Surrey/South of Fraser Rapid Transit Discussion | Proposed

[Alon]

Originally Posted by logan5

If I was talking cost only, I would advocate for everybody to walk or maybe splurge and buy a bike.

I was talking about cost and what kind of return you get for that cost.

38% of Surrey residents work in Surrey vs 18% in Vancouver, Burnaby, New West combined. Is this what you mean by subjective conclusions? If anything, Surrey's share of employment will only increase, unless you're suggesting in the future more Surrey residents will leave the municipality to work. If that's the case then maybe Skytrain extension into Surrey is necessary in order to get Surrey residents to their jobs in Burnaby, Vancouver, etc.

But the 18% who work in Vancouver, Burnaby, and New West work in more centralized employment nodes that can be served by SkyTrain, like Downtown, Central Broadway, and Metrotown. The 38% include people working locally within their neighborhood, people who work in random locations off their neighborhoods but still far from anywhere a train should go, and finally people who do work in a secondary employment center that might be serviceable.

[GlassCity]

Sorry if this has been brought up before, but I didn't want to read all those pages.

Does anybody else feel like LRT is a half-assed solution? I figure if you're gonna do rapid transit, you might as well do it right and build RRT. I understand that it's more expensive, but I know I personally would rather wait a little while longer for funding and build RRT than to have LRT immediately. I am by no means an expert on rapid transit/funding so I am sure I'm not seeing the big picture here, just my two cents.

Especially in the case for Surrey, where I'd imagine you'd have to transfer from the Skytrain if they did LRT for Surrey.

[memememe76]

As a Guildford resident, LRT would be fine for me as long as there is RoW along all routes. I don't see how that is possible, though. All the LRT that I have used in the US, I haven't been all that impressed (including San Francisco). Seattle's entire public transit system irritates me. I do like Portland's MAX system, though.

[YVR Bruce]

It seems to me that the debate has morphed from SoF to one about Surrey. What about everyone in Langley?

If Surrey succeeds on down-gauging to street level LRT, then that writes off access to good transit for everyone to the east, and instead channels them into central Surrey. Looks pretty selfish to me - like not allowing Hwy 1 thru Surrey, but instead restricting the thoroughfare to a 4 lane boulevard, frustrating thru-traffic.

[Canadian Mind]

Never been a fan of LRT. I always thing a RRT (skytrain) and HRT (WCE) primary system with bus, BRT, and streetcars feeding into it is the most efficient and overall beneficial system.

What I'd like to see in Surrey is an extension of Expo to Langley that basically follows Fraser Highway, with a major BRT loop that goes from Guilford to Whalley/Surrey Central, south into Delta/Newton area, east to Fleetwood, and back north to Guilford, with busses running in both directions around this loop.

In addition, every 3rd or 4th bus in either direction would have a leg that detracts south from the Newton-Fleetwood leg into Whiterock, back up again, and continuing it's loop.

Eventually I'd hope that with density development around this BRT route, that it would pave way for a skytrain loop or other fully grade separated form of transit.

[Zassk]

Why do so many of you want to spur faster growth in Langley? It would be much better for the region as a whole if SoF growth was concentrated on the King George corridor (or to the west of it, for that matter, e.g. Scott Road).

If transit SoF is all about shaping growth, then the last thing we should be doing is building a line along Fraser Hwy.

[Canadian Mind]

The mindset of cramming people into west Surrey is motivated by trying to get them as close to Vancouver as possible. But getting people to and from Vancouver isn't the goal, at least it isn't the only one. This is a region of town centres, which all need both adequate local connections and adequate regional connections to each other to be functional.

A line down Fraser Highway will serve the purpose of providing the town centres along Fraser Highway with that critical regional connection to the town centres in Surrey, and beyond it the town centres in the rest of the region.

This isn't meant to be a Vancouver vs. Surrey thing, but for the region to grow effectively and efficiently, Vancouver needs to maintain it's place as the main hub for north of Fraser. Conversely, Surrey needs to become the hub south of Fraser. There are only so many bridges and tunnels that can be built crossing the Fraser. The more required services that Surrey can provide to a metro resident living south of the Fraser River, the better.

[xd_1771]

If transit SoF is all about shaping growth, then the last thing we should be doing is building a line along Fraser Hwy.

That's one of the problems with the transit mindset South of the Fraser: it is all about shaping growth. Don't get me wrong, shaping growth will be a good thing. We're going to need it. However, shaping growth is not the only thing the South of Fraser needs from rapid transit. There also needs to be a transportation benefit, and a better incentive for using transit altogether: transit needs to be fast, convenient, and reliable. There will be consequences to letting the fastest automobile use growth rate in Metro Van simply grow without enough control,

But, I'm not really convinced that the planners and decision makers have it right when it comes to growth shaping either. I actually don't think that at-grade Light Rail on its own is going to do it. See, the problem with the planning going on at city hall is that Light Rail is believed to be better for growth shaping because it is easier to build more stations (and thus, there are more development nodes) for it. Obvs, you could also build more rail transit to other corridors at a lower capital cost. I think that's not the correct way to be looking at this, and I think that for the very simple reason that the planners are ignoring the fact that we are part of a bigger region: Surrey will be facing lots of competition from the several other locations in Metro Vancouver that are near good rapid transit and prime for development.

There's a reason so many people and families are coming into the South of Fraser today: affordable housing and land value. Building rapid transit of any alignment or technology removes that incentive in the areas around it - and with rises in land value come higher developer risk and a weaker market, and without the incentives and benefits to offset that (such as strong transportation, a strong community, and good safety), people looking for or looking to develop urban transit-oriented development might simply turn away from Surrey, because the premium for such a similar home north of Fraser might become too small to even matter - leaving sprawl to continue, unhampered, like it currently is.

Think of it this way: you have a choice between buying or developing land on a Fraser Highway LRT in Fleetwood, or you could buy/develop near Royal Oak Station in Burnaby (and this would also be alongside developments that have already come up). Royal Oak has the Expo Line, Fleetwood has the Fraser LRT; they're different levels of transit with different ridership, but in both areas, land value has risen to similar levels. Whether you're a buyer, renter or developer, you will probably be tempted to choose the Royal Oak area so long as space is available - because Surrey will still have far less incentives in other areas: the North of Fraser will still be the major market for jobs, and will still have more of the attractions, activity centres, and institutions (i.e. post secondary).

Think of why Surrey City Centre has not seen any significant, recurring development after 19-23 years of SkyTrain until the past 5 or so years, while growth has pretty much exploded in Burnaby in Metrotown and Brentwood - and, more recently, in Richmond. With Light Rail Transit, even with it going all across the city, it will take years and years before Surrey even starts to see the land use benefits, because there will be so much better investment opportunities at the same price North of Fraser with our new rapid transit investments like the Canada Line, Evergreen Line and Broadway subway. Only when those opportunities run low does the rest of Surrey start to become a viable solution.

By then, it will be too late. Without the better transit speed, frequency and reliability, and revenue (to further improve bus service) to attract ridership in spite of any land use (and the land use to help drive it in spite of competitivity as well - this land use could also be a result of the former), roads in Surrey will be filled with cars and the whole city will be pretty messy in many communities. Especially if Surrey really ends up building more LRT stations than are planned (currently, LRT & RRT have same station locations), because more stations will slow down commutes. Safety concern will pretty much have to be eliminated to make up for that (and who knows if that will happen), and the city will need to have boosted investment in other services to make at least some improvements in the community in the ways transit could not.

And, people and developers looking at Metro Vancouver will once again have the choice of paying lots for an awesome area, or peanuts for a shitty area. Back to square one.

[Rico]

XD, I think your assessment is a little pessimistic. I think a lot of the problems with a lack of growth around the current skytrain in Surrey can be traced back to Surrey council. Not the least of which is by allowing sprawl in its current form some demand for alternative/multifamily development is reduced. Surrey could do alot to promote/redevelop without any transit (see Port Moody)...but quality transit will sure help. That said, from a development prospective I doubt there will be a significant difference between RRT and LRT, zoning and direction from council being equal.

[queetz@home]

Originally Posted by Rico

XD, I think your assessment is a little pessimistic. I think a lot of the problems with a lack of growth around the current skytrain in Surrey can be traced back to Surrey council. Not the least of which is by allowing sprawl in its current form some demand for alternative/multifamily development is reduced. Surrey could do alot to promote/redevelop without any transit (see Port Moody)...but quality transit will sure help. That said, from a development prospective I doubt there will be a significant difference between RRT and LRT, zoning and direction from council being equal.

Exactly! The thing with Surrey, and to some extent, parts of Vancouver, is proof that the mere presence of Skytrain doesn't automatically mean TOD or proper growth will be shaped by it.

Whalley stagnating despite the presence of Skytrain is more on the leadership of that ugly little troll that is Doug McCallum and his pro-sprawl stance. Whatever developments built during his watch didn't reaaly take off. But when Dianne Watts took over, she did give some additional efforts and since then, Whalley has boomed.

The thing is it doesn't matter if its Skytrain or LRT, the right kind of leadership by the civic leaders ultimately can make the city better. Watts believe the cheaper LRT option is enough, other cities in Europe, US, and Canada has also done so, so I trust her judgement on this.

[xd_1771]

Port Moody has had the 97 and the WCE, actually - catalysts in a similar way that the Expo Line could have been for Surrey.

I think there's definitely a role that the current Surrey Council has played in speeding up development in city centre. The Build Surrey program and somewhat increased infrastructure in terms of recreational, etc. has likely played some part in why Surrey is starting to become a far more viable opportunity for developers.

But, if you look at the progress Surrey has been making, esp. compared to other areas of Metro Vancouver around SkyTrain, it's still fairly slow. When you look at what's driving some of the biggest projects to proceed and to sell, like the recent 3 Civic Plaza, it's still the low cost of space and affordability. 3 Civic Plaza's marketing has largely centered around the lower costs of space in the building.

More rapid transit into Surrey in whatever form is going to mean further increases on land value in the areas around it, further increases in developer risk, and a smaller gap between Surrey and more developed areas north-of-Fraser. As more opportunities open up in Burnaby and Vancouver for mid-rise and high-rise around rapid transit, it puts additional pressure as Surrey starts to stagnate as an option compared to the others for awhile, because Surrey still falls short in many areas like closeness to services, post-sec institutions, and attractions in the region.

My point stands. Unless investment efforts are made to offset the competition and make Surrey more viable (such as pursuing the better transit option, and investing more in other services), it could fall behind under the principle that Surrey is part of a regional market.

People looking into Surrey are still looking into Surrey largely because it's more affordable. It is when people can start looking into Surrey truly because it's more than just affordable when we see the kind of transit-oriented development drive throughout the city that people have envisioned.

[queetz@home]

The WCE is hardly a catalyst, otherwise Maple Ridge, Mission and so on would be TODs. Same with those communities serviced by the GO train in GTA. And the 97....I don't think so...

As for Surrey's role in the region, the sheer population growth it is experiencing, regardless of affordability, will inevitably ensure its significance. The only way that wouldn't happen is to stop its population growth, but that is an immigration issue.

[jhausner]

Originally Posted by Zassk

Why do so many of you want to spur faster growth in Langley? It would be much better for the region as a whole if SoF growth was concentrated on the King George corridor (or to the west of it, for that matter, e.g. Scott Road).

If transit SoF is all about shaping growth, then the last thing we should be doing is building a line along Fraser Hwy.

Why do people insist in circling around conversations. Your point has already been answered. "Because the growth is already happening WITHOUT spurring."

Ok point complete lets move on.

[Steveston]

Hard to quantify the impact of civic leadership, but there's no doubt that Mayor Watts' has brought a different attitude to Surrey, and Whalley/Central in specific. The new Library, new City u/c, and the moratorium on the application of the Amenity Density Bonusing Policy has spurred development.

[CoryHolmes]

I'm digging through the City of Surrey's planning report for King George Station, and in it there's mention that the developer will be required build LRT platforms along King George Blvd. and build the bed that the tracks will eventually go on.

Fortunatly, they planned ahead and until the LRT goes in (or even it doesn't happen at all) they'll use the elevated platforms for the new B-Line going into operation in September of this year.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by Steveston

Hard to quantify the impact of civic leadership, but there's no doubt that Mayor Watts' has brought a different attitude to Surrey, and Whalley/Central in specific. The new Library, new City u/c, and the moratorium on the application of the Amenity Density Bonusing Policy has spurred development.

Can someone explain this policy?

[GlassCity]

I don't know Surrey very well at all, so I have a question about Translink's rapid transit study. Translink wants to send a rapid transit line east on 104 Ave to Guildford, and a second one down the Fraser highway to Langley. My question is why not make it one line going east on 104 Ave, and then have it go south down 152 St to Fleetwood before continuing down the Fraser to Langley?

And while we're at it, why not leave the Fraser highway mid-way and head south on 176 St towards Cloverdale and then finish going east on 56 Avenue to Langley city centre. This makes more sense to me since you would be running through developed town centres as opposed to farmland.

The most obvious answer to anything is usually cost. Would it really cost that much more? Any other possible reasons?

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I don't know Surrey very well at all, so I have a question about Translink's rapid transit study. Translink wants to send a rapid transit line east on 104 Ave to Guildford, and a second one down the Fraser highway to Langley. My question is why not make it one line going east on 104 Ave, and then have it go south down 152 St to Fleetwood before continuing down the Fraser to Langley?

And while we're at it, why not leave the Fraser highway mid-way and head south on 176 St towards Cloverdale and then finish going east on 56 Avenue to Langley city centre. This makes more sense to me since you would be running through developed town centres as opposed to farmland.

The most obvious answer to anything is usually cost. Would it really cost that much more? Any other possible reasons?

The main reason is the total distance of built track (or BRT lanes) is about the same. So building a line down 152nd Street from 104 Ave to Fraser Highway is about the same distance as going direct from King George to 152 (give or take half a km). Therefore either option costs about the same. In fact, going down 152 could cost more as 152 seems to be expanded as wide as it can go. So either expensive properties need to be bought to widen 152, or lanes need to be lost, which would cripple the city (literally, the city would instantly become a horrible place to live).

But, by going through Guildford, it lengthens the trip for those coming from beyond Guildford, by quite a bit. Instead of heading straight down the Fraser Highway to the transit center at the city center, passengers would need to ride around Surrey. And depending on the mode, it could add a lot of time to the trip. It it's BRT, the length could deter riders. Even LRT could face delays to deter ridership. It could also lead to very crowded trains at Guildford (or half empty trains past that).

By going straight down Fraser, the trips for long haul commuters is shortened quite a bit, drawing a lot of people who currently drive to transit. It also allows for the busy section Whalley-Guildford to be separate and have service levels that match demand on that route.


And by leaving the Fraser to head through Cloverdale, again, you are making everyone's trip a lot longer. And you are lengthening the average time it takes most people to get to the line too. By heading straight down the Fraser Hwy to Langley, you cut through the heart of the city. That makes it so that everyone has a fairly short bus ride to the closest station. It shortens everyone's commute over what they have now, not just a few people.

Also, by heading down 176 and hwy 10 you are actually increasing your exposure to farm land. Right after 176, on Fraser, you imediately get to high density townhomes. It doesn't show up on Google maps at all, its too new, so don't that let it mislead you, but the Fraser Hwy is a hot bed of redevelopment: tightly packed homes, townhomes, and condos. Just think of the thousands of homes that are withing a 5 minute bus ride of stations on the Fraser Hwy. You might not have high rises around stations, but Skytrain's success has always been tied to short feeder bus routes serving neighborhoods.

South on 176 is a lot more farmland and then some old SFH neighborhoods. Then you get a fairly small area of development that is downtown Cloverdale, then a lot of low density strip malls and all along hwy 10 right on the south side is just ALR. So instead of cutting through the middle of the city where you have development on both sides or the line, you skirt around the edge of the city where you have homes only on one side of the line, and old SFH at that.

And you make every single person's trip so long that they will avoid the line at all costs and drive. Even the current bus routes is a time saver, and that is saying something.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

The main reason is the total distance of built track (or BRT lanes) is about the same. So building a line down 152nd Street from 104 Ave to Fraser Highway is about the same distance as going direct from King George to 152 (give or take half a km). Therefore either option costs about the same. In fact, going down 152 could cost more as 152 seems to be expanded as wide as it can go. So either expensive properties need to be bought to widen 152, or lanes need to be lost, which would cripple the city (literally, the city would instantly become a horrible place to live).

But, by going through Guildford, it lengthens the trip for those coming from beyond Guildford, by quite a bit. Instead of heading straight down the Fraser Highway to the transit center at the city center, passengers would need to ride around Surrey. And depending on the mode, it could add a lot of time to the trip. It it's BRT, the length could deter riders. Even LRT could face delays to deter ridership. It could also lead to very crowded trains at Guildford (or half empty trains past that).

By going straight down Fraser, the trips for long haul commuters is shortened quite a bit, drawing a lot of people who currently drive to transit. It also allows for the busy section Whalley-Guildford to be separate and have service levels that match demand on that route.


And by leaving the Fraser to head through Cloverdale, again, you are making everyone's trip a lot longer. And you are lengthening the average time it takes most people to get to the line too. By heading straight down the Fraser Hwy to Langley, you cut through the heart of the city. That makes it so that everyone has a fairly short bus ride to the closest station. It shortens everyone's commute over what they have now, not just a few people.

Also, by heading down 176 and hwy 10 you are actually increasing your exposure to farm land. Right after 176, on Fraser, you imediately get to high density townhomes. It doesn't show up on Google maps at all, its too new, so don't that let it mislead you, but the Fraser Hwy is a hot bed of redevelopment: tightly packed homes, townhomes, and condos. Just think of the thousands of homes that are withing a 5 minute bus ride of stations on the Fraser Hwy. You might not have high rises around stations, but Skytrain's success has always been tied to short feeder bus routes serving neighborhoods.

South on 176 is a lot more farmland and then some old SFH neighborhoods. Then you get a fairly small area of development that is downtown Cloverdale, then a lot of low density strip malls and all along hwy 10 right on the south side is just ALR. So instead of cutting through the middle of the city where you have development on both sides or the line, you skirt around the edge of the city where you have homes only on one side of the line, and old SFH at that.

And you make every single person's trip so long that they will avoid the line at all costs and drive. Even the current bus routes is a time saver, and that is saying something.

Thanks, that makes sense. I always overlook travel time when I think about these things. I'm also still clinging onto the hope that this will be RRT, so the travel time wouldn't be that much higher, so I figured you'd try and coer as much area as you can. And I did get all my density information from google maps.

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

The main reason is the total distance of built track (or BRT lanes) is about the same. So building a line down 152nd Street from 104 Ave to Fraser Highway is about the same distance as going direct from King George to 152 (give or take half a km). Therefore either option costs about the same. In fact, going down 152 could cost more as 152 seems to be expanded as wide as it can go. So either expensive properties need to be bought to widen 152, or lanes need to be lost, which would cripple the city (literally, the city would instantly become a horrible place to live).

But, by going through Guildford, it lengthens the trip for those coming from beyond Guildford, by quite a bit. Instead of heading straight down the Fraser Highway to the transit center at the city center, passengers would need to ride around Surrey. And depending on the mode, it could add a lot of time to the trip. It it's BRT, the length could deter riders. Even LRT could face delays to deter ridership. It could also lead to very crowded trains at Guildford (or half empty trains past that).

By going straight down Fraser, the trips for long haul commuters is shortened quite a bit, drawing a lot of people who currently drive to transit. It also allows for the busy section Whalley-Guildford to be separate and have service levels that match demand on that route.


And by leaving the Fraser to head through Cloverdale, again, you are making everyone's trip a lot longer. And you are lengthening the average time it takes most people to get to the line too. By heading straight down the Fraser Hwy to Langley, you cut through the heart of the city. That makes it so that everyone has a fairly short bus ride to the closest station. It shortens everyone's commute over what they have now, not just a few people.

Also, by heading down 176 and hwy 10 you are actually increasing your exposure to farm land. Right after 176, on Fraser, you imediately get to high density townhomes. It doesn't show up on Google maps at all, its too new, so don't that let it mislead you, but the Fraser Hwy is a hot bed of redevelopment: tightly packed homes, townhomes, and condos. Just think of the thousands of homes that are withing a 5 minute bus ride of stations on the Fraser Hwy. You might not have high rises around stations, but Skytrain's success has always been tied to short feeder bus routes serving neighborhoods.

South on 176 is a lot more farmland and then some old SFH neighborhoods. Then you get a fairly small area of development that is downtown Cloverdale, then a lot of low density strip malls and all along hwy 10 right on the south side is just ALR. So instead of cutting through the middle of the city where you have development on both sides or the line, you skirt around the edge of the city where you have homes only on one side of the line, and old SFH at that.

And you make every single person's trip so long that they will avoid the line at all costs and drive. Even the current bus routes is a time saver, and that is saying something.

This. I drove down Fraser Hwy back over Easter. The remaining width of the farmland between contiguous Surrey and contiguous Langley is approximately 500 feet. All that is left is the power transmission lines and what *used* to be the model airplane field. It's literally spitting distance in the grande scheme of things. I'm actually wondering if the ALR has been encroached upon in this area?

As I've mentioned before, as Surrey grows it can be served by a BRT, LRT, or RRT "loop" that connects Whalley, Guilford, Fleetwood, and Newton/Delta all together. This, in conjunction with and feeding into the RRT line that runs down Fraser, would see Surrey be as well served if not better served than Vancouver currently is.

I'd envision transfer points in the King George/Surrey Central area (it'll be so busy it'll need a transfer at two stations), and one in Fleetwood where 176 crosses Fraser Highway.