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

[jlousa]

Originally Posted by allan_kuan

Interestingly the person behind the Civic Surrey blog thinks the same, and goes further in accusing TransLink of a planning conspiracy before concluding of the need to split up the region (again):

Wonder why they have the same opinion.

[dleung]

Originally Posted by roleypolinde

My commute in vancouver before Canada line: 45-70 minutes depending on traffic and bus delays (98 b-line especially)

My commute in vancouver after Canada line: 30-40 minutes depending on if I catch the train and the 99 right as they arrive at the station or not. (This is assuming not being passed on on 49th ave, yeah right XD

Skytrain always makes things better, speed and frequency wins all. I will go out of my way to include it.

Zwei is just a nutcase. An outspoken one.

My commute from Steveston to Downtown before Canada Line: 55min, one seat ride/nap
Same commute after Canada Line: 50 min, with transfer, and standing room only on train.

[Millennium2002]

You don't appreciate your improved local service? =O

[go_leafs_go02]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Wonder why they have the same opinion.

haha - i laughed at that post as well.

[splashflash]

LRT:

I think their analysis was good. LRT is very costly, just look at the latest surface rail in Calgary and Edmonton.
our
BRT:

If you think parts should be in mixed traffic, then let the planners know in your feed-back. That is what this was supposed to be for

Option #1 Better Bus

For better community service, go for this option, and if you want flashier units, ask for them to be part of this option. There are some very nice buses now, you just have to pay more for them.

Ridership is one of the benchmarks to justify "rapid transit". If you think community oriented transit should be looked at, then wouldn't it fit well under the Better Bus option

[NucksFanInVan]

Originally Posted by allan_kuan

If transit is supposed to be an improvement over the current situation, it must improve in all aspects, including capacity, speed, appeal, environment, etc. for both the public and TransLink to justify its value and need.

Not true. A transit improvement can improve just one of those aspects (e.g., capacity) and still justify its value and need. Or are you arguing that re-tasking buses from over-served to under-served routes is not an improvement?

A more important consideration is that any _new_ services introduced need to be in keeping with a long term vision. This again has to do with value. For example, which would you choose:

- a system that costs $1B that will be at capacity in <10 years and must be replaced by an entirely new system costing $2B+; or
- a system that costs $1.5B and can be expanded at nominal cost when it reaches capacity in 10 years?

BTW, anyone who chose the second option, you've just voted in principle for Skytrain over LRT along west broadway.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by paradigm4

There are a number of areas that wouldn't need full separation for quite some time, i.e. King George along the floodplain. Outside of rush hour, traffic isn't that bad in Surrey. It just seems to be an inefficient usage of resources to plan for full separation when we could be far more strategic about where exactly that bus or LRT needs priority. Of course these options would never reach SkyTrain speeds, but is our goal to be jetting Langley residents to Surrey Central as fast as possible, because that seems to be TransLink's preferred option.

Dedicated LRT lanes don't have to be a complete waste. While it is normal to fully separate LRT from traffic to give it a speed and safety advantage, it is also possible to use the lanes for other transit vehicles. The lanes the rails are in could be dedicated transit only lanes, which could work well on 104 Ave as the short distance between Guildford and Whalley almost makes it pointless to force some riders to transfer. This isn't the distance of Bridgeport to Waterfront here, but instead it's the difference between just a few minutes. This would be especially true for Rapid Bus riders (if the rapid bus service does go down 104 Ave instead of just stick to the Freeway). Portland, in its downtown core operates a very efficient mix use transit lanes, where LRT and bus service operates using the same lanes (LRT is used for the longer, heavier routes, whereas buses branch off on less traveled routes).

The other benefit is that using mixed transit lanes on 104 ave could allow traffic to go around lane blocking accidents when the trains are not present, ensuring the movement of (especially) emergency services, if the road is reduced in capacity for transit.

Originally Posted by paradigm4

Also with my evolving views on transit in Surrey, I'm shifting away from a "rapid transit" regional orientation, to a "local transit" intercity orientation, which explains some of my growing opposition to this study.

This brings me back to something nname brought up in his analysis of the Translink documents: time. While the total costs, cost per rider, operating costs, and total region ridership are fairly similar between the different options, time saved really stuck out.

On page 32 of the evaluation summary, it measures the average time for trips between certain points for each of the options presented vs if we did nothing. For each option all the time saved per rider is added up. Many of the options add up to around 3.5 million hours saved each year, but RRT1 (the direct shot to Langley) is predicted to save 9.5 million hours each year. That is a huge savings that no other options come close to. And that is a measurable gain in social utility. You can put economical dollar amounts on people's time. That's 9.5 million hours people won't be spending doing nothing while sitting on transit. That's time they can spend with their family, raising their kids, cooking healthy dinners, spend working, or spend going out and spending money directly in the economy.

On the flip side of most shocking is the result for LRT4, which is the LRT version of what XD wants. It has the WORST total time savings. To me this just shows that only focusing on these corridors (Guildford and Newton) doesn't improve many people's lives. It might attract a few snooty drivers out of cars, but it doesn't actually improve that many lives in the region.

But basically I agree with you. Improving transit on the corridors inside Surrey, should be done for Surrey's benefit at a reasonable cost. The distances between the Whalley, Newton, and Guildford town centers are actually pretty short, and thus don't really benefit from the building of Skytrain (unless the goal is to move people to Vancouver). But as you move further away towards Cloverdale and Langley, which IMO are going to be important parts of Surrey as a SoF city, the time savings Skytrain offers to commuters trying to get to Whalley is enormous. It is similar to the savings commuters from Burnaby or New West get when heading downtown. Time savings encourage growth and change. Right now, from Langley it is just as fast to drive into Downtown Vancouver than it to take transit into Surrey Center. Why would Whalley ever become the SoF downtown if getting there from the Valley doesn't significantly improve?

As for either LRT or BRT, I'm starting to think it is a bit of a toss up. Unless the LRT lines stretch further than the town centers, I don't see what kind of advantage they offer until Newton or Guildford is at thrice the density. Be it LRT or BRT many people are still going to need to make transfers (as even though both town centers have high populations, both are pretty spread out).

I would like to see LRT built because I think it would attract the snobby riders who avoid the loser cruiser, but when comparing the time savings between the two because of the transfers, I don't know if it is worth spending extra to attract extra riders. The only reason for LRT would be if there is actual demand for the capacity it provides. With the recent stall in development in Whalley (compared to how it was expected to go a few years ago) I don't know if we'll see the density around Newton Town Center or Guildford to really require much more than a B-Line for the next dozen years.

The other problem with LRT is it would be just acting like a shuttle between the town centers as currently, there isn't much between them. King George and 104 ave are pretty desolate roads in Surrey, unlike Fraser Hwy which is lined with commercial properties and new housing developments (of all types). Most ridership for LRT would just get on at Guildford or Newton and get off at Whalley.

Surrey really needs to work on the future of King George blvd. While Newton Town center is important, the rest of the corridor is what will really decide whether LRT or BRT is built. LRT could be used as a great development tool, sprouting up new small town centers on what are now trailer parks and storage yards. And the nature of the LRT line will encourage those developments to support Surrey, and not Vancouver.

[Millennium2002]

Originally Posted by NucksFanInVan

Not true. A transit improvement can improve just one of those aspects (e.g., capacity) and still justify its value and need. Or are you arguing that re-tasking buses from over-served to under-served routes is not an improvement?

In which case we can just choose the best bus option? Since we're just adding more buses that are mingling with an already bad traffic situation...

Originally Posted by NucksFanInVan

A more important consideration is that any new services introduced need to be in keeping with a long term vision. This again has to do with value. For example, which would you choose:

- a system that costs $1B that will be at capacity in <10 years and must be replaced by an entirely new system costing $2B+; or
- a system that costs $1.5B and can be expanded at nominal cost when it reaches capacity in 10 years?

BTW, anyone who chose the second option, you've just voted in principle for Skytrain over LRT along west Broadway. (or do you mean Fraser Hwy?)

I'm not sure if its entirely accurate to draw parallels between Broadway and Fraser Hwy. They're in very different scenarios at this point... one is overcrowded with no room to go other than underground, despite some of the nonsensical clamour to the contrary; while the latter scenario has more wiggle room to choose between different technologies. Given Surrey's insistence of LRT, I could go for the former; but on the other hand, with the SkyTrain guideway already jutting out at King George and the situation at Green Timbers, SkyTrain looks quite appetizing too. This is why I support LRT 2 instead... as it essentially just gives us a bit more time to think about what would work best.

[Whalleyboy]

So i went to the study today. It got me wondering so i asked them. if we do use the LRT to help save the 4 lanes along 104 ave would it be possible to look at along 104 ave if it was elevated as to avoid traffic. They didn't really have an answer beside that would be something they could actually look into though. Personally i think this might be the best option as to keep it as a solid route but at the same time aviod messing traffic up along 104. Plus they might be able to pick some speed up along 104 ave being elevated. Sure it may cost a little more but maybe its cheaper then having to by up land along 104 to add 4 road lanes plus 2 lrt lanes.

[xd_1771]

I'm pretty sure the little amount of land to be expropriated for a 4 lane + 2 LRT 104th would be cheaper than elevating that LRT line simply for 104th. Many sections were built for that extra lane i.e. in front of Superstore & the big abandoned building. I'm pretty sure there were plans before to 6-lane 104th to Guildford; while rapid transit may not make that necessary, if the ROW was planned to have 6 road lanes at one point, rapid transit lanes would not be any different.

Then again that would create the problem of a roadway still too wide and pedestrian unfriendly, and the same was true for Richmond's No. 3 road with the bus lanes. Burnaby got around it by creating a big pedestrian overpass over Kingsway, but this took away from the at-grade focus of pedestrian-friendly. Surrey needs to keep its corridors narrow to promote an urban, walkable environment. One advantage Skytrain (not really different from elevated LRT in cost or purpose, even flexibility; you don't have to run Skytrain at Skytrain-centric frequencies right away but have the option to do that) has is the narrow ROW required. You could build it over 104th without having to widen anything. You could even reduce the wide ROW that King George Highway requires, and I would additionally like to see King George Highway split with Whalley Blvd to become a pair of one way streets through the city core though.

It can be argued and fair that more time would be saved if the focus was on the Fraser Highway.... but is this really absolutely necessary? By building transit out to that area, you are doing it at extremely high cost, serving to urban sprawl, encouraging it further, sacrificing existing communities that were built at expensive cost, and not really doing anything for the city in question. If Clayton or Langley want time savings... Langley users can use the Highway 1 RapidBus & Park n Ride, and I have recommended a Highway 15/Highway 1 RapidBus as well as perhaps Highway 10 RapidBus to serve the areas of Cloverdale and Clayton. If the focus is on time saving for these outbound sprawl-influenced areas for travel to the inner core, then Skytrain does not necessarily need to be prioritized. In no way should these areas be prioritized over the heavily missed areas of Guildford & Newton for Rapid Transit, these two areas were slated to urbanize long ago. Rapid transit needs to develop on the Newton-Whalley-Guildford corridor as this is the area where there is the most potential for urban development (and by extension, potential ridership), something that is actually very needed in the city in question. There were indeed many tower development proposals for these 3 town centres and they have mostly been cancelled. These centres aren't going anywhere and are likely not going to go further - which is bad for the City of Surrey as a whole as these 3 town centres form a backbone for the majority of the city. You will see suburban development still being predominant where urban development should have taken over a very long time ago, and the nature of Surrey as being car-centric is not going to change.

There is no way Surrey can support suburban sprawl anymore when it has happened enough. This is putting high costs to our city because these areas now apparently have to be served, which is reorganizing priorities with significant detriment to existing ones affected; sprawl also encourages low density and automobile-centricness. Out cannot continue to happen; what needs to happen is up.

It should also be noted that movements from Guildford-Newton would be served effectively only if this rapid transit is actually fairly fast; there are alternate routes you can use by automobile called 152nd and 72nd. If the rapid transit option provided isn't fast enough then people will indeed keep using their cars, and this is in a way true. Surrey is a City that likes to be on the move. I have heard from at least two people who dislike the plans and are not convinced it will get them out of automobiles. Why: automobiles are simply much, much faster and much more flexible. This is one good reason grade separated rapid transit would work very well as it can run fast and without any interference whatsoever; the other reason is those single instances of interference that could cause huge interference. A single accident that sprawls onto any LRT lanes would block the track. The train wouldn't be able to get past. Fearing risk of more instances of these, many people will say "screw it" and get back in their cars, which are much more flexible in route choice; you can avoid a mess like this just by lengthening your trip by a couple of blocks. I get home from Whalley on the 326 bus, a route that goes around Guildford and runs twice the distance of a 335 or whatever else through Guildford Centre, in less time. The 326 bus does not come often and will most certainly never come that often for as long as the line is running, and most of the time I have to get home through Guildford, a shorter route that actually more often takes longer due to more frequent stops & traffic. I would like to be able to get home through Guildford where it is most convenient, in a more reasonable amount of time. I can understand an inconvenience that comes because the route is very long and served by one continuous route (502/Fraser Highway), but an inconvenience like this is ridiculous. More often I say screw it, call someone I know who happens to be in the area to pick me up by car; home in 10 minutes, twice as fast as even a 326 or, heck, perhaps even a 335/320 during the off peak. Habits can stick; the moment you start to use a car, you'll never stop using it. This is what someone I know in Guildford who is predominant over at NCIX forums thinks. He would rather use a car even in off peak hours when transit is faster.

As a response to BCPhil's statement on "nothing in between"... well if we build nothing in between, nothing's going to change. Perhaps such a rapid transit expansion, able to bring more people to the area in question, will benefit the area in between. I would like to see that big empty building on 104th finally open and become the multicultural centre we have all dreamed of, and I would like to see urban development around it. The problem is that there's not really any convenient way of accessing it. Consider also the important intercity movements that such a line could serve very well whether they are in between or at the end. If anything decent is built to Newton, I support and wish that it is extended a bit further to Kwantlen Polytechnic University (this is being done with the Evergreen Line, with an extension to Douglas College). You now have a second major education centre on the line (the other being SFU Surrey) accessible by transit for students from the rest of the city's urban centres, and this additionally builds up the initiative to use transit.

[dubsH]

Sorry I don't buy that the current 60k people living in Guildford should be prioritized over the 120k living in Cloverdale/Clayton/Langley and along the way the 60k in Fleetwood. Do you have any figures or statistics showing that there is a lot of Newton-Guildford cross-commuting?

I actually think it's very ironic how I use the very same argument for SkyTrain on Broadway, yet I'm actually in support of LRT in Surrey only (and select Vancouver cross-town routes when demand warrants it, which should not be for many years from now when the UBC-Broadway SkyTrain line is finally completed). Everyone should step back for one moment. Realistically, the next major transit expansions should involve giving Surrey some B-lines. Show you can actually achieve ridership first. I wasn't aware of any bus route in Surrey that had ridership levels matching the 98 B-line.

If you don't mind me asking, what were the "many tower proposals" for Guildford and Newton that got cancelled? I know a lot were in Whalley, but Whalley already has SkyTrain so what's the excuse? Prospective buyers all commuted to Guildford but didn't have SkyTrain there so they declined to purchase?

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by paradigm4

Also with my evolving views on transit in Surrey, I'm shifting away from a "rapid transit" regional orientation, to a "local transit" intercity orientation, which explains some of my growing opposition to this study.

In this respect, Vancouver has done well over the years with "frequent bus service".
The entire west side of Vancouver didn't get SkyTrain until the Canada Line, which serves as a mainline with bus routes feeding into it - much the same as a Fraser Highway SkyTrain would operate.

[NucksFanInVan]

Originally Posted by allan_kuan

In which case we can just choose the best bus option? Since we're just adding more buses that are mingling with an already bad traffic situation...

Best bus might be a solution, if your problem is simply more capacity. But I was merely trying to re-state an earlier simple point: we need a clear definition of what we are trying to achieve, and we need to measure value accordingly. In some cases - like the 49 bus route in Vancouver - simple capacity additions would be a fantastic improvement. I take your point though that Surrey is much more complex.

Originally Posted by allan_kuan

I'm not sure if its entirely accurate to draw parallels between Broadway and Fraser Hwy.

Didn't mean to parallel the situation, only the philosophy. Which is, whatever we do should be either aimed at the long term or compatible with the long term. FOr example, if we think we will ultimately need Skytrain to Langley, whatever alternative we build now should be complementary with that long-term plan. I'm against spending hundreds of millions on hard construction (e.g., LRT tracks) that would need to be ripped out in 15-20 years to make way for Skytrain. Use a B-Line to bridge demand and start saving for the long-term.

In fact, west broadway LRT proves your first point - why spend so much on increasing capacity alone, not improving travel time and making the area less pedestrian friendly?

[xd_1771]

If you don't mind me asking, what were the "many tower proposals" for Guildford and Newton that got cancelled? I know a lot were in Whalley, but Whalley already has SkyTrain so what's the excuse? Prospective buyers all commuted to Guildford but didn't have SkyTrain there so they declined to purchase?

One of the proposals in Guildford were the Guildford 3 towers, nicely 24-32 stories tall. Nevertheless, the completely empty lot which is one of many scattered around the Guildford area is still empty. Guildford could grow without skytrain because it's at a crossroads, however congestion is really limiting that growth, and causing more congestion by LRT isn't going to solve anything. This area should have further urbanized a long time ago, it's slowing down. A cross-Surrey skytrain line could entice that growth in both Guildford and Whalley by initiating reliable cross-city travel by transit; people of Surrey like to be on the move.

I don't have any total statistics concerning Guildford-Newton traffic, but my post was meant to make a point about if such travel patterns did exist, and did not say that there is indeed a lot of travel to Newton. It actually seems to make sense that there's a good pull to go to Newton; many people I know go to the wave pool simply because it's a more fun and better place to go than the Fleetwood Pool. I know some post-secondary students in Guildford who go to Kwantlen Polytechnic University at the campus near Newton, including the (in)famous Liam Watson; some of them use transit don't have any problem taking the bus, though I do know some people who take aboard more than a couple of big items (i.e. musical instruments). The moment these students get their full licenses and discover a car is so much easier and faster via 152nd & 72nd, they are likely never going to return to transit.

Realistically, the next major transit expansions should involve giving Surrey some B-lines.

Short term plans actually did propose that. According to Jeff Busby at the webinar, as part of the 2007 South of Fraser transit plan, B-lines were supposed to be introduced way back in 2009 from Whalley-Newton and Whalley-Guildford, but were cancelled "due to the economic recession". If they were introduced, we would have a far more accurate transit/travel pattern model to use in deciding where to build expanded rapid transit.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by officedweller

The entire west side of Vancouver didn't get SkyTrain until the Canada Line, which serves as a mainline with bus routes feeding into it - much the same as a Fraser Highway SkyTrain would operate.

The bus feeders in Vancouver work well for the Canada and Expo lines because of the high frequencies on the bus routes. The reason the frequencies are high is because they serve a densely populated area.

Yes, you'd certainly have feeder buses along the Fraser highway, but don't expect the same frequency of buses. Frequency is as important as speed when it comes to making transit attractive. Trips by Skytrain loose a lot of their lustre if you end up having to wait 15 to 30 minutes because you missed your bus connection.

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

The bus feeders in Vancouver work well for the Canada and Expo lines because of the high frequencies on the bus routes. The reason the frequencies are high is because they serve a densely populated area.

I would challenge the assertion that the bus routes that intersect with the Expo/Millennium and Canada Lines run through densely populated areas. South of Broadway all of the stations on the Canada Line and all but Joyce on the Expo/Millennium Line sit within predominately single family home neighbourhoods leavened with duplexes, basement suites and the odd townhouse or apartment cluster. Moreover, the frequency of the buses is evidence of the level of service demanded by these neighbourhoods, in their existing form, thanks to a walkable street grid, their general vicinity to large trip generators like downtown, Metrotown, UBC, Langara, Broadway, etc., which are made accessible in a reasonable amount of time due to the amenity of the network effect that frequent buses running on the main arterials creates, plus the additional amenity of a dependable connection to SkyTrain.

As for rapid transit south of the Fraser, I think it should be a three-step plan. Step one; more frequent local bus service, should be implemented immediately (or as soon as resources can be brought to bear, despite the additional financial cost to the transit system that this will create). Step two; B-Line BRT-light routes should be introduced on the busiest cross-town routes, should be planned to be introduced in the next Translink capital plan (this will help raise ridership on the local bus service as would-be transit users finally are presented with a better option than slow and infrequent local bus service). Step three; ridership targets are generated for the B-Line routes and a firm commitment is made to begin planning extensions of the rapid transit network via SkyTrain or LRT, whichever is most appropriate, when said ridership targets are met.

These steps formalize the technique that has informally been in place since Tranlink was created and the first B-Lines rolled out. Local bus service is the foundation upon which the next two steps are built. There are challenging economic realities to running transit over large swaths of relatively low-density city that is designed for the automobile and not the pedestrian and these cannot be overlooked in the interest of 'fairness' for rapid transit investment. However a plan is essential, otherwise there will be too few changes to the built environment to warrant or support major capital investments in rapid transit even if the resources were made available.

[racc]

It is sprawl that creates congestion by forcing people to drive and drive longer per trip to reach destinations. Mixed use density actually decreases congestion because people can walk and bike for many of their daily trips and even if people do drive, their trips are shorter which also decreases congestion. Density also supports more frequency transit service which also decreases driving and congestion.

Surrey has land use problems. The transportation issues are only a symptom of the land use problems. The solution is to increase density and lane use mix in key locations. The transportation problems will go away. Now, if transit can help focus density, then it can help solve the issues.

For an example of how this works, look at Vancouver. In 2006, most of Vancouver was not served by rapid transit yet the transit mode share was 25%. Most of that 25% used buses. Only 55% of residents commuted by car. Even with a lot of people commuting from outside of Vancouver, the congestion is not that bad. Car trips to downtown Vancouver actually decreased because of increases in density in the downtown core that enable more people to walk and cycle more often. Lanes of traffic are being reallocated for bike lanes without causing any significant issues.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by NucksFanInVan

...whatever we do should be either aimed at the long term or compatible with the long term. FOr example, if we think we will ultimately need Skytrain to Langley, whatever alternative we build now should be complementary with that long-term plan. I'm against spending hundreds of millions on hard construction (e.g., LRT tracks) that would need to be ripped out in 15-20 years to make way for Skytrain. Use a B-Line to bridge demand and start saving for the long-term.

Because of strong population growth SOF, I think it's reasonable to predict that there will be a Light Rail express service across the Fraser River. Light Rail lines in Surrey could be feeders into a main trunk line that would run along the TCH and the Burlington Northern track, which would have important Skytrain connections at Lougheed, Broadway, and Waterfront stations. As well, the new Port Mann Bridge will be Light Rail ready making implementation of the new service a little easier.

Travel times from Surrey to Waterfront would be 25 minutes and from Langley to Waterfront the travel time would be 33 minutes, with 70km/h average speed. Compare that to a Skytrain ride from Surrey to Waterfront that would be 39 minutes, and from Langley to Waterfront the Skytrain ride would be close to an hour long.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by logan5

Since the new Port Mann Bridge is going to be Light Rail ready, I think it's reasonable to predict that there will be a Light Rail express service across the Fraser River.

The Prince Edward Viaduct which crosses the Don Valley in Toronto was built in 1918 with provision for rail service running beneath the main bridge deck. It wasn't until 1966, almost 50 years later, that the Bloor-Danforth subway line used it to cross the valley.

Just because the bridge has the capability is no guarantee that it's going to be used anytime soon. The reality is that it will be used when both the need and the political will come into alignment. When that happens, the service will be developed, and it doesn't matter whether the bridge is capable or not. Lack of an existing handy bridge didn't stop Skytrain from expanding to Surrey when the time was right.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

The reality is that it will be used when both the need and the political will come into alignment. When that happens, the service will be developed...

I reworded my post to give more importance to population growth.

Anyways, I agree that it's only a matter of time before there is light rail service across the Fraser.