Expo Line - Surrey Langley Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction - Page 284

Migrant_Coconut · #**5661** Posted **Sep 25, 2018, 8:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gordon

Th L Line is the rapid transit line that is currently funded, is it not.Wuld it not make sense to have th L Line extend to the White- Rock South Surrey area as the original 96 B Lne was supposed to

It literally can't, under the current plan - it's going to make a left on 72nd and end somewhere in Newton Town Centre.

roger1818 · #**5662** Posted **Sep 25, 2018, 8:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

It literally can't, under the current plan - it's going to make a left on 72nd and end somewhere in Newton Town Centre.

Not saying they should, but there are ways around that such as:

Reroute it to continue straight on the KGH
Split the line at 72nd and have a new branch continue straight on the KJH
Continue from the Newton Town Centre, down 138th St back to the KJH.

True that they all have pros and cons, but they are possible.

Migrant_Coconut · #**5663** Posted **Sep 25, 2018, 8:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by roger1818

Not saying they should, but there are ways around that such as:

Reroute it to continue straight on the KGH
Split the line at 72nd and have a new branch continue straight on the KJH
Continue from the Newton Town Centre, down 138th St back to the KJH.

True that they all have pros and cons, but they are possible.

That'd involve a redesign - the current design doesn't give enough room for a turn on 138th, and it puts a Compass vendor in the way. An extension to White Rock isn't even being considered at this point <insert comment about consistent shortsightedness>.

scryer · #**5664** Posted **Sep 25, 2018, 9:01 PM**

By far the most retarded project. Ever.

The turns onto KGB and into Newton Centre are conveniently omitted in all of the renderings I have seen. They are withholding vital information about how the project will integrate on the street because they know that it'll be a dog's breakfast.

BCPhil · #**5665** Posted **Sep 25, 2018, 11:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

That'd involve a redesign - the current design doesn't give enough room for a turn on 138th, and it puts a Compass vendor in the way. An extension to White Rock isn't even being considered at this point <insert comment about consistent shortsightedness>.

That's just a render. I literally know people who do things like that for a living, and they the things are not always accurate. Often they get a text description on what to do, some drawings, then render some mockups based on google maps and a shape library, get an approval by managers who don't know the detailed designs, then release it to the public (usually under unreasonably short deadlines).

It's entirely feasible that the line could wrap around that building (which I don't think exists other than in fantasy at this point), heading South on 136b Street to around 70 Ave and go back to KGB from there.

That's kind of the problem with all the renders related to this project: they are all fantasy. They either depict idealistic streets empty of traffic, when KGB and 72nd is one of the most congested intersections SoF. Or they show buildings that won't exist for 30 years, when much of the corridor is decapitated trailer parks (which means evicting people who will become homeless) or big box retail commercial or the 104 Ave Center. Or they look overly clean, when it's every difficult to maintain a grass median in the middle of a road (when trains pass over it) or the lack of overhead wire

flipper316 · #**5666** Posted **Sep 28, 2018, 3:00 AM**

https://www.peacearchnews.com/news/fleet...ng-against-skytrain-releases-renderings/

Metro-One · #**5667** Posted **Sep 28, 2018, 4:24 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by flipper316

https://www.peacearchnews.com/news/fleet...ng-against-skytrain-releases-renderings/

Did the onion write this??

Seriously...

What amazes me is how these pro LRT associations never seem to back up their claims with data or figures.

Do they not understand what a back bone system is?

That Surrey LRT plan will be amazingly expensive, especially considering that the majority of those routes will be far better served by a bus.

Also love how they describe Skytrainas loud, but somehow at grade LRT is not?? They are both rail based modes of transit. If the noise of Skytrain bothers you never move next to a road with cars!

And the renderings, amazing, they went out of their way to make the Skytrain look as terrible as possible. Why didn’t they use more recent examples? (Canada Line or Evergreen Line stations...)

Amazing how all the strongest neighborhoods in our metro recently for development surround Skytrain Stations... they must be so oppressive and bad for business...

Waders · #**5668** Posted **Sep 28, 2018, 4:57 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by flipper316

https://www.peacearchnews.com/news/fleet...ng-against-skytrain-releases-renderings/

city hall’s envisioned 150-kilometre LRT network? That would cost more than 25 billion dollars!

CanSpice · #**5669** Posted **Sep 28, 2018, 4:24 PM**

One thing I've never seen answered is what do anti-LRT people think the end-game is here? Suppose an anti-LRT slate gets into power at Surrey City Hall, what then? Do they cancel contracts that are probably already in place? Do they somehow force TransLink to cancel contracts that are probably already in place? Do they stop issuing permits? Do they say to the province and federal government "y'know, thanks for the money for this specific project but actually we're going to change it up contrary to all of the talks and negotiations we've been having with the rest of the region for the last five years and still use your money"?

And then what? Do they think that the rest of Metro Vancouver is going to say "oh well, we worked with Surrey for years to get the funding in place for this project and now at the very last minute they bailed, we'll totally work with them again and hope we don't get the football pulled away from us again"? Or do they say "oh well, we worked with surrety for years to get the funding in place for this project and now at the very last minute they bailed, let's work with cities that actually want to work with the region"?

M00dy · #**5670** Posted **Sep 28, 2018, 4:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CanSpice

One thing I've never seen answered is what do anti-LRT people think the end-game is here? Suppose an anti-LRT slate gets into power at Surrey City Hall, what then? Do they cancel contracts that are probably already in place? Do they somehow force TransLink to cancel contracts that are probably already in place? Do they stop issuing permits? Do they say to the province and federal government "y'know, thanks for the money for this specific project but actually we're going to change it up contrary to all of the talks and negotiations we've been having with the rest of the region for the last five years and still use your money"?

And then what? Do they think that the rest of Metro Vancouver is going to say "oh well, we worked with Surrey for years to get the funding in place for this project and now at the very last minute they bailed, we'll totally work with them again and hope we don't get the football pulled away from us again"? Or do they say "oh well, we worked with surrety for years to get the funding in place for this project and now at the very last minute they bailed, let's work with cities that actually want to work with the region"?

I don't buy this argument. Many people on this board have been against use of at-grade non-separated LRT in Surrey for years. Certainly before any approvals and federal/provincial funding commitments were made. At what point should they have said "oh well, it's a done deal now. I may as well shut up." The city is making a mistake, and their spent cost & effort to this point doesn't make it less of a mistake.

What contracts do you think are in place that would be cancelled? Construction contracts? The RFQ was just released in the past few weeks.

scryer · #**5671** Posted **Sep 28, 2018, 5:28 PM**

If it really boils down to it I would rather pay some thousand dollar cancellation costs and have the federal funds redistributed to get the Millennium line all the way to UBC OR a Skytrain down Fraser. And then improve 96B-line frequency. That's just me though.

It isn't uncommon for cities to change their minds before they proceed through with construction. Toronto does it all the time. And heck, one could argue that the Evergreen line faced the exact same scenario before it was finally agreed to continue as a Skytrain extension.

Firebrand · #**5672** Posted **Sep 28, 2018, 6:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by scryer

If it really boils down to it I would rather pay some thousand dollar cancellation costs and have the federal funds redistributed to get the Millennium line all the way to UBC OR a Skytrain down Fraser. And then improve 96B-line frequency. That's just me though.

Didn't Trainguy said that the funding is non-transferrable?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trainguy

JT PM has said that the money for the LRT is not transferable and both he and Horgan said the LRT Line will be built no matter the outcome of the October civil elections. Talk about ramming something down someone's throat ( not sure if JT is "man" enough for that ). If the new Surrey government says "no LRT" they will ignore them.

No wonder people don't trust politicians....

scryer · #**5673** Posted **Sep 28, 2018, 6:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Firebrand

Didn't Trainguy said that the funding is non-transferrable?

I must have the memory of a goldfish. Thanks for the clarity!

Fucking JT...

memememe76 · #**5674** Posted **Sep 28, 2018, 6:41 PM**

Isn't government money usually non-transferable? What would stop, say, the City of Surrey from using that money for other matters if it was transferable?

Firebrand · #**5675** Posted **Sep 28, 2018, 6:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by memememe76

Isn't government money usually non-transferable? What would stop, say, the City of Surrey from using that money for other matters if it was transferable?

Knowing JT, I’m getting the feeling the new Surrey gov’t will pull off a TransMountain fiasco.

Trainguy · #**5676** Posted **Sep 28, 2018, 8:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by scryer

If it really boils down to it I would rather pay some thousand dollar cancellation costs and have the federal funds redistributed to get the Millennium line all the way to UBC OR a Skytrain down Fraser. And then improve 96B-line frequency. That's just me though.

It isn't uncommon for cities to change their minds before they proceed through with construction. Toronto does it all the time. And heck, one could argue that the Evergreen line faced the exact same scenario before it was finally agreed to continue as a Skytrain extension.

Think of it another way. A couple is walking down the aisle together and one party does not feel right about it and calls it off. This happens more than we know. Why go through with a marriage ( LRT in Surrey ) if the fit is not right? Better to start over and do it right.

Trainguy · #**5677** Posted **Sep 28, 2018, 8:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by M00dy

I don't buy this argument. Many people on this board have been against use of at-grade non-separated LRT in Surrey for years. Certainly before any approvals and federal/provincial funding commitments were made. At what point should they have said "oh well, it's a done deal now. I may as well shut up." The city is making a mistake, and their spent cost & effort to this point doesn't make it less of a mistake.

What contracts do you think are in place that would be cancelled? Construction contracts? The RFQ was just released in the past few weeks.

My huge beef with this vanity LRT project is that it will mess with traffic in a huge way, especially along 104th ave. It should be completely separated from traffic and not reduce any lanes. Edmonton's LRT causes traffic jams all the time. Surrey's traffic is congested enough without LRT.

CanSpice · #**5678** Posted **Sep 28, 2018, 9:09 PM**

I'm not sure if anybody actually understood my question.

Suppose Surrey "cancels" the LRT project. What happens next? Justin Trudeau and John Horgan said that the money that's budgeted for LRT won't transfer to some other project, so forget about that idea.

What happens next?

Sure, Surrey can try to "re-marry" with the Mayors' Council, but to carry the marriage analogy, that requires two willing participants. Why would Metro Vancouver mayors want to get hitched to Surrey again? And even if they do, there would need to be a lot more planning that needs doing, including negotiating with the feds and province for funding. Getting "re-married" wouldn't be for another 10-20 years, and in the meantime the North Shore needs some kind of rapid transit solution sooner than that.

You can be all "the LRT is going to kill Surrey's traffic", that's fine. But LRT has been funded, SkyTrain hasn't, and if you don't get LRT you don't get anything for 10-20 years at least. Is that the goal here?

Migrant_Coconut · #**5679** Posted **Sep 28, 2018, 9:56 PM**

Trudeau, when pressed, also said that the funding wouldn't just go back to the province/feds if cancelled.

One way or another, I highly doubt it'd take twenty years to get a Fraser SkyTrain rolling.

jsbertram · #**5680** Posted **Sep 28, 2018, 10:49 PM**

funny how nobody has mentioned that the 'ideal' renderings of this LRT never seem to include the overhead wiring usually needed to make it work