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

[Migrant_Coconut]

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.

Half true; just because "city + roadspace = more cars" doesn't necessarily mean "city - roadspace = less cars." See, replacing the status quo means replacing the convenience that the status quo provides - that's how cars edged out the old tram network. So if the LRT isn't faster or easier than driving or ridesharing - and at 20 kph plus transfers, it likely won't be - then people will stay in the cars, and Surrey ends up with gridlock.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

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.

Depends on the express bus or train. The 99 is pretty smooth (assuming no sudden brakes), but the Expo Line downtown is near-impossible to stand on without a handgrip.

True, it's basically a matter of what people are used to. I don't see how this metaphor applies, though - we're talking about giving them an iPhone to replace their old iPhone, but they'll have to pay full price for it... and it doesn't have certain features that the old one had... and it offers nothing new beside being larger... I guess what I'm saying is that LRT is like getting a 7.

[Southward]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

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

Here's another take on how reducing car dependence whether by tolling, lack of parking, banning cars. These are done in countries much more populated than North American cities

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/amp/news...r-traffic-congestion-woes/article595601/

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Southward

Here's another take on how reducing car dependence whether by tolling, lack of parking, banning cars. These are done in countries much more populated than North American cities

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/amp/news...r-traffic-congestion-woes/article595601/

Spanish, German, British, Swiss, and Dutch cities (and Singapore) are also compact, relatively dense, and planned around mixed-use transportation - most North American cities are spread-out sprawl.

On this side of the pond, the car is a necessity, so closing roads only makes traffic worse. You need an actual better alternative, not just a fad, to make people change their commute.

[Southward]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Half true; just because "city + roadspace = more cars" doesn't necessarily mean "city - roadspace = less cars." See, replacing the status quo means replacing the convenience that the status quo provides - that's how cars edged out the old tram network. So if the LRT isn't faster or easier than driving or ridesharing - and at 20 kph plus transfers, it likely won't be - then people will stay in the cars, and Surrey ends up with gridlock.



Depends on the express bus or train. The 99 is pretty smooth (assuming no sudden brakes), but the Expo Line downtown is near-impossible to stand on without a handgrip.

True, it's basically a matter of what people are used to. I don't see how this metaphor applies, though - we're talking about giving them an iPhone to replace their old iPhone, but they'll have to pay full price for it... and it doesn't have certain features that the old one had... and it offers nothing new beside being larger... I guess what I'm saying is that LRT is like getting a 7.

So I guess all other major projects in Canadian cities are like getting a 7

If Surrey gets input on how the want the share of municipal taxes spent matches the polled silent majority and they opt to first connect business centres to support local infrastructure and develop industry and move people to support the same as opposed to a system to support Langley or Vancouver I say that would be a business case. Seeing the sell out on any recent high density projects it's not hard to see how easily the KG corridor could be populated. Like other readers acknowledged past bus performance and reliability will not be a case for
Moving people into buses. Why not just add a dedicated lane to Langley and double the buses during peak hours. If we had an infinite budget and SKYTRAIN for Surrey was okayed and finds locked in for phase 2. Then why not let Surrey density KG along corners like Cambie Corridor and LRT proceed.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Southward

So I guess all other major projects in Canadian cities are like getting a 7

Depends on the project; tunneled/elevated LRTs such as Eglinton or Confederation are like an iPhone 6 (better than a 4 or 5), but at-grade routes through traffic like Edmonton's are indeed like 7s (much the same as a 6, actually worse in some ways).

Originally Posted by Southward

If Surrey gets input on how the want the share of municipal taxes spent matches the polled silent majority and they opt to first connect business centres to support local infrastructure and develop industry and move people to support the same as opposed to a system to support Langley or Vancouver I say that would be a business case. Seeing the sell out on any recent high density projects it's not hard to see how easily the KG corridor could be populated.

If I'm reading this correctly, you're suggesting that if Surrey City Council wants it, and wants to put Surrey "first," and the "silent majority" wants it (source?), and Surrey gets a brand new skyline, then that's enough of a business case?
Unfortunately, that's not how it works. The business case for rapid transit is how well the line moves people, and how much value for money the transit authority will get for building it. For LRT in Surrey, the answer is "not very much."

As for spurring development, other commenters have also noted that development's happening in Surrey right now, and will continue for the foreseeable future with or without transit. Densification is more to do with planning and rezoning than transit.

Originally Posted by Southward

Like other readers acknowledged past bus performance and reliability will not be a case for
Moving people into buses. Why not just add a dedicated lane to Langley and double the buses during peak hours. If we had an infinite budget and SKYTRAIN for Surrey was okayed and finds locked in for phase 2. Then why not let Surrey density KG along corners like Cambie Corridor and LRT proceed.

Yes, more express buses to Langley is what's likely going to happen until the SkyTrain is ready. As for the rest.... sorry, I'm really not sure what you're trying to say.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

LRT is a predictable route. It's not as quick, but I suspect it will still be popular.

It's not the speed that will make it unpopular, it's the frequency. An at-grade LRT can't be automated (yet), and that means that the need to hire operators for every train will make it too expensive to run the number of trains needed for frequent service.

People are spoiled by 2-minute Skytrain service and they won't be happy with far longer wait times for LRT.

[flipper316]

Yikes. Guarantee this wouldn't happen in Vancouver.https://www.surreynowleader.com/news/vid...tent-of-tree-clearing-in-hawthorne-park/

[Migrant_Coconut]

No kidding. If this were Stanley Park, QE or the UEL, that footage would be enough to toss all of City Council out on their asses.

[logicbomb]

100th Ave is incredibly narrow. Wow...what was the City if Surrey thinking? Both 100th and 108th Ave are going to absorb way more traffic and these roads have the most narrow lanes in the City. 108th Ave has no left or right turn lanes which is causing congestion and a spike in accidents near several intersections.

Further to that...any information I keep hearing about 105th Ave confirms to me that this City has half assed this project. Absurd number of lights, 30km/hr speed limits and speedbumps.

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

100th Ave is incredibly narrow. Wow...what was the City if Surrey thinking? Both 100th and 108th Ave are going to absorb way more traffic and these roads have the most narrow lanes in the City. 108th Ave has no left or right turn lanes which is causing congestion and a spike in accidents near several intersections.

Further to that...any information I keep hearing about 105th Ave confirms to me that this City has half assed this project. Absurd number of lights, 30km/hr speed limits and speedbumps.

I was going westbound on 104th ave. One lane had a city worker blocking the right lane. It created quite a back up. I can't imagine it being one lane fulltime. During the eastbound rush hour 104th is always backed up, and that's with 2 lanes eastbound. One lane would be hell.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

It's not the speed that will make it unpopular, it's the frequency. An at-grade LRT can't be automated (yet), and that means that the need to hire operators for every train will make it too expensive to run the number of trains needed for frequent service.

People are spoiled by 2-minute Skytrain service and they won't be happy with far longer wait times for LRT.

You say they can't afford it but, if there are other cities that operate frequent services? Better yet how does this argument make sense at all when one of the main disadvantages are buses is needing more operators.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

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...

"Punishing" those who want to drive is relative, not having highways into downtown, gas taxes, low amount of parking etc. are all also decisions that "punish" drivers. They also push people to use transit. Having tons of road capacity never helps, eventually 4 lanes won't be enough for 104 either but I certainly hope we'd be smarter than widening it, just look at something like 200th street at the Langley Bypass, it's totally hostile to transit and pedestrians.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

You say they can't afford it but, if there are other cities that operate frequent services? Better yet how does this argument make sense at all when one of the main disadvantages are buses is needing more operators.

Let me put it this way:

Bus: Cheap to set up, expensive to operate

Light rail: Expensive to set up, expensive to operate

SkyTrain: Expensive to set up, cheap to operate

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

"Punishing" those who want to drive is relative, not having highways into downtown, gas taxes, low amount of parking etc. are all also decisions that "punish" drivers. They also push people to use transit. Having tons of road capacity never helps, eventually 4 lanes won't be enough for 104 either but I certainly hope we'd be smarter than widening it, just look at something like 200th street at the Langley Bypass, it's totally hostile to transit and pedestrians.

Nothing that a couple of overpasses won't fix (followed by a SkyTrain extension and transit-oriented redesign of Langley, of course).

Yes, asphalt clustershags like the ones down south are undesirable. No, again, simply getting rid of them and replacing them with inferior transit isn't going to change behaviour - said transit also needs to be faster and more convenient than driving.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

You say they can't afford it but, if there are other cities that operate frequent services? Better yet how does this argument make sense at all when one of the main disadvantages are buses is needing more operators.

Even with all the drivers in the world it will never reach Skytrain frequencies due operating at grade with intersections. Can only block traffic flow patterns so much.

[Trainguy]

Here we go again...


C-Train Collides with Truck in Downtown

Calgary Alberta - One woman was taken to hospital after a Saturday morning collision between a pickup truck and a C-Train in the downtown core.

Just after 10:30 at the intersection of 7 Avenue and 1 Street S.E., a black Dodge Ram was travelling southbound when it was struck on its passenger side by the eastbound train.

Calgary fire crews had to extricate the truck's two occupants from the wreck before paramedics took the passenger, identified by EMS as a woman in her 50s, to Foothills hospital with various non-serious soft tissue injuries.

The crash shut down C-Train service through the downtown core for a number of hours while crews cleaned up the scene.

[SFUVancouver]

Driver crashes car into TTC stop downtown: police



Codi Wilson, CP24.com
Published Monday, January 22, 2018 5:31AM EST

One driver was taken to hospital after police say he crashed his car into a TTC stop in the downtown core early Monday morning.

The incident occurred near Bathurst and Queen streets at around 2:30 a.m.

The collision caused delays in the area as crews worked to remove the vehicle.

The driver, who is believed to be in his early 30s, sustained minor injuries in the crash, according to police.

https://www.cp24.com/news/driver-crashes-car-into-ttc-stop-downtown-police-1.3769698
Location: https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.6472023,-79.4038311,86a,35y,180h,39.52t/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en
Streetview: https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.6465937,-...W-_StL1EGiwAjsQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

[Trainguy]

Renewed push for Surrey LRT after new Mayors' Council chair elected

"SURREY (NEWS 1130) – With a new Mayors’ Council chair in Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan, the Surrey Board of Trade is renewing its campaign for the Surrey-Newton-Guildford LRT.

The organization has written to Corrigan to make sure the project goes ahead.

The project, divided into two lanes, including one that would connect city centre to Langley on the Fraser Highway, would see 27 kilometres of light rail with about 19 stops.

While some have called for a SkyTrain for the area instead, Board CEO Anita Huberman argues that would only disconnect the city.

“The ability to grow our town centre, expand the system in terms of our community plan, is the opposite of what SkyTrain will do.”

“Increasing buses will very quickly increase congestion. Having SkyTrain on Fraser highway is four times the cost.”

Huberman wants construction to begin in early 2019.

A grassroots group called “Skytrain for Surrey” has written its own letter to Corrigan, asking him to remove the project from the Mayors’ 10-Year Vision."


No way should the LRT streetcar be put down Fraser Hwy. That would be a HUGE mistake and waste of money.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

While some have called for a SkyTrain for the area instead, Board CEO Anita Huberman argues that would only disconnect the city.

I sure would like some sort of insight into why she would have that attitude. It sure doesn't seem to be "disconnecting" Coquitlam, indeed it seems to have made the whole area a lot more vibrant and accessible.

I would argue that a surface level train does more to interfere with "connections" for pedestrians, bicycles and cars than Skytrain ever did.

[ilikeredheads]

of course they want to push it. They want their stupid photo op ASAP.

[KPELLY]

“The ability to grow our town centre, expand the system in terms of our community plan, is the opposite of what SkyTrain will do.”

“Increasing buses will very quickly increase congestion. Having SkyTrain on Fraser highway is four times the cost.”

This makes me want to puke...