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

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by dleung

My commute from Steveston to Downtown before Canada Line: 55min, one seat ride/nap
Same commute after Canada Line: 50 min, with transfer, and standing room only on train.

I think that's a result of 2 things:

1) Ridership from Steveston to Downtown via bus was actually under capacity
2) Ridership on Canada Line is currently over capacity

Translink really needs to either increase frequency or length of the Canada Line trains. I think it is being used far more than people predicted. I remember (and you can probably go back on these very forums) before Canada line was built reading loads of people arguing that it should be down Arbutus because if they go down Cambie "Nobody will use it!"

You just proved the point I've made for a few months now as a frequent Canada Line rider myself, that it is being used CONSIDERABLY!

Same goes for SkyTrain out to Langley. I do honestly think that we can argue left-right and center until the cows come home about will it be used or not. The truth is if they build it straight out it will be used. Not to mention you have a lot of people terminating at KGB today and continuing towards Langley. You also have a lot of people driving into New West, Burnaby, Vancouver simply because it is easier for them from Langley and such than jumping on a bus to KGB then taking SkyTrain.

So overall, at the end I am almost 100% sure that if Skytrain is extended out towards Langley, it will be used and it will be used very much so within 5 years of completion.

That isn't the argument being made though by the CivicSurrey.com post. I do believe his actual point is what solution gets the best bang for your buck. I would argue that the RRT to Newton line that they show on the actual Translink site (RRT #2) is the most bang for our buck. It is as costly as BRT and covers pretty much the entire routing. Even ridership estimates by Translink has that option at 91,000 riders compared to 85,000 or so for the line down Fraser.

I mean let's be honest, we could argue that best bang for our buck is to force everyone to walk everywhere, or people to move closer to work. The truth is that won't happen. Another truth is that Translink is supposed to think regionally. We can argue if they have or not (I personally think they have been biased towards Vancouver and Burnaby for over a decade) but that doesn't remove the fact that they are the regional transportation authority.

What that means is you can't expect them to focus on transit within Surrey for the purpose of Surrey citizens exclusively. They simply don't have the resources nor time to think that way. All they really focus on is how to get people from home to work and back. That's basically it. It's more of a regional transit focus.

SkyTrain down Fraser Highway is just exactly that. Regional transportation.

That's why their BRT and LRT options are focussed on right of way and seperation. If they don't do that then you're simply building a system for people in Surrey to move to other parts of Surrey and that is not their focus and _never_ will be. So I still think Surrey will have to do something on their own.

I don't advocate 1 or the other though like a lot of people seem to be on the SoF side. This notion of "Leaving Translink!!!!" is just as bad. The Mayor keeps saying that only to apply political pressure on Translink and guess what, it has been working. They're focussing a lot more attention SoF since she started jumping up and down and getting other SoF mayors behind her.

But will Surrey or other munis ever pull our of Translink? I have major doubts of that because they also understand the role Translink is supposed to serve.

At the end what I expect to see if:

1) SkyTrain extended down Fraser Highway to Langley on the bill of Translink and regional tax payers (we've payed enough for Vancouver, Burnaby, and Richmond expansions... time for citizens in those cities to pay for Surrey/Langley expansions).

2) LRT/BRT routes within Surrey meant to link the town centers together on the bill of Surrey and/or a combination of SoF cities creating a new transportation group

What I hope is we don't get a system like Los Angeles where you have a dozen or so transit authorities all doing their own thing with very little synergy.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by logan5

Because of strong population growth SOF, I think it's reasonable to predict that there will be a Light Rail express service across the Fraser River. Light Rail lines in Surrey could be feeders into a main trunk line that would run along the TCH and the Burlington Northern track, which would have important Skytrain connections at Lougheed, Broadway, and Waterfront stations. As well, the new Port Mann Bridge will be Light Rail ready making implementation of the new service a little easier.

Light rail ready... like the Granville St. bridge is light rail ready. That was really thrown in there as a token to environmentalists. We won't see commuter rail across the Port Mann unless it's High speed rail along the TC1 and South to Seattle.

Travel times from Surrey to Waterfront would be 25 minutes and from Langley to Waterfront the travel time would be 33 minutes, with 70km/h average speed. Compare that to a Skytrain ride from Surrey to Waterfront that would be 39 minutes, and from Langley to Waterfront the Skytrain ride would be close to an hour long.

That's probably why it won't happen unless it serves destinations that aren't in use right now. You'd have to electrify the entire corridor, for starters. In addition, Amtrak Cascades can't do it in that time right now.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a "Fraser Valley Express" connecting Langley and Surrey to Vancouver, but there is some key pieces of infrastructure that need to be in place before that happens.

1 - A new rail bridge across the Fraser
2 - Double tracking along the length of the Grandview Cut.

[GMasterAres]

Also regarding this notion of "many tower proposals" in Newton and Guildford. Unfortunately it is really easy to find blame but the realities are that the tower projects in Newton and Guildford have not gone through due to financing and the global recession.

The reason was not because of congestion or a lack of transit services. That's just a tad bit off and grasping at straws to try and push an agenda based opinion.

Does increased transit services encourage growth around transit hubs? Absolutely. But it isn't a requirement. Richmond case and point has been built up prior to Canada Line ever getting there. Even when they had seperate bus lines # 3 road was probably the most congested of roads in all of metro Vancouver. I'd argue that since Canada Line it is STILL the most congested around.

They still built towers in Richmond though without transit. They are still building towers in Port Moody and Coquitlam without major transit (minus WCE). They've still built some towers in South Surrey without major transit. They're still proposing a new tower in Langley without major transit. Guildford has 6+ towers already built without major transit.

So I just don't buy it.

[GMasterAres]

Also, I watched that video from Langley city about the inter-urban.

Did anyone else find it ironic that 1 of the major things they say the inter-urban helped with was the massive logging and deforestation that went on in the Fraser Valley and has "allowed the valley to expand and grow?"

Today the inter-urban is being touted in the light of "Let's go back to an environmental way of doing things like the inter-urban!"

Kind of funny. One group argues it is environmental when Langley itself says it served to accellerate sprawl and logging of all our forests in the Valley. Seems like the inter-urban was actually quite anti-environmental.

Ironic.

[xd_1771]

...whatever we do should be either aimed at the long term or compatible with the long term. FOr example, if we think we will ultimately need Skytrain to Langley, whatever alternative we build now should be complementary with that long-term plan. I'm against spending hundreds of millions on hard construction (e.g., LRT tracks) that would need to be ripped out in 15-20 years to make way for Skytrain. Use a B-Line to bridge demand and start saving for the long-term.
Because of strong population growth SOF, I think it's reasonable to predict that there will be a Light Rail express service across the Fraser River. Light Rail lines in Surrey could be feeders into a main trunk line that would run along the TCH and the Burlington Northern track, which would have important Skytrain connections at Lougheed, Broadway, and Waterfront stations. As well, the new Port Mann Bridge will be Light Rail ready making implementation of the new service a little easier.

The only problem I see with that is it's going to take away from Whalley as the main transit hub for the beyond and tout Guildford as that. Though I would like to see Guildford urbanize and become a hub for traffic from all directions, I am in agreement with most others in that the future city centre of Surrey lies in the City Centre area and that we do not want to take away from that.

if we build Skytrain into Langley, we are prioritizing an outbound city that is more expensive to build to and much smaller than Surrey. That IMO would throw the metro quite out of balance. You would leave the majority of Surrey in a position where it really isn't going to go anywhere. That said, I do believe that Langley deserves an improvement in transit, and that is indeed happening with the RapidBus. Langley will be able to access both Surrey and Metro Vancouver much easier and faster by transit, and the same applies in the other direction.

"Bang for buck" may prove useful elsewhere... really, this is building transit. Put everything into perspective. Bang for buck cannot apply in all cases when considering what you are trying to do is make an important investment to help shape the future of a city. Sure, RRT #2 may have the best bang for buck (out of the 10 options) when it comes to improving transit, but is it really going to do that much for the City of Surrey other than treating it as another in-between point on the line to Vancouver and not a major focus/travel point for anywhere? Jeez, even the City of Vancouver itself now recommends that investments be put into benefiting the City of Surrey, likely a statement for the improvement of everyone. A lot of people in this metro hate Surrey and hate going to Surrey, and this is detrimenting the status of the entire metro.

Richmond shaped itself rather differently than Surrey. It touted itself as the multicultural hub by promoting itself to people of other cultures; it is near an easily accessible international port of entry that is among the busiest on the entire west coast; there were also at least 3 malls in the Richmond City Centre, some now geared towards the international community, that were visited a lot by people elsewhere. Do we have ANY of those in Surrey right now? No. Though we do have rapid transit to Surrey City Centre, Richmond also did grow on rapid transit to some degree (in the form of a bus lane at the time). I don't think comparing Richmond to Surrey is that fair because the cities mostly did not and cannot grow in the same way. The towers in Port Coquitlam & Port Moody have been built anticipating the transit. The towers in Guildford and some of the other earlier mid-high density developments, which mostly took shape in the early-mid 1990s, also anticipated skytrain expansion - and until recently plans did exist. Guildford should have been prioritized for transit expansion long ago.

What the interurban will do is provide access to other communities in the Fraser Valley that are otherwise now not really accessible at all. Put into focus the communities beyond Langley: Abbotsford & Chiliwack. The only real way to get there is by car and that is just not possible or affordable for everyone. One of my friends is advocating for some sort of reliable transit service to the Fraser Valley because there really isn't any, and I support him because he's right. He is a concerned student who is about to graduate and plans to attend the University of Fraser Valley; at the moment there really isn't any way to access that except by car, a long distance drive from Surrey which would be very expensive for him as gas prices increase. At least in a way he might actually be getting that, I have heard that there are plans to expand the Highway 1 RapidBus to the east.

[tybuilding]

My favorite options are

LRT2 or 1
RRT2
BRT1

[Whalleyboy]

Originally Posted by tybuilding

My favorite options are

LRT2 or 1
RRT2
BRT1

I like you you have the same pick as me lol
Although i would like to see 104 ave try and stay 4 lanes i would still be willing to make the sacrfice. Its really why i am still wondering what will be cheaper for them to do to keep it 4 lanes. buy the land and expand the road or make it go elevated. Street to elevated sections for LRT isnt out of the norm in anyway too

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

The only problem I see with that is it's going to take away from Whalley as the main transit hub for the beyond and tout Guildford as that. Though I would like to see Guildford urbanize and become a hub for traffic from all directions, I am in agreement with most others in that the future city centre of Surrey lies in the City Centre area and that we do not want to take away from that.

if we build Skytrain into Langley, we are prioritizing an outbound city that is more expensive to build to and much smaller than Surrey. That IMO would throw the metro quite out of balance. You would leave the majority of Surrey in a position where it really isn't going to go anywhere. That said, I do believe that Langley deserves an improvement in transit, and that is indeed happening with the RapidBus. Langley will be able to access both Surrey and Metro Vancouver much easier and faster by transit, and the same applies in the other direction.

"Bang for buck" may prove useful elsewhere... really, this is building transit. Put everything into perspective. Bang for buck cannot apply in all cases when considering what you are trying to do is make an important investment to help shape the future of a city. Sure, RRT #2 may have the best bang for buck (out of the 10 options) when it comes to improving transit, but is it really going to do that much for the City of Surrey other than treating it as another in-between point on the line to Vancouver and not a major focus/travel point for anywhere? Jeez, even the City of Vancouver itself now recommends that investments be put into benefiting the City of Surrey, likely a statement for the improvement of everyone. A lot of people in this metro hate Surrey and hate going to Surrey, and this is detrimenting the status of the entire metro.

Richmond shaped itself rather differently than Surrey. It touted itself as the multicultural hub by promoting itself to people of other cultures; it is near an easily accessible international port of entry that is among the busiest on the entire west coast; there were also at least 3 malls in the Richmond City Centre, some now geared towards the international community, that were visited a lot by people elsewhere. Do we have ANY of those in Surrey right now? No. Though we do have rapid transit to Surrey City Centre, Richmond also did grow on rapid transit to some degree (in the form of a bus lane at the time). I don't think comparing Richmond to Surrey is that fair because the cities mostly did not and cannot grow in the same way. The towers in Port Coquitlam & Port Moody have been built anticipating the transit. The towers in Guildford and some of the other earlier mid-high density developments, which mostly took shape in the early-mid 1990s, also anticipated skytrain expansion - and until recently plans did exist. Guildford should have been prioritized for transit expansion long ago.

What the interurban will do is provide access to other communities in the Fraser Valley that are otherwise now not really accessible at all. Put into focus the communities beyond Langley: Abbotsford & Chiliwack. The only real way to get there is by car and that is just not possible or affordable for everyone. One of my friends is advocating for some sort of reliable transit service to the Fraser Valley because there really isn't any, and I support him because he's right. He is a concerned student who is about to graduate and plans to attend the University of Fraser Valley; at the moment there really isn't any way to access that except by car, a long distance drive from Surrey which would be very expensive for him as gas prices increase. At least in a way he might actually be getting that, I have heard that there are plans to expand the Highway 1 RapidBus to the east.

You follow a very consitent train of thought... up until you jump to the conclusion that Surrey needs its own independent Skytrain line. I just don't get where you make the leap from "this is something for Surrey residents to promote internal growth and travel patterns" to "we need a metro system". The two lines of thought do not make logical connections. Everything you say supports LRT or even BRT, but for some reason you can't settle for anything less than Skytrain, and I don't get it.

Surrey isn't, and never will be as large as the population on the Burrard peninsula. Skytrain is a multi billion dollar rail system that links together distant town centers and feeds commuters into Canada's third largest downtown.

Surrey is a sprawling suburban town-like city. On its own it barely comes close to matching the scale of Edmonton or Calgary, and those cities have barley been able to justify the cost of LRT. And here you are, trying to justify a metro system focused on a suburb. Why don't we go down and build Skytrain in Kelowna next?

I don't get why in your head, rapid bus is good enough for residents of Langley, even though it takes them the long way into Surrey, and yet it is way beneath you to even contemplate BRT for Guildford. To get to Surrey Center, Langley Center residents are still looking at at least a 50 minute commute on TCH rapid bus (while nothing happens for people in Colverdale or Fleetwood), while you are concerned over the difference between 7 and 9 minute trips out of Guildford. What is the justification?

What I'm really getting at is what does Skytrain do for Guildford that LRT doesn't do at less cost?

[xd_1771]

Is the long way necessarily slower? I don't think so. When you consider that the 'long way' takes express HOV lanes on a vastly improved highway at a consistent non-stop 90km/h... oh, yeah, it's definitely way more attractive a choice of travel. 50 minutes is definitely a huge overstatement for getting into the city centre also. With little to no serious congestion - which will be made possible by these HOV lanes - you should be able to get from Walnut Grove to Guildford in around 10-15 minutes. From Langley to the RapidBus boarding point (whether RapidBus does hook up to Langley Centre or not), it is also around 10-15 minutes worth of travel. With another proper transit connection from there into the Surrey City Centre - from wherein, under a plan I support, you could go access the rest of the city incl. Newton & Scottsdale - as a one seat ride, travel patterns will be just as fast and just as easy. It should be considered that moving that Langley-via-Fraser Highway traffic off the 502 is going to also make it a lot easier for residents of Clayton and Cloverdale (who are NOT to be prioritized over surrey's already-developed areas for rapid transit) to be able to get on the bus, that is IF they are going into the City of Surrey. Which, unfortunately due to their development in an area that is segregated and pretty much hopelessly distant from the rest of the city, is likely not going to happen most of the time.

You seem to also be following a single train of thought: you are convinced that the only thing I want is Skytrain to Guildford so that I can get around better. Really, I think I'm ready to agree with you that a simple extension or single line from Whalley to Guildford isn't really going to do anything. I cede, you're right, but is that what I want? No. I want this city, connected by such form of fast, reliable and preferred transit. This is best placed in the already-developed areas that are in need of densifying further, not outbound areas that will only continue to grow outward with a relatively lower density. You seem to be as ignorantly inclined as Translink in ensuring that this city never gets anywhere (I have talked to at least 3 people now on one of my several transit commutes, people from Surrey who have tried taking their complaints individually to transit, but have been simply denied), and you seem to be lacking a lot of confidence in the future of this city and the choices being made for it, and you prove it with this quote:

Surrey isn't, and never will be as large as the population on the Burrard peninsula.

Eh, that's fine, Surrey's going to stay this way forever. Don't worry about me, if I want to get around better and faster within this city, I'd rather not screw myself on unreliable Surrey transit; I'm going to continue driving a car and polluting the air!
Who else agrees with me and is using their car to get around? *Entire city raises hands*
Dey see me rollin, dey hatin--

Speaking of unreliable transit, let me tell you something about 7 & 9 minute trips: not even close.
This Sunday I found myself on multiple commutes between Guildford & Whalley due to my participation in the Surrey Philippine Independence Day celebrations. I had opportunities to compare automobile transportation with public transit. I decided to take extra note of how long my travel times were in between the centres. My comparisons:

• Direct vehicle, via 100th Avenue, to Holland Park: 10 minutes.
• 326 bus, getting on at Holland Park, and going closest to my home, albeit following a longer route: 20 minutes counting walking time (which was not much).
• 326 northbound bus, the only one available for me in the next 10 minutes, then transferring onto a 320 going from Guildford via 104th and making plenty of stops en-route: 30 minutes, not even counting wait or transfer time but counting walking time.

This was on a Sunday, during well off-peak hours.

You may not easily believe me and will probably come up with other points to refute me as such, but take it from me: this was my experience on transit last Sunday. If I have to go my length to take a video of my entire 30 minute ride on transit so that you're satisfied, then you will have to pay me $200 to buy a new camcorder, because my current one is dead. Will an LRT change any of my inconveniences? Actually, the likelihood is no. if I'm not able to catch a 326, which is an infrequent hourly bus, I will be forced to take a ride that will probably end up adding an extra transfer for me at Guildford to get onto a train - which will not even come that quickly compared to Skytrain, with the higher potential for improved frequencies with speed. Quoting another person from another thread, the Canada Line took his one seat ride into a two-transfer ride and saved him only 5 minutes; no more napping on the bus, more time waiting and standing on a station platform waiting for a train that arrives only at a very low frequency. Of course, consider development; if the plans continue to be inclined that way, then both Guildford and Newton are slated to become the next Whalley's. Dead, inward & over-localized, possibly crime-ridden & homeless-ridden in the same way, segregated from the city due to unreliable overall connections, and not really going anywhere in terms of development.

And the cost.... ah forget it, I proved my argument about LRT vs ALRT costs several pages ago. But in case your equally flatly-inclined train of thought had completely forgotten what I've been saying page after page after page, there's really no difference.

Don't even try comparing any Surrey LRT to Calgary or Edmonton LRT, both of which I've ridden, because their implementation of the LRT is significantly different. LRT in those cities is meant to be a fast, Skytrain-like direct connection on it's own right of way. Those cities and their transit & transportation systems are working pretty well with this system and the lower density; so far, Surrey is not, and Surrey is definitely not destined to forever be based on low-density sprawl either.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

Speaking of unreliable transit, let me tell you something about 7 & 9 minute trips: not even close.
This Sunday I found myself on multiple commutes between Guildford & Whalley due to my participation in the Surrey Philippine Independence Day celebrations. I had opportunities to compare automobile transportation with public transit. I decided to take extra note of how long my travel times were in between the centres. My comparisons:[LIST][*]Direct vehicle, via 100th Avenue, to Holland Park: 10 minutes.[*]326 bus, getting on at Holland Park, and going closest to my home, albeit following a longer route: 20 minutes counting walking time (which was not much).

You're counting walking time. How much time were you actually ON the bus? Counting walking time is all great when you're comparing against driving (which OF COURSE will be faster) but when you're comparing SkyTrain vs. LRT vs. Rapid Bus, you really need to compare apples with apples.

I feel for you xd, you live in a transit-poor area of Surrey. I'm guessing you probably live close to 156th and 96ave. That area is horrible for transit. However, what most people are talking about is the denser area of Guildford... or even streets with good transit. To illustrate, these maps show areas available within 15 minutes (including walking) from a variety of areas in Surrey (taken off-peak on Sunday):




Uploaded with ImageShack.us

You can take a few things from this:

• Fraser Hwy is a fast corridor.
• 152nd is another major corridor.
• Bus service between Guildford and Surrey Central is about 10-15 minutes now.
• 156th is very transit poor.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

Is the long way necessarily slower? I don't think so. When you consider that the 'long way' takes express HOV lanes on a vastly improved highway at a consistent non-stop 90km/h... oh, yeah, it's definitely way more attractive a choice of travel. 50 minutes is definitely a huge overstatement for getting into the city centre also. With little to no serious congestion - which will be made possible by these HOV lanes - you should be able to get from Walnut Grove to Guildford in around 10-15 minutes. From Langley to the RapidBus boarding point (whether RapidBus does hook up to Langley Centre or not), it is also around 10-15 minutes worth of travel. With another proper transit connection from there into the Surrey City Centre - from wherein, under a plan I support, you could go access the rest of the city incl. Newton & Scottsdale - as a one seat ride, travel patterns will be just as fast and just as easy. It should be considered that moving that Langley-via-Fraser Highway traffic off the 502 is going to also make it a lot easier for residents of Clayton and Cloverdale (who are NOT to be prioritized over surrey's already-developed areas for rapid transit) to be able to get on the bus, that is IF they are going into the City of Surrey. Which, unfortunately due to their development in an area that is segregated and pretty much hopelessly distant from the rest of the city, is likely not going to happen most of the time.

Again, this is getting to the point I'm making about your argument. If you are so focused on already developed parts of Surrey, that are close to the Surrey core already, why Skytrain? If further away points are of no consequence, why is a regional transportation system needed to connect areas that aren't regional destinations? Guildford mall and Newton wave pool might be hip hang outs for the kids, but they are hardly the reason to chose a high speed mode over a more affordable mode.

Originally Posted by xd_1771

You seem to also be following a single train of thought: you are convinced that the only thing I want is Skytrain to Guildford so that I can get around better. Really, I think I'm ready to agree with you that a simple extension or single line from Whalley to Guildford isn't really going to do anything. I cede, you're right, but is that what I want? No. I want this city, connected by such form of fast, reliable and preferred transit. This is best placed in the already-developed areas that are in need of densifying further, not outbound areas that will only continue to grow outward with a relatively lower density. You seem to be as ignorantly inclined as Translink in ensuring that this city never gets anywhere (I have talked to at least 3 people now on one of my several transit commutes, people from Surrey who have tried taking their complaints individually to transit, but have been simply denied), and you seem to be lacking a lot of confidence in the future of this city and the choices being made for it, and you prove it with this quote:

Eh, that's fine, Surrey's going to stay this way forever. Don't worry about me, if I want to get around better and faster within this city, I'd rather not screw myself on unreliable Surrey transit; I'm going to continue driving a car and polluting the air!
Who else agrees with me and is using their car to get around? *Entire city raises hands*
Dey see me rollin, dey hatin--

I didn't say Surrey is going to stay the same forever, I said it will never surpass Vancouver+Burnaby+New West+Tri Cities; as Surrey grows, so does the rest of the region. Skytrain is designed to connect these distant regional centers with each other, with a focus on downtown. Even as Surrey's downtown becomes more important for SoF, it won't be more important/larger than Downtown Vancouver.

As well, downtown Surrey's growth depends on expanding reliable rapid transit to as many people as possible. Focusing a couple billion on a relatively small corridor (Guildford to Newton) does nothing for SoF as a whole. What about everyone else? Downtown didn't reduce car trips into it while increasing the job count by building Skytrain entirely within one city. Our region would be nothing if Skytrain only went as far as Joyce. No, instead they built to New Westminster, then very soon after into Surrey, which at that time was still SF homes surrounded by farm land. Building out to Langley now will be like building out to Surrey in the 90's.

You complain that places like Cloverdale and Langley are outward focused. While I think this is just your perception, maybe this is because they aren't connected by reliable transportation to Surrey. Just ignoring them continues this problem. If you are so hostile towards the way they have been developed, then punishing them denying them rapid transit isn't going to change anything for the better.

You are also over estimating the kind of density you can build up in a rather small location. These plans for high rises you have quoted around Guildford in the grand scheme of things isn't really that much housing. 3 towers, averaging 200 units each (if you really pack them into really tall towers) isn't going to be more than 1500 people (over half of which won't take transit).

To really impact growth and densification you have to cover a lot of land. By building too little transit and focusing it on areas close to your destination target, you drive up real estate values. This makes it hard and expensive to build dense housing, as it is more profitable to then build luxury condos that cater to people who own BMWs and don't take transit.

Originally Posted by xd_1771

Speaking of unreliable transit, let me tell you something about 7 & 9 minute trips: not even close.
This Sunday I found myself on multiple commutes between Guildford & Whalley due to my participation in the Surrey Philippine Independence Day celebrations. I had opportunities to compare automobile transportation with public transit. I decided to take extra note of how long my travel times were in between the centres. My comparisons:

• Direct vehicle, via 100th Avenue, to Holland Park: 10 minutes.
• 326 bus, getting on at Holland Park, and going closest to my home, albeit following a longer route: 20 minutes counting walking time (which was not much).
• 326 northbound bus, the only one available for me in the next 10 minutes, then transferring onto a 320 going from Guildford via 104th and making plenty of stops en-route: 30 minutes, not even counting wait or transfer time but counting walking time.

This was on a Sunday, during well off-peak hours.

You may not easily believe me and will probably come up with other points to refute me as such, but take it from me: this was my experience on transit last Sunday. If I have to go my length to take a video of my entire 30 minute ride on transit so that you're satisfied, then you will have to pay me $200 to buy a new camcorder, because my current one is dead. Will an LRT change any of my inconveniences? Actually, the likelihood is no. if I'm not able to catch a 326, which is an infrequent hourly bus, I will be forced to take a ride that will probably end up adding an extra transfer for me at Guildford to get onto a train - which will not even come that quickly compared to Skytrain, with the higher potential for improved frequencies with speed. Quoting another person from another thread, the Canada Line took his one seat ride into a two-transfer ride and saved him only 5 minutes; no more napping on the bus, more time waiting and standing on a station platform waiting for a train that arrives only at a very low frequency. Of course, consider development; if the plans continue to be inclined that way, then both Guildford and Newton are slated to become the next Whalley's. Dead, inward & over-localized, possibly crime-ridden & homeless-ridden in the same way, segregated from the city due to unreliable overall connections, and not really going anywhere in terms of development.

Even with Skytrain you are going to need transfers from your house. So again, I see NO difference between Skytrain and LRT to Guildford.

Skytrain at Guildford WILL NOT HAVE THE FREQUENCY of the Skytrain on the Expo Line. Ridership between Guildford and Whalley won't equal even the lowest ridership portions of the Millennium line, so I don't see how trains would go through Guildford more than every 10 minutes. There is no way it is needed. It is needed from King George because King George, Surrey Center, and Scott Road are each hubs and transfer points much greater in Scale than Guildford is. It's not because of local population around the stations, but because of transfer volume. And even then, the trains don't always leave Surrey completely full, there is room in the trains for people to get on along the rest of the line. The idea of running a dedicated skytrain line between Guildford and Whalley with frequencies less than 10 minutes is overkill.

My comparison of 7 and 9 minutes is the difference between getting on either Skytrain or LRT at Guildford. As soon as you introduce transfers and walking for people beyond the stations, of course it is going to take longer. And I fail to see how your comparison of taking the bus has anything to do with the difference between if you transferred to Skytrain or LRT as you didn't include transfer time.

For your example in your 3rd trip, take the time it took you to get to Guildford, then add it to 7 minutes for Skytrain or 9 minutes for LRT, and then you have your travel times to City Center. If LRT or Skytrain is built the difference in your travel time will be 2 minutes. Even if you lower Skytrain trip time to 5 minutes, we are now still talking about a difference of 4 minutes to your trip. Is 4 minutes worth at least $200 million or more?

After looking at the transit times for the #326 bus, it should only take you 8 minutes to get to Guildford from 96 ave. So, not counting walking or transfer time, you are looking at a trip of 15 minutes with Skytrain or 17 minutes with LRT. And both systems would probably be running the same frequency of trains, so average transfer time should be pretty constant between them, if not faster on LRT as you don't have to walk up a lot of stairs to get to the station.

To take it one step further, from 96 ave on the 326 bus, it would take about 6 minutes to get to a station on Fraser Hwy at 152nd street. So if you live there or further south, your trip into Surrey Center would be shorter on the Fraser Hwy line than the Guildford line (whether it be BRT, LRT, or RRT).

Originally Posted by xd_1771

And the cost.... ah forget it, I proved my argument about LRT vs ALRT costs several pages ago. But in case your equally flatly-inclined train of thought had completely forgotten what I've been saying page after page after page, there's really no difference.

No, I beg to differ. There is nothing convincing about your juvenile calculations that shows that for the proposed systems that Skytrain is equal or cheaper than LRT.

If we were to go by Translink's estimations, they estimate that LRT 4 has a capital cost of $800 million, whereas RRT3 has a cost of $900 million for significantly less track. It is a difference of $81million/km (lrt) vs $158million/km for RRT. If RRT3 were built as you propose, requiring modification to existing tracks, the cost could easily top $1.5 billion. RRT1 has a lower cost per km of $124 million because as you increase the scope of a project, the fixed costs (such as buying equipment) are spread over the greater distance. But even if you could swing it for $124M/km we are looking at almost $1.4 billion.

I don't know if almost double the price is worth the short time savings for people from Guildford. It would be cheaper to operate and maintain the Skytrain, but we are talking about a difference of only a couple million a year; it would take decades of heavy use until any form of savings are realized over LRT. That's a lot of money NOW that we have to use to save a bit in the future, when instead that money could be spent NOW on improving transit elsewhere, thus spinning off a savings of its own.

Originally Posted by xd_1771

Don't even try comparing any Surrey LRT to Calgary or Edmonton LRT, both of which I've ridden, because their implementation of the LRT is significantly different. LRT in those cities is meant to be a fast, Skytrain-like direct connection on it's own right of way. Those cities and their transit & transportation systems are working pretty well with this system and the lower density; so far, Surrey is not, and Surrey is definitely not destined to forever be based on low-density sprawl either.

I don't see why I can't. Some of their LRT ROW is within the median of roads and highways. While it might not be as high speed in Surrey, building along a road like King George will allow faster trains than along many other roads in the region. There are also few intersections and fewer crossing arteries along King George and 104 ave than on many roads elsewhere. Both these conditions make 104 ave and King George prime candidates for LRT.

SO I see the comparison as very valid. Calgary LRT stretches from its downtown through sprawling suburbs, and at many points along the line there is actually densification taking place. That is what we want to do in Surrey. We want to extend transit as far as possible through sprawling burbs to encourage densification near the line and bring people into Downtown Surrey. By building longer lines we encourage more densification at more locations, at more affordable prices.

What works for Calgary LRT, is that it is far reaching affecting the lives of as many Calgarians as possible. That would not be possible if they were to focus a more expensive line on a smaller area. Downtown Calgary might have a few more high rise condo towers, but it would have done nothing for the tens of thousands that commute by transit from further away.

[xd_1771]

Notice how the most powerful commute from Guildford is to the south, down a clear 152nd Street that normally moves very well. It is not easy to get anywhere to the east and the north due to congestion, whether there's transit there or not; that is being solved with the new Highway upgrades, RapidBus, and other related technologies. The most important link for this community, in my opinion, goes to the west. When I say the west, I'm talking not only Whalley but pretty much the rest of the city. You can see that it is weak and will remain quite weak. There is no hope of getting to Newton via Whalley, one-seat ride; whereas if you drive via 152nd & 72nd (because no transit route along those roads in the Newton-bound direction exists), you can indeed get there in significantly less time. This is not good for the city centre as for one people can and will continue to avoid the city centre, and secondly If Whalley is supposed to be downtown Surrey, people are supposed to be made to go through it. Many people are driving alternate roads or using alternate transit routes to avoid Whalley's grimyness and atmosphere. A city connected by transit will bring more people from this city through Whalley, which through more people and enticed development can be made a significantly better and more attractive place. You will be able to access the majority of the developed areas of Surrey - incl. focus areas such as Bear Creek Park, Kwantlen University, Guildford Town Ctr & Whalley Ctr, in an attractive, fast, and grade-separated one-seat ride. People going to the Metro will also still be able to enjoy and use the option through Whalley if adequately fast transit that can match the speed of a bus from Guildford to Lougheed Ctr is there; otherwise, most people will be going to Lougheed Ctr to access the metro. Even Newton might opt for this rather than LRT to Whalley, for some travel patterns to the metro; the 341 bus is right there, it's fast, and it's direct. Again, less people through Whalley; less push for needed and cancelled development.

Concerning Fleetwood, it's actually fairly well positioned and more balanced out. In most major directions from there, your level of accessibility & distance you are able to travel is fairly equal.

Concerning Guildwood, I don't think I'm personally that bad off in terms of local transit accessibility. The expanded 96th avenue to the east of 160th appears to have concessions for bus bays, which means a crosstown 96th avenue route is on the horizon. This could significantly help my personal ability to get to at least some places. However, when you take it to an expanded community-wide scale, the problems are there.

Concerning the amount of actual walking time, my house is near a 326 stop, no more than a few minutes; from Surrey Central Stn to Holland Park - my destination - was also very few minutes. The majority of those 30 minutes, not counting the time I stood waiting for other buses, was spend on a bus.

It should also be noted that this map is slightly outdated, it does not account for the new 388 bus among a few other things; it also does not appear to account for congestion as much. I don't think there's a way to generalize this to routes with little to no transfers either (consider that the majority of transit routes in Surrey are not nearly built to the frequencies that Vancouver is experiencing, transfers are much more inconvenient at this time, but increasing frequency wouldn't necessarily boost ridership due to the low-density nature of this city; you would see more empty buses, and I don't find it feasible).

Guildford mall and Newton wave pool might be hip hang outs for the kids, but they are hardly the reason to chose a high speed mode over a more affordable mode.

Once again, community-wide scale. Guildford has an expanded rec centre coming up, expanded higher-density development that has not been going on.... and Newton also has a vastly expanded town centre plan in the works.

Skytrain is designed to connect these distant regional centers with each other, with a focus on downtown.

So you believe Skytrain is meant forever to be put into this niche of regional corridor?
Let's mix this up a bit. How bout placing urban and fairly cost-effective Skytrain on an urban Surrey-centric route that is shorter and less expensive to build, then taking a limited-stop fast LRT line for lower cost through to Langley along the Fraser Highway corridor, in case there really should be a focus on the Fraser Highway corridor (but IMO, we should not be putting that over the Newton-Whalley-Guildford L in priority). Will it be significantly more cost effective? Hell yeah, it will. Will it still work? Hell yeah, it will (Langley will even have TWO options of either this or a RapidBus). Who benefits the most? Surrey. We need a benefit in Surrey that pushes the city forward; the majority of it is slowing down, and we are resorting to having to build outward sprawl in distant town centres to gain population; this is hurting and taking away from the main areas of the city that have significantly more potential. We should be focusing on building up..... otherwise, Surrey is effectively going to become the next Calgary, NOT what this city wants esp. with the limited building space available.

Think of it: Whalley could become a high density skyline in 70 years. Or, we could do it in 30-40, with even more skylines jutting out at Newton and Guildford where they were supposed to be many years ago. If these communities such as Clayton and Cloverdale were closer to the city centre, I can see them as becoming more potentially viable for transit connection, but that is not the case.

Even with Skytrain you are going to need transfers from your house. So again, I see NO difference between Skytrain and LRT to Guildford.

Think again.... I can get get off a bus and get onto a Skytrain that comes in much less time than an LRT. Consider I'm not the only person travelling either. You could have people able to get onto a train sooner, or people not able to get on sooner because it isn't there, causing lineups and passups that are a chronic problem at both town centres today.

There are also points farther from Guildford to be serviced. I have stated this again and again with my "152nd & 72nd route" argument. Again, Newton is soon going to be home to a bustling town centre and is also directly proximate to a major campus of Kwantlen University. If I'm going to get Newton, I might as well skip transit completely.

After looking at the transit times for the #326 bus, it should only take you 8 minutes to get to Guildford from 96 ave.

I guess the timeliness is way off. I was able to get on the bus AT the point of origin with no extra walking time, and the walk to my home from the stop is less than 3 minutes. This unreliable timing & scheduling is costing translink potential riders.

No, I beg to differ. There is nothing convincing about your juvenile calculations that shows that for the proposed systems that Skytrain is equal or cheaper than LRT.

Alright, fine. We're expected to build LRT tracks and overhead railways without a big depot to store all the trains, and lots and lots of trains compared to the fewer required for a faster Skytrain connection. Tracks, but no trains, no riders. Oh right, no drivers too, unless we had trains and riders. And remember, the costs also account for improvements to the bus network. You would require even more significant improvements to the bus network (i.e. more buses) if you were to build north-south; lots of route reorganization to promote east-west feeder, as well as much increased frequency in bus for trips to Guildford & Langley that otherwise aren't served by Rapid Transit. There is no way to get an accurate figure for how much LRT for RRT will cost from Translink as of yet.

There are also few intersections and fewer crossing arteries along King George and 104 ave than on many roads elsewhere.

King George Highway maybe, but 104th sees traffic signals every two blocks. Even if not all of them are used, that's a pretty large amount of them.

Calgary LRT influences development as if Skytrain. In fact, due to the separated-ness of Calgary's LRT, it's more of Skytrain than low-floor streetcar-like LRT-in-median that is being proposed. Thinking of densification... honestly, building a Skytrain through this big gap of agricultural land. Let's for a moment ignore that it seems annoying to most of us. Put it into perspective not because it's agricultural, but because it's a gap. You will never see densification along this point of the line. Notice how in Calgary, the densification is stretched out across MacLeod Trail and the LRT line. If we can't bridge this gap, however, we'll continue to end up with segregated communities and not-so-improvised densification that has to apparently appear from nothing and without guarantee that it will actually succeed. In Calgary, these LRT lines were built along major expressways that until the LRT came in were responsible for encouraging the growth along those corridors. There weren't any such communities in Calgary being left to die; due to effective planning, they were all being served as immediately and as effectively as possible. I'm honestly convinced that this attempt to build densification in these outward centres is last-resort. Surrey appears to be convinced that the rest of the city is dying and should be left to die, I think that is not the case. Both Guildford and Newton should have been bustling, beautiful town centres a long time ago and I will continue to support that the plans for that stay that way for the future. We can turn these areas around with the once-promised transit connection as deserved. As they are closer and more connected to Whalley, they also have way more affect on Whalley as Surrey's downtown centre, than the outbound areas previously mentioned.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

Notice how the most powerful commute from Guildford is to the south, down a clear 152nd Street that normally moves very well.

South of Fraser Hwy on 152nd, there isn't much traffic. That's why you're able to get further fast.

The most important link for this community, in my opinion, goes to the west. When I say the west, I'm talking not only Whalley but pretty much the rest of the city. You can see that it is weak and will remain quite weak. There is no hope of getting to Newton via Whalley, one-seat ride;

Yep, you'd get a nice one-seat ride with an "L" LRT. People aren't really arguing the route as opposed to the insistence that it must be SkyTrain and nothing else.

[GMasterAres]

I have a question for some people who've posted above in and in previous pages.

Why do you use statistics, maps, and information from off peak times such as on Sunday? The above map is a good example. Traffic off peak in downtown Vancouver is next to nothing. I can pick a time at 2am when car traffic is nil over the Port Mann.

It's actually quite meaningless. People move during peak periods. That's why they are called peak periods. So you _have_ to show statistics and charts during peak periods.

I'd like to see maps on how far you can get in 15 minutes from Fleet Wood at 8am on a Wednesday. Or maybe 3pm on a Thursday. I know it takes me less time to drive from Oak Street Bridge to Scott Road and HWY10 during peak than it does me going from Scott Road and HWY10 to Fleetwood. There's a difference of up to 20km between the two distances yet the short distance takes as long if not longer due to traffic during peak.

So comparing peak to non-peak is almost meaningless for any transit expansion discussion. Transit and road expansion isn't done to accomodate non-peak.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

Notice how the most powerful commute from Guildford is to the south, down a clear 152nd Street that normally moves very well.

What does that even mean? And if I knew what it meant, what does it prove?

Originally Posted by xd_1771

It is not easy to get anywhere to the east and the north due to congestion, whether there's transit there or not; that is being solved with the new Highway upgrades, RapidBus, and other related technologies. The most important link for this community, in my opinion, goes to the west. When I say the west, I'm talking not only Whalley but pretty much the rest of the city.

Ok, but even your proposed Skytrain line and the proposed rapid transit alternatives can't take you everywhere. Just how popular do you actually think the Guildford -> Newton commute is?

Originally Posted by xd_1771

You can see that it is weak and will remain quite weak. There is no hope of getting to Newton via Whalley, one-seat ride; whereas if you drive via 152nd & 72nd (because no transit route along those roads in the Newton-bound direction exists), you can indeed get there in significantly less time.

Uhhhh, there is the 341. It takes you from Guildford to Newton on a one seat ride in 20 minutes. But the fact of the mater is that it is not a common travel pattern and there aren't that many buses that serve that route on a one seat ride. But there is one.

Originally Posted by xd_1771

This is not good for the city centre as for one people can and will continue to avoid the city centre, and secondly If Whalley is supposed to be downtown Surrey, people are supposed to be made to go through it.

People are supposed to go TO downtown. The only reason to go THROUGH a downtown is if you are making a transfer between 2 different lines that serve downtown. That's what makes the downtown a downtown. People GO there, not pass through.

Originally Posted by xd_1771

Many people are driving alternate roads or using alternate transit routes to avoid Whalley's grimyness and atmosphere.

No, people who don't have to go through something that is not between their two destinations, won't. Can you imagine how bad traffic would be in Downtown Vancouver if there wasn't a second narrows? It would be horrible. People who don't have to go into a downtown shouldn't be made to, unless it is to take advantage of economies of scale by using hub and spoke. But you don't make them go there just 'cuz.

Originally Posted by xd_1771

A city connected by transit will bring more people from this city through Whalley, which through more people and enticed development can be made a significantly better and more attractive place.

People going through an area don't attract developers. That's not how the relationship works.

Originally Posted by xd_1771

You will be able to access the majority of the developed areas of Surrey - incl. focus areas such as Bear Creek Park, Kwantlen University, Guildford Town Ctr & Whalley Ctr, in an attractive, fast, and grade-separated one-seat ride.

How does the one seat ride go with what you just said? People are now passing the downtown without stopping there, or even really seeing it.

Also, I ask again: what is the difference between Skytrain and LRT for that one seat ride purpose? Both would be uninterrupted trips of similar times.

Originally Posted by xd_1771

People going to the Metro will also still be able to enjoy and use the option through Whalley if adequately fast transit that can match the speed of a bus from Guildford to Lougheed Ctr is there; otherwise, most people will be going to Lougheed Ctr to access the metro. Even Newton might opt for this rather than LRT to Whalley, for some travel patterns to the metro; the 341 bus is right there, it's fast, and it's direct. Again, less people through Whalley; less push for needed and cancelled development.

This was a little hard to read, but again, I think this just contradicted what you just said. If people aren't going to use the line because of other options, like rapidbus, then why overbuild it as Skytrain?

If you are saying it should be Skytrain because it would be better for Vancouver bound trips, then that contradicts your desire to see a better Downtown Surrey.

Originally Posted by xd_1771

Concerning Fleetwood, it's actually fairly well positioned and more balanced out. In most major directions from there, your level of accessibility & distance you are able to travel is fairly equal.

Really? I guess it depends on the part of Fleetwood you consider Fleetwood. But even then, Guildford is much closer to Whalley, and just a couple blocks from the Freeway. I don't see how you can ever actually think Fleetwood is better off than Guildford.

According to Translink's study, it is not the case that Fleetwood is more balanced. If nothing were done to the system and the bus network continues to grow, by 2041, Guildford to Whalley is still the shortest, fastest trip out of those studied. With LRT, that trip would be 9 minutes, while Fleetwood to Whalley even as LRT would be 13.

Originally Posted by xd_1771

Concerning Guildwood, I don't think I'm personally that bad off in terms of local transit accessibility. The expanded 96th avenue to the east of 160th appears to have concessions for bus bays, which means a crosstown 96th avenue route is on the horizon. This could significantly help my personal ability to get to at least some places. However, when you take it to an expanded community-wide scale, the problems are there.

And they are?

Originally Posted by xd_1771

Concerning the amount of actual walking time, my house is near a 326 stop, no more than a few minutes; from Surrey Central Stn to Holland Park - my destination - was also very few minutes. The majority of those 30 minutes, not counting the time I stood waiting for other buses, was spend on a bus.

The majority? So like it took you 20 minutes to go across town? So? You are still going to have to take that one bus to get to your transfer. So you SHOULD count the time you spend waiting for the bus and on the 326, as that will still happen, with ANY upgrades.

Originally Posted by xd_1771

It should also be noted that this map is slightly outdated, it does not account for the new 388 bus among a few other things; it also does not appear to account for congestion as much. I don't think there's a way to generalize this to routes with little to no transfers either (consider that the majority of transit routes in Surrey are not nearly built to the frequencies that Vancouver is experiencing, transfers are much more inconvenient at this time, but increasing frequency wouldn't necessarily boost ridership due to the low-density nature of this city; you would see more empty buses, and I don't find it feasible).


Once again, community-wide scale. Guildford has an expanded rec centre coming up, expanded higher-density development that has not been going on.... and Newton also has a vastly expanded town centre plan in the works.

Again, this is still small potatoes. People aren't going to travel across the city to access a community center. People access the community centers in their communities. I live over by Scott Road, and wouldn't ride across the city to go to one in Guildford; neither is anyone else. People going to a community center by transit aren't going to do so by long distance train, but by local bus.

And still, we are talking about a hundred or so people a day; hardly the reason to build rapid transit of any kind.

Originally Posted by xd_1771

So you believe Skytrain is meant forever to be put into this niche of regional corridor?

yes.

Originally Posted by xd_1771

Let's mix this up a bit. How bout placing urban and fairly cost-effective Skytrain on an urban Surrey-centric route that is shorter and less expensive to build, then taking a limited-stop fast LRT line for lower cost through to Langley along the Fraser Highway corridor, in case there really should be a focus on the Fraser Highway corridor (but IMO, we should not be putting that over the Newton-Whalley-Guildford L in priority). Will it be significantly more cost effective? Hell yeah, it will. Will it still work? Hell yeah, it will (Langley will even have TWO options of either this or a RapidBus). Who benefits the most? Surrey.

How does short distance Skytrain benefit Surrey?

This senario makes no sense. Skytrain shows its advantages primarily over longer distances. Keeping it focused on short corridors doesn't take advantage of its key benefits. There is no point to build Skytrain over a short distance for such short trips/commutes. The difference in travel times for this corridor (G-W-N) doesn't seem worth it.

Originally Posted by xd_1771

We need a benefit in Surrey that pushes the city forward; the majority of it is slowing down, and we are resorting to having to build outward sprawl in distant town centres to gain population; this is hurting and taking away from the main areas of the city that have significantly more potential. We should be focusing on building up..... otherwise, Surrey is effectively going to become the next Calgary, NOT what this city wants esp. with the limited building space available.

I don't think you really grasp how the economy works. Developers build what people are willing to pay for.

We are also not in some race to gain population. This isn't a game we are trying to win. This is life and people make choices.

Originally Posted by xd_1771

Think of it: Whalley could become a high density skyline in 70 years. Or, we could do it in 30-40, with even more skylines jutting out at Newton and Guildford where they were supposed to be many years ago. If these communities such as Clayton and Cloverdale were closer to the city centre, I can see them as becoming more potentially viable for transit connection, but that is not the case.

Surrey wasn't "close" to Downtown when we built Skytrain out to it. That's not how we built up downtown and reduced road congestion. We didn't build only to what's close, but we extended our transit network to where people want to live.

Originally Posted by xd_1771

Think again.... I can get get off a bus and get onto a Skytrain that comes in much less time than an LRT. Consider I'm not the only person travelling either. You could have people able to get onto a train sooner, or people not able to get on sooner because it isn't there, causing lineups and passups that are a chronic problem at both town centres today.

That's just an assumption of yours that it would come in much less time. But trains on your proposed line would not come at the frequency of Expo Line trains, but probably less frequent than trains on the Millennium line or the branches on the Canada line. I just don't see how you could justify trains more than every 5 minutes in the peak. Even now, at times off peak its 10 minutes between Millennium line trains.

Originally Posted by xd_1771

There are also points farther from Guildford to be serviced. I have stated this again and again with my "152nd & 72nd route" argument. Again, Newton is soon going to be home to a bustling town centre and is also directly proximate to a major campus of Kwantlen University. If I'm going to get Newton, I might as well skip transit completely.

I'm not going to build a multi billion dollar transit line for your trip. Honestly, how many people do you see making that trip, even in the future? Seriously, as a percentage of all the trips made in Surrey, what do you think Guildford to Newton is?

And again, the proposed LRT plan completely fulfills this travel pattern. So I'm not against it.

Originally Posted by xd_1771

I guess the timeliness is way off. I was able to get on the bus AT the point of origin with no extra walking time, and the walk to my home from the stop is less than 3 minutes. This unreliable timing & scheduling is costing translink potential riders.


Alright, fine. We're expected to build LRT tracks and overhead railways without a big depot to store all the trains, and lots and lots of trains compared to the fewer required for a faster Skytrain connection. Tracks, but no trains, no riders. Oh right, no drivers too, unless we had trains and riders. And remember, the costs also account for improvements to the bus network. You would require even more significant improvements to the bus network (i.e. more buses) if you were to build north-south; lots of route reorganization to promote east-west feeder, as well as much increased frequency in bus for trips to Guildford & Langley that otherwise aren't served by Rapid Transit. There is no way to get an accurate figure for how much LRT for RRT will cost from Translink as of yet.

What overhead railways?

As well, land is much cheaper in parts of Surrey (and Translink already owns some plots of land in Newton) so building a rail yard wouldn't be a bit issue, and the line is only around 10km long, so you really don't need that many trains for the ridership it will have. And while Skytrain is driverless, it is staffed at stations and on trains. A simpler LRT system wouldn't need station staffing/security and could get by with just drivers.

And I think the rest of what you said there doesn't make any sense. Building RRT or LRT would require a restructuring of the bus network, so I don't get your point. Under either system, the changes would be similar, so the increase in costs to the bus network would be identical. I don't see how changes to the bus network would be cheaper for RRT.

Originally Posted by xd_1771

King George Highway maybe, but 104th sees traffic signals every two blocks. Even if not all of them are used, that's a pretty large amount of them.

You mean all 5 lights on 104 ave? In actuallity, they seem to be about every 4 blocks. And even then, trains would have signal priority. As long as the roads themselves are not too busy (which none of them are on 104ave) then trains can safely preempt lights (it's different when you have multiple major arteries like on Broadway).

Originally Posted by xd_1771

Calgary LRT influences development as if Skytrain. In fact, due to the separated-ness of Calgary's LRT, it's more of Skytrain than low-floor streetcar-like LRT-in-median that is being proposed. Thinking of densification... honestly, building a Skytrain through this big gap of agricultural land. Let's for a moment ignore that it seems annoying to most of us. Put it into perspective not because it's agricultural, but because it's a gap. You will never see densification along this point of the line.

The Fraser River is a "gap" and we built over it, with 2 different lines. Is the Skybridge a waste unless we cover the Fraser with houseboats? The Evergreen line is going to cross a gap of significant length in a tunnel. 22nd Street to New West is almost 3km without stations. Lougheed to Braid crosses a Rail Yard. From Renfew to Commercial, the train is in a trench.

Besides, You usually don't see densification away from stations. But the stations at either end of this "gap" will be important transit hubs with plenty of surrounding density. So I don't see how crossing a gap is a problem, infact, that is one of the advantages of Skytrain, are the gaps all over the region that trains whisk passengers over.

Originally Posted by xd_1771

Notice how in Calgary, the densification is stretched out across MacLeod Trail and the LRT line. If we can't bridge this gap, however, we'll continue to end up with segregated communities and not-so-improvised densification that has to apparently appear from nothing and without guarantee that it will actually succeed.

Show me where Skytrain has created a continuous sky scraper community between stations outside the downtown core. What makes you think 104 ave would be lined with tall buildings if you built Skytrain? You would need many, closely spaced stations to acheive what you envision, which would defeat the purpose of Skytrain, and makes it work more like an LRT system.

Originally Posted by xd_1771

In Calgary, these LRT lines were built along major expressways that until the LRT came in were responsible for encouraging the growth along those corridors.

36st NE looks kind of like a slightly wider King George to me.

Originally Posted by xd_1771

There weren't any such communities in Calgary being left to die; due to effective planning, they were all being served as immediately and as effectively as possible. I'm honestly convinced that this attempt to build densification in these outward centres is last-resort. Surrey appears to be convinced that the rest of the city is dying and should be left to die, I think that is not the case. Both Guildford and Newton should have been bustling, beautiful town centres a long time ago and I will continue to support that the plans for that stay that way for the future. We can turn these areas around with the once-promised transit connection as deserved. As they are closer and more connected to Whalley, they also have way more affect on Whalley as Surrey's downtown centre, than the outbound areas previously mentioned.

Again, you can't force the free market.

And you, espouse how concerned you are over being "left to die", but you are doing the same to other parts of Surrey. You are suggesting building Skytrain to Guildford at a cost of rapid transit to other parts of Surrey and Langley. You are leaving them to die yourself. It's hypocritical.

[xd_1771]

Uhhhh, there is the 341. It takes you from Guildford to Newton on a one seat ride in 20 minutes. But the fact of the mater is that it is not a common travel pattern and there aren't that many buses that serve that route on a one seat ride. But there is one.

It takes you from Newton to Guildford, NOT the other way around.

If people aren't going to use the line because of other options, like rapidbus, then why overbuild it as Skytrain?

No, if people aren't going to use the line, then we shouldn't build it at all. We would be frankly wasting our cash. I don't see any way people would actually use the line for certain commute patterns unless we build it as a faster Skytrain option, a great investment to stimulate intercity travel by transit.

by 2041, Guildford to Whalley is still the shortest, fastest trip out of those studied. With LRT, that trip would be 9 minutes, while Fleetwood to Whalley even as LRT would be 13.

So you're trying to take two trips of similar distance - one that has to stop more often, and the other (Fleetwood-Whalley) goes through an urban forest where there really aren't any stops at all - I'm not sure how you're convinced that Guildford-Whalley would be faster than this predominantly stopless route.

This senario makes no sense. Skytrain shows its advantages primarily over longer distances. Keeping it focused on short corridors doesn't take advantage of its key benefits. There is no point to build Skytrain over a short distance for such short trips/commutes. The difference in travel times for this corridor (G-W-N) doesn't seem worth it.

The thing about Skytrain is it can be flexible. One thing that both you and Translink seem to only consider is that Skytrain is an extension of the Expo Line. That is seriously complicated when you are considering line size, requirement of more trains to serve this frequency, and how it could affect the rest of the network. Do we have to use more trains right away, at more cost? No, but we have plenty of room to increase frequency and train size. Translink specifies that any rapid transit network should ideally use a 5 minute frequency. With Skytrain, you can do that with less trains and less cost. And believe me, when most of the people who get around Surrey are people who use their cars passing buses like there's no tomorrow, Skytrain will prove much more attractive and viable to the people for the higher speed.

we extended our transit network to where people want to live.

People want to live at accessible communities with proper commercial amenities and a commutable distance from work. With where we are building right now, we cannot make most of that possible. With both Guildford and Newton being significantly closer and more accessible, I can see why more people want to live there. The problem is, they can't, because with the lack of actual transit there, there aren't any actual new residential properties being built.

So you SHOULD count the time you spend waiting for the bus and on the 326, as that will still happen, with ANY upgrades.

Alright then. It took me ONE HOUR to get from Guildford to Whalley. If that's not bad, I don't know what is.

Under either system, the changes would be similar, so the increase in costs to the bus network would be identical. I don't see how changes to the bus network would be cheaper for RRT.

My argument concerned routing choice mostly, not LRT vs RRT on the same route.

As long as the roads themselves are not too busy (which none of them are on 104ave) then trains can safely preempt lights (it's different when you have multiple major arteries like on Broadway).

June 2nd, 2011

The Fraser River is a "gap" and we built over it, with 2 different lines. Is the Skybridge a waste unless we cover the Fraser with houseboats? The Evergreen line is going to cross a gap of significant length in a tunnel. 22nd Street to New West is almost 3km without stations. Lougheed to Braid crosses a Rail Yard. From Renfew to Commercial, the train is in a trench.

Besides, You usually don't see densification away from stations. But the stations at either end of this "gap" will be important transit hubs with plenty of surrounding density. So I don't see how crossing a gap is a problem, infact, that is one of the advantages of Skytrain, are the gaps all over the region that trains whisk passengers over.

The Fraser River is a different kind of gap. You have land and development on both sides, and absolutely no chance to build it in between. That's understandable. With this agricultural gap, you have LAND in between. You COULD build development there to better link two communities, but you're still unable to because of land zoning issues.

Show me where Skytrain has created a continuous sky scraper community between stations outside the downtown core.

I'm not saying anything like that has to be dense, but what I'm trying to point out is that on both 104th and King George corridors, there's nearly no development like this at all.

And you, espouse how concerned you are over being "left to die", but you are doing the same to other parts of Surrey. You are suggesting building Skytrain to Guildford at a cost of rapid transit to other parts of Surrey and Langley. You are leaving them to die yourself. It's hypocritical.

I am pointing out where the best form of rapid transit must be prioritized, but I am fully supporting extensions of other rapid transit lines (i.e. via BRT, b-lines, and RapidBus) through to other parts of Surrey and to Langley.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by jhausner

I have a question for some people who've posted above in and in previous pages.

Why do you use statistics, maps, and information from off peak times such as on Sunday? The above map is a good example. Traffic off peak in downtown Vancouver is next to nothing. I can pick a time at 2am when car traffic is nil over the Port Mann.

It's actually quite meaningless. People move during peak periods. That's why they are called peak periods. So you _have_ to show statistics and charts during peak periods.

I agree. Sunday off-peak was used for the Mapnificent map to compare against xd's anecdotal evidence. However, I do agree, you need to use peak traffic data.

[dubsH]

XD, you seem to be going in circles here. I applaud your enthusiasm for SkyTrain and I too would like to see Metro Vancouver to be decked out with SkyTrain routes everywhere. Realistically, that's not possible.

With both Guildford and Newton being significantly closer and more accessible, I can see why more people want to live there. The problem is, they can't, because with the lack of actual transit there, there aren't any actual new residential properties being built.

The problem with your argument is that other city centres seem to have built up well without the need for SkyTrain. Look at Richmond (prior to the Canada Line) and Coquitlam (prior to the Evergreen). Sure, the former now has the Canada Line and the latter is anticipating the Evergreen Line, but both have thrived prior to the introduction of rapid transit. Look at Lower Lonsdale. Why can't Guildford and Newton do the same if there's so much demand? As it stands, the reason why Surrey is desirable is because of the amount of land it has for subdivisions, not because it is "close to Whalley". Of course we want that to change, but SkyTrain isn't the only thing that will get us there.

Why isn't SkyTrain the best choice for Guildford-Whalley (I hesitate to put Newton here because unlike Guildford, I can actually see SkyTrain being viable on this route)? Precisely because the distance is so close - the whole point of SkyTrain is to connect centres that are far apart quickly. If you space stops 1-2km apart for SkyTrain (which is the norm for Expo/Millenium Lines), you'll get one or no stops in between Guildford and Whalley. Is this the best way to get people to live along 104 Ave? I would rather have stops every 500-600m and have a different mode used. The difference between 104 Ave and Broadway is that 104 Ave will NEVER be a backbone for transit in the same way that Broadway currently is, and will continue to be.

SkyTrain works well for intercity (re: city, not community) transport. It won't completely fail if placed as an inter-community route if a Guildford-Whalley-Newton route - but the Guildford portion will NOT have the passengers warranted to have trains running more frequent than 10 min. That's a waste of resources ... and the money would be better used to instead expand bus service so that busy routes in Surrey can actually have peak headways of less than 5 min.

Honestly, the argument that Newton and Guildford are closer and therefore Fleetwood/Cloverdale/Langley should be ignored is nonsensical. Do you agree that at the very least, there should be a B-line connecting Newton and Guildford (via Whalley) to see how much of a demand there really is? It seems a little premature to jump straight to SkyTrain when you're pulling anecdotes that somehow Guildford is failing because there's no SkyTrain (and not because of other factors such as ... Guildford may not be the most desirable to live?). Prove that the current bus ridership warrant faster bus service, let alone SkyTrain. We know "it's full" ... but so are numerous other routes in Metro Vancouver.

[xd_1771]

The problem with your argument is that other city centres seem to have built up well without the need for SkyTrain. Look at Richmond (prior to the Canada Line) and Coquitlam (prior to the Evergreen). Sure, the former now has the Canada Line and the latter is anticipating the Evergreen Line, but both have thrived prior to the introduction of rapid transit. Look at Lower Lonsdale. Why can't Guildford and Newton do the same if there's so much demand? As it stands, the reason why Surrey is desirable is because of the amount of land it has for subdivisions, not because it is "close to Whalley". Of course we want that to change, but SkyTrain isn't the only thing that will get us there.

Actually as far as I'm aware, these Surrey communities are definitely dying. Development proposals have halted, or been moved ahead, due to lack of demand and lack of growth shaping due to transit. Things aren't changing in these communities. Unlike before, there isn't actually any proper transit plan anymore to serve these areas. Meanwhile, areas of Coquitlam were built fully anticipating rapid transit. That's not to say transit is the only thing that can shape growth either; Richmond thrives as a multicultural and accessible community, also close to a major international port of entry. Surrey's landlocked with major congestion and automobile travel happening all over the place; this is not working at shaping city growth. A huge, developed city that was some 40 years ago was merely farmland does not have amenities such as improved transit to take shape with the largely growing demand.

and the money would be better used to instead expand bus service so that busy routes in Surrey can actually have peak headways of less than 5 min.

By leaving Guildford to the buses, we would need more buses on ALL the Guildford-Whalley routes. Actually Skytrain will allow most of those bus routes to cease operating. Consider how many people attempt to get onto a C74 Express at Surrey Central to Guildford Town Ctr, and then get screwed over when the bus driver refuses to actually stop there (has happened to me sometimes, though other times my destination is beyond Guildford Town Ctr; they usually stop during the peak hours though when the full sized buses take over the C74 route; during my 2 months of boarding C74 at 104th EB fs 152nd, I always found a lot of people deboarding the C74 at Guildford when I simply looked down the street at the main transit exchange). You can have a C74 serving Fraser Heights through Guildford, with not a huge problem for commuters from there to the rest of the city as they can get on a Skytrain almost right away. You would also be freeing up buses. Lots of buses. Buses that you can indeed use for places that may need it somewhere else. Instead of the 335 being singled out to serve the lot of Guildford-Metro commuters coming in and out through Gateway, you could run 335/332/326 as a loop route, something that could really benefit locals that currently have to stand on the bus while intercity/intracity travellers sit down.

Do you agree that at the very least, there should be a B-line connecting Newton and Guildford (via Whalley) to see how much of a demand there really is?

I agree, I support Skytrain as a long term investment, prioritized to Newton and Guildford. There would be much more accurate data gained if we introduced a B-Line first. As far as I was aware, that was supposed to happen way back in 2009 through a funding that would bring a number of immediate improvements to transit to the Fraser Valley as well as funding for the Evergreen Line. Though it would cost more to taxpayers, it seemed many people agreed to around an extra $5 each.... it's a small amount, pretty fair, and would've resulted in a big improvement. Unfortunately, our mayor apparently voted it down, along with a lot of other mayors in the lower mainland. It should be considered that if we build BRT/LRT, we are stuck with it; if it overcrowds, there's not going to be anything done about it, at least not for awhile. This is an issue today with the Canada Line. I see seriously overcrowded trains and people at the stations not able to get on, and yet there is not much being done about it.

Prove that the current bus ridership warrant faster bus service, let alone SkyTrain. We know "it's full" ... but so are numerous other routes in Metro Vancouver.

We need to consider the amount of bus routes that are right now attempting to serve Guildford-Whalley. There are more than just one, and they all split the problem. According to Translink data, bus Bay 2 at Surrey Central, exclusively serving the 320 - just one of these routes - through Guildford, sees the most pass-ups and longest lineups at Surrey Central, to a significant degree higher than other routes - and think of all the other routes; the bus bay serving the 332 and 335 is not that far behind in amount of pass-ups.

It seems a little premature to jump straight to SkyTrain when you're pulling anecdotes that somehow Guildford is failing because there's no SkyTrain (and not because of other factors such as ... Guildford may not be the most desirable to live?).

To begin with, it is a major and accessible crossroads; this situation has been hampered lately by the congestion to the north and east, but back then when the highway flowed smoothly, Guildford had arguably better potential than Whalley. 104th and 152nd was the busiest intersection in the city. Not that I support that this community overtake Whalley right now, with the intended waypath that Surrey is trying to embark on, but it definitely still has some potential left in it. Guildford is currently ranked by others as the most walkable community in the city of Surrey, and I agree with that; I am able to walk to get to places in my neighbourhood without an issue. I feel safe and confident as a pedestrian, and so do the people here I know, including many who walk to work. It is very integrated and there are many amenities you can find here within walking distance; such as, a major shopping mall, a rec centre & library (that is about to be expanded with a pool), plenty of business, a good movie theatre, even a couple of nice restaurants. There's quite a bit of incentive to come here, though I guess some of you are going to side with the thought of it not being so powerful, and I understand that. There is also a lot of will, however, to go somewhere else. There are a few things missing from this area that people like to go to, i.e. certain types of stores as well as meeting & work places. I have to go west or east to either Richmond or Langley or Coquitlam - 1 hour commutes by transit - just to get a simple kit of memory I need at NCIX. As Guildford is a place that is in between and will be fairly accessible from all directions (hopefully) by all sorts of transportation modes, we have an opportunity to bring a lot of those services here. In fact, I see a lot of potential in a new NCIX computer store opening in - of all places in Surrey - Guildford. Because of the ability to easily access other communities, you could transport items between a Guildford NCIX store and other NCIX stores, as well as the main Richmond warehouse, easily and quickly; item transfer between stores & warehouse happens at NCIX frequently through their in-store/web-order/notify for pickup system. Not only would you serve the people of this community, but you would be creating a place that people everywhere else can benefit from due to much better accessibility. Of course, I'm only using NCIX as an example. You could have many other such amenities that could be easily accessible from the rest of the city by rapid transit or by bus/frequent transit network, as well as from other cities via other forms of transit; meanwhile you also have the option to drive, understandable if you need to carry heavy loads you can't take home on the bus. Guildford is a crossroads, and we have grown because we are a crossroads; we have slowed down because these roads have been overtaken by congestion. By freeing up the congestion in all directions, a lot of accessibility and therefore development potential is opened up. By eventually introducing rapid transit in the highest form, these potentials can be truly strengthened and solidified.

[Millennium2002]

Woah... I'm okay with debates, but this is slowly going nowhere other than to tire out all the others. Can we move onto something else? If any of you wish to continue maybe do so via PM or something? Thanks.