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

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by cabotp

The thing to remember is even if they put a nice LRT line down 104th or KGB or down Fraser Hwy. Sure those routes are now sexy and more people will generally use them as the train seems to attract more riders.

But it still means the bus service that routes people to those stations would need to be improved. It would be bad to not improve that bus service. Because not everyone can live along those routes. And the vast majority of your riders will need to take the bus to one those those stations.

This is exactly why I think LRT should not be the very next step. If you have a billion to spend you can improve the lot of a few people living along selected corridors with some LRT lines, or you can improve the lot of almost everyone by providing a cheaper combination of bus and B-Line service with a lot more coverage and/or frequency.

In effect, this is very much like the "North of Fraser / South of Fraser" argument, but scaled down from a regional issue to a Surrey-sized one.

[paradigm4]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

This is exactly why I think LRT should not be the very next step. If you have a billion to spend you can improve the lot of a few people living along selected corridors with some LRT lines, or you can improve the lot of almost everyone by providing a cheaper combination of bus and B-Line service with a lot more coverage and/or frequency.

In effect, this is very much like the "North of Fraser / South of Fraser" argument, but scaled down from a regional issue to a Surrey-sized one.

It depends how much money is on the table. Bus expansion isn't all that costly, nor would implementing simple B-Lines. BRTs and LRTs are a bit more.

If we have $1B, then sure, let's build some LRT lines and do some bus expansion. If we only have $100M, then let's do three B-Lines and some bus expansion. It all depends on the dollars on the table.

Of course, the dollar figure shouldn't be the only determinant of what we want to build. Our end goal is how do we build the city we envision, and I think right now, must Surreyites find it hard to imagine anything other than our suburban landscape or Vancouver towers, but there are alternatives.

[paradigm4]

Originally Posted by golog

I'm guessing you know your stuff about the proposal. Can you give a pitch for why LRT and not buses? Things like costs, capacity, speed/stops/frequency. Would you oppose b-line service to test out LRT lines?

There is no specific proposal on the table yet, other than I suppose this LRT line to Guildford.

I'm not going to lay it all out here because I don't have the time or desire to. You can do your own research on the details. Suffice it to say that LRT has three main advantages over buses:

1. Much higher capacity
2. Attracts choice riders who won't get on a bus
3. Shapes growth as it provides a significant redevelopment impetus that buses don't

It we're simply trying to move more people quicker, B-Lines are fine. I think the point the Mayor was trying to make is that we also want to re-shape the City in a more sustainable, urban form and LRT will achieve that on a city-wide scale for the same price as a Guildford SkyTrain expansion.

[crazyjoeda]

Different routes should be tested with the B-Line system. The costs would be minimal and it would build ridership before a major investment in more permanent infrastructure is made, but I'm glade to see the city is taking a serious look at improving public transit.

[golog]

Originally Posted by paradigm4

1. Much higher capacity
2. Attracts choice riders who won't get on a bus
3. Shapes growth as it provides a significant redevelopment impetus that buses don't

1. Is that really true once you've locked in lane width, speed, and length (as limited by turning time or block length)? Neither buses or light rail would be technically limited, there are no windy paths through centuries old neighbourhoods. That's why I asked about costs, operational should be cheaper but you would need a certain ridership threshold to cover the additional capital costs.
2 & 3 don't hold up for Vancouver, and I'll assume that's not just a fluke

I expected more from someone who ran for city council with the platform of plans for a streetcar network.

As for the Mayor, Watts shot down B-line service completely. It's not as simple as wanting transit improvements.

I'm going to remain skeptical of these Surrey proposals. What's needed is to build up the layers of service from the bottom up. Each layer depends on the one below it to feed its own ridership. Skytrain is nothing without the b-lines, the seabus is nothing without local buses, buses are nothing without pedestrians walking from their door to the bus stop, the Westcoast express is nothing without park and rides. etc.

The problem today in Surrey is Translink is stuck in a rut trying to develop ridership on local bus lines. Without that in place, there isn't the ridership to justify the capital investment rail transit requires. The problem isn't neglect from Translink, it's that there aren't enough people walking on the sidewalks. You can't blame the people either, there aren't many trips worth walking locally for them. For those who can, driving is the superior option across the board.

LRT isn't cheap enough so that every trip is door to door by itself without walking or connecting with a bus. If Watts wants to reshape travel patterns, she would be better off to start by subdividing blocks to attract pedestrian traffic and focus development towards the newly walkable nodes (more paths allow for shorter walking time/distance to more destinations within a given radius, at odds with the block sizes preferred for car traffic where intersections slow everyone down). Once you make walking feasible, you'll also develop the destinations worth walking to now that there is a market waiting to be tapped.


Without first developing the lower layers: If every LRT stop were surrounded by parking lots, so people could drive to a stop and access the network, then no one would have incentive to ride the LRT in the first place. If every LRT stop weren't surrounded by parking lots, then the barrier to access this system will be too high.


The bus service will adapt and increase as the subsidy per fare Translink puts in decreases when capacity utilization rises as ridership increases. It's not a chicken and the egg question, the demand isn't there for now because there is no market to attract riders from but Watts has no one else to blame for that.

[xd_1771]

My opinion on a short term solution:
Introduce new bus rapid transit on major corridors
Replace the usual "regular bus on major corridor" system with more community shuttles. Some people hate having to walk so far to the bus, that's why they use their cars. Things need to be designed as if people were super lazy, because that's the case most of the time - so bring the bus closer to them on routes that would more effectively serve residential areas as well as major movements. In the long term when we have more money and a better traffic model, that's when we should consider LRT or RRT.

golog is quite on the dot, she seems to be focusing on providing LRT but not really giving any thoughts as to modifying everything else. In addition the LRT would only connect Newton, Guildford & Langley - some of these which need even bigger transit movements - and a lot of other places would remain excluded and likely without improvement, since LRT would likely use up all the cash available already.
Once again, cheap move for political points? Well it's not working, we're good at finding loopholes.

[Whalleyboy]

Originally Posted by golog

1. Is that really true once you've locked in lane width, speed, and length (as limited by turning time or block length)? Neither buses or light rail would be technically limited, there are no windy paths through centuries old neighbourhoods. That's why I asked about costs, operational should be cheaper but you would need a certain ridership threshold to cover the additional capital costs.
2 & 3 don't hold up for Vancouver, and I'll assume that's not just a fluke

I expected more from someone who ran for city council with the platform of plans for a streetcar network.

As for the Mayor, Watts shot down B-line service completely. It's not as simple as wanting transit improvements.

I'm going to remain skeptical of these Surrey proposals. What's needed is to build up the layers of service from the bottom up. Each layer depends on the one below it to feed its own ridership. Skytrain is nothing without the b-lines, the seabus is nothing without local buses, buses are nothing without pedestrians walking from their door to the bus stop, the Westcoast express is nothing without park and rides. etc.

The problem today in Surrey is Translink is stuck in a rut trying to develop ridership on local bus lines. Without that in place, there isn't the ridership to justify the capital investment rail transit requires. The problem isn't neglect from Translink, it's that there aren't enough people walking on the sidewalks. You can't blame the people either, there aren't many trips worth walking locally for them. For those who can, driving is the superior option across the board.

LRT isn't cheap enough so that every trip is door to door by itself without walking or connecting with a bus. If Watts wants to reshape travel patterns, she would be better off to start by subdividing blocks to attract pedestrian traffic and focus development towards the newly walkable nodes (more paths allow for shorter walking time/distance to more destinations within a given radius, at odds with the block sizes preferred for car traffic where intersections slow everyone down). Once you make walking feasible, you'll also develop the destinations worth walking to now that there is a market waiting to be tapped.


Without first developing the lower layers: If every LRT stop were surrounded by parking lots, so people could drive to a stop and access the network, then no one would have incentive to ride the LRT in the first place. If every LRT stop weren't surrounded by parking lots, then the barrier to access this system will be too high.


The bus service will adapt and increase as the subsidy per fare Translink puts in decreases when capacity utilization rises as ridership increases. It's not a chicken and the egg question, the demand isn't there for now because there is no market to attract riders from but Watts has no one else to blame for that.

I just want to say you say 2& 3 wont hold up in Vancouver. Surrey isnt Vancouver!

[Whalleyboy]

Originally Posted by Zassk

Surely 104th will get some relief from SFPR.... and if not, then surely there are parallel arteries being planned?

Yeah for one there is already a 4 lane 108 ave. There is also plans to make 100th into 4 lanes between guildford and central. Plus there is plans to make what surrey calls the 105 connector between central and guildford but thats a 2 lane road more for locals.

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Thanks for the vid, I noticed that they didnt include the overhead wires in the rendering shots... can't clutter up the video right?

I think this is a great place for LRT, hope this goes ahead.

the have wireless lrt out there
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZylrGjebnw

[xd_1771]

The 4-lane 108th avenue is currently far from the kind of standards it would need to make for a PRIMARY major connector, it is not a straight route, and routes pertaining to 108th are well far from acceptable and we can already see evidence of this at 154th southbound @ 104th in the left turn lane every day lining up all the way down the hill and beyond that curve. Not to mention this goes by residential areas and a school, the majority of which would probably NIMBY such expansion need.
00th has that steep uphill that won't be suitable for everybody, plus the north-south connections to it in the Guildford area aren't very well built to handle such incoming load off 104th (i.e. 160th, 156th, 152nd); they'd clog and overflow like a seriously defective toilet.

[Vonny]

Originally Posted by paradigm4

There is no specific proposal on the table yet, other than I suppose this LRT line to Guildford.

I'm not going to lay it all out here because I don't have the time or desire to. You can do your own research on the details. Suffice it to say that LRT has three main advantages over buses:

1. Much higher capacity
2. Attracts choice riders who won't get on a bus
3. Shapes growth as it provides a significant redevelopment impetus that buses don't

It we're simply trying to move more people quicker, B-Lines are fine. I think the point the Mayor was trying to make is that we also want to re-shape the City in a more sustainable, urban form and LRT will achieve that on a city-wide scale for the same price as a Guildford SkyTrain expansion.

I guess you have attended the Jarret Walker lecture on geometry of transit at SFU last winter, did you?

That drives us to point 2:
May be it could be good to understand why it is expected that the LRT will attract "choice" rider the bus will not?

-Could it be because the LRT ride in its own ROW when the bus is stuck in traffic.
-Could it be because the waiting is done at more comfortable station with Real Time information...
-Could it be because the service is more visible...

What prevent Surrey to do that with buses?

Point 3
I Guess Calgary AB or Buffalo NY is the model Surrey want to emulate, isn'it?

Why we should believe that the LRT investment in Surrey will create magically the nice Bld show in the video you have put online (thanks for that) when nothing ever good has happened for decades around Surrey Skytrain stations, at the striking difference of Burnaby and more recently Richmond?

Transit or for that matter LRT doesn't shape growth as much as it support growth policies choice...

laying down track and expecting all things gonna change is the best route to disaster...

you can have the nice Bld without the LRT as North Van show with Esplanade avenue at Lonsdale (or even Richmond with Westminster#N3 road)...you just need the right land use policy:
Is it in place in Surrey?

Back to point 1. Capacity
Considering the ridership projection, May be bus could be the most relevant solution for Surrey from Translink viewpoint. Should it be then Metro to pay for the LRT upgrade or the city of Surrey as did Portland which has financed its streetcar or Vancouver which has financed its OV station?



To complete my contribution, I will quote Sebastien Rabuel, from the Certu (a French government agency on Urban transport : see http://www.bhns.fr/IMG/pdf/WCTR_Rabuel_FILEminimizer_.pdf

Each system has its own niche that could evolve…
[ ...] And there’s still some irresponsible politicians (tramway project when a 12-m bus every 5mn is sufficient) and some lobbying
(associations, manufacturers, project managers,…)

PS: You will note of this presentation that the largest Tram, at least in France are considered not able to carry significantly more than 5,000 pphpd...a value well accepted in the country and in Europe at large if not in certain part of the Fraser valley

[geoff's two cents]

Originally Posted by Vonny

Why we should believe that the LRT investment in Surrey will create magically the nice Bld show in the video you have put online (thanks for that) when nothing ever good has happened for decades around Surrey Skytrain stations, at the striking difference of Burnaby and more recently Richmond?

I admit to being ambivalent myself on the LRT/RRT debate for Surrey, but the LRT does make for a much nicer streetscape than a skytrain viaduct. Even in Vancouver and Burnaby, investment, significant as it has been, has tended to accrue around stations, with the guideways themselves constituting something of an impediment to residential and commercial investment. One of the selling features of LRT, on the other hand, is that it provides a comfortable transit experience while increasing the efficacy of street-level advertising.

I think Watts is correct to look to LRT as the best way to achieve an urban transformation as quickly as possible. I'm a little stuck on whether it's the best long-term investment (say, fifty years down the road), given the need for increased frequencies, etc. (Calgary is putting their downtown LRT network underground for this reason), but there's the equal possibility that, without a transformation in the way Surrey's transit is planned right now, the city's geography might not even be substantially different decades from now.

Nor would I be too worried about the decrease in arterial road capacity, as the construction of a more walkable, finer-grained grid should go along with LRT extension. The 105 ave extension is one example of this, as is the 84 ave extension (which will I imagine eventually go through).

In sum, I think Watts has a pretty good case. I do think the Langley extension warrants RRT, however. I also think the prudent thing to do would be to call for more or less immediate rapid bus service along the Guildford-Central-Newton-White Rock corridor, and perhaps the Fraser-(Cloverdale?)-Langley corridor as well, which could help build and maintain transit ridership even while LRT itself is being planned and constructed.

[golog]

paradigm4
I didn't mean to come across so heavy, and am not looking to turn this into an angry argument, so feel free to throw back a nasty retort if you want. The Olympic demo LRT was fun to ride and I enjoyed it, but I think 'LRT' is not a solution to transit in Surrey anymore than plopping an arena in Glendale, Arizona would transform it into a thriving destination.

I don't know why I'm actually writing this, because there's just something about Watts' speeches that doesn't ring true and none of what we're talking about is why she and her council are pushing LRT on the table.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by geoff's two cents

I admit to being ambivalent myself on the LRT/RRT debate for Surrey, but the LRT does make for a much nicer streetscape than a skytrain viaduct. Even in Vancouver and Burnaby, investment, significant as it has been, has tended to accrue around stations, with the guideways themselves constituting something of an impediment to residential and commercial investment. One of the selling features of LRT, on the other hand, is that it provides a comfortable transit experience while increasing the efficacy of street-level advertising.

I think Watts is correct to look to LRT as the best way to achieve an urban transformation as quickly as possible. I'm a little stuck on whether it's the best long-term investment (say, fifty years down the road), given the need for increased frequencies, etc. (Calgary is putting their downtown LRT network underground for this reason), but there's the equal possibility that, without a transformation in the way Surrey's transit is planned right now, the city's geography might not even be substantially different decades from now.

Nor would I be too worried about the decrease in arterial road capacity, as the construction of a more walkable, finer-grained grid should go along with LRT extension. The 105 ave extension is one example of this, as is the 84 ave extension (which will I imagine eventually go through).

In sum, I think Watts has a pretty good case. I do think the Langley extension warrants RRT, however. I also think the prudent thing to do would be to call for more or less immediate rapid bus service along the Guildford-Central-Newton-White Rock corridor, and perhaps the Fraser-(Cloverdale?)-Langley corridor as well, which could help build and maintain transit ridership even while LRT itself is being planned and constructed.

As I mentioned before. Whether they build LRT or RRT does not matter at this point in time. What does matter is the bus service to those stations. If they can't improve that then these new lines will be completely pointless.

The biggest problem Surrey has is that is has no major anchor points, other then the current skytrain line. For its local bus service to serve.

[Whalleyboy]

surrey is using it town centres as its anchor points. Starting with a route between guildford and central is the best since each kinda has something there central holds skytrain and main connections all over SoF and one day it will hopefully be a true dt with alot more to do there. Guildford on the other hand holds the biggest mall this side of the river.

That means people from central can get to guildford for the mall on a sleek rail transit route and people from guildford can get to central for skytrain and events every now and then held there andwhen ti becomes a true dt they'll have the connection there. Its really sad central only real use right now all round is transit connections. Just thinking about it i cant really think of much reason in each town centre all to much

Central has skytrain(hopefully one day will be more like a real dt with shops, clubs, and restaurant)

Guildford has its mall

Fleetwood has the rec centre i guess?

Newton has...i got nothing

Cloverdale has the fairground and the racetrack there and the historic little main street which is nice to explore

South surrey i'd just say get it through there to white rock so it has a beach.

But if you look at it these arent some of the best anchors

[Offside_Ref]

This is my first post, so feel free to disregard it, but I feel like you've lost track on the difference between a streetcar and an LRT. They may not be the biggest differences, but they can make a huge difference in situations like Surrey and Calgary.

The Olympic Line was a streetcar. Yes, it was also a low-floor LRT. They're narrower and shorter than high-capacity LRT systems. I cringe everytime I hear this used as a rapid transit alternative to RRT. Not that it has its place.

The Calgary/Edmonton style light rail (I know it's old but hear me out) can carry much more people than 5000 ppdph. It's closer to 9-14,000 depending on the line. They act essentially like a metro system on a budget. Yes high floor vehicles require bigger stations and they may not be the sexiest of rail vehicles, but they do a great job of moving people in a suburban area, like Surrey and all of Calgary outside of downtown.

I don't know of any LRT systems that are being designed like Calgary or Edmonton at the moment. They're all at the borderline of streetcar and LRT. I personally think the capacities of Calgary-style LRT could be used on various routes in Metro Vancouver while keeping the redevelopment benefits of RRT.

[nname]

Originally Posted by Offside_Ref

The Calgary/Edmonton style light rail (I know it's old but hear me out) can carry much more people than 5000 ppdph. It's closer to 9-14,000 depending on the line. They act essentially like a metro system on a budget. Yes high floor vehicles require bigger stations and they may not be the sexiest of rail vehicles, but they do a great job of moving people in a suburban area, like Surrey and all of Calgary outside of downtown.

From Calgary Transit's website, the actual maximum load on any line during any time is 7255 pphpd.

[Offside_Ref]

Originally Posted by nname

From Calgary Transit's website, the actual maximum load on any line during any time is 7255 pphpd.

My apologies. I think I got that confused with what I was told by a Calgary Transit planner of what the capacity forecast is when they introduce 4-car trains. The point is that they still have a greater capacity than 5000 pphpd of a tram/streetcar line, and with much higher practical capacities.

[Gordon]

How does this number compare with:

A Current E&M Line running at 108s headways?

B Max design capabilities 90s Headways?

[nname]

Originally Posted by Gordon

How does this number compare with:

A Current E&M Line running at 108s headways?

B Max design capabilities 90s Headways?

Current E&M Line running at about 15500 pphpd capacity.. During the Olympics, the downtown segment runs at about 23400 pphpd throughout most of the day.

Current Canada Line running at about 5300 pphpd capacity.. Durign the Olympics, it was running at 7300 pphpd.

Back in 2007, the actual passenger load was 11000 pphpd in Downtown segment of Expo Line, 5000 pphpd across SkyBridge, and 2700 pphpd on the Millennium Line.

[Whalleyboy]

see this is why i think surrey could work well with a LRT. Surrey isnt need skytrain numbers of moving people. Plus the fact stands using LRT there is alot more options out there to where you get your cars from where skytrain we've been stuck with just one company. It would also create some jobs SoF with creating an OMC and all the drivers for the trains.

There is my one though if they make the line between guidlford and central first. Where would they keep the cars