Surrey Langley Skytrain - Expo Line Extension | Proposed

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

There's already a village beside the campus, with room to grow. I suspect that TransLink will knock down a warehouse or two to build the gondola, then Burnaby'll add a bunch of mixed-use 'rises and dorms in the remaining space, and then that'll be the end of it - Lake City and Production don't exactly have the same potential as Brentwood.

I realize that- however, that space is generally likely only going to used up piecemeal in order to provide enough space for future expansion.

I don't know, I'm honestly just not optimistic that there's going to be enough willpower to stop the redevelopment near a convergence of two transit lines, SFU or not. Especially once the current plans to densify near town centers are completed- densifying on other stations is going to become more a priority.


Taking down SFH generally causes more a ruckus than taking down Industrial lots, after all.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Granted, ALR (and the park between King George Boulevard and 148th Street) will make it a bit hard to justify extending Expo Line to Langley Centre, but outside of that, what's there to worry? Or did I miss something??

I never understand this argument. The ALR stretch is 2km. From the top of the hill down to 176th and back up to where people are is just 2km.

The stretch of SkyTrain from Royal Oak to Edmonds is 2.5km. So 0.5km longer. The ALR stretch is NOT that big a deal. We're not talking putting SkyTrain through 20km of ALR or something insane.

Also Green Timbers is not that long either. 140th -> 148th (a possible future station) is 8 blocks or roughly 1.8km. If SkyTrain opened with a station at 140th and one at 152nd that's a distance of 2.7km so again not far off Royal Oak <> Edmonds as an example.

It seems so too many people are fixated on "It is going through a park" and "It has to go through ALR!" when they completely ignore the actual distances.

Here are some real-life distances:

1. Scott Road <> Gateway: 2.3km
2. Royal Oak <> Edmonds: 2.5km
3. 140th <> 152nd: 2.7km
4. Broadway <> Main Street/Science World: 2.7km
5. 22nd <> New Westminster: 2.8km
6. Holden <> Lake City: 3.3km
7. Burquitlam <> Port Moody: 4.2km
8. 165th <> 186th (worse case scenario): 5km

So the worse case scenario for a new line is the stretch from 165th to 186th if that is where the stations were positioned. 5km. The closest comparison is Burquitlam to Port Moody. I'd argue that the latter was far more expensive to build than the extra 0.8km would cost on Fraser Highway since they had to tunnel that stretch of the Evergreen extension.

Nobody complained about that though. "Well you have to go through the mountain." So again I don't see what the big deal with the 165th to 186th stretch would be as they could be. It would likely cost a bit more since it is a flood plane so the piles would need to go down deeper, but I'd be surprised if it cost anywhere near the Evergreen Line tunnel.

As for the stretch through Green Timbers, again see above, it is considerably less than several other stretches on existing lines and honestly I think that stretch would be a nice break along SkyTrain where you know there won't be any development.

So ultimately I just don't see any realistic reason against a SkyTrain extension all the way to Langley City given the regional positive impacts. It is not that expensive in the grand scheme of things and with the Federal government committing money (which a Conservative or even NDP government I don't think would every withdraw if the election changes the parties), it's almost a no brainer.

It would also extend the backbone to allow for the future LRT work that Surrey wanted to do (if that comes back to the table) to make a whole lot more sense.

And more B-Lines too. You could easily B-Line from Guildford to Semiamoo for example which would be faster than down KGB. It would touch the 96-B at Guildford, SkyTrain backbone at 152nd and Fraser Hwy, and other major points including Panorama, KGB, and South Surrey. If you don't do the extension then you have to go down KGB to connect it to SkyTrain and honestly the run would be longer.

Semiamoo > 152nd onto SkyTrain is way faster for a commuter than Semiamoo > KGB station along KGB and would attract higher density development to Fleetwood and along the 152nd stretch toward Guildford.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by jhausner

I never understand this argument. The ALR stretch is 2km. From the top of the hill down to 176th and back up to where people are is just 2km.

The stretch of SkyTrain from Royal Oak to Edmonds is 2.5km. So 0.5km longer. The ALR stretch is NOT that big a deal. We're not talking putting SkyTrain through 20km of ALR or something insane.

Also Green Timbers is not that long either. 140th -> 148th (a possible future station) is 8 blocks or roughly 1.8km. If SkyTrain opened with a station at 140th and one at 152nd that's a distance of 2.7km so again not far off Royal Oak <> Edmonds as an example.

It seems so too many people are fixated on "It is going through a park" and "It has to go through ALR!" when they completely ignore the actual distances.

Here are some real-life distances:

1. Scott Road <> Gateway: 2.3km
2. Royal Oak <> Edmonds: 2.5km
3. 140th <> 152nd: 2.7km
4. Broadway <> Main Street/Science World: 2.7km
5. 22nd <> New Westminster: 2.8km
6. Holden <> Lake City: 3.3km
7. Burquitlam <> Port Moody: 4.2km
8. 165th <> 186th (worse case scenario): 5km

So the worse case scenario for a new line is the stretch from 165th to 186th if that is where the stations were positioned. 5km. The closest comparison is Burquitlam to Port Moody. I'd argue that the latter was far more expensive to build than the extra 0.8km would cost on Fraser Highway since they had to tunnel that stretch of the Evergreen extension.

Nobody complained about that though. "Well you have to go through the mountain." So again I don't see what the big deal with the 165th to 186th stretch would be as they could be. It would likely cost a bit more since it is a flood plane so the piles would need to go down deeper, but I'd be surprised if it cost anywhere near the Evergreen Line tunnel.

As for the stretch through Green Timbers, again see above, it is considerably less than several other stretches on existing lines and honestly I think that stretch would be a nice break along SkyTrain where you know there won't be any development.

So ultimately I just don't see any realistic reason against a SkyTrain extension all the way to Langley City given the regional positive impacts. It is not that expensive in the grand scheme of things and with the Federal government committing money (which a Conservative or even NDP government I don't think would every withdraw if the election changes the parties), it's almost a no brainer.

It would also extend the backbone to allow for the future LRT work that Surrey wanted to do (if that comes back to the table) to make a whole lot more sense.

And more B-Lines too. You could easily B-Line from Guildford to Semiamoo for example which would be faster than down KGB. It would touch the 96-B at Guildford, SkyTrain backbone at 152nd and Fraser Hwy, and other major points including Panorama, KGB, and South Surrey. If you don't do the extension then you have to go down KGB to connect it to SkyTrain and honestly the run would be longer.

Semiamoo > 152nd onto SkyTrain is way faster for a commuter than Semiamoo > KGB station along KGB and would attract higher density development to Fleetwood and along the 152nd stretch toward Guildford.

You don't even have to go through Green Timbers, you can just bypass it via 104th and 152nd. It might be better cost-benefit-wise too.

[Firebrand]

I think it's 'cause people NoF still see Langley as a suburban wasteland where everybody drives and compare it to a small town like Prince Rupert. It's more the fact that Langley is more politically divided with the rest of the region than Surrey is, and is also a lot smaller population-wise. (It's more obvious in Aldergrove, where it has more in common with Abbotsford than the rest of Langley. Even their gas prices are cheaper.) It's large distance from Vancouver also plays it's contribution to the region, hence why everybody's making a stink about putting the SkyTrain on ALR but not the Evergreen through Burnaby Mountain.

[finalcoolman]

Will they be building a wye just after King George station for a possible future SkyTrain extension south towards White Rock to keep LRT from EVER coming back to the table???

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by finalcoolman

Will they be building a wye just after King George station for a possible future SkyTrain extension south towards White Rock to keep LRT from EVER coming back to the table???

They had all the opportunity to just extend Skytrain to King George or Fraser from King George station already, and that didn't prevent Surrey First, so no.


I think the LRT debacle was really just the pinnacle of the 'Rail for the Valley' crowd. I think the election proved that most people in Surrey, at least, really just want Skytrain more than they care about visuals of Elevated Rail.

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by fredinno

They had all the opportunity to just extend Skytrain to King George or Fraser from King George station already, and that didn't prevent Surrey First, so no.


I think the LRT debacle was really just the pinnacle of the 'Rail for the Valley' crowd. I think the election proved that most people in Surrey, at least, really just want Skytrain more than they care about visuals of Elevated Rail.

It has been Diane Watts' pet project since 2011, and Hepner carried the torch from her in 2014. It was Watts' election that threw the Langley extension out of the window, and Hepner buried it deep into the ground. Now we'll have to dig it back to the surface.

[BirchTrain]

I've been seeing posts by people saying that SkyTrain to Langley would mostly benefit Langley. One such comment said something along the lines of "benefit would be 80% Langley, 20% Surrey." Someone please enlighten me on how that works. From what I and every sane person sees, most of the extension would be in Surrey. No extension out to Aldergrove, just to Downtown Langley City.

Yes, Langley would benefit tremendously from SkyTrain, but so would people who live along Fraser Highway in Surrey and the ones who live along future feeder bus lines if the extension is built. Rapid transit not only serves the people who live near it, but also people who live a distance away. They get to connect to the regional rail network too.

The argument appears to be that the terminuses get development, while the stations in the middle are left out. One just needs to look at the original SkyTrain line. Yes, New West has lots of development, and downtown Vancouver is downtown, but look at Metrotown and Joyce. 2 stations smack dab in the middle of the Expo Line that have serious development and densification. Brentwood, in the middle of the M-Line, also has the same thing happening. So does Oakridge and Marine Drive. The argument is simply false.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

I realize that- however, that space is generally likely only going to used up piecemeal in order to provide enough space for future expansion.

I don't know, I'm honestly just not optimistic that there's going to be enough willpower to stop the redevelopment near a convergence of two transit lines, SFU or not. Especially once the current plans to densify near town centers are completed- densifying on other stations is going to become more a priority.


Taking down SFH generally causes more a ruckus than taking down Industrial lots, after all.

We have had a lot of that. Still, how much densification should we reasonably expect? A gondola and a UniverCity-sized village "only" requires everything between Lamar Advertising and ICBC, maybe the greenspace directly southeast.

As for SFHs, it depends on the residents; the people living on Cambie and Oak are currently falling over each other trying to sell their houses to developers. The problem in using the suburbs is more to do with them being on the opposite end of Lougheed - a seven-lane arterial is generally bad for walkability.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by BirchTrain

The argument appears to be that the terminuses get development, while the stations in the middle are left out. One just needs to look at the original SkyTrain line. Yes, New West has lots of development, and downtown Vancouver is downtown, but look at Metrotown and Joyce. 2 stations smack dab in the middle of the Expo Line that have serious development and densification. Brentwood, in the middle of the M-Line, also has the same thing happening. So does Oakridge and Marine Drive. The argument is simply false.

The argument also appears to be that Fleetwood, Cloverdale and Langley City are "lesser" suburbs, and that with the Fraser extension, they're robbing Newton and Guildford of development that's rightfully "theirs."

Never mind that all the town centres are equally sh*tty at this point in time. Or that King George or 104th are completely free to be rezoned and planned for mixed-use lowrises literally right now - works just fine for Broadway, after all.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Never mind that all the town centres are equally sh*tty at this point in time. Or that King George or 104th are completely free to be rezoned and planned for mixed-use lowrises literally right now - works just fine for Broadway, after all.

Yes. Agreed. These town centres have aged and it shows (minus certain parts of Guildford).

Besides all of the town centres seeing some decent re-development, the Expo extension would connect the rest of Surrey much more effectively than the SNG line (whether it's Skytrain or whatever) would. All they would need to do is connect some N-S bus lines to the new parts of the extension, and voila!

The originial design would hit more town centres plus Langley, which is why I am supportive for this original design.

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by BirchTrain

I've been seeing posts by people saying that SkyTrain to Langley would mostly benefit Langley. One such comment said something along the lines of "benefit would be 80% Langley, 20% Surrey." Someone please enlighten me on how that works. From what I and every sane person sees, most of the extension would be in Surrey. No extension out to Aldergrove, just to Downtown Langley City.

Yes, Langley would benefit tremendously from SkyTrain, but so would people who live along Fraser Highway in Surrey and the ones who live along future feeder bus lines if the extension is built. Rapid transit not only serves the people who live near it, but also people who live a distance away. They get to connect to the regional rail network too.

The argument appears to be that the terminuses get development, while the stations in the middle are left out. One just needs to look at the original SkyTrain line. Yes, New West has lots of development, and downtown Vancouver is downtown, but look at Metrotown and Joyce. 2 stations smack dab in the middle of the Expo Line that have serious development and densification. Brentwood, in the middle of the M-Line, also has the same thing happening. So does Oakridge and Marine Drive. The argument is simply false.

I think people fail to realize is that the Surrey/Langley border is 196th street and not 176th. People think anything east of 176th is Langley. There has been a lot of development inside Surrey east of 176th. Skytrain tends to attract intensification and bus routes tend to head towards Skytrain lines. Building out towards Langley is the right move. The now dead LRT would not have instantly transformed all the areas it would have gone through. 104th ave has been a mess for decades despite having buses travel along it. A streetcar would not change that situation on its own.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

I think people fail to realize is that the Surrey/Langley border is 196th street and not 176th. People think anything east of 176th is Langley. There has been a lot of development inside Surrey east of 176th. Skytrain tends to attract intensification and bus routes tend to head towards Skytrain lines. Building out towards Langley is the right move. The now dead LRT would not have instantly transformed all the areas it would have gone through. 104th ave has been a mess for decades despite having buses travel along it. A streetcar would not change that situation on its own.

The thing is, 104th was never on the table for Skytrain (at least not yet due to low projected demand); unfortunate, because it's probably the best place for redevelopment, and showing its age the most. So that's a shame.

Also, it would hopefully cause Pacific Place (or whatever that empty building was called) to finally find a 'worthy' tenant the owner was waiting for.

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by fredinno

The thing is, 104th was never on the table for Skytrain (at least not yet due to low projected demand); unfortunate, because it's probably the best place for redevelopment, and showing its age the most. So that's a shame.

Also, it would hopefully cause Pacific Place (or whatever that empty building was called) to finally find a 'worthy' tenant the owner was waiting for.

The owner of that failed former Asian Centre is a California lawyer with no intention of selling and will only lease the whole building to 1 tenant. Therefore, the rusting Supersave fence continues.

Sure 104th could use rapid transit but not the way it is currently designed. Removing any lanes of traffic is a "no go" for now anyway. It is a major east/west corridor. They would have to buy up land on either side of 104th ave to create new lanes for an "LRT" or less for Skytrain towers. Changing 104th ave into a lazy transit place for people to walk, cycle etc was rejected in the last election. When cars start to become the lesser choice for commuters, then the conversation should be about changing major corridors like 104th ave.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

The owner of that failed former Asian Centre is a California lawyer with no intention of selling and will only lease the whole building to 1 tenant. Therefore, the rusting Supersave fence continues.

Sure 104th could use rapid transit but not the way it is currently designed. Removing any lanes of traffic is a "no go" for now anyway. It is a major east/west corridor. They would have to buy up land on either side of 104th ave to create new lanes for an "LRT" or less for Skytrain towers. Changing 104th ave into a lazy transit place for people to walk, cycle etc was rejected in the last election. When cars start to become the lesser choice for commuters, then the conversation should be about changing major corridors like 104th ave.

i guess its too small (and too late to apply) for Amazon's 2nd HQ ...

perhaps WeWork can use more space?

[Trainguy]

Today is the day it formally begins. Surrey council is meeting to adopt the motion to cancel the LRT project. I am sure a lot of crap will be thrown back and forth in the media before the bigger meeting with the Mayor's council happens. This is going to be an interesting journey. The outcome is uncertain for sure.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

Today is the day it formally begins. Surrey council is meeting to adopt the motion to cancel the LRT project. I am sure a lot of crap will be thrown back and forth in the media before the bigger meeting with the Mayor's council happens. This is going to be an interesting journey. The outcome is uncertain for sure.

Sounds like a day of celebration.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Sounds like a day of celebration.

It is a day for optimism, but not celebration.

The mayor’s of Coquitlam, Richmond, New West, and the North Shore so far are not listening to reason / fighting the momentum.

[dpogue]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

Today is the day it formally begins. Surrey council is meeting to adopt the motion to cancel the LRT project. I am sure a lot of crap will be thrown back and forth in the media before the bigger meeting with the Mayor's council happens. This is going to be an interesting journey. The outcome is uncertain for sure.

Originally Posted by Surrey Now Leader (emphasis mine)

#BREAKING: Second motion of new #SurreyBC council is to "cancel" the Surrey-Newton-Guildford light rail line. Passes unanimously. It asks staff to "stop all work" on LRT and "immediately" start working with TransLink on a SkyTrain extension down Fraser Highway.

from https://twitter.com/SurreyNowLeader/...54608274907138

[logicbomb]

Will once again reiterate the obvious. This is bittersweet.

Fantastic news that LRT has been cancelled but I fear all public transportation investments will be non-existent over the next few years. Onus will be on Translink to better public transportation with minimal investments from the City.

Most of the transportation money will likely be allocated towards road improvement projects in South Surrey and Clayton Heights.

How do I read this already? Well I overheard someone on the inside confirm that Phase II of the 105 ave connector will be officially scrapped. A shame as the corridor carried a curb separated bike lane that would have connected Guildford to Central Surrey.

SurreyFirst was a god awful party that was out of touch with the city with regards to LRT but they delivered some nifty bike infrastructure in the city and at least delivered on their promise to better transit infrastructure (new bus shelters).