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

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

You could do a major renovation of Waterfront Station and do a tunnel to the North Shore, if you remove the idea of things costing money.

Wrong elevation and not enough room to slope down, so extending the tunnel means it's going to hit the ocean. Pretty sure a floating tunnel's off the table as well, because of all the ships.

Personally, I'd prefer a crossing at both Narrows, but that's another thread entirely.

[Trainguy]

https://www.news1130.com/2018/07/25/surrey-lrt-network/


I am not sure which drug of choice Surrey council is on but this network looks like a nightmare. There used to be a huge network of streetcars cris-crossing the lower mainland but they were ripped out in favour of rubber tire buses. Now they want to go back in time and repeat the past?

Hopefully new leadership in October will put an end to this very poor vision for the future. It will make driving in Surrey much worse than driving in Vancouver.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

https://www.news1130.com/2018/07/25/surrey-lrt-network/

Here's the map from the story.
Looks like a bus route map.


https://www.news1130.com/2018/07/25/surrey-lrt-network/

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Looks like a bus route map.

And yet it’s not. I can’t imagine the frequent collisions and blockages that will make the whole network ridiculously unreliable. We already have a technology that can maneuver around car accidents while running on overhead. They’re called trolleybuses, and Vancouver has been running on them since the 60’s, when they ripped the rails off the pavement. Why make several steps backwards?

Also, there are no lines that run through Fraser Heights and Crescent Beach. If it’s suppose to get more coverage than SkyTrain (because of costs and crap) then why those two neighbourhoods are left without some form of rapid transit? And there are people who think that this is the best idea the region has for a while.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

https://www.news1130.com/2018/07/25/surrey-lrt-network/


I am not sure which drug of choice Surrey council is on but this network looks like a nightmare. There used to be a huge network of streetcars cris-crossing the lower mainland but they were ripped out in favour of rubber tire buses. Now they want to go back in time and repeat the past?

Hopefully new leadership in October will put an end to this very poor vision for the future. It will make driving in Surrey much worse than driving in Vancouver.

An LRT network with a Skytrain backbone is a good thing. An LRT absent of the backbone is a recipe for disaster.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

An LRT network with a Skytrain backbone is a good thing. An LRT absent of the backbone is a recipe for disaster.

Skytrain is an adequate backbone technology for us, but I can't see why LRT would be considered as a feeder service for it. Buses are playing a perfectly adequate feeder role. I have the same criticism of the proposed Arbutus line in Vancouver.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by Firebrand

And yet it’s not. I can’t imagine the frequent collisions and blockages that will make the whole network ridiculously unreliable. We already have a technology that can maneuver around car accidents while running on overhead. They’re called trolleybuses, and Vancouver has been running on them since the 60’s, when they ripped the rails off the pavement. Why make several steps backwards?

Also, there are no lines that run through Fraser Heights and Crescent Beach. If it’s suppose to get more coverage than SkyTrain (because of costs and crap) then why those two neighbourhoods are left without some form of rapid transit? And there are people who think that this is the best idea the region has for a while.

I've always wondered why the B-Line doesn't serve Fraser Heights. Are the streets too narrow for the 60 feet articulated buses to make turns? (A transfer connection between the Port Mann Express and the B-Line would be perfect.)

As for Crescent, is there a way to fix the circuitous route of 351? So far 352 goes in other direction during PM rush but from what I'm gathering, such service is no longer satisfactory?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Skytrain is an adequate backbone technology for us, but I can't see why LRT would be considered as a feeder service for it. Buses are playing a perfectly adequate feeder role. I have the same criticism of the proposed Arbutus line in Vancouver.

<broken record>

It's all about the route. The problems associated with light rail - conflicts with existing street users, can't avoid obstacles, not much faster than a bus, expensive, bad value for money - seem to all stem from having an on-road alignment. With an off-road alignment like the Greenway (or closing off the road to non-transit) and proper separation from foot/bike traffic, then said problems more or less disappear and it actually becomes competitive with B-Line service... theoretically, at least.

Likewise, trams along KGB/104th and Fraser Highway are a dumb idea, but along the interurban might just work.

</broken record>

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

An LRT network with a Skytrain backbone is a good thing. An LRT absent of the backbone is a recipe for disaster.

A B-Line network with a Skytrain backbone to Langley is a good thing.

(fixed that for you)

yer welcome

[jsbertram]

was this missed by most of us?

New study finds Surrey Light Rail will have poor value, should be SkyTrain instead
http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/surrey-light-rail-business-case-skytrain-2017

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

I've always wondered why the B-Line doesn't serve Fraser Heights. Are the streets too narrow for the 60 feet articulated buses to make turns? (A transfer connection between the Port Mann Express and the B-Line would be perfect.)

As for Crescent, is there a way to fix the circuitous route of 351? So far 352 goes in other direction during PM rush but from what I'm gathering, such service is no longer satisfactory?

For the 351, I’d cut off the route heading to Crescent Beach, and replace it with shuttle service.

For the B-Line, it’s most likely the low turnover rates. It gets really busy in peak hours but almost nobody during off-peak and weekends. There is a reason shuttle buses are used for weekend trips and not 40 footers.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by Firebrand

For the 351, I’d cut off the route heading to Crescent Beach, and replace it with shuttle service.

For the B-Line, it’s most likely the low turnover rates. It gets really busy in peak hours but almost nobody during off-peak and weekends. There is a reason shuttle buses are used for weekend trips and not 40 footers.

For Crescent Beach, a shuttle service (every 10 ~ 20 minutes during rush and 30 minutes outside) going from White Rock Centre to South Surrey Park & Ride via 16th Avenue, 128th Street, the beach area, then 32nd Avenue(?) would be ideal eh? Perhaps it should head up to Bridgeport Station during AM rush though because 351 is probably full by the time it gets to the P&R. Otherwise, lightening the burden of 351 would be nice. Also, another thing: 354 should only serve locally south of White Rock Centre. North of that, it should only stop at King George/152nd, P&R and that's it.

The tunnel will always be a bottleneck though. * sigh *

For 337, is midday ridership that low?? Why would translink even run that shuttle every 15 minutes even during that period then? Better connection from Lougheed to Guildford??

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

For Crescent Beach, a shuttle service (every 10 ~ 20 minutes during rush and 30 minutes outside) going from White Rock Centre to South Surrey Park & Ride via 16th Avenue, 128th Street, the beach area, then 32nd Avenue(?) would be ideal eh? Perhaps it should head up to Bridgeport Station during AM rush though because 351 is probably full by the time it gets to the P&R. Otherwise, lightening the burden of 351 would be nice. Also, another thing: 354 should only serve locally south of White Rock Centre. North of that, it should only stop at King George/152nd, P&R and that's it.

The tunnel will always be a bottleneck though. * sigh *

For 337, is midday ridership that low?? Why would translink even run that shuttle every 15 minutes even during that period then? Better connection from Lougheed to Guildford??

I would’ve shown the revamped 351 on MyMaps, but I’m typing this on my phone.

Anyway, I would prefer the shuttle route to end at 152nd/Johnston Rd @ North Bluff Rd. Let the 351 take the heavy load.

How busy is the 354? If it terminates at the KBG P&R, should the 351 compensate that by increasing its frequency during rush hour? I’m not familiar with the South Surrey/White Rock routes, so take my ideas a grain of salt.

I wish they put the bridge to replace the tunnel, but that’s another can of worms to deal with.

I took the 337 one time in the early afternoon on a Friday. When I was heading back to Guildford, I was only one of two people in the entire bus. Not many people take that bus from Surrey Central in weekends, which is why it’s a shuttle route running at half-hourly frequencies. (It’ll be much nicer if the 555 was an FTN route (15 minutes or less).)

[Waders]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

was this missed by most of us?

New study finds Surrey Light Rail will have poor value, should be SkyTrain instead
http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/surrey-light-rail-business-case-skytrain-2017

I believe the study was published last November. There is no surprise how Surrey mayor responded.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by Firebrand

I would’ve shown the revamped 351 on MyMaps, but I’m typing this on my phone.

Anyway, I would prefer the shuttle route to end at 152nd/Johnston Rd @ North Bluff Rd. Let the 351 take the heavy load.

How busy is the 354? If it terminates at the KBG P&R, should the 351 compensate that by increasing its frequency during rush hour? I’m not familiar with the South Surrey/White Rock routes, so take my ideas a grain of salt.

I wish they put the bridge to replace the tunnel, but that’s another can of worms to deal with.

I took the 337 one time in the early afternoon on a Friday. When I was heading back to Guildford, I was only one of two people in the entire bus. Not many people take that bus from Surrey Central in weekends, which is why it’s a shuttle route running at half-hourly frequencies. (It’ll be much nicer if the 555 was an FTN route (15 minutes or less).)

It probably won't happen unless Walnut Grove area is dense enough to justify that, or unless one of the routes branches off to Guildford. In the latter case, I wonder if many people go between Guildford and Lougheed though.
Also, in order for 555 to become FTN, HOV lanes on Port Mann Bridge have to be converted to strictly bus lanes. I've seen enough tweets saying that 555 was experiencing delays due to car crashes on the bridge.

As for the White Rock routes, just keep in mind that people don't like too many transfers, much less in winter. One big drawback with those coaches and double deckers is that there's only one door. If I were working for translink, I would have run all the highway routes with conventional buses with refurbished seats and seat belts.

Tbh, though, giving employees the option to work from home is the way to go, if possible. (So obviously factory jobs at Port Kells aren't one of them.)

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

It probably won't happen unless Walnut Grove area is dense enough to justify that, or unless one of the routes branches off to Guildford. In the latter case, I wonder if many people go between Guildford and Lougheed though.
Also, in order for 555 to become FTN, HOV lanes on Port Mann Bridge have to be converted to strictly bus lanes. I've seen enough tweets saying that 555 was experiencing delays due to car crashes on the bridge.

As for the White Rock routes, just keep in mind that people don't like too many transfers, much less in winter. One big drawback with those coaches and double deckers is that there's only one door. If I were working for translink, I would have run all the highway routes with conventional buses with refurbished seats and seat belts.

Tbh, though, giving employees the option to work from home is the way to go, if possible. (So obviously factory jobs at Port Kells aren't one of them.)

Walnut Grove has been a low density neighborhood for a while now, and I don’t think it will ever have enough to compensate for the 555’s turnover rates. The 509 has been underperforming since the 555 went into service, and it’s due to the many routes the 509 overlaps. Willoughby is much denser than Walnut Grove, and the 595 at some point will be an FTN route so that the 555 can be an FTN.

It would be better if the HOV lane was barricaded from the regular lanes so that SOV vehicles don’t have to treat the HOV as a detour lane. A carpooler from Abbotsford will have a less stressful commute if they drive on the HOV and not on the regular lanes.

Do you think the new double deckers will have two doors like the test trial buses they used, or is it going to be like the Orion V ones where you have to wait for a wheelchair to get off?

***

This discussion should be better off in the Metro Vancouver Transit thread.

[GMasterAres]

LRT is a buzz word. I would much rather they put effort into expanding road ways to have dedicated bus lanes and then expand the bus network. That is just as sufficient to the needs of Surrey in the near/medium term.

Then with correct bus right of ways, dedicated lanes, and possibly intersection priorities, you could in the longer term convert those that demand the ridership to LRT.

But to jump just to a vision of LRT as presented in them map tells me definitively that Surrey Council and the staff under have lost their perspective and there needs to be a change at City Hall.

They are believing the hype and marketing BS and not actually getting onto "the factory floor" and seeing the reality of what this city truly needs. I am so glad to have now two Mayoral candidates seriously talking about SkyTrain down Fraser Highway and re-evaluating the L-line.

Genchi genbutsu.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

With an off-road alignment like the Greenway (or closing off the road to non-transit) and proper separation from foot/bike traffic, then said problems more or less disappear and it actually becomes competitive with B-Line service... theoretically, at least.

I'm still not buying why LRT would be needed (on Arbutus or in Surrey), even on a dedicated (but at-grade) right of way when our experience on Broadway shows that frequent, high capacity buses can serve increasing volumes up to the point at which it becomes sensible to go with grade separated rapid transit.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

I'm still not buying why LRT would be needed (on Arbutus or in Surrey), even on a dedicated (but at-grade) right of way when our experience on Broadway shows that frequent, high capacity buses can serve increasing volumes up to the point at which it becomes sensible to go with grade separated rapid transit.

True. But as swimmer's fond of pointing out, we're not likely to see SkyTrain on Arbutus/False Creek when the Canada and Millennium are right "next door" (and the former's been fully built out for the tune of several hundred million). TransLink's got other priorities.
Nor are Arbutus Ridge or Kerrisdale likely to densify further than 3-5 storeys average, given their... outspoken reaction to the mall redevelopment.

Ditto 120th-72nd if/when the Newton-Guildford route gets built out as SkyTrain. Not much happening in North Delta.

So from here, the ex-interurban seems like a one-in-a-million route that likely exceeds B-Line capacity, but doesn't necessarily have potential for RRT. If the corridor's geometry lets it runs fast and frequently enough (for example, Eglinton should manage 28km/h average every four minutes even at-grade), it basically extends SkyTrain's reach and capacity while avoiding most of its crowds. A "circle line" connection between Arbutus-Broadway/Granville Island/Olympic Village/Main Street-Science World/Chinatown/Gastown/Waterfront seems particularly useful.
If TransLink can't get it to average more than Surrey's 21-22, it's obviously a bit dicier, but not having to rip up the road and move water/gas/telecomms means that we're not paying much more than with BRT.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

<broken record>

It's all about the route. The problems associated with light rail - conflicts with existing street users, can't avoid obstacles, not much faster than a bus, expensive, bad value for money - seem to all stem from having an on-road alignment. With an off-road alignment like the Greenway (or closing off the road to non-transit) and proper separation from foot/bike traffic, then said problems more or less disappear and it actually becomes competitive with B-Line service... theoretically, at least.

Likewise, trams along KGB/104th and Fraser Highway are a dumb idea, but along the interurban might just work.

</broken record>

Originally Posted by jsbertram

A B-Line network with a Skytrain backbone to Langley is a good thing.

(fixed that for you)

yer welcome

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

True. But as swimmer's fond of pointing out, we're not likely to see SkyTrain on Arbutus/False Creek when the Canada and Millennium are right "next door" (and the former's been fully built out for the tune of several hundred million). TransLink's got other priorities.
Nor are Arbutus Ridge or Kerrisdale likely to densify further than 3-5 storeys average, given their... outspoken reaction to the mall redevelopment.

Ditto 120th-72nd if/when the Newton-Guildford route gets built out as SkyTrain. Not much happening in North Delta.

So from here, the ex-interurban seems like a one-in-a-million route that likely exceeds B-Line capacity, but doesn't necessarily have potential for RRT. If the corridor's geometry lets it runs fast and frequently enough (for example, Eglinton should manage 28km/h average every four minutes even at-grade), it basically extends SkyTrain's reach and capacity while avoiding most of its crowds. A "circle line" connection between Arbutus-Broadway/Granville Island/Olympic Village/Main Street-Science World/Chinatown/Gastown/Waterfront seems particularly useful.
If TransLink can't get it to average more than Surrey's 21-22, it's obviously a bit dicier, but not having to rip up the road and move water/gas/telecomms means that we're not paying much more than with BRT.

A B Line is a bus service running on frequent service. An LRT is a tram service running on frequent service.

The old TTC's CLRV can hold up to 130 people, where as even an articulated bus has a max capacity of 90.

Having an LRT line "chasing" an RT line, such as the Skytrain would be a good way to move even more people, and could lessen the overall load of the RT.

This is why I am for an LRT system that feeds into the Skytrain.

Arbutus is 2km and runs through single family houses. Although the route is there, the demand isn't.