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

[Klazu]

I am a big fan of LRT. Before moving here, I lived five years in Berlin and always preferred trams over subway, whenever practical. In Berlin they have these new long Flexity trams and I really liked them. Speed wise trams were actually not that much slower than subway, as in Berlin there are many sections with greenways dedicated for the tram traffic. Of course intersections with car traffic are slower.

Traveling on ground level, trams are so much more convenient to board than descending/ascending stairs or escalators to a subway or Skytrain station. They also normally have at least double the stations vs. subway and provide views vs. tunnel-running subway.

So there are definitely pros and cons.

However, considering how great Vancouver's Skytrain system is, I would love to see it expanding. For Broadway corridor I think there is no other option than heavy transit like Skytrain. I would also love to see Skytrain running down the Fraser Highway and maybe King George Bulevard. But everywhere else I would love to see trams:

- Few lines in and around Surrey and Richmond, connecting with Skytrain lines.
- A line or two between North and West Vancouver, connecting with Seabus.
- Lines along Marine Dr, Main St, Fraser St, Knight St, Arbutus, 1st Ave, 41st Ave and East Hastings, connecting with Skytrain.
- Circle line in Downtown, line along Robson St and a line around False Creek to Granville Island (could be part of the Arbutus line).

I would think one could implement such a tram network with 1-2 billion dollars, which is not that expensive considering how great rail network Metro Vancouver would then have. Such a network would finally put some real competition between public transit and personal car, whereas today driving is way too tempting for way too many.

So I think we need both systems in Metro Vancouver!

[Track]

I think that Skytrain is definitely the way to go down Fraser Hwy. The only issue is what would be better for 104th and King George: BRT or LRT. At this point i'm really not sure. I think that King George could fit an LRT line, but traffic congestion might occur. I'm not so sure that 104th is suited for any rapid transit in its own right of way at all; its way to busy to go to one lane each way.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by Track

I think that Skytrain is definitely the way to go down Fraser Hwy. The only issue is what would be better for 104th and King George: BRT or LRT. At this point i'm really not sure. I think that King George could fit an LRT line, but traffic congestion might occur. I'm not so sure that 104th is suited for any rapid transit in its own right of way at all; its way to busy to go to one lane each way.

King George has the right of way to be able to widen it to 3 lanes both directions all the way along with the center median (so technically 4 lanes each).

104th has the right of way to do 3 lanes either direction. With turning lanes that means 104th can be physically widened to be 2 traffic lanes, 1 LRT/BRT lane, and left turning bays either direction. Neither are an issue.

Surrey's video depicting 104th as 1 lane either direction is a bit unrealistic I think and was more to depict this "calm relaxed LRT route where the birds fly and butterflies flourish." It was marketting vs reality.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by Klazu

I am a big fan of LRT. Before moving here, I lived five years in Berlin and always preferred trams over subway, whenever practical. In Berlin they have these new long Flexity trams and I really liked them. Speed wise trams were actually not that much slower than subway, as in Berlin there are many sections with greenways dedicated for the tram traffic. Of course intersections with car traffic are slower.

Berlin has an excellent tram system, I hope they expand it back into the west, all the tracks that remain are in the east. I didn't use it often when I lived there, but I do remember the system being extremely efficient, especially as you said when it had its dedicated right of way in the median.

[GMasterAres]

I think you hit is spot on with the note on dedicated right-of-way. Once you remove dedicated right-of-way a system becomes only as fast as cars and traffic around. I've been saying it forever that you could throw 900 buses every 1 minute down King George Boulevard and it wouldn't make any difference because they would all be stuck in a giant line behind the car traffic.

Same would happen with BRT. Only solution at the minimum in Surrey on the major routes are right-of-way BRT/LRT or simply dedicated RRT (SkyTrain). My preference would be SkyTrain everywhere but realistically with people in metro-Vancouver geared towards the "if I have a choice all money should go to healthcare and education" and seeing how long Evergreen has taken, you won't see SkyTrain on all 3 routes and it will be SkyTrain down Fraser Highway to Langley and LRT loop from Newton through Surrey Central to Guildford.

My preference though is and will always be SkyTrain extension down Fraser Highway to Langley, and then a SkyTrain loop from Fraser Highway and 152nd down through Guildford along 104th to Surrey Central then up KGB to Newton center. Then from Newton run BRT to/from South Surrey.

Heck you could argue with a SkyTrain loop like I mention, running a BRT up 152nd instead from Fraser Highway give you'd hit more densly populated areas.

Map:



Puple line down Fraser Highway = SkyTrain extension of Expo
Light blue line = New SkyTrain crescent from Fraser Highway/152nd to Guildford (152nd) to Surrey Central (104th) to Newton (KGB)
Orange line = BRT/LRT route 104th, up 128th, down 96th, then up Scott Road to 72nd and up 72nd to Newton Exchange
Pinky route = BRT/LRT from Fraser Highway/152nd to South Surrey/Semiahmoo
Dark Red = BRT/LRT from Newton to Highway 99 P&R to South Surrey/Semiahmoo.

That's my utopian design at this stage. You cover off most of the major centers in Surrey right now bar Cloverdale. Also a SkyTrain crescent in the form of the light blue line would be around 14km which is give or take the length of Canada Line from Richmond-Brighouse to Vancouver Waterfront station so it is a justifyable length for its own line.

It also create 2 new focal transit centers in Newton @ 72nd and KGB, and Fleetwood @ 152nd and Fraser Highway. It also isn't designed such that you're trying to get people to Downtown Vancouver. It gives easy access for people in South Surrey trying to get to Guildford. Or Clayton to South Surrey. Or Langley to Surrey Central. Or Scott Road to Guildford/Surrey Central. Or even Scott Road to South Surrey.

It would allow developers to really push the 'live, work, and play' in Surrey.

Would it be cheap?

Hell no. But makes the most sense to me.

Realistically I think from my map we'll see SkyTrain extension down Fraser Highway first regionally. LRT/BRT down KGB and 104th, probably makes sense in the interim if done right then leading up to a SkyTrain loop. And most likely as a result of that you'd see BRT to South Surrey down KGB first. BRT/LRT down 152nd through Panorama is a few decades out at the speed things move here in metro-Vancouver.

20-30 years and I'd be surprised if our mass transit though in Surrey doesn't look like the map above with maybe the adition of another line from Newton down 64th through Cloverdale to Langley which in essence hits that final Cloverdale area.

[GMasterAres]

Also some may note I don't hit Morgan Heights. Morgan Heights is a bit strange. It's tucked off away and you could adjust a BRT/LRT line up 152nd to head down 32nd ave but I think hill wise it would be tough up 160th so I'm really not sure what you'd do. I think you'd have Morgan Heights connect to Semiahmoo realistically via standard bus. But I guess ultimately you _could_ have the 152nd route turn up 32nd to 160th then up 160th to 24th then down 24th back to 152nd making a little C loop.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by jhausner

I think you hit is spot on with the note on dedicated right-of-way. Once you remove dedicated right-of-way a system becomes only as fast as cars and traffic around. I've been saying it forever that you could throw 900 buses every 1 minute down King George Boulevard and it wouldn't make any difference because they would all be stuck in a giant line behind the car traffic.

Sure, but the B-Line has been running along Lougheed/Broadway for about 20 years, shouldn't a service like that be a start? You could have dedicated transit/carpool lanes during certain hours (like Hastings does).

[Track]

Originally Posted by jhausner

King George has the right of way to be able to widen it to 3 lanes both directions all the way along with the center median (so technically 4 lanes each).

104th has the right of way to do 3 lanes either direction. With turning lanes that means 104th can be physically widened to be 2 traffic lanes, 1 LRT/BRT lane, and left turning bays either direction. Neither are an issue.

Surrey's video depicting 104th as 1 lane either direction is a bit unrealistic I think and was more to depict this "calm relaxed LRT route where the birds fly and butterflies flourish." It was marketting vs reality.

I didn't know that that was the case, and if so then they should definitely put a BRT or LRT down those roads with Skytrain down Fraser Hwy. I don't know if Translink is intent on widening those roads, though, since they've stated that 104th would be one lane either way in their Rapid Transit Study. If they have the option, though, it would be ridiculous not to do it.

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by Jebby

Berlin has an excellent tram system, I hope they expand it back into the west, all the tracks that remain are in the east.

Yeah, Berlin's tram network is the one of the most extensive in the world. 22 tram lines operate across a standard gauge network with 382 stops and measuring 191.6 kilometres in length. They also have work in progress to extend the network onto west side of the city.

Trams are making a strong comeback in Europe. Trams can replace many overcrowded bus lines and are much cheaper to build than heavy subway lines. Many countries and cities are already, or at least planning to re-introducing trams as backbone of cities' public transportation system.

I find it strange how trams (or LRT in general) are not gaining popularity in North America. Considering how sparsely cities here are build, LRT is the only cost-efficient mode of rail transportation for many cities. Vancouver is one of the rare exceptions where Skytrain makes sense (due to it's existence and density around the stations). But also here there is no point building Skytrain everywhere (and also no money to do that). LRT is the future in the time after peak oil.

[TransitJack]

Originally Posted by Track

I think that Skytrain is definitely the way to go down Fraser Hwy. The only issue is what would be better for 104th and King George: BRT or LRT. At this point i'm really not sure. I think that King George could fit an LRT line, but traffic congestion might occur. I'm not so sure that 104th is suited for any rapid transit in its own right of way at all; its way to busy to go to one lane each way.

I agree, any rapid transit to Langley needs to be Skytrain. Take a drive to Langley, that city is exploding. There are so many new developments and residents. This area will need a high speed connection eventually and light rail along the surface of Fraser Highway is not going to be enough to encourage those people out of their cars.

The backbone of our system should be RRT with light rail and buses serving the communities.

Since we know Langley will need Skytrain connection eventually, built the Fraser Highway component as RRT and leave light rail for Surrey's other routes (connecting neighbourhoods)

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Sure, but the B-Line has been running along Lougheed/Broadway for about 20 years, shouldn't a service like that be a start? You could have dedicated transit/carpool lanes during certain hours (like Hastings does).

Surrey has a lot further to catch up to the region than those areas. B-Line should have been on KGB 10 years ago as with Fraser Highway. So I think we can skip it at this stage. There are 5+ different number buses that go down Fraser Highway right now and during peak periods they are so full they pass people 50% of the time.

A B-Line won't do anything IMO. And again B-Lines get stuck in traffic like everything else. If you've ever driven King George between 88th and 72nd in either direction during peak periods, that stretch which takes 5 minutes to do off peak takes 25 minutes to do on peak.

B-Lines make sense in certain spots. They don't in others. And let's face it, Broadway really should have had a line imo before or at the same time as the Canada Line. The B-Line on there to UBC has been around way too long. So in Vancouver the B-Lines stick around too long and South of Fraser we don't get any.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by Track

I didn't know that that was the case, and if so then they should definitely put a BRT or LRT down those roads with Skytrain down Fraser Hwy. I don't know if Translink is intent on widening those roads, though, since they've stated that 104th would be one lane either way in their Rapid Transit Study. If they have the option, though, it would be ridiculous not to do it.

104th and KGB are the City of Surrey not Translink. Fraser Highway is the Ministry of Transport, again not Translink. Translink has no real say in those routes what will or won't be done widening wise.

I still think the 1 lane down 104th is just a marketting thing. Surrey would never imo realistically reduce 104th to 1 lane unless they widened 108th to 3 lanes and 100th to 2 lanes.

[nname]

Originally Posted by jhausner

104th and KGB are the City of Surrey not Translink. Fraser Highway is the Ministry of Transport, again not Translink. Translink has no real say in those routes what will or won't be done widening wise.

I still think the 1 lane down 104th is just a marketting thing. Surrey would never imo realistically reduce 104th to 1 lane unless they widened 108th to 3 lanes and 100th to 2 lanes.

Fraser Highway, 104th, and KGB are all part of major road network, which TransLink provides 50% funding for construction and maintenance - so they do have a say in them.

Fraser Highway was downloaded from MoT to municipal government long time ago.

[paradigm4]

Originally Posted by jhausner

104th and KGB are the City of Surrey not Translink. Fraser Highway is the Ministry of Transport, again not Translink. Translink has no real say in those routes what will or won't be done widening wise.

I still think the 1 lane down 104th is just a marketting thing. Surrey would never imo realistically reduce 104th to 1 lane unless they widened 108th to 3 lanes and 100th to 2 lanes.

I assumed the narrowing of 104th is contingent on building 105 Ave which they are buying up property for now. And with re-development along 104th, an expanded ROW could eventually bring it back to 2 lanes with LRT

[xd_1771]

I'd like to comment: the city cannot afford to narrow 104 Ave. It's as simple as that. I'm just going to assume that it's not going to happen, because whatever visions have been thrown out there by whatever parties are completely unrealistic.

The explanation is that 104th is the only reasonable, direct and restrictions-free truck corridor from the Highway into the region's fastest-growing City Centre. The narrower roadway and risky transit presence with LRT or BRT would certainly affect that.

Building 105th Ave as a local connection road with whatever capacity won't solve this problem. Widening 100th or 108th could solve that but doing both come at extreme expense. 108th Ave would need to have a wider roadway with turn lanes so as to allow for the removal of any existing truck restrictions, and that will involve expropriation from hundreds of lots. 100th Ave needs to be maintained as an east-west cycling thoroughfare, which means that an equivalent amount of property expropriation east of Green Timbers (in addition to what environmentally damaging widening will be required within Green Timbers) would be needed so as to widen the road and give bicycles their own lane.

Regardless of what happens west of 152nd St, there is absolutely no leeway east of there. A four block stretch to 156th St is intended to become a part of the transit corridor, likely having to do with the essential connection to RapidBus. Narrowing 104th Ave there would pretty much wreck the community with the resulting need to widen every single major road in the area (100th, 154th, 156th, 160th) and expropriate huge amounts of land in order to have room for multiple-lane turn lanes with ample turn radii. There's no room to do otherwise. The point in the city with the highest congestion growth rate of any measured corridor is that particular point on 104th Ave near 156th. This is a statistical fact that was confirmed in Surrey's traffic volume data.

In the past year or so you haven't seen me around, I have developed a far stronger case for what I've been saying ever since. Has anyone even thought about how these needed modifications to the road network will seriously inflate the cost of BRT or LRT down 104th!? Has anyone even thought of the severe economic costs and lost benefits as a result of stifled goods movement into City Centre!?

[WaxItYourself]

There probably won;t need to be as many trucks on 104th as the South Fraser Perimeter Road is currently under construction and 156th is 4 blocks past the terminus of 152nd and Guildford. Not arguing just pointing out some possibilities and errors that perhaps you did not take into account.

[xd_1771]

There's a reason why NDP MLA and transportation critic Harry Bains is not convinced himself that the SFPR will do much for Surrey, particularly 104th & 108th Aves.

SFPR is not a through route into City Centre - it bypasses city centre. It serves a travel market that may be entirely different. It is not a replacement for City Centre bound commercial traffic. It also has no relevance to the large commercial and regional destination that is Guildford.

We shouldn't place our trust onto a route that is not even complete. I don't have any complete idea of the traffic patterns and where these trucks are going (some north, some south, some city centre), and I might blame the City of Surrey for that for not providing very detailed traffic count info (Vancouver's data is so much more comprehensive, every intersection and the volume of every turn lane is counted!), but I do know that they are not going to simply stop coming as a result of the SFPR. Right now, they are coming, alongside the non-commercial vehicles, at an increase rate higher than whatever rate on any other city road. That is already happening - think of how much more it will happen when both City Centre and Guildford experience the huge volumes of growth they are predicted to receive.

Also, never underestimate a 4 block stretch. Not too long ago (April or so) a truck driver rammed into a bus stop and so that 4 block stretch was closed that Sunday. It was a Sunday, and there was traffic havoc - so much traffic havoc that if I wasn't a cyclist, my community mobility would have been completely hampered for the day.

[WaxItYourself]

This is what the SFPR was designed for. To take the load off city roads. all trucks need to do to get down to the SFPR from Guildford is drive to the Port Mann and at Patullo all they need to do is go up Peterson Hill. It would actually be quicker, use less gas, and so on than attempting to drive down 104th with the plethora of lights and traffic there more than likely. There would be a smaller amount of idling, greater speeds, and less pollution brought into the two sections of the city. I think first we wait to see how the SFPR handles the increase in road traffic then from there decide if 104th would be better with an LRT down the middle. I definitely would not write the whole thing off yet as you seem to want to do.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by WaxItYourself

all trucks need to do to get down to the SFPR from Guildford is drive to the Port Mann

...no... SFPR doesn't connect at Port Mann...

But I expect it will still make quite a difference to Surrey avenues.

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by WaxItYourself

This is what the SFPR was designed for. To take the load off city roads. all trucks need to do to get down to the SFPR from Guildford is drive to the Port Mann and at Patullo all they need to do is go up Peterson Hill. It would actually be quicker, use less gas, and so on than attempting to drive down 104th with the plethora of lights and traffic there more than likely. There would be a smaller amount of idling, greater speeds, and less pollution brought into the two sections of the city. I think first we wait to see how the SFPR handles the increase in road traffic then from there decide if 104th would be better with an LRT down the middle. I definitely would not write the whole thing off yet as you seem to want to do.

Through-Surrey drivers from the east bound for King George Blvd south of City centre redirecting onto SFPR will need to contend with seriously large volumes of Pattullo-bound traffic. Bear in mind that the connections to King George Blvd from SFPR will not be an interchange. What you suggest is that a choice of two connections (Bridgeview Dr or the Tannery Rd exit), both with single lane sections, single lane turns, and several signal lights on their own (including shorter and much less prioritized turn signals), is an appropriate redirect route for anywhere between 20,000 to 30,000 City Centre bound vehicles per day (and growing), commercial or otherwise, on both 104th and 108th Aves, who also have to contend with a boatload of competing Pattullo-bound cross-for-free redirect traffic

Sorry, but I just don't see this as realistic. What fuel savings might be had from the stop-less SFPR trek will be completely unbalanced with the much longer trip length and the requirement for more turn movements onto King George Blvd (and associated idle time).

I can agree with what Zassk says. I'm well aware of what the SFPR is going to do to reduce goods movement traffic through Surrey streets. I can see a significant drop in 88th Ave and perhaps 108th Ave truck volumes as a result of its introduction. What I do not see happening is any significant reduction in 104th Ave's goods movement importance as a result of the SFPR. No one should simply assume that the introduction of the SFPR will make the reduction in 104th Ave capacity acceptable, even if 104th Ave commercial traffic does take a drop with the SFPR is in place by this December. There are a plethora of other issues beyond that which would need to be addressed.