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

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Look at the distances between several Skytrain station pairs, some are HUGE.

ION as an example already seems to be set up to be quite successful and it has several on street streetcar style segments.

I think you are painting things too much in Black and White, if Surrey needs to wait for Skytrain to lay rails it might be 20 years before the second biggest city (probably the largest ) has any significant rail infrastructure (which indeed is capable of higher build out capacity full stop).


As an aside it kind of comes off as condescending, when you talk the way some of these come off. No need to get so serious...

On a totally different note, how are the options in terms of Hydro ROW's? Might be an interesting way to expand some higher capacity commuter rail.

Are you saying that Surrey should waste money today instead of waiting till tomorrow?

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Are you saying that Surrey should waste money today instead of waiting till tomorrow?

Well that implies that LRT is a waste, which is more of the Black and White thinking I am referring to. It's clearly not as good as Skytrain but, its definetly higher capacity than BRT in a lower cost in the long run (3+ car trains, cheaper maintenance). If we are always just waiting until tomorrow to do things bigger and better we are denying ourselves solutions that can certainly operate better than the status quo. And this is coming from someone who rides the 321 and 96 a lot.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Well that implies that LRT is a waste, which is more of the Black and White thinking I am referring to. It's clearly not as good as Skytrain but, its definetly higher capacity than BRT in a lower cost in the long run (3+ car trains, cheaper maintenance). If we are always just waiting until tomorrow to do things bigger and better we are denying ourselves solutions that can certainly operate better than the status quo. And this is coming from someone who rides the 321 and 96 a lot.

If the current B Line was at the ridership the 99 is, I would say that it is worth it to go to LRT now.

I would say to hold off and build Skytrain.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Look at the distances between several Skytrain station pairs, some are HUGE.

And some are tiny (Olympic->Broadway, Joyce->Patterson->Metrotown, etc). It averages out as roughly the same spacing as some of the higher-capacity LRTs.

Sorry, I assumed you meant the spacing along Newton-Guildford, which is indeed equal for BRT, LRT and RRT; again, in a race between all three, SkyTrain wins handily but LRT comes in second by one minute.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

ION as an example already seems to be set up to be quite successful and it has several on street streetcar style segments.

I think you are painting things too much in Black and White, if Surrey needs to wait for Skytrain to lay rails it might be 20 years before the second biggest city (probably the largest ) has any significant rail infrastructure (which indeed is capable of higher build out capacity full stop).

Waterloo also has less than half as much congestion as Metro Van. But don’t take my word for it.

As for 20 years, that seems a tad exaggerated. Again, we get a new SkyTrain project about every 7 years (Millennium in 2002, Canada in 2009, Evengreen in 2016, etc); assuming the Broadway and Langley extensions open in 2023, then Newton-Guildford is first in line for the next round of projects to be finished by 2030, meaning a 12-16 year wait at the very latest. In that context, being stuck with at-grade, non-buried LRT for 30-40 years does indeed seem like a waste.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

As an aside it kind of comes off as condescending, when you talk the way some of these come off.... I'm just trying to keep things relaxed

Heh, then you better avoid Stingray, Vin, Vancouverofthefuture or Colin (who I believe called you a “poster boy of blind support for LRT” and accused you of “stereotypical Toronto arrogance”). I myself try to avoid such harsh language.

Genuine question: which parts are condescending? I’ve been posting like this on SSP for over three years now; I apologize again if I offended, and I can try to be more tactful, but also consider the idea that you might be taking this a bit too personally.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

On a totally different note, how are the options in terms of Hydro ROW's? Might be an interesting way to expand some higher capacity commuter rail.

Now that would be a good route for LRT to spur development along. Head up the interurban route from Newton, switch to the Hydro route, connect to the Langley extension and either stop there or head north along 152nd to Guildford.

[flipper316]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

Construction of the 105A Ave collector has begun. Hawthrone Park looks rather bare now...was not expecting that many trees to be removed.

Asked a few questions to an engineer inside:

105A Ave will have 30km/hr speed zones from 139 ST to 144 ST and 146 ST to 150 ST.

104th Ave will be down to one lane each way. No right turn or left turn lanes because they will widen sidewalks.

The City of Surrey wants TL to run parallel transit service down 105A over 104th Ave due to the reduction in road capacity.

Lol 30km/hr. I'm sure lots of crosswalks and ped lights. Jeez if you're gonna bulldoze a park might as well build a good road through it.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Waterloo also has less than half as much congestion as Metro Van. But don’t take my word for it.

As for 20 years, that seems a tad exaggerated. Again, we get a new SkyTrain project about every 7 years (Millennium in 2002, Canada in 2009, Evengreen in 2016, etc); assuming the Broadway and Langley extensions open in 2023, then Newton-Guildford is first in line for the next round of projects to be finished by 2030, meaning a 12-16 year wait at the very latest. In that context, being stuck with at-grade, non-buried LRT for 30-40 years does indeed seem like a waste.

Heh, then you better avoid Stingray, Vin, Vancouverofthefuture or Colin (who I believe called you a “poster boy of blind support for LRT” and accused you of “stereotypical Toronto arrogance”). I myself try to avoid such harsh language.

Now that would be a good route for LRT to spur development along. Head up the interurban route from Newton, switch to the Hydro route, connect to the Langley extension and either stop there or head north along 152nd to Guildford.

With regard to Waterloo from personal experience it's very similar to Surrey. I'm sure high congestion in areas like the NS and Van drive up the overall numbers.

While of course we have seen them typically about every 7 years I don't think anyone would diagree that is very speculative. That's also probably not factoring major expansions/rebuilds on the Canada Line and Expo Line that may need to occur.

I truly appreciate that it doesn't go to insults, not only is that unintelligible but it's also childish. (And I don't even live in Toronto all the time lol)

Using the hydro corridors would be wise, especially in Langley where they could be used to access several communities.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

With regard to Waterloo from personal experience it's very similar to Surrey. I'm sure high congestion in areas like the NS and Van drive up the overall numbers.

While of course we have seen them typically about every 7 years I don't think anyone would diagree that is very speculative. That's also probably not factoring major expansions/rebuilds on the Canada Line and Expo Line that may need to occur.

I truly appreciate that it doesn't go to insults, not only is that unintelligible but it's also childish. (And I don't even live in Toronto all the time lol)

Using the hydro corridors would be wise, especially in Langley where they could be used to access several communities.

The difference is that K/W is a island of urban in a farmland. Surrey is not so.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

With regard to Waterloo from personal experience it's very similar to Surrey. I'm sure high congestion in areas like the NS and Van drive up the overall numbers.

While of course we have seen them typically about every 7 years I don't think anyone would diagree that is very speculative. That's also probably not factoring major expansions/rebuilds on the Canada Line and Expo Line that may need to occur.

I truly appreciate that it doesn't go to insults, not only is that unintelligible but it's also childish. (And I don't even live in Toronto all the time lol)

Well, that's the point. If Surrey was its own city and not part of a metro, traffic would be lower and LRT would be fine.

There's major rebuilds on the Expo right now (part of the ten-year plan), so I doubt that it's an either/or dilemma between new SkyTrain lines and upgrading existing ones.
Also note that actual construction takes around 4 years; the rest is surveys, construction delays and financial/political crap. If anything - especially given the increased revenue from the Broadway and Langley extensions - 7 years seems pessimistic.

Agreed - this isn't YouTube or 4chan.

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by flipper316

Lol 30km/hr. I'm sure lots of crosswalks and ped lights. Jeez if you're gonna bulldoze a park might as well build a good road through it.

There's going to be so many new lights over existing corridors and Central City. KGB has seen a major increase in traffic lights. 108th Ave, 104th Ave, 100th Ave will see more lights added.

I argue roundabouts would have been a better solution for some of these intersections.

[stump]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

There's going to be so many new lights over existing corridors and Central City. KGB has seen a major increase in traffic lights. 108th Ave, 104th Ave, 100th Ave will see more lights added.

I argue roundabouts would have been a better solution for some of these intersections.

Are these corridors not considered arterial roads?

Definition from wiki : The primary function of an arterial road is to deliver traffic from collector roads to freeways or expressways, and between urban centres at the highest level of service possible.

In traffic engineering hierarchy, an arterial road delivers traffic between collector roads and freeways. For new arterial roads, intersections are often reduced to increase traffic flow.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by stump

Are these corridors not considered arterial roads?

Definition from wiki : The primary function of an arterial road is to deliver traffic from collector roads to freeways or expressways, and between urban centres at the highest level of service possible.

In traffic engineering hierarchy, an arterial road delivers traffic between collector roads and freeways. For new arterial roads, intersections are often reduced to increase traffic flow.

Yes, Surrey does consider them to be arterial roads. You can check out their map on where they consider arterial roads to be.

[go_leafs_go02]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Yes, Surrey does consider them to be arterial roads. You can check out their map on where they consider arterial roads to be.

Here's an even cleaner and more updated map if interested:

http://www.surrey.ca/files/RoadClassificationMap.pdf

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by stump

Are these corridors not considered arterial roads?

Definition from wiki : The primary function of an arterial road is to deliver traffic from collector roads to freeways or expressways, and between urban centres at the highest level of service possible.

In traffic engineering hierarchy, an arterial road delivers traffic between collector roads and freeways. For new arterial roads, intersections are often reduced to increase traffic flow.

My bad. Should have clarified that the City should have opted to use roundabouts within the region on smaller roads like the 105A Ave connector. I saw a rendering that had lights at 144 ST, 142 ST, 140 ST and 139 ST, 138 ST.

That road is going to be a total joke.

Of course we need less lights on the arterials.

[flipper316]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

My bad. Should have clarified that the City should have opted to use roundabouts within the region on smaller roads like the 105A Ave connector. I saw a rendering that had lights at 144 ST, 142 ST, 140 ST and 139 ST, 138 ST.

That road is going to be a total joke.

Of course we need less lights on the arterials.

Don't forget 3 extra lights at 100th and 108th. 2 roads that are more than capable of handling the extra traffic once 104th gets fucked. Of course that's according to Hepner.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by flipper316

Don't forget 3 extra lights at 100th and 108th. 2 roads that are more than capable of handling the extra traffic once 104th gets fucked. Of course that's according to Hepner.

At the end of the day there really shouldn't be an issue. We should be discouraging any local people from driving and instead push them to transit. Transit on 104 in particular will have quite a bit of extra capacity.

[KPELLY]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

At the end of the day there really shouldn't be an issue. We should be discouraging any local people from driving and instead push them to transit. Transit on 104 in particular will have quite a bit of extra capacity.

Exactly, and nobody will choose 20 km/h LRT over driving, 45km/h skytrain they might.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by KPELLY

Exactly, and nobody will choose 20 km/h LRT over driving, 45km/h skytrain they might.

LRT is a predictable route. It's not as quick, but I suspect it will still be popular. 104th will be considerably slower after it's narrowed, giving the LRT an edge. The LRT will allow people to go down to 1 car. Let's be honest... it's REALLY hard to rely on transit in Surrey unless you're by a rail station. Lots of bus lines don't even run past dinner time.

Sure, the LRT may just be a fancy fixed B-Line, but it's a preserved rail corridor and a focus point for density. They can separate the ROW later and keep Fraser Hwy for a future SkyTrain line extension

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Well that implies that LRT is a waste, which is more of the Black and White thinking I am referring to. It's clearly not as good as Skytrain but, its definetly higher capacity than BRT in a lower cost in the long run (3+ car trains, cheaper maintenance). If we are always just waiting until tomorrow to do things bigger and better we are denying ourselves solutions that can certainly operate better than the status quo. And this is coming from someone who rides the 321 and 96 a lot.

Agreed... and it's not JUST about capacity and speed... but it's about predictability and reliability. When it's a fixed train, it's a LINE on a transit map. It's a KNOWN constant and the barrier to entry is lowered. How many times have any of us ridden a bus in NYC? NOT often, I'm guessing... and it's not because their buses are bad. Plenty of locals take the bus there... but a WHOLE lot more take the subway... I bet there are FASTER trips by bus, that even local just take the subway for... because it's consistent, it's a line on a map, it's predictable with reliable times.

Trains/LRTs are all about the guideways.

I almost never took the bus when I visited Seattle, now I take the LINK every time I'm there.

I almost NEVER took the bus from YVR, now I take the train. Trains have gravitas, weight, status. Buses... do not.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

LRT is a predictable route. It's not as quick, but I suspect it will still be popular. 104th will be considerably slower after it's narrowed, giving the LRT an edge. The LRT will allow people to go down to 1 car. Let's be honest... it's REALLY hard to rely on transit in Surrey unless you're by a rail station. Lots of bus lines don't even run past dinner time.

Sure, the LRT may just be a fancy fixed B-Line, but it's a preserved rail corridor and a focus point for density. They can separate the ROW later and keep Fraser Hwy for a future SkyTrain line extension

But that assumes that nobody wants/needs to go anywhere beyond the LRT line; if I'm trying to get to West Newton, Fraser Heights, Cloverdale, White Rock or anywhere beside Guildford-Whalley-Newton, I'm still screwed without a vehicle.

The only way for surface LRT to directly compete with driving would be to build several lines, all at once, all over Surrey, not just one dogleg. Otherwise, the money seems better spent on a more frequent bus network, B-Lines, and through-road arterials to support them, with SkyTrain replacing highly-used lines as necessary.

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

At the end of the day there really shouldn't be an issue. We should be discouraging any local people from driving and instead push them to transit. Transit on 104 in particular will have quite a bit of extra capacity.

104th ave will turn into a parking lot with 2 lanes spewing exhaust. So much for the LRT helping to reduce the carbon footprint. Going east/west in north Surrey will be a bitch.