Surrey Langley Skytrain - Expo Line Extension | Proposed

[Reecemartin]

TOD is also important which is why I'm staunchly in favour of proper BRT or LRT in Surrey, alot of people here seem to think status quo is ok despite the fact that Surrey is second to only Vancouver in population yet receives pretty poor transit service.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

I can see the reasons for this but they really have nothing to do with buses inherently being inferior in any way to trams and trains. Rather I see this as a circumstantial result of the bus experience we've had for the past few years. When Surrey rapid transit discussions actually started back in 2011-2012 or so, there was no 96 B-Line, the only air-conditioned buses in our fleet were the Orion Highway Coaches and most of the buses in our region still ran solely on diesel (i.e. fewer hybrids or CNG buses). The fleet was mid-life and years away from any major upgrades. I think we definitely had that "I'm on a bus" feeling whenever we were riding on buses.

But now that we're in 2017, most of the older D40LFs and D60LFs (both the first generation of low floor buses buses to ever be used in this region) are finally being phased out and the replacement buses provide a far superior ride experience. The XDE60s on the 96 B-Line practically feel like smaller trams (I actually find them smoother and quieter than LRT systems I've ridden on in my lifetime... Portland, Calgary, Nagasaki, Hiroshima to name a few). Plus, battery-electric buses are on the horizon (recently demonstrated here in Vancouver) along with a host of other technologies to enhance ride experiences in our cities.

I don't think this "rails are better than buses" attitude is so dominant and there is also plenty of room for it to shift: it's just about showing people what you can make of a bus experience. The renewal of our buses has been a giant step forward, but we could do even more than that. Give the riders real-time displays at all stops (like the ones on Main St), rampless boarding (it is already done in Kelowna on the 97X), proper stations that are distinct and visible and provide ride and wayfinding info (Seattle I-5 BRT, former 98 B-Line...), more exclusive bus lanes (KGB & 88/76), traffic signal priority (former 98 B-Line had it), and a strong, distinct branding... and I'm quite certain that if we can have all these things on a King George Blvd & 104 Ave BRT line, people will absolutely notice that this isn't your usual bus experience and they will be willing to try it out. All of these technologies and ideas already exist. You don't have to invent them - and we could go further if there's any way we can be inventive - you just have to put them all together.

(I also think it will do us all good if this kind of shift is seen throughout the region-wide bus network, not just in Surrey)

I agree 100% with everything you said you hit the nail on the head. I ride the 96-B with my daughter from time to time in her buggy, and it is light years better than busses of the past or even the bus down Fraser Highway we have sometimes caught in the past to my parents' place.

Buses that pass you because they are full though also contribute I'd add. Nothing more infuriating than waiting for a bus and having 2 fly by because they are full. I know full SkyTrains happen but there is a psychological affect again different when the train at least stops and gives you the 'chance' to get on vs a bus (or 2 or 3) just whizzing past.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

There certainly IS a viable way, Toronto operates fine on many routes with zero lane separation (the ones with separated route certainly operate better). The argument that at grade LRT never works is a hard argument to make, and something I don't believe at all. If there is a good argument in my opinion it comes down to cost and integrating with the current system. And we get more total integration with Skytrain and the same with BRT.

That's the argument I've made for SkyTrain the entire time. What is the best mode of transit for Metro-Vancouver down that line. I'll go over my main points again since many here have likely not gone through the hundreds of previous pages:

1. Expo and Millennium Lines are our Rapid Transit backbones East<>West
2. Both = SkyTrain which is our "grade separated" standard LRT system (Yes I know Canada Line is not SkyTrain technically but to the general public it is... just like how cotton swabs are not "Q-Tips" and tissues are not "Kleenex" but brand association happens...)
3. The end of Expo @ King George is already pointed directly down Fraser Highway as there were originally plans to extend it
4. Fraser Highway widening design through Green Timbers already has formal designs not just for LRT but for SkyTrain as an alternative so no more/less design work
5. Less disruption AFTER construction to Fraser Highway as a road corridor
6. Less wasted tax payer's money as Fraser Highway has gone through a major reconstruction along 90% of the route and much of that would need to be redone for LRT vs SkyTrain
7. The overall costs for the project are very similar
8. It would meet with our regional strategy of Surrey being a second downtown and would connect the entire region with 1 seamless transit backbone network from Langley to Vancouver to Coquitlam
9. Travel would be more consistent and faster than BRT or LRT

Those are the main points I have harped on in the past for why SkyTrain is to me a no-brainer down Fraser Highway. I also think regionally it would be supported and cost sharing with the Province/Feds would be more justifiable (aka Burnaby paying part of the line even though the line isn't in their borders).

LRT on the other hand is purely a "within Surrey" thing and as such I have less of an issue with either option. As has been seen above my brain and facts tell me they should likely do a proper BRT system rather than jump straight to LRT but if I was putting money down on anything, I'd bet it will end up being at-grade LRT.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

TOD is also important which is why I'm staunchly in favour of proper BRT or LRT in Surrey, alot of people here seem to think status quo is ok despite the fact that Surrey is second to only Vancouver in population yet receives pretty poor transit service.

Surrey has basically become the cheap bedroom community it is. Now, to make it a more dense bedroom community, TOD is good. If you want it to not be a bedroom community, then you had better get businesses to move out there.

[GMasterAres]

Interesting note on the Orange/Blue line mentioned for LA from the Wikipedia:

Collisions with automobiles occurred weekly during the first several months of operations. Metro has noted that the Orange Line had about the same accident rate as other bus lines in the city on a per-mile basis,[6][7] and has stated that the line's accident rate is "less than half" of Metro's entire fleet of buses.[8] The Blue Line also had a significant number of collisions in its early years and currently has the highest fatality rate in North America.[9]

Metro issued slow orders after two collisions in November 2005 involving a critically injured driver. Buses were required to slow to 10 mi/h (16 km/h) vs. 25–30 mi/h (40–50 km/h).[10][11]

In December 2005, Metro called for the installation of red-light cameras at most intersections

So are the lines still reduced to 16 km/h? That's rather slow. Also seems to back the notion that non-grade separation along a major travel route doesn't mix well with cars or people.

That said I still think regardless BRT or LRT they need to be separated from traffic in their own dedicated lanes. If they at least do that + priority signals at major intersections, I think the line would be consistent and the visual impact of people sitting in cars idle especially between 88th and 76th Avenue where it is a parking lot most days (thus why I jet over to 144th or 140th if I have to go N/S), will make the line seem way quicker.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by jhausner

That's the argument I've made for SkyTrain the entire time. What is the best mode of transit for Metro-Vancouver down that line. I'll go over my main points again since many here have likely not gone through the hundreds of previous pages:

1. Expo and Millennium Lines are our Rapid Transit backbones East<>West
2. Both = SkyTrain which is our "grade separated" standard LRT system (Yes I know Canada Line is not SkyTrain technically but to the general public it is... just like how cotton swabs are not "Q-Tips" and tissues are not "Kleenex" but brand association happens...)

Actually, Canada Line is considered SkyTrain as well. It's not using the LIM cars, but I believe in terms of branding, it is. Essentially, when the Canada Line was built, the term SkyTrain was converted from "technology type" to "Vancouver's name for their rapid transit system"

LRT on the other hand is purely a "within Surrey" thing and as such I have less of an issue with either option. As has been seen above my brain and facts tell me they should likely do a proper BRT system rather than jump straight to LRT but if I was putting money down on anything, I'd bet it will end up being at-grade LRT.

This is so true. People here are all up in arms about LRT thinking that it's somehow going to REPLACE SkyTrain. However, I think they're not getting the point. LRT is a Surrey system for intracity travel. It's similar to the WCE that the tri-cities has.

Few would say the Evergreen line replaces the WCE. Few would argue that the WCE promotes more TOD than the SkyTrain. SkyTrain stations are not (generally) built around park n ride stations. SkyTrain has a better chance of being built into the urban fabric of the city. WCE didn't do much in that regard, but no one cared, because it was designed for LONG-DISTANCE commuting.

The LRT is designed for short-distance commuting. It's a more attractive bus with a FIXED route. Don't underestimate the power of a fixed route, even if it's not appreciably faster. A fixed route with stations gives that route permanence.

Developers can build TOD with less parking citing the proximity to a train station. Developers are encouraged to build street-facing retail and housing. People are encouraged to walk as streets are narrowed, forcing cars to slow down or take alternative routes.

Lots of people complained about bike lanes downtown along certain main routes, but these streets are definitely more pleasurable to be a pedestrian on.

Sure, the LRT is taking away transit cash, but let's be honest... when Expo Line gets extended, it will be a BIG DEAL, and it will likely NEED to go to Langley. The EXPO line will be a LOT more expensive, because you can't just plan to build it to 168th without Langley threatening to leave Metro and forcing a plebiscite because they're not getting their fair share.

An LRT on the other hand:

• Will NOT go to Langley (although ironically, LRT is probably a better fit East of 168th through Cloverdale, given it's going through the ALR)
• Has potential to make Surrey's MAIN arterials a LOT more people friendly, putting people over private transportation.
• Will happen a LOT more quickly as SkyTrain extensions are higher profile
• Leaves the main intercity corridor (Fraser Hwy) still open for Rapid Transit
• Is further along in planning and more likely to receive Federal money before that gravy train is chock-full of national infrastructure projects.

The Broadway Corridor is just over 12m wide between the parking lanes. Take away two lanes from 104th and you still have 12m left.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Actually, Canada Line is considered SkyTrain as well. It's not using the LIM cars, but I believe in terms of branding, it is. Essentially, when the Canada Line was built, the term SkyTrain was converted from "technology type" to "Vancouver's name for their rapid transit system"


This is so true. People here are all up in arms about LRT thinking that it's somehow going to REPLACE SkyTrain. However, I think they're not getting the point. LRT is a Surrey system for intracity travel. It's similar to the WCE that the tri-cities has.

Few would say the Evergreen line replaces the WCE. Few would argue that the WCE promotes more TOD than the SkyTrain. SkyTrain stations are not (generally) built around park n ride stations. SkyTrain has a better chance of being built into the urban fabric of the city. WCE didn't do much in that regard, but no one cared, because it was designed for LONG-DISTANCE commuting.

The LRT is designed for short-distance commuting. It's a more attractive bus with a FIXED route. Don't underestimate the power of a fixed route, even if it's not appreciably faster. A fixed route with stations gives that route permanence.

Developers can build TOD with less parking citing the proximity to a train station. Developers are encouraged to build street-facing retail and housing. People are encouraged to walk as streets are narrowed, forcing cars to slow down or take alternative routes.

Lots of people complained about bike lanes downtown along certain main routes, but these streets are definitely more pleasurable to be a pedestrian on.

Sure, the LRT is taking away transit cash, but let's be honest... when Expo Line gets extended, it will be a BIG DEAL, and it will likely NEED to go to Langley. The EXPO line will be a LOT more expensive, because you can't just plan to build it to 168th without Langley threatening to leave Metro and forcing a plebiscite because they're not getting their fair share.

An LRT on the other hand:

• Will NOT go to Langley (although ironically, LRT is probably a better fit East of 168th through Cloverdale, given it's going through the ALR)
• Has potential to make Surrey's MAIN arterials a LOT more people friendly, putting people over private transportation.
• Will happen a LOT more quickly as SkyTrain extensions are higher profile
• Leaves the main intercity corridor (Fraser Hwy) still open for Rapid Transit
• Is further along in planning and more likely to receive Federal money before that gravy train is chock-full of national infrastructure projects.

The Broadway Corridor is just over 12m wide between the parking lanes. Take away two lanes from 104th and you still have 12m left.

Agree 100% with the things you said. I'm sometimes hesitant to bring walk ability and urban design in but, those are things that are definetly promoted by LRT. Nobody wants LRT on Fraser but, building it on KGB and 104 seems pretty plausible, Surrey needs more rapid transit and Skytrain isn't going to be plausible for a pretty long time on these corridors.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Agree 100% with the things you said. I'm sometimes hesitant to bring walk ability and urban design in but, those are things that are definetly promoted by LRT. Nobody wants LRT on Fraser but, building it on KGB and 104 seems pretty plausible, Surrey needs more rapid transit and Skytrain isn't going to be plausible for a pretty long time on these corridors.

You need it now, sure, but it also has to be designed for the future. Otherwise you end up with another Canada Line.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

This is so true. People here are all up in arms about LRT thinking that it's somehow going to REPLACE SkyTrain. However, I think they're not getting the point. LRT is a Surrey system for intracity travel. It's similar to the WCE that the tri-cities has.

Few would say the Evergreen line replaces the WCE. Few would argue that the WCE promotes more TOD than the SkyTrain. SkyTrain stations are not (generally) built around park n ride stations. SkyTrain has a better chance of being built into the urban fabric of the city. WCE didn't do much in that regard, but no one cared, because it was designed for LONG-DISTANCE commuting.

The LRT is designed for short-distance commuting. It's a more attractive bus with a FIXED route. Don't underestimate the power of a fixed route, even if it's not appreciably faster. A fixed route with stations gives that route permanence.

Developers can build TOD with less parking citing the proximity to a train station. Developers are encouraged to build street-facing retail and housing. People are encouraged to walk as streets are narrowed, forcing cars to slow down or take alternative routes.

The problem with this comparison is that the WCE is separate from car traffic and is a long distance express service. Surrey's L Line will be running down the middle of busy streets (King George is still a secondary highway) and is not going to be anything resembling express. A more accurate comparison would be to imagine LRT travelling down the center of Kingsway (ignoring that the Expo Line is parallel to Kingsway).

Narrowing streets in Surrey is not what we want to see. Too many of the major streets there are already checker boards where the number of lanes alternate between 2 and 4. Plus there aren't enough 4 lane east - west routes spaced regularly through the city. It can making driving through Surrey a nightmare. Local drivers already take alternate routes and rat race through residential areas to get around.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by Sheba

The problem with this comparison is that the WCE is separate from car traffic and is a long distance express service. Surrey's L Line will be running down the middle of busy streets (King George is still a secondary highway) and is not going to be anything resembling express. A more accurate comparison would be to imagine LRT travelling down the center of Kingsway (ignoring that the Expo Line is parallel to Kingsway).

Narrowing streets in Surrey is not what we want to see. Too many of the major streets there are already checker boards where the number of lanes alternate between 2 and 4. Plus there aren't enough 4 lane east - west routes spaced regularly through the city. It can making driving through Surrey a nightmare. Local drivers already take alternate routes and rat race through residential areas to get around.

And transit will mean that people caught in traffic will be able to get through, I'll admit that the comparison to WCE isn't really reasonable, however the point made about this being an intra city service is very true. In addition, keeping roads wide isn't going to help us too much as wider roads will simply induce more demand, you are going to have to continuously widen your roads forever if you want to take that approach to moving people just look at Toronto, they have an incredibly extensive road network and still suffer significant gridlock. Reducing gridlock for those who MUST use a car is often counter intuitively achieved by reducing the perceived space for drivers thus leading more road users to consider a rapid transit solution.

Surrey's road network is already fairly solid, however Skytrain is not feasible on KGB and 104 so the only solid solution is a segregated BRT or LRT. Otherwise we will have Surrey looking like Missasauga with 6 or 8 lane roads through core sections rather than Vancouver with fairly narrow roads even in core areas like Broadway, as shown below.

Broadway:



Hurontario:

[logicbomb]

A big misnomer is that streets in Surrey are "wide" and open. I find 108th Avenue to be akin to West 12th in some areas, where there are no designated turning lanes. 104th Avenue is more like E Hastings (but narrower), an busy road at most parts of the day that provides access to Highway #1 to the rest of Guildford and Whalley.

104th is a combined 4 lanes with occasional planer boxes and a duel turning median. There's very little room to expand the road without an incredible amount of expense (property acquisition and expensive demolition).



That picture should be telling. 104th is enclosed and nearly impossible to expand. Reducing traffic to 1 lane in each direction will make the road nearly impassible unless you restrict left + right turns and eliminate bus service along 104th. Of course, this is why the City of Surrey is examining whether or not it is feasible to single spur the latter portion of the route to Guildford....

I will admit that KGB is wide enough but the rapid redevelopment along the corridor may necessitate the full 6 lanes eventually as traffic worsens.

The queue jumpers have significantly improved the reliability of bus service between Newton Exchange and Surrey Central, however buses are getting bunched up along 104th due to the congestion. Franky there is no way to address this without spending billions of dollars (yes, I assume it will cost that much) to expand the roadway and demolish existing properties to allow for right turn lanes.

For the record, I am still in the BRT camp.

[Whalleyboy]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

A big misnomer is that streets in Surrey are "wide" and open. I find 108th Avenue to be akin to West 12th in some areas, where there are no designated turning lanes. 104th Avenue is more like E Hastings (but narrower), an busy road at most parts of the day that provides access to Highway #1 to the rest of Guildford and Whalley.

104th is a combined 4 lanes with occasional planer boxes and a duel turning median. There's very little room to expand the road without an incredible amount of expense (property acquisition and expensive demolition).



That picture should be telling. 104th is enclosed and nearly impossible to expand. Reducing traffic to 1 lane in each direction will make the road nearly impassible unless you restrict left + right turns and eliminate bus service along 104th. Of course, this is why the City of Surrey is examining whether or not it is feasible to single spur the latter portion of the route to Guildford....

I will admit that KGB is wide enough but the rapid redevelopment along the corridor may necessitate the full 6 lanes eventually as traffic worsens.

The queue jumpers have significantly improved the reliability of bus service between Newton Exchange and Surrey Central, however buses are getting bunched up along 104th due to the congestion. Franky there is no way to address this without spending billions of dollars (yes, I assume it will cost that much) to expand the roadway and demolish existing properties to allow for right turn lanes.

For the record, I am still in the BRT camp.

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.

[Sheba]

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.

Surrey has to make sure that 128th, 132nd, 140th, 148th and 152nd don't have that checker board effect between Hwy 10 in the south and 104th in the north. I know for a fact that some of them do and if I checked google maps I'd be surprised if most / all of them don't have that same issue. Surrey has been dragging their ass and doing next to nothing about it for a long time now.

[Express691]

http://bc.ctvnews.ca/surrey-downs-do...road-1.3325221

CTV has covered a news article highlighting the cutting of dozens of trees along 100th avenue for its widening. Talk about doing this in time for when 104th closes for LRT construction

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Surrey has to make sure that 128th, 132nd, 140th, 148th and 152nd don't have that checker board effect between Hwy 10 in the south and 104th in the north. I know for a fact that some of them do and if I checked google maps I'd be surprised if most / all of them don't have that same issue. Surrey has been dragging their ass and doing next to nothing about it for a long time now.

140th is a stupid road to drive: 2 lane to 4 lane to 2 lane

152nd is also a joke going south past Coleman road. They have 2 major bridges to twin and that is what they have dragged their heals forever.

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by Express691

http://bc.ctvnews.ca/surrey-downs-do...road-1.3325221

CTV has covered a news article highlighting the cutting of dozens of trees along 100th avenue for its widening. Talk about doing this in time for when 104th closes for LRT construction

What LRT? There is no funding in place and until that is solid, it is just a bad pipe-dream that should never be built.

As for 100th ave and Fraser Hwy, they should have been 4 laned years ago. The tree huggers can plant new trees.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Agree 100% with the things you said. I'm sometimes hesitant to bring walk ability and urban design in but, those are things that are definetly promoted by LRT. Nobody wants LRT on Fraser but, building it on KGB and 104 seems pretty plausible, Surrey needs more rapid transit and Skytrain isn't going to be plausible for a pretty long time on these corridors.

The problem with walkability and urban design, is that the people doing the designing here keep using a California transit mindset.

Metro Vancouver is wet. Nobody wants to walk around outside in the rain, let alone the cold if they don't have to. It rains frequently enough that you can find abandoned umbrellas after every rainstorm, our malls have bags you can use to put your wet umbrellas in.

Now ask yourself, do people like being in the rain when they are waiting for a bus? Do people want to wait in the rain for an infrequent bus or train? That is Surrey.

Walkability makes the assumption that it does not rain frequently or hard enough to be of any concern, so you would normally want your business frontage to be along the sidewalk to reduce the amount of walking across parking lots. In short, "how wet am I going to get from the minute I step off the bus, to the minute I step in the store." When it rains, even if something has a high walkability, people are going to take a car. Uber will only make that easier.

Urban design does not take into account climate. If we really cared about this, we would not be approving any development that didn't protect pedestrians from the weather in Metro Vancouver. People are not willing to visit a business when it is wet outside if there is no way to avoid getting wet, it's more likely that they will order things online. Which you can do in Seattle. So a business that is in a "Urban Design" trap is not going to be competitive with a covered mall, or online services. It will only be able to serve people who live in the same building or the surrounding buildings during wet days.

When it is wet outside, point blank, I will reconsider even going outside, and if I have to, it will be to the end of the block.

I think this is something that people who drive fundamentally misunderstand about things being walkable. If I do not have a car, and do not want a car, I am not going to have the security of a vehicle to protect myself from the weather. So if I need to make a grocery trip and it's been 5 solid days of rain, my choices are either call a taxi, or order a pizza.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Kisai

When it is wet outside, point blank, I will reconsider even going outside, and if I have to, it will be to the end of the block.

I think this is something that people who drive fundamentally misunderstand about things being walkable. If I do not have a car, and do not want a car, I am not going to have the security of a vehicle to protect myself from the weather. So if I need to make a grocery trip and it's been 5 solid days of rain, my choices are either call a taxi, or order a pizza.

That's the problem with the suburbs here (not just Surrey). They're being built more on a scale for driving, by people who are drivers who don't understand that not everyone wants a car.

[SFUVancouver]

Fatal collision between a LYNX LRT and a car in Charlotte, NC.

http://www.wbtv.com/story/34916901/f...-of-south-blvd

What's interesting, too, is that Charlotte went to great lengths to separate the LRT line from major intersections by raising them up on viaducts (one is visible in the photo), but to keep costs down there are still numerous level crossings on secondary roads. It was at one of these level crossings, immediately before the track elevates to clear a major intersection, that this fatal collision occurred.

Here's the Google Streetview of the crash: https://goo.gl/maps/oQCoZN7Kbj42

Also, not for nothing, but notice how wide the LRT right of way is for the elevated section. Charlotte also used the lowest-cost method of elevated construction: standard pre-cast concrete beams, and concrete columns and bents; indistinguishable from road overpasses and onramps.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Kisai

I think this is something that people who drive fundamentally misunderstand about things being walkable. If I do not have a car, and do not want a car, I am not going to have the security of a vehicle to protect myself from the weather. So if I need to make a grocery trip and it's been 5 solid days of rain, my choices are either call a taxi, or order a pizza.

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.