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

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by Sheba

...the only one it clearly shows is 104th to City Parkway.

So I guess they decided to leave the rest of KGB and the rest of 104th (no wonder why ).

Apparently there was a “protest” (and by protest, I mean there were only nine to ten people) on KGB and 88th rallying against LRT. Seems like nothing’s getting traction, or people are too apathetic about this issue. The media—particularly Surrey-funded media— always picture these “pro-SkyTrain shills” as a minority getting all of the attention. My guess is that Surrey doesn’t want any references to SkyTrain on Fraser Hwy.

[SpongeG]

I think a streetcar for newton to guildford is fine, but a streetcar to Langley is a stupid idea. And calling a streetcar an LRT is stupid.

Has anyone checked out the model on display in surrey? they have a half one set up near city hall it looks like. Only saw pics of it.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

Has anyone checked out the model on display in surrey? they have a half one set up near city hall it looks like. Only saw pics of it.

Interior images here.

Is it just me, or is this thing even skinnier than the Mark Is?

[SpongeG]

it's a streetcar, looks about the same size as the ones in Portland or the one they used here during the olympics. Using LRT is very misleading.

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Interior images here.

Is it just me, or is this thing even skinnier than the Mark Is?

"The results found LRT to be the most cost effective system for Surrey – with 27km of LRT track (2 lines) able to be built for the same $2.2 billion price tag as 16km of SkyTrain (1 line). Surrey gets a more extensive rail transit network, better integrated with the community, creating more pedestrian-orientated streetscapes, with LRT. Further, operating costs for LRT were found to be $6 million cheaper annually, with negligible differences in travel times."

I truly question these numbers. They talk like both lines are a done deal.

[Colin4567]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

"The results found LRT to be the most cost effective system for Surrey – with 27km of LRT track (2 lines) able to be built for the same $2.2 billion price tag as 16km of SkyTrain (1 line). Surrey gets a more extensive rail transit network, better integrated with the community, creating more pedestrian-orientated streetscapes, with LRT. Further, operating costs for LRT were found to be $6 million cheaper annually, with negligible differences in travel times."

I truly question these numbers. They talk like both lines are a done deal.

If that's from UrbanSurrey I read those too and they're pure horseshit.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

"The results found LRT to be the most cost effective system for Surrey – with 27km of LRT track (2 lines) able to be built for the same $2.2 billion price tag as 16km of SkyTrain (1 line). Surrey gets a more extensive rail transit network, better integrated with the community, creating more pedestrian-orientated streetscapes, with LRT. Further, operating costs for LRT were found to be $6 million cheaper annually, with negligible differences in travel times."

I truly question these numbers. They talk like both lines are a done deal.

Gee building on-ground rail is cheaper than elevated rail - who'd have thunk it? I suspect there's some spin on those numbers though, esp if they're comparing to Evergreen (and its tunnel).

Those operating costs numbers can't be comparing to Skytrain though - they must be comparing to bus (oh yay switch what we're comparing to in the same paragraph... ). They have to be comparing the number of people who can be moved in a couple buses vs one of their LRT vehicles to pull that number out of the air.

Also wasn't one of their selling points that traffic is going to get so much worse than their LRT will move faster than a bus stuck in traffic? They seem to be constantly moving the goalposts.

[Metro-One]

Haha, wow, talk about misleading information. Switching comparing LRT to Skytrain to buses in the same paragraph without even referencing doing so is essentially blatantly lying.

[ilikeredheads]

I like how they don't even mention what model that mock up is based on. The best part is that the aisle would be too narrow if they went for a 2+2 seat layout so they went for a 2+1 instead. Actually, it's more like 2+1.5 as the single seat is clearly wider than normal because the wheel well has to wider than a normal single seat.

[twoNeurons]

If SkyTrain was built... you can guarantee that you wouldn't get an extension to White Rock anytime soon... and you wouldn't have the "L" line. I know that people don't LIKE the LRT plan, but it's not the end of the world. Fraser Hwy can still be the trunk.

If SkyTrain was on this corridor, I doubt it would have stations at 140 and 148... but rather just one stop between Guildford and Surrey Central at 144 as the stations are more expensive. LRT is local transport FOR Surrey.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

If SkyTrain was built... you can guarantee that you wouldn't get an extension to White Rock anytime soon... and you wouldn't have the "L" line. I know that people don't LIKE the LRT plan, but it's not the end of the world. Fraser Hwy can still be the trunk.

Rather, we'd get the 96 extended to White Rock instead, giving the exact same service for much less money. Check the demo reel and you'll see that LRT isn't planned to go to White Rock at all.

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

If SkyTrain was on this corridor, I doubt it would have stations at 140 and 148... but rather just one stop between Guildford and Surrey Central at 144 as the stations are more expensive.

And yet SkyTrain does indeed have that kind of stop spacing (New West-Columbia, Surrey Central-King George, Lansdowne-Brighouse, Burrard-Waterfront).

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

LRT is local transport FOR Surrey.

You want local transport, invest in a better bus network; LRT is light rapid transit, not light local transit. Having an express line stop every four blocks is a good way to have commuters switch to motor vehicles.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

You want local transport, invest in a better bus network; LRT is light rapid transit, not light local transit. Having an express line stop every four blocks is a good way to have commuters switch to motor vehicles.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

If SkyTrain was built... you can guarantee that you wouldn't get an extension to White Rock anytime soon... and you wouldn't have the "L" line. I know that people don't LIKE the LRT plan, but it's not the end of the world. Fraser Hwy can still be the trunk.

If SkyTrain was on this corridor, I doubt it would have stations at 140 and 148... but rather just one stop between Guildford and Surrey Central at 144 as the stations are more expensive. LRT is local transport FOR Surrey.

To be honest my only concerns with the L-Line is the funding and that I would prefer that the stretch from King George to Surrey Central was grade separated.

But, any “mass / rapid” transit link to Langley only makes sense as Skytrain.

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

To be honest my only concerns with the L-Line is the funding and that I would prefer that the stretch from King George to Surrey Central was grade separated.

But, any “mass / rapid” transit link to Langley only makes sense as Skytrain.

It baffles me that they couldn't face the Newton terminus southward. Why is the extension of the L-Line to White Rock not being considered long-term? (It must be the high operating costs.) You still have to take the 321 if you want to go there.

I recall quoting a disqus user from DailyHive a few months ago:

Originally Posted by Firebrand

There was one guy on the DailyHive comment section who thinks exactly that:

There are people in Langley who can't afford a house next to their work, especially with the current housing crisis happening here. There are also a few—including myself—who can't afford a car, and it's mostly university students paying for tuition. An extension to Langley from KGB will really solve these issues feeling trapped without a car, and the idea of "keeping" them within Surrey bounds to grow its economy is egregious.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Firebrand

It baffles me that they couldn't face the Newton terminus southward. Why is the extension of the L-Line to White Rock not being considered long-term? (It must be the high operating costs.) You still have to take the 321 if you want to go there.

The latest attempts at putting out fires on The Buzzer Blog includes things like "the renderings you see are only for illustrative purposes and not representative of what they will actually look like". A lot of people aren't happy with the LRT plans.

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by Sheba

The latest attempts at putting out fires on The Buzzer Blog includes things like "the renderings you see are only for illustrative purposes and not representative of what they will actually look like". A lot of people aren't happy with the LRT plans.

They're trying really hard for the public to have sympathy for the project. I'm gonna bet that the people who are unaware of this project will think "TransLink should burn to the ground", yet the media says the contrary.

[dpogue]

Originally Posted by Firebrand

They're trying really hard for the public to have sympathy for the project. I'm gonna bet that the people who are unaware of this project will think "TransLink should burn to the ground", yet the media says the contrary.

I feel kinda bad for them, because TransLink did all the research and came to the conclusion that LRT was a terrible idea, and then the Mayors' Council decided to go ahead with it and now TransLink is effectively forced to advertise it (I think it's actually a legal requirement that they spend a certain amount of budget on advertising it and other transportation projects)

[officedweller]

Surrey commits $24.5 million towards LRT construction cost

[quote]Last night, Surrey City Council approved a contribution measure of $24.5 million to help fund the Surrey Newton-Guildford Light Rail Transit (SNG LRT) project.

This is, of course, a drop in the bucket of the total estimated $1.65-billion project for the 10.5-km-long, 11-station, street-level train system running on 104 Avenue and King George Boulevard between Guildford Town Centre and Newton Exchange.

As well, much of the contribution is cashless value in-kind through the provision of the use of city-owned lands needed to build the system.

This includes supplying the city-owned lands in Newton Town Centre to allow for the realignment of 137 Street and a city property on 144 Street for the use as the site of an LRT power substation.

The municipal government is also committing to the acquisition of lands along Central Avenue to build a new street between City Park Way and King George Boulevard.

Property-related costs total over $22.3 million while road construction on Central Avenue will cost $1 million and other direct municipal costs are pegged at $1.2 million.


http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/surrey-lrt-funding-contribution


http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/surrey-lrt-funding-contribution


http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/surrey-lrt-funding-contribution

[Firebrand]

Here we go with the shitshow.

[dpogue]

Some updates on the Surrey LRT project from the June 2018 TransLink Board Meeting:

Subject to final funding confirmation, the project is expected to be delivered using a short-term Public Private Partnership model. Under this model the successful Design Build Finance proponent will also provide initial Operations and Maintenance activities for a seven year extended warranty period. TransLink intends to assume operations and maintenance responsibilities after the end of the extended warranty.

So similar idea to the Canada Line, but with a much shorter timespan.