Expo Line - Surrey Langley Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[WarrenC12]

Campbell was very pro-Skytrain. Clark made us go through a referendum designed to fail.

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by Jebby

Has the party (or the Liberals/United) ever been anti-SkyTrain or anti-transit in the Lower Mainland in general? It seems no matter who the government is, we've gotten upgrades to transit and connectivity.

The BC Liberals (now BC Conservatives) were pretty darn anti-Translink for a long time, stymying its ability to raise revenue using the tools it was promised at its creation, as well as foisting the dumb, politically-motivated, and designed-to-fail transit plebiscite that kneecapped Translink's funding prospects at a crucial juncture. Not for nothing, but the BC Liberals' 2008 Provincial Transit Plan put forward SkyTrain to UBC by 2020, along with an Expo Line extension in Surrey.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by BaddieB

Vancouver somehow is blessed to have not fallen for the LRT scam, unlike seemingly every other city in North America. Hell, even New York is making the interborough 'express' LRT.

Because 80's Vancouver was "dumb" enough to pick the "expensive" LRT. Best bad decision we even made.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

The BC Liberals (now BC Conservatives) were pretty darn anti-Translink for a long time, stymying its ability to raise revenue using the tools it was promised at its creation, as well as foisting the dumb, politically-motivated, and designed-to-fail transit plebiscite that kneecapped Translink's funding prospects at a crucial juncture.

That's kind of moving the goalposts as an answer. One thing is their preferred funding mechanism for Translink, another thing is (which is what I asked) being anti transit or being anti-Skytrain.

It is a fair point, though, to argue against their opposition to Translink's funding reform.

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

Not for nothing, but the BC Liberals' 2008 Provincial Transit Plan put forward SkyTrain to UBC by 2020, along with an Expo Line extension in Surrey.

Exactly. No party in power in the last 20 years has been anti-Skytrain. We've had constant expansion of the system, and regardless of which party comes into power we can continue to expect it. So the original question of whether the Conservatives would cancel this project is definitely not something to worry about. If anything, the question should be which party will promise (and deliver) even more rapid transit expansion. From what I've seen so far, it's the Conservatives.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Jebby

Exactly. No party in power in the last 20 years has been anti-Skytrain. We've had constant expansion of the system, and regardless of which party comes into power we can continue to expect it. So the original question of whether the Conservatives would cancel this project is definitely not something to worry about. If anything, the question should be which party will promise (and deliver) even more rapid transit expansion. From what I've seen so far, it's the Conservatives.

IMO NDP vs Liberal is not Skytrain vs No-Skytrain, it's high quality high cost Skytrain vs low quality low cost Skytrain.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by chowhou

IMO NDP vs Liberal is not Skytrain vs No-Skytrain, it's high quality high cost Skytrain vs low quality low cost Skytrain.

Interesting perspective. How would you rate each party?

Both support the Expo Line extension to Langley as well as UBCx

From what I see in their election manifestos, the NDP wants North Shore Skytrain vs BCCP is promising a new line to Newton.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by chowhou

IMO NDP vs Liberal is not Skytrain vs No-Skytrain, it's high quality high cost Skytrain vs low quality low cost Skytrain.

Evergreen Line is by no means "low quality" Skytrain.

And as explained many times, the built condition of the Canada Line was just as much the doing of the municipalities as the Province. Richmond demanding LRT, and finding compromise with the single track, and the city of Vancouver being against the open trench along the southern portion of Cambie (demanding tunneled) essentially eliminating Bombardier's bid which was the same technology as established Skytrain, but had a 2KM long trench.

In retrospect, for the price we paid the Canada Line is an amazing amount of infrastructure, and again, is way better than the LRT options demanded by Richmond.

Its fascinating how we have dodged the LRT bullet so many times.

Obviously the original Expo Line

Was the M-line ever considered for LRT at the start?

Then with the Canada Line. Glad we ignored Richmond's demannds here. Too bad the NDP listened to their demands for the GMT.

Then with the Evergreen Line. That one was sooooo close to going ahead as LRT until the Liberals demanded Skytrain.

Then with Surrey! And this time LRT was at the demand of Translink, but luckily the City of Surrey stopped that!

[hollywoodnorth]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Was the M-line ever considered for LRT at the start?

yes

Date: April 30, 1998

TO:
Standing Committee on Transportation and Traffic
FROM:
General Manager of Engineering Services and Director of City Plans

SUBJECT:


Broadway-Lougheed Light Rapid Transit Alignment Options

https://council.vancouver.ca/980512/tt1.htm

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by hollywoodnorth

yes

Date: April 30, 1998

TO:
Standing Committee on Transportation and Traffic
FROM:
General Manager of Engineering Services and Director of City Plans

SUBJECT:


Broadway-Lougheed Light Rapid Transit Alignment Options

https://council.vancouver.ca/980512/tt1.htm

Dang, Vancouver has been like Neo in the Matrix dodging these LRT bullets!

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Then with Surrey! And this time LRT was at the demand of Translink, but luckily the City of Surrey stopped that!

TransLink wanted SkyTrain, but was overruled by Mayors Diane Watts and Linda Hepner; one later ran for leadership of the Liberals, the other's a current Con candidate.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Jebby

Interesting perspective. How would you rate each party?

Both support the Expo Line extension to Langley as well as UBCx

From what I see in their election manifestos, the NDP wants North Shore Skytrain vs BCCP is promising a new line to Newton.

There's been pros and cons to each. Bear in mind there's not anything necessarily wrong with low quality Skytrain. When the SoCreds built the original Expo Line it was intended to be a cheap-yet-efficient system with standardized utilitarian cookie cutter stations and the classic cheap rickety trains. The Canada Line has glaring systemic issues with close to no expandability but it was built on time and on budget. The Evergreen Line was a bit of a train to nowhere when completed, but of the choices of lines to build it was the cheapest so at least it got done. None of these are "bad" Skytrain lines, and importantly they did get built.

The NDP seem more willing to plan projects that are not cheap to build yet have clear business cases, see the Broadway Extension and the North Shore Skytrain, but as a result rail gets built slower. The Millennium Line was always intended to go from UBC to Coquitlam, but in order to make it happen politically they had to phase it, which resulted in a line that was somewhat ineffective for a long time. The NDP also seem to care more about making the Skytrain nicer, by building nicer stations and funding nicer trains which is likely effective at increasing ridership but importantly effective at increasing ridership for middle and upper class people, who have more political strength and willpower to continue to support transit.

The SoCreds/Liberals also seem more willing to — heads with the municipalities if transit is not built exactly to the mayors' council's desires. The NDP have seemed less willing to be the bad guy and tell mayors like Corrigan to shove it.

Frankly I think we need a little bit of both styles of Skytrain construction.

[Migrant_Coconut]

I will admit the 90's NDP played silly buggers with the Millennium - the original SoCred plan was to go through New West to Coquitlam directly, but then Glen Clark's people took over, did the "waste and corruption" song and dance and took it through all the orange ridings instead.

Sure, Phase 2 was always Broadway and Coquitlam, but funding for that one fell through and we ended up stuck with a stupid loop for almost two decades.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by BaddieB

Vancouver somehow is blessed to have not fallen for the LRT scam, unlike seemingly every other city in North America. Hell, even New York is making the interborough 'express' LRT.

Yeah isn't LRT just a trolleybus on rails? We have those not on rails, keep it simple, stupid.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

Yeah isn't LRT just a trolleybus on rails? We have those not on rails, keep it simple, stupid.

LRT can be in its own ROW or not. LRT tech doesn't determine the design.

[s211]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

Yeah isn't LRT just a trolleybus on rails? We have those not on rails, keep it simple, stupid.

Have you heard of low-floor and high-floor LRT? I only assume the former.

High-floor LRT usually runs in its own ROW and can operate typically faster than lower-floor designs. It's not heavy-rail fast like subways in larger cities (e.g. New York, Chicago) though.

[chowhou]

In Vancouver, LRT in its own ROW is typically called "SkyTrain". We only really use the LRT name for non-grade separated shared ROW rail transit.

[WarrenC12]

ALRT was the original name for Skytrain. Apparently the A was for "Advanced". I would have guessed "Automated".

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

ALRT was the original name for Skytrain. Apparently the A was for "Advanced". I would have guessed "Automated".

Besides automation, the other advancement is the steerable bogies allowing tighter turns in urban environments where there are narrower rights of way for elevated tracks (think Chicago El). Public opinion pretty much negated that benefit, since lines are unlikely to be run elevated in downtowns. Tight turns were implemented on the Scarborough RT, at Main Street station in Vancouver and maybe in Detroit (?).


24. Steerable bogie of a wheel-on-rail vehicle: (a) rotary motor propulsion, (b) LIM propulsion.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Stee...-motor-propulsion-b-LIM_fig100_244989191

... and LIM motors.

[xd_1771]

Regional distinctions apply. The only jurisdictions I know of on earth trying to classify "high floor LRT" and "low floor LRT" as a separate transit mode, with one supposedly faster than the other, and the other able to "integrate with communities" better than the other, are Calgary and Edmonton in Alberta.

For everybody else, it's just a technical distinction with the height of the floors. There are high floor LRTs designed like low floor tramways (Manchester, Stuttgart, Hong Kong-Tuen Mun) and low floor LRVs run on full metros (Seville, Changchun, Ottawa).

I for one think it works to look at "LRT" as more of a surface running urban rail mode, SkyTrain is more of a "light metro" and in many ways closing on heavy metro.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

Regional distinctions apply. The only jurisdictions I know of on earth trying to classify "high floor LRT" and "low floor LRT" as a separate transit mode, with one supposedly faster than the other, and the other able to "integrate with communities" better than the other, are Calgary and Edmonton in Alberta.

For everybody else, it's just a technical distinction with the height of the floors. There are high floor LRTs designed like low floor tramways (Manchester, Stuttgart, Hong Kong-Tuen Mun) and low floor LRVs run on full metros (Seville, Changchun, Ottawa).

I for one think it works to look at "LRT" as more of a surface running urban rail mode, SkyTrain is more of a "light metro" and in many ways closing on heavy metro.

The biggest difference between high floor and low floor LRTs is that low floor LRTs have bulkheads for the wheels, which create pinch points in the car layout. High floor LRTs allow layouts that provide better passenger flow in the cars.