Surrey Langley Skytrain - Expo Line Extension | Proposed

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Fair enough, but it doesn't explain why the SkyTrain should be extended all the way out to Langley.

The reason would be to spur development and provide for future growth.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

The reason would be to spur development and provide for future growth.

But is it the right technology for the region? There are many other ways to do that and I am not sure ALRT is the correct one. The ALRT is great, but it locks you into that one technology forever. A more generic technology has more flexibility for the future. A busway could have rails added to it later. A rail system with an overhead centenary (LRT or other) could be extended to provide express service into Vancouver when that becomes necessary.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Why do you want to extend Skytrain to Langley? While the ALRT has a top speed of 80 km/h (which is still slower than a bus on the freeway), with all the stops its average speed is just under 55 km/h. As a result, it will take close to an hour to get downtown from Langley on Skytrain. That might be acceptable during rush hour when traffic is snarled up, but the trains will be largely empty outside of that.

I honestly doubt that. Langley residents would travel back and forth between the regional downtown (Surrey Central)... like they do now.

It still doesn't do anything about the fact that you are funnelling everyone through the Dunsmuir Tunnel in the same direction.

True... it will add more, but NOT all Langleyites ( Langleyers? Langoliers? ) are going downtown.

To me, the next line (it actually should have pre-dated the Millennium Line and possibly even the Surrey bridge) should be an extension from Waterfront, along Powell or Cordova to E. Hastings and then on to the PNE and Kootenay Loop. This would provide an alternate route downtown and would use the Dunsmuir Tunnel more effectively as full trains would be travelling through it in both directions during the rush hours.

I get why you'd think that... but remember that area of East Van wasn't exactly dense in the 90s... and even now, it's all SFH. I don't think a Hastings line would provide the relief benefit you think it would provide for the Expo Line. Most of the residents in East Vancouver who live North of 1st Avenue are NOT taking the Skytrain now. They're on buses like the 135, 16, 28, 27, and new B-Line... so you're not providing relief to the Expo/M-line. Yes, it would provide counter traffic to the Expo line, but it would be mostly new passengers, not passengers switching from Expo the Hastings.

What WILL provide relief to that line will be the extension West. That will create the transit triangle, REALLY opening up the system and providing a HUGE jump in traffic both ways. It would become very feasible to work at the Airport and live in Brentwood... or live in Langara and work in Metrotown or go to school to SFU, but live in Richmond. Even going to Oakridge from Nanaimo (2-transfers) might be a more common than taking two buses.

In addition, it adds reliability and frequency, which are FAR more important than overall time.

An Hastings extension East will be needed, but it's less of a priority than other lines... which will serve more people more efficiently... even if those lines are on the other side of the Fraser.

If we really want to promote sprawl up the valley more than it already is, some type of express service (bus or train) on a dedicated corridor would be much more effective.

Vancouver's employment isn't as concentrated as Calgary or Toronto. This is why we need trains that cross the region, as opposed to serve only downtown. Although I think the M-Line West will be at capacity from day 1... extensions giving more emphasis to Surrey could turn Surrey Central into a REAL urban town centre. Look at how Burnaby has managed its three centres in Brentwood, Lougheed, and Metrotown. Outside of these areas... it's all SFH on large lots.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by roger1818

IMHO it should have been built prior to the Millennium Line (and thus Evergreen extension).

I know we are getting off topic, but I just read in https://planning.ubc.ca/vancouver/tr...-broadway-line that:

• The UBC-Broadway Corridor is the busiest bus corridor in North America.
• With over 100,000 passengers per day in 2012, it is comparable to ridership on the Canada Line Skytrain and nearly double that on the Millennium Line.

If 10 years after completion, the Millennium Line had half the passengers than either the UBC-Broadway Corridor (without LRT) or the Canada Line, why was it given priority?

To bring things back on topic, would a Langley extension deliver anywhere near that level of traffic or would it be another underutilized, overbuilt Millennium line?

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by roger1818

But is it the right technology for the region? There are many other ways to do that and I am not sure ALRT is the correct one. The ALRT is great, but it locks you into that one technology forever. A more generic technology has more flexibility for the future. A busway could have rails added to it later. A rail system with an overhead centenary (LRT or other) could be extended to provide express service into Vancouver when that becomes necessary.

Talk to people about the conversion of their Transitway (busway) into LRT.

Pick a Tech for a corridor and live with it. Or, change it and have a painful few years.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

I get why you'd think that... but remember that area of East Van wasn't exactly dense in the 90s... and even now, it's all SFH. I don't think a Hastings line would provide the relief benefit you think it would provide for the Expo Line. Most of the residents in East Vancouver who live North of 1st Avenue are NOT taking the Skytrain now. They're on buses like the 135, 16, 28, 27, and new B-Line... so you're not providing relief to the Expo/M-line. Yes, it would provide counter traffic to the Expo line, but it would be mostly new passengers, not passengers switching from Expo the Hastings.

I wasn't suggesting it would provide relief to the Expo line, more that it is low hanging fruit for providing an alternate route into downtown by better utilizing existing infrastructure.

As for East Van being largely SFH, by pushing for TOD around the stations, that will change and provide some housing relief an a city with a shortage of housing. Of course most of that TOD would be in the City of Vancouver, so the other Mayors wouldn't be happy.

What WILL provide relief to that line will be the extension West. That will create the transit triangle, REALLY opening up the system and providing a HUGE jump in traffic both ways. It would become very feasible to work at the Airport and live in Brentwood... or live in Langara and work in Metrotown or go to school to SFU, but live in Richmond. Even going to Oakridge from Nanaimo (2-transfers) might be a more common than taking two buses.

Agreed. A Broadway-UBC line is long overdue! The problem is the best routes are all withing Vancouver, and the mayors don't like that as they want their piece of the pie.

In addition, it adds reliability and frequency, which are FAR more important than overall time.

Agreed.

An Hastings extension East will be needed, but it's less of a priority than other lines... which will serve more people more efficiently... even if those lines are on the other side of the Fraser.

I'm not convinced, but we can agree to disagree (and this is coming from someone from Abbotsford).

Vancouver's employment isn't as concentrated as Calgary or Toronto. This is why we need trains that cross the region, as opposed to serve only downtown.

Likely true for Calgary, but while Toronto does have a big downtown presence, but the automotive industry does distribute its employment area if you include Oshawa and Hamilton. Those other empowerment nodes are quite auto-centric however.

Although I think the M-Line West will be at capacity from day 1

Agreed. Students are heavy users of transit so the demand to UBC is there if nothing else (and there is plenty more). Unfortunately transit agencies consider students a captive audience and do little for them as they know they will use whatever garbage is thrown at them.

extensions giving more emphasis to Surrey could turn Surrey Central into a REAL urban town centre. Look at how Burnaby has managed its three centres in Brentwood, Lougheed, and Metrotown. Outside of these areas... it's all SFH on large lots.

Is Burnaby a good model for Surrey? A few employment centres surrounded by SHF on large lots that only no one can afford, promoting more sprawl further up the valley, spreading overpriced homes like wildfire? Before you know it, people will be commuting from Hope.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by roger1818

But is it the right technology for the region? There are many other ways to do that and I am not sure ALRT is the correct one. The ALRT is great, but it locks you into that one technology forever. A more generic technology has more flexibility for the future. A busway could have rails added to it later. A rail system with an overhead centenary (LRT or other) could be extended to provide express service into Vancouver when that becomes necessary.

Neither bus nor light rail really provides any advantage over the SkyTrain... and in the case of light rail, it's actually worse than doing nothing. As you said yourself, "why promote mediocre? Whatever you build, you will be stuck with for a long time." Start with a proper B-Line, upgrade to RRT when the time is right - don't blow money on any costly halfway measures.

Originally Posted by roger1818

If 10 years after completion, the Millennium Line had half the passengers than either the UBC-Broadway Corridor (without LRT) or the Canada Line, why was it given priority?

Part of a larger plan that never made it past the first stage:



Phase 2 died when the incumbent NDP got voted out of office. Cynics observe that the original M-Line route covers neighbourhoods that voted for them.

Originally Posted by roger1818

To bring things back on topic, would a Langley extension deliver anywhere near that level of traffic or would it be another underutilized, overbuilt Millennium line?

The same M-Line now getting massive development around Brentwood and Lougheed?

Even the Expo route started out suburban - a lot of it's still surburban. Rapid transit shapes density just as much as density shapes transit.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by roger1818

To bring things back on topic, would a Langley extension deliver anywhere near that level of traffic or would it be another underutilized, overbuilt Millennium line?

It would be most likely like other lines that extend beyond the major centre. It would likely fill up by the time it crosses the river. This is at least for the interim. Once the line has been open for a few years, TOD will occur at the stations and that will change things.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Talk to people about the conversion of their Transitway (busway) into LRT.

The big problem in Ottawa wasn't the Transitway itself, but that all of the buses ran on city streets in the downtown core and eventually those streets reached maximum capacity for buses. Bus tunnels are much more expensive than rail tunnels so conversion to rail made sense and the cheapest place to put the trains outside of the city was along the former transitway as the ROW was already there. I do disagree with extending it to the distant suburbs (Ottawa is following Vancouver's mistake there).

For Langley, I am not suggesting building a traisitway all the way into downtown Vancouver, but to a transfer point. One of the big advantage of busways is buses can switch to highways or streets, allowing meaning you only need to build what is needed and you can have a bus from your neighbourhood to the transfer point.

Pick a Tech for a corridor and live with it. Or, change it and have a painful few years.

But pick a tech which can evolve as needed. What is the evolution path for ALRT other than buying more trains from Bombardier?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by roger1818

For Langley, I am not suggesting building a traisitway all the way into downtown Vancouver, but to a transfer point. One of the big advantage of busways is buses can switch to highways or streets, allowing meaning you only need to build what is needed and you can have a bus from your neighbourhood to the transfer point.

And yet if you're going past Surrey (let's say Metrotown), you're still wasting 5-10 minutes switching at Surrey Central/King George, rather than riding the SkyTrain all the way through. Come on, the Expo Line's literally pointing at Langley!

Originally Posted by roger1818

But pick a tech which can evolve as needed. What is the evolution path for ALRT other than buying more trains from Bombardier?

Larger platforms, more trainsets, bigger trains. Even a starter SkyTrain has more capacity than an evolved LRT or BRT... and if even that's not enough, it's time to add a relief line, or a commuter rail (aka heavy rail/passenger rail) line like the West Coast Express.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by roger1818

The big problem in Ottawa wasn't the Transitway itself, but that all of the buses ran on city streets in the downtown core and eventually those streets reached maximum capacity for buses. Bus tunnels are much more expensive than rail tunnels so conversion to rail made sense and the cheapest place to put the trains outside of the city was along the former transitway as the ROW was already there. I do disagree with extending it to the distant suburbs (Ottawa is following Vancouver's mistake there).

For Langley, I am not suggesting building a traisitway all the way into downtown Vancouver, but to a transfer point. One of the big advantage of busways is buses can switch to highways or streets, allowing meaning you only need to build what is needed and you can have a bus from your neighbourhood to the transfer point.

?

And in a few decades, when the peak number of buses is not enough, it will get converted to Skytrain.

Even Toronto is learning the hard way to pick a tech and use it. The 4 stop SRT is expected to be replaced with a 1 stop subway.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Meanwhile the Canada Line has 138,700 and the 99B-Line has 55,700 weekday entries.

It is a reporting error. That is the count per peak hour. The estimates are 50,000+ likely closer to 60,000 per week so on par with 99B-line.

[GMasterAres]

Funny thing, in my free time I've been playing Cities Skylines again (used to play it a lot) and built a few big cities. They have options for transit and one is a street-grade LRT streetcar system. I can tell you that at least in game, it is plenty good at causing traffic problems in my city that I ultimately demolished three of my main lines and replaced with grade-separated subway and monorail.

I know it's a game, but evidently according to Cities Skylines, streetcars on busy corridors = bad.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Funny thing, in my free time I've been playing Cities Skylines again (used to play it a lot) and built a few big cities. They have options for transit and one is a street-grade LRT streetcar system. I can tell you that at least in game, it is plenty good at causing traffic problems in my city that I ultimately demolished three of my main lines and replaced with grade-separated subway and monorail.

I know it's a game, but evidently according to Cities Skylines, streetcars on busy corridors = bad.

Try Cities in Motion, made by the same developer. In both games (for me at least), LRT works just fine when it's built in its own ROW or on a quiet side road.

[Bdawe]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Fair enough, but it doesn't explain why the SkyTrain should be extended all the way out to Langley. The ALRT is great for moving large volumes of people over a medium distance by providing ultra frequent trains. During peak periods the Expo Line runs 4 and 6 car trains and I don't see Langley having a large enough population base to fill that size of train without dropping the service frequency significantly. If they are running trains every 15 or 20 minutes during peak periods (and even less during off peak), why do you need an expensive, computer controlled train? If it is to allow direct service, you are saying most people in Langley are going to Surrey anyway, and for those who want to travel on across the Fraser, transferring to a much more frequent train isn't that bad.

Quibble if you may with the methodology of the Surrey Rapid Transit Study, but "RRT1" (skytrain down fraser highway and nothing else) was projected to have a peak hour demand of 6,800 people per hour. That is nearly enough to fill 13 Mark III Skytrains

*https://www.translink.ca/-/media/Doc...ve_Summary.pdf

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Neither bus nor light rail really provides any advantage over the SkyTrain... and in the case of light rail, it's actually worse than doing nothing. As you said yourself, "why promote mediocre? Whatever you build, you will be stuck with for a long time." Start with a proper B-Line, upgrade to RRT when the time is right - don't blow money on any costly halfway measures.

So you are saying bus isn't better than SkyTrain so lets use bus until we can justify SkyTrain ? :confused:

As for LRT, I am not sure why you say it is worse than doing nothing. What makes it worse? People keep saying it is worse but I have yet to hear a good argument against it. What make proprietary ALRT technology from the 80s better than modern LRT technology that follows industry standards?

Phase 2 died when the incumbent NDP got voted out of office. Cynics observe that the original M-Line route covers neighbourhoods that voted for them.

My point is it should have been Phase 1, not Phase 2.

Even the Expo route started out suburban - a lot of it's still surburban. Rapid transit shapes density just as much as density shapes transit.

Nothing wrong with extending it to the suburbs, but at some point the Peter Principle kicks in and you are extending it to the point of incompetence.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by roger1818

So you are saying bus isn't better than SkyTrain so lets use bus until we can justify SkyTrain ? :confused:

Methinks you're probably overthinking it. I'll rephrase it: what TransLink's done so far is put express B-Lines on high-traffic corridors until they reach capacity, then they replace the B-Lines with a SkyTrain route. No need to change that.

Originally Posted by roger1818

As for LRT, I am not sure why you say it is worse than doing nothing. What makes it worse? People keep saying it is worse but I have yet to hear a good argument against it. What make proprietary ALRT technology from the 80s better than modern LRT technology that follows industry standards?

Check SkyTrain for Surrey, or go back through the thread - you don't even need to go that far, just click on 5-10 random pages.

In a nutshell, the LRT option's just as expensive as the SkyTrain option (if not more) while providing the same speed and frequency as a rapid bus, making it the worst of both worlds. It also takes up two lanes of traffic, can't switch lanes in case of an accident up ahead (or if it is the accident), and has a route that looks like this. All an LRT's going to do is cause a lot of traffic until Surrey spends just as much money replacing it with an ALRT line.

Originally Posted by roger1818

My point is it should have been Phase 1, not Phase 2.

Well, that's the beauty of hindsight.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Nothing wrong with extending it to the suburbs, but at some point the Peter Principle kicks in and you are extending it to the point of incompetence.

That's Abbotsford, probably; Langley's still practical.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

And yet if you're going past Surrey (let's say Metrotown), you're still wasting 5-10 minutes switching at Surrey Central/King George, rather than riding the SkyTrain all the way through. Come on, the Expo Line's literally pointing at Langley!

5-10 minutes to transfer to a train that runs every couple minutes? I think not. As for the return journy, if you are expecting every train to go to Langley, that is unlikley whether you wait on a busy platform in the city or at the transfer point, it doesn't matter.


Using Ottawa Ottawa's LRT under construction as a comparison (using Alstom's Citadis Spirit trains)

Larger platforms,

SkyTrain: 62m
LRT: 90m expandable to 120m

more trainsets,

SkyTrain: 2-3 min freqeuncy
LRT: Initially 3.5 min frequency, expandable to 2 min. frequency

bigger trains.

SkyTrain: 34.7 m to 76.2 m trains (capacity of 260 to 532 people)
LRT: Initially 48 to 96 m trains (capacity of 300 to 600 people) expandable to 59 to 118 m trains (capacity of 370 to 740 people)

Even a starter SkyTrain has more capacity than an evolved LRT or BRT

You might want to check your facts first. LRT can have more capacity than SkyTrain. Maybe they are proposing a smaller system, but that is only to save money. The capability is there.

... and if even that's not enough, it's time to add a relief line, or a commuter rail (aka heavy rail/passenger rail) line like the West Coast Express.

That option is not exclusive to SkyTrain.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by roger1818

5-10 minutes to transfer to a train that runs every couple minutes? I think not.

Nyet. Remember that the current Expo splits in two, and up to half the trains go to Production Way-University in Burnaby. That's two trains every six minutes; TransLink themselves note that average frequency on the King George route can be up to 5-6 minutes.

Originally Posted by roger1818

As for the return journy, if you are expecting every train to go to Langley, that is unlikley whether you wait on a busy platform in the city or at the transfer point, it doesn't matter.

That's my point - no matter where you get on or off, SkyTrain plus feeder line means you end up waiting one extra time than with SkyTrain all the way.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Using Ottawa Ottawa's LRT under construction as a comparison (using Alstom's Citadis Spirit trains)

Ottawa gets away with it because their tram's grade separated and/or off-road for practically the whole route - it's practically a SkyTrain! By comparison, Surrey is basically building a Portland streetcar.

Originally Posted by roger1818

SkyTrain: 62m
LRT: 90m expandable to 120m

SkyTrain: 2-3 min freqeuncy
LRT: Initially 3.5 min frequency, expandable to 2 min. frequency

SkyTrain: 34.7 m to 76.2 m trains (capacity of 260 to 532 people)
LRT: Initially 48 to 96 m trains (capacity of 300 to 600 people) expandable to 59 to 118 m trains (capacity of 370 to 740 people)

90-120m is longer than some of Surrey's blocks.

That many trains means that many drivers, and the main cost of any transit route is the driver's salary; SkyTrain is driverless. Ottawa's ready to pay, but Surrey wants to save money.

Originally Posted by roger1818

You might want to check your facts first. LRT can have more capacity than SkyTrain. Maybe they are proposing a smaller system, but that is only to save money. The capability is there.

If you're willing to take the time and effort, absolutely. The Confederation Line's total cost (Phase One and Two) is $5.1 billion for 13 km, and is tunneled, entrenched, elevated, off-road or otherwise separated from heavy traffic; by comparison, Surrey is going with "fast and dirty," and so they're spending $2.6 billion on a 27 km network right on the street through heavy traffic.

Ottawa's going with LRT because they don't have any existing rapid transit, and that's fine. But if you're willing to spend all that money to make it as effective as an ALRT... and you already have an existing ALRT network... why not just build an ALRT?

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

my god, this is like a redo of every argument in this thread for the past few years over 2 pages.

no one is winning this thing by this point; but enjoy it guys.