Surrey/South of Fraser Rapid Transit Discussion | Proposed

[nname]

Just pretend we're in 1980 and we want to build a rapid transit line out of Downtown Vancouver. There are three candidate routes:
1) a short east-west line along Hastings to the highway and park-and-ride at PNE
2) a longer north-south line towards Richmond, which can potentially serve Ladner with a BRT system (total population 180k)
3) an even longer diagonal line across much of the industrial area in Burnaby, to serve the sprawing communities of New Westminster and Surrey (total population 190k)

(Note: the combined population of Vancouver and Burnaby at that time was about 550k - this include the west side that was not served by either of these options)

And you have three choices of technologies: mini-metro, LRT, or BRT.

Which one would you choose?

[Whalleyboy]

I will not deny I think it warrents a upgrade from what it is now to something like BRT or LRT

But i just dont see it being worth a skytrain route

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by allan_kuan

This might not take into account that as of the last release of bus pass-ups a lot of them happened on the 502 between Surrey and Langley. Whether that is just because of the size or frequency buses that are run on the route, or some other reason (aka the mythical mismanagement issue), I think service down that way is still warranted.

The 502 is the most direct route to the SkyTrain. That's why there's lots of pass-ups. The Fraser Hwy is a straight cut across town and the 502 goes down it. That bus route isn't much slower than driving.

I think that rather than think of where the "line" will go, it would be better to discuss where the stations would go in a Newton Line, a Fraser Hwy Line and a 104th Ave. line. Then, you can look at catchment areas, redevelopment potential (which really is the goal... creating TOD) and popular destinations (malls, hospitals, etc.)

[LeftCoaster]

What do you guys think of this as a solution to the South of Surrey rapid transit issue.

Allows for direct no transfer trips from Surrey Central to both downtown and UBC. In addition it allows for the millennium line to be somewhat less useless when the evergreen line comes online.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Any thoughts, criticisms or advice on the plan?

[nname]

I like the purple line - the through routing is not something I've think of before. It'll sure make Gateway station less useless. But instead of running the line all the way south, maybe it would be even more useful to turn to Newton on the 72nd?

The yellow line - I don't think it is technically feasible. Without new tracks and platforms, the turning at Columbia will drastically limit the capacity of Expo Line - imagine each train in each direction have to take 2-3 minutes to enter, stop, and leave Columbia station. This drop the minimum headway for Expo Line from 75 seconds to around 4-5 minutes.

[LeftCoaster]

I was thinking the construction of the M line extension could involve the construction of a third platform at Columbia, which would help somewhat.

Reducing headway on expo is the prime concern I have with the plan, but since millennium is interlining with both expo and evergreen in this plan I would think it could represent every third car or so on the expo portion so it wouldn't drastically hamper the surrey side of the line. Also empty cars could do the Columbia-DT run at peak hours on the expo line to make up for the reduced surrey headway.

[jhausner]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

The 502 is the most direct route to the SkyTrain. That's why there's lots of pass-ups. The Fraser Hwy is a straight cut across town and the 502 goes down it. That bus route isn't much slower than driving.

I think that rather than think of where the "line" will go, it would be better to discuss where the stations would go in a Newton Line, a Fraser Hwy Line and a 104th Ave. line. Then, you can look at catchment areas, redevelopment potential (which really is the goal... creating TOD) and popular destinations (malls, hospitals, etc.)

My color codes are as follows:

Low Redevelopment Probability
Medium Redevelopment Probability
High Redevelopment Probability

I am not taking into account already established densities and such. That would make this far too long. Just based on the location of the station, assume the population in and around is sufficient already (except [future] stations)

These are also JUST MY OPINION

Fraser Highway Route towards Langley:

1) KGB start
2) 140th Street (Outpatient Facility, Green Timbers park, RCMP E Div, some minor new development, main North-South alternate route to KGB)
2) 148th Street [Future], probably not in first round
3) 152nd Street (Major North-South route alternate to KGB direct connect South Surrey to Fleetwood to Guildford, business center with quite a few jobs)
4) 160th Street (Center of Fleetwood, dense development around, business center, another North-South route to Highway 1 and Guildford)
5) 166th or 168th Street (Fortis BC, businsses, Fleetwood Arena and rec center, Hotel)
6) 188th Street (Clayton Heights center, businesses, major residential developments)
7) 64th Avenue [Future?] (Development starting around this area but there isn't a lot actually)
8) From there not sure if you would connect to Willowbrook or head towards Langley City. Either spot is self explanitory. You'd probably want to be in or near 200th and the bypass. The main business focus is around there.

KGB from Central Surrey to Newton:

1) 96th Avenue (Hospital, medical offices, CRA, Queen Elizabeth school, edge of "Downtown Surrey") Makes more sense than @ Fraser Highway since Fraser Highway and KGB is close enough to SkyTrain already.
2) 92nd Avenue [Future], not enough development yet
3) 88th Avenue (Major East-West route through Surrey from Highway 91 to Fort Langley, a lot of residential, Bear Creek Park)
4) 80th Avenue (Residential area, businesses, more recent higher density developments)
5) 78th Avenue [Future], businesses, but not entirely warrented yet
6) 76th Avenue major businesses, Superstore, industry, residences, 76th is a looping newton on the west side connecting back to KGB @ 68th)
7) 72nd Avenue terminus @ new exchange. Newton center, new development plans
--- going onto South Surrey
8) 68th Avenue [Future?], residential area, businesses, may not be required yet
9) 64th Avenue, major East-West route from Highway 91 to Langley, residential, major new construction along route
10) KGB@Highway 10 maybe. When Surrey city hall has moved you have RCMP pre-trial but that's about it. Could serve as a point of connection for a future route down Highway 10 connecting Panorama through Cloverdale to Langley
11) Highway 99 park & ride, self explanitory
12) KGB between 32nd and 152nd (major business center and newer development)
13) 152nd @ 24th (east-west route through South Surrey connecting to Grandview)
13) 152nd @ 20th [Future]
14) Semiahmoo terminus (center of South Surrey)

104th to Guildford:

1) KGB (self explanitory)
2) Whalley Blvd (major redevelopment point, north-south ring road around Surrey Central)
3) 140th Avenue (Major North-South alternate to KGB, revelopment spot, edge of Surrey Central, a few blocks from the famed empty building on 104th)
4) 144th Street [Future], probably not required yet, but some business and residences, not much development though on the horizon
5) 146th Street, newer development, Superstore, maybe future too
6) 148th Street, more major north-south route, edge of Guildford higher density developments, businesses along this stretch
7) 150th, most likely terminus, where new bus loop will be located, Guildford town center
-- if continuted
8) 152nd, other edge of Guildford, major North-South route through Surrey from highway to South Surrey, development focal point, rec center, hotel, businesses
9) 154th street [Future], loops onto 108th, bypass for Guildford, major residential development just a few blocks south along this stretch
10) 156 to park and ride, terminus at new park and ride for rapid bus? Not sure exactly where this is supposed to be. New North-South road connecting Fraser Heights to Guildford and rest of Surrey.

[Whalleyboy]

Well i fixed my map to add station in spots i think
For the most part they match with jhausner thoughts

[nname]

Would a rapid transit line need that much stations? I don't think rapid transit is ever meant to replace local bus service, as it would take forever to go anywhere if it have to stop every 200m or so.

I think any type of rapid transit would have similar stops as the postponed 399 B-Line:

Guildford (152 St)
148 St
144 St
138 St
Surrey Central
King George
96th Ave
88th Ave
76th Ave
72nd Ave
64th Ave
Hwy 10
South Surrey P&R
32 Ave (148 St)
28 Ave (152 St)
24 Ave
18 Ave
White Rock Centre (16 Ave)

The minimum distance would be 800m except the White Rock terminus.

[jhausner]

I'm talking LRT/BRT. That isn't rapid transit by my definition. If it was Skytrain then I'd agree with your more spread out distances. But LRT/BRT absolutely replaces the buses. I mean what would be the point of running busses AND BRT/LRT?

This isn't putting an express line down KGB or 104th. This is increasing capacity. BRT/LRT stations are spread like buses. In the LRT/BRT world you have 3 types of stops. Basic, large, and station. Basic are your typical bus stops, large are well, larger, and stations are major centers. This is unlike SkyTrain which has massive stations at every stop so obviously you can't build those every 5 feet.

I still stand by my opinion that SkyTrain is absolutely wrong down 104th or KGB at this stage. The only place it makes sense to me is down Fraser Highway. In which case you'll note I have far less stations and they are spread no differently than the current SkyTrain lines.

And besides that I don't really see how my stop list is any different than yours unless you missed the FUTURE word I stuck beside several of the ones up there. Much like the future stations along Canada line in many spots. If you take my FUTURE stops away then we're pretty much the same. Differences if you remove the future stops?

1) I said 140th, you said 144th. Not a big deal.
2) 138th or Whalley Boulevard. The stations wouldn't be at every cross road so obviously would be between these 2 roads. Whalley Boulevard is basically 137th.
2) You didn't include 80th.

That's about it? I mean you said 28th instead of 20th. That's semantics though since you also say 24th which is 4 blocks away and I said 24th and 20th which are also 4 blocks away. There's much more development potential around 24th and 20th in South Surrey than at 28th which is why I bumped them back a bit.

So really not much difference... again read my list as BRT/LRT and keep in mine future stations. For SkyTrain I absolutely agree then the futures you'd probably remove outright. But I still think seeing SkyTrain down these 2 routes won't happen for 20-30 years.

[nname]

Well, I just don't think any stop spacing less than 3-4 blocks (600-800m) is suitable for a system that meant to be rapid. If it is meant to replace local bus service, then its not rapid transit.. it's just a streetcar or articulated bus route. Why even bother to spend billions if the same result can be achieved by running articulated bus every 3-4 minutes?

Keep in mind that most LRT system have long platforms to make up for the loss in frequency due to at-grade crossings. If a system is built for high capacity, most likely the platform will be long enough to have two entrances one block apart. When placing several stations 400m apart, you'll almost end up with a system with alternating station platforms...

[jhausner]

Originally Posted by nname

Well, I just don't think any stop spacing less than 3-4 blocks (600-800m) is suitable for a system that meant to be rapid. If it is meant to replace local bus service, then its not rapid transit.. it's just a streetcar or articulated bus route. Why even bother to spend billions if the same result can be achieved by running articulated bus every 3-4 minutes?

Keep in mind that most LRT system have long platforms to make up for the loss in frequency due to at-grade crossings. If a system is built for high capacity, most likely the platform will be long enough to have two entrances one block apart. When placing several stations 400m apart, you'll almost end up with a system with alternating station platforms...

In Portland (a city many seem to want to mirror LRT after) the average distance between stops within the main city is 350 meters.

Just going by that, distances:

1) King George Station to 96th avenue = 670 meters to intersection
2) 96th to 92nd = 762 meters
3) 92nd to 88th = 822 meters
4) 88th to 80th = 1600 meters
5) 80th to 78th = 396 meters
6) 78th to 76th = 411 meters (~800 meters from 80th to 76th)
7) 76th to 72nd = 792 meters

I think you get the idea

Just as another point

1) KGB to between Whalley Boulevard/138th = 365 meters
2) Whalley Boulevard/138 to 140th = 480 meters
3) 140th to 144th = 792 meters
4) 144th to 148th = 762 meters
5) 148th to 150th = 441 meters

I think you get my point. Unfortunately a lot of people even those in Surrey don't really respect the distances between blocks in Surrey. They see 96th to 92nd and go "Hey that is only 4 blocks" but fail to realize by Vancouver's standards it is really around 8-9 blocks. So going from 100th to 72nd isn't 28 blocks but in Vancouver more like 56.

So comparing distances, going from 100th to 72nd in Surrey is give or take a few blocks like going from Olympic Village to South West Marine Drive.

Going from Surrey Central to 72nd is Olympic Village to Bridgeport.

Canada Line has 6 stations with a few future ones slated in that stretch. So taking 6, the above LRT plan is about 8. Seem as drastic?

Only a few spreads in the above distances are less than your 600-800 meter grouping and even those aren't even at the average spacing with Portland for its LRT station spread. Again remember their average is around 350 meters between stations in the city.

So I still really don't think it is a huge issue from a 'rapid' point of view.

The other thing you're forgetting is the "rapid" part of LRT/BRT doesn't come from the amount of stations so much as it comes from the semi-right of way and dedicated lanes they enjoy. Yes they hit traffic lights conceivably (depending on how timings work) but they don't get stuck waiting for 9 lights at 76th Avenue heading south due to traffic like buses would even articulated ones. Those 9 lights mean a bus still takes upwards of 10 minutes just to do 2 blocks. An LRT even with stops at every 4 blocks could cover the entire of 100th ave to 76th in 10 minutes if it had dedicated lanes.

Also keep in mind LRT on roads with cars or even BRT will NEVER equal or come close to the 'rapidness' of a Skytrain that can zip between stations at 80kph or seperated grade rapid service. I still don't think KGB or 104th require SkyTrain at this stage. Not for the development along the route. We want to get something to start encouraging development and quite frankly people don't take buses because they can't rely on them.

Just today I was driving down King George around 76th and I passed 3 x 321 buses about 7 cars from each other. Why would all 3 buses be so clumped up? Most likely the last 2 were full. That means someone before the first bus either waited 3 times as long for their bus or the person after the next bus has to wait 3 times as long because the buses aren't keeping schedule. When buses are full they unfortunately don't drop 10 additional buses to keep the schedule. What happens is you suddenly go from 5 minutes between buses to 20 in peak hour because the last 3 buses zipped by quickly.

On busy roads in the lower mainland, buses simply can't be relied on like an LRT or BRT so people are encouraged to jump in their cars. That's what we want to get away from less than having the train get you from Surrey Central to Newton in 30 seconds.

At least in my opinion. You are obviously entitled to disagree with my reasoning. Debate and discussion are never a bad thing because it gets people thinking.

[nname]

Well, sometimes I think average is not really a good way of measurement. Consider a system A that have 10 stations evenly spaced 800m apart, and B have two groups of stations 400m apart and a long gap of 4000m between the group. Both systems have average station spacing of 800m, but unless there is absolutely nothing in the 4000m gap, I think A would be by far a better system. The average for KGB line is certainly skewed by the 1600m gap between two stations. Even though the spacing for KGB and 104th lines looks similar for the rest of the stations, the average spacing of your KGB line is 925m, the 104th Ave line is 640m.

If you compare your list with the stop spacing on Canada Line, the difference is actually quite large except for Olympic Village - Broadway City Hall (which I also think they are way too close):

Waterfront to Van City Ctr - 660m
... to Yaletown - 1020m
... to Olympic Village - 1050m
... to Broadway-City Hall - 430m
... to King Edward - 1530m
... to Oakridge - 1830m
... to Langara - 840m
... to Marine Drive - 1780m
... to Bridgeport - 1980m
... to Templeton - 1610m
... to Sea Island Ctr - 700m
... to YVR Airport - 1600m
Bridgeport to Aberdeen - 1580m
... to Lansdowne - 750m
... to Brighouse - 930m

Even the original Evergreen LRT proposal have longer station spacing for most of the route:

Lougheed to Cameron - 1080m
... to Burquitlam - 990m
... to Barnet - 2040m
... to Moody - 1280m
... to Buller - 730m
... to Ioco - 1030m
... to Falcon - 600m
... to Coq Central - 1330m
... to Lincoln - 730m
... to Guildford - 600m
... to Douglas - 380m

And even with those spacing, one of the main issue with the line is that it is way too slow. If you ride Calgary's C-Train or Portland's MAX LRT, you might notice that it is really slow once going into city centre (although speed limit and street crossings also contributes to the slow running speed). I think your 10min travel time (29km/h) might be a bit over-optimistic. The Evergreen LRT line have similar operating speed but much larger station spacing, and yet the average speed is only 27km/h. Toronto's Transit City LRT have average station spacing of 400-650m in the at-grade portions, and it is going to be really slow...

[tybuilding]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

What do you guys think of this as a solution to the South of Surrey rapid transit issue.

Allows for direct no transfer trips from Surrey Central to both downtown and UBC. In addition it allows for the millennium line to be somewhat less useless when the evergreen line comes online.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Any thoughts, criticisms or advice on the plan?

There is no way a train could make it up 104th from the rail tracks on the pink line. That hill is San Francisco like, you would need to pull it with a cable. Will have to route onto 96 Ave or down to Scott Road.

[nname]

Originally Posted by tybuilding

There is no way a train could make it up 104th from the rail tracks on the pink line. That hill is San Francisco like, you would need to pull it with a cable. Will have to route onto 96 Ave or down to Scott Road.

The steepest on 104th is 18% grade. But if a 1km tunnel is built from 124A to Old Yale, then the grade can be reduced to 6%.

Click here for data

[Zassk]

That's crazy talk. A 1 km tunnel? On a line to Scott Road? I challenge anyone to come up with a business case for that.

[tybuilding]

Originally Posted by Zassk

That's crazy talk. A 1 km tunnel? On a line to Scott Road? I challenge anyone to come up with a business case for that.

Not much point, might as well take 96 Ave, which feeds higher density housing and commercial development already found on that street, then up 128 st, 132 st or King George.

[jhausner]

Originally Posted by nname

Well, sometimes I think average is not really a good way of measurement. Consider a system A that have 10 stations evenly spaced 800m apart, and B have two groups of stations 400m apart and a long gap of 4000m between the group. Both systems have average station spacing of 800m, but unless there is absolutely nothing in the 4000m gap, I think A would be by far a better system. The average for KGB line is certainly skewed by the 1600m gap between two stations. Even though the spacing for KGB and 104th lines looks similar for the rest of the stations, the average spacing of your KGB line is 925m, the 104th Ave line is 640m.

No of course average space is not really a good way of measuting. The point was that in major metro areas stations become tighter and tighter. For example you can pretty much throw a rock between Columbia and New Westminster stations. Pretty much the same deal between Royal Oak, Metrotown, Patterson, and Joyce. Downtown is the same thing.

The other piece I think you are somewhat confusing is the purpose of LRT/BRT vs SkyTrain in Surrey. Surrey's plan for LRT is not for the purpose of getting people from Newton to Skytrain to Downtown Vancouver as fast as possible. The system is meant to serve as mass transit for within Surrey. So for someone going from 88th area to Newton, or 76th to 96th, or vice versa. Or even from 88th area to Guildford.

Contrast to SkyTrain whose entire purpose is really in general to get people from major point A to major point B.

Regardless I also think if you're going to argue that you shouldn't use average because it doesn't make a lot of sense, I counter that you shouldn't place an arbitrary must be between X and Y distance for each station also. By that point you may need to between 168th and Granview, put a station at 176th and Fraser Highway. Does that make sense? no not really. My station points are not based on distances but based on the specific areas in question and knowedge of them, current and upcoming developments, and location of sources and destinations within reasonable walking distance.

I do agree with you though that taking an average doesn't actually make a lot of sense but it was more to make a point that some major cities with LRT/BRT can have stations and many of them quite close together due to density and development designations.

If you compare your list with the stop spacing on Canada Line, the difference is actually quite large except for Olympic Village - Broadway City Hall (which I also think they are way too close):

Waterfront to Van City Ctr - 660m
... to Yaletown - 1020m
... to Olympic Village - 1050m
... to Broadway-City Hall - 430m
... to King Edward - 1530m
... to Oakridge - 1830m
... to Langara - 840m
... to Marine Drive - 1780m
... to Bridgeport - 1980m
... to Templeton - 1610m
... to Sea Island Ctr - 700m
... to YVR Airport - 1600m
Bridgeport to Aberdeen - 1580m
... to Lansdowne - 750m
... to Brighouse - 930m

Granted but again like your argument I shouldn't use averages, you can't use those distances to really prove a whole lot outside that specific line. You'll note those stations are at major focal points on that line. If there is no focal point then there isn't a station.

Same with mine up KGB. 76th is a major focal point. 88th is a major focal point. 96th is a major focal point. 80th is an argument sake but those of us who grew up in the area know that there is a walk way @ 80th avenue that connects KGB to the area around 140th street. 140th only has 1 spot pedestrian wise where you can actually get to King George between 88th and 76th. That's at 80th. So if you don't put a station at 80th you're in effect cutting off several thousand residential units just 5 minutes walk away via the walk way. Those people would never walk to 76th or to 88th.

That's why I would pick a spot like 80th. Not because of distance, but because of logic.

Either way we can agree to disagree. I put my station spots based on being born and raised in Surrey living both in Guildford for a number of years then in Newton along KGB for a number of years. They make sense to me but I'll grant the notion that I may and probably are not right in where stations should be. More often than not, and we can both agree on that I think, stations are just as often a result of money and budget. The less budge you have, the less stations you get typically.

Even the original Evergreen LRT proposal have longer station spacing for most of the route:

Lougheed to Cameron - 1080m
... to Burquitlam - 990m
... to Barnet - 2040m
... to Moody - 1280m
... to Buller - 730m
... to Ioco - 1030m
... to Falcon - 600m
... to Coq Central - 1330m
... to Lincoln - 730m
... to Guildford - 600m
... to Douglas - 380m

Again station spots are based on specific current and future developments. Burquitlam to Barnet, not much between there so no reason to put more stations between. Barnet to Moody, same deal. But where it makes sense, Guildfrod to Douglas, the distance is 380 meters.

Stations to me again should be placed where they will be needed and will grab a lot of ridership. Not just where a distance threshold is set. By the threshold notion there shouldn't be a station at Columbia, shouldn't be one at Patterson, and probably not even one at Royal Oak.

And even with those spacing, one of the main issue with the line is that it is way too slow. If you ride Calgary's C-Train or Portland's MAX LRT, you might notice that it is really slow once going into city centre (although speed limit and street crossings also contributes to the slow running speed). I think your 10min travel time (29km/h) might be a bit over-optimistic. The Evergreen LRT line have similar operating speed but much larger station spacing, and yet the average speed is only 27km/h. Toronto's Transit City LRT have average station spacing of 400-650m in the at-grade portions, and it is going to be really slow...

Slower than what though? LRT/BRT isn't meant to be really fast. That's what RRT and express lines are for. If speed is the abolute requirement then the only solution is RRT down all these routes. But Surrey's vision isn't that, Surrey's vision is for an alternative to the bus and something that is close enough to the car to make people willing to jump on.

But if we're going to use math:

Expo Line = 28.9km @ 39 minutes = 44.4km/h average
Millenium Line = 20.3km @ 27 minutes = 45km/h average
Canada Line = 19.2km @ 25 minutes = 46km/h

For Evergreen LRT I think you're talking the new SkyTrain line? Not sure where you get the average speed though since it isn't constructed yet or do you mean a different Evergreen Line? If you do mean Evergreen in Coquitlam though then unless I'm completely ignorant as to the fact the trains will run half the speed as other SkyTrain lines, that line should be around 40-45km/h average too.

Again though LRT on the street or BRT will never be as quick as SkyTrain.

If you take the line from Surrey Central to 72nd Ave though it is 6.3 km. If you average 10 minutes = 38km/h average, 15 minutes = 25.2km/h, 20 minutes = 18.9km/h.

You'll also note in my quote that I was talking about King George station (100th ave ) to 76th Ave @ 10 minutes. Not the entire line. That stretch is 4.6km. At the speed of the 321 bus on a good day that stretch would take it pretty much 10 minutes (10 minutes 22 seconds which we all know a bus can't be that precise). And again more stops for the bus between that than even my LRT station plans.

Compare to a bus, 321 line which takes in best case scenario to do the same distance, 14 minutes. So in the best case scenario LRT simply has to average 25.2km/h to match the speed of a bus in the best case scenario. I'd thus argue that an LRT line should move quite faster than a bus on average given 1) it has less stations than the 321 down that stretch and 2) it will not get caught in traffic during peak periods slowing progress.

So doing that stretch in between 10 and 15 minutes I don't think is impossible or crazy even with the amount of stations I've marked out. Again not every station needs to be a full station. Some can be simply bus stop style which it would stop at short duration.

I guess you could argue though that an LRT line would need to actually stop at every stop whereas the bus doesn't if there is nobody getting off or getting on. My answer to that is that Translink's schedules are based on average stop count per stretch not peak or no stops. So comparing the schedule time is as accurate as one can get outside of the realities of traffic and a bus driver with a lead foot.

I hope I've made the argument clear as to the fact my station points are not wholly unrealistic. Are they correct? Probably not entirely. Not without sitting down and doing a major year long research study of as many variables as possible. But again, not wholly unrealistic.

[jhausner]

Originally Posted by tybuilding

There is no way a train could make it up 104th from the rail tracks on the pink line. That hill is San Francisco like, you would need to pull it with a cable. Will have to route onto 96 Ave or down to Scott Road.

I agree for that line the pink line would most likely need to turn up 96th then north on 128th to meet up with 104th. I don't think any train technology could make it up that less 104th stretch hill and a tunnel is to me a little unreasonable. If they wanted to have the line follow that stretch then rather than a tunnel building a viaduct would probably be the better alternative, but the best would be an L like you said.

[memememe76]

I just returned from San Fran after a long absence and I have to say I have no interest in LRT in Surrey. OMG, their MUNI is sooooo slow! I am kinda figuring out why there are supporters of LRT along Broadway. There is one line that stop every. single. block.

No to LRT. Skytrain with BRT.