Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Bdawe

Wait, is running in a shared lane in Green Timbers still a thing?

I have no idea, as I said, the former design documents are all gone. Given that the L line is first, and the Langley line may end up being SkyTrain, I imagine a lot will still change by the time it's going to start getting built.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Bdawe

Wait, is running in a shared lane in Green Timbers still a thing?

If they want to keep cars out of it they're going to have to have some kind of barricade - otherwise the whole thing will be a shared lane. There will be drivers either using it as a lane or using it for left turns (King George south of Fraser Hwy the center is mostly an empty / left turn lane).

[Vonny]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

[...]They had more detailed design in the Surrey Rapid Transit Study Design Guide, but that document seems to have been taken down from TransLink's website. I'm trying to find a cached copy now, but for now, the two examples above clearly show that as flawed as Surrey's LRT plans are, you really can't call it a glorified streetcar. It is legit LRT. The issue is that LRT sucks.

are you thinking about this study:

Surrey Rapid transit Alternatives Analysis - Phase 2 Evaluation

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Vonny

are you thinking about this study:

Surrey Rapid transit Alternatives Analysis - Phase 2 Evaluation

No, I've seen that one. I'm thinking of the one this screenshot is from:

Originally Posted by xd_1771

It will be slightly wider than a 4-lane road with shared LRT lanes (original TransLink plans) much narrower than 2 traffic lanes + 2 LRT lanes (Surrey intent). Here's something I just pulled out of the SRTS Design guide:

[Waders]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Oh wow, that's great. Right now I only get express service during rush hours when the #43 UBC B-Line is running.

I wonder if the #41 B-Line will replace the #43? Seems likely.

Yes, that is the plan.

Bus 43

Extend service to operate during weekday middays and evenings and on weekends (currently the 43 operates only during weekday peaks), plus provide extra trips during AM and PM peaks to reduce overcrowding. This route will ultimately be consolidated with a new B-Line route on 41st Avenue.

Source

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by Bdawe

Wait, is running in a shared lane in Green Timbers still a thing?

No, it isn't.

I guess somewhere on the way the City kinda stopped caring and decided that the official plan will be to widen Fraser Highway to the full width of 42m through Green Timbers, with the LRT in the median (although the decision has been met with steady opposition...)

[idunno]

I for one just can't see the province going ahead with LRT along King George Highway to Langley. Skytrain makes way more sense for the distance, and the ALR gaps.

I look forward to seeing the business cases for the two Surrey projects!

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

They've never changed it, because it was always intended to travel in exclusive lanes in the centre of the road. The only exception was that it was to travel in shared lanes through Green Timbers Park along Fraser Highway in order to avoid having to widen it. Really not sure where you heard that it would be running in shared lanes. I'd love for you to show me anywhere it says that. A couple sources include:

The LRT Page on Surrey's website:
"LRT will run along 104 Avenue, King George, and Fraser Highway, in its own dedicated lane in the centre of the road separate from traffic"
http://www.surrey.ca/city-services/19185.aspx

YouTube video from 5 years ago clearly highlighting exclusive lanes in the centre of the road:
• Video Link

They had more detailed design in the Surrey Rapid Transit Study Design Guide, but that document seems to have been taken down from TransLink's website. I'm trying to find a cached copy now, but for now, the two examples above clearly show that as flawed as Surrey's LRT plans are, you really can't call it a glorified streetcar. It is legit LRT. The issue is that LRT sucks.

I honestly think that what's as important as a dedicated guideway is signal priority. This is where I see a lot of American cities mess LRT up and why I don't trust planners with LRT is that they don't give the system proper priority. You end up with vehicle commuters complaining about waiting to turn and all of a sudden you only have a glorified bus.

[jollyburger]

Do you think they would install fencing along the entire LRT route?

[Genauso]

Will there be dedicated LRT embarking/disembarking platforms in the middle of the road?
or will the trains flip out signs that say STOP - Bus Xing, as passengers travel to and from the sidewalk?

If it's the former, won't all LRT stops be mid-block and further walking distance from the intersections to meet connecting buses?
If it's the latter, will the trains themselves have some kind of ramp to meet accessibility standards?

edit:
The renders showed mid-block platforms, with a accessibility ramp up from unsignaled crosswalks. The stations will be staggered so as to only occupy 3 lanes for LRT at any one point.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Genauso

Will there be dedicated LRT embarking/disembarking platforms in the middle of the road?
or will the trains flip out signs that say STOP - Bus Xing, as passengers travel to and from the sidewalk?

If it's the former, won't all LRT stops be mid-block and further walking distance from the intersections to meet connecting buses?
If it's the latter, will the trains themselves have some kind of ramp to meet accessibility standards?

Check out the video above from about 1:15 to 2:10 - it shows how they envision it (I love the rapidly growing trees lol).

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Do you think they would install fencing along the entire LRT route?

They're going to need to do something (probably after it's running and they realize they have a problem... ). I personally hope they elevate the 'rail lanes' up from the road lanes. Drivers are less likely to drift into the rail lanes if they have to drive up over a curb to do it.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Genauso

Will there be dedicated LRT embarking/disembarking platforms in the middle of the road?
or will the trains flip out signs that say STOP - Bus Xing, as passengers travel to and from the sidewalk?

If it's the former, won't all LRT stops be mid-block and further walking distance from the intersections to meet connecting buses?
If it's the latter, will the trains themselves have some kind of ramp to meet accessibility standards?

Based off the video, they'll have platforms in the middle of the road, as is modern practice. I don't think there's any new system that has flip out signs anymore. The only active one I can think of is Toronto's streetcar. I can't imagine anybody would still build them that way, for a host of reasons.

Why would the stations be mid-block? Throughout the many LRT systems being built in North America right now, almost all stations are built at intersections. Here's what a typical LRT station looks like at a major intersection, though stations on one side of the cross-street exist too:


Opposite Platforms by Glass_City, on Flickr

Also, I would imagine this LRT WILL have signal priority. Again, not sure it's built anywhere without it. It's a very basic feature to have. As far as fencing along it, it's anyone's guess really. The video doesn't seem to have it, but it's very possible that the light rail lanes will be raised a little, as is common. Here's a photo from Portland:


it sucks in Portland too by Glass_City, on Flickr

P.S. Since I've been defending the integrity of Surrey's LRT plans a few times now, I want to continue to make it clear that I think light rail sucks and it should be avoided here

[jsbertram]

Here's how L.A. did their new LRT in Santa Monica, as seen with Google Maps

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0244032,...Rg1IllhUvlK6w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e2

Colorado Ave doesn't seem to be as busy as 104th in Surrey, but as you travel west down Colorado you can seen how they had to eliminate two of the four traffic lanes, the left-turn bays from Colorado, and the left-turn (and u-turn!) traffic from Colorado at major intersections for the entire length of tracks to the LRT terminal.

If your usual cross-street was a minor street and didn't have traffic lights at the intersection, you can now only do right-turns to or from Colorado (just like 104th in Surrey will be).

the LRT track bed is raised to the same height as the sidewalk, so the single traffic lane has curbs on either side of it. This doesn't prevent cars from jumping the curb and ending up on the LRT tracks, but the fence between the LRT tracks keeps drivers from trying to 'sneak across' the tracks to turn left. Not sure how these fences are preventing people from wandering onto the tracks.

Use the google maps "time capsule" feature of to see the street view at different years - before and during construction, and after completion to see what was changed to put in the LRT tracks on Colorado.

[jsbertram]

... wrong thread

[nname]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

Here's how L.A. did their new LRT in Santa Monica, as seen with Google Maps

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0244032,...Rg1IllhUvlK6w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e2

Colorado Ave doesn't seem to be as busy as 104th in Surrey, but as you travel west down Colorado you can seen how they had to eliminate two of the four traffic lanes, the left-turn bays from Colorado, and the left-turn (and u-turn!) traffic from Colorado at major intersections for the entire length of tracks to the LRT terminal.

These, AND the vast majority of buildings on one side of the street.

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Also, I would imagine this LRT WILL have signal priority. Again, not sure it's built anywhere without it. It's a very basic feature to have. As far as fencing along it, it's anyone's guess really. The video doesn't seem to have it, but it's very possible that the light rail lanes will be raised a little, as is common. Here's a photo from Portland:

I know Portland does a good job with theirs when it comes to signal priority, same with Seattle. Los Angeles and Minneapolis-St. Paul have been very inconsistent about it. I know that both stop at red lights at several points along their routes, basically taking the 'rapid' out of rapid transit.

The question when it comes to LRT is do you trust the transportation engineers and Translink to do the right thing? All I know is it's a question you don't have to ask when you have grade separated rapid transit.

[nname]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

The question when it comes to LRT is do you trust the transportation engineers and Translink to do the right thing? All I know is it's a question you don't have to ask when you have grade separated rapid transit.

I remember when Evergreen was LRT, TransLink said full signal priority is not possible for 5 intersections due to heavy traffic - Pinetree/Lougheed, Barnet/Johnson, Barnet/Ioco, Barnet/Clarke, and Clarke/Como Lake. Two of the 5 ended up having to be grade separated (underground), and the other 2... the mayor of Port Moody at that time was dead against anything elevated so not sure if they ever came up with a solution.

All other intersections would either be closed or have full priority.

[cganuelas1995]

Wouldn't a shared BRT right of way defeat one of the main tenents of BRT, which is having a dedicated busway?

[Express691]

An RFP for 93× 40' CNG Low Floor buses was released this past week, along with options for diesel, hybrid, Low floor highway coach, and West Vancouver buses.

http://www.translink.ca/en/About-Us/Doin...ing-Opportunities/Open-Bids/Q17-003.aspx

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

I know Portland does a good job with theirs when it comes to signal priority, same with Seattle. Los Angeles and Minneapolis-St. Paul have been very inconsistent about it. I know that both stop at red lights at several points along their routes, basically taking the 'rapid' out of rapid transit.

The question when it comes to LRT is do you trust the transportation engineers and Translink to do the right thing? All I know is it's a question you don't have to ask when you have grade separated rapid transit.

Not all intersections can have signal priority, and even then signal priority is not guarantee green lights 100% of time. As I mentioned with non-separation at intersections, this is not an issue of implementation, but of LRT itself. Not a bug, though not a feature either. Just the way it is.

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

Wouldn't a shared BRT right of way defeat one of the main tenents of BRT, which is having a dedicated busway?

Where does it say that a BRT right of way in Surrey would be shared? Though a proposal for it doesn't exist, anybody advocating for it is advocating for exclusive bus lanes in the median. The diagram I quoted from xd_1771 earlier showed share bus lanes, but that was referring only to the section within Green Timbers Park.

Originally Posted by Express691

An RFP for 93× 40' CNG Low Floor buses was released this past week, along with options for diesel, hybrid, Low floor highway coach, and West Vancouver buses.

http://www.translink.ca/en/About-Us/Doin...ing-Opportunities/Open-Bids/Q17-003.aspx

Exciting stuff. Especially the highway coaches—they're the primary type of bus I take and it would be great to get a few with wider seats and maybe more on-board amenities.

Does anybody here know how long the process usually takes between an RFP and receiving the buses? Like a year or two?