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

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Totally dishonest, left turn in the middle of a block? They've already stated you won't be able to left turn at non-signalized intersections, so this wouldn't have happened the way you posted it.

Yeah, and imagine if they could invent some kind of technology that involved bringing some kind of arm or barricade down across the street when a train is coming.

Honestly, a lot of the rhetoric and argument is getting pretty hyperbolic. 104th turned into a parking lot? Cars turning left willy-nilly every day into trains? Nonsense. There'll be disruption for sure, but there's no way it's going to be trafficgeddon like some people in here would have you believe.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Yeah, and imagine if they could invent some kind of technology that involved bringing some kind of arm or barricade down across the street when a train is coming.

Not possible along curved-track or diagonal intersections like these, nor going to stop jaywalkers. They could try some barriers in conjunction with a fence, but then that would divide Surrey in two even more than they accuse SkyTrain of doing.

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Honestly, a lot of the rhetoric and argument is getting pretty hyperbolic. 104th turned into a parking lot? Cars turning left willy-nilly every day into trains? Nonsense. There'll be disruption for sure, but there's no way it's going to be trafficgeddon like some people in here would have you believe.

One lane each way with no left turns? There'll be a whole lot more disruption than you think.

[ilikeredheads]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Yeah, and imagine if they could invent some kind of technology that involved bringing some kind of arm or barricade down across the street when a train is coming.

Honestly, a lot of the rhetoric and argument is getting pretty hyperbolic. 104th turned into a parking lot? Cars turning left willy-nilly every day into trains? Nonsense. There'll be disruption for sure, but there's no way it's going to be trafficgeddon like some people in here would have you believe.

When you remove 50% of the capacity of a major busy east/west corridor and then have a half-ass plan in diverting the traffic which involves a 2 lane road through a residential neighbourhood AND has 2 school zones, yes, I'm sure everything will be fine. Everybody so merry taking the sweet little trolley to imaginationland. Yup, everything is fine.

[Bdawe]

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

When you remove 50% of the capacity of a major busy east/west corridor and then have a half-ass plan in diverting the traffic which involves a 2 lane road through a residential neighbourhood AND has 2 school zones, yes, I'm sure everything will be fine. Everybody so merry taking the sweet little trolley to imaginationland. Yup, everything is fine.

Yes?

Traffic adapts to the space that it's given, and we've considerably multiplied the overall people-moving capacity of the corridor overall.

Traffic is not like flood water that simply exists and has to go somewhere It's made of people and they are modestly intelligent and can alter their behavior when conditions change

[logicbomb]

Guys...104th Ave is a vital transportation corridor providing direct access to Hwy #1 and the SFPR. North Surrey is already seeing heavy congestion along 108th Ave and 100th Ave. There's only 3 roads connecting Whalley to Guildford...anyone who thinks a reduction in capacity will not increase congestion seriously never frequents nor has any understanding of the area (along with the growth it is seeing.)

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Bdawe

Traffic adapts to the space that it's given, and we've considerably multiplied the overall people-moving capacity of the corridor overall.

A two-lane road does not "considerably multiply" anything by any definition of the word. Remember that reason for extending 105th is to take half the traffic from 104, which itself will be a bottleneck: in both cases, one driver wanting to go left or right turns the entire road (buses and bikes included) into a drive-thru until the pedestrians clear the intersection and the vehicle can turn. In the case of the residential/school areas along 105th, a noisy arterial is not a desirable outcome.

Again, if Surrey were to have a 2-lane LRT street on 105th and leave 104th as a 4-lane, that'd be fine - heck, they can even convert one to a bike lane if road traffic drops enough. Two 2-lane roads just means both end up overcapacity.

Originally Posted by Bdawe

Traffic is not like flood water that simply exists and has to go somewhere It's made of people and they are modestly intelligent and can alter their behavior when conditions change

Traffic is indeed like water - that's why we call it "flow!" When people change their commute, it often entails spilling into side streets, or just sitting there until the blockage clears. To run with this metaphor, Surrey's problem is that they replaced some of their pipe infrastructure with an intentionally underbuilt storm drain. Not a good idea.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Traffic is indeed like water - that's why we call it "flow!" When people change their commute, it often entails spilling into side streets, or just sitting there until the blockage clears. To run with this metaphor, Surrey's problem is that they replaced some of their pipe infrastructure with an intentionally underbuilt storm drain. Not a good idea.

Except it isn't like water through a pipe. It's been shown time and time again that if you remove a little bit of capacity the total traffic volume doesn't stay the same around the region, the volume can actually drop as people make fewer trips. They'll consolidate frequent, smaller trips into fewer, longer ones, or switch modes (maybe they'll walk to the corner store to get chips instead of driving to Safeway, for example).

Putting the LRT on 104th is just like putting 104th on a road diet, and studies have shown that road diets reduce speeds along the roads, make them safer for all users of the road, and have no impact on traffic volume. Silver Lake is a good example.

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[logicbomb]

Guys...we are cutting a major arterial down to 2 lanes with no right turn lanes. There is no sugar coating how fucked up this. The capital being put into this project while there is barely no pedestrian infrastructure in the surrounding neighborhoods speaks volumes to how much of this is about public transportation.

Our government is pouring taxpayer money into a project to appease developers and stakeholders. This project is not for the fucking people.

I have worked in this government and there were numerous planners like me who were alarmed by the projected congestion this would cause. Paul Lee stated that the intent was to "frustrate commuters out of their cars." Funny enough, the intent of LRT was initially a political ploy to "threaten" Translink into commiting more funding...

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Except it isn't like water through a pipe. It's been shown time and time again that if you remove a little bit of capacity the total traffic volume doesn't stay the same around the region, the volume can actually drop as people make fewer trips. They'll consolidate frequent, smaller trips into fewer, longer ones, or switch modes (maybe they'll walk to the corner store to get chips instead of driving to Safeway, for example).

Problem there is that Hepner and co want this LRT to encourage people to go to Whalley/Guildford/etc and all across Surrey. West Newton residents staying in West Newton more or less defeats that purpose.

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Putting the LRT on 104th is just like putting 104th on a road diet, and studies have shown that road diets reduce speeds along the roads, make them safer for all users of the road, and have no impact on traffic volume. Silver Lake is a good example.

Going from four to three, plus side roads? No problem - as said before, in a parallel universe that has LRT next door on 105th, 104th could easily be reduced to three plus a bike lane. Four to two? That's not going to end very well.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Not to pick on this point but, it's actually 100% possible and has been done many times. It's a little unconventional but, it still works.

So how would it work for this stretch? Another poster tried the S-curve back in October; he did as good a job as anybody'll manage, but the barriers still block the left pedestrian crossing, bottom left curb and the bottom-right lanes.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

In terms of 104th it's 100% true. Even if you remove some lanes-

i) 104 (and a lot of roads in Metro Van) aren't terribly well integrated with the highways, and a few parallel roads are almost just as accessible, people making longer trips that may have required using 104 can and will use one of the many other potential options for getting to Surrey Central, such as Fraser Highway as an example. I've lived all over Surrey throughout my life and been back and forth to Surrey Central plenty (from the South and the East) I can count the number of times I've driven an extended distance on 104th on my hands.

ii) Those who MUST use 104th for journeys on 104th will probably not notice unusually high congestion, because of the aforementioned avoidance of 104th from other drivers.

Yet Surrey City Hall's paving 105th through Hawthorne right now, because even they don't think it'll work like that.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

iii) I think people whose destination and starting point is on the Skytrain or 104/kgb will probably switch their trip to LRT, I can already imagine tons of people parking at Guildford and using it to commute downtown. (People already do this in several places along bus routes which are slower and lower capacity than and LRT would be).

I totally get the disdain for LRT, because honestly the city is forcing it on everyone while it obviously is much less desirable than a Skytrain line on Fraser Highway. Nonetheless it's definitely an exaggeration to say it's going to worsen anything in Surrey where most buses run every 30 minutes, and there are currently 4 rapid transit stops.

Right. Then the solution seems to be more B-Lines and a more frequent bus network; the LRT is basically a luxury B-Line for one specific part of Surrey.

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Not to pick on this point but, it's actually 100% possible and has been done many times. It's a little unconventional but, it still works.

In terms of 104th it's 100% true. Even if you remove some lanes-

i) 104 (and a lot of roads in Metro Van) aren't terribly well integrated with the highways, and a few parallel roads are almost just as accessible, people making longer trips that may have required using 104 can and will use one of the many other potential options for getting to Surrey Central, such as Fraser Highway as an example. I've lived all over Surrey throughout my life and been back and forth to Surrey Central plenty (from the South and the East) I can count the number of times I've driven an extended distance on 104th on my hands.

ii) Those who MUST use 104th for journeys on 104th will probably not notice unusually high congestion, because of the aforementioned avoidance of 104th from other drivers.

iii) I think people whose destination and starting point is on the Skytrain or 104/kgb will probably switch their trip to LRT, I can already imagine tons of people parking at Guildford and using it to commute downtown. (People already do this in several places along bus routes which are slower and lower capacity than and LRT would be).

I totally get the disdain for LRT, because honestly the city is forcing it on everyone while it obviously is much less desirable than a Skytrain line on Fraser Highway. Nonetheless it's definitely an exaggeration to say it's going to worsen anything in Surrey where most buses run every 30 minutes, and there are currently 4 rapid transit stops.

#1..there will be high congestion on 104th because it is the most direct route. 105th ave will be a joke and 108th is already congested during rush hour. 108th is also 4 blocks away. What a waste of time and gas.

#2 Park at Guildford and you won't have a car waiting when you get back. They tow cars that try to use it as a transit parking lot.

If they want to run LRT down 104th, buy up enough land on both sides to keep the 4 lanes for cars. Remember the old PMB with just 4 lanes? Backed up almost to Langley regularly. The 10 lanes are a godsend. Try going back to 4... same goes with 104th ave.

[swimmer_spe]

I think everyone should look at the current King Street Pilot going on in Toronto. They have a streetcar line that runs the street. It is the busiest streetcar line in Toronto. They made it so that you cannot drive straight through on it. You can only go a block. They also closed the shoulder lane.

Businesses have been complaining.
Motorists have been complaining.
Transit riders love it, because it has sped the line up by a few minutes.

In a few years, there is plans to build the Downtown Relief Line, a subway line connecting Line 2 through Line 1 at Queen. I highly doubt thee King or Queen streetcar lines will close.

[GMasterAres]

Respond to your unhappiness (Surrey residents) about the LRT project by voting in the upcoming municipal elections. Saturday October 20th this year with multiple advanced voting dates.

This is how you do it. All that has to happen is a shift away from the mayor's party or a replacement of the mayor herself through your votes. That's the only true way to make voices heard.

If those of you complaining don't get out and vote, then you have no right (imho) to complain. Truth is the LRT project has not started and it is very very likely to have not started by the election so you have a chance. Get the word out, get people to get off their arses and vote.

[flipper316]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Respond to your unhappiness (Surrey residents) about the LRT project by voting in the upcoming municipal elections. Saturday October 20th this year with multiple advanced voting dates.

This is how you do it. All that has to happen is a shift away from the mayor's party or a replacement of the mayor herself through your votes. That's the only true way to make voices heard.

If those of you complaining don't get out and vote, then you have no right (imho) to complain. Truth is the LRT project has not started and it is very very likely to have not started by the election so you have a chance. Get the word out, get people to get off their arses and vote.

Can one person vote multiple times?

[dandor31]

Originally Posted by flipper316

Can one person vote multiple times?

If you own property in a different municipality than you live in, than yes. (One vote for each municipality).

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[memememe76]

It is not just a Surrey thing. Are people in the rest of BC upset about It? Will it affect Diane Watts chances of getting Liberal leadership? Despite all the Hepner is Evil posts, it was really Watts' pet project.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

That crossing definitely doesn't require gates, but I can see more than one possible way they could be installed, in unconventional ways.

Care to share? Because I'm afraid you DO need gates and fences in order to prevent Surrey adding to all the LRT collision videos.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Globally increasing transit in Metro Vancouver is rarely a good approach if you are trying to best utilize resources. Certain corridors are zoned for growth and have extreme density while other areas have zero. It's been that way since the Expo Line went in.

Now you're talking ridership vs coverage; we can concentrate service on a few specific corridors, or we can spread it out all over the region. Vancouver proper is having that argument right now: spend money on a SkyTrain line, or more B-Lines and buses?

The problem with the plan isn't as much that it's being forced on the SoF region, but that LRT for SNG/Langley costs nearly as much the SkyTrain + BRT option without getting the same service or ridership, and still leaves the rest of SoF without proper coverage (so ultimately achieving neither). Since Surrey's LRT is basically a B-Line for the price of a SkyTrain, why not just spend the money on more B-Lines?

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

I'm amazed I have to say this but, ADDING more lanes will never be a suitable long term approach to traffic.

Again its not like everyone that regularly travels on 104th is going to keep the exact same commute patterns and routes if there are less lanes, again humans are intelligent (relatively speaking).

But Trainguy's NOT talking about adding more lanes, he's talking about keeping the existing ones; 4 lanes - 2 lanes (for LRT) + 2 more lanes = 4 lanes. Given the choice between 4 car lanes + 2 LRT lanes, or 2 car + 2 LRT + 2 car, the former is better.

Human intelligence only applies if there's something to apply intelligence to. If 108th and 100th are both jammed, then the only real option is to sit there on 104th/105th and hope for the best.