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

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

I'm very glad Surrey rejected (eventually) LRT.

Look at this thing crawl in Waterloo.

Neither the video nor link work, but one can easily YouTube it - ouch, even the trolleybuses go faster than that!

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Neither the video nor link work, but one can easily YouTube it - ouch, even the trolleybuses go faster than that!

...and the trolleybuses don't have their own lane - they're mixed in with all the other vehicles.

Does the WCE take that long to slow down to a stop and then speed up again after? That was almost as bad as when the train would slow down to turn and cross the street - I suspect I could walk faster than that. Also why didn't it speed up all that much when it was travelling through the rural section - it was completely fenced off and there was no traffic whatsoever!

Yeah don't put the whole url in for youtube links.

[ilikeredheads]

• Video Link
notice the absurdly low speed limit along the route, even on sections when it's traveling on its ROW.
The whole 19km journey takes 46 minutes lol

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

notice the absurdly low speed limit along the route, even on sections when it's traveling on its ROW.
The whole 19km journey takes 46 minutes lol

The on-street rail lanes are just like what Surrey proposed for the L Line. Good thing it's been pushed back (not cancelled from what I remember) in favour of Skytrain on Fraser Hwy. In the meantime TransLink has been getting 'no LRT' messages in it's Transport 2050 survey and comments.

Aside from increasing frequency, where would anyone here put express and B-Line routes in Surrey and the rest of the SoF?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

notice the absurdly low speed limit along the route, even on sections when it's traveling on its ROW.
The whole 19km journey takes 46 minutes lol

An average of 24.8 km/h is really ^ that slow? Then Toronto has it right: 28 or bust.

Originally Posted by Sheba

Aside from increasing frequency, where would anyone here put express and B-Line routes in Surrey and the rest of the SoF?

To start, Scott Road to Newton and extending the 96 to White Rock sound like no-brainers.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Actually so do I and 10 lanes from Abbostford to Langley but that is just the start. They must bring the SFPR up to full freeway standards, build the Serpentine Exp, build more overpasses on HWY #15 & 10 and widen them both and widen King George, HWY#99 to 8 lanes, Langley By-pass, and twin the Fraser Highway. These things should have been done 20 years ago. Now we have grinding traffic and the smog that comes with it, pathetic transport routes with full transports illegally barrelling down secondary roads desperately trying to find alternative routes, and accident rates that are soaring and response times for them down significantly because first reponders can't access the accidents on HWY#1.

The problem?............absolutely none of these things are even being contemplated little alone built within the next decade. Compare this to Ontario with a massive freeway system, the safest roads in NA, and yet higher transit ridership in both Ottawa and Toronto than Vancouver. This is something the touchy-feely crowd in Vancouver has yet to grasp..............great cities not have great TRANSIT systems but rather great TRANSPORTATION systems in all it's forms including transit, highways, bikelanes, HOV, and sidewalks. Vancouver thought only transit would do the trick and that has been a massive failure as Vancouver {which is only the 25th largest Metro in NA} has some of the longest commutes.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=234474 #21

Just for you

Now let's talk about highways in the highway threads.

[nname]

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

notice the absurdly low speed limit along the route, even on sections when it's traveling on its ROW.
The whole 19km journey takes 46 minutes lol

16km. The 3 one-way segments are counted twice for each direction, thus the extra 3 km.

[ilikeredheads]

Originally Posted by nname

16km. The 3 one-way segments are counted twice for each direction, thus the extra 3 km.

lol then I guess the average speed drops to 20.9km/h

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

lol then I guess the average speed drops to 20.9km/h

Wow, that is absolutely pathetic. A person cycling quickly could do better than that.

I personally think the LRT can be executed well, at the same time I don't trust North American transit agencies to do so. I've seen too many examples where an LRT system has suffered death-by-a-thousand-cuts to the point where it can't be called rapid transit anymore. It's not just the new line in Kitchener-Waterloo, it's the Toronto LRTs, it's the ones in the United States, it's everywhere here. BRT systems are even worse in this respect. LRT in Surrey (even though it is not a priority) could theoretically be implemented well, however, I wouldn't trust Translink to do so.

This is why I favour light metro systems now. Even though they are quite a bit more expensive, at least you know you're guaranteed rapid transit at the end of the day. The technology makes it impossible for transit agencies to mess up too much.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

To start, Scott Road to Newton and extending the 96 to White Rock sound like no-brainers.

Those two (and Fraser Hwy Skytrain) are routes they've already picked.

Most of 152nd could switch to an 375 express with the 320 and 335 being the local routes for a lot of the populated section north of 72nd. There would have to be some areas where it would switch to local but it would still be a lot faster for anyone travelling to south Surrey.

[rpvan]

Surrey could also do with switching to a more grid like system for bus routes similar to what Vancouver has.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Those two (and Fraser Hwy Skytrain) are routes they've already picked.

Most of 152nd could switch to an 375 express with the 320 and 335 being the local routes for a lot of the populated section north of 72nd. There would have to be some areas where it would switch to local but it would still be a lot faster for anyone travelling to south Surrey.

Good to know. Yeah, the 375 would be a good one to upgrade, as well as the 388.

Originally Posted by rpvan

Surrey could also do with switching to a more grid like system for bus routes similar to what Vancouver has.

Seems inevitable, especially with the Fraser SkyTrain - now instead of needing 4+ routes going to Langley, the FTN can be replanned to offload at Fleetwood and continue south to White Rock or Cloverdale.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

I personally think the LRT can be executed well, at the same time I don't trust North American transit agencies to do so. I've seen too many examples where an LRT system has suffered death-by-a-thousand-cuts to the point where it can't be called rapid transit anymore. It's not just the new line in Kitchener-Waterloo, it's the Toronto LRTs, it's the ones in the United States, it's everywhere here. BRT systems are even worse in this respect. LRT in Surrey (even though it is not a priority) could theoretically be implemented well, however, I wouldn't trust Translink to do so.

This is why I favour light metro systems now. Even though they are quite a bit more expensive, at least you know you're guaranteed rapid transit at the end of the day. The technology makes it impossible for transit agencies to mess up too much.

Pretty sure that's the city's fault; they sh*t, the transit agency wipes.

"TA, why are you always buying buses? Streetcars like the ones Europe have are so pretty!"
"TA, I'm more important than anybody else in this city, and trains make soooo muuuch noooiiise, can't you run them slower?"
"TA, all two businesses and three houses on this block don't want to lose our parking. Move the tracks!"
"TA, get rid of the tunnel/overpass, they're ugly and street interaction is the future.... also, I want to spend those millions on one LED screen for City Hall and a trip to Paris instead."
"TA, have you thought about putting solar panels under the tracks?
"TA, can you make sure there's a stop right in front of my grandmother's friend's sister's house?"

[scryer]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

Wow, that is absolutely pathetic. A person cycling quickly could do better than that.

I personally think the LRT can be executed well, at the same time I don't trust North American transit agencies to do so. I've seen too many examples where an LRT system has suffered death-by-a-thousand-cuts to the point where it can't be called rapid transit anymore. It's not just the new line in Kitchener-Waterloo, it's the Toronto LRTs, it's the ones in the United States, it's everywhere here.

For me LRT has always been marketed incorrectly to the North American market. I have said this before but LRT should be marketed as a capacity solution, not a rapid transit solution. The only LRT systems that kind of come close to serving as a rapid transit solution would be the Calgary LRT to some extent.

My point is, is that to call Toronto's LRT a failure is absolutely correct if you are thinking that it just serves as a rapid transit solution. Yet it is a success in terms of handling capacity because it has decent ridership on major arterials in Toronto.

The Kitchener-Waterloo LRT.... hmm we will have to wait a good year before judging it based on how the region uses it. Fun fact: we are already at 1 accident during the testing phase.

Now don't get me wrong: I will put LRT under a microscope before advocating for it in Vancouver. However I do think that grade-integrated LRT can serve as a solution to address capacity on buses.

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Pretty sure that's the city's fault; they sh*t, the transit agency wipes.

"TA, why are you always buying buses? Streetcars like the ones Europe have are so pretty!"
"TA, I'm more important than anybody else in this city, and trains make soooo muuuch noooiiise, can't you run them slower?"
"TA, all two businesses and three houses on this block don't want to lose our parking. Move the tracks!"
"TA, get rid of the tunnel/overpass, they're ugly and street interaction is the future.... also, I want to spend those millions on one LED screen for City Hall and a trip to Paris instead."
"TA, have you thought about putting solar panels under the tracks?
"TA, can you make sure there's a stop right in front of my grandmother's friend's sister's house?"

Your right. I should be blaming the cities. When I was in Toronto, I asked the conductors why the signalling sucked and they basically said the city wants it that way.

Originally Posted by scryer

For me LRT has always been marketed incorrectly to the North American market. I have said this before but LRT should be marketed as a capacity solution, not a rapid transit solution. The only LRT systems that kind of come close to serving as a rapid transit solution would be the Calgary LRT to some extent.

Now don't get me wrong: I will put LRT under a microscope before advocating for it in Vancouver. However I do think that grade-integrated LRT can serve as a solution to address capacity on buses.

I think LRT can be done well as well and I think you're right that it shouldn't be the primary spine in a network. The problem is a lot of cities are implementing it as the primary spine yet implementing it as a streetcar.

I do believe it can be more than just a bus-plus solution and actually be rapid transit. However, that requires a fully-dedicated corridor and universal signal priority, something a lot of cities have dropped the ball on. If they want a bus-plus solution, they should just add some BRT features to their existing express buses.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

I do believe it can be more than just a bus-plus solution and actually be rapid transit. However, that requires a fully-dedicated corridor and universal signal priority, something a lot of cities have dropped the ball on. If they want a bus-plus solution, they should just add some BRT features to their existing express buses.

Exactly. Agreed.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by rpvan

Surrey could also do with switching to a more grid like system for bus routes similar to what Vancouver has.

I know. You should come up with an image of how it would work and submit it before the SoF area transit plan (it's the next one - Burnaby / New West is the current area plan).

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Pretty sure that's the city's fault; they sh*t, the transit agency wipes.

That's exactly what happened

Originally Posted by scryer

For me LRT has always been marketed incorrectly to the North American market. I have said this before but LRT should be marketed as a capacity solution, not a rapid transit solution. The only LRT systems that kind of come close to serving as a rapid transit solution would be the Calgary LRT to some extent.

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

I do believe it can be more than just a bus-plus solution and actually be rapid transit. However, that requires a fully-dedicated corridor and universal signal priority, something a lot of cities have dropped the ball on. If they want a bus-plus solution, they should just add some BRT features to their existing express buses.

The Arbutus greenway is one place for it - where else in the region is a good fit? In the meantime we're better off trying to plan B-Line / Express / BRT routes.

[Dengler Avenue]

When skytrain’s opened at Fleetwood (or 152nd Street), will it be a good idea to extend 375 to Surrey Central Station while reducing frequency on 320 so that together they form a 10-minute-frequency local service between Surrey Central and Fleetwood during rush hour and 15-minute otherwise? Meanwhile, all trips of 320 will no longer terminate at Fleetwood but go all the way to Langley Centre. Obviously, 345’s no longer needed.

Obviously, things will be changed once again when skytrain gets extended further down to Clayton.

Or do we simply avoid making bus routes longer in this day and age?

[nname]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

When skytrain’s opened at Fleetwood (or 152nd Street), will it be a good idea to extend 375 to Surrey Central Station while reducing frequency on 320 so that together they form a 10-minute-frequency local service between Surrey Central and Fleetwood during rush hour and 15-minute otherwise? Meanwhile, all trips of 320 will no longer terminate at Fleetwood but go all the way to Langley Centre. Obviously, 345’s no longer needed.

Obviously, things will be changed once again when skytrain gets extended further down to Clayton.

Or do we simply avoid making bus routes longer in this day and age?

Based on what TransLink had been doing recently... the 375 might be shortened to Fleetwood with increased frequency. The 320 would be split at Fleetwood with the western portion retain the 320 number and FTN, while the eastern portion would become 360 with increased frequency through Cloverdale and may terminate at East Fleetwood instead.

[Dengler Avenue]

I see. Additionally, with improved service of the 388*, we may even be able to take out 326.

* I've been hearing "rumours" about it.