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

[ilikeredheads]

any time someone asks "why is LRT bad?"
just show them this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aq6W45lG1Jg

what surrey wants is a streetcar just like the one in the video. (and they want it down one of the most busiest roads in the city. )

EDIT: fixed link

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

any time someone asks "why is LRT bad?"
just show them this video
• Video Link

what surrey wants is a streetcar just like the one in the video. (and they want it down one of the most busiest roads in the city. )

Link machine broke.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

any time someone asks "why is LRT bad?"
just show them this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aq6W45lG1Jg

what surrey wants is a streetcar just like the one in the video. (and they want it down one of the most busiest roads in the city. )

EDIT: fixed link

Sorry but I have to keep correcting this argument. Surrey's LRT is not bad because it is to be poorly implemented (thereby making it a streetcar). It is bad because LRT is inherently bad for all but a handful of corridors. The LRT system that Surrey is pushing for is an absolute standard model of urban LRT.

I don't know what you're comparing it to, but Edmonton/Calgary's LRT is the one that's different. Running it along railway or highway corridors is certainly a popular model, but that's not what distinguishes a streetcar from LRT. It's not whether it's in-street or off-street, but pretty much just stop spacing.

So yes, Surrey's LRT sucks, but not because it's a streetcar (though those suck too).

[scryer]

I leave this thread for one day and come back to a disaster...

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

my god, this is like a redo of every argument in this thread for the past few years over 2 pages.

no one is winning this thing by this point; but enjoy it guys.

Yep. I feel like we've been successfully trolled, hbu ? I just want to throw my brain in a microwave before I actually get upset over how many steps back this thread has taken in the last couple of pages.

Sorry but I have to keep correcting this argument. Surrey's LRT is not bad because it is to be poorly implemented (thereby making it a streetcar). It is bad because LRT is inherently bad for all but a handful of corridors. The LRT system that Surrey is pushing for is an absolute standard model of urban LRT.

I don't know what you're comparing it to, but Edmonton/Calgary's LRT is the one that's different. Running it along railway or highway corridors is certainly a popular model, but that's not what distinguishes a streetcar from LRT. It's not whether it's in-street or off-street, but pretty much just stop spacing.

So yes, Surrey's LRT sucks, but not because it's a streetcar (though those suck too).

No disrespect.


Anyone who thinks that trains with drivers are less expensive than ALRT needs to ask for money from the Hepner government for lobbying.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by scryer

Anyone who thinks that trains with drivers are less expensive than ALRT needs to ask for money from the Hepner government for lobbying.

The cost savings of driver-less trains aren't as great as one would think. The drivers on the trains do more than just drive the train, they act as a layer of security. Without them, the agency has to hire more people on the train or in the station to replace what they do.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Check SkyTrain for Surrey, or go back through the thread - you don't even need to go that far, just click on 5-10 random pages.

Thanks for the link. I don't agree with many of their arguments, but my opinion is kind of moot as I don't agree with the LRT plan either.

Well, that's the beauty of hindsight.

Not really hindsight when you have been saying it since the early 90's, well before the Millennium line was built.

That's Abbotsford, probably; Langley's still practical.

Lets agree to disagree on that one.

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

my god, this is like a redo of every argument in this thread for the past few years over 2 pages.

no one is winning this thing by this point; but enjoy it guys.

I agree. No one is winning at this point. Rather than look for common ground and learn from each other, people try to pick apart the details they disagree with. Sorry. My intention was not to pick a fight.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by scryer

I leave this thread for one day and come back to a disaster...

Yep. I feel like we've been successfully trolled, hbu ? I just want to throw my brain in a microwave before I actually get upset over how many steps back this thread has taken in the last couple of pages.



No disrespect.

Anyone who thinks that trains with drivers are less expensive than ALRT needs to ask for money from the Hepner government for lobbying.

The arguments will continue till the lines are built with whatever technology and then the naysayers are proven right or wrong.

[Migrant_Coconut]

^ Pretty much. In case people haven't noticed, we end up doing this song and dance every time somebody new to Vancouver or to the forum (or who missed the first dozen arguments) comes along.

Ditto Arbutus, the Viaducts, mainland Chinese owners, green space v. urban space, or drivers v. non-drivers. Not bashing people for offering their opinions, just noting that it seems like it's easier to ask the same question another time rather than look for the old answers.

[scryer]

I'm out. See you next week folks!

[flipper316]

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

any time someone asks "why is LRT bad?"
just show them this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aq6W45lG1Jg

what surrey wants is a streetcar just like the one in the video. (and they want it down one of the most busiest roads in the city. )

EDIT: fixed link

Boy I hope our LRT will have sturdy bumpers.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by flipper316

Boy I hope our LRT will have sturdy bumpers.

Hopefully the business case sinks it and they keep it as the 96B. It's not like it's overwhelmed and needs to be upgraded *now* like the 99B.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by roger1818

The cost savings of driver-less trains aren't as great as one would think.

They are if you try to run trains with the frequency that Vancouver does. Our system is the envy of many others due to the high frequencies, and we can do that because it doesn't cost us any more to run lots of smaller trains than it does to run fewer large trains. You need the same amount of station security for both, but if we had drivers on every train then doubling frequencies would double the cost of paying those drivers.

[cganuelas1995]

Another good point against street running LRT is that some of the drivers tend to be kinda, bad at driving, such as new drivers, distracted drivers, and, um, drivers from a certain foreign country.

God help us.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Sorry but I have to keep correcting this argument. Surrey's LRT is not bad because it is to be poorly implemented (thereby making it a streetcar). It is bad because LRT is inherently bad for all but a handful of corridors. The LRT system that Surrey is pushing for is an absolute standard model of urban LRT.

I don't know what you're comparing it to, but Edmonton/Calgary's LRT is the one that's different. Running it along railway or highway corridors is certainly a popular model, but that's not what distinguishes a streetcar from LRT. It's not whether it's in-street or off-street, but pretty much just stop spacing.

So yes, Surrey's LRT sucks, but not because it's a streetcar (though those suck too).

Sounds like we have the same opinion. LRT isn't the correct technology for Surrey, but the fear mongers like to show off the worst implementations that look nothing like what is proposed and say this is what you will get. There is no point in disputing those who like spreading alternative facts as you come across as a supporter of the LRT proposal, when you aren't.

Once again I apologize for bringing all of this up. I tried to get caught up on the thread first, but there are 192 pages and most of it is fluff, so I only went back about 5 pages, thinking that was enough to get caught up. Obviously I was wrong.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Nyet. Remember that the current Expo splits in two, and up to half the trains go to Production Way-University in Burnaby. That's two trains every six minutes; TransLink themselves note that average frequency on the King George route can be up to 5-6 minutes.

True. I stand corrected. Still, 5-6 minutes is the maximum wait. The average is 3 minutes and if they time the transfers well, it could be less.

That's my point - no matter where you get on or off, SkyTrain plus feeder line means you end up waiting one extra time than with SkyTrain all the way.

One thing to consider is if you split the SkyTrain line in 3 at Surrey (the LRT proposal has it going in 3 directions), you will get a maximum frequency of 15-18 minutes on each line and it will deteriorate to one train every 30 minutes during the late night. You can improve that by designing the stations to allow timed transfers during off peak though so that those who want to transfer can just walk across the platform to another train.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by roger1818

True. I stand corrected. Still, 5-6 minutes is the maximum wait. The average is 3 minutes and if they time the transfers well, it could be less.

One thing to consider is if you split the SkyTrain line in 3 at Surrey (the LRT proposal has it going in 3 directions), you will get a maximum frequency of 15-18 minutes on each line and it will deteriorate to one train every 30 minutes during the late night. You can improve that by designing the stations to allow timed transfers during off peak though so that those who want to transfer can just walk across the platform to another train.

Our you just make a new line that splits off the from the current one. I'd suggest having Expo continue down Fraser Hwy, and the "L" line be separate.

[Trainguy]

I said it before but the key to Hep's pet project being successful is the 105 ave corridor being built. There is a lot of opposition to it so it won't happen right away if at all. She wants re-election next year too.

104th would just be a mess with one lane each way. It is already pretty busy as it is because it is an artery to the #1. Who came up with this idea? Must be anti-car huggers.

[swimmer_spe]

Once the UBC Line is built, I am wondering if the line to Langley will be built as Skytrain.

It sounds to me that unless Surrey does it on their own, and has the fare separate from Translink, the LRT won't get built.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Sounds like we have the same opinion. LRT isn't the correct technology for Surrey, but the fear mongers like to show off the worst implementations that look nothing like what is proposed and say this is what you will get. There is no point in disputing those who like spreading alternative facts as you come across as a supporter of the LRT proposal, when you aren't.

Once again I apologize for bringing all of this up. I tried to get caught up on the thread first, but there are 192 pages and most of it is fluff, so I only went back about 5 pages, thinking that was enough to get caught up. Obviously I was wrong.

I am just generally not a fan of LRT as a technology altogether, so I just wanted to make it clear that I am against the technology, not implementation. Surrey's LRT proposal is what well-done LRT looks like; problem is that even well-done LRT has many problems. If you build LRT without at-grade intersections as people are suggesting it should be, it's not really LRT at that point - it's a metro.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by roger1818

True. I stand corrected. Still, 5-6 minutes is the maximum wait. The average is 3 minutes and if they time the transfers well, it could be less.

Sure, but the LRT's planned to come every five minutes, if not more. Even with the best timing, it's a 3-4 minute wait for the SkyTrain and 3-7 minutes for the tram (not counting delays on the tram line)... unless you can sprint from one platform to the next inside of a minute, of course.

Obviously not the end of the world, but still an unnecessary inconvenience.

Originally Posted by roger1818

One thing to consider is if you split the SkyTrain line in 3 at Surrey (the LRT proposal has it going in 3 directions), you will get a maximum frequency of 15-18 minutes on each line and it will deteriorate to one train every 30 minutes during the late night. You can improve that by designing the stations to allow timed transfers during off peak though so that those who want to transfer can just walk across the platform to another train.

Alex already covered this one - if you've got a choice between a three-way branch and a separate line, go with the separate line. It's practically a rule.

Originally Posted by roger1818

LRT isn't the correct technology for Surrey, but the fear mongers like to show off the worst implementations that look nothing like what is proposed and say this is what you will get. There is no point in disputing those who like spreading alternative facts as you come across as a supporter of the LRT proposal, when you aren't.

The thing about the "best" LRT routes is that they're mostly independent of the road grid and/or grade-separated once they cross downtown or other busy areas, like with the Eglinton line. Surrey wants to have their cake and eat it too though, so their LRT's right through the middle of downtown Whalley on their primary artery - a textbook "worst implementation."

Same problem with a Broadway LRT - either they ban left turns along KGB and watch traffic skyrocket, or they don't and have "heroes" trying to race the tram or idiots who just don't notice it. That's not an alternative fact, that's a continent-wide problem.