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

[Whalleyboy]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Where are the wires that the LRT will get it's power from?

Maybe they are looking at using the wireless system
http://primove.bombardier.com/applications/tram.html

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

I sure hope that's just some college kid's render and not one from a professional transportation agency because putting the vehicle stop lights on the other side of the LRT tracks like that is an awesome way to have vehicles stopped across the tracks.

Traffic lights are always on the "far" side of an intersection. If you put them on the "near" side then you end up stopping directly underneath them and you can't see when they turn green. It's the lines on the pavement that dictate where you stop, not where the lights are.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Traffic lights are always on the "far" side of an intersection. If you put them on the "near" side then you end up stopping directly underneath them and you can't see when they turn green. It's the lines on the pavement that dictate where you stop, not where the lights are.

In Europe they do them directly adjacent to the stop line in places, but they're generally much closer to the ground.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Traffic lights are always on the "far" side of an intersection. If you put them on the "near" side then you end up stopping directly underneath them and you can't see when they turn green. It's the lines on the pavement that dictate where you stop, not where the lights are.

The example I'm thinking of would be like Braid at Brunette in New West (sure hope that link works). There are signals at the train crossing and at the intersection slightly further up the road. That one's more of a stretch because there are three tracks to cross instead of two, but that's what I'd anticipate would be at an LRT crossing like this.

And the more I look at that rendering the more I don't like it from a pedestrian point of view. It's way too open around the street! Wide open streets like that encourage drivers to drive faster. I would hope they put some trees and planters and parklets and things that don't necessarily narrow the street but narrow the vision. Some trees would help soften that whole area anyhow; the current Civic Plaza is a concrete nightmare.

For those who are wondering where this rendering is, it's the intersection of 103 Avenue and City Parkway, looking west. We can see the library down the street. I got confused because the rendering shows 103rd going straight through to University Drive where there's currently an entrance to underground parking.

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by Whalleyboy

Maybe they are looking at using the wireless system
http://primove.bombardier.com/applications/tram.html

City staff have already repeatedly stated, in presentations and such, that they are looking at a traditional overhead wire system.

This is certainly not the first case where overhead wires are missing in a conceptual render; the city's own concept videos omit them as well. It's ironic given part of the context of adopting LRT has been that it won't create the visual impacts of a SkyTrain guideway, yet most LRT concept renders I've seen completely miss the overhead wires.

As far as where the render comes from, the style of the SkyTrain in the photo has me believing that it was done by the 3 Civic Plaza team (not TransLink). Definitely not that great looking, given how easy it is to just photoshop things these days. Here are a few shots I've been working on...


(yes, that's yesterday's incident at Fraser/152nd)


(this shot might do well at warding off any ideas that a SkyTrain extension on Fraser won't have population to serve nearby...)

[GMasterAres]

I'll say it again. There won't be at-grade LRT down Fraser Highway. At most it will be the KGB/104th route that will get at-grade LRT. Fraser Highway will be SkyTrain.

[officedweller]

This is due to the 105th Ave. connector that will accommodate loss of lanes on 104th Ave. due to the LRT.

Resident upset about road planned to cut through Surrey park
Jennifer Saltman (Vancouver Sun)
Published: May 31, 2017
Updated: May 31, 2017 8:58 PM

...
Paul Lee, the city’s LRT program manager, said since a regional transit investment plan was approved last year, planning work for light rail in Surrey has been underway. Some of that work includes moving utilities located under 104th Avenue.

An east-west connector north of 104th Avenue first came up in the early 1980s, and was included as part of the city’s Official Community Plan in 1986.

Lee said the funding for early work on light rail will allow the city to finally go ahead with the 105th Avenue connector and move the underground utilities to there from 104th Avenue. He said the road is not being built just because of the light-rail line.

“There’s synergies here,” he said. “That is the connection between the light-rail project and the construction of the 105th Avenue connector.”
...

http://www.theprovince.com/news/local+ne...+through+surrey+park/13415007/story.html


https://www.surrey.ca/city-services/22562.aspx

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by officedweller

This is due to the 105th Ave. connector that will accommodate loss of lanes on 104th Ave. due to the LRT.


http://www.theprovince.com/news/local+ne...+through+surrey+park/13415007/story.html


https://www.surrey.ca/city-services/22562.aspx

While that graphic looks like it's taking a big chunk of the park, we're talking about a 300m road through the park part and away from the main area.
Looks like at least 5 houses will have to be expropriated for phase I of this road, unless the city's bought up that land already.


While I can understand that this person doesn't want to lose any park space, the reality is that the road will essentially run along where the alley for commercial properties fronting 104th are and then up behind a housing development.

[flipper316]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

City staff have already repeatedly stated, in presentations and such, that they are looking at a traditional overhead wire system.

This is certainly not the first case where overhead wires are missing in a conceptual render; the city's own concept videos omit them as well. It's ironic given part of the context of adopting LRT has been that it won't create the visual impacts of a SkyTrain guideway, yet most LRT concept renders I've seen completely miss the overhead wires.

As far as where the render comes from, the style of the SkyTrain in the photo has me believing that it was done by the 3 Civic Plaza team (not TransLink). Definitely not that great looking, given how easy it is to just photoshop things these days. Here are a few shots I've been working on...


(yes, that's yesterday's incident at Fraser/152nd)


(this shot might do well at warding off any ideas that a SkyTrain extension on Fraser won't have population to serve nearby...)

Just looking at that is so depressing. Why isn't there any land set aside for numerous huge parks? Why must everything be desecrated?

[seamack]

It is worth noting that the large aerial shot is showing the density in much of East Clayton where street parking problems have been ongoing and the city claims they are spending inordinate amount of time & studies for a solution. Yet a fast, frequent & reliable SkyTrain extension will have many questioning the need for that extra vehicle... why are councillors heads in the sand about this? The problem is now - yet Hepner and the others are so focused on Newton-Guildford light rail which will provide zero improvement over BRT, that the rest of Surrey is ignored. KG to Langley city should be a Phase 1 priority, not delegated to the 2030's if we're lucky to be so fortunate.

[Trainguy]

From Global News
( The mayors have lobbied for months to get funding for the second phase of their 10-year transit plan for the region, which includes replacing the Pattullo Bridge, light rail for Surrey and Langley, and the Broadway subway line in Vancouver. )

If they drive the LRT down Fraser Hwy to Langley they are nuts. This is a slow road to Langley and means everyone has to transfer at KG to different technology. It is the Mayor's 10 year plan that is driving all this.

[logicbomb]

The other Mayors NOF must be thrilled that Surrey is hell bent on destroying their own community.

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

The other Mayors NOF must be thrilled that Surrey is hell bent on destroying their own community.

Check out the link below. The term "light rail" in this case causes confusion because the Montreal system is basically a Skytrain and not a Surrey type of street car. Surrey needs to forget about this stupid LRT they want to build.

( MONTREAL — Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that the Canadian government would invest more than $900 million into a new light rail system in Montreal. When complete, the Réseau électrique métropolitain will span 40 miles and serve 27 stations connecting Montreal’s downtown with West Island, South Shore, North Shore, and Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport. )

https://www.cdpqinfra.com/en/Reseau_electrique_metropolitain

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

Check out the link below. The term "light rail" in this case causes confusion because the Montreal system is basically a Skytrain and not a Surrey type of street car. Surrey needs to forget about this stupid LRT they want to build.

( MONTREAL — Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that the Canadian government would invest more than $900 million into a new light rail system in Montreal. When complete, the Réseau électrique métropolitain will span 40 miles and serve 27 stations connecting Montreal’s downtown with West Island, South Shore, North Shore, and Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport. )

https://www.cdpqinfra.com/en/Reseau_electrique_metropolitain

Actually, it is more of a Heavy commuter rail line with lighter vehicles. It is closer to WCE than the Skytrain. Even their Metro is heavy rail. Skytrain is not.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Actually, it is more of a Heavy commuter rail line with lighter vehicles. It is closer to WCE than the Skytrain. Even their Metro is heavy rail. Skytrain is not.

What!

Their Metro is a rubber-tired vehicle called a VAL. It's not even close to heavy rail. They're not even weather proof, which is why they don't run outside of tunnels.

The renders make it look like the new system will use 4-car trains in a Skytrain like configuration. The heavy rail aspect is that they're reusing a WCE like corridor.

[Shift]

Originally Posted by flipper316

Just looking at that is so depressing. Why isn't there any land set aside for numerous huge parks? Why must everything be desecrated?

Have you ever looked at a map of Surrey? Try looking at cosmos.surrey.ca and not one small section of the city. Abundance of parks.

Also there are plenty in that area of the city anyway (See map of same area your referring to below).

You are also forgetting how land ownership works. As a land owner, you don't make a return on your investment by dedicating your land to the City as a park.

Surrey allocates adequate parks through their NCP's and requires land-owners to dedicate 5% parkland/open space on site, or cash-in-lieu towards a park elsewhere.

Clayton, where that aerial and map below shows, has more compact single family than much of East Vancouver, with houses up to the street, front porches etc.. A good example of neo-traditional, single family urbanism. Wouldn't really call it depressing.

[Shift]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

I sure hope that's just some college kid's render and not one from a professional transportation agency because putting the vehicle stop lights on the other side of the LRT tracks like that is an awesome way to have vehicles stopped across the tracks.

All stop lights are placed on the opposite side of an intersection. You don't park your vehicle in the middle of an intersection at a red light.

[Shift]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

Here are a few shots I've been working on...


(yes, that's yesterday's incident at Fraser/152nd)

How long do you figure the accident would be obstructing the LRT tracks? 30 mins, 1 hour, 2 hours? Do you think if there was LRT they would maybe make it a priority to clear the track area as soon as possible so that trains could get by?

I can't see this being a problem for long enough to have to start running a 'bus bridge'. The fire truck would probably not park itself directly across the track.

[Vin]

Think outside the box. This would solve the above problem, and this train will be able to skirt around the accident:

From SSC:

Originally Posted by SheldonLee

New Vehicle: ART!! Autonomous Rail Rapid Transit.
Run with virtual rail on the normal road.
It is only 1/5 compare to the cost of tram or LRT.


• Video Link
• Video Link

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asia...alternative-to-expensive-subways-8907946

SINGAPORE: A "train that runs on virtual tracks" has made its debut in Hunan, central China, Xinhua reported on Friday (Jun 2).
Developed by Chinese rail maker CRRC Zhuzhou Locomotive, the "smart bus" runs on electricity and is equipped with sensors that read road dimensions, allowing it to plan its own route.
"It is like having a virtual rail for the bus," said Feng Jianghua, chief engineer of the CCRC research arm.
Described as the "first of its kind", the 30-metre-long bus has three carriages with a total capacity of 300 passengers.
The carriages can be disconnected from each other and more can be added if needed, said the state news agency, adding that the bus can move at a maximum speed of 70km/h.
Named the Autonomous Rail Rapid Transit (ART), the system is expected to ease traffic in small cities, where the construction of mass rail networks - which is expensive and takes too much time - is not feasible.
A 6.5km-long demonstration track is expected to begin operation in downtown Zhuzhou in 2018.

I think our Bombardier should start pursuing this technology.

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by Shift

Have you ever looked at a map of Surrey? Try looking at cosmos.surrey.ca and not one small section of the city. Abundance of parks.

Also there are plenty in that area of the city anyway (See map of same area your referring to below).

You are also forgetting how land ownership works. As a land owner, you don't make a return on your investment by dedicating your land to the City as a park.

Surrey allocates adequate parks through their NCP's and requires land-owners to dedicate 5% parkland/open space on site, or cash-in-lieu towards a park elsewhere.

Clayton, where that aerial and map below shows, has more compact single family than much of East Vancouver, with houses up to the street, front porches etc.. A good example of neo-traditional, single family urbanism. Wouldn't really call it depressing.

Yes agree I would take this over a lot of what's in east/south van burnaby etc. I can't stand this anti suburban sprawl mentality i love sprawl, If it's done right! Let's not forget basically Everything was sprawl at some point