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

[osirisboy]

True. But an accident like this can happen anywhere.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Pinion

I was talking about the causeway forest area in the middle, not the part that people enjoy. Take 20 feet of trees off either side of the road and it would do a world of good. No reasonable person should care, you can't even walk there due to heavy brush.

There are a lot of very well-used trails that go through that brush, and without the brush the trails would loose their forest setting and their tranquility. And it's "all that useless bush" that absorbs all the sound from the causeway so that you don't even know it's there until you get quite close to it. Stanley Park is popular just the way it is, and it's popular because of the way it is.

Again, I'm not adverse to cutting down a few trees to improve safety and expedite traffic - but that park space is invaluable. Once lost, it is never regained. To claim that it's only of benefit to homeless people is ridiculous.

[DKaz]

With Skytrain, it would likely be 30m as they still want road bike paths (for more experienced riders who want more speed) and the separated path (for casual riders and children).

I don't think the Skytrain vs. LRT debate should delay this. We need the Fraser Highway widened now.

[Large Cat]

Originally Posted by DKaz

With Skytrain, it would likely be 30m as they still want road bike paths (for more experienced riders who want more speed) and the separated path (for casual riders and children).

I don't think the Skytrain vs. LRT debate should delay this. We need the Fraser Highway widened now.

I wish they wouldn't think that way about bike lanes. Even more experienced riders who want to go at a decent clip, don't want to get themselves killed. They also don't want to slow themselves down by puncturing a tire on the rocks, glass, etc. that are always thrown into the shoulder on roads like Fraser Hwy. Imo, it's better to get rid of the "bike shoulder" entirely (which should also make car drivers feel a little less safe going above the speed limit), and segregate the multi-use trail into bikes/peds using the added space.

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by Large Cat

I wish they wouldn't think that way about bike lanes. Even more experienced riders who want to go at a decent clip, don't want to get themselves killed. They also don't want to slow themselves down by puncturing a tire on the rocks, glass, etc. that are always thrown into the shoulder on roads like Fraser Hwy. Imo, it's better to get rid of the "bike shoulder" entirely (which should also make car drivers feel a little less safe going above the speed limit), and segregate the multi-use trail into bikes/peds using the added space.

As a cyclist I'm going to have to agree that this is the way to go. I don't dislike bike lanes at all... but I think there's a lot of irony in how the standardization ensures that even roads have bike lanes where there's a perfectly nice and wide parallel trail, one that I would gladly choose to ride instead. Believe it or not, this is how the city wants to build out the entirety of Fraser Hwy (you can already see it on the Serpentine floodplain near Hwy 15). Imagine this happened in Vancouver... people would be pretty much losing their heads.

If you look at my diagrams on the last page, the guideway could then act as a nice, natural barrier between the pathway and cars on the road (and give any passing pedestrians a sheltered, lit sidewalk). Put that bike trail on the forest side and it would be a pleasant, safe journey through the forest, at speeds as high as most any on-street cycle-lane.

[Large Cat]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

If you look at my diagrams on the last page, the guideway could then act as a nice, natural barrier between the pathway and cars on the road (and give any passing pedestrians a sheltered, lit sidewalk). Put that bike trail on the forest side and it would be a pleasant, safe journey through the forest, at speeds as high as most any on-street cycle-lane.

Exactly. And then there is the added benefit, over the "centre median" design for either Skytrain or LRT, of avoiding a "divided highway" kind of effect for the road. When drivers don't have to worry about going across the centre line and hitting each other, they tend to think they can drive faster/more dangerously.

The only disadvantage of the last diagram is that there isn't a route for cyclists wanting to make connections on both sides of the road (say you were travelling east from King George but wanted to hit a trailhead or business on the north side of Fraser Hwy). That's the one advantage of having a bike lane on each side--it gives you an option for doing this. But ideally they would have a multi-use pathway on BOTH sides, since even with a bike lane on the north side, you would still have to double back at the next traffic light, which are few and far between. Bi-directional travel on both sides would be the best for a corridor like this.

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by Large Cat

Exactly. And then there is the added benefit, over the "centre median" design for either Skytrain or LRT, of avoiding a "divided highway" kind of effect for the road. When drivers don't have to worry about going across the centre line and hitting each other, they tend to think they can drive faster/more dangerously.

The only disadvantage of the last diagram is that there isn't a route for cyclists wanting to make connections on both sides of the road (say you were travelling east from King George but wanted to hit a trailhead or business on the north side of Fraser Hwy). That's the one advantage of having a bike lane on each side--it gives you an option for doing this. But ideally they would have a multi-use pathway on BOTH sides, since even with a bike lane on the north side, you would still have to double back at the next traffic light, which are few and far between. Bi-directional travel on both sides would be the best for a corridor like this.

No reason there can't be a signalized crossing for that trailhead at that point.

[Large Cat]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

No reason there can't be a signalized crossing for that trailhead at that point.

But at many such points of interest there are no signals on Fraser Hwy, and it costs over 200,000 just to install a set of signals.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Large Cat

But at many such points of interest there are no signals on Fraser Hwy, and it costs over 200,000 just to install a set of signals.

I suspect it would be less for a set of signals if they were installed as part of the infrastructure work on the transit line construction instead of being retrofitted as a separate project which required all of its own design, materials and labour.

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by Large Cat

But at many such points of interest there are no signals on Fraser Hwy, and it costs over 200,000 just to install a set of signals.

That's not the point. The alternative is to build the separate trail, paying the cost of the trail AND the cost of additional right-of-way widening. A traffic signal to facilitate safe crossings to access the trail would be peanuts, by comparison.

[DKaz]

Maybe true in some cases. I love the Central Valley Greenway. But on my PM commute before, I took Georgia eastbound instead of heading over to Dunsmuir because of the timing issues going eastbound. I would take Cambie Bridge roadway too because it was just too dangerous to go faster than 15km/h with the heavy amount of pedestrian traffic on the multi use path.

Fraser Hwy in the floodplains has both on road and separated multi use paths. They also have it between 68 Ave and 189 St. On both sides even.

[xd_1771]

^ The bike path and pedestrian path parts of a multi-use pathway can be split, just as is done in many places in Vancouver (like the Stanley Park seawall) and on the planned completed B.C. Parkway.

[paulsparrow]

Originally Posted by Large Cat

But at many such points of interest there are no signals on Fraser Hwy, and it costs over 200,000 just to install a set of signals.

Surrey obviously doesn't have an issue spending the money on signals as every block on any road has a set of lights now not to mention mid block cross walks everywhere. Thus the traffic jams.

Unlike Vancouver where I can travel from downtown north side to the Oak street bridge in 15 mins in rush hour traffic versus 8 blocks in Surrey because Vancouver doesn't put lights at every corner. Save money and move traffic.

[CurtisVerbatim]

Originally Posted by paulsparrow

Surrey obviously doesn't have an issue spending the money on signals as every block on any road has a set of lights now not to mention mid block cross walks everywhere. Thus the traffic jams.

Unlike Vancouver where I can travel from downtown north side to the Oak street bridge in 15 mins in rush hour traffic versus 8 blocks in Surrey because Vancouver doesn't put lights at every corner. Save money and move traffic.

What are you talking about? In surrey most lights are four blocks apart, some more, some less. And those are surrey blocks which are bigger than Vancouver's. Vancouver has six lanes on Granville, Oak, and Knight St during rush hour, that's why traffic flows. Not to mention the fact that surrey has few North South routes running all the way through the city, none of which are more than four lanes wide.

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by CurtisVerbatim

What are you talking about? In surrey most lights are four blocks apart, some more, some less. And those are surrey blocks which are bigger than Vancouver's. Vancouver has six lanes on Granville, Oak, and Knight St during rush hour, that's why traffic flows. Not to mention the fact that surrey has few North South routes running all the way through the city, none of which are more than four lanes wide.

I think it's a sarcastic remark (a word of notice that if you're going to be sarcastic, add an emoticon or something as it is otherwise impossible to tell from text on the internet)

[Kisai]

I thought this might be interesting:



Source originally appeared on this page, but it's from a report from here. Figure 4

Of the more than 1,800 mass transit systems in the United States—including those running trains, buses, or other transport modes—roughly 2 percent reported that fare revenue exceeded operating expenses in 2013 (USDOT 2015d). As shown in the figure, metro rail systems—including heavy rail, such as subways and elevated trains, and light rail, which operates at street level—all operate at a loss (USDOT 2015c).

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Kisai

I thought this might be interesting:...

...except for Vancouver's Expo Line, which actually earns an operating profit.

[red-paladin]

And the WCE I thought we heard was also operating at break even?

[paulsparrow]

Originally Posted by CurtisVerbatim

What are you talking about? In surrey most lights are four blocks apart, some more, some less. And those are surrey blocks which are bigger than Vancouver's. Vancouver has six lanes on Granville, Oak, and Knight St during rush hour, that's why traffic flows. Not to mention the fact that surrey has few North South routes running all the way through the city, none of which are more than four lanes wide.

Lets take 64th between 120 and KG. 9 four way intersections and 7 lights plus a mid-block crossing light.

120 - light
121 - no light
124 - light
125ish - ped cross light
126 - light
128 - light
130 - no light
132- light
134 - light
136 - light

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

...and this is not true of the causeway in Stanley Park? Do you not remember the outcry over plans to replace or enhance the Lion's Gate Bridge and the effect it would have on the causeway?

I'm generally on the side of favouring the road improvement over preserving what I see as a relatively few trees (especially considering the number of trees felled elsewhere each year for greenfield development). But I think there are some very strong parallels between Green Timbers and Stanley Park in terms of the tradeoff between preservation and road improvements.

Very strong parallels if you believe the decision not to expand Stanley Park causeway was the right one. I for one think it should have been expanded and that they gave in. Just because CoV gave in on Stanley Park doesn't mean Surrey should, imo, make the wrong decision by saying no to this.

Fraser Highway needs to be expanded. It is 1 land through arguably the most busy stretch of the entire highway and is a major road for both transit and vehicle transit along 1 of a few major Surrey transport backbones exiting central Surrey.

What this person fails to point out is that Central Park in NYC has 7 individual road ways crossing the park and a ring road and the trees along Fraser Highway will have no actual impact on the usability of the park. There are no major paths along Fraser Highway specifically (only 1 crosses at about 96th ave and runs cross directional) and the main park use area is off of 100th and doesn't even touch Fraser Highway (you hit 96th Ave before).

So I don't think they actually know what they are talking about. It's just another "you may not cut down a single tree on the planet ever again" stance which to me is quite meaningless and should just be ignored.