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

[AForce]

just google "Calgary C Train Accident"...do you want your transit network to work like that?

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by makr3trkr

Fraser Highway is very rapidly increasing in density, and many of the homes are relatively close to the street.

Skytrain there would basically be putting a viaduct in hundreds of people's front yards.

Wouldn't be surprised if that also factored in to the decision to endorse light rail over Skytrain.

It would mostly be their back yards. Most of the new development along the Fraser Highway have homes, condos and townhomes fronting side streets with their backs to Fraser Highway. On top of it, many have a rather large buffer zone. It's commercial properties that crowd and front the highway.

I don't see the benefit to a home owner of LRT in the back yard over a Skytrain viaduct. I was just in Calgary and stayed in a hotel and my room was overlooking the tracks. They rumble by louder than Skytrain. And on top of it is the dinging. The street crossings have gates that lower with flashing lights and dinging bells, and the trains themselves toot and ding sometimes.

I would take living near Skytrain any day over all the ding ding ding ding dinging of the level LRT crossings.

But I guess if you already live along the Fraser Highway you are already used to all the diesel engines in trucks and buses making a racket at all hours of the day.

[makr3trkr]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

It would mostly be their back yards. Most of the new development along the Fraser Highway have homes, condos and townhomes fronting side streets with their backs to Fraser Highway. On top of it, many have a rather large buffer zone. It's commercial properties that crowd and front the highway.

I don't see the benefit to a home owner of LRT in the back yard over a Skytrain viaduct. I was just in Calgary and stayed in a hotel and my room was overlooking the tracks. They rumble by louder than Skytrain. And on top of it is the dinging. The street crossings have gates that lower with flashing lights and dinging bells, and the trains themselves toot and ding sometimes.

I would take living near Skytrain any day over all the ding ding ding ding dinging of the level LRT crossings.

But I guess if you already live along the Fraser Highway you are already used to all the diesel engines in trucks and buses making a racket at all hours of the day.

I mostly agree with what you are saying, but I should note:

There are certainly many areas along Fraser Highway where houses and townhomes directly front the road, or are within metres of the "highway."



Cambie is also a designated truck route, much wider, and arguably better suited for an elevated guideway (at least south of King Edward).



Telling people that they already live on a "highway" and should just put up with Skytrain noise at 1am and reduced sunlight is all well and good, but there is also the political reality to consider.

[GlassCity]

I personally think it should go under ground, but I know that's a non-starter

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by makr3trkr

Telling people that they already live on a "highway" and should just put up with Skytrain noise at 1am and reduced sunlight is all well and good, but there is also the political reality to consider.

If we're talking about King George Highway then "reduced sunlight" is nonsense. King George runs north/south, so the guideway shadow is only going to fall on people's houses for 30 minutes or less near sunrise (for those on the west side of King George) or sunset (for those on the east side).

An east/west guideway has a bigger impact on those living to the north side of it since the shadow will be in much the same position for a more substantial portion of the day.

[makr3trkr]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

If we're talking about King George Highway then "reduced sunlight" is nonsense. King George runs north/south, so the guideway shadow is only going to fall on people's houses for 30 minutes or less near sunrise (for those on the west side of King George) or sunset (for those on the east side).

An east/west guideway has a bigger impact on those living to the north side of it since the shadow will be in much the same position for a more substantial portion of the day.

Fraser Highway, running NW/SE.

The people who live on south Cambie probably had similar fears but we all know how that panned out - nice wide, 6-lane street, *huge* median, houses set back from the street. Didn't matter.

savecambie.org


Saving the street trees (which had been planted only a few decades earlier) was the flimsy pretext for simply not wanting to look at or hear rapid transit, along with the perception that a viaduct would slice the neighbourhood in half, increase criminality, and lower property values (whether any of those hold up to scrutiny is another question).

[MIPS]

Originally Posted by makr3trkr

Fraser Highway is very rapidly increasing in density, and many of the homes are relatively close to the street.

Skytrain there would basically be putting a viaduct in hundreds of people's front yards.

Wouldn't be surprised if that also factored in to the decision to endorse light rail over Skytrain.

In the Vancouver Sun archives from around 1984 there was a similar outcry (noise, obstructed sunlight, property values etc.) for the Expo Line between Broadway and 22nd street which in some cases is literally up against bedroom windows. I don't believe a concession was ever really made though. They just drew a line and built it and eventually the complaints were drowned out by the fact that there was finally rail transit in the city.

[Whalleyboy]

Originally Posted by Kisai

I think most of us do because it's less complicated than explaining 4 different things:

1. Fully Automated Metro in it's own grade separation (Skytrain, Canada Line) with third rail power
2. Partially Automated Metro (eg most Subway systems) in it's own grade separation (Which also includes some sections of LRT's like the O-train) with third rail power
3. At-grade, dedicated ROW Manually driven light rail (C-Train) with overhead catenary
4. At-grade, shared ROW Manually driven (Portland Max, StreetCars) with overhead catenary

Of course nothing will ever cleanly fit into any definition, so we shorthand call any at-grade light rail "LRT", and any grade separated rail "Skytrain" or "Subway" depending if it's above the ground or below.

Like if it was really an argument about technology, we would be pressing Translink to run trolley-bus wires everywhere and use more trolleybuses before even considering rail, but that tends to run counter to the trend of burying all the overhead wires and is less flexible. Nobody wants to see trolley wires everywhere, even if the electric trolleybus lasts twice as long, and makes less pollution and noise. I'm actually expecting advancements in "plug-in electric" charging that would negate the need for the trolleywires, and the drivers just switch buses to charge instead of refueling. Or just switching the batteries. LRT's still have overhead wires. So if people are really being NIMBY about the guideway's, the LRT's still have "ugly overhead wires"

I guess you have never heard of bombardiers primove. Its a technology that actually makes it so there is no need for over head wires. I've attached a link in which you can check out.

http://primove.bombardier.com/en/application/light-rail/

In all honesty I for one was originally against the LRT. But then looking a little deeper into things my mind kinda changed about LRT. Things like technology in the link would take out any look of ugliness to it going up. Also that is a disadvantage to skytrain on fraser hwy. I mean have you ever driven down fraser and while driving down really took a second and enjoyed the gorgeous view of baker? There is a good possiblity that we wouldn't have that with skytrain down that road anymore. Also while driving down both king george and fraser hwy I thought about timing at intersections lets say we start LRT down these roads. There most likely would be lets say about 3 mins between cars. Both these roads and the way Surrey works already gives these roads right away with lights. Plus its not like a like a light stays green in most intersections on these routes for more then 3 mins anyways. If we have someone really look at the timing with LRT it could almost be done seamlessly if you really think of it.

In the end I will admit that skytrain is far superior system with out any doubt. I would love to see it every where. But we would get more sooner with LRT. I mean we all really want to get Langley in the connection with transit that's for sure. But when Newton has almost the same population of both Langley city and township combined in a place at min 1/6 the size it be almost stupid to not add some form of "rapid" transit to that area as well.(2011 number Newton:125,720 Langleys:129,258)

Also if we did make LRT would we just call it Groundtrain since we have Skytrain on guided tracks? lol

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Whalleyboy

I guess you have never heard of bombardiers primove. Its a technology that actually makes it so there is no need for over head wires. I've attached a link in which you can check out.

http://primove.bombardier.com/en/application/light-rail/

In all honesty I for one was originally against the LRT. But then looking a little deeper into things my mind kinda changed about LRT. Things like technology in the link would take out any look of ugliness to it going up. Also that is a disadvantage to skytrain on fraser hwy. I mean have you ever driven down fraser and while driving down really took a second and enjoyed the gorgeous view of baker? There is a good possiblity that we wouldn't have that with skytrain down that road anymore. Also while driving down both king george and fraser hwy I thought about timing at intersections lets say we start LRT down these roads. There most likely would be lets say about 3 mins between cars. Both these roads and the way Surrey works already gives these roads right away with lights. Plus its not like a like a light stays green in most intersections on these routes for more then 3 mins anyways. If we have someone really look at the timing with LRT it could almost be done seamlessly if you really think of it.

In the end I will admit that skytrain is far superior system with out any doubt. I would love to see it every where. But we would get more sooner with LRT. I mean we all really want to get Langley in the connection with transit that's for sure. But when Newton has almost the same population of both Langley city and township combined in a place at min 1/6 the size it be almost stupid to not add some form of "rapid" transit to that area as well.(2011 number Newton:125,720 Langleys:129,258)

Also if we did make LRT would we just call it Groundtrain since we have Skytrain on guided tracks? lol

But even with 100% flawless signal priority (which is not possible) the LRT will still have to adhere to the speed limit, slowing them down.

You say you agree that SkyTrain is a superior system. So wouldn't you rather wait longer for that than get something worse but sooner? I know I would. Especially since the buses aren't really all that congested yet so it's not so much a requirement here as it is a want. It's clear that Surrey is a priority, so even if it's built after Broadway you really wouldn't be waiting so long that the 96 will look like the 99. Besides, that way you get something with concrete benefits in speed and reliability that will serve the city for years to come.

One last point I want to make is that it's no secret that Surrey has a terrible reputation in the metro. And I feel that by choosing LRT as its technology, it would be saying that they're fine with being a second-tier city within the metro. I just think that Surrey deserves what everybody else has, not anything less.

[Whalleyboy]

Where does it say it has to follow the roads speed limits when it has its own dedicated row? I could understand if it shared lanes with traffic but majority of this system is planned to be in its own dedicated row. I think they could easily go 80km/h with this system. not like most traffic on both roads don't go it anyways.

Also one thing worth noting is Surreys young population(18 and under) Not only do we have the largest group in that thats 1/3 of Surreys population its also the largest in the region. If we get a transit system in before they start to drive and want to get cars we may be able to avoid adding more cars to the road and have much more people added to using transit and grow up getting use to using it. I mean I'm only 27 and I've been driving since i was 17 there is no way I will give up my car for transit now.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by Whalleyboy

Where does it say it has to follow the roads speed limits when it has its own dedicated row? I could understand if it shared lanes with traffic but majority of this system is planned to be in its own dedicated row. I think they could easily go 80km/h with this system. not like most traffic on both roads don't go it anyways.

Also one thing worth noting is Surreys young population(18 and under) Not only do we have the largest group in that thats 1/3 of Surreys population its also the largest in the region. If we get a transit system in before they start to drive and want to get cars we may be able to avoid adding more cars to the road and have much more people added to using transit and grow up getting use to using it. I mean I'm only 27 and I've been driving since i was 17 there is no way I will give up my car for transit now.

Inductive power transfer... this technology is meant for warm climates that don't have snow. Anyplace that has snow, has snow plows and salt/sand.

Here's what I have to keep mentioning because people who insist on LRT's only compare it to other cities backyards that don't use automated metros.

My grievances against LRT have to do with how short-sighted Surrey is, and how absolutely technology illiterate voters tend to be. They only vote with their wallets. If LRT is the cheapest option, that is what voters will press the bureaucrats for.

We have invested in the future by using automated metros, for some reason we are insisting on regressing and putting additional costs that weren't there when the system was built (eg fare gates, transit police) to solve problems that weren't a problem before pressure to "do something", the last bit of regressing would be putting drivers/permanent security on the trains because the same people who want LRT are bloody scared of automated transit. Has anyone even checked if fare evasion has gone down since the transit police were brought on? Probably not.

Eventually someone is going to point out they may as well hire ex-cops to drive the trains. Because... Surrey. If Surrey won't hire enough cops, they will let the the transit cops do it for them.

As for speed limits:
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/circulars/ec058/08_02_Irwin.pdf page 286
Higher costs for safety devices >35MPH.
At 55MPH, LRV's require almost 1000ft to stop.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Whalleyboy

Where does it say it has to follow the roads speed limits when it has its own dedicated row? I could understand if it shared lanes with traffic but majority of this system is planned to be in its own dedicated row. I think they could easily go 80km/h with this system. not like most traffic on both roads don't go it anyways.

Also one thing worth noting is Surreys young population(18 and under) Not only do we have the largest group in that thats 1/3 of Surreys population its also the largest in the region. If we get a transit system in before they start to drive and want to get cars we may be able to avoid adding more cars to the road and have much more people added to using transit and grow up getting use to using it. I mean I'm only 27 and I've been driving since i was 17 there is no way I will give up my car for transit now.

I was under the impression that even if an LRT has its own lanes, if it has regular road crossings it will have to go speed limit, especially Surrey's since it would likely be built in an urban style without bells and crossing gates.

Rail transit isn't a requirement for good ridership. Especially with Surrey's grid layout, quality bus service should be pretty easy to provide. Most teenagers are already busing anyway with the price that driving now has, so the convenience is more so about retaining them once they get real jobs and also trying to convince adults like yourself to try and switch to transit. And if attracting modal shift is an important part of this, SkyTrain has been studied to provide almost double the shift that LRT would provide. In the long term, a true metro would do much more in changing people's attitudes to transit.

[SOSS]

I assume that the business case has been made for Surrey to support at-grade LRT. I know one has been made to build a gondola to SFU on top of Burnaby Mountain. I wonder how many years out that the total cost of ownership for at-grade LRT vs grade-separated ALRT cross over. I bet it would be around 15-20 years.

At-grade = higher coat of land acquisitions, higher cost of operations, lower cost of build out, lower expected revenue from property value, higher cost to society when car or person vs train occurs etc.

Grade-separated is the opposite of above.

If the estimates have been tallied, tell that to the citizens and I bet people wouldn't be as short sighted as the perception currently is.

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I was under the impression that even if an LRT has its own lanes, if it has regular road crossings it will have to go speed limit, especially Surrey's since it would likely be built in an urban style without bells and crossing gates.

Rail transit isn't a requirement for good ridership. Especially with Surrey's grid layout, quality bus service should be pretty easy to provide. Most teenagers are already busing anyway with the price that driving now has, so the convenience is more so about retaining them once they get real jobs and also trying to convince adults like yourself to try and switch to transit. And if attracting modal shift is an important part of this, SkyTrain has been studied to provide almost double the shift that LRT would provide. In the long term, a true metro would do much more in changing people's attitudes to transit.

You'd think huh? Though Translink has already shown it lacks foresight for the region and is very slow to catch up. In fact, Translink has a habit of introducing routes here and slowly scaling back service within months. Talked to a Transportation Planner in the City of Surrey. The sentiment I got was that they prefer ALRT, but ultimately know any skytrain expansion in Surrey is at least 20+ years away from happening. Broadway is going to be a big priority over the next 10 years. Some of the corridors being examined have seen a marginal increase in service since 2009.

-The 96B Line resulted in significant cuts for local service along the KGB and 104th corridors and the route is expected to see another round of cuts. Third time in 16 months. In fact, Translink initially sought out to scale back service by 50% on weekends and a 40% reduction on weekdays. Citing nname, it seems like service will be reduced to 9min peak/12 early evening/15 min evening (so only 25%ish).

-Fraser Highway has not been addressed AT ALL in 3 years. The 502 is often packed or late and is forced to go NIS and skip portions along the route to catch up. The addition of the 503 has done little to benefit residents in Fleetwood who commute to and from Surrey Central.

-Scott Road is not even on the radar right now.

This is why the City of Surrey has pretty much said "**** you" to Translink and taken this route.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

You'd think huh? Though Translink has already shown it lacks foresight for the region and is very slow to catch up. In fact, Translink has a habit of introducing routes here and slowly scaling back service within months. Talked to a Transportation Planner in the City of Surrey. The sentiment I got was that they prefer ALRT, but ultimately know any skytrain expansion in Surrey is at least 20+ years away from happening. Broadway is going to be a big priority over the next 10 years. Some of the corridors being examined have seen a marginal increase in service since 2009.

-The 96B Line resulted in significant cuts for local service along the KGB and 104th corridors and the route is expected to see another round of cuts. Third time in 16 months. In fact, Translink initially sought out to scale back service by 50% on weekends and a 40% reduction on weekdays. Citing nname, it seems like service will be reduced to 9min peak/12 early evening/15 min evening (so only 25%ish).

-Fraser Highway has not been addressed AT ALL in 3 years. The 502 is often packed or late and is forced to go NIS and skip portions along the route to catch up. The addition of the 503 has done little to benefit residents in Fleetwood who commute to and from Surrey Central.

-Scott Road is not even on the radar right now.

I pretty much never go to Surrey so obviously I have an outsider's perspective, but looking at all the information I have available I've always felt that Surrey's transit woes have been really exaggerated. It seems that just about every north-south street has a bus route with half-hour frequencies, which is the same thing we have in Richmond.

Originally Posted by logicbomb

Talked to a Transportation Planner in the City of Surrey. The sentiment I got was that they prefer ALRT, but ultimately know any skytrain expansion in Surrey is at least 20+ years away from happening. Broadway is going to be a big priority over the next 10 years.

As it should. Broadway is clearly in much greater need of SkyTrain than Surrey. But even then, is SkyTrain not worth a 20 year wait? If the 99 is somehow able to hang on for now, I'm sure both the 96 and 502 can as well. I just don't want to see Surrey get a second-rate solution simply because of impatience.

Originally Posted by logicbomb

-The 96B Line resulted in significant cuts for local service along the KGB and 104th corridors and the route is expected to see another round of cuts. Third time in 16 months. In fact, Translink initially sought out to scale back service by 50% on weekends and a 40% reduction on weekdays. Citing nname, it seems like service will be reduced to 9min peak/12 early evening/15 min evening (so only 25%ish).

Well isn't that due to relatively low ridership? I mean that's basically what the 97's frequencies are like so it's not like it's unprecedented or discriminatory.

Originally Posted by logicbomb

-Fraser Highway has not been addressed AT ALL in 3 years. The 502 is often packed or late and is forced to go NIS and skip portions along the route to catch up. The addition of the 503 has done little to benefit residents in Fleetwood who commute to and from Surrey Central.

-Scott Road is not even on the radar right now.

Both the 502 and the 319 on Scott Road are on the Frequent Transit Network so I'm not sure how they're not on the radar. The 502 gets around the same ridership as the 401 that I'm very familiar with, and yes while it's really packed and sometimes late it doesn't really seem like a huge problem. And if the 503 hasn't increased frequencies for residents in Fleetwood for example, I imagine it would at least provide quite a bit of relief to the 502, resulting in less packed buses and better on-time performance, no?

I don't want to make it sound like I think that Surrey should just be happy with what they have, but from here it seems like people want rapid transit just because it'd be nice, not because the bus system is bursting at the seams. I don't see Metro Vancouver as separate places, but as one cohesive city, so I really do care about what transit Surrey gets, and I don't want it to be an impulsive decision based on sexiness and what everybody else is building right now.

[nname]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

You'd think huh? Though Translink has already shown it lacks foresight for the region and is very slow to catch up. In fact, Translink has a habit of introducing routes here and slowly scaling back service within months.

This is partially due to fact they introduce too much service. As far as I remember, new services were used to be introduced at much lower frequency. The 96 in particular has the best service for all 4 B-Lines at introduction I believe.

Originally Posted by logicbomb

Some of the corridors being examined have seen a marginal increase in service since 2009.

And the reason for this is they don't have extra money to add new service. Guess where these marginal increases in service coming from? They are from cutting services elsewhere, more specifically, Burnaby, Tri-Cities, and Richmond. and there are only so much service they can trim from there.

Just compare the service in 3 area with population of ~620k after taking out the effect of running-time adjustments...


Its funny how every other region worries about losing service while Surrey is complaining that they don't get that big of an improvement...

Originally Posted by logicbomb

The 96B Line resulted in significant cuts for local service along the KGB and 104th corridors and the route is expected to see another round of cuts. Third time in 16 months.

The 97 was introduced by cutting all local services in some part of the corridor. In fact, they trim the 97 as often as the 96 (from every 10min to 10.33min to 10.5min off-peak), and ridership for 97 is also increasing. They are just trying to squeeze every bit of milk out of the cows...

Originally Posted by logicbomb

Citing nname, it seems like service will be reduced to 9min peak/12 early evening/15 min evening (so only 25%ish).

Its actually around 10%, though they may downsize some of the buses too.

Originally Posted by logicbomb

Fraser Highway has not been addressed AT ALL in 3 years. The 502 is often packed or late and is forced to go NIS and skip portions along the route to catch up. The addition of the 503 has done little to benefit residents in Fleetwood who commute to and from Surrey Central.

The introduction of 503 result in ~22% increase of service. Not sure how much it helped, but 503 does remove some Langley riders from 502 so it should free up some rooms there.

Originally Posted by logicbomb

Scott Road is not even on the radar right now.

There were a ~4% increase in service for the 319 this year.

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I pretty much never go to Surrey so obviously I have an outsider's perspective, but looking at all the information I have available I've always felt that Surrey's transit woes have been really exaggerated. It seems that just about every north-south street has a bus route with half-hour frequencies, which is the same thing we have in Richmond.

As it should. Broadway is clearly in much greater need of SkyTrain than Surrey. But even then, is SkyTrain not worth a 20 year wait? If the 99 is somehow able to hang on for now, I'm sure both the 96 and 502 can as well. I just don't want to see Surrey get a second-rate solution simply because of impatience.

Well isn't that due to relatively low ridership? I mean that's basically what the 97's frequencies are like so it's not like it's unprecedented or discriminatory.

Both the 502 and the 319 on Scott Road are on the Frequent Transit Network so I'm not sure how they're not on the radar. The 502 gets around the same ridership as the 401 that I'm very familiar with, and yes while it's really packed and sometimes late it doesn't really seem like a huge problem. And if the 503 hasn't increased frequencies for residents in Fleetwood for example, I imagine it would at least provide quite a bit of relief to the 502, resulting in less packed buses and better on-time performance, no?

First off, I will clarify that I am not pro-LRT. Once LRT is built; there is likely no going back.

Definitely agree, the Broadway expansion should have been built long before the Evergreen Line. Ideally, Surrey would invest in BRT infrastructure and perhaps make a push for Skytrain when time permits. Though, like I said, it is well known that Translink and Surrey do not see eye to eye, and haven’t for quite some time. Delaying the implementation of the B-Line in 2011 was when it went south and forced Surrey leaders to legitimize themselves by going down this route. It was a very strange turn of events.

The 503 has provided some relief for Fleetwood residents outside of rush-hour, but has still done nothing to address overcrowding during rush-hour. Personnel were on hand in early October and found some people waiting after 2 ½ buses. I still argue that the Fraser Highway B-Line was perhaps a bigger priority than the 104th/KGB B-Line.

Planners want Rapid Transit because it is a draw, especially for commuters that are Vancouver/Burnaby bound. Though I feel LRT won’t draw as many new riders since it will be at grade, slower and require an additional connection to go to Vancouver/Burnaby/Coquitlam.

Ultimately I do believe a Skytrain down Fraser Highway with a BRT network down KGB and 104th would be the best option but I truly get the sense we may see shovels in the ground by late 2016 for an LRT network.

Originally Posted by nname

This is partially due to fact they introduce too much service. As far as I remember, new services were used to be introduced at much lower frequency. The 96 in particular has the best service for all 4 B-Lines at introduction I believe.

The 96 sees terribly low ridership outside of peak-hours. I even said at the time it was a dumb move to have frequencies that high outside of peak-hour.

And the reason for this is they don't have extra money to add new service. Guess where these marginal increases in service coming from? They are from cutting services elsewhere, more specifically, Burnaby, Tri-Cities, and Richmond. and there are only so much service they can trim from there.

Just compare the service in 3 area with population of ~620k after taking out the effect of running-time adjustments...


Its funny how every other region worries about losing service while Surrey is complaining that they don't get that big of an improvement...

Exactly, and this is why this municipality has gone about securing funding to build a rapid transit network. Not sure what entity is going to run or maintain the LRT network. A PPP would already be the first step towards failure.

I get what you’re saying. Many routes in Vancouver/Burnaby are in even worse shape. Heck, the 49, 41 130, and 135 have yet to be addressed.
Until the Provincial Govt gets its head out of its ass, then we will all have to deal with inadequate service. Do I condone the City of Surrey’s approach? Heck no, we are likely going to build something that will be a headache for decades to come.

The 97 was introduced by cutting all local services in some part of the corridor. In fact, they trim the 97 as often as the 96 (from every 10min to 10.33min to 10.5min off-peak), and ridership for 97 is also increasing. They are just trying to squeeze every bit of milk out of the cows...

Its actually around 10%, though they may downsize some of the buses too.

10% since the last alteration. 25% since last year.

The introduction of 503 result in ~22% increase of service. Not sure how much it helped, but 503 does remove some Langley riders from 502 so it should free up some rooms there.

Thus far it has not resulted in much improvement during peak-hour. Still very long lines for the 502.

There were a ~4% increase in service for the 319 this year.

2 buses added during peak-hour and still a high number of pass-ups. Though I think the onus is up to the city to add queue jumpers, and right-turn lanes to allow buses to stick to a timely schedule but this is still a corridor that’s being overlooked in the 10 year plan. To be fair, the City has overlooked it as well.

[Rico]

2 buses added during peak-hour and still a high number of pass-ups. Though I think the onus is up to the city to add queue jumpers, and right-turn lanes to allow buses to stick to a timely schedule but this is still a corridor that’s being overlooked in the 10 year plan. To be fair, the City has overlooked it as well.[/QUOTE]

In talking about the 319 to be fair it should be noted that adding queue jumpers etc. is slightly more complicated because one side of Scott is Surrey and one side is Delta....so you need to get 2 councils on board. Maybe someone will take the ball and run with it in the current election if people phone the candidates to make it an issue it may happen.

[xd_1771]

The 96 sees terribly low ridership outside of peak-hours. I even said at the time it was a dumb move to have frequencies that high outside of peak-hour.

My thought on this? Surrey has never seen this kind of high-quality off-peak bus service.......... ever. In history. So, I think it's short-sighted to think that the kind of off-peak ridership build up will build too quickly, and am thrilled to see that sort of development was being invested in even if the return has been poor for now. Up until the 96, off-peak frequencies in Surrey consisted of a bus every 15 minutes only as far as FTN guidelines allowed, with frequencies immediately lowering to every 30 minutes after.

By comparison, the other B-Lines introduced in the more inner-cities (particularly the 99, 98) had similarly higher off-peak frequencies on local service for years beforehand, that have already been of service to riders in the area.

Exactly, and this is why this municipality has gone about securing funding to build a rapid transit network. Not sure what entity is going to run or maintain the LRT network. A PPP would already be the first step towards failure.

Actually, the recent development with the feds has been a little over-trumpeted - it's not an approval, merely a passing of a very basic screening stage (download the survey on the P3 Canada site for yourself if you want to know what I mean) as an applicant. In order to move forward for actual consideration, there must be detailed design work and a business case. The latter would be difficult, as anything would contradict what TransLink and IBI group have already come out with in the SRTS. I can't really say this is good news, but it might ease your minds over the whole impulsive LRT push.

Thus far it has not resulted in much improvement during peak-hour. Still very long lines for the 502.

No improvement? Well, when you look at what the 503 is doing, it's making a community that was prety much inaccessible, accessible. It's not trying to take away all of that lineup. It was done through service optimization and was likely never meant to be the big improvement we all want. Credit needs to given where it's due here, but it also must be acknowledged that Fraser Highway is a huge problem. That it's still a huge problem is a testament to the need for a service improvement done through funding and not through optimization.

I think the 96 came first as it's been a priority for years, and I think it pre-dated the developments at Clayton Heights that's excaberating all this 502 crowding.

[GMasterAres]

I say it again, the only reason Surrey is pushing LRT is because they hold the somewhat valid opinion that to get _any_ rapid transit in Surrey will take 50 years at the pace Translink does things. Heck look at Broadway.

It was needed 10 years ago and we're still "studying" and "talking." It should be under construction now it is the busiest and second most dense corridor in the entire region! So if even that can't be built when it is needed, when can Surrey expect SkyTrain? 2075?

Surrey is really saying "We need something!" and the city alone can't afford to build its own SkyTrain so LRT is really the only option. It also can't really do its own BRT line because well... that is Translink's territory.

My own opinion is that I really dislike LRT for many reasons pointed out above. Not the least of which is the noise and disruption to neighborhoods. So many people I've heard over the years talk about not just Calgary but Portland but to be honest I believe 100% of those using these cities as positive examples have spent less than 5 minutes _living_ in either city. I've spent quite a bit of time in Portland actually IN and around LRT and I can tell you from the standpoint of residents living within 4 blocks of the LRT, it is extremely noisy, shakes buildings, and can be extremely disruptive. Not only is the LRT noisy but every single street crossing where cars drive over the tracks are noisy ALL THE TIME as tires go Ba ba BOOM BOOM over the tracks.

So multiply thousands of cars over tracks at 140th, 148th, 152nd, 88th, 160th, 168th, etc. etc. constantly BA BA BOOM BOOM as they cross the tracks even when there are no LRT trains going by, then add on the LRT trains crossing and rumbling the ground, and LRT to me is far more disruptive than SkyTrain ever could hope to be.

I'd take SkyTrain viaducts any day and this is coming from someone whose front yard is on Fraser Highway and who would have SkyTrain go right next to me if it were built. SkyTrain as it passes is actually not that loud especially compared to LRT. The Mark 1s can be loud as they turn corners granted but they are old and will be replaced eventually. Also track switching can make a fair amount of noise but that only happens at stations and only really terminus stations. So really... for most people it is fairly silent and no louder than the cars driving by on the roads. The constant cars and busses trumping down Fraser Highway are far louder than SkyTrain ever would be. And as for views... what views. I have a view of the building across the street. Wow. So if there was a viaduct there... I'd lose the view of um... another building.

WOO... big deal. Almost all of Fraser Highway is the same thing. No views lost but huge gain in reduced congestion, increased rapid transit access, and increase property values. It just seems everyone that squawks against SkyTrain on the major Surrey through-ways doesn't actually live on any of the major Surrey through-ways. I had a friend tell me how bad SkyTrain down Fraser Highway would be to the people living along the corridor and he lives in South Surrey... I was like "seriously?"

And yes disclaimer I am using the term "LRT" to mean the road level trains.

Even with their own ROW there are tracks, they are noisy, and irritating.