Expo Line - Surrey Langley Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction - Page 256

Migrant_Coconut · #**5101** Posted **Apr 27, 2018, 4:40 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Firebrand

I was referring to 102nd Ave, Innovation Blvd, and 104 between Innovation and KGB Blvds, where car traffic will be dramatically reduced. Then again, some people make excuses that LRT on 104 will suppose to “calm traffic” by removing two lanes, so that more people will take the train—I believe it was Paul Lee who said that.

I think we've both agreed that a 21 kph pleasure trolley's not going to stop anybody from driving - do you mean a reduction in car capacity?

Reecemartin · #**5102** Posted **Apr 27, 2018, 7:43 PM**

[Deleted]

Reecemartin · #**5103** Posted **Apr 27, 2018, 7:45 PM**

[Deleted]

Sheba · #**5104** Posted **Apr 27, 2018, 9:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Again though theres curb separation so at this point you are arguing that people will be crossing a line illegally that won't even exist.

You can say you are against LRT without pretending that its going to be different so that you can make criticisms of things that aren't actually elements of the project.

This debate started with you saying that Surrey hasn't promoted the L Line as being unseparated from general traffic for 5 maybe 10 years. I linked to videos where they show exactly that from a couple years ago.

This isn't about what I think of LRT, it's about how Surrey has been presenting it. It's only in the last 2 years that they've been showing it physically separate from general traffic.

jsbertram · #**5105** Posted **Apr 27, 2018, 10:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Are they planning on one or two lanes of vehicle traffic on 104th?

after spending $ billions (the amount is still unknown) to put trains in the middle of 104th and reducing the road to a single lane in each direction, plus LH turn lanes at major intersections, RH-only turns at all other intersections, adding bike lanes, widening 100th and 108th ave's to handle the traffic forced away from 104th, extending 105th through a park and school grounds - also to shift traffic away from the single-lane 104th, there was a report by the city that admits there won't be enough people shifted to the trains in 20 years to handle the volume of local traffic on 104th, so council in the 2030's will need to spend more on 104th (likely $ billions more) because it will need to be widened back to 2 lanes in each direction + LH and RH turning lanes

bye-bye bike lanes (use them while you got em)

scryer · #**5106** Posted **Apr 27, 2018, 10:28 PM**

Unpopular opinion: We shouldn't sacrifice KGB's effectiveness at handling regular traffic for a 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 LRT system. It's one of the only arterial roads we got. And this is one of the few times where I support drivers over public transit; because the transit being proposed doesn't make sense.

Sheba · #**5107** Posted **Apr 27, 2018, 10:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by scryer

Unpopular opinion: We shouldn't sacrifice KGB's effectiveness at handling regular traffic for a 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 LRT system. It's one of the only arterial roads we got. And this is one of the few times where I support drivers over public transit; because the transit being proposed doesn't make sense.

Surrey is in the early stages of planning an arterial grid. Being arterial, King George is going to get a major transit line - all we can go is press for something better than the LRT that's been proposed.

KPELLY · #**5108** Posted **Apr 27, 2018, 11:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by scryer

Unpopular opinion: We shouldn't sacrifice KGB's effectiveness at handling regular traffic for a 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 LRT system. It's one of the only arterial roads we got. And this is one of the few times where I support drivers over public transit; because the transit being proposed doesn't make sense.

I'm not sure that is an unpopular opinion at all. I think many people share your frustration.

Reecemartin · #**5109** Posted **Apr 28, 2018, 12:19 AM**

[Deleted]

Reecemartin · #**5110** Posted **Apr 28, 2018, 12:22 AM**

[Deleted]

Migrant_Coconut · #**5111** Posted **Apr 28, 2018, 1:22 AM**

It wouldn't surprise me if they DID have a curb-free render a while ago, but nobody can find the damn thing because all the websites keep getting overhauled. After all, this is what Condon proposed for Broadway:

https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2012/11/28/TransLink-Light-Rail/

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Its not that great at handling regular traffic as is, as I've said lots I have spent lots of time stuck in traffic on KGB on the 321 and 96. LRT trains won't be facing that.

Unless a collision, police incident, bridge closure, or any other reason for a giant traffic jam (like the one right now) means that the trams can't get anywhere.

CanSpice · #**5112** Posted **Apr 28, 2018, 4:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

After all, this is what Condon proposed for Broadway:

Condon is an idiot though and his ideas should be taken with a pile of salt.

Reecemartin · #**5113** Posted **Apr 28, 2018, 7:39 PM**

[Deleted]

swimmer_spe · #**5114** Posted **Apr 28, 2018, 7:50 PM**

The more I think about it, the more I am actually ....liking.... the LRT idea.

Downtown Toronto has both Streetcars and Subways. Surrey could have Skytrain and LRT.

Migrant_Coconut · #**5115** Posted **Apr 28, 2018, 8:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Again they have there own lanes, the only place they have to interact with traffic is intersections.

And again, if the intersections get blocked, then Surrey's main rapid transit line is out of commission for a couple of hours or more.

Quote:

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The more I think about it, the more I am actually ....liking.... the LRT idea.

Downtown Toronto has both Streetcars and Subways. Surrey could have Skytrain and LRT.

Absolutely - just not LRT along KGB/104th or Fraser. Not without a tunnel, at least.

Firebrand · #**5116** Posted **Apr 28, 2018, 8:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Absolutely - just not LRT along KGB/104th or Fraser. Not without a tunnel, at least.

It’s ridiculous putting another form of tech when there’s a spur already pointing at Fraser. Can you imagine how inconvenient it’ll be if there’s a blockage on the tracks on Fraser and force to take shuttles to get to King George? Some people I know already complain about transferring to King George from the 502.

flipper316 · #**5117** Posted **Apr 29, 2018, 5:22 AM**

Are they planning on re-locating the Newton exchange bus loop at the terminus or start of the L Line in Newton? When are we actually gonna see plans for this?

Sheba · #**5118** Posted **Apr 29, 2018, 5:48 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by flipper316

Are they planning on re-locating the Newton exchange bus loop at the terminus or start of the L Line in Newton? When are we actually gonna see plans for this?

Yes it'll be on King George at approx 71st Ave. If you look on google maps you'll see an open field - they've paved over one bit for overflow bus parking. When we'll see plans for it...

flipper316 · #**5119** Posted **Apr 30, 2018, 5:41 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheba

Yes it'll be on King George at approx 71st Ave. If you look on google maps you'll see an open field - they've paved over one bit for overflow bus parking. When we'll see plans for it...

Cool thanks. Off topic Newton is a strip mall hell with crappy townhomes and empty fields dump.

GMasterAres · #**5120** Posted **Apr 30, 2018, 6:33 AM**

Well with the Mayor not running in October and likely the Surrey First slate getting a run for their money, we could very well see the LRT concept as it is die by year's end and some real sense enter back into the equation.

It isn't a sure thing that's for sure, but I really think the LRT concept was simply the brain child of Diane Watts to pressure the Province and Translink to invest in transit within Surrey, and she never had any intention of actually building the thing.