreme is a win of sorts, IMHO.

I'm not so worried about it getting low ridership, because I think it will regardless, but I just think if we're gonna waste money on rapid transit anyway might as well "build for the future" as we claim we're doing with LRT and do it right the first time. Make it true rapid transit that's fast. Spending a billion dollars on something that doesn't provide any real time savings just doesn't make sense to me.

[rsxstock]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I'm not so worried about it getting low ridership, because I think it will regardless, but I just think if we're gonna waste money on rapid transit anyway might as well "build for the future" as we claim we're doing with LRT and do it right the first time. Make it true rapid transit that's fast. Spending a billion dollars on something that doesn't provide any real time savings just doesn't make sense to me.

maybe pushing LRT is just a bluff to intimidate translink to give skytrain to surrey before broadway. i mean, most people can clearly see LRT as a poor choice both cost and suitability-wise and if langley wants skytrain, it would have to go through surrey anyways.

[GMasterAres]

There will not be LRT down Fraser Highway, it will be SkyTrain. It just doesn't fit with the purpose of a transportation backbone. I say this probably once every 6 months, but at the very most we'll probably see SkyTrain Fraser Highway towards Langley (all the way not sure depends on money), and an LRT "L" from Newton through to Guildford via Surrey Central.

I am not completely sold that we need RRT down those roads or that it couldn't be done well. King George alone has some pretty long stretches and LRT wouldn't be hugely disruptive unlike say in Vancouver where you have lights every 10 feet (exaggeration I know).

Over a 6km stretch along KGB from Surrey Central to Newton you have 8 traffic lights, 10 intersections.

Over a 6km stretch along Cambie from Olympic Village to 60th Ave you have 23 traffic lights, 38 intersections.

Same distance. And many roads in Vancouver are like that. So LRT I don't think would work at all in Vancouver. It would work in some areas of Surrey just because at-grade doesn't cross anywhere as many intersections. It's like 3 times the intersections and traffic lights in Vancouver.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by Genauso

Surrey today is a bedroom community and a pedestrian desert. Every major investment there has been below projected volumes and sapping cashflow for operating expenses. This plan to attract ridership by increasing operating expenditure for the same level of service is no better supported than hiring a DJ to spin records on buses, less so if you consider DJs are easier to fire.

When you make such a direct and strong claim, you should really back it up with actual facts. Come back when you can show the "projected volumes" and that the investment is sapping cashflow and the true volumes are below. When you can provide numbers to back your conclusions then more people will take your points seriously.

Also on your pyramid, your notion assumes a static population growth model aka the population number of Metro Vancouver remains the same for the next 30 years. Then I would agree that the pyramid will shift 30 years upwards and people will start getting older, dying, and not taking transit. But population is growing and has for the last 100 years. While it is obviously inductive to conclude it will continue to grow, I have a strong feeling unless we have some insane natural disaster, a nuclear war, or alien invasion, it will continue to grow. That said if the insane natural disaster, nuclear war, or alien invasion does happen, I think transportation will be the least of our concerns.

What will happen in the next 30 years is that population growth rates will be reduced by a proportion directly attributed to people in North America having less babies. But that doesn't mean overall population growth won't continue to increase. Population growth rates are increasing in many other areas including places like China. And people are living longer. A large portion of our population growth also doesn't come from people already in metro-Vancouver. It comes through immigration which is not bound by age. The planet is projected to have 9 billion people in 30 years. That's 2 billion more people compared to today or basically a whole new China + United States + Brazil + Pakistan added to the planet. I'm sure out of that +2 billion people, Vancouver will squeeze out an extra 1 million.

So again you seem to be a bit off base with your points. Feel free to refute me with actual numbers though, I have had a near impossible time finding true data for all the new routes in Surrey over the past year myself so if you can I'd love to see them.

[lightrail]

I have a great video fro Friday June 13, 2014 of SKyTrain running 45 seconds apart (3 trains in approx. 90 seconds) inbound at Burrard Station on 6:20am. Not even the rush hour. What other rapid transit network can give you those frequencies.

ps - no idea why they were running that close together.

I'll upload it soon.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by lightrail

I have a great video fro Friday June 13, 2014 of SKyTrain running 45 seconds apart (3 trains in approx. 90 seconds) inbound at Burrard Station on 6:20am. Not even the rush hour. What other rapid transit network can give you those frequencies.

ps - no idea why they were running that close together.

I'll upload it soon.

That happens sometimes when one train is delayed. They stack up. They usally space them out farther because there are no rooms for delays if they're that close.

If someone holds a door open for a couple seconds then all trains behind are delayed.

[ninjakafi_81]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

That happens sometimes when one train is delayed. They stack up. They usally space them out farther because there are no rooms for delays if they're that close.

If someone holds a door open for a couple seconds then all trains behind are delayed.

Or when some idiot decides to throw is starbucks cup onto the tracks and then walks away like nothing happens when an alarm rings. Happened at New West Stn one afternoon during the rush hour and just stalled that train for about 15 minutes until they were able to fix the problem and then once that train passed by, many trains followed right behind it.

[SFUVancouver]

Something to consider, if you support the Mayors' Council Plan, this is the week to make your opinion known to your elected officials, particularly your MLA. The plan was released on Friday and this is the week to shape opinion. The Surrey Board of Trade is on board, so is the Downtown Vancouver BIA. Start lobbying, people. I wrote a letter to my MLA and copied the Premier, Transport Minister, and NDP Translink Critic. This week I'll be writing letters to the editor of several newspapers and to the Mayors' themselves.

[spm2013]

North Shore Wishlist

The long-promised third SeaBus and B-line express buses between Lynn Valley and Lonsdale Quay, Phibbs Exchange and Dundarave as well as Metrotown and Capilano University could all be coming to the North Shore if the TransLink mayors' council gets its way.

The mayors' council on regional transportation, chaired by District of North Vancouver Mayor Richard Walton, released its list of transportation infrastructure priorities Thursday - along with how they'd like to pay for the $7.5-billion of increased bus service, bicycle infrastructure, light rail lines in Surrey and extended underground subway in Vancouver. While much of the cost is capital funding that would likely be shared with senior levels of government, the mayors' top suggestion was for the province to hand over a portion of the provincial carbon tax. Transportation and Infrastructure Minister Todd Stone quickly quashed that, on the grounds that it would be dipping into provincial revenue.

http://www.nsnews.com/news/third-seabus-new-b-lines-top-priorities-1.1130166#sthash.i8DEYwdN.dpuf

[quobobo]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

Something to consider, if you support the Mayors' Council Plan, this is the week to make your opinion known to your elected officials, particularly your MLA. The plan was released on Friday and this is the week to shape opinion.

Thanks for the reminder - just sent a letter to my MLA.

[ninjakafi_81]

Well I guess this would just be a little sighting, but i've noticed that they started to put up the new bus stops along Fraser Hwy