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

[Trainguy]

This whole LRT vanity project should have gone to a city-wide referendum detailing the changes what would have to take place before it can be built. Arguments from both sides would be presented and if the residents approve, then so be it. As it is, people really don't know the changes that will take place.

[Bdawe]

Originally Posted by Colin4567

Even the 99 B Line (120 people per bus at 1 min 30 between buses, or 45 an hour) has a capacity of 5,400...

That's really pushing the limits of mixed traffic priortized surface bus routes. Might even be a bit beyond them

[Colin4567]

Originally Posted by Bdawe

That's really pushing the limits of mixed traffic priortized surface bus routes. Might even be a bit beyond them

Oh of course it's well over maximum capacity, it's just crazy to me why TransLink would build a line with less ultimate capacity than a B-Line.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Colin4567

Oh of course it's well over maximum capacity, it's just crazy to me why TransLink would build a line with less ultimate capacity than a B-Line.

Exactly. The cost benefit ratio just became even more asinine.

[Shift]

Originally Posted by flipper316

http://www.surreynowleader.com/news/city...d-to-remove-hawthorne-park-from-reserve/

Devastating. Can't believe they actually think it's ok to run a road through a city park. They should be setting aside land for more parks not ruining the current ones. Look at Green Timbers Park.

You realize the park is actually getting larger as a result of this right?

They are overcompensating for the area being taken for the road by buying more land around the park to make it bigger. Also they are reclaiming space currently used for a parking lot in the middle of the park, and turning it into green space, and adding a number of other environmental enhancements.

Surrey also spends millions each year on new park land acquisitions.

Notice how the news article fails to mention any of this but instead spreads misinformation.

[Metro-One]

Okay seriously more people should be up in arms about this one here.

We are talking about spending billions on a tram with an ultimate capacity (after a second round of expansion construction) of 4080 pphpd... that is less that 1/3 of the Canada Line's ultimate build out capacity!

Also, earlier materials from years past cited this project of having an ultimate build out capacity of 10,000 pphpd or more!

So now we are looking at less than half of the ultimate build out capacity that we were being sold years ago... yet the price seems to stay the same? Not to mention the disruptions this will cause to other forms of commuting.

Seriously, the NDP better now approve this project just to please Surrey.

Supporting transit does not mean you must support every transit proposal no matter how terrible it is. That is actually a disservice to transit.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Shift

They are overcompensating for the area being taken for the road by buying more land around the park to make it bigger. Also they are reclaiming space currently used for a parking lot in the middle of the park, and turning it into green space, and adding a number of other environmental enhancements.

The parking lot's not getting reclaimed - it's getting relocated to a lot that is currently a bunch of apartments and retail units. Yup, more demovictions.

At this point, one wonders whether it'd be easier to just put the actual LRT down 105th instead. Less impact on Hawthorne, and no impact to 104th (which reduces construction costs and potential traffic conflict even further).

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The parking lot's not getting reclaimed - it's getting relocated to a lot that is currently a bunch of apartments and retail units. Yup, more demovictions.

At this point, one wonders whether it'd be easier to just put the actual LRT down 105th instead. Less impact on Hawthorne, and no impact to 104th (which reduces construction costs and potential traffic conflict even further).

Trying to transform 104th into a easy going route with lots of development where people walk, bike and take the LRT is bad planning. Choose 105th ave like MC said. Leave 104th as a major feeder to Hwy #1 or 105th ave will become the second feeder route. Do all those residents want streams of vehicles burning through their neighborhood avoiding 104th? 100th and 108th are too far out of the way to use to get back to Hwy #1.

[Shift]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The parking lot's not getting reclaimed - it's getting relocated to a lot that is currently a bunch of apartments and retail units. Yup, more demovictions.

At this point, one wonders whether it'd be easier to just put the actual LRT down 105th instead. Less impact on Hawthorne, and no impact to 104th (which reduces construction costs and potential traffic conflict even further).

Yes that is considered being re-claimed. The parking lot is currently in the middle of the park, accessed via an access road through the park. It will be relocated to the edge of the park along 144 St. Area where parking lot was in middle of park will be re-claimed green space. Result - net increase in green space/trees within park.

Why would you route LRT down 105? You miss the point of the LRT completely. It is to accompany and be a catalyst for density and an urban/pedestrianized streetscape along its route. 4-6 storey buildings and retail up to the street edge along 104 connecting City Centre to Guildford.

[Colin4567]

Originally Posted by Shift

Yes that is considered being re-claimed. The parking lot is currently in the middle of the park, accessed via an access road through the park. It will be relocated to the edge of the park along 144 St. Area where parking lot was in middle of park will be re-claimed green space. Result - net increase in green space/trees within park.

Why would you route LRT down 105? You miss the point of the LRT completely. It is to accompany and be a catalyst for density and an urban/pedestrianized streetscape along its route. 4-6 storey buildings and retail up to the street edge along 104 connecting City Centre to Guildford.

Yes, yes, we get the tired old talking points - "catalyst for density," "urban streetscape," mid-rise density -the point is that there's to be so much work done to changing the park it's almost like while you're tearing up the park, you may as well lay the rails there instead of building the road then tearing up 104th.

[Shift]

Originally Posted by Colin4567

Yes, yes, we get the tired old talking points - "catalyst for density," "urban streetscape," mid-rise density -the point is that there's to be so much work done to changing the park it's almost like while you're tearing up the park, you may as well lay the rails there instead of building the road then tearing up 104th.

Still missing the point completely. LRT is intended to activate the streetscape along it. LRT down 105A makes no sense. 105A is not designated to be a pedestrianized/retail corridor with density suited to an urban-LRT. Sections of 105A are single family residential. Routing LRT through down 105A would be a complete wasted opportunity and defeats the purpose of an urban-style LRT.


The very narrow 2 lane road that has been very sensitively routed through Hawthorne Park (if you bother to read the report) is hardly tearing up the park, and a completely moot point anyway once you factor in the overcompensated area being added to the park elsewhere.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by Shift

Still missing the point completely. LRT is intended to activate the streetscape along it. LRT down 105A makes no sense. 105A is not designated to be a pedestrianized/retail corridor with density suited to an urban-LRT. Sections of 105A are single family residential. Routing LRT through down 105A would be a complete wasted opportunity and defeats the purpose of an urban-style LRT.


The very narrow 2 lane road that has been very sensitively routed through Hawthorne Park (if you bother to read the report) is hardly tearing up the park, and a completely moot point anyway once you factor in the overcompensated area being added to the park elsewhere.

I dont get this. LRT doesnt activate anything. It is loud and cuts the street in half. It is the last thing you want down a street people live on and walk along. That is unless it will travel slow to reduce noise and give priority to pedestrians to avoid cutting the street in half at which point it is just a novelty tram. Only the area around stations benefits from having a transit stop near by which outweighs the negatives of noise and chopping the community in half. FYI currently I live like a block from a LRT/tram line.

[twoNeurons]

Say what you will about the Surrey LRT, but without it... Surrey would NOT be on the map for the next extension of a SkyTrain line. The LRT was a local initiative that gave Surrey transit sooner than waiting in the queue. It started thinking, initiated planning, and focused attention on Surrey.

Let's be honest, the "Phase II" separated ROW along Fraser Highway is more about connecting Langley than Surrey. Langley is the only major municipality in Metro without rail transit (Maple Ridge has the WCE, Steveston/Tsawassen are not major).

The Surrey LRT is all about connecting Surrey to Surrey. It's about Surrey growing up into the 2nd largest city in the region, separating itself from Vancouver. It's about creating a system for Surrey, BY Surrey... and maybe it's not the BEST solution for super speed, but it's a permanent ROW for transit. Sure, a B-Line would be cheaper... but it won't spur development along 104th like a fixed link will.

It will create a transit corridor along one of the ugliest corridors for pedestrians... King George Highway. Look at Lougheed Highway where the Millennium Line is. There is NO streetscape there. All the development along the Millennium line is about getting out of that area. The Area around Gilmore/Brentwood are inward facing communities and malls off the main highway.

Vancouver's Broadway St. is 18m wide in areas, with 5m sidewalks.

Measuring King George at Bus Bays, you get 28m + sidewalks. And yes, I cherry-picked that example... but it's hard to argue that King George isn't wider than Broadway... and Broadway serves as a major artery... one of only a few East-West arteries.

Surrey's traffic along King George can be easily shifted to 128, 144, 120, 132, etc.

I don't think the LRT will be a failure. It will attract WAY more people to transit than a B-Line EVER could. Portland residents LOVE their LRT despite it being comparatively slow.

It's predictable, it's smooth, and most of all... it's not a bus. It attracts a different customer. It attracts a wider range of customers. I'm sure if you asked Seattle residents how their LRT changed the average transit rider demographic, they'd have a few things to say as well, despite that city having massive freeways bisecting their city. Yes, I know they opted for a gold-plated mostly-separated-ROW for their LRT, but still the point is that it's rail, and not a bus. Whether we transit nerds like it or not... buses are called loser cruisers for a reason.

Surrey's LRT will change Surrey for the better. It isn't the BEST when it comes to transit, but on the whole, it will improve Surrey for the better and do it more quickly.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by cornholio

I dont get this. LRT doesnt activate anything. It is loud and cuts the street in half. It is the last thing you want down a street people live on and walk along. That is unless it will travel slow to reduce noise and give priority to pedestrians to avoid cutting the street in half at which point it is just a novelty tram. Only the area around stations benefits from having a transit stop near by which outweighs the negatives of noise and chopping the community in half. FYI currently I live like a block from a LRT/tram line.

Aren't speeding cars running down a wider road a louder, larger barrier? The LRT doesn't ADD a barrier, it alters it.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Aren't speeding cars running down a wider road a louder, larger barrier? The LRT doesn't ADD a barrier, it alters it.

LRT is metal on metal wheels and significantly heavier then any car. LRT absolutely forms a barrier as it has a larger stopping distance and cant change lanes. Its rail bed divides the street and unless pedestrians have priority splits it. You can resolve those issues by running it slow but that defeats the purpose. It is literally a train in the city. I mean its transportation but when people talk about enhancing a street I shake my head because that is pretty ridiculous 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 as it does the complete opposite unless it is not run as rapid transit.

[trofirhen]

.... at that time there was an LRT system that DIPPED into short tunnels below major streets to avoid snarling up intersections.
The LRT later evolved into an all-underground subway system.
Couldn't a Surrey LRT system be put underground at key intersections? That would fluidify things would it not?

[Colin4567]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Say what you will about the Surrey LRT, but without it... Surrey would NOT be on the map for the next extension of a SkyTrain line. The LRT was a local initiative that gave Surrey transit sooner than waiting in the queue. It started thinking, initiated planning, and focused attention on Surrey.

Let's be honest, the "Phase II" separated ROW along Fraser Highway is more about connecting Langley than Surrey. Langley is the only major municipality in Metro without rail transit (Maple Ridge has the WCE, Steveston/Tsawassen are not major).

The Surrey LRT is all about connecting Surrey to Surrey. It's about Surrey growing up into the 2nd largest city in the region, separating itself from Vancouver. It's about creating a system for Surrey, BY Surrey... and maybe it's not the BEST solution for super speed, but it's a permanent ROW for transit. Sure, a B-Line would be cheaper... but it won't spur development along 104th like a fixed link will.

It will create a transit corridor along one of the ugliest corridors for pedestrians... King George Highway. Look at Lougheed Highway where the Millennium Line is. There is NO streetscape there. All the development along the Millennium line is about getting out of that area. The Area around Gilmore/Brentwood are inward facing communities and malls off the main highway.

Vancouver's Broadway St. is 18m wide in areas, with 5m sidewalks.

Measuring King George at Bus Bays, you get 28m + sidewalks. And yes, I cherry-picked that example... but it's hard to argue that King George isn't wider than Broadway... and Broadway serves as a major artery... one of only a few East-West arteries.

Surrey's traffic along King George can be easily shifted to 128, 144, 120, 132, etc.

I don't think the LRT will be a failure. It will attract WAY more people to transit than a B-Line EVER could. Portland residents LOVE their LRT despite it being comparatively slow.

It's predictable, it's smooth, and most of all... it's not a bus. It attracts a different customer. It attracts a wider range of customers. I'm sure if you asked Seattle residents how their LRT changed the average transit rider demographic, they'd have a few things to say as well, despite that city having massive freeways bisecting their city. Yes, I know they opted for a gold-plated mostly-separated-ROW for their LRT, but still the point is that it's rail, and not a bus. Whether we transit nerds like it or not... buses are called loser cruisers for a reason.

Surrey's LRT will change Surrey for the better. It isn't the BEST when it comes to transit, but on the whole, it will improve Surrey for the better and do it more quickly.

It's hard to push all of that KGB traffic onto another street considering KGB directly connects to the Pattullo...just as 104th connects directly to the Port Man. If Portland loves their LRT so much, why does their 96 km system only get 3.5X the ridership (116,800 per day vs 34,000 per day as of latest available figures) of the 11 km Evergreen Extension (keeping in mind that the Portland LRT traverses through the downtown in several directions, whereas the Evergreen Extension serves mostly as a suburban line)?

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

.... at that time there was an LRT system that DIPPED into short tunnels below major streets to avoid snarling up intersections.
The LRT later evolved into an all-underground subway system.
Couldn't a Surrey LRT system be put underground at key intersections? That would fluidify things would it not?

Yeah they should grade separate it. A trench with pedestrian subways to the station on all four corners of the intersection would suffice. It's the amount of interruptions to service which kill capacity.

A train at grade acts as an unpredictable fence that can kill someone.

[Migrant_Coconut]

I step away for ONE morning - alright, let's see...

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Let's be honest, the "Phase II" separated ROW along Fraser Highway is more about connecting Langley than Surrey. Langley is the only major municipality in Metro without rail transit (Maple Ridge has the WCE, Steveston/Tsawassen are not major).

Keep in mind that Langley's City Council wants SkyTrain too.

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

It will create a transit corridor along one of the ugliest corridors for pedestrians... King George Highway. Look at Lougheed Highway where the Millennium Line is. There is NO streetscape there. All the development along the Millennium line is about getting out of that area. The Area around Gilmore/Brentwood are inward facing communities and malls off the main highway.

Vancouver's Broadway St. is 18m wide in areas, with 5m sidewalks.

Measuring King George at Bus Bays, you get 28m + sidewalks.

No reason why Surrey can't widen and improve their sidewalks, with or without rail.

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

I don't think the LRT will be a failure. It will attract WAY more people to transit than a B-Line EVER could. Portland residents LOVE their LRT despite it being comparatively slow.

Portlanders may like it, but they seem to regard it as we do the trolley bus: if it comes, get on, otherwise walking gets you there faster.

Rail bias is a thing, yes, but only if the rail is effective enough or the bus is that bad. Surrey's official website pins the streetcar at 4,100 pphpd when fully upgraded, which is less than half of Portland's 9,000 and four-fifths of the 99 B-Line's roughly 5,000; given the choice between a bumpy, dirty B-Line that has standing room and gets me from Point A to Point B fast, and a sleek, smooth tram that doesn't... well, the choice seems obvious.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Shift

Why would you route LRT down 105? You miss the point of the LRT completely. It is to accompany and be a catalyst for density and an urban/pedestrianized streetscape along its route. 4-6 storey buildings and retail up to the street edge along 104 connecting City Centre to Guildford.

Density without proper infrastructure is just squalor. Read the website again: total, fully-upgraded capacity for this streetcar is 4,100 pphpd. Four-fifths of the 99 B-Line's capacity, less than a third of even the Canada Line's, much less the Expo - that's not going to sustain a whole corridor of mid-rises!

How many of them will start driving once every streetcar is overcrowded? How much traffic flow will you get with two new half-roads instead of a proper road? From experience, one lane each way means that every car/bus/bike/truck is stuck behind a right-turner for half the light.

Keep the 4-lane vehicle corridor, build a 2-lane LRT corridor parallel to it; you can always add a bike lane or bus lane to 104 later. Building LRT on your vehicle corridor and a 2-lane parallel road means that all four remaining lanes are both crowded and irreplacable.

Originally Posted by Shift

Still missing the point completely. LRT is intended to activate the streetscape along it... Sections of 105A are single family residential. Routing LRT through down 105A would be a complete wasted opportunity and defeats the purpose of an urban-style LRT.

Yet 104 is much of the same SFHs and strip malls as 105A.

Shifting the LRT two blocks up doesn't prevent "activation" of anything. Either street (or both) can easily be rezoned, and it would get development plans overnight; so long as rapid transit exists, developers will still build along 104th and 105th, and if it's good, people will walk two blocks to the nearest station.
Personally, I often walk about eight blocks to/from the nearest 99 stop, simply because it's faster and more frequent than the trolley bus next door.

Originally Posted by Shift

The very narrow 2 lane road that has been very sensitively routed through Hawthorne Park (if you bother to read the report) is hardly tearing up the park, and a completely moot point anyway once you factor in the overcompensated area being added to the park elsewhere.

If the road works as designed - to replace the lanes taken away from 104 - then that's a wall of traffic in the middle of the park. I'd call that "tearing up the park," yes?