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

[jsbertram]

saw this, and couldnt stop thinking of 104th in surrey

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJfTa5SjDCY&t=1s

somehow, drivers and pedestrians avoided cable cars in those days, but there are some near-misses

[Reecemartin]

I like the side alignment a lot to be honest, is it going to shift to center or stay at the side.

These theories about LRT are becoming a bit much, people on this forum love to play to the extremes like LRT has no benefit but, as someone who personally rides lots of buses on KGB I can think of quite a few...

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

LRT is a very broad, generic term. Anything from a tram to skytrain can be considered "LRT". This project is a glorified streetcar advertised as "LRT" to make it sound like it's hip and modern.

Originally Posted by milomilo

Don't get so caught up in semantics, in certain places the naming is interchangeable. That section I mentioned is certainly streetcar like - it interacts with the street heavily.

As does LRT! Frequent interaction with the street does not keep LRT from being LRT. Stop spacing and sometimes right of way does. Calgary's LRT is just as much LRT as Portland's is. But Portland's is the 'standard.' And Surrey's proposing a Portland-style system.

I actually am sorry for repeating myself so much, just the reason these semantics matter so much to me is because I want people to know what they're against so we can't be tricked in the future. You're not against a streetcar - you're against LRT done the absolute "right" way.

To ilikeredheads (me too btw), what would you change with this project to make it more of an LRT than a streetcar? Cause you're right, LRT is a broad term, but having more separation from the street doesn't make it more of an LRT.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

I like the side alignment a lot to be honest, is it going to shift to center or stay at the side.

These theories about LRT are becoming a bit much, people on this forum love to play to the extremes like LRT has no benefit but, as someone who personally rides lots of buses on KGB I can think of quite a few...

The benefits that a designated bus lane cannot provide?

Go. Enlighten me.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

As does LRT! Frequent interaction with the street does not keep LRT from being LRT. Stop spacing and sometimes right of way does. Calgary's LRT is just as much LRT as Portland's is. But Portland's is the 'standard.' And Surrey's proposing a Portland-style system.

I actually am sorry for repeating myself so much, just the reason these semantics matter so much to me is because I want people to know what they're against so we can't be tricked in the future. You're not against a streetcar - you're against LRT done the absolute "right" way.

To ilikeredheads (me too btw), what would you change with this project to make it more of an LRT than a streetcar? Cause you're right, LRT is a broad term, but having more separation from the street doesn't make it more of an LRT.

Repeating yourself doesn't make what you are saying correct. It's absolutely true that some LRT is done better than others and some is more streetcar like. If that s-curve through the intersections was tunneled then the line would be vastly improved.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

The benefits that a designated bus lane cannot provide?

Go. Enlighten me.

Because cities will almost always only put bus lanes in the places where it's easy (and probably least beneficial), and will then cheap out and let the bus run in mixed traffic where it's too expensive to put in proper infrastructure (where it's needed most). Building rails forces the city to build things semi-properly.

And you don't have to ride a horrible bus.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by milomilo

And you don't have to ride a horrible bus.

As someone living in Toronto, just as many people think the streetcar is just as horrible as a bus.

It seems all neat and different but it's just as skinny and 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 as a bus, it just can't go around accidents.

[ilikeredheads]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

To ilikeredheads (me too btw), what would you change with this project to make it more of an LRT than a streetcar? Cause you're right, LRT is a broad term, but having more separation from the street doesn't make it more of an LRT.

only change that needs to be done is to not build it. As I've said many times. this is a poorly implemented, expensive glorified streetcar that will not benefit commuters nor drivers. It is a project with flawed implementation pushed under flawed motivations. Forget the obvious problems like the numerous intersections it has with both foot and vehicular traffic or the fact that 96 b-line isn't running at full capacity. The elephant in the room remains to be 104th ave. Removing half the road capacity of a major east/west corridor is a recipe for disaster. In fact, Surrey's own half-🞵🞵🞵 solution of a detour on 105th will only make things worse. This project is being pushed not because there's a demand for it, but due to Surrey's selfish political desire to attract real estate developers. A transit system's first and foremost job is to move people efficiently. It is clear that this is not the priority with this trolley.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Because cities will almost always only put bus lanes in the places where it's easy (and probably least beneficial), and will then cheap out and let the bus run in mixed traffic where it's too expensive to put in proper infrastructure (where it's needed most).

Just because most cities may have done it that way doesn't mean it has to be done that way. If a city can justify the cost of building an LRT right of way that takes it out of mixed traffic then they can do the same for BRT and at less cost. The bus tunnel in Seattle is a case in point. And when demand grows, the investment in building the protected right of way can be used for LRT, just as Seattle has done.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Repeating yourself doesn't make what you are saying correct. It's absolutely true that some LRT is done better than others and some is more streetcar like. If that s-curve through the intersections was tunneled then the line would be vastly improved.

What I'm saying is LRT done worse does not make it more streetcar like. It's not a continuum. It's a distinction largely dependent on if it's meant to be a local service or not.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

only change that needs to be done is to not build it. As I've said many times. this is a poorly implemented, expensive glorified streetcar that will not benefit commuters nor drivers. It is a project with flawed implementation pushed under flawed motivations. Forget the obvious problems like the numerous intersections it has with both foot and vehicular traffic or the fact that 96 b-line isn't running at full capacity. The elephant in the room remains to be 104th ave. Removing half the road capacity of a major east/west corridor is a recipe for disaster. In fact, Surrey's own half-🞵🞵🞵 solution of a detour on 105th will only make things worse. This project is being pushed not because there's a demand for it, but due to Surrey's selfish political desire to attract real estate developers. A transit system's first and foremost job is to move people efficiently. It is clear that this is not the priority with this trolley.

Sure, but I'm asking what exactly about this project makes it a glorified streetcar rather than standard light rail? All the problems you mention can exist with LRT too.

I have all the same problems with it that you do, I just don't think that makes it a streetcar.

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

saw this, and couldnt stop thinking of 104th in surrey

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJfTa5SjDCY&t=1s

somehow, drivers and pedestrians avoided cable cars in those days, but there are some near-misses

This is more like what Surrey has waiting for it!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUYEbSZsG6o&t=3s

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Just because most cities may have done it that way doesn't mean it has to be done that way. If a city can justify the cost of building an LRT right of way that takes it out of mixed traffic then they can do the same for BRT and at less cost. The bus tunnel in Seattle is a case in point. And when demand grows, the investment in building the protected right of way can be used for LRT, just as Seattle has done.

No, it doesn't have to be that way, but it usually is. I'm not the world's biggest fan of LRT, but I'd take what we have in Calgary running for the last 30 years than the alternative of some bus lanes in highway medians in the suburbs which no one would have used.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

What I'm saying is LRT done worse does not make it more streetcar like. It's not a continuum. It's a distinction largely dependent on if it's meant to be a local service or not.

Well I guess we'll have to disagree. It is a continuum and the nomenclature mostly depends on what the operators call it, there's no one thing that divides the two completely all the time.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Well I guess we'll have to disagree. It is a continuum and the nomenclature mostly depends on what the operators call it, there's no one thing that divides the two completely all the time.

Fair enough! Really doesn't matter at the end of the day. Projects should be evaluated on what they are more than what they're called. I just have a weird thing with labels and categories, though I know I'm definitely far from the only one on these forums

[ilikeredheads]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Sure, but I'm asking what exactly about this project makes it a glorified streetcar rather than standard light rail? All the problems you mention can exist with LRT too.

I have all the same problems with it that you do, I just don't think that makes it a streetcar.

I think you are getting too hung up on the "LRT" moniker. Like I said previously, it's a very broad term and a lot of things can be classified as "LRT", like a tram/streetcar. The name is not important as it's often interchangeable. What's important is how the system is implemented.

[flipper316]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

Hahahahahha. Bet they won't sync them up.

"We will make it hell for people to drive...that will force them onto LRT!"

of course they won't, try driving up and down KGB today from 96th to 108th stop and go galore.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

This is more like what Surrey has waiting for it!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUYEbSZsG6o&t=3s

Can we stop the showing of videos of LRT accidents in other cities? As others have said, LRT has a broad range of implementations so what you see elsewhere isn't necessarily what you will see in Surrey. Now I am not trying to say that LRT is the best option for Surrey, but come on now, cut the sensationalism and lets get back to a rational debate.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by roger1818

LRT has a broad range of implementations so what you see elsewhere isn't necessarily what you will see in Surrey. Now I am not trying to say that LRT is the best option for Surrey, but come on now, cut the sensationalism and lets get back to a rational debate.

you don't think this will cause accidents? it looks worse then the ones you see in the videos.

Originally Posted by Shift

102 Ave to Surrey Central Station:

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

you don't think this will cause accidents? it looks worse then the ones you see in the videos.

Ditto!!!