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

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

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

There is more to implementation than routing. With crossing gates to block vehicles (and pedestrians) from crossing the tracks when a train is coming, it would be much safer than what you see in the video. The gates should be parallel to the tracks and run curb to curb to prevent vehicles from going around them.

Have you heard conclusively if there are going to be gates? True the drawings don't show them, but that doesn't mean anything.

[Migrant_Coconut]

No mention of gates, fences or other safety measures. We don't expect any either - again, Surrey Council's intent on paying only the bare minimum for this line.

Besides, crossing gates aren't going to work at an S-bend or curve. Retractable bollards, maybe. So the "doomsday" videos are partially correct: either left/right turns are permitted (leading to fenderbenders), or left/right turns are banned (leading to gridlock).

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

No mention of gates, fences or other safety measures. We don't expect any either - again, Surrey Council's intent on paying only the bare minimum for this line.

They haven't got to that stage of the project yet where they'd be talking about those things, so that they haven't talked about them doesn't mean they're not in. It doesn't mean they are either, but you can't definitively say one way or the other.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Besides, crossing gates aren't going to work at an S-bend or curve.

Sure they can. They could install them like this (pardon the poor drawing).



That would prevent vehicles from crossing the tracks but they could still otherwise use the intersection.

[WarrenC12]

OMG they couldn't have designed that worse if they tried.

I mean even if you want to go LRT, why not put some portions like that raised off the ground?

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

OMG they couldn't have designed that worse if they tried.

I mean even if you want to go LRT, why not put some portions like that raised off the ground?

Or go underground. Instead of having an S-bend, have a big curve. An S-bend underground means more slowing down and wear and tear.

[Bdawe]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

Or go underground. Instead of having an S-bend, have a big curve. An S-bend underground means more slowing down and wear and tear.

There is no good excuse for tunneling underneath a wide highway fronted by parking lots and strip malls.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Sure they can. They could install them like this (pardon the poor drawing).



That would prevent vehicles from crossing the tracks but they could still otherwise use the intersection.

Don't sweat it, Paint's not meant for precision.

Regardless, the bottom pair of gates is in the way of the left pedestrian crossing, bottom left curb and the bottom-right lanes - and I don't see anywhere else for them to go. Straight barriers don't really work with curved tracks.

Originally Posted by Bdawe

There is no good excuse for tunneling underneath a wide highway fronted by parking lots and strip malls.

Six lanes =/= wide highway. And those parking lots and strip malls are supposed to be developed into high-rises, which is the entire point of building this LRT.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Six lanes =/= wide highway. And those parking lots and strip malls are supposed to be developed into high-rises, which is the entire point of building this LRT.

Also, grade separation is king. It's not the idea of a glorified streetcar that I hate, it's the idea of it being at-grade and not segregated in any way that pisses me.

[Trainguy]

And Hep says this is cheaper than Skytrain? Installing the necessary safety measures and coordinating them with all the other lights won't come cheap. Once this whole project is truly costed out, if it ever gets that far, the costs are going to be way more than she thinks.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

And Hep says this is cheaper than Skytrain? Installing the necessary safety measures and coordinating them with all the other lights won't come cheap. Once this whole project is truly costed out, if it ever gets that far, the costs are going to be way more than she thinks.

Not to mention additional points of failure.

[Bdawe]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Six lanes =/= wide highway. And those parking lots and strip malls are supposed to be developed into high-rises, which is the entire point of building this LRT.

As urban streets go, it's plenty wide, and it's not like their are encroaching uses up against the sidewalks that make it effectively narrower.

High-rises can deal with elevated railways, especially when those high-rises come after the el. If this was a place that was already built up, I'd be vaguely sympathetic to complaints that existing amenity was being degraded, but all of the current uses along the King George Frontage will be replaced. Like Cambie south of QE Park, the people in a position to complain about an el will be coming later.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Bdawe

High-rises can deal with elevated railways, especially when those high-rises come after the el. If this was a place that was already built up, I'd be vaguely sympathetic to complaints that existing amenity was being degraded, but all of the current uses along the King George Frontage will be replaced. Like Cambie south of QE Park, the people in a position to complain about an el will be coming later.

Except that it's... not an el. It's at-grade, running right down the middle of the street at ground level.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Sure they can. They could install them like this (pardon the poor drawing).



That would prevent vehicles from crossing the tracks but they could still otherwise use the intersection.

This of course is just one crossing of many.

What about 102nd and King George? One would need some pretty awkward crossing gates there.

If you need to start continually taking on ever increasing convoluted measures to make a system work, maybe the base proposal itself needs to be redesigned...

And all these additions are just more aspects to fail. There are reasons why in recent years many of out major at grade crossings have been grade separated. Nothing creates a traffic jam better than a malfunctioning gate.

[Bdawe]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Except that it's... not an el. It's at-grade, running right down the middle of the street at ground level.

I'm aware of that. If you go back and look, this was in response to suggestions that the awkward cornering here should be replaced with a subway.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

Or go underground. Instead of having an S-bend, have a big curve. An S-bend underground means more slowing down and wear and tear.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

OMG they couldn't have designed that worse if they tried.

I mean even if you want to go LRT, why not put some portions like that raised off the ground?

There is something that is exactly what you describe. It even exists in the GVA. I think it is called s-k-y-t-r-a-i-n.

[Cypherus]

Atrocious design even for an LRT line. Common sense does not prevail with the City of Surrey as to why this is a recipe for disaster. Despite the video evidence showing LRT design conflicts with vehicles and pedestrians, the City is pushing forward with haphazard designing and implementation. This design may not only cause accidents, it can result in deaths. The city should be liable.

People cannot even drive over the Port Mann without causing accidents these days; imagine what it would be like queuing up to 96th from King George waiting for the signal and LRT to clear. People get frustrated and make aggressive maneuvers because they just want to get work (especially since LRT barely services neighborhoods other than KGB and 104th). The true reason why LRT is not supported - because the design is not suitable for the behaviors of metro Vancouverites, and is not grade seperated like skytrain which interconnects communities AND the region.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

with regards to crossing gates, you'd be surprised how often they get hit and driven through and then they end up in the way of traffic and the rail tracks. they are easy to remount because they are designed to pop-off when hit, but it causes a maintenance issue as well as delaying the train which needs to stop and have the thing moved out of the way. plus, pedestrians routinely walk under, around, over crossing gates already on the various lines around the city. hell, people even climb, with their bikes, over the slow moving trains on the Burrard Inlet rail line.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Bdawe

I'm aware of that. If you go back and look, this was in response to suggestions that the awkward cornering here should be replaced with a subway.

Yes, and "There is no good excuse for tunneling underneath a wide highway fronted by parking lots and strip malls" was interpreted as pro-LRT. Sorry, my fault.

At any rate, the Expo Line's in the way.
If SkyTrain, there's little to no space for twinning that particular stretch, meaning a shared track (increasing the chance of a switching failure like the Expo-Millennium back in 2014). If elevated LRT, that's a separate route down KGB that involves a complicated interchange at King George and a parallel Surrey Central station a block away.

[Envder]

Originally Posted by Shift

Some LRT Track routing from the open house.

100 Ave to 102 Ave:




102 Ave to Surrey Central Station:

I don't understand why they wouldn't just go down along in front of the mall then down old yale/100th ave and then turn on to king george. They could even ad a nice stop right in front of the mall which could be great for the mall itself.