Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by madmigs

Surrey is the largest city in BC for land area. Abbotsford is #2. But a lot of that is valuable farmland and building over would eliminate a large portion of our local food supply.

In 2006 Census Vancouver had 578,000, so even if Vancouver experienced 0 growth between 2006 and 2021 - with Surrey predictions it would be another 11 years before they overtake Vancouver. The 2006 Census also says that Vancouver's growth rate was 1/2 of Surrey's(6% vs 13%) between 2001 and 2006, which work out to about 1% and 2% annual growth, respectively. ~2% growth is also what City of Surrey has on its population page(listed a few pages ago) for the recent years. So taking those numbers(2006 for Vancouver - can't find 2010 data), 2010 for Surrey) and assuming their respective growth rates stay roughly the same it will be 2035 before Surrey has more population than Vancouver.


Vancouver 2006 Population: http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20100119/documents/ttra4.pdf - Appendix B page 5

City Growth Rates using 2006 Census data: http://www.burnaby.ca/__shared/assets/Social_and_Demographic_trends_in_Burnaby5921.pdf?method=1 - Page 3

Actually Abbotsford is larger than Surrey in terms of land area. Surrey is at 317.19 sq km, Abby at 359.36 sq km. Of course that doesn't take into account which city has more land in the ALR. So the total amount of already developed and possibly future developed land could be more in Surrey.

[nname]

Originally Posted by Zassk

Yeah, Surrey needs rapid transit badly, but with the densities and the available rights-of-way, wouldn't it make sense to build several at-grade lines instead of one expensive Skytrain extension? (I know Skytrain in Surrey would cost much less per km than Broadway, but it'll still be a lot more expensive than LRT.)

Building LRT might not be as cheap as you thought. SkyTrain in North Burnaby and Surrey cost around 60 millions per km in 2003 dollars, both considerably cheaper than what Calgary and Edmonton are spending for their LRT right now, not to mention Toronto.....

I would say implement some BRTs and let the ridership build up for some years. If the population in Surrey does increase rapidly, there got to be some routes that warrant SkyTrain capacity...

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by allan_kuan

Area doesn't mean density or more passengers per certain unit of area... in fact, the reverse is true... more area means more population spread out... and it's expensive to run buses over huge distances. I actually think that before an LRT system is built that the current zone fare payment system be replaced by a distance charge to recoup more of the cost... it might sound bias towards the SOF but honestly even with their 10 minute frequencies they're getting a good subsidy from the huge area that zone three covers... and this at the expense of other potential improvements to the region.

EDIT: I wonder if we should shift this discussion about transit priorities somewhere else... not really the right place to discuss Broadway vs Surrey. =S

I was thinking the same thing in regards to zone 3 being way too big to be efficient. While distance based fares would be a far better way, right now that is not possible.

But they could split up zone 3 into smaller zones. Someone going from Langely to Tsawwassen should really be paying for a 3 zone trip and not a 1 zone trip. Of course I realize it is done the current way to appease people for the lower transit service provided. But at some point they are going to have to realize that to pay for the service they will have to pay more for the longer trips.

[madmigs]

Originally Posted by Zassk

Yeah, Surrey needs rapid transit badly, but with the densities and the available rights-of-way, wouldn't it make sense to build several at-grade lines instead of one expensive Skytrain extension? (I know Skytrain in Surrey would cost much less per km than Broadway, but it'll still be a lot more expensive than LRT.)

On one hand I agree it would make more sense to do LRT or BRT in Surrey to densify the neighborhoods. That said, having skytrain with stations would densify the area probably faster as skytrain has higher capacity and links in directly with the rest of the system(no transfers). Most likely as soon as skytrain construction starts, residential/commercial construction would start around planned stations, both finishing around the same time. Look what happened at Metrotown after skytrain(from nothing to 2nd largest mall in Canada), and to a lesser extent, Brentwood area. I believe there are also a bunch of projects in progress or at completion around several planned evergreen stations.

And to clarify both LRT and Skytrain in Surrey would be cheaper than LRT and Skytrain on Broadway respectively due to differences in street construction, existing buildings, etc. Which translates into more distance for the money. But just Broadway area between 4th and 16th(not counting UBC) has almost 20% of Vancouver's population, which would make either option for a Broadway extension cheaper per person served living along the line than a line in Surrey. http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/...ents/ttra4.pdf - Appendix B page 5. Doesn't directly translate to more usage for skytrain long-term, but its a good start. And not only people/businesses on broadway would benefit but everyone(including people from Surrey) who goes to broadway to work/shop/eat/see a doctor/etc.

Doing either without the other will cause an uproar, and money is tight - I'm guessing the province will do neither or progress so slowly that it's nearly the same.

Originally Posted by Zassk

Here's my prediction:

It's no secret that the City of Victoria has been working on a two-line LRT plan, with fairly detailed planning already done on the first line. I predict that, just before the next election, the gov't announces plans to build two LRT lines in Victoria and two LRT lines in Surrey - one each by 2020 and the second each by 2030. The carrot of a future SkyTrain extension is vaguely mentioned, raising the vision of three full transit lines in Surrey sometime in the future, without actually promising them all.

Simultaneously, they announce a plan to extend Millennium line to Broadway immediately after Evergreen opens. This will make the gov't look good, but the real reason will be to get them off the hook for the expensive upgrade of Expo Line capacity that was previously announced, at least for the near term (it was something like $1.5 billion just for platform extensions alone). The Broadway extension will include a plan for two additional phases, to Arbutus by 2020 and UBC some time after that.

1st prediction - no idea but sounds possible.

2nd prediction - considering Metro's recent transit report has Surrey and Broadway to Canada Line extensions both a priority 2(see http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=4972378&postcount=3864) after Evergreen, I would agree with that one. That is assuming anything gets done.

[twoNeurons]

One MAJOR advantage that Surrey has over Vancouver is that the blocks are built around 1mi (~1600m) arterial roads. What this means is that it's a good fit for LRT with signal priority. Fewer cross-streets.

It's been said before, but an LRT from Newton to Surrey Central and then West to Guildford makes a whole lot more sense than a SkyTrain extension.

As for splitting up Zone 3 into another 3 zones, that's ridiculous. Remember, it's not just fuel that's being paid for on these buses. It's the driver's hours, the bus maintenance etc.

Buses in Vancouver get far more wear and tear, more stopping and starting and travel slower, burning more fuel. In addition the service levels in Vancouver are better... so one expects to pay for more frequent service. Sure, more service means more ridership, meaning costs are recouped better, but still.

Service south of the Fraser is abysmal in comparison... the way the zones are arranged work well. Besides, not many make such long trips out there.

Additionally, in Vancouver/Burnaby, the SkyTrain hits more than one major location and it can be actually used for short return trips. Plenty of people use it for this to nip down to metrotown or some short appointment and then back. Or, they use it to make side trips on the way home. You can't do that on the bus in Surrey. Well, you "can" but it's difficult to do in practice because of wait times and travel times.

[nname]

Originally Posted by cabotp

I was thinking the same thing in regards to zone 3 being way too big to be efficient. While distance based fares would be a far better way, right now that is not possible.

But they could split up zone 3 into smaller zones. Someone going from Langely to Tsawwassen should really be paying for a 3 zone trip and not a 1 zone trip. Of course I realize it is done the current way to appease people for the lower transit service provided. But at some point they are going to have to realize that to pay for the service they will have to pay more for the longer trips.

But right now there is really no point. More than two-third of the transit ridership travel within or to/from zone 1. A furthur quarter travel within zone 2 or between zone 2 and 3. Only less than 8% of the ridership travel within zone 3, let alone those long trips you mentioned. Splitting the zone up right now would probably make little difference.

[nname]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

One MAJOR advantage that Surrey has over Vancouver is that the blocks are built around 1mi (~1600m) arterial roads. What this means is that it's a good fit for LRT with signal priority. Fewer cross-streets.

It's been said before, but an LRT from Newton to Surrey Central and then West to Guildford makes a whole lot more sense than a SkyTrain extension.

But the question will be, will the LRT, in the busiest corridor in Surrey, meet the demand in the long term?

Just for a comparision. Calgary C-Train is running pretty close to capacity right now, so they are extending their platform to fit 4 cars, and also initiate studies to put the track underground (ie. grade separation). You often heard news about how crowded the trains are - the actual load the train is carrying is 7255 pphpd. Compare this to the train capacity across the Skybridge, which before the expansion last year, was 7700 pphpd. Right now it should be around 10000 pphpd. Would a future line within the city be as busy as Skybridge today?

For a line on a major arterial (King George) that connects the major centers (Newton, Central, Guildford) in Surrey, I'm still leaning toward a higher capcacity system. But for cross-town routes (interurban, 88th, etc), a LRT would be a better choice.

[CLC]

deleted... (don't want to off-topic)

[nname]

Originally Posted by CLC

C-trains are crowded because they have too many seats. It is still far from the reaching ultimate capacity. Removing 1/3 of seats will do wonder.

And the same applies to skytrain.. at least the older MKIIs

[madmigs]

Originally Posted by nname

But the question will be, will the LRT, in the busiest corridor in Surrey, meet the demand in the long term?

Just for a comparision. Calgary C-Train is running pretty close to capacity right now, so they are extending their platform to fit 4 cars, and also initiate studies to put the track underground (ie. grade separation). You often heard news about how crowded the trains are - the actual load the train is carrying is 7255 pphpd. Compare this to the train capacity across the Skybridge, which before the expansion last year, was 7700 pphpd. Right now it should be around 10000 pphpd. Would a future line within the city be as busy as Skybridge today?

For a line on a major arterial (King George) that connects the major centers (Newton, Central, Guildford) in Surrey, I'm still leaning toward a higher capcacity system. But for cross-town routes (interurban, 88th, etc), a LRT would be a better choice.

In the long term - are we talking 20 years from now? Maybe, but not without expansion, as in look at the skytrain now, Expo line stations need expansion to handle the additional traffic we have now versus what we had when it was built. As for future lines being as busy as the skybridge today - did anybody 25 years ago think the Expo line would be a busy as it is now?

Skybridge expansion - you mean the additional trains? As I am not aware there was structural work done.

And yes for "feeder" routes, I agree LRT would be a better choice.

As for metro's transit plans - I've posted a link to metro's latest regional report draft (in the metro transit thread) that has the details people are looking for in regards to Metro's future transit desires. We should move discussion there. We really have gotten off topic here.

[Millennium2002]

There's no reason why LRT cannot incorporate features of a higher-capacity system if demand warrants it in the busiest sections. Of course, one does have to keep in mind that there will have to be transfers due to the change in technology between Expo and LRT lines.

The best way to figure out demand, of course, is to run trial BRT services for a period spanning several years, like what was done for the other B-Lines. If we see serious overcrowding like what exists along Broadway, then we'll know that we'll have to make the move to a better system. One can also choose to just build out and let demand catch up with the system but that could backfire and drain money away from other planned upgrades.

[paradigm4]

Originally Posted by nname

Building LRT might not be as cheap as you thought. SkyTrain in North Burnaby and Surrey cost around 60 millions per km in 2003 dollars, both considerably cheaper than what Calgary and Edmonton are spending for their LRT right now, not to mention Toronto.....

I would say implement some BRTs and let the ridership build up for some years. If the population in Surrey does increase rapidly, there got to be some routes that warrant SkyTrain capacity...

The Provincial Transit Plan estimated future SkyTrain extensions even higher. The general price for surface LRT in North America is around $30M/km - Calgary's and Edmonton's are pricier due to tunnelling.

I doubt Surrey's overall density will require SkyTrain capacity, even with growth, for at least the next 50 years. As has already been mentioned, it is geographically 3x the size of Vancouver, meaning density is naturally going to take much longer to achieve.

Originally Posted by CLC

I agree, just blanket the city of Surrey with several lines of BRT immediately, and gradually upgrade the key ones to LRT based on popularity. BRT and LRT can be built to very high capacity, I don't think Skytrain or "expensive metro" is ever needed for SOF intra-city routes.

As the guy who ran for Council touting LRT lines for Surrey, I recently conceded that the best short term option, considering the lack of finances, is to build a solidly branded, high quality BRT network south of the Fraser. Multiple lines of BRT will still be cheaper that even one LRT line and in this part of the region, connectivity, access, and speed is key. I would much rather Surrey get a network than simply a 8k light rail between King George SkyTrain and Newton. If it is marketed and branded correctly, it can attract and build a transit ridership and transit culture in the area. I doubt much densification would occur as a result, but I could see the most popular branches becoming light rail within 5-10 years.

My concept also included Surrey, the Langleys, White Rock, and Delta leaving TransLink and forming their own agency which would run this service. If you want to read more about it (with pictures!), check out my blog post.

[12345678]

Originally Posted by nname

I would say implement some BRTs and let the ridership build up for some years. If the population in Surrey does increase rapidly, there got to be some routes that warrant SkyTrain capacity...

Damn, you stole my line!

[Whalleyboy]

Originally Posted by paradigm4

The Provincial Transit Plan estimated future SkyTrain extensions even higher. The general price for surface LRT in North America is around $30M/km - Calgary's and Edmonton's are pricier due to tunnelling.

I doubt Surrey's overall density will require SkyTrain capacity, even with growth, for at least the next 50 years. As has already been mentioned, it is geographically 3x the size of Vancouver, meaning density is naturally going to take much longer to achieve.



As the guy who ran for Council touting LRT lines for Surrey, I recently conceded that the best short term option, considering the lack of finances, is to build a solidly branded, high quality BRT network south of the Fraser. Multiple lines of BRT will still be cheaper that even one LRT line and in this part of the region, connectivity, access, and speed is key. I would much rather Surrey get a network than simply a 8k light rail between King George SkyTrain and Newton. If it is marketed and branded correctly, it can attract and build a transit ridership and transit culture in the area. I doubt much densification would occur as a result, but I could see the most popular branches becoming light rail within 5-10 years.

My concept also included Surrey, the Langleys, White Rock, and Delta leaving TransLink and forming their own agency which would run this service. If you want to read more about it (with pictures!), check out my blog post.

Although 3 times the size of Vancouver 1/3 of that is farm land. I would like to know what would be the size and population comparison if we look at just the northern parts of Surrey up to the farmland areas and compare that the the rest of the cities in metro Vancouver. South Surrey although growing is a huge open area of Surrey for the most point and i dont think transit is warrent out that way yet.
Surrey will need a mutli phased transit line plan for seeing growth to areas but i think king george would be what we need now it would allow surrey to go more into a bit of a grid system style bus instead of feeding all in to central it could feed to a line along king george.
personally i think SoF should look at using only one main route leaving out fraser hwy turning more like a Y route to split towards langley and white rock areas
like this
http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl...22.784233&spn=0.093727,0.308647&t=h&z=12

[nname]

Originally Posted by paradigm4

The Provincial Transit Plan estimated future SkyTrain extensions even higher. The general price for surface LRT in North America is around $30M/km - Calgary's and Edmonton's are pricier due to tunnelling.

I doubt Surrey's overall density will require SkyTrain capacity, even with growth, for at least the next 50 years. As has already been mentioned, it is geographically 3x the size of Vancouver, meaning density is naturally going to take much longer to achieve.

The overall density may be lower, but if the density is concentrated in a specific strip, then it may warrant a higher capacity system.

The one for Edmonton I'm referring to is the southern extension past the current terminus. The tunneling part I believe is about 250M/km. One other surface LRT line in Toronto cost about 95M/km, whereas an underground one cost >300M/km.

I for one think the cost on the provincial transit plan is seriously inflated, probably just to make the government look good:
- 2 billions for Canada Line - this is not a new contribution
- 1.4 billions for Evergreen - this is fixed so they can't inflate it anymore
- 2.8 billions for UBC extension - no comment on this
- 3.1 billions to double capacity and 6km extension - to double the capacity actually cost $0 - we are not even running half of the system's ultimate capacity right now. Ignoring the extension, 3.1 billions is probably enough to demolish the entire expo line and rebuilt again...
- 1 billions for new rail cars - that gives about 280 cars, much more than double the current ones in service - are we going to run 8-cars trains or something?
- 1.2 billions for rapid bus - are they grade separated? The one just opened in Kelowna doesn't even look like it costed 1.2 millions...
- 1.6 billions for 1500 bus - that's about 1.05 millions per bus - the last time I check, hybrid is about half as much, CNG and diesel is even cheaper. Even Trolley doesn't cost that much!

[nname]

Originally Posted by Whalleyboy

Although 3 times the size of Vancouver 1/3 of that is farm land. I would like to know what would be the size and population comparison if we look at just the northern parts of Surrey up to the farmland areas and compare that the the rest of the cities in metro Vancouver. South Surrey although growing is a huge open area of Surrey for the most point and i dont think transit is warrent out that way yet.

Can be visualized from this map, maybe



2006 Census.

[madmigs]

Originally Posted by nname

- 3.1 billions to double capacity and 6km extension - to double the capacity actually cost $0 - we are not even running half of the system's ultimate capacity right now. Ignoring the extension, 3.1 billions is probably enough to demolish the entire expo line and rebuilt again...

Umm on the Expo line in some areas yes we are at capacity - take for instance the Broadway/Commercial to downtown stretch(ever try to transfer from M-Line in rush hour to downtown?). Also certain stations are at capacity many times of the day - Metrotown(small tiny station), Broadway/Commercial(simply due to the masses of people coming/going - 6 car mark II trains would have a huge impact here)

And if they don't make station modifications before or with the faregates, at least in some cases, the faregate work would have to be redone as in some cases platform restructuring/redesign is quite extensive.

[madmigs]

Originally Posted by nname

Can be visualized from this map, maybe



2006 Census.

Look at all that density along Expo line and broadway! Crazy!

For planned farmland boundaries - Use the maps from the Metro Vancouver draft regional growth strategy(http://www.metrovancouver.org/planning/d...eptember2010-5_1a-AttachmentRGSDraft.pdf). There are maps in their outlining the urban boundaries(between city land and farmland) that are being planned for.

[nname]

Originally Posted by madmigs

Umm on the Expo line in some areas yes we are at capacity - take for instance the Broadway/Commercial to downtown stretch(ever try to transfer from M-Line in rush hour to downtown?). Also certain stations are at capacity many times of the day - Metrotown(small tiny station), Broadway/Commercial(simply due to the masses of people coming/going - 6 car mark II trains would have a huge impact here)

Yes, Metrotown need to be expanded (mezzanine, second/wider walkway, second entrance, etc), and Broadway and possibly Main also needs some upgrades. But in term of platform extension, we are not there yet. Before we get there, we can:

- Lengthen the 24 more remaining 4-cars MKI trains to 6-cars with new train purchase. [16.7% increase in capacity]
- Reduced peak headway from from 108s to possibly 75s (during the Olympics, the avg peak headway in downtown segment were 80s according to TL) [44% increase in capacity]
- Connect Millennium Line to Canada Line to reduce load on the Expo Line [reduce demand]
- Consider running 5-cars MKII trains, with platform extension at key stations [33.3% increase in capacity]

Those would only cost a fraction of the proposed $3.1 billions. The money could be spent in other projects such as Broadway and Surrey extensions. When the 123.5% extra capacity mentioned above is exhaused, then we should start worry about platform extension to 6-cars 8-cars, or plan a new parallel line that reduce the load...

[madmigs]

Some more info in regards to your last post about costs.

Originally Posted by nname

- 1.6 billions for 1500 bus - that's about 1.05 millions per bus - the last time I check, hybrid is about half as much, CNG and diesel is even cheaper. Even Trolley doesn't cost that much!

You need to check your numbers again as new Trolley's cost at least a million a piece - http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2007/02/27/trolley-buses.html 2nd last paragrah - Coast Mountain's last order for 188 40ft. low floor trolleys and 40 60ft. articulated low floor trolleys cost $273 million.

Originally Posted by nname

- 1 billions for new rail cars - that gives about 280 cars, much more than double the current ones in service - are we going to run 8-cars trains or something?

Assuming we have only 140 skytrain cars right now and that each train is 4 cars, we would only have 35 trains, and I highly doubt we have that few trains. In just 2009 we had 48 new cars arrive starting in January - http://buzzer.translink.ca/index.php/2009/01/the-first-of-the-new-skytrain-cars-has-arrived/ And according to Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkyTrain_%28Vancouver%29 - we have 298 cars right now(my guess is including the 40 Canada Line Rotem cars).