TransLink - Photos and Discussion

[Mike C]

Feb 25, 2013 19:23:35 GMT -8 Kahloke said:

Last weekend in Vancouver, I got to ride the Skytrain system quite a bit, which included all three lines: Expo, Millennium, and Canada Line, mainly in the downtown area. The furthest out I ever got was the Science World station on the Expo/Millennium Line. I must say, it's a very efficient system, and having ridden extensively on Sound Transit's LINK Light Rail in Seattle, it gave me something local to compare that train to. Personally, I really like the openness of the Skytrain cars, particularly the newer Canada Line trains. LINK works well, but the cars are really cramped compared to the Skytrain cars, and LINK has that elevated section in each car over the wheels below that you have to use stairs to get to. The Canada Line cars have wider aisles, more open space for standing, and it's all on one level - no stairs. I also found the Canada Line cars to be very smooth. The LINK trains jostle you around quite a bit. Don't get me wrong, I'm really glad Seattle now has light rail, but I think the Skytrain vehicles are a better design. Of course, part of that difference is the way the trains get their electricity. Skytrain uses an electrified third rail (I think), whereas LINK uses overhead lines. Anyway, I've rambled on far too long here, but I did take a picture of one of the Canada Line cars this weekend, and I have an older one I took of LINK to compare it with. 

The difficulty with comparing these rapid transit technologies is that, although they seem relatively the same at face value, there is actually quite a contrast.

Light Rail capital costs are significantly lower than Rail Rapid Transit (SkyTrain).  Cities like Seattle have taken advantage of these lower costs.  RRT is expensive, but the capacities are higher and faster.  For example, Expo Line operates at headways that are 1 minute 38 seconds, as opposed to Central Link which operates at 4 minutes.

We are currently having the discussion surrounding LRT vs. RRT on our Broadway Corridor between Commercial Station and UBC.  At present, the 99 B-Line (which is the Bus Rapid Transit route that currently operates the Broadway Corridor) is the busiest bus route in North America.

[Deleted]

Feb 28, 2013 15:45:42 GMT -8 Mike C said:

Feb 25, 2013 19:23:35 GMT -8 Kahloke said:

Last weekend in Vancouver, I got to ride the Skytrain system quite a bit, which included all three lines: Expo, Millennium, and Canada Line, mainly in the downtown area. The furthest out I ever got was the Science World station on the Expo/Millennium Line. I must say, it's a very efficient system, and having ridden extensively on Sound Transit's LINK Light Rail in Seattle, it gave me something local to compare that train to. Personally, I really like the openness of the Skytrain cars, particularly the newer Canada Line trains. LINK works well, but the cars are really cramped compared to the Skytrain cars, and LINK has that elevated section in each car over the wheels below that you have to use stairs to get to. The Canada Line cars have wider aisles, more open space for standing, and it's all on one level - no stairs. I also found the Canada Line cars to be very smooth. The LINK trains jostle you around quite a bit. Don't get me wrong, I'm really glad Seattle now has light rail, but I think the Skytrain vehicles are a better design. Of course, part of that difference is the way the trains get their electricity. Skytrain uses an electrified third rail (I think), whereas LINK uses overhead lines. Anyway, I've rambled on far too long here, but I did take a picture of one of the Canada Line cars this weekend, and I have an older one I took of LINK to compare it with. 

The difficulty with comparing these rapid transit technologies is that, although they seem relatively the same at face value, there is actually quite a contrast.

Light Rail capital costs are significantly lower than Rail Rapid Transit (SkyTrain).  Cities like Seattle have taken advantage of these lower costs.  RRT is expensive, but the capacities are higher and faster.  For example, Expo Line operates at headways that are 1 minute 38 seconds, as opposed to Central Link which operates at 4 minutes.

We are currently having the discussion surrounding LRT vs. RRT on our Broadway Corridor between Commercial Station and UBC.  At present, the 99 B-Line (which is the Bus Rapid Transit route that currently operates the Broadway Corridor) is the busiest bus route in North America.

Do not forget the Surrey Rapid Transit there are studying the same of the UBC Rapid Transit. I think the SkyTrain would better for both because more frequent and will not change traffic patterns after it done.  

[Mike C]

Feb 28, 2013 15:55:20 GMT -8 @cheese12345678 said:

Feb 28, 2013 15:45:42 GMT -8 Mike C said:

The difficulty with comparing these rapid transit technologies is that, although they seem relatively the same at face value, there is actually quite a contrast.

Light Rail capital costs are significantly lower than Rail Rapid Transit (SkyTrain).  Cities like Seattle have taken advantage of these lower costs.  RRT is expensive, but the capacities are higher and faster.  For example, Expo Line operates at headways that are 1 minute 38 seconds, as opposed to Central Link which operates at 4 minutes.

We are currently having the discussion surrounding LRT vs. RRT on our Broadway Corridor between Commercial Station and UBC.  At present, the 99 B-Line (which is the Bus Rapid Transit route that currently operates the Broadway Corridor) is the busiest bus route in North America.

Do not forget the Surrey Rapid Transit there are studying the same of the UBC Rapid Transit. I think the SkyTrain would better for both because more frequent and will not change traffic patterns after it done.  

I am currently writing my semester paper on the Surrey Rapid Transit study.  They are currently viewing light rail as the best option for that area, due to the costs associated and large land areas that need to be covered.  Awesome Cheese, if you're concerned about your taxes going up, I suggest you get behind LRT.

[SolDuc]

Feb 28, 2013 16:04:38 GMT -8 Mike C said:

Feb 28, 2013 15:55:20 GMT -8 @cheese12345678 said:

Do not forget the Surrey Rapid Transit there are studying the same of the UBC Rapid Transit. I think the SkyTrain would better for both because more frequent and will not change traffic patterns after it done.  

I am currently writing my semester paper on the Surrey Rapid Transit study.  They are currently viewing light rail as the best option for that area, due to the costs associated and large land areas that need to be covered.  Awesome Cheese, if you're concerned about your taxes going up, I suggest you get behind LRT.

I looked a little on the page that Cheese linked earlier, and After viewing all of the options LRT seems to be the best. If you asked me to choose, I would take LRT1 as a favorite option. And the BRT lanes from Newton to White rock could later be converted to LRT at no huge cost. Yes, it would require a lot of connections at King Geaorge but RRT is more expensive than LRT for similar service. All of the LRT/BRT space could be converted to RRT later if the demand grows.

[SolDuc]

And more on Light Rail:
Except for Paris, most of the other major French cities have opted for Light Rail for their train transportation.
Paris is even building light rail for increased service outside of the city to connect the RER (heavy rail or RRT) lines together. The fact that the whole RER system is based on a star principle (you have to go to Paris to connect with any other RER line) causes some problems. In the city I lived in, going to another city ~7 km that was also served by RER, but by another line could take as long as one and a half hour because you had to go to Paris to make the connection. Walking is easier and faster in this situation.
Paris still has a very strong train system, and the RER system (only 4 lines) carries 1.66 million passengers daily. On top of that you have to add the metro system (about the same daily ridership). Imagine if all of this ended up on the roads!

One of the possible advantages of light rail is that, to the inverse of RRT, the tracks can serve as regular traffic lanes (combines with the fact that there is a driver). Where this is in effect, it is generally still prohibited during rush hour to provide a reliable commute. The main advantage of LRT over BRT is that it uses electric power, which is more environment-friendly than gas.

[Deleted]

Feb 28, 2013 16:04:38 GMT -8 Mike C said:

Feb 28, 2013 15:55:20 GMT -8 @cheese12345678 said:

Do not forget the Surrey Rapid Transit there are studying the same of the UBC Rapid Transit. I think the SkyTrain would better for both because more frequent and will not change traffic patterns after it done.  

I am currently writing my semester paper on the Surrey Rapid Transit study.  They are currently viewing light rail as the best option for that area, due to the costs associated and large land areas that need to be covered.  Awesome Cheese, if you're concerned about your taxes going up, I suggest you get behind LRT.

The Evergreen line was going to be a light rail not connected to the SkyTrain and now look at it is a SkyTrain line. I think Translink would probably do same for the Surrey Rapid Transit.  

Feb 28, 2013 16:30:33 GMT -8 SolDuc said:

Feb 28, 2013 16:04:38 GMT -8 Mike C said:

I am currently writing my semester paper on the Surrey Rapid Transit study.  They are currently viewing light rail as the best option for that area, due to the costs associated and large land areas that need to be covered.  Awesome Cheese, if you're concerned about your taxes going up, I suggest you get behind LRT.

I looked a little on the page that Cheese linked earlier, and After viewing all of the options LRT seems to be the best. If you asked me to choose, I would take LRT1 as a favorite option. And the BRT lanes from Newton to White rock could later be converted to LRT at no huge cost. Yes, it would require a lot of connections at King Geaorge but RRT is more expensive than LRT for similar service. All of the LRT/BRT space could be converted to RRT later if the demand grows.

This plan is the best for Langley and Surrey. But, for the SkyTrain I think Translink should do this plan with SkyTrain coming out to Langley and the Bus Rapid Transit going out to White Rock.

[8800gtx]

Feb 28, 2013 16:04:38 GMT -8 Mike C said:

Feb 28, 2013 15:55:20 GMT -8 @cheese12345678 said:

Do not forget the Surrey Rapid Transit there are studying the same of the UBC Rapid Transit. I think the SkyTrain would better for both because more frequent and will not change traffic patterns after it done.  

I am currently writing my semester paper on the Surrey Rapid Transit study.  They are currently viewing light rail as the best option for that area, due to the costs associated and large land areas that need to be covered.  Awesome Cheese, if you're concerned about your taxes going up, I suggest you get behind LRT.

Before deciding anything, you should probably should check out this site: skytrainforsurrey.org/. They're an organization opposing this whole shift and planning action against it, and what they're saying is that if people are concerned about congestion reduction, meeting regional goals and the cost over time, then Surrey should go with SkyTrain over LRT. They've been debunking everything, down to TransLink's cost estimates for SkyTrain, see here

[Mike C]

Mar 1, 2013 10:21:29 GMT -8 8800gtx said:

Feb 28, 2013 16:04:38 GMT -8 Mike C said:

I am currently writing my semester paper on the Surrey Rapid Transit study.  They are currently viewing light rail as the best option for that area, due to the costs associated and large land areas that need to be covered.  Awesome Cheese, if you're concerned about your taxes going up, I suggest you get behind LRT.

Before deciding anything, you should probably should check out this site: skytrainforsurrey.org/. They're an organization opposing this whole shift and planning action against it, and what they're saying is that if people are concerned about congestion reduction, meeting regional goals and the cost over time, then Surrey should go with SkyTrain over LRT. They've been debunking everything, down to TransLink's cost estimates for SkyTrain, see here

I have spent a great deal of time on their website and thoroughly enjoyed their analysis.  I firmly believe that their argument has merit and is working towards the same goal.

I'm undecided between light rail and SkyTrain technologies for Guildford, however I feel that King George Blvd and Fraser Hwy, the space on the right-of-way indicates that LRT is the best option.

[Blue Bus Fan]

The SkyTrain from another SkyTrain. 


Vancouver SkyTrain by Awesome cheese photos, on Flickr


Vancouver SkyTrain by Awesome cheese photos, on Flickr


Vancouver SkyTrain by Awesome cheese photos, on Flickr


Vancouver SkyTrain by Awesome cheese photos, on Flickr

The 555 express bus as seen from my car.


555 Express by Awesome cheese photos, on Flickr

[Northern Exploration]

Those of you who got to ride the Bombardier Flexity demonstration LRT's during the Olympics, might be interested to know the first model has arrived for testing in Toronto. This is the Flexity Outlook model and is for use in mixed traffic lanes on the existing streetcar lines. The Flexity Freedom has also been ordered for the new lines that will be exclusively on their own right aways and run as true LRT with one line having an extensive underground section. The underground section is built to the specifications for a full blown subway in the future.

www.blogto.com/city/2013/03/ttc_conducts_first_public_test_of_new_streetcar/

[Blue Bus Fan]

Feb 28, 2013 16:04:38 GMT -8 Mike C said:

Feb 28, 2013 15:55:20 GMT -8 @cheese12345678 said:

Do not forget the Surrey Rapid Transit there are studying the same of the UBC Rapid Transit. I think the SkyTrain would better for both because more frequent and will not change traffic patterns after it done.  

I am currently writing my semester paper on the Surrey Rapid Transit study.  They are currently viewing light rail as the best option for that area, due to the costs associated and large land areas that need to be covered.  Awesome Cheese, if you're concerned about your taxes going up, I suggest you get behind LRT.

But, did Translink think of these variables that would increase the cost for the LRT; maintenance, wage increase for the workers on the LRT, new maintenance centre, new crews to do the maintenance.

With the SkyTrain they just need to build the line, buy new trains, hire more people for watching the Trains, hire more people to do maintenance on the lines and trains.    

[Blue Bus Fan]

Mar 16, 2013 9:42:47 GMT -8 @4roads said:

Mar 16, 2013 8:25:16 GMT -8 Blue Bus Fan said:

But, did Translink think of these variables that would increase the cost for the LRT; maintenance, wage increase for the workers on the LRT, new maintenance centre, new crews to do the maintenance.

With the SkyTrain they just need to build the line, buy new trains, hire more people for watching the Trains, hire more people to do maintenance on the lines and trains.    

It's more complicated than that. Skytrain does not work in all areas, and it is very costly. On a per linear measure Skytrain is more costly to build than a comparative LRT line. While there aren't any motormen associated with Skytrain as there is with LRT, the economics often outweigh the after construction costs.

Skytrain optionally works if there is an available right of way available, and if building can be done at reasonable cost (none of those exist in Surrey, although both King George and 104 do have median space which would mean minimal impact, but the key is cost.

There is also budget pressures for projects. Translink is pretty much at the end of the line when it comes to locating additional funding. They will have to rely on a provincial/federal funding regimen and that in itself will limit what can be built. This is a consequence of many things, but one of them is simply leaving infrastructure expansion for way too long. It happens with every government. Waiting too long means additional inflationary costs for project construction and that can change what the options are based on available funding. Infrastruture needs to be an ongoing thing. Once one segment is a 2/8 the way to completion, complete the final design decisions and start on the next one. I've said that to many politicians, including two Surrey Council members. 

The other aspect is that Surrey Council and Madam Mayor are more in favour of an LRT line through Surrey (King George and 104 to Guildford). It does allow more flexibility in terms of station placement.  The have stated publicly and Surrey Business is more in favour of the LRT options than Skytrain.

The public in recent consultations support an LRT option, not Skytrain.

Surrey is growing houses like weeds and is far behind in transit. The solution is efficient, effective transit that will encourage ridership, and LRT goes down that line quite nicely.

With the SkyTrain they could do tunnel or elevated track.
But rail rapid transit and bus rapid transit shows it would cost more but more people would ride it. Look at the bottom of the link.

[Deleted]

Mar 16, 2013 9:42:47 GMT -8 @4roads said:

It's more complicated than that. Skytrain does not work in all areas, and it is very costly. On a per linear measure Skytrain is more costly to build than a comparative LRT line. While there aren't any motormen associated with Skytrain as there is with LRT, the economics often outweigh the after construction costs.

Skytrain optionally works if there is an available right of way available, and if building can be done at reasonable cost (none of those exist in Surrey, although both King George and 104 do have median space which would mean minimal impact, but the key is cost.

There is also budget pressures for projects. Translink is pretty much at the end of the line when it comes to locating additional funding. They will have to rely on a provincial/federal funding regimen and that in itself will limit what can be built. This is a consequence of many things, but one of them is simply leaving infrastructure expansion for way too long. It happens with every government. Waiting too long means additional inflationary costs for project construction and that can change what the options are based on available funding. Infrastruture needs to be an ongoing thing. Once one segment is a 2/8 the way to completion, complete the final design decisions and start on the next one. I've said that to many politicians, including two Surrey Council members. 

The other aspect is that Surrey Council and Madam Mayor are more in favour of an LRT line through Surrey (King George and 104 to Guildford). It does allow more flexibility in terms of station placement.  The have stated publicly and Surrey Business is more in favour of the LRT options than Skytrain.

The public in recent consultations support an LRT option, not Skytrain.

Surrey is growing houses like weeds and is far behind in transit. The solution is efficient, effective transit that will encourage ridership, and LRT goes down that line quite nicely.

I agree. While Skytrain would be a good long-term investment for Surrey, LRT seems to be the best option for now. It's a step up from what they currently have, and relatively inexpensive to build. Translink doesn't have the capital to build skytrain in Surrey right now. Remember, they're still trying to find some more dough at the moment to finish off the Evergreen Line.

[Blue Bus Fan]

Mar 16, 2013 11:15:36 GMT -8 @sccommuter said:

Mar 16, 2013 9:42:47 GMT -8 @4roads said:

It's more complicated than that. Skytrain does not work in all areas, and it is very costly. On a per linear measure Skytrain is more costly to build than a comparative LRT line. While there aren't any motormen associated with Skytrain as there is with LRT, the economics often outweigh the after construction costs.

Skytrain optionally works if there is an available right of way available, and if building can be done at reasonable cost (none of those exist in Surrey, although both King George and 104 do have median space which would mean minimal impact, but the key is cost.

There is also budget pressures for projects. Translink is pretty much at the end of the line when it comes to locating additional funding. They will have to rely on a provincial/federal funding regimen and that in itself will limit what can be built. This is a consequence of many things, but one of them is simply leaving infrastructure expansion for way too long. It happens with every government. Waiting too long means additional inflationary costs for project construction and that can change what the options are based on available funding. Infrastruture needs to be an ongoing thing. Once one segment is a 2/8 the way to completion, complete the final design decisions and start on the next one. I've said that to many politicians, including two Surrey Council members. 

The other aspect is that Surrey Council and Madam Mayor are more in favour of an LRT line through Surrey (King George and 104 to Guildford). It does allow more flexibility in terms of station placement.  The have stated publicly and Surrey Business is more in favour of the LRT options than Skytrain.

The public in recent consultations support an LRT option, not Skytrain.

Surrey is growing houses like weeds and is far behind in transit. The solution is efficient, effective transit that will encourage ridership, and LRT goes down that line quite nicely.

I agree. While Skytrain would be a good long-term investment for Surrey, LRT seems to be the best option for now. It's a step up from what they currently have, and relatively inexpensive to build. Translink doesn't have the capital to build skytrain in Surrey right now. Remember, they're still trying to find some more dough at the moment to finish off the Evergreen Line.

Translink could wait unlit they have more funding for the project. Or, Translink could ask the Federal government and Provincial government for money for the project. 

[Blue Bus Fan]

Here are excepted capacities of the Transit method by 2041.
Lowest to greatest number of passenger:

1. LRT 1- 166,000
2. BRT 1- 180,000
3. LRT With BRT 5A- 180,000
4. RRT (SkyTrain) with BRT 1A- 200,000.

BRT= Bus Rapid Transit.
LRT= Light Rail Transit.
RRT= Rail Rapid Transit (SkyTrain).

You want to see a light passenger load which will not help recover the cost.

With Rail Rapid Transit (SkyTrain) with Bus Rapid Transit the people would help recover the cost more from how many people ride it.

With Rail Rapid Transit has a travel time from Surrey Centre to Langley Centre in 22 minutes. The Bus Rapid transit will go from Surrey Centre to White Rock in 37 minutes.

With Light Rail Transit has a travel time from Surrey Centre to Langley Centre in 37 minutes. The Light Rail Transit will go from Surrey Centre to White Rock in 38 minutes.

[Dane]

Covering costs from ridership is a relatively moot point, although I appreciate it gets discussed more and more. No rapid transit system will recover its costs unless they hire an accountant who had a double major with interpretive dance.

LFT seems short sighted to me. Surrey is and will grow a lot. We already have a superior mass transit network available. Calgary is an example of where challenges with high demand on an LRT system can be seen, and their options to manage this are limited.

No doubt that businesses may prefer LRT, however not only are they not the major stakeholder here, but I believe the government has a responsibility to educate on what will make the best long term sense for the city/area.

I would prefer to see an LRT over nothing, but the limitations will surely cause long term issues.

[Blue Bus Fan]

So, we decided to Take the Port Mann Express to downtown Vancouver here are a few pictures.

555 Express by Awesome cheese photos, on Flickr

SkyTrain Mark II 1100- 1200 by Awesome cheese photos, on Flickr

SkyTrain Mark II 1300 by Awesome cheese photos, on Flickr[/div]

[Mike C]

Mar 16, 2013 8:25:16 GMT -8 Blue Bus Fan said:

Feb 28, 2013 16:04:38 GMT -8 Mike C said:

I am currently writing my semester paper on the Surrey Rapid Transit study.  They are currently viewing light rail as the best option for that area, due to the costs associated and large land areas that need to be covered.  Awesome Cheese, if you're concerned about your taxes going up, I suggest you get behind LRT.

But, did Translink think of these variables that would increase the cost for the LRT; maintenance, wage increase for the workers on the LRT, new maintenance centre, new crews to do the maintenance.

With the SkyTrain they just need to build the line, buy new trains, hire more people for watching the Trains, hire more people to do maintenance on the lines and trains.    

My Northern Expedition chasing and traveling all day yesterday have caused me to literally just read this now, so apologies for the late reply.

• Maintenance: This would be less cost than a SkyTrain line, due to the nature of the technology.  SkyTrain operates on a linear induction system, which is more complex than the simple overhead wire or power rail that Light Rail transit operates on.
• Wage Increase: That's ridiculous, there is no reason that employees operating a Light Rail line would be paid more than a SkyTrain line.  Canada Line staff are actually paid less than SkyTrain staff, as they are not unionized.  If more transit projects are P3-oriented, I imagine a similar scenario for other rapid transit lines.
• New Maintenance Facility: This is valid, seeing as vehicles would obviously not be maintainted in the SkyTrain facility in Burnaby.  However an expansion of the current facility would be required to accommodate new vehicles if SkyTrain were to be the chosen technology.
• New Maintenance Staff: I am not in tune with the rapid transit maintenance community, so I do not know the story behind this for sure, but I imagine that this would be extremely nominal.  Most current staff would simply be trained on the Light Rail technology.

Mar 16, 2013 11:58:56 GMT -8 Blue Bus Fan said:

Here are excepted capacities of the Transit method by 2041.
Lowest to greatest number of passenger:

1. LRT 1- 166,000
2. BRT 1- 180,000
3. LRT With BRT 5A- 180,000
4. RRT (SkyTrain) with BRT 1A- 200,000.

BRT= Bus Rapid Transit.
LRT= Light Rail Transit.
RRT= Rail Rapid Transit (SkyTrain).

You want to see a light passenger load which will not help recover the cost.

With Rail Rapid Transit (SkyTrain) with Bus Rapid Transit the people would help recover the cost more from how many people ride it.

With Rail Rapid Transit has a travel time from Surrey Centre to Langley Centre in 22 minutes. The Bus Rapid transit will go from Surrey Centre to White Rock in 37 minutes.

With Light Rail Transit has a travel time from Surrey Centre to Langley Centre in 37 minutes. The Light Rail Transit will go from Surrey Centre to White Rock in 38 minutes.

Where did you get these numbers? These seem incredibly wrong and quite far from reality.

[Northern Exploration]

Mar 17, 2013 16:31:42 GMT -8 Mike C said:

Mar 16, 2013 8:25:16 GMT -8 Blue Bus Fan said:

But, did Translink think of these variables that would increase the cost for the LRT; maintenance, wage increase for the workers on the LRT, new maintenance centre, new crews to do the maintenance.

With the SkyTrain they just need to build the line, buy new trains, hire more people for watching the Trains, hire more people to do maintenance on the lines and trains.    

My Northern Expedition chasing and traveling all day yesterday have caused me to literally just read this now, so apologies for the late reply.

• Maintenance: This would be less cost than a SkyTrain line, due to the nature of the technology.  SkyTrain operates on a linear induction system, which is more complex than the simple overhead wire or power rail that Light Rail transit operates on.
• Wage Increase: That's ridiculous, there is no reason that employees operating a Light Rail line would be paid more than a SkyTrain line.  Canada Line staff are actually paid less than SkyTrain staff, as they are not unionized.  If more transit projects are P3-oriented, I imagine a similar scenario for other rapid transit lines.
• New Maintenance Facility: This is valid, seeing as vehicles would obviously not be maintainted in the SkyTrain facility in Burnaby.  However an expansion of the current facility would be required to accommodate new vehicles if SkyTrain were to be the chosen technology.
• New Maintenance Staff: I am not in tune with the rapid transit maintenance community, so I do not know the story behind this for sure, but I imagine that this would be extremely nominal.  Most current staff would simply be trained on the Light Rail technology.

Mar 16, 2013 11:58:56 GMT -8 Blue Bus Fan said:

Here are excepted capacities of the Transit method by 2041.
Lowest to greatest number of passenger:

1. LRT 1- 166,000
2. BRT 1- 180,000
3. LRT With BRT 5A- 180,000
4. RRT (SkyTrain) with BRT 1A- 200,000.

BRT= Bus Rapid Transit.
LRT= Light Rail Transit.
RRT= Rail Rapid Transit (SkyTrain).

You want to see a light passenger load which will not help recover the cost.

With Rail Rapid Transit (SkyTrain) with Bus Rapid Transit the people would help recover the cost more from how many people ride it.

With Rail Rapid Transit has a travel time from Surrey Centre to Langley Centre in 22 minutes. The Bus Rapid transit will go from Surrey Centre to White Rock in 37 minutes.

With Light Rail Transit has a travel time from Surrey Centre to Langley Centre in 37 minutes. The Light Rail Transit will go from Surrey Centre to White Rock in 38 minutes.

Where did you get these numbers? These seem incredibly wrong and quite far from reality.

The numbers don't jive with what I have seen from here.  We have street bus routes, street LRT routes (streetcars), dedicated BRT underway, dedicated LRT lines in the works and semi-dedicated lines already in us(as streetcars running in their own lane mostly), train commuter rail and full blown subway.   Ottawa has looked at replacing their BRT with Dedicated lane LRT on the same lanes and there is a massive increase in volume possible for lower cost.  Two of the LRT Trains can be joined together and carry the equivalent passengers of I think 6 buses.  I LRT driver vs. 4 to 6 Bus Drivers is the first saving.  For fastest boarding it is done on proof of purchase and loads and unloads from up to 8 doors simultaneously.  Here in Mississauga we will have BRT being built on a dedicated route and LRT is hoped for on the busiest route .  BRT is faster than the street and cheaper if you ignore the construction costs.  But the most volume is the LRT on a dedicated lane.  The Mississauga LRT will run North/South and link 3 Commuter Rail Lines, the BRT, all on one of the busiest roads in the region between Brampton and Mississauga.  

[Blue Bus Fan]

Mar 17, 2013 16:31:42 GMT -8 Mike C said:

Mar 16, 2013 11:58:56 GMT -8 Blue Bus Fan said:

Here are excepted capacities of the Transit method by 2041.
Lowest to greatest number of passenger:

1. LRT 1- 166,000
2. BRT 1- 180,000
3. LRT With BRT 5A- 180,000
4. RRT (SkyTrain) with BRT 1A- 200,000.

BRT= Bus Rapid Transit.
LRT= Light Rail Transit.
RRT= Rail Rapid Transit (SkyTrain).

You want to see a light passenger load which will not help recover the cost.

With Rail Rapid Transit (SkyTrain) with Bus Rapid Transit the people would help recover the cost more from how many people ride it.

With Rail Rapid Transit has a travel time from Surrey Centre to Langley Centre in 22 minutes. The Bus Rapid transit will go from Surrey Centre to White Rock in 37 minutes.

With Light Rail Transit has a travel time from Surrey Centre to Langley Centre in 37 minutes. The Light Rail Transit will go from Surrey Centre to White Rock in 38 minutes.

Where did you get these numbers? These seem incredibly wrong and quite far from reality.

This link at the bottom of the page.

[Mayne]

Mar 17, 2013 17:10:38 GMT -8 Blue Bus Fan said:

Mar 17, 2013 16:31:42 GMT -8 Mike C said:

Where did you get these numbers? These seem incredibly wrong and quite far from reality.

This link at the bottom of the page.

Based on what you supplied you are wrong its 37 min from Surrey to White rock not Langley, and on that note LRT and RRT are both 37 min.
I is actually 29 min for LRT too 22 min for RRT based on what you gave us to use.

 

[Blue Bus Fan]

Mar 17, 2013 20:19:28 GMT -8 Mayne said:

Mar 17, 2013 17:10:38 GMT -8 Blue Bus Fan said:

This link at the bottom of the page.

Based on what you supplied you are wrong its 37 min from Surrey to White rock not Langley, and on that note LRT and RRT are both 37 min.
I is actually 29 min for LRT too 22 min for RRT based on what you gave us to use.

I meant to put White rock instead of Langley Centre.

[Blue Bus Fan]

Feb 18, 2013 17:08:05 GMT -8 @cheese12345678 said:

Feb 18, 2013 0:18:47 GMT -8 Mike C said:

The Mk IIIs have been ordered, (28?) new vehicles to add capacity for the up-and-coming Evergreen line.

Here is the contract for 28 new trains. Hopefully the new trains will to go to King George station. When are the new trains coming in to test the lines?

The new trains will be INNOVIA Metro.

[Mike C]

Mar 18, 2013 11:15:57 GMT -8 Blue Bus Fan said:

Feb 18, 2013 17:08:05 GMT -8 @cheese12345678 said:

Here is the contract for 28 new trains. Hopefully the new trains will to go to King George station. When are the new trains coming in to test the lines?

The new trains will look like the current Mark II's.

Incorrect.  It says in the article that it will be a different make of train vehicle, called the INNOVIA ART 300.  

The rolling stock chosen by TransLink is the (pictured) INNOVIA ART 300, according to SkyTrain for Surrey. They will be designed as four-car articulated trains, meaning passengers will be able to walk from one end of the train to the other.

The previous generation Mark II trains currently run in four-car configurations consisting of 2 two-car articulated trains connected together. Passengers are able to freely walk between two cars, but not all four. On the Mark I trains, passengers are unable to move between cars at all without exiting.

Mr. Cheese, have you considered reading the articles you post, before you post them?

[Blue Bus Fan]

Mar 18, 2013 11:47:10 GMT -8 Mike C said:

Mar 18, 2013 11:15:57 GMT -8 Blue Bus Fan said:

The new trains will look like the current Mark II's.

Incorrect.  It says in the article that it will be a different make of train vehicle, called the INNOVIA ART 300.  

The rolling stock chosen by TransLink is the (pictured) INNOVIA ART 300, according to SkyTrain for Surrey. They will be designed as four-car articulated trains, meaning passengers will be able to walk from one end of the train to the other.

The previous generation Mark II trains currently run in four-car configurations consisting of 2 two-car articulated trains connected together. Passengers are able to freely walk between two cars, but not all four. On the Mark I trains, passengers are unable to move between cars at all without exiting.

Mr. Cheese, have you considered reading the articles you post, before you post them?

Yes I do read the articles before I post.