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

[flipper316]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

A sneak peak for the future?

I can see a similar issue happening with the L-Line along its worst alignments in downtown Surrey:



Also, the city of Surrey must forfeit the right to complain about the LRT after built. No one, and I mean no one will have the right to say “Translink / Metro-Van screws South of the Fraser again, Coquitlam and Broadway get grade separated Skytrain and we get LRT” since this is 100% the doing of the city itself. Surrey selected this. Let’s all remember this forever.

No one outside of this forum or some of the sane members of reddit vancouver will remember. The general public are pretty dumb and have short term memories and they will definetly blame the BC government and Translink.

[Shift]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

A sneak peak for the future?

I can see a similar issue happening with the L-Line along its worst alignments in downtown Surrey:

Sorry - but if you read the article and look at the intersection in question - it's a giant cluster**** to begin with. Surrey LRT will not be cutting through any intersections like this - especially in City Centre.

Edmonton really isn't a shining example of how to properly integrate LRT into an urban environment. Surrey will be.

“That area, it’s a dog’s breakfast of an intersection. If you want to do it wrong, do it that way,” said Hansen-Carlson, who does not own land there but drives through daily. It’s a maze of roads because Kingsway runs diagonally."

"The Metro Line was designed before council saw LRT as a catalyst for transit-oriented redevelopment. The Kingway station is on the far side of 111 Avenue from the mall, separated by a large bus turnaround, the road and the mall parking lot."

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Shift

102 Ave to Surrey Central Station:

Originally Posted by Shift

Sorry - but if you read the article and look at the intersection in question - it's a giant cluster**** to begin with. Surrey LRT will not be cutting through any intersections like this - especially in City Centre.

Edmonton really isn't a shining example of how to properly integrate LRT into an urban environment. Surrey will be.

you are right Surrey wont cut through intersections like that; they will do it much worse! that Edmonton one is way better then the Surrey one.

and oh yeah, i am sure Surrey will be a shining example on how to build LRT.

[Metro-One]

Yeah, the Surrey LRT layout downtown is far more intrusive and has far more points of conflict than the Edmonton one, and it will be a dog’s breakfast. And last time I checked King George Blvd. is a pretty major street...

[ilikeredheads]

Imo, the layout on KGB and 102nd as it approaches Surrey Central will be as bad as the pic below because the close proximity of those traffic lights will mean prolonged red light cycles for those 3 intersections.

[Rico]

While I am not a great fan of LRT for King George/104th I can live with it.....except for that guaranteed disaster of an intersection at 104th/King George. That intersection NEEDS to be grade seperated. I view LRT on King George/104th as a done deal at this point but if people spread the news and those plans for the intersection maybe that will be fixed. With that intersection fixd it may even be useful (if expensive) transit.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Rico

While I am not a great fan of LRT for King George/104th I can live with it.....except for that guaranteed disaster of an intersection at 104th/King George. That intersection NEEDS to be grade seperated. I view LRT on King George/104th as a done deal at this point but if people spread the news and those plans for the intersection maybe that will be fixed. With that intersection fixd it may even be useful (if expensive) transit.

This is pretty much my feeling now given that inevitability of this LRT, also from just south of 101 Ave to just north of 102nd ave it should be grade separated, either in a short tunnel or a short elevated segment.

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

This is pretty much my feeling now given that inevitability of this LRT, also from just south of 101 Ave to just north of 102nd ave it should be grade separated, either in a short tunnel or a short elevated segment.

Judging by how they’re planning to build it, they’re going to keep these intersections as it is, because costs will overrun if they change them.

At least Surrey is doing it within its borders. Langley cannot be treated the same way.

[s211]

Originally Posted by Shift

Sorry - but if you read the article and look at the intersection in question - it's a giant cluster**** to begin with. Surrey LRT will not be cutting through any intersections like this - especially in City Centre.

Edmonton really isn't a shining example of how to properly integrate LRT into an urban environment. Surrey will be.

What should also be kept in mind that Edmonton did not engage any sort of traffic consultant regarding what the road impacts would be at this key intersection.

It boggles the mind. Five seconds of common sense should have told them that they were in for a world of hurt. I've driven through that area before and after the LRT extension and have had the pleasure to sit there for interminable minutes while gates are down far too long for what is already a baby-crawl-speed train waddling across the intersections.

Surrey, you have the opportunity to learn from someone else's blunder.

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

People keep acting like these intersections won't be signalized. Given that pretty much the only chance of getting t-boned by an LRV is by running a red light, or disobeying another signal. Again since the only place where trains and cars interact is intersections.

In terms of the Downtown the intersections are less of an issue since the streets are not intended to carry significant car traffic in the future. At the intersection with KGB the trains will cross with other cross traffic.

Which is exactly where the problems lie. The very nature of that intersection is where all of the accidents are going to happen. As Sheba said last week, that portion will be less problematic if it only turned at KGB from 104th instead of City Pkwy, then to 102nd, then back to KGB, and then turn diagonally to the right side of KGB.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Rico

While I am not a great fan of LRT for King George/104th I can live with it.....except for that guaranteed disaster of an intersection at 104th/King George. That intersection NEEDS to be grade seperated. I view LRT on King George/104th as a done deal at this point but if people spread the news and those plans for the intersection maybe that will be fixed. With that intersection fixd it may even be useful (if expensive) transit.

What about the people of White Rock? Don't they deserve a Skytrain in the future too?

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

What about the people of White Rock? Don't they deserve a Skytrain in the future too?

White Rock is never going to have the density that would require a SkyTrain all the way out there. It'd be like saying Tsawwassen should get SkyTrain. LRT to White Rock makes more sense.

Edit: Of course I kind of spouted that out without checking facts. White Rock's current population density is higher than Langley City's. That said, there's more density (and potential for higher density and higher populations) along Fraser Highway to Langley than there is along King George Highway to White Rock, which is why I feel SkyTrain to Langley City makes more sense than SkyTrain to White Rock.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

White Rock is never going to have the density that would require a SkyTrain all the way out there. It'd be like saying Tsawwassen should get SkyTrain. LRT to White Rock makes more sense.

Edit: Of course I kind of spouted that out without checking facts. White Rock's current population density is higher than Langley City's. That said, there's more density (and potential for higher density and higher populations) along Fraser Highway to Langley than there is along King George Highway to White Rock, which is why I feel SkyTrain to Langley City makes more sense than SkyTrain to White Rock.

I am not suggesting it should be built. What I am suggesting is the corridor should be future built so that one day, when the need comes, they are not ripping up an LRT for the Skytrain.

And some sort of rail transit to the ferry terminals would be a great Idea.

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

White Rock can easily be served by an extended LRT which could go into a dedicated right of way in several places on the way there. It will still be a hell of a lot faster than the 321.

“Hell of a lot faster” my 🞵🞵🞵. It’s speed will be slightly faster than the 96. BRT will have the same effect, but cheaper. Not that it really matters since the L-Line has been decided, and people who are against it are beating a dead horse.

Langley on the other hand...

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Literally talking about White Rock and the 321, are you really arguing that an electrified train in a dedicated ROW is going to be only slightly faster than a bus that is packed to the brim and stops seemingly every 2 blocks and runs in mixed traffic....

The 96 does not go to White Rock

I will ask you yet again to read what someone has said and to research routings etc. before you start telling people they are wrong.

I wasn’t being clear on my post. What I’m trying to say is that what you have said, you can extend the 96 to White Rock and convert it to BRT, and it’ll have the same effect. You can also extend the 96 north to Coquitlam Central, reducing the number of transfers.

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Again we are talking about possibly extending the LRT in the future, the 96 will no longer exist...

So I’m basically beating a dead horse. I doubt it will extend north.