Surrey Langley Skytrain - Expo Line Extension | Proposed

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Except that with the money it'll cost to build an LRT and have it come every 5 minutes on the corridor, you could have more corridors served by express buses with the same frequency.

And if ridership doesn’t break-even (which it won’t), they will either have to reduce the frequency or cut down SoF bus service. I fear for Langley bus riders.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Again you say that like it will be a daily occurrence, even with blockages on other systems they are still few and far between.

Daily, no. Monthly, yes. Not exactly "few and far between."

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

The alignment only has one questionable intersection and that can be fixed with a unique crossing gate arrangement.

As long as there's one driver who thinks they can beat the train, and a chance for them to try, ALL the intersections are questionable. That specific one is merely a higher level of stupid.

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Except that with the money it'll cost to build an LRT and have it come every 5 minutes on the corridor, you could have more corridors served by express buses with the same frequency.

Right. Again, a fraction of the LRT funding could pay for 99-quality B-Lines to Coquitlam, White Rock, 72nd and Abbotsford/Chilliwack; less money, same level of service, while covering more ground.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Daily, no. Monthly, yes. Not exactly "few and far between."

As long as there's one driver who thinks they can beat the train, and a chance for them to try, ALL the intersections are questionable. That specific one is merely a higher level of stupid.

I'll just point everyone to this story.

http://www.680news.com/2018/03/17/ca...eetcar-tunnel/

Despite bollards, signs, rumble strips, flashing lights and raised track, some still manage to drive their cars down the Queens Quay streetcar portal, though mostly on weekends and in the middle of the night. Enough. The TTC will now be installing a gate mechanism.

Which clearly shows no number of safety warning devices will prevent accidents and stupidity other than complete grade separation. Note that the driver in this case was under the influence. Just wait until pot is legal, this number is only going to go up.

[Trainguy]

16 March 2018 Daily Hive

Broadway Subway and Surrey LRT Will be Built in $7 Billion Transit Plan


After much delay, much-needed major public transit expansion is finally happening, and it is the largest expansion project in Metro Vancouver history, which includes the Millennium Line extension on Broadway in Vancouver and the new light rail transit project in Surrey.

The BC NDP provincial government has approved the necessary measures that TransLink will take to fill all of its 20 percent share of covering the $7 billion cost of the Mayors' Council's phase two transit expansion plan.

"This is the foremost announcement on infrastructure that has ever been made in British Columbia," said Mayors' Council chair Derek Corrigan during this afternoon's press conference.

"I can tell you that we should be very proud of the region for coming together in the way it has to find a consensus in bringing forward this plan."

"This is a huge win for transit users and drivers. In fact, this is the largest funding investment in BC history, and one of the largest across this nation."

Measures that will allow TransLink to fulfill its share include the provincial government's approval of:

A parking tax increase of 15 cents per hour for an average $5 per hour parking lot rate, up to 24 percent from 21 percent.

A $300 to $600 per unit increase to the Development Cost Charge on new residential developments across Metro Vancouver starting in 2019.

The tax increases amount to $3.00 for a home with a value of $500,000, $6.00 for a value of $1 million, and $15 for a value of $2.5 million.

Both revenue measures require new provincial legislation, which will be enacted later this year by the governing party.

The provincial government will also subsidize TransLink's operational costs by $30 million annually over 10 years, so that the public transit authority can redirect existing revenues that would otherwise go to operational costs towards the new capital infrastructure.

This is being performed in lieu of more new taxes.

And in a previous announcement, the provincial government absorbed the Pattullo Bridge replacement into its responsibilities, taking away the $1.4 billion project off TransLink's hands so that it can focus on transit expansion.

"Closing the entire gap, the region identified with the tools currently available to the mayors would have been a challenge for the region, there will be no more delays, and the region can finally put the shovels in the ground for important phase two projects," said Selina Robinson, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and responsible for TransLink.

She also took aim at the previous BC Liberal government's stalling and hesitation with transit investments in Metro Vancouver, which included the failed transit plebiscite and former Premier Christy Clark's continued requirement of a public vote for any new revenue sources for TransLink.

"For years, commuters like me, we've stood on the sidelines and watched helplessly while the old government just turned their backs on the region. They couldn't make anything happen," said Robinson.

"During that time, congestion got worse, and it robs people of time with their loved ones, of time with the things they want to do. And the region was left in the dark wondering if important transit projects would ever get off the ground. Well, I'm really proud to say that is not the case anymore. Today is a new day, and I'm extremely proud."

Other revenue TransLink will need to fill the shortfall comes from sources that do not require provincial approval, such as:

A $5.50 increase in property taxes per average household each year or about 46 cents a month starting in 2019.

Fare revenue increases of 2 percent over two years in 2020, amounting to a 5 percent to 15 percent increase to single-trip fares and $1 to $3 increase to monthly passes.

These fare increases coupled with higher transit ridership from transit expansion will raise $1.6 billion.

Ancillary revenue from a variety of transit-related commercial opportunities.

"The Mayors' Council has approved a balanced approach to increasing taxes and fees paid by transit users, drivers, property owners, and developers," said Corrigan.

"It is a modest and balanced increase that will generate the region's remaining share of the funding needed to deliver the phase two plan."

These measures will add to the funding commitments already approved last year by the provincial and federal governments, which will each take on a 40 percent share, the remaining 80 percent.

Commitments from both senior governments total about $5.6 billion.

For years, funding challenges were the only obstacle to advancing these projects to the next stages of planning and eventually construction.

"This really does represent a major milestone in years and years of planning to get these transit projects moving, to support the region's needs going forward," said TransLink CEO Kevin Desmond.

"This investment sets in motion a whole suite of improvements that will benefit all of our riders and residents."

The phase two plan includes the major transit projects of the six kilometre long underground SkyTrain extension of the Millennium Line under Broadway from VCC-Clark Station to Arbutus Street and the construction of the new 27 kilometre long, ground-level light rail transit (LRT) network in Surrey.

There is no updated figure on the construction costs of both projects at this time as the provincial government is still reviewing the business cases.

With RFPs issued out to potential private contractors later this year, construction on both projects could begin in 2019 for a 2024 completion of the 11 kilometre long first phase Surrey-Newton-Guildford LRT line and a 2025 completion of the Broadway subway.

A future yet-to-be-determined, unfunded extension of the subway beyond the 10 year plan will extend the Millennium Line from Arbutus Street to the ultimate terminus at the University of British Columbia campus.

The current Mayors' Council plan will also significantly expand bus service levels and improvements to some roadways, sidewalks, and cycling pathways.

Desmond says the implementation of four new B-Lines and upticks on other bus routes outlined in the phase one plan will increase overall bus service by 18 percent between 2016 and 2021.

And within the phase two plan, there will be a 25 percent increase in bus service.

The SkyTrain system is also seeing a major capacity increase, with 56 new Mark III cars for the Expo and Millennium lines and 24 new Hyundai Rotem cars for the Canada Line by 2020.

An additional 44 cars will arrive for the Expo and Millennium lines between 2022 and 2024.

And a new SeaBus arriving in 2019 will allow the ferry service to operate every 10 minutes during peak hours.

The next steps for the phase two transit expansion is a public consultation phase from April to May, followed by the Mayors' Council's approval of the tweaked plan in June.

Kenneth Chan.

It is interesting that people are calling the LRT a 27km long route when only 11km is being funded so far. The route to Langley is not a done deal despite Surrey's efforts to market it as if it is.

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

It is interesting that people are calling the LRT a 27km long route when only 11km is being funded so far. The route to Langley is not a done deal despite Surrey's efforts to market it as if it is.

Is Surrey trying really hard to strong-arm the Langley Extension as LRT because of the October election? The City of Langley wants it as SkyTrain.

[flipper316]

Does reecemartin work for Surrey or something? He sure has a hard-on for LRT. He sounds like Anita Huberman and Hepner in his posts with all his buzzwords and defence of LRT.

[Firebrand]

He said he prefers Skytrain on Fraser Hwy, but he doesn’t seem to be fully against the Langley LRT as Metro-One, GlassCity, Trainguy, and pretty much almost everybody are.

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

There are very few transit services (if any) that break even on costs, even the Toronto Subway which sees more than a million riders per day requires subsidy. So I'm not really sure what your argument is.

You need just enough to break even to... seriously, why the hell am I explaining this? You are going to repeat the same crap about the “benefits” of LRT over buses.

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Again you know you can disagree with me without just attacking me.

As I have said time and time again LRT makes no sense on Fraser Highway even just from the standpoint that linear transfers should be avoided wherever possible.

Despite what some people on this forum think/say transit travelling in a fully segregated dedicated lane on SNG route with signal is a big step forward whether it be buses or higher capacity LRT vehicles. This is not the same as the 96 B-Line (the one minute improvement figure is over BRT not the 96).

In terms of crashes etc. remember its not about beating a train because like most LRT systems of this style the train follows additional on road signals. People would have to disobey a red light and potentially be hit by car cross traffic to hit an LRV. Certainly possible but not nearly as likely as what is being suggested.

For everyones info this intersection on Waterloos LRT doesn't look any worse than the one thats been discussed in Surrey https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVvH...TtUTzJdgjZx4QM

As Migrant Coconut has been saying for about a thousand times now, you could’ve use the budget for the expansion of the 96 to White Rock and Coquitlam, and have more B-Lines in SoF instead of just having a fancy B-Line that replaces one bus route at SkyTrain costs.

You kept denying about the possible accidents that will make Calgary’s C-Train look safer in comparison. Sure, to you, they may be “few and far inbetween”, but on a monthly basis is just enough to install necessary safety features, such as gates and fences, but even then, you can’t do that on it’s ridiculous design on 102nd Ave. At that point, it becomes a money pit that could’ve been used on better bus service.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Firebrand

Can you show me the map? I’m interest in looking at it.

Have you seen the links I sent?

[Firebrand]

Yes I did. I noticed you made the east-west routes more gridlike.

Can you change the 342 to have it continue on Hwy 10, then turn right to 144th instead of to 152nd? I’ll be more direct.

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Again the primary benefit of large vehicles is less drivers per capacity. It is not cheaper to go have 10 rapid bus lines because then you have to pay way more drivers which is a huge cost.

And yet those other drivers will be covering more of the city, meaning more ridership, meaning more revenue to offset the costs. Here, we're blowing all the capital costs and wages on one line with almost the exact same service as before, so costs are high and revenue is more or less the same as before.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

There are very few transit services (if any) that break even on costs, even the Toronto Subway which sees more than a million riders per day requires subsidy. So I'm not really sure what your argument is.

Actually, the SkyTrain is one of the few systems that breaks even; even if it didn't, it provides a service that justifies a subsidy. That's what we're talking about, the cost-benefit ratio. Surrey's LRT doesn't have a very good one.

RRT: High cost, high benefit.
B-Line/BRT: Low cost, low benefit.
LRT: High cost, low benefit (except in certain situations).

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Despite what some people on this forum think/say transit travelling in a fully segregated dedicated lane on SNG route with signal is a big step forward whether it be buses or higher capacity LRT vehicles. This is not the same as the 96 B-Line (the one minute improvement figure is over BRT not the 96).

LRT is 27 minutes. BRT is 28 minutes. The 96 B-Line is 29 minutes. There's a whole lot of better ways to spend $1-2B (or more, if Langley gets shafted).

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

In terms of crashes etc. remember its not about beating a train because like most LRT systems of this style the train follows additional on road signals. People would have to disobey a red light and potentially be hit by car cross traffic to hit an LRV. Certainly possible but not nearly as likely as what is being suggested.

For everyones info this intersection on Waterloos LRT doesn't look any worse than the one thats been discussed in Surrey https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVvH...TtUTzJdgjZx4QM

That's because it's timed to go red long before the train get to the crossing, rather than turning red just as it crosses. If you do it that way, then you run into the opposite problem: traffic (buses included) getting stalled for long periods of time. That ION train is actually blocking the entire intersection, including the cross-traffic. Remember that not everybody in Surrey is going to use the route for their entire commute all the time, so a lot of people are going to be spending a lot more time waiting.

In other news, ION is also slow enough for a bike to keep pace with it. That's not good news.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Firebrand

As Migrant Coconut has been saying for about a thousand times now, you could’ve use the budget for the expansion of the 96 to White Rock and Coquitlam, and have more B-Lines in SoF instead of just having a fancy B-Line that replaces one bus route at SkyTrain costs.

You kept denying about the possible accidents that will make Calgary’s C-Train look safer in comparison. Sure, to you, they may be “few and far inbetween”, but on a monthly basis is just enough to install necessary safety features, such as gates and fences, but even then, you can’t do that on it’s ridiculous design on 102nd Ave. At that point, it becomes a money pit that could’ve been used on better bus service.

Hey now, let's not exaggerate. It's only been about a hundred times.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Increasing bus routes means hiring more drivers which means an increased cost on an annual basis.

And we don't have to do this for LRT because...?

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Hey now, let's not exaggerate. It's only been about a hundred times.

Sorry. I was getting tired by Reece’s excuse of not having more B-Lines SoF while favouring a costly B-Line on rails.

[bardak]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

theres a difference between what we can fund for capital cost and for operations. Increasing bus routes means hiring more drivers which means an increased cost on an annual basis.

The LRT is going have a large annual cost as well. They are proromissing 5 minute frequency during regular service hours and 15 minutes late at night and LRT divers will definitely have a higher salary than busses. Then you have to account for the maintenance of the trains, rails, and switchs. I would be very interested in a proper cost comparison between the LRT and a BRT alternative like Skytain for Surrey has promoted would be.

Personally I think that BRT would have a higher operating cost but not by much and the better service would justify the cost. Like you said earlier "linear transfers should be avoided wherever possible" and using BRT would allow us to do so for a far lower capital cost.