Surrey Langley Skytrain - Expo Line Extension | Proposed - Page 353

SpongeG · #**7041** Posted **Sep 15, 2020, 6:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rpvan

Pattullo bridge too hopefully.

it starts fall 2020, so we should see something going next month

Bdawe · #**7042** Posted **Sep 15, 2020, 4:53 PM**

it's something: Spend billions putting a high frequency automated train system down Fraser Highway with 5 car lanes worth of capacity and you're still going to tear out park space and subsidize competition for it by widening the road.

Migrant_Coconut · #**7043** Posted **Sep 15, 2020, 6:14 PM**

The BRT and LRT options are much the same. With a growing SOF region, there was never going to be a way to keep just two lanes on a major arterial.

Sheba · #**7044** Posted **Sep 15, 2020, 8:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bdawe

it's something: Spend billions putting a high frequency automated train system down Fraser Highway with 5 car lanes worth of capacity and you're still going to tear out park space and subsidize competition for it by widening the road.

This is widening the road only through Green Timbers Park. Fraser Hwy on either side of it is four lanes while through the park it drops to two lanes.

officedweller · #**7045** Posted **Sep 15, 2020, 9:57 PM**

The road widening is also within the existing road allowance.

VancouverOfTheFuture · #**7046** Posted **Sep 15, 2020, 10:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bdawe

it's something: Spend billions putting a high frequency automated train system down Fraser Highway with 5 car lanes worth of capacity and you're still going to tear out park space and subsidize competition for it by widening the road.

they aren't tearing out any park space. its all within the current road right of way.

Express691 · #**7047** Posted **Sep 18, 2020, 9:24 PM**

A third round of public engagement for the Surrey Skytrain project has started today and ends October 4th.

https://buzzer.translink.ca/2020/09/...ic-engagement/

There are renders on the PDF attached:
https://www.surreylangleyskytrain.ca...esentation.pdf

Video presentation is here on this unlisted video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8asa...1tUjQMS68Ce5G4

officedweller · #**7048** Posted **Sep 18, 2020, 10:55 PM**

From the Surrey thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArmoredinRed

New Renderings for Surrey Skytrain Extension - Phase 1. Source: https://www.surreylangleyskytrain.ca...edia-resources

officedweller · #**7049** Posted **Sep 18, 2020, 10:55 PM**

Nice to see a more conventional mezzanine station at 140th compared to earlier "overpass" configurations depicted in a previous rendering. They seemed to have kept the guideway low compared to Brentwood Station.

Also good to see side-of-road stations which are smaller scale, cheaper and user friendly.

152nd Station is typical - like Burquitlam or the No. 3 Rd stations.

The 160th is taller and has a short mezzanine (like Marine Gateway?). I wonder if that's for a future mezzanine connection to an adjacent development to the north. I don't think it's high enough to foot a pedestrian bridge across Fraser Highway.

The 166th Station is also taller and has a centre platform for terminus operations and with no tail track visible, switches to the west.

Dengler Avenue · #**7050** Posted **Sep 18, 2020, 11:59 PM**

Will 320 be short-turned at 152nd Street Station or still Fleetwood (156th Street & 88 Avenue)? I’m guessing maybe the latter as it still needs space to turn around (just like 96 B-Line* east of Guildford Mall)?
Edit: Oops I meant R1.

scryer · #**7051** Posted **Sep 19, 2020, 1:46 AM**

All of these designs look basic - which is exactly what I was hoping for

. There's no need to make these stations into cathedrals; rather they just need to function properly.

madog222 · #**7052** Posted **Sep 19, 2020, 2:13 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Will 320 be short-turned at 152nd Street Station or still Fleetwood (156th Street & 88 Avenue)? I’m guessing maybe the latter as it still needs space to turn around (just like 96 B-Line* east of Guildford Mall)?
Edit: Oops I meant R1.

Here is the proposed changes to the bus routes.

Image from Translink via Dailyhive

Marshal · #**7053** Posted **Sep 19, 2020, 3:24 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by scryer

All of these designs look basic - which is exactly what I was hoping for

. There's no need to make these stations into cathedrals; rather they just need to function properly.

Agreed, though, these are not cheap buildings either. I would use the words reasonable and suitable.

officedweller · #**7054** Posted **Sep 19, 2020, 3:56 AM**

From the Environmental Screening Review report:

https://www.surreylangleyskytrain.ca...-reference.pdf

Dengler Avenue · #**7055** Posted **Sep 19, 2020, 3:59 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by madog222

Here is the proposed changes to the bus routes.

Image from Translink via Dailyhive

Thanks. So the only changes are truncation of 395 and 503, it seems.

I wonder whether it’d be better to take out 395 altogether and beef up 320 between Fleetwood and Langley Centre and 364 (i.e. 20-minute rush-hour frequency).

Also, rerouting 326 and 388 to serve 152nd Street Station would be beneficial too.

Aroundtheworld · #**7056** Posted **Sep 19, 2020, 4:47 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Thanks. So the only changes are truncation of 395 and 503, it seems.

I wonder whether it’d be better to take out 395 altogether and beef up 320 between Fleetwood and Langley Centre and 364 (i.e. 20-minute rush-hour frequency).

Also, rerouting 326 and 388 to serve 152nd Street Station would be beneficial too.

Good points. Why not make it all day frequent? There's probably also an opportunity to simplify the 320's route in Cloverdale to make it more efficient.

Dengler Avenue · #**7057** Posted **Sep 19, 2020, 4:55 AM**

From what I remember, 320 used to go on Highway 10 until 341 (now 342) came along. The current routing through Cloverdale may look dumb, but I think the connection between the now 342 and 320 should be kept so people working in the industrial area by 56 Avenue and the rail tracks can get on the sky train.

As for all-day frequent, I don't know lol. When I rode the 341 to Langley Centre between 1 and 2 pm on a weekday, the bus only had 9 people on board around Cloverdale, but that was back in August 2013. I'm sure ridership from Cloverdale has gone up since.

I'm only hung up on 320 because it's one of those rare routes (besides 502 before 503 came along) where parts of the route are FTN but where the remainder doesn't even have good rush-hour services.

Express691 · #**7058** Posted **Sep 19, 2020, 7:04 AM**

Regarding all the bus talk:

I'm convinced that these are *not* the final bus route services after the extension opens. This is still 6 years down the road and the transit system will have changed at least a couple dozen times by then. The version we are looking at now looks like as if there was not a massive rework of the bus network (as was the case for the Evergreen Extension and similarly, the Canada Line). I think riders should start making suggestions now, though.

That said, notice how the 345 is missing. Another possibility is through service on the 320: service from Surrey to Fleetwood and Fleetwood to Langley but also have Surrey to Langley trips.
Missed oportunity though, for a split of routes 335 and 388.

As said, I still think this could all change.
========================

If you have been paying attention to slide 16 of the 45-page version, there is a brief mention about having washrooms at the stations.

https://www.translink.ca/-/media/758...leqUjwsFaHmCVI

xd_1771 · #**7059** Posted **Sep 19, 2020, 7:40 AM**

I think someone ought to pose the question to the project team during the webinars, but I too think that the route map represents more of a 'base case' in terms of what the routes would look like without any new funding allocated for bus services expansion or a major change in routings (i.e. it is based on today's routings). As an example it would be totally reasonable to eliminate 345 in a 'base case'.

There's plenty of room to change it up between now and opening day. For one, the standard system-wide Transit Network Review will happen 5 times between now and then too, and the 2024-25 editions will almost certainly look at the network between Surrey and Langley.

if I were in charge I would have 320 terminate at 166 St (or my personal idea of running it up 156 St to replace 326). I would also extend 372 to 166 St (if the line is not fully built out to Langley City immediately), and significantly beef up the 375 since there's going to be a gigantic influx of South Surrey riders who switch from KGB to 152 St. These are suggestions you can certainly give to the questionnaire. If anything the map appears to be geared to encourage this kind of input so put your thoughts in detail!

Aroundtheworld · #**7060** Posted **Sep 19, 2020, 6:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by xd_1771

There's plenty of room to change it up between now and opening day. For one, the standard system-wide Transit Network Review will happen 5 times between now and then too, and the 2024-25 editions will almost certainly look at the network between Surrey and Langley.

if I were in charge I would have 320 terminate at 166 St (or my personal idea of running it up 156 St to replace 326). I would also extend 372 to 166 St (if the line is not fully built out to Langley City immediately), and significantly beef up the 375 since there's going to be a gigantic influx of South Surrey riders who switch from KGB to 152 St. These are suggestions you can certainly give to the questionnaire. If anything the map appears to be geared to encourage this kind of input so put your thoughts in detail!

I think these decisions make sense. I don't get why the 320 continues past 166 St. It's going to be slow, infrequent and it overlaps with other frequent and faster routes.