Quote:
Originally Posted by Cypherus
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.
|
Go back through 100+ pages of 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 on this thread and the other streetcar threads; I've
always argued for LRT where applicable, covering all the gaps that SkyTrain can't reach.
Where we diverge is that I define "applicable" as places that would be too dense for buses and would never never ever get SkyTrain in a million years, and that already have ROWs (you know, so that the line won't be fighting an endless battle against every traveller around it). Neither of Surrey's planned routes fit that definition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cypherus
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.
|
I assume you mean the West Side and South Van? My position's always been the City and TransLink's position - if there's an old rail line, run trams, otherwise run B-Line buses until ten years later when SkyTrain is viable. No double standard there, moving on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cypherus
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.
<image of cable car in the Bay Area>
What the city of San Francisco did years ago would have not been something you would have agreed with.
|
You're right, I wouldn't have. And while urban planners may or may not count San Fran's trolleys as a win, transit planners generally think of them as tourist traps rather than actual people movers. Same reason we don't commute by Venetian gondola.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cypherus
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.
|
But it can, if you try to look for it - the only difference between attractive and non-attractive transit is a paint job. And how many adverts say that their new development is near a B-Line, no matter how ugly the bus is? Speed and frequency are attractive too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cypherus
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.
|
"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is." - Yogi Berra
I've only ever said that it won't work the way Surrey First wants it to. Slowing transit down only makes people waste more time; if you want to change commutes or communities, that requires rezoning and replanning the
city, not its infrastructure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cypherus
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.
|
On this, we completely agree (though I'd like as much six-lane roadspace as possible) - many of the problems disappear if the questionable parts (104th, that stupid intersection, etc) are buried. Still not a SkyTrain, and definitely poor value for money, but hey, it just might work. Maybe.
But they aren't doing that. Damn cheapskates aren't doing anything beyond the bare minimum. In fact, they're busy ripping up the rest of Surrey (and botching that too) because they're worried it'll fail.
That's the controversy.
Prev
Linear Mode
