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

[Diegotheartist1]

I looked at the roll plot document, and I don't know if this is considered to be put on the drawing table (plan on the this portion of the guideway may change). I have a theory that this section east after 140 Street Station of where it says "Storage Track" may be used for a possible future spur to like Newton or Scottsdale or something.

Here's my depiction of what the spur might look like:

Blue: Expo Line
Magenta: Future Line?

[rpvan]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Yeah it would make transit a lot more useful if there was a basic grid in place. On the west side of Fraser Hwy I can see those routes across Surrey.

But... the way a lot of eastern Surrey and Langley Township is currently (low density plus ALR) means most buses running E-W between Fraser Hwy and Langley would be near empty. If that area is built up then it would make sense to run buses but not now. At the moment the only routes all the way across that make any kind of sense are 104th, 88th, 64th and 60th / Hwy 10.

Anything else would be part of a local route.

With a couple exceptions, those are essentially the only W-E roads in surrey/Langley that go all the way through or have little dead ends. I think for the 96th route they could do alternating busses with two terminating at 160th or Tynehead for every one going the entire length all the way to Fort Langley.

Both 72nd Ave routes and the 68th Ave route could work as well, as they would pass through a massive transit dead hole in Clayton, and connect the area with the Skytrain, Willoughby, Carvolth and Trinity Western.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by rpvan

I think for the 96th route they could do alternating busses with two terminating at 160th or Tynehead for every one going the entire length all the way to Fort Langley.

TransLink has a primer for how to lay out transit routes (in an ideal world - which it frequently isn't). One part is to have routes that aren't too long or too short, along with avoiding black holes.

Now the driving time on 96th from Scott Road out to Fort Langley is getting long without even considering all the stops a bus has to make. Then there's the couple black holes that are along the route, plus Fort Langley isn't a solid anchor. It's better to think of Fraser Hwy as the eastern end of Surrey / Delta routes (plenty of people would be transferring there anyway) and have one or more routes travel from Fraser Hwy to Carvolth Exchange. Then have local routes fan out from there including to Fort Langley.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Probably best to stop the 96th route at 160th Station (finally found a use for it!) and have it connect on 88th to the RapidBus... which on further inspection, would be up to two blocks away from the Expo. Hope that's not a brain fart on TransLink's end.

[rpvan]

Originally Posted by Sheba

TransLink has a primer for how to lay out transit routes (in an ideal world - which it frequently isn't). One part is to have routes that aren't too long or too short, along with avoiding black holes.

Now the driving time on 96th from Scott Road out to Fort Langley is getting long without even considering all the stops a bus has to make. Then there's the couple black holes that are along the route, plus Fort Langley isn't a solid anchor. It's better to think of Fraser Hwy as the eastern end of Surrey / Delta routes (plenty of people would be transferring there anyway) and have one or more routes travel from Fraser Hwy to Carvolth Exchange. Then have local routes fan out from there including to Fort Langley.

That's fair. I still think a 72nd and/or 68th route through Clayton and eventually terminating at a skytrain station is greatly needed as well.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by rpvan

That's fair. I still think a 72nd and/or 68th route through Clayton and eventually terminating at a skytrain station is greatly needed as well.

Clayton and Cloverdale are better served by having most of their bus routes travel between a proper Cloverdale Exchange and the new Skytrain stations on Fraser Hwy (which they'll be pretty close to) instead of trying to connect most of the routes to Newton.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Diegotheartist1

I looked at the roll plot document, and I don't know if this is considered to be put on the drawing table (plan on the this portion of the guideway may change). I have a theory that this section east after 140 Street Station of where it says "Storage Track" may be used for a possible future spur to like Newton or Scottsdale or something.

It doesn't make sense for a reversing movement to be a principle route though.

[rpvan]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Clayton and Cloverdale are better served by having most of their bus routes travel between a proper Cloverdale Exchange and the new Skytrain stations on Fraser Hwy (which they'll be pretty close to) instead of trying to connect most of the routes to Newton.

Oh no I didn't mean connect those routes to Newton. This is what I had originally:


72nd Ave I (#372)
Scottsdale Exchange - Kwantlen University - Newton Exchange - 152nd Street - 152nd Street Station (future)

72nd Ave II (#373)
184th Street Station (future) - East Clayton North - 200th Street - 208th Street - Willoughby - Carvolth Exchange

68th Ave (#368)
184th Street Station (future) - East Clayton - 208th Street - Willoughby - Trinity Western University

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by officedweller

It doesn't make sense for a reversing movement to be a principle route though.

Right. Newton-Guildford is best as its own route.

[rpvan]

Rail rapid transit needed from Surrey City Centre to Newton: business group
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/skytrain-newton-surrey-king-george-boulevard

“I am convinced that fixed rapid rail will be the catalyst to revitalization and will transform Newton into a connected, and livable community, making the Newton Town Centre more vibrant, accessible, and competitive,” said Philip Aguirre, the executive director of the NBIA.

“Surrey’s most populous town centre will ignite investment and transform Newton into a hub of cultural and economic growth.”

NBIA believes the recently completed Newton-King George Boulevard Land Use Plan and the Newton Town Centre Plan would catalyze the type of urban and economic development needed to support a rapid transit connection.

According to the City of Surrey, Newton’s population is currently hovering at over 150,000. At the current rate of growth based on the city’s existing community plans, the population is expected to grow to 175,000 by 2041 and 188,000 by 2051.

With Newton becoming the southernmost terminus of rail rapid transit, it would become a regional transit hub for further rapid transit connections to South Surrey, Cloverdale, and Scottsdale, states the NBIA.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Newton's going to have a RapidBus down King George, 120th, and probably 152nd and/or to White Rock; if other communities can transform just fine with only one, why can't they with four?

[Diegotheartist1]

I would say leave King George Blvd. for R1. Besides, the road is wide enough to support a dedicated bus lane, either at the side or median. As for White Rock, just extend R1 from Newton. that should do it.

If they would want SkyTrain to newton, they'd probably have to do heavy modification to the elevated guideway close to King George Station.

[officedweller]

They should add a switch east of King George Station to alllow a southward branch behind (east) of the hospital that would then veer back to King George Blvd farther south.

[bardak]

Originally Posted by rpvan

Surrey’s most populous town centre will ignite investment and transform Newton into a hub of cultural and economic growth.

I really hate when people try to puff up the importance of Newton town centre by focusing on total population of Newton. Yeah Newton has the largest population out of all Surrey's neighbourhoods. It also has the largest built up area out of all Surrey's neighbourhoods. They never mention the population is pretty well evenly distributed throughout all of Newton and rapid transit down King George will only serve a small portion of it.

BRT lanes along King George, Scott road, and 72nd would provide much better service to all of newton and probably cost less then LRT or Skytrain to Newton town centre. Add frequent service along 64th and 152nd and Newton would have great service.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by bardak

I really hate when people try to puff up the importance of Newton town centre by focusing on total population of Newton. Yeah Newton has the largest population out of all Surrey's neighbourhoods. It also has the largest built up area out of all Surrey's neighbourhoods. They never mention the population is pretty well evenly distributed throughout all of Newton and rapid transit down King George will only serve a small portion of it.

BRT lanes along King George, Scott road, and 72nd would provide much better service to all of newton and probably cost less then LRT or Skytrain to Newton town centre. Add frequent service along 64th and 152nd and Newton would have great service.

Enforced bus lanes would be an excellent interim upgrade for future skytrain routes and any route with a RapidBus. Just have a camera every x meters that sends an automatic fine to the drivers door going straight to funding more skytrain lines.

[Klazu]

Aren't most of those roads 2+2 lanes? Are you guys suggesting taking two of the lanes for busses only and leave 1+1 lanes for general traffic? That makes no sense and I wish those roads would be widened to 3+3 lanes to consider sacrificing the outermost lanes for buses or HOV.

[Migrant_Coconut]

72nd and Scott Road/120th are 5-lane stroads where the median alone is 1.5 lanes wide; some creative engineering can likely get them back to four lanes. King George is 6-8 lanes until 96th (when it drops to 5 + shoulders) and can definitely take the hit. No bus lanes were suggested for 64th or 152nd.

[Diegotheartist1]

The south Surrey portion of KGB between 152 Street & Crescent Road is wide enough for dedicated bus lanes for a potential RapidBus to WhiteRock (either as a separate route, or an extension of R1)

[bardak]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

72nd and Scott Road/120th are 5-lane stroads where the median alone is 1.5 lanes wide; some creative engineering can likely get them back to four lanes. King George is 6-8 lanes until 96th (when it drops to 5 + shoulders) and can definitely take the hit. No bus lanes were suggested for 64th or 152nd.

On top of that wide centre median they also have a set back along much of the route. Also the current roads are as wide or wider than the 6 lane portions of Grandville and Oak street in Vancouver

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

72nd and Scott Road/120th are 5-lane stroads where the median alone is 1.5 lanes wide; some creative engineering can likely get them back to four lanes. King George is 6-8 lanes until 96th (when it drops to 5 + shoulders) and can definitely take the hit. No bus lanes were suggested for 64th or 152nd.

I think you are a bit overselling King George Boulevard being "8 lanes" for like a block and those extra lanes are bus bays. Most of it south of 96 Avenue is a confusing mix of lane configurations, but it is mostly 2+2 with a constant left-turn lane in the middle. Sure, you could redesign it and have a narrow 3+3 configuration, but then you would have Vancouver Syndrome with no left-turn lanes.

A road doesn't get much more central than King George Boulevard, cutting through the geographical center of a city of 500,000 people. It shoul have 3+3 general purpose lanes, left-turn bays and than then some. It even has fookin empty bike lanes along it, fighting for the space. Definitely a significant widening to a true boulevard would be needed, but I think development along it limits the opportunity for that. We are stuck with another small arterial road, the trademark of Metro Vancouver.