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

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

This is what I don't like, I not saying LRT is the solution to all transit problems but, some of these things are just not true.

The basic argument against surface LRT is this: it costs almost as much as full grade separation and provides almost none of the benefits.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Surrey has been like Richmond - they think elevated lines are ugly and 'divide the community'. The likelihood of them agreeing to an elevated L Line is somewhere between slim and none. They'd be more agreeable to the idea (but not the price) of a tunnelled line.

And yet we got the No.3 Rd. Section Elevated...

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

The basic argument against surface LRT is this: it costs almost as much as full grade separation and provides almost none of the benefits.

I would seriously contest this, the benefits are debatable but, the costs are not anywhere close to the same. Fully grade separating a line especially in an urban setting is incredibly costly, obviously Im assuming you are suggesting elevation but, even that is far more expensive than street running.

In terms of a line that operates with light rail with very high ridership, heres the Paris T3 Tramway: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%8Ele-de-France_tramway_Line_3

I think Commuter rail like was suggested is at best a pipe dream, I don't think we have the great distances to justify this style of transport besides out to the valley ie WCE, of course there are alot of ROWs and rails but, they are generally in heavy active use or not really in a condition to run a high quality service between dense nodes. Sticking to Skytrain for moving around the region probably makes more sense considering Expo Line all the way to Langley is less than an hour and that is really probably the longest justifiable RT route ATM. Many cities have RT stretching much further out, but our lack of sprawl is good in this regard.

[Reecemartin]

On a somewhat different note, I haven't been able to attend any meetings for the L line anyways but, it's my hope that the actual stops are significant since there aren't very many. I'd like to see significant large shelters, (similar to the ones at Bridgeport if not bigger) and hopefully we will also see system maps at every stop. Hopefully we also get next arrival screens which seem obvious in this day and age.

An interesting question to bring up is whether Compass readers will be on trains or at the stops, and Ive become pretty curious what LRV they are planning on using. Flexity Freedoms were looking like a shoe in but, with Bombardier failing to deliver in an epic way (test car 2+ years late) and major TTC car delays and Metrolinx and Edmonton already both having somewhat sizeable orders, I wonder if similar to the Finch West LRT they will open it up to more vendors, Ottawa went with Alstom so I guess we will see.

[waves]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

it is less expensive since it can run down the centre of a road

This is false and it's shown in the 2013 Surrey Rapid Transit Study. You still have to rip out all the underground utilities to move them out of the right of way, you still have to repave the entire road, install overhead wiring, redo all of your intersections. Same as skytrain. Furthermore, with LRT you have to buy significantly more property than you would for skytrain to widen the road to accommodate the space for both travel and stations. That property doesn't come at the cost of a dime.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

grade separate the busiest intersections

To do this is exceptionally costly, and if you don't use a LIM technology you'll have to stick to low grades less than 3.5%. Then we are going to run into snow and ice issues.....

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

saying that higher frequencies is not POSSIBLE is false

It isn't possible. Skytrain is currently running at 108 second headways at peak. With the number of intersections and pedestrian crossings there LRT wouldn't be able to even get close to 3min. This is not to mention that with an automated driverless system, frequency changes can be dispatched at a moments notice. Not so with LRT.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

It course it's correct that we would need a new OMC but that's going to be inevitable with any form of new rapid transit, you will either need to expand current centres of build new ones

Except with Skytrain we already have one at Edmonds that was built with future Skytrain extensions in mind. No new one required.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Saying it's no more comfortable than a bus is somewhat silly

Are you really going to make me dig up your post where you first brought up the "comfort" issue? Don't berate me for it being silly when you began that discussion.

Maybe I should start talking about how the rail rapid transit screech's and buses don't. The comfort issue is a moot point and not a sufficient argument for LRT over Skytrain. That was my point.

[Reecemartin]

I assumed since we were having a somewhat general discussion about the merits of LRT you were referring to the tech in general rather than the L specifically, if that was the case then I retract my statements. In terms of OMC tho, I've been consistent that I think the line to Langley SHOULD be Skytrain, I'm only referring to the L when referring to LRT in Surrey.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Hopefully we also get next arrival screens which seem obvious in this day and age.

I'd suspect not. They did a limited trial of them at bus stops (I know there's one at the bus stop by Main St Station) years ago but haven't added more as people can check on their smart phone. Yes I know, not everyone has a smart phone.

The screens are on Canada Line - are they on Evergreen? Next would be to upgrade the signs and software for the rest of the Millennium Line and then eventually they're be added to the Expo Line (I don't want to guess how long that will take). They have 'security issues' with sharing location info for Skytrain, so people can't check it with an app. I'm guessing because the LRT will be on the ground, they'll treat it like a bus and release the info.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by Sheba

I'd suspect not. They did a limited trial of them at bus stops (I know there's one at the bus stop by Main St Station) years ago but haven't added more as people can check on their smart phone. Yes I know, not everyone has a smart phone.

The screens are on Canada Line - are they on Evergreen? Next would be to upgrade the signs and software for the rest of the Millennium Line and then eventually they're be added to the Expo Line (I don't want to guess how long that will take). They have 'security issues' with sharing location info for Skytrain, so people can't check it with an app. I'm guessing because the LRT will be on the ground, they'll treat it like a bus and release the info.

I mean of course you can check with your phone but, it's just nice to not have to open something up and just have a screen like a SSPR

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

We know you think all light rail is bad, but let's be realistic here. All it takes is a line of green paint to stop cars parking or driving in the bike lanes - the median is curb-separated grass.

No, I think running trains at-grade without closing all the road crossings or grade-separating the crossings is a foolish thing to do.

Also, we're not likely to have a grass median for very long, we might for a year and then Surrey will have to install 4' fences down it to keep people jaywalking and dogs/wildlife from delaying or getting hit by the LRV's.

I'm telling you, this LRT will be a never ending money pit for Translink and Surrey as they will keep having to add more and more safety features that they didn't consider people stupid enough to do, that in the end the net cost for that Surrey Light Rail will be double that of the Skytrain.

Any place that you'd want to stick a LRT in Metro/Fraser Valley, you'd better off building commuter rail or Rapid Transit. Surrey(Newton) to Langley via Cloverdale, to Abbotsford via Aldergrove, to Chilliwack, makes more sense as a commuter rail route, but unless it can cross the Fraser, all commuter rail solutions have to end up back at Scott Road. So you see the problem. Surrey wants to build the wrong thing, and it will be insufficient well before it has to be replaced. Even a Tsawwassen to Ladner and Boundary Bay airport would still not work as LRT but makes more sense as commuter rail.

But we've all been over this multiple times in multiple threads. The South-Fraser cities are too spread out to make LRT time efficient, and the North-Fraser cities are too dense to run slow light rail or street cars.

All of these cities grew around car traffic designs (other than the downtown Vancouver peninsula,) and thus pretty much any LRT proposal falls flat because to get "Skytrain" like frequency and capacity you would have to use longer trains that perpetually block all road crossings. So you're not going to get high frequency because that will block all east-west traffic into Delta, and you're not going to get high capacity because you're not going to be able to build large stops into the median. If you thought the occasional Red India once or twice a yerar on the Skytrain was bad, there will be multiple such events per month as people either fall in front of the LRV or back into the car traffic.

The places where these kind of LRT systems belong are in the Prairie provinces where density is low all-around and it connects the periphery from all directions to downtown instead of like here where Surrey is aiming to be "fastest growing city-at-any-cost", and they see the LRT as just a development tool, but aren't listening to the people who actually commute from or to Surrey. Surrey's plans are going to create more congestion, and gut it's bus system at the same time. Connect the dots between the lack of school enrollment in CoV but overcrowded schools in Surrey. Surrey doesn't plan anything well. This LRT is no different.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by Kisai

No, I think running trains at-grade without closing all the road crossings or grade-separating the crossings is a foolish thing to do.

Also, we're not likely to have a grass median for very long, we might for a year and then Surrey will have to install 4' fences down it to keep people jaywalking and dogs/wildlife from delaying or getting hit by the LRV's.

I'm telling you, this LRT will be a never ending money pit for Translink and Surrey as they will keep having to add more and more safety features that they didn't consider people stupid enough to do, that in the end the net cost for that Surrey Light Rail will be double that of the Skytrain.

Any place that you'd want to stick a LRT in Metro/Fraser Valley, you'd better off building commuter rail or Rapid Transit. Surrey(Newton) to Langley via Cloverdale, to Abbotsford via Aldergrove, to Chilliwack, makes more sense as a commuter rail route, but unless it can cross the Fraser, all commuter rail solutions have to end up back at Scott Road. So you see the problem. Surrey wants to build the wrong thing, and it will be insufficient well before it has to be replaced. Even a Tsawwassen to Ladner and Boundary Bay airport would still not work as LRT but makes more sense as commuter rail.

But we've all been over this multiple times in multiple threads. The South-Fraser cities are too spread out to make LRT time efficient, and the North-Fraser cities are too dense to run slow light rail or street cars.

All of these cities grew around car traffic designs (other than the downtown Vancouver peninsula,) and thus pretty much any LRT proposal falls flat because to get "Skytrain" like frequency and capacity you would have to use longer trains that perpetually block all road crossings. So you're not going to get high frequency because that will block all east-west traffic into Delta, and you're not going to get high capacity because you're not going to be able to build large stops into the median. If you thought the occasional Red India once or twice a yerar on the Skytrain was bad, there will be multiple such events per month as people either fall in front of the LRV or back into the car traffic.

The places where these kind of LRT systems belong are in the Prairie provinces where density is low all-around and it connects the periphery from all directions to downtown instead of like here where Surrey is aiming to be "fastest growing city-at-any-cost", and they see the LRT as just a development tool, but aren't listening to the people who actually commute from or to Surrey. Surrey's plans are going to create more congestion, and gut it's bus system at the same time. Connect the dots between the lack of school enrollment in CoV but overcrowded schools in Surrey. Surrey doesn't plan anything well. This LRT is no different.

I really don't think if there were THAT many unexpected costs you'd still see cities building LRT en mass. I mean look Toronto and LA both are much larger than Surrey and they are building LRT's. Obviously these cities aren't the be all and end all, but in particular Toronto is no less busy and full of people than Surrey, (they even have people driving into streetcar tunnels) yet they are still investing tremendously in LRT (alongside commuter rail, subway lines, and her) . I think the reason the comment about you not liking LRT was made was because you don't seem to want to entertain that their might be any positives to LRT, as Ive always said there are routes where LRT doesn't make sense for the region, I just won't go so far as to write the tech off for use in some places.

Imo there's never going to be one solution or even 2 solutions (buses, Skytrain) to our transportation needs numerous cities have very successful BRT, LRT , RRT and Commuter Rail lines. As we all know with transit implementation of the technology is usually the most important thing (eg Canada Line vs. ART Lines or 99 B-Bline vs. LA Orange Line). Since at this point LRT on the L line sounds like a done deal, I think it would be more productive if people turned their efforts to ensuring RRT is build on Fraser and that the L-Line is implemented in an excellent way (full signal priority. High quality stops, public realm improvement, good integration with current transit). In the end it may end up being serendipitous since now instead of getting LRT on all three, or BRT and RRT it's looking like we might get LRT AND RRT.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

We know you think all light rail is bad, but let's be realistic here. All it takes is a line of green paint to stop cars parking or driving in the bike lanes - the median is curb-separated grass.

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but curbs and planters don't stop cars from crashing through bike lanes, so how would curb-separated grass stop cars from crashing through to LRT lanes?

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but curbs and planters don't stop cars from crashing through bike lanes, so how would curb-separated grass stop cars from crashing through to LRT lanes?

It wouldn't, but it would prevent people from driving on the tracks on accident, though Im amazed people do that. It shouldn't matter in the end, if the system is designed well and the public is educated (still somewhat surprising that that's necessary with the numerous signs etc), accidents aren't very likely. Again accidents are fairly rare on Torontos streetcar network and the drivers here are SIGNIFICANTLY more aggressive than in Vancouver .

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but curbs and planters don't stop cars from crashing through bike lanes, so how would curb-separated grass stop cars from crashing through to LRT lanes?

Never said anything about accidents. I said that most bike lanes in the city are protected by nothing but a strip of green paint bordered by white dashes, yet that's been enough to make those lanes off-limits for motorists; ditto a raised median.

It's like with bathrooms - a gender sign will not stop you from walking into the ladies' room by accident, but everybody understands that you can't use any which room you'd like.

I was replying to this:

Originally Posted by Kisai

• Cars parked on the rails
• Cars parked illegally and car traffic having to drive into the LRV ROW
• Cars driving down the LRV ROW
• Cars running into median/stops

Which completely ignores, unintentionally or otherwise, that the median is no longer part of the roadspace, and will be treated as such by conscious, sober drivers.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

It's a reply to this:



Which completely ignores, unintentionally or otherwise, that the median is no longer part of the roadspace.

Exactly. The plans of paper make it as safe as possible, but on paper the safety is only in ideal conditions, i.e. discounting natural disasters or people being stupid.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but curbs and planters don't stop cars from crashing through bike lanes, so how would curb-separated grass stop cars from crashing through to LRT lanes?

It would show that it is not a part of the roadway. Yes, idiots do drive on the sidewalk and in parks from time to time, but most would avoid it if it looked not like a road.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

It shouldn't matter in the end, if the system is designed well and the public is educated (still somewhat surprising that that's necessary with the numerous signs etc), accidents aren't very likely.

You're assuming that people read signs. Many years ago I used to do concession at BC Place. There were posters all over the building of 'drinking is a privilege and not a right' and every stand that sold alcohol had a 'mandatory ID for alcohol' sign - and *every single event* I was in an alcohol stand (which was a lot of the time) there was someone who managed to miss all the signs and was shocked at being asked for ID.

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

Exactly. The plans of paper make it as safe as possible, but on paper the safety is only in ideal conditions, i.e. discounting natural disasters or people being stupid.

You're giving the human race far too much credit. It's amazing there aren't more winners for the Darwin Awards.

[Reecemartin]

Idk I don't think we have that many idiots.

[ilikeredheads]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Idk I don't think we have that many idiots.

It only takes 1 idiot to ruin the day for everyone.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

It only takes 1 idiot to ruin the day for everyone.

Yeah but, one idiot doesnt make LRT a bad tech lol. Put an idiot anywhere and they will mess things up.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Idk I don't think we have that many idiots.

Oh there's a lot of idiots out there. Ask someone who works in retail and has to deal with the general public all day - you're bound to hear a bunch of horror stories.

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

It only takes 1 idiot to ruin the day for everyone.

If LRT here is lucky it'll only be dealing with one idiot a day...