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

[xd_1771]

eduardo: The routing choice is a bit weird but it looks like it could actually work, since it seems to service all the communities.
I think a combination Interurban/Commuter Train (a-la-West Coast Express) combined with bus rapid transit for slower but more frequent service will work the best for Langley and Cloverdale. It's places within Surrey that are growing fast such as Guildford and Newton that need the quicker, more expensive methods of LRT and/or RRT, and fast.

[xd_1771]

Excuse the double post but in an e-mail I got from the Surrey Rapid Transit Study regarding questions submitted to the questionnaire that fell outside the study quota, one of my really long and agonizing questions involving Guildford RRT expansion was answered and apparently considered to be out of the scope. It seems that business expansion, etc. doesn't have anything to do with no RRT to Guildford, but more rather the complication it could inflict on SkyTrain frequencies (i.e. 3 min vs. 6 min) and routing options (i.e. from King George Station to Guildford not being viable; with a branch from 104th you run into frequency problems that affect Central).

What I don't understand is why they just don't build a new line between Newton and Guildford with separate trains that don't affect existing Expo Line frequency - what I mean to say is, just a line completely within Surrey connecting the three most important town centres that doesn't have to directly influence current development. They currently have this plan open as an LRT concept but an RRT concept could much better serve these two high capacity areas and connect them with Central & the rest of the Metro as well. This concept seems best outlined in allan_kuan's diagrams and routing at the moment. This is an option that would seem to work for everyone.

[Zassk]

A line between Newton and Guildford would get how much ridership? 20,000 pphpd? 40,000? Surely not enough to justify SkyTrain for several decades. It would be a tremendous expenditure for an area that can't yet support it. LRT is a better chocie.

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by Zassk

A line between Newton and Guildford would get how much ridership? 20,000 pphpd? 40,000? Surely not enough to justify SkyTrain for several decades. It would be a tremendous expenditure for an area that can't yet support it. LRT is a better chocie.

We have nearly 400,000 people living in this city; the line passes through all 3 of the biggest, major centres. I'm fairly certain it could get pretty good ridership right away. I mean, look at it this way: Canada Line wasn't expected to reach >100,000 people per day until 2013 and it did so in the first few months. Once RRT is built, people will most certainly flock to it and use it to it's full extent. The only reason you think people wouldn't use RRT is because people don't use transit very much in Surrey so far, and why-- because they don't have much options. RRT would give them these options. LRT seems fine enough for lower-capacity handling, but I fear it could cost more money to implement and maintain and cause more traffic, unless grade-separated in which case you'd rather build RRT anyway on the major corridors that can already support RRT.

[Millennium2002]

Maybe it should be pointed out that there was a development boom in Richmond years before the line was built towards the heavily-populated downtown area... and that I think is part of the cause of the high ridership since there are so many people living near the stations already.

I do agree, there are other reasons for the growth in passenger ridership, like YVR, the rerouting of suburban services, connections on Cambie St, etc. And Surrey has much more room to grow and expand over the next several years.

However it'd be nice also if some sort of plan (e.g. this study) was published and then given to developers as to where the rapid transit lines may run. That may entice them to start building the demand so that when the line does get built, it won't be as empty as the Millennium Line was for a few years. Also, maybe the redevelopment can also assist us in getting funds via a small property development tax as well as some right-of-way for the project. =O

The core debate, again, is what should be done first: growth-building or growth-serving? Surrey has potential but I think part of it needs to be used or made more visible first before we begin thinking about rapid transit expansion seriously, much like what Coquitlam and Port Moody have done in preparation for the Evergreen Line. On the other hand, I seriously don't think it's very fair for UBC students (or even us SFU students) to be forcing ourselves onto buses every day even with our frequent service and longer equipment.

Of course, I live in Vancouver so I can't attest to travelling patterns down south. If someone wishes to add some info regarding highest-demand routes and commute patterns, I'd like to take a look into those.

[invisibleairwaves]

While I don't think we have the ridership to support a Newton-Guildford line yet, I'd like to see Surrey mandate the same setbacks as the north side of Fraser Highway so that it can be built more cheaply in the future. I'm actually amazed at how uncharacteristically forward-thinking that bit of planning was, and it'll probably save millions when the Expo Line eventually gets extended.

The Newton-Guildford line is a great idea though. It could extend just beyond Guildford too, stopping at the new park-and-ride, with lots of room for an OMC in Tynehead. And possible future extension to the proposed Tynehead neighbourhood and Walnut Grove?

allan_kuan: I believe the busiest bus routes in Surrey are the 321 on King George Boulevard and the 502 on Fraser Highway. Most transit commutes are just between residential areas and the Skytrain, but since we lack a proper grid-style bus network, those are pretty much the only commutes that can really be done on transit without a lot of transfers. This is why Expo Line extension is so important; it kills two birds with one stone by bringing the Skytrain closer to the residential areas while giving the city a high-capacity central line to build a bus grid around.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

We have nearly 400,000 people living in this city; the line passes through all 3 of the biggest, major centres. I'm fairly certain it could get pretty good ridership right away. I mean, look at it this way: Canada Line wasn't expected to reach >100,000 people per day until 2013 and it did so in the first few months. Once RRT is built, people will most certainly flock to it and use it to it's full extent. The only reason you think people wouldn't use RRT is because people don't use transit very much in Surrey so far, and why-- because they don't have much options. RRT would give them these options. LRT seems fine enough for lower-capacity handling, but I fear it could cost more money to implement and maintain and cause more traffic, unless grade-separated in which case you'd rather build RRT anyway on the major corridors that can already support RRT.

That is why I keep suggesting that they implement B-line servicing in Surrey. It is cheap and easy to implement compared to RRT or LRT. It will also give everyone a good idea on whether a route warrants and upgrade or not.

I feel Surrey's biggest obstacle is that it doesn't have any really strong anchor points. The one benefit that Vancouver has is almost all its N-S routes end up downtown. And all the E-W routes are either at a skytrain station or UBC or downtown. Thus guaranteeing them high ridership for most of the route.

I will also say that once the smart cards are being used. Translink will have a better idea on how people commute. Thus giving them a better idea what what routes truely could use an upgrade.

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by cabotp

That is why I keep suggesting that they implement B-line servicing in Surrey. It is cheap and easy to implement compared to RRT or LRT. It will also give everyone a good idea on whether a route warrants and upgrade or not.

I feel Surrey's biggest obstacle is that it doesn't have any really strong anchor points. The one benefit that Vancouver has is almost all its N-S routes end up downtown. And all the E-W routes are either at a skytrain station or UBC or downtown. Thus guaranteeing them high ridership for most of the route.

I will also say that once the smart cards are being used. Translink will have a better idea on how people commute. Thus giving them a better idea what what routes truely could use an upgrade.

In the meantime a B-Line might indeed work for Surrey, but not without some major route restructuring. You don't want a B-Line running between Guildford and Central that's never used because you can just overcrowd the other buses to get there and prevent people going beyond Guildford from getting on. I have a feeling a B-Line might not work so well in the meantime. A Skytrain/elevated LRT route from Newton-Guildford could bring to Surrey three major strong anchor points much similar to those in Vancouver.

[go_leafs_go02]

I do know that the King George 399 B-Line is back on the table for start up.

It'll run with 7 min frequencies throughout most of the day, as well as use articulated 60 foot long buses.

All the bus stops along King George were extended to accommodate the new buses, and the new queue-jumpers at 96 Avenue & King George were put in place mainly for the 399 to eventually come.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

In the meantime a B-Line might indeed work for Surrey, but not without some major route restructuring. You don't want a B-Line running between Guildford and Central that's never used because you can just overcrowd the other buses to get there and prevent people going beyond Guildford from getting on. I have a feeling a B-Line might not work so well in the meantime. A Skytrain/elevated LRT route from Newton-Guildford could bring to Surrey three major strong anchor points much similar to those in Vancouver.

Why would people crowd a local bus route when a limited stop bus route would possibly get them to where they want to go faster. And if route restructering is needed then do it. In fact even if you built an RRT or LRT route restructering would be needed anyways. So it is kind of moot point.

But how do you know enough people want to travel between Guildford and Newton. Sure the density might be there. But what if those people want to go somewhere else. Now you have this new RRT or elevated LRT with low ridership.

[invisibleairwaves]

Originally Posted by cabotp

Why would people crowd a local bus route when a limited stop bus route would possibly get them to where they want to go faster. And if route restructering is needed then do it. In fact even if you built an RRT or LRT route restructering would be needed anyways. So it is kind of moot point.

But how do you know enough people want to travel between Guildford and Newton. Sure the density might be there. But what if those people want to go somewhere else. Now you have this new RRT or elevated LRT with low ridership.

It's not about just going between Guildford and Newton, it's about people going between Guildford, Newton, and the city centre, with a transfer to the rest of the skytrain system. If they wanted to go somewhere else, it would be a great solution.

And I would agree that a B-line is a necessity for the immediate future, as there isn't going to be money for a skytrain extension for a long, long time. If some route restructuring is necessary, so be it. As it is, Fraser Highway could probably support a B-line even without feeder routes.

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by cabotp

Why would people crowd a local bus route when a limited stop bus route would possibly get them to where they want to go faster. And if route restructering is needed then do it. In fact even if you built an RRT or LRT route restructering would be needed anyways. So it is kind of moot point.

But how do you know enough people want to travel between Guildford and Newton. Sure the density might be there. But what if those people want to go somewhere else. Now you have this new RRT or elevated LRT with low ridership.

Nah, people would still crowd other buses; take C74 for example. It's an express with no stops at all between Central & Guildford, which'd beat a B-Line with a few stops. It's most of the day crowded with travelers going to Guildford than actual Fraser Heights travelers - leaving those Fraser Heights travelers with no option.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

Nah, people would still crowd other buses; take C74 for example. It's an express with no stops at all between Central & Guildford, which'd beat a B-Line with a few stops. It's most of the day crowded with travelers going to Guildford than actual Fraser Heights travelers - leaving those Fraser Heights travelers with no option.

If the B-Line routes don't take them or help to take them to where they want to go and people choose to ride other routes. Whose to say an RRT or LRT system will take people where they want to go. If the system doesn't go where people in Surrey need to go than it will have been a pointless exercise.

At least with a B-line route they can alway change it. Maybe add a stop or remove a stop. Once ridership is really established then look at building something more permanent. I'm not talking about having the B-Line 10 years from now but for tomorrow. Chances are we won't be seeing any construction for the next 5 years. So use those 5 years to see what RRT or LRT route should get first.

I would get two B-Lines one going down King George, the other down Fraser Hwy. I would put the stops where the future RRT or LRT stops would be. Which ever line has the most ridership in the next 5-10 years gets to the front of the line for RRT or LRT expansion in Surrey.

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by cabotp

If the B-Line routes don't take them or help to take them to where they want to go and people choose to ride other routes. Whose to say an RRT or LRT system will take people where they want to go. If the system doesn't go where people in Surrey need to go than it will have been a pointless exercise.

At least with a B-line route they can alway change it. Maybe add a stop or remove a stop. Once ridership is really established then look at building something more permanent. I'm not talking about having the B-Line 10 years from now but for tomorrow. Chances are we won't be seeing any construction for the next 5 years. So use those 5 years to see what RRT or LRT route should get first.

I would get two B-Lines one going down King George, the other down Fraser Hwy. I would put the stops where the future RRT or LRT stops would be. Which ever line has the most ridership in the next 5-10 years gets to the front of the line for RRT or LRT expansion in Surrey.

I don't see how BRT vs. regular bus has a big enough difference, whereas when you consider the RRT vs LRT difference and how both options are rather more capable to restructure some major routes... well, yeah. I would support BRT in the short term, but I'm not necessarily believing that it would succeed to improve our current situations.

And what's that, you wouldn't even consider a lowly BRT at all for Guildford!? Surely we can't survive with our current options for any more years
I mean, the reason 321 and 502 are the most travelled routes is because they are the most suggested. You actually have 5 choice of routes (321-325) going to Newton, 4 choice of routes (320, 501-502, 590) to Langley (3 of which already go through Guildford) and at least 6 (320, 326, 332, 335, 501, C74) to Guildford. We should be looking with attention to detail at the combined-route traffic patterns between town centres rather than how busy a single route is.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

I don't see how BRT vs. regular bus has a big enough difference, whereas when you consider the RRT vs LRT difference and how both options are rather more capable to restructure some major routes... well, yeah. I would support BRT in the short term, but I'm not necessarily believing that it would succeed to improve our current situations.

And what's that, you wouldn't even consider a lowly BRT at all for Guildford!? Surely we can't survive with our current options for any more years
I mean, the reason 321 and 502 are the most travelled routes is because they are the most suggested. You actually have 5 choice of routes (321-325) going to Newton, 4 choice of routes (320, 501-502, 590) to Langley (3 of which already go through Guildford) and at least 6 (320, 326, 332, 335, 501, C74) to Guildford. We should be looking with attention to detail at the combined-route traffic patterns between town centres rather than how busy a single route is.

In regards to Guildford. When I mentioned Fraser hwy I should of mentioned that it could possibly go through Guildford. That was a mistake on my end.

There is a big difference between a B-line and a local bus route. The B-line is supposed to be limited stop. Which is what any RRT system would be. The B-line is supposed to be frequent. Generally a local bus route will have a stop every 200-400 Metres. While a B-Line is approx every 1000 Metres sometimes further though.

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by cabotp

In regards to Guildford. When I mentioned Fraser hwy I should of mentioned that it could possibly go through Guildford. That was a mistake on my end.

There is a big difference between a B-line and a local bus route. The B-line is supposed to be limited stop. Which is what any RRT system would be. The B-line is supposed to be frequent. Generally a local bus route will have a stop every 200-400 Metres. While a B-Line is approx every 1000 Metres sometimes further though.

There is a big difference, but how will you know if people will actually use that rather than C74 or 509 which have no stops whatsoever? Of course C74 or 509 could be altered to just end in Guildford and the B-Line + a selection between 332, 335, 320 and 501 can be delegated to more bus use. It might not work too effectively until we have a proper Guildford bus loop though (still only being planned) and if we shorten some of these four routes that still go through Guildford to Central and might take attention away from the B-Line. Of course, it'd never replace a full express route with no stops whatsoever to have a few stops which could impact travel time for some others.

[Zassk]

You can say "no big difference" but the 99 and 98 B-lines have had stellar track records for usage and readership growth - outdoing M-line's growth over a similar period. They are suitable precursors for rail transit. They help solidify the business case for rail, and help "prime" the ridership levels.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

There is a big difference, but how will you know if people will actually use that rather than C74 or 509 which have no stops whatsoever? Of course C74 or 509 could be altered to just end in Guildford and the B-Line + a selection between 332, 335, 320 and 501 can be delegated to more bus use. It might not work too effectively until we have a proper Guildford bus loop though (still only being planned) and if we shorten some of these four routes that still go through Guildford to Central and might take attention away from the B-Line. Of course, it'd never replace a full express route with no stops whatsoever to have a few stops which could impact travel time for some others.

Well in the case of C74 or the 509. Which I have to admit I don't know the routing of either. But if a good majority of people are still using those bus routes than a newly implement B-Line that goes to Guildford as well. Then I would say the B-Line isn't being routed or doesn't have the proper stops. Chances are if an RRT or LRT was built as well in this case that they would have trouble drawing passengers.

[CLC]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

I don't see how BRT vs. regular bus has a big enough difference, whereas when you consider the RRT vs LRT difference and how both options are rather more capable to restructure some major routes... well, yeah. I would support BRT in the short term, but I'm not necessarily believing that it would succeed to improve our current situations.

I agree there is not big enough difference because Translink's current b-line setup is limited-stop bus branded as "fast, reliable, frequent", but lacks most of BRT characteristics that can make BRT in competition with heavy rail in other parts of the world.

That said, I actually believe 99-b line has contributed a large part to the explosive rise of transit ridership in Vancouver Proper, and the effect spills over to many other routes (as of now you can notice many regular bus routes use articulated bus/trolley with 5-8 minutes daytime frequency, thus the difference between Translink's b-line and "local bus route" is dwindling)

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by CLC

I agree there is not big enough difference because Translink's current b-line setup is limited-stop bus branded as "fast, reliable, frequent", but lacks most of BRT characteristics that can make BRT in competition with heavy rail in other parts of the world.

That said, I actually believe 99-b line has contributed a large part to the explosive rise of transit ridership in Vancouver Proper, and the effect spills over to many other routes (as of now you can notice many regular bus routes use articulated bus/trolley with 5-8 minutes daytime frequency, thus the difference between Translink's b-line and "local bus route" is dwindling)

The only rear difference between the 99-b line and other regular bus routes with a daytime frequency of 5-8 minutes. Is the 99 has a stop spacing of about 800-1000 Metres except for at the western end of the route. While the other bus routes have stops about every 200-400 Metres.