Surrey Langley Skytrain - Expo Line Extension | Proposed

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Some people don't have a choice, and they have to commute regardless. Others just don't like driving. Many prefer the convenience of rapid transit.

And some people just think it's not all that big a deal to simply hold an umbrella. Geez.

Transit is very successful in Vancouver, which has more rain than Surrey. What hurts transit in Surrey is that the place has just not been built to be walkable. Miles of parking lots acting like moats for set-back stores is not a pleasant experience for the pedestrian. That's a far bigger deterrent than the weather.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

And some people just think it's not all that big a deal to simply hold an umbrella. Geez.

Transit is very successful in Vancouver, which has more rain than Surrey. What hurts transit in Surrey is that the place has just not been built to be walkable. Miles of parking lots acting like moats for set-back stores is not a pleasant experience for the pedestrian. That's a far bigger deterrent than the weather.

I agree that obviously cover from the rain is not a make or break issue for transit ridership (especially in Surrey), but who is to say that transit could not be even more successful if or city did design its urban spaces better for cover from the rain.

Holding and using an umbrella can be very cumbersome, especially when already carrying other items to and from work / school.

And seeing how 0.001% of the population not being able to tap a card at a fare gate was the scandal of the century in Vancouver, how many more people have disabilities that also make holding an umbrella a hinderance / impossible

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Using that logic, we should get rid of all the bike lanes, since every other cyclist starts driving again when it's raining. SkyTrain too - who wants to walk in the rain to get to a station?

Some people don't have a choice, and they have to commute regardless. Others just don't like driving. Many prefer the convenience of rapid transit.
So the idea that bad weather will wreck Surrey LRT is mildly ridiculous; if it gets wrecked by anything, it'll be the various traffic issues resulting from running a train line ROW straight down the middle of a throughfare and every single one of its intersections.

I think that what he's trying to say is that the weather aspect puts a big asterisk on the urban design, walkability and lifestyle outcome that Surrey has been trying to attach the image of its street-level LRT vision to (as opposed to the transportation outcome). Take that promotional image they're using of the Newton terminus showing the LRT running through a plaza: the image shows that the weathre is sunny, but that plaza will be as empty as a plaza in Downtown Vancouver becomes during one of our many rainy days relative to when the weather is actually decent. The people you will see on that plaza will be moreso comprised of people actually needing to get somewhere (who will be getting there no faster than they would under the existing bus system and 96 B-Line).

So I think he's got a fair, and strong point. The "vision" collapses anytime the weather is less than sunny and nice out, which it is not for the vast majority of the year here. In order to realize the LRT vision, people have to make the LRT line (and transit as a whole) central to their lifestyle. If we can't guarantee that all the time, then there is an impact to ridership, fare revenue and - eventually - to the quality of service itself.

The L-Line is going to be over a billion dollars. That's a lot of money that we could be spending on alternatives that are more sustainable and do better to service those choosing transit/walking lifestyles.

[logicbomb]

So the 105th Ave project is a go and construction could begin in the fall while City staff were even caught off guard with what happened this week along 100th Ave.

Originally Posted by Whalleyboy

Dont forget the city is already working on 132 street going right thru to SFPR. This should actually help take some of the truck traffic off king george.
Along with the plans to wide 140st should also help take away build up on KGB.

You need to remember the city is trying to traffic calm King george a bit as it rips right thru the centre of the city centre. People dont want to walk along busy roads.

Curious. Do you think adding traffic onto arterial such as 132nd Ave and 128th Ave is a good idea? Essentially redirecting a congested corridor onto an arterial that runs through residential low density SFH zones and school zones.

KGB is a suitable corridor for loud truck traffic (especially when they use engine brakes) as it passes through urban zones including near-abandoned strip malls and derelict storefront. Most density and redevelopment will occur along this stretch anyways so any attempt to divert traffic and reduce road capacity will bite the city in the ass anyways.

It looks like Daryls efforts will be moot as the City is aiming for a summer 2018 construction time-frame right now. Yes, it's time to move on and focus on Fraser Highway as this project is definitely a go. From what I heard, 104th Ave could see periodic closures next spring to prep for construction.

[casper]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

I think that what he's trying to say is that the weather aspect puts a big asterisk on the urban design, walkability and lifestyle outcome that Surrey has been trying to attach the image of its street-level LRT vision to (as opposed to the transportation outcome). Take that promotional image they're using of the Newton terminus showing the LRT running through a plaza: the image shows that the weathre is sunny, but that plaza will be as empty as a plaza in Downtown Vancouver becomes during one of our many rainy days relative to when the weather is actually decent. The people you will see on that plaza will be moreso comprised of people actually needing to get somewhere (who will be getting there no faster than they would under the existing bus system and 96 B-Line).

So I think he's got a fair, and strong point. The "vision" collapses anytime the weather is less than sunny and nice out, which it is not for the vast majority of the year here. In order to realize the LRT vision, people have to make the LRT line (and transit as a whole) central to their lifestyle. If we can't guarantee that all the time, then there is an impact to ridership, fare revenue and - eventually - to the quality of service itself.

The L-Line is going to be over a billion dollars. That's a lot of money that we could be spending on alternatives that are more sustainable and do better to service those choosing transit/walking lifestyles.

I don't think the rendering is any way reflective of the density of people one would expect to see at that location. The buildings in that rendering would need to be 4-5 taller to provide the density to support that view of that area. There is way to many people in the rendering.

Realistically, who wants to sit next to any train and people watch or play with their smart phone. The reason someone would make use of those seats is because they are waiting for someone. The café would probably have an awning. All the bikes is interesting for Surrey.

I think the one thing Surrey has going for it is all the enclosed shopping centres. In the rest of the region those parking lots are being progressively replaced by high-rise buildings.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

I think that what he's trying to say is that the weather aspect puts a big asterisk on the urban design, walkability and lifestyle outcome that Surrey has been trying to attach the image of its street-level LRT vision to (as opposed to the transportation outcome).

Combined with the fact that a lot of Surrey isn't very walkable as it's made for driving, not walking. That explains a lot of the build form now.

Originally Posted by logicbomb

Curious. Do you think adding traffic onto arterial such as 132nd Ave and 128th Ave is a good idea? Essentially redirecting a congested corridor onto an arterial that runs through residential low density SFH zones and school zones.

KGB is a suitable corridor for loud truck traffic (especially when they use engine brakes) as it passes through urban zones including near-abandoned strip malls and derelict storefront. Most density and redevelopment will occur along this stretch anyways so any attempt to divert traffic and reduce road capacity will bite the city in the ass anyways.

The other main streets should take *some* of the traffic - they don't really now as they're not consistent (checkerboarding between 2 and 4 lanes). King George should still be the main corridor though and trying to calm it (aka reduce traffic) doesn't seem like the most well thought out idea ever.

Originally Posted by casper

I think the one thing Surrey has going for it is all the enclosed shopping centres. In the rest of the region those parking lots are being progressively replaced by high-rise buildings.

Considering how much fairly open buildable land there is in Surrey Central, it's going to be a long time until the parking lots are redevloped.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I agree that obviously cover from the rain is not a make or break issue for transit ridership (especially in Surrey), but who is to say that transit could not be even more successful if or city did design its urban spaces better for cover from the rain.

Seeing as Surrey's already blowing a billion and a half on this fustercluck, they might as well spend a few more million on covered walkways and shelters.

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Seeing as Surrey's already blowing a billion and a half on this fustercluck, they might as well spend a few more million on covered walkways and shelters.

They are banking on developers to foot the bill on any pedestrian improvements which means that many neighborhoods will not see sidewalks in this lifetime.

[Whalleyboy]

The city is pushing pretty hard to get ready for the tracks down 104. I got a letter in the mail from the city about them building the 105 ave/105 a ave thru hawthorne park yesterday

[swimmer_spe]

The more I follow this, the more I realize how the GVA and the GTA are similar. Subways and Skytrain are expensive, and the mayors think if they go for LRT that will appease the public. The problem is that the LRT cannot move enough people.

"Lets build a cheap crappy system than a good expensive system."

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Seeing as Surrey's already blowing a billion and a half on this fustercluck, they might as well spend a few more million on covered walkways and shelters.

I would guess that Pattison is champing at the bit for this. They have deals with most municipalities in the region (Burnaby being a notable exception) where they can put in bus shelters with advertising at stops and kick back a bit to the municipality (New West gets about $100/month/shelter). They do this along routes that get a lot of vehicle traffic so that they have high ad views. Given Surrey's LRT is going to be along high-traffic roads, odds are pretty good that Pattison would be putting shelters in. Surrey can then concentrate on additional weather coverage.

Side note: this is also why you'll see shelters on bus routes that don't have high ridership. A notable example is the C9 in New West -- there are shelters at nearly every stop along Columbia between Front and Brunette because that road gets a lot of vehicle traffic, yet the C9 has really low ridership.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The more I follow this, the more I realize how the GVA and the GTA are similar. Subways and Skytrain are expensive, and the mayors think if they go for LRT that will appease the public. The problem is that the LRT cannot move enough people.

"Lets build a cheap crappy system than a good expensive system."

Sigh..... This LRT

Toronto needs to build its LRTs, it has numerous overflowing bus lines as well as a major lack of money for subways. They are currently planning Scarborough as Subway and the DRL while Eglinton will largely be grade seperated ATC LRT.

Here lies a major problem of fully grade seperated transit, almost every transit expert thinks an LRT to Scarborough makes more sense.... The current Subway plan will add one station for 3.5 billion dollars...

[Bdawe]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Here lies a major problem of fully grade seperated transit, almost every transit expert thinks an LRT to Scarborough makes more sense.... The current Subway plan will add one station for 3.5 billion dollars...

There are transit experts who argue that what makes the most sense for Scarborough is just to fix the damn skytrain that they already have rather than build any new system

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by Bdawe

There are transit experts who argue that what makes the most sense for Scarborough is just to fix the damn skytrain that they already have rather than build any new system

The excuse not to is actually absolutely insane, there is one section of track with a very tight turning radius that prevents using newer cars than Mark Ones.

The obvious logical solution would be to rebuild that one track section and maybe even Kennedy station and then get new rolling stock and do a top to bottom refurbished of the whole system. I guarantee that would cost less than half maybe even a quarter the earmarked budget. This is the problem when people get too set on one technology....

[Aroundtheworld]

I have heard from a friend who works in local government in the Lower Mainland that we can expect the cost estimates for both the Surrey LRT and Millennium Line cost estimates to go way up from where they were before. Not good news for either project, though certainly not completely unexpected.

[sweetnhappy]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

I have heard from a friend who works in local government in the Lower Mainland that we can expect the cost estimates for both the Surrey LRT and Millennium Line cost estimates to go way up from where they were before. Not good news for either project, though certainly not completely unexpected.

How much is way up? Because the LRT estimates already increased significantly from the initial estimates back when the Surrey transit study was being done. I wonder if the increase will finally start turning more heads and put more attention on the how weak the case is for LRT compared to a proper BRT.

[Reecemartin]

I'm interested in when construction of this and Broadway will begin.

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by sweetnhappy

How much is way up? Because the LRT estimates already increased significantly from the initial estimates back when the Surrey transit study was being done. I wonder if the increase will finally start turning more heads and put more attention on the how weak the case is for LRT compared to a proper BRT.

Apparently up since the last revised estimates. It sounded like it was enough that it might lead to the projects being re-evaluated.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

I'm interested in when construction of this and Broadway will begin.

Won't happen until Christy gets her photo-op pre-announcing it (again) for the election.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

Won't happen until Christy gets her photo-op pre-announcing it (again) for the election.

Idk if she is as bad as Del Duca is in Ontario, then again she is the premier.