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

[nname]

Originally Posted by Whalleyboy

see this is why i think surrey could work well with a LRT. Surrey isnt need skytrain numbers of moving people. Plus the fact stands using LRT there is alot more options out there to where you get your cars from where skytrain we've been stuck with just one company. It would also create some jobs SoF with creating an OMC and all the drivers for the trains.

There is my one though if they make the line between guidlford and central first. Where would they keep the cars

Well, if SkyTrain expand further into Surrey, then most likely it would have an OMC in Surrey, which would most likely run the entire Expo Line instead of just the Surrey portion. In this case, there would be even more jobs created SoF.

[Whalleyboy]

I highly doubt translin would set the main omc for expo line in surrey. there all about NoF. But same can be said with LRT since the OMC would also be in surrey. Plus it would have drivers what mean more employment

[invisibleairwaves]

Originally Posted by Whalleyboy

I highly doubt translin would set the main omc for expo line in surrey. there all about NoF. But same can be said with LRT since the OMC would also be in surrey. Plus it would have drivers what mean more employment

Having drivers also means much higher operating costs and makes it more difficult and expensive to expand capacity. In the long term, it really starts to work against the "LRT is cheaper" argument. And let's not forget the union issues...

Seriously, we're spoiled in Vancouver with our driverless trains. It's a huge advantage of the Skytrain system.

[nname]

Originally Posted by Whalleyboy

I highly doubt translin would set the main omc for expo line in surrey. there all about NoF. But same can be said with LRT since the OMC would also be in surrey. Plus it would have drivers what mean more employment

Its not because NoF or SoF issue.. its because the land is cheaper in Surrey especially when the line is going away from the Surrey Central area.. Plus, it is more logical to have the OMC located near the end of line away from downtown as it is the place where first train starts in the morning and last train ends at night. The existing OMC can be used to serve the Millennium/Evergreen/UBC lines, as I doubt they will build an OMC in the Broadway area nor increase the size of the proposed Coquitlam OMC...

And remember, the headquarter for Coast Mountain Bus Company IS located in Surrey...

[twoNeurons]

1. Anchor points:

MAKE THEM. Translink has already started to buy land in Newton. With the right zoning, you build hubs, or you sell the land to developers who will do it for you.

In addition, Guildford is a suitable anchor point, just as Metrotown Anchors the Skytrain. Sure, it's in the middle of the line, but really, SkyTrain COULD terminate there from either direction.

If you want to create these anchor points, BRT will not work. Developers just don't like the risk involved in creating high-density hubs for a transportation method that is not concrete. In short, no one advertises how close their high-rise is to a bus stop, but they WILL advertise how close it is to a rail line (Note, even if they're not near a station, but only close the the "line" itself)

2. 104th Width

Not a problem to narrow this road. On an LRT road, you typically want calmer slower traffic. It's currently used as major road, but that can be altered. A lot of traffic from #1 could be diverted to 154th/Guildford Dr. to 108th. Surrey. Locals would use a widened 100th.

3. Building from the bottom

If nothing else, SkyTrain has proven that you have to build the engine before you build the car. SkyTrain would NOT be nothing without the B-Lines but it WOULD be nothing without the feeder buses. These buses are already running Surrey and would feed LRT quite well.


4. Routing

You need to connect Newton, Surrey Central and Guildford. SkyTrain can [realistically] only go on of these ways.

Both financially and physically, a SkyTrain extension would only be 1/2 of what Surrey needs, likely at 2x the cost.

5. Psychological

People just don't like buses... saying that, people WILL take a bus, many of them for the first time ever, if it is a short 4-5 ride to the station. Myself included. Buses are scary. If you get on the wrong one, it might turn at some street and then you end up somewhere you didn't intend to go. While properly branded BRT DOES accomplish this in a similar way as LRT, it still doesn't have the same cachet and permanence as Rail does.

[xd_1771]

A lot of traffic from #1 could be diverted to 154th/Guildford Dr. to 108th.

Have you ever seen that road?
Huge disaster in the 104th direction esp. with that left turn, now imagine that having to cope with the entire load of 104th Avenue as well
You'd have to upgrade that intersection to include proper right turn lanes, a dual left turn lane, and the majority of 108th would probably have to be upgraded as well with ctr. turn lanes/left turn lanes.... the only thing that'd result is a lot of NIMBYs esp. with schools along 108th area. 108th goes by a lot of homes.
Four laning 100th probably wouldn't do much, as the 2-lane 100th is quite fast enough as it is without 4-laning and the big uphill slope would be a problem for anyone bigger than a transit bus.

people WILL take a bus, many of them for the first time ever, if it is a short 4-5 ride to the station

Hence why we need that express bus first and foremost. I've ridden the C74 a lot during non-peak hours, takes no more than 10 minutes between the two centres. A properly branded BRT will accomplish that, it will be noticed above other buses and probably won't result in people getting lost and/or taking the wrong bus or whatever.

no one advertises how close their high-rise is to a bus stop, but they WILL advertise how close it is to a rail line

That is definitely their problem and the people's problem then. We need to change that, there is potential for BRT in the right place and with the right cause to spur development.... for people, incl. companies & advertisers, to not realize that, IMO would actually be pretty stupid. Excuses, excuses, excuses.

We should put into perspective how many Skytrain lines have been put near or over respective roads. Put this into perspective: Expo Line/Kingsway, Millenium Line/Lougheed, and Canada Line/Cambie.

• Is the ridership there? Yes. Very.
• Is the traffic there too? Yes.
• Does the traffic move pretty well? Most of the time, yes.
• Is the proper capacity there? Yes.
• Did the traffic there ever suffer from chronic congestion before? No.
• Does the traffic there ever suffer from chronic congestion now? Most of the time no.
• Was the route compromised in any way where a non-straight route would have to replace a straight one? No.
• Has even Vancouver ever done such a thing? No.
• Does the road in question serve more than just local traffic? Yes, yes and yes.
• Would the exact same thing apply in Surrey on roads such as 104th & King George Highway? Yes.
• Are people able to go where they need to go on those 3 corridors, whether via transit, car, cycling, or walk, in good time? Yes.

[SFUVancouver]

I think that countless cities like Surrey, which have grown around and been designed for automobile use, are faced with a serious conundrum when it comes time to start considering transit improvements.

When buildings, blocks, neighbourhoods, and the whole city are designed to complement the strengths of minimize the weaknesses of automobiles over all other forms of mobility it produces an urban landscape that is widely spaced out and, thus, too inconvenient for people to travel around by other modes of transportation. Inconvenience leads to low rates of use, which is in turn used as evidence that automobile-oriented planning is all that is required to meet the needs of the super majority.

We all know that vehicles excel at carrying passengers in comfort at high speeds over long distances. The inertia and control characteristics of vehicles leads to a design of roads, blocks, and intersections that prioritizes the unimpeded movement of the vehicle at speed over the safety and general experience of people walking and on bicycles.

The car-oriented urban landscape reflects that people cannot read numerous small signs or appreciate fine architectural detail while driving. As a result a language of large signage, simple shapes, and plain, repetitive, and often cartoonish architecture has emerged. Visible parking is typically located close to the street for the convenience of people driving and an overriding expectation of arrival by car leads to a host of architectural and site planning decisions that often ignore completely the experience, or existence, of people arriving by other modes of travel. Distances between buildings on a street grow due to parking lots and since the purpose of streets is viewed almost solely as a tool for transporting vehicles to the parking lots, the result is that many buildings do not even bother facing the street at all, and instead face inwards to the parking lots and present their loading docks, garbage bins, transformers, razer wire fences and pitiful attempts at landscaping to the street.

The land-use planning of automobile-oriented cities and neighbourhoods emphasizes the separation of uses and this is possible to achieve because of the expectation that nearly everyone will travel by motor vehicle. Based on this assumption it is not unreasonable to expect that people will have no reluctance to travel anywhere between hundreds of meters and tens of kilometres over relatively short periods of time between their homes, workplaces, errands, school, and recreation. Of course the assumption is based on the expectation of free-flowing vehicles moving at speed over a comprehensive road network.

When the roads get congested with everyone driving from point A to Z, and everywhere in between, the ability to conveniently travel between these points in a reasonable amount of time begins to erode. The road network is viewed as the problem, not group behaviour and land-use. Expansion of the road network temporarily alleviates the problem and increases the accessibility of all places along it but this increased accessibility then encourages more road use and more development, which further spurs demand for the roads. As congestion increases mobility decreases and the bedrock assumption, the inherent contract of this form of land-use planning and development, which is that one can get to where they want to go quickly and easily by vehicle simply cannot possibly be maintained. In that environment any move to reallocate road space, truncate access, or introduce new road users is vociferously fought.

It all comes back to the core assumption that the super-majority will travel by motor vehicle. From that flows an incalculable number of policies, cultural norms, built forms, and rules.

Surrey may well have an average density as Calgary, I don't know if this is true and haven't checked, but the two cities are very different. The most salient of these difference is that Calgary is an entire city complete with inner and outer suburbs and a large and growing downtown core that has a dense concentration of jobs and a policy of limited high-cost parking. Decades ago Calgary identified numerous off-street LRT corridors and preserved them through zoning. Over time these have been built out at relatively low cost with the majority of the capital budget going into large suburban park and ride stations and grade separated bridges to loft the trains over roads and a tunnel to do the same. Now with the West LRT expansion well under way Calgary is finding that the cost of building grade separated LRT is much greater when it requires tunnels and viaducts little different than those used on the Canada Line. So much of the success of Calgary's C-Train is that the trip is reliable and quick due to there being so few at-grade crossings and so many reserved right of ways.

If Surrey and Translink were to pursue an LRT network south of the Fraser it will likely look a lot more like Portland's MAX Yellow/Expo line. That line runs down the centre median of a major street comparable to 152 and the trade off is that the road itself has one lane of travel in each direction, down from two lanes with additional on-street parking prior to the MAX line.

From personal experience I can say that the corridor is pleasant to use as a transit rider, the trains are somewhat frequent with headways that range from about 7 minutes during rush hour to 30 minutes late at night. The frequency barely felt like rapid transit, let alone what we are used to with SkyTrain and 30 minute frequency is appalling. The stations are narrow but well appointed and you feel safe with burly barriers between you and the road lanes. The trains also have near absolute signal priority and that helps keep the trains moving, though their top speeds feel like a bus moving well with traffic rather than SkyTrain which manages much high speeds due to total grade separation. With that said, the station spacing felt about right and was much wider than what a local bus would offer, plus the street itself runs through mature residential neighbourhoods with commercial nodes throughout. Because of that the LRT is able to benefit from passengers who are able to walk with ease to the nearest station and the road speeds with only a single lane also make the street very pedestrian friendly. The blocks felt comparable in length to the City of Vancouver as opposed to those in Surrey which typically has blocks that are three to four times longer than Vancouver', and most of those do not have controlled intersections with traffic lights and pedestrian control.

With further prioritization of pedestrians at intersections, construction of sidewalks throughout the major road network and side streets, and the introduction of countless mid-block signalized pedestrian crossings will all help make Surrey the sort the place where people are able to walk to and from their homes, local bus stops, LRT stations, and their destinations. This will be absolutely essential for transit to be accessible enough to attract higher levels of ridership and to make the investment in an LRT, and likely BRT, network be a financially attractive alternative to the status quo of conventional bus routes.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

Have you ever seen that road?
Huge disaster in the 104th direction esp. with that left turn, now imagine that having to cope with the entire load of 104th Avenue as well
You'd have to upgrade that intersection to include proper right turn lanes, a dual left turn lane, and the majority of 108th would probably have to be upgraded as well with ctr. turn lanes/left turn lanes.... the only thing that'd result is a lot of NIMBYs esp. with schools along 108th area. 108th goes by a lot of homes.

If you're trying to replace all capacity, sure. However, you're not really trying to encourage drivers from Chilliwack to Langley to use 104th as their bypass, are you? If anything, you want to make it less convenient so the Patullo remains a local-use bridge. If it were me, I'd charge a modest toll the Patullo for all vehicles not registered in New Westminster or Surrey. Even a $1 toll would dissuade people from going out of their way to avoid the Port Mann.

Four laning 100th probably wouldn't do much, as the 2-lane 100th is quite fast enough as it is without 4-laning and the big uphill slope would be a problem for anyone bigger than a transit bus.

100th is a local use road. 4 lanes is probably not necessary anyhow. It's a quick road and mostly is for internal traffic. Really, considering there are two fairly decent arterials flanking 104th, I think you will find that IF traffic gets bad, locals will simply adjust and use the less utilized 108th and 100th.

Hence why we need that express bus first and foremost. I've ridden the C74 a lot during non-peak hours, takes no more than 10 minutes between the two centres. A properly branded BRT will accomplish that, it will be noticed above other buses and probably won't result in people getting lost and/or taking the wrong bus or whatever.

You seem to be arguing FOR BRT as a precursor to RRT. Unfortunately, if there's enough ridership right now for RRT then BRT is a waste. If there's not enough ridership yet, LRT will better accomplish the goal of building high density nodes for any RRT that is needed in the future.

The Tri-cities has had a B-Line for a while, and it's branded well. However, the density in the Tri-cities is because the cities were (are) expecting trains. At first it was LRT, and now it's back to the original plan, RRT (which keeps it on par with with what Surrey and Richmond got)

That is definitely their problem and the people's problem then. We need to change that, there is potential for BRT in the right place and with the right cause to spur development.... for people, incl. companies & advertisers, to not realize that, IMO would actually be pretty stupid. Excuses, excuses, excuses.

99 B-Line stops aren't promoted. Even in Vancouver, where transit ridership is much higher. I hate to sound negative, but you aren't going to change this perception. In addition, most of these perceptions are based on reality. Buses travel with traffic. To many, riding the bus is like having someone drive your car for you except that not only does it stop at every light, it stops in between as well. Oh, and you don't get to choose when you get to leave and you pay for the privilege.

Travelling on rail in its own ROW is plain and simply more elegant and desirable. The first time the train passes a line of cars waiting at a stop light, everything seems worth it.

There aren't many bus-only choice riders.

We should put into perspective how many Skytrain lines have been put near or over respective roads. Put this into perspective: Expo Line/Kingsway, Millenium Line/Lougheed, and Canada Line/Cambie.

The EXPO Line was primarily built along an old BCER ROW, not over Kingsway. It does cross Kingsway, though.

M-Line was indeed built over a highway.

Blocks on Cambie are shorter and there are multiple stops, including VGH, QE Park, BC Woman's, Cambie Village along the way. Not to mention almost every East-West Bus crosses the line.

• Has even Vancouver ever done such a thing? No.
• Does the road in question serve more than just local traffic? Yes, yes and yes.

Vancouver actually has removed capacity from vehicles in the past. HOV Lanes for buses, Dunsmuir viaduct for bicycles, Hornby for bikes, Granville St. for Buses, Burrard St. for bicycles.

Although controversial at the time, these have been largely successful, even though Vancouver faces a lot more inflow and outflow of people in an average day.

At the end of the day, beautifying 104th will not have the negative effect that is imagined by detractors.

In fact, with the coming tolling of the Port Mann, inconveniencing cross-town toll skippers from out of Surrey vehicles should be considered an advantage.

[xd_1771]

Vancouver actually has removed capacity from vehicles in the past.

Not this ridiculously
Narrowing one of the busiest traffic corridors in Surrey to one lane in each direction is by no means a good idea no matter how many automobiles are going to use it in the end. The concept of heavy traffic plaguing a 2-lane 104th is going to completely negate the "beauty" of the entire route. Think of it: an ugly long line of cars in both directions the entire way.
Where do you see a major Vancouver corridor that is one lane in direction or was purposely reduced as such? No, you see a minimum of 2 lanes, sometimes 3, on those corridors.

Unfortunately, if there's enough ridership right now for RRT then BRT is a waste.

The problem about constructing a full LRT or RRT right now is that it is too risky. There are too many important infrastructure projects happening in the Guildford area and as a result we don't have any accurate traffic models. I wouldn't build a permanent solution based on predictions.

If Surrey and Translink were to pursue an LRT network south of the Fraser it will likely look a lot more like Portland's MAX Yellow/Expo line.

The thing about Portland is that it's very different. They don't rely on 60km/h arterial roads to move people. They still have a proper highway and freeway system in place. Surrey's proper highway and freeway system pretty much consists of King George, 104th, Highway 15th and those other routes. These routes CAN'T be compromised. Where Portland reduced their 2 lane roads to 1 lane in each direction, the roads weren't extremely busy or had extremely important use and connection.

7 minutes during rush hour

Would not be a suitable enough improvement. At rush hour you see 8 different routes running anywhere from 10 minutes apart to 30 minutes apart, all crowded up. If most or all single routes were to become cut off by this replacement, it wouldn't work. 8 routes of 110% capacity bus traffic even on those buses that run every 10 minutes, cannot fit in 1 LRT train running every 7 minutes.

the street itself runs through mature residential neighbourhoods with commercial nodes throughout.

There is a massive abandoned building on 104th. You call that mature? There's not much development on that route right now. Even if there wll be, there is one point we can prove from this: at the moment there's really nearly nobody wanting to go in between. That will not change; though LRT may allow some interesting points in between, there will still be a lot of people not intending to go there. Most everyone is travelling between two specific points that are either at or beyond Whalley & Guildford.

the introduction of countless mid-block signalized pedestrian crossings

The structure of Surrey is different from Vancouver; a lot of the city doesn't operate under a grid system and it is not nearly as dense; therefore it is much more easily possible to channelize pedestrians to use certain crossings and routes in a way that wouldn't affect walking commute. "Countless" is a big stretch.

--------

I am already getting feedback on numerous other communities from a lot of people - actual Guildford and Whalley residents - who are dissatisfied with this:

---

---

---

---
Another friend does not support the LRT, instead he would prefer if a cheaper BRT were set up, and then the extra money go towards the supposed Interurban Line to Chiliwack. But unfortunately, I don't have that one screenshotted.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

Not this ridiculously
Narrowing one of the busiest traffic corridors in Surrey to one lane in each direction is by no means a good idea no matter how many automobiles are going to use it in the end. The concept of heavy traffic plaguing a 2-lane 104th is going to completely negate the "beauty" of the entire route. Think of it: an ugly long line of cars in both directions the entire way.

I agree that it sounds ridiculous at first glance, but in reality, traffic would disperse to other arterials if 104th was congested. you won't get a huge line of cars on arterial roads like that. Those kind of things happen on highways because there are few escape paths.

Besides, again I reiterate, since a major concern of yours was the increased traffic from other jurisdictions cutting across to use the Patullo instead of the Port Mann, do you not want to discourage this behavior?

Where do you see a major Vancouver corridor that is one lane in direction or was purposely reduced as such? No, you see a minimum of 2 lanes, sometimes 3, on those corridors.

Of course you can't directly compare. Vancouver and Surrey are two very different cities. Surrey's block sizes are larger and more suited to Light Rail. Development is not as dense and the system is very road friendly. I was merely stating that reducing vehicular traffic has been done in the area and to good effect. It is not without precedent here and in other cities around the world.

The problem about constructing a full LRT or RRT right now is that it is too risky. There are too many important infrastructure projects happening in the Guildford area and as a result we don't have any accurate traffic models. I wouldn't build a permanent solution based on predictions.

That's WHY it's a good idea to build now. Build rail first and then build infrastructure around it. It's MUCH harder to do it the other way around. Unless I don't understand what you mean by risky.

The thing about Portland is that it's very different. They don't rely on 60km/h arterial roads to move people. They still have a proper highway and freeway system in place. Surrey's proper highway and freeway system pretty much consists of King George, 104th, Highway 15th and those other routes. These routes CAN'T be compromised. Where Portland reduced their 2 lane roads to 1 lane in each direction, the roads weren't extremely busy or had extremely important use and connection.

But the end result was positive. Portland doesn't want traffic in its downtown core and as a result it became more livable. Highways shouldn't be used for inter-city transport. To put it another way, Surrey doesn't need to to "have" a highway for intercity movement, it should be served by them for intercity travel.

I question 104th being extremely important. Quick to use superlative, but I haven't really seen much evidence to back up the claim that 104th is an important vehicular corridor. I agree that it's an extremely important corridor for people... and that's why it's probably the best route for Light Rail transit, but I don't see how other parallel roads can't absorb the extra load. What makes 104th so special?

Granville Mall was an extremely important road downtown and they completely closed it to cars. I realize that it's a completely different scenario, but

Cambie is an important boulevard and yet the city still functioned while it was under construction for an extended period while the Canada Line was being constructed. I'd argue that it was even MORE disruptive than LRT would be on Surrey.

Why is it so important that other more suitable (adjacent) roads can't serve the same purpose?

Would not be a suitable enough improvement. At rush hour you see 8 different routes running anywhere from 10 minutes apart to 30 minutes apart, all crowded up. If most or all single routes were to become cut off by this replacement, it wouldn't work. 8 routes of 110% capacity bus traffic even on those buses that run every 10 minutes, cannot fit in 1 LRT train running every 7 minutes.

Who is saying anything about cutting bus service? If anything, bus service has to be increased to handle the increased demand for rail. If, as you say, LRT wouldn't be able to handle the load, then how can the BRT do it?

If I may be frank, it seems that you really, really want RRT for Surrey, but realize that it's somewhat of a pipe dream due to costs and are afraid that if LRT is ever implemented RRT's chances would greatly diminish.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

Interestingly, your friend mentioned that taking the bus along 104th to Surrey Central was hellish... not because it was a bus, but because it was stuck in traffic and he was stuck in a hot sweaty bus with sticky people.

Light Rail wouldn't have those problems. I'm sure your friend would have a completely different opinion if he were in the train passing cars on the way to Surrey Central. In fact, I'd hazard a guess that he'd still be taking the train now.

[Whalleyboy]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

I agree that it sounds ridiculous at first glance, but in reality, traffic would disperse to other arterials if 104th was congested. you won't get a huge line of cars on arterial roads like that. Those kind of things happen on highways because there are few escape paths.

Besides, again I reiterate, since a major concern of yours was the increased traffic from other jurisdictions cutting across to use the Patullo instead of the Port Mann, do you not want to discourage this behavior?


Of course you can't directly compare. Vancouver and Surrey are two very different cities. Surrey's block sizes are larger and more suited to Light Rail. Development is not as dense and the system is very road friendly. I was merely stating that reducing vehicular traffic has been done in the area and to good effect. It is not without precedent here and in other cities around the world.


That's WHY it's a good idea to build now. Build rail first and then build infrastructure around it. It's MUCH harder to do it the other way around. Unless I don't understand what you mean by risky.

But the end result was positive. Portland doesn't want traffic in its downtown core and as a result it became more livable. Highways shouldn't be used for inter-city transport. To put it another way, Surrey doesn't need to to "have" a highway for intercity movement, it should be served by them for intercity travel.

I question 104th being extremely important. Quick to use superlative, but I haven't really seen much evidence to back up the claim that 104th is an important vehicular corridor. I agree that it's an extremely important corridor for people... and that's why it's probably the best route for Light Rail transit, but I don't see how other parallel roads can't absorb the extra load. What makes 104th so special?

Granville Mall was an extremely important road downtown and they completely closed it to cars. I realize that it's a completely different scenario, but

Cambie is an important boulevard and yet the city still functioned while it was under construction for an extended period while the Canada Line was being constructed. I'd argue that it was even MORE disruptive than LRT would be on Surrey.

Why is it so important that other more suitable (adjacent) roads can't serve the same purpose?


Who is saying anything about cutting bus service? If anything, bus service has to be increased to handle the increased demand for rail. If, as you say, LRT wouldn't be able to handle the load, then how can the BRT do it?

If I may be frank, it seems that you really, really want RRT for Surrey, but realize that it's somewhat of a pipe dream due to costs and are afraid that if LRT is ever implemented RRT's chances would greatly diminish.

I was think this might be his reason to be so afraid of LRT. Well I can't deny it would be simply amazing if we could have skytrain all over the fact stands we just can't. I would love to skytrains out to guildford langley white rock etc but it just stands to be way to much in price.

LRT is cheaper and quicker to get and just plan more realistic to what we likely will get. Plus the fact that 104 ave is the most direct route between central and guilford so it has to be used for whatever we get. Plus it holds a node between the to that can use the LRT route to grow and get better. we can't push it to another road since the others just wont work
(also the whole empty building along 104ave Its that way cause the rich idiot who owns it doesnt want to do anything with it. The area is growing just look at whats come around there recently. A huge superstore a nice little 6 story apartment building, a brand new market store is being built there, Just down 148 is a complex building and down 146 there a huge complex being built there soon)

But anyways who knows for sure whats gonna happen in the end anyway maybe surrey will in still find away to get 4 lane and LRT between guildford and central. Maybe we will get skytrain even more. Maybe this video was just a point on how to do get way better transit faster and cheaper and soon rather then later waiting for money for skytrain.

Everyone can keep trying to say exactly whats gonna happen but in the end we never know till we try. But fact is people learn to adapt its just in our nature. So this is why i think we'd be fine with this.

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Interestingly, your friend mentioned that taking the bus along 104th to Surrey Central was hellish... not because it was a bus, but because it was stuck in traffic and he was stuck in a hot sweaty bus with sticky people.

Light Rail wouldn't have those problems. I'm sure your friend would have a completely different opinion if he were in the train passing cars on the way to Surrey Central. In fact, I'd hazard a guess that he'd still be taking the train now.

Light rail wouldn't go the whole way.... unless they even considered 1-laning the section to Highway 1 as well, we all know that wouldn't work no matter what either. Actually, think of it this way: single-laning 104th and telling people to use 108th would probably be very much the same thing as single-laning Highway 1 and telling people to use the Fraser Highway instead. Both situations really wouldn't work, because both are massively congested at the moment and there are way too many construction projects happening, making it impossible to predict traffic conditions after.

LRT is cheaper and quicker to get

But as stated NOT cheaper to maintain. RRT would have the bigger advantage of being less expensive to operate because we already have the control centres for it and the knowledge in how to implement it. RRT would also meet the goal of allowing for a faster, more efficient connection; LRT would not be any more efficient than the current bus system because it is just as slow. It may also not meet the capacity demand as the trains would likely not run as often. It also has 10 lights to go through, you can't expect it to get signal priority every time what with traffic problems and the currently terrible light sync across the board?

maybe surrey will in still find away to get 4 lane and LRT between guildford and central.

I most certainly hope so at least. There's got to be some room to be made to allow this to happen, but at the moment it looks very tough in certain areas.

Portland doesn't want traffic in its downtown core and as a result it became more livable.

Portland also has the 5 and 405 Freeway around the downtown core and sort of made amends for it. Those are fast, freeflow alternative routes. This is not the same way.

Why is it so important that other more suitable (adjacent) roads can't serve the same purpose?

Both routes are way more indirect at the moment; 100th has that huge hill and is only suitable for a transit bus and anything short, 108th goes by a few schools and more residential and people would probably NIMBY the conversion of 108th into the major Whalley-Guildford route.

I haven't really seen much evidence to back up the claim that 104th is an important vehicular corridor.

I speak out as a resident of Guildford and a regular Guildford-Whalley traveller, not some bozo from Langley who wants an impossibly long Skytrain line or something. It's very, very bad, and if you do so wish then I might just go out there and take some photos. I don't believe you've ever actually been there, have you? One visit during peak hours and you'll see why. One visit.

[golog]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Interestingly, your friend mentioned that taking the bus along 104th to Surrey Central was hellish... not because it was a bus, but because it was stuck in traffic and he was stuck in a hot sweaty bus with sticky people.

Light Rail wouldn't have those problems. I'm sure your friend would have a completely different opinion if he were in the train passing cars on the way to Surrey Central. In fact, I'd hazard a guess that he'd still be taking the train now.

If that's what you want, build a curb and reserve two lanes for buses. Try it out as a pilot project.
Could work just as well, but it would save a lot of money.

[GMasterAres]

You know what my main issue with busses are in Metro Vancouver? Unrealiability. In busy areas not just in Surrey but throughout the region you get:

1. Full busses that aren't full. I saw 2 go by today on Granville that said "Full" yet when I looked in it only had seated passengers aka 0 passengers standing. That isn't a "FULL" bus. They should have seen the Canada Line train I took into town.. it was Japanese-Full we had to push in.

2. Unpredictable times at stops even main stops. If anyone has ever tried to catch the 25 on King Edward or the 321 on King George, I'm sure you've run into this. Bus says it will be at the spot around 11:30am, you get there are 11:15 am (15 minutes earlier) and see no bus until 11:45 because the 11:30 booked it through at 11:12 am in a hurry.

Or you get 2 busses in a row because the second bus is in a hurry to get off shift and no buses for 2 cycles. Happens a _LOT_.

3. Stuck in traffic like any other car. This is the big one. Busses are on the same road and ruled by the same traffic as the car. So if cars are stuck, the busses are stuck. In many of these situations it actually ends up being faster by car. Really bad traffic on King George? Well I can zip over to 140th or 144th and zoom to Surrey Central. The bus is stuck in the traffic as it can't deviate from its route. This is more in so pronounced in Vancouver where a smart car driver can zip around bad traffic spots where busses are stuck.

Only areas where they aren't are on dedicated bus lanes but for 90+% of the region that isn't in place. Only cross regional. Traffic above doesn't affect Sky Train and with well planned LRT it would have minimal to no affect either on that.

So based on the above 3 points I'd be far more inclined as a transit user to jump on an LRT line than on a Bus or Street Car. I consider street cars to be the same as busses and different from LRT even though they have parallels.

My biggest irk in metro Vancouver are "Full" busses and those that are never on the correct schedule. Skytrain is always on a set schedule you can set your watch to. Busses you seem to just roll the dice on.

[CLC]

Originally Posted by jhausner

2. Unpredictable times at stops even main stops. If anyone has ever tried to catch the 25 on King Edward or the 321 on King George, I'm sure you've run into this. Bus says it will be at the spot around 11:30am, you get there are 11:15 am (15 minutes earlier) and see no bus until 11:45 because the 11:30 booked it through at 11:12 am in a hurry.

25 was my worst transit nightmare when I relied on it daily ~10 years ago, not only 12-15 mins frequency could become 30 minutes, it was also the crowded bus I ever experienced on regular basis with as many as 70 crushed in a 40ft. I used to think situation should have improved somewhat now, probably not?

People complained along pass-up 99-b nowadays, well at least you have lots of choice, wait for next within 5 minutes, took 9, 17, or walk to parallel streets for other buses.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by CLC

25 was my worst transit nightmare when I relied on it daily ~10 years ago, not only 12-15 mins frequency could become 30 minutes, it was also the crowded bus I ever experienced on regular basis with as many as 70 crushed in a 40ft. I used to think situation should have improved somewhat now, probably not?

People complained along pass-up 99-b nowadays, well at least you have lots of choice, wait for next within 5 minutes, took 9, 17, or walk to parallel streets for other buses.

Yup 25 hasn't changed. Even at night it is horrible lol. We were standing at Main Street and King Ed and looked on the post one evening. Said the bus would be there at about 9:05pm. We got there at 8:55pm (so 10 minutes before) waited until 9:10pm (so 5 minutes after) and no bus so said "Screw it" and started to walk towards the skytrain. We walked all the way to Heather and King Edward beyond the Skytrain station before the bus finally passed us by. And the bus that passed us was off schedule too.

We just shrugged. The walk was good for us anyway but it's ridiculous. If a bus can't even hold a schedule at 9pm when you're out of peak, I can't imagine the bus during peak. And I've heard similar horror stories in West Vancouver, North Vancouver, Richmond, you name it.

Only busses that seem to hold schedule are the ones leaving Bridge Port for Delta and Surrey. :-|

[GMasterAres]

Anyway to illustrate my line ideas, I made this map:

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&h...1,-122.838521&spn=0.019044,0.055575&z=15

Hope it works. Skytrain extension is down Fraser Highway with possible/probable stations, then I drew an LRT line down 104th and down KGH. Didn't go out to South Surrey as I believe this is the most we'd get in the next 10 years for now.

Can extend Guildford's LRT south along 152nd to meet up with Skytrain in Fleetwood and continue to Panorama/South Surrey/White Rock regions. Can also extend the Newton line down KGH to connect to the park & ride at highway 99 and eventually South Surrey/border area.

I'll post a map soon with my potential future LRT lines including the inter-urban but I think the main I've identified would fit with the region how it is today and over the next 10 years. Skytrain I still think is essential for major traffic and I honestly think an extension down Fraser Highway NOT down 104th then Fraser Highway would be considerably cheaper than Canada Line or even Evergreen / Broadway lines and would be as regionally important.

[Whalleyboy]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Anyway to illustrate my line ideas, I made this map:

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&h...1,-122.838521&spn=0.019044,0.055575&z=15

Hope it works. Skytrain extension is down Fraser Highway with possible/probable stations, then I drew an LRT line down 104th and down KGH. Didn't go out to South Surrey as I believe this is the most we'd get in the next 10 years for now.

Can extend Guildford's LRT south along 152nd to meet up with Skytrain in Fleetwood and continue to Panorama/South Surrey/White Rock regions. Can also extend the Newton line down KGH to connect to the park & ride at highway 99 and eventually South Surrey/border area.

I'll post a map soon with my potential future LRT lines including the inter-urban but I think the main I've identified would fit with the region how it is today and over the next 10 years. Skytrain I still think is essential for major traffic and I honestly think an extension down Fraser Highway NOT down 104th then Fraser Highway would be considerably cheaper than Canada Line or even Evergreen / Broadway lines and would be as regionally important.

I dont see why you have king george and 104 as to seperat lrt lines. To me it would just make more sense to make it as a single route to avoid transfers. Maybe have the LRT route go along the front of the mall

[officedweller]

You'd also need the line to be connected to make use of a single OMC.