HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2241  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2015, 5:29 AM
xd_1771's Avatar
xd_1771 xd_1771 is offline
(daka_x)
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 1,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCPhil View Post
I think the only reason people in Surrey want LRT is because it has been hyped and pitched as "attainable".
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhausner View Post
I agree. I happen to not like LRT at all and would take SkyTrain or even TRUE BRT any day over it. As BCPhil said, the reason most in Surrey are behind LRT is because it is seen as attainable where SkyTrain isn't.
On this matter I think there is a clear reason that LRT has been popular with the transit community and some community politicians, but I think there's a lot more to the story than just 'hyped' and 'pitched'.

First of all it's important to remember that the LRT gravy train was ongoing as far back as 2008 and perhaps even earlier, long before I entered the game with opposition in favour of SkyTrain. I made this summary slide for a presentation awhile back on who I think have been the main influences for the whole LRT movement:



When Hillsdon ran for Council back in 2008, he presented an attractive looking idea but cited a cost of $27 million per km for every single line he proposed including those that would need to be built on-street. This was taken from a previous TransLink study estimate of what it would cost to build a 'full-built electric interurban LRT'. It's horribly inaccurate, but there was no one to tell him otherwise at that time. There was also no consideration of long-term operating costs.

I'm sure most of us here are familiar with RFTV; the organization's existence pretty much revolves around opposing SkyTrain than any sort of actual Fraser Valley transit improvement (the proof is the total lack of RFTV participation in consultation for the new FVX express bus).

When Mayor Watts jumped aboard the LRT ship in 2011 and used her eye-candy video to cement the vision in the minds of residents, she mentioned in her speech that she was proceeding because she didn't see anyone opposing her on the matter. I think there's plenty of untapped opposition but it's a matter of not being organized (something that I decided to try to do when I entered the game around 2012).

And honestly, I've been suspicious about Light Rail Links and wouldn't be surprised if they threw financial incentives at the people/groups they signed up on their list. We know so little about the organization, just that it appears to be run by the SBoT and has done little in terms of advocacy other than putting together their 'supporter list'.

The main thing that has always united these groups and people is they share this idea that SkyTrain 'costs too much' (in terms of capital cost) and doesn't cover as much area as an LRT would, therefore an LRT would be more successful. This is a completely incorrect way of thinking because there are so many other things that also matter, even when it comes to finances. As an example, when everything is up and running, a SkyTrain extension would pay for its own operating costs, while an on-street LRT would run operating deficits almost every year and is virtually unsustainable.

So when you try and pitch LRT to local citizens, there are so many things that people already believe about LRT that are entirely untrue and have been a product of years of un-moderated advocacy with no organized opposition whatsoever. So they're going to believe it's a good option when it really isn't.

LRT support in Surrey is a product of years and years of people and groups misunderstanding transit planning processes, and misleading everyone else as a result.

Last edited by xd_1771; Jul 16, 2015 at 5:41 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2242  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2015, 2:48 PM
aberdeen5698's Avatar
aberdeen5698 aberdeen5698 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by memememe76 View Post
I don't see Surrey's parking lots any bigger than other cities' malls. Also, the Guildford bus loop is right next to the mall's entrance. Much shorter than, say, Lougheed Station to the mall.
Well in the context of comparing densities in Vancouver vs. Surrey with regard to the case for a rail transit corridor, how big are the parking lots on Broadway? My point is that most of the shopping districts in Vancouver encourage walking and discourage car use (limited parking, often paid) and that in turn encourages transit use. And the vast majority of Vancouver residents live within a simple street grid that make it possible to access transit with only a few minutes' walk. That's why I say density isn't Surrey's only issue with respect to transit - a bigger issue IMHO is the built environment which encourages car use and discourages walking - and that makes it less desirable for Surrey residents to take transit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2243  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2015, 6:08 PM
Sheba Sheba is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: BC
Posts: 4,291
Quote:
Originally Posted by aberdeen5698 View Post
Well in the context of comparing densities in Vancouver vs. Surrey with regard to the case for a rail transit corridor, how big are the parking lots on Broadway? My point is that most of the shopping districts in Vancouver encourage walking and discourage car use (limited parking, often paid) and that in turn encourages transit use. And the vast majority of Vancouver residents live within a simple street grid that make it possible to access transit with only a few minutes' walk. That's why I say density isn't Surrey's only issue with respect to transit - a bigger issue IMHO is the built environment which encourages car use and discourages walking - and that makes it less desirable for Surrey residents to take transit.
How big are the parking lots at Oakridge currently? A lot of places outside of downtown Van / Broadway have a massive amount of parking. A difference between NoF and Surrey is the available land - NoF parking tends to be underground (redevelopment is pushing this even more) while Surrey has kept more to surface parking.

There's also a difference in transit availability. Vancouver has roughly equal north - south and east - west routes while Surrey is lacking in the east - west routes. Some areas are also missing a north - south route, doubling the distance between routes. How is this supposed to encourage transit usage?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2244  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2015, 7:28 PM
BCPhil BCPhil is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by aberdeen5698 View Post
Surrey's problem is more than just density. You need more than just density adjacent to rapid transit - you also need feeder services to bring people to it. Surrey's biggest problem is a built infrastructure that strongly discourages walking. You see this in houses located at the ends of cul-de-sac hell where it's a long walk to the nearest arterial street that could support a bus route, and in the huge mall parking lots which mean a substantial walk to the shops from the bus stop, and in the fact that outside the malls it's impractical to walk from one store to the next because of the distances involved. If people are discouraged from walking to the bus or walking between stores to run errands, how are you going to convince them to become transit (and thence rapid transit) customers?
That is a common misconception of Surrey. Many cul-de-sacs in Surrey have pedestrian paths between properties at the end through to the next culdesac. This is very common in newer developments like Clayton. There are some where it doesn't go through, but for the most part, every neighbourhood has a pretty direct walking path to the nearest arterial.

The problem is that Translink doesn't have bus service on every arterial, and many of them are peak or infrequent service; so it is a long walk to the frequent bus bus stop. And even then, many bus routes then snake through the community to overlap as many arterial roads with one route, instead of being direct to the nearest exchange.

In commercial areas, it is not uncommon for distances to be large between the places you want to visit, even on a street like Broadway. The problem in Surrey is many areas have been ignored for street upgrades, making actually hard to get from the street TO the commercial property. It is not that it is too far, it is that the city has no money to build a sidewalk and then a path into the commercial property. It's not sprawl that is the problem, it is our insanely low taxes keep the roads like shit.

Behind a lot of developments is preserved greenspace. It's not really an official park, but it is also not undeveloped land. Like look at Bear Creek snaking through Northeast Newton. Hidden under the trees are walking paths that make walking in the city quite nice, through greenspace to protect the creek. Vancouver has the "luxury" of having paved over and filled in all their natural creeks decades ago to complete the street grid. We've tried to protect them.

But you're right, maybe we should cut down every tree and pave over every creek if we want to deserve rapid transit.

Skytrain isn't only used to reward previous unrestrained development and density. It can be used to encourage spheres of density at town centers at stations, that would otherwise be SFH as far as the eye can see.

If Surrey is too sprawly for some tastes, it is because there has been to reason not to be. You need the station first, so you can actually get people willing to pay to be in a small condo near it.

Look at what Burnaby has done around the Millennium line in 13 short years. Imagine what Surrey would be like today if Skytrain went to 168 St in 1997 like it should have. We could have focused a little less on super towers around King George, and on more mid rise development the rest of the way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinion View Post
That photo is of North Van, not New West. The seabus has obviously played a factor in its density but 40 years ago it was nothing as well, and the seabus is crap compared to skytrain. e.g. 30 minute intervals after 6:30pm, 12km/h maximum speed.
You can't compare just speed. Walking is even slower, but the preferred method if you are close to your destination because the trip is shorter.

Skytrain might be fast, but Surrey City Center is still 40 minutes away from downtown. North Van is 15 minutes away on the Seabus. Even if you miss the Seabus by 1 second, it still only takes 30 minutes to get downtown, shorter than Skytrain from Surrey.

I guess we have different definitions of "fast"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jhausner View Post
Unfortunately grass lots don't make it look dense and there are certainly no-man lands still and will be for coming time. But where does that line get drawn? There _are_ neighborhoods in Surrey today though that are > 7000/km2. They don't have high-rises but like I've said previously, you just take a drive out to Clayton or parts around Morgan Heights or Panorama Village and you'll go "wow ok they are cramming a lot into small spaces here." It all adds up. The image above of New West shows some high-rises (most in New West are shorties) but a lot of infill buildings. It's all those infill buildings that add up to density fast.

Look at Broadway. Most of its density is not from high-rises.

At the end though again we circle to this argument that somehow you must already have huge density to justify rapid transit when I've pointed out in other threads indisputably that the majority of our RRT has developed BEFORE density was ever established nearly everywhere from Metrotown to Lougheed, Coquitlam (which doesn't even compare to Surrey Central btw) to Brentwood, Joyce, Patterson, even New Westminster. They were all pretty much flat forests when SkyTrain went in. So just going on history, many parts of Surrey don't need to build density before RRT as that isn't a requirement anywhere they actually have more than many parts that have SkyTrain now had when it was first built.

Surrey did drop the ball though and it should be far more dense in Surrey Central than it is today due to failures of previous councils and we as citizens supported the no-investment councils for over a decade.
I don't think Surrey dropped the ball at all, except maybe early on in the late 90s. But since then, the fate of Surrey's downtown has been in the hands of those willing to pay for construction. In fact, the city has done a good job holding on for tall buildings while keeping developers from cashing out (by building short woodframe buildings) during the market crash.

The city can zone all it wants, but the economy can only create and absorb so many small condo units at a time.

You have to look at it from a developers prospective. They can only build and sell so many units in the region at once. There are only so many buyers in the market at once, and there are only so many construction workers available to build them at once. Even without building high rises in Surrey, the concrete Condo inventory in the region has been pretty high recently.

So you are the developer and you have land in Burnaby and in Surrey. You can only finance constructing one high rise at a time (and you don't have enough friends in construction to get enough workers for 2 sites without paying more than market rates for labor). The price of the land for your tower really isn't that different, maybe a few million tops. But the cost of building your 30 floor tower is the exact same, whether you build it downtown Vancouver or Abbotsford. And that is the most expensive portion. So at the end of the day, building in Burnaby or in Surrey costs almost the same. But, Burnaby is closer to Vancouver. The commutes (driving or Skytrain) are half. People are willing to pay more to live there. Each unit sells for more than the difference in cost to you, so your margins are better on the Burnaby building. So the Burnaby project generates way more profit.

Which one are you going to build?

Concrete tower condo buyers aren't the only buyers around. So developers also build low rise condos, townhomes, rowhomes, duplexes, and SFH. But for these, the price of land comes more into play. To keep sale prices low and attractive, you build a lot of these out in the suburbs. But Surrey zoning is keeping that from happening at Central City, keeping it for future towers.

So that is why there is a bit of a hole near City Center. The space is saved for when inventory dries up NoF and suddenly buying a Condo in Whalley is as close as you can get to a Skytrain station (which is starting to happen). In the meantime, developers have been building like crazy to the east. So you get a bit of a lull in density.

If there is a problem in Surrey, it is that city council is treating what little land there is near Skytrain like it is a scarce resource. So the zoning is holding out for the biggest of the big developments; no space to waste on infill. If we had more stations, we could be a little more lax in our zoning and allow more mixed density in the area (places that are more affordable).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2245  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2015, 7:39 PM
Pinion Pinion is offline
See ya down under, mates
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCPhil View Post
You can't compare just speed. Walking is even slower, but the preferred method if you are close to your destination because the trip is shorter.

Skytrain might be fast, but Surrey City Center is still 40 minutes away from downtown. North Van is 15 minutes away on the Seabus. Even if you miss the Seabus by 1 second, it still only takes 30 minutes to get downtown, shorter than Skytrain from Surrey.

I guess we have different definitions of "fast"?
Actual commute time to downtown from Lonsdale is closer to 45 minutes if you have to take a bus on either side/aren't right next to waterfront station or the quay. But my point was density, Surrey always talks big game about being the second urban centre of the region, but it's getting destroyed by nearly every other nearby suburb in density and development. I was wondering if there was some part of Surrey that I hadn't seen that had density like the photo I showed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2246  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2015, 9:32 PM
CanSpice's Avatar
CanSpice CanSpice is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: New Westminster, BC
Posts: 2,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCPhil View Post
Concrete tower condo buyers aren't the only buyers around. So developers also build low rise condos, townhomes, rowhomes, duplexes, and SFH. But for these, the price of land comes more into play. To keep sale prices low and attractive, you build a lot of these out in the suburbs. But Surrey zoning is keeping that from happening at Central City, keeping it for future towers.

So that is why there is a bit of a hole near City Center. The space is saved for when inventory dries up NoF and suddenly buying a Condo in Whalley is as close as you can get to a Skytrain station (which is starting to happen). In the meantime, developers have been building like crazy to the east. So you get a bit of a lull in density.
Inventory isn't going to dry up north of the Fraser any time soon. There are four residential towers planned near Sapperton Station. There are three going up near New Westminster Station. There are plans to add 3,400,000 square feet of residential floor space (approximately 3,700 dwelling units and 7,500 residents) next to Braid Station.

And that's just three stations in New Westminster. Burnaby's got a huge number of SkyTrain stations that have little development around them. Hell, how many towers are going up at Brentwood? And then there's the entire Canada Line -- Oakridge is set to grow massively, along with the entire Cambie corridor.

If they're waiting for inventory to dry up in Vancouver, Burnaby, or New Westminster before putting in more towers near City Centre, they're going to be waiting a long time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2247  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2015, 9:42 PM
BCPhil BCPhil is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinion View Post
Actual commute time to downtown from Lonsdale is closer to 45 minutes if you have to take a bus on either side/aren't right next to waterfront station or the quay. But my point was density, Surrey always talks big game about being the second urban centre of the region, but it's getting destroyed by nearly every other nearby suburb in density and development. I was wondering if there was some part of Surrey that I hadn't seen that had density like the photo I showed.
That's still shorter!

And if you are not lucky enough to live right next to a Skytrain station, like most of Surrey because it only touches a small corner of the entire city, you have to take a bus and are now looking at an hour commute.

It's not like if we planned just a tiny bit better, all 500,000 of us could live within walking distance of 4 train stations.

Lonsdale has had 38 years of Seabus to grow. Not only that, but before that there was private ferry service, they weren't far from 2 bridges, and had a bustling shipyard and port industry for a century. In fact, when you think of all that, it is kind of pathetic that only 16,600 people board the seabus each day.

Being kind, adding together ALL bus boardings in the entire North Shore and all seabus boardings barely equals just bus boardings South of Fraser. Who needs density in one specific spot when you have transit demand across an entire region (form people who are riding transit for over an hour each way currently).

Oh, life is so hard, you have to spend 15 minutes waiting for a 15 minute scenic harbor cruise. Meanwhile I ride a bus so busy I have to stand on it for 20 minutes just to get to the Skytrain where I'm packed in like a sardine for longer than your whole trip (and I'm one of the lucky ones with a "short" bus ride). Because: density?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2248  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2015, 10:08 PM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 21,617
Sounds like Surrey council, planners, etc are the ones to blame for Surrey's problems.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2249  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2015, 10:22 PM
BCPhil BCPhil is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanSpice View Post
Inventory isn't going to dry up north of the Fraser any time soon. There are four residential towers planned near Sapperton Station. There are three going up near New Westminster Station. There are plans to add 3,400,000 square feet of residential floor space (approximately 3,700 dwelling units and 7,500 residents) next to Braid Station.

And that's just three stations in New Westminster. Burnaby's got a huge number of SkyTrain stations that have little development around them. Hell, how many towers are going up at Brentwood? And then there's the entire Canada Line -- Oakridge is set to grow massively, along with the entire Cambie corridor.

If they're waiting for inventory to dry up in Vancouver, Burnaby, or New Westminster before putting in more towers near City Centre, they're going to be waiting a long time.
There is a lot happening at other stations, and it might mean a lack of construction around the City Center for some time, but that is not a people of Surrey created issue. We didn't look at that land and go, hmmm, that should just be empty forever. When the market needs land to build towers near Skytrain, that land will be available.

The problem is that we have build up mixed density everywhere else. Outside the current rapid transit footprint. Extending transit into Surrey literally brings it closer to hundreds of thousands of people. Just an extension of Skytrain to 168 St (a 7km extension) would add over 100,000 people who are currently within a 10 minute bus ride to the Fraser Highway.

That seems to be the attitude from outside the city. That there is a lack of density everywhere, any lack of density in any part is the fault of everyone in the city.

Just because there isn't a grouping of mid rise towers that fit nicely in a 4 block wide photo (like North Vancouver) doesn't mean there isn't density in the city. Outside that photo of North Van, it is just SFH. There are a lot of places you can go in Surrey, where there won't be tall towers, but there aren't only single family detached homes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2250  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2015, 10:23 PM
BCPhil BCPhil is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenC12 View Post
Sounds like Surrey council, planners, etc are the ones to blame for Surrey's problems.
Because council forgot to pass a bylaw making the city closer to downtown Vancouver?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2251  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2015, 12:03 AM
Kisai Kisai is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Burnaby
Posts: 1,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCPhil View Post
Because council forgot to pass a bylaw making the city closer to downtown Vancouver?
Because Surrey approved all those subdivisions without any regard to how they may be connected to transit, so they just assumed nobody in their right mind would use transit.

Hence the "bad bus service" and proposed bad LRT that nobody will use either.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2252  
Old Posted Jul 20, 2015, 5:38 PM
paulsparrow paulsparrow is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenC12 View Post
Sounds like Surrey council, planners, etc are the ones to blame for Surrey's problems.
Yes they completely are. Allowed uncontrolled growth with little organized planning and certainly no plan of attack on how people are going to move around and out of Surrey.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2253  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2015, 9:36 AM
queetz@home's Avatar
queetz@home queetz@home is offline
Go Rotem! Die Bombardier!
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Ortigas
Posts: 3,684
It looks like some Fed funding will be coming for the Surrey LRT if the Tories won, although Stephen Harper wasn't able to announce it since he needed to address a critical international issue.

Surrey transit announcement gives way to Syrian refugee crisis

Quote:
A planned announcement on federal funding for rapid transit in Surrey was derailed Thursday (Sept. 3), as Prime Minister Stephen Harper re-purposed his stop in the city to comment further on the Syrian refugee crisis.

In his first visit to Surrey since the election campaign began, Harper had been expected to promise federal money for light-rail transit – a move designed to bolster Conservative support in the city, which has already seen campaign visits from NDP Leader Tom Mulcair and Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2254  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2015, 10:28 PM
tybuilding tybuilding is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 898
I rode the Seattle LRT last week. It's pretty nice and travelled at 55 km/h on the street portion and 75km/h on the separate grade portion by the airport. It's interesting to see how the shared transit tunnels work. One thing for sure about Seattle is the need for more rapid transit. When I was driving on the highways it was painful. Accidents both times and long backups were encountered. I couldn't imagine commuting 20 miles each day around there. One guy I met regularly commuted that distance and it usually took him 1.5 hrs. I told him that I could easily travel that distance on my ebike in less time. I may have convinced him to get one.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2255  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2015, 10:43 PM
mr.A mr.A is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 134
Surrey's LRT will not be that fast along KG and 104ave. To many intersections.
More like the LRT in Portland and Calgary going through town. SLOW!!!!!!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2256  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2015, 4:37 AM
SOSS SOSS is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 661
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr.A View Post
Surrey's LRT will not be that fast along KG and 104ave. To many intersections.
More like the LRT in Portland and Calgary going through town. SLOW!!!!!!!
At best Surrey LTR would be comparable to 36th Street NE in Calgary. The downtown core of Calgary is transit only along 7th. Slow- yes, but the stations are very close to one another too.

LRT would be such a mistake for Surrey. Especially out to Langley.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2257  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2015, 9:35 PM
GMasterAres GMasterAres is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 3,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by queetz@home View Post
It looks like some Fed funding will be coming for the Surrey LRT if the Tories won, although Stephen Harper wasn't able to announce it since he needed to address a critical international issue.

Surrey transit announcement gives way to Syrian refugee crisis
Announcement today:

Conservatives pledge $700 million for Surrey light rail project

So $700 million from the feds aka 1/3rd. That would put the total money if all three put in money of $2.1 billion. Isn't that SkyTrain territory?

I know they keep saying "LRT" but SkyTrain is technically "LRT" just not in the spirit they keep talking about in Surrey. I still hold hope we'll get SkyTrain extension for a variety of reasons (less space required through Green timbers, faster and more future proof, integrated with no mode changes, follow regional backbone strategy, quieter and less disruptive that street LRT, etc., etc.) but maybe I'm being overly optimistic.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2258  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2015, 10:24 PM
Bdawe Bdawe is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Sunrise
Posts: 535
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhausner View Post
Announcement today:

Conservatives pledge $700 million for Surrey light rail project

So $700 million from the feds aka 1/3rd. That would put the total money if all three put in money of $2.1 billion. Isn't that SkyTrain territory?

I know they keep saying "LRT" but SkyTrain is technically "LRT" just not in the spirit they keep talking about in Surrey. I still hold hope we'll get SkyTrain extension for a variety of reasons (less space required through Green timbers, faster and more future proof, integrated with no mode changes, follow regional backbone strategy, quieter and less disruptive that street LRT, etc., etc.) but maybe I'm being overly optimistic.
Surrey Skytrain and LRT proposals are not of the same scope. The numbers quoted are quite similar, but the LRT brings a three-pronged rail network linking Whalley with Guildford, Langley City, and Newton. The Skytrain proposal usually bandied about subsitutes rapid bus for Guildford-Newton and upgrades Langley City to elevated skytrain.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2259  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2015, 10:40 PM
CanSpice's Avatar
CanSpice CanSpice is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: New Westminster, BC
Posts: 2,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhausner View Post
Announcement today:

Conservatives pledge $700 million for Surrey light rail project

So $700 million from the feds aka 1/3rd. That would put the total money if all three put in money of $2.1 billion. Isn't that SkyTrain territory?

I know they keep saying "LRT" but SkyTrain is technically "LRT" just not in the spirit they keep talking about in Surrey. I still hold hope we'll get SkyTrain extension for a variety of reasons (less space required through Green timbers, faster and more future proof, integrated with no mode changes, follow regional backbone strategy, quieter and less disruptive that street LRT, etc., etc.) but maybe I'm being overly optimistic.
This money they promised is the same money that they said was available before the plebiscite. It's not new, Surrey/TransLink still needs to come up with the municipal third.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2260  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2015, 11:38 PM
GlassCity's Avatar
GlassCity GlassCity is offline
Rational urbanist
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Metro Vancouver
Posts: 5,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhausner View Post
Announcement today:

Conservatives pledge $700 million for Surrey light rail project

So $700 million from the feds aka 1/3rd. That would put the total money if all three put in money of $2.1 billion. Isn't that SkyTrain territory?

I know they keep saying "LRT" but SkyTrain is technically "LRT" just not in the spirit they keep talking about in Surrey. I still hold hope we'll get SkyTrain extension for a variety of reasons (less space required through Green timbers, faster and more future proof, integrated with no mode changes, follow regional backbone strategy, quieter and less disruptive that street LRT, etc., etc.) but maybe I'm being overly optimistic.
The Conservatives noted the $700 million would be available for any technology that is chosen, so that's still not set in stone. Also, you're right that their 1/3 of funding has already been promised so this announcement is meaningless. Hopefully the voters see through it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:22 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.