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

[Reecemartin]

I’m surprised that the system is still being compared to the many pop up streetcars in American cities such as Atlanta and DC. (I don’t mention Portland as to not confuse it with Max.)

As far as complaints about development go, you do need to realize that discussion of development really needs to be a serious part of the conversation about rapid transit, that’s how city building works. If you fail to do that you might end up with something like the Shepard Subway in Toronto which I think is totally representative of what will happen if a GWN Skytrain is built any time soon.

[cganuelas1995]

Would it be feasible to extend the 19 trolleybus route further along Kingsway/Highway 1A after Metrotown and then across a new Pattullo bridge, then have it stop at Surrey central and King George station, then have wires going to Newton and Guildford for the L-line?

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

Would it be feasible to extend the 19 trolleybus route further along Kingsway/Highway 1A after Metrotown and then across a new Pattullo bridge, then have it stop at Surrey central and King George station, then have wires going to Newton and Guildford for the L-line?

If they were going that direction they’d be better off building an entirely separate system in Surrey rather then building such a long extension.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

If they were going that direction they’d be better off building an entirely separate system in Surrey rather then building such a long extension.

But wouldn't interconnectivity be nice?

It would also give possibility for a route from Stanley Park to Newton and Guildford.

[ilikeredheads]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

But wouldn't interconnectivity be nice?

It would also give possibility for a route from Stanley Park to Newton and Guildford.

No, because Expo Line exists. A slow trolley bus running from Stanley Park to Surrey Central would probably take 2 hours to complete, considering it takes well over an hour to get to Metrotown from Downtown. A long distance local service bus route makes no sense.

[Bdawe]

Sheppard is a failure for a few reasons.

For one, it was a fully underground Toronto Subway Line. That's the Broadway investment level for the suburbs, so it cost a lot to build.

Secondly, it's operated as a Toronto Subway Line. That means that not only is it manually operated, but until only a year ago it had an additional onboard crew member (the "guard", called conductors elsewhere), and so the operating costs would be much higher than an equivalent skytrain service.

The Sheppard Line is also entirely perpendicular to the tidal flow of travel, where as a GWN line would be broadly in the direction of travel, especially given the lower-mainlands geographic choke points.

I'm not saying that we should build a GWN skytrain (though I'm actually fairly positive on the idea of a King George branch) but it wouldn't be the same thing

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

As far as complaints about development go, you do need to realize that discussion of development really needs to be a serious part of the conversation about rapid transit, that’s how city building works.

Well, that's the thing - SkyTrain allows for development AND people-moving.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

If you fail to do that you might end up with something like the Shepard Subway in Toronto which I think is totally representative of what will happen if a GWN Skytrain is built any time soon.

Not familiar with Toronto, but the problem with the Sheppard seems to be that it just splits off from Yonge-University, runs for five stations, aaand... just stops there. Does it cover any density or high-traffic destinations?

If not, then Guildford-Whalley-Newton will be fine. They're all regional town centres, and all scheduled to receive a skyscraper forest as part of Surrey's growth plan.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Well, that's the thing - SkyTrain allows for development AND people-moving.



Not familiar with Toronto, but the problem with the Sheppard seems to be that it just splits off from Yonge-University, runs for five stations, aaand... just stops there. Does it cover any density or high-traffic destinations?

If not, then Guildford-Whalley-Newton will be fine. They're all regional town centres, and all scheduled to receive a skyscraper forest as part of Surrey's growth plan.

It covers massive areas of new development but, is still highly under utilized. I feel like if the main goal is spurring development you shouldn’t assume that super high capacity is a requirement. At least not initially.

[Shift]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Well, that's the thing - SkyTrain allows for development AND people-moving.

Actually, SkyTrain guideways running down the centre of a road are obtrusive, disconnected from, and do not integrate with communities they pass through.

Urban-style, low-floor LRT proposed for Surrey is the opposite, it is integrated with the neighbourhood, and as a result, transforms the neighbourhood along its route.

As for people moving - the LRT will be a major improvement over the current B-Line which is infrequent (often long waits for it not running on schedule), lacks multi-door boarding (in Surrey), and is subject to traffic.

LRT will be in a dedicated ROW and will therefore not sit in traffic. Have more doors than a B-Line bus, run on a regular, likely more frequent schedule.

The current travel times for the 96 B-line (in ideal conditions) are as follows:
Surrey Central - Guildford B-Line: 10 mins
Surrey Central - Newton B-Line: 17 mins

The LRT will improve on these times greatly, and even more once you factor in:

• The less waiting at a stop for people to all board through 1 door
• Its more reliable frequency
• Not sitting in traffic - own dedicated ROW
• Larger passenger capacity of the trains

Not exactly slow travel times.

Somehow this looks like a better community builder than a skytrain guideway.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Shift

Actually, SkyTrain guideways running down the centre of a road are obtrusive, disconnected from, and do not integrate with communities they pass through.

Urban-style, low-floor LRT proposed for Surrey is the opposite, it is integrated with the neighbourhood, and as a result, transforms the neighbourhood along its route.

As for people moving - the LRT will be a major improvement over the current B-Line which is infrequent (often long waits for it not running on schedule), lacks multi-door boarding (in Surrey), and is subject to traffic.

LRT will be in a dedicated ROW and will therefore not sit in traffic. Have more doors than a B-Line bus, run on a regular interval, likely more frequent schedule.

The current travel times for the 96 B-line (in ideal conditions) are as follows:

Surrey Central - Guildford B-Line: 10 mins
Surrey Central - Newton B-Line: 17 mins

The LRT will improve on these times greatly, and even more once you factor in:

• The less waiting at a stop for people to all board through 1 door
• Its more reliable frequency
• Not sitting in traffic - own dedicated ROW

Not exactly slow travel times.

Somehow this looks like a better community builder than a skytrain guideway.

All of those things could be done to a bus. TransLink's own study put an LRT at 1 minute of time saved between Newton and Guildford, at a much higher cost.

As far as aesthetics go, it's not really fair to compare a utopian render like that. On-street transit is certainly prettier, but is it worth spending way more money and receive next to no mobility improvements so it looks better? Are we trying to design postcards or trying to move people easier? Besides, Fraser Highway hasn't really been developed all that much yet. It could be done around a SkyTrain guideway and make for a less intrusive look.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

It covers massive areas of new development but, is still highly under utilized. I feel like if the main goal is spurring development you shouldn’t assume that super high capacity is a requirement. At least not initially.

Sure, but Sheppard seems to be a case of sticking condos and a metro where nobody needs them and hoping for ridership (not enough condos either: it's the exact same density as Surrey right now!). It's nearly at the end of Yonge-University, WAY too far out for a connector line; even worse, you can't really connect to anything with only five stations. Making it longer or connecting it to another hub like Scarborough or Sheppard West might do the trick.
In comparison, King George-104 is anchored by three hubs, and is pretty high-traffic already without the condos.

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by Shift

Actually, SkyTrain guideways running down the centre of a road are obtrusive, disconnected from, and do not integrate with communities they pass through.

Urban-style, low-floor LRT proposed for Surrey is the opposite, it is integrated with the neighbourhood, and as a result, transforms the neighbourhood along its route.

As for people moving - the LRT will be a major improvement over the current B-Line which is infrequent (often long waits for it not running on schedule), lacks multi-door boarding (in Surrey), and is subject to traffic.

LRT will be in a dedicated ROW and will therefore not sit in traffic. Have more doors than a B-Line bus, run on a regular, likely more frequent schedule.

The current travel times for the 96 B-line (in ideal conditions) are as follows:
Surrey Central - Guildford B-Line: 10 mins
Surrey Central - Newton B-Line: 17 mins

The LRT will improve on these times greatly, and even more once you factor in:

• The less waiting at a stop for people to all board through 1 door
• Its more reliable frequency
• Not sitting in traffic - own dedicated ROW
• Larger passenger capacity of the trains

Not exactly slow travel times.

Somehow this looks like a better community builder than a skytrain guideway.

The LRT will have to wait for lights just like all the other traffic. If they give the LRT control of the traffic signals, it will screw up everyone's commute and cause traffic jams and grid lock. Besides, 104th is a major road leading to Hwy#1. Making it 2 lane is insane. Where is all that traffic supposed to go? 105th ave? That road may never get built with all the opposition mounting.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Shift

Actually, SkyTrain guideways running down the centre of a road are obtrusive, disconnected from, and do not integrate with communities they pass through.

Urban-style, low-floor LRT proposed for Surrey is the opposite, it is integrated with the neighbourhood, and as a result, transforms the neighbourhood along its route.

This argument by now is nothing but a very overused, emotion-based talking point.

Here's another one: One runs over the street and makes it feel urban. One literally splits the street in two and makes it impassable - even more so if you put up a fence. The latter "feels" a whole lot more disconnected.

Originally Posted by Shift

As for people moving - the LRT will be a major improvement over the current B-Line which is infrequent (often long waits for it not running on schedule), lacks multi-door boarding (in Surrey), and is subject to traffic.

LRT will be in a dedicated ROW and will therefore not sit in traffic. Have more doors than a B-Line bus, run on a regular, likely more frequent schedule.

The current travel times for the 96 B-line (in ideal conditions) are as follows:
Surrey Central - Guildford B-Line: 10 mins
Surrey Central - Newton B-Line: 17 mins

The LRT will improve on these times greatly, and even more once you factor in:

• The less waiting at a stop for people to all board through 1 door
• Its more reliable frequency
• Not sitting in traffic - own dedicated ROW
• Larger passenger capacity of the trains

Not exactly slow travel times.

What TransLink should do is enable all-door boarding (which they're testing right now) and increase frequency to 3-5 minutes, just like the 99 B-Line on Broadway. That'll do the exact same job as an LRT without the $2 billion price tag, and tide Surrey riders over until there's a need for SkyTrain.

As for traffic, even TransLink - as mentioned above - notes that light rail plus ROW only saves one minute over the bus, in addition to taking up space, clogging traffic and making the bus/car commute for everybody else slower. SkyTrain gets the job done faster and without taking up two lanes.

Originally Posted by Shift

Somehow this looks like a better community builder than a skytrain guideway.

(utopian streetcar)
(dystopian SkyTrain)

True, scenery and lighting is everything. For example: utopian SkyTrain, ugly streetcar.

But ultimately, "ugly, but works" beats the everlasting crap out of "'pretty, but doesn't." Light rail might work on the interurban line or a few side roads, but not Surrey's main arteries.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Shift

Actually, this is the appropriate comparison shot - where money has been allocated for the improvement.
Note that with the elevated guideway, there is relative freedom to cross under the guideway.
With LRT tracks, pedestrian and car cross-traffic may be prohibited (even fenced in places).

Originally Posted by mcminsen

[scryer]

Here we go again....

[Migrant_Coconut]

You know what else is getting old? "We've been doing this for every newcomer over and over again for the past year or two. Haven't you noticed?"

[Metro-One]

It is the nature of the beast, we have to go through this again each time when someone new comes on here with misinformation about surface LRT and this project, if not we lose the argument.

If you haven't noticed the position that is relentless in its argument, weather they are correct or not, is often the side that wins.

The comparisons between the most utopian render possible with an at grade LRT and the skytrain guideway is pretty funny. Especially since #3 Road is essentially the most important major road artery through downtown Richmond, while the LRT render looks as if it is in the middle of a residential neighborhood...

And here is the entire joke of that comparison, could you even imagine number 3 road being a single vehicle lane in each direction with LRT ROW in the middle? Just think about how superior number 3 road is with its current 4 lanes of traffic and elevated skytrain configuration regarding the sheer number of people and goods it can move compared to the utopian LRT render...

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

It is the nature of the beast, we have to go through this again each time when someone new comes on here with misinformation about surface LRT and this project, if not we lose the argument.

If you haven't noticed the position that is relentless in its argument, weather they are correct or not, is often the side that wins.

The comparisons between the most utopian render possible with an at grade LRT and the skytrain guideway is pretty funny. Especially since #3 Road is essentially the most important major road artery through downtown Richmond, while the LRT render looks as if it is in the middle of a residential neighborhood...

And here is the entire joke of that comparison, could you even imagine number 3 road being a single vehicle lane in each direction with LRT ROW in the middle? Just think about how superior number 3 road is with its current 4 lanes of traffic and elevated skytrain configuration regarding the sheer number of people and goods it can move compared to the utopian LRT render...

Let’s not forget more lanes isn’t actually always better.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Sure, but Sheppard seems to be a case of sticking condos and a metro where nobody needs them and hoping for ridership (not enough condos either: it's the exact same density as Surrey right now!). It's nearly at the end of Yonge-University, WAY too far out for a connector line; even worse, you can't really connect to anything with only five stations. Making it longer or connecting it to another hub like Scarborough or Sheppard West might do the trick.
In comparison, King George-104 is anchored by three hubs, and is pretty high-traffic already without the condos.

Shepard Corridor and North York in General are still significantly more dense than Surrey City Centre and developing faster.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

All of those things could be done to a bus. TransLink's own study put an LRT at 1 minute of time saved between Newton and Guildford, at a much higher cost.

As far as aesthetics go, it's not really fair to compare a utopian render like that. On-street transit is certainly prettier, but is it worth spending way more money and receive next to no mobility improvements so it looks better? Are we trying to design postcards or trying to move people easier? Besides, Fraser Highway hasn't really been developed all that much yet. It could be done around a SkyTrain guideway and make for a less intrusive look.

How about show us 2 real world pictures, not one.

The renderings are always much better looking than the as built.