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

[Whalleyboy]

Actually that movement failed on getting the 10% of voters in surrey to sign it got 12,000 when it needed over 30,000.

side note I am actually for another road connecting surrey central and guildford

The 106 ave road was actually the original planned route but the city figured its truly cut the park in half and didnt want use that route

[memememe76]

Do we really need another road? Sure, it can get busy but I never get frustrated on 100, 104 or 108 like I do when I am on Kingsway, Willingdon, Main, or Boundary.

And I like the small parks in Surrey.

[Alex Mackinnon]

I think the thought is that 104 will suck after the LRT goes in.

Why not just run the LRT through the park on the 105 alignment? It would surely be much less disruptive to the park than a road, and would be far easier to construct than on a busy street.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

I think the thought is that 104 will suck after the LRT goes in.

Why not just run the LRT through the park on the 105 alignment? It would surely be much less disruptive to the park than a road, and would be far easier to construct than on a busy street.

Transit is severely hampered when it runs off of the main corridors it's intended to serve.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Again, self-driving tech still needs a whole lot of work. But don't take my word for it.

I never said it was ready today. I said:

Originally Posted by roger1818

With all the work in self driving cars, it won't be long before automation for at grade LRT systems will be available.

Granted "not long" is rather subjective, but your crystal ball is as good as mine.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

SkyTrain has faregates

I said "over 30 years ago" (i.e. when it first opened). Back then they didn't have faregates but used an honour system. I am not sure when they added faregates, but it ran without them for many years.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

TransLink's already done that;

I have yet to find this EA. The only things I can find are the SURREY RAPID TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS PHASE 2 EVALUATION in 2012 and the only conclusion it draws is "The results of this evaluation will help to inform the selection of a preferred alternative" and a Findings to Date document in 2013 in which Traslink cherry-picked 4 of the options (1 BRT only, 2 LRT/BRT and 1 SkyTrain/BRT) with no real explanation of why they were selected (certainly no explanation as to why RRT 2 was dropped when it is very competitive with RRT 1a and arguably better than all of the other options).

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

TransLink's already done that; SkyTrain + BRT was considered to be one of the best options.

OMG!!! If that is the preference in this thread, why then did everyone freak out when I suggested BRT in my first post in this thread? It seemed like everyone wanted SkyTrain to be extended everywhere.

Originally Posted by roger1818

some type of express service (bus or train) on a dedicated corridor would be much more effective.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Obviously LRT works if done right. Problem is that Surrey's got the wrong corridors and the near-cheapest implementation.

There is no argument from me, especially on the KGB and 104 Ave routes.

[waves]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I said "over 30 years ago" (i.e. when it first opened). Back then they didn't have faregates but used an honour system. I am not sure when they added faregates, but it ran without them for many years.

2012 was the first fare gate: https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/br...867/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I said "over 30 years ago" (i.e. when it first opened). Back then they didn't have faregates but used an honour system. I am not sure when they added faregates, but it ran without them for many years.

And before that, I said "we still need operators to stop fare evaders." In the past - and even now - we've had Transit Police (the green vests) standing around and writing tickets; like with your driverless bus/tram, automation won't change that.

No need to remind anybody, practically everyone in Vancouver once used that honour system... or didn't, hence the faregates.

Originally Posted by roger1818

I have yet to find this EA. The only things I can find are the SURREY RAPID TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS PHASE 2 EVALUATION in 2012 and the only conclusion it draws is "The results of this evaluation will help to inform the selection of a preferred alternative" and a Findings to Date document in 2013 in which Traslink cherry-picked 4 of the options (1 BRT only, 2 LRT/BRT and 1 SkyTrain/BRT) with no real explanation of why they were selected (certainly no explanation as to why RRT 2 was dropped when it is very competitive with RRT 1a and arguably better than all of the other options).

If you want to argue with the experts or accuse them of playing favourites, that's on you, not us. Personally, I'd throw out an Expo extension to Newton simply because King George Station and the subsequent track already points to Fraser Highway - if SkyTrain to Langley is considered "too expensive," consider the cost of realigning a station and/or turning the line back towards Newton.

Originally Posted by roger1818

OMG!!! If that is the preference in this thread, why then did everyone freak out when I suggested BRT in my first post in this thread? It seemed like everyone wanted SkyTrain to be extended everywhere.

The alleged freakout (more like a collective "no, that's won't work") came from you suggesting that a permanent BRT or B-Line would do the same job as a SkyTrain line. Rather, the B-Line's a placeholder until said SkyTrain can be built.

Originally Posted by roger1818

There is no argument from me, especially on the KGB and 104 Ave routes.

Alright, good to know that we all agree on something. Let's go back to the original argument:

Originally Posted by roger1818

But is it the right technology for the region? There are many other ways to do that and I am not sure ALRT is the correct one. The ALRT is great, but it locks you into that one technology forever. A more generic technology has more flexibility for the future. A busway could have rails added to it later. A rail system with an overhead centenary (LRT or other) could be extended to provide express service into Vancouver when that becomes necessary.

Understand that SkyTrain is intended as a regional express service to connect the whole Metro and all its various townships, even the far-off suburban ones like White Rock, Maple Ridge and Langley. As with many other cities, LRT would be fine as a local express service where SkyTrain isn't cost-effective or necessary (Arbutus, west Newton, etc)...

But suggesting that LRT could be used as the regional service, no matter how well-designed, is dead on arrival. We've already got one. It works just fine. Introducing another technology - with the exact same function and no compatibility with the existing one it replaces - adds nothing and only makes things more complicated.

And if SkyTrain ever does go over-capacity with no possibility of a relief line or upgrades, that's what commuter rail is for.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Introducing another technology - with the exact same function and no compatibility with the existing one it replaces - adds nothing and only makes things more complicated.

Things are already more complicated as the Canada Line uses a different, incompatible technology, but your point is well taken and already mentioned by someone else and we moved on from there.

[Trainguy]

Hep's plan for her 105th ave road project is hitting a few more snags. Now the Surrey School Board is stepping into the fight. They want a new playground and a new school since a new LRT station will be at the intersection of their school. If they don't get their wishes, they say no road.

https://globalnews.ca/news/3768942/no-fi...oard-uncertain-over-citys-proposed-plan/

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

And before that, I said "we still need operators to stop fare evaders." In the past - and even now - we've had Transit Police (the green vests) standing around and writing tickets; like with your driverless bus/tram, automation won't change that.

No need to remind anybody, practically everyone in Vancouver once used that honour system... or didn't, hence the faregates.



If you want to argue with the experts or accuse them of playing favourites, that's on you, not us. Personally, I'd throw out an Expo extension to Newton simply because King George Station and the subsequent track already points to Fraser Highway - if SkyTrain to Langley is considered "too expensive," consider the cost of realigning a station and/or turning the line back towards Newton.



The alleged freakout (more like a collective "no, that's won't work") came from you suggesting that a permanent BRT or B-Line would do the same job as a SkyTrain line. Rather, the B-Line's a placeholder until said SkyTrain can be built.



Alright, good to know that we all agree on something. Let's go back to the original argument:



Understand that SkyTrain is intended as a regional express service to connect the whole Metro and all its various townships, even the far-off suburban ones like White Rock, Maple Ridge and Langley. As with many other cities, LRT would be fine as a local express service where SkyTrain isn't cost-effective or necessary (Arbutus, west Newton, etc)...

But suggesting that LRT could be used as the regional service, no matter how well-designed, is dead on arrival. We've already got one. It works just fine. Introducing another technology - with the exact same function and no compatibility with the existing one it replaces - adds nothing and only makes things more complicated.

And if SkyTrain ever does go over-capacity with no possibility of a relief line or upgrades, that's what commuter rail is for.

utdc was planning on building stretched and widened cars based on the mkI cars to make trains for an automated commuter system called "go-alrt", but the gov't went with typical commuter trains for GO transit

http://transit.toronto.on.ca/photos/images/go-alrt-s1465-f597-i38.jpg

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

Hep's plan for her 105th ave road project is hitting a few more snags. Now the Surrey School Board is stepping into the fight. They want a new playground and a new school since a new LRT station will be at the intersection of their school. If they don't get their wishes, they say no road.

https://globalnews.ca/news/3768942/no-fi...oard-uncertain-over-citys-proposed-plan/

This entire thing is becoming more and more like a really depressing sitcom.

[Bdawe]

Any knowledge on where the L-Line OMC would be?

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

This entire thing is becoming more and more like a really depressing sitcom.

Hep's response....

https://globalnews.ca/news/3769958/surre...ole-as-part-of-contentious-road-project/

[cganuelas1995]

I found something pretty cool.

In section C2, they talk about protecting the former BC Hydro ROW for a future passenger rail corridor to the valley.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

I found something pretty cool.

In section C2, they talk about protecting the former BC Hydro ROW for a future passenger rail corridor to the valley.

It sounds like planning for the Arbutus greenway - something waaay in the future.

C2.26
Protect the former BC Hydro 'inter-urban' rail corridor Right-of-Way for future potential as a passenger rail corridor extending from Surrey into the Fraser Valley.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

I found something pretty cool.

Btw you might want to check this out. I don't agree with every single bit of it but there are some interesting ideas.

[Migrant_Coconut]

^ Sounds like zweisystem but a whole lot more intelligent and non-trollish.

[flipper316]

Originally Posted by Bdawe

Any knowledge on where the L-Line OMC would be?

I think it'll be somewhere around 74th and KGB.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

This entire thing is becoming more and more like a really depressing sitcom.

The fact that Dianne Watts is running for leadership of the BC Liberals, and Global has nothing but good things to say about her makes me think that if she wins, Surrey ends up with 150km of rubbish at-grade LRT-streetcars.

The reality is that we know this is a bad project, Translink knows it's a bad project, the Province knows it a bad project, and the Province and the Federal Government just do not care, because they are just handing out money regardless of the business case. It's the city's problem once it's built, but other jurisdictions don't go out and select a new technology for every line because that makes training and maintenance costs that much higher.

As an analogy, it's like Southwest Airlines and Westjet who save money operating their airlines by standardizing on just ONE aircraft model. Where as all the other airlines just buy whatever fits their request for bids, and as a result cost more to maintain.

Past a certain point you just wash your hands of it when the idiots in charge want their vanity project come hell or high water.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

I found something pretty cool.

In section C2, they talk about protecting the former BC Hydro ROW for a future passenger rail corridor to the valley.

As Sheba implied, protecting the rail corridor basically means don't let anyone build anything on it in case one day we want to use it.

The problem with the former BC Hydro 'inter-urban' rail corridor is that it is quite the cow path and would be as slow as molasses in January in Edmonton. Unless they can somehow straighten it out, it is unlikely to ever be used, but it is good that they want to protect it.