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

[Sheba]

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?

by Malcolm Johnston...

[xd_1771]

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?

Well, I have no qualms with that at all (bolded part) - the whole addiction to having a "light rail" line of any sort here is quite long-running (as in, 10+ years long-running) and it did have grassroots beginnings. In my view that was actually a part of the problem - the groups and individuals that started this push were in my opinion not only relatively uninformed about the realities of actually building and operating a street-level rail system; they grossly exaggerated the cost differences (against SkyTrain expansion) and also undermined the practicality trade-offs of going with on-street rail.

I think it's easy to see the push on the other side (i.e. for SkyTrain + BRT, which is what I've been sort of leading) as a technology-centric thing in itself but it really is not. For example, building SkyTrain means extending an existing system, so it is also about making the best use of what's already there and enabling a seamless regional link between all cities on the line. Bus Rapid Transit has considerable merits in that it takes less time to set up (and you can introduce components gradually, whereas any rail/LRT only works when it is all together), and has the ability to operate both on and off transitway - with the potential that BRT routes extend seamlessly beyond the termini (i.e. from Newton to White Rock, or from Guildford to Coquitlam Centre via the Port Mann Bridge).

(P.S. Malcolm Johnston is one of those long-running LRT advocates and as you can see he is so desperate he will not stop at decking out the 'alternative facts' to fight his battle... hahahaha, Transport Canada operating ticket... illegal to expand capacity.... I LOL'd)

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

(P.S. Malcolm Johnston is one of those long-running LRT advocates and as you can see he is so desperate he will not stop at decking out the 'alternative facts' to fight his battle... hahahaha, Transport Canada operating ticket... illegal to expand capacity.... I LOL'd)

If you want more humour: Member of transit group not impressed with TransLink light rail plans

Johnston believes for the same amount TransLink is spending on LRT plan, there could be a BCIT to UBC light rail line, a tram train from Vancouver to Chilliwack and a new Pattullo Bridge combined with a SkyBridge.

[Migrant_Coconut]

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

Again, that's a Donald Malcolm Johnston op-ed. He's got a hate-boner for everything that isn't light rail.

Langley wants SkyTrain, and so does their mayor.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

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?

This entire argument has been about that issue. There is no way to plan a viable at-grade system down the middle of a busy road, and therefore any attempt to try and make it work is an exercise in futility.

There's nothing wrong with a B-Line along the route. Just bring the current eight-minute frequencies down to three minutes, and you'd have the exact same service as the LRT proposal.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Again, that's a Donald Malcolm Johnston op-ed. He's got a hate-boner for everything that isn't light rail.

Langley wants SkyTrain, and so does their mayor.

So, really, the L may be LRT. The fact Langley wants a Skytrain means it will be a Skytrain line through Surrey whether they want it or not.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Again, that's a Donald Malcolm Johnston op-ed. He's got a hate-boner for everything that isn't light rail.

Langley wants SkyTrain, and so does their mayor.



This entire argument has been about that issue. There is no way to plan a viable at-grade system down the middle of a busy road, and therefore any attempt to try and make it work is an exercise in futility.

There's nothing wrong with a B-Line along the route. Just bring the current eight-minute frequencies down to three minutes, and you'd have the exact same service as the LRT proposal.

There certainly IS a viable way, Toronto operates fine on many routes with zero lane separation (the ones with separated route certainly operate better). The argument that at grade LRT never works is a hard argument to make, and something I don't believe at all. If there is a good argument in my opinion it comes down to cost and integrating with the current system. And we get more total integration with Skytrain and the same with BRT.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Again, that's a Donald Malcolm Johnston op-ed. He's got a hate-boner for everything that isn't light rail.

Langley wants SkyTrain, and so does their mayor.



This entire argument has been about that issue. There is no way to plan a viable at-grade system down the middle of a busy road, and therefore any attempt to try and make it work is an exercise in futility.

There's nothing wrong with a B-Line along the route. Just bring the current eight-minute frequencies down to three minutes, and you'd have the exact same service as the LRT proposal.

B-Lines aren't BRT though, it seems more like a lot of people just don't want rapid transit on this corridor imo lol. If we want proper BRT we need signal priority and separate lanes AND better stations.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

B-Lines aren't BRT though, it seems more like a lot of people just don't want rapid transit on this corridor imo lol. If we want proper BRT we need signal priority and separate lanes AND better stations.

And yet the existing LRT will essentially be a B-Line. Running a tram down the middle of a busy street forces said tram to drive at bus speed, regardless of separate lanes. It also reduces traffic on King George to one lane in each direction and bans left turns, increasing congestion.
That's the Catch-22 of LRT: nobody rides it because it's not fast enough, it's not fast because there's too many drivers, and there's too many drivers because nobody's leaving their vehicles... because the LRT isn't fast enough. To break the cycle, the ROW has to be over the roadway (Expo/Millennium Line), under it (Canada Line) or beside it (Arbutus).

So yes, a proper B-Line - rather than the existing express bus pretending to be one - is an interim solution that solves the problem until grade-separated RRT can be built, or until there's a case for LRT all the way to White Rock. The existing plan is a halfway measure that's great for attracting development, but solves nothing in terms of people-moving. And if we're not offering constructive ideas that would make it work, it's because none exist, save ditching the plan altogether.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

There certainly IS a viable way, Toronto operates fine on many routes with zero lane separation (the ones with separated route certainly operate better).

Well, mostly fine.



The one advantage of a B-Line - buses can switch lanes. If King George was a side arterial like Arbutus, light rail would have a stronger case. But alas, it's a major part of Surrey's traffic grid... so the road needs as many lanes and as few complications as possible, and public transit needs to be either flexible or grade-separated.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

And yet the existing LRT will essentially be a B-Line. Running a tram down the middle of a busy street forces said tram to drive at bus speed, regardless of separate lanes. It also reduces traffic on King George to one lane in each direction and bans left turns, increasing congestion.
That's the Catch-22 of LRT: nobody rides it because it's not fast enough, it's not fast because there's too many drivers, and there's too many drivers because nobody's leaving their vehicles... because the LRT isn't fast enough. To break the cycle, the ROW has to be over the roadway (Expo/Millennium Line), under it (Canada Line) or beside it (Arbutus).

So yes, a proper B-Line - rather than the existing express bus pretending to be one - is an interim solution that solves the problem until grade-separated RRT can be built, or until there's a case for LRT all the way to White Rock. The existing plan is a halfway measure that's great for attracting development, but solves nothing in terms of people-moving. And if we're not offering constructive ideas that would make it work, it's because none exist, save ditching the plan altogether.

It's hard to convince people SoF to ditch their cars with their overall transit service. The majority of routes are north - south with very few connecting east - west routes, plus 30 minute service for most routes and crap evening service.

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

There certainly IS a viable way, Toronto operates fine on many routes with zero lane separation (the ones with separated route certainly operate better). The argument that at grade LRT never works is a hard argument to make, and something I don't believe at all. If there is a good argument in my opinion it comes down to cost and integrating with the current system. And we get more total integration with Skytrain and the same with BRT.

I wouldn't exactly call Toronto's streetcars the best example to follow. For one the key problem with this as an example is that the streetcars provide local transit service and are not servicing any rapid transit role, let alone an express service role. It's also noteworthy that the network is something of a legacy item (the streetcar routes aren't newly built, they've been around for years). You don't see other cities trying to build Toronto or Melbourne-style tram networks brand new, because it just wouldn't make any sense (high costs, lots of disruption to build, etc).

Beyond that I wouldn't exactly call the streetcars a great example for servicing localized needs either. The capacity advantage (Flexity streetcars) is certainly clear, but in terms of the practical transit service that is provided, the streetcars are neither the fastest way to provide service nor are they the most reliable.

In the past few weeks a portion of the busy 501 route in Toronto has been replaced with buses, and riders are citing that the buses and faster and more reliable because of their ability to change lanes and get around obstacles - with some commutes shortened by as much as 25%. The TTC has since decided - a couple days ago in fact - that it will use replacement buses for the remainder of the 501 route, for the entire summer (5 months) rather than continue to utilize streetcars on any portion of the route. Apparently, "it made more sense to replace the streetcars with buses to give our customers a more seamless ride". This will be an interesting exercise, I'm curious as to whether it might spark a discussion there on the continued viability of the streetcar system.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

It's also noteworthy that the network is something of a legacy item (the streetcar routes aren't newly built, they've been around for years).

"Something" of a legacy item? The Toronto streetcars, particularly the downtown routes, are one of the very, very few original 19th century street railway systems that have survived. The only other notable city I can think of off the top of my head where this has happened is San Francisco, although there may be one or two others.

These kinds of systems were originally built when there was virtually no competing car traffic. They're really a complete anachronism compared to any modern system. I love that Toronto still has its streetcars (I grew up riding the old PCC cars) - but it would be crazy to build a new system with that kind of design.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

I wouldn't exactly call Toronto's streetcars the best example to follow. For one the key problem with this as an example is that the streetcars provide local transit service and are not servicing any rapid transit role, let alone an express service role. It's also noteworthy that the network is something of a legacy item (the streetcar routes aren't newly built, they've been around for years). You don't see other cities trying to build Toronto or Melbourne-style tram networks brand new, because it just wouldn't make any sense (high costs, lots of disruption to build, etc).

Beyond that I wouldn't exactly call the streetcars a great example for servicing localized needs either. The capacity advantage (Flexity streetcars) is certainly clear, but in terms of the practical transit service that is provided, the streetcars are neither the fastest way to provide service nor are they the most reliable.

In the past few weeks a portion of the busy 501 route in Toronto has been replaced with buses, and riders are citing that the buses and faster and more reliable because of their ability to change lanes and get around obstacles - with some commutes shortened by as much as 25%. The TTC has since decided - a couple days ago in fact - that it will use replacement buses for the remainder of the 501 route, for the entire summer (5 months) rather than continue to utilize streetcars on any portion of the route. Apparently, "it made more sense to replace the streetcars with buses to give our customers a more seamless ride". This will be an interesting exercise, I'm curious as to whether it might spark a discussion there on the continued viability of the streetcar system.

Again ride quality is a big bonus.

You don't see similar complaints on St. Clair or Spadina where streetcars have a proper row as well, King will be getting one within the next year or so in the central section.

The reason they decided to make the whole line operate as a bus service is just that seamlessness. This summer they are doing major construction on several parts of the 501 and it doesn't make much sense to make people transfer three times, they are also doing overhead upgrades so that they can start using pantos on the new cars rather than trolley poles and that should be pretty cool.

It's been said before and I will say it again, there's vitrually no chance Toronto will stop using streetcars, particularly on King and Queen. Rush hour on both these lines see very frequent service and the streetcars are still packed. The TTC has said itself that having to hire 3 times as many drivers and having buses coming every 40s is not the path they want to go down.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

"Something" of a legacy item? The Toronto streetcars, particularly the downtown routes, are one of the very, very few original 19th century street railway systems that have survived. The only other notable city I can think of off the top of my head where this has happened is San Francisco, although there may be one or two others.

These kinds of systems were originally built when there was virtually no competing car traffic. They're really a complete anachronism compared to any modern system. I love that Toronto still has its streetcars (I grew up riding the old PCC cars) - but it would be crazy to build a new system with that kind of design.

Which is why we will hopefully see more conversions to ROW like Spadina and St. Clair, and Harbourfront. Also good to see some limited signal priority.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Which is why we will hopefully see more conversions to ROW like Spadina and St. Clair, and Harbourfront.

That's a lot easier said than done in the limited road space available in the city core. Not so hard in the suburbs, which are more analogous to the situation in Surrey (to bring this back on topic).

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

That's a lot easier said than done in the limited road space available in the city core. Not so hard in the suburbs, which are more analogous to the situation in Surrey (to bring this back on topic).

Well I certainly would compare Spadina to the burbs, that's definetly core nonetheless I see where you are coming from. I think most people on here agree that ANY of these plans will be better than current service.

One thing of interest to me is whether we will see Guildford further expanded when it is connected with rt? It's gotten alot better in recent years, but it still could be larger imo. Same for Willowbrook mall, it's one of the only malls in the valley so I wonder if It will see a major renovation and expansion beyond what's currently occuring, the mall has a pretty poor selection of stores at present.

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Well I certainly would compare Spadina to the burbs, that's definetly core nonetheless I see where you are coming from. I think most people on here agree that ANY of these plans will be better than current service.

One thing of interest to me is whether we will see Guildford further expanded when it is connected with rt? It's gotten alot better in recent years, but it still could be larger imo. Same for Willowbrook mall, it's one of the only malls in the valley so I wonder if It will see a major renovation and expansion beyond what's currently occuring, the mall has a pretty poor selection of stores at present.

Lots will change for downtown Langley once Skytrain is extended along Fraser Hwy. However, getting it built will be a financial challenge and the public is not ready to throw more money at Translink yet. Also, the UBC line is competing for transit $$ as well. LRT is just a waste of money...

[Reecemartin]

Lrt isn't a waste of money, it's just less cost effective than Skytrain for the service it provides.

[Bdawe]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Lrt isn't a waste of money, it's just less cost effective than Skytrain for the service it provides.

Nah, it's pretty much a waste of money in this case, since it's not terribly *more* effective than the proposed bus service

[casper]

Originally Posted by Bdawe

Nah, it's pretty much a waste of money in this case, since it's not terribly *more* effective than the proposed bus service

That depends on the goal. If the goal is public transit then yes bus are a reasonable alternative.

If the goal is to encourage private developers to build high-rises, Metro Vancouver has a proven track record of "if you build it around a train station buyers will come."

That Surrey municipal council and mayor does not strike me as the group focused on public transit. Now urban development that is another story.