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

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

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.

Because train routes never break down, run late or get removed, of course.

I understand the point, but it's a combination of both - you're not sure when the bus will arrive or how bad traffic is or if it'll stop every two blocks for one passenger... BUT you know the train'll show up in two minutes and spit you out in twenty. Run a B-Line fast and frequently enough, and you get that kind of "permanence;" run a tram too slow, and everybody'll walk or drive instead.

[Southward]

Nice to see that we have some constructive dialogue and experiences from other LRT users. Too many arm chair transportation critics and sheep following a loud outspoken group of advocates for SKYTrain. They seem unable to comprehend that LRT is as much about movement within Surrey as it is about connecting to existing SKYTrain. The numbers have Newton as the largest of the hubs within Surrey. Like other readers have noted this is more than transportation between Langley and Vancouver it's Surrey for Business within Surrey. The money trail leads southward where the highest taxes are collected. Transportation between the business centres can be enhanced by changing the densities along the KG corridor. We need to tie the LRT to the existing South Surrey Park and Ride. Trying to pacify the silent majority with a glorified BRT and no infrastructure will only aid Vancouver in getting any funds available and who knows when the well will dry up. Squabbling over SKYTRAIN vs LRT is very bad as Surrey looks unprepared while Vancouver continues to get the lions share of transportation funding. The mayors council has decided it's only fair soon to be the largest city in BC -Surrey is ready for the LRT Project to move forward.

[xd_1771]

Well, I am visiting Edmonton right now and the unthinkable actually happened to me today...



On my trip home this evening from downtown to Century Park I faced some long delays because LRT service was disrupted and closed, between Southgate and Century Park. Why? A crashed car at Whitemud/111 Street actually ended up on top of the tracks.

This was at around 6PM, any earlier and it would have been commuter mayhem with disruptions during the PM rush. Based on twitter reports, the tracks were blocked for about 1h and 15 mins. Southbound trains were backlogged, and ran at around half speed with multiple stoppages for the entire stretch between Corona and Southgate. In the end it took me nearly 1 hour to complete a trip that normally takes 19 minutes.

Hello Surrey 2024.

[logan5]

A BRT vehicle would simply go around the obstacle. Again, BRT is just as fast as LRT.

[Rico]

Originally Posted by Southward

Nice to see that we have some constructive dialogue and experiences from other LRT users. Too many arm chair transportation critics and sheep following a loud outspoken group of advocates for SKYTrain. They seem unable to comprehend that LRT is as much about movement within Surrey as it is about connecting to existing SKYTrain. The numbers have Newton as the largest of the hubs within Surrey. Like other readers have noted this is more than transportation between Langley and Vancouver it's Surrey for Business within Surrey. The money trail leads southward where the highest taxes are collected. Transportation between the business centres can be enhanced by changing the densities along the KG corridor. We need to tie the LRT to the existing South Surrey Park and Ride. Trying to pacify the silent majority with a glorified BRT and no infrastructure will only aid Vancouver in getting any funds available and who knows when the well will dry up. Squabbling over SKYTRAIN vs LRT is very bad as Surrey looks unprepared while Vancouver continues to get the lions share of transportation funding. The mayors council has decided it's only fair soon to be the largest city in BC -Surrey is ready for the LRT Project to move forward.

I am of two minds about this. I really don't have a problem with LRT for 104th/King George, if Surrey wants it OK (although they really should grade seperate the King George/104th intersection). A lot of the traffic is for traffic within Surrey. Fraser Highway has too much regional traffic to go LRT.
The problem is opportunity costs with building the King George/104th line as LRT. If LRT costs 3-4 times BRT without many extra benefits on that line imagine what we could build with the extra money (that said history in Metro Vancouver has shown this is not as big a problem as other places with regards to Transit. We keep bulding).

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by Southward

Nice to see that we have some constructive dialogue and experiences from other LRT users. Too many arm chair transportation critics and sheep following a loud outspoken group of advocates for SKYTrain. They seem unable to comprehend that LRT is as much about movement within Surrey as it is about connecting to existing SKYTrain. The numbers have Newton as the largest of the hubs within Surrey. Like other readers have noted this is more than transportation between Langley and Vancouver it's Surrey for Business within Surrey. The money trail leads southward where the highest taxes are collected. Transportation between the business centres can be enhanced by changing the densities along the KG corridor. We need to tie the LRT to the existing South Surrey Park and Ride. Trying to pacify the silent majority with a glorified BRT and no infrastructure will only aid Vancouver in getting any funds available and who knows when the well will dry up. Squabbling over SKYTRAIN vs LRT is very bad as Surrey looks unprepared while Vancouver continues to get the lions share of transportation funding. The mayors council has decided it's only fair soon to be the largest city in BC -Surrey is ready for the LRT Project to move forward.

I don't think that the debate about LRT or SkyTrain for Surrey is about one city looking more or less prepared than another, it's about whether the right mode is being chosen. There are three alignments being considered and they're wildly different from one another.

Fraser Hwy to Langley is about regional connectivity and I believe it should truly be an extension of SkyTrain to complete the regional rapid transit trunk line. It's just too logical an idea to ignore.

104th is a local arterial and would be quite suitable for LRT and creates a lot of opportunity for quality ground-oriented mixed-use infill connecting downtown Surrey (Whalley) with Guildford. It also has the longer term potential to extend west into Delta and possibly in the very long term it could cross the George Massey Tunnel replacement and link up with the Canada Line. I wouldn't hold by breath on that last part, though.

King George is a major arterial with sub-regional connectivity, akin to Lougheed Hwy, and this is the vexxing one of the three. LRT from Guildford to downtown Surrey to Newtown would elegantly create a quasi-Broadway Corridor for Surrey, even with a major hospital node, and define the "metro core" of Surrey. I support LRT in the longer term for this purpose, fully acknowledging that a B-Line-plus BRT could serve for decades as the 99 B-Line has for BC's second largest employment precinct. The B-Line-Plus BRT would use protected lanes that would be utilized for the future LRT.

LRT won't be the catalyst for Surrey's Broadway Corridor, planning will.

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

104th is a local arterial and would be quite suitable for LRT and creates a lot of opportunity for quality ground-oriented mixed-use infill connecting downtown Surrey (Whalley) with Guildford.

104th is a major arterial that feeds Hwy #1 both east and west. Removing 2 lanes is a very bad idea. They should carve out 2 lanes north and south of 104th and keep it 4 lanes if they want their precious LRT. The other routes will fail at picking up the extra volume from 104th at 2 lanes. Get ready for gridlock in Walley and Guildford.

[rickvug]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

I support LRT in the longer term for this purpose, fully acknowledging that a B-Line-plus BRT could serve for decades as the 99 B-Line has for BC's second largest employment precinct. The B-Line-Plus BRT would use protected lanes that would be utilized for the future LRT.

This is exactly what should happen. Wishfully thinking, Derek Corrigan is a "bus guy" and might be able to strong-arm Surrey with a face saving message around why the change is happening. "We're not saying no to LRT, we're just saying not yet". Hepner could say that all of the LRT stations, platforms are guideway are being built as promised but will be using busses until ridership numbers warrant LRT. Put specific triggers or timeframes in place for the conversion to rail. They could spin it even more positively if Surrey gets more a more KMs of rapid transit than asked, all with the future promise of LRT. Plus agree to Skytrain for Fraser Highway at the same time. Again, wishful thinking but entirely logical if some compromises need to be met.

[flipper316]

http://runnermag.ca/2018/01/city-of-surrey-moves-forward-with-lrt-project/
Lol at the last line. Good lord.

[Metro-One]

Haha!

From the horses mouth:

“On one hand, if you simply want to transport people at the fastest speed, and … affordability is not a consideration, then by all means, build SkyTrain,” says Lee. “A fast train is not want we want.”

That must be the single most terrible quote i have ever heard from a transit planner in Metro-Vancouver's history.

And Rico, I, like others on here, are not 100% against the idea of Surrey having LRT.

What most of us are against is this LRT's current convoluted design, especially in the core.

A BRT now and a better planned LRT (perhaps with a few KM of subway through the core) in the future when readership demands it would be a far better solution that slapping up an expensive but poorly implemented LRT now.

And yes, the extension to Langley only makes sense as Skytrain (extending the Expo Line). How anyone can even attempt to argue against that is beyond me.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

uhhhh, they don't want a fast train? isn't transportation about moving people to their destinations as fast/efficiently as possible?

that seems like a dumb thing to say... we want transportation, but we want it to be slow...

they better not be surprised when ridership numbers don't increase and car use doesn't decrease. who wants to take slow transit? these people are nuts.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

Well, I am visiting Edmonton right now and the unthinkable actually happened to me today...



On my trip home this evening from downtown to Century Park I faced some long delays because LRT service was disrupted and closed, between Southgate and Century Park. Why? A crashed car at Whitemud/111 Street actually ended up on top of the tracks.

This was at around 6PM, any earlier and it would have been commuter mayhem with disruptions during the PM rush. Based on twitter reports, the tracks were blocked for about 1h and 15 mins. Southbound trains were backlogged, and ran at around half speed with multiple stoppages for the entire stretch between Corona and Southgate. In the end it took me nearly 1 hour to complete a trip that normally takes 19 minutes.

Hello Surrey 2024.

Don't wantto be that guy but I have been on Subway AND Skytrain buses more times than I can count... At least with LRT they can follow the actual route.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

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.

Frankly it won't, any transportation engineer will tell you that this is an example of reverse induced demand. By lowering the ease at which people drive on the road you discourage people from driving which would likely redice the traffic on 104.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

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.

All good points. Once you have people on a system getting them to take a bus is easier but, most people prefer rail. A big reason for this is as you mention the physical infrastructure (what newly constructed transit line has been removed (but not replaced) in Canada in the past 30 years?).

Rail vehicles are also much more comfortable (ride is much smoother and less swaying). To illustrate my point some people stand on the train without even holding on, buses on the other hand tend to require a pretty strong grip (actually found standing on the 321 is awful because my hands would actually get sore from all the movement of the bus, artics are usually even worse).

In terms of people I think its a lot easier to get new riders onto a train than a bus, even if your bus is fast and almost totally comparable in ridership experience maybe I'll give this as an analogy ... Imagine trying to argue to an Iphone User that they should switch to Android, even though most of the features are still there, and the cost is lower people don't care because the mindset is so engrained.

[Southward]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

All good points. Once you have people on a system getting them to take a bus is easier but, most people prefer rail. A big reason for this is as you mention the physical infrastructure (what newly constructed transit line has been removed (but not replaced) in Canada in the past 30 years?).

Rail vehicles are also much more comfortable (ride is much smoother and less swaying). To illustrate my point some people stand on the train without even holding on, buses on the other hand tend to require a pretty strong grip (actually found standing on the 321 is awful because my hands would actually get sore from all the movement of the bus, artics are usually even worse).

In terms of people I think its a lot easier to get new riders onto a train than a bus, even if your bus is fast and almost totally comparable in ridership experience maybe I'll give this as an analogy ... Imagine trying to argue to an Iphone User that they should switch to Android, even though most of the features are still there, and the cost is lower people don't care because the mindset is so engrained.

So true. Having lived in the area for over 25 years and given the changes in bus schedules and reliability I would especially as a senior opt for the safety of eyes on the LRT street infrastructure. Even today I would never take SKYTRAIN at night. Too many muggings and gangs and too many dark areas. Hopefully the open houses and renderings of well lit business along the boarding areas will generate more local traffic as well. Like some of the astute readers have mentioned it's about planning today and at today's prices. Money seems to find its way like the decision to convert a previous LRT decision to a SKYTrain. Fighting for funding by promoting BRT for the lucrative south in order to ensure funds for SKYTRAIN to Langley is not a business case for City of Surrey or chamber of Commerce. The folks in Langley should pin hopes that provincial funds jump into play and forces in charge do a last minute change during phase 2 and results in SKYTRAIN to Langley. Critics were wrong about The Richmond numbers and Surrey has the power to density the KG corridor as well as the land capacity to prove the same for LRT Surrey Phase 1.

[Southward]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

Well, I am visiting Edmonton right now and the unthinkable actually happened to me today...



On my trip home this evening from downtown to Century Park I faced some long delays because LRT service was disrupted and closed, between Southgate and Century Park. Why? A crashed car at Whitemud/111 Street actually ended up on top of the tracks.

This was at around 6PM, any earlier and it would have been commuter mayhem with disruptions during the PM rush. Based on twitter reports, the tracks were blocked for about 1h and 15 mins. Southbound trains were backlogged, and ran at around half speed with multiple stoppages for the entire stretch between Corona and Southgate. In the end it took me nearly 1 hour to complete a trip that normally takes 19 minutes.

Hello Surrey 2024.

Funny I also recall my coworkers being stranded due to a couple of incidents and showing up for work more than an hour late and another time so late they returned home. Not sure how a bus would have helped in this case. In the end some riders forced the doors open and recklessly endangered themselves by leaving the SKYTRAIN. Even on the highway sometimes they investigate ccidents and close both directional lanes. No system is infallible when it comes to crash or malfunction.

[ilikeredheads]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Frankly it won't, any transportation engineer will tell you that this is an example of reverse induced demand. By lowering the ease at which people drive on the road you discourage people from driving which would likely redice the traffic on 104.

You do not encourage people to take transit by removing road capacity. People will take whatever's the fastest and most convenient, and this streetcar is neither of those things. Furthermore, goods don't take transit. 104th is a major east/west corridor. Reducing half its capacity while having NO real plan in diverting its traffic is absolute idiocy.

Just look at the mess that is downtown. Plot a bunch of bike lanes to encourage cycling yet traffic congestion has been worse.

I can't stress this enough. A transit system is first priority is about moving people efficiently. You don't build it to attract real estate developers and you certainly don't half ass it. Because if you do, there's no magical bulldoze button to make it all go away for free. This ain't SimCity. Surrey wants it because it's a vanity project. They don't care about improving people's commute.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Frankly it won't, any transportation engineer will tell you that this is an example of reverse induced demand. By lowering the ease at which people drive on the road you discourage people from driving which would likely redice the traffic on 104.

are you serious? to discourage driving you make poor transportation decisions to punish those who want to drive?

because a race to the bottom is a good way to make a city better...

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Southward

Funny I also recall my coworkers being stranded due to a couple of incidents and showing up for work more than an hour late and another time so late they returned home. Not sure how a bus would have helped in this case. In the end some riders forced the doors open and recklessly endangered themselves by leaving the SKYTRAIN. Even on the highway sometimes they investigate ccidents and close both directional lanes. No system is infallible when it comes to crash or malfunction.

True, no system is infallible, no one has ever made such a claim, but some systems are far more susceptible to major delays and incidents than others. Again, look at the diagram for the city center area, there are many needles points of conflicts.

Also, with Skytrain or a Subway, 99.9% of the time a major vehicle accident on the roadways below will not close the rail line, and vice-versa.

With at grade LRT completely separate vehicle accidents that don’t even invlove the LRT can still shit it down.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

uhhhh, they don't want a fast train? isn't transportation about moving people to their destinations as fast/efficiently as possible?

that seems like a dumb thing to say... we want transportation, but we want it to be slow...

they better not be surprised when ridership numbers don't increase and car use doesn't decrease. who wants to take slow transit? these people are nuts.

The "slow transit" movement has been a thing for a few years now. It's ridiculous, but it exists. The idea is that building tight-knot communities that let people stay local is more important, and antithetical, to moving people quick long distances. Of course I think this is naive and ignores that many different people have many different places to be that can't always be local, but that's the debate. Transit should be about moving people, full stop. Let planning and urban design guidelines take care of the streetscape. If transit is used as a development tool, then what's the mobility tool?

Here's a good read on this: http://www.humantransit.org/2010/04/is-speed-obsolete-.html