Occasional PT contributor and full-time Langley City councilor Nathan Pachal writes about recently released plans for the Surrey light rail projects, and much more. Incidentally ever-more likely to happen, too, given the increasing likelihood of referendum-free local funding.
Check out this Translink site for more detail, especially upcoming open house events (display boards HERE). The City of Surrey’s info page is HERE.
For example, the plans includes changing King George Boulevard to a tree-lined multi-modal corridor.
As usual, let’s all prepare for yet another round of “Carmageddon“, the consequence-free game of predicting near-complete societal collapse as a result of changes to the existing allocation of road space.
The plan’s map shows two lines, with a combined total of 19 LRT stops over 27 km of travel.
When expanding the LRT system in Edmonton from downtown to NAIT there were and continue to be major MAJOR intersection and traffic flow issues. How will this be avoided here ? What has been learned as it relates to level crossings especially on busy intersections at rush hour ?
It can be avoided if Translink and Surrey listen to the contractors’ signals engineers instead of nickel and dimeing on hardware.
Isn’t Surrey engaging in carmageddon logic by building a new bypass arterial through a park to make up for ‘lost road space’?
This is an opportunity to get it right. There seems to be much confusion between the multiple gradations of light rail. I’d say because of its anticipated fairly high growth Surrey / TransLink should opt for a full-scale high-capacity system with limited stops on dedicated fenced medians over street trams on a milk run, which are essentially slow buses on rails. Minimizing the number of at-grade signalized crossings is crucial, otherwise you’re courting tragedy. Never replace a decent bus service with a limited-capacity tram; it’s a supreme waste of money. And never promote trams on planned high-capacity routes; that will be a costly mistake that stemmed from bias, not research or planning for the future.
This system has much potential to be extended all over the suburbs, over the river and perhaps way out in the Valley. In that light, it may be wise to look to the Francilien system at the Paris perifique as a model for the spinal cord of light rail in the Metro. Their Bombardier Spacium trains use cars over 3 m wide with sections accommodating 5-seat rows, which translates into a maximum capacity of 800-1,000 passengers in a full train set, half of whom could be seated.
http://www.bombardier.com/content/dam/Websites/bombardiercom/Projects/spacium-electric-multiple-unit-paris-4486.jpg/_jcr_content/renditions/original
Low-floor trams with narrow cars and closely–spaced stops will not cut it on King George because they are in a lower caliber category that is often confused with higher-caliber demand solutions. But they may be worth the expenditure on secondary arterials without current frequent bus service. Geometry is very important, and rail set in straight, direct-route arterials or large loops will no doubt be very effective.
Appropriate land use measures beside the stations and along the lines is crucial. Surrey may still be a bedroom community even when its population exceeds Vancouver’s because the employment and office space ratios may still be not even on the map compared to Broadway (a massive unmet transit demand that is decades old) and downtown. That needs to change, and the politicians need to listen to the planners and critics.