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

[Metro-One]

Japan is what happens when self discipline is still taught, and not all your misbehavior is blamed on someone else.

[Jimbo604]

A private toilet (requiring payment) is outlawed in British Columbia, so that option is lol "down the drain", without amendment, which is very unlikely.

Reference:
PUBLIC TOILET ACT
Section 2 [RSBC 1979] CHAPTER 347
Url: https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/docum...0requires,the%20use%20of%20the%20toilet.

"No payment for use of toilets
2. No owner, occupier or other person having control over a public place or building shall install, or authorize or permit the installation or maintain, in the public institution or building, a toilet that

(a) is contained in a closet, receptacle or compartment; or

(b) is contained in a washroom or restroom

that is locked and requires the deposit of a coin or the payment of money for the use of the toilet.

Historical Note(s): 1975-23-2"

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by Jimbo604

A private toilet (requiring payment) is outlawed in British Columbia, so that option is lol "down the drain", without amendment, which is very unlikely.

Reference:
PUBLIC TOILET ACT
Section 2 [RSBC 1979] CHAPTER 347
Url: https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/docum...0requires,the%20use%20of%20the%20toilet.

"No payment for use of toilets
2. No owner, occupier or other person having control over a public place or building shall install, or authorize or permit the installation or maintain, in the public institution or building, a toilet that

(a) is contained in a closet, receptacle or compartment; or

(b) is contained in a washroom or restroom

that is locked and requires the deposit of a coin or the payment of money for the use of the toilet.

Historical Note(s): 1975-23-2"

But would the fare paid area not be technically considered private? I know that it's publically accessible but you can't ride for free

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

But would the fare paid area not be technically considered private? I know that it's publically accessible but you can't ride for free

If you follow the act to the legal letter, technically you're not paying for the toilet you're paying a transit fare.

Similarly it seems to be perfectly legal to have bathrooms on WCE, bathrooms in Playland, and bathrooms in nightclubs with cover charges.

[RedArbutus]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

But would the fare paid area not be technically considered private? I know that it's publically accessible but you can't ride for free

I don't think that would hold up to a constitutional challenge or BC Human Rights complaint, particularly as they're technically private, but they're still crown corporations and meant for the public en masse. I'd be wary of courting a legal challenge based on what the spirit of "public place or building" means.

On that note, any bathroom at an outdoor exchange (a future addition to the new Phibbs, for example), which has been floated by Translink in the past, would be even harder to defend because it's not behind fare gates and IIRC the only "fare paid zone" is on the vehicles themselves.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by chowhou

If you follow the act to the legal letter, technically you're not paying for the toilet you're paying a transit fare.

Similarly it seems to be perfectly legal to have bathrooms on WCE, bathrooms in Playland, and bathrooms in nightclubs with cover charges.

The Act says

1 In this Act:

"public place or building" means a place or building to which members of the public have access, whether or not an admission fee or charge is required to be paid to obtain access to the place or building, and without limiting this definition includes all of the following:

(a) churches, theatres, auditoriums, amphitheatres, stadiums and other places of assembly or entertainment;

(b) commercial or industrial buildings or structures;

(c) hospitals and nursing institutions;

(d) railway cars, stations and depots;

(e) ferries and ferry landings;

(f) public parks and campsites;

"toilet" means a device used for individual disposal of human waste and excrement, and includes a lavatory, water closet and urinal.

No payment for use of toilets

2 An owner, occupier or other person having control over a public place or building must not install, or authorize or permit the installation or maintain, in the public institution or building, a toilet that is contained in

(a) a closet, receptacle or compartment, or

(b) a washroom or restroom

that is locked and requires the deposit of a coin or the payment of money for the use of the toilet.

[chowhou]

Hence, once you've paid to enter the fare paid zone, the washroom has no lock or additional fee.

[Jimbo604]

Maybe if someone started a "Toilet Membership Club" where you are not paying to use the toilet directly, thus avoiding the definition of the law, but to be a member of the club.

And being a member indirectly grants you access to one of their toilets by way of a club membership card. And being a club those that don't follow the rules could be ejected from the club.

[chowhou]

Reminds me of supper clubs; In order to skirt draconian business and liquor licensing requirements you join a "club" where your "friends" cook for you and you "donate" back to the supper club.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Hence, once you've paid to enter the fare paid zone, the washroom has no lock or additional fee.

Yes, like at the SeaBus terminals.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Jimbo604

Maybe if someone started a "Toilet Membership Club" where you are not paying to use the toilet directly, thus avoiding the definition of the law, but to be a member of the club.

And being a member indirectly grants you access to one of their toilets by way of a club membership card. ...

The Costco of toilets??

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

People in Japan are a lot better behaved

Contrast with China, where the older generation that lived through the deprivation of the cultural revolution routinely steal all the toilet paper, resulting in bathrooms where toilet paper simply isn't provided or there is some sort of control (such as facial recognition scanners) over meting it out.

Originally Posted by Jimbo604

A private toilet (requiring payment) is outlawed in British Columbia, so that option is lol "down the drain", without amendment, which is very unlikely.

That hasn't stopped the public toilets that have been available in the Fare Paid zone of both Seabus terminals ever since they opened in 1977.

Seriously, it's not an issue.

[Jimbo604]

Src: article mentioned

In actual Surrey Langley Skytrain news, DailyHive has a new article detailing new information from the province:

New design renderings of the eight stations on Surrey-Langley SkyTrain
Kenneth Chan| Jun 20 2024, 5:20 pm
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/surrey-langley-skytrain-station-designs-renderings-concepts

Summary:
- BC Gov releases new more detailed station renderings of the 8 stations on 16km line
- Each station has a staircase, elevator and both up and down escalators
- Seven with side platforms, end of line Langley City Centre has center platform
- Seven stations have secure bike space and retail before the fare gates (not enough room at Green Timbers station)
- 152nd station has pedestrian overpass across 152nd
- "Three stations — Bakerview-166 Street, Willowbrook, and Langley City Centre - will include major bus exchanges, with the bus exchange for Langley City Centre being the largest."
- "Major construction work on the Surrey-Langley SkyTrain extension will begin later in 2024 for completion and opening in late 2028" Supposedly.

[RedArbutus]

Originally Posted by Jimbo604

Maybe if someone started a "Toilet Membership Club" where you are not paying to use the toilet directly, thus avoiding the definition of the law, but to be a member of the club.

And being a member indirectly grants you access to one of their toilets by way of a club membership card. And being a club those that don't follow the rules could be ejected from the club.

Kind of like how farmers get around it being illegal to sell raw milk in Canada by selling club memberships where you buy shares in a cow and reap the dividends

[scryer]

I'm glad that the design for the Langley Centre Skytrain station is not only an island platform, but will have two tracks.

Despite how you may feel about extending the Expo line further beyond Langley Centre, it's nice to see the Expo line learn the lessons from mistakes made in the past. At least we're now not shooting ourselves in the foot 100 years out.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by scryer

I'm glad that the design for the Langley Centre Skytrain station is not only an island platform, but will have two tracks.

Despite how may feel about extending the Expo line further beyond Langley Centre, it's nice to see the Expo line learn the lessons from mistakes made in the past. At least we're now not shooting ourselves in the foot 100 years out.

I'm sure 30 years ago extending the Expo Line to Langley would have sounded just as ridiculous as extending it further East does now. I'm also glad to see we're leaving doors open instead of shutting them preemptively ala the Canada Line. Although I think it was clear with the Evergreen Extension too that we learned from our Canada Line mistakes. Here's hoping we see the same thinking going forward with the UBCx and North Shore lines.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Hence, once you've paid to enter the fare paid zone, the washroom has no lock or additional fee.

In addition, if you tap in, use the washroom, then tap out quickly enough (seven minutes? nine minutes?) you won't get charged.

[BaddieB]

Originally Posted by scryer

I'm glad that the design for the Langley Centre Skytrain station is not only an island platform, but will have two tracks.

Despite how may feel about extending the Expo line further beyond Langley Centre, it's nice to see the Expo line learn the lessons from mistakes made in the past. At least we're now not shooting ourselves in the foot 100 years out.

I feel like a new Skytrain line from Langley Centre to Carvolth down 200 would make more sense than going further into to Langley (not that we shouldn't two track it though). The Willoughby/Carvolth area is planned to be really dense over a large area, around 90 to 250 people per ha, which is akin to the Broadway area today (just without the jobs). There's even several highrises going up too (Jericho, Latimer Heights). The benefit of building a Skytrain SoF is there are very large stroads which provide a good ROW for Skytrain, as opposed to in the Burrard Peninsula. A 6km skytrain on 200 would be about $1.5B (or cheaper, construction costs have fallen).

Sounds ridiculous now, but Langley will be an unusually dense place in two decades.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by scryer

I'm glad that the design for the Langley Centre Skytrain station is not only an island platform, but will have two tracks.

Despite how may feel about extending the Expo line further beyond Langley Centre, it's nice to see the Expo line learn the lessons from mistakes made in the past. At least we're now not shooting ourselves in the foot 100 years out.

Originally Posted by mcj

I'm also glad to see we're leaving doors open instead of shutting them preemptively ala the Canada Line. Although I think it was clear with the Evergreen Extension too that we learned from our Canada Line mistakes.

The Canada Line being (stupidly) single tracked at the terminus station was all about appeasing Richmond, who wanted on-ground LRT and not 'ugly' elevated tracks. Of course that now makes it more costly to extend the line further into Richmond and I think the rest of the cities in Metro Van don't want to repeat that mistake.

Hopefully more info comes out soon about how people are going to access these washrooms. I seem to rem something about adding washrooms to select stations on the rest of the Expo Line and yet since then there's been silence on it.

I'm disappointed there aren't any mini bus loops (along the lines of what's at Burquitlam Station) at a few more stations. I hope that doesn't end up being a problem in the future.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by Sheba

I'm disappointed there aren't any mini bus loops (along the lines of what's at Burquitlam Station) at a few more stations. I hope that doesn't end up being a problem in the future.

140th Street is too close to King George to justify a dedicated bus loop, as it won't see much service.

152nd Street is on a major bus corridor but doesn't make much sense as a terminus, which is why it's good to see the pedestrian overpass as that makes 152nd Street itself into a major bus stop and will capture the service well there.

Fleetwood Centre is on 160th Street that would really only justify a route to Fraser Heights, and is otherwise covered by the loop nearby at 166th Street.

184th Street would make sense IMO.

Clayton Centre maybe too, but it's likely mostly covered by Willowbrook.