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

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by flipper316

Like what? 100th Ave is only just now getting 4 laned from 140th to 148th and they added 2 new traffic lights where the old road had none through the green timbers stretch. No new right hand turn lanes at 140th and 148th. Still 2 lanes from 137th to 140th for some stupid reason. 108th is not getting any upgrades besides another traffic slowing light at 142nd. These are not upgrades at all.

104th can be parking lot some days with 4 lanes. 2 lanes will be a nightmare. Using 100th and 108th/105th as an alternate route won't help because people will still need to rejoin 104th if they are going to Fraser Heights or Hwy #1 east bound. They should have run the LRT down 105th ave and left 104th alone. Idiots making expensive decisions...

[ilikeredheads]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Even if vehicles didn't leave KGB/104 increased traffic should make parallel routes more attractive, and there are works underway to make the parallel streets more capable of handling demand.

Yes, because having a 2 land road through residential zone, a school, and a park is "more attractive". I'm sure people who live there will be thrilled about the increase in road noise and traffic. I'm sure the increase in traffic will make it safer for students. And I'm sure drivers will love having to drive through a school zone. Never mind the fact a 2 lane road is inadequate in meeting traffic demands. 104th is a main east/west corridor. You do not remove half its road capacity and then have no logical solution in diverting its traffic.

Just because it works for one city doesn't mean it'll work here. Every transit system is built specifically for its needs. There's no one-size-fits-all solution. Even for something as simple as buying new rolling stock, you don't just use off-the-shelf trains. For example, Toronto's new Bombardier made streetcars are customized for TTC. They are incompatible with anywhere else.

People are criticizing this streetcar because of how it is implemented, not because it is LRT. It is an expensive vanity project that has terrible business case. It will not improve commute while simultaneous make traffic worse. Considering how cash strapped the region is, it makes zero sense to build something so inefficient.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

Yes, because having a 2 land road through residential zone, a school, and a park is "more attractive". I'm sure people who live there will be thrilled about the increase in road noise and traffic. I'm sure the increase in traffic will make it safer for students. And I'm sure drivers will love having to drive through a school zone. Never mind the fact a 2 lane road is inadequate in meeting traffic demands. 104th is a main east/west corridor. You do not remove half its road capacity and then have no logical solution in diverting its traffic.

Just because it works for one city doesn't mean it'll work here. Every transit system is built specifically for its needs. There's no one-size-fits-all solution. Even for something as simple as buying new rolling stock, you don't just use off-the-shelf trains. For example, Toronto's new Bombardier made streetcars are customized for TTC. They are incompatible with anywhere else.

People are criticizing this streetcar because of how it is implemented, not because it is LRT. It is an expensive vanity project that has terrible business case. It will not improve commute while simultaneous make traffic worse. Considering how cash strapped the region is, it makes zero sense to build something so inefficient.

Reality of it is with each day it becomes more and more certain that it will be built so rather than discussing merits may as well start discussing the system because by the time the rails are laid its too late to make improvements during the initial construction phase.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Reality of it is with each day it becomes more and more certain that it will be built so rather than discussing merits may as well start discussing the system because by the time the rails are laid its too late to make improvements during the initial construction phase.

We've already discussed the system and how to improve it. We've mostly agreed that (short of cancelling it and building a BRT, then a SkyTrain) the only way to fix it is to grade-separate the Whalley section and run the Guildford section along 105th, or at least add a fence.

Surrey City Council is neither implementing any such things, nor considering them, nor even listening, for reasons unknown. So we sit and wait and talk about what a bad idea it is.

Various individuals opt to ignore all of the above, regurgitate all the "LRT is good" rhetoric, and/or ask us to discuss the system. Rinse and repeat.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

Yes, because having a 2 land road through residential zone, a school, and a park is "more attractive". I'm sure people who live there will be thrilled about the increase in road noise and traffic. I'm sure the increase in traffic will make it safer for students. And I'm sure drivers will love having to drive through a school zone. Never mind the fact a 2 lane road is inadequate in meeting traffic demands. 104th is a main east/west corridor. You do not remove half its road capacity and then have no logical solution in diverting its traffic.

I'll just add that four lanes is basically the minimum amount of roadspace for an effective arterial (if only to provide room for a bike lane). With two lanes, you need all of them for cars... and since they can't switch lanes if there's a delay up ahead, they're just going to sit there.

Let it sink in that Surrey's going to have two of those two-lanes as their primary east-west corridor, when they could have one "big" four-lane and an LRT beside it.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

People are criticizing this streetcar because of how it is implemented, not because it is LRT. It is an expensive vanity project that has terrible business case. It will not improve commute while simultaneous make traffic worse. Considering how cash strapped the region is, it makes zero sense to build something so inefficient.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

We've already discussed the system and how to improve it. We've mostly agreed that (short of cancelling it and building a BRT, then a SkyTrain) the only way to fix it is to grade-separate the Whalley section and run the Guildford section along 105th, or at least add a fence.

Surrey City Council is neither implementing any such things, nor considering them, nor even listening, for reasons unknown. So we sit and wait and talk about what a bad idea it is.

Just curious (and not aimed specifically at you Migrant Coconut) how many people here have taken the time to contact Surrey, TransLink and / or the BC gov to share their comments on this plan? Just complaining on here will do nothing. I've shared why I think it's a disaster waiting to happen with all three of them.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

We've already discussed the system and how to improve it. We've mostly agreed that (short of cancelling it and building a BRT, then a SkyTrain) the only way to fix it is to grade-separate the Whalley section and run the Guildford section along 105th, or at least add a fence.

Surrey City Council is neither implementing any such things, nor considering them, nor even listening, for reasons unknown. So we sit and wait and talk about what a bad idea it is.

Various individuals opt to ignore all of the above, regurgitate all the "LRT is good" rhetoric, and/or ask us to discuss the system. Rinse and repeat.

Since I feel thats probably mostly in reference to me, I hardly would say I am just regurgitating rhetoric, I don't appreciate being grouped in with the people saying LRT on Fraser Highway is a good idea but, I also am beyond arguing the L-Line because again every bit of evidence suggests its going to be built and I'd rather discuss what to me is still an interesting piece of infrastructure that CAN be an improvement over the current service (AT A MINIMUM).

I think suggesting that the best option currently is cancelling it is silly because as we all know a lot of capital and time has already been expended in design business cases etc, grade separating Whalley can honestly happen at any point if the city wants to. I'd agree running it on 105 th could be positive though I believe 104th probably has more development potential hence that was the alignment choice. I don't know that adding a fence is that necessary as typically from what I have seen J-Walking isn't a huge issue on LRT's and in that case people are just as likely to be hit by a car.

Finally, I would like to mention that I always wonder why it seems (mostly unique to this forum) that the logical transit hierarchy is BUS -> BRT -> LIGHT METRO -> ?, in pretty much all over the major global cities excluding maybe NYC you have something more like BUS -> BRT -> TRAM/LRT -> LIGHT/HEAVY METRO -> REGIONAL EMUS. I stand by that because as I have mentioned numerous times if you want a BRT to have equal capacity to an LRT you will have to spend almost as much, I suppose the a good point to make is that while in such a case you will have basically maxed out BRT capacity you will still be on the low end of LRT capacity (since you can add more cars and grade separate which while possible again with BRT is just pushing things quite a bit).

Nonetheless I agree that the conversation has become circular and hence its perhaps best to discuss the L-Line as LRT and Fraser Extension as Skytrain as it seems thats the most widely accepted expectation as to how the routes will be built out. Of course if you don't like the projects you should complain but, rather than just sit here saying the line is bad for reasons a,b,c go to your MP and government reps and tell them how you feel at worst you'll be scoffed at but, at best you might start a real change.


In the end despite personally preferring a BRT/Skytrain mix I simply try to state positives of LRT because in the end if we get that I'm sure most everyone here will ride it and enjoy it's existence to some degree, we are transit enthusiasts after all!

[flipper316]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Where is the OMC going to be, and can we use the buses from the 96 to increase service down KGB to White Rock once the LRT Phase One constuction is completed? IS there any plan with how the bus networkis going to change?

I think the OMC is gonna be somewhere between 76th and 80th on KGB.

[flipper316]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Just curious (and not aimed specifically at you Migrant Coconut) how many people here have taken the time to contact Surrey, TransLink and / or the BC gov to share their comments on this plan? Just complaining on here will do nothing. I've shared why I think it's a disaster waiting to happen with all three of them.

I'm pretty sure they know all the negatives regarding this project they just pretend to not hear about it.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Since I feel thats probably mostly in reference to me, I hardly would say I am just regurgitating rhetoric, I don't appreciate being grouped in with the people saying LRT on Fraser Highway is a good idea but, I also am beyond arguing the L-Line because again every bit of evidence suggests its going to be built and I'd rather discuss what to me is still an interesting piece of infrastructure that CAN be an improvement over the current service (AT A MINIMUM).

I’m sorry, but it’s not my fault if you took it personally. “Various individuals” means “various individuals,” of which there’s been a whole lot while you were gone. I figure that naming names only escalates things.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the LRT as currently planned IS not and WILL not be better than current service. All it does is take the 96 B-Line and put it on rails, at the cost of $1 billion of taxpayer money that could’ve been saved for something that’s actually better. Any potential improvements have been discussed to death; none are being implemented.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

I think suggesting that the best option currently is cancelling it is silly because as we all know a lot of capital and time has already been expended in design business cases etc, grade separating Whalley can honestly happen at any point if the city wants to. I'd agree running it on 105 th could be positive though I believe 104th probably has more development potential hence that was the alignment choice. I don't know that adding a fence is that necessary as typically from what I have seen J-Walking isn't a huge issue on LRT's and in that case people are just as likely to be hit by a car.

A) Ever heard of the sunk cost fallacy? Better to waste ten million than a thousand million.

B) Again, a public transporation line that isn’t very good for public transportation is worthless, no matter how many condos it spurs. Take the former Sydney Monorail.

C) Google “pedestrian streetcar,” or search for some of the near-miss or collision videos in this thread. I’ll wait.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Finally, I would like to mention that I always wonder why it seems (mostly unique to this forum) that the logical transit hierarchy is BUS -> BRT -> LIGHT METRO -> ?, in pretty much all over the major global cities excluding maybe NYC you have something more like BUS -> BRT -> TRAM/LRT -> LIGHT/HEAVY METRO -> REGIONAL EMUS.

If you don’t like being grouped as a shill, it'd be nice of you to not group us as haters. Once again, many of us support LRT on the right corridor. This is near-unanimously not the right corridor.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

I stand by that because as I have mentioned numerous times if you want a BRT to have equal capacity to an LRT you will have to spend almost as much, I suppose the a good point to make is that while in such a case you will have basically maxed out BRT capacity you will still be on the low end of LRT capacity (since you can add more cars and grade separate which while possible again with BRT is just pushing things quite a bit).

And I stand by how that is a load of unsubstantiated solid waste excretion. Using Hamilton as an example once again, the really expensive parts are the track/guideway and utilities relocation - $240M, or 30% of the budget, just to rip up the road, move all the pipes and wires, lay rails, then put the road back down ($48M for the OMC not included).

Whereas buying a few more artics to run the 96 every 2-3 minutes would cost about $110M total - plus perhaps a few more million for traffic light priority - and get the exact same ridership as Surrey’s LRT until the SkyTrain comes along. In case you missed it the first half-dozen times, Surrey's estimated LRT ridership maxed out is 4,080 pphpd, roughly the same as a streetcar or a BRT. Why spend $1B when you can get the same thing for a whole lot less?

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Nonetheless I agree that the conversation has become circular and hence its perhaps best to discuss the L-Line as LRT and Fraser Extension as Skytrain as it seems thats the most widely accepted expectation as to how the routes will be built out. Of course if you don't like the projects you should complain but, rather than just sit here saying the line is bad for reasons a,b,c go to your MP and government reps and tell them how you feel at worst you'll be scoffed at but, at best you might start a real change.

It’s been circular for the past two years, yet we all continue to argue it - fighting the fire while feeding the flames seems a bit counter-intuitive.
And many of us have already tried to make our voices heard. There’s a SkyTrain for Surrey page, several petitions and a whole lot of news articles against the LRT. Personally (and this one’s for Sheba too), I’ve sent an email off to TransLink and visited the open house. SkyTrain to Langley seems likely, otherwise, no dice.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

In the end despite personally preferring a BRT/Skytrain mix I simply try to state positives of LRT because in the end if we get that I'm sure most everyone here will ride it and enjoy it's existence to some degree, we are transit enthusiasts after all!

Being transit enthusiasts is exactly why we oppose it: though it might look pretty to folks all the way over in Ontario, Surrey/Langley/White Rock locals will be stuck with it, and everybody in Vancouver will be footing the bill for it.

Sweet Morgan Freeman, it’s not like we go over to the Toronto page and talk about how good the Scarborough subway will be...

[Reecemartin]

I don't know why you are saying I shouldn't comment or that I just think it's a pretty system or whatever.... I grew up in Surrey/Langley I literally live right on the corridor where the LRT is going to be located for half the year every year. My point about being enthusiasts is that I just think a more positive tone in this regard is better, no amount of complaining here will change anything so isn't it better for speculative purposes.

What do we expect the arrangement for an extension to South Surrey to in the Newton area if trains turn off of KGB, follow the alignment of the 321?

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

What do we expect the arrangement for an extension to South Surrey to in the Newton area if trains turn off of KGB, follow the alignment of the 321?

They've talked about moving Newton Exchange for years. Instead of being on 72nd it'll be on King George at about 71st (google maps)

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by Sheba

They've talked about moving Newton Exchange for years. Instead of being on 72nd it'll be on King George at about 71st (google maps)

Would definetly be a good change, the surrounding area has lots of development potential, I don't really think the cities images of what Newton could look like are even really unrealistic (Waterloo's new LRT is opening in a few months and has attracted 2.1 billion in new builds: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener-waterloo/ion-build-lrt-corridor-1.4431670) the only thing I'd note is that the renderings seem to suggest the old exchange location?

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

I think suggesting that the best option currently is cancelling it is silly because as we all know a lot of capital and time has already been expended in design business cases etc, ...

Sunk Cost Fallacy

[Colin4567]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Would definetly be a good change, the surrounding area has lots of development potential, I don't really think the cities images of what Newton could look like are even really unrealistic (Waterloo's new LRT is opening in a few months and has attracted 2.1 billion in new builds: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener-waterloo/ion-build-lrt-corridor-1.4431670) the only thing I'd note is that the renderings seem to suggest the old exchange location?

Okay so it's good to know that I'm not the only one thinking this. The renderings definitely show the old location of the Newton Exchange. My concern with the new exchange (separating LRT vs BRT here as I will assume the location would be there regardless of technology choice) is that it is right next to the former Interurban railway owned by SRY for freight use. I know recently as part of someone's (i forgot who, but I know it's an agreement with the port, railway companies, and local governments) initiative to help improve railway flow and remove traffic conflicts they plan to cease whistle use in Surrey for noise reasons. That said, freight is really loud. I'm wondering how they plan on mitigating that? Maybe a noise barrier like the ones used on the Evergreen Line through Port Moody between Inlet and Moody stations?

Secondly, again, BRT or LRT would both face this, is that a future extension to White Rock would have to cross the rail line. In all the documents of a Fraser Highway line, a bridge would be built for both LRT or BRT, whatever is chosen, over the SRY line near the Langley/Surrey border where the 503's often get stuck. With this exchange built so closely to the tracks i don't think there would be much chance for an underpass or overpass so the train or bus could potentially be stuck there for quite a while unfortunately.

Thirdly, would the LRT/BRT stop be in the middle of the road, or would it pull into that vacant lot for the transit exchange? I really hope the stop is in the middle of the road, because if not, if extended to White Rock, the train/bus to White Rock would have to pull back out and cross the path of any oncoming standard bus, any LRT/BRT vehicle, cut across two lanes of highway, cross the railroad tracks, and then continue down the road to a grade that could potentially be too steep for a train.

This exchange choice is very worrisome for me.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Definitely a noise barrier at the very least. Those trains can be pretty damn loud.

Originally Posted by Colin4567

Secondly, again, BRT or LRT would both face this, is that a future extension to White Rock would have to cross the rail line. In all the documents of a Fraser Highway line, a bridge would be built for both LRT or BRT, whatever is chosen, over the SRY line near the Langley/Surrey border where the 503's often get stuck. With this exchange built so closely to the tracks i don't think there would be much chance for an underpass or overpass so the train or bus could potentially be stuck there for quite a while unfortunately.

Thirdly, would the LRT/BRT stop be in the middle of the road, or would it pull into that vacant lot for the transit exchange? I really hope the stop is in the middle of the road, because if not, if extended to White Rock, the train/bus to White Rock would have to pull back out and cross the path of any oncoming standard bus, any LRT/BRT vehicle, cut across two lanes of highway, cross the railroad tracks, and then continue down the road to a grade that could potentially be too steep for a train.

This exchange choice is very worrisome for me.

Rail corridors need 8m of overhead clearance, and LRT's got a grade of about 6%, so theoretically speaking, there's enough room to build an elevated station directly above the crossing and have an overpass straight to the vacant lot. TransLink or Surrey could also purchase or take over the strip mall directly north of the vacant lot and develop that as the exchange instead.

For whatever reason, those options also do not seem to be on the table.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

I don't know why you are saying I shouldn't comment or that I just think it's a pretty system or whatever.... I grew up in Surrey/Langley I literally live right on the corridor where the LRT is going to be located for half the year every year.

Might be best to change your location from "Toronto" back to "Vancouver" or "Surrey" then. Gives people the wrong impression.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Might be best to change your location from "Toronto" back to "Vancouver" or "Surrey" then. Gives people the wrong impression.

So, you mean we who are not from the Lower Mainland cannot comment because we have seen elsewhere the mistakes an LRT brings?

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Might be best to change your location from "Toronto" back to "Vancouver" or "Surrey" then. Gives people the wrong impression.

I understand that could cause confusion however I am in Toronto at present. Nonetheless I don't think that any project here are really that hugely different that whats happening in Surrey in terms of scope. Perhaps Finch West's LRT is actually the one that best models what we should be going for as it serves a similar corridor in Toronto. Note that the Finch West LRT is grade separated at both termini linking to a university and the subway with better transfers.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by Colin4567

Okay so it's good to know that I'm not the only one thinking this. The renderings definitely show the old location of the Newton Exchange. My concern with the new exchange (separating LRT vs BRT here as I will assume the location would be there regardless of technology choice) is that it is right next to the former Interurban railway owned by SRY for freight use. I know recently as part of someone's (i forgot who, but I know it's an agreement with the port, railway companies, and local governments) initiative to help improve railway flow and remove traffic conflicts they plan to cease whistle use in Surrey for noise reasons. That said, freight is really loud. I'm wondering how they plan on mitigating that? Maybe a noise barrier like the ones used on the Evergreen Line through Port Moody between Inlet and Moody stations?

Secondly, again, BRT or LRT would both face this, is that a future extension to White Rock would have to cross the rail line. In all the documents of a Fraser Highway line, a bridge would be built for both LRT or BRT, whatever is chosen, over the SRY line near the Langley/Surrey border where the 503's often get stuck. With this exchange built so closely to the tracks i don't think there would be much chance for an underpass or overpass so the train or bus could potentially be stuck there for quite a while unfortunately.

Thirdly, would the LRT/BRT stop be in the middle of the road, or would it pull into that vacant lot for the transit exchange? I really hope the stop is in the middle of the road, because if not, if extended to White Rock, the train/bus to White Rock would have to pull back out and cross the path of any oncoming standard bus, any LRT/BRT vehicle, cut across two lanes of highway, cross the railroad tracks, and then continue down the road to a grade that could potentially be too steep for a train.

This exchange choice is very worrisome for me.

My best guess would be this-

They build the Newton Exchange as shown when the initial L line opens and then in the case that a South Surrey extension happens their grade separate the railway from the roadway probably by sinking one of the two under, Netwon then gets 2 additional platforms that operate for through services to South Surrey. In that case you would then see Short Turns happening at Newton operate on the original platforms and new platforms serve through trains.