Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[nname]

North East Sector ATP and Evergreen Line Bus Integration










The 177 is back!

[ninjakafi_81]

^ Those proposed changes seem about right and can't wait to see them be implanted. I like how that the 151 took over the 143 along Como Lake and that the routes that travel in that area got simplified. Also It's about time that we finally see a Coquitlam to Surrey bus route and will probably terminate at Guildford.

[queetz@home]

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. 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.

I'm debating if I should go to my MLA's social event a couple of days from now....but if I do, I'll make sure to pass the word.

[Mac Write]

When the UBC line to UBC is built, I wonder how much bus capacity will be freed up and were all the extra bus hours would be deployed.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Mac Write

When the UBC line to UBC is built, I wonder how much bus capacity will be freed up and were all the extra bus hours would be deployed.

One possibility among many I can't altogether think of: doing "neighbourhood" routes: of course those radiating out form rrt stations, but also shopping-centre based
transit patterns, buses going to different districts more locally than anything else.

[xd_1771]

^ My only two gripes are that this is going to be really horrible for Centennial High School students (or anyone riding the C24, really - that's a major service reduction with the route not doing FTN levels. The school will pretty much lose transit access)... and I can't get a grip on why that "New 2" route is bypassing Burquitlam It'd make more sense to improve the two-way local link all the way through.

Then again, seeing the detail and graphics in this, it looks like this is likely going into consultation. So, I hope people do get out there.

[dpogue]

It is my hope that one day TransLink will acknowledge that Maple Ridge is pretty much as north easterly as you can get, instead of excluding it entirely from the map
The lack of a 791 in any of those diagrams is a bit concerning. I'm hoping no news is good news?

My coworker also expressed dissatisfaction with the proposed C24 changes. Particularly the reduced peak service times. With the removal of the 97B, his second option would now involve a lot more walking.

[xd_1771]

^ Yeah, I have another worried friend re the C24. There's a medium-density cluster at Glenayre where there's currently a 97 stop that'd suffer from the loss of service, and again I mentioned the high school which really benefits from the 97 stop (I can imagine that if students are filling the 97's artic buses to be in/out of school, they'll tip over the C24 even though it'll now have a 40 ft bus - high school student loads apparently already cause a lot of C24 trouble during peak hours).

The C24 should really at least become a frequent service, which'd also help with access to Cameron given there's not going to be a station there. 15 minutes all day or better, with an additional peak-hour supplemental frequent between Burquitlam and PoMo Station on the 97 route, to spefically service Glenayre, Centennial and West Port Moody.

Hopefully that was mistyped, and will be changed in advance of consultation. I can imagine some stakeholders will be fairly angry. On the other hand, with the referendum still oncoming, I guess you can see why they're being rather conservative with the service provisions in some cases.

[GeeCee]

Thermal Drive in a bus? Good luck with that.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

City Density
Surrey BC - 1,500/km2

Five cities whose backbone are surface LRTs with no grade separated alternatives

City Density
Jerusalem 6,400/km2
Tallinn 2,700/km2
Strasbourg 3,500/km2
Nottingham 4,073/km2
Sarajevo 5,630 /sq mi

Honorable mention even though this has grade separated alternative....

Budapest 3,314/km2

Jerusalem
-city = 890,00 pop
-metro = 1,000,000 pop
-light rail = 13.8km with 23 stations (a station every 600m)
-seems like they have some sort of commuter rail network as well
---small city, short new underperforming network, closely spaced stations...I can't accept it, sorry.
*next
Tallinn
-city = 431,000 pop
-metro = 542,000 pop
-trams = 42km (old, slow and decrepit)
-mostly grade separated, fast, commuter rail = 132 km (the real backbone of their transit network)
---way too small city, and with a good commuter rail network when you are out of the small urban core...sorry, I cant accept it either
*next
Strasbourg
-city = 440,00 pop
-metro = 759,000 pop
-looks like they have a very extensive grade separated commuter rail network
---way to small city, the core is like 25sq km. Extensive commuter rail network...They do have a impressive lrt network but a good commuter rail network. I just can't accept it.
*next
Nottingham
-city = 333,000 pop
-metro = 729,000 pop
-tram = 14km with 23 stations (608m per stations) and looks like 8 of those km run along a heavy rail line
-not sure what shape their commuter rail is in, infrastructure in the UK is in bad shape
---tiny city, insignificant tram/lrt network, new, underperforming, mostly along a heavy rail line, tiny city again...sorry can't accept this either.
*next
Sarajevo
-city = 369,000 pop
-metro = 608,000 pop
-tram = 22.9km with 28 stations at 820m per station (old decrepit tram network)
-they do have a commuter rail network (I know it was good before the war)
-plans to build metro
---tiny city, old tram network but decently covers the city which can be walked across in a hour...yeah, I cant, sorry. The city is tiny.
*next
Budapest
-city = 1,740,000 ***FINALLY A CITY***
-urban = 2,550,000
-metro = 3,280,000 (over 7,600sqkm)
-tram = 156.85km with 627 stops = 250m per stop (I know there are some doubled up stops that are probably counted but the distance between stops is still well under 500m average)
-metro = 38.6km with 52 sations, 742m between stations
-commuter rail, grade separated and like a metro = 103.7km with 81 stations
---the commuter rail and metro network are the backbones of this city, go there...The tram network functions like a bus network. Nope.
*next

Sorry but these are some bad examples, most of these cities are tiny, and the urban core is tiny. The tram networks are insignificantly short, and in Budapest's case (the only real city) their trams are NOT rapid transit, they are buses on rails that complement their commuter rail and metro network. Your examples don't cut it for me.

Feel free to try again. Also feel free to correct me if I got anything wrong, or if I am being unfair. Honestly I believe you can find a few, I can't think of them but they must be out there somewhere, Vancouver metro size, dense, with a LRT backbone that is working for them.

[adrianroam95]

Originally Posted by cornholio

Sorry but these are some bad examples, most of these cities are tiny, and the urban core is tiny. The tram networks are insignificantly short, and in Budapest's case (the only real city) their trams are NOT rapid transit, they are buses on rails that complement their commuter rail and metro network. Your examples don't cut it for me.

Feel free to try again. Also feel free to correct me if I got anything wrong, or if I am being unfair. Honestly I believe you can find a few, I can't think of them but they must be out there somewhere, Vancouver metro size, dense, with a LRT backbone that is working for them.

I totally support rapid rail transit, but if I were to answer your question, I'd say a good example is Portland. The Portland Metropolitan Area is similar in size to Vancouver's, with just over two million people, and the MAX Light Rail system that serves their region is quite extensive at 84 kilometres, compared to SkyTrain's 69 kilometres. Their system also has impressive ridership levels (by American standards) at 130,000 boardings per day (SkyTrain has about 400,000 boardings per day). However, while 2011 Census information shows that nearly 20% of all trips in Metro Vancouver are made via public transit, only 13% of all commutes in the Portland region are made via public transit. It's certainly clear that Portland is more automobile-dependent overall, but nonetheless, I think that Portland is a good example of a city comparable to Vancouver in size where the transit network is focused around a decent light rail system.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by adrianroam95

I totally support rapid rail transit, but if I were to answer your question, I'd say a good example is Portland. The Portland Metropolitan Area is similar in size to Vancouver's, with just over two million people, and the MAX Light Rail system that serves their region is quite extensive at 84 kilometres, compared to SkyTrain's 69 kilometres. Their system also has impressive ridership levels (by American standards) at 130,000 boardings per day (SkyTrain has about 400,000 boardings per day). However, while 2011 Census information shows that nearly 20% of all trips in Metro Vancouver are made via public transit, only 13% of all commutes in the Portland region are made via public transit. It's certainly clear that Portland is more automobile-dependent overall, but nonetheless, I think that Portland is a good example of a city comparable to Vancouver in size where the transit network is focused around a decent light rail system.

But you said it yourself: Their system is 15 kilometres longer (18%) yet only has 1/3 of Vancouver's ridership, and has fewer commuters using transit. Being American isn't an excuse. I'm really not sure why Portland's system is always brought up as a good example of light rail when it clearly is nothing special. I am confident that were it a grade separated system their numbers would be much higher.

[Metro-One]

The funny thing is, every point you have mentioned clearly displays how skytrain is a superior system.

With fewer kilometers of track skytrain has been able to attract over 3 times the number of riders!

For the record, regarding Surrey, 2 of the proposed branches I am ok being some form of at grade / semi-at grade light rail, but the line out to Langley should be Skytrain. That is my only issue with the 10 year plan.

I just hope that if the Patullo Bridge is going to be 4 lanes, that it is still properly connected to the SFPR via an interchange.

[adrianroam95]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

The funny thing is, every point you have mentioned clearly displays how skytrain is a superior system.

With fewer kilometers of track skytrain has been able to attract over 3 times the number of riders!

For the record, regarding Surrey, 2 of the proposed branches I am ok being some form of at grade / semi-at grade light rail, but the line out to Langley should be Skytrain. That is my only issue with the 10 year plan.

I never advocated that light rail was superior to SkyTrain technology. Grade separated rapid transit always has been and always will be superior to light rail systems service-wise. However, light rail isn't as bad as some people make it out to be, and is often more economically viable to construct and operate when projected ridership levels aren't high enough to demand rapid rail transit. Another example of a city that has done well with light rail is Calgary, with its C-Train network. With two lines spanning a system length of 56 km, the C-Train network has a daily ridership of 298,000 -- pretty impressive for a metropolitan area of 1.2 million.

With regard to Surrey, I think that SkyTrain is the better way to go, especially in the long term, but the Mayors' Council's decision to select light rail is understandable, since population density in Surrey is relatively low compared to neighbouring cities such as Burnaby and Vancouver.

[Rico]

Typically I would prefer Skytrain and I feel it will provide better service....that said LRT can work on the Surrey routes. The mayors have spoken, lets just get behind it and move forward. For the record LRT would be a mistake for Broadway.

[Gordon]

Some of these new North East sector Routes seem to the same numbering as routes in Vancouver the new 6 route the #6 route is Davie \Downtown.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by Gordon

Some of these new North East sector Routes seem to the same numbering as routes in Vancouver the new 6 route the #6 route is Davie \Downtown.

That's a placeholder I would imagine.

[queetz@home]

Originally Posted by cornholio

Also feel free to correct me if I got anything wrong, or if I am being unfair. Honestly I believe you can find a few, I can't think of them but they must be out there somewhere, Vancouver metro size, dense, with a LRT backbone that is working for them.

This is called moving the goal post. Sorry, but your request was very specific that the criteria was density, and the discussion was about Surrey. There was even no mention of removing "commuter network", its age, or actual size of the cities.

Originally Posted by cornholio

Name me 5 denser cities that use LRT as the backbone of their rapid transit network without grade separated alternatives...successfully (this word is subjective). Skytrain down KGB or Fraser Highway...

So all cities quoted was based on that extremely narrow criteria (though Jerusalem even beats Vancouver's density).

Unlike some people that feel they can easily declare their opinions as fact (i.e. Malcolm, Darryl), I spent a couple of hours actually researching to give a proper and concise answer, and it was difficult given that I have to remove cities with metros.

Base on my own experienced only, I should also add Istanbul and Amsterdam, since they too have surface LRTs that serve as backbone despite the presence of metros. Melbourne is also an honorable mention, given its only means of rail transit is trams, but for some reason, despite being a very large Australian city, the density is less than Surrey.

But I'm not going to go digging just to satisfy an already biased armchair analyst, I just don't have the time. It is what it is, you learn something new, and at the end of the day, Surrey chose LRT, and unless YOU want to run for mayor and somehow influence everyone else to abandon that plan, then feel free.

Originally Posted by Rico

Typically I would prefer Skytrain and I feel it will provide better service....that said LRT can work on the Surrey routes. The mayors have spoken, lets just get behind it and move forward. For the record LRT would be a mistake for Broadway.

Just for my own curiousity, I checked Malcolm's Rail for Valley website and I noticed your name is there. I'm assuming your the same guy and I find it hilarious how he bashed you big time, and how unsupportive he is wrt the Surrey LRT, since its practically want he wanted (his site even quotes Dianne Watts). Goes to show he isn't really for LRT or any form of transit, he just wants to fight some people...

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by adrianroam95

I never advocated that light rail was superior to SkyTrain technology. Grade separated rapid transit always has been and always will be superior to light rail systems service-wise. However, light rail isn't as bad as some people make it out to be, and is often more economically viable to construct and operate when projected ridership levels aren't high enough to demand rapid rail transit. Another example of a city that has done well with light rail is Calgary, with its C-Train network. With two lines spanning a system length of 56 km, the C-Train network has a daily ridership of 298,000 -- pretty impressive for a metropolitan area of 1.2 million.

With regard to Surrey, I think that SkyTrain is the better way to go, especially in the long term, but the Mayors' Council's decision to select light rail is understandable, since population density in Surrey is relatively low compared to neighbouring cities such as Burnaby and Vancouver.

It's true that light rail isn't as bad as people say it is, but it's just not very useful. If demand isn't high enough for RRT, buses will have enough capacity. As we can see from the 96 right now, that capacity is plenty for now. LRT is permanent and will eventually run out of capacity, but you'll still be stuck with it. However after a bus doesn't have enough capacity, you simply cancel the line and build RRT. There's no middle LRT step in that process.

As far as Calgary goes, the CTrain is almost an S-Bahn type system. It goes all the way to the fringes of the city, has large parking lots at every station and runs in giant medians down the road. These medians have limited intersections with streets and when they do the arms come down and let the train pass. Hardly the kind of urban system that Surrey will get. Running on the street will slow the LRT due to the speed limit and cars turning in front of it.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

......
Based on my own experienced only, I should also add Istanbul and Amsterdam, since they too have surface LRTs that serve as backbone despite the presence of metros. Melbourne is also an honorable mention, given its only means of rail transit is trams, but for some reason, despite being a very large Australian city, the density is less than Surrey.

What about the Melbourne metro railway system, include the central-city underground loop? Does that not count?