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

[GlassCity]

The difference in Calgary is that they have freeways with huge medians in the middle where you can easily fit an LRT line without trouble. We don't have that "luxury" and that's why I think SkyTrain is the only way, in addition to keeping transfers to a minimum.

[Elysia17]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

The difference in Calgary is that they have freeways with huge medians in the middle where you can easily fit an LRT line without trouble. We don't have that "luxury" and that's why I think SkyTrain is the only way, in addition to keeping transfers to a minimum.

In addition to the above, one of the main reasons why Calgary's LRT works so well is a good majority of their system is separated from their major road network. Very little of their network cuts down the middle of any major sections of street which is what Surrey is proposing for their needs. So their network enhances the overall transportation of the region as a whole instead of taking space form the road network and providing it for strictly public transit.

That is one of the major advantages with skytrain is you do not need to cutback the other transportation network as generally the current medians have just enough width to support the width of the column (equivalent of sub 1 lane of traffic, LRT requires 2 lanes of traffic). Combined with skytrain being totally separated from the road network, vehicle traffic flows better, trains arrive quicker to their destination due to them being separated from congested streets, and you do not have to worry about any potential accidents with vehicle traffic. That and you do not occur the cost of paying people to drive the trains with their government gold plated pensions, benefits, and wages. Anyone want to do the math of how many years it would take for the added cost of skytrain to be made up from the wages paid to train drivers?

LRT is great when it is off your road network! Or when built when there is a lot of free space like in Calgary's case back when the first line was created. But unless your road network was specifically designed to support LRT in the design and construction phase it is not a great solution to add it after the fact.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Elysia17

In addition to the above, one of the main reasons why Calgary's LRT works so well is a good majority of their system is separated from their major road network. Very little of their network cuts down the middle of any major sections of street which is what Surrey is proposing for their needs. So their network enhances the overall transportation of the region as a whole instead of taking space form the road network and providing it for strictly public transit.

That is one of the major advantages with skytrain is you do not need to cutback the other transportation network as generally the current medians have just enough width to support the width of the column (equivalent of sub 1 lane of traffic, LRT requires 2 lanes of traffic). Combined with skytrain being totally separated from the road network, vehicle traffic flows better, trains arrive quicker to their destination due to them being separated from congested streets, and you do not have to worry about any potential accidents with vehicle traffic. That and you do not occur the cost of paying people to drive the trains with their government gold plated pensions, benefits, and wages. Anyone want to do the math of how many years it would take for the added cost of skytrain to be made up from the wages paid to train drivers?

LRT is great when it is off your road network! Or when built when there is a lot of free space like in Calgary's case back when the first line was created. But unless your road network was specifically designed to support LRT in the design and construction phase it is not a great solution to add it after the fact.

Very well put.

[Canadian Mind]

I have no problem with LRT either, and in many places it could work if it is applied right. What grinds my gears is where LRT is proposed as a continuation of a trunk line: Evergreen extension of Millenium (came to be Evergreen Line), Broadway Extension of what will now be known as the Evergreen Line, and a Langley extension of Expo, a Hastings street extension of Expo. This would have just added unnecessary transfers and reduced flexibility.

However, there was no issue with Canada Line being LRT. I may feel the trains and platforms are too short, but the Olympics negated those fears. However, it doesn't have as much of the region to serve, so it doesn't need the expandability/flexibility of Skytrain. It serves it's purpose VERY well.

A similar line in Surrey; from Guilford to Whalley/Surrey Central to Newton/Delta to Fleetwood and back up to Guilford would serve the purpose of providing Surrey-Centric rapid transit for Surrey. It would allow residents of Surrey & Delta to get wherever they need to go quickly and efficiently. It would act as a trunk line for bus routes to feed into and would itself act as a feeder line to the Skytrain Trunk line. Whether this Surrey Loop is Skytrain or LRT is trivial, the point is it has many useful purposes and is intentionally segregated. Hell, it might even be better if it was the same type of LRT as Canada Line. I doubt they would ever share a maintenance yard, but keeping similar stock across the system leads to overall lower maintenance costs in the long run.

I'd build it in three legs. Initially run BRT from Guilford to SC to Newton along the intended ROW. 5-10 years later build the line along that route, be it LRT or Skytrain (just ensure it is grade-separated either way), and repurpose the buses along the southern Guildford-Fleetwood-Newton stretch. 5-10 years after that, complete the loop, along with a Skytrain extension to at least Fleetwood if it hasn't been expanded to Langley by then, and it's a done deal. Surrey now has an effective network backbone to build itself off of.


Another area I could see LRT working, if they ever need it, is the North Shore. Skytrain isn't and shouldn't be the exclusive option for new builds, but for expansion/extensions it should be the no-brainer option.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

I have no problem with LRT either, and in many places it could work if it is applied right. What grinds my gears is where LRT is proposed as a continuation of a trunk line: Evergreen extension of Millenium (came to be Evergreen Line), Broadway Extension of what will now be known as the Evergreen Line, and a Langley extension of Expo, a Hastings street extension of Expo. This would have just added unnecessary transfers and reduced flexibility.

However, there was no issue with Canada Line being LRT. I may feel the trains and platforms are too short, but the Olympics negated those fears. However, it doesn't have as much of the region to serve, so it doesn't need the expandability/flexibility of Skytrain. It serves it's purpose VERY well.

A similar line in Surrey; from Guilford to Whalley/Surrey Central to Newton/Delta to Fleetwood and back up to Guilford would serve the purpose of providing Surrey-Centric rapid transit for Surrey. It would allow residents of Surrey & Delta to get wherever they need to go quickly and efficiently. It would act as a trunk line for bus routes to feed into and would itself act as a feeder line to the Skytrain Trunk line. Whether this Surrey Loop is Skytrain or LRT is trivial, the point is it has many useful purposes and is intentionally segregated. Hell, it might even be better if it was the same type of LRT as Canada Line. I doubt they would ever share a maintenance yard, but keeping similar stock across the system leads to overall lower maintenance costs in the long run.

I'd build it in three legs. Initially run BRT from Guilford to SC to Newton along the intended ROW. 5-10 years later build the line along that route, be it LRT or Skytrain (just ensure it is grade-separated either way), and repurpose the buses along the southern Guildford-Fleetwood-Newton stretch. 5-10 years after that, complete the loop, along with a Skytrain extension to at least Fleetwood if it hasn't been expanded to Langley by then, and it's a done deal. Surrey now has an effective network backbone to build itself off of.


Another area I could see LRT working, if they ever need it, is the North Shore. Skytrain isn't and shouldn't be the exclusive option for new builds, but for expansion/extensions it should be the no-brainer option.

The thing is I'm not convinced that it would serve residents quickly and efficiently. Street running LRT is basically a street car, which is basically a bus on rails. You'd just end up sitting in traffic and at red lights in your fancy new $1 billion dollar system. Unless I misunderstood you and you want it grade separated, but that's basically what SkyTrain is. I can't imagine the change from wires to linear induction would be what makes the cost go up, it's the grade separation.

Also for what it's worth, Richmond's council originally wanted the Canada Line to be LRT (as a matter of fact also believing SkyTrain would "destroy communities") but residents voted against it because they knew it would be too slow.

[WarrenC12]

There's also a penalty to pay by choosing a system incompatible with the existing network (or an inherent cost savings choosing the existing style). The Canada Line is lucky in that wherever it may interact with the Skytrain (Waterfront, potentially Cambie/Bway in the future) is a natural transfer point anyway. But making the Evergreen Line, UBC Line, or anything that touches an existing Skytrain station in Surrey, out of something other than Skytrain is foolish IMO.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

There's also a penalty to pay by choosing a system incompatible with the existing network (or an inherent cost savings choosing the existing style). The Canada Line is lucky in that wherever it may interact with the Skytrain (Waterfront, potentially Cambie/Bway in the future) is a natural transfer point anyway. But making the Evergreen Line, UBC Line, or anything that touches an existing Skytrain station in Surrey, out of something other than Skytrain is foolish IMO.

Judging by the cost of the Canada Line, it looks as though you could get grade separated rapid transit (using Rotem technology) to both Langley and Newton for the same cost as Bombardier out to only Langley. With lower costs, expansion would come easier as well.

[GlassCity]

But you'd still have to transfer.

[logan5]

Each scenario has its pros and cons. A transfer between a Canada Line type system would be more palatable than a transfer from a slower, less frequent at grade system. A Canada line system would seem a pretty good compromise between Skytrain and LRT.

I wonder if anybody has any information regarding the cost per km of the elevated portion of the Canada Line as I'm just guesstimating based on the overall cost of 106 million/km. With half the line being tunnel/bridge' you'd think the elevated portion would be in the range of 80 million/km.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

There's also a penalty to pay by choosing a system incompatible with the existing network (or an inherent cost savings choosing the existing style). The Canada Line is lucky in that wherever it may interact with the Skytrain (Waterfront, potentially Cambie/Bway in the future) is a natural transfer point anyway. But making the Evergreen Line, UBC Line, or anything that touches an existing Skytrain station in Surrey, out of something other than Skytrain is foolish IMO.

Agreed, but I think that a 104 / King George line could be a different technology (i.e. convergence of multiple lines in downtown Surrey), with the long haul line to/from Langley an extension of SkyTrain with no transfer.
That's why I'm okay with Surrey building LRT on 104 and King George, as long as they don't prevent an extension of SkyTrain to Langley.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by logan5

Judging by the cost of the Canada Line, it looks as though you could get grade separated rapid transit (using Rotem technology) to both Langley and Newton for the same cost as Bombardier out to only Langley. With lower costs, expansion would come easier as well.

You sure about that? I thought the Bombardier vs Rotem bids on the Canada Line ultimately came down to construction method, ie: cut and cover vs. bored tunnel.

Safe to say we'll never see another cut and cover proposal approved in the lower mainland.

[nname]

Originally Posted by logan5

Each scenario has its pros and cons. A transfer between a Canada Line type system would be more palatable than a transfer from a slower, less frequent at grade system. A Canada line system would seem a pretty good compromise between Skytrain and LRT.

I wonder if anybody has any information regarding the cost per km of the elevated portion of the Canada Line as I'm just guesstimating based on the overall cost of 106 million/km. With half the line being tunnel/bridge' you'd think the elevated portion would be in the range of 80 million/km.

Canada Line cost $1889M in 2003$ according to this (page 15). This would give $98.39M/km.

Evergreen Line cost $1196M in 2010$ according to this (page 22), which gives about $95.21M/km in 2003$.

The cost of Expo Surrey extension and Millennium Line were $57.03 and $61.68M/km in 2003$, respectively.

If you plot it to account for inflation of construction material, I think you get around $80M/km too if it were to construct similarly (ie. mostly-elevated SkyTrain with 80m platform and 1-1.5km stop spacings) to the other three lines?



I know its very small sample, but I don't think there's that much of a difference between the two types of system.

[GlassCity]

I wish we built tunnels instead of elevated but I guess if we're considering running it in traffic to save money then it's a non starter.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

You sure about that? I thought the Bombardier vs Rotem bids on the Canada Line ultimately came down to construction method, ie: cut and cover vs. bored tunnel.

Safe to say we'll never see another cut and cover proposal approved in the lower mainland.

Using the estimated costs of building the Broadway Line (260 million/km and the estimated costs of the Evergreen Line (127 million/km), then impose those costs over to the Canada Line, you get 260 x 9 km underground = 2.34 billion; 8 km's of elevated line x 130 = 1 billion, plus another 2 km's of at grade for 160 million, for a total cost of 3.5 billion. The Canada Line cost 2 billion to build using Hyandai/Rotem technology.

My formula is not perfect. Cut and cover saved 500 million in construction costs, but a large chunk of that savings would be off-set by the more expensive (because they are larger) Bombardier Skytrain stations, and there is some variance due to inflation, but not a lot. It appears as if Hyandai/Rotem is around 40% cheaper than Bombardier Skytrain.

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

The thing is I'm not convinced that it would serve residents quickly and efficiently. Street running LRT is basically a street car, which is basically a bus on rails. You'd just end up sitting in traffic and at red lights in your fancy new $1 billion dollar system. Unless I misunderstood you and you want it grade separated, but that's basically what SkyTrain is. I can't imagine the change from wires to linear induction would be what makes the cost go up, it's the grade separation.

Also for what it's worth, Richmond's council originally wanted the Canada Line to be LRT (as a matter of fact also believing SkyTrain would "destroy communities") but residents voted against it because they knew it would be too slow.

I may have missed putting a few key phrases in there. What I'm getting at is, define the purpose you want it to serve, then built the type of system to suit your needs. In this case, what I think Surrey is looking for, and what we all assume, is an unimpeded system that connects the four major areas of the city.

In this case, it doesn't need to be grade separated (it should be), just unimpeded by lights, vehicles, etc. as you stated. This can be done mostly at ground level, but at the expense of reduced mobility on north-south routes or east-west routes for vehicle traffic (depending on orientation of the line, N-S or E-W), and expropriation of property. Basically for an approx. 8 block segment, the line would run parallel too or down the middle of the major roadway. At the 8 block mark, it elevates over/under the intersection/major crossing point where a major road is allowed to cross the line. Alternatively, having ground level crossings that far apart could allow for traffic flow timings that minimally impact the service.

But like I said above, I think if you are going to build a system, build it right, build it grade-separated.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

There's also a penalty to pay by choosing a system incompatible with the existing network (or an inherent cost savings choosing the existing style). The Canada Line is lucky in that wherever it may interact with the Skytrain (Waterfront, potentially Cambie/Bway in the future) is a natural transfer point anyway. But making the Evergreen Line, UBC Line, or anything that touches an existing Skytrain station in Surrey, out of something other than Skytrain is foolish IMO.

A Surrey Loop line wouldn't need to integrate with the current system. Chances are the extra trains means a new OMC would be needed anyway. So long as it is designed where transfers are at natural transfer points regardless of the system mode, having it LRT instead of ALRT wouldn't negatively impact the system like it would if you forced a transfer because of the two different modes.

Think of how dumb it would be if to get to UBC you had to hop on an LRT in PoCo, transfer to Skytrain at Lougheed, transfer to another LRT at VCC, and onto a BRT at Arbutus. All that can and should be one trunk line based on one system. Same for the Skytrain extension to Langley. There should be no more branches. Punch the line straight to Langley, and give Surrey a separate loop entirely to suit it's local needs.

[GlassCity]

In my fantasy map I have the expo line branching off with one leg going down King George Boulevard and the other going to Lanlgey (albeit on a different routing than what is usually discussed)

I really like the loop idea actually, but I'm not sure how useful it would be right now. Surrey is still a suburb (and I think it will remain that way for a lot longer than others do) so SkyTrain would still serve as a way to get downtown, not to travel in Surrey. So I like my alignment because it hits all 6 of Surrey's town centres, with minimal transferring required. That being said the loop is a great idea, but perhaps it's a bit further down the road

[Zassk]

Would there be logistical issues with running such a long single line (Waterfront to Langley)? I wonder if it would be easier to manage vehicles, passenger loads, etc. if it was handled as two lines of 20 km each, rather than a single line of 40+ km.

[nname]

Originally Posted by logan5

Using the estimated costs of building the Broadway Line (260 million/km and the estimated costs of the Langley extension (130 million/km), then impose those costs over to the Canada Line, you get 260 x 9 km underground = 2.34 billion; 8 km's of elevated line x 130 = 1 billion, plus another 2 km's of at grade for 160 million, for a total cost of 3.5 billion. The Canada Line cost 2 billion to build using Hyandai/Rotem technology.

My formula is not perfect. Cut and cover saved 500 million in construction costs, but a large chunk of that savings would be off-set by the more expensive (because they are larger) Bombardier Skytrain stations, and there is some variance due to inflation, but not a lot. It appears as if Hyandai/Rotem is around 40% cheaper than Bombardier Skytrain.

One problem is that you're comparing the cost between escalated 2010$ and 2003$. The 2010$ would be 15% higher if you include a 2% annual inflation. If you add a 2% annual increase in material cost on top of the inflation, then its 32% higher. If that the case, using Hyandai/Rotem system would save about 8% of the cost.

[nname]

Originally Posted by Zassk

Would there be logistical issues with running such a long single line (Waterfront to Langley)? I wonder if it would be easier to manage vehicles, passenger loads, etc. if it was handled as two lines of 20 km each, rather than a single line of 40+ km.

I'm not sure the length of the line is an issue. There are metro systems in the world with lines up to 75km long. In fact, most of the new cross-town or circle lines in China is around 40-50km long.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

Think of how dumb it would be if to get to UBC you had to hop on an LRT in PoCo, transfer to Skytrain at Lougheed, transfer to another LRT at VCC, and onto a BRT at Arbutus. All that can and should be one trunk line based on one system. Same for the Skytrain extension to Langley. There should be no more branches. Punch the line straight to Langley, and give Surrey a separate loop entirely to suit it's local needs.

I can agree with that.