Surrey Updates

[ArmoredinRed]

Originally Posted by Blease

I’m not holding out much hope for Mayor McCallum. His obsession with skytrain alone is disturbing, he plans to usurp the money meant for three different LRT lines and build a skytrain line to Langley. This is great news for Langley, but it sure the hell won’t do much for Surrey, expect for those few who live along the the lightly populated Fraser Hwy corridor. Why did anybody in Surrey vote for this man?

The majority of people in Whalley, Guildford and Newton (those who would benefit from LRT) voted for McCallum and thus voted to cancel LRT.

[Ramsay]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Because they are going with Skytrain instead?? Not sure how that undoes anything

I think Surrey missed a huge opportunity to build a network of vibrant communities. Skytrain to Langley may be good for SoF but at the expense of connecting the communities within Surrey. Just my thoughts.

[Bombaman]

Most of these voters believed the two LRT lines would simply got substituted into two skytrain lines. That wasn't the case. Without enough funding, it would take a long time for that to happen.

Originally Posted by ArmoredinRed

The majority of people in Whalley, Guildford and Newton (those who would benefit from LRT) voted for McCallum and thus voted to cancel LRT.

[Shift]

Originally Posted by Westbased

Here we go!

2 Tower application right beside Gateway station for 518 residential units. IBI Group is the architect...not sure who the developer is.

Site was sold June 2017 for $11.5 million. It's a 64,000 square foot parcel.

https://apps.surrey.ca/Online-Development-Inquiry/?year=18&seq=0388

This is actually phase 1 of a larger project to come that will wrap around that whole crescent of University Dr with a nice curved podium.

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by Ramsay

I think Surrey missed a huge opportunity to build a network of vibrant communities. Skytrain to Langley may be good for SoF but at the expense of connecting the communities within Surrey. Just my thoughts.

Well that's true but I think they can build vibrant communities in the absent of lrt. I think we can think of countless examples of that

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by Blease

Los Angeles, easily one of the wealthiest and most developed cities in the US and the world uses LRT exclusively and they’ve never regretted their decision.

Exclusively? LA has a subway system. They're expanding it, too, with the under-construction Purple Line extension adding 9 miles and 7 new stations.

[officedweller]

LA Exposition Line - ridership Dec 2017 (55,388 (December 2017; avg. weekday)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expo_Line_(Los_Angeles_Metro)

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

Exclusively? LA has a subway system. They're expanding it, too, with the under-construction Purple Line extension adding 9 miles and 7 new stations.

The City of Angels also has merely 5% of residents taking transit; 85% drive. Phoenix is 2% to 87%, Portland is 7% to 78%. Cities in the States are bad examples for transit in general, let alone light rail.

Vancouver? 20% using transit and 69% driving. If we want to start comparing notes, it seems that our transit should be setting the example for theirs, since SkyTrain is doing a much better job of removing cars.

[Galaxy]

The level of service and upkeep of our system is way better than any system in the states as well. There is a lot less garbage/litter on our system. There is a lot less damage like broken glass that is left not replaced as systems in the states. I remember riding one of the systems [Portland] and the wait for a train during peak periods was crazy when compared to the same time if I was riding Skytrain.

[Nites]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

The level of service and upkeep of our system is way better than any system in the states as well. There is a lot less garbage/litter on our system. There is a lot less damage like broken glass that is left not replaced as systems in the states. I remember riding one of the systems [Portland] and the wait for a train during peak periods was crazy when compared to the same time if I was riding Skytrain.

For comparison Vancouvers daily ridership is close to 500k where as Portlands is around 123k.

[invisibleairwaves]

Originally Posted by Ramsay

I think Surrey missed a huge opportunity to build a network of vibrant communities. Skytrain to Langley may be good for SoF but at the expense of connecting the communities within Surrey. Just my thoughts.

Part of the problem with Surrey First's LRT obsession was the idea that LRT was the key to creating vibrant, walkable, transit-oriented communities, as opposed to...actually planning and building those communities along those lines. Like you could just plop down a streetcar line and King George Boulevard would look like Hamburg. They could have spent their long years in office pushing for better building forms that would have created vibrant streets with or without LRT, but they didn't, and consequently KGB, Fraser Highway, and 104th are chock full of recently approved and built SFHs, strip malls, and non-street-oriented townhomes. Any lack of vibrancy is directly attributable to their legacy of atrocious planning rather than the building of one transit line over another, or one rail system over another.

I forget who it was but someone on Twitter had a great line about Surrey's LRT being "cargo cult urbanism". Pretty much sums it up.

That said, figuring out how to connect Surrey's disparate neighbourhoods is a real issue and one that hasn't really been fully solved by switching to Skytrain. The L-line route is still a vital corridor and I'd really like to see McCallum and co. address it.

[Shift]

Originally Posted by invisibleairwaves

Part of the problem with Surrey First's LRT obsession was the idea that LRT was the key to creating vibrant, walkable, transit-oriented communities, as opposed to...actually planning and building those communities along those lines. Like you could just plop down a streetcar line and King George Boulevard would look like Hamburg. They could have spent their long years in office pushing for better building forms that would have created vibrant streets with or without LRT, but they didn't, and consequently KGB, Fraser Highway, and 104th are chock full of recently approved and built SFHs, strip malls, and non-street-oriented townhomes. Any lack of vibrancy is directly attributable to their legacy of atrocious planning rather than the building of one transit line over another, or one rail system over another.

FYI - Surrey First does not undertake Planning in Surrey - nor does any Council - the non-partisan Planning Department does.

104th Avenue is not vibrant and dense now for many reasons - none of which have anything to do with Surrey First and pre-date the party by decades.

The Planning that has been underway by the Planning Department - while Surrey First was in power - has actually been the most progressive in Surrey's history. Take a look at any of the recent or current land-use plans underway.

The thing with Planning is that it doesnt materialize overnight:

• 2010-2020 Planning initiatives/decisions that happened during Surrey First will materialize in Surrey in the 2020's - 40's.
• The current face of Surrey is the result of Planning from the 1980's - 1990's (Bob Bose, Doug McCallum eras and prior), and the fact that it was very much smaller, suburban bedroom community back then in a region with nearly 1 million less people. The region's population is only now at a point where there is demand for Surrey to begin to density. Also Planning in the 80's / 90's was much different everywhere - not just a Surrey thing.

Current Surrey Planning is quite progressive and leading if you compare with Suburbs elsewhere in North America. Plans take time to materialize.

[osirisboy]

The lack of vibrancy has nothing to do with the lack of lrt. Just like if the lrt was in place it wouldn't on its own make it suddenly a vibrant area

Lrt is dead move on. We should be focusing on making these areas more vibrant and dense

[Bombaman]

Yes, it is good that you try to educate people. He mentioned "KGB, Fraser Highway, and 104th are chock full of recently approved and built SFHs, strip malls, and non-street-oriented townhomes." Recently? Most of these strip malls were there long before Surrey first entered into the picture. Unfortunately, most people will just come up with uneducated, misinform or made up arguments. As the LRT was cancelled now, there is really no point in arguing about this anymore. Let's wait until Nov 15th and see what happen next.

Originally Posted by Shift

FYI - Surrey First does not undertake Planning in Surrey - nor does any Council - the non-partisan Planning Department does.

104th Avenue is not vibrant and dense now for many reasons - none of which have anything to do with Surrey First and pre-date the party by decades.

The Planning that has been underway over the past 10 years, while Surrey First had been in power, has actually been the most progressive in Surrey's history. Take a look at any of the recent or current land-use plans underway.

The thing with Planning is that it doesnt materialize overnight.

2010-2020 Planning decisions / initiatives that got underway during Surrey First will be visible in Surrey in the 2030's and 40's.

The current face of Surrey is the result of Planning from the 1980's - 1990's (Bob Bose, Doug McCallum eras and prior), and the fact that it was very much smaller, suburban bedroom community back then in a region with nearly 1 million less people. The region's population is only now at a point where there is pressure for Surrey to begin to density.

[Bombaman]

Of course, the mode of Transportation available has an impact for the immediate surrounding environments. It attracts developers and businesses into the areas where transportation infrastructure like SkyTrain or the planned LRT project is available.
Report highlights connection between property values, planned Surrey LRT boost

Originally Posted by osirisboy

The lack of vibrancy has nothing to do with the lack of lrt. Just like if the lrt was in place it wouldn't on its own make it suddenly a vibrant area

Lrt is dead move on. We should be focusing on making these areas more vibrant and dense

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by skymaster

For comparison Vancouvers daily ridership is close to 500k where as Portlands is around 123k.

Crazy to think that Vancouver's weakest Skytrain route the Millennium Line outperforms the entire Portland MAX network (126k vs 123k), even though the MAX network is 20% longer than the entire Skytrain network and Portland has a similar population as well as a growth boundary. Just goes to show you the difference freeways and good transit service makes.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

Crazy to think that Vancouver's weakest Skytrain route the Millennium Line outperforms the entire Portland MAX network (126k vs 123k), even though the MAX network is 20% longer than the entire Skytrain network and Portland has a similar population as well as a growth boundary. Just goes to show you the difference freeways and good transit service makes.

Only one year behind us, just as much transit spending... one quarter of the ridership. To be fair though, mobility was never the main objective (as with most of America's light rail projects).

Originally Posted by Bombaman

Of course, the mode of Transportation available has an impact for the immediate surrounding environments. It attracts developers and businesses into the areas where transportation infrastructure like SkyTrain or the planned LRT project is available.
Report highlights connection between property values, planned Surrey LRT boost

Rapid transit for the sake of development? Sure - implement a better 96, a BRT, street gondolas, or basically whatever kind of RT one can think of.

Hell, many places in the metro are attractive to developers despite being dirtier and having just trolley buses... if the DTES can get densification, why does Surrey feel like they need a train to get the ball rolling?

[Bombaman]

What you said is like saying "Skytrain for the sake of rapid transit? Sure - implement a better 96, a BRT, street gondolas, or basically whatever kind of RT one can think of." Your argument is lime. What I suggested is there are benefits in having rapid transit around the area and we can't deny that. But I will rest my case now, you won.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Only one year behind us, just as much transit spending... one quarter of the ridership. To be fair though, mobility was never the main objective (as with most of America's light rail projects).



Rapid transit for the sake of development? Sure - implement a better 96, a BRT, street gondolas, or basically whatever kind of RT one can think of.

Hell, many places in the metro are attractive to developers despite being dirtier and having just trolley buses... if the DTES can get densification, why does Surrey feel like they need a train to get the ball rolling?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Bombaman

What you said is like saying "Skytrain for the sake of rapid transit? Sure - implement a better 96, a BRT, street gondolas, or basically whatever kind of RT one can think of." Your argument is lime. What I suggested is there are benefits in having rapid transit around the area and we can't deny that. But I will rest my case now, you won.

Point successfully missed. Rapid transit, by definition, is meant to transition people from place to place, and nothing does that better than a metro. Attracting redevelopment is a beneficial side-effect that can be triggered by any kind of improved mobility, or often without any improvement whatsoever.

[Bombaman]

You won already bro, you are the winner. LRT is no better than a bus, it serves no purpose whatsoever and it shouldn't exist in this world.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Point successfully missed. Rapid transit, by definition, is meant to transition people from place to place, and nothing does that better than a metro. Attracting redevelopment is a beneficial side-effect that can be triggered by any kind of improved mobility, or often without any improvement whatsoever.