Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[Rico]

Ha, I just googled the Surrey transportation planner and drum roll.....he really is a landscape architect....when I said it I was half joking. I guess that tells us how much 'transportation' there is in the Surrey transportation planning position. To bad we will all end up paying for transportation projects without consideration to actual transportation.

[Reecemartin]

I'm not sure if this is been discussed but since we're on the topic of the Massey bridge before what is being done with all the infrastructure on sea island in Richmond and with this new tunnel in regards to the likelihood of some sea level rise it's always concerned me that we're putting so much new infrastructure and development in an area that looks like it will soon be flooded because of its low altitude .

[trofirhen]

[QUOTE=Metro-One;7223697]I really REALLY hope that the new Transportation Minister is not blinded by the current North American "one size fits all" surface LRT fad...

Seriously, Broadway must be skytrain.
YES!!

In Surrey, it should be Expo Line out to Langley.

If Surrey wants their own separate LRT system to Guildford and Newton, have at it (although BRT is the better choice), but dont screw over Langley (which has stated before that they want an Expo Line skytrain extension).

..............[QUOTE/]

Regarding Broadway, I totally had the same concern and thoughts on rrt Broadway running through my head, too; the new pro(LRT Transport Minister,
and what might he try oing with broadway rrt, etc)! As you say, It HAS to be sytrain, not LRT (bleck).

On the second point, where you said Skytrain to Langley. Cool. Then,
I went to Google maps... and there are apparently TWO (2) Langleys. one is marked at Fraser Hwy and 240 street,
then the westward one with the Willowbrook Shopping Centre, Langley Regional Airport, Industrial Ave, ......
so I presume this is town centre and the projected expo line terminus.

[Axe]

[QUOTE=trofirhen;7225604]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I really REALLY hope that the new Transportation Minister is not blinded by the current North American "one size fits all" surface LRT fad...

Seriously, Broadway must be skytrain.
YES!!

In Surrey, it should be Expo Line out to Langley.

If Surrey wants their own separate LRT system to Guildford and Newton, have at it (although BRT is the better choice), but dont screw over Langley (which has stated before that they want an Expo Line skytrain extension).

..............[QUOTE/]

Regarding Broadway, I totally had the same concern and thoughts on rrt Broadway running through my head, too; the new pro(LRT Transport Minister,
and what might he try oing with broadway rrt, etc)! As you say, It HAS to be sytrain, not LRT (bleck).

On the second point, where you said Skytrain to Langley. Cool. Then,
I went to Google maps... and there are apparently TWO (2) Langleys. one is marked at Fraser Hwy and 240 street,
then the westward one with the Willowbrook Shopping Centre, Langley Regional Airport, Industrial Ave, ......
so I presume this is town centre and the projected expo line terminus.

Langley city and Langley township, I had no idea there was two until after i moved out this way.

http://city.langley.bc.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/Employment/Langley%20City%20Map.pdf

[Metro-One]

Yeah, Langley city would be the terminus.

Really hoping to get some more concrete news on the M-line extension soon.

Regarding station entrances, I agree that many stations are better with single entrances. Only hubs / transfers / exceptionally busy stations (or those with special geographical attributes) need multiple entrances and exits.

For example, regarding the Canada Line, most stations are fine with 1 entrance / exit (especially the elevated ones).

The only stations I would add second access points to are the obvious Vancouver City Centre (an exit to the south could also open up the platform space a little, such a lost opportunity that this was not done with the Eatons building renovation), Broadway (this will obviously be done when the M-Line is extended, so no worries there IMO for now), and Bridgeport (north side).

In the far future maybe 41st and Yaletown will need second entrances.

as for Brighouse, that station will need an entire new platform built on the west side over the street. A nice easy solution for that station's crowding.

[ssiguy]

LRT to Delta/WR would be a grotesque waste of funds and it's not needed. The bus route is incredibly fast and already far faster than driving in rush hours which is why there are so many rush hour buses from the area. All they need to do is finish the bus-only lanes thru the delta and problem solved at a mere fraction of the price.

The issue with SkyTrain to Langley or LRT to SkyTrain is that it funnels yet more traffic onto the existing line and because station extensions are now going a no-go, the Expo line simply can't handle it. It's also a matter of priorities.

There are areas in FAR greater need than Langley especially SkyTrain Broadway Corridor, SkyTrain downtown via Hastings Street to Burnaby, and 41st.

If Langley and Surrey would have even used the smallest amount of transit planning they would have never allowed the rail corridors to be blocked by development like along HWY#10 near Cloverdale and 200th Street from Langley Centre to the bus-only lanes on HWY#1 not to have bus-only lanes.

Such is life in transportation planning in Vancouver.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

The issue with SkyTrain to Langley or LRT to SkyTrain is that it funnels yet more traffic onto the existing line and because station extensions are now going a no-go, the Expo line simply can't handle it.

This has been brought up on here before. It's not as if extending the Skytrain down Fraser Hwy is going to cause everyone South of Fraser to suddenly start taking the Skytrain to / from downtown Vancouver during rush hour. Probably the biggest thing it will do is reduce the frequency of and shorten the 503 (as the Skytrain will double that service), and the people taking the 503 already take Skytrain from Surrey Central.

Will other people start taking transit - sure. But the likelihood of many of them travelling to Vancouver by Skytrain is low. They'll travel to Surrey, New West and Burnaby, just like they do now. Using the service hours that would be freed up by a shortened 503 could go to improving transit in Surrey, which would make travelling within that area by transit more feasible.

[xd_1771]

83% of SOF trips do not cross the river according to the SOFATP review so I don't think people are necessarily going to flock to a Langley extension just for the improved Vancouver commute. Surrey Central, New West, Metrotown and others are also growing office and work destinations. People who drive to industrial parks such as Fraserglen may be tempted to start a SkyTrain + bus commute. There are plenty of places where the ridership will come from, which is why the projections are positive with approx 5600 or so riders/km on opening day (that's the average that SkyTrain manages today).

There will be huge benefits in regional connectivity for any purpose, and the largest impact in reducing automobile use/modal shift. I also think there's a good chance that it could help balance commutes as you're now opening up options for existing NoF commuters to the DTV core to reverse commute to jobs in the SoF as an alternative. A SkyTrain extension has the best potential to increase the visibility of the South of Fraser and promote a coherent region because it keeps things on one system. A separate LRT system won't get that cross-river coherency and potential.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Yeah, Langley city would be the terminus.
Really hoping to get some more concrete news on the M-line extension soon.

That's what I'm centred on, too, (even more than air routes to South America.
A slight concrn (hope it doesn't develop into a major concern) is that the new Minister of Infrastructure is a Pro-Lrt man. Changein equipent and all associated with, would hopefully not be woth the $$$. The skytrain is already up an running to VCC / let's hope it doesn't have to 'mutate' in midstream.
What a disappointing nightmare that would be.

[xd_1771]

I would think that to be more of a general likening for rail transit as opposed to a specific like for light rail technology. When you think about it, SkyTrain is also a "light rail" system. I'm sure with the right information (and more importantly, the statistics showing how SkyTrain has been a success in this region) he won't screw up and send us down the wrong path in terms of particular technology.

He is from Edmonton, after all - Edmonton's main LRT is given a separate right of way and a tunnel in the downtown core. The LRT he's seen has something of a focus on speed and reliability - unlike, say, the proposed on-street LRT for Surrey.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

I would think that to be more of a general likening for rail transit as opposed to a specific like for light rail technology. When you think about it, SkyTrain is also a "light rail" system. I'm sure with the right information (and more importantly, the statistics showing how SkyTrain has been a success in this region) he won't screw up and send us down the wrong path in terms of particular technology.

He is from Edmonton, after all - Edmonton's main LRT is given a separate right of way and a tunnel in the downtown core. The LRT he's seen has something of a focus on speed and reliability - unlike, say, the proposed on-street LRT for Surrey.

It has to be said every time "light rail" or "LRT" is mentioned in Metro Vancouver what the difference is, because HERE it's only a distinction between the grade separated or at-grade system. Elsewhere in North America except for Toronto, "Light rail" is the only option with the other option being "subway" and quickly dismissed due to the tunneling requirements.

Which surface Light Rail designed to work at grade is more expensive to tunnel... because the tunnel needs to be twice as high to support the overhead wires. Which is why the Ottawa Light rail project seems like it was planned as a subway and then someone wanted to cut costs cutting safety features. Likewise parts of the Calgary and Edmonton LRT's are grade separated. The parts that aren't are not as safe and that's where the accidents and delays occur.

[TransitJack]

Grade separated is like building an express lane and limiting access on a freeway. Faster and Isolated from the impact of local traffic.

Same applies to rapid transit. Tunnel or elevator or built at grade and fenced off from the public, all allow for that mode to move faster and without impact to the surrounding conditions.

Works well for moving people quickly between points, but is costly for this separation.

What to invest in depends on what are the goals of the project and is speed and distance a factor to maximize.

Some LRT's have their own ROWs for only part of the line as a compromise. Some LRT's have ROWS on the street because speed and distance were't the major factors for movement.

I like separated systems to accommodate the speed and distance factors, and then use busses to serve the points in between.

Great thing about busses over LRT on street level, is when there is any accident (even not involving the bus/LRT), the busses can more easily be diverted around the problem area. The street level LRT stops and doesn't operate through the area, and the other sections can see the service stall too.

Some parts of this region can easily work with LRT, some not-so-much. All a balance of needs and costs. Too often the cost factor is cited and the reason to go LRT. That's great if the city stopped growing, but it keeps growing so the limitations of street level LRT should always be considered on the short and long term.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Kisai

It has to be said every time "light rail" or "LRT" is mentioned in Metro Vancouver what the difference is, because HERE it's only a distinction between the grade separated or at-grade system.

Indeed, grade separation and station spacing are the keys. You could run buses on an elevated roadway with limited stops and get just as good service as pretty much any other type of vehicle.

But the benefit of grade separation isn't just elimination of traffic conflicts - it also makes it possible to automate the vehicles (and yes, this could apply even to buses). Automation makes it possible to run frequent service with very little incremental cost. That's the big part of the equation that a lot of people miss - it isn't just fast transit times, but also frequent service that make Skytrain so attractive.

[Kisai]

Although not really news-worthy itself... it does show there are people who are hellbent on commuting from one end of Metro Vancouver to the other:

http://www.news1130.com/2015/11/06/worst-commute-bus-skytrain-ferry/

by TREENA WOOD
Posted Nov 6, 2015 6:26 am PST Last Updated Nov 6, 2015 at 7:48 am PST
...

Farzin’s epic journey starts at 4 a.m. when his alarm goes off.

“At 5:15 a.m., I have to wake up my dear wife to drive me to the Sechelt bus station to catch a 40-minute ride to Langdale ferry terminal. After a short wait in the dark, I get on our comfortable ferry and spend the 40-minute ride commiserating with the other commuting friends about our lack of sleep.

“I walk off the ferry at Horseshoe Bay and get another 40-minute ride to Downtown Vancouver. Then I walk to the SkyTrain and pick up my coffee and croissant on the way — the only way to keep my sanity. The train takes me to the end of the line in Surrey for yet another 40 minutes, and then another 35-minute bus ride to Langley. An eight-minute walk and I am finally in the office — over four hours after I left my house.”

...

[Large Cat]

Originally Posted by Kisai

Although not really news-worthy itself... it does show there are people who are hellbent on commuting from one end of Metro Vancouver to the other:

http://www.news1130.com/2015/11/06/worst-commute-bus-skytrain-ferry/

Wtf.

[ssiguy]

That is just too bizarre for words although it does raise a good point..........a passenger only ferry from Gibson to Waterfront.

As for the SoF crowd, the commute will only increase and you will find more people having to go downtown. This is not due to a rise in downtown employment but rather more middle income earners having to flee the city to find even reasonable priced housing.

Vancouver's idea of "living near your work" is an ideal that Vancouver probably does worse at than nearly any other major city on the continent. The whole premise revolves around being able to afford to live near where you work and for the vast majority of average income workers, Vancouver or the inner suburbs are not an option.

It makes for great politics and keeps Price and company employed but somehow I just don't see the City of Vancouver with it's location on the Westside quadrupling it's wages for it's workers so they can do what the city says they should be doing.

The more expensive the city, the longer the commutes which Vancouver exemplifies beautifully.

When a city of just 2.5 million {25th largest on the NA} has the 2nd worse congestion and yet relatively modest transit ridership levels, that's a damning report of how transportation and urban planning in Metro has gone horribly wrong.

Vancouver has made a lot of excellent planning decisions which has led to it's high quality of life and pleasant environment but it's transportation planning has been an abject failure by any metric.

Now no matter what is built it will far more expensive than it needed to be and that will only get worse as the city views transportation as an afterthought when compared to land development. The soaring real estate values will make appropriation of land very expensive and yet the city refuses to put aside transit corridors.

This is where {god forbid} Vancouver could learn a lot from Calgary. Calgary was VERY thoughtful in who it planned for transportation by buying potentially land along roads when they were being built/upgraded for future transit.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Vancouver's idea of "living near your work" is an ideal that Vancouver probably does worse at than nearly any other major city on the continent. The whole premise revolves around being able to afford to live near where you work and for the vast majority of average income workers, Vancouver or the inner suburbs are not an option.

The other half of the premise is that there should be housing available near downtown. Vancouver is doing pretty well on that front, IMHO.

And the housing price bubble is primarily the result of low interest rates combined with the desirability of Vancouver as a place to live. Vancouver has no control over the former and is doing everything it can to ensure the latter, which is a good thing.

When a city of just 2.5 million {25th largest on the NA} has the 2nd worse congestion and yet relatively modest transit ridership levels, that's a damning report of how transportation and urban planning in Metro has gone horribly wrong.

Vancouver has made a lot of excellent planning decisions which has led to it's high quality of life and pleasant environment but it's transportation planning has been an abject failure by any metric.

I would argue that the planning isn't so much the problem as the funding. There is a pretty decent plan on the table but there seems to be an impasse as to how to fund it. Which is all the more tragic when you see how much money is being spent on highway expansion.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

That is just too bizarre for words although it does raise a good point..........a passenger only ferry from Gibson to Waterfront.

As for the SoF crowd, the commute will only increase and you will find more people having to go downtown. This is not due to a rise in downtown employment but rather more middle income earners having to flee the city to find even reasonable priced housing.

Vancouver's idea of "living near your work" is an ideal that Vancouver probably does worse at than nearly any other major city on the continent. The whole premise revolves around being able to afford to live near where you work and for the vast majority of average income workers, Vancouver or the inner suburbs are not an option.

This is why I'm hoping that there will be more business office offerings around Surrey Central and in New Westminster. If the housing can't be made affordable close to the jobs, move the jobs out to where the housing is cheaper. While it's great that there are office towers at Metrotown, there need to be more further out as well.

[logicbomb]

Random note: Some 2000 D60LF's are already being retired.

[Express691]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

Random note: Some 2000 D60LF's are already being retired.

In simple terms, a few of the older articulated buses are being retired. 2 were sent to the "Judgment place" (OTC) this season, both having served at the Port Coquitlam Base.

Whike we are on the subject of buses, it is Also worth noting that...
A) 21 new articulated buses (similar to Richmond's) are to arrive middle next year
B) The most recent procurement for Community Shuttle buses is for 56 units.