Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Express691 said:

Translink's new promo video on LRT

Also: sources say Paul Hillsdon has been hired as a planner for South Of Fraser rapid transit

How many features in this video can BRT/Skytrain already accomplish?

This video has honestly made me change my while entire thoughts on light rail,.... it all looks great, Fantastic.NOT, every word that came out of that womans mouth i had a counterpoint for,  the 96B is doing everything that this thing can do already. If this goes to plan. Im moving out of Surrey, i think its total garbage & im going to leave my  favorite comments for Hepner. Seriously, ive had 13 year old kids bring me valid points about what amount of time this thing will travel to and from guildford and newton in, yes, in the same time,  as the 96 already does, aswell as the fact, that it will require a driver, wondwrful.... Nezt, do we even need stations in these areas? No.. i think we need to focus more on the problems we already have enough trouble facing instead of jumping on some huge clusterf*** of nonsense, that nobody seems to really live without. aswell this will take years to implement, causing issues in various forms to traffic , not only to mention extra maintenance and training required for new equipment and vehicles. the ridership will one day become an issue, and which is easy to fix by adding another bus or two to the 96, speaking of rideeship, you could also expand the king george section out to langley, and boom! No need to change anything, as it would.operate off of current rolling stock... Clearly way to hard to give our heads a little shake? Sov Lets just continue to make things harder.

Attractive, affordable, safe, resilient, green, complete, compact, were among some of the words written in that video, I call bull$#it this time. Sorry, i dont base.my decision on Attractive, and resilient, Green maybe, but Not those two. Not me. They make it seem like we are freaking dying out here, using the 96, which is not the case. Maybe some riders on the 502 may be "suffering," but i dont see anybody raising an eyebrow at the 96, sure. Bus gets full once here and there, awesome. Thats life. I bet more people wpuld have something to complain about when 104 and KGB are being heavily kicked in the ass, affecting traffic everywhere.  Comparing the 96 vs Skytrain, would be ridiculous, because the skytrain, would be simply the answer to B-Line takeover, as it has been in the past (97,98) , the 96 can do everything better if the level of care went into the thought of BRT rather than some stupid light rail p.o.c... Long term, funding Maybe not so much... However, it never really mattered before, so what is the point in getting gungho about being green and innovative now.... It only matters when some politicians have their nose so far up the next dudes ass, but when the public needs something, we cant wait. Its Not a big deal. Please. 

Common sense isnt so common. Or maybe im just a total idiot..? Honestly at this point. Im convinced im stupiid, and i think im okay with that. End of the day, youre wasting resources thay could carefully be plamned, but instead somebody has a great idea, and now its important,  and thats enough for me. Rant over. Im gonna go and put my head back where the sun doesnt shine.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

104th Avenue is congested by traffic heading into Langley and Abbotsford. Truck traffic also relies on the route and it serves as a throughfare when the SFPR is closed/extremely congested.

104th needs to see lane additions. Instead...we will likely see more congestion with this LRT.

Funny how these videos paint an ideal urban landscape...colorful, spacious and lacking traffic. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Express691 said:

Translink's new promo video on LRT

Also: sources say Paul Hillsdon has been hired as a planner for South Of Fraser rapid transit

How many features in this video can BRT/Skytrain already accomplish?

OH NO! HOW WILL WE GET SKYTRAIN NOW?

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, buizel10 said:

OH NO! HOW WILL WE GET SKYTRAIN NOW?

The Guildford to Newton "L" line was never proposed to be a SkyTrain line anyway.  Just doesn't make sense.  The Fraser Highway extension towards Langley is where the LRT vs SkyTrain fight/debate will really be had. 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, cprted said:

The Guildford to Newton "L" line was never proposed to be a SkyTrain line anyway.  Just doesn't make sense.  The Fraser Highway extension towards Langley is where the LRT vs SkyTrain fight/debate will really be had. 

Yeah but I would prefer BRT.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Orcair said:

Their design for the stations seems nice and modern, until you see how they expect people to cross 4 or 6-lane roads to connect from a bus to LRT. Great design... not.

As @cprted said, crossing a road at a crosswalk to get to a bus stop, Skytrain station, etc is normal. To get to/from the Canada line to any of the east-west bus routes, you have to cross a 4-6 lane street for one direction (depending on which station it is). I don't see how having each side cross 2-3 lanes of traffic at a signalled crosswalk is a big deal. 

22 hours ago, Orcair said:

I know, its just frustrating when we have bus loops that seamlessly blend into SkyTrain stations, such as Bridgeport and then have this second-rate design in Surrey. Not a fault of LRT but of the whole project imo. I would way rather have some sort of BRT where the regular buses can connect with BRT in the centre lane stations somehow, versus this design. Or maybe they could do a mixed-type station in the centre lanes - that would be nice to see and benefit connections. 

Bus loops would be integrated at Newton, Guildford and Surrey Central. The other stops, I'm guessing, will have normal bus stops like Aberdeen, Broadway-City Hall, Langara-49th, Holdom, Renfrew, Gilmore, Rupert, etc. Basically, similar to current stations, if there is more than 2-3 bus routes at a station, there will be a loop/exchange.

15 hours ago, cleowin said:

Skytrain to Langley is a must imho, it makes the most sense, majority of langley commuters want to go downtown.

Do you happen to have numbers behind that? From the last open house, when I asked about ridership destinations, it was only 20-30% of trips from Langley that actually went to Vancouver, with the most going to Surrey and the rest to other areas. I'm planning on asking again at their next open house to get more exact figures.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, maege said:

As @cprted said, crossing a road at a crosswalk to get to a bus stop, Skytrain station, etc is normal. To get to/from the Canada line to any of the east-west bus routes, you have to cross a 4-6 lane street for one direction (depending on which station it is). I don't see how having each side cross 2-3 lanes of traffic at a signalled crosswalk is a big deal. 

Bus loops would be integrated at Newton, Guildford and Surrey Central. The other stops, I'm guessing, will have normal bus stops like Aberdeen, Broadway-City Hall, Langara-49th, Holdom, Renfrew, Gilmore, Rupert, etc. Basically, similar to current stations, if there is more than 2-3 bus routes at a station, there will be a loop/exchange.

Do you happen to have numbers behind that? From the last open house, when I asked about ridership destinations, it was only 20-30% of trips from Langley that actually went to Vancouver, with the most going to Surrey and the rest to other areas. I'm planning on asking again at their next open house to get more exact figures.

Surrey Leader survey

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, maege said:

Would you be able to link to it? I searched their website and didn't find anything.

I can't find it anymore, but remember hearing an CKNW 980 show talking about it. It was back in March and was also interviewing @8800GTX

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, buizel10 said:

I can't find it anymore, but remember hearing an CKNW 980 show talking about it. It was back in March and was also interviewing @8800GTX

Yep, on Steele & Drex, that was back around the time that the federal budget was set to be announced, and the poll had also just wrapped up. The results were probably reported on one of the actual papers, you can probably find it on an E-edition online.

For anyone else here opposed / enraged there is a new discussion group on FB: Light Rail is NOT for Surrey

On 2017-6-13 at 6:10 PM, Marlow1331 said:

This video has honestly made me change my while entire thoughts on light rail,....

I put up a list of "10 Surrey LRT features for a fraction of the cost" on the SFS website, based on what you poured into this post, you'll probably enjoy the read ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, 8800GTX said:

Yep, on Steele & Drex, that was back around the time that the federal budget was set to be announced, and the poll had also just wrapped up. The results were probably reported on one of the actual papers, you can probably find it on an E-edition online.

For anyone else here opposed / enraged there is a new discussion group on FB: Light Rail is NOT for Surrey

I put up a list of "10 Surrey LRT features for a fraction of the cost" on the SFS website, based on what you poured into this post, you'll probably enjoy the read ;)

I was wondering about that Chinese bus train, I'm like "why hasn't Daryl mentioned it on SkyTrain for Surrey?" And then I see a post with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

I can't find it anymore, but remember hearing an CKNW 980 show talking about it. It was back in March and was also interviewing 

 

I've searched for it, with no luck finding anything. If someone is able to link the survey, great, otherwise the claim has to be taken with a grain of salt since the methodology is unknown. 

8 hours ago, 8800GTX said:

Yep, on Steele & Drex, that was back around the time that the federal budget was set to be announced, and the poll had also just wrapped up. The results were probably reported on one of the actual papers, you can probably find it on an E-edition online.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Blue Bus Fan said:

I saw those before, and neither have anything that resembles origin and destination information. Just a random note, that while the article attempts to discredit a City of Surrey survey as being unscientific, the author points to a poll at the bottom of an article, which is nowhere near scientific or representative either and is completely self-selected. You can't have it both ways :P 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, maege said:

I saw those before, and neither have anything that resembles origin and destination information. Just a random note, that while the article attempts to discredit a City of Surrey survey as being unscientific, the author points to a poll at the bottom of an article, which is nowhere near scientific or representative either and is completely self-selected. You can't have it both ways :P 

Lol. The author of both is @8800GTX

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, maege said:

I saw those before, and neither have anything that resembles origin and destination information. Just a random note, that while the article attempts to discredit a City of Surrey survey as being unscientific(.)

I know it is not scientific poll because having referendum to decide on what to build would be waste of time and money. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Blue Bus Fan said:

I know it is not scientific poll because having referendum to decide on what to build would be waste of time and money. 

You don't need people to vote in a referendum to have a scientific survey, polling agencies do them all the time for nominal fees. It's just laughable that one poll is being attacked as unscientific and not representative (which may be the case), while referring to another poll and suggesting it has more validity when the poll you refer to is blatantly unscientific, not representative, and completely self-selected.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, maege said:

You don't need people to vote in a referendum to have a scientific survey, polling agencies do them all the time for nominal fees. It's just laughable that one poll is being attacked as unscientific and not representative (which may be the case), while referring to another poll and suggesting it has more validity when the poll you refer to is blatantly unscientific, not representative, and completely self-selected.

I highly doubt that news paper, City of Surrey or TransLink wouldn't pay to have specific poll with just one important question if they already know what they building. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Blue Bus Fan said:

I highly doubt that news paper, City of Surrey or TransLink wouldn't pay to have specific poll with just one important question if they already know what they building. 

That's possible, I'm not defending the City of Surrey survey in any manner. I haven't looked at the details and don't particularly care to.

My only point is that it is ironic (to put it nicely) that someone trying to discredit one survey for being unscientific and not representative would suggest people instead look at a different survey that is obviously unscientific and not representative. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with the City's poll is that it didn't really put the technology portion (SkyTrain or LRT) into question, which is what the other polls I'm citing did.

I'm also really adamant about questioning whether or not the City's poll even asked the right people. I mean, 60% of their respondents weren't even previously aware about the LRT project; so only 40% of the respondents were coming into this knowing something, while 60% were coming in knowing absolutely nothing. Very few young people were asked, and their responses extrapolated, which I think is unfair because opinions might vary more among young people depending on how much they know. Perhaps the poll was properly commissioned, perhaps it was scientific, but it was neither asking the right questions nor giving the right answers.

So far almost every time we see the question actually consider both SkyTrain expansion and building LRT, SkyTrain is coming out the winner. Whether it was the Leader's Poll, Vancity Buzz's previous poll, or the occasional News1130 polls. They're maybe not really the best sources on the matter. But my view of this is that other than those results, we have nothing.

Then again, I might be contacting one of those polling agencies and SFS may commission a proper poll very soon. At the time the campaign didn't have a lot in terms of people & resources, that has since changed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@8800GTX Once again, I don't care about the City of Surrey poll, whether it was the worst poll ever, the best, or whatever. The only thing for me is that when you attack a survey as unscientific and not representative, you better not go on to suggest a survey that is completely unscientific, not representative and completely self-selecting be a better benchmark. That is hypocrisy and propaganda at it's worst/finest. 

If you want to take issue with the wording or what was asked and what wasn't, that is fair, but don't attack it for being "unscientific" and "not representative" if you want to point people to a different poll that is unscientific and representative.

I would even have no issue if you say it's not representative and unscientific, as long as you didn't point to that second survey that has the exact faults you were just criticising. Basically, just avoid the hypocrisy and I won't make an issue of it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some random details that I learned about the Newton-Guildford project earlier this week and forgot to post:

There is not a specific location set for the OMC, but it will most likely be between King George and SRY, and 72nd and 78th Ave (aka relatively close to STC). From the sound of it, they are planning on a fairly small OMC for now, about  2-3ha, which would serve the Newton-Guildford line just fine, and then probably build another one somewhere else for the Langley line. Keeping it small for now and keeping it close to the line (less than 1km away) helps keep the costs down, which is the main reason for this, especially since land is likely cheaper out towards Fleetwood/Langley for another OMC. There is roughly 2.5ha of unused land on the SRY line midway between 72nd and 76th that I would think is the most likely spot. Run a spur from King George along 72nd for about a block, then north along the SRY ROW to the new OMC, or avoid 72nd and just run along the SRY ROW from the new Newton Exchange to the new OMC. In either case, hopefully they will build a stub at 72nd to allow for easy connection with a potential Scott Rd-Newton line along 72nd in the future. 

There are no official plans for further extension of the Newton-Guildford line, but during the construction, they plan to make the tracks very easy to extend out 104 Ave to Hwy 1, and from Newton south towards 64th Ave/Hwy 10/White Rock, if desired in the future. For Newton, this mainly mean a "Y" at King George and the new Newton Exchange, and simply not destroying the end of the track at 104 Ave, and leaving them straight to cross 152nd  in the future. 

LRT for the Newton-Guildford line is basically set in stone. They are somewhat open to various feedback and some design changes to how the LRT, but it will be LRT between Newton and Guildford. 

The LRT will be mostly in the median, with a few exceptions where it will run of the side of the road. Most notably, around King George Station, it will run on the east side of the road to allow for easy transfers at King George Station without crossing any road traffic.

At Surrey Central Station on City Parkway, there will be no traffic other than LRT, pedestrians and emergency vehicles. All buses will all enter/exit the exchange from the south side via 102 Ave and/or University Dr.

The LRT is planned to mostly have signal priority, but not always, meaning there will be times the LRT would have to stop for stop-lights. From what I understand, this would be partly automated, although there may be some human input. The main time trains would have to stop is rush hour due to large amounts of traffic backed-up. This is a really, really bad idea, I think, as you slow down the trains during the busiest parts of the day and it will kill some of the potential advantage over driving. Emergency vehicles will still have signal override, so trains would have to stop for them, which seems reasonable.

Newton especially is expected to become a major center in its own right. The City of Surrey and Translink own much of the land around the future Newton Exchange and they plan to make it into a major center (think New West, Brentwood Town Centre, and possibly even Metrotown far enough into the future). Surrey Central will likely stay more prominent, but Newton won't be terribly far behind. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, maege said:

The LRT is planned to mostly have signal priority, but not always, meaning there will be times the LRT would have to stop for stop-lights. From what I understand, this would be partly automated, although there may be some human input. The main time trains would have to stop is rush hour due to large amounts of traffic backed-up. This is a really, really bad idea, I think, as you slow down the trains during the busiest parts of the day and it will kill some of the potential advantage over driving. Emergency vehicles will still have signal override, so trains would have to stop for them, which seems reasonable.

I wonder if Surrey will include an Emergency Vehicle Preemption system at the major intersections when they're integrating LRT with traffic signals.  The medians along KGB make it difficult as it is for emergency vehicles to use the opposing lanes ... once there are tracks down the middle, it will likely be almost impossible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the info.  I'm looking forward to going to the open house on the 22nd at city hall.  What I'm most curious about is who will operate it.  Will it be a new subsidiary, BCRTC, city of Surrey under contract or CMBC.  I mention CMBC as it's not unusual in many city's with LRT for bus operators to also operate the LRT.  I'd love the opportunity to be an LRT operator without having to change jobs.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...