Surrey Langley Skytrain - Expo Line Extension | Proposed - Page 161

Metro-One · #**3201** Posted **Mar 21, 2017, 1:32 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

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

There is nothing to re-evaluate for the Broadway Subway. That would only make it even more expensive again in the long run.

On the other hand, there is A LOT to re-evaluate on the Surrey LRT.

So the Surrey LRT better not hijack the Broadway Subway from starting construction.

logicbomb · #**3202** Posted **Mar 21, 2017, 2:11 AM**

Drive down 104th Ave and you can see that a significant amount of $$$ would have to go towards property acquisition. There is no way in hell you are fitting two tracks and stations along that corridor without tearing down a few buildings and cutting into some lots.

Sheba · #**3203** Posted **Mar 21, 2017, 5:59 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by logicbomb

Drive down 104th Ave and you can see that a significant amount of $$$ would have to go towards property acquisition. There is no way in hell you are fitting two tracks and stations along that corridor without tearing down a few buildings and cutting into some lots.

104th is where they're wanting to single track some / most of it - and the area where they've been yelling 'buses aren't enough, we need rail!' Hopefully this is another nail in the coffin of the L Line as LRT (or at least as it's currently planned).

ilikeredheads · #**3204** Posted **Mar 21, 2017, 6:17 AM**

lol if they want to have single track down 104th, they might as well not build it at all.

Kisai · #**3205** Posted **Mar 21, 2017, 11:12 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

lol if they want to have single track down 104th, they might as well not build it at all.

It would not surprise me if Surrey just eminent domain'ed all the property. Worked for Expo 86 didn't it?

Bdawe · #**3206** Posted **Mar 21, 2017, 3:23 PM**

I, for one, refuse to believe that single tracking is actually a real idea.

officedweller · #**3207** Posted **Mar 21, 2017, 7:25 PM**

Single tracking makes sense for rehabilitating an existing line - by just adding passing tracks (like O-Train in Ottawa or the Olympic streetcar), but does not make sense for a completely new build.

Reecemartin · #**3208** Posted **Mar 21, 2017, 8:46 PM**

I being not stringently anti LRT cannot see them EVER going to single tracking with a modern LRT, then we would basically just be getting a streetcar. 104th losing some lanes is 10000000x more logical, the whole purpose of transit is to get people out of cars.

Sheba · #**3209** Posted **Mar 21, 2017, 11:13 PM**

'L' Line coming to Surrey - Nov 16, 2016

Quote:

Sometime in 2022, commuters in Surrey should be able to use a light rail transportation system to travel between City Centre and Guildford, as well as north and south on King George Boulevard.

That's if the projected timeline for the planning and contraction of the "L" Line route remains on schedule over the next five years, City of Surrey Manager of Rapid Transit and Strategic Projects Paul Lee told the Cloverdale Chamber of Commerce Tuesday afternoon.

...

The L Line is one of two major rapid transit projects for Surrey which is part of the Mayors' Council proposal for transportation improvements over the next decade.

The other project is a rapid transit line along Fraser Highway connecting the end of the current SkyTrain line in North Surrey to Langley City.

"The design is in progress, and we're looking at two technologies," said Lee. "One is light rail, where (rail) cars run in the middle of the road. The other is SkyTrain, similar to that of the Expo and Millennium lines."

Noting that TransLink "is the owner" of the Fraser Highway project and Surrey "is a partner," Lee said the city prefers at-grade light rail while the province is leaning towards SkyTrain and an elevated route no matter which technology is used.

makr3trkr · #**3210** Posted **Mar 21, 2017, 11:27 PM**

Elevated Skytrain is obviously the best solution for Fraser Highway from the perspective of moving people + traffic. Bar none.

At the same time, I can't say if I lived on Fraser Highway I would enjoy being in the shadow of a hulking concrete guideway. The corridor is already a lot more dense outside of Green Timbers than you would imagine.

More likely I'd want cut and cover. But I guess nobody in the region really gives a hoot about the hoi polloi in Surrey.

I will say that even if you're in a tower 30 stories up Skytrain is *noisy*

Reecemartin · #**3211** Posted **Mar 22, 2017, 12:08 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by makr3trkr

Elevated Skytrain is obviously the best solution for Fraser Highway from the perspective of moving people + traffic. Bar none.

At the same time, I can't say if I lived on Fraser Highway I would enjoy being in the shadow of a hulking concrete guideway. The corridor is already a lot more dense outside of Green Timbers than you would imagine.

More likely I'd want cut and cover. But I guess nobody in the region really gives a hoot about the hoi polloi in Surrey.

I will say that even if you're in a tower 30 stories up Skytrain is *noisy*

Living South of the Fraser most of my life I will certainly agree that Fraser Highway is significantly denser than most would imagine, and that's only increasing especially around town centres. However, it certainly isn't dense enough for a subway. If noise is a serious issue then noise tubes can be implemented similar to Kuala Lumpur.

In general it would be great to see more density along Fraser Highway in the form of towers, particularly into Langley Centre. I believe Langleys Tallest building is still only 6 or seven stories.

Sheba · #**3212** Posted **Mar 22, 2017, 12:21 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by makr3trkr

Elevated Skytrain is obviously the best solution for Fraser Highway from the perspective of moving people + traffic. Bar none.

At the same time, I can't say if I lived on Fraser Highway I would enjoy being in the shadow of a hulking concrete guideway. The corridor is already a lot more dense outside of Green Timbers than you would imagine.

More likely I'd want cut and cover. But I guess nobody in the region really gives a hoot about the hoi polloi in Surrey.

I will say that even if you're in a tower 30 stories up Skytrain is *noisy*

Hmm I seem to remember people complaining about noise and visual pollution about the Evergreen extension and the Canada Line in Richmond. I'd be really surprised if no one complained about the Millennium and Expo lines too (although at least with Expo it was the first line and no one knew what to expect). Guess what - the sky didn't fall!

I've lived near the Expo Line in 3 different locations and it's really not that bad. Indoors I didn't hear anything and I quickly tuned it out when outdoors. The sound of cars driving by is more intrusive but people rarely complain about that. In this case people are living along Fraser Hwy - so it's not like they're living in the middle of a farm with no roads within 10km.

Find me a tower that's even 10 storeys tall along Fraser Hwy.

Metro-One · #**3213** Posted **Mar 22, 2017, 12:39 AM**

Doesn't an LRT on the road also make noise?

Dont heavy rail lines also make noise?

Don't all roads make noise?

I have seriously never found the "noise" argument to be a good one.

I live near an elevated heavy rail line currently with trains passing by about once every 5 minutes. These trains are louder than skytrain and it still is not a problem at all.

ilikeredheads · #**3214** Posted **Mar 22, 2017, 1:13 AM**

This is Vancouver we are talking about. There will always be people complaining about noise where it's a non story most of the time. We still have people living next to Main St/Science World Stn whine about skytrain being "loud".

logicbomb · #**3215** Posted **Mar 22, 2017, 2:40 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

I being not stringently anti LRT cannot see them EVER going to single tracking with a modern LRT, then we would basically just be getting a streetcar. 104th losing some lanes is 10000000x more logical, the whole purpose of transit is to get people out of cars.

Can we put this notion to rest? That's not how you get people out of their cars. In the end, the LRT line will have a terminus @ Guildford Exchange, and most commuters will need to transfer onto the LRT via bus anyways. It will be a huge pain for those that take the 320, 337 and 501 as they will be forced into an additional transfer. Many that see inadequate service will continue to drive despite the increased traffic (and subsequent frustration).

Proponents of this project continue to underestimate how vital 104th Ave is. That road provides direct access to the SFPR for Whalley/Guildford residents, and also provides direct access to EB Hwy #1. It does not seem at all logical to shift all that traffic onto 108th and 100th Ave as it will lead to choke-points along the N-S roads in Guildford.

I recall 104th being narrowed for water-main construction 8 years ago and it resulted in absolute chaos - severely hampering transit service in Whalley and Guildford.

The money can be better spent by:
a) Widening pedestrian sidewalks
b) Adding queue jumping/turn lanes
c) Installing fencing to deter jaywalking
d) Adding fully sheltered bus stops with real-time timetables/displays

As it stands now, there is very little room along portions of the corridor to accommodate 2 lanes of traffic + 2 LRT tracks and stations.

flipper316 · #**3216** Posted **Mar 22, 2017, 5:50 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

Great let's tear up another park. Ugh. Look at Green Timbers, a shell of its former self.

xd_1771 · #**3217** Posted **Mar 22, 2017, 6:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Doesn't an LRT on the road also make noise?

Dont heavy rail lines also make noise?

Don't all roads make noise?

I have seriously never found the "noise" argument to be a good one.

I live near an elevated heavy rail line currently with trains passing by about once every 5 minutes. These trains are louder than skytrain and it still is not a problem at all.

Yeah this is what kind of underscores how poor the noise argument against SkyTrain is. Having a train go by every 5 minutes or so is surely not that much more noisy than having cars and trucks and traffic constantly and ceaselessly going by on Fraser Highway.

The Evergreen Line's own noise & vibration assessment noted that operating trains on an open-air guideway along roadways such as North Road and Pinetree would not increase noise above current levels:

Quote:

Key Findings:

Due to existing road and freight rail traffic, the environment is already fairly noisy along much of the alignment.
As with most major construction projects, there will be temporary noise generation from construction machinery working in the area.
During operations, the line is not expected to significantly increase noise above current levels at most areas.
During operations, noise impacts are predicted for about 15% of assessed
buildings: high noise impacts are predicted for approximately 3% of buildings along the line, while moderate noise impacts are predicted for about 12% of buildings.

and furthermore:

Quote:

Vibrations from Evergreen Line operations will be lower than existing rail and road traffic vibration.

I think one of the reasons SkyTrain is seen as noisy by some is because much of the original Expo Line was not built on roadways and as such the surrounding areas are relatively quiet when there are no trains passing by. I too have lived next to the Expo Line SkyTrain viaduct (and in an area where trains are either accelerating or decelerating, not just cruising) and despite the noise and that I had previously lived in a quiet neighbourhood in Guildford, it did not bother me whatsoever.