Surrey Langley Skytrain - Expo Line Extension | Proposed

[paulsparrow]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

I think the only reason people in Surrey want LRT is because it has been hyped and pitched as "attainable".

I think if Translink or the Province stepped in and said, "No, you are getting Skytrain and that's that", most people would be fine with that. You would only get a few hardcore light rail advocates and a lot of people who are just against any spending complain. Outside of LRT fans, most people who support LRT in Surrey just think it will result in the smallest bill possible, and don't actually care about the results/success of the line as they will never use transit ever.



As a Surrey resident I support raising the taxes to finish roads and sidewalks. So many need it so badly.

I would also like to see a legalization of suites and a crackdown on unreported ones. Not only is it lost revenue, but the city hasn't planned for them, resulting in streets that are swamped with parked cars at night. And they can't plan for proper transit because they don't know how many people live where.



I don't think this could be further from the truth. There is low density in parts, but there is also very high density in areas, and some of those areas have unfinished roads with no sidewalks.

The roads are from a legacy of low density, when they went through the empty countryside, connecting vast ranches. But as land has been subdivided and turned into townhouse and condo complexes, the roads between are left in their original horse trail state.

There will be a subdivision of hundreds of townhomes and Condos, then the sidewalk won't go through the next block to the major road where there is a bus line. There will be an area that was always industrial, that has had housing built up around, and new office/retail complexes built in it, and the streets are now a major corridor linking one side of Surrey to the other, but untouched from 30 years ago. like so:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.14818...7i13312!8i6656

And I love this:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.14818...7i13312!8i6656

In South Surrey at Morgan Heights, the roads in the area are horrendous, but more people live there per sqkm than in many parts of Vancouver or Burnaby.


I do find it a bit insane that Surrey would be tempted to go do and finance LRT on it's own, when it can't even find money and finish streets that are major arterials and have been needing upgrades for decades.

Funny how people who live in Surrey get Surrey while others outside Surrey quote all sorts of stupid stuff. Good post BCPhil

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by paulsparrow

Funny how people who live in Surrey get Surrey while others outside Surrey quote all sorts of stupid stuff. Good post BCPhil

Very true. I also love how many people outside of Surrey keep claiming there is no density. I have and will continue to challenge them to jump in their car (since they can't take a bus) and just spend a day driving all around Surrey. Many neighborhoods are building and have built complexes far more dense than the majority of Metro-Vancouver itself. Just because the city is younger and hasn't had the density for 200 million years, doesn't distract from the simple realities.

http://blogs.ubc.ca/maps/files/2013/...n_Density1.jpg

4 (almost 5) years ago. Note Surrey (more spread out) has plenty of "blocks" of density where 5000+ people live per sq. km. Yes not the scale of Vancouver, but Vancouver too has a lot of low density areas. Those 5000+ people per sq km in Vancouver get bus service every 5-10 minutes every day. In Surrey they are lucky to get bus service and when they do it is every 30 to 60 minutes. Heck as BCPhil pointed out, many are lucky just to get a SIDEWALK...

Heck you don't even have to go far in Surrey... this is in Surrey Central.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.18609...2!8i6656?hl=en

Note the awesome sidewalk on 1 side of the road from probably the 1960s and the other side... sorry no sidewalk for you! Road is also outstandingly modern by a "downtown core" standpoint.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Very true. I also love how many people outside of Surrey keep claiming there is no density. I have and will continue to challenge them to jump in their car (since they can't take a bus) and just spend a day driving all around Surrey. Many neighborhoods are building and have built complexes far more dense than the majority of Metro-Vancouver itself. Just because the city is younger and hasn't had the density for 200 million years, doesn't distract from the simple realities.

http://blogs.ubc.ca/maps/files/2013/...n_Density1.jpg

The existing density it has would not be well served by the proposed LRT nor a Resurrection of the Interurban, which is why the argument gets brought up. It's because City of Surrey is using it as a give-away to developers to build towards Newton, an area that is actually lacking density. You want a rapid-bus line with good ridership a good decade before you consider putting rails anywhere, because if that ridership doesn't materialize, it won't magically appear with a super-expensive train.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Very true. I also love how many people outside of Surrey keep claiming there is no density. I have and will continue to challenge them to jump in their car (since they can't take a bus) and just spend a day driving all around Surrey.

I'd love them to try get a day pass and ride the bus - then they'd learn why many people feel that Surrey isn't getting their fair share. I've brought it up before (not going to go looking for the post) about how Richmond has better bus service, esp at night.

I wish Surrey would finally upgrade their main grid roads, esp east - west ones, and then go after TransLink for bus routes on some of those roads. One of the problems with bus service in Surrey is that it's almost all north - south with very little east - west service. It's no wonder that many people drive there instead of taking transit. It took decades for them to add a Surrey to Richmond bus route.

[GeeCee]

Originally Posted by paulsparrow

Funny how people who live in Surrey get Surrey while others outside Surrey quote all sorts of stupid stuff. Good post BCPhil

Are these the same kind of Surrey residents who keep saying that Surrey is a safe place to live while you see articles every other day about the latest murder there?

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by GeeCee

Are these the same kind of Surrey residents who keep saying that Surrey is a safe place to live while you see articles every other day about the latest murder there?

Where are all these "every other day" articles? Sure crime happens in Surrey, just like it does everywhere else.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Where are all these "every other day" articles? Sure crime happens in Surrey, just like it does everywhere else.

http://www.theprovince.com/news/dead...350/story.html

Sad story about a robbery where the father was shot trying to stop further harm against his family.

FTA: "According to data compiled by The Province, there have been 38 shootings in Surrey in the past 120 days or an average of one every three days."

Surrey is a mess right now. No use trying to deny it.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

http://www.theprovince.com/news/dead...350/story.html

Sad story about a robbery where the father was shot trying to stop further harm against his family.

FTA: "According to data compiled by The Province, there have been 38 shootings in Surrey in the past 120 days or an average of one every three days."

Surrey is a mess right now. No use trying to deny it.

I didn't say there wasn't any crime - and that's still not the "every other day" in Surrey hyperbole. Perhaps I should start commenting every time there's an attack in the DTES and say how terrible Vancouver is because of it...

Does this murder map make you feel any better? https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer...f&source=embed

[Pinion]

I just had dinner in Whalley this past weekend, just south of the Wave tower, and it did nothing to convince me that the area has density worthy of any attention. I parked in a grass lot next to the four storey condo I was visiting (brand new).

This is my anti-density, "happy to be a sleepy suburb" neighbourhood in 2014. Is there an area equivalent to this in Surrey, density wise? This is not even the most dense area on the north shore.


globalairphotos.com

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Sheba

I didn't say there wasn't any crime - and that's still not the "every other day" in Surrey hyperbole. Perhaps I should start commenting every time there's an attack in the DTES and say how terrible Vancouver is because of it...

Nobody in Vancouver is denying the DTES is a problem. Some people on this forum continue to deny that Surrey has a gun violence problem.

[logan5]

Trying to figure out what exactly the density of Surrey City Centre is. The Whalley Wkipedia page gives a population of 25 602 (city center), but doesn't give an area. Given all the parking lots, I wouldn't be surprised to see the population density lower than the average East Van neighbourhood. Victoria Dr., or South Fraser for example.

[Whalleyboy]

If i did the math right. I did some looking up Surrey city centre is about 5.81sq km. With a population of 25,602. So divide that by 5.81 and we get 4,406

[Meraki]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Nobody in Vancouver is denying the DTES is a problem. Some people on this forum continue to deny that Surrey has a gun violence problem.

And it's different problems. I live in North Surrey but I feel decently safer walking through the DTES over Surrey at night, hands over heels. DTES has homelessness and mental issue problems, but they keep to themselves. Surrey is where you have to worry about being robbed at knife/gunpoint or randomly murdered outside a community venue.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by Kisai

The existing density it has would not be well served by the proposed LRT nor a Resurrection of the Interurban, which is why the argument gets brought up. It's because City of Surrey is using it as a give-away to developers to build towards Newton, an area that is actually lacking density. You want a rapid-bus line with good ridership a good decade before you consider putting rails anywhere, because if that ridership doesn't materialize, it won't magically appear with a super-expensive train.

I agree. I happen to not like LRT at all and would take SkyTrain or even TRUE BRT any day over it. As BCPhil said, the reason most in Surrey are behind LRT is because it is seen as attainable where SkyTrain isn't.

Case and point, if Broadway can't even get a SkyTrain "Subway" RRT line and it is the busiest transit route in NORTH AMERICA what hope is there for Surrey in the next 20 years? 0 to none.

So LRT is attainable and most Surreyites I think are secretly hoping it is just attainable enough that it is pushing the pressure onto Translink and the Province to just say "OK FINE SKYTRAIN!" at which point we'll all sigh and be relieved.

You're spot on though that Newton has not a load of density overall. That is starting to change and there are a lot of dense development along 64th Avenue and South (towards Highway 10). But there's been no movement on the OCP change in Newton and only recently they said things will start with the new lake/pond/park whatever along 138th.

Guildford has far more density right now and based on focus areas of density so does Clayton and Fleetwood. Heck parts of South Surrey have far more density than most of Newton.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Nobody in Vancouver is denying the DTES is a problem. Some people on this forum continue to deny that Surrey has a gun violence problem.

Personally I don't think Surrey has a gun violence problem, it actually has a gang violence problem, the gun use is just happening to get into the news since we're hyper sensitive to firearms in Canada. There's been more random shootings in Vancouver this year than in Surrey. Nearly all the shootings in Surrey have been gangsters killing (or trying to, they've been really bad at it this year compared to last) each other. There have also been a bunch of gang relating stabbings too.

So I just lump it all into gang violence. I think that's more accurate but you're entitled to label it as you want.

We definitely have a gang violence problem and an overall gang problem period. Unfortunately it is squarely centered on the Indo-Canadian community and has been for 20 years since I was in elementary and high-school. Just not much I don't think the Police or Council can do about it until the Indo-Canadian community takes a good look at themselves and takes their collective heads out of the sand.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by logan5

Trying to figure out what exactly the density of Surrey City Centre is. The Whalley Wkipedia page gives a population of 25 602 (city center), but doesn't give an area. Given all the parking lots, I wouldn't be surprised to see the population density lower than the average East Van neighbourhood. Victoria Dr., or South Fraser for example.

2011 census had Surrey Central population at 28,420. Current projections are it is around 32,000 but we'll take the census number. Getting the measurements is fairly easy, "Surrey Central" is roughly (slightly smaller) 96th Avenue to 110th Avenue bounded by 132nd street and 140th street.

So that's 1.6km x 2.8km or 4.48km2. It's a bit less than that but whatever.

That puts the density:

in - 2011 @ 6343/km2
in - 2015 @ 7142/km2 projection (projections have been low historically btw)

Comparitively, Metrotown I can only find population from 2015 estimates, is 35,000 today. So 3,000 more than Surrey Central but the area is about 2.97km2.

So in - 2015 @ 11784/km2 in Metrotown. 7142 is still no slouch and if you went neighborhood by neighborhood along all SkyTrain lines I'm sure you'd fine Surrey Central still competes well for population density.

Unfortunately grass lots don't make it look dense and there are certainly no-man lands still and will be for coming time. But where does that line get drawn? There _are_ neighborhoods in Surrey today though that are > 7000/km2. They don't have high-rises but like I've said previously, you just take a drive out to Clayton or parts around Morgan Heights or Panorama Village and you'll go "wow ok they are cramming a lot into small spaces here." It all adds up. The image above of New West shows some high-rises (most in New West are shorties) but a lot of infill buildings. It's all those infill buildings that add up to density fast.

Look at Broadway. Most of its density is not from high-rises.

At the end though again we circle to this argument that somehow you must already have huge density to justify rapid transit when I've pointed out in other threads indisputably that the majority of our RRT has developed BEFORE density was ever established nearly everywhere from Metrotown to Lougheed, Coquitlam (which doesn't even compare to Surrey Central btw) to Brentwood, Joyce, Patterson, even New Westminster. They were all pretty much flat forests when SkyTrain went in. So just going on history, many parts of Surrey don't need to build density before RRT as that isn't a requirement anywhere they actually have more than many parts that have SkyTrain now had when it was first built.

Surrey did drop the ball though and it should be far more dense in Surrey Central than it is today due to failures of previous councils and we as citizens supported the no-investment councils for over a decade.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by jhausner

The image above of New West shows some high-rises (most in New West are shorties) but a lot of infill buildings. It's all those infill buildings that add up to density fast.

Look at Broadway. Most of its density is not from high-rises.

At the end though again we circle to this argument that somehow you must already have huge density to justify rapid transit when I've pointed out in other threads indisputably that the majority of our RRT has developed BEFORE density was ever established nearly everywhere from Metrotown to Lougheed, Coquitlam (which doesn't even compare to Surrey Central btw) to Brentwood, Joyce, Patterson, even New Westminster. They were all pretty much flat forests when SkyTrain went in. So just going on history, many parts of Surrey don't need to build density before RRT as that isn't a requirement anywhere they actually have more than many parts that have SkyTrain now had when it was first built.

That photo is of North Van, not New West. The seabus has obviously played a factor in its density but 40 years ago it was nothing as well, and the seabus is crap compared to skytrain. e.g. 30 minute intervals after 6:30pm, 12km/h maximum speed.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by jhausner

They were all pretty much flat forests when SkyTrain went in. So just going on history, many parts of Surrey don't need to build density before RRT as that isn't a requirement anywhere they actually have more than many parts that have SkyTrain now had when it was first built.

Surrey did drop the ball though and it should be far more dense in Surrey Central than it is today due to failures of previous councils and we as citizens supported the no-investment councils for over a decade.

This is an apples and oranges comparison though. The Interurban predated the Skytrain Expo line, which predated most automobile traffic.


What is conveniently omitted when the Interurban fans pipe up (eg Malcom Johnson,'s latest spam to a newspaper) is that the BCER was NOT a passenger-only service. It served a lot of industrial lands as well. Go trace the SRY on google maps and you will see a lot of tracks just "disappear" into properties. The land along the Interurban in Vancouver, Burnaby and New West has largely been turned into Residential/Commercial town centers. If Surrey starts rezoning all those Industrial properties into residential/commercial properties, "maybe" the Interurban could have a business case. But it doesn't.

Hence the issue about density. We're apprehensive about another "Millennium line" political give-away, as much as we're apprehensive about just building some poor-quality light rail just to attract developers who will build yet more cheap poorly designed "luxury" condos that nobody can really afford.

The propose LRT North/South segment seems like it was just arbitrarily picked by city council by someone going "where can we appropriate two lanes of traffic"

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Surrey did drop the ball though and it should be far more dense in Surrey Central than it is today due to failures of previous councils and we as citizens supported the no-investment councils for over a decade.

Surrey's problem is more than just density. You need more than just density adjacent to rapid transit - you also need feeder services to bring people to it. Surrey's biggest problem is a built infrastructure that strongly discourages walking. You see this in houses located at the ends of cul-de-sac hell where it's a long walk to the nearest arterial street that could support a bus route, and in the huge mall parking lots which mean a substantial walk to the shops from the bus stop, and in the fact that outside the malls it's impractical to walk from one store to the next because of the distances involved. If people are discouraged from walking to the bus or walking between stores to run errands, how are you going to convince them to become transit (and thence rapid transit) customers?

[memememe76]

I don't see Surrey's parking lots any bigger than other cities' malls. Also, the Guildford bus loop is right next to the mall's entrance. Much shorter than, say, Lougheed Station to the mall.