Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut
And that's the problem right there - the major cities in question have a subway/elevated backbone to do all the heavy lifting, leaving streetcars and trams to pick up the slack. It works because each technology has a niche that complements the other; RRT as rapid transit across the city, LRT as semi-rapid transit for more local trips.
|
Are you not just agreeing with what Shift indicated when there needs to be multiple layers of transit to serve a common purpose? Central City already has RRT to support the concrete jungle you show in the render. That concrete jungle is actually growing because RRT has been the backbone that connects Surrey to the rest of the region.
LRT will simply herd people from the satellite areas of Surrey into downtown Central City. It's a slower alternative to collect people from surrounding areas, but it achieves transportation into the city core. From there they can jump on RRT and travel the region and go to work. In the process of collecting people from the satellite areas of Surrey, the city believes it will achieve density and community development along its multiple corridors. At least that is the vision and idea.
I understand you want RRT to go "across the city" to connect the small town centres with a rapid commuter train - connecting people to the region immediately. That is not what the city wants due to aforementioned reasons. Even Vancouver doesn't have skytrain across the city, perhaps because it is not suitable or needed with respect to the city's vision and land use policies....but you appear to give Vancouver a pass in your narrative of prior posts.
Quote:
|
There will be no RRT backbone within the SoF region to do the heavy lifting for the LRT - the LRT will have to BE the backbone.
|
I agree that perhaps in the future, RRT would be best to connect Langley and eventually Abbotsford to Surrey and to the rest of North of the Fraser. It doesn't hurt from a regional perspective to connect cities, but the problem is that RRT may not be appropriate to connect the smaller communities within a city. It does not influence street level community development that LRT will attempt to do. For example, San Francisco's cable car system pictured below created a wonderful streetside community of 4-5 storey buildings along its corridor. It's pedestrian friendly lined with multiple streetlevel stores and people are regularly collected from outside the downtown area and pulled into the central business district seamlessly.
What the city of San Francisco did years ago would have not been something you would have agreed with.
Quote:
|
If {LRT} doesn't, and it ends up as townhomes and low-rises the way you predict the Langley line will, then all we need is better bus service. Either way, LRT on King George is a solution in search of a problem.
|
There are many real world cases where development of apartment buildings and townhomes, as well as mixed use developments, are not "driven" by a rapid bus going down a street. This is because a rapid bus stopping at every red light while queuing up behind cars is not really rapid service, nor a selling feature to people. The City of Surrey and Vancouver already know that, as well as anyone with a basic understanding of city planning and transit. Not sure why you contradict yourself as you previously cite land policy to be a driver in development, and then hear argue "better bus service" can implicitly be that driver. Doesn't work that way.
Quote:
|
A grade-separated rapid transit network is still the most effective way to move around a city.
|
Okay, but that is not what the City of Surrey wants, and you keep repeating your narrative. They are not looking for a commuter train to interconnect communities within the city. I also don't think running the line down KGB is a good idea, but I do agree with the city's vision. As long as it is grade separated and KGB is still 4 lanes, they can achieve that vision.
Prev
Linear Mode
