Surrey Langley Skytrain - Expo Line Extension | Proposed

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

See above. That means that Surrey riders would pack all the trains first and screw over Burnaby/New West riders.

We've had this conversation on here a few times before. Not everyone is taking the Skytrain to downtown Van and extending it isn't going to convince tons of people to leave their cars at home and take the train into downtown Van either. This article is old (and posted on here before) but the general trends still stand.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Many of you are forgetting one aspect of an LRT line that buses have a really hard time matching: Permanence.

104th and King George are major corridors. While some complain that narrowing them to put in an LRT is a mistake because it will snarl traffic and be slow, you're missing the point. And LRT line along this route is permanent. It's consistent. It's reliable. It shows up on a transit map.

It doesn't MATTER if it won't be faster than a bus.

It doesn't MATTER if it will be expensive to build.

It doesn't MATTER is improving bus service all over would have been a better use of funds.

What MATTERS is that it is a TRANSIT LINE with stations ( not bus stops ) that can have TOD.

What matters is that new users, casual users, and visitors will take it.

What matters is that people who would never ride a bus will ride it.

What matters is that it's a visible part of the transit infrastructure.

What matters is that it's open for funding from multiple levels of government.

What matters is that it is a FOCUS now for the city.

I'll just quote my previous post, because this is a broken record. There is no permanence for rails in Metro Vancouver.

Originally Posted by Kisai

Only in that doesn't matter because we already know rails are not permanent in BC as the original streetcar lines were ripped up and replaced with trolley-buses, and the interurban between Vancouver and New West was ripped up over time once the Skytrain was built, and the Arbutus ROW has had it's rails ripped up, and similar Rail lines have been ripped up in Richmond, and also in Victoria.

There are four arguments "pro-LRT" people, mainly at the City of Surrey, that have no basis in reality:

1. It will get people out of cars - No it will not because it takes away road space, and gives them an infrequent, slow, expensive alternative.
2. It will create development - So would not building anything. Transit shapes and allows for higher density, not enabling development.
3. It will be permanent - The Arbutus ROW says otherwise.
4. It will keep (trap) people in Surrey - Absolutely not. Surrey wants the Fraser Highway to LRT so that people in Langley shop/work in Surrey, not Vancouver. They are on record saying this.

Even people who are on record as hating the Skytrain, have no love for this LRT because it means they are never getting their Interurban revival. Likewise people who should know better, keep pushing "complete streets" in a climate that people are not going to use.

A wet climate should reduce the amount of exposure to the climate as possible, and by underbuilding transit, is just going to push people back into cars and never use these "complete streets" because there is no surface parking within 30 meters of the entrance.

I really wish more people would look at the big picture and quit pushing off responsibility for things "above their paygrade" to people who have a political agenda and are only looking for something to have a photo op with.

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by TransitFreak

Just another thought, what is the incline from 176th up the hill to Clayton heights? Is that a grade that standard LRT vehicles can maneouvre or does skytrain and it's 6% LIM grade tolerance help navigate that. It is a bit of a hill to climb between 168th and 180th there

The grade can easily be reduced. The towers in the valley between the top of the hill from about 168th to 180th on the other side can be built taller to reduce the grade just like railways do albeit it is a wider stretch of track. More concrete means more cost but I say build it right the first time.

I don't see a line to Langley built anytime soon.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by Kisai

I'll just quote my previous post, because this is a broken record. There is no permanence for rails in Metro Vancouver.



There are four arguments "pro-LRT" people, mainly at the City of Surrey, that have no basis in reality:

1. It will get people out of cars - No it will not because it takes away road space, and gives them an infrequent, slow, expensive alternative.
2. It will create development - So would not building anything. Transit shapes and allows for higher density, not enabling development.
3. It will be permanent - The Arbutus ROW says otherwise.
4. It will keep (trap) people in Surrey - Absolutely not. Surrey wants the Fraser Highway to LRT so that people in Langley shop/work in Surrey, not Vancouver.

I really wish more people would look at the big picture and quit pushing off responsibility for things "above their paygrade" to people who have a political agenda and are only looking for something to have a photo op with.

This is the problem, of course LRT has its flaws but, his post was correct in identifying that alot of those flaws don't matter. The example you keep bring up about Arbutus is almost completely irrelevant. Of course the rails could possibly be removed, we could also could possibly see a Tokyo Skytree style tower in Vancouver but, that doesn't mean it's going to happen. As was mentioned before how often do you see modern transit lines being ripped up?

On that note I agree with virtually every point that Twoneurons brought up, LRT in this implementation may not be the most efficient system nobody is denying it's flaws (though Id argue many are exaggerating them). However, as a city building tool LRT is excellent.

[ilikeredheads]

A good transit system is about moving people efficiently, first and foremost. This streetcar does none of that and has plenty of flaws, including significant construction and operating cost. The argument that you should build it despite of the drawbacks makes ZERO sense. This line is being pushed due to Surrey's own political agendas. It is a mistake. Spending only 1% of that 2.6b on improving bus service in Surrey will do more good than the line itself.

I will go as far as say this streetcar is like the monorail from the Simpsons.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

A good transit system is about moving people efficiently, first and foremost. This streetcar does none of that and has plenty of flaws, including significant construction and operating cost. The argument that you should build it despite of the drawbacks makes ZERO sense. This line is being pushed due to Surrey's own political agendas. It is a mistake. Spending only 1% of that 2.6b on improving bus service in Surrey will do more good than the line itself.

I will go as far as say this streetcar is like the monorail from the Simpsons.

Again, it's not as efficient as Skytrain no. But it certainly is at or surpassing the efficiency of BRT, but as was mentioned the permanence is key. It will draw development and Im sure it will spur new developments.

[swimmer_spe]

Lets ask the question that really has not been asked.

20-40 years after they finally build the lines in Surrey, which one will be at capacity?

[bardak]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Again, it's not as efficient as Skytrain no. But it certainly is at or surpassing the efficiency of BRT, but as was mentioned the permanence is key. It will draw development and Im sure it will spur new developments.

As ilikeredheads said transit spending should be about moving people efficiently. The LRT plan is marginally faster and and has more but unneeded capacity but cost more than twice as much as the BRT. It is not a good use of transit funds. If Surrey wants to encourage development they can change zoning, reduce development charges, and use municipal funds for additional infrastructure.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Lets ask the question that really has not been asked.

20-40 years after they finally build the lines in Surrey, which one will be at capacity?

20-40 years is a fairly long time especially in terms of metro Vancouver with our rapid growth. LRT capacity could be expanded as well, and if this encourages the construction of more parallel lines it might not be so bad.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by bardak

As ilikeredheads said transit spending should be about moving people efficiently. The LRT plan is marginally faster and and has more but unneeded capacity but cost more than twice as much as the BRT. It is not a good use of transit funds. If Surrey wants to encourage development they can change zoning, reduce development charges, and use municipal funds for additional infrastructure.

It costs more of course but, as was mentioned that is a cost for building physical infrastructure that despite what commenters have said is very unlikely to be ripped up, especially with the world trying to transition to cleaner forms of transportation and private automobile ownership looking unlikely within a couple of decades.

A big part of this development that's being attracted is that it's transit oriented so buyers are probably at least considering using transit, whereas I think developments placed on even a decent BRT are unlikely to be marketed as transit oriented in the same way.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Again, it's not as efficient as Skytrain no. But it certainly is at or surpassing the efficiency of BRT, but as was mentioned the permanence is key.

You can get much of that psychological "permanence" for a lot lower cost by building BRT infrastructure. For example dedicated lanes, stops with pre-boarding fare gates for faster boarding, and so on.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

You can get much of that psychological "permanence" for a lot lower cost by building BRT infrastructure. For example dedicated lanes, stops with pre-boarding fare gates for faster boarding, and so on.

Again it's important to differentiate the possible with the likely, highly permanent infrastructure is a guarantee with LRT, but not so with BRT.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

20-40 years is a fairly long time especially in terms of metro Vancouver with our rapid growth. LRT capacity could be expanded as well, and if this encourages the construction of more parallel lines it might not be so bad.

The Skytrain Opened in 1985 - 32 years ago
Montreal Metro opened in 1966 - 51 years ago
Toronto Subway opened in 1954 - 63 years ago.

Will what Surrey builds still be relevant 32 years after it is built? The older sections of the Expo Line still are.

The Scarborough RT was built in 1985, and will be replaced within the next few years as it is no longer relevant for the area. It was built without consideration of future cars needed.

That will be the fat of the LRT. It will be torn up and replaced with something that can handle the demand.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The Skytrain Opened in 1985 - 32 years ago
Montreal Metro opened in 1966 - 51 years ago
Toronto Subway opened in 1954 - 63 years ago.

Will what Surrey builds still be relevant 32 years after it is built? The older sections of the Expo Line still are.

The Scarborough RT was built in 1985, and will be replaced within the next few years as it is no longer relevant for the area. It was built without consideration of future cars needed.

That will be the fat of the LRT. It will be torn up and replaced with something that can handle the demand.

The Scarborough RT failed for very different reasons than what's being suggested for Surrey. If LRT is built right than much like Torontos streetcars, it can adapt and remain relevant for as long as it needs to.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

The Scarborough RT failed for very different reasons than what's being suggested for Surrey. If LRT is built right than much like Torontos streetcars, it can adapt and remain relevant for as long as it needs to.

The DRL will replace the Queen streetcar line, as they need more capacity, and they cannot build more as a streetcar.

The same thing will happen to Surrey.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The DRL will replace the Queen streetcar line, as they need more capacity, and they cannot build more as a streetcar.

The same thing will happen to Surrey.

The DRL will not replace Queen it would be good to do more research on that....

Queen runs incredibly far in both directions past where the DRL will service and also provides 24 hours service, capacity can be expanded easily with segregated rows and once the new cars are rolled out. Queen is certainly a busy route, however it plays a miniscule role in necessitating the DRL. The DRL is being built to relieve YUS which is currently the second busiest metro line in North America after Lexington Avenue.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

The DRL will not replace Queen it would be good to do more research on that....

Queen runs incredibly far in both directions past where the DRL will service and also provides 24 hours service, capacity can be expanded easily with segregated rows and once the new cars are rolled out. Queen is certainly a busy route, however it plays a miniscule role in necessitating the DRL. The DRL is being built to relieve YUS which is currently the second busiest metro line in North America after Lexington Avenue.

The streetcars will remain, but the DRL will trace out the Queen, King and Dundas streetcar lines.

Now, if they had built the DRL decades ago, it would have alleviated the lines a lot sooner.

This very thing will happen with Surrey. They will build the LRT. Itt will be beyond capacity and they will need to do something. Taking the LRT away is not going to be an option, so they will spend more money and build the Skytrain.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

This very thing will happen with Surrey. They will build the LRT. Itt will be beyond capacity and they will need to do something. Taking the LRT away is not going to be an option, so they will spend more money and build the Skytrain.

Pretty much. If Whalley were set to be townhomes & mid-rises/condos (instead of a skyscraper forest), and KGB and 104th had an existing ROW (instead of needing to take up half of Surrey's Broadway to make one), then LRT would make sense. As it is, the Guildford-Newton plan is too expensive/impractical as a short-term solution and too limited as a long-term solution.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The streetcars will remain, but the DRL will trace out the Queen, King and Dundas streetcar lines.

Now, if they had built the DRL decades ago, it would have alleviated the lines a lot sooner.

This very thing will happen with Surrey. They will build the LRT. Itt will be beyond capacity and they will need to do something. Taking the LRT away is not going to be an option, so they will spend more money and build the Skytrain.

THe LRT is not going to be beyond capacity for a pretty long time, capacity should be able to grow to at least 12000pphpd. With longer trains of course.

Imo the streetcars are still a good thing to keep, not only can they be upgraded to exclusive right of way, but they also provide 24/7 service.

I think alot of people on here would rather they just build the Expo Line first however I do not think there is any justification for Skytrain on KGB or 104thuntil after Expo has been extended.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Imo the streetcars are still a good thing to keep, not only can they be upgraded to exclusive right of way, but they also provide 24/7 service.

Vancouver doesn't even get 24/7 service and Surrey gets way less than Vancouver does.