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

[go_leafs_go02]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

Also, is there any indication if they will have the buses that go through the Walnut Grove exchange go through the new Rapid Bus park and ride, or is the park and ride only for Rapid bus? Also, what kind of buses do you think they will use on the rapid bus service?

The Walnut Grove exchange will be shut down completely. Everything will be transferred over to Carvolth (202 Street @ Highway 1)

[xd_1771]

What large trucks are typically destined for City Centre in Surrey? Most industrial areas are located along the SFPR, and these trucks going for those areas are presently forced to go via 104 or 108 avenue to King George to get to River Road or South Fraser Way, and ultimately to areas to the west. I am concerned with those traffic signals that will be on the SFPR - it should have been a limited access freeway from the get-go.

Almost every truck coming down 104 ave turns North on King George and heads for Scott Road/South Westminster or further away

I don't like the way the concept is being dismissed as something that is that simple because the reality is it will not be that simple. In a world where mixed-use development is becoming the norm, you would both be mistaken to think that light industrial is the sole generator of such commercial traffic. The introduction of the SFPR does not spell the end of 104th Ave as a regionally essential corridor. Without regarding the size and amount of such commercial traffic, the fact is that such traffic is going to be there and will require an unrestricted, safe, efficient corridor for travel that is out local community's way, for corridor-unique purposes as well as for the purpose of serving as the best alternative to SFPR in case of a closure. With that regard, the growth that will be created by the two centres on either end of the corridor should not be underestimated, as the conditions of the two centres as a result of close distance & integration as well as both expecting high population & employment growth rates can be expected to generate the most local and regional demand for both goods and passenger movement of any particular area in the region.

It would be a mistake to undermine the requirement of sustainably located and established capacity. The current plan, which proposes the replacement of regionally critical road capacity (at the expense of livability in the local community which will have to deal with offsets) with inconvenient and uncompetitive transit will be a highly insensitive and inefficient use of limited transit funding.

[jlousa]

Figured this was probably the best place for this, Translink has issued an RFP for the Surrey Central Exchange Schematic design. I'm sure some you will enjoy reading it through. Sorry don't have the time to cut and paste a readers digest version, hopefully someone else can.

http://www.translink.ca/~/media/document..._opportunities/q12%20086/q12086_rfp.ashx

[Millennium2002]

Hrm. Who came up with the silly method of splitting the drop off and pick up zones for preferred Options A and C? I can see that making transfers a bit longer and more arduous in bad weather...

Also the Option B concept isn't very good either as it will most likely cause jaywalkers to run across the exchange...

[Millennium2002]

I know there hasn't been activity in awhile but I'd like to have some comments on this idea.

What do people think if, in the case of the LRT or SkyTrain option being picked for Fraser Hwy, that there still be an elevated guideway built for either option to pass through the Green Timbers section?

I recall TransLink highlighting the Green Timbers section as an issue in one of their presentations, and how for the LRT option they would use signal priority alone to speed up their progress in that particular section. I don't necessarily agree with them that that would help the trains go any faster, given how other car traffic may cause backups along the same route.

[Track]

The Green Timbers section is why I've always advocated for Skytrain down Fraser Hwy. That being said, raised LRT over that part of the route could also make sense.

Does anyone have any opinions on the Rapid Transit proposed in the King George redevelopment? The diagram shows BRT down King George Blvd with LRT down Fraser Hwy. I could see it working, however I would like the BRT vehicles to use electric power rather than Diesel, which has recently been seen as a health hazard.

[nname]

Originally Posted by allan_kuan

I know there hasn't been activity in awhile but I'd like to have some comments on this idea.

What do people think if, in the case of the LRT or SkyTrain option being picked for Fraser Hwy, that there still be an elevated guideway built for either option to pass through the Green Timbers section?

I recall TransLink highlighting the Green Timbers section as an issue in one of their presentations, and how for the LRT option they would use signal priority alone to speed up their progress in that particular section. I don't necessarily agree with them that that would help the trains go any faster, given how other car traffic may cause backups along the same route.

For Green Timbers, RRT will elevated in the center of the road. BRT and LRT will share roadway with the road (ie. no exclusive ROW). See page 27 of the design guide. In my opinion, this would be the major bottleneck of the system, especially when it is so close to Surrey Central... Although there haven't been any update for the project for more than a year now so I wonder if anything has changed...

[GMasterAres]

Living is a health hazard. We're all going to die one day regardless and let's face it, even a diesel B-Line is better for the environment than what we have today because it is supposed to in theory reduce car traffic.

That said, they've seemingly had a hell of a time just widening Fraser Highway through Green Timbers so I can't imagine them widening it for road traffic which quite frankly is required, and widening it even more for LRT/BRT/AnyRT also. You'd have a giant swath of trees gone from the park.

I'd prefer elevated regardless of if it is LRT or SkyTrain just because it would most likely result in less deforestation through Green Timbers.

[xd_1771]

An elevated LRT through Green Timbers may present more issues, as the larger overhead of LRT (i.e. power delivery) could create conflict with the Hydro power lines. Same goes for many other areas in Surrey. SkyTrain may not face this to the same extent, and there are many places where SkyTrain's low-height trains pass gracefully under major power lines in Vancouver.

Proposals as is, I don't see a SkyTrain extension down Fraser Highway as something that will cost much more (if at all) than an LRT (even as a fully at-grade system) for a few reasons:
1. Cost over-estimation for SkyTrain option ($100-150m/km vs. $110m/km for Canada Line [multiple tunnels + bridges] vs. $50-70m/km for elevated Expo/Millennium Line [historical costs])
2. New OMC requirement for LRT, + associated land costs
3. Higher annual incremental operations/maintenance costs vs LIM & driver-less system

nname, do you think that a shared-ROW of LRT/BRT on Fraser Highway could limit reliable theoretical max service frequency of LRT? I've been thinking of it again and now that I've been hearing from the rest, I don't find myself to favour this proposal as much anymore. I just realized something: if a car were to break down on the left/shared lane (shit happens, Calgary + Edmonton both had accidents disrupt LRT services lately), that would be hell for the LRT service and all commuters in both directions, plus shuttle buses that'll need to navigate all the way around Green Timbers to provide service continuation.

According to the City of Surrey, the first parts of Fraser Highway widening through Green Timbers are actually coming very soon. The latest 10-year plan proposes the section east of 96th within 4-6 years, and I'm pretty sure west of there will go ahead even earlier.

Updates have really been lacking, but I would blame the slow publishing of info. The latest Surrey transportation infrastructure committee minutes just published today but are still from back in late November, and they don't reveal a lot of new things.

[Jebby]

Why can't it just be at-grade in a median down Fraser Highway? There are no intersections down that stretch.

[whiteshadow]

Originally Posted by Jebby

Why can't it just be at-grade in a median down Fraser Highway? There are no intersections down that stretch.

There is no median in that stretch. It's a dinky two lane road with just double yellow lines separating the lanes.

[Millennium2002]

The issue isn't with the road... it's with the land on both sides, which are protected by the Green Timbers parkland. Cutting down any of the trees on the side for a purpose other than parkland, e.g. rapid transit and/or road expansion, may be considered political suicide for the Surrey City Council, even if it is the most logical decision.

[Track]

Green Timbers really is the reason why I favour SkyTrain over any at-grade transit for Fraser Hwy. That section of the road is already a major bottleneck, which will hugely impact the reliability of any rapid transit route going through it. Also, even on the less-constrained parts of the road, you'd still need to widen the road by at least a lane, requiring a lot of property purchases and rebuilding of the road.

[Zassk]

I can't believe there is not already a strategy in place for getting future rapid transit across this park. You would think that a city that feels transit is long-overdue would have this kind of detail already resolved. The lack of a ready solution for Green Timbers tells me that rapid transit will not be expanding in this direction.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by allan_kuan

The issue isn't with the road... it's with the land on both sides, which are protected by the Green Timbers parkland. Cutting down any of the trees on the side for a purpose other than parkland, e.g. rapid transit and/or road expansion, may be considered political suicide for the Surrey City Council, even if it is the most logical decision.

Weren't a huge amount of trees cut down for the RCMP building?

[Track]

Looking on Google Maps there is definitely a large cleared out area.

The issue with Green Timbers, even beyond rapid transit, is that it is a major entry point into Surrey's downtown, particularly for anyone coming from other South of Fraser cities like Langley. The fact that it's a small, two lane road is really going to become an issue in the near future once Central really starts developing. The only way that I can see getting around it is to provide raised rapid transit (so, Skytrain) over the section, providing enough convenience to get the majority of riders onto transit and clearing up the traffic issues there.

[BCPhil]

Designated park land doesn't go right up to the shoulder of a road. The city has left plenty of space for widening the road and has even planned so far ahead there is space in the park cut out for a rerouting of 148 St and 92 Ave to meet at a new intersection inside the park. I also don't think it would be political suicide because more people would be in favor of improving traffic on that stretch of road than there are tree hugging hippies. Barely two farts were made over cutting trees and destroying the nature center for the RCMP building (yes I know it is outside the park, but most people wouldn't know that).

Also, Green Timbers is stupid. It is a stupid park. It is just a tiny second growth forest and so densely overgrown that most of it is useless as a park for people. It is just a place for all the raccoons and cyotees (and even the occasional cougar) to live, but there is no natural food source for them in the park so they hunt for food inside the city, stealing from garbage cans and killing people's pets. On some level's it's quite cruel. I'm not saying cut it all down, but the forest should be better managed and losing a few trees to make the city (driving and transit) more efficient should be a priority.

The only reason the road hasn't been widened is because the city of Surrey has no money and 99+ other road problems and the province is spending its money elsewhere.

[xd_1771]

As I was saying earlier.... According to the City of Surrey, the first parts of Fraser Highway widening through Green Timbers are actually coming very soon. The latest 10-year plan proposes the section east of 96th within 4-6 years, and I'm pretty sure west of there will go ahead even earlier.

I'm not entirely sure, but I'm tempted to agree with the above. It's nice to have nature in a city near the city centre...... but when it's bigger than all of the other parks in other cities and is bounded/spliced by several major roads anyway, with many of its quadrants not being too useful. It's not a special habitat of any sort like Burnaby Lake or Burn's Bog. I don't think this is a Surrey exclusivity though.... Mundy Park in Coquitlam may be similar, unless I don't know something about it.

At the very least, some parts of the small section of it north of 100 Ave could definitely be put to better use.

[Track]

I wanted to ask something here: for all that people have debated about LRT v. BRT v. RRT, no one's mentioned streetcars. Which aren't rapid transit, I know. But they're cheap, extensive, and can most definitely drive development and ridership in a way that buses can't. Of course, they probably aren't a better option, I was just wondering if anyone who knows a bit more about different transit options might be able to evaluate the pros and cons of a tram system in a city like Surrey.

[xd_1771]

and can most definitely drive development and ridership in a way that buses can't

And how do you expect might that happen? o_O