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

[Bdawe]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

That intersection alone makes me never want to drive down King George ever again. Yikes.

I remain perpetually unsettled by how fast San Jose light rail trains blitz down streets when I've spent time in San Jose.

Despite this speed, they're still painfully slow and poorly ridden

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

damn that corner 102@King George. turn right across a crosswalk and 2 sets of tracks with 2 straight through lanes then crossing across 2 straght through lanes and a right turn lane 1 block away. that's many accidents waiting to happen in the span of a block.

I'm not a traffic engineer but even I can see that it would make a lot more sense to run the line along the north side of 102 Ave and then turn directly to the east side of King George rather than running down the middle of the street for a block and then cutting diagonally across the intersection. LRT turns at 102 Ave and King George could be made on a light phase that was red for all car traffic.

I realize that they are working with limited space and turning radius restrictions, but that plan screws up three intersections instead of just one and they still have control over what vehicles they will buy.

[Bobert]

That area is going to be hard to deal with no matter what method is used. PM peak traffic volume through that area is really high.

[Metro-One]

Alright, lets look at all the basic points of conflict in that pivitol section (connecting hub to hub).

First with 101 Ave.

There are two pedestrian crosswalk conflicts

For traffic there is:

North bound
North turning right.
East bound
Eastbound turning left (unless this is prohibited)
Westbound
Westbound turning left (unless prohibited)
Southbound turning left

Now King George and 100th Very awkward.

One pedestrian crosswalk
Westbound turning left
South bound
Eastbound turning right

Now the last awkward intersection.

Eastbound
Westbound
Also a bike lane it looks.

So, in the end, that is 13 to 16 major zones of conflict!!!!

There is only one word to label this design: 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵!

Seriously, the only way to make this work is to have the Whalley portion a subway or elevated, and by that point the cost pretty much dictate that we may as well build skytain.

It is asinine to think that this horrid bus on rails will cost much more than the Evergreen Line.

A poster child project for politics trumping sound transit planning.

[nname]

Looking at that, I actually feel that intersection in Edmonton is much better designed...

The 101st and 102nd intersection is going to be a nightmare, especially SB 102nd and NB 101st.. Just imagine waiting at the intersection, seeing those long 3-car trains making sharp turns at snail speed, every 3-5min...

And it would destroy bus service in Surrey because the buses cannot get in and out of the bus loop due to traffic...

If that simple turn at Lougheed/Barnet/Pinetree was deems unfeasible to be built at-grade for the original Evergreen LRT concept, how would this much more complicated design even work in Surrey...

[flipper316]

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

LOL at the KG @ 102ave intersection. It reminds me of that fucked up crossing near NAIT station in Edmonton. Let's also not forget the elephant in the room, 104ave. 1 lane in each direction is downright stupid.

Also, a reminder why at-grade crossings are not reliable. No matter how much precautions you implement, you cannot prevent human error.
• Video Link

And welcome to 2-3 hrs of shutdown. Look on the bright side, emergency response action fans like me will have an uptick in footage of accident scenes.

[flipper316]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

I'm not a traffic engineer but even I can see that it would make a lot more sense to run the line along the north side of 102 Ave and then turn directly to the east side of King George rather than running down the middle of the street for a block and then cutting diagonally across the intersection. LRT turns at 102 Ave and King George could be made on a light phase that was red for all car traffic.

I realize that they are working with limited space and turning radius restrictions, but that plan screws up three intersections instead of just one and they still have control over what vehicles they will buy.

Limited space? It's just ghetto 🞵🞵🞵 strip malls with parking lots and a giant mall parking lot.

[flipper316]

With these plans, Surrey is becoming Vancouver. Make driving so daunting and frustrating with 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 intersection designs and long waits with multiple signalized intersections that don't even produce a green wave they're hoping you'll abandon your car and hop on a bus on rails that'll cost more than a similar Skytrain with similar lengths. It's already happening at KGB even without LRT. Look at that ridiculous new intersection at KGB and Coast Capital. Just one pedestrian crossing already sets you back by at least a minute. It's like a 30 second crossing light then you have a car turning left with the advanced turn lane into Coast Capital. By this time you've got like 20-30 cars waiting in the through lanes. Once you get going then you hit another long light at 100th or Fraser/98th. Ridiculous designs.

[Metro-One]

There are going to be so many accidents...

[Whalleyboy]

In my mind the best routing would have been taking it straight down in front of the mall then turn on 100th then on to king george. Atleast 100th ave in that part has 4 lanes so losing 2 might 🞵🞵🞵🞵 there but sure could be a lot better then what they are doing at 102 or they can scrap the best buy building and turn there then on to king george

[invisibleairwaves]

One possible alternative would be to grade-separate the tracks through the more complex city-centre portion, then run at-grade through the wider, straighter KBG and 104th roadways. Essentially the same thing as Toronto's streetcar system, but it kind of runs counter to Surrey's whole objective here, which is "build the cheapest thing possible that isn't a bus".

[scryer]

I'm not a traffic engineer but even I can see that it would make a lot more sense to run the line along the north side of 102 Ave and then turn directly to the east side of King George rather than running down the middle of the street for a block and then cutting diagonally across the intersection. LRT turns at 102 Ave and King George could be made on a light phase that was red for all car traffic.

I realize that they are working with limited space and turning radius restrictions, but that plan screws up three intersections instead of just one and they still have control over what vehicles they will buy.

Just to add onto this sound idea, and someone else mentioned this as well, but they can afford to build a little ontop of the strip mall surface parking lots so that the tracks don't have to eat up anymore street-lanes.

This design is a clear nightmare for everyone. Most people in Surrey drive and I feel that more people should be angry over this proposed design. I am not a supporter of this proposed LRT however if I was to become a supporter I would demand a better design and better quality.

I get that Surrey wants to carve out its identity but using different, less effective rapid transit is not the way to achieve this.

[Express691]

Here's my analogy of how bad traffic will be:

Take how bad traffic was during the Surrey 6 murders and experience that every 2 weeks.

Grade separation is the only way to eliminate human error. Often I get comments like "Grade separation won't be needed if people were more attentive at crossings"

------------------------------------------------------

For those of you who can't or couldn't make it to the phase 2 open houses, the project boards are posted online
http://www.translink.ca/-/media/Document...Surrey_LRT_Open_House_Display_Boards.pdf

------------------------------------------------------

Also, regarding that road expansion plan and the proposed 105th avenue plan, I went to OLGC for elementary school and still go there for church (It's the property along 104th avenue with the big gravel track around a soccer field). It gets REALLY packed there on Sundays, especially in the mid-morning for the sunday services (in fact we have overflow service at 11:20 because the service inside the main church at 11:15 gets full and we have to comply with building code). Youth often go there for various events and such (A well known youth dance group, PraiseTEAM, is based out of OLGC).

I'll have a word with the various property owners (The parish's pastor as well as the elementary school principal) to see if they are aware of this plan and its consequences.

The last time I attended school at OLGC (2011), we sent kids to Hawthorne park in the early fall/springtime for cross country training as well as set aside 2 days in the summer for grades K-3 to have a picnic there.

We'll see. I think it's a chance to garner support against LRT and the various road expansions.

------------------------------------------------------

I was doing some campaigning against LRT at Surrey City Centre on Thursday and there was this one woman we talked to. At first she argued from a motorists perspective, claiming that driving is the better way to get to work because it is convenient. Upon further conversation, we found out she had no idea that the entire project was to be at street level - she thought we were getting a skytrain extension out to Langley.

That interaction makes us wonder: Are people properly educated (enough) about this project? Is surrey even baiting its residents with misinformation?

---------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by flipper316

It's already happening at KGB even without LRT. Look at that ridiculous new intersection at KGB and Coast Capital. Just one pedestrian crossing already sets you back by at least a minute. It's like a 30 second crossing light then you have a car turning left with the advanced turn lane into Coast Capital. By this time you've got like 20-30 cars waiting in the through lanes. Once you get going then you hit another long light at 100th or Fraser/98th. Ridiculous designs.

That's a LONG wait for a pedestrian crossing in and of itself. I think what that's also doing is that it's purposely slowing down bus service. Use that to increase projected travel time for the 96 B-line and justify the time savings for LRT.

[Metro-One]

Just to remind people, this project is actually a kilometer shorter than the Evergreen Line...

Yet is around 500 million dollars more expensive...

Evergreen Line... fully grade grade separated.

This project... full 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵.

Seriously, I cant get over what a boondoggle this is.

This is a huge waste of money I would far rather see being used on skytrain to Langley or skytrain to UBC.

[Caliplanner1]

Is there any way to bring legal action against the Surrey city council based on an abdication of duty to protect public health/safety/welfare?

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Just to remind people, this project is actually a kilometer shorter than the Evergreen Line...

Yet is around 500 million dollars more expensive...

say what now? you cant be serious... i haven't looked at the comparatives.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Evergreen Line... fully grade grade separated.

...and with a very long and challenging tunnel, to boot!

[Bobert]

The issue that this line is trying to solve is a north-south route. The 96B-Line does a good job, but you could imagine that a bus doesn't have the same pull as a train does.

I don't know how else you could solve the north-south transit issue in surrey. A skytrain extension south wouldn't work because the frequency would suffer at each branch.

An upgraded 96B-Line with separated stops, some form of signal priority would be top notch, but then you could ask yourself if that really is any step up from what it currently being done.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Bobert

The issue that this line is trying to solve is a north-south route. The 96B-Line does a good job, but you could imagine that a bus doesn't have the same pull as a train does.

I don't know how else you could solve the north-south transit issue in surrey. A skytrain extension south wouldn't work because the frequency would suffer at each branch.

An upgraded 96B-Line with separated stops, some form of signal priority would be top notch, but then you could ask yourself if that really is any step up from what it currently being done.

Correct, and correct. But the existing plan is worse than doing nothing.

IMO, wait a few more years for an extra quarter/half-billion or so, then build a fourth SkyTrain line. Not an Expo branch, a completely new elevated line (tunneled through Whalley) - TransLink can even extend it north in the future to connect with the M-Line in Coquitlam.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Correct, and correct. But the existing plan is worse than doing nothing.

IMO, wait a few more years for an extra quarter/half-billion or so, then build a fourth SkyTrain line. Not an Expo branch, a completely new elevated line (tunneled through Whalley) - TransLink can even extend it north in the future to connect with the M-Line in Coquitlam.

Exactly.

For the time being a rapid bus with que jumping is far more flexible and less disruptive than the planned LRT (while costing only a fraction of the price).

It seems that a lot of the sound logic that went into upgrading the Evergreen Line from LRT to Skytrain has been throw out the window this time around.