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

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

In terms of limited trainsets due to navigating traffic again this is LRT not a streetcar, segregated lanes mean we could have 90m trains like are going to be used on ECLRT (3 flexities back to back).

The problem there is that the average city block is 80m long. Fair point, I'll concede a two-train Flexity (60m?), but larger trains would either block traffic or require some very creative planning, especially around the 104th turn. The bi-articulate buses are cumbersome as it is, to say nothing of anything larger.

Not to mention that if you need a tram that big in the first place, you're probably doing something wrong. LRT can't replace RRT/SkyTrain.

[Whalleyboy]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The problem there is that the average city block is 80m long. Fair point, I'll concede a two-train Flexity (60m?), but larger trains would either block traffic or require some very creative planning, especially around the 104th turn. The bi-articulate buses are cumbersome as it is, to say nothing of anything larger.

Not to mention that if you need a tram that big in the first place, you're probably doing something wrong. LRT can't replace RRT/SkyTrain.

I highly doubt we would be getting over 80m at that point we'd be surpassing skytrain length

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by Whalleyboy

I highly doubt we would be getting over 80m at that point we'd be surpassing skytrain length

If it was practical there's no reason not to exceed Skytrain length it might seem strange but, it's alot easier to build long LRT platforms or to extend them.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

If it was practical there's no reason not to exceed Skytrain length it might seem strange but, it's alot easier to build long LRT platforms or to extend them.

Except that the entire rationale behind LRT in Vancouver is that certain corridors don't need SkyTrain. If you're running trams that large, you've essentially bought a ground-level RRT that's slower, less frequent and overall not as good as an actual RRT - meaning that the corridor did need SkyTrain.

Knowing Hepner and company, we won't even be dignified with an "Oops."

[bloomtronzero]

Originally Posted by Shift

^Well it's a good thing 108 Ave and 100 Ave are there to become the primary routes for east-west car traffic, while 104 Ave can become more of a transit-oriented corridor.

The LRT probably should've used 108 or 100, since it would require a fair deal less 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 about with traffic patterns, since 104 is already the highway feeder.

But, it's too late for that. I'm curious how Surrey knocks those roads into shape once this all starts to materialise.

Alternately, there's a big-assed hydro ROW/greenway just south of 96. 96 is a lot less developped, sure, but it'd be a piece of piss to turn it into an Arbutus-style LRT/greenway and run it all the way to Port Kells, and then develop around it. I think that would've been my ideal approach to this, but ah well.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by bloomtronzero

Alternately, there's a big-assed hydro ROW/greenway just south of 96. 96 is a lot less developped, sure, but it'd be a piece of piss to turn it into an Arbutus-style LRT/greenway and run it all the way to Port Kells, and then develop around it. I think that would've been my ideal approach to this, but ah well.

Missing Guildford Town Centre by a kilometer and a half is a complete non-starter.

[Trainguy]

This stupid LRT is not even fully funded yet so it will be years before we see a shovel in the ground. Talk is cheap... show me all the money$$$. well... thought so...

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

This stupid LRT is not even fully funded yet so it will be years before we see a shovel in the ground. Talk is cheap... show me all the money$$$. well... thought so...

The Broadway Skytrain isn't fully funded yet either. We've got at least a year to wait before they start planning on when to have the shovel photo-op.

[jsbertram]

So ...

with Non-Decision 2017 done (just need to count the absentee votes), which group is more likely to fund and push this project?

BCLibs & BCGreens ?
BCNDPs & BCGreens ?

or will we have to wait until after the next election (possibly in late 2018)

My thoughts are why would BCLibs reward the new BCNDP ridings with this project after losing some of these ridings?

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

So ...

with Non-Decision 2017 done (just need to count the absentee votes), which group is more likely to fund and push this project?

BCLibs & BCGreens ?
BCNDPs & BCGreens ?

or will we have to wait until after the next election (possibly in late 2018)

My thoughts are why would BCLibs reward the new BCNDP ridings with this project after losing some of these ridings?

Presuming the Libs are 'officially' the lead party, that doesn't mean that only they get to present items to vote on. Ultimately what passes is going to be what gets enough votes - so the (pro-public transit) NDP and Greens could team up to get it done.

That's what's going to be interesting with a minority government. Neither the Libs or NDP have enough votes to pass anything. They'll be able to find some common ground (esp as it's not like any of them want another election asap) but ultimately both parties will have to court the Greens pretty regularly.

I expect Metro Van to get more love than it has the last few years. The Libs may have given us the cold shoulder but the NDP aren't going to (esp considering how many of their candidates represent here).

[AMTDGT]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Presuming the Libs are 'officially' the lead party, that doesn't mean that only they get to present items to vote on. Ultimately what passes is going to be what gets enough votes - so the (pro-public transit) NDP and Greens could team up to get it done.

That's what's going to be interesting with a minority government. Neither the Libs or NDP have enough votes to pass anything. They'll be able to find some common ground (esp as it's not like any of them want another election asap) but ultimately both parties will have to court the Greens pretty regularly.

I expect Metro Van to get more love than it has the last few years. The Libs may have given us the cold shoulder but the NDP aren't going to (esp considering how many of their candidates represent here).

I suspect, even if Christie ends up with a bare majority, her legislation will be structured to get Green support, except for the pipe line (JT will make that a National Interest taking the province out of it and site C. I don't think its lost on her or Dr Weaver, that a significant number of Green voters are young professionals (like my kid's and their friends) who had some issues with Christie and voted Green because hell would freeze over before they would ever think of voting for the BC NDP. Transit is a way for Christie to try and win back some urban votes and at the same time make the Greens look good.

[casper]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

So ...

with Non-Decision 2017 done (just need to count the absentee votes), which group is more likely to fund and push this project?

BCLibs & BCGreens ?
BCNDPs & BCGreens ?

or will we have to wait until after the next election (possibly in late 2018)

My thoughts are why would BCLibs reward the new BCNDP ridings with this project after losing some of these ridings?

I would not view it as punishing the ridings that voted NDP. It is an opportunity to bribe the ridings. Fund some phase 1 of pre-engineering and promise, if you vote for us next time we promise to get this transit expansion off the ground.

[seamack]

Originally Posted by casper

It is an opportunity to bribe the ridings. Fund some phase 1 of pre-engineering and promise, if you vote for us next time we promise to get this transit expansion off the ground.

Well then Mary Polak should be pushing for the SkyTrain extension into Langley before the stupid Hepner's LRT vision in Surrey. Especially ironic since East Clayton has such a horrendous unresolved street parking issues... if they area was served by fast & frequent transit, you can be sure there would be a need for less vehicles.

[Trainguy]

Yet another death on the Calgary LRT C train. If Surrey's LRT ever gets built, it wouldn't surprised me to see similar results.


Woman Killed by C-Train

Calgary Alberta - The woman hit and killed by a C-Train in northeast Calgary appeared to be distracted before she was struck, police officials say.

The accident happened near the Whitehorn station at 36th Street and Whitehorn Drive N.E. on the LRT's blue line at about 08:15 on Tuesday.

Insp. Ken Thrower says the 60-year-old woman was seen on CCTV footage walking south along the platform toward the level crossing.

A southbound train went by and the woman walked east across the northbound tracks.

"She appeared to be distracted or preoccupied, not too sure," said Thrower.

"She glances down at her cell phone, she almost walked out in front of the traffic on 36th Street, going northbound."

Thrower said the woman then turned around and went back across the northbound track as a train approached.

The lights were flashing warning of the approaching train, but the woman, who Thrower said appeared to be looking the wrong way, stepped in front of it and was hit.

Safety Measures in Place

Brian Whitelaw, superintendent of safety for Calgary Transit, said the warning lights were updated at Whitehorn station recently in response to a fatality earlier this year.

"We actually lowered the crossing lights to account for folks who may not be looking up," he said.

"We were trying to lower the lights down to more eye level for people in an effort to increase awareness of approaching trains."

As well, crossing guards have been upgraded at most stations requiring people to "make at least two decisions," said Whitelaw, such as having to step left then right around metal bars before being able to cross the tracks.

Crossing arms, like the ones used to block vehicles, could be installed to block pedestrians, like the ones at Banff Trail Station.

"We haven't had any fatalities since we've had those in place," said Whitelaw.

Calgary Transit ran shuttle buses for several hours to get passengers north and south of the Whitehorn station while the accident was investigated.

Second Fatality This Year

Tuesday's fatality is the second at Whitehorn station this year.

On 20 Feb 2017 a 30-year-old man was struck by a train at the same crossing.

Investigators believed he was wearing headphones and was distracted by his cell phone.

Since the C-Train system launched in May 1981 there have been 75 deaths at or near stations.

Areas adjacent to the 36th Street LRT alignment seem to have a disproportionate share of fatalities, with 20 since the northeast line opened in 1985.

[flipper316]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

Yet another death on the Calgary LRT C train. If Surrey's LRT ever gets built, it wouldn't surprised me to see similar results.


Woman Killed by C-Train

Calgary Alberta - The woman hit and killed by a C-Train in northeast Calgary appeared to be distracted before she was struck, police officials say.

The accident happened near the Whitehorn station at 36th Street and Whitehorn Drive N.E. on the LRT's blue line at about 08:15 on Tuesday.

Insp. Ken Thrower says the 60-year-old woman was seen on CCTV footage walking south along the platform toward the level crossing.

A southbound train went by and the woman walked east across the northbound tracks.

"She appeared to be distracted or preoccupied, not too sure," said Thrower.

"She glances down at her cell phone, she almost walked out in front of the traffic on 36th Street, going northbound."

Thrower said the woman then turned around and went back across the northbound track as a train approached.

The lights were flashing warning of the approaching train, but the woman, who Thrower said appeared to be looking the wrong way, stepped in front of it and was hit.

Safety Measures in Place

Brian Whitelaw, superintendent of safety for Calgary Transit, said the warning lights were updated at Whitehorn station recently in response to a fatality earlier this year.

"We actually lowered the crossing lights to account for folks who may not be looking up," he said.

"We were trying to lower the lights down to more eye level for people in an effort to increase awareness of approaching trains."

As well, crossing guards have been upgraded at most stations requiring people to "make at least two decisions," said Whitelaw, such as having to step left then right around metal bars before being able to cross the tracks.

Crossing arms, like the ones used to block vehicles, could be installed to block pedestrians, like the ones at Banff Trail Station.

"We haven't had any fatalities since we've had those in place," said Whitelaw.

Calgary Transit ran shuttle buses for several hours to get passengers north and south of the Whitehorn station while the accident was investigated.

Second Fatality This Year

Tuesday's fatality is the second at Whitehorn station this year.

On 20 Feb 2017 a 30-year-old man was struck by a train at the same crossing.

Investigators believed he was wearing headphones and was distracted by his cell phone.

Since the C-Train system launched in May 1981 there have been 75 deaths at or near stations.

Areas adjacent to the 36th Street LRT alignment seem to have a disproportionate share of fatalities, with 20 since the northeast line opened in 1985.

Wow. How many accidental deaths between pedestrians and trains have occurred since Skytrain rolled out? Zero right?

[ilikeredheads]

There will always be a chance for this type of accidents to happen when the line is not fully grade separated. Here's the intersection on google map.
https://goo.gl/maps/4bRXhjZcjTp
The waiting bay between the track and the road is surprisingly small. There's also a lack of crossing guards.

Considering that Surrey Central is a major transit hub with high foot traffic, the likelihood of this happening will only increase.

[Metro-One]

At the very least you would think they would grade separate the Surrey LRT through the heart of Surrey Centre. (Especially with the 2 billion plus price tag attatched to it)

[Spork]

Originally Posted by flipper316

Wow. How many accidental deaths between pedestrians and trains have occurred since Skytrain rolled out? Zero right?

A heck of a lot less per passenger, per passenger-km, per boarding per year, in total, and probably by about any other measurement you can come up with (unless it is per-car accident cause by Skytrain, in which case we have a divide by zero error, and the equation cannot be solved):

SkyTrain as of 2015: 10 (http://www.straight.com/life/458271/skytrain-deaths-examined)
C-Train as of 2014: 43 (http://www.calgaryherald.com/Pedestrian+...cidental+death+system/9555183/story.html)

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by Spork

A heck of a lot less per passenger, per passenger-km, per boarding per year, in total, and probably by about any other measurement you can come up with (unless it is per-car accident cause by Skytrain, in which case we have a divide by zero error, and the equation cannot be solved):

SkyTrain as of 2015: 10 (http://www.straight.com/life/458271/skytrain-deaths-examined)
C-Train as of 2014: 43 (http://www.calgaryherald.com/Pedestrian+...cidental+death+system/9555183/story.html)

Accidental death is the true measure of how safe a system is. Suicidal death will happen anywhere and is not tied to the type of technology used for transit. LRT systems that mix with cars and pedestrians will always be far less safe than completely grade separated systems like Skytrain.

[Bmpruner]

Interesting...more ammo on why this is ill conceived
http://trib.al/v4rXtWJ