Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[logicbomb]

Yeah, it’s no secret that Surrey is adamantly against any ALRT expansion into the region, and hell bent on building the LRT network. Surrey planners and engineers face the insurmountable task of having to increase capacity along many adjacent arterial roads while aiming to reduce capacity on the 3 main corridors to accommodate the LRT network. The removal of 2 bi-directional lanes along 104th and Fraser Highway concerns me.

Ideally I would like to see the Expo Line extended down to 168th with an LRT line replacing the 96 B-Line.

[go_leafs_go02]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

Yeah, it’s no secret that Surrey is adamantly against any ALRT expansion into the region, and hell bent on building the LRT network. Surrey planners and engineers face the insurmountable task of having to increase capacity along many adjacent arterial roads while aiming to reduce capacity on the 3 main corridors to accommodate the LRT network. The removal of 2 bi-directional lanes along 104th and Fraser Highway concerns me.

Ideally I would like to see the Expo Line extended down to 168th with an LRT line replacing the 96 B-Line.

Fraser Highway has space available on the north side that's continuously been dedicated for road/transit purposes with redevelopment. Most of it now has space for either centre running transit or side running transit. 104 Avenue will have more issues.

For reference, here's the City's road allowance map, this show space that is necessary for the road when it ultimately is constructed, which in some cases includes transit ROWs or 4-6 lane alignments: http://www.surrey.ca/files/Road_Allowance_Map_July_2013.pdf

[xd_1771]

Fraser Highway will keep its two lanes/direction, but there's going to be a lot of property acquisition involved to widen the roadway so it can fit LRT in some areas (particularly Fleetwood).

104th Avenue is going to be a disaster for the community... and having been a Guildford resident for many years, sometimes I feel like I can only worry for the people of my past who are still there because Surrey's Mayor/Council and staff are so arrogant, and people just don't even know what's coming. Apart from the community disruption, LRT is going to mean forced transfers, cut express rides and much longer commutes for riders from Fraser Heights, Walnut Grove and all points east. It doesn't add up.

I was heading into Fraser Heights this evening to meet some friends and city workers decided to close an eastbound lane around 154th Street. During the rush hour. The community, as expected, turned into a messy tangle of seemingly-parked cars. I've seen it too many times.

In the off-peak, at 22 minutes the 96 is scheduled faster than the proposed LRT. The improvement is marginal at best, even in the peak hour.

[GlassCity]

Well Surrey doesn't want LRT to provide good, efficient transit. They just want to encourage more development, which happens with both LRT and RRT so they just chose the cheaper option. Skytrain should be the technology used because once you put in LRT there's no going back, even after the city outgrows it. If there's no room, dig a tunnel. Don't cheap out and build it right the first time. Somehow Greater Vancouver has managed to avoid the LRT trend so far, and it would be a shame to see us get sucked in anyway.

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02

Fraser Highway has space available on the north side that's continuously been dedicated for road/transit purposes with redevelopment. Most of it now has space for either centre running transit or side running transit. 104 Avenue will have more issues.

Yeah, I have seen this map, but a few engineers have noted a desire to accommodate a bi-directional LRT service with a center platform. The belief among some of them is that a congested corridor may propel or entice people to use the network. It’s an absolute joke and why I opted to work in another municipality.

Originally Posted by xd_1771

Fraser Highway will keep its two lanes/direction, but there's going to be a lot of property acquisition involved to widen the roadway so it can fit LRT in some areas (particularly Fleetwood).

104th Avenue is going to be a disaster for the community... and having been a Guildford resident for many years, sometimes I feel like I can only worry for the people of my past who are still there because Surrey's Mayor/Council and staff are so arrogant, and people just don't even know what's coming. Apart from the community disruption, LRT is going to mean forced transfers, cut express rides and much longer commutes for riders from Fraser Heights, Walnut Grove and all points east. It doesn't add up.

Arrogant and clueless. The long-term vision of many leaders, planners, and engineers in the City of Surrey is to establish a downtown core, and have the LRT network funnel into the core; however this aspiration is based on current models and projections that forecast the population to increase by 40% in 50-75 years time. Right now, many sources of employment, educational institutions and cultural and entertainment amenities are still based North of that Fraser.

In the off-peak, at 22 minutes the 96 is scheduled faster than the proposed LRT. The improvement is marginal at best, even in the peak hour.

Agree, it takes me an average of 5 min (non-peak) to 9 min (in peak-hour) to reach Guildford or Surrey Central with the 96. Is it really worth it, especially considering how the corridor is only 3.5 KM in length?

[xd_1771]

They just want to encourage more development, which happens with both LRT and RRT so they just chose the cheaper option.

I find myself concerned with this perspective as well. LRT is definitely going to bring more rail stations than perhaps an option that integrates a SkyTrain expansion, but at the same time we've already got a lot of new rail expansion to build off of in Metro Vancouver. The M-Line is still fairly ripe for development; there are several stations on the C-Line, and the E-Line is also coming in. Bringing any sort of rail rapid transit into Surrey is going to do more to kill off one of the big reasons that developers are coming there in the first place: the land is cheaper, the fees are cheaper, the taxes are lower, and it's just cheap cheap cheap. Rapid transit isn't cheap, and the effects created by rapid transit are rather against cheap. In my view, it may take longer than Surrey expects for the development-related benefits to be seen if an LRT is built - because Surrey could end up being put on the waitlist until the rest of the rapid network is built first. There's just so much opportunity still existing to build and attract buyers around the current SkyTrain network... plus SkyTrain is better and more convenient transit anyway.

The fact that most employment is North of Fraser (particularly in Vancouver) and will remain that way for quite awhile doesn't help either.

I think that Surrey should only expect to REALLY be able to compete against the rest of Metro Van in gaining those development dollars with the same kind of rapid transit forte and more employment in both Surrey's own city core and outlying town centres. The latter would very much be helped by the former. Faster access of the town cores would make reverse commutes from the north of Fraser more viable, naturally opening up an opportunity for more dense TOD office spaces throughout the city - which can benefit Surrey residents too.

Lastly: Not that I'm for BRT that much, but Surrey is adept at making use of the "buses don't attract development like rail does" argument to discredit BRT even if its capacity provision actually could meet the demand on the corridor for that type of service. A lot of notable transit consultants/experts suggest otherwise.

[nname]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Well Surrey doesn't want LRT to provide good, efficient transit.

Surrey doesn't care. Its TransLink's job to figure out how to accommodate the lines into the transit system and magically come out with the cash to operate them.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Surrey isn't going to pay any of them directly? Its like you're giving someone your Christmas wishlist and ask him to buy them for you...

[rsxstock]

I haven't been to surrey for many years but do they really have the density for inter-city transit like LRT? I only recall them having 1 or 2 city centers with lots of farmland and houses at cul de sacs

[xd_1771]

Yeah, I have seen this map, but a few engineers have noted a desire to accommodate a bi-directional LRT service with a center platform. The belief among some of them is that a congested corridor may propel or entice people to use the network. It’s an absolute joke and why I opted to work in another municipality.

This is exactly what makes me irked about this whole LRT for Surrey thing. One day, I won't be able to care less about what happens to Surrey, because it is a community I'm no longer a part of and eventually won't hold any attachments to. What will irk me forever is if the hypocrisy wins. While the City seems to be so enthusiastic about how LRT will make and shape communities, the communities that existed beforehand must be essentially destroyed before it happens.

Planning a huge non-transit detriment for the sake of a small transit improvement and development monies isn't about servicing the people, and doesn't add up. People won't be able to get to their jobs or be productive in their community. Of course, according to Mayor Watts, SkyTrain also "destroys communities".... so I guess that has a lot to do with the "why does it matter" attitude.

[Rico]

Originally Posted by rsxstock

I haven't been to surrey for many years but do they really have the density for inter-city transit like LRT? I only recall them having 1 or 2 city centers with lots of farmland and houses at cul de sacs

The Fraser highway and 104th corridors could support LRT, King George not yet but if it was redeveloped probably. One of the problems is the 104th corridor for LRT is it won't connect with any of the express type buses so....lots of tranfers and longer travel times than BRT....so ridership wise it could work but BRT would actually be better on that route. That leaves the Fraser Hwy corridor but the Translink numbers show Skytrain having a better net present value on that route so...Bottom line is very weak business case for 3 LRT lines, a case could be made for the Fraser Hwy route but the best available info suggests it has a lower return on investment than the more expensive Skytrain option. If I was signing the check I would want to know why my money was not being used in the best way just because someone at city hall wants LRT.

[rsxstock]

quite a few supporting surrey LRT here
http://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/1rlx6e/fed_up_surrey_asks_ottawa_for_18_b_to_fund_3/

[memememe76]

I guess I don't pay attention to the City's official opposition to Skytrain but I haven't found the residents opposing Skytrain. I think it'd be greatly supported--I doubt Translink would face the same hurdles they would if/when the Broadway Line is built.

I thought the City's LRT plans reflect less opposition to Skytrain and more resignation to never getting Skytrain.

That said, as a Guildford resident, I cannot see how a light rail line will improve the existing 96B. I love that bus!

[nname]

Signs are up for the December route changes:

C48 reroute
C41 becomes bi-directional
C38 reroute (it doesn't says but the discontinued potion are replaced by 178, 188, C28, C29, and C30)
C30 reroute and replaced by 188, C28
C29 reroute and replaced by 160, 188, C28
C21, C23 split and frequency change
229 split into 227, 229
189 cancelled and replaced by 188, C38
179 cancelled and replaced by 178, C29
179 cancelled and replaced by 188, C28

Now pretty much every single bus stop at the Coquitlam Centre area have up to 3 of these things attached...

[rsxstock]

I just want to know, were they proposing LRT for the olympic village area? did they do any studies to justify a system there?

[officedweller]

That would be the City of Vancouver's streetcar project (not TransLink) - which has been dormant since the Olympics (doesn't seem to be a Vision priority).

[GlassCity]

I really don't see the point of starting up a streetcar network when we already have an extensive trolley system. Just seems like money that could be saved elsewhere.

I have absolutely no connection to Surrey, but it would just break my heart if we do end up participating in the LRT fad. While it seems like a good idea now, we'll ultimately look back on it as a mistake to first of all use slower, less efficent transit, but more importantly to not integrate our system. I'm legit nervous

[CBeats]

Well, I just found out that the West Vancouver modifications of the 252 and 251 buses are a) being delayed AGAIN until April and b) altering their new routes to make them almost identical to what they were before, which were meandering and not useful. One of the routes was supposed to go up and down Taylor Way, but apparently that had to be stopped because there is so much traffic in the intersection that the route would never make it to any stops on time. Pretty disappointing, but I guess I understand...

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I really don't see the point of starting up a streetcar network when we already have an extensive trolley system. Just seems like money that could be saved elsewhere.

I have absolutely no connection to Surrey, but it would just break my heart if we do end up participating in the LRT fad. While it seems like a good idea now, we'll ultimately look back on it as a mistake to first of all use slower, less efficent transit, but more importantly to not integrate our system. I'm legit nervous

Ironically, even though dianne watts wants LRT for surrey, even she expressed her dislike of slow transit at the recent 'moving the future' conference....

Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts lamented her own commute to the Convention Centre this morning: the drive took over an hour when leaving at around 6am. Had she opted to take the SkyTrain, it would not have helped much: Watts would still have had to drive 30 minutes to the nearest station.

http://www.vancouverobserver.com/life/tr...on-transportation-friendly-city?page=0,0

[queetz@home]

Originally Posted by memememe76

I thought the City's LRT plans reflect less opposition to Skytrain and more resignation to never getting Skytrain.

I think this is a very accurate statement, and I know exactly where this is coming from. Back in the day, even I supported LRT for the Evergreen Line, even sided with John Kingsbury and spoke to several Translink public board meetings to help make it happen. The feeling back then was if we don't support LRT, we will never have rapid transit in the Northeast Sector.

Of course, that is all history, but getting Skytrain for the Northeast Sector is really sheer luck. A lot of you remember when even Christy was threatening to derail it due to "gas tax will hurt families" or something like that. If it weren't for the miscommunication between her and Blair Lekstrom which she was forced to rectify, she probably would have stalled it like Gordon Campbell, Kevin Falcon, etc. Because of the blunder, she had no choice (political) but to accept the gas tax. So while its easy to breathe now that the Northeast Sector is getting Skytrain, before that lucky moment, it was pretty much a hopeless cause.

I just don't know how Surrey can get their rapid transit at this point, unless they accept a lesser option such as LRT. Just be thankful that they haven't downgraded it to BRT...now that is truly desperate....

[xd_1771]

Who knows what's the real motivation towards LRT and from SkyTrain, whether it's really a resignation.... what most of the public should know is that SkyTrain, according to Surrey's politicians and spokespersons, splits and destroys communities. I will never stop going back to those words and I will never stop putting pressure on them for that.