Expo Line - Surrey Langley Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[Genauso]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Of course not, however I don't think it's unlikely at all. Surrey seems ready to approve pretty much any density on the corridor, and developers will inevitably want to build projects. If the city is smart they will try to get developers to fund public realm enhancements as well.

It depends. Surrey may need to impose development levies to build all the sewers, sidewalks, schools, libraries, parks, community centers to accommodate any additional people in a very concentrated area. Surrey First has kept taxes down for a long time as part of their brand, but a decade into the growth boom there's no more avoiding and delaying the cost of serving residents. Having to increase the number of teachers due to the BCTF winning their court case (Christy Clark said it was her prerogative to apply White-Out to a chunk of the contract she negotiated with them as minister for education) is coming at a very bad time for Surrey in terms of planning and budgeting.

Burnaby as a more mature area has the advantage where newer/younger residents are matched against existing older residents so that a lot of the public infrastructure/amenities is already there and paid for.

It's worth pointing out the nice new CRE building New West City Council built was in the news for needing to find tenants. Build-it-and-they-will-come doesn't always work

[ilikeredheads]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

Has anyone even seen some of the newest LRT renders by the City?
snip

That render is so misleading. They do that to 72nd ave and A LOT of people will be pissed off. Apparently Newton Exchange doesn't exist anymore. You can't just reduce road capacity by half at a major street and expect no negative consequences.

lol removal of left turn lane. I'm sure there won't be congestion at all. /s

We don't live in the 1900s anymore. This project, frankly, is a farce.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

That render is so misleading. They do that to 72nd ave and A LOT of people will be pissed off. Apparently Newton Exchange doesn't exist anymore. You can't just reduce road capacity by half at a major street and expect no negative consequences.

lol removal of left turn lane. I'm sure there won't be congestion at all. /s

We don't live in the 1900s anymore. This project, frankly, is a farce.

The plan was to move the bus loop from 72nd to King George (which removes the slow turn at 72nd). For as long as I can remember it's supposed to move to this field.

This project is a drug induced fantasy on someone's part.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by Sheba

The plan was to move the bus loop from 72nd to King George (which removes the slow turn at 72nd). For as long as I can remember it's supposed to move to this field.

This project is a drug induced fantasy on someone's part.

It might not be your favorite and there are obvious flaws but, come on a "drug induced farce"? It seems most people aren't above just yelling bad and turning away. At present Surrey is fully intending on building this LRT, which well it may be expensive will likely also be a success. You can't pretend that the issues that Surrey faces in terms of traffic etc, aren't experienced on a larger scale in many other cities and corridors where LRT has been implemented. I.e. It might not be what`s best for Surrey in your opinion but, I think it`s unreasonable to think it will be catastrophic or even looked back on as a bad decision.

I've been clear that Id prefer an Expo Line Extension first, but I'm not going to call the LRT plan a joke because it simply isn't. A great lapse in judgement of priorities perhaps but, maybe not even that as Surreys intention with this line is to bring density and people into Surrey Central, not produce an express route through it.

Simply saying that LRT is bad and the plan is bad does nothing to help Surrey and nothing to help our transit, having a discussion about BRT or Skytrain or the cities priorities does...

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

I'd imagine with all the significant redevelopment plans, the road network around Surrey Central will be worked. IMO I'm not particularly worried that we will be losing sidewalk space, much more likely to simply cut down on road space which is something that I would support, especially in the core.

Losing the bike paths isn't a huge loss, TBH. Skytrain is compact enough we could just stop there. Not with LRT.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Losing the bike paths isn't a huge loss, TBH. Skytrain is compact enough we could just stop there. Not with LRT.

Considering our regions aspirations on improving bike infrastructure I might argue losing bike paths IS an important thing regardless of the plan. Considering the footprint and costs of bike paths I can't imagine why we wouldn't try to maintain them.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Considering our regions aspirations on improving bike infrastructure I might argue losing bike paths IS an important thing regardless of the plan. Considering the footprint and costs of bike paths I can't imagine why we wouldn't try to maintain them.

If the alternative is tunneling, the bikes can go on the streets.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by fredinno

If the alternative is tunneling, the bikes can go on the streets.

The concept of bike highways is definitely one I'd be interested in, it will much sooner happen in Vancouver proper imo. I think the ultimate end state for transit is for it to be completely underground, however I can't deny that streets like Spadina Avenue certainly make me appreciate the merits of surface transit in terms of "animating" the street (pardon my inner urban planner).

[memememe76]

Just wanted to say that Surrey does not need to build any more libraries, if this LRT comes to fruition. The Surrey Central, Guildford and Newton branches are already located close to the expected lines. This is, in contrast, to Burnaby's library branches.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

It might not be your favorite and there are obvious flaws but, come on a "drug induced farce"? It seems most people aren't above just yelling bad and turning away. At present Surrey is fully intending on building this LRT, which well it may be expensive will likely also be a success. You can't pretend that the issues that Surrey faces in terms of traffic etc, aren't experienced on a larger scale in many other cities and corridors where LRT has been implemented. I.e. It might not be what`s best for Surrey in your opinion but, I think it`s unreasonable to think it will be catastrophic or even looked back on as a bad decision.

I've been clear that Id prefer an Expo Line Extension first, but I'm not going to call the LRT plan a joke because it simply isn't. A great lapse in judgement of priorities perhaps but, maybe not even that as Surreys intention with this line is to bring density and people into Surrey Central, not produce an express route through it.

Simply saying that LRT is bad and the plan is bad does nothing to help Surrey and nothing to help our transit, having a discussion about BRT or Skytrain or the cities priorities does...

Actually I said 'drug induced fantasy' and ilikeredheads said 'farce'.

You're sounding more and more like a 'Surrey Defence League' member. I've been accused of that before. I grew up in North Delta over by Scottsdale and have lived near Surrey Central and in Newton (and still have family in the latter) - so don't try telling me I have no idea what it's like in Surrey.

This LRT plan is a poorly thought out expensive legacy project that's going to do more harm than good. So yes, I think it's bad and I'm going to continue to say so until something better is presented.

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

It might not be your favorite and there are obvious flaws but, come on a "drug induced farce"? It seems most people aren't above just yelling bad and turning away. At present Surrey is fully intending on building this LRT, which well it may be expensive will likely also be a success. You can't pretend that the issues that Surrey faces in terms of traffic etc, aren't experienced on a larger scale in many other cities and corridors where LRT has been implemented. I.e. It might not be what`s best for Surrey in your opinion but, I think it`s unreasonable to think it will be catastrophic or even looked back on as a bad decision.

I've been clear that Id prefer an Expo Line Extension first, but I'm not going to call the LRT plan a joke because it simply isn't. A great lapse in judgement of priorities perhaps but, maybe not even that as Surreys intention with this line is to bring density and people into Surrey Central, not produce an express route through it.

Simply saying that LRT is bad and the plan is bad does nothing to help Surrey and nothing to help our transit, having a discussion about BRT or Skytrain or the cities priorities does...

You are still missing the point. This project is a nonsensical ploy to appease developers and certain stakeholders. Every single render we've seen of this ridiculous project includes some BS colorful artificial landscape with skyscrapers and minimal traffic.

I will say this again so it can sink in. This project isn't about increasing mass transit ridership or transporting people.

This project will do little to improve reliability and gain ridership. For one, many of those bound for the Expo Line stations will be forced into an additional transfer (the 337, 394 and 501 would be truncated). I don’t live in the area but let’s say I take the 337 from 104th Ave and 156h St. With the LRT extention, I would be forced to get off at Guildford and board the LRT that comes every 10 min just to get to the Station. You may see this as a mere nuisance but it could potentially tack on 15+ min to my commute now.

Daryl has extensively covered this topic but reliability is why I prefer BRT over LRT. 104th Ave is way better off right now with the amount of service TL provides. In fact, most of us here would have no issue if the City came out with a plan tomorrow to upgrade the 96 to a full BRT.

[GMasterAres]

Yah I'd prefer BRT/SkyTrain options myself. SkyTrain down Fraser Highway to Langley, I think that is an 80% for sure thing now, but BRT along the LRT corridor. For one to build true BRT they'd have to largely build the infrastructure needed for LRT and for two it would be a good trial and cheaper interim solution to determine if LRT is really needed.

I honestly think LRT only makes sense if it is a proper loop aka White Rock/South Surrey -> Guildford -> Surrey Central -> Newton -> White Rock/South Surrey. You'd have the Surrey loop LRT then crossing SkyTrain at 2 points (152nd and Fraser Highway + Surrey Central) and it would allow a redistribution of the feeder buses.

Unfortunately it would likely still require a switch for logicbomb though a BRT would anyway because a true BRT would act no different than the LRT, I'm sure they wouldn't duplicate bus service so you'd have to hop off say the 337 then hop on the BRT bus line. But BRT is a good first step to prove the ridership is there.

I think though people just don't like buses in general. I hate them. I'd much rather ride on a train even if it ends up being the same speed as a bus. i don't know why, clearly a psychological thing and not a feeling or opinion based on fact, but it's there, I just don't like buses. Maybe that's why such a push for LRT.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Actually I said 'drug induced fantasy' and ilikeredheads said 'farce'.

You're sounding more and more like a 'Surrey Defence League' member. I've been accused of that before. I grew up in North Delta over by Scottsdale and have lived near Surrey Central and in Newton (and still have family in the latter) - so don't try telling me I have no idea what it's like in Surrey.

This LRT plan is a poorly thought out expensive legacy project that's going to do more harm than good. So yes, I think it's bad and I'm going to continue to say so until something better is presented.

Never said you didn't know what it's like in Surrey, simply said that no discussion that simply consists of us saying the plan is bad alone is going to be productive.

I've never heard of the Surrey defence league tbh, I hate being the increasing trend of identifying people solely by some group. I think building LRT right now is a very dimwitted idea however, I don't think it because I'm clinging to some ideology about what Surrey should be. My mind is open to change.

[xd_1771]

I think though people just don't like buses in general. I hate them. I'd much rather ride on a train even if it ends up being the same speed as a bus. i don't know why, clearly a psychological thing and not a feeling or opinion based on fact, but it's there, I just don't like buses. Maybe that's why such a push for LRT.

I can see the reasons for this but they really have nothing to do with buses inherently being inferior in any way to trams and trains. Rather I see this as a circumstantial result of the bus experience we've had for the past few years. When Surrey rapid transit discussions actually started back in 2011-2012 or so, there was no 96 B-Line, the only air-conditioned buses in our fleet were the Orion Highway Coaches and most of the buses in our region still ran solely on diesel (i.e. fewer hybrids or CNG buses). The fleet was mid-life and years away from any major upgrades. I think we definitely had that "I'm on a bus" feeling whenever we were riding on buses.

But now that we're in 2017, most of the older D40LFs and D60LFs (both the first generation of low floor buses buses to ever be used in this region) are finally being phased out and the replacement buses provide a far superior ride experience. The XDE60s on the 96 B-Line practically feel like smaller trams (I actually find them smoother and quieter than LRT systems I've ridden on in my lifetime... Portland, Calgary, Nagasaki, Hiroshima to name a few). Plus, battery-electric buses are on the horizon (recently demonstrated here in Vancouver) along with a host of other technologies to enhance ride experiences in our cities.

I don't think this "rails are better than buses" attitude is so dominant and there is also plenty of room for it to shift: it's just about showing people what you can make of a bus experience. The renewal of our buses has been a giant step forward, but we could do even more than that. Give the riders real-time displays at all stops (like the ones on Main St), rampless boarding (it is already done in Kelowna on the 97X), proper stations that are distinct and visible and provide ride and wayfinding info (Seattle I-5 BRT, former 98 B-Line...), more exclusive bus lanes (KGB & 88/76), traffic signal priority (former 98 B-Line had it), and a strong, distinct branding... and I'm quite certain that if we can have all these things on a King George Blvd & 104 Ave BRT line, people will absolutely notice that this isn't your usual bus experience and they will be willing to try it out. All of these technologies and ideas already exist. You don't have to invent them - and we could go further if there's any way we can be inventive - you just have to put them all together.

(I also think it will do us all good if this kind of shift is seen throughout the region-wide bus network, not just in Surrey)

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by jhausner

I think though people just don't like buses in general. I hate them. I'd much rather ride on a train even if it ends up being the same speed as a bus. i don't know why, clearly a psychological thing and not a feeling or opinion based on fact, but it's there, I just don't like buses. Maybe that's why such a push for LRT.

I'm pretty indifferent, as long as it takes me from point A to point B. I personally don't like the waiting in traffic and getting tossed around. Could be the idea of slower/local transport=poor people mover vs faster/rapid transit=luxury. If I'm riding a bus, I prefer the newer ones (with an exception of the rare ones with wood interior bits), but I honestly hate the dark livery.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

The concept of bike highways is definitely one I'd be interested in, it will much sooner happen in Vancouver proper imo. I think the ultimate end state for transit is for it to be completely underground, however I can't deny that streets like Spadina Avenue certainly make me appreciate the merits of surface transit in terms of "animating" the street (pardon my inner urban planner).

But then where am I going to place my futuristic elevated monorails if all my rapid transit lines are below ground?

[Reecemartin]

See a lot of people seem to wonder why LRT has moved forward this far and I would argue that it also goes beyond the city of Surrey, the public generally supports it and this article (basically a smear on Skytrain) shows why. http://www.langleytimes.com/opinion/letters/415239024.html

What I would love is just if everyone gave up on caring so much about the tech and just focused on the primary issue which is about the only thing this ridiculous article above got right, how can we move the most people, with the highest level of service, the most rapidly?

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

I can see the reasons for this but they really have nothing to do with buses inherently being inferior in any way to trams and trains. Rather I see this as a circumstantial result of the bus experience we've had for the past few years. When Surrey rapid transit discussions actually started back in 2011-2012 or so, there was no 96 B-Line, the only air-conditioned buses in our fleet were the Orion Highway Coaches and most of the buses in our region still ran solely on diesel (i.e. fewer hybrids or CNG buses). The fleet was mid-life and years away from any major upgrades. I think we definitely had that "I'm on a bus" feeling whenever we were riding on buses.

But now that we're in 2017, most of the older D40LFs and D60LFs (both the first generation of low floor buses buses to ever be used in this region) are finally being phased out and the replacement buses provide a far superior ride experience. The XDE60s on the 96 B-Line practically feel like smaller trams (I actually find them smoother and quieter than LRT systems I've ridden on in my lifetime... Portland, Calgary, Nagasaki, Hiroshima to name a few). Plus, battery-electric buses are on the horizon (recently demonstrated here in Vancouver) along with a host of other technologies to enhance ride experiences in our cities.

I don't think this "rails are better than buses" attitude is so dominant and there is also plenty of room for it to shift: it's just about showing people what you can make of a bus experience. The renewal of our buses has been a giant step forward, but we could do even more than that. Give the riders real-time displays at all stops (like the ones on Main St), rampless boarding (it is already done in Kelowna on the 97X), proper stations that are distinct and visible and provide ride and wayfinding info (Seattle I-5 BRT, former 98 B-Line...), more exclusive bus lanes (KGB & 88/76), traffic signal priority (former 98 B-Line had it), and a strong, distinct branding... and I'm quite certain that if we can have all these things on a King George Blvd & 104 Ave BRT line, people will absolutely notice that this isn't your usual bus experience and they will be willing to try it out. All of these technologies and ideas already exist. You don't have to invent them - and we could go further if there's any way we can be inventive - you just have to put them all together.

(I also think it will do us all good if this kind of shift is seen throughout the region-wide bus network, not just in Surrey)

I'd disagree that our new buses are THAT much better than older ones, I used to take the bus to school every day and I don't remember the riding experience being too much better on the newer buses vs. the old style buses with wood paneling (to be honest the only functional difference for me was that the newer buses have the stop buttons AND cables). I think while buses certainly can be good, the ride quality on rails is always going to come out on top if the rails and vehicles are properly maintained (less swaying, less suspension tilt in curves, less acceleration).

You made a ton of good points nonetheless. The system you describe IS true BRT and it would be a great system for numerous corridors in Metvan. As I've said before my main fear is that we just end up with more B-Lines which are like Diet BRT Lite. I noticed you mentioned things beyond transit priority and lane separation which is so important that I don't think it can be understated. Transit priority and lanes allow the service to be fast, but to truly compete with RT the service also has to be high quality. Distinctive branding helps set the system apart from typical buses, and level boarding brings the system in-line with rail based systems. Perhaps most importantly you mentioned making real investments in stations in terms of displays, wayfinding, and I'm assuming substantial shelters ~ these are key elements which work to bring BRT onto the same level as a service like Skytrain or a well-implemented LRT and with that I assume you would see ALOT more development than with standard bus shelters (which imo would benefit alot from system maps like in Toronto)

I think in the end my final word on Surrey BRT is that we should be aiming for Metro Orange Line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Line_(Los_Angeles_Metro)
rather than Rapid Ride
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RapidRide

(Imo Rapid Ride is what we should aspire B-Lines to be like with signal priority, queue jumps, real time arrival screens, bigger shelters, distinct branding)

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

Has anyone even seen some of the newest LRT renders by the City?

http://www.surrey.ca/images/cos-master/pageImages/LRTVisionConnected.jpg

[casper]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

See a lot of people seem to wonder why LRT has moved forward this far and I would argue that it also goes beyond the city of Surrey, the public generally supports it and this article (basically a smear on Skytrain) shows why. http://www.langleytimes.com/opinion/letters/415239024.html

What I would love is just if everyone gave up on caring so much about the tech and just focused on the primary issue which is about the only thing this ridiculous article above got right, how can we move the most people, with the highest level of service, the most rapidly?

That article is nonsense. Who is going to assume that Transport Canada will refuse a license amendment to increase the number of passengers if there are more stations being added.

Skytrain is not proprietary. There are example in Japan using the same technology.

Canada Line is not mostly elevated it is mostly underground.

.............