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

[Metro-One]

Such 🞵🞵🞵🞵, love the term "urban style." There are already other terms available, such as "tram" and "relic" that they can use. The funny thing is at grade is about the least urban style of rail transit.

Seriously, for the money this project is costing one would have hoped that at least a few km, especially those through "downtown" Surrey, either elevated or tunneled.

[TransitJack]

"Urban Style" refers to low floor models that typically serve the town centre vs serving to outlying areas.

The Valley Line LRT in Edmonton is "urban style" versus the original line(s).

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by dpogue

From a document on TransLink's Open Bids page regarding Legal Services for upcoming major projects:

the key takeway:

"The SNG LRT Project procurement process would be initiated as early as late 2017, contingent on TransLink receiving the necessary funding approvals. "

no money -- no pet train

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

the key takeway:

"The SNG LRT Project procurement process would be initiated as early as late 2017, contingent on TransLink receiving the necessary funding approvals. "

no money -- no pet train

So, if Translink doesn't approve it, it is dead?

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, if Translink doesn't approve it, it is dead?

a) Translink has to receive the approval, not make it. The approval will come from those fronting the money (i.e., provincial and federal governments).

b) The approving bodies, the Province in particular, have a habit of making funding contingent on other factors, one of which could potentially be the choice of technology.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

a) Translink has to receive the approval, not make it. The approval will come from those fronting the money (i.e., provincial and federal governments).

b) The approving bodies, the Province in particular, have a habit of making funding contingent on other factors, one of which could potentially be the choice of technology.

lets hope one of those factors is "positive business case"

[flipper316]

Why doesn't Surrey just pay for it all since they want both lines so bad.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by flipper316

Why doesn't Surrey just pay for it all since they want both lines so bad.

They've said they'll pay for LRT if they have to.

[Express691]

Bad post, delete

[flipper316]

So why haven't they paid already? Oh that's right, no one in their right mind wants to spend 1.5 billion to 2 billion on this ridiculous project.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by flipper316

So why haven't they paid already? Oh that's right, no one in their right mind wants to spend 1.5 billion to 2 billion on this ridiculous project.

I mean in response to the prior posts I do not think the Province willecare about the tech on the L, particularly since it doesn't cross into Langley.

And according to your logic about nobody in there right mind spending this kind of money I can name at least 5 similar LRT projects going on in other cities that are attracting development money and new projects so actually yes there are people in their right mind doing this and with one of the biggest objectives being development I would expect a success on that front at a minimum.

[seamack]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

And according to your logic about nobody in there right mind spending this kind of money I can name at least 5 similar LRT projects going on in other cities that are attracting development money and new projects so actually yes there are people in their right mind doing this and with one of the biggest objectives being development I would expect a success on that front at a minimum.

So I'm curious what are the other objectives besides development? Certainly, 'rapidly' transporting people to their destinations doesn't seem to be an objective at all, as this particular LRT vision is so obviously flawed.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by seamack

So I'm curious what are the other objectives besides development? Certainly, 'rapidly' transporting people to their destinations doesn't seem to be an objective at all, as this particular LRT vision is so obviously flawed.

Development and to be able to say 'hey look, we have rail too!'

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by flipper316

So why haven't they paid already? Oh that's right, no one in their right mind wants to spend 1.5 billion to 2 billion on this ridiculous project.

Nyet. It's because Christy Clark won't spend a cent of money on ANY transit unless there's an election involved.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

And according to your logic about nobody in there right mind spending this kind of money I can name at least 5 similar LRT projects going on in other cities that are attracting development money and new projects

If said five include Detroit, LA and/or Milwaukee, that's because the States has a "use it or lose it" funding system for transit projects. Either the city spends the billion they're given, or it gets returned to the federal pool; no saving up for a grade-separated RRT even if they wanted to.

[ilikeredheads]

Originally Posted by seamack

So I'm curious what are the other objectives besides development? Certainly, 'rapidly' transporting people to their destinations doesn't seem to be an objective at all, as this particular LRT vision is so obviously flawed.

a nice photo op lol.

[Reecemartin]

I could just list Ontarios LRT projects off, or the new lines in Calgary or Edmonton, the G Link on the Gold Coast in Australia is also quite good, and before anyone comments indeed a large portion of these projects are road running just like Surrey.

Of course LRT won't be quite as fast as Skytrain, but again it improves permanence over buses, cuts emissions, and I think many would argue attracts more riders than the likely alternate Bus implementation. As usual I state the disclaimer that I myself would be a bigger advocate of Skytrain extensions first but, being purely objective if rapid transit is to be built on this corridor I don't think LRT is actually a very bad choice at least not nearly as bad as many on this forum appear to believe.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

I could just list Ontarios LRT projects off, or the new lines in Calgary or Edmonton, the G Link on the Gold Coast in Australia is also quite good, and before anyone comments indeed a large portion of these projects are road running just like Surrey.

Ottawa's and Toronto's are grade separated, and neither Hamilton nor Waterloo have enough road traffic to make LRT a problem. And funny you should mention Edmonton...

LRT done wrong, or for political purposes, is worse than doing nothing. Surrey wants skyscrapers, fine, but King George is Surrey's Broadway, and light rail tracks down either street would be a nightmare - especially when a proper B-Line (every three minutes, not every seven) gets you the exact same kind of speed for a fraction of the money. The developers will come with or without light rail, so Surrey might as well wait another decade or two and build a SkyTrain line.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

I could just list Ontarios LRT projects off, or the new lines in Calgary or Edmonton, the G Link on the Gold Coast in Australia is also quite good, and before anyone comments indeed a large portion of these projects are road running just like Surrey.

Of course LRT won't be quite as fast as Skytrain, but again it improves permanence over buses, cuts emissions, and I think many would argue attracts more riders than the likely alternate Bus implementation. As usual I state the disclaimer that I myself would be a bigger advocate of Skytrain extensions first but, being purely objective if rapid transit is to be built on this corridor I don't think LRT is actually a very bad choice at least not nearly as bad as many on this forum appear to believe.

Calgary and Edmonton has only had LRT.

Toronto's are mostly historically always been there.

Kitchener's, there is no other type of rapid transit.


If you really want to understand why the Surrey LRT is a bad idea, we really should compare the SRT and the subways in Toronto. The SRT was built only for Mark 1 cars. The newer cars are too long. They run on complete different system and track gauge, so are not compatible with the Subway.

Now, they are replacing it, instead of expanding it. Eventually, the SRT will no longer even exist.

That is what the Surrey LRT will become.

Why not learn the lesson from Toronto?

[Shift]

I fully support an urban-style LRT system in Surrey. It is a tier of transit much needed in Metro Vancouver.

Having spent a lot of time living in Berlin, I have come to appreciate such layering of the transit system. An urban style LRT is appropriate for Surrey and should be expanded elsewhere thoughout the region to compliment the SkyTrain and West Coast Express lines.

The LRT will be a real place maker, especially around Surrey Central once the station is built there, and City Parkway is pedestrianized around the station between 102 and 103 Ave.

Below is a map of Berlin's rail transit system with 4 tiers of trains on the map and examples of each type of train. There are lines for:

• Regional Trains
• S-Bahn
• U-Bahn (Equivalent of Skytrain)
• Tram/LRT

All of the grey lines you see are urban-style LRT lines.

It's about time Metro Vancouver began adding this tier to the network. Metro Vancouver does not need to be all SkyTrain.



Tram/Urban LRT



U-Bahn



S-Bahn


Regional

[Migrant_Coconut]

Again, I support LRT too, but not for Guildford-Newton. It makes sense for Arbutus and the old interurban routes, because there's a separate ROW. It does not make sense to put it down busy roads in the heart of Surrey (especially if/when the high rises come in) when you could save up and build RRT instead.

SkyTrain on the primary routes, light rail on the secondary routes. It's that simple.