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

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

So why is TransLink trying so hard to push the $2.9 billion number in our face? I think they are interested in making the public think that the cost has significantly increased.

Man. What TransLink is doing is textbook propaganda.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Remember that Hepner's still in charge right now. I expect TransLink to pull a complete 180 and offer an Expo extension with a short-turn platform at Fleetwood if/when a pro-SkyTrain council is elected.

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

Based off of the findings in the recent Translink report mentioned by the Daily Hive, short tracking somewhere in Fleetwood is essential and should have been part of any real comparison between LRT and Skytrain. Assuming operating costs are proportional to vehicle-miles-travelled, doing this would essentially eliminate the operating cost difference by the two while still producing most of the additional ridership and revenue benefit.

That'd be good for the UBC extension too. Start by short-turning every other train (4 minute headways?) at Arbutus, add more and more trains for UBC as density/ridership increases.

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Remember that Hepner's still in charge right now. I expect TransLink to pull a complete 180 and offer an Expo extension with a short-turn platform at Fleetwood if/when a pro-SkyTrain council is elected

I find this a coincidence that everything up to this point is happening when municipal elections are 91 days from now. It wasn’t talked, or at least taken seriously, about as much—save for he 2015 plebiscite—before until now.

[dpogue]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

So why is TransLink trying so hard to push the $2.9 billion number in our face? I think they are interested in making the public think that the cost has significantly increased. After all, in September 2017, they formally took a position in favour of LRT. You wouldn't want public sentiment to get in the way of that.

TransLink is not pushing that number in anyone's face, they never publicly released that document. A reporter requested that document under Freedom of Information Act laws and then published it (which is allowed, as far as I recall).

[cganuelas1995]

On a dailyhive Facebook post, Reece Martin said he likes the idea of disrupting traffic to get people to use transit.

[Metro-One]

If your reasoning for supporting a form of mass transit is because it disrupts traffic... well, then your opinion on the issue has essentially become void as far as I am concerned.

[logicbomb]

Congestion leads to transit usage!

Paul Lee - "They will use public transit if you inconvenience them enough on the road

But Paul...don't buses use the same road?

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

Congestion leads to transit usage!

Paul Lee - "They will use public transit if you inconvenience them enough on the road

But Paul...don't buses use the same road?

Umm, no. When there’s congestion on one road, drivers detour to a less congested route. Buses do the same too, if they’re given options to detour.

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

On a dailyhive Facebook post, Reece Martin said he likes the idea of disrupting traffic to get people to use transit.

Is Reece Martin that stupid? People don’t take transit solely from traffic disruption. If the route they’re taking goes to an area where it’s too inconvenient or inaccessible by transit, people will still drive, and vice versa. It’s simple as that.

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

That'd be good for the UBC extension too. Start by short-turning every other train (4 minute headways?) at Arbutus, add more and more trains for UBC as density/ridership increases.

I don't think it's necessary for UBC. Even though the demand will be less than it is for Central Broadway, it will be still be one of the busiest sections of the entire line, far busier than the Burnaby or Evergreen sections. If there is any case for short-turning this line, it would be at the other end let's say at Lougheed Station.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Firebrand

Is Reece Martin that stupid? People don’t take transit solely from traffic disruption. If the route they’re taking goes to an area where it’s too inconvenient or inaccessible by transit, people will still drive, and vice versa. It’s simple as that.

This and previous comments are borderline cyberbullying - especially when he's not here to speak for himself. Cut it the f**k out.

That said, Reece should be interested to know that most cities with only surface trams (Portland, Phoenix, other poster boys of LRT) have less transit usage and more driving than cities that also have metros and suburban rail (link).

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

I don't think it's necessary for UBC. Even though the demand will be less than it is for Central Broadway, it will be still be one of the busiest sections of the entire line, far busier than the Burnaby or Evergreen sections. If there is any case for short-turning this line, it would be at the other end let's say at Lougheed Station.

Agreed entirely, but it'd be an easier sell to naysayers who think that the 99 will be enough now that half its ridership is gone.

[flipper316]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

This and previous comments are borderline cyberbullying - especially when he's not here to speak for himself. Cut it the f**k out.

That said, Reece should be interested to know that most cities with only surface trams (Portland, Phoenix, other poster boys of LRT) have less transit usage and more driving than cities that also have metros and suburban rail (link).



Agreed entirely, but it'd be an easier sell to naysayers who think that the 99 will be enough now that half its ridership is gone.

Well to be fair Phoenix and other cities with a ridiculously hot climate I certainly wouldn't want to be stuck in some hot boxed sweaty loser cruiser. I'd do anything to have an A/C equipped car.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by flipper316

Well to be fair Phoenix and other cities with a ridiculously hot climate I certainly wouldn't want to be stuck in some hot boxed sweaty loser cruiser. I'd do anything to have an A/C equipped car.

Point, but most modern trams are climate-controlled... and then you've got places like Boston and Denver. It sure looks like metro and heavy rail networks are better at removing cars.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

people need an incentive to leave their cars. not only do you need to match the convenience of time travelled and ability to get to work. you need to compete with the convenience and benefits of using the car such as A/C and a lack of smelly worse-than-wet-dog smelling public. this means climate controlled with the ability to clean the air of smells and bring in fresh air as well. this means more powerful HVAC systems to actually circulate the air. the Canada-Line is terrible for this.

people really don't care if there is a bus or a train that have the same time travel and same stations and same people. if the train is just a bus on wheels, then people are going to be no-more interested in taking it than the bus. this nothing that rails encourage transit use is flawed because it uses SkyTrain as an example. people take SkyTrain because it is FAST, comes frequently, and connects to major hubs. something the Surrey tram doesn't have.

and to anyone that thinks creating congestion is how you get people out of cars, then your opinion means nothing as you clearly don't understand the idea of transportation planning, or the idea that everyone loses in a race to the bottom.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by Firebrand

Is Reece Martin that stupid? People don’t take transit solely from traffic disruption. If the route they’re taking goes to an area where it’s too inconvenient or inaccessible by transit, people will still drive, and vice versa. It’s simple as that.

If you wanna see for yourself.

But seriously, you don't think "holy shitcocks, the road I drive to work is congested, better take the bus."

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

If you wanna see for yourself.

But seriously, you don't think "holy shitcocks, the road I drive to work is congested, better take the bus."

There are enough people who get exasperated with sitting in traffic day after day and switch to transit to make a difference. How do I know that? Because plenty of transit riders own cars, yet decide not to take them.

That having been said, transit should be built as an alternative solution to congestion, not a cause of it.

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

That having been said, transit should be built as an alternative solution to congestion, not a cause of it.

This. It’s nice to encourage people to transit, but transportation as a whole needs to be balanced out. You can’t force goods and utility vehicles to take the tram; they still need efficiently designed roads, highways, ramps and bridges to for vehicle traffic to flow freely. If a busway takes away some lanes in an arterial, you need to compensate it by widening the road or grade-separate it.

My point is, transit infrastructure should be use for people to avoid bottlenecks, not creating them.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

There are enough people who get exasperated with sitting in traffic day after day and switch to transit to make a difference. How do I know that? Because plenty of transit riders own cars, yet decide not to take them.

That having been said, transit should be built as an alternative solution to congestion, not a cause of it.

I meant to say "better take the bus that goes along the same road"

[Migrant_Coconut]

I'd propose a middle ground: get a grade separated line built for the area, THEN start closing roads and adding bike lanes and streetcars. Less roadspace + rapid transit + plenty of local options = almost no reason to drive to most places.

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I'd propose a middle ground: get a grade separated line built for the area, THEN start closing roads and adding bike lanes and streetcars. Less roadspace + rapid transit + plenty of local options = almost no reason to drive to most places.

If the numbers don't support Skytrain all the way to Langley, then build it to Fleetwood and then use rapid buses. Once the numbers make sense, extend it to Langley. LRT to Langley will screw up Fraser Hwy permanently. It would be a decision future generations would have to suffer with.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

If the numbers don't support Skytrain all the way to Langley, then build it to Fleetwood and then use rapid buses. Once the numbers make sense, extend it to Langley. LRT to Langley will screw up Fraser Hwy permanently. It would be a decision future generations would have to suffer with.