Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[crazyjoeda]

Originally Posted by awvan

I think it is terribly irresponsible to sink billions of dollars on Skytrain based on purely speculative ridership numbers. I've said it so many times before. A B-Line bus route should be a pre-requisite of any Skytrain line, no exceptions. It requires little or no infrastructure improvements and would be able to accurately gauge ridership for routes. If you had the spare buses, you could even run trials at relatively little cost. The Canada Line had a B-Line, Evergreen will have had a B-Line, and Broadway has a B-Line. Why should we make an exception for Surrey? Yes I know it is one of the fastest growing areas in the city and they will likely overtake Vancouver's population (but not for 25-30 years), but the numbers aren't there yet. They are along Broadway. Even for residents in Surrey this should make logical sense. B-Line, then Skytrain.

B-Line before Skytrain expansion in Surrey makes sense. Surrey needs to build more walkable neighborhoods and attract more transit oriented development along any future rapid transit corridor. Broadway and the Evergreen Line corridors already has these condition so expanding Skytrain in these areas is a very good investment. Surrey isn't ready for more Skytrain just yet.

[crazyjoeda]

http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local...10331?hub=BritishColumbia#commentSection

Some business on Broadway seem to think the Skytrain tunnel plan would be to disruptive to businesses. I doubt they had a good look at all the other plans because Skytrain is the only option that wouldn't permanently take away parking.

[CLC]

Media spin has begun...
Ctvbc: Broadway merchants fear repeat of Cambie nightmare, say they're worried one option could seriously hurt their business.

TransLink is looking at seven options to get students to the University of B.C., including more bus service, a light rail system and a subway tunnel under Broadway all the way from Commercial Drive.

That last option has some people thinking back to construction along of the Canada Line, which sent customers away from Cambie Street and forced some businesses to close their doors.

"For such a small business, I'm not sure how we would do it," said Steph Carr at Chapel Hats.

"To tear up all of Broadway, it wouldn't just affect small businesses, it would affect the community."

There are no plans so far to use the cut-and-cover technique on Broadway that was used on the Canada Line, but there weren't any in the initial stages of that project, either.

TransLink says the project is still in the consultation stage, and the evaluation period for the seven proposals is expected to last into early 2012.

The cheapest plan -- improving the bus system -- is expected to cost about $325 million in capital costs, while the subway option would cost $3 billion.

For more information about the seven options, visit the TransLink website.

[Metro-One]

This just goes to show how uninformed people are.

The LRT options would cause far more disruptions during construction (permanent ones as well) than a bored skytrain tunnel. Simply look at the recent street grade construction in Toronto.

I knew it was only going to be a couple days graced before the misinformed uneducated sensationalist media would begin spinning out articles.

[Whalleyboy]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

First off, Dude, I live in Surrey. I take the 319 almost every single day. So don't take it so personal. And there aren't that many places in Surrey that have NO service. There are very few trips, between 2 random points, in the City of Vancouver you can do on one bus. Unless you are on the same road, it's unlikely, almost impossible. It's the same for Surrey. Bus service is there, you just need to make the right transfers. The problem is that there just isn't frequent service on many routes.

But really, it is kind of comparable. I can go from my place to Guildford mall in 2 or 3 transfers, both take about 45 minutes to do a trip that takes 20 minutes to Drive. In Vancouver, you can go from my old place in Marpole to Nat Bailey Stadium in 1 transfer in 40 minutes that takes 15 to drive. Both cities seem comparable at times, depends on how you look at it.

Second, your argument counters itself.

Which is it: slow or fast? If buses are stuck in traffic, then so are cars, meaning cars are slow, and buses are only slower by a minute or two.

If traffic is inching along so slow, that a bus needs a lane to make good time, then the time it spends stopped at stops is insignificant compared to the slow pace of traffic. The advantage of driving disappears. The difference is once the bus gets you to Skytrain, you are out of traffic. Cars still have to contend with more traffic and crossing bridges, then more traffic on the other side, while the transit rider just has to wait 3 minutes for a train.

And why not add a bus lane? King George Blvd is wide enough to add an extra transit lane from King George Station to 72nd (almost) without doing any major work or taking away existing lanes. When traffic is jammed, then buses can fly by. A great example of this is on Willingdon. Around BCIT, the buses have an easy time, while traffic can wait at the light at Canada Way for 3 or 4 cycles. They even added an extra bus lane further North over Still Creek drive and the RR tracks, it's a huge time saver. Going from Metrotown to Brentwood in the afternoon rush is about 5 to 10 minutes faster by bus on the 130 than in the car.

Plus spending billions to bring rapid transit SoF still isn't going to bring it that much closer to MOST people. MOST people SOF are still going to be at least one bus ride from any rapid transit expansion. They could build a line all the way to Langley, but it won't shorten my bus ride at all. Me, and MOST of Newton are far to the East of any proposed line.

It's great that your friends get parking through work. Do they pay for it? If not, they better watch out, many a company and employee have been dinged by revenue Canada for not declaring parking as a benefit. If you take that into account, the amount that is coming off your paycheck (visibly or invisibly) to pay for their spot downtown, the economics might not be so clear to them. Or maybe they don't work downtown, in which case this "Skytrain is faster to get downtown" argument is kind of pointless on them. Maybe they work on Broadway? In which case if there WAS Skytrain that came right to their office door, they would switch. Assuming they do not work close to Skytrain, would they ride Skytrain anyway, even if it was close to their house?

Personally, if I had the choice between:
Home -> Bus -> Skytrain -> Work
-or-
Home -> Skytrain -> Bus -> Work
I would chose the first one. The bus close to home is the fixed time table, and having it close to the starting location makes it easier to control. I know that I have to be out the door at exactly :15 after if I want to make a bus (for example). But when you have skytrain, that isn't 100% fixed and just operates on the every 5 minutes principle, it is harder to know when to leave to be on time for that bus on the other end. I have to add extra time in case the train is off by a minute. Meaning I always have to be extra early, just to be safe, wasting my time.

Anyway,

I'm not saying it should never happen. And I'm not saying anything done SOF won't help. But looking at numbers, Broadway gets over 100,000 transit rides a day. That is A LOT OF FREAKING MONEY that goes to pay for operating buses that could be spread all over SOF providing every single person down here better bus service. Within years that ridership would be up to 150,000 (translink estimates, I would bet almost 200,000 within a few years), thus paying into the operating budget to pay for buses SOF. The Broadway line can subsidize bus routes SOF.

first my friends do work near transit. My one friends work is right beside granville street station Its right out the door. the other one works at the BMW store.

as for the second arguement about traffic well in your own car you have the choice to get off that road and go to another and get around traffic. A bus does not have that option it has a route that it must follow. But as you said driving does not compare to skytrain. so one could argue that by adding rapid transit along a route in surrey it would take the cars one up of being able to switch roads away. Thus pulling people in to transit.

As to reply to the adding and extra lane for brt along king george. If there gonna go through all the work of ripping the road up and laying down new lanes why not just add a lrt instead of having to go back rip the road up again and waste more money when it could have been done the first time and wasted less money?

[nname]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

This just goes to show how uninformed people are.

The LRT options would cause far more disruptions during construction (permanent ones as well) than a bored skytrain tunnel. Simply look at the recent street grade construction in Toronto.

I knew it was only going to be a couple days graced before the misinformed uneducated sensationalist media would begin spinning out articles.

I guess they haven't read the part that state Broadway would loose 1 travel lane in each direction, plus 85% of the parking space...

Originally Posted by Whalleyboy

As to reply to the adding and extra lane for brt along king george. If there gonna go through all the work of ripping the road up and laying down new lanes why not just add a lrt instead of having to go back rip the road up again and waste more money when it could have been done the first time and wasted less money?

One thing about building LRT first... If one day LRT is proven to be inadequate for the corridor, don't ever expect they'll rip up the tracks and put in some higher capacity transit since they already spent so much money to build it... At least BRT can be convert to either LRT or RRT easily in the future...

And.. according to one of the report, putting a BRT on King George would barely break even during the first few years of operation (this does not include the loss for local routes). LRT, being much more expensive to implement and operate, would also certain to result in huge losses in operation during the first few years.. Would implement revenue-neutral BRT before spending money on conversion be cheaper than incurring these losses for a number of years?

[Whalleyboy]

Thats why i think skytrain expansion to newton is better now. But hey you dont think so I'm just giving you the arguement that if Skytrain isnt good enough then LRT should be put in atleast. I mean may as well make it last longer then keep going back. Add the fact LRT trains can get added length and get more trains they'd be good for a quite a while and since Surrey roads have huge gaps between lights longer trains could work here for LRT. Also once again as i said before rails are a far better draw in the buses.

[CLC]

The consultation documents are online now.

http://www.translink.ca/~/media/Document...0Line%20RT%20Study%20Design%20Guide.ashx[/url]

I read this document more carefully. If I understand correct, tunnel/elevated option for light rail or even elevated option for BRT have not been ruled out at the start of phase 2 right? (though Page 23 indicated translink already made the ground-only assumption)
How can translink already quote a capital cost for LRT/BRT rather than providing a range of costs (given different percentage of possible tunnel and/or elevated section)?

[crazyjoeda]

Originally Posted by CLC

I read this document more carefully. If I understand correct, tunnel/elevated option for light rail or even elevated option for BRT have not been ruled out at the start of phase 2 right? (though Page 23 indicated translink already made the ground-only assumption)
How can translink already quote a capital cost for LRT/BRT rather than providing a range of costs (given different percentage of possible tunnel and/or elevated section)?

"For the UBC Line study, alternatives using BRT and LRT
are designed at street-level in their own rights of way and
separated from other traffi c by a curb."

The costs quoted are for LRT/BRT at street level. They mention that an elevated or tunnel alignment is possible, but was not considered for this particular study.

[nname]

Originally Posted by Whalleyboy

Thats why i think skytrain expansion to newton is better now. But hey you dont think so I'm just giving you the arguement that if Skytrain isnt good enough then LRT should be put in atleast. I mean may as well make it last longer then keep going back. Add the fact LRT trains can get added length and get more trains they'd be good for a quite a while and since Surrey roads have huge gaps between lights longer trains could work here for LRT. Also once again as i said before rails are a far better draw in the buses.

Then again, who will pay for the loss in operation when jumping into SkyTrain directly? Keep in mind the peak ridership in the King George corridor is still far below 1000pphpd, which is not even close to make any sort of rail-based rapid transit viable.

Originally Posted by CLC

I read this document more carefully. If I understand correct, tunnel/elevated option for light rail or even elevated option for BRT have not been ruled out at the start of phase 2 right? (though Page 23 indicated translink already made the ground-only assumption)
How can translink already quote a capital cost for LRT/BRT rather than providing a range of costs (given different percentage of possible tunnel and/or elevated section)?

I think the main purpose of this evaluation is not "pick the option that you like the most".. Instead, they're seeking opinion for each of the options to decide what to add and what to remove from the baseline of each option. For instance:

- For RRT option, only 1 UBC station is needed
- For LRT, station should be 500m apart instead of 1km
- For LRT, no parking space and road lane should be lost
- LRT need to be grade separated east of Arbutus
- RRT can be build at-grade in University Blvd
- BRT should be placed on the side of the road rather than center
- No need for BRT east of Cambie for Combo 2 option
- Travel speed on BRT and LRT should increase by 2 minutes
- Option B is better for all LRT/BRT/RRT options
- etc.

After they collected the opinions, they'll adjust the design if needed, and come up with a new cost estimate. Based on the new cost and benifits, they will choose the best option out of the 6. I think chance are the LRT cost is going to go up, and the RRT cost is going to go down. But in the end, whatever get build is not up to us to decide...

[Whalleyboy]

Originally Posted by nname

Then again, who will pay for the loss in operation when jumping into SkyTrain directly? Keep in mind the peak ridership in the King George corridor is still far below 1000pphpd, which is not even close to make any sort of rail-based rapid transit viable.

Your basing your numbers of 1 bus route that goes along king george for that...theres a couple bus that go between central and newton. Not to mention that more feeder routes would be able to be done once a route is down king george. So instead of most bus heading all the way to central alot would head to nearest stations. Plus pulling in new passanger on top of that.
People will come if built. Just look at canada lines numbers there past the current projected numbers. Many people have already question if that line is under built now too. So why make the mistake twice and just but crapy "rapid transit" in surrey

[nname]

Originally Posted by Whalleyboy

Your basing your numbers of 1 bus route that goes along king george for that...theres a couple bus that go between central and newton. Not to mention that more feeder routes would be able to be done once a route is down king george. So instead of most bus heading all the way to central alot would head to nearest stations. Plus pulling in new passanger on top of that.

Yes, its based on 1 bus route, but that's all we know right now. There are other routes that's parallel and prependicular to the King George route, but how will a rapid service system change the travel pattern and build up the ridership? No one knows. Should the entire Metro pay for this 1 billion experiment where there are more proven and more established corridor somewhere?

As for where the bus go.. I think most N/S routes will still go to Surrey Central as it would be the Downtown of Surrey (as bus still go to Downtown Vancouver even if they pass through skytrain stations). The only exceptions are probably the community shuttles in the Newton area and some E/W routes in the south.

And I never against SkyTrain in Surrey (if you see my post in fantasy thread, I put up a route to Newton via King George, then continuing to White Rock via 152th.. and another route to Langley via Guildford). But the problem is, Translink does not have 10 billions in the bank right now, and the BC government is not the same as Ontario, which just gave Toronto 8+ billions in rapid transit funding. We must make sure that we spend the limited funding in a way that would benifit the most people.

Originally Posted by Whalleyboy

People will come if built. Just look at canada lines numbers there past the current projected numbers. Many people have already question if that line is under built now too. So why make the mistake twice and just but crapy "rapid transit" in surrey

- Canada Line began as 98 B-Line
- The 98 B-Line has 2.5x the ridership as King George's bus route right now (or 5x if you count the 49x, 60x, and 35x express routes)
- Canada Line is NOT underbuilt - only 1/3 of the capacity is used right now. They can increase the capacity by 1.5x instantly if there is funding to operate them
- Although the ridership is higher than expected, they are still within 20% from the original predction (in fact, the estimate from the RTM document is almost exactly dead-on)

To make a fair comparision, compare the ridership on the 401-408 when they are still heading to downtown.. that's where you see the difference in ridership. Although most people hate it during the conversion to B-Line, but the service sure help build up the ridership and pave the way to Canada Line you see today.

[Millennium2002]

I hate to say it, but please be patient. =S TransLink only has so much money to work with without the additional revenue that the mayors voted down. You can keep complaining about Surrey's transit woes (and I sympathize) and anything else that's wrong with TransLink but we can't do everything in one go and without the revenue fixes that are needed. =S So can you rest your case please for the time being and we can return to Broadway discussion? =S

[CLC]

Originally Posted by Whalleyboy

Just look at canada lines numbers there past the current projected numbers.

Canada Line numbers consist a large part (>50%) of commuters travelling solely within Vancouver branch (e.g. Downtown<->Langara, Downtown<->Broadway-CityHall). Vancouver has a strong transit user base.

Surrey extension is a different situation, very hard to predict. But I bet its will grow at much slower pace like the M-Line of 2002-2005

[CLC]

Originally Posted by nname

I think the main purpose of this evaluation is not "pick the option that you like the most".. Instead, they're seeking opinion for each of the options to decide what to add and what to remove from the baseline of each option. For instance:

......[omitted long quote]

But in the end, whatever get build is not up to us to decide...

Unfortunately, from Vancouver Sun to CTV to Metro paper, you can see that the capital costs figures being emphasized. Translink probably did the wrong thing to give out preliminary figures (under pre-set assumptions) to public at this phase.

[nname]

Originally Posted by CLC

Unfortunately, from Vancouver Sun to CTV to Metro paper, you can see that the capital costs figures being emphasized. Translink probably did the wrong thing to give out preliminary figures (under pre-set assumptions) to public at this phase.

But it is still up to Translink to decide which opinion to take. Even if there's 10000 comments on "LRT is better because its cheaper" and 100 comments about "Hmm... I think this section should be underground and this amount of parking space should be preserved". Those 100 comments are going to be treated more seriously and those others would most likely be disregarded. In the end, they can just say "based on the result of the consultation, we made the follow changes to the LRT and RRT design, and the new cost estimate is 2 billions for LRT and 2.4 billions for RRT. The RRT provide the best value for the investiment so this is the option we're chosen".. Public opinion on the choice is only 1 of the 28 criterias they used to determine the final alignment being chosen.

Its like.. how the people in White Rock and Delta asked to retain their direct bus service during the consultation of 2010 transportation plan, but nothing is being done about it simply because those are not the type of comments they were looking for during that consultation?

[Hot Rod]

Originally Posted by squeezied

To me, I don't believe it is very responsible of public money to be spent on skytrain in Surrey. It does not have the ridership to justify it. What it needs now is improved bus services and express buses like the b-lines. Once there is a proven ridership along a particular route to justify higher capacity transit service then LRT or RRT should be considered. That's how all the skytrains came to be built: get the B-lines first, then skytrain. Why should Surrey get special treatment?

Quite frankly, the rapid transit study for Surrey is a mess. There really isn't a clear direction what to do. You have a half-dozen town centres spread over a large area, each showing no real aptitute for transit. Increase bus service first, over time it'll be clearer which town centre arises to be the most accepting of rapid transit. Then there'll be a clear direction what to do. Newton might currently seem to be the choice option, but not by a long shot.

But this thread is about the UBC line and in the UBC rapid transit study, notice how the study area is so small and narrow and defined compared to Surrey's. It's clear and obvious that the Broadway corridor has a defined need for rapid transit. Again the main thing I stress is that the UBC line is not just for Vancouver, in fact I'd argue that the UBC line would benefit the eastern suburbs more than it benefits the residents of Vancouver. This is a central line where people throughout the region would need to converge. I hold no special bias towards the UBC line just because I live in Vancouver (fact is I don't live in an area where it would be useful to me). The reason why I strongly support the UBC line (in particular RRT option B) is because it is for the benefit of the whole region, not for some local populations.

There is a good and important reason why the central cities get the lion's share of transit funding and the suburbs receive noticeably less. This is true for nearly all cities around the world. Metro Vancouver is no different.

Simply put.

SOF needs more bus and bus connections, and needs to prove itself through use and/or planning that it needs rapid transit or LRT. This is because of the lack of density and the fact that most people down there aren't transit users (they just speak out of spite, mostly).

It is only natural for the most densely populated, employment base, central city (that is Vancouver) to have rapid rail transit. This should be a no-brainer, and actually would benefit the rest of the metro - as people in the suburbs could bus or park-n-ride, then take trains most/all the way to their destination in the central city. As was said, this is how it is done in ALL other major world cities - central city first (due to density, usage, and base), suburbs prove themselves.

In my opinion, Millennium extension should take priority for all rapid rail options. However, I would consider the Surrey extension next.

Priorities:
1) Millennium line VCC-UBC. Full subway from just before Main to UBC entry somewhere, emerging as elevated through UBC and lands. Ground/elevated from VCC to just before Main. This should be the top #1 priority, due to central city density, transit usage/demand, and employment/shopping DESTINATION base for the region (the region's #2 base).

2) Surrey Expansion. Elevated extensions down the Fraser Valley tract with a fork to Newton and White Rock.

2a - LRT from White Rock to Newton to Central to Guildford, could continue into the NE corridor
2b - SkyTrain from King George current terminus to Langley (somewhere) Potential mini-subway in Central once density gets there or planned.
2c - LRT from West Richmond to Richmond Centre (Canada Line SkyTrain) to Surrey Centre

3) WCE extension to Abbotsford Centre (and Airport)

4) Evergreen SkyTrain. longer route than has been discussed, however.

5) Tsawassen/Delta to Surrey Centre Commuter Rail.

6) Northshore LRT and/or Commuter Rail


Scheduling:

0) Improved/increased bus in SOF. NOW!!

A - Develop SOF Transit Development plan NOW!!!

B - Increase LOCAL transit bus routes in SOF, providing neighbourhood service to transit hub(s) (with the focus on Surrey Centre). Implement 2011

C - Implement Express/Commuter Bus in planned routes, starting small and expanding as ridership builds. Implement 2012.

1) WCE Commuter Rail extension to Abbotsford. Implement 2012

2) Tsawassen/Delta to Surrey Centre Commuter Rail. Implement 2012

3) UBC Millennium extension. Start construction 2012, end 2015.

4) Surrey LRT, option 2a above. Start construction 2012, end 2013.

5) Surrey LRT, option 2c above. Start construction 2012, end 2015.

6) Evergreen SkyTrain. Start construction 2014, end 2016.

7) Northshore LRT and/or Commuter Rail. Start construction 2016, end 2019.


Funding:

* 1-5% dedicated gas tax increase in Greater Lower Mainland [system-wide funding source]
* 5% dedicated Vehicle tax in Greater Lower Mainland [system-wide funding source]
* Tolls on major bridges (westbound during am rush, eastbound in pm rush)
* 1-10% dedicated parking tax [local funding source]
* Graduated property tax (rates TBD) for new transit corridors. This way, new neighbourhoods pay for their new transit, while sustaining existing areas aren't negatively affected (or as much).
* Distance based fares on SkyTrain. Max of $3.00 terminus to terminus during rush hours. Includes 2 hour transfer on local bus or 1 hour transfer to Commuter/Express bus.
* Zone based fares on bus. Local buses will be one zone, regardless of how many regions they cross. Bus will have rush hour premium added. Includes 1 hour transfer on SkyTrain or local bus.
* Fixed price Commuter/Express Bus rates. Something like $5.00 from door to door, non-stop. Ticket includes free transfer on SkyTrain or local bus.
* Fixed distance pricing on Commuter Rail. Includes free transfer on SkyTrain or 2 hour transfer on local bus.
* Car Rental premium (for Transit) [system-wide funding source]
* Visitor Hotel premium (for Transit) [system-wide funding source]
* Airport Taxi tax (??) [system-wide funding source]
* Local Taxi tax [local funding source, destination based]

[aberdeen5698]

If Surrey and the Broadway Corridor are to be given "equal priority" for transit, then IMHO that means spending an equal amount of money on them. It that's really true, then if we were to spend a billion or so on extending Skytrain along Broadway, we ought to be spending a billion on improving transit in Surrey as well.

Framed in those terms, the question really isn't "Vancouver vs. Surrey", it's really "what's the best way to spend the money in Surrey?"

It seems to me that if you have a billion or so to spend on transit in Surrey you'll find that it goes a LOT further when used to add / upgrade bus routes across the city than if it's spent on a single Skytrain line which adds few more stations along one corridor.

Surrey already has a direct Skytrain connection to North of Fraser along the most important transportation corridor. It seems to me that what it lacks is the kind of well-interconnected frequent service grid that Vancouver has to allow easy travel within the area. You can't build that kind of grid with Skytrain, it's got to be with buses. Buses are the cheapest way to get the most pervasive and frequent service, and IMHO that's what Surrey needs.

[satishreddy]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

If Surrey and the Broadway Corridor are to be given "equal priority" for transit, then IMHO that means spending an equal amount of money on them. It that's really true, then if we were to spend a billion or so on extending Skytrain along Broadway, we ought to be spending a billion on improving transit in Surrey as well.

Framed in those terms, the question really isn't "Vancouver vs. Surrey", it's really "what's the best way to spend the money in Surrey?"

It seems to me that if you have a billion or so to spend on transit in Surrey you'll find that it goes a LOT further when used to add / upgrade bus routes across the city than if it's spent on a single Skytrain line which adds few more stations along one corridor.

Surrey already has a direct Skytrain connection to North of Fraser along the most important transportation corridor. It seems to me that what it lacks is the kind of well-interconnected frequent service grid that Vancouver has to allow easy travel within the area. You can't build that kind of grid with Skytrain, it's got to be with buses. Buses are the cheapest way to get the most pervasive and frequent service, and IMHO that's what Surrey needs.

There is a reason why Surrey doesn't have well-connected frequent service like Vancouver. It doesn't have the density.

According to the 2006 Census, Surrey has about 395K people and 122.5 sq miles, which gives a density of about 3225 people per square mile. Of course there are pockets of higher density and areas of lower density. If one wants to build a bus sytem on a grid, then the buses will have to go through the low density, as well as the high density places.

According to the 2006 Census, Vancouver has about 578K people and 44.3 sq miles, which gives an average density of 13047 people per square mile. Even if we exclude the 80K that live in downtown Vancouver, the density in the rest of Vancouver is 11242 people per square mile on average.

The density outside of downtown Vancouver is about 3.5 times that of Surrey. In general, if there are an equal number of bus stops in a square mile in both cities, there are 3.5 times more potential customers in Vancouver in than in Surrey per bus stop.

I have not accounted for density of jobs. But in general, there are more destinations such as schools, jobs, tourist locations, etc in Vancouver than in Surrey.

The bottom line is that to operate "Vancouver-level" bus service in Surrey would require a massive subsidy, much bigger than the one to operate the same service in Vancouver.

In Fall 2009 there was a review by the Ministry of Finance regarding the BC Ferries and Translink.

http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/OCG/ias/pdf_Docs/transportation_governance.pdf

At that time Translink had a large structural deficit. On page 75 of the report it is stated:

The majority of the $130 million structural deficit faced by the Translink is a result of factors other than Canada Line, such as the increase in the operational cost of the bus fleet, particularly into lower ridership, geographically sparse areas.

[Millennium2002]

The density argument frankly is sort of sitting on unstable soil. There's enough ridership on several corridors to justify say BRT or maybe even LRT.

What I would be concerned about is whether Surrey can tap into those rapid transit plans and make them actually more cost effective over time through TOD developments (and no, suburb expansion and park and rides don't count!), because at the moment it doesn't seem like they'll want to do anything other than suburbs and townhomes that essentially squander any development potential and reduce the region's ability to recoup costs. Remember that rapid transit in particular is a very big investment; and unlike before with the politicized Millennium Line, TransLink now has to be able to see how it can get more ridership and pay off the line down the road. Unfortunately, Surrey atm hasn't offered anything of late other than a City Centre redevelop which by itself can be served by the Expo Line already.