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

[Reecemartin]

Since people still seem to be unclear on the difference between LRT and streetcars....
https://youtu.be/q3IPbisskQ4

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

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

Really?

You are going to try and argue that a 2 lane number 3 road with a street grade LRT could move more people and goods than the current 4 lane grade separated frequent automated train configuration?

Are you one of the people who supported the terrible idea of running an at grade LRT down Broadway instead of the Millennium Line subway concept?

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Since people still seem to be unclear on the difference between LRT and streetcars....
https://youtu.be/q3IPbisskQ4

The LRT concept that Surrey is proposing is far more akin to a streetcar than an LRT that largely runs along its own separated ROW.

So the streetcar comparisons are valid, IN FACT Surrey itself used images of the Toronto Streetcar in some of their recent pro-LRT presentations!

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Sorry, but how could an automated line cost more than one with drivers?

That's why the Expo Line makes a profit - you don't have to pay a machine (not yet anyway).

More things to maintain. More trains to run. More riders to cater to. Larger power bills. More security guards.

There were projected to be a lot more riders on the Skytrain option than the LRT option.

Hence, more OpEx, but also diluted by way more riders. LRT drivers only cost so much after all.

[Rico]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

More things to maintain. More trains to run. More riders to cater to. Larger power bills. More security guards.

There were projected to be a lot more riders on the Skytrain option than the LRT option.

Hence, more OpEx, but also diluted by way more riders. LRT drivers only cost so much after all.

The joys of being able to spin facts. You could truthfully say the Skytrain will likely have greater operating costs (I actually can't remember for sure if this is true but I could buy it)...if you are talking total dollars. You could also truthfully say it will have lower operating costs...if you are talking cost per rider. Obviously cost per rider is more important but it depends on the message you are trying to sell.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Really?

You are going to try and argue that a 2 lane number 3 road with a street grade LRT could move more people and goods than the current 4 lane grade separated frequent automated train configuration?

Are you one of the people who supported the terrible idea of running an at grade LRT down Broadway instead of the Millennium Line subway concept?

If you’d take the time to look you’d see I’m adamantly for a subway alongside Broadway, it’s best to do your due diligence before making personal comments....

It’s actually well known that more lanes encourages more driving so actually yes, if number three road has less lanes it might push more private car owners into transit vehicles freeing up space for more cargo which is a much more efficient use of road space than private cars. Increasing lane miles never solves traffic in the long term and you only need to look South or East to see that.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

The LRT concept that Surrey is proposing is far more akin to a streetcar than an LRT that largely runs along its own separated ROW.

So the streetcar comparisons are valid, IN FACT Surrey itself used images of the Toronto Streetcar in some of their recent pro-LRT presentations!

I’ll be honest that I haven’t been watching too closely lately, however iirc Surrey LRT has always been planned to have dedicated lanes which again is a facet of LRT not streetcar, and your quote about the Toronto “streetcar” is neglecting the fact that several sections of the Toronto system have LRT style vehicles and spec such as signal priority, dedicated lanes, and proper stations.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

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

It is, if you take away so many lanes that literally nobody can move. Two each way is the bare minimum so that vehicles (or at least buses) can switch.

Hence the current clustershag resulting from Surrey Council trying to pave 105th through several houses, a park and a school playground.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

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

North York along Yonge. Google Maps is usually a year late, but the subway route seems to cover basically a bunch of houses broken up by patches of forest and high-rise, just like Surrey.
Regardless, the point is that Sheppard is basically a spur line branching off the main corridor; in order to get people to go through it instead of past it, it needs to be a proper east-west route, extended further along the street and "anchored" at both ends to other areas of the city and/or transit network.

Surrey's dogleg route, by contrast, is the main corridor and pretty well-anchored. Ridership won't be a problem.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Since people still seem to be unclear on the difference between LRT and streetcars....
https://youtu.be/q3IPbisskQ4

It's not like Europe, where there's a clear difference. North American transit networks use whichever name that management deems "catchier" - some streetcars here have signal priority, ROWs and/or tunnels, and some LRTs don't.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Are you one of the people who supported the terrible idea of running an at grade LRT down Broadway instead of the Millennium Line subway concept?

Remember to attack the argument, not the person making it. This isn't the politics thread.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

It’s actually well known that more lanes encourages more driving so actually yes, if number three road has less lanes it might push more private car owners into transit vehicles freeing up space for more cargo which is a much more efficient use of road space than private cars. Increasing lane miles never solves traffic in the long term and you only need to look South or East to see that.

Demolishing your way out of congestion doesn't work any more than building does.

Many land-use planners assume the same thing you do, that replacing lanes with tracks means that drivers will automatically take the train instead. In practice (south AND east), it's a Catch-22: the train is slow because it's stuck in traffic, it's stuck in traffic because everybody's driving, they're driving because the train is slow. Even with a dedicated ROW, most streetcar/light rail systems only manage 20-30km/h in case a track intrusion requires them to hit the brakes.

Why compete? Just build the train over/under/beside the road - no traffic means trains can go fast, which makes a better argument for drivers to leave their cars.

[GlassCity]

In the spirit of Metro One's argument that you have to repeat yourself or you'll lose...

To me, the difference between an LRT and a streetcar is that an LRT will have dedicated lanes and stops far apart, while streetcars will run in mixed traffic (mostly) and have stops close together.

Therefore, the Surrey LRT is a real, proper LRT. So it doesn't suck because it's like a streetcar. It sucks because it's LRT.

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

I’ll be honest that I haven’t been watching too closely lately, however iirc Surrey LRT has always been planned to have dedicated lanes which again is a facet of LRT not streetcar, and your quote about the Toronto “streetcar” is neglecting the fact that several sections of the Toronto system have LRT style vehicles and spec such as signal priority, dedicated lanes, and proper stations.

While I agree with your larger point, I have to point that having recently visited Toronto, their streetcar system does not have signal priority. To me that's the greatest shame of their system; they have spent considerable sums creating a dedicated ROW and haven't had the guts to put in true signal priority. A real shame.

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Remember to attack the argument, not the person making it. This isn't the politics thread.



Demolishing your way out of congestion doesn't work any more than building does.

Many land-use planners assume the same thing you do, that replacing lanes with tracks means that drivers will automatically take the train instead. In practice (south AND east), it's a Catch-22: the train is slow because it's stuck in traffic, it's stuck in traffic because everybody's driving, they're driving because the train is slow. Even with a dedicated ROW, most streetcar/light rail systems only manage 20-30km/h in case a track intrusion requires them to hit the brakes.

Why compete? Just build the train over/under/beside the road - no traffic means trains can go fast, which makes a better argument for drivers to leave their cars.

The reality for NA is a love affair by the people with their cars. No land crunch to worry about compared to other countries. As long as the cost to own, maintain, and drive a vehicle is affordable, the majority of people will choose to drive. Trying to force people onto transit is a failing venture unless you make parking impossible, miserable, or deathly expensive like airport parking. If gasoline were $3/L it might make some reconsider their options.

For me time is money and worth every dime to drive. Unless I am going downtown, why would I torture myself using transit? The "hypothetical" Surrey LRT will only end up annoying people and push people to drive neighbourhood streets to avoid 104th....

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

If gasoline were $3/L it might make some reconsider their options.

Could the city of Surrey possibly do a local gas tax to fund this project and other transport projects?

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

Could the city of Surrey possibly do a local gas tax to fund this project and other transport projects?

For something like that to work, it has to be across the entire region - and considering people still cross the border to fill up, I think you can figure out how well it would work.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by Sheba

For something like that to work, it has to be across the entire region - and considering people still cross the border to fill up, I think you can figure out how well it would work.

Well, it would get people off our roads.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

Well, it would get people off our roads.

Unless that tax comes with an increase in transit service, "off our roads" probably translates into "staying at home." Need a carrot and a stick to change commuting behaviour.

[Reecemartin]

To be frank in terms of mode I simply think whatever puts rail transit in front of the most people will probably be very successful. People love trains and hopefully there will be a major reason expansion of some sort South of the Fraser within the next five years.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

To be frank in terms of mode I simply think whatever puts rail transit in front of the most people will probably be very successful. People love trains and hopefully there will be a major reason expansion of some sort South of the Fraser within the next five years.

This is the kind of thinking that got us into this situation in the first place. Who cares if it's quality, so long as it's a train.

That's not how people or transportation works.

If it's not quality, then nobody will ride it unless they have to. That's why there's a litany of LRTs in the US with crap levels of ridership, and why Broadway carries more riders on buses than most LRT lines do.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

This is the kind of thinking that got us into this situation in the first place. Who cares if it's quality, so long as it's a train.

That's not how people or transportation works.

If it's not quality, then nobody will ride it unless they have to. That's why there's a litany of LRTs in the US with crap levels of ridership, and why Broadway carries more riders on buses than most LRT lines do.

people want to be moved by transit. for their commutes and chore-doing, they don't care about "ooo rails, i like trains" they care about "i want to get their fast to get my stuff done." it is mass transit; it isn't a place people choose to spend their time for longer then they have to.

[ilikeredheads]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

This is the kind of thinking that got us into this situation in the first place. Who cares if it's quality, so long as it's a train.

That's not how people or transportation works.

If it's not quality, then nobody will ride it unless they have to. That's why there's a litany of LRTs in the US with crap levels of ridership, and why Broadway carries more riders on buses than most LRT lines do.

Totally agree with this. People take transit for the convenience, not because they love trains.