Expo Line - Surrey Langley Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction - Page 32

xd_1771 · #**621** Posted **Apr 15, 2011, 6:17 AM**

Looks like 104th would be the victim of some rather serious lane compromise
With the tolled PMB coming in and other things, that is just not acceptable...

Two lanes without right turn lanes is bad enough, try one.... I anticipate it's going to be pretty bad considering the required traffic volume the route has to serve
The Guildford part of the concept seems to keep a safe 2 lanes layout.... perhaps this is just a very very rough concept

The trains themselves though, that significantly worries me. They don't nearly look even close to big enough to be able to handle the "people-moving" capacity.

I'm not even seeing properly sheltered connections to the Guildford Mall itself
This is failure, all over... total inevitable failure

invisibleairwaves · #**622** Posted **Apr 15, 2011, 6:33 AM**

The good news is that, given the rate of transit expansion and public projects in Surrey, we'll probably all be dead and gone before this disaster unfolds.

xd_1771 · #**623** Posted **Apr 15, 2011, 6:54 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by invisibleairwaves

The good news is that, given the rate of transit expansion and public projects in Surrey, we'll probably all be dead and gone before this disaster unfolds.

This
$146 million on transportation a year, my beautiful behind. First of all that really isn't too huge considering how huge this city is and how many roads there are, second of all why aren't we seeing improvements where they are REALLY needed?

Whalleyboy · #**624** Posted **Apr 15, 2011, 7:03 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by xd_1771

Looks like 104th would be the victim of some rather serious lane compromise
With the tolled PMB coming in and other things, that is just not acceptable...

Two lanes without right turn lanes is bad enough, try one.... I anticipate it's going to be pretty bad considering the required traffic volume the route has to serve
The Guildford part of the concept seems to keep a safe 2 lanes layout.... perhaps this is just a very very rough concept

The trains themselves though, that significantly worries me. They don't nearly look even close to big enough to be able to handle the "people-moving" capacity.

I'm not even seeing properly sheltered connections to the Guildford Mall itself
This is failure, all over... total inevitable failure

We need to stop this think about cars first. Its why transit in surrey is so bad

invisibleairwaves · #**625** Posted **Apr 15, 2011, 8:20 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whalleyboy

We need to stop this think about cars first. Its why transit in surrey is so bad

No, it isn't. Not even close. And giving transit a greater role does not mean throwing the baby out with the bathwater and destroying important infrastructure for cars and trucks.

104th is simply too important and busy an artery to turn it into a two-lane road. That's it. There's no two ways about it. It's City Hall's job to plan around that fact, not to ignore it for cheap political points.

Alex Mackinnon · #**626** Posted **Apr 15, 2011, 10:22 AM**

I have to say it seems like you guys are freaking out about nothing. I haven't driven 104th a while, if ever, but just street viewing it; it looks like the city is already assembling a 6 lane + median ROW. I don't see any reason why a 4 lane cross section, with LRT and median or suicide lane would be a problem to assemble.

All the newer developments look like they've been set back from the street to allow this ROW assembly and most of the old developments that hug the street look like blowdowns anyways. Some rezoning coinciding with the LRT development and bingo, right of way assembled with traffic lanes preserved and rail put in place of curb lanes.

Millennium2002 · #**627** Posted **Apr 15, 2011, 12:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by allan_kuan

Not all of the arteries of Surrey are wide... that also seems more like a misconception. =S

Oops... and I didn't specify what arteries I thought were too narrow... and now there's an uproar.

I guess my concern would be trying to fit 6 lanes of traffic and partial-separated LRT on the LRT corridors indicated in the map below (including the Surrey Circle Line):

Rapid Transit in Vancouver V4

(Yes, the map contains the whole of Vancouver. Just look at the South of Fraser portion for the moment though.)

And from satellite views, there doesn't seem to be enough room... at least if you don't factor property acquisition into the mix as it can add some substantial costs to any project.

Now one could say, well what the heck, why not kill a few lanes of traffic to force people onto the routes? Seems logical right? But now that I think of it, have we ever really done that to a place that has gotten rapid transit over the last how many years? Not really. In fact, transit has only added to capacity and has never facilitated a decrease somewhere else in the system. To deviate from this point would constitute a radical and untested experiment at attempting to shift people from other modes by actually forcing them to rather than providing them with any sort of choice at doing so.

In addition, you may wonder, why widen the street when you're adding LRT to the mix? I really mean it when I say that some streets should have more travel lanes than what they have right now, and this is in addition to separate LRT lanes. The goal here is to build out a major artery network that has some redundancy in it. 3 lanes may seem like overkill for the normal daily traffic rush but if you put a car crash somewhere along the route then at least more traffic can bypass it without causing too much of a delay.

idunno · #**628** Posted **Apr 15, 2011, 1:16 PM**

Really cool video! I really hope that is realized in the near future - Whalley looks great!

Zassk · #**629** Posted **Apr 15, 2011, 4:54 PM**

Surely 104th will get some relief from SFPR.... and if not, then surely there are parallel arteries being planned?

LeftCoaster · #**630** Posted **Apr 15, 2011, 5:22 PM**

Thanks for the vid, I noticed that they didnt include the overhead wires in the rendering shots... can't clutter up the video right?

I think this is a great place for LRT, hope this goes ahead.

DKaz · #**631** Posted **Apr 15, 2011, 5:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by xd_1771

The trains themselves though, that significantly worries me. They don't nearly look even close to big enough to be able to handle the "people-moving" capacity.

It's a standard sized street use LRT train that is at least as long as a 2-car MKII train and carry capacity of 200 passengers.

Great concept. I like it.

xd_1771 · #**632** Posted **Apr 15, 2011, 7:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Thanks for the vid, I noticed that they didnt include the overhead wires in the rendering shots... can't clutter up the video right?

I think this is a great place for LRT, hope this goes ahead.

I have asked friends, family, people I know.... many of them agree with me that LRT is a great concept for Surrey but the majority also do not think that LRT is appropriate for the 104th Ave corridor. These are Guildford residents & workers, mind you. Public outcry is very well possible.

tybuilding · #**633** Posted **Apr 15, 2011, 7:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whalleyboy

heres a render video of LRT along 104 ave between guildford and central.
its a pretty cool video since you see a nice render of city hall and the library all there too
http://youtu.be/YZ1t8lNtGaw

Even better video in the links http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdz46hn3Hbc&feature=related - Yay Paul!

paradigm4 · #**634** Posted **Apr 15, 2011, 7:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by tybuilding

Even better video in the links http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdz46hn3Hbc&feature=related - Yay Paul!

Lol that's so old. But its nice to see my plan coming to fruition.

paradigm4 · #**635** Posted **Apr 15, 2011, 7:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by xd_1771

I have asked friends, family, people I know.... many of them agree with me that LRT is a great concept for Surrey but the majority also do not think that LRT is appropriate for the 104th Ave corridor. These are Guildford residents & workers, mind you. Public outcry is very well possible.

Public outcry will not occur. The public will embrace this wholeheartedly, even more so than they already have. There's a consensus, as I've previously said, that LRT is the long term solution for transit in Surrey and the SoF. You want to fight a losing battle, go right ahead.

golog · #**636** Posted **Apr 15, 2011, 8:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by paradigm4

Public outcry will not occur. The public will embrace this wholeheartedly, even more so than they already have. There's a consensus, as I've previously said, that LRT is the long term solution for transit in Surrey and the SoF. You want to fight a losing battle, go right ahead.

I'm guessing you know your stuff about the proposal. Can you give a pitch for why LRT and not buses? Things like costs, capacity, speed/stops/frequency. Would you oppose b-line service to test out LRT lines?

go_leafs_go02 · #**637** Posted **Apr 15, 2011, 8:28 PM**

Buses aren't sexy. Like I know if there was a rail solution rather than a bus solution, I'd take the rail in a heartbeat, while buses just don't do it for me.

That's the case for alot of people. No matter what, buses are seen as the lower income's mode of travel. Rail instantly get seen as middle-class.

VanCvl · #**638** Posted **Apr 15, 2011, 8:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by xd_1771

I have asked friends, family, people I know.... many of them agree with me that LRT is a great concept for Surrey but the majority also do not think that LRT is appropriate for the 104th Ave corridor. These are Guildford residents & workers, mind you. Public outcry is very well possible.

104 is the most appropriate for LRT as is King George and Fraser Highway.

We are looking to change the "streetscape" and change the type of development fronting the street. Watts has it right and is doing the right thing.

cabotp · #**639** Posted **Apr 15, 2011, 8:47 PM**

The thing to remember is even if they put a nice LRT line down 104th or KGB or down Fraser Hwy. Sure those routes are now sexy and more people will generally use them as the train seems to attract more riders.

But it still means the bus service that routes people to those stations would need to be improved. It would be bad to not improve that bus service. Because not everyone can live along those routes. And the vast majority of your riders will need to take the bus to one those those stations.

The system as a whole in Surrey will only be as strong as its weakest link.

golog · #**640** Posted **Apr 15, 2011, 8:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02

Buses aren't sexy. Like I know if there was a rail solution rather than a bus solution, I'd take the rail in a heartbeat, while buses just don't do it for me.

That's the case for alot of people. No matter what, buses are seen as the lower income's mode of travel. Rail instantly get seen as middle-class.

I'm willing to consider that, but only after a breakdown based on costs, performance, etc.

If LRT did cost more than buses, maybe that would afford souping up some buses just as an experiment or thought exercise. TVs, free wifi, double-decker, massaging chairs... who knows

If people prefer $x LRT to $x bus service, then that would make me a supporter. But I don't know that one way or the other.

With all the spending on transit, and HST making manufacturing more attractive in BC, it would be a good idea to form a coherent strategy and use that to insource some manufacturing.